Lux Lucet

Ahab and Jehoshaphat listen to Michiah.

“Should you help the wicked,” asked the prophet of the defeated and humiliated king upon his return to Jerusalem, “and love those who hate the LORD?” The prophet was Jehu.  The king was Jehoshaphat.  The occasion was the aftermath of a crushing defeat inflicted by the Syrians on the allied armies of Israel and Judah.

Jehoshaphat was a godly man; one of the few good kings Judah ever had.  But in spite of this, he made a major spiritual and strategic mistake in seeking alliance with Ahab, the evil king of Israel.  I Kings 22 and 2 Chron. 18 provide the details of the alliance.  Jehoshaphat went on a state visit to see Ahab in Samaria, the capital of the northern kingdom.  During the visit, Ahab persuaded Jehoshaphat to join him in a grand alliance of Israel and Judah and to make war against the Syrians, all for the purpose of recapturing for Israel territory that had been lost to Syria earlier.  In other words, it was an Old Testament version of a crusade against the infidel.

Jehoshaphat made several errors that led to his defeat.  The first of which was that he, apparently, did not consult  the Lord before traveling to Israel to meet with Ahab.  The Scriptural record shows no evidence of Jehoshaphat ever seeking the Lord’s counsel as to whether he should go to Samaria.  It appears that he did this on his own.

Jehoshaphat’s second mistake was not heeding the voice of the Lord when it became clear that the military alliance would end in disaster.  The prophet Michiah plainly told Ahab in  Jehoshaphat’s hearing that the offensive against Syria would fail miserably.  His words were, “I saw all Israel scattered on the mountains, as sheep that have no shepherd” (I Kings 22:17).  Jehoshaphat heard all of this, and yet followed Ahab into battle anyway.

In all this, Jehoshaphat also managed to serve as Ahab’s dupe.  Ahab reacted angrily to Michiah’s prophesy of defeat at the hands of Syria, but he had the good sense to hedge his bets.  When Ahab and Jehoshaphat went into battle, Ahab disguised himself, but told Jehoshaphat to wear his royal robes.  Jehoshaphat did so, and nearly lost his life when the Syrians mistook him for the king of Israel, against whom they had been ordered to fight.

Jehoshaphat’s third mistake was his importing of a ticking time bomb, albeit one that wouldn’t explode until many years later.  In the words of Scripture, “by marriage he [Jehoshaphat] allied himself with Ahab” (2 Chron. 18:2).  By this is meant that Jehoshaphat took Athaliah, the daughter of Ahab and Jezebel, and gave her as wife to his son Jehoram, the man who was to succeed Jehoshaphat on the throne of Judah.  Taking a cue from her mother Jezebel, Athaliah goaded her husband Jehoram into promoting idolatry in Judah (2 Kings 8:18).  Further, as a good pagan feminist, she later nearly killed off the Davidic dynasty in the process of setting up her own monstrous regiment in Judah, where she reigned for seven years (2Kings 11).

In summary, the alliance with Ahab was a disaster for Jehoshaphat personally and for Judah nationally in several ways.

• The wicked were strengthened (Ahab and ultimately the Syrians)
• The righteous suffered (Michiah was ignored and returned to prison), and the Davidic heirs to the throne were slaughtered
• Many were needlessly killed in battle (the Scriptures do not mention casualty figures from the failed attack on Syria, but one supposes they were significant)
• Jehoshaphat suffered the humiliation of defeat
• The alliance with Ahab became part of Jehoshaphat’s permanent record, and his reign was in part judged by this act (1 Kings 22:44)
• The wrath of God came upon him as a result of his alliance with the evil Ahab
• The marriage alliance he arranged between his son Jehoram and Ahab’s daughter Athaliah brought Baal worship into the highest levels of Judean society, nearly resulted in the extirpation of the Davidic dynasty, and brought about the usurpation of the throne David by a pagan woman.

