1 & 2 Kings: Desultory Musings

1 & 2 Kings:  Some desultory musings on the text in consultation with four volumes:

The Book of Common Prayer. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1969.

Davis, John D. (Ed.) The Westminster Dictionary of the Bible. “Kings.” Philadelphia: The Westminster Press.

Engelbrecht, Edward (Ed.) The Lutheran Study Bible. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 2009.

Sproul, R.C. (Ed.) The New Geneva Study Bible. Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1995.

Historically and liturgically, that is, for the Church of England, 1 & 2 Kings were/are read 14 May through 17 June.  Selections from Chronicles, Deuteronomy, and Isaiah periodically interrupt and punctuate the divine services of Morning and Evening Prayer.  However, these two books are to be read entirely and fully—congregationally—at least once per year.  Like Israel of old, however, the practice falls far, far short of reality. These days we get snippets, clippettes, and sermonettes largely bereft of indications that the book is read.  These days, one would hardly know that the books exist.

The authorship of 1 & 2 Kings was attributed, traditionally, to Jeremiah.  As such, 1 & 2 Kings, Lamentation, and Jeremiah are attributed to the prophet.

The two volumes were traditionally one volume, until the Septuagint and Vulgate.  Yet, the narrative is a national religious history beginning with Joshua and ending with the Exile (2 Kings 25). 

It is generally believed that these 2 volumes (or, actually 1 volume) were brought together during the Exile (560-550).  However, there were earlier works that were noted, used and incorporated:

1. “Book of the Acts of Solomon” (1 Kg.11.41)
2. “Chronicles of the Kings of Israel” (1 Kg. 14.19), distinctive from the canonical Chronicles
3. “Chronicles of the Kings of Judah” (1 Kg. 14.29)
4. Use of the terms describing pre-exilic times of conditions “that continue to this day” (1 Kg. 8.8; 9.20-21; 12.19; 2 Kg. 8.22)

One theory of composition was that an Exilic editor picked up a Josianic document and provided the Deuteronomist-update.  2 Kings comes to a climax with Josiah’s reforms with a tightly argued chronology of the fall (2 Kg. 25). The ending is somewhat abrupt and reminds one of the ending to Acts

The New Geneva Study Bible offers four themes:

1. God and Israel’s election by grace (1 Kg. 8.53; Dt. 7.6; 26.18-19). Israel’s statehood and status as God’s people was not based on merit, but grace.  The solidarity of all Israel is maintained, generally, even after the fall of the north to the Assyrians (B.C. 722)
2. The crucial role of the prophets as God’s spokesmen.  Some prophets mentioned in the Kings: Elijah, Elisha, Nathan, Ahijah, Shemiah, Micaiah, Jonah, Isaiah, and Huldigh. The governing themes in the prophets: Israel’s marriage to God, the Abrahamic-Mosaic-Davidic covenant, God and the pagan nations, false teachers and prophets, and the Messianic Branch of David.
3. God and the sanctuary, notably, the building of the Temple by Solomon. This was the sign and seal of God’s Presence.  It was sacred space with sacred times.  As The Lutheran Study Bible helpfully notes, the “high places” were throughout the land. The wind would blow, whistle through the trees, blow the hair and garments.  Some would call on Yahweh while others would invoke Baal—a religion of nature-worship, commerce-worship and sex-worship.  Some would burn incense.  Some would do homage to the Asherah.  Bamot, or “the high place,” is mentioned 100 times in the OT, mostly occurring in 1 & 2 Kings. Solomon builds something spectacular—something confirming the revelation to Moses in the tabernacle.  We might add an off-hand note from the 1599 Geneva Bible, to wit (in essence), “ignorance and indifference are the mothers of idolatry, error and superstition.” Syncretism was the grand error of the northern Churchmen soon to be rooted out by Assyria.
4. The Covenant of Grace. The kings and the people were not absolute but were under divine authority.  A contrast develops from within the 2 volumes:  (1) Northern Israel has 20 kings from 9 families for just over 200 years, a picture of instability, disorder and divine judgment, and (2) Southern Israel, or Judah, has 20 kings from 1 family (David) for over 350 years.  Of the 8 favorable mentions for southern Kings, 2 are noteworthy: (1) Hezekiah who removes the high places and survives in faith during Sennacherib’s invasion (2 Kings 18) and (2) Josiah who initiated sweeping reforms (2 Kings 23).
5. A working chronology:
    
   970:  End of David’s reign
   970—930:  Solomon’s glorious reign but his massive descent to abominations
   930: The Monarchy Splits into the North and South
   722: The Northern Tribes Fall to Assyria
   586: The Fall of the Southern Kingdom to Babylon

The Lutheran Study Bible offers us a lovely (as usual) quote from Bruder Martin Luther:

“Elijah had killed the 800 prophets with great courage (1 Kings 19.1-3), and no one’s power was so great that he feared it; but when Jezebel threatened him, he is struck with such fear that he flees.  Before this he was not afraid of the king; now he runs away from a woman.

