Putting The Idea of “Love Your Enemies” In A Larger Biblical Context

And Jehu the son of Hanani the seer went out to meet him, and said to king Jehoshaphat, Shouldest thou help the ungodly, and love them that hate the LORD? therefore is wrath upon thee from before the LORD. 

2 Chronicles 19:2

A little context here.

King Jehoshaphat is recorded in Scripture for his beginning faithfulness to God. At the beginning he is seen as a good King of Judah due to his efforts to extirpate the land of Judah of idolatry. Eventually, though Jehoshaphat makes political alliance with King Ahab of the Northern Kingdom. This tarnished the reputation of Jehoshaphat. Here in this passage God rebukes Jehoshaphat for his alliance with wicked King Ahab via Jehu.

The rebuke comes in the way of a rhetorical question;

“Should you help the wicked and love those who hate the LORD?

Note the question is one that isn’t intended to require a great deal of time to think on the proper answer. The question itself screams the obvious intended response of; “No, you should not help the wicked and love those who hate the Lord.”

King Ahab was guilty of vast wickedness including the wickedness of leading the Northern Kingdom into idolatry (I Kings. 16:30-33). Inasmuch as Jehoshaphat was leaguing with Ahab, Jehoshaphat was supporting  Abhab’s opposition to God. Jehoshaphat, had, in later Biblical language, become unequally yoked and God was so displeased His wrath came upon Jehoshaphat.

In the OT God’s wrath communicates steadfast opposition, divine displeasure, and corrective judgment against those who have been unfaithful to His covenant. This wrath has the intent, in the OT, to lead to repentance and eventual return to covenantal faithfulness. In this passage we find taught;

1.) That Jehoshaphat’s disobedience in helping the ungodly and loving them that hate the Lord was no small thing.

2.) That God chastens those He loves. God is correcting Jehoshaphat by declaring, through Jehu, His opposition (Wrath) to Jehoshaphat’s actions. The intent here is to recall Jehoshaphat to His first love.

Note though, that in all this that Jehoshaphat’s sin was in helping the wicked and loving those that hate the Lord.

Allow me to say that again;

Jehoshaphat’s sin was the sin of helping the wicked to succeed combined with loving those that hate the Lord.

I repeated this because it is my conviction that the modern Reformed / Evangelical church have misconstrued the command;

“To love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you and pray for those who spitefully use you.” (Matthew 5:44)

Clearly, whatever Matthew 5:44 means, it can’t contradict II Chronicles 19:2.

Also consider that it is not like II Chronicles 19:2 exists in an exegetical vacuum. Elsewhere in Scripture we are told;

Blessed is the man Who walks not in the counsel of the ungodly, Nor stands in the path of sinners, Nor sits in the seat of the scornful;

Psalm 1:1

I look at the faithless with disgust, because they do not keep your commands.

Psalm 119:158

Do I not hate them, O LORD, who hate You? And do I not loathe those who rise up against You?

Psalm 139:1-2

Love must be free of hypocrisy. Detest what is evil; cling to what is good.

Romans 12:9

And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather expose them.

Ephesians 5:11

It seems the only solution to this apparent contradiction is that we are to love our own personal enemies while not helping the wicked combined with hating those who hate the Lord Christ.

Now, one would hope that we would not have any personal enemies who are not also God’s enemies. However, if you have ever been a member of a church very long, you know that fellow members will sometimes be personal enemies of each other. Even in Scripture we see this. Paul and Barnabas have a falling out(sharp disagreement) regarding the usefulness of John Mark (Acts 15:26-41). In Philippians 4:2-3, the Apostle Paul addresses a conflict between two women, Euodia and Syntyche, urging them to agree in the Lord. In these situations the requirement is Matthew 5:44.

However, when it comes to the ungodly who hate the Lord we are to hate them and not help them in their prosecution of their wicked agendas. This is what II Chronicles 19:2 explicitly teaches.

The ironic truth here though is that by not helping the wicked who hate the Lord and by hating them that hate the Lord we are in point of fact loving them. It is not love to not oppose and not hate the wicked. If we show love to the wicked, in the way it is now defined in our amoral culture, we are communicating that we sanction their wickedness and hatred of God. Only by a decided opposition to the wicked, can we demonstrate love to those who hate the Lord.

The analogy here is found in correcting our children. When our children are disobedient we chasten them… we oppose them. We do not show our love to them by giving in to their opposition to us or by aiding their disobedience. We correct them, and by correcting them (opposing them) we are demonstrating our love for them.

