Harmonious Asher

Asher is the name of our youngest son. We deliberated quite awhile to pick a good, Old Testament name that wasn't too Old Testament (Hezekiah, Jehoshaphat) but wasn't so common that people didn't recognize its Biblical roots (David, Daniel). Further, the namesake had to have an outstanding reputation, which narrowed the field considerably to those who were either superstars of faith (Moses, Abraham) or had very little said about them in the Bible. Asher fell into this latter category.

The only noteworthy things said about Asher in the Bible:

1. His birth in Genesis 30:13 - "[His mother,] Leah said, 'I am happy that the women call me happy,' so she named him Asher."
2. The nice blessing given to him by his father, Jacob, in Genesis 49:20 - "Asher’s food will be rich, and he will produce royal delicacies."
3. The even nicer blessing given to his descendants by Moses in Deuteronomy 33:24 - "May [the tribe of] Asher be the most blessed of the sons; may he be the most favored among his brothers and dip his foot in olive oil.", and
4. The fact given in Luke 2:36 that Anna the prophetess belonged to the tribe of Asher.

Somewhat discontented at the sparsity of verses about Asher, I looked up his Wikipedia article one day. According to rabbinical literature, Asher was "always in search of harmony between his brothers." My wife and I thought that was an apt sentiment considering that our Asher is the fourth brother in the family.

Was this true about Asher, though? Rabbinical literature doesn't carry the same credence as the Bible itself. But as I looked more closely in the Bible, I discovered that these harmonious intentions of Asher's aren't exclusive to the rabbinical literature--there is some evidence of this in the Bible.

The Exodus

In the book of Numbers, the Lord tells Moses how the Israelites were to camp during their forty years in the wilderness. There are four camps consisting of three tribes each, stationed at the north, south, east, and west of the Tabernacle, which itself is immediately surrounded by the Levites, including Moses and the priests.



This is notable considering how the sons of Jacob (Israel) are related.

Jacob had four wives: Leah, Rachel, Bilhah and Zilpah. Bilhah was Rachel's handmaid, Zilpah was Leah's handmaid, and Leah and Rachel were sisters--rival sisters, as you might expect being married to the same man. (Side note: Leviticus 18:18 commands Israelite men not to take two sisters as wives). Given this rivalry, combined with the facts that the handmaids are sometimes reckoned as concubines and their children were credited to Leah and Rachel, you could see how there could be rivalry (or at least division) among the 12 brothers, as well.

Leah's Sons		Rachel's Sons
Leah	Zilpah	Bilhah	Rachel
Reuben	Gad	Dan	Joseph
Simeon	Asher	Naphtali	Benjamin
Levi
Judah
Issachar
Zebulun

Looking back at the layout of the Exodus camps, notice how Asher camped with Dan and Naphtali. This camp is the only camp where there was a mix of Leah and Rachel's sons. Furthermore, Dan and Naphtali were full brothers, so Asher was clearly the odd tribe out. Asher would have to be of a harmonious disposition to his brothers for this arrangement to work.

Ezekiel's Vision

In Ezekiel 47 and 48, the prophet is given a vision of a future Israel. God shows Ezekiel how the land of Israel is to be shared among the 12 tribes:


The layout of the land resembles the layout of the Exodus camps; not only is Asher paired with Dan and Naphtali again, but his land physically separates the two full brothers' land. This is the only occurrence where the lands of sons of Leah or Rachel's are divided by a rival wife's son. Once again, Asher must be a harmonious guy for such an arrangement to work out.

Keep Your Friends Close, Keep The Righteous Closer

It pays to stay close to righteous people. The Bible is full of instances of not-so-righteous people being delivered from trouble or spared disaster on account of righteous people they were close to.

When God revealed His plans to destroy Sodom, Abraham asked God to spare the city if there were 50 righteous people found in it. God agreed. Abraham then negotiated that number down to 45, 40, 30, 20, and ultimately 10, with God agreeing each time. God would have shown mercy to an entire city of violent gang rapists for sake of ten righteous folks! Unfortunately for Sodom, there were fewer than ten righteous; by the most generous count, there were only four: Lot, his wife, and his two married daughters, all of whom God's angels drove out of the city prior to it's fiery and sulfurous demise. [Genesis 18:20-19:29]

Earlier in the history of the world, God became regretful over His creation, for men had become exceedingly corrupt and violent. God resolved to wipe them all out except for the one man he found to be righteous, Noah. The Bible didn't say any of Noah's family was righteous, just Noah and Noah alone. And yet, when the destructive floods came, Noah's entire family--including the wives of his sons--was safe on the Ark, spared by Noah's righteousness. I'd say those daughters-in-law married well. [Genesis 6:5 - 7:7]

