19
THE KINGDOM DIVIDED: THE DISCIPLINE OF LOST BLESSING
Solomon’s golden era did not
last. A Bible-friendly culture depends upon divine wisdom applied to life, not
human wisdom. The spiritual rot that started under Solomon spread causing
Israel’s culture to decay over the next few centuries until God passed world
dominion to the Gentiles around 600 BC. This cycle of great prosperity followed
by stagnation, decay, and chaos has been repeated in similar form among all
nations throughout history. Secular historians from Gibbon to Marx to Toynbee
have tried to explain it in purely humanistic terms—usually citing social
pressures, economic forces, or loss of natural resources as “the” causes. Such
explanations, grounded as they are on pagan presuppositions, fall short of
giving a truly satisfying answer to the problem. The Bible goes far deeper than
secular historiography for its explanation of social and cultural decay.
In Part III of this
framework series we have studied the decay of the original Noahic civilization
into what I have termed pagan civilization. We noted then the three
corruptions. First, there was the corruption of the human imagination from the
Creator-creature and Fall truths to the deceptions of the Continuity of Being
and the “normalcy” of evil and suffering (the “lust of the eyes”). Second,
there was the corruption of human devotion away from service toward God and to
service toward man and nature (the “lust of the flesh”). Third, there was the
corruption of human moral judgment (the “pride of life”). Deeply involved in
this paganization of the Noahic civilization was the coercive and intrusive use
of civil governmental power—Nimrod’s one-world Babel project.
Now we are studying history
fourteen or fifteen centuries later (approximately 930 BC). Only this time it
is God’s own elect nation that is being paganized. This chapter surveys the
somber events that split Solomon’s kingdom and set up the doom of its northern
half. Out of this study will come some truths about sanctification that are
likely to disturb us and even offend some of us: the threat of idolatry,
carnality, and loss of God’s blessings in our lives. Read here I Kings 11 to II
Kings 17.
THE REVOLT OF THE ELEVEN
TRIBES.
Solomon’s administration
stood upon the shoulders of David and the covenant the Lord made with him. The
Davidic Covenant promised eternal security for the dynasty as a whole, but it
also conditioned the welfare of each succeeding king in the dynasty upon his
obedience or disobedience to the Lord: a disobedient king in the Davidic
Dynasty would be chastened “with the rod of men” (II Sam. 7:14). This
conditionality was a feature of the prior Sinaitic Covenant under Moses (Lev.
26; Deut. 28) and was repeated to Solomon when he dedicated the Temple to
Yahweh (I Kings 9:4-9). Solomon’s disobedience in trying to establish wise
policies of the nation on his own thus resulted in God’s chastening by raising
up a threat from neighboring nations (II Kings 11:14-25). This international
threat combined with domestic problems would lead to an eventual traumatic
rupture in this great kingdom.
The Davidic Dynasty Rejected. The Davidic Dynasty had
been raised up by God to fulfill the Messianic model of Kingdom leadership. In
Part III we studied how David radically differed from pagan kings in his modus
operandi. He was a man of faith rather than of works. Under God’s guidance he
approximated the ancient king-priest ideal of Melchizedek that God originally
set forward for human civilization. He not only ruled his people as the civil
ruler, but he led them to worship the Creator Yahweh.
Solomon departed from this
ideal.
Through his unanointed plan for Israel’s international security, he involved
himself in marital unions with unbelieving wives. The resulting shared values
and common ground within these marriages could no longer be biblical. Solomon
imported paganism into the heart of Jerusalem: he added to Yahweh’s Temple
other temples for the gods and goddesses of his unbelieving wives (I Kings
11:1-8). The “state religion” was now divided between belief and unbelief, an
apostate ecumenicalism. Additionally, Solomon ignored the Mosaic instruction to
the king not to have a large standing army or excessive wealth (Deut.
17:16-17). Yahweh would now begin the “chastening with the rod of men” upon
Solomon and the following Davidic seed. An Edomite refugee who had fled from
David earlier, Hadad, belonged to Edomite royalty and was welcomed in Pharaoh’s
household. After David died, he returned to Edom on Israel’s southeastern
border, obviously closely allied with Egypt (I Kings 11:14-22). Another refugee
from David’s campaign was Rezon who in Solomon’s day ruled Syria on Israel’s
northeastern border (I Kings 11:23-25).
A third, and more serious
threat, was Jeroboam I who originally belonged to Solomon’s administration. His
daily life was spent in Solomon’s bureaucracy. He saw first hand the disruptive
effect the monarchy was having on the people through excessive taxation and
conscripted labor (prophesied by Samuel in I Sam 8: 14-17). Through Ahijah the
prophet, Yahweh announced the division of the Solomonic Kingdom and that
Jeroboam would become king of ten out of the twelve Jewish tribes. Yahweh
offered a conditional dynasty to Jeroboam as He had earlier to Saul. Jeroboam,
like Hadad, eventually fled to Egypt (I Kings 11:26-40).
What Solomon had tried to
solve—the problem of Israel’s international security—with his own independent
wisdom would rise up to plague the nation. Ironically, the very nation with
which Solomon had made his first alliance, Egypt, would be the nation that
harbored his enemies and which eventually would invade his land (cf. I
Kings 3:1; 11:18-22, 40; 14:25-28)! All of his autonomous use of wisdom was for
naught.
