Hounds of Heaven

Was Jesus Black? (A Debate)

Published by Papa Giorgio

This was originally posted in May of 2010

– updated dead links and media (Jan 2024) –

I have, for some reason unknown to me, many run-ins with Black Hebrew Israelites. God, either through my personality or bringing these people to my cyber doorstep, allows prolonged conversation with these very earnest people. This is one guy I like, he is witty, funny, and an entrepreneur, but he is lost, lost, lost. I will not post our entire conversation, but I will shorten it to some of the important exchanges to allow others to add some responses to their apologetic repertoire.

  • This was a link to the actual conversation, but the gentleman became violent in language and I had to delete it and unfriend him.

This conversation may seem choppy, again, I am shortening it, but there are some nuggets of thinking one can apply to their responses on these theologically racial encounters.

This gentleman, however, has a messiah complex — and may be thinking of himself as a biblical character? For example, here is the “About the Author” from Amazon:

My name is Enoch Mubarak. I was chosen to write this book. I don’t know why I was chosen to bring “you” this truth. I bring you this truth not to seek reward for self, but to literally save “your” life and the lives of “your” children. “If the watchman sees the enemy coming and does not sound the alarm, I will hold the watchman responsible for their deaths.” Ezekiel 33:6

So keep this in mind as you pick up our conversation, or any comments he may leave.

By-the-by, the gentleman I discussed this topic with lives in Chicago, which has a large cult movement along these lines (click the Chicago skyline to read a excellent historical article on the movement).

Also, one should note that while I cannot pigeon-hole Enoch into a particular category (he has a mix of beliefs: Nation of Islam, Black Hebrew Israelite, Black Nationalist Liberation Theology, New Age, etc), the response near the end of this post to the verses typically used by black liberation theologians [Nation of Islam adherents, and black Hebrew Israelites, and the like] try to show Jesus was black, is key.

Jumping in:

ME:
… But Enoch… lets break away from your Pulitzer prize winning writing skills. Do you believe what Christ taught about the law?

ENOCH:
speaking about what I believe in regards to Christ let me begin with I believe Christ when he says that you must be hot or cold and if you are warm I will spew thee out. …. You must atone by deleting what you wrote in haste or know for certain that what you wrote is what you know beyond “maybe.”

Just so you are up to date, Enoch wrote a book that he bragged was rated “5-Stars” on Amazon (it was based on one review). Having encountered Enoch in past conversations and after reading his first chapter of the book, I gave him a one-star, to which I must atone for.

ME:
Well, when you want to talk about WHO Jesus is, WHAT His mission was, and His requirements that we must attain in order to enter into his presence, I am here for you. THIS is more important than who you are right now or how I view you (or your book). God sees the real Enoch. In some way I do not yet understand now, He digs you a lot and wants you to accept his mercy, but maybe you haven’t hashed out your positions with a guy like me? Maybe you do not realize that the letter keeping of Islam and other religions pale in comparison to Christianity. The question is this: in this law keeping (whether the five pillars in Islam – or – the search for Nirvana by rejecting the world in the here-and-now in Buddhism, whatever it is) are you driven towards personal righteousness/attainment and you will be judged on that by a just God, or into the arms of a God who has interwoven a love story (in contradistinction to every world religion, major and minor) who is more than ready to show mercy in your acceptance of His perfect Son. If we need to start at the bare bones (looking at the inspirational aspect of the Bible and who it was written by and how God doesn’t use automatons, then that is where we should start. But Jesus is calling you “Enoch,” and he knows YOU and WHO you are, and loved you before you knew Him.

ENOCH:
Without evidence other than my name you conclude that I am Islam and once you concluded that I am islam you have structured your entire conversation around that premise.

ME:
No, I use Islam as an example because many you surround yourself with accept it (as your reviewer for your book does). And in the black nationalist movement many do as well, which I suppose is a big draw for your business? Granted, you may be a Christian in the “Rev. Wright” strain (black liberation theology), but there too is a world not based in the amount of mercy offered to man and is a works based understanding and a “James Cone” understanding of God. I am prepared as well to dig into that… BUT, I would rather concentrate on WHO Jesus is, and why it matters. I will compare and contrast His mercy with every other man-made system of thought.

And by-the-way, your name would denote a more New Age vision of life to me that includes UFOs and the like. in fact the “Book of Enoch” is typically accepted more by New Age apprentices rather than other belief structures. So your name, to be clear, has a ring of the Nation of Islam with a New Age flavor. But much of the view of “god” by Elijah Muhammad and others combine the two. AGAIN, however, we could talk about that/your name, my name all day… lets deal with the meat of the issue (Mark 8:29).

Okay. You referenced the Mark of Cain, this verse is really misused by the black nationalist community (and the white nationalist [and historical Mormons]). The reason I want to deal with WHO Jesus is IS because many people say they believe in Jesus:

✔ Mormons say he is the first born from a sexual union between a god and one of his goddesses, and that Lucifer and he are literal brothers… like all of us are;
✔ Jehovah’s Witnesses believe Jesus is the first created angel, Michael the Archangel, and that when he came to earth he was known as Jesus, and when he went back to heaven he became Michael again;
✔ Black liberation theology took a page from Nat Turner, Marcus Garvey (Garveyism), and the Marxist Trinity (race, class, gender) was thrust into the modern movement by James Cone saying Jesus was a black man who didn’t only come to save people individually, but to lift the poor up — thus becoming a revolutionary figure. Taking it further still was Albert Cleage who effectively called into question (as most liberal theologies do) Paul’s inclusion in the New Testament;
✔ New Age (Helen Schucman, Heidi Rose Robbins, Barbara Marx Hubbard, Richard Bach Quotes, and the like) persons believe Jesus reached the next level of evolution and will herald the coming destruction of those not ready for this next stage of spiritual evolution;
✔ Christadelphianism believes Jesus was a created man with a sin nature;
✔ Theosophy believes that “god” is a principle to be believed and that Jesus is a great teacher, like Buddha and others;
✔ Masons believe Jesus is a Aeon here to (very much like Gnostics) point to a spiritual (not material) “cosmic consciousness, soul regeneration, philosophic initiation, spiritual illumination, Brahmic Splendor…” etc;
On-and-on… ad infinitum.

So when you write of “Jesus,” Enoch, I will again ask who you say HE IS (Mark 8:29)? Take note I summarized many beliefs about him in a sentence or two above… no mystery, or ethereal language involved. See if you can give me a plain answer to this simple question.

ENOCH:
Tsk, tsk, naughty, naughty. Before we delve into what you desire you must first atone for your sin: You must atone by deleting the book review that you wrote in vindictive haste and with malice or….. know for certain that what you wrote is what you know to be certain and beyond “maybe.”

ME:
After reading 41-pages of it my critique stands… no 5-stars for you my friend.

ENOCH:
Had you been a black person that left one star then my concern would be heightened but considering the source 5 stars was never my expectation.

Enoch mentioned that my sarcasm (which I had to point out, my sarcasm that is) was vindictive, malicious, antagonistic and mean spirited. Which it wasn’t, but Enoch takes things VERY literal, as you will see he does in a bit with Scripture.

ME:
… and there you go… the liberal trinity of race, class, and gender….The question isn’t what the white man speaks with, but what does Jesus say about eternality and the extent of the law YOU must keep in order to attain it. I, and other ethnicities are fallen creatures who can be vindictive, malicious, antagonistic and mean spirited. But WHO do you say Jesus is?

The nine founders among the eleven living religions in the world had characters which attracted many devoted followers during their own lifetime, and still larger numbers during the centuries of subsequent history. They were humble in certain respects, yet they were also confident of a great religious mission.

Two of the nine, Mahavira and Buddha, were men so strongminded and self-reliant that, according to the records, they displayed no need of any divine help, though they both taught the inexorable cosmic law of Karma. They are not reported as having possessed any consciousness of a supreme personal deity. Yet they have been strangely deified by their followers. Indeed, they themselves have been worshiped, even with multitudinous idols. All of the nine founders of religion, with the exception of Jesus Christ, are reported in their respective sacred scriptures as having passed through a preliminary period of uncertainty, or of searching for religious light. Confucius, late in life, confessed his own sense of shortcomings and his desire for further improvement in knowledge and character.

All the founders of the non-Christian religions evinced inconsistencies in their personal character; some of them altered their practical policies under change of circumstances. Jesus Christ alone is reported as having had a consistent God-consciousness, a consistent character himself, and a consistent program for his religion. The most remarkable and valuable aspect of the personality of Jesus Christ is the comprehensiveness and universal availability of his character, as well as its own loftiness, consistency, and sinlessness.

Robert Hume, The World’s Living Religions, pp. 285-286.

ENOCH (posted a video):
While you were in school getting your degree in theology did they tell, show or teach you this…. “‘The True Face Of Jesus Christ’ found in hillbilly home.”

ME (I posted a video as well):
Did I learn about a 150-year old replica when studying a faith that is about 2,000 years old and rooted in a faith connected to the first man and women created? No. I did learn about the earliest known Christian symbol and its historical value (See my post on the earliest CHRISTIAN symbol). We also learned about the SHROUD OF TURIN, and I have recently gotten a book for reference on the matter after hearing an interview with the author [Thomas de Wesselow, The Sign: The Shroud of Turin and the Secret of the Resurrection] on Michael Medved Show.

  • a topic — by the way — a Jew shouldn’t be interested in… but in fact, Medved is fascinated by this Resurrection evidence. Jesus wasn’t white Enoch (or black), he was a Mediterranean Jew, much like you see in Jerusalem today.

While I disagree with the above author’s conclusion of Mr. de Wesselow arguing that the Shroud was the source of the Apostles believing Jesus was Resurrected, he does rightly place the Shroud, to Jesus, in his (His) tomb, at that time.

