Explaining The Book

About

1 Kings 15 Commentary

1 Kings 15 Commentary

This chapter gives us a series of short reigns and moral evaluations of the kings who followed Rehoboam. It mainly focuses on two kingdoms:

  • Judah (the southern kingdom) — under Abijam and Asa.
  • Israel (the northern kingdom) — under Nadab and Baasha.

It’s a story of decline, but also of grace — because even in Judah’s weakness, God preserves David’s line for Christ’s sake.

Abijam’s Reign in Judah (1 Kings 15:1–8)

Abijam (also called Abijah in 2 Chronicles 13) ruled for a short time — three years in Jerusalem. His reign is evaluated negatively:

“He walked in all the sins that his father did before him.”

Like Rehoboam, he allowed idolatry and corruption to continue. But there’s a striking statement in verses 4–5:

“Nevertheless, for David’s sake the LORD his God gave him a lamp in Jerusalem…”

This means God preserved the Davidic dynasty, not because of Abijam’s righteousness, but because of His covenant promise to David (2 Samuel 7:12–16). This pattern — God’s mercy preserving the line of David despite the king’s sin — runs all through Kings. It’s a preview of Christ, the true Son of David, who reigns forever not because of man’s faithfulness but because of God’s.

So, Abijam is a warning about sinful leadership, but also a testimony to covenant grace.

Asa’s Reign in Judah (1 Kings 15:9–24)

Then comes Asa, one of the few good kings of Judah. He reigned for a long time — 41 years — and Scripture says:

“Asa did what was right in the eyes of the LORD, as David his father had done.”

He took bold steps for reform:

  • He removed male cult prostitutes (v. 12).
  • He removed idols that his fathers had made.
  • He even removed his own grandmother, Maacah, from her position as queen mother because she had made an obscene idol (v. 13).

Asa’s zeal for the Lord is evident. His reforms echo what Moses commanded in the Law — to purge evil and idolatry from among the people (Deuteronomy 17:7). Yet even Asa wasn’t perfect. Verse 14 says:

“The high places were not taken away.”

That means although he removed idols and pagan worship, he didn’t fully centralize worship at Jerusalem as God commanded. Still, his heart was “wholly true to the LORD all his days.”

But later in his reign, Asa made a political alliance with Ben-hadad, king of Syria, to protect Judah from Baasha of Israel (verses 16–22). Instead of relying on God, Asa relied on human help. In 2 Chronicles 16, the prophet Hanani rebukes him for this. It shows that even faithful believers sometimes falter — but God remains faithful.

Asa’s reign reminds us of partial reform: good intentions and sincere faith, yet imperfect trust. It points us to the need for a greater King whose heart is perfectly true — Christ.

Nadab’s Reign in Israel (1 Kings 15:25–32)

Now the scene shifts north to Israel, where Jeroboam’s son Nadab reigns. His reign lasts only two years.
The verdict:

“He did what was evil in the sight of the LORD, and walked in the way of his father.”

In other words, he continued Jeroboam’s sin — setting up false worship with golden calves to keep Israel from going to Jerusalem.

Then Baasha, from the tribe of Issachar, conspires against him and kills him while he’s besieging the Philistine city of Gibbethon. This fulfills God’s word against Jeroboam’s house:

“He left to Jeroboam none that breathed” (v. 29).

God’s judgment was severe — wiping out Jeroboam’s line completely. The prophet Ahijah had warned of this in 1 Kings 14, showing that God’s Word never fails. Sin brings death and destruction, but God’s purposes move forward.

Baasha’s Reign in Israel (1 Kings 15:33–34)

Baasha takes the throne and reigns 24 years in Tirzah. Sadly, the pattern doesn’t change.

“He did what was evil in the sight of the LORD, and walked in the way of Jeroboam.”

So even though he destroyed Jeroboam’s house, he himself follows the same idolatry. Baasha becomes another example of a man used by God as an instrument of judgment, yet remaining under judgment himself — much like Pharaoh in Exodus. God’s sovereignty rules over even wicked rulers.

Themes and Christ-Centered Fulfillment

The Preservation of the Davidic Line

Despite the sin of Judah’s kings, God preserves the “lamp in Jerusalem” for David’s sake (v. 4). This lamp burns all the way to Jesus Christ, the true and everlasting King. Through all the corruption of earthly kings, the covenant promise stands firm.

The Contrast Between Judah and Israel

Judah, though flawed, remains tied to the temple, the Davidic covenant, and true worship. Israel, from Jeroboam onward, walks in rebellion. This distinction shows that God’s promise rests not on human faithfulness but divine election — just as salvation does.

Reformation and Incomplete Obedience

Asa’s reforms encourage us to pursue holiness and courage, yet remind us that even the best reformers fall short. Only Christ’s reform of the human heart truly restores worship.

