“Snubbed” – 2 Chronicles 18 – Hillsdale Free Methodist Church

December 9^th, 2012

2 Chronicles 18 (1 Kings 22:1-53)

“Snubbed”

Bible Memory Verse for the Week: 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. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths. — 2 Timothy 4:3-4

Background Information:

This account of the alliance of Jehoshaphat and Ahab has been used for two quite distinct purposes in 1 Kings and 2 Chronicles. For the writer of 1 Kings, the account served to demonstrate the fulfillment of the prophecy of Elijah against Ahab because of his treatment of the Jezreelite Naboth (1 Kgs 21:17-29). The writer makes that point explicitly at the conclusion of the account of Ahab’s death (1 Kgs 22:37-38).

For the chronicler, this account serves another purpose. It is used to show that God will deliver the king who calls out to Him and seeks to do His will. In the 2 Chronicles account, Jehoshaphat is seen doing both. (John Sailhamer, Everyman’s Bible Commentary: 1 & 2 Chr, 94)

(v. 1) Jehoshaphat “allied himself with Ahab.” This act is not simply condemned (19:2; cf. On 15:2); it is seen as the root of far-reaching consequences, made all too clear by a series of disasters that followed (18:31; 20:37; 21:6; 22:7, 10). Initially it entailed the “marriage” of Jehoshaphat’s son Jehoram to Athaliah, the daughter of Ahab. Their marriage, in turn, furnishes an approximate date for the alliance, of about 865 B.C., because a child of this union (Ahaziah) was 22 at his own accession in 842 (22:2). A major cause that led to the alliance may be found in the growing threat of Assyria in the north. Its ruthless monarch Ashurnasirpal II (884-859) was already pressing into Lebanon; and his successor, Shalmaneser III, is known to have fought a drawn battle against a coalition of western states, including Damascus and Israel, at Qarqar on the Orontes River in 853. (Frank E. Gæbelein, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Vol. 4, 498)
(v. 1) The Chronicler added that Jehoshaphat had entered an alliance by marriage with Ahab (18:1). This marriage was between Jehoshaphat’s son Jehoram and Ahab’s daughter Athaliah (see 21:6; 22:2). In the ancient Near East, marriage was typically viewed as more than the union of two individuals; it was a bond between two families. In the case of royal families, such marriages also formed political alliances between nations. Though this practice was common, God had prohibited his people from intermarrying with idolaters because they would inevitably lead his people into apostasy (see Dt 7:3-4; Josh 23:11-13; Neh 13:23-27). Jehoshaphat’s marriage proved to be a serious problem for Judah in later generations. Athaliah led Jehoram into the sins of Ahab (see 21:5-6), and led Ahaziah into the same sins (see 22:2-3). Moreover, Athaliah usurped the throne by killing nearly all of the royal offspring of Judah (see 22:10-12). (Richard L. Pratt, 1 & 2 Chr, A Mentor Commentary, 323)
(v. 1) Like his father Asa, Jehoshaphat in his downfall is linked to the northern kingdom. However, while Asa had fallen from faith by conflict with the north, Jehoshaphat’s fall involves an alliance with Israel. In Chronicles, Jehoshaphat has no need to enter into this alliance. God has already demonstrated that, as long as Jehoshaphat is faithful, his kingdom will be secure. Evidently, as in the case of Rehoboam, Jehoshaphat’s wealth and security lulled him into faithlessness (18:1; compare 12:1). The alliance between the two kingdoms is sealed by the marriage of Ahab’s daughter Athaliah to Jehoshaphat’s son Jehoram, a marriage that will have dreadful repercussions for Judah (2 Kgs 8;18, 26; see also 2 Kgs 11;1-20//2 Chr 22:10-23:21). (Steven S. Tuell, Interpretation: 1 & 2 Chr, 176-77)
(v. 3) The unity of all Israel is indeed one of the Chronicler’s own dearest visions, and he could well sympathize with Jehoshaphat’s desire to break down ‘the dividing wall of hostility’ and to take steps to re-integrate the divided nation. (Michael Wilcock, The Message of Chr, 192)
(v. 5) The false prophets described here are not the prophets of Baal, destroyed by Elijah at Mount Carmel prior to this time (1 Kings 18). These prophets are likely the false prophets of the calf worship that Jeroboam had established. Ahab has prophets, but not prophets of God. These men speak to please the king and use the name of God even though it is meaningless to them (2 Chr 18:5). Jehoshaphat recognizes that something is not right, for God has given him discernment as he looks for a true prophet of God (18:6). Ahab is not interested in the truth. But Jehoshaphat rebukes Ahab for his harsh words against this man of God (18:7). (Dr. Tremper Longman, Quicknotes, 1 Chr Thru Job, 83-84)
(v. 5) Frequently in the OT, false prophets were characterized as only giving positive oracles in favor of the king (see 36:16; 2 Kgs 17:13-15; Neh 9:26; Jer 25:4; 26:4-5; 28: 29:24-32). The fact that these prophets spoke so enthusiastically in favor of royal plans caused Jehoshaphat to be suspicious. So, in effect he asked for a prophet not on Ahab’s payroll. (Richard L. Pratt, 1 & 2 Chr, A Mentor Commentary, 325)
(v. 6-8) One criterion by which the true prophet was recognized in the OT was that he in his preaching often stood alone, running against the tide of popular expectation; his opposition to the vox populi (Crenshaw, Conflict, 24-36) became a hallmark of the true prophet (36:16; 2 Kgs 17:13-15; Neh 9:26; Jer 25:4; 26:4-5; 28; 29:24-32; Mt 23:33-37). The vox populi and the vox pseudoprophetae were all but identical, so that agreement with the popular consensus made the prophetic message suspicious at the outset. Such suspicion appears to underlie Jehoshaphat’s awareness that he was yet to hear the word of Yahweh. (Raymond B. Dillard, Word Biblical Commentary, Vol. 15, 141)
(v. 7) “Micaiah” remains unknown, apart from this incident. He never prophesied anything good about Ahab–because of the character of Ahab. The true prophets of Israel were, indeed, distinguished by the fact that they consistently warned their nation of the results of its sin (Jer 23:22; Mic 3:8). (Frank E. Gæbelein, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Vol. 4, 498)
(v. 10) The imagery of the horns of iron may have been suggested by the bull imagery of the northern Israelite shrines (see 11:15). (Steven S. Tuell, Interpretation: 1 & 2 Chr, 178)
(v. 20) The Hebrew that underlies the phrase rendered “a spirit” (came forward) reads literally, “the (well-known) spirit,” i.e., Satan the tempter (as in Job 1:6-12). Or perhaps this is an instance where the definite article is an “article of class.” Apparently Micaiah seems to have assumed among his hearers a working knowledge of the Book of Job, as already recorded in the days of Solomon. (Frank E. Gæbelein, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Vol. 4, 499)
(v. 23) The way Zedekiah “slapped Micaiah on the face” indicates in itself that the Holy Spirit was not present with him (Jas 3:17; but cf. 2 Kgs 1:10-12). Yet his brazen claim to possess “the Spirit of the LORD (NIV mg.) need not be watered down–though he may not have been personally aware that his optimistic message had in fact been supernaturally implanted in his mind, by Satan. (Frank E. Gæbelein, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Vol. 4, 499)
(v. 24) Even though he had been publicly humiliated–slapped on the cheek–he did not cry out in anger or make any threats. He simply gave Zedekiah his own personal prophecy to think about: “you will find out on the day you go to hide in an inner room” (v. 24). What was this all about? We do not know precisely. But we do know what Zedekiah would find out. Micaiah was saying that someday Zedekiah would find himself hiding away inside an inner room in danger of his life. At that time Micaiah’s prophecy would come back to him, and he would suddenly realize that Micaiah had spoken as a true prophet all along and that he himself had been under the influence of a lying spirit, just as Micaiah had said. (Paul O. Wendland, The People’s Bible, 2 Chr, 217)
(v. 29) Ahab, troubled by the prophet’s words, tried to look for a way around them. Clearly, if he was to die, he had to be recognized. Therefore, he could evade the prophet’s word by disguising himself. Better still, Jehoshaphat should continue to “wear [his] royal robes” (v. 29) so that he might be mistaken for Ahab. In this way, Ahab would be doubly protected. A brilliant scheme! It couldn’t miss! Why Jehoshaphat should have been so easily persuaded to serve as Ahab’s patsy is hard to say. (Paul O. Wendland, The People’s Bible, 2 Chr, 220)
(v. 33) For the one who had wished to survive the battle by remaining anonymous, the Lord appointed a random death by an unnamed bowman. Some Aramean took aim and shot an arrow “at random”–in all his innocence” as the Hebrew literally reads (v. 33). That is, he had no intention whatsoever in his mind of killing a specific individual like the king of Israel. He just fired away, and his arrow just happened to pierce the scales of Ahab’s coat of armor. (Paul O. Wendland, The People’s Bible, 2 Chr, 221-22)
(vss. 33-34) DeVries aptly comments, “That ‘accidental’ arrow was Yahweh’s arrow–make no mistake about it!” (Raymond B. Dillard, Word Biblical Commentary, Vol. 15, 143)

The question to be answered is . . . What is the Chronicler’s purpose in including this story of Jehoshaphat’s alliance with Ahab?

