So they feared the Lord, and from every class they appointed for themselves priests of the high places, who sacrificed for them in the shrines of the high places. They feared the Lord, yet served their own gods, according to the rituals of the nations from among whom they were carried away. To this day, they continue practicing the former rituals. They do not fear the Lord, nor do they follow their statutes, or their ordinances, or the law and commandments which the Lord had commanded the children of Jacob, whom he named Israel, with whom the Lord had made a covenant and charged them, saying, you shall not fear other gods, nor bow down to them, nor serve them, nor sacrifice to them.
But, excuse me, but serve them, I got a problem with my eye here, serve them nor sacrifice to them. But the Lord who brought you up from the land of Egypt with great power and an outstretched arm, him you shall fear. Him you shall worship and to him you shall offer sacrifice. And the statutes, the ordinances, the law and the commandment which He wrote for you, you shall be careful to observe forever.
You shall not fear other gods. And the covenant that I have made with you, you shall not forget, nor shall you fear other gods. But the Lord your God you shall fear, and He will deliver you from the hand of all your enemies. However, they did not obey, but they followed their former rituals.
So these nations feared the Lord, yet served their carved images. Also, their children and their children's children have continued doing as their fathers did even to this day. Amen.
Introduction
So we see the fall of the Northern Kingdom in the first half of the chapter, and then as was the custom with Assyria, their policy in conquering was to take captive peoples back to their land, and then to take captive peoples from other provinces and territories and put them in the lands that had been recently conquered. In doing so, they kept them off kilter, they kept them from being able to sort of band together and revolt against the Assyrian Empire. Now, no doubt, they didn't take every single one from the Northern Kingdom. There were still those within the land of Israel. that had lived there before.
So they didn't take every single Israelite back to Assyria, but for the most part, and then settled these other nations or these other people groups in the land. And I think there's a couple of valuable lessons that this chapter brings out for us. And I want to look at first the pragmatic need for religion. Now, pragmatism is simply doing that which works or that which serves a particular person.
And I think that's illustrated in this first section. They don't want God for God's sake, they want God to keep them from these lion attacks. That's pragmatism. And then secondly, the syncretic manufacture of religion.
I'm defining all the terms that I'm using that are not normal. Syncretism means when we take two and combine them together in order to worship. And so what we find here in the second section is that they made their own gods and coupled that with Yahweh and attempted to worship in that particular vein. So, they engaged in a manufacture of religion that was ultimately syncretic.
And then, finally, the last section of the chapter highlights the exclusivity of true religion. In other words, God does not say, it's okay to worship me whatever way that you want. The Lord God of heaven and earth does not say to people, well, you just come to me when you have particular needs and I will scratch your itch and I will make everything go well. He doesn't say you can come to me along with your idols, along with your sort of cultural gods.
That's absolutely contrary to the God of heaven and earth.
The Pragmatic Need for Religion
So let's look first at the pragmatic need for religion. The resettlement of Samaria is given to us in verse 24. The various peoples, the various provinces, the various territories that Assyria conquered, they now settled in the land of Israel. And Matthew Henry says, it is common for lands to change their owners, but sad that the Holy Land should become a heathen land again.
See what work sin makes. And I think that's a good observation. They are at this particular point because of their rebellion against God. The land was given to them as a gift based on the promise given to Abraham in Genesis chapter 12.
God stipulated this is the way you are to conduct yourself when you go into the land. You're to drive out the Canaanites, because God knew that if the Canaanites remained in the land, the Canaanites would have an effect upon the Israelites. And that is precisely what takes place. Over the course of history, with reference to the Northern Kingdom, they became increasingly more like the Canaanites, and now God has used a pagan empire to drive them out of the land.
They are reaping the consequences of their unfaithfulness to the living and true God. This is the outworking of Leviticus 26 and Deuteronomy 28. Of course, the lesson for us is that when God commands us, we're supposed to obey Him. Now I realize that we revel in the gospel and we should rejoice in the gospel.
We ought to also appreciate that in Revelation 2 and 3 there are some similarities in the way that Jesus deals with the churches there in Asia Minor to the way that God dealt with Old Covenant Israel. Again, it's not strict 100% equal sign between the two, but you do see that Jesus demands faithfulness on the part of his churches. And it is intriguing because an old covenant concept is that the land would vomit out the inhabitants. When the land, or when the persons living in the land continue to sin and rebel against God, the language, and I'm sure you've seen it oftentimes, the land would vomit out its inhabitants.
