# comment

text:
<p>Now it was in the heart of David my father to build a house for the name of Yahweh, the God of Israel- </p><p>This much was true, but it is sandwiched between various untruths and misrepresentations. But he misses the point of God's response, that His Name, His personality and character, dwells in persons and not buildings.</p>


text:
<p>But Yahweh said to David my father, Whereas it was in your heart to build a house for My name, you did well that it was in your heart- </p><p>This is not recorded in the historical account, and given Solomon's tendency to misrepresent God's word we wonder whether this was said by God at all. Because God's response had been that He didn't want a house. He wanted to build a non physical house for David. Those reasons He gave for declining David's offer are not at all in the spirit of what God is now reported to have said.</p><p><a href='B:140 6:9'>2Ch 6:9</a> Nevertheless you shall not build the house; but your son who shall come forth out of your body, he shall build the house for My name- </p><p>As noted above, this would have been contrary to the spirit of the reasons God gave for declining David's offer. He had explained that He had never asked for any permanent sanctuary to be built for Him, and tent life was His style, as He doesn't live in buildings but in hearts. And instead of building a house for Yahweh, David was instead to focus upon the wonderful grace of Yahweh's plan to turn his Messianic seed and all "in him" into an eternal spiritual house for His abode. Yet Solomon presents God as having been in eager agreement with the idea, but simply had some reservations about David doing it, and instead asked Solomon to build it. That would have been a contradiction of the reasoning God gave for saying He didn't want a physical house built for Him.</p>


text:
<p>Yahweh has performed His word that He spoke; for I have risen up in the place of David my father, and sit on the throne of Israel, as Yahweh promised, and have built the house for the name of Yahweh, the God of Israel- </p><p>The establishment of the promises to David was to be conditional upon David's son walking in God's ways. But now Solomon wrongly presents the promises to David as having come to total fulfilment in him, just because he had built a temple for God.</p><p>Solomon speaks about him being King in Jerusalem (<a href='B:250 1:1'>Ecc 1:1</a>; <a href='B:250 1:12'>Ecc 1:12</a>; <a href='B:240 1:1'>Pro 1:1</a>) as if this was the ultimate fulfilment of the Davidic promises. Consider the implications of <a href='B:140 1:9'>2Ch 1:9</a>: "O Lord God, let thy promise unto David my father be established: for thou hast made me king over a people like the dust of the earth::. give me now wisdom, that I may go out and come in before (i:e. lead) this people". Solomon was asking for wisdom because he thought that he was the Messiah, and he saw wisdom as a Messianic characteristic. He failed to realize that the promises to Abraham and David were only being primarily fulfilled in him (e:g. <a href='B:110 4:20'>1Ki 4:20</a>); he thought that he was the ultimate fulfilment of them (<a href='B:110 8:20'>1Ki 8:20</a> states this in so many words). His lack of faith and vision of the future Kingdom lead him to this proud and arrogant conclusion (cp. building up our own 'Kingdom' in this life through our lack of vision of the Kingdom of God).</p>


text:
<p>Therein I have set the ark, in which is the covenant of Yahweh, which He made with the children of Israel-</p><p>By saying this, Solomon was careful to omit mentioning that the pit of manna and Aaron's rod were now no longer within the ark. “There was nothing in the ark except the two tablets of stone which Moses put there at Horeb ::. the ark, in which is the covenant of the Lord” (<a href='B:110 8:9'>1Ki 8:9</a>; <a href='B:110 8:21'>1Ki 8:21</a>). Those tablets, on which were the ten commandments, were the covenant. The old covenant is therefore the ten commandments, including the Sabbath- and this has been replaced by the new covenant, which does not require Sabbath keeping.</p>


text:
<p>He stood before the altar of Yahweh in the presence of all the assembly of Israel, and spread forth his hands-</p><p>Solomon was hardly praying in his closet!&nbsp;It seems the Lord was alluding to Solomon in <a href='B:470 6:6'>Mat 6:6</a>, interpreting what he does here in a very negative light, and a reflection of Solomon's pride rather than his spirituality.</p>


text:
<p>(for Solomon had made a bronze scaffold, five cubits long, five cubits broad and three cubits high, and had set it in the midst of the court; and on it he stood, and kneeled down on his knees before all the assembly of Israel, and spread forth his hands toward heaven)- </p><p>18 out of 21 occurrences, the Hebrew word translated "scaffold" is translated "laver". The huge podium was perhaps basin shaped. This confirms the suggestion on <a href='B:140 4:15'>2Ch 4:15</a> that the laver with the 12 oxen beneath it was really a statement of Solomon's power over the 12 tribes of Israel, with them serving him and being his power base.</p>


text:
<p>He said, Yahweh, the God of Israel, there is no God like You, in heaven or on earth; You Who keep covenant and loving kindness with Your servants who walk before You with all their heart- </p><p>David spoke of seeking and praising God's grace with his "whole heart" (<a href='B:230 9:1'>Psa 9:1</a>; <a href='B:230 119:58'>Psa 119:58</a>; <a href='B:230 138:1'>Psa 138:1</a>). Solomon uses the phrase, but speaks of being obedient with the "whole heart" (<a href='B:110 8:23'>1Ki 8:23</a>; <a href='B:140 6:14'>2Ch 6:14</a>) and applying the "whole heart" to the intellectual search for God (<a href='B:250 1:13'>Ecc 1:13</a>; <a href='B:250 8:9'>Ecc 8:9</a>). There is a difference. The idea of whole hearted devotion to God was picked up by Solomon, but instead of giving the whole heart to the praise of God's grace, he instead advocated giving the whole heart to ritualistic obedience and intellectual search for God. This has been the trap fallen into by many Protestant groups whose obsession with "truth" has obscured the wonder of God's grace.</p>


text:
<p>Who has kept with Your servant David my father that which You promised him: yes, You spoke with Your mouth, and have fulfilled it with Your hand, as it is this day- </p><p>He failed to meditate upon the promises beyond what they seemed to offer him in the here and now; and the result was that he felt they were totally fulfilled in him (<a href='B:110 8:20'>1Ki 8:20</a>; <a href='B:110 8:24'>1Ki 8:24</a>). He dogmatically declared to Shimei: “And King Solomon shall be blessed, and the throne of David shall be established before the Lord for ever” (<a href='B:110 2:45'>1Ki 2:45</a>). And in all this, of course, we see our warning.</p>


text:
<p>Now therefore, Yahweh the God of Israel, keep with Your servant David my father that which You promised him saying, There shall not fail you a man in My sight to sit on the throne of Israel, if only your children take heed to their way, to walk in My law as you have walked before Me- </p><p>He overlooks the condition as being that he personally must be obedient. But he just slightly twists this, to make the conditionality dependent upon Israel's obedience rather than his personal obedience. The promises to David originally focused upon one individual, whom the New Testament interprets as the Lord Jesus. But David in <a href='B:230 89:30'>Psa 89:30</a>; <a href='B:230 132:12'>Psa 132:12</a> and Solomon here and in <a href='B:110 8:25'>1Ki 8:25</a> chose to understand the "seed" as the Davidic dynasty down the generations. This loss of focus upon the future Lord Jesus was what led David and Solomon to focus instead upon their own dynasty, rather than upon the future individual son of David who would reign eternally upon David's throne. His personal&nbsp; immortality came to be interpreted as the eternal continuance of the Davidic dynasty as kings of Israel throughout future generations.</p><p>Notice how Solomon says these words to God Himself. Solomon had persuaded himself that this truly was what God had asked of David and himself, and so he comes out with these words to God.</p>


text:
<p>Now therefore, Yahweh the God of Israel, let Your word be verified which You spoke to Your servant David- </p><p>Solomon keeps saying that his zealous&nbsp; work&nbsp; for the temple was the result of God's promise to David&nbsp; having&nbsp; fulfillment&nbsp; in him (<a href='B:110 8:24-26'>1Ki 8:24-26</a>), and to some extent&nbsp; this&nbsp; was true. David earnestly prayed for Solomon to be the Messianic King (e:g. Psalms 72), and therefore David asked for Solomon to be given a truly wise heart (<a href='B:130 29:19'>1Ch 29:19</a>). These prayers were answered in a very limited&nbsp; sense-&nbsp;in&nbsp;that Solomon was given great wisdom, and his Kingdom was one of the greatest&nbsp; types&nbsp; of&nbsp; Christ's&nbsp;future&nbsp;Kingdom:&nbsp;Our prayers for others really can have&nbsp;an&nbsp;effect upon them, otherwise there would be no point in the&nbsp;concept&nbsp;of&nbsp;praying&nbsp;for&nbsp;others:&nbsp;But&nbsp;of course&nbsp; each individual&nbsp;has&nbsp;an&nbsp;element&nbsp; of&nbsp;spiritual&nbsp;freewill; we can't force others&nbsp;to&nbsp;be&nbsp;spiritual by our prayers;&nbsp;yet&nbsp;on the other&nbsp; hand,&nbsp;our prayers can influence their spirituality. David's&nbsp; prayers for&nbsp;Solomon is&nbsp;the classic example of this. Those&nbsp; prayers&nbsp;were&nbsp;heard&nbsp;most definitely, in that God helped Solomon marvellously, giving him every opportunity to develop a superb&nbsp;spirituality; but he failed to have the genuine personal desire to be like this in his heart, in his heart he was back in Egypt, and therefore ultimately David's desire for Solomon to be the wondrous Messianic King of his dreams had to go unfulfilled.</p>


text:
<p>But will God indeed dwell with men on the earth? Behold, heaven and the heaven of heavens can’t contain You; how much less this house which I have built!- </p><p>It was exactly because of this that God didn't want a physical house built for Him. Yet Solomon has misrepresented God as saying He did want such a house. So these words are fake humility from Solomon, seeking to cover his proud obsession with building projects beneath an appearance of humility.</p>


text:
<p>Yet have respect for the prayer of Your servant and to his supplication, Yahweh my God, to listen to the cry and to the prayer which Your servant prays before You- </p><p>I noted on :3 that Solomon is praying all this facing the people, to be seen of men. This prayer would have been better said facing toward God. His showmanship is apparent.</p>


text:
<p>that Your eyes may be open toward this house day and night, even toward the place where you have said that You would put Your name; to listen to the prayer which Your servant shall pray toward this place- </p><p>God never said that. It is Solomon's twist of the word of promise to David, that if his son / seed were obedient, then "He shall build an house for My Name". But that house was to be built up from persons, and had no reference to any physical building; indeed, the very opposite. God's eyes are open upon His children wherever they are, as David had learned whilst far from the sanctuary and on the run from Saul. Nehemiah felt God's eyes were open upon him even when the temple was in ruins (<a href='B:160 1:6'>Neh 1:6</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Listen to the petitions of Your servant and of Your people Israel when they shall pray toward this place. Yes, hear from Your dwelling place, even from heaven; and when You hear, forgive- </p><p>The temple and ark are sometimes referred to as the heavens (<a href='B:100 15:25'>2Sa 15:25</a> cp. <a href='B:110 8:30'>1Ki 8:30</a>; <a href='B:140 30:27'>2Ch 30:27</a>; <a href='B:230 20:2'>Psa 20:2</a>; <a href='B:230 20:6'>Psa 20:6</a>; <a href='B:230 11:4'>Psa 11:4</a>; <a href='B:650 7:26'>Heb 7:26</a>). The church is the new temple, and is therefore at times referred to as the heavenlies in the New Testament. But Solomon was not reasoning on this level at this point. Rather was he claiming that the temple building would somehow make prayer more powerful before God. But that is simply untrue; no physical building can act as some kind of mediator between God and man. This is not to say that the faithful did not later pray toward the temple; for both Daniel and Jonah did. But it was not because they thought the temple somehow gave their prayers more power and standing before God because of its existence. For in Daniel's time, and perhaps Jonah's, the temple was in ruins.</p>


text:
<p>If a man sin against his neighbour, and an oath is laid on him to cause him to swear, and he comes and swears before your altar in this house- </p><p>God's awareness of who was telling the truth was not, however, predicated upon the altar being situated within a physical building. God's presence and omniscience was not somehow from then on conditional upon the temple.</p>


text:
<p>then hear from heaven, and do, and judge your servants, bringing retribution to the wicked, to bring his way on his own head; and justifying the righteous, to give him according to his righteousness- </p><p>In <a href='B:240 24:24'>Pro 24:24</a> and other Proverbs, Solomon teaches that this is how men should judge, lest they be cursed. He says that God condemns the wicked but justifies the righteous, and so should we. But by having this position, he shows his total lack of appreciation of God's grace to his father David. For David was worthy of condemnation, but by grace, he the wicked was justified, counted righteous, when he was not (<a href='B:230 32:2'>Psa 32:2</a> cp. <a href='B:520 4:4-6'>Rom 4:4-6</a>). This lack of appreciation of grace arose from how it seems Solomon totally whitewashed the sin of his father David with his mother Bathsheba. And it resulted in his lack of grace, and failure throughout Proverbs to appreciate that human behaviour is nuanced, and is not simply divided between spotlessly righteous behaviour and terrible sinfulness.</p>


text:
<p>If Your people Israel be struck down before the enemy because they have sinned against You, and shall turn again and confess Your name, and pray and make supplication before You in this house- </p><p>Again, Solomon devalues the power of prayerful repentance and confession of God's Name; for he implies that this is made somehow more powerful through praying to the God "in this house". But Solomon is as it were bringing God down from heaven to earth by suggesting He is somehow located "in this house". Whereas He is in heaven, as he contradictorily admits in :25. It was because of this mindset that there was such a collapse of faith in Judah when they saw the temple in ruins. It meant, according to Solomon's logic, the death of God.</p><p>Who God is, as expressed in His Name, is an imperative to prepare ourselves to meet Him in judgment. The confession of the Name is paralleled with repentance here. If Israel sin and repent ''and confess Your Name", they will be forgiven. But instead of ''confess thy name'' we expect ''confess their sins: the point being that to confess the name is effectively to confess sins. The name is the characteristics of Yahweh. The more we meditate upon them, the more we will naturally be lead to a confession of our sins, the deeper we will sense the gap between those principles and our own character. Likewise in <a href='B:140 12:6'>2Ch 12:6</a> the statement that ''the Lord is righteous'' is effectively a confession of sin. And thus we are not to bear or take the Name of Yahweh called upon us at baptism in vain- the realty of the implications of the name are not to be lost upon us.</p>


text:
<p>then hear from heaven, and forgive the sin of your people Israel, and bring them again to the land which You gave to them and to their fathers- </p><p>See on :24. The restoration to their land was to be because they, or those who remained in the land, would pray to God in the temple (:24). Solomon is hereby assuming that even if Israel sin and go into captivity, the temple will be an eternal house for God which will always be there. He is so very wrong. The temple was not eternal and was destroyed; but the exiles could still pray to God, quite independently of the existence of the temple. The destruction of the temple was for multiple reasons, but perhaps one of them was to rid God's people of these wrong ideas about God's presence in the temple building. And God answers this idea that the temple was to be eternal in <a href='B:110 9:7-8'>1Ki 9:7-8</a>.</p>


text:
<p>When the sky is shut up and there is no rain because they have sinned against You; if they pray toward this place, and confess Your name and turn from their sin, when You afflict them- </p><p>Solomon inserts parts of his father’s Bathsheba psalms in his prayers for how all Israel could be forgiven if they “confess thy name::. when thou afflictest them::. saying, We have sinned::. forgive thy people::. and all their transgressions wherein they have transgressed” (<a href='B:110 8:35'>1Ki 8:35</a>; <a href='B:110 8:47'>1Ki 8:47</a>; <a href='B:110 8:50'>1Ki 8:50</a> = <a href='B:230 32:5'>Psa 32:5</a> etc:). On the basis of David’s pattern, all God’s people can find forgiveness, if they make a like confession. Indeed, this has long been recognized by Jewish commentators; and many of the Psalms understood by them as relevant to the Nazi holocaust are Bathsheba Psalms. “Out of the depths” they cried like David; and at the entrance to Bergen-Belsen it stands written: “My sorrow is continually before me” (<a href='B:230 38:17'>Psa 38:17</a>), in recognition of having received punishment for sin [note how these kind of plaques contain no trace of hatred or calling for Divine retribution upon the persecutors].</p><p>But Solomon, as ever, is mixing truth with error. Because the turning again to God was not dependent upon praying towards the temple building. It was to be destroyed, and the direction of their prayers was to be towards "the God of heaven" and not some ghost in a ruined temple. This phrase "the God of heaven" or similar is often found in the restoration histories, indicating that God's people had been forced to learn this lesson.</p>


text:
<p>then hear in heaven, and forgive the sin of Your servants and of Your people Israel, when You teach them the good way in which they should walk; and send rain on Your land, which You have given to Your people for an inheritance- </p><p>The reference to rain was appropriate in the immediate context because as explained on <a href='B:140 5:3'>2Ch 5:3</a>, Solomon was speaking in the seventh month of Ethanim, literally, the rain month, and likely the latter rains were pouring down at this time as he was speaking. His implication would be that this rain was part of the promised blessing for obedience because of the temple. Perhaps this was why, as noted on :2, Solomon had purposefully arranged the dedication festival at this time.</p>


text:
<p>If there is famine in the land, if there is plague, blight or mildew, locust or caterpillar; if their enemies besiege them in the land of their cities; whatever plague or whatever sickness there is- </p><p>These things clearly allude to the curses for breaking the covenant in Deuteronomy 28. But those curses were to be lifted by repentance and renewed faithfulness to the covenant, and their lifting was not predicated upon the existence of the physical temple and praying in it or towards it.</p>


text:
<p>whatever prayer and supplication be made by any man, or by all Your people Israel who shall know every man his own plague and his own sorrow of heart, and shall spread forth his hands toward this house- </p><p>As Pharaoh’s heart was plagued (<a href='B:20 9:14'>Exo 9:14</a>), so was Israel’s (<a href='B:110 8:38'>1Ki 8:38</a>); as Egypt was a reed, so were Israel (<a href='B:110 14:15'>1Ki 14:15</a>). As Pharaoh-hophra was given into the hand of his enemies, so would Israel be (<a href='B:300 44:30'>Jer 44:30</a>). She would be&nbsp; “Condemned with the world::.". But the phrase 'spread forth hands' is used often in the Bible, but followed by 'to the Lord'. Solomon is praying with hands spread forth towards heaven; but he is confusing prayer towards God with prayer towards the temple. He is drawing an inappropriate parallel between God and the temple.</p><p>Solomon, the man with every available pleasure, laments that his days are full of sorrow and grief and he can't sleep peacefully at night (<a href='B:250 2:23'>Ecc 2:23</a>). Yet Solomon had prayed that when God's people were in grief and sorrow because of their sins, they could pray to God using his temple, and be forgiven and have their grief assuaged. Yet in <a href='B:250 2:23'>Ecc 2:23</a>, Solomon laments that all his days are spent in grief and sorrows (s:w:). The way out of the depression with which he ended his days was repentance and acceptance of God's free grace and forgiveness. But he refused to do this, and turned his heart away from Yahweh.</p><p>We are forgiven on account of the fact we truly sorrow for our sins, knowing them as our own sore and our own grief (<a href='B:140 6:29-30'>2Ch 6:29-30</a>). The Lord carried our sorrows, i:e. our sins. It is only these sins, for which we have sorrowed, that He carried. This is why we need to&nbsp; appreciate that sin is serious.</p>


text:
<p>then hear from heaven Your dwelling place and forgive, and render to each man according to all his ways, whose heart You know; (for You, even You only, know the hearts of the children of men;)- </p><p>This reference to God dwelling in heaven makes a nonsense of the idea of building a house for God to inhabit on earth. And this was exactly why God had not wanted David to build the temple. So Solomon is here merely giving lip service to these ideas.</p><p>Descriptions of God’s dwelling place clearly indicate that He has a personal location: “God is in heaven” (<a href='B:250 5:2'>Ecc 5:2</a>); “He has looked down from the height of His sanctuary; from heaven did the Lord behold the earth” (<a href='B:230 102:19-20'>Psa 102:19-20</a>); “Hear in heaven your dwelling place”. Yet more specifically than this, we read that God has a “throne” (<a href='B:140 9:8'>2Ch 9:8</a>; <a href='B:230 11:4'>Psa 11:4</a>; <a href='B:290 6:1'>Isa 6:1</a>; <a href='B:290 66:1'>Isa 66:1</a>). Such language is hard to apply to an undefined essence which exists somewhere in heavenly realms.</p><p>Rabshakeh confirmed the threatened destruction of Jerusalem with a letter which Hezekiah took “before the Lord”. His first response was not to turn to Egypt; he’d learnt the wrongness of that. He went to the house of the Lord. Whilst we are always in God’s presence, there is surely a sense in which coming into His presence through prayer is drawing yet closer to Him. And so it was with the special presence of YHWH in the temple at that time. Hezekiah was aware that YHWH ‘dwells between the cherubim” (<a href='B:120 19:15'>2Ki 19:15</a>). Presumably standing before the ark, Hezekiah “spread out” the letter (<a href='B:120 19:14'>2Ki 19:14</a>). The Hebrew word translated ‘spread out’ is the same as that usually used about how the wings of the cherubim were ‘spread out’ over the ark (<a href='B:20 25:20'>Exo 25:20</a>; <a href='B:20 37:9'>Exo 37:9</a>). It’s also the word used in Solomon’s prophecy of how repentant people would spread out their hands in the temple at the time of the punishment for their sins, and receive forgiveness and help: “Whatever prayer, whatever plea is made by any man or by all your people Israel, each knowing his own affliction and his own sorrow and stretching out his hands in this house, then hear from heaven your dwelling place and forgive” (<a href='B:140 6:29-30'>2Ch 6:29-30</a>). And Hezekiah would also have been only too aware of Isaiah’s judgment against Judah of a few years earlier: “When you spread out your hands, I will hide my eyes from you; even though you make many prayers, I will not listen” (<a href='B:290 1:15'>Isa 1:15</a>). But Hezekiah summoned his faith in God’s forgiveness, and spread out his hands as he spread out the letter. He showed his deep repentance, and his faith in forgiveness to such an extent that he was bold enough to ask God for deliverance. Faith in forgiveness of our sins is perhaps one of the hardest things to believe in- strangely enough, seeing that God delights in forgiveness.</p>


text:
<p>that they may fear You, to walk in Your ways, so long as they live in the land which You gave to our fathers- </p><p>This is repeating the idea of <a href='B:230 130:4'>Psa 130:4</a>: "There is forgiveness with You, that You mayest be feared". Solomon reasons that the experience of forgiveness [on behalf of his temple] will make the people fear Yahweh. And that is so; if we realize the awesome nature of forgiveness, we will fear / respect the God who grants it on a scale and of a nature so beyond our forgiveness of others. "All the days that they live in the land" could hint that Solomon wrongly thought that the people would live eternally in the land, because he was the Messianic king and the temple had now been built.</p>


text:
<p>Moreover concerning the foreigner, who is not of Your people Israel, when he shall come from a far country for Your great name’s sake and because of Your mighty hand and Your outstretched arm; when they shall come and pray toward this house- </p><p>The acceptance of the Gentile within the community of Israel was not simply predicated upon the existence of the temple. Ruth was the classic case of coming out of a Gentile country for the sake of Yahweh's Name. And her acceptance was not at all predicated upon any temple building, because there was none in existence at her time. There seems implicit in the reasoning here that the fame of Yahweh's temple would spread to the surrounding nations, and some would wish to come and worship in it. But proselytes were not to be attracted to Yahweh because of any physical temple, but because of who He is- the things implicit in His Name. No matter how cool and slick the external presentation, this is not what legitimately converts people to the true God.</p>


text:
<p>then hear from heaven, even from Your dwelling place, and do according to all that the foreigner calls to You for; that all the peoples of the earth may know Your name and fear You, as does Your people Israel, and that they may know that this house which I have built is called by Your name- </p><p>As discussed on :32, God's response to Gentile proselytes, and their turning to Him, is not predicated upon the existence of a physical building. Solomon asks God to answer prayers of Gentiles made toward the temple so that the Gentiles would know that Yahweh's Name was really there- in "this house which I have built". The agenda of Solomon's pride is evident.</p><p>His prayer speaks as if the heavens where God lived were actually the temple; he bid men pray towards the temple where God lived, rather than to God in Heaven. Theoretically he recognized the magnitude of God (<a href='B:140 6:18'>2Ch 6:18</a>); yet the vastness of God, both in power and Spirituality, meant little to him; it failed to humble him as it should have done:&nbsp; It is a feature of human nature to be able to perceive truth and yet act the very opposite. His enthusiasm for his own works lead him to lose a true relationship with God. The idea of salvation by grace became lost on him, loving response to God's forgiveness was not on his agenda, true humility was unnecessary for him, given his certainty that he was King as God intended. He reasoned that God would hear his prayers because they were uttered in the temple of his own hands, rather than because of any personal faith (<a href='B:110 8:52'>1Ki 8:52</a>). Indeed, Solomon legalistically demands that God maintain [as in a court of law] the legal cause or "right" of His people if they pray towards the temple (<a href='B:110 8:45'>1Ki 8:45</a>; <a href='B:110 8:49'>1Ki 8:49</a>). Legalism and faith are opposed to each other, and Solomon's usage and conception of the temple was legalistic rather than faith based. When dedicating the temple, Solomon asks God to incline the hearts of Israel to be obedient to His commandments (<a href='B:110 8:57'>1Ki 8:57</a>); and whilst God can and does do this, Solomon's implication seems to be that any disobedience would therefore effectively be God's fault for not making His people obedient. He failed to see the need for personal election to obey God's ways.</p><p>God said that He accepted the temple not so much as a place to dwell in (as Solomon assumed it was) but as a place facilitating sacrifice, prayer etc:, for the glorification of His Name through these things; He emphasized that He dwelt amongst His people (<a href='B:110 6:13'>1Ki 6:13</a>; <a href='B:140 7:12-16'>2Ch 7:12-16</a>). There are several other places where God’s response to Solomon’s words seems to be corrective rather than affirmatory. Thus Solomon says that God will hear the prayers of His people because the temple is called by God’s Name; but God’s response is that “my people, which are called by my name” would pray to Him themselves and be heard, quite apart from the temple (<a href='B:140 6:33'>2Ch 6:33</a> cp. 7:14). He sees them as bearing His Name rather than the temple building, as Solomon perceived it. God goes on to parallel the temple and His people in <a href='B:140 7:21-22'>2Ch 7:21-22</a>, saying that if He punishes the temple He will punish the people. Solomon seems to have thought that the temple would still stand favourably in God’s eyes even if the people were punished. The record records that the temple was “perfected” whereas Solomon’s heart wasn’t perfect [s:w:] (<a href='B:110 11:4'>1Ki 11:4</a> cp. <a href='B:140 8:16'>2Ch 8:16</a>).</p>


text:
<p>If Your people go out to battle against their enemies, by whatever way You shall send them, and they pray to You toward this city which You have chosen, and the house which I have built for your name-</p><p>Solomon is alluding to <a href='B:50 20:1'>Deu 20:1</a>, but Israel were told that when they went out to battle (s:w:), they were to remember that Yahweh was present with them. Solomon has distorted this idea, by suggesting that Yahweh's presence was specifically in the temple, and the people were to pray towards it there. When in reality, His presence was with His people on the battle front and in their hearts.</p>


text:
<p>then hear from heaven their prayer and their supplication, and uphold their case-</p><p>"Maintain their cause" is the same phrase translated "do judgment / justice". But Israel were to do justice (<a href='B:30 18:4'>Lev 18:4</a> and often, as David did, <a href='B:100 8:15'>2Sa 8:15</a>), and in response, Yahweh would do justice for them (<a href='B:50 10:18'>Deu 10:18</a>). But Solomon overlooks this conditional aspect in Israel's relationship with God, as he did in his own life. He thought that merely praying to a temple would somehow obligate God to 'do judgment' for His people. This is the mentality of mere religion, and not of relationship with God.</p>


text:
<p>If they sin against You (for there is no man who sins not) and You are angry with them, and deliver them to the enemy, so that they carry them away captive to a land far off or near-</p><p>Solomon often emphasized the importance of keeping ones’ heart (<a href='B:240 2:10-16'>Pro 2:10-16</a>; <a href='B:240 3:5-6'>Pro 3:5-6</a>; <a href='B:240 4:23'>Pro 4:23</a> to <a href='B:240 5:5'>Pro 5:5</a>; <a href='B:240 6:23-26'>Pro 6:23-26</a>); he had foreseen that the essential sin of God’s people was “the plague of his own heart” (<a href='B:110 8:46'>1Ki 8:46</a>), and he imagined how for this sin God’s people would later pray towards the temple. And yet his wives turned away his heart, for all this awareness that the heart must be kept. It was as if the more he knew the truth of something, the more he wanted to do the very opposite. And this is exactly true of our natures. Perhaps with Solomon he reasoned that in his case, foreign wives wouldn’t turn away his heart. Just as our flesh thinks ‘Yes, but it can’t happen to me’. Perhaps too he reasoned that if the temple somehow could bring forgiveness for the plague of the heart, his heart was incorruptible because of the temple.</p>


text:
<p>yet if they shall repent themselves in the land where they are carried captive, and turn again, and make supplication to You in the land of their captivity saying, We have sinned, we have done perversely, and have dealt wickedly-</p><p>Again, Solomon assumes that even if Israel were to go into captivity, the temple would still stand, and prayer toward it would bring the restoration. But the temple was destroyed, so that they would be forced to quit this kind of religious tokenism and turn to God in Heaven with their hearts and souls. Daniel prayed these words (<a href='B:340 9:5'>Dan 9:5</a>), but there was no temple then standing to add efficacy to them. And they were prayed in <a href='B:230 106:6'>Psa 106:6</a> before any temple stood.</p>


text:
<p>if they return to You with all their heart and with all their soul in the land of their captivity to where they have carried them captive, and pray toward their land which You gave to their fathers and to the city which You have chosen, and toward the house which I have built for Your name- </p><p>The old covenant clearly taught that all Israel would be exiled from their land if they broke the covenant. Solomon's dedication of the temple seemed to assume that only the wicked would be exiled from the land, and the temple would stand eternally; to express repentance in exile, they just needed to pray towards it. But all Israel were sent into exile, and his temple was razed to the ground. But Solomon's belief that "The upright will dwell in the land; the perfect will eternally remain in it" (<a href='B:240 2:21'>Pro 2:21</a>) meant that he totally refused to accept the extent of judgment predicted in the curses of Deuteronomy 28. All Israel would be exiled from their land. He liked to assume that his Kingdom would eternally endure; because of his lack of faith in the nature of the future Kingdom, and his mistaken imagination that he was the eternal Messianic king. He refused to recognize that his father David in Psalms 72 had wrongly imagined that he would be that eternal king, and disregarded the conditionality of the promises made to him:&nbsp;And God answers this idea that the temple was to be eternal in <a href='B:110 9:7-8'>1Ki 9:7-8</a>.</p><p>Daniel understood that after 70 years Jerusalem must be restored; but he earnestly prayed for their forgiveness so that this would happen (<a href='B:340 9:2'>Dan 9:2</a> cp. 19). Perhaps he opened his window and prayed towards Jerusalem exactly because he wanted to fulfil <a href='B:140 6:37-38'>2Ch 6:37-38</a>: “If they shall bethink themselves in the land whither they are carried captive, and turn, and pray unto thee… toward their land… and toward the city which thou hast chosen”. He knew that repentance was a precondition for the promised restoration to occur.</p>


text:
<p>then hear from heaven, even from Your dwelling place, their prayer and their petitions, and uphold their case and forgive Your people who have sinned against You-</p><p>When exiled from Absalom, David had prayed toward God's "holy hill" of Zion, and had been regathered there (<a href='B:230 3:4'>Psa 3:4</a>). David had fled Jerusalem and the "holy hill" of the temple mount, which was now under Absalom's control. But he believes Yahweh is still there, present as it were in the temple, and answering his prayer. He perhaps alludes to the promises that if Israel sinned and were exiled, they could always pray to God and hope for regathering to His holy hill (<a href='B:50 30:1-4'>Deu 30:1-4</a>; <a href='B:160 1:9'>Neh 1:9</a>). Solomon now develops these thoughts further, in teaching that Israel in their dispersion were to pray to God toward Jerusalem, His "holy hill" of Zion (<a href='B:110 8:48-49'>1Ki 8:48-49</a>). We see therefore how Solomon would have reflected upon his father David's experience; David had prayed towards God's "holy hill" when in exile from it, and had been heard. Solomon may well have been in David's retinue at the time, and would have experienced the wonder of return to Zion because of his father's prayer towards God in Zion.</p>


text:
<p>Now, my God, let, I beg You, Your eyes be open, and let Your ears be attentive, to the prayer that is made in this place- </p><p>God's eyes are open upon His children wherever they are, as David had learned whilst far from the sanctuary and on the run from Saul. Nehemiah felt God's eyes were open upon him even when the temple was in ruins (<a href='B:160 1:6'>Neh 1:6</a>):&nbsp;"Attentive" is the word used by Nehemiah in <a href='B:160 1:11'>Neh 1:11</a> "Lord, I beg You, let Your ear be attentive now to the prayer of Your servant". "Attentive" is s:w. <a href='B:140 6:40'>2Ch 6:40</a>; <a href='B:140 7:15'>2Ch 7:15</a>, where we read of God being "attentive" to prayers offered in the temple. But Nehemiah was praying in exile, not in the temple. The desperation of the situation made him learn a lesson- that God wasn't only accessible in the temple. This may sound obvious to us, but it wasn't for those used to the temple cult. The lesson is that God uses punishments for sin, hard situations, to break our paradigms and lead us to a greater spirituality- if we will follow. S:w. also <a href='B:160 9:34'>Neh 9:34</a> - Israel weren't "attentive" to God's word, but in their time of need they hoped He would be "attentive" to their word of prayer. And He was. His grace isn't 'measure for measure'; He treats us out of proportion to our attentiveness to Him. We must show the same grace.</p>


text:
<p>Now therefore arise, Yahweh God, into Your resting place, You and the ark of Your strength- </p><p>The same root word for "Noah" is found here, where the ark of God 'rested' or 'Noah-ed' in the tabernacle. When the ark 'rested' on Ararat ['holy hill'] the same word is used (<a href='B:10 8:4'>Gen 8:4</a>). A case can be made that Ararat was in fact Mount Zion, where the ark was later to 'rest' in the temple. The 'resting' of the ark was therefore the fulfilment of God's intention in Noah- God's salvation is described as a "promised rest" (<a href='B:650 4:10-11'>Heb 4:10-11</a>), and it was prefigured in the final resting of the ark. Thus the final salvation of God is to be understood in terms of God 'resting' with us, in us, within His ark. He labours and struggles too::. for us. And those struggles will only be at rest when we are saved in the last day; a Father's eternal struggle for His children. The 'rest' spoken of in Noah's name was thus a rest for God. Noah's going out of the ark into a cleansed, pristine world was therefore symbolic of our going forth into the Kingdom at Christ's return.</p><p>Let Your priests, Yahweh God, be clothed with salvation, and let Your saints rejoice in goodness- </p><p>Solomon prayed to God in the terms and language of his father (<a href='B:140 6:41-42'>2Ch 6:41-42</a> cp. <a href='B:230 132:1'>Psa 132:1</a>; <a href='B:230 132:8-9'>Psa 132:8-9</a>). He was familiar with his father’s Psalms- after all, all Israel sung them. It must have been like being the son of a world-famous singer. The words were even in Solomon’s subconscious it seems, for when he tells his son “Give not sleep to thine eyes nor slumber to thine eyelids” (<a href='B:240 6:4'>Pro 6:4</a>) he is alluding unconsciously, it seems (in that it is out of context) to David’s promise not to give sleep to his eyes until he had found a resting place for the ark (<a href='B:230 132:4'>Psa 132:4</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Yahweh God, don’t turn away the face of Your anointed. Remember Your graces to David Your servant-</p><p>Solomon's&nbsp; zealous&nbsp; organization&nbsp; of&nbsp; the&nbsp; temple worship was an exact&nbsp; fulfillment&nbsp; of the order laid down by his father David (<a href='B:110 7:51'>1Ki 7:51</a>; <a href='B:140 7:6'>2Ch 7:6</a>; <a href='B:140 8:14'>2Ch 8:14</a>). Solomon wanted God to bless the temple&nbsp;as&nbsp;a sign&nbsp;of His pleasure with David his father (e:g. <a href='B:140 6:42'>2Ch 6:42</a>). Solomon's&nbsp; personal&nbsp; enthusiasm for service to God became subsumed by the huge psychological spiritual dominance of his&nbsp; parents. His zeal for the temple was almost purely a result of living out his father's expectation; he almost admits as much in&nbsp; <a href='B:110 8:20'>1Ki 8:20</a>: "I&nbsp; am&nbsp;risen&nbsp;up in&nbsp; the room of David my father::. and have (therefore, in the context) built an house for the&nbsp; name&nbsp; of&nbsp; the&nbsp; Lord".</p>


text:
<p>Now when Solomon had made an end of praying, the fire came down from heaven and consumed the burnt offering and the sacrifices; and the glory of Yahweh filled the house-</p><p>Fire coming down from Heaven (e:g. <a href='B:140 7:1'>2Ch 7:1</a>) to consume acceptable sacrifices probably refers to the Angels being made a flame of fire (<a href='B:230 104:4'>Psa 104:4</a>) to consume the sacrifice. In <a href='B:140 7:1'>2Ch 7:1</a> this would be by&nbsp;the Angel&nbsp;dwelling in the temple. The same scenario was probably seen in Eden, when the Angel cherubim consumed the sacrifices.</p>


text:
<p>The priests could not enter into the house of Yahweh, because the glory of Yahweh filled Yahweh’s house-</p><p>This was as at the erection of the tabernacle. The idea was that Yahweh's glory was far above the mere religion of the temple system.</p>


text:
<p>All the children of Israel looked on, when the fire came down, and the glory of Yahweh was on the house; and they bowed themselves with their faces to the ground on the pavement and worshipped and gave thanks to Yahweh saying, For He is good; for His grace endures for ever-</p><p>Comparing with 1 Kings 8, it seems that the cloud of glory had already come down, and now fire came down to consume the sacrifices.</p>


text:
<p>Then the king and all the people offered sacrifice before Yahweh- </p><p>We again see the connection between Solomon and "all Israel", whom he considered to be as perfect as he was; see on <a href='B:110 8:61'>1Ki 8:61</a>.</p>


text:
<p>King Solomon offered a sacrifice of twenty-two thousand head of cattle, and a hundred and twenty thousand sheep. So the king and all the people dedicated God’s house- </p><p>The usual pattern of sacrifice was sin offering (obtaining forgiveness), burnt offering (promising complete dedication to God) and then peace offering, celebrating the resultant peace with God then experienced. But Solomon has no sense of personal sin, and considered himself dedicated to Yahweh by reason of being David's son. And so he only offers the peace offerings. The huge numbers of sacrifices were not at all what God wanted. But unlike David, he had not been brought to realize that God wants broken, repentant hearts and not offerings (<a href='B:230 51:16'>Psa 51:16</a>). <a href='B:400 6:7'>Mic 6:7</a> perhaps references Solomon's huge numbers of offerings, again commenting that God doesn't want them; just as He didn't want a physical temple. And yet God went along with Solomon, as He does with us so often, even on the basis of our misplaced idealism. For His glory appeared within the temple and He in that sense agreed to dwell there, just as He agreed to work through a human kingship, even though it meant a degree of rejection of Him as Israel's king.</p>


text:
<p>The priests stood, according to their positions, the Levites also with instruments of music of Yahweh, which David the king had made to give thanks to Yahweh, when David praised by their ministry saying, For His grace endures forever. The priests sounded trumpets before them; and all Israel stood- </p><p>Compare <a href='B:160 12:9'>Neh 12:9</a> "Also Bakbukiah and Unno, their brothers, were over against them". This is the same Hebrew in <a href='B:140 7:6'>2Ch 7:6</a>, "The priests sounded trumpets before them", the idea perhaps being that they answered the Levites in choral praise (see <a href='B:160 12:24'>Neh 12:24</a>).</p><p>There is a link between the name Yahweh, and praise- because the Name epitomizes the characteristics of God. Halle-lu-YAH is saying that for the sake of the Name Yah, therefore praise Him. David sat down and designed musical instruments because of the Name (<a href='B:140 7:6'>2Ch 7:6</a>). The Psalms often make the link explicit, e:g. ":::give thanks unto Your holy name, and to triumph in Your praise" (<a href='B:230 106:47'>Psa 106:47</a>). The Name and praise are paralleled.</p><p>Solomon's zealous&nbsp;organization of the temple worship was an exact fulfillment&nbsp;of the order laid down by his father David (<a href='B:110 7:51'>1Ki 7:51</a>; <a href='B:140 7:6'>2Ch 7:6</a>; <a href='B:140 8:14'>2Ch 8:14</a>). Solomon wanted God to bless the temple&nbsp;as&nbsp;a sign&nbsp;of His pleasure with David his father (e:g. <a href='B:140 6:42'>2Ch 6:42</a>). Solomon's personal&nbsp;enthusiasm for service to God became subsumed by the huge psychological spiritual dominance of his parents. His zeal for the temple was almost purely a result of living out his father's expectation; he almost admits as much in&nbsp; <a href='B:110 8:20'>1Ki 8:20</a>: "I&nbsp; am&nbsp;risen&nbsp;up in&nbsp;the room of David my father::. and have (therefore, in the context) built an house for the name&nbsp;of&nbsp;the Lord".</p>


text:
<p>Moreover Solomon made the middle of the court holy that was before the house of Yahweh; for there he offered the burnt offerings, and the fat of the peace offerings, because the bronze altar which Solomon had made was not able to receive the burnt offering, and the meal offering, and the fat- </p><p>The huge numbers of animals required more altars, which were presumably placed in the middle court. Although we wonder on what basis Solomon as a non-Levite had the right to declare the court holy. We also wonder as to whether the huge laver, and the ten smaller lavers, were only built with a view to this opening dedication. For the huge laver was too large for normal usage, and there was surely no need for 10 lavers when the tabernacle had only had one. We wonder whether this sudden erection of more altars was also as it were a design fault, and indicates that what he was doing was not according to God's command, but rather his flawed human initiative. See on :8 for another possible design fault.</p>


text:
<p>So Solomon held the feast at that time seven days, and all Israel with him, a very great assembly, from the entrance of Hamath to the brook of Egypt- </p><p>The dedication coincided with the seven day feast of tabernacles (see on <a href='B:140 5:3'>2Ch 5:3</a>), and to that was added this seven day feast of dedication. There were representatives from the very borders of the land promised to Abraham, implying these areas had been settled by Israelites; or perhaps those who attended from those places were Gentile proselytes.</p>


text:
<p>On the eighth day they held a solemn assembly; for they kept the dedication of the altar seven days, and the feast seven days- </p><p>As explained on <a href='B:140 5:3'>2Ch 5:3</a>, the dedication of the temple had been made to coincide with the feast of tabernacles.</p>


text:
<p>On the twenty-third day of the seventh month he sent the people away to their tents, joyful and glad of heart for the grace that Yahweh had shown to David, and to Solomon, and to Israel His people-</p><p>Israel's blessing was dependent on Solomon's obedience (<a href='B:110 6:12-13'>1Ki 6:12-13</a>); their joy was because of the honour God had given Solomon (<a href='B:140 7:10'>2Ch 7:10</a>). The blessing of others can be dependent upon a third party (e:g. <a href='B:480 2:5'>Mar 2:5</a>). <a href='B:110 8:66'>1Ki 8:66</a>: "For all the goodness that Yahweh had shown to David His servant, and to Israel His people". The people rejoiced that the promises to David had been fulfilled in the temple and in the prosperity of the nation. But they had only uncritically accepted Solomon's narrative. For this was not at all the fulfilment of the promises to David. They "blessed the king" because they assumed it was Solomon who had brought about this fulfilment; and that was exactly what he thought. And they had bought into that false narrative.</p>


text:
<p>Thus Solomon finished the house of Yahweh, and the king’s house. He successfully completed all that came into Solomon’s heart to make in the house of Yahweh, and in his own house-</p><p>The way the record of Solomon's house follows straight on from that of God's house (1 Kings 6, 7) seems to highlight the similarity between them. The house of Yahweh and Solomon's house are often spoke of together (e:g. <a href='B:140 7:11'>2Ch 7:11</a>; <a href='B:140 8:1'>2Ch 8:1</a>; <a href='B:140 9:11'>2Ch 9:11</a>):The Temple was smaller than Solomon's house' he took nearly twice as long to build it. Clearly he spent more effort at housing his own glory than he did housing God's. The comparisons are intended to show this. They are listed on <a href='B:140 9:11'>2Ch 9:11</a>.</p><p>His building of the temple was "all that came into his heart", or "all Solomon's desire which he was pleased to do" (<a href='B:110 9:1'>1Ki 9:1</a>). There is a semantic connection between the Hebrew words for "desire" and "pleased" - the point of which is to emphasize that Solomon's work for God was only an expression of his own zest for self-fulfilment; he served God in ways which only confirmed his own natural inclinations. Appreciating the spirit and blood of Christ, his own weakness, the grace of God, and the subsequent desire to live a life of self sacrifice, of carrying a cross in ways we wouldn't naturally chose- this was all foreign to Solomon. And is it so foreign to us? Solomon's materialism and self-fulfilment are sure warnings to our age.</p>