The Apostle Paul had been imprisoned and was travelling by ship to Rome along with some other prisoners to make his appeal to Caesar when a terrible Nor'easter struck. The storm persisted for many days, prompting the crew to jettison their cargo, anchors, and most of their provisions. Having gone hungry for many days, the men began to lose hope. An angel appeared to Paul at this time and told him, "Do not be afraid, Paul. You must stand trial before Caesar; and God has graciously given you the lives of all who sail with you." When Paul related this to the men on the ship, many were encouraged, although a desperate few attempted to escape by the life boats. Paul told the soldiers guarding him, "Unless these men stay with the ship, you cannot be saved.” So the soldiers dropped the lifeboats into the raging sea. Two weeks after the storm began, the ship wrecked ashore. The soldiers considered killing the prisoners but, for the sake of Paul, they did not kill anyone. As promised, not a single man died; God had rescued everyone, including the prisoners (some of whom deserved death, likely) on account of one righteous man. [Acts 27:13-44]

So when trouble threatens, find a righteous person and stick close to him or her.

Elijah's Farewell Tour

Before the prophet Elijah was taken up to heaven in a whirlwind, he did a three city tour of the countryside.

• Starting from Gigal (or on their way there, at least), Elijah headed to Bethel;
• From Bethel, he traveled to Jericho, and
• From Jericho, Elijah crossed the Jordan river

At each stop along the way, Elijah would tell Elisha to stay behind, but Elijah would consistently respond "As surely as the LORD lives and as you live, I will not leave you." Also at each stop, Elijah and Elisha would meet a company of prophets who would reiterate to Elisha that the LORD was going to take Elijah away. When they left Jericho, fifty prophets from the city accompanied them to the Jordan.

I never gave it much thought previously, but on Mount Carmel during the challenge to Baal, Elijah had proclaimed that "I am the only one of the LORD's prophets left." [1 Kings 18:22] Later, at Mount Horeb, Elijah complained to God that all the LORD's prophets had been killed but him. [1 Kings 19:10].

Perhaps God was taking Elijah on this little journey to show him that there were indeed prophets of the LORD left in Israel.

Don't Feel Sorry for Eli

The story of God's judgement on Eli the priest and his lineage is a sobering one. I've always felt a little sorry for ol' Eli, and I know others feel the same way. Recent re-readings of this story, though, have caused me to change my mind--I don't feel sorry for Eli at all, and neither should you.

For those unfamiliar with Eli, let me summarize his story: Eli was a priest of Israel. His two sons were also priests, but they would disrespect the priesthood by doing wicked acts such as stealing from the sacrifices given to God and sleeping with women at the temple. God told Eli to restrain his sons, but he did not. As a consequence, God pronounced that Eli's sons would be killed on the same day and that Eli's offspring would always die young and never be prosperous. Furthermore, the priesthood would be taken from Eli and his family and given to someone else. And indeed, that is what happened.

At Least Eli Tried to Stop Them

One reason I felt sorry for Eli was because it was his sons, not him, who were being bad and Eli even attempted to stop them. You get the impression that Eli was too much of a softy to get tough with his boys. I don't think Eli was a softy, though. Consider how harsh he was with Hannah:

As [Hannah] was praying to the Lord, Eli watched her. Seeing her lips moving but hearing no sound, he thought she had been drinking. "Must you come here drunk?" he demanded. "Throw away your wine!" 1 Sam 12-14 (NLT)

Compare that rebuke with the gentle reprimand he gave his sons:

Why do you do such things? For I hear of your evil dealings from all the people. No, my sons; it is no good report that I hear the people of the Lord spreading abroad. If someone sins against a man, God will mediate for him, but if someone sins against the Lord, who can intercede for him? 1 Samuel 2:23-25a (ESV)

Eli Cared for the Ark of the Covenant

Another reason to sympathize with Eli was because he seemed genuinely concerned about the Ark of the Covenant. The Bible says Eli "was deeply troubled about the Ark of God" after it had been taken into battle and that, "at the mention of the Ark of God [being captured in battle], Eli fell backwards from his seat by the gate and broke his neck, for he was an old man and heavy."

But why did Eli care so much about the Ark? Was it because he loved God? Maybe, but I think he loved something even more: his own livelihood.

Israelites were required once a year to bring the best of their herds, livestock, and harvest to the temple for a big feast, which they and the priests would eat before the Lord. The Bible indicates Eli was a fat man, so you know he was eating his fair share of the sacrifices. If there was no Ark of God, there was no reason for the Israelites to visit, and thus no more feasting for Eli and his family.

