The Prophets

            This week we began reading Isaiah, the first of the so-called “Latter Prophets.” In the Hebrew Bible, Joshua through Kings (minus Ruth) are called the Former Prophets; they are followed immediately by Isaiah through Malachi. (Lamentations and Daniel are in the last section of the Hebrew Bible.) In English, we more typically call these books the writing prophets, as opposed to, say, Elijah and Elisha, who didn’t write anything.

            Here are a couple of notes to get us going: First, the ‘writing prophets’ keep on writing in Hebrew poetry. Now, we’ve lived with Hebrew poetry since Job, but it’s important to remind ourselves: Hebrew doesn’t do poetry like English does. There is no meter or rhyme in Hebrew poetry. Hebrew poetry is characterized by parallelism, saying a line, repeating it a little differently, sometimes going over it again. The idea is that the repetition reinforces and strengthens the idea.  To my way of thinking, the poet/prophets of the 8^th century BC are some of the best—Isaiah, Amos, Micah, Hosea.

            Second, we should be clear on what a prophet is. I think that too often we think of the prophets as some sort of fortune-tellers, but I don’t think that’s very helpful.  Certainly there is forward-looking material there, but I think it’s a mistake to think that the material only looks forward or that the prophets’ main job is to look to a distant future. I think it is much more helpful to think of prophets as preachers. They are looking at the world and trying to interpret it for their hearers from God’s point of view. I take it as axiomatic that what the prophet said had to make sense to his original audience.

            That leads to a third point about Isaiah in particular. It is typical of scholars to divide Isaiah into two or three books (chs. 1-39, 40-55, and 56-66) and to argue that two or three different people wrote it. We note first of all that no one but Isaiah is ever mentioned in Isaiah itself or elsewhere in the Bible as the author of the book. The book and the whole Bible assume one author—the 8^th century BC prophet Isaiah! But aren’t there noticeable thematic and stylistic differences in those three parts of the book? Absolutely there are. But, if Isaiah was a preacher who ministered for over 50 years you would expect 1) that the things he had to address shifted over the years and 2) that his style changed. (I’ve only been a preacher for 16 years and I already note that there are themes that appear in my sermons for a few years and then fade out.)

            Isaiah will take us through December on our Today’s Light schedule, and the rest of the prophets will take us through Easter. Hopefully, I’ll have a chance to work through some of these issues as they come up in the daily readings!

Introducing Ecclesiastes

            Personal confession: the very first Bible study I ever taught was on the book of Ecclesiastes. I can’t say it was the best Bible study I ever led; nor can I say that I fully understood it.  (Mr. Harks, our youth counselor, took me aside afterward and spent some time on the distinction between Law and Gospel.) The truth is the book appealed—and still does appeal—to my dark side. And read on a surface level, the book itself is pretty glum,  Reduce it to a t-shirt and you have, “Life sucks and then you die.”

            Derek Kidner, whom I cited about the nature of wisdom and Proverbs a few days ago, comments that there are two main options in interpreting the book. First, it could be Solomon’s own interior debate about the value and purpose of life, a “debate with himself, torn between what he cannot help seeing and what he still cannot help believing,” a struggle between faith and sight (2 Cor. 5:7). Second, it could be understood as a “challenge to the man of the world to think his own position through to its bitter end, with a view to seeking something less futile.” That is, it could be understood as a response to the nihilist, the atheist, the one who says this life is all there is. “If this life is all there is,” the Preacher seems to say, “you’ll have a pretty dismal time of it. Want to reconsider?”

            Under the first view, one of the more poignant verses in the book is 3:11, “He has made all beautiful in its time; moreover, He set eternity in man’s heart.” On the one hand, the author is aware of the beauty of the world; on the other, he is keenly aware of its trials, travails, and contradictions. Yet he knows that he is more than a beast: a beast wouldn’t even notice the tension; an animal doesn’t live in dread of its death or of its legacy. He senses there must be something more and can’t turn his heart from that confidence.

            On the second view, it is the believer who can look the futility, the nonsense, the contradictions of life full in the face.  And he does so, to drive the unbeliever to the deciding point: either it is glum, depressing, and pointless … or there’s more—one who sets eternity in human hearts, who provides, who determines. Sometimes you have to push the argument to its bitterest conclusion to cause someone to draw back and create space for the Gospel.

            On either view, I find this a strangely, darkly compelling book—even if I can’t teach it with any more clarity than I mustered 25+ years ago.

            One more introductory technicality: nowhere does the author identify himself as Solomon. He identifies himself as the Preacher, a son of David, a king in Jerusalem. Frankly, those titles could make him any of a number of people from kings before the exiles to kings-in-name only after it. Once again, as I’ve said before, the particular of authorship is unimportant. That the Holy Spirit inspired is very important.

Jesus and the Proverbs--A Quick Note

Proverbs 28-29

29:3—A man who loves wisdom brings joy to his father, but a companion of prostitutes squanders his wealth.

            I’ve been surprised at how often Jesus alludes to the Proverbs. It’s early, and I can’t think of the other instances offhand. But this verse is clearly in Jesus’ mind when He sets up the parable of the prodigal son, in which a foolish son does exactly that—squanders his wealth in wild living. All of it fairly screams, “This is the very folly that Solomon warned about!” There is a serious study yet to be done on how Jesus uses the proverbs, how His confrontation and condemnation of Israel is clothed in the notion of self-reliant foolishness, and how much of His call to discipleship picks up on God-fearing wisdom.  We’ll leave the formal study to someone more qualified than me.  But pay attention when we get to the Gospels. Some of these wisdom themes are coming back!

More reflections on Proverbs

Proverbs 26-27

26:4-5—Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you yourself will be just like him.  Answer a fool according to his folly, or he will be wise in his own eyes.

     The wise man recognizes the truth of these two seemingly contradictory proverbs.  On the one hand, there’s a warning not to lower oneself to the standard of the fool. On the other hand, there’s a recognition that you have to speak at a level that person can understand.  You find the same balancing act throughout the Scriptures: associating with the wicked can lead you into temptation and wickedness; on the other hand, if you never hang with the unbelieving how will you ever witness to them.  Much of wisdom is knowing how (and when) to say yes and no.

26:11—As a dog returns to its vomit, so fools repeat their folly.

     Well! That’s graphic. And gross. And completely relatable. Dogs are gross and can’t help themselves. Fools are gross and should be able to stop themselves.

27:10—Do not forsake your friend or a friend of your family, and do not go to your relative’s house when disaster strikes you—better a neighbor nearby than a relative far away.

     I suspect this has in mind occurrences like plague or famine and the idea is that one ought not only look to his own concerns. I’m reminded of the story of Ruth in which Naomi and her husband had sought refuge in Moab instead of struggling with family and neighbors at home. We do owe something to those around us.

    That’s an insight I share with youth all the time. Ask the question, “Who’s your neighbor?” and they’ll often jump right out into the whole wide world, “Everyone!” Well, yeah, sure, but the your greatest responsibility are to those who are right next to you and in you most immediate circle.  In our context, it’s a wonderful thing to be concerned for world missions, as long as we don’t miss the fact that there are unbelievers right here in Hartford; and it’s a wonder thing to be concerned for social problems in Milwaukee—again, as long as we don’t miss the fact that there are people in need across town from us and in our own congregation.

27:17—As iron sharpens iron, so one person sharpens another.

     A favorite of mine, it reminds me why my friends are so dear to me. In college, we challenged each other’s thinking; we debated and argued; we critiqued. And it was not mean-spirited. It made us better thinkers, better writers, better pastors. The word ‘accountable’ only appears in the Bible a handful of times. (I can only find one legitimate use in the New Testament.) But here’s a verse that reminds us that holding one another accountable makes us better.

More Proverbs

Proverbs 22-25

22:1—A good name is more desirable than great riches; to be esteemed is better than silver or gold.

            There’s a great Peanuts cartoon from 50+ years ago. Someone asks Linus what he wants to be when he grows up and Linus replies, “Outrageously happy.” That’s a pretty good answer! It’s of a piece with this proverb. Linus values happiness overall, and the proverb values a good reputation over wealth.