text:
<p>Yahweh appeared to Solomon by night and said to him, I have heard your prayer, and have chosen this place to Myself for a house of sacrifice- </p><p>Clearly God was aware that Solomon was going wrong, refusing to realize the conditional nature of the promises made to David about his son, and not personally applying the wisdom given to him in the first vision. So God's response to Solomon's arrogant, mistaken prayer of 1 Kings 8 was in fact to appear to him and warn him that he needed to be obedient, or else the promises would not in fact apply to him. The clear implication was that Solomon's statements in his prayer that the promises were fulfilled in him::. were wrong.</p><p>God said that He accepted the temple not so much as a place to dwell in (as Solomon assumed it was) but as a place facilitating sacrifice, prayer etc:, for the glorification of His Name through these things; He emphasized that He dwelt amongst His people (<a href='B:110 6:13'>1Ki 6:13</a>; <a href='B:140 7:12-16'>2Ch 7:12-16</a>). There are several other places where God’s response to Solomon’s words seems to be corrective rather than affirmatory. See on :14.</p>


text:
<p>If I shut up the sky so that there is no rain, or if I command the locust to devour the land, or if I send plague among My people- </p><p>These things clearly allude to the curses for breaking the covenant in Deuteronomy 28. But those curses were to be lifted by repentance and renewed faithfulness to the covenant, and their lifting was not predicated upon the existence of the physical temple and praying in it or towards it. This is now made clear by God in :14.</p>


text:
<p>if My people who are called by My name shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek My face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land- </p><p>Solomon says that God will hear the prayers of His people because the temple is called by God’s Name; but God’s response is that “my people, which are called by my name” would pray to Him themselves and be heard, quite apart from the temple (<a href='B:140 6:33'>2Ch 6:33</a> cp. 7:14). He sees them as bearing His Name rather than the temple building, as Solomon perceived it. See on :12 for another example of God now correcting Solomon's assumptions.</p>


text:
<p>Now My eyes shall be open and My ears sensitive to the prayer that is made in this place- </p><p>"Sensitive / attentive" is the word used by Nehemiah in <a href='B:160 1:11'>Neh 1:11</a> "Lord, I beg You, let Your ear be attentive now to the prayer of Your servant". "Attentive" is s:w. <a href='B:140 6:40'>2Ch 6:40</a>; <a href='B:140 7:15'>2Ch 7:15</a>, where we read of God being "attentive" to prayers offered in the temple. But Nehemiah was praying in exile, not in the temple. The desperation of the situation made him learn a lesson- that God wasn't only accessible in the temple. This may sound obvious to us, but it wasn't for those used to the temple cult. The lesson is that God uses punishments for sin, hard situations, to break our paradigms and lead us to a greater spirituality- if we will follow. S:w. also <a href='B:160 9:34'>Neh 9:34</a> - Israel weren't "attentive" to God's word, but in their time of need they hoped He would be "attentive" to their word of prayer. And He was. His grace isn't 'measure for measure'; He treats us out of proportion to our attentiveness to Him. We must show the same grace.</p>


text:
<p>For now have I chosen and made this house holy, that My name may be there forever; and My eyes and My heart shall be there perpetually- </p><p>It has been argued that the Hebrew olahm, "forever", really means 'a period'. But I am unpersuaded of that argument in every case. Rather I would think that the context in this case requires that we understand God to be saying that He would indeed dwell in the temple "forever", and His particular sensitivity would be found in that place, His eyes and heart. But as He makes clear in <a href='B:110 9:4-7'>1Ki 9:4-7</a>, that was all conditional upon obedience. This highlights the tragedy- that eternity was at stake. So much depends upon human freewill decisions; for that is how much He respects us and our freedom of choice.</p>


text:
<p>As for you, if you will walk before Me as David your father walked, and do according to all that I have commanded you and will keep My statutes and My ordinances- </p><p>This was a hard act to follow, for David was chosen as being a man after God's own heart. Solomon considered that he was acceptable with God just because of his father, whereas Go wanted him to personally attain his father's spirituality. We note in passing God's high estimation of David, despite David's serious but out of character failings. God constantly warned Solomon about the conditionality of the promises, before the building started (<a href='B:100 7:14'>2Sa 7:14</a>), during it (<a href='B:110 6:11-13'>1Ki 6:11-13</a>) and immediately after completing it (<a href='B:110 9:2-9'>1Ki 9:2-9</a>). Solomon reinterprets this conditional promise in <a href='B:240 20:7'>Pro 20:7</a>: "A righteous man walks in integrity; blessed are his children after him". Solomon has here his own agenda of self justification in view. The man who 'walked in integrity' is without doubt David (s:w. <a href='B:110 9:4'>1Ki 9:4</a>; <a href='B:230 26:1'>Psa 26:1</a>; <a href='B:230 26:11'>Psa 26:11</a>; <a href='B:230 101:2'>Psa 101:2</a>). Solomon assumed that because his father had walked in integrity, then he as his child would automatically be blessed. But he was choosing to misunderstand the conditional nature of the promises to him in <a href='B:110 9:4'>1Ki 9:4</a>; if he walked himself in integrity "as David your father walked", then he would be the prophetically blessed son of David.</p><p>Solomon's prophetic sonship of David was conditional upon him preserving or observing Yahweh's ways (<a href='B:110 2:4'>1Ki 2:4</a>; <a href='B:130 22:13'>1Ch 22:13</a>; <a href='B:140 7:17'>2Ch 7:17</a>); but he didn't preserve of observe them (<a href='B:110 11:10-11'>1Ki 11:10-11</a>); despite David praying that Solomon would be given a heart to observe them (<a href='B:130 29:19'>1Ch 29:19</a>). We can pray for God to work upon the hearts of others, but He will not force people against their own deepest will and heart position. Solomon stresses overmuch how God would keep or preserve the righteous (<a href='B:240 2:8'>Pro 2:8</a>; <a href='B:240 3:26'>Pro 3:26</a>), without recognizing the conditional aspect of this. Why did Solomon go wrong? His Proverbs are true enough, but he stresses that obedience to his wisdom and teaching would preserve his hearers (<a href='B:240 4:4'>Pro 4:4</a>; <a href='B:240 6:22'>Pro 6:22</a>; <a href='B:240 7:1'>Pro 7:1</a>; <a href='B:240 8:32'>Pro 8:32</a>; <a href='B:240 15:5'>Pro 15:5</a>), preservation was through following the example of the wise (<a href='B:240 2:20'>Pro 2:20</a>); rather than stressing obedience to God's ways, and replacing David his father's simple love of God with a love of academic wisdom: "Yahweh preserves all those who love Him" (<a href='B:230 145:20'>Psa 145:20</a>).</p>


text:
<p>then I will establish the throne of your kingdom, according as I covenanted with David your father saying, There shall not fail you a man to be ruler in Israel- </p><p>This is the same quotation made in <a href='B:230 132:12'>Psa 132:12</a>. But God is picking up on Solomon's claims in <a href='B:110 8:24'>1Ki 8:24</a> that God had already fulfilled this. He is pointing out that this promise was conditional, and Solomon had overlooked that. The promise of "a man" suggests one individual; but Solomon was wrong in assuming this referred to himself.</p>


text:
<p>But if you turn away and forsake My statutes and My commandments which I have set before you, and shall go and serve other gods, and worship them- </p><p>This is what Solomon did finally do, and already at this stage he had married Gentile women, whom the law of Moses had warned would lead his heart away from Yahweh to "other gods". But that apparently inevitable process could still be arrested- if Solomon responded in humility to this appeal. We wait with eager ears to hear Solomon's response when the appeal ends in :22. But there is silence; see on :22:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>then I will pluck them up by the roots out of My land which I have given them; and this house, which I have made holy for My name, I will cast out of My sight, and I will make it a proverb and a byword among all peoples- </p><p>Solomon had wrongly reasoned in 2 Chronicles 6 that the grandeur of the temple would attract Gentiles to become proselytes to Yahweh. But God warns him that the very opposite could happen, and the ruined temple would become the biggest possible disadvertisment for Yahweh and His people. Solomon had prayed, and in that prayer taught Israel, that if they sinned even in captivity, then all they had to do was pray towards the temple and they would be forgiven. He saw in that building some kind of atonement for sins. He lost sight of the importance of the blood that made atonement; he replaced the blood of Christ with a work of his own hands:&nbsp; God’s response to the dedication of the temple here corrects what Solomon has just said. He says that if Israel sin then He will cast the temple too out of His sight; which is rather different to how Solomon instructed the people to gain forgiveness for the sake of the temple if they were in dispersion. He saw the temple as a talisman- the need for real, meaningful change and repentance and spiritual mindedness to enable the dwelling of God went unperceived. He failed to perceive the real possibility of the eternal potential he and Israel could miss. They really could be cast out of God's sight in condemnation. Jonah recognized “I am cast out of Your sight” (<a href='B:390 2:4'>Jon 2:4</a>), the very language of condemnation used at his time (<a href='B:120 17:20'>2Ki 17:20</a>; <a href='B:120 21:2'>2Ki 21:2</a>; <a href='B:120 23:27'>2Ki 23:27</a>; <a href='B:300 7:15'>Jer 7:15</a>).</p>


text:
<p>This house, which is so high, everyone who passes by it shall be astonished, and shall say, ‘Why has Yahweh done thus to this land, and to this house?’- </p><p>God parallels the temple and His people in <a href='B:140 7:21-22'>2Ch 7:21-22</a>, saying that if He punishes the temple He will punish the people. Solomon seems to have thought that the temple would still stand favourably in God’s eyes even if the people were punished. The record records that the temple was “perfected” whereas Solomon’s heart wasn’t perfect [s:w:] (<a href='B:110 11:4'>1Ki 11:4</a> cp. <a href='B:140 8:16'>2Ch 8:16</a>).</p><p>This is God's commentary upon the implications in Solomon's prayer that the temple and God's presence within it was to be eternal. Solomon had willfully misinterpreted the promises to David to mean that the temple was the fulfilment of the promise that the seed would build an eternal house. That house David had built was not the house in view, and could easily be destroyed and even become a curse rather than a blessing- if Solomon were disobedient.</p>


text:
<p>They shall answer, ‘Because they abandoned Yahweh, the God of their fathers, who brought them forth out of the land of Egypt, and took other gods, worshipped them, and served them. Therefore He has brought all this evil on them’- </p><p>We wait with eager ears to hear Solomon's response when the appeal ends; but there is silence. Solomon had blanked out from his perception any idea that he might fail or was less than perfect. His narrative was that he was the son of David, and the promises about David's son were now fulfilled in him. And he refused to allow anything, not even an appeal from God, disturb that internal narrative.</p>


text:
<p>It happened at the end of twenty years, in which Solomon had built the house of Yahweh and his own house- </p><p>The way the record of Solomon's house follows straight on from that of God's house (1 Kings 6, 7) seems to highlight the similarity between them. The house of Yahweh and Solomon's house are often spoke of together (e:g. <a href='B:140 7:11'>2Ch 7:11</a>; <a href='B:140 8:1'>2Ch 8:1</a>; <a href='B:140 9:11'>2Ch 9:11</a>):The Temple was smaller than Solomon's house' he took nearly twice as long to build it. Clearly he spent more effort at housing his own glory than he did housing God's. The comparisons are intended to show this. They are listed on <a href='B:140 9:11'>2Ch 9:11</a>.</p><p>Psalms 127 is prefaced with the information that it is a Psalm for Solomon- perhaps given by some nameless prophet (Gad? Nathan?) to warn him of where he was going. Verse 1 reminds him that God must be the builder of any house, or else the builders labour in vain. There is good reason to think that Solomon utterly failed to appreciate this. The records stress time and again that Solomon&nbsp; built the temple (<a href='B:110 6:2'>1Ki 6:2</a>; <a href='B:110 6:14'>1Ki 6:14</a>; <a href='B:110 9:10'>1Ki 9:10</a>; <a href='B:110 9:25'>1Ki 9:25</a>; <a href='B:110 10:4'>1Ki 10:4</a>; <a href='B:130 6:10'>1Ch 6:10</a>; <a href='B:130 6:32'>1Ch 6:32</a>; <a href='B:140 8:1'>2Ch 8:1</a>; <a href='B:140 8:12'>2Ch 8:12</a>; <a href='B:140 9:3'>2Ch 9:3</a>; <a href='B:510 7:47'>Act 7:47</a>); yet the house referred to in the Davidic promises was to be built by God, through David's Messianic Son, the Lord Jesus. Zechariah prophesied at the time of the rebuilding of the physical temple. It is significant, in this context, that <a href='B:450 6:12'>Zec 6:12</a> reminds Israel that the true temple of God will be built by the Branch, the Lord Jesus.</p>


text:
<p>that the cities which Huram had given to Solomon, Solomon built them, and caused the children of Israel to dwell there- </p><p>The record of this is explained in <a href='B:110 9:14'>1Ki 9:14</a> as being in the context of how "Hiram sent to the king one hundred and twenty talents of gold". It seems Solomon became so obsessed with his building projects that he borrowed this money to finance them, and then tried to pay off the debt by giving Hiram the worthless cities of Cabul which were not at all any recompense. We see therefore that all was not quite as opulent and prosperous in Solomon's kingdom as may appear. Solomon had given Hiram these 20 cities in Galilee (<a href='B:110 9:11'>1Ki 9:11</a>), but Hiram had returned them to Solomon. The gift of Israelite cities to a Gentile was not what a true king of Israel should have done, who valued the promises of Israel's eternal inheritance of the promised land. Solomon had come to see all God's promises as fulfilled in him and his amazing city and temple in Jerusalem. And so he devalued the rest of the promises, especially their future, eternal dimension. These cities were inhabited by Canaanites whom Israel hadn't subdued at the time of this 'gift' (<a href='B:100 24:7'>2Sa 24:7</a>; <a href='B:140 8:2'>2Ch 8:2</a>), and so Solomon was giving to Hiram a bunch of problems. These cities were not really under Solomon's authority anyway, he had not subdued the Canaanites there, so passing them to Hiram was giving him a noose around his neck rather than a true present. He called them "Cabul" (<a href='B:110 9:13'>1Ki 9:13</a>). "Cabul" can mean 'pawned', and the idea may be that although in some sense they did belong to Solomon, effectively they didn't because they were inhabited by Canaanites. Hence Hiram returned them to Solomon, with all the damage in relationship that goes with returning a rejected gift. Hence we read here that after this Solomon colonized the cities and sent Israelites to live there. But this was not particularly in obedience to the Divine commands to subjugate the Canaanites, but rather than Solomon was desperate for huge amounts of slave labour with which to fulfil his building projects (see on <a href='B:110 9:21'>1Ki 9:21</a>). .</p>


text:
<p>Solomon went to Hamath Zobah, and prevailed against it- </p><p><a href='B:110 11:4'>1Ki 11:4</a>; <a href='B:110 11:6'>1Ki 11:6</a> clearly states God's opinion that Solomon was not like David: "his heart was not perfect with the Lord his God, as was the&nbsp;heart&nbsp; of David his father::. (he) went not fully after the&nbsp;Lord, as did David his father". This double stress, bearing in&nbsp; mind inspiration's economic use of words, is really making a point. Yet the records of Solomon seem to be framed to show that externally,&nbsp; Solomon&nbsp; was indeed following David; he was obsessed with living out parental expectation, and perhaps the expectation of his society, rather than forging his own relationship with God. 2 Chronicles 8 is a passage&nbsp; which especially makes this point, in that it describes the actions of&nbsp;Solomon&nbsp;in the very&nbsp;language which is used earlier about David.</p><p><a href='B:140 8:3'>2Ch 8:3</a> “Solomon went to Hamath Zobah” = <a href='B:100 8:3'>2Sa 8:3</a> “David smote also Hadadezer the son of Rehob king of Zobah”; <a href='B:140 8:3'>2Ch 8:3</a>&nbsp; "and prevailed" = Same&nbsp; word <a href='B:90 17:30'>1Sa 17:30</a>; <a href='B:140 8:8'>2Ch 8:8</a> Those “whom the children of Israel consumed not, did Solomon make to pay tribute” = <a href='B:100 8:6'>2Sa 8:6</a>&nbsp; “David put garrisons in Syria of Damascus, and the Syrians became servants to David, and brought gifts”; <a href='B:140 8:14'>2Ch 8:14</a> “He appointed according to the ordinance of David his father, the courses of the priests to their service, and the Levites to their charges… for so had David commanded” = <a href='B:130 24:1'>1Ch 24:1</a>; <a href='B:140 9:15-16'>2Ch 9:15-16</a> = <a href='B:100 8:7'>2Sa 8:7</a> “David took the shields of gold that were on the servants of Hadadezer and brought them to Jerusalem”.</p><p>Yet notice too how both David and Solomon dealt with the matter of chariots and horses. Solomon’s weakness for horses was perhaps traceable to David’s. Solomon unashamedly amassed horses and chariots, in direct disobedience to Divine command (<a href='B:50 17:16'>Deu 17:16</a>). When David his father had captured 1000 chariots and horses, he hamstrung 900 of them and retained 100 of them (<a href='B:100 8:4'>2Sa 8:4</a>). He had a conscience about the matter, but thought that 90% obedience wasn’t bad. And the hamstrung horses were likely used for agricultural work and especially for breeding- breeding yet more chariot horses. David’s 90% obedience lead to his son’s 100% disobedience in this matter of chariot horses.</p>


text:
<p>He built Tadmor in the wilderness, and all the storage cities which he built in Hamath- </p><p>Israel was at its largest extent in Solomon's Kingdom; lost land was restored, and the borders re-established (<a href='B:140 9:26'>2Ch 9:26</a>; <a href='B:140 8:4'>2Ch 8:4</a>&nbsp; cp. <a href='B:60 16:3'>Jos 16:3</a>; <a href='B:60 16:5'>Jos 16:5</a>); it was also at its political strongest; nations submitted to Solomon (<a href='B:110 4:20'>1Ki 4:20</a>); Israel was the chief of the nations (<a href='B:110 4:21'>1Ki 4:21</a>). Baalath was in Dan near Gezer (<a href='B:60 19:44'>Jos 19:44</a>), and was built and then populated by Israelites for defensive reasons. Tadmor (AV) is now an oasis in the Syrian desert, on the caravan route from Damascus to the Euphrates. There was no point in building it as a city unless it was to be inhabited by Israelites. But this would have been unpopular, as it meant uprooting Israelites out of their homes and tribal areas and sending them to live in remote outpost. This would have meant Solomon again despised the tribal allotments, which to God were significant. He did the same in his arrangement of the tax administration of the nation, as explained on 1 Kings 4.</p>


text:
<p>Also he built Beth Horon the upper, and Beth Horon the lower, fortified cities, with walls, gates, and bars- </p><p>Solomon loved building and architecture (<a href='B:250 2:4-6'>Ecc 2:4-6</a>; <a href='B:140 8:4-6'>2Ch 8:4-6</a>), therefore his building of God's temple was something he revelled in. But when it came to obeying the clear commands concerning not multiplying horses or wives, Solomon simply disregarded them. Likewise Israel were so sad to lose the temple because “Our holy and our beautiful house::. is burned::. and all our pleasant things are laid waste” (<a href='B:290 64:11'>Isa 64:11</a>). It was God’s house, not theirs. They only mourned for the loss of it insofar as it was a reflection of what they revelled in anyway, as an expression of themselves, rather than a means of worshipping God. By contrast, Paul says that the proof that he had been given a command to preach the Gospel was in the fact that he preached against his own will; he says that if he did it willingly, i:e. because it coincided with his own will, then he had his reward in this life (this is a paraphrase of <a href='B:530 9:17'>1Co 9:17</a> and context).</p>


text:
<p>and Baalath, and all the storage cities that Solomon had, and all the cities for his chariots, and the cities for his horsemen, and all that Solomon desired to build for his pleasure in Jerusalem, and in Lebanon, and in all the land of his dominion- </p><p>The building of store cities by slave labour is exactly what Pharaoh did to the Israelites (<a href='B:20 1:11'>Exo 1:11</a>). The impression is given that he followed Egypt in this way, as well as marrying Pharaoh's daughter and incorporating Egyptian stylism into the temple building, as noted on 1 Kings 8. His love of horses and chariots likewise reflects his love of Egypt, despite it being forbidden for Israel's king in Deuteronomy.</p><p>Solomon's lack of sensitivity to God's word led him to be tragically insensitive to people; in short, he showed no love. The way Solomon raised a "levy" or tribute from Israel, whereby the men of Israel had to serve him one month out of three and 'bear burdens', with 3,300 taskmasters over them (<a href='B:110 5:13-15'>1Ki 5:13-15</a>), who 'bore rule' over (Heb. 'trampled down') the people (<a href='B:110 5:16'>1Ki 5:16</a>)::. is all reminiscent of Samuel's warning about the kind of King which Israel would have. And the language also recalls their bondage in Egypt; note that the levy was also in order to build treasure cities for Solomon, just as Pharaoh did. The Hebrew word for "levy" in <a href='B:110 5:13'>1Ki 5:13</a> strictly means 'a burden causing to faint', and is rendered "taskmaster" in the record of Israel's suffering in Egypt (<a href='B:20 1:11'>Exo 1:11</a>). One even wonders if Solomon's father-in-law- who also happened to be a Pharaoh of Egypt- influenced him (consciously or unconsciously) to act like the Exodus Pharaoh.</p><p>Solomon figuratively chastised the people with whips in the form of the excessive tax he raised in order to build store cities (<a href='B:110 9:15'>1Ki 9:15</a>; <a href='B:110 9:19'>1Ki 9:19</a>), in which to store all his accumulation. Surely this is behind the Lord's parable of the rich fool, devoid of wisdom in practice, who built ever bigger barns because of his lack of understanding about the future Kingdom. The Hebrew for "store cities" (<a href='B:140 8:6'>2Ch 8:6</a>) is also translated "to heap up", strengthening the connection with the rich fool (<a href='B:490 12:15-28'>Luk 12:15-28</a>). That parable stresses the self-centeredness of the fool- just circle all the occurrences of the word "I". A similar over-use of personal pronouns in <a href='B:250 2:4-8'>Ecc 2:4-8</a> makes the same point. <a href='B:250 2:26'>Ecc 2:26</a> records how Solomon reflected that the sinner "heaped up" treasures- using the same word as for his "store cities". He saw his error, but wasn't bothered to do anything about it.</p><p>Solomon loved building (<a href='B:250 2:4-6'>Ecc 2:4-6</a>)- he built cities and buildings because it was “the desire of Solomon which he desired” (<a href='B:110 9:19'>1Ki 9:19</a> AVmg:), i:e. one of his dominant desires. So when we read that it was the desire of Solomon to build the temple (<a href='B:110 9:1'>1Ki 9:1</a>; <a href='B:110 9:11'>1Ki 9:11</a>), he was merely serving God in a way that naturally appealed to him anyway. And when he had finished that desire when the temple was completed (<a href='B:110 9:1'>1Ki 9:1</a>), he was in the same position as when in Ecclesiastes he describes how he indulged every desire up to the very end, and then was left with the emptiness of vanity.</p><p>The fortification of Lebanon was because of the threat from Rezin in Damascus (<a href='B:110 11:24'>1Ki 11:24</a>).</p>


text:
<p>As for all the people who were left of the Hittites, and the Amorites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites, who were not of Israel- </p><p>Of the seven nations earlier listed as inhabiting Canaan, only these five had apparently survived. Two had been absorbed into the Israelite population or destroyed. They were clearly distinct from the "children of Israel". Instead of trying to absorb them into Israel or destroy them, Solomon was so desperate for workers that he capitalized on that situation and demanded they provide him with slaves for his building works, as opposed to the Israelite labour which was classified as 'servants' (:9).</p>


text:
<p>of their children who were left after them in the land, whom the children of Israel didn’t consume, of them Solomon conscripted forced labour to this day- </p><p>This suggests that Solomon made the same mistake as Israel in earlier days- he was a satisficer, he himself married into those tribes, and he wasn’t obedient to the clear covenant of the land which was binding upon him. Solomon's motivation for now bringing the Canaanites into servitude was not spiritual. Rather, as with his borrowing of money from Hiram (see on :2), his obsession with his building plans was such that he needed huge amounts of money and resources to carry them through. And so he colonized the Canaanite areas and made them send him slaves to work on his quarrying and building projects; and this was why, as noted on :2, he was keen to colonize the area of 'Cabul', in order to also provide more dogs body workers for his architectural obsessions.</p>


text:
<p>But of the children of Israel, Solomon made no servants for his work; but they were men of war, and chief of his captains, and rulers of his chariots and of his horsemen- </p><p>This sounds very much like the fulfilment of Samuel's warning as to how a human king would abuse the Israelites. He made the Canaanites slaves (:2,8), but he made the Israelites his servants, to the point of whipping them with whips, as they later complained after his death. The difference between being his slaves and his servants was therefore not that significant.</p><p>Solomon&nbsp;had obsessive tendencies. We know that he became addicted to finding pleasure in women, and Ecclesiastes 2 shows him racing down the road of obsession with architecture, alcohol, food, gold etc. The historical narratives so often mention his gold and silver (e:g. <a href='B:140 9:13-21'>2Ch 9:13-21</a>; <a href='B:140 9:24'>2Ch 9:24</a>; <a href='B:140 9:27'>2Ch 9:27</a>). This repetition reflects Solomon's obsession. The same fact explains the record's repetition of Solomon's enthusiasm for horses (<a href='B:110 10:25-29'>1Ki 10:25-29</a>; <a href='B:110 4:26'>1Ki 4:26</a>; <a href='B:110 4:28'>1Ki 4:28</a>; <a href='B:110 9:19'>1Ki 9:19</a>; <a href='B:110 9:22'>1Ki 9:22</a>; <a href='B:140 1:14'>2Ch 1:14</a>; <a href='B:140 1:16-17'>2Ch 1:16-17</a>; <a href='B:140 8:6'>2Ch 8:6</a>; <a href='B:140 8:9'>2Ch 8:9</a>; <a href='B:140 9:24-25'>2Ch 9:24-25</a>; <a href='B:140 9:28'>2Ch 9:28</a>). Yet amassing of gold, silver and horses was explicitly forbidden for the King of Israel (<a href='B:50 17:17'>Deu 17:17</a>). There is a powerful point to be made here: we can deceive ourselves that God is blessing us, when actually we are breaching explicit commands. Would Solomon had understood the concept of self-examination.</p>


text:
<p>These were the chief officers of king Solomon, even two-hundred and fifty, who ruled over the people- </p><p>The difference with <a href='B:110 9:23'>1Ki 9:23</a> may be because the word for "three" in Hebrew, 'sls', can easily be confused with that for "six" ['ss']. The same confusion is found in <a href='B:140 2:18'>2Ch 2:18</a> cp. <a href='B:110 5:16'>1Ki 5:16</a>. This would appear to be one of the copying errors in these Divinely inspired records.</p><p>But another approach is possible. The number of these overseers varies from 3,300 when the temple was being built (<a href='B:110 5:16'>1Ki 5:16</a>) to 550 in <a href='B:110 9:23'>1Ki 9:23</a> and then 250 in the Chronicles record. I suggested on <a href='B:110 9:14'>1Ki 9:14</a>; <a href='B:110 9:21'>1Ki 9:21</a> that all was not well in Solomon's apparently opulent kingdom. His building obsessions had led him to borrow money from Hiram to find it, and to excessively tax both Israel and the Canaanites amongst them to provide workers. And so the decreasing numbers of overseers may reflect his declining human resources, despite making every effort to try to pressgang more labourers he got fewer and fewer on the jobs in practice.</p>


text:
<p>Solomon brought up the daughter of Pharaoh out of the city of David to the house that he had built for her; for he said, My wife shall not dwell in the house of David king of Israel, because the places where the ark of Yahweh has come are holy- </p><p>If this is the woman of the Song of Solomon, then we can deduce they had a stormy relationship. It apparently ends at the end of Song of Solomon 8 (see notes there), and yet with the hints of resumption. So perhaps it was not a blessed marriage, and Solomon ended up building her a separate house to live in outside his immediate citadel.</p><p>Solomon's lack of self examination and confidence that he could not spiritually fail is reflected in <a href='B:110 11:2-3'>1Ki 11:2-3</a>, where we are reminded that God had said that foreign wives would "surely::. turn away your heart after their gods". How "surely" this would happen was not believed by Solomon. "He had seven hundred wives::. and his wives turned away his heart". He started marrying these foreign wives when he was young; presumably he reasoned that they could never turn away his&nbsp;heart because he was the Son of David, the Messianic King. In <a href='B:240 6:27'>Pro 6:27</a> he soberly warns against the strange (i:e. Gentile) woman, observing that a man cannot take this kind of fire into his bosom and not be burned by it. Yet this is exactly what he was doing at the time he wrote that. His public removal of his Egyptian wife from the house of David "because the places are holy" (<a href='B:140 8:11'>2Ch 8:11</a>) is therefore to be seen as spiritual pride, appearing to do the right thing, when his heart was far from it.</p>


text:
<p>Then Solomon offered burnt offerings to Yahweh on the altar of Yahweh, which he had built before the porch- </p><p>"Three times a year" in :13 surely refers to the three main feasts, Passover, Pentecost and Tabernacles. No longer were the "high places" like Gibeon used, but worship was centralized in Jerusalem. This was indeed as the law of Moses intended, but Solomon appears to have used this as part of his policy of centralization of power in Jerusalem which we discussed on 1 Kings 4. We note that Solomon seems to have officiated as a priest as David did. David had done this kind of thing, but from careful reflection upon the spirit of the law, whose letter he says in Psalms 119 he studied constantly. And David came to this sense through careful reflection upon God's grace to him, and through the experience of Uzzah's death as a result of taking 'living the spirit of the law' too far. But Solomon does it from a wrong assumption that he is the Messianic king-priest.</p>


text:
<p>even as the duty of every day required, offering according to the commandment of Moses, on the Sabbaths, and on the new moons, and on the set feasts, three times in the year, in the feast of unleavened bread, and in the feast of weeks, and in the feast of tents- </p><p>The idea is "sacrificing at the daily rate, according to the direction of Moses". And yet the scale of the arrangements for the priests, the altar, multiples tables, lavers etc. all implied that the whole structure was built to facilitate sacrifice on a far larger scale than in the tabernacle. If indeed they offered the number of sacrifices stipulated in the law of Moses, then all the grand scale was mere opulence and religious show.</p>


text:
<p>He appointed, according to the ordinance of David his father, the divisions of the priests to their service, and the Levites to their offices, to praise, and to minister before the priests, as the duty of every day required; the doorkeepers also by their divisions at every gate; for so had David the man of God commanded- </p><p>The language here reflects how Solomon had effectively replaced God's word through Moses with the obsessive fantasy of his father David. Things were appointed not according to ordinance of Moses, but of David.</p><p>Solomon's&nbsp; zealous&nbsp; organization&nbsp; of&nbsp; the&nbsp; temple worship was an exact&nbsp; fulfillment&nbsp; of the order laid down by his father David (<a href='B:110 7:51'>1Ki 7:51</a>; <a href='B:140 7:6'>2Ch 7:6</a>; <a href='B:140 8:14'>2Ch 8:14</a>). Solomon wanted God to bless the temple&nbsp;as&nbsp;a sign&nbsp;of His pleasure with David his father (e:g. <a href='B:140 6:42'>2Ch 6:42</a>). Solomon's&nbsp; personal&nbsp; enthusiasm for service to God became subsumed by the huge psychological spiritual dominance of his&nbsp; parents. His zeal for the temple was almost purely a result of living out his father's expectation; he almost admits as much in&nbsp; <a href='B:110 8:20'>1Ki 8:20</a>: "I&nbsp; am&nbsp;risen&nbsp;up in&nbsp; the room of David my father::. and have (therefore, in the context) built an house for the&nbsp; name&nbsp; of&nbsp; the&nbsp; Lord".</p>


text:
<p>They didn’t depart from the commandment of the king to the priests and Levites concerning any matter, or concerning the treasures- </p><p>As noted on :14, the obedience was to David and his vision, rather than to the word of God through Moses.</p>


text:
<p>Now all the work of Solomon was prepared to the day of the foundation of the house of Yahweh, and until it was finished. So the house of Yahweh was completed- </p><p>God said that He accepted the temple not so much as a place to dwell in (as Solomon assumed it was) but as a place facilitating sacrifice, prayer etc:, for the glorification of His Name through these things; He emphasized that He dwelt amongst His people (<a href='B:110 6:13'>1Ki 6:13</a>; <a href='B:140 7:12-16'>2Ch 7:12-16</a>). There are several other places where God’s response to Solomon’s words seems to be corrective rather than affirmatory. Thus Solomon says that God will hear the prayers of His people because the temple is called by God’s Name; but God’s response is that “my people, which are called by my name” would pray to Him themselves and be heard, quite apart from the temple (<a href='B:140 6:33'>2Ch 6:33</a> cp. 7:14). He sees them as bearing His Name rather than the temple building, as Solomon perceived it. God goes on to parallel the temple and His people in <a href='B:140 7:21-22'>2Ch 7:21-22</a>, saying that if He punishes the temple He will punish the people. Solomon seems to have thought that the temple would still stand favourably in God’s eyes even if the people were punished. The record records that the temple was “perfected” whereas Solomon’s heart wasn’t perfect [s:w:] (<a href='B:110 11:4'>1Ki 11:4</a> cp. <a href='B:140 8:16'>2Ch 8:16</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Then went Solomon to Ezion Geber, and to Eloth, on the seashore in the land of Edom-</p><p>Transporting ships overland was relatively common; there are several accounts of Alexander the Great doing so. Perhaps Hiram had transported his ships there overland through Israel, and Solomon decided to have them build ships for him at their port of departure, so that his traders could accompany the men of Tyre. The ships were perhaps "sent" (:18) in the form of wooden structures which were then assembled at the port.</p>


text:
<p>Huram sent him ships and servants who had knowledge of the sea by the hands of his servants; and they came with the servants of Solomon to Ophir, and fetched from there four hundred and fifty talents of gold, and brought them to king Solomon- </p><p><a href='B:110 9:28'>1Ki 9:28</a> says 420, but perhaps the 30 talents difference were paid to Hiram for his transport services, as the navy&nbsp; appears to have either been owned by Hiram or at least included his ships. "Ophir" may have been a generic name for areas to the east, including southern Arabia (famed for gold in <a href='B:230 72:15'>Psa 72:15</a>; <a href='B:330 27:22'>Eze 27:22</a>) and India; Ophir was in Arabia according to <a href='B:10 10:29'>Gen 10:29</a>. Sheba was nearby and was famed for gold, so it was through this trading that the Queen of Sheba heard of the wisdom of Solomon. The next verse (<a href='B:140 9:1'>2Ch 9:1</a>) goes on to speak of her, connecting her with this gold trade with Ophir.</p>


text:
<p>When the queen of Sheba heard of the fame of Solomon, she came to Jerusalem to prove Solomon with hard questions, with a very great train, and camels that bore spices, and gold in abundance and precious stones. When she had come to Solomon, she talked with him of all that was in her heart- </p><p>As explained on <a href='B:140 8:18'>2Ch 8:18</a>, she would have first encountered Solomon's servants when they came to Sheba in search of gold, for which Sheba was famous. "Hard questions" is the word for "riddle". And it seems Solomon answered her riddles using his book of Proverbs. For he uses the word in <a href='B:240 1:5-6'>Pro 1:5-6</a> about how his Divinely inspired Proverbs were the answers to such "riddles" of the wise: "These proverbs can even add to the knowledge of the wise and give guidance to the educated,&nbsp;so that they can understand the hidden meanings of proverbs and the problems [s:w. "riddles", "hard questions"] that the wise raise" (GNB). He may have this wise queen of Sheba in mind, as it was her who raised these "riddles" / "problems" with him. The Hebrew idea seems to be of trick questions. She came to "prove" him- what we read of in this chapter is the conversion of a sceptic, but she ws converted not so much by the ideas, the intellectual gymnastics, but what she saw with her own eyes of the effect of that wisdom. "No more spirit in her" (:4) could imply a giving up in a mental fight against Solomon. She initially didn't believe the words about Solomon (:6).</p>


text:
<p>Solomon told her all her questions; and there was not anything hidden from Solomon which he didn’t tell her- </p><p>"Questions" is a poor translation. Literally, her 'words', s:w. "communed" in :1. He told her the words she had in her mind before she said them. This is the way good conversation goes, this is how people are won for Christ- when you tell them things which they were about to say. Paul uses this method when he foresees and answers questions which he foresees, e:g. "Some man will say, How are the dead raised up?" (<a href='B:530 15:35'>1Co 15:35</a>). "Told her" translates the word used for solving riddles (<a href='B:70 14:13'>Jdg 14:13</a>) and interpreting dreams (<a href='B:10 41:24'>Gen 41:24</a>; <a href='B:340 5:12'>Dan 5:12</a>).</p>


text:
<p>When the queen of Sheba had seen the wisdom of Solomon, and the house that he had built- </p><p>The next verse suggests the "house" she was amazed at was not so much the temple, as his own house which had taken nearly twice as long to build and was of a grander nature than the temple. Yet he had prayed in 1 Kings 8 that the temple would be the source of wonder for the Gentile world, and would of itself bring about the creation of proselytes for Yahweh. But in reality it was replaced by his own house. We note how she was impressed by 'seeing' his wisdom; she had heard it in theory (:1), but it is the word made flesh which has the power of personal conversion in practice.</p><p>"Seen the wisdom" shows how wisdom and truth are seen in practice, not just heard with the ear. Only as the word becomes flesh in us will our witness of that word be ultimately persuasive to our audience.</p>


text:
<p>and the food of his table, and the sitting of his servants, and the attendance of his ministers and their clothing, his cup bearers also and their clothing, and his ascent by which he went up to the house of Yahweh; there was no more spirit in her- </p><p>See on :1. Clearly 'spirit' here means something other than the life force, it refers to something mental and emotional. The way the Queen of Sheba was given a guided tour of Solomon's wealth makes ominous connection with Hezekiah's proud parading of his blessings to the Babylonian ambassadors. The "ascent" was the king's personal entry into the temple (<a href='B:120 16:18'>2Ki 16:18</a>) and Hezekiah is also associated with this in that he wrote the songs of degrees after his healing. They allude to how the sun went back on the sundial of Ahaz, which appears to have been a development of these grandiose steps of the king's entrance to the temple into a sundial. See on :11.</p>


text:
<p>She said to the king, It was a true report that I heard in my own land of your acts and of your wisdom- </p><p>"Report" is s:w. 'word', see note on :3. Hearing reports, wisdom in mere words, is not persuasive of itself until it is seen in practice. The actual content of Solomon's wisdom, perhaps in the form of the writings we now have as the book of Proverbs, had already been taken to her. She had heard the words by "report", but "didn't believe the words" (:6) until she actually saw the word made flesh. And this is typical of so many people. It is why God speaks His word to us now "in His Son", and why our witness will be the more effective if we make the word flesh in our lives.</p>


text:
<p>However I didn’t believe their words until I came, and my eyes had seen it; and behold, the half of the greatness of your wisdom wasn’t told me: you exceed the fame that I heard-</p><p>As explained on :5, it is hard for people to believe mere words. They have to see the word made flesh. This is why simply distributing propositional truths on various media will not of itself convert many people. The word must be made flesh, and then it is believed. This is why the person of the Lord Jesus, the word made flesh, must be absolutely and utterly paramount in our teaching of the Gospel. And it is why public lecturing about various Gospel truths will never convert as many people as witnessing that word in the flesh. It is encounter with real persons which converts real persons, rather than encounter with words and ideas. That is not to say God's word is not alive and powerful of itself. But people are people, they are weak, and often they have lacked access to God's word in its written form. It is the word made flesh in believers of that word which will be the most powerful witness in practice. By seeing the theory turned into practice, the word made flesh, she was converted.</p>


text:
<p>Happy are your men- </p><p>It is as if she wishes to see David's words about the blessedness or happiness of the righteous nation and people being fulfilled, or perhaps it was Solomon trying to fulfil those words (<a href='B:230 1:1'>Psa 1:1</a>; <a href='B:230 33:12'>Psa 33:12</a> etc:). But it seems this was all an impression Solomon was giving her, for many things were "rotten in the state of Denmark" as noted throughout 1 Kings 8, 9. LXX gives "wives" for "men", as if she was struck by the happiness of the wives in his harem, which was unusual. But surely this too was only an appearance, because Ecclesiastes betrays an unhappy family life in Solomon's experience.</p><p>And happy are these your servants who stand continually before you, and hear your wisdom- </p><p>Joy / happiness is a proof of wisdom in practice. Acts records constant joy amongst those who accepted Christ, and <a href='B:650 3:6'>Heb 3:6</a> implies that to stop rejoicing in the hope means we have lost the spiritual plot completely. Joy is therefore a necessary hallmark of those who are truly secured in Christ. The next generation were to complain that Solomon had chastised the people with whips (<a href='B:110 12:11'>1Ki 12:11</a>). The happiness of the people which the Queen of Sheba observed was therefore just an impression Solomon arranged for her to receive.</p>


text:
<p>Blessed be Yahweh your God, who delighted in you to set you on His throne, to be king for Yahweh your God: because your God loved Israel to establish them forever, therefore He made you king over them, to do justice and righteousness- </p><p>These are identical words as in <a href='B:110 5:7'>1Ki 5:7</a>, of Hiram's response. We are given the impression that they became proselytes because they used the Yahweh Name; although polytheists could take the name of other gods, such as Yahweh, without it meaning they had accepted them as their own gods.</p><p>Because of God's enthusiasm for human response to His ways, the exalted language in which He describes believers, even in their weakness, is a further essay in His humility. The way the Father runs to the prodigal and falls on his neck in tears is a superb essay in this (<a href='B:490 15:20'>Luk 15:20</a>). Thus God "delighted" in Solomon- translating a Hebrew word meaning literally 'to bend down to'. It's used about men in love (<a href='B:10 34:19'>Gen 34:19</a>; <a href='B:50 21:14'>Deu 21:14</a>; <a href='B:50 25:7'>Deu 25:7</a>), and about Jonathan's deferential attitude to David (<a href='B:90 19:2'>1Sa 19:2</a>).</p><p>Although Israel's desire for a human king was a rejection of God as king, yet God worked through that situation rather than reject them as they had rejected Him. He accepted the human kingdom of Israel as His Kingdom on earth. It was God's wish that Israel would not have a human king; hence His sorrow when they did (<a href='B:90 10:19-21'>1Sa 10:19-21</a>). Yet in the Law, God foresaw that they would want a human king, and so He gave commandments concerning how he should behave (<a href='B:50 17:14-15'>Deu 17:14-15</a>). These passages speak of how Israel would choose to set a King over themselves, and would do so. Yet God worked through this system of human kings; hence the Queen of Sheba speaks of how God had set Solomon over Israel as King, and how he was king on God's behalf (<a href='B:140 9:8'>2Ch 9:8</a>). Israel set a king over themselves; but God worked with this, so that in a sense He&nbsp;set the King over them.</p><p>"To establish them forever" shows that she perceived that God's intention was that Solomon's kingdom should be eternal, that he should be the full fulfilment of the Messianic Kingdom and King promised to David. But Israel later complained of how Solomon abused them, and his happy servants of :7 turned against his son, complaining of how harshly Solomon abused them. The great potential wasn't achieved, and so God's prophetic word was delayed and fulfilled a different way in Jesus.</p>


text:
<p>She gave the king one hundred and twenty talents of gold, and spices in great abundance, and precious stones. Neither was there any such spice as the queen of Sheba gave to king Solomon- </p><p>This was about one third of his annual income (:13), which could imply she was more wealthy than he was. This note seems to imply that spices were never again imported into Israel, the implication being as Josephus states (Antiquities, 8:6:6), "that the cultivation of the balsam in Palestine dates from this visit; the plant having been one of the queen’s gifts".</p>


text:
<p>The servants also of Huram, and the servants of Solomon, who brought gold from Ophir, brought algum trees and precious stones- </p><p>"Almug" appears to refer to sandalwood, "the Hebraized form of the Deccan word for sandal". This points to "Ophir" as being in the east, possibly as far as the Indian coast where these trees grow.</p>


