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.

Blogging Bible Study: Digging in the Desert -- A Word from the Peanut Gallery

Posted to Beer Lahai Roi by Lisa Laree

Our next mention of 'desert' is in 2 Chronicles 8: 4 -- and it, like 1 Kings 9:18, is purely geographical...

He [Solomon] also built up Tadmore in the desert and all the store cities he had built in Hamath.  So, like I did w/ the verse in 1 Kings, we'll just point out that it indicates that Solomon was a builder and move on.

The next time we encounter the word 'desert' is in chapter 20...and there is a kind of interesting thing that happened here.

First, a little scene-setting.  Jehoshaphat had fought alongside Ahab in the battle in which Ahab died.  After he returned home,  an alliance of Moab, Ammon and apparently also some men from Mt. Seir took up arms to attack Judah; marching through Edom (20: 1- 2). The invading army was at En Gedi, on the northwest shore of the Dead Sea, before Jehoshaphat got word of them. 

Jehoshaphat immediately called a national fast and prayer service (20: 3-4).  He stood up before the people and prayed, concluding, "O our God, will you not judge them?  For we have no power to face this vast army that is attacking us. We do not know what to do, but our eyes are upon you." (v.12).

After the prayer, the whole assembly...men, women and children...stood silently, waiting for a word from the Lord.

And...here's the interesting thing...as they all stood there, someone standing amongst the people, in the midst of the assembly, began to speak.  Verse 14 tells us

'Then the Spirit of the LORD came upon Jahaziel son of Zechariah, the son of Benaiah, the son of Jeiel, the son of Mattaniah, a Levite and descendant of Asaph, as he stood in the assembly.'

This guy was just one of the choir members (a Levite who was descended from Asaph).  He wasn't a worship leader, he wasn't on the platform with the leaders, he wasn't anyone of note.  He didn't have a lot of clout.  But the Spirit of God came on him...not someone who had a recognized position of authority. 

"Listen, King Jehoshaphat and all who live in Judah and Jerusalem!  This is what the LORD says to you: 'Do not be afraid or discouraged because of this vast army. For the battle is not yours, but God's.  Tomorrow march down against them.  They will be climbing up by the Pass of Ziz, and you will find them at the end of the gorge in the Desert of Jeruel.  You will not have to fight this battle.  Take up your positions; stand firm and see the deliverance the LORD will give you, O Judah and Jerusalem.  Do not be afraid; do not be discouraged.  Go out to face them tomorrow, and the LORD will be with you."  (vs. 15-17) .

And here's the amazing thing...no one shushed him, no one pulled him aside so he could deliver his word more privately...they let him make his declaration in front of the entire assembly.  They all listened to this guy. 

Not only did they let him speak, they all believed that God had spoken through him.  The whole assembly bowed down in worship, and then entered into a praise service.   And then, they actually did what he said.

Early in the morning they left for the Desert of Tekoa.  As they set out,  Jehoshaphat stood and said, "Listen to me, Judah and the people of Jerusalem!  Have faith in the LORD your God and you will be upheld; have faith in his prophets and you will be successful."  (v. 20).

Jehoshaphat then appointed men to sing praise to God as they went.  And, as they praised God, something happened over on the enemy's side.  'The LORD set ambushes' is what v. 22 relates; whatever it was, it caused a rift in the alliance.  The men of Ammon and Moab turned against the men of Mount Seir and destroyed them, and when they'd done that, then they began fighting each other.

When the men of Judah came to the place that overlooks the desert and looked toward the vast army, they only saw dead bodies lying on the ground; no one had escaped. (v. 24)

Not only had God protected them from the attacking army, but he left all the weapons and supplies and equipment there for the men to collect and take back.

It took them three days to haul all of the plunder away. When they got it all back to Jerusalem, they had a praise service to thank God for what he'd done for them...and the story went around the nations in the area,putting them all in fear of Judah's God so that Jehoshaphat reigned in peace.

There are several things that hit me from this story.  Firstly....look at what they did when they needed to know what to do.  They fasted...they prayed...and they waited on a word from God.  They didn't  fast and pray for God to bless their action, or make them successful, or destroy their enemies...they declared their helplessness before God and humbly asked for his guidance.  Then they waited.  They didn't assume that He would aid them as they did what made sense to them...they waited for HIS instructions.

