Hello, again! This is the song that was running through my head right now. Since it was stuck in my head, thought I'd get it stuck in yours too!
Here's the question and answer from yesterday:
In the days of 2 Chronicles 15, was it safe to travel about in the lands?
2 Chronicles 15:4-6 5 In those days it was not safe to travel about, for all the inhabitants of the lands were in great turmoil. 6 One nation was being crushed by another and one city by another, because God was troubling them with every kind of distress.
And here's the question of the day:
Finish this verse: “My flesh and my heart may fail; but _______________________” (Psalm 73)
And here's the reflection of the day:
In 2 Chronicles 17, we read that "The fear of the Lord fell on all the kingdoms of the lands surrounding Judah, so that they did not make war with Jehoshaphat" (v 10). The beginning of 2 Chronicles 18 tells us that "Now Jehoshaphat had great wealth and honor" (v 1). He had it all--God's blessing and therefore the respect of the people.
So WHY did he align himself with Ahab through marriage???
What do we know about Ahab? WELL . . . 1 Kings 16:30 tells us that "Ahab son of Omri became king of Israel, and he reigned in Samaria over Israel twenty-two years. Ahab son of Omri, did more evil in the eyes of the Lord than any of those before him." (And that was A LOT.)
Apparently it was smooth sailing for the first couple of years. The Chronicler doesn't give us many details of the time early on in Jehoshaphat's marriage. Verse 2 tells us that "some years later he went down" to visit Ahab. And THAT'S when the trouble started!
Ahab wanted Jehoshaphat to go to war with him against Ramoth Gilead. And at first, he agrees. Then he adds, "First seek the counsel of the Lord."
This presents an interesting dilemma for Ahab. You see, 1 Kings 16 ALSO tells us that Ahab made an Asherah pole (an idol) and "did more to provoke the Lord, the God of Israel, to anger than did all the kings of Israel before him" (verse 33).
So, what's a king to do? Should Ahab assent to Jehoshaphat's request for a prophet of the Lord rather than the legions of other prophets? Should he blow off his son-in-law's request? Eventually he decides to assent to the request. Enter the prophet Micaiah son of Imlah.
Though the legions of other prophets advised going to war, Micaiah says no. It's a hard-knock life for a prophet. Because he said no, Micaiah was thrown in jail, given only bread and water. He was so certain that God was speaking to him and through him that he was willing to risk his life on it. And in the end, the legions were wrong and the lone dissenter was right: Ahab is killed but Jehoshaphat is spared, despite all the poor decisions he made along the way.
There's a lot of manipulation going on in this story, both human and divine. God schemes to bring about Ahab's demise using his own scheme to go to war with Jehoshaphat. Ahab's plotting against Jehoshaphat is ruined also.
Here we see God also manipulating the situation--saving Jehoshaphat from certain death and punishing the evil king Ahab.
So, what do you think about that? Is God a manipulator? Does it matter one way or another? Can human justice be achieved by manipulation? divine justice?
Leave me a comment and tell me what you think!
Allison
Showing posts with label prophet. Show all posts
Showing posts with label prophet. Show all posts
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Monday, March 23, 2009
A Perfect King
Hello! Glad you stopped by today. Let's get down to business. . .
Here's the question and answer from yesterday:
Sun, Mar 22: Deuteronomy 15 describes something called the “Year of Jubilee.” What do you think of it? Why do you think God commanded it?
This is really more of an opinion question based on what you've read about the Year of Jubilee. There isn't exactly a right or wrong answer.
And here's the question of the day:
Mon, Mar 23: How many witnesses is it necessary to have in order to put someone to death? (Dt 17—I know, I know, what a macabre question!)
And here's the reflection of the day:
Ancient Israel basically had four types of administrators to run their society: priests, judges, kings, and prophets. Throughout the Pentateuch (the first five books of the Bible), we have heard lots and lots and lots about the role of the Levites (sons of Levi), who were designated as the priests of Israel.
Deuteronomy 17 mentions the role of the king for the first time. Remember, up until this time, Moses and the elders/judges have been the ones keeping track of everyone as Israel wandered through the wilderness, while the Levites took care of the tabernacle (the place where God's presence dwelled).
But now that they are on the edge of the Promised Land, ready to take possession of it, God reveals to them a new plan for their administration. Once they are settled, they will be more than a community of faith; they will become a whole nation. And a whole nation needs strong leadership, leadership in the form of a king, right? The writers of Deuteronomy seem to think of a king more as a concession rather than something indispensable, though other places in the Bible seem to think that a king IS a necessity (Clements, NIB Commentary on Deuteronomy).
The writers of Deuteronomy give us an outline for "A Perfect King." His power is modest: he should not have a lot of personal resources (horses, wives, etc), he is to study the law "all the days of his life" so that he may learn to revere the Lord his God and follow carefully all the words of this law and these decrees," and he should not consider himself better than others. (If you know anything about Israel's history, you know that very few kings actually live up to these standards, creating a terrible succession of very IMPERFECT kings.)
