July 17, 2000
"Careful with God's Ark: or
The Challenge of Change"
2 Samuel
6:l-23
Modern Protestant Christianity is that many Protestant
preachers and their congregations ignore the Old
Testament. My guess is that this Sunday as most the
evangelical and independent congregations of Hong Kong
will have read only one scripture, and that from the New
Testament.
The liturgical churches like the Catholics, Anglicans
and Lutherans use a leccionary which provides four
lessons per Sunday, one from the Psalms and another from
the Old Testament along with an epistle and a Gospel
text. Though we are not a liturgical church we follow
that model.
The tendency to avoid the Old Testament is
understandable in that evangelical Christianity aims to
convert folks to Christ and the fullest revelation about
the Christ is in the New Testament. But this overlooking
the Old Testament doesn't make sense.
The only holy scriptures which Jesus knew and ever
quoted are from the Old Testament. He began his ministry
quoting from a prophet, Isaiah, and ended his work on
earth with quotes from the Psalms. It's a strange notion
that we can understand who is Jesus when we ignore the
very scriptures which formed his spiritual
sensibilities.
And certainly our theology as Christians is
shortchanged if we overlook not only the prophetic
literature and the Psalms but the historical documents
like our reading from Second Samuel of today, the wisdom
literature, and the pre-historic mythic theology and
moral codes of the Pentateuch.
So this morning I'll make modest personal amends by
focusing on the Old Testament reading from Second
Samuel.
This narrative explains how the ark of God got moved
all over Israel to arrive finally at the temple in
Jerusalem. Underlying its interesting historical details,
is a profound theological insight about the necessity and
the dangers of change.
What was the Ark of Israel? It is described in Exodus
25:l0-22 and 37:l-9 as being a four-feet-long,
two-and-a-half-feet-high, and two-and-half-feet wide box,
made of acacia wood.
There is a n Numbers l0:35-36 which provides a glimpse
into the earliest function of the Ark; it was a cult
object used out in the wilderness, long before the
founding of Jerusalem, in executing a holy war. The Ark
was carried before the Hebrew soldiers as a visual
reminder that Yahweh was with them in the battle.
"Arise, O lord, let your enemies be scattered,
And your foes flee before you.
Return, O Lord of the ten thousand thousands of
Israel."
The Ark is again used in holy war against the
Philistines in I Samuel 4:lb-7-l but there the Israelites
lose the battle and lose the ark to their enemy.
In primitive Judaism the ark was the main symbol of
the authority of the divine God over Israel. Part of the
historical importance of these chapters from Second
Samuel is that they explain how the early symbol of the
Ark comes to be wedded to a later symbol of God's status
as the defender of Israel in the newly built temple. The
entire book of Samuel has been moving Hebrew history into
the era of the monarchs, first in Saul, and now David, as
David as the moral king is assuming some of God's
protective function over the Israelites.
The story of David bringing the ark to finally rest in
Jerusalem, which will become David's royal city, is
filled with tension because it explores the surprising
transformations and the accompanying dangers to the
community of faith when a tradition moves through time
and thus changes. The bringing together of the Ark and
Temple through David is no casual story. It reveals the
will and ways of God.
******
The reading is loosely organized around the geographic
movements of the Ark (and, as an aside, Sue, I admire
your courage in undertaking the pronunciation of these
difficult Israelite place names): it first rests in the
house of Abinadad in Baalejudah; then is moved to the
threshing floor of Nacom, now named Peruzzuzzh because of
the David's response to the events that take place there;
then to the house of Obededom the Gittite in Jerusalem;
and finally to Jerusalem.
The opening and closing sections emphasize joy and
exultation and the positive dimension of change; the
middle sections emphasize the dangers of change.