Eli's daughter-in-law understood the ramifications of the Ark's capture, too. When she heard the news, she went into premature labor and in her dying moments named her newborn Ichabod (which means "No Glory"); "'Glory has departed from Israel,' she said, 'because the Ark of God is taken.'

Basically, the Ark was Eli and his family's sugar momma, and when it was taken by the Philistines, they knew the gig was up. In fact, the city of Shiloh, where they lived, ceased to be Israel's religious center after the Ark's capture.

Eli Acknowledged the Sovereignty of God

The final reason I had felt sorry for Eli was because he seemed godly. When he was informed of God's judgement, his response was "It is the LORD. Let him do what seems good to him." (1 Sam 3:18, ESV). On the surface, this seems like the response of somebody who knows God. Whereas a heathen might get angry at God or protest, Eli respectfully acknowledged God's sovereignty and levied no complaint.

Now when I read Eli's response, I think "You fool!" His response was not one of godliness, but one of sloth. Eli knew what he needed to do--restrain his sons. Eli also knew that God might change his mind about this decision, too. After all, God had changed his mind already:

"Therefore the LORD, the God of Israel, declares: 'I promised that members of your family would minister before me forever.' But now the LORD declares: 'Far be it from me! Those who honor me I will honor, but those who despise me will be disdained.'" 1 Samuel 2:30 (NIV)

So instead of Eli taking action which could have preserved the blessing that God had originally pronounced upon his lineage, Eli instead did absolutely nothing. How pathetic.

Crunching the Numbers

Moses took a census of Israel in Numbers 1 and in Numbers 26. Here's a chart comparing the number of males aged 20 years or more of the twelve tribes (Levi excluded, as per the Lord's command).

Some observations...

• Manasseh flourished the most; it's male population increased 63.7% (+20,500).
• Simeon lost 62.6% of its male population (-37,100), more than any other tribe.
• At the first census, Ephraim was the larger half-tribe of Joseph; by the second census, Manasseh was the larger.
• Judah was the largest tribe at the time of both censuses.
• Manasseh was the smallest tribe at the time of the first census. By the second census, Simeon was the smallest.
• Judah had the smallest population change percentage-wise, 2.5% (1900 males). Dan had the smallest population change overall, 1700 males (2.7%)
• Overall, Israel's non-Levite population increased by 8150 males (1.4%).

Apparently, I'm a Synergist

I recently had a discussion with a fellow named John Hendryx on Facebook—a friend of a friend. I had commented to my friend about how I had rejected Calvinistic theology because I find God's grace to be resistible. Unbeknownst to me, Hendryx (according to Wikipedia) is a "leading Calvinist thinker" and purveyor of the Reformed theology dubbed Monergism. Not surprisingly, Hendryx took issue with my comment, resulting in a short, unfruitful debate on the matter.

I'm not going to describe Monergism in full here; you can read the website for all the gory details. I'll quote from the website's "Our Faith" page to highlight the crux of their beliefs:

Union between Christ and his people was planned already in eternity, in the sovereign pretemporal decision whereby God the Father selected certain sinners as His own...

This pretemporal choice was not based on the fact that God knew which persons would believe of their own free will, for there is no person which fits that description. This decision was based upon God's sovereign good pleasure alone...

All of God's elect will be regenerated by the Holy Spirit during their life, at a time of God's choosing. This regeneration is a spiritual resurrection given to sinners who are spiritually dead. It infallibly results in faith, repentance and obedience. This regeneration is accomplished by the irresistible power of the Holy Spirit (Jn.6:37,44; Eph.2:4-5; Ps.110:3)...

We teach that all those who believe are justified and are sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise unto the ultimate day of redemption. Therefore, if a person has been effectually called and drawn to Christ, he will never lose that salvation since it was based wholly on the finished work of Christ and God's election, not on the strength of the believers [sic] commitment or obedience. (Jn.10:27-30;Rom.8:28-30).

To paraphrase in my own words: according to Monergism, you're either saved or not saved by God's choice alone. There are no other factors, including an individual's choice or efforts to influence this divine decision. If you're one of the lucky ones who is elected, you're forced to repent and obey by the irresistible Holy Spirit; if you're not, you are forced to remain disobedient and unrepentant. It is not "Once saved, always saved," but essentially "always saved."

