And the king and his men went to Jerusalem against the Jebusites, the inhabitants of the land, who said to David, “You will not come in here, but the blind and the lame will ward you off”—thinking, “David cannot come in here.” Nevertheless, David took the stronghold of Zion, that is, the city of David.  And David said on that day, “Whoever would strike the Jebusites, let him get up the water shaft to attack ‘the lame and the blind,’ who are hated by David's soul” (2 Samuel 5:6-8 ESV).

This passage in the book of 2 Samuel is puzzling at first sight. Did David really hate the lame and the blind?  Some translations attempt to smooth out the statement – the NIV, for example, renders the verse “those ‘lame and blind’ who are David’s enemies,” but the translation “‘the lame and the blind,’ who are hated by David's soul” found in the ESV is an accurate and a quite literal one.

First, we need to ascertain who “the lame and the blind” were.  Most modern commentaries presume that the Jebusites believed that the fortifications of Jerusalem were so strong that even those who were mobility- or visually-impaired would be able to ward off David and his army.  While this interpretation might seem very reasonable, it leaves unanswered why David would say his soul hated the lame and the blind.  We also see that “the lame and the blind” could not have simply been a verbal taunt as David told his men that because of the situation they should secretly enter the city by way of a hidden watershaft. Finally, we see that David offered a large incentive – the rank of “chief and captain” (1 Chronicles 11:6) – to anyone who would lead the way in attacking “the lame and the blind.”

Archaeology may perhaps help us to better understand the situation. There is some evidence that the ancient Jebusites were connected to, and perhaps associated with the Syro-Hittite peoples of the Near East.  As a result, in 1963, the renowned Israeli soldier, archaeologist, and scholar, Yigael Yadin (1917–1984), noted that ancient clay tablets that have been found with texts written by these people include instances of a ritual known as the “Soldier’s Oath” that may be relevant to what David said (Yigael Yadin, The Art of Warfare in Biblical Lands: In the Light of Archaeological Study Volume 2, pages 268-269). These “oaths” were magical rituals made against enemies in which blind and deaf individuals were paraded before them and it was then said:

“Whoever …. turns his eyes in hostile fashion upon [our] land, let these oaths seize him! Let them blind this man’s army and make it deaf! Let them not see each other, let them not hear each other! Let them make a cruel fate their lot! … Let them make him blind! Let them make him deaf! Let them blind him like a blind man! Let them deafen him like a deaf man! Let them annihilate him, the man himself together with his wife, his children and his kin!”  (quoted from James B. Pritchard’s Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, pages 353-354.)

This kind of sympathetic magic appears to be exactly what the ancient Jebusites were doing – placing a terrible curse on anyone who attacked their city.  If this is the case, as Yadin suggested, the biblical text is certainly more understandable.  This would perhaps explain why David told his men that because of the situation they should secretly enter the city by way of a hidden watershaft – perhaps to avoid the lame and blind “curse carriers,”  and why he needed to offer a large incentive to anyone who would lead the attack under these circumstances.  As for “hating” the lame and blind, David’s comments would most likely apply to the lame and blind curse carriers rather than to all people with these disabilities.

This certainly makes sense as the Bible clearly shows David did not hate such people – it documents in detail his love for and help of Saul’s lame son Mephibosheth whom he restored and invited to eat regularly at his table (2 Samuel 9:10-13).

Whatever the precise meaning of David’s words in 2 Samuel 5:6–8, it is clear that the king did not hate the disabled – and Yadin’s suggestion as to the king’s actual meaning is as good as any. In this case, as in many others, passages that seem to contradict what we know of plain biblical teaching are often better understood with historical background to illuminate them.

In an interesting turn of events in biblical archaeology, scholars recently announced a new reading of part of the famous Mesha Stele – an ancient inscription dating to the time of King David, around the second half of the ninth century BC. 