Answer: That there is a time to snub and a time to be snubbed. The Chronicler is attempting to get his audience (as well as us today) to realize that God’s prophetic message is very counter-cultural and unpopular. God’s truth does not endear itself to materialistic or superficial people. God’s message is accepted only by those who possess the Spirit of God. Those who hunger and thirst after righteousness and pant after God. God’s Word is true but it is also hard as nails. Nails that penetrate hands and feet. And it is this hard truth that demonstrates most effectively God’s incomprehensible grace and at the same time his brutally unabashed justice in the life and death of Jesus.

The Word for the Day is . . . Snub

What is the Chronicler’s purpose in including this story of Jehoshaphat’s alliance with Ahab?:

I. The world does not snub what the world values (2 Chr 18:1-2)

The text indicates that they were prophets who truly believed they were speaking for the Lord, prophets who had escaped the sword of Jezebel (1 Kgs 19:14). Perhaps the reason for their escape was their willingness to speak smooth words that the king liked to hear (see v. 7). Yet Zedekiah’s later outrage against Micaiah seems genuine enough (18:23), and his words imply that he was one who felt himself to be under the control of the Spirit of the Lord. In the end it does not matter what their own feelings told them; they were still false prophets. False prophets can tell lies most sincerely, being utterly convinced that every word they say is true. That is precisely the power of the lie: it seems to very, very true. (Paul O. Wendland, The People’s Bible, 2 Chr, 208)

II. The world snubs the things of God. AKA Darkness wants no part of light (2 Chr 18:3-12, 17, 24-26, 29-31)

Ahab’s reluctance to hear Micaiah (v. 7) is, at one level, one of the most amusing passages in the Bible. At another, it betrays his character utterly, forms the centre of the present action, and provides the key to its mysteries. (J. G. McConville, The Daily Study Bible Series, 1 & 2 Chr, 183)

The prophets’ “trade union” put pressure on Micaiah–via another member of Ahab’s establishment–to toe the party line. A little later (v. 23) the anger of the prophetic hierarchy is expressed through the piqued Zedekiah-ben-Chenaanah, drawing a word of ominous condemnation from Micaiah (v. 24). (J. G. McConville, The Daily Study Bible Series, 1 & 2 Chr, 185)

When Ahab goes to battle he has heard and recognized the truth, and does not pretend otherwise. His lament of v. 17 is not an accusation of the prophet, but a grim knowledge that he would never enjoy blessing from God. He goes to his destiny against Syria because–in spite of the word of God–he is determined to be godless. (J. G. McConville, The Daily Study Bible Series, 1 & 2 Chr, 186)

Ahab’s reply is revealing. Yes, there was someone else. A man (notice that Ahab won’t call him a prophet directly) whom he hated. Why? “He never prophesies anything good about me, but always bad” (v. 7). His answer not only shows how much people dislike to hear hard truths about themselves (as we have observed already in the case of Asa), it also shows how they try to discount and subvert the truth of the message by implying that it arises out of some personal rancor on the messenger’s part. (Paul O. Wendland, The People’s Bible, 2 Chr, 208)

People who speak out against abortion or homosexuality are attacked as “fanatics from the Christian Right” and “homophobes.” It all boils down to the same thing as Ahab’s discounting of Micaiah: “I hate him. He never says anything good about me.” (Paul O. Wendland, The People’s Bible, 2 Chr, 209)

Zedekiah, the prophet with the iron horns, got angry, as well he might have. After all, it’s not every day you have someone tell you that you’ve got it absolutely wrong. Remember, he had his reputation as a certified prophet of the Lord to think about. Besides this, he was convinced that he had been speaking as one under the influence of some kind of spirit. It had to be the Lord’s. It certainly could not be the same spirit that spoke through Micaiah. Zedekiah knew that God does not talk out of both sides of his mouth. So by what authority could Micaiah say, “Thus says the LORD!” and then call him a liar! “Just how did the LORD’s Spirit leave me and go to you!” might be an idiomatic rendering of his words (v. 23). He didn’t expect an answer. Convinced he was right, he thought the answer was obvious. God’s Spirit could not have left him. God’s Spirit had not spoken through Micaiah. (Paul O. Wendland, The People’s Bible, 2 Chr, 217)

When one solitary voice flatly contradicts the voice of a multitude, and contradicts it on matters of serious moment–which voice are we to believe? Sometimes the question is practically decided, as in Ahab’s case, by the mood with which we come to think of the unsilenced prophet. “I hate him.” (1) That tribute of hatred sprang from Ahab’s conscience. It is the precise method by which weak and cruel men are wont to confess that not the man, but the message has found them out. (Joseph S. Exell, The Biblical Illustrator, 2 Chronicles, 84)

Perhaps Jehoshaphat is trying to heal the wounds between the two kingdoms, but just as oil and water don’t mix, neither do good and evil. (Dr. Tremper Longman, Quicknotes, 1 Chr Thru Job, 83)

III. The man of God does not snub God’s values (2 Chr 18:4, 7c)

Sincerity and passion are no guarantees of truth; one can be sincerely wrong! Likewise, in our western technological society, the successes of reason may prompt us to think that the scientific method is the final arbiter of truth. However, science has been so successful largely because of the modesty of its aims. Science serves admirably as the means for discerning how the objective world works. However, science does not, and indeed cannot, answer questions of meaning and purpose. Like experience, reason is an essential part of our spiritual discernment; after all, truth must be intelligible. However, the realm of the spirit exceeds the grasp of human reason.

In their quest for truth and understanding, Christians appeal to Scripture and tradition as checks and balances on the vagaries of individual experience and the limitations of human reason. Intriguingly, these are the final arbiters of truth for the Chronicler as well. (Steven S. Tuell, Interpretation: 1 & 2 Chr, 179)

An Israel that has no interest in God or his commandments is no “true” Israel, and, in this context, cannot in any “true” way claim the blessing and protection of God upon its efforts to preserve a territory which it has a right to hold only in obedience. For this reason Micaiah could not prophesy good concerning Ahab–since “good” is so much a product of covenant-faithfulness. Jehoshaphat, too, implies that Ahab is no true king–wittingly or unwittingly–when he says: “Let not the king say so” (v. 7), which may well bear the sense, “A king should not say so!” These judgments upon Ahab become explicit in v. 16, when Micaiah says that Israel is without a shepherd (a term often used for kings and other leaders in Israel), and reports God’s judgment that Ahab has no real entitlement to kingship, nor any authority to undertake a “holy” war. (J. G. McConville, The Daily Study Bible Series, 1 & 2 Chr, 184)

Notice that “all Israel” is being talked about. Most commentators apply these words simply to Ahab’s death. Once he is dead, they say, the Northern Kingdom will have lost its leader. What they say is true enough, but we might go a step further. Judah too is to be involved in this battle. It is the North and the South together that make up “all Israel,” if we understand this term according to the Chronicler’s ordinary usage. By striking a deal with evil, hasn’t Jehoshaphat ceased to be a true “shepherd” of his people, the kind of shepherd he used to be when he sent out teachers of the Word among them? Yes, he lives; yes, he rules–but he is not truly tending to the needs of the Lord’s flock and therefore has ceased to deserve the name “shepherd.” No doubt Micaiah intended these words to be a strong rebuke not only for Ahab, but also for Jehoshaphat. (Paul O. Wendland, The People’s Bible, 2 Chr, 212-13)

IV. The man of God snubs the world’s values (2 Chr 18:9-16)

Jehoshaphat’s weakness–and this the Chronicler sets before us as a peril of pastoral leadership–was an inability to say no. ‘Fatal inability’ is a cliché, but in a literal sense it almost was fatal. When you come to think of it, it was the other side of the splendid qualities which made him a good shepherd of his people: so kind, so large-hearted, so concerned for everyone, so willing to help. Ahab’s invitation to Samaria, therefore, is accepted. Ahab’s suggestion about Ramoth-gilead is accepted. But Jehoshaphat should have said no. ‘Ahab…induced him to go’ (18:2) would be better translated ‘Ahab seduced him’. (Michael Wilcock, The Message of Chr, 191)

True, we are told that Ahab enticed Jehoshaphat, with a show of wealth in a celebration designed to flatter him. Yet this is not said by way of mitigation of Jehoshaphat’s guilt. Compliance with Ahab’s suggestions carried with it compromise in a fundamental way. It may be that Jehoshaphat did not fully perceive his action as a betrayal of principle. His statement in v. 3 may arise from a sense, in itself laudable, that Israel is still ideally united and ought to act concertedly against an attack on the historic promised land. Yet the alliance inevitably involved identification with the outrages of Jezebel’s Israel in a way which made it impossible for Jehoshaphat to maintain his integrity. (The full story of Ahab and Jezebel is told in 1 Kgs 17-22; 2 Kgs 9:30-37.) (J. G. McConville, The Daily Study Bible Series, 1 & 2 Chr, 182-83)

