To help us remember this week the events leading up to our Lord’s crucifixion and resurrection, I have attached a set of readings containing harmony of the Gospel accounts, focusing primarily but not exclusively on the Synoptics. The readings for each day of Passion Week generally correspond to the events that happened on that day, with the notable exception of Wednesday, on which the Gospel accounts do not record any events happening. Therefore, to even out the readings across the week, the events that happened on Thursday of Passion Week are divided into readings on both Wednesday and Thursday in this schedule; Wednesday’s readings cover those events leading up to and including the Last Supper, and Thursday’s readings cover Jesus’s betrayal and trial.
The names given to each of the days of Passion Week are descriptive, rather than traditional. The traditional names, in fact, are misnomers. “Palm Sunday” comes from the reference in John 12:12 where it talks about the branches of palm trees being waved; the Synoptics omit this, focusing instead people spreading their cloaks before the Lord’s triumphal entry. “Maundy Thursday” comes from the Latin phrase, maudatum, referring to the “new” commandment that Jesus gives in John 13:34, however this commandment was not entirely new nor was it the focus or the climax of the events that transpired on that evening. As in the words of institution for the Lord’s Supper continually recalls, it was “on the night that He was betrayed.” Lastly, “Good Friday” can be confusing as well; it was “good” in the sense that atonement was accomplished for us on the cross, but that accomplishment was made at the price of the worst injustice the world has ever seen and the most horrible death imaginable to that point.
May these readings help you in focusing this week on the work our Lord did on our behalf, that our sins may be forgiven that we be adopted into becoming sons and daughters of the Living God.
4Now there cried a certain woman of the wives of the sons of the prophets unto Elisha, saying, Thy servant my husband is dead; and thou knowest that thy servant did fear the Lord: and the creditor is come to take unto him my two sons to be bondmen.2 And Elisha said unto her, What shall I do for thee? tell me, what hast thou in the house? And she said, Thine handmaid hath not any thing in the house, save a pot of oil.3 Then he said, Go, borrow thee vessels abroad of all thy neighbours, even empty vessels; borrow not a few.4 And when thou art come in, thou shalt shut the door upon thee and upon thy sons, and shalt pour out into all those vessels, and thou shalt set aside that which is full.5So she went from him, and shut the door upon her and upon her sons, who brought the vessels to her; and she poured out.6 And it came to pass, when the vessels were full, that she said unto her son, Bring me yet a vessel. And he said unto her, There is not a vessel more. And the oil stayed.7 Then she came and told the man of God. And he said, Go, sell the oil, and pay thy debt, and live thou and thy children of the rest.
A few things to note in this passage. First is the existence of a community known as “the sons of the prophets.” Little is definitively known about this community, but given the Scripture references, they begin to emerge during the ministries of Elijah and particularly Elisha. There are nine references to such a community between 1 Kings 20 and 2 Kings 9 (1 Kings 20:35; 2 Kings 2:3, 5, 7, 15; 4:1, 38, 5:22, 6:1, and 9:1), and the community seemed to exist exclusively in the northern kingdom of Israel. Commentators have described the variously as a guild, a class, or a school, but it may be best to think of them as an organized remnant of the godly in Israel. As most of these references are associated with Elisha, it is likely that he was the leader of this community. The purpose of this community was to maintain faithfulness to the LORD and speak His truth to the nation in light of the apostasy and idolatry of the day.
In this passage it is not surprising that the widow of one of these “sons of the prophets” was so impoverished that her sons were going to be taken into slavery. If this is a community of the godly remnant, then people almost certainly had to make sacrifices for their faithfulness and, by not going along with the official religion, would be financially strapped. What this episode shows is that God provides for His faithful servants. Here it was not a handout, but the means by which she could raise the money to pay her debts. Although this is a miracle, it was done in private. This preserved her dignity, while providing for her needs. The care of widows and orphans is an important mark of the covenantal community, and in the New Testament, this can be seen in Paul’s description of the care for widows in 1 Tim. 5:2-16.
II. The Shunammite Woman and Her Son (2 Kings 4:8-37)
8 And it fell on a day, that Elisha passed to Shunem, where was a great woman; and she constrained him to eat bread. And so it was, that as oft as he passed by, he turned in thither to eat bread.9 And she said unto her husband, Behold now, I perceive that this is an holy man of God, which passeth by us continually.10 Let us make a little chamber, I pray thee, on the wall; and let us set for him there a bed, and a table, and a stool, and a candlestick: and it shall be, when he cometh to us, that he shall turn in thither.11 And it fell on a day, that he came thither, and he turned into the chamber, and lay there.12 And he said to Gehazi his servant, Call this Shunammite. And when he had called her, she stood before him.13 And he said unto him, Say now unto her, Behold, thou hast been careful for us with all this care; what is to be done for thee? wouldest thou be spoken for to the king, or to the captain of the host? And she answered, I dwell among mine own people.14 And he said, What then is to be done for her? And Gehazi answered, Verily she hath no child, and her husband is old.15 And he said, Call her. And when he had called her, she stood in the door.16 And he said, About this season, according to the time of life, thou shalt embrace a son. And she said, Nay, my lord, thou man of God, do not lie unto thine handmaid.17 And the woman conceived, and bare a son at that season that Elisha had said unto her, according to the time of life.
