Speaking In Tongues (part 27)

Bearing in mind the way that an assembly-wide engagement in ecstatic speech would be viewed by the outsider, along with the importance attached to public speech acts (as those deemed to be most honorable are those that would be permitted to speak in the assembly of an association), and building on his statement that “Prophecy… is not for unbelievers, but for believers” (1 Corinthians 14:22b), Paul goes on to write “But if all prophesy, and an unbeliever or uninformed person enters, he will be convicted by all, he will be called to account by all” (14:24a). 

Does this mean that those prophesying are convicting the unbelieving or uninformed visitor to the association of their sins, of their immoral lifestyle, or of their need to “get saved”?  Perhaps, but these would most likely be secondary convictions, discussed as fellowship and relationship is established. 

As the Christian assembly is to be a lived-out model of the kingdom of the Creator God in the world (a free association of equality as a mutually beneficial fellowship of Jews, Gentiles, men, women, slave, and free that actively disavows honor and the pursuit of the world’s ideal of honor, with the only “competition” geared to taking the lowest place as others are preferred above oneself), the unbeliever or uninformed will enter upon the Christian assembly and see something with which they are entirely unfamiliar. 

They would experience that which they could experience in no other place and in no other setting (apart from other Christian assemblies), for the Christians there gathered were worshiping a Lord like no other.  This worship extended beyond the pouring out of a drink offering to their god, and beyond a performance (or multiple performances) of ecstatic speech with interpretation, but extended to the point that those that are serving and those that are sitting at the lowest places are those that the unbeliever or uninformed person would, based upon knowledge of the position of certain individuals within their community, expect to see seated at the places of honor, receiving the best food and drink, presiding over the assembly, being listened to attentively as purveyors of wisdom and knowledge through eloquent speech, speaking in tongues, and interpreting tongues.  This, however, most assuredly to their surprised eyes, would not be the case. 

The church would provide a living, breathing, counter-cultural witness to the claims that those same Christians would be making outside of their assemblies and in interaction with the members of their community.  The church body, in which all prophesy regardless of their social standing (without even getting in to what exactly constitutes prophecy), engaging in what would generally be considered to be an honor-based or honor-gathering public speech act, without distinction or division, from what would be perceived to be the lowest place to the highest place, with all given equal standing and equal attention within the community, would certainly bring conviction.  In addition, the assembly in which all share equally in food and drink, which would be the most common indicator, apart from seating position, of social status, would certainly convict an untrained onlooker.  

Speaking In Tongues (part 25)

So though tongues are a sign for unbelievers, in at least the ways that have been here discussed, it is in this context that Paul has indicated that prophecy is for believers.  How and why is this so?  It is because prophecy serves to strengthen the church, which, by definition, are those that call Jesus Lord.  It is those that call Jesus Lord who constitute the church, and therefore it is they who are the believers. 

An unbeliever is not a component of the church, so they are not necessarily going to be concerned with making the Creator God’s kingdom present, though they may be physically present in the assembly (attending a church service is distinct from being a member of the entity that is understood as the body of Christ).  The activity of prophecy however, because all are encouraged to participate without regard to position or status or honor (with no divisions at the table as befitting the messianic banquet which the church is called to model), should make a substantial impression on the unbeliever, which is something that will be addressed by Paul.   

The twenty-third verse begins with “So if the whole church comes together and all speak in tongues” (1 Corinthians 14:23a).  Stopping right there, it must be said that this would be quite the unusual event.  It would be well outside the normal range of religious experience to have the entire assembly of an association demonstrating glossolalia.  In the recorded history of this type of activity, the ecstatic utterances associated with the idea of being possessed by the spirit of a god, it was always a limited occurrence.  As one understands that honor was a limited good, and that honor would accrue to the individual or individuals said to be employed by the god for communication that was in need of interpretation, it is more than sensible that the activity would be a limited to a select few individuals and would not occur prolifically or haphazardly.  Such a thing would be quite novel.   

