Half A Decade Gone?

Ish-bosheth, Saul's son, was forty years old when he became king over Israel, and he was king for two years. The house of Judah, however, followed David.  The time that David was king in Hebron over the house of Judah was seven years and six months. (2 Samuel 2:10-11 NASB)

David was thirty years old when he became king, and he reigned forty years.  At Hebron he reigned over Judah seven years and six months, and in Jerusalem he reigned thirty- three years over all Israel and Judah. (2 Samuel 5:4-5 NASB)

 One of the curious things about the Bible, sometimes a criticism, is the funky math.  In this instance, we have a king in place over eleven tribes for two years, and David over Judah for seven years and six months.  So what accounts for the five years and six months there was no king over the 11 tribes while David was still over Judah in Hebron?

There are theories about this in various commentaries.  One I have says that the five years were actually when David was over all the tribes but still in Hebron, he just hadn't moved to Jerusalem yet.  But that's not what it says here.  It says over Judah for seven years six months...in Hebron.  The other commentary I have totally ignores the issue, which I wasn't happy about.

Left to my own devices I used Google...again I came up empty.  And I did try to use Scripture to comment on Scripture and went to 1 Chronicles 10, 11 and 12.  That editor completely skipped the whole issue, and doesn't even mention Ish-Bosheth (or Eshbaal) reigning at all.  In fact there, after listing four sons previously, it says all three sons died and all of his house (1 Chronicles 10:6), leaving very little room for any such problem.

So what happened to five years?  That's half a decade, you can't just leave it out can you?  It's not just 'water under the bridge' or 'the blink of an eye' or some other cliche.  It's five circuits around the sun.  It's five harvest times, sixty-something new moons, and at least twenty major feasts among the people.  It's nearly the whole time a person can indenture themselves as a slave to pay off a debt.

Okay, so here's my spin on it, within the vacuum of comment or complete failure to notice: I think the other tribes were in nearly complete disarray after Saul's demise, and it took five years to pull something together and put it in place.  I think David waited patiently for God to bring the other tribes over to him, and in that time Abner went around putting together support for Ish-Bosheth, and it took five years.  Well, five years and six months anyway.

Here's why:  Time for us happens fast, and we filter everything through that experience and expectation.  But these people went through longer periods of time with no leader.  As one Judge would die, there would be another 'power vacuum' and eventually another Judge would arise.  So, Samuel dies, as Saul is king, but when Saul dies, there's confusion as to what to do next.  Did the whole king thing fail?  Do we get a judge?  Meanwhile, 'there was no king in the land and everyone did what was good in their own eyes' (Judges 21:25). 

I guess my point is that to us, five years is this big deal.  To them though, things moved slower anyway.  Sure David went from Ziklag to Hebron, but even that probably took time after Saul's death.  David probably used that time to send 'bribes' to the leaders of Judah which smoothed his assumption of power there (1 Samuel 30:26-30).  David bides his time.  He's not worried.  He won't force the issue because he has faith, and I'm sure he doesn't relish trying to take the throne by force.  That would set a precedent of chaos between kings.  He's wise.  He's taught his men that they do not raise their hand against the Lord's anointed, and the lesson stuck.  Why would he turn around and endanger the eventual succession of his own throne through violence?

Faith and patience are not my strongest suits.  I get impatient and wonder what happened to God.  I've been in my job for over 8 years, and haven't been able to jump ship.  What I know is that my Master has me here in this position.  I need to be patient, and diligent as I wait.  David was patient and diligent as he waited for God to bring about what He promised.  And eventually He did.  David didn't complain, "What took you so long?" He didn't look at the chaos of the other tribes (if there was any) and complain, "How long will you wait while this madness continues?"  He did none of that.  I probably would have.  Of course he fought a bear by grabbing him by the beard and clubbing him to death, and I wouldn't do that either...we are quite a bit different really.

My point here is that the lesson of five missing years is patience and faith.  Or it's faith and patience.  Or it's love, which includes both (1 Corinthians 13).  I need to relax into my Master's mighty hands.  I need to stop trying to make much out of my little, when the One making everything out of nothing has me in His view.  It's okay, He's got this, whatever this is.

So critics will look at five missing, unaccounted for, ignored years and yell 'foul!', 'major biblical error!', and so on.  But I take it as a note of encouragement that my view of time is so vastly different from my Master's view of time.  The adjustment I need to make isn't to find an account for the time, but rather to submit to the view of the Master of all time.  If it doesn't bother Him, I shouldn't let it bother me.  Now, about those commentators totally ignoring the issue - THAT I still have an issue with...