18 And when the child was grown, it fell on a day, that he went out to his father to the reapers.19 And he said unto his father, My head, my head. And he said to a lad, Carry him to his mother.20 And when he had taken him, and brought him to his mother, he sat on her knees till noon, and then died.21 And she went up, and laid him on the bed of the man of God, and shut the door upon him, and went out.22 And she called unto her husband, and said, Send me, I pray thee, one of the young men, and one of the asses, that I may run to the man of God, and come again.23 And he said, Wherefore wilt thou go to him to day? it is neither new moon, nor sabbath. And she said, It shall be well.24 Then she saddled an ass, and said to her servant, Drive, and go forward; slack not thy riding for me, except I bid thee.25 So she went and came unto the man of God to mount Carmel. And it came to pass, when the man of God saw her afar off, that he said to Gehazi his servant, Behold, yonder is that Shunammite:26 Run now, I pray thee, to meet her, and say unto her, Is it well with thee? is it well with thy husband? is it well with the child? And she answered, It is well.27 And when she came to the man of God to the hill, she caught him by the feet: but Gehazi came near to thrust her away. And the man of God said, Let her alone; for her soul is vexed within her: and the Lord hath hid it from me, and hath not told me.28 Then she said, Did I desire a son of my lord? did I not say, Do not deceive me? 29 Then he said to Gehazi, Gird up thy loins, and take my staff in thine hand, and go thy way: if thou meet any man, salute him not; and if any salute thee, answer him not again: and lay my staff upon the face of the child. 30 And the mother of the child said, As the Lord liveth, and as thy soul liveth, I will not leave thee. And he arose, and followed her.31 And Gehazi passed on before them, and laid the staff upon the face of the child; but there was neither voice, nor hearing. Wherefore he went again to meet him, and told him, saying, The child is not awaked.32 And when Elisha was come into the house, behold, the child was dead, and laid upon his bed.33 He went in therefore, and shut the door upon them twain, and prayed unto the Lord.34 And he went up, and lay upon the child, and put his mouth upon his mouth, and his eyes upon his eyes, and his hands upon his hands: and he stretched himself upon the child; and the flesh of the child waxed warm. 35 Then he returned, and walked in the house to and fro; and went up, and stretched himself upon him: and the child sneezed seven times, and the child opened his eyes.36 And he called Gehazi, and said, Call this Shunammite. So he called her. And when she was come in unto him, he said, Take up thy son.37 Then she went in, and fell at his feet, and bowed herself to the ground, and took up her son, and went out.
Here is an account of another woman associated with the ministry of Elisha, this time a wealthy woman further to the north in Shunem. Shunem is in the territory of Issachar, on the southern slope of Mount Moreh, near Jezreel. The Shunammite woman recognized that Elisha was a genuine man of God, and she made her house into a lodging point for when Elisha was in the region. She is not looking for anything in return, but Elisha does want to bless her in some way. Elisha’s servant Gehazi recognizes that she has no children, and her husband is old, which means that when he dies, she could be left destitute, with no one to care for her. So, God, through Elisha, promises her a son, which is born the following year. Years later, that boy suffers some kind of ailment with his head and dies. The woman puts him in the room where Elisha would usually stay, and then goes on a 17-mile journey to seek Elisha out personally, both to pour out her grief to him but also with an expectation that he can do something about it, which he does. Like Elijah in Zarephath on the Sidonian coast (1 Kings 17:8-24), Elisha raises the boy from the dead. In the case with Elijah, the miracle proved to the Zidonian woman that Elijah was truly a man of God and that the word of the LORD was in his mouth. With the Shunammite woman, it proved her faith that the same was true for Elisha as well.
It is worth noting that these miracles, and particularly the one regarding the Shunammite woman, point forward to the earthly ministry of Christ Jesus. Luke 7:11-17 records Christ performing a similar miracle in Nain. Nain is on the north side of Mount Moreh, near Shunem. No doubt word of Elisha resurrecting the Shunammite woman’s son probably became entrenched as part of the local tradition of that area. Jesus’s miracle was the first of three resurrections that He performed in His ministry, which included the healing of Jairus’s daughter (Luke 8:40-56) and of Lazarus (John 11:38-44). Given the tradition associated with Elisha, when Jesus healed the son of the widow of Nain, it almost certainly would have been seen in the same light, namely as a confirmation that Jesus was indeed a man of God and that word of God was truly in Him.
III. “Death in the Pot” (2 Kings 4:38-41)
38 And Elisha came again to Gilgal: and there was a dearth in the land; and the sons of the prophets were sitting before him: and he said unto his servant, Set on the great pot, and seethe pottage for the sons of the prophets.39 And one went out into the field to gather herbs, and found a wild vine, and gathered thereof wild gourds his lap full, and came and shred them into the pot of pottage: for they knew them not.40 So they poured out for the men to eat. And it came to pass, as they were eating of the pottage, that they cried out, and said, O thou man of God, there is death in the pot. And they could not eat thereof.41 But he said, Then bring meal. And he cast it into the pot; and he said, Pour out for the people, that they may eat. And there was no harm in the pot.
In this passage, we return again to the sons of the prophets community, this time in Gilgal, which is near Bethel, and was probably the center of the prophetic community. Here, the failure of the one gathering the herbs to accurately identify the poisonous gourds could have led to the poisoning of the main community. Had that poisoning been fatal, it would have struck a severe blow to the faithful witness in Israel. Elisha’s response in curing the stew shows the graciousness of God in protecting and sustaining His people.
IV. Feeding a Multitude (2 Kings 4:42-44)
42 And there came a man from Baal-shalisha, and brought the man of God bread of the firstfruits, twenty loaves of barley, and full ears of corn in the husk thereof. And he said, Give unto the people, that they may eat. 43 And his servitor said, What, should I set this before an hundred men? He said again, Give the people, that they may eat: for thus saith the Lord, They shall eat, and shall leave thereof.44 So he set it before them, and they did eat, and left thereof, according to the word of the Lord.
Baal-shalisha is a village near Gilgal, in the hill country of Ephraim, so again, near to the center of the sons of the prophets community. He is bringing food to the community but (in his mind) it is not sufficient to feed the entire community of one hundred or so men. He is told nevertheless to set it before the community, which he does and the men ate and had bread left over. This clearly anticipates Christ’s miracles of the feeding of the 5,000 at Bethsaida (Matt. 14:13-21, Mark 6:30-44, Luke 9:10-17, John 6:1-14) and the feeding of the 4,000 at Decapolis (Matt. 15:32-39, Mark 8:1-9). Again, this is a miracle of God providing for and sustaining His people as try to be faithful to Him.
