THRU THE BIBLE EXPOSITION

The Books Of The Chronicles: God's Preservation Of His Davidic And Levitical Covenants

XIII. God's Protective Support For Heeding His Word

(1 Chronicles 19:1-19)

Introduction: (To show the need . . . )

On Thursday, December 26, 2019, I became unsettled upon reading a letter to the editor by Richard Heys of Litchfield that was printed that day's Republican-American (p. 12A). Mr. Heys holds a doctorate in organic chemistry from Stanford University with postdoctoral research at Yale University and his letter supported the climate change alarmism view, mentioning a theory I had never heard. His letter stated: "Transitions into and out of ice ages are thought to be triggered by orbital changes (Milankovitch cycles) . . . (T)he small Milankovitch-induced temperature shift in the oceans causes a change in the level of atmospheric CO2, then CO2's powerful greenhouse effect amplifies the Milankovitch signal, triggering the full transition into or out of an ice age." What was further disturbing was Dr. Heys' additional comment that "(t)his explanation [for climate change] is well known and widely accepted throughout the scientific community." (Ibid.; brackets ours)

James Barrante, a retired college professor of physical chemistry, wrote the column, "'Experts' not always believable" (Ibid., January 1, 2020, p. 9A) claiming that the atmosphere's current CO2 level of 400 ppm is far lower than the CO2 level of 3,000 ppm in the dinosaur era when life on earth was much more abundant. Thus, Dr. Heys' implication that the current CO2 level has a "powerful greenhouse effect" for harmfully disrupting Earth's climate today seems errant just from the scientific viewpoint. I also knew that the authoritative, inerrant Word of God at Genesis 8:22 had God promising to preserve the earth's climate for man's habitation as long as the earth existed, so I knew the Milankovitch theory had to be in error. However, 1 Peter 3:15 calls us to be ready to give "a speech of defense" (apologia, Abbott-Smith, A Man. Grk. Lex. of the N. T., 1968, p. 52) for our faith to all who ask us, and I was not able to critique the Milankovitch theory to someone who believed it because I knew nothing about it!

Need: So we ask, "When facing threatening opposition, especially opposition to our faith, what should we do?!"

I. 1 Chronicles 19:1-9 records how Israel's army came to face a humanly very threatening enemy in battle:

A. When Ammon's king Nahash died, king David sent messengers to console his son Hanun, the new king of the Ammonite nation, since Nahash had shown kindness to David, 1 Chronicles 19:1-2.

B. Hanun's advisers counseled him that David was sending messengers merely to spy on the Ammonites that he might defeat them in battle, so Hanun mistreated David's men, humiliating them, 1 Chronicles 19:3-4.

C. David reacted by sending Israel's army under his commander Joab to attack Ammon, so the Ammonites hired Arameans from several Aramean city states to come and camp in the countryside around their capitol city while the Ammonites stayed in their city, leaving Israel's army sandwiched between the Ammonites in their capitol and the Arameans out in the Ammonite countryside, 1 Chronicles 19:5-9; Bible Knowledge Commentary, Old Testament, p. 608.

II. Israel's commander Joab responded to this crisis by heeding God's Word, 1 Chronicles 19:10-13:

A. Back in Deuteronomy 20:1-4, God through Moses had told Israel not to fear facing an army of chariots, horses and infantry more numerous than they were, for God would be with the nation Israel to deliver them.

B. Thus, when Israel's commander Joab saw his army surrounded and outnumbered, he set his elite forces against the Arameans and the regular army under his brother Abishai against the Ammonites, 1 Chronicles 19:10-11. Joab then told Abishai that if the Arameans were too strong for Joab's men, Abishai's men were to help them, but if the Ammonites were too strong for Abishai's men, Joab's men would help them, 1 Chronicles 19:12.

C. Then, in faith in God's Deuteronomy 20:1-4 promise, Joab urged Israel's soldiers to be of good courage and fight valiantly for their people and cities, trusting God to give them the victory, 1 Chronicles 19:13.

III. God then gave Israel a great victory in a twofold campaign against the Arameans, 1 Chronicles 19:14-18:

A. As Joab and his elite force advanced against the Arameans, the Arameans fled from them, 1 Chron. 19:14.

B. This led the Ammonites to flee from Abishai's men into their walled capitol for safety, 1 Chronicles 19:15.

C. When the Arameans then sought for reinforcements, God still gave Israel the victory, 1 Chron. 19:16-18.

1. The Arameans sent for military help from other Arameans beyond the Euphrates River, and when David heard about it, he himself led Israel's army to defeat this larger Aramean force, 1 Chronicles 19:16-18a.

