Historical Continuity (part 3 of 3)

“When the army came back to the camp, the elders of Israel said, ‘Why did the Lord let us be defeated today by the Philistines?’” (1 Samuel 4:3a)  The answer, of course, was their covenant failures.  So what was their response?  They said “Let’s take with us the ark of the covenant of the Lord from Shiloh.  When it is with us, it will save us from the hand of our enemies” (4:3b).  Effectively, they believed that they possessed “the Temple of the Lord, the Temple of the Lord, the Temple of the Lord,” so no harm could come to them.  This is evidenced by what one can go on to read, which is “So the army sent to Shiloh, and they took from there the ark of the covenant of the Lord of hosts Who sits between the cherubim… When the ark of the covenant of the Lord arrived at the camp, all Israel shouted so loudly that the ground shook” (4:4a,5).  A repetition of “the Temple of the Lord” indeed. 

Naturally, just as Israel was mistaken about the preserving power of the presence of the that which represented their God in the times of both Jesus and Jeremiah, so too was Israel mistaken in this case.  As Israel was routed by both Babylon and Rome, with the Temple destroyed on both occasions, the ark of the covenant was captured by the Philistines and Israel was defeated.

What was it that lead to these events?  Surely, it was something that would have resonated with both Jeremiah and the people of Israel (Judah) to which Jeremiah spoke.  Proving that there is nothing new under the sun, while also demonstrating the historical congruence of the message of the Creator God, through and by which He reveals the plans and purposes of His kingdom and its denizens, the issue was the priests and the people.  In the second chapter the author reports that “The sons of Eli,” Eli being the High Priest, whose sons officiated alongside him in the tabernacle, “were wicked men.  They did not recognize the Lord’s authority… They treated the Lord’s offering with contempt… They used to have sex with the women who were stationed at the entrance to the tent of meeting” (2:12,17,22b). 

Though not quite as explicit as the condemnation from Jeremiah, it does have its resonances.  Clearly, they were not rightly worshiping the God of Israel, so they might as well have been worshiping some other god.  Complicity, even if it is a grudging acceptance of this behavior on behalf of the people, is implied.  Jeremiah could have easily recognized this, and one can easily be led to believe that this was in mind and designed to be called to mind when he speaks of the Temple in his prophecy.  The presence of the ark was as helpful to the people in that day as was the presence of the Temple in Jeremiah’s day or in Jesus’ day. 

In addition, and just so the covenant God might get His point across, so that Jeremiah might get his point across, and so Jesus might get His point across as well, when the elders of Israel sent for the ark, it was accompanied by these sons of Eli who were killed in the ensuing battle during which the ark was also taken.  Those responsible for the house of the Creator God, who mocked their responsibility, perished as the ark was taken.  As the ark represented the glory of the Creator God, a tabernacle or Temple with no ark is also devoid of that God’s glory and is therefore no tabernacle or Temple at all.  This rings loudly and clearly through to the days of Jesus and the events that followed not too long thereafter.  Let it be said that, from the time of Samuel, to Jeremiah, and on to Jesus, the Creator God’s ways and that which He intends for His people can be clearly detected.     

Absalom (part 11)

Does David get a sense of this?  Did he realize that the Ark was being treated as a talisman and an idol?  This had happened once before during the time of the judges, when Hophni and Phinehas, the corrupt sons of Eli, brought the Ark into the presence of the Israelite army as they were being threatened by and were fearful of the army of the Philistines.  What happened to the Ark in that instance?  It was captured by the Philistines.  Israel fell to the Philistines in battle, Hophni and Phinehas were killed, Eli fell over and broke his neck when he heard the news of the Ark’s capture, and Phinehas’ wife gave birth to a son and named him Ichabod, saying that “The glory has departed from Israel, because the Ark of God has been captured” (1 Samuel 4:22). 

Understandably then, David did not want to be on any side of that issue.  He did not want to treat the Ark as an idol.  He did not want to leave the people in a vulnerable position without the presence of their God, and thereby effectively in exile.  He did not want to be thought of as somebody who had captured the Ark and therefore caused the glory of the Lord to depart from Israel, nor did he want to experience the exile-like curses that came upon the Philistines because they presumed to possess the Ark of the Covenant God.  So “the king said to Zadok, ‘Take the Ark of God back to the city.  If I find favor in the Lord’s sight He will bring me back and enable me to see both it and His dwelling place again.  However, if He should say, “I do not take pleasure in you,” then He will deal with me in a way that He considers appropriate’.” (15:25-26)  This represents a turning of the tide for David.  Once he actively recognizes the Lord God of Israel’s hand in all of these things, matters begin to turn out better for him and worse for Absalom.        

Later on in Israel’s history, the book of Jeremiah will inform a people that are nearing a time of exile and foreign subjugation to not lose heart or forget the covenant faithfulness of their God.  Their God has delivered a solemn promise, saying “When the time for them to be rescued comes… I will rescue you from foreign subjugation.  I will deliver you from captivity.  Foreigners will then no longer subjugate them.  But they will be subject to the Lord their God and to the Davidic ruler whom I will raise up as king over them” (30:8-9).  Ironically, it is King David---the very one to whom is made reference by the term “Davidic ruler”---that is himself going into exile.  He is, in a way, undergoing a foreign subjugation.  Why?  Because, like Israel itself, he had taken his eyes off of his God.  Because, like Israel itself, he had forgotten his purpose.  He had begun to treat the people of Israel as if they were there for him, rather than remembering his role and that he was there to be a servant to the covenant people of the covenant God. 

