Bible Commentary - 2 Chronicles 33

In this chapter, Manasseh becomes king, leads Judah into idolatry but then repents of his mistakes.

This is the second time we get to read the story of Manasseh's life.  Similar to the other kings, Manasseh was previously described in the book of Kings (2 Kings 21, to be particular).  Most kings are described similarly between Kings and Chronicles.  However, in the case of Manasseh, there are substantial differences which I will describe below.

This chapter has three main sections.  The first section is verses 1-9, which describe Manasseh's intent to do evil, leading Judah into idolatry.  This section is substantially equivalent with the passage in 2 Kings.  Besides listing the things that Manasseh was doing wrong, it also compares his actions against God's word, quoting (or sometimes paraphrasing) things the LORD said earlier.  Basically what this is doing is juxtaposing Manasseh's actions against God's standard, and showing all of the ways that the king is falling short.  Both verse 4 and verse 7 emphasize that Manasseh is performing idolatry in the very temple that God said would keep his name forever.  Verse 8 says that Israel (and Judah) would remain planted in the promised land forever, so long as they obey the LORD's commands.  This chapter is documenting their sins and violations of the LORD's commands to establish the context for their eventual removal from the land.

The second section is verses 10-20, which describe God's response to Manasseh's sins.  It begins in verse 10 with a prophet's rebuke, but when the king and the people do not listen to the prophet, God's judgment swiftly follows.

This whole section is almost completely absent from 2 Kings 21, and it constitutes the largest difference between how these two books describe the life of Manasseh.  In fact, the comparable section is 2 Kings 21:10-18, which besides giving us a detailed prophecy about the destruction of Jerusalem, lists even more sins committed by Manasseh in addition to what he did wrong in the previous section.  It is obvious when reading 2 Kings that the tone used to describe the life of Manasseh is overwhelmingly negative.  In the larger context of Kings, Manasseh is (perhaps surprisingly) the main person blamed for the Babylonian exile (see 2 Kings 24:3-4).

The narrative in Chronicles is much more nuanced.  In Chronicles, Manasseh is not directly blamed for the exile, and when Manasseh is punished by God and taken into exile by the Assyrians, he repents and is restored by God.  The rest of his life is comparatively positive, removing all the idols and bringing the people back to God.  Although Manasseh's initial sins are still firmly condemned by the Chronicler, Chronicles presents his life as much more of an arc, going at first into dark, evil behavior, but finding humility in the midst of God's punishment and being restored into his position as king at the same time that his faith is rebuilt.

The third and final section is verses 21-25, which describes the reign of king Amon.  This section is also very similar to the corresponding passage in 2 Kings.  It describes Amon as an evil man who is killed by his own servants.  The only major difference is that verse 23 in Chronicles contrasts the repentance of Manasseh with the unrepentant evil of Amon.  The comparable passage in Kings is 2 Kings 21:20-21, which basically says that Amon walked in exactly the same evil ways as his father Manasseh.

It's quite a contrast.  If we only had the book of Kings, we would have never suspected that Manasseh might have repented of his sins and tried to lead Judah back to the LORD.  There are two questions I would like to address.  First, why do I think Kings and Chronicles wanted to represent such contrasting stories about the life of Manasseh when (presumably) they both had the same source material describing his reign?  Second, just looking at the book of Chronicles, what lessons can we learn from Manasseh's life story?

To answer the first question, I cannot offer much more than speculation.  We are basically trying to understand the author's motivation, and that can be notoriously difficult under even the best of circumstances.  That said, I will now begin wildly speculating.  :)  I think the largest difference between these books is the context in which they were written and finalized.  Kings was largely finalized as a mid-exilic book.  That is, it was substantially compiled and edited during the Babylonian exile, though much of the source material would have been pre-exilic.  During the exile to Babylon, the Jewish people were faced with many existential questions*, one of the foremost being, "how could this have happened?"  I believe that Kings in general, and 2 Kings 21 in particular, is one attempt at answering that question.  It construes a deeply negative attitude towards Manasseh because it is trying to figure out what could have gone wrong that this terrible judgment from God could have fallen upon Judah.  Kings finds a large part of its answer in the idolatry and sins of Manasseh, though many of the kings who follow him are also regarded as evil, sinful men, and it's all written in the larger context of the Kings moral narrative (which is beyond the scope of my comments here).

On the other hand, Chronicles was edited and finalized as a post-exilic book.  That is, it was substantially compiled after the return from the Babylonian exile, though it too derives much of its content from pre-exilic sources.  After the Babylonian exile, one of the foremost questions asked by Jewish society was, "how do we restore our cultural identity?"  The book of Chronicles attempts to answer that question by focusing an enormous amount of time and energy on the temple worship system and the Davidic dynasty.  Chronicles attempts to draw the people back to a better, idealized time when David and Solomon reigned, to serve as a model for how they should rebuild their society in the "present day" (i.e. ~530 BCE).

"How could this have happened" is no longer a core, existential question because while the Babylonian exile was a deeply traumatic event, it was tempered by the subsequent return to the promised land during the reign of Cyrus.  Although it is hard to draw broad generalizations, I think that Kings is more persistently negative because it was written in the midst of that national trauma, while Chronicles is more generally positive because it was written in the midst of the hopeful restoration period.

Both Kings and Chronicles are looking back, but they are looking back for different reasons.  Kings is looking back to find what went wrong, and Chronicles is looking back to find a vision of society that they should strive for.  Neither of them is unbiased exactly, so I don't think we should look to one or the other to try to find an "objective" account of Manasseh's life.

For the second question (what can we learn from Manasseh's life), I think the description of his life is strongly representative of the sin/judgment/repentence/restoration paradigm that is presented in various places throughout the OT.  I would like to specifically reference 2 Chronicles 7 since that chapter sets the tone for so much of the rest of Chronicles.  Besides foretelling the exile, 2 Chronicles 7:13-14 also establishes the sin/judgment/repentance/restoration pattern, though at a national level rather than an individual level.  Nonetheless, Chronicles makes it clear that even in the midst of judgment, if the people repent then God will bring restoration and healing, and we see that in Manasseh's life.  Therefore I believe that Chronicles is seeking to portray Manasseh as an individual example of the biblical pattern laid out in 2 Chron 7.

Furthermore, we can also see shadows of Judah's history in the life of Manasseh.  Judah herself committed many sins, was taken into exile to Babylon (like Manasseh himself, v. 11), repented and was restored to the promised land.  That mirrors almost exactly the life of Manasseh as it is described in Chronicles.

In conclusion, I think the life of Manasseh is closely aligned with the overall message of Chronicles, emphasizing God's judgment that follows sin and his restorative acts that follow repentance.  The life of Manasseh is a microcosm of Judah's story and complicated relationship with God.

In the next chapter, Josiah becomes king and ushers in the final revival in the book of Chronicles.


*Other questions, such as "how do we sustain our faith in a hostile and idolatrous society?" are the subject matter for other books like e.g. the book of Daniel.

Bible Commentary - 2 Chronicles 32

In this chapter, Sennacherib attempts to capture Jerusalem but fails.

This is a fairly long and complicated chapter.  There are many points I want to make, but I'll begin by explaining the narrative function of the story.

This conflict is a moment of testing for Hezekiah.  Hezekiah's reign was largely peaceful, but he is now facing a challenge.  His response in this time of testing will reveal the true nature of his heart and of his faith.

This pattern of peace interrupted by a foreign aggressor also occurred to a series of kings earlier in the book of Chronicles.  We read about other military conflicts during the reigns of Abijah, Asa and Jehoshaphat that also proved to be moments of testing for each of them.  Sometimes they responded well, and other times they responded poorly, but for each of those kings, we studied how they responded to conflict as a measure of their faith.  To paraphrase 1 Samuel 13:11, when your allies abandon you, your enemies are gathering, and the prophet who is supposed to save your ass is running late, that is when the true measure of a man is revealed.

That is the moment when our natural tendency to depend on our own strength and wisdom is put into conflict with our cultivated tendency to depend on the LORD in faith.  Faith must certainly be cultivated, and if our faith has not been sufficiently developed by the time we run into conflict, then we will fall back on our own strength to try to find safety.  That has led to the downfall of many, because the LORD will sometimes engineer situations that are literally impossible to get through by our own strength, and self-reliance will never succeed in those moments.

It's a subtle thing and many people don't realize it, but the decisions that we make in the moment of crisis are not actually made when we are in the crisis.  You might as well say that a baseball player learns how to swing the bat when he steps up to the plate at a World Series game.  A baseball player doesn't hit the ball because of some exceptional effort that he makes in the moment, it's because of the thousands of hours of practice he put in throughout his life, cultivating the proper technique and skills to play baseball.