The same is true of on the subject of helping to advance the agenda of those who hate the Lord. It should not be said that we, as Christians, are guilty of loving those who hate the Lord, unless that love is communicated by a steady opposition to the wicked.

Christians have to start re-thinking this subject because legion is the name of Christians who thinking they are doing a positive good by aiding and abetting (helping the wicked) those who illegal immigrants who have invaded our country. We see from this text in II Chronicles 19:2 that it raises the ire of the Lord to help the wicked and to love those who hate the Lord. If Christians do not begin to re-think this subject we will be slaves to Christ-haters in the land built by our Christ loving forebears.

Codicil

None of this is to communicate that when our Trannie next door neighbor, who teaches at the local library during Queer Time Story hour, is dreadfully ill that we should not bring him some chicken broth soup in order to help him in his sickness. I am not denying that we should rake the leaves of the elderly who never repented of sending their children to government schools. I am not denying here that Christians should do good to all men. I am merely arguing that “there is a time and a place for everything under the sun.”

Bahnsen Picks Apart Thomism

“Disagreeing with the natural man’s interpretation of himself as the ultimate reference point, the reformed apologist must seek his point of contact with the natural man, and that which is beneath the threshold of his working consciousness, and the sense of deity which he seeks to suppress. And to do this, the reformed apologist must also seek a point of contact with the systems constructed by the natural man. But this point of contact must be in the nature of a head-on collision.”

Dr. Greg Bahnsen
Always Ready: Directions for Defending the Faith

1.) This succinctly explains why the Thomistic Natural Law fanboys and the Presuppositional Fanboys are never going to get along. The Thomistic chaps never challenge the natural man’s interpretation of himself as the ultimate reference point for what is and what is not true. Thomism leaves the natural man in his self relaxed repose continuing to think of himself as he who is the determiner of truth instead of realizing that the natural man must be converted so that he only sees himself as a reinterpreter of God’s interpretation of truth. This goes back to the maxim that man must be converted so that he can say with the Psalmist, “In thy light we see light.” The Thomist leaves the natural man in a place where even after a putative conversion he says instead, “In my light I see light.” Thomism leaves the natural man as an “I” that has not yet seen itself in submission in a “I-Thou” relationship to God. Conversion, must mean that the natural man is not the ultimate reference point in terms of determining the nature of reality. He must own God as His ultimate reference point. The Natural Laws chaps fail miserably in this regard and so must be challenged.

2.) The Natural Man does not want what is beneath the working threshold of his consciousness to be challenged. When the Christian apologist does this the Natural Man recoils because it necessarily means that his worldview furniture is going to be busted up. The Natural Man like his Worldview living room arrangements and he resents when the presuppositional apologists shows up to tear up the furniture of his self-centered thinking.  I suspect this accounts as a large reason why the Thomists yet today in the Reformed world are so aggravated by the presuppositionalists. We stand as a rebuke to their man-centered thinking.

3.) Van Til used to say that any God reasoned to via the means of natural theology was not the God of the Bible. In the same way, any God reasoned to by the Natural Man as not yet removed from his place of “the ultimate reference point” is not the God of the Bible. Now, I am willing to concede that a babe in Christ may indeed be converted without understanding this but someone who grows in Christ will at some point have to give themselves up as the ultimate reference point of reality and be consistent with their conversion. Many Thomists have yet to surrender this.

4.) Note Bahnsen’s reference to evangelism as worldview collision. This is in marked contrast to decades of Evangelicals being taught that Evangelism has to be a bridge building process where we approach the dead in sins sinner and say things like; “Now, see here, you believe in good and bad and I believe in good and bad and so we have this in common. Now all you need to do is to add Jesus and you will be converted.” Bahnsen, following Van Til here, says 1000 times “NO.” Evangelism is not a bridge building exercise. Evangelism is a head on collision and it is a head on collision because of the radically opposed starting points. It is a head on collision because the Natural Man starts with himself as his ultimate reference point while the Biblical Christian starts with God as his ultimate reference point. The differences cannot be anymore stark. The Natural Man proceeds from the authority of self. The Christian proceeds from the authority of not-self (God). Since that is so all that is possible is collision if each participant in the discussion is to be true to his or her starting point.