How could he serve them best?  By being a testimony of what it looked like to be a light to the surrounding nations and so reflect the glory, into the world, of the God Who had anointed him and delivered him a kingdom.  How could he do that if he was oppressing his own people, taking their wives, and killing them?  How could he do that if he was showing favoritism to his own son and not executing what justice demanded?  How could he do that if he allowed the relationship with another son to deteriorate to the point that that son could feel the need to turn the people against his father and take the kingdom for himself?  David had become a king for himself and for his own glory, rather than for his people, for the world, and for the glory of Israel’s God.  This was David’s idolatry, and it had earned him an exile. 

Absalom (part 10)

“So the king and all the members of his royal court set out on foot” (2 Samuel 15:16a).  This is Israel’s exodus from Egypt, but applied in reverse.  It is the oppressive king that is fleeing, rather than the people.  This is the king of Israel, who represents the people, going into exile rather than leading them to and then in their promised land.  David, whether directly or indirectly, through the situation that he created by not dealing with Amnon, and by not dealing with Absalom, is delivering the people that are loyal to him into exile.  Their march is not one of exodus, in power and glory, but rather one of fear and shame.  Not all of the members of the royal household left Jerusalem however, as “the king left behind ten concubines to attend to the palace” (15:16b).  This becomes significant later on, as this allows for the fulfillment of a “prophecy” that had previously been given to David. 

Like Israel, but again in reverse, “The king and all the people set out on foot, pausing at a spot some distance away” (15:17).  This should cause a reflection upon Israel’s flight from Egypt, in that they paused at the Red Sea, and then again at the mountain of God.  It should also serve as a contrast to what it is that is happening with the two events.  Drawing attention to the fact that he knew that he was going into exile, “the king said to Ittai the Gittie, ‘Why should you come with us?  Go back and stay with the new king, for you are a foreigner and an exile from your own country… Today should I make you wander around by going with us?’” (15:19,20b) 

David asks Ittai, who already lives in a state of exile, why he wants to continue in exile.  H then uses the language of wandering, which present thoughts of Israel’s wandering in the wilderness after their faithless response to the call to enter the land of promise.  Ittai, however, refused to leave David, saying “As surely as the Lord lives and as my lord the king lives, wherever my lord the king is, whether dead or alive, there I will be as well!” (15:21)  Clearly, not all is lost for David.  This response from Ittai seems to boost David’s spirits a bit.  Perhaps he began to think that if this man would not forsake him, then perhaps the Lord God of Israel had not completely forsaken him either. 

One must take note of a startling fact.  That fact is that the first mention of the Lord God of Israel in relation to David’s situation and in the midst of Absalom’s insurrection, comes from this foreigner Ittai who is living in exile.  It seems that David had forgotten about his Lord.  To make the point, the author does not have David mentioning his Lord since the twenty-second verse of chapter twelve, as he does so in connection with the death of the child that was born to he and Bathsheba.  As one can be sure that these books of Samuel are both historical and theological treatises, this mention of Israel’s God by Ittai is quite striking.  It seems to jar something within David. 

After this reminder of the Lord, it is said that “All the land was weeping loudly as all these people were leaving.  As the king was crossing over the Kidron valley, all the people were leaving on the road that leads to the desert” (15:23).  This is understandable.  Jerusalem, after all, is the capital of the country.  Many that lived there would have served the king in official government positions.  With David fleeing and a new king on the way, it would not be unreasonable for these people to believe themselves, at the least, as out of a job, and at the worst as liable to be put to death by Absalom so that he can appoint his own people into government positions---people that he can trust to be loyal to him and to serve him well.  Along with that, “Zadok and all the Levites who were with him were carrying the Ark of the Covenant of God” (15:24a).  For some reason, they were taking the Ark of the Covenant with them, as if somehow it was only David that could legitimate its presence there in Jerusalem, rather than the other way around, with the Ark serving to legitimate the rule of the Creator God’s people by its presence near the throne. 

No One Knows The Hour (part 15)

While still in the Temple, Jesus says “The experts in the  law and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat.  Therefore pay attention to what they tell you to do and do it.  But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they teach” (Matthew 23:2-3).  The previously referenced Markan warning comes out with what comes next, as Jesus says “They do all their deeds to be seen by people, for they make their phylacteries wide and their tassels long.  They love the place of honor at banquets and the best seats in the synagogues and elaborate greetings in the marketplaces, and to have people call them ‘Rabbi.’…  And call no one your ‘father’ on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven” (23:5-7,9). 

When considering the fact that Jesus is saying all of these things at the Temple, which is understood to be the place where heaven and earth join together---the place where the realm of the Creator God’s dwelling and the realm of man’s dwelling meet, intersect, and overlap, Jesus’ contrast between earth and heaven takes on an interesting dimension that will be revisited at a later point in this study.  In addition, his talk of the calling of someone “father,” in juxtaposition to His sustained critique of the Temple authorities, while also going on to say “The greatest among you will be your servant.  And whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted” (23:11-12), adds fuel to the critical, judging fire of His actions in the Temple and His words that follow that action.  Indeed, Jesus goes on to stoke those flames, providing stark contrast to the humble servant mentality when He says “But woe to you, experts in the law and you Pharisees, hypocrites!  You keep locking people out of the kingdom of heaven!  For you neither enter nor permit those trying to enter to go in” (23:13). 

