There is of course good reason why God chose not to reveal every single detail of the future. One of the most important of which reasons, I believe, is because God has left room for each of us ~ to be and to do whatever it is that we will be and do ~ in, through, and to God. I do not believe that God has fore-ordained or predestined the future of anyone. Nevertheless, God foreknows the future which, by reason of the (collective) actions of everyone, as well as by the intervening and guiding hand of God, the future shall be according to the will of God. God does not make anyone's choices for them, though God does seek to influence our choices. But God does know what choices each of us will make. And being God, He is free to intervene in the affairs of men, as He wills.
The point I want to emphasize, is, that we are free to act (within the scope of God's will). Indeed, I have long believed and said that "God has an incentive program". Scripture informs us that God will reward every man according to his own deeds. The Bible also acknowledges that Christian persons are not equally productive or fruitful (see, Mark 4:8, for example).
We are free to act ~ for God, as God's agents ("ambassadors") in the earth. That is a most important point. For, I am certain that most Christians feel greatly constrained from acting independently of (the supposed authority of) the "Church". In every generation since Christ, there have been those who have tried to organize "the Church", albeit, under the authority of man; which practice God hates ("Nicolaitans": Rev. 2:15). That is not at all to say that God has established no kind of order or authority in the living Church of Jesus Christ. Only, that such order and authority as God has ordained, is for the purpose of spiritual edification and not (as most often is the case) for exercising dominion over the faith (or actions) of anyone.
Thus we may liken the circumstances of the present-day Church to those circumstances which prevailed in the days of king Saul in Israel. Whereas Saul ruled with an iron fist, as it were, over the people of Israel; likewise, in the vast majority of churches in America, pastors and other church leaders conduct themselves more like CEOs ~ if not in fact as dictators, rather than as shepherds to the flock of God.
King Saul, together with the congregation of Israel over which Saul then reigned, represented the Old Order. I will hereafter use that as an analogy to represent the present-day (apostate) Church in America ~ when speaking of the "Old Order".
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
How many times, throughout 6,000 years of human history, did God intervene to terminate an 'Old Order', in order to bring about a new dispensation? The major transitional periods (not counting the Fall of man) included, in sequence of time: Noah and the Flood; the calling of Abraham; Moses and the Exodus; the (united) Kingdom under David (about whom I will have more to say); the Babylonian Captivity; the Return (under Ezra and Nehemiah); and, finally, the coming of Christ.
It will greatly help your understanding and perspective, if you will take at least a few minutes to contemplate the circumstances involving each of the above identified transitional periods. What was the nature of the "Old Order" which then existed, in each case? How did God bring about a new dispensation, in each instance? How did God deal with the person(s) whom God raised up to bring in each new dispensation? What was the time period involved, in each transitional period?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I want to focus on one of those transitional periods in particular, beginning with the calling of David. I believe it is important to introduce "David", by means of an image which represents how David may have appeared at that time when ~ in his youth ~ he was called of God:
The Anointing of that king of Israel (David) was not performed ceremoniously in public. In fact, it was a very private affair, involving only David's immediate family and the elders of the small town where they lived (1 Samuel 16). But why did God choose to anoint David at that time, in David's young life? Why didn't God wait until years later when it was actually time for David to take the throne? I can perceive three important reasons, namely: 1) the Bible says that "the Spirit of the LORD came upon David from that day forward"; 2) the Anointing, as such, served as a tangible witness to God's purpose involving both David and the nation of Israel: thus, it was prophetic; and, 3) not least important, the Anointing served ~ in David's own consciousness, to give him the faith and courage he would greatly need in the days ahead of him, to withstand against many trials and temptations and still continue to move forward in God, toward a clear promise of God (kingship).
Figuratively speaking, the ground of Israel was mightily shaken on that day; though the Old Order (Saul and the people) knew nothing of it. But David's brothers knew. And to the extent that any of them believed that David might actually become their king some day, it must have caused them no little consternation. I imagine, in fact, that from that day and onward, David's relationship with his brothers was probably not unlike that of Joseph's with his brothers ~ who hated him so much that they wanted to kill him. For, David's own brothers were themselves part of the Old Order; in fact, they were part of Saul's army. They were 'mature', 'knowledgeable', and 'experienced': they therefore had a measure of 'authority' ~ as they doubtless supposed, in the Old Order. Whereas, David, perhaps, was insignificant, in their eyes.
If you have received God's Anointing ~
the indwelling and infilling of the Holy Ghost,
don't expect that the "Old Order"
is going to cheer you on to be great in God.
I don't have the liberty of time or space to write extensively about the nature of the Old Order which then existed under king Saul. But it is nevertheless important to keep in mind what David was up against ~ especially, as that is represented in the person of Saul. The Old Order was entrenched, held fast in the grip of human pride and lust. It's leaders, who were full of themselves (especially Saul), served themselves rather than the people. Is that not also true of the present, "Old Order" of the Church? The Christian Reformers, half a millennium ago, found it was true of the Mother of harlots. Today, we see it is also true of the 'daughters' of that apostate Woman, that is, the mainstream Protestant churches.
But God was calling for a change in Israel, when He sent Samuel to anoint David ~ just as God is calling for change, today, in America. I am absolutely sure, too, that God is sending the Holy Ghost to anoint certain individuals whose hearts are well known unto God, for the purpose of raising them up to bring in a new dispensation, according to the will of God.
