January 6th, 2013 (Epiphany)
II Chronicles 22 (2 Kings 8:25-11:3)
“The Short-sightedness of Evil”
Bible Memory Verse for the Week: To the pure, all things are pure, but to those who are corrupted and do not believe, nothing is pure. In fact, both their minds and consciences are corrupted. — Titus 1:15
Background Information:
- Harmonizing the reports of Chronicles in detail with the synoptic parallels in Kings lies outside the scope of this commentary. It should be noted, however, in reference to the execution of the princes of Judah that the outline showing the relationship between the accounts of Kings and Chronicles clearly indicates the interests of the Chronicler are theological, not chronological. (Andrew E. Hill, The NIV Application Commentary: 1 & 2 Chr, 518)
- The names “Jehoahaz” (21:17) and “Ahaziah” are alternate versions of the same name, both meaning “the Lord has grasped.” The use of both names in Chronicles suggests that the Chronicler is referring to multiple sources. (Steven S. Tuell, Interpretation: 1 & 2 Chr, 188)
- The one-year reign of Ahaziah is dated anywhere from 845-841 B.C., depending on the source. His brief tenure in the royal office is best placed in 842 or 841 B.C. (Andrew E. Hill, The NIV Application Commentary: 1 & 2 Chr, 518)
- Ahaziah’s father is Jeroham
- The Chronicler hurries to tell the story of Jehoram’s son Ahaziah. His version abridges the 56 verses of 2 Kgs 8:25-10:14 in just nine verses. The broad relationship of the two accounts may be represented as follows:
2 Chr 22:1-6 = 2 Kgs 8:25-29
2 Chr 22:7 = 2 Kgs 9:21
2 Chr 22:8 = 2 Kgs 10:13-14
2 Chr 22:9 = 2 Kgs 9:28
Ahaziah’s reign is treated almost like an extension of Jehoram’s rule. The subject of the section is not so much the reigns of Jehoram, Ahaziah, and Athaliah but the “house of Ahab” and the threat it poses to the “house of Judah” and the Davidic dynasty (21:6; 22:3, 7, 10). (Andrew E. Hill, The NIV Application Commentary: 1 & 2 Chr, 517-18)
- Ahaziah’s mother is Athaliah who was the grand-daughter of Omri and the daughter of Ahab & Jezebel.
- Another theological theme recurs in the narrative, though perhaps it was not expressly a concern of the Chronicler himself. It is that tension between the sovereignty of God and the responsibility of humans. The blood of Jezreel would require avenging (Hos 1:4), even though the situation was ordained by God (22:7). (Raymond B. Dillard, Word Biblical Commentary, Vol. 15, 175)
- (v 1) Instead of the usual closing formula “‘A’ rested with his fathers and ‘B’ succeeded him as king,” here we are told that “the people of Jerusalem” united to put Ahaziah on the throne. It is difficult for us to know the exact significance of this expression. Were these the leading citizens of Jerusalem? The common people? This much we do know: the expression implies that a state of confusion and disorder existed in the kingdom, no doubt because of the raiding parties and the death of so many in the royal family at one time. The regular handing over of power from one king to the next was impossible. (Paul O. Wendland, The People’s Bible, 2 Chr, 253-54)
- (v. 6) We learn from the narrative that King Joram is wounded in battle at Ramoth Gilead by the Arameans (22:6a). Hoping to speed the healing of his injuries, Joram retreats to the safety of Jezreel (cf. 2 Kgs 9:14-154). Jezreel was a town allotted to the tribe of Issachar and lay at the foot of Mount Gilboa on the plain of Jezreel (Josh 19:18). Later, the summer palace of the Israelite kings was located there (1 Kgs 18:45-46; 21:1). Jehu’s purge of the house of Ahab was completed at Jezreel (2 Kgs 10:6-11). It is there that Ahaziah visits his recuperating ally, only to meet his end (2 Chr 22:6b). One cannot help but recall the long shadow Mount Gilboa casts on Israelite kingship, dating back to the death of King Saul (cf. 1 Chr 10:1, 8). (Andrew E. Hill, The NIV Application Commentary: 1 & 2 Chr, 520)
- (v. 7) In Kings the death of Ahaziah appears to result more from the excessive zeal of Jehu’s coup–perhaps it is precisely this excess in murdering the Judean king and members of the royal household that prompted Hosea’s oracle about God’s avenging the “blood of Jezreel” (Hos 1:4). For the Chronicler, however, the death of Ahaziah was the result of divine will, the inevitable outcome of his following in the ways of the house of Ahab. (Raymond B. Dillard, Word Biblical Commentary, Vol. 15, 175)