The role of the king of Israel was VERY different from the typical king of the day. Generally, the kings claimed they were appointed by God, "chosen and supported by an act of divine will, enabling kings to exercise a form of 'divine' rule on earth" (Clements). Human kings acted on behalf of--and in the place of--God. So kingship in ancient Israel was a theocracy, where the "anointed of God" had a divine rule over his people. What this means is that whatever a king did, he could claim it was by divine authority and is unquestionable.
Societies "received" their kings, rather than choosing them. Kingship had the potential to be a powerful and inherently oppressive form of government. It didn't have to be that way. Certainly, the writes of Deuteronomy sought to put safeguards in place against such corruption.
When the Bible talks about kings and leaders, it doesn't really assassinate someone's character, but neither does it gloss over one's mistakes. What the Bible wants to emphasize is that kings (and all leaders, whether civil leaders or church leaders, which are essentially the same thing for them) are "simply servants of a higher power and a more perfect justice" (Clements).
In our day, it's a little harder to hold leaders to this accountability, at least our "worldly" leaders. Though it is nice when politicians remember that they work for the people who elected them, I don't want to equate taxpayers with a "higher power." That alone is the position which God holds. Maybe it is time for more believers to be involved in both church government AND the civil government. In that way, we know that at least some of our leaders are in the same vein as Deuteronomy's idea of a good leader: one who will "follow carefully all the words of this law and these decrees."
Just a thought!
Allison
Here's the question and answer from yesterday:
Sun, Mar 22: Deuteronomy 15 describes something called the “Year of Jubilee.” What do you think of it? Why do you think God commanded it?
This is really more of an opinion question based on what you've read about the Year of Jubilee. There isn't exactly a right or wrong answer.
And here's the question of the day:
Mon, Mar 23: How many witnesses is it necessary to have in order to put someone to death? (Dt 17—I know, I know, what a macabre question!)
And here's the reflection of the day:
Ancient Israel basically had four types of administrators to run their society: priests, judges, kings, and prophets. Throughout the Pentateuch (the first five books of the Bible), we have heard lots and lots and lots about the role of the Levites (sons of Levi), who were designated as the priests of Israel.
Deuteronomy 17 mentions the role of the king for the first time. Remember, up until this time, Moses and the elders/judges have been the ones keeping track of everyone as Israel wandered through the wilderness, while the Levites took care of the tabernacle (the place where God's presence dwelled).
But now that they are on the edge of the Promised Land, ready to take possession of it, God reveals to them a new plan for their administration. Once they are settled, they will be more than a community of faith; they will become a whole nation. And a whole nation needs strong leadership, leadership in the form of a king, right? The writers of Deuteronomy seem to think of a king more as a concession rather than something indispensable, though other places in the Bible seem to think that a king IS a necessity (Clements, NIB Commentary on Deuteronomy).
The writers of Deuteronomy give us an outline for "A Perfect King." His power is modest: he should not have a lot of personal resources (horses, wives, etc), he is to study the law "all the days of his life" so that he may learn to revere the Lord his God and follow carefully all the words of this law and these decrees," and he should not consider himself better than others. (If you know anything about Israel's history, you know that very few kings actually live up to these standards, creating a terrible succession of very IMPERFECT kings.)
The role of the king of Israel was VERY different from the typical king of the day. Generally, the kings claimed they were appointed by God, "chosen and supported by an act of divine will, enabling kings to exercise a form of 'divine' rule on earth" (Clements). Human kings acted on behalf of--and in the place of--God. So kingship in ancient Israel was a theocracy, where the "anointed of God" had a divine rule over his people. What this means is that whatever a king did, he could claim it was by divine authority and is unquestionable.
Societies "received" their kings, rather than choosing them. Kingship had the potential to be a powerful and inherently oppressive form of government. It didn't have to be that way. Certainly, the writes of Deuteronomy sought to put safeguards in place against such corruption.
When the Bible talks about kings and leaders, it doesn't really assassinate someone's character, but neither does it gloss over one's mistakes. What the Bible wants to emphasize is that kings (and all leaders, whether civil leaders or church leaders, which are essentially the same thing for them) are "simply servants of a higher power and a more perfect justice" (Clements).
In our day, it's a little harder to hold leaders to this accountability, at least our "worldly" leaders. Though it is nice when politicians remember that they work for the people who elected them, I don't want to equate taxpayers with a "higher power." That alone is the position which God holds. Maybe it is time for more believers to be involved in both church government AND the civil government. In that way, we know that at least some of our leaders are in the same vein as Deuteronomy's idea of a good leader: one who will "follow carefully all the words of this law and these decrees."
Just a thought!
Allison
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
