The lawyer whose doctrine we examined on February 23 and March 1, 2020 in Spiritual Perspectives said he chose not to reply, but he was having someone else send me some materials. They were about what one would expect—slanted, illogical, liberal propaganda. A person can only hope these fellows will wake up and quit playing games before they face the Lord in judgment, but don’t count on it.
One of the materials was an article by Wayne Newland, a member of the church in Maine. He sent a copy of his article, “We Can and Should Remain Together,” that appeared in The Christian Chronicle in September of 2018 on page 31. Like so many other writers of his ilk, he opens up the subject by talking about the way things used to be and how they are now—with no objections to the changes. Then he poses the question we have in the title—What is a church of Christ in modern times?
That’s one of the easiest questions there is to answer. The church today is the body of Christ, just as it was in the New Testament when it was established. It is still founded by Jesus (Matt. 16:18-19), and it exists because He purchased it with His own blood (Acts 20:28). (This is already one more Scripture than appeared in Newland’s entire article.) The church is still not a sect though it has been called such even in the first century (Acts 24:5), and denominationalism remains unauthorized. Of course, no one expects Scriptures to prove anything to Newland or the Chronicle.
The Infamous Progressives
The usual slant shows up in the third paragraph where the battle seems to be between conservatives and progressives. Those who are labeled progressive are actually digressive because they do not want to abide by the Word of God. According to Newland, those in this latter group have “reexamined our traditional understandings and have adopted some new worship practices and attitudes toward other faith groups.” Translation: They have given up following what the Scriptures teach and will accept those who have never obeyed the gospel as “brethren.” What he specifically means he does not further define.
Next, Newland says that “progressives may see their ‘conservative’ brethren as short-sighted and unwilling to study.” Whoa! Undoubtedly, conservatives are seen as “short-sighted” since they cannot quite see their way to depart from the Scriptures. Just to clarify this point, “conservatives” are not opposed to genuine progress. We use computers, PowerPoint, and the Internet—all the latest forms of technology. Older members do not share the same objections as the Amish have. Even the most “conservative” brethren have tremendous websites. We object to false teaching—not innovations in communicating the Word.
However, Newland really blunders when he claims that conservatives are unwilling to study. Unwilling to study what—the wisdom of man or the holy Scriptures? He goes on to talk about our past debates. We have not changed; we remain willing to do so—if the “progressives” can find a liberal to represent them. They are the ones who don’t want discussions. Then he has the gall to say the progressives refuse to allow conservatives to hold them back. Anyone who knows “progressives” at all knew that wasn’t going to happen. How many “progressives” in the early 1900s were willing to do without the instrument—even though they had no Biblical authority for using it? Who refused to study? No, the “progressives” refused to be held back!
The Stone-Campbell American Restoration Movement
How can liberals be identified? Sooner or later they will refer to “our heritage.” What nonsense! How many Christians today ever said when baptized, “I’m becoming a member of the Stone-Campbell Movement”? No one. We never mention it because we don’t obey the gospel because of those men. We owe gratitude to them because they determined to leave denominationalism behind and return to what the New Testament teaches. Do “progressives” ever praise them for that? No. They only think they see “unity” when they look back 200 years.
They did think that division amongst professing Christians should be done away with and did deem as important what Jesus said in John 17:20-21. They believed that when the truth was known concerning what the Bible said on a subject, people would give up their religious parties and become one. And many did. But then, as today, the amazing thing is that some people have no interest in the truth—just as Newland does not (proof is forthcoming).
The reality is that truth and unity can only exist together when the latter is based on the former. On the Day of Pentecost and for a time thereafter, brethren “continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, in the breaking of bread, and in prayers” (Acts 2:42). They experienced unity because false doctrines had not as yet had time to be introduced. All twelve apostles preached the same truth; therefore, the whole church was united.
Why did those in the restoration movement fail to achieve unity? Because people were more interested in retaining their sects than truth. In the past 500 years, by and large, few have committed themselves to following the New Testament. Few believe in the authority of Jesus (Matt. 28:18). And liberals (like Newland) think unity is more important than truth. They believe that fundamental teachings should be laid aside to have “unity.” Man has, on this basis, only ever achieved union, which is not what Jesus prayed for.
Divisive Tendencies
Newland opines: “Churches of Christ have inherited the divisive tendencies that developed later in the 19th century from the desire to restore detailed traits perceived in the epistles.” Whatever this gobbledygook means is not explained. But the questions can be asked, “Were there no divisive traits before this time? Why did so many divisions exist in the first place?” Those who doubt that such division exists should take a look at Frank Mead’s Handbook of Denominations. Who can explain why there are 26 different Baptist groups listed? Just about all major groups are divided. It was to try to attain unity that many were willing to give up their creeds in the first half of the 19th century. But too many could not bring themselves to do it.
So, yes, we too have had divisions. But they do not arise from “tendencies”; they exist because some have departed from the faith, just as the New Testament prophesies (1 Tim. 4:1). Either instrumental music in worship is authorized, or it is not. Perhaps the “wise” Wayne Newland can explain how those who are convinced it is not authorized can worship with those who insist on having it. This is not a tendency; it is a matter of Scriptural principle. Over time, those who became part of the Boston-Crossroads movement have proven they were not of us in that they went out from us (1 John 2:19). And though we have had frequent debates with non-institutional brethren, with few exceptions, we have not doubted their sincerity.
How We Grew
This next assertion would be hilarious except Newland probably really means it: “Our fellowship grew for more than a century, but mostly from persuading believers in denominations to accept our inferences and deductions and less from building faith in non-believers.” Really? Does anyone see this as a judgmental statement, which impugns motives and alters history? Can Newland prove that the majority of our members come from denominations? Sure, many have attended one, but they were not members. Marshall Keeble baptized thousands. Were they all from other religious groups? But if every one of them was, so what? Did they obey the gospel because they liked our inferences or because they learned what the New Testament teaches about salvation?
Many of us have made apologetics a key element in our teaching and preaching; we are not just looking for denominational folks. Of all the religious groups there are, we are one of the few emphasizing reasons for faith. Many religious groups just answer Bible questions put to them by their own people by saying, “That’s just the way we have always done it,” or, “That’s our tradition.” We are the ones who set forth why people believed Jesus in the first century and why people ought to do so today as well. We do not ask anyone to believe what we believe just because we believe it. We teach the New Testament; people can make up their own minds what is true and what is not.
Biblical Standards
Newland says we are caught in “a constant controversy as to what God requires of us, what is permissible.” Okay, so we re-evaluate what we believe. If we did not, we would be less than honest. Everyone ought to know what he believes—and why.
He adds: “When you’re sure you are right, it’s not easy to seek unity.” Hogwash! If you’re not sure you’re right, there’s nothing to be united about. We are always willing to study open-mindedly any Bible subject.
