THREE:
GOD WITH MAN
I wrote earlier that certain corporeal acts amounted to ‘turning away’ from God: rebellions which God took seriously; acts through which early man delivered himself over to perils, calamities, and plagues. Remember: God also creates evil. Perhaps, these may be viewed as boundaries, beyond which man is not able to extend his will. And, man is a rebellious lot. But, God is willing, it seems, to work with us when some acts of ‘turning away’ are needful. Witness Exodus 30:11-12, "And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, When thou takest the sum of the children of Israel after their number, then shall they give every man a ransom for his soul unto the Lord, when thou numberest them; that there be no plague among them, when thou numberest them."
Early concepts of man’s connection to God placed a division between God and man. Such primitive concepts still abound. It is like saying the island is separate and different from the ocean floor that surrounds it. The Hebrew view of God set Him at a distance (in the heavens), watching. God was big and scary; He could sneak up on you, and was just as apt to drop the hammer as do a favor. As they saw Him, He was either for you or against you; either with you or with the other guy. The Hebrew psyche revolved around a responsive life style that (hopefully) kept God on their side.
Numbers 14:9 points to this, "Only rebel not ye against the Lord, neither fear ye the people of the land; for they are bread for us: their defence is departed from them, and the Lord is with us: fear them not." Deuteronomy 1:42 also points to this, "And the Lord said unto me, Say unto them. Go not up, neither fight; for I am not among you; lest ye be smitten before your enemies." Likewise Judges 6:16, "And the Lord said unto him, Surely I will be with thee, and thou shalt smite the Midianites as one man."
Between man and God there is an interface: it is, if you will, a mirror. God stands on the one side while man stands on the other. Each looks through to their reflection. Man looks at God and sees himself ; God looks at man and sees Himself. The next verse shows that God is not as far away as man has put Him. Numbers 17:5 shows us how close God really is, "And it shall come to pass, that the man's rod, whom I shall choose, shall blossom: and I will make to cease from me the murmurings of the children of Israel, whereby they murmur against you."
To most it was, and still is, enough to hope that God was with man; it was enough to know that God was with certain special individuals. These individuals exemplified the general consensus of the greater qualities of God. Not only was greater power seen in the lives of these individuals, but they seemed to be in possession of the very nature of God. Great characters of the Bible (Moses, David, Samuel, etc,) were often and highly praised for ‘higher’ attributes usually associated with God. 1 Samuel 16:17-18 points to some attributes praised in David, "And Saul said unto his servants, Provide me now a man that can play well, and bring him to me. Then answered one of the servants, and said, Behold, I have seen a son of Jesse the Bethlehemite, that is cunning in playing, and a mighty valiant man, and a man of war, and prudent in matters, and a comely person, and the Lord is with him." More follows in 1 Samuel 18:14, "And David behaved himself wisely in all his ways; and the Lord was with him." These attributes, usually of a mental nature and having a relationship to ‘communication’, will later be seen in abundance.
It must be said that the relationship of God and man has never been static. There has always been communication; in fact, that is one of the most visible hallmarks of the relationship. There was, of course, communication from man to God, usually a formal or ritualized prayer. There was also communication from God to man. The most normal and acceptable to the mind set of the time was a pronouncement from a priest. Certain individuals, however, could be seen speaking to God. These men were rare and spooky, for God’s answer could be seen. Moses was such a man; Elijah was such a man; and Samuel was such a man. 1 Samuel 12:18 shows this, "So Samuel called unto the Lord; and the Lord sent thunder and rain that day: and all the people greatly feared the Lord and Samuel." Communication is the issue here, and the image of God is that part of a man that can be communicated with. This is the reasoning: if an invisible God looks into the mirror at man and sees Himself, is the reflection corporeal or spiritual? It will be asserted that our cognitive abilities are spiritual; that ‘spiritual’ and ‘communication’ go hand in hand; that there is no action without communication. Numbers 14:20 states, "And the Lord said, I have pardoned according to thy word."
Take a close look at 1 Samuel 3:19. "And Samuel grew, and the Lord was with him, and did let none of His words fall to the ground." Such a verse as this one indicates the personal nature of the relationship of God and mankind. To what do I draw your attention but the phrase "fall to the ground"? The reference in this verse is to a seed, but how are we to interpret it? Of references that involve seeds, the mind might go toward sayings of Jesus, such as mustard seeds that grow big in a good way or wheat seeds that fall to the ground and die (a reference to Christ’s work). However, in regard to a personal relationship, one’s attention should be drawn to the childless widow of the Old Testament. The brother was responsible to take her to himself. He was called upon to have a relationship with her; to communicate seed to her, that she could produce heirs in her husband’s name. In a similar manner, God has taken man to Himself. Indeed, our relationship with God is often couched in intimate terms: Christ referred to Himself as the ‘bridegroom’.
What is the point of this study? It is to investigate the ‘mirror’: that interface between God and man. Man looks into that mirror, yet struggles to make sense of it. Man’s language struggles too, for how does one describe an invisibility? Such a burden of inability! - and yet, volumes have been written. Man’s approach to the invisible has normally been by way of comparison. Among man’s many writings on what he cannot see, two words stand forth to bear the burden of his attempts.
