Autumn Color and the Death of the Amish Children

From my blog

Thou art good, and doest good…Ps 119:68

Colors converge toward copper here, passing red, not quite gold. Our chickens are deep golden-buff and scarlet-combed. Crimson-leaved blueberries and cayenne-orange mountain ash berries, saturated in mid-autumn sun, hang on, closer to life than dormancy.

Even in my pleasant garden, I am never unaware of perturbation. Intermittent sirens and helicopters herald the presence of sin and pain and need.

This week a small Amish community in Pennsylvania buried five schoolgirls, murdered despite the girls’ likely compliance with their killer’s demand that they pray for him to protect him from carrying out his horrific crime.

Today, as are all days, is a good day to be a Calvinist.

Only a Calvinist sees events like this in a light that comports with God’s own testimony: the absolute sovereignty of his perfect will. God’s sovereignty prevails over peace and over perturbation.

Does this make Calvinists callous? That is a testy and ignorant misconception. We grieve the grievous. We know the grievous could always be more grievous. We see restraint present in the world, despite sin. We understand the end of all things, including ourselves, is the glory of God. To God alone the glory.

Is God implacable? No; he is merciful. His law and his judgments are perfect and righteous (Ps 19:7; Ps 119:7). Our God is in the heavens, and he hath done whatsoever he pleased (Ps 115:3).

Did it please God to have a crazed reprobate kill five children? Behold the evidence. Yes, it did. It pleased him to have crazed reprobates kill his own son. Had it not, our sin would be unredeemed, and we would justly suffer in hell, just as surely as crazed reprobate killers of little girls.

A hard thing. But sin is sin, and death is death, and death does not always come packaged neatly wrapped in human poetic justice.

Our faith rests in him whose righteous judgments are perfect.

God is a righteous judge,
Yea, a God that hath indignation every day Ps 7:11.

I will give thanks unto Jehovah according to his righteousness,
And will sing praise to the name of Jehovah Most High Ps 7:17.

Categories
Book Reviews

Upward Descent and Other Amazing Deviations: Dabney Dissects Darwin

From my blog

Mid-nineteenth-century evolution theory was a fission bomb forever sundering two ways of understanding life: Either we are related through Adam and unrelated to cantaloupe; or, we are related through protoplasm to both.

Dabney’s chapter, “Evolution Theory” is the Cat’s favorite thus far. He resents any implication that he is descended from inferior wild cats. If left to the wild habitats of his so-called ancestors, the Cat would most probably make his way to the nearest doorstep and yowl for cat food. Notwithstanding the Cat’s defective (though sensorially impeccable) epistemology, he understands that he is a discrete creation made to be a companion to man. This places the Cat far ahead of evolutionary theorists.

Dabney was a contemporary of Charles Darwin (1809″“1882), and thus the beneficiary of the same classical intellectual heritage from which Darwin drew. He penetrated the flaws in Darwin’s scheme, and deftly deconstructed them.

Darwin’s contribution (The Origin of Species, 1859; The Descent of Man, 1871) to evolution theory was his systematizing of classical atomic (as in atoms as components of matter) theory, using laws inferable from nature: multiplication, limitation, heredity, variation, and equilibrium. Behavior, too, would be an operative variable effecting survival. Ultimately, success is determined by chance, because these laws are driven by blind atomic causation. The ultimate victor in this animalistic struggle is he who accumulates the most brain convolutions and mechanistic impulses to survive. This happened to be man, but in a chance system, it could just as easily have been a speck of mold. An evolutionist perhaps would not put it this way, because he would likely fail to perceive the logical outcome of his theory.

Dr. Thomas Huxley and Professor John Tyndall took up the creatorless cause after Darwin. Nothing happens by chance, according to Tyndall; every occurrence is caused, and therefore necessary. Tyndall’s definition of the soul (yes, he acknowledged its existence) is well worth quoting: “The soul consists of fine, smooth, round atoms, like those of fire. These are the most mobile of all [atoms]. They interpenetrate the whole body, and in their motions the phenomena of life arise” (R. L. Dabney: The Sensualistic Philosophy Naphtali Press, 2003, p. 91).

One readily sees why humanists are still forum-shopping.

Compare and contrast: And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. Ge 2:7

Do you feel the Force? Herbert Spencer (1820-1903) did. He refined evolutionary science to theoretical linear perfection. “Force” moved matter from protoplasm to mollusk to the mind of Isaac Newton in so many increments over so much time. In Spencer’s model, “Force” equals motion, and is the single causative agency in the universe. Spencer’s reason for calling his material cause “Force,” according to Dabney, was simple distaste for the Christian notion of God and his own soul.

Spencer’s Force is infinite, impersonal and unknowable, but it gets things done. Problematically, Spencer attributes a multitude of properties and doctrines to this “unknowable” Force. Dissecting probe in hand, Dabney exposes this inconsistency. He further notes that Spencer attempts to place an epistemological embargo on knowledge of the “unknowable” God. Apparently, it is possible to know things about some unknowable things, but not about others.

Spencer’s Force is unknowable but at the same time, Spencer insists, it is inferable–through, of course, the usual sensualistic means: our senses. Since the Force is impersonal as well as unknowable, we cannot know whether it is benevolent or malevolent.

God, on the other hand, is infinite, personal, and truly unknowable, but because of his personal benevolence toward us, he makes himself knowable to us, albeit in a finite way due to our finite consciousness.

How can we trust an unknowable Force? Dabney points out that we cannot presume it is intelligent, rational, logical, interested, or possessed of any other properties, benevolent or otherwise, if it is truly unknowable. We do know that God is all-intelligent and capable of manifesting himself to us. Once a scientist signs on with the unknowable, doctrine and reason are defenestrated.

One point on which I admit confusion is Spencer’s concept of time, which “is but experienced succession” (Dabney, p. 100). Does Spencer mean that before man, the only creature capable of experiencing time, there was no time? Then when did all these things occur–protoplasm to mollusk to Newton–that required so much time?

Spencer inspires further wonder when he says that “material motion is simply the consciousness of matter in successive positions in time” (Dabney, p. 100). Now, this is priceless. Matter is conscious, but the Force propelling it might not be conscious–we don’t know, because it is unknowable. If this doesn’t convince you to take your fish for a walk, nothing will.

I suspect that Spencer and Comte (see my “The Pontiff of Humanity” post below) might have been drinking buddies.

At some point, our atomic clock ceases ticking; the little flame of atoms is extinguished, and we die. Or, as Spencer really said, the “absorption of motion and diffusion of matter” take place (Dabney, p. 102). There could not possibly be a provision in his materialist scheme for resurrection once matter is thus debased. The impersonal Force makes no claims, no promise of eternal life.

Spencer’s gods–matter, motion, and force–“symbols of the Unknown Reality”–in the end, are subject to death.

The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. Ps 14:1; Ps 53:1

Categories
Devotion

The House of Mill: All Mirrors, No Windows

This is from my blog, Board Housewife & The Cat

I am still reading Dabney to the Cat. He takes it in through his senses. James and son John Stuart Mill would posit that I, if I formulate any ideas about their work, am experiencing “copies of single sensations.”

The Cat, whose ideation begins and ends with his own sensory learning, disbelieves Mill. The Cat learns everything in one take and finds insulting the idea of copies of his own uniquely perfect sensations.

The Cat does not think that I am as capable a learner as he. According to Mill, the Cat would be right. But the Cat would still be a lower animal in Mill’s scheme, because he cannot name his sensations, and I can. I will not read that part to the Cat.

According to Mill, my cumulative learning and experience, from hot stovetops to jurisprudence, is a bundle of habits. (But how would he account for my bad habits of not learning from experience? I have burned myself more than once.) I have received no a priori input, not even language. I have learned nothing but that to which my senses have had the happy or unhappy occasion to be exposed. I am a perfectly revelation-proof being.

So that is how Mill proposes to escape God! God will never make it past those nerve bundles. Mill has devised a scheme to enable man to make himself inaccessible to revelation.

Once man acquires an idea through his senses, he will “mark,” or “name” it, so that he can remember it, so that he may repeat it or not, depending on whether it was enjoyable or not. So man can define reality by naming what he likes. The logical corollary is, he may elect not to name anything he doesn’t like. Poof. All gone. No more unhappy thing.

