Isaiah 34 Tuesday, Dec 28 2010 

I was recently considering Isaiah and was struck with the amazing amount of picturesque language. Isaiah does not write merely to tell his audience about the coming judgment of God; he writes to show them. Unfortunately, our western minds often do not pick up the full import of his words. We miss a great deal as we do not understand his culture. In light of this, here is my attempt to paraphrase and versify Isaiah 34:1-8 in a manner that is understandable to the Western mind. I chose this section of scripture because it illustrates quite nicely the incredible amount of imagery which Isaiah uses:

O come, ye nations, hark to me!
Ye peoples, haste to hear!
Give ear, o earth, and all therein
All creatures, gather near!

The LORD arises, casts about
His indignation just
All countries strong and armies bold
Shall by his wrath be crushed

Their carcasses shall be undone
Their bodies thrown about
Their fowl odor shall be smelt
In places all throughout

Their blood shall flow in torrents wide
So wide, that e’en the cliffs
Shall be awash as when a storm
Makes mountains crumble swift

The hosts of heaven – all dissolved!
The sun and stars and moon
The firmament – it is rolled up!
The heavenly orbs fall soon

As when a leaf doth from its place
fall swiftly down to earth
Or when a fig falls from the tree
So stars shall fall to earth

God’s sword is bathed in vengeance dark
It races t’ward Edom’s coast
The people of God’s curse are there
And wrath is on their host!

As drunken men are filled with wine
The sword of God’s own might
Is drunk with blood and shall be filled
with fatness from the fight

Dost thou discern the coming flocks -
The sheep, the goats, the rams?
A sacrifice hath been prepared
A sacrifice of lambs

But wonder, now, for this off’ring
Is not from beasts thus killed
This off’ring is a different sort -
The blood of men is spilled!

This sacrifice, from Bozrah’s land,
Is made by God’s device
The people of old Edom’s land
Shall be this sacrifice

The desert land, the dusty plains
(O Idumea, weep!)
Shall soon be covered with a flood
Shall with men’s blood soon seep

And why is this? Hath it a cause?
O yes, for now, you see,
Jerusalem hath been avenged
As promised by decree.

A Study of Wisdom in the Bible Wednesday, Jun 16 2010 

Click here to access this study.

Does the ‘Rose of Sharon’ refer to Christ or the Church? Thursday, May 6 2010 

I am guessing that most Christians would say that the Rose of Sharon (referred to in Song of Solomon 2:1) is an emblem of Christ. I thought the same until recently. However, there are compelling reasons to believe that the rose of sharon is actually an emblem of the church! (Note that the ‘spouse’ in the Song refers to the church. Also, the phrase ‘rose of sharon’ quite probably refers to a rose that grew in the plain of Sharon, on the coastlands of Samaria). Below is a quote by George Burrowes, a nineteenth-century commentator:

“We interpret these as the words of the spouse, for several reasons. 1. The scope of the passage requires this view; because the evident design is to put the spouse in contrast with the beloved, by comparison of the rose and lily with the majesty of the citron-tree. 2. The lily is in the next verse expressly applied to the spouse; and these two verses are parts of the same continuous sentence; so that it is unreasonable to apply the lily as the emblem of Jesus in the former clause, and then find it restricted to the saint in the latter. 3. The Jewish interpreters in general are of this opinion. 4. With us also agree the best Christian expositors, such as Rosenmuller, Delitxsch, Dopke, Cocceius, Michaelis, Vatablus, Ainsworth, Harmer, Percy, Fry, Good, etc.” – George Burrowes

Note: Voting is anonymous.

The Top Six Reasons for an Allegorical Interpretation of the Canticles Wednesday, Apr 28 2010 