- (v. 7ff) The relationships in the intermarriages between the rulers of Israel in the north and the rulers of Judah in the south are becoming increasingly messy. Acting to fulfill a prophecy that predicts he will become king, Jehu goes on a killing spree–he kills Joram, king of Israel; then he kills 42 of Ahaziah’s brothers; and finally he kills Ahaziah. This places Jehu on the throne in the northern kingdom of Israel, and in the southern kingdom of Judah the throne is vacant (22:6-9). (Dr. Tremper Longman, Quicknotes, 1 Chr Thru Job, 89)
- (vss. 7 & 9) In 22:7-9 the Chronicler assumes a knowledge of 2 Kgs 9:1-28; 10:12-14. He abbreviates and adapts his source, supplying an interpretive framework at beginning and end, in 22:7a, 9b. He brings to the fore the providential work of God, which effects the destruction that inevitably lay at the end of Ahaziah’s self-chosen path. (Leslie Allen, Mastering the OT, 1, 2 Chr, 322)
- (v. 8) The reforming zeal of Jehu, commissioned by Elisha to crusade in God’s name against the house of Ahab, extended not only to the ally Ahaziah but also to his nephews. It meant a further depletion of the house of David. Evidently there was no obvious successor, no one of sufficient maturity and influence to take over. The Davidic dynasty has been brought to the brink of extinction. Is all lost? (Leslie Allen, Mastering the OT, 1, 2 Chr, 322)
- (v. 9) The Chronicler spoke of a time in the past when there was no one left of the Davidic line “who could assume power over the kingdom” (22:9). Surely the lesson was not lost on his post-exilic audience: even in adversity the royal line was preserved and would eventually regain the kingdom. Davidic hopes did not die at the time of Ahaziah, Athaliah, and Joash; they should not die in the post-exilic period. The flame from the promise of God that David would never lack a descendant to rule Israel (1 Chr 17:11-14; 2 Chr 21:7) may have become little more than a smoldering wick–but it could not be extinguished. (Raymond B. Dillard, Word Biblical Commentary, Vol. 15, 175)
- (vss. 10-12) Often what the biblical historians do not say is nearly as important as what they do. Here the absence of the regnal formulae giving the monarch’s age, length of reign, etc., is particularly noticeable: neither the deuteronomic historian nor the Chronicler regard Athaliah as a legitimate ruler, so neither provides the customary introductory or concluding notices. (Raymond B. Dillard, Word Biblical Commentary, Vol. 15, 179)
- (vss. 10-12) Only Joash, infant son of Ahaziah, survives the slaughter, thanks to the courage of his aunt Jehoshabeath, who entrusts the child to her husband, Jehoiada the priest. (Steven S. Tuell, Interpretation: 1 & 2 Chr, 189)
The question to be answered is . . . Why is Pastor Keith taking a different approach in preaching this text as opposed to other texts in Chronicles?
Answer: The story in 2 Chronicles 22 is the 15th verse same as the first. Over and over again the Chronicler desires for his post-exilic audience (as well as us) to keep in mind that if we ever desire to return to our former glory we need to return to: following an anointed Davidic leader, pure and sincere temple worship and a close adherence to the Word of God. Why Pastor Keith is taking a slightly different approach here is because it seems painfully obvious that this story, more than many, displays the incredible short-sightedness of those who choose not to follow this prescription.
Most men would rather die, than think. Most men do. (Bertrand Russell, as quoted by Jim Collins; Good -To-Great, 144)
The Word for the Day is . . . Perspective
In one generation, America has experienced a dramatic transformation from a producing society to a consuming society. Thirty years ago, we measured our economy by what we produced. Textile mills employed hundreds of thousands in the South, and the biggest problem of great industrial centers was pollution from the giant smokestacks. America was the engine of the worlds’ economy. Today we measure our economy by what consumers spend. Watch how economists make their forecasts on confidence polls, how closely the market follows Christmas retail sales.