In the same way, when people are faced with a crisis, we don't actually decide how we will respond at that moment.  We decided how we would respond to the crisis years ago by the way that we cultivated our hearts through thousands of smaller decisions.  In a moment of crisis, we do not have time to make a thoughtful decision.  For the most part, instinct and habit take over.  That is why it reveals one's inner nature, because you can't fake your response.  While instinct and habit may not seem like a choice, they are the product of one's lifestyle which is a choice.  We choose our response to a crisis through the lifestyle that we adopt over the years and possibly decades that precede the moment of decision.  When the crisis comes, it reveals what kind of lives we lived through our response.

Cultivation of a godly lifestyle is a long, slow and almost boring process, but in a certain sense it is even more important than our response in a time of crisis because it is what dictates our response in a time of crisis.

In the case of Hezekiah, we can see that there is no reason he "deserves" to be invaded.  This is not a judgment from God or punishment from God.  Verse 1 reiterates that it's after Hezekiah's faithful deeds that Sennacherib invaded, so we know for sure that God is pleased with Hezekiah before the invasion occurred.  As such, we can only take it for what it is: this is just a harsh event, a bump in the road, a struggle, and it has life-threatening severity.  Hezekiah is placed in a moment of crisis, and now we will see if his devotion to the LORD is strong, and more importantly, if it is real.

Like many other moments of crisis in the bible, this problem does not have a solution through Hezekiah's natural strength or wisdom.  It would be hard for me to exaggerate the Assyrians' military power at this time.  In the larger geopolitical stage, the Assyrians are an ascendant force at this time.  Their principal opponent on the international stage is the Egyptians, who they will defeat handily.  The Assyrians have already gone through and destroyed the northern kingdom of Israel.  In 2 Chron 30:6 Hezekiah himself makes reference to the king of Assyria plundering the northern kingdom as part of the justification for why Israel should turn back to the LORD.

In verses 13-15, the messenger of Sennacherib boasts about all of the other lands and kingdoms they have already conquered, and while some of that may be an exaggeration, there is clearly a basis in reality because the Assyrians did actually conquer a bunch of kingdoms.  Sennacherib also conquers Lachish (a Judean town) and all of the other outlying towns in Judah.  The conquest of Lachish was significant enough that Sennacherib ordered the production of the Lachish reliefs to celebrate.  Only Jerusalem remains.  It is clear that Judah does not have a military solution to this problem: only the LORD can save them from what is otherwise certain destruction.

Hezekiah turns to prayer, along with Isaiah the prophet, and the downfall of Sennacherib could not have been faster.  His army is destroyed by an angel, he returns to his own country in shame, and while praying in the temple of his false god, his own children come in and murder him.

The rest of Hezekiah's life is abbreviated in this version.  We are told that Hezekiah has some disease, but is healed, and that he has some sort of pride, but he humbles himself, and verse 31 says something or other about envoys from Babylon, and we learn it was some kind of test but it doesn't tell us exactly what kind of test or how Hezekiah did on it.  The "pride and humility" thing is new to Chronicles, but most of the rest of v. 24-33 is an abbreviated version of 2 Kings 20, which gives us more detail about Hezekiah's illness and healing, as well as the Babylonians.  In 2 Kings 20, Isaiah prophesies that Babylon would conquer Judah and take all of the gold and silver and other things that Hezekiah showed to the envoys.  It's possibly implied that Hezekiah sinned by showing everything to the envoys, which might be the "test" that v. 31 is referring to.  It's somewhat elusive but in this case I think Chronicles may be abbreviating these stories to downplay some of Hezekiah's mistakes in his later life.

When Hezekiah dies, his son Manasseh becomes the next king, and that concludes the story elements of this chapter.  Before moving on, I want to jump back a bit and take a look at some of the dialogue in this chapter, especially verses 9-19.

Sennacherib's speech contains two central arguments that justify why the Judeans should give up and surrender, rather than depend on the LORD.  The first is that Hezekiah is actually angering the LORD by destroying the high places and altars (v. 12), and therefore the LORD would not save Hezekiah's people.  The second argument is that none of the gods of any nation have been able to stop Sennacherib, and therefore there is no reason the LORD would be able to stop him either (v. 13-19).

The first argument in verse 12 is quite short and not particularly connected with the rest of the dialogue, but I find it very interesting.  So first of all, the authors of the bible clearly view these altars and high places as being centers for idolatry and paganism.  The high places are routinely condemned in both Kings and Chronicles, and elsewhere the prophets often refer to worship in the high places as adultery.  In verse 12, the king of Assyria appears to believe that these high places were used for worshiping the LORD.  While this clearly contradicts the attitude of the biblical authors, it is not necessarily a lie.  In various places we see hints that the Israelites and Judeans followed a syncretic religion that merged together elements of the native religions of the promised land and their faith in the LORD.

There are many references I could make to demonstrate syncretism in the bible, but for the sake of time I will only give one: Exodus 32:4-6.  In this short passage, Aaron has constructed an idol, and then immediately says that the idol is what delivered them from Egypt and then declares a festival "to the LORD" which is inextricably centered around their idol worship with the golden calf.  This shows that both Aaron and the people are delving into literal idolatry, yet claiming that the calf is the LORD who saved them.

In summary, it is possible that the Israelites who worship in the high places or around the Asherah poles may have claimed that they were worshiping the LORD through those activities.  They may have even believed they were worshiping the LORD.  The bible makes it clear that the LORD did not want to be worshiped in that way, but it could have still been a prevailing practice.  It would certainly explain why Sennacherib thought that Hezekiah was tearing down the altars of the LORD in his religious reforms.

Sennacherib's second claim is that the LORD is no different from any other god, and if the other gods didn't save their respective nations, the LORD would not be able to save Judah.  To understand this, my readers should remember that in this historical period, it was conventional for every nation to have their own patron god (or gods) that they identify with.  Defeating a certain nation is generally considered equivalent to defeating or overpowering their patron deity.  One of the implications of this belief system is that all of the patron gods are roughly equivalent.  Some may be stronger than others, but they are all equal in terms of their qualities.  There is no god of the universe, just localized gods for specific nations or places.  The other implication of this belief system is that the strength of one's god dictates the power of the nation under that god.  Therefore since the Assyrians are stronger than the Judeans, one could deduce that the Assyrians' gods are stronger than the god of Judah.

I definitely think both of these points figure into Sennacherib's attitude.  While some of the letter is just exaggerated posturing to scare the Judeans, Sennacherib wrote the letter this way because to the Mideast culture at the time, these kinds of arguments would have made sense.  Modern readers may not realize how vastly different was the religious landscape at the time this battle occurred, and how the bible presents such a starkly different religious viewpoint compared to the other religions at the time.  In a world with over two billion Christians and one billion Muslims, it may be hard for us to imagine a society where polytheism is the norm and monotheism is the exception, but that's exactly what is happening in this chapter.

The destruction of Sennacherib is just as much a repudiation of his philosophy as it is a repudiation of his assault against Hezekiah.  Verse 17 makes it clear that the Chronicler views these claims as "insults" against the LORD.  The equivalence between all the gods of the world would have been a common belief, and the Chronicler is explicitly bringing it up as part of Sennacherib's attack against Hezekiah.  By linking Sennacherib's message to his later defeat, the Chronicler is attempting to show that these claims are false, thereby establishing the opposite claim: the LORD is God over the whole world.  That is the fundamental theological point of this chapter, and it is embedded directly alongside the narrative point regarding the life of Hezekiah and his moment of crisis.  Hezekiah eventually passes his test, and through Hezekiah's faith, the story demonstrates the supremacy of the LORD over every other force in the world.

In the next chapter, Manasseh becomes king and undoes many of Hezekiah's religious reforms.

Bible Commentary - 2 Chronicles 14

In this chapter, Asa scores a great victory over the Cushites.

I see this chapter as having two parts.  The first part is verses 1-7, which describes Asa's reign and religious devotion, and the second part is verses 8-15, which describes Asa's army and subsequent battle against the Cushites.

The first part of this chapter seems to focus heavily on how Asa was such a great king.  This guy is cutting down Asherah poles, "commanding Judah to seek the LORD" (v. 4), removing high places, and the kingdom is at peace under him, "for the LORD gave him rest" (v. 6).  I marvel that he had time to do all of these things.  I think the important part is that because Asa and the people sought the LORD, they had rest.

In the second part of the chapter, the rest ends.  There is no mention of either the king of the people sinning to cause this war.  Even though the LORD had formerly given them peace, that season was now over.  Judah had built itself up and become very strong, but remarkably the Cushites are yet even stronger than Judah.  This leaves Asa with a moment of decision: would he trust in his strength and his army to win the victory, or would he continue to "seek the LORD" and depend on God for his victory?  As the record shows, Asa sought the LORD and the LORD gave him victory over his enemies.

