Bible Thoughts

Otober 14, 2001

The hearts of many have been deadened through the centuries to the sound of truth. An inflexible mind has prevented them from listening to and/or accepting the truth. It was the unswerving devotion to the parties at Corinth that provoked the apostle Paul to write, beseeching them to leave off callused devotion to certain men(though the men did not approve of their actions), and be governed by the rule of Christ(I Corinthians 1:10-13). The second epistle to Corinth indicates Paul's teachings had the proper result. They were no longer to be so glued to their own conclusions and feelings as to be unteachable.

Mark Twain observed, "Loyalty to petrified opinion never yet broke a chain or freed a human soul." Just what is a "petrified opinion?" Petrify means "to make stiff or inflexible; to make callous or obdurate; to harden; to deaden." Opinion is defined as "a belief not based on absolute certainty or positive knowledge but on what seems true, valid, or probable to one's own mind; what one thinks; judgment." When one is holding to a given idea and refuses to study or investigate as to the validity of that opinion, he is holding what Twain called "petrified opinion." Such loyalty is a disloyalty to truth. The willingness to investigate, continually checking up on one's ideas and beliefs, should characterize every Christian. If we should discover our feelings to be contrary to truth, do not be so inflexible as to refuse to alter our concepts and conclusions.

Prejudice is an example of petrified opinion. When one decides on some matter, short of careful and complete investigation, and refuses to study further, pre-judgment exists. How could such an attitude help one to gain a knowledge of the truth?

When we assume that we can do no wrong in the church of Christ, we have embraced petrified opinion. It is such a smug attitude that can become the downfall of congregations(and individuals). "Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall"(I Corinthians 10:12).

A refusal to study with those with whom we are in disagreement may be nothing more than "petrified opinion." In recent years, it has become increasingly difficult to persuade individuals, when we have a disagreement, to sit down and study the matter. This attitude can be found even among those who are members of "churches of Christ." Could it be the fear of being wrong that has prevented us from seeking the truth that will free us from our shackles of bondage? Are we to assume the position of infallibility so loudly condemned in others? "We've always done it this way and I don't care what you say" does not sound like a seeker of truth.

Let us consider what would have happened if all men were loyal to their inflexible ideas. The apostle Paul would have remained the persecuting Saul. The Eunuch would have returned to Ethiopia resting his faith on an outmoded law. The apostle Peter would have cast his nets for fish instead of men. If these, and multiplied numbers of others, had not been willing to change for truth's sake, not a soul could have been rescued from sin.

Jesus said, "Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you: for everyone that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened"(Matthew 7:7-8). Do not let a petrified opinion keep you from Heaven.

This passage is often used by critics of the Bible to illustrate how the God of the Old Testament is different from the God spoken of in the New. They say, “See, in the Old Testament God murdered harmless, innocent little children merely because they were making fun of a bald headed man. That’s not something a loving God would do!” They reason that since the Old Testament God is vicious and bloodthirsty (sic) and that the New Testament God is kind and merciful they cannot be the same God. The conclusion follows that since they are not the same God, the Bible does not harmonize and cannot be used as a standard of authority. What happens if the Bible cannot be used as a standard of authority? Man can do whatever he pleases without having to consider the will of God. That is the ultimate goal of all who seek to discredit the Bible—they wish to free themselves from God’s reign so that they may be justified in their own sight.

Is their criticism justified? Consider a few things about this passage: first of all, the word translated as “children” is the Hebrew word na’ar which is also the same word used in 1 Kings 20:14-15 for “young men”(1 Kings 20:14-15) “And Ahab said, By whom? And he said, Thus saith the LORD, Even by the young men of the princes of the provinces. Then he said, Who shall order the battle? And he answered, Thou. Then he numbered the young men of the princes of the provinces, and they were two hundred and thirty two: and after them he numbered all the people, even all the children of Israel, being seven thousand.” So the “little children” mentioned could have just as easily been teenagers or men in their early twenties. Second, the term of derision “bald head”, was not merely commenting on Elisha’s lack of hair but was probably used to compare him to a leper since, according to the custom of the time, lepers shaved their head. So the young men were calling a prophet of God an unclean leper and a pariah. Third, it is also a mistake to view the young men as harmless. There were enough of them there for 42 of them to be harmed by the bears, that does not even take into account those that were not hurt. Lastly, the phrase “go up, thou bald head” was most likely a reference to the prophet Elijah being caught up by God just a short time before (2 Kings 2:11), possibly implying that they were going to send Elisha on his “way up” as well. With these things in mind, visualize the scene: You have the prophet of God being mocked by a large mob of teenagers; they were threatening Elisha and mocking God’s gift to Elijah; they were granting the mouthpiece of Jehovah the same status as an unclean leper. What should God have done? Should he have allowed his representative to be threatened and abused. No, God expects our reverence and fear, for him to allow Elisha to be abused would not have been consistent with what the entire Bible teaches about God.

In the New Testament it reads ”Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap” (Galatians 6:7) The things in the Old Testament deal with the physical kingdom God established. Because it was a physical kingdom God acted to punish the flesh. The things in the New Testament deal with the spiritual kingdom. When the day of judgment comes, God will also punish those who have mocked him. Make no mistake, despite the comments of critics to the contrary, the deeds done by God in the Old Testament are consistent with his teachings in the New Testament, the Bible is his word and he demands that we obey it.-Scott Huston