الكتاب المقدس

Expositor's Bible Commentary 2 Chronicles 19:1 And Jehoshaphat the king of Judah returned to his house in peace to Jerusalem. JEHOSHAPHAT-THE DOCTRINE OF NONRESISTANCE 2 Chronicles 17:1-19 ; 2 Chronicles 18:1-34 ; 2 Chronicles 19:1-11 ; 2 Chronicles 20:1-37 ASA was succeeded by his son Jehoshaphat, and his reign began even more auspiciously than that of Asa. The new king had apparently taken warning from the misfortunes of Asa’s closing years; and as he was thirty-five years old when he came to the throne, he had been trained before Asa fell under the Divine displeasure. He walked in the first ways of his father David, before David was led away by Satan to number Israel. Jehoshaphat’s heart was lifted up, not with foolish pride, like Hezekiah’s, but "in the ways of Jehovah." He sought the God of his father, and walked in God’s commandments, and was not led astray by the evil example and influence of the kings of Israel, neither did he seek the Baals. While Asa had been enfeebled by illness and alienated from Jehovah, the high places and the Asherim had sprung up again like a crop of evil weeds; but Jehoshaphat once more removed them. According to the chronicler, this removing of high places was a very labor of Sisyphus: the stone was no sooner rolled up to the top of the hill than it rolled down again. Jehoshaphat seems to have had an inkling of this; he felt that the destruction of idolatrous sanctuaries and symbols was like mowing down weeds and leaving the roots in the soil. Accordingly he made an attempt to deal more radically with the evil: he would take away the inclination as well as the opportunity for corrupt rites. A commission of princes, priests, and Levites was sent throughout all the cities of Judah to instruct the people in the law of Jehovah. Vice will always find opportunities; it is little use to suppress evil institutions unless the people are educated out of evil propensities. If, for instance, every public-house in England were closed tomorrow, and there were still millions of throats craving for drink, drunkenness would still prevail, and a new administration would promptly reopen gin-shops. Because the new king thus earnestly and consistently sought the God of his fathers, Jehovah was with him, and established the kingdom in his hand. Jehoshaphat received all the marks of Divine favorer usually bestowed upon good kings. He waxed great exceedingly; he had many fortresses, an immense army, and much wealth; he built castles and cities of store; he had arsenals for the supply of war material in the cities of Judah. And these cities, together with other defensible positions and the border cities of Ephraim occupied by Judah, were held by strong garrisons. While David had contented himself with two hundred and eighty-eight thousand men from all Israel, and Abijah had led forth four hundred thousand, and Asa five hundred and eighty thousand, there waited on Jehoshaphat, in addition to his numerous garrisons, eleven hundred and sixty thousand men. Of these seven hundred and eighty thousand were men of Judah in three divisions, and three hundred and eighty thousand were Benjamites in two divisions. Probably the steady increase of the armies of Abijah, Asa, and Jehoshaphat symbolizes a proportionate increase of Divine favor. The chronicler records the names of the captains of the five divisions. Two of them are singled out for special commendation: Eliada the Benjamite is styled "a mighty man of valor," and of the Jewish captain Amaziah the son of Zichri it is said that he offered either himself or his possessions willingly to Jehovah, as David and his princes had offered, for the building of the Temple. The devout king had devout officers. He had also devoted subjects. All Judah brought him presents, so that he had great riches and ample means to sustain his royal power and splendor. Moreover, as in the case of Solomon and Asa, his piety was rewarded with freedom from war: "The fear of Jehovah fell upon all the kingdoms round about, so that they made no war against Jehoshaphat." Some of his weaker neighbors were overawed by the spectacle of his great power; the Philistines brought him presents and tribute money, and the Arabians immense flocks of rams and he-goats, seven thousand seven hundred of each. Great prosperity had the usual fatal effect upon Jehoshaphat’s character. In the beginning of his reign he had strengthened himself against Israel and had refused to walk in their ways; now power had developed ambition, and he sought and obtained the honor of marrying his son Jehoram to Athaliah the daughter of Ahab, the mighty and magnificent king of Israel, possibly also the daughter of the Phoenician princess Jezebel, the devotee of Baal. This family connection of course implied political alliance. After a time Jehoshaphat went down to visit his new ally, and was hospitably received. { 2 Chronicles 18:1-3 } Then follows the familiar story of Micaiah the son of Imlah, the disastrous expedition of the two kings, and the death of Ahab, almost exactly as in the book of Kings. There is one significant alteration: both narratives tell us how the Syrian captains attacked Jehoshaphat because they took him for the king of Israel and gave up their pursuit when he cried out, and they discovered their mistake; but the chronicler adds the explanation that Jehovah helped him and God moved them to depart from him. And so the master of more than a million soldiers was happy in being allowed to escape on account of his insignificance, and returned in peace to Jerusalem. Oded and Hanani had met his predecessors on their return from victory; now Jehu the son of Hanani met Jehoshaphat when he came home defeated. Like his father, the prophet was charged with a message of rebuke. An alliance with the Northern Kingdom was scarcely less reprehensible than one with Syria: "Shouldest thou help the wicked, and love them that hate Jehovah? Jehovah is wroth with thee." Asa’s previous reforms were not allowed to mitigate the severity of his condemnation, but Jehovah was more merciful to Jehoshaphat. The prophet makes mention of his piety and his destruction of idolatrous symbols, and no further punishment is inflicted upon him. The chronicler’s addition to the account of the king’s escape from the Syrian captains reminds us that God still watches over and protects His children even when they are in the very act of sinning against Him. Jehovah knew that Jehoshaphat’s sinful alliance with Ahab did not imply complete revolt and apostasy. Hence doubtless the comparative mildness of the prophet’s reproof. When Jehu’s father Hanani rebuked Asa, the king flew into a passion, and cast the prophet into prison; Jehoshaphat received Jehu’s reproof in a very different spirit: he repented himself, and found a new zeal in his penitence. Learning from his own experience the proneness of the human’ heart to go astray, he went out himself amongst his people to bring them back to Jehovah; and just as Asa in his apostasy oppressed his people, Jehoshaphat in his renewed loyalty to Jehovah showed himself anxious for good government. He provided judges in all the walled towns of Judah, with a court of appeal at Jerusalem; he solemnly charged them to remember their responsibility to Jehovah, to avoid bribery, and not to truckle to the rich and powerful. Being themselves