Now if speaking in tongues was being used to create a spiritual hierarchy within the kingdom of the covenant God, this makes it possible to easily comprehend why there may have been a desire on the part of each person to engage in the practice, especially if this was the very Creator God, who had inhabited physical form in the person of Jesus of Nazareth, now speaking through another person by His Spirit. 

If the Creator God had taken human form in the person of His Messiah, and if that Messiah had been resurrected from the dead and was being proclaimed as having received all power and all authority as Lord of all, and if that God was now speaking through another human by means of ecstatic utterances, then it is not at all difficult to understand why an entire congregation would have wanted to be viewed as the human vessel somehow inhabited by that God.  If one thinks along these lines, and if this way of thinking represents reasonable speculations, then one is not left to wonder at the particular elevation of those that spoke in tongues.

Speaking In Tongues (part 24)

Skipping over a few verses (though the skipped verses do mention speaking in tongues), brings this study to the twenty-second verse where Paul writes “So then, tongues are a sign not for believers but for unbelievers” (1 Corinthians 14:22a).  What does Paul mean by this?  Inevitably, this runs back to the fact that the activity of speaking in tongues, as if possessed by the spirit of a god, is not an uncommon feature of a religiously-oriented assembly and would not be an unexpected component of an association that honored a particular god, as did the Christians. 

Offering up some reasonable conjecture, one might be able to propose that those that joined in as observers or casual witnesses of the meal-based Christian assembly, and were thereby placed in a position in which they witnessed such activity, would be aided in their realization that the Christians worshiped a god by the name of Jesus (a god that was crucified and said to be resurrected).  Furthermore, in witnessing the nature of the activity around the meal table of the association that honored this god Jesus, whose story was substantially different than that of any other god of which they might be acquainted, the radically different social order (no obvious honor-based distinctions) that was to be on display in the assembly would be inescapable.  Finally, when excessive honor was not conferred upon the ecstatic speaker, the unbeliever would be curious as to this diversion from accepted social practices. 

The second half of the twenty-second verse has Paul writing “Prophecy, however, is not for unbelievers, but for believers” (14:22b).  This, of course, is a speaking forth of the word of the Creator God (generally calling the covenant people or powers-that-be to account for their failures to live up to their respective obligations, and often using veiled language).  As usual, one does not approach these particular words independently of, or in isolation from the other mentions of prophecy within the same train of thought, but hears them in the context that has been created for them. 

Returning then to the first verse of the chapter, one is reminded of the instruction to “Pursue love and be eager for the spiritual gifts, especially that you may prophesy.”  In verse three: “the one who prophesies speaks to people for their strengthening, encouragement, and consolation.”  In verse four, “the one who prophesies builds up the church.”  In verse five, with a contrast built upon what has been said about the strengthening of the church, one finds “I wish you all spoke in tongues, but even more than you would prophesy,” with the attachment of verse six, which then reads “The one who prophesies is greater,” because the result is “the church may be strengthened.” 

Paul has already encouraged them to abound in manifestations of the Spirit of the Creator God for the purpose of strengthening the church (14:12), with that strengthening also encompassing the previously mentioned encouragement and consolation, clearly connected to prophecy, and all of it has been done in the context of pursuing the most-to-be-honored gift of self-sacrificial love that has been highlighted in the thirteenth chapter. 

Speaking In Tongues (part 22)

This benefit of the body is a component of Paul’s continued focus on the issue of speaking in tongues.  He continues: “There are probably many kinds of languages in the world, and none is without meaning.  If I then I do not know the meaning of a language, I will be a foreigner to the speaker and the speaker a foreigner to me.  It is the same for you” (1 Corinthians 14:10-12a).  There might be a tendency to get hung up on these words, with an attempt to discern if Paul is indicating that the ecstatic speech is more than just a string of incomprehensible syllables. 

This mention of “languages” may prod some to compare the ecstatic speech being practiced in the Corinthian church with the events of the second chapter of Acts, in which the disciples “were filled with the Holy Spirit, and they began to speak in other languages as the Spirit enabled them” (Acts 2:4).  This is often seen as a proof text for justification of the practice.  It is not likely that Paul had justification of the practice of speaking in tongues in mind.  After all, it was a historically accepted and understood religious practice, and it did no harm unless it caused divisions in the church.  So the nature of the speech was not Paul’s abiding concern. 

