Andrew McFarland

Fundamentalist Assumptions

The other day someone asked me about Christian fundamentalism.

This kind of surprised me - because I'm not a Christian fundamentalist.

When I was a student, I noticed that all the student rooms had beige walls. This meant that each student could personalise his or her room with posters, pictures, duvet colours and such, and you could be confident that the colours wouldn't clash with the walls. About the same time, I realised that I have a beige wall personality. Just as beige walls will look OK with posters of any hue, my personality doesn't seem to clash with assumptions of any type, so when people make assumptions about me, they tend to stick.

I don't currently belong to any organised church, but the denomination I used to belong to, the Christadelphians, did attract a large proportion of fundamentalist-types. A lot of what I have written on this site is fairly academic, like my article on long hair and the Bible. These two facts, coupled with my beige wall personality, could make me come across as a fundamentalist-type.

A couple of other beige-compatible assumptions that people have made about me:

I have three piercings in my ear lobe. Some people assume I have other body parts pierced too.
A friend once asked me if I was an Orthodox Jew, because I was wearing a black trench coat.

I never mind when people make assumptions about me - and a few minutes later the guy who thought I was a Christian fundamentalist paid me the greatest compliment I have ever had. Occasionally I do feel the urge to clarify who I am though. So, here goes: I'm definitely not an orthodox Jew (which should be obvious, but, hey, who knows), any other body modifications are my own business (you'll have to keep assuming about that one), and I'm not a Christian fundamentalist.

Christian fundamentalism, with its unquestioning acceptance of literal readings of parts of the Bible (often literal readings of translations rather than the originals themselves) is something I find quite scary, and certainly very boring. I love to think. I love to question assumptions. I love to question beliefs and ideas, be they religious, scientific, technological, or any other category. Although we can't question every belief, idea, or assumption, I'm not happy holding any idea that cannot be questioned, assuming I had the time to question it. When I did my degree (in physics) I learned the importance of being aware of your assumptions, and questioning them even if they lead to to correctly predict the results of experiments.

I believe that questioning beliefs is more important in religion than it is in science, because people's religious beliefs have a much greater impact on the people around them than their scientific beliefs do.

I do have well-defined beliefs about what the Bible teaches, and much to the consternation of the Mike Kragmans of the world, those beliefs are still compatible with me being Christadelphian. But I love to investigate those beliefs, find their weak points, try to destroy them, find better, more sound beliefs to replace them. I don't believe I have all the answers; I'm not even sure I have all the questions. In my mind at least, this makes me the very opposite of a fundamentalist Christian.

Long Hair and the Bible

Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? (1 Corinthians 11: 14-15, NIV)

Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her (1 Corinthians 11: 14-15, KJV)

I am a man and I have long hair. What does the Bible say about this? The response a lot of conservative Christians give will be to quote 1st Corinthians 11:14-15 (above) and tell me that it is wrong for a man to have long hair. Obviously, I don't agree with this. Understanding this verse is interesting, and by studying it we can learn a lot more about the Bible and how to apply the teachings of the New Testament to our everyday lives.

There are two things that 1st Corinthians 11:14 could mean: either

It is always wrong for a man to have long hair; or
It is sometimes wrong for a man to have long hair.

Lets look at the first option. Can it be that it is always wrong for a man to have long hair? The answer is obviously no. Consider the Nazarite vow in Numbers 6:

Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, When either man or woman shall separate themselves to vow a vow of a Nazarite, to separate themselves unto the LORD: ... All the days of the vow of his separation there shall no razor come upon his head: until the days be fulfilled, in the which he separateth himself unto the LORD, he shall be holy, and shall let the locks of the hair of his head grow. (Numbers 6: 2, 5)

Nazarites were holy men. There was nothing shameful about their long hair. Although most people who took the Nazarite vow took it for a fixed, and fairly short, period of time, such as 100 days, there were men who were lifelong Nazarites, such as Samson (Judges 13:5) and Samuel (1 Samuel 1:11). The Nazarite vow shows that it is not always wrong for a man to have long hair. There is no universal "law of nature" that dictates that men ought to have short hair. We can safely conclude that 1st Corinthians 11:14 means it is only sometimes wrong for a man to have long hair.

We can come to the same conclusion just looking at 1 Corinthians 11:14 itself. The verse itself uses cultural specific phrases - not something we would expect to find in a verse telling us about a universal law. Consider the phrase "long hair". Long is a culturally relative term. Most of the men of my age in my office have very short hair - a fraction of an inch long at most. Long hair for the twenty- and thirtysomethings in my workplace would be two or three inches. In the 1970s men with four-inch-long hair would have been considered short-haired.

The most interesting culture-specific phrase in 1 Corinthians 11:14 is "nature itself". It is tempting to read this as implying there is a universal law of nature that prohibits long hair on men, but the Nazarite vow shows that this is not true. It is also tempting to read this as pointing to the animal kingdom - no male animal has long hair, so human males shouldn't. Again, this can't be the case. Even ignoring the lion's mane, there is no animal that cuts its hair, so cutting hair is far "unnatural" than long hair.

The anthropologist John J. Winkler has this to say about "nature":

Indeed, what "natural" means in many such contexts is precisely "conventional and proper". The word "unnatural" in contexts of human behaviour quite regularly means "seriously unconventional". (John J. Winkler, The Constraints of Desire, page 17)

When Paul writes "Doth not even nature itself teach you..." he seems to be using "nature" in the way that Winkler describes. Paul's meaning is close to "Does not even social convention teach you..."

1 Corinthians 11:14 could only mean that it is sometimes wrong for a man to have long hair. But when is it wrong? In verse 13, Paul tells us to "Judge for yourselves". 1 Corinthians 11:14 gives us all the information we need to judge for ourselves: "Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?" When is it wrong? It is wrong when nature - "social convention" - tells you it is shameful. It is wrong when the culture you are living in tells you it is wrong. In the Western world, long hair in men is perfectly acceptable - so Christian men in the West may of course have long hair. (I don't know enough about non-Western cultures to make any comments there, but the rule still applies: if society says long hair is OK, then it is OK for Christian men.)

Why was Paul concerned about the Corinthians adhering to hair-length standards in the surrounding culture? When Paul wrote the first letter to the Corinthians he was writing to a church that was disrespectful to God and disorderly in the eyes of the surrounding people. This was not what the church was supposed to be. It was supposed to be an ordered and respectful organisation. "If therefore the whole church be come together into one place, and all speak with tongues, and there come in those that are unlearned, or unbelievers, will they not say that ye are mad?" Paul was concerned about how the church appeared to unbelievers. "Let all things," writes Paul, "be done decently and in order." (1 Co 14:23,40). Paul was concerned about men's hair length, not because of some violation of a universal law of nature, but because the first century Christians had to behave in a way that the other Corinthians found respectable.

