Blogging Bible Study: Digging in the Desert -- Psalms, Part 2

Posted by Lisa Laree to Beer Lahai Roi

So, the next group of verses mentioning 'desert' that we encounter in the Psalms are verses that mention, for want of a better description, the emotions of the Psalmist.  There are only three two..(on further consideration, I moved one to another category) but I have included some extra verses for context.

Fear and trembling have beset me; horror has overwhelmed me.  I said, "Oh, that I had the wings of a dove!  I would fly away and be at rest -- I would flee far away and stay in the desert; I would hurry to my place of shelter, far from the tempest and the storm." -- Ps. 55: 5-8

My heart is blighted and withered like grass; I forget to eat my food.  Because of my loud groaning I am reduced to skin and bones.  I am like a desert owl, like an owl among the ruins.  I lie awake; I have become like a bird alone on a roof. --  Ps. 102: 4 - 7

David is identified as the Psalmist in the 55th Psalm, but the 102nd Psalm is not attributed to anyone more specific than 'an afflicted man'.  Which could easily have been David, but I won't assume anything.

We see two different applications of the desert; in Ps. 55, the desert is a refuge; a safe place away from 'the storms'.  'Storms' could be severe weather, but I am thinking it's more likely the storms are just the stresses and the pressures of government; there are meteorological storms in the desert but the solitude of the desert would be far, far away from human interaction and responsibilities. That's an appealing thought...go to the desert, where the air is clear and the stars are bright and the other demands are laid aside and spend time just listening for the voice of Abba. 

But the Psalmist of 102 has a different viewpoint.  For him, the desert is isolation.  He's wasting away, alone, with no comfort.  For someone focused on their own misery, there is not much distraction available.  No help, even in a crowd of folks...one might as well be a bird in the desert, on the roof of an abandoned barn.

Neither Psalmist is actually in the desert...one yearns for it, the other feels the remoteness in his circumstances.

So...maybe it's about attitude?  That with the right attitude the desert is rest and refuge instead of isolation?  Or...is this a case of the heart desiring what it doesn't have at the moment?  David longing for a quiet respite while in the turmoil of dealing with people and decisions...while the Ps. 102 Psalmist yearns for interaction and friendship while he is isolated by distress?

Maybe it's both.  Maybe the contrast should encourage me to do a heart check...where am I, right now?  Am I wistfully wishing to ditch everything and run away for a bit?  Or am I feeling cut off and isolated, wasted and useless?  How can I move from a position of complaint to a position of contentment?

Blogging Bible Study: Digging in the Desert - Psalms, Part 1

Posted by Lisa Laree to Beer Lahai Roi

Our look at the word 'desert' in the Bible brings us to the book of Psalms. Psalms being a songbook, just going straight through verse by verse seemed kind of ...repetitive.  So,  I decided to look at all the verses before jumping in and roughly group them by topic.  I found four different groups; so I'll take them one at a time.

Chronologically, the first verse that mentions 'desert'  is Ps. 29:8 and is one of six verses in this Psalm that describes the action of God's voice.  It is also the first of the group of verses that I've grouped under the topic 'The Greatness of God'. (All references are from the NIV 84)

The voice of the LORD shakes the desert; the LORD shakes the Desert of Kadish.

The desert tribes will bow before him and his enemies will lick the dust. (Ps. 72:9)

It was you who crushed the heads of Leviathan and gave him as food to the creatures of the desert. (Ps. 74:14)

No one from the east or the west or from the desert can exalt a man.  But it is God who judges; he brings one down, he exalts another.  (Ps. 75:6-7)

Of course, the greatness of God is one of the recurring themes of the Psalms; but these four verses also mention the desert. 

29:8 probably is more significant to the folks who lived in and around the desert than it would be to someone who has only seen the desert in pictures and documentaries.  The desert is vast and unyielding; barren, hostile and yet beautiful. And the voice of God is enough to shake it. 

