What Was Once Precious

Now the boy Samuel was ministering to the LORD before Eli. And word from the LORD was rare in those days, visions were infrequent. (1 Samuel 3:1 NASB)

Now Samuel did not yet know the LORD, nor had the word of the LORD yet been revealed to him. (1 Samuel 3:7 NASB)

And the LORD appeared again at Shiloh, because the LORD revealed Himself to Samuel at Shiloh by the word of the LORD. (1 Samuel 3:21 NASB)

The word translated as "rare" in the first verse should have been translated as "precious" or "scarce"; something that conveyed the supply-and-demand relationship between how it was viewed and its frequency.  Much can be said of such a view of "a word from the LORD".   Instead, perhaps the abundance has had the opposite affect.  Yet not all the words are from my Master.

In Horton Hears a Who, his Who-ville on a puff flower was cast in a field of such flowers to hide it.  It is a common plot element in stories and movies to hide something among many examples of it.  I think it has become this way with a word from my Master.  So many voices cry out a word, claiming to be, sounding like, yet not a word from my Master.  The enemy tries to drown out the true word with a cacophony of vanity.

Perhaps the solution is to create a scarcity of words.  As my Master has said, "Cease striving and know that I am God" (Psalm 46:10 NASB).  Silence, solitude, and quiet are such strangers in my life.  Maybe by cultivating those as companions the scarcity which will make a word from my Master precious and clear will be found once again.

Yet, isn't it favor from my Master that His words are so frequent, and easy to find?  Do I crave silence or perceived silence of my Master?  I want to hear better in the stillness, but I don't want my Master's words to be scarce.  Yet even without solitude and stillness, He speaks all around me.  I am truly blessed, covered in His favor that His word is so readily available to me.  The problem is me.  I don't treat the precious word of my Master with the value it deserves.

If I considered the word of my Master as precious, I would take every opportunity to hear it.  I would take every opportunity to read it, experience it, and wallow in it.  The word of my Master is shared at my church, but do I make that a priority?  The word of my Master is available to me through Scripture, yet do I spend my free time in it?  

I have opportunity every single day, multiple times throughout my day, to revel in a word from my Master.  I'm not unique, He's that prolific.  But how do I view His word?  Do I see it as the communication from the One forming stars, tracing quarks, creating at the outer reaches of the universe yet present with me? 

I like diversions in the form of games, reading, movies, and so on.  Why isn't seeking a word from my Master on that list?  Can you imagine if that's what believers did for recreation, studied Scripture for words from God?  Have I made my Master one option among many, or is He my only desirable option?  Have I finished my task, my chore, my entry in this blog, free to move on to the more enjoyable parts of my day?

Fat Thieves?

Now the sons of Eli were worthless men; they did not know the LORD and the custom of the priests with the people. When any man was offering a sacrifice, the priest's servant would come while the meat was boiling, with a three-pronged fork in his hand.  Then he would thrust it into the pan, or kettle, or caldron, or pot; all that the fork brought up the priest would take for himself. Thus they did in Shiloh to all the Israelites who came there.  Also, before they burned the fat, the priest's servant would come and say to the man who was sacrificing, "Give the priest meat for roasting, as he will not take boiled meat from you, only raw."  If the man said to him, "They must surely burn the fat first, and then take as much as you desire," then he would say, "No, but you shall give it to me now; and if not, I will take it by force."  Thus the sin of the young men was very great before the LORD, for the men despised the offering of the LORD. (2 Samuel 2:12-17 NASB)

Ever since I read through the stories of the Bible from the Bible for myself, I wondered about this custom.  It just seemed that boiling the meat was less like sacrifice on an altar than "roasting" as the worthless priests preferred.   I've often thought that some of the things that have come off my grill at home were more like whole burnt offerings.  I can't say that about boiled meat.  It doesn't sound very appealing.

So, what was so wrong about the servant wanting the meat before it was cooked?  How is roasting instead of boiling "despising" the offering of the LORD?  Good question, glad you asked.  Go read Leviticus 3 and then 7, and come back to this page...if you can remain awake with your meal still inside you.  Yes, the description of kidneys, livers, the lob of fat on the entrails, it's all delectable...in a barbaric sort of way.