The epistles in the New Testament were written, first and foremost, to groups of Christians in the first century. The instructions and advice that they contain were not always applicable to other groups of first century Christians, and they are not always applicable to us, living in the 21st century. We can't pluck one verse out of context - that is out of its literary context or out of its cultural context - and generalise to get a hard and fast rule to live by today.

Other sites

Where Do I Go From Here?

For years I was the webmaster for [http://www.christadelphian.org.uk/ www.christadelphian.org.uk]. On the front page of that site, I summarised Christadelphian belief these nine points: 0 The Bible is God's word and the only message from him. It is without error, except for copying and translation errors. 0 There is only one God - the Father. The Holy Spirit is God's power. 0 Jesus is the Son of God, and a human being, through his mother Mary. 0 Man is mortal, having no existence when dead. 0 By living a sinless life, ending with his sacrificial death by crucifixion, Jesus has opened the way of salvation from death. 0 Belief and baptism are essential steps to salvation. 0 God raised Jesus from death. Jesus is currently in Heaven, on God's right hand. He will one day return. 0 When Jesus returns, he will raise his "sleeping" followers from death and grant immortality to the faithful who have tried to live by God's precepts. 0 His followers will help him to rule, bringing justice, righteousness and peace to the whole world - the Kingdom of God. These points first appeared on the site in [http://web.archive.org/web/19990429170455/http://www.christadelphian.org.uk/ 1999] at the latest. Orignially they were based on a similar list published by, I think, the Christadelphian ALS. Over time, based on Christadelphian feedback, I tweaked them until they ended up in the form above. No Christadelphian has ever contacted me to say that those nine points are wrong, or a misrepresentation of Christadelphian belief. Given the exposure they have had, I think it is safe to say they are a pretty sound summary of what Christadelphians believe. They are also a pretty sound summary of what I /still/ believe. I am, in terms of belief, still a Christadelphian. There has been a lot of pressure on me to make a clear statement about what I believe. The people who have been putting that pressure on me either haven't seen [http://www.christadelphian.org.uk/ www.christadelphian.org.uk], or they haven't connected those points with me. I'm not going to blog about the Christadelphian situation again, unless my circumstances radically change. I will make one, final, clear statement about who I am and what I believe. *I am Andrew !McFarland follower, brother, and friend of Christ. I live my life in accordance with the commandments of Christ, and I accept the BASF.* If that isn't enough for some, well, it isn't enough for some.

Universal Acceptance

I've had a few emails where people have said things like "with your stance, you will never get support from the whole Christadelphian body." I am not looking for support from the whole Christadelphian body. No matter what I do or say there will always be Christadelphians who do not trust me. I can't win these people over, and I'm not going to waste my time trying to. I don't want people who support me because Kragman's accusations are *false*, and I don't want people to support me because Kragman's accusations are *true*. In fact, if anyone is going to support me all I want is for them to support me when I try to help the other people Kragman and his kind have hassled because of their perceived heresy. Supporters who are prepared to stand up and say Kragmanesque justice is unacceptable are also the kind of supporters I'd welcome - but, judging by the emails I've had recently, it seems like Mike Kragman (and his [http://www.mcfarland.co.uk/andrew/blog/2005-10-02 failure to show me the evidence against me]) has more support in the Christadelphian community than I do. On many occasions I have used Matthew 18 as part of an exhortation - a good example is in [http://www.mcfarland.co.uk/andrew/exhortations/2004-02-08 Publicans and Sinners], from February 2004. At about that time another Christadelphian was publicly attacked for unorthodoxy, and that exhortation was written in response to that. That exhortation explains how I think sin, heresy, and unorthodoxy should be handled. == And for the last time ... One of the enduring misconceptions about me is that I have refused to discuss the accusations against me, neatly encapsulated with this quote (from a Christadelphian mailing list): > He has, on the other hand, suggested that he doesn't need to answer [Kragman's accusations]. I have never suggested anything like that. I was and am prepared to discuss the issue with Mike Kragman - but I'm not prepared to discuss it with a third party.

Oh Brother Kragman, Where Art Thou?

I've been wondering about Mike Kragman's motovation recently. It's not a particularly healthy train of thought, so I'll try and avoid it in the future. But there is one question that bugs me. In his [http://www.mcfarland.co.uk/andrew/kragman/email email] he said: > We want you to understand that we are contacting you for the purpose of loving restoration. It is our prayerful intent to restore you back to the truth in the short time remaining before our Lord returns. By now, he must know that I have left the Christadelphians, as a result of his actions: I would not have left had he not contacted my ecclesia. If his intent really was "loving restoration" surely he would have done something by now to lovingly restore me to membership of the Christadelphian community - yet he hasn't. Why, if "loving restoration" was his aim, has he not contacted me? To me it looks more like his aim was to have me leave the Christadelphians.

Who Am I Trying to Protect?

You'll probably have noticed that I'm not responding to any of Mike Kragman's accusations. Some people have assumed this is because I'm guilty. Others have assumed I'm adhering to some college-kid ideal of some kind. Actually, aside from any deeper reasons, I'm remaining silent to help protect one person, a woman who is haunted by a past sin. Many years ago, Alison (not her real name) committed a sin. In her eyes it was a very serious sin. It was one of those things that nearly destroyed her life. Alison is ashamed of that sin. She regrets it. And she has repented. God is wonderfully forgiving, and because Alison has repented she is forgiven. Humans are not forgiving. Alison is terrified that her forgiven sin will become public knowledge. There are times when she has been in tears at the thought of anyone finding out what she did. Matthew 18 is there, in part, to protect people like Alison. Let's suppose Alison had been stealing money from the Sunday School bank account, and let's suppose someone wanted to expose her without the `inconvenience' of Matthew 18. One way they could do this is by firing accusations at her and seeing how she responds: > *Them* Have you been stealing hymn books? > *Her* No, of course not. > *Them* Have you been vandalising cars in the car park? > *Her* No, of course not. > *Them* Have you been stealing from the Sunday School bank account? At this point, Alison would either have to lie /or/ expose herself. Refusal to answer at this point would be seen as admission of guilt. On the other hand, suppose Alison did what I am doing. The conversation would go something like this: > *Them* Have you been stealing hymn books? > *Her* I don't respond to public accusations. > *Them* Have you been vandalising cars in the car park? > *Her* I don't respond to public accusations. > *Them* Have you been stealing from the Sunday School bank account? > *Her* I don't respond to public accusations. By refusing to respond, Alison is protected from having her forgiven sin made public knowledge. If you refuse to respond to all public accusations then nobody can draw any conclusions when you refuse to respond to any particular public accusation. Those who are forgiven are protected by Matthew 18. If I was to start publicly responding to Mike Kragman's accusations then I would open myself to unlimited accusation, where claims of my sin were made until there was one that I could not deny (and remember we are all sinful). On the other hand, if I never respond to public accusations, then Alison, and others like her, can follow my example, and the protection of Matthew 18 will be preserved. There is good scriptural precedent for remaining silent in the face of public accusations, even ones that are easy to refute. > The chief priests and the whole Sanhedrin were looking for false evidence against Jesus so that they could put him to death. But they did not find any, though many false witnesses came forward. Finally two came forward and declared, "This fellow said, 'I am able to destroy the temple of God and rebuild it in three days.' " Then the high priest stood up and said to Jesus, "Are you not going to answer? What is this testimony that these men are bringing against you?" But Jesus remained silent. (Matthew 26:62-63, NIV) And later, before Pilate: > When he was accused by the chief priests and the elders, he gave no answer. Then Pilate asked him, "Don't you hear the testimony they are bringing against you?" But Jesus made no reply, not even to a single charge -- to the great amazement of the governor. (Matthew 27: 12-13, NIV) When Christ was publicly accused by those around him he did not respond to any of the charges against him -- and neither will I.

