Who Are the Unbelieving (apistos) of Revelation 21?

A Word Study in Context

The purpose of the exposition of Scripture is to teach doctrine which has as its purpose to “fall backward, break us, take us and ensnare us” for God.  This is detailed by the prophet Isaiah in Isaiah 28.13;

And the word of the LORD will be to them precept upon precept, precept upon precept, line upon line, line upon line, here a little, there a little, that they may go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken.

God is planning on separating His people from their home for 70 years so that He will have their complete attention so as to instruct them fully in His doctrine.  That is how we should study His Word as well.

The original word. Apistos [pronounced app-i-stos], means (A) – without + (Pistos) – faith.  Succinctly, it is “active unbelief” or a state of unbelief beyond credibility in the light of the facts.[1]  Whoever the “unbelieving” (faithless ESV) are, they shall not inherit the Kingdom of God and instead will experience the “second death” and be thrown into the “lake of fire and brimstone.”  The NT uses this word elsewhere and collective usage gives us a very good idea of its meaning in context.

(1)        Act 26:8  Why is it thought incredible by any of you that God raises the dead?

The word translated “incredible” is apistos.  The Jews rejection of the Resurrection was an active unbelief that was shocking to Paul.

Conclusion: Those who reject the reality of the Resurrection are part of the apistos.

(2)        Mat 17:17  And Jesus answered, "O faithless and twisted generation, how long am I to be with you? How long am I to bear with you? Bring him here to me."

The word translated “faithless” is apistos.  We learn in vs. 19 that Jesus rebukes his disciples, not for their “active unbelief” but for their “unbelief” by default.   Apistos in this context can apply to those who have some measure of faith but a faith that is lacking.

Conclusion: Believers who are content with a state of doubt demonstrate a fruitless faith to the outside world.  Such are in danger of not pleasing their Lord and “may” become fully apistos.

(3)        Mar 9:19  And he answered them, "O faithless generation, how long am I to be with you? How long am I to bear with you? Bring him to me."

A parallel passage to Matthew 17 noted above, Jesus uses the same apistos word.  Again, it is used in a warning sense that even the apostles were in danger of choosing the way of unbelief and faithlessness.  In fact, ALL the apostles…to one extent or another…became apistos during the passion of the Christ.  Fortunately, they all returned from the brink save one, Judas Iscariot.

Conclusion: Even those strong in pistos “may” become apistos.  Truth be told, we all flux between faithfulness and faithlessness much of the time.  We need to take these warnings to heart.

(4)        See also Luke 9.41 for the 3^rd parallel of this event

(5)        Luk 12:46  the master of that servant will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he does not know, and will cut him in pieces and put him with the unfaithful

In Luke 12, Jesus contrasts His servants various stages of readiness at His return.  Some are and some are not.  In fact, some are so apistos as to take extreme advantage of other servants as the Lord’s return is delayed.  Their fate?  Metaphorically “cut into pieces” and then numbered with the apistos where they will be cut off from God for eternity.

Conclusion: The apistos include some servants of Christ who abuse their fellow servants while in this lifetime.

(6)        Joh 20:27  Then he said to Thomas, "Put your finger here, and see my hands; and put out your hand, and place it in my side. Do not disbelieve, but believe."

In this passage the resurrected Christ appears to the apostles, this time including Thomas who was absent previously.  It is made plain that being either faithful or faithless is a conscious choice to be made by free moral agents.

Conclusion: Whether one is pistos or apistos, it is a clear, conscious and un - arbitrary choice we all make.  No one is “sent” to hell, it is full of those who choose it.

(7)        1Co 6:5  I say this to your shame. Can it be that there is no one among you wise enough to settle a dispute between the brothers,

1Co 6:6  but brother goes to law against brother, and that before unbelievers?

Paul here is exhorting the Corinthians to stay out of secular court with their disputes.  He enjoins them to settle them within the confines of the body of Christ rather than to drag them before the apistos, the unbelievers.

Conclusion: The apistos contains all those outside of the church, the body of Christ as used in this context.