Happy New Year

Now when Ish-bosheth, Saul's son, heard that Abner had died in Hebron, he lost courage, and all Israel was disturbed. (2 Samuel 4:1 NASB)

From the previous chapter (2 Samuel 3:6-11) it's clear that Ish-Bosheth feared Abner, and that Abner was about to give the kingdom over to David.  So when Abner dies, why fear?  This brings up a question for me that I've never been able to satisfactorily been able to answer.  Why was Abner so important to these people?

When I look at Scripture and how he is depicted, much is left to the imagination.  But perhaps my imagination fills in the blanks wrong.  I have assumed that Abner was more loyal to himself than to Saul.  He wasn't where Saul dies, and escapes along with many of the army he leads.  When they face David, he's running away.  He seems more interested in saving himself than anything.

Yet, from another perspective, he also calls a halt to the hostilities when he finally gains the advantage. He is able to speak even to the tribe of Benjamin to get them to follow David (which means they would give up prestige).  And Abner is mourned by David in a very thorough manner, he even curses Joab and his family.  Something is wrong with my estimation.

So if Abner is all that, what other explanation is there for his behavior?  It could be that Abner is more loyal to Israel than he is to anyone else (and that would include God).  The reason I say that is that it may explain why he leaves Saul to die; perhaps he was against the battle in the first place (although it doesn't say that).  It would explain why everyone seems to love him so much; they sense that he is very caring for them, has their best interests at heart.

But he does seem to be at odds with what he knows God wants to do.  He says to Ish-Bosheth that he will accomplish for David what God promised.  Why would he say that if he didn't know God had promised it?  And if he did know, what was he doing setting up Ish-Bosheth?  What about what he was doing was so good for Israel if it was contrary to what God was doing?  I don't get him.

But the reaction of the people, including Ish-Bosheth, to Abner's death is fear and troubling.  Did they fear that David would have no one to stop him from taking over by force?  Did they fear that the Philistines would finally come and finish them off?  Did they fear that losing the one guy holding them together would cause them to fall apart?  I don't know.  Perhaps the best answer that fits the facts is that, from the perspective of the people, Abner was their savior.  Maybe they thought God had punished them and they now needed Abner, a caring leader, in God's place; at least for now. Again, I don't know.

But in the dire circumstance of the people of Israel, they relied on Abner, not so much Ish-Bosheth.  In fact, his presence 'on the throne' so to speak was probably more of a nuisance than a boon; at least in their eyes.  He prevented the people from whole-heartedly following David.  So, his death should be a good thing, except for the fact that Abner had set him up.

The actions of the brothers in killing Ish-Bosheth also seems to support the theory that the soldiers were loyal to Abner more so than Ish-Bosheth, and like Abner, to Israel.  It's hard to say though.  They are quick to run to David, the one under who's protection Abner was killed.  On the other hand, David demonstrated that he had nothing to do with Abner's death.  It's a dilemma. I don't really get how Abner is so important, yet so obviously acting contrary to God.

So, what if God's selection of David only came out after Ish-Bosheth was on the throne?  What if only then did Abner realize that David was the one God chose to lead Israel?  Then he's in a dilemma because he has a sense of loyalty to this guy he put on the throne.  And this would explain why he answers Ish-Bosheth as he does when accused.  He says he has shown kindness to Saul, his family and his friends.  Were these the people to whom Abner was acting loyal when he placed Ish-Bosheth on the throne?  And after realizing that God had selected David after all, he was stuck with his deed and loyalty to his family.  Again, I don't really know.

I think that the explanation that fits the facts best is to consider Abner a quality guy who is popular because he tries to do what's right for the people of Israel.  They see that, sense that, and trust him because of it.  When he realizes that he's gone in the wrong direction, he tries to correct it when given opportunity.  In other words, he's trying to do the right thing with he best information he has.  I suspect the people of Israel could sense that, and that's why they followed him.

My take away from that is that he forms a pattern I think I should follow.  If David, a man after God's own heart, thought so highly of Abner, shouldn't I?  Sure I may be jealous because he also seems like those popular jocks from high school, but he's also a person trying to do what's right.  Aren't we all? Isn't that what I'm doing?  It should be.  I should be trying to do the right to the best of my knowledge.  What I know my God wants, I should do.  And when I don't know for sure, I should do my best to please him.  All Abner knew was that David had gone over to the Philistines.  He may not have known that David wasn't at the battle fighting against his own people.  He did what he thought was best to the best of his knowledge.