In other words Enoch Mubarak, the “image” of Jesus is well known. Another guest Medved had on a couple of years back was the author of this book, “The Truth About the Shroud of Turin: Solving the Mystery.” I do highly recommend this book

ENOCH (quotes me): ‎
“Jesus wasn’t white Enoch, he was a Mediterranean Jew” […] “In other words Enoch Mubarak, the “image” of Jesus is well known.” — Sean Giordano

Don’t he, haw and drag your tongue just say it…. Jesus is a black man.

ME:
Jesus was not a black man Enoch Mubarak. You are inserting something demonstrably false into your “faith.”

ENOCH:
The following describes black all day-everyday…… not white nor Mediterranean Jew.

His head and hair were white like wool, as white as snow, and his eyes were like blazing fire. | Revelation 1:14

Daniel 7:9 “As I looked, “thrones were set in place, and the Ancient of Days took his seat. His clothing was as white as snow; the hair of his head was white like wool. His throne was flaming with fire, and its wheels were all ablaze.

Daniel 10:6 His body was like chrysolite, his face like lightning, his eyes like flaming torches, his arms and legs like the gleam of burnished bronze, and his voice like the sound of a multitude.

Revelation 2:18 “To the angel of the church in Thyatira write: These are the words of the Son of God, whose eyes are like blazing fire and whose feet are like burnished bronze.

MEANWHILE… WHO IS JESUS?

Revelation 19:12 He has a name written on him that no one knows but he himself.

ME:
Using you logic then, God has wings, feathers, is a rock, a fireball, blew His nose to drown the Egyptians in the sea, and carried the entire Hebrew nation in His giant hand. You are literally interpreting what is meant to be Hebraic poetry and imagery.

(God has a giant nose, or giant hand) EXODUS 15:8 And with the blast of thy nostrils the waters were gathered together, the floods stood upright as an heap, and the depths were congealed in the heart of the sea. DEUTERONOMY 9:26 I prayed therefore unto the LORD, and said, O Lord GOD, destroy not thy people and thine inheritance, which thou hast redeemed through thy greatness, which thou hast brought forth out of Egypt with a mighty hand. (cf. Dt 5:15, 7:8)

(God is a chicken or bird) PSALM 57:1 Be merciful unto me, O God, . . . in the shadow of thy wings will I make my refuge, . . . (cf. Ps 17:8, 36:7, 61:4, 63:7 | Isaiah 8:8, | Matthew 23:37 | Luke 13:34) PSALM 91:4 He shall cover thee with his feathers, and under his wings shalt thou trust….

(God is an inanimate thing, a rock) PSALM 78:35 And they remembered that God was their rock, . . . (cf. Deuteronomy 32:4, 15, 18, 37 | 1 Samuel 2:2 | 2 Samuel 22:32 | Psalm 18:2, 31, 46, 42:9)

(God is fire) DEUTERONOMY 4:24 For the LORD thy God is a consuming fire, . . . (cf. Dt 9:3)

Quoting the Reverend Jesse Lee Peterson:

…Now to the more interesting observations. How will blacks react to “The Passion”? My answer to this will sound absolutely insane to some – particularly to white readers, who know that all too many blacks are crazy but don’t know quite how crazy – but bear with me, because a sizable sector of the American black population will react in the way I am predicting. One main complaint amongst some blacks will be that this movie does not represent black people because in their minds, Jesus was black.

Don’t believe me? Then take it from Malik Z. Shabazz, national chairman of the New Black Panther Party. Shabazz believes “The Passion” is “harmful and racist” because of “one very basic inaccuracy which has been long-promoted in order to bolster white supremacy.” That basic inaccuracy, according to Shabazz? “Jesus was not a European white man. Jesus Christ was a black man.” Shabazz even complains about the lack of black actors in the film. His motto seems to be: “History be damned – where are the black actors, and where’s Jesus’ afro!”

This is hardly a scarce notion amongst black Americans. Believe me. I live in the black community. Many believe this! Some of my own relatives even believe this! Therefore, many blacks believe that Christianity is the white man’s religion and that Islam is the true religion of black folks!…

REVELATION & DANIEL

Again, using your logic, as the VISION continues, Jesus is a Lion that looks like a lamb.

REVELATION 1:14-16

First, Jesus had snow white hair. Second, his eyes were like flame of fire. Third, his feet were like fine brass. (How did you extend that description to the rest of his body?) Fourth, his voice was like the sound of many waters. (So was it intelligible? How so if this description is literal?) Fifth, his right hand was large enough to contain seven stars. Sixth, he had a sword out of his mouth. And, seventh, his countenance was like the sun. (That final one does not sound much like the description of his feet.)

(THY WORD IS TRUTH)

[….]

The terms come from John’s VISION of Christ, recorded in Revelation 1. That picture itself builds on a whole set of Old Testament imagery, esp. on the vision of the “Ancient of Days” (that is, God) and ‘one like a son of man’ in Daniel 7.

The specific phrases your description is based on are “his HEAD and HEAR were WHITE like wool” (not “woolly” – it’s about the COLOR, not the texture) and “FEET like bronze GLOWING IN A FURNACE”.

The picture doesn’t prove anything racial. All the more so if you look at the WHOLE description. The high priestly type garb described might work, but just TRY to draw a picture that incorporates ALL the parts, and IF you’re able to draw it, it will NOT look, sound, etc. at all like a normal human being! (his tongue is a SWORD, his eyes blaze like fire, his face shines LIKE THE SUN, his voice is like thundering waters). That’s because it not MEANT to — it is a VISION telling you something about his characteristics, glory, power, etc.

(This was from YAHOO ANSWERS, which is not gone)

What a myopic view of your savior/creator Enoch Mubarak. Such a limiting view of Scripture and a heavy burden to carry in order to reach your own atonement. Your best works do not reach even the minimum Jesus calls us to, a law so steep we are pushed into his arms. He is waiting for you my friend… with open arms. I suggest you read one of my papers: Defined: Inerrancy (Exegesis & Hermeneutics As Well)

I also have two posts on this topic as well:

Enoch never answered the Biblical critique of his taking out of context verses that HE (and the Black Hebrew Israelites) interpret to mean Jesus is a black man. In fact, when I point out the above, I never hear a response?

I hope you enjoyed this choppy conversation, that last part is a great response to theologically racist interpretation of Scripture.

UPDATE!

Continuing the conversation at another post of Enoch’s about the supposed racism of the Tea Party, which I thoroughly refute, the conversation switches to a more important subject — Salvation. One reader — after my refutation of the narrative that the Tea Party is racist — asks the following: I thought they weren’t racist. This started off a new strain:

ME:
David Duke certainly is. He is a scumbag with an ego and prideful heart that will contribute to Matthew 24:7 that talks about the end of days: “Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be famines and earthquakes in various places.” “kingdoms” are the nation states, the Greek word for nation, however, is “ethnos,” where we get our word “ethnic” from. Jesus is really saying that the one of the signs of the times will include a “racial pride” or “war” that fuels this culmination of “Armageddon.”

Which is why the Bible is the best answer to this racial division. A great (and short – under 200-pages) book by Pastor and Dr. A. Charles Ware (see his FACEBOOK PAGE) with Ken Ham is “One Race, One Blood” — Unfortunately Enoch Mubarak is in this same law keeping that color is important when faith is what unites us, not genes turned on or off that produce melatonin. And his [Enoch’s] confusion of racial lines and racism onto whole swaths of people [Tea Partiers] that never deserved or earned the title of it [racist/racism] like David Duke has earned such a title of a scumbag racist, is just plain wrong. It is a parroting of the mass media and what Enoch thinks he has escaped is only in fact helping to spread. Which is why Mason Weaver’s book is so fitting: “It’s OK to Leave the Plantation: The New Underground Railroad“ (I have the full video documentary HERE)

I know Jesus is Enoch’s good Shepherd… Enoch just needs to listen to His Masters voice [Jesus’] and realize that if he wants to live by the law he will be judged by it. There is a merciful and graceful path outlined for Enoch, this means however, taking himself off of superman shirts and replacing it with Jesus. Or as one poet of the Gospel (or G.O.S.P.E.L.) says better than I.

MAYBE ENOCH WILL LISTEN TO HIM BECAUSE HE HAS A “MANE” OF HAIR?

For the reader’s information, Enoch rejected [earlier in the conversation] a video presentation by “MachoSauce” because he has a shaved head… according to Enoch, black men must have hair:

  • “Black man you must stop shaving your head bald. Your hair is your strength and your glory. The perception of strength is hair. Grow your hair. Stop going along just to get along. Stop letting the world, global community and your black woman continue to disrespect you by treating you like a BALD HEAD.”

To which I responded:

  • ‎”Shave or not to shave” ~ You will be judged on the law Enoch, in heaven, if you so choose… Jesus is calling you to mercy and forgiveness, otherwise his impossible law he has set up will doom you to being on the left hand of God. Hear a Muslim student ask about the law:”

(I WILL HAVE MORE ON THE “LAW” IN THE APPENDIX)

Back to the conversation :

ENOCH:
Enoch has risen and….. “If the watchman sees the enemy coming and does not sound the alarm, I will hold the watchman responsible for their deaths Ezekiel 33:6“

ME:
Enoch, the BIBLE is all about Jesus… not “action.” The Old Testament (or literally, “The Old Covenant”) screams Jesus. In fact, that verse you quote often is found fulfilled in whom it refers to IN Matthew 24:

MATTHEW 24:40-51 (THE MESSAGE BIBLE)

39-44″The Son of Man’s Arrival will be like that: Two men will be working in the field—one will be taken, one left behind; two women will be grinding at the mill—one will be taken, one left behind. So stay awake, alert. You have no idea what day your Master will show up. But you do know this: You know that if the homeowner had known what time of night the burglar would arrive, he would have been there with his dogs to prevent the break-in. Be vigilant just like that. You have no idea when the Son of Man is going to show up.

