H The Heritage American

Why Do You Help The Wicked?

One of the great dangers of our day is ethnic idolatry. Idolatry is not limited to worshipping a named god, nor is it when we simply show affection for some otherwise good gift. It is when our affections for good things become disordered. Ethnic idolatry specifically is a prizing of our ethnic background to the detriment of any Christian virtue. In the example of king Jehoshaphat we can see what these disordered affections look like and the damage they cause the people of God. Jehoshaphat’s failure was that he loved his people in a way that made him willing to help the enemies of God.

That is the warning of 2 Chronicles 18-19. A good king, a faithful king who had done much good in Judah, joined himself to a wicked man who displeased God because that man was his kinsman. Jehoshaphat, the king of Judah, and Ahab – the wicked king of Israel – had shared blood, shared history, shared fathers, shared enemies, and shared national memory. Jehoshaphat saw Israel and Judah as divided, but not so divided that he could not make common cause with them. But his unity with Ahab was disordered affection not faithfulness.

It is this alliance with the enemies of God that the prophet Jehu is sent with a stinging question: “Should you help the wicked and love those who hate the LORD?” (2 Chronicles 19:2).

This story from Jehoshaphat’s life is recorded for us as a warning for our own day. It is a question for every pastor, father, churchman, and people who are tempted to treat flesh, ethnicity, history, grievance, politics, or earthly gain as though they are more important than fidelity to God.

We often think that in our own lives, so long as we maintain our personal fidelity to Christ, our nefarious alliances will not harm us. However, Scripture reveals that these partnerships cause good men to sin in ways that weaken themselves and the people of God for generations

The Sin of a Good King

A central aspect of the story that we assume will be a comfort to us is that Jehoshaphat was not like Ahab. Jehoshaphat strengthened Judah, protected the cities, sought the Lord, walked in the earlier ways of David, took pride in the ways of the Lord, and sent men throughout Judah to teach the Book of the Law (2 Chronicles 17:1-9). He was not a perfect man, but he was a good and godly king. Where Ahab was openly wicked Jehoshaphat had been markedly righteous.

Yet, Jehoshaphat “made a marriage alliance with Ahab” (2 Chronicles 18:1). Then Ahab, now his father in law, asked him to go with him to battle against the Arameans. Jehoshaphat answered, “I am as you are, my people as your people. We will be with you in the war” (2 Chronicles 18:3).

That scene sounds almost noble. A fellow Jewish man protecting his country men and boldly reminding them of their unity. A Son in law partnering with his father in law. A King helping his ally. But Ahab is no ally of God. He has no part in the family of faith and no inheritance in God’s country. Ahab’s house is hostile to the Lord. It sounds like brotherhood if you forget that covenant unity cannot be built by helping those who hate God.

Jehoshaphat shows that he knew something was wrong. He asked Ahab to inquire first for the word of the Lord (2 Chronicles 18:4). Ahab gathered prophets who told him what he wanted to hear. They said the battle would prosper. They spoke as though God had spoken, when God had not spoken. Jehoshaphat knew enough to ask, “Is there not here another prophet of the LORD of whom we may inquire?” (2 Chronicles 18:6).

Finally God does send word to these two kings through His prophet, Micaiah who told the truth. Its at this point where Jehoshaphat hears the truth of God that we expect his valiant stand for God’s Word to take place. But thats not what we get, instead he proceeds with his new ally.

By God’s mercy, Jehoshaphat escaped the battle alive (2 Chronicles 18:31). But mercy is not the same thing as approval. The Lord spared him, then rebuked him.

“Should you help the wicked and love those who hate the LORD?” (2 Chronicles 19:2).

The End of the Matter

At this point we get a sense of the dual purpose of the book of Chronicles. In one sense it is a book of hope. God preserves the Davidic promise. The line of David continues until Christ, the Son of David, comes as the King who will rule the nations forever.

But Chronicles is also a book of warning. It tells Israel why she was taken captive to Babylon. When the returning generations of Israel come back from Babylon asking, “How did we get cast out of the Land of God’s favor?” They can see the answer in stories like Jehoshaphat’s.

The end of the book shows both exile and restoration: Israel is judged and carried away, yet God also moves Cyrus to announce return and rebuilding (2 Chronicles 36:17-23).

Jehoshaphat’s story belongs to that warning.

We might be tempted to minimize his sin. After all, Jehoshaphat survived with his faith intact. Judah was not immediately destroyed. Some good was still found in him, because he had set his heart to seek God (2 Chronicles 19:3).

But his compromise did not die with him. Near the end of his life, Jehoshaphat joined himself again to a wicked king of Israel, Ahaziah. His works were destroyed because of that alliance (2 Chronicles 20:35-37). Then his son Jehoram walked in the way of the kings of Israel, because he had married into the house of Ahab. Jehoram killed his brothers and did evil in the sight of the Lord (2 Chronicles 21:4-6).

