Attitudes Similar To Jeroboam’s

By Don R. Hastines

In 1 Kings 12:25-33, we can notice 40 many similarities between the religion of Jeroboam’s establishment and the false religions of today. Jeroboam openly, and unashamedly, changed the worship of God. By this, he manifested his lack of fear and respect for his Creator (Deut. 4:2). While Solomon was still living, God promised Jeroboam that he would be king over ten tribes and would build him “a sure house” (1 Kings 11:28-39). Jeroboam was not content to trust God’s promise by keeping the law, but instead chose to change the religion of the Jews as he saw fit. He exalted his own will above God’s. Most of the people foolishly followed after him to their soul’s destruction.

Jere Frost has said, “Psychiatrists tell us that most people who are deceived, wanted to be deceived. At least they had their minds set to try to believe a certain type of message. This is the tremendous advantage the medical quack has with the seriously ill – they want to believe him. The false teacher enjoys exactly the same advantages, when he says what is pleasant and desirable to his hearers. These purveyors of false hope are not without ability and usually exercise themselves to develop a smooth, reasonable and credible presentation” (“Jeroboam’s Arguments for Innovations,” The Graphic Evangelist, Vol. 27, No. 16, Aug. 2, 1987).

Many religious leaders possess the same destructive characteristics that were found in Jeroboam. They uphold things as foreign to the word of God as did Jeroboam. Denominationalism and the vain worship instituted by Jeroboam are alike in their:

Origin: Human Wisdom. “Jeroboam ordained a feast . . . in the month which he had devised in his own heart” (text; vv. 28,33). Does this not sound like those who observe Christmas as the birth of Christ and yet have no Bible authority? It is devised by men by their own wisdom.

So, also, is the case with false religions today (Col. 2:8,20-23; Acts 26:9, 10; Matt. 15:7-9). We must look to God’s word for our instructions (2 Tim. 3:16,17; Prov. 3:5). We need to be a member in the church Jesus built, not men. We cannot come to know God through the wisdom of this world (1 Cor. 1:21; Jer. 10:23; Prov. 14:12).

Motive: Selfish Ambition. Power, prestige, the need to be in complete control have invaded the Lord’s church all over this land. We don’t have to look to denominations to see this terrible problem. Brethren, it exists in the Lord’s church all across this land. Brethren, be aware of those who want their own followers. They should ‘be abandoned immediately. How sad it is that people will follow such corruption and be deceived.

Jeroboam was afraid to let the people go to Jerusalem to worship as God ordained for fear of losing their devotion to Rehoboam (text). The same motivation underlies much of the false teaching done now (Acts 20:28-30; 2 Pet. 2:1-3; Tit. 3: 10,11).

Diotrephes was motivated by this selfishness. In 3 John 9,10, we can read how “he loveth to have the preeminence.” He didn’t want his popularity to wane and was afraid the apostle John might get praise if he let him preach.

This is the way many denominations started – selfish motivation and ambition. This, too, is the road to destruction for many local congregations of the Lord’s people. Some want a personal following, money, fame or power. Do not follow such a person with corrupt desire. Such, who want preeminence, are crafty, very adept at lying and deceit. Be cautious and do not lose your soul by following anyone other than the Lord.

Appeal. Convenience and Popularity. Jeroboam said, “It is too much for you to go up to Jerusalem” (text). Bethel was located only 12 miles from Jerusalem, yet he changed where they were to go for convenience. Idolatry was very popular because of the fornication that went along with it (Ex. 20:4).

Isn’t the same appeal greatly used today? Some denominations meet only once a week. One close by my house in Dade City, Florida meets only once a month.

Some denominations do not take a firm stand against immorality. A good example of this is Catholicism. One can sin all he wants, tell it to a priest and be forgiven. Such actually lends encouragement to sinning. Yet, don’t look far off to denominations. We have it right in the Lord’s church with ones who don’t want to take a stand against immorality! I have known some to get upset with lessons on dancing, immodesty in dress and sins of the flesh. They would run off to another congregation in a given area or just quit. Brethren, we need to stand firm against immorality!