45-47″Who here qualifies for the job of overseeing the kitchen? A person the Master can depend on to feed the workers on time each day. Someone the Master can drop in on unannounced and always find him doing his job. A God-blessed man or woman, I tell you. It won’t be long before the Master will put this person in charge of the whole operation.

48-51″But if that person only looks out for himself, and the minute the Master is away does what he pleases—abusing the help and throwing drunken parties for his friends—the Master is going to show up when he least expects it and make hash of him. He’ll end up in the dump with the hypocrites, out in the cold shivering, teeth chattering.”

(See also ESV)

The Watchman are watching for Jesus Enoch (Sermon Central). Do not insert your own meaning into the Bible (eisegesis) , the Bible speaks for itself (exegesis). Again, there is a “New Covenant” (the New Testament, and it is Good News my friend. You quote many ideas and thoughts that place you under the school master….

  • “You think you can instruct the ignorant and teach children the ways of God. For you are certain that God’s law gives you complete knowledge and truth.” (Romans 2:20)
  • “So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith. And now that the way of faith has come, we no longer need the law as our guardian” [or school master] (Galatians 3:24-25)

Are you watching… not for “David Dukes” or other fictitious racist narratives you gin up via the news-media, but are you watching for your Master Enoch?

ENOCH:
We are conversing at this moment because I saw you coming, sounded the alarm and stopped you at the gate of Black America’s enclave.

ME:
Enoch Mubarak, if God can judge (and be the author of the death of 38-million [plus] black people in recent generations and not the fallen nature of man), then surely He can call you to repentance from that heavy yoke you carry (Matthew 11:30) through a very unlikely source, yeah? (*Speaking here of a shaved headed white boy*) Even donkey’s speak on God’s whim Enoch… the question is, does Balaam listen? God is calling you to peace Enoch (Galatians 3:27), the “hounds of heaven” are on your heals.

See my post: The Theme This Week? Courage & Hounds of Heaven | #GodIsGood

Text: Romans 1:19-21

“I fled Him down the nights and down the days
I fled Him down the arches of the years
I fled Him down the labyrinthine ways
Of my own mind, and in the midst of tears
I hid from him….”

So begins Francis Thompson’s famous, but difficult, poem entitled “The Hound of Heaven.” The author sets the poem in the context of a life spent running from God. The poem pictures God like an old bloodhound sniffing our scent, always in the distance, occasionally letting out a howl to remind us that he is on our trail.

As the lengthy poem goes on, Thompson says he fled “across the margins of the world,” but the refrain always comes back:

“Still with unhurrying chase and unperturbed pace
Deliberate speed, majestic instancy,
Came on the following feet, and a Voice above their beat…”

God is always there, always pursuing, always engaged in self-disclosure. And that is the essence of the second doctrine covered in our “Christian Believer” study – the self-revealing God. God is in the business of revealing the Divine Self to us. We would know nothing about God if God did not choose to reveal it.

ENOCH:
Aside from videos, books and parables do you possess any original thought or ideas?

ME:
“For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures” I pass on what I know Enoch Mubarak, as all have from the time of Christ (1 Corinthians 15:3).

CONCLUSION

God is truly calling Enoch, and for some reason He has placed on my heart a temporary drive to share with him the Good News! I pray Enoch listens. He can use your prayers.

As an aside for the following commentator… he is a universalist, so separate the wheat frm the chaff please if you expand your use of his commentaries.

An Example of “Law Keeping”

THE OPPOSITION INTENSIFIES

Luke 5:16–17

Jesus withdrew into the desert places and he continued in prayer. On a certain day he was teaching and, sitting listening, there were Pharisees and experts in the law who had come from every village in Galilee and from Judaea and Jerusalem. And the power of the Lord was there to enable him to heal.

There are only two verses here; but as we read them we must pause, for this indeed is a milestone. The scribes and the Pharisees had arrived on the scene. The opposition which would never be satisfied until it had killed Jesus had emerged into the open.

If we are to understand what happened to Jesus we must understand something about the law, and the relationship of the scribes and the Pharisees to it. When the Jews returned from Babylon about 440 BC they knew well that, humanly speaking, their hopes of national greatness were gone. They therefore deliberately decided that they would find their greatness in being a people of the law. They would bend all their energies to knowing and keeping God’s law.

The basis of the law was the Ten Commandments. These commandments are principles for life. They are not rules and regulations; they do not legislate for each event and for every circumstance. For a certain section of the Jews that was not enough. They desired not great principles but a rule to cover every conceivable situation. From the Ten Commandments they proceeded to develop and elaborate these rules.

Let us take an example. The commandment says, ‘Remember the sabbath day and keep it holy’; and then goes on to lay it down that on the Sabbath no work must be done (Exodus 20:8–11). But the Jews asked, ‘What is work?’ and went on to define it under thirty-nine different headings which they called ‘Fathers of Work’. Even that was not enough. Each of these headings was greatly subdivided. Thousands of rules and regulations began to emerge. These were called the oral law, and they began to be set even above the Ten Commandments.

Again, let us take an actual example. One of the works forbidden on the Sabbath was carrying a burden. Jeremiah 17:21–4 says, ‘For the sake of your lives, take care that you do not bear a burden on the sabbath day.’ But, the legalists insisted, a burden must be defined. So definition was given. A burden is ‘food equal in weight to a dried fig, enough wine for mixing in a goblet, milk enough for one swallow, oil enough to anoint a small member, water enough to moisten an eye-salve, paper enough to write a custom-house notice upon, ink enough to write two letters of the alphabet, reed enough to make a pen’ … and so on endlessly. So for a tailor to leave a pin or needle in his robe on the Sabbath was to break the law and to sin; to pick up a stone big enough to fling at a bird on the Sabbath was to sin. Goodness became identified with these endless rules and regulations.

Let us take another example. To heal on the Sabbath was to work. It was laid down that only if life was in actual danger could healing be done; and then steps could be taken only to keep the sufferer from getting worse, not to improve their condition. A plain bandage could be put on a wound, but not any ointment; plain wadding could be put into a sore ear, but not medicated. It is easy to see that there could be no limit to this.

The scribes were the experts in the law who knew all these rules and regulations, and who deduced them from the law. The name Pharisee means ‘the separated one’; and the Pharisees were those who had separated themselves from ordinary people and ordinary life in order to keep these rules and regulations.

Note two things. First, for the scribes and Pharisees these rules were a matter of life and death; to break one of them was deadly sin. Second, only people desperately in earnest would ever have tried to keep them, for they must have made life supremely uncomfortable. It was only the best people who would even make the attempt.

Jesus had no use for rules and regulations like that. For him, the cry of human need superseded all such things. But to the scribes and Pharisees he was a law-breaker, a bad man who broke the law and taught others to do the same. That is why they set themselves against him and in the end brought about his death. The tragedy of the life of Jesus was that those who were most in earnest about their religion drove him to the cross. It was the irony of things that the best people of the day in the end were responsible for his crucifixion.

From this time on there was to be no rest for him. Always he was to be under the scrutiny of hostile and critical eyes. The opposition had crystallized and there was but one end.

Jesus knew this and before he met the opposition he withdrew to pray. The love in the eyes of God compensated him for the hostility in people’s eyes. God’s approval nerved him to meet human criticism. He drew strength for the battle of life from the peace of God—and it is enough for his disciples that they should be as their Lord.

William Barclay, The Gospel of Luke, The New Daily Study Bible (Louisville, KY; London: Westminster John Knox Press, 2001), 71–73.

 

The Theme This Week? Courage & Hounds of Heaven | #GodIsGood

Published by Papa Giorgio

Okay… two main themes came to my mind at the most recent Bible study at church… the first is the theme, “COURAGE.” The second is the idea of the “HOUNDS OF HEAVEN“

BTW, there is a sermon rolling around in here somewhere for you pastors/speakers

(Skip my linked contents to start reading)

JUMP DOWN TO:

UNDER – COURAGE

UNDER – HOUNDS OF HEAVEN (JUMP)

COMMENTARIES

  • Robert D. Bergen, 1, 2 Samuel, vol. 7, The New American Commentary (Jump)
  • Herbert Livingston, “2191 רָעַע,” in Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (Jump)
  • Ronald F. Youngblood, 1, 2 Samuel, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1 & 2 Samuel (Jump)
  • Walter Brueggemann, First and Second Samuel, Interpretation, a Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching (Jump)

PDFs

  • The Significance of The Verb Love In The David-Jonathan Narratives In 1 Samuel (PDF)
  • Hamôr Lehem (1 Samuel 16:20): “So Jesse took a donkey loaded with bread, a skin of wine, and one young goat and sent them by his son David to Saul.” — Ass-Load (getting into the weeds of the Masoretic Text | PDF)
  • Old Testament Cross-Culturalism: Paradigmatic or Enigmatic? (PDF)

Paradigmatic: 1. Of or relating to a paradigm. 2. Linguistics Of or relating to the set of substitutional or oppositional relationships a linguistic unit has with other units, such as the relationship between (n) in not and other sounds that could be substituted for it in the same context, like (t) and (p). Together with the set of syntagmatic relations, paradigmatic relations describe the identity of a linguistic unit in a given language. (American Heritage Dictionary)
Enigmatic: Of or resembling an enigma; puzzling: a professor’s enigmatic grading system. See Synonyms at mysterious. (American Heritage Dictionary)

COURAGE

In Christian circles you often hear the term “confirmation” used. Not as in being confirmed in your salvation, or baptized…. but as in I had something I was thinking or praying for, and it was confirmed by the Lord. I would say my “tri-fecta,” or “hat-trick” to put it in hockey terms, was just that. It may have been merely coincidence, but even if not “divinely planned,” it was “divinely” applied to my walk by the Holy Spirit stirring in me Biblical truths.

