The List of David’s Officials

1 Chronicles 23-27

            If someone asked me, “Why are theses chapters in the Bible? Why do we need to know this? Why is it important?” I’m afraid I’d stumble through an answer. I suppose they are an example of what Paul says in 1 Corinthians 14, that “God is not a God of disorder but of peace” and that “everything should be done in a fitting and orderly way.” I suppose these chapters are meant to tell a post-exilic community how important it is for them to likewise honor good order in their new temple. I suppose these chapters are meant to demonstrate the post-exilic community’s continuity with the generations of David.

            So, I suppose there’s some things we can learn in this long reading. We, too, are reminded about the importance of good order in the church, and, frankly, in a lot of life. We, too, stand in a continuous line with the believers of old. Of course, we don’t emphasize biological continuity. Paul says in Romans 10 that not all who are descended from Israel are Israel, part of his case beginning in Romans 4 that Abraham’s children are not those share his DNA, but those who share his faith. So, there’s something here for us, but I’ll grant you this: these lists of names are hard to read!

David’s Preparations for the Temple

1 Chronicles 22

            1 Kings leaves the impression that Temple is completely Solomon’s work. 1 Chronicles corrects that impression by emphasizing the investment that David made in the project. Solomon worked out deals for materials and arranged the workers (1 Kings 5). Perhaps Solomon even set aside some of what David had stockpiled, using his own materials (see 1 Kings 7:51). But David had certainly given Solomon a running start on the supplies.

            The whole account fits the Chronicler’s agenda. He emphasizes the Temple by showing that it was an intergenerational project and that its materials were valuable beyond measure. It was to be a project “of great magnificence and fame and splendor in the sight of all the nations” (1 Chronicles 22:5). He also exalts David by demonstrating his role in the project. Yes, David was forbidden from building the temple (which would have fit the Chronicler’s story just fine, thank you), but David did the lion’s share of the work to pay for it. In these ways, the Chronicler melds two of his most important themes—the Temple and David—and shows their connection.

Important Differences

1 Chronicles 21

            The story of David’s census in 1 Chronicles is different from its counterpart in 2 Samuel in a few important ways. First, the Chronicler places the blame on Satan instead of David or the Lord. We talked about this a little a few months ago. In 1 Samuel, the Lord ends wicked spirits to torment Saul (and, presumably, to call that wayward king to repentance), so we have learned that the Lord is capable of using the most unlikely instruments to accomplish His purposes. Probably we ought to put the two versions together like this: the Lord co-opts Satan’s perverse nature and David’s pride to bring Israel to repentance. The Lord is not the author of that evil, but in His own righteousness He is able to use it for His own ends. Similarly, we read that He is able to use foreign, pagan nations to accomplish what He wants done.

            The larger difference, the difference that really highlights the Chronicler’s own agenda, is the emphasis on the temple. For example, Joab excludes the tribes of Levi and Benjamin from the census. Levi is easy enough: the Levites are to tend to the tabernacle, so they are exempted from military service. Benjamin is more subtle: at this time, my study Bible reminds, both the tabernacle and the ark are physically in the territory of Benjamin. Another example is that the price that David pays for Araunah’s property is greatly enlarged in 1 Chronicles, probably reflecting the price of the whole property as opposed to just the threshing floor in 2 Samuel. The point introduces David’s generosity in preparing for the construction of the temple. Finally, 1 Chronicles 21:28-22:1 are not paralleled in 2 Samuel, but here the site is explicitly named the future home of the temple.

Showing David’s Good Side

1 Chronicles 18-20

            1 Chronicles 18-19 are practically verbatim repeats of 2 Samuel 8 and 10. 1 Chronicles 20 starts the same way, repeating 2 Samuel 11:1, with David staying in Jerusalem while Joab and the army attacked Ramah. Then 1 Chronicles skips about 10 chapters of 2 Samuel. The attack on Rabbah presaged the saga with Bathsheba and Uriah, but the Chronicle passes over that incident. He also passes over all the consequences: there’s no mention in Chronicles of Absalom murdering his brother, Amon; no mention of Absalom’s revolt; no mention of the incident with Shimei calling down curses on David.

            We could accuse the Chronicler of whitewashing David, but I think we should just let him tell the story he wants to tell. The Chronicler wants to show the legitimacy of his post-exilic Israelite community. Part of that purpose is to show that they ought to live up to the faithfulness of David, the promise of David. To do that, he highlights David’s best.

            This isn’t dishonesty; it’s kindness. And we do it all the time. In American history, we do it with presidents. We highlight the greatness of Washington, Jefferson, and Lincoln. A nuance approach would show that the first two were slaveholders and the latter was a latecomer to the cause of abolition. But we remember them for their achievements more than for their shortcomings. We do the same thing at funerals. We have a saying, “Don’t speak evil of the dead.” Of course, we could use the funeral as a chance to lay out our grievances with the departed, but in general we don’t. We choose instead to honor their memory and to find some inspiration in them. Just so, the Chronicler explains David in the kindest way in order to use him to inspire his generation.