With the words quoted, it is Paul’s use of “foreigner” that should grab attention.  Because he is dealing with activities that take place within the assembly, someone being made to feel like a “foreigner” would be problematic.  An attendee may feel cut off from the proceedings, feeling as if there are components of what is there taking place of which they may be unworthy in some way.  Any feelings of isolation or distance from the fellowship of the assembled church would militate against unity.  Of course, this commentary by Paul runs back to the question asked in the sixth verse, which was “Now, brothers and sisters, if I come to you speaking in tongues, how will I help you unless I speak to you with a revelation or prophecy or teaching?” 

Once again, the issue is being helpful to the body.  This question is nicely bookended by the remainder of verse twelve, which read “Since you are eager for manifestations of the Spirit, seek to abound in order to strengthen the church” (14:12b).  Indeed, if there is a desire to abound in manifestations of the Spirit, those manifestations should abound in such a manner that the church is strengthened.  It is this that is Paul’s abiding concern. 

Paul is not surprised by the ecstatic utterances, nor is he about to limit the manifestation of the Spirit to the same.  For Paul, the evidence of the presence of the Creator God’s Spirit, regardless of the activity in which one is engaged, is the strengthening of the church.  This can be accomplished in an unimaginable number of ways, which is what makes it absolutely impossible to create lists of the gifts of God’s Spirit.  To the end of strengthening the church in connection with speaking in tongues, Paul goes on to write “So then, one who speaks in a tongue should pray that he may interpret” (14:13).  To that he adds: “If I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind is unproductive” (14:14). 

This is not new ground.  Speaking in tongues, as an accepted and widespread religious practice that was understood to be the result of a god taking over the mind of a worshiper, was looked at in this way.  So Paul asks: “What should I do?” (14:15a)  He answers his own question with “I will pray with my spirit, but I will also pray with my mind.  I will sing praises with my spirit, but I will also sing praises with my mind” (14:15b).  Paul is not devaluing speaking in tongues by contrasting mind and spirit, nor is he elevating activity that is mind oriented.  He is simply discussing speaking in tongues as it was then widely understood. 

Speaking In Tongues (part 21)

The community of the Creator God and His Christ was not going to be divided or structured based on the abilities of teachers, ethnicity, wealth, or any other societal value, so it should certainly not allow for divisions based upon those things that are perceived to be randomly distributed gifts from that God and therefore even less appropriate as a basis for divisions than other societal constructs. 

Consequently, the use of these gifts is to be modeled upon the example of their Lord, enacted on the basis of love and self-sacrifice, as demonstrated at Jesus’ meal tables, His socially flattening activities (reaching out to lepers, tax collectors, children, women, Gentiles, etc…), and His cross.  Paul is adamant that these gifts are nothing without love and that they are of no real benefit unless they are being used to build up the entire community of believers, rather than just one or two people. 

With his words that have opened the fourteenth chapter, as they build on all that has come before, Paul relativizes that which is the most prized of their spiritual expressions, emphasizing prophecy in its stead.  Again, the contrast is stark.  Not only does prophecy have an entirely different motivation and outcome, but it seeks to communicate in comprehensible language.  This prompts a reconsidering of Paul’s insistence to “Pursue love and be eager for the spiritual gifts, especially that you may prophesy.”

Moving along to the sixth verse of this chapter, Paul writes “Now, brothers and sisters, if I come to you speaking in tongues, how will I help you unless I speak to you with a revelation or with knowledge or prophecy or teaching?” (1 Corinthians 14:6)  Now, it is worthwhile to take this opportunity to point out that “prophecy” is not simply the offering up of words concerning future events.  Prophecy is simply speaking the word of the Creator God or words about that God---that which reveals His character and teaches about His nature.  In the tradition of the Hebrew Scriptures, prophecy is often linked to calling powers to account and sharing what are presumed to be the thoughts of the covenant God concerning the activities of those that are in positions of power and responsibility.  