I think there are two important points here.  The first point is that conflict and challenges are not always the result of sin in our lives.

In Asa's reign, it appears as if he is doing everything right.  He is following the LORD, tearing down idols, living in peace and prospering.  Our lives are often like this as well.  We follow the LORD, avoid idols, live in peace and prosper.  But then something happens.  Asa is still doing all the right things, but a conflict emerges in his life.  The Cushites seem to observe his prosperity and wish to partake of it by force.  Asa is faced with a challenge that he did not ask for and did not bring upon himself.  In the same way, in our lives we often run into challenges that are simply not our fault.  Many people, when faced with challenges, find themselves with one of two responses: blaming themselves or blaming God.  We either seek to identify the sins in our lives that brought this challenge upon us, and we castigate our own mistakes, or else we find ourselves faultless and seek to blame God, placing the fault upon him.

In short, this is largely because people misinterpret the covenant in Deuteronomy 28, which promises blessings for obeying God and curses for disobeying him.  It offers to us life or death, and pleads with us to choose life.  Here is the misinterpretation: people believe that the blessing from obeying God should mean that we do not have conflict.  We see conflict and challenges as evidence that we are under some kind of curse, because surely God would not send challenges or difficulties upon the righteous, as per the covenant.  This is a misinterpretation because Deut 28:7 promises us that we will defeat "the enemies who rise up against you."  People think that Deuteronomy promises us "enemies will not rise up against you", but that's not at all what it says.  It doesn't ever promise us that we won't face enemies, it simply promises us that we will defeat them.  It doesn't promise us we won't ever face challenges, it simply promises we will overcome them.

People mistake the "enemies rising up" against us as if they were the curse from Deut 28:15-68 that falls upon the disobedient, but these are critically different kinds of things.

Here is how this becomes a problem.  If we blame ourselves when we face challenges and look to find our sins, we won't look to find victory through God.  We can defeat ourselves by being sin-focused.  Similarly, if we blame God when we face challenges, then we can become angry and distant, and cut ourselves off from the victory that comes through faith in God.  Therefore both of these responses, where we misunderstand and misattribute the challenges in our lives, position us to be defeated by those challenges rather than have the victory we were promised.  Those defeats become a self-fulfilling prophecy, because being defeated by the problems we face substantiate our original belief that the problems we faced were either a punishment for sin or an injustice rendered against us.  Having the right understanding of challenges is absolutely critical to overcoming challenges, because it governs our attitude and response to challenges.  Over a lifetime, this can snowball into either bigger and bigger victories or bigger and bigger defeats.  There are two roads in life, one leading to victory and the other leading to defeat; one leading to life and the other leading to death.  It is important that we choose life.

And what about Asa?  When faced with overwhelming force, he did not blame himself nor did he blame God.  Instead, he turns to the LORD as his helper, the one who can grant him victory over his enemies like Deuteronomy 28:7-8 promised.  In essence what he does is prove his faith.  His faith that was so strong in peace also survives through war.  There are many people who have strong faith during times of prosperity, but conflict and warfare reveals that faith to be frail or unsteady.  This is the second point.  Rightly handling conflict is more than just having a proper understanding of where problems come from.  Handling conflict in a godly way is a question of how we have cultivated our hearts during times of peace.  Conflict can, in so many ways, reveal the deep inner ideas, assumptions and choices that we have made.  There are a lot of things that we might do under stress that we would never do if we lived in prosperity all our lives.  Some of those things are good, some of those things are bad.

In a way that almost nothing else could do, conflict makes our inner nature transparent to ourselves, to others and to God.  God permits conflict in our lives not so that we would be defeated by it (we are already guaranteed victory), but to show us who we are and what we value.  Whatever you turn to for salvation when you are in distress and everything else has failed is your god.  When we are in the midst of peace, the most important thing is to prepare our hearts so that when we face challenges, we respond the way that Asa does, by turning to the LORD.  Asa turning to the LORD is not actually a decision he makes when the Cushite army is marching towards Jerusalem.  It's a decision he made years earlier when he chose over and over to follow the LORD.  It's the result of years of prayer and dedication in times of peace that he remains dedicated in times of war.  The way that we hold ourselves in times of war is the cumulative result of all our life's choices during the earlier times of peace.  With firmly planted roots and a steady heart, we will not be shaken.  But if our lives are devoted to idols, then we will turn to those idols when we are in the midst of distress and the idols will fail us because idols simply cannot ever save or bear the pressures of life.

Asa chose well during the years of peace, and therefore he was victorious in the time of battle when he turned to the LORD and the LORD delivered him.  I can only hope that we all would live the same way.

In the next chapter, Asa destroys even more idols and makes the nation swear an oath to follow the LORD.

Bible Commentary - 2 Kings 25

In this chapter, Jerusalem is burnt to the ground and nearly all the people are killed or exiled.

To speak honestly, this chapter simply reeks of hopelessness and despair.  Jerusalem: destroyed.  The king: blinded and imprisoned, with his sons put to death.  The people: cast out from the land of promise.  This is all of their worst fears come to life, all of the things threatened in Deuteronomy if the people rebelled, all of the things threatened by the prophets, all of the consequences of sin and idolatry.  There was a time when Moses said, "I have set before you life and death, the blessing and the curse.  Therefore choose life, that you and your descendants may live."  (Deut 30:19)  What we can see here with stark clarity is that Judah (as well as the northern kingdom Israel/Samaria) chose death.  They chose to rebel against God (like Adam) and like Adam, they are now confronted with God's curse as a result of their actions.

If my readers remember, God originally established the covenant with Israel in order to draw them back into a proper relationship with him.  Man was supposed to live in community with God; that community was broken when Adam sinned.  God sought to restore it by establishing a covenant first with the patriarchs (Abraham, Isaac and Jacob) and then later with the entire nation of Israel (the story in Ex 19-24).  I think it is important for my readers to understand that the fundamental deal God offered to Israel is very similar to the situation that Adam was placed in.  God basically told Adam, "hey Adam, I am going to bless you, here is a great wife, you can possess the whole earth and multiply and do all these fun things, just don't sin by eating from a particular tree or else you will die."  Adam goes and does exactly the thing God told him not to, and so he dies and the world is thrown into chaos.  God says to himself, "that did not go the way I wanted it to."  And so God sets off and he finds Israel, and he says to Israel, "hey, so things didn't work out between me and Adam.  But you look pretty cool, how about you guys come back to your own personal garden of Eden in the promised land, I will bless you with anything you could ever hope or dream to have, and you guys follow me.  The only law is that you should not sin and put me before all other gods, or else you will die."  What we've learned over the last few books (well, basically everything between here and Exodus 32, inclusive) is that Israel delves right back into sin, following Adam's footsteps into darkness and similarly following Adam into the promised death.

Now, there are some differences; the sin is different, the way death happens to them is different, and a lot of the superficial circumstances are different.  But I think these two stories are fundamentally very similar.  In both cases God was bringing people into relationship with himself, in both cases there was a choice between life and death, in both cases the people involved chose death, and in both cases they were cast out of their homeland (Eden in one case, the promised land in the other) to a dark and uncertain future.

I could imagine someone asking, "if God saw how things worked out with Adam, why would he try again with Israel?"  There are numerous answers to this question, but for the sake of time I will only offer one: God is trying to establish through the Old Testament (OT) the human need for a savior.  Basically, the way I read it is this: if we had only seen Adam sin, then perhaps people would say, "well Adam sinned, but I will not repeat his mistake!  God is condemning all of mankind for the actions of a single individual, and he is unjust to do so.  I will act righteously."  When we look at Israel, God blessed them in many ways, he provided for them, he delivered them from slavery in Egypt (which is symbolic of death, similar to how Adam was cast out of the garden) and he brought them into the promised land, to the "new Eden" for them to inhabit, cultivate, to be fruitful and multiply.  And even after all the blessing, Israel sins again and again, harming one another and forsaking God in exchange for worthless idols.  Moses interceded for the people many times, forestalling God's wrath, but never averting it entirely and now that wrath has come.

What Israel shows us is that sin is not some kind of accident like Adam was walking along and he suddenly tripped and his mouth landed on the forbidden fruit, and it all happened so fast and he couldn't help it, and he's really very sorry and he promises it would never happen again!  To Adam, sin was a deliberate choice, perhaps a regretted choice but one he made nonetheless, and in the thousands of years since it was a choice repeated by every generation.  That is the message of the OT.  God could keep forgiving, keep restraining himself, and mankind would just keep sinning.  There is no amount of second or third of fourth chances that would ever be enough for us to "figure it out" and stop sinning, and sin is not the result of harsh or burdensome circumstances.  We do not sin because of our bad childhood or poverty or any circumstantial factor.  God blessed Adam and he blessed Israel to show us that sin is not the result of hostile conditions, it's due to the innate tendencies of our own hearts.  As the book of Judges puts it, everyone "doing what was right in his own eyes", choosing his own path and making his own decisions about what is good or bad instead of following God's standards for good and bad.