The short version is that the fat of the meat belonged to God.  There were meat portions, the breast and the right thigh, that were reserved for the priest as a gift from God.  But the fat was reserved for God to be burned on the altar.  I'm not aware of some sort of reason that made sense hygienically.   And I'm not likely to try and take the kidneys, and lob of the liver from God's portion, I would have considered it His favor on me that He took them for Himself.  So, I'm not privy to the why, but I am privy to the fact that God takes this seriously.

It doesn't take a close reading to spot the issue from the Israelite people's perspective.  The protest to the servant is that they should wait until the fat is burned.  Whatever the method, boiling or roasting, the fat is to be burned, giving it to God.  This refers to the "good stuff" of the meat.  My family would not agree that this is the "good stuff".  Having grilled a bit of beef in my day, I have to admit, that fat content above 10% but no more than 20% makes for good burgers.  And fat ribbons in chicken make for good flavor and texture.  But I'm alone in a house of women, so burgers and chicken can be dry.

I don't offer food to my Master these days.  I offer a portion of my income, I give my time in several ways, and I give my gifts and skills in the service of my church.  These aren't things I do because of my sin for which my Master needs to be appeased.  They are things I do from my gratitude because my Master appeased Himself on my behalf.  They are more like the peace and thank offerings, which are what is described in the chapters of Leviticus.  Because of that, they are shared with others, enjoyed by my family, but the best of it belongs to my Master.  What does that look like?

I'm not sure I can apply this principle for everyone, since not everyone does the same things for the Master.  Yet, for me, the principle means that what I give to participate in my congregation is my best.  The best of my time, not what's left over.  The best of my effort, not what I have left after exhausting myself in my own pleasure.  The best of my income, not what's left after my "entertainment" or "vacation" fund.  The best of my skills, not just what gets me the most attention.  In other words, I choose for my Master rather than choosing for myself.  Since my Master has chosen the congregation (including my own) as His bride, I deposit these things there, rather than hold them for Him.  I believe that part of the giving is that they are no longer in my control or beyond my ability to gain a benefit directly from them.  I give them up, not just away.

So to refuse or "forget" to do these things is to rob my Master of His "fat portions" of my life.  When the mystery "man of God" comes to Eli at the end of this chapter, his condemnation of Eli and his sons includes this line, 'Why do you kick at My sacrifice and at My offering which I have commanded in My dwelling, and honor your sons above Me, by making yourselves fat with the choicest of every offering of My people Israel?' (I added the italics).  The sons of Eli, and possibly Eli himself, had become "fat thieves".  They stole the fat that belonged to God.  I don't want to be a fat thief, in either sense of the phrase.  It is also clear in this judgement from the mysterious man of God that God does not take such stealing lightly.  The judgment frightens me.  It seems like my Master intends to draw the punishment out to cause Eli the most pain.  I don't want that sort of attention from my Master.

Remembered

She made a vow and said, "O LORD of hosts, if You will indeed look on the affliction of Your maidservant and remember me, and not forget Your maidservant, but will give Your maidservant a son, then I will give him to the LORD all the days of his life, and a razor shall never come on his head."  Now it came about, as she continued praying before the LORD, that Eli was watching her mouth.  As for Hannah, she was speaking in her heart, only her lips were moving, but her voice was not heard. So Eli thought she was drunk.  Then Eli said to her, "How long will you make yourself drunk? Put away your wine from you."  But Hannah replied, "No, my lord, I am a woman oppressed in spirit; I have drunk neither wine nor strong drink, but I have poured out my soul before the LORD.  Do not consider your maidservant as a worthless woman, for I have spoken until now out of my great concern and provocation."  Then Eli answered and said, "Go in peace; and may the God of Israel grant your petition that you have asked of Him."  She said, "Let your maidservant find favor in your sight." So the woman went her way and ate, and her face was no longer sad.  Then they arose early in the morning and worshiped before the LORD, and returned again to their house in Ramah. And Elkanah had relations with Hannah his wife, and the LORD remembered her. (1 Samuel 2:11-19 NASB)

 I suppose there are a lot of things that could be said about God that might be drawn from Scripture and sound really wrong.  But sometimes what they say about Him reveal character elements, not of the Creator of the universe, but of His faithful chosen ones.  I believe this passage is one of those.  There is what Hannah says in her prayer, and what the writer says in his description of what God does for her.

Hannah prays from a troubled heart, troubled because of a "rival" jealous provoking wife.  She asks that God "remember" her.  It's a Hebrew word that means exactly that, rather than "see" or something that, by extension, can mean remember.  It only means remember.  And used here as she speaks to God implies He might forget.