Judgment and Covenant Grace

God judges sin (Jeroboam’s house, Nadab, Baasha), but also upholds His gracious promise (David’s lamp). Law and Gospel both shine here:

  • The Law condemns idolatry and punishes rebellion.
  • The Gospel preserves the covenant line through which salvation comes.

Summary

KingKingdomReignVerdictKey Lesson
AbijamJudah3 yearsEvil like RehoboamGod preserves David’s line for His covenant’s sake
AsaJudah41 yearsGood, mostly faithfulZeal for purity; imperfect trust
NadabIsrael2 yearsEvil like JeroboamSin brings swift judgment
BaashaIsrael24 yearsEvil like JeroboamJudgment on Jeroboam fulfilled, but sin continues

In Christ

1 Kings 15 reminds us that God’s promises outlast human failure. The “lamp in Jerusalem” never goes out because it burns in Christ, the Light of the world.
Where Asa partially cleansed the land, Jesus perfectly purifies His Church.
Where David’s sons faltered, Jesus reigns forever in righteousness.

Even amid the ruins of divided kingdoms, God’s plan for redemption never falters.


Now, here are some questions to help solidify understanding of this passage.


Abijam’s Reign (1 Kings 15:1–8)

Why does God preserve Abijam’s kingdom “for David’s sake”?

God preserves Abijam’s dynasty not because of Abijam’s own righteousness but because of His covenant with David (2 Samuel 7:12–16). That covenant promised that David’s line would never fail to have a descendant on the throne. This reveals God’s covenant grace—His faithfulness even when His people are faithless.

It foreshadows Christ, who reigns not because of human merit but because of God’s eternal purpose. The “lamp in Jerusalem” (v. 4) ultimately burns in Christ, the true and everlasting King.

If Abijam “walked in all the sins of his father,” how should we interpret that his heart was not wholly true to the LORD?

This statement shows that Abijam’s devotion was divided. He may have acknowledged the LORD outwardly but tolerated idolatry and compromise. The heart in Scripture refers not merely to emotion but to the seat of faith, will, and loyalty. Abijam’s heart was divided between Yahweh and idols, showing the spiritual disease of sin that no human king could cure.

It anticipates the promise of the new heart in Ezekiel 36:26 and Jeremiah 31:33, which God alone gives through regeneration in Christ by the Spirit.

What does the image of God giving David a “lamp in Jerusalem” signify?

The “lamp” is a symbol of continuity and hope—the ongoing light of the Davidic dynasty that would not be extinguished despite sin. It ties to the lampstand in the temple, representing God’s presence and the light of His covenant with His people.

This image grows through Scripture: the coming Messiah is called a “light for the nations” (Isaiah 49:6), and in John 8:12 Jesus declares, “I am the light of the world.” Revelation 21:23 completes the picture: “The Lamb is its lamp.” Thus, the lamp in Jerusalem finds its fulfillment in Christ, who is the everlasting light of the New Jerusalem.

Why does the author keep referencing David as the standard of righteousness?

David serves as the covenantal benchmark for every later king. Though David himself sinned grievously, he repented and maintained a heart loyal to God. The biblical writer uses David’s faithfulness as a measuring rod to expose the spiritual decline of his descendants.

This consistent comparison reminds us that the human kings of Israel and Judah all fall short of the ideal. It points forward to Christ, the perfect Davidic King whose obedience is complete and whose reign is everlasting.


Asa’s Reign (1 Kings 15:9–24)

Asa removed idols and even deposed his grandmother for idolatry. What does this teach about true covenant loyalty?

Asa’s zeal shows that true loyalty to God means no compromise with sin, even when it’s close to home. Maacah, his grandmother, had great influence as queen mother, but Asa prioritized God’s honor above family ties.

This foreshadows Christ’s call in Matthew 10:37 — that love for Him must exceed all earthly affections. Asa’s actions reveal the principle that covenant faithfulness sometimes demands costly obedience for the sake of purity in worship.

Asa left the “high places” intact. Why might that be significant?

The “high places” were unauthorized local worship sites. Though some were used for Yahweh, they represented worship on man’s terms rather than God’s. Asa’s failure to remove them shows that even good kings achieved only partial reform.

This points to the limits of human effort: political reform and outward religion can’t change the human heart. Only Christ, the perfect King and Priest, can bring total spiritual renewal and establish worship in “spirit and truth” (John 4:23–24).

What’s the spiritual meaning of Asa’s alliance with Ben-hadad of Syria?

Asa’s alliance represents trusting human strength instead of divine promise. Instead of seeking the Lord in prayer or relying on His covenant protection, Asa turned to a pagan king for help. This act revealed misplaced faith.