If he is to be a good pastor, he cannot afford to be hard-hearted. His troubles begin when he is not sufficiently hard-headed. If he cares without discernment, he will be imposed upon, misled, and eventually rendered useless by his own charity. What he needs is steel in the soul. A clear grasp of his own gifts and calling, the courage of his own convictions, ‘a godly fear, a quick-discerning eye, … A spirit still prepared And armed with jealous care,’ the Lord’s own toughness, and the precious ability to say no. (Michael Wilcock, The Message of Chr, 193)

A second failing of Jehoshaphat now emerges, for it is implied that he was impressed by Ahab’s display in feasting him and his retinue on an abundance of sheep and oxen in spite of the wealth with which God had already blessed him. Indeed, Ackroyd aptly observes that when the Chronicler records that Ahab induced him to go up, he uses a word which in Dt 13:6 means to entice into apostasy. His condemnation of Jehoshaphat’s action is thus very strong indeed. (H.G.M. Williamson, The New Century Bible Commentary, 1 & 2 Chr, 285)

The Chronicler’s central concern in the Micaiah narrative was the opportunity it afforded him to condemn foreign alliances, a theme he develops with some frequency; this passage begins and ends on that note (18:1; 19:1-3). Avoiding foreign alliances was for the Chronicler one aspect of the central demand of the covenant that Israel show exclusive loyalty to Yahweh her God. The Chronicler’s frequent introduction of this theme into his history must have had rhetorical relevance for the post-exilic community: though facing opposition and afforded many opportunities to trust in foreign powers or alliances, Judah in the restoration period was urged to trust in her God alone. (Raymond B. Dillard, Word Biblical Commentary, Vol. 15, 144)

V. God in His reciprocity snubs the snubber (2 Chr 18:23-33)

One function of the “lying spirit” was to affirm that even in the prophets’ ignominious betrayal of their office God had been “working his purposes out” (as the hymn puts it). This by no means diminishes the guilt of those prophets. It simply shows that God operates within all circumstances to achieve his own ends. This theme is now continued in the story of the demise of Ahab. Ahab thought that he would ensure his own safety by going into battle in disguise, while letting Jehoshaphat appear in full royal battle-dress (Jehoshaphat’s naivety appears to reach fresh heights here!) The story is told so as to obtain maximum effect for the point. The odds are piled against Jehoshaphat because of the king of Syria’s battle-instructions (v. 30). But God “drew [the Syrians] away from him” (v. 31), when Jehoshaphat called upon him. Appropriately, the same verb is used for God’s “drawing away” the Syrians as was used for Ahab’s “inducing Jehoshaphat, v. 2. God thus reclaims his servant from the snares of apostasy by his careful management of the situation. Perhaps too the extremity of Jehoshaphat’s situation showed where his heart truly lay, viz. in dependence upon God. Here, no more than with the false prophets, should we suppose that God’s sovereignty has extinguished human responsibility. (J. G. McConville, The Daily Study Bible Series, 1 & 2 Chr, 187)

God gives all of us a choice: If we reject the truth, then we open ourselves up to receive a lie, just as Ahab does. Ahab hears the truth, but he rejects it, and because of this he opens himself up to be deceived by the enemy (2 Chr 18:18-22). (Dr. Tremper Longman, Quicknotes, 1 Chr Thru Job, 84)

Does God owe the truth to those who despise it? “Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs,” our Lord once said (Mt 7:6). Often, in judgment, God will “drive a man as he finds him.” Ahab had shown that he was far more pleased with hearing comforting lies. Since this was true, Micaiah quickly responds to Ahab’s initial query by merely repeating the glib and pleasant lie Ahab was used to hearing by now: “Attack and be victorious…for they will be given into your hand” (v. 14). (Paul O. Wendland, The People’s Bible, 2 Chr, 211)

Is God the author of lies? Never! He gives off a light of truth more constant than the sun (Jas 1:17). But this was one of those times when God had decided to drive a man as he had found him. Ahab was determined to shut his heart to the Word, much preferring pleasant lies. In judgment, therefore, God handed him over to be ruled by those lies he had set his heart on hearing. “To the pure you show yourself pure, but to the crooked you show yourself shrewd” (Ps 18:26). What makes this passage so pointed is that here God even tells Ahab that he has determined to send lies to deceive Ahab. He couldn’t have made it more plain: “Your 400 prophets are all telling you untruths!” Yet Ahab is still deceived. (Paul O. Wendland, The People’s Bible, 2 Chr, 215)

In every human heart disobedient to Christ, impenitent and unreconciled, there is a voice as of Micaiah the son of Imlah; but it is really the voice of the Lord Himself, speaking to that heart, amid all its distractions and its earthly pleasures, the message of evil and not of good. And men may come to chafe so angrily under that patient, ever-haunting warning, and appeal, that finally they may cry: “I hate it, I hate it!” If that be so, remember Ahab’s doom. (Joseph S. Exell, The Biblical Illustrator, 2 Chronicles, 84)

Micaiah’s message about the “lying spirit” sent from God unmasks the fraudulent prophets of Ahab (18:20-22). No doubt this is something Ahab already knows, given his encounters with the prophet Elijah–but this exchange leaves him without excuse before God. We must remember that “the ‘spirit of falsehood’ sent by God actually deceives no-one. It is sent…to those who recognize the truth and suppress it” (McConville, I and II Chronicles, 183). (Andrew E. Hill, The NIV Application Commentary: 1 & 2 Chr, 483)

Micaiah gave his first message of success to Ahab in order to comply with the divine desire to see the king lured into death. His second message of judgment was actually the expected outcome of the battle.

Micaiah’s two oracles were designed to seal Ahab’s fate. While prophets usually warned to encourage repentance, occasionally their role was to insure destruction (see Isa 6:9-13). Jesus spoke in parables for a similar reason (see Lk 8:9-10). Although the Chronicler omitted the record of Ahab’s apostasy in 1 Kgs 16:29-22:40, Ahab’s rebellion against God led him into a terrible condition. Ahab had turned so far from God that prophecy became a means of confusing him and luring him to his death. (Richard L. Pratt, 1 & 2 Chr, A Mentor Commentary, 326)

VI. God in His grace NEVER snubs the repentant with a broken and contrite heart (2 Chr 18:31-32)

Whether he baulked at the extraordinary plan that he should dress as king while Ahab went in disguise, we do not know; but by the time the battle began he was in so far that there was no getting out, and it was only the mercy of God which rescued him at the last. The fact was, he should never have gone to Samaria in the first place. (Michael Wilcock, The Message of Chr, 193)

In the Kings manuscript Jehoshaphat cries out presumably either for help from his men or to alert the opposing chariotry that he was not Ahab. For the Chronicler, however, this becomes a cry to God in prayer; it is one more way in which the Chronicler shows God’s responsiveness to Solomon’s prayer at the dedication of the temple (6:34-35; 7:14) and to prayer in the midst of battle (1 Chr 5:20; 2 Chr 13:14-15; 14:11-12; 20:9; 32:20; cf. 33:13). (Raymond B. Dillard, Word Biblical Commentary, Vol. 15, 143)

For the Chronicler, the prophetic element in the story is clearly important. But his greater concern is with the position of Jehoshaphat, quite unnecessarily involved in dangerous contact with the apostate north and escaping only by an act of divine intervention from a disaster which he has courted. (Peter R. Ackroyd, 1 & 2 Chr, Ezra, Neh, 144)

Once again, we should not fail to see in all this a message to the Chronicler’s own readers; the problems of mixed marriages with ‘those who hate the Lord’ (19:2) had dragged on long after Ezra and Nehemiah, and it is not impossible that they too were living in the aftermath of a military disaster. If so, unlike the rigorous exclusivists, he will have wished to encourage his people along the road of repentance and restoration by showing them first how low even a Jehoshaphat could sink and then how marvelously the consequences of that failure could be reversed. (H.G.M. Williamson, The New Century Bible Commentary, 1 & 2 Chr, 285)

Even in the middle of a battle which he should never have been fighting, Jehoshaphat could find the kind of deliverance which the Chronicler always delights to relate. (H.G.M. Williamson, The New Century Bible Commentary, 1 & 2 Chr, 286)

Who, then, becomes the target of the Aramean charioteers? King Jehoshaphat of Judah, dressed in his royal robes (18:31..causing one to wonder about the motive behind Ahab’s earlier directive to Jehoshaphat, 18:29). The Chronicler interprets Jehoshaphat’s cry as a prayer and adds the clause “and the LORD helped him’ (18:31). (Andrew E. Hill, The NIV Application Commentary: 1 & 2 Chr, 484)

The words about Jehoshaphat with which v. 31 concludes–“and the LORD helped him. God drew them away from him”–are an addition by Ezra, not found in the parallel passage of 1 Kgs 22:32. They are significant, moreover, in at least three ways: (1) showing the seriousness of Jehoshaphat’s deviation, how he would forthwith have reaped a fatal fruit from his sinful alliance with Ahab, had not God intervened; (2) suggesting the reality of his faith, that when “Jehoshaphat cried out,” this was not just an expression of fear on his part but was apparently a prayer for divine help; and (3) demonstrating the greatness of the grace of God, rescuing men without a need for manmade alliances, or even, as in this case, in spite of them. (Frank E. Gæbelein, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Vol. 4, 500)

CONCLUSION/APPLICATION: What does this message have to do with my Christian walk?:

Relativism is a pervasive rebellion against the very concept of divine law. Therefore, it is a profound rebellion against God. It is a treason that is worse than outright revolt, because it is devious. Instead of saying to God’s face, “Your word is false,” it says to man, “There is no such thing as a universally binding divine word.” This is treason against the King of the universe. (John Piper, Think, 106)

Relativists believe:

1-That nothing is true – Its true!