Well, in prayer, humility is a good quality, so perhaps she prays for Him to remember her because she does not consider herself worthy of His attention.  Humility is good.  And the prayer of a humble woman does not form a solid foundation for a theological position all by itself.  Yet, it was recorded just this way.

So we remember, God was said to have remembered Noah and his family in the ark, and then dried up the world.  God remembered Abraham and rescued Lot from Sodom.  God remembered Rachel and she bore a child.  God remembered His covenant with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob and brought the children of Israel out of Egypt.  It would be a mistake to think this is the only place God's memory is called upon or referenced.

After Eli blesses Hannah, her prayer is answered.  The writer records that God remembered her, like Rachel before her, and she bore a son.  The humble request was answered as it was requested, to be remembered.  It's as if everyone thinks God forgets.  Everyone may, but then God says of Jerusalem in Isaiah 49:15-16, "Can a woman forget her nursing child and have no compassion on the son of her womb? Even these may forget, but I will not forget you.  Behold, I have inscribed you on the palms..."

So, I can speak from my perspective that my Master has forgotten me, it may seem that way to me.  But the faith of the psalmist, of the prophets, my ancestors, and the writings of my Master in Scripture says otherwise.  History may record that I am not alone in feeling like my Master has forgotten me.  After 40 days in a boat full of animals and 400 years in slavery, it's easy to understand why they would think that.  But I also know that my Master is not like people that way.  It may not feel like it, I may not have evidence or clear reason to believe it, but I know that I am remembered.  For my Master tells me so.

Can Lost Reverence Be Found?

Her rival, however, would provoke her bitterly to irritate her, because the LORD had closed her womb.  It happened year after year, as often as she went up to the house of the LORD, she would provoke her; so she wept and would not eat.  Then Elkanah her husband said to her, "Hannah, why do you weep and why do you not eat and why is your heart sad? Am I not better to you than ten sons?"  Then Hannah rose after eating and drinking in Shiloh. Now Eli the priest was sitting on the seat by the doorpost of the temple of the LORD.  She, greatly distressed, prayed to the LORD and wept bitterly.  She made a vow and said, "O LORD of hosts, if You will indeed look on the affliction of Your maidservant and remember me, and not forget Your maidservant, but will give Your maidservant a son, then I will give him to the LORD all the days of his life, and a razor shall never come on his head."  (1 Samuel 1:6-11 NASB)

In my youth, I was taught reverence for the One my family worshiped.  It was taught in a thousand different ways, but I still remember it.  We spoke only in whispers in the sanctuary (and called it that).  We wore our best to church, better than we dressed anywhere else; not to impress others but to bring our best to our God.  We didn't miss church.  This tended to spread communicable diseases among the faithful church-goers, but we shared so much anyway, it didn't matter.

There were just things you did.  And there were just things you didn't do.  You did not question a leader, at least not as a child.  But we also did not direct our anger at God.  Ironically, it was understood that, as Master of all things, ultimately whatever bad thing happened to me was His fault.  Yet we were never to blame Him, at least out loud; or so it seemed.  The lesson being taught is actually one that is struggling to emerge again in modern congregations.  The lesson was that nothing bad that happens smudges the goodness and glory of my Master.

This lesson, lost in the rebellion against "organized religion", is one that needs to be renewed.  It's one among many, but it is one for which we pay dearly.  The loss of this lesson has permitted our society to dictate belief and practice to us in the place of Scripture.  This is evident in our disdain for authority.  When we teach that the Scriptural Deity can be yelled at and resented, and He's big enough to handle it, we degrade His holy goodness and glory.  We bring the One we cannot reach into our realm, and make Him one of us.

Jesus became one of us by His choice.  Our Maker reaches out to us.  He is unapproachable, unreachable, incomprehensible, and unknown by our own devices.  We can't reason Him into existence, we can't reliably demonstrate in controlled experiments one element of His character.  The best we can hope to achieve to to look at His handiwork and marvel at such magnificence and power.  Once there, we can then, with awe, approach the Scriptures; His record of His self-revelation to His human creatures.  And from there we can make ourselves available to His Spirit.  That is the best we can do.  Most of us don't even do that.