*********
The writer of the two books of Samuel has been
preparing the Jewish hearers for drastic social and
religious change since I Samuel 8 when Israel requested a
king. The rise and fall of Saul and subsequent rise of
David have moved the story along to the point where
Israel is no longer the loose tribal confederacy that was
soundly defeated twice by the Philistines, culminating in
the loss of the Ark (I Samuel 4:2-7:l).
Instead they are now becoming an organized nation who
now through David's leadership go out to recover the ark
from its temporary storage and bring it to Jerusalem.
This is a profound new beginning; of course there will be
dancing. But there will also be difficulty as with any
major change.
Sue reads 2 Samuel 6:l-5: David gain fathred all the
chosen men of Israel, thirty thousand. David and all the
people with him set out and went from Ba'ale-judah, to
bring up from there the ark of God, which is called by
the name of the Lord of hosts who is enthroned on the
cherumbim. They carried the ark of God on a new cart, and
brought it out of the house of Abinadab which was on the
hill. Uzzah and Ahi-o, the sons of Abinadab, were driving
the new cart with the ark of God; and Ahi-o went in front
of the ark. David and all the house of Israel were
dancing before the Lord with all their might, with songs
and lyres and harps and tambourines and castanets and
cymbals.
After this happy beginning, and change often starts on
a positive note though not always, the story changes
abruptly. When the ark reaches the threshing floor at
Nacun a perfectly well motivated Israelite, Uzzah, who
has been carrying the object, reaches out to steady the
ark because it looks like it's about to tip over. For his
trouble God strikes Uzzah dead.
This dire development, which a naturalist could
attribute to a sudden heart attack brought on by too much
exertion in the summer's heat, is attributed by David,
and the writer of 2 Samuel, to God. And David is angry
with God; and then he is afraid of God. David no longer
wants the responsibility of ark carrier and dumps it at
the house of Obededom, a Gittite.
Sue reads 2w Samuel 6:7-11: When they came to the
threshing floor of Nacon, Uzzah reached out his hand to
the ark of God and took hold of it, for the oxen shook
it. The anger of the Lord was kindled against Uzzah; and
God struck him there because he reached out his hand to
the ark; and he died there beside the ark of God. David
was angry because the Lord had burst forth with an
outburst upon Uzzah, so that the place is called Pe
rez-uzah, to this day. David was afraid of the Lord that
day; he said, "how can the ark of the Lord come into my
care?" So David was unwilling to take the ark of the Lord
into the city of David; instead David took it to the
house of O'bed-e'dom the Gittite. The ark of the Lord
remained in the house of O'bed-e'dom the Gittite three
months, and the Lord blessed O'bed-e'dom and all his
household.
Why did God strike Uzzah dead. This is difficult for
our theology. Was his attempt to help steady the Ark
viewed by God as too casual a response to the divine
mission? Does this tragedy cloak some ambiguity about who
God wanted to be in charge of the ark, and the temple,
and the kingdom? We know it was to be David, but David
seems not to be confident about his role, and maybe
others witnessing this change were of mixed minds and
loyalties.
It's been said there are three kinds of persons who
deal with the process of change: those who make things
happen; those who watch things happen and those who say
"What happened?"
Up to this point David has represented the first kind
of agent for change: he has made things happen. But now
David becomes that third kind of person who steps back
and reflects upon "What happened!" Perhaps this is wisdom
on his part because up to this point David has been the
wholly victorious warrior for Israel and Yahweh. Perhaps
his motives in moving the ark have become diluted by his
personal ambition. Now he begins to develop a more proper
fear of the Lord.
After three months, when it's evident that far from
being struck dead, O'bed-edom has been blessed, David is
encouraged to return and claim the ark and continue to be
that kind of person who makes things happen.
But David's confidence is not at full zenith because
after reclaiming the ark he doesn't go more than six
paces before he offers sacrifice to God. Again in
Jerusalem sacrifice is offered. There is joyful dancing
but it is far more focused and in the context of total
reverence for the Ark as the icon of the divine than at
the initial rejoicing around the ark.
