Reconciling the Abijah Accounts

Friends,

I am going in a different direction from the norm here, but hopefully it will be a blessing to you.  Something struck me while I was reading 2 Chronicles.  It was an insight that provides an illustration for something that I have come to understand for a while now concerning interpretation…and it is interesting that I would find something of an Old Testament illustration to help provide insight for a New Testament principle.  This is certainly not the first time this has happened.  As I have stated in other places, if I had a dollar for all of the poor exegesis and illustrations using Noah and gopher wood, as well as Uzzah and the ark, to try to justify new covenant authority, I would be further ahead in my retirement account.  That said, the following illustration is actually in context, and concerns two distinct, but related passages. 

What we see in 2 Chronicles 13 is that Abijah becomes king of Judah, following his father, Rehoboam.  In the Chronicles account, Abijah appears to be a man of God who leads the armies of the Lord to victory over the armies of North Israel.  There are twenty-two verses displaying the heroics of what took place under Abijah’s reign.  But, something occurred to me while reading this…there are only four kings of Israel and Judah in the divided kingdom that were considered “good kings” (and all were from Judah, by the way).  They were Asa, Jehoshaphat, Hezekiah and Josiah.  Abijah is not on the list.  This is because we need to go to the Kings’ account concerning Abijah to get the other side of the coin.  The account in 1 Kings 15 is about a third as long as the account in 2 Chronicles.  It is here that we see that he “committed all the sins of his fathers.” There is very little information about Abijah and the war with Israel here…it is pretty succinct, and the basis of the message is – Abijah was a bad guy like his father (and most of those who came after him).

So, the question that comes into focus is – how does one reconcile these two accounts?  Many people would have to deduce that one of the stories is correct, while the other one must be in error, because there could only be one possible explanation that is correct.  Yet, I believe that this is the beauty of both accounts -- they can both be reconciled. Both stories concerning Abijah are true…it is simply that the Chronicler has a different focal point than does the author of 1 Kings.  (It is similar, in some respects, as to what we see with the gospel accounts of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.  Each is accurate, but from the unique perspective of the author…even as to whether there were one or two angels at the open tomb).

One of the difficulties that came as the result of being raised in a church culture and exposed to a model of interpretation where an “either/or” deduction reigned was that it would often pin us into the corner and we would have to take a stand that only one thought could be correct.  And therefore, by the rules of deduction that were in place, the other position, by necessity, would have to be wrong.  So, it could only be gopher wood, and therefore, it could only be Matzos used for the Lord’s Supper (for example). The Chronicler offers a perspective concerning Abijah that is unique in that he is not really as interested in what Abijah is doing, as he is in what God is doing in the situation concerning the war with the kings in the divided kingdom.  It may be true that Judah was “seeking the will of the Lord” in relationship to their battle with Israel, but it would not necessarily mean that Abijah was “a righteous and holy leader for God’s people.”  Abijah himself is not as important in the Chronicles account as much as God is and what He is doing through Abijah in the situation.  It is not the first time that God would have used people with some significant struggles, who would even be at odds with Him…Jacob and Jonah are two others that come to mind.  Besides, if God did not respond to sinful people who sought Him and trusted in Him, we would all be in trouble.  So, Judah has a moment in the sun, where they seek the Lord and He responds by delivering them from a force that was twice their size…once again, a story that is repeated in the Scriptures. It is about what God can and will do with and for His people.

So, what does this mean as it relates to the new covenant?  There are accounts where it seems that there might be discrepancies.  I will offer two thoughts briefly that can be expanded at a later time.  How often a person participates in the Lord’s Supper, for example – was it daily (Acts 2), or was it once per week on the first day of the week (Acts 20:7).  The text in 1 Corinthians 11:17ff offers some insight, but it is not definitive as to which is should be.  It is easy to get pushed into an “either/or” scenario, when “both/and” may be quite acceptable, as well as accurate.  Paul spends the better part of the last section of Romans (particularly chapter 14) explaining how these matters can be so…that there can be a church that has members where some are vegetarians and others eat meat, (or where some meet at the building on Sunday evenings and others meet in homes) -- and it all works.  Even more challenging – are the believers in Acts 2 in the same spiritual situation as those in Acts 8 and Acts 10?  It is apparent that all are in good standing with the Lord and the church at that time…but what of today?  Many believers would say – those Christians are not acceptable…I cannot fellowship with them.  Yet, it is hard to see how we could or would not accept what those in the first century church did accept.  Furthermore, how can we “critique beyond a doubt” using “deductive methods” an event that is altogether spiritual and led by the Holy Spirit?  It is not any different today than it was then.  It is important to consider that there is more than one proper perspective that could be available and acceptable to the Lord and His body as it relates to the above matters, as well as many others…some things to study, ponder and consider.