  1. Human love is only a picture of the grand archetype of divine love. Human love, like most everything on earth, is only a picture of a grander, greater theme. The apostle Paul, in Ephesians 5:22-33, spoke of marriage, explaining that it is a picture of Christ and the church. It is thus not unnatural for the love in Canticles to be explained allegorically. One man said, “For my part, I should deem something wanting in the Bible if no expression were there found for the deepest and strongest of human feelings.”
  2. Canticles is most easily explained allegorically. When exegetes have attempted to explain the Song literally, they have run into many problems. Who is the bride? How many characters are in the Song? What is the plot of this story? All of these questions are easily answered when one holds to the allegorical interpretation. When a literal interpretation is used, it requires an intricate and detailed plot to explain verses such as Canticles 4:8.
  3. The Song can only speak of Christ if it is interpreted allegorically. Jesus said in John 5:39, “Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.” According to the literal interpretation, Canticles testifies to the love of humans. According to the allegorical interpretation, Canticles testifies to the love of Christ.
  4. The connection between this book and other passages of scripture demonstrates that the Song should be interpreted allegorically. The main theme of the Song is that of a bride and groom. The same idea is found in Psalm 45, Isaiah 54, John 3, Ephesians 5, Revelation 19, Revelation 21, and many other passages. Almost all would agree that these passages are allegorical, referring to Christ and his church. From a different perspective, such passages as Jeremiah 3, Ezekiel 16, the book of Hosea, and other scriptures speak of idolatry as spiritual whoredom. Thus there is, throughout scripture, a precedent for viewing marriage and human love as a type of the relationship between Christ and the church.
  5. The allegorical interpretation has been held throughout church history. Many Christians, from the early church to the present, have believed that the Song is to be interpreted allegorically. Some of those who held to this opinion include Origen, Athanasius, Eusebius, Basil, Chrysostom, Ambrose, Augustine, Owen, Henry, Gill, Wesley, and McCheyne.
  6. Similar writings from the Orient have been meant to be understood allegorically. The literal interpretation is based on the hypothesis that an allegorical interpretation was not intended. However, the literary tradition of the Orient includes similar writings from Arabia, Persia, and India. These writings are comparable in content to the Song, but are clearly figurative and allegorical.[1]

 


[1] See George Burrowes Commentary, pp. 30-33

Interpretive Paraphrase of the Introduction to Proverbs Thursday, Mar 18 2010 

Proverbs 1:1-6

 The proverbs of Solomon the son of David, king of Israel;

To know wisdom and instruction; to perceive the words of understanding;

To receive the instruction of wisdom, justice, and judgment, and equity;

To give subtilty to the simple, to the young man knowledge and discretion.

A wise man will hear, and will increase learning; and a man of understanding shall attain unto wise counsels:

To understand a proverb, and the interpretation; the words of the wise, and their dark sayings.

 The Words

The point of this paper is to analyze the meanings of this technical vocabulary and produce an interpretive paraphrase.

 Proverbs – The Hebrew word for proverb, found in 37 verses throughout the Old Testament, receives several different translations: parable (17x), proverb (12x), proverbs (5x), byword (1x), parables (1x), and to use as a proverb (1x). The term is used in Numbers 23 and 24, translated parable, to refer to the versified speeches of Balaam and Balak. These speeches actually seem to have little to do with the modern English notion of either parables or proverbs. In Job 29 it is said that Job continued his parable; in fact, Job seems to be only speaking in poetry. The real meaning of these odd uses of the word come to light in view of Psalm 78:2, where the Psalmist says that he will open his mouth in a parable. He then immediately explains himself, “I will utter dark sayings of old.” The use of the word ‘parable’ in Numbers and Job is much easier to understand if we take the term to refer to “difficult and hidden sayings,” since both Balak, Balaam, and Job speak in hidden language that is difficult to understand. When the word is translated as ‘proverb,’ it generally is in a context that requires the meaning ‘byword.’ Proverbs are spoken of in 1 Samuel 24:13 as sayings that the ancients use. Based on these scriptures, it seems that the Proverbs refer to either (1) concealed, versified language, or (2) a byword that would often be spoken by the ancients and wise men. Even these bywords, however, are often in difficult language. Thus, the paraphrase for ‘proverbs’ will be ‘the difficult bywords of a wise man.’

To know – The word often has the idea of ‘to be intimately acquainted with,’ though the meaning is not at all to be necessarily taken in a physical sense. This will be the paraphrase for the word.

Wisdom – This word has already been extensively studied in the paper ‘A Study of Wisdom in the Bible.’ Please consult that paper. Although the paraphrase for ‘wisdom’ could be ‘the fear of the Lord,’ this would probably not yet be apparent to the reader who has just read 1:2; therefore, a different paraphrase of ‘complete wisdom in every area of life’ will be used.