In the transformation to a purchasing instead of producing culture, we have completely reversed the Protestant work ethic, which fueled the great economic growth in this country in the nineteenth century. At the heart of the work ethic was a belief that one should work hard, be thrifty, save, and produce. Delayed gratification was a virtue. (Charles Colson, The Good Life, 46)
4 questions Pastor Keith would like for you to consider about the short-sightedness of the cast of this story:
I. With all destruction and loss that has occurred in the last 9 years, why is Ahaziah so short-sighted as to not make a change in regard to the core values of his leadership? (2 Chr 22:1-4)
Presumably at her suggestion other members of “the house of Ahab” are invited to Jerusalem to add weight to her counsel. It is they who advise him to ally himself with his northern counterpart in a military campaign at Ramoth Gilead. It is a story we have read before in chapter 18! It is not difficult to catch the overtones of horror which accompany the words. 22:1b-6 follow 2 Kgs 8:26-29 quite closely, but the Chronicler has introduced and stressed the theme of evil counsel. (Leslie Allen, Mastering the OT, 1, 2 Chr, 321)
Harry Truman, it is said, had on his desk a notice “The buck stops here.” The dice of heredity and environment were loaded against Ahaziah, but weakly he it was who plunged the dynasty into danger. A moral doctrine of personal responsibility is here sounded clearly. Any note of repentance, which could have made all the difference is quite lacking. (Leslie Allen, Mastering the OT, 1, 2 Chr, 321)
3-4 It is not surprising that Athaliah was Ahaziah’s counselor; this appears to have been a normal role for the queen mother in the monarchies of Israel and the ancient Near East (n. Andreason, CBQ 45, 188-89; cf. 1 Kgs 1:11-31; 2:13-21; 15:13; 21:5-7; 2 Kgs 10:13; 24:12, 15; Jer 13:18). The queen mother held a defined position of great political power; Athaliah is the mirror image of her own mother Jezebel in her effective wielding of that power. (Raymond B. Dillard, Word Biblical Commentary, Vol. 15, 174)
Through the process begun by Jehoshaphat’s fateful alliance with Ahab, Judah has become so “Israelite” in the bad sense that it has almost ceased to be “Israelite” in the good sense. (Michael Wilcock, The Message of Chr, 211)
II. With all the disastrous results that have occurred at Ramoth-Gilead lately why is Ahaziah so short-sighted as to involve himself in a battle there without more specific and thought-out planning? (2 Chr 22:5-6)
One theme of the Chronicler’s theology is his consistent repudiation of foreign entanglements; such alliances inevitably represent a failure to trust Yahweh. The Chronicler has introduced his concern about alliances with the house of Ahab into his accounts of the reigns of each of the Judean kings contemporary with Ahab and his successors (18:1; 19:1-3; 21:6, 13; 22:3-4); he uses the entire narrative about Jehoshaphat’s participation with Ahab in the battle of Ramoth-gilead to drive home this point (see 2 Chr 18:1-19:3). There is ironic justice in the death of Ahaziah: the king who lived by the counsel of the Omrides shared their fate; he who had taken advice from Samaria found no refuge there at the time of his death. Alliance with the Omrides bears fruit when Athaliah seizes the throne and tries to exterminate the Davidic line. (Raymond B. Dillard, Word Biblical Commentary, Vol. 15, 175)
The righteousness of Jehoshaphat provides the rationale for the proper burial of Ahaziah (22:9). The Chronicler’s portrayal of the reigns of Jehoshaphat, Jehoram, and Ahaziah is one of contrasts: Jehoshaphat provided the positive image, of which Jehoram and Ahaziah were the negative (see 2 Chr 21:2-20). Jehoshaphat, who first became entangled with the Omrides, watched a Northern king die after a battle at Ramoth-gilead, whereas Ahaziah died with a Northern king, also due to events surrounding Ramoth-gilead.