It is typical of the goodness of God that he not only reveals to us what is right in his Word, but he also provides many examples of what happens to those who heed his voice and those who do not.  The reign of Jehoshaphat is  the account of a godly man who made a serious mistake.  One of the great lessons Christians can take from this is the importance of separating themselves from evil.  Failure to do so can have unforeseen consequences for themselves and those around them.

Jehoshaphat’s Heirs

The story of Jehoshaphat is not the only warning in Scripture about the importance of Christians avoiding ecumenical alliances.  Jesus warned his disciples against the leaven of the Pharisees and Saducees (Matt. 16:6).  Paul enjoined the Ephesians to have, “no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather expose them” (Eph.5:11).  The apostle John commands his readers not to associate with false teachers.  For in doing so, he tells them, they will become responsible for that man’s sins.  John’s words are, “If anyone comes to you and does not bring this doctrine [the doctrine of Christ], do not receive him into your house nor greet him; for he who greets him shares in his evil deeds” (2 John 10, 11).

Billy Graham and John Paul II in 1981. In 1994, Graham was quoted as saying, “I have found that my beliefs are essentially the same as those of orthodox Roman Catholics.”

One would suppose that Scripture’s many clear commandments to separate from evil, not to mention the examples of evil fruit produced when God’s people fail to do so, would be sufficient warning for Christians today to avoid falling into the same trap Jehoshaphat did.  But such is not the case.  In fact, the Evangelical church at the beginning of the 21st century is steeped in a decades long dalliance with an evil power far exceeding that of Ahab.  I speak of Evangelicalism’s long running ecumenical alliance with the papal Antichrist.  An alliance which has produced an appalling amount of evil fruit already, some of which is detailed in my previous posts Must Christians Defend the Crusades and Must Christians Defend the Inquisition, with the promise of more evil fruit to follow.

Far from being an ally in the culture war, Rome is the devil’s masterpiece.  Yet many Christian ministers naively seem to think that they can do  the Lord’s work by yoking in ministry with the Babylonian Harlot.  But just as nothing good came from Jehoshaphat’s foolish alliance with Ahab, so too will nothing good come from Protestants’ yoking with Rome to fight a culture war against the secularists or a new crusade against the Islamists.  Below are some examples of the evil fruit produced when Evangelicals ally themselves with Antichrist.

Helping the Wicked     

Drink the Kool-Aid has become a common saying in our time, but one suspects many of those who use it are

Jim Jones. Leader of the People’s Temple cult.

unaware of its origin.  It comes from tragic case in 1978, when over 900 followers of the People’s Temple cult committed suicide by drinking cyanide laced Kool-Aid.  This was all done at the order of cult leader Jim Jones.  It wasn’t the Kool-Aid that killed people.  Kook-Aid by itself is fine.  It was its mixture with cyanide that caused the deaths.  Kool-Aid has nothing to gain from cyanide, but cyanide has everything to gain from Kool-Aid.

In like fashion, the righteous have nothing to gain from evil, but evil stands to gain much from the righteous.  When Barak Obama made his remarks at the National Prayer Breakfast, saying that evils such as the Crusades and the Inquisition were carried out in the name of Christ, it wasn’t the Romanists lining up to take the first swing at the president.  No.  The defense of the mass torture, rape and murder carried out by Rome in its Crusades and Inquisition was taken up willingly, willingly!, by Rome’s Evangelical dupes, who rushed to defend the honor of the Harlot of the seven hills.

Just as Jehoshaphat had nothing to gain from Ahab, Evangelicals have nothing to gain from defending the murderous crimes of the papal Antichrist.  When Evangelical ministers explain away the vileness of the Inquisition, they serve as Kool-Aid to Rome’s cyanide. When will these people ever learn?  When will they stop playing the willing dupe?