(8)         1Co 7:12  To the rest I say (I, not the Lord) that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he should not divorce her. 1Co 7:13  If any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever, and he consents to live with her, she should not divorce him. 1Co 7:14  For the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy. 1Co 7:15  But if the unbelieving partner separates, let it be so. In such cases the brother or sister is not enslaved. God has called you to peace.

Paul is commanding the Corinthians concerning the disposition of marriages between the pistos and the apistos.  One has become a Christian and one has not.  Paul allows for a separation in such cases “IF” the unbelieving partner insists upon leaving.  The so called “Pauline Exception” does not, however, allow for any remarriage except by death or by sexual immorality as does our Lord  in Matthew 19. 

Conclusion: The apistos contains those who have rejected the gospel, any person choosing NOT to be baptized in the Name of Christ for the remission of sins.

(9)        1Co 10:27  If one of the unbelievers invites you to dinner and you are disposed to go, eat whatever is set before you without raising any question on the ground of conscience.

Paul is here presenting biblical principles for Christians who were wrestling with whether or not to eat meat that had been part of a pagan sacrifice.  That is how meat came to market in the ancient world.  The apistos here refers to the non-Christian, any unbaptized person who invites the Christian to dinner and serves what is ordinary and common in that place and time.

Conclusion: The apistos includes all un-believers, all unbaptized persons of accountable age.

(10)     1Co 14:22  Thus tongues are a sign not for believers but for unbelievers, while prophecy is a sign not for unbelievers but for believers. 1Co 14:23  If, therefore, the whole church comes together and all speak in tongues, and outsiders or unbelievers enter, will they not say that you are out of your minds? 1Co 14:24  But if all prophesy, and an unbeliever or outsider enters, he is convicted by all, he is called to account by all,

In this passage Paul is contextually calling upon Mark 16.20.  The reason tongues existed in the 1^st century was to confirm the Word.  The apistos here are those persons, currently unsaved, who are being urged to become Christians and are witnessing “signs and worders” confirming the veracity of the words spoken by the Christian(s).

Conclusion: The apistos includes those who are close to becoming Christians but have not made the decision to become such.  These were in need of further encouragement.

(11)     2Co 4:3  And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled only to those who are perishing. 2Co 4:4  In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.

Paul describes the reason as to why many continue to rebel and reject Christ.  These unbelievers continue to have their ears stopped to the gospel.

Conclusion: The apistos includes those who are spiritually blinded by the lies of Satan.

(12)     2Co 6:14  Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness? 2Co 6:15  What accord has Christ with Belial? Or what portion does a believer share with an unbeliever?

An encouragement to Christians not to partner with those belonging to false religions.

Conclusion: The apistos includes the adherents of false religions.

(13)     1Ti 5:8  But if anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.

Paul names the Christian who refuses to support his family as a “denier of the faith” and is considered worse than an unbeliever.

Conclusion: The Christian who denies the faith by neglecting his family is not only apistos, he is WORSE than apistos.

(14)     Tit 1:15  To the pure, all things are pure, but to the defiled and unbelieving, nothing is pure; but both their minds and their consciences are defiled.

Paul tells Titus that “to the defiled and unbelieving, nothing is pure but THEIR minds and THEIR consciences are defiled.”  The unbelieving are part of a group identified as “THEIR.”  Who, therefore, is THEIR?  Paul contextually defines “THEIR” as Christians who teach false doctrine concerning circumcision in vs. 10.

Conclusion: The apistos includes those Christians who are willingly engaged in the promotion of false doctrine.

(15)     Who, then, are the “unbelieving” of Revelation 21?

a.   Those who reject the resurrection

b.   Those are content in a state of doubt

c.   Those who remain fruitless

d.   Those who abuse their brothers and sisters

e.   Those who refuse belief in the face of the facts

f.    Those who are outside of Christ for whatever reason

g.   Those who reject the gospel as presented by those that love them

h.   Those adhering to any other faith outside of Christ

i.     Those who have been shown the gospel but are hesitating submitting to it

j.    Those who are spiritually blinded by Satan

k.   Those who adhere to false religion

l.     Those who refuse to love and protect their families

m. Those who openly promote and teach false doctrine

Lesson Sheet Handout:

Revelation 21 Revisited – Who Are The Unbelieving?