Likewise, one must not confine thinking about “revelation” to mysterious language, but must understand that the word that Paul uses is “apokalupsei,” or “apocalypse,” which basically means to “go behind the veil.”  Apocalyptic language is not restricted to the book of Revelation (officially known as “The Apocalypse”), but can be seen throughout Scripture, as it is employed to provide gravity to a subject, as the one that employs apocalyptic language attempts to communicate what he believes to be the Creator God’s perspective on events. 

Continuing with this thought, Paul writes “It is similar for lifeless things that make a sound, like a flute or harp.  Unless they make a distinction in the notes, how can what is played on the flute or harp be understood?  If, for example,” as Paul employs what would be a familiar example in his world (this is not necessarily a component of his eschatology), “the trumpet makes an unclear sound, who will get ready for battle?  It is the same for you.  If you do not speak clearly with your tongue, how will anyone know what is being said?  For you will be speaking into the air” (14:7-9).  As part of his battle against divisions in the body and the improper honorific elevation of those that speak in tongues, Paul asks how, if distinct language is not used, if instructions are unclear, knowledge is not being passed along, and the ecstatic speaker is simply speaking into the air (catch the shaming that is occurring), then how is the body benefited?     

Speaking In Tongues (part 20)

Why?  The reason is at least two-fold.  Paul wants all to prophesy because it leads to the strengthening, encouragement, and consolation of the entire body of believers, whereas ecstatic speech, historically among other religions and within this early church, generally leads to the elevation of one person above the rest.  With this sensibility created, it feels as if Paul engages in a bit of shaming of those that are vaunted or vaunting themselves owing to their glossolalia, writing “The one who prophesies is greater than the one who speaks in tongues, unless he interprets so that the church may be strengthened” (1 Corinthians 14:5c).  With this, it becomes apparent that interpretation was not a regular component of the glossolalia in Corinth.  Without interpretation, there could be no strengthening of the church, only of the individual, for it is interpretation that turns the ecstatic speech into prophecy.  Commensurately, the necessity of interpretation reduces the honor of the ecstatic speaker, as the interpreter is elevated in honor as well. 

Paul’s concern is with that which is good for the body, and ultimately, with that which brings honor to Jesus as Lord of all.  A strengthened body, rooted in equality and preference of others and completely unconcerned with honor and shame competitions, would accomplish this quite well.  With what can be heard from Paul, it becomes clear that some of the members of this church had highly elevated that which they referred to and classified as the “spiritual gifts,” which is reflected in what was probably their own list recited by Paul in chapter twelve.  Owing to the extensive treatment that it is going to receive, it appears that the ability to speak in tongues was the most prominent of those abilities---affording the highest degree of honor to those engaging in the activity. 

As has been made clear throughout this study, this particular spiritual activity was in no way confined to Christian gatherings, as it was an accepted religious practice of the day and for quite some time before Pentecost or the phenomenon of the church, so this does appear to be an instance of the believers of Corinth importing the values of their society into the gathering that was supposed to reflect their life in pursuit of the Creator God’s kingdom. 

It was not the practice that was problematic, or even the issue, or even Paul’s concern.  Rather, what was of concern to the Apostle were the values (pursuit of individual honor and status) that stood behind and motivated the practice that were the cause for concern.  As was said earlier, a common feature of religious assembly was the belief that a god could possess a believer or worshiper with their spirit, leading that person to communicate directly with the god in what sounded to onlookers and gathered hearers like unintelligible speech.  Paul echoes this common understanding with “the one speaking in a tongue does not speak to people but to God.” 

Unfortunately, what appears to be happening in this church is that the believers were allowing for the establishment of a new social hierarchy not unlike that with which they were familiar, and allowing for this on the basis of spiritual abilities---with those capable of speaking in tongues receiving the greatest honor.  Paul, as has been observed, takes great pains to repudiate this practice of creating social divisions on the basis of spiritual ability, while strongly emphasizing that these spiritual activities (even the limited list to which the Corinthian church seems to have confined and contented itself) are gifts from the Creator God and evidences of the presence of His individual-honor-eschewing kingdom.  