faithful to Jehovah, they were to inculcate a like obedience and warn the people not to sin against the God of their fathers. Jehoshaphat’s exhortation to his new judges concludes with a sentence whose martial resonance suggests trial by combat rather than the peaceful proceedings of a law-court: "Deal courageously, and Jehovah defend the right!" The principle that good government must be a necessary consequence of piety in the rulers has not been so uniformly observed in later times as in the pages of Chronicles. The testimony of history on this point is not altogether consistent. In spite of all the faults of the orthodox and devout Greek emperors Theodosius the Great and Marcian, their administration rendered important services to the empire. Alfred the Great was a distinguished statesman and warrior as well as zealous for true religion. St. Louis of France exercised a wise control over Church and state. It is true that when a woman reproached him in open court with being a king of friars, of priests, and of clerks, and not a true king of France, he replied with saintly meekness, "You say true! It has pleased the Lord to make me king; it had been well if it had pleased Him to make some one king who had better ruled the realm." But something must be allowed for the modesty of the saint; apart from his unfortunate crusades, it would have been difficult for France or even Europe to have furnished a more beneficent sovereign. On the other hand, Charlemagne’s successor, the Emperor Louis the Pious, and our own kings Edward the Confessor and the saintly Henry VI, were alike feeble and inefficient; the zeal of the Spanish kings and their kinswoman Mary Tudor is chiefly remembered for its ghastly cruelty; and in comparatively recent times the misgovernment of the States of the Church was a byword throughout Europe. Many causes combined to produce this mingled record. The one most clearly contrary to the chronicler’s teaching was an immoral opinion that the Christian should cease to be a citizen, and that the saint has no duties to society. This view is often considered to be the special vice of monasticism, but it reappears in one form or another in every generation. The failure of the administration of Louis the Pious is partly explained when we read that he was with difficulty prevented from entering a monastery. In our own day there are those who think that a newspaper should have no interest for a really earnest Christian. According to their ideas, Jehoshaphat should have divided his time between a private oratory in his palace and the public services of the Temple, and have left his kingdom to the mercy of unjust judges at home and heathen enemies abroad, or else have abdicated in favor of some kinsman whose heart was not so perfect with Jehovah. The chronicler had a clearer insight into Divine methods, and this doctrine of his is not one that has been superseded together with the Mosaic ritual. Possibly the martial tone of the sentence that concludes the account of Jehoshaphat as the Jewish Justinian is due to the influence upon the chronicler’s mind of die incident which he now describes. Jehoshaphat’s next experience was parallel to that of Asa with Zerah. When his new reforms were completed, he was menaced with a formidable invasion. His new enemies were almost as distant and strange as the Ethiopians and Lubim who had followed Zerah. We hear nothing about any king of Israel or Damascus, the usual leaders of assaults upon Judah; we hear instead of a triple alliance against Judah. Two of the allies are Moab and Ammon; but the Jewish kings were not wont to regard these as irresistible foes, so that the extreme dismay which takes possession of king and people must be due to the third ally: the Meunim we have already met with in connection with the exploits of the children of Simeon in the reign of Hezekiah; they are also mentioned in the reign of Uzziah, and nowhere else, unless indeed they are identical with the Maonites, who are named with the Amalekites in Jdg 10:12 . They are thus a people peculiar to Chronicles, and appear from this narrative to have inhabited Mount Seir, by which term "Meunim" is replaced as the story proceeds. Since the chronicler wrote so long after the events he describes, we cannot attribute to him any very exact knowledge of political geography. Probably the term "Meunim" impressed his contemporaries very much as it does a modern reader, and suggested countless hordes of Bedouin plunderers; Josephus calls them a great army of Arabians. This host of invaders came from Edom, and having marched round the southern end of the Dead Sea, were now at Engedi, on its western shore. The Moabites and Ammonites might have crossed the Jordan by the fords near Jericho; but this route would not have been convenient for their allies the Meunim, and would have brought them into collision with the forces of the Northern Kingdom. On this occasion Jehoshaphat does not seek any foreign alliance. He does not appeal to Syria, like Asa, nor does he ask Ahab’s successor to repay in kind the assistance given to Ahab at Ramoth-gilead, partly perhaps because there was no time, but chiefly because he had learnt the truth which Hanani had sought to teach his father, and which Hanani’s son had taught him. He does not even trust in his own hundreds of thousands of soldiers, all of whom cannot have perished at Ramoth-gilead; his confidence is placed solely and absolutely in Jehovah. Jehoshaphat and his people made no military preparations; subsequent events justified their apparent neglect: none were necessary. Jehoshaphat sought Divine help instead, and proclaimed a fast throughout Judah; and all Judah gathered themselves to Jerusalem to ask help of Jehovah. This great national assembly met "before the new court" of the Temple. The chronicler, who is supremely interested in the Temple buildings, has told us nothing about any new court, nor is it mentioned elsewhere; our author is probably giving the title of a corresponding portion of the second Temple: the place where the people assembled to meet Jehoshaphat would be the great court built by Solomon. { 2 Chronicles 4:9 } Here Jehoshaphat stood up as the spokesman of the nation, and prayed to Jehovah on their behalf and on his own. He recalls the Divine omnipotence; Jehovah is God of earth and heaven, God of Israel and Ruler of the heathen, and therefore able to help even in this great emergency:- "O Jehovah, God of our fathers, art Thou not God in heaven? Dost Thou not rule all the kingdoms of the heathen? And in Thy hand is power and might, so that none is able to withstand Thee." The land of Israel had been the special gift of Jehovah to His people, in fulfillment of His ancient promise to Abraham:- "Didst not Thou, O our God, dispossess the inhabitants of this land in favor of Thy people Israel, and gavest it to the seed of Abraham Thy friend forever?" And now long possession had given Israel a prescriptive right to the Land of Promise; and they had, so to speak, claimed their rights in the most formal and solemn fashion by erecting a temple to the God of Israel. Moreover, the prayer of Solomon at the dedication of the Temple had been accepted by Jehovah as the basis of His covenant with Israel, and Jehoshaphat quotes a clause from that prayer or covenant which had expressly provided for such