72:9 pretty much speaks for itself; I don't think it needs any exposition, while 74:14 is a puzzle I'm not sure anyone has quite worked out.  'Leviathan' is a study in and of itself; you can google it and follow the trails.  I just think it's significant that we see plural heads but a singular creature.  Some believe Leviathan was an actual beast; some believe it represents a demonic principality. Keeping in mind, this is poetry, so it could easily be either...or both: a demonic principality allegorically equated with a conquered beast.  Whichever, God has completely and utterly defeated it...which is more important than whatever 'it' was.  And if God defeated a multi-headed something so utterly that only its name has survived in human history, he can surely defeat whatever something that is facing us today.

I added verse 7 to the reference in Ps. 75; verse 6 by itself was too vague.  The desert there is mostly a reference to 'the center' or 'where we are'...to complete the thought that no person anywhere has the ability to put people into positions of power unless God allows it.   And that's a selah moment right there. It applies from the people in power globally to the local level to the work scene.  God has reasons for what he does.  Sometimes the reason is to uproot, tear down, destroy and overthrow...and sometimes the purpose is to built and plant.  He does what is needful to bring people to  him and he doesn't mind working in the scope of generations.  If one generation rejects him, as they did at Kadesh, he will do the building and the planting in the next one.  And he doesn't object to tearing down religious structures if they are inhibiting folks from coming to him.

His voice shakes the desert.  Everything that can be shaken will be shaken. Don't be surprised when it happens.

Blogging Bible Study: Digging in the Desert - Job

Posted by Lisa Laree to Beer Lahai Roi

As there are no mentions of 'Desert' in the story of Esther, we find ourselves looking at the book of Job, which has three. -- 1:19, 24:5 and 38:26.

The first reference is  the culmination of the losses Job incurred in a single day...each messenger of woe arrived before the one before him had finished speaking.  The final one bore the most personally devastating news; picking up in verse 18; the 'he' who 'was still speaking' had just brought news of the loss of all Job's camels and the servants who were tending them, concluding, as did all the others 'I am the only one who has escaped to tell you!'

While he was still speaking, yet another messenger came and said, "Your sons and daughters were feasting and drinking wine at the oldest brother's house, when suddenly a mighty wind swept in from the desert and struck the four corners of the house.  It collapsed on them and they are dead, and I am the only one who has escaped to tell you!"

The 'mighty wind from the desert' probably was a haboob (dust storm); my NIV Atlas says that the location of  Uz is unknown, but it was likely on the edge of the Arabian desert, which fits this description. Job, of course, falls on his face and utters his famous response, 'The LORD gave and the LORD has taken  away...may the name of the LORD be praised." (Job 1:21b). The scripture doesn't record it, but Job and his servants surely went to his son's house and excavated it to give his children a proper burial.  It was one thing to lose his servants and his livestock...it was something else entirely to lose all his children.

Then Job got sick and went to the dump to scrape his sores.

I have always wondered if the reason he went to the dump was because the townspeople drove him out, believing him to be cursed, or at least, contagious.  His wife, who is often disparaged for her statement, was frustrated with Job for maintaining his faith in God.  But she was, herself, distraught with grief...they were her children, too.  And she was watching her husband suffer.  And it was quite possible that the entire population of their area had ostracized them, so that she had no one at all to grieve with her.  Not excusing her...just pointing out that any one of us might have done the same thing at such a low moment.

