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.