I have encountered children who were unable to extrapolate because of brain damage. You could set up a simple arithmetic problem: put five oranges on a table, remove three, and show them that two were left. Then, if you put five apples on the table, you would have to start all over again. They had no idea what would happen if you removed three apples. Mill’s reasoning, notwithstanding his creditable intelligence, is similar. His scheme simply does not permit extrapolation. Each idea must be built on an identical chain of experiences. Since apprehension of God’s revelation of himself requires abstract thought, Mill’s refusal to abstract is another God-proofing mechanism.

Objective reality is necessarily elusive in Mill’s scheme. A rock, for instance, is a “permanent possibility of sensations.” We might as well vote on the meaning of that one.

Educators study John Stuart Mill today. (His work, according to Dabney, differed from his father’s by accentuating it at its most torqued.) They learn that the end of education is the individual’s happiness. Dabney notes this in his chapter on Mill: “Hence, it follows that moral education consists simply in establishing desirable associations between acts and consequences, by the frequent repetition of the right acts” (Robert L. Dabney, The Sensualistic Philosophy, Naphtali Press, 2003, p. 58.) But with no a priori information as to what “right” is, who can know what should be repeated? The senses, of course. Happy sensations are worth repeating.

Mill should not be accused of saying that men disregard the welfare of fellow men in favor of their own happiness. The bludgeoner does not have the right to bludgeon repeatedly because it makes him happy. Mill provides for moral categories of prudence and fortitude (duties to ourselves), and justice and benevolence (duties to our neighbors). However, some sort of unrevealed natural desire comes into play–there is, once again, no a priori revelation of what constitutes prudence or justice or benevolence. Men simply learn from experience what is pleasurable and what is painful. In a world without sin and sociopathy, this might even be thinkable. But we do not live in a world without sin and sociopathy. Nor, contrary to Mill’s premise, do we live in a world without revealed law.

Once again, the sensualist is lost in his own quagmire, attempting to God-proof himself. He has built a house of mirrors–surrounding himself with his own perceptions of the consequences of his own experiences–with no windows admitting the light of revelation.

…every man did that which was right in his own eyes. Ju 17:6; 21:25

For being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and seeking to establish their own, they did not subject themselves to the righteousness of God. Ro 10:3

Categories
Devotion

The Pontiff of Humanity

from my blog Board Housewife & The Cat

“The Pontiff of Humanity”

Advisory: Scary content.

The Cat enjoys scaring his friend Zack. He has urged me, therefore, to write about Positivism’s arch scion, Auguste Comte, about whom we were just reading in Dabney. Comte had the modest aspiration of becoming “Pontiff of Humanity.”

Ideas that reject sources of knowledge can get very weird, and Comte quite possibly attained the zenith of weirdness. If we owe our ideas to no sources of knowledge outside of our own experience of phenomena, we tend to become a bit obsessed with ourselves. Thus, atheism is the predictable logical consequence of positivism.

Positivism denies the supernatural, even in light of the evidence of supernatural facts. Thus, the documented miracles that Christ performed on earth before thousands of witnesses would be denied or explained naturally–an impossibility untroubling to a positivist mind.

The cosmological implication of this is, or should be, terribly frightening: self-existence without God. As Dabney puts it so well, “Thus, matter is clothed with the attributes of God” (Robert L. Dabney: The Sensualistic Philosophy, Naphtali Books, 2003, p. 81).

Comte, who lived from 1798 to 1857, was certainly not the first person to attempt to recreate God; nor was he original in his attempt to introduce worship of himself. However, there is a certain novelty to his approach of denying the existence of any god, while introducing a religious system of worship with himself as the center, and expecting liberty-enjoying people to go along with it.

To the psychotic Comte, a religion without God was a reasonable concept. His religion included the necessary element of worshipers. To ensure a prodigious number of them, he devised a congregation known as the “Great Being,” consisting of all humanity, living, dead, and those who will live. Evidently hip to the utility of liturgical worship principles, Comte devised a system of worship with 84 holy days in a year and nine sacraments (p. 83).

Comte’s system was to consist of a “spiritual order” of positivist philosophers and educators (reminiscent of Plato’s philosopher kings, but in Plato’s gnostic model, at least knowledge was understood to come from without the visible world). These people would be presumed infallible and defiance of their dicta would not be tolerated. Above the oligarchy would be the Pontiff of Humanity, with Comte, of course, to be the first to hold this office. The Pontiff, imbued with unsurpassed wisdom, would select his own successor.

Comte had a plan for the United States of America, wherein three bankers were to govern each of the States. The spiritual order would be absolute in its authority, and its authority would be absolute in its sphere of human control–social, spiritual, educational, and, economic.

Comte suffered from manic depression in addition to his obvious megalomania, and was rescued in the course of several suicide attempts. But consider the burden under which he labored–the pressure of ruling every soul that ever lived, did live, and ever would live–equipped only with the laws of nature directly sensible to him. No wonder he held such a hopeless, fatalistic world view, holding “intellectual skepticism as the most advantageous state of mind” (Dabney, p. 84). The irony was likely lost on him that he could not even trust the validity of his own “infallible” ideas.

Unchallenged deference to experts because they are experts, regardless of competence, is a current manifestation of Comte’s positivist world view. I would submit that Comte’s view is not extreme, but rather the logical outcome of positivism, and that it exists around us more than makes us comfortable to think.

Dabney said this in the 19th century, and it is as true in our day as it was in his: Positivism’s “most deplorable result is the impulse which it gives to irreligion and open atheism. Thousands of shallow persons, who have no understanding of any connected philosophy, and are too indolent and inattentive to acquire it, are emboldened to babble materialism and impiety, by hearing it said that the “˜positive philosophy’ has exploded the supernatural” (Dabney, p. 85).

Adherence to positivism and its sequelae is shallow and uncomplicated; it is a giving over to a reprobate mind. Paul presaged the philosophy long before Dabney warned America: “for that they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator…” Ro 1:25. “And even as they refused to have God in their knowledge, God gave them up unto a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not fitting…” Ro 1:28.

Positivists would profess that their philosophy advocates nothing specifically immoral, that nature itself is sufficient revelation of proper moral conduct. Whose nature–Auguste Comte’s? Their scheme forecloses any moral source outside of nature and sensibility; therefore, how can morality be known? But this is a rude question to ask an all-knowing Pontiff of Humanity.

Categories
Devotion

JUST LIKE A MAN

This is from my blog, Board Housewife & The Cat

“And God saw everything that he had made, and, behold, it was very good.” Ge 1:31

“And Jehovah God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.” Ge 2:16

God put man in the garden when he gave him dominion over the very good world he had made. “But,” touts this month’s cover of Smithsonian, “the real action is beyond our solar system.”

University of California-Berkeley astronomer Geoff Marcy evidently is unimpressed with God’s creation that took him seven days, at the end of which he set an example of rest. “I just don’t see how making an Earth could be hard,” posits Dr. Marcy.

“My intuitive sense is that our solar system is not uncommon at all,” Dr. Marcy continues. Keep sensing, Geoff. “Ultimately, we need to go, with robotic spacecraft…” Go, Geoff, go.

Dr. Marcy represents a team with a virtuous motive: finding planets with robots and digital cameras is “a wonderful goal for our species, and it is within our grasp.” A lot of programs pitch “for our children,” but this one is “for our species.” Very, very big stuff.

Furthermore, Dr. Marcy describes this goal as “a glorious reconnaissance to spot the first oases in the cosmic desert.” People-friendly science is very confusing.

God put man in the garden on the earth, and man just can’t stay put.

“And night unto night showeth knowledge.” Ps 19:2

Surely the glorious night sky breathes awe and wonder into the soul of man; the heavens, in declaring the glory of God, declare sovereign government and common grace; they declare beauty and rainfall to all. But a man who aspires to depart from the world in which God put him–even to depart only in his mind and soul–perhaps hopes in vain to escape his destiny. Perhaps his hope is that, beyond the earth, saving grace will not be required. Perhaps he seeks an alternative in the great “cosmic desert.” Nature does not give evidence of saving grace, but word gets around.

Man is given the wisdom to discover many things, and perhaps he will verify new worlds and terran topographies elsewhere in the universe, but he will not discover saving grace outside of Jesus Christ. And he will only hear the Gospel of Jesus Christ here on Earth.