But Job has a few friends who come to console him...or at least, try.  Because they, too, were convinced that Job was being punished for some secret, hidden sin, and basically their consolation consisted of them trying to convince him to admit to his sin, publicly, and repent and be received and restored.   Chapters 3 - 31 are pretty much their argument back and forth...Job maintained his innocence, repeatedly asked God to reveal to him his error, and got rather salty with his friends who were convinced he was hiding something.    Elihu, the youngest one, kept silent until the others fell into a rather pouty stalemate,  but finally spoke up and told them all they were missing the point and declared God's greatness, using an approaching thunderstorm as an illustration.  God spoke to them all from the thunderstorm...and he never answered Job's questions or explained why all of that had happened to him.  Instead, God questioned Job to demonstrate how little Job knew of all of God's plans and purposes...then he declared Job righteous, healed his sores, and told the others to bring an offering for Job to present on their behalf with prayer so they would be forgiven for speaking against God's goodness.  Word got out to the townspeople that Job was not cursed or contagious, so they all showed up with a carry-in dinner and a gift for Job so that he was able to rebuild his fortune.

The other mentions of the desert located in that narrative seem to me to be a bit related.   24:5 is in one of Job's laments about the futility of life...

"Like wild donkeys in the desert, the poor go about their labor of foraging food; the wasteland provides food for their children."

38:26 is part of God's reply to all of Job's questioning  (Job 38: 25 - 27, for context)

"Who cuts a channel for the torrents of rain, and a path for the thunderstorm, to water a land where no man lives, a desert with no one in it, to satisfy a desolate wasteland and make it sprout with grass?"

Because, of course, the wild donkeys in the desert are the ones who survive on that grass that has sprouted in the desolate wasteland.  God has put it there to sustain them...just as he provides for those who trust in him.  And Job, who had suffered so much, ended up with more than he had lost.

There is so much in this story....but one of the things that hits me so strongly is that we all tend to think that everything that happens to us is because of us.  Job's trials had nothing whatever to do with him.  He went through all of that so that his life would be a testimony to someone he didn't even know was watching him.

There's a big, eternal story that we all are part of.  What happens to one, may affect another, which affects another..on down the line.  The events happening now may not have much to do with the now, but a lot to do with the later.

It's a challenge to all of us to realize God's grace is enough and he will make it right in the end...so long as we don't give up on him.

Blogging Bible Study: Digging in the Desert -- Nehemiah

Posted by Lisa Laree to Beer Lahai Roi

Well, Ezra has no references to 'desert', so that brings us to the book of Nehemiah, which has two. Both references are  in chapter 9, verses 19 and 21  (there is one other 'desert' in chapter nine...verse 17...but it's the verb meaning 'abandon', not the noun).  Here's the whole paragraph, for context:

Because of your great compassion you did not abandon them in the desert.  By day the pillar of cloud did not cease to guide them on their path, nor the pillar of fire by night to shine on the way they were to take.  You gave your good Spirit to instruct them.  You did not withhold your manna from their mouths, and you gave them water for their thirst.  For forty years you sustained them in the desert; they lacked nothing, their clothes did not wear out nor did their feet become swollen.

This passage is in a long prayer given by the Levites...eight of them are named in verse 5...and I kind of expect that  they were taking turns, rehearsing the history of the people; their rebellion in the desert and disobedience as a nation, which lead to them being taken in captivity to Babylon.  Now they were returning but they were not their own masters; they were still under the authority of the Persians who had conquered Babylon.  Ezra had read the law  to the people on the first day of the seventh month, and they were all convicted and began to mourn, but Nehemiah told the people that they needed to celebrate on that day...there would be a day of repentance later.  So the people celebrated the Feast of Tabernacles and then, about three weeks later, they had their day of repentance, and the priests prayed the prayer listing the historical errors of their forefathers and God's continual mercy throughout. 

As I read through the prayer, I was struck by God's commitment to fulfill his plan and his promises, even when the people seemed determined to reject him.  He allowed the people who chose to ignore his commands to suffer the consequences, even when it meant that those who were faithful had to endure the same hardships (Caleb and Joshua had to endure 40 years in the desert along with the folks who rebelled in Kadesh Barnea). But God sustained the faithful through the hardships and brought his promises to pass with a generation that followed him.

