Halfhearted Devotion

“But Samuel replied, ‘Does the Lord delight in burnt offerings as much as in obeying the voice of the Lord? To obey is better than sacrifice, and to heed is better than the fat of rams.’”

1 Samuel 15:22
 

There is an inherent struggle that humanity grapples with every day: the desire to obscure, or disobey, the expressed will of God. We do not always start out with this unholy objective, but one way or another we usually find ourselves trying to reinterpret and reapply a divine doctrine that God has clearly articulated. This is sometimes referred to as halfhearted devotion. Our initial steps may be God-centered but somewhere along life’s path our heart becomes mired in self-centered pursuits, which causes us to veer away from the straight and narrow, spiritually-speaking. A fitting example of halfhearted devotion is found in the biblical example of King Saul, Israel’s first royal leader.

Last week we reviewed the setting in which the Hebrew people embarked upon the establishment of a civil governance structure. Samuel the priest attempted to dissuade his kinsmen from this danger-filled direction, but his warnings fell on deaf ears. The Israelites were bound and determined to behave and function just like all their neighboring countries. Their fellow nations had kings so the Hebrew people wanted to resemble them. The primary problem is that all the other nations were pagan and displayed no reverence for God. In effect, they were seeking to supplant God’s rule for the reign of man. Therefore, the Israelites were unknowingly charting a course for chaos, catastrophe, and carnality.    

Even though the shameful quest of the Hebrew people likely wounded God, since it was counter to His authoritative design for His followers, He granted the people their request for a king. In 1 Samuel 10:1 Saul, a Benjamite, was anointed by Samuel as king over Israel. While there were some noble qualities that Saul possessed it was his propensity for willingly choosing to reject God’s instruction and replace it with his own that ultimately undid his legacy. For example, in 1 Samuel 13 Saul formally led his army in burnt and fellowship offerings, a right that was reserved for the priests. And in 1 Samuel 15 Saul set up a monument in his own honor, clearly dishonoring God’s command to have no other gods before Him. Offense after offense made a compelling case for Saul’s removal as leader over the Hebrew people. 

And so God did eventually determine that Saul’s ancestors would not retain the privilege of reigning over the Israelites. The rebuke that Samuel gave Saul in 1 Samuel 15:22-24 is a message that resonates to every generation of God’s believers. Sacrifice means nothing without obedience. In other words, ritualistic acts are just that if there is no admiration for God embedded in the heart of the ones engaging in the ritualistic acts. Saul was called out for his continual exhibition of spiritual duplicity. On the surface, he appeared to be praising God by going through the motions of worship. But on the inside his inner thoughts were not focused on the Lord.

Saul sought the respect of the nation, but did not respect the benevolent hand of God. His casual and careless attitude toward worship cost him dearly. It is crucial that the followers of God guard the intentions of the heart. It is not enough to honor God partially, or even mostly. We need to honor Him wholeheartedly. God’s love does not go halfway and neither should our obedience. We need to give an all-out kind of effort.

 
In the end, Saul’s kingly rule reveals that halfhearted devotion is total disobedience. And God deserves better than that. He deserves our best. He deserves everything we can give. Our commitment should be genuine, sincere, and unwavering. Anything less is halfhearted devotion and halfhearted devotion does not bring glory to the God of heaven and earth.

The Danger of Placing Civil Leaders Above God

“So all the elders of Israel gathered together and came to Samuel at Ramah. They said to him, ‘You are old, and your sons do not walk in your ways; now appoint a king to lead us, such as all the other nations have.”

1 Samuel 8:4-5

Authority. It is something humanity desperately requires to function and thrive. But is also something that we often reject, rail against, and run from. If mankind were left to its own vices we would wound one another with complete and utter disregard for the sanctity of life. We need boundaries, guidance, and discipline. So the underlying question is: where do we turn for supreme authority? Although many of us would probably boast that we submit to God’s leadership is there any evidential outpouring of that commitment? Is holy doctrine exhibited in our daily conduct? Is God’s commanding word really the framework upon which our plans and pursuits are structured? Is the Lord’s message actively and beautifully displayed in our continual actions?

God is the ultimate authority. He is the definitive source of wisdom and intellect. But the original temptation of humanity, the temptation that was given to Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden (Genesis 2:4), is the same temptation that plagues us today: that we can replace God’s authority with our own. So often the deluded rationale flows like this:

·         If we can become like God then there is no need for God’s rule
·         If there is no need for God’s rule then we are free to rule ourselves
·         If we are free to rule ourselves then we are beholden to no higher authority

Whether we admit it or not we are subject to some level of authority in our everyday dealings. Whether in the workplace, home, church, municipal law system, or at an academic institution, authorities exist and affect our lives. But the underlying question still remains: where do we turn for supreme authority? We will find through an Old Testament passage that some choose to place their total trust and confidence in the lives of their fellow man.