When “kingdom of heaven” is placed on terra firma, rather than thinking of it as some place “out there,” while also tying in the conjoining thoughts of land and Temple, one rightly hears Jesus continuing His critique of the Temple authorities and their mis-use of the Creator God’s Temple.  Shortly thereafter, Jesus makes explicit mention of the Temple and their mis-use of it, still echoing Jeremiah in style if not in substance when He says “Woe to you, blind guides, who say, ‘Whoever swears by the Temple is bound by nothing.  But whoever swears by the gold of the Temple is bound by the oath.’  Blind fools!  Which is greater, the gold or the Temple that makes the gold sacred?” (23:16-17)  In a mocking report of the words of the Temple authorities, Jesus informs his audience of what they say and then comments on it, saying “’Whoever swears by the altar is bound by nothing.  But if anyone swears by the gift on it he is bound by the oath.’  You are blind!  For which is greater, the gift or the altar that makes the gift sacred?  So whoever swears by the altar swears by it and by everything on it.  And whoever swears by the Temple swears by it and the one who dwells in it.  And whoever swears by heaven swears by the throne of God and the one who sits on it” (23:18-22). 

There is a fascinating and almost imperceptible movement that takes place from verses thirteen through twenty-two.  It is only with the Temple firmly in view that one is able to pick up on that movement.  In verse thirteen Jesus mentions the kingdom of heaven.  In verse sixteen He mentions the Temple.  In eighteen and nineteen, within the same movement of thought, He speaks of the altar.  Beginning in the twentieth verse, Jesus goes on to draw conclusions.  In verse twenty He again speaks of the altar.  In verse twenty-one He mentions the Temple.  In verse twenty-two He speaks of heaven and the throne of God. 

Through this entire sequence, Jesus has moved out of and back into the Temple.  As was said, this movement can only be seen if the Temple is kept in view, and it only comes together after hearing Him speak all the way to the end of the twenty-second verse.  When Jesus mentions the kingdom of heaven, He speaks of the holy of holies and the place in which the Ark of the Covenant is supposed to be resting (though it was not there at that time)---where the Creator God would come down to sit, as if on His throne, to dwell with His people.  By mentioning the Temple, He moves outside of the holy of holies to the holy place, for it is the holy place, which housed the holy of holies, that was thought of as the Temple proper.  Jesus then mentions the altar, which was positioned outside of the holy place in the Temple court.  In His conclusion He speaks of the altar that sits outside of the holy place, then the Temple (the holy place), and finally heaven and the throne of the Creator God, which is an unmistakable reference to the holy of holies and the throne-like lid of the Ark of the Covenant. 

Veil Of The Temple (part 4)

When Solomon constructs the first temple, not only are there images of cherubim included in the design of the separating curtain, but representations of cherubim are to be found throughout the temple.  “In the inner sanctuary he made two cherubs of olive wood; each stood fifteen feet high” (1 Kings 6:23).  Their wingspans were also said to be fifteen feet (6:24-25), so that their wings reached out to touch the walls (6:27).  These cherubim would have shined brilliantly, as they were overlaid with gold (6:28).  Though the temple did not have curtains all around it, as did the tabernacle, Solomon still made it a point to mimic the decorative cherubim of the tabernacle curtains, carving cherubim into the walls, into the doors, and into the stands for the large basin. 

When the temple was completed and the Ark was brought into the most holy place, it is pointed out that “The cherub’s wings extended over the place where the ark sat; the cherubs overshadowed the ark and its poles” (8:7).  Of course, the reader goes on to learn that Solomon did this because his father, David, “gave him the blueprint for the seat of the gold cherubim that spread their wings and provide shelter for the ark of the Lord’s covenant” (1 Chronicles 28:18b).  Naturally, in its recapitulation of a portion of Israel’s history, the second book of the Chronicles also details the construction of Solomon’s temple, with numerous references to the cherubim to be seen there.      

Many years later, when Hezekiah and the southern kingdom of Judah are threatened by the Assyrians, Hezekiah is said to have went to the temple and prayed to the “Lord God of Israel, Who is enthroned on the cherubs!” (2 King 19:15a)  The Psalms speak of cherubim (80:1,99:1).  Isaiah calls upon the “Lord Who commands armies, O God of Israel, Who is enthroned on the cherubim!” (37:16a).  Though in a different way, cherubim feature prominently in Ezekiel’s prophecy.  Though there is no veil with cherubim in the vision of Ezekiel’s temple, representations of cherubim are still to be found there.  Finally, cherubim make their way into the New Testament, being referenced in the letter to the Hebrews, where the author writes, taking in the full scope of cherubic presentations, of “the cherubim of glory overshadowing the mercy seat” (9:5). 

