Week 26, Independence

Discussion Questions

Old Testament

  1. Jehoash attempted to follow God. Why did he permit worship in “high places,” in violation of God’s law? 2 Kings 12:2-3.
  2. Why was God angry enough to allow the Assyrians to conquer Israel. Do you see any parallels between the behavior in 2 Kings 17, and our modern society?

New Testament

  1. Why did Paul wait so long to drive the spirt of divination out of the slave girl? Acts 16:16-18.
  2. How was John’s Baptism different than Jesus’ baptism. Is either form interchangable and acceptable? Acts 19:1-7

Notes and Commentary

Old Testament

Jehoash attempted to follow God. Why did he permit worship in “high places,” in violation of God’s law? 2 Kings 12:2-3.
The “high places” at this time were apparently used to worship the God of Israel. [A]  [A] That is, Yahweh or Jehovah. But, these high places were specifically forbidden as places to worship God. [B]  [B] Deuteronomy 12:2-6 (WEBME). [2] You shall surely destroy all the places in which the nations that you shall dispossess served their gods, on the high mountains, and on the hills, and under every green tree.  [3] You shall break down their altars, and dash their pillars in pieces, and burn their Asherah poles with fire. You shall cut down the engraved images of their gods. You shall destroy their name out of that place.  [4] You shall not do so to the LORD your God.  [5] But to the place which the LORD your God shall choose out of all your tribes, to put his name there, you shall seek his habitation, and there you shall come.  [6] There you shall bring your burnt offerings, your sacrifices, your tithes, the wave offering of your hand, your vows, your freewill offerings, and the firstborn of your herd and of your flock.  In former times these high places were used to worship foreign gods, and as such were inappropriate venues to worship the true God of Israel. [C]  [C] Deuteronomy 12:2
Seemingly small violations of God’s instructions often provide an opening to more grevious rebellion. Willful disobedience to God is a serious matter. Woshiping God in an inappropriate manner should not be taken lightly.
[Adam Clarke’s Commentary on the Bible, 1810/1825] The high places were not taken away] Without the total destruction of these there could be no radical reform. The toleration of any species of idolatry in the land, whatever else was done in behalf of true religion, left, and in effect fostered, a seed which springing up, regenerated in time the whole infernal system. Jehoiada did not use his influence as he might have done; for as he had the king’s heart and hand with him, he might have done what he pleased.
[Jamieson Fausset Brown Bible Commentary, 1871] The popular fondness for the private and disorderly rites performed in the groves and recesses of hills was so inveterate that even the most powerful monarchs had been unable to accomplish their suppression; no wonder that in the early reign of a young king, and after the gross irregularities that had been allowed during the maladministration of Athaliah, the difficulty of putting an end to the superstitions associated with "the high places" was greatly increased.
[Matthew Henry’s Complete Commentary on the Whole Bible] Up and down the country they had altars both for sacrifice and incense, to the honour of the God of Israel only, but in competition with, and at least in tacit contempt of, his altar at Jerusalem. These private altars, perhaps, had been more used in the late bad reigns than formerly, because it was not safe to go up to Jerusalem, nor was the temple-service performed as it should have been; and, it may be, Jehoiada connived at them, because some well-meaning people were glad of them when they could not have better, and he hoped that the reforming of the temple, and putting things into a good posture there, would by degrees draw people from their high places and they would dwindle of themselves; or perhaps neither the king nor the priest had zeal enough to carry on their reformation so far, nor courage and strength enough to encounter such an inveterate usage.
Why was God angry enough to allow the Assyrians to conquer Israel. Do you see any parallels between the behavior in 2 Kings 17, and our modern society?
[Jamieson Fausset Brown Bible Commentary (1871)] There is here given a very full and impressive vindication of the divine procedure in punishing His highly privileged, but rebellious and apostate, people. No wonder that amid so gross a perversion of the worship of the true God, and the national propensity to do reverence to idols, the divine patience was exhausted; and that the God whom they had forsaken permitted them to go into captivity, that they might learn the difference between His service and that of their despotic conquerors.
[Keil and Delitzsch Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament] The causes which occasioned this catastrophe. - To the account of the destruction of the kingdom of the ten tribes, and of the transportation of its inhabitants into exile in Assyria, the prophetic historian appends a review of the causes which led to this termination of the greater portion of the covenant-nation, and finds them in the obstinate apostasy of Israel from the Lord its God, and in its incorrigible adherence to idolatry.
[Matthew Henry’s Concise Commentary on the Whole Bible] Though the destruction of the kingdom of the ten tribes was but briefly related, it is in these verses largely commented upon, and the reasons of it given. It was destruction from the Almighty: the Assyrian was but the rod of his anger, #Isa 10:5|. Those that bring sin into a country or family, bring a plague into it, and will have to answer for all the mischief that follows. And vast as the outward wickedness of the world is, the secret sins, evil thoughts, desires, and purposes of mankind are much greater. There are outward sins which are marked by infamy; but ingratitude, neglect, and enmity to God, and the idolatry and impiety which proceed therefrom, are far more malignant. Without turning from every evil way, and keeping God’s statutes, there can be no true godliness; but this must spring from belief of his testimony, as to wrath against all ungodliness and unrighteousness, and his mercy in Christ Jesus.
Table None.1 Compare the sinful behavior of Israel in 2 Kings 17 to our modern society. This is a PARTIAL list.

