Carol's Page

In 2 Kings 1 there is another odd response from God that seems to defy what we know about His character. As soldiers approach Elijiah at the command of the king, Elijiah calls on the power of God to kill the soldiers. This seems to be something like the ancient practice of killing the messenger. Although these were men who were serving the king they may have had little choice about their military service and whether they “enlisted” as patriots or were “drafted” as a requirement of their citizenship it was not their option to choose which orders they would follow and which one they would not follow. The response to destroy them rather than to reserve this wrath for the king pushes the binderies. Elijiah could have gone with them to the king and called down His wrath on the king. Why was the harshness of this episode necessary? What was the point – how did it affect the image of God among the people?

I often think about the disobedient as being like Jonah who faced God’s call and jumped on a boat and went in the other direction, blatantly defying what they know to be God’s voice.  The obedient would be like Abraham who was willing to offer up his son as a sacrifice at God’s command.  I don’t often think about incomplete obedience when in reality that is more often the case for me and for many of God’s chosen.  I Samuel 15 does not show Saul as disobedient – when he was given a charge he responded.  He certainly was not obedient   – he stopped short of fulfilling the plan God laid out for what he thought would be more logical and more profitable.   So with this idea of incomplete obedience many of us respond as Saul did – when it is easy, or even if it is difficult as long as we can see the logic and the ultimate gain in the end result we respond in obedience but we often fall short of fulfilling God’s plan when we see a “better” way or a more logical path.  Although this seems to be a brutal example of God’s perfect justice this is not about the war, or the killing, or the wealth found in the spoils but about one man’s incomplete obedience and the obedience of another called on to fulfill what the first man would not.