Confusing the Faithful

In his first epistle to the Corinthians, the apostle Paul talked about the need for churches to be clear in their teaching.  The immediate context of his remark was a rebuke to the Corinthian church for its disorderly use of tongues.  But what he said about the need for clarity has application to other areas of Christian doctrine and practice as well.  Paul words were,

Even things without life, whether flute or harp, when they make a sound, unless they make a distinction in the sounds, how will it be known what is piped or played?  For if the trumpet makes an uncertain sound, who will prepare for battle?” (1 Cor.14:7, 8)

The contemporary Evangelical church has gone severely, and I mean severely, wrong on the subject of Eschatology.  We have rejected the Historicism of the Reformation that correctly identified Antichrist as the papacy and the Roman Catholic Church-State as the Babylonian Harlot.  In its place, churches now teach either  Premillennial Dispensationalism or Postmillennialism, both of which are constructs of the Jesuits.  These false eschatologies, cobbled together during the Counterreformation to deflect criticism of Rome, have been wildly successful at putting the faithful off the scent of Antichrist.

Because they operate from a false eschatological framework, confused ministers are rendered incapable of identifying the works of Antichrist, even when they are, so to speak, hit over the head with them.  At least Barak Obama was not so confused about the evil nature of the Inquisition and the Crusades as to offer some lame defense of them as did Southern Baptist minister Robert Jeffress.

When Christian ministers fail to teach a competent, Biblical eschatology to their congregations, when they fail to properly identify the works of Antichrist, when they refuse to identify the church of Rome as “Mystery, Babylon the Great, The Mother of Harlots and of the Abominations of the Earth,” their trumpet makes an uncertain sound.  They are confused and they lead their flocks into confusion as well.  It is the blind leading the blind.

Guilt by Association

One of the little appreciated teachings of Scripture is that it is possible to become guilty by association.  In the passage from 2 John cited above, the apostle clearly tells us to avoid false teachers, so as to keep from becoming responsible for their sins.  When Evangelicals join in ministry efforts with Rome, sign ecumenical documents with Romanists, or defend the atrocities of the Roman Catholic Church-State, they share in the manifold sins of Rome.  or my part, I have enough sins of my own for which I need forgiveness.  I don’t need to import the sins of others.

Bringing the Wrath of God Upon Themselves and the Nation           

When he rebuked Jehoshaphat for his alliance with Ahab, the prophet Jehu told him, “Therefore the wrath of the LORD is upon you” (2 Chron. 20:4).  It is no small thing when God’s people join with his enemies.  God is not mocked; he will surely bring his fatherly correction to bear upon his erring sons.  It seems to this author that he has already done this, but most still have not gotten the message.

If you don’t think so, consider all the effort, time and money exerted by the religious right over the past 40 years.  I recall the rise of the Christian right in the 70’s with Jerry Falwell and his Moral Majority.  From that day until this, probably billions of dollars have been spent by Christians in an effort to return the nation to its Christian roots.  But what do they have to show for their efforts.  Abortion is still available on demand.  The Constitution is ignored.  Our nation’s finances are a disaster and becoming more so all the time.  Our enemies continue to multiply, while our foreign policy stumbles from one humiliating defeat to another.  Our freedoms continue to shrink.  The police state continues to grow.  Our pop-culture is an embarrassing cesspool.  Gay marriage is sweeping the nation.

Exactly what, I ask, has the ecumenical religious right ever conserved?  It would seem that the answer is nothing at all.  The Bible tells us that the double-minded man should expect to receive nothing from the Lord.  Yet double-minded ecumenical Evangelicals continue to ask God’s blessing on their efforts at the same time they partner with and defend the Roman Catholic Antichrist.  It is any wonder their efforts have been a failure?

Loss of Credibility in the Eyes of Men

Obama at the National Prayer Breakfast

In an ironic twist, the words of President Barak Obama at the National Prayer Breakfast were actually more accurate and less damaging to the cause of Christ than those of many Evangelicals who rose up to rebuke him.  The snippet of Obama’s speech that caused the most uproar went as follows,

Unless we get on our high horse and think that this is unique to some other place, remember that during the Crusades and Inquisition, people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ.  In our home country, slavery and Jim Crow all too often was justified in the name of Christ.