  1. On October 12th I went to a Shelby Steele event, he spoke often of “courage” and “moral courage” (I uploaded my take on it on the 19th)
  2. This past Sunday (the 22nd) my Pastor ended his sermon speaking about courage.
  3. and on Monday (the 23rd), the men’s Bible study was going through 1st Samuel 17 and noted was David’s courage alongside Israel’s loss of it.

(1) SHELBY STEELE

On October 12th, I went to go see Dr. Shelby Steele at our local college… I wrote about my thoughts HERE. I have a section in that post on COURAGE.

Courage was a theme of Dr. Steele’s because he spoke of (A) the black culture not acting on their freedom, which takes courage; rather than the easy way out of the grievance culture where they receive handouts (emotional and/or monetary).

To communicate the following, publicly, but more importantly to act on it — takes courage:

“Racism is over with,” said Steele.  

In modern America, Steele feels free now.  

Smyth asked Steele what conservatism meant to him and he answered by saying that conservatism is a devotion to that freedom.  

“I say this to Blacks, you can be free, if you are not afraid to be free,” said Steele. 

A woman in the below video says she is on the fence when it comes to society allowing black folks freedom like the kind Shelby Steele was talking about. Her question relates to being held back… Shelby says whatever you feel like you are being held back in, do it (roughly adapted). He was saying, I think, test your theory.

To put yourself out like that and stand up to the narrative takes — courage.

(B) When one confronts the current laissez-faire use of pronouns and distortion of language, whites are labeled as racist, blacks as uncle Toms. One of the tactics of the Left is to silence the opposition by labeling them as: sexist, intolerant, xenophobic, homophobic, Islamophobic, racist, bigoted (S.I.X.H.I.R.B.). Overcoming the fear of being accused of these things, and confronting the lies of this “WOKE” culture takes what? COURAGE.

(2) MY PASTOR

I wrote a bit on Courage; Even though I saw Doc Steele on the 12th, I uploaded my post on it on the 19th. Sunday church service was on the 22nd, so “courage” was fresh in my mind. At the beginning of the service Pastor Todd spoke about a historical trip he went on during his sabbatical. He opened with touring the “behind the scenes war rooms, planning bunkers” Winston Churchill and others used to make battle plans…. Then at the end of the service he picked up the story again and tied is into the sermon.

The Apostle Paul was traveling on essentially unpoliced and dangerous roads for thousands of miles, having Jewish and Roman authorities looking for him ta’ boot — all to spread the Good News of Jesus — took courage.

So, in the below video I cobbled together a bit of a montage:

However, these are two of the three connecting themes….

I had a “hat-trick”…..

Enter…

(3) MEN’S BIBLE STUDY

At the recent men’s Bible study this past Monday, we went over 1st Samuel 16 and 17… Courage was part of the theme:

  • …When Saul and all Israel heard these words from the Philistine, they lost their courage and were terrified (17:11)….David said to Saul, “Don’t let anyone be discouraged by him; your servant will go and fight this Philistine!” (17:32).

David’s courage in battle against Goliath spread to his fellow Israelites who were infected with it.

I was then drawn to Hebrews 10:35-39 (HCSB)

35 So don’t throw away your confidence, which has a great reward. 36 For you need endurance, so that after you have done God’s will, you may receive what was promised.

37 For yet in a very little while,

the Coming One will come and not delay.

38 But My righteous one will live by faith;

and if he draws back,

I have no pleasure in him.

39 But we are not those who draw back and are destroyed, but those who have faith and obtain life.

….“If any man draw back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him.” Draw back means “to take in sail.”

  • But we are not of them who draw back unto perdition; but of them that believe to the saving of the soul [Heb. 10:39].

The writer to the Hebrews did not consider that they had drawn back, but he is speaking of the danger of doing so, and he is giving them this warning. Since draw back means “to take in sail,” the believer is like a sailor who should let out all the sail. That is what the writer has been telling these folk—“Let us go on!” His thought is that a believer could reef his sails—become stranded because of discouragement, because of persecution, because of hardship, because of depression. But since we have a living Savior, let’s go on. Let’s open up all the sails. Let’s move out for God.

You remember the story of the French Huguenots. They were persecuted, and they were betrayed. When France destroyed them, it destroyed the best of French manhood and womanhood. The French Huguenots went into battle, knowing they were facing certain death, and their motto was: “If God be for us, who can be against us?” The nation of France has never since been the nation it was before it destroyed these people.

We believers today need a motto like the Huguenots. There is a lot of boo–hooing today among Christians. There is a lot of complaining and criticizing. There are a bunch of crybabies and babies that need to be burped.

Oh, my Christian friend, the whole tenor of this marvelous epistle is “Let us go on.” So let us go on for God!

Vernon McGee, Thru the Bible Commentary: The Epistles (Hebrews 8-13), electronic ed., vol. 52 (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1991), 65–66.

So the speaker at the Men’s group had our tables discuss topics from the passages… using health or other trials as maybe needing some courage to survive, address, and the like. I shared with the men my “tri-fecta” culminating with this battle, and related it to the battle we currently face as Christians in this increasingly pagan and secular America.

We need courage to enter battle with it. To be able to withstand accusations, or the [as already noted] laissez-faire use of pronouns and distortion of language. (To get a taste of this “extent of language distortion” explained well, I excerpted a few pages from Mark Goldblatt’s book (PDF), “I Feel, Therefore I Am” — it is a must read I think.)

To stand up to all this takes courage.

Okay, pivot to my next topic….

HOUNDS OF HEAVEN

During Monday’s Bible study, as we got to this portion of 1st Samuel 16:14-23,

14 Now the Spirit of the Lord had left Saul, and an evil spirit sent from the Lord began to torment him, 15 so Saul’s servants said to him, “You see that an evil spirit from God is tormenting you. 16 Let our lord command your servants here in your presence to look for someone who knows how to play the lyre. Whenever the evil spirit from God troubles you, that person can play the lyre, and you will feel better.”

17 Then Saul commanded his servants, “Find me someone who plays well and bring him to me.”

18 One of the young men answered, “I have seen a son of Jesse of Bethlehem who knows how to play the lyre. He is also a valiant man, a warrior, eloquent, handsome, and the Lord is with him.”

19 Then Saul dispatched messengers to Jesse and said, “Send me your son David, who is with the sheep.” 20 So Jesse took a donkey loaded with bread, a skin of wine, and one young goat and sent them by his son David to Saul. 21 When David came to Saul and entered his service, Saul admired him greatly, and David became his armor-bearer. 22 Then Saul sent word to Jesse: “Let David remain in my service, for I am pleased with him.” 23 Whenever the spirit from God troubled Saul, David would pick up his lyre and play, and Saul would then be relieved, feel better, and the evil spirit would leave him.

(HOLMAN CHRISTIAN STANDARD BIBLE [HCSB])

I camped out a bit in the text using some commentaries I had open in my LOGOS APP. I include the extended section of the commentary below. (JUMP TO IT IF YOU WISH.) The part that I camped on was this: “Now the Spirit of the Lord had left Saul, and an evil spirit sent from the Lord began to torment him.”

I have already covered the larger topic at hand a bit: “Conversations with Lemmings: Did God “Create” Evil (Isaiah 45:7)“

However, the commentary reminded me of “The Hounds of Heaven” and how often they can feel lie the “hounds of hell.” God sent an Angel of Judgement (as I see it) to Saul… this is what troubled him to the point of agony. In those who are God’s elect, this Angel “The Hound of Heaven” chases us to Calvary. Was God — who wishes all to come to saving knowledge of Him — wanting the same for Saul? Giving him the opportunity to repent, but knowing [in His foreknowledge] he wouldn’t, opening the door to a man after His own heart.

I previously posted a well-known poem about the Hounds of Heaven by Francis Thompson in 1893, after comedian Jeff Allen’s testimony that I isolated. C.S. Lewis was surely familiar with this 1893 poem as he intimated God chasing him into the Kingdom of Heaven.

However, if you are unfamiliar with this poem, here is a more in-depth dealing with the grace that exudes from it, followed by a slight dive into the mention of The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe:

Tea with C.S. Lewis

….Francis Thompson died on this day, November 13, 1907. He famously wrote the 182-line poem “The Hound of Heaven” about the hound who single-mindedly pursues his catch across the countryside for as long as it takes. This was Thompson’s story. God never gave up on him even when he was living on the streets of London in the pits of opium addiction. God never stopped his pursuit. And even though Thompson’s grave today is overgrown, neglected and almost impossible to find in a cemetery on the outskirts of Manchester England, the rejoicing continues in heaven over one sinner who made his way home. Maybe Francis Thompson will be there, quietly sitting on the edge in quiet thanksgiving.

“I fled Him, down the nights and down the days;

I fled Him, down the arches of the years;

I fled Him, down the labyrinthine ways

Of my own mind; and in the midst of tears…

Naked I waited Thy loves’s uplifted stroke!”

This one-way-love that never stops is what Christians call grace. “Grace is love that seeks you out when you have nothing to give in return. Grace is love coming at you that has nothing to do with you. Grace is being loved when you are unloveable” (Paul Zahl). Grace is what distinguishes Christianity from every other religion. All the other religions instruct us to do something: to climb an achievement ladder, to make certain pilgrimages, to quiet dissonant voices in order to show God our faithfulness and attention. Christianity emphatically says, “It’s not your faithfulness that counts, but God’s!” While other religions say, “you get what you deserve,” Christianity says we get what we don’t deserve because God is a gracious Heavenly Father who is kind to the ungrateful and wicked (Luke 6:35). He loved them to the end (John 13:1).

Only God knows how many people have come to see Jesus as loving Father by reading C. S. Lewis’s Mere Christianity or The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe. Maybe there will be an afternoon tea in heaven where Lewis and Joy Davidman can meet with those who know and love God because God used them in this way. And perhaps Francis Thompson will be there too, quietly on the edges with a smile of thanksgiving.