text:
<p>The king made of the algum trees terraces for the house of Yahweh and for the king’s house, and harps and stringed instruments for the singers. There were none like these seen before in the land of Judah- </p><p>The idea is of a magnificent staircase with elaborate banisters. This appears to be the king's "ascent" into the temple which so amazed the queen of Sheba (:4). This verse is referring back before her visit, because the almug trees were brought for the temple and for the king's house, which were already built by the time she visited.</p><p>The way the record of Solomon's house follows straight on from that of God's house (1 Kings 6, 7) seems to highlight the similarity between them. The house of Yahweh and Solomon's house are often spoke of together (e:g. <a href='B:140 7:11'>2Ch 7:11</a>; <a href='B:140 8:1'>2Ch 8:1</a>; <a href='B:140 9:11'>2Ch 9:11</a>):The Temple was smaller than Solomon's house' he took nearly twice as long to build it. Clearly he spent more effort at housing his own glory than he did housing God's. The comparisons are intended to show this. The following comparisons put the temple first, and then Solomon's house.</p><p>Length: 60 cubits, breadth 20, height 30 (<a href='B:110 6:2'>1Ki 6:2</a>)cp:Length: 100 cubits, breadth 50, height 30 (<a href='B:110 7:2'>1Ki 7:2</a>)</p><p>Used cedar pillars and beams (<a href='B:110 6:9-10'>1Ki 6:9-10</a>) cp. <a href='B:110 7:2'>1Ki 7:2</a></p><p>Inner court built with three rows of hewn stone and a row of cedar beams (<a href='B:110 6:36'>1Ki 6:36</a> RV) cp. “The great court round about had three rows of hewn stones, and a row of cedar beams, like as the inner court of the house of the Lord” (<a href='B:110 7:12'>1Ki 7:12</a>)</p><p>Hiram called in to build it (<a href='B:110 5:1-5'>1Ki 5:1-5</a>)cp. <a href='B:110 7:13'>1Ki 7:13</a></p><p>The Most Holy within God's house (<a href='B:110 7:8'>1Ki 7:8</a>)cp:The "another court within the porch" in his house seems to have been a replica of the Most Holy within God's house. Here Solomon’s wives worshipped their idols.</p><p>Built on large foundation stones cp. The record of the foundation stones (7:10) is similar to that of the temple foundations.</p><p>The temple had a “porch” (<a href='B:330 8:7'>Eze 8:7</a>; <a href='B:330 8:16'>Eze 8:16</a>) cp. The porch of Solomon's house matches that of the temple (<a href='B:330 8:7'>Eze 8:7</a>; <a href='B:330 8:16'>Eze 8:16</a>), which in Ezekiel's time was a place of apostacy.</p><p>Open flowers design of the temple&nbsp;cp. The two pillars with their pomegranates and lily-work seem to have matched the open flowers of the temple, and they have ominous connections with Absalom's pillar of self-glorification (<a href='B:100 18:18'>2Sa 18:18</a>).</p>


text:
<p>King Solomon gave to the queen of Sheba all her desire, whatever she asked, besides that which she had brought to the king. So she returned to her own land, she and her servants-</p><p>"She returned" is s:w. 'to be converted'. She became a proselyte. It is unclear whether this was a genuine gift, or whether it was part of a trade deal. For she had brought a huge caravan of gifts, and in return Solomon gave her what she asked for, as well as his own presents ("his royal bounty"). According to Ethiopian tradition, Solomon slept with the queen of Sheba and she bore Solomon a son called Melimelek. It is possible to interpret Psalms 45 as a reference to Solomon's relationship with the Queen of Sheba.</p>


text:
<p>Now the weight of gold that came to Solomon in one year was six hundred and sixty-six talents of gold- </p><p>This number occurs in the description of the number and mark of the beast in <a href='B:730 13:18'>Rev 13:18</a>. It is one of the biggest hints that in fact Solomon's kingdom was the kingdom of the flesh, and not at all God's Kingdom as had been promised to David. The apostate religious system called "Babylon" in Revelation is evidently presented in the language of Solomon - at the time his kingdom was apparently flourishing, due to his righteousness. <a href='B:110 10:14'>1Ki 10:14</a> = <a href='B:730 13:17-18'>Rev 13:17-18</a>; <a href='B:110 10:23'>1Ki 10:23</a> = <a href='B:730 18:11-12'>Rev 18:11-12</a>; <a href='B:730 18:15'>Rev 18:15</a>; <a href='B:110 11:1-2'>1Ki 11:1-2</a> = <a href='B:730 17:1-2'>Rev 17:1-2</a>; <a href='B:110 10:22'>1Ki 10:22</a> = <a href='B:730 18:17'>Rev 18:17</a>; <a href='B:730 18:19'>Rev 18:19</a>; <a href='B:110 10:23'>1Ki 10:23</a> = <a href='B:730 18:3'>Rev 18:3</a>; <a href='B:730 18:17'>Rev 18:17</a>; <a href='B:110 10:21-22'>1Ki 10:21-22</a> = <a href='B:730 18:12'>Rev 18:12</a>; <a href='B:110 10:11'>1Ki 10:11</a> = <a href='B:730 18:12'>Rev 18:12</a>; <a href='B:110 10:22'>1Ki 10:22</a> = <a href='B:730 18:12'>Rev 18:12</a>; <a href='B:110 10:10'>1Ki 10:10</a>; <a href='B:110 10:25'>1Ki 10:25</a> = <a href='B:730 18:13'>Rev 18:13</a>; <a href='B:110 10:23'>1Ki 10:23</a> = <a href='B:730 18:3'>Rev 18:3</a>; <a href='B:730 18:9'>Rev 18:9</a>; <a href='B:110 10:28'>1Ki 10:28</a> = <a href='B:730 18:12'>Rev 18:12</a>; <a href='B:110 9:22'>1Ki 9:22</a> = <a href='B:730 18:13'>Rev 18:13</a>. These allusions of themselves suggest Solomon's spirituality was a mere appearance. The latter day system which his kingdom looked ahead to may therefore be Jewish or Jerusalem based, with elements of apparent obedience to God.</p><p><a href='B:140 3:8'>2Ch 3:8</a> says that Solomon used 600 talents of gold on the temple. Seeing he received 666 talents / year, plus the large income from :16, this means that it was not particularly generous. One talent is 26 kilograms (57 pounds). 1 kilogram of gold is currently worth about 40,000 US$ [2020].</p>


text:
<p>besides that which the traders and merchants brought. All the kings of Arabia and the governors of the country brought gold and silver to Solomon- </p><p>LXX understand this as tribute, the taxes he charged on trading with his ships or through his territory; and in addition there was the income from the taxation system described in 1 Kings 4.</p>


text:
<p>King Solomon made two hundred large shields of beaten gold; six hundred shekels of beaten gold went to one large shield- </p><p>The apostate religious system called "Babylon" in Revelation is evidently presented in the language of Solomon - at the time his kingdom was apparently flourishing, due to his righteousness. <a href='B:110 10:14'>1Ki 10:14</a> = <a href='B:730 13:17-18'>Rev 13:17-18</a>; <a href='B:110 10:23'>1Ki 10:23</a> = <a href='B:730 18:11-12'>Rev 18:11-12</a>; <a href='B:730 18:15'>Rev 18:15</a>; <a href='B:110 11:1-2'>1Ki 11:1-2</a> = <a href='B:730 17:1-2'>Rev 17:1-2</a>; <a href='B:110 10:22'>1Ki 10:22</a> = <a href='B:730 18:17'>Rev 18:17</a>; <a href='B:730 18:19'>Rev 18:19</a>; <a href='B:110 10:23'>1Ki 10:23</a> = <a href='B:730 18:3'>Rev 18:3</a>; <a href='B:730 18:17'>Rev 18:17</a>; <a href='B:110 10:21-22'>1Ki 10:21-22</a> = <a href='B:730 18:12'>Rev 18:12</a>; <a href='B:110 10:11'>1Ki 10:11</a> = <a href='B:730 18:12'>Rev 18:12</a>; <a href='B:110 10:22'>1Ki 10:22</a> = <a href='B:730 18:12'>Rev 18:12</a>; <a href='B:110 10:10'>1Ki 10:10</a>; <a href='B:110 10:25'>1Ki 10:25</a> = <a href='B:730 18:13'>Rev 18:13</a>; <a href='B:110 10:23'>1Ki 10:23</a> = <a href='B:730 18:3'>Rev 18:3</a>; <a href='B:730 18:9'>Rev 18:9</a>; <a href='B:110 10:28'>1Ki 10:28</a> = <a href='B:730 18:12'>Rev 18:12</a>; <a href='B:110 9:22'>1Ki 9:22</a> = <a href='B:730 18:13'>Rev 18:13</a>; <a href='B:140 9:15'>2Ch 9:15</a> (666) = <a href='B:730 13:18'>Rev 13:18</a>. These allusions of themselves suggest Solomon was fairly wrotten from the start, and his spirituality a mere appearance.</p>


text:
<p>He made three hundred other shields of beaten gold; three hundred shekels of gold went to one shield: and the king put them in the house of the forest of Lebanon- </p><p><a href='B:110 10:17'>1Ki 10:17</a> says that "three minas of gold went to one shield". <a href='B:140 9:16'>2Ch 9:16</a> says they weighed 300 shekels each, meaning that one mina was 100 shekels; although the definitions seemed to vary over time (<a href='B:330 45:12'>Eze 45:12</a>). There were 60 shekels to one talent. But this hanging of shields on the walls was exactly what was done in Tyre (<a href='B:330 27:11-12'>Eze 27:11-12</a>), so as noted earlier, it seems Solomon was copying Tyre as well as other Gentiles. <a href='B:260 4:4'>Son 4:4</a> speaks of 1000 shields hanging "on the tower of David". This may be an exaggerated number, or it could be that these shields combined with those David had taken (see on :16) were 1000 in number.</p><p><a href='B:290 2:6-13'>Isa 2:6-13</a> condemns Israel for their pride whilst making many allusions to Solomon: "Full of silver and gold, neither is there any end of their treasures::. full of horses::. chariots::. idols::. the work of their own hands::. the cedars of Lebanon" (i:e. Solomon's armoury of <a href='B:110 7:2-3'>1Ki 7:2-3</a>; <a href='B:110 10:17'>1Ki 10:17</a>). The amount of cedar used for Solomon's house as well as the temple would have probably resulted in the deforestation of parts of Lebanon in order to provide this number of mature cedar trees. To cover an area of 100 x 50 cubits (<a href='B:110 7:2'>1Ki 7:2</a>) with a roof of cedar (<a href='B:110 7:3'>1Ki 7:3</a>) would have required 5000 square cubits of cedar wood if it were a flat roof, and more if the roof was angled; although it could be that not all the area was covered, i:e. there may have been a courtyard:&nbsp;But if it was, then we can better understand why it was called "the house of the forest of Lebanon" (<a href='B:110 10:17'>1Ki 10:17</a>; <a href='B:290 22:8'>Isa 22:8</a>). About a whole forest of Lebanon would have been felled and transported to Jerusalem for all this building work.</p>


text:
<p>Moreover the king made a great throne of ivory, and overlaid it with pure gold- </p><p>"Ivory" is literally "tooth". It was likely made of wood overlaid with ivory and then gold, just as the 'house of ivory' (<a href='B:110 22:39'>1Ki 22:39</a>) and 'bed of ivory' (<a href='B:370 6:4'>Amo 6:4</a>) were likewise not made of solid ivory. Ivory thrones were typical of the kings of Assyria, and we wonder if again this is evidence of pagan influence upon Solomon. God had promised to establish David's throne for ever, and Solomon wrongly assumed this was fulfilled in him and therefore he glorified his literal throne. This is typical of his total lack of spiritual perspective.</p>


text:
<p>And there were six steps to the throne, with a footstool of gold, which were fastened to the throne, and stays on either side by the place of the seat, and two lions standing beside the stays- </p><p>The six steps stressed the elevation of the throne. It is God's throne which alone is exalted (<a href='B:290 6:1'>Isa 6:1</a>). But Solomon justified his self exaltation on the basis that he had been exalted by God, and his throne was God's throne. He repeatedly refused to accept the conditionality of what had been promised to him. The two lions were surely part of the 12 lions of :20. Clearly two of the 12 lions [tribes of Israel] were seen as more exalted. This implies the supremacy of Judah over the ten tribes- and yet this kind of human point scoring was built in to what was supposed to be a replica of God's throne. Solomon was quite unawed by God's glory. For if he had been, he would have realized that before Him, all the tribes were equal.</p><p>Here Solomon starts to play God, because the idea of having a throne over the 12 tribes of Israel with a footstool is the language of God's throne. The porch of Solomon's house matches that of the temple (<a href='B:330 8:7'>Eze 8:7</a>; <a href='B:330 8:16'>Eze 8:16</a>), which in Ezekiel's time was a place of apostacy. Solomon's own house was undeniably larger than God's, although built with the same layout (e:g. <a href='B:110 6:2'>1Ki 6:2</a> cp. 7:2;&nbsp; 6:36 cp. 7:12;&nbsp; 5:1-5 cp. 7:13). The "another court within the porch" in his house seems to have been a replica of the Most Holy within God's house (<a href='B:110 7:8'>1Ki 7:8</a>), yet it was here that Solomon's wives worshipped their idols. Likewise the record of the foundation stones (7:10) is similar to that of the temple foundations:&nbsp;&nbsp; The two pillars with their pomegranates and lily-work seem to have matched the open flowers of the temple, and they have ominous connections with Absalom's pillar of self-glorification (<a href='B:100 18:18'>2Sa 18:18</a>). Worst of all, Solomon's throne seems to have been built with allusion to Yahweh's enthronement upon the praises of Israel in the Most Holy. The temple steps are mentioned in the context of the steps to Solomon's throne (<a href='B:140 9:4'>2Ch 9:4</a>; <a href='B:140 9:18'>2Ch 9:18</a>).<strong></strong></p>


text:
<p>Twelve lions stood there on both sides of the six steps: there was nothing like it made in any kingdom- </p><p>This extraordinary throne received so much attention from Solomon because he was convinced that the promises about David's throne being eternal were fulfilled in him. And so he effectively portrayed it as God's throne, with the 12 lions representing the tribes of Israel ruled over by him. After the division of the kingdom, the throne would have been a sad piece of furniture. But the 12 lions were found on each side of the steps, making 24. This is a number associated with the throne room of God, with 24 elders or division of Angels before it (<a href='B:730 4:4'>Rev 4:4</a>; <a href='B:730 5:8'>Rev 5:8</a>; <a href='B:730 11:16'>Rev 11:16</a>; <a href='B:730 19:4'>Rev 19:4</a>). Perhaps Solomon was aware of this, and so he was making his throne an imitation of God's. The lion was specifically the symbol of Judah (<a href='B:10 49:9'>Gen 49:9</a>); again, Solomon was inserting a subtext of Judah's domination of the rest of Israel. All Israel were to fall under the overall characterization of Judah.</p><p>If there were 12 lions on each side of the throne on each of the six steps then we have a total of 144 lions. The 144,000 before God's throne was an allusion to how royalty considered 144 a significant number. Solomon was acting as God, assuming his kingdom was the Kingdom of God, that he was the promised Messiah son of David, yet without the spirituality required for that. When have we played God?</p><p>The way Solomon built a huge physical throne, defended by impressive lions of his own creation (<a href='B:110 10:19-20'>1Ki 10:19-20</a>), rather indicates how he missed the entire point- of ruling on God's throne, over a dynasty or 'throne' which God would perpetuate by grace; rather than establishing or creating the throne himself.</p>


text:
<p>All king Solomon’s drinking vessels were of gold, and all the vessels of the house of the forest of Lebanon were of pure gold. Silver was nothing accounted of in the days of Solomon- </p><p>However, Solomon only received 666 talents of gold / year (:13); and Alexander’s pillage of Ectabana was estimated at 120,000 talents of gold. So Solomon's wealth was not so great, relatively speaking. But it appeared like that, relative to the earlier poverty of a subsistence farming economy like Israel had been before Solomon.</p><p>“He that loves silver (as Solomon did, <a href='B:250 2:8'>Ecc 2:8</a>; <a href='B:110 10:21-29'>1Ki 10:21-29</a>) shall not be satisfied with silver (as he wasn’t- see Ecclesiastes 2); nor he that loves abundance (s:w. used about the abundance of Solomon’s wives, <a href='B:140 11:23'>2Ch 11:23</a>) with increase. When goods increase, they are increased that eat them (cp. the large numbers at his table, <a href='B:110 4:27'>1Ki 4:27</a>)” (<a href='B:250 5:10-11'>Ecc 5:10-11</a>). The Hebrew word translated “not be satisfied” occurs around 25 times in the Proverbs, with Solomon warning of how the way of the flesh couldn’t satisfy. Solomon said all this with an eye on himself. He preached it to others, he felt deeply the truth of it, but he saw no personal way out of it. All he had was the accurate knowledge of his situation, but no real motivation to change- like the alcoholic or drug abuser who knows every aspect of the harm of his habit.</p>


text:
<p>For the king had ships that went to Tarshish with the servants of Huram; once every three years came the ships of Tarshish, bringing gold, silver, ivory, and apes, and peacocks- </p><p>The abundance of gold and silver is explained on the basis of the fact that Solomon had a "navy of Tarshish" along with that of Hiram. And along with the gold and silver therefore came ivory, apes and peacocks. The association of these five items together points to trading with areas to the south and east of Israel. There is no way that "Tarshish" can refer to Britain because these items are simply not found there in abundance, and apes and elephants [for the ivory] are hardly natives of Britain. The word for "peacocks" appears to be a Hebraized form of an Indian word. The location of the trading partners is consistently areas to the south and east of Israel, not to the west. "Tarshish" may not in this context refer to a particular location. Rather is it a play on the meaning of the word, 'endurance / long distance', and refers to long distance trading vessels; just as in the 19th century, such vessels were known as "Indiamen", even if they were not bound for India. Likewise minibuses in the USSR were known as "Latvias" but that didn't mean they were located in Latvia nor were going there. Comparing <a href='B:140 8:18'>2Ch 8:18</a> and <a href='B:110 9:26'>1Ki 9:26</a>, it seems that the navy of Solomon was initially based around the navy of Hiram. Hiram had transported his ships to the sea overland through Israel, and Solomon decided to have them build ships for him at their port of departure, so that his traders could accompany the men of Tyre. The ships were perhaps "sent" in the form of wooden structures which were then assembled at the port. But then Solomon began to have the men of Tyre build him his own ships, so that his navy was separate to that of Hiram. But they journeyed together, trading up and down the gulf and as far as India; returning every three years to port and transporting their valuable profits overland back to Israel and thence to Tyre. Each visit to a port would have taken some time, and they would have gained the gold, silver etc. through trading rather than thieving. So they would have bought good from one place and sold them at another, and after three years they had accumulated boats full of gold and silver which amounted to their profits.</p>


text:
<p>So king Solomon exceeded all the kings of the earth in riches and wisdom- </p><p>These are the kings of the earth / land promised to Abraham, which is the same reference of :23. These are the kings of :25 LXX "and he ruled over all the kings from the river to the land of the Philistines, and to the borders of Egypt". The river Euphrates and the borders of Egypt were the eretz promised to Abraham.</p>


text:
<p>All the kings of the earth sought the presence of Solomon, to hear his wisdom, which God had put in his heart- </p><p>This refers to the earth / land promised to Abraham, the eretz of :22. As with the queen of Sheba, we note that they wanted to hear his wisdom from his actual mouth, in his presence; rather than just hear the ideas, which could easily enough have been relayed by word of mouth or even in writing. But for most people, the word has to become flesh to be persuasive. And so it is that God speaks to us in His Son, having earlier spoken solely through His written word. And our preaching of the word is likewise so far more effective through it being made flesh in us, as it was in the Lord, rather than being solely communicated through the written medium.</p>


text:
<p>They brought each man his tribute, vessels of silver, and vessels of gold, and clothing, armour, and spices, horses, and mules, a rate year by year- </p><p>The nations traded their material wealth for spiritual instruction, coming annually to Jerusalem for instruction (<a href='B:140 9:23-24'>2Ch 9:23-24</a>). "A rate" would suggest Solomon began to charge for his wisdom- when it was God's wisdom. Even if it is argued that the gifts were totally voluntary, we recall how Daniel and others despised the gifts of kings offered in return for their having shared God's wisdom with them. Should wisdom ever really be paid for?</p><p>The first mention of mules in the Bible is associated with Absalom's murder of Amnon his brother (<a href='B:100 13:29'>2Sa 13:29</a>). They were cross bred in disobedience to <a href='B:30 19:19'>Lev 19:19</a>. We get the impression that a generally slack attitude to what might have been considered minor matters of the law was associated with the major sin of murder. This is the problem when we start to think that some parts of God's laws can just be ignored. David was fond of them, having his own mule (<a href='B:110 1:33'>1Ki 1:33</a>), and Solomon was willing to receive them as tribute (<a href='B:110 10:25'>1Ki 10:25</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen that he stationed in the chariot cities, and with the king at Jerusalem- </p><p>All in total disobedience to <a href='B:50 17:16-20'>Deu 17:16-20</a>. When have we been blind to clear commandments, whilst preaching God's wisdom so well to others? Solomon&nbsp;had obsessive tendencies. We know that he became addicted to finding pleasure in women, and Ecclesiastes 2 shows him racing down the road of obsession with architecture, alcohol, food, gold etc. The historical narratives so often mention his gold and silver (e:g. <a href='B:140 9:13-21'>2Ch 9:13-21</a>; <a href='B:140 9:24'>2Ch 9:24</a>; <a href='B:140 9:27'>2Ch 9:27</a>). This repetition reflects Solomon's obsession. The same fact explains the record's repetition of Solomon's enthusiasm for horses (<a href='B:110 10:25-29'>1Ki 10:25-29</a>; <a href='B:110 4:26'>1Ki 4:26</a>; <a href='B:110 4:28'>1Ki 4:28</a>; <a href='B:110 9:19'>1Ki 9:19</a>; <a href='B:110 9:22'>1Ki 9:22</a>; <a href='B:140 1:14'>2Ch 1:14</a>; <a href='B:140 1:16-17'>2Ch 1:16-17</a>; <a href='B:140 8:6'>2Ch 8:6</a>; <a href='B:140 8:9'>2Ch 8:9</a>; <a href='B:140 9:24-25'>2Ch 9:24-25</a>; <a href='B:140 9:28'>2Ch 9:28</a>). Yet amassing of gold, silver and horses was explicitly forbidden for the King of Israel (<a href='B:50 17:17'>Deu 17:17</a>). There is a powerful point to be made here: we can deceive ourselves that God is blessing us, when actually we are breaching explicit commands. Would Solomon had understood the concept of self-examination.</p>


text:
<p>He ruled over all the kings from the River even to the land of the Philistines, and to the border of Egypt- </p><p>Israel was at its largest extent in Solomon's Kingdom; lost land was restored, and the borders re-established (<a href='B:140 9:26'>2Ch 9:26</a>; <a href='B:140 8:4'>2Ch 8:4</a>&nbsp; cp. <a href='B:60 16:3'>Jos 16:3</a>; <a href='B:60 16:5'>Jos 16:5</a>); it was also at its political strongest; nations submitted to Solomon (<a href='B:110 4:20'>1Ki 4:20</a>); Israel was the chief of the nations (<a href='B:110 4:21'>1Ki 4:21</a>).</p>


text:
<p>The king made silver to be in Jerusalem as stones, and he made cedars to be as the sycamore trees that are in the lowland, for abundance- </p><p>All typical of the future Kingdom of God. This could mean that he planted cedars in Israel, perhaps transplanting them from Lebanon; for his wisdom included being given wisdom about plants. And that wisdom was for the sake of the blessing and wise leadership of God's people Israel.</p>


text:
<p>They brought horses for Solomon out of Egypt, and out of all lands-</p><p>Solomon&nbsp;started off as a middleman in the horse trade, buying&nbsp;horses&nbsp;from Egypt&nbsp;and selling them to the Hittite and Syrian&nbsp;kings (2&nbsp; Chron. 1:16,17; <a href='B:110 10:25'>1Ki 10:25</a>; <a href='B:110 10:29'>1Ki 10:29</a>); but he was playing with fire, and&nbsp; he&nbsp;soon came to flout the spirit of the command not to buy horses from&nbsp; Egypt. It’s rather like the brother who works in a video store starting to watch the blue movies which he handles daily. Solomon would&nbsp;have&nbsp; justified it initially by saying&nbsp; that&nbsp; the horses were not for himself; just as we saw he justified&nbsp; his&nbsp; Egyptian&nbsp; wife&nbsp; by&nbsp; the thought that Joseph also married&nbsp; an Egyptian girl.</p>


text:
<p>Now the rest of the acts of Solomon, first and last, aren’t they written in the history of Nathan the prophet, and in the prophecy of Ahijah the Shilonite, and in the visions of Iddo the seer concerning Jeroboam the son of Nebat?_</p><p>We can imagine that all of these prophets would have been critical of Solomon. He was therefore mentioned in the judgments against Jeroboam.</p>


text:
<p>Solomon reigned in Jerusalem over all Israel forty years- </p><p>Saul, David and Solomon are all said to have reigned for "forty years", but the similarity is such that we wonder whether this isn't a symbolic period. For numbers were not used in Semitic literature in the precise way which we are accustomed to. Thus three consecutive kings of Babylon, Saosduchinus, Chiniladanus, and Nabopolassar are each recorded as having reigned 21 years.</p>


text:
<p>Solomon slept with his fathers, and he was buried in the city of David his father. Rehoboam his son reigned in his place- </p><p>The description of death as sleeping with fathers is clear evidence that death is seen as a sleep, unconsciousness, and not as the start of an immortal soul going to heaven or 'hell'. Good and bad, David and Solomon, are gathered together in death. The division between them will only therefore come at the resurrection of the dead, and the granting of immortality at the judgment seat of the Lord Jesus.</p>


text:
<p>Rehoboam went to Shechem; for all Israel had come to Shechem to make him king- </p><p>The LXX addition adds: "And Jeroboam went to Shechem in mount Ephraim, and assembled there the tribes of Israel; and Roboam the son of Solomon went up thither". This would explain why this gathering to instate Rehoboam as king was held in Shechem and not in Jerusalem. And yet although Jeroboam was present with supporters, it appears that "all Israel" favoured the idea of Rehoboam as king. The old men truly advised him that if he would only ease the taxation, all Israel would remain loyal to him. It could even be that the ten tribes had invited Rehoboam from Jerusalem to their great meeting place in Shechem specifically because they wanted him to be king. But this had to change, according to God's judgment upon Solomon- the ten tribes had to be removed from the control of his dynasty:&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>When Jeroboam the son of Nebat heard of it (for he was in Egypt, where he had fled from the presence of king Solomon), then Jeroboam returned out of Egypt- </p><p>It seems this verse and :3 should follow <a href='B:140 9:31'>2Ch 9:31</a> as in LXX and some Hebrew manuscripts.</p>


text:
<p>They sent and called him; and Jeroboam and all Israel came, and they spoke to Rehoboam saying- </p><p>See on <a href='B:140 24:2'>2Ch 24:2</a>. We note that Jeroboam didn't immediately begin by demanding the throne, but rather led the people in asking Rehoboam to reduce his father's excessive taxation system. But his return from Egypt, and his awareness of the prophecy about him ruling over Israel, surely meant he had in view the possibility of Rehoboam rejecting the request.</p><p>In a distorted way, Jeroboam was almost a type of Christ; for as made clear at the end of 1 Kings 11, he could have been the Messianic ruler over Israel had he chosen Yahweh's way. I'd suggest that many wicked Old Testament characters could have been types of Christ if they had lived righteously, and the record indirectly indicates this. Jeroboam fled to Egypt because of the persecution of Solomon, as did the Lord. When Solomon died, "they sent and called him", connecting with the record of the Lord Jesus going to Egypt and coming back after Herod's death. Jeroboam came back on the third day (:12) and offered freedom from bondage to Israel, as did Christ on his resurrection. In <a href='B:110 13:10'>1Ki 13:10</a> we read of the prophet who came to prophesy about Jeroboam; we are told that he didn't return the way he came, but went back another way. That's an echo of the wise men, who came to see Jesus, and returned another way.</p>


text:
<p>Your father made our yoke grievous. Now therefore make lighter the grievous service of your father, and his heavy yoke which he put on us, and we will serve you- </p><p>Ephraim had been specifically targetted as a provider of labour and tax revenues (<a href='B:110 11:28'>1Ki 11:28</a>). The influence of Egypt upon Solomon is reflected by the way in which he is described as making the people serve him with "hard bondage" (<a href='B:140 10:4'>2Ch 10:4</a>; <a href='B:110 12:4'>1Ki 12:4</a>). This is the very Hebrew phrase used to describe what the Egyptians did to Israel (<a href='B:20 1:14'>Exo 1:14</a>; <a href='B:20 6:9'>Exo 6:9</a>; <a href='B:50 26:6'>Deu 26:6</a>). Solomon put his people under a yoke (<a href='B:140 10:4'>2Ch 10:4</a>), just as Egypt did to them (<a href='B:30 26:13'>Lev 26:13</a>). And so we see the progression. Solomon loved an Egyptian woman, came to serve her gods, traded with Egypt::. and the attitude of Egypt to God's people became Solomon's attitude to them. There is something unique about God's people; and yet the closer we come to the world, the more we come to see our own community, God's special family, just as this world sees us. The world's attitude to us can so easily become our attitude to our brethren- no longer seeing them as the specially chosen little children of God, sensitive to them as our very own brothers and sisters.</p><p>The very possession of wisdom and teaching of it to others can of itself make a man or woman demotivated to personally apply it. He foretold that the people would sign when a wicked man ruled them (<a href='B:240 29:2'>Pro 29:2</a> RV)- and they did "sigh" because of the heavy burdens he placed upon them (<a href='B:110 12:4'>1Ki 12:4</a>). He imposed the "yoke" of tribute upon the people (<a href='B:140 10:4'>2Ch 10:4</a>), whereas he himself had warned that a king that imposes tribute on his people "overthrows" a country (<a href='B:240 29:4'>Pro 29:4</a> RV mg:). He saw it all as true- and yet it was far from him personally.</p><p>The influence of Egypt upon Solomon is reflected by the way in which he is described as making the people serve him with "hard bondage" (<a href='B:140 10:4'>2Ch 10:4</a>; <a href='B:110 12:4'>1Ki 12:4</a>). This is the very Hebrew phrase used to describe what the Egyptians did to Israel (<a href='B:20 1:14'>Exo 1:14</a>; <a href='B:20 6:9'>Exo 6:9</a>; <a href='B:50 26:6'>Deu 26:6</a>). Solomon put his people under a yoke (<a href='B:140 10:4'>2Ch 10:4</a>), just as Egypt did to them (<a href='B:30 26:13'>Lev 26:13</a>). And so we see the progression. Solomon loved an Egyptian woman, came to serve her gods, traded with Egypt::. and the attitude of Egypt to God's people became Solomon's attitude to them. There is something unique about God's people; and yet the closer we come to the world, the more we come to see our own community, God's special family, just as this world sees us. The world's attitude to us can so easily become our attitude to our brethren- no longer seeing them as the specially chosen little children of God, sensitive to them as our very own brothers and sisters.</p><p>The very possession of wisdom and teaching of it to others can of itself make a man or woman demotivated to personally apply it. He foretold that the people would sign when a wicked man ruled them (<a href='B:240 29:2'>Pro 29:2</a> RV)- and they did "sigh" because of the heavy burdens he placed upon them (<a href='B:110 12:4'>1Ki 12:4</a>). He imposed the "yoke" of tribute upon the people (<a href='B:140 10:4'>2Ch 10:4</a>), whereas he himself had warned that a king that imposes tribute on his people "overthrows" a country (<a href='B:240 29:4'>Pro 29:4</a> RV mg:). He saw it all as true- and yet it was far from him personally.</p>


text:
<p>He said to them, Come again to me after three days. The people departed- </p><p>The three days may have been in order to allow the advisers to be summoned from Jerusalem.</p>


text:
<p>King Rehoboam took counsel with the old men who had stood before Solomon his father while he yet lived, saying, What advice do you give me to return answer to this people?- </p><p>If Solomon was 41 at this time and the "young men" were those who had grown up with him, these men would have been really quite "old", old enough to have lived through much of David's reign and to have been influenced by his spirituality. Or the word may be used here to simply refer to the elders, whereas Rehoboam had also surrounded himself with his own peer group as advisers.</p><p>In this context, we may consider Solomon's frequent proverbs about the wisdom of having advisors, and his words in <a href='B:240 20:18'>Pro 20:18</a>: "Plans are established by advice". Solomon's advice to his son sounds all well and good; but Rehoboam was given two different paths of advice by his advisors. Again, Solomon's words are true, but simplistic. Because as Rehoboam's case shows, the issue is not so much having advisors per se, but deciding which advisors to listen to. Solomon too had advisors, but did what he wanted, making this Proverb somewhat hollow when applied to himself.</p>


text:
<p>They spoke to him saying, ‘If you are kind to this people, and please them, and speak good words to them, then they will be your servants forever’- </p><p>See on :1. The general will of Israel was for Rehoboam and not Jeroboam, but the taxation issue was crucial.</p><p>The paradox of servant leadership is found here- if Rehoboam had been a servant of his people, then he would have ruled over them. In all ways, the Lord is our pattern. He was a servant of all, and so should we be. His servanthood dominated His consciousness. He said that He came not [so much as] to be ministered unto, but so as to minister, with the end that He gave His life for others (<a href='B:480 10:45'>Mar 10:45</a>).</p>


text:
<p>But he forsook the counsel of the old men which they had given him, and took counsel with the young men who had grown up with him, who stood before him- </p><p>It is true that as we go through life, we ought to realize that harsh responses and demands upon others are not really the way to go. These "young men" were perhaps the boys he had grown up with in Solomon's harem, his half brothers. They, like him, would not have been pure Israelites as their mothers were Gentiles, and they didn't have the long term well being of the nation at heart. Rehoboam was 41 at this stage. Perhaps then we can understand this as meaning that he had appointed young men as his advisers, who had been raised near him (the Hebrew eth translated "with" is a very wide word). They were young, but the Hebrew doesn't have to mean he had grown up with them. Rather they were young men who had been raised as he had been, in the same harem, which would hardly have been much of a place of wisdom.</p>


text:
<p>He said to them, What advice do you give, that we may return answer to this people who have spoken to me saying, ‘Make the yoke that your father put on us lighter?’- </p><p>He had written in his Proverbs that the ruler who lacks wisdom will oppress his people (<a href='B:240 28:16'>Pro 28:16</a>); and although his wisdom remained with him right to the end, in terms of knowledge (<a href='B:250 2:9'>Ecc 2:9</a>; <a href='B:250 12:10'>Ecc 12:10</a>), yet at the end of his reign Solomon was the ruler who did oppress his people. And he had gone on in <a href='B:240 28:16'>Pro 28:16</a> to warn against covetousness in a ruler, even though he went ahead with practicing every conceivable form of it in Ecclesiastes 2. “Therefore remove sorrow from thy heart, and put away evil from thy flesh” (<a href='B:250 11:10'>Ecc 11:10</a>) Solomon taught- and yet Solomon in Ecclesiastes is the very picture of such a person:&nbsp; Like the experienced pilot who takes off with frozen wings and then crashes, so Solomon’s very wisdom somehow disinclined him to living it out in practice. This is the perversity of our nature- the higher we may rise, the deeper we are inclined to fall.</p>


text:
<p>The young men who had grown up with him spoke to him saying, Thus you shall tell the people who spoke to you saying, Your father made our yoke heavy, but make it lighter on us; thus you shall say to them, My little finger is thicker than my father’s waist- </p><p>The Lord appears to allude to this when He invites all those burdened and heavy laden to come to Him because His yoke is easy and the burden light (<a href='B:470 11:28'>Mat 11:28</a>). It could be argued that He is thereby acknowledging that Jeroboam, who offered the easier burden, could have been as Him, a fulfilment of the promise of the Messianic king (<a href='B:110 11:38'>1Ki 11:38</a>). He saw in those people abused by Solomon the religiously abused people who were suffering under the burdens placed upon them by their religious leaders; and He saw those Jews as represented by Solomon, whom He continually reads in a bad light.</p>


text:
<p>Now whereas my father burdened you with a heavy yoke, I will add to your yoke. My father chastised you with whips, but I will chastise you with scorpions- </p><p>The contrast is not between whips and scorpions, but the idea is rather than he would use a far heavier whip known as a scorpion. The Romans had a whip called a "scorpio", used for punishment.</p><p>We have an insight into why Solomon was like this in <a href='B:240 10:13'>Pro 10:13</a> LXX: "He that brings forth wisdom from his lips smites the fool with a rod". Solomon has himself in view, but now instead of attributing wisdom to Divine inspiration, he starts to consider that it emanated from himself. When he died, the people complained that he had whipped [Heb. 'beaten'] them unreasonably. It was Solomon's false view of his wisdom which led him to do this. He assumed that he must be right, he was infallible, because of his possession of Divine truths. He justified indulging his natural human tendency to be overly harsh on others because he claimed he was the source of all wisdom. And again we see a parallel in fundamentalist Christian groups; where the more dogmatic are the claimants to possession of absolute truth about everything, the more they tend to abuse others and show no mercy to any who fail to attain to their supposed wisdom:&nbsp; <a href='B:240 26:3'>Pro 26:3</a> is also relevant, in the LXX "As a whip for a horse, and a goad for an ass, so&nbsp;is&nbsp;a rod for a simple nation". It was this attitude which led Solomon to beat his own people. Like many who hold God's truth, the mere holding of it lifted Solomon up in pride, and he came to despise all others who didn't accept his wisdom.</p><p>Despite having such knowledge and wisdom with which to rule Israel (for this was the primary purpose of the gift of wisdom to him), Solomon oppressed his people. With evident reference to himself, he commented: “Because the king’s word has power, who may say unto him, What doest thou?” (<a href='B:250 8:4'>Ecc 8:4</a> RV). It is only God who cannot be questioned in this way. But Solomon felt that because he possessed God’s wisdom, he could therefore act as God: “I counsel you, Keep the King’s command, and that in regard of the oath of God” (<a href='B:250 8:2'>Ecc 8:2</a>) could suggest that he thought that his commandments were in fact God’s. So the possession of Truth, which we too have, can lead to an incredible arrogance, a lack of openness to others’ comments upon us, and a certainty that we are right in all that we do and are beyond criticism. The hardness of a man is changed by true wisdom (<a href='B:250 8:1'>Ecc 8:1</a> RV), but knowing this, Solomon became hard hearted. He had the wisdom- but as he said, it was far from him personally. &nbsp;</p><p>“Surely oppression maketh a wise man foolish” (<a href='B:250 7:7'>Ecc 7:7</a> RV), he commented at the end of his life- even though right then he was chastising the people with whips, oppressing them (<a href='B:110 12:11'>1Ki 12:11</a>). He knew the true wisdom, he saw his reflection so accurately in the mirror, but resigned from its personal implications. He could even write that “I returned and considered all the oppression that are done under the sun [by himself!]: and behold the tears of such as were oppressed, and they had no comforter; and on the side of their oppressors there was power [Solomon was king and had set up the tax system in a clever and biased way]; but they had no comforter” (<a href='B:250 4:1'>Ecc 4:1</a>; <a href='B:250 5:8'>Ecc 5:8</a>). It was a real case of spiritual schizophrenia- he sorrowed for the people he oppressed.</p>


text:
<p>The king answered them roughly; and king Rehoboam forsook the advice of the old men- </p><p>"Roughly" is the word used of how the Egyptians treated the Israelites in whipping them and giving them heavy burdens to carry (<a href='B:20 1:14'>Exo 1:14</a>). This was how he was behaving. It is the word the people have just used when they complained that Solomon had treated them 'grievously' (:4); and Rehoboam confirms that he is going to do the same. Solomon had frequently warned against forsaking the advice of elders (s:w. <a href='B:240 2:17'>Pro 2:17</a>; <a href='B:240 4:2'>Pro 4:2</a> and especially the warning of <a href='B:240 27:10'>Pro 27:10</a> not to forsake the advice of your father's friend). But Rehoboam had probably not even read or heard all these Proverbs, as Solomon himself had ignored his own Proverbs and lived quite opposite to them. And so did his son.</p>


text:
<p>and spoke to them after the advice of the young men saying, My father made your yoke heavy, but I will add to it. My father chastised you with whips, but I will chastise you with scorpions- </p><p>Solomon has so much to say about 'chastisement' / "correction" / "instruction" coming from the possession of wisdom (<a href='B:240 8:10'>Pro 8:10</a>; <a href='B:240 8:33'>Pro 8:33</a>; <a href='B:240 10:17'>Pro 10:17</a>; <a href='B:240 12:1'>Pro 12:1</a>; <a href='B:240 13:1'>Pro 13:1</a>; <a href='B:240 13:24'>Pro 13:24</a>; <a href='B:240 15:5'>Pro 15:5</a>; <a href='B:240 15:10'>Pro 15:10</a>; <a href='B:240 15:32'>Pro 15:32</a>; <a href='B:240 16:22'>Pro 16:22</a>; <a href='B:240 19:20'>Pro 19:20</a>; <a href='B:240 19:27'>Pro 19:27</a>; <a href='B:240 22:15'>Pro 22:15</a>; <a href='B:240 23:12-13'>Pro 23:12-13</a>). But in the end he chastised or corrected his people by whipping them (s:w. <a href='B:110 12:11'>1Ki 12:11</a>; <a href='B:110 12:14'>1Ki 12:14</a>). Solomon initially asked for wisdom in order to guide his people, but he ended up whipping / physically chastising them into conformity with his wishes rather than allowing wisdom to correct. Again, he was playing God; for it is God through His wisdom who chastises, and not man. But Solomon thought he was effectively God to his people. This is why Solomon argues that servants cannot be corrected by words (<a href='B:240 29:19'>Pro 29:19</a> s:w:), and a child must be physically chastised (s:w. <a href='B:240 19:18'>Pro 19:18</a>; <a href='B:240 29:17'>Pro 29:17</a> cp. <a href='B:240 13:24'>Pro 13:24</a>; <a href='B:240 23:13'>Pro 23:13</a>), regardless of his screams of pain. This kind of thing is a denial of his claims elsewhere that it is Divine wisdom which chastises / corrects, and such correction is from God and not man. Solomon's final description of himself as an old and foolish king who refuses to be admonished says it all (<a href='B:250 4:13'>Ecc 4:13</a>); he admonishes others (s:w. <a href='B:250 12:12'>Ecc 12:12</a>), but refuses to be admonished or corrected by his own wisdom. He failed to personalize it.</p>


text:
<p>So the king didn’t listen to the people; for it was brought about of God, that Yahweh might establish His word, which He spoke by Ahijah the Shilonite to Jeroboam the son of Nebat-</p><p>There are times when God has influenced men not to respond to the evidently wise words of other men, in order to fulfill His purpose (e:g. <a href='B:110 12:15'>1Ki 12:15</a>; <a href='B:140 25:20'>2Ch 25:20</a>). There are a number of other passages which mention how "it was of the Lord" that certain attitudes were adopted by men, resulting in the sequence of events which He desired (<a href='B:60 11:20'>Jos 11:20</a>; <a href='B:90 2:25'>1Sa 2:25</a>; <a href='B:110 12:15'>1Ki 12:15</a>; <a href='B:140 10:15'>2Ch 10:15</a>; <a href='B:140 22:7'>2Ch 22:7</a>; <a href='B:140 25:20'>2Ch 25:20</a>). It is tempting to read <a href='B:70 14:4'>Jdg 14:4</a> in this context, meaning that God somehow made Samson desire that woman in order to bring about His purpose of freeing Israel from Philistine domination. God through His Spirit works to confirm men in the path they wish to go. And this is the huge significance of the work of the Holy Spirit in our lives today.</p>


text:
<p>When all Israel saw that the king didn’t listen to them, the people answered the king saying, What portion have we in David? Neither have we inheritance in the son of Jesse! Every man to your tents, Israel! Now see to your own house, David. So all Israel departed to their tents- </p><p>This was the cry of Sheba in <a href='B:100 20:1'>2Sa 20:1</a>. But the promises of 2 Samuel 7 were to David and his seed / house. By resigning from any association with that house, they were walking out of the hope of Israel which was in those promises. This has been done so many times by those who [understandably] become disillusioned with the family of believers, but their break with them develops into a break with the things of God's Kingdom.</p>


text:
<p>But as for the children of Israel who lived in the cities of Judah, Rehoboam reigned over them- </p><p>This means that there were people from the ten tribes living in Judah, particularly those who had been transported there by Solomon to live in the various defensive outpost towns he had built in southern Judah. And they remained under Rehoboam.</p>


text:
<p>Then king Rehoboam sent Hadoram, who was over the men subject to forced labour; and the children of Israel stoned him to death with stones. King Rehoboam made speed to get himself up to his chariot, to flee to Jerusalem- </p><p>If the forced labour quotas of Solomon were to now be multiplied, life would literally be impossible for the ten tribes. It is no surprise therefore that Adoram was stoned and Rehoboam had to flee for his life back to Jerusalem- reflecting on the folly of his young advisors.</p>


text:
<p>When Rehoboam had come to Jerusalem, he assembled the house of Judah and Benjamin, one hundred and eighty thousand chosen men who were warriors, to fight against Israel, to bring the kingdom again to Rehoboam- </p><p>Benjamin was a small tribe (<a href='B:90 9:21'>1Sa 9:21</a>; <a href='B:230 68:27'>Psa 68:27</a>). 18 years later, there were 400,000 warriors in Judah (<a href='B:140 13:3'>2Ch 13:3</a>), so this was a very significant proportion of warriors:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>But the word of Yahweh came to Shemaiah the man of God saying- </p><p>This may be now a quotation from the history written by Shemaiah about Rehoboam (<a href='B:140 12:15'>2Ch 12:15</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Speak to Rehoboam the son of Solomon, king of Judah, and to all Israel in Judah and Benjamin saying- </p><p>"The rest of the people" presumably refers to those of the ten tribes who lived in Judah and were loyal to Rehoboam (<a href='B:140 10:17'>2Ch 10:17</a>). The records dovetail so perfectly, as we would expect of a history written ultimately under Divine inspiration.</p>