Well, remember that Jesus says, Because you're neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out. So in the Old Covenant, it's the land that's spitting out the inhabitants of the land that are violating the covenant of God. In the New Covenant, the Lord Jesus, with reference to the corporate church, says those churches that are not serving Him, those who are not glorifying Him, those who are not faithful, He will spit out in the manner in which the land vomited out its inhabitants in the Old Covenant. Now note, secondly, with reference to this pragmatic need, their specific absence of fear.
Absence of Fear and Divine Judgment
Notice in verse 25. And it was so at the beginning of their dwelling there that they did not fear the Lord. Therefore the Lord sent lions among them, which killed some of them. So we see the absence of the fear of God and then the presence of the judgment of God.
And I suspect that Gil is on the right path. He says specifically, this the Lord did to assert His sovereignty. In other words, He sent these lions to assert His sovereignty, authority, and mighty power, and to let them know that He could as easily clear the land of them as they, by His permission, had cleared the land of the Israelites. In other words, it was a good lesson for these new inhabitants of the land that the God of heaven and earth was not to be trifled with.
They did not fear him, so God sends lions to bring judgment upon them. reminiscent of curses made to Israel. I will also send wild beasts among you, which shall rob you of your children, destroy your livestock, and make you few in number, and your highways shall be desolate." Leviticus 26, 22. So we see their particular issue. They've got lions among them.
I can understand the desire to rid oneself of lions. I get that. I think that's a normal, natural expression of our humanity. We like them in cages or in wildernesses where they're not killing us.
So, I understand the sentiment of what's going on, but the way they approach this shows how they view the function of religion. And I think in many respects these peoples that have resettled the land of Israel demonstrate for us something that is very common today. People only want God when they have a particular problem. People only want God when they're drowning and they make deals with God that if you let me out of this calamity, well then I'll go to church.
We look at God as a genie in a bottle. We look at God as a holy horseshoe a four-leaf clover. We look at God as a means to an end, and that is precisely what the persons in the land do at this particular time.
Religion as a Means to an End
Notice verse 26, So they spoke to the king of Assyria, saying, The nations whom you have removed and placed in the cities of Samaria do not know the rituals of the God of the land. Therefore, He has sent lions among them, and indeed, they are killing them because they do not know the rituals of the God of the land." You see, there is, again, the genuine desire to be rid of lions. We ought not to discount that. but it shows their approach to religion. As far as they are concerned, the deity exists simply and solely and only to alleviate me from my burdens, my concerns, and my lions.
Davis says some religion can be pragmatic. We must do something to get rid of these lions. So some crave a protective faith that charms away troubles, that deals with threats to one's security. The big question is not, is it true, but will it work to avoid discomfort?
I suspect that this is something that plagues even the churches, evangelical and reformed. It's not so much a matter of, is it true, but will it provide results? I mean, you see this in a lot of church growth sort of orientation. This is certain to garner results.
You have a kickoff or a launch Sunday in September, and you have bouncy castles for kids, and you give everybody hot dogs. We've turned religion into a means to try and get people in the church, and when they're in the church, we cater the message to serve them, to tailor it to them, to cater it to them. That's not the purpose of religion. What is the chief end of man according to the Westminster Shorter Catechism?
It's not to be happy with all the creature comforts that this world has to offer. It's not to have all of our cares and problems alleviated. It is to enjoy God, or to glorify God, and to enjoy Him forever. Now, that glorifying God and enjoying Him forever means a focus on Him.
And you see, if we look at what He gives us, when He stops giving us those things, we're no longer going to glorify Him. We're no longer going to enjoy Him. We will be fair-weather fans. I would imagine that people like the Canucks a whole lot better when they're winning games.
When they're not winning games, it's probably easier to turn to a different hockey team. The same is true with the people of God. If we have it in our mind that religion's function is to benefit me in the here and the now, then we've missed the point. Davis goes on to say, the big question is not, is it true, but will it work to avoid discomfort, to ward off disaster?
In the wake of catastrophes like 9-11 comes the question, where is or where was God? Nothing wrong with asking that question, but sometimes there's a fallacious assumption behind it. Namely, that God is supposed always to make life safe. You don't have that promise in the scripture.
Where is God? He's as much there in the calamities and in the catastrophes as he is when the sun is shining. I mean, look at today. God's still God.
I mean, it might be more appreciable if it was sunny and warm and people weren't being shot to death on the street on Broadway. But God hasn't stopped being God. And we need to understand that. He goes on to say, he says, that God is supposed always to make life safe, that God is my existential pacifier, and if He does not guarantee my security, of what use is He?
Religion, you know, should get rid of the lions for you. Now, again, this is an obscure passage, one that probably a lot of people don't focus on or think through or probably preach sermons on, but it's a very appropriate application. The people in the land are plagued with lions and they want to appease the god of the land so that the lions will go away. They don't have a heart for worship.
