Vs.1,2  Maachah was the granddaughter of Absalom and Tamar, the daughter of Absalom (2Chron 13:2). 

Vs.9,10 Maachah was the grandmother of Asa. 

V.13 Abijam had made Maachah the Queen Mother, but Asa deposed her because of idolatry.

15:2  Abijam was the son of Absalom’s daughter. Given that the line of David ran unbroken from David to Josiah we have to conclude that Maachah married Rehoboam.

15:3 God’s assessment of Abijam was that he was evil. Compare this with his own assessment of himself – 2Chron 13:10

15:6,7,16,23    Notice the repeated ‘and there was war between …’ So the division has really taken hold. Brethren are at war – but living in the same land – the land promised to them through Abraham.

15:10,13 We tend to think that mothers were a big influence in the development of sons. But not in Asa’s case. Maachah was an idol worshipper – so Asa must have got his instruction from Scripture and that instruction was not compromised by the influence of his mother.

V.6 There was never any open war between Judah and Israel, because Yahweh did not want that (1Kin 12:24).  However, the two camps were hostile towards one another, and perhaps a few minor fights did break out from time to time.

Vs.16,17 There was hostility, but not open war conflict between Asa and Baasha, for 35 years of Asa’s reign (2Chron 15:19). It was only in the 36^th. year of Asa’s reign that conflict arose (2Chron 16:1).

Vs.18-20 Asa’s faithfulness to Yahweh had slipped as he sought worldly help for his problems.  Yahweh was not pleased (2Chron 16:7).

V.23 Asa continued to turn away from the help of Yahweh (2Chron 16:12).

In v22 we read that Asa built Geba and Mizpah from the stones and timber Baasha had used to build Ramah (v17, 21-22). Presumably, Ramah was a fortified city, or castle of some sort "that he might let none go out or come in to Asa". So when we read of Asa using the materials, presumably it was for similar fortifications. But why is this important?

One of the ways we can witness the integrity and authenticity of scripture is the incidental details, from book to book, which fit together perfectly to give a picture we wouldn't have seen otherwise. The fact that there is no reason for these details to be there (for the main story to work) makes it even more compelling. So in this case, we have found out that Mizpah was probably a fortress or fortified city. In Jer 41 we have a seemingly random reference back to Asa building the city, mentioning a large pit (Jer 41:9). Why would such a large pit have existed? Because it was either to store food and drink to survive a seige, or it was in fact a moat or trench in front of the walls he built. 

15:18-19 Despite being ‘good’ Asa lost his faith in God and sought for help from Syria against the Northern Kingdom. So we see even faithful men fail. This should be an encouragement to us,

1Kin 15:9 - "Asa" [(1609) means "healer, physician"] and as his name suggests he did that which was right (1Kin 15:11-14) though he wasn't perfect in his walk and showed weakness in turning to Ben-Hadad (1Kin 15:18-19) for help and in seeking help from physicans but not the Lord for his diseased feet (1Kin 15:23;2Chron 16:7-12).

1Kin 15:16 - "Baasha" [(1201) means "stink, offensive, wicked"] warred with Asa. Baasha removed Jeroboam's house in accordance with Ahijah's prophecy (1Kin 14:6-11) and interestingly, Baasha's father was also named Ahijah (1Kin 15:25-28) though not the same person.

This chapter puzzles me. One very satisfying thing about the story-like accounts in the old testament is that the wicked always seem to get their just desserts. You can read in Samuel about Joab and all the terrible things he did, building up a real loathing for the man, and feeling very satisfied when he gets his just reward by the hand of Solomon. But what about Ishmael the son of Nethaniah? I have hardly heard of a more evil man, yet I search in vain for any reference to his end. He seems to escape without any reprisal even though he massacred many men and women without pity.

I guess it's good that this is here, though. David complains in Psa 73:3-6 "why does the wicked flourish?". It is not God's way to punish the wicked as soon as they commit evil. He does, however, always bring it back upon their head in the end. Even though Ishmael seemed to get away, we can be assured that he didn't die peacefully. God keeps His promises to the evil just as he does to the faithful. (Psa 7:15, 35:8, 37:14-15).

Vs.17,18 After the upsetting actions of Ishmael, Johanan and his officers became afraid. They worried about reprisals from the Babylonians after the killing of Gedaliah their appointed governor of Judah.  They felt that they ought to remove themselves to a safer place.  And so they decided to move to Egypt.  This would prove to be a fatal mistake as we will see in subsequent chapters.

41:5  Notice that some came from ‘Samaria’ to worship. This indicates that there were some in the North who had decided that they would worship the God of Israel. So maybe they were descendants of some of those that the Assyrians had put in the land from the Jews to teach the people. 2Kin 17:27

V.5 These eighty men were probably mourners on their way to Jerusalem. There were no priests in the city which had been evacuated (39:9). Yet it seems that these men were intent upon offering sacrifices themselves.

However, their comportment was not compatible with that of priests. These men had shaved off their beards, torn their clothes, and cut themselves. As priests, such actions were not allowed under the Law (Lev 10:6; 21:5).

This incident shows how strict adherence to Yahweh's ways had faded in favor of a worship which included worldly practices. Do we pretend to be something that we are not? Do we walk with Yahweh and the world at the same time?