2-That nothing is knowable – they know for sure

3-That nothing matters – and they will fight for that

…in the sterilized world where everything must be completely neutral, even having a point of view is suspect. (Philip K. Howard; The Death of Common Sense”, 72)

A- As a Christian realize that the world will snub you. AKA Darkness wants no part of light. (Jn 3:19-21; 7:7; 15:18-21; 17:14; Jas 4:4-7; 1 Jn 3:13-16)

We do not have to look far to see the application to our own lives. The siren song of popular culture is to avoid pain and take the easy way, the path of least resistance. But God’s Word still speaks truly: “everyone who wants to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted” (2 Tm 3:12). Jesus embraced the cross by refusing the easy way, and as his followers, he says, we must do the same: “If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me will find it” (Mt 16:24, 25).

If we embrace the logic of Jesus’ refusal to take the easy way, we will see that taking the path of least resistance, to follow comfortable expediency, is idolatry–it is worshiping a false God. (R. Kent Hughes, Preaching the Word: Luke, Vol. One, 136)

When the church isn’t being persecuted, it is being corrupted. (Charles Colson, A Dangerous Grace, 116)

In Ermelo, Holland, Brother Andrew told the story of sitting in Budapest, Hungary, with a dozen pastors of that city, teaching them from the Bible. In walked an old friend, a pastor from Romania who had recently been released from prison. Brother Andrew said that he stopped teaching and knew that it was time to listen.

After a long pause the Romanian pastor said, “Andrew, are there any pastors in prison in Holland?” “No,” he replied. “Why not?” the pastor asked. Brother Andrew thought for a moment and said, “I think it must be because we do not take advantage of all the opportunities God gives us.” Then came the most difficult question. “Andrew, what do you do with 2 Tm 3:12?” Brother Andrew opened his Bible and turned to the text and read aloud, “all who desire to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted.” He closed the Bible slowly and said, “Brother, please forgive me. We do nothing with that verse.” (John Piper, Future Grace, 346)

Yet I find a bishop quoted as saying that moralizing is “one of the least attractive of human characteristics.” I do not know how important the bishop in question considers the distinction between the moral and the immoral to be. And I do not know that our Lord sought to make himself “attractive” when he gave advice on human behavior. It is not enjoyable to moralize. We Christians know too well now that spelling out the truth in today’s world is never going to win popular applause. If we measure the value of anything we say or do by its “attractiveness” we are lost souls. (Harry Blamires; The Post Christian Mind, 46)

This, alas, is the bind we are in: we want the flower of moral seriousness to blossom, but we have pulled the plant up by its roots. (James Davison Hunter; Death of Character, 13)

The kind of education students are getting is systematically undermining their common sense about what is true and right.

Let me be concrete and specific. Men and women died courageously fighting the Nazis. They included American soldiers, Allied soldiers, and resistance fighters. Because brave people took risks to do what was right and necessary, Hitler was eventually defeated. Today, with the assault on objective truth, many college students find themselves unable to say why the United States was on the right side in that war. Some even doubt that America was in the right. To add insult to injury, they are not even sure that the salient events of the Second World War ever took place. They simply lack confidence in the objectivity of history. (Christina Hoff Sommers; “Are We Living in a Moral Stone Age?”, Imprimis, March 1998)

As life became easier and diversions more plentiful, men are less willing to accept the authority of their clergy and less willing to worship a demanding God, a God who dictates how one should live and puts a great many bodily and psychological pleasures off limits. (Robert Bork; Slouching Towards Gomorrah, 281)

A culture obsessed with technology will come to value personal convenience above almost all else, and ours does . . . religion tends to be strongest when life is hard . . . a person whose main difficulty is not crop failure but video breakdown has less need of the consolations and promises of religion. (Robert Bork; Slouching Towards Gomorrah)

It is interesting that our culture cries and expects the absolute TRUTH when it comes to the chemicals in our food supplies, environmental contaminations, government cover-ups, and the skinny of breast-implants. But when it comes to finding out about the moral obligations of our private lives, (telling the truth, our sexual behaviors, and upholding our contracts) everything is relative.

“It can’t be wrong when it feels so right.” Popular culture’s moral indicator as provided by a popular song.

The Puritans grasped (as many of us today do not) that Christians are not called to be the nicest people in the world according to the world’s idea of what a nice person is like. Instead, they are to be the Lord’s counterculture, living with different motives, purposes, and values from those of the world because of their loyalty to God. When Christians behave in a way that society finds odd and judgmental (and Christians do not have to be actually judgmental before they are felt to be such), society will soon gang up against them in one way or another. The Puritans experienced this–hence the malicious stereotypes of Puritans that still go the rounds among people who ought to know better–and consistent Christians experience it still. (J. I. Packer; Rediscovering Holiness, 262)

One good way to end a conversation—or start an argument—is to tell a group of well-educated professionals that you hold a political position (preferably a controversial one, such as being against abortion or pornography) because it is required by your understanding of God’s will. In the unlikely event that anyone hangs around to talk with you about it, the chances are that you will be challenged on the ground that you are intent on imposing your religious beliefs on other people. And in contemporary political and legal culture, nothing could be worse. (Stephen Carter; Culture of Disbelief, 23)

It is rather a difficult feat to operate a religious establishment which exists without tension in this culture. For religion, after all, has from time immemorial been concerned with the facts of evil, suffering, and death. Yet the American religious establishment, especially in its Protestant core, has succeeded in minimizing these elements to a remarkable degree. (Berger; Noise of Solemn Assemblies, 48)

The citizens of Our Time actually believe so little in God because they believe so much in what is modern. I believe so little in the modern world because I believe so much in the Transcendent, in God as sovereign, and in his Word as absolute. (David F. Wells; No Place For Truth or Whatever Happened to Evangelical Theology?, 288)

The consistent message of modern American society is that whenever the demands of one’s religion conflict with what one has to do to get ahead, one is expected to ignore the religious demands and act…well…rationally. (Stephen Carter; Culture of Disbelief, 13)

People don’t embrace relativism because it is philosophically satisfying. They embrace it because it is physically and emotionally gratifying. It provides the cover they need at key moments in their lives to do what they want without intrusion from absolutes. (John Piper, Think, 102)

Relativists don’t pursue truth. They make the denial of truth serve them. (John Piper, Think, 105)

As for the concern that doctrine always seems to bring strife, I can’t disagree more. Actually, doctrine unites. How else could the early church hold together those who had come from a variety of ethnic, socioeconomic, and cultural backgrounds? (Michael Horton, Putting Amazing Back into Grace, 25)

B- As a Christian realize that you must snub the world’s values. (Jn 8:12; 12:46; 17:15-17; 1 Cor 1:19-31; 2:12; 6:14-17; Gal 4:3-5; Eph 5:8; Col 2:8; 1 Thes 5:5; Ti 1:9; 2:11-15; 1 Jn 2:15-17; 4:1-6; 1 Pt 2:9; 2 Pt 1:4)

The Micaiah narrative in part probably underlies the developing doctrine of Satan in the OT (Gen 3; 1 Chr 21:1; Job 1-2; Zech 3:1), so that by the NT, Jesus can describe the devil as “a liar and the father of lies” (Jn 8:42-47; cf. 2 Thes 2:9-12). (Raymond B. Dillard, Word Biblical Commentary, Vol. 15, 145)

If a prophet speaks in Yahweh’s name anything contrary to the fundamental, religious, and moral requirements revealed in the “mosaic” covenant, he must not be believed (see Dt 13:1-5; cf. 1 Jn 4:1-3). Much more illuminating, however, are the records concerning Jeremiah’s wrestling with his perplexity that many prophets of his own time passionately declared as the word received from Yahweh that all was well, and would be well, with Jerusalem. He saw that they ignored the vices and cruelties rampant in the city, and that their own characters were infected by the evils. That was the criterion by which Jeremiah reached final assurance that those men had not stood, as he had who sought to be pure in heart, in the very counsel of God and thus had not truly heard this word (cf. Jer 23). (Abingdon Press, The Interpreter’s Bible Vol. 3, 493)

In my book Kingdoms in Conflict, I make the case for why Christians should never have a political party. It is a huge mistake to become married to an ideology, because the greatest enemy of the gospel is ideology. Ideology is a man-made format of how the world ought to work, and Christians instead believe in the revealed truth of Scripture. — Chuck Colson

If we were making up our own god, would we create one with such harsh demands for justice, righteousness, service, and self-sacrifice as we find in the biblical texts?

