More than Morality
The Bible is much more than a collection of moral principles to assimilate into your life in order to be a better person. Moralizing is simply the exhortation for one to conform to a particular standard or ethic; it lacks the perfect, complete, and sufficient work of Jesus Christ as the basis, empowerment, and motivation for such personal transformation. Instead of stressing one's need for Christ, moralizing appeals to one's own ability to effect the desired change. Moralizing gives ethics and calls for man's effort, but does not give man empowerment.
Instead of moralistic teaching, the Bible is a good-news story about a perfectly good God who saves evil people from their sin—a salvation all of grace and all for God's glory. Yes, the gospel has ethical demands, but it first changes man and empowers him and continually points him to the sufficiency of Christ.
The Bible relays how sin intruded into God's perfect creation in a garden "through one man" (Rom 5:12). Death spread to all men and all of creation (Rom 5:12; 8:20-21). Yet God promised good news to fallen mankind—sin would be conquered through another man, the offspring of Eve (Gen 3:15). And one day, in a renewed garden, "death shall be no more" because The Son of The Woman, The Son of God, "has freed us from our sins by his blood" (Rev 21:4; 1:5).
If this summarizes how the gospel connects the beginning and end of the Bible, it makes sense that all Scripture in between develops that story from Genesis to Revelation. No matter where we are in the Book, we find ourselves in some part of God's good-news story about how he redeems sinners through Christ. Which Christian would not agree? This is the first thing to be convinced of in order to avoid moralizing the Bible. How is it then that, in practice, so much Bible teaching is disconnected from that over-arching storyline? How is it that scads of teaching focuses on relaying a few moral principles for people to have a better life, a better family, or a better marriage so that they may be a better person? Psychologies and philosophies, self-help books, proverbs in fortune cookies, horoscopes, and man-made religions do that! How many invitations to Christ or calls to holiness are actually moralistic messages, disconnected from the gospel, that say little more than, "Do better. Be Better. Be moral?" These messages cannot transform man, give meaning to his life, or comfort his burdened conscience. Simply adding a token acknowledgment of Christ, usually at the end of a message as an addendum or appendix, will do little to sanctify an otherwise secular script.
R.B. Kuiper illustrates the futility and unbiblical nature of moralizing Scripture when he says:
"A man has been found guilty, shall we say, of a heinous crime and has been sentenced to death. He is now in prison, awaiting the day of his execution. A friend comes to visit him. This friend calls out: I have good news for you! Eagerly the condemned man asks: What is it? The answer comes: Be good. In that message there is not so much as a shred of good news. It is most cruel mockery. Yet many a self-styled minister of Christ holds forth to sinners under the sentence of eternal death a precisely equivalent message as gospel."
When put in these terms, it is immediately clear that we need more than morals; we need grace, we need a Savior, we need the Gospel!
I hope you are convinced that the whole Bible is a good-news book that explains how God redeems people who are not good through salvation by faith in Jesus Christ. But how does one go about implementing such a conviction when reading or teaching the Bible? While it is easier for many to understand the Gospel message from the crucifixion itself or from summary statements on the significance of Christ's death such as 2 Cor 5:21, it becomes more fuzzy the further one gets from those texts. Moralistic teaching seems especially prevalent when dealing with the Old Testament (just check many kids' books). Who has not heard a sermon on how to be mighty like Daniel or macho like David? Does David & Goliath teach you to toughen up like David and "slay your own giants?" Why is David & Goliath even in the Bible and what does it have to do with the gospel? Or, does the middle of the Bible suddenly become something akin to a Judeo-Christian Aesop's Fables full of moralizing?
Over several articles, I want to briefly look at the David and Goliath story (1 Sam 17) as a case study for how we can avoid moralizing a text and appropriately connect it to the unfolding redemptive story in Christ. If it is our conviction that Scripture, in part and in whole, is a gospel story, then any given text on its own should point the way to the gospel when allowed to speak for itself, right?
First we must ask, what does the passage actually say? David & Goliath is often taught as if the main point is a call to be like David and muster the courage to stand up to the giant metaphorical battle before you: cancer or a burdensome boss, some besetting sin, or whatever. You need to slay your giant. Furthermore, if you're a male, you must do this with tactical precision and tons of testosterone-fueled chest-thumping. After all, real men wear camouflage. There are several problems with this. David was "but a youth" unable to bear Saul's armor. Saul didn't have confidence in David. David was hardly a warrior in his brothers' eyes either. The author is certain to remind us that "David was the youngest." Goliath was not intimidated by David but insulted by his unimpressive stature. The warriors came to the battle line with swords; David came from attending the sheep with loaves of bread and cheese! The Macho-man David message is not holding water. I am beginning to think that God uses humble means.
When we search the text of 1 Samuel 17, we find many reasons to conclude that David was unimpressive. When noting his confidence to kill bears and lions along with the Philistine, we find that David's confidence rests in "The LORD who delivered me from the paw of the lion and from the paw of the bear" (v. 37). David tells Goliath "the LORD will deliver you into my hand" (v. 46). David's confidence was not in himself but in his God. When we mine a text for its actual words, we will be led away from moralistic messages and toward its theological core.
Next, we want to pay attention to purpose statements in the text itself. We find two of them in verses 46 and 47: [#1] "that all the earth may know that there is a God in Israel, and [#2] that all this assembly may know that the LORD saves not with sword and spear. For the battle is the LORD's, and he will give you into our hand." David wanted the true God to be known in all the earth and he wanted everyone to know that God delivers without using worldly weapons. Like David, we need to sharpen our theology, not our axe.
Additionally, look for repetition. Upon further inspection, we find that the glory of Yahweh was what first prompted David to speak out against Goliath who was defying "the armies of the living God" (v. 26). David repeats this in verses 36 and 45. This is another clue as to the meaning of our passage. The Philistines did not worship the only true God but idols. Furthermore, David repeatedly says that God would deliver Goliath into his hand (v. 37, 46, 47). "This day the LORD will deliver you into my hand" (v. 46a). Who did David trust to deliver Goliath into his hand? The right answer is not himself as moralism would teach! This wasn't a personal vendetta between David and Goliath! This was theological warfare. Goliath defied God and God delivered up Goliath without sword or spear (or a macho man). David understood both of these truths and, in this, we should emulate him.
In my next article, we will continue to look at more ways we can study this text as a case study for how to rightly connect Scripture's individual stories to Scripture's overall gospel storyline. For now, be jealous for the glory of God in all the earth and trust him in all circumstances to deliver you. God desires us to be humble and dependent servants confidently trusting him, not
