2 Crônicas 16

2 Crônicas 16

Barber - The fact that Asa continued to walk with the Lord during the twenty years of peace and prosperity, without any external pressure being brought to bear upon him, is to his credit. He did not fall into the trap of thinking that he could get along without God (cf. Deuteronomy 32:15).....“Since God had given Asa such a unique victory over Zerah, why didn’t he gather his forces together and attack Baasha?” The question is a good one. In answering it we need to point out that Asa may have had several reasons for not committing the army of Judah to the field of battle. (1) In the twenty years of peace, the army may have been reduced in size and/or become sluggish and unfit for the rigors of combat. (2) With the advance of years Asa may have had physical limitations that in some way made it difficult for him to lead his people into battle. (We need to remember that at this time in history it was customary for a king to lead his men into battle.) And closely associated with this is a third reason: Accompanying the aging process is an awareness of how destructive war really is. Asa may have wanted to protect his people and not cause the widows to sing sad songs over the graves of their husbands and sons. (2 Chronicles: God's Blessing of His Faith People) Norman Geisler - 2 CHRONICLES 16:1—How can this verse say Baasha king of Israel built Ramah in the thirty-sixth year of the reign of Asa? PROBLEM: Asa began his reign in about 911 B.C. The thirty-sixth year of his reign would have been about 876 or 875 B.C. However, Baasha began his reign in 909 and reigned until 886 B.C. when Elah his son became king (1 Kings 16:8). How could 2 Chronicles 16:1 say Baasha built Ramah in the thirty-sixth year of Asa, 11 years after Baasha’s death? SOLUTION: The number “thirty-six” is undoubtedly a copyist error. The actual number was probably “sixteen.” This error is explained by the fact that the numbers were probably written in numerical notation. In this type of notation, the difference between the letter representing the number 10 xx and the letter representing the number 30 xx was only two small strokes at the top of the letter. It is quite possible that a copyist misread the original and wrote the wrong letter for the number, possibly as the result of a smudged or damaged manuscript at his disposal. (When Critics Ask) W. Gustafson writes that "There is a serious chronological difficulty in the first verse. It says that Baasha came up against Judah in the thirty-sixth year of the reign of Asa. 1 Kings 16:8 shows that Elah the son of Baasha began to reign in the twenty-sixth year of the reign of Asa (right after his father had died), indicating that Baasha had died about ten years before the thirty-sixth year of Asa’s reign! Kiel writes, “The older commentators, for the most part, accepted the conjecture that the thirty-fifth year (in 15:19) is to be reckoned from the commencement of the kingdom of Judah; and consequently, since Asa became king in the twentieth year of the kingdom of Judah, Baasha’s invasion occurred in the sixteenth year of his reign, and the land had enjoyed peace till his fifteenth year”. In support of this theory, the Hebrew word MALKUT (<H4438>) is often translated “kingdom” as in 2 Chronicles 1:1; 2:1; 7:18; 11:17; 12:1; 33:13; Ezra 1:1; and Nehemiah 9:35. It is translated “realm” in 2 Chronicles 20:30 and Daniel 1:20. Thiele has popularized this view so that some modern commentators refer to his book, The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings. It is not always realized that Keil knew about this theory years before Thiele wrote. This is one possible solution and it does avoid the necessity of amending the text. But Dillard’s first objection to this idea is formidable: “Of the hundreds of bits of data for the chronology of the divided monarchy, this would be the only occasion of dating from the schism. It would be unique to this passage and therefore, a case of ‘special pleading’ to appeal to it”. Another possible solution, first given by Keil, prefers to regard the number “thirty-five” in 2 Chronicles 15:19 and the number “thirty-six” in 16:1 as a copyist’s error for “fifteen” and “sixteen” respectively. Archer (who is the most thorough and the most satisfying in dealing with this problem) also prefers this solution. He points out that, “if the number was written in numerical notation of the Hebrew alphabetic type (rather than the Egyptian multiple-stroke type used in the Elephantine Papyri), then ‘sixteen’ could quite easily be confused with ‘thirty-six’. The reason for this is that up through the seventh century BC the letter yod (=10) greatly resembled the letter lamed (=30), except for two tiny strokes attached to the left of the main vertical stroke”. If this is the true solution for the discrepancy it would be similar to 2 Chronicles 36:9, which gives the age of Jehoiachin as eight at the time he began to reign, whereas the parallel passage in 2 Kings 24:8 gives the true age as “eighteen”. Another similar instance is in 2 Chronicles 22:2, which gives the age of Ahaziah, the son of Jehoram, as “forty-two” when he began to reign, whereas 2 Kings 8:26 gives the correct age as “twenty-two”. Edersheim also considers this the only satisfactory solution. He writes, “There is manifestly here a copyist’s mistake, and the numeral which we would substitute for 35 is not 15 (as by most German commentators) but 25—and this for reasons too long to explain”. Edersheim’s suggestion of substituting 25 for 35 in 15:19 seems to be the best solution. That would also mean that 26 would be substituted for 36 in 16:1. (What the Bible Teaches - 1 Chronicles and 2 Chronicles) Gleason Archer - New International Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties - How can 2 Chronicles 16:1 (thirty-sixth year of Asa) be reconciled with 1 Kings 16:8 (Elah began to reign in the twenty-sixth year of Asa)? If Asa began his reign in 911 B.C., the thirty-sixth year of his reign would have been 876 or 875. He reigned for forty-one years (1 Kings 15:10); so this would have been a possible date—except for the fact that Baasha himself reigned from 909 to 886. Therefore he could not have built a fortress at Ramah in 875, eleven years after his death. Here we have a clear discrepancy in the Received Text. There are two possible solutions. One solution is that the phrase male-kú-t ʾĀsā in 2 Chronicles 16:1 does not refer to Asa’s own reign but rather should be understood as “the kingdom of Asa,” i.e., the southern kingdom of Judah as distinguished from the northern kingdom of the Ten Tribes. Since the southern kingdom began under Rehoboam in 931 or 930 B.C., the thirty-sixth year would come out to 895 for the expedition of Baasha—which is the correct year, in all probability. (Leon Wood, Israel’s History, p. 346, dates it as occurring in the sixteenth year of Asa, or 895.) This would mean that the Chronicler copied out his information from an older official record in Judah that at first used 931 as the “era” date rather than a regnal date. Later on, however, the Chronicler’s sources seem to have shifted to a regular regnal system of dating; for there are no other examples of such an era date except 2 Chronicles 15:19, which puts the war between Asa and Baasha in the thirty-fifth year of his reign. Jamieson (Jamieson-Fausset-Brown, Commentary, 1:274) favors this solution, saying, “The best Biblical critics are agreed in considering this date to be calculated from the separation of the kingdoms, and coincident with the sixteenth year of Asa’s reign. This mode of reckoning was, in all likelihood, generally followed in the book of the kings of Judah and Israel, the public annals of the time (v.11), the source from which the inspired historian drew his account.” In defense of this theory it should be said that maleḵûṯ is often used even in the post-Exilic books to mean “kingdom” or “realm” rather than “reign” (e.g., 2 Chron. 1:1; 11:17; 20:30; Neh. 9:35, Esth. 1:14, etc.) In 1 Chronicles 17:14 it is used of “royalty” as belonging to Yahweh; in Esther 1:2 and 5:1 as the “kingdom” of Persia. But it is without parallel to refer to the kingdom of a nation as a whole and identify it thus with one particular king who comes later on in the ruling dynasty. And the fact that in its account of the later history of Judah no such usage can be instanced in Chronicles raises a formidable difficulty to this solution, even though it does avoid the necessity of textual emendation. The other solution, presented by Keil (Keil and Delitzsch, Chronicles, pp. 366–67), prefers to regard the number “thirty-six” in 2 Chronicles 16:1 and the number “thirty-five” in 15:19 as a copyist’s error for “sixteen” and “fifteen,” respectively. There is no way in which such an error could have arisen if the Vorlage recorded the number of words fully spelled out (for “sixteen”—šíššāh ʿāśār—cannot possibly be misunderstood as “thirty-six”—še lōším wāšēš). But if the number was written in numerical notation of the Hebrew alphabetic