The artifact, now in the great Louvre Museum in Paris, is of great importance because it has long been believed that it contained a reference to David himself.  One line of the inscription – line 31 – contains the words bt[d]wd, or “House of David.”   This reading is now doubted, but the text has become perhaps even more interesting from a biblical perspective. The Mesha Stele is named for the ancient Moabite king Mesha who rebelled against Israelite rule. Mesha had the inscription made to commemorate his victory against Israel, but if the text does not mention David, what does it say?

Scholars Israel Finkelstein, Nadav Na’aman, and Thomas Römer recently re-examined high resolution photographs of the inscription and proposed a new reading* – showing that it does not likely reference the “House of David,” but rather the Moabite King Balak. According to the Balaam story recorded in Numbers 22–24, this was the name of the king who sought to bring a divine curse on the people of Israel. The main dwelling of the king was said to be at Horonaim, a location mentioned four times in the Old Testament in relation to the territory of the nation of Moab.

“Thus” the researchers write, “Balak may be a historical personality like Balaam, who, before the discovery of the Deir Alla inscription, was considered to be an ‘invented’ figure.” The Deir Alla inscription mentioned by the scholars relates visions of “Bal’am, son of Be’or,” a “seer of the gods,” who may be the same Balaam mentioned in Numbers 22–24.

The archaeological occurrence of biblical names cannot always be considered “proof” of the existence of the individuals mentioned in the Scriptures because it is always possible that the attested names are those of other individuals with the same name from the same location. In this case, there may possibly have been another, later Balak, perhaps named after the first one. But this can still be seen as vindication of the biblical tradition of kings of that name in that region.
​
If David is not mentioned on the Mesha Stele, he is still likely archaeologically attested on another ancient artifact – the Tel Dan Stele. In that stone monument, another adversary describes his victories over ancient Israel and Judah and mentions the House of David.  Both the Mesha Stele and the Tel Dan Inscription record victories over the Israelites by their enemies, just as had been biblically predicted (Deuteronomy 28:25).  But it seems now that the artifacts also help flesh out the reality of not one, but two biblical characters – on the one hand the celebrated King David, and on the other, a lesser known King Balak. 
 
* In an article published in The Journal of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University.

Earlier this Spring, the Associates for Biblical Research, an American archaeological research group, announced the discovery of a curse text discovered on a small, folded lead tablet that had been found in archaeological excavations in Israel in late 2019.  The artifact is of particular interest to readers of the Bible not so much for what its inscribed text says, but for the fact that it contains the earliest instance of the Hebrew name for God – Yahweh – that has ever been found in an archaeological context, and also for its significance regarding the history of Hebrew writing and the Bible itself.

The tablet, which is barely larger than a postage stamp, contains an inscription that is believed to be centuries older than any known Hebrew inscription from ancient Israel. The small international team of scientists studying the artifact employed advanced tomographic scans to recover the text, slowly recovering one after another of the artifact’s written letters. When the text had been completely recovered, the textual specialists could tell that the text reads:

Cursed, cursed, cursed – cursed by the God YHW.
You will die cursed.
Cursed you will surely die.
Cursed by YHW – cursed, cursed, cursed.
 
This “curse text” was found in discarded material from an archaeological excavation on Mt. Ebal near modern Nablus.  Significantly, this was the site, according to Deuteronomy 27 and Joshua 8, where the people of ancient Israel were instructed by God to recite curses on those who did not obey the Law of God.  As a result, the site became associated with cursing, and numerous artifacts such as the newly translated tablet were left there in ancient times.  Joshua 8:30 tells us that Joshua built an altar on Mt. Ebal and the curse tablet was found in the location where Joshua’s altar is believed to have stood and where its possible remains have been found.

But the new text is tremendously important as it may well represent both the oldest known example of written Hebrew, and also the oldest known example of the Hebrew YHW [or YHWH]– the name for God often transliterated as Yahweh.  The find, which predates the famous Dead Sea Scrolls by more than a millennium, is so significant because the text seems to date to the Iron Age I or Late Bronze Age periods –  around 1200 BC at the latest, and perhaps as early as 1400 BC or earlier.  Either way, this is centuries before the oldest previously known Hebrew texts and instances of the name of God in Hebrew outside the Bible.