They didn't pre-determine who would have the answer; they received it through a minor temple servant.  They didn't second guess him or try to reason his answer away.  They did what had been revealed to him...the minor temple servant.  Whoa.  Finally, God didn't require them to do ANYTHING that removed the threat.  HE DID IT ALL.  Because they had enough faith to wait...receive...and obey.   He just sent them into the desert so they could see their enemy destroyed and collect the plunder..

Do we have the humility now, in our exceedingly confusing and hazardous season, to declare that we really don't know what to do, and we don't have the ability to fix anything...and fast and pray and wait for God to release his strategy?  Would we be willing to receive that word from some unexpected and unproven source?  Could we discipline ourselves to be completely obedient and just praise God for what he would do?  Do we really believe God will deliver his people?  Are we willing to go to the desert, if it means we will see God work and give us a blessing there?

Just some things that struck me reading this little passage...

Blogging Bible Study: Digging in the Desert - Solomon's Request

Posted by Lisa Laree to Beer Lahai Roi

Our consideration of the word 'desert' now brings us to 2 Chronicles 1...and we have a reference to the tabernacle of Moses.  If I'm not mistaken, this is the last time, chronologically, that we see the actual Tent of Meeting....

and Solomon and the whole assembly went to the high place at Gibeon, for God's Tent of Meeting was there, which Moses the LORD's servant had made in the desert. (2 Chron. 1:3)

The altar that Bezalel made, that the Israelites had carried through the desert, was also at that location (v. 5), and Solomon went up there and offered 1,000 burnt offerings (v.6).  He apparently spent the night up there, because v. 13 records 'Then Solomon went to Jerusalem from the high place at Gibeon, and before the Tent of Meeting.'   And in between...well, it wasn't called the 'Tent of Meeting' for nothing.

Verse 7 tells us that 'That night God appeared to Solomon and said to him, "Ask for whatever you want me to give you."

I am assuming that this was a dream, although it's just implied.  Solomon's answer is famous..."Give me wisdom and knowledge, that I may lead this people, for who is able to govern this great people of yours?" ( v. 10).

Solomon asked for a good thing, and God was pleased and gave him blessings he did not ask for as well (v. 12).

Now I'm going to wax a bit philosophical.  Solomon did ask for a good thing...wisdom and knowledge.  But we all know what happened.  With all his wisdom, and all his knowledge, he failed to take to heart the commandments of God....one of which was specifically directed at the king:

     'When he takes the throne of his kingdom, he is to write for himself on a scroll

      a copy of this law, taken from that of the priests, who are Levites.  It is to be

      with him and he is to read it all the days of his life so that he may learn to

      revere the LORD his God and follow carefully all the words of this law and

      these decrees and not consider himself better than his brothers and turn from

      the law to the right or to the left. Then he and his descendants will reign a long

      time over his kingdom in Israel.' (Deut. 17: 18-20)

How do I know Solomon didn't do this?  Well, the first thing mentioned after his return to Jerusalem is that he accumulated chariots (1,400) and horses (12,000) (2 Chron. 1:14).  The horses were imported from Egypt (v. 16)...and the law, which the king was to copy out for himself and read daily , specified:

'The king, moreover, must not acquire great numbers of horses or make the people return to Egypt to get more of them.' (Deut. 17: 16a).  Deuteronomy goes on to say the king must not acquire great personal wealth or marry many wives 'or his heart will be led astray.'....which is exactly what happened to Solomon. His wisdom and knowledge were renowned in his day, which is something for a world without any kind of mass communication.  Yet, in is later years,  he fell into worshiping the gods of his many foreign wives...and it turned his heart from following God.  He didn't mentor his son well...and shortly after his death the kingdom was divided.  Because...if he had all the wisdom and knowledge he needed to govern the people, then...he wouldn't need to inquire of God.  He was sufficient for his task. He could succeed at anything, because he was just that smart.Why would he need to write down the law and study it daily? He could remember it...right?

Maybe having talent sufficient for the task isn't always the best thing.

Contrast Solomon's request with the 'one thing' his father David requested:

"One thing I ask of the LORD, this is what I seek: that I may dwell in the house of the LORD all the days of my life, to gaze upon the beauty of the LORD and to seek him in his temple."  (Ps. 27:4). 

God met Solomon at the Tent of Meeting, which was made in the desert where Israel learned that they had to depend on God for all things....and that God would provide all things.  But Solomon didn't perceive that he had to depend on God for anything...he had it all.  And he forgot where it all came from.

There's no record that Solomon ever went back to the Tent of Meeting...or of what happened to the tent or the altar Bezalel crafted after Solomon built the Temple with a new altar. 