Speaking In Tongues (part 19)

With no break in continuity, Paul continues his line of thinking from chapter thirteen (which was continued from chapter twelve) into chapter fourteen and writes “Pursue love and be eager for the spiritual gifts, especially that you may prophesy” (1 Corinthians 14:1).  Why does Paul here highlight the activity of prophecy?  It is because “the one who prophesies speaks to people for their strengthening, encouragement, and consolation” (14:3).  The contrast to the one who prophesies, for this church, are those that are engaging in glossolalia.  Drawing out that contrast, Paul writes “the one speaking in a tongue does not speak to people but to God, for no one understands; he is speaking mysteries by the Spirit” (14:2). 

Because Paul is engaging in a rhetorical action here, it is not appropriate to isolate the statement here in verse two or in other verses.  It demands to be heard in context and in contrast.  So when one hears that “the one speaking in a tongue does not speak to people but to God,” and that “he is speaking mysteries by the Spirit,” the proper response is not to throw up ones hands in a glorious salute to the person so speaking, but rather, to hear it in juxtaposition to what Paul says about the one who prophesies, who “speaks to people for their strengthening, encouragement, and consolation.” 

This sufficiently directs attention away from a judgment call about the propriety of speaking in tongues, directing an observer instead to a consideration of the motivations for speaking in tongues.  With the honor accorded to public speech acts, and the honor that would be accorded to the person that is said to be possessed by the spirit of a god when engaging in the ecstatic and incomprehensible speech, the motivation of those doing so in Corinth is called into question. 

It follows then that when Paul writes “The one who speaks in a tongue builds himself up” (14:4a), he is not making this assertion as if it is a good thing.  Once again, it stands in contrast to what follows, which is “but the one who prophesies builds up the church” (14:4b).  In this case, and in consideration of the honor and shame culture, and especially what has already been seen when it comes to the meal gatherings and the divisions in the church, a person building himself up needs to be viewed as a negative (this is not a positive thing).  He builds himself up because he is more concerned about his honor and demonstrating in historically acceptable ways his special relationship with his god, whereas the person that prophesies, by engaging in strengthening, encouragement, and consolation, is concerned about the church---concerned about the body. 

Paul does not rule out speaking in tongues, but he also does not make it a litmus test for the identification of one that is filled with the Spirit of the God that raised up Jesus from the dead.  He apparently sees it as a legitimate expression, but is concerned with why it is being employed and what results from its employment within the gathered church.  To that point, he writes “I wish you all spoke in tongues” (14:5a). 

Indeed, if all spoke in tongues, then there would be no opportunity for one person to gain undue honor from the practice, thus eliminating the problem as he sees it.  Here, one must be careful not to assert that Paul desires for this to be the norm among Christians.  It must be heard from within the context, which is that of the pursuit of honor in connection with speaking in tongues.  If all speak in tongues, then there will be no special awarding or assignment of honor to the speaker.  Paul understands that it is not the case, nor is it going to be the case that all speak in tongues, and concludes his statement with “but even more that you would prophesy” (14:5b). 

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.     

Saul's Final Exile (part 2 of 2)

Samuel continues with his condemning report to Saul, going on to tell him that “The Lord will hand you over to the Philistines!” (1 Samuel 28:19a)  For good measure, this is reiterated and expanded upon just a few words later, with Samuel declaring, “The Lord will hand the army of Israel over to the Philistines!” (28:19c)  The intermediate interjection is “Tomorrow both you and your sons will be with me” (28:19b).  Samuel makes it clear that Saul understands that the full measure of God’s curse is going to come upon him, in that he will be handed over to foreign subjugation, and that this will be without rescue, as Saul is going to die along with his sons.  Secondly, Samuel reminds us of the nature of Israel’s kingship, in that the king of Israel represents the people as a whole, and informs Saul that this subjugation will extend beyond him and his sons, affecting the whole of the people. 