God’s Promise to David

1 Chronicles 17

            David will not be the one to build a temple for the Lord. No, David’s role was to provide peace and security for his people. Coincidentally, Solomon, who has not yet been named in Chronicles, is named exactly that. Solomon is a form of the word shalom, which in Hebrew means peace. David establishes God’s peace in Israel; Solomon is the beneficiary of it.

            A note about forever. In Hebrew the phrase translated forever literally means for the age (s). That is to say, the phrase might not mean to eternity. It might mean as long as this age of the world endures, until the next age, or simply, a really long time. Context has to be the determiner. I bring it up because, on the one hand, David’s throne did not endure forever. Yes, there was a Davidic king until the exile, and after the exile there were heirs of David who were (kind of) in charge, but the throne of David seems to have petered out. Of course, on the other hand, from a Christian point of view, Jesus is the heir of David, and He is seated at the right hand of the Father for eternity, so the question is less about, “What does forever mean?” and more about the surprising ways that God keeps His promises.

The Ark to Jerusalem

1 Chronicles 15-16

            The story of the ark of the covenant being brought to Jerusalem is substantially different in 1 Chronicles than it is in 2 Samuel. Here the emphasis is on the Levitical role. At the outset, David explicitly acknowledges the error of carrying the ark on a cart and says that only the Levites should carry it. The Levites are mentioned 11 times in chapter 15 alone! There’s also a callback to chapter 9 when we read about David appointing the Levites their roles in the temple.

            The psalm in chapter 16 also makes some points, reminding us that David is not just a warrior but a man of God and a poet. The psalm is comprised of portions of Psalms 105, 96, and 106. The section from Psalm 105, which extols the Lord’s faithfulness to the covenant (1 Chronicles 16:8-22/Psalm 105:1-15), matches the Chronicler’s agenda very well.

            Two messages to this post-exilic community are clear. First, we are still the people of God; He is still faithful to the covenant He made with our father Abraham. Second, we still have the personnel to maintain true worship in the Temple. We still have the descendants of Levi in our midst. Our worship and our claims on God are legitimate.

David’s Exploits

1 Chronicles 13-14

            We know that in Chronicles we’re covering history we’ve already covered, and I’ve observed that the temple is a prominent theme in Chronicles. For both of those reasons, we shouldn’t be surprised to read about David’s ill-fated first attempt to bring the ark to Jerusalem again. New details the Chronicler adds include David’s consultation with the priests and the Levites; despite the results, David wants to do things right. Another new emphasis is on David’s consultation with ‘all Israel.’ He is portrayed as a unified, doing things that will bring the people together, especially in the right worship of the Lord.

            When we turn our attention to the battle with the Philistines, the Chronicler makes a subtle connection with the word perez. In the story about the ark, David named the place of Uzzah’s death Perez Uzzah, because the Lord had ‘broken out’ (perez) against Uzzah. The lesson there was that God’s holy people were to respect the Lord and His law. The battle with the Philistines took place at Baal Perazim, which means either ‘Baal who breaks out’ or ‘the lord who breaks out.’ Baal can be the name of the chief god of Canaan, but it can also just be a general word indicating a master. If it’s a reference to Baal, then it’s mockingly given, because Baal cannot break out against Israel. (I know, the chief god of the Philistines is Dagon; Baal here might just be a way of referring to all the false gods.) If it’s a reference to the Lord, then He did indeed break out, teaching the nations that they too should respect Him.

The Reign of David

1 Chronicles 9-12

            The reading today begins with one more list of names: the names and genealogies of those priests and Levites who returned from the exile. Notice that in some cases their lines go back to the sons of Levi, and notice also that there is a concern to emphasize that David gave them their position. As Monday, so today: the genealogies are about legitimacy. They are an assertion that the men who are serving us today are direct descendants from the times of David and from the Exodus. In this case, the assertion is not so much about rights and power as it is for comfort, that the Lord has not completely forsaken them, but that He is still providing the blessings He always provided.

            I mention that because sometimes we assert continuity for less than great reasons. We hear and maybe say things like, “My ancestors founded this…: and we mean it as a way of asserting our rights over it. Or, in some Christian denominations, they talk about apostolic succession, a teaching that their bishops serve in an unbroken line from the bishops before, all the way to Peter. In some ways, it’s intended as a comfort, that they are the same church as always. In other cases, it becomes a way of putting other denominations down because their pastors and bishops are somehow questionable. (When Lutherans talk about apostolic succession we do not mean that there’s an unbroken line of ordination but that the teaching of the church has been unified since the apostles.)

