1) The Christ Party
2) Hope in the Promise
3) In Addition

     [A]nd Christ is God's. In chapter 1:12-14, Paul is condemning this church for dividing up into different groups; followers of Paul, Apollos, Cephas and Christ. Thus, one of the parties which Paul was correcting was the Christ-party. If Paul had not made this statement which identified the Christ-party with the other groups in v. 12, he would have appeared to have been in favor of them.

     In rejecting the three other party's claim of human authority (Paul, Apollos, Cephas), Paul also had to call attention to the error of the Christ-party. Although this party was right enough in idea, the division which they caused was harming the principle of Christian unity within the church.

     Therefore, Paul points out here that even Christ is subject to the Father. "Christ, again, is-- not the head of a party, as many among you would make Him, but--belonging to God, and consequently exalted in the highest possible degree above all drawing in of His name into party- contentions. In this way, with no little delicacy, Paul sets the relation of the fourth Corinthian party also-of which ver. 22 did not allow the mention-in the light of the true Christian perspective.." (Meyer's Commentary on the New Testament, vol. VI, pg. 83)

     The objection of Paul to the Christ-party was not against their doctrine, which was no doubt correct. His objection was the pride, the divisions which it brought about, giving us some very important points:

     First: Persons can be totally correct in their doctrine, even according to the whole of Scripture, yet be creators of schisms by exalting themselves above others they might feel are inferior to their attainment.

     Second: We could identify the group as "Red Letter Christians." This would be the idea that we are NT Christians, followers of the words of Christ. This appears to be the majority of professed Christians today, who see the OT as merely a book with some good illustrations in it, and some proof-texts for their favorite doctrines. This would be the Christ-party which Paul is standing against. He points out that Christ was subject to God the Father of the OT. (One of my 'pet peeves' are Bibles which only are available in "Red Letter Editions.")

     The electronic media abounds with preachers and teachers of the words of Christ. There is nothing wrong with this, except when the "teachings of Christ" are exalted above the rest of Holy Scripture. All Scripture is given by God.., and is the inspired Word of God. And if it is not viewed and taught thusly, the violators are dividing Christ, and forming a Christ-party.

     (I heard on the news, 7/15/91, that Chuck Swindal was honored by the Christian Bookseller's Association for his book, The Grace Awakening, as one of the best of '90. May God have mercy upon us. I am afraid He is going to judge this apostasy.)

     Third: This would be against those who would exalt the teachings of Paul over any author or part of Holy Writ. Think a moment. If Paul condemns the Christ-party, how much more the Paul-party, the Apollos-party or the Cephas-party?

     Fourth: Some that we know of would seem to be on the verge of anarchy, claiming to be followers of Christ, or even directly under the Father, yet have very little, if any, need for public assembly with other Christians for worship and instruction from the word of God. With this making themselves a party of one.

     Here in v. 23, God establishes the 'chain of command.' The church, Christ, then God the Father, thereby preventing the exaltation of the Christ-party in pride over their fellow believers. Paul, in the opening of this first letter to the Corinthians, clearly tells them that Christ Himself was subject to the proper authority. If He was, how much more important that we be also.

     We have a very interesting point in Isaiah 7:15. In 7:1 we see that the king of Syria and the king of Israel had made an agreement. They had joined together to come against Judah where Ahaz was king. In this move against Judah by this confederation, total destruction appeared to be imminent. The enemy was ready to make their move, to Judah's demise.

     Ahaz was fearful of what the enemies of the covenant-people were going to do to him and his nation, Judah. The result of this fear of what man could do, was to make a deal with Assyria. Isaiah warned Ahaz that Assyria would be a far worse enemy, and do more damage than what he was now facing, 7:17.

     The Lord warns Ahaz to not make the deal, even warning him of the disastrous results. But the current difficulties seemed to far outweigh any warning about Assyria and any future deliverance from his present adversaries. For all appearance, total destruction of Judah was imminent and something had to be done, and done now. Anything, that is, except turn to the Lord.