V. Naaman’s Leprosy (2 Kings 5:1-27)
5Now Naaman, captain of the host of the king of Syria, was a great man with his master, and honourable, because by him the Lord had given deliverance unto Syria: he was also a mighty man in valour, but he was a leper.2 And the Syrians had gone out by companies, and had brought away captive out of the land of Israel a little maid; and she waited on Naaman’s wife.3 And she said unto her mistress, Would God my lord were with the prophet that is in Samaria! for he would recover him of his leprosy.4 And one went in, and told his lord, saying, Thus and thus said the maid that is of the land of Israel.5 And the king of Syria said, Go to, go, and I will send a letter unto the king of Israel. And he departed, and took with him ten talents of silver, and six thousand pieces of gold, and ten changes of raiment.6 And he brought the letter to the king of Israel, saying, Now when this letter is come unto thee, behold, I have therewith sent Naaman my servant to thee, that thou mayest recover him of his leprosy.7 And it came to pass, when the king of Israel had read the letter, that he rent his clothes, and said, Am I God, to kill and to make alive, that this man doth send unto me to recover a man of his leprosy? wherefore consider, I pray you, and see how he seeketh a quarrel against me.8 And it was so, when Elisha the man of God had heard that the king of Israel had rent his clothes, that he sent to the king, saying, Wherefore hast thou rent thy clothes? let him come now to me, and he shall know that there is a prophet in Israel.9 So Naaman came with his horses and with his chariot, and stood at the door of the house of Elisha. 10 And Elisha sent a messenger unto him, saying, Go and wash in Jordan seven times, and thy flesh shall come again to thee, and thou shalt be clean.11 But Naaman was wroth, and went away, and said, Behold, I thought, He will surely come out to me, and stand, and call on the name of the Lord his God, and strike his hand over the place, and recover the leper.12 Are not Abana and Pharpar, rivers of Damascus, better than all the waters of Israel? may I not wash in them, and be clean? So he turned and went away in a rage.13 And his servants came near, and spake unto him, and said, My father, if the prophet had bid thee do some great thing, wouldest thou not have done it? how much rather then, when he saith to thee, Wash, and be clean?14 Then went he down, and dipped himself seven times in Jordan, according to the saying of the man of God: and his flesh came again like unto the flesh of a little child, and he was clean.
15 And he returned to the man of God, he and all his company, and came, and stood before him: and he said, Behold, now I know that there is no God in all the earth, but in Israel: now therefore, I pray thee, take a blessing of thy servant.16 But he said, As the Lord liveth, before whom I stand, I will receive none. And he urged him to take it; but he refused.17 And Naaman said, Shall there not then, I pray thee, be given to thy servant two mules’ burden of earth? for thy servant will henceforth offer neither burnt offering nor sacrifice unto other gods, but unto the Lord.18 In this thing the Lord pardon thy servant, that when my master goeth into the house of Rimmon to worship there, and he leaneth on my hand, and I bow myself in the house of Rimmon: when I bow down myself in the house of Rimmon, the Lord pardon thy servant in this thing.19 And he said unto him, Go in peace. So he departed from him a little way.
20 But Gehazi, the servant of Elisha the man of God, said, Behold, my master hath spared Naaman this Syrian, in not receiving at his hands that which he brought: but, as the Lord liveth, I will run after him, and take somewhat of him. 21 So Gehazi followed after Naaman. And when Naaman saw him running after him, he lighted down from the chariot to meet him, and said, Is all well?22 And he said, All is well. My master hath sent me, saying, Behold, even now there be come to me from mount Ephraim two young men of the sons of the prophets: give them, I pray thee, a talent of silver, and two changes of garments.23 And Naaman said, Be content, take two talents. And he urged him, and bound two talents of silver in two bags, with two changes of garments, and laid them upon two of his servants; and they bare them before him.24 And when he came to the tower, he took them from their hand, and bestowed them in the house: and he let the men go, and they departed.25But he went in, and stood before his master. And Elisha said unto him, Whence comest thou, Gehazi? And he said, Thy servant went no whither.26 And he said unto him, Went not mine heart with thee, when the man turned again from his chariot to meet thee? Is it a time to receive money, and to receive garments, and oliveyards, and vineyards, and sheep, and oxen, and menservants, and maidservants?27 The leprosy therefore of Naaman shall cleave unto thee, and unto thy seed for ever. And he went out from his presence a leper as white as snow.
There are a lot of things going on in this account. There had been continuing frictions between the House of Ahab in Israel and Ben-Hadad, the king of Damascus in Syria. It is in the course of these border frictions that a young girl was captured and made a servant in the house of Aram’s military commander, Naaman the Syrian. When Naaman contracts leprosy, it is the servant girl who suggests he can be healed by Elisha, the prophet in Israel. Rather than seeking him out privately, Naaman accompanies a diplomatic entourage to Samaria to first engage Jehoram, king of Israel, on the assumption that a prophet operating within Israel would actually be in the court of the king. Jehoram’s spiritual blindness is such, however, that he completely misreads Syrian intentions and assumes that it is a provocation to initiate a war. Elisha, upon hearing of the king’s reaction, sees this as an opportunity to demonstrate that there is a genuine prophet in Israel. When Naaman comes to Elisha’s house, he is simply told to go and wash himself in the Jordan seven times. At first indignant, he is confronted by his servants for his unbelief and backs down. The washing in the Jordan actually heals Naaman by God’s grace, resulting in him being healed of his leprosy and in praising God. Naaman’s confession of the true God and his newfound faith, contrasts starkly with the lack of faith of Jehoram and with greedy exploitation of Naaman by Elisha’s servant, Gehazi.
This experience would have been a prophetic warning to Israel that without repentance, it too would become unclean and would be banished from God’s presence, but that if it repented, then it too would be blessed. Indeed, God’s blessing is not limited to Israel alone, but would be expanded to include the Gentiles. This incident would also prefigure the truth we see in the New Testament, that grace entirely is by faith alone. It cannot be bought or sold. This is especially true of the salvation extended to us by God through Christ Jesus.
VI. The Floating Axe Head (2 Kings 6:1-7)
6And the sons of the prophets said unto Elisha, Behold now, the place where we dwell with thee is too strait for us.2 Let us go, we pray thee, unto Jordan, and take thence every man a beam, and let us make us a place there, where we may dwell. And he answered, Go ye.3 And one said, Be content, I pray thee, and go with thy servants. And he answered, I will go.4So he went with them. And when they came to Jordan, they cut down wood.5But as one was felling a beam, the axe head fell into the water: and he cried, and said, Alas, master! for it was borrowed.6 And the man of God said, Where fell it? And he shewed him the place. And he cut down a stick, and cast it in thither; and the iron did swim.7 Therefore said he, Take it up to thee. And he put out his hand, and took it.
Elisha Recovers the Floating Axe Head
Again we see God’s providence in providing for the community of the sons of the prophets. In this particular age, iron tools probably were very expensive, and to accidently lose one could be financially costly, perhaps even to the point of risking indentured servitude to repay the debt. Recovering the iron axe head, therefore, would have been cause for great rejoicing.