type (rather than the Egyptian multiple-stroke type used in the Elephantine Papyri), then “sixteen” could quite easily be confused with “thirty-six.” The reason for this is that up through the seventh century B.C. the letter yod (= 10) greatly resembled the letter lamed (= 30), except for two tiny strokes attached to the left of the main vertical stroke. That is to say, yod looked like a “Z” tilted to the left with a second line parallel to the top of the “Z,” and lamed looked like a “Z” tilted to the left but with no top member. It required only a smudge from excessive wear on the scroll-column to result in making the yod look like a lamed—with a resultant error of twenty. It is possible that this error occurred first in the earlier passage, in 2 Chronicles 15:19 (with its “thirty-five” wrongly copied from an original “fifteen”); then to make it consistent in 16:1, the same scribe (or perhaps a later one) concluded that “sixteen” must be an error for “thirty-six” and changed it accordingly on his copy. If this is the true explanation for the discrepancy, then it would bear a similarity to the problem arising in 2 Kings 18:13, in which the relevant data compel an emendation of the “fourteenth year of King Hezekiah” to the “twenty-fourth year of King Hezekiah.” Another example of this involves 2 Chronicles 36:9, which gives the age of Jehoiachin as eight at the time of his accession, whereas the parallel in 2 Kings 24:8 indicates the true number as “eighteen.” Still another instance is 2 Chronicles 22:2, which gives the age of Ahaziah son of Jehoram as “forty-two” when he began to reign, whereas 2 Kings 8:26 gives it as “twenty-two” (which is more probably the correct number). A Brilliant Idea Help us, O Lord our God, for we rest on You. —2 Chronicles 14:11 Today's Scripture: 2 Chronicles 16:1-13 An ancient Indonesian fable tells of a turtle that could fly. He would hold on to a stick with his mouth as it was carried by geese. When the turtle heard the onlookers on the ground saying, “Aren’t those geese brilliant!” his pride was so hurt that he shouted, “It was my idea!” Of course he lost his grip. His pride became his downfall. For 41 years, Asa was a strong and humble king. He brought peace and prosperity to the kingdom of Judah. During the early years of Asa’s reign he prayed, “Lord, it is nothing for You to help, whether with many or with those who have no power; help us, O Lord our God, for we rest on You” (2 Chronicles 14:11). But toward the end of his reign, when the army of the northern kingdom of Israel confronted him, Asa sought help from the king of Syria instead of from God. Because of his foolishness, his rule weakened and his nation experienced wars. What went wrong? Proud of past achievements, Asa had forgotten to depend on the Lord, so the Lord was no longer showing “Himself strong” on Asa’s behalf (16:9). We must depend upon our God With deep humility, Lest pride should rob us of His strength And bring futility. —D. De Haan No one is stronger than the one who depends on God. D A Carson - BEGINNING WELL DOES NOT mean ending well. Judas Iscariot began as an apostle; Demas began as an apostolic helper. We know how they ended up. Asa began as a reforming king zealous for God, a man who displayed formidable faith and courage when the Cushites attacked (review yesterday’s meditation)—but how he ends up in 2 Chronicles 16 is frankly disquieting. The crisis was precipitated when Baasha, king of Israel, attacked some of Judah’s outlying towns and cities. Instead of displaying the same kind of resolute faith he had shown twenty-five years earlier, when he had to face the more formidable Cushites, Asa opts for a costly political expedient. He strips both the temple and his own palace of wealth, and sends it to Ben-Hadad, ruler of the rising regional power of Aram, centered in Damascus. Asa wants Ben-Hadad to attack Israel from the north, thereby forcing Baasha to withdraw his troops from the southern assault and defend himself in the north. The ploy worked. This was also linking Judah with Aram in dangerous ways. More importantly, the prophet Hanani puts his finger on the worst element in this strategy: Asa is depending on politics and money, and not on the Lord God. “Were not the Cushites and Libyans a mighty army with great numbers of chariots and horsemen? Yet when you relied on the LORD, he delivered them into your hand. For the eyes of the LORD range throughout the earth to strengthen those whose hearts are fully committed to him. You have done