emergencies as the present:- "And they" (Israel) "dwelt in the land, and built Thee therein a sanctuary for Thy name, saying, If evil come upon us, the sword, judgment, pestilence, or famine, we will stand before this house and before Thee (for Thy name is in this house), and cry unto Thee in our affliction; and Thou wilt hear and save." Moreover, the present invasion was not only an attempt to set aside Jehovah’s disposition of Palestine and the long-established rights of Israel: it was also gross ingratitude, a base return for the ancient forbearance of Israel towards her present enemies:- "And now, behold, the children of Ammon and Moab and Mount Seir, whom Thou wouldest not let Israel invade when they came out of the land of Egypt, but they turned aside from them and destroyed them not-behold how they reward us by coming to dispossess us of Thy possession which Thou hast caused us to possess." For this nefarious purpose the enemies of Israel had come up in overwhelming numbers, but Judah was confident in the justice of its cause and the favor of Jehovah:- "O our God, wilt Thou not execute judgment against them? for we have no might against this great company that cometh against us, neither know we what to do, but our eyes are upon Thee." Meanwhile the great assemblage stood in the attitude of supplication before Jehovah, not a gathering of mighty men of valor praying for blessing upon their strength and courage, but a mixed multitude, men and women, children and infants, seeking sanctuary, as it were, at the Temple, and casting themselves in their extremity upon the protecting care of Jehovah. Possibly when the king finished his prayer the assembly broke out into loud, wailing cries of dismay and agonized entreaty; but the silence of the narrative rather suggests that Jehoshaphat’s strong, calm faith communicated itself to the people, and they waited quietly for Jehovah’s answer, for some token or promise of deliverance. Instead of the confused cries of an excited crowd, there was a hush of expectancy, such as sometimes falls upon an assembly when a great statesman has risen to utter words which will be big with the fate of empires. And the answer came, not by fire from heaven or any visible sign, not by voice of thunder accompanied by angelic trumpets, nor by angel or archangel, but by a familiar voice hitherto unsuspected of any supernatural gifts, by a prophetic utterance whose only credentials were given by the influence of the Spirit upon the speaker and his audience. The chronicler relates with evident satisfaction how, in the midst of that great congregation, the Spirit of Jehovah came, not upon king, or priest, or acknowledged prophet, but upon a subordinate minister of the Temple, a Levite and member of the Temple choir like himself. He is careful to fix the identity of this newly called prophet and to gratify the family pride of existing Levitical families by giving the prophet’s genealogy for several generations. He was Jahaziel the son of Zechariah, the son of Benaiah, the son of Jeiel, the son of Mattaniah, of the sons of Asaph. The very names were encouraging. What more suitable names could be found for a messenger of Divine mercy than Jahaziel-"God gives prophetic vision" - the son of Zechariah-"Jehovah remembers?" Jahaziel’s message showed that Jehoshaphat’s prayer had been accepted; Jehovah responded without reserve to the confidence reposed in Him: He would vindicate His own authority by delivering Judah; Jehoshaphat should have blessed proof of the immense superiority of simple trust in Jehovah over an alliance with Ahab or the king of Damascus. Twice the prophet exhorts the king and people in the very words that Jehovah had used to encourage Joshua when the death of Moses had thrown upon him all the heavy responsibilities of leadership: "Fear not, nor be dismayed." They need no longer cling like frightened suppliants to the sanctuary, but are to go forth at once, the very next day, against the enemy. That they may lose no time in looking for them, Jehovah announces the exact spot where the enemy are to be found: "Behold, they are coming by the ascent of Hazziz, and ye shall find them at the end of the ravine before the wilderness of Jeruel." This topographical description was doubtless perfectly intelligible to the chronicler’s contemporaries, but it is no longer possible to fix exactly the locality of Hazziz or Jeruel. The ascent of Hazziz has been identified with the Wady Husasa, which leads up from the coast of the Dead Sea north of Engedi, in the direction of Tekoa; but the identification is by no means certain. The general situation, however, is fairly clear: the allied invaders would come up from the coast into the highlands of Judah by one of the wadies leading inland; they were to be met by Jehoshaphat and his people on one of the "wildernesses," or plateaus of pasture-land, in the neighborhood of Tekoa. But the Jews went forth, not as an army, but in order to be the passive spectators of a great manifestation of the power of Jehovah. They had no concern with the numbers and prowess of their enemies; Jehovah Hiresell would lay bare His mighty arm, and Judah should see that no foreign ally, no millions of native warriors, were necessary for their salvation: "Ye shall not need to fight in this battle; take up your position, stand still and see the deliverance of Jehovah with you, O Judah and Jerusalem." Thus had Moses addressed Israel on the eve of the passage of the Red Sea. Jehoshaphat and his people owned and honored the Divine message as if Jahaziel were another Moses; they prostrated themselves on the ground before Jehovah. The sons of Asaph had already been privileged to provide Jehovah with His prophet; these Asaphites represented the Levitical clan of Gershom: but now the Kohathites, with their guild of singers, the sons of Korah, "stood up to praise Jehovah, the God of Israel, with as exceeding loud voice," as the Levites sang when the foundations of the second Temple were laid, and when Ezra and Nehemiah made the people enter into a new covenant with their God. Accordingly on the morrow the people rose early in the morning and went out to the wilderness of Tekoa, ten or twelve miles south of Jerusalem. In ancient times generals were wont to make a set speech to their armies before they led them into battle, so Jehoshaphat addresses his subjects as they pass out before him. He does not seek to make them confident in their own strength and prowess; he does not inflame their passions against Moab and Ammon, nor exhort them to be brave and remind them that they fight this day for the ashes of their fathers and the temple of their God. Such an address would have been entirely out of place, because the Jews were not going to fight at all. Jehoshaphat only bids them have faith in Jehovah and His prophets. It is a curious anticipation of Pauline teaching. Judah is to be "saved by faith" from Moab and Ammon, as the Christian is delivered by faith from sin and its penalty. The incident might almost seem to have been recorded in order to illustrate the truth that St. Paul was to teach. It is strange that there is no reference to this chapter in the epistles of St. Paul and St. James, and that the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews does not remind us how "by faith Jehoshaphat was delivered from