Wednesday, October 19, 2011

Year 1, Day 292: 1 Samuel 6

Speculation

Today we get the story of the Ark’s return.  This is a really neat story, and it gives me a moment to do some speculation.  Let’s handle that issue first.  And keep in mind that I call this speculation.  My first topic is not doctrinal truth but an exploration of the possible convergence of faith and science.

I’ve always wondered why the Philistines added mice to the golden offering.  The tumors I can understand because it was the tumors that are on the Philistines.  Since they would want to appease God, it makes sense that they would offer up a golden offering in the shape of that which they want removed.  They are connecting the offering (gold) to the thing they want God to do (remove the tumors).  But that still doesn’t explain why the mice, then?

Here’s where the speculation comes into play.  Let’s say these tumors where the physical evidence of some kind of disease.  Remember my reference to the Bubonic Plague yesterday?  Well, we know that diseases are often spread by animals that multiply quickly and have a short life span.*  So it very well could be that the Lord sent a plague of mice among the Philistines which spread the disease.  While it is highly unlike that the Philistines could have made the medical connection in understanding how the mice and tumors were related, it is certainly possible that God knew what He was doing in using mice to transmit the plague of tumors and instructed the Philistine priests to have both mice and tumors as a part of the offering back to Him.  If true, I find that neat little place where science and the Bible come together and speak meaningfully about one another.

The Lord Struck 70 Dead

Okay, let’s leave speculation behind and get to honest truth.  I want to focus in on one very narrow aspect of the passage today: 1 Samueal 6:19.  The Lord strikes down 70 persons - those who look upon the Ark.  For the record, your translation (if you read the Holman or the NIV) may say “look into the Ark.”  Those of you reading the NRSV have a horrible translation that implies that the Lord smote the 70 people because they didn’t greet the Ark with joy.  {If you want to do an interesting Bible comparison, apparently this verse seems to be a good one to read among the different translations.}

So what is really going on in this verse?  To understand this part of the story, turn in your Bibles – or your internet browser – to Numbers 4.  In this chapter we have directions for how the Ark and all the rest of the belongings of the sanctuary are to be transported.  Notice that they are to be covered with both animal skins and fabric.  The point is that they are not to be seen – or especially touched!  This is actually why I don’t quibble too much between the translations that say “looked upon the Ark” or “looked into the Ark.”  It is not even supposed to be seen by anyone except the priests or the penalty could very well be death!

Now let’s return to the passage in 1 Samuel.  Here we have the Ark returning uncovered.  Common folk are capable of seeing the Ark of the Lord.  Remember that the Ark of the Lord is sometimes called the Throne of God here on earth.  In this passage we have common people having access to see the Throne of God!  When I put it in those terms, the death of these people makes a little more sense – especially since it is before Christ and before Christ has “made all things clean.”  These people were living in a time when only a specific few people had access to the throne of God – and even those people needed to perform rites and sacrifices to make them purified.

So why is this important?  Sure, we can now understand why they died, but what does it mean?  It tells us to take seriously the things of God.  Even those of us today – having been cleansed by the righteous blood of Jesus Christ – should take care of how we treat God’s stuff.  Phinehas and Hophni, the sons of Eli, treated the Ark casually and died in battle.  The Philistines treated the Ark casually and suffered a plague from it.  The casual treatment of the Ark leads some of the common folk in Beth-shemeth to come into contact with something that they should not be seeing and they die.  The lesson to be learned here is to respect the holiness of God.**

That makes sense.  Remember, the word “holy” means “separate.”  God is separate from us.  His nature is different.  Just because we are cleansed with the blood of Christ does not mean we should treat God casually.  No, we don’t need to create superstitious practices that separate us from God, but neither do we want to make it seem like God is “just like us,” either.  God is unique.  He is different.  He is holy.  He deserves to be revered.  He deserves to be able to choose to lift us up rather than to have us bring Him down.

<>< 

*In fact, if I am remembering my medical science correctly, the disease leprosy (Hansen’s disease) is actually grown in the feet of mice and the feet of armadillos.  Since leprosy was prevalent in the ancient world and there is no record of armadillos anywhere but in America, it makes sense that anywhere leprosy is common that mice were also common.  If mice were common, then they would make a ready transmitter for God to use in giving out a supernatural disease.  Again, though, let me reiterate.  This is not Biblical truth but scientific speculation.


**Ooooh, a double asterisk day!  Perhaps as you were reading the paragraph where this asterisk is found you asked why it is that the Hebrew people die when they see the Ark uncovered while the Philistines don’t – they get tumors instead.  I don’t know the answer, and I’ll leave it open for speculation and conversation.  However, let me assert my best guess: the Philistines had no ability to know any better while the Hebrew people should’ve known better.  If this is true, then it sends a clear message to us who know God and how seriously he expects those who “know better” to live a life worthy of His ways!

