Division and reunion

Some notes for a disputatio talk on church unity. Thanks to Rusty Reno for clarification at several points.

It is evident in the text, and it is evident in church history, that there is good and bad union and good and bad division. 1-2 Kings explores the first of these in particular, showing us good ecumenism and wicked ecumenism. By my reading, the Omride dynasty, particularly under Ahab, attempted to reunite Israel and Judah as a Baalist people ruled by an Omride king. It almost works, as Jehoshaphat foolishly allows his son to marry the daughter of Ahab, leaving Athaliah in charge of Judah after Jehu has wiped out the Omrides in the North (including the Davidic king Ahaziah). There are hints too that the dynasty of Jehu gained the upper hand on Judah and reunited the kingdom after a fashion. There is a good union as well: Hezekiah and Josiah both gather together people from Israel and Judah to celebrate Passover, reuniting Israel at the temple.

Yet, the most interesting and relevant portions of 1-2 Kings are those having to do with the state of each nation during their divisions. That is the condition that we find ourselves in today. I have four observations.

First, Israel and Judah, together and separately, remained the people of God even in their division. The prophet Shemaiah instructed Rehoboam not to attack his “brothers” in the north (1 Kings 12:24), and even late in Israel’s history, after the Omrides had led Israel into Baal worship and filled the land with the blood of prophets, Yahweh continued to consider Israel His people (2 Kings 13:22-25; 14:25-26). There was an actual division within the people of God. It is not as if Israel ceased to be the covenant people of God when they separated from the Davidic kingdom; Judah could not smugly conclude that she alone was the holy nation, the people of Abraham, or that God had written off the idolatrous rebels to the north. Protestants often soften the reality of ecclesiastical division by suggesting that the church is not really divided. The church is intact – among Protestants – while something more or less church-like, but something that is NOT the church, exists in Roman Catholicism; even after Vatican II, Catholics view Protestants, mutatis mutandis, in a similar way. (Protestants normally leave Orthodoxy out of the picture entirely.) 1-2 Kings does not leave this comforting option. 1-2 Kings shows that it is possible for an officially idolatrous nation to be the covenant people of God, and 1-2 Kings suggests that the church herself is divided.

Second, during the history of Israel, Yahweh forms a remnant gathered around the prophets Elijah and Elisha. This is an important part of the Lord’s dealings with Israel, but it would be a mistake to conclude that Yahweh turns attention from Israel as a whole to the remnant. The relation of Israel to Judah is NOT a relation of not-church to church; and the relation of the remnant to Israel is also not a relation of not-church to church. When Yahweh forms a remnant within Israel, He forms a divided church (as He had earlier formed a divided sanctuary by separating the ark from the rest of the Mosaic equipment). And He never turns His attention away from the whole nation. Elijah confronts Ahab, but he confronts him because Yahweh wants to turn Israel from destruction; Elijah doesn’t gather only the few remaining faithful together at Carmel, but all Israel; Elisha assists the Omride kings far more than is seemly. Yahweh’s formation of a remnant does not leave the “mainline” to drift off to hell. Yahweh forms a remnant so that all Israel will be saved.

Third, it is important to see that being part of the remnant does not save any sector from the judgment that falls on idolatrous Israel. When the Assyrians come, the descendents of Elisha’s prophetic communities, as much as those who worship golden calves, suffer the judgment. The destiny of the remnant and the destiny of the mainline are the same destiny. And this point recurs throughout 1-2 Kings. Surely some remained faithful while Solomon turned to idols; but they were part of the Israel that was rent in two. Judah’s kings remained faithful longer than Israel’s, and the Lord regularly revived the Davidic dynasty. Yet, ultimately the destiny of Judah was the same as the destiny as Israel, a fact already foreshadowed by the common grave of the man of God and the old prophet (1 Kings 13) and evident in the fact that the account of the reasons for Israel’s fall includes an indictment of Judah (2 Kings 17). Judah was not able to sit by in relieved calm watching the North go up in flames; her future was inseparably tied to Israel’s, because her sin was inseparably tied to Israel’s. So too, all Christians suffer the debilitations of division; our destiny is bound up with the destiny of the whole church.

Finally, the “solution” to the division of Israel did not ultimately come from Israel or her kings. The solution for Israel’s division was the death of Israel and Judah in exile. The only hope for the union of the people of God came, paradoxically, through the division and death of the people of God. Our hopes for ecclesial union have the same basis as our hope for salvation: The promise of God who raises the dead (cf. Ezekiel 37).