V. 1, Ahab went right home and told his wife what Elijah had done. Even after seeing the fire from heaven, the 850 slain and the rain after 3 ½ years, he still fears his wife more than he fears the Lord. She must have been something to behold.
V. 2, Jezebel heard about all that had transpired, and shows no sign of repentance. Once a woman has been scorned, look out. (The 850 false prophets were her personal prophets, 18:19.)
Why did not Jezebel here just send the messenger and kill Elijah instead of threatening him, and giving him a chance to escape? Maybe she wanted rid of him, knowing she could not kill him.
V. 3, Elijah rose and fled. I would have also, but remember:
17:1, God had preserved his life for 3 ½ years by supernatural
18:18, 19, Elijah had backed down Ahab.
18:38, Elijah had asked for fire from the Lord.
2 Kings 1:10, Elijah called down fire twice, and fire consumed 102 men.
Could not he here have found the same protective power from the Lord. Of course, but like so many of us, a spur of the moment decision always leads to unbelief and disaster. We hear something, and make decisions without taking time to allow the word of the Lord to speak, and we do the same as Elijah.
He fled. He left his servant behind, and went another day into the wilderness. He sad dowin under a tree, and asked the lord to kill him. Here is one of the two men in all of history who did not die, sitting and asking for death. Emotional stress will cause us to do the same. All of his emotional energy is used up, and now he is open to depression and self-pity.
V. 5. There are many examples of supernatural food in the Scriptures. Of course, angles' food fed Israel for 40 years, Christ fed the 3000 and the 5000, &c.
V. 7, journey is too great for thee. (He was going to meet God.)
The journey God had laid out for our lives is too great for us. Only by the supernatural food that only God provides will we complete that journey. Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.
If we try to complete our journey in our own strength, then Jezebel will catch up with us for sure. Now, she does not seem to be pursuing him, but he ran anyway. Did she make an empty threat?
V. 8, Horeb, where Moses met the Lord. Exodus 3:1.
V. 9, what are you doing here, Elijah? Evidently, Elijah planned to go talk things over with the Lord, which is why he went to Horeb. God had not told him to go here, but God did provided strength for him to get here.
V. 10. He airs his complaint before the Lord, v. 14 also.
Vv. 11-13. God speaks to Elijah in the still, small voice. Man may resist the strong wind that rends the mountains, or the earthquake that splits rocks or the fire that consumes everything. In fact, these things many times only makes hearts harder toward God, but the still small voice will break a heart in pieces. It cannot be resisted. I resisted it for three days, but could not longer.
Vv. 14-18, Elijah again lays his complaint out before the Lord, and the Lord listens. He remembers we are but dust. The Lord does not hold Elijah's complaining spirit against Elijah, but instead meets his need.
Many times we make rash statements under emotional stress, which if taken at face value, would cause the judgment of God upon us.
God still had 7000 men left. Of interest herethe Roman Church took a statue of Zuse (I believe) from Greece, renamed it Peter, and stood it outside of St. Peters Basilica in Rome. People by the millions now bow before it, and kiss its toes.
Vv. 19-21. The call of Elisha, who was plowing. God does not call people who are standing around waiting for a call, nor looking for a call. He does not call people from the park bench, nor from standing in a corner.
God calls people who are hard at work, doing the best they can at what they enjoy doing, or what they can do.
God does not use lazy sluggards. Now, they might answer a call after the flesh, but that is what it is, the flesh. They will work harder after the call than before. Scripture gives us no record of anyone being called out of a life of ease. The Apostles were all hard at work when the Master called them.
Young people! Do you want God to use you? Then be hard at work doing your best for the Lord where you are now.
There are some good things here about Elisha's call:
I. It was a call of God. 19:16.
A. We have no record of Elisha before this call. Was this is desire to be a prophet of God? Or was this the farthest from his mind? Is this a case of "I was just doing the best I could where I was, and God spoke", which was the case of all the Apostles' call?
B. What I like is this: This was a Divine choice by a Sovereign God. WE have no record of Elisha doing nor desiritn anything special for this call. Was not this typical of Christ's call to his disciples as they left their nets, their ships and their businesses, receipt of customs, to follow him?
Any Christian who has even done any great thing for God has had this call in their lives, John 15:16; this is our highest inspiration.
GOD CHOSE ME. The Sovereign God, all powerful and all wise, singled me out of the multitudes to:
a. be saved.
b. serve him.
c. preach/teach his word.
It is all by his grace alone. He chooses who he will, to work through to do his will in any manner that he wills. God does the choosing, which is called Calvinism. Man does the choosing, which is called Arminianism.
C. This choice was made before Elisha knew it, and, of course, we were chosen in the mind of God before the foundations of the word. How was this?? I have not the faintest idea.
Man chooses God over other gods = God is man's servant, and
man treats him thusly.
God chooses man over other men = man is God's servant, and should serve him with reverence and aw.