“We need to recognize our differences and live with each other or else. Or else we will fragment further, becoming merely sects or splinter groups that once were part of a vibrant, noble movement.” The soap here is so soft it is just about liquid. Did Paul just ignore differences between him and Hymenaeus and Philetus and Alexander (1 Tim. 1:18-20; 2 Tim 2:16-18)? Did Peter characterize the men influencing some brethren as being like “natural brute beasts” (2 Peter 2:12) but fellowship them anyway? Why did John say to not fellowship those who do not have the doctrine of Christ (2 John 9-11)? Forget about what a few people in the American Restoration Movement said or thought; what does the
New Testament teach?
He laments the possibility that we might fragment further. It’s possible, and the more “brethren” depart from the teachings of the Bible, the more likely it is going to happen. Can we fellowship churches who accept membership from those who have never obeyed the gospel? From those living in adultery or fornication or homosexuality? From those who have no respect for 1 Timothy 2:11-14? From those teaching that the resurrection is already past?
Nearly no one desires division. Why would we not all want every other brother and sister to succeed spiritually and be saved in the end? Jesus did, also, but it did not keep Him from pointing out error and condemning the scribes and Pharisees in Matthew 23. Admittedly, your congenial editor criticizes men like the lawyer previously and Wayne Newland here, trying to show as clearly as possible the errors involved. This approach is primarily to help others not be fooled by the reasoning used in what they write. It needs to be shown as the error it is, but it is also for their benefit. At one point, both men probably knew the truth, but for various reasons they have departed from it and have become digressive.
But truth and error are not equal. Those in error can fellowship each other all day, but those who follow truth cannot enjoy such liberty. One either is or is not baptized to have his sins forgiven and those who believe the former cannot fellowship the latter. Despite not coveting division, the fact is that if we have to fragment and fragment and fragment—until only eight of us are left—then at least a few of us will enter the safety of the ark (figuratively speaking) while the rest of the world drowns. Noah chose truth over error. Unity should be everyone’s goal, but it will only occur when based on truth.
The usual practice for Roman Catholics is to go to a confessional and tell a priest what sins he has committed. Then some sort of penance is prescribed. At least, that’s how it worked on the Father Dowling mysteries. But since the coronavirus thwacked Italy mercilessly, many Catholics could not or did not want to leave their homes. Pope Francis addressed this issue on March 19, 2020, after Italy had been in lockdown for nine days, according to an Internet article by Cindy Wooden of Catholic News Service.
Francis affirmed that God welcomes wholeheartedly each sinner: “It’s like going home.” But people were asking him where they could find a priest to confess their sins to? His response was:
Do what the Catechism (of the Catholic Church) says. It is very clear: If you cannot find a priest to confess to, speak directly with God, your Father, and tell him the truth. Say, “Lord, I did this, this, this. Forgive me,” and ask for pardon with all your heart.
Make an act of contrition, the pope said, and promise God, “I will go to confession afterward, but forgive me now.” And immediately you will return to a state of grace with God.
Well, now, what a novel idea—going to God directly in prayer—just as the New Testament teaches! In Luke 11:1, Jesus’ disciples said to Him: “Lord, teach us to pray, as John also taught his disciples.” Jesus said nothing about going to a priest. He taught them to pray to the Father (Luke 11:2-5). The apostles had been threatened in Acts 4, but they met and prayed to God—without any help from a priest. In fact, even in the Old Testament, when many of the Levites actually were priests, the Israelites still prayed to God directly. It will probably not surprise New Testament Christians, but the Bible does not mention acts of contrition, either.
To Catholic friends we ask: “If you can pray directly to God now, why can’t you do so all the time, as Jesus taught His followers?” Incidentally, all Christians are priests, according to the apostle Peter. He told Christians they were a royal priesthood (1 Peter 2:9). God does not have an earthly priest standing between anyone and Himself—just Jesus, Who is our High Priest and Mediator (Heb. 5:9-10; 1 Tim. 2:5). No acts of contrition are needed, either. Just stop the sin by repentance—changing the way you live.
The second of the three incredible statements that Elisha the prophet made in three consecutive chapters is found in 2 Kings 6:16, but the background is needed to understand the significance of the pronouncement. This event occurs during a time when the King of Syria was trying to make war against Israel. But every time he showed up to fight—Israel was somewhere else. After a few times of Israel altogether eluding him, the king of Syria thought there must be among his military leaders a traitor who was divulging his plans to the king of Israel. He begged his servants to tell him who it was (6:8-11).
One of the servants assured him that no spy was getting information out to their enemy. His problem was Elisha the prophet. He “tells the king of Israel the words that you speak in your bedroom” (6:12). This is quite a remarkable admission. A servant of the king of Syria somehow came in possession of information about Elisha and his God. First of all, does the servant know that Jehovah is the true and living God? If he does, then he ought to persuade his king that fighting against God is futile.
Did some other ancient deity claim omniscience? Maybe, but this servant shows no hesitation in his affirmation that Jehovah knows all things—and that He tells what He knows to His prophet, who in turn passes it along to the king of Israel. The king of Syria ought to ask, having been apprised of this condition, that if this is the case, and Jehovah’s power matches his knowledge, why bother to attack Israel? “If God knows our military strategy and can counter it, how can we ever hope to win against Him?”
For some reason, the Syrian king did not reason that way. Instead, he asks where Elisha is, which turns out to be Dothan; therefore, he sent horses and chariots, along with a great army, there to capture him and bring him back (6:13-14). Question: Who is it that has been warning the king of Israel where the army of the Syrians is? Answer: Elisha. Question: So, what are the odds that Elisha is going to know that the king of Syria is sending an army after him? Answer: Pretty good. Question: So, why do it? Elisha could easily be gone by the time the troops arrive. Answer: The king of Syria is a slow learner?
Why is Elisha still there when the army arrives? God had apparently given him instructions which, as it turns out, will end this cat and mouse game. The Syrian troops arrive and surround the city. Elisha’s servant woke up in the morning, stepped outside, and Yikes! Syrians were everywhere. He could not find anywhere to run, hide, or escape. He exclaims to Elisha, “Alas, my master! What shall we do?” Who would not either say or think these words? However, Elisha remains unruffled, answering: “Do not fear, for those who are with us are more than those who are with them” (16).
One can envision the servant looking out the window one more time. Hmm. Still there. But Elisha prayed for God to open his eyes, and He did. The mountain was covered with horses and chariots of fire (invisible to the Syrians) that were there to protect Elisha. When the Syrians approached Elisha’s house, the prophet prayed: “Strike this people, I pray, with blindness.” One can afford to keep calm when he knows that God is with him and will work on his behalf (17-18).