The infidelity of Jehoram and Ahaziah had brought the Davidic succession to the same point as that of Saul–no one left who could assume power over the kingdom (22:9; 1 Chr 10). (Raymond B. Dillard, Word Biblical Commentary, Vol. 15, 175)
III. Why would short-sighted Ahaziah remain loyal to the families of Omri and Ahab when God had clearly spoken judgment on both?(2 Chr 22:7-9; 1 Kgs 17:1; 18:1ff; 21:20-25; 2 Kgs 9:7-10, 25, 36-37; 10:10-11, 17, 30; 21:13; Mic 6:16; Rv 2:20)
IV. How could Athaliah be so short-sighted as to think that she could get away with stealing the throne of Judah from a descendant of David? (2 Chr 22:10-12)
Athaliah has struck, very effectively, at the earthly kingdom. But she cannot destroy the true kingdom. She may have perverted both Judah’s practice of religion and its inner ways of thinking, but the covenant relationship is a deeper thing yet, and is not so easily shaken. It is in fact rooted in the faithfulness of God, and will outlast all the disloyalties of men. (Michael Wilcock, The Message of Chr, 211)
The death of Ahaziah returns us to the theme of this section of the narrative: the conflict between God’s promise to David of a dynasty forever and the apparent lack of an heir to the throne. The house of David has been purged of sin, but the end result seems worse than the combined reigns of Jehoram and Ahaziah. The “lamp” of David (2 Chr 21:7) is in jeopardy of being extinguished by powerful Athaliah (22:9c). Dillard aptly notes that this lesson is not lost on the Chronicler’s audience. Even as Davidic hopes were not doused by Ahaziah’s sin or Athaliah’s reign of terror; so too the Davidic hope remains alive in the postexilic period despite all appearances to the contrary. (Andrew E. Hill, The NIV Application Commentary: 1 & 2 Chr, 520)
In 400 years of rule this was the only break in the Davidic line. Fortunately it was a brief one. Fortunately? Providently, rather: the hand of God rests on the episode of vv. 10-12, unseen but silently at work. (Leslie Allen, Mastering the OT, 1, 2 Chr, 322)
This is a rescue narrative which is a link in a biblical chain, beginning with the secreting of baby Moses in the bulrushes and culminating in the spiriting of Jesus from the infanticidal wrath of King Herod. Whether it is a Pharaoh, an Athaliah, or a Herod, they meet their match in the providential working of God. (Leslie Allen, Mastering the OT, 1, 2 Chr, 322)
Athaliah therefore joins the ranks of people like Caiaphas, Judas, Pontius Pilate, and others, all those who–whether motivated by fear, greed, or cynicism–set themselves up against the Lord, and against his anointed. In short, she was an antichrist, one of the many that must come as signs of the end (see 1 Jn 2:18). (Paul O. Wendland, The People’s Bible, 2 Chr, 260)
Athaliah, of whom we know nothing other than what we learn here and in 2 Kgs 11, evidently had all the ruthlessness of the house of Ahab, and perhaps some of the grandeur of its founder Omri (with whom she is expressly linked, 22:2). Perhaps our horror at her crimes is rightly tinged with admiration for one who, without any legitimate right and despite all the impediments of her womanhood, took and held the reins of power for as long as she did (six years). (J. G. McConville, The Daily Study Bible Series, 1 & 2 Chr, 203)
The name of Ahaziah’s mother, Athaliah, is included in the regnal résumé for two reasons (22:2). (1) Her relationship to the dynasty of Omri as daughter of Ahab and Jezebel explains the influence of the “house of Ahab” on the kingdom of Judah. The author accents the negative theological review of the king’s brief reign by associating him with his father in following the ways of “the house of Ahab” (22:3). (2) As a member of Ahab’s family, Athaliah takes it upon herself to destroy the royal family of Judah (22:10). By virtue of her role as queen mother, she holds the important position of royal adviser, thus poisoning the counsel received by both her husband Jehoram and her son Ahaziah (cf. 1 Kgs 15:13; 2 Kgs 24:15). The status and authority she enjoys as queen mother also enables her to fill the power vacuum left by the death of her son and to usurp the throne of David (cf. 2 Chr 22:9). (Andrew E. Hill, The NIV Application Commentary: 1 & 2 Chr, 519)
What does the Bible tell us causes this kind of short-sightedness and how does a relationship with Christ cure it?:
A- No regard for God causes short-sightedness. Christ reconciles us back to God.(Jdgs 2:19; Ps 14:1-3; 53:1-3; Prv 1:7; Jer 5:21-25; Mt 7:21-27; 25:1-13; 1 Jn 2:11)
The early church leader Augustine was once accosted by a heathen who showed him his idol and said, “Here is my god; where is thine?” Augustine replied, “I cannot show you my God; not because there is no God to show but because you have no eyes to see Him.”
I remember driving one day with a man who is a convinced skeptic, a self-confessed atheist. As we approached an intersection, a car ran a red light and headed toward us. Only because I had very good brakes was I able to avoid what would have been a serious accident. My friend started shaking his fist at the other driver, exclaiming, “You’ll get your due someday. You’ll get yours.”
I told him that he was asserting a very problematic proposition for an atheist. If an atheist really believes that there is no God and that the universe is simply cruel, unjust, and random, he has to explain how he gets the idea of just and unjust. If there is no sense of justice or right and wrong, no standard for behavior, no universal judge in the universe, why would you expect wrongdoers to “get their due”? How would you even know they were wrongdoers? My friend was asking a God he didn’t believe in to administer what only God can finally supply: justice. (Charles Colson, The Good Life, 277)
Today we look out at a world becoming ever more brazen and provocative in the ways it devises to defy God. What the theologians call “natural law”–humanity’s inbred sense of right and wrong–people these days seem to be able to shrug off more causally than a coat. (Paul O. Wendland, The People’s Bible, 2 Chr, 257)
My aim to invigorate you in the pursuit of knowing God for the sake of loving God would be in vain if there were no such thing as reliable, objective knowledge of real things. But one of the most common notions today is that such knowledge is impossible.