J. VERNON MCGEE

GOD’S “WOODSHED”

This excellent short treatise by J.D. GREEAR, of the idea of God having His claws in us via C.S. Lewis and his The Chronicles of Narnia: The Voyage of the Dawn Treader:

Dragged Into the Kingdom, Kicking and Screaming

C. S. Lewis has one of the more intriguing stories of conversion. In his autobiography, Surprised by Joy, he called himself “the most dejected, reluctant convert in all of England . . . drug into the kingdom kicking, struggling, resentful, and darting his eyes in every direction for a chance of escape.” Somehow that doesn’t usually make the list of people’s favorite C.S. Lewis quotes.

It’s important to see what Lewis isn’t saying: he’s not saying that he regrets becoming a Christian. (Remember, it’s Surprised by Joy.) And he’s not trying to weigh in on the Calvinism/Arminian debate (though he does elsewhere). C.S. Lewis is saying that God often pursues us long before we have any inkling of what he’s up to. More often than not, we don’t like the pursuit.

A scene that beautifully captures Lewis’ experience is in his Voyage of the Dawn Treader. One of the main characters—a boy named Eustace—has developed an evil heart and becomes a dragon. He wants to be a boy again, so Aslan leads him to a pristine fountain of water. Listen to Eustace (and behind him, C.S. Lewis), describe his experience:

The water was as clear as anything and I thought if I could get in there and bathe it would ease the pain. But the lion [Aslan] told me I must undress first.

So I started scratching myself and my scales began coming off all over the place. And then I scratched a little deeper and, instead of just scales coming off here and there, my whole skin started peeling off beautifully. In a minute or two I just stepped out of it. I could see it lying there beside me, looking rather nasty. It was a most lovely feeling. So I started to go down into the well for my bathe.

But just as I was going to put my feet into the water I looked down and saw that [the skin on my feet was] all hard and rough and wrinkled and scaly just as it had been before.

[Eustace then repeats the process a second and third time, growing increasingly despairing.]

Then the lion said, ‘You will have to let me undress you.’ I was afraid of his claws, I can tell you, but I was pretty nearly desperate now. So I just lay flat down on my back to let him do it.

The very first tear he made was so deep that I thought it had gone right into my heart. And when he began pulling the skin off, it hurt worse than anything I’ve ever felt. The only thing that made me able to bear it was just the pleasure of feeling the stuff peel off.

Well, he peeled the beastly stuff right off – just as I thought I’d done it myself the other three times, only they hadn’t hurt – and there it was lying on the grass: only ever so much thicker, and darker, and more knobbly-looking than the others had been. Then he caught hold of me – I didn’t like that much for I was very tender underneath now that I’d no skin on – and threw me into the water. It smarted like anything, but only for a moment. After that it became perfectly delicious and as soon as I started swimming and splashing I found that all the pain had gone. And then I saw why. I’d turned into a boy again.

If you’re feeling God’s pursuit like the “claws” of a lion, know that while it may be painful, it’s not punishment. God never desires to pay you back, but to bring you back. Will you let him?

All this resonates with me as I was chased into an L.A. County super-max jail facility by my Savior. God’s Holy Spirit chased and judged righteously my actions and rejection of God. I responded only by the grace of God. I love because He first [and miraculously — through the Miracle of Calvary] loved me, 1st John 4:13-19,

13 This is how we know that we remain in Him and He in us: He has given assurance to us from His Spirit. 14 And we have seen and we testify that the Father has sent His Son as the world’s Savior. 15 Whoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God—God remains in him and he in God. 16 And we have come to know and to believe the love that God has for us. God is love, and the one who remains in love remains in God, and God remains in him.

17 In this, love is perfected with us so that we may have confidence in the day of judgment, for we are as He is in this world. 18 There is no fear in love; instead, perfect love drives out fear, because fear involves punishment. So the one who fears has not reached perfection in love. 19 We love because He first loved us.

(HOLMAN CHRISTIAN STANDARD BIBLE [HCSB])

Which continues the above in thankfulness that God saw in me something to be desired. Sought after. Brought to “the wood shed” over.

The beauty, wonder, and distinction of God is His amazing grace. There is no ambiguity with God. The Lord is not fickle but loves and holds tight even when we are unlovely and practice avoidance. When God pursues, God finds; when God holds on, there is no letting go.

This trustworthy saying of Scripture is a good, short, solid expression of theological truth to memorize, meditate upon, and say to ourselves repeatedly.  We belong to Jesus Christ.  God is with us.  The Hound of Heaven will always sniff us out and bring us to himself.

(REV. TIM EHRHARDT)

Amen?

In some sense, we all have been brought into the Kingdom of God kicking and screaming.

WHAT TO NOTE: I add as many of the references found in the footnotes of The New American Commentary on Samuel as I can. So while the main commentary excerpt is just one, I provide the reader with access he or she may not have that I do, including a few PDFs. Enjoy:

COMMENTARY

16:14–20 David’s new status before the Lord stood in sharp contrast to Saul’s. When the Lord rejected Saul as king (15:23, 26; 16:1), “the Spirit of the Lord had departed from” (v. 14) him as well.[33] Saul had lost the empowering reality behind the anointing that had marked his selection for divine service earlier (cf. 10:1, 10). But Saul’s condition now was far worse than being without the Lord’s Spirit, for “an evil spirit from the Lord tormented him.” The Hebrew word translated “evil” (Hb. rāʿâ) has a wide range of meanings from “misery” to “moral perverseness.”[34] Thus, it is possible—and perhaps preferable—to interpret the text not to mean that the Lord sent a morally corrupt demon[35] but rather another sort of supernatural being—an angel of judgment (cf. 2 Kgs 19:35)—against Saul that caused him to experience constant misery.[36]

Saul’s tortured state was not an accident of nature, nor was it essentially a medical condition. It was a supernatural assault by a being sent at the Lord’s command, and it was brought on by Saul’s disobedience.[37]

The astounding declaration by the writer in vv. 14–15 reflects a worldview that bears further examination. God, the Creator of the universe, had issued a series of behavioral decrees applicable to all humanity, but especially to Israel, and these were revealed supremely in the Torah. The Torah was a path of life, and obedience to the Torah resulted in life and blessing. To disobey Torah requirements was to leave the path of life and enter into the realm of judgment and death. Through his repeated disobedience to the Torah requirements Saul had entered into a living, personal judgment that God brought against him. This punishment was carried out by a divinely created agent of judgment, “an evil [or “troubling”] spirit from the Lord.”[38]

This is the only time in the Old Testament that an individual is noted as being tormented by a troubling/evil spirit. Evidence that the writer considered Saul’s condition to be unusual is provided by the fact that the verb that describes Saul’s condition (Hb. bāʿat) is used nowhere else in a narrative framework clause in the Torah or Former Prophets; furthermore, the combination of grammatical and lexical features in this clause is rated as the most abnormal in the narrative framework of 1, 2 Samuel.[39]

Though Saul was the one being troubled by the spirit, the writer portrays him as being inert in dealing with it. It was “Saul’s attendants” (v. 15), not Saul himself, who correctly diagnosed his condition; it also was they who suggested an effective treatment for helping him “feel better” (v. 16). Their remedy was one known in Israelite circles to have power in the spiritual world (cf. 2 Kgs 3:15), the playing of harp music. By listening to harp music “when the [troubling]/evil spirit comes” (v. 16), Saul “will feel better.”

The suggestion seemed reasonable to Saul, and he immediately ordered a search for “someone who plays well” (v. 17). But even before a search party could be organized, an unnamed royal servant suggested that they seek “a son of Jesse of Bethlehem who knows how to play the harp” (v. 18). This individual—David—had numerous other qualifications that befit a person who would serve as a royal aide. Militarily, “he is a brave man and a warrior”; socially, “he speaks well”; physically, he “is a fine-looking man”; and spiritually, “the Lord is with him.” The mention of this last trait puts David in company with Isaac, Joseph, Joshua, and Samuel (cf. Gen 26:28; 39:2–3, 21, 23; Josh 6:27; 1 Sam 3:19).

On that recommendation Saul sent a message to Jesse ordering him to deliver his son over to the royal court. Dutifully, Jesse complied. The food that he sent—“a donkey loaded with bread,[40] a skin of wine and a young goat” (v. 20)—probably was meant to serve as David’s provisions since there was as yet no formal taxation system to support people serving in the nation’s political and military establishment.

16:21–23 David came to Saul at Gibeah and “entered his service” (lit., “stood before his face”), and it was not long before the king “loved [ʾāhab] him greatly” (“liked him very much”). So impressed was Saul with this well-recommended shepherd that he decided to make David a permanent member of his court. Saul assigned him a coveted role as “one of his armorbearers.” In this position David was kept close to the king and was thus able to respond immediately “whenever the spirit from God came upon Saul” (v. 23). Gordon cites Qumranic evidence to suggest that David’s songs were accompanied by singing as well.[41] Though David’s musical efforts were effective in providing relief for Saul, the writer understood that David’s success was due to the fact that the Spirit of the Lord was with him in power (vv. 13, 18).

David’s soothing remedy for Saul’s malady was simple yet effective. The Hebrew verb forms in v. 23 suggest that Saul was attacked numerous times by the tormenting spirit; Scripture records two such additional instances (18:10; 19:9), and likely there were others.

The three concluding verses of chap. 16 depict David’s first encounter with the one who would soon devote his life to trying to kill him. The verses play an important role in the larger scheme of 1, 2 Samuel, for they serve as the first evidence that David was a loyal, trustworthy servant of Saul who used his abilities to benefit the king. In spite of Saul’s repeated efforts to kill David, Israel’s next king made absolutely no efforts to bring down Saul’s dynasty. In fact, David performed feats in Saul’s behalf that no one else could, and the king initially appreciated David’s efforts. Any deterioration in the relationship between Saul and David would not be David’s fault.