Obedience was a simple thing, really.  God spelled out clearly what the people were to do, and the blessings they would receive should they do it.  But people failed again and again and again to keep the commands that God gave them.  Mixing with the unbelieving folks around them, they took on their practices instead of following God's explicit instructions not to do so.

Why?  Did they think that following God's instruction was too old-fashioned?  Too intolerant?  Too exclusive?  Too restrictive?    Did they think that the Law was corrupted,  phony, out of date? 

Who knows?  But it cost many of  them their blessing, their country, even their lives, to balk and rebel and insist on doing it their own way. 

I do know that, after the return from the Babylonian captivity, the people as a nation never again fell into worshiping the idols of the nations around them.  They did finally learn that lesson.

Blogging Bible Study: Digging in the Desert - Snapshots of Two Kings

Posted by Lisa Laree to Beer Lahai Roi

Well, well.  Last week I glanced ahead at my list of 'desert' verses and, just based on the spacing I'd used writing the verses down, thought that I had 3 verses referencing desert clustered up in 2 Chronicles 24, so I thought I'd have a little coherent narrative. Today I opened my notebook and realized it was two separate references...24: 9 and 26:10. 

So...not a narrative.  But a couple of interesting snapshots from the reign of two different kings.

First up is Joash, who became king at the tender age of seven.  There is a long story for that, as he was the only surviving great-grandson of the righteous king Jehoshaphat....due to Jehoshaphat's incredible blunder of marrying his son Jehoram to Jezebel's daughter Athalia.  When Jehoram succeeded Jehoshaphat, he immediately killed all his brothers, along with some other men of royal blood.   He reigned for eight years, and then died a miserable death.  Raiders had killed all but his youngest son, Ahaziah, who became king after him, with Athalia still retaining some degree of power as the queen mother.  But Ahaziah was a buddy with his cousin, Joram, who was Ahab's grandson and king of Israel, and was with Joram when Jehu came into camp and slaughtered the remnants of the house of Ahab to become king of Israel.  When Athalia heard that her son the king was dead,  she immediately began killing off the royal family.  Oh, by the way...it was her own grandchildren she was killing.  The youngest, a baby named Joash, was hidden away by his aunt, who happened to be the wife of the high priest Jehoiada, and survived the slaughter.  At the opportune moment six years later Jehoiada sprung a coup and ousted Athalia, who was executed, and anointed Joash as king.

So, if you're counting, that's three different rulers between Jehoshaphat and Joash who were complete pagans.  The temple Solomon buit had been neglected and used for pagan worship and was in a state of disrepair, and eventually Joash decided it was time to restore it.  The Levites, however, were not keen on going around the country and collecting the temple tax.  So...

At the king's command, a chest was made and placed outside, at the gate of the temple of the LORD.  A proclamation was then issued in Judah and Jerusalem that they should bring to the LORD the tax that Moses the servant of God had required of Israel in the desert.  All the officials and all the people brought their contributions gladly, dropping them into the chest until it was full....the royal secretary and the officer of the chief priest would come and empty the chest and carry it back to its place.  They did this regularly and collected a great amount of money.   (2 Chron. 24:8-11). 

With the offerings that the people freely brought, they were able to restore and repair the temple (v. 13) and with the rest of the money they made utensils and and articles for service, so that worship was once more restored in the nation.    I have a cross-reference in my Scofield for the 'tax' ..it refers to Ex. 30:11- 16, but I'm not sure that's quite what was meant, because THAT passage refers to the redemption fee to be collected each time they performed a census.  But I did find this verse in Exodus referring to collections for the tabernacle: 'The LORD said to Moses, "Tell the Israelites to bring me an offering.  You are to receive the offering for me from each man whose heart prompts him to give." (Ex. 25:1-2)...and, when they actually got to the point where the people were bringing their offerings, they brought so much that Moses finally told them to quit (Ex. 36 : 3b -7), because they had more than enough. 

Joash had problems later on in his reign, but at this point he was serving God and the people were glad to contribute towards the repair and upkeep of the temple.