One of the names for this attitude is relativism. In the next two chapters, I will try to explain what it is and what Jesus thought about it. I will argue in chapter 7 that relativism is neither intellectually compelling nor morally upright. It is emotionally gratifying because it seems to protect my personal preferences from external judgment. Jesus knew this sort of evasive use of the mind. He did not like it. (John Piper, Think, 91-2)
The nation without God hasn’t got a prayer.
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 employ the law of non-contradiction and the law of cause and effect whenever they talk about their belief in relativism and its relation to the world. But these laws are not relative.
For example, when they say, “There is no universally valid standard for what is true,” they assume several universal standards. One is the law of cause and effect: they believe that in speaking this sentence, a cause is created that will have effects. They do not believe that speaking their mind is pointless. Effects follow from sufficient causes. This is a universal truth that they live by, including the speech that denies it. (John Piper, Think, 107)
In other words, apart from some universal standards, the relativists could not even formulate the premises and conclusions that they say lead 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)
Nobody is a relativist when his case is being tried in court and his objective innocence hangs on objective evidence. The whole system of relativism is a morally corrupting impulse. It brings with it duplicity and hypocrisy. It is a great bluff. And what is needed in our day is for many candid children to rise up as in the fairy tale and say, “The king has no clothes on.” (John Piper, Think, 108-9)
What we need to come to terms with, though, if our origin is insignificant, and if our destiny is insignificant, have the courage and guts to admit that your life is insignificant. If your origin and destiny are both insignificant, you just don’t matter. (Tim Keller, sermon on Ecclesiastes)
Postmodernism and its dogmatic tolerance can lead only to despair, as Sayers wrote and as we witness in the lives of so many today. Despair in turn leads to slothfulness, and slothfulness to boredom. In spite of our great technological advances and the highest level of education and material advances any society has ever achieved, we have managed to suck all of the meaning out of life, to destroy any basis for human dignity or human rights, to undermine moral and rational discourse–to leave ourselves adrift in the cosmos. (Charles Colson, The Good Life, 210)
Havel’s belief in knowing the truth and living it goes to the very heart of what it means to live a good life. It raises the most urgent and controversial question in today’s culture: Can we know the truth? Strident voices in our culture answer that question with a resounding no.
The principal reason for this is found in an extraordinary cultural revolution in the West. In the period after World War II, as we noted earlier, existential philosophers, mostly Frenchmen, took seriously Nietzsche’s formulation that God was dead and that life has no transcendent purpose. The human challenge was therefore to overcome life’s inherent lack of meaning through personal experience. This gave birth to the generation of the sixties, to Woodstock, to seeking meaning through protest, free love, and drugs. Existentialism was soon accompanied by deconstructionism in literary and cultural studies. This held that societies live in “the prison house of language,” meaning that we can never escape our culture’s prejudices; every claim about the way the world works can only be the expression of biased groupthink. It doesn’t take a philosopher to see that these two streams of thought undermine any authority structure. (Charles Colson, The Good Life, 205)
While Darwinians argue their position as science, it is, in fact, a worldview. What they oppose is any inquiry that might open the question of whether there is a God who created the universe and sustains it. This is the real doomsday scenario for post-Enlightenment thinkers. Stark goes to lengths not to impugn the motives of Darwinians, but he could not help but point out what Richard Dawkins has confided: “Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.” (Charles Colson, The Good Life, 242)