Would the pious NT religious establishment have created a God who condemned them for their own hypocrisy? Would even a zealous disciple have invented a Messiah who called His followers to sell all, give their possessions to the poor, and follow Him to their deaths? The skeptic who believes the Bible’s human authors manufactured their God out of psychological need has not read the Scriptures carefully. (Charles Colson, A Dangerous Grace, 13)

A brief look at the philosophical influence of Greece clearly reveals at least one component of American culture. But even here, early America knew both her legitimate heritage and what she would not borrow. Centuries have passed, and as America has grown and waxed strong, the belief that was once rejected–that man is the measure of all things–is now espoused. The conviction that was once held–the fallen nature of men–is now rejected. And in every sense of the term, a major conflict for cultural control has begun to emerge. (Ravi Zacharias, Deliver Us From Evil: Restoring the Soul in a Disintegrating Culture, 40-41)

When the self is stripped of moral anchoring, there is nothing to which the will is bound to submit, nothing innate to keep it in check. There is no compelling reason to be burdened by guilt. Dostoyevsky had it about right: everything becomes possible–every violence, every deed of corruption, every mockery of justice, every act of indifference–because there are no inhibiting truths. What is more the indigenous moral institutions of our society that have long sustained those truths are fragile at best, irreparable at worst. (James Davison Hunter; Death of Character, x)

We have reached the turn of the century and the post-Christian society isn’t working. It’s as simple as that. But nobody is going to say so. Nobody’s going to admit it. Why? Because erotic passion is assumed to be a stroke of destiny that overtakes people, overwhelms them in an irresistible tide of wholly admirable mutual devotion. That is the post-Christian estimate of erotic love. It is a god. It has its own authority. No man or woman of sincerity and generosity can resist it. There is no freedom of choice in relation to it. In comparison to its power and authority, the claims of growing children count for nothing. As for the husband or the wife from whom the new partner is being detached, they too must peaceably accept the inevitability of their loved ones’ surrender to the destiny that has claimed them. (Harry Blamires; The Post Christian Mind, 52)

We are in a new world, a post-Christian world, a world of self-deceiving pscychobabblers from whose minds the moral laws of a whole civilization have been swept away. (Harry Blamires; The Post Christian Mind, 60)

“The three great lies of our culture are that self-gratification is life’s true goal—that is it very bad for you to thwart your own strong desires—and that any behavior you feel comfortable with is all right.” (J. I. Packer; Rediscovering Holiness, 254)

We live in a complex, pluralistic society, surrounded by multiple, conflicted messages and messengers. For us, spiritual discernment is more important, and yet also more difficult, than it has ever been. 1 Jn 4:1 advises, “Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but try the spirits to see whether they are from God.” All spirituality is not equal, however sincere or well-intentioned. There is definitely such a thing as bad faith, which deceives rather than enlightens, hurts rather than heals. For the early Christian teacher whose voice we hear in 1 John, the test of truth in spiritual discernment is a matter of both content and of intention: “every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God” (1 Jn 4:2). Faithfulness to Christ, and to the love and purpose of God manifested in Christ (see 1 Jn 4:7-8), is the evidence of spiritual truth. (Steven S. Tuell, Interpretation: 1 & 2 Chr, 178-79)

In America we do not defer to kings, cardinals, or aristocrats; we rely instead on the people’s capacity to make reasonable judgments based on moral principles.

Those who constantly invoke the sentiment of “who are we to judge?” should consider the anarchy that would ensue if we adhered to this sentiment in, say, our courtrooms. Should judges judge? What would happen if those sitting on a jury decided to be “nonjudgmental” about rapists and sexual harassers, embezzlers and tax cheats? Without being “judgmental,” Americans would never have put an end to slavery, outlawed child labor, emancipated women, or ushered in the civil rights movement. Nor would we have prevailed against Nazism and Soviet communism, or known how to explain our opposition. (William J. Bennett; The Death of Outrage, 121)

Seers such as Dear Abby, Ann Landers, and Dr. Joyce Brothers have become celebrities by giving advice on social relations, with sex topping the list of subjects. Taken as a whole, the columns appear to support traditional values but actually work to undermine them in the name of “tolerance.” Woven into the largely common-sense denunciations of rascally boyfriends and predatory “other” women are the messages that aberrance is only in the minds of the readers and that the pansexual lobby is better equipped to preach sexual ethics to teens than are parents. In one column, Ann Landers proclaims that anyone who does not buy the myth that homosexuals are “born that way” are “haters.” She urges the “haters” to change their bigoted ways and get aboard the gay rights bandwagon. One memorable Dear Abby column in 1997 consists of a letter supposedly from an eleven-year-old boy who is happy that he is being raised by his dad and the dad’s homosexual lover. The letter deftly hits every talking point made by homosexual activists. Abby closes by telling the boy that he is very “blessed by God” for this arrangement, as if God, who declared in Genesis (later restated by both Jesus and the apostle Paul) that his plan for sexuality is for a man and a woman to marry and become “one flesh,” does not have a problem with any of this. (Robert Knight; The Age of Consent, 23-24)

. . . tolerance becomes the cardinal virtue. Under the postmodernist way of thinking, the principle of cultural diversity means that every like-minded group constitutes a culture that must be considered as good as any other culture. The postmodernist sins are “being judgmental,” “being narrow-minded,” “thinking that you have the only truth,” and “trying to enforce your values on anyone else.” Those who question the postmodernist dogma that “there are no absolutes” are excluded from the canons of tolerance. The only wrong idea is to believe in truth; the only sin is to believe in sin. (Gene Veith; Postmodern Times, 195-196)

Conceptually and culturally, today’s young people live in a moral haze. Ask one of them if there are such things as “right” and “wrong,” and suddenly you are confronted with a confused, tongue-tied, nervous, and insecure individual. The same person who works weekends for Meals on Wheels, who volunteers for a suicide prevention hotline or a domestic violence shelter might tell you, “Well, there really is no such thing as right or wrong. It’s kind of like whatever works best for the individual. Each person has to work it out for himself.” The trouble is that this kind of answer, which is so common as to be typical, is no better than the moral philosophy of a sociopath. (Christina Hoff Sommers; “Are We Living in a Moral Stone Age?”, Imprimis, March 1998)

We live in a culture in which we are superficial in our relationships. Image is everything. But with God the opposite is the case. Image is nothing. What is in the heart is everything.

Christianity “It’s a lifestyle that requires “dying to self.” It’s a lifestyle of sacrifice, service, humility—actions and attitudes extremely difficult for any human being in our “do your own thing” and “you’re #1″ modern culture. (Dr. Chris Thurman; The Lies We Believe, 144)

Contemporary culture has so diminished our moral capacity, so robbed us of a concern to act responsibly, that we tend to resent moral demands from without or simply to dismiss them out of hand. To the extent that the church’s garments have been soiled by this aspect of modernity, it will be that much less inclined to dwell on the holiness of God. (David Wells; God in the Wasteland, 135)

“Given the epidemic of introspection and the ubiquity of such notions as “denial” and the “toxicity” of faith, what is left of faith today may be as withered as the hand of the palsied man who came to Jesus two thousand years ago. Psychology, with its drive to analyze and excuse, criticizes and seeks to undermine faith.” (Os Guinness; No God But God, 125)

Perhaps the most blatant example of this perverse bias toward compromise was the World Council of Churches’ dictum in 1966, “The world must set the agenda for the Church.” Three decades later, it is hard to believe that such an advance warning of preemptive capitulation could have been trumpeted as a lofty and self-evident principle. But it is also worth checking to see whether there are similar inanities in the church-growth movement today. (Os Guinness; No God But God, 167)

“ . . . we must not lose our God-centered identity by reducing the church and its gospel to the world’s level as happened so blatantly at the World Council of Churches meeting in Uppsala, Sweden, in 1968. There the study guide for the missions study section presupposed that the church is really the servant of the world rather than of God, and has not final, unchangeable message to give to the lost.” (C. Miller; Outgrowing the Ingrown Church, 45)

To say that the secular viewpoint is anthropocentric is, in some ways, only to state the obvious. (David Wells; God in the Wasteland, 44)