After Solomon died, his son
Rehoboam ascended the throne as a grandson of King David. At his coronation in
Shechem, Rehoboam begins his reign with a foolish act recorded in great detail
in I Kings 12. Jeroboam has returned from exile in Egypt and has become the
spokesman for the ten tribes for Rehoboam to reform the oppressive policies of
his father (12:2-5). Solomon’s programs had exacerbated an underlying schism in
the nation. Remember that during the pre-monarchy period of the Judges the
tribes were in great disunity—chiefly between the single tribe of Judah and the
rest of the nation called “Israel”. Thus Saul’s army was said to consist of
“Judah and Israel” (I Sam. 11:8; 15:4; 17:52). When David came to power after
Saul’s death, he first reigned over Judah and Benjamin; then later over the
rest of the nation called “Israel” (II Sam. 2:1-5:3). The nation was not as
unified as you might think; there was an uneasy limited cooperation between
Judah and Benjamin in the south and the rest of the tribes to the north.
Instead of following the
elders’ counsel to heal this rift, Rehoboam, in a moment of incredible
stupidity further alienated the northern tribes from his own tribe of Judah
(12:6-8). Following the arrogant advice of his young political “buddies”,
Rehoboam insisted upon even harsher rule over the tribes (12:9-14). The
reaction of the people was to reject the Davidic Dynasty (except for Judah and
Benjamin) (12:15-24). Yet this event was not seen by the prophetic writers of
Kings as an “accident” solely resulting from the will of men; the text
carefully notes “the cause was from Yahweh that He might perform His saying. .
. .”(12:15). The Lord restrains Rehoboam’s military counter-response, insisting
that “this thing is from me” (12:22-24). Here observe a practical illustration
of God’s sovereignty working over and through man’s will!
Many excuses for this rift
can be found. The northern tribes never truly had been united with Judah in
their heart. They were separated from Judah geographically (note on biblical
maps how Judah is isolated in the south and surrounded on three sides by pagan
nations). They had been discriminated against during Solomon’s administration
in that the tribe Judah was not considered as an administrative district for
supplying tribute to Jerusalem on a monthly rotating basis (I Kings 4:1-28).
Secular historians, of course, would “explain” the rift in these economic,
social, and geographical terms. Bible-based thought, however, rejects these
“causes” as mere secondary considerations. The real cause was the Lord’s
chastening hand in accordance with the Sinaitic and Davidic Covenants,
disciplining disobedience in His elect nation. If the nation had been obedient,
the Lord would have restrained these divisive economic, social, and
geographical factors. So much for historical
“explanations”!
The Jerusalem Temple
Rejected.
After the northern tribes rebelled against the Davidic Dynasty, Jeroboam I rose
from the status of mere spokesman of Israel to actual king of Israel. He found
himself fulfilling the prophecy of the prophet Ahijah that he would be given
the ten tribes to rule according to the Sinaitic Covenant (I Kings 11:31-39).
The Lord clearly told him the reasons for this new chapter in Hebrew history:
the Davidic Dynasty under Solomon had abandoned loyalty to Him and had violated
His laws for the nation (11:33). Jeroboam was charged with the responsibility
of leading the northern confederacy in obedience to the laws of the Covenant
(11:38). The message was plain: although there would be two kingdoms, there
was to be only one Lord and one Covenant.
Immediately, Jeroboam I and
his administration faced what they thought was a serious political problem. The
Sinaitic Covenant insisted that national worship of Yahweh be conducted at the
central shrine (Deut. 12:5-14). Whether this shrine or cultus was a tabernacle
or a temple, every adult male was required to appear before the Lord three times
a year: Passover, Pentecost, and Tabernacles (Deut. 16:16). David as a
messianic king-priest model had established the national cultus at Jerusalem,
and Solomon had built the Temple there. Under the Word of God, therefore, every
subject of Jeroboam I had to leave his northern kingdom three times a year to
worship the Lord in the very heart of the competing southern kingdom!
Forgetting that it was the
Lord in the first place that had called him to kingship, Jeroboam I feared that
the unified national religion would eventually undermine the political division
and his reign (I Kings 12:26-27). Jeroboam I failed the faith test. Instead of
trusting the Lord Who called him and obeying His laws regarding national
worship, Jeroboam tried to secure his career as king by his own works. He
repeated the same mistake Solomon made: security can only come by man’s
efforts.
Jeroboam’s “solution” was a
bold one that reveals how our fleshly mind works in rebellion against the Word
of God. He attempted the impossible. Since the problem involved the state
religion, he decided to bring the state religion under his authority. In
effect, Jeroboam set himself over the Word of God. In place of the directives
in Deuteronomy 12:5-14 and 16:16, Jeroboam substituted a new state religion of
his own invention. Two shrines were established, one in the north at Dan and
the other in the south at Bethel, the latter conveniently located only 12 miles
north of Jerusalem so there could be no excuse for his subjects to cross the
southern border into Judah three times a year (I Kings 12:29).
Just as David had
established a worship center for the Hebrew nation while king, Jeroboam thought
he, too, could do the same. Apparently drawing upon his experiences while in
exile in Egypt, he conceived of the Lord in the (Egyptian?) zoomorphic imagery
of Aaron at the foot of Sinai (cf. Exod. 32:2-4 and I Kings 12:28). In his
deception, Jeroboam thought he was following the Hebrew traditions of Aaron and
David regarding the establishment of state religion. He thought of state
religion in purely human terms, ignoring the directives of Scripture—which as
king he was supposed to meditate in day and night (Deut. 17:18-20).