Should we worship, as Jeroboam did, only when, or where, it is convenient? Many would have fit into Jeroboam’s plans well. Some of my brethren attend if it is convenient. Are you willing to suffer hardships for the Lord (2 Tim. 1:8; 2:3,9; 4:5; Rom. 8:17; Matt. 16:24)? Do we worship at a place only because it is close to our house, or has the largest number attending?

Appearance: Similar to Truth. Jeroboam’s feast was like “unto the feast that is in Judah” (text; Lev. 13:33,34). False teachers today make error easily acceptable by giving it the appearance of truth. They will say we are saved by faith only. They just happen to slip in that little word- “only” (Acts 16:30,3 1). They will teach that all churches are in Christ (Jn. 15:1-7; etc.). They make it sound so good.

Affect: Progressive Ungodliness. I claim no originality with the sub headings in this outline. This is a good, basic outline on Jeroboam that has been in my files a long time. It brings out some points that I wish I could get my brethren in liberalism to see. In Jeroboam’s blunders, it wasn’t but a few years before the Israelites complete rejected all of God’s commandments (2 Kings 17:16-18). The road away from God leads to destruction (2 Tim. 3:13; 2 Pet. 3:16). Some of our brethren have found out that if the door against error is opened just a little, it will not be long before that door is blown wide open.

Some older brethren had more vision to see what was ahead. However, some thought it would not do any harm for the church to sponsor orphan homes or the Herald of Truth. But, now many of them support colleges, sponsor all manner of recreation, speak in tongues, have choirs, and entertainment of all kind. A lot of the older ones saw that if the door was cracked it would soon bring in anything man wanted to dream up. Brethren, it has done exactly that!

Destination: Eternal Punishment. Jeroboam changed the object of worship, place of worship, the priesthood, the day of the Feast of Tabernacles. Denominations today have changed the plan of salvation, day of worship, music, time for observing the Lord’s supper, the way to make contributions, baptism, and many other things.

God’s attitude toward those who would make substitutions in his will should be clear (Lev. 10:1,2; 2 Kgs. 17:18; 2 Jn. 9). God caused Israel to fall into the hands of the Assyrians, who killed many and carried others into captivity (2 Kgs. 17:20-23). Hell is the eternal destination of all false worshipers (Matt. 7:21-23; 25:41, 46).

Jeroboam knew that God was not pleased with his disobedience for a prophet from Judah prophesied against the altar of Bethel (1 Kgs. 13:1-6). In spite of this, he stubbornly proceeded in his unrighteous ways (1 Kgs. 13:33,34). Some today come to a knowledge of truth, but will not turn from their ungodly ways. Turn to Jehovah, through obedience to his commandments, so your worship can be acceptable to him (Jn. 4:23,24).

Guardian of Truth XXXII: 8, pp. 243-244
April 21, 1988

Have Ye Not Read?

By Hoyt H. Houchen

Question: In recent months I have learned of some brethren who have cheated their brethren and others out of thousands of dollars. Does the teaching in 1 Corinthians 6.1-8 prohibit brethren who have been cheated, to pursue legal action against these brethren in order to recover their loss?

Reply: 1 Corinthians 6:1-8, like some other Bible passages, has been misapplied and therefore should be restudied. Paul begins in verse one, by asking: “Dare any of you, having a matter against his neighbor, go to law before the unrighteous, and not before saints?” The usual interpretation of this verse is that it is a sin for a Christian to take legal action against another Christian in a civil court of law.