Moab and Ammon." There is no question of military order, no reference to the five great divisions into which the armies of Judah and Benjamin are divided in chapter 17. Here, as at Jericho, the captain of Israel is chiefly concerned to provide musicians to lead his army. When David was arranging for the musical services before the Ark, he took counsel with his captains. In this unique military expedition there is no mention of captains; they were not necessary, and if they were present there was no opportunity for them to show their skill and prowess in battle. In an even more democratic spirit Jehoshaphat takes counsel with the people-that is, probably makes some proposition, which is accepted with universal acclamation. The Levitical singers, dressed in the splendid robes in which they officiated at the Temple, were appointed to go before the people, and offer praises unto Jehovah, and sing the anthem, "Give thanks unto Jehovah, for His mercy endureth forever." These words or their equivalent are the opening words, and the second clause the refrain, of the post-Exilic Psalm 106:1-48 ; Psalm 107:1-43 ; Psalm 118:1-29 ; Psalm 136:1-26 . As the chronicler has already ascribed Psalm 106:1-48 to David, he possibly ascribes all four to David, and intends us to understand that one or all of them were sung by the Levites on this occasion. Later Judaism was in the habit of denoting a book or section of a book by its opening words. And so Judah, a pilgrim caravan rather than an army, went on to its Divinely appointed tryst with its enemies, and at its head the Levitical choir sang the Temple hymns. It was not a campaign, but a sacred function, on a much larger scale a procession such as may be seen winding its way, with chants and incense, banners, images, and crucifixes, through the streets of Catholic cities. Meanwhile Jehovah was preparing a spectacle to gladden the eyes of His people and reward their implicit faith and exact obedience; He was working for those who were waiting for Him. Though Judah was still far from its enemies, yet like the trumpet at Jericho, the strain of praise and thanksgiving was the signal for the Divine intervention: "When they began to sing and praise, Jehovah set liars in wait against the children of Ammon, Moab, and Mount Self." Who were these liars in wait? They could not be men of Judah: they were not to fight, but to be passive spectators of their own deliverance. Did the allies set an ambush for Judah, and was it thus that they were afterwards led to mistake their own people for enemies? Or does the chronicler intend us to understand that these "liars in wait" were spirits; that the allied invaders were tricked and bewildered like the shipwrecked sailors in the Tempest; or that when they came to the wilderness of Jeruel there fell upon them a spirit of mutual distrust, jealousy, and hatred, that had, as it were, been waiting for them there? But, from whatever cause, a quarrel broke out amongst them; and they were smitten. When Ammonite, Moabite, and Edomite met, there were many private and public feuds waiting their opportunity; and such confederates were as ready to quarrel among themselves as a group of Highland clans engaged in a Lowland foray. "Ammon and Moab stood up against the inhabitants of Mount Seir utterly to slay and destroy them." But even Ammon and Moab soon dissolved their alliance; and at last, partly maddened by panic, partly intoxicated by a wild thirst for blood, a very Berserker frenzy, all ties of friendship and kindred were forgotten, and every man’s hand was against his brother. "When they had made an end of the inhabitants of Self, every one helped to destroy another." While this tragedy was enacting, and the air was rent with the cruel yells of that death struggle, Jehoshaphat and his people moved on in tranquil pilgrimage to the cheerful sound of the songs of Zion. At last they reached an eminence, perhaps the long, low summit of some ridge overlooking the plateau of Jeruel. When they had gained this watchtower of the wilderness, the ghastly scene burst upon their gaze. Jehovah had kept His word: they had found their enemy. They "looked upon the multitude," all those hordes of heathen tribes that had filled them with terror and dismay. They were harmless enough now: the Jews saw nothing but "dead bodies fallen to the earth"; and in that Aceldama lay all the multitude of profane invaders who had dared to violate the sanctity of the Promised Land: "There were none that escaped." So had Israel looked back after crossing the Red Sea and seen the corpses of the Egyptians washed up on the shore. { Exodus 14:30 } Set when the angel of Jehovah smote Sennacherib, - "Like the leaves of the forest when autumn hath blown, That host on the morrow lay withered and strown." There is no touch of pity for the wretched victims of their own sins. Greeks of every city and tribe could feel the pathos of the tragic end of the Athenian expedition against Syracuse; but the Jews had no ruth for the kindred tribes that dwelt along their frontier, and the age of the chronicler had not yet learnt that Jehovah had either tenderness or compassion for the enemies of Israel. The spectators of this carnage-we cannot call them victors-did not neglect to profit to the utmost by their great opportunity. They spent three days in stripping the dead bodies; and as Orientals delight in jewelled weapons and costly garments, and their chiefs take the field with barbaric ostentation of wealth, the spoil was both valuable and abundant: "riches, and raiment, and precious jewels more than they could carry away." In collecting the spoil, the Jews had become dispersed through all the wide area over which the fighting between the confederates must have extended; but on the fourth day they gathered together again in a neighboring valley and gave solemn thanks for their deliverance: "There they blessed Jehovah; therefore the name of that place was called the valley of Berachah unto this day." West of Tekoa. not too far from the scene of carnage, a ruin and a wady still bear the name "Bereikut"; and doubtless in the chronicler’s time the valley was called Berachah, and local tradition furnished our author with this explanation of the origin of the name. When the spoil was all collected, they returned to Jerusalem as they came, in solemn procession, headed, no doubt, by the Levites, with psalteries, and harps, and trumpets. They came back to the scene of their anxious supplications: to the house of Jehovah. But yesterday, as it were, they had assembled before Jehovah, terror-stricken at the report of an irresistible host of invaders; and today their enemies were utterly destroyed. They had experienced a deliverance that might rank with the Exodus; and as at that former deliverance they had spoiled the Egyptians, so now they had returned laden with the plunder of Moab, Ammon, and Edom. And all their neighbors were smitten with fear when they heard of the awful ruin which Jehovah had brought upon these enemies of Israel. No one would dare to invade a country where Jehovah laid a ghostly ambush of liars in wait for the enemies of His people. The realm of Jehoshaphat was quiet, not because he was protected by powerful allies or by the swords of his numerous and valiant soldiers, but because Judah had become another Eden, and cherubim with flaming