The Exegesis and Theological Meaning of 1 Kings 15:26 - Report Example

The Exegesis and Theological Meaning of Kings 15:26 School: Introduction 1st Kings Chapter 15 verse 26 – like it is analyzed by the Mathew Henry commentary – points out that the context was that, where the sinful reign of Jeroboam culminated in the succession of that gave Nadab the throne. The context of the problem faced by Israel – where Nadab is noted to have taken after the evil rulership of his father Jeroboam – is noted to have started years before, destabilizing the leadership of Israel (1st Kings 15: 26, ESV). The context is developing, at the start of the reign of Jeroboam, and was succeeded by Nadab, and later came Baasha, and at the end of the government era was the reign of Ahab. First of all, the sinful nature of the reign of the father and the son’s evil reign were evidenced by the system of acquiring power from one another; one king would destroy the other, so as to sit on the throne. There is a further note that the crisis emanated from the situation, where the different leaders had parted from the house of David and God, which was sinful in the eyes of the lord. Departing from the house of God and David marked the beginning of the sinful and the evil reign, which sparked the ruin of Jeroboam’s family (1st Kings 15: 26, ESV). The evils that characterized the reign of Jeroboam included idol worship and denying their subjects, the freedom of going for worship at Jerusalem. Following the fall of Jeroboam – which could have been allowed by God – his son Nadab took the throne, and instead of paying attention to the death of his brother Abijah and that of his father, he continued the evils that had brought death into their family (1st Kings 15: 26, ESV). Instead, he continued the worship of idols (calves) which had started during his father’s reign, and denied his followers the opportunity to attend the lord’s worship at Jerusalem. Through his evil ways, he committed sinful acts, and also made Israel to sin, which infuriated God, to the extent that he quickened his ruin during his second year on the throne (1 Kings 15:26). His sudden death came upon him, during a time that he was attempting to recover Gibbethon city, which had been captured by the Philistines from the Daanites. During the attack, he was killed, by Baasha, after he conspired against his leadership (1 Kings 15:27, ESV). Discussion From the context contained in 1st Kings 15: 26 (ESV), which states that, “but he did what was evil in the LORDs sight and followed the example of his father, continuing the sins that Jeroboam had led Israel to commit”, the bible notes of the evil nature of two eras, starting with that under the reign of Jeroboam and that of the son, which succeeded the earlier one. From the verse, the mission of the lord was to show the consequences of the sinful reign and the evils committed by Jeroboam, which had brought death to his family. The mission of God, according to the context of the evils taking place, revolved around teaching the people of the time when Jeroboam was the king that going against the will of the lord would result in death. Further, the fact that God allowed Nadab, the son of Jeroboam to take the throne was a depiction of God’s mercies, because in the case it were not for his mercies, the throne would have been taken by an outsider (1st Kings 15: 26, ESV). Unfortunately, after succeeding the father, Nadab had chosen the same evil ways of his father, which had made the lord to allow death to come into his family. The evils that Nadab continued, against the will of the lord, included that he sinned against God, and more importantly, he pushed the people of Israel to sin. The mission of the lord comes out clearly, as one projected through the two reigns, to show the consequences of sin, as well as the mercifulness of God, which had spared Nadab (1st Kings 15: 26, ESV). However, the mission is aimed at showing that God’s patience runs out after some time, which is evidenced through the grace period offered to Jeroboam, as well as to his son. For example, the son was offered two years on the throne, during which he could have changed his ways and received the favor of God, but he did not do that. Personal interpretation From a personal point of view, I consider that the fact that Nadab went against the commands and the directives of God, he should not have received the grace period he received, which allowed him to push Israel into sinning against God. This is the case, because his commission of sin against the lord, as well as the adoption of the evil ways of the father, was enough evidence that he had taken after the father, and that he was not repentant of his father’s evils (1st Kings 15: 26, ESV). For that reason, I could raise questions, over the time he was offered by God, to remain on the throne, which allowed him to push his subjects into sin, when God could have avoided it earlier. From the interpretation of the New Living Translation, the bible brings out the context, as one where Nadab adopted a sinful nature, and worse than that, he followed the ways of his father, which entailed pushing Israel into sin. From a comparison of my interpretation to that of the verse, as contained in the NLT bible version, there are similarities that Nadab had proved his evil ways right from the start of his reign. For that reason, noting that he had not corrected the ways that had made his father to die, the lord should have terminated his life or his reign, or both, without allowing him the opportunity to push Israel into