Sue reads: 2 Samuel 6:l2-l5: It was told King David,
"The Lord has blessed the household of O'bed-e'dom and
all that belongs to him, because of the ark of God." So
David went and brought up the ark of God from the house
of O'bed-e'dom to the city of David with rejoicing, and
when those who bore the ark of the Lord had gone six
paces, he sacrificed an ox and a fatling. David danced
before the Lord with all his might; David was girded with
a linen ephod. So David and all the house of Israel
brought up the ark of the Lord with shouting, and with
the sound of the trumpet.
The leccionary usually drops the next verse because it
introduces the awkward person of Michal, the daughter of
the dead Saul and David's wife, and a complaining,
unhappy wife she is:
Sue reads 2 Samuel 6:16: As the ark of the Lord came
into the city of David, Michal, the daughter of Saul,
looked out of the window, and saw King David leaping and
dancing before the Lord, and she despised him in her
heart.
We shall return to unhappy Michal in a moment.
Now the ark arrives at the city, rests a while at
David's tent where he again sacrifices, and then is
brought to the temple where David, finally assuming the
mantle of total leadership, distributes thanksgiving food
to the people.
Sue reads 2 Samuel 6:l7-19: They brought in the ark of
the Lord, and set it in its place, inside the tent that
David had pitched for it; and David offered burnt
offerings and offerings of well-being before the Lord.
When David had finished offering the burnt offerings and
offerings of well-being, he blessed the people in the
name of the Lord of hosts, and distributed food among all
the people, the whole multitude of Israel, both men and
women, to each a cake of bread, a portion of meat, and a
cake of raisins. Then all the people went back to their
homes.
David returns to his house and is confronted by the
anger of his wife who believes David has conducted
himself scandalously dancing in public and practically
naked, having worn only an ephod which is a loin cloth.
In refuting his wife's criticism, David indicates he is
finally able and willing to assume the mantle of supreme
leadership of the nation, the goal of change toward which
the story has been moving. And poor Michal goes
childless.
Sue reads 2 Samuel 5:20-23: David returned to bless
his household. But Michal the daughter of Saul came out
to meet David, and said, "How the king of Israel honored
himself today, uncovering himself today before the eyes
of his servants' maids, as any vulgar fellow might
shamelessly uncover himself!" David said to Michal, "It
was before the Lord, who chose me in place of your father
and all his household, to appoint me as prince over
Israel, the people of the Lord, that I have danced before
the Lord. I will make myself yet more contemptible than
this, and I will be abased in my own eyes; but by the
maids of whom you have spoken, by them I shall be held in
honor." And Michal the daughter of Saul had no child to
the day of her death.
**********
What are the theological lessons about change from
this text. It seems to affirm that change is inevitable
and that change which ultimately takes place is at least
roughly within the overall will of God, and that there
are costs, contradictions, and casualties in the process
of change.
The long running controversy over the building of
Beijing's National Theatre just off Tianamen Square
illustrates the profound tensions inherent within any
process of significant change. The party leaders, the
city planners, the ordinary citizens are all enmeshed in
debate over this project designed by French architect
Paul Andreu. Defenders assert that Beijing needs this
bold, modern architectural statement. Traditionalists
argue that this giant glass bubble will damage all that
is to be honored in the capital.
And despite the many years of planning, the commitment
of huge public monies, and the official endorsement, it
remains unclear what will finally arise in the heart of
Beijing. Change is not easy.
And change for Israel was not easy. This theology of
change flies in the face of our contemporary secular
faith that change is not only inevitable, but always
good, and always easy.
I receive quarterly and annual reports from companies
whose stock I own and one can't help but take note of the
relentless optimism of our capitalistic managers. The
report for one of these corporations, I think it was
ORACLE but it could have been any of a thousand other
euphoric corporations, who see only a golden future
before them:
"No limits to the future
There are no limits to the human imagination.
There are no limits to our capacity for change.