Spiritually, it mirrors Israel’s recurring sin of relying on Egypt or foreign powers. It’s a warning that faith looks upward, not outward — “Some trust in chariots and some in horses, but we trust in the name of the LORD our God” (Psalm 20:7).

In 2 Chronicles 16, Asa is rebuked for relying on man rather than God. How does this tension speak to the Church today?

The Church often faces the same temptation: to rely on worldly strategies, politics, or human charisma instead of God’s means of grace — Word, prayer, and sacraments. Asa’s story warns us that spiritual victory comes through dependence on God, not pragmatism.

It challenges believers and ministers alike to evaluate whether their confidence rests in the sovereign power of God or in merely human ingenuity.

Asa’s heart was “wholly true to the LORD,” yet his obedience was incomplete. How can both statements be true?

This paradox illustrates that sincerity of faith doesn’t mean perfection of obedience. Asa’s heart was loyal in intent and affection, though not flawless in execution.

This aligns with the perseverance of the saints: genuine believers may stumble, yet their hearts remain set toward God by grace. It also reveals that Christ alone perfectly fulfills what Asa and others only foreshadowed — a wholly true heart and perfect obedience on behalf of His people.


Nadab and Baasha (1 Kings 15:25–34)

Why does God allow Baasha, a wicked man, to execute judgment on another wicked dynasty?

This demonstrates God’s absolute sovereignty. He uses even wicked men to accomplish His righteous purposes (Proverbs 16:4). Just as God raised up Assyria and Babylon to discipline His people, He uses Baasha as a tool of judgment against Jeroboam’s sinful line.

Yet Baasha himself is judged for his evil, proving that human responsibility remains. This pattern reaches its climax in the cross: God used the wicked actions of men to crucify Christ — the ultimate judgment of sin — yet through it, He accomplished redemption (Acts 2:23).

How is the destruction of Jeroboam’s house a warning about false worship?

Jeroboam’s sin was institutional idolatry: he replaced God’s appointed worship with golden calves and a counterfeit priesthood. The complete eradication of his house shows that idolatry invites total ruin.

It’s a solemn warning that God demands to be worshiped only as He has revealed — a principle summarized in the Regulative Principle of Worship. The destruction of Jeroboam’s dynasty underscores God’s jealousy for His own glory and the purity of His worship.

Baasha follows Jeroboam’s sins even after witnessing divine judgment on them. What does this teach about the hardness of the human heart apart from grace?

It reveals the total depravity of man. Even clear evidence of God’s wrath doesn’t produce repentance apart from regenerating grace. The natural heart is blind to spiritual truth (1 Corinthians 2:14).

Baasha’s imitation of Jeroboam’s idolatry after seeing its consequences proves that mere warning doesn’t convert the soul — only the Spirit can do that. This aligns with Romans 1:21–28, where humanity “knows God’s decree” but continues in rebellion.

Both Nadab and Baasha reign from Tirzah, not Jerusalem. How does the absence of God’s chosen city show Israel’s spiritual alienation?

Jerusalem represented God’s presence and covenant promise. By ruling from Tirzah, Israel’s kings demonstrate separation from the Lord’s ordained center of worship. Their entire political identity is detached from God’s covenantal order.

This geographic and spiritual alienation mirrors the state of all who reject God’s appointed King — until reconciliation comes through Christ, the new Temple and true dwelling place of God among men (John 2:21; Revelation 21:22).


Broader Theological and Christ-Centered Themes

How does God’s faithfulness to David’s line, despite Judah’s sin, illuminate the doctrine of election and perseverance?

God’s preservation of the Davidic line “for David’s sake” (1 Kings 15:4) illustrates that His promises rest not on human worthiness but on sovereign grace. The covenant with David mirrors the eternal covenant of grace through Christ.

Just as God kept the lamp burning in Jerusalem despite the sins of Judah’s kings, so He preserves His elect despite their sins and weaknesses. This reflects the Reformed doctrine of Perseverance of the Saints — that salvation, once begun by God’s grace, will be brought to completion by His power (Philippians 1:6). God’s faithfulness guarantees the believer’s endurance.

What’s the significance of the repeated formula, “He did what was right/evil in the eyes of the LORD”?

This refrain makes clear that God alone is the standard of morality and truth. Kings are not judged by political success or popular approval but by whether they obey the revealed will of God.

It’s a reminder that all human authority is accountable to divine authority. In our own day, it warns against moral relativism: God’s evaluation stands above culture, politics, or personal preference.

Ultimately, this formula anticipates Christ, the only One who perfectly did what was right in the eyes of the Lord, fulfilling all righteousness on behalf of His people (Matthew 3:15).

How does Asa’s partial reform point us forward to Jesus’ perfect obedience?