            Contrast that Peanuts cartoon with a Zits cartoon from much more recently. The ‘star,’ a teenager named Jeremy, is trying to decide if he wants to be famous first or rich first and he settles on famous because riches usually follow fame, but you could be rich without being famous. In other words, he wants both. Now, the cartoon is lampooning that attitude, but it reflects a deeply held (and wrong-headed) value in our society.

            The proverb would suggest that we ought to value our integrity and good reputation even more than our success.

22:9—A generous man will himself be blessed, for he shares his food with the poor.

            I highlight this proverb because I think that generosity is not talked about enough as one of the chief Christian virtues. But its fingerprints are all over the place in the Bible.  The logic goes like this: the Creator God is exceedingly generous with us; life and salvation are His free gifts to us; we are called to be generous as He is generous. There’s a verse in the Gospel of Luke in which Jesus suggests that generosity is a less-than-altruistic, that we use worldly wealth to secure friends for later (Luke 16:9). (I suspect he’s being a little ironic.) Here generosity is its own benefit.

23:6—Do not eat the food of a stingy man, … for he is the kind of man who is always thinking about the cost.

            Related, to the previous, one true generosity is not stingy. True generosity doesn’t begin with its own resources, asking, “What can I afford to give?” It begins with another’s need, and asks, “How can I help?” (That’s not to say that true generosity is going to impoverish you, but do pay attention to the different motivations.)

24:1—Do not envy wicked men…

            Wisdom is known by the company it keeps. On the one hand, it’s really hard to be in mission if you never hang with unbelievers. (Check the example of Jesus.) On the other hand, there’s a certain wisdom in recognizing that our company can have two implications. First, we are sometimes painted with the same brush: hang with the wicked and people will assume you, too, are wicked. That’s an unfair assumption, but one we should note. I had a conversation about a church once in which several leaders always went to a local bar after meetings; unfortunately that church was getting a bad reputation in its community.  Second, sometimes it does happen that bad company leads us astray, and we need to be honed in on our own moral compass so that we can be a positive influence instead of being negatively influenced.

What Was Missing?

            Last weekend, I visited a non-denominational mega-church. A couple of folks have asked me about that visit. On the one hand, I can see the appeal. It was a very simple ‘service.’ A few songs were song to warm up, and it seemed clear that the lead singer would carry the load of the singing: the rest of us could sing or not as we wanted. The preacher talked for about a half an hour and it was very conversational, easy to listen to.  They made an announcement and took the offering; while the offering was gathered the lead singer sang again. Then we left. Very simple. Very easy to step into.

            What was missing? The Gospel was missing. I wasn’t a big fan of the songs choices. They simply didn’t have the Gospel in them. I think the second song began with a reference to Jesus’ hands red with blood, but then the lyrics turned and the vast majority of the song was about the majestic, powerful Jesus. As a simple New Testament insight, Jesus isn’t glorified until after His suffering and death. Look at the book of Revelation, which contains some of the best ‘praise’ songs in the NT. There Jesus is worthy to be praised because He was slain (Rev 5:9). I get that some classic hymns have almost too many words, but some contemporary literature could use to actually say something.

            The preacher’s sermon was devoid of the Gospel, too. He talked at some length, but a lot of what he said seemed like a fairly basic Bible study. He made some general sanctification comments about taking opportunities, even if we’d rather not, to achieve some greater good. I thought he should have made a point about Jesus right there, that the cross wasn’t a particularly desirable choice for Him, but the greater good that He accomplished was well worth it. That would have been a great Gospel insight!

            Now I want to stipulate: I preach a lot, and I don’t always get the Gospel as firmly in there as I should. So, I don’t ever want to be judged on one sermon, and I’m reluctant to judge another preacher on a single sermon: everyone has an off day.

            But here’s the thing: when I miss with my sermon, the Gospel is still song in the hymns, proclaimed in the Absolution, articulated in the prayers, confessed in the Creed, and distributed in the Lord’s Supper.

            This weekend, I was reminded just how thoroughly Lutheran worship is saturated with the Gospel. I missed that, and I was reminded just how thankful I am that I’m a Lutheran and that we make the Gospel the center of all we do.

Proverbs 14-15

Proverbs 14-15

Since much of the book of Proverbs is a sort of random collection of observations, here are some random thoughts from today’s reading.

14:5—A fool’s mouth lashes out with pride, but the lips of the wise protect them.

The wise and the foolish are so often identified by their manner of speech—or lack of speech. So often the wise thing is to keep one’s mouth shut and listen; and so often I just open ‘er up and let her rip. There’s a quip attributed either to Abraham Lincoln or Mark Twain (though neither probably said it): “Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt.” Sage words.

14:8—The wisdom of the prudent is to give thought to their ways, but the folly of fools is deception.

Again, wisdom is recognized by thoughtful planning. Human nature tends to assume and leap. The proverbs declare that it is prudent to ‘look before you leap.’ (Of course, that proverbial wisdom has its counterpoint in not dithering about. Sometimes wisdom is seen in decisiveness, too.)

14:10—Each heart knows its own bitterness, and no one else can share its joy.

Here’s an interesting one, because we so often recognize that sharing our burdens can ease them.  Sometimes it just feels better to talk about what’s troubling us, and we have a call to listen sympathetically to others. (Carry one another’s burdens and so fulfill the law of Christ, Galatians 6:2).  Yet, this proverb also recognizes the loneliness that sin imposes on us.  We can never fully share our hurts and our joys. Expressing them may help, but in many ways they remain uniquely our.

14:12—There is a way that appears to be right, but in the end it leads to death.

Wisdom calls for discernment.  Sometimes it seems the right path, but it isn’t. How do you know? Do your homework, consider your options, pray…and realize that sometimes we just make mistakes.

15:1—A gentle answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger.

            This one seems to speak for itself, although it is hard to keep a gentle spirit and a gentle tongue when things are heating up.

15:16-17—Better a little with the fear of the Lord than great wealth with turmoil. Better a small serving of vegetables with love than a fattened calf with hatred.

            Talk about counter-intuitive! We live a society that values consumption and accumulation.  Security and well-being have a ton to do with the status of our 401(k)s in modern American. But wisdom recognizes that accumulation brings its own troubles; contentment—that’s the key!

15:18—A hot-tempered person stirs up conflict, but the one who is patient calms a quarrel.

            Learning to keep temper in check seems to be an important theme.

15:22—Plans fail for lack of counsel, but with many advisers they succeed.

            I have been in school for a long time—a long time. High school, college, grad school (twice now)—and I’ve never really been taught to collaborate.  I mean, schools try, but almost everyone hates a group project, because one slacker pulls down all of our grades. Success comes to the individual. I mean, even in a team sport, it happens.  Fantasy football buffs are more concerned with individual performances than team results; the Pro Football Hall of Fame celebrates individual achievements.  But the proverb reminds us: there’s wisdom in consultation.  An outside adviser may well see something obvious that we’ve missed.

Lady Wisdom/Lady Folly

            This introduction to Proverbs 1-9 is from the NIV Study Bible, and I think it’s helpful to understand how the book is framed.

            “The first nine chapters contain a series of discourses that contrast the way and benefits of wisdom with the way of ht fool. Except for the sections where personified wisdom speaks (1:20; 8:1; 9:1), each discourse begins with ‘my son’ or ‘my sons.’

            “A key feature in the introductory discourses of Proverbs is the personification of both wisdom and folly as women, each of whom (by appeals and warnings on the part of Lady Wisdom, by enticements on the part of Lady Folly) seeks to persuade ‘simple’ youths to follow her ways. These discourses are strikingly organized. Beginning (1:8-33) and ending (chs. 8-9) with direct enticements and appeals, the main body of the discourses is made up of two nicely balanced sections, one devoted to the commendation of wisdom (chs. 2-4) and the other to warnings against folly (chs. 5-7). In these discourses the young man is depicted as being enticed to folly by men who try to get ahead in the world by exploiting others (1:10-19) and by women who seek sexual pleasure outside the bond of marriage (ch. 5; 6:20-25; ch. 7). In the social structures of that day, these were the two great temptations for young men. The second especially functions here as illustrative and emblematic of the appeal of Lady Folly.”