The text does not mention the reaction of the Syrians to being struck blind, but it had to have an effect on them. How many men cried out in unison, “I can’t see!”? As soldiers, they probably tried to maintain discipline, but the situation lends itself to chaos. At any rate, Elisha, the man targeted to be taken to Syria as a captive, becomes the one to lead the troops to Samaria (19).
When they arrived, Elisha prayed that the men might have their sight restored to them; they looked around and discovered that they were in—Samaria! Well, they had been trying to find and engage the king of Israel. Now they have the opportunity. The only problem is that they are surrounded. The would-be capturers of the prophet were now the captors of Israel. And the king is asking excitedly, “My father, shall I kill them? Shall I kill them?” (21). King Jehoram must have been disappointed when Elisha said to feed them instead—and then let them go (22).
The Syrians quickly became the most surprised warriors on the planet. In the entire history of human warfare, how many armies have been captured, fed, and released? When they returned home, wow, did they ever have a tale to tell! But the point was not lost on their military. They had surrounded a city, but without a battle they themselves were struck blind—but allowed to live. “So the bands of Syrian raiders came no more into the land of Israel” (23). They had no desire to fight someone who, despite what the numbers looked like, exercised superior power. If they chose to return to fight, they might not be treated so graciously. Sometimes it is better to quit while you are behind.
Elisha’s amazing statement in this chapter relates to God’s involvement with His followers. We do not see or know what is going on behind the scenes. Of course, in this instance God’s miraculous power was used, but God can work providentially, also. Probably, we are not surrounded by horses and chariots of fire, but angels are spirits who minister to the saints. We cannot make any claims that angels did this or that for us (especially in a miraculous way), but they may be involved in the execution of God’s providence. We cannot affirm what we cannot see, but Hebrews 1:14 indicates help of some kind. Eternity may reveal that we had more assistance than we ever knew.
The Third Statement
Eventually, the Syrians forgot the generous treatment they received at the hands of Elisha and Israel; they attacked again. Their assault was so effective that Israelites were starving to death. The famine became so severe that at least one case of cannibalism was recorded. A donkey’s head sold for eighty shekels of silver, and even more grotesque items came at a high price (6:25).
But Elisha made a prophetic announcement that astounded everyone: “Hear the word of the Lord. Thus says the Lord: ‘Tomorrow about this time a seah of fine flour shall be sold for a shekel, and two seahs of barley for a shekel, at the gate of Samaria” (7:1). Most translations have either “seah” or “measure,” which is basically meaningless for most readers. The ESV says it equals about seven quarts. The point is that this much flour or barley would sell very cheaply, considering that at the moment the worst stuff available—not even usually considered edible—was quite expensive. How could the city go from famine to feast in one day’s time?
Obviously, what Elisha foretold was not a prediction made based on available data. God told him what would occur; therefore, what Elisha said would come to pass. But an officer close to the king disputed what the prophet said: “Look, if the Lord would make windows in heaven, could this thing be?” (7:2). Of course, every Bible student reading this chapter is thinking, “Is anything too hard for the Lord?” Although God asked this question in Jeremiah 32:27, the occasion we remember is the one in Genesis 18:14, when God asked Abraham why Sarah laughed when she heard that she—a barren woman past child-bearing age—would give birth to a child the next year. He asked the patriarch: “Is anything too hard for the Lord?”
Sarah’s response would be understandable under normal circumstances. And perhaps she did not realize that one of the “men” they were entertaining was “the Angel of the Lord,” a description used of Jesus in the Old Testament. The Lord rebuked her for laughing, but no other penalty ensued.
Zacharias did not fare quite as well. He was on duty in the temple when an angel assured him that his wife (also past child-bearing age) would have a son. He made the mistake of asking, “How shall I know this? For I am an old man, and my wife is advanced in years.” (Luke 1:18). Gabriel told him he would remain mute and unable to speak until the child was born “because you did not believe my words…” (v. 20).
However, God was quite lenient toward Gideon who asked for a second test after the first one worked well. In fact, God went out of His way to provide even more encouragement for Gideon to lead his men to victory. The words of the officer in 2 Kings 7 must have more of a mocking and challenging nature than these others had been because his punishment would be severe.
Elisha told him immediately: “In fact, you shall see it with your eyes, but you shall not eat of it” (7:2). How did verse 2 come to be fulfilled. How did so much food become available, and why couldn’t the officer partake of it? Both of these prophecies seem improbable unless one realizes they are made by a genuine prophet of God and not some self-proclaimed mystic.
The Fulfillment
So, what was the reason for the famine in the first place? The Syrians had surrounded Samaria. Something strange occurred and, not unsurprisingly, God had a hand in it. Four lepers were camped outside the city gate. They began listing their choices. First, even if they got into the city, they would starve due to the lack of food there. Second, if they remained where they were, they would die, also. The third option seemed only a little better—surrender to the enemy. But they reasoned, “If they keep us alive, we shall live; and if they kill us, we shall but die” (7:4).
But something happened they had not anticipated. When they arrived at the Syrian camp, no one was there (7:5). What? Impossible? The lepers went into the camp. Empty. They found a tent with food in it and ate—probably as well as they had in a long time. Then they started thinking about the wealth that surrounded them. They carried out “silver and gold and clothing” (v. 8). They saw plenty more and took a second helping, hiding what they removed.
What could have possessed the Syrians to leave so hurriedly that they left all of their food and wealth behind? “For the Lord had caused the army of the Syrians to hear the noise of chariots and the noise of horses—the noise of a great army…” (v. 6). The Syrians wrongly concluded that Israel had hired troops to fight them, and they skedaddled, leaving everything behind. They fled without even their horses and donkeys, so afraid were they. No enemy actually threatened them. (Do we flee from imaginary foes?)
The lepers, however, had an attack of conscience. “We are not doing right. This is a day of good news, and we remain silent” (v. 9). Think there’s a lesson in that? They decided they must share the good news with the king of Samaria, which they subsequently did. He reacted in a skeptical manner, cautiously checking out the facts. When they proved true, the people immediately rushed upon the food and the spoils. Elisha’s prophecy of the new cost of food occurred just as he had said. And the officer? He did see it, but he was trampled by the people in their haste to leave the city.
Elisha made three remarkable statements in three chapters: 1) Leprosy would be cured by dipping in the Jordan River seven times; 2) Those who are with him and his servant were more than those who are with their enemy; 3) In one day’s time food now priceless would become cheap. On the surface, none of those made sense, but they all happened just as he said they would. God is able to bring about all that He says He will do.
You’ve probably heard some people on radio or television discussing why Christians do not like the current “orders” for them not to meet in groups of more than ten. That’s not hard to figure out: We have a first amendment right to assemble, and it sets a bad precedent when the government, for any reason, chooses to infringe on that right. Furthermore, the ruling is arbitrary: in our case, for example, we could have fifty people meeting here, and they could all sit on a different row. However, the first amendment is not the subject of this article.