Modernity is simply unprecedented in its power to remake human appetites, thinking processes, and values. It is, to put it in biblical terms, the worldliness of Our Time. For worldliness is that system of values and beliefs, behaviors and expectations, in any given culture that have at their center the fallen human being and that relegate to their periphery any thought about God. Worldliness is what makes sin look normal in any age and righteousness seem odd. Modernity is worldliness, and it has concealed its values so adroitly in the abundance, the comfort, and the wizardry of our age that even those who call themselves the people of God seldom recognize them for what they are. (David Wells; God in the Wasteland, 29)

This is a soft age in the West, an age in which ease and comfort are seen by the world as life’s supreme values. Affluence and medical resources have brought secular people to the point of feeling they have a right to a long life, and a right to be free of poverty and pain for the whole of that life. Many even cherish a grudge against God and society if these hopes do not materialize. Nothing, however, as we now see, could be further from the true, tough, hard-gaining holiness that expresses true Christianity. (J. I. Packer; Rediscovering Holiness, 270)

But there are two conclusions with which I started this project (based on previous study and observation) which have been remarkably reinforced. The first is that what is called “modernity” is essentially incompatible with Christian faithfulness, that what makes modern culture distinctively “modern” involves a rejection of important Christian beliefs and practices. The second is that one of the greatest temptations faced by the Church and her leaders is the desire to be approved by the world, that the evangelistic motive can produce a dangerous preoccupation with “getting along,” with being “winsome.” When the Church gives in to this temptation, the result is a form of cultural captivity in which the Church is simply a chaplain to some cultural status quo, reducing the consequences of faith to personal, “spiritual” matters, but incapable of encouraging a truly counter-cultural stance except at the margins. (Ken Myers, Mars Hill Audio Newsletter, July 2007)

Of course many good things happen even in churches that are culturally assimilated, just as many good things happen in churches that are culturally disengaged. But bad things in people’s lives that are culturally induced and sustained are much harder to deal with when believers aren’t ready to recognize that the Church’s ways need not be the world’s ways. Churches that are culturally careless will not be likely to nurture disciples capable of recognizing cultural disorder outside the church. So, for example, a congregation that adopts contemporary media techniques without reflection is unlikely to produce people alert to the limitations and liabilities of mass media. The church with a food court is unlikely to foster thoughtfulness about the deep cultural losses sustained by modern eating habits. The pastor committed to “entertainment evangelism” will never be able to convey the wisdom in Postman’s Amusing Ourselves to Death and other similarly prophetic books. (Ken Myers, Mars Hill Audio Newsletter, July 2007)

We live in the age of personal autonomy, which defines our lives by our own choices. The role of society, our culture believes–and courts have agreed–is to do nothing to limit our choices. As one pundit put it, we live in the “republic of the imperial self,” in which we are free from all unnecessary restraints in order to pursue whatever we believe will bring us happiness. (Charles Colson, The Good Life, 99)

“The antithesis of worldly behavior, and the cure for conformity to the world, is set forth particularly in the “upside-down kingdom “ of the Sermon on the Mount. The lifestyle of the kingdom is not proud but poor in spirit, not self-confident but meek and sensitive to conviction of sin, not self-righteous but repentant, not praise-seeking but God-obeying even to the point of suffering persecution, not vengeful but forgiving, not ostentatious or laborious in piety but secretive and simple, not anxious or acquisitive but content in serving God, not judgmental but merciful. If these patterns can be nurtured in the church, they will affect the moral structure of the rest of humanity.” (Richard Lovelace; Renewal as a Way of Life, 97)

C- Never be surprised to see God in His justice, compassion, reciprocity, love and grace grease the tracks in the direction in which you are determined or obsessed to go. (Ex chps 7-14 “hard heart of Pharaoh” Num ch 11″meat”; Dt 4:29; Jer 29:13; Ezek 18:30; Mt 6:12-14; 7:1-6; 18:32-35; Mk 11:25; Lk 6:37-38; Gal 6:7-8; Ti 1:15)

Love cannot ignore the seriousness of error, but neither can it forget the power of the truth. (Edmund P. Clowney, The Church–Contours of Christian Theology, 97)

Over the years, Jaime Cardinal Sin, Archbishop of Manila in the Philippines, watched with growing dismay the corruption of Ferdinand Marcos’ dictatorial regime. He prayed long over the plight of his nation.

After the assassination of Benigno Aquino, the archbishop knew he had to act. But what should he do?

As he studied his Bible, he was in the OT a pattern he felt applied to his own nation. When God wants to punish a people, he reasoned, he gives them unjust rulers.

What the people of the Philippines needed was not a call to revolt against their unjust ruler but a call to repent of their own unjust hearts. (Charles Colson, A Dangerous Grace, 43)

Most of us instinctively turn to government to solve our social problems. It’s a habit reinforced from the time we’re young.

Listen to these quotations from the teachers’ edition of a fifth-grade social studies textbook. “Today, when people lose their jobs,” the textbook says, “they can get some money from the government.” A few pages later the book says, “Today, families who do not have enough money for food can get money from the government.” A few pages later we read, “Today families who cannot afford to pay their rent can get help from the government.”

The message is obvious: Government is the solution to every social need.

Here’s a remarkable quotation that sums it all up. Explaining why the national government has grown so large, a junior-high civics textbook says that over time, “people were no longer content to live as their forefather had lived. They wanted richer, fuller lives. They wanted the government to help make their lives rich and full.”

This goes far beyond the traditional philosophy of limited government, in which the state is given only certain specified tasks, such as operating a police force and regulating traffic. And it shows that Americans have fallen prey to what political writer Jacques Ellul calls “the political illusion”: the idea that government is actually capable of creating the good life, the good society.

This is nothing short of idolatry, treating the state as a god.

But like all idols, the state inevitably disappoints those who worship at its shrine. A government that can’t even manage the simple accounting task of balancing its budget is certainly not capable of making people’s lives “rich and full”–not by turning to government but by turning to God. The kingdoms of this world rise and fall, but the kingdom of God will rule in human hearts for eternity. (Charles Colson, A Dangerous Grace, 125-26)

For the essence of sin is man substituting himself for God, while the essence of salvation is God substituting himself for man. Man asserts himself against God and puts himself where only God deserves to be; God sacrifices himself for man and puts himself where only man deserves to be. Man claims prerogatives which belong to God alone. God accepts penalties which belong to man alone. (John Stott, The Cross of Christ) (Kenneth J. Collins, The Evangelical Moment, 50)

No question at all, people are hungry for truth today. They run everywhere, hoping to find something to hang their hearts on. In the process they become credulous fools who are willing to believe anything but the simple, saving truths of Scripture. A mysterious bright, shining light at the end of death’s dark corridor? Aliens from outer space? Magic crystals and harmonic forces? Psychic hotlines? All these they swallow with incredible ease. But one mention of sin, judgment, and the grace of a Savior who died for all, and their eyes glaze over. “Oh no, not that again!” And it’s back again to their crystals. (Paul O. Wendland, The People’s Bible, 2 Chr, 215-16)

Christianity must reverse its current image and become dynamic, genuine, and real. If we can prevent the message from being watered down by casual Christians, outsiders will begin to experience believers who have been (and are being) transformed by their faith and who are working in humble and respectful ways to transform the culture. In the Bible Paul puts it this way: “This should be your ambition: to live a quiet life, minding your own business and working with your hands, just as we commanded you before. As a result, people who are not Christians will respect the way you live.” (1 Thes 4:11-12). There is nothing more powerful than the Christian life lived out in obedience; there is nothing worse than a flat, self-righteous form of faith that parades around in Christian clothes. (David Kinnaman, Unchristian, 83)

In other words, apart from some universal standards, the relativists could not even formulate the premises and conclusions that they say led them to relativism. This is a deep duplicity. And when one does it knowingly, it is immoral. The king keeps saying he has clothes on, when he knows he is naked. People keep saying all is relative, when they know their very thinking and talking involves principles that are not relative. (John Piper, Think, 107)

American society is awash in relativism.

What is the basis for law if there is no absolute truth? The basis is whoever has the majority–rule by the 51 percent. Oliver Wendell Holmes once said that “law is the majority vote of that nation that could lick all others.” Pure pragmatism.

The inevitable result is tyranny, drawn into the vacuum of moral chaos. If authority cannot be established among people by their shared assumptions, by their agreement about the meaning of life, then it will be imposed on them from the top. As William Penn said, “If we are not governed by God, we will be governed by tyrants.”

When truth retreats, tyranny advances. (Charles Colson, A Dangerous Grace, 292)

The formula is simple: when relativism holds sway long enough, everyone begins to do what is right in his own eyes without any regard for submission to truth. In this atmosphere, a society begins to break down. Virtually every structure in a free society depends on a measure of integrity–that is, submission to the truth. When the chaos of relativism reaches a certain point, the people will welcome any ruler who can bring some semblance of order and security. So a dictator steps forward and crushes the chaos with absolute control. Ironically relativism–the great lover of unfettered freedom–destroys freedom in the end. (John Piper, Think, 114)

Of course, even the concept of collective guilt assumes the existence of objective moral standards. Calls for “justice” imply a standard of right and wrong, of people getting what they deserve. C. S. Lewis pointed out that even people who deny the existence of right and wrong react in ways that belie that belief when someone takes their seat on the bus or treats them unfairly.