This fact strongly argues against those who attempt to date the Bible to much later centuries by claiming that the ancient Hebrews were not literate and that the biblical books were probably not written down till around 700 BC.   And it is important to stress that the new text is not only Hebrew writing, but also that it is a sophisticated composition written in a carefully balanced “chiastic parallelism” or crossover style found in many of the biblical writings and often said to be a mark of “developed” writing characteristic of later dates. 

The date of the earliest Hebrew inscriptions has, in fact, been continuously pushed back in recent years.  A nearly 3,000-year-old inscription called the stele of Mesha in which the king of Moab boasts of his victories against the Kingdom of Israel and its god Yahweh, contained the earliest known extra-biblical mention of the God of the Bible for a number of years after its discovery in 1868.

Since then, even older inscriptions have been found. An inscription found in what is today Sudan, in the temple of Soleb dedicated to the Egyptian god Amon-Re and built by the Pharaoh Amenhotep III (1378-1348 BC),  has more recently been seen as the oldest known reference to Yahweh, God of Israel.

The new discovery from Mt. Ebal may be older than even the very early Soleb inscription, and continuing study by a wide range of ancient textual specialists will doubtless help to narrow down its date more precisely.  

The prophet Nathan (Hebrew “He gave” or “Gift of God”) served during the reigns of both King David and his son Solomon.  Although Nathan was usually “behind the scenes” during the reigns of these kings, it is probable that no other single person was more influential during that pivotal era of biblical history.

Nathan is mentioned many times throughout the Books of Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles – mainly during the darkest and most troubled times of King David’s reign. We first meet him in 2 Samuel 7:2 when David told the prophet of his desire to build a temple for God.  At first Nathan encouraged the king, but we are told that later that night God spoke to Nathan, telling him in detail why he would not accept a temple built by David, stressing that David had shed much blood (1 Chronicles 28:3).
 
It was not a flattering message to have to relay, but we see something of Nathan’s character in that he did not attempt to smooth over the reason for God’s refusal of David (or to cover the fact that he himself had been wrong to originally encourage the king) – we are specifically told that “Nathan reported to David all the words of this entire revelation” (2 Samuel 7:17, emphasis added).

Later, Nathan had to confront David with the king’s sins of adultery with Bathsheba and of having her husband Uriah killed (2 Samuel 12:1-15).  Considering the fact that David had already killed to hide this situation, we see Nathan’s tremendous strength of character and faith in boldly accusing the king.  Nathan not only accused David as God had commanded him to do, but also predicted that David’s first child by Bathsheba would die, and that the king would suffer great anguish as a result of the actions of his own family members.

Close to the end of David’s life, Nathan related to David the news of his son Adonijah’s plan to seize the throne.  In this way the prophet skillfully enabled the hasty coronation of David’s chosen heir – Solomon. 
 
Nathan was not simply a bringer of bad news, however. He also encouraged the king and informed David that his throne would be established forever (1 Chronicles 17:1-15).  He was clearly a trusted advisor throughout his service to the king and a man of important accomplishments.  There appears to have been a book written either by Nathan himself or about his service as a prophet (1 Chronicles 29:29), and Nathan apparently wrote a history of King Solomon along with two others (2 Chronicles 9:29).

But Nathan’s major accomplishment was undoubtedly the true faith he repeatedly showed in expressing tough love for David and confronting the king with his errors.  Nathan’s character and faithfulness in conveying the word of God, no matter how negative the message sometimes may have seemed, obviously gained him the respect of Israel’s greatest king. True to his name, the prophet surely was a “Gift of God” to David in helping him to correct his course when he went astray (for example, Psalm 51) – something the king must surely have appreciated over time.
​
In fact, it is doubtless a sign of David’s respect and love for Nathan that the king named his third son after the prophet (1 Chronicles 3:5).  And it is through that Nathan – not Solomon or any of David’s other powerful sons – that Jesus Christ was descended (Luke 3:31).
​
The prophet Nathan served in a “behind the scenes” career, but one which had a tremendous effect for good.  He is an example to all of us of the value of truth spoken in love, and of faith in dealing with difficult situations concerning those we strive to serve.