The OT establishes the need for a savior, someone who can come unadulterated by our sinful tendencies and help bring us back into proper relationship with God.  Someone like the high priest who goes into the temple and makes atonement for the people, like on the day of atonement (Hebrew, "Yom Kippur".  Lev 23:26-32)

Kings is not the end of the OT (in fact, we're barely halfway done), but in many ways I think the Babylonian exile is the thematic heart because of all these patterns that I just discussed.

The destruction of Jerusalem itself follows many of the same patterns as in the previous chapter, except more extreme.  This time, rather than simply pillage Jerusalem, they steal everything and burn the city to the ground.  The temple, palace and every good house is destroyed with fire.  The people are again exiled, but instead of 7,000 leading men, the king of Babylon takes away the majority of the people.  Now only a handful are left in the land.  The chief officials (who led the rebellion) are put to death rather than exiled, and Judah is not given a new king.  Gedaliah is appointed as a governor under king Nebuchadnezzar's authority.  Judah no longer possesses even nominal independence, as punishment for their second revolt.

Some men go and assassinate Gedaliah and it's not entirely clear to me why.  The bible doesn't really say, but there are two motivations that suggest themselves: first, it's possible that Ishmael killed Gedaliah because Gedaliah was collaborating with the Babylonians.  Second, it's possible that Ishmael killed him in order to steal money and (as we will later discover in the book of Jeremiah) to take slaves.  Because Ishmael is a brigand, essentially.  Between these two, the first explanation makes a bit more sense to me personally (since Ishmael is a member of the royal household in v. 25 and probably loyal to Zedekiah), but it's hard to say for sure.

The last paragraph in the book ends on a slightly more hopeful note, telling us that 37 years into his exile, the king of Babylon (Evil-Merodach, a successor to Nebuchadnezzar) honors Jehoiachin with a favorable position and royal food.  Jehoiachin is the king who was exiled before Zedekiah (in the previous chapter: 2 Kings 24:15); there is no evidence that Zedekiah was ever freed from prison, and he probably died in disgrace.

And with this, the book of Kings concludes.  We are left in hopeful expectation for a salvation to come from God, both to free Israel from their captivity in Babylon as well as to free all men from the captivity of sin and death.  The book of Kings (and the OT in general) leave us with a firm knowledge of the problem: sin.  Now we must wait for God's answer; how will God bring about this great salvation?

Bible Commentary - 2 Kings 20

In this chapter, Hezekiah recovers from a terminal illness and shows all his treasures to the Babylonians.

I want to start off by reminding my readers that Hezekiah is a "righteous king", he is the guy who literally tore down the altars of Baal and by all regards, it appears that he legitimately sought to follow the LORD and bring Israel back into their proper covenant relationship with God.  With that context, I think Hezekiah's tears and prayer in verses 2-3 are sincere.  As much as any other sinful person, Hezekiah really did seek the LORD.

With that context, Hezekiah is faced not just with a physical illness, but with a prophecy from Isaiah that he was going to die and not live.  Hezekiah seems to strive against the impossible, petitioning the LORD in spite of a message from God that he was going to die.  It says that Isaiah had barely left the royal palace when the LORD spoke to him and said that Hezekiah would indeed be healed and would live out another 15 years.

I think this is really important to understand, because this is something that many people misunderstand about the bible and more broadly, misunderstand about prophecy in general: a prophecy is not a guarantee.  Many prophecies are conditional, and God doesn't always state those conditions clearly.  Oftentimes, this is true about what I would call "positive prophecies", where God prophesies something good.  In most cases, the prophecy is something that we are supposed to take hold of, to work towards.  There are some exceptions, but in a lot of cases prophecies are supposed to set our direction and vision; they are not intended to be a statement of what will happen in the future regardless of our response.  Guiding our response is one of the most important aspects of a prophecy: if a prophecy were a guarantee about the future regardless of our response, why would God bother telling us?  He could simply do what he wants in our life and just "make it happen".  There would be no point in telling us about it in advance except perhaps as a demonstration of his power over the world.  But there are plenty of other ways God could do that through miracles of many kinds.

However, a lot of people take prophecies as a guarantee and then do nothing to work towards that vision.  They get promises about good things in the future, assume they will happen regardless of anything else, and in so many cases are disappointed and confused when it doesn't happen.  If there were one thing I would encourage people to do it's that if you have a prophecy, pray into it.  If you see an opportunity to step into a prophecy, take it.  Prophecies from God should encourage boldness and faith; they should be taken as an encouragement from God that if we move in a certain direction, he will move with us.  We should engage with prophecies actively through our words and actions, not passively waiting for them to happen.

In this case, Hezekiah gets a negative prophecy (declaring something bad would happen to him) and this also is not guaranteed.  In the case of positive prophecies, we should respond by embracing what God says, and in the case of negative prophecies we should respond by seeking to avert what God says.  In both cases, we are not supposed to respond with human effort, wisdom or power.  We are supposed to respond by drawing closer to God and, in faith, trusting that God will bless us as we pursue his will in our lives.  This is exactly what Hezekiah does when he responds in prayer, and that is why God reversed the illness and death that Isaiah had prophesied.  Of course, Hezekiah has an entire lifetime of devotion to God before this, so there is no hypocrisy in Hezekiah's prayer.

In verses 8-11 when Isaiah gives Hezekiah a sign of his healing, my readers should understand that the "stairway of Ahaz" refers to an early sundial built by Ahaz.  When Hezekiah says it's easy for the shadow to go forward ten steps and hard to go back ten steps, that's because "going forward" refers to the natural progression of time.  For it to go backwards means that the shadow reverses the direction it normally goes (i.e. the earth's rotation was reversed).  Hence why it is hard for the shadow to go backwards.  This is similar to the miracle when the sun stopped in Joshua 10:12-14.  We can also regard the shadow traveling backwards as a metaphor for the reversal of the "shadow" of death on Hezekiah's life.

In the final part of the chapter, we learn for the first time about the emerging Babylonian empire.  In the last few chapters, the Assyrians have been the prime antagonist, destroying Israel and besieging Jerusalem.  Even in this chapter, v. 6 tells us that God would protect Hezekiah from the Assyrians.  From the story, we can tell that the Babylonians are allied with Judah; this is why Merodach-Baladan sends an envoy and a gift to Hezekiah after Hezekiah recovers from his illness.  Politically, we can understand the alliance between Babylon and Judah is primarily because they are both resisting the dominant Assyrians.  The Babylonians are by no means the most powerful empire right now, which makes Isaiah's prophecy in verses 16-18 all the more surprising.  Not only is Babylon going to emerge as the next superpower, they are going to betray and destroy their erstwhile ally.  Just as the Assyrians destroyed the northern kingdom of Israel, the Babylonians will bring the end for the southern kingdom of Judah.

The destruction of Jerusalem will come to be known as the Babylonian exile.  This is one of the pivotal moments in biblical history for many reasons.  Besides the various political consequences, it also has significant religious and theological consequences.  The Babylonians destroy the temple and exile most of the people of Judah to Babylon.  This disrupts the temple sacrifices, which means that the priests and rabbis needed to figure out how to follow the Law when they were living in a nation where many ordinances were no longer possible to obey.  Indeed, this is a similar situation to modern Judaism where temple sacrifices are no longer performed and Passover lambs are no longer slaughtered.  This is a tremendous shift, and I'll discuss it in more detail in later chapters.

For now, what I want to focus on is Hezekiah's response.  Hezekiah says to himself that because these disasters will occur in a later generation and not in his own time, that he is glad with Isaiah's prophecy.  This is a tragic counterpoint to the earlier prophecy we had in this very same chapter.  In verse 1, Isaiah prophesies that Hezekiah would die.  Hezekiah prays and God changes his mind and heals Hezekiah.  There is a negative prophecy, Hezekiah engages with it and God relents.  In verses 16-19, there is another negative prophecy directed at Hezekiah's children.  His wealth would be taken by the Babylonians and his descendants would be taken as slaves, but observe Hezekiah's response.  Hezekiah accepts the prophecy.  We can imagine God saying, "is the destruction of your nation okay with you?  Very well, it shall be done according to your will".  Hezekiah did not challenge or pray against the destruction he is warned about.  He does not repent, he does not turn to the LORD to get this prophecy reversed.  Even though Hezekiah was a godly man in many respects, here he shows a damning selfishness when he prays for his own life but does not pray for the lives of his heirs and his people.  In both cases, the prophecies are stated unconditionally, and in my opinion Hezekiah's prayers could have reversed both prophecies.  In the end, he only prays against one so he gets to live another 15 years, but the second prophecy comes true and his nation is destroyed.