“Accordingly, all this seems to be foolish; but it shows great understanding and is very helpful, because it is recorded for the comfort of the churches, in order that we may know how merciful God is.  We may indeed be evil and weak, provided that we are not found among those who persecute, hate and blaspheme God.  God wants to have patience with our weakness.

“I am neither able nor willing to excuse the fathers, as others do. Indeed I am glad to hear about the failings and the weaknesses of the saints. But, I do not praise these failings and weaknesses as good deeds or virtues…Nor are these things recorded for the sake of hard, the proud and the obstinate.  No, they are recorded in order that the nature of the kingdom of Christ may be pointed out. In His small flock He has poor and weak consciences that are easily hurt and are not easily comforted.  He is a King of the strong and the weak alike; He hates the proud and declares war on the strong” (AE 5:25-26).

Westminster Confession of Faith (32.1): Of the State of Men after Death, and of the Resurrection of the Dead

Chapter 32: Of the State of Men after Death, and of the Resurrection of the Dead

1: The bodies of men, after death, return to dust, and see corruption: but their souls, which neither die nor sleep, having an immortal subsistence, immediately return to God who gave them: the souls of the righteous, being then made perfect in holiness, are received into the highest heavens, where they behold the face of God, in light and glory, waiting for the full redemption of their bodies. And the souls of the wicked are cast into hell, where they remain in torments and utter darkness, reserved to the judgment of the great day. Beside these two places, for souls separated from their bodies, the Scripture acknowledges none.

Robert Shaw says this:

I. It is here supposed that death is an event common to all men. "It is appointed unto men once to die."—Heb. ix. 27. This is the immutable appointment of Heaven, which cannot be reversed, and which none can frustrate. When meditating upon this subject, the royal Psalmist exclaimed: "What man is he that liveth, and shall not see death? Shall he deliver his soul from the hand of the grave?"—Ps. lxxxix. 48. Job speaks of death as an event which certainly awaited him, and of the grave as the common receptacle of all mankind: "I know that thou wilt bring me to death, and to the house appointed for all living."—Job xxx. 23. Our own observation abundantly confirms the declaration of Scripture. Nor are we at a loss to account for the introduction of death into our world, and its universal prevalence over the human race: "As by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned."—Rom. v. 12.

There is, indeed, a vast difference between the death of the righteous and that of the wicked. To the latter, death is the effect of the law-curse, and the harbinger of everlasting destruction; but to the former, death is not the proper punishment of sin, but the termination of all sin and sorrow, and an entrance into life eternal. To them death is divested of its sting, and rendered powerless to do them any real injury. Not only is it disarmed of its power to hurt them—it is compelled to perform a friendly part to them. It is their release from warfare—their deliverance from woe—their departure to be with Christ. But although death is no real loss, but rather great gain to the righteous; yet, as it consists in the dissolution of the union between the soul and the body, it is an event from which they are not exempted.

God could, no doubt, if he pleased, easily save his saints from natural death. Of this he gave a proof in the case of Enoch and of Elijah. For good reasons, however, he has determined otherwise. 1. That the righteous, as well as others, should be subjected to temporal death, is best adapted to the present plan of the divine government, and seems necessary, if not to the preservation, at least to the comfort of human society. According to the plan of the divine government, rewards and punishments are principally reserved for a future world. But if the righteous were exempted from death, while the wicked fell under its stroke, this would be a manifestation of the final destiny of every man that is removed out of this world. Death, therefore, happens to the righteous in the same outward form, and attended with the same external circumstances, as it happens to the wicked, that there may be no visible distinction between them. 2. Were the righteous to be distinguished from the wicked by being translated to heaven without tasting of death, this would introduce great confusion into society. Without producing any salutary effect upon the wicked, it would render them more regardless of character, and remove one powerful stimulus—the prospect of future fame—which animates them to noble exertions for the benefit of society. It would also greatly affect the character and the happiness of the living. Were the parent singled out as the object of the divine displeasure, by being subjected to death, this would fix a brand of infamy upon his children; or if the child were taken away in a manner so expressive of its future destiny, this would pierce the heart of the parent, especially if serious, with inexpressible anguish. No class, indeed, would be more affected by such a state of things than the righteous themselves. Hence death is the common lot of the godly and of the wicked. 3. This arrangement affords occasion for a richer display of the power and grace of God. As the hour of death is the most trying to men, so the power and grace of God are most gloriously displayed, in supporting his people in that solemn hour; in enabling them, in the exercise of faith and hope, to rise superior to the fear of death, and to triumph over this last enemy as conquerors. And how illustriously will his power be displayed in raising up their bodies at the last day! 4. Another reason, we conceive, why the righteous are subjected to temporal death, is, that they may be conformed to Christ, their glorious head. He tasted of death before he was crowned with glory and honour; and they also must enter into glory through "the valley of the shadow of death."