Honest postmodernists themselves recognize the dilemma of advocating “justice” while denying that moral absolutes exist. (Gene Veith; Postmodern Times, 197)

Dorothy Sayers writes, “In the world it calls itself Tolerance, but in Hell it is called Despair. It is the accomplice of the other sins and their worst punishment. It is the sin which believes nothing, cares for nothing, loves nothing, hates nothing, finds purpose in nothing, lives for nothing, and only remains alive because there is nothing it would die for.” (Charles Colson, The Good Life, 119-20)

As a result of our distorted idea of tolerance, we are losing our right to free speech. These days, before we speak, we must consider every word in the light of increasingly restrictive speech codes. Coercion has become a substitute for the power of truth, because we no longer believe in the truth, only the importance of people’s feelings. (Charles Colson, The Good Life, 210)

D- God never rejects those with a broken and contrite heart. (Psa 51:17; Isa 57:15; 66:2)

If somebody says, “O this will lead to low self esteem.”

People with low self-esteem, who actually get into the presence of God, realize, that to a great degree, their low self-esteem was self-absorption. (Tim Keller on “The Gospel and Yourself” 28:38 into the sermon).

The true way to Christianity is this, that a man first acknowledges himself by the law to be a sinner, and that it is impossible for him to do any good work. For the law says: You are an evil tree, and therefore all that you think, speak, or do, is against God. You cannot therefore deserve grace by your works: which if you go about to do, you double your offense; for since you are an evil tree, you cannot but bring forth evil fruits, that is to say, sins. “For whatsoever is not of faith, is sin” (Rom 14:23). So he who would merit grace by works going before faith, goes about to please God with sins, which is nothing else but to heap sin upon sin, to mock God, and to provoke His wrath. When a man is thus taught and instructed by the law, then is he terrified and humbled, then he sees indeed the greatness of his sin, and cannot find in himself one spark of love of God; therefore he justifies God in His Word, and confesses that he is guilty of death and eternal damnation. The first part then of Christianity is the preaching of repentance and the knowledge of ourselves.” (Martin Luther; Galatians, 92)

The Chronicler is urging the power of prayer, or rather the efficacy of prayer in triggering the powerful grace of God in time of need. (Leslie Allen, Mastering the OT, 1, 2 Chr, 300)

One great lesson for the Chronicler is the mystery of divine providence, whereby God protects His own and repays wrongdoing. From a tangle of human mistakes and machinations the Lord is able to weave eventually a tapestry which glorifies His moral will. This is the truth of Rom 8:28: “All things work together”–or perhaps better with the NEB “in everything…he [the Spirit] co-operates for good with those who love God.” Charles Spurgeon testified, as he looked back over his own life: “I can see a thousand chances, as men would call them, all working together like wheels in a great piece of machinery, to fix me where I am.” (Leslie Allen, Mastering the OT, 1, 2 Chr, 300)

It is not the hookers and thieves who find it most difficult to repent: it is you who are so secure in your piety and pretense that you have no need of conversion. They may have disobeyed God’s call, their professions have debased them, but they have shown sorrow and repentance. But more than any of that, these are the people who appreciate His goodness: they are parading into the kingdom before you: for they have what you lack—a deep gratitude for God’s love and deep wonder at His mercy. (Brennan Manning; Ragamuffin Gospel, 103)

It is not your sin that will keep you out of heaven. It is thinking that you are righteous and pure on your own and that you think you have no need for a savior. You sin has been paid for. Your arrogance and pride will damn you to hell.

We Americans love to avoid responsibility. As Will Rogers once remarked: “There are two eras in American history–the passing of the buffalo and the passing of the buck.” Or as a more contemporary “person” put it–Calvin to Hobbes: “Nothing I do is my fault…I love the culture of victimhood.” To which Hobbes sagely replies, “One of us needs to stick his head in a bucket of ice water.” We need to keep our minds and hearts in the Word as obedient children. (R. Kent Hughes, Preaching the Word: Luke, Vol. Two, 33)

“If the God of life does not respond to the culture of death (21^st century western civilization – abortion) with judgment, then God is not god. If God does not honor the blood of hundreds of millions of innocent victims of this culture of death, then the God of the Bible, the God of Abraham, the God of Israel, the God of the prophets, is a man-made myth, a fairy tale, a comfortable ideal as substantial as a dream.

But, you may object: Is not the God of the Bible forgiving?

He is! But, the unrepentant refuse forgiveness. Forgiveness being a gift of grace, must be freely given and freely received. How can it be received by a moral relativist who denies that there is anything to forgive, except unforgiveness; nothing to judge but judgmentalism; nothing lacking but self-esteem? How can a Pharisee or a pop-psychologist be saved?

But, you might object: Is not the God of the Bible compassionate?

He is! But, He is not compassionate to Molech and Baal and Ashtoreth, and to the Canaanites who do their work who cause their children to pass through the fire. Perhaps your god is compassionate to the work of human sacrifice, the god of your demands, the god of your religious preferences. But, not the God of the Bible. Read the Book. Look at the data. (Peter Kreeft in a lecture given entitled “Culture War” 11:17 into the lecture)

The same is true today, and if we are concerned about a conviction of sin, the first thing we have to do is stop thinking about particular sins. How difficult we find this. We have all got these prejudices. We confine sin to certain things only, and because we are not guilty of these we think that we are not sinners. But that is not the way to know conviction of sin. It was not in that way that John Wesley came to see himself as a sinner. You remember what brought him to a conviction of sin? It began when he saw the way in which some Moravian Brethren behaved during a storm in mid-Atlantic. John Wesley was terrified by the storm and afraid to die; the Moravians were not. They seemed to be as happy in the hurricane and in the midst of the storm as they were when the sun was shining. John Wesley realized that he was afraid of death, he somehow did not seem to know God as these people knew Him. In other words he began to feel his need, and that is always the beginning of a conviction of sin. (D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, Spiritual Depression: Its Causes and Cure, 29-30)

If the universe is not governed by an absolute goodness, then all our efforts are in the long run hopeless. But if it is, then we are making ourselves enemies to that goodness every day, and are not in the least likely to do any better tomorrow, and so our case is hopeless again.

…Christianity tells people to repent and promises them forgiveness. It therefore has nothing (as far as I know) to say to people who do not know that they need any forgiveness. It is after you have realised that there is a real Moral Law, and a Power behind the law, and that you have broken that law and put yourself wrong with that Power–it is after all this and not a moment sooner, that Christianity begins to talk. When you are sick, you will listen to the doctor. (C. S. Lewis; Mere Christianity, bk. I, 38-39)

The human heart was deemed to be in need of instruction in moral uprightness. There needed to be a renewing of the mind.

Today, however, such sentiment has been angrily and mockingly denounced in academia; laden down by our technology, we crawl to our halls of fame like Alexander, desperately wanting the world to believe that we, too, are immortal. How revealing it is that in the bloodiest century of history we deny human depravity. The relativism of ancient Greece has worked its way into modern America, though the Greek philosophers themselves, even in their day, warned that relativism would be suicidal. To her credit, early America knew that this was not merely a philosophical problem, as real as that was. This was a problem of the soul, and the heart of humanity was in need of redemption. (Ravi Zacharias, Deliver Us From Evil: Restoring the Soul in a Disintegrating Culture, 40)

E- Prophet Jesus is the absolute, counter-cultural, exclusive One who will tolerate no rivals, and has brought a sword and not peace into the world. He serves as the ultimate example of the Snubbed One who will snub everyone except those who repent and call on His name. (Isa 53; Mt 10:32-42; Mt 12:30-32; Lk 11:23; 12:49-53; Jn 1:1-14; 3:16-21; 14:6; 1 Cor 1:23-24; 1 Pt 2:1-8)

Those with an eye for patterns in history will have noticed an amazing affinity between Micaiah the prophet and our Lord Jesus Christ, especially as we see the latter on trial for his life. Jesus also took his stand in the middle of liars, to be judged by those who preferred shadows to substance (Mt 26:59, 60). Likewise his frustrated judge also finally had to demand to hear a truth from him that he did not really want to hear (Mt 26:62-65). Jesus was publicly slapped and humiliated as well (Mt 26:67, 68). And even though he knew the truth would be denied, even though he knew it would become the basis of his false condemnation, he too spoke of seeing another tribunal that would sift through the evidence of every idle word spoken by sinners. Before this judgment seat his captors would be condemned, and he would shine like the sun. “In the future you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven” (Mt 26:64). (Paul O. Wendland, The People’s Bible, 2 Chr, 218-19)

Jesus’ claim of exclusivity skewers the myth that all religions are basically the same. But there’s another myth, which says that even though Christianity may be different, it’s just one philosophy among many, and it’s only as valid as any other system of religion. This is the “you have your truth, I have mine” idea.