John Owen spoke to this in the 17th century, “…that there is that manifestation made of the glorious properties of God in and by the Scripture, as it is a divine revelation, which incomparably excels in evidence all that [men’s] reason receives concerning his power from the works of creation” (Works of John Owen, Banner of Truth, Vol. 4, p. 92).

Men who seek to appropriate the things of God–including other planets–not acknowledging his absolute dominion over them, are not seeking God. Perhaps they aspire to be gods themselves, and plan their own worlds, settling, in the end, for computer-modeled conjectures of worlds to manipulate with their intuitive senses.

I enjoy astronomy. My husband built a telescope and ground the mirror. I am thrilled at the sight of Saturn and its rings and a few of its moons. It is a thing too wonderful for me, and I know it is in God’s perfect purpose and design that it is there, in all its beauty, and all for God’s glory, and all for the good pleasure of his perfect sovereign will. I believe God made the heavens to be spectacular in order to declare his glory, just like he says (Ps 19:1).

I feel dreadfully sorry for anyone who would dedicate his life to speculative gas clouds and settle for a computer model of a world he has to infer from a wobble, and never investigate “the glorious properties of God in and by the Scripture, as it is a divine revelation….”

“He hath made the earth by his power, he hath established the world by his wisdom, and by his understanding hath he stretched out the heavens.” Je 10:12

Categories
Book Reviews

Thomas Hobbes, R. L. Dabney, and the Sensualist Cat

I posted this to my blog, Board Housewife & The Cat this morning.

Trust in the Lord with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding. Pr 3:5

As I begin to read about the history of ideas, two things happen: First, the more I am called to repent my condonation of bad philosophy by reason of willful ignorance; and, second, the more I learn about the way the Cat thinks.

I am reading The Sensualistic Philosophy by Robert L. Dabney, a 19th-century conservative Southern Presbyterian theologian and philosopher, in an attempt to fill the philosophy gap I left open in my education. I avoided philosophy as much as I could in college, taking only a survey course.

After a two-decade gap, I began law school and was made to choke down something called “logical positivism” in a jurisprudence course. I figured I had to be stupid, because I could have sworn that logical positivism was illogical and nihilistic.

Fortunately, the course was such a joke that I could say virtually anything on the exam and it would bring about a decent grade. Relativists are flexible graders, not only because they allege that there is no right or wrong, but they tend to see what they want to see in someone else’s argument. One student actually failed this class; I have no idea why, but it sticks in my mind like the Sword of Damocles: the Logical Positivist Threat.

Logical positivism is a 1920s revival of same-old-same-old empiricism, aka sensualistic philosophy: If a tree falls and no one hears it, did it make a sound, and other Zen reminiscences. Logical positivism inches from the notion that all knowledge must come from the experience of the senses–though that notion remains foundational–and adds the proviso that, well, we can have some knowledge prior to, or even without, actual sensory experience. I suppose the some marks a new era in human thought.

John Owen (1616-1683) and Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) lived within the same sphere of time and absolutely disparate spheres of thought. When I consider the news and politics of our day, I become persuaded that most people now think fairly similarly. As Christians, we are necessarily outliers. But opposing political parties, for instance, show little substantive difference. Seventeenth-century thinkers, on the other hand, show more diversity of thought– perhaps because they thought more. Mercifully, we have no substantial record of what dull people from that era thought, because they could not write, whereas now they can.

I am getting around to the thought that the more I read about ideas and their history, the more I am persuaded that there is more convergence of thought now than there was during the Reformation, perhaps the last age of illuminated thought. Even people with bad ideas thought; they just didn’t think well.

Thomas Hobbes, a scion of the sensualist philosophical camp, was such a philosopher. Hobbes is famous for developing the idea of the “social contract,” the mechanism by which depraved (he had that part right) men are able to coexist in civilized societies.

I can only suppose that Hobbes felt the need to come up with a model that did not presuppose a Christian covenant like Calvin’s Geneva. But I think his world view was simply so different from Calvin’s that he required a model that did not rely on God in order to keep people in line.

I have not read more than excerpts written by Hobbes himself; only about him. At one point, life was too long to read his magnum opus, Leviathan. At this point, life is too short.

According to Dabney, Hobbes did believe in the concepts of good and evil; however, he believed that good and evil were relative concepts and that every man freely elects what is good and evil according to what pleases or displeases him. Therefore, the civil magistrate restrains citizens, who concede all rights to the magistrate in exchange for an order under which men allow one another to live. Self-interest is the tie that binds, restrained by the magistrate. It is a “war of all against all” out there, and it is to be resolved only in an absolute ruler in whom “irresistible force” is delegated. It isn’t about good and evil; it is about a conqueror and the conquered. And the conquered, if they owe any duties to God, must subordinate them to their duties to the ruler. Hobbes is not considered an atheist by other philosophers, and he was vindicated of a charge of atheism brought by Parliament, but clearly he was in the dark zone as to who God is, and so was an atheist in fact.

An aspect of logical positivism that I was taught in law school, is “widely and warmly shared values.” I recall my professor fairly rhapsodizing over this. And it is quite odd, because Hobbes holds that men’s values are neither widely nor warmly shared; in fact, they are concessions to the realities of force.

Hobbes, along with John Locke, was one of the leading influences behind the United States Constitution, the preamble of which begins, “We the people.” Our oft-called “God-fearing republic” is about people, and not too many of our people these days fear God. Many people, however, do believe they experience God. People love experience–they want it in their leaders, their teachers, their employees, their religion–but so much experience is really an imprinted pattern of doing something wrong.

The Cat, the Cat…the reason that I understand better about the way the Cat thinks as I read Dabney is because the Cat is a Sensualist. Everything he knows comes through his senses, and he remembers things that imprint on his senses, like tasty food and kitty litter, and his people and not-his people. But the Cat is decidedly not a Hobbesian. He would not even consider submission to any authority in order better to enhance the peace, and he is oblivious to any threat to his self-interest. I would advise against entering into any sort of contract with him.

Categories
Sacraments Theology

Responding to a concern that I misrepresented Greg Welty

I have been very busy as of late and was deployed to Korea for an exercise.  While there, a reader who is a friend of Greg Welty had concerns with my post A Critique of Greg Welty's Use of Galations in "From Circumcision to Baptism".  Here is the concern raised:

Greg had said in his paper: 

"What was the heresy of the Judaizers in the book of Galatians?

Fundamentally, their error was to contend that the command to circumcise was essential to the perpetuity of the Abrahamic Covenant and its promises and blessings. Thus, according to them, Gentile converts were required to be circumcised in order to be members of the family of God."

On Greg's view, central to the "promises and blessings" of the Abraham Covenant is *justification itself*. The error of the Judaizers was that you needed to be circumcised in order to be saved. As you rightly observed  "The error was trust in the Law. The error was a reliance upon the Law as a means of Justification." What he says is exactly what Greg believes.

Greg affirms that the Abrahamic Covenant was an administration of the covenant of grace, and is a redemptive covenant. And it's because he holds to classic covenant theology, that I stated things as I did.

His point in the material you cited was *not* to say that the error of the paedobaptist, in his view, was identical to the error of the Judaizer. He explicitly distinguished the two. In the very next paragraph (which you didn't cite), Greg wrote:

"While their error is usually not as serious as that of the Judaizers, the paedobaptist commits a similar error, by contending that the command to apply a covenant sign to one's children is essential to the perpetuity of the Abrahamic Covenant, and its promises and blessings."

The only reason he brought up the Judaizing error is to expose an *analogy* between it and the paedobaptist error. That's all. Also, that analogy bears little argumentative weight in his presentation. It's illustrative at best. My argument that the paedobaptist position is indeed an error is made on other grounds.

So, essentially, you seem to have latched onto an illustration as if it's an argument, but neither I nor Greg is sure you understood his illustration, since you seemed to impute a position to Greg that he does not hold, and that isn't entailed by what he wrote.  You might want to go back and revisit that particular entry.

First, let me state that I am not above reproach.  I carefully read what I wrote and I believe my criticism stands.  I criticized Mr. Welty on his exegesis of Galatians 3 and 4 and I believe that criticism is still valid.  My criticism at this point was not to suggest that it was material to his entire argument but his misappropriation of the "fundamental error" of the Judaizers is indicative of a larger error.