Asa sincerely sought to cleanse the land of idolatry, but his efforts remained partial — some high places stayed, and his faith faltered. This pattern of partial obedience is consistent throughout the Old Testament, highlighting that no earthly reform or ruler could fully purify God’s people.

Jesus, however, is the perfect Reformer and true King who not only removes idols from the land but transforms hearts by His Spirit. His obedience is complete, His atonement final, and His kingdom unshakable. Asa’s reforms thus foreshadow the greater cleansing and spiritual renewal accomplished by Christ.

Why does the biblical narrator include the failures of even the “good” kings?

The inclusion of the kings’ failures demonstrates the realism of Scripture and the necessity of grace. The Bible doesn’t present human heroes to imitate but sinners to show our need for redemption.

Even “good” kings like Asa or Hezekiah fall short, proving that human righteousness is always imperfect. This constant failure directs our attention to the One King who never sinned — Jesus Christ, whose perfect righteousness is imputed to believers.

It’s also pastoral: it comforts believers who see their own inconsistency, reminding them that salvation rests not on perfection but on Christ’s finished work.

How does the division of the kingdoms and their repeated failures set the stage for the promise of a unified, everlasting kingdom under the Messiah?

The divided kingdom demonstrates the fracturing effects of sin — disunity, idolatry, and corruption. Yet through the prophets, God promises a coming King who will reunite His people and establish an everlasting kingdom of peace (Ezekiel 37:22–24; Isaiah 9:6–7).

This is fulfilled in Christ, the Son of David, who unites Jews and Gentiles into one body — the Church (Ephesians 2:14–16). His reign restores what sin destroyed and gathers His scattered people into one spiritual kingdom. The failures of Israel’s and Judah’s kings therefore prepare the stage for the Gospel.

In what sense does the “lamp in Jerusalem” find its ultimate fulfillment in Revelation, where “the Lamb is its lamp”?

The “lamp in Jerusalem” (1 Kings 15:4) is a prophetic image that traces the continuity of God’s covenant promise from David to Christ. In Revelation 21:23, that promise reaches its climax: the heavenly city needs no sun, “for the glory of God gives it light, and its lamp is the Lamb.”

This shows that the light once flickering in Jerusalem’s temple now shines eternally in Christ’s heavenly kingdom. The Davidic lamp becomes the Lamb’s lamp — unextinguishable, radiant, and universal. Every earthly king’s failure magnifies this final triumph: Christ Himself is the light and life of His redeemed people forever.

How can studying the flawed reigns of Judah and Israel help us interpret the present reign of Christ?

By studying these flawed reigns, we learn by contrast the perfection of Christ’s kingship. Earthly rulers waver, compromise, and die; Christ reigns in perfect righteousness and never fails His covenant people.

1 Kings 15 shows temporary, fallible thrones; the Gospel reveals a permanent, sinless throne. Where Asa and others acted in partial reform, Christ reigns with full redemption. Where Abijam’s sins endangered the kingdom, Christ’s righteousness secures it eternally.

For the Church today, this gives confidence: the King we serve isn’t fickle, partial, or corruptible. He rules now, not from Jerusalem or Tirzah, but from the right hand of God — and His reign will never end.

Comments

13 responses to “1 Kings 15 Commentary”

  1. mosckerr Avatar
    mosckerr

    Contrast the avoda zara philosophy promoted by Maharishi from the sealed masoret of T’NaCH, Talmud, and Siddur

    Maharishi Mahesh Yogi (1918–2008) is best known for developing Transcendental Meditation (TM) and for his broader philosophies surrounding consciousness, meditation, and personal development. His teachings blend Eastern spiritual traditions with modern scientific insights, emphasizing the potential for personal and collective transformation through meditation.

    Transcendental Meditation (TM), a simple technique where individuals meditate for about 20 minutes twice a day, focusing on a specific mantra. The practice aims to promote relaxation, reduce stress, and enhance overall well-being. Maharishi’s philosophy posits that there are different levels of consciousness, ranging from the individual ego to universal consciousness. Achieving higher states of consciousness is seen as vital for personal growth and societal harmony.

    A significant aspect of his philosophy is the idea that individual well-being contributes to global peace. Maharishi advocated for group meditation initiatives, suggesting that collective practices could foster a more peaceful world. The heart of Maharishi’s teachings lies in the practice of TM, helping individuals achieve depth of consciousness and inner silence. Maharishi integrated Ayurvedic principles into his teachings, emphasizing natural health and the balance between body, mind, and spirit. He developed programs focused on stress reduction, creativity enhancement, and improved quality of life through meditation.