And for those of you that would criticize him for not inquiring of God, keep in mind, priests are in short supply since Saul wiped out the Priests of Nob.  David has the last of the 'high priestly family' in his camp (Abiathar).  So, inquiring of God isn't easy, especially when priests aren't likely to trust Saul's family.  I think Abner may have been doing his best with the limited knowledge he had.  And I think that my call is to do the same.  I can't become paralyzed by a lack of knowledge.  I have to fall back on the last instructions my Master gave me, and keep on moving forward.  So, my marching orders for today?  Keep moving forward...

Why Live By A 2000-Year-Old Book?

Now these things happened to them as an example, and they were written for our instruction, upon whom the ends of the ages have come.  Therefore let him who thinks he stands take heed that he does not fall.  No temptation has overtaken you but such as is common to man; and God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will provide the way of escape also, so that you will be able to endure it. (1 Corinthians 10:11-13 NASB)

I don't know how many times I've been asked that question, "Why do you pay attention to a 2,000-year-old book?"  It has the ring of a 'modern' question, one asked by modern, scientific, enlightened, independent thinkers.  I think it's ironic that it appears that this question was also asked by the early church; at least in its basic concept.

A lot of what Paul wrote in letters to churches was written to correct issues in those churches.  Since we only are able to 'eves drop' on one side of the conversation, we typically have to deduce the other side from what he says in correction.  As Paul writes to Corinth, in his instruction about food sacrificed to idols (a big deal in that city), he gets to this point in his discussion where he relies on examples from Israel's history; specifically in their travels through the desert to the Promised Land.  Initially that sounds like it would be well received, but he throws in verse 11, 'Now these things happened to them as an example, and they were written for our instruction, upon whom the ends of the ages have come.'  He corrected something.

I believe that Paul defends his use of Israel's history to this church because they would not initially accept this a valid example.  They would take a 'that was them, this is us' sort of easy dismissal of such an example.  The people in Corinth were very different people, under very different circumstances, facing very different problems.  Or were they?

Paul sites some initial points of connection with the believers in Corinth: 'baptized', 'ate spiritual food and drink' (i.e. Communion).  The unifying things in the church were present in the 'people wandering in the desert'.  Yet God was not pleased with most of them, so it wasn't what unified them that made them acceptable to God; therefore neither was it baptism and Communion that made the Corinthian believers acceptable.

Paul goes on to site examples from their history, but begins it by saying that 'these things happened as examples for us...'  Why do that at the beginning, and then again at the end?  It's important; and I believe it's corrective of an assumption on the part of the Corinthian believers.  I suspect they thought that there was not much to be gained from studying stories that happened 2,000 years before.  Who cares? What does that have to do with me?  I'm not in the desert, I'm not traveling to some 'Promised Land', I haven't passed through the 'Red Sea', nor is there a cloud or pillar of fire traveling around with me.  Sound familiar?

Paul ties up this section of his argument (again, about food sacrificed to idols), with the statement above.  It's a verse that most modern believers pull right out of this chapter without looking before it, or after.  "No temptation has overtaken you but such as is common to man..."  Paul's point is that a 2,000-year-old book is relevant for their lives because we're still people living in a 'fallen' world subject to the same testing and temptation.  I believe that a 2,000+year-old book is relevant for me today as a modern believer because I'm still a person living in a fallen world subject to the same testing and temptation.

Think about it, 'smoking' isn't covered in Scripture, but healthy dietary laws are; healthy living matters to God.  Drinking is covered in Scripture, but it seems it's still vilified by those who have been wounded by its abuse.  Buying a man's daughter as a debt-slave is covered, yet people still feel the Bible doesn't empower and protect women (see this blog entry if that one confuses you). 

All sorts of modern problems are assumed to be 'new' and the Bible irrelevant to address them.  Why?  Haven't we learned that all these 'problems' stem from a human condition internal to the person?  Haven't we discovered in psychology that people tend to behave in patterns established by their histories?  What, was that new with our 'modern culture'?  Seriously?  Freud relies on categories and diagnoses labeled for Greek Mythology because why? Because the Greek plays illustrated the very condition he 'discovered'.  Hello! Greek plays?  Yes, you find descriptions of the 'human condition' in Greek plays; and Hebrew and Christian Scripture as well.  You find them in these ancient texts because people really haven't changed that much. 

