Frightening Things About A Holy God

Now one of the servants of Saul was there that day, detained before the LORD; and his name was Doeg the Edomite, the chief of Saul's shepherds. (1 Samuel 21:7 NASB)

 In almost every translation I have, Doeg is described as 'detained before the Lord'.  This is one of the few verses that I've run into where something like this is so commonly translated in so many versions.  The word in Hebrew can looked up in a Strong's Concordance as H6113 or here at the Blue Letter Bible website (one of my favorite online resources). 

The word is most often used for when God 'shuts' the windows of heaven during a drought, or shuts the wombs of women so they don't bear children, and so on.  The key here is that the word is not ordinarily used for what people do (unless to point out what they 'cannot do'), but rather for what God does.  If you read the rest of this story (into chapter 22), consider that, according to the writer, God caused Doeg to be present knowing he would betray and destroy the priests of Nob and their entire city.

Doeg's presence precipitates one of the darkest days of Israel.  King Saul has the entire city, men, women, children, infants, and animals wiped out.  In his paranoia he goes over the top in his punishment of priests; priests who weren't even rebellious or in defiance before him.  His servants wouldn't carry out his order to slay the priests, only this Doeg character.  So, why would a loving, holy omniscient God restrain such a character in Nob to witness David getting help from them?

First off, I don't really know.  I do have a theory though (go figure).  Not often in these places are we given that many clues, but here I think I can find a possible answer combined from two places.  The first is 1 Samuel 2:27-36; the prophecy against the house of Eli.  In it is this phrase:

'Behold, the days are coming when I will break your strength and the strength of your father's house so that there will not be an old man in your house.  You will see the distress of My dwelling, in spite of all the good that I do for Israel; and an old man will not be in your house forever.  Yet I will not cut off every man of yours from My altar so that your eyes will fail from weeping and your soul grieve, and all the increase of your house will die in the prime of life. (1 Samuel 2:31-33 NASB)

So, in a sense, due to the sins of Eli and his sons, the house of Aaron (not Levi, but Eli within the house of Aaron) would be cut off both from the land and from serving before the altar.

The second clue I find in 1 Kings 2:26, 27 where Solomon dismisses Abiathar (the last remaining priest from Eli's line) from service:

Then to Abiathar the priest the king said, "Go to Anathoth to your own field, for you deserve to die; but I will not put you to death at this time, because you carried the ark of the Lord GOD before my father David, and because you were afflicted in everything with which my father was afflicted." So Solomon dismissed Abiathar from being priest to the LORD, in order to fulfill the word of the LORD, which He had spoken concerning the house of Eli in Shiloh. (1 Kings 2:26-27 NASB)

What I surmise from these two passages is that the destruction of the priest of Nob was actually 'arranged' by God; which is very frightening to me.  What I mean by this is that the Loving King of Righteousness, in justice and judgment, restrained Doeg so that his presence would bring about a portion of His judgment against the priestly line of Eli.  At least, that's my theory.

And here's what I learn from this:  Not all my problems from other people are persecution for righteousness.  In fact, at least in my case, I would contend I suffer the consequences for my sin.  But beyond this, when my sin before my Master is great, these consequences can also be severe on my family; guilt-by-association or environment or something.  It's a reminder that my sin is not just about me, but about those around me. 

I hope therefore, that my repentance is also about others, not just me; that my heart broken before my Master will also positively affect others around me.  Truly, my sin, in addition to all the other reasons in my dark heart, is also selfish in that I afflict others without regard for their consequences.  So, I hope also my brokenness before my Master will be selfless, before my Master, and before others.  Strength to resist sin becomes something I exert for my Master, but also for those around me.  Once again, it's less about me.  Good grief, I really do need to just fade to the background, and be lost behind the view of my Master.

The Meaning of Tears

When the lad was gone, David rose from the south side and fell on his face to the ground, and bowed three times. And they kissed each other and wept together, but David wept the more.  Jonathan said to David, "Go in safety, inasmuch as we have sworn to each other in the name of the LORD, saying, 'The LORD will be between me and you, and between my descendants and your descendants forever.'" Then he rose and departed, while Jonathan went into the city. (1 Samuel 20:41-42 NASB)

The 'test' of Jonathan's father, Saul, did not turn out well.  Jonathan indicated it to David with a boy and arrows, and now they both know Saul is out to hunt down David and kill him.  Jonathan recognizes his position, his responsibilities, and what he needs to do.  It is never recorded that he ever goes out with Saul after David, in fact, he's not mentioned again until the final battle of Saul.  It is truly a sad parting.