This is how the sickness of disordered affection kills its host. A father calls it unity. A son inherits it as apostasy. Jehoshaphat escaped by grace, but his alliances lived on in his house.

Pastors Must Learn the Lesson

Paul’s charge to church in Corinth gives the New Testament form of the same warning:”But actually, I wrote to you not to associate with any so-called brother if he is an immoral person, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or a swindler—not even to eat with such a one.” (1 Cor 5:11). Or again, “Do not be bound together with unbelievers; for what partnership have righteousness and lawlessness, or what fellowship has light with darkness?” (2 Cor 6:14)

The plain meaning here is that our fidelity to Christ must mean enmity with the world and that wherever we compromise on these principles we deceive ourselves and risk great harm. The danger is not just against ourselves but we also put a snare and stumbling block before our people.

The scripture also says, “Pay close attention to yourself and to your teaching; persevere in these things, for as you do this you will ensure salvation both for yourself and for those who hear you.” (1 Timothy 4:16).

Life and doctrine are not separable. A pastor cannot be careless with either and then pretend he has loved the flock. A man’s public usefulness does not excuse his doctrinal rebellion and his courage in one area does not sanctify his hatred of Christ in another. There will be no justifiable claim we can make for coming to the aid of God’s enemies no matter how airtight we consider our doctrine and Theology to be.

Jehoshaphat did and while his soul may have seemed to escape. His works were destroyed (2 Chronicles 20:37), his son became an apostate (2 Chronicles 21:6, 2 Chronicles 21:20), and eventually, the Israelites he sought to save and show fidelity to were cast headlong into the judgement of captivity (2 Chronicles 36:17-21).

Does this man confess Christ? Does he submit to the Word of God? Does he lead men toward repentance and faith, or does he gather Christian language into the service of another gospel just as Ahab heaped up 400 false prophets to serve his own purposes?

If a man denies Christ, then the church must not baptize his cause or his deeds. We must not give aid to those who have made themselves enemies of the living God. Won’t we suffer the same fate as Israel did so long ago? Isn’t the living God unchanging?

King and Jackson

This is where the matter presses on us.

Martin Luther King Jr. has come down to many as a churchman and defender of justice. But his own theological writings show a man willing to strip orthodox Christian doctrines of their plain meaning. In one seminary essay, he treated the divine Sonship of Christ, the virgin birth, and the bodily resurrection as doctrines whose literal interpretation modern men could set aside. He asserted that the bodily resurrection of Christ was not a biological reality as Scripture claims (Luke 24:38-39).

King opposed the faith once for all delivered to the saints (Jude 3). That is not apostolic preaching. Paul did not say the resurrection is a useful symbol of moral influence. He said that if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is vain, our faith is vain, and we are still in our sins (1 Corinthians 15:14-17).

While the civil rights movement had causes that were as noble as Israel defending itself against its enemies it was an out and out sin to follow a man engaged in heresy and licentiousness into that battle.

So the issue is not whether Christians may desire justice. Of course Christians must love justice. The issue is whether Christians may follow a man who denies the Lord in order to obtain an earthly good.

Jehoshaphat would have said, “These are my people.” Many Black Christians said the same. Jehoshaphat saw shared blood, shared history, shared enemies, and a shared future. Many Black Christians saw the same. Jehoshaphat thought the alliance would strengthen the people. Many Black Christians thought the same.

But the prophet’s question does not go away: “Should you help the wicked and love those who hate the LORD?” (2 Chronicles 19:2).

What Choice Did We Have

In 1961, the National Baptist Convention split. The conflict is often told as though it were merely a clash between courage and cowardice at best, progressivism and conservatism. But this distinction is too simple.

Joseph H. Jackson was the leader of the National Baptist Convention at the time. He called on Christian Americans to vigorously pursue the rights of all men which are given by God. He called on the church in America to pursue equal rights for all Americans. He opposed segregation and spoke of civic responsibility. But he also opposed making the church a servant of civil disobedience and political agitation. He believed the church’s first work was spiritual: preaching, conversion, repentance, worship, moral formation, household strength, education, stewardship, lawful order, and Christian civic responsibility.

Jackson was not calling the church to do nothing. He was calling the church to remember who she is. He did this from the start of his ministry to the day he died and his writings and warnings are still with us.

The people of God are not saved by protest nor is it helped by ethnic solidarity. The church is the blood-bought people of Christ, and her ministers are charged to preach the Word, guard the doctrine, shepherd the household of God, and call sinners to repentance (2 Timothy 4:1-5).

On several occasions Jackon offered the church these warnings and about the cost of following King’s philosophy. He wanted to love King, but could not square what he noticed to be a compromise. He did not see in his time where King had departed doctrinally but like Jehoshaphat in the midst of the 400 false prophets, he could tell that something was wrong.

King gave many Black Christians a vision of public action joined to theological unbelief. Jackson called Black Baptists to a sober path: one standard, personal responsibility, Christian formation, lawful conduct, and the gospel of Jesus Christ.