a foolish thing, and from now on you will be at war” (16:8–9). Even then the situation might have been retrieved: God so regularly listens to the truly repentant. But Asa merely becomes angry, so enraged that he throws Hanani the prophet into prison. His dictatorial urges multiply, and Asa begins to brutalize the people (16:10). Four years later he contracts a wretched disease, but instead of asking for the Lord’s help (let alone his forgiveness), he entrenches himself in bitterness and seeks help only from the physicians. Two years of disease later, he dies. What about all those years of godly reform? We are not in the position, of course, to offer a final accounting: that belongs to God alone. But people can be on the side of goodness or reform for all kinds of reasons other than love of God; phenomenologically, people can have a heart for God for a long time (15:17) but wilt before demonstrating final perseverance. In a disciplined person, it may take a while before the truth comes out. But when it does, the test, as always, is fundamental: Am I number one, or is God? (BORROW For the Love of God, Combined Edition, Volumes One and Two) QUESTION - What is the significance of Ramah in the Bible? ANSWER - Ramah is the name of several different cities in the Bible. Ramah of Asher is a village near the northern border of Asher in the region of Tyre (Joshua 19:29). Ramah of Naphtali is a village allotted to the tribe of Naphtali (Joshua 19:36). Ramah of Asher and Ramah of Naphtali may have been the same community since Asher’s and Naphtali’s boundaries were connected. Ramah of Benjamin is a town assigned to the tribe Benjamin near where Deborah ruled as judge over Israel (Judges 4:5). And Ramah of Simeon (also called Ramah of the Negev) is a desert village in the Negev allocated to the tribe of Simeon (Joshua 19:8). King David once gave presents to the people there from the spoils of war after successfully defeating the Amalekites (1 Samuel 30:27). Ramah means “height” or “high” and is often applied to military strongholds. Ramah of Benjamin plays the most prominent role in the biblical narrative. Ramah of Benjamin, situated about five miles north of Jerusalem and west of Geba and Michmash, is associated today with modern er-Ram. This Ramah was the birthplace, hometown, and burial site of the prophet Samuel (1 Samuel 1:1, 19–20; 25:1). The book of 1 Samuel places Ramah in the hill country of Ephraim—a vast mountainous territory comprising the tribal lands of Ephraim, Benjamin, and Manasseh. Deborah, Israel’s only female judge, set up headquarters in a location near Ramah of Benjamin: “She held court under the Palm of Deborah between Ramah and Bethel in the hill country of Ephraim, and the Israelites went up to her to have their disputes decided” (Judges 4:5). Ramah’s nearness to Gibeah, King Saul’s hometown (1 Samuel 10:26), made it the ideal refuge for David when fleeing from Saul to meet up with Samuel (1 Samuel 19:18–19). Ramah of Benjamin appears again during the divided monarchy and the rival kingdoms of Israel and Judah. King Baasha of Israel built a fortress at Ramah in Benjamin to stop people from entering or leaving Judah. But King Asa, who was ruling in Judah at the time, entered into an alliance with Ben-hadad of Damascus, king of Syria. When Baasha heard that Ben-hadad had attacked and conquered cities in Israel, he stopped fortifying Ramah and left for Tirzah. Asa then dismantled Baasha’s fortress in Ramah (1 Kings 15:17–22). Ramah of Benjamin is mentioned a few times in the prophetic books. Isaiah 10:29 tells how the Assyrians would advance toward Jerusalem by way of Ramah. This same Ramah is one of the cities that sounded a warning in Hosea’s judgment cry against Israel (Hosea 5:8). And after Jeremiah had been imprisoned and later thrown into a cistern by King Zedekiah, he was delivered to Ramah and released (Jeremiah 40:1). When the captives returned from exile in Babylon, Ramah of Benjamin is listed among the places where Jews settled (Ezra 2:26; Nehemiah 7:30). Jacob’s wife Rachel’s burial site is also associated with this Ramah. Rachel died giving birth to her son Benjamin and was buried near Bethlehem. Jacob marked her grave with a large pillar (Genesis 35:20). Later, Rachel is mentioned in a passage of lament: “A voice is heard in Ramah, mourning and great weeping, Rachel weeping for her children and refusing to be comforted, because they are no more” (Jeremiah 31:15). Speaking of the plight of the Hebrew exiles, the prophet portrays Rachel as