5 comments:

  1. Not sure I'm getting the "look at" part (into makes complete sense).

    If I was in my field, and this lowing cow comes by with a box on it, how could I not look AT it? Hard to believe that's a death worthy thing, even for the OT God.

    However, If I know better, open and look IN, then I'm not respecting it.

    So, fwiw -- I think it has to be look in. Otherwise, there's punishment for just being in the wrong place/wrong time -- and that seems very unjust... and God (OT and NT) is ALWAYS just.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I think you are getting it. Here's the point, though. With the research I did, it seems to have been against God's Law to even look at the Ark. That's why it was to be covered all the time as prescribed in Numbers 4. If it is against God's Law to look upon it, then it is against God's law whether the looking is intentional or unintentional.

    As a few secondary examples that illustrate this point, we know that God cannot bear the sight of sin - that's why Moses had to be turned around in the cleft of the rock and could not see God face to face. To see God face to face while existing in a state of sin, whether intentional or unintentional, means death. If the Ark is the Throne of God, then to see the Ark may carry the meaning of "seeing God" and thus it makes sense for them to die because they are "seeing God face to face."

    As another example, think about Uzzah who reaches out to touch the ark when it is about to fall and hit the ground because the oxen stumble. (2 Sam 6) Is it a natural thing to reach out and catch something that you value because it is about to fall to the ground? Absolutely. Just because it is a natural thing to do, does that mean it is not sinful? Not in Uzzah's case. Not in any case. Sin is sin regardless of the circumstances.

    I know what you are arguing, but the logic really doesn't hold up in my opinion. If a naked woman comes riding down a street on a wagon drawn by an ox, are you going to look at her? Probably. I can't speak for you, but I know I would. I probably wouldn't be able to not - if nothing because of the shock of seeing such a sight. (This is precisely your point regarding the oxen lumbering with the box. How could you not look and be curious?) Back to the naked woman ... is that event likely going to lead to sin? For me, I'd give it about 100% yes on that one. I'm willing to bet that testosterone is going to start coursing through my body without my control over it and I'll have to work hard to suppress lustful thoughts. In this case, did I do anything unnatural or not normal? Nope. But I did sin. I sinned because I broke the Law of the Lord and lusted - even though the opportunity fell into my lap and I didn't do anything to bring it about. I still broke God's law in this scenario.

    So it is with those people in the field. If it was against the law to look upon the Ark without having gone through the priestly training and the purification process, then these people sinned. Sin is sin.

    (To be continued, response too long...)

    ReplyDelete
  3. Without sounding too harsh, what would have been unrighteous would be to let sin go unpaid for (assuming it is sin, of course). That's ultimately why Christ had to die, so that we can be set free of our sin but there is still a consequence that was paid for the sin.

    Now, having said all of that, let me backtrack just a second. I know what you are saying. And what you are saying makes good logical sense. And to be completely fair, Numbers 4 says nothing about looking upon the Ark being a sin punishable by death - just touching it. However, Numbers 4 goes to great pains describing how everything must be covered by cloth and animal hide, implying that covering it does serve a significant purpose, too.

    So Cara is going to look up the preposition used in 1 Samuel 6:19 (into/upon) - she's the Hebrew expert in the family. If she says that the preposition in question only takes on the meaning of "into," then you have my word I will come and retract all the theology that I put forth in this comment. But if she says that it can take the concept of "upon" as well as "into," I will stand by my theology. I think there is justification for it.

    Keep in mind, though, that the true "bad guys" of this whole story are Phinehas and Hophni. They are the ones that put the Ark in a position of going into the hands of the Philistines - who don't know to cover it before sending it back into the hands of the Hebrew people! Because Hophni and Phinehas are careless with the Ark, those people were put in the position of sinful behavior. They are the true villains behind the death of those 70 people.

    I shall return tomorrow with a better understanding of the Hebrew preposition "ba".

    ReplyDelete
  4. Since I promised an update on the Hebrew, it seems that the preposition can take the meaning of a bunch of words. So that isn't really much help to us. It certainly can mean "in" or "into." However, it can also mean "at, by, through, with," and a bunch of other things. So from a linguistic perspective i cannot say I am comfortable with making the decision that it must be "in" or "into."

    ReplyDelete
  5. Thanks for your thoughts John.

    I understand what you're saying (and the naked woman on an ox is a great example - it would be hard to avoid lust in such a case even if I had innocently just gone to the field to plant some corn).

    So, perhaps just. However, if it can mean into, in while also mean on/at in hebrew equally -- I think I'll chose to insert my own logic and assume it is in/into which is equally as valid as your accepting the other. It's just hard to overule logic... To me, God is logical (probably cause I'm a math geek), so being logical is consistent with what I think of Him.

    Great debate though! Certainly a mind stretcher!

    ReplyDelete