On this episode of the Theology for the People Podcast, I speak with Pastor Mitch Chase from Louisville, Kentucky about how a better understanding of Genesis 3 can help us understand the entire Bible in a deeper way.
The First Gospel: Why Genesis 3 is Key to Understanding the Entire Bible – with Mitch Chase –
Theology for the People
Mitchell Chase (PhD) is the Associate Professor of Biblical Studies at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky. He also serves as Preaching Pastor at Kosmosdale Baptist Church. Mitch has written several articles for the Gospel Coalition, and he is the author of several books.
In this episode, Mitch and Nick discuss how a better understanding of Genesis 3 can help us understand the entire Bible in a deeper way. Mitch’s latest book, Short of Glory: a Biblical and Theological Exploration of the Fall, addresses this topic. We discuss some issues in Genesis 3, such as the priestly role of Adam and the naming of Eve, among others.
Follow Mitch on Substack at Biblical Theology
—
Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/theologyforthepeople/support
This past Sunday at White Fields Church, we studied Hebrews 4:14-16, which describes Jesus as our compassionate high priest, who offered himself as the ultimate sacrifice to atone for our sins. You can listen to or watch that message here.
One of the questions that thoughtful listeners and readers of the Bible often ask is: “What do Jews today do to atone for sins since they haven’t had a temple in Jerusalem for almost 2000 years?”
As Christians, we have no need for further sacrifices to atone for sins, since Jesus was the ultimate sacrifice to atone for the sins of all people at all times (see 1 John 2:2). But what about the Jews? How do they make sense of their own law, and their inability to perform the sacrifices mandated in that law?
Clearly, the Law of Moses requires animal sacrifices to be made in order to remove guilt and atone for sins of individuals and the nation collectively, but since the temple was destroyed in 70 AD, what have Jews done with these texts?
What did the Jews do during the Babylonian captivity when the first temple was destroyed? Are there Jews today who want to reinstate animal sacrifices?
Furthermore, how is it that Jewish people still celebrate Yom Kippur (the Day of Atonement) if they are not able to make the sacrifice for atonement which was the whole point of the Day of Atonement?
To “deconstruct” something is to seek to take something apart and examine the parts that make it up.
In my Masters studies, one of my focuses was on “theological method,” which is a process by which you can deconstruct the implicit process by which people arrive at different theological beliefs or conclusions. (For more on Theological Method, click here)
#Deconstruction #Exvangelical
However, the word “deconstruction” is currently being used in popular culture in a way which is different from the scholarly usage of the term. People who were raised in Christian environments are deconstructing their faith, which means that they are questioning what they were taught and believed.
This is nothing new, people have been doing this for thousands of years, and sometimes it can be a very good thing. For example, it is helpful to go through the process of differentiating what about a belief system is culturally influenced, which parts are tangental or superfluous “chaff” which deserves to be shed, or at least relegated to secondary importance, and which things are core, essential beliefs.
It is also important and necessary for a person, as they mature, to make the transition from inherited or assumed belief, to personal and sincere, heartfelt beliefs. This is exactly what we see in the Book of Deuteronomy, for example, where Moses speaks to the new generation: their parents had been the ones who had experienced the Exodus and had seen God’s miraculous provision in the splitting of the Red Sea, water from the rock, and the fire on the mountain. This new generation had heard about these things, but had not experienced them personally, and in Deuteronomy – at the end of his life, Moses speaks to this younger generation and urges them that they must have their own faith, they can’t merely ride on the coattails of their parents’ faith.
In the process of examining what you believe and why, some people go through a process of deconstruction: a critical examination of what they were taught, what they experienced in the church environment, and whether actually believe those things themselves. This is always a precarious process by nature, but in a way, it is necessary for a vibrant, personal faith commitment.
Recently there has been a trend online, encouraging people to deconstruct their faith, but not necessarily for asking important questions which will lead to vibrant, personal faith – rather more for the purpose of influencing others to abandon their faith in Christianity.
Don’t Forget to Deconstruct Your Deconstruction…
In examining some of the videos and other materials that people have shared with me on this topic, what I’ve found is that many of these people, while they may be sincere, they fail to deconstruct their deconstruction.
Theological Method is, in fact, the true and greater deconstruction, because it has the capacity to not only deconstruct religious beliefs, it also has the capacity to deconstruct the reasons why people abandon their previously-held religious beliefs, or even why people reject certain beliefs altogether.