II. The call is made known to Elisha. 19:19, he was found plowing.
A. As already stated, God does not call the idle man. If a man cannot be faithful in unrighteous mammon, then who will commit to him the true riches. (Luke 16:11.)
I knew a young man whose dream and desire of his heart was to be a great preacher. However, in the 9 years I knew him, he had at least 4 or 5 jobs.
God is not going to use a man who does not take a simple task and be faithful and work hard in it.
1. The man who will not plow by reason of the cold. Proverbs
2. The man who puts his hand to the plow and looks back. Luke 9:62.
3. The man who will not get involved in the work at hand. Acts 15:38.
A man only exchanges one area of hard work for the glory of God for another area of hard work for the glory of God. God is looking for men to be laborers together with him (1 Corinthians 3:9), not for someone who will let God do it all, and then take the credit. God does not need those who lay in bed until noon, and then flutter around like a moth to a bright light.
Only the man hard at work where he is, doing the best he can, and content in that labor will God put his hand on to call. If a man is discontent, lazy, unmotivated or rebellious where he is, he will carry the same attitude over into the Lord's work. Time will use ungodly men to train or purify the right motives and attitudes of God's chosen to make us into what he can use.
B. Cast his mantle... The sign of apostleship.
III. V. 19, cast his mantle The call was to follow Elijah, and some day, inherit Elijah's power.
A. It was not a call to replace Elijah today, but way down the road.
B. It was a call to be a servant to Elijah.
1) Very few men will refuse the call to be a leader, the "replacer" of the man who faced down 850 false preachers, and called down fire from God. Very few men will refuse the call to replace Moses, through whom God did many mighty works.
2) Very few will answer the call, however, to be a servant, the man which poured water on the hands of Elijah. (2 Kings 3:11.)
If a person cannot submit to the authority of the man of God, then he will not submit to God. The man of God may make decisions that the one under authority might not agree with, and the decisions are not unscriptural. If the one under authority cannot submit to the one in authority then, can they submit to God in every area?
The person knows what is expected from him from his spiritual authority when compared with Scripture, but if he cannot do it, then will he not always be doing what he feels is best in life?
If a person cannot be a servant to the man of God, Elijah, then can he be a servant to God? Will he not always see himself above serving God through serving people? (Matthew 25:40.)
We will reap what we sow, which is a "non-optional life principle" (using Gothard's godless term) that applies to all areas of life sow rebellion, reap witchcraft; sow submission, reap God's protection.
We want the power of Elijah without having to be a servant.
Also notice that the Elisha's calling was to worse circumstances than was the plowing.
1. Jezebel was on a rampage against Elijah. She had not forgotten the incident at Mt. Carmel.
2. Elijah's other servant was gone. (18:43, 19:3.)
Had the other servant decided it was to "hot" to be identified with Elijah?
3. Jezebel had not promised to kill all who were plowing. She had promised to kill, stamp out' all the prophets of God, for Obadiah had to hide the 100 from Jezebel's wrath. Thus when Elisha followed Elijah, he was laying his life on the line.
IV. 19:20. Elijah passed by... Elisha left, and ran after Elijah.
A. Elijah did not have to beg Elisha to serve him. Elisha was willing, and ran at the chance to serve Elijah.
B. And ran... We are lucky to get most people to look up from their "secular" work, let alone drop everything and do God's bidding.
C. He left the oxen.
#1. He left the world's security. There is no service without sacrifice. (Matthew 19:29.)
(This point continued at #2.)
LORD JESUS CHRIST
(The following was motivated by my attendance at an unincorporated church meeting in Indianapolis, 12/5/84.)
Back in 1984, I was confronted with the church incorporation issue. I attended unregistered church meetings at Greg Dixon's Indianapolis Baptist Temple. At those meetings, very few Indiana churches were represented. The whole unregistered church controversy is based around the Lordship of Christ. Who has the final say over the church as a physical organization.
It seems that the vast majority of churches seem to fell it does not matter who has the final say over the local church (if they are familiar with the incorporation issue at all), as long as they can preach the gospel of the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
But is their not more?
LORD = having [final] power or authority. (Vines.)
1. Christ claimed to be Lord (Matthew 7:21, 22, John 13:13.)
2. After his resurrection, the Apostles realized he is Lord. (John 20:28.)
Of interest here: This word LORD in John 20:28 is never used for any man except the Lord Jesus. Acts 10:4, an exception.
Peter declares that God has made Jesus Lord in Acts 2:36, &c.
3. Now look at Jude 4. A heresy crept into the church.
It changed grace into lasciviousness, taking men from pleasing God by obeying his law-word to pleasing self, lasciviousness. Lasciviousness can take place when it is taught that grace has removed God's law from the believer: "under grace, not law."
Romans 6:14 is the text for this teaching. I was raised on "We are no longer under law, but under grace". Now, notice what this verse out of context does:
We are saved by Grace (Right).