How much better would things have been for Israel if Hezekiah had prayed against the destruction of his people and allowed himself to die from that illness!  Hezekiah's shortsightedness is painful.  Indeed, Hezekiah's own son Manasseh is one of the most evil, violent and idolatrous kings in Judah's history.  While I think this is very surprising for such a godly man to have such an evil son, on the other hand verse 19 clearly tells us that Hezekiah is only concerned about his own generation and his own life.  If Hezekiah will not pray for his descendants, then why should his son be a godly man?  Hezekiah shows that in his heart, he is not investing in the next generation.  In that vacuum, it actually makes sense that godless evil should take its place in Manasseh's heart.

In the next chapter, we will learn more about Manasseh's reign.

Bible Commentary - 2 Kings 2

In this chapter, Elijah departs to heaven and Elisha succeeds him as prophet.

There is a progression of several events in this chapter, all relating to the transition that happens between Elijah and Elisha.  Most of this chapter is intended to establish Elisha's prophetic authority as he takes up Elijah's mantle both literally and figuratively.

This is not the first transition of power we have observed in the bible.  I think the most significant transition we saw in the past was when Joshua took leadership of Israel after the death of Moses (most clearly marked out in Joshua 1).  In addition, we saw a transition happen between David and his son Solomon (which was marked by a brief political conflict between Solomon and Adonijah in 1 Kings 1).  I am calling these out because for the most part, they were peaceful and intentional transitions, rather than e.g. David taking power from Ish-Bosheth by force (2 Samuel 2-4) or the split that happened between Jeroboam and Rehoboam (1 Kings 12).

I think the closest parallel to what happens in this chapter is the transition between Moses and Joshua.  In that case (as with Elijah and Elisha) there was no family relationship between them: Joshua was a servant and student of Moses, and Moses was a sort of mentor to him.  Similarly, the prophets in this chapter call Elijah the master of Elisha and I think it's fair to say that Elijah was training Elisha to be his replacement since Elijah himself anointed Elisha to be the next prophet.  Even the similarity of their names (which is undoubtedly confusing to first-time bible readers) is possibly intended to evoke the similarity of their callings and ministry, and they certainly perform a lot of the same miracles.

Speaking of names, Elisha and Joshua also have similar names.  Elisha means "God saves", while Joshua means "the LORD saves".  Another similarity between Elisha and Joshua is the symbolic power of crossing the Jordan.  Moses dies outside of the promised land and one of Joshua's first acts as leader is to take the nation across the Jordan, which miraculously splits to permit them to cross.  Here, Elijah leads Elisha out of the promised land, is taken up into heaven, and Elisha's first act as prophet is to split the waters again and cross back into the land of Israel.

That said, the transition of power between Elijah and Elisha is a much more finely crafted story than what happened between Moses and Joshua, so I think it is instructive for us to explore the details a bit.

The first thing that happens is Elijah travels around to three different areas in the northern kingdom, Israel, and every time he tries to dissuade Elisha from following him, and the first two times there is a group of prophets that tell Elisha his master is going to depart that day, and every time Elisha tells them that while they prophesy truthfully, that they should be silent and not say that thing to him.  So, what does this mean?  Why does Elijah try to get away from Elisha, and why does Elisha respond to the prophets the way that he does?

Rashi suggests that Elijah was trying to drive away Elisha out of his humility, so that Elisha would not see him be taken away.  That may be part of it.  Personally I don't have a good answer to this question, but I think it may be that Elijah was in some sense testing Elisha's persistence.  There is a Jewish tradition that when a person seeks to convert to Judaism, the rabbi is supposed to try to dissuade them three times and the person must insist three times that they wish to convert, because (according to the same tradition) becoming a Jew means taking on a very serious obligation, to follow the Law of God and live according to the ways of righteousness.  It is a serious thing and is not supposed to be done lightly.  I suspect that Elijah has a similar idea here, testing Elisha three times and telling him to stay and not follow the path of a prophet; not because Elisha is not anointed or not supposed to become a prophet, but because it is a hard and difficult path and Elisha should not do it if he is not completely committed.

Elijah himself is familiar with these difficulties, and we saw Elijah struggle intensely with depression from the stiff resistance he faced from both the people and the kings of Israel (see 1 Kings 19).  Elisha should become a prophet, but should do so fully knowing how much it will cost him.  Similarly, I think the companies of prophets may be trying to warn Elisha about the major changes that are about to begin in his life, and Elisha both knows and accepts those changes.

In verse 7, we see a group of 50 prophets come to witness Elijah and Elisha crossing the Jordan.  My NIV study bible wisely points out that this group of 50 is likely intended to echo the 50 soldiers in the previous chapter that had come to capture Elijah.  The reason being, while Ahaziah sent 50 men to resist Elijah, in this case God is sending 50 men to support him.

In verse 8, Elijah strikes the water with his mantle to divide it.  In this book, Elijah's mantle is symbolic of his ministry and authority (and the ancient Jewish audience would have understood this reference).  Back in 1 Kings 19:19, Elijah selected Elisha to be the next prophet by throwing his cloak upon Elisha.  Here, Elijah uses his cloak (again a sign of his authority) to divide the water.  Elisha's first act as a prophet is to perform the very same miracle, showing that the power and authority of Elijah was transferred to him.  Moses divide the Red Sea and his disciple Joshua crossed the Jordan.  Here, both Elijah and Elisha cross the Jordan to show God's favor upon them.

Crossing the Jordan also has symbolic value, representing the transition between eras.  When Israel crossed the Jordan to enter Israel, they were leaving the time of wandering and entering a time of both conflict and tremendous blessing.  In this chapter, crossing the Jordan is also symbolic of the transition between eras, as Elijah departs and Elisha arises to take his place as the LORD's representative on earth.

In verse 9, Elijah accepts Elisha as his successor; he is no longer seeking to dissuade Elisha, and simply asks what he wants.  Elisha claims that he wants a double portion of Elijah's spirit, which is again a symbolic term.  Asking for a double portion basically means that Elisha wants to be considered Elijah's firstborn with respect to Elijah's inheritance (see e.g. Deuteronomy 21:17).  We saw this with Jacob giving a double portion to Joseph when Jacob claimed that both Ephraim and Manasseh would get a full portion of Jacob's inheritance, in effect giving Joseph twice as much as any other tribe.

Elijah once again warns Elisha that he is asking for a hard thing.  This is a double entendre.  Not only is it a hard thing for Elisha to inherit the full blessing of Elijah's ministry, it will also be a challenging calling that will test Elisha's endurance in many ways.  It is both hard to get an anointing and authority of this kind, and also it is a hard life to live once you get it.  Nevertheless, Elijah permits that Elisha may inherit his power and authority if Elisha remains so close to him and his pattern of living that Elisha would be present and would see him taken up into heaven.  Elijah is demanding that Elisha should walk with him fully and that Elisha should behave in every way that Elijah does; in that case, Elijah's spirit would rest upon Elisha.

In verse 11, Elijah is taken up into heaven and departed the earth without dying.  He is now the second (and last) person to do so, the first being Enoch (Genesis 5:24).  I will talk more about this in a moment, but for now I want to finish the transition narrative since that is the principle theme of this chapter.

Elijah is taken up to heaven by a chariot and horsemen of fire, giving us a brief (and likely symbolic) view of God's heavenly power that had shepherded Elijah's life.  Just as the 50 prophets demonstrate God's supremacy over the 50 soldiers of Ahaziah, the chariots of fire demonstrate God's supremacy over the chariots of human armies that typically dictated the flow of battle (for instance, the chariots of iron mentioned in Joshua 17:16 and Judges 1:19).

In verse 12, Elisha responds with "my father, my father, the chariots and horsemen of Israel!"  This is also a double entendre.  In one sense, Elisha is saying that his "father", Elijah, is the chariots and horsemen of Israel; that is, that Elijah was genuinely the power of Israel to help them defeat their enemies.  Rashi supports this interpretation, by saying that Elijah benefited Israel more by his prayers than their chariots and horsemen did in battle.  In another sense, Elisha is saying the chariots and horsemen of fire are the chariots of Israel, and that it is the power of God that fights on behalf of Israel to defeat their enemies.

Elisha tears his clothes in grief, but at this time there is nothing he can do to reverse what had happened.  He is now prophet, and Elijah is taken from him by the will of God.