They don't want to know this God. They don't want to love this God. They don't want to commune with this God. They want to use this God or appease this God with the ritual so that this God will stop sending lions.
And I suspect at times that's our approach to religion. Again, we can look at the Benny Hins and we can look at the, you know, the wacko charismatics and Pentecostals, but I think this sentiment is as much true in the Reformed world as it is everywhere else. You know, we tried this, but it didn't work. You know, I tried to read my Bible, but it didn't really make me feel any better.
Well, brethren, that's not the way you're supposed to function, operate, or live. You don't do what you're supposed to do only if it makes you feel better. You don't get the immediate benefits of broccoli. a hunk of broccoli and then leap over tall buildings or resist bullets with your bare chest. It takes a while for those nutrients to find their way into your body and produce the health and the nutrition that you need.
But yet the Christian church today has basically been taught that if we don't get what we want, we're just going to start another church, or we'll leave this church, we'll go do this, we want this, we want that. It's a me-centered situation, and it parallels very much so this particular situation. We don't like lions. Tell us what we need to do to get rid of the lions.
You see the significant difference between that approach and we want to know the God of Israel, we want to worship Him, we want to commune with Him, we want to love Him, we want to adore Him. It's two fundamentally different approaches. Now note what the king does. The king in verse 27. says, send there one of the priests whom you brought from there.
Let him go and dwell there, and let him teach them the rituals of the god of the land. Now, I don't suspect that the king of Assyria probably had malicious or malevolent motives. I think the king of Assyria is demonstrating in all of his king of Assyrian-ness a decency They got a problem with lions in that part of my dominion and empire? I know.
Let's send a priest from that particular part of the world, and he can teach them the rituals of the god of that part of the world. But for all of us who have been reading this book or studying this book, the priesthood in the North wasn't very good, was it? I mean, this is one of the reasons why they're no longer in Assyria. It wasn't just the people that went a-whoring from God.
It was the priesthood as well. And when you look specifically at verse 28, then one of the priests whom they had carried away from Samaria came and dwelt in Bethel. Again, if you have been here since our study in 1 Kings, you'll know that Bethel was one of the places that calf worship was preeminent. It was one of the two places that Jeroboam instituted as a shrine for calf worship.
So one of the priests whom they had carried away from Samaria came and dwelt in Bethel and taught them how they should fear the Lord. Again, this does not bode well. The king of Assyria probably thinks he's doing a fine job sending a priest from that land to teach the new inhabitants about the God of that land. But we, the careful reader, know that the priesthood in the North was messed up.
It was corrupt. The fact that this priest, when he goes back to the North, goes to Bethel, this does not bode well. In fact, Proven says, the kind of worship of the Lord that is taught by the exiled priest is evidently and predictably just as flawed as the worship that led to the Israelites' exile in the first place. And then Davis says, any priest from the former northern kingdom would likely propagate more syncretism than orthodoxy.
So this, again, not on the, you know, the Assyrian king isn't thinking, hey, I'm really going to get them. He probably legitimately wants somebody in the know to go there, you know, pacify them enough to stop the lion. and stop lions. That doesn't bode well for the king of Assyria when you have a territory or province that's overrun with lions that happen to be eating your subjects. That's probably not a good poster for, you know, come to Assyria, come holiday in the former northern kingdom of Israel.
That just doesn't sell tickets. So he has a vested interest, but we know that he sends this priest, and this priest in the north has mastered, no doubt, syncretism. This is the problem in the north from the beginning. As soon as Jeroboam breaks away, he institutes calf worship.
We get to Ahab, and what does he institute? He institutes a bale worship. So you've got Baal plus Yahweh, you've got Caph plus Yahweh. This is syncretism.
Again, we've argued over the course of our study in 1st and 2nd Kings, it's probably not the case that the Israelites utterly repudiated Yahweh. They probably didn't utterly abandon Yahweh and reject him and said, oh, there's no such being as Yahweh. No, they looked around at the pagans around them and said Baal seems to work for them, the calves seem to work for them, we're going to use them along with Yahweh to secure the blessings that we want. See, it's all about me, it's all about what I want, it's all about my needs, my desires my benefit.
So that is their pragmatic need for religion.
The Syncretic Manufacture of Religion
Now note the syncretic manufacture of religion. Verses 29 to 31 show us what idolatry looks like. They're making gods. Look at how many times the verb is used.
Six times. However, every nation continued to make gods of its own. They did it in the places which the Samaritans had made. The men of Babylon made Sukkoth-Benoth.
The men of Kuth made Nergal. The men of Hamath made Ashuma. And the Abites made Nibhaz and Tartak. Aren't you glad your god made you and you didn't make your god?