The writer includes the detail that David wept more.  In the first part of the chapter, in the initial encounter and dialogue, it seems that David is actually upset with Jonathan.  Jonathan seems to be the one initiating a covenant, and even includes a comment that he not be killed, and that it include their offspring.  Because of that, I don't believe that David loves Jonathan more than Jonathan, but rather that Jonathan bears a greater weight at the moment.

Jonathan gave his stuff to the boy and sent him back into the city with it.  He knew he had to go back into the realm of his father.  He knew he had a life of responsibilities there that he could not ignore, and from which it would be wrong of him to leave.  I doubt he even thought it possible.  I suspect that, instead, Jonathan looked with a sort of dread upon his future and the future of his father's kingdom. 

With all the problems posed by a real enemy of Israel; the Philistines, Canaanites, even rogue Hebrews, the problem absorbing Saul was David; who was not a threat.  This does not bode well for Israel.  This is a misplaced focus, and it had to evident to all, but who would defy the 'emperor without clothes'?  The kingdom is about to descend into disarray and anarchy.  I suspect the weight of his vision of the 'train-wreck' coming weighed heavier on Jonathan than David's departure.

So, as I paint this circumstance (mostly in my mind rather than truly explained in Scripture - so mere conjecture) it seems to me that Jonathan is in a position where his faith enables him to see the problem (Saul obsessed with David to the detriment of the kingdom), but also that he is held in its path by his real responsibilities within the community.  In a sense, he sees his own doom.

I also note that this faith does override his 'responsibilities' on the military side as he never goes out with Saul after David.  He sees the inevitable 'train-wreck' but refuses to put more coal into the engine to speed things up.  He sees the inevitable 'train-wreck' but dutifully remains on the train where his responsibilities remain; perhaps he can alleviate some of the effects on the community by remaining.

I also suspect that I am reading into this some qualities of my own.  I have been accused of sticking with 'lost causes' to the bitter end; usually out of stubbornness.  That may be true.  Even in games, where the stakes were meaningless, I have done what I thought needed to be done regardless of what I knew they would cost me (okay, not 'meaningless' entirely, but not significant either).  I'm not sure why I do that or where I learned to approach things that way.  But I do.  Maybe Jonathan doesn't here.  But I still learn a lesson from him.

I am called (i.e. placed somewhere for something by my Master - there's a divine purpose) to where I am for this time.  I believe that my Master has called me here and now for some form of service, and I suspect that it has to do with a marriage mentoring program my wife and I are heading up.  At least I see that as a major part of His purpose. 

The program is lacking momentum, and the danger for me is look at it as a 'lost cause' or a 'waste of time'.  It's not.  The problems of my community require this service as part of any solution.  It is the time for this program, and this is definitely the place that needs it.  Through it I believe my Master can bring hope to a people and to a place without it.  It's just been hard to get people who initially said they want to be a part to communicate or keep it as a priority.  There are lots of reasons but the results are what have me concerned.

So, do I look at the situation and decide that what has people distracted (the stuff of daily life) has vanquished this service to the community?  Do I see a 'train-wreck' in trying to get this program off the ground?  Maybe, but I also see that by staying in it, I may be then available to my Master to make what He will with who He sends and with what He provides.  It will be a program about Him rather than me and my wife.  Jonathan submitted himself to the community, and his availability cost him his life.  I don't face any such sacrifice.  Instead, all that is needed is for me to continue in the path laid out by my Master and not 'jump ship (or trains as it were)' to some other program that I suspect has a better chance of success.  I truly think the light at the end of the tunnel is the glory of my Master rather than another train.  Time to pile on the coal!

What's A Good Son To Do?