    Maharishi’s Concept: The text outlines two realities: the “Absolute,” which is unchanging, and the “relative,” which is ever-changing. This duality is central to understanding life and consciousness. T’NaCH: In Judaism, God is often described as unchanging (Malachi 3:6: “For I, the Lord, do not change”). However this minor prophet contrasts with the day and night change between God in Heaven as depicted in the Book of בראשית, to the God within our hearts – revelation of HaShem at Sinai.

    The Talmud encompasses the “world view” model of Sanhedrin common law courtrooms. Case/Din halacha serves as בניני אבות judicial precedents wherein the Gemara sugyot interpret and re-interpret different perspectives how to both understand the language of a sugya of Gemara; but most essentially to make, so to speak, a legislative review/משנה תורה-multiple different perspective analysis of the witness language of a specific Mishna.

    The Maharishi’s concept of “Being”, for example, fails to address the ever present crisis of Jewish assimilation and intermarriage with Goyim who reject the revelation of the Torah at Sinai – HaShem לא בשמים היא – a D’varim vision that Torah does not come from heaven post Sinai. A Talmudic example found in ברכות which presents an Aggadic story of a man forced to sleep in a grave-yard consequent to having an argument with his wife; there he has a dream of what when and where to plant his crops. This Aggada comes to instruct the mussar that Man can only do mitzvot in this world and not in the world to come. Meaning doing time-oriented commandments with the k’vanna לשמה fundamentally and absolutely requires a Yatzir Ha-Tov spirit which breathes tohor Oral Torah middot within the beating heart of a bnai brit Man living in this world.

    The Talmud emphasizes the distinction between tefillah and prayer – comparable to the Divine Names whereby the Avot perceived God in the Heavens above as opposed to the post Sinai root faith that HaShem’s Divine Presence Shekinah breaths tohor middot within the Yatzir Ha-Tov within our hearts on this physical Earth below. Hence its directly forbidden to pronounce the Name of HaShem because this living spirit Name simply no more a word than its possible to compare anything in the Heavens, Seas, or Earth to HaShem.

    Contrast the false Maharishi’s concept — his projected ability of individual beings to reflect the “Absolute”, this total narishkeit nonsense declares the notion of expanding mind and heart through awareness and harmony with universal being. This contrasts with HaShem understood in the Talmud as a local god which only the 12 tribes of Israel accepted at Sinai with the Universal Monotheistic theological rhetoric promoted by both Xtianity and Islam’s Universal Monotheistic God(s).

    The Maharishi’s religious rhetoric narishkeit promotes mystical kabbalah excuses! His “Kabbalistic perspective” describes the process of personal and collective consciousness expanding as one engages more deeply with divine truth. Torah by contrast defines faith as צדק צדק תרדוף – pursue judicial common law justice in this world – specifically within the brit lands sworn as the eternal inheritance of the Avot chosen Cohen seed within only the borders of Judea. Sanhedrin Courts with their prophetic police mussar enforcers only have jurisdiction within the borders of Judea. Yonah being an exception due to the king of Assyria made a mass deportation of the people of the kingdom of Samaria deported to Assyrian lands by force.

    T’shuva refers to b’nai brit remembering the sworn oath made unto the Avot that they would father the chosen Cohen people. After Yonah traveled to the kingdom of Assyria – the Babylonian empire conquered that kingdom shortly thereafter. Prophets never sent to Goyim who never accepted the revelation of the Torah at Sinai. Contrast the Koran where it declares that prophets sent to all nations and lands to warn of approaching societal collapse; where those “prophets” speak in the native language of the people being warned! Goyim in all times and generations never accepted the revelation of the Torah at Sinai. Prophets command mussar only to the chosen Cohen people who accept the revelation of the Torah at Sinai. Hence the Koran, like the New Testament – both Av tuma avoda zara.

    Like

    1. Explaining the Book Avatar

      This comment collapses under its own inconsistencies.

      You reject Maharishi for promoting an abstract “Absolute,” yet then describe God as a geographically restricted deity whose authority ends at the borders of Judea. That position is neither philosophically coherent nor textually sustainable from the Tanakh.

      The God of Israel is not a projection of national identity, nor a metaphysical principle, nor an inner psychological state. He is the living God who creates, commands, judges, and saves. On that point, Christianity stands far closer to biblical theism than to the mystical systems you are railing against.

      Labeling Christianity “avodah zarah” while refusing to represent its claims accurately does not strengthen your case. It weakens it. Polemic without precision is noise.

      If your aim is serious theological disagreement, then interact with the arguments actually being made here. If your aim is simply to paste ideological manifestos, expect them to be treated as such.

      Like

      1. mosckerr Avatar
        mosckerr

        [[You reject Maharishi for promoting an abstract “Absolute,” yet then describe God as a geographically restricted deity whose authority ends at the borders of Judea. That position is neither philosophically coherent nor textually sustainable from the Tanakh.]]