Blogging Bible Study:Digging in the Desert: 1 Chronicles

Posted by Lisa Laree to Beer Lahai Roi

For those who are joining us mid-study, back in August of last year I grabbed a concordance and wrote down every occurrence of the word 'desert' in the Bible and embarked on what looks to be a VERY long word study, one post per week.  Now, ten months later, we've made it all the way to the book of 1 Chronicles. At this pace, I may finish sometime in 2022, but that's ok...

For anyone who wants to do a 'read the Bible through', I've got a bit of warning...you'll start in Genesis and follow the history of the descendants of Abraham, Issac and Jacob all the way through to deportation of Judah at the end of 2 Kings, then hit 1 Chronicles, which goes back to the beginning and commences to tell the whole story all over again, with a genealogy that starts with Adam.  So it can be a bit of a bog down.  The first NINE CHAPTERS of 1 Chronicles are genealogies, with the teeniest bits of narrative here and there.  There are two mentions of the word 'desert' in those lists, both are concerning the geography of the land assigned to the tribe of Reuben on the east side of the Jordan.

To the east they [the Reubenites] occupied the land up to the edge of the desert that extends to the Euphrates River, because their livestock had increased in Gilead. (5:9) and , in the descriptions of the towns allotted to the tribe of Levi scattered throughout the land, we find from the tribe of Reuben across the Jordan east of Jericho they received Bezer in the desert, Jahzah, Kedemoth and Mephaath, together with their pasturelands; (6:78-79)

The historical narrative kicks in at chapter 10, with the death of Saul, then we have two chapters dedicated to the lists of the men who came to David before he became king, including the roll of his 'mighty men'.  It's an interesting read...the men that came to David were not just his kinfolk from the tribe of Judah; there were even some from the tribe of Benjamin, Saul's kin, among others.  Of particular note were the Gadites...

Some Gadites defected to David at his stronghold in the desert.  They were brave warriors, ready for battle and able to handle the shield and spear.  Their faces were the faces of lions and they were as swift as gazelles in the mountains...These Gadites were army commanders; the least was a match for a hundred, and the greatest for a thousand.  It was they who crossed the Jordan in the first month when it overflowed its banks, and they put to flight everyone living in the valleys, to the east and to the west. (12:8, 14 - 15).

In other words, these guys came to David while he was hanging out in the Judean Desert, before he took shelter in Ziklag.  Amazing to think, now, about them getting the word of David's...issues...with Saul, and actually finding him, when Saul himself couldn't seem to locate him. But such were the caliber of fighting men that David attracted.

There is only one more mention of the word 'desert' in 1 Chronicles, in chapter 21.  David displeased the Lord by counting his fighting men and a plague had hit the nation as a result.  He purchased the threshing floor of Araunah, built an altar and made a sacrifice and the plague stopped. There follows an interesting tidbit of information...

The tabernacle of the LORD,  which Moses had made in the desert, and the altar of burnt offering were at that time on the high place at Gibeon. (21:29)

Whoa.  I had assumed that David pitched a tent in Jerusalem for the Ark because the Tabernacle had been destroyed somehow (Pauses to do a little research).  It would have been something like 430 years old...give or take a few...at that point.  Do you suppose the reason David pitched a tent for the Ark in Jerusalem instead of moving the Tabernacle was that it was getting too old and fragile to be moved?  It was located at Shiloh when Eli and his sons served as priests, at the beginning of 1 Samuel.  I can't find any record of it being moved to Gibeon...although I did find a reference in 1 Chron 16:29 that indicates that David left priests with the tabernacle at Gibeon to minister to the Lord there, even though the Ark was in Jerusalem.  Earlier, when David fled from Saul in 1 Sam 21, he went to Nob, where he was given the consecrated bread used in the Tabernacle.  There is no mention of the Tabernacle in that passage, but the priest was there and the shewbread was there, which kind of implies the Tabernacle was there; even my NIV Atlas says 'apparently the Tabernacle was there at that time.'  There is some evidence that Saul may have been from Gibeon, and I suppose it's possible that, after Doeg slaughtered the people of Nob (1 Sam 22:19), the Tabernacle and its remaining furnishings were moved to Gibeon, which is as likely a place as any for Saul to have used as his capital.  It is interesting...why didn't he bring the Ark home from the house of Abinidab, if he moved the Tabernacle?  It would have made sense to put it back in its place...but apparently he didn't consider that.  And, for some reason, David didn't move the Tabernacle to Jerusalem to receive the Ark, which would seem to have been appropriate.  I can only guess that it was getting too fragile to move...and, in any case, David intended to build a temple, so perhaps he thought it wasn't worth moving, having left priests and Levites there to serve God.