A few days ago, I wrote a blog titled, "Shiloh is forsaken", in which I began to lay the groundwork for what things I am now setting forth in this essay. In my own conscience, I have come (over a long process of time) to understand the true condition of the apostate Church in America. It has not been an easy road to that understanding, believe me. I have learned that it takes great courage (just as it took great courage for David, as well as for the Protestant Reformers), to be willing to stand ~ not against the true Body of Christ ~ but to stand against the wrong-headed teachings and the pretensions and, sometimes, even of the threatenings and abuses of the "Old Order".
I further see that the true Body of Christ, in America, is desperately seeking the way forward; and needs Holy Ghost-inspired leadership. I am continually reminded of what A.W. Tozer prophesied more than 60 years ago:
"Let me go out on a limb a little bit and prophesy. I see the time coming when all the holy men whose eyes have been opened by the Holy Spirit will desert worldly Evangelicalism, one by one. The house [worldly churches] will be left desolate and there will not be a man of God, a man in whom the Holy Spirit dwells, left among them.... As the church now stands, the man who sees this condition of worldly evangelicalism is written off as somewhat fanatical. But the day is coming when the house will be left desolate and there will not be a man of God among them. I would like to live long enough to watch this develop and see how things turn out. I would like to live to see the time when the men and women of God--holy, separated and spiritually enlightened--walk out of the evangelical church and form a group of their own; when they get off the sinking ship and let her go down . . . and form a new ark to ride out the storm."What makes it so challenging is that no real Christian dares to be guilty before God, of causing division amongst the brethren (which Scripture says is an abomination to God). At the same time, we dare not be guilty of disobeying God's commandment to "come out of Babylon" and thus be reckoned among the apostates. In light of which, to walk uprightly before the Lord appears to be a "straight and narrow path" indeed. We do know beyond all doubt that practically all churches (even most which some would judge as being "spiritual") embody a significant proportion of unsaved persons. We further know that those same churches have not seen a significant number of genuine conversions in many, many years. We also know that those same churches have embraced many ideas and practices which are contrary to Scripture. Importantly, there are reasons why all of those things are so ~ reasons which may be discerned, if anyone cares enough to search them out (as I have done).
It was a backslidden prophet (Baalam) who set the trap whereby tens of thousands in Israel died as the result of God's judgment upon their sin, in the days of Moses. Not only that, but even a number of the leaders in Israel were complicit in Israel's rebellion against the Lord, in that same instance (Numbers 25). After several days or, perhaps, even weeks had passed, during which time many Israelites went over to fornicate with the women of Midian and bowed down to their gods, young Phinehas (a grandson of Aaron ~ who was then still living) grabbed a javelin and slew Zimri ~ "a prince of a chief house" of the tribe of Simeon, in his own tent: where Zimri had taken the daughter of one of the leaders of Midian, to fornicate with her ~ right in the camp of Israel!
Look at what a mess the "Church of Moses" was in, at that time! God himself told Moses to "[t]ake all the heads [leaders] of the people, and hang them up before the LORD against the sun, that the fierce anger of the LORD may be turned away from Israel" (Numbers 25:4). How much courage; what clarity of understanding and conviction; and what zeal for the Lord's sake: must the (young) Phinehas have possessed, in order for him to rise up in the very midst of that "Church" and, in the sight of all the people, slay one of the head deacons (and his mistress) in his own tent?!
Wow! And what, do you suppose, did Moses, or Phinehas's grandpa Aaron, have to say about that? They had nothing at all to say about it. For, God himself spoke to Moses, concerning Phinehas's deeds, saying:
"Phinehas . . . hath turned my wrath away from the children of Israel, while he was zealous for my sake among them, that I consumed not the children of Israel in my jealousy. Wherefore say, Behold, I give unto him my covenant of peace: and he shall have it, and his seed after him, even the covenant of an everlasting priesthood; because he was zealous for his God, and made an atonement for the children of Israel." (Numbers 25:11-13)And, so, the plague ceased ~ the plague in which 24,000 Israelites died because that neither Moses nor Aaron ~ nor any of the other leaders in Israel, evidently, stood up against the rampant apostasy which had overtaken the Church. The plague ceased; but not until young Phinehas bravely, very bravely, stood up ~ alone! ~ and mortally confronted the wickedness in the midst of the camp. I believe (though the Bible doesn't explicitly state) that Phinehas not only stopped the plague, but that he also saved the lives of many of the "heads of the people" (the leaders of Israel), whom God had commanded to be slain.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Now, back to David. I would have to say that David's character was tested most severely with respect to his courage. When I think about that, I become aware of how many other men and women in Scripture were tested for their courage ~ or lack thereof. Courage is a most significant quality of character at all times. But courage is especially important, as I suppose, in younger persons: for, typically, their actions may derive more from courage of conviction than from wisdom of experience (not that the latter is unimportant).
David proved himself to be a man of courage and conviction. Like Phinehas before him, David was "zealous for his God". It was in fact his extraordinary courage, and conviction, and integrity which provoked such envy and hatred in his rival, Saul. So has it ever been the case. That is exactly the same reason why the religious leaders of the Old Order persecuted Jesus Christ.
And whereas God raised up David to lead in a time of change, yet, David was not the only one upon whom God laid His hand to strengthen and to use them. But in order as God raised up David, the Lord also raised up together with David ~ a small but powerful army of mighty men . . . .
In the next essay in this series, we will examine (as God leads) just how God led, developed, and used David and his "mighty men", in their generation ~ which, that transitional period in Israel's history, seems to involve important prophetic implications for this present generation.
No comments:
Post a Comment