Many have impugned the motives of Christians who desire to continue to meet. A few have been so insensitive as to say, “They just want the money from the collection plate.” The same people who make such pronouncements are probably the first to say that Christians shouldn’t judge other people, yet they have just practiced the very thing they insist we should avoid. Apparently, “judging” is all right for them—just not for us.
Perhaps some groups do emphasize money to the extreme, but that’s not the reason most Christians want to meet. In fact, in this day of electronic giving, such churches are probably receiving their funds anyway; thus, the criticism does not even fit. Certainly, members of the body of Christ know the necessity of giving each week. Some who are staying home are sending their checks in, and others are saving them up for when they return. They know that the church has obligations to meet whether there’s a virus or not. Missionaries still need their support, and bills must be paid locally as well. The items in the budget will not voluntarily leave because of the current crisis. The point is that we do not need to meet in order to have an offering.
So, why do Christians have the desire to meet? Some in the world would probably never understand this. We want to meet because we love each other and we like to be with each other. Well, okay, there is a command involved,
also (Heb. 10:25), and even if absence feels justified, being away just doesn’t feel right. Christians want to be with each other. Sure, we can telephone, use the mail, text, or message on Facebook. But it’s not the same as the joy of being
physically present in each other’s company—even if we are standing six feet apart! Let us all pray for a swift end to this virus so that we can get back to meeting with brethren the way the church was designed for us to do.
It’s easy to pick on Pharaoh because of his stubbornness in the face of the plagues that God kept bringing upon him, but would there not be modern-day equivalents to him if the same thing happened in today’s world? Before answering, consider the My Pillow guy.
James Lindell is an inventor and an entrepreneur—the CEO of My Pillow, Inc. He is one of several CEOs who are helping to combat the Coronavirus. At a Press Conference on Monday, March 30, 2020, he spoke briefly about the fact that his company is now producing cotton facemasks. In fact, 75% of the production of the company is geared toward this effort. He is one of several businessmen who is determined to use his company’s resources to fight this pandemic, which is commendable. If that were all he said, probably no one would have mocked him, but he said something else. Christians who do not care for our current president should just ignore Lindell’s praise of him and consider the plea that he made.
God gave us grace on November 8, 2016, to change the course we were on. God had been taken out of our schools and lives; a nation had turned its back on God. I encourage you to use this time at home to get back in the Word. Read our Bible and spend time with our families.
He also encouraged daily prayer. Several in the news media were quick to make snarky comments; some suggested the whole matter be turned into a Saturday Night Live skit. Would they have made all these derogatory comments if he hadn’t made the religious comments? No. Had he just reported what his company was doing, no one would have felt the need to mock him, but the media does not want to hear about God, Christianity, reading the Bible, and prayer. They are far too erudite and sophisticated to consider or even listen to such suggestions. They feel insulted because, in their view, God has nothing to do with this world or how people ought to live.
Are they any different in their thinking than Pharaoh was? What would be their reaction to the idea that the Coronavirus is a plague from God? Hah! They would not even consider it. Now, what would happen if in July and August four hurricanes ravaged the south? Having already spent trillions of dollars on the virus, who would pay for this additional destruction? Then what happens in October if, like the Spanish flu, the United States and the world are hit with a mutant strain of the virus with ten times the number of cases and deaths that we currently have? There goes what’s left of the economy.
Now if we had three such plagues in one year, would the media elites begin to say, “Maybe the country went too far in legalizing homosexual marriage”? Would they decide that Roe v. Wade should be overturned and that we should repent of killing 70 million infants? Would they promote rescinding the laws passed in New York and Virginia that allow for killing babies born alive during the process of abortion? Would they be calling for a National Day of Prayer and clamoring for the Bible to be taught in schools? No, they’d probably blame it all on global warming. Of a surety, they would: 1) Insist that these are natural events (rather than supernatural); and 2) Scoff at the notion we have national sins to repent of. They would fight tooth and toenail
In 2 Kings 5, 6, and 7 the reader finds three incredible statements made by the prophet Elisha. The response of many to these statements would be, “No, I don’t think so. I don’t see how that can happen.” Yet each one of them is absolutely true. The purpose of this article is to review these events and make some pertinent observations concerning them.
Naaman the Syrian
2 Kings 5 describes a commander of the Syrian army. He was a mighty man of valor, a description that was used of many of David’s men about 150 years earlier. His master believed also that he was a great and honorable man (5:1). The only problem was that he was a leper, which probably meant that his days of service were numbered.
His greatness might be noted in the way he and his wife treated their servants. Mrs. Naaman had a servant girl who had been captured in a raid on Israel. Instead of seeming bitter or resentful for being enslaved, she actually shows concern for Naaman’s affliction. She exclaimed to her mistress, “If only my master were with the prophet who is in Samaria! For he would heal him of his leprosy” (5:3).
By this statement, is she hoping to be taken back to Israel? And isn’t she a bit presumptuous? How does she know that Elisha would be willing to heal a foreign enemy? She had not seen him heal other lepers; Jesus would later say, “And many lepers were in Israel at the time of Elisha the prophet, and none of them was cleansed except Naaman the Syrian” (Luke 4:27). It may be that she simply knew of his power in other areas and just assumed it could extend to healing a leper.
The girl must have been very convincing—or maybe Naaman was just desperate—because he went and spoke to his master, the king of Syria about what a lowly, female servant had told him. Remarkably, the king then wrote a letter to the king of Israel on Naaman’s behalf. The message was brief:
Now be advised, when this letter comes to you, that I have sent Naaman my servant to you, that you may heal him of his leprosy (5:6).
To be sure, Naaman took some gifts for the cure he hoped to receive—plenty of gold and silver, not to mention 10 changes of clothing. He took all these plus the letter and went to see the king of Israel, who was shocked at the request. The letter is written as if the king had the power to heal, and he certainly recognized he had no such ability. In fact, he responded by saying, “Am I God, to kill and make alive, that this man sends me a man to heal him of his leprosy?” He concluded that the king of Syria could not be honest in this request and was determined to start a war (5:7).
However, when Elisha heard of the situation, he told the king of Israel to send Naaman to him, and he would take care of the matter. However, when Naaman came to Elisha’s abode, he was not welcomed inside. Instead, the prophet sent his servant Gehazi out to him with a message: “Go and wash in the Jordan seven times, and your flesh will be restored to you, and you shall be clean” (5:10).
Even though Gehazi delivered the message, it was authorized by Elisha; this is the first of the incredible statements in these three chapters. Why is it of such an astounding nature? The answer is that the cure, the idea of which undoubtedly originated with God, makes no sense. Was this some kind of home remedy? Had anyone ever tried it before? No connection between washing seven times in the Jordan River and ridding oneself of leprosy exists.