            When we get into the narrative portions in chapter 10, we notice the Chronicler wants to emphasize certain aspects of the story of David. So, for example, he passes over the entire war between the house of Saul and David. Remember 2 Samuel mentioned a couple of times that David ruled in Hebron for 6 ½ years; here it is simply said that all Israel acclaimed him. The only hint of trouble is the repeated notice that some of his army defected or ‘went over to David’ from Saul. Otherwise the emphasis is on the unity of the kingdom under David. Again, we see the comfort trying to be given to the post-exilic community, “We are the heirs not of a broken kingdom, but of the unified kingdom of David.”

            The relocation of the list of David’s mighty men from the end of his reign in 2 Samuel to the beginning of his reign in 1 Chronicles makes the same point. Look at 1 Chronicles 11:10, ith its emphasis on all Israel and the strong support David had.

So Many More Genealogies…

1 Chronicles 5-8

            There are tidbits scattered throughout these genealogies. One that stood out to me was in 1 Chronicles 5, where the author maintains that when Reuben lost his birthright for sleeping with his father Jacob’s concubine (Genesis 35), the birthright went to the tribes of Joseph. The author explains that Judah was strongest and that a ruler came out of it, but he says the birthright was given to Joseph (Manasseh and Ephraim). I have always read the earlier parts of the Bible as saying that the birthright passed to Judah, and I don’t know what to make of the Chronicler’s statement it actually went to Joseph. One commentator says that the birthright entitled the firstborn to two shares of the inheritance and that Joseph received two allocations—one for Manasseh and one for Ephraim. Maybe that’s all the Chronicler meant.

            Another tidbit is the very extensive list of the descendants of Levi, including the note about David’s Levitical temple musicians. This is an example in which the genealogy is demonstrating for a post-exilic community their continuity with the past and presumably their legitimacy (and the legitimacy of their worship) in the present.

            Tidbits, but they do break up what might otherwise be difficult reading!

So Many Genealogies...

1 Chronicles 1-4

    Chronicles is written to a post-exilic community. Their territory is incredibly small, really just the area around Jerusalem. They have neither a real king nor any real independence. And their temple doesn't compare to the one Solomon built and the Babylonians destroyed. They had a ton of reasons to doubt their standing with the Lord.

    One of the purposes of the genealogies that dominate the first chapters of 1 Chronicles is to remind the people, "We are indeed still the people of God, heirs of His promises." I know these genealogies are hard to read, and I know that if we applied ourselves we could probably find deep connections with important lessons for us. But, here's my advice: just skim them. (That goes for tomorrow, too.) Do your best, and hold on to the simple lesson about: these genealogies are intended as proof to Israel in her distress that she is still the people of God. Then, hold on to the simple lesson in your distress: you also are one of God's children. Even if circumstances don't seem to prove it, you are.  

The Fall of Judah

2 Kings 24-25

            The immediate cause of the fall of Judah and Jerusalem was power politics. The kings of Judah just couldn’t stay out of the affairs of nations. Now, to be fair, they were in the middle of everything. Egypt was south of Israel; Babylon and Assyria were north; Israel was always caught between great powers. In that situation, what are you going to do? You’re going to pick a side and hope for the best. Then there was the problem of vassalage: promising to serve a foreign king who’s about to destroy your nation is a good idea, but it’s never very popular at home, and you throw off that yoke as soon as it seems wise. So, things are crumbling fast for Judah.

            The real cause, though, was idolatry. The fall of Judah is not described like the fall of Samaria in chapter 17. There, the author went to lengths to show how Samaria’s fall was the direct result of her idolatry. Here the focus is on the extent of the destruction. Maybe the author soft peddles the idolatry because he’s talking about the line of David, and there were a lot more good kings than there ever where in Samaria. Also, the Lord needs a remnant, a portion of Israel through whom His promise can carry on, so we note that the book ends on a upbeat note: Jehoiachin moves from prisoner to honored guest, preparing us for the return from exile. But, before we can celebrate Israel’s return from exile, we’ll read the whole story again in the books of Chronicles!

Josiah

2 Kings 22-23

            Josiah was a reform-minded king. We’ll find out more in 2 Chronicles, but here he wants to renovate the temple, the last renovation having been about 150 years earlier under Joash. In the midst of the work, they found a copy of the Book of the Law. We’ll never know for sure, but some scholars think they found the whole Pentateuch (Genesis through Deuteronomy) and others think they found Deuteronomy. Either way, it’s a strange thing to have misplaced an entire portion of your holiest book for so long that no one was familiar with it. It says something about how far Judah had fallen. How were they even running the temple if they didn’t have the instruction manual? The whole incident leads to a moment of repentance and covenant renewal, including a thorough purging of idolatrous high places and a reinstitution of the Passover.