 If Mr. Welty had stated that their fundmental error was a reliance on the Law as a means of Justification then I would have no problem with the statement.  He zeroes in on the actual act of Circumcision, however, and then tries to attribute paedobaptism to a form of the Judaizing heresy, analogy or not.  I never said that Mr. Welty equated paedobaptism with the Judaizing heresy.  That he even put them in the same neighborhood is aggregious enough especially the way in which the analogy is formed.

I also, purposefully, did not deal with the portion where Mr. Welty merely calls the paedobaptist position a "similar error" (I wonder if the anathemas in Gal 1 are "similar").  Why?  Because he gets the Judaizing error wrong.  The Judaizers were not after a mere physical circumcision of the flesh.  To believe otherwise is to mis-read Paul's arguments.  They want the Galatians to take on the requirements of the Law as a means to Justification.  It was not "…the command to circumcise…" that was "…essential to the perpetuity of the Abrahamic Covenant and its promises and blessings…" as Mr. Welty insists.  The Judaizers expected far more than a mere circumcision of the flesh.  Their fundamental error was not even looking to the Abrahamic Covenant as I pointed out and am told that Mr. Welty agrees with.

So I'm left wondering:  If Mr. Welty agrees that it was a belief that Torah keeping=Justification then how does he go from that idea to the idea that the actual physical application of the covenant sign is what Paul has in view as the Judaizers fundamental error?  It's nice to hear from a friend that says that Mr. Welty understands the Judaizing heresy but, in his paper, he errs outright.

 I humbly submit, then, that my original critique be re-read to see that my focus was very specific:  the exegesis of Galatians 3-4 does not permit Mr. Welty to claim that the fundamental error of the Judaizers was that the command to circumcise was essential to the perpetuity of the Abrahamic Covenant.

While I bear no ill will toward either Mr. Welty or the person who asked me to reconsider, I cannot back off of this original critique. 

Categories
Prophets

Holy, Holy, Holy – Isaiah 6:1-8

It’s with a bit of trepidation that I share the below.  Some will see the fingerprints of Dr. R.C. Sproul all over it.  I delivered the following message to Central Baptist Church, Okinawa, Japan on Sunday, Aug 6, 2006.  My prayer is that it helped awaken some to the Holiness of God.

 “Holy, Holy, Holy”

One of the problems that I have with modern Protestants is that I often want to tell them:  “Your God is too small.”  In fact, that is the title of a Book by J.B. Phillips.  Why do I say that?  I say that because most people have a small view of the power and Glory of God.  It’s bad enough that many Americans want to acknowledge a “higher power” as long as it doesn’t involve the name Jesus Christ.  It is worse to me that those who claim the title “Christian” make God out to be weak.  They make Him to be a kindly grandfather or cosmic Santa Claus who can’t get over how much He loves us human beings.  Some see him as powerless to thwart Satan in this world unless we help Him.  Others picture Him as powerless to act on human hearts without the permission of human commands.

Think of this common phrase:  “Jesus is waiting outside the door of your heart pleading to come in.”  What image comes to mind?  Does it make Jesus seem strong and powerful?  Does it make Him seem like King of Kings and Lord of Lords?  Does it match up with the picture of Him found in Scripture?  You see, we live with certain conceptions for so long that we start to accept them as Biblical.

The second Commandment prohibits the making of idols.  God forbids that any man should form anything and bow down to it.  God is the only one worthy of worship.  But idolatry begins in the mind.  There are all kinds of idols of the mind concerning God.  Islam, for instance, rejects the Son and Spirit as God and make God completely distant from men.  Though they do not bow down to statues exactly, but their god is no god at all but an idol of the mind.

I’m training my children to learn about God at an early age by teaching them answers to basic questions.  When I ask my son James, “What is God?”, his answer is, “God is a Spirit and doesn’t have a body like men.”  That’s a good answer for a four year old but a more thorough, but still brief, answer is:  “God is a Spirit, infinite, eternal, And unchangeable, in his being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth.”

That’s a great, short answer.  It obviously doesn’t tell us everything about God but it gives us a rich way of thinking about Him.  Each of those terms (infinite, eternal, wisdom, power, etc) are what some like to call the attributes of God.  God is all of those things and not just one of them.  You cannot merely say God is eternal but not wise.  You can’t say He is infinite but not powerful.

When you ask most people:  “What is God?”  They’ll say:  “God is love.”  That’s Biblical, right?  The New Testament does say that God is love but God also calls Himself Just, Jealous, Angry and a lot of other things throughout Scripture.  But LOVE is something we can get behind isn’t it?  If God is just Love then He’s cuddly.  He’s cute.  I can handle a God who is Love because then I can just make up whatever I want to think about what love is and say:  “That’s God.”  I once remember watching Oprah and some lady said:  “I don’t know if I believe in God.”  Oprah responded, “Do you believe in love?”  The lady said “Yes” to which Oprah responded “Then you believe in God.”  To most people “God is Love” has become “Love is God.”

Remember I said that some Christians can create idols in their own minds concerning God?  Well, the way that many speak of God as being love is so imbalanced and so completely ignores everything else that He is, that they twist and contort who God is to the point of creating an idol in their minds.

But Christians are not supposed to worship idols in their minds.  We want to know God as He is.  We want God to tell us who He is so that we might know better who we worship.

So we might better understand that God, we will be considering the Holiness of God.  Let us read Isaiah 6:1-8.

Isaiah 6

1 In the year that King Uzziah died, I saw the Lord sitting on a throne, high and lifted up, and the train of His robe filled the temple. 2 Above it stood seraphim; each one had six wings: with two he covered his face, with two he covered his feet, and with two he flew. 3 And one cried to another and said:

      ” Holy, holy, holy is the LORD of hosts;
The whole earth is full of His glory!”

 4 And the posts of the door were shaken by the voice of him who cried out, and the house was filled with smoke.
5 So I said:

      ” Woe is me, for I am undone!
Because I am a man of unclean lips,
And I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips;
For my eyes have seen the King,
The LORD of hosts.”

6 Then one of the seraphim flew to me, having in his hand a live coal which he had taken with the tongs from the altar. 7 And he touched my mouth with it, and said:

” Behold, this has touched your lips;
Your iniquity is taken away,
And your sin purged.”

8 Also I heard the voice of the Lord, saying:

” Whom shall I send,
And who will go for Us?”

Then I said, “Here am I! Send me.”

The passage opens with Isaiah reporting the year of this event.  It was the year that King Uzziah died.  Uzziah had reigned in Judah for 52 long years – two and a half generations.  Though significant in the history of the nation, more significant for Isaiah here is what happened.  Isaiah reports:  “I saw the Lord sitting on a throne, high and lifted up, and the train of His robe filled the temple.”

In his vision, the first thing he reports seeing is the Lord sitting on a throne.  Kings sit on thrones.  This throne is not merely any throne, however, but one that is high and lifted up.  This conveys power.  This conveys majesty.

Isaiah notes that the train of the Lord’s robe literally fills the temple.  Throughout history, royalty have worn robes with long trains.  Very important kings would have many attendants that would carry the long trains of their robes.  The robes were a sign of power and of majesty.  The longer the train, the more powerful the king.  The Lord’s robe is so majestic that the train literally fills the temple.

Isaiah continues in verse 2:

Is 6:2 “Above it stood seraphim; each one had six wings: with two he covered his face, with two he covered his feet, and with two he flew.”

Did you catch how many wings the Seraphim have?

Six.

How many are actually used for flying?

Two.

An interesting design isn’t it?  God has created angels that fly around in His presence and they have six wings with only two used for flying.  The other four have a very definite purpose, however.

Notice what the angels are using them for:  two are covering their eyes and two are covering their feet.  God, in His mercy, created these beings to be protected in His presence.  They have wings to cover their eyes, for God is too majestic to look upon.  They have two wings to cover their feet as the Scriptures repeatedly connect holiness with uncovered feet.  Think of Moses at the burning bush.

What do these Seraphim do?

Is 6:3 And one cried to another and said:

      ” Holy, holy, holy is the LORD of hosts;

      The whole earth is full of His glory!”

When we use the English language to emphasize a point, we have different ways of doing so.  We can put something in bold letters.  We can underline the text.  We can add an adjective to say that my wife is the most beautiful woman in the whole world.