Synergism is what Monergists label the opposing belief that an individual's response to God's grace factors into his or her salvation. Like I mentioned earlier, I've abandoned Calvinism, so by association I disagree with Monergists (whether this makes me a official "Synergist" or not, I'm not sure, but I'm not a Monergist, for sure). But I do agree with Monergists that any theology or belief set needs to have a strong Biblical basis. In fact, Hendryx made this very point in an article he wrote criticizing a Synergist named Thibodaux for not having enough Biblical basis for a theological belief called prevenient grace (which is opposed to the Calvinist belief of irresistible grace):

...I want to point out that Biblical error most often arise when a theology is based on an isolated text rather than looking at it carefully in context and within the whole counsel of Scripture. This is certainly the case when Thibodaux quotes John 6:44 to try and prove prevenient grace by it.

This text appears within the article in bold, red lettering, which must mean Hendryx is emphatic about what he's saying. Almost immediately after stating this, however, Hendryx continues:

When these to [sic] phrases from [John 6] verses 65 and 37 are placed side-by side Jesus can be seen to be forming a syllogism which means the conclusion follows of necessity from the premise. So what is the syllogism?

Together these two verse verses (37 and 65) make clear whether Jesus is speaking of an effectual grace or one which simply puts man in a position to choose. Take the time to read them together. Jesus says: no one can believe in me unless God grants it and all to whom God grants in Me will believe in me. Jesus' intent could not be more clear and leaves no room for Thibodaux's synergistic interpretation of verse 44.

To summarize, Hendryx scoffs at Thibodaux for attempting to prove a theology by a single verse of Scripture (John 6:44) but then goes on to explain that a contrary theology is clearly proven by exactly two verses of Scripture (John 6:65 and 6:37). Theologians are a funny bunch. Now, I'm sure Hendryx actually has considered the rest of the Bible in the formulation of his theology, but he does seem especially fond of these two particular verses; he brought them up frequently in our Facebook discussion.

Taking the Time to Read Them Together

I want to follow Hendryx's suggestion and take some time to read these two verses together.

'All that the Father gives me will come to me, and anyone who comes to me I will never turn away.' ... So, he said, 'This is why I told you that on one can come to me unless it has been granted to him by the Father.' (John 6:37,65 REB)

To Hendryx's credit, his pet verses have some good qualities:

• They are the words of Jesus Himself.
• They come from the same chapter of the same book, and they're both part of the same narrative, so there is a contextual relationship.
• They use absolute words like "will" and "no one." Certainly there's no room for debate with words like these spoken by the mouth of God, right?

But despite these admirable qualities, I must admit that I disagree with Hendryx's assertion that "Jesus' intent could not be more clear":

• I have to assume that God "granting" something is equivalent to God "giving" something. They could very well be, but there is room for debate, at least.
• I also have to assume that "coming to Jesus" is equivalent to "believing in Jesus" if I were to agree with Hendryx's analysis. I can buy that, but it's certainly not explicit by this text alone. Without knowing more context, Jesus could very well be speaking literally here about disciples joining him as He goes about His earthly ministry.
• I'd further have to regard "believing in Jesus" as possessing an unalterable salvation. The verses say that Jesus would never turn away those who come to him, but say nothing about the possibility of believers turning themselves away. The notion that believers cannot turn themselves away must originate elsewhere.

Maybe Jesus' intent in this passage is clearer to you than it is to me.

More Than Meets the Eye

I want to apply Hendryx's focus-on-a-few-verses-exclusively Bible interpretation approach but with different verses:

In very truth I tell you, whoever has faith in me will do what I am doing; indeed he will do greater things still because I am going to the Father. Anything you ask in my name I will do so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If you ask anything in my name I will do it. (John 14:12-14, REB)

Note that these verses share the same qualities as John 6:37,65--better qualities, even. There are three verses instead of two; it's also the words of Jesus; the passage originates from the same chapter in the book of John and is part of the same narrative; the verses are contiguous, not disjoint as with Hendryx's two verses; absolute words like "will" and "anything" appear more frequently than in Hendryx's verses; Jesus begins by saying "In very truth I tell you" and ends by repeating Himself, both indications that Jesus is really trying to get a point across.

I find Jesus' intent in these verses to be even clearer than His intent in John 6:65 and 37: Jesus will do anything you ask in His name; it is not might do some things, but will do anything. And from the context provided in the first verse, it's not unreasonable to think that "you" can refer to "whoever has faith in Jesus." (even if the "you" is referring to Jesus' disciples exclusively, then at the very least this Scripture is saying that whoever has faith in Jesus will do greater things than Jesus did, and Jesus did a lot of great things: healing diseases, casting out demons, restoring sight to the blind, raising the dead...).