VII. The Significance of These Miracles
All these accounts beg the question as to why they are in 1 and 2 Kings, or, a better question is, “How do these narratives advance the overall theme of these two books?” Remember, Jeremiah wrote these books to those in exile to explain why God’s chosen lost their land and were driven into exile. These chapters notably deviate from the focus on kings. The chapters on the kings focus on the retrograde actions they took or failed to take which contributed to the downward, unbelieving spiral. These chapters, however, focus on the believing remnant, highlighting God’s miraculous providence for His faithful people. To a people in exile, this provides a positive example for them to follow during their exile, namely to hold fast in faith to their God, who has delivered and will continue to deliver his people, and to follow true prophets speaking the true words of God. This example is one that still applies to us even today.
3Now Jehoram the son of Ahab began to reign over Israel in Samaria the eighteenth year of Jehoshaphat king of Judah, and reigned twelve years.2 And he wrought evil in the sight of the Lord; but not like his father, and like his mother: for he put away the image of Baal that his father had made.3 Nevertheless he cleaved unto the sins of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, which made Israel to sin; he departed not therefrom.
As we begin this chapter, we need to revisit some of the chronology of Kings that we have covered to date. The wicked king of Israel, Ahab (874-853 bc) and the good king of Judah, Jehoshaphat (873-848 bc), were roughly contemporaneous in their reigns, although Jehoshaphat lived about five years longer. Ahab was briefly succeeded by his son Ahaziah, who reigned less than two years and continued the Baal worship that Ahab and his queen, Jezebel, had introduced into Israel. Ahaziah died of injuries sustained in falling through a lattice in the upper chamber of his palace. When Ahaziah wanted to know if he would recover, he inquired of Baal-zebub of Ekron, rather than of the LORD. For Ahaziah’s unbelief, judged that he would die, according to the word spoken by the prophet Elijah (2 Kings 1:2-18). Ahaziah’s brother Jehoram (also known as Joram) acceded to the throne.
Jehoram (henceforth, Joram) is moderate relative to his father, mother and brother, but still a wicked king. The reference in 1 Kings 3:2 to the “image of Baal” probably is an idol in the temple dedicated to Baal which Ahab built in Israel’s capital of Samaria for Jezebel (1 Kings 16:31-33). He does not purge the country of Baal worship, but makes it lower key, while at the same time doubling down on the idolatrous worship of God that Jeroboam introduced (remember, idolatry can be either the worship of false gods or the wrong worship of the true God).
II. Mesha’s Rebellion and Israel’s Response (2 Kings 3:4-8)
4 And Mesha king of Moab was a sheepmaster, and rendered unto the king of Israel an hundred thousand lambs, and an hundred thousand rams, with the wool. 5 But it came to pass, when Ahab was dead, that the king of Moab rebelled against the king of Israel.
During his reign, probably sometime around 993-992 bc, David defeated Moab and made it a tributary state. When Israel and Judah divided into separate countries, Israel assumed overlordship of Moab, with Judah receiving the same over Edom. Moab remained in that status until the death of Ahab in 853 bc, when it refused to pay the customary tribute (2 Kings 1:1), a refusal that would have been commonly interpreted at the time as an act of rebellion. Moab’s tribute was probably in the form of livestock (lambs and rams) and wool given the reference to Mesha as a sheepmaster[1]. In the ancient world, trade was primarily handled as an interaction between kings, so Moab’s provision of livestock and wool was not simply something to enrich the royal house of Israel but would have had broader effect’s on Israel’s economy. So, Israel needed to address Moab’s rebellion both to reassert Israel’s political predominance over its wayward vassal and for the sustenance of its own economy. Ahaziah did nothing about this problem in his short reign, so by the time Joram took the throne, the rebellion would have been in its second year.
The Plains of Moab
6 And king Jehoram went out of Samaria the same time, and numbered all Israel.7 And he went and sent to Jehoshaphat the king of Judah, saying, The king of Moab hath rebelled against me: wilt thou go with me against Moab to battle? And he said, I will go up: I am as thou art, my people as thy people, and my horses as thy horses.8 And he said, Which way shall we go up? And he answered, The way through the wilderness of Edom.
Israel has a border with Moab, and so could have invaded Moab directly, but Moab had frontier posts along that border and was prepared to resist. For this reason, an attack from Moab’s rear would be a surprise and would give the advantage to Israel. To make this work, however, Israel needed to enlist the help of Judah and Edom, whose territories Israel would have to pass through. Strategically, this was a sound approach. Jehoshaphat is late in life, perhaps within a couple of years of passing away. Nevertheless, he responds to Joram’s overture positively, despite the debacle that had occurred a couple years earlier at Ramoth-gilead which resulted in the defeat of the combined armies, Ahab’s death and Jehoshaphat’s brush with death. In fact, Jehoshaphat’s wording is the same now as when he agreed to the earlier venture (“I am as thou art, my people as thy people, my horses as thy horses”). Unlike the earlier time, however, Jehoshaphat does not immediately suggest that they should consult the LORD. Jehoshaphat’s willing to ally himself again with Israel is bad judgment, but it is also probably deliberate courtpolicy. Why would he do this?
We asked this same question when we covered 1 Kings 21. While the circumstances of this situation are different than the other case, the one point of commonality is that the basis for cooperation is ethnic kinship. Jehoshaphat almost certainly is enamored with the influence that the previously united kingdom had had and is looking to recreate that by a conciliatory policy toward Israel and by intermarrying with the Omride dynasty in Israel. What this overlooks, however, is that the division of the country was God’s doing and would not be overcome except on God’s terms. If they are not agreed on the basics—in this case, on who God is—then such an alliance will not be lasting. As the prophet Amos would say, “Can two walk together except they be agreed?” (Amos 3:3). The Apostle Paul said more directly later on: “Be ye not unequallyyoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?” (2 Cor. 6:14)
Jehoshaphat’s attitude has parallels to our day. In the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, there was strong momentum among progressives to unite different Protestant denominations into one mega-denomination. In Canada this actually happened and resulted in the formation of the Protestant Church of Canada. The effort did not go that far in the United States, but it did result in the consolidation of several denominations over the course of the century. That effort provided the backdrop to J. Gresham Madchen’s 1923 book, Christianity and Liberalism, whose 100th anniversary we just celebrated. Madchen’s thesis is that orthodox Christianity and liberal Christianity are not two variants of Christianity but, in truth and in practice, are two separate religions. His conclusion appears so trenchant today because we face the same kind of thing. Evangelicalism over the last fifty years adopted a movement mentality, which, although it did not seek institutional unification among denominations downplayed differences so as to seek influence under a “big tent.” As one example, in 1994 several prominent evangelical leaders including Chuck Colson and J. I. Packer signed a statement with several Roman Catholic leaders entitled, “Evangelicals and Catholics Together” which highlighted unity in their activism on social issues; a separate follow-up document was signed in 1999. Both of these documents were roundly condemned by many Reformed leaders because of how they glossed over profound theological differences. The problem with all this—as with Jehoshaphat’s alliance with Joram—is that ethnic kinship is not sufficient a basis for ecclesiastical unity and ecclesiastical unity can only be done on the basis of doctrinal truth. The temptation is to downplay biblical truth for the sake of ephemeral “influence” in society.