Show Me the Evidence

Could I not simply have /denied/ everything to Mike Kragman and those he showed the evidence to? Well, I do have a deeper reason for not denying anything, but denial isn't a possibility in this case. Based on his "evidence", Mike Kragman is convinced I am guilty: > If choose to deny any involvement in the advertisement and websites, we will have no choice but to follow Matthew 18 The only way I can respond is by responding to the evidence. For that I need to /see/ the evidence, and at the time of writing I have not seen the evidence against me. On Sunday 10th April 2005 I was shown a document that contained some of the evidence against me. I wasn't allowed to keep the document, and I wasn't given an opportunity to examine it in detail. Since then, members of my former ecclesia have discussed the evidence against me with my mother. It seems that there is more evidence in circulation that I have been shown. The accusations also seem to be broader in scope. A simple denail will not change anything. I don't know what I should be denying!

An Amusing Observation

I think it's clear that Mike Kragman wanted to surpress www.inherit-the-kingdom.org. He has actually, indirectly, lead to much more publicity for it. I was browsing through the access logs for this site, [http://www.mcfarland.co.uk/ www.mcfarland.co.uk], and I noticed I'm getting a lot of hits from the [http://www.google.com/search?q=gay+christadelphian Google search for gay christadelphian]. At the time of writing, Mike Kragman's email is the top search result - and Mike Kragman's email has a link to the site. If this was accidential, then this is very amusing. On the other hand, I think my response to Mike Kragman has been pretty predictable, at least to those who knew me. I wonder could Mike really have wanted to add to the publicity of the site?

Robert Roberts on Matthew 18

Len said:

Once they are aware of wrong-doing, they have no choice but to act.

Now, I don't agree with that. However, I understand that my opinion is not likely to cut much ice here, so I'm going to quote from the Ecclesial Guide, written by Robert Roberts, the first editor of the Christadelphian.

But supposing an offence arise which a brother cannot thus overlook, but which he feels to be a barrier between himself and the offender, then he is bound to take the course indicated. He is not at liberty to mention the matter to a third party, and he is not at liberty to stand aside in a state of alienation. If he do either the one or the other, he makes himself as much an offender as he may imagine the cause of his injured feelings to be. A man who disobeys the commandment of Christ on one point, is as much a transgressor as the man who disobeys it on another. Consequently, an ecclesia knowing of such a case, is bound to persuade the offended brother to see the offender in private, or to withdraw from him in case of refusal.

Ecclesial Guide, Section 36, emphasis mine.

In Robert Roberts' opinion no Christadelphian should have listened to the accusations against me until Matthew 18 had been followed. Not that tradition matters, but it would be hard to get more a Christadelphian who was more traditional than Robert Roberts!

There is a sample constitution in the Ecclesial Guide. Clause 31 reads:

That no accusation or matter of evil report against any brother shall be listened to in public or private, until the brother bringing or reporting the accusation shall have taken the course prescribed in Matt. xviii. 15-18; and any brother refusing to take this course while persisting in his accusation, or in alienation on account of it, shall himself be considered and dealt with as an offender against the law of Christ.

There is a similar clause in the Constitution of the Belfast Ecclesia

No Christadelphian should have listened to or acted on Mike Kragman's accusations until Mike Kragman went through the process of Matthew 18. I was and am prepared to do this, but I will not discuss the accusations with a third party. There is no loophole in Matthew 18. Nobody can be made to respond to accusations until the accuser has followed Christ's clear commandment. Read Matthew 18. Think about what Robert Roberts says about it in the Ecclesial Guide. Anybody who has seen the evidence and acts on it in any way should, in the words of the sample constitution "be considered and dealt with as an offender against the law of Christ."

Some More Details

[http://www.mcfarland.co.uk/andrew/blog/2005-09-25 Sunday's post] has generated quite a few emails for me. There are a few more details I'd like to add to this story. * The two emails are the only communication between me and Mike Kragman. I am still prepared to discuss the issue with him. I am prepared to forgive him for what he has done, and keeping that path open was one of the intentions of my reply to him. * Mike Kragman passed the details of his accusations onto a member of my church. His accusations were spread in my church, and my church was prepared to take action based on those accusations. I felt that this directly opposed the teaching of Matthew 18:15-18. That is why I left. * There is no deeper reason for my departure. * I do not believe that Mike Kragman is my accuser's real name. If I did I would (probably) have replaced his name with a pseudonym before publishing his email. * [http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=slander Slander] doesn't necessarily mean that lies are told, but I'm not going to present a public rebuttal of any of Kragman's accusations. Those are issues between me and him. * *Update 1st October 2005* I did not resign immediately on being confronted with Mike Kragman's accusations, nor did I refuse to discuss the issue. On the 10th April 2005, when I was initially confronted by a member of my church who had recieved Mike Kragman's evidence, I told him I would discuss the matter with my original accuser, and only my original accuser. On the 17th, I made a statement that explained what was happening to me, and each member of the church appeared to accept it. However, they still supported acting on Mike Kragman's accusations, which was when I resigned.

Why I Left the Christadelphians

About 5 months ago I left the Christadelphians, the church I had been a member of for nearly 12 years. Since I left, a few people have asked why I left. The circumstances surrounding my departure were very stressful - someone calling himself "Mike Kragman" attempted to blackmail me, and my church supported him rather than me. I haven't wanted to talk too much about this, but now seems like the right time to say something. Today, I'm making the email from [http://www.mcfarland.co.uk/andrew/kragman/email "Mike Kragman"] and [http://www.mcfarland.co.uk/andrew/kragman/response my reply] available, /partly/ to help control the rumours about me. Of course, the main reason why I am doing this is because I believe I'm not the first of Kragman's targets, and I don't think I'll be the last. If you have been threatened or intimidated by this person, whether or not he calls himself "Mike Kragman" at the time, I want to hear from you. If you get an email, or letter, or anything like that, [http://www.mcfarland.co.uk/andrew/contact contact me]. I believe "Mike Kragman" is destroying the Christadelphian community, and if his victims stand together we may be able to stop him.