I remembered Pascal arguing that God has given us just enough light so that we can understand and just enough darkness or obscurity to deny the truth, if we wish. That was it. Of course, God cannot reveal Himself in a rationally irrefutable manner. If God were plain to us as the tree outside our window, as one great theologian once wrote, we would have no need for faith. If we saw God in His true character, in His glory, in anything like the way we see the world around us, our free will would be meaningless. We could not help but believe in God. It would be impossible to deny Him. This would destroy the possibility of choosing to believe–of faith–and with it the possibility of love, because love cannot be compelled. We cannot love God if we are not given the option of rejecting Him. Remember, God has given us just enough light to see by, but not enough to eliminate the need to see with eyes of faith. Our pride has to get out of the way, and we have to recognize that faith is not faith unless it is accompanied by doubt–or at least, as Catholic piety would say, difficulties. (Charles Colson, The Good Life, 380)
B- Sin/evil causes short-sightedness. Christ came to free us from the bondage and effects of sin. (Ps 40:12; 107:17; Prv 10:23; 19:28-29; 21:20; 29:11; Rom 1:18-29; 2 Cor 4:4; Eph 4:22-24; 1 Tm 6:3-9; Ti 1:15; 2 Pt 1:4; 2:19-20)
“Wherever the Biblical world view has been prevailed, there has been freedom. Where it has been taken away, freedom has been lost.” (Chuck Colson; Session 6: “What Do I Do Now?” – Segment 2: Wide Angle)
The natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit. Among the things of the Spirit to which the natural man is most averse is God’s estimate of sin, which is difficult even for a Christian to accept and appreciate. This is why believers are to exhort each other daily, “lest any of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin” (Heb 3:13). Now if sin can deceive a believer, how much more deceitful is it to an unbeliever? If a man with 20-20 vision cannot discern an object at which he is gazing, how shall one born blind see it? Because of the deceitful nature of sin, the unregenerate world cannot comprehend. (Donald Grey Barnhouse, God’s Freedom, 27)
The Bible presents sin by way of major concepts, principally lawlessness and faithlessness, expressed in an array of images: sin is the missing of a target, a wandering from the path, a straying from the fold. Sin is a hard heart and a stiff neck. Sin is blindness and deafness. It is both the overstepping of a line and the failure to reach it–both transgression and shortcoming. Sin is a beast crouching at the door. In sin, people attack or evade or neglect their diving calling. These and other images suggest deviance: even when it is familiar, sin is never normal. Sin is disruption of created harmony and then resistance to divine restoration of that harmony. Above all, sin disrupts and resists the vital human relation to God, and it does all this disrupting and resisting in a number of intertwined ways. (Cornelius Plantinga, Jr., Not the Way It’s Supposed to Be, 5)
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)
The issue took on new dimensions when Behe was challenged by world-renowned Dr. Russell Doolittle, University of California at San Diego biochemist and member of the prestigious National Academy of Sciences. Doolittle spent forty years studying the blood-clotting mechanism in humans. In “A Delicate Balance,” an essay published in MIT’s Boston Review, he cited a study from the journal Cell, establishing that the blood-clotting mechanism was created as a result of a natural evolutionary process. At the end of his analysis, Doolittle wrote, “The entire ensemble of proteins is not needed. Music and harmony can arise from a smaller orchestra.” With that illustration, Doolittle seemed to dismiss Behe’s argument.
Behe took the challenge seriously. But when he read the study Doolittle cited, he was astonished. Although Russell Doolittle had extensively studied the blood-clotting mechanism, he proved to be a less than careful reader–or one too inclined to presume experiments must confirm the theories he held. For he had misread the study reported in Cell. The study was actually evidence in support of Behe’s argument: Take away one of its parts, and the whole mechanism begins to malfunction–with lethal effects.
Behe e-mailed Doolittle, suggesting that he might want to read the experimental paper and its results more closely. Doolittle sent a reply, in which he admitted that he had misread the paper but insisted that the other theoretical arguments in his article were sufficient to counter Behe’s contention. He never retracted what he had published. (Charles Colson, The Good Life, 239)
One by one He took them from me
All the things I valued most;
‘Til I was empty-handed,
Every glittering toy was lost.
And I walked earth’s highways, grieving,
In my rags and poverty.
Until I heard His voice inviting,
“Lift those empty hands to Me!”
Then I turned my hands toward heaven,
And He filled them with a store
Of His own transcendent riches,
‘Til they could contain no more.