Instruction – The word is found 50x in the Old Testament. It has the idea of the instruction of a person, including chastening, correction, and discipline. It is closely associated with the idea of the instruction of a student by his tutor, of a child by his father, or of a criminal by the penalty of the law. The word does not necessarily refer to the negative aspect of instruction (chastisement). It may also refer to the positive aspect of instruction (praise). It is interesting to note that this word is used relatively frequently in Proverbs by a father who is instructing his children. The paraphrase sued will be ‘educational instruction.’

Perceive – The meaning of this verb is simply ‘to understand’ or ‘to be able to wrap the mind around.’ The paraphrase will be ‘to be able to comprehend’

Understanding – This term is very similar to the word for ‘perceive.’ The text could even be translated, “to perceive the words of perception” or “to understand the words of understanding.” The word refers to the ability to comprehend an idea. The paraphrase will be ‘comprehension.’

Receive – The verb means ‘to take’ or ‘to accept.’ The paraphrase will be ‘to accept.’

Wisdom – This is a different Hebrew word than is found in the preceding verse. It is used 63x and has the idea of being circumspect, looking around, pondering, and intelligence. The paraphrase will be ‘wise consideration.’

Justice – This word is used quite frequently to refer to righteousness. It refers to the quality of doing what is right, including making the right decision in a judgment. The paraphrase to be used will be ‘righteous action.’

Judgment – This word refers to a judicial verdict or sentence. It sometimes carries with it a favorable connotation, i.e., right verdict. This connotation is obvious in this context. The paraphrase will be ‘just sentence.’

Equity – This word refers to straightness or evenness. It has the idea of following the straight path. The paraphrase will be ‘proper deed.’

Subtilty – The word is used 5x in the Old Testament. It refers to trickery, shrewdness, craftiness, and prudence. The word can have either a good or bad connotation; in this context the connotation is obviously good. Through the Bible it is translated ‘guile,’ ‘prudence,’ ‘subtilty,’ ‘wilily,’ and ‘wisdom.’ The paraphrase for this word will be ‘shrewd dealings.’

Simple – This word refers to the silly, naïve person. Webster defines this as “weak in intellect, not wise or sagacious; silly.” It also has the idea of ‘seducible. The paraphrase will be ‘naïve.’

Knowledge – This word refers simply to the perception of a fact. It will be paraphrased ‘the perception of facts.’

Discretion – This word often has the idea of a plan, a purpose, or a counsel. However, it also has the idea of discretion – being able to chose the correct plan. It will be paraphrased ‘the discernment of choices.’

Wise – This is the adjective form of the common word for wisdom. It will be rendered ‘truly wise man’ since a wise man is he who is truly wise.

Learning – This refers to instruction, teaching and learning, in particular the type of learning that a student is engaged in. It will be paraphrased ‘scholastic insight.’

Understanding – The word is the same as ‘perceive’ several verses above. It will be paraphrased ‘who comprehends.’

Wise Counsel – This is exactly what it means. It will be paraphrased ‘good advice.’

Dark Sayings – This refers to riddles, tricks, difficult maxims, and dark sayings – dark and shady words that are difficult for all but the wise to understand. It will be paraphrased ‘mysterious sayings.’

 The Paraphrase

The difficult bywords of a wise man,
Even of Solomon the son of David,
Who was the king of Israel;
     To be intimately acquainted
          With complete wisdom in every area of life
               and
          With educational instruction;
     To be able to comprehend the words of comprehension; 
     To accept the educational instruction of 
          Wise consideration,
          Righteous action,
               and
          Just sentence,
               and
          Proper deed;
     To give
          Shrewd dealings to the naïve,
          To the young man the perception of facts and the discernment of choices. 
A truly wise man will hear, and will increase in scholastic insight;
     and
A man who comprehends shall attain unto good advice: 
     To understand
          The difficult bywords of a wise man,
               And the interpretation; 
          The words of the truly wise,
               And their mysterious sayings.

Lordship, a Hittite Perspective Wednesday, Mar 3 2010 

A. F. Walton

 This note is not made to be extensive but shall express some general thoughts from my personal studies on covenants. There are a number of things I would like to share for application and also I would like your comments on the material contained herein.

First note: I recognize that Hittite treaties and similar things will not be familiar to most, if any, of my intended readers. Below, I have attempted to make clear the concepts without bringing in much of the debate concerning terms, redaction, and other issues involved with biblical covenants in relation to ancient treaties. My hope and desire is that the contained material will reflect upon several things: 1) our relationship to our Lord, 2) his expectations to us, and 3) what we expect from him.