What a terrible thing to be a God-maker. I mean, there is no way that you and I can produce the sort of God that is able to deliver in the day of trouble. This is absolutely dismal. This is depressing.
The thought that man has the capability to make a God is the folly of idolatry. This is why the prophet Isaiah mocked the Babylonians, because they had to pick their gods up and put them back on the cart. This is why that scene with reference to Dagon in the temple, or the Ark of the Covenant rather, in the temple with Dagon, and they go in and they see Dagon falling over, and they have to pick him up and put him back up. They go the next day, they see his hand broken off, and they see him in pieces.
This is absolute travesty that men would rather worship and serve the creature rather than the creator who is God overall. This is idolatry, this is sin, this is wickedness, and the verb is employed several times with reference to Jeroboam in 1 Kings 12, 31-33. He made, he made, he made, he made. If you and your religion are making your gods, you are in the wrong religion.
Davis says, so pagan religion creates what it likes. Biblical faith receives what is revealed. Pagans worship based on what they prefer. Believers must worship based on what God declares.
The biblical worshiper must submit. The pagan worshiper may concoct. And that's precisely what verses 29 to 31 evidence. Now,
The Irony of False Fear
you need to notice something here, specifically in verses 32 and 33. When it says in verse 32, So they feared the Lord, and from every class they appointed for themselves priests of the high places, who sacrificed for them in the shrines of the high places. They feared the Lord. Now notice, verse 32, verse 33, this is Yahweh.
So they feared Yahweh, yet served their own gods, according to the rituals of the nations from among whom they were carried away. The wrong way to read this passage is to say, oh yeah, well, you know, they feared Yahweh. Certainly, they had all these idols they had manufactured, but, you know, they were doing their best with the information that they had available. That's the wrong way to read the passage.
The author is being ironic. He's going to tell us as much in verse 34. They did not fear Yahweh. We know fundamentally, and it's going to be reiterated over and over again, in this very chapter, that you shall have no other gods before Me.
Do you think the God who spoke that on Sinai, and repeated it in the plains of Moab, would have truck with this kind of worship? That He would actually say, well, you know, I know they're bringing their idols along with them, but they're doing their bestest, and therefore I can acknowledge that they fear Me. No. Christianity, the religion of the Bible, is exclusive.
And as I said, that's going to become more apparent as we move on in the chapter. But notice, specifically, the priest, according to verse 28, taught them how they should fear Yahweh. Verses 32 and 33, they feared Yahweh. But this is irony.
The fear of the Lord indicated here is not true. The contrast is set forth in verse 34. To this day, they continue practicing the former rituals. They do not fear the Lord.
If you don't understand irony, you're not going to understand some of scripture. These are literary techniques that authors use to show the folly of something they're attacking. In fact, I think Proven explains it well. We must reckon then with the presence of irony in 2 Kings 17, 25 to 33.
It is not a passage meant to be taken at face value. Please never read this section in verses 29 to 33 and conclude, well, you know, they did their best and therefore they could be seen as having feared Yahweh. No, they did not. Get it in your head.
You cannot bring an idol with you to the altar of God, bow before Yahweh, and think that somehow you are fearing Him. You're not supposed to be idolaters, you're not supposed to be syncretic, you're not supposed to sort of marry Yahweh and Baal, Yahweh and Asherah, Yahweh and the host of gods that were manufactured here. He says the author is simply setting up a particular point of view in order to demolish it. rather in the manner of a participant in a debating competition. The tone of the passage is best caught, in fact, if the reader mentally supplies quotation marks to the words worship and worship in the NIV translation of verses 28 and 32 to 33.
We won't hold it against him that he uses the NIV there. It would be supplying quotation marks in the word fear. This isn't genuine. It's not legit.
It's not real. For we are certainly not to regard the worship or the fear described in these verses as true worship as verses 34 to 39 make clear. So if you ever have read this section and said, wow, that's interesting. They actually feared Yahweh.
Please take the encouragement. Don't read it that way because that's not the way it's supposed to be read. They were not fearing Yahweh. The author is mocking this position.
The author is showing how ludicrous this position is, and he's going to reinforce that now in verses 34 to 41 with reference to the exclusivity of true religion.
The Exclusivity of True Religion
Notice, in the first place, he repudiates this pagan syncretism. He says in verse 34, or the law and commandment which the Lord had commanded the children of Jacob, whom he named Israel." So this is a repudiation of everything that these inhabitants who have been resettled in the land of Israel are doing. So if you had the thought that somehow they were genuinely fearing the Lord, you get to verse 34 and the author shatters that supposition. There is no way that what they were doing is any way honoring to the Lord God Most High.