One thing I would add to this description is that the enticement of sex is not simply for pleasure. Just as a man would have been tempted to cheat to get ahead, so too a woman would be tempted to use the one thing in her power (in a patriarchal age) to get ahead. It’s not just sex for pleasure; it’s sex as a tool to get ahead in the world, to find security in it. Either way, the contrast is the same: there is the way of wisdom, working carefully, diligently, and righteously to achieve happiness, balance, and success in life. And there is the way of folly, using whatever means and shortcuts are at hand to achieve those same goal,

Introducing the Wisdom Literature

            What shall we make of Proverbs? It is of a whole different character than the books of Moses—Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers—with their careful laying out of the way Israel’s life was supposed to be.  It is different, too, than the narratives of Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles, with their urgent stories of failure and their calls for repentance.

            Proverbs belongs to that category of literature called Wisdom.  The theme of God’s wisdom winds throughout the Scriptures, but Job, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Song of Solomon are books in which wisdom is the main theme.  OT scholar Derek Kidner puts it like this: “In the Wisdom books the tone of voice and even the speakers have changed. The blunt ‘Thou shalt’ or ‘shalt not’ of the Law, and the urgent ‘Thus saith the Lord’ of the Prophets, are joined now by the cooler comments of the teach and the often anguished questions of learner. Where the bulk of the Old Testament calls us simply to obey and to believe, this part of it…summons us to think hard as well as humbly; to keep our eyes open, to use our conscience and our common sense, and not to shirk the most disturbing questions.”

            We’ve done some of that work already, when we read Job. There we struggled through the agonized questions of the innocent sufferer, “How shall we understand suffering, especially when it happens to those who have cast their lot faithfully with the Lord?

            Here in Proverbs two things might be helpful. First, it might be helpful to see that the wisdom literature assumes a world that makes some sort of sense—in general, even if not every circumstance reveals itself to human consideration.  Perhaps it might be better to say it this way: the wisdom literature assumes a Creator God who is not arbitrary like the gods of the pagans and whose world reflects His character. Wisdom is an attempt to understand something of the mind of God.  Second, a theme through the wisdom literature is that the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.  This is not an exercise in speculation; wisdom assumes faith in the true God, the Creator. Wisdom assumes He is the architect, by whose design the world operates, and it assumes He is the conductor, by whom the world is brought to its final destination.

            So, God stands at the center of the wise life, and the wise person strives to understand something of the mind of God. It is an understanding seasoned by faith, God’s own words, and a lifetime’s experience.

Israel's Apostasy and Ours

2 Kings 17
      I can completely anticipate that someone, reading 2 Kings 17, would leap to what sounds like a reasonable conclusion but to what is, in reality, completely wrong-headed.
      2 Kings 17 records that the northern kingdom was destroyed by Shalmaneser of Assyria and says, "All this took place because the Israelites had sinned against the Lord their God, who had brought them up out of Egypt from under the power of Pharaoh king of Egypt."  Then, the rest of the chapter lists off examples of their wickedness:  worshiping other gods, tolerating the wickedness of the Canaanites, etc.  Here's the conclusion I can anticipate:  "The U.S. better watch out, because we tolerate entirely too much wickedness!"
      Now, let me go on record as saying that I see an awful lot of examples of the U.S. tolerating wickedness.  I see the corruption at all levels of government; I see the dissolution of the family; I see violence and sexual excess.  I see it all.  I don't disagree that the U.S. tolerates sin and that that's a problem.
      I do disagree that the fate of Israel is the appropriate analogy for the fate of a modern nation-state.  Old Testament Israel was sui generis, its own kind of thing, one of a kind, unique.  It was a nation and it was the people of God.  In our language, Israel encompassed both church and state.  However, Israel fulfilled its , purpose in the coming of the Messiah Jesus.  And, significantly, Jesus reconstituted Israel by appointing 12 apostles.  When He sent His Church out, He did not bind them to a specific land nor to a specific nationality (cf. Matthew  28).  He declared the entire world their inheritance (Matthew 5:5).  Paul points out that the Good News is for the Jew and the Gentile (Romans 1).  The Church in the New Testament is the people of God, but it has no 'nation-state' quality.  It is, in the words of one church father, at home in every society and in no society.  ("Every foreign country is their homeland and every homeland a foreign country," Epistle to Diognetus, 180 AD.)
      So, if you're looking for an appropriate analogy for the U.S., you need to look at the prophets' oracles against the nations.  Look at the way Habakkuk said the Lord would deal with Babylon or Jeremiah's warning that the Lord both plants and uproots the nations according to His purposes.  The prophets assume that the nations will not naturally be aligned with the Lord's will and ways, and they prophesy that He will use them as tools for His purposes and set them aside when they've served that function.
      The appropriate analogy for Israel is the Church.  Or, better said, specific manifestations of the Church.  (The Lord has promised that He will always have a people, so the Church in some shape will endure.)  History is littered with churches that have come and gone.  Colossae?  Ephesus?  Those churches are long gone.  Literally hundreds of congregations close in North America each year, too.  The church does well to pay attention to its faithfulness to the Lord and His Word and His mission.  Losing sight of those things are the appropriate analogy for Israel's apostasy.

A Quick Note on Chronology

2 Kings 13-16
           Dating the Old Testament isn’t as straightforward as one would think.  The authors of Kings and Chronicles give the length of reign for each of the kings, so you’d think it was simply a matter of stringing those numbers together.  Unfortunately, that’s not the case.

            First off, an historian has to make sure all of his sources align.  For the kingdom period of Israel, that means that we need things to account for Assyrian, Babylonian, and Egyptian history, too.  Without going into the details, we can reliably say that Samaria (the capital of the northern kingdom) was destroyed by the Assyrians in 723/722 BC.  That’s a fixed end date.  Then we have to fit all of the chronological evidence into the 200 years between 931/930 (the civil war) and 723/722. 

            One of the things that scholars generally acknowledge that helps with that task is that Israel and Judah (especially Judah) both practiced what is called co-regency.  That is, a son would often ‘co-rule’ with his father for a period of time.  That means that not all reigns were simply consecutive; some of those numbers overlap.  Co-regency helps us fit most of the kings in where they belong.

            The one exception to that is the reign of Pekah (2 Kings 15).  Pekah is said to reign for 20 years, but that would extend his reign well past 722.  So, is the Bible in error at that point?  How do we explain a rather substantial discrepancy?  Many scholars suggest that Menahem and Pekah were contemporaries and co-conspirators against Shallum, who was assassinated in 752.  Menahem assumed the throne, but Pekah may have thought that he should have taken the throne.  There is some hint that Pekah set himself as a rival ruler in Gilead (across the Jordan).  After Menahem died, Pekah deposed Pekahiah and claimed that he had actually been king since the time of Shallum.  I don’t know that I explained that very well, but a lot of really respectable scholars argue that position and it preserves the records of the Bible as reliable historical records, too.

            I guess my point is that it would be easier to just chuck the books of Kings and Chronicles and say, “Well, maybe the Bible just isn’t reliable.”  However, the Bible demonstrates its historical reliability over and over again.  Sometimes it takes more homework to figure out how, but the Bible can be trusted.