Articles recently published on many online sites and in some printed media claim that hundreds of skeletons as well as many ancient Egyptian weapons and broken chariots have been discovered beneath the waters of the Red Sea, seemingly confirming the biblical story of the Exodus.  One of these articles (March 9, 2016) provides a good many details as we see in this direct quote:
​
“Egypt’s Antiquities Ministry announced this morning that a team of underwater archaeologists had discovered that remains of a large Egyptian army from the 14th century BC, at the bottom of the Gulf of Suez, 1.5 kilometers offshore from the modern city of Ras Gharib. The team was searching for the remains of ancient ships and artifacts related to Stone Age and Bronze Age trade in the Red Sea area, when they stumbled upon a gigantic mass of human bones darkened by age.

The scientists lead by Professor Abdel Muhammad Gader and associated with Cairo University’s Faculty of Archaeology, have already recovered a total of more than 400 different skeletons, as well as hundreds of weapons and pieces of armor, also the remains of two war chariots, scattered over an area of approximately 200 square meters. They estimate that more than 5000 other bodies could be dispersed over a wider area, suggesting that an army of large size who have perished on the site.”

This extract from one of the published articles “reporting” the discovery certainly looks authentic in that it states the find was officially announced by Egypt’s Ministry of Antiquities and names the specific archaeologist - Professor Abdel Muhammad Gader – responsible for the discovery, as well as seeming to show a discovered artifact.
​

The truth, however, is that the Egyptian Ministry of Antiquities has never made such an announcement, there is no Professor Abdel Muhammad Gader at Cairo University, and every detail of the claimed finds is pure fiction. Even the picture of the ancient Egyptian “Khepesh” (or Khopesh) sword accompanying the article (reproduced above), and implied to have been found among the Red Sea artifacts, is well known to archaeologists. It was found at Nablus, north of Jerusalem, a good many years ago, and the photograph of this weapon used in the supposed news article has been taken from the Wikipedia site, here.
​
But the spurious “announcement” of evidence of the Exodus destruction of Pharaoh’s army is a recurring one, with “coral encrusted” chariot wheels, ancient weapons and other artifacts routinely said to have been found in the Red Sea.  And the Exodus isn’t the only Biblical story that is frequently said to have been “confirmed.”  Stories ranging from discoveries of wood from Noah’s Ark to “evidence” of Goliath’s spear occur periodically, and all have in common their complete lack of factuality.

Archaeology has confirmed many details of the biblical account, and these discoveries are encouraging to read; but we should realize that Christians have a special responsibility not to believe or repeat stories of “major discoveries” that simply are not true. Psychologically we all like to get affirmation for what we believe, but we must remember that gullibility on our part always leads to rejection of what we say by others.  When people find such stories are false, they are more likely to turn from the Bible than to it.

As a simple rule of thumb, we should realize that any “discovery” of real Biblical significance would be reported by most of the newspapers and news sources around the world.  The moral of the “coral encrusted” chariot wheels is that if we don’t see a story of such major significance everywhere, we should not believe it.   It’s always better when our faith is based on what matters – and what is true. ​

It may sound like a contradiction in terms, but in ancient Rome Christians were often called atheists.   Most people in the Roman Empire believed that there were many gods, and the idea of worshipping only one God seemed so bizarre to the Romans that they viewed it as a denial of the existence of all the other gods – their gods – and as a result they labeled Christians as “impious atheists.”

Although Judaism held the same belief in monotheism, the Jews tended to keep their religion to themselves and generally did not attempt to witness to their religion or spread it in the way that Christians did.  Because of this fact, the Romans knew much more about the beliefs of Christianity and began to take issue with what they saw as Christian rejection of the Roman deities. Additionally, many did not like the fact that Christianity condemned a number of their socially acceptable behaviors.