So maybe the ancient texts inspired and protected by the Creator of all humanity might be worth a good read.  Could He have left some 'clues' as to what works best?  Do you think He might have included some really good insight, like the insight only the Maker would know about what He made?  What do you think?  Perhaps? 

We, as people, will study our behinds off for an exam, for a degree, for a certification, for approval of human standards.  Why not work that hard on the texts inspired and preserved by our Creator?  Sure it's hard, I know it's not a simple thing to bring ancient languages into clear application on modern issues.  But wouldn't it be worth it?  People don't like to read, but they did to get through school.  Why for that, but not to really know their Savior? 

I write this as one guilty.  I know that there are portions of Scripture I avoid.  That doesn't excuse anyone, because I don't stand excused.  It's not a matter of how much of Scripture we avoid or don't read, we're responsible for all of it.  I know that, and yet I have avoided some vast tracts of genealogies, legal instruction, and prophecies on ancient foreign cultures.  I've pushed through Job, but gave into the tediousness of the poetic ranting, and skipped pieces.  I've read Revelation several times, but each time got so confused, turned around, and lost, that I again 'grazed' right over stuff to get to the end.  Don't even get me started on genealogies and land apportionment; wow, talk about 'dry'.  No excuse, at least not valid ones.

So, we all, as followers of Jesus, are to study Scripture, learn from what has been preserved.  We are to seek what our Creator wants us to know about His perspective on our world and how we are to behave in it.  It's not enough to learn from others either.  We have a responsibility to read for ourselves to know these things, to learn from God.  And then we can better seek the wisdom of others.  School is still in session.

The Danger of Being Loved by my Master

Samuel said to the people, "Do not fear. You have committed all this evil, yet do not turn aside from following the LORD, but serve the LORD with all your heart.  You must not turn aside, for then you would go after futile things which can not profit or deliver, because they are futile.  For the LORD will not abandon His people on account of His great name, because the LORD has been pleased to make you a people for Himself." (1 Samuel 12:20-22 NASB)

"Only fear the LORD and serve Him in truth with all your heart; for consider what great things He has done for you.  But if you still do wickedly, both you and your king will be swept away." (1 Samuel 12:24-25 NASB)

Samuel makes his last public address in Gilgal after Saul has been ratified as king for the second time.  In it he asserts his own innocence and calls the people to affirm it and God to witness.  Then he affirms the faithfulness of God, while simultaneously the faithlessness of the people; right up to asking for a king.  Then he calls on God to punctuate what he's saying to the people by spontaneously bringing thunder and rain (out of season).

The people are terrified and call on Samuel to continue to pray for them so they won't die.  His response to them is mostly above.  I chose these two elements out of his response because they bring out a part of God's character which is sadly misunderstood today.  In my childhood, my Master was not described to me this way, at least that's not what I caught from the teaching.

What way?  Well, while I do remember the power of my Master to create and shake His creation, sweeping away His people wasn't one of the elements I remember.  Think about the two elements, one that He is pleased to make a people for Himself, and two that He will sweep them away for causing evil.  They appear contradictory, but obviously aren't.

Here's what I believe is missed about the character of my Master in this passage.  I believe that my Master demonstrates enormous grace and mercy in His choice of me.  Clearly there is nothing inherent in my behavior and attitudes that warrants such attention from my Holy Creator. But the love of my Master for me is also guided by His holiness, which constantly directs me into more of this same character.  In order to accomplish this direction, my Master will sweep me away if necessary to remove me from an environment where I have lost my moorings to Him.

Is that a lot to get from this passage?  Probably.  But this passage occurs in the larger history of the sons of Israel for whom this is exactly what happens.  But this larger story continues on to their restoration, at least partially, to their former place.  What is also true is that the these sons of Israel do not then cease to be the people of God's choice.  So, neither will I.  But as they suffered, and have suffered, neither will I be exempt from such treatment from my Master.  Why would I?

I believe the rational of my Master behind this is the larger story in which the history of the sons of Israel is placed; where my Master seeks to redeem His entire creation.  He chooses a people to use to redeem the rest of the people, including me.  Yet if He will not spare one from being "swept away", why would I believe He will not sweep away the others?  If He does not spare the first chosen from suffering, why would I believe He would spare me? 