weeping over her “children.” Ramah, a city in the territory of Rachel’s son Benjamin, was, in fact, populated by her descendants. In the New Testament, Matthew applies Jeremiah’s words to the weeping in Bethlehem when Herod massacred the children there after the birth of Christ (Matthew 2:17–18). It is the only time Ramah is mentioned in the New Testament.GotQuestions.org QUESTION - Who was King Baasha in the Bible? ANSWER - Baasha was king of Israel from 909–886 BC. His contemporary in Judah was King Asa, the great-grandson of King Solomon. The two kings were polar opposites—while Asa “did what was right in the eyes of the LORD, as his father David had done” (1 Kings 15:11), King Baasha was an evil ruler and followed idolatrous practices. Baasha took the throne after assassinating King Nadab son of Jeroboam while Nadab was attacking a Philistine town (1 Kings 15:27). Baasha then killed Jeroboam’s entire family. Although Baasha may not have known it, his actions to secure his throne were actually a part of God’s will. Years earlier, through Ahijah the prophet, God had pronounced judgment on Jeroboam and his descendants for their evil practices (1 Kings 14:1–16). It could be that Baasha had heard of the prophecy against Jeroboam, but he did not learn any lessons from Jeroboam’s fate; instead, he continued in Jeroboam’s wickedness. Because of Baasha’s rebellion against God’s Law, God spoke to the prophet Jehu and proclaimed the same judgment on Baasha’s house that Jeroboam’s family had received: complete destruction (1 Kings 16:1–4). Throughout his reign, King Baasha was at war against King Asa (1 Kings 15:16, 32). Baasha originally had a treaty with the king of Syria, Ben-Hadad, but, while Baasha was building fortifications in Ramah to keep anyone from going in or out of Judah, Asa took all the silver and gold from the Jerusalem treasuries and sent it to Ben-Hadad, asking the Syrians to ally with him instead. Ben-Hadad agreed, switched alliances, and sent his armies to attack the northern kingdom of Israel. This proved disastrous for Israel, as Ben-Hadad took the cities of Ijon, Dan, Abel, and Beth Maakah, as well as the region of Kinnereth and the territory of the tribe of Naphtali (verse 20). It seems that Baasha died of natural causes (1 Kings 16:6), but, when his son Elah succeeded him, the Lord’s judgment was swift in coming. After King Elah had reigned only two years, one of his commanders, Zimri, assassinated him while he was getting drunk at the house of one of his administrators (verses 9–10). Zimri then did as Baasha had done to Jeroboam’s household and killed Baasha’s entire family, not sparing “a single male, whether relative or friend” (verse 11).GotQuestions.org James Smith - ASA’S FAITH AND FAILURE 2 CHRONICLES 14–16 “Belief’s fire, once in us, Makes all else mere stuff to show itself; We penetrate our life with such a glow As fire lends wood and iron.” —Browning. In these chapters we have a faithful biography of Asa. The features of his character, both good and bad, are equally prominent. In the Bible there is no touching up of the negative to give the photograph a more pleasing appearance. As an historian the Spirit of God knows nothing of the art of flattery. As a man is in his heart so is he before God. The life of Asa is full of encouragement and warning to us. We observe his— I. Good Character. “Asa did that which was good and right in the eyes of the Lord his God” (chap. 14:2). This was a noble start. He refused to be guided by the light of his own eyes, or by the opinions and prejudices of others. It is a good thing to remember that the eyes of the Lord are ever in search of those whose hearts are right with Him, that He might show Himself strong in their behalf (chap. 16:9). Right thinking will lead to right acting, and God’s strength is on the side of the righteous. Asa not only “broke down the images,” he also “commanded Judah to seek the Lord God of their fathers.” It is not enough to put away the wrong. We must seek the right. To give up our idols will avail us nothing unless we turn to God (1 Thess. 