Theological Method: Sources of Theology and Why People Arrive at Different Conclusions About Matters of Faith and the Bible –
Theology for the People
In this episode, Nick and Mike discuss the topic of "theological method", which involves the study of how people arrive at theological conclusions based on how they use the "sources of theology" in relation to each other.
We discuss the 5 commonly recognized sources of theology, explain different theological methods that exist, and how they relate to interpreting the Bible in light of our ever-changing world.
Check out the Theology for the People blog site at nickcady.org
—
Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/theologyforthepeople/support
Let’s Deconstruct a Deconstruction TikTok
Recently someone sent me this video, and asked for my take on it.
This person comes across smart, winsome, and knowledgable about Christianity. There are some things she says which are correct about what Christians believe regarding the person of Jesus and his atoning death.
The problem with her argument, however, comes at the beginning where she lays out the basis of her premise. Her fundamental assumption is that God has established some completely arbitrary rules, and then punishes people for breaking those rules. Then, she claims that Jesus’ death was essential unnecessary, since it was just God appeasing his own unnecessary rules which he set up in the first place.
Her Assumptions: God’s “Rules” are Arbitrary, and Judgment is Unnecessary
This woman’s view of sin, is that sin = things which God forbids, or not doing what God commands. In other words, her view is that nothing is inherently bad or good, but God capriciously chooses what He thinks are bad or good, and imposes that standard on His subjects.
The problem with this view, is that it is NOT what the Bible actually teaches. What the Bible teaches is that morality is rooted in actuality: some things are actually good, and other things are actually bad – whether God says they are or not, and whether you believe in God or not.
In other words: Sin is not bad because it is forbidden, rather: Sin is forbidden because it is bad.
Sin is Not Bad Because It’s Forbidden, Sin is Forbidden Because It’s Bad
As Moses tells the Israelites in Deuteronomy: All of God’s commandments have been for your good always. (Deuteronomy 5:29, 6:24, 10:13). Since God loves, and since He knows more than you, He – as a loving Father – tells you what to do and what not to do, because sin (missing the mark, doing wrong) is destructive. It’s as if there’s a glass of water and a glass of antifreeze on the table, and God’s command is: “Drink the water, Don’t drink the antifreeze!” – and our reply is: “God is just making up arbitrary rules…” No, God loves you enough to tell you, based on his infinite knowledge, what will be best for you.
Furthermore, as God is the embodiment of goodness and love, morality is directly linked to his character and attributes. For this reason, to rebel against God is to sin, and this brings with it the natural consequence of judgment for those actions.
Interestingly, we live in a world today where there is an increasing consensus and belief that certain activities (racism, hatred, prejudice, etc.) are fundamentally, objectively wrong (whether you believe in God or not). It is widely accepted that to do those things is actually wrong and deserves some form of judgment. This is based on the belief that there is a standard of morality which is not arbitrarily defined by a cosmic deity, but which truly and actually exists. This is what Christians, informed and confirmed by the Bible, actually believe as well.
So, the premise presented in this video can be seen to be a gross misrepresentation of what the Bible teaches and what Christians believe.
Did Jesus’ Death Cause God to Change His Mind About Judging Us for Our Sins?
One final point: She claims at the end, that because of the death of Jesus, God “changed His mind” about punishing us for His own arbitrary rules. This is not what Christians believe, nor what the Bible teaches either – rather: the message of the gospel is that all of us have sinned and fallen short – not only of God’s standards, but of even our own standards of right and wrong. We have all done things and thought things which missed the mark, and the result of sin is death. However, the good news of God’s grace is that He came to us in the person of Jesus Christ to do for us what we could not do for ourselves: in life, death, and resurrection – in order to reconcile us to Himself without compromising His fundamental characteristics of justice and mercy.
If “justice” = giving someone exactly what they deserve, and “mercy” = not giving someone the judgment they deserve for the wrong things they’ve done, then justice and mercy cannot co-exist since they negate each other. However, as part of the definition of goodness, God, we are told in the Bible is BOTH just and merciful. It is only in His self-sacrifice that we see how these two seemingly incompatible characteristics can both be embodied by God at the same time – and that’s really good news!
Send Me Videos to Deconstruct!
Using this form, send me any TikTok videos you’d like me to deconstruct.
Hi, a question coming from your recent sermon on May 2 about belief and doubt. You were talking about how doubt is held in a sort of middle ground, not to be vilified or esteemed too highly. Today I came across these verses in Romans regarding eating by conscience:
The faith that you have, keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the one who has no reason to pass judgment on himself for what he approves. But whoever has doubts is condemned if he eats, because the eating is not from faith. For whatever does not proceed from faith is sin. (Romans 14:22-23 ESV)
That last sentence feels very strong in that ANYTHING not from faith is sin. How does this relate to the topic on Sunday?