1.  What is the purpose of exposition?

2.  What is the purpose of doctrine?

3.  What is the process of teaching and learning of Scripture?

4.  The word translated “unbelieving” in Revelation 21 is the Greek word A____________ which is the combination of two words which mean what?____________________________

5.  What will happen to those so designated?

6.  The NT’s collective usage of this word does what for our study?

7.  Acts 26.8 Description:______________________________

Acts 26.8 Meaning: ________________________________

8.  Matthew 17.17 Description:__________________________

Matthew 17.17 Meaning:____________________________

9.  Mark 9.19 Description: _____________________________

Mark 9.19 Meaning:________________________________

10.              John 20.27 Description: ________________________

John 20.27 Meaning:___________________________

11.              I Corinthians 6.5 Description: ___________________

I Corinthians 6.5 Meaning: ______________________

12.              I Corinthians 7.12 Description:____________________

I Corinthians 7.12 Meaning: _____________________

13.              I Corinthians 10.27 Description: __________________

I Corinthians 10.27 Meaning: ____________________

14.              I Corinthians 14.22 Description: __________________

I Corinthians 14.22 Meaning: ____________________

15.              II Cor. 4.3 Description: _________________________

II Cor. 4.3 Meaning:____________________________

16.              II Cor. 6.14 Description: ________________________

II Cor. 6.14 Meaning:___________________________

17.              I Timothy 5.8 Description: _______________________

I Timothy 5.8 Meaning: _________________________

18.              Titus 1.15 Description:__________________________

Titus 1.15 Meaning: ____________________________

19.              Who are, then, the “unbelieving” of Revelation 21?

a.________________________

b.________________________

c. ________________________

d.________________________

e._________________________

f._________________________

g._________________________

h._________________________

i.__________________________

j.__________________________

k._________________________

l.__________________________

m._________________________

---

[1] Source: Spiros Zodhiates, Gen. Ed. (The Complete Word Study Dictionary New Testament, AMG Publishers, Chattanooga, TN, 1992) pg. 214, entry 571

I'm Not O.K. and Neither are You! (Without Christ)

     Image Courtesy of: http://www.google.com/products/catalog

When  I attended Oklahoma Christian College back in the early 70's General Psychology was required course for my field of study.  One of the required books to read for that course was the blockbuster seller of the time; I'm O.K - You're O.K. by Dr. Thomas A. Harris.  The books quotes Jesus so it had to be correct, didn't it?  Sadly no.  None of us are o.k.  "IF" we were all "o.k." why did Jesus have to die for us all?  Comparative "goodness" is no good.  For example; taking Hitler and Stalin, who was the "better" man?  Or, between Mussolini and Napoleon, who was less "righteous?"  Harris' "transactional analysis" had the effect, whether intended or not, to make one feel good about themselves while in their sinful (and damned) spiritual condition.  It was, and is, a wildly popular idea.  If anything is needed today, it's this....I'm not o.k. and neither are you without Christ.  

We are not asserting opinion here.  We are not impugning Dr. Harris' professional qualifications.  None of that matters.  What we are doing is calling on God's Word to tell us just what our real condition is without Christ.  Anyone old enough to know the difference between right and wrong, that has not repented of all their sins, confessed the Name of Christ before witnesses and been baptized for remission of sins in the Name of Jesus Christ is NOT o.k.  However, those who have, very much are!  NOT on the basis on their own merits, but by virtue of being "in Christ."  He is the ONLY man ever to live that was "O.K."  Paul tells us in Romans 3.10 -18 just what man's true condition is without Christ:

- None is righteous, no not one
- No one understands
- No one seeks for God
- All have turned aside
- Together (all) have become worthless
- No one does good, not even one
- Their (everyone) throat is an open grave
- They use their tongues to deceive
- The venom of (snakes) is under thier lips
- Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness
- Their feet are swift to shed blood
- In their paths are ruin and misery
- The way of peace they have not known
- There is no fear of God before their eyes

No, none of us are "O.K." without Christ!