I actually think this is a significant thing...that the Ark was in Jerusalem, signifying the presence of God, and the Tabernacle was at Gibeon.  David could have reassembled the Tabernacle in Jerusalem, but instead he pitched a new tent...and built a new altar...and God accepted his sacrifices, indicating His pleasure.  What we have is a time of transition... the last remnants of their nomadic existence were slowly being replaced, something like 400 years later.  God was about to establish another level to His covenant.  He was designating the city in which He would put his Name (Deut 14:23,  16:5, etc), and was soon to make the covenant w/ David regarding his royal offspring.  The system instituted in the desert is about to get replaced by one centered on Jerusalem. Practically and prophetically, they are moving towards the coming of the Messiah. 

But I had one other thought also...the Ark was where God's presence dwelt; the Tabernacle was just the  structure that contained it.  Could we also be seeing a lesson that the structure is not the important thing, but what is housed within? We do tend to confuse the two from time to time. A good reminder not to put more emphasis on the structure than on the Presence...

Blogging Bible Study: Digging in the Desert - Water in the Trenches

Posted by Lisa Laree to Beer Lahai Roi

There is only one verse in 2 Kings that mentions 'desert'...it's in chapter 3, verse 8.  I'll be honest; I almost just called it a geographic reference (which it is) and moved on.  But it is in an...interesting..story of God's intervention in a pretty unusual way,  marking the entrance of Elisha as a national prophet, so I decided to have a closer look.

A little context...Ahab's son Joram had become king of Israel.   Moab had been sending a tribute of sheep and wool to Israel; when Ahab died, the king of Moab decided he was done with that and rebelled.  Joram sent out a call for the men of Israel to join him to subdue the rebellion.  Picking up in verse 7 for context:

He also sent this message to Jeshoshaphat king of Judah: "The king of Moab has rebelled against me.  Will you go with me to fight against Moab?"

"I will go with you, " he replied.  "I am as you are, my people as your people, my horses as you horses."

"By what route shall we attack?" he asked.

"Through the Desert of Edom," he answered.

There is some pronoun trouble in verse 8...I am guessing the quotes indicate a change in speaker, so it likely was young Joram who asked the experienced king Jehoshaphat what the best attack route might be.  It may be that Jehoshaphat had an alliance w/ the King of Edom, because he joined with their cause as well (v. 9), so that may have been the reasoning behind attacking Moab that way; Edom is on the southern border of Moab.

Now, why the wool and the sheep were an issue worth going to war over I cannot begin to say.  There was probably more at stake here than is recorded...a political situation that I don't recognize.  But it was a big enough deal that three kings and their armies banded together to handle it.

To attack through the Desert of Edom, the armies of Israel and Judah had to march around the Dead Sea to join up with the Edomites in the Desert of Edom.    The last half of verse 9 tells us that they made a 'roundabout march of seven days' and they ran out of water...nothing for their soldiers or their animals.

I think what they say at that point is rather typical of human nature. "What!" exclaimed the king of Israel, "Has the LORD called us three kings together only to hand us over to Moab?" (v. 9).  See, there's no record WHATSOEVER that any of them inquired of the Lord how to proceed until that moment...but God has suddenly gotten the blame for their predicament.  It appears to me that they all just assumed they were doing what God wanted them to do in this case.  Unless Jehoshaphat actually did inquire of God before responding to Joram...but I don't think that would have been unrecorded.  So they are now in a pickle...and Jehoshaphat suddenly wants to seek God.  "Is there no prophet of the LORD here, that we may inquire of the LORD through him?" (v. 11).

Well, it just so happens that one of Joram's officers knew of someone who had apparently marched along with the men of Israel. "Elisha son of Shaphat is here.  He used to pour water on the hands of Elijah." (still v. 11).

In other words, 'We have a guy here who was a servant to the last great prophet.'  At that point, Elisha really hadn't done anything regarding the king.  He had split the Jordan river to return to Jericho after Elijah's translation (2:14), miraculously cured Jericho's well (2: 21-22) then cursed a group of rowdy teens, who were making fun of his bald headedness, for their disrespect...and they all got attacked and mauled (not sure how many, if any, actually died) by a couple of bears.  Then he went to Samaria  (2:25), and, apparently when Joram sent the word for all the fighting men to join his campaign against Moab, Elisha joined up.    I rather expect he had a nudge from God telling him to go, so that he would be at hand when he was needed.  Sure enough, Jehoshaphat jumped on that news. 'The word of the LORD is with him."