This fact was not lost upon Naaman. He grew furious over the matter. Was someone just toying with him? The solution provided him had no link to anything logical. If he tried washing the leprosy away, would they follow him so they could just get a good laugh? As a military man, he was accustomed to analyzing battles and strategies for fighting. He relied on factual information—not fantasy. To expect leprosy to be cleansed away in water could only be fiction. Even if water could remove his problem, at home he had much cleaner rivers. He “went away in a rage” (5:12).
Now he will never know if he would have been made clean. Naaman was an experienced and successful military leader. Fortunately, he had one other impressive talent—he selected excellent servants. His wife’s maidservant had suggested this solution in the first place; now his other servants reasoned with him, seeing his determination to leave hastily. They pointed out that, if the prophet had told him to do something extremely difficult or dangerous, that he was prepared to attempt it. How much easier was it to follow the instructions he had been given? He did so and was cleansed of his leprosy. What a happy moment! His wife would be elated, and so would his king! He would be able to return home to lead a normal life instead of wasting away slowly from the effects of this awful disease.
Did he obey what the prophet said because he chose now to believe him? Or did he go down to the river in defiance—with the intention of returning and complaining if the process had not worked? We would like to think his rationale was the former—that he stopped to think about all that had happened. The servant girl had seemed so sure. So had the prophet’s servant Gehazi. Could it be that crazy idea of dipping seven times in the Jordan might actually work? Well, he had nothing to lose, and he could possibly recover healthy skin.
What’s Baptism Got To Do With It?
When it comes to salvation from sin, today not many resemble Naaman—willing to do something great in order to obtain it. Of course, salvation never comes by great works we might do, but neither is it as simple as modern man has tried to make it. The majority of religious teachers have run so far away from the idea of meriting salvation that they have removed almost any response at all from the process. Most have decided to camp on the doorstep of “faith only.”
Exactly how would that have worked with Naaman? To be parallel, Gehazi would have stepped out of the prophet’s house and said, “If you just believe God can remove your leprosy, you will be clean. Just pray this prayer: “O God, I believe that You, because of Your great love and power, have cleansed me from my leprosy. Amen.” Needless to say, when he took a good look at his body, nothing would have changed—about like when people pray the “sinner’s prayer” today (which is still not in the Bible).
What if Gehazi had told Naaman, “He who believes and dips in the Jordan River seven times shall be cleansed from leprosy”? In effect, he did tell him that. The fact that Naaman was about to depart without obeying shows that he did not believe the message. It made no sense to him, and if you don’t believe it, then why do it? Today, people are subject to the words of Jesus, who said, “He who believes and is baptized shall be saved” (Mark 16:16). Immediately, some will
argue, “But you don’t have to be baptized in order to be saved.” Who said that? Not the Lord.
To try to put salvation between belief and baptism would be analogous to putting the cleansing of Naaman between his hearing the message and his washing in the Jordan. Is that the way it happened? No. After he heard the prophet’s message, he had to go and dip in the Jordan River seven times—before he became clean.
Someone might protest, “But I don’t see any connection between baptism and salvation. How can being immersed in water remove a person’s sins, which is a spiritual concept?” That’s actually a fair question, but it’s essentially the same one Naaman had in his mind. How can being washed in the Jordan River possibly remove the plague of leprosy? There’s no connection between the two acts. No reason to explain a correlation was ever given to Naaman. It finally came down to this: Washing seven times in the Jordan River removed his leprosy because God said it would.
In other words, it was a matter of obedience. If God says it (whatever subject is being addressed), that settles the matter. Decades earlier, after the Amalekites had taken David’s and his men’s wives and property, David inquired of the Lord if they should go after them and reclaim what they had lost. God said they should, and that was all the assurance that David needed. He and his men conquered them and returned victorious.
So if we never see a connection between sin, salvation, and baptism, we need not be concerned. God sees it, and being baptized for the forgiveness of sins works (Acts 2:38, 41; 22:16). However, unlike Naaman, God has given us a connection between baptism and salvation. It is during this act (and nowhere else) that we come in contact with the blood of Jesus.
Is the literal blood of Jesus in the water? No. But this is the moment which God has chosen to wash away our sins. Revelation 1:5 states that Jesus washed us from our sins in His own blood. Saul of Tarsus was told to arise and be baptized and wash away his sins (Acts 22:16). What else can we conclude but that Jesus does this when we obey Him in baptism?
Besides, Paul writes that baptism is the means by which we are buried with Him into His death (Rom. 6:3-5). Jesus died in the flesh and was buried; we die to sin and are buried. Jesus’ blood was shed in His death (John 19:34). When we join Him in His death, that blood cleanses us of our sins just as certainly as Naaman was cleansed of his leprosy. Why? Because this is the way God designed it to work.
Works?
“Oh, but baptism is a work of man that merits salvation, and we know that the Bible teaches that we cannot be saved by works.” It is absolutely the case that no person can merit salvation, but some people confuse this truth with something that is not true—that no human response is required whatsoever. If such were the case, then faith would be futile because it reacts positively to the evidence God has provided as to who Jesus is—the Son of God. That proof was recorded for the very purpose of causing us to believe (John 20:30-31).
Besides, baptism is not a work of man; it is the work of God. Sinners are buried with Christ in baptism and also raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead (Col. 2:12). We do not merit salvation by being baptized; we have faith, however, in the working of God—that Jesus’ blood will wash away our sins.
Now let’s consider Naaman once again. Will anyone affirm that he earned the eradication of his leprosy? In what way was dipping in the Jordan River a work of merit? No, he simply obeyed what the prophet told him to do. No one considers that, by following instructions, he actually deserved to have healthy skin. Yes, he was willing to give away gold and silver for what he received, but that was out of gratitude and generosity—not because he was being charged a fee.
The instructions given to Naaman, then, were incredible in that no discernible connection between the leprosy and the washings can be detected. The application cannot be missed. Whether or not we understand the reason baptism works, it does—and for the same reason: God says that it removes our sins. Do we trust God enough to believe His Word?
How many are familiar with the Spanish Flu of 1918? Would it be surprising to learn that nearly half a billion people were infected worldwide? According to an article posted on March 3 and revised March 30, 2020, “Why the Second Wave of the 1918 Spanish Flu Was So Deadly,” 20,000,000 people died. Some estimates run as high as 50,000,000. In either case, those dying from the flu comprised a greater number than all the men (from all countries) who died in World War I (1914-1918). No, the epidemic did not originate in Spain. The article explains.
Interestingly, it was during this time that the Spanish flu earned its misnomer. Spain was neutral during World War I and unlike its European neighbors, it didn’t impose wartime censorship on its press. In France, England and the United States, newspapers weren’t allowed to report on anything that could harm the war effort, including news that a crippling virus was sweeping through troops. Since Spanish journalists were some of the only ones reporting on a widespread flu outbreak in the spring of 1918, the pandemic became known as the “Spanish flu.”
