What happened from the time of Jehoram to Joash? Numerous stories could be told—of romance, jealousy, wars, betrayal, love, victory, captivity, literature, poetry, dreams. But the authors of Kings and Chronicles picked out a theme, a lens through which to tell the stories.

In therapy sessions I often ask my clients what occupies their thoughts because mental rumination reflects the state of the soul. For biblical writers, their souls thirsted for divine presence. The quest was not merely cognitive, it was pragmatic, as well. Preoccupation with divinity and its implications played a significant role in the lives of the Israelites.

The biblical record reads:

Jehoram

"He made high places in the hill country of Judah, and led the inhabitants of Jerusalem into unfaithfulness, and made Judah go astray" (2 Chron. 21:11). "The Lord aroused against Jehoram the anger of the Philistines and of the Arabs who are near the Ethiopians. They came up against Judah, invaded it, and carried away all the possessions they found that belonged to the king’s house" (vss. 16, 17).

Ahaziah

"He also walked in the ways of the house of Ahab, for his mother was his counselor in doing wickedly" (2 Chron. 22: 3). "He searched for Ahaziah, who was captured while hiding in Samaria and was brought to Jehu and put to death" (vs. 9).

Joash

"They abandoned the house of the Lord, the God of their ancestors, and served the sacred poles and the idols. And wrath came upon Judah and Jerusalem for this guilt of theirs" (2 Chron. 24: 18).

In response to this apostasy, Zechariah spoke, "Thus says God: Why do you transgress the commandments of the Lord, so that you cannot prosper? Because you have forsaken the Lord, he has also forsaken you" (vs. 20). But the people did not listen to him; they conspired and stoned him to death.

The wrath of God was upon the people and, through Aram, they were destroyed because "they had abandoned the Lord, the God of their ancestors. . . . When they had withdrawn, leaving him severely wounded, his servants conspired against him because of the blood of the son of the priest Jehoiada, and they killed him on his bed" (vs. 24, 25).

The message seems clear: obey God and prosper; disobey, turning away to other gods, and suffer. Idolatry and apostasy—do not turn to other gods.

I have often thought of the implications this apostasy has on our current situation. Why is it so wrong to have other gods? This question becomes even more perplexing in the postmodern context. We are taught to show respect to Hindus, who worship more than a million gods, from Krishna to Shiva, from Vishnu to Ganesh. Show respect.

I just returned from a trip to Thailand. We stayed not far from the famous Erawan Shrine. Thai people know that the god at the Erawan Shrine loves Thai dancing and wooden elephants. Before making a request to the god they will either bring a wooden elephant or hire professional Thai dancers to perform.

Different gods have different tastes, which is common knowledge among Thai people. The worshippers need to know the god in order to make the right offering. Wrong offerings could mean wrong gifts, or no gifts, or angering the god. As we all know, it is not cool to make the god angry.

I stood and watched worshippers offering prayers, making requests within the framework of their theology, and I wondered, what does Jehovah want? I wondered, what were some differences between Jehovah and Vishnu, or Krishna, or the local gods? For one thing, Jehovah is more powerful, more pure, and more loving.

In general, it is true that animism is amoral in nature. The Israelites who departed from the ways of Jehovah departed into immorality. This is because animistic gods do not care about morality. Deity in the context of animism is ceremonial. If, as an animist, I perform the right ritual, the gods are obligated to reward me regardless of whether or not I’m a good or bad person. This is the rule of engagement.

It is also true that in the normal progression of humanity’s quest for the divine, morality emerges and takes on a significant role in the formation of any religious community. Veruna, the god of the sky and the protector of the earth, became the custodian of Rta. The concept of Rta in Indian philosophy emerged from the need to find that constant element, the permanent. Slowly, Rta expanded its territory to include the realm of morality.

Discussing this concept of Rta, Radhakrishnan, a prominent Indian philosopher, wrote:

The tendency towards the mystics conception of an unchanging reality shows its first signs here. The real is the unchanging law. What is, is an unstable show, an imperfect copy. The real is one without parts and changes, while the many shift and pass. Soon this cosmic order becomes the settled will of a supreme god, the law of morality and righteousness as well.1

There are many honest, temperate, loving, and righteous Hindus, Buddhists, and even animists. What, then, is the significance of the stories recorded in 1 Kings and 2 Chronicles. What is the seriousness of idolatry?

To me, personally, the message that speaks from these passages is that the God I can fully grasp is the God I can use. If I’m nice to God, God will be nice to me. My fear of flying helps remind me of this point. I usually put on my best behavior before I fly for fear that bad behavior can displease God and I do not want to displease God while I am 30,000 feet in the air. Perhaps it is my animistic tendency.

But do I really know God? If I do, it is only a god I know. The God who leads to transformation is the God who confronts my being, the God who is not affected by my being nice to him or her. The god I can use is at best a self-desire for self-divinization. God, on the other hand, dictates and directs, and our knowledge of God does not in any way affect how God chooses to behave toward us.

According to Ann Ulanov, the essential growth of a person is to come to see that there is a God outside our projective tendency. This often takes place when every wish and longing does not receive its fulfillment through our knowledge of God and our attempt to please God. When our projection (which we confuse with the reality of God) does not serve our desire, we are confronted with another reality, a reality unaffected by our imagination and supplication. A crying child who does not get what he wants understands that there is another being out there, and this being is not like him.2

Perhaps this is also true and essential in our own spiritual journeys. Without this process, one can be seduced into believing in the God one has created, the tragedy of idolatry. The problem is, we often confuse symbolism for an absolute. Perhaps it is important for us once again to return to symbolism and let God just be.

Bonhoeffer writes: "God lets himself be pushed out of the world onto the cross. He is weak and powerless in the world, and that is precisely the way, the only way, in which he is with us and helps us."3

Notes and References

1. S. Radhakrishnan, Indian Philosophy (Bombay: Blackie and Son, 1959), 1:79.
2. Ann Ulanov, Finding Space: Winnicott, God, and Psychic Reality (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2001), 107–17.
3. Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Letters and Papers from Prison (New York: Macmillan, 1971), 360.

EMAIL THIS ARTICLE