            For all the good Josiah did, he couldn’t wash away everything that Manasseh, his father, had done. And his own son, Jehoahaz, went right back to the muck. For that matter, Josiah, himself wasn’t perfect. He got himself involved in a war between the major powers of his day (Egypt, Assyria, and Babylon). So, Josiah’s reforms at best are a brake on the downfall of Israel, but the downfall is coming.

Manasseh

2 Kings 21

            Hezekiah was the best king Israel had since the time of David; Manasseh, his son, may have been the worst. Manasseh was in power a whopping 55 years, and he did a ton of spiritual damage. He is likened to Ahab with his idolatry, and we are told he did even worse: he put idol altars in the temple of the Lord; he sacrificed his children; and he consulted mediums, meaning he dabbled in the occult.

            A thing that has always struck me is that Hezekiah, Manasseh’s predecessor, reigned a good, long time, and he was a faithful king. Josiah, Manasseh’s successor (technically, his successor plus one, but Amon only reigned two year), also reigned a good long time, and he, too, was likened to David. Yet, despite being flanked by two faithful kings, Manasseh’s wickedness is so great that it is in his reign that the Lord pronounces his judgment on Judah: ear-tingling disaster on Jerusalem, utter destruction like a bowl wiped clean, plundered and looted. It makes me ponder just how bad Manasseh was that his wickedness couldn’t compare to the kings before and after him!

More Tests for Hezekiah

2 Kings 20

            Yesterday, we read how Hezekiah was tested by an Assyrian invasion. Today, we read about two more tests that Hezekiah faced. The first was a terrible sickness. Some similar notes to yesterday: first, note that Hezekiah calls the Lord’s attention to his (Hezekiah’s) faithfulness, as if he had earned the Lord’s good will. He seems to think that he doesn’t deserve his suffering, that he should be exempt from it. The Lord hears Hezekiah’s prayer and promises healing, but notice that the Lord never references Hezekiah’s claim. As a matter of fact, the Lord says He will do it for His own sake and for the sake of the promise He made to David. The Lord keeps His promises, not because we earn it or deserve it, but because He promised, and He is consistent with Himself.

            Interestingly, the Lord promises Hezekiah 15 more years. Working backwards from the end of Hezekiah’s reign (686 BC), we discover that this sickness must have occurred just before the Assyrian invasion. It’s only anecdotal, but it’s often seemed to me that trials come in bunches, that when the Lord tests us, He really tests us. I often ponder St. Paul’s statement in 2 Corinthians 1. He’s talking about all the trials he endured in a short time and he says, “We were under great pressure, far beyond our ability to endure, so that we despaired of life itself. Indeed, we felt we had received the sentence of death. But this happened that we might not rely on ourselves but on God, who raises the dead” (2 Corinthians 1:8b-9). When circumstances gain up on us and the test of faith is hard, we remember faith saves not because we have faith, as if it’s some virtue of ours. No, faith saves because it trusts only in the Lord and His strength.

The Testing of Good King Hezekiah

2 Kings 18-19

            Coming out of the entanglement with the family of Ahab, Judah found herself governed by several good kings, faithful to the Lord. We read about Joash and his repairs to the temple last week (2 Kings 11-12). Amaziah, Azariah, and Ahaz all did what was right in the eyes of the Lord. In this stretch, Ahaz is the lone exception to this pattern. But his son, Hezekiah—he’s the high water mark. “He did what was right in the eyes of the Lord—just as his father David had done.” As far as I can tell, Hezekiah is the only king to be so favorably compared to David.

            Unfortunately, even the most faithful king is not exempt from the powers arrayed against the Lord and his people, and the king of Assyria comes back. There are a couple of places where the arrogance of the Assyrian king is on full display. In 18:28, his messenger declares “Hear the word of the great king!” That sounds an awful lot like something the Lord would say (2 Kings 7:1, for example). Later, in verses 31-32, Sennacherib promises a vine and fig tree and a land flowing with honey. That sounds like the Lord’s promises in Deuteronomy 8:8 and Micah 4:4. Even the king’s conclusion, “Choose life!” echoes the Lord (Deuteronomy 30:19). The Lord will  not let such usurpation stand, and Jerusalem is miraculously delivered when the angel of death destroys the entire Assyrian army.

            So, Hezekiah learns that even the most faithful are not beyond having their faith tested. We need to learn that, too! Sometimes, we think that if we are faithful then we deserve a life of blessedness; relatedly, sometimes we think if things don’t go our way there must be something wrong with us. But Hezekiah is described as a faithful king, who nevertheless is tested to his limit. And Sennacherib needs to be taught that he is not God, a lesson that we unfortunately also need to learn sometimes. In both cases, we are learning to “walk humbly with our God” (Micah 6:8).