text:
<p>Thus says Yahweh, ‘You shall not go up nor fight against your brothers! Return every man to his house; for this thing is of Me’. So they listened to the words of Yahweh, and returned from going against Jeroboam- </p><p>This was significant humility, involving a recognition that what had happened was "of God", in judgment for Solomon's sins. To fight against our brothers can never be justified. <a href='B:110 14:30'>1Ki 14:30</a> "There was war between Rehoboam and Jeroboam continually" would indicate disobedience to this command to Rehoboam not to fight the ten tribes.</p><p>At this point, LXX adds to the record: "Roboam his son reigned in his stead in Jerusalem, being sixteen years old when he began to reign, and he reigned twelve years::. And there was a man of mount Ephraim, a servant to Solomon, and his name was Jeroboam: and the name of his mother was Sarira, a harlot: and Solomon made him head of the levies of the house of Joseph: and he built for Solomon Sarira in mount Ephraim; and he had three hundred chariots of horses: he built the citadel with the levies of the house of Ephraim; he fortified the city of David, and aspired to the kingdom::.</p>


text:
<p>Rehoboam lived in Jerusalem, and built cities for defence in Judah- </p><p><a href='B:110 12:25'>1Ki 12:25</a> fleshes out the detail: "Then Jeroboam built Shechem in the hill country of Ephraim, and lived in it; and he went out from there, and built Penuel". Shechem was ideally centrally situated within his territory. Penuel was on the east side of Jordan, and would consolidate his power there, as well as controlling the fords of Jordan.</p>


text:
<p>He built Bethlehem, Etam, Tekoa- </p><p>All quite near to each other. The idea is that he rebuilt or fortified them. Etam is the one in Judah, not the town belonging to Simeon (<a href='B:130 4:32'>1Ch 4:32</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Beth Zur, Soco, Adullam- </p><p>These were all strategically positioned to defend the approaches to Jerusalem. But we read in <a href='B:140 12:4'>2Ch 12:4</a> that when he turned away from Yahweh, Shishak "took the fortified cities which pertained to Judah and came to Jerusalem".</p>


text:
<p>Gath, Mareshah, Ziph- </p><p>This is surely not the Gath in Dan, as this wasn't under Rehoboam's control. If it is the Gath of the Philistines, from which David had won the hearts of several former Philistine enemies, we wonder at how a town once so against David now becomes a core part of God's people of Judah.</p>


text:
<p>Adoraim, Lachish, Azekah- </p><p>Inscriptions on the wall of the temple at Karnak list many cities in Palestine which Shishak of Egypt conquered, including three of the "cities for defence" which Rehoboam had built, Shoco, Adoraim and Aijalon (<a href='B:140 11:7-10'>2Ch 11:7-10</a>). The list also includes many cities within the ten tribes, suggesting that if Jeroboam got Shishak to invade Judah, Shishak then turned against his one time protégé Jeroboam and invaded the ten tribes also.</p>


text:
<p>Zorah, Aijalon and Hebron, which are in Judah and in Benjamin, fortified cities- </p><p>Zorah was in Dan, so it seems there were pockets of support for Judah even within the ten tribes.</p>


text:
<p>He fortified the strongholds, and put captains in them, and stores of food, and oil and wine- </p><p>This sounds like he expected a siege, and was very much on the defensive, in a kind of bunker mentality. He had inherited a political situation from Solomon which was far from peaceful; Judah faced threats not only from Israel, but from the surrounding nations.</p>


text:
<p>He put shields and spears in every city, and made them exceedingly strong. Judah and Benjamin belonged to him-</p><p>The idea seems to be that both tribes were solidly behind him We note that Benjamin, Saul's tribe, had initially been the tribe most disloyal to Judah just a generation before. We see the fickleness of people, and also how people can genuinely change. Just as Philistines of Gath became David's most loyal followers.</p>


text:
<p>The priests and the Levites who were in all Israel resorted to him out of all their border- </p><p>This could indeed imply a mass migration of them to Judah (:14). But Heb. "took their stand by him" suggests there may have been individuals within the ten tribes who were loyal to Judah and the Davidic line. Both books of Kings reference several such individuals.</p>


text:
<p>For the Levites left their suburbs and their possessions and came to Judah and Jerusalem; for Jeroboam and his sons cast them off, that they should not execute the priests’ office to Yahweh- </p><p>And yet Jeroboam claimed to be worshipping Yahweh, through worshipping the golden calves. But he changed the priesthood.</p>


text:
<p>He appointed priests for the high places, and for the male goats, and for the calves which he had made- </p><p>Jeroboam allowed the ordinary people to be priests; in Exodus 32 we learn that the ordinary people offered the sacrifices to the golden calf, not the priests. Again, it seems that Jeroboam was trying to consciously mimic the golden calf apostasy, perhaps arguing that Israel were a nation of priests. It is no accident that Josiah stamped his calves to powder, just as Moses did to the golden calf. Now why&nbsp;did Jeroboam so consciously lead Israel into the same apostasy which brought them as it were within a hairs breadth of national rejection in Exodus 32? Jeroboam wasn't ignorant. Perhaps he had gone down a path of contorted exposition which made out that Israel didn't really sin by worshipping the calf. Or perhaps he got so carried away with the idea that he was like Aaron, the priest, that he thought (like some modern Rabbis) that Aaron couldn't have done anything wrong, and therefore he consciously copied Aaron, as he did David, Solomon, Jacob and Samuel. Again, we see Jeroboam having a familiarity with Scripture, but not pausing to really meditate upon his actions or upon the real spirit of the word. We see him failing to analyze why Aaron acted as he did, failing to see that Aaron acted politically, failing to deeply analyze his own motives:&nbsp; The character of Jeroboam shines through here. Jeroboam named his sons Abijah [Abihu] and Nadab- the very names of Aaron's sons. It seems Jeroboam tried to model himself upon Aaron, and justify the building of the calves by interpreting what Aaron did as a positive, righteous thing (as some Jewish expositors do today). He politely overlooked the fact that Aaron was condemned for making the calf, and that Nadab and Abihu were slain for unacceptable worship (<a href='B:30 10:1-2'>Lev 10:1-2</a>). We too can justify outright wrong behaviour in the name of superficial allusion to Scripture, willfully failing to see the similarities between our actions and those of men who were condemned for doing in essence the things which we seek to justify.</p><p>The "male goats" are AV "devils" or demons (<a href='B:30 17:7'>Lev 17:7</a>). Clearly demons were originally images to idols, and in this context Paul says that idols have no real existence. And therefore, neither do demons.</p>


text:
<p>After them, out of all the tribes of Israel, such as set their hearts to seek Yahweh, the God of Israel, came to Jerusalem to sacrifice to Yahweh, the God of their fathers- </p><p>This suggests there may have been individuals within the ten tribes who were loyal to Judah and the Davidic line. Both books of Kings reference several such individuals.</p>


text:
<p>So they strengthened the kingdom of Judah, and made Rehoboam the son of Solomon strong, three years; for they walked three years in the way of David and Solomon-</p><p><a href='B:110 11:4-6'>1Ki 11:4-6</a> is clear that the way of Solomon was not that of David. So although the record here in inspired in its recording, this doesn't cancel out the bias of the historian, who wishes to whitewash the house of David. Likewise personal preference for various words and images is found in inspired writings; the process of inspiration didn't necessarily destroy the personal perspectives and style of the authors.</p>


text:
<p>Rehoboam took him a wife, Mahalath the daughter of Jerimoth the son of David and of Abihail the daughter of Eliab the son of Jesse- </p><p>Contrary to AV, this speaks of only one wife, Mahalath, whose parents were Jerimoth and Abihail. Rehoboam was well connected to the Davidic line.</p>


text:
<p>She bore him sons: Jeush, and Shemariah, and Zaham- </p><p>"Zaham", loathing', is surely not the name given to the child at birth. It confirms the suggestion I have often made, that names were given in response to later character and life experience. Sometimes in these genealogies we read the birth names, at others, the names they were given later in life. And therefore the same person can have more than one name.</p>


text:
<p>After her he took Maacah the daughter of Absalom. She bore him Abijah, Attai, Ziza and Shelomith- </p><p>"Daughter" may be grand daughter, as she was the daughter of Uriel of Gibeah (<a href='B:140 13:2'>2Ch 13:2</a>&nbsp; LXX, which gives “Maacah” rather than “Michaiah”). <a href='B:100 18:18'>2Sa 18:18</a> says that Absalom had no son, so presumably he had this daughter who married Uriel and became mother to Maacah. Maachah his beloved wife (<a href='B:140 11:20-22'>2Ch 11:20-22</a>) was an idolater (<a href='B:140 15:16'>2Ch 15:16</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Rehoboam loved Maacah the daughter of Absalom above all his wives and his concubines. (He took eighteen wives, and sixty concubines, and became the father of twenty-eight sons and sixty daughters:)- </p><p>We note that the sons he had by Maacah had secular names, apart from Abijah. Two of the three sons by his other wife had the Name of God in them. And yet Abijah was chosen by Rehoboam to succeed him.</p>


text:
<p>Rehoboam appointed Abijah the son of Maacah to be chief, the prince among his brothers; for he intended to make him king- </p><p>This would be another case of the firstborn being replaced by another. For Abijah wasn't the firstborn of Rehoboam. This is such a huge theme, it reflects how passionate God is for the outsiders.</p>


text:
<p>He dealt wisely, and settled some of his sons throughout all the lands of Judah and Benjamin, to every fortified city: and he gave them food in abundance. He sought for them many wives- </p><p>Rehoboam should have learned from his father Solomon's mistakes but his taking many wives shows that he didn't. “He that loveth silver (as Solomon did, <a href='B:250 2:8'>Ecc 2:8</a>; <a href='B:110 10:21-29'>1Ki 10:21-29</a>) shall not be satisfied with silver (as he wasn’t- see Ecclesiastes 2); nor he that loveth abundance (s:w. used about the abundance of Rehoboam's wives, <a href='B:140 11:23'>2Ch 11:23</a>) with increase. When goods increase, they are increased that eat them (cp. the large numbers at his table, <a href='B:110 4:27'>1Ki 4:27</a>)” (<a href='B:250 5:10-11'>Ecc 5:10-11</a>). The Hebrew word translated “not be satisfied” occurs around 25 times in the Proverbs, with Solomon warning of how the way of the flesh couldn’t satisfy. Solomon said all this with an eye on himself. And Rehoboam surely must have realized his father's hypocrisy. Solomon preached it to others, he felt deeply the truth of it, but he saw no personal way out of it. All he had was the accurate knowledge of his situation, but no real motivation to change- like the alcoholic or drug abuser who knows every aspect of the harm of his habit.</p>


text:
<p>When the kingdom of Rehoboam was established and he had made himself strong, he forsook the law of Yahweh, and all Israel with him- </p><p>Yahweh was no longer apparently needed by them, and so they turned to other gods. Maachah his beloved second wife (<a href='B:140 11:20-22'>2Ch 11:20-22</a>) was an idolater (<a href='B:140 15:16'>2Ch 15:16</a>). The simple truth is that those who perceive how powerless they are::. turn to God for strength. And those who refuse to are those who turn away from Him to idols.</p>


text:
<p>It happened in the fifth year of king Rehoboam, that Shishak king of Egypt came up against Jerusalem, because they had trespassed against Yahweh- </p><p>Shishak had given refuge to Jeroboam (<a href='B:110 11:40'>1Ki 11:40</a>), so it could be that he urged Shishak to attack Judah once Rehoboam became established as king of Judah. "A monument of this king, the first of the 22nd dynasty, has been discovered at Karnak in Upper Egypt, recording his conquests and the names of certain towns which he had taken in Palestine". Inscriptions on the wall of the temple at Karnak list many conquered cities, including three of the "cities for defence" which Rehoboam had built, Shoco, Adoraim and Aijalon (<a href='B:140 11:7-10'>2Ch 11:7-10</a>). The list also includes many cities within the ten tribes, suggesting that if Jeroboam got Shishak to invade Judah, Shishak then turned against his one time protégé Jeroboam and invaded the ten tribes also.</p>


text:
<p>with twelve hundred chariots and sixty thousand horsemen. The people were without number who came with him out of Egypt: the Lubim, the Sukkiim and the Ethiopians- </p><p>Rehoboam's father Solomon had sold his soul to the Egyptians, and married the daughter of Pharaoh. But now Egypt turned against his son, just as the world does. We note that "hundred" and "thousand" are often used to denote military divisions, rather than literally 100 or 1000.</p>


text:
<p>He took the fortified cities which pertained to Judah and came to Jerusalem- </p><p>I noted on <a href='B:140 11:6-7'>2Ch 11:6-7</a> that Rehoboam's carefully fortified cities were all strategically positioned to defend the approaches to Jerusalem. But this was all human strength, and without God on his side it all came to nothing.</p>


text:
<p>Now Shemaiah the prophet came to Rehoboam and to the princes of Judah, who were gathered together to Jerusalem because of Shishak, and said to them, Thus says Yahweh, You have forsaken Me, therefore have I also left you in the hand of Shishak- </p><p>This may be now a quotation from the history written by Shemaiah about Rehoboam (<a href='B:140 12:15'>2Ch 12:15</a>). "Forsaken" is the same word as "left you". But 'You forsake Me, I'll forsake you' is not the conclusion we should take too easily. For God only forsook sinners after years of patience with them. And it is doubtful whether Rehoboam ever had much spirituality, as his father was Solomon and his mother an Ammonitess pagan. Yet he was generously counted as 'with Yahweh'.</p>


text:
<p>Then the princes of Israel and the king humbled themselves; and they said, Yahweh is righteous- </p><p>Who God is, as expressed in His Name, is an imperative to prepare ourselves to meet Him in judgment. The confession of the Name is paralleled with repentance in <a href='B:140 6:24'>2Ch 6:24</a>. There we read that if Israel sin and repent ''and confess Your name" they will be forgiven. But instead of ''confess Your name'' we expect ''confess their sins": the point being that to confess the name is effectively to confess sins. The name is the characteristics of Yahweh. The more we meditate upon them, the more we will naturally be lead to a confession of our sins, the deeper we will sense the gap between those principles and our own character. Likewise here, the statement that ''the Lord is righteous'' is effectively a confession of sin. And thus we are not to bear or take the Name of Yahweh called upon us at baptism in vain- the realty of the implications of the name are not to be lost upon us. But we note that Solomon had envisaged Israel sinning, repenting and being saved by reason of the temple. But here, humility was what was required. Solomon had been wrong in assuming that the temple would be a kind of mediatrix of forgiveness.</p>


text:
<p>When Yahweh saw that they humbled themselves, the word of Yahweh came to Shemaiah, saying, They have humbled themselves. I will not destroy them; but I will grant them some deliverance. My wrath shall not be poured out on Jerusalem by the hand of Shishak- </p><p>"Shemaiah", 'Yah has heard', gave them the message that He had heard their humility, as if that itself was reckoned as prayer. And indeed, character and situation are often effectively reckoned as prayer. We have the impression that God had intended the destruction of Jerusalem at this point; but He relented, in response to their repentance. Just as He did with Nineveh. There is a gap between His statement of judgment, and its fulfilment. During that gap, we can change the outcome by prayer and repentance.</p><p>"They have humbled themselves" could be an expression of pleasant surprise. Scripture repeatedly speaks as if God notices things and is then hurt or encouraged by what He sees (<a href='B:390 3:10'>Jon 3:10</a>; <a href='B:10 29:31'>Gen 29:31</a>; <a href='B:20 3:4'>Exo 3:4</a>; <a href='B:50 32:19'>Deu 32:19</a>; <a href='B:120 14:26'>2Ki 14:26</a>; <a href='B:140 12:7'>2Ch 12:7</a>; <a href='B:330 23:13'>Eze 23:13</a>; <a href='B:290 59:15'>Isa 59:15</a> cp. <a href='B:490 7:13'>Luk 7:13</a>). If He knew in advance what they were going to do, this language is hard for me to understand. But God is therefore hurt and 'surprised' at sin- He saw Israel as the firstripe grapes, but they were worshipping Baal even then (<a href='B:350 9:9'>Hos 9:9</a>). Thus God can allow Himself to feel an element of surprise- and this was a shock to Jeremiah, who queried: "Why are You like a man who is caught by surprise:::?" (<a href='B:300 14:9'>Jer 14:9</a>).</p><p>The wrath of God can be turned away by the actions of those He is angry with (<a href='B:40 25:4'>Num 25:4</a>; <a href='B:50 13:15-17'>Deu 13:15-17</a>; <a href='B:150 10:14'>Ezr 10:14</a>; <a href='B:390 3:7'>Jon 3:7</a>; <a href='B:390 3:10'>Jon 3:10</a>; <a href='B:140 12:7'>2Ch 12:7</a>; <a href='B:300 4:4'>Jer 4:4</a>; <a href='B:300 21:12'>Jer 21:12</a>). And yet that wrath can also be turned away by the prayers of a third party (<a href='B:230 106:23'>Psa 106:23</a>; <a href='B:300 18:20'>Jer 18:20</a>; <a href='B:220 42:7'>Job 42:7</a>). This means that in some cases, our prayers for others can be counted as if they have repented. We can gain our brother for God’s Kingdom (<a href='B:470 18:15'>Mat 18:15</a>), as Noah saved his own house by his faithful preparation (<a href='B:650 11:7'>Heb 11:7</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Nevertheless they shall be his servants, that they may know My service, and the service of the kingdoms of the countries- </p><p>They were to perceive in their servitude to this man what servitude to Yahweh ought to be like. They were therefore to serve him "as unto the Lord", and <a href='B:580 3:23'>Col 3:23</a> taught Christian slaves to serve their masters as if they were serving the Lord Jesus. This, therefore, is an abiding theme in God's dealings with His people, and has enabled so many in positions of awful subservience to be able to live out their lives with the dignity of knowing that their lives are counted as serving God.</p>


text:
<p>So Shishak king of Egypt came up against Jerusalem, and took away the treasures of the house of Yahweh, and the treasures of the king’s house. He took it all away. He also took away the shields of gold which Solomon had made- </p><p>LXX mentions that David took golden spears from Hadadezer: “And the golden spears which David took from the hand of the servants of Adraazar king of Soba and carried to Jerusalem, he took them all”:&nbsp; These would not have been used as real spears, but were part of the worship of the golden sun which was the main religion in Syria at the time. David would have been better destroying them, rather than bringing idol paraphernalia into Jerusalem. For it later contributed towards the freedom Judah felt to worship sun gods. These spears would have been taken at the time of <a href='B:100 8:7'>2Sa 8:7</a>: "David took the shields of gold that were on the servants of Hadadezer, and brought them to Jerusalem". "Hadad" was the god of the sun, "Hadadezer" had not been 'helped by Hadad' as his name means, and so David brought these golden imitations of the sun to Yahweh's temple. It is perhaps questionable whether David should have brought idols into Jerusalem; we note that later Judah worshipped sun gods. David's actions here were not blessed, for the LXX adds “And Susakim [i:e. Shishak] king of Egypt took them, when he went up to Jerusalem in the days of Roboam the son of Solomon”.</p><p>Shishak is usually identified as Shoshenq I. But as always with Egyptology, there are other claims. Immanuel Velikovsky in Ages in Chaos has him as Thutmose III of the 18th dynasty; David Rohl as Ramesses II of the 19th dynasty, and Peter James as Ramesses III of the 20th dynasty.</p>


text:
<p>King Rehoboam made in their place shields of brass, and committed them to the hands of the captains of the guard who kept the door of the king’s house- </p><p>Gold being downgraded to brass reflects the decline of faith in Rehoboam, for gold is a symbol of faith (<a href='B:670 1:7'>1Pe 1:7</a>).</p>


text:
<p>It was so, that as often as the king entered into the house of Yahweh, the guard came and carried them back into the guard room- </p><p>This indicates that there was a very low level of security even in the Jerusalem temple. Rehoboam wished by all means to imitate the worship of his father Solomon, but it was on a pathetically lower level. Despite all his idolatry, he still entered the temple for public worship of Yahweh. This was Israel's recurrent problem, to worship both Yahweh and the idols.</p>


text:
<p>When he humbled himself- </p><p>"Humbled himself" is the word also used for being "subdued under" military powers. When Israel didn't subdue themselves under God, they were subdued beneath their enemies. So it was a case of humility one way or the other. And the same logic applies to us. Flesh must be humbled, either by our willing choice in this life, or in the condemnation of the last day.</p><p>The wrath of Yahweh turned from him, so as not to destroy him altogether. Moreover, in Judah there were good things found- </p><p><a href='B:230 78:38'>Psa 78:38</a>; <a href='B:230 85:3'>Psa 85:3</a> seem to suggest God Himself controlled His anger, Himself turning that anger away, rather than being like a pagan deity whose anger was appeased by blood sacrifice. God turned from His anger due to Moses' intercession (<a href='B:20 32:12'>Exo 32:12</a> s:w:), but this is not to say that He cannot in any case turn away His anger, simply by His grace. Just as we may control our anger from within ourselves, or at other times we may do this because of the appeal of another to us, or because there is repentance from the one who provoked us. And there were times when this was the case with God (s:w. <a href='B:40 25:4'>Num 25:4</a>; <a href='B:60 7:26'>Jos 7:26</a>; <a href='B:140 12:12'>2Ch 12:12</a>; <a href='B:140 29:10'>2Ch 29:10</a>; <a href='B:140 30:8'>2Ch 30:8</a>).</p>


text:
<p>So king Rehoboam strengthened himself in Jerusalem, and reigned. Rehoboam was forty-one years old when he began to reign, and he reigned seventeen years in Jerusalem, the city which Yahweh had chosen out of all the tribes of Israel, to put His name there. His mother’s name was Naamah the Ammonitess- </p><p><a href='B:110 14:21'>1Ki 14:21</a>; <a href='B:140 12:13'>2Ch 12:13</a> says Rehoboam was 41 when he became king. But he was "young and tender hearted" (<a href='B:140 13:7'>2Ch 13:7</a>). The LXX addition at <a href='B:110 12:24'>1Ki 12:24</a> says he was 16 when he began to reign. He was surrounded by young men who had grown up with him. I suggest on balance that he was indeed 41 and the "young men" were "young" in comparison to the older men present. The description "young and tender hearted" could simply be a purposeful repetition of the description of his father Solomon when he ascended the throne; or it could mean that he was a rather weak and child like man.</p>


text:
<p>He did that which was evil, because he didn’t set his heart to seek Yahweh-</p><p>Constantly, the Bible stresses the importance of the heart, and of conscious 'setting' of the heart, of directing the thoughts toward God. And doing evil is the result of failing to do this.</p>


text:
<p>Now the acts of Rehoboam, first and last, aren’t they written in the histories of Shemaiah the prophet and of Iddo the seer, after the way of genealogies?-</p><p>The priests who wrote those records in Chronicles were writing down the result of their national self-examination. This was the record of their lessons from Chronicles. Each of the genealogies say something about the people they are concerned with; and thus <a href='B:140 12:15'>2Ch 12:15</a> RVmg. speaks of how the acts of Rehoboam are reflected in the reckoning of the genealogies.</p><p>There were wars between Rehoboam and Jeroboam continually- </p><p>This would indicate disobedience to the command to Rehoboam not to fight the ten tribes (<a href='B:110 12:24'>1Ki 12:24</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Rehoboam slept with his fathers, and was buried in the city of David; and Abijah his son reigned in his place- </p><p>The description of death as sleeping with fathers is clear evidence that death is seen as a sleep, unconsciousness, and not as the start of an immortal soul going to heaven or 'hell'. Good and bad, David and Solomon, are gathered together in death. The division between them will only therefore come at the resurrection of the dead, and the granting of immortality at the judgment seat of the Lord Jesus.</p>


text:
<p>In the eighteenth year of king Jeroboam began Abijah to reign over Judah- </p><p>Called Abijam in <a href='B:110 15:1'>1Ki 15:1</a>, which means "father of the sea", but 'father of' can mean 'worshipper of', as 'Abijah' means 'father / worshipper of Yah'. The sea god was worshipped, and so we conclude this was reflective of pagan devotions. He is called Abijah in 2 Chronicles, 'worshipper of Yah'. Having both a pagan and Yahwistic name was typical of the times, and Maacah / Michaiah his mother had a similar two names (see on :2). <a href='B:140 11:20-22'>2Ch 11:20-22</a> shows that Rehoboam had 28 sons. Abijam wasn't the firstborn, but rather the firstborn son of the favoured wife. Abijam had 38 children (<a href='B:140 13:21'>2Ch 13:21</a>), so he must have been a reasonable age when he came to the throne:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>He reigned three years in Jerusalem. His mother’s name was Micaiah the daughter of Uriel of Gibeah. There was war between Abijah and Jeroboam- </p><p>LXX gives Maacah for Micaiah, "the daughter of Absalom" (<a href='B:140 11:20'>2Ch 11:20</a>). "Daughter" may be grand daughter, as she was the daughter of Uriel. <a href='B:100 18:18'>2Sa 18:18</a> says that Absalom had no son, so presumably he had this daughter who married Uriel and became mother to Maacah. Michaiah, "Who is like Jehovah?", was known by her more pagan name Maachah, "oppression". The records of the kings so often mention their mothers, in reflection of the huge spiritual influence of a mother upon her children. The three years is a figure inclusive of parts of years, as he became king in the 18th year of Jeroboam's reign in Israel and died in his 20th year. "Three days / years" is often not a literal figure, and this must be recalled when considering the chronology of the Lord's three days in the tomb</p>&nbsp;


text:
<p>Abijah joined battle with an army of valiant men of war, even four hundred thousand chosen men. Jeroboam set the battle in array against him with eight hundred thousand chosen men, who were mighty men of valour- </p><p>We note that "hundred" and "thousand" are often used to denote military divisions, rather than literally 100 or 1000. This would indicate disobedience to the command to Rehoboam not to fight the ten tribes (<a href='B:110 12:24'>1Ki 12:24</a>). The terrible sin and tragedy of fighting ones own brethren is noted twice (also in <a href='B:110 14:30'>1Ki 14:30</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Abijah stood up on Mount Zemaraim, which is in the hill country of Ephraim, and said, Hear me, Jeroboam and all Israel- </p><p>Zemaraim was in the territory assigned to Benjamin (<a href='B:60 18:22'>Jos 18:22</a>), but is located "in the hill country of Ephraim" in <a href='B:140 13:4'>2Ch 13:4</a>. Clearly the inheritances were flexible in practice. Zemaraim was on the border of Benjamin and Ephraim, so this was an appropriate place for Israel and Judah to meet in battle.</p>


text:
<p>Ought you not to know that Yahweh, the God of Israel, gave the kingdom over Israel to David forever, even to him and to his sons by a covenant of salt?- </p><p>This was true only to an extent. The Davidic covenant was very clearly conditional upon obedience and faithfulness, and the wording clearly envisaged that the seed of David might not be that. And therefore Jeroboam himself had been offered the possibility of being the Messianic king, even though he was not of the line of David. Salt made a sacrifice meaningful (<a href='B:30 2:13'>Lev 2:13</a>), and therefore a "covenant of salt" meant a sure covenant confirmed by sacrifice (<a href='B:40 18:19'>Num 18:19</a>). David and Solomon had both dedicated the plans for the temple with abundant sacrifices, claiming that the covenant with David was fulfilled in Solomon and confirmed through the building of the temple. But that was on their initiative and suggestion, and in reality Solomon had broken that covenant.</p>


text:
<p>Yet Jeroboam the son of Nebat, the servant of Solomon the son of David, rose up, and rebelled against his lord- </p><p>This again was true but only to an extent. The kingdom was rent away from the house of David for their apostacy, and Jeroboam had potentially been enabled to be a new Messianic king. He failed in that, but to blame the division solely upon Jeroboam merely being a rebellious servant was Abijah's biased narrative.</p>


text:
<p>There were gathered to him vain men, base fellows, who strengthened themselves against Rehoboam the son of Solomon, when Rehoboam was young and tenderhearted, and could not withstand them- </p><p>Rehoboam was 41 when he became king, so again Abijah is spinning narrative according to his own bias.</p>


text:
<p>Now you think to withstand the kingdom of Yahweh in the hand of the sons of David. You are a great multitude, and there are with you the golden calves which Jeroboam made you for gods- </p><p>Abijah recognizes they are double his strength, but he seeks to touch their conscience about the golden calves, as if they are as it were pitting themselves against Yahweh. Even though his own wife was an idolater and he likely was too. He is leading up to the argument that they are fighting against God (:12). See on :21. He overlooks how God Himself withstood the line of David and had torn away the ten tribes and given them to Jeroboam, with the potential to make a Messianic kingdom out of them.</p>


text:
<p>Haven’t you driven out the priests of Yahweh, the sons of Aaron, and the Levites, and made priests for yourselves after the ways of the peoples of other lands? So that whoever comes to consecrate himself with a young bull and seven rams, the same may be a priest of those who are not gods- </p><p>Yahweh's priests were consecrated with a young bull and two rams (<a href='B:20 29:1'>Exo 29:1</a>). Again we see how Jeroboam crafted a false religious system on the basis of the true one, and that is typical of all our apostacy. And whilst perhaps they did drive out Yahweh's Levitical priests, it's likely many left the apostacy of their own accord. Although they would've arrived in a Judah also given over to idolatry, with the queen Maacah an idolater; hence God's wrath with Judah through Shishak's invasion.</p>


text:
<p>But as for us, Yahweh is our God, and we have not forsaken Him. We have priests ministering to Yahweh, the sons of Aaron, and the Levites in their work-</p><p>This was untrue, they had forsaken Yahweh and been seriously punished for it by Shishak, and the queen was an idolater. Abijah, like many in the orthodox churches, reasoned that because he had a priesthood obeying Mosaic commands, therefore and thereby they had not forsaken Yahweh. He thought that religious structure alone defined his faith in and loyalty to Yahweh.</p>


text:
<p>and they burn to Yahweh every morning and every evening burnt offerings and sweet incense. They also set the showbread in order on the pure table; and the lampstand of gold with its lamps, to burn every evening. We keep the instruction of Yahweh our God; but you have forsaken Him- </p><p>Shishak's invasion had perhaps taken away the plural "gold tables" for the showbread, and forced them to return to the Godly, Mosaic pattern of just one table for the showbread.</p><p>The table of show bread was to be made of acacia wood (<a href='B:20 25:23'>Exo 25:23</a>), but David planned to make it of pure gold, and even worked out the weight of gold required for it (<a href='B:130 28:16'>1Ch 28:16</a>). And Solomon indeed made it of gold (<a href='B:110 7:48'>1Ki 7:48</a>), leading to it being known as "the pure table" (<a href='B:140 13:11'>2Ch 13:11</a>). Religion had overtaken spirituality, form had eclipsed content. Likewise the "tables of silver" David ordered to be made (<a href='B:130 28:16'>1Ch 28:16</a>) do not feature in the tabernacle. He was missing the point- that God wanted His holiest symbols made of common, weak things like acacia wood. For His strength and glory is made perfect in weakness. David claims these plans were from God (<a href='B:130 28:19'>1Ch 28:19</a>), although as discussed on <a href='B:130 28:12'>1Ch 28:12</a>, they were in fact from his own mind. The way these things were taken into captivity, with no record of this golden table ever being returned, surely reflects God's judgment upon this kind of religious show. He prefers a humble house church in an inner city room, rather than a gold plated cathedral. The way some exclusive churches speak of 'maintaining a pure table' suggests they have made the same essential mistake as David did.</p>


text:
<p>Behold, God is with us at our head, and His priests with the trumpets of alarm to sound an alarm against you. Children of Israel- </p><p>We read here of Abijah's apparent devotion. The comment of <a href='B:110 15:3'>1Ki 15:3</a> is that his heart wasn't perfect with Yahweh as David's was. David clearly sinned and seems to have suffered a decline in his ethics and spirituality as he got older. But he was judged on the overall dominant desire of his heart, to the point that having a heart perfect with Yahweh seems to effectively mean 'He was wholeheartedly devoted to Yahweh and never worshipped other gods'. Whereas Abijah, despite peaks of spirituality and an appearance of loyalty to Him, did not have that total devotion to Yahweh as the dominant position of his heart throughout his life. Whatever peaks of obedience and devotion we may attain at points in our lives, it is the overall core position of our heart which is judged. Men like David may sin terribly at some points, those like Abijah may achieve wonderful levels of devotion at some points. But those high or low points play no major part in the final, unknowable equilibrium of Divine judgment. We need to remember this, as we encounter our brethren and ponder what to make of them, in their pits of sin and heights of devotion. Those points on their graph ought not to unduly weight our overall position on them.</p><p>The reference to trumpets alludes to <a href='B:40 10:9'>Num 10:9</a>, and Abijah thought that by merely blowing trumpets he would have Yahweh's help. This is why he was driven to a desperate situation in the battle with Jeroboam, so that he really called to Yahweh with all his heart, and not through mere ritualism.</p><p>Don’t fight against Yahweh, the God of your fathers; for you shall not prosper- </p><p><a href='B:510 5:39'>Act 5:39</a>; <a href='B:510 23:9'>Act 23:9</a> appear to allude to this. But as pointed out on :8, Abijah himself was associated with idolatry, and as with the context of the Acts allusions, this is a rather twisted argument. 'If you fight me you're fighting God' has been an oft deployed argument that often lacks full integrity. See on :21.</p>


text:
<p>But Jeroboam caused an ambush to come about behind them: so they were before Judah, and the ambush was behind them- </p><p>As discussed on :14, this was meant by God to put Judah into a hopeless situation. I have shown above that Judah were not much better than Israel and their claims to be faithful to Yahweh were hypocritical. But they were put into a situation which forced them to realize that, and to truly repent and cry to Yahweh from their hearts.</p>


text:
<p>When Judah looked back, behold, the battle was before and behind them; and they cried to Yahweh, and the priests sounded with the trumpets- </p><p>The reference to trumpets alludes to <a href='B:40 10:9'>Num 10:9</a>, and Abijah thought that by merely blowing trumpets he would have Yahweh's help. This is why he was driven to a desperate situation in the battle with Jeroboam, so that he really called to Yahweh with all his heart, and not through mere ritualism. The "shout" of :15 was their cry from the heart to God, and He responded to that. We all tend to repeat the same words in prayer, until prayer becomes little more than ritualism, the blowing of trumpets which Abijah had practiced:&nbsp; But then situations are brought into our lives when we "shout" to God from the heart, praying as we ought to- and then He responds.</p>


text:
<p>Then the men of Judah gave a shout; and as the men of Judah shouted, it happened, that God struck Jeroboam and all Israel before Abijah and Judah- </p><p>As explained on :14, this "shout" was a cry from the heart to Yahweh, well beyond the mere ritualism of blowing trumpets. Judah were not much better than Israel, as demonstrated above. But they cried from the heart to Yahweh, whereas Israel didn't. And so God gave them victory, and used them to punish Jeroboam for his impenitent apostacy.</p>


text:
<p>The children of Israel fled before Judah; and God delivered them into their hand- </p><p>Judah weren't much better than Israel. But God so respects faith and repentance, even if in extremity, such as on a deathbed- that He responds. .</p>


text:
<p>Abijah and his people killed them with a great slaughter; so there fell down slain of Israel five hundred thousand chosen men- </p><p>"Thousand" is not to be read literally; the term often refers to a military division of some sort. And they didn't fall in the same day, as the fighting continued for some time (:19).</p>


text:
<p>Thus the children of Israel were overcome at that time, and the children of Judah prevailed, because they relied on Yahweh, the God of their fathers- </p><p>They relied on Him at one point, and were rewarded for it. But not generally. This reflects God's extreme sensitivity to faith in Him, even if He knows the surrounding context of a man's life is not of faith in Him. "Relied" is the word used in <a href='B:140 14:11'>2Ch 14:11</a>; <a href='B:140 16:8'>2Ch 16:8</a> in a similar context:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>Abijah pursued after Jeroboam, and took cities from him: Bethel with its suburbs, Jeshanah with its suburbs and Ephron with its suburbs- </p><p>These victories were short-lived, because Bethel soon returned to the northern kingdom, and the golden calf there was not destroyed by Judah as it should have been (<a href='B:120 10:29'>2Ki 10:29</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Jeroboam didn’t recover strength again in the days of Abijah. Yahweh struck him, and he died- </p><p>This implies special judgment from God (<a href='B:90 25:38'>1Sa 25:38</a>; <a href='B:510 12:13'>Act 12:13</a>).</p>


text:
<p>But Abijah grew mighty, and took to himself fourteen wives, and became the father of twenty-two sons, and sixteen daughters- </p><p>"Grew mighty" is the same word Abijah has twice used in :7,8, claiming in :8 that Jeroboam was withstanding or growing mighty against Yahweh. Perhaps the hint is that Abijah was really no better (see on :8,12), because he too withstood Yahweh in marrying so many wives, at least one of whom [the favourite] was an unashamed idolater.</p>


text:
<p>The rest of the acts of Abijah, and his ways and his sayings, are written in the commentary of the prophet Iddo-</p><p>Neither the sayings of Abijah nor the book of Iddo have been preserved. There are many writings referenced within scripture which are not now available. The book of the prophet Iddo may well have been inspired by God, but was only useful for its time. The scriptures we have are therefore the result of careful Divine selection, and all of them are somehow relevant to us, even the Chronicles genealogies, in a way these other writings aren't.</p>


text:
<p>So Abijah slept with his fathers, and they buried him in the city of David; and Asa his son reigned in his place. In his days the land was quiet ten years- </p><p>The description of death as sleeping with fathers is clear evidence that death is seen as a sleep, unconsciousness, and not as the start of an immortal soul going to heaven or 'hell'. Good and bad, David and Solomon, are gathered together in death. The division between them will only therefore come at the resurrection of the dead, and the granting of immortality at the judgment seat of the Lord Jesus.</p><p>The land itself was quiet but that didn't mean Judah were not at war. There was 20 years peace later on (<a href='B:140 15:10'>2Ch 15:10</a>; <a href='B:140 15:19'>2Ch 15:19</a>). The impression is given that Asa's [partial] faithfulness to Yahweh meant there was peace, and peace is a fruit of loyalty to Yahweh. Baasha became king of Israel in the third year of Asa (<a href='B:110 15:28'>1Ki 15:28</a>; <a href='B:110 15:33'>1Ki 15:33</a>) and “there was war between Asa and Baasha all their days” (<a href='B:110 15:32'>1Ki 15:32</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Asa did that which was good and right in the eyes of Yahweh his God- </p><p>This is the phrase specifically used in appeal to Israel as they approached the promised land; their inheritance of it was conditional upon this (<a href='B:50 6:18'>Deu 6:18</a>; <a href='B:50 12:28'>Deu 12:28</a>). This connects with the idea of the land being at peace whilst Asa was obedient (see on :1; <a href='B:140 15:19'>2Ch 15:19</a>). One meaning of "Asa" is "physician", and he ended his days trusting physicians rather than Yahweh. Perhaps he trained as a physician and ended up therefore having more faith in science than in Yahweh. The statement therefore may refer to his initial state of loyalty to Yahweh. But this could refer to God's judgment upon his whole life, and <a href='B:110 15:11'>1Ki 15:11</a> says that "he did that which was right in the eyes of Yahweh, as did David his father". </p><p>Asa is recorded as serving God just as well as David, when actually this wasn't the case; but God counted him as righteous. The incomplete faith of men like Baruch was counted as full faith by later inspiration (<a href='B:70 4:8-9'>Jdg 4:8-9</a> cp. <a href='B:650 11:32'>Heb 11:32</a>). Asa was not perfect, nor was David; but God's overall judgment was that he "did right", despite doing wrong at specific points in his life. Indeed as noted on <a href='B:140 16:12'>2Ch 16:12</a>, Asa died at a low point for him spiritually. But the judgment overall was that he "did right" and that "nevertheless the heart of Asa was perfect with Yahweh all his days" (<a href='B:110 15:14'>1Ki 15:14</a>). We must learn therefore not to judge a person too harshly if they die at a weak spiritual point, e:g. through suicide.</p>


text:
<p>He took away the foreign altars, and the high places, and broke down the pillars, and cut down the Asherim- </p><p>Chronicles typically seeks to sanitize the record and present the kings as positively as possible. The truth is that Asa didn't remove the high places (<a href='B:110 15:14'>1Ki 15:14</a>), and soon afterwards, the worship of foreign gods revived. So Asa's reforms were not that thorough, and in any case, the people generally remained in idolatry.</p>


text:
<p>and commanded Judah to seek Yahweh, the God of their fathers, and to obey the law and the commandment- </p><p>Perfection is simply not achieved by God's people. Therefore the idiom of 'seeking Yahweh' is used, and is made parallel with obedience to His laws (<a href='B:140 14:4'>2Ch 14:4</a>) and not forsaking Him, just holding on to Him in faith, 'being with Him' (<a href='B:140 15:2'>2Ch 15:2</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Also he took away out of all the cities of Judah the high places and the sun images- </p><p>Asa and Jehoshaphat removed the high places, but in a sense they didn't (<a href='B:110 15:14'>1Ki 15:14</a> cp. <a href='B:140 14:5'>2Ch 14:5</a>; <a href='B:140 17:6'>2Ch 17:6</a> cp. 20:33). We read of how the land was purged of Baal, Sodomites etc:; but in a very short time, we read of another purge being necessary. Hezekiah, Manasseh and Josiah all made major purges within a space of 80 years. Jeremiah therefore condemns the Jews who lived at the time of Josiah's reformation for not knowing God in their hearts. Asa gathered the gold and silver vessels back into the temple- and then went and used them to make a political treaty. He apparently treated them as God's riches, but then in reality he used them as his own (<a href='B:110 15:18'>1Ki 15:18</a>; <a href='B:110 15:15'>1Ki 15:15</a>). Many a Western Christian has this very same tendency. We too must ask ourselves whether our spirituality is really just a product of the crowd mentality; as the crowd shouted one day "Hosanna to the Son of David", a few days later they wanted Jesus to be delivered rather than Barabbas, but within minutes they were persuaded to cry for the crucifixion of the Son of God. Church life, Bible studies, the breaking of bread::. inevitably, there is a crowd mentality developed here. There is a feeling of devotion which wells up within us as a community, as an audience, as we sit there, as we stand in praise and worship together. But the real spirituality is far deeper than this. We must seriously ask whether our spirituality, our feelings of devotion, our true repentance, are only stimulated by these meetings?</p><p></p><p>The kingdom was quiet before him- </p><p>See on :1; <a href='B:140 15:19'>2Ch 15:19</a>.</p>


text:
<p>He built fortified cities in Judah; for the land was quiet, and he had no war in those years, because Yahweh had given him rest- </p><p>This seems a major theme in the record; see on :1; <a href='B:140 15:19'>2Ch 15:19</a>. We note how circumstances repeated. Rehoboam had built fortified cities in Judah, especially on the approaches to Jerusalem. But they were all overwhelmed by Shishak, and he took Jerusalem. The lesson was that human strength alone would not save Judah. He was intended to learn from Rehoboam's history, as we are.</p>


text:
<p>For he said to Judah, Let us build these cities, and make walls around them, with towers, gates, and bars. The land is yet before us, because we have sought Yahweh our God. We have sought Him, and He has given us rest on every side. So they built and prospered- </p><p>It is unlikely that all Israel were solidly seeking Yahweh, as Asa himself had weak aspects, the high places weren't removed and the population revived the idolatry after his death. So this seems a rather self congratulatory attitude. See on :12. After the victory against the Ethiopians, Asa purges Judah of idols (<a href='B:140 15:8'>2Ch 15:8</a>); and there is ample evidence from what is said after the victory that Asa and Judah were not so totally devoted to Yahweh at the time of 2 Chronicles 14 (see on <a href='B:140 15:1'>2Ch 15:1</a>; <a href='B:140 15:3'>2Ch 15:3</a>; <a href='B:140 15:5'>2Ch 15:5</a>; <a href='B:140 15:8'>2Ch 15:8</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Asa had an army that carried shields and spears: out of Judah three hundred thousand; and out of Benjamin, that bore shields and drew bows, two hundred and eighty thousand. All these were mighty men of valour- </p><p>We note the relatively large number of Benjamites. "Little Benjamin" were far smaller than Judah but committed more soldiers in relative terms. The loyalty of Benjamin to Judah is a theme of the records, and yet we recall that relatively recently, they as the tribe of Saul had been the least loyal to Judah. Just as Philistines of Gath became David's most loyal followers, so Benjamin became solidly united with Judah. God has a way of turning people around completely.</p><p>There is a significant increase in numbers in his son's time, when the army was exactly double the size of that recorded in this section (<a href='B:140 14:8'>2Ch 14:8</a> cp. <a href='B:140 17:14-18'>2Ch 17:14-18</a>). The total here was 580,000; but there it is exactly double (1,160,000;&nbsp; Judah 780,000, Benjamin 380,000). This suggests that again, numbers are not being used in the literal sense which modern readers are accustimed to.</p>


text:
<p>There came out against them Zerah the Ethiopian with an army of a million troops, and three hundred chariots; and he came to Mareshah- </p><p>The apparent problem of large numbers in the records are largely resolved by understanding the terms 'hundred' and 'thousand' not literally, but as referring to military subdivisions. A "Zerah" is mentioned as a descendant of Esau, and the name refers to at least four different people, all within the Abraham family. So this individual could have been a descendant of Esau who was exercising "the old hatred" against Jacob, although he was now located in "Ethiopia", a vague term applicable to anywhere around Egypt.</p>