We only obey the law of God as we feel we should, or as we have the inward convictions to do so (we are New Testament saints, not Old Testament saints). Or we only obey God's laws as they restated by Paul. There are many reasons given as to why we are not required to obey the Commandments of God.
They main reason, however, is because men want to do what they feel is right, instead of what God says is right. Whether saved or lost, the old natural desire is still there, and too many Christians fail to recognize this problem of the natural man.
Again, the term in Antinomanism' without law.
(a) 1 Peter 2:3 quotes Psalms 34:8, and identifies the Lord
Jesus as Jehovah.
(b) 1 Peter 3:15 also identifies the Lord Jesus as Jehovah of Hosts, Isaiah 8:13.
Jude writes that we should contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints.
What is the faith once delivered to the saints?
Romans 1:1-3, concerning his Son, Jesus Christ our Lord. (Having power or authority, even unseen.) I cannot think of one time salvation is offered apart from the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, or just the name Jesus Christ apart from the title of Lord.
Acts 4, and Peter's message
Acts 4:12 does not use the name Lord Jesus Christ, but the context does, for who they had believed to be just another man, Jesus Christ, is now become the head of the corner, v. 11. Thus, the person they had believed was just another man they understood now to be Lord. Note Acts 4:33, Lord Jesus, identifying him with the Lord and his anointed in Psalms 2. (Acts 4:26.)
Accordingly, we see that though not using Lord in Acts 4:12, the context requires that the name Peter used requires it to be the Lord Jesus Christ, which is exactly what his hearers understood him to mean. (Acts 4:33. Revelation 17:14, 19:1, 6, 16, &c.)
Jude 4, unawares... Could this also mean that even the certain men are unawares of what they are doing. I find it hard to believe that all of those Jude warns us about are not sincere in what they are doing.
I think the whole problem can be traced to C.I. Scofield, e.g.:
The old relation to the law and sin, and the new relation to Christ and life are illustrated by the effect of death upon servitude Ro 6:16-23 and marriage Ro 7:1-6 (1) The old servitude was nominally to the law, but, since the law had no delivering power, the real master continued to be sin in the nature. The end was death. The law could not give life, and "sin" (here personified as the old self) is in itself deathful. But death in another form, ie., crucifixion with Christ, has intervened to free the servant from his double bondage to sin (vs 6,7), and to Ro 6:6,7 the law Ro 7:4,6 (2) This effect of death is further illustrated by widowhood. Death dissolves the marriage relation Ro 7:1-3 As natural death frees a wife from the law of her husband, so crucifixion with Christ sets the believer free from the law. See Scofield "Ga 3:24" (Scofield's note on Romans 6:15.)
Concerning Galatians 3:24, he says:
(4) Christ bore the curse of the law, and redeemed the believer
both from the curse and from the dominion of the law Ga 3:13 4:5-7.
(5) Law neither justifies a sinner nor sanctifies a believer Ga 2:16 3:2,3,11,12.
(6) The believer is both dead to the law and redeemed from it, so that he is "not under the law, but under grace" Ro 6:14 7:4 Ga 2:19 4:4-7 1Ti 1:8, 9.
However, from what I have found concerning Scofield, he was not at all unawares of what he was doing as he removed the Christian's responsibility to the law from the Christian.
The death and crucifixion of Christ frees us from the power and penalty of the law, but not from our responsibility to obey the moral law of God, as found in the Commandments.
No doubt Scofield was the number 2 enemy of Biblical Christianity after Darby.
Lasciviousness stronger sensual desire than Spiritual desire, e.g., I am under grace now, so I can obey the sensual desires because, according to Scofield, I am free from the moral law as found in the Commandments. It no longer applies to me, as I am now guided by the indwelling Spirit of God.
So what was the faith once delivered? The faith, or the doctrine of the Lord Jesus Christ, not the doctrine of Jesus (2 Corinthians 11:4.) Sadly, it seems that the Doctrine of Scofield has permeated every area of Christianity.
Notice Romans 7: The wife is out from under the penalty of the law when her husband dies, v. 3. Free from that law... From what law is she freed? It is only the law that condemns her as an adulteress if she remarries. She can now remarry, and not be guilty of adultery. She is now free from the result of the law adultery and the death penalty. She is no longer an adulterer to be put to death. She can remarry and live. However, she is not free from the law against adultery, for after remarriage, she, and he, can be guilty of adultery. And she could commit adultery with another married man. Nor is she freed from the law against murder, theft, false witnessing, &c. In other words, the death of her husband did not mean she could live as she pleases, but she must still live according to the moral law of God.
Romans 7:4, in Christ, I am no longer under the death penalty nor power of sin. Rather, I am alive in Christ by his grace. However, to live without law, the Commandments, is not grace, but lawlessness. I died in Christ. I am dead in him to the death sentence of the law, for he is my substitute. The death penalty against me was exercised against him, so now I can live.