The Destruction of Samaria

2 Kings 17

            At last, Samaria falls. Hoshea, the last king of Israel, had made himself a vassal of the Assyrians. Vassalage was an arrangement whereby a lesser nation made itself subject to a stronger nation for protection. That protection came at a price: loyalty, troops in warfare, tribute money. Hoshea thought he could get a better deal elsewhere, rebelled, and paid the price. That, at least, is the geopolitical story.

            The real story is that the Lord’s patience with Israel’s idolatry had finally run out. That’s the gist of this chapter—a veritable catalogue of the ways that Israel had chased false gods. And frankly relying on a foreign power for protection just made all the other false gods worse. Enough was enough already.

            Two things bear comment. First, there’s a note in verse 23 that as of the writing of 2 Kings, the northern tribes were still in Assyria. Now, it is almost impossible to say for certain when 2 Kings was written. Some people used to think that Jeremiah wrote it around the time of the fall of the southern kingdom; others think it was some anonymous person after the exile. In the first case it’s 150 years later; in the latter case, it’s over 200 years. The point is the same: the northern tribes didn’t seem to be coming back, and, indeed, they never did. They were unfruitful branches, cut off and thrown into the fire, to paraphrase Jesus. By the end of this week the tree of God’s people will be reduced to a stump, when the southern kingdom is also exiled. But! But! Isaiah 11:1, “A shoot will come from the stump of Jesse.” More on that later.

            Second, we read that the Assyrians relocated other captive peoples to Samaria. This chapter explains why there was such hostility between Jews and Samaritans in Jesus’ day: the Samaritans weren’t ethnically Israelites and their worship was a mix of their native religions and the religion of Israel. One of the lessons that we will observe Israel learning as their history progresses is the importance of remaining pure. Such purity becomes an obsession by Jesus’ day, and the Samaritans become a symbol of losing that purity.

The Final Slide

1 Kings 15-16

            Five kings, three dynasties, two assassinations in 20 years: hardly a recipe for long-term success! Worse yet, the refrain for each king is “He did evil in the eyes of the Lord and did not turn away from the sins of Jeroboam son of Nebat.” Worse yet, the idolatry of the northern kingdom infected the southern kingdom so that Ahaz of Judah also even offers his son as a burnt offering, a practice detestable to the Lord.

            There’s not really a lot to say anymore about these things. Israel is on the path toward destruction, and judgment will fall on them in Monday’s readings. Judah has 150 years left, but their remaining years will vacillate wildly between faithful and unfaithful kings. In this reading, it feels like the end is near… because it is.

50 Years

2 Kings 13-14

            Considering how the narrative slows down sometimes, today’s two chapters move at warp speed. From Jehoahaz to Jeroboam II we cover around 65 years. The story goes from Israel being completely under the thumb of the Arameans to the Arameans being under the thumb of Israel. (The rise of the Assyrian empire on Aram’s northeast border certainly helped, although that is nowhere mentioned in the Bible.)

            Of course, the author of Kings has little interest in the political fortunes of either kingdom, otherwise he might have told us more about Jeroboam II, the longest tenured of the northern kings, the one who restored her borders and ushered in an era of economic prosperity. No, Kings remains interested in faithfulness to the Lord, and, even though this period was by many measures the best in Israel’s history, the author points out that these three kings continued in the sins of Jeroboam I, presumably his shrines at Bethel and Dan.

            This single-minded focus reminds us that the only thing that finally matters is faith. We may look at people and judge them good, but without faith they have no standing before God. In Lutheran theology, we call that kind of goodness ‘civic righteousness.’ We recognize that many people—believers and unbelievers alike—do things that are ‘good’ for the world. On the other hand, we also confess that the only righteousness that counts before God is Christ’s perfect righteousness, which is imputed, that is, credited to us through faith in Christ Jesus.

A Moment of Reform

2 Kings 11-12

            The house of Ahab has one more dirty trick up its sleeve. Athaliah, Ahab’s daughter and the wife of Jehoram, the former king of Judah, sees an opportunity to grab the throne of Judah for herself. Most of the royal family is already dead. Her son, Ahaziah, and 42 other relatives were killed by Jehu. So, it only remains to clean up a little and the throne is hers. Unfortunately, “cleaning up a little” means killing her own relatives, including her grandchildren, but it’s a price she’s willing to pay! Perhaps the main thing to see here is that Athaliah is herself not of the line of David and her power grab is a direct assault on the Lord’s promise to David that his descendant would sit on his throne forever. Ultimately, then, her power grab is an assault on the Lord’s whole plan of salvation.

            Fortunately, Joash, possibly the last royal descendant of David, is hidden and for five years he is protected in the temple by the priest Jehoiada. When the time is right and Jehoiada reveals the prince, the army and the people acclaim him. Perhaps they have finally had enough of the house of Ahab. The Lord’s promise is still alive!