In 1 Samuel 7, the Hebrew people were still governed through a theocratic model, meaning the Israelites were guided by the divine leadership of God. There was no human atop a civil institution. Sure there were tribal elders and priests, but even the elders and priests were charged to lead under God’s specific direction and guidance. God was rightly placed above all others. But a major turning point occurred in 1 Samuel 8. The people observed that Samuel’s sons were corrupted men. Like Eli, Samuel’s predecessor, the next generation of priests had fallen short of the godly heritage set before them, and the Hebrew community was disturbed. They were so disturbed that they wanted to upend the entire authority structure, a structure that God had established. Rather than prayerfully approach the matter the people rallied together and devised a self-made scheme, a scheme that would radically alter the spirituality and livelihood of Israel for many years to come.

This was a defining point in Hebrew history. In one weak moment, the people chose to instill their hope in man instead of God. They chose civil government over their Creator. A civil government, by the way, that was devised and practiced by pagan nations. Samuel was distraught with the request for a Hebrew king. He tried to talk the people out of chasing this course. His warnings were stern and accurate. A king’s reign requires much, which comes entirely at the expense of a kingdom’s citizens. Empires have to be continually replenished with land, money, soldiers, and possessions. Such demands are not inexpensive. They come at a steep price, financially and emotionally. Samuel highlighted nothing positive about kings. But the people refused to heed Samuel’s counsel. In essence, God told Samuel that the rejection of Samuel’s advice was not against Samuel – it was against the Lord.

The day that the Israelites asked for a king was a dark day. It set in motion a series of missteps and misguided behavior. Israel itself would later break apart as a unified nation of twelve tribes because of an immature king (1 Kings 12). Idolatry and debauchery would eventually flourish under the rule of numerous immoral Hebrew kings. After all, it is hard to resist imitating the beliefs and practices of a powerful figurehead, which is why God never sought to institute a man-based authoritative composition for His followers.

In summary, humanity should never seek to view any man above God. The Lord should be our decisive authority. He should be the One in Who we turn to for direction, guidance, counsel, and hope. It is in God that we trust. Let His followers be a people that know and show that God’s authority is the authority that truly matters. After all, God is the real King – the eternal King. No man-based authority can ever overturn God’s sovereign, all-powerful reign. To Him be the glory forever and ever.     

The Positive (and Negative) Influence of Parenthood

 

“Eli’s sons were wicked men; they had no regard for the Lord.”

1 Samuel 2:12

 

One of the most profound and sobering privileges in life is found in parenthood. It produces incredible, reciprocating blessings. But the parental blessing also demands intense commitment and resolve in order to be fully realized. Guardianship is not for the faint of heart for it requires a taxing disposition, a disposition that should include discipline, patience, compassion, grace, love, conviction, spiritual intensity and consistency, a kingdom-oriented focus, and an unyielding desire to model, and instruct, godly virtues day-in and day-out. Parenthood is clearly more than supplying food and clothing needs to children; it is about dispensing wisdom and guiding impressionable, tender minds in the ways and Word of God. Unfortunately, history is littered with many examples of individuals who failed to accept, or cherish, the call of parenthood. In the process, they squandered precious opportunities to nobly lead receptive souls into a redemptive, God-glorifying existence.

 

And such is the case study captured in the latter half of 1 Samuel 2. In this passage, the text focuses on three key characters: Eli and his two sons (Hophni and Phinehas). Eli was a high priest stationed in Shiloh, where the Ark of the Covenant was at the time. In 1 Samuel 2:12, Eli’s sons were old enough to have assumed some of the priestly duties. But Scripture offers a rebuke of Eli’s sons. In short, they were wicked. They utilized their ministry positions to extract additional food offerings from the Hebrew people for their own pleasure, or profit perhaps. Plus, they participated in non-marital sexual acts with women assigned to be helpers in the ceremonial worship tasks. Clearly, Eli’s sons did not appreciate the tremendous and influential responsibilities they had been given. The Bible states in 1 Samuel 2:17 that the sins of the young priests were great, indicating the offenses they were committing were not trivial. Furthermore, there appeared to be no remorse on the part of Hophni and Phinehas. It would seem that this lewd behavior went on for many years. God’s Word mentions the sins of Eli’s sons began when Samuel was a young boy, but it was only when Samuel had grown up that Scripture makes note of Eli’s rebuke of the immoral conduct of his sons, confirming that this was a pattern that had long been practiced.

 

Although the demeanor of Hophni and Phinehas is deplorable and inexcusable, it is Eli’s absentee fatherly authority that is of particular interest for this analysis. By this I mean Eli likely had numerous opportunities to condemn the actions of his sons, but apparently chose not to say anything until the corrupted morality had been firmly entrenched in Hophni and Phinehas. Eli’s extended silence essentially communicated approval. Presented several windows of influence, the high priest opted to abandon his paternal role. Eli withdrew when he desperately needed to engage. He retreated when he needed to confront. He condoned when he needed to chastise. He willingly chose not to exercise His God-given position of guidance. As a result, untold scores of Israelites were hurt, frustrated, and confused by the ministry negligence ushered in through Eli’s sons. And somehow Eli was content with allowing the worship carelessness to continue during his watch.