The Hebrew language also has those tools but it uses another tool when a Hebrew really wants to emphasize something.  If something is really going to be emphasized in the Hebrew it is repeated.  There is an amusing piece of Hebrew literature that refers to a “pit pit”.  This is a very, very, very deep pit.  If you fall into a pit then you’re in big trouble but if you fall into a “pit pit” you may never get yourself out.  It sounds very funny but using the term twice emphasizes it.  Christ, when making an important point, would sometimes say, “Amen, amen” before teaching something.  Paul in Galatians 1:8-9 repeats a curse twice for anyone who distorts the Gospel.

Repeating things twice in the Scripture for emphasis is relatively rare.  If everything was repeated twice to make extra emphasis then it would be hard to distinguish between all the really important things.

While repeating things twice in the Scriptures is rare, repeating things three times is so rare that it occurs only three times in the Scriptures.  This is one of them.

You see, the Scriptures do not just say God is Holy.  They do not say God is Holy, Holy.  The Scriptures teach us that God is HOLY, HOLY, HOLY.

The Scriptures don’t teach that God is love, love, love or mercy, mercy, mercy or kindness, kindness, kindness.  Those are all true of Him but nothing in Scripture is so underlined and emphasized as the fact that God is Holy, Holy, Holy.

Notice also the term that God is given here:  LORD of Hosts.  Some of you may have Bibles that show the difference in the Hebrew Word used here.  In verse 1, Isaiah sees the Lord on the throne but the spelling is L-o-r-d.  Here, in verse 3, the spelling is L-O-R-D.  Why?  Because they are two different Hebrew words.  The Hebrew word translated to Lord in verse 1 is Adonai while the Hebrew word translated to LORD in verse 3 is Yahweh.  Yahweh is God’s covenantal name given to Moses at the burning bush.  It is the name He uses when He commands that His name not be taken in vain in the 10 commandments.  The Hebrew people had so much reverence for the Covenant name of Yahweh that they would not speak it for fear of pronouncing it incorrectly.  When they would encounter this name in the Scriptures they would actually substitute the name Adonai.  We note the difference here because it is important to show the difference to which we let God’s name fall of our tongue with no reverence or even as a curse compared to our ancient forefathers who were very careful to respect His name.

This event that Isaiah describes is so powerful that the doorposts of the place he sees are shaken and the temple is filled with smoke.

So how does Isaiah react?  Does he start joking with God saying “Hey God how are you doing up there?”  Does he yawn and say “Man, this religious stuff is BORING!”

Not quite.  Isaiah’s response is:

Is 6:5

” Woe is me, for I am undone!

      Because I am a man of unclean lips,

      And I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips;

      For my eyes have seen the King,

      The LORD of hosts.”

There are two basic type of prophetic utterances in the Scriptures.  They are sometimes called the Oracles of Weem and the Oracles of Woe.  An Oracle of Weem is when a Prophet blesses a nation or a person.  Christ is pronouncing an Oracle of Weem (blessing) when He says:  “Blessed are the poor in spirit, blessed are you when they persecute you, etc.”  Those are nice.  If you’re the recipient of an Oracle of Weem then smile, the favor of God is upon you.  Those are bearings of good tidings.

Oracles of Woe are the exact opposite:  “Woe unto you Pharisees, hypocrites!”  That is a prophetic curse being called down, by God’s prophet, upon the heads of the people cursed.  God help any of us who hears an Oracle of Woe and it concerns us.  One of the other examples of the triple repetition in Revelation 8:13 when a bird calls out to the Earth:  “Woe!  Woe!  Woe!” to announce judgment.  The sound of that herald will be absolutely terrifying.

So what does Isaiah do when He sees the Lord on His throne?  He says:  “Woe is me!  For I am undone!”  What?  He is cursing himself!  The prophet is cursing himself for having seen the majesty of God.  God’s majesty has overwhelmed him so much that he is literally cursing himself for having seen it.

When Americans say:  “That guy has it together…” we mean that he’s got a lot of things going for him and is someone to be respected.  Isaiah says he is literally undone at the sight of God.  He is coming apart at the seams.

Why is this so bad?  I thought seeing God would be like seeing Santa Claus?  I’ve never been undone at the sight of Santa Claus.

Isaiah says he is undone because:  “I am a man of unclean lips, And I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips;”

Isaiah recognizes that, as upright as he seemed in the community, he was unclean in the presence of a Holy God.  It is our mouths that speak falsehoods and repeatedly dishonor God.  James says that our tongues are a restless evil, full of poison that we both bless and curse God with.

Isaiah not only sees his own sin here but notes that he lives among a people that are as wicked as he is:  a people of unclean lips.  I wonder how we would stack up to the people of Judah and how unclean our lips are in comparison.  At least they were careful with the name of God.  We use God’s name as a curse word constantly in this society.

If you had a chance to only make 10 rules for society then what would they be?

How many of you would have made the very first four rules that honored God and His Holiness?  That’s the order that God gives to His rules.  If you were an Israelite and cursed the name of God then you had a lot more to worry about than dirty looks from Christians who said “I don’t appreciate that.”  Blasphemy was a capital crime and punishable by death.  THAT’S how serious God takes His holiness and His holy name.

By now I hope you are getting an idea at the difference between the pictures that the Bible uses to describe God and the idols we often fashion in our minds.  But you might be saying to me:  “Rich, that’s the Old Testament.  God was mean back then.  He was angry.  He mellowed out when Jesus came.  Now He’s cuddly.”

Well I could point out to you that God is the same yesterday, today, and forevermore.  God does not change.  Maybe it’s just the Father though and the Son is cool.  The Son wouldn’t scare a prophet would He?

Some atheists, in their lame attempt to justify their rebellion against God, have come up with an “evolutionary” explanation for religion.  They say that nature is a scary thing and primitive man had to have a way to escape that fear so they came up with a God that would protect them from all the disasters in nature that would befall them.  Well, I believe the reasons Atheists refuse to acknowledge God is because men are more afraid of God than they are of nature.  Let’s consider, for a moment, Mark 4:35-41:

Mark 4:35-41

35 On that day, when evening came, He said to them, “Let us go over to the other side.”

 36 Leaving the crowd, they took Him along with them in the boat, just as He was; and other boats were with Him.

 37 And there arose a fierce gale of wind, and the waves were breaking over the boat so much that the boat was already filling up.

 38 Jesus Himself was in the stern, asleep on the cushion; and they woke Him and said to Him, “Teacher, do You not care that we are perishing?”

 39  And He got up and (AA)rebuked the wind and said to the sea, “Hush, be still.” And the wind died down and it became perfectly calm.

 40 And He said to them, “Why are you afraid? (AB)Do you still have no faith?”

 41 They became very much afraid and said to one another, “Who then is this, that even the wind and the sea obey Him?”

Experienced fishermen are on the sea when a sudden storm descends upon that valley and makes the sea so violent that they fear for death.  They wake Jesus up and He rebukes the waves.  If you notice in the account, they are only afraid of the waves but after Jesus stills the waters by the power of His authority, they are very much afraid.  Afraid of what?  Afraid of HIM.  That’s what Holiness strikes in man:  fear.  This is but one of many examples where Christ’s Holiness frightens men.  When Peter is first called He tells Jesus to depart from him because Peter has just seen the power of God and realizes he is a sinner.

If any of you are hearing about Jesus’ holiness scaring people for the first time then let me really surprise you with something.  Turning to John 12:37-41 we read:

John 12:37-41

37 Even after Jesus had done all these miraculous signs in their presence, they still would not believe in him.

38 This was to fulfill the word of Isaiah the prophet:

   “Lord, who has believed our message

      and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?”

 39For this reason they could not believe, because, as Isaiah says elsewhere:

 40″He has blinded their eyes

      and deadened their hearts,

   so they can neither see with their eyes,

      nor understand with their hearts,

      nor turn-and I would heal them.”

41 Isaiah said this because he saw Jesus’ glory and spoke about him.

John is quoting Isaiah right after the passage we’re looking at in Isaiah 6.  Remember, we have Isaiah groveling on the ground, stunned into cursing himself.  Who is it that He sees high and lifted up?  Whose train fills the temple?  Who is it that is Holy, Holy, Holy?

It is JESUS!  It is the Son of God before He had taken on flesh.  That is who Isaiah sees.

