2 Chronicles 19: 1 – 11
Practice what you preach
19 Then Jehoshaphat the king of Judah returned safely to his house in Jerusalem. 2 And Jehu the son of Hanani the seer went out to meet him, and said to King Jehoshaphat, “Should you help the wicked and love those who hate the LORD? Therefore, the wrath of the LORD is upon you. 3 Nevertheless good things are found in you, in that you have removed the wooden images from the land, and have prepared your heart to seek God.” 4 So Jehoshaphat dwelt at Jerusalem; and he went out again among the people from Beersheba to the mountains of Ephraim, and brought them back to the LORD God of their fathers. 5 Then he set judges in the land throughout all the fortified cities of Judah, city by city, 6 and said to the judges, “Take heed to what you are doing, for you do not judge for man but for the LORD, who is with you in the judgment. 7 Now therefore, let the fear of the LORD be upon you; take care and do it, for there is no iniquity with the LORD our God, no partiality, nor taking of bribes.” 8 Moreover in Jerusalem, for the judgment of the LORD and for controversies, Jehoshaphat appointed some of the Levites and priests, and some of the chief fathers of Israel, when they returned to Jerusalem. 9 And he commanded them, saying, “Thus you shall act in the fear of the LORD, faithfully and with a loyal heart: 10 Whatever case comes to you from your brethren who dwell in their cities, whether of bloodshed or offenses against law or commandment, against statutes or ordinances, you shall warn them, lest they trespass against the LORD and wrath come upon you and your brethren. Do this, and you will not be guilty. 11 And take notice: Amariah the chief priest is over you in all matters of the LORD; and Zebadiah the son of Ishmael, the ruler of the house of Judah, for all the king’s matters; also the Levites will be officials before you. Behave courageously, and the LORD will be with the good.”
Most of what I do in my ministry is getting other people to think and act differently. In other words, to do the dreaded “c” word: change. The irony is, when it comes to changing, I’m just as stubborn as everyone else. I don’t always practice what I preach. And I’m certainly not alone.
“Do as I say, not as I do” hypocrisy has haunted man since the beginning of time. From hopelessly out of shape doctors telling you to eat right and exercise and self-righteous politicians preaching morality and love of our country, none of us want to admit that we’re all hypocrites.
As a sign of good faith that I’m not just pointing fingers here, let me be the first to admit that I am a hypocrite.
When it comes to practicing what we preach, we all have blind-spots. So, fess up: What do you preach that you never practice?
Life is full of contradictions. People say they want health food, but McDonalds still makes billions of dollars each year. People say they want to work satisfying jobs but end up chasing after the biggest paycheck.
I’m no different. I have plenty of contradictions between what I truly believe and how I behave. And I think anyone who says they don’t is lying to themselves. Practicing what you preach isn’t easy. It may be impossible to do it completely.
But even if you can’t escape the contradictions of modern living, you can lessen their impact. You can consult what you know to be true, and use that to guide you, instead of rationalizing your behavior and living a lie.
Cognitive dissonance is a fancy psychological term for something incredibly simple: when people hold two contradicting ideas, their minds start to fry. This can be something simple like, “I believe health is important” and “I just finished eating a bunch of donuts.”
Your mind can’t handle the contradiction, as a result it must go through one of two directions. The first is rationalizing: “I deserve the donuts, it’s been a hard day and I deserve some benefits for all that I do.” This is the easiest option, but it has long-term consequences. Whenever you start rationalizing a decision, you’re taken a shortcut that might make you feel better, but often ends in a poor choice.
The second option when you face a contradiction is to realize that one of the two ideas is false. Either your belief that something is true is mistaken, or your behavior was incorrect. Either you don’t believe health is important, or you shouldn’t have eaten so many donuts. You should have only had one or two at the most.
I think this second direction is much harder to accomplish than rationalization, and why it’s easier to rationalize a mistake than it is to use that mistake to make changes.
You can resolve a lot of personal conflicts by starting with a simple question: “What is true?”
Based on your personal experience and knowledge, ask yourself what is true. Answer this question before you factor in your current behavior. If you feel drinking or smoking is bad for you, recognize this first. You can worry about your habits later, the first step in fixing a contradiction always must be with your current beliefs.