I believe that when I consider myself free to resent and be angry toward my Master, I deny the very first line of His Scripture, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."  If He created it all, what right do I have to resent Him for anything?  That I know of His existence means He has revealed Himself to me.  The blessings I receive from Him could stop right there, and I still have more than I deserve and more of His attention than I warrant.  That He does not stop there multiplies shocking grace until I reach the cross where all my assumptions, presumptions, pride, reasoning, and self-righteousness fail, revealed as the refuse heap they are.  And destroyed as a modern American male, I stand before an empty tomb, myself empty of all that I call my own, where I crumple to the ground in worship.

The truth lost with the lesson of reverence is that my Master has assaulted and utterly destroyed the limits of my imagination, understanding, and comprehension so that I sometimes can't, or won't, see Him as He has revealed Himself.  Like He hid Moses in a rock so he would not die as he saw only a part of His glory, so I am only able to see a part of my Master.  But the part I see is so much more than anything I endure.  How can I resent the One having done so much for me?  How can Jesus, the cross and the empty tomb not be enough?  How is that possible?  Scripture is already more of a gracious gift than I can ever be worthy.  How can the message it contains not reduce the rest of me to mere heap of gratitude, gratitude I can never really express well enough?

Mine Irony Forms A Foundation

Now there was a certain man from Ramathaim-zophim from the hill country of Ephraim, and his name was Elkanah the son of Jeroham, the son of Elihu, the son of Tohu, the son of Zuph, an Ephraimite. He had two wives: the name of one was Hannah and the name of the other Peninnah; and Peninnah had children, but Hannah had no children.  Now this man would go up from his city yearly to worship and to sacrifice to the LORD of hosts in Shiloh. And the two sons of Eli, Hophni and Phinehas, were priests to the LORD there.  When the day came that Elkanah sacrificed, he would give portions to Peninnah his wife and to all her sons and her daughters; but to Hannah he would give a double portion, for he loved Hannah, but the LORD had closed her womb.  Her rival, however, would provoke her bitterly to irritate her, because the LORD had closed her womb.  It happened year after year, as often as she went up to the house of the LORD, she would provoke her; so she wept and would not eat. 8 Then Elkanah her husband said to her, "Hannah, why do you weep and why do you not eat and why is your heart sad? Am I not better to you than ten sons?" (1 Samuel 1:1-8 NASB)

 De oppresso liber is the motto of the US Army Special Forces.  It's on the patch signifying the whole element in the Army, and it is part of the warp and woof of their training.  It means, "To liberate the oppressed", and if you follow their methods and activities, it fits most of the time.  The US Army Special Forces, within the larger umbrella of "Special Operations Forces" is unique.  They are less "commandos" and more "mentors" among foreign people groups, not even nations as much as people groups. The people groups are more often than not, oppressed in some way.

From just a cursory read through Scripture, it seems my Master has something of the same interests.  He tends to work through the oppressed to accomplish His goals and purposes.  He chooses the unexpected, the least powerful, least respected, least wise, and the most obedient (or those are the ones who make it into written record).  As the Book of Samuel begins, irony stacked on irony sets the circumstance into which Samuel is born.

Hannah means "grace", and it's the name my wife and I chose for my daughter.  She was a gift of my Master's favor to us.  So, "Grace" has no children, but her husband's other wife has plenty.  So the first irony is that "Grace" has no gift of children from the Maker of all things.  It's a hard irony because of the other ironies with which it occurs.

The second irony is Hannah's husband is a devout man, going yearly, faithfully to worship in Shiloh, paying vows, and making sacrifices.  He is faithful, and he shares his faithfulness with his family, all participate.  Yet, this faithfulness does not garner Hannah a child.  He and his household's faithfulness to the Master of the universe does not warrant the giving of a child to one named for His grace.  This too is a hard irony.

The third irony is that Hannah is loved by her husband partly from pity of her inability to bear children.  He would give her a "double portion" from the sacrifices, giving his other wife and her children one portion each.  So neither her name, nor the faithfulness of their family, nor the love of her husband is enough to warrant children from the Master.

The fourth irony is the treatment that Hannah gets from her "rival", a very interesting Hebrew word for "one who provokes another to active anger".  Hannah would fume at the treatment of the other wife, trembling and weeping.  Her husband's response would always be, "am I not better to you than ten sons?" which was a silly question only a man would ask.  This was the bitterest irony, the one of hate out of jealousy for love which was only there because of pity.  The nexus of all these ironies, her name, the love of her husband and hate of her rival, all revolves around the irony of her closed womb.  Hannah feels nothing like an example of the grace of the Master she worshiped so faithfully.  Then the Divine Special Force steps in, and the oppressed are liberated.