Do you see the character quality of my Master peeking through?  But do you see also the critical implication?  There is a danger is drifting away from a pure devotion to my Master.  When I mix it with devotion to things, people, circumstances, and the elements of my life on this planet; then I am in danger of being swept away by Him Whom I have forgotten.  Swept away, along with all the stuff, people, and circumstances I found so distracting.  Perhaps this is an implication of Jesus' words, "If anyone wishes to save his life he will lose it, but whoever loses His life for My sake and the gospel's he will save it." (Matthew 10:39, Mark 8:35, Luke 9:24)  Keep in mind that in these passages, "life" is actually the word "soul".

What I see as my response to this passage is to serve my Master with all my heart.  It confirms the words of my Master to me that I am His servant.  He gave me that designation many years ago in my youth, and I rediscovered it some few years ago while seeking to climb out of my addictive behaviors.  I needed to know who I am, and my Master's definition of me included the designation of His servant.  So that is in my "signature": SOTK, Servant of the King.  The danger of forgetting this is real, tangible, and for my sake because of His holiness and love for me, inflexible.  Now where's my dish towel?  I think I hear my Master calling!  "Here I am, my Master!"

Don't Take It Personal, Or Do

But the thing was displeasing in the sight of Samuel when they said, "Give us a king to judge us." And Samuel prayed to the LORD. The LORD said to Samuel, "Listen to the voice of the people in regard to all that they say to you, for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected Me from being king over them. Like all the deeds which they have done since the day that I brought them up from Egypt even to this day -- in that they have forsaken Me and served other gods -- so they are doing to you also. (1 Samuel 8:6-8 NASB)

 One of the things about prayer that often escapes a believer in Jesus is that it opens the person praying to the scrutiny of their Maker.  It's not like He only sees us in prayer, but prayer is often the time we're listening or the closest to listening we come.  So we are most likely to hear a corrective word at those times.

Samuel goes to God in prayer because the people he's been judging have asked for a king instead.  The request displeased him, so he prayed.  That's a good idea, a pattern we can all follow.  When displeased, pray.  Actually that's just one of tons of reasons to pray.  But it is one.  It's the one where what is sought is perspective, but it's also one of the more likely reasons to invite that divine scrutiny.

God starts by pointing out that this is not about Samuel.  Right off the bat, God points out that "...they have not rejected you, but they have rejected Me from being king over them."  Samuel doesn't want to oblige the people.  God says to do it.  But hidden in the reason is an acknowledgement that this is also a rejection of Samuel.

God ties the desire of the people for a king to their rejection of Him as king over them, but also to their prior deeds of serving other gods.  Then he acknowledges that this is a rejection of Samuel.  The point is that, while it may involve Samuel, it's not about Samuel.  This is really about God.  God helps Samuel re-frame the problem in a way that he can see how this is about God, and the people's rejection of their God as king.

I have to admit that my prayer times are dangerous, vulnerable times as well.  I'm not always ready to hear that what I'm facing isn't about me at all.  I tend to think that, if I'm involved, it's about me.  Even caught between my customers and my company, as I so often am, is a problem about my Master rather than me.  Sure, I'm involved, directly involved.  But when I place myself as the central character, all the things I cannot control weigh on me in ways that are simply frustrating.  The thing is, if I can't control them, then they aren't mine to carry.

Essentially, to be thought well of by my customers, I engage in the "middleman" role in trying to get their issue with our product fixed.  It's not wrong to place myself in this position, it's wrong to do to look good to my customer.  I do want their repeat business, but when I try to please them, I am wrongly motivated, and in danger of idolatry.  What my Master does is help me re-frame my understanding of these circumstances as service to Him.

When a customer has a problem, I help them bridge the gap between their problem and the solutions buried deep in my company's murky inner workings.   I do so because that is what my Master did for me.  What I was incapable of doing for myself He did.  I didn't even really understand the problem, even describing it.  I didn't know that the solution for my lack of peace and constant fear was a relationship with the Master of the universe.  My customers don't really know what the problem is, just what the effects are on them.

So, when I pray, my frustrations, my whining, my complaints, my anger, all the things I take to my Master that I think are so much about me wind up being the things He uses to teach me to die to myself a bit more.  It's ironic, but He also acknowledges that I am involved.  He did this with Samuel when He says, "...so now they are doing to you also." What that meant for Samuel is that God was going to use him in this transition just as He had been using him before.  What it means for me is that in these circumstances I face, God is using me.  Perhaps to bless my customers, to alleviate their frustrations, or maybe even to help them re-frame their understanding that this isn't as much about them as they thought.