 

To abuse the platform of ministry is a most horrid thought, and God does not view it favorably. Religious leaders are charged to motivate others through biblically-based integrity, not self-centered intentions. Eli lost sight of this godly pursuit. In fact, 1 Samuel 2:29 implies that Eli himself partook in the excess food offerings, the shameful practice that his sons had helped establish. Instead of a father positively influencing his sons, the sons were negatively influencing their father. This was completely backwards. Eli should have inspired his sons through a humble and sacrificial lifestyle. He should not have succumbed to the appalling values that Hophni and Phinehas held. But when our spiritual vision veers away from God and becomes fixated on ourselves then the holy boundaries Scripture defines are quickly and routinely discarded.

 

In the end, Eli’s legacy was marred by the shameful etiquette of his sons. He could have said corrective words earlier. He could have prayed earnestly for divine intercession. He could have stood opposed to the path of fraud and publicly reprimanded Hophni and Phinehas. But Eli apparently did none of the above. And thus the positive, or negative, influence of parenthood calls parents of every generation to embrace and rightly lead children in the ways and Word of God. It is an ultra-critical issue because the decency, or depravity, of family, and thereby society, hangs in the balance.

A Vow to Cherish

“In bitterness of soul Hannah wept much and prayed to the Lord. And she made a vow…”

1 Samuel 1:10-11a

 

Vows. We tend to view them within the context of marriage ceremonies, in which brides and grooms exchange beautifully emotional declarations to one another. Many modern-day wedding services incorporate vows into their programs, and articulate a desire to exhibit an enduring love, a love that prevails in all circumstances, through the best of health and the worst of sickness. How tragic then that so many marriages fail to live up to the promise vocalized during the ceremonial vows? Divorce is rationalized and justified in some cases with little-to-no plausible pretext, and certainly no visible expression of an enduring, compassionate love. An enduring, compassionate love, by the way, that is often formally pledged to be unconditionally rendered, no matter what hardships arise. And even for the marriages that do not encounter divorce how many spouses can wholeheartedly say they enjoy a marital environment that daily yields spiritually rich blessings, including love, laughter, meaningful companionship, and deep communication? All of which are referenced, or alluded to, in wedding vows.     

 

So what are we to glean from the aforementioned considerations? And what are we to better understand about vows? To fully appreciate the significance of these questions we must look to a biblical example of a woman, Hannah, who made an unforgettable vow. 1 Samuel 1 introduces us to Hannah, and the difficult situation she found herself submerged in. The narrative that identifies her trying condition is brief, but packed with ample information. 1 Samuel 1:2 says Hannah was one of two wives married to Elkanah. Elkanah’s other wife had several children, “but Hannah had none.” Four short words tell us so much about the immense adversity Hannah constantly battled.

 

Hannah’s barrenness probably sparked feelings of discouragement, jealously, pain, and despair. There were children running throughout her house, but none of them were ushered into this world through her body. She knew what it meant to tend to children’s needs as a surrogate mother, but she never knew the joy of carrying a child in her womb. Even though she probably performed her share of the maternal responsibilities with much diligence and tenderness, the likelihood that she herself would never conceive a child had to feel like an emotional dagger, a dagger that continually widened an open wound. She had never experienced the incredible privilege of pregnancy and longed for the opportunity to be divinely entrusted with a life in her care. She was so close, and yet seemingly so far away.

 

How did Hannah respond to her grief? How did she react to her dismay? She rightly took her plight to the throne of God, the appropriate source for matters that burden the heart. Hannah stated her case and pleaded for holy benevolence. She did not insist that the Lord meet her demands; she inquired for God to hear her out. She did not list stipulations to God; she spoke supplications. And the root cause of Hannah’s desire to bear a child was clearly communicated in the vow she proclaimed in 1 Samuel 1:11. Her singular desire to bear a child was so that her offspring might be a noble instrument of God. And she proved this by conveying her willingness to turn over the child to the ministry if God would see fit to answer her prayer and vow. Dwell on the impact of this. That which Hannah so yearned for, a child, she was willing to relinquish to God.

 

There is almost nothing harder in this world to imagine than a mother releasing her child, especially at so young an age. But that is exactly what Hannah professed, and eventually did. She understood that vows are honorable, and should be cherished and kept. Hannah did not seek to elevate her social status in the eyes of others or herself. She sought to glorify God in all matters, including her barrenness. As Hannah confirmed, vows are intensely solemn commitments. They are meant to be unbreakable oaths, oaths that cannot be recanted or retracted. Hannah handled her life matters with spiritual strength, courage, and gratitude. In the end, Hannah did not lose a son, she gained three boys and two girls (1 Samuel 2:21). It is remarkable how God can return and multiply even small seeds of faith and trust. God responded in abundant fashion to Hannah’s need. Her vow ignited a testimony that has inspired many generations past her lifetime. What vows will we make that might do the same?