"For as long as the son of Jesse lives on the earth, neither you nor your kingdom will be established. Therefore now, send and bring him to me, for he must surely die."  But Jonathan answered Saul his father and said to him, "Why should he be put to death? What has he done?"  Then Saul hurled his spear at him to strike him down; so Jonathan knew that his father had decided to put David to death.  Then Jonathan arose from the table in fierce anger, and did not eat food on the second day of the new moon, for he was grieved over David because his father had dishonored him. (1 Samuel 20:31-34 NASB)

Between a rock and a hard place really doesn't adequately describe the position of Jonathan, the eldest son of King Saul.  From reading 1 Samuel, Jonathan knows who is right in the conflict.  His loyalty is to his father, but also to his friend (if that word is strong enough), David.  Yet, he stays with his father.  It's a decision that eventually costs him his life, but it is a cost he is willing, and probably knows he will have to pay. 

The reality is that there is more to Jonathan's life in Gilead than we see initially in 1 Samuel.  He has a family of his own, wife, kids, and so on.  We know this from the actions of David later on when he shows favor to Mephibosheth, the son of Jonathan, crippled when the Philistines overran Gilead and he was being carried in the escape.  So there was much in Jonathan's life that complicated his loyalties besides who was right and who was wrong.

In a sense, this is a position we all face.  The choice of loyalty is often too easily criticized by those on the 'outside looking in' based on their perception of moral right, and moral wrong.  Often there are issues of responsibility to family, responsibility to community, and so on that override the other 'moral' issues. 

So the tension between right, wrong, and responsibility is what can put me between a rock and hard place.  What character do I need to live in this space?  Right now, based on some things I've experienced just recently, I need courage and determination to act.  And I need to implement those qualities faster into situations.

I believe that it's one thing to be courageous, but it's not enough.  I think the willingness to act, and the determination to act are necessary to translate courage into action.  Sometimes the competing loyalties cause a delay in action.  That's where I think I need to improve.  I can't even say that I'm delayed by 'thinking about what I'm dong'.  It actually has more to do with motivating myself to do what I already know I need to do.  Pushing myself should never be the factor that delays my actions of courage.  At some point it becomes a lack of courage.

So, as I encounter rocks and hard places, I pray that my Master will bring out in me not just the courage He calls forth in His knight, but also the willingness and determination to act required of those called to serve such a Master.  I want to be a good servant, but I also want to be a good warrior; and that requires fast action.  I want to be like Jonathan and choose those responsibilities I have been given by my Master over the other good I find attractive. 

Idolatry: Representative Worship

To whom then will you liken God?
Or what likeness will you compare with Him?
As for the idol, a craftsman casts it,
A goldsmith plates it with gold,
And a silversmith fashions chains of silver.
He who is too impoverished for such an offering
Selects a tree that does not rot;
He seeks out for himself a skillful craftsman
To prepare an idol that will not totter
(Isaiah 40:18-20 NASB)

One of the ideas in the Bible, Hebrew and Christian Scriptures both, with which I really struggle is the admonishment against idolatry.  In most cases, it seems that the perspective of the Bible is that the person worshiping the idol thinks that the object really IS the god rather than a representative OF the god.  The problem I have is that this is obviously not the case.  I fear it puts Scripture in a place of appearing silly.

That idolatry is representative of the 'god' is obvious for lots of reasons.  First off, I don't think anyone would either accuse an idol worshiper or seriously believe they think for a moment that the gold or whatever object in front of them actually performed the activity in their myths ascribed to the 'god'.  Some statue of Zeus isn't actually the person believed to be on Olympus.  It looks like, represents, the person believed to be on Olympus.  I don't think this is in dispute, not by anyone.

So what's the deal with such a clear and vehement imprecation against idolatry?  There is a clear prohibition against any sort of 'image' of man or beast or fowl in Scripture, I'm curious; why?  The usual answer is that it's distracting from worship of the One true God, Creator of those things normally cast or shaped, and the Creator of the things imaged. 

The point being that He is neither man nor beast, so there is no true representation possible.  The worship of the God of Israel reinforces this concept.  All items that could have been used as a 'focus' of attention during worship of Him were hidden.  The bronze snake from the desert was put in the ark along with the 'budding staff' of Aaron, the broken tablets of the Ten Commandments, a jar of mannah, and so on.  Then the ark itself was secreted away behind curtains within the deep dark recesses of the Temple.  So worshipers would only be able to see the building where they knew those object were housed, not the objects themselves.  The focus remained on the invisible God.