How is that for irony? The flu began in March of 2018, spread rapidly through April and May before diminishing during the summer months. However, it returned with a vengeance in September, October, and November. In October alone almost 200,000 Americans died. Not only did the very young and the very old die, but those between 25 and 35 were felled in great numbers, also. Do these statistics seem tremendously worse than those we are currently dealing with? Of course, they are. Why did a second wave of the pandemic arise from the ashes of the first round? Many believe that a mutant strain of the flu took over.
We have no idea at this time what will occur. The best predictions are that in three weeks or so, the number of cases will lessen. Who knows when the quarantines will be lifted and when public gatherings will be safe once again? Many have wondered if this plague is of God. Not necessarily, but it shouldn’t be ruled out, either. What it does teach us is that human beings are not as strong and invincible as we think. Our vulnerability shows that we are not as “in control” and independent as we might imagine. We are actually at risk every day of our lives; this pandemic just heightens our awareness of how fragile life is. May we always walk humbly before God and be prepared to face the judgment (2 Cor. 5:10).
Since this article concerns what progressive means, why not look at the dictionary? According to The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, the word progressive means: “1. Moving forward; ongoing; advancing. 2. Proceeding in steps; continuing steadily by increments.”
Progressive brings to mind regressive, which, as one would expect, means to go back to where we once were. But then there is digressive, which is also an important word. To digress is: “To stray from the main subject in writing or speaking; turn aside.” So, what is the point of bringing to mind the definitions of these words? Progressive and digressive are supposed to be two different concepts, but now they appear to be the same.
The same dictionary cited for all the definitions above contains one more piece of pertinent information. Under progressive, the third definition is: “promoting or favoring political reform; liberal.” In “Christendom” in general, and in the Lord’s church in particular, progressives have become liberals who digress (turn aside) from the Word of God.
For example, when ignoring what the Bible teaches about the role of women in the church (1 Tim. 2:11-14; 1 Cor. 14:34), certain leaders style themselves as progressive when actually they are digressive because they clearly turn aside from what is written. God gave certain boundaries to His children to stay within; whoever goes beyond those does not abide in the doctrine of Christ, and they have not God (2 John 9-11). After God gave the Ten Commandments to Israel, and His people conquered the land, one wonders how long it took after Joshua’s death before a “progressive” arose to encourage the making of graven images. Apparently, the Hebrew language has no word for either progress or progressive. Whatever they called themselves, they “progressed” quite rapidly into a nation of idolaters. Oh, wait, there had already been idolaters in the land. They must have been regressives in actuality. One thing is certain: they “turned aside” from the Word of God.
What were those men called who led the entire world into building the Tower of Babel? One can imagine that they were called progressive, innovative, forward thinking, enlightened—anything but commandment breakers. God had said to: “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth” (Gen. 9:1), but they said, “No, we would rather remain in one place.” Since these digressive leaders refused to obey, God Himself “scattered them abroad over the face of all the earth” (Gen. 11:9).
Of course, there is such a thing as genuine progress, but it does not involve violating the Scriptures or returning to various facets of paganism.
“The Spiritual and Moral Bankruptcy Of ‘Progressive’ Christianity”
What brings all of these introductory comments to mind is a December 18, 2018 on-line article by Michael Brown for stream.org. On the first page he points out one of the characteristics of progressives that is not in the dictionary: They like to bash conservative Christians. [To this writer, conservative and Christian is a redundancy. All Christians should stand by what the Scriptures teach, but the reader knows what he means.] They engage in the logical fallacy called the
ad hominem attack, which literally means “against the man.” What this means is, when people have little or no argument to support their position, they call their opponents names. In this case, Christians are referred to as dinosaurs and outdated fundamentalists.
Over a period of time, Brown had reached out to a particular spiritual leader without any kind of response. After presenting a message in which he set forth what the Bible teaches about homosexuality, the progressive in question sent out a tweet in which he described Brown and those like him as “hopelessly phobic people of faith.” Brown said that instead of calling names, they ought to have a serious discussion of the issue. No response. Apparently, progressives don’t want a level playing field where both sides are able to speak. The enlightened one posted these thoughts.
Michael thinks LGBTQ people can NOT be LGBTQ. Michael thinks you can pray the gay away. Michael preys upon already marginalized people. Michael thinks other people’s bedrooms and body parts are his business. Don’t be like Michael.
So, what does the reader glean from this paragraph? No quotes from Michael are cited. The “pastor” who posted it just presumes to know what Michael Brown is thinking, although he said or wrote none of those statements. Furthermore, Brown’s critic has judged him to be guilty of these crimes without even a trial. Progressive souls obviously know what other people are thinking—even though they refuse to have a conversation or correspondence with them. Nobody can get any more superior than that.
The second thing to note is that the posting “pastor” provided no Scriptures for his position. Not one. When you’re a progressive, you can make up your own rules. Michael Brown responded to the tweet.
John, by God’s grace, I know MANY ex-gays and lesbians who are so thankful for new life in Jesus. And I continue to have fruitful ministry around the world, NOT focused on LGBT issues. I have simply responded to biblical deception and radical activism. You have accommodated sin.
The purpose, of course, was to convey that dealing with homosexuality was not a hobby, but in the course of Brown’s ministry the subject does come up. It is difficult to ignore in today’s world. A person cannot turn on the television any more without some expression of approval for homosexuality and derogatory remarks about anyone who would dare oppose it. Alluding to those who had ceased practicing homosexuality, John replied:
No, you don’t. You know people who you and others have badgered into modifying their behavior to stay in community. You’ve squandered your time here and you’ve caused irreparable harm to already marginalized people. That’s on you.
Now here is an attribute of progressives that some may not have expected, but, in addition to all their other wonderful attributes, they are omniscient. Without having met even one of the ex-gays that Michael Brown referenced who are joyous in their decision to leave their former practices, “Pastor” John knows that not one of them is happy. Wouldn’t one have to be Divine to know that? Is John making a claim to be Deity? So it would seem. He can confidently state that
not even one person has ever given up the practice and been happy about it.
Has he never read 1 Corinthians 6:9-11? Paul said some had quit the practice of homosexuality. Would John have the temerity to tell Paul that he was wrong? That’s the trouble with progressives; they progress beyond what the Scriptures teach. Consistency would demand that John call Paul wrong or mistaken, thus calling into question the inspiration of the Scriptures. If Paul was wrong on this subject, what else is he wrong about—women not having leadership roles? In actuality, John’s position is one of digression. He has turned aside from what the Scriptures teach.
A second of John’s transgressions is that he misrepresented the position of Michael Brown, putting words in his mouth that he never spoke, such as praying the gay away. It seems like someone else uses such tactics. Now, who could it be—Satan? That’s right, the devil enjoys slandering people.