III. Consultation with Elisha (2 Kings 3:9-12)
9So the king of Israel went, and the king of Judah, and the king of Edom: and they fetched a compass of seven days’ journey: and there was no water for the host, and for the cattle that followed them.10 And the king of Israel said, Alas! that the Lord hath called these three kings together, to deliver them into the hand of Moab!11 But Jehoshaphat said, Is there not here a prophet of the Lord, that we may inquire of the Lord by him? And one of the king of Israel’s servants answered and said, Here is Elisha the son of Shaphat, which poured water on the hands of Elijah.12 And Jehoshaphat said, The word of the Lord is with him. So the king of Israel and Jehoshaphat and the king of Edom went down to him.
Many commentators have noted that the distance from the borders of Judah to Moab is not as far as the description of a seven-day journey might suggest. The seven-day length of the journey may reflect difficulties in logistically moving the combined armies, not the least of which was providing adequate water for the troops and horses. The region south of the Dead Sea is particularly arid, and that was weakening the force. Notably, it is only at this point that the king of Judah, Jehoshaphat, suggests consulting a prophet of the LORD. Conveniently, Elisha is nearby. The text does not say so directly, but Elisha was probably shadowing the armies, possibly at the guidance of Elijah (if this incident took place before Elijah’s ascension, which chronologically speaking it may have).
Why would Elisha have been shadowing the armies? Scripture does not say, but it may well be part of his ministry. If so, it shows a good example that to minister to God’s people, one need to be walking with God’s people.
IV. Elisha’s Prophecy and God’s Deliverance (2 Kings 3:13-20)
13 And Elisha said unto the king of Israel, What have I to do with thee? get thee to the prophets of thy father, and to the prophets of thy mother. And the king of Israel said unto him, Nay: for the Lord hath called these three kings together, to deliver them into the hand of Moab.14 And Elisha said, As the Lord of hosts liveth, before whom I stand, surely, were it not that I regard the presence of Jehoshaphat the king of Judah, I would not look toward thee, nor see thee.15 But now bring me a minstrel. And it came to pass, when the minstrel played, that the hand of the Lord came upon him.16 And he said, Thus saith the Lord, Make this valley full of ditches.17 For thus saith the Lord, Ye shall not see wind, neither shall ye see rain; yet that valley shall be filled with water, that ye may drink, both ye, and your cattle, and your beasts.18 And this is but a light thing in the sight of the Lord: he will deliver the Moabites also into your hand.19 And ye shall smite every fenced city, and every choice city, and shall fell every good tree, and stop all wells of water, and mar every good piece of land with stones.20 And it came to pass in the morning, when the meat offering was offered, that, behold, there came water by the way of Edom, and the country was filled with water.
Note that Elisha’s sarcasm to Joram—if you are going to worship other gods, then consult them for your salvation. Ironically, although the three kings did not consult the LORD at the outset of the campaign, Joram was quick to blame the LORD when the armies ran into hardship because of the lack of water. Commentators make much—perhaps too much—of Elisha’s request to have a minstrel play for him so that he could receive the word of the LORD. Since this approach is not mentioned elsewhere in terms of prophetic activity, it may well have been for the simple reason of creating a calming environment amidst the din of army camp activity. And Elisha does receive the word of the LORD. The LORD tells the armies to dig trenches in anticipation of a flood of water, which He subsequently brought to quench the thirst of the men. This miracle confirmed Elisha’s prophetic ministry, underscoring the transition of authority from Elijah to him. It also would have served as confirmation of the LORD giving the Moabites over to the coalition.
V. Snatching Defeat from Victory (2 Kings 3:21-27)
21 And when all the Moabites heard that the kings were come up to fight against them, they gathered all that were able to put on armour, and upward, and stood in the border.22 And they rose up early in the morning, and the sun shone upon the water, and the Moabites saw the water on the other side as red as blood: 23And they said, This is blood: the kings are surely slain, and they have smitten one another: now therefore, Moab, to the spoil.24 And when they came to the camp of Israel, the Israelites rose up and smote the Moabites, so that they fled before them: but they went forward smiting the Moabites, even in their country.25 And they beat down the cities, and on every good piece of land cast every man his stone, and filled it; and they stopped all the wells of water, and felled all the good trees: only in Kir-haraseth left they the stones thereof; howbeit the slingers went about it, and smote it.26 And when the king of Moab saw that the battle was too sore for him, he took with him seven hundred men that drew swords, to break through even unto the king of Edom: but they could not.27 Then he took his eldest son that should have reigned in his stead, and offered him for a burnt offering upon the wall. And there was great indignation against Israel: and they departed from him, and returned to their own land.
The light of the rising sun on the waters which the LORD had brought gave the appearance of blood, which led the Moabites to think that the coalition armies had turned against each other with great bloodshed. To examine this, they came out of their entrenched positions, which allow the armies of Israel, Judah, and Edom to come upon them with force and rout them. With Moab’s army in flight, the coalition armies were able to pursue them into Moab proper, all in accordance with the word of the LORD that came through Elisha. Mesha responded by sending a force toward the king of Edom. If successful, this gambit could have broken Edom off from the coalition, making it unsustainable for Israel and Judah to continue the campaign against Moab. The feint was not successful, and the coalition stood on the brink of total victory. And yet victory slipped away. The king of Moab’s final act of desperation was to offer the crown prince as a human sacrifice to the god Chemosh in public sight of the besieging armies. The armies then gave up the fight and retreated, leaving Moab independent (1 Kings 3:27).
Verse 27 is vague and difficult to interpret and commentators are divided as to how to understand it. The word that the NKJV and the ESV translate as “wrath” the KJV translates as “indignation.” Both are grammatically possible, but probably the KJV is a better translation here. There is also the question as to who is indignant or wrathful towards whom. Because human sacrifice is so abhorrent according to biblical law, some commentators think that God is indignant or wrathful toward Israel for provoking the king of Moab into such a heinous act. This is unlikely, however, given Elisha prophesied that God would give the Moabites over to the coalition in victory; God would in effect be contracting His own decree. Moreover, the sin associated with Mesha’s sacrifice would have been on him, not on Israel. Others think Judah and Edom were so appalled at Mesha’s sacrifice of his son that they turned against Israel and quit the war. This is possible, but human sacrifice would not have been unknown among actors in the region at this time, and again, Mesha’s sin would have been on him, not Israel. A few commentators have posited that the wrath is from Chemosh against Israel, but this too is unlikely, since it would acknowledge that a false god has real power.
