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. 

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.