Most of us have probably heard teaching on the sin of "covetousness." But have we ever stopped to think about what covetousness really is?

There are seven different Greek words used in the New Testament that are translated to forms of "covet" in the King James Version. Jesus addressed one of them in Luke 12.

Did you catch that? When I think of covetousness, I think of passages like Exodus 20:17 and Acts 20:33. I think of covetousness as wanting what belongs to someone else. Covetousness is wanting what we don't already have, right?

Read those verses again. Jesus is responding to a man who just wants his share of the inheritance. He just wants what's his. Isn't that understandable? And the parable talks the rich man maximizing his crops, as well as his plans to store it. To us, that sounds like good stewardship. Why was what they did wrong?

It's that last statement of the rich man that gets him: "... take thine ease, eat, drink, and be merry." Apparently that was the attitude of the disciple to whom Jesus responded. Their first priority was worldly things. The Messiah was there, but all the disciple could think of was getting Him to divide a little money or property. The rich man was blessed beyond measure, but his wealth came to be his undoing; he believed that he was prepared for whatever came his way.

Covetousness can be trust in what's already ours. Covetousness can be wanting what we're rightfully due. That's why Paul equated covetousness with idolatry in Colossians 3:5. When we start living for goods instead of God, we're idolaters. Do you think we should learn to get by with a little less?

Romans 14 has come to be one of the most misunderstood and misused chapters in Scripture. Some today take it to authorize smoothing over any doctrinal difference, from instrumental music to baptism to even homosexuality. They call this wrenching of the passage "grace." When paired with its sister passage I Corinthians 8, however, its true meaning becomes clear - and that meaning is not what my friends on the theological left infer.

First, note that these passages speak only to matters where God is indifferent. It does not apply in matters where there is a clear command from God. Note what Paul writes in v. 14: "I know and am convinced in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself; but to him who thinks anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean."  In context, what he's saying is, unlike the Old Law, no meats are unclean under the Law of Christ; thus, whether one eats or not is a matter of indifference to God.

Practically, if there's no agreement between the two disputants that God is indifferent to the matter at the heart of their disagreement, there's no point in running to Romans 14. If I believe X is sin and you believe it isn't, trying to browbeat me with this passage only distracts from the central question: Is X sin or not? Resolve the question of what God's will is and you resolve the problem.

Second, note that these passages refer to individual action, not collective. The eating of meats was a personal action, not one done by the church collective (v. 2-4).

This is important - crucial, even - because many of the issues incorrectly shoehorned into Romans 14 are matters of collective action. Trying to impose Romans 14 on collective action results in the supposed weaker brother facing a choice between violation of his conscience or leaving the congregation. Is unity to important to some that they'd force their brother to sin in order to have it? It certainly seems that way to me.

What is Paul's main point in these passages? It's about priorities. Your brother is more important than your preference. Paul said that he would gladly give up his preference to retain his brother (I Corinthians 8:13), and this is what he enjoins Christians to do as well (Romans 14:13, 15,  20-21; I Corinthians 8:9-13). When we use Romans 14 as a club to force what we see as a preference on others contrary to their conscience, we cause either sin or division. "Go along with me or leave" is the practical result of such doctrine, and the exact opposite of Paul's intent in these passages.

I have a weakness for obscure and uncommon words. I recently came across one of these in Isaiah 40:28, where the prophet says of God, "His understanding is inscrutable."

"Inscrutable" isn't a word we commonly use today, but it's one that fits God and His understanding well. It can be defined as "cryptic," "impossible to fathom," or "incomprehensible." Isn't this the perfect description of our awesome and infinite God? Our fallible and finite minds can't grasp His wonder and power. God is alien to us, totally foreign, unlike anything else we can relate Him to. This is exactly what Isaiah says a few chapters later. I always think of the book of Job, where Job and his friends spend chapter upon chapter upon chapter arguing the nature of God - only to have God appear at the end to tell them that none of them understand Him!

