Summary
The anointing of Jehu in 2 Kings 9 serves as a stark contrast to the anointing of David in 1 Samuel 16, highlighting differing responses to divine calling. David, anointed as a young shepherd, remains patient and morally upright despite opportunities to seize power through violence against King Saul, the current ruler. He understands that taking Saul's life would violate God's order, demonstrating his commitment to integrity and faith.
In contrast, Jehu acts swiftly upon his anointing, launching a violent coup against the house of Ahab without waiting for divine confirmation. His actions include not only the assassination of the king of Israel but also the murder of Ahaziah, the king of Judah. Although Jehu claims to eradicate Baal worship, he ultimately perpetuates other forms of idolatry, failing to uphold the moral standards expected by God. This comparison underscores the principle that divine prophecy does not absolve one from ethical responsibilities, emphasizing that the means do not justify the ends.
Show Notes
It is worth comparing the anointing of David (1 Sam. 16) with the anointing of Jehu (2 Kings 9)—or, more precisely, it is worth comparing not only the two anointings, but what follows from the two anointings.
The story of David is the better known (1 Sam.). When Samuel anointed him to be king, David was still a young man, a youthful shepherd. The anointing changed nothing of his immediate situation. In due course he gained heroic dimensions by defeating Goliath and then maturing into an efficient and loyal officer of King Saul. When Saul became embittered and paranoid, forcing David to hide in the hill country of Judea, David seemed a long way from the throne. Providence gave him two startling opportunities to kill Saul, but David restrained himself; indeed, he even restrained some of his own men who were quite prepared to do the deed that David would not touch. His reasoning was simple. Though he knew he would be king, he also knew that at the moment Saul was king. The same God who had anointed David had first installed Saul. To kill Saul was therefore to kill the Lord’s anointed. He was unwilling to grasp the inheritance that the Lord himself had promised him, if the price to be paid was an immoral act. God had promised him the throne; God would first have to vacate it of its current incumbent, for David would not stoop to intrigue and murder. This was one of David’s finest hours.
How different is Jehu! When he is anointed, he is assigned the task of punishing and destroying the wicked household of Ahab. But he waits for no providential sign: as far as he is concerned, his anointing is incentive enough to embark immediately on a bloody insurrection. Moreover, for all his pious talk about wiping out the idolatry of the wretched household of Ahab (e.g., 2 Kings 9:22), his own heart is betrayed by two evil realities. First, he not only assassinates the current incumbent of the throne of Israel, but when he has the opportunity he kills Ahaziah, the king of Judah as well (2 Kings 9:27–29), not sanctioned by the prophet, however. Did Jehu perhaps entertain visions of a restored, united kingdom, brought together by assassination and military power? Second, although Jehu reduced the power of Baal worship, he promoted other forms of idolatry no less repugnant to God (2 Kings 10:28–31). Unlike David, he was not “a man after God’s own heart” (cf. 1 Sam. 13:14). Far from it: “He did not turn away from the sins of Jeroboam, which he had caused Israel to commit” (2 Kings 10:31).
The lesson is important. Not even divine prophecy frees a person from the obligations of morality, integrity, and loyal and obedient faith in God. The end does not justify the means.
More from Read The Bible
Although I did not know it, while I was in my last year of high school my parents made a quiet vow before the Lord. For reasons too complicated to go into here, they decided that unless certain things happened, at the end of the year Dad would resign from the pastoral charge he had maintained for fifteen years.
When I was still a very young man, I became pastor of a smallish church in Canada. The people were very kind toward me, and were far more patient of my faults and errors than I deserved.
In the New Testament, there are two explicit church offices. On the one hand, there are pastors (the word comes from the Latin expression for “shepherds”), who are also called elders or overseers (the word rendered “bishops” in older translations). On the other hand, there are deacons. It was not until the second century that bishops became a kind of third rank of ecclesiastical authority, supervising several pastors/elders under them.
Current agendas mean that when 1 Timothy 2 is referred to in contemporary discussions, usually the focus is on 1 Timothy 2:11–15. So we shall reflect on 1 Timothy 2:1–7.
Some years ago I received a letter from someone who told me that he had read one of my books and was upset that I had often referred to the Lord Jesus Christ as “Jesus.” He quoted several passages about confessing Jesus as Lord (e.g., Rom. 10:9), and how such confession is the mark of having the Spirit (1 Cor. 12:3). I wrote back, explaining that when I refer to the Lord Jesus Christ as Jesus, I am not thereby denying his lordship. Rather, I am not at that point affirming it. Further, the book he had read dealt with one of the synoptic Gospels. In the Gospels, the Lord Jesus is most commonly referred to simply as “Jesus.” So since I was commenting on one of the Gospels, I tended to refer to Jesus in the same way that Scripture does. When expounding some passage from, say, Paul, I tend to use, predominantly, the forms for addressing or referring to Jesus that the apostle uses.