Holocaust Memorial Day

On the 27 of January 1945, just over 60 years ago, the Nazi extermination and concentration camp at Auschwitz-Birkenau was liberated. Last Thursday, the 27 January 2005, was Holocaust Memorial Day. I won't mention what went on on Auschwitz. I won't mention other Nazi atrocities. I think we all have a good idea what went on, and in any case I can barely bring myself to read about them, and I certainly can't speak about them.

The 1930s and 1940s, and all that happened in them, from the dispair of the Children of Israel as Hitler slaughtered them, to the triumph of the formation of the State of Israel, were part of "God's plan". We can find both in the prophecy in the Old Testament. Perhaps unusally for a Christadelphian, today I want to think about the Holocaust, not as an appaling step on the road to the state of Israel, but as something that represents the awful nadir of man's inhumanity to man. Today I want to think about it, not as an attempt to exterminate the Jews, but as an attempt to exterminate a wide range of people that those in positions of power considered undesirable in some way. Sometimes, in our excitement at seeing the word of prophecy unfolding before us we can forget that it wasn't only the Jews that suffered.

The victims of the Holocaust were primarily Jews, and it was they who were the targets of the "Final Solution". Other groups were murdered: Communists, Roma and Sinti (the people we sometimes call gypsies), the mentally ill, the disabled, Soviet prisoners of war, Poles, Russians, Slavs, gay men, some Catholic and Protestant clergy, Jehova's Witnesses, and trade unionists. The `catch all' categories of common criminals and enemies of the state were also used to mop up anybody else the Nazis wanted to dispose of.

Now, aside from the catch all categories, what do all those groups have in common? They are all victims of discrimination or racism. A vital part of the Nazis' success was the support that prejudice and bigotry gave them. The Jews and gypsies couldn't have been taken away for "resettlement" if their neighbours hadn't seen them as needing resettlement in the first place.

Racism, bigotry, intolerance, prejudice. These are the things that allowed the Holocaust to happen. These are the things that we must not allow to grow. We must be bigotted only against biggotry. We must be intolerant only of intolerance. This is a position that can be thoroughly supported by the Word of God.

Leviticus 24, verses 17 to 22:

And he that killeth any man shall surely be put to death. And he that killeth a beast shall make it good; beast for beast. And if a man cause a blemish in his neighbour; as he hath done, so shall it be done to him; Breach for breach, eye for eye, tooth for tooth: as he hath caused a blemish in a man, so shall it be done to him again. And he that killeth a beast, he shall restore it: and he that killeth a man, he shall be put to death.Ye shall have one manner of law, as well for the stranger, as for one of your own country: for I am the LORD your God.

Brothers and sisters, we live in almost unbelievable freedom. Those words are nothing short of amazing, and we are lucky that our freedom is such that we hardly notice them. "Ye shall have one manner of law, as well for the stranger, as for one of your own country". Of course in this country we have one manner of law for us and the stranger. That is so fundamental to our way of life that we don't even notice it, in the same way that we barely notice our excellent water supply.

It is not like that everywhere. Acts 22, verses 24 to 29:

The chief captain commanded him to be brought into the castle, and bade that he should be examined by scourging; that he might know wherefore they cried so against him. And as they bound him with thongs, Paul said unto the centurion that stood by, Is it lawful for you to scourge a man that is a Roman, and uncondemned? When the centurion heard that, he went and told the chief captain, saying, Take heed what thou doest: for this man is a Roman. Then the chief captain came, and said unto him, Tell me, art thou a Roman? He said, Yea. And the chief captain answered, With a great sum obtained I this freedom. And Paul said, But I was free born. Then straightway they departed from him which should have examined him: and the chief captain also was afraid, after he knew that he was a Roman, and because he had bound him.

In the Roman Empire, a Roman citizen was under a different law from everyone else. The same is true of the laws of Classical Athens, and I think all of the other Greek city states. Babylon and Assyria also gave more protection to their own people than to foreigners. The Law of Moses, in contrast, was to be applied evenly to resident and alien alike.

Predjudice intrenched in law isn't just a feature of the Ancient World. A few years ago marriage law in Northern Ireland was reformed. The Office of Law Reform sent out a consultation document that explained the history of marriage law in Northern Ireland. Before its recent reform, marriage law in Northern Ireland was fair, just unnecessarily complex, and the reform was to do away with much of the complexity. According to this document, 150 years ago that wasn't the case. Marriage law in Ireland was biased. There was not "one law" applied uniformly as the Law of Moses was to be.

And of course in Nazi Germany, those considered German were under one law, and those considered Jew were under quite another.

We don't live under the law of Moses any more. It was a schoolmaster to bring us into Christ. We are strangers and pilgrims, so we don't make the laws of this land. Surely the message, the lesson, of "Ye shall have one manner of law, as well for the stranger, as for one of your own country" is that we must not be racist, biggoted, or prejudiced, or intolerant. This lesson can also be found in the New Testament. Matthew 5, verses 43 to 47:

Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same? And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so?

Love your enemies. Do good to them that hate you. There is no room for racism there. Even if you think the other race hates you, you are not allowed to hate back. The bigot can find no permission for his intolerance in the word of God. Matthew chapter 7, verse 12:

Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.

Treat others as you would have them treat you. That isn't what the Nazis did. That is not what the people who perpetrate hate crimes do. They treat others as less worthy of the dignity and respect that they believe they are entitled to. I don't think anybody here would be violent towards "aliens" and "strangers". There are so many other ways that we can treat people in ways that we would not want to be treated ourselves. In this country, in every country we are a minority religion. In this country, by the grace of God, we enjoy religious freedom. In return, we should not begrudge the freedom of religion that others enjoy. We shouldn't be intolerant of others differing views. We can, we must disagree with them on occasion, but others have just as much right to their beliefs as we do.

The story of Sodom is a story about racism. The men of Sodom were racists. They didn't like the foriegners that Lot had welcomed into his home. They resented the influence that Lot, himself a forigner, had. The men banging on the door, demanding that the angels were brough out were perhaps the worst. But the people at the back of the crowd, the ones just watching, were also evil.

Normally I don't like "slippery slope" arguments. However, I think the Holocaust teaches us that intolerance is at the top of a slippery slope that leads to genocide.

Rev. Martin Niemoller was a pastor in Germany in the 1930s and 1940s. He initially supported the Nazis, but soon came to declair that he "would rather burn his church to the ground, than to preach the Nazi trinity of race, blood, and soil." In 1945 he wrote these words:

First they came for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up,
because I wasnt a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up,
because I wasnt a Jew.
Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn't speak up,
because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me,
and by that time there was no one
left to speak up for me.

"Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them." By the grace of God, we don't have to fear our government. But that first intolerant act, however slight, the joke, the snide comment, allows somebody else to go slightly further. And then someone else goes slightly further.

Brothers and sisters, nobody in this room is a racist. Nobody is a bigot. But I know I have made comments that could allow people to be treated in a way that I would not want to be treated myself, and I have heard such comments from some people here. Brothers and sisters, such things are sin, and as such we must avoid them.

I saw the Holocaust Memorial Service on BBC2. Rabbi Jonathan Sacks made a beautiful speech. "We can't change the past," he said "but each of us, by challenging prejudice and intolerance, can help to change the future." They way we change the future is by showing others the tolerance that we all deserve, and the tolerance that we would like others to show us. "Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them."

Updated 30 Jan 06

A King to Fight Our Battles

The last time I exhorted from 1 Samuel, I got to chapter 6, where the Ark had just been sent back by the Philistines. In Chapter 8, Israel demands a king. 1 Samuel chapter 8, verses 19 to 22: > Nevertheless the people refused to obey the voice of Samuel; and they said, Nay; but we will have a king over us; That we also may be like all the nations; and that our king may judge us, and go out before us, and fight our battles. And Samuel heard all the words of the people, and he rehearsed them in the ears of the LORD. And the LORD said to Samuel, Hearken unto their voice, and make them a king. And Samuel said unto the men of Israel, Go ye every man unto his city. The people of Israel wanted a King who would judge, or rule, them, a king who would go out before them, and a king who would fight their battles. But what was it that Israel had at this point? To answer that question, we are going to have a look at chapter 7. Starting at verse 3: > And Samuel spake unto all the house of Israel, saying, If ye do return unto the LORD with all your hearts, then put away the strange gods and Ashtaroth from among you, and prepare your hearts unto the LORD, and serve him only: and he will deliver you out of the hand of the Philistines. The children of Israel responded with repentance. They returned to the LORD. Verse 6: > And they gathered together to Mizpeh, and drew water, and poured it out before the LORD, and fasted on that day, and said there, We have sinned against the LORD. And Samuel judged the children of Israel in Mizpeh. What happened next? Well, the people had returned to the LORD, so he delivered them out of the hands of the Philistines. Verse 10: > And as Samuel was offering up the burnt offering, the Philistines drew near to battle against Israel: but the LORD thundered with a great thunder on that day upon the Philistines, and discomfited them; and they were smitten before Israel. The LORD thundered with a great thunder. The LORD himself delivered Israel. On this occasion he didn't use men. He used used the forces of nature. God delivered Israel out of the hands of the Philistines. God fought their battle for them. All Israel had to do was mop up afterwards. What was it that the people ask for in the next chapter? A king who will fight their battles. But what did they already have? A God who would, and did, fight their battles. "Put not your trust in the princes nor in the son of man...Happy is he that hath the God of Jacob for his help, whose hope is in the LORD his God."Psalm 146:3,5 Israel had the God of Jacob for their help, yet they wanted to put their trust in princes and the son of man instead. Remember when Israel was in the wilderness, and they got fed up with the mannah? Guided by a pillar of cloud and a pillar of fire, their clothes did not wear out, and their food miraculously appeared for them every morning. Yet they still weren't satisfied. They wanted something more. The same thing is happening here. They have got God on their side. But they want more. Actually they want less but they want what they think is more. Instead of God fighting their battles, they want a king to fight their battles. Chapter 8, verses 4 to 6: > Then all the elders of Israel gathered themselves together, and came to Samuel unto Ramah, And said unto him, Behold, thou art old, and thy sons walk not in thy ways: now make us a king to judge us like all the nations.But the thing displeased Samuel, when they said, Give us a king to judge us. And Samuel prayed unto the LORD. How does God respond? Verse 7: > And the LORD said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them. They have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me. Now sometimes it's hard to think of God as having emotions. We know that he loves us, and love is an emotion. We know that it is his "good pleasure" to give us the Kingdom. God feels emotion, the same as we do -- although it's really the case that we feel emotion the same as God does, because we are made in his image, not vice versa. "We will have a king over us; That we also may be like all the nations; and that our king may judge us, and go out before us, and fight our battles." They had a king, God, and He was a better King than the men who ruled the nations around them. He didn't just lead them into battle, he literally fought their battles for them. Yet Israel rejected him as their king. Israel's rejection of God as their King must have hurt God. I think just as we can't fully comprehend God's capacity to love, we can't fully comprehend his capacity to feel pain either. But this isn't just one being relating to another. It is about how the created relates to the creator. To reject the creator, when he has done so much for you, isn't just hurtful. It is profane and blasphemous. Now, despite the many failings of Israel, the children of Israel were still the people of God. There is no reason to believe that another nation would have fared better. In fact, given that God knew what Israel was going to be like when he choose them, I think we can say that another nation would have behaved worse. Suppose God was explicitly and undeniably present among us today, as he was when the Israelites were in the Wilderness, as he was when he fought the Philistines. Can you seriously believe that humankind today would be better than Israel of old? Israel rejected God when they had no doubt that he existed. People today would reject God even if they had no doubt about his existence. Can you imagine the blasphemy that would be? That is why God is 'hidden' today. If God was to send manna to us, how long would it be before we were calling out for meat too? But enough speculation about how we, or other people, might fail. Let's return to Chapter 8, verse 10: > And as Samuel was offering up the burnt offering, the Philistines drew near to battle against Israel: but the LORD thundered with a great thunder on that day upon the Philistines, and discomfited them; and they were smitten before Israel. God is powerful, and God protects his people. Just as he fought battles for Israel, he will fight battles for us. That doesn't mean that he is some performing dog, responding to our requests. He is our heavenly father, and he looks after us. Sometimes it is hard to understand his actions. There have been a lot of changes in 2004. Changes in the world, changes in our lives, changes in the ecclesia. If Christ does not return in 2005, this year will doubtless have many changes too. But God will fight our battles, and all things work together for good to those that love him.

