Powered by Bravenet Bravenet Blog

Subscribe to Journal

Monday, September 28th 2009

1:16

This Ain't Dallas and this Ain't Dynasty

  • STATE OF EXISTENCE: pooped














KINGS AND KINGDOMS

Bible Reading: 1 Kings 16:1-14

V.8: In the twenty-sixth year of Judah's King Asa, Elah son of Baasha became king over Israel in Tirzah; [he reigned] two years.

This Ain't Dallas and This Ain't Dynasty.

"This is a real-life two job working family," continued Hank Williams Jr. for our auditory pleasure a few years ago.  That's all very well, but in the case of our passage, it's supposed to be a dynasty.  God gave first Jeroboam, then Baasha, the chance to be the first of a long dynasty of kings on the throne of Israel, but he would not allow any kings who flaunted him to have their descendants retain the crown.  So, just as Nadab maintained his family tradition of idolatry, Baasha did not change his ways either. Once again there was a warning from God, which he ignored, and upon his death, his son Elah lasted a mere two years on the throne.  

We get very little information about Elah. Baasha had established his capital at Tirzah, not too far from the area where he had murdered Nadab.  Elah was there, having a party.  We read that he was drinking himself into a stupor; presumably all his rowdy friends had come over that night.  One of his generals, Zimri by name, was apparently fed up with serving a king whose greatest accomplishments may have been partying like Bel Shazzar, and so Zimri followed Baasha's proven method:  He killed Elah and made himself king.  

So, would there be a Zimri dynasty?  Well, we might ask in return, is the pope a Protestant?  Things were far from settled there in the northern kingdom.  So far we are at 0 for 4; there have been four kings, and each of them had promoted idol worship rather than worship of God.  

I admit that it's not easy standing out from everyone else as different.  I have heard that, when a few years ago a particular Christian college changed its policy on permitting faculty to drink alcohol, the main argument brought up by the faculty in making their case was that they felt uncomfortable not drinking at social gatherings when everyone else had a drink in their hands.  If this report is true, I shall nonetheless refuse to offend fourteen-year-olds by drawing any comparisons, but I really do wonder how those folks would ever be able to stand up under genuine persecution if they could not even tolerate such a small amount of peer pressure.  In contrast, we need to take sincere cognizance of the fact that Israel and Judah were surrounded by nations, all of whom had handy, visible gods while they were supposed to worship a god, whom nobody could see or hear.  It's easy for me to understand that they must have felt the way a child might feel when nobody accepts the reality of his or her invisible friend.  

The outcome is that God does make his presence unmistakably known, even if it is in judgment, as evidenced by the first two mini-dynasties.  But he continues to give chances.  If not Jeroboam or Baasha, maybe Zimri will initiate a godly dynasty.  Or maybe Omri or Jehu.  Israel, the northern kingdom, was his nation just as much as Judah, the southern kingdom, and he showed an enormous amount of patience with both of them.  By his grace, we are his people now, and the same patience and the opportunity to start over again, is available to us.  

1 Feedback.

Posted by jimm wetherbee:

You wrote:

I have heard that, when a few years ago a particular Christian college changed its policy on permitting faculty to drink alcohol, the main argument brought up by the faculty in making their case was that they felt uncomfortable not drinking at social gatherings when everyone else had a drink in their hands.


I wonder whether the awkwardness was do to the faculty having trouble justifying the "no drink" policy to themselves and so had trouble defending it at social gatherings. One could ask why any would have "signed the pledge," in the first place, but that is just adding to my speculation.

However, if the faculty felt that a dry policy had merit but felt pressure to rescind it for the sake of convention, then yes, it would seem to be a bit on the craven side.

--jimm
Monday, September 28th 2009 @ 18:52

Post New Comment

 BraveJournal Member Non-Member
No Smilies More Smilies »
Please type the letters you see