But the people bowing themselves before a figure of a man/bird/fish/lion-thing really didn't think that the object in front of them was whatever deity they worshiped.  They believed their deity was 'invisible' as well.  So why the hiding?  Well, I don't know.  I'll just say it and outright because I think anyone reading this already knows I don't know.  For most people the explanation in the previous paragraph is probably sufficient, so you need look no further for 'ideas' or 'theories'.  I will pose two.

First, I suspect that there is a psychological reason.  It is the Creator of this universe who also created our human brains/minds, and I believe He is well aware of our psychological make up and weaknesses.  So, I suspect that focus on the object seen becomes more important, more influential, and more fixed in our minds than the 'Invisible God of All Things'.  I think the truth of this is borne out unfortunately in churches where disputes over trivial 'objects' and 'trappings' sometimes take precedence over focus on the One True Invisible God.  So, they are distracting, but on a more psychological, deeper level than just what we see when we bow ourselves down to something.  In this way, a cross, statue, painting, window, or whatever can cause the same problem.  Some of you may be thinking Catholic right now, but any Baptists reading this could easily substitute 'carpet', 'drapes', 'paint color', 'furniture', or even people and note the same problem.

Beyond the psychological possibility I think another issue is the understanding of 'holiness'.  Simply put, anything exclusively dedicated to the service or use of God (or a deity) is holy; it's not to be used for common (profane) purposes.  Rather than get into a protracted discussion of holiness itself and how I believe God uses and defines the term, I want to look specifically at why the use of idols may damage His purpose in holiness.

Idols are closely tied to a 'shrine' whether small ones in a home or larger ones in a location, to entire temples.  Things in and around the idol, within the sphere of the 'shrine' are considered holy.  In a sense this is what the Jewish Temple was in Jerusalem.  The object within, but also the grounds around were considered holy.  It's clear in Leviticus and other places that this is what God taught the Sons of Israel.  But it was never the whole understanding of the term.

The people of Israel were also called a 'holy nation', a 'kingdom of priests', and designated as a 'chosen people' making even the normal 'common' person someone holy.  The nation was supposed to be a 'shrine', their communities, homes, and national boundaries.  This changes some fundamental understanding of 'holiness'.  There were prescribed behaviors they were to follow, not just in the Temple, but in their homes, communities, and as a nation.  There were elements of the very basic elements of their lives where God insinuated Himself.  There truly was no 'shrine' in Israel, they were the shrine.

It's the representative idol worship around them that distinguished them and made them different.  That is what made them holy; they were different.  Some, very powerful nations, considered them atheists because they would not worship idols.  They could not conceive of a form of worship that was not 'representative'.  These 'idols' formed the diplomatic means to connect nations, their myths formed common bonds, and their practices enabled trade and commerce.  Israel stands alone outside this 'fraternity' of idolatry.  Like circumcision, Sabbath-keeping, and their dietary rules, this refusal to worship like the other nations caused difficulties for them wherever they went, with whomever they dealt.  That was the idea; it was by design; they were holy to the One True God.

So, that's my theory (or two of them), and while not very exciting or enlightening, and not even close to a full explanation; I think that between the three ideas, I have a better understanding of why 'images' are problems for my Master.  But I also think I have a good clear admonition to not let 'things' distract me from my Master; not people, crosses, flooring, clothing, trappings, sound systems, screens, music, or instruments.  None of this stuff or people should be able to drift my focus from my Master.  For, as the people of Israel considered themselves holy, so do I; psychologically and socially.

Who Am I To my God?

Who has measured the waters in the hollow of his hand
or marked off the heavens with the span of his hand?
Who has gathered the dust of the earth in a measure
or weighed the mountains in a balance
and the hills in the scales?
Who has directed the Spirit of the Lord,
or who gave Him His counsel?
Who did He consult with?
Who gave Him understanding
and taught Him the paths of justice?
Who taught Him knowledge
and showed Him the way of understanding?
(Isaiah 40:12-14 HCSB)

One of the frustrating things about Job is that God never answers Job's challenge as to why Job was suffering.  It is a difficult book in which to find a 'comfortable' answer to the problem of evil and suffering in the world.  God's answer to Job is essentially to ask, 'Who are you to ask me anything?' which is not what we want to hear.  It works for Job though, and he is restored.