                                                    - Russ McCullough / 27 April 2012

Righteousness or Bigotry?

On May 8 North Carolinian's will vote on Proposition One:

“Marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State.”

 If I listen to two former Charlotte mayors, Harvey Ghant (D) and Richard Vinroot (R), I will likely vote against Prop 1.  Why?  Because these two men consider any prohibition of homosexual marriage to be little more than hatred, discrimination and bigotry.  Their views are sadly predictable.  Life long politicians follow the path to money and votes.  All other considerations aside, the homosexual demographic has plenty of both.  Sadly, both parties are anxious to get their money and their votes.  These two lifetime professional politicians have teamed up to make a television commercial in order to suppress the pro Prop One vote. They do so by insinuating that anyone so voting is uneducated, narrow-minded, intolerant, bigoted and hateful for wanting to deny the "right" to marriage to two people of the same sex who want to be married.

On the other hand, if I listen to Jesus Christ, I will assuredly vote FOR the proposition.  In Matthew 19 Jesus makes very clear that God blesses sexual union ONLY between one man and one woman for life with two exceptions - death and adultery.  All other sexual unions are, therefore, outside of God's Will.  This would include ALL forms of immorality, including but not limited to, fornication, adultery, incest, bestiality et. al.  "From the beginning" God made the familial model of one man with one woman for life with children the basic building block of society.  Our Founding Fathers understood this.  John Adams, signer of the Declaration and our 2nd president, said; "Our form of government is for a moral and religious people and none other."  To discard this marital model is to invite chaos and destruction to the Republic.

We all have a blessing, opportunity and an obligation to vote FOR Proposition One on May 8.  This is not a political issue though it is debated in the political arena.  It is not a Democratic Party or a Republican Party issue for both parties are both pandering to immorality.  It IS an opportunity to "proclaim liberty throughout the land" for morality, marriage and fidelity protect and enhance all other freedoms - freedoms given to us by God and not by man as stated in the Declaration.

As for me and my house, I will vote for righteousness on May 8 though many may "call" me a bigot.

                         - Russ McCullough / 11 April 2012

Holy Week or Holy Living?

All over our fair city one is finding advertisements for many “holy week” observances such as “Good Friday” and “Easter Sunrise Services.”  We must, therefore, ask the question; “Are these celebrations biblical?”  Did Jesus and His Apostles command such celebrations?  Did the Apostles celebrate these things themselves?  Did they even infer that such celebrations were allowed?  The answer is a resounding, NO!

From Matthew to Revelation we find nary a trace of anything called “Holy Week.”  To add such celebrations to the Holy Scripture would be presumptuous, arrogant and wrong.  How, then, did the several observances of “Holy Week” come into being?  The so-called “Holy Week” has six components:

·         Ash Wednesday

·         Lent

·         Palm Sunday

·         Maundy Thursday

·         Good Friday

·         Easter Sunday

What do all of these celebrations have in common?  They are all Roman Catholic in origin and have “meanings” that are allegorically assigned.   Allegorical interpretive methods were adopted by the apostate church beginning in the 2^nd century based most notably upon the teachings of the so-called “church father,” Origen.  Origen taught that all Scripture has multiple meanings and each individual can interpret the Scripture based upon their own individual experiences, understandings and stories.  The RCC then began to assign “meanings” to Scripture erroneously (in error.)  Strangely, even the Catholic Encyclopedia admits that these celebrations were unknown in the first century:

…there seems much to suggest that the Church in the Apostolic Age designed to commemorate the Resurrection of Christ, not by an annual, but by a weekly celebration.[1]

Here is a short history of these allegorical additions to God’s complete Will…“the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.”  -  Jude 3 (KJV):

1)   ASH WEDNESDAY – Ash Wednesday is the beginning of the 40 days of Lent.  The name comes from the practice of taking the ashes from the previous years burnt palm leaves form “Palm Sunday” and spreading them on the foreheads of parishioners in the form of a cross.  This is said to be representative of “mourning and repentance.”  This supposedly prepares the adherents for the 40 days of Lent following. Historically, Ash Wednesday was first celebrated annually beginning around the year 960.