Do you understand why I have a problem with the picture of Jesus knocking on the door of sinner’s hearts pleading to come in?  THIS is the Biblical picture of the Son of God’s power and majesty.  The thought of Him pitiful and weak outside the door of a man’s heart is unbiblical and dishonors God.

But in all of this we forgot about poor Isaiah.  While we’ve been busy, Isaiah is still on the ground crushed by the fear of God’s Holiness.  Does God leave His servant in agony?  Of course not.  Our God is a merciful God.  This is the Son of God who Isaiah is standing in front of and the Son is the Redeemer.

Isaiah 6:6-7 reports

6 Then one of the seraphim flew to me, having in his hand a live coal which he had taken with the tongs from the altar. 7 And he touched my mouth with it, and said:

      ” Behold, this has touched your lips;
Your iniquity is taken away,
And your sin purged.”

The picture here is unexpected.  A hot coal is taken from the altar and touches the mouth of Isaiah.  We would expect this to be searing hot and cause a great deal of pain but the quick remedy provided by the angel takes away Isaiah’s iniquity.  It purges his sin.  With his iniquity taken away he can stand upright in the presence of God.  With his sin purged, he is brought back to his right mind and he is capable of thinking again.  Our iniquity must be taken away or heaven would not be a place of pleasure in the presence of God.  Sin cannot stand to be in the presence of a Holy God and a Holy God cannot bear to look at sin.  I think it might be the realization of God’s hatred toward sin that makes being in His presence so unbearable.  I think he exposes the ugliness of it and we are starkly aware of our condemnation before Him.  Is it any wonder that the Scriptures speak of unbelievers asking the mountains to cover them at the Judgment.  God’s Holiness is a terrible thing to look upon when your sin remains with you.

So with a purified heart, Isaiah hears God ask:

8 Also I heard the voice of the Lord, saying:

      ” Whom shall I send,
And who will go for Us?”

Then I said, “Here am I! Send me.”

In the presence of God, he hears God ask for a volunteer to go out for Him.  Isaiah immediately responds:  “Here I am!  Send me.”

“Here I am.”  Isaiah has not lost his identity.  His personality is not swallowed up into the majesty of God as some pagan ideas of God teach.  Even after seeing God as He is, he’s still a person.  He still has an identity.  He’s still Isaiah.  He answers:  “Here I am!”

“Send me.”  Isaiah is eager to serve His God.  He has seen the crushing majesty of God’s Holiness and had his sin forgiven.  His Savior, the mighty God, wants a volunteer.  Who wouldn’t answer yes having received such a gift of Grace?

Isaiah was only beginning his prophetic ministry and what a hope he now had.  Isaiah was privileged to serve His Savior for many years prophesying to a people who would not listen.  Tradition has it that Isaiah was eventually martyred by being sawn in two.  But this was a man who had seen Adonai.  This was a man who had seen Yahweh of Hosts.  He had seen Him high and lifted up.  He had even lived to report the event because his sin was purged.  And Isaiah was to go on to prophesy of this same Son of God He had seen on the throne in Isaiah 53:

Isa 53:4-9

4 Surely He has borne our griefs

And carried our sorrows;

Yet we esteemed Him stricken,

Smitten by God, and afflicted.

5 But He was wounded for our transgressions,

He was bruised for our iniquities;

The chastisement for our peace was upon Him,

And by His stripes we are healed.

6 All we like sheep have gone astray;

We have turned, every one, to his own way;

And the LORD has laid on Him the iniquity of us all.

7 He was oppressed and He was afflicted,

Yet He opened not His mouth;

He was led as a lamb to the slaughter,

And as a sheep before its shearers is silent,

So He opened not His mouth.

8 He was taken from prison and from judgment,

And who will declare His generation?

For He was cut off from the land of the living;

For the transgressions of My people He was stricken.

9 And they made His grave with the wicked –

But with the rich at His death,

Because He had done no violence,

Nor was any deceit in His mouth.

The Son of God, come to Earth to be reviled and rejected, hated by men.

Can you understand all the more how much Christ emptied Himself to come on the Earth and to be abused and hated by men?  He who knew all Glory and Majesty in heaven came to Earth because sinful men would never be able to be in His presence without His atonement.  He was bruised for our iniquities and bore on Himself the sins which we deserve to bear.

This is the Gospel!

A Holy God.

No.  A Holy, Holy, Holy God in whose presence we would be unable to stand.

  Because we could not go to Him, He came to us.  Because we could not obey, He obeyed for us.  Because we only spoke unclean things, He always spoke the good, the beautiful, and the pure.  Because we could not pay for our transgressions and the sin was greater than we could bear, He died, He became sin for us.

THAT, beloved, is a God worthy of your worship!  That is a God who must be worshipped.  Praise Him that He makes us anew that we can come into His magnificent presence and proclaim:  “Here am I, Send me!”

Categories
Former Prophets Scripture

Lame in Both Feet

2 Samuel 1

1  Now it came to pass after the death of Saul, when David had returned from the slaughter of the Amalekites, and David had stayed two days in Ziklag, 2 on the third day, behold, it happened that a man came from Saul’s camp with his clothes torn and dust on his head. So it was, when he came to David, that he fell to the ground and prostrated himself.
3 And David said to him, “Where have you come from?”
So he said to him, “I have escaped from the camp of Israel.”
4 Then David said to him,”How did the matter go? Please tell me.”
And he answered, “The people have fled from the battle, many of the people are fallen and dead, and Saul and Jonathan his son are dead also.”
5 So David said to the young man who told him, “How do you know that Saul and Jonathan his son are dead?”
6 Then the young man who told him said, “As I happened by chance to be on Mount Gilboa, there was Saul, leaning on his spear; and indeed the chariots and horsemen followed hard after him. 7 Now when he looked behind him, he saw me and called to me. And I answered, ‘Here I am.’ 8 And he said to me, ‘Who are you?’ So I answered him, ‘I am an Amalekite.’ 9 He said to me again, ‘Please stand over me and kill me, for anguish has come upon me, but my life still remains in me.’ 10 So I stood over him and killed him, because I was sure that he could not live after he had fallen. And I took the crown that was on his head and the bracelet that was on his arm, and have brought them here to my lord.”
11 Therefore David took hold of his own clothes and tore them, and so did all the men who were with him. 12 And they mourned and wept and fasted until evening for Saul and for Jonathan his son, for the people of the LORD and for the house of Israel, because they had fallen by the sword.
13 Then David said to the young man who told him, “Where are you from?”
And he answered, “I am the son of an alien, an Amalekite.”
14 So David said to him, “How was it you were not afraid to put forth your hand to destroy the LORD’s anointed?” 15 Then David called one of the young men and said, “Go near, and execute him!” And he struck him so that he died. 16 So David said to him,”Your blood is on your own head, for your own mouth has testified against you, saying, ‘I have killed the LORD’s anointed.'”

17 The Song of the Bow

Then David lamented with this lamentation over Saul and over Jonathan his son, 18 and he told them to teach the children of Judah the Song of the Bow; indeed it is written in the Book of Jasher:
19 “The beauty of Israel is slain on your high places!
How the mighty have fallen!
20 Tell it not in Gath,Proclaim it not in the streets of Ashkelon
“” Lest the daughters of the Philistines rejoice,
Lest the daughters of the uncircumcised triumph.
21 “O mountains of Gilboa,
Let there be no dew nor rain upon you,
Nor fields of offerings.
For the shield of the mighty is cast away there!
The shield of Saul, not anointed with oil.
22 From the blood of the slain,
From the fat of the mighty,
The bow of Jonathan did not turn back,
And the sword of Saul did not return empty.
23 “Saul and Jonathan were beloved and pleasant in their lives,
And in their death they were not divided;
They were swifter than eagles,
They were stronger than lions.
24 “O daughters of Israel,
weep over Saul,
Who clothed you in scarlet, with luxury;
Who put ornaments of gold on your apparel.
25 “How the mighty have fallen in the midst of the battle!
Jonathan was slain in your high places.
26 I am distressed for you, my brother Jonathan;
You have been very pleasant to me;
Your love to me was wonderful,
Surpassing the love of women.
27 “How the mighty have fallen,
And the weapons of war perished!”

What a story!  I might add to the end of this Song the editorial comment:  “So passes Saul, the first King of Israel.”