Going further in his
attempted “solution”, Jeroboam deliberately rejected not only the one
authorized Temple in Jerusalem but he also rejected the special priesthood of
Levites that staffed the Temple. To staff his two illegitimate shrines, he
created his own non-Levite priesthood (I Kings 12:31) and went so far as to lead
this unauthorized priesthood in worship (12:32-33). He even invented his own
religious calendar for the northern tribes! From beginning to end, Jeroboam’s
new state religion was an invented work of a faithless heart (I Kings 12:33).
The story of the prophet in
I Kings 13 reveals the judgment of God upon the Dynasty of Jeroboam. Jeroboam’s
scheme to secure his dynasty by works produced instead the undoing of not only
his dynasty but those that followed in the northern kingdom. The average length
of reign in the south between these events and the exile was 17.7 years whereas
in the north it was 11.7 years. [1] In the south one dynasty survived, the
Davidic. In the north nine separate families ruled the throne, and the longest
that any one family survived on the throne was five generations over a small
ninety-year span (Dynasty of Jehu from 841B.C. to 752B.C.). Numerous
assassinations and political conspiracies characterized the monarchical period
in the north. The revolt of the ten tribes first rejected the political
authority of the House of David. Under Jeroboam the revolt next rejected the
entire Temple worship of Yahweh as King over all the tribes. No longer was
there to be two kingdoms with one faith; it had become two kingdoms with two
faiths. The pagan principle, the presupposition of the fleshly mind, had now
taken root in the official structure of the north. This is why the Holy Spirit
moved the prophetic writers of Old Testament history to repeatedly refer to the
“sins of Jeroboam” (I Kings 14:16; 15:30,34; 16:2,19,31; II Kings 3:3;
10:29,31; 13:2,6,11; 14:24; 15:9,18,24,28; 17:22)..24
The Lord Himself Rejected. A
generation after Jeroboam, the revolt of the ten tribes extended its rejection
of the reign of Yahweh a third step. This further step exposed to full view the
apostasy of the northern kingdom and doomed its existence. A century and a half
later, it would be conquered and disappear from history.
This third step was taken
under the reign of King Ahab (874-853 BC). Continuing the unauthorized,
man-made state religion of the north (“following the sins of Jeroboam”), Ahab
copied Solomon’s sin of marrying an unbelieving wife (I Kings 16:31). Not only
was his wife, Queen Jezebel, an unbeliever, but she was the daughter of the
pagan king-priest of Tyre and Sidon, a region thoroughly under the control of
Canaanite religion! Whereas Solomon had married unbelievers and allowed an
ecumenical mixture of biblical and pagan presuppositions to control the royal
family, Ahab allowed Jezebel to make Baalism the supreme state religion over
all others. Instead of a mixed apostasy like that of Solomon or a man-made
counterfeit of biblical religion like that of Jeroboam, Ahab dropped all
pretense of following the Word of God and capitulated completely to his queen’s
demands. The Lord Himself was now officially rejected, and Baal enthroned as
the god of Israel.
Dr. Leah Bronner describes
Jezebel’s background:
“The meaning of ‘Ethbaal’
[her father’s name] is apparently ‘with him Baal’. The idea the name intended
to convey was that the person enjoyed the favor and protection of Baal.
According to Josephus, Ethbaal was King of the Tyrians and Sidonians. . .
.Menander, the Ephesian, stated that Ethbaal was a priest of Astarte, who came
to the throne by murder of the usurper Phelles. The zealotry of Jezebel is
perhaps understandable, if we remember that she was educated in the home of a
priest of Baal. Her fanaticism can be attributed to her early environment and
training.”[2]
Forever remembered afterward
as a virtual symbol of religious evil (cf. Rev. 2:20), Jezebel convinced her
husband to make her father’s religion the official religion of the ten tribes,
thus making the break with the Word of God complete. Ahab constructed an
official temple to Baal. The official analysis of his reign is given by the
prophet authors of Kings: “Ahab did more to provoke Yahweh God of Israel to
anger than all the kings of Israel that were before him” and “there was none
like Ahab who sold himself to work wickedness in the sight of the Lord
“(16:32-33; 21:25). A major milestone in apostasy had been crossed: any true
Bible-believing Israelite would now be considered disloyal to the state, a
traitor worthy of death. This history demonstrates how once the authority of
the Lord is compromised in one area, it spreads to all areas. Religious
“neutrality” is a myth: either biblical or pagan presuppositions will eventually
dominate everywhere.
Several consequences quickly
followed. Israel, after all, was not a nation like any of the surrounding pagan
nations such as that ruled by Jezebel’s father. Israel was divinely elected by
the Creator and Judge of the universe and ruled according to His Word revealed
in the Sinaitic Covenant. His cursings now began upon Israel. Yahweh had warned
of drought (cursing upon the economy) and military invasion (cursing upon
freedom) (Lev. 26:17-19; Deut. 28:23-25).
The prophet Elijah announced
the beginning of the drought-cursing upon Ahab’s economy (I Kings 17:1) and the
military-cursing upon Ahab’s power (21:19). The drought would last years and
return to afflict his son even more severely (II Kings 8:1). The horrible
suffering of the population during this drought is recalled in the rabbinical
Haggada:
“In the first year
everything stored in the houses was eaten up. In the second, the people
supported themselves with what they could scrape together in the fields. The
flesh of the clean animals sufficed for the third year; in the forth the
sufferers resorted to the unclean animals; in the fifth, to the reptiles and
insects; and in the sixth the monstrous thing happened that women, crazed by
hunger, consumed their own children as food. . . .In the seventh year, men
sought to gnaw the flesh from their own bones.”[3]
Compare these details with
the cursings listing that the Lord had given in the Sinaitic Covenant (Lev. 26:26, 29; 28:53-57)!