So, it's not about me, but my Master uses me in the midst of it.  This is why He has called me to be a servant to my King.  He wants me available to Him.  When I get focused on myself, my frustrations, and my problems, I'm not as available.  He refocuses me on Him, and then involves me in what He is doing.  Did I mention this happens in prayer?  Can you imagine what I lose when I don't take time to pray?  Blind frustration with the wrong thing is a poor substitute to usefulness in my Master's Kingdom.  You'll have to excuse me, I have to go talk with my my King.

It's Not Like This Surprised God

When you enter the land which the LORD your God gives you, and you possess it and live in it, and you say, 'I will set a king over me like all the nations who are around me,' you shall surely set a king over you whom the LORD your God chooses, one from among your countrymen you shall set as king over yourselves; you may not put a foreigner over yourselves who is not your countryman.  (Deuteronomy 17:14-15 NASB)

Then all the elders of Israel gathered together and came to Samuel at Ramah; and they said to him, "Behold, you have grown old, and your sons do not walk in your ways. Now appoint a king for us to judge us like all the nations." (1 Samuel 8:4-5 NASB)

There are multiple opinions of the monarchy in Scripture, not just one.  We assume there is one because One God inspired it.  But I believe we "presume" with God when we believe that His views are universal when it comes to His highly variable human creatures.  The only universal with His human creatures is that we are lost and dead without Him.  Other than that, we're as different from each other as our fingerprints.

So, when the people asked for a king, it offended Samuel because he was already their judge.  They rejected him in a very real, very personal sense.  They blamed it on his sons and on his age, but they also ignored his success.  The realities of the one eclipsed the reality of the other, and it hurt Samuel's heart. 

God saw it differently.  He saw it as another in a long line of usurpations of His Sovereignty over His chosen people.  But it didn't surprise Him.  He already had it lined out what would happen.  Back in the day of Moses, as the people camped on banks of the Jordan River, God described for Moses what should be done when the people asked for a king.  He even knew why they would ask, "...like all the nations who are around me."  So, this is not a surprise. 

Every once in a great while, I have a shining moment of brilliance, and I lay out my brilliant idea before my Master.  Sheer brilliance! I have a plan, an idea, a wonderful new method or way or procedure or something equally boring and uninteresting, completely underwhelming and irrelevant to my Master and His plans and ideas.  But He listens, completely unperturbed, as if I've just discovered the cure for cancer He's been trying to get everyone to find right under their noses or something.  But it's not like He's surprised.

Think about it.  What can I discover that He didn't create?  What can I imagine that didn't come from elements He provided?  What can I do or decide that isn't an amalgam of circumstances He orchestrated?  Sure I have free-will.  Of course I have real decisions to make.  It's clear that I have responsibility for my mistakes and correct deeds and decisions.  But none of that flies in the face of or in any way minimizes the complete sovereignty of my Master.

Why then do I think that what I achieve at work is about me?  Why when bad things happen do I take it personal?  What makes me think that the world, or the piece of it in which I live, has anything to do with me?  Why is it so easy to forget that my entire value is in the eyes of my Master, and my purpose is entirely His design.  Is there something more valuable I can imagine than the love of my Master?  Perhaps I can envision some loftier purpose than the one He designs.  Have I lost my mind? 

How hard is it to just simply fall back into the assurance that my Master has my life in His hand?  Bad stuff happens, bring it on!  Good stuff happens, thank you Master!  Difficulty at work, I work for my King, and this is His purpose.  Happiness at home, we will praise Him together.  Pain and sorrow at home, we will grieve together before His throne and be comforted by His presence.  It makes no difference as to the circumstances nor where they occur; nothing separates me from the foot of His throne.

Now, for the reality of my day.  Let's see if I can live out these words as easily as I have written them...