And at last I comprehended
With my stupid mind, and dull,
That God cannot pour His riches
Into hands already full. -Source Unknown (email from Dawn Treloar 7-25-11)
If we can’t accept our own failure and sin, then we can never escape it. Paradoxically, we can find the good life only when we understand we aren’t good. Denial of evil always produces tragedy, in our own lives and in the community at large. We have to understand the evil in ourselves before we can truly embrace the good in life. (Charles Colson, The Good Life, 33)
C- Trusting in oneself and not in God causes short-sightedness. Christ tells us the way to life is the way of repentance and dying to self. (Ps 73:22; 92:6; 94:8; Prv 1:22; 3:5-6; 12:1, 15-16; 14:16-17; 15:5; 17:10; 18:2; 26:11-12; 28:26; Eccl 10:12; Jer 17:9; Ezek 13:3; 1 Cor 3:18-19; Mt ch 23; Jn 9:39-41; Rv 3:17)
It’s been observed in surveys that the average person believes he is better than the average person. We are blind to our own blindness. (David Jeremiah, Captured by Grace, 69)
People seek power for personal fulfillment and with the hopes of changing society, but political power fails on both counts. Seeking power leads to corruption; it fails to solve our problems because power cannot change the human heart, which is the source of our behavior and our sin. For centuries, political leaders have promised redemption through utopian government solutions. But because these programs are based on a false worldview, they always lead to tyranny in one form or another. (Charles Colson, The Good Life, 315)
My dad had imparted to me a latter-day Puritanism: Never lie. Always tell the truth, no matter what the cost. Work hard at any task you are given. Give people a fair day’s work for a fair day’s pay. I learned much about truth telling and integrity from him. What I hadn’t learned was that by presuming I lived by his strict moral code, I would become blind to the ways I failed it. My self-righteousness enabled me to compartmentalize: to believe I was doing the right thing while simultaneously going along with the wrong thing. (Charles Colson, The Good Life, 195)
Zajoc quotes from a study by a Dr. Moreau who observed that while surgery gave the patient the “power to see,” “the employment of this power, which as a whole constitutes the act of seeing, still has to be acquired from the beginning.” Dr. Moreau concludes, “To give back sight to a congenitally blind person is more the work of an educator than of a surgeon.” To which Zajoc adds, “The sober truth remains that vision requires far more than a functioning physical organ. Without an inner light, without a formative visual imagination, we are blind,” he explains. That “inner light”—the light of the mind—”must flow into and marry with the light of nature to bring forth a world.” (National Right to Life News, March 30, 1993, 22)
But what about relativism? It poses as humble by saying: “We mere mortals cannot know what the truth is–or even if there is any universal truth.” This sounds humble. But look carefully at what is happening. It’s like a servant saying: “I am not smart enough to know which person here is my master–or if I even have a master.” The result is that he doesn’t have to submit to any master and can be his own master. His vaunted weakness is a ruse to cover his rebellion against his master.
That is in reality what happens to relativists: in claiming to be too lowly to know the truth, they exalt themselves as supreme arbiter of what they can think and do. This is not humility. This is rooted in deep desire not to be subordinate to the claims of truth. The name for this is pride. The only way pride can be conquered in us is for us to believe in Truth and be conquered by it so that it rules us and we don’t rule it. (John Piper, Think, 112-3)
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)
Washington Post columnist Judy Mann wrote that the homeless children dying in Third World countries are the result of the church’s “unthinking pro-family polices.” Syndicated columnist Georgie Anne Gyer warned darkly that church teachings could “lead to the death of us all.”
The premise here is that the more children a nation has, the poorer it will be. But if you look around the globe, the pattern is precisely the opposite. Most rich countries have high population densities: Hong Kong, Singapore, the Netherlands. Famine and poverty are much more common in sparsely populated countries, like Somalia, Ethiopia, Sudan.
The population scare-mongers are operating on a faulty philosophy. They see every child as a mouth to feed–nothing more. In their thinking, every time a child is born, we all end up with a smaller slice of the pie.
But this is incredibly short-sighted. As children grow older they don’t just eat pies, they can bake new ones. They can add to society’s pool of labor and creativity. And it is human creativity that determines whether a nation is rich or poor.
Human capital comes up with better ways to grow food–so that today only 3 percent of the American work force grows enough food for the entire nation. Human capital develops new ways to locate natural resources. Since 1950 the known reserves of iron have increased more than 1,000 percent, as we develop better ways to locate and extract it. Human capital finds new ways to be productive with old resources. For example, the silicon in a computer chip is made from ordinary sand.
The real cause of poverty is not people but sin and oppression. The number one cause of hunger in the world today is war, followed closely by political corruption and centralized economic control. (Charles Colson, A Dangerous Grace, 310-11)
As the Catholic philosopher and novelist Walker Percy said in Lost in the Cosmos: The Last Self-Help Book, the self cannot help itself. This is the bad news, humanity’s common denominator, and the defining element of modern tragedy. Those who try to save their own lives will lose them–that persistent paradox. Any worldview that cannot reckon with this tragedy can neither be real nor provide hope. Those who persist in believing that the self can indeed help itself must ultimately despair because they are buying illusions. (Charles Colson, The Good Life, 118)
If you cannot bear to really look at all the stupidity of your life, if you cannot bear to see what is wrong with you, if you cannot bear to really see your flaws, if you can’t just take criticism, you just go to pieces, cause you know it is true. It is because you really do not have the strength from knowing the grace of God. It is the grace of God that helps me not feel, “Oh I must be OK.” but gives me the freedom to admit what is wrong with me without being devastated. And therefore, Jesus Christ is saying, “Do you know that unless you know the depth of your sin and the height of God’s grace: When things go well you are going to be smug instead of happy and grateful. Or when things go poorly your are going to be devastated instead of hopeful and enduring. Unless you see both of those you are going to move back and forth from being a proud Pharisee or being a cynical skeptic and you’re going to not be able to handle the suffering and troubles of life. (Tim Keller; in a message from Luke 13:1-9 entitled The Falling Tower ; 18:00 into the message).