I would posit an alternative to these hypotheses. Mesha’s willingness to sacrifice his son would have been intended to appease Chemosh, an appeasement which in his mind would have been necessary to secure his national deliverance. It also would have been a rallying point for what was left of his army and his nation, and it just might have had that effect on his people. Now the coalition would have been facing a fully galvanized population. What had started as a punitive expedition to bring Moab back into covenantal compliance was now turning into a full out resistance. This is more than what any of the partners bargained for. Insofar as Israel or Judah had any commitment to biblical law, then Mesha’s act raised the war to the level of a holy war, which would have meant the utter destruction of Moab. At a minimum, the partners should have reconsulted God for what to do next. Given Elisha’s prophecy and God’s promise, it is likely that the coalition could have won, but the glory of the victory would have gone to the LORD, and the booty would have to had been dedicated to Him. On a pragmatic basis, quitting the war would have avoided a potentially difficult fight, especially given the lack of faith in the LORD. An independent Moab could still be a source of resources through trade. And, lastly, given the idolatry that existed in Israel and Moab, and which was creeping into Judah, there may well have been an assessment by the parties that Chemosh had real power that they did not want to tangle with. It would not have been true, but it may have been a genuine assumption on the part of the coalition partners. This latter point also fits with how this contributed to the decline and fall of Israel and Judah: unbelief that their covenant God, the LORD, would save them let them to give up prematurely. Moab’s being able to break free of Israel’s suzerainty would only encourage Edom subsequently to do the same. These nations would eventually contribute to the demise of Israel and Judah.
[1] This is the term used in the KJV; the NKJV and the ESV use “sheepbreeder.” The KJV is probably to be preferred here, since Mesha’s stature as king would have meant that he was operating on a scale larger than just a hobbyist or small farmer. In this regard, he should probably be seen not only as king, but as a successful businessman.
Before the holidays I was asked the question of how and when we need to confront idolatry like Elijah did in his confrontation with the prophets of Baal. The question was timely, since in December 2023 the Satanist Temple of Iowa erected a statue of the goat-headed idol Baphomet in the Iowa State House. Although state officials denounced it, they left it up on religious free speech grounds, and shortly thereafter it was vandalized by a US Navy reservist and Christian conservative because it was blasphemous. The display was removed entirely a few days later. In any event, as I began to think about an answer, I thought others might in interested in the question as well and, thus, it would be good to share the answer more broadly. So, that is what I will do now.
The Just War Tradition as a Paradigm
As we are seeing in this study of 1 and 2 Kings, the issue of confronting idolatry is at the front and center. The downward spiral of ancient Israel and Judah is directly driven by the idolatry that the kings and their people engaged in. So, what does that mean for us today, especially in light of the New Testament? The Apostle Paul writes in Ephesians 6:10-12 (the beginning of the “Armor of God” passage), “10 Finally, my brethren, be strong in the Lord, and in the power of his might.11 Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil.12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.” We are in a spiritual war, and, as such, we are called to stand against evil. The question is, how do we do this?
A useful framework for thinking about this is the Just War Tradition. This is a framework for Christian thought that goes back at least to Augustine of Hippo in the fifth century AD and has been the dominant paradigm for thinking about conflict ever since. In suggesting this, there are three possible objections that need to be addressed up front. First, the Just War Tradition only applies to physical combat, but we are in a spiritual conflict. Second, the Just War Tradition only applies to violent conflict, not to non-violent conflict. And, lastly, the Just War Tradition is a checklist, such that if you do not have all the boxes checked, then the conflict is inherently unjust. Let me address each of these objections in turn.
First, it is true that when we talk about the “culture war” we are talking metaphorically, and we are in a spiritual war (although some people in our culture have been radicalized to such an extent that they are seeing the “culture war” as something that they need to take up real arms against). That said, issues as to what is a “just” war, who gets to decide, what are the constraints in how the war is fought, and how to we think about motives and ends are all things that need to be taken into consideration even in thinking about a spiritual and cultural conflict. Indeed, it is for this reason that I think the Just War Tradition gives us a useful framework for working through things comprehensively and ethically. Granted, there are differences in the nature of a spiritual war and how it is conducted that will necessitate making some adjustments to the tradition as we reflect on it, but this will not necessitate disposing of the framework as a whole.
Second, with regard to the difference between a violent physical conflict and non-violent spiritual conflict, Western society over time has drawn an arbitrary line between non-violence and violence and then assumed that anything non-violent is good and any violent is bad. Any serious student of conflict knows however conflict exists on a spectrum. The Prussian military theorist, Karl von Clausewitz, famously observed that, “War is the continuation of politics by other means.” Means are not inherently just or unjust simply because they are non-violent or violent. Experience has shown that there can be justice in the use of violence and injustice in non-violence. The violence/non-violence distinction does not negate the use of the Just War Tradition.
And third, the Just War Tradition is not a checklist, even though it has been used that way, especially since the Second World War. Throughout history the Just War Tradition has been a framework for reflection, not an automatic checklist. It only began to be used as a checklist by pacificists who were against all war whatsoever; by using it as a legalistic checklist then they could show that no war perfectly meets all the criteria, so therefore war is inherently immoral and pacificism is the only acceptable alternative. That certainly has not been the position of mainstream Christianity throughout the centuries, and it is not the position of the historical Reformed tradition.
With these objections addressed, let us briefly consider what the Just War Tradition is. As it has developed over the centuries, it can be divided into three major categories: jus ad bellum (justice to the war, i.e. the causes and resort to war); jus in bello (justice in the conduct of war); and jus post bellum (justice after the war). Of these, the first two categories have been around for centuries, but the third category has been developing over the course of the past century and really over the course of the past few decades.
Just Cause—Countering Idolatry
In thing about the causes for which to engage in conflict, in the spiritual war that we are in countering idolatry is at the top of the list. As much as Scripture talks about resisting idolatry in both the Old and New Testaments, this does not require much exegesis. What does require more discussion is “What do we mean by idolatry?” I would suggest there are three ways the term is used.