Sproul points out that this belief has a certain amount of appeal because, on the surface, it reflects the tolerant and pluralistic attitudes of our country. Under our Constitution, all religious opinions are equally protected; people are free to believe whatever they want. But some people jump to the erroneous conclusion that just because different religious viewpoints are equally protected, they therefore must be equally valid. That’s just not the case.

The idea behind what the U.S. Supreme Court has called our “marketplace of ideas” is that truth and falsehood should be free to grapple in unhindered debate so in the end truth will prevail. While the law protects everyone who expresses an opinion, it says nothing about which viewpoints are based on truth and which are misguided or blatantly false. (Lee Stroble; God’s OUTrageous Claims, 187)

No doubt postmodernism will only elevate the importance of Christian preaching. The church may be the only venue left where truth is proclaimed confidently. And it’s certainly the only place where those seeking something more than the cold, rational world of modernism can explore the deep mysteries of God. (David L. Goetz; “The Riddle of Our Culture”, Leadership magazine, Winter 1997, 55-56)

Typically, today’s search for greater Christian power in culture becomes a search for improved management internally and improved mobility and communications externally. Our real need, however, is simultaneously simpler, more biblical, and more effective than programs and methodologies. Our real need is a recovery of the forgotten first things of the gospel of Jesus.

Today’s ultimate battle is the battle for the gospel—its supernatural realities, ethical imperatives, and disorienting simplicity as well as its doctrinal distinctives. Are we disciples as Jesus called disciples, or Christians for whom discipleship is an optional part of the larger program of religious observances and practices? The first things of the gospel are fundamental to the restoration of Christian integrity and effectiveness, and to Christian reformation and mission in the world. (Os Guinness; No God But God, 16-17)

I recently spoke at a conference for Christian counselors, who have been criticized by other Christians for being too wishy-washy. At a dinner for the leaders of the conference, I brought up the criticism to see how they would respond. The president said, “While there are many who draw lines, we believe we’ve been called to build bridges.”

Maybe there’s something to both methods, and the key is knowing when to draw lines and when to build bridges.

Jesus drew lines, and they were clear, absolute, and hard. I knew that. But he also crossed every one of those lines and loved people on the other side. (Steve Brown; What Was I Thinking?, 38)

“Christians know that their faith was absolutely true, that it could brook no rivals, and so they sought no compromises.” (David Wells; No Place for Truth, 104)

Worship point: When you begin to realize the number of times we regard God as irrelevant, and we (by our actions or inactions) ignore or become unaware of His desire to lead, guide, protect and encourage us; then your worship will be in Spirit and Truth as you begin to understand His grace, mercy, compassion, love, forgiveness and patience with you.

Spiritual Challenge: Begin to take inventory of your life and those things that are based on the world’s values and not God’s. What is there in your life that regards the God of the Universe as irrelevant because we are so absorbed in the world’s standards that we fail to see and follow God’s. And, never forget that God ALWAYS hears the cry of the broken and contrite heart that cries out to Him in repentance.

What is there about modern culture that obstructs our repentance?:

1 – I’m a victim not a criminal (it’s not my fault)

2 – I’m OK You’re OK we’re all OK (Tolerance and no-fault living)

3 – How Can I be wrong? (There is no right or wrong . . . no sin)

4 – Science: Our naturalism and Darwinistic world views prevents us from believing we owe anything to God. Therefore we are less likely to believe we need to repent from our naturalism and be devoted to the God who was “In the Beginning.”

5 – Prosperity: We can become so shallow and “content” with the addiction to things that we cease to look for anything deeper and more satisfying (Deuteronomy). We no longer groan (Rom 8) looking forward to a heavenly kingdom and a heavenly world (Hebrews and 1 or 2 Peter). In fact, we can become so content with this world that we are dull and anaesthetized to all that God has for us. We fail to be repentant because we are confident we have all that life can offer.

6 – New Age Movement: How can I offend God by my actions? Why do I need to repent before the face of a Holy God? I’m God!

7 – Child Rearing – in our failure to properly discipline our children and expect genuine repentance on their part for moral failures, we have cultivated a culture of apathy towards rebellion, sin and disobedience.

8 – Self-sufficiency – God uses difficult times to drive us to repentance. Because of our wealth, we choose to insolate ourselves from many of the judgments that God gives to us to drive us to repentance. Instead of being sensitive to God’s judgments in our lives that should soften our hearts and lead us to repentance, we merely protect ourselves from His discipline with more insurance, addictions, or wallowing in materialism.

9 – PRIDE – It can’t be me. The cultivation of pride in our modern culture hinders the work of the Holy Spirit.

10 – BUSYNESS – Don’t bother me – I’m busy (The absence of personal reflection and the depraved condition of our souls)

1 1- I Don’t Do Repentance – It does’t “Feel” Good.

12- Jonah Syndrome – We don’t love one another enough to tell them the truth to present them with the need to change.

1 3- Ignorance of God, His Holiness and His Law – Because we do not understand God and His completely other holiness, we do not fully realize the offence we are to God and therefore we are less likely to come to repentance for our offence or our sin.

14- A Seared Conscience

“When we call sin “not sin” we burn the bridge back to God because we can’t repent of something we don’t think is wrong.” (Key Life Romans Tape 2 Side 2 – Steve Brown)

God said it, I believe it, that settles it. NO! . . . God said it, that settles it.

Quote to Note:

A belief is something you will argue about. A conviction is something you will die for. -Howard Hendricks

A belief is something you hold; a conviction is something that holds you.” Jerry bridges (Leadership, Spring 98 pg. 75)

I have known educated people, professing Christians, who purposely gathered together for religious discussion men and women representing the widest possible varieties of religious conviction. This was far enough. But unfortunately their aim, as they put it, was to get everyone to make his “individual contribution” (how fraught with error this phrase can be) so that collectively they might arrive at the truth. Now there is much to be said, socially and intellectually, for bringing together people of different outlooks and beliefs; but there is no rational basis for the notion that by mixing a number of conflicting views you are likely to arrive at the truth. You cannot construct truth from a mass of dissonant and disparate material. You cannot construct truth at all: you can only discover it. And the more noisily opinionated people intervene with their contributions, the less likely you are to discover it. (Harry Blamires ; The Christian Mind: How Should a Christian Think?, 112)

The OT appeals to a variety of criteria for distinguishing true from false prophecy. These criteria can be gathered under three heads as criteria focusing (1) on the revelatory means, (2) on the message, and (3) on the man himself. All three come into play to a greater or lesser extent or forbidden in the OT (e.g., Nm 12:6; Dt 13:1; 18:9-13). Preminently the prophet was to be a man possessed by the spirit (Nm 11:16-30; 24:2; 1 Sm 10:5-13; 19:17-24; 2 I Kgs 2:7-13; Mic 3:8; Zech 7:12; 2 Chr 20:13, et al.); his message derived from his access to the heavenly council to hear the words of God (Nm 12:8; Isa 6; Ezek 1-2; Jer 1:4-10; 23:18-22; Zech 3:7). Both the possession of the spirit (18:23-24) and the heavenly council (18:18-21) figure in the debate over true prophecy in the Micaiah narrative. (2) The prophet’s message was not to be in the name of other gods (Dt 13:1-5) or to contradict previous revelation (1 Kgs 13). The true prophet is recognized because his words come to pass (Dt 18:14-22; 2 Chr 18:16, 25-27); he stands against the tide and the vox populi. (3) the canonical prophets appeal also to a moral criterion to invalidate the claims of their opponents to have the true word of God (Jer 14:14; 23:10-14; 29:21-23; Ezek 13:21-22; Mic 2:11; cf. Mt 7:15-20; 2 Tm 3:6). Though there are a number of examples of violence on the part of prophets in the OT, the NT invokes the moral criteria for the man of God (1 Tm 3:1-13; Ti 1:6-9; Jas 3:13-18) in saying that he is not to be violent, “a striker” (KJV–Ti 1:7; 1 Tm 3:3). His conduct should contrast to that of Zedekiah (18:23). (Raymond B. Dillard, Word Biblical Commentary, Vol. 15, 144-45)

When prophets disagree, how is one to know which one to heed? Micaiah declares that Ahab will be killed in battle; Zedekiah, that he will return victorious. Both Micaiah and Zedekiah claim to be prophets. Both speak in the name of the Lord. Indeed, Micaiah does not deny that Zedekiah’s words, and those of the 400 court prophets, are inspired by a spirit from God. However, he describes a vision of the heavenly court, where the Lord, who wishes to destroy Ahab, asks for a spirit to go and entice the king into fighting at Ramoth-gilead (18:18-22). It is this lying spirit that speaks through Zedekiah and his fellows; in fact, however, “the LORD has decreed disaster for you” (18:22). (Steven S. Tuell, Interpretation: 1 & 2 Chr, 178)

Christ:

The snubbed One you are NOT to snub

“Snubbed” – 2 Chronicles 18

Leave a ReplyCancel reply