text:
<p>Then Asa went out to meet him, and they set the battle in array in the valley of Zephathah at Mareshah- </p><p>Zephathah is the Zephath of <a href='B:70 1:17'>Jdg 1:17</a>, where Judah won a great victory against the Canaanites, and was afterward renamed to Hormah, also a site of victory (<a href='B:40 21:3'>Num 21:3</a>). Perhaps the usage of the old name is to draw attention to the victory won there historically.</p>


text:
<p>Asa cried to Yahweh his God and said, Yahweh, there is none apart from You to help, between the mighty and him who has no strength. Help us, Yahweh our God; for we rely on You, and in Your name are we come against this multitude. Yahweh, You are our God. Don’t let man prevail against You- </p><p>This is a similar situation to that in <a href='B:140 13:18'>2Ch 13:18</a>, where an otherwise unspiritual and idolatrous Judah "relied" on Yahweh in desperation. They relied on Him at that one point, and were rewarded for it. But not generally. This reflects God's extreme sensitivity to faith in Him, even if He knows the surrounding context of a man's life is not of faith in Him.</p><p>Our faith will be strengthened by knowing that because we bear the Name, all that happens to us happens to our Lord and His Father. Thus Asa prayed: “Help us… in Your Name we go against this multitude…let not man prevail against You”. It is absurd that man should prevail against God; and yet Asa believed that because His people carried His Name, therefore it was just as impossible that man should prevail against them.</p><p>This is a feature of many spiritual prayers: not to crudely, directly ask for the obvious; but to simply inform the Almighty of the situation, in faith. Other examples include: <a href='B:10 19:24'>Gen 19:24</a>;&nbsp; <a href='B:230 3:1-4'>Psa 3:1-4</a>; <a href='B:230 142:1-2'>Psa 142:1-2</a>; <a href='B:500 11:21-22'>Joh 11:21-22</a>; <a href='B:110 19:10'>1Ki 19:10</a> cp. <a href='B:520 11:2-3'>Rom 11:2-3</a>; <a href='B:230 106:44'>Psa 106:44</a> cp. <a href='B:290 64:3'>Isa 64:3</a>.</p><p>There is only one God, one source of help and power- and thus the oneness of God inspires our faith in Him. This motivated Asa to cry unto Yahweh in faith: "There is none beside You to help…". <a href='B:660 2:14-18'>Jas 2:14-18</a> speaks of the connection between faith (believing) in the one God and works (doing). It is no co-incidence that <a href='B:660 2:19'>Jas 2:19</a> then says in this context: "Thou believest that God is one; thou doest well" (RV). To have faith in the unity of God will lead to works, 'doing well'.</p>


text:
<p>So Yahweh struck the Ethiopians before Asa and before Judah; and the Ethiopians fled- </p><p>Enemies fleeing before God's people was the sign of obedience to the covenant. But as noted on :7, Judah generally were not particularly obedient. We continually marvel at God's grace toward His people, ever eager to impute righteousness, and to be impressed by any sign of faith and obedience. After the victory against the Ethiopians, Asa purges Judah of idols (<a href='B:140 15:8'>2Ch 15:8</a>); and there is ample evidence from what is said after the victory that Asa and Judah were not so totally devoted to Yahweh at the time of 2 Chronicles 14 (see on <a href='B:140 15:1'>2Ch 15:1</a>; <a href='B:140 15:3'>2Ch 15:3</a>; <a href='B:140 15:5'>2Ch 15:5</a>; <a href='B:140 15:8'>2Ch 15:8</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Asa and the people who were with him pursued them to Gerar. There fell of the Ethiopians so many that they could not recover themselves; for they were destroyed before Yahweh and before His army; and they carried away very much booty- </p><p>Yahweh's army is paralleled with that of Judah. Yahweh of hosts, of Angelic armies, is manifested in His people upon earth. David was taught this when he was told to advance his army only in accordance to the noise of the heavenly armies above him (see on <a href='B:100 5:24'>2Sa 5:24</a>). We too are not alone; we are the manifestation of our guardian Angels above us, and collectively, the hosts of God's people reflect Yahweh of hosts above them.</p>


text:
<p>They struck all the cities around Gerar; for the fear of Yahweh came on them. They despoiled all the cities; for there was much spoil in them- </p><p>A similar situation repeated itself in <a href='B:140 17:10'>2Ch 17:10</a>. The record constantly stresses that the victory was from God. The fear of Yahweh coming upon those cities was the promised reward for obedience (<a href='B:50 11:25'>Deu 11:25</a>), and recalls the terror which fell upon the cities around Jacob at the time of <a href='B:10 35:5'>Gen 35:5</a>. But that terror didn't come because Israel were righteous at that time; in fact the opposite. For they had just massacred Shechem. Likewise here, these blessings were by grace, for Judah were not so righteous at this time; and reflected Yahweh's extreme sensitivity to any faith and obedience toward Him. The Hebrew word here used for "spoil" is found only in Chronicles, Ezra, Esther, Nehemiah and Daniel- evidence that this part of Chronicles was Divinely rewritten in the captivity.</p>


text:
<p>They struck also the tents of the herdsmen, and carried away sheep in abundance, and camels, and returned to Jerusalem- </p><p>This phrase in the LXX is used in <a href='B:490 24:52'>Luk 24:52</a> and <a href='B:510 1:12'>Act 1:12</a> of the disciples returning after a far greater victory. The Bible is continually seeing deeper meaning and application of all the wealth of history recorded in it. Although it is debatable whether such pillaging as recorded here was really God's will.</p>


text:
<p>The Spirit of God came on Azariah the son of Oded- </p><p>I hinted throughout 2 Chronicles 14 that things were not quite as spiritually rosy with Asa and Judah as Asa liked to present. And so this message from God was to warn Asa of the conditionality of God's help, implying Asa was tempted to forsake Him. "Azariah", 'Yah has helped', was the son of Oded, 'repetition'; it was as if the message that God had helped win the victory of 2 Chronicles 14 needed to be repeated. It seems from :2 that Azariah went out to meet Asa as he returned to Jerusalem from the victory of <a href='B:140 14:15'>2Ch 14:15</a>.</p>


text:
<p>and he went out to meet Asa and said to him, Hear me, Asa, and all Judah and Benjamin! Yahweh is with you, while you are with Him; and if you seek Him, He will be found by you; but if you forsake Him, He will forsake you- </p><p>The whole way of life of the righteous man is described as seeking God, knowing we will eventually find Him when the Lord returns to change our natures. So many times does David parallel those who seek God with those who keep His word (e:g. <a href='B:230 119:2'>Psa 119:2</a>). We will never achieve perfect obedience; but seeking it is paralleled with it. Perfection is simply not achieved by God's people. Therefore the idiom of 'seeking Yahweh' is used, and is made parallel with obedience to His laws (<a href='B:140 14:4'>2Ch 14:4</a>) and not forsaking Him, just holding on to Him in faith, 'being with Him'.</p><p>The Lord Jesus was well aware of the connection between God's refusal to answer prayer and His recognition of sin in the person praying (<a href='B:100 22:42'>2Sa 22:42</a> = <a href='B:230 2:2-5'>Psa 2:2-5</a>). It is emphasized time and again that God will not forsake those who love Him (e:g. <a href='B:50 4:31'>Deu 4:31</a>; <a href='B:50 31:6'>Deu 31:6</a>; <a href='B:90 12:22'>1Sa 12:22</a>; <a href='B:110 6:13'>1Ki 6:13</a>; <a href='B:230 94:14'>Psa 94:14</a>; <a href='B:290 41:17'>Isa 41:17</a>; <a href='B:290 42:16'>Isa 42:16</a>). Every one of these passages must have been well known to our Lord, the word made flesh. He knew that God forsaking Israel was a punishment for their sin (<a href='B:70 6:13'>Jdg 6:13</a>; <a href='B:120 21:14'>2Ki 21:14</a>; <a href='B:290 2:6'>Isa 2:6</a>; <a href='B:300 23:33'>Jer 23:33</a>). God would forsake Israel only if they forsook Him (<a href='B:50 31:16-17'>Deu 31:16-17</a>; <a href='B:140 15:2'>2Ch 15:2</a>). We can therefore conclude that His desperate “Why have You forsaken me?” was because He was so intensely identified with our sins that in the crisis of the cross, He indeed felt forsaken because of sin. He did not sin, but felt like a sinner; He thereby knows how sinners feel.</p><p>Asa had a wife called Azubah, who was the mother of the generally righteous Jehoshaphat (<a href='B:110 22:42'>1Ki 22:42</a>). The mother may be mentioned because of her great influence upon the spiritual path of her children. However, there is also the theme that believers arise from unbelieving backgrounds. "Azubah" means "forsaken". It is the same word used here in <a href='B:140 15:2'>2Ch 15:2</a>, where Jehoshaphat's father Asa was told of God "If you forsake Him, He will forsake you". It could be that Asa forsook Azubah and she was effectively a divorced woman; or perhaps the wife was renamed this because Asa felt she had forsaken Yahweh, which is how the word "forsaken" ('Azubah') is usually used.</p>


text:
<p>Now for a long time Israel was without the true God, and without a teaching priest, and without law- </p><p>Although this can be read as a general comment upon Israel's history at the time of the judges (:4), it clearly has relevance to the time of Asa (see on <a href='B:140 17:9'>2Ch 17:9</a>). It would also have been perceived by the exiles as relevant to them. This again suggests that the spiritual picture of Asa and Judah in 2 Chronicles 14 was presented there in a very rosy way. Things were not spiritually so wonderful. The main priestly duty was to teach God's word to the people. A whole string of texts make this point: <a href='B:50 24:8'>Deu 24:8</a>; <a href='B:120 17:27'>2Ki 17:27</a>; <a href='B:140 15:3'>2Ch 15:3</a>; <a href='B:160 8:9'>Neh 8:9</a>; <a href='B:400 3:11'>Mic 3:11</a>. Note too the common partnership between priests and prophets. Because of their role as teachers, it is understandable that the anger of the first century priesthood was always associated with Christ and the apostles teaching the people: <a href='B:470 21:33'>Mat 21:33</a>; <a href='B:490 19:47'>Luk 19:47</a>; <a href='B:490 20:1'>Luk 20:1</a>; <a href='B:510 5:21'>Act 5:21</a>. The priests felt that their role was being challenged. As part of the priesthood, our duty is to all teach or communicate the word of God to each other. It was God's intention that natural Israel should obey the spirit of this, so that they would "teach every man his neighbour and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord" (<a href='B:650 8:11'>Heb 8:11</a>). That was how God intended Israel of old to fulfil this idea of being a priestly nation.</p>


text:
<p>But when in their distress they turned to Yahweh the God of Israel and sought Him, He was found by them- </p><p>The point was that Asa must learn the lesson from the history of God's people at the time of the judges, and continue seeking God in distress as he had done in the conflict of 2 Chronicles 14. Sadly at the end of his life, Asa in his distress didn't turn to Yahweh (<a href='B:140 16:12'>2Ch 16:12</a>).</p>


text:
<p>In those times there was no peace to him who went out, nor to him who came in; but great troubles were on all the inhabitants of the lands- </p><p>This clearly describes how things were at the time of the judges. But Asa is being bidden see parallels between that period and his time. And this invitation surely reveals that things were not well with Judah spiritually, and Asa was being set up as similar to the judges who revived God's people.</p>


text:
<p>They were broken in pieces, nation against nation, and city against city; for God troubled them with all adversity- </p><p>This may be a reference to the fighting within Israel which went on in the period of the judges (e:g. <a href='B:70 9:44-47'>Jdg 9:44-47</a>; <a href='B:70 20:35-45'>Jdg 20:35-45</a>). Asa is being bidden understand that circumstances repeat, exactly because we are intended to learn from Biblical history. He was to see that his conflict with the ten tribes was a repeat of those situations. And to act as the Godly judges did, in faith.</p>


text:
<p>But you be strong, and don’t let your hands be slack; for your work shall be rewarded- </p><p>"Work" here is put for "faith". For it is faith and not works which is being appealed for from Asa (:2). This continues the purposeful confusion between faith and works which is found in James.</p>


text:
<p>When Asa heard these words, and the prophecy of Oded the prophet, he took courage, and put away the abominations out of all the land of Judah and Benjamin, and out of the cities which he had taken from the hill country of Ephraim; and he renewed the altar of Yahweh that was before the porch of Yahweh- </p><p>This purging of idolatry which took place after the victory against the Ethiopians in 2 Chronicles 14 shows that Asa's claims that Judah were totally loyal to Yahweh, and therefore as it were deserved victory, were somewhat hollow. But he was given the victory, and in fact that elicited from him an awareness that this was by grace, and his claims to total devotion to Yahweh in <a href='B:140 14:7'>2Ch 14:7</a>; <a href='B:140 14:11'>2Ch 14:11</a> had been exaggerated. We too are sometimes given blessing and victory which is inappropriate to our faith, and the experience elicits in us self examination and repentance.</p>


text:
<p>He gathered all Judah and Benjamin, and those who lived with them out of Ephraim and Manasseh, and out of Simeon; for they fell to him out of Israel in abundance, when they saw that Yahweh his God was with him- </p><p>AV "And he gathered all Judah and Benjamin, and the strangers with them out of Ephraim and Manasseh, and out of Simeon". "The strangers" reflects how religious division soon leads to those divided from being considered as foreigners. This makes the account absolutely psychological reality, and is true to observed experience in Christian divisions. Simeon had inheritance within Judah (<a href='B:60 19:1'>Jos 19:1</a>), so it is unsurprising that people from there came over to Judah.</p>


text:
<p>So they gathered themselves together at Jerusalem in the third month, in the fifteenth year of the reign of Asa- </p><p>The feast of weeks began on the sixth day of the third month.</p>


text:
<p>They sacrificed to Yahweh in that day, of the spoil which they had brought, seven hundred head of cattle and seven thousand sheep- </p><p>Remember that 'hundred' and 'thousand' are not always to be taken as literal numbers, but can refer to groups. The sacrifices often feature offerings in groups of seven (<a href='B:40 29:32'>Num 29:32</a>; <a href='B:130 15:26'>1Ch 15:26</a>). Presumably these were offered as peace offerings, although there is no evidence of the burnt offerings and sin offerings which were intended to precede peace offerings.</p>


text:
<p>They entered into the covenant to seek Yahweh the God of their fathers, with all their heart and with all their soul- </p><p><a href='B:140 15:12'>2Ch 15:12</a>; <a href='B:140 15:15'>2Ch 15:15</a> parallels seeking God with having our whole desire for Him, giving all our heart and soul to Him. God judges a man’s life with regard to where the essential, dominant desire of his heart is focused. This is why some of the kings of Judah are introduced with the comment that they did right in God’s sight- even though it becomes apparent that they did many wrong things, and sometimes died committing wrong acts. But surely they were judged on their dominant desire, where their heart was, and not on their specific acts of failure. For David, the salvation promised to him through Christ was “all my desire” (<a href='B:100 23:5'>2Sa 23:5</a>). The direction of his life was towards that end.</p>


text:
<p>and that whoever would not seek Yahweh the God of Israel, should be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman- </p><p>This smacks of hypocrisy and a commitment made on the cusp of religious extremism, rather than humble spirituality. For as noted throughout 2 Chronicles 14 and <a href='B:140 15:3'>2Ch 15:3</a>; <a href='B:140 15:5'>2Ch 15:5</a>; <a href='B:140 15:8'>2Ch 15:8</a>, they themselves had not wholly sought Yahweh. And now they condemn such persons to death. But not so many years later they needed to be brought back to Yahweh (<a href='B:140 19:4'>2Ch 19:4</a>). See on :14.</p>


text:
<p>They swore to Yahweh with a loud voice, and with shouting, trumpets and cornets- </p><p>The loudness of their voice corroborates the impression noted on :13, that this was unspiritual religious extremism.</p>


text:
<p>All Judah rejoiced at the oath; for they had sworn with all their heart, and sought Him with their whole desire; and He was found of them: and Yahweh gave them rest all around- </p><p>This joy was at an oath which threatened death against anyone who didn't worship Yahweh (:13), when they themselves had not been wholeheartedly for Him. And yet despite the hypocrisy, Yahweh "was found of them". Again, we see His sensitivity to any faith and spirituality. This is not to say that He accepts just whatever we give Him, and that, by extension, we can serve God on our own terms. But it is also so that God is very sensitive to all movements towards Him and for Him.</p>


text:
<p>Also Maacah, the mother of Asa the king, he removed from being queen, because she had made an abominable image for an Asherah. Asa cut down her image, and made dust of it, and burnt it at the brook Kidron- </p><p>This would have been difficult for him, given it was his mother. The Lord may have thought of this as He crossed the same brook, the night before His death.</p>


text:
<p>But the high places were not taken away out of Israel. Nevertheless the heart of Asa was perfect all his days- </p><p>As discussed on :15, this is not to say that we are free to serve God on our own terms, picking and choosing our issues of obedience and compliance. Rather does this reflect how human external behaviour, even if it is sinful, is not always a reflection of the basic, core position of the human heart. Human behaviour is so complex in its motivation, and there is often a connection between the heart and external behaviour which is very indirect and can even at times be inverse. In other words, we may act the opposite of what we really think. But God alone can know and judge these complexities. This is why we must not judge; because we cannot judge. We do not see the heart.</p><p>Asa and Jehoshaphat removed the high places, but in a sense they didn't (<a href='B:110 15:14'>1Ki 15:14</a> cp. <a href='B:140 14:5'>2Ch 14:5</a>; <a href='B:140 17:6'>2Ch 17:6</a> cp. 20:33). We read of how the land was purged of Baal, Sodomites etc:; but in a very short time, we read of another purge being necessary. Partial cleansing of idolatry amounted to no cleansing. Hezekiah, Manasseh and Josiah all made major purges within a space of 80 years. Jeremiah therefore condemns the Jews who lived at the time of Josiah's reformation for not knowing God in their hearts. Many a Western Christian has this very same tendency. We too must ask ourselves whether our spirituality is really just a product of the crowd mentality; as the crowd shouted one day "Hosanna to the Son of David", a few days later they wanted Jesus to be delivered rather than Barabbas, but within minutes they were persuaded to cry for the crucifixion of the Son of God. Church life, Bible studies, the breaking of bread::. inevitably, there is a crowd mentality developed here. There is a feeling of devotion which wells up within us as a community, as an audience, as we sit there, as we stand in praise and worship together. But the real spirituality is far deeper than this. We must seriously ask whether our spirituality, our feelings of devotion, our true repentance, are only stimulated by these meetings?</p><p>As discussed on <a href='B:110 15:3'>1Ki 15:3</a>, Asa like David clearly sinned and seems to have suffered a decline in his faith as he got older, as the Chronicles record shows. But he was judged on the overall dominant desire of his heart, to the point that having a heart perfect with Yahweh seems to effectively mean 'He was wholeheartedly devoted to Yahweh and never worshipped other gods'. Despite all the ups and downs, of which his final faith in doctors rather than Yahweh was one of the down points (<a href='B:120 16:12'>2Ki 16:12</a>), his overall deepest heart was for Yahweh.</p>


text:
<p>He brought into God’s house the things that his father had dedicated, and that he himself had dedicated, silver, and gold, and vessels- </p><p>The reference is to what he captured from the Ethiopians and looted from the tribesmen around Gerar (<a href='B:140 14:14-15'>2Ch 14:14-15</a>); and to what his father Abijah had taken from Jeroboam (<a href='B:140 13:16'>2Ch 13:16</a>). We note that Abijah dedicated things to God, but despite that, "he walked in all the sins of his father, which he had done before him; and his heart was not perfect with Yahweh his God" (<a href='B:110 15:3'>1Ki 15:3</a>). External generosity isn't anywhere near as valuable as a heart totally given over to God.</p>


text:
<p>There was no more war until the thirty-fifth year of the reign of Asa- </p><p><a href='B:130 14:1'>1Ch 14:1</a> likewise notes that Asa's reign began with 10 years of peace. The land itself was at peace but that didn't mean Judah were not at war. For Baasha became king of Israel in the third year of Asa (<a href='B:110 15:28'>1Ki 15:28</a>; <a href='B:110 15:33'>1Ki 15:33</a>) and “there was war between Asa and Baasha all their days” (<a href='B:110 15:32'>1Ki 15:32</a>). Then there was then this 20 years peace later on (<a href='B:140 15:10'>2Ch 15:10</a>; <a href='B:140 15:19'>2Ch 15:19</a>). The impression is given that Asa's [partial] faithfulness to Yahweh meant there was peace, and peace is a fruit of loyalty to Yahweh. See on <a href='B:140 16:1'>2Ch 16:1</a>.</p>


text:
<p>In the thirty sixth year of the reign of Asa, Baasha king of Israel went up against Judah- </p><p>But Baasha died in the 26th year of Asa's rulership (<a href='B:110 16:8'>1Ki 16:8</a>; <a href='B:110 16:10'>1Ki 16:10</a>). The 35th year in <a href='B:140 15:19'>2Ch 15:19</a> refers to the point of division with Israel, when Judah became a separate entity. And this may be the same case here. However, the Hebrew characters used for 30 and 10 are very similar, and this may be an example of a coping error. If we read 15 and 16 in <a href='B:140 15:19'>2Ch 15:19</a> and <a href='B:140 16:1'>2Ch 16:1</a>, then the chronological problem disappears.</p><p>And built Ramah, that he might not allow anyone to go out or come in to Asa king of Judah- </p><p>There was such a flow of Israelites to Judah that Baasha tried to stop it, by building Ramah as an effective border control point on the approach road to Jerusalem- only about six miles from city. Ramah was in Benjamin, and clearly Asa had failed to retain it within Judah.</p>


text:
<p>Then Asa brought out silver and gold out of the treasures of the house of Yahweh and of the king’s house, and sent to Ben Hadad king of Syria, who lived at Damascus saying- </p><p>Benhadad was the grandson of Hezion, a name which uses similar characters to Rezon who led the first attempted revival of Zobah and Damascus (<a href='B:110 11:23'>1Ki 11:23</a>) after David's victories against them in <a href='B:100 8:3-8'>2Sa 8:3-8</a>. Asa gathered the gold and silver vessels back into the temple- and then went and used them to make a political treaty. He apparently treated them as God's riches, but then in reality he used them as his own (<a href='B:110 15:18'>1Ki 15:18</a>; <a href='B:110 15:15'>1Ki 15:15</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Let there be a covenant between me and you, as there was between my father and your father. Behold, I have sent you silver and gold. Go, break your treaty with Baasha king of Israel, that he may depart from me- </p><p>The intent of the treaty, however, was that Benhadad would attack Baasha (:4). Perhaps this was not stated specifically because Asa wanted to give lip service obedience to the command not to fight with his own brethren in (<a href='B:110 12:24'>1Ki 12:24</a>. So the Lord's money was spent on effectively getting others to fight their own brethren; and in essence the same can happen today in church politics. We also see how fickle are relationships when not governed by Divine principle; Benhadad's treaty with Baasha was broken when money was received from a third party, and he not only trashed the treaty but attacked him.</p><p>We must balance this lack of faith against the Divine assessment in <a href='B:140 15:17'>2Ch 15:17</a>: "The high places were not taken away out of Israel. Nevertheless the heart of Asa was perfect all his days".</p>


text:
<p>Ben Hadad listened to king Asa, and sent the captains of his armies against the cities of Israel; and they struck Ijon, and Dan, and Abel Maim, and all the storage cities of Naphtali- </p><p>These cities were in the far north of Israel. It was an invasion of the border area rather than of all Israel.</p>


text:
<p>It happened, when Baasha heard of it, that he left off building Ramah, and let his work cease- </p><p>Asa's plan appeared to have worked. Baasha stopped the attempted blockade of Jerusalem. Even though Asa did wrong in how he used the Lord's money / wealth, that isn't commented upon. It all seemed to work out. But we are left, naturally, with the question as to whether this was right or not.</p>


text:
<p>Then Asa the king took all Judah; and they carried away the stones of Ramah, and its timber, with which Baasha had built; and he built therewith Geba and Mizpah- </p><p>We see here the value of stones and timber and the huge amount of labour needed to move them. This corroborates the way that Solomon's huge demand for these things led him into debt financially (see on <a href='B:110 9:14'>1Ki 9:14</a>) and into abusing his people for labour.</p>


text:
<p>At that time Hanani the seer of visions came to Asa king of Judah and said to him, Because you have relied on the king of Syria, and have not relied on Yahweh your God, therefore is the army of the king of Syria escaped out of your hand- </p><p>A lack of spiritual ambition is in fact a sin. When Asa was threatened by his enemies, he hired the Syrians to drive them away- and he was condemned for this, being told that he should instead have had the ambition to ask God to deliver the mighty Syrians into his hand, as well as his enemies (<a href='B:140 16:7'>2Ch 16:7</a>). He was reminded that the Angelic eyes of the Lord are running to and fro in our support (<a href='B:140 16:9'>2Ch 16:9</a>), as Asa would have theoretically acknowledged. But his sin of omission, his lack of an ambitious vision, incited the Father’s anger. We need to meditate carefully upon this, because it surely has many similarities with modern life, where money and ‘hiring’ worldly help is so easy…</p>


text:
<p>Weren’t the Ethiopians and the Lubim a huge army, with exceeding many chariots and horsemen? Yet, because you relied on Yahweh, He delivered them into your hand- </p><p>This is a similar situation to that in <a href='B:140 13:18'>2Ch 13:18</a>, where an otherwise unspiritual and idolatrous Judah "relied" on Yahweh in desperation. They relied on Him at that one point, and were rewarded for it. But not generally. This reflects God's extreme sensitivity to faith in Him, even if He knows the surrounding context of a man's life is not of faith in Him.</p><p>Asa's faith was rewarded when he faced a massive Ethiopian army; but some years later, God repeated the situation. A huge Israelite army faced him; and instead of trusting in Yahweh, he gave the temple treasures to Syria so that they would come and fight the battle for him. And God wasn't slow to point out how circumstances had repeated, but this time Asa had failed the test: " Were not the Ethiopians and Lubims a huge host:::? Yet because you relied on the Lord, He delivered them into your hand::. herein you have done foolishly: therefore from henceforth you shall have wars" (<a href='B:140 16:8-9'>2Ch 16:8-9</a>). The "wars" God brought upon Asa weren't merely punishments; they were yet further opportunities for Asa to face the same situations, and overcome them with faith. And God likewise works in our lives.</p>


text:
<p>For the eyes of Yahweh run back and forth throughout the whole earth, to show Himself strong in the behalf of them whose heart is perfect toward Him- </p><p>The Biblical record seems to very frequently seek to deconstruct popular ideas about sin and evil. One of the most widespread notions was the "evil eye", whereby it was believed that some people had an "evil eye" which could bring distress into the eyes of those upon whom they looked in jealousy or anger. This concept is alive and well in many areas to this day. The idea entered Judaism very strongly after the Babylonian captivity; the Babylonian Talmud is full of references to it. The sage Rav attributed many illnesses to the evil eye, and the Talmud even claimed that 99 out of 100 people died prematurely from this (Bava Metzia 107b). The Biblical deconstruction of this is through stressing that God's eye is all powerful in the destiny of His people (<a href='B:50 11:12'>Deu 11:12</a>; <a href='B:230 33:18'>Psa 33:18</a>); and that "an evil eye" refers to an internal attitude of mean spiritedness within people- e:g. an "evil eye" is understood as an ungenerous spirit in <a href='B:50 15:9'>Deu 15:9</a>; <a href='B:470 6:23'>Mat 6:23</a>; <a href='B:470 20:15'>Mat 20:15</a>; or pure selfishness in <a href='B:50 28:54'>Deu 28:54</a>; <a href='B:50 28:56'>Deu 28:56</a>; <a href='B:240 23:6'>Pro 23:6</a>; <a href='B:240 28:22'>Pro 28:22</a>. We must remember that the people of Biblical times understood an "evil eye" as an external ability to look at someone and bring curses upon them. But the Bible redefines an "evil eye" as a purely internal attitude; and cosmic evil, even if it were to exist, need hold no fear for us- seeing the eyes of the only true God are running around the earth for us and not against us (<a href='B:140 16:9'>2Ch 16:9</a>).</p><p>Herein you have done foolishly; for from henceforth you shall have wars- </p><p>"Done foolishly" alludes to the failures of Saul (<a href='B:90 13:13'>1Sa 13:13</a>) and David (<a href='B:100 24:10'>2Sa 24:10</a>), both also connected with trust in human rather than Divine strength.</p>


text:
<p>Then Asa was angry with the seer of visions, and put him in the prison; for he was in a rage with him because of this thing. Asa oppressed some of the people at the same time- </p><p>If true guilt is not faced up to, there will be anger, the anger that comes from refusing to acknowledge subconscious guilt. Balaam’s angry striking of his donkey is an obvious Biblical example, and we are surrounded by so many others. Another classic example would be Asa’s “rage” with Hanani the prophet when he rebuked Asa for trusting in the Syrian army rather than in Yahweh. And Asa’s anger was then taken out upon the people- for “Asa oppressed some of the people at the same time” (<a href='B:140 16:10'>2Ch 16:10</a>).</p><p>The harsh treatment of the Ammonites, torturing them under harrows, is indication enough of David’s bad conscience before God being shown in his harsh treatment of others. Likewise Asa oppressed the people when he was guilty in his conscience (<a href='B:140 16:10'>2Ch 16:10</a>). And the wicked Kings of Israel usually died “without being desired” by their people, presumably because their broken relationship with God had led to a broken relationship between them and their brethren (e:g. <a href='B:140 21:20'>2Ch 21:20</a>).</p><p>When Israel played traitor to their brethren, by doing so they broke their marriage covenant with God (<a href='B:460 2:10'>Mal 2:10</a>); their attitude to their brethren was essentially their attitude to their Heavenly Father. Our God and our brethren simply can't be separated. Asa’s broken relationship with God resulted in him ‘crushing’ the people at the same time (<a href='B:140 16:10'>2Ch 16:10</a> Avmg:).</p>


text:
<p>Behold, the acts of Asa, first and last, behold, they are written in the book of the kings of Judah and Israel- </p><p>This may not necessarily be the book of Kings as we know it.</p>


text:
<p>In the thirty-ninth year of his reign, Asa was diseased in his feet. His disease was exceeding great; yet in his disease he didn’t turn to Yahweh, but to the physicians- </p><p>One meaning of "Asa" is "physician", and he ended his days trusting physicians rather than Yahweh. Perhaps he trained as a physician and ended up therefore having more faith in science than in Yahweh. <a href='B:110 15:11'>1Ki 15:11</a> says that "he did that which was right in the eyes of Yahweh, as did David his father". <a href='B:140 14:2'>2Ch 14:2</a> is likewise positive: "Asa did that which was good and right in the eyes of Yahweh his God". </p><p>Asa is recorded as serving God just as well as David, when actually this wasn't the case; but God counted him as righteous. The incomplete faith of men like Baruch was counted as full faith by later inspiration (<a href='B:70 4:8-9'>Jdg 4:8-9</a> cp. <a href='B:650 11:32'>Heb 11:32</a>). Asa was not perfect, nor was David; but God's overall judgment was that he "did right", despite doing wrong at specific points in his life. Yet we learn here that Asa died at a low point for him spiritually. But the judgment overall was that he "did right" and that "nevertheless the heart of Asa was perfect with Yahweh all his days" (<a href='B:110 15:14'>1Ki 15:14</a>). We must learn therefore not to judge a person too harshly if they die at a weak spiritual point, e:g. through suicide.</p>


text:
<p>Asa slept with his fathers, and died in the forty-first year of his reign- </p><p>The description of death as sleeping with fathers is clear evidence that death is seen as a sleep, unconsciousness, and not as the start of an immortal soul going to heaven or 'hell'. Good and bad, David and Solomon, are gathered together in death. The division between them will only therefore come at the resurrection of the dead, and the granting of immortality at the judgment seat of the Lord Jesus.</p>


text:
<p>They buried him in his own tombs, which he had dug out for himself in the city of David, and laid him in the bed which was filled with sweet odours and various kinds of spices prepared by the perfumer’s art; and they made a very great burning for him-</p><p>"The bed" may refer to that on which he laid at the end of his life (:12). It seems he was buried in his own bed, which recalls the style of burial for the Pharaohs and other Gentile kings. This would be another indication that Asa died spiritually weak, and yet as discussed on :12, he was still reckoned as righteous according to his core heart positions.</p>


text:
<p>Jehoshaphat his son reigned in his place-</p><p>Jehoshaphat means 'whom Jehovah judges'. And this is largely the point of his life. He made major mistakes in his relationships with Israel, incited the wrath of God against him (<a href='B:140 19:2'>2Ch 19:2</a>), died without removing the high places, and yet overall was judged as having a faithful heart before God (<a href='B:110 22:43'>1Ki 22:43</a>; <a href='B:140 19:3'>2Ch 19:3</a>). And so we have a parade example of how indeed 'Jehovah judges', factoring in the various dimensions of a man's life in a way in which we cannot. The lesson is indeed that we cannot judge, nor should we be tempted to judge a person according to the high and low points on their spiritual graph, nor upon the fact they may die with unconquered weaknesses.</p><p>And strengthened himself against Israel- </p><p>Yet <a href='B:110 22:44'>1Ki 22:44</a> commends him that: "Jehoshaphat made peace with the king[s] of Israel". But the way to that peace was by clarifying boundaries.</p>


text:
<p>He placed forces in all the fortified cities of Judah, and set garrisons in the land of Judah, and in the cities of Ephraim which Asa his father had taken- </p><p>This building or rebuilding of fortified cities at the start of a reign is a continuity between Asa, Jehoshaphat and Rehoboam. But in each case, those strengthened cities failed to protect them as they intended, but rather God's strength was needed. The later kings were clearly intended to learn from history as recorded, as we are.</p>


text:
<p>Yahweh was with Jehoshaphat, because he walked in the first ways of his father David, and didn’t seek the Baals- </p><p>Many have struggled to reconcile the statement that David was a man after God’s own heart (<a href='B:90 13:14'>1Sa 13:14</a>) with the fact that his life contains many examples not only of failure, but of anger and a devaluing of human life. He was barred from building the temple because of the amount of blood he had shed (<a href='B:130 22:8'>1Ch 22:8</a>). The figure of ‘shedding blood’ takes us back to the incident with Nabal, where David three times is mentioned as intending to “shed blood” (<a href='B:90 25:26-33'>1Sa 25:26-33</a>), only to be turned away from his sinful course by the wisdom, spirituality and charm of Abigail. David started out as the spiritually minded, humble shepherd, full of faith and zeal for his God. Hence Jehoshaphat is commended for walking “in the first ways of his father David” (<a href='B:140 17:3'>2Ch 17:3</a>). It seems to me that the comment that David was “a man after God’s own heart” refers to how he initially was, at the time God chose him and rejected Saul. But the trauma of his life, the betrayals, jealousies and hatred of others, led him to the kind of bitterness which so often surfaces in the Psalms and is reflected in several historical incidents where he lacks the value of others’ lives which we would otherwise expect from a man who walked so close with his God.</p>


text:
<p>but sought to the God of his father, and walked in His commandments and not after the doings of Israel- </p><p>Yet Jehoshaphat allowed his son to marry Ahab's daughter (<a href='B:140 18:1'>2Ch 18:1</a>), and repeatedly failed in being as separate from Israel as he ought to have been. He nearly lost his life as a result of it. Yet God's overall judgment is that for all his social contact with Israel and failure to separate from them, he still did not himself 'walk' in their evil doings.</p>


text:
<p>Therefore Yahweh established the kingdom in his hand. All Judah brought to Jehoshaphat tribute; and he had riches and honour in abundance- </p><p>The tribute may refer to a revival of the taxation system of Solomon described in 1 Kings 4. Or possibly the reference may be to the tithes being brought to Jehoshaphat, as if he were a king-priest; see on :7. Or the reference may simply be to presents, brought to him when he ascended the throne as in <a href='B:90 10:27'>1Sa 10:27</a>. In this case, the entire description of Jehoshaphat in :2-6 would specifically refer to the beginning of his reign.</p>


text:
<p>His heart was lifted up in the ways of Yahweh- </p><p>The phrase "lifted up" is nearly always used in a negative sense about pride. The idea was that he was proud of Yahweh and His ways.</p><p>Furthermore, he removed the high places and the Asherim out of Judah- </p><p>Asa and Jehoshaphat removed the high places, but in a sense they didn't (<a href='B:110 15:14'>1Ki 15:14</a> cp. <a href='B:140 14:5'>2Ch 14:5</a>; <a href='B:140 17:6'>2Ch 17:6</a> cp. 20:33). We read of how the land was purged of Baal, Sodomites etc:; but in a very short time, we read of another purge being necessary. Hezekiah, Manasseh and Josiah all made major purges within a space of 80 years. Jeremiah therefore condemns the Jews who lived at the time of Josiah's reformation for not knowing God in their hearts. Asa gathered the gold and silver vessels back into the temple- and then went and used them to make a political treaty. He apparently treated them as God's riches, but then in reality he used them as his own (<a href='B:110 15:18'>1Ki 15:18</a>; <a href='B:110 15:15'>1Ki 15:15</a>). Many a Western Christian has this very same tendency. We too must ask ourselves whether our spirituality is really just a product of the crowd mentality; as the crowd shouted one day "Hosanna to the Son of David", a few days later they wanted Jesus to be delivered rather than Barabbas, but within minutes they were persuaded to cry for the crucifixion of the Son of God. Church life, Bible studies, the breaking of bread::. inevitably, there is a crowd mentality developed here. There is a feeling of devotion which wells up within us as a community, as an audience, as we sit there, as we stand in praise and worship together. But the real spirituality is far deeper than this. We must seriously ask whether our spirituality, our feelings of devotion, our true repentance, are only stimulated by these meetings?</p>


text:
<p>Also in the third year of his reign he sent his princes, even Ben Hail, Obadiah, Zechariah, Nethanel and Micaiah, to teach in the cities of Judah- </p><p>The sending of princes along with Levites (:8) could imply some idea of a joint king-priesthood, which we saw possibly hinted at in :5, if we understand the "tribute" given to Jehoshaphat as king as being the tithes due to the Levites.</p>


text:
<p>and with them the Levites, even Shemaiah, Nethaniah, Zebadiah, Asahel, Shemiramoth, Jehonathan, Adonijah, Tobijah and Tobadonijah the Levites; and with them Elishama and Jehoram, the priests- </p><p>The idea was that the two priests were sent to teach Judah the law (:9), for that was the function of the priests. But in practical terms they were assisted by a group of Levites and princes (:7). We would rather imagine the priests as being listed first, and then those subservient to them coming afterwards. But the priests were true servant leaders and are listed last, as being "with the Levites" [the servants of the priests] rather than the other way around.</p>


text:
<p>They taught in Judah, having the book of the law of Yahweh with them. They went about throughout all the cities of Judah, and taught among the people- </p><p>This is a tacit admission that the local priests were not teaching the people. <a href='B:140 15:3'>2Ch 15:3</a> had reminded Asa of the similarity of his times with those of the judges: "Now for a long time Israel was without the true God, and without a teaching priest, and without law". It seems that sad situation continued. The statements about Judah's faithfulness and loyalty to Yahweh were therefore very generous; for in an illiterate society, they would have been unaware of the majority of details in the Mosaic law if they weren't taught it by the local priests. Although priests from the ten tribes had emigrated to Judah, it seems they were not teaching the people as intended. Their identity with Yahweh religion was therefore more cultural than based upon accurate awareness of His ways. But despite this lack of knowledge, God still counted them as loyal to Him, just as He counted weak kings like Asa as loyal to Him in their hearts. Yahweh's generosity in judgment of His people is one of the themes which comes through in the historical records.</p>


text:
<p>The fear of Yahweh fell on all the kingdoms of the lands that were around Judah, so that they made no war against Jehoshaphat- </p><p>A similar situation repeated itself in <a href='B:140 14:14'>2Ch 14:14</a>. The record constantly stresses that the victory was from God. The fear of Yahweh coming upon Gentiles was the promised reward for obedience (<a href='B:50 11:25'>Deu 11:25</a>), and recalls the terror which fell upon the cities around Jacob at the time of <a href='B:10 35:5'>Gen 35:5</a>, "so that they made no war against" Jacob. But that terror didn't come because Israel were righteous at that time; in fact the opposite. For they had just massacred Shechem. Likewise here, these blessings were by grace, for Judah were not so righteous at this time; and reflected Yahweh's extreme sensitivity to any faith and obedience toward Him. And it was surely the same in Jehoshaphat's time.</p>


text:
<p>Some of the Philistines brought Jehoshaphat presents, and silver for tribute. The Arabians also brought him flocks, seven thousand seven hundred rams, and seven thousand seven hundred male goats- </p><p>Remember that 'hundred' and 'thousand' are not always to be taken as literal numbers, but can refer to groups. It was these same groups of Philistines and Arabians whose spirit Yahweh stirred up (for He can work directly upon the human mind) to break away from Judah in Jehoram's time (<a href='B:140 21:16'>2Ch 21:16</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Jehoshaphat grew great exceedingly; and he built in Judah fortified and store cities- </p><p>See on :2. "Store cities" implies he anticipated the possibility of a siege from enemies.</p>


text:
<p>He had many works in the cities of Judah; and men of war, mighty men of valour, in Jerusalem- </p><p>"Many works" is unclear. GNB for :12,13 offers: "Throughout Judah he built fortifications and cities,&nbsp;where supplies were stored in huge amounts. In Jerusalem he stationed outstanding officers".</p>


text:
<p>This was the numbering of them according to their fathers’ houses. Of Judah, the captains of thousands: Adnah the captain, and with him mighty men of valour three hundred thousand- </p><p>Remember that 'hundred' and 'thousand' are not always to be taken as literal numbers, but can refer to groups. The "them" could refer specifically to the officers or soldiers quartered in Jerusalem (:13).</p>


text:
<p>and next to him Jehohanan the captain, and with him two hundred and eighty thousand- </p><p>We note that the names of all the captains in this section include God's Name.</p>


text:
<p>and next to him Amasiah the son of Zichri, who willingly offered himself to Yahweh; and with him two hundred thousand mighty men of valour- </p><p>His being so willing to offer himself to Yahweh was noted, as in <a href='B:70 5:9'>Jdg 5:9</a>. Human initiative in serving God is indeed valuable to Him; not because He saves according to works, but because He recognizes and values freewill human expressions of love toward Him.</p>


text:
<p>Of Benjamin: Eliada a mighty man of valour, and with him two hundred thousand armed with bow and shield- </p><p>There is a significant increase in numbers from his father's time, when the army was exactly half the size of that recorded in this section (<a href='B:140 14:8'>2Ch 14:8</a>). The total then was 580,000; but here in :14-18 it is exactly double (1,160,000), Judah 780,000, Benjamin 380,000. This suggests that again, numbers are not being used in the literal sense which modern readers are accustomed to.</p>


text:
<p>and next to him Jehozabad; and with him one hundred and eighty thousand prepared for war- </p><p>This group were ready for immediate deployment.</p>


text:
<p>These were those who waited on the king, besides those whom the king put in the fortified cities throughout all Judah- </p><p>This is a very large number to continually serve the king. The same phrase is used in <a href='B:130 27:1'>1Ch 27:1</a>, where they served their king through a rotation system of monthly service.</p>


text:
<p>Now Jehoshaphat had riches and honour in abundance; and he joined affinity with Ahab-</p><p>The Chronicles record clearly shows that he was too close to Israel. His son married a daughter of Ahab, and his insistence on supporting Ahab was seen as loving those who hated Yahweh, and the wrath of God was upon him because of it&nbsp; (<a href='B:140 19:2'>2Ch 19:2</a>). And yet he is commended for having peace with the kings of Israel (<a href='B:110 22:44'>1Ki 22:44</a>), even though&nbsp; that desire for peace with them led him into major sin. But he was judged as having a heart right with God (<a href='B:140 19:3'>2Ch 19:3</a>). We sense God weighting Jehoshaphat's sins with his relations with Israel against his genuine desire for peace within God's people. And overall, as he was judged on the state of his heart, his desire for unity and peace was judged as his dominant desire. We simply cannot factor in or weight all the dimensions in a man's heart. Only God can. And the reason we are not to judge is because in fact we cannot judge, in that we don't have access to human hearts. &nbsp;&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>After certain years he went down to Ahab to Samaria. Ahab killed sheep and cattle for him in abundance, and for the people who were with him, and moved him to go up with him to Ramoth Gilead-</p><p>Jehoshaphat's son Jehoram had wrongly married Ahab’s daughter, Athaliah; probably under some false mantra of 'unity amongst God's people'. The visit was likely in connection with this. Had Jehoshaphat not fraternized with wicked Ahab, the possibility of the doomed venture which follows wouldn't have arisen. And if Ahab had slain Benhadad as commanded, Ramoth Gilead would have been returned to Israel. And indeed if Benhadad kept his covenant, it should have been returned anyway (<a href='B:110 20:34'>1Ki 20:34</a>).</p><p>"Moved" is 'persuaded'. "Ahab persuaded Jehoshaphat to go up with him to Ramoth-gilead", just as Jezebel persuaded Ahab to do wickedness (<a href='B:110 21:25'>1Ki 21:25</a> Heb:). It is a story of sin leading to sin, and sinful attitudes and behaviour spreading through wrong and unwise associations.</p>