Additionally, where do we draw a line to keep from absurd conclusions about this? When I go on a bike ride for health, I’m not doing it in faith – I just want to keep fit. What about choosing the right date for traveling on vacation? This verse could easily cause a person to stop making decisions due to fear of sin.
The sermon mentioned in this question is from the series The Risen Life, in which we looked at the post-resurrection appearances of Jesus in the Gospels for the season of Eastertide. The sermon was from John 20:19-30 and was called “From Doubt to Belief.”
In Romans 14:23, Paul is talking about “gray areas” or “disputable matters” in the Christian life. At that time, some people said that it was acceptable for Christians to eat meat which had been sacrificed to idols, whereas others said that it was not acceptable. Each side had their reasons.
Similar discussions exist today: Is it acceptable for Christians to drink alcohol? To participate in Halloween festivities? To do yoga or martial arts?
In some of these cases, it may be that something may not be categorically wrong, but it may be wrong for a particular person because of their particular propensities. Furthermore, that person may have a strong conviction that they ought not to do something, even if it wouldn’t necessarily be a sin for anyone to do that thing.
Paul is saying that if you have a sincere conviction before God that you should not do something, then you should act on that conviction in faith, and do so as unto the Lord. This, Paul says, honors God. However, if you do something in contradiction to your conviction that you should not do it; i.e. if you have doubts about whether that thing is acceptable or permissible for you to do – then for you to do it anyway would be sin.
Thus, the way doubt and faith is used here is different than in the sense in which we talked about doubt and faith in the above mentioned sermon, where our focus was rather on doubting versus believing in God’s existence, God’s goodness, the validity of God’s Word, or the reliability of God’s promises.
Is Everything that Does Not Proceed from Faith Really Sin?
I believe the answer is: Yes. Let me explain, and I’ll explain how this applies to situations such riding your bike and choosing dates for vacation:
In Hebrews 11:6 we are told that “without faith it is impossible to please God.” In Romans 4:20, faith is correlated with giving glory to God. In 1 Corinthians 10:31 we are told, “whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God.”
The point therefore, is that acting in faith is all about giving glory to God in our actions. If you doubt whether a particular action brings glory to God, then for you to do it anyway would be a sin. It is in this way that anything that does not proceed from faith is sin.
The Question We Often Ask, & the Question We Ought to Ask
I find that too often, we tend to ask the question: “Is it permissible to _________” or “Am I allowed to _________.” What this passage (and others) teach us is that the question we ought to be asking instead is: “Will this action glorify God?” or “Will God be honored, pleased, and glorified through this action?”
If you can do that action in faith so that your motive is to glorify God, then good. If you have doubts about that, then to do it anyway would be sin – at least for you.
This is why Augustine argues that for those who act apart from faith in God, even their virtues can be sinful: because if you do something good – apart from faith in God – your motive in doing so is not to glorify God, but must be either to glorify yourself, or to justify yourself. Thus, even virtuous actions, apart from faith in God, can be sinful. Tim Keller often speaks, quoting the Puritans, of how it is important therefore that we repent not only of our evil actions, but of our good actions done for self-justifying or self-glorifying motives.
May we be those who endeavor to do everything for the glory of God!
There is a page on this site where readers can submit questions or suggest topics (click here for that page). Recently I received the following questions:
Question 1: Does God forgive our repetitive or habitual sins?
In Romans 8:1-4, Pauls says that there is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. Does this mean that there is no judgment, conviction, or guilty verdict for past sins, or does it also include sins committed after the believer comes to Christ, as long as he asks for forgiveness? What about our repetitive and “pet” sins?
The message of the gospel is that Jesus Christ has taken the judgment for our sins, the condemnation that we deserved. Therefore, if someone is in Christ – which means to trust in, cling to Jesus and what he accomplished in his sinless life, sacrificial death, and victorious resurrection, they will not face condemnation for their sins because Jesus has already faced it for them on their behalf.
When it comes to habitual or repetitive sins, one of the places in the New Testament that deals with this question directly is the Epistle of 1 John.
In 1 John, John is writing to believers, and yet he says:
If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.
My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous.