Jude 4, these men not only turned the grace of God into lasciviousness ("Do what your now Christian conscience will let you do, for we are under Grace not law"), but also they deny the only Lord God and our Lord Jesus Christ.
These men brought in the doctrine that one can please God without recognizing the Lord Jesus Christ. I am not talking about Lordship Salvation, in the sense that unless a man gives up all his sin at salvation, he is not saved.
But I am speaking about those who come into the faith, saying it is no longer necessary to recognize the Lord Jesus Christ as the final authority over self, church, family, society, civil government, &c.
These men have left their first estate, the faith once delivered to the saints. Of course, a logical conclusion of under grace, not law is fornication, and other violations of the moral Commandments of God. They have gone the way of Cain "This is the way I feel it should be to please God" while saying that the Commandments are no longer the standard for pleasing God. Have they ran greedily after the error of Balaam for reward, and perished in the gainsaying of Core?
Jude 19, have not the Spirit could be a difficult statement.
As the doctrine of "easy believeism", as found in "Ask Jesus into your heart" or "Turn your life over to the Lord" has become more and more prevalent, the denial of Christ as Lord has become more common. Is there a connection?
When the saved left the law for grace, not in the sense of salvation, but sanctification, the natural result is to deny the Lordship of Christ over every area of life and thought, personal and in Church.
Can there be salvation without recognizing the Lordship of Christ?
"Go on," says Tertullian [c. 160-c.220] tauntingly to the heathen governors, "rack, torture, grind us to powder: our numbers increase in proportion as ye mow us down. The blood of Christians is their harvest seed. Your very obstinacy is a teacher. For who is not incited by the contemplation of it to inquire what there is in the core of the matter? And who, after having joined us, does not long to suffer?"
Unquestionably there were also during this period, especially after considerable seasons of quiet, many superficial or hypocritical Christians, who, the moment the storm of persecution broke forth, flew like chaff from the wheat, and either offered incense to the gods (thurificati, sacrificati), or procured false witness of their return to paganism (libellatici, from libellum), or gave up the sacred books (traditores). Tertullian relates with righteous indignation that whole congregations, with the clergy at the head, would at times resort to dishonorable bribes in order to avert the persecution of heathen magistrates. But these were certainly cases of rare exception. Generally speaking the three sorts of apostates (lapsi) were at once excommunicated, and in many churches, through excessive rigor, were even refused restoration. (History of the Christian Church, Phillip Schaff, Vol. II, pp.76, 77. Eerdmans.)
Thus, we are told that those who compromised their Christian profession to avoid suffering were considered apostates. How many professed Christians today have compromised with the world and have accepted its standards in order to avoid "persecution", of the mildest sort not fitting in with the crowd.
Schaff also tells us that,
Among these confessors and martyrs were not wanting those in whom the pure, quiet flame of enthusiasm rose into the wild fire of fanaticism, and whose zeal was corrupted with impatient haste, heaven-tempting presumption, and pious ambition; to whom that word could be applied: "Though I give my body to be burned, and have not love, it profiteth me nothing." They delivered themselves up to the heathen officers, and in every way sought the martyr's crown, that they might merit heaven and be venerated on earth as saints. Thus Tertullian tells of a company of Christians in Ephesus, who begged martyrdom from the heathen governor, but after a few had been executed, the rest were sent away by him with the words: "Miserable creatures, if you really wish to die, you have precipices and halters enough." Though this error was far less discreditable than the opposite extreme of the cowardly fear of man, yet it was contrary to the instruction and the example of Christ and the apostles, and to the spirit of true martyrdom, which consists in the union of sincere humility and power, and possesses divine strength in the very consciousness of human weakness. And accordingly intelligent church teachers censured this stormy, morbid zeal. The church of Smyrna speaks thus: "We do not commend those who expose themselves; for the gospel teaches not so." Clement of Alexandria says: "The Lord himself has commanded us to flee to another city when we are persecuted; not as if the persecution were an evil; not as if we feared death; but that we may not lead or help any to evil doing." In Tertullian's view martyrdom perfects itself in divine patience; and with Cyprian it is a gift of divine grace, which one cannot hastily grasp, but must patiently wait for.
But after all due allowance for such adulteration and degeneracy, the martyrdom of the first three centuries still remains one of the grandest phenomena of history, and an evidence of the indestructible divine nature of Christianity. (Ibid.)
I have known pastors who, evidently, desired to be martyrs for their causes. It increased their stature in the eyes of their followers, and produced many speaking engagements.