Why all this talk of cherubim?  Were these people just very fond of all things angelic, or are the people of the Creator God to be reminded of something quite specific each and every time they hear about and see these cherubim?  These are good and important questions.  With these numerous and regular presentations of cherubim, what was it that was being communicated to the covenant people?  When they would see the cherubim, what is it that would spring to mind?  These questions can likewise be posed for the veil.  As one considers the veil of the temple, along with the veil of the tabernacle, what was it that made the veil so important?  It would seem to be obvious that it was something that served to keep the Creator God’s people from the place where He was to be encountered.  It seems to have been designed to limit their fellowship with their God. 

One can know from the Scriptural narrative that a promise that had been made by the Creator God was the promise to meet with Moses, and the High Priest of His people, above the mercy seat of the Ark of the Covenant, between what must be considered to be guardian cherubim.  This meeting between cherubim took place behind the veil that was adorned with guardian cherubim.  This forces an observer to reflect upon and consider where it is that cherubim are first introduced into the narrative.  Where does this take place?  To obtain that answer, it is necessary to look to the book of Genesis.  There, in the third chapter, it can be read that “When He drove the man out, He placed on the eastern side of the orchard in Eden angelic sentries who used the flame of a whirling sword to guard the way to the tree of life” (3:24).  Those angelic sentries, of course, were cherubim. 

Noah & Abraham (part 1 of 2)

By faith Noah, when he was warned about things not yet seen, with reverent regard constructed an ark for the deliverance of his family.  Through faith he condemned the world and became an heir of the righteousness that comes by faith. – Hebrews 11:7  (NET)

Such an interesting character, this Noah fellow.  The story of him and his ark is one that people have loved to tell.  It is a fascinating tale of the Creator God’s judgment upon wickedness through the flooding of the world, along with the miraculous preservation of the pairs of animals, as the animals, along with Noah and his family, rested safely in the ark.  Here in the epistle to the Hebrews, as indicated by our text, the reader comes to learn something quite interesting about Noah.  It is learned that “he was warned about things not yet seen.” 

Essentially, in this, though these “things not yet seen” was an alert concerning a coming event that was ultimately a negative event, a promise about something to come was shared with Noah.  Having received this warning, Noah, “with reverent regard constructed an ark for the deliverance of his family.”  So Noah, though he could not look out and see what his God had promised, as the writer of the Hebrews letter indicates (thus sharing the common perception of the Noah story in that day), responded in faith to the promise by building an ark for the purpose of delivering his family.  We can also hear the author speaking according to the over-arching exile and exodus motif that seems to pervade the understanding of those that would compose Scripture, as an exile of judgment (flood) was at hand, but the Creator God provides an exodus (deliverance via the ark). 

According to this writer, what was the result of this response of faith from Noah?  Reflecting what can be understood to be a then-prevalent interpretation of the Noah tradition, the reader is informed that “he,” that being Noah, “condemned the world,” but more importantly for our purposes here, through this response of faith to what was understood to be the unseen promise of his God, Noah “became an heir of the righteousness that comes by faith.”

Because Scripture must be read with the entire narrative in mind, and because a purported recipient of the epistle to the Hebrews would hear the text with a mind shaped by the story of Israel (as should be the case for any that confess Jesus as Lord), this statement about Noah would (and should) immediately call someone to mind.  Of whom is the hearer/reader reminded?  Naturally, the reader quickly realizes that this statement about Noah make him sound a lot like Abraham. 

That said, if one was to look into the fourth chapter of Romans, and thus see a first century reckoning (through the lens of the Christ-event) of how the story of Abraham was then perceived (not necessarily using Romans as a vehicle for the interpretation of Hebrews), what is it that could be found there in regards to Abraham?  One would read “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness” (4:3b).  With this, of course, the Apostle Paul is quoting from the fifteenth chapter of the book of Genesis, which would function to call to mind the entirety of that chapter, and indeed the entire Abraham story, as said chapter plays a crucial role in that story. 

Before one can look to that particular portion of Genesis, however, there is a need to know why this is said of Abraham.  In chapter of twelve of Genesis, the Creator God is reported to have spoken to the man that was then named Abram, saying “Go out from your country, your relatives, and your father’s household to the land that I will show you.  Then I will make you into a great nation, and I will bless you, and I will make your name great, so that you will exemplify divine blessing” (12:1b-2).  Here, and though the story of Noah chronologically and Scripturally precedes the story of Abraham, because knowledge of the story of Noah is contingent on knowledge of the story of Abraham, and because the story of Noah, for the covenant people of God, can be interpreted through the story of Abraham, one could safely pause and say that Noah, in the salvation that God offered to him, most assuredly exemplified divine blessing. 

God In The Camp

“A god has come into the camp” – 1 Samuel 4:7b  (ESV)

In the fourth chapter of the first book of Samuel, as part of the story by which Israel understood itself, defined itself, and presented itself to the nations, we read that “Israel went out to battle against the Philistines” (4:1b).  The battle did not go well.  “Israel was defeated by the Philistines” (4:2b).  It is said that four thousand men of Israel were killed.  Naturally, the elders of Israel were quite distraught about this situation, and they wondered why the battle went the way that it did.  They asked, “Why has the Lord defeated us today before the Philistines?” (4:3b)  Such an interesting question.  They understood themselves to be God’s covenant people, with an internal understanding of promises of victory in battle as they gained and maintained dominion over their land of promise, so the cause for loss in battle was to be searched for outside of the sheer strength of their enemies.  For that reason, they speak of their defeat as having been wrought by the Lord, rather than by the Philistines themselves.