Blessings, Don

Out of the Foxhole

Friends,

Great crowds follow Jesus early in His ministry. Opposition has not begun in earnest, so there are many would-be disciples who want to follow Him. Yet, Jesus wants to escape from the growing crowds to spend some time alone and with His Father. This decision results in a separation of His true followers from less committed supporters (Matthew 8:18ff). The two individuals who come to Him here are not of importance to the story as much as they provide an opportunity for Jesus to make an important point. The first person…a scribe…addresses Jesus as “Teacher” -- a term used only by outsiders in Matthew. He seems to believe that discipleship, or following Jesus, is more like volunteering to follow the local Rabbi as a pupil. His statement that “he will follow Jesus wherever He goes,” is probably not much more than accompanying Him across the lake. It is certainly not that he has thoughtfully considered this “following” to be a lifetime commitment…and so we have Jesus’ response. Jesus’ reply reveals that He is not your typical rabbi, and that following Him is no simple matter. His chosen lifestyle is one of homelessness -- foxes have holes, birds have nests, but Jesus has no “home.” He is lacking the securities of this world, and His disciples are called to share in this same type of life.

The next individual is called “a disciple.” Note his use of the term “Lord,” which is ironic, given the situation. What comes into question is not his overall commitment, but to what degree is he committed. Jesus’ response is probably not what many would expect. He is not disrespecting the disciple’s father, as some might be inclined to think. With many of Jesus’ statements we need to dig deeper in order to get to the meaning that can elude us. His point is likely, “Let the spiritually dead take care of their own business…but not so with you!” If his father is indeed already gone, his request would be a natural one…even essential. The dead, according to Jewish customs, must be buried within 24 hours, and the duty fell to the Son. It is most probable that the father is still living, and the verse should be translated, “what if my father should die?” The disciple is truly putting “commitment” to the test. This disciple’s request meets with a firm refusal. Jesus sees through the disciple’s request to the heart of the matter. The point is -- following Jesus takes precedence over family or other obligations. And the bottom line is – disciples of Jesus must have the right priorities in life…it is better to preach the gospel and give life to the spiritually dead than to wait for death of a family member in order to bury them.

Ed Skidmore shares, When Joseph Ton was a pastor in Romania some years ago, he was arrested by the secret police for publishing a sermon calling for the churches to refuse to submit to the Communist government’s demand for control over their ministries. When an official told him he must renounce his sermon, he replied, "No, sir! I won’t do that!" The official, surprised that anyone would respond so forcefully to the secret police, said, "Aren’t you aware that I can use force against you?" "Sir, let me explain that to you," Ton said. "You see, your supreme weapon is killing. My supreme weapon is dying. You know that my sermons are spread all over the country. When you kill me, I only sprinkle them with my blood. They will speak 10 times louder after that, because everybody will say, ’That preacher meant it because he sealed it with his blood.’ So go on, sir, kill me. When you kill me, I win the supreme victory." The secret police released him, knowing his martyrdom would be far more of a problem than his sermon. Ton is living testimony to the truth of Paul’s words, written from prison. “Now I want you to know, brothers, that what has happened to me has really served to advance the gospel. As a result, it has become clear throughout the whole palace guard and to everyone else that I am in chains for Christ. Because of my chains, most of the brothers in the Lord have been encouraged to speak the word of God more courageously and fearlessly. It is true that some preach Christ out of envy and rivalry, but others out of goodwill. The latter do so in love, knowing that I am put here for the defense of the gospel (Philippians 1:12-16, NIV).

This type of devotion…the type of devotion that marked Joseph Ton’s life and ministry…is mostly foreign to us, as we typically do not have to face this type of challenge when it comes to our faith. I recognize that this is a message difficult to discern and understand. I turn to some thoughts from a fellow preacher-man to offer some appropriate follow-up. Steve Pankey shares this – Concerning stories like this, and the one concerning the Rich, Young Ruler, he says (a bit tongue-in-cheek), “Oh, Jesus wasn’t talking universally, but rather giving very specific directions to just one would-be disciple who had a bit too much pride and a whole lot of money.” This is the easiest and best way to preach that story. It is a nice, safe interpretation because it doesn’t demand anything of us except to shake our heads and say, “Boy, I’m glad I’m not like that guy.” Preaching devotion to Jesus in this way has become something of the American Way as Christianity continues a three decades’ long shrinking process and the Church tries its best to “sell” discipleship as easy, fun, and a free eternal life insurance policy. The lie is…that faith in Jesus is easy. Worse yet, when we water “the faith” down enough, the Church has nothing to say when the going gets tough…You can’t be a disciple if you don’t give up everything you’ve got. Maybe he is talking about stuff. Maybe Jesus actually means we should live in communes and share everything. Or maybe, and quite frankly…hopefully…it means that we shouldn’t be tied to all of our stuff. Maybe as long as we are chasing bigger houses, better cars, or the latest Apple release, we can’t really be focused on Christ…maybe as long as are paying attention to what the Jones’ are up to, we can’t be paying attention to what God is wanting to do in and through and for us. Maybe discipleship really means hating everything of this world and living a single-minded life of devotion to the one who came to save us from our distractions, who set us free from sin and death, and who calls us to follow him…through the good and bad, and even through the valley of the shadow of death. If it sounds difficult, it is. If it sounds foolish, it is, but…each of us has a choice. We can take up our cross and follow Jesus toward life, or we can turn around and walk away unhappy.” I will say this -- if what outsiders see in us Christians today is primarily “affluence” from the world and little “influence” for the Lord, then why would they look any further? Yet, it is not supposed to be simple…it is not supposed to be easy. Jesus had no foxhole…He had no place of refuge. He relied on His faith and trust in His father. This is all that He needed. Truthfully, it is all that we need.

Blessings, Don