5.) This means that the discussion can only proceed along hypothetical lines. The Christ believer enters into the worldview of the Christ-hater for the sake of argument but only with the purpose of soon exposing the contradiction in their thinking. For example; “I see you say you believe in good and bad. That is very good. But tell me, what is the foundation or standard for your categories of ‘good,’ and ‘bad,’ except for your own authority if you do not believe in a transcendent ultimate reference point (God) beyond yourself? I may very well agree with you about what you label as good and bad I can account for my labeling of ‘good’ and ‘bad’ by appealing to God’s authority but your appeal to this idea of ‘good’ and ‘bad’ is only on the basis of your own say so. So, I must ask you, what makes your say so about ‘good’ and ‘bad’ categories any more authoritative than the Marquis de Sade’s authority of what constituted ‘good’ and ‘bad?’ Don’t you see my friend, you need a firmer foundation than your own determination. Only God in Christ can give you that firmer foundation and only by owning your sin of, to this point, being your own God in your life (your own ultimate reference point) can you be delivered from your captivity to this sin and so be free for the first time to have a true authority of ‘good,’ and ‘bad.'”

My friend, John Leonetti recently did a brief youtube citing this quote with an arresting illustration of worldview collision. It’s only 3 minutes long. You should have yourself a giggle at John’s illustration.

Charles Hodge On Ephesians 5… McAtee Extends the Principle

22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church.

More than a century ago Charles Hodge wrote some commentary on this Ephesians 5 text.

“She is to be subject in everything. That is the subjection is not limited to any one sphere or department of the social life, but extends to all. The wife is not subject as to some things and independent as to others but she is subject as to all. This of course does not mean that the authority of the husband is unlimited. It teaches its extent, not its degree. It extends over all departments but is limited in all; first by the nature of the relation, and secondly by the higher authority of God. No superior whether master, parent, husband, or magistrate can make it obligatory on us either to do what God forbids or not to do what God commands. So long as our allegiance to God is preserved an obedience to man is made a part of our obedience to Him, we retain our liberty and our integrity.”

In other words as Hodge said, all authority under God is conditional, and no authority can long exist apart from Him. It is conditional because in order for the authority to be authoritative that  authority cannot contravene or contradict God’s authority. The wife is to be subject to the husband in all things in which the husband is subject to God and His revelation. The same is true in all jurisdictional realms. The lay member is to be subject to the Elders in all things in which the Elders are subject to God and His revelation. The employee is to be subject to the employer in all things in which the Employer is in subjection to God. The children are to be subject to the parents in all things in which the parent is in subjection to God. The citizen or subject is to be subject to the Monarch in all things in which the monarch is in subjection to God. The Magistrate is to be subject to the citizen in all things in which the citizens are in subjection to God. Nobody has the authority to instruct others to disregard God’s higher authority. This is why it is errant exegesis to make Romans 13 or I Peter 2 teach that it is unbiblical to ever disobey Magistrates. When a Magistrate is reaching for a degree of authority that trumps God’s authority than obedience and duty requires us to disobey the disobedient authority. The same is true in the Church. The same is true in Marriage. The same is true in employment. The same is true in the Military. The same is true in the parent-child relationship.

Rev. Flyhart Dishing Out Alienist FlyShite

“The other thing I would say besides SSR and SPR is get rid of the adversative called ‘but,’ from your vocabulary when it comes to racism. I am so tired of talking to people about this issue and the first thing out of their mouths are, ‘but I am not a racist,’ Get rid of that. Or, ‘But have you seen the statistics.’ Ok, let’s just close our mouths white church and let’s learn, let’s listen let’s see life through a different set of eyes. I’m convinced as a white man who is 61 years old, that I have no idea what it is like to grow up as a person of color but I’m going to learn because my oldest son and his wife have adopted three biracial children. And it’s amazing. We are getting nailed by both sides. And I can’t wait (I’m sure it will involve some suffering) but to learn from these two (black) men (sitting behind me) and from all of their (black) congregations.”

PCA TE (Rev.) Bob Flayhart
Oak Mountain Presbyterian Church
Evangel Presbytery, Central Alabama
Said from the Pulpit during a church service

1.) These kinds of irrational outbursts are getting more and more common. This fact communicates that the Alienists are losing their grip. They see that the Marxist Overton window that has been in place for so long – a Marxist Overton Window that they have reinterpreted Christianity consistent with – is shifting against them and they are doing all they can to stop the Overton Window shift from moving in a historically Christian direction.