Lord [Lord Jesus Christ, Jude 4] from kuros (supremacy);
TDNT-3:1039,486; n m
AV-Lord 667, lord 54, master 11, sir 6, Sir 6, misc 4; 748
1) he to whom a person or thing belongs, about which he has power of deciding; master, lord
1a) the possessor and disposer of a thing
1a1) the owner; one who has control of the person, the master
1a2) in the state: the sovereign, prince, chief, the Roman emperor
1b) is a title of honour expressive of respect and reverence, with which servants greet their master
1c) this title is given to: God, the Messiah
V. 9, Michael said The Lord rebuke thee, the same Lord as in v. 4, and thus the Lord Jesus Christ. According to Strong, Kuros <2962> is only used in the New Testament, and is used to refer to both the Son and the Father. (It was the Lord <2962> Jesus Christ who spoke to Moses out of the Bush, Acts 7:31.
It is interesting to follow the thought through: The Lord Jesus Christ is thus the God of the fathers spoken of in Exodus 3:11ff., and he is the One who met them at the mount and gave the law through Moses. Read Exodus chapter 3. Both Lords of Matthew 22:44 are <2962>. Moreover, Christ told Satan that he, Christ, was the Lord God of the Old Testament, Deuteronomy 6:16. Thus when the Commandments are denied as being in force upon God's people today, it is the words of Christ that are being denied.
Note Matthew 22:21 Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.
Give unto Caesar what is his, and unto God what is his. The word of God defines what belongs to whom. Caesar's image and name was on the coin, proving it was his. Therefore, give it back when he calls for it. The problem is not giving Caesar what he demands. The problem is not giving unto God what he demands.
Example: Children clearly belong to God, yet we turn them over to Caesar, the state, for training. Then we complain against Caesar when he demands the coins to pay for what we have given him the authority to do train our children.
We have volintarly given to Caesar what belongs to God. Now, when Caesar starts demanding more of what belongs to him, money, there is a tax protest, or rebellion.
I know many who are upset and fighting mad over the unjust tax system that feeds the Beast as Caesar demands more and more. Yet they willingly give to Caesar what belongs to God, so they have no grounds to complain when Caesar starts making demands.
WHERE ARE OUR PRIORITIES? We have no problem giving God's children to the state, yet we get hostile over the states demand for more and more money.
The problem is not the unjust tax system to pay for ungodly programs that Caesar is supporting, even welfare. The problem is the things that belong to God that have been willingly turned over to Caesar, such as care for the poor or care for one's parents. It only stands to reason that the more areas assigned to Christians by God that are turned over to him, the more he demands.
People do not rebel until the financial crunch comes. But the crunch only comes as a result of giving to Caesar the things that belong to God which is not the money with Caesar's name on it.
I believe the tax rebellion is unscriptural as Caesar calls in more of his money to finance what people have given to him willingly that belongs to God.
The areas where Christ is not recognized as Lord results in Caesar exercising his usurpation as Lord. Someone will rule as Lord.
We want to only allow Christ Lordship in certain areas, and we keep control of others, which cannot work. The areas we do not turn over to Him as Lord will be controlled by Caesar as lord. (God will not permit anarchy to prevail everyone doing what is right in his own eyes.)
TEMPLE TAX, ROMAN TAX
Example: God's people refuse to recognize Christ as Lord over their child's education, among hundreds of other things. Then they complain as Caesar usurps other areas.
How many tax protesters' receive government money of any kind? I know some do not, but many do. (See Barnes' notes, 1868.)
Matthew 22:21 a penny, v. 19. This was a coin to be paid to the Roman Government which crucified Christ. The Temple Tax was paid in Shekels. By these men having the Roman coin, they showed their hypocrisy. They held the coin which showed they believed it was OK to pay the tribute the tax paid to the Roman government, which was not the temple tax. The Fish (Matthew 17:27) provided the Temple Tax of which Christ said, The children are free. That was not the Tribute Tax. The Tribute was only Caesar calling back his money.
The problem is not what Caesar demands that belongs to God. The problem is what th epeople hav ewillingly turned over to Caesar that belongs to God.
We are only reaping what we have sown. There will be no holding back of Caesar in his claim until there is a reclaiming of the areas voluntarly turned over to him.
We used the money that was saved by turning the things of God over to Caesar (money that should have been spent on the poor, welfare, Matthew 26:11, Mark 14:7, John 12:8, Galatians 2:10), to consume upon our own lusts. Now there will be required a greater sacrifice to reclaim those areas the government will tax us to pay for the poor, and we will have to dig deeper into our pockets to obey the Lord's command toward the poor.
We turned the care of our elderly (things that belong to God) over to Caesar. Now Caesar demands the money to pay for caring for the elderly. I know Caesar squandered it away, but the fault was not his. It was ours the generation that gladly welcomed Social Security, so they could turn over that responsibility to the State.
I do not think we can Scripturally rebel against now giving to the State the tribute (money paid by a captive nation) until we show we are willing to reclaim those areas. We must teach the children their responsibilities for their parents, and provide homes for the elderly. We must form ministries to help the poor, &c. These things will take a vast amount of time and resources, but we must work on this aspect of the Kingdom of God. What happened to the funds that were to go toward that purpose anyway? Now the chickens are coming home to roost' with interest.