Dr. Carl Trueman: 'What should a theological church look like?

http://www.theologian.org.uk/audio/CarlTrueman3.mp3

Talk 3: 'What should a theological church look like?'

Some real weaknesses here, further evidence that credentials as an historian does not equate to maturity and wisdom for strategic and tactical decisions for the future. Rather dreary, actually.

One good point, can "a Pastor [=Rector] preach the OT?" A factor in selection for pastoral selection. Some excellent points re: redemptive-historical preaching.

Carl sounds like a British-evangelical-turned-Presbyterian. A Llloyd-Jones evangelical? Carl is from Gloucestershire, UK, and observes that one attends a place of worship where the Gospel is preached. That's it? He does NOT sound very Confessional or catechetical. (Thank God for my Dad who taught me the Catechism. Not one reference by Carl to the great Confessions.) Very little reference to the Westminster Confession, Belgic Confession, Scots Confession (1560), or The Thirty-nine Articles of Religion. Very, very, very poor. (Never mind the issue of good Prayer Book Churchmanship.)

Carl gives his views on CCM-loons. Impoverished. Oh my, then his discourse on liturgy. An howler. Carl, if reading this, stand up and get with the 1662 BCP. This is painful to hear.

An excellent few points. (1) We are preparing people to die. (2) We need an humble orthodoxy.
Concur, something the good BCP well advocates. Carl is not an Anglican Prayer Book man.

Carl on liturgy? Uggggg. Puleeze!! Very, very, very poor. Carl really gives bad press for evangelicals, or at least, Evangelical Anglicans.

"We love ya, but don't need ya" as one 65-year old Scots-friend summarized the response to Prayer Book Churchmen. A solid Reformation Scots-man and, convinced of it, an "elect and justified brother in Christ," but with little regard for the BCP. We are friends, very good friends. He is Free Church of Scotland. Readers know my perspective.

"A" for effort. "C-D" for content. "F" for relevance. We are grading quite charitably. Not impressed.

B.B. Warfield’s “Faith and Life,” 1-13

1. We offer some observations on B.B. Warfield’s “Faith and Life” (Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1974), 1-13.

2. Tim Naab, a correspondent at “Exposing the False Prophets—Reformation Christians Against TBN” made an interesting comment recently. Tim has 50 years in Pentecostalism and his parents and grandparents go back to the original movement.
Facebookhttp://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=308173344359

3. We asked Tim about the Pentecostalist definition of “faith” in that Arminianized and Montanist world. He noted that it is “faith in one’s faith,” rather than the object of faith, Christ. This impelled this scribe to pull Warfield’s timely classic off the shelf. Warfield is a good start but we commend readers to a salutary summary of saving faith in the Wesminster Confession, Chapter 15, at: http://www.reformed.org/documents/index.html?mainframe=http://www.reformed.org/documents/westminster_conf_of_faith.html

4. Warfield develops an instructive devotional article entitled “The Cause of God” in relation to Elijah.

5. Elijah is a story of fidelity to God when apostasy and infidelity reigned in Israel. We know nothing about his background or training, but he emerges in 1 Kings before an idolatrous king Ahab and a wayward, indifferent, lawless, autonomous, defiant and self-exalting generation. Elijah appears thunderously, but he also disappears in the story to a desolate and forlorn tract of land and caves.

6. Elijah sought to awaken Israel to its demise in doctrine, worship and piety. He called for repentance, reform and renewal. Drought, fire from heaven, famine, and death for enemies of His Majesty follow Elijah’s ministry. We may well imagine something of sternness in demeanour, fearlessness, and courage. He reminds us of John the Baptist.

7. Several lessons are helpful, although we digress from Professor B.B. Warfield, the “Lion of Princeton.”

8. Following Elijah’s appearance of vigour and preaching in Israel, we find him secluded and sequestered by the brook Cherith in Jordan, fed by ravens. We find him discouraged and despairing. The tough prophet learned in suffering, as would St. Paul (2 Cor.12.1ff). In despair at the large rejection of his message, he learned that God had elected “7000 who have not bowed the knee to Baal.”