"So that the lame may not be disabled, but rather healed"

Today's exhortation on Samuel focuses on the Ark of the Covenant, its brief exile from Israel, and its subsequent return. The story is in 1 Samuel chapters 4 to 6, and it tells us some very interesting things about the state of Israel at the end of Eli's life, as well as contrasting Israel unfavourably with the Philistines. 1 Samuel 4, verses 1 and 2: > Now Israel went out against the Philistines to battle, and pitched beside Ebenezer: and the Philistines pitched in Aphek. And the Philistines put themselves in array against Israel: and when they joined battle, Israel was smitten before the Philistines: and they slew of the army in the field about four thousand men. Israel was defeated by the Philistines. And how did the people of Israel react? Remember when Christ was tempted to throw himself from the Temple? He responded with "You shall not put the LORD God to the test". After their defeat, the people of Israel did exactly that. They put the LORD their God to the test. They went into battle again, but this time they took the ark with them, like some sort of talisman that would ensure success. Eli's sons, Hophni and Phineas, so disrespectful of God when it came to worship, were only too pleased to go with the Ark in its percieved glory. Verse 4: > So the people sent to Shiloh, that they might bring from thence the ark of the covenant of the LORD of hosts, which dwelleth between the cherubims: and the two sons of Eli, Hophni and Phinehas, were there with the ark of the covenant of God. And when the ark of the covenant of the LORD came into the camp, all Israel shouted with a great shout, so that the earth rang again. This terrified the Philistines. Verse 8: > Woe unto us! who shall deliver us out of the hand of these mighty Gods? these are the Gods that smote the Egyptians with all the plagues in the wilderness. The Philisitnes assumed that Israel had many gods, just as they had many gods. But it seems to me, at this point, the Philistines had a better attitude towards the God of Israel that the people of Israel did. The Philistines remembered what had happened to the Egyptians a generation or two ago. The Philistines believed that the God of Israel had smitten the Egyptians. The Children of Israel, on the other hand, were using the Ark as a "good luck" charm, as though somehow the Ark would guarantee their success. I have read some accounts of modern day healing ministries that remind me of Israel and the way they used the Ark on this occasion. These ministries sometimes expect that miracles are handed out by God as if they were sweets to reward faithful followers. The important thing can almost be the miracles, not the God who they expect to perform them, almost on demand. What happened when the Israelites fought the Philistines this time? Verses 10 and 11: > And the Philistines fought, and Israel was smitten, and they fled every man into his tent: and there was a very great slaughter; for there fell of Israel thirty thousand footmen. And the ark of God was taken; and the two sons of Eli, Hophni and Phinehas, were slain. God was not the servant of the Israelites. He was not their performing dog. He did not perform tricks on demand. The presence of Hophni and Phineas with the Ark is enough to show that the whole attitude behind having it there was wrong. Everybody knew what sort of men they were. The Ark of God was taken, and in the next chatper we see how God defeats the Philistines on his own. But first we have the death of Eli. Verse 12: > And there ran a man of Benjamin out of the army, and came to Shiloh the same day with his clothes rent, and with earth upon his head. A man of Benjamin. In a few chapters' time we will be reading a lot more about the tribe of Benjamin, and one particular man, by the name of Saul, in particular. This man of Benjamin is carrying the news of the fall of the house of Eli. I have read suggestions that it may be Saul himself, but even if it's not (and to be honest I don't think it is) there is certainly some drama, some poingancy, in the fact that the message that one great house has fallen is carried by a member of the next house to rise, a house that is ignorant of its future greatness at this time. Verses 15 to 18: > Now Eli was ninety and eight years old; and his eyes were dim, that he could not see. And the man said unto Eli, I am he that came out of the army, and I fled to day out of the army. And he said, What is there done, my son? And the messenger answered and said, Israel is fled before the Philistines, and there hath been also a great slaughter among the people, and thy two sons also, Hophni and Phinehas, are dead, and the ark of God is taken. And it came to pass, when he made mention of the ark of God, that he fell from off the seat backward by the side of the gate, and his neck brake, and he died: for he was an old man, and heavy. You can't help but feel sorry for Eli, imperfect and weak though he was. He hears this terrible news, falls from his chair, and dies. It is a wonderful thing to see prophecy fulfilled. But how terrible a thing it must be if the prophecy you are seeing fulfilled is against you and your family. Phineas' wife was pregnant, and she went into labour when she heard the news. She gave birth to a son. Verses 21 and 22: > And she named the child Ichabod, saying, The glory is departed from Israel: because the ark of God was taken, and because of her father in law and her husband. And she said, The glory is departed from Israel: for the ark of God is taken. Lets get back to the story of the Ark now. Chapter 5, verses 1 and 2: > And the Philistines took the ark of God, and brought it from Ebenezer unto Ashdod. When the Philistines took the ark of God, they brought it into the house of Dagon, and set it by Dagon. Dagon was a god of the Philistines. When they captured the Ark they put it in the temple of one of their gods. Why did they put it there? Was it to worshop God alongside Dagon? Was it to celebrate Dagon's percieved victory over God? Euther way, this was an abhorrent thing to do. The Philistines had defeated the Israelites, but they had not conquered God. > And when they of Ashdod arose early on the morrow, behold, Dagon was fallen upon his face to the earth before the ark of the LORD. And they took Dagon, and set him in his place again. And when they arose early on the morrow morning, behold, Dagon was fallen upon his face to the ground before the ark of the LORD; and the head of Dagon and both the palms of his hands were cut off upon the threshold; only the stump of Dagon was left to him. Therefore neither the priests of Dagon, nor any that come into Dagon's house, tread on the threshold of Dagon in Ashdod unto this day. The day after the Ark arrives in Ashod, the idol of Dagon is found prostrated before it. God was not defeated by Dagon. God was not equal to Dagon. It was Dagon who was prostrate before the Ark, not vice versa. The men of Ashod put Dagon back on his feet. And the next day the statue of Dagon is dammaged. It's head and hands were cut off, the latter being found on the threshold of the temple. This left a lasting impression on the people in Ashod. Because of this they stopped treading on the treshold of the temple. The men of Ashod were beginning to learn respect for God. It wasn't only Dagon that suffered. Verses 6 and 7: > But the hand of the LORD was heavy upon them of Ashdod, and he destroyed them, and smote them with emerods, even Ashdod and the coasts thereof. And when the men of Ashdod saw that it was so, they said, The ark of the God of Israel shall not abide with us: for his hand is sore upon us, and upon Dagon our god. It's not clear what the `emerods' were. They may have been