text:
<p>Ahab king of Israel said to Jehoshaphat king of Judah, Will you go with me to Ramoth Gilead? He answered him, I am as you are, and my people as your people. We will be with you in the war-</p><p>We note they both have "horses", which were forbidden for the kings of Israel under the law of Moses. Jehoshaphat likely reasoned that a weak Syria on the east bank of Jordan was good for Judah, but he was also caught up in the false mantra of "unity" which had led his son to marry Ahab's daughter.</p>


text:
<p>Jehoshaphat said to the king of Israel, Please inquire first for the word of Yahweh-</p><p>Ahab responded to the request for a word from Yahweh by summoning the group of 400 false prophets (:5). He had so mixed Yahweh worship with paganism that he considered their word to be that of Yahweh. And he gathered such a huge group in order to argue that the majority must surely be right. And the Bible consistently teaches that in these situations, the majority is usually wrong.</p>


text:
<p>Then the king of Israel gathered the prophets together, four hundred men, and said to them, Shall we go to Ramoth Gilead to battle, or shall I desist? </p><p>Ahab had 400 false prophets earlier in his reign (<a href='B:110 18:19'>1Ki 18:19</a>), who were slain on Carmel. So it seems that he didn't learn his lesson, and raised up another such group. This fits with the common theme of purges and repentances at the time of the kings needing to be repeated. For the purges were only surface level, despite all the evidence for them at the time. "Forbear" means 'to cease'. Ahab, like us at times, had already started the project without asking God's guidance, and his request for guidance in the project was compromised in integrity by the fact he had already begun it.</p><p>They said, Go up; for God will deliver it into the hand of the king-</p><p>This recalls the instant answer of Nathan when David enquired about building a temple for Yahweh. Too easily we assume we know the will of God, and speak and act as if we have His blessing on our endeavours already.</p>


text:
<p>But Jehoshaphat said, Isn’t there here a prophet of Yahweh besides, that we may inquire of him?-</p><p>Ahab had provided the 400 prophets of Baal in response to the request for a word from Yahweh. Jehoshaphat realized this; and ought to have immediately pulled out of working with someone who was presenting Baal worship as Yahweh worship. He means of course 'an old time, old school prophet of Yahweh who is not also a prophet of Baal and repudiates Baal'.</p>


text:
<p>The king of Israel said to Jehoshaphat, There is yet one man by whom we may inquire of Yahweh-</p><p>The idea is, "one more man". He considered that the 400 prophets of Baal were also in touch with Yahweh (see on :5), and Micaiah was just one more who could do that, although he repudiated Baal worship.</p><p>But I hate him, for he never prophesies good concerning me, but always evil-</p><p>Again we sense the pouting, spoilt kid characteristics of Ahab. His characterization in the records is absolutely consistent and credible, as we would expect of a Divinely inspired history. We have here a parade example of how men come to God's word having already decided what they want to hear. Indeed there is a tendency to have "itching ears", heaping up teachers to confirm us in our own desires, lusts and hunches (<a href='B:620 4:3'>2Ti 4:3</a>; maybe a reference to Ahab heaping up 400 such teachers to tell him what he wanted to hear). This is why there are so many different interpretations of the Bible. Because readers / hearers like to hear only what confirms that which they already had a hunch about. To achieve a second naivety as we come to God's word, to be a born again virgin, is hard indeed. Jehoshaphat realized what Ahab was doing, and asked him not to talk like that- but to accept Yahweh's word. The fact Jehoshaphat himself still went into battle shows how he himself perceived the truth of all this, but didn't do accordingly. The "evil" prophesied was presumably of Ahab's condemnation, confirming Elijah's words.</p><p>He is Micaiah the son of Imla. Jehoshaphat said, Don’t let the king say so-</p><p>Again we are introduced to a true prophet of Yahweh who existed at the time of Elijah. His claim to be the only prophet of Yahweh is continually demonstrated to be false. Presumably Elijah knew these other prophets, but considered that they had all gone wrong on this or that point of doctrine or practice. And perhaps they had, but God still counted them as His prophets, and used them as such. And it was Elijah who was removed from the prophetic ministry because of his arrogance in considering none of them genuine, and he alone being the true representative of Yahweh. Micaiah had previously spoken critical things to Ahab in Yahweh's Name, hence Ahab says that this prophet only says "evil" about him and he doesn't want to consult him. Elijah was quite wrong to discount all these brave prophets as somehow not genuine:&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>Then the king of Israel called an officer and said, Get Micaiah the son of Imla quickly-</p><p>"Who is like Yah?" was a direct challenge to the idea that Yahweh could be worshipped through Baal worship (see on :4). According to :26, Micaiah was imprisoned at this time. The 'quick' summoning from prison by an officer to speak God's word would have recalled to Micaiah the example of faithful Joseph.</p>


text:
<p>Now the king of Israel and Jehoshaphat the king of Judah sat each on his throne, arrayed in their robes. They were sitting in an open place at the entrance of the gate of Samaria; and all the prophets were prophesying before them- </p><p>This was an impressive sight, and the area had clearly been especially prepared so that so many prophets could prophesy together. It was designed to sway Jehoshaphat according to the false maxim that the majority must be right, and how could so many be wrong. See on <a href='B:330 10:5'>Eze 10:5</a></p>


text:
<p>Zedekiah the son of Chenaanah made him horns of iron and said, Thus says Yahweh, ‘With these you shall push the Syrians, until they are consumed’- </p><p>Zedekiah, like a typical apostate, is mixing the truth of God out of context with wrong ideas. He alludes to Moses'&nbsp; blessing of Joseph in <a href='B:50 33:17'>Deu 33:17</a> to the northern tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh: “Buffalo horns are his (Joseph's) horns, with them he thrusts down nations”. But of course he overlooked the fact that the blessings of Moses were predicated upon obedience to the covenant. He probably made the horns and held them on his forehead. Micaiah's response is to also quote from the law of Moses, but about the judgment for disobedience to the covenant (:16).</p>


text:
<p>All the prophets prophesied so, saying, Go up to Ramoth Gilead, and prosper; for Yahweh will deliver it into the hand of the king- </p><p>These 400 prophets of Baal [for they were the equivalent of the 400 executed on Mount Carmel] still used the name of Yahweh. Their position was that they conducted Yahweh worship through Baal worship. Perhaps their usage of the Hebrew word for "prosper" alluded to how the word is four times used of the prospering of Abraham's servant on his journey and mission (<a href='B:10 24:21'>Gen 24:21</a>; <a href='B:10 24:40'>Gen 24:40</a>; <a href='B:10 24:42'>Gen 24:42</a>; <a href='B:10 24:56'>Gen 24:56</a>). And this is probably our most common temptation as believers; to mix the flesh and the spirit, to justify sin in the name of serving God. But Ahab had broken the covenant, and would not prosper (s:w. <a href='B:50 28:29'>Deu 28:29</a>). Jehoshaphat later learnt this lesson, for he uses the word in saying that only those who hear Yahweh's prophets will "prosper" (<a href='B:140 20:20'>2Ch 20:20</a>).</p>


text:
<p>The messenger who went to call Micaiah spoke to him saying, Behold, the words of the prophets declare good to the king with one mouth. Let your word therefore, please be like one of theirs, and speak good- </p><p>We sense the build up of pressure upon Micaiah. He was imprisoned for having spoken God's word against Ahab (see on :8,25), and would be under huge pressure from the presence of the 400 prophets and the audience watching (:27 "all you people"). And as the officer led him from prison towards the huge crowd of people gathered before the two kings, he too added his pressure. The request of the officer was perhaps because he actually liked Micaiah and could foresee the death sentence being given if he again "spoke evil" and not "good" to Ahab, and he didn't want to have to carry that out. But he still totally fails to perceive that God's word cannot be changed or controlled by man.</p>


text:
<p>Micaiah said, As Yahweh lives, what my God says, that will I speak- </p><p>If Micaiah was at that time imprisoned for prophesying evil against Ahab (see on :8,25), bearing in mind Naboth had been slain for allegedly cursing the king, he would have been sorely tempted to now buy his freedom by saying what Ahab wanted to hear. And despite his determination not to do so, I suggest on :14 that he did temporarily fail. The pressure on him was intense. Micaiah uses the words and ideas of Balaam when pressured to not say Yahweh's word. He was clearly a spiritually minded man who was deeply aware of Biblical precedent for his situation, as we ought to be.</p>


text:
<p>When he had come to the king, the king said to him, Micaiah, shall we go to Ramoth Gilead to battle, or shall I desist? He said, Go up, and prosper. They shall be delivered into your hand- </p><p>It could be argued that by repeating the very words of the false prophets, Micaiah was just repeating them sarcastically, with the tone of his voice indicating that. But I prefer to conclude that this faithful man, who had gone to prison for his witness of God's word to Ahab, now faltered under the pressure of the presence of the 400 false prophets. He acted like Nathan when David enquired about building a temple for Yahweh, who gave the answer that his enquirer wanted to hear. Such failure of a moment would be absolutely true to human experience and would be psychologically and spiritually credible. See on :13.</p>


text:
<p>The king said to him, How many times shall I adjure you that you speak to me nothing but the truth in the name of Yahweh?- </p><p>See on :14. We are left to speculate which singular "king" it was who said this, Ahab or Jehoshaphat. The Biblical record is intentionally open ended at some points, to encourage us to think ourselves into the situation. The king sensed that Micaiah was cowed by the situation, and really wanted to know what Yahweh thought. So we sense "the king" in view was Jehoshaphat.</p>


text:
<p>He said, I saw all Israel scattered on the mountains, as sheep that have no shepherd. Yahweh said, These have no master. Let them return every man to his house in peace- </p><p>As explained on :10, Zedekiah had quoted Moses' blessings of the tribes as justification for a successful battle- which were conditional upon obedience to the covenant. Micaiah responds by quoting the curses for disobedience to the covenant (<a href='B:40 27:16-17'>Num 27:16-17</a>). The removal of the master / shepherd implies that the shepherd or king of Israel is to be slain, and the sheep would return to their homes once the shepherd was slain. And that is just what happened when it was recognized that Ahab had been slain.</p>


text:
<p>Micaiah said, Therefore hear the word of Yahweh- </p><p>There does not follow a "Thus says the Lord", but rather a description of the vision Micaiah had seen, a peek into the heavenly throne room, the court of heaven. Discerning the vision was perhaps the essential "word of Yahweh" which the kings were to "hear".</p><p>I saw Yahweh sitting on His throne, and all the army of heaven standing on His right hand and on His left- </p><p>It seems there are two groups of Angels- Angels of evil (<a href='B:230 78:49'>Psa 78:49</a>) and of good. Thus God creates both good and evil- and <a href='B:290 45:5-7'>Isa 45:5-7</a> emphasizes that He makes a distinct creation of both- using these separate groups of Angels. However we stress that the Angels of evil are not sinful Angels. We think of the Angel called "the destroyer" at Passover time, who was restrained by the Passover Angel from destroying the Israelite firstborn. And so one wonders whether "the destroyer" was one of those on the left hand side, and the Passover Angel one of those on the right hand. This division is perhaps hinted at here, where "all the host of Heaven" are seen standing around the throne of God himself "on His right and on His left". The exact way in which these two groups of Angels work is unclear, and this perhaps explains the difficulty all Bible students face in understanding the undefined "power of darkness", hints of which lurk throughout Scripture (e:g. evil spirits, the forces of evil unleashed at the end of Revelation etc:), and also in defining the apparently super-human power of righteousness which the Psalms and New Testament especially speak of. At&nbsp; present&nbsp; these&nbsp; topics seem to defy close definition- until we appreciate the Angelic basis behind them?</p><p>The visions of Isaiah 6 and Revelation 4 also show God seated on a throne with Angels before Him, bringing information and requests to Him and departing with commands to obey; the idea of a council in Heaven is clearly hinted at in Job 1; <a href='B:10 1:26'>Gen 1:26</a>; <a href='B:230 89:7'>Psa 89:7</a>. God sitting on a throne implies that each request or piece of information presented is 'judged' and an appropriate decision made. The 'case' of the adversaries to God is presented by a 'satan' Angel in Job.</p><p>We have here perhaps the most detailed picture of the Heavenly council. God told them His desire- for Ahab to die at Ramoth-Gilead. He then asked which Angel wanted to effect this. We thus learn that like us, on hearing God's desire the elohim all have different ways of trying to fulfil it. One "Spirit" (Angel) suggested that He would put a lying spirit in the mouth of Ahab's prophets, and this was the suggestion chosen and enabled by God. This shows that the Angels do not all automatically know the best way of bringing about God's purpose, and therefore they need to seek His advice and perhaps discuss things amongst themselves first before acting. Note that "all the host of Heaven" were there around the throne of God participating in this decision. And so all the Angels are involved in the decisions God and the Angels make about us. <a href='B:490 15:6'>Luk 15:6</a> implies the same.</p>


text:
<p>Yahweh said, Who shall entice Ahab king of Israel, that he may go up and fall at Ramoth Gilead? One spoke saying this way, and another saying that way- </p><p>"Entice" is the word elsewhere translated 'deceive'. Clearly God does deceive; for He confirms men in the mental path in which they themselves wish to go. <a href='B:330 14:9'>Eze 14:9</a> uses the word very clearly in this connection (see commentary there); and the teaching is confirmed in <a href='B:600 2:11'>2Th 2:11</a>.</p><p>In Revelation we see the incense of human prayers arising into Heaven, resulting in Angels coming to earth, pouring out bowls, blowing trumpets, and major events happening on earth (<a href='B:730 5:8'>Rev 5:8</a>; <a href='B:730 8:3'>Rev 8:3</a>). Prayer is noticed; it brings forth quite out of proportion responses. The Angels discuss their plans for us in the court of Heaven, coming up with various possibilities of how to act in our lives, discussing them with God (<a href='B:110 22:20-22'>1Ki 22:20-22</a>). They play some part in the whole process of our prayers. When we read that “Surely the Lord does nothing without revealing his secret to his servants the prophets” (<a href='B:370 3:7'>Amo 3:7</a>), we might tend to take that as a statement of absolute principle that is obvious to all the Angels. But we find an Angel discussing with others: “Shall I hide from Abraham [who was a prophet] what I am about to do?” (<a href='B:10 18:17'>Gen 18:17</a>). The Angels have more debate, expend more mental and physical energy than we surely realize, in order to operationalize things which we might consider to be standard and automatic in God’s work with men. In our context, what this means is that when men reject the machinations and schemings of God’s love, they reject an awful lot; and it grieves and disappoints Him, and appears tragic to those like the prophets who see things from His viewpoint.</p>


text:
<p>A spirit- </p><p>God makes His Angels "spirits" (<a href='B:230 104:4'>Psa 104:4</a>), and Angels are in view here. But the word 'spirit' has a wide range of meaning. It can refer to power, but also to the thought which is then expressed through the power of action. The Angel is here called a "spirit" because the idea was to place a thought in the mind or spirit of the false prophets, and thereby Ahab.</p><p>Came out- </p><p>This is the same word as in :21 "I will go forth". The Angel was as it were demonstrating how he intended acting.</p><p>Stood before Yahweh and said- </p><p>It was the true prophets who stood before Yahweh (<a href='B:110 17:1'>1Ki 17:1</a>). The connection is to show that the true prophets were represented by the Angels in the court of heaven, and this Angel was as it were on their side.</p><p>I will entice him. Yahweh said to him, How?- </p><p>Ahab had been persuaded or enticed to do evil by Jezebel, and had enticed or persuaded Jehoshaphat to go to battle. But this was because he had himself been persuaded or enticed by God.</p>


text:
<p>He said, I will go forth, and will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets. He said, You will entice him, and will prevail also- </p><p>God deceived prophets to speak things in His Name which were actually false (<a href='B:110 22:20-22'>1Ki 22:20-22</a>; <a href='B:330 14:9'>Eze 14:9</a>). He chose Israel's delusions by making their idols answer them (<a href='B:290 66:3-4'>Isa 66:3-4</a>). Jeremiah feared God had deceived him (<a href='B:300 20:7'>Jer 20:7</a>)- showing he knew such a thing was possible. <a href='B:50 13:1-3'>Deu 13:1-3</a> warns Israel not to believe prophets whose prophecies came true although they taught false doctrines, because they may have been raised up to test their obedience. God deceived Israel by telling them about the peace which would come on Jerusalem in the future Kingdom; they didn't consider the other prophecies which were given at the same time concerning their imminent judgment, and therefore they thought that God was pleased with them and was about to establish the Messianic Kingdom; when actually the very opposite was about to happen (<a href='B:300 4:10'>Jer 4:10</a>). This is why the Bible is confusing to those who aren’t humble to God’s word.</p><p>Go forth, and do so- </p><p>This describes the Angels being sent out from the court of Heaven to do God’s word. So when we read of God sending lions (<a href='B:120 17:25-26'>2Ki 17:25-26</a>), sending wild beasts and famine (<a href='B:30 26:22'>Lev 26:22</a>; <a href='B:330 5:17'>Eze 5:17</a>; <a href='B:50 32:24'>Deu 32:24</a>), sending locusts (<a href='B:360 2:25'>Joe 2:25</a>), it would seem that Angels are sent forth from God’s throne in order to command animals to obey God’s word. And moreover, He sends an evil spirit between men (<a href='B:70 9:23'>Jdg 9:23</a>) and stubborn hearts are also sent from God (<a href='B:230 81:13'>Psa 81:13</a>). The same Angels who are sent to control the animals can also therefore work to give men certain attitudes of mind.</p>


text:
<p>Now therefore, behold, Yahweh has put a lying spirit in the mouth of these your prophets; and Yahweh has spoken evil concerning you- </p><p>This was exactly what Micaiah had said before about Ahab, and Ahab intuitively knew that this was coming.</p>


text:
<p>Then Zedekiah the son of Chenaanah came near, and struck Micaiah on the cheek, and said, Which way did the spirit of Yahweh go from me to speak to you?- </p><p>"Cheek" can be "ear". The idea was that Zedekiah implied Micaiah was saying that the spirit had left him and entered Micaiah through his ear. And so he smote that ear. To strike on the cheek was the punishment for a heretic, and was applied to the Lord Jesus (<a href='B:400 5:1'>Mic 5:1</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Micaiah said, Behold, you shall see on that day, when you shall go into an inner room to hide yourself- </p><p>When Ahab was defeated and slain, everyone in Samaria would be looking for the false prophets to kill them. Not least Jezebel. For the defeat would have been blamed upon them. So Zedekiah would have hid from shame and fear of being killed. There is a connection between Benhadad going into an inner room to hide when Ahab was given victory against him (<a href='B:110 20:30'>1Ki 20:30</a>), and the false prophet Zedekiah going into an inner room to hide when Ahab was defeated (<a href='B:110 22:25'>1Ki 22:25</a>). The same Hebrew words are used, and the connection becomes more apparent if we accept that 1 Kings 20, 21 should be placed the other way around, as in LXX. This would mean that the hiding of Benhadad is recorded just a short time before that of Zedekiah. The connection would be to show that the false prophets were in fact bracketed together by God with Israel's enemies; whereas they had claimed that they were nationalists on Israel's side, proclaiming Israel's certain victory against their enemies. God sees not as man sees, and the real spiritual realities are often the very opposite of what appears.</p>


text:
<p>The king of Israel said, Take Micaiah, and carry him back to Amon the governor of the city, and to Joash the king’s son- </p><p>These men were those who ran the prison, for "carry him back" means Micaiah was already in prison. See on :8. Again we see how wrong Elijah had been to claim that no prophet of Yahweh existed apart from himself. Micaiah had gone to prison for speaking God's word to Ahab. But Elijah presumably considered there was some curious point of theology or matter of legal practice which enabled Elijah to rubbish Micaiah as not sincere and not a true prophet. It reminds us of how truly committed Christians who have gone to jail or even death for their witness::. are trashed by others as somehow not the real Christians. And only they the critics are in fellowship with God. They really need to learn the lesson of Elijah. For he was ejected from his ministry because of those attitudes.</p>


text:
<p>Say, ‘Thus says the king, Put this fellow in the prison, and feed him with bread of affliction and with water of affliction, until I return in peace’- </p><p>I suggest on :8,25 that he was already in prison for his faithful witness against Ahab. So the idea here seems to be that he was to be put in the inner prison and given a very tough regime.</p>


text:
<p>Micaiah said, If you return at all in peace, Yahweh has not spoken by me. He said, Listen, you peoples, all of you!-</p><p>If I were Micaiah, I think I would have just shrugged and remained silent, fearing the harsh regime of punishment in :26 could easily be changed into the death sentence. For Naboth had been slain for 'cursing the king'. But Micaiah bravely invites the large audience to listen and take note, because he seeks their conversion.</p>


text:
<p>The king of Israel said to Jehoshaphat, I will disguise myself, and go into the battle; but you put on your robes. So the king of Israel disguised himself; and they went into the battle- </p><p>LXX even suggests that Ahab asked Jehoshaphat to wear Ahab's robes. The next verse describes why this was; Ahab was aware of the king of Syria's desire to resolve the issue by capturing or killing Ahab. The incident is a parade example of 'bad friends'. We marvel at Jehoshaphat's stupidity in agreeing. For surely he must have foreseen what could happen. This was the pressure he felt from Ahab and Jezebel, the in-laws of his son. And so often family pressure leads otherwise solid believers into uncharacteristic actions, seriously unwise behaviour and positions which are utterly the opposite of all they stand for. Because quite simply, they do not really commit to following God's word, even if they stand with their backs to the world.</p>


text:
<p>Now the king of Syria had commanded the captains of his chariots saying, Fight neither with small nor great, except only with the king of Israel- </p><p>Only three years previously (see on <a href='B:110 22:1'>1Ki 22:1</a>), the king of Syria had been foolishly spared by Ahab. Perhaps he couldn't live down that humiliation, and wanted to kill the man who had shown him so much mercy. That again is absolutely true to observed human experience, and the record time and again is absolutely psychologically credible.</p>


text:
<p>It happened that when the captains of the chariots saw Jehoshaphat, they said, It is the king of Israel! Therefore they turned around to fight against him. But Jehoshaphat cried out, and Yahweh helped him; and God moved them to depart from him- </p><p>The Hebrew implies that they surrounded him. He was clearly "lucky" to escape with his life. It was only by Divine grace that he did. His 'crying out' was surely to God to save him from his foolishness; "and Yahweh helped him". We note that God's grace was shown through His acting directly upon the hearts of men to "move" them to an otherwise unnatural course of action. And so the grace of His Spirit works upon human hearts today.</p>


text:
<p>It happened, when the captains of the chariots saw that it was not the king of Israel, that they turned back from pursuing him- </p><p>This was in response to his crying out to God for salvation in :31. And yet he was strongly rebuked by God in <a href='B:140 19:2'>2Ch 19:2</a>. His actions provoked "the wrath of Yahweh", but God saved a man by grace whilst at the same time having great wrath against him. This is so different to human wrath and attempts to show grace, which seem usually to be displayed without any other pole of feeling in mind. But God had both in perfect balance at the same time. This is the wonder of His Name, which includes all these poles of feeling toward men within His personality.</p>


text:
<p>A certain man drew his bow at random, and struck the king of Israel between the joints of the armour. Therefore he said to the driver of the chariot, Turn your hand, and carry me out of the army; for I am severely wounded- </p><p>The gaps in armour around vital organs would have been relatively small. This is evidence for all time that there is no such thing as "random". This was so clearly of God.</p>


text:
<p>The battle increased that day. However the king of Israel propped himself up in his chariot against the Syrians until the evening. About the time of the going down of the sun, he died- </p><p>The weak minded Ahab genuinely wanted to do the best for his troops, and therefore remained in his chariot, propped up. Presumably Israelite soldiers knew where and who he was. It was this policy of not being removed from his chariot which resulted in the blood accumulating within it, which was required for the fulfilment of the prophecies about his blood (see on <a href='B:110 22:38'>1Ki 22:38</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Jehoshaphat the king of Judah returned to his house in peace to Jerusalem-</p><p>After the very close shave with death recorded in 2 Chronicles 18, we can assume he returned shaking. But at peace with God.</p>


text:
<p>Jehu the son of Hanani the seer went out to meet him, and said to king Jehoshaphat, Should you help the wicked, and love those who hate Yahweh? Because of this, wrath is on you from before Yahweh- </p><p>This was major criticism. And yet when he dies, we read that "He walked in all the way of Asa his father; he didn’t turn aside from it, doing that which was right in the eyes of Yahweh" (<a href='B:110 22:43'>1Ki 22:43</a>):&nbsp; Again we marvel at God's positive overall opinion of Jehoshaphat. For he rejected Yahweh's word in going to fight at Ramoth Gilead, and was condemned by God for working together with those who hated Him, and "therefore is wrath on you from before Yahweh". A man may fail repeatedly, as Jehoshaphat did in his relations with Ahab and allowing his son to marry Jezebel's daughter, and even experience God's wrath. And yet finally be judged as having done what was right in God's eyes. That doing of right may refer therefore not to a spotless track record of behaviour, but rather to a basic faith in God, repentance and what the New Testament calls "abiding in Him". It is not the dramatic ups and downs on the graph of human spirituality over time which are significant to God. It is the overall state of the heart. And we can take courage from this in our own lives, and be guided therefore not to think too highly of those who at specific points show great commitment, nor to think too lowly of those who fail in specific points of their journey. We also learn that some men die with weaknesses, such as not taking away the high places. But this does not necessarily tip the balance towards their condemnation. This needs to be factored in to our thinking about the spiritual fate of those who die committing suicide.</p><p>He was too close to Israel. His son married a daughter of Ahab (<a href='B:140 18:1'>2Ch 18:1</a>), and his insistence on supporting Ahab was seen as loving those who hated Yahweh, and the wrath of God was upon him because of it. And yet he is commended for having peace with the kings of Israel (<a href='B:110 22:44'>1Ki 22:44</a>), even though&nbsp; that desire for peace with them led him into major sin. But he was judged as having a heart right with God (<a href='B:140 19:3'>2Ch 19:3</a>). We sense God weighting Jehoshaphat's sins with his relations with Israel against his genuine desire for peace within God's people. And overall, as he was judged on the state of his heart, his desire for unity and peace was judged as his dominant desire. We simply cannot factor in or weight all the dimensions in a man's heart. Only God can. And the reason we are not to judge is because in fact we cannot judge, in that we don't have access to human hearts. See on :10.</p>


text:
<p>Nevertheless there are good things found in you, in that you have put away Asheroth out of the land, and have set your heart to seek God- </p><p>This is the basis upon which he was judged positively at the end of his life (<a href='B:110 22:43'>1Ki 22:43</a>). For all the ups and downs of his spiritual graph (see on :3), his heart basically was with God:&nbsp; His "set" or 'prepared' heart could be seen as a fulfilment of Solomon's prayer in <a href='B:130 29:18'>1Ch 29:18</a>, where He asks God to keep the hearts of His people focused upon the temple, keeping it "in the imagination of the thoughts of the heart of Your people, and prepare their heart unto You". We see how God weighs up human hearts and actions. It is not that some "good things" outweigh bad things. That would be too simplistic, and ends up giving undue weight to works. So the emphasis is that good things were "found in you", within him, in his heart; and this is paralleled with setting his heart to seek God. It was this state of heart which more than counterbalanced his external sins of weakness in connection with Ahab.</p>


text:
<p>Jehoshaphat lived at Jerusalem. He went out again among the people from Beersheba to the hill country of Ephraim, and brought them back to Yahweh, the God of their fathers- </p><p>We recall how not so long ago, the people were rejoicing in giving the death sentence to any who didn't seek Yahweh (<a href='B:140 15:13'>2Ch 15:13</a>). I suggested this was on the cusp of religious extremism, and they were hypocritically uncommitted themselves. We note that he went out personally to appeal to the people, which is the best way of appeal. We note "Mount Ephraim" was the northern border of Judah, with Beersheba forming the southern border. However, Mount Ephraim was in Ephraim, and it could be that Jehoshaphat went there too, appealing even to the ten tribes.</p>


text:
<p>He set judges in the land throughout all the fortified cities of Judah, city by city- </p><p>David had planned for 6000 Levitical "officers and judges" throughout Israel (<a href='B:130 23:4'>1Ch 23:4</a>). But clearly the Levites had failed to be as they should have been, and the system of judges had failed; this is another indication that David's final plans for the new religious system based around the temple never really worked out in practice.</p>


text:
<p>and said to the judges, Consider what you do. You don’t judge for man, but for Yahweh; and He is with you in the judgment- </p><p>This suggests that Jehoshaphat was installing new judges; it's not that there were no judges before this time. Priests were to represent God, and to come before them was to come “before the Lord” (<a href='B:50 19:17'>Deu 19:17</a>). The Lord Jesus was presented as a baby “before the Lord” (<a href='B:490 2:22'>Luk 2:22</a>)- i:e. before the priest. Yahweh was "with" them in the judgment in that their judgments were to be guided by His revealed word, which was a source of His presence amongst them- as it is now.</p>


text:
<p>Now therefore let the fear of Yahweh be upon you. Be careful and do so; for there is no iniquity with Yahweh our God, nor respect of persons, nor taking of bribes- </p><p>This had presumably been a problem with the previous judges whom Jehoshaphat was now replacing (see on :6). This setting up of judges may have been in obedience to <a href='B:50 16:18'>Deu 16:18</a>, whereas before this perhaps the judgment was done as in most primitive societies, by the heads of families. But that was bound to be open to "respect of persons" and bribes.</p>


text:
<p>Moreover in Jerusalem Jehoshaphat appointed Levites and priests, and of the heads of the fathers’ households of Israel, for the judgment of Yahweh, and for controversies-</p><p>The idea was that they judged cases which were handed up to them by the system of local judges described in :5-7. But LXX "And to judge the inhabitants of Jerusalem". "The judgment of Yahweh" may refer to interpretation of the Mosaic law, and "controversies" to interpersonal disputes. We note that "Levites" were to be part of this higher system of judges, and they are here differentiated from the priests. Levites were servants to the priests, but here they are invested with high authority. Those of the servant class were elevated to positions of senior judgment, and Paul has the same spirit in view in <a href='B:530 6:4'>1Co 6:4</a>. See on <a href='B:140 20:14'>2Ch 20:14</a>.</p><p>David (<a href='B:100 14:4'>2Sa 14:4</a>; <a href='B:100 15:3'>2Sa 15:3</a>) and Solomon (<a href='B:110 3:16'>1Ki 3:16</a>) appear to have concentrated all judgment in themselves, setting themselves up effectively as both king and priest, for the "judge" was to be a priest. Jehoshaphat reformed this by placing the power of judgment in the hands of a group of Levites, priests and heads of families as the higher court in Jerusalem (<a href='B:140 19:7'>2Ch 19:7</a>). But still Jehoshaphat didn't appoint a singular senior judge, as required in <a href='B:50 17:9'>Deu 17:9</a>. We note from <a href='B:50 19:17'>Deu 19:17</a> that this singular priestly supreme judge is called "Yahweh", because he was to be Yahweh's supreme representative when it came to judgment. But it seems even the best kings of Judah preferred to keep that office in their own power.</p><p>They returned to Jerusalem- </p><p>LXX "And to judge the inhabitants of Jerusalem". If we follow the AV, then this was after Jehoshaphat's reforming tour of his land which began in :4.</p>


text:
<p>He commanded them saying, Thus you shall do in the fear of Yahweh, faithfully, and with a perfect heart- </p><p>"Perfect heart" may mean as in <a href='B:130 12:38'>1Ch 12:38</a>, a united heart amongst all the judges.</p>


text:
<p>Whenever any controversy shall come to you from your brothers who dwell in their cities, between blood and blood, between law and commandment, statutes and ordinances- </p><p>Judging between "blood and blood" (<a href='B:50 17:8'>Deu 17:8</a>) may refer to judging whether between murder and manslaughter. Judgment between "law and commandment" may mean deciding which particular Mosaic law was appropriate in a given case.</p><p>You shall warn them, that they not be guilty towards Yahweh, and so wrath come on you and on your brothers- </p><p>We have just read this phrase in :2, where wrath came upon Jehoshaphat for his actions. Perhaps in humility because of this, he now hands over the judiciary to a system of judges rather than continuing to be the personal judge of Israel, as previous kings had been (see on :8).</p><p>Do this, and you shall not be guilty- </p><p>The idea seems to be that the judges would not be guilty if they judged according to information given which was in fact false. But those who made false testimony would have been warned that doing so meant facing Yahweh's judgment.</p>


text:
<p>Behold, Amariah the chief priest is over you in all matters of Yahweh- </p><p>This may refer to Amariah, "Yah has spoken", who was to finally judge over all matters of interpretation of the Mosaic law.</p><p>And Zebadiah the son of Ishmael, the ruler of the house of Judah, in all the king’s matters. The Levites shall be officers before you. Deal courageously, and may Yahweh be with the good- </p><p>Levites were servants to the priests, but here they are invested with high authority. Those of the servant class were elevated to positions of senior judgment, and Paul has the same spirit in view in <a href='B:530 6:4'>1Co 6:4</a>. Although the idea may be that they were waiting to operationalize the judgments handed down.</p>


text:
<p>It happened after this that the children of Moab, and the children of Ammon, and with them some of the other Ammonites, came against Jehoshaphat to battle-</p><p>For "Ammonites", LXX and some texts read "the Mehunim", of <a href='B:140 26:7'>2Ch 26:7</a>; <a href='B:130 4:41'>1Ch 4:41</a>.</p>


text:
<p>Then some came who told Jehoshaphat saying, A great multitude is coming against you from beyond the sea from Syria. Behold, they are in Hazazon Tamar (that is, En Gedi)- </p><p>Some manuscripts read "from Edom", called "mount Seir" in :10, which would make better sense of them coming from En Gedi, with "the sea" then referring to the Dead Sea:. G:A. Smith explains that En Gedi was "on the west coast of the Dead Sea at a point where a rugged pass leads up into the hill country of Judah".</p>


text:
<p>Jehoshaphat was alarmed, and set himself to seek to Yahweh. He proclaimed a fast throughout all Judah- </p><p>Fasts were typically proclaimed to call for repentance, as a result of calamity convicting people of sin. Jehoshaphat recognized that his reforms had not touched the soul of most of his people, and saw this invasion as a result of that. See on :10.</p>


text:
<p>Judah gathered themselves together to seek help from Yahweh. They came out of all the cities of Judah to seek Yahweh- </p><p>The people came to "seek help", but as explained on :3, Jehoshaphat realized that what was essentially needed was repentance.</p>


text:
<p>Jehoshaphat stood in the assembly of Judah and Jerusalem, in the house of Yahweh, before the new court- </p><p>Jehoshaphat stood not "in" but "before" this court, so it may refer to the court of the priests which had been rebuilt recently. Hence "new".</p>


text:
<p>and he said, Yahweh, the God of our fathers, aren’t You God in heaven? Aren’t You ruler over all the kingdoms of the nations? Power and might are in Your hand, so that no one is able to stand against You- </p><p>To "stand against" is s:w. "stand with" or "before". Jehoshaphat 'stood' "before" Yahweh (:5). He feels his unworthiness to do this, and yet is aware that all the world likewise stands before Him, and cannot stand against Him. We note that God was king of the Gentile world even then. For them to become His 'kingdom', as today, required a recognition that He is king, and to accept His position as their king and they as His subjects. In other words, to accept what is already potentially the situation. This aspect of the call of the Gospel of the Kingdom is often felt by those who truly respond to it, having previously known nothing of His ways.</p>


text:
<p>Didn’t You, our God, drive out the inhabitants of this land before Your people Israel, and give it to the seed of Abraham Your friend forever?- </p><p>"Drive out" is s:w. "inherit" in :11. It is not the usual word for "drive out". If as suggested on :2 the invaders were from Edom, Ammon and Moab (:10), they too were the seed of Abraham. And it is all of them whom Jehoshaphat has in view here. They were called to be part of God's kingdom (see on :6). The idea is not, therefore. 'You drove out the Canaanites, do drive out these invaders now'. For the Canaanites were not the seed of Abraham. But these invaders were. These descendants of Abraham were to be defeated, Jehoshaphat argues, because they were trying to drive Judah out of the land which they too had been given to inherit (:11). So the grounds of their condemnation were not that they were Canaanites, but rather that they were forbidding other members of the seed a place in the inheritance. And there is a lesson for that in the warring members of the true seed of Abraham today.</p>


text:
<p>They lived in it, and have built You a sanctuary in it for Your name saying- </p><p>Jehoshaphat has great spirituality and faith at this point. But he retains the misunderstanding of David and Solomon, that the sanctuary or temple built was somehow a guarantee that God would always protect His people. God had explained that He didn't want them to build it, but rather wanted to build them a 'house' or family of humbled hearts, open to the operation of His Spirit. See on :28.</p>


text:
<p>If evil comes on us- the sword, judgment, plague or famine- we will stand before this house and before You, (for Your name is in this house), and cry to You in our affliction, and You will hear and save- </p><p>He is repeating the prayer of Solomon. But he also repeats the same misunderstanding, that the physical temple was some kind of talisman which would nudge God into saving His people from judgment even when they sinned. This was not the case. And the final destruction of the temple and captivity of the people was evidence enough of that.</p>


text:
<p>Now, consider the children of Ammon and Moab and Mount Seir, whom You would not let Israel invade when they came out of the land of Egypt, but they turned aside from them, and didn’t destroy them- </p><p>This is starting to put the blame on God for allowing these people to still exist. But the reason for their invasion was because Judah had sinned, and Jehoshaphat realized that when he called for a fast (see on :3). But like us, he soon drifted away from that initial realization of sin and the need for repentance and salvation by grace. For from that height, he slips down into considering the temple as a physical talisman which would bring help (:8,9), and now he tries to rationalize the situation by even blaming God. Rather than retaining his sense of sin.</p>


text:
<p>See how they reward us, to come to cast us out of Your possession which You have given us to inherit- </p><p>As discussed on :7, their behaviour was obnoxious because they too were the seed of Abraham, but refused to allow Judah to have a place in the land promised to Abraham.</p>


text:
<p>Our God, will You not judge them? For we have no might against this great company that comes against us; neither know we what to do, but our eyes are toward You- </p><p>As discussed on :10, Jehoshaphat has slipped down from his initial sense that Judah have sinned and must desperately, urgently repent (:3). Now he is saying that those sent to judge Judah are sinners worthy of judgment. And yet he recognizes that he has no might against that judgment. And yet the history of Israel is full of faithful individuals and armies winning victories, with Yahweh's help, against far larger and stronger armies. Yet Jehoshaphat seems to lack that level of faith, and is simply "dismayed", which we will note on :15 seems to imply a lack of faith.</p>


text:
<p>All Judah stood before Yahweh, with their little ones, their wives and their children-</p><p>We see here how "all" in the Bible isn't always to be read literally. Representatives from a community are counted as "all" of it. "Little ones" seems here to mean babies.</p>


text:
<p>Then the Spirit of Yahweh came on Jahaziel the son of Zechariah, son of Benaiah, son of Jeiel, son of Mattaniah, the Levite, of the sons of Asaph, in the midst of the assembly- </p><p>"Jahaziel", 'he who sees visions of God', is an example of a person having a name which was acquired due to later life experience, and was likely not the birth name. We note he was a Levite not from the priestly line, continuing the theme we saw developed in <a href='B:140 19:8'>2Ch 19:8</a>; <a href='B:140 19:11'>2Ch 19:11</a> of Levites being chosen for exalted work. Levites were servants to the priests, but here they are invested with high authority.</p>


text:
<p>He said, Listen, all Judah and you inhabitants of Jerusalem, and you, king Jehoshaphat. Thus says Yahweh to you, ‘Don’t be afraid, neither be dismayed by reason of this great multitude; for the battle is not yours, but God’s- </p><p>I noted on :12 that Jehoshaphat's faith was rather weak and he appeared almost fatalistic. "The battle is::. God's" is a quotation of David's words to Goliath in&nbsp; <a href='B:90 17:47'>1Sa 17:47</a>. Being "dismayed and terrified" is the term used of how Israel generally were terrified of Goliath, whereas David by faith wasn't (<a href='B:90 17:11'>1Sa 17:11</a>). David in turn uses to his son Solomon (<a href='B:130 22:13'>1Ch 22:13</a>; <a href='B:130 28:20'>1Ch 28:20</a>). He was thereby urging Solomon not to worry if he was out of step with all Israel; if they were dismayed and terrified, he was still to walk in faith as David had done at the time of the Goliath crisis. It is also used to urge the people toward the spirit of David rather than that of Israel in <a href='B:140 20:15'>2Ch 20:15</a>; <a href='B:140 20:17'>2Ch 20:17</a>. The same phrase is also used in urging the people of Judah in Hezekiah's time to consider the Assyrians to be as a Goliath which they like David could vanquish (<a href='B:140 32:7'>2Ch 32:7</a>). The exiles likewise were urged not to be dismayed and terrified at the reproach of men (<a href='B:290 51:7'>Isa 51:7</a>; <a href='B:300 30:10'>Jer 30:10</a>), very clearly making the history with Goliath relevant to their times.</p>


text:
<p>Tomorrow go down against them. Behold, they are coming up by the ascent of Ziz. You shall find them at the end of the valley, before the wilderness of Jeruel- </p><p>The valley refers to one of the ravines leading from the Dead Sea; see on :2.</p>


text:
<p>You will not need to fight this battle. Set yourselves, stand still, and see the salvation of Yahweh with you, O Judah and Jerusalem. Don’t be afraid, nor be dismayed. Go out against them tomorrow, for Yahweh is with you’- </p><p>To "stand still and see" was the language of the invitation to behold the miracle of the salvation at the Red Sea (<a href='B:20 14:13'>Exo 14:13</a>, cp. <a href='B:90 12:16'>1Sa 12:16</a> and see note there). Yahweh was "with you" whilst they were with Him (<a href='B:140 15:2'>2Ch 15:2</a>), and yet it seems the faith of the people was weak, and they had been called to radical repentance in :3. But by grace, Yahweh was with them despite this. Just as they had stood still and seen His salvation at the Red Sea whilst they were still clutching the idols of Egypt (according to Ezekiel 20). And Jehoshaphat grasped that, saying that the victory was to be by grace (:21).</p>


text:
<p>Jehoshaphat bowed his head with his face to the ground; and all Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem fell down before Yahweh, worshipping Yahweh- </p><p>This was an act of great faith in the prophetic word. For at that point there was no visible evidence that this victory would happen.</p>


text:
<p>The Levites, of the children of the Kohathites and of the children of the Korahites, stood up to praise Yahweh, the God of Israel, with an exceeding loud voice- </p><p>This again, as noted on :19, was the joy of deep faith. For there was no evidence that the victory would happen. That had to be taken on absolute faith. They didn't just 'wait and see', they proactively rejoiced.</p>


text:
<p>They rose early in the morning and went forth into the wilderness of Tekoa. As they went forth, Jehoshaphat stood and said, Listen to me, Judah, and you inhabitants of Jerusalem! Believe in Yahweh your God, so you shall be established!- </p><p>The word was and is God. <a href='B:50 4:12'>Deu 4:12</a> [Heb:] says that Israel heard God's voice and saw no similitude save a voice. To hear the word is to in that sense see God; for the word was and is God. There are other connections between seeing God and hearing His word in <a href='B:20 20:21'>Exo 20:21</a> and <a href='B:110 19:12-14'>1Ki 19:12-14</a>. Observe the parallelism in <a href='B:140 20:20'>2Ch 20:20</a>: "Believe in the Lord your God, so shall ye be established; believe his prophets, so shall ye prosper". Our attitude to God is our attitude to His word. Because the word is so pure, therefore we love it (<a href='B:230 119:140'>Psa 119:140</a>). John Carter rightly observed: "Upon our understanding of what the Bible is, our attitude to it will be determined".</p><p>Believe His prophets, so you shall prosper- </p><p>The false prophets had told Ahab and Jehoshaphat to go up and fight at Ramoth Gilead, "for Yahweh will deliver it into the hand of the king" (<a href='B:110 22:12'>1Ki 22:12</a>). But Jehoshaphat had nearly lost his life, because he had refused to hear the voice of the one true prophet of Yahweh. So the emphasis is upon believing Yahweh's prophets, and not false prophets. By saying this, Jehoshaphat shows he had learned from his mistake.</p>


text:
<p>When he had taken counsel with the people, he appointed those who should sing to Yahweh and give praise in holy array, as they went out before the army, and say, Give thanks to Yahweh; for His grace endures forever- </p><p>This is really a parade example of believing that you receive what you ask for, before the answer arrives. And feeling you have received it. It seems they sung Psalms 136, glorying in the victory which was not then theirs. The vanguard were singing Levites, as in the victory over Jericho. Indeed "before the army" appears to allude to <a href='B:60 6:7'>Jos 6:7</a>; <a href='B:60 6:9'>Jos 6:9</a>.</p>


text:
<p>When they began to sing and to praise, Yahweh set ambushers against the children of Ammon, Moab, and Mount Seir, who had come against Judah; and they were struck- </p><p>It was exactly at the moment that they began to praise God for a victory which seemed impossible, that Yahweh began to destroy them. The ambushers could have been Angels appearing as men. Or more likely, the people of Esau / Edom (see on :2) began fighting amongst themselves (:23). It could be however that as in <a href='B:60 8:2'>Jos 8:2</a>, God told Jehoshaphat to set an ambush against the enemy, which resulted in them fighting each other.</p>