If there are any questions concerning terms needing clarification, conclusions or content please leave the question below. I also encourage you to comment even if the comment only consists of ululation, I would like some kind of feedback and thoughts. If you would like more information also let me know. This is mostly the bare structure with some application from that basic understanding. (Bracketed numbers are endnotes. Rather than just bloviating, questions and statements to tie concepts you might already know are included in footnotes. These will help in your consideration and grasping of the data.)

Introduction
The ancient world is different from our own. The Bible has ancient origins. It is my convictions that we need to understand the ancient world in which God worked in order to have a better understanding of the Bible. God used covenants in the Old Testament, a concept we hardly understand today. While some cultures found covenants binding – for example, the Nazis who swore allegiance to Hitler though regretting it later saw the need to keep their oath – some do not – the American culture being a good example in the area of marriage. The covenant was an important concept in the ancient world. It is one God chose to use, and is still using whether it be the continuation of the covenant with Abraham or the New Covenant.

Before much more can be said some terms need to be defined.

Terms
Hittite – the people of Hatti, which was an ancient civilization (1900 B.c-1000 B.c.) stretching from the north end of Canaan, or modern Israel, into modern Turkey.
Covenant – a debated term, rather than ‘relationship’, ‘pact’, or ‘agreement’ I understand it to be a bond.
Lord, suzeran, sovereign - These terms refer to the superior party of a covenant
vassal, servant – a subordinate to the lord
Great King - The lord of the covenant, the Hittite king when making a covenant referred to himself by this title, I use it here because it is interesting and applies quite easily to The Great King, our Lord.
The Sun - a title used by Hittite kings
Stipulations – law, requirements for the parties of the treaty to fulfill.
Vassal treaty – a treaty made with a Superior and a subordinate
Parity treaty - a treaty made with equals

Covenants
Several different types of covenants exist and are made for a variety of reasons. We all know the ancient times were period of war, so plainly treaties “were set up for reasons of expediency and self-interest.”(1) The Great Kings would make these treaties with smaller, weaker kings, instead of going to war. Clearly the lesser kings were willing to make treaties, lest they be whipped off the face of the earth. Equal kings were willing to make treaties as well. However, such a treaty was not imposed on the vassal – the subordinate had to accept it for it to be valid. (2) The treaty was a bond “not between two states but between two persons–Great King and Great King, or Great King and vassal ruler.”(3) The treaty consisted of stipulations similar to the following: a vassal swore an oath of allegiance to his king alone (not to the kingdom over which he ruled)(4); a vassal would also pledge support of the king’s descendants. Some stipulations also require the exposing of rebellion and extraditing fugitives. Stipulations involved in a covenant were not strict formula but reflected the desires of the lord (5). Mutual protection was set up between the lord and his vassal. The lord’s enemies were the vassal’s enemies, and the lord’s friends were the vassal’s friends.

Treaties, both Hittite and Old Testament Covenants, were built upon already existing relationships between the lord and vassal. (6) This is exemplified in the prologue, or pareneses, to the treaties which describe past relations between the lord and the vassal, of faithfulness etc. The point of these prologues was to show ample reason to join the treaty. The faithfulness and kindness of a lord gave clear reason to join a treaty with him. (7)

Interestingly in the treaties we find that “[they were truly] vassals and yet the Great King seems to have owed them much. In fact the relationship was neither one of simple imperial politics nor did it depend merely on sanctions. When the oath tied the parties together it was to create an affective relationship as well as a legal bond. This appears in the passionate rhetoric of the pareneses and in the constant reference to the binding power of the oath amid the stipulations. This is an appeal for the true dedication, not forced acceptance. Moreover, this is made explicit. The vassal is to love the Great King as he does himself and his own and the Great King is to take the vassal to heart as his friend.” (8)

The sovereign was also bound by the treaty. This is evident in one particular treaty where the king is quoted in saying “‘If you do anything evil…then I, the Sun, will be freed from this divine oath,’ and I, the Great King may attack you” McCarthy points out that the king would not need to be ‘freed’ if he were not bound! (9)

It has also been pointed out that ‘to know’ as well as the verb ‘to love’ is used by Eastern kings as a treaty term. “To know” has two legal senses: to recognize the sovereign or vassal as legitimate, and to recognize treaty stipulations as binding. (10) If this is what it means ‘to know’ a lord, how much greater should it be ‘to know’ our Lord!