NOTES

[33] D. Howard, Jr., understands the simultaneous transfer of the Spirit from Saul to David as not only a symbol of the transfer of political power but also a reflection of God’s disapproval of Israel’s manner of establishing the monarchy (“The Transfer of Power from Saul to David in 1 Sam 16:13–14,” JETS 32 [1989]: 473–83). [I uploaded it to be viewed – click to view the PDF]

[34] Cf. TWOT 2.856. [JUMP: I include the full portion of this commentary below, in “A”]

[35] Cf. Youngblood’s option, “alien spirit” (1, 2 Samuel, 688). [JUMP: I include the full portion of this commentary below, in “B”]

[36] The verb בּעת, translated “tormented,” has recently been examined more closely in J. Hoftijzer, “Some Remarks on the Semantics of the Root bʿt in Classical Hebrew,” in Pomegranates and Golden Bells, ed. D. P. Wright et al. (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1995), 777–83. He concludes that the word refers to an experience of extreme fear and incapacitation.

[37] W. Brueggemann suggests that Saul’s “disturbance has to do with alienation rooted in a theological disorder” and is “both theological and psychological” (First and Second Samuel, IBC [Louisville: John Knox, 1990], 125) [JUMP: I include the full portion of this commentary below, in “C”]

[38] This line of reasoning could also be used to explain the enigmatic word spoken to King Ahab by the prophet Micaiah (cf. 1 Kgs 22:19–23).

[39] The fact that the clause is so different from other biblical Hebrew narrative clauses meant that this clause would have been more difficult to process mentally and therefore would have required more attention by a Hebrew speaker reading or listening to the text. As a result the material would have seemed to be “highlighted.” This technique of encoding important and unusual information in grammatically exceptional structures is practiced in human communication of all languages. Cf. R. Bergen, “Evil Spirits and Eccentric Grammar: A Study of the Relationship between Text and Meaning in Hebrew Narrative,” in Biblical Hebrew and Discourse Linguistics (Dallas: SIL, 1994), 320–35.

[40] For a discussion of the phrase חֲמוֹר לֶחֶם cf. D. Tsumura, “ḥămôr leḥem (1 Samuel xvi 20),” VT 42 (1992): 412–14. [I uploaded it to be viewed – click to view the PDF]

[41] Gordon (I and II Samuel, 153), commenting on the apocryphal psalm 11QPsa27. [This is a link to a book, 11Q5 Psalms a (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2010), showing the Hebrew from the Dead Sea Scrolls of portions of Psalm: Col. XXVII, 2 Sam 23:7; David’s Compositions.]

Robert D. Bergen, 1, 2 Samuel, vol. 7, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1996), 182–184.

REFERENCES

FROM FOOTNOTE #34

רָעָה (rāʿâ). Evil, misery, distress, injury, wickedness. The feminine noun rāʿâ functions much like the masculine adjective, though somewhat more frequently. Often rāʿâ is an adjective too, and qualifies its nouns in terms of the negative function, or condition, and the injurious activity of the noun. God’s own character and attitude measures the value of things and people (II Kgs 8:12; Jer 29:11; cf. Jon 4:2, 6). The phrase “in the sight of the Lord” appears twice (I Sam 12:17; II Kgs 21:20). God’s view deals mostly with moral qualities, but man has his own standards and tends to evaluate his environment as rāʿâ in terms of the pain he experiences.

In a non-moral sense, things are counted as of inferior quality on the basis of their condition. The cows of Pharaoh’s dream were inferior (Gen 41:3–4, 19–20), also land (Num 13:19), and the figs of Jer 24:2–3, 8 were useless for food because of their condition. Beasts were evaluated in terms of their danger to human life (seven references), so also the sword (Ps 144:10). Verbal reports, the times/days, events of life may be bearers of distress and so are rāʿâ (some thirty-five times). The term may designate injury done to the body (over twenty times), or the sorrow one may experience (a dozen times). The feminine noun has the capacity to collectively denote the sum of distressing happenings of life (over twenty times).

This word rāʿâ can label men (Num 14:27, 35; Jer 8:3) or thoughts (Ezk 38:10), but a number of times it is an abstract for the total of ungodly deeds people do, or a person’s inner condition which produces such deeds. The term may label a variety of negative attitudes common to wicked people, and be extended to include the consequences of that kind of lifestyle.

In Jud 9:23; I Sam 16:14–16, 23; 18:10; 19:9 the word qualifies the noun, angels, not to indicate that they were demonic, but that they brought distress, or an abnormal condition to the person affected.

In harmony with the contrast between rāʿâ and ṭôb “good,” God acts with painful punishment against the rāʿâ kind of people (over seventy times; particularly prominent in Jeremiah). He also acts with mercy toward those who will respond to his exhortations (Eccl 11:10; Jer ten times; Jon 3:8), but man must confess (I Sam 12:19; Jer 17:17). On his part, God acts to save man from rāʿâ (Ex 32:14; I Sam 10:19; 25:39) as he promised (I Kgs 21:29; Prov 1:33; Isa 57:1; Jer 23:17; 36:3; Ezk 34:25). And there was advice to the believers on how to keep themselves free from rāʿâ (Ex 23:2; I Sam 12:20; Prov 3:29; 22:3; 24:1; 27:12).

Herbert Livingston, “2191 רָעַע,” in Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, ed. R. Laird Harris, Gleason L. Archer Jr., and Bruce K. Waltke (Chicago: Moody Press, 1999), 856.

FROM FOOTNOTE #35

The arrival of David in the court of Saul (16:14–23)

As noted above, the two halves (vv.1–13, 14–23) of chapter 16 are linked together in various ways and therefore constitute a literary unit. One link is the position of David’s name. “In each of its first appearances it is the object of a verb: in v.13 the spirit of YHWH ‘seizes’ (ṣālaḥ) David, and in v.19 Saul asks Jesse to ‘send’ (šālaḥ) David to him.… The two verbs are very similar in sound, being distinguished only as the two sibilants s and š are distinguished” (Walters, “The Light and the Dark,” pp. 572–73).

In addition, however, the hinge of the chapter underscores, as described in the title of an excellent article by David M. Howard, Jr., “The Transfer of Power From Saul to David in 1 Sam 16:13–14” (JETS 32, 4 [1989]: 473–83 [PDF VIEWABLE HERE]). “The movements of the figures here—YHWH’s Spirit, Samuel, the evil spirit—in relationship to each other effectively tell the story of the transfer of political power and spiritual power from Saul to David” (ibid., p. 477).

14–18 The relationships of four movements in vv.13–14 are clarified in the following chart, which exhibits an ABB’A’ pattern:

Howard summarizes: “When YHWH’s Spirit came upon David his anointer left, leaving him in good hands. When YHWH’s Spirit left Saul an evil spirit came upon him, leaving him in dire straits” (ibid., p. 481).

The Spirit’s coming on David and the Spirit’s leaving Saul were two climactic events that occurred in close sequence to each other (cf. esp. 18:12: “The Lord was with David but had left Saul”). Just as the accession of the Spirit by David was an expected accompaniment of his anointing as Israel’s next ruler (v.13), so the departure of the Spirit from Saul (v.14) should be understood as the negation of effective rule on his part from that time on. No longer having access to Samuel’s counsel, Saul eventually was forced to resort to the desperate expedient of consulting a medium because God had “turned away” from him (28:15; the Heb. verb is the same as the one rendered “departed” in v.14).

The “evil spirit” (v.14), the divinely sent scourge that “tormented” (lit., “terrified,” “terrorized”) Saul, returned again and again (18:10; 19:9). Just as God had sent an evil spirit to perform his will during the days of Abimelech (Judg 9:23), so also he sent an evil spirit on Saul—“both of whom proved to be unworthy candidates for the office” of king in Israel (Howard, “The Transfer of Power,” p. 482). In both instances it was sent in response to their sin, which in Saul’s case was particularly flagrant (13:13–14; 15:22–24). Although the “evil” spirit may have been a demon that embodied both moral and spiritual wickedness, it may rather have been an “injurious” (so NIV mg.) spirit that “boded ill for Saul, one that produced harmful results for him” (Howard, “The Transfer of Power,” p. 482 n. 36). It was thus doubtless responsible for the mental and psychological problems that plagued Saul for the rest of his life.

That God used alien spirits to serve him is taken for granted in the OT (cf. esp. 2 Sam 24:1 with 1 Chronicles 21:1). On occasion God’s people “were not very concerned with determining secondary causes and properly attributing them to the exact cause. Under the divine providence everything ultimately was attributed to him; why not say he did it in the first place?” (Walter C. Kaiser, Jr., Hard Sayings of the Old Testament [Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1988], p. 131; cf. also Gleason L. Archer, Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1982], p. 180: “Saul’s evil bent was by the permission and plan of God. We must realize that in the last analysis all penal consequences come from God, as the Author of the moral law and the one who always does what is right [Gen. 18:25]”; cf. Fredrik Lindstrom, God and the Origin of Evil [Lund: Gleerup, 1983]).

As French marechal (“blacksmith”) developed into marshal, and as chambellan (“bedchamber attendant”) developed into chamberlain, so also ʿeḇeḏ (“servant”) came to mean “attendant,” “official” in royal circles in Israel, beginning during the days of Saul. The title was conferred on high officials and is found inscribed on their seals. It was also employed side by side with the use of the term as a conventional way of referring to oneself while addressing a superior (cf. conveniently Talmon, p. 64 and nn. 34–36). Thus Saul’s “attendants,” aware that their king was being tormented by an evil spirit (v.15), referred to themselves as his “servants” (same Heb. word) who were ready and eager to help (v.16; cf. v.17; 17:32, 34, 36; 18:5 [“officers”], 22, 24; 19:1; 28:7).