     Even worse for Ahaz, the Lord offers him whatever he would desire as proof of the deliverance by the Lord from his current situation, v. 11. Ahaz's refusal to ask anything reveals the depth of hardness in sin to which he had sunk. Then Ahaz used the law of God to cover his hardness, v. 12.

     Even though Ahaz refuses to ask the Lord for anything, the Lord makes a promise to him anyway, v. 14. In this promise was the assurance that the present enemies that had aligned against him would not be victorious and that there was no need to make a deal with Assyria for protection.

     This promise to Ahaz was of a glorious future for the covenant people of God. It said that one day there would be a Deliverer born, and His name would be Immanuel. This promise to Ahaz corresponds to the promise delivered by Micah in chapter 5.

     Remember, to Ahaz total destruction appeared imminent. It was just a few more days at the most before the nation of Judah and the house of David would be history. In light of this, let's look at some things that this promise contained.

     First, the fulfillment of this promise was still in the far distant future, in fact, several hundred years into the future. This would mean that there would have to be a remnant left of both Judah and the house of David. This was Ahaz's assurance that the present efforts of the enemy would not succeed.

     Second, this promise, when taken with other passages, contained the promise of a future glory through Judah and the house of David, vs. 2 & 13. This meant that Ahaz's present difficulties which were directed toward the house of David, would not succeed.

     Third, the sum total of this was the assurance that no matter what the present discouraging circumstances might be, the hope was in the future. The enemies of the covenant-people could not be victorious over them. They might cause some present discomfort and even warfare, but they would not win.

     Now, the point that stands out here. The hope which Ahaz had for present survival and the defeat of the present enemy, was a promise that would not be fulfilled for many years. This is consistent with the Lord.

     Let's examine this principle a little in Exodus chapter 3. Here we have Moses watching his father-in-law's sheep in the wilderness. He had led them to the backside of the desert, where he came to the mountain of God, Horeb. Here the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in the midst of a bush that burned but was not consumed.

     We are all familiar with what took place. We know that Moses had grown quite content to remain watching his father-in-law's sheep in the desert. But the Lord was not content, and after some highly heated discussion, we come to the point for which we are looking, v. 12. The Lord gives a PROMISE which was to equip Moses to do this humanly impossible task against overwhelming odds. The Lord did not make some supernatural appearance, He did not do some supernatural feat, He did not show Himself strong in any way once He got Moses' attention. All the Lord did was give Moses a promise, and Moses was expected to act on that promise.

     The only sign that God gave to him was the promise of the Lord's presence, Certainly I will be with thee. The proof of the presence of the Lord was to be the success of his mission, When thou hast brought forth the people out of Egypt. And the success would be shown by the future return to this mountain, ye shall serve God upon this mountain.

     This promise of the Lord's presence and success was to be enough of a sign for Moses to go, but he didn't. Moses started coming up with all kinds of reasons (a nice word for excuses) for why he could not do what the Lord was commanding him to do, go to the people.

     God then started giving him more signs. But it is very obvious why Moses refused to go on just the promise of the Lord's presence, HE DID NOT WANT TO GO, 4:13. Moses tells the Lord that he is in agreement with all that has transpired and that the Lord should send someone to the people in Egypt, someone - anyone, but him.

     The point that we want to make is this. The sign of God's presence, protection, prosperity, success and provision in this most treacherous of situations in Egypt was a sign in the future, God's promise that they would serve Him at this location.

     We are just like Moses. We desire more than just this sign, a promise somewhere off in the future. We want something which we can sink our teeth into and lay our hands on, NOW.

     The point here with the promise to Moses and to Ahaz is this. The call in the present was based on a future promise of victory, not at all in the present circumstances.

     Now, two applications. The first is obviously Matthew 18:20. The second is the promise of a victorious church. This is based not only in the past, but in the future victory in Christ.

     It is the promise that the gates of hell will not prevail against her. It is a promise similar to what was made to Ahaz, and like Ahaz, the church as a whole refuses to act on it.

     The promise is some time off in the future (with Ahaz it was many hundreds of years away). Like Moses, because the sign is not in the present, we refuse to believe that God will preform the promises. All we can see is destruction and hopelessness.