So he repudiates this paganism.
The Covenant Foundation of Exclusive Worship
But notice he then enters in to remind of Israel's history. And I think there's a particular purpose for which he does this. But notice in verses 34 to 39, he reminds of Israel's history. In the first place, the covenant made with Israel in verse 35.
As he refers to the nation, the children of Jacob, whom he named Israel, now he launches into this reminder, verse 35, with whom the Lord had made a covenant and charged them, saying, You shall not fear other gods, nor bow down to them, nor serve them, nor sacrifice to them. So the covenant of Sinai is the foundation upon which, or the basis, or the context in which there is this prohibition against other gods. In other words, this God has entered into covenant with you, and he has commanded you in the very first place, you shall have no other gods before me. So the pagans haven't learned the lesson, but the interesting thing is that the Israelites themselves haven't learned the lesson.
He then highlights the fact that God had redeemed Israel. This is similar in some respects to the first half of the chapter where we see the reasons for their fall to Assyria. But notice the redemption of Israel in verse 36, the reference to the Exodus, and it's the basis upon which he demands their fear, worship, and sacrifice, verse 36. And then he repeats the law.
So, again, I'm not saying that you have. Probably you always read it as ironically that they really didn't fear the Lord, verses 32 and 33. But let's just suppose for a moment, somebody actually took that thought out of verse 33. By the time they get to verses 34 to 41, they're being hammered.
They're being told. This in no way was the worship of God. This was in no way the fear of the Lord. Notice in verses 37 to 39, and the statutes, the ordinances, the law and the commandment which he wrote for you.
You shall be careful to observe forever. You shall not fear other gods. The fact that they manufacture them and put them under their arm as they go to Yahweh's altar is showing a deference to, or a fear of, those other gods. And then he goes on in verse 38, in the covenant that I have made with you, you shall not forget, nor shall you fear other gods.
But the Lord your God you shall fear, and he will deliver you from the hand of all your enemies.
Covenant Religion's Fundamental Intolerance
Again, I think Davis gets it when he speaks of the exclusivity of covenant religion. Covenant religion, he means here the Old Testament, Yahweh-ism, the worship of the true and living God. He says covenant religion carries a fundamental intolerance at its center. I love this because we live in such a tolerant age.
We're being, you know, browbeaten into tolerating everybody. The only ones you're allowed to not tolerate are Christians. That's, you know, they're intolerable. You just, you know, you can be bigoted against them, you can be prejudicial against them.
Christians are public enemy number one. But for everybody else, we gotta tolerate them. We gotta tolerate them no matter what they do. We just have to tolerate.
Well, the religion of God is intolerant to the core. It's not just it's Old Testament manifestation or Old Covenant manifestation, but it's Jesus who said, I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. That's intolerance.
That is exclusive. That is gentle Jesus, meek and mild, telling a whole host of people they are absolutely wrong subscribing to the religion of Allah, subscribing to the religion of Latter-day Saints, or Jehovah's Witnesses, or Buddhism, or Shintoism, or whatever it is. Jesus is telling all those people, you are absolutely, positively, 100% wrong. And yet everybody says, but, you know, Jesus is so nice.
That's only if you haven't read his words. Now, I believe Jesus is kind and good and gracious and wonderful. But brethren, there is an offense to the cross. And if that cross is not offending, it's probably because we're not preaching it the way that we're supposed to.
That is something that we need to come to grips with. But back to Davis. Covenant religion carries a fundamental intolerance at its center. Yahweh or other gods.
If Jesus is Lord, all competitors must be excluded. Pagan religions were not like this. No pagan deity worth his or her salt ever got its divine bowels in an uproar if one of its devotees worshipped or prayed or sacrificed to another god or goddess. Only biblical covenant religion carries this virulent animosity toward all would-be competitors.
One suspects this unique religion is also the true religion. I think he's absolutely bang on with that statement. The other nations, the other gods, or the other, you know, there was no problem. I mean, you use whatever God would, you know, help you at that particular time.
It's intriguing. When Paul is at the Areopagus, what do the Athenians have? They have an altar to an unknown God. Just in case we've offended a deity out there that we don't happen to know his or her name, we're going to have this altar there to try and appease and try and make sure that we can avert their particular wrath.
You see, the Christians in the early church were the atheists. Do you know that? Christians were being accused of being atheists because they worshiped one God. Everybody else had a pantheon.
Everybody else had, you know, a multiplicity of gods. That was perfectly acceptable, perfectly legit. Remember in Thessalonica? What was the crime of the early church?
They preach another king, even Jesus. You see, this is Christianity's assault on the first century Roman Empire. It was Caesar who was referred to as Lord and Savior. Why do you think so often in the New Testament documents Jesus is referred to as Lord and Savior?