1:9). II. Great Faith. Asa’s faith was put to the test when his army of 580,000 was met by 1,000,000 Ethiopians and 300 chariots, but it stood the test. “Asa cried unto the Lord his God, and said, Lord, it is nothing with Thee to help, whether with many or with them that have no power. We rest on Thee, and in Thy Name we go against this multitude” (2Ch 14:11, 12). He looks upon the many as nothing, but the “help of God” as everything. To have God’s help is to get an almighty lift. The way to secure His help is to “rest on Him,” and go in His Name. This is the work of faith, and faith gains the day, for the “Lord smote the Ethiopians before Asa.” He did it, for Asa rested on Him, and trusted in His Name to do it. “This is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith.” III. Timely Warning. “The Spirit of God came upon Azariah, and he went out to meet Asa, and said, Hear ye me, Asa, the Lord is with you while ye be with Him … Be ye strong therefore, … for your work shall be rewarded” (2Ch 15:1–7). This is emphatically a Spirit-inspired message. Why did it come to Asa immediately after his great victory of faith? Because the Spirit of God knew that at that moment there was a danger of him being lifted up with pride, and of falling back into a state of self-confidence. Oh, how anxious the Holy Spirit still is to maintain our faith in God, that His Name might be honoured by doing great things for us! “If thou wouldst believe, thou shouldest see the glory of God” (John 11:40). Take heed how you hear. IV. Mighty Influence. “They fell to him out of Israel in abundance, when they saw that the Lord his God was with him” (2Ch 15:9). Many strangers from the kingdom of Israel joined the ranks of the king of Judah when they saw that God was on his side. Those who gain victories by faith are the most influential of all leaders. All are not born leaders. Many are ready to follow a tune who could never raise it. But the supernatural element must be self-evident in the divinely appointed leader. “My sheep,” says Christ, “hear My voice, and they follow Me.” Are there not many who would fall out of the kingdom of darkness to-day if they could but see that the Lord our God is with us? Not with us in theory, but in mighty conquering deeds. Asa’s influence was not only attractive, but it was most effectual in turning the whole heart of Judah unto the Lord (2Ch 15:12–14). He constrained them to seek the Lord until “He was found of them.” He used his great influence for the best of all purposes—to bring men to God. V. Sudden Failure. When “Baasha, king of Israel, came up against Judah … Asa brought out silver and gold out of the treasures of the house of the Lord, and sent them to Ben-hadad king of Syria” (2Ch 16:1–4). This was a bribe sent to the king of Syria to help him against the king of Judah. Has he forgotten already that Spirit-inspired message of Azariah? (2Ch 15:1, 2). Where is his faith now? He began in the spirit. Is he going to end in the flesh? His present unbelief leads him to desecrate the things of God (2Ch 15:18). When in his greater trouble with the Ethiopian host he cried unto the Lord and rested on Him, but this is not such a formidable affair, so he thinks to manage it by his own skill and stratagem. God is ignored, and Asa has fallen from grace. Our greatest dangers do not always lie in our greatest temptations, for when we are made conscious of our own helplessness in the face of a great trial, we fortify ourselves by leaning upon God. It is thinking ourselves wise enough and strong enough for the petty occasion that our greatest danger lies. “In all thy ways acknowledge Him, and He will direct thy paths” (Prov. 3:6). VI. Rebellious Attitude. When Hanani the seer rebuked Asa “because he had relied on the king of Syria, and not relied on the Lord his God,” Asa, we read, “was wroth with the seer, and put him in a prison house, for he was in a rage with him because of this thing” (2Ch 16:7–10). It is an infallible sign of backsliding when a man gets into a rage at the seer of God because he tells him the truth. Casting the man of vision into the prison does not make the vision any the less true. The man of faith will always be a seer, while the man of unbelief will always be blind. Asa makes no attempt to bribe the seer, but he attempts to bridle his lips. Instead of repenting his folly in putting his trust in an arm of flesh, he seeks to justify himself, even to the condemnation of the warning voice of God. To get beyond repentance is to get beyond the hope of recovery. “If we sin we have an Advocate with the Father—Jesus Christ the Righteous” (1 John 2:1). VII. Miserable End. “Asa … was diseased in his feet, until his disease was exceedingly great, yet in his disease he sought not the Lord, but to the physicians” (2Ch 16:12). His sin lay not in seeking the help of the physicians, but in not seeking the help of the Lord. Had not his heart been diseased as well as his feet this sin would never have been laid to his charge. A physician may be a gift from God as much as a seer, but when we trust the gift instead of the Giver, we dishonour God, and expose ourselves to failure and death. It is a melancholy fact that this otherwise great and good man’s life is closed with these sorrowful words, “He sought not the Lord.” “Let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall” (1 Cor. 10:12). Remember the words of the son of Oded, “The Lord is with you while ye be with Him” (2Ch 15:2). 