It may well be that John knows a few people who tried to change but could not. Some may have even faked being “straight.” But these personal anecdotes do not mean that everyone falls into that category. Many people have tried to quit smoking but never did. Does that mean that no one has ever quit? Some alcoholics have tried to quit drinking, but they failed. In some instances, they fooled others into believing they had been cured. The same thing could be said of drug addicts—or adulterers. Some are clever enough to continue their lascivious practices—and “get away” with it (from a human perspective). A person devoted to drinking, after failing to quit, may say, “I’m just trying to fool myself into thinking I’m quitting.” A homosexual may likewise believe he cannot be anything else.
We all can change—if we truly have a commitment to God and changing ourselves. It’s called repentance, and it takes patience and willpower to accomplish. Paul wrote to those who had changed their ways—in one of the most carnally corrupt cities of the world.
Concerning the earlier comment that Christians think other people’s bedrooms and body parts are our business; this is about as slanted as it gets. Did we write the Scriptures? Did we originate morality? God is the one who explained morality to us. Was the writer of Hebrews snooping about people’s bedrooms when he said that fornicators and adulterers God would judge (Heb. 13:4)? Is Paul to be blamed for writing about what it means to be joined to a harlot (1 Cor. 6:15-20)? The problem with progressives is that they don’t like to observe what the Scriptures teach.
Justification
Brown points out that progressives “celebrate their departure from the ‘traditional church.’” It becomes clear, however, that it is the Scriptures they are departing from. Brown heard from a professing homosexual “Christian” how excited he was about his forthcoming wedding with his partner. He even had a Scripture to use for the occasion (he does not say what it was). Brown presented to him Scriptures that condemn same-sex relationships. His response was that “the Bible was not his final authority and that God was bigger than a book.”
Obviously, God is bigger than a book, but He chose to reveal Himself, including His nature and character, within the pages of The Book. He discussed both holiness and corruption; homosexuality belongs in the latter category. Is the man implying that God has changed His mind on the subject since the Bible was authored? Or is he insinuating that God did not record everything in the Bible? If such were the case, then there would not be one truth that is safe—neither with respect to morality nor salvation. God simply changed His mind or did not record everything. The problem is that the Bible says that He gave us all things that pertain to life and godliness (2 Peter 1:3). No emendations have ever been
necessary.
The truth is that the Bible is not his final authority. He himself is his final authority—just as in the days of the judges (21:25). So, how do “progressives” justify their behavior? They do not. One woman told Michael Brown that he “was obviously not a scholar.” This is an example of, “The best defense is a good offense.” Don’t deal with the issue. Just accuse your opponent of not being qualified. The tactic did not work. He asked her for verses of Scriptures to back up her viewpoint; she offered none. That’s progressivism.
As news commentator Paul Harvey used to say, All that’s called progress—isn’t. Combining modern technology with ancient truths is progress. Departing from the message of the Scriptures is digression. Do we really want to turn aside from the truth?
The Amalekites are probably most known because God gave a command to destroy them to King Saul in 1 Samuel 15:1-3. God wanted them punished because of something they did 400 years earlier. One lesson we might take away from this opening point is that God does not always give a nation what they deserve at the moment they choose sinful behavior. He waited more than two centuries to punish Egypt and twice that for Amalek. The Roman Empire persecuted Christians in the first century, but God did not formally destroy them until A.D. 476. One wonders how patient God will be to the United States in light of her sins.
So, what sin had Amalek committed? God says they had ambushed Israel when God had delivered her out of Egypt. It has been said that the Amalekites dwelt between the Dead Sea and the Red Sea. While Israel was in the wilderness there, Amalek attacked them. So far as we can tell from both Exodus 17:8 and 1 Samuel 15:2, they fought against Israel without being provoked in any way.
This is the battle where Moses stood on top of a hill with the rod of God in his hands. As long as he was able to hold the rod up with his hands, Israel prevailed in the battle. When his arms tired and the rod came down, Amalek prevailed. Eventually Aaron and Hur held up his hands until the sun went down and Israel had a victory. At that time God promised that He would “utterly blot out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven” (Ex. 17:14).
Hence, when God gave the commandment to King Saul to utterly annihilate them, He had in mind fulfilling this prophecy. As we all know, Saul failed to accomplish the task given to him by the Lord. When Saul returned, he told Samuel that the mission had been accomplished. It was obvious that he failed in slaughtering the animals; the king admitted that they had been brought back to sacrifice to Jehovah. It was at this point that Samuel asked the king: “Has the Lord as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the Lord?” (1 Sam. 15:22). “NO!” is the answer to this hypothetical question.
Furthermore, Saul had not put King Agag to death, thus violating killing all of the Amalekites. As long as one yet lived, then all were not put to death. Samuel called for King Agag, who thought he would survive. He reasoned, “Surely the bitterness of death is past” (1 Sam. 15:32). But he thought wrong. “And Samuel hacked Agag in pieces before the Lord in Gilgal” (v. 33). Does his violent demise mean, therefore, that the Amalekites had been thoroughly wiped out? If we can believe Saul’s word, then the answer is, “Yes.” Had not Saul declared, “I have performed the commandment of the Lord” (1 Sam. 15:13)? Of course, we know he had not killed all, since Agag remained alive. Certainly, he had not killed all of the animals.
The Evidence Indicates….
But did Saul slay all of the nation of the Amalekites? If Saul could be believed, then, yes, they did. But we know from history that at least some of the Amalekites remained. Ironically, one Amalekite appears in connection with the death of Saul. The ungodly king of Israel had fallen on his sword in order to take his own life. When his armorbearer saw that Saul was dead, he followed suit, falling on his own sword (1 Sam. 31:4-5).
But an Amalekite came into David’s camp, thinking that he might be rewarded if he took credit for slaying David’s enemy—the king who had so long pursued him with the intent of killing him. David told him, “Your blood is on your own head, for your own mouth has testified against you, saying ‘I have killed the Lord’s anointed’” (2 Sam. 1:16). One of the young men executed him (v. 15).
However, this man was not a random escapee, who had fled when Saul attacked the Amalekites. It seems that when David and his men returned home (just a few days before the battle) that a substantial number of that tribe had raided the town where David lived—Ziklag. In fact, they burned the place with fire “and had taken captive the women and those who were there from small to great” (1 Sam. 30:1-2).
David and his men were devastated because their wives and children had been taken captive. Some of the people spoke of stoning David (v. 6). David asked Abiathar the priest to bring the ephod to him that he might inquire of the Lord as to how they should react (v. 7). God told them they should pursue and would overtake them, which (with the help of an Egyptian) they did. They were able to retrieve their families, who had remained unharmed, and return to Ziklag (v. 18).