Kings of Israel                        Kings of Judah
Jehoahaz                              
   814-798                              

Jehoash                                  Amaziah
   798-782                                797-768

Jeroboam II
   Co-regent 793-782
   Sole rule 782-753                Azariah/Uzziah
                                                  Co-regent 791-768
Zechariah                                   Sole rule 767-751
   753-752                                 Co-regent 751-740

Shallum
   752

Menahem
   752-742

Pekahiah                               Jotham
   742-740                               Co-regent 751-740
                                                Sole rule 740-736
Pekah                                      Co-regent 736-732
   Rival rule 752-740
   Sole Rule 740-732            Ahaz
                                               Co-regent 736-732
                                               Sole rule 732-729
                                               Co-regent 729-716

Chronology of 2 Kings

2 Kings 11-12
          Maybe I'm spending too much time on this, but the chronology of Ahab and the succeeding generations is driving me a batty.  Here's my attempt to sort it out:

Kings of Judah                                                            Kings of Israel
Jehoshaphat                                                              Ahab
+born ca. 908, died 848 (about 60 years old)             +born ???, died 853
+reigned 873-848 (25 years)                                      +reigned 874-853
                                                                                    (22 years)

Jehoram                                                                    Ahaziah
+born ca. 881, died 842 (about 39 years old)             +born ca. 870, died 852
+reigned 853 (co-regent)-842 (12 years)                    +reigned 853-852
                                                                                     (2 years)

Ahaziah                                                                     Joram (Ahaziah's brother; Ahab's son)
+born ca. 864, died 842 (about 22 years old)             +born ???, died 842
+reigned 842 (1 year)                                                 +reigned 852-842
                                                                                    (12 years)

(Athaliah)                                                                  Jehu
+Jehoram's wife and Ahab's daughter                          +born ???, died 815
+seized the throne in 842, reigned 'til ca. 836               +reigned 842-815
                                                                                      (28 years)

Joash
+born ca. 843
+reigned from 836 (only 7 years old)

So, basically, in the dozen or so years  from 853 BC to 842, Judah went through 3 rulers:  Jehoram (wicked king; married Ahab's daughter; died young); Ahaziah (killed by Jehu); and Athaliah (wife of Jehoram; seized throne).  In that same period, Israel went through three rulers:  Ahaziah (died young following an accident); Joram (not to be confused with Jehoram of Judah, his brother-in-law and contemporary; killed by Jehu); and Jehu (who began a new dynasty in Israel).

Phew!  That's a lot of turmoil.  No wonder I'm going batty!

Such Brutality

2 Kings 9-10
          The reign of Jehu is marked by brutality and bloodshed.  On the one hand, we might see Jehu as the Lord's executioner.  The Lord had said that the house of Ahab would be destroyed, that Jezebel would not be buried, and so forth.  However, we have to leave open the question about whether the Lord's words merely described what would happen (that is, that He know the brutality of Jehu's heart) or whether His words caused the brutality.  So, the possibility exists that the Lord appointed Jehu as the successor of Ahab's house, but that Jehu got 'carried away.'
          The deaths of Joram, Ahaziah, and Jezebel are the least troubling.  They were rulers; they had led Israel astray to false gods; and they were only one generation (or less, in Jezebel's case!) removed from Ahab.  Nevertheless, the manner of Jezebel's death is particularly gruesome, even for someone so involved in Ahab's wickedness.  The deaths of the 'sons of the house of Ahab,' though, are hard to stomach.  We should be careful, but it seems as if these were not the adult children of Ahab so much as his grandchildren.  (Note that verse 6 talks of those who were rearing them!)  With that wrinkle, the beheading of 70 becomes even harder to fathom.  (Contrast this violence with David's attempts to care for the remnants of the house of Saul.)  Finally, the manner of execution for the prophets of Baal is troubling, too.  When Elijah confronted the prophets of Baal, it was in an open contest:  Yahweh of Israel versus Baal of Canaan.  In Jehu's case, they are deceptively lured into a death trap.
          Does the Lord condone such brutality?  The Lord did indeed command the extermination of whole populations of Canaanites, especially in the era of the Conquest.  I have written different times about why that may have been the case, namely, that the Lord knew His promise would be in danger if it were surrounded by Canaanite idolatry.  On the other hand, the reign of Jehu seems to be as much about his own brutality as about the Lord's desire to punish the house of Ahab.
          I'm thinking about Elijah's protest that he had been very zealous for the Lord (1 Kings 19), and I'm thinking that zeal for the Lord is a good thing.  However, I'm also thinking that the boundary between zeal for the Lord and zeal for our own glory is very fine.  I think Elijah's protest reveals what he thought about himself, namely, that he deserved some recognition.  I think Jehu's zeal may have been motivated in part by a desire to secure his own reign.  And I think that we need to be careful that our zeal for the Lord doesn't mask a desire to enlarge our own reputations.
          "For it seems to me that God has put us apostles on display at the end of the procession, like men condemned to die in the arena. We have been made a spectacle to the whole universe, to angels as well as to men.  We are fools for Christ, but you are so wise in Christ! We are weak, but you are strong! You are honored, we are dishonored" (NIV; 1 Corinthians 4:9-10)!

Prophets to the Nations?

2 Kings 8
          This passage includes something that I don't think we've seen yet as we've read through the Scriptures.  Elisha, the prophet of Israel, demonstrates that he is a prophet to other nations, too.  In Exodus, Moses confronted Pharaoh, but the freedom of Israel was the issue there.  In Numbers, Balaam was named a prophet who was hired from the nations to curse Israel, but we discovered that he was more a flim-flam artist than a true prophet.  But here, Elisha wanders off to Damascus and Ben-Hadad honors his prophetic office.
          This might be the first time a prophet of Israel works in a pagan nation, but it certainly won't be the last.  When we come to the writing prophets, we will discover that the prophets of Israel have a lot to say to the pagan nations around them.
          Now, why would the prophets of a rather small country presume that they had a message for the great powers around them?  Why, because their God claimed to be the Lord of all the nations.  He claimed to be the Creator of heaven and earth.  He claimed to raise up kings and to cast them down.  The nations may have found this presumptuous, but that was the Lord's claim.
          We New Testament believers make similar claims.  The most basic confession of the Christian faith has always been, "Jesus is Lord," and that means that He is Lord over heaven and earth.  We believe that Jesus is the Lord, that all earthly powers will on the last day be subjected to Him, and that He is already exerting His royal will over the whole earth to work all things out for the good of those who love Him.  (To be sure, we have to be careful with this kind of language.  Too often we try to use the Lordship of Jesus to justify our desire to run this fallen world.  It is true that Jesus rules this fallen world, that He is Lord of it.  However, by the mysterious design of God, we endure its fallenness and the evil that results from it.  Our dream ought not be to rule a fallen world but to reign with Christ in a restored world.)
          So, like Elisha and the other prophets we have a message for the world, that the world is not in charge of its own affairs like it thinks it is, that there is a Lord over all who will bring all things into conformity with His purposes, and we have an invitation for that world, that they might follow this God with us.

2 KIngs 6-7

2 Kings 6-7

          One aspect of these two chapters is an explanation of why the kings of Israel were not supposed to count the fighting men or build up a contingent of chariots.  The Lord has chariots aplenty all by Himself.  The horsemen and chariots of Israel had swept down and snatched up Elijah (2 Kings 2), and here they fill the hills around Dothan.  In addition, the Lord has other tools to accomplish His purposes.  Who knows what happened to so spook the Aramean army, but they fled without an arrow being fired.  So, there's lesson one:   "[The Lord's] pleasure is not in the strength of the horse, nor his delight in the legs of a man; the LORD delights in those who fear him, who put their hope in his unfailing love" (NIV; Psalm 147:10-11).

         A second thing to note is the reliability of the prophet's word.  An axhead floats at his word.  (I know the whole thing with the stick sounds like 'magic,' and, no, I can't explain it.)  The host of the Lord appears at his word.  The siege is lifted, just as he said.  And the king's officer dies, just as he said.  So, first note that the mark of a true prophet is that his predictions happen.  Second, note that the thing that matters is not the words of Elisha but the words of the Lord. "The grass withers and the flowers fall, but the word of our God stands forever" (NIV; Isaiah 40:8).

          Two aspects of the story; two important lessons:  rely on the Lord's strength and count on the Lord's words.