swords guarded the frontier on every hand, and "his God gave him rest round about." Then follow the regular summary and conclusion of the history of the reign taken from the book of Kings, with the usual alterations in the reference to further sources of information. We are told here, in direct contradiction to 1 Chronicles 17:6 and to the whole tenor of the previous chapters, that the high places were not taken away, another illustration of the slight importance the chronicler attached to accuracy in details. He either overlooks the contradiction between passages borrowed from different sources, or else does not think it worth while to harmonize his inconsistent materials. But after the narrative of the reign is thus formally closed the chronicler inserts a postscript, perhaps by a kind of after-thought. The book of Kings narrates { 1 Kings 22:48-49 } how Jehoshaphat made ships to go to Ophir for gold, but they were broken at Ezion-geber; then Ahaziah the son of Ahab proposed to enter into partnership with Jehoshaphat, and the latter rejected his proposal. As we have seen, the chronicler’s theory of retribution required some reason why so pious a king experienced misfortune. What sin had Jehoshaphat committed to deserve to have his ships broken? The chronicler has a new version of the story, which provides an answer to this question. Jehoshaphat did not build any ships by himself; his unfortunate navy was constructed in partnership with Ahaziah; and accordingly the prophet Eliezer rebuked him for allying himself a second time with a wicked king of Israel, and announced the coming wreck of the ships. And so it came about that the ships were broken, and the shadow of Divine displeasure rested on the last days of Jehoshaphat. We have next to notice the chronicler’s most important omissions. The book of Kings narrates another alliance of Jehoshaphat with Jehoram, king of Israel, like his alliances with Ahab and Ahaziah. The narrative of this incident closely resembles that of the earlier joint expedition to Ramoth-Gilead. As then Jehoshaphat marched out with Ahab, so now he accompanies Ahab’s son Jehoram, taking with him his subject ally the king of Edom. Here also a prophet appears upon the scene; but on this occasion Elisha addresses no rebuke to Jehoshaphat for his alliance with Israel, but treats him with marked respect: and the allied army wins a great victory. If this narrative had been included in Chronicles, the reign of Jehoshaphat would not have afforded an altogether satisfactory illustration of the main lesson which the chronicler intended it to teach. This main lesson was that the chosen people should not look for protection against their enemies either to foreign alliances or to their own military strength, but solely to the grace and omnipotence of Jehovah. One negative aspect of this principle has been enforced by the condemnation of Asa’s alliance with Syria and Jehoshaphat’s with Ahab and Ahaziah. Later on the uselessness of an army apart from Jehovah is shown in the defeat of "the great host" of Joash by "a small company" of Syrians. The positive aspect has been partially illustrated by the signal victories of Abijah and Asa against overwhelming odds and without the help of any foreign a

And Jehoshaphat the king of Judah returned to his house in peace to Jerusalem. 2 Chronicles 19:1-9 Jehoshaphat's declension and recovery D. C. Hughes. I. GOD MAKES A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A BACKSLIDDEN CHILD AND AN APOSTATE. 1. He preserves the life of the child (ver. 1). 2. God reproves in grace His backslidden child (ver. 2, 3). 3. God commends His backslidden child for the good he has done. II. JEHOSHAPHAT EXEMPLIFIES THE TRUE SPIRIT IN WHICH WE SHOULD RECEIVE DIVINE REPROOF. 1. He received the Divine reproof without resentment and with real contrition for his sin. 2. He sought to make amends for past misconduct by greater personal efforts to promote the spiritual interests of his people. III. JEHOSHAPHAT LAYS DOWN RULES FOR THE JUDGES OF THE PEOPLE WHICH ARE APPLICABLE AND ESSENTIAL TO OUR OWN TIMES. 1. That a true judge must have reference to God in his decisions (ver. 6). 2. That a true judge should be a real Christian (ver. 7).Lessons: 1. Unholy alliances are fraught with the greatest danger to every child of God. 2. In his backslidden state the child of God should at once heed God's warning and reproof through His servants. 3. God requires personal efforts for the promotion of His cause from the rich as well as poor; from those in the highest positions of State as well as from the obscure and lowly. ( D. C. Hughes. ) Shouldest thou help the ungodly, and love them that hate the Lord? Entangling alliances A. Phelps. I. THE FRIENDSHIP OF WICKED MEN ONE OF THE MOST DANGEROUS TEMPTATIONS TO WHICH CHRISTIANS ARE SUBJECT. Modern life in cities illustrates this with special force. 1. The wealth of the world is largely in the hands of men who are not friends of Christ. 2. In many communities intelligence and culture are possessed mainly by the irreligious. 3. Interests of business sometimes create similar peril. 4. In a higher circle of life professional success often tempts young men of aspiring mind to ally themselves with those who love not God. II. WHILE CHRISTIAN PRINCIPLE REQUIRES NO NARROW OR ASCETIC SECLUSION FROM THE WORLD, YET IT FORBIDS SEEKING WORLDLY FRIENDSHIPS AND ALLIANCES FOR SELFISH ENDS AND TO THE PERIL OF RELIGIOUS USEFULNESS AND RELIGIOUS CHARACTER. III. THE IRRELIGIOUS FRIENDSHIPS OF RELIGIOUS MEN VIOLATE THE RULING SPIRIT OF THE SCRIPTURES. IV. ENTANGLING ALLIANCES WITH THE WORLD OFTEN INVOLVE IMMENSE SACRIFICE OF CHRISTIAN USEFULNESS. V. CHRISTIAN ALLIANCES WITH THE WICKED DO NOT COMMAND THE RESPECT OF THE VERY MAN FOR WHOSE FAVOUR THEY ARE FORMED. VI. LOVING THOSE THAT HATE GOD INFLICTS A WOUND OF GREAT SEVERITY ON THE FEELINGS OF JESUS CHRIST. It is from Calvary that the voice comes to each in our solitude, "Shouldest thou love them that hate the Lord?" ( A. Phelps. ) Jehoshaphat's connection with Ahab J. Chapin. I. WHAT IS THAT INTIMACY WITH THE UNGODLY WHICH GOD FORBIDS? 1. An alliance with them. 2. A conformity with them. 3. An unnecessary association with them. II. WHY IS IT SO DISPLEASING TO GOD? 1. On account of the state of mind it implies. 2. On account of its pernicious tendency. 