The question is followed by a declaration, as they said, “Let us bring the ark of the covenant of the Lord here from Shiloh, that it may come among us and save us from the power of our enemies” (4:3b).  At first glance, this seems like the correct response, and the right thing to do; but if we look carefully, we’ll notice that they are not necessarily on the right track, which will be borne out by what we find happening in just a few verses.  Though they rightfully put things in the Lord’s hand by asking why it was that the Lord had defeated them before the Philistines, when they shift to speaking about the next steps to take, the language subtly shifts.  They talk of bringing “the ark of the covenant of the Lord” to this place of battle, but then say that they are going to do this, not so that the Lord of the covenant will be with them and save them, but that “it,” that being the ark itself, that “it may come among us and save us from the power of our enemies.”   

“So the people sent to Shiloh and brought from there the ark of the covenant of the Lord of hosts, Who is enthroned on the cherubim” (4:4a).  Here, we can’t help but make a note of the fact that great, swelling words are used to describe the ark, and speak of the Lord of hosts, but in the midst of that, we cannot forget the words that were previously spoken.  In bringing the ark, they have plainly said that they expect the ark to save them from the power of their enemies, rather than the Lord Whose faithful and covenant fulfilling power the ark represents.  Also, the fact is almost comically mentioned that “the two sons of Eli. Hophni and Phinehas, were there with the ark of the covenant of God” (4:4b).  Right there, we have a clue that things are not going to go well for Israel here, because these two guys are not spoken of very highly.  In fact, they are referred to as “worthless men,” who “did not know the Lord” (1 Samuel 2:12).  They “treated the offerings of the Lord with contempt” (2:17b), and they would “lay with the women who were serving at the entrance to the tent of meeting” (2:22b).  We are told that “it was the will of the Lord to put them to death” (2:25b), and that “both of them shall die on the same day” (2:34b).    The men going to battle, with the ark or without the ark, would have been well-advised to keep these two far from them. 

So, “As soon as the ark of the covenant of the Lord came into the camp, all Israel gave a mighty shout” (4:5a).  They were so excited that the ark had come into the camp.  Not the Lord, but the ark.  Now, the ark may have been thought to be, as the ultimate focal point of Israel’s portable temple, the actual resting place of their God.  Therefore, in a sense, the bringing of the ark into the camp may have been, in their mind, the same as bringing the Lord into the camp, but it seems that the text as a whole does not want to convey this idea. 

The Philistines heard this and said, “What does this great shouting in the camp of the Hebrews mean?” (4:6b).  Making inquiries, “they learned that the ark of the Lord had come to the camp” (4:6c), and “the Philistines were afraid” (4:7a).  Why were they afraid?  Reinforcing the “resting place” concept, they thought “A god has come into the camp” (4:7b).  They were right.  A god had come into the camp.  Not the God, but a god.  The ark had come into the camp, and the Israelites looked to the ark, rather than looking to or remembering the Lord of the ark.  The Philistines were right in saying that a god had come into the camp, because Israel had reduced the ark of the Lord into nothing more than an idol.  Because of this, and bearing out the idea that the author wants to convey the idolatry and its associated problems that would lead to Israel being defeated by its enemies, “the Philistines fought, and Israel was defeated, and they fled, every man to his home.  And there was a very great slaughter, for there fell of Israel thirty thousand foot soldiers.  And the ark of God was captured, and the two sons of Eli, Hophni and Phinehas, died” (4:10-11). 

In the first battle, only four thousand died.  Once the idolatry of Israel in regards to the ark was manifest, which is that which always brought God’s judgment upon them and upon all of His covenant people in accordance with the promises of His covenant faithfulness, thirty thousand died and Israel was stripped of that which had become little more than an idol.    

Blessed Because Of The Covenant

And it was told to King David, “The Lord has blessed the household of Obed-edom and all that belongs to him, because of the ark of God.” – 2 Samuel 6:12a  (ESV)

The Ark of the Covenant, and it is always crucial to remember that the Ark was the Ark of the “Covenant,” had been placed in the house of Obed-edom because of the death of a man named Uzzah.  The Ark was being transported on a cart---which was contrary to the way in which the God of the Ark had commanded it to be carried.  During the course of that transportation, Uzzah, for reasons that are not terribly important as it relates to this study, touched the Ark.  Without getting into an analysis of whether or not God was justified in His response, “the anger of the Lord was kindled against Uzzah, and God struck him down there because of his error, and he died there beside the ark of God” (6:7). 

King David was angry at the Lord’s response, while also being afraid of the power and responsibility clearly represented by the Ark, of which it was said that the Lord dwelt between its cherubim.  His response was to say, “How can the ark of the Lord come to me?” (6:9b).  In light of that, “David was not willing to take the ark of the Lord into the city of David.  But David took it aside to the house of Obed-edom the Gittite.  And the ark of the Lord remained in the house of Obed-edom the Gittite three months” (6:10-11a). 