Elisha takes up Elijah's mantle and attempts to replicate Elijah's miracle: God does it, and thus Elisha is confirmed to be prophet with a company of witnesses.  These witnesses want to go search for Elijah, which is peculiar because they (or their brethren) had earlier prophesied that Elijah would depart; Elisha also knows that Elijah will not be found, but becomes ashamed because the prophets may begin to think that Elisha (having taken Elijah's ministry) does not want Elijah to be found.  So he permits them to go, but gives them a very stern, "I told you so" when they are unsuccessful.  Why would the prophets insist that they should look for Elijah?  Rashi suggests that "the holy spirit departed from the prophets" on the day that Elijah was taken away, though personally I don't think there is a whole lot of textual support for that position.

Having performed one miracle, Elisha almost immediately begins a string of miracles that span the next several chapters.  The first one (after crossing the Jordan) is to heal some "bad water".  The nature of the badness is not specified.  Interestingly, Elisha responds by throwing salt into the water.  Considering salt water is undrinkable, this is a peculiar ritual, but it has an interesting explanation.  It is possible that the salt here is intended to represent the covenant with God, since salt is used symbolically in several places (see Leviticus 2:13 and Numbers 18:19).  We don't know exactly what this term entails or if there is a particular covenantal salt ritual, but the language makes it clear that salt is somehow related to the notion of covenants generally and is used at least once to refer specifically to the covenant between God and Israel.

It is the covenant, or at least a reminder of the covenant, that heals the water and makes the land productive, reversing the curse that befell Israel when they joined themselves with idols and broke the covenant with God.  So Elisha is healing the water at the same time that he is in a sense rebuking the people for turning away from God.  He is reminding them that if they return to the covenant of salt with God then God would heal their land and their divided nation.

Lastly, Elisha goes from the Jordan river up to Bethel, which was one of the two towns with a golden calf and a center of idolatrous worship in the northern kingdom Israel, though it is also a home to one of the companies of prophets (which we saw earlier in this chapter).  On his way up, a group of young men come out to mock him saying "go on up, you bald head!"  Elisha responds by cursing them so that two bears come and kill a bunch of them.  My first reaction (probably everyone's first reaction) is that this seems like a massive overreaction on Elisha's part.  Some young kids come out and call you a bald head (which is a weird insult to begin with) and you think the best thing you can do is have some bears come and kill 42 of them.  That seems way out of proportion with what Elisha was subjected to.

I have several thoughts about this short but strange passage.  First, this is a critical transition period and Elisha needs to establish his authority.  I think this is an important point so I will belabor it.  Every time there is a transition in God's leadership of his kingdom, it is very important early on to establish the authority and authenticity of that new leadership, as well as the tone of that leadership.  For instance, consider the story of Rehoboam when he became king at the death of Solomon (1 Kings 12).  In that case, the people go and ask Rehoboam to lighten their burden, and Rehoboam responds by implying that he would increase their burden.  He was attempting to establish a precedent that he would rule over them harshly, so they rebel.  In this chapter, the youth of Bethel are establishing a precedent that they would not respect and would challenge God's prophet, and if Elisha permitted that to be done at the beginning of his ministry, then nobody would ever respect him.

Elisha is not just some random guy.  He literally just divided a river with his cloak; being the prophet of God is pretty serious.  Remember when the elders of Bethlehem trembled at the arrival of Samuel (1 Samuel 16:4)?  They asked him if he came in peace because they knew that Samuel had the authority of God and the power to destroy them by his pronouncements.  Without that power, Samuel would not have been able to influence the nation and turn them (to what extent he did) towards God.  This is important because neither Samuel nor Elisha have the power of the army; they cannot compel anyone to do anything by force of arms.  Indeed, it was the army that Ahaziah sent to apprehend Elijah contrary to God's will.  Instead, it is the power of the chariots and horses of fire (the power of God) that stands behind Elisha and this must be a power even greater than the power of swords and bows.

Second, the youth are part of the idolatrous system.  Even though they are young, they are harassing Elisha because they are in opposition to everything he stands for.  This is not a random event: they are specifically insulting Elisha because of his prophetic ministry.

Third, calling him a bald head is indeed an insult.  "Bald head" is intended to suggest that Elisha lacked power or physical prowess (for instance, see 2 Samuel 14:26 regarding Absalom's excessive hair).

Fourth, although Elisha may have understood that God would kill some of the youth, he doesn't specifically call for the LORD to do so.  God does it of his own power because of the seriousness of this situation and the need to establish Elisha's authority as a prophet to the whole nation.

Lastly, "go on up" is yet another double entendre.  In one sense, the youth are telling Elisha that he should "go on up" to Bethel, but in another sense they may be telling him to "go on up" to heaven like his master Elijah and depart from their country.  In that sense, they are again mocking him by despising even God's miracle when he took Elijah away to heaven.

Bible Commentary - 1 Kings 19

In this chapter, Elijah flees into the wilderness, encounters God, and anoints his successor.

This is such a powerful chapter.

The first thing I'd like to discuss is the role of Ahab.  In this chapter, Ahab shows his weakness and indecision.  In the previous chapter, Elijah confronts the people of the northern kingdom, accusing them of hesitating between serving Baal and serving the LORD.  In this chapter, we can see that Ahab is not really a devoted servant of either.  I don't really think Ahab is hesitating between two opinions as much as he simply not choosing anything and he's letting other people choose for him.

Basically, Ahab permits Elijah to kill all the prophets of Baal and his response, upon getting home, is to tell Jezebel about it.  Jezebel is clearly devoted to Baal because she is furious and threatens to kill Elijah.  Ahab does nothing, either to encourage or restrain Jezebel.

Who is the king here?  Why is Ahab not trying to take control of the situation and exert his authority?  His weakness is perplexing and contrary to what a king is expected to do.

The second thing I found peculiar about this chapter is that Jezebel sends a messenger to threaten Elijah rather than sending a group of soldiers to go kill him.  Did Jezebel lack the authority to kill Elijah, or was there some other reason she preferred to threaten him rather than take action?

Regardless of Jezebel's motivations or political authority, the effect in Elijah's life is obvious: he goes into a depression.  This part is so powerful to me, because a lot of the bible tends to lack emotional color in the descriptions, but in this chapter it really shows how Elijah is emotionally responding to the events of the previous chapter as well as Jezebel's words, and we can see what kind of toll it is taking on him.  Elijah feels a constant wave of resistance everywhere he goes with everything he does.

Not only does Elijah feel alone, but we can see he feels a burden from the earlier generations of sin when he says that he is "not better than my fathers".  We can see Elijah's loneliness when he says "And I alone am left, and they seek to take my life also."  The reason why I say Elijah is depressed is that he is exaggerating.  First of all, Elijah is definitely better than his fathers who walked in darkness and sin.  Secondly, many of Elijah's ancestors were godly men and women.  Third, Elijah is not alone.  As we know from the previous chapter, Elijah was aware that Obadiah saved 100 prophets of the LORD by keeping them in caves.

Elijah is saying things that are factually incorrect, because he is speaking out of his emotions, and that is what I love about this chapter.  It shows the real, human side of Elijah when so many other chapters in this book show him as a harsh and unwavering prophet, either threatening judgment or performing great miracles as if they were no big deal.  Now we can see that Elijah has been affected by his experiences, like when Moses had an outburst of anger in Numbers 20.  In the case of Moses, he responds with anger but in the case of Elijah, he responds by withdrawing from society and going out into the Negev desert in southern Judah (more explicitly, he fled from the territory of the northern kingdom where the previous chapter occurred, which meant that he was out of Jezebel's reach because the southern kingdom Judah and the northern kingdom Israel were at war).

To Elijah, there was a physical act of going out into the desert, but I also think it is an apt metaphor for depression, which can also be terribly isolating and like Elijah who pleads for death, drains people of the will to live.

Elijah is acting out of his emotions, which is completely understandable and relatable, but I hope my readers can also see how it is skewing his perspective and driving him out of God's assignment for him and intentions for him.  God did not tell him to go to Judah or the Negev.

After observing Elijah's behavior, I find the LORD's response to be so powerful.  God first sends an angel to give him food and water, which is reminiscent of when he sent an angel to provide water to Hagar (Gen 21), but the context here is totally different.  Hagar was cast out by the decision of another and sent into the wilderness to die; in this case, Elijah went of his own will.  But God sees Elijah in his depression and exhaustion, sees him in the desert and dry place in his life and God provides.  God sustains him not once, but twice, which in the bible indicates confirmation.  God sends an angel twice, who touches Elijah twice, giving him bread and water twice, in order to show that God would always be with him, always provide for him and always watch over his life.

