How Did We Get That Guy?

"But you have today rejected your God, who delivers you from all your calamities and your distresses; yet you have said, 'No, but set a king over us!' Now therefore, present yourselves before the LORD by your tribes and by your clans." Thus Samuel brought all the tribes of Israel near, and the tribe of Benjamin was taken by lot. Then he brought the tribe of Benjamin near by its families, and the Matrite family was taken. And Saul the son of Kish was taken; but when they looked for him, he could not be found. Therefore they inquired further of the LORD, "Has the man come here yet?" So the LORD said, "Behold, he is hiding himself by the baggage." (1 Samuel 10:19-22 NASB)

That Saul failed as king is not up for dispute.  God rejects him, and there are clear reasons for His doing so.  But sometimes we are so enamored with our perceptions and assumptions about God's qualities that fail to accept His qualities as they really are.  In this instance, the quality of God that He knows everything past and present begs the question, "Why choose Saul in the first place?" 

Believe it or not (more like you will believe it if you've been around "church people" for any length of time), this is a hotly contested issue.  People have strong opinions about it and woe to you should you disagree them. To disagree with them is to profane the very character of God; as if it is up to a single individual to protect.  It doesn't seem to phase them that there are so many of these "opinions" that offer different options, which also strive to protect the character of God. 

I suppose I just wonder if God simply chooses people, places them where they have the opportunity to succeed, and then uses their success or failure equally to achieve His ends.  Is it really possible that one guy can totally derail the plan of the One having created all this?  It seems unlikely to me.  Had Saul relented in his manic attempt to retain the monarchy and transitioned it over to David, what would have been different?  Perhaps the country would have had 12 more years of David as king, Abner might have survived (hard call on that one), and the country would have enjoyed more success over the Philistines.

But would David have gone to the Philistines?  Would he then have obtained the technology of iron?  Would he have been at the battle of Mt. Gilboa where Israel was defeated, and had he, would he have survived?  There were some important advantages that David gained on the run from Saul: the core of his fighting men, iron, and an insiders understanding of Israel's greatest foe.  In this instance, the way it played out, God accomplished some things through David that were of tremendous value. 

I suppose the lesson I learn here is that my Master's plans are not in danger from incomprehensible choices on His part.  Someone or something may sound ridiculous, it may fail by my estimation, and yet it cannot cause my Master's plan to fail.  The thing is, I don't have to understand it; that's the hard part.  I want to have an opinion, and fight about it, and defend the character of my Master, but He really doesn't need me to do anything other than obey Him.  His character is what it is, and will never conform to my rational faculties.  Nor will my rational faculties ever be able to encompass all of Who He is.  And I need to be okay with that.

The Lot of Ministry

At this time Peter stood up in the midst of the brethren (a gathering of about one hundred and twenty persons was there together), and said, "Brethren, the Scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit foretold by the mouth of David concerning Judas, who became a guide to those who arrested Jesus.  For he was counted among us and received his share in this ministry."
(Now this man acquired a field with the price of his wickedness, and falling headlong, he burst open in the middle and all his intestines gushed out.  And it became known to all who were living in Jerusalem; so that in their own language that field was called Hakeldama, that is, Field of Blood.)
"For it is written in the book of Psalms, 'LET HIS HOMESTEAD BE MADE DESOLATE, AND LET NO ONE DWELL IN IT'; 'LET ANOTHER MAN TAKE HIS OFFICE.'  Therefore it is necessary that of the men who have accompanied us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us --  beginning with the baptism of John until the day that He was taken up from us -- one of these must become a witness with us of His resurrection." (Acts 1:15-22 NASB)

I've been away from this blog too long.  Part of the reason is that I have been busy working over Acts 1.  For some reason the Greek was giving me problems that I had not been having with Hebrew.  I thought it was supposed to be the other way around.  But having completed this passage, I find a few things that shed light on the character of my Master for me.

Two of those things are in the passage above.  The first one has to do with an opinion that in this passage, the disciples make a mistake in selecting a replacement for Judas.  The view goes that God selects Paul later, and what they do here is a selection by human wisdom.  I disagree with this view.  It's not widely held, but is not uncommon either. 

Part of what is seen as the problem is that the disciples didn't wait for the Holy Spirit Who figures prominently in the next chapter.  It's my opinion about this opinion that the ones holding it see that event incorrectly as well.  I understand Jesus to have "breathed on them" and they received the Holy Spirit after His resurrection (John 20:22).  In Luke 24 Jesus opens their minds to understand the Scriptures.  So, I don't see any reason the disciples would have been deficient in their ability to make godly decisions.

Apart from my disagreement with the opinion over those interpretations, I found something else this past week.  In verse 17, Peter refers to Judas being given the ministry by lot.  It is never translated that way, but the word used is the same used for the process of selection in verse 26.  So Matthias receives his share in ministry just as Judas did, at least in the understanding of the disciples.  I never caught that before because translation opted for two different ways to translate the same thing.  That may have been appropriate, but it also obscured a connection clearly made in the original language.

The second thing I noted was the purpose for the "office" or ministry.  It wasn't to "rule" the people, it was to safeguard the memory of Jesus' earthly ministry.  I don't think Paul would have been able to do that.  When Paul says that the apostles didn't add anything to his message, he wasn't referring to his knowledge of Jesus, but the good news he proclaimed to the Gentiles; salvation in Jesus.  The details of Jesus' life had to be filled in, and that had to come from these 12 men who were actually there.

I find it interesting that there were at least 2 others who were there the whole time.  I never really thought that anyone other than the initial disciples were there, but it makes sense.  Jesus had to choose 12, which implies that some were not chosen, that He had a group to choose from numbering over 12.  So how many were there, and why Judas over Matthias right at the beginning?

The character of my Master that I see shining through in this passage is His use of lots.  I just think that is interesting.  It is a concession on His part to our limitations of knowledge and inability to really communicate with Him.  And it is an act of faith on our part acknowledging that we have those limitations and it is truly up to our Master to decide, it throws the decision into His court.  I also see it interesting that they saw their initial selection in somewhat the same way.  In the absence of Jesus, the casting of lots was the closest they could come to the same process.

I think I need to acknowledge the end of my understanding and my need for a "lot" at points in my life.  I'm not all that ready to do this simple thing sometimes.  I expect that I can figure it out (or that I'm supposed to), that I can just follow this process and my Master will conform to it, or that I already know enough to move on.  When facing several choices, all of seemingly excellent spiritual quality and God-glorifying potential I have to fall back on my Master and not rely on my own wisdom.  I'm only more "numbskullish" when I don't fess up to my obvious limits in knowledge.  It's one thing to be a numbskull, and I often am, but it's even worse to pretend I'm not and not seek my Master's clarity in such an obvious need.  I suppose sometimes is a problem caused by my not seeing the choices in this way, but that is again the numbskull-matt taking control. Yes, I am some sort of numbskull.