Yes, there is a religious overtone to be sure. Yes, it is consistent with the description of Yahweh in the Old Covenant. But it's also a frontal attack upon the sitting Caesar at that particular time. In many respects, that's what incensed the authorities against the Christian.
You could have whatever God you wanted, but if you said there was one true and living God and everything else was a fake, you were the atheist in that context. You see, Christianity is to be intolerant. When I say that, I don't mean against blacks or against Asians. No, intolerant of any other approach to God except through Jesus Christ the Lord.
That is what we preach.
Verse 40-41 and the Exilic Audience
Now, notice, he goes on, and the author concludes this chapter with verses 40 and 41. Now, in verse 40, some suggest that this refers to the pagans. However, they did not obey, but they followed their former rituals. Notice in verse 34.
To this day, they continue practicing the former rituals. I think that's the pagans in verse 34, and then he highlights the history of Israel in verses 35 to 39, and then concludes that in verse 40. However, they, Israel, did not obey, but they followed their former rituals. It connects better.
Verse 40 caps off, verses 35 to 39. As well, some would suggest, well, they didn't have former rituals. Oh, they most certainly did. When they were in Egypt, they had rituals.
And even when they lived in the land of Canaan, they had rituals. They were called calves. They were called bales. They were called asherah.
They were called molech. They threw their children into the fire. They had rituals. The author is showing us that Israel has fallen as a result of this kind of syncretism, this kind of an approach to God.
And then he finalizes the chapter with reference to the pagans. Verse 41 now shifts to the pagans, those who had resettled the land of Israel. So these nations feared the Lord. Again, it's ironic.
You cannot conclude after the exposition of verses 35 to 39, oh yeah, they did fear the Lord. No, they didn't. He is picking on them. He is mocking them.
So these nations feared the Lord, yet served their carved images. Also, their children and their children's children have continued doing as their fathers did even to this day. Now, one man said this. Now, remember, who was the original audience of the Books of Kings?
It was the exiles. the people in Babylon, the people that were expunged from the land after the Babylonian captivity. And so Kings explains why you're in the mess you're in. Basically, Kings answers the question for anybody sitting there in Babylon saying, what happened? Why are we here?
Well, just read, and it'll explain everything for you. This man says, these foreigners, the pagans, the newly settled inhabitants in this land, these foreigners parody Israel, trying to fear the Lord in their syncretistic way. They really do not fear God at all, for they do not follow the law of Deuteronomy. If you want to see what Israel was like, the narrator suggests to exilic readers, go look at these contemporary foreigners who are doing according to their former manner, even to this day, just as Israel used to do.
When you're in exile, and you look at how people are conducting themselves in the land, that's exactly how Israel functioned, and that's the reason why you're in the mess that you're in. This is the author's thrust to show us what happens with reference to those who now inhabit this particular parcel of land. They listen to bad teaching from a bad priest, and they engage in bad religion to try and get the lions off their backs. and by so doing they enter into what's called syncretism where they take a little Yahweh and a little God that they had made, combine it all together and hopefully the gods will be pleased with us and stop the lions from killing us and our children. It's a pretty grim view of man in sin.
And
Application
I want to end with just a couple of thoughts. First, the danger of pragmatism, the danger of it. We ought not to conclude that it ended in the 8th century BC. In other words, we ought not to look at this and say, well, they certainly have had to learn their lesson.
Israel must have learned their lesson. Remember, we're on top of that building. We watched last week as the Northern Kingdom crashed its car into a semi. We're still on top of that building, and we're watching the nation of Judah drive into that intersection as well, and it's going to be destroyed.
They didn't learn their lessons. They didn't learn the lessons that the North did. The South duplicates it. They end up crashing.
And the church continues, at least at times, to continue to crash the car on this idea of pragmatism. It is folly to assume it is a pagan mindset in our culture. I think it is. you know, these big interfaith unity services where you have, you know, the Hindu and the Buddhist and the Christian and the Catholic and they're, you know, all just praying to God. I mean, come on, that's just as bad as what we see, you know, all these people bringing their gods to the altar of Yahweh, so-called.
This is pragmatism and it's wrong. But it's also a reality in professing believers in churches. And I can't do any better than quote Jay Gresson Machen. I think you probably all heard me quote this.
I think it's a quote that everybody should internalize because I think it hits the nail on the head. He says, we value God solely for the things he can do. Now, we should praise God for the things he can do. I think as a matter of sort of habit, we ought to praise God for creation and for providence and for redemption.
I like to call that the spiritual CPR. Creation, providence, redemption. Those are three good heads upon which we bring glory to God for his activity, his doing, his work. But I think you get what Machen is saying.