Here, in Isaiah's word of encouragement to the Jewish Exiles in Babylon, it sounds somewhat similar to God's response to Job, 'who are you to question God?'  The questions sound silly compared to who God truly is and what He's done.  They are supposed to sound silly.  They bring into sharp relief the faith of the people; the lackluster, thin, weary faith of a people tired of their circumstances.

So, God has measured all the waters in the hollow of His hand.  In the day of Isaiah, the world was thought of as table on legs (pillars) and covered by a dome.  But it was surrounded by water.  Think about it, water came from the sky, so there was water up there.  Water could be found by digging deep enough, so there was water below.  There were streams, rivers, and a sea.  Water was everywhere.  So when God holds the 'waters' in His hands, that's more water than we might first imagine.  It rivals the water we know is on the earth today.  The idea is that the hands of God are big hands.

God has marked off the heavens with the span of His hand.  So that dome over the earth He hammered out in creation, He measures it with the space between His pinky and thumb spread out, a span.   But we know the 'heavens' to be much larger than a dome over the earth.  We've renamed it 'the universe' and it is immeasurably huge.  I don't think the imagery needs adjusting though.  I suspect that using the imagery of the universe being God's 'desk decoration' would fit nicely into the point the writer is trying to make here.

He has measured the mountains, the dust, and hills in scales.  Again, God is unbelievably HUGE!

But who has guided Him?  Who has given His Spirit direction or counsel, increased His understanding, taught Him the ways of justice or knowledge, or understanding?  Obviously, no one.  It's a rhetorical question to draw out the silliness of the people's lack of faith; their irreverent questioning of the unknowable One.  Later on, the poet states that God's understanding cannot be measured for depth. 

But the poet is writing to encourage, to lift up, and lead people out of their focus on their circumstances.  He is leading them to turn their focus on their God, their Maker, the One having created all things, including their enemies.  He is posing these questions much in the same way God posed them to Job, to lead him back into faith.  It's as if to say, "I've got you covered, why would you doubt Me?"

So, I read these questions.  I too look at my circumstances.  My biggest issue is that I don't like one particular aspect of my job.  But it's my wilfulness and not the job that is the problem.  My focus has been on me and what I want.  I'm being selfish.  I have excuses for being selfish.  I have plenty of them.  But then I have to ask these questions.  Suddenly, my selfishness stands in stark contrast to my Master's character.  Had He been selfish, He would have left me lost.  But He redeemed me.

So, having been redeemed by the One whose understanding cannot be measured for depth, why would I then be frustrated by an aspect of the job He provided?  Am I smarter than Him?  Should I have counseled Him, or taught Him the way of understanding, or the paths of justice, or anything?  Duh, of course not!  Even asking the question is silly, but my lack of acceptance of what my Master has provided does exactly that.

What I mean is that when I refuse to accept willingly the circumstances provided by my Master, then I ask those very ridiculous questions.  He led me to this place, provided this job as I went, and has kept me in it as I have worked.  But this past year, I have fought it.  I have railed against one particular aspect of this job and convinced myself that is is not in my character to do it.  What am I thinking?! Seriously?

How can I charge that an aspect of the job given to me by the One having created me and shaped my character, the One constantly changing me, metamorphing me more into the image of His Son, gave me a job that is inconsistent with my character?  Really?  I know more about that than He does?  I know enough about the purpose and direction He is taking me that I know this is the wrong job?  And I know this because there is only one aspect I don't like.  You see how amazingly ridiculous I'm being about my job? 

I will accept my job.  I will take on the spiritual discipline of my job, all it requires, and I will learn to love it, and through it, my Master more deeply.  I will start today, hour by hour, and do the thing I'd rather not do.  I will do it in the afternoon's when I'm tired, the mornings when I'm sharp, the mid-day when I'm ready for something else, and the end of the day when I'm having trouble seeing the point.  I will do it.  I will do it for my Master Who gave it to me; Who blessed me with it, and sees a purpose in it.  I will do it.  To me, that is faith; small and somewhat petty, but faith.