The final mention of 'desert' in 2 Chronicles involves Joash's grandson, Uzziah (who was also called Azariah, for some reason), who became king at age 16.  Uzziah made a terrible decision later in his reign, but  early on he restored cities and lands to Judah, winning battles against the Philistines and Arabs who lived around them (Aside:  Curious, I looked in my concordance and found that this is only the second time 'Arabs' are mentioned in the Bible; the first was just a few chapters earlier, in 2 Chron. 17:11).

Uzziah built towers in Jerusalem at the Corner Gate, at the Valley Gate and at the angle of the wall, and he fortified them. He also built many towers in the desert and dug many cisterns, because he had much livestock in the foothills and in the plain.  He had people working  his fields and vineyards in the hills and in the fertile lands, for he loved the soil.  (2 Chron. 26:9-10)

I had never really noticed this before.  Here was a king with the heart of a farmer.  He loved the soil; he built cisterns in the desert so there were water sources for his livestock and towers for their protection.

Two kings: one who went back to history that happened in the desert for guidance and one who made provision in the desert for the future.

The Value of True Repentance

Posted by Lisa Laree to Beer Lahai Roi

Every once in a while, I will cruise through social media and read something that puts a bee in my bonnet that won't settle down.  It happened this week. Something that, on its surface, seemed to be a warm and fuzzy proclamation about the goodness and the mercy of God.

However, from the wording and the spin on the warm and fuzzy post (the WAFP, for brevity), it was pretty obvious that there was an agenda there. The subtle spin insinuates  'the Bible clearly says [xyz] but look, this disproves [xyz], so you can't use "the Bible clearly says" to support any position.'  The more direct conclusion is, 'See...God clearly said [xyz is bad] here, but there...look, he accepts [xyz] and so has shown his people to move from prejudice, discrimination and animosity to openness, welcoming, affirmation and inclusion!'

The only problem was...that warm and fuzzy thought wasn't the message in the selected passages at all. 

The message was...individuals who serve God from a pure heart are always accepted by him.

Let's look at it in detail.

First, the implication that the story of Ruth means that God was relenting in his judgment against the Moabites and the Ammonites. The Moabites and the Ammonites were descended from Lot...they were the descendants of the sons he fathered on his own daughters while in a drunken state.  It's an ugly story.  Now, that in and of itself was not a reason for God to pronounce that  ten generations of their descendants could not be accepted into the assembly of God's people (Deut. 23).  No, the reason God rejected them as a people was that they did not welcome or give aid to the  Israelites when they returned from Egypt and instead hired Balaam to curse them.  The Israelites were to make no treaty with them.  But the Moabitess Ruth, who willingly left her people and put herself under the care of the God of Naomi's people, was accepted.  Did this mean God had relented on His judgement against Moab and Ammon, implied in the WAFP?  No...it meant that he valued the faith of the one who left all to serve.  God always receives the one who leaves all to come to him.  This wasn't about a change of decree...this was about an individual heart.  The edict against Ammon and Moab had not changed...just as the judgment against Jericho wasn't averted because one lady renounced her people and their gods and put her trust into the care of the Israelites and their God.  Her true faith brought her into the lineage of kings...just like Ruth.

The WAFP claims that the people from Uz were evil , citing Jer. 25,  but...Job, who was from Uz, was one of the most righteous men that ever lived!   So God has surely relented in his condemnation of Uz!  Now, we have a serious non-sequitur.  Job is likely the oldest book in the Bible; based on the content, scholars believe it predates the writings of Moses (not the events in Genesis...Moses' recording of it, just to be clear).  So it's pretty obvious that Job had lived centuries before the judgment pronounced in the book of Jeremiah and whatever evils were being done at that time had nothing to do with Job.  But, beyond that, the judgment against Uz mentioned in Jer. 25 did not single them out as being any more wicked than any of the other nations that were mentioned in that passage...which included Judah. In fact, it mentions all the known kingdoms of the area.  You could substitute ANY righteous person who lived in ANY country at that time to try and make the same point the WAFP made and it would support the 'openness, welcoming, affirmation and inclusion'  surmise to the same degree...which is to say, not at all.