The military cursing also
soon followed. Ahab’s reign ended when a major Syrian army invaded the northern
kingdom and, in spite of Ahab’s attempts to hide, eventually killed him,
fulfilling in exact detail the prophecy of Elijah (22:37-38; cf. 21:19).
Elijah and other godly
Israelites constantly resisted Ahab’s administration. Some of his trusted
advisors who retained their loyalty to Yahweh thwarted his plans (I Kings 18:4,
13). Yahwehist prophets threaten his life (20:35-43). Elijah, in particular,
seemed bent upon creating mass dissatisfaction with Ahab’s reign (18:17). Two
incidents, in particular, were selected by the Holy Spirit for inclusion in the
book of Kings to show the Ahab-prophet conflict.
First, was the famous public
confrontation between Elijah and the counterfeit prophets of Baal at Mt.
Carmel. This incident was one of several lesser incidents recorded in Kings to
show how the Lord countered the false claims of Baal. Dr. Bronner provides the
background:
“The Canaanites believed
that Baal was the storm and fertility god, who bestowed upon man and land the
blessings of fecundity. He sent forth lightning, fire, and rain. He gave corn,
oil, and wine. He could revive the dead, heal the sick, and bestow the blessing
of progeny. [Kings shows] through concrete examples and incidents that all the
powers ascribed by Ugaritic mythology to Baal, are really attributes only of
the God, the Lord of Israel.”[4]
If Baal supposedly gave
rain, then Elijah and Elisha demonstrated that no rain would come except by a
decree of Yahweh (I Kings 17:1; 18:41-46; II Kings 8:1-2). If Baal was reputed
to give grain, then Elijah and Elisha proved that Yahweh alone could give
grain; and boldly they did it in Phoenicia, the very “home ground” of Jezebel
and of Baalism (I Kings 17:8-16; II Kings 4:1-7)! The irony was unmistakable.
Not only was Baal unable to deliver in Israel; he couldn’t deliver in his
homeland.
The Mt. Carmel incident must
be viewed with this background. Elijah boldly and publicly ridiculed the
Baalist prophets in language of the street (I Kings 18:27). He then took
precautions to avoid the criticism that he was merely a better magician by
thoroughly soaking the sacrificial area. Praying in terms of the Abrahamic
Covenant (18:36), Elijah receives God’s public authentication. In a bloody end
to the meeting, Elijah urges the onlookers to kill the Baalist false prophets
as the Law demanded (Deut. 13:5; 18:20).
The second major incident
that shows the Ahab-prophet conflict occurs in I Kings 21. False religion
sooner or later betrays its hidden pagan agenda. Inevitably, given enough time
and circumstances, paganism reverts openly to immorality, cruelty, and
deviancy. Under the Sinaitic Covenant family property was protected (even from
family members who would wish to sell it), and all Hebrews were treated equally
under the law. After Baal replaced Yahweh, the Covenantal codes were ignored.
Social injustice quickly followed.[6]
Ahab sought a piece of
property nearby his palace from a neighbor named Naboth (I Kings 21). Following
the procedure used today by civil governments when they desire private property
for a state project, Ahab offered Naboth “just compensation” (21:2). When Naboth
refused the offer, citing the Sinaitic Covenant codes, Ahab complained to his
wife who immediately plotted a judicial murder to eliminate Naboth. This
principle of state power is called eminent domain. Says Rushdoony:
“Eminent domain is the claim
to sovereignty by the state over all property within the state, and it is the
assertion of the right to appropriate all or any part thereof to any public or
state use deemed necessary by the state. . . The eminent domain of the state
was not recognized in Israel, as the incident of Naboth’s vineyard makes clear
(I Kings 21), although it is prophesied as one of the consequences of apostasy
from God the King (I Sam. 8:14). It is specifically forbidden in Ezekiel
46:18.”[7]
In the absence of any higher
power (the Biblical God), civil government as Man Corporate becomes god (as we
saw with Nimrod after the flood and with Egypt.27
in the days of the Exodus).
The state becomes invested with a pseudo-sovereignty over all land, a
pseudo-holiness over legally defining right and wrong, and a pseudo-love over
public welfare.
The Lord’s answer was clear:
exactly where Naboth had been executed, Ahab’s body would eventually lie, his
dynasty would be terminated, and Jezebel’s body would be eaten by dogs (21:19,
22-23). Although such behavior was tolerated in surrounding pagan nations, in
Yahweh’s elect nation it would not be allowed to continue. The state religion
of the north never escaped from pagan clutches after Ahab so, as we shall study
in the next chapter, eventually it fell under Yahweh’s final discipline. The
military insecurity not only continued, but it got worse. Moabites broke away
and began to make raids against Israel (II Kings 13:20). Famine reoccurred
after Ahab died (II Kings 4:38; 6:25; 8:1). None of the problems Solomon,
Jeroboam, Ahab, and the other kings tried to solve by human gimmicks were even
partially solved. Things had gone from rejection of David’s Dynasty to
rejection of the Lord’s Temple and finally to official reject of the Lord
Himself—openly and publicly. The northern nation would disappear from history.
Reflections on the Revolt
Crisis. Contrary to the steady diet of supposedly philosophically and
religiously neutral “analyses” found in the media and classrooms, the Bible
insists that history is controlled “from above” and not ultimately from human
factors such as economics, sociological forces, and geographical environmental
changes. The ultimate environment is the Creator-Savior-Judge of the Bible.