Interestingly, the man that at one point in time was said to “after God’s own heart” (though this would cease to the case) was fearful.  However, because of the presence of the Ark in his home, “the Lord blessed Obed-edom and all his household” (6:11b).  This should not be an unexpected or surprising turn of events.  Remember, this is the Ark of the Covenant.  What Covenant?  The Covenant that God had extended to His people, which was the Covenant into which He had brought Abraham.  The result of that Covenant with Abraham, through the dissemination of the knowledge of the Covenant God, was to be the blessing of all peoples, so we should not be surprised to find that the presence of the Ark, which represented the presence of the Covenant God, resulted in a blessing for this man and the entirety of his household.  Indeed, what would be most surprising is if this was not found to be the case.  It is of the utmost importance, so it bears repeating, to make the connection that his household was blessed because of the ark.  Though the nature of the blessing is not reported, the narrative informs us that the household was blessed because of the presence of that which represented God and His Covenant. 

How does this relate to us, to the covenant people of the Covenant God, in this day?  The connection is fairly obvious.  The people of God, who are those that have received and believed the New Covenant message, that being the message of the Gospel that Jesus is Lord, find themselves as the Ark of God.  Just as the Ark of the Covenant represented God and His Covenant, so too do those who have been moved to a belief and loyal confession of the sovereign and cosmic Lordship of Jesus Christ.  The Ark was the locus of God’s presence, just as Jesus Himself was ultimately understood to become the locus of God’s presence (in embodiment and as the new Temple).  In a believer’s union with Christ, which is not necessarily mystical, but primarily the confession of Jesus as Lord (by which one joins with the covenant people in unity), and which makes itself manifest in deeds of love and mercy, believers (Christians) are the ongoing Ark of God, the locus of God’s presence, and that which represents the Covenant of God. 

Because of this, we should not be in the least bit surprised to find that the presence of God’s covenant people, seeking to extend and establish Christ’s kingdom through the preaching of the Gospel and the sacrificial works of uncalculating love that such preaching demands (as all is accomplished through the engaging power of the Holy Spirit), brings blessings in both the natural and the spiritual.  If one was to follow the broad Scriptural narrative and seize on a markedly recurring theme, this blessing would take the form of the care of orphans and widows.   What would and should be astonishing is if we found a lack of such blessing (and its evidences) associated with the presence of believers and the presentation of the Gospel (Jesus is Lord).  Just as it was the presence of the Ark in his house, and its attendant message of the faithful working of the Covenant God, that brought blessing, so it should always be the case with the presence of those who trust in the message of the Gospel and its attendant message of the faithful working of the Covenant God through Christ, through the message about Him, and through loving imitation of His way of suffering and sacrifice. 

If the message of the Gospel did not manifest itself in such ways, would we truly be able to honestly and sincerely speak of the power that brought forth Christ from the dead and of its effectiveness for transformation and for renewal?  This is the essence of the life of the age to come (the power of heaven, eternal life, the life of the Spirit), in which we share and by which we live here and now, and not merely in a post-mortem hopefulness based on the deeds of the present.  This is the essence of the manifestation of the Resurrection power by which we and all of creation are restored to new life, both now and in the future.  The presence of the people of the Covenant that was inaugurated in Christ is supposed to result in the blessing of the household of all mankind, as the power of God goes forth in and through them.  This is the blessing of the Covenant.    

God Of Tents (part 3 of 4)

Now at this point these are merely the words of Isaac.  However, we do know that the blessing of Isaac will eventually be confirmed and become the blessing of the Lord, as the Lord will take it upon Himself to extend the status of covenant-bearer to Jacob.  It is with this confirmation in mind that we can now make an application to the Temple. 

Jacob’s “living in tents” lets us know that the one who now represents the Lord is to be found in a tent.  This was true of Abraham and Isaac as well.  They had no permanent dwelling.  After the exodus, the covenant people of Israel that were dwelling in tents, built an Ark that represented the presence of their covenant God in their midst.  This Ark was housed in the tabernacle---a tent.  So on a very fundamental level, the impermanent nature of the dwellings of those that bore the covenant, and who were then tasked to be a blessing to all nations as they enjoyed the blessings of God and to do so in a way that would cause people to recognize the majestic and all-encompassing rule and true power of their God, fits quite well with God’s desire that man “Fill the earth and subdue it!” (Genesis 1:28b), and to “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth” (9:1b).  God wants those that are His image-bearers and covenant-bearers (as both Adam and Noah are tasked with certain covenants) to spread throughout the whole of creation, to remind the creation of His glory, and to rightly worship Him (in whatever way that all that God has created can function to worship Him). 

We have seen that this occurs to an extent, but that man then takes it upon himself to discontinue this operation for the purposes of building a tower that will reach to the heavens, and to gather around that tower so that they will not “be scattered across the face of the entire earth” (11:4b).  This stood in direct contrast to that which God had instructed man to do, which is why it provoked such a dramatic response, with that response by God said to have “scattered them from there across the face of the entire earth” (11:8a), which is precisely what God had desired in the first place.  Even this “punishment” was evidence of God’s covenant faithfulness, as He was at work to accomplish His redemptive purposes for a fallen world.  We should then not think it a coincidence that this event is immediately followed by the exodus-ing call of Abraham, and of God’s covenant with him, and through him, for the world. 