With all of these words from the mouth of Samuel, nothing new is being introduced.  Samuel is simply pointing to the covenant faithfulness of Israel’s God, to perform according to His promises, and to bring the justice of His righteousness (God’s justice fulfilling His covenant faithfulness).  Owing to Saul’s failure to carry out what he had been instructed to do against Amalek, and with the culmination of that event on display here at the residence of the witch of Endor, Samuel is informing Saul that “The Lord will allow you to be struck down before your enemies” (Deuteronomy 28:25a).  These words take on an even greater significance when it comes to the death of Saul, in that he was not actually struck down by the Philistines. 

In the midst of the battle with the Philistines, “the archers spotted him and wounded him severely” (31:3b).  Following this wounding, “Saul said to his armor bearer, ‘Draw your sword and stab me with it!  Otherwise these uncircumcised people will come, stab me, and torture me’.” (31:4a)  Here, we take note of Saul’s mention of “uncircumcised people,” in that in his death, prophesied by Samuel, and done so in accordance with covenant violations, Saul makes mention of that which represented God’s original covenant with Abraham, which was circumcision.  It appears that Saul realizes that his death, proximately at the hands of those that were not in covenant, was very much a movement of Israel’s faithful God, and stood in accordance with the Deuteronomic curses.  Saul’s death, however, was not brought about by his armor bearers, nor by the Philistines, but rather, “Saul took his sword and fell on it” (31:4c).  Indeed, Saul was struck down before his enemies, and this by his own hand. 

Returning to Deuteronomy, and continuing with the previously referenced verse, we read, “you will attack them from one direction but flee from them in seven directions” (28:25b).  We find this well represented before the record of Saul’s suicidal death, as we read “Now the Philistines were fighting against Israel.  The men of Israel fled from the Philistines and many of them fell dead upon Mount Gilboa.  The Philistines stayed right on the heels of Saul and his sons.  They struck down Saul’s sons Jonathan, Abinadab, and Malki-shua” (31:1-2).  While noticing the commensurate usage of “struck down in both Deuteronomy and Samuel, we insist that this would not have been unexpected, because this was Samuel’s prophecy---with the prophecy delivered as Samuel, even after his death, was the representative spokesperson of Israel’s covenant God. 

The final part of the verse from Deuteronomy speaks to what occurred following the death of Saul and his sons.  Following the assertion of Israel fleeing from their enemies in every possible direction, we read that Israel “will become an object of terror to all the kingdoms of the earth” (28:25c).  How is this reflected in Saul’s death narrative?  We read that “The next day, when the Philistines came to strip loot from the corpses, they discovered Saul and his three sons lying dead on Mount Gilboa” (31:8).  What comes next is key in making the connection: “They cut off Saul’s head and stripped him of his armor.  They sent messengers to announce the news in the temple of their idols and among their people throughout the surrounding land of the Philistines” (31:9).  It sounds as if the Philistines were using Saul’s head and armor to send a warning to their other enemies, hoping that what had become of him would terrify the kingdoms surrounding them. 

Beyond that, Deuteronomy speaks of the Lord forcing Israel and its king “to go away to a people whom your ancestors have not known, and… serve other gods of wood and stone there” (28:36).  Most certainly, in the ignominious treatment that he was receiving at the hands of his Philistine enemies, though he and his sons were now dead, the Philistine announcement of victory in the “temple of their idols” (31:9), and the placement of “Saul’s armor in the temple of the Ashtoreth’s” (31:10a), seems to have Saul, in a manner of speaking, serving other gods of wood and stone.  Finally, as Saul’s defeat and death relates to the whole of the people over whom he had been appointed to serve as king and deliverer, what do we find happening to them?  Predictably, we learn that “When the men of Israel who were in the valley across the Jordan saw that the men of Israel had fled and that Saul and his sons were dead, they abandoned the cities and fled.  The Philistines came and occupied them” (31:7).  What happened was an exile, wrought by the faithlessness of their king. 

Israel was again subjugated to a foreign power, ultimately because of the idolatry (self-idolatry and Samuel-idolatry) of their king, which was, in the end, merely a reflection of the people’s rejection of their God and their own self-exaltation manifested in their desire to have a king.  Such was the end of the ill-conceived desire to have a ruler in their own image, rather than being the people ruled by the One in Whose image they had been made.