Was Elijah wrong?

[Luke2427]

Elijah mocked the prophets of Baal.

Was he wrong to do that?

Shouldn't he have been more concerned with winning them over?

What about Peter when he said "Christ you have taken with WICKED hands and slain..."?

Shouldn't Peter have been more interested in persuading them tenderly?

What about Stephen when he said, "Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye. Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted? and they have slain them which shewed before of the coming of the Just One; of whom ye have been now the betrayers and murderers: Who have received the law by the disposition of angels, and have not kept it."

Shouldn't he have been more concerned with "winning friends than winning arguments"?

 

[HAMel]

Perfect instances that perhaps Political Correctness is a bunch of hooey?

No, I don't consider them wrong here.

 

[dwmoeller1]

Be careful what you might conclude from such examples. Elijah had the miracle to back up his words. Stephen was on trial for his life and was effectively throwing away his chance of life. And in both cases they were directed to groups which had resorted to killing thise who oppossed them.

Iow these did not take place as part of normal interactions much less any sort of reasonable discussions. They may prevent absolute rules against such rhetoric but they certainly don't create a general rule.

 

[Luke2427]

Be careful what you might conclude from such examples. Elijah had the miracle to back up his words. Stephen was on trial for his life and was effectively throwing away his chance of life. And in both cases they were directed to groups which had resorted to killing thise who oppossed them.

Iow these did not take place as part of normal interactions much less any sort of reasonable discussions. They may prevent absolute rules against such rhetoric but they certainly don't create a general rule.

Just for the record, I meant to click on "no".

But neither have you provided any evidence that these handlings of situations ought to be rarities.

The best rule that seems to be illustrated in Scripture is what Wesley called "Law to the proud; grace to the humble."

Jude said to save some with compassion and others with fear.

Regardless, what ought to be clear is that there is most assuredly illustrated for us in Scripture a time for hard, blunt, cutting declarations of truth to men- even times when the wicked OUGHT to be mocked for their arrogance and sin.

 

[Deacon]

A few more examples - - -

From the ancient Hebrew songbook:

Blessed shall he be who takes your little ones and dashes them against the rock!
Psalm 137:9 (ESV)

A prayer to the Lord from martyrs:

They cried out with a loud voice, “O Sovereign Lord, holy and true, how long before you will judge and avenge our blood on those who dwell on the earth?"
Revelation 6:10 (ESV)

IMO, our prayers should reflect how we feel: God will do with them whatever he will.

Rob

 

[HankD]

Ecclesiastes 3:1 To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven:

HankD​

 

[Luke2427]

Ecclesiastes 3:1 To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven:

HankD​

Yes. Very good verse and very applicable to this topic. Good thought.:thumbsup:

 

[Tom Bryant]

I do not think he was wrong at all. He was right to do that. But Elijah was mocking prophets of a false god.

Jude was speaking about the unsaved.

David was speaking about those who opposed God and opposed David as King.

Jesus was harsh against those who had rejected Him.

Much of our sarcasm and venom seem to be aimed at saved people who have a different view of a particular doctrine.

 

[Luke2427]

I do not think he was wrong at all. He was right to do that. But Elijah was mocking prophets of a false god.

Jude was speaking about the unsaved.

David was speaking about those who opposed God and opposed David as King.

Jesus was harsh against those who had rejected Him.

Much of our sarcasm and venom seem to be aimed at saved people who have a different view of a particular doctrine.

You skipped addressing all the times in the Bible that God's people were hard on God's people.

Moses was not soft on Aaron and Miriam.

Paul did not take it easy on Peter.

The nameless prophet was not gentle with Jehoshaphat.

Paul was not at all sweet to the Galatians.

Paul threatened to come to the Corinthians with a rod.

Nathan was not gentle with David.

The list goes on and on...

Were all these people wrong?

 

[Tom Bryant]

You skipped addressing all the times in the Bible that God's people were hard on God's people.

Moses was not soft on Aaron and Miriam.

Paul did not take it easy on Peter.

The nameless prophet was not gentle with Jehoshaphat.

Paul was not at all sweet to the Galatians.

Paul threatened to come to the Corinthians with a rod.

Nathan was not gentle with David.

The list goes on and on...

Were all these people wrong?

That's a wonderful way to form this difference. Great debating tactic!

Obviously, they are not wrong. But I would be careful about saying that your sarcasm and attacks are on a par with the people you named. Sometimes - and I am guilty also - our words are just the product of an angry, bitter spirit that just must have the final word.

And with this, I will let you have the final word. Fighting with believers who have honest differences over how passages of the Bible are to be interpreted, just isn't worth my time.

 

[menageriekeeper]

Not necessarily. As the previous posters have indicated there is a time and a place for everything.

Elijah had been battling paganism for a long time at this point. He used the tools available to him to make a dramatic point and that included sarcasm.

 

[glfredrick]

Description or prescription?

If the account of Elijah is a description of what happened, then he could have been wrong (and most reasonably, in line with other Scripture, was). If the account of Elijah is a prescription, then we are told that his actions are not wrong at all, and we should go and do likewise, for that would be the rule of God.