some sort of tumour. They may have been the swellings associated with bubonic plague. They may even have been abscess caused by dysentery, or hemarrhoids. Whatever they were, the people of Ashod put two and two together very quickly. "The ark of the God of Israel shall not abide with us: for his hand is sore upon us, and upon Dagon our god." First of all, notice how they now knew there was one God of Israel, not many. They also knew that the God of Israel was greater than Dagon. And they knew that it was their disrespectful attitude towards the Ark, and towards God, that was causing the problem. The Lords of the Philistines decided to send the Ark to Gath, where it caused the same sort of problem. So the Lords of the Philistines decided to send it to Ekron, but the Ekronites didn't want it - and I can't say I blame them. So the Lords of the Philistines got together again. Verse 11: > So they sent and gathered together all the lords of the Philistines, and said, Send away the ark of the God of Israel, and let it go again to his own place, that it slay us not, and our people: for there was a deadly destruction throughout all the city; the hand of God was very heavy there. They decided to send the Ark back to Israel. Just seven months after they had captured it they were returning it. It was obviously something that they valued, otherwise they would never have brought it back from the battle with them, let alone put it in the temple of Dagon. But they learned their lesson. It wasn't theirs. Chapter 6 verses 3 to 5: > And [the Philistine priests] said, If ye send away the ark of the God of Israel, send it not empty; but in any wise return him a trespass offering: then ye shall be healed, and it shall be known to you why his hand is not removed from you. Then said [the Philistine lords], What shall be the trespass offering which we shall return to him? They answered, Five golden emerods, and five golden mice, according to the number of the lords of the Philistines: for one plague was on you all, and on your lords. Wherefore ye shall make images of your emerods, and images of your mice that mar the land; and ye shall give glory unto the God of Israel: peradventure he will lighten his hand from off you, and from off your gods, and from off your land. Seven months ago, the Israelites had treated the Ark with contempt, expecting miracles on demand. Yet after only seven months the Philistines were treating it with reverence and respect. They wern't just sending it back: they were sending a tresspass offering with it. The Philistines kind of asked for a miracle on demand too. Verses 7 to 9: > Now therefore make a new cart, and take two milch kine, on which there hath come no yoke, and tie the kine to the cart, and bring their calves home from them: And take the ark of the LORD, and lay it upon the cart; and put the jewels of gold, which ye return him for a trespass offering, in a coffer by the side thereof; and send it away, that it may go. And see, if it goeth up by the way of his own coast to Bethshemesh, then he hath done us this great evil: but if not, then we shall know that it is not his hand that smote us: it was a chance that happened to us. The cows' natural inclination would have been to return to their calves. The Philistines decided that if they sent the cows took the Ark to Bethshemesh then that would be a sign that it was the God of Israel that had punished them. On the other hand, if the cows followed their natural instincts and returned to their claves the Ark had nothing to do with their emerods and so on.What did the cows do? Verse 12: > And the kine took the straight way to the way of Bethshemesh, and went along the highway, lowing as they went, and turned not aside to the right hand or to the left; and the lords of the Philistines went after them unto the border of Bethshemesh. The cows took the Ark back to Israel. Why was this miracle on demand performed when the Israelites had been denied their miracle? I would suggest that it has to do with the attitude of the Philistines. First of all, some of them may have been converted by everything that had happened. Any thinking person that worshipped Dagon must have had their faith seriously challenged by all of this. In contrast, consider what the Israelites would have been like. If God had helped them on demand, it would have ended up with God serving them instead of vice versa. Many people in Israel, especially Hophni and Phineas, were showing contempt for God as it was. A defeat, even when the Ark was with them, was what they needed. Consider also the attitude of the two groups. The Philistines were respectful towards the Ark, and in association were respectful towards God. The two previously unyolked cows were a mark of respect. The tresspass offerings were a mark of reprentance. Israel, on the other hand, brought Hophni and Phineas along with the Ark. Hophni and Phoneas themselves did not respect it. Israel was disrespectful towards the Ark, and by association disrespectful towards God. Is it really any wonder that the respectful Philistines were granted their small miracle, but Israel, full of contempt, was denied their large miracle? The Ark arrives in Bethshemesh. The men of Bethshemesh send the Ark on. Verse 21 to verse 2 of chapter 7: > And they sent messengers to the inhabitants of Kirjathjearim, saying, The Philistines have brought again the ark of the LORD; come ye down, and fetch it up to you.And the men of Kirjathjearim came, and fetched up the ark of the LORD, and brought it into the house of Abinadab in the hill, and sanctified Eleazar his son to keep the ark of the LORD. And it came to pass, while the ark abode in Kirjathjearim, that the time was long; for it was twenty years: and all the house of Israel lamented after the LORD. The house of Israel lamented after the LORD. The Philistines learned to respect the God of Israel, but so did the Israelites. The Israelites were punished by defeat in battle and by the loss of the Ark. We will now have a reading, from Hebrews 12, verses 1 to 13, reading from the NIV: > Therefore, since we are surrounded by such a great cloud of witnesses, let us throw off everything that hinders and the sin that so easily entangles, and let us run with perseverance the race marked out for us. Let us fix our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy set before him endured the cross, scorning its shame, and sat down at the right hand of the throne of God. Consider him who endured such opposition from sinful men, so that you will not grow weary and lose heart. In your struggle against sin, you have not yet resisted to the point of shedding your blood. And you have forgotten that word of encouragement that addresses you as sons: "My son, do not make light of the Lord's discipline, and do not lose heart when he rebukes you, because the Lord disciplines those he loves, and he punishes everyone he accepts as a son." Endure hardship as discipline; God is treating you as sons. For what son is not disciplined by his father? If you are not disciplined (and everyone undergoes discipline), then you are illegitimate children and not true sons. Moreover, we have all had human fathers who disciplined us and we respected them for it. How much more should we submit to the Father of our spirits and live! Our fathers disciplined us for a little while as they thought best; but God disciplines us for our good, that we may share in his holiness. No discipline seems pleasant at the time, but painful. Later on, however, it produces a harvest of righteousness and peace for those who have been trained by it. Therefore, strengthen your feeble arms and weak knees. "Make level paths for your feet," so that the lame may not be disabled, but rather healed.