Thankfully, God has chosen to reveal something of Himself in the Bible. If you want to know about Him, read what He has written via inspired men. Don't guess at what He wants; that way lies folly. Don't think that because you like or don't like something, He will feel the same way; God isn't like you. Learn more about Him through His revelation in Scripture, and then do what He commands.

Q: In Hebrews 10:1-4, the writer says that, in contrast to the blood of Christ, the blood of animal sacrifices could not take away sin. However, passages such as Leviticus 4:27-31 and Numbers 15:25-28 seem to indicate that the sins of Israelites under the Law of Moses would be forgiven in conjunction with animal sacrifices. Does this mean that the sins of Israelites were actually "rolled forward" each year by the annual sacrifices until they could be forgiven at the cross?

A: This is a belief I've encountered among Christians ever since I can remember. However, it's one I've never been able to find in Scripture.

For example, in Numbers 14:19-20, we see God had already forgiven - past tense - the sins of the people. The sins of these people were not "rolled forward"; they were simply forgiven at that time.

To properly understand this issue, one must carefully read what Hebrews actually says. It does not say the Israelites were not forgiven. It does not say, as some argue, that sins were not forgiven under the Old Covenant. What it indicates is that the blood of bulls and goats alone cannot forgive sins.

Hebrews 9 and 10 contrast the perfect sacrifice of Christ with the imperfect ones under the Old Law. Recall that Hebrews was written to Jewish Christians to convince them that the Law of Christ was superior to the Law of Moses. They were not to waver in their faith to God through Jesus; they were not to turn back to the Law as the basis for their salvation. Ultimately, it was the blood of Christ that allowed even those under the Old Law to be forgiven. To turn one's back on the sacrifice of Christ would mean one was depending on the imperfect sacrifices of bulls and goats alone to remit his sins. He would reject Jesus' blood and hope only in the sacrifices offered by priests to forgive his sins - which it could not.

The life and death of Christ was the fulfillment of the Law (Matthew 5:17-18, Luke 24:44); with the Law fulfilled,it is obsolete and taken away. The Christian should not look to it for justification and forgiveness. This is the writer's point throughout Hebrews, including the passage above in Hebrews 10.

Consider Numbers 20:8-13

There's been no end of discussion as to exactly what the sin of Moses and Aaron was here. Was it because they didn't speak to the rock, but struck it as God had previously commanded? Was it that they took credit for summoning the water from the rock? Was it that they offered a strong, arrogant rebuke to the people? The debate over these points has been never-ending, but none of these are the most important point in this verse.

Whatever specifically Moses and Aaron did wrong, we can correctly describe it as disobedience. God had commanded them to do one thing, and they did something else.  But look how God characterizes their disobedience: Because you have not believed Me, to treat Me as holy in the sight of the sons of Israel...

Did you catch that? They had not believed God and they had not treated Him as holy. How? They disobeyed Him!

God gave a command. They knew what His command was. However, Moses and Aaron believed that they knew better than Jehovah! They believed they had a better way to address the problem of the people. In doing so, God said they did not believe Him.They did not respect or revere Him as the Holy God!

The lesson here? Disobedience is disbelief. Disobedience is saying that God is not holy. When we believe we know better than the God who made us all, we disobey, disbelieve, and mistreat our Creator.

Hey, folks. A couple of administrivia items.

First, a reminder that commenters are expected to abide by the code of conduct. In short: Play nice. Don't spam. This isn't a place for unending arguments. Present your points, clarify if necessary, link to a place for further discussion, and then move on. Yes, I know there's no link and checkbox when you post comments saying you agree to abide by the code; however, you're still expected to do so.

Second, it's been the quiet season for posts around here. I've mostly been making notes on scraps of paper in my Bible and being too lazy to transfer them over here. If you have a certain topic you'd like me to cover (one that I haven't gone over before, mostly), please let me know.

Third, if you need to email me, you'll need to create an account on the site to access the mail form. I was getting a few hundred spam emails from placing my email on the site, so I created a form for contact and removed the email. However, it's currently only for registered users until I have the time to move the captcha over to the public side.

Hope this note finds everyone well.