It has been a long time since we have heard anything about
the ark. In 1 Samuel 7 it was lodged in
Kiriath-jearim after the Philistines returned it when it created so much havoc
with the statue of Dagon and the tumors or hemorrhoids. Now, after the Philistines are defeated in battle,
David wants the ark brought to Jerusalem.
The family with whom it had been kept apparently was overly familiar
with it and also paid no attention to the Lord's instructions regarding the
transport of the ark. It was to be
carried on poles through the rings on the ark by the priests, not loaded onto a
cart like some piece of furniture. It was
also not to be touched. In the wilderness
the tent of the Holy of holies was collapsed onto the ark when it was
moved. When Uzzah reached out to steady
the ark the Lord broke out against him. This
was the most holy thing in Israel, it was the footstool of God, the judgment
seat of the Almighty and no one should have been so familiar with it as to
touch it. It seems to some like undue
punishment but the truth is that it represented the very presence of God and
the tables of the Law inside the judgment of God against sin. There is something reminiscent of the Lord
breaking out against Moses as he was returning to Egypt for failure to
circumcise his children as per his responsiblity.
For the second time in Mark we see Jesus, the disciples and
a great crowd in a desolate place. Was this
desolate place in a Gentile land given where we have been with Jesus the past
couple of days of readings? Again, He
intends to feed them and the disciples aren't prepared for Him to do such
things. The reason I wonder if they are outside
Israel is that perhaps this would explain their hesitation to believe again
when He has already proven Himself. Perhaps
they thought that He was more limited in such a place. At any rate, Jesus is able to do this
miraculous feeding again in spite of the lack of faith of anyone else in His ability.
Paul is provoked or irritated by the multiplicity of idols
in the city and yet rightly sees that it is all nothing more than clutter. There are many gods recognized in Athens in
Greek mythology but no one took them particularly seriously in so far as
worldview, philosophy was more highly regarded than the gods. For Paul to reason concerning religion was a
novelty in some ways, coopting their methodology and their philosophers to
speak about God was nearly a mixed metaphor in their culture. Paul, however, knows that reason and religion
are not incompatible categories of thought and so dives into the fray. His argument is in one God not many gods and
this God is sovereign now and forever, "And he made from one man every
nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined
allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place," but that His
desire is to be known, "that they should seek God, and perhaps feel their
way toward him and find him." This
God of whom Paul speaks is comprehensible and yet comprehends everything and
only in Him are all things comprehensible.
It is only at the point of resurrection of the dead that they will no
longer follow him, there is no logic in it.
We live in a day where the same is true, the cross and resurrection are
stumbling blocks to belief because they make no sense, they are an affront to
what we know. If He created it all why
can we not believe in resurrection? Is there
indeed anything too difficult for Him? Let
us approach His throne with wonder and reverent fear.
No comments:
Post a Comment