2)   LENT – The word “Lent” is from the old English word lencten which means to “lengthen” and was used to describe the longer days of the spring season.  The time span of “Lent” was totally allegorical and imaginative.  It was based upon the fact that Jesus spent 40 days in the wilderness as He prepared for His temptation.  Other allegorical assignments were also made:

The duration of the season of Lent is based on the ancient church custom of requiring catechumens to undergo a forty-day period of doctrinal instruction and fasting before being baptized on the evening before Easter.  This probationary period was called the quarantine (from the Latin word for forty). [2]

The annual celebration of Lent dates to the mid 5^th century and is noted by several church historians of that time; Leo, Socrates and Jerome.

3)   PALM SUNDAY – Palm Sunday was never celebrated in the apostolic era and apparently not annually celebrated until the 6^th century at the very earliest.[3]

4)   MAUNDY THURSDAY – Thursday is the traditional day of the Lord’s Supper.  “Maunday” comes from the Latin term mandatum novum, meaning new commandment.  It is also known as “Holy Thursday” or “Green Thursday.”

Zelený čtvrtek (Green Thursday) is how the Czechs and Moravians refer to Maundy Thursday. One explanation is that in many places, before the thirteenth century, green vestments were used for the Mass that day. Another is that this is a reference to "the Green Ones," the penitents who, being re-admitted to the Church, wore sprigs of green herbs to express their joy. 

5)   GOOD FRIDAY – The annual celebration of both Good Friday and Easter date to, at the earliest, the 2^nd century A.D.  Though unknown in the 1^st century, these two festivals were the earliest of practiced “Holy Week” observances from a historical standpoint.

6)   EASTER – The word “Easter” comes from the old Anglo-Saxon word, eostre.  The word generally came to refer to the “spring season.”  It has clear pagan overtones since the word was the name for the so-called goddess of spring:

This mythical figure is said to have been the goddess of the sunrise and the spring. She is the Teutonic goddess of the dawn. The direction of the sunrise, East, is named for her. In Norse mythology, the name is spelled Eostare. Another considered the Norse/Saxon goddess of spring is Ostara. Eastre is believed to be an ancient word for spring.[4]

CONCLUSION:

Any and all “Holy Week” celebrations are at best extra-biblical and at worst un-biblical.  They are all allegorical, presumptuous and self centered.  They were created by men for men and do not glorify God in any way, shape, matter or form.  We were called, not to “Holy Week” but to holy living!  We celebrate the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ EVERY Lord’s Day during the Lord’s Supper and not during an annual celebration of so-called “Holy Week.”  For a biblical perspective, read I Corinthians 11. 


– Russ McCullough – 8 April 2012

---

[1] http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09152a.htm

[2] http://www.stpaulskingsville.org/lent.htm#WHAT DOES THE WORD "LENT" MEAN?

[3] http://www.orlutheran.com/html/holyweek.html

[4] http://www.allabouthistory.org/origin-of-the-word-easter-faq.htm

Ahab, God and Free Will in I Kings 22

We live in perilous times.  Will massive debt destroy the world’s economy for decades to come?  Will nuclear war break out between Iran and Israel?  Will an autocratic Chinese empire arise to dominate the nations?  Will radical Islam sweep the Middle East, Africa and Europe back into the middle ages?  Will there be enough food and water to sustain the growing billions of people on earth?

Though these are serious and sobering questions before us, they all pale in comparison to our MOST pressing issue; is Jesus Christ truly “the way, the truth and the life?”  More importantly, is He the ONLY way to the Father?  Everyone MUST answer these questions!  Is there a God in heaven or is there not?  Is Jesus Christ the one and only Son of God or is He not?  Did Jesus Christ rise from the dead or did He not?  Does the Holy Bible contain “all things pertaining to life and godliness” or does it not?  Will there be a Day of Judgment when “we will all stand before the Judgment Seat of Christ and give an account of all deeds done in the flesh both good and evil” or not?  And finally, we must all ask the ultimate question; “What must I do to be saved?” OR… are we not going to ask that question, assuming that heaven and hell are nothing more than ancient superstitions?