Where maybe it would only have cost only $10 per week per person back in 1936 to keep what God required (things that are God's) toward the care of the elderly, now with interest and the natural waste coming from turning it over to the ungodly, it may cost $150 per person or more to reclaim that area. Are we willing to pay the monetary price to reclaim those areas? I really don't think os. But maybe I am wrong, for there are groups doing just that.
Again, the problem is not what Caesar, the State, is claiming today (12/6/84). The problem is that what the people have voluntarily turned over the State is now coming do, with interest. Be sure your sin will find you out. The children pay for the parents sins to how many generations? It took 10 generations before David could come onto the throne.
Answer: Proverbs 28:19, 20, 2 Chronicles 7:14, &c. Repent of the sin back there, and return to the Lord in every area.
Parents with children in the government schools have no Scriptural
protection from Caesar's usurpation of all else.
Children with parents receiving government aid have no Scriptural protection from Caesar's usurpation of all else.
These are only two examples of hundreds, but it gives us an overview of the general precept.
We need first of all to get back to giving to the Lord the things that are his, and in his mercy, maybe he will withhold the State from usurping the things that are not the State's. But I believe that before there is any relinquishing of the State's hold by God, he will have to see a genuine repentance on our part.
I cannot rebel against unjust, outrageous taxes if I all the State to spend multiplied thousands of dollars just on my children's education.
Isn't it strange how we want Christ to be Lord in one area, and will go to the wall with that area, but the other areas, we tell the State we want them to be lord over.
Bro McCurrie said he tells his people to only draw out of Government programs, SS, &c., what they have paid in with reasonable interest. Then anything over that is welfare, and unjust.
Who is Lord over our children, parents, finances, old age, &c.
Matthew 1:22, Lord = 2962 kuriov kurios koo'-ree-os, (1) he to whom a person or thing belongs, about which he has power of deciding; master, lord. 1a) the possessor and disposer of a thing. 1a1) the owner; one who has control of the person, the master. 1a2) in the state: the sovereign, prince, chief, the Roman emperor. 1b) is a title of honour expressive of respect and reverence, with which servants greet their master. 1c) this title is given to: God, the Messiah. (OLB)
See Jude 4 above.
Note 1 Peter 1:25, and compare with Genesis 1:1, John 1:1, 1 John 1:1, &c.
Accordingly, we see Christ identified as LORD, Lord and God of the Old Testament, with even the Holy Spirit identified as the Spirit of Christ". (Romans 8:9.)
The New Testament doctrine on this is that the fullness of the Godhead dwelt bodily in him. (Colossians 1:19, 2:9.) This is what incited the Jews so much they killed him. He claimed to be all that God was in the Old Testament, equal with God. John 5:18.
Who Christ is should make us rejoice that the God of Isaiah 40-55 would take on a body of flesh, and come dwell among men that he might redeem us. How can the three be one, and the one be three, and all equal in power and authority, with different work assigned to each? Christ was and is the physical manifestation of the three, and the mystery is as high as the heavens are above the earth (Isaiah 55:9). Those who say they understand this mystery are saying they can ascend into the heavens and be like God in their understanding.
Jude 3-5. (I am not dogmatic on this out of Jude. It is just what it sais to me at this point of my life, 12/1984 when I was trying to develop a position on church incorporation.)
The gospel is That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus For whosoever shall call upon the Lord shall be saved.
Jesus is Lord
A Jesus' presented who is not Lord over all, I'm afraid, is the another Jesus of 2 Corinthians 11:4.
Is their salvation in any other name under heaven (Acts 4:12), other than the Lord Jesus Christ of Nazareth whom God raised from the dead (Acts 4:10)? By God raising him from the dead, God hath made this same Jesus both Lord and Christ (Acts 2:36). When Peter said, Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved. (Acts 4:12), his hearers knew that Peter's claim that the resurrection made Christ Lord over all.
The State allowed them to worship Jesus Christ, but not as Lord over all. They were allowed to worship Christ as the substitute for sin and the Saviour. (Acts 2:36, both Lord and Christ.) But the State would not allow any other sovereign other than itself. The State demanded Christians be licensed by the State to make them licente, or legal.
As long as Christians admitted that the State had the authority to permit them to worship Christ, there was peace between the State and the Christians.
However, those who believed that Christ was the sovereign Lord and Christ, over even the State, and that rulers were exalted by the Lord, refused to recognize a sovereign State. They held that the State did not have the authority to control their worship; this led to the State exercising its claim to be the only sovereign lord, and killing or otherwise disposing of those who failed to recognize its unlawful claim over Christ and his Church.