2 Kings 17 Modern Society
Forgot what God had done for them (v. 7). Forgot what God has done for us. Sometimes God is remembered and thanked, particularly in time of great tragedy. Example: Sept. 11, 2001.
Worshiped strange gods (vs. 7, 9-11). Worship strange gods. Examples: money, power. Also, paganism, and animism. Other “organized” religions are practiced by many people, even in nominally “Christian nations.”
Sinned as other nations had done (v, 8). Globalism has made many sins “cross national” and “cross-cultural.”
Did wicked things (v. 11). The news accounts, and popular media report and celebrate wickedness
Worshipped abominations (v. 12). Relative morality has displaced God’s absolute truth. Things that popular culture once recognized as abominations are now called “lifestyles.”
Disregarded God’s instructions to turn away from their sin (v. 13) Society mocks and disregards the word of God, and those who speak the truth.
Acted vainly (v. 15). Pride and vanity are encouraged. Pridefulness is seen as a positive attribute. Humility is branded as a species of weakness.
Worships idols to false god, Baal (v. 16). Conspicuous consumption is seen as positive. Material things (and money that buys them) are worshiped.
Killed children as sacrefices to false gods (v. 17). Unborn children are routinely killed as a matter of “choice.” Children, once born, have little value. The “rights” and choices (often poor) of parents have precedence over the wellbeing of their offspring.
Used occult practices―“gave themselves to divinations, and soothsayings” (v. 17). Popular culture shows a perverse fascination with the occult. Many people indulge in occult practices. The Christian church does little to oppose this trend.
Did not keep God’s Commandments (v. 19). Some of God’s commandments in the “Judeo-Christian” tradition still have limited acceptance, but usually with exceptions. Example: stealing and murder. Other sins are largely or completely disregarded. Example: coveting and sexual immorality.