It’s important to recognize what is true, even if you’re powerless to change it. You might hate your job but be completely financially committed to stay there. That’s okay, it’s better to know the truth of your position than to constantly lie to yourself that it isn’t so bad, or that work is supposed to be distasteful.
Resolving contradictions can be hard, because most people try to prevent any gaps in their behavior and beliefs. So, if they can’t change their behavior, they sacrifice their beliefs, lying to themselves about what they know to be true. Therefore, separating the truth-acknowledging step from the behavior-changing step is so important.
Once you fully acknowledge what you know to be true, you can start the process of changing your behaviors. This isn’t easy. Changing habits can be difficult, especially when the habit has been interlinked into much of your life.
It can be even more difficult to fix situations that are based on more than just behavior. A job isn’t just a habit, it’s also a financial commitment that can be difficult to sever, especially if you don’t have the resources to.
However, the job of practicing what you believe becomes infinitely easier if you have first acknowledged the truth of the situation. If you can realize the truth, you will eventually adjust your behavior and life to coincide with it–even if that is difficult at first.
I think the most important step to fixing your contradictions is to realize you have them. Many people rationalize them away so there is never a gap between behavior and truth. Only the people who have gaps, the ones who aren’t living at their ideal capacity, are the people who can grow and improve.
If you perfectly practice what you preach, then you probably aren’t doing either very well.
Today we are continuing our study of king Jehoshaphat. In our last study he had chosen to join the unbelieving king of Israel to fight the Syrians. He was deceived by Ahab at the time of the battle to dress in his royal clothes, so he would be recognized by all combatants. Because of this scheme of Ahab, he was almost killed. Our Great and Holy God had to rescue him. Now after having fled back to the safety of his palace he comes to find out from a prophet that our Holy Father God Yahweh was not pleased with him.
His action to this rebuke was to go on a new righteous policy. He instructed his servants and the priests of YHWH to do things as God wants them to be done. In other words, ‘Do as I say, not do as I have done.’
There is a deliberate contrast between Ahab who had hoped to return to his home in peace (18.26-27), and Jehoshaphat who did so (19.1). As we have seen the hand of YHWH had been with Jehoshaphat to keep him safe. However, that did not mean that YHWH was pleased with Jehoshaphat’s behavior in uniting his own house with an evil house (18.1), the consequences of which will come out later (21.1-6), nor with his behavior in entering into an alliance with a godless and evil king (19.2). In the latter case he is openly rebuked by the prophet Jehu and warned that he has incurred the wrath of YHWH.
19 Then Jehoshaphat the king of Judah returned safely to his house in Jerusalem.
Unlike the king of Israel, Jehoshaphat, king of Judah returned to his house, and to Jerusalem, ‘in peace. It certainly signified returning alive, for its use of Ahab relates to his death (18.26-27). Please take note the stress on Jerusalem in verses 1 and 4. This may be intended to indicate that Jerusalem, the center of YHWH’s rule, was the place where he belonged. He had no part in Samaria. He was back where he should be.
2 And Jehu the son of Hanani the seer went out to meet him, and said to King Jehoshaphat, “Should you help the wicked and love those who hate the LORD? Therefore, the wrath of the LORD is upon you.
All must have seemed well to Jehoshaphat as he approached Jerusalem ‘alive and well’, possibly also with a clear conscience, and grateful to be still alive. He had clearly failed to consult with prophets of YHWH about his associations with the house of Ahab and was unaware of what he had done and of how he had failed YHWH. He was not wholly excusable. He had after all failed to take enough notice of the warnings of Micaiah. But it was only now that he was forced to face up to what he had done. And it brought him up abruptly. For he and his party were met by Jehu, the son of Hanani, who was a recognized prophet of YHWH. And it was then that he learned that YHWH was displeased with much of what he had done. For Jehu charged him with ‘helping the wicked (in their wicked ways)’, and ‘loving’ (being in close relationship with) those who hated YHWH. The former referred to his participation in the venture to Ramoth-gilead, and the latter to his joining his son in marriage with the daughter of Ahab which had led on to his cozy treaty relationship with him. These things were aligning Jehoshaphat with their wicked ways. It was so displeasing to YHWH that it brought Jehoshaphat under the wrath of God. That wrath would reveal itself eventually in what happened to his sons.