Brethren were having disputes among themselves and Paul is simply asking, who is to judge upon these quarrels, the righteous or the unrighteous? Paul is not contending that it is wrong for a Christian to take legal action against another Christian in a civil court of law. Legal matters and civil courts are not involved here. The expression “go to law” in verse one is translated from the Greek word krinesthai, present and middle passive of the Greek verb krino, “to judge.” This judgment may be in a court of law or privately. Arndt and Gingrich defined krinesthai.- “dispute, quarrel, debate, go to law before someone (as a judge) vs. 1’s (A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Christian Literature, p. 452). A form of the same verb Krino is found in verse six (krinetai). translated “goeth to law.” In verse seven, the Greek word krimata, nominative and accusative of the Greek noun krima, is used. It is translated “lawsuits” (ASV) and “go to law” (KJV). The Englishman’s Greek Concordance of the New Testament says of verse seven: (“lit. ye have judgments) one with another” (p. 75). The Greek words in our text do riot indicate that legal procedures and civil courts are under consideration.

There is another important matter which contributes to this study. There may be unrighteous men in our courts of law today, just as there were in pagan courts of law in Paul’s day; however, they do not make the judicial system wrong within itself. The institution is not unrighteous. God ordained civil government (Rom. 13:1-7) and we are to honor those who administer justice (1 Pet. 2:14). We must remember that civil government is composed of three branches: the executive, the legislative and the judicial. This means that our judicial branch of government is ordained of God, as are the other two. Paul asked in 1 Corinthians 6:1, “Dare any of you, having a matter against his neighbor, go to law before the unrighteous, and not before the saints?” Notice that Paul did not say, “go to law before the unrighteous courts. ” He simply said, “before the unrighteous.” Since civil courts of law are not unrighteous in and of themselves, it should be evident that Paul is not referring to civil courts of law in these disputes at Corinth. Again, the issue is who is to judge in these matters – the righteous or the unrighteous? It seems obvious that the unrighteous (unfaithful) in the church are the ones referred to in the text; however, even if we grant that some were taking these disputes to unrighteous persons outside the church, the fact remains, and all will agree, that they were not to take their disputes to the unrighteous – in the church or out of it. The brethren would be better off to be defrauded than to have their cases judged by unrighteous, and that there were some unrighteous men in the church at Corinth there can be no doubt. Paul asks: “do ye set them to judge who are of no account in the church?” (v. 4, italics mine, HH)

Common sense teaches us that some disputes among brethren should be settled by the church (Matt. 18:17; 1 Cor. 5:12,13 – chapter 6 is connected with this passage). But common sense also teaches us that there are also disputes which may arise among brethren which may be legal in nature. In these cases, the church would not be qualified to decide them. The church is not a tribunal in legal affairs. Civil courts are not qualified to judge doctrinal and disciplinary matters which may arise in the church. The state has no business interfering with the church in these matters (see the incident of the Jews and Gallio, Acts 18:12-16). But neither is the church qualified, nor is it the business of the church, to rule on legal matters: disputes about boundaries, divorce suits, alimony, custody of children, recovery of financial loss as a result of fraud, etc.

1 Corinthians 6:1-8 is not a shelter for the brotherhood swindler. To begin with, he should be dealt with in the church where he is a member as one guilty of sin. The procedure should be the same as that for any other offender, whether he be a false teacher or a profligate. He should be reproved, rebuked and exhorted (2 Tim. 4:2) and if he does not repent the church should withdraw from him (2 Thess. 3:6). Should he “skip” to another city and identify himself with another congregation before action could be taken by the local church, he should be exposed (marked) as one who is unworthy of fellowship (Rom. 16:17). Churches do both the crook and faithful children of God an injustice when they allow a reprobate to run loose and make more innocent brethren his prey by his dishonest dealings. This is where the church has its obligation.