His was a reign that had begun with such promise.  Saul, the man who stood a head taller than every man in Israel looked the part of the king.  He even delivered Israel from the hands of its enemies.  He was, indeed, a mighty warrior.  But he repeatedly disobeyed the command of God.

His disobedience by our standards would seem very small.  He offered a sacrifice before Samuel arrived in 1 Samuel 13.  Come on, the people are getting tired of waiting for Samuel.  But Saul was not a Levite.  Then he let his men keep the sheep and cattle of the Amalekites  in 1 Sam 15 and Saul spared their king.  But God had commanded that the Amalekites and all their livestock be utterly destroyed.  God commanded it.  It is both an amusing and gruesome story in 1 Sam 15 when Samuel arrives and Agag, King of the Amalekites, thinks he’s safe.  Samuel didn’t give him long to be relieved as he literally hacked the king to death.  Samuel didn’t hesitate to carry out God’s commands faithfully.

You see, God demands our complete obedience.  What was convenient or seemed “right” in Saul’s eyes was against the direct commandment of the Lord.  God is not only God when we allow God to be so-called “Lord of our Lives”¦.”  He is God always and everywhere for all people whether they rebel against Him or not.  I wish we would just remove that language from our speech.  It is very unbiblical.  God is God and we are not.

Anyhow, from that moment on God determined to remove the kingdom from Saul and give it to another.  You will recall that Samuel, right after this event, took a trip to Bethlehem shortly after the event with the Amalekites and he anointed David as King of Israel.  But David was not to inherit the kingdom immediately.  In fact, he went back to tending his sheep.  Until one day a dude named Goliath came on the scene.

Shortly thereafter, David became a bit of a celebrity in Israel and an incredible military leader.  He became the protector of Israel under Saul’s command.  Then one day, Saul heard some women singing a song about Saul killing his thousands and David his tens of thousands.  From that moment on, Saul and David had a “strained” relationship.”  Even though David was his son-in-law and was a faithful servant, Saul repeatedly tried to kill David.  He perceived David as a threat to his throne.  This was the way of the Ancient Near East and the way of many monarchies.  Kings maintain power by killing off those who are gaining too much influence.  Of course God had different plans.

So began literally years and years of Saul pursuing David all over Israel.  David spent many years hiding in caves and living outside of Israel’s borders.  David had at least two opportunities to kill Saul as, in one instance, Saul literally stopped for a “pit stop” in the cave that David was hiding in.

But David was a man who loved his God and he would not lift his hand against God’s anointed.
And so we come to this story we have just read in 2 Samuel 1 and we can appreciate why the man running to bring the news of Saul’s death would think he was the bearer of happy news for David.  Saul is dead.  David has long known he would ascend the throne and the man who has been pursuing his life is now dead.

So we react with maybe a little bit of a surprise at how David reacts to the news:

2 Samuel 1:11

Therefore David took hold of his own clothes and tore them, and so did all the men who were with him. 12 And they mourned and wept and fasted until evening for Saul and for Jonathan his son, for the people of the LORD and for the house of Israel, because they had fallen by the sword.

David has just been brought the crown and scepter of Saul and, instead of rejoicing, he mourns.  Beloved, that is faith.  That is a man after God’s own heart.  What a tragic story Saul is.  A man who once prophesied and had received the Spirit in power.  David had seen Saul slowly degenerate and go mad over years as he had rejected God and God had rejected him.  David knew that, apart from God’s grace, so might he walk.  We also find this interesting note:

2 Samuel 1:13-16

13 Then David said to the young man who told him, “Where are you from?”
And he answered, “I am the son of an alien, an Amalekite.”
14 So David said to him, “How was it you were not afraid to put forth your hand to destroy the LORD’s anointed?” 15 Then David called one of the young men and said, “Go near, and execute him!” And he struck him so that he died. 16 So David said to him,”Your blood is on your own head, for your own mouth has testified against you, saying, ‘I have killed the LORD’s anointed.'”

Did you catch what race the man was?  An Amalekite, that’s right.  What race was Saul supposed to wipe out in 1 Sam 15?  The Amalekites.  How ironic.  This kid should have showed Saul just a bit of gratitude.  Saul lost his kingship because he disobeyed God by not wiping this kid out!   How very ironic.  Well, David had him executed for killing Saul.  If you recall, this was at Saul’s request.  He wanted to be put out of his misery.  But you just don’t lift your hand against the God’s anointed.

And so David sings a beautiful song of tribute to Saul.  He actually curses  the mountains of Gilboa and asks that no rain fall on them.  One morning the mountain wakes up, a battle takes place on its heights and a king dies.  Next moment it’s being cursed for being a mountain.

And so David continues his beautiful lament for Saul and his son Jonathan who were slain on the mountain.  He laments that the death of Saul will give God’s enemies a chance to dance in the streets.  The rejoicing of the wicked is always so short-lived isn’t it?  One minute they’re dancing at a victory.  They’re only looking immediately in front of them and not at the judgment to come.
Finally, at the end of the lament, called the Song of the Bow, David sings of his love for Saul’s son Jonathan:

2 Samuel 1:25-26

25 “How the mighty have fallen in the midst of the battle!
Jonathan was slain in your high places.
26 I am distressed for you, my brother Jonathan;
You have been very pleasant to me;
Your love to me was wonderful,
Surpassing the love of women.

Do you know Jonathan?  What a man!  What an incredible Biblical figure.  He and David were closer than brothers.  When I read this passage I always think:  “Poor Jonathan.  Saul deserved to die but not him.  Poor Jonathan.”

Usually the Scriptures have a predictable pattern:  Dad becomes unfaithful to God and the son ends up worse.  Not here.  Jonathan is one of the most faithful people you’ll ever find in the Scriptures.  He was a man’s man too.  In 1 Samuel 13 he took on an entire Philistine garrison ““ just he and his armor bearer against dozens of men.  He reasoned this way:  “Well if God shows me that I will defeat these men then I’ll defeat them.”  God showed him he would prevail and he took them on.  What faith!

Jonathan had every right to ascend to the throne after his father died.  He had every right in the eyes of men.  He was the son of the king and he was a warrior.  He was brave.  He was faithful in all things.  Jonathan had succeeded in everything he did and had every confidence in the flesh to take the throne after his father died.

But one day Jonathan was at war with his father and he saw a tall man named Goliath.  A man that towered 9 feet tall and bore spear and shield that weighed hundreds of pounds.  He watched as all the men of Israel cowered before this big man.  As he was looking out over the field and heard the big man Goliath heaping insults on the Army of Israel and blaspheming God he saw a teenage boy step out of the crowd wearing nothing but his normal clothes.  No armor.  He had nothing in his hand but a sling and some stones.  No shield.  No sword.  Who is this kid?!

He watched as the big Philistine laughed and called the teenager a dog and that he would kill the boy and feed him to the birds.  I’m sure he could just barely hear the words as the young boy told Goliath:

1 Samuel 17:45-47

“You come against me with sword and spear and javelin, but I come against you in the name of the LORD Almighty, the God of the armies of Israel, whom you have defied. 46 This day the LORD will hand you over to me, and I’ll strike you down and cut off your head. Today I will give the carcasses of the Philistine army to the birds of the air and the beasts of the earth, and the whole world will know that there is a God in Israel. 47 All those gathered here will know that it is not by sword or spear that the LORD saves; for the battle is the LORD’s, and he will give all of you into our hands.”

“What’s happening?”, thinks Jonathan,  “He’s running toward the Philistine!  What faith!”

And you know the rest of the story.  By the way, we like to think of David and Goliath as the great story of the Underdog.  Just remember who is the Underdog when God is on your side!

Well, shortly after this incredible event, the boy is talking to Jonathan’s father Saul in 1 Sam 18 and he finds out that the boy’s name is David.  1 Sam 18 reports the following:

1 Samuel 18:1-4

1 After David had finished talking with Saul, Jonathan became one in spirit with David, and he loved him as himself. 2 From that day Saul kept David with him and did not let him return to his father’s house. 3 And Jonathan made a covenant with David because he loved him as himself. 4 Jonathan took off the robe he was wearing and gave it to David, along with his tunic, and even his sword, his bow and his belt.