It is critical to note that in spite of God's intervention, Elijah is still both depressed and in the desert.  God's provision did not change either his outward circumstances or his inward emotional distress, but it sustained him.  If that were all God did, then Elijah probably would have remained in the desert and his life would have been over.  God's first act was to sustain him, but that was not his only act.

Elijah's reaction is to travel to Mount Horeb in Sinai.  This is the place name for many things in the Pentateuch; it is listed as the place where God first encountered Moses and assigned him to free the Israelites (Ex 3:1) and it is also given as the place where God established the covenant with Israel (Deut 4:15, 5:2).  It is also the place where God commanded Moses to strike the rock and make water come out for the people (Ex 17:6).

God did not command Elijah to go to Horeb, though the angel does refer to "the journey" which may refer to Elijah's journey to Horeb.  While God did not command him to do this, I feel like Elijah's journey to Horeb is highly symbolic in this context.  At first, Elijah went out into the desert in order to die.  But after receiving the ministry of an angel and the provision of God, Elijah travels further to Mount Horeb, where the covenant was first established, because in the midst of his grief and sorrow, Elijah is seeking to encounter God in a meaningful way.  My first reaction on reading this was, "seeing an angel and getting divine bread and water isn't good enough?"  I was slightly amazed that these miracles did not break him out of his bad mood.  My second reaction is that Elijah is a prophet of God.  He has performed powerful miracles; he has seen fire literally come down from heaven and consume an offering that he prepared.  Elijah knows God is real and he knows what God is capable of doing.  Elijah did not come out here to see another miracle; he came out here because he is deeply upset and needs to encounter the presence of God.  In the same way that food and water sustains his body in the wilderness of Judah, it is the presence of God that sustains his soul in the wilderness of the hopelessness that confronts him.

And we can see that after God provides for him, Elijah is revived in a powerful way, because he continues on his journey.  He travels the entire way to Horeb for 40 days (another highly symbolic number, mirroring the 40 years that Israel wandered in this same desert), because Elijah is seeking the birthplace of the covenant.  He feels lost and disconnected from God and he is trying to find his way back to God by going to the place where he is certain that God encountered his people.  In one sense, Horeb is a metaphor for God's relationship with mankind, but in another sense Horeb is itself a place where mankind may go to seek God.  It's like if someone had a miracle occur at some particular place and years later, they go back to that place because it was the place where they encountered God.  By going there, they are saying to God, "I am here!  Touch me again like you did before."  It almost feels like a prayer to me.

After all this, after the divine provision and the long journey, having reached the place of encounter, the word of God comes to Elijah: why are you here?  I did not tell you to come here.  I am amazed by God's gentleness in how he deals with Elijah.  That's because Elijah is not in rebellion against God; certainly Elijah has gotten off track from where he is supposed to be, but it is not an act of disobedience, it is because Elijah got overwhelmed by the circumstances that he faced.  God responds to disobedience and rebellion with punishment and wrath, but in this kind of situation Elijah has some other kind of failing.  It is a failing, but it is not a moral failing.  He failed in the very specific sense that he found himself simply incapable of completing his mission, and this is something God responds to with gentleness and grace.  God is not seeking to rebuke Elijah, he is seeking to restore Elijah, to get him back on track.

Elijah responds with his complaint: I have served you, but the sons of Israel broke the covenant and they fight against me at every turn, they do not love you or serve you.  I alone am left, and they would kill me too if they could.

Strictly speaking, Elijah did not exactly answer the question.  Even if all Israel turned against him and sought his life, why did he go to Horeb?  I think Elijah recognized that God alone had the power to answer his questions and heal the pain in his heart and he was seeking to encounter God.  I also think it's notable that Elijah was no longer asking for God to kill him, now he is simply stating his complaint, bearing his soul before the LORD, and seeking an answer.  In this whole chapter, Elijah never once asks God a question, but at the same time, I certainly think Elijah was looking for answers.  It's almost funny because God already knows everything and he asks Elijah questions, while Elijah is the one looking for answers and he is not asking any questions.

God asked Elijah questions to get Elijah to open up his heart.  It is only after Elijah is able to bear his pain before God that God was capable of healing it.  I think that is a second dimension of Elijah's journey.  As he draws closer and closer to the place of the covenant, he also opens up his heart before God.  This is incredibly important because when we keep pain and wounds concealed from God, it hinders God's ability to heal us because we are not giving him permission to do so.  To receive healing from God, we must places ourselves in a position of vulnerability towards him.  Only then is he able to speak words of life into our inner being.

Verses 11-13 are relatively well known and often repeated (amongst the kinds of people I listen to, anyway).  Many times I have heard people say, "God speaks in a still, small voice" (based on the KJV translation of v. 12), not even bothering to give the context on the assumption that people will know what you are talking about.  It's basically a Christian aphorism at this point to assert that in most situations God will usually do things in a very quiet and subdued way, and that raging fire and earthquakes and stuff like that do not carry the deeper power of indicating God's presence.

I think there is some truth to these aphorisms, but I think it is even more powerful when you consider the larger context.  When this passage talks about great winds and fire and earthquakes, those are the same manifestations that shattered this same mountain in Exodus 19 when God came down and established a covenant with Israel.  I think it is a natural question to ask, then, whether God was in the fire and earthquake and trumpet blast of Exodus 19?  Unfortunately, I don't think this is not a question that we can really answer because Exodus does not tell us.  I do think that God is sometimes "in the fire" and sometimes "in the wind" and sometimes "in the earthquake"; if it were not so, then the author might not have bothered to tell us that God was not in these things when he encountered Elijah.

In this particular instance, God was not in the outward shaking and burning, but sometimes he may be found there.  Sometimes this shaking may be the shaking of kingdoms, sometimes this burning may be the burning of offerings and other times it may be the burning of hearts.  Sometimes it is from God and sometimes it is not.  We should not assume that such things are from God, nor should we assume that they are not.  We cannot look to manifestations or great signs as carriers of God's presence: we must look for God's presence wherever he may be found, and having found him, abide in that place.

I think to understand what is happening here, we must understand God's purpose in these verses.  When God comes in an earthquake, it is to shake and break things down, whether that means judgment (upon those who do evil) or to break down and reshape situations and ideas in the lives of even righteous people.  But when we consider Elijah, he is already broken down.  He fled into the wilderness out of the distress in his heart, so God does not come in fire and wind and shaking because Elijah is already broken and hurting.  God moves in those ways to break down hardened hearts.  Elijah is already opening his heart to God.  Therefore God comes in the gentle, quiet wind to restore him.  God does not have emotional insecurities, he has no need to prove anything to anyone.  God moves in Elijah's life to build Elijah up, not to show off, because God seeks to be glorified in Elijah, not to glorify himself to Elijah.  God wants to be exalted through Elijah, not to Elijah, because God is seeking human partners on the earth to share in his redemption mission.  In this case, the gentle wind exalts God more than anything else because it is exactly what Elijah needs to be restored, and having been restored, Elijah's life exalts the LORD.

Elijah found the holiness of God in the gentle wind, and covered his face because he was overwhelmed.  And yet, even in the midst of God's presence he still had the same anguish and pain that carried him out to this remote, deserted place.  And it was here, in the midst of that presence and in the midst of the depression and grief that God finally spoke to Elijah's heart.  First, God gives him a new assignment to anoint successor kings and his own successor as prophet, Elisha, and the secondly, God reaffirms his heart that Elijah is not alone: there are 7,000 other people who have not loved Baal and have stayed true to the LORD and the covenant.

How does this answer Elijah's questions?  Elijah first says, "the sons of Israel have forsaken your covenant" and second says, "and I am alone".  God tells him first, you will anoint two kings and a prophet who will rise to power like swords putting my enemies to death.  Second, you are not alone.  The first part doesn't really seem like an answer, but I think what God is trying to do is reassure Elijah that he has a plan for Israel.  God never says, "you are wrong, Israel did not forsake me", because Elijah was right about that part, Israel did forsake God.  God is reassuring him by saying, "while Israel did forsake me, I have a vision for how their hearts can be drawn back.  You still have a role to play, and you can continue to serve me and serve my plans by anointing these men."

God shows Elijah that while Israel has forsaken God, God did not forsake Israel and God was sending Elijah to continue his ministry in furtherance of God's plans.  From this place of encounter, God brings a deep healing to Elijah, so Elijah returns to the northern kingdom Israel and anoints his own successor Elisha.