            There’s an interesting note in 2 Kings 12:2, “Joash did what was right in the eyes of the Lord all the years Jehoiada the priest instructed him.” Unfortunately 2 Chronicles 24:17ff. tells us that after Jehoiada’s death, Joash got turned around. However, that’s not the concern of the author of Kings; he’s just grateful to be able to report a moment of reform and return to the Lord. Most especially, he reports that Joash collected money for and completed a plan to renovate the temple. (By Joash’s reign the temple was about 125 years old.) In this instance, Joash proves more reliable even than the priests. After several years of having the priests collect money, the project hasn’t advanced at all, so the king takes over and things get moving. After all the nonsense with the house of Omri that has afflicted the kingdoms for the last 30 or so years, it is nice to have an end to it all and a reminder that the Lord’s promise goes on.

            Even in the messy parts of life, when there’s not much obvious sense that the Lord is keeping His promises, He is, indeed, keeping His promises. “Repent, then, and turn to God, so that your sins may be wiped out, that times of refreshing may come from the Lord” (Acts 3:19).

Bloodbath

2 Kings 9-10

            What the Lord had told Elijah to do way back in 1 Kings 19, when the prophet fled to Mt. Horeb, is finally accomplished in today’s reading: Jehu annihilates the house of Ahab. And he does it with bloodthirsty efficiency. He slays Joram, king of Israel, and his men slay Ahaziah, king of Judah, too. (Remember that Ahaziah’s mother, Athaliah, was a daughter of Ahab, so Ahaziah was Ahab’s grandson.) Jehu throws the body of Joram on the plot of ground that Ahab had secured for himself through the murder of Naboth, so that circle is closed. Later he advances to Jezreel, where Jezebel is still living, and her bodyguards throw her out a window to her death. Her eye makeup and arranged hair seem to be one last attempt to project her queenly power and allure, but it doesn’t do her any good and those charged with protecting her are her undoing. This also marks the fulfillment of the Lord’s prophecy.

            The next few scenes make one wonder if Jehu went too far. In the first, he arranges the slaughter of 70 of Ahab’s sons (and perhaps grandsons.) The delivery and display of their severed heads is particularly gruesome. Next, he orders the execution of 42 of Ahaziah’s relatives. (Ahaziah was the grandson of Ahab, but he was also of the line of David, so this seems like Jehu going beyond his charge.) Finally, he arranges the extermination of 80 prophets of Baal.

            We know what’s going on here. Ever since the Exodus, we have read about the Lord’s enemies being totally devoted to the Lord, which is just a euphemism for being killed. And we have learned that this violence is to protect Israel from idolatry so that the promise of salvation which she incubates might come to fruition. But it’s still hard to read and to understand.

            It may help a little bit to read Hebrews 9:22, “In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.” That’s not to say that all of these deaths somehow made atonement for sin, but the violence does draw us forward to the cross where the brutal execution of Jesus does make atonement.

A Knot in the Family Tree

2 Kings 8

            Over the next few chapters, we will hear quite a bit about a woman named Athaliah, who is introduced in 8:26. The NIV identifies her as the granddaughter of Omri, but other translations call her Omri’s daughter. This is typical in genealogies in the Bible where ‘son’ or ‘daughter’ can merely mean ‘descendant.’ (I think the NIV identifies the generations correctly.) The other salient point is that she is also the mother of Ahaziah, king of Judah. As we know, being identified in any way with the house of Ahab is never a good thing in Kings, and here it certainly is not as Ahaziah is tarred with Ahab’s brush, “following the ways of the house of Ahab…”

            Judah and Israel coexist for some two hundred years, and, as we have seen, sometimes they behave as enemies and sometimes they behave as allies. In this moment, about 842 BC, they are definitely on the allies track, as Athaliah, the daughter of Ahab, has been given in marriage to Jehoram, king of Judah. Because of how marriages—especially marriages between royal houses—worked in that era, we can only assume that this marriage was meant to seal an alliance and maybe even to be a first step in bringing the kingdoms back together. Unfortunately, Israel is setting the religious tone, not Judah. This union leads the south kingdom deeper into idolatry instead of leading the north kingdom back to the Lord. Nothing good will come of this!

Two Miraculous Deliverances

2 Kings 6-7

            Twice we are reminded that conventional strength doesn’t matter when the Lord fights for you. In the first incident, it is Elisha himself who is in danger. It seems he has been spoiling the plans of the king of Aram by telling the king of Israel his movements (by the power of the Lord). Elisha’s servant panics at the approaching army, but Elisha prays and the Lord shows the servant the host of heaven arrayed against the Arameans, who are struck blind. The whole thing rings with stories of Jesus. Elisha’s servant, maybe Gehazi, reminds me of Jesus’ disciples, often reduced to just Peter. They are often portrayed as looking on a scene and not knowing how the Lord will handle it, but He does. (I’m thinking of the feeding of the 5,000, where Jesus tells the disciples to feed the people and they can’t imagine how it will be done until Jesus miraculously does it.) Elisha’s command to feed the captured soldiers and to send them back to their master also points to Jesus’ repeated commands to forgive those who sin against us and to love our enemies.