There are no limits to our capability to improve.
There are no limits to our willingness to achieve.
There are no limits to our dedication to serve.
There are no limits except those we set ourselves.
There are no limits."
That's an easy sale from Silicon Valley and wannabe
millionaires everywhere, but try to sell it to the
grieving relatives of the l50 Manila slum victims whose
future of "no limits" came crashing down when their
neigborhood, called the "Promised Land", was swept away
by a mountain of garbage from which they tilled their
meager living.
….tell the hostages who are stranded by
kidnapping by the Muslim insurgents in the Philippines
that there are no limits except those they set.
….tell the two millions Palestinians displaced
for 50 years from their homes and villages that change is
inevitable, always good, and easy.
…tell the millions suffering from AIDS that they
have no limits to their lives except those they willy
nilly set!
The human potential movement makes sense to me only if
it is placed within the theological framework that
acknowledges that God is the only source of lasting
change, that much change is compromised by our human
sinfulness, and that change is often costly. The most
radical change in all history, that change which redeemed
the human race from being lost in Adam to being found in
Christ, illustrates our Christian understanding, derived
from the Old Testament, that change is costly and
supremely so to God.
Our text lays out some questions about the dangers and
possibilities of change. A central element in the story
is that change is inevitable. The writer of 2 Samuel does
not return, as in a circle to where he began his story.
He advances the story of the founding of the Davidic
kingdom and lineage, an advance crucial to messianic
expectation. The temple was built, the ark was moved and
in its very movement the theology of Israel changed from
a parochial claim upon Yahweh whose function was to
defend Israel to an awareness that the universal holiness
of God required clean hearts and sacred attitudes and
caution lest the servants of the Lord, like David and all
Israel, manipulate God in the name of their desires.
Human motivation can not be the sole criterion for
evaluating change in religious tradition. Uzzah may have
been more purely motivated than David who usually comes
across as a man of highly complex and often devious
motivations. But God kills Uzzah and stops David in his
tracks with fear when the change appears to spring too
much from self-perceived human purity rather than
righteous humility before the almighty.
Although change in how we worship God and think about
God is inevitable it must be undertaken in proper fear of
the divine.
David is highly motivated throughout his early career
but he only reaches a point of fear at the end of today's
story when he sees that the power of God embedded in the
Ark is far more than his motivation for doing good. Once
this is understood, once David acquires a proper fear of
God, he can then embody change by becoming a new channel
for the divine blessing.
The danger of the evangelical overlooking of the Old
Testament is that believers will be led to arrive at a
facile receiving of the grace of God without regard to
the holiness of God and the appropriate human response of
fear, humility and sacrifice as one is called to help God
with his plan for the people, the nation, destiny.
We are faced with assessing the needs and costs of
change as individuals and as a church. This story of
David passes along some guidance to us in those
circumstances calling for change:
….change will happen to us, individually and as a
church, whether we like it or not and whether we even
recognize that change is happening. So why not plan for
the change rather than be surprised and caught short.
…since change is inevitable we wisely should plan
out routes for the change as David had to move the Ark
from here to there in a complex dance of maneuvering. A
business plan is a good idea for an individual and for a
church, though a key factor in any good business plan is
the provision for the unanticipated change as well as
calculation for change.
…we should be certain our maneuvering and our
motivation for helping God with change is not
self-deception and nor our need for desperate
self-authenticating. As David offered sacrifices to God,
we ought always to submit in humility and obedience to
the Almighty before launching forth into change.
…if the call for change is given and
authenticated through prayer and patience and collective
reflection as the will of God then we should be about it
with confidence and ardor. There is a time to dance for
joy with God's plan and providence over us.
To sum up: We must be careful with God's Ark
especially careful when we claim for ourselves God's holy
changes in our lives; but we need not, finally, be
fearful before the awesome power of God. We can trust
that God will see us through.
Pastor Gene
Preston
Archives: Sermon
Texts
|