Category: Exegesis

And Jehu the son of Hanani the seer went out to meet him, and said to king Jehoshaphat, Shouldest thou help the ungodly, and love them that hate the LORD? therefore is wrath upon thee from before the LORD. 

2 Chronicles 19:2

A little context here.

King Jehoshaphat is recorded in Scripture for his beginning faithfulness to God. At the beginning he is seen as a good King of Judah due to his efforts to extirpate the land of Judah of idolatry. Eventually, though Jehoshaphat makes political alliance with King Ahab of the Northern Kingdom. This tarnished the reputation of Jehoshaphat. Here in this passage God rebukes Jehoshaphat for his alliance with wicked King Ahab via Jehu.

The rebuke comes in the way of a rhetorical question;

“Should you help the wicked and love those who hate the LORD?

Note the question is one that isn’t intended to require a great deal of time to think on the proper answer. The question itself screams the obvious intended response of; “No, you should not help the wicked and love those who hate the Lord.”

King Ahab was guilty of vast wickedness including the wickedness of leading the Northern Kingdom into idolatry (I Kings. 16:30-33). Inasmuch as Jehoshaphat was leaguing with Ahab, Jehoshaphat was supporting  Abhab’s opposition to God. Jehoshaphat, had, in later Biblical language, become unequally yoked and God was so displeased His wrath came upon Jehoshaphat.

In the OT God’s wrath communicates steadfast opposition, divine displeasure, and corrective judgment against those who have been unfaithful to His covenant. This wrath has the intent, in the OT, to lead to repentance and eventual return to covenantal faithfulness. In this passage we find taught;

1.) That Jehoshaphat’s disobedience in helping the ungodly and loving them that hate the Lord was no small thing.

2.) That God chastens those He loves. God is correcting Jehoshaphat by declaring, through Jehu, His opposition (Wrath) to Jehoshaphat’s actions. The intent here is to recall Jehoshaphat to His first love.

Note though, that in all this that Jehoshaphat’s sin was in helping the wicked and loving those that hate the Lord.

Allow me to say that again;

Jehoshaphat’s sin was the sin of helping the wicked to succeed combined with loving those that hate the Lord.

I repeated this because it is my conviction that the modern Reformed / Evangelical church have misconstrued the command;

“To love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you and pray for those who spitefully use you.” (Matthew 5:44)

Clearly, whatever Matthew 5:44 means, it can’t contradict II Chronicles 19:2.

Also consider that it is not like II Chronicles 19:2 exists in an exegetical vacuum. Elsewhere in Scripture we are told;

Blessed is the man Who walks not in the counsel of the ungodly, Nor stands in the path of sinners, Nor sits in the seat of the scornful;

Psalm 1:1

I look at the faithless with disgust, because they do not keep your commands.

Psalm 119:158

Do I not hate them, O LORD, who hate You? And do I not loathe those who rise up against You?

Psalm 139:1-2

Love must be free of hypocrisy. Detest what is evil; cling to what is good.

Romans 12:9

And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather expose them.

Ephesians 5:11

It seems the only solution to this apparent contradiction is that we are to love our own personal enemies while not helping the wicked combined with hating those who hate the Lord Christ.

Now, one would hope that we would not have any personal enemies who are not also God’s enemies. However, if you have ever been a member of a church very long, you know that fellow members will sometimes be personal enemies of each other. Even in Scripture we see this. Paul and Barnabas have a falling out(sharp disagreement) regarding the usefulness of John Mark (Acts 15:26-41). In Philippians 4:2-3, the Apostle Paul addresses a conflict between two women, Euodia and Syntyche, urging them to agree in the Lord. In these situations the requirement is Matthew 5:44.

However, when it comes to the ungodly who hate the Lord we are to hate them and not help them in their prosecution of their wicked agendas. This is what II Chronicles 19:2 explicitly teaches.

The ironic truth here though is that by not helping the wicked who hate the Lord and by hating them that hate the Lord we are in point of fact loving them. It is not love to not oppose and not hate the wicked. If we show love to the wicked, in the way it is now defined in our amoral culture, we are communicating that we sanction their wickedness and hatred of God. Only by a decided opposition to the wicked, can we demonstrate love to those who hate the Lord.

The analogy here is found in correcting our children. When our children are disobedient we chasten them… we oppose them. We do not show our love to them by giving in to their opposition to us or by aiding their disobedience. We correct them, and by correcting them (opposing them) we are demonstrating our love for them.