D- Having a relationship with evil causes short-sightedness. Christ and the Holy Spirit deliver us from evil. (Prv 13:19-20; 14:7-9; 1 Cor 1:18-2:14; 5:6; 15:33; Gal 5:9)
Worship point: Recognize mankind’s proclivity to sin, evil and arrogance. In turn recognize the power of the Spirit of God to be able to cut through all these obstacles for believers to see the Truth and be liberated from their short-sightedness. Then worship in response to God’s grace.
God moves in a mysterious way
His wonders to perform;
He plants His footsteps in the sea,
And rides upon the storm.
His purposes will ripen fast,
Unfolding every hour;
The bud may have a bitter taste,
But sweet will be the flower.
Blind unbelief is sure to err,
And scan His works in vain:
God is His own interpreter,
And He will make it plain. (Ravi Zacharias, Deliver Us From Evil: Restoring the Soul in a Disintegrating Culture, 191-94)
Truly “God has chosen the weak things of the world to put to shame the things which are mighty” (1 Cor 1:27). The Christian too knows of hiddenness and awaits the revelation of his King and the key to truth and right (Col 3:1-4). (Leslie Allen, Mastering the OT, 1, 2 Chr, 323)
Spiritual Challenge: Dare to confess your limits, your sin, your ignorance, your depraved mind and deceitfully wicked heart. Dare to buck the flow and follow Christ. The world will think you are short-sighted. But you will know the truth and the Truth will set you free.
Whenever the Church has prospered there have been figures like Jehoiada. (J. G. McConville, The Daily Study Bible Series, 1 & 2 Chr, 206)
[Lewis grieving the death of his wife:] Bridge players tell me that there must be some money on the game “or else people won’t take it seriously.” Apparently it’s like that. Your bid—for God or no God, for a good God or the Cosmic Sadist, for eternal life or nonentity—will not be serious if nothing much is staked on it. And you will never discover how serious it was until the stakes are raised horribly high; until you find that you are playing not for counters or for sixpences but for every penny you have in the world. (C. S. Lewis, A Grief Observed, 43)
On a logical level, the Christian worldview is the only one that is not self-refuting. Moreover, because it is based on historical events, it can be proven. Most religions are, and have always been, based on myths. Christianity is unique in that it is founded on specific historical truth claims, notably the resurrection of Jesus Christ. The historical evidence is sufficient to compel agreement from any fair investigation of the facts. So Christianity is not just a creed or a philosophy or good ideas about how to live our lives. It is truth. (Charles Colson, The Good Life, 317)
Quotes to Note:
A blind person asked St. Anthony: “Can there be anything worse than losing eye sight?” He replied: “Yes, losing your vision.”
Albert Einstein said it best: “Science without religion is lame,” and conversely, “religion without science is blind.” (Mark Batterson, Primal, A Quest for the Lost Soul of Christianity, 98)
Wilcock notes three reasons for Ahaziah’s downfall: foreign influence in the form of false religion, family inheritance (with respect to the alliance by marriage of Judah and Israel), and personal responsibility (because neither true spirituality nor impiety is hereditary). Jehu son of Nimshi becomes God’s agent of justice in punishing the evil of both Joram of Israel and Ahaziah of Judah (22:7-8; cf. 2 Kgs 9:24-29). While 2 Kgs 9 relates the parallel destruction of “two houses” (Judah and Israel), the focus of Chronicles is exclusively on the “house of Judah.” The message of the passage is alarmingly clear: God repays evil for evil almost immediately on those who fail to emulate David’s example of righteous rule. (Andrew E. Hill, The NIV Application Commentary: 1 & 2 Chr, 520)
The Chronicler’s emphasis on the divine judgment of the kings of Judah for trusting in diplomacy instead of God may serve as a subtle affirmation of the exclusivist and isolationish policies promoted during the reforms of Ezra and Nehemiah (cf. Ezra 9:1-2; Neh 9). (Andrew E. Hill, The NIV Application Commentary: 1 & 2 Chr, 520)
Jesus said, “If you were blind, you would not be guilty of sin; but now that you claim you can see, your guilt remains. — John 9:41
Christ:
The way back to glory
Leave a Reply