        The Talmud Oral Torah codification teaches otherwise. Only Israel accepted the Torah revelation at Sinai. Neither the Xtian bible nor Muslim koran ever once brings the Name revelation expressed in the first Sinai commandment.

        Simply not the place of any Goy to declare the meaning of the Torah common law judicial system. Goyim by definition worship other Gods. The new Gods of JeZeus and Allah remain to this day totally alien to the T’NaCH literature.

        We now stand in debate eye to eye right now. Declarations require proofs from T’NaCH sources not later opinions thousands of years later.

        Like

      2. Explaining the Book Avatar

        Your position is internally inconsistent.

        You insist on T’NaCH alone, yet you assert as axiomatic that “Goyim by definition worship other gods.” That statement does not come from the T’NaCH. It is a later interpretive claim—precisely the kind of “later opinion” you say is inadmissible.

        The T’NaCH repeatedly portrays the God of Israel judging, addressing, and revealing Himself to the nations:

        • God judges Egypt directly (Exodus 7–12)
        • God addresses Assyria through Jonah (Jonah 1–4)
        • God calls Cyrus His “anointed” (Isaiah 45:1)

        None of this requires those nations to be under Sinai law, but it does demolish the claim that the Lord is unknown, irrelevant, or inaccessible to them.

        As for the divine Name: the issue is not whether later scriptures reproduce Sinai verbatim, but whether the God revealed at Sinai is the same God acting throughout history. On that point, the Tanakh itself affirms continuity, not isolation (Exodus 3:6; Isaiah 42:8).

        You are not defending the Torah here—you are shrinking it.

        Like

      3. mosckerr Avatar
        mosckerr

        Goyim by definition worship other Gods based upon the Sin of the Golden Calf. You confuse a child like reading of Golden calf like as equally made with the Creation stories of Genesis! LOL

        40 days after Sinai Israel did not worship an actual golden calf. Your sophomoric translations fail to convey the substitution of the word Elohim with the Divine Presence Spirit Name revealed in the 1st Sinai commandment. Nothing in the Heavens Earth or Seas comparable to this “Holy Spirit” Name. Lips can pronounce words but lips cannot pronounce Spirits!!!!! Ooops The NT and Koran both duplicate the sin of the Golden Calf with word translations.

        Like

      4. mosckerr Avatar
        mosckerr

        A comprehensive Jewish polemic against the theological foundations of Xtianity and Islam.

        Matthew genealogy traces the lineage of its Harry Potter through Joseph. Luke’s genealogy traces its lineage through Mary. LOL. Matthew lists 42 generations while Luke lists 77 generations! Matthew begins with Avraham and moves forward while Luke begins with Adam. The final name in Matthew’s genealogy Joseph (husband of Mary). While Luke ends with JeZeus. Matthew follows Solomon’s line; Luke follows Nathan’s line. All gospel Roman forgeries fail to grasp the Torah negative commandment of a “bastard child”.

        The gospel of Luke ignores that all Goyim reject to this day the revelation of the Torah at Sinai. No gospel forgery ever once includes the 1st Commandment revelation of HaShem who dwells thereafter only within the Yatzir Ha-Tov of the hearts of the Chosen Cohen seed of Avraham Yitzak and Yaacov – brit cut between the pieces. Nathan, another descendant of David not tied to the kingship.

        Anymore than the gospels has any linkage to the Torah dedication of the mitzva of Moshiach – based upon king David’s failure to judge the Case of Bat Sheva’s husband with justice. Ruling the land/people with righteous judicial justice defines the Torah intent of the mitzva of Moshiach. Luke’s attempt to make its false messiah into an av tuma Universal messiah for all Mankind, violates the revelation of the Torah at Sinai.

        Moshe first anointed the House of Aaron as Moshiach. Aaron stands on the foundation of Elohim acceptance of the sacrifice dedicated by Hevel, despite Cain being born first. This theme duplicated again and again in Yishmael/Yitzak, EsauYaacov, ReuvenYosef, pre-sin of Golden Calf first born of Israel/post Golden Calf tribe of Levi. The Luke/puke contradicts JeZeus’s declaration to the Samaritan woman! Hence the NT compare more to a superman comic book than an actual replacement of the brit chosen Cohen seed of the Avot replaced by a Roman fictional Harry Potter messiah.

        The greatest flaw of the gospel forgeries, hands down without any question, their utter replacement theological failure which fails to grasp that all the Torah mitzvot revealed at Sinai apply equally – straight across the board – like shabbat and tohorat Ha-beit for married women – to all generations of the chosen Cohen seed of Avraham Yitzak and Yaacov.