. We must not misinterpret what this verse is saying. It is not saying that we should not help unbelievers or love them. It was Jehoshaphat’s godly duty to help all men in a way that was good for them, and to love all men with the right aim in view (Leviticus 19.18, 34). Jehoshaphat’s failure lay in assisting them in their evil schemes and having a treaty relationship that led to disobedience. He should never have been at Ramoth-gilead, nor should he have been seeking to bring it under the rulership of the idolatrous Ahab. Had the venture been successful Ramoth-gilead would have been no better off. They would simply have exchanged one idolatrous ruler for another. He was catering to Ahab’s pride.
3 Nevertheless good things are found in you, in that you have removed the wooden images from the land and have prepared your heart to seek God.”
The news was not all bad, for Jehu pointed out that God had not overlooked the good that Jehoshaphat had done. He recognized the good things which were in Jehoshaphat as well as the bad. And these included the fact that Jehoshaphat had, as far as he could, put away the Asheroth out of the land as described in 17.6. It also included that he had also set his heart to seek God. He had wanted to worship YHWH truly and to bring his people into loving obedience to Him.
4 So Jehoshaphat dwelt at Jerusalem; and he went out again among the people from Beersheba to the mountains of Ephraim and brought them back to the LORD God of their fathers.
Having received his rebuke Jehoshaphat once again took up residence in Jerusalem, and rightly remained there fulfilling his responsibilities to YHWH. He had heeded the rebuke and was back where he should be. But his foolish association with the idolatrous house of Ahab would have bad repercussions for him later, and even more for his son. Forming too close relationships with unbelievers is a recipe for disaster.
Being established once again in Jerusalem Jehoshaphat ‘again went out among the people -- and brought them back to the God of their fathers’. We should probably translate as ‘sought to bring them back’. Such a mission would inevitably only receive a partial response. The aim was to bring them back to God, but it would be only partially successful in the long run. While there might be initial enthusiasm, it would soon dwindle.
The ‘again’ refers to chapter 17.7-9 when he had sent teachers out among the people to teach them the Instruction (Law/Torah) of YHWH. Thus, the aim of this mission also was to spread and teach the word of God as it was then, and while many clearly responded, returning to true submission to the God of their fathers, not all would do so. As will always happen in such a case not all were brought back. There would be those whose hearts were hardened, so that later we read ‘neither yet had the people set their hearts to the God of their fathers’ (20.33). The success had been limited.
This mission was then followed up by bringing about a new emphasis on justice throughout the land. New judges were appointed in all the fenced cities of Judah, and in Jerusalem itself certain priests, Levites and lay leaders (heads of fathers’ houses) were appointed to deal with controversies and determine the judgment of YHWH. There was a renewed stress on the need for honesty and fair play, and for them to remember that they were judging in the Name of YHWH. The smaller towns and cities would each already have their appointed elders operating as judges at the city gates.
5 Then he set judges in the land throughout all the fortified cities of Judah, city by city, 6 and said to the judges, “Take heed to what you are doing, for you do not judge for man but for the LORD, who is with you in the judgment. 7 Now therefore, let the fear of the LORD be upon you; take care and do it, for there is no iniquity with the LORD our God, no partiality, nor taking of bribes.”
This is not to deny that there was already a system of justice throughout the land. There inevitably would be. Each city and town would have elders who met to carry out justice at the gates of the town or city, and there would presumably be higher judges operating in various places in accordance with Moses’ provisions (Exodus 18.25; Deuteronomy 1.15-17; 16.18). Furthermore, as we know, David had appointed 6,000 Levites as ‘judges and officers’ to supplement these judges (1 Chronicles 23.4). But things might well have grown lax, and judgments may well have been showing too much favoritism and become somewhat open to bribery, which would explain the necessity for the new appointments. These new appointments were therefore presumably intended to strengthen the system of justice and ensure that it was carried out strictly in accord with God’s requirements. The fortified cities would be the larger cities to which people roundabout could come to have their cases heard if they were not satisfied with the judgments of the local elders.