Wow!  That’s just incredible.  Jonathan meets a young man that has a love for God.  As a man who loves God Himself, Jonathan is immediately knit to David and they love each other in the Lord.  This is something you can only understand if you are a believer.  He who shares Christ with me is my brother.  I love my immediate family ““ my mother, father, brothers, and sister a great deal.  But they don’t serve the Lord.  The Saints of God are more dear to me because we share Christ.

And so Jonathan loves David that very day.  He even chooses sides for the future.  How?  He gives David his tunic, sword, bow, and belt.  He’s essentially telling David:  “Every claim I have to the throne is yours.  I know God has given the kingdom to you.  That’s OK.  I trust God.  God has anointed you King and far be it from me to ever try to take it.”  THAT is faith!  That’s why I always lament that Jonathan died.  What a man of faith he was.

Eventually Jonathan must even side with David against his own father who is determined to kill him.  He protects David and even lies to his father about knowing where David is.  This is just very strange activity for a Jewish son because family loyalty is everything in that culture.  But Jonathan put no confidence in the flesh but had faith in God’s anointed.

And so in 1 Samuel 20, Jonathan comes to the stark realization that Saul is trying to kill his beloved friend David and it breaks his heart.  He meets David in the field to tell him to flee and they embrace each other and weep over their parting.  It was to be the last time they would see each other.  And 2 Samuel 20:42 reports:

2 Samuel 20:42

42 Then Jonathan said to David,”Go in peace, since we have both sworn in the name of the LORD, saying, ‘May the LORD be between you and me, and between your descendants and my descendants, forever.'” So he arose and departed, and Jonathan went into the city.

And so we understand all the more why David is weeping over his friend Jonathan’s death in 2 Samuel 1.   It’s just so sad.  But sorrow for the House of Saul and Jonathan is not over.  Right after Saul and Jonathan’s death, Saul’s son Ishbosheth contends for the throne of Israel.  A Civil War ensues and David eventually rises to the throne of Israel.  At the end of reporting all the details of the Civil War, 2 Sam 4:4 reports this sad event:

2 Samuel 4:4

4 Jonathan, Saul’s son, had a son who was lame in his feet. He was five years old when the news about Saul and Jonathan came from Jezreel; and his nurse took him up and fled. And it happened, as she made haste to flee, that he fell and became lame. His name was Mephibosheth.

As if things couldn’t be more sorrowful for the House of Jonathan, his only son, Mephibosheth, who is only 5 years old at his death, is dropped by his nurse as she hurries away upon learning of his death.  Poor kid.  He was a normal child but his nurse drops him and from that moment on he is lame in both feet.  He walks around only with great difficulty.  Something we could probably heal with modern medicine but he was a cripple for the rest of his life.

My goodness!  If you don’t feel bad for Jonathan after all of that then you’ve got a heart of stone.  He dies on the mountain with an unfaithful father even though he was faithful.  He never gets to live out his days with his friend David as the King.  To make matters worse, his only son becomes lame after being dropped by his nurse.

But God is rich in mercy.

Many years later, David has firmly established himself on the throne and has defeated the Philistines.  He is on his throne one day and probably finally has a brief moment to think and he starts to remember his beloved friend Jonathan:

2 Samuel 9

1Now David said, “Is there still anyone who is left of the house of Saul, that I may show him kindness for Jonathan’s sake?”
2And there was a servant of the house of Saul whose name was Ziba. So when they had called him to David, the king said to him, “Are you Ziba?”
He said, “At your service!”
3Then the king said, “Is there not still someone of the house of Saul, to whom I may show the kindness of God?”
And Ziba said to the king, “There is still a son of Jonathan who is lame in his feet.”
4So the king said to him, “Where is he?”
And Ziba said to the king, “Indeed he is in the house of Machir the son of Ammiel, in Lo Debar.”
5Then King David sent and brought him out of the house of Machir the son of Ammiel, from Lo Debar.
6Now when Mephibosheth  the son of Jonathan, the son of Saul, had come to David, he fell on his face and prostrated himself. Then David said, “Mephibosheth ?”
And he answered, “Here is your servant!”
7So David said to him, “Do not fear, for I will surely show you kindness for Jonathan your father’s sake, and will restore to you all the land of Saul your grandfather; and you shall eat bread at my table continually.”
8Then he bowed himself, and said, “What is your servant, that you should look upon such a dead dog as I?”
9And the king called to Ziba, Saul’s servant, and said to him,”I have given to your master’s son all that belonged to Saul and to all his house. 10You therefore, and your sons and your servants, shall work the land for him, and you shall bring in the harvest, that your master’s son may have food to eat. But Mephibosheth  your master’s son shall eat bread at my table always.” Now Ziba had fifteen sons and twenty servants.
11Then Ziba said to the king, “According to all that my lord the king has commanded his servant, so will your servant do.”
“As for Mephibosheth ,” said the king, “he shall eat at my table* like one of the king’s sons.” 12Mephibosheth  had a young son whose name was Micha. And all who dwelt in the house of Ziba were servants of Mephibosheth . 13So Mephibosheth  dwelt in Jerusalem, for he ate continually at the king’s table. And he was lame in both his feet.

They found Mephibosheth!  I just love this story.  Mephibosheth limps into the king’s chambers and falls on his face before David.  David speaks his name:  “Mephibosheth?”

“Here is your servant.”

“Don’t fear Mephibosheth.”

I’m sure the young man thought he was at risk because it was the custom of kings to remove threats to the throne.  Mephibosheth was the last remaining person alive from the House of Saul.

But David tells him:  “I knew your father.  I loved him.  I’m going to show you kindness for his sake!”

And Mephibosheth answers very humbly, it’s even sad to read the way he refers to himself:  “What is your servant, that you should look upon such a dead dog as I?”

Can you imagine growing up lame in both feet with a father like Jonathan.  Songs were probably sung of his exploits:  “Remember the time that Jonathan killed an entire Philistine garrison with just his armor bearer?!”  But Mephibosheth would never do anything like that.

It would be a great insult to call anyone a dog in the Near East but Mephibosheth calls himself a “dead dog”.  “Why are you showing me such favor?  I don’t deserve this kind of love from you.”

But David was a man after God’s own heart.  David kept his promises even if he was a little slow in getting to them.  Remember that he had promised with Jonathan to be good to his descendants?

And so he restores the lands of Saul, everything, to Mephibosheth.  He tells Ziba to care for the lands but Mephibosheth isn’t just going to receive the blessing of land.  No.

“As for Mephibosheth,” said the kind, “he shall eat at my table like one of the king’s sons.”

David adopted him and loved him as a son.  He loved him for Jonathan’s sake.  And the story concludes about the young man:  “And he was lame in both feet.”

I just love the Word of God.  This story is such a powerful picture of our redemption and shows these beautiful strands of God’s redemption that have been woven throughout redemptive history.  King David the Great was the forefather, in the flesh, of Christ to come.

Have we not all been made Spiritually lame and worthless in the flesh by a Fall.  We have received an invitation to the King’s chamber.  We have every reason to fear.  In Mephibosheth’s case he feared just because he was the grandson of Saul.  In our case, we are summoned knowing we have sinned against a Holy and Righteous God.  We enter with fear and trembling.

But the Father’s Son loved us and died for us.  He re-creates us and causes us to love Him in return.  And so we enter the chamber and the King announces:  “You are to eat at my table continually.”

“Who am I, God, that you should look upon this dead dog and show me such favor?”

But God love His Son and, for His sake, I am beloved by Him, and I am going to eat at His table continually as one of His sons.

We love Him because He first loved us and poured Himself out for us.  The King’s table is available for all who would call on the name of Jesus Christ.  Unless you see your unworthiness to be in the King’s presence, you cannot gain entry through the door of Christ’s death and resurrection.  It’s all grace.  Christ died so that all who believe in Him might say to Him:

“I am wretched.  Take my sin away.  I deserve death but I believe.”

And through the foolishness of that simple faith, Christ does take away our sin and becomes our righteousness.  We enter the throne room of Grace boldly then, as Sons, and gladly take our seats at the great wedding feast that knows no end.

The feast is available to all who believe.  Believe and live.  Enter and feast, you are a son of God!

Categories
Doctrines of Grace

Trials

You will not find one Godly man who came out of an affliction worse than when he went into it. Though for a little while he was shaken, yet, at last, he was better for an affliction. But, a great many Godly men have been worse for their prosperity.