2. Israel slew 7,000 charioteers and 40,000 men along with the Aramean commander, 1 Chron. 19:18b,c.

IV. In the end, the Arameans ceased to be a threat to the nation Israel under David, 1 Chronicles 19:19:

A. When the Arameans realized they were badly defeated by David, they made peace with him, 1 Chron. 19:19a.

B. They also became David's servants, and ceased helping the Ammonites fight Israel, 1 Chronicles 19:19b.

Lesson: Though Israel faced humanly threatening opposition from the combined forces of the Ammonites and the Arameans, when the nation Israel heeded God's Word, He gave them great victory over both of these foes.

Application: (1) May we trust in Christ for salvation, John 3:16. (2) If facing threatening opposition too great for us on the human level to handle, may we heed God's Word and see Him reward us with victory in what we face!

Conclusion: (To illustrate the message . . . )

(1) The Lord applied this message for us on December 27, 2019, the day after I had read Dr. Richard Heys' letter to the paper that mentioned the Milankovitch theory in support of climate change alarmism. That day was a Friday, and I typically begin preparing the morning sermon for the Sunday that falls nine days after a given Friday, which in this case would involve today's January 5, 2020 sermon out of 1 Chronicles 19:1-19!

Well, that Friday, December 27th, we received in the Church's mail a packet from the Institute for Creation Research that had a letter thanking us for our financial support that we give because we now use their devotionals. In addition, the packet contained a complimentary booklet by Dr. Jake Hebert, The Climate Change Conflict, 2019. He holds a doctorate in physics from the University of Texas at Dallas, and this booklet cites at length from the scientific community in summary critique of the climate change alarmism view. To my joy, I also saw in reading his booklet that Dr. Hebert had also discussed at length and critiqued the Milankovitch theory! I share excerpts here of his critique of that theory for your insight and edification (as follows):

Many climate change alarmist scientists believe this theory due to "an iconic paper published in the journal Science in 1976. Titled 'Variations in the Earth's Orbit: Pacemaker of the Ice Ages,' it seemed to provide support for" this "theory from deep sea sediments . . . However . . . the results that seemed to confirm the Milankovitch theory were critically dependent on an age assignment for . . . the most recent 'flip' or reversal of the earth's magnetic field -- during which the earth's north and south magnetic poles 'traded' places -- and in 1976, its assumed age was 700,000 years" by secular scientists. (Ibid., p. 35-36)

However, "in the early 1990s secular scientists themselves revised this age assignment to 780,000 years," a change "large enough to call into question the results of the Pacemaker paper." (Ibid., p. 36) In addition, "secular scientists made other changes to the seafloor sediment data, changes that messed up the results even more." (Ibid.)

So, "instead of simply admitting that the theory couldn't handle all the data," secular scientists "just changed some of the numbers to make it work. By doing so, they undermined their original argument for the Milankovitch theory, but today most people (including most scientists) are blissfully unaware of this." (Ibid., p. 39) Meanwhile, climate change alarmist scientists "are using that same theory to argue that our climate is dangerously unstable and that we must take drastic action to save the planet." (Ibid., p. 38)

In summary, the Milankovitch theory, in Dr. Hebert's words, is "weak at best and nonexistent at worst." (Ibid., p. 40)

(2) Significantly, we had come to use the CRI devotionals in place of our previous devotionals since we had discovered that the previous devotionals we had been using were largely authored by women, and 1 Timothy 2:12-15 prohibits our letting women teach men in the Church. Thus, for heeding Scripture in changing to the ICR devotionals that are authored only by men, God had rewarded us with victory in handling the formidable-sounding Milankovitch theory much as he had given Israel victory in conflict with her Ammon and Aramean foes in 1 Chronicles 19:1-19.

(3) This event pointed to an even greater application, too: if God so clearly rewarded us in providing us Dr. Hebert's ICR booklet on handling the Milankovitch theory for heeding His Word on His call that women be subject to men in our Church, He was also signaling how important it is to Him that we align with His Word on all matters of subordination to Biblical authority, be it in the Church, in marriage, in the home, in business or in the government. This is issue of subordination to Biblical authority is a great need in today's world, for there is much rebellion against God-ordained authority on many fronts. The Lord clearly wants us to align with His will on this matter!

May we trust in Christ for salvation. May we trust God and obey His Word to see Him reward that obedience by helping us handle what threatening opposition we face.