1 John 1:8-10, 2:1
John also says things like, “No one born of God makes a practice of sinning” (1 John 3:9) Think about it like this: you “practice” things that you want to get better at; you practice your golf swing, you practice the guitar, because you want to improve. John is describing two types of people: one who desires to sin and delights in it, and another who stumbles into sin on occasion but hates it and mourns over it.
Paul says in 2 Corinthians 5:17 that if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The idea is that you become a “whole new animal,” if you will; you go from being a pig to being a sheep. Whereas a sheep might sometimes fall in the mud, the pig’s entire goal in life is to find some mud and roll in it; it’s the pig’s every dream and goal in life. The person who is in Christ has gone from being a pig to being a sheep.
The existence of habitual or persistent sin in a believer’s life is indeed cause for concern. However, it is of even greater concern if it doesn’t bother you. The promise of the Lord to us, is that in Christ and in the power of His strength we can overcome any temptation:
No temptation has overtaken you that is not common to man. God is faithful, and he will not let you be tempted beyond your ability, but with the temptation he will also provide the way of escape, that you may be able to endure it.
1 Corinthians 10:13
Question 2: Will believers be judged?
Yes and no. Believers will not be judged for condemnation for their sins, but they will be judged for reward for the good things they have done.
Think about it like this: there are judges over criminal courts, who condemn criminals for their crimes, and there are also judges in the olympics who hand out bronze, silver, and gold medals for performances.
We who are in Christ through believing will not be judged for our sins, since Jesus already took that judgment – but we will be judged for our good works unto reward.
This reward seat is sometimes called the Béma seat of judgment. Paul describes this judgment for reward in 1 Corinthians 3:
For no one can lay a foundation other than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. Now if anyone builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw— each one’s work will become manifest, for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed by fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each one has done. If the work that anyone has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward. If anyone’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire.
1 Corinthians 3:11-15
Question 3: Are we still to be submitted to the authorities even if the authorities are against God’s Word?
If authorities demand that we do something which is in contradiction to what God has commanded in His Word, we are to obey God rather than human authorities.
Romans 13 and 1 Peter both instruct believers to obey the authorities that God has placed over us in His providence. Keep in mind that the authorities in these cases were pagan, ungodly, and even cruel and terrible dictators, yet by honoring them, we are honoring God.
However, there are limits to our submission to authorities. Passages like Acts 4 are examples of times when believers disobeyed the authorities when they commanded them not to speak any more in the name of Jesus, which was something they could not do because they had been commanded by Jesus to preach the gospel and make disciples.
Question 4: What has been your way of memorizing scripture?
I have never spent much time trying to memorize Scripture, but I have succeeded in memorizing much of it. Here are some things I do which have helped me to do it:
Read Scripture regularly
Choose one translation of the Bible and stick to it.
Quote Scripture often, and speak it aloud.
When quoting Scripture, avoid paraphrasing. Try instead to quote it precisely, until you succeed in memorizing it through use.
Thanks for the questions, and I hope those answers help!
Years ago I was telling my dad about the moral failure of a high profile Christian leader which had disqualified him from ministry. I concluded the story by saying something to the effect of: “Well, I guess he showed his true colors.”
My dad’s response was: “What if that’s not who he is at the core, but a mistake that he made?”
There I was, judging this man based on one of his worst moments, and saying: “That is who he IS!” My dad was willing to say that while what this man did was wrong, he should be given the opportunity for redemption rather than being forever dismissed and defined by his worst moment.
This isn’t to say that people are not sinners or that sinful actions are justifiable, or can just be chalked up as an “oops” that doesn’t count against us. No.
And yet: What do we do with sinners? Do we write them off and condemn them, standing upon their fallen frames in order to make ourselves appear that much taller? Or do we believe that redemption is possible and desire to see it take place?
I don’t pay much attention to Sarah Silverman, but I stumbled upon this clip of her talking about cancel culture and how it labels people as irredeemable. She makes a great point: Don’t we want to see people change? If so, we should encourage and celebrate transformation rather than self-righteously writing off people forever who have made mistakes.
This is what made Jesus so incredible: he showed love to those whom his society considered irredeemable: prostitutes, tax collectors, sinners. Far from affirming their sins, he offered them redemption, a new identity, and a new destiny.
Sarah is not a Christian, but she is touching on something that is core to Christianity.
May we as the church be those who champion redemption, who provide a place where people are loved and are shown that they are not irredeemable because of Jesus!
In him, fallen people like us have had our sins dealt with before God, and therefore we can receive forgiveness, redemption, a new identity, and a new destiny. That’s good news.