As we contemplate these questions, we must also come to grips with yet another question.  If there is a God in Heaven and we stand condemned as sinners before Him, has He clearly warned us of our condition?  Has He plainly articulated His plan of salvation for us in His Word or is He enticing us to sin and be lost?  Among many examples in the Bible, I Kings 22 is an outstanding example of just how far God goes to warn even the most wicked of men. 

As we contemplate our eternal destinies we are all witnesses to a great and powerful drama being played out in the public square on a daily basis in all forms of media.  The “Prophets of Darwin” and the “Prophets of God” engage daily in a dramatic debate for the hearts, minds and souls of each of us.  Who is speaking truth?  Who is speaking falsehood?  We are there, as is were, while the Zedikiah’s and the Miciah’s of our day dramatically debate for souls…just like they did in front of King’s Ahab and Jehoshaphat as they decided to go up to Ramoth-Gilead…or not…and battle the Arameans.  Decide right and live or decide wrong and die…the stakes could not have been higher!  Today, God’s detractors mockingly ask “how could a loving God ever send anyone to hell?”  Those same mockers chide the faithful with the assertion that God Himself lied to Ahab, deceived Ahab and tricked Ahab into going up the Ramoth-Gilead where he met his death.  Did God lie to Ahab?  Did God “trick” Ahab?  Did God “conspire” against Ahab?  Did God turn Ahab’s 400 prophets into lying robots?  And…most importantly…did God rob Ahab, Zedekiah and the 400 false prophets of their free will?

 

We will show conclusively that God did none of these things and in fact redundantly extended grace, life, mercy and salvation to these men redundantly!  


Before we answer the questions at hand; “Did God lie to Ahab?”  “Did God “trick” Ahab?”  “Did God “conspire” against Ahab?”  “Did God turn Ahab’s 400 prophets into lying robots?”  And…most importantly…”did God rob Ahab, Zedekiah and the 400 false prophets of their free will?” we should first look at this passage in it’s original cultural context.

What do you think of when you run across the term “drama?”  Today, drama, either live or on the screen is considered entertainment…period.  Was this always so?  Absolutely not.  In Ahab’s day “drama” was a highly sophisticated form of communication.  When kings needed to make major decisions, competing choices were dramatized before the ruler(s) by the promoters of the opposing choices.  In Israel and Judah these dramas took on a special spiritual significance.  The opposing proponents were members of competing prophetic communities, each claiming to speak for God Himself.  We refer to such occasions as “prophetic dramas.”  The scene of I Kings 22 is such a prophetic drama.  On the one side was King Ahab’s hand picked party of 400 royal staff prophets who somehow always managed to prophesy whatever the king wanted to hear.  They were, to borrow a New Testament phrase, “ear ticklers.”   On the other side was a one lone prophet, Miciah.  Instead of speaking what the king wanted to hear, he spoke only the “words of the Lord.”

Prophetic dramas are often found in the pages of the Old Testament.  The first such drama plays out in front of Pharaoh with his “magicians” on the one side with Moses and Aaron on the other.  The prophet Daniel took part in several such dramas in front of his Babylonian captors.  Two other prophetic dramas come to mind as well, Elijah vs. the Prophets of Baal in I Kings 19 and Hananiah vs. Jeremiah in Jeremiah 28.  Commenting on this form of spiritual communication, Wurthwein and Rufe’ conclude that the prophetic drama “…helps scholars determine how classical prophesy debated such theological issues as true vs. false prophesy and the character of the worthy prophet.”[1]  In 1982, R. Goldenberg observed that; “….rabbinical texts attempted to explain the problem of two prophets (or groups of prophets RM) (ostensibly) possessing God’s Word, yet only one of them being worthy of obedience.”[2]  Goldenberg further observes;

“It is not enough to identify the prophet sent by the Lord.  You must also know WHY the Lord has sent the prophet and the result of the prophesy in question that it was designed to produce.”[3]

Far from being an entrapment of Ahab, Zedikiah and the 400 staff prophets, the events of I Kings 22 represent the extreme bounds of God’s mercy and grace towards those who are in sin.