For those who lived in the
elect nation of Israel, there was one and only authorized way of life: trust in
the Lord to accomplish what He had promised and obedience to do what He asked
man to do. Substituting for this walk by faith, the autonomously-conceived
solutions to problems as Solomon, Jeroboam, and Ahab did, is rebellion against
God. Within His Kingdom especially He would no tolerate this behavior. Blessing
and cursing clearly and quickly followed obedience and disobedience,
respectively. As Professor Alva McClain wrote years ago:
“This principle [of man’s
well-being conditioned by obedience or disobedience to God] holds good
generally in all nations in every age. But its operation has often been
obscured to human eyes by the time “lag” between the moral breach and the
infliction of the sanction. While it is always true that the nation which has
“sown the wind” shall also certainly “reap the whirlwind” (Hos. 8:7), the
harvest is generally and mercifully long delayed (II Pet. 3:9); and for this
very reason men often fail to see the causal connection. Furthermore, in the
general history of nations, the divine penalties are inflicted through
secondary causes behind the veil of providential control (Jer. 51:28-30). For
these reasons the skeptical have been able to question the existence of any divinely
ordained moral government in human history; the Lord’s own people at.28 times
have been greatly troubled and perplexed by the problem (Hab. 1:1-4).
“But in the case of the
nation Israel in her Mediatorial Kingdom of history, the moral government of Jehovah
was not only declared at Sinai but also was confirmed spectacularly in the
recorded history of that kingdom by means of divine sanctions immediately
imposed. And these sanctions were generally supernatural; either by the
withdrawal of the promised supernatural protection from the ordinary hazards of
human life in a fallen world, or by the positive infliction of supernatural
punishment. . . .This close and immediate connection between the well-being of
the chosen nation and their moral and spiritual attitude is most clearly
summarized in Deuteronomy (cf. Chaps. 28-30).”[8]
In other words, God’s elect
nation is a public historical demonstration of how God reigns. The prophetic
story of Israel’s history, therefore, has been recorded “for our learning” (Rom.
15:4). If we seek Him and His Kingdom, we must know how our Savior-King will
reign over us! To that topic we now turn.
SANCTIFICATION AND
CHASTENING- I: LESSONS FROM THE KINGDOM DIVISION
In the last chapter we
learned about the cultural fruit of sanctification: how a deeper relationship
with the Lord leads to a broader expression of
loyalty in the details of life. However, such cultural fruit and
blessing is contingent in this life upon continued obedience to the Word of
God. The Solomonic golden era marked the high point in Israel’s history of
cultural blessing. Solomon and those that came after him whom we have
studied—Rehoboam, Jeroboam, and Ahab—lost that blessing and led the nation into
divine chastening.
Yahweh reigned over Israel
in such a manner that He constantly advanced toward His ultimate goal of
separating good and evil, of glorifying Himself against the backdrop of the
creation and fall. Separation of good from evil involves pain and suffering.
His Hebrew subjects, therefore, felt that pain throughout the divine chastening
they experienced after their disobedience. Although the human kings
occasionally tried reforms based upon the Word of God, generally speaking their
policies were rebellious. They were not loyal to King Yahweh with all their
heart. Therefore, the Hebrews were chastened for several centuries until they
were ultimately destroyed as a nation. Such suffering is one of the corollaries
of being “elect”!
Let’s look at how divine
chastening starts and how we can avoid it. First, we review how David as the
model of messianic leadership handled his problems. Then we will compare how
the leaders involved in the ninth century B.C. revolt and its aftermath failed
to follow David’s example. Finally, we conclude with the first part of the
doctrine of divine chastening.
Meeting Circumstances God’s
Way with Trusting Obedience. Carnality, immorality, and apostasy don’t start
spontaneously in the lives of believers; they flow out of conscious decisions
we make in the midst of problems and circumstances of life. All believers are
an object of God’s grace and saving work. Old Testament believers were said to
have been “circumcised in their hearts” (Lev. 26:41; Deut. 10:16, 30:6; Rom.
2:29; Col. 2:11-13). They had been illuminated to the truth of their elective
position defined in the Abrahamic Covenant and to the Lord’s requirements given
in the Sinaitic Covenant (see Phases of Sanctification developed in Part III of
this series and the Aspects of Sanctification Table in the previous chapter).
They were beneficiaries of a special providential ministry of Yahweh in their
economy, military defense, and public health. The issue for them, as well as
for us, is how we manage the circumstances of life.
In our mortal lives we live
with our fallen flesh in a fallen world where good and evil temporarily
coexist. Our circumstances often involve us in patterns of suffering. In Part
II I listed eleven patterns of suffering: six directly due to creature sin and
five used by the Lord for special ministries in history.
DIRECT SUFFERING PATTERNS
INDIRECT SUFFERING PATTERNS
1. Effect of Fall—physical
and spiritual 7. Evangelistic “wake-up” call death, sickness, natural
disturbances
2. Effect of Personal
Sin—self-induced 8. “Nudge” to advance spiritually misery; fruit of foolishness
3. Shared Suffering within
families and 9. Evidence for furthering evangelism nations
4. Eternal Suffering in Lake
of Fire 10. Evidence for edifying believers
5. Fatherly Chastening of
believers 11. Evidence for unseen angelic
6. Denial of Rewards for
believers conflict
Several of these patterns
may be involved in any given circumstance. Nevertheless, all of them are
planned in God’s omniscience, holiness, and love; they are not “accidental”, “meaningless”,
or “casual”. As believers, we are to respond by focusing upon our Father who
stands behind these circumstances.