The issue was, and still is, over the Lordship of Christ. Who has the final authority? Christ or the State? Does the State have the right to exercise authority over the Church of Jesus Christ. (We are speaking of the organized church, not individuals. It should go without saying that if a church is frauding, killing or otherwise committing sins against others, then Romans 13 requires the State step in.)
The owner of the Church, its Master, its Supreem Being is the only one who has the final authority.
Acts 4:26, The kings of the earth stood up, and the rulers were gathered together against the Lord, and against his Christ. This is the same Lord as in 2:23 Jesus is both Lord and Christ.
The world power will allow worship of Jesus Christ. You can sing to him, pray to him, teach about him (Christ what he did for us), but it will not allow the worship of the Lord Jesus Christ (Lord what Scripture requires of his people).
Peter identified him as both Lord and Christ. The doctrine of Lord caused Peter and the other apostles to say, We ought to obey God rather than men. (Acts 5:29.) It was Peter's claim that the man Christ Jesus was now exalted (Acts 5:30-32), and was now Prince (Lord) over all that cut them to the heart, and made them want to kill Peter and the other apostles, v. 33.
V. 34, Gamaliel claimed the council down by reducing Christ from the position of Lord to a man Christ Jesus, v. 38. However, v. 38, it will come to nought does not hold true look at the Muslims. Following through the book of Acts, the doctrine that caused so much trouble was the doctrine of the Lord Jesus Christ, not the doctrine of Christ.
The false teachers of Jude 4 is expanded by Peter in 2 Peter 2:1. The false teaching was a denial of the Lord, not a denial of Christ. Evidently, the false teachers had separated or were separating, dividing the gospel. They were presenting Christ as the sinless substitute and saviour, but were denying the Lord that bought them. (See RWP on 2 Peter 2:1.)
heresies 3. "that which is chosen," a chosen course of thought and action; hence one's "chosen opinion, tenet"; according to the context, an opinion varying from the true exposition of the Christian faith ("heresy"): 2 Peter 2:1 (cf. DeWette at the passage), and in ecclesiastical writings (cf. Sophocles' Lexicon, under the word). (Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon.)
Heresies a choosing, choice. A self-willed opinion which is substituted for submission to the power of truth, and leads to division. (Vines, p. 547.)
Such erroneous opinions are frequently the outcome of personal preferences or from the prospect of an advantage.
2 Peter 2:1, bring upon themselves swift destruction. Define swift!
Does not this definition fit exactly our current situation of churches, though maybe led by godly men, compromising on the total sovereignty of the Lord, so they can continue to preach Christ and him crucified. In fact, they have determined not to know anything ... save Jesus Christ and him crucified (1 Corinthians 2:2). To whom was Corinthians written?
It was a wicked, sensual city which strongly influenced the church. Paul wrote to the church that preached "Ye must be borne again", Christ, but did they avoid the Lord Christ. Don't forget how Paul closed his letter, 1 Corinthians 16:22, If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be Anathema Maranatha.
The letter was written to call them to the Lord, to serve him, to submit to him, 1 Corinthians 15:57.
How many churches of our day that claim to be Bible Believing have laid aside the Lord for the prospect of an advantage to preach Christ? In doing so, have they fallen to the damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them? (2 Peter 2:1.) The result is carnal Christians who do not realize nor comprehend the demands upon them by the Lord, resulting in a carnal, worldly church. However, someone will be the lord, either the Lord Jesus Christ, or the State.
What is the result of denying the Lord? They bring upon themselves swift destruction (2 Peter 2:1), as did the angels that sinned, the world that perished and did Sodom and Gomorrha, vv. 4-6.
Heresies self-willed opinion, substituted for submission to the power of the truth. It leads to divisions. They are personal preferences, followed for the prospect of personal advantage (gather a following), and lead to ruin for the heretical teacher and his followers.
The Gospel of Christ separate from his Lordship, ownership and total sovereignty as the 1) LORD, 2) Lord and 3) God of the Old Testament is a heresy. The vast majority of Churches and Christians today, those who are not facing persecution at the hands of the Moslems, have laid aside the doctrine of the Lord so they could continue preaching Christ.
The churches which are compromising their stand on the Lordship of Christ to be able to preach Christ are headed for swift destruction; it is a modern day heresy that has crept unawares to Bible believing circles, and is calling for the judgment of God. (September 30, 2004. Are we not seeing that judgment here in the form of ungodly rulers who are moving very quickly to bring us into physical bondage, both the Republicans and the Democrats?)
Remember, Jeroboam's sin was not idiolatry, but hairiest: "You can worship the Lord just as well here in your own way as you can there in God's way." Both Jeroboam and Rahoboam worshiped the Lord God, but one was right and the other wrong. Israel, even under Ahab, never openly denied the Lord God. Rather, it denied his sovereign authority over them.
The problem is over Lordship: one side sais Christ must be preached as both Lord and Saviour (Acts 2:36, God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.) The other side sais Christ can be presented as simply Saviour.