            The second incident sees the entire northern kingdom at risk, as the Arameans besiege the capitol, Samaria. In this instance, the Lord pulls a move much like he did with Gideon and the Midianites: He convinces them that they are under attack and in the confusion they all run away, freeing the city from its starvation. I don’t know about you, but I wish I had an easier time waiting for the Lord’s deliverance and trusting it would come. I find myself fretting an awful lot, “What should I do?” as if everything in the world depended on me. I know full well the Lord’s promise that He will work out all things for the good of those who love Him (Romans 8:28). I also know full well that that good might take a long time to manifest itself, maybe even into the new creation. I know those things intellectually, but when the Arameans are surrounding me (metaphorically) I’m more Joram than Elisha! How well I understand the father’s plea in Mark 9:24, “Lord, I believe! Help my unbelief!”

The Cleansing of Naaman

2 Kings 5

            There is a line in Martin Luther’s Small Catechism. “What is Baptism? Baptism is not just plain water, but it is the water included in God’s command and combined with God’s word.” We have to parse that carefully, because the water for Baptism is, in reality, plain water. I know in Catholicism there’s a preference for so-called holy water, which is water that has been blessed by the bishop for holy uses. But Lutherans have no such practice, and we confess that the water of Holy Baptism is, indeed, regular water. What makes it special is the purpose for which it is used, because in Baptism, ordinary water has the words and promises of God attached to it, and it becomes a baptism. So, a little later in the Catechism, Luther asks, “How can water do such great things?” And his answer is telling: “Certainly not just water, but the word of God in and with the water does these things, along with the faith which trusts this word of God in the water. For without God’s word the water is plain water and no Baptism. But with the word of God it is a Baptism, that is, a life-giving water, rich in grace, and a washing of the new birth in the Holy Spirit, as St. Paul says in Titus, chapter three.” God’s Word is the power in Baptism; water is the means that carries that Word; and faith is the instrument that receives God’s promise.

            So, to the story of Naaman, the Aramean general with leprosy, who was put off by the simple command to wash in the waters of Jordan. He reasoned that there was nothing special about the Jordan and that there were better (cleaner? stronger? wider?) rivers back home. He recoiled at the plainness of the water. But Luther is supposed to have said at some point, “Rejoice not at the wetness of the water but at the word God connects to the water.” That’s exactly what Naaman’s servants tell him: “If you’d been asked to do something crazy, you’d have done it. Why not just the simple thing?”

            The answer is that we’d much rather work for our salvation. It’s in our nature to want to earn it. But Naaman was simply being given it, and we are simply given in. It’s one of the most profound aspects of infant Baptism: an infant has absolutely nothing to offer, but the child receives the grace of God as the pure gift that it is. Baptism is not something we accomplish for God; it is the place where we receive the gifts of God free of charge, no strings attached, no special water, no nothing. Just the words and promises of God, delivered through the medium of water.

Moab and Miracles

2 Kings 3-4

            There’s not much of a unifying theme to today’s reading. In chapter 3, three kings (Israel, Judah, and Edom) make war against rebellious Moab. The Lord blesses the endeavor, first by miraculously providing water in the desert and second by giving the three kings victory. The victory is resounding and the three kings achieve everything Elisha has told them: they slaughter the Moabites, overthrew the towns, cut down the trees, stop up the springs, and ruin the fields. They make Moab a wasteland. Yet, the last verse of the story is a mystery. The king of Moab sacrifices his son and we read, “The fury against Israel was great; they withdrew to their own land.” My study Bible suggests that it was the Lord’s wrath that burned against Israel, but this is one of those rare cases in which God’s people seem to have done exactly what the Lord commanded. And even Joram of Israel is said to have done modestly better on the faithfulness-to-the-Lord scale than his ancestors had. No, it seems to me that the king of Moab’s sacrifice somehow galvanized the will of his own people so that they resisted all the harder, causing the three kings to withdraw. If there is any criticism of the three kings here, it seems to me that it is implicit in the fact that once again an Israelite king didn’t push through to completing the Lord’s task.