text:
<p>For the children of Ammon and Moab stood up against the inhabitants of Mount Seir, utterly to kill and destroy them. When they had made an end of the inhabitants of Seir, each one helped to destroy another-</p><p>This is typical of how God so often destroyed Israel's enemies (e:g. <a href='B:70 7:22'>Jdg 7:22</a>), and how He will work in the last days. They destroy each other, just as men bring about their own judgment rather than being simply judged by God.</p>


text:
<p>When Judah came to the place overlooking the wilderness, they looked at the multitude which were now dead bodies fallen to the earth, and there were none who escaped- </p><p>As they came to the edge of the cliff, down which they had to descend in full view of the enemy they expected, their faith was at maximum stretch. We wonder whether the singers of confident praise for the promised victory::. just slightly quavered as they approached it. But faith was rewarded. AV "came toward the watchtower" may refer to one of the castles built by Jehoshaphat (<a href='B:140 17:12'>2Ch 17:12</a>).</p>


text:
<p>When Jehoshaphat and his people came to take their spoil, they found among them in abundance both riches and dead bodies, and precious jewels, which they stripped off for themselves, more than they could carry away. They were three days in taking the spoil, it was so much- </p><p>The presence of so much wealth amongst the attackers was doubtless a reason they fought each other.</p>


text:
<p>On the fourth day they assembled themselves in the valley of Beracah; for there they blessed Yahweh. Therefore the name of that place is called The valley of Beracah to this day- </p><p>This may be the "valley of Jehoshaphat" which will feature in the latter day destruction of Israel's enemies (<a href='B:360 3:2'>Joe 3:2</a>; <a href='B:360 3:12'>Joe 3:12</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Then they returned, every man of Judah and Jerusalem, and Jehoshaphat in their forefront, to go again to Jerusalem with joy; for Yahweh had made them to rejoice over their enemies- </p><p>God's psychological influencing of people is a parade example of how His Spirit works upon the human spirit. They rejoiced before the battle with the same joy they experienced after it. Truly they believed they had already received what they had asked for (<a href='B:480 11:24'>Mar 11:24</a>).</p>


text:
<p>They came to Jerusalem with stringed instruments and harps and trumpets to the house of Yahweh- </p><p>This returning to Jerusalem recalls how Jehoshaphat had earlier returned to Jerusalem in shame after the conflict at Ramoth Gilead. He ought to have learned that without association with the ten tribes, he would return to Jerusalem with joy. However we note that they came to the temple with their praise. On one hand this was appropriate, but we sense that for all their faith, they had still not learned the lesson that the temple was not in fact the source of their victory. See on :8:9.</p>


text:
<p>The fear of God was on all the kingdoms of the countries, when they heard that Yahweh fought against the enemies of Israel-</p><p>The fear of Yahweh coming upon those cities was the promised reward for obedience (<a href='B:50 11:25'>Deu 11:25</a>), and recalls the terror which fell upon the cities around Jacob at the time of <a href='B:10 35:5'>Gen 35:5</a>. But that terror didn't come because Israel were righteous at that time; in fact the opposite. For they had just massacred Shechem. Likewise here, these blessings were by grace, for Judah were not so righteous at this time (:33); and reflected Yahweh's extreme sensitivity to any faith and obedience toward Him.</p>


text:
<p>So the realm of Jehoshaphat was quiet; for his God gave him rest all around- </p><p>As in 2 Chron. 15;15, peace with the surrounding nations is seen as a result of spiritual blessing. This also implies that the invasion they had just experienced was indeed due to their serious sins (see on :3).</p>


text:
<p>Jehoshaphat reigned over Judah: he was thirty-five years old when he began to reign; and he reigned twenty-five years in Jerusalem. His mother’s name was Azubah the daughter of Shilhi- </p><p>Kings notes that he "began to reign over Judah in the fourth year of Ahab king of Israel", but Chronicles seems to not mention Ahab, nor use the apostate kings of Israel as a time marker for the reigns of the kings of Judah. Perhaps in exile, when Chronicles was written or rewritten, they realized that it was thanks to the influence of the kings of Israel that Judah had fallen away from Yahweh. "Azubah" means 'forsaking' and may mean that although his mother forsook Yahweh, Jehoshaphat in the end was loyal to Him in his heart.</p>


text:
<p>He walked in the way of Asa his father, and didn’t turn aside from it, doing that which was right in the eyes of Yahweh-</p><p>Jehoshaphat did externally turn aside, in his trust in Ahab and association with the apostate ten tribes. His behaviour incited the wrath of God against him- serious language. See on <a href='B:140 19:2'>2Ch 19:2</a>. But God saw that in his heart, he didn't swerve from Him; and He considered those heart positions as being the 'doing' which is all important to Him. This idea is continued in :33, where we learn God's overall judgment upon Judah at this time was that their hearts were not with Him- despite their great faith shown in the conflict earlier in this chapter. Peaks of faith and works are not the same as a core heart position.</p>


text:
<p>However the high places were not taken away; neither as yet had the people set their hearts to the God of their fathers- </p><p>Israel never really wholeheartedly committed themselves to Yahweh, and yet <a href='B:140 20:33'>2Ch 20:33</a> AV positively and hopefully says: "As yet the people had not prepared their hearts unto the God of their fathers". They never did. Especially in the preaching of the word of salvation to those who they knew wouldn’t respond, the Father and Son show their hopeful spirit. We therefore conclude that the apparent blessings upon the people for obedience were by grace, or perhaps from Divine respect for Jehoshaphat's faithful heart. For their hearts were not set upon their God.</p><p>Asa and Jehoshaphat removed the high places, but in a sense they didn't (<a href='B:110 15:14'>1Ki 15:14</a> cp. <a href='B:140 14:5'>2Ch 14:5</a>; <a href='B:140 17:6'>2Ch 17:6</a> cp. 20:33). We read of how the land was purged of Baal, Sodomites etc:; but in a very short time, we read of another purge being necessary. Hezekiah, Manasseh and Josiah all made major purges within a space of 80 years. Jeremiah therefore condemns the Jews who lived at the time of Josiah's reformation for not knowing God in their hearts. Asa gathered the gold and silver vessels back into the temple- and then went and used them to make a political treaty. He apparently treated them as God's riches, but then in reality he used them as his own (<a href='B:110 15:18'>1Ki 15:18</a>; <a href='B:110 15:15'>1Ki 15:15</a>). Many a Western Christian has this very same tendency. We too must ask ourselves whether our spirituality is really just a product of the crowd mentality; as the crowd shouted one day "Hosanna to the Son of David", a few days later they wanted Jesus to be delivered rather than Barabbas, but within minutes they were persuaded to cry for the crucifixion of the Son of God. Church life, Bible studies, the breaking of bread::. inevitably, there is a crowd mentality developed here. There is a feeling of devotion which wells up within us as a community, as an audience, as we sit there, as we stand in praise and worship together. But the real spirituality is far deeper than this. We must seriously ask whether our spirituality, our feelings of devotion, our true repentance, are only stimulated by these meetings?</p>


text:
<p>Now the rest of the acts of Jehoshaphat, first and last, behold, they are written in the history of Jehu the son of Hanani, which is inserted in the book of the kings of Israel- </p><p>The prophet Jehu rebuked Baasha (<a href='B:110 16:1'>1Ki 16:1</a>) and yet he also wrote a history of Jehoshaphat's reign (<a href='B:140 20:34'>2Ch 20:34</a>), implying that he outlived Jehoshaphat. This means that Jehu must have been a young man at the time of his rebuke of Baasha. It's hard to keep on keeping on in ministry over a long lifetime, and those who do should be deeply respected.</p>


text:
<p>After this, Jehoshaphat king of Judah joined himself with Ahaziah king of Israel, who did very wickedly- </p><p>He was so slow to learn the lesson that he should not work together with the apostate ten tribe kingdom. He had almost lost his life because of this whilst fighting at Ramoth Gilead. And like us, the situations were repeated, but he was so slow to learn.</p>


text:
<p>He joined himself with him to make ships to go to Tarshish; and they made the ships in Ezion Geber- </p><p><a href='B:110 22:48'>1Ki 22:48</a> "to go to Ophir for gold". Despite the wealth God gave Jehoshaphat, even he was tempted by the desire for more. This has to be a warning to all generations.</p><p>"Ships of Tarshish" is clearly a technical term for a long distance trading vessel. "Tarshish" appears to have been the source of gold, peacocks, silver etc:, which are only found together in southern India. But a ship of Tarshish wasn't necessarily a ship which went to Tarshish. "Tarshish" means 'endurance' and refers to vessels which had a capacity for long distance trading. At that time, India was the end of the earth for someone living in Israel. There is an analogous situation with how 19th century long distance trading vessels were known as "Indiamen", not because they necessarily sailed the routes to India, but because they were long distance vessels of the kind which had sailed to India. This is why 'going to Tarshish' in <a href='B:140 20:36-37'>2Ch 20:36-37</a> is paralleled with 'going to Ophir in ships of Tarshish' in <a href='B:110 22:48'>1Ki 22:48</a>.</p>&nbsp;<p>"Ophir" may have been a generic name for areas to the east, including southern Arabia (famed for gold in <a href='B:230 72:15'>Psa 72:15</a>; <a href='B:330 27:22'>Eze 27:22</a>) and India; Ophir was in Arabia according to <a href='B:10 10:29'>Gen 10:29</a>. Sheba was nearby and was famed for gold, so it was through this trading that the Queen of Sheba heard of the wisdom of Solomon. <a href='B:110 10:1'>1Ki 10:1</a> goes on to speak of her after mentioning gold of Ophir in <a href='B:110 9:28'>1Ki 9:28</a>, connecting her with this gold trade with Ophir. But <a href='B:110 10:11'>1Ki 10:11</a> connects Ophir with "almug trees and precious stones". "Almug" appears to refer to sandalwood, "the Hebraized form of the Deccan word for sandal". This points to "Ophir" as being in the east, possibly as far as the Indian coast where these trees grow.</p>


text:
<p>Then Eliezer the son of Dodavahu of Mareshah prophesied against Jehoshaphat saying, Because you have joined yourself with Ahaziah, Yahweh has destroyed your works. The ships were broken, so that they were not able to go to Tarshish- </p><p>"Broken" is literally 'broken forth'. It is used of God as it were lashing out in sudden judgment (<a href='B:130 13:11'>1Ch 13:11</a>). He was so patient with Jehoshaphat regarding his abiding weakness of association with wicked people, even though his core heart position was with Yahweh. <a href='B:110 22:49'>1Ki 22:49</a> suggests that the ships were broken because Jehoshaphat refused Ahaziah's offer of more experienced sailors. So perhaps the ships were destroyed by a storm as soon as they left, which Ahaziah blamed upon inexperienced sailors from Judah. The ships had to be broken by the wind / storm of God's wrath, perhaps in the form of a gale. But according to 1 Kings, when Ahaziah proposes another join venture, Jehoshaphat apparently learns the lesson. I say apparently, because after Ahaziah dies, Jehoshaphat again repeats the same mistake with Ahab's other son Jehoram (<a href='B:120 3:7'>2Ki 3:7</a>). And yet he was finally counted righteous with God because his basic state of heart was for Him. We marvel again at God's patience with men. This means that we are to continue seeking the repentance of men and never cut them off, as is typically done by small minded churches 'disfellowshipping' people.</p>


text:
<p>Jehoshaphat slept with his fathers, and was buried with his fathers in the city of David; and Jehoram his son reigned in his place- </p><p>The description of death as sleeping with fathers is clear evidence that death is seen as a sleep, unconsciousness, and not as the start of an immortal soul going to heaven or 'hell'. Good and bad, David and Solomon, are gathered together in death. The division between them will only therefore come at the resurrection of the dead, and the granting of immortality at the judgment seat of the Lord Jesus.</p>


text:
<p>He had brothers, the sons of Jehoshaphat: Azariah, Jehiel, Zechariah, Azariah, Michael and Shephatiah. All these were the sons of Jehoshaphat king of Israel- </p><p>They all God's Name in their names, but it seems it was spirituality in name only. Jehoshaphat himself held on in faith, but his wrong association with the ten tribes led to the spiritual destruction of his family.</p>


text:
<p>Their father gave them great gifts, of silver, and of gold, and of precious things, with fortified cities in Judah; but the kingdom gave he to Jehoram, because he was the firstborn- </p><p>We could infer from this that they were perhaps spoilt. Wealth never brought blessing to this family. His careful arrangements to try to split things up fairly were presumably because he thought this would stop them arguing amongst themselves. But it didn't work out at all; Jehoram killed all his brothers (:4).</p>


text:
<p>Now when Jehoram was risen up over the kingdom of his father, and had strengthened himself, he killed all his brothers with the sword, and various also of the princes of Israel-</p><p>See on :3. This continues a theme, of the kings of Judah strengthening or fortifying themselves, often when they first became king; but then having that human strength tested by God or removed. The same word is used repeatedly (<a href='B:130 11:10'>1Ch 11:10</a>; <a href='B:140 11:11'>2Ch 11:11</a>; <a href='B:140 11:17'>2Ch 11:17</a>; <a href='B:140 12:13'>2Ch 12:13</a>; <a href='B:140 13:21'>2Ch 13:21</a>; <a href='B:140 17:1'>2Ch 17:1</a>; <a href='B:140 23:1'>2Ch 23:1</a>; <a href='B:140 25:3'>2Ch 25:3</a>; <a href='B:140 25:11'>2Ch 25:11</a>; <a href='B:140 26:8'>2Ch 26:8</a>; <a href='B:140 26:15'>2Ch 26:15</a>; <a href='B:140 29:3'>2Ch 29:3</a>; <a href='B:140 32:5'>2Ch 32:5</a>). The lesson of course was that it is God's Angelic eyes who run to and fro in the land promised to Abraham, "to shew Himself strong on behalf of those whose heart is perfect toward him" (<a href='B:140 16:9'>2Ch 16:9</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Jehoram was thirty-two years old when he began to reign; and he reigned eight years in Jerusalem- </p><p>Putting together <a href='B:120 1:17'>2Ki 1:17</a>; <a href='B:120 3:1'>2Ki 3:1</a>; <a href='B:120 8:3'>2Ki 8:3</a>; <a href='B:120 8:16'>2Ki 8:16</a>; <a href='B:140 21:5'>2Ch 21:5</a>; <a href='B:140 21:20'>2Ch 21:20</a>, it seems Jehoram became king as regent about two years before Jehoshaphat died.</p>


text:
<p>He walked in the way of the kings of Israel, as did the house of Ahab; for he had the daughter of Ahab as wife: and he did that which was evil in the eyes of Yahweh- </p><p>His wife was Athaliah the granddaughter of Omri (<a href='B:140 22:2'>2Ch 22:2</a>; <a href='B:120 8:26'>2Ki 8:26</a>). "Athaliah", 'Yah has constrained', may mean that she was bitter that Yahweh had as it were limited her; the same groundless complaint as in <a href='B:540 6:12'>2Co 6:12</a>.</p>


text:
<p>However Yahweh would not destroy the house of David, because of the covenant that He had made with David, and as He promised to give a lamp to him and to his children always- </p><p>That promise was understood by God at this stage as meaning that a descendant of David would continue to reign on David's throne "always", and therefore He did not destroy Judah. However, He did eventually. He reinterpreted and reapplied His words of promise. And He does this often with the various possible futures prophesied. His word is not proven false but He reapplies it, as He continues His purpose with respect for the freewill decisions of man.</p>


text:
<p>Then Jehoram passed over with his captains, and all his chariots with him. He rose up by night, and struck the Edomites who surrounded him, along with the captains of the chariots- </p><p>We note that horses and chariots were forbidden to Israel's king (<a href='B:50 17:17-18'>Deu 17:17-18</a>). Yet it seems that his chariots and captains prevailed against those of Edom, even when he was surrounded and about to be defeated. Perhaps this was a repeat of the situations of <a href='B:140 13:15'>2Ch 13:15</a>; <a href='B:140 18:31'>2Ch 18:31</a>, where weak believers in their time of need called to God when surrounded by enemies, and were heard. This reflects God's deep sensitivity to faith in Him, even in time of desperation. And yet His final judgment is of the state of a person's heart. <a href='B:120 8:21'>2Ki 8:21</a> locates the battle as being at Zair.</p>


text:
<p>So Edom revolted from under the hand of Judah to this day. Then Libnah revolted at the same time from under his hand, because he had forsaken Yahweh, the God of his fathers- </p><p>Libnah was a priestly city (<a href='B:130 6:47'>1Ch 6:47</a>), but the tribes seem to have given the Levites towns which were not particularly valuable to them, or which were exposed to attack. Contrary to the spirit of David, they offered to God that which cost them nothing. And we must take a lesson from that. Some manuscripts read “Then did the Edomites who dwelt in Libnah revolt”. So Libnah had been taken over by Edomites and was formerly only technically under Israelite control.</p>


text:
<p>Moreover he made high places in the mountains of Judah, and made the inhabitants of Jerusalem to play the prostitute, and led Judah astray- </p><p>What a contrast with <a href='B:230 125:2'>Psa 125:2</a> "As the mountains surround Jerusalem, so Yahweh surrounds His people from this time forth and forever". The hills around Jerusalem are not huge mountains. They are small hills, and this is the picture of God's protection; not hugely visible, but there. But the mountains around Jerusalem became the "high places" of idolatry (<a href='B:110 11:7'>1Ki 11:7</a>; <a href='B:120 23:13'>2Ki 23:13</a>; <a href='B:140 21:11'>2Ch 21:11</a>); what should have been the symbols of Yahweh's protection became perverted.</p>


text:
<p>A letter came to him from Elijah the prophet, saying, Thus says Yahweh, the God of David your father, ‘You have not walked in the ways of Jehoshaphat your father, nor in the ways of Asa king of Judah- </p><p>This confirms our position elsewhere that Elijah was dramatically snatched away into the sky as a sign that Elisha had now replaced him as Yahweh's lead prophet. But that didn't mean that he died or was taken to heaven (cp. <a href='B:500 3:13'>Joh 3:13</a>). He returned to earth, as the sons of the prophets expected him to. Now, as an old man, perhaps still living in the ten tribes, he continued his ministry although on a more low key level. He didn't visit Judah but rather sent the Divine message as a letter. The style of the words recorded here is absolutely that of Elijah the Tishbite, although it is conceivable that this could refer to another prophet called Elijah.</p>


text:
<p>but have walked in the way of the kings of Israel, and have made Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem to play the prostitute like the house of Ahab did, and also have slain your brothers of your father’s house, who were better than yourself- </p><p>Clearly enough, we can make others sin. Even though their sin is their responsibility before God, those who lead people into sin are particularly culpable before Him. This is a very common Biblical theme, and we need to analyze our behaviour very carefully in this respect.</p>


text:
<p>Therefore, Yahweh will strike with a great plague your people and your children and your wives, and all your substance- </p><p>This continues the theme of :13, that human actions have huge impact upon others. This is a repeated Biblical teaching, and the fact God has structured human experience like this is in order that we should be highly sensitive in our actions towards others. We all have far more influence over others than we might imagine, and will be accountable for it.</p>


text:
<p>and you shall have great sickness by disease of your bowels, until your bowels fall out by reason of the sickness, day by day’- </p><p>This description of his sickness, although not medically correct, implied that what was within his innermost being ["bowels" is at times used by metonymy for the heart] will come out, resulting in death. And consistently in these biographies of the kings, it is their hearts which are the basis of their judgment.</p>


text:
<p>Yahweh stirred up against Jehoram the spirit of the Philistines, and of the Arabians who are beside the Ethiopians- </p><p>This is the nature of the work of the Holy Spirit in the lives of believers today, and it was and will be seen in the revival of the dead bones of Israel. Not visible miracles, but internal mental working. And that Spirit can be resisted, as it was by many of the exiles; for we are not mere puppets in God's hand. Yet grace means that God takes the initiative; "He first loved us". That initiative is seen through His working on the human heart in calling us to action (s:w. <a href='B:140 21:16'>2Ch 21:16</a>; <a href='B:290 13:17'>Isa 13:17</a>; <a href='B:300 50:41'>Jer 50:41</a>; <a href='B:360 3:9'>Joe 3:9</a>) and Cyrus was a parade example of this (<a href='B:290 41:2'>Isa 41:2</a>; <a href='B:290 41:25'>Isa 41:25</a>; <a href='B:290 45:13'>Isa 45:13</a>). The hearts of the returnees were likewise stirred up. But this was not some irresistible manipulation of the human person; Zion was called to be stirred up ["awake"], but she refused to be stirred up (<a href='B:290 51:17'>Isa 51:17</a>; <a href='B:290 52:1'>Isa 52:1</a> cp. <a href='B:290 64:7'>Isa 64:7</a>). Zerubbabel had his mind or "spirit" stirred up to be the king-priest Messianic figure (<a href='B:440 1:14'>Hag 1:14</a>); but he let the baton drop.</p>


text:
<p>They came up against Judah and broke into it, and carried away all the substance that was found in the king’s house, and his sons also and his wives; so that there was no son left him except Jehoahaz, the youngest of his sons- </p><p>Ahaziah is Jehoahaz (<a href='B:140 21:17'>2Ch 21:17</a>), Azariah (<a href='B:140 22:6'>2Ch 22:6</a>) and Ahaziah (<a href='B:130 3:11'>1Ch 3:11</a>); a reminder that people carried multiple names, which explains many of the so called contradictions in the genealogies.</p>


text:
<p>After all this Yahweh struck him in his bowels with an incurable disease- </p><p>The great "plague" of :14. The claim of Solomon that prayer to or in the temple would cure such plagues (<a href='B:140 6:28-29'>2Ch 6:28-29</a>) is therefore again proven to be wrong. His idea that the temple was a kind of talisman was so wrong.</p>


text:
<p>It happened, in process of time, at the end of two years, that his bowels fell out by reason of his sickness, and he died of severe diseases. His people made no burning for him, like the burning for his fathers- </p><p>See on :15. Perhaps those two years of sickness were in order to give him the opportunity to repent. For God makes a statement of judgment, but in the gap between that and its fulfilment, there is the possibility of repentance. And then the outcome will be changed. We could take the lesson that God by all means works to try to elicit repentance in the most apparently hopeless of cases. For the good shepherd searches until he finds the lost. We likewise are never to give up with people.</p>


text:
<p>Thirty-two years old was he when he began to reign, and he reigned in Jerusalem eight years. He departed without being desired; and they buried him in the city of David, but not in the tombs of the kings- </p><p>"But not in the tombs of the kings" (<a href='B:140 21:20'>2Ch 21:20</a>) contrasts with the Kings record that he “was buried with his fathers”. But this shows that to be 'buried with ones fathers' was an idiom for death, and not a literal statement that a person was buried near the remains of their ancestors.</p>


text:
<p>The inhabitants of Jerusalem made Ahaziah his youngest son king in his place; for the band of men who came with the Arabians to the camp had slain all the older ones. So Ahaziah the son of Jehoram king of Judah reigned- </p><p>It could be that this band of men had preserved Ahaziah and were seeking for him to be a puppet king for them. LXX "the Arabians of Mazin". The usual rubric "and X his son was king in his place” is not quite followed here. It seems the succession was somehow questionable. And the fact his mother immediately took the throne after his death hints again at this.</p>


text:
<p>Forty-two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign; and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. His mother’s name was Athaliah the daughter of Omri- </p><p>In fact the granddaughter of Omri. "Athaliah", 'Yah has constrained', may mean that she was bitter that Yahweh had as it were limited her; the same groundless complaint as in <a href='B:540 6:12'>2Co 6:12</a>. Ahaziah was 22 years old when he began to reign (<a href='B:120 8:26'>2Ki 8:26</a>), but 42 in <a href='B:140 22:2'>2Ch 22:2</a>. LXX has 20. But in Biblical Hebrew, numbers were expressed by single letters, and mem, forty, is very similar in orthography to caph, twenty. And that difference is even more probable in ancient Hebrew or 'Samaritan'. So this appears to be a case of where there were indeed slight errors in copying the Divinely inspired text.</p>


text:
<p>He also walked in the ways of the house of Ahab; for his mother was his counsellor to do wickedly- </p><p>His father had done the same (<a href='B:140 21:6'>2Ch 21:6</a>). So much sin and spiritual failure is due to a refusal to individuate from parental influence and be an independent person before God. "Counsellor" suggests she specifically instructed him in the ways of idolatry; and it was by listening to the wrong counsel that Rehoboam went wrong when the kingdom of Judah first began (s:w. <a href='B:140 10:8-9'>2Ch 10:8-9</a>).</p>


text:
<p>He did that which was evil in the eyes of Yahweh, as did the house of Ahab; for they were his counsellors after the death of his father, to his destruction- </p><p>The word for "counsellor" is associated with rulership and kingship; a king's counsellors were effectively the kings (<a href='B:290 1:26'>Isa 1:26</a>; <a href='B:290 9:6'>Isa 9:6</a>; <a href='B:150 7:28'>Ezr 7:28</a>; <a href='B:150 8:25'>Ezr 8:25</a>; <a href='B:220 3:14'>Job 3:14</a>), and often in the Bible, the counsel of men is contrasted with that of God. We feel this tension too; for the counsel of God is so often different and opposed to the counsel of the majority of those looked up to for secular advice and counsel. See on <a href='B:140 25:16'>2Ch 25:16</a>.</p>


text:
<p>He walked also after their counsel, and went with Jehoram the son of Ahab king of Israel to war against Hazael king of Syria at Ramoth Gilead; and the Syrians wounded Joram- </p><p>Ahaziah was clearly intended to have learned from the experience of Jehoshaphat, who also went to war with Syria at Ramoth Gilead and was nearly slain there. He was only saved by grace, and afterwards experienced God's wrath for going there (<a href='B:140 16:2'>2Ch 16:2</a>). Circumstances and similarities repeat within our lives, and between our lives and those of people in the Biblical histories, in order that we might learn. Jehoram is called "Joram" within this same verse, perhaps because the name of God was no longer part of his name in practice.</p>


text:
<p>He returned to be healed in Jezreel of the wounds which they had given him at Ramah, when he fought against Hazael king of Syria. Ahaziah the son of Jehoram king of Judah went down to see Jehoram the son of Ahab in Jezreel, because he was sick- </p><p>As noted on :5, Ahaziah failed to perceive the similarities with the situation of Jehoshaphat.</p>


text:
<p>Now the destruction of Ahaziah was of God, in that he went to Joram; for when he had come, he went out with Jehoram against Jehu the son of Nimshi, whom Yahweh had anointed to cut off the house of Ahab- </p><p>There are a number of other passages which mention how "it was of the Lord" that certain attitudes were adopted by men, resulting in the sequence of events which He desired (<a href='B:60 11:20'>Jos 11:20</a>; <a href='B:90 2:25'>1Sa 2:25</a>; <a href='B:110 12:15'>1Ki 12:15</a>; <a href='B:140 10:15'>2Ch 10:15</a>; <a href='B:140 22:7'>2Ch 22:7</a>; <a href='B:140 25:20'>2Ch 25:20</a>). It is tempting to read <a href='B:70 14:4'>Jdg 14:4</a> in this context, meaning that God somehow made Samson desire that woman in order to bring about His purpose of freeing Israel from Philistine domination. God through His Spirit works to confirm men in the path they wish to go. And this is the huge significance of the work of the Holy Spirit in our lives today.</p><p>Ahaziah was Ahab's grandson because of the intermarriage between the rulers of Israel and Judah. So Jehu did have a commission to kill him. But it would seem that Ahaziah could have avoided this had he not shown unity with Joram by visiting him when he was sick. Such is the flexibility of God's purpose, with so many potentials built into it, ever respecting the possibility of human repentance.</p>


text:
<p>It happened, when Jehu was executing judgment on the house of Ahab, that he found the princes of Judah, and the sons of the brothers of Ahaziah, ministering to Ahaziah, and killed them- </p><p>These were the very men who gave Ahaziah the wrong counsel to go and fight at Ramoth Gilead, and to worship the idols of Israel. There is no guilt by association taught in the Bible, but there is the fairly obvious teaching that we must be separate from the ways of those who are under Divine judgment. We are to come out of Babylon lest we be consumed in the judgment for her sins, we are to be separate from those whose bad company will corrupt us (<a href='B:530 15:33'>1Co 15:33</a>).</p>


text:
<p>He sought Ahaziah, and they caught him (now he was hiding in Samaria), and they brought him to Jehu, and killed him- </p><p>Putting the records together, it seems that Ahaziah fled in his chariot through the garden house road (<a href='B:120 9:27'>2Ki 9:27</a>), avoiding Jehu's call to slay him in his chariot. He got to Samaria and hid somewhere, Jehu's men searched for him and found him (<a href='B:140 22:9'>2Ch 22:9</a>), brought him to Jehu who was then "by Ibleam" (<a href='B:120 9:27'>2Ki 9:27</a>), who struck him so hard that he eventually died of it, but he managed to again escape in his chariot to Megiddo, where he died of the wounds inflicted by Jehu.</p><p>They buried him, for they said, He is the descendant of Jehoshaphat, who sought Yahweh with all his heart. The house of Ahaziah had no power to hold the kingdom-</p><p>They perceived the truth of God's overall judgment of Jehoshaphat, that his heart was with Yahweh, but it was his wrong associations with Israel which led to all this judgment upon his descendants.</p>


text:
<p>Now when Athaliah the mother of Ahaziah saw that her son was dead, she arose and destroyed all the royal seed of the house of Judah- </p><p>So obsessed was she with personal power that she killed her own relatives, perhaps her own children, in order to establish herself as the only living heir to David's throne. The royal family had already been depleted because of the murders of <a href='B:120 10:14'>2Ki 10:14</a>; <a href='B:140 21:4'>2Ch 21:4</a>; <a href='B:140 21:17'>2Ch 21:17</a>. She saw the significance of the promises to David, but twisted them into mere religion. For she was an idolater, Jezebel's daughter.</p>


text:
<p>But Jehoshabeath, the daughter of the king, took Joash the son of Ahaziah, and stole him away from among the king’s sons who were slain, and put him and his nurse in the bedroom. So Jehoshabeath, the daughter of king Jehoram, the wife of Jehoiada the priest (for she was the sister of Ahaziah), hid him from Athaliah, so that she didn’t kill him- </p><p>In a sense, God's entire purpose through the line and seed of David depended upon the quick thinking of a young woman, and was concentrated in this small baby. For "all the royal seed" had been slain (:10). Her name means 'sworn to Jehovah', and this likely represents her later character rather than her birth name. She came from a bad background, but was married to the high priest (although we note Jehoiada is not listed in the list of high priests in 1 Chronicles 6). "The bedroom" is better "the chamber of the beds", perhaps a room in the temple (:12) used for the storage of old beds and furniture. Or maybe this was where he was temporarily hidden, before being moved to somewhere in the temple (:12). We marvel at how Jehoiada kept his own faith in Yahweh strong (<a href='B:140 23:1'>2Ch 23:1</a>), although surely he must have been somewhat of an underground believer at this time.</p>


text:
<p>He was with them hidden in God’s house six years; and Athaliah reigned over the land-</p><p>The temple was likely relatively disused, as Athaliah was such a strong worshipper of Baal. Therefore Joash later had to majorly repair it. However in <a href='B:140 23:1-8'>2Ch 23:1-8</a> we do read of its usage, but perhaps not as it was before. It could be inferred from <a href='B:140 23:18'>2Ch 23:18</a> that the burnt offerings were not offered during Athaliah's dictatorship. And <a href='B:140 24:7'>2Ch 24:7</a> is clear: "For the sons of Athaliah, that wicked woman, had broken up God’s house". See on <a href='B:140 24:13'>2Ch 24:13</a> for the extent of the damage done. So they hid the child in one of the disused chambers for the priests of Yahweh, who likely were not regularly officiating any more at that time. We note how Jehoshabeath and her husband Jehoiada the priest (<a href='B:140 22:11'>2Ch 22:11</a>) would have had access to both the palace and the temple because of their positions. And although they must have been underground believers to some extent, they used their connections well, to keep alive the line of David. Joash became king at seven, so he was a one year old baby when saved from Athaliah.</p>


text:
<p>In the seventh year Jehoiada strengthened himself, and took the captains of hundreds, Azariah the son of Jeroham, Ishmael the son of Jehohanan, Azariah the son of Obed, Maaseiah the son of Adaiah and Elishaphat the son of Zichri, into covenant with him- </p><p>The five men and their followers of <a href='B:140 23:1'>2Ch 23:1</a> match the description of three "third parts" and another "two parts" in <a href='B:120 11:5-7'>2Ki 11:5-7</a>. The corroboration between the records, clearly written by different hands, reflects the Divine inspiration of the record. The names of all these men include the name of God. To overthrow Athaliah was a risky undertaking and their faith and commitment to the Davidic line was very strong. <a href='B:120 11:4'>2Ki 11:4</a> says Jehoiada was supported by the "Carites", the Cherethites of <a href='B:100 20:23'>2Sa 20:23</a>.</p>


text:
<p>They went about in Judah, and gathered the Levites out of all the cities of Judah, and the heads of fathers’ households of Israel, and they came to Jerusalem-</p><p>This must have all been arranged secretly and without Athaliah's knowledge. The use of both terms "Judah" and "Israel" would suggest there was support for this spiritual revival even amongst the ten tribes. Although Jehoiada and his wife Jehoshabeath (<a href='B:140 22:11'>2Ch 22:11</a>) would have been underground believers to some extent, they used their connections well to create a wide groundswell of support for the putsch, even amongst the ten tribes. For Jehoshabeath was related to the house of Ahab and had connections there. And so many believers in otherwise very worldly situations have quietly used their connections likewise to forward God's true way upon earth.</p>


text:
<p>All the assembly made a covenant with the king in God’s house. He said to them, Behold, the king’s son shall reign, as Yahweh has spoken concerning the sons of David- </p><p>The promise that David would not want a man to sit upon his throne (<a href='B:140 6:16'>2Ch 6:16</a>; <a href='B:140 7:18'>2Ch 7:18</a> etc:) was understood as requiring human faith and action to fulfil. Jehoiada could have reasoned that God would fulfil His promise in His own way, without the help of man. But His purpose is not deterministic, nor is it imposed upon man. The promise that Abraham's seed should eternally inherit the earth requires individual faith and the exercise of freewill from the members of that seed. Paul likewise understood the promise that Messiah would be a light to the Gentiles as requiring him to take that light to the Gentiles.</p>


text:
<p>This is the thing that you shall do. A third part of you, who come in on the Sabbath, of the priests and of the Levites, shall be porters at the thresholds- </p><p>Chronicles stresses the role of the Levites (<a href='B:140 23:2'>2Ch 23:2</a>; <a href='B:140 23:4'>2Ch 23:4</a>) whereas Kings hardly mentions them in the record. Clearly Chronicles is largely a history of the priesthood and Levites, written up in captivity to encourage the Levites to return to Judah and revive Yahweh worship there. Comparing with :8, the idea is that the Levites had a changeover of shifts that Sabbath. Those who were going off shift were to remain, so that there would be a larger number of them present.</p><p>It seems that the Kings records speaks of three battalions of royal guards, one of which was on duty, and the others later brought into the temple by Jehoiada (<a href='B:140 23:7'>2Ch 23:7</a>). Whereas Chronicles has three battalions of Levitical temple guards / doorkeepers. They could be the same groups, but it seems easier to read them as separate. This would mean that somehow Jehoiada had persuaded even Athaliah's own bodyguards to betray her.</p>


text:
<p>A third part shall be at the king’s house; and a third part at the gate of the foundation. All the people shall be in the courts of Yahweh’s house-</p><p>"The king's house" isn't the royal palace; for in any case, Athaliah was a queen and not a king. It refers to the place where the king Joash was hiding. The Gate of the Foundation was apparently near the valley separating Moriah from the hill opposite it, literally "the gate of Sur", mentioned in <a href='B:120 11:6'>2Ki 11:6</a>. But "Svr" may be "Svs", the horse gate, which is that of <a href='B:140 23:15'>2Ch 23:15</a>; <a href='B:120 11:16'>2Ki 11:16</a>.</p>


text:
<p>But let no one come into the house of Yahweh, except the priests, and those who minister of the Levites. They shall come in, for they are holy, but all the people shall follow Yahweh’s instructions- </p><p>It would have been tempting to plan this putsch through all the people being within the temple, but Jehoiada refused to allow military and political expediency to take away from the need to "follow Yahweh's instructions" and respect His holiness. And that is a lesson for us. See on :9. yet Kings says that the royal guards, apparently non Levites, did enter the temple. This would be one reason for considering the three groups of royal guards to be the same as the three groups of Levitical guards.</p>


text:
<p>The Levites shall surround the king, every man with his weapons in his hand. Whoever comes into the house, let him be slain. Be with the king when he comes in, and when he goes out- </p><p>The whole putsch was a risky undertaking, and Jehoiada was aware of the possibility of armed opposition from Athaliah's loyalists. The Levites were armed, presumably with weapons like knives or whatever they could get hold of. Perhaps this command foresaw how Athaliah would come running into the temple (:12) and should therefore be slain.</p>


text:
<p>So the Levites and all Judah did according to all that Jehoiada the priest commanded. They took every man his men, those who were to come in on the Sabbath, with those who were to go out on the Sabbath; for Jehoiada the priest didn’t dismiss the shift- </p><p>Comparing with :4, the idea is that the Levites had a changeover of shifts that Sabbath. Those who were going off shift were to remain, so that there would be a larger number of them present. "All Judah" refers to the representatives of all Judah who were present (:2). "All" in the Bible often refers not to literally everybody but to representatives of the "all". The taking of the Gospel to "all the world" must surely be understood in that way. "The Levites and all Judah" is therefore matched in 2 Kings 11 by “the captains over the hundreds".</p>


text:
<p>Jehoiada the priest delivered to the captains of hundreds the spears, large shields and shields that had been king David’s, which were in God’s house- </p><p>Possibly the shields of gold David had taken and dedicated at the time of <a href='B:100 8:7'>2Sa 8:7</a>; <a href='B:100 8:11'>2Sa 8:11</a>. Gold represents faith, and they were probably not very functional for combat. But this whole putsch was on the basis of faith and not secular strength and wisdom. See on :6.</p>


text:
<p>He set all the people, each man with his weapon in his hand, from the right side of the house to the left side of the house, along by the altar and the house, surrounding the king- </p><p>This would be the altar of burnt offering in the outer court. "All the people" refers to those other than the priests and Levites who had agreed to help in the putsch.</p>


text:
<p>Then they brought out the king’s son and put the crown on him, and gave him the testimony, and made him king. Jehoiada and his sons anointed him; and they said, Long live the king!-</p><p>"The testimony" was a copy of the law the king was supposed to write out when he became king, but it had presumably been written out for him (<a href='B:50 17:18-20'>Deu 17:18-20</a>).</p>


text:
<p>When Athaliah heard the noise of the people running and praising the king, she came to the people into the house of Yahweh- </p><p>See on :7. Any who came into the temple were to be slain, and it seems Jehoiada set her up to do just what she did. That this was all pulled off right under her nose was quite an achievement.</p>


text:
<p>She looked, and, behold, the king stood by his pillar at the entrance- </p><p>Heb. 'pedestal', a kind of podium, considering he was only seven years old and small.</p><p>And the captains and the trumpets by the king; and all the people of the land rejoiced, and blew trumpets. The singers also played musical instruments, and led the singing of praise. Then Athaliah tore her clothes, and said, Treason! Treason!- </p><p>"Treason" is literally "conspiracy". She realized all too late that a huge conspiracy had been going on under her nose.</p>


text:
<p>Jehoiada the priest brought out the captains of hundreds who were set over the army and said to them, Bring her out between the ranks; and whoever follows her, let him be slain with the sword. For the priest said, Don’t kill her in Yahweh’s house- </p><p>This confirms the suggestion that the command in :7 to slay whoever entered Yahweh's house was planned with Athaliah in view. "The ranks" would likely refer to the ranks of soldiers; or possibly to the temple precincts.</p>


text:
<p>So they made way for her. She went to the entrance of the horse gate to the king’s house; and they killed her there-</p><p>Making way for her suggests they all restrained themselves from touching her, the unclean, until she was outside the temple. It would have been an awful last walk to her death. I suggested on <a href='B:140 23:5'>2Ch 23:5</a> that "the horse gate" is the same as the "gate of the foundation".</p>


text:
<p>Jehoiada made a covenant between himself and all the people, and the king, that they should be Yahweh’s people- </p><p>"Between himself" (<a href='B:140 23:16'>2Ch 23:16</a>) suggests Jehoiada was absolutely representing Yahweh; 2 Kings says the covenant was between Yahweh and the people. The Bible is full of examples of where men function as God and functionally represent Him to man. But this didn't make them God Himself in person. And it is within this context that we must read the passages which likewise speak of the Lord Jesus as functioning as God- without being God Himself.</p>


text:
<p>All the people went to the house of Baal and broke it down, and broke his altars and his images in pieces, and killed Mattan the priest of Baal before the altars- </p><p>The allusion is to how "all the people" were to put to death those who incited others to idolatry (<a href='B:50 13:9'>Deu 13:9</a>). It seems that the temple of Baal had been built near the temple, just as Solomon had built such idol temples near to the temple.</p>


text:
<p>Jehoiada appointed the officers of the house of Yahweh under the hand of the priests the Levites, whom David had distributed in the house of Yahweh, to offer the burnt offerings of Yahweh, as it is written in the law of Moses, with rejoicing and with singing, according to the order of David- </p><p>This was really a case of reappointing officers to fulfil the original intentions of David for the temple. It could be inferred that the burnt offerings had not been offered during Athaliah's dictatorship.</p>


text:
<p>He set the porters at the gates of the house of Yahweh, that no one who was unclean in any matter should enter in- </p><p>The porters would refer to the arrangements David made in 1 Chronicles 16. The word can mean porters or gatekeepers. ecclesia is the temple of God. In the past, gatekeepers checked who came in. Yet as time went by, the gatekeepers let Gentiles in, people who were not in God's covenant: and this was the basis of their condemnation (<a href='B:330 44:7-8'>Eze 44:7-8</a>). Probably they did so in a misguided conception of "love" towards the surrounding world.</p>


text:
<p>He took the captains of hundreds, and the nobles, and the governors of the people, and all the people of the land, and brought down the king from the house of Yahweh. They came through the upper gate to the king’s house, and set the king on the throne of the kingdom- </p><p>"The upper gate" of <a href='B:140 23:20'>2Ch 23:20</a> is in Kings "the gate of the guard".</p>


text:
<p>So all the people of the land rejoiced, and the city was quiet. Athaliah they had slain with the sword- </p><p>Quietness or peace is often associated with obedience. We read of this at least twice during Jehoshaphat's reign. Going God's way is the only way to true peace; although that peace is juxtaposed against the violent slaying of Athaliah which had been necessary to bring it about.</p>


text:
<p>Joash was seven years old when he began to reign; and he reigned forty years in Jerusalem. His mother’s name was Zibiah of Beersheba- </p><p>He had been hidden six years in the temple (<a href='B:140 22:12'>2Ch 22:12</a>), and so it follows that he was grabbed to safety when he was a one year old baby. That was how frail was the line of descent from David, for the rest of the male line had been slain by Athaliah (<a href='B:140 22:10'>2Ch 22:10</a>). The royal family had already been depleted because of the murders of <a href='B:120 10:14'>2Ki 10:14</a>; <a href='B:140 21:4'>2Ch 21:4</a>; <a href='B:140 21:17'>2Ch 21:17</a>. Beersheba was famed for idolatry at this time (<a href='B:370 5:5'>Amo 5:5</a>; <a href='B:370 8:14'>Amo 8:14</a>), and the mother's name, meaning 'gazelle', has no mention of God's Name in it:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>Joash did that which was right in the eyes of Yahweh all the days of Jehoiada the priest- </p><p>Joash did right before God whilst the priest Jehoiada was alive, and then apostatized; Uzziah did likewise, with Zechariah the priest (<a href='B:140 24:2'>2Ch 24:2</a>; <a href='B:140 26:5'>2Ch 26:5</a>). He didn’t reflect upon the personal implications of Divine history. And we too must appreciate that there are Bible characters whose experiences are framed in terms directly relevant to us- for our learning. Interestingly, straight after Jehoiada died, the princes of the land came to Joash with a request, which he wrongly listened to. This has great similarities with the tragic mistake made by Rehoboam after Solomon died (<a href='B:140 10:3-4'>2Ch 10:3-4</a> cp. 24:17). So Joash was given chance after chance to be directed back to previous examples and be instructed by them- but he went on in his own way.</p><p>But when Jehoiada died, Joash listened to, and was influenced by, the wicked princes of Judah (:17). It is clear that for all his apparent strength of character and zeal for God, Joash was simply a product of those he was with. And so it can be that our generation especially, can tend to be people with no real character, their very personalities influenced by others rather than being real, credible people. Insofar as we can break free from all these moulding influences, we will be real, credible persons. And our independence, our realness, is what will attract others to the message of Divine influence which we preach. Those raised in Christian homes need to pay especial attention to the possibility that they are where they are spiritually because of the good influence of others upon them. There is no harm in this; but we need to strive to have a faith that is not merely the faith of our fathers, but a real and personal response to the love of God which we have for ourselves perceived in the man Christ.</p>


