What Happens When God is not With Us (1 Samuel 4)

Samuel disappears from the story at 4:1 and does not reappear until chapter 7, which describes an event that occurred twenty years after the Battle detailed in this chapter. We do not know how old Samuel was when this event occurred, but it is clear that he had nothing to do with it. The focus in chapters 4–6 is on the ark of the covenant.

The Philistines

The Philistines originally came from Greece but moved south to Crete before settling in an area on the Mediterranean coast that was roughly similar to the Gaza strip today. It is from them that the modern name ‘Palestine’ is derived. They had come to that area before the children of Israel did, for both Abraham and Isaac had dealings with them. The children of Israel were instructed by God not to travel through the land of the Philistines when on the way to Canaan (Exod. 13:17). The Philistines had a treaty with Egypt and fought on its side. They were a constant source of trouble for Israel down the following centuries. That is the historical description, but are there any spiritual principles we can detect from their role?

I think there are two, with the second being the most important. First, the Philistines came to the promised land without going through the Passover or the Red Sea, which are pictures of redemption. It is possible to see the Philistines as depicting those who try and enjoy God’s blessings without being redeemed. Second, we noticed when studying Ephesians that the enemies of Israel living within the promised land illustrate the spiritual foes that believers encounter as they attempt to enjoy God’s blessings. What we have here is a picture of the spiritual conflict the people of God have with their enemies.

A Correct Question

In verse 3, after the defeat of the armies of Israel in battle with the Philistines, the leaders of Israel ask an important question, one that we should be asking today when the church is losing many battles, even in our own locality. The question acknowledges both the sovereignty of God and the corporate experience of the people of God. When things go wrong, it is right that we should examine ourselves. Here the leaders took responsibility in asking the question, and that is an area in which church leaders should always be on the guard. I think it is also worth noting that the defeat involved the whole body of Israel; none could detach themselves from it even if they personally had a right relationship with God. We see the proper attitude in this regard in the prayer of Daniel, who confessed the sins of the people as his own sins, even although he was not personally guilty.

An Incorrect Answer

The answer they propose is to take the ark of God with them on the next occasion of battle. What was signified by the ark? At least three aspects of God’s relationship with Israel were depicted in this ark. First, it was God’s throne; he sat between the cherubim. We know from later scriptures that this is a reflection of the throne room in heaven. Second, it was the place where reconciliation was made annually on the Day of Atonement when the high priest entered on behalf of the nation of Israel. Third, the ark was the place of divine revelation, for it contained the revealed law of God and was also the place where God’s will was revealed to the high priest. Given these features, it is not surprising that the leaders decided to take the Ark with them.

But what were the reasons for taking it? I will suggest three possibilities. The first possible reason was assuming that actions from the past will be honoured by God in the present. The ark had led the children of Israel through the wilderness, and the God it represented helped his people defeat their enemies. Surely he would do the same again! We could describe this as the policy of depending on tradition.

A second possible is that the Israelites had become so spiritually immature they reduced the ark to an equivalent of an idol, and imagined that its physical presence guaranteed victory. This outlook would be a problem throughout Israel’s history, for we find false prophets on the eve of the exile assuring the people that Judah could not be defeated by the Babylonians because God’s temple was still standing in Jerusalem. This outlook can be described as superstition.

The third possible reason was that they were putting God to the test. This thinking argues that if one creates a situation in which God has to honour his name, then he will come and do so. It was unthinkable that God would allow a defeat against his name. This outlook can be described as manipulation, of thinking that God can be controlled by his people.

It is not only the children of Israel long ago who think like that. We today can do the same. We live in an age of spiritual decline, and despite our awareness of God as ruler, reconciler and revealer, these three responses appear repeatedly with us. Some take refuge in tradition – there is nothing wrong with old practices if they are helpful, but unless God has told us to practice them they will not be of any help as we fight our spiritual battles. Others assume that because the signs of God’s presence are with us – his word and his sacraments – we are secure. But the presence of the signs is no guarantee that God is with us; an assumption like this is merely superstition. Others set up their innovative remedies with enthusiasm, some very ingenious and striking, but give the impression that God is bound to bless these new methods. But the reality is, that just like Israel of old, we are not blessed by him whether our position is one of tradition, superstition, or innovation.

What was the problem with the Israelites? The defeat did not happen because of the strength of the Philistines. The problem was with the relationship the Israelites had with their God. As a people they had departed from the Lord and his ways, and therefore they were defeated.

A Disastrous Experience?

There are several lessons that we can learn from this incident. First, God is prepared to let his people be defeated if their relationship with him is not right. The three responses about which we have been thinking are merely three ways of outward reformation; none of them gets to the heart of the issue. In a sense, they are attempts to hide the problem. As we noted, the problem was sin. One of the helpful sections of Scripture in this regard are the warnings the Saviour gives to the seven churches of Asia. With five of these churches he finds fault, and with two of the five we would have been pleased, those in Ephesus and Sardis. Ephesus was doctrinally orthodox, purged out heresies, while Sardis had a name that she was alive. Yet Jesus was prepared to let them go out of existence if they did not repent of their sins of lovelessness and hypocrisy.

Second, God is prepared to allow his name to be humiliated if the relationship with his people in a given place is not right. There was great celebration in the Philistine camp, although we know their celebrations was short-lived. But the point I am making is that God was prepared to give both his people and their enemy the illusion that he had been defeated. This has happened repeatedly throughout church history – the thriving church of North Africa, which produced many of the great theologians, disappeared centuries ago under the attack of Islam. God has allowed his name to be humiliated there for a long time. I suspect something similar is happening in western Europe, where the Reformation brought blessings that lasted for centuries. God is prepared to let his name be humiliated in Britain if his church is not in a right relationship with him.

Third, the action of the Israelites removed the fear the pagans had of the God of history. At first, the Philistines were apprehensive of taking on in battle the assumed presence of such a God who had done great things in the past. But when they discovered that the presence of the ark added nothing to Israel, they concluded they had nothing to fear. Is it the case that the church’s response of recent decades, whether it be tradition, superstition or innovation, which has achieved almost nothing has caused society to lose its fear of God. A church in a wrong relationship with God is not an army to be feared by either the devil or the world.

Fourth, when this type of thing happens, we are not to assume that God is doing nothing, for he is present but acting in judgement. In this situation, he fulfilled his own word about the house of Eli. Yet even the way Eli died, and the concern expressed by his daughter-in-law, as well as the general concern of the people, suggests that some of the people had begun to realise that there was a problem. It may be, that in the current weakness of the church, the Lord is removing outdated ideas, superstitious notions and irrelevant innovations to bring about a church that repents of her wrong relationship with her Lord, and hopefully there are some with the eyes to see this and examine their relationship with Jesus.

Fifth, God must withdraw himself from his people in order for them to turn and seek him. When they realise he is not there, then they become serious about their devotion and commitment. This is anticipating a future event at Mizpah, but what is need is self-humbling, confession of sin and rededication of ourselves, of acknowledging our total dependence on him. In a right relationship he is regarded as the Sovereign God who rules his church, as the Saviour God who redeems his church, and the Speaking God who enlivens and instructs his church. These mean that we should be submissive to his rule, dependent on his mercy, and expectant of and experiencing his life-giving Word in its fullness.