So, how many Amalekites had been involved in the raid? It was not some band of twenty men. How do we know, since the number of the Amalekites is not mentioned? One verse gives us an idea; 1 Samuel 30:17 says: “Then David attacked them from twilight until the evening of the next day. Not a man of them escaped, except four hundred young men who rode on camels and fled.” A small skirmish would not have lasted an entire day. There were hundreds of soldiers fighting on both sides, as evidenced by the fact that only a percentage of the men escaped, but that number was 400, thus indicating far more had fought and died in the battle. Saul apparently missed destroying the Amalekites by a large margin.
These 400 who escaped apparently survived until the time of Hezekiah. The sons of Simeon “defeated the rest of the Amalekites who had escaped” (1 Chron. 4:42-43).
One other point of note is that, according to Josephus, Haman the Agagite, who tried to destroy all of the Jews In Esther’s day, was a descendant of King Agag, whom Samuel hacked into pieces. Was the historian correct—or just trying to lend a little extra drama to an already tense situation? It might have been possible for someone to have saved a son of Agag.
Lessons
1. The Amalekites were intentionally obnoxious, which is never a good thing for a nation or an individual. They had no legitimate reason to oppose Israel as they came forth from Egypt. Probably, they saw an opportunity to take advantage of a non-military people who had been enslaved for quite a while. God’s justice might have been slow in coming upon them, but it did eventually reach them even if it did take 700 years.
2. They should have noticed how Jehovah led His people out of Egypt without any kind of battle or military victory whatsoever. If God would do such a magnificent thing for Israel, what else might He do for them?
3. Maybe the Amalekites never heard the expression, “You reap what you sow,” but they would experience the maxim.
4. Saul slightly exaggerated his claim to have obeyed the Lord’s voice when God had commanded him “to utterly destroy all that they have, and do not spare them. But kill both man and woman, infant and nursing child, ox and sheep, camel and donkey” (1 Sam. 15:3). Everyone likes to put the best spin on his actions—to present himself in the best light possible. It would appear, however, that Saul actually lied. Did he not know about all the Amalekites he did not kill? Did he let them go or just not make a diligent effort to find them? Was it not his business to discern all he could about them? He should not have sounded so confident when, in fact, his effort was rather slipshod.
5. When a king or a nation (or a church) is slack in carrying out God’s will, it will usually prove to be detrimental either immediately or sometime down the road. Somehow, we convince ourselves, like Saul did, that we do not need to keep God’s Word as thoroughly as He requires of us. Maybe we can forego emphasizing evangelism here and be a little loose about withdrawing of fellowship there. Maybe no one will notice or care that we are being slipshod in our collective obedience to the Lord. Of course, complacency in soul winning only increases over time and is replaced by other activities. Failure to withdraw fellowship from those who no longer come or who attend sporadically just encourages others to live the same way, thus weakening the effectiveness of the local body of Christ. Anything included in the Word of God is: 1) for our good; and 2) there for a Divine purpose.
But what is the upshot of neglect? Congregations without an emphasis on evangelism eventually wither and die. Churches without discipline eventually compromise with the world. Consider what happened in the first century through neglect.
For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you again the first principles of the oracles of God; and you have come to need milk and not solid food (Heb. 5:12).
By refusing to keep God’s Word thoroughly, Saul made it possible for the Amalekites to thrive, and eventually they conquered the wives and the children of David and his men. In fact, if Josephus is right about Haman being descended from Agag, the results of Saul’s inefficiency could have led to the destruction of the Jews worldwide.
God does delight in obedience. Neither the Amalekites nor Saul can serve as an example of this principle, but David can. The natural response of just about anyone upon discovering that his wives and family had been captured would be to rush to the rescue posthaste. However, that was not David’s behavior in this instance. He wanted to know what God’s thoughts on the matter were. Therefore, he asked Abiathar the priest to bring him the ephod by which he could inquire of God (1 Sam. 30:7-8). David heard the answer he wanted to hear, which was to pursue the Amalekites and recapture what had been taken, but what if God had said, “Let them go; I need you elsewhere”? That would have been difficult; his men might have deserted or even killed him. But faith would have demanded obedience, which God delights in. The Lord could have, through His providence, returned everyone and everything that had been stolen.
6. God’s enemies should be our enemies. God had a reason for appointing the Amalekites’ destruction; it was Saul’s task to carry out the orders. Christians today are God’s soldiers. If we are not, why are we instructed to wear the Christian armor (Eph. 6:10-17)? And if we are soldiers, who is our enemy? In what fight are we to be engaged?
Our enemy is not flesh and blood, as Israel’s was. Jesus said that His kingdom was not of this world or His servants would have fought (John 18:36). We “do not wrestle against flesh and blood” (Eph. 6:12). No, but we do spiritually fight against Satan and his servants (Eph. 6:11).
God’s enemies are those who deny Him and the spiritual realm in which He dwells. Avid atheists, evolutionists, and materialists continually fight against Him. So do all who propagate error, whether in or out of the church. Both existed in the first century, as they do today. Anyone who contradicts the Word of God is an enemy of God—especially those who have been taught better.
Quite often people make this statement—not about something that is complex—but something that is easily understandable. If someone made a reasonable explanation of what baptism for the dead is in 1 Corinthians 15:29, we might say, “That’s interesting, but it’s just your opinion; I have a different explanation.” Neither view may matter very much, and it certainly won’t affect our ability to worship with each other.
Other issues do not afford that luxury. For example, if one person thinks instrumental music should be used in worship, and another cannot conscientiously worship in a congregation where it has been introduced, then a problem exists. The same is true concerning female leadership in the church. Some will have to leave if women are appointed to lead the church.
This principle also applies to issues of morality. The immoral person must be excluded from the fellowship, which Paul makes clear in 1 Corinthians 5 and 6. To have a man attending worship who was living with his father’s wife was unthinkable. But how many people would say, “That’s just your opinion”? The same would be true of those committing or living in fornication. Is there anything ambiguous about Hebrews 13:4? “Marriage is honorable among all, and the bed undefiled, but fornicators and adulterers God will judge.” This is not a matter of interpretation.
Paul makes it clear in 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 what various forms of sin are and that they must be repented of when one becomes a Christian. In this list of sins, he includes fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, homosexuals, and sodomites. It could not be any plainer. Yet some argue that calling homosexuality a sin is just a matter of opinion. “A person cannot help it if he is born that way.” A person “born that way” would not be able to repent, but Paul affirmed that some had.
Therefore, regardless of what the majority of people may think, homosexuality is a sin; and it makes no sense to talk of homosexual “marriage.” If two runners are disqualified from entering a race, it doesn’t matter if they get married, their disqualified status remains. Any sin, in which a person continues, disqualifies him from obeying the gospel or being a Christian. Interpretation has nothing to do with it, nor does opinion enter into it; God defines what sin is so that we all can understand what we must avoid and repent of.