text:
<p>Jehoiada took for him two wives; and he fathered sons and daughters- </p><p>We wonder why Jehoiada led Joash into polygamy; even though it was not outlawed, it was clearly against God's ideal standards. Perhaps Jehoiada was desperate to see the line of David continue, and given high infant mortality rates and the possibility that the first wife was barren, he took Joash a second wife. Instead of having faith that that the promised seed would come, as Isaac did during the twenty years of Rebekah's barrenness. <a href='B:120 12:3'>2Ki 12:3</a> adds that the high places were not taken away, so we get the hint that despite all this initial zeal, things were not spiritually solid with Joash even from the start.</p>


text:
<p>It happened after this that Joash intended to restore the house of Yahweh- </p><p>Joash started to take his own initiative in serving God once he was old enough. He had a personal emotional attachment to the temple, seeing that he had grown up hiding in one of its disused side rooms (<a href='B:140 22:12'>2Ch 22:12</a>). The temple was in a serious state of disrepair at Athaliah's time; she was an idolater, and the daily sacrifices weren't offered (<a href='B:140 23:18'>2Ch 23:18</a>). The way Joash later desecrates the temple with idolatry is therefore a tragic example of turning away from the faith. No amount of devotion to the things of God's house, or emotional, sentimental feelings towards them, is a guarantee that true faith will be retained in the long term. This restoration of the temple would have been programmatic for the exiles, for whose benefits these historical records were originally written.</p>


text:
<p>He gathered together the priests and the Levites and said to them, Go out to the cities of Judah, and gather money to repair the house of your God from all Israel from year to year. See that you hasten this matter. However the Levites didn’t do it right away- </p><p>This presumably meant that the half shekel temple tax had not been paid for some time. So Joash urged that it be paid, although unsurprisingly there was reluctance. Plague was threatened for not paying it, but there is no record that this happened.</p>


text:
<p>The king called for Jehoiada the chief and said to him, Why haven’t you required of the Levites to bring in the tax of Moses the servant of Yahweh, and of the assembly of Israel, out of Judah and out of Jerusalem, for the tent of the testimony?- </p><p>God had never wanted a temple to be built, and had stressed instead that He preferred to live in a tent on the move, rather than in a house of bricks. Such was Jehoiada's spirituality that he had perceived this, and taught Joash to refer to the temple as a tent. And likewise the essence of the ark, Jehoiada had taught him, was the "testimony" within it. For at that time "there was nothing in the ark except the two tables" of stone (<a href='B:140 5:10'>2Ch 5:10</a>). And it was "the testimony" which Joash had been given by Jehoiada at seven years old when crowned king. Joash was given the best spiritual upbringing imaginable by Jehoiada; and yet he turned away from it. It is mythical to imagine that parents can in some ways eternally save their children by diligently raising them. All they can do is give their children the basis upon which they must themselves build. Another possibility is that the ark itself had been removed, and within the "tent" of the most holy place there was simply the stones of the covenant. For in :8 Joash commands an ark to be made.</p>


text:
<p>For the sons of Athaliah, that wicked woman, had broken up God’s house; and they also gave all the dedicated things of the house of Yahweh to the Baals- </p><p>And yet it was through the temple being in such a state of disrepair, that Joash could be hidden in it for six years, living as if the child of some homeless woman squatting in one of the disused side rooms (see on <a href='B:140 22:11'>2Ch 22:11</a>).</p>


text:
<p>So the king commanded, and they made a chest, and set it outside at the gate of the house of Yahweh- </p><p>"Chest" is the Hebrew word usually used for "ark". I suggested on :6 that the ark may have gone missing or even been destroyed by Athaliah, resulting in the rather strange term "tent of the testimony" [the tables of stone] being used for the most holy place. Kings says it was in the court opposite the porch, by the side of the altar of burnt offering. But "outside" may also mean outside of the most holy place. It could be that the chest was stored by the altar, but in the day time was taken to the gate of the temple to receive contributions (see on <a href='B:140 24:11'>2Ch 24:11</a>).</p>


text:
<p>They made a proclamation through Judah and Jerusalem, to bring in for Yahweh the tax that Moses the servant of God laid on Israel in the wilderness- </p><p>GNB "the tax which Moses, God's servant, had first collected in the wilderness". The idea may be that that was the only time they ever really obeyed the law of giving the half shekel. Israel's collective disobedience to the law is quite stunning.</p>


text:
<p>All the princes and all the people rejoiced, and brought in, and cast into the chest, until they had made an end- </p><p>"An end" may mean that whenever the chest was full, it was emptied (see on :11).</p>


text:
<p>It was so, that whenever the chest was brought to the king’s officers by the hand of the Levites, and when they saw that there was much money, the king’s scribe and the chief priests’ officer came and emptied the chest, and took it, and carried it to its place again. Thus they did day by day, and gathered money in abundance- </p><p>"Day by day" can mean 'from time to time', suggesting it was done whenever the chest was full. Thus <a href='B:120 12:10'>2Ki 12:10</a> "It was so, when they saw that there was much money in the chest::.".</p>


text:
<p>The king and Jehoiada gave it to those who did the work of the service of the house of Yahweh. They hired masons and carpenters to restore the house of Yahweh, and also those who worked iron and brass, so as to repair the house of Yahweh- </p><p>The language is rather similar to that used of building the tabernacle, as if this rebuilding was really major, seeing Athaliah had consciously "broken up" the temple (:7):&nbsp; <a href='B:120 12:15'>2Ki 12:15</a> adds: "Moreover they didn’t demand an accounting from the men into whose hand they delivered the money to give to those who did the work; for they dealt faithfully".</p>


text:
<p>So the workmen worked, and the work of repairing advanced in their hands, and they restored God’s house to its proper condition and strengthened it- </p><p>Heb. "the work was perfected", a phrase used mainly in the context of the restoration of Zion (<a href='B:160 4:7'>Neh 4:7</a>; <a href='B:300 30:17'>Jer 30:17</a>; <a href='B:300 33:6'>Jer 33:6</a>). The Chronicles record was written or rewritten in exile to inspire the exiles with historical precedents for their work. "Proper condition" suggests 'proper size'. The breaking up of the temple by Athaliah had apparently involved the demolition of major parts of the temple, to the point of it needing to be rebuilt to return it to its original size.</p>


text:
<p>When they had finished, they brought the rest of the money before the king and Jehoiada, from which were made vessels for the house of Yahweh, even vessels with which to minister and to offer, and spoons, and vessels of gold and silver. They offered burnt offerings in the house of Yahweh continually all the days of Jehoiada- </p><p>Athaliah's destruction had involved taking away the vessels, probably giving them to the Baal sanctuaries (:7). We note a theme in Israel's history; that whenever there was an appeal for money for the temple, they were always more generous than was needed. And yet they were far from God in their hearts. Generous donation towards religious buildings are not the same as true spirituality.</p>


text:
<p>But Jehoiada grew old and was full of days, and he died. He was one hundred and thirty years old when he died- </p><p>Numbers are often not used literally in the Hebrew Bible. The language here is similar to that used of the death of Jacob, who died at the same age (<a href='B:10 47:9'>Gen 47:9</a>). The idea may be that Jehoiada too had potentially begun a new Israel. Although Joash must go down in history as a man who wasted huge potential and abused such a good spiritual upbringing. Jehoiada was buried as a king (:16).</p>


text:
<p>They buried him in the city of David among the kings, because he had done good in Israel, and toward God and His house-</p><p>Despite the apostacy of the people, they recognized the good he had done. I noted on :15 the similarities between himself and Jacob, as if he had potentially enabled the founding of a new Israel.</p>


text:
<p>Now after the death of Jehoiada came the princes of Judah, and made obeisance to the king. Then the king listened to them- </p><p>The impression given is that Joash was swayed by their obeisance to him. The requests he granted them were related to forsaking the temple and instead serving idols (:18). Joash was easily flattered, and that reflects deeply upon how his earlier apparent zeal for the temple had been but a living out of the expectations of his spiritual father [and uncle] Jehoiada.</p>


text:
<p>They forsook the house of Yahweh, the God of their fathers, and served the Asherim and the idols. Wrath came on Judah and Jerusalem for this their guiltiness-</p><p>Joash had grown up hidden until age seven in a disused storage room in the temple, at the very time that Athaliah was breaking up the building; as noted on :7,13. Jehoiada and his wife, who were his aunty and uncle, had saved his life and cared for him there. And he had followed Jehoiada's example in rebuilding it after what Athaliah had done there. And now, after the flattery of the princes (:17), he desecrates it:&nbsp; The very building which we would have thought had at least sentimental value to him. And this is how fickle human beings can be, and how surface level human faith can be. It could be that the dishonesty of the priests regarding Joash's appeal for the temple tax to be paid led him to skepticism about the priesthood and religious system based around the temple. And that was a more powerful influence upon him than the Godly example of his uncle Jehoiada.</p>


text:
<p>Yet He sent prophets to them, to bring them again to Yahweh; and they testified against them. But they would not listen-</p><p>There were a number of prophets around, Elijah was likely still alive, as Elisha and Micah; there was also Jehu, Jahaziel (<a href='B:140 20:14'>2Ch 20:14</a>) and Eliezer (<a href='B:140 20:37'>2Ch 20:37</a>). The apostacy of the people was not a sudden change of heart. The reality was that great reformers and spiritual people like Jehoiada were in reality lonely people, who at times managed to get reforms passed. But the hearts of the people didn't change. That is the point. And that is why as soon as the reformer is off the scene, the people openly "return" to idolatry. But their hearts were always with the idols. The impression we get is that there was only a very small minority amongst the people of God who were truly spiritually minded. This is likely the same today, no matter how we define the "people of God". Whether we take them as all baptized into Jesus, all the Christian movement, our own denomination, our own local church::. it is likely the same today. For Paul reasons that we dare not say that we are spiritually better than natural Israel.</p>


text:
<p>The spirit of God came on Zechariah the son of Jehoiada the priest; and he stood above the people and said to them, Thus says God, ‘Why do you disobey the commandments of Yahweh, so that you can’t prosper? Because you have forsaken Yahweh, He has also forsaken you’- </p><p>Standing above the people was because he was in the&nbsp; "higher court" of <a href='B:300 36:10'>Jer 36:10</a>. This was the inner court of the temple, above the outer court where the ordinary people were gathered. <a href='B:160 8:4'>Neh 8:4</a> has a similar scene. Such major judgment was not because of the failure of a moment. As explained on :19, the people were far from God even whilst Jehoiada was effectively leading them.</p>


text:
<p>They conspired against him, and stoned him with stones at the commandment of the king in the court of the house of Yahweh- </p><p>The conspiracy was likely of the same kind used to give Naboth the death penalty (<a href='B:110 21:9-10'>1Ki 21:9-10</a>), claiming he had committed blasphemy and apostacy, which merited being stoned to death. They did so "in the court". Possibly the priests and Levites did this, in the same higher court in view of the people from which he had spoken (:20). Or perhaps the ordinary people stoned him in the outer court. See on :25.</p>


text:
<p>Thus Joash the king didn’t remember the kindness which Jehoiada his father had done to him, but killed his son- </p><p>The Jews murdered Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel, according to Jewish tradition; Ahab and Jezebel slew Yahweh's prophets (<a href='B:110 18:4'>1Ki 18:4</a>); Joah murdered Zechariah (<a href='B:140 24:22'>2Ch 24:22</a>). And the Lord alludes to this in <a href='B:470 23:37'>Mat 23:37</a> and <a href='B:490 11:47'>Luk 11:47</a>. The idea is that despite being given the blessings of obedience to the covenant when they were disobedient to that covenant, they abused that grace and rebelled against Yahweh just as they had done in the wilderness, when they lived under the same grace. And Nehemiah in <a href='B:160 9:26'>Neh 9:26</a> is accusing the people of his time of despising and abusing Divine grace in just the same way. Chronicles was written for the exiles, and they failed to learn this lesson.</p><p>This is a parade example of the human tendency towards ingratitude, in this case, toward the family who had saved him as a fragile one year old baby from the murderous idol worshipper Athaliah.</p><p>When he died, he said, May Yahweh witness it, and require it-</p><p>This contrasts with the last words of the Lord Jesus and of Stephen, who wished for forgiveness of their murderers rather than judgment. Zechariah will surely be saved, but he attained a lower level of spirituality and appreciation of grace than that of the Lord and Stephen (<a href='B:510 7:60'>Act 7:60</a>). The parable of the sower shows that the good ground brings forth various degrees of fruitfulness. Some will make more of God's truth than others. The trading of talents leads to more increase in the hands of some believers than others. But they are all saved. This recognition of differing degrees of response is critical to being able to live together in the body of believers. All will not achieve the same levels. And that is implicitly recognized within Bible teaching.</p>


text:
<p>It happened at the end of the year, that the army of the Syrians came up against him. They came to Judah and Jerusalem, and destroyed all the princes of the people from among the people, and sent all their spoil to the king of Damascus- </p><p>The princes were those who had encouraged Joash to idolatry. We wonder why they spared Joash. Perhaps his extra bit of life was in order to give him the chance of repentance. But he turned it down.</p>


text:
<p>For the army of the Syrians came with a small company of men; and Yahweh delivered a very great army into their hand, because they had forsaken Yahweh, the God of their fathers. So they executed judgment on Joash- </p><p>This is expressed in the terms of what would happen to Israel if they were disobedient to the covenant. <a href='B:120 12:17-18'>2Ki 12:17-18</a> says that Joash bought off the Syrians with all the hallowed things of the temple. It could be that this effectively means that he saved his life by paying them off, after they had already entered Jerusalem and slain the princes (:23).</p>


text:
<p>When they had departed from him (for they left him very sick), his own servants conspired against him for the blood of the sons of Jehoiada the priest, and killed him on his bed, and he died; and they buried him in the city of David, but they didn’t bury him in the tombs of the kings- </p><p>We wonder whether his servants were so loyal to Yahweh that they killed him for what he had done to the sons of Jehoiada. "Sons" means that he murdered more than just Zechariah. Although these servants were apparently secular Gentiles (:25), perhaps even they were disgusted at his deep ingratitude. Or it could mean that their conspiracy against Joash was meant by God as punishment for his conspiracy against Zechariah (:21). Joash was killed on his bed, probably his sick bed, "at the house of Millo, on the way that goes down to Silla” (<a href='B:120 12:20'>2Ki 12:20</a>). This may have been the equivalent of a hospital.</p>


text:
<p>These are those who conspired against him: Zabad the son of Shimeath the Ammonitess and Jehozabad the son of Shimrith the Moabitess- </p><p>We wonder whether these servants were in fact his sons by Gentile wives. If so, then even before the death of Jehoiada he had shown his unspirituality by marrying Gentiles, for all his avowed devotion to the rebuilding of the temple. This is why there was specific commentary written about "his sons" (:27).</p>


text:
<p>Now concerning his sons, and the greatness of the burdens laid on him, and the rebuilding of God’s house, behold, they are written in the commentary of the book of the kings. Amaziah his son reigned in his place- </p><p>This "commentary" may not necessarily be the same as the books of Kings which we have in our Bibles. "The burdens" refer to the prophecies made against him in :19. Hence RVmg. "the burdens uttered against him".</p>


text:
<p>Amaziah was twenty-five years old when he began to reign; and he reigned twenty-nine years in Jerusalem. His mother’s name was Jehoaddan of Jerusalem-</p><p>Amaziah's father Joash died at 47, so Joash would have been 22 when Amaziah was born. His mother, 'pleasing to Jehovah', was one of the wives chosen for Joash by his Godly uncle Jehoiada. He would have lived under the Godly influence of Jehoiada for some time, and witnessed his father's apostacy and gross ingratitude to Jehoiada shown by murdering his sons.</p>


text:
<p>He did that which was right in the eyes of Yahweh, but not with a complete heart- </p><p>There is a common phrase in the record of the Kings of Judah which I admit to being unable to conclusively interpret: "He did that which was right in the sight of the Lord". Many of the men of whom this was said were not very righteous, and some were punished for their later apostasy. Possible explanations are that they repented at the end, although unrecorded; or that they were initially righteous; or that God counted them as righteous although they did wrong things. I find problems with each of these alternatives. So I am left with the possibility that a man can do (and perhaps this is the word that needs emphasis) what is right in God's eyes, but still ultimately be condemned because his heart is far from God; which is the teaching of 1 Corinthians 13; <a href='B:480 7:6-9'>Mar 7:6-9</a> and many other Scriptures. Amaziah "did that which was right in the sight of the Lord, yet not like (i:e. he didn't do his works like) David his father" (<a href='B:120 14:3'>2Ki 14:3</a>) must be paralleled with <a href='B:140 25:2'>2Ch 25:2</a>: "he did that which was right in the sight of the Lord, but not with a perfect heart". Working for God as David did, therefore involved doing the works with a perfect heart, the open conscience which David so often displayed in the Psalms. But Amaziah was deceived by the fact he was doing good works, and the real essence of his relationship with God was thereby overlooked. And we too can project a shadow-self to others, an image of spirituality, which eventually we come to believe ourselves; when our heart is far from God. This feature of human nature explains why a man or woman can reach such heights of devotion and then turn round and walk away from it all, out into the darkness of the world.</p>


text:
<p>Now it happened that when the kingdom was established to him, he killed his servants who had killed the king his father- </p><p>This continues a theme, of the kings of Judah strengthening or establishing themselves, often when they first became king; but then having that human strength tested by God or removed. The same word is used repeatedly (<a href='B:130 11:10'>1Ch 11:10</a>; <a href='B:140 11:11'>2Ch 11:11</a>; <a href='B:140 11:17'>2Ch 11:17</a>; <a href='B:140 12:13'>2Ch 12:13</a>; <a href='B:140 13:21'>2Ch 13:21</a>; <a href='B:140 17:1'>2Ch 17:1</a>; <a href='B:140 23:1'>2Ch 23:1</a>; <a href='B:140 25:3'>2Ch 25:3</a>; <a href='B:140 25:11'>2Ch 25:11</a>; <a href='B:140 26:8'>2Ch 26:8</a>; <a href='B:140 26:15'>2Ch 26:15</a>; <a href='B:140 29:3'>2Ch 29:3</a>; <a href='B:140 32:5'>2Ch 32:5</a>). The lesson of course was that it is God's Angelic eyes who run to and fro in the land promised to Abraham, "to shew Himself strong on behalf of those whose heart is perfect toward him" (<a href='B:140 16:9'>2Ch 16:9</a>).</p>


text:
<p>But he didn’t put their children to death, but did according to that which is written in the law in the book of Moses, as Yahweh commanded saying, The fathers shall not die for the children, neither shall the children die for the fathers; but every man shall die for his own sin-</p><p>Overall this man appears to have spiritually failed. But he as it were grabs hold of one commandment and religiously obeys it. We see this kind of thing all the time in 'religious' approaches to Christianity. But it is the heart which God is looking at, and it was in this that Amaziah failed, ultimately. Chronicles was written for the exiles, and perhaps they needed reminding of this principle (as in <a href='B:330 18:20'>Eze 18:20</a>) because of their wrong idea that they were being unjustly punished for the sins of their fathers.</p>


text:
<p>Moreover Amaziah gathered Judah together, and ordered them according to their fathers houses, under captains of thousands and captains of hundreds, even all Judah and Benjamin. He numbered them from twenty years old and upward, and found them three hundred thousand chosen men, able to go forth to war, who could handle spear and shield- </p><p>After the humiliating defeat by a small army of Syrians, which led to his father's sickness and death, Amaziah wished to strengthen the military might of Judah. But he rather misses the point; his father had more soldiers than Syria, but a small Syrian army defeated Judah's military might because they were not devoted to Yahweh (<a href='B:140 24:24'>2Ch 24:24</a>). He failed to appreciate that an Israel obedient to the covenant would win victories against far superior forces. His strength numerically was that in Asa's time (<a href='B:140 14:8'>2Ch 14:8</a>):&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>He hired also one hundred thousand mighty men of valour out of Israel for one hundred talents of silver- </p><p>"Thousand" often means a kind of military division, and not literally 1000. He failed to recognize that faith in Yahweh rather than numbers was significant (see on :5). He failed to learn the lessons of Biblical history, that military cooperation with the ten tribes had never brought anything but disaster.</p>


text:
<p>A man of God came to him, saying, O king, don’t let the army of Israel go with you; for Yahweh is not with Israel, with all the children of Ephraim- </p><p>The implication was that Yahweh was "with" Judah, but would be with them if Israelite forces were with them. Yet this being "with" Judah was by grace alone, for all the evidence is that the mass of the people were not at all with Him but had forsaken Him. But God perhaps wished to give them just this simple test of obedience regarding not taking the Israelite forces with them, without tackling the myriad other spiritual issues they had. We marvel that He did not turn away from them, seeing they had forsaken Him, but instead worked so patiently to reform them, one baby step at a time. See on :11.</p>


text:
<p>But if you will go, go and take action, be strong for the battle. God will overthrow you before the enemy; for God has power to help, and to overthrow- </p><p>There are times when God has influenced men not to respond to the evidently wise words of other men, in order to fulfill His purpose (e:g. <a href='B:110 12:15'>1Ki 12:15</a>; <a href='B:140 25:20'>2Ch 25:20</a>). God was willing to confirm and even encourage Amaziah in a wrong way- if this was Amaziah’s choice. Therefore God has the power to influence the minds of men in this way, and He uses it. "He takes away the heart of the chief of the people, and causes them to wander" (<a href='B:220 12:24'>Job 12:24</a> cp. 42:7). And God uses this ability to make men refuse to respond to the evident Truth of His word (e:g. <a href='B:90 2:25'>1Sa 2:25</a>). Yet in all this, God is only confirming men in the path they choose to tread.</p>


text:
<p>Amaziah said to the man of God, But what shall we do for the hundred talents which I have given to the army of Israel? The man of God answered, Yahweh is able to give you much more than this- </p><p>I suggest on :17 that this test was repeated when these mercenaries sacked some cities of Judah, and Amaziah then demands compensation from Israel for this. This abiding desire for compensation reflects his lack of faith in the prophetic words to him. We may apparently respond rightly to a test, but not from the heart. And so it is repeated, and we fail. The situation also repeated at the time of <a href='B:140 28:13-14'>2Ch 28:13-14</a>, where the victorious Israelites were told to release the captives they had apparently legitimately taken in war.</p>


text:
<p>Then Amaziah separated them, the army that had come to him out of Ephraim, to go home again. Therefore their anger was greatly kindled against Judah, and they returned home in fierce anger- </p><p>This was on one&nbsp; hand great obedience to the prophetic word. And yet their anger may reflect the fact that Amaziah actually demanded the payment be returned. For that would explain why they pillaged Judah in revenge (:13). His obedience was therefore partial, and so he was tested again in this matter (see on :17) and failed.</p>


text:
<p>Amaziah took courage, and led forth his people, and went to the Valley of Salt, and struck ten thousand of the children of Seir- </p><p>This was where David had won a great victory (<a href='B:130 18:12'>1Ch 18:12</a>). Amaziah was being guided to follow in David's footsteps. This, as noted on :7, was another baby step taken to try to reform him.</p>


text:
<p>The children of Judah carried away ten thousand alive, and brought them to the top of the rock, and threw them down from the top of the rock, so that they all were broken in pieces- </p><p>Comparing with the Kings record, we learn that these people were from the fortress garrison of Sela, which Amaziah captured after the victory of :11. Sela may well be Petra, the apparently impregnable rock top of <a href='B:300 49:16'>Jer 49:16</a>.</p>


text:
<p>But the men of the army whom Amaziah sent back, that they should not go with him to battle, fell on the cities of Judah, from Samaria even to Beth Horon, and struck of them three thousand, and took much spoil-</p><p>Samaria and Beth Horon may instead be read as the border cities of Zemaraim (<a href='B:140 13:4'>2Ch 13:4</a>; <a href='B:60 18:22'>Jos 18:22</a>) or Ephrain / Ephron (<a href='B:140 13:19'>2Ch 13:19</a> cp. <a href='B:60 15:9'>Jos 15:9</a>). I suggested on :10 that they did this because perhaps Amaziah didn't in fact pay them or demanded his payment be returned.</p>


text:
<p>Now it happened, after that Amaziah had come from the slaughter of the Edomites, that he brought the gods of the children of Seir, and set them up to be his gods, and bowed down himself before them, and burned incense to them- </p><p>The imperfect tense suggests he continued this bowing down to them. This is a common Biblical theme; that men worship the very gods which have been proven powerless, and which God has demonstrated to them to be so, through observed experience. But we have the same human nature. For example, we all learn by observed experience that wealth doesn't bring happiness, and we lament families ruined by the possession of wealth. But many still eagerly worship the idol of wealth.</p>


text:
<p>Therefore the anger of Yahweh was kindled against Amaziah, and He sent to him a prophet who said to him, Why have you sought after the gods of the people, which have not delivered their own people out of your hand?- </p><p>GNB "from your power". "Amaziah" means 'power of Yah'. The word play is intentional. The prophet is saying that Amaziah has denied his own name, the personality and character which was potentially to be his. There is likewise a personal path mapped out for each of us, which we can deny by our lack of faith and apostacy.</p>


text:
<p>It happened, as he talked with him, that the king said to him, Have we made you one of the king’s counsellors? Stop! Why should you be struck down? Then the prophet stopped, and said, I know that God has determined to destroy you, because you have done this, and have not listened to my counsel-</p><p>"Counsellors" is the same Hebrew word translated "determined". It occurs again in :17 ("consulted"). The word for "counsellor" is associated with rulership and kingship; a king's counsellors were effectively the kings (<a href='B:290 1:26'>Isa 1:26</a>; <a href='B:290 9:6'>Isa 9:6</a>; <a href='B:150 7:28'>Ezr 7:28</a>; <a href='B:150 8:25'>Ezr 8:25</a>; <a href='B:220 3:14'>Job 3:14</a>), and often in the Bible, the counsel of men is contrasted with that of God. We feel this tension too; for the counsel of God is so often different and opposed to the counsel of the majority of those looked up to for secular advice and counsel. Amaziah wanted a prophet who counselled as he wished it to be (as did Ahab before him). He was not humble to God's word. We too need to somehow clear ourselves of all preconceptions and come to God's word with a second naiveté, willing to be counselled by it; rather than wanting to appoint our own counsel.</p>


text:
<p>Then Amaziah king of Judah consulted his advisers, and sent to Joash, the son of Jehoahaz the son of Jehu, king of Israel, saying, Come, let us face off against each other- </p><p>The soldiers he had hired were apparently mercenaries. They had been paid, but not used in the battle. And so they had gotten offended and sacked cities of Judah (:13). And Amaziah was demanding compensation for this. By so doing he demonstrated that his apparent willingness to lose the money paid for them was not a decision taken from the heart. He was still after compensation for his losses, rather than believing that God could give him all riches (see on :9).</p>


text:
<p>Joash king of Israel sent to Amaziah king of Judah saying, The thistle that was in Lebanon sent to the cedar that was in Lebanon saying, Give your daughter to my son as his wife. Then a wild animal that was in Lebanon passed by, and trampled down the thistle- </p><p>This is similar to the parable of the trees in <a href='B:70 9:7-15'>Jdg 9:7-15</a>, which also talks of the land of Israel as "Lebanon" (<a href='B:70 9:15'>Jdg 9:15</a>). The king of Israel presents himself and Amaziah as both living in the same land, and considered himself to be the glorious cedar and Amaziah merely a thistle. It was quite inappropriate, he felt, for Amaziah to provoke him over the fact mercenaries from his country had ransacked towns in Judah over an argument about money and payment. He is saying that it as inappropriate as a poor man asking a wealthy man to give him his daughter to marry the poor man's son. And he threatens to act not just as an elegant cedar, but to morph into a wild beast who would trample down Amaziah. Perhaps Amaziah had indeed provoked Joash by making a marriage proposal which he knew Joash would turn down.</p>


text:
<p>You say to yourself that you have struck Edom; and your heart lifts you up to boast. Now stay at home. Why should you meddle with trouble, that you should fall, even you, and Judah with you?-</p><p>Literally, "You say", but he meant as interpreted by NEV, "to yourself". The importance of self talk is repeatedly emphasized in the Bible. For this is the basis of true spirituality. The victory against Edom was from God, but by accepting the vanquished gods of Edom, Amaziah shows that he trusted in his own strength rather than that of Yahweh. So often the victories God gives, be it passing an exam or military victory, lead to pride and boasting.</p>


text:
<p>But Amaziah would not listen; for it was of God, that He might deliver them into the hand of their enemies, because they had sought after the gods of Edom- </p><p>See on :8. There are a number of other passages which mention how "it was of the Lord" that certain attitudes were adopted by men, resulting in the sequence of events which He desired (<a href='B:60 11:20'>Jos 11:20</a>; <a href='B:90 2:25'>1Sa 2:25</a>; <a href='B:110 12:15'>1Ki 12:15</a>; <a href='B:140 10:15'>2Ch 10:15</a>; <a href='B:140 22:7'>2Ch 22:7</a>; <a href='B:140 25:20'>2Ch 25:20</a>). It is tempting to read <a href='B:70 14:4'>Jdg 14:4</a> in this context, meaning that God somehow made Samson desire that woman in order to bring about His purpose of freeing Israel from Philistine domination. The fact a man does something "of the Lord" doesn't mean that he is guiltless. In the same context of God's deliverance of Israel from the Philistines, men who did things "of the Lord" were punished for what they did (<a href='B:50 2:30'>Deu 2:30</a>; <a href='B:90 2:25'>1Sa 2:25</a>; <a href='B:140 22:7'>2Ch 22:7</a>; <a href='B:140 25:20'>2Ch 25:20</a>). God through His Spirit works to confirm men in the path they wish to go. And this is the huge significance of the work of the Holy Spirit in our lives today.</p>


text:
<p>So Joash king of Israel went up; and he and Amaziah king of Judah confronted each other at Beth Shemesh, which belongs to Judah- </p><p>This was on the border of Judah and Dan, the frontier of Judah. The pagan name, "house of the sun", had not been changed; and reflects Judah's abiding penchant for idolatry.</p>


text:
<p>Judah was defeated by Israel; and they fled every man to his tent- </p><p>This was not because Israel were more spiritual or faithful, but because God has a special interest in judging pride. Victories of secular people must be understood in this context. The giving of victory by God (in whatever context) is multi factorial and is not simply a reflection of His pleasure with the victor.</p>


text:
<p>Joash king of Israel took Amaziah king of Judah, the son of Joash the son of Jehoahaz- </p><p>"Jehoahaz" is also called Ahaziah (<a href='B:140 21:17'>2Ch 21:17</a>).</p><p>At Beth Shemesh, and brought him to Jerusalem, and broke down the wall of Jerusalem from the gate of Ephraim to the corner gate, four hundred cubits- </p><p>This is s:w. <a href='B:160 1:3'>Neh 1:3</a>; <a href='B:160 4:7'>Neh 4:7</a>, and would have helped remind the exiles how the walls of Jerusalem had come to be so broken down. It would seem by the implication of <a href='B:300 31:38'>Jer 31:38</a>; <a href='B:450 14:10'>Zec 14:10</a> that this gate was on the north of Jerusalem. Depending how we define a cubit, this would have been between 600 and 700 feet.</p>


text:
<p>He took all the gold and silver, and all the vessels that were found in God’s house with Obed-Edom, and the treasures of the king’s house, the hostages also, and returned to Samaria- </p><p>This faithful family who had cared for the ark had been entrusted with caring for the gold and silver in the temple. But Joash had given much of this to the Syrians previously.</p>


text:
<p>Amaziah the son of Joash king of Judah lived after the death of Joash son of Jehoahaz king of Israel fifteen years- </p><p>The implication may be that he was given ample opportunity to repent; and we have noticed that in the lives of other kings.</p>


text:
<p>Now the rest of the acts of Amaziah, first and last, behold, aren’t they written in the book of the kings of Judah and Israel?-</p><p>This may not necessarily be the same books of Kings which we have in our Bible.</p>


text:
<p>Now from the time that Amaziah turned away from following Yahweh, they made a conspiracy against him in Jerusalem- </p><p>Athaliah, Joash and Amaziah each died due to a conspiracy. Surely Amaziah was intended to learn from the deaths of his predecessors, but the great theme of Biblical history is that so few learn from it. And that is the challenge to us. The planning of the conspiracy apparently took at least 15 years (:25).</p><p>He fled to Lachish; but they sent after him to Lachish, and killed him there- </p><p>Perhaps he was trying to flee to Egypt, ever representative of human strength which fails. For Lachish was on the road there.</p>


text:
<p>They brought him on horses, and buried him with his fathers in the city of David- </p><p>Horses were forbidden to the kings of Israel (<a href='B:50 17:16'>Deu 17:16</a>) so this is an appropriate end for an unfaithful man who trusted in human strength.</p>


text:
<p>All the people of Judah took Uzziah, who was sixteen years old, and made him king in the place of his father Amaziah- </p><p>Those who conspired against Amaziah were apparently stopped by the people from taking power. And they insisted upon the line of David continuing, through Uzziah. Despite their general unspirituality. "Uzziah", 'strength of Jehovah', has a very similar meaning to the name of his father Amaziah, 'power of Jehovah'. Yet Amaziah had not lived up to that (see on <a href='B:140 25:15'>2Ch 25:15</a>. He may have named his son similarly in a hope that he would succeed where he failed.</p>


text:
<p>He built Eloth and restored it to Judah, after that the king slept with his fathers- </p><p>Amaziah his father had defeated Edom, and Eloth was in Edom. This explains the comment that Uzziah did this after his father died. But in doing so he was really living out the ghost of his father and fulfilling parental expectation; for he repeated the works for Yahweh which his father had done (:4). Those raised in believing families must ever probe the degree to which their faith and works are possibly just living out parental expectation.</p>


text:
<p>Sixteen years old was Uzziah when he began to reign; and he reigned fifty-two years in Jerusalem. His mother’s name was Jechiliah of Jerusalem- </p><p>This means that he was born about the time that his father Amaziah turned away from Yahweh (<a href='B:140 25:25-27'>2Ch 25:25-27</a>). His spirituality may therefore have been due to his mother, 'Yah will enable'.</p>


text:
<p>He did that which was right in the eyes of Yahweh, according to all that his father Amaziah had done- </p><p>God's judgment of Amaziah was that he did what was right, but his heart was not consistently with God. So the meaning of this may be that Uzziah likewise did what was right, he did something which were right, as Amaziah did. But there is no comment at this point about the all important judgment of God about his state of heart. And I suggested on :2 that be began by simply living out parental expectation. See on :16. We note from <a href='B:120 15:4'>2Ki 15:4</a> that "the high places were not taken away: the people still sacrificed and burnt incense in the high places". "Taken away" is the same word as 'depart from' in <a href='B:120 15:9'>2Ki 15:9</a>. The way of Jeroboam was not departed from, and so the high places were not departed from. The suggestion is that they were associated with the calf worship.</p>


text:
<p>He set himself to seek God in the days of Zechariah, who had understanding in the vision of God. As long as he sought Yahweh, God made him to prosper- </p><p>This Zechariah may be the anonymous prophet who had rebuked his father Amaziah. Joash did right before God whilst the priest Jehoiada was alive, and then apostatized; Uzziah did likewise, with Zechariah the priest (<a href='B:140 24:2'>2Ch 24:2</a>; <a href='B:140 26:5'>2Ch 26:5</a>). He didn’t reflect upon the personal implications of Divine history. And we too must appreciate that there are Bible characters whose experiences are framed in terms directly relevant to us- for our learning. Interestingly, straight after Jehoiada died, the princes of the land came to Joash with a request, which he wrongly listened to. This has great similarities with the tragic mistake made by Rehoboam after Solomon died (<a href='B:140 10:3-4'>2Ch 10:3-4</a> cp. 24:17). So Joash was given chance after chance to be directed back to previous examples and be instructed by them- but he went on in his own way. And Uzziah failed in a similar way.</p>


text:
<p>He went forth and warred against the Philistines, and broke down the walls of Gath, Jabneh and Ashdod; and he built cities in the country of Ashdod and among the Philistines- </p><p>In Amaziah's time, the walls of Jerusalem had been broken down, and Uzziah would have remembered growing up with this shameful reminder every day of his youth, as he surveyed the broken down walls which represented his father's humiliation (<a href='B:140 25:23'>2Ch 25:23</a>). His apparent zeal against the Philistines and breaking down of their walls must surely be read in this light. And we must ask to what degree our works for the Lord are merely psychological reactions and responses to our experiences, and to what degree they are purely motivated by faith.</p>


text:
<p>God helped him against the Philistines, and against the Arabians who lived in Gur Baal and the Meunim- </p><p>Gur Baal is 'the abode of Baal' and we wonder whether this reflected Uzziah's zeal for Yahweh as opposed to Baal. The Angelic elohim “helped” Uzziah in his battles; and yet within the same context we read that his human armies “helped” him (<a href='B:140 26:7'>2Ch 26:7</a>; <a href='B:140 26:13'>2Ch 26:13</a>). The Angelic armies in Heaven are seen reflected in the human armies of Israel upon earth. The human armies are described as helping Uzziah with “mighty power”, a phrase elsewhere used about the mighty power which God alone gives (the same two words occur in this context in <a href='B:50 8:18'>Deu 8:18</a>; <a href='B:450 4:6'>Zec 4:6</a>). The allusion is to the meaning of Uzziah's name, 'strength of Yah'. And David learnt all this in practice, when he reflected how human armies alone lack this ‘mighty power’- all human strength is not strength at all unless it’s operating in tandem with God’s Angelic strength: “There is no king saved by the multitude of a host: A mighty man is not delivered by great strength” (<a href='B:230 33:16'>Psa 33:16</a>).</p>


text:
<p>The Ammonites gave tribute to Uzziah. His name spread abroad even to the entrance of Egypt; for he grew extremely strong- </p><p>Ammon was far east of Jordan, and to control them as far as Egypt was very considerable influence and power.</p>


text:
<p>Moreover, Uzziah built towers in Jerusalem at the corner gate and the valley gate, and at the turning of the wall, and fortified them- </p><p>This would have been to try to permanently reverse the shameful breaking down of the walls of Jerusalem which he had grown up beholding (<a href='B:140 25:23'>2Ch 25:23</a>; see on :6). But as discussed on :6, we wonder whether his apparent zeal in doing this was true zeal for God, or rather merely psychological reaction and response to his earlier shame based experiences. And we must enquire of our own motives in the same way.</p>


text:
<p>He built towers in the wilderness, and dug out many cisterns, for he had much livestock; in the lowland also, and in the plain. He had farmers and vineyard keepers in the mountains and in the fruitful fields; for he loved farming- </p><p>We see similarities with Solomon's descriptions of all the things he tried doing in Ecclesiastes. But like Solomon, Uzziah did all these things because he loved doing them, serving God in so far as it reinforced his own personality type and interests. And again we must enquire of the motives for our works, and to what extent we are truly carrying a cross for the Lord Jesus rather than serving Him in ways convenient to us.</p>


text:
<p>Moreover Uzziah had an army of fighting men, who went out to war by bands, according to the number of their reckoning made by Jeiel the scribe and Maaseiah the officer, under the hand of Hananiah, one of the king’s captains-</p><p>All these men had God's Name in their names, but there was a total lack of understanding that an Israel obedient to the covenant would defeat far greater forces despite their small numbers. And again, they had failed to learn the lesson from David's numbering of Israel's fighting men.</p>


text:
<p>The whole number of the heads of fathers’ households, even the mighty men of valour, was two thousand six hundred- </p><p>We get the impression of a highly organized army with wonderful military technology. But all this was to be revealed as ultimately the opposite of true spirituality.</p>


text:
<p>Under their hand was an army, three hundred and seven thousand five hundred, who made war with mighty power, to help the king against the enemy-</p><p>Uzziah was forgetting the meaning of his name, 'power of Yah'. Be aware that 'thousand' often refers to a military division rather than a literal 1000.</p>


text:
<p>Uzziah prepared for them, even for all the army, shields, spears, helmets, coats of armour, bows and stones for slinging- </p><p>Here and in :15 we get the impression that Uzziah loved technology and science, and perhaps invented new weaponry which was previously unknown in the area. But this was all&nbsp; revelling in human strength. It was a denial of his name which reflected his intended spiritual achievement, 'power of 'Yah'.</p>


text:
<p>He made in Jerusalem engines, invented by skilful men, to be on the towers and on the battlements, with which to shoot arrows and great stones. His name spread far abroad; for he was marvellously helped, until he was strong-</p><p>This continues a theme, of the kings of Judah strengthening or fortifying themselves, often when they first became king; but then having that human strength tested by God or removed. The same word is used repeatedly (<a href='B:130 11:10'>1Ch 11:10</a>; <a href='B:140 11:11'>2Ch 11:11</a>; <a href='B:140 11:17'>2Ch 11:17</a>; <a href='B:140 12:13'>2Ch 12:13</a>; <a href='B:140 13:21'>2Ch 13:21</a>; <a href='B:140 17:1'>2Ch 17:1</a>; <a href='B:140 23:1'>2Ch 23:1</a>; <a href='B:140 25:3'>2Ch 25:3</a>; <a href='B:140 25:11'>2Ch 25:11</a>; <a href='B:140 26:8'>2Ch 26:8</a>; <a href='B:140 26:15'>2Ch 26:15</a>; <a href='B:140 29:3'>2Ch 29:3</a>; <a href='B:140 32:5'>2Ch 32:5</a>). The lesson of course was that it is God's Angelic eyes who run to and fro in the land promised to Abraham, "to shew Himself strong on behalf of those whose heart is perfect toward him" (<a href='B:140 16:9'>2Ch 16:9</a>).</p>


text:
<p>But when he was strong, his heart was lifted up, so that he did corruptly, and he trespassed against Yahweh his God; for he went into Yahweh’s temple to burn incense on the altar of incense-</p><p>After several verses describing his strength, we come to this intended anticlimax. Although he did right things (:4), it is faith and the state of a man's inner heart which are the critical issues in God's judgments of a person. And pride in the heart is a sin which no number of good works can somehow compensate for.</p>


text:
<p>Azariah the priest went in after him, and with him eighty priests of Yahweh, who were valiant men- </p><p>To resist a proud and very powerful king was a brave act. It is perhaps because of this that they are called "valiant". They "resisted Uzziah" (18), literally they withstood him, physically barring his access to the incense altar.</p>


text:
<p>They resisted Uzziah the king, and said to him, It isn’t for you, Uzziah, to burn incense to Yahweh, but for the priests the sons of Aaron, who are consecrated to burn incense. Go out of the sanctuary; for you have trespassed; neither shall it be for your honour from Yahweh God- </p><p>We observe that David acted as a priest, and was blessed for it. He saw beyond the veil of mere legislation, to the spirit of things. But Uzziah's motives were pride, self glorification rather than glorifying God. And so the same external actions were judged so differently by God. And we are not to judge because we cannot judge, seeing we see only the outward actions and not the heart. It seems as noted on :17 that Uzziah didn't actually get to the incense altar, although he had the censer in his hand (:19). But he was still counted as having committed the sin. Because intentions are counted as the sin, as the Lord makes clear in Matthew 5-7.</p>


text:
<p>Then Uzziah was angry; and he had a censer in his hand to burn incense; and while he was angry with the priests, the leprosy broke forth in his forehead before the priests in the house of Yahweh, beside the altar of incense-</p><p>The idea of him being beside the altar but before the priests confirms the suggestion on :17 that they literally blocked his access to the altar. The leprosy in his forehead represented the disease of his mind. It broke forth as his anger broke forth. This was the anger of hurt pride, and revealed that he had no spiritual sincerity at all. If he had truly wanted God's glory through offering incense, if he truly saw in it a symbol of acceptable prayer to Him, then it would have made no difference who placed the censer on the altar.</p>


text:
<p>Azariah the chief priest, and all the priests, looked on him, and behold, he was leprous in his forehead, and they thrust him out quickly from there. Yes, he himself hurried also to go out, because Yahweh had struck him- </p><p>Death was the prescribed penalty for a non priest coming to the altar (<a href='B:40 18:7'>Num 18:7</a>). And he was refusing to give any weight to the Biblical precedent of the destruction of the rebels who offered incense (<a href='B:40 16:35'>Num 16:35</a>). We wonder whether there was also an earthquake at this time. Isaiah was contemporary with him (<a href='B:290 1:1'>Isa 1:1</a>), and we wonder whether this earthquake is the scene of <a href='B:290 6:1'>Isa 6:1</a>.</p>


text:
<p>Uzziah the king was a leper to the day of his death, and lived in a separate house, being a leper; for he was cut off from the house of Yahweh; and Jotham his son was over the king’s house, judging the people of the land-</p><p>This living in a separate house indicates obedience to God's law. For Naaman was a leper and yet had an active place in Syrian society, and Uzziah and Judah might have adopted their attitude to leprosy. The fact Uzziah didn't seek to get around this could perhaps indicate that he accepted his judgment and may have repented. But see on :23.</p>


text:
<p>Now the rest of the acts of Uzziah, first and last, Isaiah the prophet, the son of Amoz, wrote- </p><p>We wonder why the record of such a book is retained in the inspired text, when we don't have access to the book. We can conclude that this was written for the exiles, who maybe did have access to this book.</p>