"Ordinary" Water

2 Kings 5

            I wouldn’t be much of a Lutheran if I didn’t point out how thoroughly the story of Naaman draws us to Christian Baptism.  So, a man in need of an impossible healing is sent to bathe in very ordinary water.  The ordinariness of the Jordan offends him, because he wanted something flashy—calling on the name of the Lord, waving hands, and so on.  But the Lord uses ordinary water to bring him healing.  Note the similarities: humans stand in need of an impossible healing, namely, forgiveness and new life.  We are directed to the most ordinary of water—Baptism.  And Baptism is ordinary.  We Lutherans don’t even have tanks for full immersion.  It’s a splash of water—and tap water at that!  We don’t even have consecrated, holy water.  Ordinary, ordinary, ordinary!  Baptism is pretty easy to underestimate, even to ignore.  No wonder that so many Christians are drawn to something flashier—dramatic conversion experiences, for example!  But we don’t judge Baptism based on the water but based on what God says happens through that water.  And that miracle Paul describes like this:  “a washing of regeneration and renewal by the Holy Spirit” (Titus 3:5).  New life and renewal?  Pretty big claims for a splash of water.  So, let’s learn from Naaman: it’s not the water that matters; it’s the Lord who works through that water.

Snatching Defeat from the Jaws of Victory

2 Kings 3-4

            2 Kings 3:27 is a tough verse.  The way the NIV translates it, it seems to be a non sequitur, a thing that doesn’t follow from what went before.  NIV’s translation seems to say that the defeated king of Moab took his son and sacrificed him.  But how would that incite great fury against Israel?

            Possibilities include the following.  First, the king of Moab’s action could have galvanized his people for one final push against the Israelites, driving them out.  I think this is what the NIV translators are suggesting.  In that case, the lesson would be something about how Israel had the Lord’s explicit promise that Moab would be conquered yet failed to hold what the Lord had given.  That certainly fits with Israel’s history.

            Another possibility might be that the defeated king of Moab captured the son of the king of Edom in his last furious assault against Edom.  Then, the king of Moab executed the son of Edom, causing Edom to be angry with Israel and to withdraw from the alliance.

            There are other variations on the theme, but the upshot of them all seems to be the same:  Israel withdrew.  They managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.  That’s a remarkably human story.  Perfection, dedication, follow-through—those are all things our race consistently fails at.  So, a reminder of the Gospel:  Jesus follows through—He went through the death and the grave on to victory.  And a reminder that when life counterpunches and we’re ready to retreat, we are called to stand our ground (Ephesians 6:13).

Persistence

2 Kings 1-2

            Persistence is a common theme between these two chapters.  On the one hand, you have the persistence of Ahaziah who continued in the idolatry of his father Ahab, who persisted in arrogance about his own power, and who sent soldiers repeatedly to their death to capture Elijah.  (Notice that it’s only the good sense and humility of the third captain that delivers his men from the fate of the previous 100.)  On the other hand, you have the persistence of Elisha who doggedly follows Elijah.  Twice the sons of the prophets warn him that Elijah will be taken; three times Elijah tells him to stop following.  But he keeps following.  And he follows him as a servant.  I remember being a teen reading these stories and thinking how arrogant Elisha was to ask for twice as much of the Spirit as Elijah had had.  It turns out that’s not what he’s asking at all.  In asking for a double portion, he’s not asking for twice as much as Elijah ever had; he’s asking for the firstborn’s portion—two shares of the estate instead of one.  It’s a fairly humble request.

            Perseverance is prominent among us, too, although I daresay we can see both sides of the coin in our lives.  Sometimes we continue in our sin.  Whether that is willfulness or weakness depends on the situation.  Sometimes we know what we shouldn’t do, but it’s too much work to change.  Other times we just keep on slipping into bad behavior.  Either way, we can see a little of ourselves in Ahaziah.

            On the other hand, perseverance is an important Christian virtue.  When Jesus calls us, He simply says, “Follow Me!”  He doesn’t promise easy paths or quick solutions.  Consider last week’s Gospel reading (Luke 9), in which He warns that following Him means surrendering comfort and familiarity.  Still, Christians doggedly follow, and we do so in the confidence that we have been declared heirs, that we will inherit the world.  (Here’s an interesting thing:  the inheritance we receive is not like earthly inheritances.  In earthly inheritances, each heir gets a portion.  In the reign of God, each of us receives the entire world.  The difference is that when the reign of God is fully revealed and sin is removed, the sinful desire to amass and accumulate for ourselves will also be removed.)  We follow not in the hope that we will see our Master taken up but rather that we will see our Master come down in glory.

1 Kings 21-22

1 Kings 21-22

            As I’ve noted, Ahab wasn’t a pure idolater.  He was a syncretist, trying to hold together aspects of Israel’s faith with aspects of Canaanite religion.  So, we discover that his son is named Ahaziah.  (Though the Bible doesn’t point this out, Ahaziah means something along the lines of “Yahweh stands firm;” it’s a thoroughly Israelite name.)  And in the previous chapter, Ahab was in productive conversation with Yahweh’s prophets.  Further, we find Ahab humbling himself before the Lord (v. 20).  As a matter of fact, Ahab doesn’t like it, but he understands why Naboth won’t sell his vineyard.  Ahab has read Leviticus and Deuteronomy, or at least he remembers that “Israelites [are] God’s tenants in the land of Canaan [and] do not have the right to alienate the land through its permanent and irretrievable sale to a purchaser.”

            Jezebel is a pure idolater, and she has a fundamentally different idea about land.  Her idea is that if you have enough power and influence you can get anything you want—even if it means framing an innocent man and orchestrating his death.  Notice that Jezebel waters reality down and makes no reference to how she arranged Naboth’s death to her husband.  Notice, too, that Ahab doesn’t ask.  Sometimes it’s just safer not to know.

            Notice, too, the similarity with the story of David and Bathsheba: treacherously taking a poor man’s one beloved thing by orchestrating his death, a prophet’s confrontation, a kingdom in chaos, punishment falling on a son.  At his worst, Israel’s best king, David, was just as bad as her worst king, Ahab.  Let that be a reminder that sin lurks at the door of our heart to and that even the best of Christians can fall into the deepest sin.  Of course, David’s story is mitigated by the Lord’s promise that his throne will endure, a promise that Ahab does not have.  Let that be a reminder to cling to God’s promises of forgiveness and His faithfulness to them.

Brief Notes on 1 Kings 1-20

My goodness!  I haven’t posted in over two weeks.  If you’re interested, here are some thoughts on the previous weeks’ readings.  You’ll understand if these are relatively short!

1 Kings 1-2

            The dedicated student of the Scriptures will need a few more resources than just a Bible.  A study bible, like Concordia Publishing House’s Concordia Self-Study Bible (NIV) or Lutheran Study Bible (ESV), is a good start.  One can find several one-volume introductions to the Bible.  (Zondervan has Handbook to the Bible; Eerdmans offers Companion to the Bible.)  For those who want to go a little deeper in the Old Testament, I’ve found a series by Baker very helpful:  Handbook on the Pentateuch, Handbook on the Historical Books, Handbook on the Wisdom Books and Psalms, and Handbook on the Prophets.

            I mention this because the Handbook on the Historical Books offers these excellent insights into Solomon’ s reign.  “Solomon is in many ways like his father, David.  Neither sought the kingship (in ch. 1 of First Kings, Solomon is singularly passive, if not for the most part absent, and does not speak until the last two verses). . . . For both their reign reaches a zenith (2 Samuel 10; 1 Kings 8), only to have it plunge into a darkness (2 Samuel 11-21, 24; 1 Kings 11) for which both father and son are culpable.  And neither David’s nor Solomon’s strongest virtue is his relationship with women. . . . But one thing is missing from Solomon’s reign to which his father was privileged.  David enters his reign-to-be when he is anointed by the prophet Samuel (1 Sam. 16:13).  Solomon is the recipient of no such prophetic charisma.  Rather, he enters office thanks to a well-orchestrated power play by his mother, Bathsheba, and Nathan, who manipulated the aged David” (Hamilton, 380).