From the legal point of view, brethren who have been victimized by brethren who have defrauded them have every right to pursue legal action in a court of law to recover what they have lost. The brotherhood culprit, who has been caught for his acts of fraud and to avoid being sued by another brother, has been known to hide behind 1 Corinthians 6 and declare that a Christian cannot sue another Christian. We question in the first place, whether one who makes a business of victimizing unsuspecting brethren is truly a Christian. The Bible does not shield such characters, but it does provide protection for the innocent. If a mate in marriage is guilty of fornication, Jesus gives the innocent party the right to put away the guilty and remarry. We know of no one who believes that Matthew 19:9 and other related passages apply only to those outside the church. If a brother or sister may sue another brother or sister in a civil court of law for marital fraud, why may not the same hold true in the case of financial fraud? If not, why not? Civil courts are provided for protection.

Certainly we should pray for any guilty party that he will repent of his ungodly acts that his soul will be saved. But he should also produce “fruit worthy of repentance” (Matt. 3:8). Repentance is more than saying “I am sorry” or “I repent.” It is a change of heart that results in a change of life. If one is truly penitent he will show evidence of it by correcting his wrongdoings, and if he is guilty of fraud he will pay back what he owes to the ones he has defrauded. One who is a thief, but who repents, will make an honest effort to return what he has stolen.

We need to take another look at 1 Corinthians 6:1-8.

Guardian of Truth XXXII: 8, pp. 233, 244
April 21, 1988

Nakedness

By Ronny Milliner

Nakedness is shameful. Isaiah 47:3a says, “Your nakedness shall be uncovered, Yes, your shame will be seen.” Nahum

3:5b reads, “I will show the nations your nakedness, And the kingdoms your shame.” Notice the parallelism in both of these verses where “shame” is parallel to “nakedness.” The prophet Micah wrote, “Pass by in naked shame, you inhabitant of Shaphir” (Mic. 1:11a). The New Testament book of prophecy records, “Blessed is he who watches, and keeps his garments, lest he walk naked and they see his shame” (Rev. 16:15b). The exposure of the nakedness of Noah was a shameful incident in his life (Gen. 9:20-27).

In spite of this clear teaching regarding the shamefulness of nakedness, many folks today do not hesitate to engage in this sin. We want to notice three types of nakedness in our age.

The Nakedness of Pornography

Did you know that adult bookstores in our country outnumber McDonald’s restaurants three-to-one? There are more than 1,000 different pornographic magazines. The Playboy Channel services nearly 20 million homes. During one year’s sale of six million video cassettes 20 percent of them were pornographic. One “daily-a-porn” service has more than 220,000 calls a day. Pornography in our country is a $6 billion-a-year business.

Surely no one will deny that pornography is based on lust. Such lust is licentiousness and “those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God” (Gal. 5:19-21). Such “passion of lust” is not to be a part of the Christian’s life (1 Thess. 4:5; Rom. 13:13). Jesus warns us of this sin in Matthew 5:28, “But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.”

In this matter it would do us good to be like Job. He said, “I have made a covenant with my eyes; Why then should I look upon a young woman? . . . If my heart has been enticed by a woman, Or if I have lurked at my neighbor’s door, Then let my wife grind for another, And let others bow down over her. For that would be wickedness; Yet it would be iniquity worthy of judgment. For that would be a fire that consumes to destruction, And would root out all my increase” (Job 31:1,9-12).

The Nakedness of Immodesty

God had a great concern for the modesty of his priests under the Law of Moses. In Exodus 20:26 he said, “Nor shall you go up by steps to My altar, that your nakedness not be exposed on it.” In Exodus 28:42 the requirement was, “And you shall make for them linen trousers to cover their nakedness; they shall reach from the waist to the thighs.” Penalty for disobedience on this point was death (Exod. 28-43).

We who are Christians are God’s priests today (1 Pet. 2:5,9), and he is just as concerned for our modesty (1 Tim. 2:19-10). Many Christians who may recognize the shame of the nakedness of pornography, fail to recognize the shame of the nakedness of immodesty. Because they are briefly dressed and not completely naked, they do not think such passages apply to them.