It seems this sense of knowing is that which the Lord expected of Israel, and I think also what he expects of us. In the book of James, James illustrates this by showing Abraham’s obedience to serving the Lord, as well as showing the faith of Rahab, who acted upon the idea of the Lord as sovereign. A vassal not fulfilling the two aforementioned things (recognizing the lord and the stipulations as binding) would not have been spared by the lord or come under his protection. This is even seen in Abraham’s covenant to those unwilling to take the sign of the covenant (Ge 17:9-14).

Conclusion
Covenants were made due to already existing relations. Because of the interests of the sovereign, the vassal did not initiate it, but he did have to consent, and there were obligations to the treaty.

The treaty was made to continue a relationship; the Abrahamic covenant, for example, is not kept by the Lord for legal or political reasons, but because he loved Abraham, and loves his children and is faithful to them (See Jn 8:39-59), and Abraham’s children are faithful to the covenant and clearly “they are not all Israel, which are of Israel”. Biblically we see that not all physical sons of Abraham (and Israel) were accepted as a part of the covenant, for they lived not after the faith of Abraham (see Ge 17:9-14 again, and see Ro 4:16). Yet we do see that Rahab, Ruth, and the motley crew which came out in the Exodus (Ex 12:38) were brought into the covenant.

Succinctly stated, covenants with the Lord consist of
1. Prohibition of recognizing or serving any other Lord;
2. The right of the king to make absolute prohibitions; and
3. The resting of the relationship on trust and obedience rather than ritualistic manipulation.(11)

So let us consider relation with the Lord. Are we relying and resting on other ‘lords’ for protection as Israel relied on Egypt and Assyria? Or are we relying on him? He has showed sufficiency and is gracious – we have no reason to go to any other lord.

 Are we serving any other lord? Are we living in fear of other lords? What should we fear seeing we serve the Great King? Can we justify serving the flesh or fearing evil when we have a lord like our lord?

If the Lord is our lord, let us serve him as lord.
———————————————————
(1) “The ‘Eternal Treaty’ from the Hittite Perspective”, Trevor Bryce, 1. www.thebritishmuseum.ac.uk/bmsaes/issue6/bryce.html
(2) Treaty and Covenant, Dennis McCarthy, 78.
(3) Ibid., 5. The original question this study was intended to answer has not been answered, but it has taken place because Deuteronomy’s format is like a treaty. Its structure as a treaty will not be addressed here, however its form should be considered by the reader! For example this note was connected to the idea that the treaties were not made with nations, but with individuals. Should this be considered when we look at the covenants made with Israel? Consider Deu 29:10-13 and the use of the singular ‘thee’ and not plural ‘you’ in the passage.
(4) The Northern Kingdom (Israel) made a treaty with Assyria and then later tried to make a treaty with Egypt. This was in violation of the treaty and resulted in the fall of the Northern Kingdom in 723/722 B.c.
(5) The stipulations in Deuteronomy reflect the desires the Lord, what he desired to be done. For example McCarthy says well “[in Deu 14:1-2 there was a specific point]: the people who are Yahwe’s possession may not imitate practices which imply a tie to other lords.” 171.
(6) Clearly Abraham had a relationship before the making of the Covenant, and so did David. Does God’s foreknowledge of the elect have anything to do with this? For this foreknowledge is often said to be intimate knowing… For English translations of various treaties most of them can be found by googling ‘Hittite treaty’, else they are contained in ANET (that is, Ancient Near Eastern Texts edited by Pritchard, 1968.
(7) Consider how Moses uses God’s faithfulness to the patriarchs as reasons Israel should accept the covenant. And is this not what we do in sharing the gospel? Illustrate God’s kindness and mercy as reason to rely on him?
(8) Treaty and Covenant, McCarthy, 81.
(9) Treaty and Covenant, McCarthy, 80.
(10) Bruce Waltke, “The Phenomenon of Conditionality within Unconditional Covenants” in Israel’s Apostasy and Restoration 137. Information on “to know” drawn by Waltke from Hebert B. Huffman, “The Treaty Background of Hebrew Yada’,” BASOR 181 (February 1966).
(11) “Golden Calves and the ‘Bull of Jacob’: the impact on Israel of its Religious Environment” by John Oswalt in Israel’s Apostasy and Restoration, 16.