Perhaps sensing that “music hath charms to soothe the savage breast,” Saul’s attendants offered to look for someone to play the “harp” (kinnôr; cf. comment on 10:5) to make their master “feel better” (v.16). Pictorial representations of the asymmetrical harp or lyre ranging from the twelfth to seventh centuries b.c. can help us visualize what David’s harp looked like (cf. Biblical Archaeology Review 8, 1 [1982]: 22, 30, and esp. 34). Walters (“The Light and the Dark,” p. 582) points out that of the fifteen OT occurrences of niggēn (“play [an instrument]”), seven appear in this section of 1 Samuel (vv.16 [bis], 17, 18, 23; 18:10; 19:9) and thus serve at the outset to highlight the reputation of David as “Israel’s singer of songs” (2 Sam 23:1).

Saul agreed with his attendants’ counsel (v.17), and one of his “servants” (lit., “young men,” a different Heb. word than that rendered “attendants” in v.15 and “servants” in v.16) suggested that a certain son of Jesse would meet Saul’s needs admirably (v.18). In the course of doing so, the servant gave—in a series of two-worded Hebrew phrases—as fine a portrayal of David as one could wish. Understandably he began with a characterization of him as a musician and then continued by describing him as a “brave man” (the same Heb. phrase is used of Saul’s father, Kish, and is translated “man of standing” in 9:1), a “warrior” (translated “fighting man” of Goliath in 17:33 and “experienced fighter” of David in 2 Sam 17:8), a discerning and articulate speaker, and a handsome man as well. The servant’s final descriptive phrase—set off from what precedes by a major disjunctive accent in the MT (Masoretic text)—reminds us that just as the Lord was with Samuel (3:19), so also he was with David. This latter attribute becomes yet another Leitmotif for David (17:37; 18:12, 14, 28; 2 Sam 5:10; so Walters, “The Light and the Dark,” pp. 570–71; McCarter, “The Apology of David,” pp. 499, 503–4). Although unwittingly, Saul’s servant has just introduced us to Israel’s next king.

A modern assessment of David’s character and career sees him as “giant-slayer, shepherd, musician, manipulator of men, outlaw, disguised madman, loyal friend and subject, lover, warrior, dancer and merrymaker, father, brother, son, master, servant, religious enthusiast, and king” and then asks, “What are we to make of this enormous portrait? Where do we begin?” (Kenneth R.R. Gros Louis, “King David of Israel,” in Literary Interpretations of Biblical Narratives edd. Kenneth R.R. Gros Louis and James S. Ackerman [Nashville: Abingdon, 1982], 2:205). The rest of our commentary can only tentatively analyze these and other aspects of the personality and deeds of this most complex of all Israelite kings. For now, a gentle irony: Although Saul’s servant agreed with the positive contemporary consensus that kings and courtiers should be “fine-looking” (v.18), the same Hebrew word is preceded by a negative particle in its description of great David’s greater Son as one who had “no beauty” (Isa 53:2).

19–23 Again Saul, influenced by a servant’s suggestion, sent for the man described: Jesse’s son—here, for only the second time so far, identified by the name David (v.19). Saul’s reference to David as being “with the sheep” thus identifies him as a shepherd and uses “language which refers allusively to him as a kingly figure” (Walters, “The Light and the Dark,” p. 575). Like Jesse earlier (cf. v.11 and comment), Saul unwittingly characterizes David as Israel’s next king.

It is often stated that numerous inconsistencies, especially in matters of detail, exist in the early stories of David and Saul (for a typical list, see Emmanuel Tov, “The Composition of 1 Samuel 16–18 in the Light of the Septuagint Version,” in Empirical Models for Biblical Criticism ed. Jeffrey H. Tigay [Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, 1985], pp. 121–22). The appropriate response to such alleged discrepancies is not, however, to seek refuge in the fact that in chapters 16–18 “the Masoretic Text has 80 percent more verses than does the LXX” (ibid., p. 99) and thus to attribute the differences to an attempt by the standardizers of the present Hebrew text to include variant readings whether or not they could be harmonized. Nor should one assume the prior existence of two or more different narratives of how David rose to power, along the lines of the now discredited documentary hypothesis (for a lively survey of this approach, cf. North, “David’s Rise,” pp. 524–44). Much to be preferred is the method of examining each so-called discrepancy on its own merits in an attempt to determine whether it is more apparent than real.

A case in point: If Saul recognizes David as Jesse’s son in v.19, why does he later ask him whose son he is (17:58)? In the light of the differing contexts in the two chapters, a possible solution comes to mind. In chapter 16 Saul’s initial interest in David was as a harpist, while in chapter 17 he is interested in him primarily as a warrior (according to his customary policy, 14:52). Saul’s question in 17:58, in any event, is only a leadoff question; his conversation with David continued far beyond the mere request for his father’s name (18:1). He probably wanted to know, among other things, “whether there were any more at home like him” (Archer, Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, p. 175). It is of course not beyond the realm of possibility that Saul simply forgot the name of David’s father during the indeterminate period between chapters 16 and 17.

A firm believer in the truth later expressed in Proverbs 18:16—“a gift opens the way for the giver/and ushers him into the presence of the great”—Jesse sent David to take bread, wine, and a young goat (staple items; cf. 10:3) to Saul (v.20). Obviously impressing Saul (v.21), David “entered his service” (wayyaʿamōḏ lep̱ānāyw lit., “stood before him,” a common idiom in the ancient Near East [cf. v.22, “remain in my service”]; the Akkadian semantic equivalent is uzuzzu pani) as an armor-bearer. Although skilled men can expect to be pressed into service by kings (Prov 22:29), Saul also “liked” David personally (the same Heb. verb describes Jonathan’s relationship to David and is translated “loved”; cf. 18:1, 3; 20:17). At the same time the narrator may well be playing on the ambiguity of the verb ʾāhēḇ (“love”) in these accounts, since it can also have political overtones in covenant/treaty relationships (so J.A. Thompson, “The Significance of the Verb Love in the David-Jonathan Narratives in 1 Samuel,” VetTest 24, 3 [1974]: 335 [PDF VIEWABLE HERE]).

Obviously delighted with David, Saul engages him as one of his servants (v.22). Sandwiched between the two occurrences of the noun rûaḥ (“spirit”) in v.23 is the verb rāwaḥ (“relief would come”). The noun and the verb both come from the same root (rwḥ) and thus constitute an elegant wordplay, stressing that David’s skill as a harpist brings soothing “relief” that drives the evil “spirit” from the disturbed king (cf. similarly Walters, “The Light and the Dark,” p. 578).

The chapter ends with a gifted young man, Israel’s future king, coming to serve a rejected and dejected ruler who is totally unaware of the implications of his welcoming David into his court. Not just “a handsome yokel with a rustic lyre,” Jesse’s son is the anointed king (ibid., p. 581).

Ronald F. Youngblood, “1, 2 Samuel,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1 & 2 Samuel, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 3 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1992), 687–691.

FROM FOOTNOTE #37

1 Samuel 16:14–23

The initial anointing of David was a private, even secret, matter (vv. 1–3). Now it is time for David to become publicly visible. At the outset of his “reign,” David has only three constituents: Yahweh and Samuel, who are his relentless patrons, and Saul, who is to become a more ambiguous patron. He has been dealt with already by Yahweh (and Samuel); now it is Saul’s turn to deal with David.

There is a deep and intentional tension in the story of 16:14–23, requiring us to trace two story lines. Ostensibly this story is about Saul, Saul’s sickness and Saul’s source of health. But underneath that interest is the story of David’s road to power. Of this second story, Saul knows nothing. Conversely, David’s relentless road to power renders Saul (and the story line of Saul’s illness) fundamentally irrelevant and finally of no interest to the life and faith of Israel. How ironic that a story apparently featuring Saul is in fact interested in Saul only as a foil for David’s advance.

There are twin dangers in approaching the pathology of Saul. On the one hand, we can read his situation as though it were the result of a supernatural theological verdict without reference to the experiential reality of life. On the other hand, we can seek to banish such supernaturalism by reducing his ailment to psychology. We shall misunderstand, however, if we appropriate the sickness as mere theology or only psychology. Israel’s faith is much more embedded in living reality than to deal only with a theological conclusion. Conversely, the narrative itself guards against an absolute psychological assessment in verse 23. (The rsv does the interpreter a disservice through its translation of this section. In the rsv, “Spirit” is capitalized in v. 14 and is in lower case in v. 23, suggesting a theological and then a psychological reading. But that is only a translator’s inclination. In fact “the spirit” is the same at the beginning and at the end of the narrative, capitalized or not.)

Saul is indeed a disturbed man, and the disturbance has to do with alienation rooted in a theological disorder. The disorder must be seen, however, as both theological and psychological in order to understand the powerful ministration of David, who is Yahweh’s antidote for every ailment in Israel.

16:14–18. Saul’s problem is the visitation of an evil spirit (v. 15); the solution is healing music (v. 16). The problem is with Saul; the solution will be carried by David. It may trouble our positivistic minds that the disorder of Saul is attributed to an evil spirit, and it may trouble us more that the evil spirit is credited to God. We must remember that the world of biblical perspective is a world without secondary cause. All causes are finally traced back to the God who causes all, who “kills and brings to life” (2:6). This narrative simply assumes that the world is ordered by the direct sovereign rule of God. All the spirits that beset human persons are dispatched from this single source (cf. 1 Kings 22:19–23).

Saul is eager to be healed (v. 17). He orders immediately that help be secured. He is an influential person entitled to the best health care available. Through verse 17 there are no surprises in this episode. We have an ordinary sequence of illness, diagnosis, prescription, and instruction to get available help. Yet, lingering not too far below the story line of Saul’s illness, the David story line already begins to assert itself. Saul’s imperative “provide” (see, ra’ah, v. 17) is the same word Yahweh used in referring to the choice of David (v. 1). David is “provided” by Yahweh and now is “provided” to Saul.

