|
R
|
EAD these words carefully: “Can
two walk together except they be agreed?" (Amos 3:3). Applying the
verse to the principle of separation is indeed reasonable, practical and
beneficial. However, in the context of this chapter, it seems obvious enough
that the verse here is about God and Israel. If God and Israel were going to
cleave to each other in harmony, then they simply had to see eye to eye on
things. And, since God's character and principles were certainly never going to
change, then we know without a doubt who had to adjust.
It should go without saying that we should walk with God. And, we have
many examples of God condescending to our low estate in order to be accessible
to us (most observably and effectively in the incarnation of Christ). However,
the expectation and accessibility of fellowship (between God and man) only
raises the bar and obliterates all of the imagined excuses that can be
constructed for not walking with God. Simply put, we can't fellowship with Him
if we can't agree with Him, and we can't agree with Him if we aren't willing to
be altered.
Now, Israel had fellowshipped with the Almighty at times in their past.
And, this just made them more even accountable. "I have known you," God said, "therefore
I will punish you for all your iniquities" (vs. 2). His anger was
justifiable, of course, but the logic which He used (to convince the Jews of
their guilt) may seem a little odd to us. He gave some "cause and
effect" examples in nature and then basically said that if He was upset,
then they had to believe that He had a good reason to be so (vs. 4-6).
No comments:
Post a Comment