            There’s so much there!  I’m fascinated by the collaboration of Bathsheba and Nathan.  Since Nathan was the one who confronted David over his adultery with Bathsheba, one would not expect them to be allies.  But times change and, as they say, ‘politics makes strange bedfellows.’

            In terms of a christological lesson, that is, a lesson about Jesus, I note this:  neither David nor Solomon sought the kingship and its trappings.  In the same way, Jesus ‘did not regard equality with God as something to be grasped’ (Phil. 2).  However, David and especially Solomon certainly enjoyed those trappings and the privilege and power that went with them.  (Consider the brutal way that Solomon consolidates his reign, killing Adonijah, Joab, and Shimei in turn.)  Jesus, in contrast, ‘humbled himself even to death’ (Phil. 2).  There are analogies between the kingship of David and Solomon and that of Jesus, but in the end, we are reminded that Jesus’ kingship is of a whole different sort!

1 Kings 3-4

            There are hints of Solomon’s eventual downfall at the beginning of chapter 3 (again, thanks to Handbook on the Historical Books).   Those hints include his foreign wife, the order in which his buildings are noted (his comfort is first; the Lord is second), and the fact that he worshipped at a ‘high place’ (a description of a Canaanite worship site).

            Those hints of future trouble, though, are secondary to the more pressing point of the story, namely, that Solomon asks for the ability to rule well (wisdom) not the rewards of having ruled well (power and wealth).  Here’s a fact that strikes me:  in asking for wisdom and a discerning heart, Solomon has already demonstrated that he has a wise, discerning heart.

            This is important in understanding so-called ‘spiritual gifts.’  I’m not a big fan of spiritual gift inventories and the like.  I think that they give us the wrong idea about how God endows us.  The discussion of spiritual gifts in the last half of the 20^th century seemed to suggest that God gave special “3^rd Article” gifts when a person came to faith.  That is, it suggested that a person was one sort of person with certain talents and inclinations from birth but after conversion the Holy Spirit added other talents and inclinations that hadn’t been there before.  I don’t think that’s a particularly responsible reading of 1 Corinthians.  Instead, I think that the Lord fearfully and wonderfully makes all human beings.  The difference between the unconverted and the believer is not that the Lord adds other talents to the believer; it’ that the believer uses his talents and inclinations in the service of the Lord, His church, and His world.  It’s not that the Spirit adds new ‘gifts’ to us at conversion; it’s that He shows us how to use our gifts to God’s glory.  I think the story of Solomon’s wisdom supports this conclusion.

1 Kings 5-7

            Consider here the immense expenditure that Solomon made for the temple.  The cedar from Lebanon costs him 125,000 bushels of wheat (north of $800,000 in today’s prices) and 115,000 gallons of olive oil (about $1.5).  1 Kings doesn’t list quantities of gold used, but 1 Chronicles notes that David set aside 3,750 tons of gold and ten times that amount in silver.  (At today’s prices, that’s more than 130 billion dollars!)  Of course, it’s not fair to evaluate on the basis of today’s prices.  For example, the wheat and olive oil would have been more expensive then, because they would not have had the efficiencies and technologies we have.  On the other hand, the gold may have been much less valuable because there wasn’t the global economic pressure there is today.  Either way, between David and Solomon, they dropped a lot of coin on the temple.

            Secondly, having marveled at the investment in the temple, note, too, that he had plenty left over to build his own exceedingly comfortable palace.

            Over the years, I’ve noticed a certain reluctance to be extravagant in the church.  Sometimes we talk like Judas and the disciples, reacting to the woman who anointed Jesus’ head with perfume, “Why this waste?  It could have been sold for a year’s wages and given to the poor!”  On the other hand, it’s a rare congregation that is frugal in regard to its worship so that it can be extravagant in its missions and benevolence.  My experience is that a church that is reluctant in the one will be reluctant in the other.  (Not always, but often.)

            Anyhow, this is not a post about big, gaudy churches; it’s a post about the generosity of our hearts.  I’m by no means perfect or even very far advanced in this, but I have found that being generous becomes easier and easier the more generous one is.  Once you discover generosity, you start to realize that there’s usually enough to go around.  I think that’s an important lesson from Solomon.  He gave to the Lord extravagantly and first, and he had plenty left for himself.

1 Kings 8

            Two details get at the heart of the temple and why it’s so important for understanding the Bible and Lutheran worship.  First, 1 Kings 8:11 notes that the ‘cloud of the glory’ filled the temple.  Second, Solomon ponders, “Will God really dwell on earth?  The heavens can’t contain you, much less this temple I have built.”

            God had always intended to dwell with humans.  It’s right there in Genesis 3.  The Lord spoke to Adam face-to-face; He walked with Adam in the garden; that’s how it was supposed to be.  Adam’s sin changed that and resulted in man’s banishment from God’s presence.  What God had intended should be together—heaven and earth, His presence and man’s—man ripped asunder.

            Yet the Creator God never failed in His love for His creation.  We read of Him visiting the earth (Gen. 6, 11) and speaking to various patriarchs (Abraham, Jacob, Moses).  And in the days of Moses He commanded that the tabernacle be built.  Israel lived in tents and her God will dwelt in a tent in the midst of her.  Now, He graciously deigned to dwell in a temple made with human hands.

            In the grand scheme of biblical theology, the temple theme blossomed into Jesus.  Matthew called Jesus “Immanuel,” the God who is with us.  John declared Him “the Word who became flesh and ‘tabernacled/tented/dwelt’ among us.”  Jesus was (still is) the very presence of God, no longer tied to one place but walking about His earth.  Significantly Jesus declared at the end of His earthly ministry that He would still be with His people to the end of the age.  Then, He sent His Spirit, who has declared the church His temple.  Wherever the church gathers, there is the Spirit, there is Jesus, there is the presence of the Triune God.

            And here’s the other thing:  in the tabernacle, in the temple, in Jesus, in the Church (especially as she gathers around Word and Sacrament), God’s gracious presence is made known.  Just last night I was at a funeral and I heard a man say that he found the lakeshore a better place for prayer than church.  I didn’t know him so I didn’t say anything, but, listen, if you want to find God in nature than at least cop to the fact that the God in nature is powerful, maybe good (sometimes), but not clearly gracious.  God’s power is revealed in nature.  I expect that’s what most people have in mind when they say they find God in nature.  “Look how beautiful things are!”  OK, true enough.  (I love mountains, too.  Glacier and Grand Teton National Parks may be the best places on earth.)  But that God in nature—well, you have to account for tornadoes and hurricanes and brutality, too.  You can’t say, “I see God in a beautiful sunset,” unless that same God can be identified in a terrible storm, and if it’s the same God, what message are you getting about Him?

            But the Lord said that He would be present in certain places—temple, church—with a clear message:  that in that place He would ‘hear from heaven and forgive.’  The message of the temple, of church, is meant to be very clear:  the God who meets you here is the God who sacrificed His Son to bring you into His presence.  It’s a message you won’t find any place else, and it reminds us that God continues to tie His presence and His promise to certain place—wherever His Spirit-filled people gather to receive His gifts in Word and Sacrament.

1 Kings 9-10

            Solomon was incredibly blessed.  His fame spread over the whole earth (10:24).  His military was powerful (10:26).  His wealth was unparalleled.  1 Kings reports all of these things without any value judgment or warning.  They are simply blessings that Solomon receives.  It seems that having asked for wisdom rather than riches revealed something of Solomon’s character.  He was able to have great blessings without those blessings become idols, a fate that awaits many.  (Remember Jesus’ saying about camels, the eyes of needles, and rich men entering the kingdom of heaven?)

1 Kings 11

            Solomon handled fame, power, and wealth just fine, thank you very much.  What he did not handle well was multiple, foreign wives.  “He loved many foreign wisdom” (11:1).  Many, maybe even most, of his wives were probably the result of political arrangements.  (An ancient king often married the daughter of a defeated rival for two reasons: first, it made for a convenient hostage should the rival try anything, and, second, it allowed the victory to make a claim on his rival’s throne later.)  But Solomon loved these women.  I wouldn’t take that in the modern sense of affection, but certainly we can say that Solomon liked the attention of women.  Here then, like his father David, was his fatal weakness.