We value God solely for the things He can do. We make of Him a mere means to an ulterior end. And God refuses to be treated so. Such a religion always fails in the hour of need.
If we have regarded religion merely as a means of getting things, even lofty and unselfish things, then when the things that have been gotten are destroyed, our faith will fail. When loved ones are taken away, when disappointment comes and failure, when noble ambitions are set at naught, then we turn away from God. We have tried religion, we say. We have tried prayer, and it has failed.
Of course it has failed. God is not content to be an instrument in our hand or a servant at our beck and call. He is not content to minister to the worldly needs of those who care not a bit for Him. Has it ever dawned on us that God is valuable for His own sake?
That just as personal communion is the highest thing that we know on earth, so personal communion with God is the sublimest height of all? If we value God for His own sake, then the loss of other things will draw us closer to Him. We shall then have recourse to Him in time of trouble as to the shadow of a great rock in a weary land. Man, that just is beautiful, and I think it connects us with this particular passage.
And I'm sure you've heard that in your experience. I tried to pray, but it didn't work. What's driving that prayer? I tried to pray but it didn't work.
So you're only going to pray if blessings pop up. You're only going to pray if good things come your way. Do you not see that you are using God? Do you not see that He has become the instrument to fulfill your needs?
How is that any different from the worst form of paganism? How is that any different from a rabbit's foot? Or how is it any different from a horseshoe? You know, they say, put the horseshoe that way so the luck doesn't run out.
I mean, this approach to God is as bad as that. You know, the four-leaf clover, the whatever-it-is, the worst form of superstition. This is similar. When we use God for what God gives us.
I think that Machen needs to be heard, and I think all of us need to examine ourselves. I tried to pray, but it didn't work. Well, then I would be very curious what your prayer was all about. I don't read any.
Have you ever read in the Bible, pray and it will work? It's just trying to put this man-centeredness upon a thing that God has ordained for His glory, and ultimately for our good, but not in the way that we measure good. You know, God, please alleviate me from this suffering. You know, let me find a bag of money.
We don't find the bag of money, and somehow, you know, I tried to pray, and God just doesn't work for me, or God just doesn't bless me. That's just using God, and that's a bad, bad thing.
The Wickedness of Syncretism
Secondly, we ought to appreciate from this passage the wickedness of syncretism. The first two commandments are binding upon the people of God. We are not to ape the methodology of those in the world. The church is to be distinct.
She's to be different. She's not to take everything from the world and bring it to the front of the church in order to appear hip or cool or whatever the kids are saying today. The Church of the Living God is His house. It is the pillar and ground of the truth.
And the first two commandments are as applicable to us today as it was to the old covenant Israelites. We are to have no other gods before Him, and we are certainly not to co-opt the worship that the world approves and baptize it and use it for Jesus. No, we're to preach the Word, we're to pray the Word, we're to sing the Word, we're to see the Word in the sacraments, and we're to read the Word. It's all about the Word.
It's not about entertainment, it's not about your personal fulfillment, it's not about your felt needs. If we get rid of these ideas quick, I think all the churches will be a whole lot healthier. You know what happens when we bring our perceived needs to the church? I'm not suggesting the church doesn't meet the needs of the worshiper.
It certainly does. I think that you'll all agree that the Word of God and the singing of 599 and the fellowship of the saints, that speaks to man in his most basic needs. Communion with God, communion with one another. But when we need this for our kids, and we need this for us, and we need this ministry, and we need this, and we need that, man, it just becomes exhausting.
Let's just keep it simple. Let's just do what God says. I mean, could we ever just think, wow, you know, maybe if we just did what the Bible said, but not us. We got to co-opt everything from the world, bring it into the church, baptize it in the name of Jesus, and somehow call it holy.
That's not what we're supposed to do.
The Regulative Principle of Worship
And then finally, the safeguard of the principle, I'm sorry, the safeguard of the regulative principle of worship. In other words, if we take what's going on here as an application, a misapplication, a gross misapplication of the first and second commandments, we should learn to see the utility and the value of those first and second commandments. And I think they're summarized well in our confession. Our confession says the acceptable way of worshiping the true God is instituted by himself and so limited by his own revealed will that he may not be worshiped according to the imaginations and devices of men nor the suggestions of Satan under any visible representations or any other way not prescribed in the Holy Scripture.
The first commandment defines for us who we are to worship. You shall have no other gods before me, vis-Ã -vis Baal, Allah, Asherah, the pantheon that is mentioned here in what was once the northern kingdom. You're not to have other gods before me. The first commandment demands the worship of the true and the living God.