3. On account of its Opposition to His revealed will. ( J. Chapin. ) Associating with the ungodly It is told of a sweet-voiced canary that it forgot how to sing by having its cage hung outside where it was constantly surrounded by sparrows. It gave up its once sweet notes and learned to chatter the meaningless, tuneless notes of the sparrow. The constant association with the Christless is apt to make our hearts grow Christless. Jehoshaphat; or the dangers of indecision J. Hessey. I have to describe to you a man, not lost, but continually in danger of being lost; a man not wicked, but weak; a man possessing in his character much that was good, but allowing his goodness to be sullied by approach to evil and evil men. I have to show you how one ill-considered step, in the earlier part of his career, embarrassed his whole reign. Affinity with Ahab's family affected more or less the whole life of Jehoshaphat. This should make us cautious. I. IN SUCH SERIOUS MATTERS AS FORMING FAMILY CONNECTIONS, OR PARTNERSHIPS IN BUSINESS. II. In what appear MINOR THINGS. Observe the man who is over-persuaded to what he believes to be evil; the man who consents to do what is wrong, and justifies himself by saying some good will come of it; the man who frequents the society of the vicious, yet believes that he can escape corruption; the man who enjoys the jest of the profane, yet supposes that his mind can retain its reverence for holy things; the man who is silent when he should declare openly his disapprobation of evil; the man who runs himself into temptation, yet trusts that God will find him a way out of it. All these persons do, in their measure and degree, expose themselves to danger — commit acts of indecision — take a step which may necessitate others, against which they may exert themselves in vain — impress a stain on their conscience which it may require years to efface — and plant on the soil of their souls a weed so vivacious, so self-spreading, so absorbent of moisture and nutriment, that by and by it may choke the growth of all Christian graces and virtues. ( J. Hessey. ) Nevertheless there are good things found in thee The stimulus of an encouraging word J. Parker, D.D. The Lord will analyse a man's disposition and a man's character, and will assign to him all that is due. What man is wholly bad? Surely in the very worst of men there are excellences, and it ought to be our delight to consider these, and where possible, with due regard to justice, to magnify them and to call the man's attention to them. A man may take heart when he sees some of his best points. Here is a lesson for parents, magistrates, and teachers and monitors of every name and position. Tell a boy that he has done something well. We are too much afraid of what is called flattery, forgetting that flattery is a lie; but we are called upon simply to state the truth, and to state it with affection and emphasis, that it may become an encouragement to hearts that are very easily cast down. ( J. Parker, D.D. ) Good and bad things in moral character J. Parker, D. D. Is a man whose character is good to the extent of six-sevenths to be pronounced a bad man? Is there not a spiritual arithmetic which looks into majorities and minorities of a moral kind? Will God, then, at last drive away from Him men who have had six good points out of seven? As business men, suppose a man be recommended to you in these terms: This man has seven qualities, and six of them are really admirable; the only thing about him is that you cannot trust him with money. Would you take him? Six points are good out of seven: will you go by the majority or by the minority? Another man is also good in six points, admirable; the only fault he has is that you cannot believe a word he says. Will you take him into your business? There is a minority greater than any majority can be. That is the doctrine which we have omitted when we have been criticising eternal providence and wondering about the issues of human action. Amongst ourselves it is right that we should say of one another, "He is a good man take him on the whole." But what is the meaning of the reservation? Is it a grace, a posture that may be taught by a hired master? Or is it a morality, the want of which turns the whole being into a bog on which you cannot rest with security? ( J. Parker, D. D. ) Jehu's commendation S. B. James, M. A. We may very well admit that the nearer we get to God and to His sunlight the more freely and fully we shall admit that there is no good thing to be found in us. But yet God sometimes allows His angels to say of a mortal man, "There are good things in him," without any frown of supreme displeasure. This should — 1. Comfort us. Our good deeds are not useless, not forgotten. 2. Encourage us. If God speak so like an indulgent master to a trying servant, then we need not fear Him. We need dread no impatient frowns upon our insufficient strivings. 3. Humble us. We are perhaps not so good as Jehoshaphat. For his one backsliding ours, perhaps, are many.Lessons: 1. Mutual forbearance. Let us not set down any of our neighbours as altogether bad. 2. Let us see that our good qualities are definite and discoverable. 3. Let us pray earnestly, agonisingly, that the good in us may overcome the evil. Evil must not for a moment be tolerated. Christ must reign. ( S. B. James, M. A. ) And he set Judges in the land. 2 Chronicles 19:5-11 Good government should be the result of piety in rulers W. H. Bennett, M.A. Alfred the Great was a distinguished statesman and warrior, as well as zealous for true religion. St. Louis of France exercised a wise control over Church and State. On the other hand, Charlemagne's successor, the Emperor Louis the Pious, and our own Kings Edward the Confessor and the saintly Henry VI were alike feeble and inefficient; the zeal of the Spanish kings and their kinswoman, Mary Tudor, is chiefly remembered for its ghastly cruelty; and in comparatively modern times the misgovernment of the States of the Church was a byword throughout Europe. Many causes combined to produce this mingled record. The one most clearly contrary to the chronicler's teaching was an immoral opinion that the Christian should cease to be a citizen, and that the saint has no duties to society. This view is often considered to be the special vice of monasticism, but it reappears in one form or another in every generation. In our own day there are those who think that a newspaper should have no interest for a really earnest Christian. According to their ideas, Jehoshaphat should have divided his time between a private oratory in his palace and the public services of the temple, and have left his kingdom to the mercy of unjust judges at home and heathen enemies abroad, or else have abdicated in favour of some kinsmen whose heart was not so perfect with Jehovah. ( W. H. Bennett, M.A. ) The origin and right of human judicature Dean Young. The administration is for the Lord. I. THE POWER OF THE JUDGMENT IS GOD'S RIGHT. II. THE MATTER OF THE JUDGMENT IS GOD'S CAUSE. III. THE ISSUE OF THE JUDGMENT IS GOD'S END. "Is with you in the judgment." ( Dean Young. ) Wherefore now let the fear of the Lord be upon you. 2 Chronicles 19:7 Jehoshaphat reproved Monday Club Sermons. I. HIS SIN. This was — 1. Helping in an. ungodly enterprise, against which the prophet had warned him. 2. Forming an alliance, of which the influence on himself, his family, and people could only be bad. It fills one with a kind of despair to see how, among those who profess to regard religion an all-important, friendships and alliances discussed and fixed without this ever coming into view. II. THE REBUKE WHICH FOLLOWED THE KING'S SIN. III. THE KING'S REPENTANCE. 1. He received reproof with meekness. 2. He kept aloof from occasions of fresh sin. 3. He did what he could to repair the wrong his example had done. IV. WHAT MADE JEHOSHAPHAT SO PROMPT TO RETURN TO THE RIGHT PATH WHEN ONCE HE HAD LEFT IT? His deep sense of God and right appreciation of His character. "Wherefore now let the fear of the Lord be upon you; take heed and do it: for there is no iniquity with the Lord, nor respect of persons, nor taking of gifts." Nothing so controllingly underlies what a man is and does as his cherished thoughts of God. ( Monday Club Sermons. ) Deal courageously, and the Lord shall be with the good. 2 Chronicles 19:11 The blessedness of the good J. Leifchild. I. WHO ARE THE GOOD? The Scripture points out two things on this subject. 