            Chapter 4 relates a series of miracles the Elisha performs: a seemingly unending supply of oil for a widow’s debt; a new son and that son’s resuscitation for another woman; making poisoned stew edible, and a miraculous feeding. The first thing I noticed was the overlap with the echoes of Elijah. Elijah had given the widow of Zarephath an unending supply of oil and flower, and he had restored that widow’s son to life. Now here comes Elisha, for whom the miracles of Elijah are nothing, easily repeatable. It seems like we are supposed to think that Elijah may be the more famous prophet but Elisha is the greater prophet. This plays into the second thing I notice: the parallel with Jesus. If John the Baptizer is recognized as a ‘new Elijah’ (Matthew 11:4), then Jesus is the new Elisha. John is forerunner; Jesus is the real deal. I notice, too, how many of Elisha’s miracles are repeated by Jesus, especially the resuscitation of a widow’s son ((Luke 7) and a miraculous feeding (Matthew 14). No matter how famous Elisha becomes, he will not be able to solve the problem of Israel’s rebellious descent into idolatry. But Jesus! He will pay the price of not just that rebellion, but all human sin, and he will establish a kingdom that lasts forever!

Elijah Taken Up

2 Kings 1-2

            The end of Elijah’s ministry is an amazing story. First, a detail from chapter 1, namely, that Ahaziah recognized Elijah because he was dressed in a shirt of hair and a leather belt. In the New Testament, Luke intentionally portrays John the Baptizer in a very similar fashion. We’re supposed to think about John as a new Elijah, calling Israel to repentance. In that case, we’re supposed to think of Jesus as a new Elisha. As we read on, notice that there are more stories of Elisha than Elijah and that many of Elisha’s stories parallel the stories of Elijah. Just as Moses was followed by Joshua, who in a sense was greater then Moses because he brought Israel into her promised land, Elisha is greater the Elijah and Jesus is greater than John.

            Elisha is worth noting, too. He has many chances to back out, but he is committed. Each time Elijah offers for Elisha to stay behind, Elisha follows. When Elijah asks Elisha what gift he wants, he asks for double portion of Elijah’s spirit. To us that might sound greedy, but Elisha is not asking for twice as much of the spirit as Elijah has; he is asking for the firstborn’s portion. In ancient practice, the firstborn got two shares of the inheritance. If there were two sons, the firstborn received two-thirds of the estate. If there were four, the firstborn received two-fifths. You get the idea. Finally, taking up the mantle of Elijah, Elisha crosses the Jordan on dry ground, a sort of reenactment of both the Exodus and the Conquest, too.

            Then there is the dramatic scene of Elijah’s being taken up into heaven. This marks Elijah as only the second person in the Bible who avoided death. (Enoch, in Genesis 5, was the first.)

Naboth’s Vineyard

1 Kings 21-22

            Again, Ahab is sullen and angry—this time because Naboth will not sell the king his family vineyard. Naboth’s loyalty to his ancestral land demonstrates that he is a faithful Israelite; he respects the laws of Moses that say that the land must stay with the family to whom it was allotted. Later in the chapter we read that Ahab was the most idolatrous of kings, if not in all of Israel’s 200-year history, then at least so far. But there is a little evidence that he hadn’t completely lost his sense of honoring Israel’s God, Yahweh. Notice, for example, that he named his son Ahaziah (“Yahweh has taken hold”). Ahab must have had at least a little sense that Naboth was right, and he was angry and sullen because, after all, what’s the use of being king if you can’t get your way…

            Jezebel, a daughter of pagan kings, had no such compunction. In her upbringing, kings are the avatars of the gods and they get their way. So, she arranges to have Naboth framed and killed.

            Pagan wives leading a husband astray is becoming a theme in 1 Kings! We should remember that it works both ways: a pagan husband can just as easily lead a faithful wife astray. I imagine we’ve all seen it, maybe in our own families—a child of God marries someone who is ambivalent to the faith and the church attendance falls off. It’s good to remind our youth that their first loyalty is to their God; an unsupportive spouse doesn’t necessarily mean the end of faith, but it does mean that the believing spouse won’t get support from that sector. Additionally, as I commented not that long ago, the New Testament writers also acknowledge that a believing spouse can have a salutary effect on an unbelieving one. Altogether, these stories teach us how difficult it is to be a believer in a fallen world.

            Another takeaway: the story of Naboth always reminds me of the story of Stephen, also falsely accused and stoned to death (Acts 6-7). There, as Stephen is being stoned, he channels Jesus, saying, “Lord, do not hold this against them.” (Acts 7:60). So, the whole thing leads me to Jesus on the cross, praying, “Father, forgive them,” and Jesus who is at the right hand of the Father interceding for us (Romans 8:34).

            It may be difficult to live as a believer in a fallen world, but our Lord Jesus is constantly pleading for us, “Father, remember that I died for them. Forgive them.” When we don’t get life in a fallen world exactly right, when we wobble in our faith, when we try to have it both ways and miss the mark, there is peace and comfort in a King who knows that king’s aren’t supposed to get their way but that kings are supposed to do what is right and good for their subjects, a King who gave His life for us His subjects.