As Moses had before him, so now Jehoshaphat laid on these judges the necessity to see themselves as acting in the name of YHWH, walking in the fear of YHWH and avoiding anything in any way corrupt. They were to avoid respecting one person above another, taking bribes, or passing judgments for wrong reasons. They were to be totally straight and honest in order that they might be pleasing to God.
Note the threefold emphasis on YHWH.
1. They were to judge for YHWH
2. They were to let the fear of YHWH be on them.
3. They were to recognize in making their decisions on His behalf that there was no iniquity in YHWH. In that way they could ensure that what they did was right.
Having ‘respect of persons’, treating the claims of the rich and powerful as more valid and carrying more weight than those of the poor, has been a problem in every age, and is by no means excluded today. Bribery has regularly been a means of distorting justice. Their prevalence comes out in the continual warnings against it.
8 Moreover in Jerusalem, for the judgment of the LORD and for controversies, Jehoshaphat appointed some of the Levites and priests, and some of the chief fathers of Israel, when they returned to Jerusalem.
In Jerusalem itself Jehoshaphat established supreme courts to deal with more controversial or difficult cases, both with respect to the written Law and in accordance with unwritten custom. These were composed of Levites, priests and heads of fathers’ houses, with the chief priest and the ruler of the house of Judah over them. Compare ‘the priests the Levites and the judge which shall be in those days’ (Deuteronomy 17.9). Jehoshaphat’s was clearly an expansion of this. The distinction between written law and unwritten custom was found in many places in those days. Both were important.
9 And he commanded them, saying, “Thus you shall act in the fear of the LORD, faithfully and with a loyal heart:
Note the threefold charge.
. They were to act in the fear (reverent awe) of YHWH.
. They were to act faithfully.
. They were to do so with pure and unbiassed motives and intent.
We have here a clear indication of what God requires of us in all our dealings.
10 Whatever case comes to you from your brethren who dwell in their cities, whether of bloodshed or offenses against law or commandment, against statutes or ordinances, you shall warn them, lest they trespass against the LORD and wrath come upon you and your brethren. Do this, and you will not be guilty.
All judgments had to be made in the light of the will and requirements of YHWH, and they were to be such that they could come before YHWH satisfied that he would not find them guilty because of their decisions. In dealing with controversial cases from the different cities, especially cases involving family disagreements, or in relation to the Torah with its commandments, statutes and ordinances, they were to warn the combatants not behave in such a way as to be guilty in the eyes of YHWH lest their guilt bring wrath on both themselves and the judges. In other words, they had to bring their cases fairly and honestly without any intent to deceive or to gain by dishonesty.
11 And take notice: Amariah the chief priest is over you in all matters of the LORD; and Zebadiah the son of Ishmael, the ruler of the house of Judah, for all the king’s matters; also the Levites will be officials before you. Behave courageously, and the LORD will be with the good.”
Having overall responsibility in respect of matters concerning YHWH, involving, for example, interpretation of the Torah (Law) and religious matters, was Amariah, the chief priest. He and his fellow leading priests would have the expertise required for dealing with such matters. In contrast the king’s affairs would be more political and would require a knowledge of what the political customs were, and so having overall responsibility for the king’s matters, involving kingly decrees, ordinances and customs, was Zebadiah, the son of Ishmael, who was the ruler of the tribe of Judah. He would be on the king’s council and would have a knowledge of royal decisions and of how the royal court saw things. The Levites were to act as court officers, and possibly also as lower level appeal judges.
The distinction between religious and political must not be over pressed. All decisions would be religious, for religion was involved in every part of life. The distinction rather lay in separating Temple from royal court, with each claiming YHWH’s will for their decisions. This would be of especial importance, for example, in determining which spoils of war belonged to the Temple and which belonged to the king, and who had jurisdiction where. Thus, when Uzziah would later offer incense he was breaching Temple Law, something which came out in his punishment by YHWH.