But is what Jesus said here true? Can we Christians ask anything of Jesus and He will do it? The Bible seems clear--absolute words like "will" and "anything" cannot leave room for debate or qualification, can they? But our experiences may raise questions. I know I've asked for things in Jesus' name and haven't received them. I'm sure Hendryx could claim having similar experiences. Jesus did not lie, of course, so the only explanation is that we're not seeing the whole picture. In cases like this, we can go to the Bible to get more perspective.

But he must ask in faith without any doubting, for the one who doubts is like the surf of the sea, driven and tossed by the wind. For that man ought not to expect that he will receive anything from the Lord. (James 1:6-8, NASB)

You do not have, because you do not ask God. When you ask, you do not receive, because you ask with wrong motives, that you may spend what you get on your pleasures. (James 4:2-3, NIV)

Interesting. Jesus plainly said that He will do anything we asked in His name, but these passages indicate that there are, in fact, conditions involved. I know that Monergists dislike the book of James (Martin Luther did not consider it canonical) so I'll throw in a quote from 1 John, a letter written by the very same author of Hendryx's pet verses:

Beloved, if our heart does not condemn us, we have confidence before God; and whatever we ask we receive from him, because we keep his commandments and do what pleases him. (1 John 3:21-22 ESV)

This echoes what Jesus was saying in John 14 but with additional information: to receive whatever we ask we must not be condemned by our heart, we must keep God's commandments and do what pleases Him. Only then can we expect to receive anything we ask for in Jesus' name.

So even though it seemed like we should have been able to take John 14:12-14 at face value, our experiences suggested that there was additional information we were missing. By reading more of the Bible we found that information. For Jesus to do what we ask, we must have unwavering faith, correct motives, a non-condemned heart, and obedience to God's commandments.

The Whole Counsel

This examination of John 14:12-14 shows that even verses that apparently leave no room for further debate, qualification, or explanation can indeed be further debated, qualified, and explained by Scripture. John 6:37 & 65 are no exceptions. I haven't taken the time to provide further qualification or explanation for these verses (and any others Monergists may rely on), but I intend to in future posts. My hope for now is that you would at least agree that we must consider the "whole counsel of Scripture" when attempting to understand the Bible and not just look at a couple of spliced-together verses exclusively.

Joab's Fate

The news reached Joab. Since he had supported Adonijah but not Absalom, Joab fled to the LORD's tabernacle and took hold of the horns of the altar.

It was reported to King Solomon: "Joab has fled to the LORD' s tabernacle and is now beside the altar." Then Solomon sent Benaiah son of Jehoiada and told [him], "Go and strike him down!"

So Benaiah went to the tabernacle and said to Joab, "This is what the king says: 'Come out!'"

But Joab said, "No, for I will die here."

So Benaiah took a message back to the king, "This is what Joab said, and this is how he answered me."

The king said to him, "Do just as he says. Strike him down and bury him in order to remove from me and from my father's house the blood that Joab shed without just cause. The LORD will bring back his own blood on his own head because he struck down two men more righteous and better than he, without my father David's knowledge. With his sword, Joab murdered Abner son of Ner, commander of Israel's army, and Amasa son of Jether, commander of Judah's army. Their blood will come back on Joab's head and on the head of his descendants forever, but for David, his descendants, his dynasty, and his throne, there will be peace from the LORD forever."

Benaiah son of Jehoiada went up, struck down Joab, and put him to death.

1 Kings 2:28-34

I've always felt that Joab was slighted here. As commander of the army, he was a key figure in Israel's military successes for over three decades. In that respect, Joab's life shouldn't have ended in such a way. But in another respect, Joab was not the most loyal subject of David--he definitely followed his own agenda at times.

• Joab assassinated Abner, the commander of the army under Saul and Ishboseth, even though Abner had allied himself with David. This was the primary reason David felt Joab deserved to die. David never took initiative in the remaining 32 years of his kingship to kill Joab, but commanded Solomon to do so instead.
• Joab secretly killed Absalom even though had David explicitly charged the army not to keep his son alive. Of course, killing Absalom was arguably beneficial to David's kingship, but it wasn't beneficial to David personally, who had already suffered the loss of a son to murder.
• Joab killed the newly appointed commander of the army, Amasa, in order to get that political position back.
• Joab only took a partial count of Israel because he abhorred David's command to take a census. Note, however, that Joab did not find David's command to indirectly murder Uriah the Hittite abhorrent enough to disobey the king.
• Joab supported Adonijah's attempt to ascend his father's throne; David had decided to give the kingship to his other son, Solomon.

Perhaps Joab is analogous to Christians who mostly serve God but deep down they're more interested in serving themselves. Or maybe this is just one of those cases where the morality isn't as clear as the reality:

A king is delighted with a servant who acts wisely, but he is furious with one who acts shamefully.Proverbs 14:35