First, the biblical definition from the Decalogue is fairly specific.
3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me. 4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;6 And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.
Essentially, idolatry is (1) the worship of gods other than the true God or (2) the worship of the true God in ways other than what He has stipulated. The way that the First Commandment is written (specifically, the reference to “before me”) also suggests (3) a prohibition on religious syncretism. In what we have covered in 1 Kings, we have seen all of these prohibitions violated. Solomon’s sin was in accepting syncretism. Jeroboam led the people in a man-constructed—and therefore false—worship, rather than divinely ordained worship. In time, those things led to the outright worship of other gods, as evidenced by the official cult of Baal that Jezebel set up and which Elijah subsequently confronted.
In the modern context, there are two primary ways in which the term “idolatry” is used. First, on the conservative right, the term is often used in a generalized and unspecific way to express moral indignation at something. One can see this in Christians talking about how others are “Making the state into another religion” or “Making diversity into a religion.” In these cases, it is never clear what they mean by “religion” or how the “state” or “diversity” or whatever is actually being constituted as “another religion.” At its core, this simply is a way of expressing emotional distain toward a particular position. There may or may not be a legitimate justification for such antipathy, but it is working on the level of unexplained assumptions. I had a colleague years ago who would often say that he was “morally opposed to broccoli.” Because the statement seemed so nonsensical, I asked him why he said that. He responded that to say that he simply disliked broccoli would be a matter of personal preference, however, to say that he was morally opposed to it meant that he wanted others to share his disgust with broccoli. This use of “idolatry” is basically doing the same thing.
Another view popular in our circles is that expressed by Timothy Keller in his book, Counterfeit Gods. Keller asks, “What is an idol? It is anything more important to you than God, anything that absorbs your heart and imagination more than God, anything you seek to give you what only God can give.” This broadens the concept considerably. Earlier Keller noted that “We think that idols are bad things, but that is almost never the case. The greater the good, the more likely we are to expect that it can satisfy our deepest needs and hopes. Anything can serve as a counterfeit god, especially the very best things in life.”[1] Thus, things like money, sex, and power can be idols, and indeed, in Keller’s understanding, all sin is essentially tantamount to idolatry.
There are, however, several problems with this. First, there is a category error here. The Bible does not equate all sin with idolatry but identifies idolatry as a species of sin. For example, Paul in various places makes specific lists of sins, in which idolatry is listed as one among many, such as in Gal. 5:19-21 and 1 Cor. 6:9-10. The root of these sins listed is not idolatry, but disobedience to God’s revealed law; idolatry is but one poisonous fruit of this disobedience. In Romans 1:20-25, in fact, disobedience and rejection of God leads to the darkening of men’s thoughts, then to idolatry and other accompanying sins as God’s judgment.
It is also important to note that the parallelism Keller makes between ancient idolatry and modern idolatry does not hold biblically. In his view, in the ancient world men worshipped idols, but in the modern world men “worship” things like money, sex, and power. In this formulation, idolatry amounts to disordered desires, but that would make idolatry redundant with things like drunkenness or fornication, which in turn begs the exegetical question as to why Paul would bother to differentiate idolatry from these sins. In actual fact, the ancients desired money, sex, and power as well; there is not a contrastive difference between antiquity and modernity on this point. In the ancient world, worship of Baal and other associated or similar gods was typically associated with fertility, both of the womb and of the field. More sex, associated with the Baal cult, would lead to more children; more children meant more workers for the field and more people to take care of you in old age. More crops would lead to more wealth for oneself and one’s family. More wealth, in turn, would lead to more power and influence, including political influence, within the city’s gates. Thus, idolatry was the mechanism by which the ancients sought to assure their prosperity. This is why it was such a challenge to Israel’s faithfulness to God’s covenant; it was a way to hedge their bets and secure their security apart from God.
By considering all sin to be idolatry and idolatry to be tantamount to disordered desires, Keller inadvertently diminishes the seriousness of idolatry as a particular sin. Idolatry is a clear rejection of God as God, either in replacing Him with another god or in refashioning Him into an image of our own making. G. K. Beale, in his excellent book, We Become What We Worship; A Biblical Theology of Idolatry, says that “The word idolatry can refer to the worship of other gods besides the true God, or the reverence of images. According to both the ancient Near East and the Old Testament, an idol or image contained a god’s presence, though that presence was not limited to the image.”[2] In this regard, idolatry provides an intellectual coherence to man’s rebellion against God. For this reason, idolatry is a most serious sin and is treated as such throughout Scripture. It is not a “good thing” taken to an extreme but is intrinsically bad because it effectively calls good evil and evil good, and thus enables other sins. Granted, we do not worship the Baalim today—although to be sure, real paganism is growing significantly—but it may be more accurate to think of modern-day equivalents to ancient idolatries as being things like alternative religions (e.g., Islam, Buddhism, Mormonism, New Age spiritualism, etc.), worldly philosophies (e.g., Marxism, Critical Theory, Queer Theory, etc.), or totalistic political movements (e.g., fascism, Communism, etc.) from which people seek ultimate meaning.
Clarity about the nature of idolatry is important for our practical sanctification and faithfulness to God. As Christians seeking to glorify God, we need to flee from and put away idolatry and idolatrous things, but we will not be able to do that if we cannot accurately define what idolatry really is. If we are supposed to keep ourselves from idolatry and flee from it, as the Apostles tell us, then simply considering it to be something good that is out of balance contradicts the strong and clear impact of those commands. If idolatry is a good thing taken too far—“workaholism,” for example—then how does one define “too far”? “Idolatry,” thus becomes a matter to be subjectively defined, and if that is the case, then it will be easy to rationalize that we have addressed it when in reality we have not. On the other hand, if modern idolatries are things like alternative religions, worldly philosophies, totalistic political movements or uncritical adulation of prominent social or cultural figures, then that allows us to maintain clear insight on what we need to keep ourselves from, as well as what we need to rightly keep in focus to be faithful to our Lord.
Just Authority
With the other Just War criteria, I will be briefer in the interest of time. In the Just War Tradition there is the question of who the legitimate authority is to determine whether a war is just and whether it should be carried out. In the context of our cultural and spiritual war, this is a harder question to answer, especially since the church is not a united monolith. Nevertheless, the issue is an important one and at its root is the principle that private individuals do not get to determine solely by themselves what idolatry is and how to confront it. This particularly needs to be said in our radicalized age. Today, especially among Christian charismatics and evangelicals, there is a growing movement called the New Apostolic Reformation (NAR) which holds that the situation is so bad that God is raising up a new group of Apostles, equal to those who lived in Christ’s day who are receiving God’s word directly, doing miracles, and can lead God’s people into a new era of Christian dominion. This movement is very political in our contemporary context. It is also very wrong, and to see that, we need to understand biblically what prophecy was and who the apostles were.