The same is true of on the subject of helping to advance the agenda of those who hate the Lord. It should not be said that we, as Christians, are guilty of loving those who hate the Lord, unless that love is communicated by a steady opposition to the wicked.

Christians have to start re-thinking this subject because legion is the name of Christians who thinking they are doing a positive good by aiding and abetting (helping the wicked) those who illegal immigrants who have invaded our country. We see from this text in II Chronicles 19:2 that it raises the ire of the Lord to help the wicked and to love those who hate the Lord. If Christians do not begin to re-think this subject we will be slaves to Christ-haters in the land built by our Christ loving forebears.

Codicil

None of this is to communicate that when our Trannie next door neighbor, who teaches at the local library during Queer Time Story hour, is dreadfully ill that we should not bring him some chicken broth soup in order to help him in his sickness. I am not denying that we should rake the leaves of the elderly who never repented of sending their children to government schools. I am not denying here that Christians should do good to all men. I am merely arguing that “there is a time and a place for everything under the sun.”

22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church.

More than a century ago Charles Hodge wrote some commentary on this Ephesians 5 text.

“She is to be subject in everything. That is the subjection is not limited to any one sphere or department of the social life, but extends to all. The wife is not subject as to some things and independent as to others but she is subject as to all. This of course does not mean that the authority of the husband is unlimited. It teaches its extent, not its degree. It extends over all departments but is limited in all; first by the nature of the relation, and secondly by the higher authority of God. No superior whether master, parent, husband, or magistrate can make it obligatory on us either to do what God forbids or not to do what God commands. So long as our allegiance to God is preserved an obedience to man is made a part of our obedience to Him, we retain our liberty and our integrity.”

In other words as Hodge said, all authority under God is conditional, and no authority can long exist apart from Him. It is conditional because in order for the authority to be authoritative that  authority cannot contravene or contradict God’s authority. The wife is to be subject to the husband in all things in which the husband is subject to God and His revelation. The same is true in all jurisdictional realms. The lay member is to be subject to the Elders in all things in which the Elders are subject to God and His revelation. The employee is to be subject to the employer in all things in which the Employer is in subjection to God. The children are to be subject to the parents in all things in which the parent is in subjection to God. The citizen or subject is to be subject to the Monarch in all things in which the monarch is in subjection to God. The Magistrate is to be subject to the citizen in all things in which the citizens are in subjection to God. Nobody has the authority to instruct others to disregard God’s higher authority. This is why it is errant exegesis to make Romans 13 or I Peter 2 teach that it is unbiblical to ever disobey Magistrates. When a Magistrate is reaching for a degree of authority that trumps God’s authority than obedience and duty requires us to disobey the disobedient authority. The same is true in the Church. The same is true in Marriage. The same is true in employment. The same is true in the Military. The same is true in the parent-child relationship.

Dear Bret,

“Today I noticed that in both the ESV (which I read) and the KJV, the term “equity” is mentioned around ten times, whereas “equality” is mentioned only around once. These verses point out that God judges the peoples with equity and that judging with equity is a positive good. Could you explain the difference between biblical equity and the equity desired by the woke community that forms part of the DEI triad. Has that community bastardized a perfectly good biblical word and given it a contradictory meaning ? In short, if someone asks if I am in favor of equity, what should I say? Thank you for your time and attention.

Greg Settles
Tennessee

Hello Greg,

This link to Strong’s Concordance suggests that equity is also translated as uprightness

https://biblehub.com/hebrew/5229.htm

Likewise this Hebrew word can be translated as equity, uprightness, even-ness;

https://biblehub.com/hebrew/4339.htm

This link is also helpful;

https://strongsconcordance.org/results.html?k=equity

Clearly, the way that the word equity works in the OT is differently than the way we use the word “equity” today. In Scripture equity guarantees that any judgment or justice will be done on the basis of uprightness or even-ness. Equity, in our current climate in the context of DIE (Diversity, Inclusion, Equity) means that any judgment or justice will be done in such a way to be uneven towards those who are gifted or talented vis-a-vis those who are not gifted and have lesser talents. So, I would say you are on to something when you ask;

Has that (DIE) community bastardized a perfectly good biblical word and given it a contradictory meaning ?

You finish by asking me;

In short, if someone asks if I am in favor of equity, what should I say?

I would probably answer that question by saying that, “Why, yes, by all means I am in favor of Biblical equity.”

Hope that helps Greg. Thanks for trusting me enough to ask your question.

Pastor Bret