2 Chronicles 16:2 Then Asa brought out silver and gold from the treasuries of the house of the LORD and the king’s house, and sent them to Ben-hadad king of Aram, who lived in Damascus, saying, brought out: 2Ch 28:21 2Ki 12:18 16:8 18:15 Related Passages: 1 Kings 15:18-19+ Then Asa took all the silver and the gold which were left in the treasuries of the house of the LORD and the treasuries of the king’s house, and delivered them into the hand of his servants. And King Asa sent them to Ben-hadad the son of Tabrimmon, the son of Hezion, king of Aram, who lived in Damascus, saying, 19 “Let there be a treaty between you and me, as between my father and your father. Behold, I have sent you a present of silver and gold; go, break your treaty with Baasha king of Israel so that he will withdraw from me.” RELIANCE OF ARM OF MAN NOT STRONG ARM OF THE LORD Then - Then marks progression in a narrative and in this case sadly marks the beginning of declension in the spiritual life of Asa! God condemns foreign alliances for they are ultimately pacts with pagans whose father is the devil (Jn 8:44+) - 2Ch 19:2; 2Ch 20:35-37; 2Ch 22:5; 2Ch 28:16-21. King Asa resorts to human wisdom which says if a country is faced with war on two fronts, it will have to pull back it's aggression on one of the fronts in order to defend the homeland. And indeed in keeping with Asa's human way of thinking, Baasha did withdraw from fortifying Ramah! For a while King Asa must have been quite self-satisfied, thinking "I pulled this coup off on my own!" Little did he know that he was about to meet His Maker's prophet who would clarify his humanistic logic! Asa's preference for diplomacy would begin his decline spiritually. THOUGHT - Human wisdom to the exclusion of God's wisdom, may sound good and "wise" and even yield "good" results, but in the end human wisdom will fail and is no comparison to divine wisdom. This begs a question - How do you make your decisions? Do you allow God's Spirit and God's Word to prayerfully enter into your decision making? If not, you might end up being a fool like Asa! Results may look good for a time, but ultimately they do not honor God for He was excluded from the equation. Our goal in this short time on earth is clearly stated in the Westminster Shorter Catechism which declares "The chief end of man is to glorify God and to enjoy Him forever." God grant us the grace to let godly wisdom saturate our human decisions, doing so for Your honor and glory in and through Christ Jesus our Lord. Amen. Asa brought out silver and gold from the treasuries of the house of the LORD and the king’s house, and sent them to Ben-hadad king of Aram, who lived in Damascus, saying - This passage continues the description of Asa's decline spiritually. And it was a costly mistake in more ways than one, because he seems to virtually empty the national treasury to secure a treaty. Whether Pr 3:5 ("Trust in the LORD with all your heart And do not lean on your own understanding.") was available for him to read is uncertain, but he is clearly doing just the opposite, not trusting the LORD, and instead leaning on his own understanding. Ben-Hadad means “son of Hadad” and is a royal title of the kings of Syria. THOUGHT - Remember that there is only one letter difference between "GOD" and "GOLD" but it is a letter that can make all the difference in the world and the world to come!!! Gustafson - Asa gave up the results of his own piety described in 2 Chronicles 15:18, and the blessing of God of 2Ch 14:13–14. These things all belonged to God but Asa gave them to a heathen king to try to get him to break his league with Baasha. Believers should be careful that they do not give time, treasures, and talents that belong to God to someone else. Ben-hadad was wrong to break his league with Baasha and Asa was wrong to try to get him to do it. The most serious downfall of Asa was in giving up his trust in the Lord and putting his trust in a mere man. (What the Bible Teaches - 1 Chronicles and 2 Chronicles)