There Went The Judge

Then the one who brought the news replied, "Israel has fled before the Philistines and there has also been a great slaughter among the people, and your two sons also, Hophni and Phinehas, are dead, and the ark of God has been taken."  When he mentioned the ark of God, Eli fell off the seat backward beside the gate, and his neck was broken and he died, for he was old and heavy. Thus he judged Israel forty years. (1 Samuel 4:17-18 NASB)

Eli was the high priest from Aaron's line.  He was condemned by God for honoring his sons above God, and received two prophecies regarding the demise of his family and their place before God as priests.  It was happening.  His sons were dead, struck down in battle while carrying the Ark of the Covenant.  I thought it was interesting that, as the prophecy comes to pass, Eli dies over the Ark rather than his sons.

The charge by God against Eli had to do with his parenting of his sons, and how that parenting was debasing the priesthood and Israel's worship.  His bad choices were affecting Israel's devotion to God.  Not many parents have that much riding on their parenting, but there are several noted in Scripture.  Ironically it seems they are mentioned at major junctures in Israel's history.  Here the temple/tabernacle is destroyed, never to be rebuilt until Solomon.

But that Eli responds this way to the news of the Ark, his concern for it as he waits for news, indicates something unexpected of his heart.  If he honored his sons above God, then the news of their death would have struck him more than the loss of the Ark.  Yet it is the Ark's loss that moves him to fall over backward, and terminally break his neck.

There are a few possibilities about this, like it is his "job" at the temple that concerns him.  I doubt this.  It could be that he thought God was really with or in the gold box.  Likely, but not required since he also knew the box wasn't God and God didn't follow it around like a puppy.  It may be that he thought that the loss of the Ark signaled the removal of God's election from Israel.  While this is possible, I suspect that Samuel's work as a prophet was enough proof that the Ark was not the determining factor.

Instead, I think that what it was about the loss that killed Eli over the loss of his sons was the removal of God's presence from among His people.  I don't think it was the election of Israel, to whatever degree he understood that.  I don't think it was the "capture" of God, which I don't think anyone seriously thought possible.  I think Eli thought he had caused the presence of God to be removed from among his people.

The death of his sons had been predicted, he had been told twice.  Their death was no surprise.  The loss of the Ark of the Covenant was the summation of his fears when it left the shrine at Shiloh.  He knew he had caused the end of his line, but had he also caused the loss of the presence of God from among his people?  He sat by the road and fretted over that (or that's my opinion, how I imagine it).

The Ark of the Covenant was the symbol of the presence of God among His people.  While, over the years, this symbol had resided in Shiloh, God's presence had been assured, although never really mentioned in all of the period of the Judges until here.  It's odd that such an important object with so much importance and meaning was given so little ink during such dark times for Israel.  Regardless of the reason (and there are several historical perspectives on the reason why), the result is that the inspiration of the Master that we do have leaves it out.

Consider then the setting of the high priest presiding over the worship of the chosen people of God, and yet a word from God was rare, precious, scarce.  Prophets are unheard of, so where is God?  It makes the job of high priest and priest and Levite rather bland and colorless.  There is no word from God, only the practice of death, blood, fire, and repetition.  How does the "show bread" taste after years of eating it without a word from the One having appointed it?  It almost seems pointless. 

But they had the box, and that meant God was still there, enthroned above the Chrubim.  He had chosen Israel as His people, but He had also chosen to abide among them.  So, pointless as it may have seemed, Eli could have found purpose and comfort knowing that the Ark was still among the people of God. 

Now this isn't required.  Samuel was still a prophet, and God was clearly with Samuel, Ark or not.  But Eli isn't looking at or for Samuel, he's looking for the gold box.  So what's my point?  After judging Israel 40 years, leading them in worship, ministering before God, Eli focuses on the box.  He put all his hopes in there.  Sure it symbolized the presence of God among His people, but it was symbol, not the presence.  It had become an Idol.  This judge of Israel had become one through whom God would not speak, his heart was focused too low.

Where's my focus?  Where's my hope and design?  What do I see as my purpose?  Where is my Master located within my life?  Am I bound up in myself, my family, my church?  These are all important (not necessarily in that order though).  Am I bound up in my Master?  Is my focus on my relationship with Him rather than with others here (including myself)?  Would the loss of my church, my daughter, my wife, or even my own life be the end of me? 

I don't think the loss of my church would be crushing.  It would hurt, and I would grieve; but I would live.  The loss of my family would be devastating, and I have no idea what recovery, if it came, would look like.  That would be life-changing.  I like to think that I could sacrifice myself for others more easily than I could defend myself, so that wouldn't be the most fearful thing for me.  I don't think that loss of any of these things could do away with me.  But that isn't all there is to me.  What is my gold box?  What is yours?