1. The only way in which men become good — by faith in Christ and the consequent reception of the Holy Spirit to create us anew. 2. The principal ingredients of the goodness of the regenerate. (1) Integrity of character. (2) Benevolence of character. (3) Piety of character. II. THE MEANING OF THIS DECLARATION AND HOW ITS TRUTH IS SUPPORTED. "The Lord shall be with the good." This means that the Lord will be with them in the supply of His Spirit, in providing for them in providence, preserving them from trouble, supporting them in it, or delivering them out of it, and blessing others for their sakes. This truth is justified — 1. From the purposes of God and the relation in which His people stand to Him. 2. By the promises of Scripture. 3. By all experience and by all history.Conclusion: 1. He shall be with the good nationally if they act consistently and faithfully. 2. He shall be with them individually. Fear not that He will ever leave His work of grace unfinished in you. ( J. Leifchild. ) A tonic promise J. Parker, D. D. Explain what is meant by "good." The melancholy fact that all men are not good. The promise of the text justifies three inquiries. 1. Why should the good be fearful? "They that be with us," etc. 2. How can bad designs finally prevail? 3. How are men to know that God is surely with them?The answer involves character: "the good." God identifies Himself with all that is good in thought as well as in act; in purpose as well as in service. Even when the godly man ceaseth God will maintain the cause that is "good." This promise, like all the promises of God, is designated not as a sedative, but a stimulant. Deal courageously! See how the text might have read: The Lord shall be with the good, therefore sit still; the Lord shall be with the good, therefore let wickedness have its own way in the world; the Lord shall be with the good, therefore pay no attention to self-discipline. The text reads contrariwise. The Lord is with the good, therefore deal courageously. Goodness is not to be merely passive — it is to be aggressive, defiant of all evil. ( J. Parker, D. D. ) Courage Reuen Thomas, D.D. Probably few of us ever sufficiently consider the value and need of courage in order to any high condition of character. There are to be found in one of the letters of one of the most interesting men of modern times these words, "How rare is it to have a friend who will defend you thoroughly and boldly! Mr. — missed an opportunity of doing this for me, and has not the courage to do it now as he ought to do, leaving me in consequence defenceless against a slander, though I put the proof into his hands. How indispensable strength is for high goodness-strength moral or intellectual, neither depending necessarily on physical strength." Many a man neglects to live a Christian life not because he lacks Christian sympathies, sentiments, and feelings, not even because he has no Christian ideas, but simply for lack of courage to put himself where he properly belongs. This lack of courage denotes, of course, either want of confidence in himself or want of depth of feeling as to religious truth, or fear of some man or men, which fear has too much influence over him to allow him to act conscientiously and in the line of his best sympathies. 1. In speaking of courage let us recognise that there is animal courage as well as intellectual and moral courage. Animal courage is of the lowest kind. Oftentimes it is nothing more than bull-dog ferocity. It oftentimes makes men good soldiers, successful pugilists, stalwart seamen — even daring adventurers. Men may have it without any intellectual or moral courage. A little of it is good. An excess tends to brutality. This form of courage — the courage to take physical punishment without flinching — is of a kind which the most uncultured and unrefined can appreciate. It will always have an attraction for the coarse, undeveloped, and unrespectable classes of society. 2. Intellectual courage is of another order, and indicates a superior type of man. It means practically the ability to think for one's self, and to follow out one's thinkings to their inevitable conclusions. It is necessary, however, to guard this language. Taking opinions into one's mind is not thinking. There is a period in our life when we have more conceit than wisdom, and more independence than politeness. We say to ourselves and others that "we mean to do our own thinking," which often amounts to this — that we mean to assert ourselves as not agreeing with certain persons who are said to be narrow and exclusive, and agreeing with those who shake themselves free from everybody else except a few intellectual rakes and dandies. Alas, how silly it all seems when we get a little older! Then it appears to us that it was the want of ability to think which made us so impertinent and ridiculous. Of course all young birds have to learn to do their own flying, and, after rolling and tumbling about for awhile, they settle down to do it precisely after the fashion of the old birds. So, also, with thinking. From the beginning even until now it has been done in exactly the same way. The process has consisted of the discernments of comparisons and contrasts, likenesses and unlikenesses, of induction, deduction, and inference. Every man has to do his own thinking to some extent, as every man has to do his own sating and his own digesting. There is no possibility of any one eating our food for us, or digesting it for us. And no man can possibly begin at the beginning of things, and think out each problem of life as if no one had been on the earth before him. The present is so related to the past, as that the past is in it and the future is in it. Everything is in the present. We inherit the earth, not as it first came out from the hands of the Creator before man was on it, but as it is, modified by man's co-operation with God. So of everything — that which is moral and mental as well as that which is material. In each department of things there are men who have thinking power and erudition far, far beyond what is possible to us. In each department they are our helpers, our instructors; yes, our masters. That independence which we assume in youth is only ignorance, foolishness, unthinkingness. The greatest men the world has ever known have been the most receptive and dependent men; the most diligent students, the aptest learners. If I am to learn painting it would be folly indeed if I said, "I am going to be independent of Murillo and Raphael, of Turner and Correggio and Rubens and all other artists who have gone before me." So in music the man who thinks for himself and never appropriates the science of others is idiotic. So everywhere in all departments. Not less so in theology, the revelation of God and of man, and of the relation of the human to the Divine. If I set up on my own account, and did not open my mind to the thinkings of others, the name of "Verdant Green" would be the only name that could fit me. I would have our younger people distinguish between two ideas which are very distinct, and yet are often confounded the one with the other — viz., thinking for one's self and cultivating a spirit of truth. The truth is that which corresponds to the fact. As a