How does the mention of war in 1 Kings 15:23 challenge the concept of divine peace? Text and Immediate Context 1 Kings 15:23 reads: “Now the rest of all the acts of Asa, all his might, all that he did, and the cities that he built, are they not written in the Book of the Chronicles of the Kings of Judah? Yet in the time of his old age he was diseased in his feet.” Within the same narrative, verse 16 states, “There was war between Asa and Baasha king of Israel all their days,” and verse 32 repeats the point. The chronicler wants the reader to remember that, despite Asa’s broadly faithful reign, chronic hostility marred the divided kingdom era. The presence of war, therefore, is not an editorial slip but an intentional historical datum placed inside inspired Scripture. Defining Divine Peace (Shalom) Biblically, “peace” (Hebrew shalom, Greek eirēnē) is far more robust than the mere absence of violence. Shalom embraces wholeness, covenant harmony with God, justice, well-ordered relationships, and spiritual reconciliation. Numbers 6:24-26 portrays Yahweh “giving peace” while Israel is in the wilderness—hardly a war-free environment. Isaiah 9:6 announces Messiah as “Prince of Peace,” yet the same prophet depicts Him shattering injustice (Isaiah 11:4-5). Jesus reiterates the distinction: “Peace I leave with you; My peace I give to you. I do not give to you as the world gives” (John 14:27). Divine peace is relational and redemptive before it is geopolitical. Exegetical Considerations Asa’s reign holds two key tensions. First, 1 Kings records his reforms (vv. 11-15) and covenant loyalty; second, it stresses relentless warfare. The text thereby teaches: 1. Judah’s faithfulness, though real, was incomplete (high places remained, v. 14). 2. The divided monarchy itself was already a sign of covenant fracture foretold in Deuteronomy 28:25. 3. God permitted external conflict to discipline His people and to drive history toward ultimate Messianic resolution (cf. 2 Chronicles 16:7-9, where Asa’s treaty with Syria is rebuked). Thus the mention of war does not question God’s peace but narrates the outworking of covenant realities in a fallen context. Covenant Theology and War The Mosaic covenant carried “blessings for obedience, curses for disobedience” (Deuteronomy 28). Warfare, famine, and disease were covenant curses intended to recall Israel to repentance. Even righteous kings could not fully remove national guilt; collective sin accumulated since Solomon’s apostasy (1 Kings 11) still demanded consequence. Asa’s personal piety delayed judgment yet did not erase historical momentum. Divine peace, therefore, operates on two planes: (1) the individual, reconciled by faith, and (2) the national, conditioned by covenant obedience. That tension forecasts the New Covenant in which Messiah resolves both. Historical and Archaeological Corroboration Fortifications datable to the 10th-9th centuries BC at sites such as Khirbet Qeiyafa and Tel Arad demonstrate a heightened defensive posture consistent with chronic warfare between rival Hebrew states. Bullae bearing royal seals of Judahite kings corroborate administrative activity reported in Kings and Chronicles. The annals of the Aramean king Ben-Hadad I (parallel to the Syrian alliance Asa sought, 1 Kings 15:18-20) preserve extra-biblical echoes of the same conflict. These data confirm that the biblical mention of war is historically grounded rather than theological embellishment. Systematic Theological Synthesis 1. Divine Sovereignty: God “makes peace and creates calamity” (Isaiah 45:7) in the sense that He remains sovereign over historical events, even warfare. 2. Human Responsibility: James 4:1 identifies the root of wars as “passions that wage war within” fallen humanity. 3. Eschatological Resolution: Prophecy anticipates a day when “nation will not take up sword against nation” (Isaiah 2:4). That consummation awaits Christ’s physical return (Revelation 19-20). Therefore, the presence of war presently amplifies the need for, not the negation of, divine peace. Answering the Skeptical Objection The skeptic argues: “If God is peace, why constant war?” Scripture replies: The divine character is peace; the human condition is rebellion. War exposes our estrangement so we might seek reconciliation. Historically, nations that embraced Gospel ethics (e.g., abolitionist movements grounded in Christian theology) have curbed systemic violence. Individually, countless testimonies—modern-day reconciliations in post-genocide Rwanda or gang truces catalyzed by conversion—demonstrate Christ’s peace operative amid conflict. Psychological and Behavioral Insights Empirical studies link forgiveness, central to biblical peace, with reduced aggression and improved mental health. Where individuals internalize Christ’s command to “love your enemies,” measurable social peace increases, even if broader geopolitical conflicts persist. The war in Asa’s day and the wars today testify not against God’s peace but against mankind’s refusal of it. Practical Application for Believers Asa’s story warns that partial reform is insufficient; believers must pursue comprehensive covenant faithfulness. Persistent war urges the church to preach the Gospel of peace (Ephesians 6:15) so hearts, then societies, are transformed. Conclusion The mention of war in 1 Kings 15:23 does not challenge the concept of divine peace; it clarifies it. Peace in Scripture is relational wholeness grounded in covenant fidelity and ultimately secured by the atoning, resurrected Christ. War testifies to humanity’s breach with God and underlines our need for the Prince of Peace, whose kingdom alone can end all conflict. |
    |