The Problem with Evolution… Thursday, Feb 18 2010 

Evolutionists say, “The key to the past is the present.” Unfortunately for them, two of the most important axioms of their belief, that (1) life somehow came to exist out of nonliving matter and(2) that species of one kingdom can evolve into species of another kingdom, have never been observed in the history of mankind.

The Kings of Israel Sunday, Feb 14 2010 

Jeroboam – Jeroboam, the first king of Israel, was responsible for starting a new state religion following the division of the nation. Although Rehoboam did not invade him, he invaded Rehoboam’s son Abijam but was defeated.

 Nadab – Nadab did evil and after two years was slain by Baasha while besieging Gibbethon of Philistia.

 Baasha – Baasha conspired against and slew Nadab and then smote all the house of Jeroboam. He fought against Asa but was driven back by Syria.

 Elah – Elah, just like Nadab, was slain while besieging Gibbethon of Philistia.

 Zimri – Zimri slew Elah and destroyed the house of Baasha. When news of this reached the army, it declared Omri king, and Zimri committed suicide when his capital was besieged.

 Omri – Omri besieged king Zimri in Tirzah. He later made Samaria the new capital of the nation.

 Ahab – Ahab, perhaps the most famous Israelite king, was guilty of horrible crimes against the Lord. He was punished by a terrible famine, but Ahab only responded by seeking to kill the prophet Elijah. Ahab fought Benhadad of Syria, but eventually let the wicked king live. Ahab later humbled himself before the Lord, but he went to war against Syria contrary to God’s word, resulting in his death.

 Ahaziah – In his days Moab rebelled. He sent men to take Elijah, and he died shortly after.

 Jehoram – Jehoram was king of Israel during the time of Elisah. He fought Mesha of Moab with the help of Jehoshaphat, and during his days Benhadad unsuccessfully besieged Samaria. He was finally killed by Jehu.

 Jehu – Jehu was originally quite zealous for the Lord, slaying all the house of Ahab and the followers of Baal. However, he later turned from Jehovah and Hazael of Syria smote him.

 Jehoahaz – The only remarkable occurance to happen in his reign was the oppression of Israel by Hazael and Benhadad of Syria.

 Jehoash – Jehoash was spoken to by Elisha and subsequently beat the Syrians three times.

 Jeroboam II – Jeroboam II was important to Israelite history for briefly gaining several military victories.

 Zachariah – Zachariah reigned only six months before he was assassinated.

 Shallum – Shallum reigned a mere month before being assassinated.

 Menahem – The most important event of Menahem’s reign was his tribute to Pul of Assyria.

 Pekahiah – Pekah reigned two years and was assassinated by Pekah.

 Pekah – Pekah enjoyed some power originally by besieging Jerusalem with the help of Rezin of Syria. However, he was later attacked by Tiglathpileser of Assyria, who carried away many captives, and was conspired against and slain by Hoshea.

 Hoshea – Hoshea, the last king of Israel, served Shalmaneser of Assyria for several years until he revolted. Following a three year siege, Israel was conquered and the nation ceased to exist.

1 & 2 Samuel, 1 & 2 Kings, 1 & 2 Chronicles Saturday, Jan 16 2010 

For some time I have been creating a chart synchronizing the Biblical accounts of Israelite history found in the books of Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles. (By synchronizing I do not mean to say that the Bible is inaccurate; I only mean that this chart shows where the same event can be found in each book). Since this is a rather large file, you can access it by clicking on this link. Red color refers to battles and wars; purple refers to the kings of Judah, and Green refers to the kings of Israel

The Kings of Judah Thursday, Dec 31 2009 

Rehoboam – Rehoboam, the son of Solomon, caused the division of the previously powerful Israelite nation. After promising toil and hardship to his subjects, they decided to revolt, leaving Rehoboam in charge of the tribe of Judah. Rehoboam initially planned on bringing the rebellious tribes back by force, but decided not to after being warned by a prophet. Rehoboam was prosperous for his first three years while seeking the Lord, but he apostatized in his fourth year. Pharaoh Shishak raided Judah in his fifth year, capturing most all the riches of the grand city of Jerusalem. Throughout his reign, Judah and Israel continually skirmished.