        Furthermore the JeZeus false messiah failed to differentiate the Avot in Genesis perception of El, Elohim, El Shaddai etc as a God in the Heavens from the revelation of HaShem in the 1st Sinai Commandment wherein the Divine Presence middot revealed to Moshe after the sin of the Golden Calf on Yom Kippur live in this Earth only within the hearts of the Yatzir Ha-Tov Cohen people. When the followers of the Harry Potter false messiah asked their God how to pray he taught them: Our Father who is in Heaven … this fundamentally violates and profanes the revelation of the Torah at Sinai – the Spirits of HaShem live within the Tabernacle of the Yatzir Ha-Tov within the bnai brit Cohen hearts.

        Tefillah – Kre’a Shma – Hear Israel HaShem Elohynu HaShem Echad. The word One does not refer as the av tuma avoda zara theologies promoted by the NT and Koran false prophet frauds of Universal Monotheism. Monotheism violates the 2nd Sinai Commandment; HaShem sent Moshe to Egypt to judge the Gods of Egypt! Rather the word ONE refers to the oath that a Cohen swears through his tefillen to remember the oaths sworn by Avraham Yitzak and Yaacov wherein the Avot cut an oath alliance to father the chosen Cohen people. Hence the 3 Divine Names in this one verse have the intention to remember the oaths the Avot swore to father the chosen Cohen seed for all eternity. Furthermore, the name Elohynu judges and separates HaShem from HaShem; acceptance of the Written and Oral Torah revelation לשמה.

        The father determines the genealogy of both sons of Aaron and Kings of both Yechuda and Israel. The NT fraud has no concept that once a man acquires title to the O’lam Ha’bah (future born children) of his wife, that even if Zeus himself fathered Hercules that under Torah law Hercules constitutes a bastard. That the beating of JeZeus almost to death and torturing him upon a cross compares to offering a deformed animal on an altar as a Torah sacrifice. תורה לא בשמים – a direct quote from the Book of D’varim which defines the revelation of the First Sinai Commandment for all eternity thereafter. JeZeus depicted as the “Son of God/virgin birth” … a bastard child forever excluded כרת from the seed of the Avot chosen Cohen people.

        The brutal murder of fictional Harry Potter JeZeus through judicial corruption and injustice totally the opposite of Moshe dedication of the House of Aaron as Moshiach. The prophet Shmuel first anointed Shaul of the tribe of Binyamin as Moshiach, but his failure to pursue justice – specifically in the mitzva of Amalek (understood as Jewish ערב רב – assimilated Jews who follow foreign cultures & customs who intermarry with Goyim who reject the revelation of the Torah at Sinai.) Amalek or antisemitism plagues all generations of Jews with Torah curses no different than the plague curses in Egypt.

        Superficially Yonah sent to “warn” the king of Assyria. But Torah prophets serve only as the mussar police of Sanhedrin courtroom rulings. The Sanhedrin courts only have jurisdiction within the borders of Judea. Hence for the prophet Yona sent to Assyria his mission replicates that of Moshe in Egypt sent to cause the exiled 10 tribes of Israel to remember the brit oath sworn to the Avot. Assyria conquered shortly after Yonah commanded his mussar to the exiled seed of the 10 Tribes by the Babylonian empire.

        Like

      5. mosckerr Avatar

        your last paragrapph seals the proof. T’NaCH commands mussar. T’NaCH does not teach history.

        Like

      6. Explaining the Book Avatar

        Your reply does not advance the discussion; it multiplies assertions while avoiding the central issue.

        You claim to argue from T’NaCH alone, yet your argument depends on a dense web of later interpretive constructions, private definitions, and speculative metaphysics about “Spirits,” pronunciation, and inner ontologies that are not stated anywhere in the text itself. That is precisely what you accused others of doing.

        The Golden Calf narrative in Exodus 32 explicitly says: “These are your elohim, O Israel, who brought you up out of the land of Egypt.” Whatever later interpretive refinements you prefer, the text itself describes an act of misdirected worship following Sinai. Laughing at “childlike readings” does not remove the plain sense of the passage.

        Likewise, your repeated claim that T’NaCH “does not teach history” is simply false. The Torah grounds covenant, law, judgment, and obligation in actual events: creation, exodus, covenant, exile, and restoration. Remove history, and the commandments lose their foundation.

        Finally, declaring entire faiths invalid by mockery (“Harry Potter,” “LOL,” etc.) while refusing to engage their actual claims is not polemic grounded in Scripture—it is rhetorical noise. If you wish to debate from T’NaCH, then cite the text clearly, explain how it supports your claim, and stop redefining disagreement as incompetence.

        Like

      7. mosckerr Avatar
        mosckerr

        I can make the exact same argument to you: “Your reply does not advance the discussion; it multiplies assertions while avoiding the central issue.”