David is our model. He faced
many problematic circumstances in his career, but he always eventually managed
them in trust and obedience to the Lord. He rejected the usual flesh-works type
responses of his peers in the ancient Near-Eastern royalty. Remember how he
faced the problem of displacing Saul from the throne of Israel: in spite of
Saul’s many attacks and opportunities to defeat Saul in classical political
maneuvering, David waited for Yahweh to remove Saul. How did David manage to do
that?.
David knew God’s promises to
Abraham and to himself through Nathan. He clearly perceived the outline of
God’s plan. He also knew the historic record of God’s behavior in carrying out
that plan between 2000 BC and his lifetime (sojourn in Egypt, the Exodus, the
giving of the law at Sinai, and the conquest of the land). He realized that
only God could conceive and carry out such a plan for history. He assumed the
humble position of a creature under God. Therefore, he wasn’t a sucker for the
arrogant idea that he could maneuver some political “coup” against Saul, get
the throne his way, and hope for God’s blessing in the end.
Moreover, he also assumed
the humble position of a sinner redeemed by God’s grace. He realized he was no
more righteous than Saul. He did not earn any political right to the throne; it
was God’s choice alone. If he ascended the throne as king, it would be solely
by God’s grace. Therefore, he wasn’t deluded by visions of his own grandeur.
Because David’s heart
submitted to God’s authority and presupposed the biblical worldview, when it
came to the details of life and specific commands of Yahweh, David readily
obeyed. Now observe a crucial point: when David disobeyed in the Bathsheba
scandal, he quickly confessed his sin within minutes of Nathan’s rebuke.
Immediately, he was wholly forgiven by the Lord and restored to fellowship (see
Restoration to Fellowship Table in previous chapter). The Lord did not require
penitence, fasting, agonizing, and other useless human works. Forgiveness is a
transaction done in heaven with the Father based upon the character of the
Father. It has nothing to do with human merit.
However, restoration does
not necessarily remove the temporal consequences of sin. David faced Direct
Suffering Pattern #2: the fruit of his foolishness. For the rest of his life he
had to live with the results of polygamy, the horrible deaths of four of his
sons, and the memories of his murder of a faithful fellow army officer. Yet
through all those years, he trustfully obeyed the Lord. He managed those
additional tragic circumstances the same way he had managed his ascent to a
throne occupied by Saul: no fleshly works, no human gimmicks. He avoided trying
to imitate pagan ways. He wrote many psalms. He kept all foreign powers at bay.
The result was that David build up the nation and left it in a far stronger
state than when he started.
Meeting Circumstances Man’s
Way With Autonomous Works. In contrast to David, the leaders involved with the
ninth-century revolt and the divided kingdom met their circumstances in the
energy of the flesh as the pagan kings surrounding Israel did. They forgot they
were “lesser kings” under the Great King Who had a specific plan for Israel.
They show little or no understanding of this plan and how they fit into it.
Solomon is aware of the Abrahamic, Sinaitic, and Davidic Covenants (see his
prayer to dedicate the Temple in I Kings 8), but Rehoboam, Jeroboam, and Ahab
acted as though they never heard any of the covenants!
Jeroboam shows some
awareness of Hebrew history but thoroughly misunderstands the Aaron and David
roles he tries to mimic. Neither he nor Ahab appear ready to be instructed from
the Word of God as a king of Israel was supposed to each day (Deut. 17:19-20).
They readily adapted pagan political maneuvering, falsify the very character of
God, and enter a spiral downward in successively-repeated unbelief and
disobedience. In no way did they follow the Davidic example of messianic
leadership.
Whereas David had taken the
humble position of a creature under God and a sinner redeemed by His grace,
these later kings did neither. Forgetting the character of the Great King
Himself who had created the nation for His purpose, Rehoboam tried to meet the
ten tribes’ dissension by a graceless intimidation ill-befitting the fallen
creature that he was (I Kings 12:13-15). Facing the results of Solomon and
Rehoboam’s sin—the divided kingdom— Jeroboam failed to trust Yahweh as the
mighty Creator of history to keep His promise of securing for him a kingdom and
a dynasty like that of David (11:37-38). Instead, he tried to create a
counterfeit religion with a made-up theology, worship center, priesthood, and
calendar (12:25-33). The result was that the Word of God was systematically
suppressed throughout Israel since both the Levitical custodians and teachers
of the Law and the prophetic voices were silenced (13:1-34).
Then came Ahab. He had to
cope with both the divided kingdom problem and the consequences of Jeroboam’s
sin. Ahab’s unbelief manifested itself in trying to secure his kingdom by
selling himself to the pagan king-priest of Tyre through marriage with his
daughter (21:25). This imported apostasy totally suppressed the Law of the
Great King and Savior of Israel, Yahweh. Prophets were made capital enemies of
the state which led to a religious war between Ahab’s queen and Yahweh’s
prophets (18:1-19:21). This pattern of the kings of Israel meeting circumstances
with their own independent, unbelieving works repeated in more thorough form
the carnal pattern of the first king, Saul. From the very beginning of the
monarchy God had warned the people that it would not be a solution to their
social instability and chaos (see Part III of this series and I Sam. 8-12). The
people openly confessed that they had sinned in asking for this institution (I
Sam. 12:19). The prophet Samuel warned that the monarchy would work only if
the people dwelt in their hearts upon the great historical work of Yahweh on
behalf of the nation (12:24), i.e., walked by faith, not by works.