So the Christians became known as intolerant of other gods and were soon being accused of being “atheists” along with a number of false accusations. The situation was so widespread that in AD 176-7 the Christian thinker Athenagoras (A.D. 133-190) wrote an explanation or “apology” on the matter that he addressed to the Emperor at the time, Marcus Aurelius. 

This work was called the Plea for the Christians and combats the three most common charges against Christians: atheism, incest and cannibalism.  The accusation of cannibalism was, of course, a misunderstanding of the Christian idea of eating the “flesh” and “blood” of the Son of God (partaking of the bread and wine – Luke 22:19-20) in the Lord’s Supper. The charge of incest was based on the common Christian practice of referring to all people – including husbands and wives – as “brother” or “sister,” and, as we have seen, the idea that the Christians were atheists was the result of the “intolerant” Christian belief on monotheism.  

In an interesting turn of events, as history has progressed to the day in which we live, Christianity is being increasingly viewed as intolerant. This is not only because of its rejection of many socially accepted behaviors, but also because the Christian Faith teaches of Jesus Christ that “Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to mankind by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12).  In today’s inclusive and politically correct world, such an idea seems as bizarre to many modern people as it was to the ancient Romans, and the response is frequently the same – “If you don’t accept my god, you are intolerant and I won’t accept you or your God.”

In ancient Rome the charge of Christian intolerance soon led to intolerance against Christians, and our own time is no different.   We see increasing intolerance regarding the Christian rejection of ungodly behavior just as the early Christians did, and we too can take to heart the words of Peter regarding those who are offended by that “intolerance”: “They are surprised that you do not join them in their reckless, wild living, and they heap abuse on you” (1 Peter 4:4).

Perhaps the similarities between the situation at the time of early Christianity and where our own culture is leaning should not surprise us.  Paul spoke of the same factors affecting early Christians and believers today:  “… everyone who wants to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted” (2 Timothy 3:12).  In these words we see that persecution involves the world’s response to both Christians’ moral choices (“live a godly life”) and their theological ones (“in Christ Jesus”), as both are seen as evidence of intolerance by those opposed to Christianity, and both become the grounds for persecution.

For many Christians intense persecution at the hands of other religions is already here, of course, and we are reminded again of Peter’s words: “Dear friends, do not be surprised at the fiery ordeal that has come on you to test you, as though something strange were happening to you” (1 Peter 4:12).  Peter was simply reminding his hearers of the words of Jesus himself:
“Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you” (Matthew 5:11-12).

History does, indeed, repeat itself.  But as the persecution of Christians becomes more common again – essentially for the same reasons – let us be encouraged to also repeat the outcome of that persecution.  Peter tells us: “…if anyone suffers as a Christian, let him not be ashamed, but let him glorify God in that name” (1 Peter 4:16 ESV).  We can glorify God in this context by our good works despite the accusations and persecution we endure, and it  is by demonstrating God in us that we best disprove the charges of intolerance and godlessness.  Athenagoras understood that well – as he shows in his rebuttal of the charge of Christian atheism:

“…if [Christians] are unable in words to prove the benefit of our doctrine, yet by their deeds [they] exhibit the benefit arising from their persuasion of its truth: they do not rehearse speeches, but exhibit good works; when struck, they do not strike again; when robbed, they do not go to law; they give to those that ask of them, and love their neighbors as themselves …” (Plea for the Christians, Chapter 11).

A fascinating  document, “To Diognetus,”  by an unknown second century author, gives us an amazing  description of the  Christians in the early Church.  The document, which is in the form of a letter in twelve chapters,  explains to its recipient how Christians acted in contrast with those around them.  Consider the following extracts:

“Christians are not distinguished from the rest of mankind either in locality or in speech or in customs. For they dwell not somewhere in cities of their own, neither do they use some different language…. But while they dwell in cities of Greeks and barbarians as the lot of each is cast, and follow the native customs in dress and food and the other arrangements of life, yet the constitution of their own citizenship, which they set forth, is marvelous, and confessedly contradicts expectation.