        You’re talking at me and not to me. The T’NaCH not alone, it works in harmony with the Talmud and the Siddur kabbalah. Attempts to make straw arguments by perverting what I write only proves you’re more interested in preaching than listening.

        You lack all Hebrew and Aramaic reading skills. You cannot declare what the Hebrew T’NaCH instructs because you can’t read. Here’s an example: the first word of the Torah בראשית, the 6 letters of this word (interesting 6 Orders to the Mishna) contains ברית אש, ראש בית, ב’ ראשית. Yet you only read it as “In the beginning”. LOL

        Elohim is a word the Name revealed in the first Sinai commandment not a word. The fundamental difference between God in Heaven to God in Earth. Had you any knowledge of the original Hebrew ערב רב-mixed multitudes the Torah describes them as lacking “fear of Elohim”. You have not the slightest clue how to interpret this concept b/c you have never employed two brain cells rubbed together to understand this key idea.

        The plain sense of the passage called in Hebrew a טיפש פשט/bird brained stupidity. Isaiah’s mussar directly rebukes rote learning: line by line word by word stupidity.

        Reform and Conservative Judaism likewise view the Torah as a historical document. Both post church ghetto gulag break away religions. Talmudic common law set to serve as a model for Jewish common law courtrooms within the borders of the reconquered homeland and NOT some religious dogamtic code with the later Middle Ages assimilated ערב רב rabbis “baptized” the Talmud as Orthodox religion.

        Brit not correctly translated as covenant. LOL Your sophomoric addiction to translations really quite humorous. Brit refers to an Torah oath alliance. A Torah oath alliance requires שם ומלכות and you don’t have the wisdom to interpret the intent of these two abstract deep conditional terms to cut a brit.

        Post Shoah where Xtians slaughtered 75% of Western European Jewry in less than 3 years … I shall quote your own god back to you: “By their fruits you shall know them”.

        Like

      8. Explaining the Book Avatar

        You are no longer arguing a position; you are asserting intellectual and moral superiority as a substitute for argument.

        Repeating that others “cannot read Hebrew,” dismissing peshat as “bird-brained stupidity,” and appealing to private letter mysticism as decisive proof does not establish truth—it insulates your system from critique. That is not how argument works, and it is not how the T’NaCH itself reasons.

        You now explicitly reject peshat while simultaneously claiming fidelity to Scripture. That alone ends the discussion. The prophets rebuke empty repetition, not the intelligibility of the text itself. The Torah repeatedly appeals to what Israel saw, heard, and experienced in history (e.g., Deut. 4; Deut. 29). Without intelligible language and real events, command, judgment, and obligation collapse.

        As for appeals to Shoah and “fruits”: moral atrocity condemns perpetrators, not texts. To argue otherwise is to abandon theology for invective. By that logic, no tradition survives its own history.

        You are free to hold a closed interpretive system in which only insiders may speak, only your definitions count, and disagreement proves stupidity. But that is not debate, and it is not persuasion. It is gatekeeping.

        This thread is finished.

        Like

      9. mosckerr Avatar

        You have yet to address the issued raised on obvious flaws in the gospel texts. Pashat one of 4 parts of Pardes as taught by rabbi Akiva and all the sages of the Talmud. Pashat does not stand alone; the Talmud compares to the workings of a loom which has warp vs. weft threads. Talmud has halachic and aggadic dialogue.

        Like

      10. Explaining the Book Avatar

        You are still refusing to do the one thing required for an actual discussion: state a single, clearly defined objection and argue it from a shared method.

        Saying “there are obvious flaws in the gospel texts” is not an argument. It is a conclusion in search of a premise. Genealogies, messianic expectations, covenant continuity, and hermeneutics are distinct issues, each requiring separate treatment. Flooding them together is not analysis.

        You are correct that peshat is one strand within pardes. What you continue to evade is this: no strand negates the intelligibility of the text itself. The loom analogy only works if warp and weft are both real threads. If peshat is dismissed as incoherent or meaningless, then remez, derash, and sod lose their anchor.

        On the gospels specifically: differences in genealogical presentation are not “flaws” unless one first assumes a modern historiographic standard the Tanakh itself does not use. Tanakh genealogies are selective, telescoped, and purpose-driven. That is not corruption; it is genre.

        If you want to debate one concrete claim—one genealogy, one messianic criterion, one text—state it plainly. Otherwise, invoking “obvious flaws” while expanding into methodological lectures is not engagement. It is evasion.

        Like

      11. mosckerr Avatar

        You run away without addressing the refutation of your silly religion. LOL that’s fine with me, its almost 1 am and I’m tired.

        Like

Leave a reply to mosckerr Cancel reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Discover more from Explaining The Book

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading