Ichabod and the Sovereignty of God
August 14, 2009 – 11:40 amAnd the LORD appeared again at Shiloh, because the LORD revealed Himself to Samuel at Shiloh by the word of the LORD. Thus the word of Samuel came to all Israel… She said, “The glory has departed from Israel, for the ark of God was taken.” - 1 Samuel 3:21-4:1, 22
The beginning of Samuel 4 brings rays of hope for Israel. The LORD is revealing himself again to them through the young Samuel. He is speaking as a prophet of God, in the stead of God, to Israel. In the atmosphere of a corrupt priesthood and a libertine society (i.e. “everyone did what was right in his own eyes” Judges 21:25) , God is raising up another true prophet.
But things took a drastic turn for the worse. Rather than turning to the LORD for deliverance over the Philistines, Israel chose to take the holy ark of the covenant out of its hallowed dwelling in the tabernacle and parade it in battle as a good luck charm. They wanted God’s blessing in battle without obedience to His Word.
We read the horrible outcome (slaughter of 34,000 soldiers and capture of the ark) with little surprise. But Israel sure was surprised! The Benjamite’s announcement of the defeat and loss of the ark evoked an outcry in Shiloh and the ultimate death of the high priest Eli.
The final four verses of the chapter provide a vivid reminder of how tragically this loss was felt. Eli’s daughter-in-law (wife of Phineas, one of his two terrible sons) gave birth prematurely due to the news of her husband and father-in-law’s death and the loss of the ark. In the naming of her son she confirmed the depth of Israel’s current condition. Ichabod, “the glory has departed,” was her conclusion, for “the ark of God has been captured.”
It seems that Israel’s reaction was, “How can this be? How can the LORD allow his people to be defeated by the Philistines? And worse, how can he allow his ark to be captured?” It was as if the very presence of the LORD fled from their land, no longer able to help them.
With our historical advantage we can go on and read “the rest of the story,” to see God’s curse on the Philistines, the ark’s return to Israel, and its eventual resting place in Jerusalem during David’s reign.. But it is helpful for us to stop and wrestle through the theological questions that events like this evoked from Israel. In it we can learn valuable truths about God’s character and what our response ought to be to tragic circumstances.
This tension between God’s sovereign allowance and man’s responsibility reminds me of the first chapter of Tom Wells’ A Vision for Missions. Wells tells of two responses by missionaries to the often asked question: “Why did you not come sooner with the gospel message?”
The first response was “The Lord Jesus left orders with the church to take this message everywhere. But the church has been slow in doing it. You know how people are; they do not always do what they are told.” This answer focused on man’s responsibility; in this case the church’s responsibility to fulfill the Great Commission of Jesus.The second response, by the well-known missionary William Carey, placed the focus on God’s sovereignty. When asked nearly the same question by a Brahman in India, Carey answered that at one time it pleased God to keep back the gospel from India. He went on to assert that God has His reasons for doing so; by allowing it to sink deep into sin, His work of saving people out of darkness would display His power and grace all the more brilliantly.
Wells explains that the two answers ought not be categorized as one true and the other false; rather they illustrate two coexistent sides of the issue: man’s and God’s. The one explains the human cause-effect factor as to why the Brahman had never heard of Jesus or, in our reading, why Israel was defeated and the ark captured. Israel’s (and the church’s) disobedience resulted in severe consequences. As well, the depravity of the Philistines and the Indians in rejecting the true Creator God must be considered.
Wells warns us, however, to not stop with man’s responsibility.
Right here we may make a grave mistake. We may suppose that we have said all that can be said. If we think in this way, we reckon without God. Specifically, we reckon without the sovereignty of God (17).
Both sides must be given equal treatment, while recognizing God’s freedom to intervene on the other side for is sovereign purposes. Wells further develops God’s sovereign interaction with man in the rest of the chapter.
He concludes by urging believers to realize that
since God reigns…there is something we must say. We must say it as clearly as we say that man has failed. We must say, with William Carey: 1) It pleased God and 2)God has His reasons. There is an instinct in Carey’s answer, the instinct to resort to God. How we need that! (21)
Israel’s wicked disobedience of God’s commands and their arrogant use of the ark resulted in their defeat and judgment. However, God also had a sovereign plan behind it all. For one, He showed Israel that they cannot place their trust in man-made objects for deliverance, even the holy instruments from the tabernacle. God is not to be worshiped in the same way men worship their idols.
The LORD also used the loss to severely judge the Philistines, proving that just as the ark was not Israel’s talisman for victory, so their Dagon idol was not the reason for their victory (5:1-12). As a result of the deathly plagues the LORD inflicted on them, they eventually returned the ark back to Israel (6:1-12).
Whether we are attempting to interpret Old Testament narrative, explain the delay of gospel evangelism to a people group, or properly respond to a family tragedy, we must acknowledge both man’s responsibility and God’s sovereignty, placing active trust in God’s freedom and power to intervene for the sake of His glorious name.
You can purchase Tom Wells’ A Vision for Mission for a mere $4.75 at Reformation Heritage Books! This brief paperback gives one of the best presentations of what a proper motivation for missions ought to look like. It belongs on every pastor, missionary and church member’s shelf.
A more thorough review of Wells’ book is coming soon.