“They dwell in their own countries, but only as sojourners; they bear their share in all things as citizens, and they endure all hardships as strangers. Every foreign country is a fatherland to them, and every fatherland is a foreign country. They marry like all other men and they beget children; but they do not cast away their offspring…. They find themselves in the flesh, and yet they live not after the flesh. Their existence is on earth, but their citizenship is in heaven. They obey the established laws, and they surpass the laws in their own lives.

“They love all men, and they are persecuted by all. …They are in want of all things, and yet they abound in all things. They are dishonored, and yet they are glorified in their dishonor. They are slandered, yet they are vindicated. They are reviled, and they bless; they are insulted, and they respect. Doing good they are punished as evil-doers; being punished they rejoice, as if they were thereby given new life. The Jews war against them as heretics and the Greeks persecute them, although none of those that hate them can tell the reason of their hostility.”

Commonly dated between AD 130–180, it is possible that this is one of the first known works of Christian apologetics, but regardless of its exact date of origin and our lack of knowledge of who originally wrote the letter, and to whom,  the letter to Diognetus fits, at every point,  the biblical description of how Christians should be different from others.  We can only read this description of early Christianity and ask ourselves  how well it describes Christianity in the world in which we live, and if it describes each of us in particular.

The story of Polycarp (AD 80 – 167) is a fascinating one.  Because he was probably the last surviving person to have known an apostle, the life of Polycarp forms a historically documented link between the Church of the New Testament and later Christianity. According to the early Church Father  Irenaeus, who knew him, Polycarp was a disciple of the apostle John (the last surviving member of the twelve disciples), and other Church Fathers confirmed this, recording also that he was ordained by John as Bishop of Smyrna in Asia Minor (the city of Izmir in modern Turkey). 

Polycarp’s life and teaching is well documented in a number of sources, and a letter written by him to the Christians at Philippi has also survived.  These historical documents all show Polycarp to have been a believer of great faith and a defender of the faith “once delivered.”

According to Irenaeus, Polycarp actively resisted many ideas that had already entered parts of Christianity by the second century.  In the 150s or 160s, Ireneaus tells us, Polycarp visited Rome to discuss a number of differences that already existed between the churches in Asia and Rome.  Many of these differences were resolved, though some were not. For example, Polycarp and his followers celebrated the “Christian Passover” on the 14th of Nisan, the day of the Jewish Passover, whatever day this fell on, while the Roman church followed the practice of celebrating Easter always on a Sunday around that same time of year.

But it is because of his martyrdom that Polycarp is now best remembered. The story is preserved in The Martyrdom of Polycarp which is a letter sent from the church of Smyrna, after his death, to surrounding churches. The Martyrdom is considered to be one of the earliest actual accounts of a Christian martyrdom outside the New Testament and records eye witness accounts of Polycarp’s execution.

The account also gives us many details regarding Polycarp and his faith.  It recounts that Polycarp was betrayed by a young man and that around the time of the evening meal on a Friday the police and other armed men came to arrest Polycarp – an old man of at least 86 –  for refusal to worship the emperor. Polycarp is said to have affirmed “God’s will be done,” and called for a meal for those who had come to arrest him. He asked to be allowed to pray a while and was then led away. The document states that as Polycarp was being taken into the arena where he would be executed, a voice spoke the words, “Be strong, Polycarp and act the man!” The Martyrdom continues to say that no one saw who had spoken, but “our brothers who were there heard the voice.”

Polycarp was given an opportunity to recant his beliefs. He was told to repent and instructed to say, “Down with the Atheists!” (meaning those who did not believe in the Roman gods) at which Polycarp looked at the crowd in the stadium, and gesturing towards them, said, “Down with the Atheists!”  Refusing a final opportunity to deny his faith, Polycarp was burned at the stake, though the Martyrdom insists he finally was killed with a sword as the flames did not seem to burn him.

But Polycarp’s tenacity to the beliefs he had learned from the apostles was of great importance in establishing Christianity before the persecutions against Christians finally subsided.   In his letter to them, he had urged the Philippians to hang on to their faith despite everything, reminding them: “Stand fast, therefore … and follow the example of the Lord, being firm and unchangeable in the faith.”