 Abijam – Although Abijam was an evil king, he sought the Lord when Jeroboam came against him with a vastly larger army. Israel appeared to be winning at first, but eventually the Judeans were victorious. Abijam reigned for only three years.

 Asa Asa, one of the righteous kings of Judah, enjoyed ten years of peace at the beginning of his reign. He then fought against the forces of Zerah the Ethiopian (whom he overcame only by God’s mercy). Following this war, Asa purged the land of iniquity and made a covenant with the Lord. However, near the end of his reign he made a treaty with Benhadad of Syria against Baasha of Israel. Baasha retreated, but the Lord was displeased with Asa. Asa became diseased in his feet at the end of his life, but he did not seek the Lord.

 Jehoshaphat – Jehoshaphat also sought the Lord and strengthened himself against Ahab. However, Jehoshaphat later allied with Ahab and fought Syria. For this, Jehoshaphat was rebuked of the Lord. Jehoshaphat continued to enjoy prosperity, although he allied himself with Jehoram of Israel to fiht against Mesha of Moab. In this campaign, the allied forces were almost destroyed by thirst except that the Lord gave them deliverance.

 Joram – An evil king, Edom and Libnah revolted in his days. In addition, Joram received a letter of rebuke from Elijah the prophet and raids from the Philistines and Arabians.

 Ahaziah – Ahaziah fought with Joram of Israel against Hazael of Syria. In that campaign, Joram was wounded and retreated to his capital. Ahaziah came to visit to the injured king, but was slain by the zealous Jehu while visiting.

 Athaliah – Athaliah is known mostly for her murder of the heirs of the throne. She ruled until Joash was made king.

 Joash – Joash was the only heir who survived the rage of Athaliah. Proclaimed king by the chief priest at age seven, He followed the Lord all the days of Jehoiada (the chief priest). When Jehoiada died, however, he turned from the Lord and stoned the Zechariah, Jehoiada’s prophet-son. Following these events, Joash become tributary to Syria and was eventually slain in a conspiracy.

 Amaziah – Amaziah followed the Lord for some time. The Lord prospered his fight against Edom, but he lost favor when he began to worship the defeated Edomite gods. Following this, he was routed by Jehoash of Israel and was slain in a conspiracy.

 Uzziah – Uzziah was a righteous king who was greatly blessed by the Lord. At the end of his life, however, he decided to burn incense to the Lord contrary to the law. He became a leper and died an outcast.

 Jotham – Another righteous king, Jotham built defenses in Judah and warred successfully against Ammon. During his reign he was attacked by Rezin of Syria and Pekah of Israel.

 Ahaz – Ahaz was a wicked king who felt the full force of Rezin and Pekah’s armies. He was repeatedly attacked: by Syria, Israel, Edom, and Philistia. In the end, Ahaz asked Assyria for help to fight his enemies.

 Hezekiah – Hezekiah was one of the holiest of Judah’s kings. He repeatedly attacked iniquity throughout his land, initiated rebuilding of the temple, and rebelled against Assyria. Although he was threatened with annihilation from Assyria, the Lord miraculously rescued him. He fell deathly sick, but prayed for and received mercy. His one blemish was pride while showing his treasures to Babylonian ambassadors.

 Manasseh – Manasseh was one of the most wicked kings of Judah. The Assyrians eventually carried him to Babylon, where he repented, was released, and spent the rest of his life serving the Lord.

 Amon – Amon reigned for two years, during which he was disobedient to the Lord. He was conspired against and slain.

 Josiah – Josiah was the last righteous king of Judah, who reformed. Josiah was slain in battle with Pharaoh Nechoh, when the Pharaoh was on his way to the north.

 Jehoahaz – Jehoahaz reigned three months until Pharaoh Nechoh put him in bonds.

 Jehoiakim – Jehoiakim managed to survive for several years by paying tribute to Egypt and serving Babylon. However, when he rebelled against Babylon he was invaded by Chaldeans, Syrians, Moabites, and Ammonites.

 Jehoiachin – Jehoiachin reigned three months until Nebuchadnezzar conquered Jerusalem. He was taken with the elite out of Babylon. Later in his life, Evil-Merodach of Babylon would show the captured king kindness.

 Zedekiah – Zedekiah was the last king of Judah. He rebelled against Babylon and was besieged and conquered by Nebuchadnezzar. Judah was destroyed at the end of h

Next Page »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.