            Everybody has weaknesses.  We can sometimes mask them, hide them, compensate for them.  But we all have them.  “No one is righteous, no, not one!” (Rom. 3:10).  Sin is just that insidious.  Of course, it is only Jesus who loves the Lord with all His heart, soul, and mind, and loves His neighbor as Himself.  Only Jesus avoids this tragic weakness, and so by His perfect righteousness brings salvation to all.

1 Kings 12

            On the one hand, the roots of the split between north and south in Israel reach back to Solomon and some of his policies.  Solomon had place ‘a heavy yoke’ on the people (12:4).  This included taxes, forced labor, and (presumably) military conscription.  It probably didn’t help anything that Solomon lived in such opulence and his people did not.  People will only tolerate oppression and inequity for so long before they try to do something about it.

            On the other hand, Rehoboam didn’t do himself any favors.  He had access to his father Solomon’s advisors.  Just to be clear these were men who had spent their whole careers in service to the wisest man in the world.  They might have picked some wisdom up along the way!  But Rehoboam chose to take the advice of his young, inexperienced peers.

            So, two thoughts:  first, we see again that the seeds sown by one generation sprout in the next.  In very practical terms, we are reminded that the attitudes and patterns of thought and of life that parents model for their children shape the attitudes and thoughts and lives that their children will carry through life.  Second, we have a lesson about the importance who we listen to.  Ironically, one of the themes of Proverbs (much of which Rehoboam’s dad, Solomon, had written) is that one needs to be careful about whose advice he takes.  It’s important to have advisors who actually understand the issues not just advisors who’ll say whatever one wants to hear.

1 Kings 13-14

            A man of God from Judah goes to Bethel and condemns Jeroboam’s shrine there.  He refuses to stay because the Lord told him to go straight home.

            Then a prophet from Bethel summons that man of God to turn aside and eat with him.  At first the man from Judah says, “No, the Lord told me go straight home.”  But the prophet of Bethel persists, saying, “An angel told me you could come.”  Long story short:  the man of God from Judah turns aside and dies.

            Why would a ‘prophet’ entice a ‘man of God’?  Who knows!  But this much is certain:  not every prophet nor everyone who claimed to be a prophet was actually a true prophet of the Lord.  The text gives no hint, but the fact that the guy is living near Bethel might mark him as a false prophet.

            More importantly, the man of God from Judah ignored the world of the Lord and turned aside.  That’s the real lesson.  We’re so often on our guard against obvious evil—like the invitation of Jeroboam to stay—that we miss the more insidious evils—hidden grudges, bitterness, discontentment—that wear away at the Word of the Lord.  For example, in the last week, there’s been an awful lot of handwringing over the Supreme Court’s overturning of DOMA.  My point is that it’s easy enough to deplore homosexuality, but the church is perhaps too quiet on all sorts of other sexual sin that has crept into our midst.

1 Kings 15-16

            Very briefly, although Rehoboam’s son, Abijah, is an idolater whose heart is not fully devoted to the Lord, the Lord secures his throne, protecting Jerusalem and giving him a son.  The reason is important:  because of David (15:5).  Then Asa, a faithful man, took the throne and reigned for 41 years.  This will be in marked contrast to the kings of the north.  They will be uniformly unfaithful, and they will be marked by generally shorter reigns and a revolving door of dynasties.  (Assassination is normal in the north; rare in the south.)

            Without trying to make this into a universal rule, there’s a strain of biblical teaching that says evil actions get evil results.  The Lord often consigns the wicked to their wickedness and lets them reap the whirlwind (Hos. 8:7).  In the Scriptures this line of reasoning is often coupled with the suffering of the righteous.  The righteous suffer and wonder why the evil prosper and the Lord says something along the lines of, “Just wait; they’ll get theirs.”  Again, the Lord makes no promises about timelines, but He does encourage the righteous to be patient in a wicked world.  That’s an exhortation many of us need to hear regularly!

1 Kings 17-18

            Israel’s problem was not that they outright rejected the Lord, Yahweh, the God of Israel.  No, they tried to merge their worship of Yahweh with the worship of other gods.  It’s not that Israel was outrightly pagan; it’s that they were syncretistic.  (Syncretism is the mixing of elements of several religions.)  This is clear in the story of Ahab and Elijah.  We’ll discover in chapter 22 that Ahab named his son Ahaziah; the –iah ending is an abbreviation of Yahweh’s name.  Ahab held on to some aspects of the faith of Israel, and we’ll hear the Lord say in chapter 21 that Ahab had humbled himself before the Lord.  On the other hand, he worshipped the false gods of his wife Jezebel.  This is precisely the problem that Elijah faced on Mt. Carmel:  “How long will you [Israel] waver between two opinions?  If Yahweh is God, follow him!  If Baal is God, follow him!”

            The truth is you can’t have it both ways.  The God we worship, the God of Jesus the Messiah, the God of Israel, the Creator God won’t tolerate split attention.  Now, I know that we don’t have the same kinds of gods that ancient folks had; we don’t have little shrines or altars or statues in our houses.  But we still have divided hearts.  We love all sorts of things more than the Lord, or at least we let all sorts of things have a seat at the table next to the Lord.  We are susceptible to a theology that says God wants us to be wealthy and powerful and popular; we are susceptible to a theology of glory.  If your God’s main job is to make you wealthy, doesn’t that just show that you’ve given wealth a place next to that God?

            Of course, the Jesus moment is that He is the only One who is completely devoted to the true God.  His prayer in Gethsemane stands as a counterpoint to all human desires to have it both ways:  “Not what I want, but what you want.”  It’s that attitude and His faithful submission to an undeserved death that works atonement and forgiveness for all of our divided loyalties.

1 Kings 19

            Following through on the Jesus connections, Elijah thought he was all alone.  Twice he bemoans, “They’ve broken your covenant, broken your altars, killed your prophets, and I’m the only one left.”  The Lord sets him straight, “Get back into the game. I have a plan [it involves Hazael of Damascus, Jehu of Israel, and Elisha the prophet].  And by the way, there are still 7,000 in Israel who are faithful.”  Jesus, on the other hand, never left the game.  Luke 9:51, “Jesus resolutely set out for Jerusalem.”  He enacted the plans of God, and He did that all alone.  Romans, Israelites, disciples—all turned on him, and on the cross He suffered the abandonment of God Himself.  Jesus had a reason to complain about being all alone, but He died with a word of faith on His lips, “Into your hands I commend my spirit.”

1 Kings 20

            Chapter 20 puts Ahab into a much better light.  Elijah doesn’t appear, and Ahab listens to other prophets about his border skirmish with Ben-Hadad of Syria.  Things go well for Ahab.  The prophets promise success so that Ahab may know the Lord is God (vv. 13, 28).  However, there’s a hitch:  Ahab does not kill Ben-Hadad.  Now, there’s no direct command to ‘fully devote’ the Arameans to the Lord, like there is with Joshua and with Saul, but it seems to be implied that if the Lord delivers your enemy into your hand you should finish the job.  The conclusion is that Ahab returns to Samaria sullen and angry (v. 43), which will set up the next chapter, in which a grouchy king petulantly participates in a grave injustice.