In the frenzy of a movement led by an enemy of God, we chose poorly.

Not because every civil right that was being sought was wrong. Not because the church should be indifferent to evil in the land. Not because it is better to let the Arameans attack the borders of Israel, but because we helped the wicked. We have continued to celebrate and love the legacy of one who taught men to see Christ for less that Who He is – the Son of God, the Savior of the world. We treated earthly rights as more needful than the promise of the new Heavens and new Earth. We followed a man whose public courage was joined to private and doctrinal rebellion and the fruit is bitter.

Israel spent 70 years in Babylon and from 1956 – the year of the bus boycott to 2026 we have been in our own Babylon of destroyed families, aborted children, broken homes, civil unrest, and mass apostasy.

Put Away the Legacy

It is time for repentance and healing in our churches and homes.

A man who denies the bodily resurrection cannot be held up as a faithful minister of Christ. A man who treats the virgin birth and Sonship of Christ as doctrines to be reinterpreted away cannot be a safe guide for the people of God and the church must recover the moral courage to say so.

We will not partner with Ahab simply because he is our kinsman. We do not need false prophets because they falsely comfort us with the promise of victory. We will prevail through the Lord our God! (Psalm 60:12)

We need Christ.

We need pastors who pay close attention to life and doctrine. We need fathers who will not trade their households for political dreams. We need churches that love the Word more than ethnic applause. We need a people who can say, “Not unto us, O Lord, not unto us, but unto thy name give glory, for thy mercy, and for thy truth’s sake” (Psalm 115:1).

We will no longer look to our alliances, our ethnicity and our neighborhood, but too the Lord and to those who honor His Name. Our hope is in Christ.

Plead for Repentance

The Chronicler does not leave us without hope.

Jehoshaphat was rebuked, but the prophet also said, “Nevertheless, some good is found in you, for you destroyed the Asheroth out of the land, and have set your heart to seek God” (2 Chronicles 19:3).

That is where we must begin. If there is any good found among us, it is because God has not abandoned us. If there is any desire to seek him, it is on account of His mercy. If there is any grief over our compromises, it is because of His grace.

So let us plead with our God.

Plead that he would grant us repentance. Plead that he would restore sound doctrine in our Churches and homes. Plead that he would make us watchful over our life and doctrine. Plead that he would teach us to love Christ more than our tribes, so that we might truly love our people and be a help to their souls.

No one is helped by being led away from Christ. No church is strengthened by false doctrine. No nation is blessed by ministers who deny the Lord. No ethnic heritage is honored by making peace with enemies of God.

Let us seek the Word of the Lord and refuse the false prophet. If we are to be healed – us and our children – we must no longer give aid to those who hate Christ and where there is good found among us, let us plead that God would grant full repentance, sound doctrine, and faithfulness before him.

Benediction

Let these words by pastor Joseph H. Jackson take root in our hearts:

One transaction of Calvary paid the whole debt, and from Immanuel’s veins enough blood was drawn to give the needed transfusions. From the eternal Son of God an abiding, copious, and abundant stream gushed forth for all the weary sons of men, and He opened a fountain not only in the House of David, but in every hut, in every hovel, and in every clime.

We can join with others in singing with hope of that fountain–the cleansing fountain, the flowing fountain, and the full fountain. We too can sing with the poet:

There is a fountain filled with blood
Drawn from Immanuel’s veins;
And sinners plunged beneath that flood
Lose all their guilty stains.

The dying thief rejoiced to see
That fountain in his day;
And there may I, though vile as he,
Wash all my sins away.

Source Footnotes

  1. Martin Luther King Jr., “What Experiences of Christians Living in the Early Christian Century Led to the Christian Doctrines of the Divine Sonship of Jesus, the Virgin Birth, and the Bodily Resurrection,” Crozer Theological Seminary essay, 1949, The Martin Luther King, Jr. Research and Education Institute, Stanford University: https://kinginstitute.stanford.edu/king-papers/documents/what-experiences-christians-living-early-christian-century-led-christian

  2. Joseph H. Jackson, “Participating in the Struggle of America,” drawn from addresses delivered to the National Baptist Convention in 1962 and 1964 and later published in Unholy Shadows and Freedom’s Holy Light (Nashville: Townsend Press, 1967): https://teachingamericanhistory.org/document/participating-in-the-struggle-of-america/

  3. The Martin Luther King, Jr. Research and Education Institute entries on Joseph H. Jackson and the Progressive National Baptist Convention: https://kinginstitute.stanford.edu/jackson-joseph-harrison and https://kinginstitute.stanford.edu/progressive-national-baptist-convention-pnbc

  4. Joseph H. Jackson, “What, Then, Must We Do Now?” in The Record of the K. 89th Annual Session of the National Baptist Convention, Held with the Baptist Churches of Kansas City, Missouri, September 9-14, 1969.