Category: reverence

The Mercy Seat Killings

Tuesday’s Column: Dale Mail

Dale Pollard

The ark of the covenant is a well-known object even among the non-religious, thanks to Hollywood. The depiction on the big screen has been exaggerated and romanticized for entertainment purposes, and that’s a shame. The ark of God is interesting enough without the unnecessary special effects. While many in the church are familiar with Uzzah’s fatal and infamous mistake (2 Samuel 6.7), there are several other accounts involving the ark that aren’t as commonly reviewed. 

The Ark Is Stolen 

It all began when the Philistines had taken the ark after the Israelites go into battle without consulting the Lord. These are the humbling events that showcase God’s power and holiness following the theft of the ark. 

  • God strikes the citizens of Ashdod with tumors (1 Sam. 5.6) 
  • God strikes the citizens of Gath with tumors (1 Sam. 5.8) 
  • Destruction and death fall on the city of Ekron as the ark passed through (1 Sam. 5.11-12) 
  • After the ark reaches Beth Shemesh the men of the town take a peak inside the ark and *50,070 (see explanation at end of this article) are struck dead (1 Sam. 6.19) 

All of the death and disease show us the seriousness and obedience required of God’s people. It’s not just about a mysterious wooden box covered in gold— it was an object meant to train the Israelites to think properly about their Lord. Many applications can be made for us today as well. 

The Hebrews writer explains that things are different now (Heb. 4.14-16). God’s response to all those who are disobedient to Him aren’t always immediately avenged but we shouldn’t assume that God feels differently— vengeance still belongs to Him (Heb. 10.30). 

God also tells us that He is unchanging in His nature (Heb. 13.8). 

It’s thanks to Jesus that we are able to approach God with confidence. It’s Jesus we ought to thank for the grace and forgiveness we receive because of His sacrifice (Heb. 4.16). 

————————————————————-

Note: *50,070

“and he struck some of the men of Beth-shemesh, because they looked upon the ark of the LORD. He struck seventy men of them, and the people mourned because the LORD had struck the people with a great blow” (1 Sam. 6.19). 

The ESV as well as several other translations use the number “seventy” rather than “fifty thousand and seventy.” While there are a few explanations for this, here are the abbreviated leading takes. 

  1. Some believe the scribes were unsure of the number and so copied the text with slight variation. 
  2. Similarly, some believe that “three score and ten” or “fifty thousand and seventy” was originally found in the margins of the scrolls by early scribes. Later, scribes placed the commentary into the text. 
  3. Some believe the number should be translated “seventy” because Josephus seemed to hold this view (Antiquities of the Jews, Book VI). 

“…although it cannot be proven beyond all reasonable doubt that the 50,070 figure is erroneous, there is the very real possibility that either (1) the Hebrew has been misunderstood, or (2) a copyist made an error in the transmission process.” 

– Eric Lyons, M. Min 

“Nowhere else is a figure like 50,070 written in this fashion according to the grammar of biblical Hebrew. Normally the wording would have been either…“seventy man and fifty thousand man” or else in the descending order—which was far more usual…“fifty thousand man and seventy man” (Archer, 1982, p. 169, Apologetics Press, Art. ‘Death at Beth Shemesh). 

While this may seem trivial to some and worrisome to others, one can take comfort knowing that we have everything we need for life and godliness (1 Pt. 1.3). That’s the view held by the other authors on this blog as well as each member of the Lord’s church sited/quoted here. 

Thee, Thou, Thy, And Thine

Wednesday’s Column: Third’s Words

Gary Pollard

A prominent religious group is pretty well-known for their use of archaic pronouns in prayer. When asked about it, their official response is (paraphrased), “It’s more reverent and respectful,” (ldsliving.com). They believe that prayer is something that requires a special vocabulary, one that demonstrates a deeper respect for God. 

We do it, too, and for the same reasons they cite. I would like to offer some points to consider: 

1. Early Modern English does not demonstrate a greater level of respect. Why not use Middle English? Why not use Greek or Hebrew or Latin or Aramaic? From a purely linguistic standpoint, thee/thou/thine are not more formal in this century, and haven’t been for roughly three centuries (Yaswen, University of Toronto). Reverence comes from the heart. It is not something that can be invoked with a special vocabulary. 

2. It can be detrimental to evanglism. God expects us to emulate our culture as long as it doesn’t violate his law (I Cor 9.19-27). Many non-religious people, when talking about religious things, will switch to archaic, exaggerated English to highlight the oddness of religious people. An example in mainstream culture is the show Supernatural. One of the main characters reads something with archaic wording to another main character. When asked about it, his response was, “…that’s how God talks” (S8, E19). If our goal is to reach the lost, we should try to avoid potential obstacles (that aren’t related to doctrinal issues). When we invite them to worship, hearing, “Well-pleasing in thy sight,” or, “This, thy table,” or, “We thank thee, father,” etc. may reinforce Christianity’s irrelevance/social incompatibility in their minds. 

3. Biblical prayers do not teach a pattern of special language at all. Jesus’ example prayer was very simple (Matthew 6). Paul’s prayers did not differ from his conversational language (Eph 1.18; 3.14ff; Rom 1.8-10; 15.30-33; I Cor 1.4ff; II Cor 1.3ff; 9.12ff; Col 4.2ff; I Thess 3.9ff; 5.23f; II Tim 1.16ff; Philemon 4ff). No New Testament example suggests that using anything other than conversational language is superior. What does matter is our spiritual state when we pray (Jn 9.31; I Pt 3.7; I Tim 2.8). 

To be very clear, this is not a salvation issue at all. This is not even an indictment those who use Early Modern English pronouns in prayer. I strongly believe that Christians who pray or direct worship using old English have pure motives and are simply doing what they think most honors God! Hopefully this will serve as encouragement to evaluate our approach to prayer and worship so we can most effectively lead people to God. 

“To the Jews I became like a Jew so that I could help save them…to those who don’t practice the Law I became like someone who doesn’t practice the Law to help save them (though I am still ruled by Christ’s law). To those who are weak, I became weak so that I could help save them. I did this so that I could save people in any way possible. I do all this to make the Good News known. I do this so I can share in the blessings of the Good News” (I Cor 9.20-23).