These brothers and sisters need to learn that nakedness is not necessarily complete nudity. The Hebrew word erom is defined, “naked, either as without clothing or stripped of the outer or peculiar garment designating brethren to prove that there is an indwelling of the Holy Spirit. They give human testimony, the evidence of experience, to affirm that they have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. The passages of Scripture are misinterpreted and human testimony is invalid, subjective evidence.

Consider Adam and Eve. When God came to speak to them after their sin they hid themselves. God inquired as to the reason for this action. Adam’s reply was, “I heard your voice in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; and I hid myself” (Gen. 3:8). This statement was made after they had sown “fig leaves together and made themselves coverings” (Gen. 3:7). Men take note! Here was a man clothed in what would probably be similar to modern swimming trunks and yet he said he was naked. Women are not the only ones that can be guilty of immodesty.

Or look at the case of Peter in John 21:7b. The passage reads, “Now when Simon Peter heard that it was the Lord, he put on his outer garment (for he had removed it), and plunged into the sea.” M.R. Vincent commenting on the verse said, “NAKED. Not absolutely, but clothed merely in his undergarment or shirt” (Vol. 1, p. 512). Yes, we too can be considered naked though partially clothed. And remember that nakedness is shameful.

The Nakedness of Spiritual Uncommittedness

The church at Laodicea was guilty of the sin of lukewarmness (Rev. 3:15-16). Jesus describes them in this condition as being “naked” (Rev. 3:17) and advises them to buy “white garments, that you may be clothed, that the shame of your nakedness may not be revealed” (Rev. 3:18). Later in the book, he says, “Behold, I am coming as a thief. Blessed is he who watches, and keeps his garments, lest he walk naked and they see his shame” (Rev. 3:16). What are these garments? Revelation 19:8b answers, “the fine linen is the righteous acts of the saints. “

There are Christians who would be quick to condemn pornography and the sisters for their short dresses who themselves are also guilty of nakedness. They are not out trying to teach the lost, restore the erring, encourage the weak, or help their neighbor. Their “righteous acts” are brief and as far as God is concerned they are naked. These ones also need to buy the “white garments.”

Conclusion

In Luke 8:26-39 we read of the story of the demon-possessed man of Gadarea. This man was said to be one who “wore no clothes, nor did he live in a house but in the tombs” (Lk. 8:27). Jesus healed the man by casting the demons out of him and into a herd of swine. After his healing he was said to be “sitting at the feet of Jesus, clothed and in his right mind” (Lk. 8:35). Are you in your right mind? Don’t be guilty of the sin of nakedness.

Guardian of Truth XXXII: 9, pp. 257, 279
May 5, 1988

A Disciple Of Jesus

By Kieran Murphy

Jesus came into the world in order to save it (cf. Jn. 3:16-17; Lk. 19:10; 1 Tim. 1:10; 2:3-6). It is not surprising, therefore, to see him appealing to mankind to come unto him so that they could have rest for their souls. “Come to Me, all who are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest. Take My yoke upon you, and learn from Me, for I am gentle and humble in heart; and you shall find rest for your souls. For My yoke is easy, and my load is light” (Matt. 11:28-30).

Sooner or later every human being will find himself caught by unexpected changes in life that leave him sorrowing, burdened, anguished and frustrated” (Harold Fowler, The Gospel of Matthew, Vol. 2, p. 572). This invitation, then, is truly an invitation to us all. Jesus invites us, the “weary and heavy-laden” to come and learn from him. He promises that those who respond to this invitation will find rest for their souls.

As a result of this invitation many followed him, seeking to become his disciples. Even today as the invitation continues to be made, the down trodden and those burdened with sin are flocking to him; and this is good! For who but Jesus can give rest to the soul?

But as the multitude was coming, seeking to attach themselves to him as disciples, Jesus warned them that they could not be his disciples without cost to themselves.