And then...the WAFP mentions the Ethiopian eunuch, who, being both emasculated AND a foreigner and excluded from the assembly in Deut 23, was clearly accepted in Acts 8.  I will agree that there is a shift there to be inclusive and accepting, but perhaps not in the way that was intended by the WAFP.  Here, we are looking at the difference between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant...and anyone who has spent any time reading the writings of Paul knows fully well that the Old Covenant was about the Jews living under the Law and the New Covenant is about all people becoming one in Christ.  The Ethiopian believed what Philip told him about Jesus and wanted to be baptized to mark the change in his life...and, if tradition is correct, went back to Ethiopia and led many to faith in Christ.  His life was changed.

Finally, the WAFP offers up the Good Samaritan as evidence of God moving his people from prejudice to acceptance because, 'God's people hated the Samaritans' but Jesus 'told a story about a good Samaritan.'  The WAFP is probably closest to right on this one; although in reality, Jesus wasn't trying to improve the general opinion of the Samaritans specifically as much as he was sharing  an example we should all follow in considering everyone worthy of compassion.

Now, please don't think I'm trying to disprove the point that God is open, welcoming, affirming and inclusive.  He accepts all who come to him, regardless of their gender, their nationality, their ethnic background,  their past history of wrong behavior, or any other factor.  All that matters is they come to him and allow him to remake them.

See, there is one story of a guy that Jesus didn't receive, because he laid down too strict a requirement.  It's in Matthew 19.  A young man came up to Jesus and asked him what to do to inherit eternal life.  Jesus replied that he should obey the commandments.  'Which ones?' the young man asked.

That question has always dumbfounded me.  Like, the guy seriously expected Jesus to tell him there were some commandments  he didn't have to keep?  But Jesus didn't rebuke him...he replied with the commandments that deal with how we are treat one another.  'Oh, I do that,' the young man replied. So Jesus upped the ante a bit.  Remember when he was asked a bit later what the two greatest commandments were (Matt 22:37-40) he replied 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind and...love your neighbor as yourself....all the Law the Prophets hang on these two."  (Notice...he slipped 'Love your neighbor as yourself' in the first set of instructions he gave the young man in 19:19),  So when the young man said he kept all the commandments regarding his relationship with other people, Jesus pointed out one more. "Go sell all you have, give it to the poor, and follow me."  See...  Jesus pinpointed the commandment he wasn't keeping by naming the one thing the young man loved more than God.  He was wealthy.  He had nice stuff.  He had a comfortable lifestyle.  He went away sad because he couldn't bring himself to give it up.  Here's the deal...Jesus wanted him to become one of his disciples.  He was willing to receive him...but he required something, and he didn't change the requirement because the guy was unwilling to change to meet it. Jesus was sad to watch him walk away...but he let him walk away. The guy wasn't willing to change his lifestyle to follow him.   Think of all the people that came to Jesus, and Jesus healed them, or blessed them, or delivered them...and he told them to 'go and sin no more' or, in other translations, 'leave your life of sin.'  Jesus changes lives.

This is the problem that I have with a message that just wants to say how loving and accepting and inclusive God is...because so often the message implies that there is no stuff that has to be left behind, no lifestyle changes necessary, if one wants to become a disciple of Jesus.  CS Lewis said, 'If we accept Heaven we shall not be able to retain even the smallest and most intimate souvenirs of Hell.'   We can't just add God and His love onto what we crave from life; we have to let him completely remake us and our desires.  He will, indeed, accept any one in any sort of state of disrepute...but He doesn't allow them to stay there.

It is a misrepresentation of the Gospel to imply otherwise.