Saul, you will remember,
failed and lost his opportunity to establish Israel’s first dynasty. Facing an
adverse circumstance involving invading Philistines with the Hebrews deserting
from his army, Saul reacted in unbelief, pre-empting the prophet Samuel, and
invading the office of priest (I Sam. 13:8-14). Later, he repeated this pattern
in deciding which of Yahweh’s commands for Holy War he would obey and which he
would not (15:9ff). Like the kings after him, Saul did not dwell upon what the
Lord had done for Israel and for him. He was not a man after the Lord’s heart.
He tried to meet circumstances with his own unbelieving works. Saul’s carnal pattern
is called by God “rebellion”, “insubordination”, “rejection of the Word of
Yahweh”, and equivalent to witchcraft and idolatry (15:23).
Rehoboam, Jeroboam, and Ahab
(as well as most of the other kings of the north and south) all repeated the
carnal pattern of Saul. All met the adverse circumstances of their reign as
Saul had done: in unbelief and disobedience. It appears that David was an
exception and lone example of messianic leadership. Apart from God’s
intervention, the monarchy was as much of a failure as the pre-monarchy tribal
rule had been in Judges. Fallen man, whether ruler or ruled, cannot live up
God’s holiness in His Kingdom. Not only was the monarchy unsuitable for fallen
man, but it revealed how sin and carnality compounds itself. The sin of one
king left consequences for the next king. The next king then sinned in meeting
the consequences brought by the previous king and left even more consequences
for the king yet to follow. Prophetic warnings to confess such as those Nathan
had given to David were repeatedly ignored. Direct Suffering Patterns #2,3,5
were all active. The curses of Law grew in intensity (Lev. 26; Deut. 28). As
the circumstances worsened, it became more difficult to believe that a godly
solution was possible.
The Working of Divine
Chastening. Let’s formulate for our benefit the truths of God’s chastening upon
carnal behavior in His elect. Many centuries after the divided kingdom the Jews
clearly perceived the link between divine chastening and God’s election. In the
non-canonical book of II Maccabees, written in the century before Jesus, the
author states:
“Not to let the impious
alone for long, but to punish them immediately, is a sign of great kindness.
For in the case of the other nations the Lord waits patiently to punish them
until that have reached the full measure of their sins; but he does not deal in
this way with us, in order that he might not take vengeance on us afterward
when our sins have reached their height. Therefore, he never withdraws his
mercy from us. Though he disciplines us with calamities, he does not forsake
his own people” (II Macc. 6:13-16).
Divine discipline is a sign
of God’s election-love! It is the Father disciplining His children (Suffering
Pattern #5; Heb. 12:5-8). The goal is never to destroy; it is to restore. His
sovereign plan of separating good from evil inevitably must go on. God is God,
and His Holiness cannot be compromised. Rebellion and unbelief, therefore,
cannot stop or modify His plan. His elect instruments must arrive in shape
for eternal fellowship with Him by whatever pain it takes to get there. It
is this thought that occurs in the drama, Fiddler On the Roof, when the Jewish
lead character mutters to God in the midst of his suffering, “can’t you choose
someone else once in a while?”.
Why must there be such pain
in divine chastening? Unbelief and disobedience damage our souls. When we fail
to respond to circumstances by looking to the Lord and trusting Him to support,
guide, and empower us to meet those circumstances, our flesh immediately stores
up this sinful behavior pattern. Next time it becomes easier. It is like the
sequence of unbelieving kings in Israel who kept increasing the sin of the
nation by adding one scheme on top of another. We train our flesh in
unrighteousness just as we train it for any other activity in life. Eventually,
our flesh could become so well-trained in our specific sinful behavior that the
behavior would become a life-dominating problem like it was before
regeneration. We could then be labeled as a “thief”, or “adulterer”, or
“covetous person.” As the Lord’s elect, we are not permitted to sink back into
the world with such damage to our souls and spirits.
To correct this situation is
a painful enterprise. It is not a simple matter to “stop sinning”. The flesh
can’t stop sinning by itself. The motive to obey God’s will cannot come from an
independent spirit because the independent spirit would take pride in “what I
did”. In the Old Testament the motive to obey the Law was never the Law itself.
Israel was called to remember the words and works of the Lord—the Exodus, the
giving of the Law, the Conquest, and various prophesies to individuals—and
focus on His character. Israel was called back to the election, justification,
and faith of Abraham. The Abrahamic and Davidic Covenants were to form the
content of their faith. Only by first trusting, could they eventually obey. It
was not obey, then trust.
Therefore, to awaken us from
compounded carnality God must first shock us into looking once again at Him. If
we don’t go back to Abrahamic faith in His promises, we can never be restored
to fellowship and empowerment for obedience. And we can’t be restored to faith
in Him if we persist in idolatrous reconstructions of God that appear to
relieve us of ultimate responsibility to Him. Jeroboam and Ahab deliberately
imported pagan idolatries based on the old Continuity of Being ideal (see Part
II of this series). The Continuity of Being arises every time man attempts to
think with the mind of flesh: when he attempts to be the final judge of what is
true and false, the satanic temptation in the Garden to be as God knowing both
good and evil. It is the fallen soul’s attempt to be the ultimate
“classifier” of everything, including God Himself! Everything, including
God, is viewed as part of the same reality. The Bible, however, insists upon a
two-level view of reality with the Creator/creature distinction:
gods-angels-man-nature. .
.1-level God as Creator / all else. . .2-levels
In the biblical view, we are
ultimately responsible to the Creator. In the pagan Continuity of Being there
is no final absolute Person to whom we are responsible: everyone—the gods and
men alike—are mere cosmic victims floating in the mysterious void.