It is verse 18 that claims our attention. The speaker who answers Saul is too eager and knows too much. It is as though this character in the narrative has memorized his long line and is waiting for a chance to speak it. He “overnominates” David, who is overqualified for the job of musician. The royal appointment of a “therapist” must be well qualified. He must be skilled as a player, of “good presence,” and it is fortunate if God is with him (v. 18). David overpowers the job—and the narrative. In addition to those qualifications, David is brave, a man of war, a man of good speech. The narrator is obviously presenting David’s credentials for more than court musician.

The narrative invites us to wonder how it is that a member of Saul’s company should have ready a nominee from an obscure Judean village. Verses 1–13 provide the answer to our wonderment, however. The present availability of David is because of the secret anointing. The anointing will govern David’s story in the way the blessing governs Jacob’s story (Gen. 25:23) and as the dream governs the story of Joseph (Gen. 37:7–9).

16:19–23. The story turns decisively with the appearance of David. After the nominating speech of verse 18, Saul responds in verse 19. He calls David by name. Notice the servant had alluded to David but had not named him. Saul knows and speaks David’s name. David had been named by the narrator in verse 13, but no character in the narrative has yet uttered his name. It is appropriate and compelling that Saul knows it and is the first to name him.

Moreover, Saul invites David into his court. Saul unwittingly summons the very one who now possesses the spirit and will in the end displace him. David is not an intruder. He does not force his way in but comes by royal invitation. Saul knows more than he should about David. He knows David is “with the sheep” (v. 19), a fact not announced in verse 18. We had known it in verse 11, but again Saul is privy to information not previously given him.

The relation between Saul and David is a positive one. “Saul loved him greatly” (v. 21). David is irresistible. Saul might have feared or resented David if he had known the end of the story. He knows only what he sees in David, however.

David’s ministry to Saul does all that Saul might have hoped. (The rsv translation of v. 23 is inadequate, because the text contains a double use of the word “spirit.” When David plays, not only does the evil spirit depart but the spirit comes to Saul. In the rsv this is rendered, “Saul was refreshed.”) Saul’s desperate concern was how to have the spirit of life available, rather than the evil spirit. The narrative makes clear that David makes the spirit of life available to Saul. Saul has life only because David mediates it to him. David is a life-giver, even to Saul!

Walter Brueggemann, First and Second Samuel, Interpretation, a Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching (Louisville, KY: John Knox Press, 1990), 124–127.

Comedian Jeff Allen Shares His Testimony (Must Listen To)

Published by Papa Giorgio

I thought Jeff Allen’s testimony was so precious, I wanted to isolate it and make it available for others to share.

These stand-up broadcasts are old, but Jeff’s testimony is very powerful! Bananas Family Comedy: was a broadcast-friendly, comedy television series produced by Guardian Studios and is taped before a live audience. The show features a different nationally recognized comedian each week and is hosted by L.A. comic, Thor Ramsey.

Here are Jeff’s two stand-ups I have watched. The first one is where this clip came from:

The HOUND of HEAVEN ~ Francis Thompson (1890)

I fled Him, down the nights and down the days;

I fled Him, down the arches of the years;

I fled Him, down the labyrinthine ways

Of my own mind; and in the mist of tears

I hid from Him, and under running laughter.

Up vistaed hopes I sped;

And shot, precipitated,

Adown Titanic glooms of chasmèd fears,

From those strong Feet that followed, followed after.

But with unhurrying chase,

And unperturbèd pace,

Deliberate speed, majestic instancy,

They beat—and a Voice beat

More instant than the Feet—

‘All things betray thee, who betrayest Me.’

I pleaded, outlaw-wise,

By many a hearted casement, curtained red,

Trellised with intertwining charities;

(For, though I knew His love Who followèd,

Yet was I sore adread

Lest having Him, I must have naught beside).

But, if one little casement parted wide,

The gust of His approach would clash it to.

Fear wist not to evade, as Love wist to pursue.

Across the margent of the world I fled,

And troubled the gold gateways of the stars,

Smiting for shelter on their clangèd bars;

Fretted to dulcet jars

And silvern chatter the pale ports o’ the moon.

I said to Dawn: Be sudden—to Eve: Be soon;

With thy young skiey blossoms heap me over

From this tremendous Lover—

Float thy vague veil about me, lest He see!

I tempted all His servitors, but to find

My own betrayal in their constancy,

In faith to Him their fickleness to me,

Their traitorous trueness, and their loyal deceit.

To all swift things for swiftness did I sue;

Clung to the whistling mane of every wind.

But whether they swept, smoothly fleet,

The long savannahs of the blue;

Or whether, Thunder-driven,

They clanged his chariot ’thwart a heaven,

Plashy with flying lightnings round the spurn o’ their

feet:—

Fear wist not to evade as Love wist to pursue.

Still with unhurrying chase,

And unperturbèd pace,

Deliberate speed, majestic instancy,

Came on the following Feet,

And a Voice above their beat—

‘Naught shelters thee, who wilt not shelter Me.’

I sought no more that after which I strayed

In face of man or maid;

But still within the little children’s eyes

Seems something, something that replies;

They at least are for me, surely for me!

I turned me to them very wistfully;

But just as their young eyes grew sudden fair

With dawning answers there,

Their angel plucked them from me by the hair.

‘Come then, ye other children, Nature’s—share

With me’ (said I) ‘your delicate fellowship;

Let me greet you lip to lip,

Let me twine with you caresses,

Wantoning

With our Lady-Mother’s vagrant tresses,

Banqueting

With her in her wind-walled palace,

Underneath her azured daïs,

Quaffing, as your taintless way is,

From a chalice

Lucent-weeping out of the dayspring.’

So it was done:

I in their delicate fellowship was one—

Drew the bolt of Nature’s secrecies.

I knew all the swift importings

On the wilful face of skies;

I knew how the clouds arise

Spumèd of the wild sea-snortings;

All that’s born or dies

Rose and drooped with; made them shapers

Of mine own moods, or wailful or divine;

With them joyed and was bereaven.

I was heavy with the even,

When she lit her glimmering tapers

Round the day’s dead sanctities.

I laughed in the morning’s eyes.

I triumphed and I saddened with all weather,

Heaven and I wept together,

And its sweet tears were salt with mortal mine;

Against the red throb of its sunset-heart

I laid my own to beat,

And share commingling heat;

But not by that, by that, was eased my human smart.

In vain my tears were wet on Heaven’s gray cheek.

For ah! we know not what each other says,

These things and I; in sound I speak—

Their sound is but their stir, they speak by silences.

Nature, poor stepdame, cannot slake my drouth;

Let her, if she would owe me,

Drop yon blue bosom-veil of sky, and show me

The breasts o’ her tenderness:

Never did any milk of hers once bless

My thirsting mouth.

Nigh and nigh draws the chase,

With unperturbèd pace,

Deliberate speed, majestic instancy;

And past those noisèd Feet

A voice comes yet more fleet—

‘Lo! naught contents thee, who content’st

not Me.’

Naked I wait Thy love’s uplifted stroke!

My harness piece by piece Thou hast hewn from me,

And smitten me to my knee;

I am defenceless utterly.

I slept, methinks, and woke,

And, slowly gazing, find me stripped in sleep.

In the rash lustihead of my young powers,

I shook the pillaring hours

And pulled my life upon me; grimed with smears,

I stand amid the dust o’ the mounded years—

My mangled youth lies dead beneath the heap.

My days have crackled and gone up in smoke,

Have puffed and burst as sun-starts on a stream.

Yea, faileth now even dream

The dreamer, and the lute the lutanist;

Even the linked fantasies, in whose blossomy twist

I swung the earth a trinket at my wrist,

Are yielding; cords of all too weak account

For earth with heavy griefs so overplussed.

Ah! is Thy love indeed

A weed, albeit an amaranthine weed,

Suffering no flowers except its own to mount?

Ah! must—

Designer infinite!—

Ah! must Thou char the wood ere Thou canst limn

with it?

My freshness spent its wavering shower i’ the dust;

And now my heart is as a broken fount,

Wherein tear-drippings stagnate, spilt down ever

From the dank thoughts that shiver

Upon the sighful branches of my mind.

Such is; what is to be?

The pulp so bitter, how shall taste the rind?

I dimly guess what Time in mists confounds;

Yet ever and anon a trumpet sounds

From the hid battlements of Eternity;

Those shaken mists a space unsettle, then

Round the half-glimpsèd turrets slowly wash again.

But not ere him who summoneth

I first have seen, enwound

With glooming robes purpureal, cypress-crowned;

His name I know, and what his trumpet saith.

Whether man’s heart or life it be which yields

Thee harvest, must Thy harvest-fields

Be dunged with rotten death?

Now of that long pursuit

Comes on at hand the bruit;

That Voice is round me like a bursting sea:

‘And is thy earth so marred,

Shattered in shard on shard?

Lo, all things fly thee, for thou fliest Me!

Strange, piteous, futile thing!

Wherefore should any set thee love apart?

Seeing none but I makes much of naught’ (He said),

‘And human love needs human meriting:

How hast thou merited—

Of all man’s clotted clay the dingiest clot?

Alack, thou knowest not

How little worthy of any love thou art!

Whom wilt thou find to love ignoble thee,

Save Me, save only Me?

All which I took from thee I did but take,

Not for thy harms,

But just that thou might’st seek it in My arms.

All which thy child’s mistake

Fancies as lost, I have stored for thee at home:

Rise, clasp My hand, and come!’

Halts by me that footfall:

Is my gloom, after all,

Shade of His hand, outstretched caressingly?

‘Ah, fondest, blindest, weakest,

I am He Whom thou seekest!

Thou dravest love from thee, who dravest Me.’