When it comes to rightly representing Him, it seems that God desires movement and a constant state of readiness for movement, whereas man seems inclined to want to settle down in one place.  God wants man to represent Him throughout the whole of His creation, indicating to that creation that He is the Lord and ruler of the whole, whereas man wants to gain a piece of territory for himself, establish his own rule there, and then invite God to show forth His power in that place, so as to provide divine sanction for that rule that man has achieved.  That seems to be something of the dichotomy between the tabernacle and the Temple.  The tabernacle served as a mobile and portable reminder of the whole of the story from creation to exodus, was a witness to the covenant call to be blessing to all nations, and reminded God’s people of the constant movement of their covenant-bearing forefathers.  That story is one of a constant going out.  Though it will be constructed in the mold of the tabernacle, the Temple struggles to convey such things. 

The first command that was given to man, when God said to “fill the earth,” effectively said to “go out.”  After their transgression, God sent Adam and Eve out of the garden.  Though this was an unfortunate result of that transgression, God did not send them out of the world, so we can presume that the requirement to fill the earth and subdue it was unchanged.  Ultimately, God sent Noah and his family out of the ark, with the familiar command to fill the earth.  Abraham was sent out from his family to go and be a blessing.  The many movements and “goings-out” of Abraham and Isaac are well-chronicled in Scripture.  In the New Testament, Jesus will command His disciples to go out to take His teaching of the arrival of the kingdom of God to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.  After His Resurrection, He would then command that same group of men, to go into all the world with the message of His crucifixion, Resurrection, and Lordship.  When Jesus called His disciples, He circumvented the common practice of the gathering of disciples, which was that men would choose for themselves a rabbi under which they would learn, and then go and sit at his feet.  Instead, He went out and called men to Himself, and He did this even though He had no place to lay His head.  In a sense, it could be said that Jesus, who was most assuredly the bearer of the divine covenant, and who referred to Himself as the very Temple of God (destroy this Temple and in three days I will raise it up), lived in tents, having no permanent place of dwelling. 

God Of Tents (part 1 of 4)

When the boys grew up, Esau became a skilled hunter, a man of the open fields, but Jacob was an even-tempered man, living in tents. – Genesis 25:27  NET

At first glance, this simple statement doesn’t seem all that significant, and has all the appearances of a basic relaying of biographical information concerning Esau and Jacob.  When we read something like “When the boys grew up, Esau became a skilled hunter, a man of the open fields, but Jacob was an even-tempered man, living in tents,” it might seem like the natural course of action would be to focus on the first piece of information concerning both of these men, drawing analogies based on the fact that Esau is described as a “skilled hunter,” with Jacob referred to as “even-tempered,” and from that, making applications to how we are supposed to live as people of the covenant God. 

That may be a useful exercise, but is not that which we will be doing here and now.  The far more compelling information is found in the second part of the biographical statements, in which we are told that Esau is “a man of the open fields,” whilst Jacob was “living in tents.”  This becomes an important statement when considered within the light and context provided by the larger Scriptural narrative.  We must remember that the author of Genesis (presumed to be Moses---and we have no reason to argue that point, though it doesn’t really matter for our purposes) is here recounting the foundational history of man in general, and of Israel in particular.  The record of what are commonly known as the five books of Moses indicate that he was doing these things while Israel was living in the wilderness between Egypt and Canaan, following their exodus, during the forty years of wandering that was imposed upon them by God because of their basic lack of trust in Him.  At that time, Israel was dwelling in tents.  The Ark of the Covenant was housed in a tent.  Moses met with the Lord in a tent.  Because of the repeated filling of the tabernacle with the cloud of the presence of the Lord, it could be said that God Himself was also dwelling in a tent.  Looking further down the road, it will be said that in the Messiah, God would and did strike a tent in human flesh so as to tabernacle with His own creation.  In that context, it becomes singularly interesting that the trade of the Apostle Paul was that of tent-maker. 

As we can broadly reflect on Genesis and consider that tents are routinely mentioned inside and along with the stories of Abraham and Isaac, we can consider that there is something significant about tents.  Not only were the tents of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Israel instrumental in better facilitating their regular movement, that they might be better positioned to become a blessing to the multiplied peoples of the earth, but the tents would also serve as an ongoing reminder of their exile and their exodus.  For Israel, as the narrative that leads up to Exodus and the beginnings of Israel’s history as a distinct people is compiled, the tents of the Genesis narrative take on a particular importance.  This is especially so when we consider the yearly Feast of Tabernacles, when the nation is required to take up residence in tents, as an explicit reminder of their exodus and its associated time in the wilderness. 

It is simply amazing to consider how much importance is given to Israel’s Egyptian exodus within the history of the nation, with the reminder provided by the feasts of Tabernacles and the Passover, not to mention the regular recitation of the people’s history, and the near constant reference to Egypt in the mouths of Israel’s judges, and prophets.  Because Jacob is the immediate father of the nation of Israel, with the fact that his name is changed from Jacob to Israel providing witness to that fact, we are not left to wonder at the reason for this mentioning of Jacob as one who lived in tents.  For Israel, it would provide a sustaining and encouraging link to the past and to their forefathers, as they, though they were the covenant people and were in possession of a promise of a specific land of their own, dwelt in tents in a desert during the time of Moses’ leadership.  So this becomes a very useful connection in fanning the flames of hope amongst the people of Israel. 