Deciphering passages like this in Elijah is a time when proper hermeneutics plays a role. There are numerous other incidents in Scripture that require the same decision. Do we take the actions of Judas, for instance, and see them as description of what was, or prescription in how we should act? Context says "description" and the "prescription" is other than the actions recorded, which are, in a sense, for a moral lesson.

 

[dwmoeller1]

Just for the record, I meant to click on "no".

But neither have you provided any evidence that these handlings of situations ought to be rarities.

True. I do point out however that using these examples to create any sort of positive guideline is unwarranted. The best they can do is show that it isn't always wrong - that there are at least some cases (if we use these examples, pretty extreme ones) where it is ok. Anything more than that and you are starting to reach.

Regardless, what ought to be clear is that there is most assuredly illustrated for us in Scripture a time for hard, blunt, cutting declarations of truth to men- even times when the wicked OUGHT to be mocked for their arrogance and sin.

Only one is an example of mocking fwiw. One example does not constitute "most assuredly. Expand this to something along the lines of "uncompromising to the point of harshness" and then I could see the assertionm of assuredly.

 

[Benjamin]

Regardless, what ought to be clear is that there is most assuredly illustrated for us in Scripture a time for hard, blunt, cutting declarations of truth to men- even times when the wicked OUGHT to be mocked for their arrogance and sin.

Tried that a while back after haven patiently given ample opportunity to the opposition to back up his own challenge with somethng/anything at all with some real substance. Didn't help.

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=70589&page=4

 

[Amy.G]

Elijah mocked the prophets of Baal.

Was he wrong to do that?

Shouldn't he have been more concerned with winning them over?

What about Peter when he said "Christ you have taken with WICKED hands and slain..."?

Shouldn't Peter have been more interested in persuading them tenderly?

What about Stephen when he said, "Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye. Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted? and they have slain them which shewed before of the coming of the Just One; of whom ye have been now the betrayers and murderers: Who have received the law by the disposition of angels, and have not kept it."

Shouldn't he have been more concerned with "winning friends than winning arguments"?

No they were not wrong. Each of these men was filled with the Spirit of God & doing that which God had called them to do.

Comparing yourself and your tactics to these great men of God in order to justify your arrogant, rude, and insulting comments........THAT is wrong.

 

[sag38]

Luke, you are no Elijah, nor are you a Paul. Maybe when you grow up and become like them then maybe someone will take you seriously. Right now your attitude and attacks show nothing but a shallow immaturity.

 

[webdog]

Haven't we seen this before?

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=69047&highlight=abrasive

 

[Luke2427]

Not necessarily. As the previous posters have indicated there is a time and a place for everything.

Elijah had been battling paganism for a long time at this point. He used the tools available to him to make a dramatic point and that included sarcasm.

Agreed.....

 

[Luke2427]

Description or prescription?

If the account of Elijah is a description of what happened, then he could have been wrong (and most reasonably, in line with other Scripture, was). If the account of Elijah is a prescription, then we are told that his actions are not wrong at all, and we should go and do likewise, for that would be the rule of God.

Deciphering passages like this in Elijah is a time when proper hermeneutics plays a role. There are numerous other incidents in Scripture that require the same decision. Do we take the actions of Judas, for instance, and see them as description of what was, or prescription in how we should act? Context says "description" and the "prescription" is other than the actions recorded, which are, in a sense, for a moral lesson.

You didn't answer the question.

How about this one:

Is it wrong ALWAYS to mock the arrogant wicked who are enemies of God?

Is it wrong to ever humiliate a erring brother who is erring because of arrogance and ignorance?

If the answer is YES- it is wrong, then Elijah was wrong.

If the answer is NO- it is not wrong, then Elijah may have been doing a godly thing.

No one is trying to prescribe anything.

We are asking questions. Are these things right or wrong?

 

[Luke2427]

True. I do point out however that using these examples to create any sort of positive guideline is unwarranted. The best they can do is show that it isn't always wrong - that there are at least some cases (if we use these examples, pretty extreme ones) where it is ok. Anything more than that and you are starting to reach.

Agreed.

But let us note that these extreme cases are just that- extreme. It does NOT by ANY means mean that they are RARE.

Indian culture consumes extremely spicy food. It is extreme. but in India it is not rare.

Extreme does not mean rare.

And the problems that the Galatians had for example, which brought such SEVERE language from Paul were most DEFINITELY extreme- but they have hardly EVER been rare since Paul wrote that letter.

Paul threatened to come to Corinth with a rod- figurative language, I know, but it was INTENDED to be severe.

The problems in Corinth were EXTREME but they exist today in our religious culture on every hand.

Only one is an example of mocking fwiw. One example does not constitute "most assuredly. Expand this to something along the lines of "uncompromising to the point of harshness" and then I could see the assertionm of assuredly.

Yes it does. One example of mocking which is approved by God (that is the question at hand whether or not it was) is enough for us to say it "most assuredly tells us that there ARE times when such is appropriate."

We can quibble about how often and in what contexts- but we can say "most assuredly" that there are times and contexts when this is appropriate. (if Elijah was not wrong)