 We now will answer the questions at hand; “Did God lie to Ahab?”  “Did God “trick” Ahab?”  “Did God “conspire” against Ahab?”  “Did God turn Ahab’s 400 prophets into lying robots?”  And…most importantly…”did God rob Ahab, Zedekiah and the 400 false prophets of their free will?”  No, no, no, no and… no!

A predestination Calvinist would, however, answer in the affirmative.  A Calvinist, among other things, denies the fact that men and women have free will.  In fact, they claim, every soul is “predestined” by God for salvation or damnation…and…nothing can ever changes one eternal destiny.  In other words, a Calvinist would state emphatically that Ahab, Zedikiah and the 400 royal prophets were damned to perdition without ANY hope of salvation.  Such WOULD be the case “IF” God’s conversation in the Heavens was concealed from Ahab, Zedikiah and the 400 royal prophets.
 

The FACT that God’s conversation regarding Ahab and the “lying prophets” (Zedikiah was their leader and spokesman) was TOLD to them by Miciah in his prophetic drama in order to warn them, plead with them and beg them NOT to go up to Ramoth-gilead…is CLEAR evidence that not only did these men retain their free will but God was yearning for their repentance!  His warnings were overt, numerous and extremely clear.  Only when they reject the counsel of Miciah do they incur judgment.  They were warned over and over NOT to go up to Ramoth-gilead…but…they went anyway, rejecting Miciah and God Himself.

In many ways, life is a drama.  Sometimes we play the part of Ahab.  Sometimes we play the part of Zedikiah.  Sometimes we are Miciah.  More often than not, I suppose, we play the part of Jehoshaphat, an otherwise Godly man who makes no attempt to address Ahab’s spiritual bankruptcy…a spectator who “went with the flow.” 

The main character in this prophetic drama, however, was God Himself.  He made sure that ALL of these people had overwhelming access to the truth.  His mercy, grace and love are evident at every turn so that even men as evil as Ahab had ample opportunity for repentance.  Too bad that he, Zedikiah and the 400 royal prophets did not have “ears to hear.”  Let’s pay more attention to our own life’s drama that is playing out.  The “final curtain” may fall sooner than we expect!  Today, we are without excuse before God for He has given us His Word, a Word that is full, from cover to cover, with account after account of His warnings of judgment to come for those who reject Him.  It is also full, from cover to cover, of His love, mercy and grace that is available to all those who “trust and obey!”  As the song says; “Trust and obey, for there is no other way, to be happy in Jesus, but to trust and obey!”
  

Friend, if you are not a Christian, you can become one today!  “And now, why do you wait?  Rise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on His name.” – Acts 22.16 (ESV)  If you are an unfaithful Christian, you can be restored.  “If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” – I John 1.9 (ESV) Another familiar song has this refrain; “Why do you wait dear brother?  The harvest is passing away, the Savior is longing to bless you, there’s danger and death in delay!”  We’ve been warned, no one has to go up to Ramoth-gilead and lose both life and soul…and neither did Ahab.

- Russ McCullough 

---

[1] Paul R. House (The New American Commentary – I & II Kings, Vol. 8, Nashville, TN, Broadman and Holman Publishers, 1995)  pg, 237, paragraph 2

[2] Ibid. pg. 237, paragraph 3

[3] R. Goldenberg (“The Problem of False Prophesy; Talmudic Interpretations of Jeremiah 28 and I Kings 22,” in The Biblical Mosaic Changing Perspectives, ed. R. M. Poszin and E. Rothman, Philadelphia: Fortress, 1982) as quoted in Ibid. pg. 237, paragraph 3