Elisha, in turn, immediately shows what kind of man he is.  After Elijah throws his cloak upon him (a symbolic act that Elisha would have understood to indicate he was chosen by Elijah), Elisha sacrifices his oxen, burns his plowshare to cook the meat, and follows Elijah.  Elisha destroys his own livelihood as an act of total consecration.  He was going to leave nothing behind of his previous life, nothing to fall back on if "being a prophet" doesn't work out for him.  This story makes me immediately like Elisha, because he shows that he is a man of great faith.  We will get to read about Elisha quite a bit more in the rest of this book.

While the words that God spoke to Elijah are specific to him, I think the pattern applies to us.  In the midst of our pain or depression, God sustains us and provides for us and he brings us to a place where we can be totally open to him, and in that place he brings deep healing.

Bible Commentary - 1 Kings 11

In this chapter, Solomon drifts into idolatry and in response the LORD raises up enemies to fight him.

This chapter is the culmination of some of the warning signs we had seen in earlier descriptions of Solomon's rule.  Solomon is a pragmatic and sometimes harsh ruler, who holds considerable power over Israel and their neighbors, and he successfully forged an alliance with Egypt.  While he invests considerably in the temple, his devotion the LORD is incomplete, and this proves to be the undoing of the unified Israelite kingdom.

To begin, I want my readers to notice the association between this chapter and the overall themes of the Hebrew Bible which I have been highlighting to date.  My readers should note that while verse 2 is not a direct quote from the Pentateuch, it certainly captures the spirit of the Pentateuch such as Deuteronomy 20:16-18 (the command to destroy all the nations that inhabit the promised land).  Discussing the downfall of Solomon is, in that sense, like discussing the moral philosophy of the Old Testament as a whole.  That philosophy is, in a word, bad company corrupts good character.  That is what the author is trying to express here.  By bonding himself emotionally (in love) with women who were in turn worshipers of other gods, Solomon himself was "turned away" after other gods and he "went after" them.

As a general principle, I think this applies today as well.  We are influenced in many ways by our friends, both consciously and subconsciously, and are influenced even more strongly by our spouse (or spouses, in Solomon's case).  The principles of the OT, then, are to isolate Israel's society as much as possible from the idolatrous societies around them.  Perhaps we can regard Israel's many failings as an example of how hard it is for social creatures such as ourselves to do that.  Even in the past few chapters, we saw that Solomon built most of his wealth from Arabian traders and driving commerce from Egypt to the countries north of him.  His political power is built on his marriage to Pharaoh's daughter, which is itself a violation of the same principle of separation that is observed in the OT.

And now, as the saying goes, the chickens have come home to roost.  All of Solomon's engagement with Egypt and other nations building political and trade alliances results in him developing an attraction towards foreign women.  Though many of these were certainly political marriages that might not have influenced Solomon as strongly, this chapter makes it clear that Solomon "loved" his wives and "held fast to them", which opens the door for him to begin following other gods, contrary to the law.  What starts as a violation of some of the outer principles of the law (segregating themselves from other nations) ends as a violation of the most central tenet of the Law and covenant as a whole, that they should have no other gods besides the LORD, and should make no idols.

There are more contemplative questions that can be raised around this.  To what extent do these "fences" protect our relationship with God, instead of becoming a sort of ritualistic structure that replaces our relationship with God?  By "fences", what I am referring to is biblical principles (such as the command to remain separate from the other nations of the promised land) that are intended to hold Israel close to God.  Another example is the tefillin that Jews wear to hold pieces of scripture on their body, as a physical reminder to keep the law close to their hearts.  Another example is to keep the Passover every year as a reminder of what God has done for Israel.

The reason I ask is because, if these fences are meant to protect us from idolatry or drifting away from God, then why did they not protect Solomon?  This is a question that can be generalized to our lives today.  Instead of Solomon, I can ask about myself.  Instead of "avoiding foreign women", I can ask about the many different kinds of sin that permeate this world and that God has called me to be separate from, whether it is sexual sin or the love of money or hating other people.  Instead of idolatry.... well, actually, we can still talk about idolatry; it's not stone statues, but anything that we put in the place of God in our lives is an idol of some kind.

I'm not asking because I want to live in sin; I think pursuing sin (the same way that Solomon pursued foreign wives) can genuinely impair one's relationship with God.  What I am wondering is if these fences are really capable of protecting us from our own free agency.  That is, if a person sets his or her heart on seeking God, then that person will seek God regardless of the circumstances.  If a person sets his or her heart on idols, then that person will eventually find the idols that he or she wants.  We can set up fences to protect things that we value, and if we value our relationship with the LORD we can protect it as such.  But Israel (as a nation) is commanded over and over in so many ways to set up these reminders and memorials and commanded to avoid idolatry in so many different ways, but because they did not value the LORD, the fences meant nothing and they were torn down (metaphorically).

What I am wondering is, to what extent can all of the memorials and annual festivals imbue Israel with a greater devotion to the LORD, rather than serve as an expression for what devotion to the LORD they already possess.  I wonder about this in my own life also.  When I go to church, does that increase my desire for God, or is that because I already have an increased desire for God, which expresses itself through church?  Is there anything I can do to protect my relationship with God, or is my relationship with God already protected because I want it to be?  I wonder about this because I've heard so many stories about people drifting away from the faith (and a substantial number of these stories are presented in the bible itself), and I want to know what I can do to avoid becoming one of those stories.  Perhaps even asking that question is enough to keep oneself safe?  Or perhaps there are no guarantees in life, perhaps there is no way to be "safe" in our relationship with God?  Perhaps it is something that must be pursued every day, every mistake atoned for, every desire turned upwards to heaven?

The reason why I called this a contemplative question is because I don't really have the answers.  But I think the questions are important because the bible (especially the OT) is simply filled with these kinds of rituals, which means that the LORD sees some kind of purpose in them, but with the extent of idolatry that seeps into Israelite society, I'm left wondering what that purpose might be.  I think there are a lot of possible answers, but I think it's worth taking the time to think about this and not settle for simple answers: look for the depth.  What is it that LORD wants to accomplish with the structures that he builds around his presence?  What is it that he is trying to encourage, to form and shape in us?  It's not enough to simply obey the things that he says; we must seek to understand his ways, in order to attain a deeper unity with his desires for our lives.

After Solomon slips into idolatry, the LORD raises up three enemies for him.  Once again, the simplest question is an important question: why would the LORD raise up enemies in response to idolatry?  The simple answer is that this to punish Solomon.  I think that is superficially true (God promised to punish Israel if they ever pursued idols), but I don't think it really captures God's intent, which is to use these situations to bring about repentance and redeem Israel from their spiritual poverty.  I could offer a longer analysis on how God uses opposition to resist pride, but I think this chapter's commentary has enough contemplation already.

I think it's interesting to note how Egypt is hedging their bets against Israel.  While Pharaoh builds a political alliance with Solomon through marriage, he is also offering asylum for two of Solomon's enemies, Hadad and Jeroboam.  Verse 22 shows how Pharaoh is trying to control Hadad in order to protect Solomon, but we can be assured that if there was ever a falling out between Pharaoh and Solomon, Pharaoh would have immediately sent out all of these adversaries to harass Israel.

The final part of this chapter is pretty significant.  Ahijah prophesies to Jeroboam that the kingdom of Israel is going to be fractured in two, and it is going to remain this way for the rest of its independent existence.  The language around this prophecy is a little weird because Ahijah says that Solomon will only have one tribe, while Jeroboam only gets ten, so what happens to the twelfth tribe?  It's a little hard to be sure, but that is either referring to Simeon or Levi.  Simeon was given a tribal inheritance in the midst of Judah and Simeon was progressively absorbed into Judah such that it has few (if any) references in the rest of the OT.  Levi, on the other hand, is a tribe that is dedicated to serving the LORD so for the most part, they congregate around Jerusalem and the temple, especially after the kingdom splits, and Levi was never given a tribal inheritance.  Ahijah probably has one or both of these tribes in mind when he says that Jeroboam only gets ten tribes.

Ahijah offers to Jeroboam a promise very similar to what was given to David and Solomon: if he devoutly serves the LORD and obeys the covenant, then he will have a permanent dynasty reigning on the throne of the soon-to-be northern kingdom.  We don't have nearly as much of a backstory for Jeroboam as we did for Saul or David, but the fundamental premise is the same.  The LORD chose Jeroboam, and if Jeroboam chooses him back, then his kingdom and posterity will be assured.  We will have to wait for the next chapter or two to find out whether Jeroboam accepts.

In the end, Solomon dies and his son Rehoboam takes over, but while Solomon played such a big role in ushering in Israel's golden age, he plays just as much a role ensuring its downfall.  The political alliances that brought in power and wealth also brought in foreign gods, and the LORD's wrath is the only sure consequence of that.  Although Israel will not be destitute or oppressed overnight, and will have several brief resurgences, they will never again approach the glory of Solomon's reign.