Saying that an evil is committed in the name of Christ is not the same thing as saying that Christianity is the cause of that evil.  Simply because something is done in the name of Christ does not mean that it is sanctioned by Christ.  We even have an example of this in Scripture.  Take Jesus’ comments in the Sermon on the Mount where he said,

Not everyone who says to Me, “Lord, Lord,” shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven.  Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’  And then I will declare to them, “I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’ (Matt. 7:21-23)

Very clearly, these men did many good works in the name of Christ, works far greater than most Christians will ever do, yet they were forever cast into hell.  Simply because a man does a work in the name of Christ does not mean he is a Christian.  It does not mean it reflects the commands of the Scriptures.  One supposes there will be those on Judgment Day who will plead their case saying, “Lord, Lord, did we not go on crusade in your name, torture heretics in your name, burn infidels at the stake in your name,”  only to hear a dreadful “I never knew you” from the lips of Jesus.

It is true that Barak Obama is no friend of Evangelicals.  His comments while campaigning for president in 2008 about small town folks who get bitter and cling to their guns and religion showed his contempt for ordinary Americans.

Given his dislike for Evangelicals,  it may be correct to understand his comments at that National Prayer Breakfast as accusing Christianity of producing the Crusades, the Inquisition and slavery.  But instead of reflexively jumping up and denouncing Obama’s comments as antichristian, Protestants would have been better served to parse his comments and show that Bible, far from sanctioning these activities, roundly denounces them.  They could have pointed out that the Crusades and the Inquisition were the works of Antichrist, not Christianity.  And that even southern slavery had the support of Rome (the pope favored the South), and that it was through the efforts of Christians that slavery was ended in the western world.

But instead of making a courageous, logically sound, Biblical argument in defense of the Christian faith, they discredited themselves in their lame attempt to explain away the heinous evils of the Crusades, the Inquisition and slavery.  The president’s remarks were far closer to the truth than much of what was said by Christianity’s so-called defenders.  At least Obama didn’t soft peddle the evils of the Inquisition the way Robert Jeffress did on the Bill O’Reilly show.  When Christianity is defended by such grossly incompetent arguments as the one put forth by Jeffress, is it any wonder that Christians and Christianity are held in such low esteem by the unbelieving world?  When will Evangelicals learn to stop shooting themselves in the foot?

Loss of Reward in Heaven         

Contrary to what is taught in many churches today, the heavenly rewards enjoyed by believers in eternity will not be the same.  Some will enjoy a greater, and others a lesser, felicity.  Among the clearest passages in the Bible on this subject is 1 Cor.3:9-15.  The passage reads,

For we are God’s fellow workers; you are God’s field, you are God’s building.  According to the grace of God which was given to me, as a wise master builder I have laid the foundation, and another builds on it.  But let each one take heed how he builds on it.  For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.  Now if anyone builds on this foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw, each one’s work will become clear; for the Day will declare it, because it will be revealed by fire ; and the fire will test each one’s work, of what sort it is.  If anyone ‘s work which he has built on it endures, he will receive a reward.  If anyone’s work is burned, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire.

Admittedly, I’ve picked on Robert Jeffress a bit in the last few posts.  And in all honesty, he deserves the criticism.  But this should not be taken as an attempt to read him out of the church.  I am in no position to judge whether he is saved or not.  As a sinner saved by grace alone, my desire is to be charitable to those who credibly name the name of Christ.  And as the case of Jehoshaphat shows, godly men can make serious mistakes.  But while their mistakes do not bar them from heaven, they do negatively affect their heavenly reward.

When Christians such as Jeffress defend the works or Antichrist, they are building on the foundation of Jesus Christ with wood, hay and straw.  And we have it on the inspired Word of God that such work will be burned up on the Day of Judgment, and that the workers who produced it will suffer loss for their shoddy workmanship.   As the author of Hebrews tells us, God is a rewarder of those who diligently seek him.  And even though we do not know specifically what all is entailed by the promised reward, we have it on the Word of God that any suffering Christians endure in this life pale in comparison to what they will receive in heaven (Rom.8:18).  This alone should serve as incentive to speak the truth about the deeds of the Roman Catholic Church-State.