The Visitation of the Lord: Jesus, my Redeemer

Then the glory of the LORD will be revealed,
  And all flesh will see it together;
For the mouth of the LORD has spoken." (Isaiah 40:5 NASB)

Get yourself up on a high mountain,
  O Zion, bearer of good news,
Lift up your voice mightily,
  O Jerusalem, bearer of good news;
Lift it up, do not fear.
  Say to the cities of Judah, "Here is your God!"
Behold, the Lord GOD will come with might,
  With His arm ruling for Him.
Behold, His reward is with Him
  And His recompense before Him.
Like a shepherd He will tend His flock,
  In His arm He will gather the lambs
  And carry them in His bosom;
He will gently lead the nursing ewes. (Isaiah 40:9-11 NASB)

One of the most difficult qualities of Jesus for any believer, and impossible for one who is not a follower of Jesus, is His quality of deity.  It's much easier to consider with the sterility of 2,000 plus years, but when that is ignored; when a follower is able to put themselves in the day of Jesus, imagine the sight, the smell, the feel of the heat; the impossibility of it begins to settle in.

It is impossible to imagine.  The very 'holiness' of the Creator is a definitive argument against it.  How can the Creator of the thing enter into the thing made?  He would be obviously too large, too powerful; a mixture of apples and stars, yet without the same atomic similarities.  And yet, Jesus is God.

The Christian Scriptures clearly make this point.  But the people following Jesus after His ascension didn't have the benefit of those Scriptures, they had only the Hebrew Scriptures, and the testimony of the Twelve Apostles, the remaining memory of the life of Jesus.  They made the leap of understanding, imagined the impossible, and embraced it in faith.  It was crazy.

So where did they find the support in Scripture for this ridiculous view?  How could they support such a ludicrous position with Scriptures that never seemed to support this as an expectation?  No one in the day Jesus arrived expected that any sort of anointed divinely designated savior would be divine Himself.  Of course no one in that day really understood the problem Jesus came to fix either.

Yet, in Isaiah 40, in the Hebrew text of that passage (and even the Greek version) give a glimpse of such a possibility.  As the prophet writes of the eventual return of the Jewish Exiles in Babylon, he makes two interesting declarations; declarations that connect with the concept of the "Day of the Visitation", when God 'shows up'.  This was always conceptualized as God working through someone to bring about His wrath, deliverance, or consolation.  But the concept could also be taken concretely.

In Isaiah 40, the prophet writes that the 'glory of the LORD will be revealed'.  The word choice is interesting though.  The word for 'revealed' is in a 'passive' voice of sorts (Hebrew doesn't really have a clear passive voice), but is a word for 'exposure', usually in a humiliating sense of being stripped or being lewd.  The picture is of the Creator/Deliverer throwing off His cloak and standing out uninhibited in all His 'glory'.  Regardless of how immodest or demeaning you may think this of the Creator of the universe, it still requires Him to be present doing it.  He has to be the One doing it, as it is written.

And then later on, the writer is calling on the 'crier' to declare to the cities of Judah, "Here is your God".  And the following description is both of a conquering king and a tender shepherd.  This is clearly a statement, albeit a poetic one, of God's visitation of His people.  His presence among them declared in pretty clear terms, yet it's 'imagery' 'poetic license' and can't be taken literal.  Or can it?

The problem Jesus came to fix could only be fixed by the Creator.  Only He could also be the Redeemer.  Only the Almighty, the One calling for the stars by name, only He could also restore His human creatures.  It wasn't to reestablish the preeminence of the political entity of Israel that God entered the world He created.  It was to form a people from both Jews and Gentiles bound to Himself for eternity that He condescended to become the lowest form of humanity and redeem them all back to Himself.  Who else could fix such a problem?

So with the prophet, I ask

Who has directed the Spirit of the LORD,
  Or as His counselor has informed Him?
With whom did He consult and who gave Him understanding?
Who taught Him the path of justice and taught Him knowledge
  And informed Him in the way of understanding?

 And I rest in the salvation of my Master.  It's a good day.