-

41:6-7 So even though those from Samaria came with good intent Ishmael deceived them and slew them.

41:17 The mention of the ‘habitation of Chimham’ so long after the days of king David highlights that at least the promise of 2Sam 19:37 was kept by David’s successors.

V.1 In October, two months after Jerusalem had been set on fire, Ishmael and Gedaliah sat down to eat bread together.  This indicates more than sharing a meal. It implies that Ishamael and Gedaliah were making a covenant, an agreement to co-exist.  Of course, it was all a sham on the part of Ishamel as he was intent upon assassinating Gedaliah.

Vs.3,4 Ishmael slew everyone else that was around, so that nobody outside of Mizpah would know what had happened.

V.10 Ishamael had made an alliance with Baalis, the king of the Ammonites (Jer 40:14).

V.12 Ishmael was on the road to Ammon, when Johanan intercepted him at Gibeon, which was situated about 4 miles (6+ km) northwest of Jerusalem.

V.18 If, and when, the Babylonians found out about Ishamael’s actions, they might think that these remaining Jews had something to do about it.  And so, the Jews thought it safer to go to Egypt.  But, this would be the wrong thing to do (Isa 31:1).

41:11-15 The city has been taken and the temple sacked. Most of the Jews are now in captivity. However we should not think that the land was left as a barren wilderness with no people in it. Political intrigue continued!

But Jesus didn't descend now. He descended later. But what difference did it make, waiting that short space of time? What was the difference between coming down of his own volition, or coming down later, a dead man? The difference was that Jesus the king of the Jews died on the cross. The inscription was correct. Jesus left that man on the cross. He gave that title up, along with the glory and ambition the Jews wanted to place on it.

On the road to Jerusalem the blind man had called out to Jesus, calling him the Son of David. In his teaching to his disciples in 12v35 he had tackled the subject of whether he should be called the son of David. In doing so he took them back to Psalm 110, where David doesn't call him his son, but Lord! How could he be the son of David if his own father called him Lord? In v4 is the key: "you are a priest forever according to the order of Melchisedek". Melchisedek had no recorded genealogy, a point made explicitly in Hebrews (Heb 7v3) so whose son was he? The verse continues "but made like the son of God".

Jesus the son of David died on that cross, along with the kingship. He had made the choice to give that title up. Instead, he was taking on the much greater, much better, much more highly exalted sonship of God. He was taking on the role of the priest according to Melchisedek, a role he could only take on if he was to die on the cross, a perfect sacrifice. This role allowed him to be king over all the world - not just Israel; and over all time - not just for one mortal life. In doing this he would re-gain the title of son of David as well as son of God.

15:34 - Why would Jesus say "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"

The quote would appear to be from Psa 22:1 where the word for "forsaken" is "azab" (5800) and can mean "relinquish, permit, forsake", etc. The writers translated the word "azab" perhaps to show Christ was quoting Psa.22:1 but they also included Christ's actual word "cebak". 

 The rest of the prophetic Psalm which Jesus was unable to finish refers to the crucifixion process including the mocking, piercing of his hands and feet, casting of lots for his clothing, etc.  Interestingly, Jesus uses a different word for "forsaken" than that used in Psalms 22:1. He uses "cebak" (5442) which refers to a "thicket" and says essentially, "My God, my God, why have you thicketed me?". This is a probable reference to Gen 22:13 where a sacrificial ram was caught by its horns in a thicket when Abraham was preparing to sacrifice his only son Isaac with the wood arranged on the altar.

It would seem Christ with his last breaths was teaching the people of his prophetic sacrifice in pointing out two key scriptures.

To absolve himself of the obvious injustice of this act, Pilate publicly proclaimed his virtue over the matter (Matt 27:24). Is it not ironic that Pilate means firm in Latin? By his actions, he showed anything but firmness in moral conviction.

15:43   The way in which Joseph came ‘boldly’ contrasted markedly with the timidity of the disciples who his after Jesus’ death.

V.17 In the Diaglot, the crown of thorns is described as an acanthine wreath.  The acanthus is a plant with large thistle-like leaves.

15:7 Thee is no need for us to know the name of the man that was to be freed but his name is significant. It means ‘son of a father’. Jesus was ‘the son of the Father’.

V.15 Barabbas was released in exchange for Jesus, the Son of God.  Barabbas means son of the father.  By character, Jesus was the son of the Most High God, while Barabbas was the son of Belial.

V.16 The Praetorium (KJV) was the area in a Roman camp where the Governor had his residence.  It was also where the judgment hall was located.

V.22 Golgotha means the place of a skull.  It might have received its name because of its physical appearance. Golgotha was a bare, round hillock that looked skull-like.  Another suggestion is that Golgotha is the place to which David took the head of Goliath (1Sam 17:54).

V.28 is a quote from Isa 53:12, and is included in the KJV. Modern versions either do not include v.28, or include it with a qualification that the verse is not found in many manuscripts.

V.38 Shredding the veil from top to bottom could only be done by divine action.  Human action would attempt to rip it from the bottom

15:31 One wonders if there was a tinge of worry amongst the religious leaders as they mocked Jesus calling upon him to come down off the cross. They had sent a multitude to take him in the Garden of Gethsemane. They doubtless had feared his power.