Two Notes on 1 Samuel 24

1 Samuel 24
          Let me note a problem and a lesson in this chapter.  The problem comes first, because it is in verse 1, namely, what does it mean that the Lord incited David to take a census?  We notice that the Lord's anger burned against Israel, but there is absolutely no indication of the reason.  We could hypothesize:  the Lord's anger has burned over Israel's chronic idolatry, over her complaining about everything, over her refusal to do things the way He said.  Whatever it is, I think that recognizing some unnamed sin in Israel's corporate, national life is the best way to understand God's 'inciting' of David.  The Scriptures assert over and over again that the Lord raises up and brings down kings for His own purposes, that the nations of the earth are His instruments.  What we have here, then, is the Lord doing in Israel what He claims often to do in and through the other nations.  The difference here is that He is 'inciting' His own anointed so that He can discipline His own chosen nation.
          Now, one could suppose that the Lord could have just skipped the middle man and left David out of it.  He did that repeatedly during the Exodus and wilderness periods.  But here the Lord 'hides His hand,' so to speak; He hides His agency and causation.  I suppose the unsettling question is how we can know if we ought to blame circumstances on the Lord or on human evil.  That's certainly a hard question, but I wonder if  we should pay a little more attention to the verb 'incite.'  Incite seems to suggest that the idea was already there in David and the Lord simply nudged him in a direction he was already leading.  Certainly David doesn't think that it's the Lord's fault!  He takes the blame himself.  Here, as so often, we don't have to make a choice between the Lord's agency and human agency; here, as so often, the Lord seems to be merely co-opting human evil for His own purposes.
          So much for the problem, now the lesson.  I owe this one to our campaign consultant, who pointed it out to me in its parallel spot in 1 Chronicles 21:24.  Araunah offers to give David his threshing floor as a site for sacrifice, his oxen for the sacrifice, and his farming equipment for the wood.  But David insists on paying for it and says, "No, I insist on paying you for it. I will not sacrifice to the LORD my God burnt offerings that cost me nothing."
          That's a convicting thought.  Let me tell you something:  as my wife and I have thought and prayed about our commitment to Divine Savior's fall campaign, our conversation has often centered around what we can afford.  That is, our conversation has centered around what gift we can make that won't cost as all that much.  But after our initial discussions, my wife and I have 'talked ourselves into more.'  We've grappled with  whether our gift is costly or not.  From a strictly human point of view, one of the disadvantages of being in on the campaign conversation from the very beginning is that we've had a lot of time to keep re-considering.  And frankly, I don't know that we're done yet.  Commitments won't be made until October, and I have a feeling this statement of David's will weigh on us for a while yet.
          I would hope that all sorts of people would wonder about David's statement, "I won't give a gift that cost me nothing," whether it is in terms of our regular giving to our congregations or extra campaign gifts.  To tell the truth, the more I think about it, the more I'd hope that that attitude would begin to shape several areas of our lives--whether the time we spend with our families (I know that I've told my children and my mother, "I don't have time;" but maybe I need to give gifts that cost me something) or the ways we think about gifts in general (if you're looking for a cheap way out of a gift, maybe you need to re-think the purpose of a gift!).
          One final thing needs to be pointed out:  the threshing floor of Araunah will become the site of Solomon's temple.  We'll unpack that a little when we re-read the story at the end of Chronicles.

David's "Last Words"

2 Samuel 23
         The first verse says that these are David's last words.  What does that mean?  It might mean that this is some sort of formal statement of David's, a sort of pre-recorded, official statement--similar to someone who might write his/her own obituary.  It might actually be David's last words, even though he will speak again in this book and the next.  (I think it bears remembering that ancient authors didn't feel the same wooden obligation to exact chronology as modern ones often do.)  I tend to think it's more of the first one, sort of David's valediction over his career.  I say that because of the way that he asserts, 'Is not my house right with God" (v. 5)?  That seems to be like saying, "Well, God kept His promises.  I reigned for a long time and, even though there were some doubtful moments, He saw it through."
          After the Bathsheba incident, Absalom's revolt, Sheba's revolt, and all the trouble it brought, the mature David honors God's choice of him and even 'brags' a little about his own success.  That sort of valediction is only possible in hindsight.  There are those moments when the Lord allows the road of our life to rise a little that we might get a glimpse of where we have been.  It's in those moments that faith is able to trace out a line and say, "Through many dangers, toils, and snares, I have already come; His grace has brought me safe thus far, His grace will lead me home!"

David's Adultery

2 Samuel 11-12

            Ah, the sordid tale of David and Bathsheba1  There is really no good way to spin this story.  We note that David sent the army into the field but he himself stayed home.  Bad sign, #1.  He had no motive other than lust in sleeping with Bathsheba—no political gain to be had, no favor to be curried, no alliances to seal.  Bad sign #2.  Finally, there is the arranged murder of Uriah.  If only he had gone home instead of being all noble!

            Things were really tracking upward for David.  He had beaten the Philistines and won a capital (ch. 5).  He had begun to restore the proper worship of the Lord (ch. 6).  The Lord had promised that his throne would endure (ch. 7).  He’s beaten his enemies and made peace with the remnant of Saul’s family (ch. 8-9).  Unfortunately, adversity had brought out the best in David and now prosperity begins to bring out the worst in him.  There’s probably a lesson there about us, too, and our proclivity to lose sight of the Lord in the good times . . .

            A couple of notes:  the Bible never flinches from showing us that even the greatest ‘hero of the faith’ is just a poor, miserable sinner like the rest of us.  Abraham, Jacob, Moses, the judges—they all fell into doubt and sin.  In some ways, the constant failures of the men of God set us up for Jesus.  Just about the time we’re thinking, “Isn’t there anyone who can do the job?” Jesus appears and honors the Father in all things.  In another way, it warns us against trusting our own spiritual resources:  if they can’t do it perfectly, we can’t either!

            A second bit in this reading is Nathan’s confrontation of David and the aftermath.  First off, notice that Nathan is a master of the parable.  Please, put away the old saw that a parable is an earthly story with a heavenly meaning.  A parable was a way to speak truth to power, to cloak an iron fist in a velvet glove; it was designed to make the hearer recognize his own failure.  Second, David’s repentance is genuine.  (Read Psalm 51 to prove that point.)  Third, the sin is forgiven (v. 13), but the consequence of the sin remains.  I think that probably troubles some of my readers.  But we should understand that forgiveness means the guilt of sin is taken away; it does not mean that we can walk away scot-free from the consequences of our sin.  Spread malicious stories about a friend, and that friend may forgive you.  It is unlikely though that they will trust you anytime soon.  I’m sure we’ll talk about that last point on Sunday!

2 Samuel 6

2 Samuel 6

            The notes in The Lutheran Study Bible pointed out something important about the transportation of the ark from the house of Abinadab to the Jerusalem:  the Israelites transported the ark on an ox-drawn cart—just like the Philistines had.  The ark had rings and poles by which it was supposed to be carried by the Levites.  By the time of this incident, Israel has clearly forgotten how to handle their own sacred vessels.  The fact that David had a tent prepared in Jerusalem (2 Sam. 6:17) raises some hard question about whether this was the tabernacle or not.  (The commentators in The Lutheran Study Bible think not.)  So, perhaps the Lord’s patience is already a little frayed, helping to explain the death of Uzzah.  Certainly there’s a lesson here about paying attention to the Word of God.  Don’t want to run afoul of the Lord?  Remember what He said!

            A second note is David’s self-abandonment in his joy over the ark of the Lord.  It seems to me that David saw himself as dancing before the Lord while Michal thought he should be more concerned about men.  But that’s exactly what’s right with David (at least for a while yet).  He sees himself first of all standing before God and his standing before God determines his actions before men.  That’s a good lesson for us, too.  Your identity and your calling come first from God.  Too often we let our identity before men determine our relationship with God.

            Finally, I don’t know if this foreshadows trouble for David or not, but I do wonder why he offered sacrifices and not a priest.  When Saul did that, it was less than commendable.  Why does David get away with it?  (Other kings will do the same thing, notably Solomon, David’s son.)  The three great offices of the Old Testament are distinct:  prophets speak God’s words to the contemporary age; priests make sacrifices and instruct in God’s Word, and kings rule.  David seems to be taking over an office that didn’t belong to him.  He wasn’t even a Levite, much less a priest!  Lessons?  Perhaps simply to recognize the limits of one’s own vocation.  As a citizen, it’s not my right to determine that a law doesn’t apply to me; as an employee, it’s not my prerogative to complain about a new direction that management is taking us; as a child (hypothetically), it’s not my place to tell my parents what they need to do to raise me.  As a king, it’s not David’s place to offer sacrifices, although in this instance he is not criticized for it.