There is more to this
fleshly-pagan Continuity of Being idea than meets the eye. Observe that it
accomplishes two goals of the sinful agenda: (1) man is established as the
ultimate standard and determiner of reality (satisfies the craving for
autonomy); and (2) man is freed from ultimate responsibility (satisfies the
fear of guilt). Many versions of the Continuity of Being idea have appeared
down through history besides the gods of Egypt, the golden bulls of Aaron and
Jeroboam, and Jezebel’s Baal. All these variations, however, were believed by
the early church fathers to be representations of demons that had projected
these shapes and forms into the minds of human craftsmen. The great Puritan minister
of education (almost forgotten today in schools), John Milton restated this
early Christian belief in Paradise Lost:
“By falsities and lyes the
greatest part
Of mankind they [fallen
angels] corrupted to forsake
God their Creator, and th’
invisible
Glory of him, that made
them, to transform
Oft to the Image of a Crute,
adorn’d
With gay Religions full of
Pomp and Gold,
And Devils to adore for
Deities:
Then were they known to men
by various Names
And various Idols through
the Heathen World.” I, 367-375.
These versions, therefore,
of the Continuity of Being actually are demonic strongholds established in the
fleshly minds of mankind to confuse, cover over, and hide the truth of the Word
of God about Himself. They have stubbornly remained beneath the surface of
western culture in spite of the influence of Christianity.[8] Thus each of us
come to faith with residual strongholds of idolatry lurking in our minds.
If we fail to trust the Lord
amidst the circumstances of life as Rehoboam, Jeroboam, and Ahab failed to do,
we inevitably embark on a journey into carnality. Distrust rapidly turns into
disobedience. We substitute our works for God’s promised deliverance. Although
we think we are in control and doing this by ourselves, actually we are being
seduced by evil spirits at a very profound level. With each disobedience the
demonically-energized “strongholds” in our mind become stronger and more
dominant. As Samuel told Saul, rebellion is essentially witchcraft and idolatry
because it is rooted in a fundamentally false view of God.
The Apostle Paul tells us
that we must war against these strongholds of our minds with holy war (II Cor.
10:4-5). Elijah showed us how the Spirit of God wages the war. He met the idolatrous
imagery (Baal as provider) by exposing its conflict with the Word of God
(following the Deuteronomy 13:1-5 test) and its fraudulent failure to deliver
on its promises (following the Deuteronomy 18:20-22 test). Divine chastening,
Direct Suffering Pattern #5, has as its purpose the destruction of idolatrous
strongholds built up by habitual sin. Only after their destruction can we see
properly our Savior and Lord as He really is. Divine chastening must precede
restoration to fellowship because only if God is seen correctly can there be
conviction of sin. Going back to the table that I used to show David’s
restoration to fellowship through confession of sin, we have a new component:
Table Showing Divine Chastening Preceding Restoration
to Fellowship
Step in the Restoration Process Illustration in Elijah’s Ministry to Israel
|
Divine Chastening:
destruction of mental “strongholds” of demonic idolatries to clear the vision
of Who God really is. |
Total failure of economic,
security, and religious promises of the Baalist agenda; direct contrast with
the Word of Yahweh. |
|
Conviction of Sin: being
made aware of the demeaning of God’s character by distrust of His promises
and the specific disobedience to His Will. |
Public confrontation at
Mt. Carmel with a dramatic fulfillment of the Word of God. |
|
Confession of Sin:
repentant turning from autonomy (excuses and blame shifting) to submission to
the Cross as the sole point of contact with God (responsibility for the sin
and cleansing by Cross). |
Viewers of Elijah’s
challenge confess that Yahweh is their King and final authority, bowing to
the ground in reverence and taking captive the false prophets of Jezebel. |
|
Restoration: eternal
forgiveness of God through the Cross but with temporal consequences not
necessarily removed. |
Israel’s economic
prosperity returns with the coming of the rain; Ahab & Jezebel are
destroyed. Yet national problems remain. |
In the New Testament, divine
chastening can include severe suffering and illness (I Cor. 5:5; 11:30; I Tim.
1:20; Heb.12:5; Jas. 5:15). As soon as there is a “breakthrough” to a clear vision
of the Lord, genuine conviction of sin can take place and the restoration
process can occur. After restoration, the Direct Suffering Pattern #5 goes
away. What suffering remains from the sinful choices is limited to Pattern #2
(and sometimes Pattern #3) which must be managed as David did by walking in
faith. Often Pattern #2 blends with Patterns #8-11 and becomes a source of
blessing to others observing it. Losing God’s blessing and suffering divine
chastening is a feature of life for believers, but it is not an end in itself.
Its purpose is always the same: to restore the fallen to fellowship once again.
It is the firm hand of the loving Shepherd.
END NOTES FOR CHAPTER 2
1. These figures were
computed using the dates in Edwin R. Thiele, The Mysterious Numbers of the
Hebrew Kings (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1965 [1951]).
2. Leah Bronner, The Stories
of Elijah and Elisha (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1968), p. 9.
3. Taken from Ginzberg,
Legends of the Jews, IV as cited by Immanuel Velikovsky, Ages In Chaos (Garden
City, NY: Doubleday and Co., 1952), p. 267.
4. Bronner, p. 54.
6. Note the biblical
emphasis upon the primacy of man’s relationship to God rather than man’s social
relationships to each other. The first controls the second (much to the consternation
of modern American secularists).
7. Rousas J. Rushdoony, The
Institutes of Biblical Law (Nutley, NJ: Craig Press, 1973), p. 499f.
8. Alva J. McClain, The
Greatness of the Kingdom (Chicago: Moody Press, 1959), p. 86f..38