Now, here's the interesting bit.  They didn't send the officer to bring Elisha to them.  The kings themselves went to Elisha (3:12).  Elisha was not particularly impressed. "What do we have to do with each other?  Go to the prophets of your father and the prophets of your mother."

Joram protested, "No, because it was the LORD who called us three kings together to hand us over to Moab." (v 13)

Again, was it God?  There's no record indicating such.  But Joram was either convinced it was...or he had convinced himself that it was God's idea, in order to blame-shift. 

Elisha was still disgruntled, and he replied, "As surely as the LORD Almighty lives, whom I serve, if I did not have respect for the presence of Jehoshaphat, king of Judah, I would not look at you or even notice you.  But now bring me a harpist."

So they got someone from the camp who could play the harp.

I think this is an important little detail to have included in the narrative.  Elisha had to get rid of his irritation in order to hear God...and he called for music to help him. We don't have the harpist's set list, but I have to believe he was playing some of David's psalms; that was, after all, the hymn book of the Hebrews.  Which meant that...Elisha used worship to get his attention off of his personal opinion of the pagan kings and onto whatever God might be saying in the midst of it all.  And, in his worship, he heard from God. (3:16).

And, as was typical for a word from God, the instructions made no sense.  They were told to...dig trenches. 'Make this valley full of ditches'  Elisha told them in v16.  "For this is what the LORD says:  You will see neither wind nor rain,  yet this valley will be filled with water, and you, your cattle and your other animals will drink. This is an easy thing in the eyes of the LORD; he will also hand Moab over to you.  You will overthrow every fortified city and every major town.  You will cut down every good tree, stop up all the springs and ruin every good field with stone." (vs. 17 - 18) .  Truth be told, this sounds like judgment passed against Moab.  As I said, I think there's more to this story than we have recorded here....but it didn't directly apply to the Israelites.  They had something to do.

Dig ditches in the desert.  So, they dug ditches.

And the next morning,  around the time of the morning sacrifice, water came pouring down into the ditches from Edom.  It was a flash flood...and, since the ditches had been dug, the water ran in the ditches.  This is not an uncommon thing, really, for rain to fall miles away from one spot in the desert, in the mountains, and then water to flow down into the dry area. We heard about it several times in last year's Israel trip...it's the reason there are so many cisterns in Israel and the surrounding area; to hold the runoff from flash flooding coming from a mountainous area that had a sudden deluge. It was an easy thing for the Lord to send rain in an area that drained into the valley where they were.  In fact, it may even have been raining in the mountains of Edom when Elisha was delivering the prophecy; it would take a little bit for the water to travel the distance.

In any case, the morning saw the ditches fill with water...and all the men and animals were able to drink.

Meantime, across the border in Moab, the king had mustered up all of his fighting men to resist Joram and his allies.  The morning sun glinted across the water in the ditches, making it look like the valley was full of blood.    The Moabites immediately assumed the three armies had had a falling out and slaughtered each other, and took off running to the allies' camp to plunder it.  Imagine their surprise when they found there were not corpses lying about, but soldiers ready for battle.

They were beaten...all the way back to a single surviving town in Moab, before the allied army left them and returned to their own countries, having stopped up springs,  thrown rocks in the fields, and cut down trees.  Moab paid a price for their rebellion.

Here's what I got out of this little story...it's never too late to ask God what to do.  It may be that your deliverance is set in motion when you turn your heart to ask, so that by the time you are actually at the place of inquiry, the answer is already on its way.  God may require something really odd..but what he's doing is setting you up to receive the blessing.  This is another account of God instructing someone to prepare capacity for a blessing before the blessing arrives  (think also of the widow with her oil..that story is the very next one recorded in 2 Kings).  You can only receive the blessing in proportion to the preparation done before it gets there. If the allied armies had not dug the valley full of trenches, the flash flood would have all run off; possibly even carrying their campsites away.  At the very least, there would have been nothing remaining to satisfy the thirst in the camp.  And, finally,  when you are having trouble getting past distractions...even if those distractions are in your own heart and mind...just turn your heart to worship, which will turn your ear to God's voice.

All things I needed to be reminded of.  So glad I didn't just skip over this verse.