Is morality something that people intuitively know, or is it something we need to be told or instructed about?
Why is it that what is considered moral changes over time in different societies?
Pastor Mike and I discuss these questions in this week’s Sermon Extra video, in which we look at 1 Timothy 1:8-9: “Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it lawfully, understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners”
The book we reference about people who considered murder and lying to not be wrong and treachery to be a virtue is PeaceChild by Don Richardson, which I highly recommend.
We also discuss the question of how much of a Christian’s self-understanding should be determined by the recognition of their sinfulness versus their having been redeemed by Jesus.
1 John 5:16-17 is a passage that many people have a difficult time understanding, and recently someone reached out asking if I could help them understand this passage.
If anyone sees his brother committing a sin not leading to death, he shall ask, and God will give him life—to those who commit sins that do not lead to death. There is sin that leads to death; I do not say that one should pray for that. All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin that does not lead to death.
1 John 5:16-17
The question this person asked was: “If there is a sin leading to death, why are we told not to pray for it?”
Physical Death or Spiritual Death?
Different interpretations of this passage center on the issue of whether the “death” John speaks about is physical or spiritual in nature.
Interpretation #1: Physical Death
If John is speaking about physical death, then the interpretation goes like this: Not all sins lead to physical death. If you see someone doing something that will hurt them physically, then pray for them. But if someone sins, and as a result of their sin they die, then there is no need to continue praying for them after they are physically deceased.
However, I find this interpretation lacking, because it does not take into account the broader context of what John has been talking about throughout his letter.
Interpretation #2: Spiritual Death
This is the interpretation that I find most convincing, because it is a conclusion based on what John has been saying throughout this epistle.
In this way, the sin that does not lead to death (that is, eternal death or damnation) is any sin that we commit that we are, by grace, capable of truly confessing and repenting from.
John Piper, in his article: What Is the Sin Not Leading to Death? says that in Vs 16 there is no indefinite article in the original Greek text – in other wards, it is talking about “sin” in general, not “a” particular sin specifically.
He goes on to explain:
We need to make sure that we see these two verses as part of the larger balancing act that John is doing in this letter. On the one hand, there’s a strong emphasis in 1 John that those who are truly born of God don’t go on sinning. On the other hand, John warns against misunderstanding that in a perfectionistic way as though Christians don’t sin anymore.
On the one side, you don’t keep on sinning if you’re born again. On the other side, you don’t ever stop sinning in this world. In other words, John is trying to strike a balance between the absolute necessity of the new birth, which necessarily gives a significant measure of victory over sin. That’s the one side. On the other hand, there’s the reality that we do in fact as Christians commit sins and can find forgiveness as we confess them.
John is striking the note firmly that we should not take anything he has said in a perfectionistic way that implies Christians don’t sin or that all sin leads to damnation. It doesn’t.
Christians do sin, and not all sin leads to damnation. But right there in the middle, verse 16, near the end of the verse, he puts in a disclaimer. He says, “When I tell you to pray for sinners I recognize that Jesus taught about unforgivable sin, and I recognize that Hebrews taught about Esau, and I do acknowledge that there is sin that does lead to death and damnation. It puts you beyond repentance. And I’m not talking about that.” That’s the point of that verse. “I’m not talking about that when I tell you to pray for those who have sinned.” He doesn’t tell us not to pray for such sin, he simply says, “That’s not what I’m talking about when I tell you to pray for sinners that God will give them life.”
I hope this explanation helps! It’s the one that makes the most sense given the context of what John writes about throughout the letter.
Where does your identity come from? What defines whoyou are?
Many people look to their function to give them their sense of identity. This is wrought with peril, as it is an inherently fragile foundation; what you do can and will change throughout your life. You will lose abilities, positions, and even loved ones. Surely you are more than what you currently do.
Other people find their identity in appearance, culture, and other things. Sometimes we feel that a person’s identity is defined by their past actions, whether successes or failures.
As human beings, we have a tendency to categorize and label people in an attempt to try to more easily make sense of the world and our place in it. Labeling and categorizing is powerful, as it then shapes our perceptions of people, including ourselves.
This week, Mike and I sat down to discuss this issue – and it led to what I think was one of our best discussions yet, in which we reflected on some of our own struggles with identity. Check it out:
Last week I was in Austria for the Calvary Chapel European Pastors and Leaders Conference. It was a great time of fellowship, teaching, conversations, encouragement, and refreshment.
I arrived back from Austria on Saturday night, and preached on Sunday at White Fields, which was way harder than I had expected, but I wanted to be there to finish up our Vision series.