Eli, his sons, and Samuel

I am continuing my series of exhortations on the book of Samuel today, and I want to consider the demise of Eli and his sons, and the rise of Samuel. First Samuel chapter two, verse 12: > Now the sons of Eli were sons of Belial; they knew not the LORD. "Sons of Belial"--does that remind you of anything? Calling someone a son of Belial is like calling them a "good for nothing" (See "World Biblical Commentary 10: 1 Samuel, Ralph W.Klein, p 25). This is exactly what Eli mistook Hannah for in the previous chapter. When he saw her praying, he thought she was drunk. Hannah actually said to him "Count not thine handmaid for a daughter of Belial"(1 Sam 1:16). How sad for Eli; his sons were good for nothing, an attribute he himself unjustly applied to others. What was it that the sons of Eli did? For one thing, they abhorred the sacrifices to God. Verses 12 to 17: > And the priest's custom with the people was, that, when any man offered sacrifice, the priest's servant came, while the flesh was in seething, with a fleshhook of three teeth in his hand; And he struck it into the pan, or kettle, or caldron, or pot; all that the fleshhook brought up the priest took for himself. So they did in Shiloh unto all the Israelites that came thither. Also before they burnt the fat, the priest's servant came, and said to the man that sacrificed, Give flesh to roast for the priest; for he will not have sodden flesh of thee, but raw. And if any man said unto him, Let them not fail to burn the fat presently, and then take as much as thy soul desireth; then he would answer him, Nay; but thou shalt give it me now: and if not, I will take it by force. Wherefore the sin of the young men was very great before the LORD: for men abhorred the offering of the LORD. As we know, different parts of the animal sacrifices were allocated to the priests: the breast and the right thigh are mentioned in Leviticus 7:28 to 36, and Deuteronomy 18:3 specifies the shoulder, the jowls and the stomach of an ox or sheep that was sacrificed. The fat of the offering was not to go to the priests, but to be burnt on the altar, it was to be given to God, and it was after the fat was burned that the priests received their portion. This isn't what happened at Shiloh. The priests took what they wanted, and they took it before the fat was offered. The people objected--they wanted the fat to be given to God--and the priests threatened to use force to get what they wanted. Think about the seriousness of this sin. God had made it clear in the Law of Moses how he wanted the priests to be fed from the sacrifice. The priests, the sons of Eli, weren't happy with that and they took what they wanted. The people wanted to worship God in the way that he had specified, and the priests were stopping them. It is almost as bad as the opposition Christ faced from the Jewish establishment. The very people you would expect to uphold the standards of the Law were in fact the first to break them. At verse 18, the focus changes from Eli and his sons, back to Samuel. 1 Samuel 18, verses 18 to 21: > But Samuel ministered before the LORD, being a child, girded with a linen ephod. Moreover his mother made him a little coat, and brought it to him from year to year, when she came up with her husband to offer the yearly sacrifice. And Eli blessed Elkanah and his wife, and said, The LORD give thee seed of this woman for the loan which is lent to the LORD. And they went unto their own home. And the LORD visited Hannah, so that she conceived, and bare three sons and two daughters. And the child Samuel grew before the LORD. The child grew, and he grew before the LORD. What a terrible environment he was growing up in. It was not a centre of worship and holiness, but a place of blasphemy and intimidation. It would have been so easy for Samuel to be corrupted by what was around him, but he was not. He grew before the LORD. Perhaps he learned from Eli, perhaps he learned from his parents, perhaps he learned on his own. But however he did it he grew before the LORD. I wonder how Hannah felt? She saw her son growing up surrounded by corrupt men, yet he remained untainted by them. In verses 21 to 25 we are back to Eli's sons: > Now Eli was very old, and heard all that his sons did unto all Israel; and how they lay with the women that assembled at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation. And he said unto them, Why do ye such things? for I hear of your evil dealings by all this people. Nay, my sons; for it is no good report that I hear: ye make the LORD's people to transgress. If one man sin against another, the judge shall judge him: but if a man sin against the LORD, who shall intreat for him? Notwithstanding they hearkened not unto the voice of their father, because the LORD would slay them. Eli rebukes his sons, eventually. He was fast enough to rebuke the innocent Hannah, but he didn't rebuke his own evil sons until he was very old. What was the primary thing he rebuked them about? Was it the corrupt way they fed themselves from the sacrifices? Was it the way they threatened the people? No. It was something much less important. He rebuked them for their sexual promiscuity. I'm not going to say that it was right for them to lie with the women at the door, because it was most certainly wrong. I am saying that it is very surprising that Eli didn't seem to do anything about their abohorration of the offerings to the LORD. Divorce and remarriage is wrong. None of us disagree with that. Divorce and remarriage is not blasphemy against the holy spirit, which means that it is forgivable. Yet in the Christadelphian community we have people who are, dare I say it, obsessed with this issue. And when they put their energies into rooting out this sin, ignoring more serious problems, are they not behaving as Eli was? Certainly those Christadelphians who would have the whole world conform to our moral standards, perhaps through legislation, but seem less concerned about how those in the world have rejected God are doing exactly what Eli did. Before Eli is told that his house will come to an end, we have another verse about Samuel. Verse 26: "And the child Samuel grew on, and was in favour both with the LORD, and also with men." Samuel, the child Samuel, grew in favour with God and men. He was taking the position that Eli's sons should have done. And what was to become of Eli's sons? Verses 27 to the end of the chapter: > And there came a man of God unto Eli, and said unto him, Thus saith the LORD, Did I plainly appear unto the house of thy father, when they were in Egypt in Pharaoh's house? And did I choose him out of all the tribes of Israel to be my priest, to offer upon mine altar, to burn incense, to wear an ephod before me? and did I give unto the house of thy father all the offerings made by fire of the children of Israel? Wherefore kick ye at my sacrifice and at mine offering, which I have commanded in my habitation; and honourest thy sons above me, to make yourselves fat with the chiefest of all the offerings of Israel my people? Wherefore the LORD God of Israel saith, I said indeed that thy house, and the house of thy father, should walk before me for ever: but now the LORD saith, Be it far from me; for them that honour me I will honour, and they that despise me shall be lightly esteemed. Behold, the days come, that I will cut off thine arm, and the arm of thy father's house, that there shall not be an old man in thine house. And thou shalt see an enemy in my habitation, in all the wealth which God shall give Israel: and there shall not be an old man in thine house for ever. And the man of thine, whom I shall not cut off from mine altar, shall be to consume thine eyes, and to grieve thine heart: and all the increase of thine house shall die in the flower of their age. And this shall be a sign unto thee, that shall come upon thy two sons, on Hophni and Phinehas; in one day they shall die both of them. And I will raise me up a faithful priest, that shall do according to that which is in mine heart and in my mind: and I will build him a sure house; and he shall walk before mine anointed for ever. And it shall come to pass, that every one that is left in thine house shall come and crouch to him for a piece of silver and a morsel of bread, and shall say, Put me, I pray thee, into one of the priests' offices, that I may eat a piece of bread. You couldn't possibly doubt what was going to happen. I always have mixed feelings about Eli when I read this passage. "Wherefore kick ye at my sacrifice and at mine offering, which I have commanded in my habitation; and honourest thy sons above me, to make yourselves fat with the chiefest of all the offerings of Israel my people?" Eli had been wicked, and he was being punished. This was the beginning of the end of Eli's line, and it was his fault. Poor Eli. He was weak and he failed. Wicked Eli. He had kicked at God's sacrifice. He honoured his sons above God. The effects of this prophecy, against Eli and his house, surface several times under the Monarchy. Eli sees it's initial fulfilment when his two sons die on the same day. Saul massacres Eli's descendants, the priests at Nob, and only Abathiar escapes. The faithful priest that gets raised up is, not Samuel, but Zadok. Where is the exhortation in this, brothers and sisters? Where in this sad story of failure and blasphemy can we find strength and courage? The answer to that lies in the fulfilment of the prophecy. When we read of the massacre at Nob, or the rise of Zadok, we can see the power of prophecy. We can see that God controls the world. We can see that God works in the Kingdom of Men, giving it to whomsoever he will. First Corinthians chapter 11, verses 23 to 26: > For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, this cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come. We can look forward to the return of Christ with confidence, with certainty that it will happen, because in the pages of the Bible we have many other prophecies, such as the fall of the house of Eli, which have been fulfilled.