9. By Emergents’ standards like Brian McClaren, Elijah hadn’t adjusted himself to doctrinal haziness, vagueness, and uncertainty about truth. We can hear it, “C’mon Elijah, let’s just trim the sails, shall we? What’s with all the Law? And the Word of God as the `Constitution of the Church’? Please. This OT-stuff about justice and holiness is too much.” We refer the reader to the recent panel discussion hosted by Dr. Al Mohler re: Brian McClaren’s “Generous Orthodoxy.” McClaren wouldn't get any hearing from Elijah or John the Baptist.

10. By TBN standards as well as our’s we might add, Elijah had the “signs and wonders.” Unlike TBN, Pentecostalists, and charismatics, we do not believe that God ordinarily works “signs and wonders.“ Read the Bible. We are developing this in other threads. The Bible teaches that God does not work this way. We confess the words and wisdom of the Westminster Confession of Faith, chapter 5, paragraph 3, to wit, that “God, in his ordinary providence, maketh use of means, yet is free to work without, above, and against them, at his pleasure.” We’re not Protestant liberals; we believe in miracles. But God ordinarily uses means. We affirm that God has and did perform “signs and wonders” at significant junctures in redemptive history, e.g. Moses, Elijah, and the days of Christ. However, in the vast, vast, vast, vast reaches of the centuries within the Bible, God normally did not do that. Just read the Bible TBN-Pentecostalist devotees. Here these Montanists go off the deep-end, here as elsewhere. We confess the great “signs and wonders” of Elijah. But we deny that they were normative throughout subsequent months and years in Israel’s history.

11. On another front, by mega-church standards of numbers, church growth, techniques and strategies. Elijah was a “Chief-of-Failure-dom.” Elijah complains, “I, I only, am left,” as if God’s work ever rested on Elijah, techniques, and church-growth formulas in the first place. Elijah had some maturing to do. We can hear Elijah-turn-mega-growth strategist, “Lord, I didn’t have the questionnaires, demographic studies, formulas or messages tuned to `felt needs.’ I got it wrong about the idolaters.” As if God’s work was vanquished in the land by massive apostasy. As if the message had to be diluted to accommodate Ahab, Jezebel, the Baal worshippers and the idolatrous Israelites. As if there were no “elect left” and true Gospel preaching was a failure. As if God was going to fail. As if God was going to desert His sovereign covenant promises to Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses and so many others. As if numbers mattered. We surely gain encouragement in preaching the Law and Gospel, irrespective of numbers, strategies, or responses. Elijah happened to live in "postmodern times" (what a term).

12. Some, including myself, refer to "evangellifishdom." Such pull the Pharisee trump card as their technique of avoidance when false doctrine is confronted or biblical doctrine is positively confessed. Other wild cards: "Judgment Card," "Unloving Card, and" Divisive Card" are played routinely but incorrrectly. Of course, it's true as justified sinners. We must really we see that were born apostates, are justified by Christ's grace alone, and to beat our breast like the sinner in Luke 18.9ff. We'll be doing that until we're old with gray hairs. On the other hand, we're not rolling over for these indifferentists with pietist retreats as covers for sloth, indifference or fear. In God's name, we're not doing that. We confess the faith kindly, humbly, but directly and clearly. There are "boundaries," Confessional ones. By the way, evangellifish wouldn't have the time of day for Elijah either; Elijah was divisive, judgmental, unkind, self-righteous and Pharsaical.

12. Fidelity, courage, honour and commitment. Elijah was consistent in doctrine, word and piety with Paul’s advice to Timothy in 2 Tim.4.1-5.

“1 In the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who will judge the living and the dead, and in view of his appearing and his kingdom, I give you this charge: 2 Preach the Word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage—with great patience and careful instruction. 3 For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. 4 They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths. 5 But you, keep your head in all situations, endure hardship, do the work of an evangelist, discharge all the duties of your ministry.

13. We have no choice. We cannot follow the modern cop-outs like Hybels and Warren. We cannot follow the new Liberals like McClaren. We cannot follow the Montanist Frenzysts.

14. Thank God that God is what and who He has disclosed Himself to be in “True Churches” with the true and biblical marks as such. Thank God for His fidelity to His Catholic, Confessional and True Churches, and to us, our children and grandchildren, as well as fellow-believers. We live in troubled times, but we live in the joy and confidence that God is sovereign, gracious and faithful.