sin, against God (1st Kings 15: 26, NLT). From a comparison of my interpretation to that of the New International Version, the sinful nature of Nadab is lightened from that expressed through the ESV version. In the NIV version, it is noted that Nadab committed evil against the lord, through adopting the ways of his father, and committing the sins committed by the father, including making Israel to sin (1st Kings 15: 26, NIV). From this interpretation, it is important to note that his sinful nature is attributed to the following of the evil ways of the father, including the acts of making Israel to sin. From the interpretation of the Adam Clarke commentary, it is noted that Nadab had walked in the way of Jeroboam, showing that his death had not ended his evil, but had increased the scope of the evil (Clarake, 1831). In comparing the definition to the personal interpretation, it appears that the resolution to the evil era would entail wiping away all the rulers that showed signs of adopting the evils of Jeroboam’s reign (Clarake, 1831). Richmond (2007) adopts a similar stand about the sinful nature of the son, after the father was sent to his death by the wrath of God. The standpoint is that his punishment by death should have come to him, soon enough, without allowing him the opportunity to make Israel to sin. Palmer (2011) classifies kings in a chronological manner, noting Jeroboam as a sinner, Nadab as evil and Baasha as evil too. From the classification of the different kings, the interpretation is that the evil nature of Nadab led to his demise, irrespective of the fact that he was allowed time to change. Unfortunately, he used the time to sin against God. Connection of the verse to criminal justice Criminal justice refers to the system of institutions and practices, dedicated towards maintaining social control, controlling and stopping crime, as well as, penalizing the violators of laws, using rehabilitation and penalties (Fuller, 2005). In connecting the context of the verse to the field of criminal justice, it is not questionable that God was the enforcer of criminal justice. Noting that God is all-knowing, it is critical to note that he must have known that Jeroboam would be a bad king, and also that his successor Nadab would be evil. For that reason, God’s actions can be compared to the case where the police leave criminals in the society, which exposes the citizens to criminal activities. The case shows that God’s criminal justice failed to remedy the situation of Israel. In the second situation, where God punished Jeroboam by death, it can be regarded that his criminal justice system worked well by showing Nadab and others, the consequences of evil. In the meantime, it can be noted that the time offered to Nadab may have been the period that he would rehabilitate, but unfortunately he did not (Neocleous, 2004). The situation created a crisis for the people, noting that the justice system exposed the Israelites to evil leadership and pushed them towards sin, against their will. Incorporating the ethical and the social point of view into the regard of the actions of God’s justice system, the Israelite society of that time can duly regard him to have acted in a neglectful manner. For example, from an ethical point of view, it can be viewed that God allowed the Israelites to fall under the reign of a sinful king and still an evil one knowingly, which may have caused them damage that could have been averted. Conclusion From a review of 1st Kings 15: 26, it is evident that the reign of Nadab replicated the evil of Jeroboam’s reign, but even went further to the extent of exceeding the evils of the previous era. From a personal standpoint, God’s choice to allow Nadab, the son of Jeroboam to take the throne, and allowing him to sit on the throne for two years amounted to wronging the Israelites of that time. This is the case, because allowing him to sit on the throne for the two years allowed him to manipulate the Israelites against the will of God, just like his father. In comparing the context of the verse with other literatures, it can be noted that allowing Nadab to sit on the throne for two years was a mistake, which would have been avoided by allowing his to be executed, immediately after his evil ways were discovered. Further, from a social and an ethical standpoint, it can be noted that God’s decision to accord the throne to the evil king, Nadab, after the sinful reign of Jeroboam was a social mistake, which pushed the Israelites into evil. The different interpretations show that the justice system of God may have acted the right way, but it took too long to do so, which can translate into negligence. References Clarake, A. (1831). Commentary on the Bible, Adam Clarke Commentary on the Bible, [1831]. Retrieved from: http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/cmt/clarke/kg1015.htm Fuller, J. (2005). Criminal Justice: Mainstream and Crosscurrents. Upper Saddle River, NJ Prentice Hall. Henry, M. (2014). Complete Commentary on 1 Kings 15:1. Matthew Henry Complete Commentary on the whole bible. Retrieved from: http://www.studylight.org/com/mhm/view.cgi?book=1ki&chapter=015 Neocleous, M. (2004). Fabricating Social Order: A Critical History of Police Power. London: Pluto Press. Palmer, H. (2011). The patterns of the Scripture: Unlocking the chronological and Geogological Coding of the Scriptures. Bloomington, Indiana: Trafford Publishing. Richmond, E. (2007). Ending Terrorism in the United States: God Has Warned U. S. Marbele Falls, TX: Victory Publishing Company. Read More