New Testament

Why did Paul wait so long to drive the spirt of divination out of the slave girl? Acts 16:16-18.
Acts 16:16-22 (WEB). [16]  As we were going to prayer, a certain girl having a spirit of divination met us, who brought her masters much gain by fortune telling.  [17] Following Paul and us, she cried out, “These men are servants of the Most High God, who proclaim to us a way of salvation!”  [18] She was doing this for many days.
But Paul, becoming greatly annoyed, turned and said to the spirit, “I command you in the name of Jesus Christ to come out of her!” It came out that very hour.  [19] But when her masters saw that the hope of their gain was gone, they seized Paul and Silas, and dragged them into the marketplace before the rulers.  [20] When they had brought them to the magistrates, they said, “These men, being Jews, are agitating our city,  [21] and advocate customs which it is not lawful for us to accept or to observe, being Romans.”
[22]  The multitude rose up together against them, and the magistrates tore their clothes off of them, and commanded them to be beaten with rods.  23 When they had laid many stripes on them, they threw them into prison, charging the jailer to keep them safely...
The slave girl was possesed by a demon. The demon knew exactly who Paul was, and what he was teaching. The demon correctly stated, “These men are servants of the Most High God, who proclaim to us a way of salvation!” [D]  [D] Acts 16:17 (WEB) Paul was likely “annoyed” [E]  [E] “Annoyed” is also translated as “grieved” (LJV), “troubled” (ASV), “upset” (Good News Translation), “distressed” (Darby), or “fed up with her” (The Message). at having a demon announce his arrival. Why Paul waited “many” days before expelling the demon is not explained within the text. Some have speculated, that since the message was correct, Paul may not have originally realized the source. The demon was impersonating a sympathetic person. The local people, knowing the slave girl was demon possessed would assume a relationship between Jesus Christ and demonic forces. When Paul realized the message came from a demon, he cast that demon out.
[Matthew Henry’s Complete Commentary on the Whole Bible] She continued many days clamouring thus; and, it should seem, Paul took no notice of her, not knowing but it might be ordered of God for the service of his cause, that she should thus witness concerning his ministers; but finding perhaps that it did them a prejudice, rather than any service, he soon silenced her, by casting the devil out of her.
[The Fourfold Gospel and Commentary on Acts of Apostles, 1863/1882] If Paul had reasoned as many do at the present day, he would have been glad that this girl followed him with such a proclamation. It was the very thing of which he was trying to convince the people of Philippi, who already had confidence in the demoniac. Why, then, was he not rejoiced at so powerful co-operation, instead of being grieved, and shutting the mouth of an apparent friend? It must be because he saw the matter in a far different light from that in which it appears to those advocates of "spirit rappings," who exult in them as affording strong confirmation of the gospel. The course pursued by Paul was the same with that of Jesus, who invariably stopped the mouths of demons when they attempted to testify to his claims. The propriety of this course will be apparent upon observing: First, That to have permitted demons to testify for the truth would have convinced the people that there was an alliance between them and the preachers. Second, This supposed alliance would have caused all the good repute of Jesus and the apostles to reflect upon the demons, and all the evil repute of demons to reflect upon them. It was an ingenious effort of the devil to ally himself with Jesus Christ, in order the more effectually to defeat his purposes.
How was John’s Baptism different than Jesus’ baptism. Is either form interchangable and acceptable?
Acts 19:1-7 (WEB). [1] While Apollos was at Corinth, Paul, having passed through the upper country, came to Ephesus, and found certain disciples. [2] He said to them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?”
They said to him, “No, we haven’t even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.” [3] He said, “Into what then were you baptized?”
They said, “Into John’s baptism.” [4] Paul said, “John indeed baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying to the people that they should believe in the one who would come after him, that is, in Jesus.” [5] When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. [6] When Paul had laid his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they spoke with other languages and prophesied. [7] They were about twelve men in all.
[Adam Clarke’s Commentary on the Bible] To be a Christian, a man must be baptized in the Christian faith: [F]  [F] Christians may disagree on the exact meaning here. Must a person really be baptized as a prerequisite to being a Christian? But certainly, every Christian will want be baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. these persons had not been baptized into that faith, and therefore were not Christians: they felt this, and were immediately baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus.
[Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament] Apollos was not rebaptized. The twelve apostles were not rebaptized. Jesus received no other baptism than that of John. The point here is simply that these twelve men were grossly ignorant of the meaning of John’s baptism as regards repentance, the Messiahship of Jesus, the Holy Spirit. Hence Paul had them baptized, not so much again, as really baptized this time, in the name or on the authority of the Lord Jesus as he had himself commanded (Mt 28:19) and as was the universal apostolic custom. Proper understanding of "Jesus" involved all the rest including the Trinity (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit). Luke does not give a formula, but simply explains that now these men had a proper object of faith (Jesus) and were now really baptized.
[John Wesley’s Notes on the Bible] And hearing this, they were baptized - By some other. Paul only laid his hands upon them. They were baptized - They were baptized twice; but not with the same baptism. John did not administer that baptism which Christ afterward commanded, that is, in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.

Random Quotes

"If everyone in the world always showed everyone else their true feelings, most people would spend most of every day crying."
— ComputerBob, 2004, http://www.ComputerBob.COM
"Insurance ain’t nothin’ but a swindle, no-how."
— CAL STEWART (1856-1919), as “Uncle Josh”
"It ain’t no disgrace to be poor, but it might as well be."
— Kin Hubbard (1868 – 1930)

Notes:

© Tom Truex 2014, Davie, FL


Read the whole Bible in a year -- ReadTheWholeBible.COM -- 2014-06-25T12:53:42.744627