It is a well-entrenched view among many evangelicals and charismatics that the Old Testament prophets were primarily future seers and miracle doers. With that image, it is not too much of a stretch to get to the claims of the NAR adherents. Biblically speaking, however, while the prophets did receive God’s word directly and did do miracles, they were much more than that. They were basically God’s covenantal advocates pressing God’s covenantal lawsuit against God’s covenantal people and calling them to repentance. Thus, the focus was not in speaking against the unbelievers outside the covenantal community, but against apostasy and unbelief within the covenantal community. In translating that to today, the covenantal community is not a nation state, like Israel and Judah, but the Christian church. The prophets were calling God’s people back to God’s word and God’s law. The miracles that were done were tangible demonstrations authenticating that God’s word had indeed come to them. In the New Testament, while the Apostles shared many characteristics of the Old Testament prophets, a key distinction is that the Apostles were eyewitnesses to the earthly ministry of the Lord, to His death, and to His resurrection. That is not repeatable in subsequent generations. Their authority was unique. Moreover, Hebrews 1:1-3 indicates that the final revelation is in Christ Himself; after that first generation passed away, the canon of Scripture was closed—after all, how could there be subsequent revelation after the final revelation in Christ?
What these modern so-called prophets and apostles are doing is, in effect if not necessarily in intention, is claiming authority for themselves independent of the constraints of Scripture. Note well the warning that Scripture gives about false prophets—death (Deut. 18:20). We have seen in 1 Kings several examples of false prophets, so anyone claiming to speak for God must be tested by God’s word. What this means for us today is that as we confront idolatry, we need to be doing so rooted in Scripture. Moreover, given the temptations of idolatry in our day and age, we need to be first and foremost instructing the Christian community in what is true, calling Christians to repentance, and enabling them to withstand the seductions of the age. As a teacher of God’s word, I cannot bind your conscience and demand your obedience to things that go beyond what Scripture says. False prophets, however, precisely want you to put more trust in their words than God’s words, even as they smoothly claim that they are speaking a “further” word from God. The Apostle Paul emphatically warned the Galatians that anyone who gives them a “gospel” other than what they received from him earlier should be damned. This is serious stuff.
Right Intention, Reasonable Chance of Success, Last Resort
In thinking about conflict, having the right intention, weighing whether there is a reasonable chance of success, and determining what can be done first before escalating to measures with extreme consequences (i.e., war) are prudential actions associated with the jus ad bellum criteria of the Just War Tradition. These also apply well to cultural and spiritual conflict in confronting idolatry.
Having the right intention is particularly apropos for our day. As Christians, we are bound to observe all of the Ten Commandments, including the Third Commandment, regarding not misusing the name of the Lord. This is commonly understood as not using the Lord’s name as a cuss word, but in reality, it goes far beyond that. In the Lord’s Prayer, we pray that the Lord’s name be hallowed (that is, honored). What this means is that we need to be mindful of whether our actions will reflect honorably or dishonorably on the Lord. In other words, will the Lord be honored and glorified by what we are doing? Here we need a serious examination of our hearts. We live in a day when virtue signaling is far more popular than actually being virtuous. We can pride ourselves on supporting the “right” causes, and rationalize that we are glorifying God, especially when such signaling costs little more than fueling the outrage machine on social media. The prophets and the righteous individuals that we have seen in our study of 1 Kings, however, all had to pay some kind of price for faithfulness—even Elijah, who experienced the stunning triumph of God over the prophets of Baal and would subsequently be taken up into heaven without dying had to flee for his life from Queen Jezebel, exhausted and discouraged and needing to be protected and restored by God.
The Just War criteria for reasonable chance of success and last resort are specifically tied to war and the violence associated with it. That said, in applying these criteria to the cultural and spiritual war of our day, it is legitimate to ask whether any actions have a legitimate chance of success and whether there is a strategy behind what we are doing. If we are to maintain a credible witness, then there also needs to be clarity about the directness of the actions we are taking relative to the idols we are combating. All too often there is a temptation to do something simply to show action or to focus on symbolic actions. Such an approach might feel good psychologically but will not make a dent in actually challenging the idols of our age. There is also a desire for quick results, which rarely is effective. Changing culture, however, takes time, often requires gradual escalation, and needs to maintain constant focus on the ultimate goals. We will see as we go forward in 2 Kings that even the reforms of the good kings of Judah would not really outlive the king’s own reign because they failed do this.
Justice in War and Post-War
The historic Just War criteria for justice in war focus on discrimination and proportionality. In applying these to the cultural and spiritual war of our day we need to keep in mind, first of all, the nature of the conflict we are in. Ours is a spiritual conflict that requires spiritual means. The temptation of our day is to use political means to achieve things that can only be achieved by the church. Francis Schaeffer has pointed out that changes in religion and philosophy lead to changes in high culture, then low culture, then politics and economics. Thus, if we are aiming to change culture we need to go upstream, and change the church, enabling the church to be the church. Apologetics, evangelism, discipleship, worship and prayer will be as or more important than political activism. The changes brought by those means will be less flashy, but more durable over time.
The means that we do employ in combating the idols of our age do matter. There is a saying among apologists that “What you win them with is what you win them to.” This needs emphasizing today because there is a tendency among those on the right to think that tactics are neutral, and we can adopt the tactics of the left and be pragmatically effective. The problem with that is the symbolic tactics of the left are Leninist, geared toward destabilizing the system and seizing power. What may work for doing that, however, will not work for governance afterwards. By de-legitimizing things, it means that if you do take power you will have to rely on increasingly coercive means to rule because goodwill or sympathy for one’s ideas will have been exhausted. Moreover, the means we employ will affect our moral credibility; once that is lost, it will be really difficult to regain.
[1] Timothy Keller, Counterfeit Gods; The Empty Promises of Money, Sex, and Power, and the Only Hope that Matters. (New York NY: Dutton, 2009), xvii.
[2] G. K. Beale, We Become What We Worship; A Biblical Theology of Idolatry (Downer’s Grove IL: InterVarsity Press, 2008), 17.
Covenantide 