Because the Biblical record presents us with relatively short and fleeting periods of time in which Israel is actually in controlling possession of the promised land (implicitly near the end of Joshua’s leadership; sporadically during the time of the judges;  consistently during the time of the united monarchy kingdom monarchy of Saul, David, and Solomon; and tenuously throughout the entire period of the divided kingdom), and that apart from the reign of Solomon, this control is always challenged by enemies on various sides, the tents serve a purpose well beyond the time in the wilderness, always reminding promised-land-occupying-Israel of possible exile and triumphant exodus, and ideally, of its responsibility to be a blessing to the nations in spite of its perceived difficulties.  

Carrying The Ark

As David celebrates his arrival upon the kingship, reveling in the fulfillment of the much-anticipated promise of God, he makes a decision to bring the Ark of the Covenant to Jerusalem.  “They loaded the Ark of God on a new cart and carried it” (2 Samuel 6:3a) in that way.  Unfortunately for David, this was contrary to the way in which the Ark was to be carried, according to the prescriptions provided in the writings of Moses.  The Ark was not to be transported on a cart, but rather, carried by Levites on poles.  What David and his men were doing was contrary to God’s commandments, so regardless of the fact that “David and all Israel were energetically celebrating before the Lord, singing and playing various stringed instruments, tambourines, rattles, and cymbals (6:5), God was not pleased. 

One is lead to think of the words of the prophet---words that would come later in Israel’s history, through which God would say, “I absolutely despise your festivals!  I get no pleasure from your religious assemblies!  Even if you offer Me burnt and grain offerings, I will not be satisfied; I will not look with favor on your peace offerings of fattened calves.  Take away from Me your noisy songs; I don’t want to hear the music of your stringed instruments” (Amos 5:21-23).  Even though Israel was singing and dancing and praising God, because the Ark was not being transported according to God’s commandments, it was all pointless, and surely, something of a stench to God, as man was, once again, doing things his own way. 

What resulted from this improper carrying?  “When they arrived at the threshing floor of Nacon, Uzzah reached out and grabbed hold of the Ark of God, because the oxen stumbled” (6:6).  On the surface, this was a good thing, as he wanted to protect the Ark from damage.  However, it was only necessary because the Ark was not being properly transported, and therefore, was only necessary because of the violation of God’s commands.  What happened to Uzzah?  “The Lord was so furious with Uzzah, He killed him on the spot for his negligence” (6:7a).  What we would initially think of as his efforts at being a responsible steward, is viewed by God as negligence because of his participation in the violation of clear commands.  “He died right there beside the Ark of God” (7:7b).  What was it that Uzzah experienced?  More than just simply going down into death, which is quite obvious, he experienced exile.  Not only that, but “David was afraid of the Lord that day and said, ‘How will the Ark of the Lord ever come to me?’  So David was no longer willing to bring the Ark of the Lord to be with him in the City of David.  David left it in the house of Obed-Edom the Gittite for three months” (6:9-10).  Here, the Ark, in a sense, is sent into exile, even though while it resided in that house, “The Lord blessed Obed-Edom and all his family” (6:11b).  This man experienced exodus, while Uzzah and David (to an extent, as he misses out on God’s blessings for a period of time) experienced exile in connection with the Ark. 

Are we right in assigning the theme of exile and exodus to this situation?  It would seem so, especially as the covenant curses of Deuteronomy, which end in shame and exile and death, are said to be brought “if you ignore the Lord your God and are not careful to keep all His commandments and statutes” (28:15a).  Clearly, the issue of the Ark’s mode of movement stood in violation of those commandments, and therefore the curse of death came because of the lack of careful keeping. 

After David was told that “The Lord has blessed Obed-Edom and everything he owns because of the Ark of God” (6:12a), he “went and joyfully brought the ark of God…to the City of David” (6:12b).  This time, however, it was going to be carried properly, with even extra care (as demonstrated by the sacrifices being made every six steps), and therefore the singing, dancing, praising, and sacrifices were going to be pleasing to the Lord.  Then, “As the Ark of the Lord entered the City of David, Saul’s daughter Michal (David’s wife) looked out the window.  When she saw King David leaping and dancing before the Lord, she despised him” (6:16).  Michal looked upon David with contempt, and with her despising of him and saying “How the king of Israel has distinguished himself this day!  He has exposed himself today before his servants’ slave girls the way a vulgar fool might do” (6:20b), she is cursing him with words related to exile. 

However, because David knows that he is in the midst of God’s blessing (exodus) in spite of these words from his wife, he revels in what she sees as exile, seizing upon her statement and utilizing words of exile and saying “I am willing to shame and humiliate myself even more than this!” (6:22a)  Michal wants David to suffer humiliation and shame (figurative of death), but ultimately David experiences the vindication of God, experiencing a figurative resurrection when he says “with the slave girls whom you mentioned let me be distinguished!” (6:22b)  Ultimately, we find that the one that referenced the shame of exile is the one that experiences that very thing, as “Michal, Saul’s daughter, had no children to the day of her death” (6:23), which in that day was thought of as a curse, with both childlessness and shame being equivalent to death.