The normal view of this book is to look at this account as a setting for Samuel and no more.  But the stark contrast of what was and what my Master brought about is part of why Samuel's origin is so dramatic.  The drama out of which he is born is part of what sets him apart.  It provides the reason for the quality of his holiness before his Master.  Samuel would not be who he became without his mother enduring what she did before he arrived.  The history of Israel, the people of the Maker of all matter, hinged on the painful ironies of a humble woman named, Grace.

How often to I complain of my "suffering" which is really nothing of the sort at all?  How many times, caught in such an irony as Hannah experienced, do I blame my Master for His oppression of me?  I'm not alone in that since some Psalms express the same lament, but it's here in this humble beginning of Israel's last judge that I see that my Master does not waste a pain endured.

This isn't a competition for who endures the most pain either.  This account is different from other accounts in Scripture, but the point remains much the same.  It would seem that redemption, as my Master practices it, is transformational of people and circumstances.  Order does not seem to be important to my Master's method.  It seems that the person at the end of the transformation is His means to accomplish His purpose among His people.

So, pain and suffering in the life of the people of their Creator is simply the sharpening of a tool He will use to save and dispense His favor on them.  It would seem that my Master prefers irony as a teaching tool.  Like parables, few find them, but those who do hopefully live richer lives.  I'd like to live my life as miner in search of the ironies of my Master.  Which means I have stop whining, start searching, and praise and worship my Master every single day, and every part of every day.  How ironic that I found this one, and miss so many others.  Well, let me grab my pick, shovel, and "lighted helmet".  I've got some digging to do.

What Does God Mean By Unhindered?

And he stayed two full years in his own rented quarters and was welcoming all who came to him, preaching the kingdom of God and teaching concerning the Lord Jesus Christ with all openness, unhindered. (Acts 28:30-31 NASB)

The setting is Paul in Rome, finally.  Shipwrecked on Malta after a huge storm drove him, his guards, and his companions all the way across the Mediterranean Sea, he makes it to Rome after serious hardship and danger.  He has met with the leading Jews who had not received any word or person concerning him from Judea, and they have heard the gospel and were in disagreement over it.  Now Paul stays in his lodging with a guard present at all times.  He didn't go out to the synagogue, they came to him.  He doesn't go out to meet others, he welcomes all who come to him.  He preaches and teaches, but from his lodging, and does so for two whole years.  Yet, as the NASB faithfully translates, the book of Acts ends with the word, "unhindered".

I have to wonder what God means by "unhindered" under these conditions.  The chains aren't a hindrance.  The storm on the way isn't/wasn't a hindrance.  The shipwreck wasn't a hindrance, the lodging with a soldier isn't a hindrance, and so also not leaving his quarters for two years.  These aren't hindrances.

Maybe I need a better understanding of hindrance, because I think of the word meaning "to make an activity more difficult" rather than actually "to cause an activity to stop".  To me it has more to do with "influence" than "control".  Well, if you believe as I have, we could both use a short lesson.  The word "hinder" has both ideas, to influence and control, because it refers to the attempt to control which may succeed (and therefore mean to control) or fail, perhaps for a time (and therefore mean to influence).

But to be unhindered would mean to be free from attempts to cause him to stop preaching.  At least the choice of this word in English carries that meaning.  The word in Greek which Luke used is akolytos which is only used here in all of the Christian Scriptures.  It's a compound word made up of the negative particle, and the word "to hinder".  The word, "to hinder", has the nuance of forbid as it's used in the Christian Scriptures.  So, to negate that would mean that Paul wasn't forbidden from preaching and teaching.

I suppose the point I'm walking around but not pulling out directly is that, to my Master, things that make something difficult for me do not mean that He doesn't want me to do it.  Just because a thing may have all sorts of obstacles does not mean it's the thing from which my Master is keeping me.  It could be that these obstacles are part of the blessing in His call or design for me. 

Even so, could it also be that what is "unhindered" isn't Paul at all, but the things preached and taught?  And so you get what I mean, consider that we are looking at such a preaching and teaching, and Paul is now dead.  That would seem the biggest hindrance of all, and yet here we are.  Perhaps what my Master meant by what He inspired Luke to record is that no obvious obstacles can hinder the Master of the universe from His purpose; not even the Emperor of Rome.  That is very reassuring to me.