fact reports itself to your mind that is the truth for you. By and by as your mind grows it may report itself somewhat differently, then there will be something added to the original impression, and that will be the truth. Now, intellectual courage consists in this perfect truthfulness — this faithfulness to report what you see and recognise. It may sometimes put you in seeming inconsistency with yourself. It may subject you to being accused of inconsistency. But never mind. God does not ask us to be consistent — on that shallow view of consistency — but to be faithful and true. There is a deeper consistency — a nobler consistency. If I see a thing very partially in youth, because of the undeveloped condition of my mind, and see it more completely in manhood, because I have had more experience and more vision; if I truly say what I saw then and truly say what I see now, though I see now more than I saw then, am I not consistent — more nobly consistent — than I should be if I were afraid, under more experience, to contradict my former self? What is life for if not to educate us into deeper and larger views of truth? Only we must take good heed that they are deeper and larger. Many people change, but their change is not growth. Let us recognise that, in order to be assured of the leading of the Spirit of God into all truth, we must have intellectual courage — the courage to follow the truth wherever it leads and to own up to believing that it is the truth. Often it takes even sublime courage to do it. Every child ought to read the story of the martyrs of old. It is dreadful to think how little the religion of some of us means. The loss of the ability to grow deep-rooted convictions, and the loss of courage to be faithful in owning to them, is, wherever it occurs, a dreadful loss. It means the loss of that nobility of soul the possession of which is one of the surest marks of our being children of God. 3. But of all kinds of courage, moral courage is the noblest. Of course it enters into intellectual courage. The two are not distinct, and yet while intellectual courage implies thinking power and faithful following where the light seems to be, moral courage does not necessarily mean the courage of the crack thinker, but the courage of character; the courage which acts conscientiously in trying circumstances. For instance, the liar is always the coward. A man lies because he has not the courage to speak the truth and take the consequences. There is one exception to that rule. It is conceivable that a really truthful man might need courage to tell a lie which he thought would shelter a friend from injury or harm. My intellect may sometimes stand in contradiction to my conscience, "but conscience is given me to act by. In matters of duty, therefore, I am bound to obey my conscience rather than my intellect." Hence moral courage amounts pretty much to this — the steady, persistent following of the light which is in conscience. It involves, of course, the bringing of the conscience into the light, where it may be illuminated, for conscience is a light receiver, not a light originator. Courage, and much of it, is needed to act always and everywhere conscientiously. Intelligence is needed to distinguish between conscience and prejudice. Many a man assumes to be acting conscientiously when he is really acting only from prejudice and feeling. If he quietly took himself to task, he would recognise his true motive. Conscience represents God's judgment throne. The very fact that a man condemns himself in spite of his natural unwillingness to do it, proves that the voice of conscience is not his own voice. 4. But how are we to get the courage we need — intellectual courage to follow the truth wherever it leads, to utter it always in love, but to utter it; and the moral courage to obey conscience? Where did those apostles in the early Christian days get theirs? Few of them were more than average men. At the approach of calamity all the disciples forsook Jesus and fled. If there was an exception it was John. Peter disgraced himself pitifully. Yet within a few weeks we find men of such sublime courage that we hardly recognise them as the same men. Not Luther himself at the Diet of Worms, challenging the old ecclesiastical order of centuries, was braver. Not the Prince de Conde was braver as he stood before the King of France when given the choice of three things — first, to go to Mass; second, to die; third, to be imprisoned for life. He replied with regard to the first, "I am fully determined never to go to Mass; as to the other two I am so perfectly indifferent that I leave the choice to your Majesty." These are illustrations of the noble courage of noble men. They seem phenomenal and unusual. But there may be here amongst us men and women, yes, and children, capable of as determined a courage if put in similar circumstances. None of us can tell what we should do in any condition till we get there. It requires as much courage to suffer and be quiet and self-controlled as it does to act. Nothing is more admirable than the quiet domestic courage which many illustrate. I am inclined to adopt and endorse the words of one who has written, "few persons have courage enough to appear as good as they really are." That is the essence of moral courage. The religious life of business men is very shy and timid. There are men in this and every congregation who feel and believe more — far more — than they act. Sydney Smith has said that a great deal of talent is lost to the world for the want of a little courage. With more truth still we may say that a great deal of influence is lost to the Church for want of a little courage. I believe that few persons have the courage to appear as good as they really are. Courage is opposed to the spirit of compromise — the spirit of indolence — the spirit of silence when silence will be interpreted as consent on our part to what we do not believe. The spirit of fear, of indolence, of compromise, of guilty silence has to be overcome. How? The Spirit of God is granted to every seeking soul that the soul may overcome. ( Reuen Thomas, D.D. ).

19:1-11 Jehoshaphat visits his kingdom. - Whenever we return in peace to our houses, we ought to acknowledge God's providence in preserving our going out and coming in. And if we have been kept through more than common dangers, we are, in a special manner, bound to be thankful. Distinguishing mercies lay us under strong obligations. The prophet tells Jehoshaphat he had done very ill in joining Ahab. He took the reproof well. See the effect the reproof had upon him. He strictly searched his own kingdom. By what the prophet said, Jehoshaphat perceived that his former attempts for reformation were well-pleasing to God; therefore he did what was then left undone. It is good when commendations quicken us to our duty. There are diversities of gifts and operations, but all from the same Spirit, and for the public good; and as every one has received the gift, so let him minister the same. Blessed be God for magistrates and ministers, scribes and statesmen, men of books, and men of business. Observe the charge the king gave. They must do all in the fear of the Lord, with a perfect, upright heart. And they must make it their constant care to prevent sin, as an offence to God, and what would bring wrath on the people.