A Personal Testimony

The ecumenical movement, which has grown by leaps and bounds over the past 50 years, has produced much evil fruit.  Some of that evil fruit I have detailed above.  But while Evangelical/Roman Catholic ecumenism has been for the propagation of the Gospel,  God in his grace still brings good out of it.  In my case, it was Chuck Colson’s appalling Evangelicals and Catholics Together that, oddly enough, helped lead me to Christ. Please let me explain what I mean by this.

I grew up in the Campbellite Church of Christ and was taught that one’s salvation depended upon water baptism an obedience. In order to be saved, I was told that one had to repent, confess his sins, believe on the Lord Jesus Christ (these first three steps were all done on one’s own steam), be baptized (at this point one was regenerated by the Holy Spirit) and finally obey.  Any Christian reading this will immediately recognize that this “gospel” has nothing to do with the Biblical doctrine of salvation by grace alone, through faith alone, on account of Christ’s righteousness alone.  It is a works based “gospel” that is no Gospel at all.

Due in part to some changes at the Church of Christ I attended, I eventually left and spent several years going from church to church without really finding a home.  During this whole time, I was an active reader of politics and had a subscription to William Buckley’s National Review.   I was never very comfortable with the magazine’s Catholic tilt, but stuck with it anyway.  One day in the mid nineties, I read a book review in an issue of the

Evangelicals and Catholics Together

magazine about a new book called Evangelicals and Catholics Together:  Toward a Common Mission by Chuck Colson.  Although the review was glowing, I was skeptical that this could be a good thing.  With some apprehension, I was persuaded to buy a copy for myself.  When I read through it, I was horrified.  It was obvious, even to one who knew almost nothing about Christian theology, that Colson and his fellow evangelicals were completely selling out to the Romanists.

But what bothered me even more that the resounding Romanist victory represented by Evangelicals and Catholics Together was my own inability to identify the theological problems with the book.  If one had pressed me to explain why I thought Evangelicals and Catholics was a bad idea, my response would have been something along the lines of, “because it’s just wrong!”  I knew I needed to do better, so I began to search for answers in earnest.  I began to read the Bible regularly and for the first time started to read reformed authors.  It was through the study of Scripture and reading reformed commentary – R.C. Sproul’s Faith Alone, a critique of Evangelicals and Catholics Together, was the biggest influence on me during this period –  that I was saved.

It’s always seemed a bit odd to me that reading Chuck Colson’s book – which was nothing more than a betrayal of the Reformation, a betrayal of the Gospel, and a betrayal of Christ himself – was key to driving me to the cross.  It is, I suppose, a rather unusual personal testimony.  But God in his wisdom and power can bring about good, even from the most unlikely sources.

Conclusion

The Westminster Larger Catechism properly identifies the misinterpretation and misapplication of Scripture as sins.   Under Question 113, “What sins are forbidden in the third commandment?,” we read, “The sins forbidden in the third commandment are…misinterpreting, misapplying or in any way perverting the word [of God], or any part of it.”  By force of logic, this includes the eschatological passages of Scripture,  this includes those that refer to Antichrist and to his works, this includes those passages that point to the identity of the Babylonian Mother of Harlots.  When Christian ministers fail to teach sound eschatology, when they substitute Jesuit teaching about the end times for that of the Reformation, not only do they sin, but they lead others to sin as well and the whole church into confusion and failure.

Eschatology is not the first doctrine of Christianity.  That place is properly held by the doctrine of Scripture.  Nevertheless, eschatology is part of the whole counsel of God.  And to the degree that ministers ignore it, or misunderstand it, to the degree that they pass their errors along to their congregations, to that degree do they unfit themselves and unfit the church of God to fight the good fight of faith to which Christians are called.  The eschatological teaching of most ministers today amounts to little more than theological malpractice.  By the grace of God, we must do better.