The same problem is in people. I believe that for the full godsel to be preached without heresy, we must preach and pratice oru Christianity with Christ as Lord over all areas of life and thought personal, family, church, education, vocation and civil. Anything less is heresy, leading to swift destruction. It may take several generations, but the destruction will come (and is here, September 30, 2004.)
Our current problem can be traced to the fact that once a man is saved, we teach him that he is now guided by the inward desire to live right, and that sin is the violation of that inward desire.
Sin is still a violation of the Law as given by the LORD Jehovah, the Lord Jesus Christ. (1 John 3:4.)
Jesus Christ is Lord, the final, sovereign authority over all things. Anything less is heresy and destruction, both in our personal lives, an in all around us. The natural result of the denial of him as Lord over all is what we see today: churches, pastors and people signing their name to anything in order to be able to continue to preach Christ as Saviour, and the result is worldly, carnal Christians and churches as found in Corinth.
Can a person be saved though denying the Lordship of Christ?
Probably, though it is heresy and leads to destruction of the
individual, his family and society where Christ's lordship is
not recognized and honoured. (1 Corinthians 5, Hebrews 12.)
Should we compromise the preach the gospel of Christ? (2 Corinthians 5:10, 11, Acts 5:29.) IF for no other reason, we must stand for our children's sake. We cannot very will teach the total crown rights over the individual , if we do not over the church.
Is the Lord lord of our lives? Or is he simply Christ the Saviour?
We must establish Christ as Lord over the church and in our personal families.
IV. 19:20. Elijah passed by... Elisha left, and ran after Elijah. (Continued.)
#2. Elisha broke with his past, burned his bridges.
a. now, we should not make enemies nor leave hard feelings behind, but God has a way of burning our bridges.
God had a way of burning all of my bridges Honeywell, union problems. Tousley - turned down because of a promise from another company, but the promise was not kept. I could probably have gone back to Pinkertons, but had no desire to. Past church staffs were just a bad. All doors were closed behind me.
Those who leave their past with hard feelings are out of God's will, and they need to go back and make those things right before God can use them where they find themselves now. (Notice the flesh or even a fallen Christian can have worldly success. I know of pastors who have a very bad past which has never been made right, yet their personality can draw many to them.)
V. V. 20, Let me... kiss my father and mother.
A. Elisha still honoured his parents. He went back to them. He had left his oxen in the field, and ran after Elijah, but here he goes back to tie up loose ends.
Gothard teaches the principle that you cannot go into the ministry without parents blessings, saved or unsaved. I am sort of inclined to agree, but if I have followed my dad's wishes, I would have remained in the trades, and avoided the ministry. A problem with Gothard's thinking is that he never allows a man to establish his own household. Scripture does not require undying obedience to one's parents, but it does require undying honour.
I to believe, however, that if God calls, he will work all things together to enable one to answer that call. Also, if he calls, he will not leave the oxen standing in the field, but will pick up the loose ends.
I do not believe Elisha would have been right leaving the oxen in the field, and his parents unaccounted to.
God saw in Elisha that he would take care of those necessities. Maybe this is one reason God called Elisha, but we must not forget 2 Timothy 1:9, Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began,
a. God does not call lazy people who are looking for good pay
and little work.
b. God does not call people who refuse to obey Biblical principles.
So how does 2 Timothy 1:9, fit together with these two points? We will probably never know. It is God's grace though that works in us to accomplish a & b.
VI. V. 20, Go back again: for what have I done to thee?
A. We can present the call of God to people, explain the word of God and its teachings, but it must be a choice between them and God.
What have I don't to thee? Do not serve God because of men. Do not get involved nor make commitments because of men. Do it because God requires it of us, not because men pressure or the church requires or because of Christian peer pressure.
We must do what God wants us to do, for what have I done to thee? People must understand and those around them must understand also we dress and act to please God, not to please a preacher, people nor a church. It must be between the individual and God.
Women with husbands:
God speaks to a wife, not the preacher nor social pressure. The only way she can safely disobey the Lord is if her husband says no (Numbers 30, 1 Corinthians 11:3), putting him between her and the Lord. The responsibility is then upon him.
1 Peter 3 strongly implies that God uses the wife's humble, obedient spirit to call the husband to himself. Thus, a husband is the only one who can stand between someone obeying God, and that only for his wife.
Elijah said to Elisha, For what have I done to thee...
"Elisha, you do what God wants you to do. Don't do it because I said it. If things don't go as you expect, then blame God, not me. You must obey God not man God's word and will not man's word and will."
Could Elisha have ignored Elijah, and not been in trouble with God? We know he could not have ignored Elijah after he agreed to follow him, but how about before he followed him?
VIII. V. 21, arose and went... Elisha now placed himself in subjection to Elijah.
A. He Burned his bridges.
B. He cooked his oxen and fed te people.
If our call is God's call, it will benefit others.