“Now great multitudes were going along with Him; and He turned and said to them, ‘If anyone comes to Me, and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple. Whoever does not carry his own cross and come after Me cannot be My disciple. . . So therefore, no one of you can be My disciple who does not give up all his own possessions'” (Lk. 14:25-27, 33; cf. Matt. 10:34-39; Lk. 9:23-26).

The Lord wanted men to follow him. But he did not want anyone to rush into this without first counting the cost. In these verses he informs all would-be disciples that their loyalty to him must be absolute. When a choice must be made between his will or . . . Jesus must always come out first. If one is not willing to be totally committed to Jesus he cannot be one of his disciples.

The Lord spoke first of the choice that he expected his people to make between their families and him. “If anyone comes to Me, and does not hate his own father . . . he cannot be My disciple” (14:26). Even with Matthew’s commentary on what it means to “hate” one’s family (i.e., to love them less than Jesus – 10:37), this saying scarcely loses any of its severity. For it still demands that when a choice is to be made between the will of our family and the Lord’s will, the disciple must always choose the Lord.

“But didn’t Jesus understand the natural affection that people have for their families?” Of course he did! It was for this reason that he said what he did. Even before circumstances demanded that they choose between him and their families, the Lord wanted these would-be disciples to know what he would expect of them. They were to put him first; they were to love him more than they loved their families. Those not prepared to do this disqualified themselves from being his disciples.

In Luke 9 Jesus gives another condition for discipleship. He said, “If anyone wishes to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily and follow Me” (v. 23).

The Greek word translated “deny” (arneomai) has several shades of meaning. Yet each time that it is used in the Scriptures the underlying thought is that something has been rejected or repudiated. Thus, when Jesus says that one must “deny himself” he means that one must reject self; he must no longer live a selfish life, a life where he puts his own personal interests first.

By his own life Jesus teaches what it means to deny self.

1. John 12:27f: He did not asked to be delivered from the most difficult aspect of his work, instead he submitted himself to God’s rule.

2. John 7:16: His teaching was not even original. He taught only what his father authorized him to teach.

3. John 17:4: Jesus glorified the Father because he did the work which the Father had sent him to do.

Paul also spoke of Jesus’ self denial when he wrote: “For even Christ did not please Himself; but as it is written. ‘The reproaches of those who reproached Thee fell upon Me'” (Rom. 15:3).

Jesus lived a life of self denial. He stepped down from life’s throne, laying both crown and scepter at the Father’s feet and submitted his whole life to his control (Fowler, Vol. 3, p. 566). This is what Jesus demands of those who would be his disciples. They must give up self rule. They must deny themselves the right to be their own master and submit entirely to his lordship, even if such submission is unpleasant and/or inconvenient. If one “serves” only when it is convenient and pleasant he has not denied himself; neither is he the Lord’s disciple.

Jesus informs those desiring to be his disciples that they must remain in his word. It is only as men do this that they are “truly” his disciples. “If you abide in My word, then you are truly disciples of Mine; and you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free” (John 8:31-32). Paul reveals that it was for this that Jesus died, so that those who “live” as a result of his death might stop living for their own pleasure, but for the pleasure of him who died on their behalf (2 Cor. 5:15).

One who is not willing to give Jesus the full control of his life cannot be his disciple. For “whatever” the true disciple does, whether “in word or deed” he does “in the name of the Lord Jesus” (Col. 3:17).

Being a disciple of Christ is not without cost. It is not always attractive to follow him. Sometimes it is even unattractive (cf. 1 Cor. 4:9-14; 2 Cor. 11:23-27). But for those willing to pay the price the blessings make the sacrifice seem as nothing.

Therefore we do not lose heart, but though our outer man is decaying, yet our inner man is being renewed day by day. For momentary, light affliction is producing for us an eternal weight of glory far beyond all comparison, while we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen; for the things which are seen are temporal, but the things which are not seen are eternal (2 Cor. 4:16-18; cf. Rom. 8:18).

Guardian of Truth XXXII: 8, pp. 239, 247
April 21, 1988