2.) All of Church history is against these clowns as the two 800 page Anthologies have demonstrated. (“Who Is My Neighbor” – 2nd edition & “A Survey Of Racialism In Christian Sacred Tradition.”)

3.) Realize what this logically vacuous 61 year old clergy is saying is that one should never, in response to his ridiculous assertions, ever respond with “but have you seen the evidence that reveals you’re saying painfully embarrassing things?” Further, you are not to respond by speaking things, in response to his dumb – really dumb colloquy, like “but according to God’s standard I am not a racist.” No, you are not to object at all when this 61 year old clergy comes to you slobbering out mindless tropes. You’re just supposed to mindlessly nod your head in agreement with this lobotomized outpatient.

4.) Christianity is a belief system of doctrines based upon the revelation of the triune God and His character as found in Holy Writ. If that belief system of doctrines is learned, owned, and constantly grown in, why do I have to know what it is like to grow up as a black person? Why would a black Christian ever have to know what it is like to grow up as a white person who has been, his whole life, had the bogus Marxist accusation of “racist” heaved at him? This whole idea that I can’t be an increasingly sanctified Biblical Christian unless I learn what it was like to grow up as a black person … or unless I appreciate what it is to struggle as an oppressed woman … or unless I know the struggles of growing up abused is just utter tripe born of the anti-Christ Marxist doctrine of intersectionality. Odds are that Rev. Bob Flyhart doesn’t even know what intersectionality is or that he is a practitioner of it.

5.) If the black men sitting behind him are Biblical Christians opposed to the flyshite coming out of Flyhart’s mouth, I can hope, along with Flyhart, that he has the capacity to learn from them also. However, I suspect that if they are at this church service sitting right in back of Flyhart as he speaks that they also are clueless as to what Biblical Christianity is.

6.) Oh, I’m sure Flyhart is going to learn. I suspect he is going to get his learning “good and hard.” I wonder if masochistic self-inflicted suffering contributes to sanctification? 

Darryl Gnostic Hart Says George Washington’s Wasn’t Successful Because He Prayed

“Washington was a general and he was successful as a soldier and a president not because he prayed.

Govt. is not Sunday school or church. and to roll back the perils you see afflicting young men in public schools, you want govt. to act. That’s why you talk about Xian govt.”

Darryl Gnostic Hart
Post on X

1.) Keep in mind that Hart is, after Doug Wilson, the king of dichotomy. We find another subtle one here. It is true that Washington was a general l and he was successful as a soldier and a president. However, before Washington was a successful soldier and president he was a man. Would Hart contend that Washington’s success as a man is not related at all because he prayed? And if we would account Washington’s success as a man, at least in part, to the fact that he prayed then it is indeed the case that on some level Washington’s success as a general and a president was because he prayed. Perhaps Hart would insist that prayer has nothing to do with a man’s success in whatever field he enters into. If Hart would insist that, I would contend that Hart is a defacto Deist. God makes men the way the are and the religious practices of a man — practices that originate in his embraced religion — have nothing to do with a man’s success in whatever field he pursues. As usual Hart hasn’t thought through what he says.

Keep in mind though it doesn’t matter what Hart says because despite many quotes from Hart that are clearly outside the boundaries of Biblical Christianity nobody holds him accountable.

2.) The fact that Government is not Sunday School doesn’t mean that Government is not moral or immoral depending on the policies it pursues. Government doesn’t have to be a Sunday School in order to operate in a manner consistent with the Christian faith. Of course Hart (the pretend historian by occupation) is just being a-historical with this outburst;

“The magistrate must root out idolatry and false worship, for God commands that His truth be upheld and blasphemies suppressed by those he has set in authority.”

Martin Luther (1525)

“It is the duty of the magistrate to suppress idolatry and superstition that the true worship of God may flourish, as commanded by the Almighty.” John Knox (1554)

“Magistrates are bound to defend the worship of God and to purge their realm of idolatry, which provokes God’s wrath against the land.” John Calvin (1559)

 “Rulers, as ministers of God, must cast down idols and false teachings, ensuring that the true faith is upheld in their governance.”

Jan Hus (1414)

3.) Since public schools are indeed government schools the government does indeed have the responsibility to roll back the perils afflicting all students while they are in or at school.

Someone recently insisted to me, that it was their conviction that Hart is a subversive, purposely subverting the Reformed faith. Anybody who has a Christian worldview can easily see that.

4.) Finally, people talk about Christian government because so many of our Reformed Fathers talked about Christian government.