     The Lord has given the sign for His covenant-people today, named Immanuel, the Hero-God. The promise is found in Isaiah 9:6, 7. The government is His and it will never end. Because this is not evident today, we have a difficult time with this promise.

     Ahaz faced imminent destruction, and the promise of future glory was far off. Because he could not see how God could work it out, or he refused to believe that God would work it out, the only chance he saw was to make his deals with the world. He used human means to provide for his protection and the Lord judged him for it.

     The church as a whole, is in the same condition. In her eyes, the promise of a victorious church over her enemies, and of Christ over every name that is named, is far off. The promise of the glory of the church seems to be impossible to fulfill, just as it appeared impossible to Ahaz. The average believer then has the same reaction as did Ahaz, make covenants of peace with the world, make the best deal that you can, while you can.

     And as with Ahaz, the promise will be fulfilled in spite of the unbelief.

     When we get our eyes off of the future promises of God, the power of His Spirit of grace, and on the present discouraging circumstances around us, we also will fall to unbelief. We will want to make the best deal with the enemies that we can, and we will see all of our effort as wasted.

     Certainly, what we do may fail today, but that will not make the promises of God of non- effect. The promises of God cannot be viewed in the light of our failures, or in the light of troubling circumstances.

     God's plan is to expand His kingdom through the preaching of the Gospel, Matthew 28:19, 20; 1 Corinthians 1:23, 24. No matter how many failures we experience, that is still His plan. We cannot allow failures to discourage us.

     Our responsibility is to find our place within those promises. The Lord worked in spite of Ahaz's faithlessness and Ahaz felt His divine wrath. He will work in spite of our faithlessness and we also will feel His divine wrath. But how much better if we would be found faithful in His work.

     TWOT gives this important observation for the word, justice, righteousness.

     The forensic aspect of sedeq applies to the equality of all, rich and poor, before the law. The righteous one, the saddiq, is not to be put to death (Ex 23:7) for the law does not condemn him. The man who has the position of right (the righteousness of the righteous..) in litigation must not be turned aside, (Isa 5:23). It should be emphasized that in Israel's law the judge was not considering a man's innocence with regard to breaking a human law, but a man's righteousness in regard to God's law. Today a man may transgress a statute but be innocent before God. In the OT law, to be innocent and to be righteous were one and the same. The maintenance of righteousness is frequently expressed by the Hiphil stem. This construction refers to making righteous or to declaring righteous. (Pg.753.)

     Note what is said here! Our guilt before God is always according to His law, not according to man's. Man may have the power to enforce unrighteous decrees, but that power does not make them right. (Might does not make right, right makes might.) Obviously, the higher power of Romans 13 must be God. The decrees by the civil government do not make anything right. Right is always in terms of the principles of God's word. God only holds man accountable to obey civil authority, when civil authority is in conformity to the terms of His law. When they disagree, we sin before God when we follow anything contrary to His law.

     Another obvious point here is that we may be innocent before civil law, but guilty as sin before God's law. Our standard must always be the law of God.

     What is going on?

     Only the Lord knows what is taking place in the Eastern Bloc nations, but we should keep something in mind. Socialism is based on centralized control, which these United States are moving closer to all the time as all power flows to Washington.

     I believe that genuine reform in the East will be obvious when we start seeing the power flow from the center to the people. This power is not the power to vote, because we know from experience that the candidates can be forced upon the people. When we start seeing the people owning their own property, private enterprise taking over the manufacturing and the military production facilities either changing over to consumer goods or shutting down, then we will know that reform is taking place. But, so far we are seeing all the power remain centralized in the State, whether that State be the Soviet, Russia, or one of the other 'republics.'

     An exciting point from what I have heard, is the open door for the word of God to be brought in and even taught.

     Even if what we are seeing take place is a window-dressing to gain Western finances and technology in order to upgrade the military machine, they are shooting themselves in the foot by letting in the word of God. It, of necessity, must bring in reform because it reforms the individual.