*Note:  Since publishing this post we decided to transfer the series on "Lessons From the Kings of Israel and Judah" to our sister site – TacticalChristianity.org – (see the announcement above). You can follow the series there!



King Asa of Judah was the great-grandson of Solomon and ruled only two generations after the split between the tribes of Judah and the rest of Israel.  The son of king Abijah, who appears to have  trusted  in  the  true God (2 Chronicles 13:18),  Asa ruled Judah for 41 years and seems to have been upright in his acts for most of that time. 

He was clearly zealous in maintaining the worship of God and acted decisively to root out idolatry and its associated immorality, destroying  the pagan altars and sacred places throughout the kingdom.  The king even deposed his own grandmother for worship of pagan gods and turned the people back to the traditional worship of God. Asa, we are told,  did what was good and right in the eyes of the Lord his God (2 Chronicles 14:2).

Asa also fortified cities in Judah and successfully repelled an invasion by a hugely outnumbering Cushite-Egyptian force with a demonstration of clear faith. The biblical record  tells us: “Then Asa called to the Lord his God and said, ‘Lord, there is no one like you to help the powerless against the mighty. Help us, Lord our God, for we rely on you, and in your name we have come against this vast army. Lord, you are our God; do not let mere mortals prevail against you’”(2 Chronicles 14:11). Chronicles continues to detail how Asa’s forces routed the much larger army and drove it from Judah.  As a result, the kingdom had peace under Asa and for many years no one tried to make war against him.

But in his 36th year of rule Asa was confronted by Baasha, king of the northern tribes, who constructed a fortress at Ramah, less than ten miles from Jerusalem.  While Asa had responded in faith to the Cushite threat, he appears to have crumbled under this one. Taking all the gold from the temple of God he offered it to Ben-Hadad, king of Damascus, as a bribe to convince that king to negate his treaty with Baasha and to invade the Northern Kingdom (2 Chronicles 16:2-6). Ben-Hadad took the gold and invaded his erstwhile ally, Israel, forcing Baasha to withdraw from Ramah. 

Asa then tore down Baasha’s stronghold and used the stone to build two fortresses in his own territory. History shows these two fortified areas were not successful in protecting Judah from attacks that would occur in the future, so ultimately Asa traded the gold taken from the temple for a false security.  In that sense, Asa’s two fortresses are clearly symbols of a failure of faith (2 Chronicles 16:7-9).

Considering his earlier faith under sudden, more intense pressure, we can only conclude that Asa fell under a more prolonged and unrelenting stress as Baasha began to build his forces on Judah’s border. It seems Asa discovered that wars of attrition can erode our confidence more than sudden danger. Doubtless there is a lesson for us in this. It is often easier to respond in faith to a sudden crisis, but more difficult when the problem drags on and wears us down. In those circumstances we must be careful not to allow the problem to become an excuse for taking from God what is rightfully His – perhaps not in gold, but in our time and energy as well as our trust and confidence in Him.

Perhaps as a result of the attrition of his faith, it is recorded that in his old age Asa was afflicted with a disease of his feet, and he “sought not to the Lord, but to the physicians” (2 Chronicles 16:12), meaning his trust was only toward the physical. Nevertheless, Asa was considered for the most part a good king and was honored by many of his people when he died. The story of Asa's responses to different threats may also serve as a lasting lesson for us – especially in our response to protracted stresses and problems. Sometimes the greatest need for faith is not in sudden crises, but in the ongoing problems of everyday life.

One city – Nineveh.  Two prophets – Jonah and Nahum. Both talked about the same city, though to read the books written by these two  messengers of God, they may well seem like tales of two cities.   Jonah and Nahum both prophesied against the great Assyrian city of Nineveh – the very heart of the Empire that took Israel captive in 740-720 BC  and repeatedly attacked and threatened Judah – but each of these ancient stories has a different approach and outcome. 
Despite their differences, underlying both these books is a surprising message relevant to each of us today.  See what that message is in this week's article: "A Tale of Two Prophets."