The final message in this series was: A Vision for Others, in which we looked at how God sees other people, including us, and the implications of that for us.
This issue of identity was also part of the message I shared in Austria. No matter what stage of life you are in, and no matter your vocation, identity is an important issue, and one that God thankfully has a lot to say about in His Word to give us guidance.
Check out the video and the sermon for the answer on the dangers of finding your identity in the wrong places, and the freedom that comes from finding your identity in Christ.
In Homer’s classic epic, The Odyssey, tells the story of Odysseus, the King of Ithaca, and his perilous journey home after the Trojan War. Along the way, Homer faces many dangers, but perhaps the greatest danger of all are the Sirens.
A Picture of Temptation
The Sirens are seductive, and they sing a beautiful song that sailors cannot resist. However, the Sirens’ song is deadly: when sailors are enticed by it and steer their ships towards it, they are lured to their death, as they crash their boats into the rocks.
The Sirens’ song is a picture of temptation. People are not tempted by things which are grotesque and terrible, but by the allure of something which is desirable and attractive. However, there are things in life which draw us in with a promise that is not only empty, but which will lead to your demise and the shipwrecking of your life.
Two Approaches to Resisting Temptation
In his book, Your Future Self Will Thank You: Secrets to Self-Control from the Bible and Brain Science, Drew Dyke points out that the Sirens are not only used by Homer in The Odyssey as a picture of temptation (and how to resist it), but they were also used by Apollonius Rhodius in his epic, Argonautica, which was written about 500 years after The Odyssey. Interestingly, Rhodius mentioned the Sirens in order to offer a different approach to resisting temptation.
Approach #1: The Odyssey
Odysseus knows about the danger of the Sirens and he is aware of his own weakness. Rather than assuming that he will be strong enough to resist the Sirens’ song, Odysseus makes plans in order to protect himself and his men from lure of the Sirens: he orders his men to tie him to the mast, and tells them not to untie him no matter how much he pleads with them. To make sure the sailors aren’t seduced, he has them stuff their ears with beeswax so they won’t hear the Sirens’ song.
When Odysseus hears the Sirens’ song, he tries to escape the ropes and begs his sailors to free him, but they ignore him and continue sailing. Odysseus’ plan to overcome temptation works and they survive the danger of the Sirens’ song.
The approach to temptation laid out in The Odyssey is akin to asking others to keep you accountable and taking steps to prevent yourself from coming in contact with things that tempt you.
This approach is wise in that it recognizes human weakness. We need more than just good advice, we need help. If all we needed was good advice, no one would be overweight or broke or in experience conflict in their relationships, since a myriad of good advice on these topics is readily available for free. The fact that people still struggle with these things is proof that what we need is more than just good advice: we need help to overcome our weaknesses and do what is right, not only towards others, but even for our own best interests.
In Argonautica, the Argonauts have to sail past the same Sirens, but they take a different approach to overcoming temptation:
On board their ship is a musician named Orpheus. When they hear the Sirens’ song, rather than stuffing their ears with wax and tying themselves up to avoid the allure of the song, they rather have Orpheus get out his lyre and play a louder and more beautiful song. Because of Orpheus’ “sweeter song,” the sailors are able to resist the temptation of the Sirens’ song, and they pass by securely.
This approach to temptation does not merely restrain the hand, but seeks to capture the heart.
Dyke points out that while it is wise to recognize your own weaknesses and set up safeguards to protect yourself, the best way to resist temptation and the most powerful means of self-control is to listen to a “sweeter song.”
A Sweeter Song
Augustine of Hippo explained that what defines a person most is what they love. Therefore, in order to change who a person is, we should seek to change what they love.
How do we do that? By showing them a better story and a sweeter song.
That better story and sweeter song is found in Jesus. Ultimately all people are seeking the same things: joy and happiness, relief from suffering and pain, love and acceptance, overcoming the limitations of this physical world, adventure and discovery… the list could go on. However, the ways and the places in which many people seek these things will not only leave them unfulfilled but will dash them against rocks and shipwreck their lives. It is only in Jesus that our deepest longings will be fully and ultimately satisfied.
Jesus and the salvation He gives is the sweeter song. May we help others to see that! There may be times when it is wise to take practical measures to prevent ourselves from giving in to temptation, but ultimately we need our hearts to be won over by the sweeter song. May we listen to it loudly and often, that our hearts may know it and not accept any lesser, competing songs!
Theology for the People 