The second commandment deals with the how we are supposed to worship that God. We're not to bring false worship to the true God. That's bad too. We're not supposed to be innovative or creative.
The second commandment forbids making an idol to represent the true God. This happened in Israel. This calf brought you out of the land of Egypt. This calf is Yahweh.
No, it's not. And the second commandment forbids that kind of a representation. So the first tells us who, the second tells us how. We're as sinful to worship the true God in a false way.
You see, if we bow to Baal, yeah, everybody's going to call foul. But if we bow to Yahweh as if He's Baal, or we bow to Yahweh while sacrificing our children into the flames, that's bad too. We're supposed to worship the true and living God in the true and correct manner that He has specified and mandated for us. I said that was it.
I didn't lie. I neglected one final point. Real quick.
The Samaritans in the New Testament
I think this passage should, if you're thinking through it, explain the animosity towards Samaritans in the New Testament. Samaritans. This is where they came from. It's a mongrel sort of Heinz 57.
You got all these different peoples conquered by the Assyrians, plopped down into the Northern Kingdom, or what was the Northern Kingdom, and a priest of Yahweh bumbling tells them how they're supposed to serve Yahweh. So they know who Yahweh is. They also have all these other gods. So Samaritans are not looked at favorably in the New Testament, are they?
I mean, remember Jesus teaching on the good Samaritan. That doesn't shock us because we don't live, move, and have our being with this sort of mongrel group of people that really is offensive to us. But for Jesus to speak of a Samaritan who did the will of God, wow. That would have just blown people away because Samaritans, you know, they were at the bottom of the food chain living in the first century context.
But doesn't this passage and this understanding of who the Samaritans are or were at the time of the Lord Jesus demonstrate and underscore his great mercy in John 4? When Jesus comes to that woman at the well, she's a Samaritan, and she's an adulteress, and Jesus has saving dealings with her. In fact, in John 4, it's interesting, when he calls her on her improprieties as it were. Go, call your husband and come here.
John 4, 16. The woman answered and said, I have no husband. Jesus said to her, you have well said I have no husband, for you have had five husbands and the one whom you now have is not your husband in that you spoke truly. Now, I love The honesty of this woman.
I mean, she's not, you know, morally upright and pure like, you know, we all are. But look at what she does. The woman said to him, sir, I perceive that you are a prophet. Our fathers worshiped on this mountain and you Jews say that in Jerusalem is the place where one ought to worship.
Do you see what she does there? She completely changes the subject. Just completely. I want to have a Bible study on worship, Lord.
Go call your husband. I'm not married. You're right. You've had five and the one you're now with is not your husband.
I perceive you're a prophet. Let's talk about worship. Isn't that great? I mean, that's just great.
What's even greater is that Jesus talks about worship. Notice the graciousness of our Lord. Woman, believe me, the hour is coming when you will neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem worship the Father. You worship what you do not know.
We know what we worship for salvation is of the Jews. What's he talking about? Jew Samaritan. You don't know what you're doing.
You owe your sort of religious heritage to that time when your forefathers didn't like the lions. You owe your religious origin to that time when that terrible priest from the north stumbled in and taught them that it was okay to fear Yahweh and bring your idols too. You don't know. You worship what you do not know.
For we know what we worship, for salvation is of the Jews. But the hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshippers will worship the Father in spirit and truth. For the Father is seeking such to worship Him. God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.
And then the woman said to Him, I know that Messiah is coming who is called Christ. When He comes, He will tell us all things. Jesus said to her, I who speak to you am He. It's an ego and me.
He says, I And then, just to cut this short, after the woman goes and tells the villagers, the villagers come out and they have dealings with Jesus. And notice specifically in John 4.39, and many of the Samaritans of that city believed in him because of the word of the woman who testified, he told me all that I ever did. So when the Samaritans had gone to him, they urged him to stay with them, and he stayed there two days, and many more believed because of his own word. Then they said to the woman, Now we believe, not because of what you said, for we ourselves have heard him, and we know that this is indeed the Christ, the Savior of the world.
Praise God Almighty for the glorious gospel of free grace that avails even for Samaritans. Well, let us pray.
Closing Prayer
Our Father, we thank you for your word and I pray that you'd help us to learn the lessons of 2 Kings 17. Help us not to engage in religion for pragmatic effect, and help us not to be syncretists, marrying the worship of the true and living God with idolatry and false things. Help us to respect Your Word, help us to respect the law, help us by the Holy Spirit to keep that law and to approach You with fear and trembling and great joy. to worship you in spirit and in truth, the way our Lord prescribes here in John 4. Go with us now, watch over us, grant us safety as we drive home.
We just pray that you would be glorified in our church, and we ask through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.