The Word Became Fresh

How to Preach from Old Testament Narrative Texts

Dale Ralph Davis

• Publisher: Christian Focus Publication
• Year: 2012
• eBook ISBN: 9781781911372

Chapter 7

Appropriation

Alexander Whyte was writing to a discouraged Methodist minister by name of Jenkins:

Never think of giving up preaching! The angels around the throne envy you your great work. You [he quotes Jenkins] ‘scarcely know how or what to preach.’ Look into your own sinful heart, and back into your sinful life, and around on the world full of sin and misery, and open your New Testament, and make application of Christ to yourself and your people…¹

Application or appropriation of Scripture is not so over-whelmingly difficult if one begins at the right place: ‘Look into your own sinful heart, and back into your sinful life.’ If a preacher has a lively sense of his own depravity he won’t have much trouble applying Scripture. Hence, a la Whyte, use your sinful nature to good advantage – you will apply the word of God in its narrative form much more potently…and graciously.

Now I suppose, I even know, that some say our work is to expound and clarify Scripture but not to apply it, not to rub it into the pores of saints and sinners. That, some would say, is the Holy Spirit’s work. But unless one is prepared to say that the Spirit abominates working through human instruments there is no reason he wouldn’t be pleased to use not only our work in explaining Scripture but also our sweat in applying Scripture.² I’ve no relish for a debate. I hold that a reader who does not appropriate and/or a teacher who will not apply Scripture is practicing abortion on the Bible. Here is my presupposition on the matter:

God has given his word for our instruction and obedience, for our endurance and encouragement; therefore any interpretation that stops short of appropriation is illegitimate.³

Here I intend to discuss deriving application from Old Testa-ment narrative texts. Let’s get to it…but let’s ease into it slowly.

We begin with a caution: don’t assume that application from narrative is obvious.

Narrative is a bit deceptive. Here the text comes in story form. It seems fairly simple and straight-forward. All that remains is to glean an obvious ‘lesson’ or two out of it. I am not implying that only some hermeneutical high priest can work out proper applications; I am saying that proper application can take more sweat than we may think.

Take 1 Kings 17:2-16. Here Yahweh commands Elijah to go into hiding near the wadi Cherith and assures him that wadi water is for drinking and that ravens will bring him interesting things to eat. Sure enough, Yahweh is as good as his word with those reliable ravens arriving regularly with the prophet’s menu. When the wadi dries up, Yahweh directs him to Phoenicia where Elijah finds the Lord’s next supplier, a widow an hour away from eating her last supper. As I read I can’t help but rejoice in Yahweh’s faithfulness in sustaining his servant. And I may suffer no identity crisis at all. I may simply reason that as Elijah is the Lord’s servant, so am I (even if Elijah served with more flair), and that Elijah here typifies every believer. Hence what he did for Elijah he will do for me – I can always count on food and drink no matter what. Of course, I will fervently hope the Lord has raised his sanitation standards over the course of redemptive history so that my daily bread will not be raven road-kill. Still, I can be off to Matthew 6:25-34 or Luke 12:22-31 and it’s been a swell devotional time.

Perhaps the Spirit cries, ‘Whoa!’ Why do we think that Elijah typifies every believer? Why do we identify with Elijah here? Who is Elijah? He is the bearer of Yahweh’s word – he has the office of prophet (17:1). And his hiding is likely not so much protection from Ahab as a parable to him: when the bearer of Yahweh’s word goes into hiding it means Yahweh’s word has been hidden from king and people. This withholding of God’s word is a token of God’s judgment. True, Yahweh sustains his prophet. But why do I so easily identify with Elijah? What about the believing remnant in Israel (cf. 1 Kings 19:18) who cling to Yahweh and yet have no rhythmic ravens making daily deliveries? Why don’t I identify myself with those believers who endured the drought and ravages of famine along with the rest of (apostate) Israel and who may have had no special provision from God? Why do I insist on putting myself in the sandals of the office-bearer rather than in those of the remnant?

What then am I saying? That contemporary believers cannot apply 1 Kings 17:2-16 for their own comfort? No, I am only saying that the application may lie in a different direction than we may all too easily suppose. My concern here is not to interpret/apply this text.⁴ I only want to underscore that application is not obvious and that it can take a good deal of concentration and perspiration.

I remember my first term in seminary. We had beginning Greek exegesis and were to work in Philippians. That was good, I thought, because I’d already studied it carefully (I thought) – I had preached through the epistle in a college student pastorate. But then came exegesis class. Here is a particular phrase. The prof suggests three possible ways of taking it. That’s two more than I’d ever considered. Now once you go through that process a dozen times or so, you can almost decide to become a biblical agnostic, throw up your hands, and cry, ‘I’ll never know what this epistle means!’ Gradually I began to recover from such despair. But, looking back, I’m pleased I had to wallow through that experience. I needed it. I needed to come to a point where I began to think: I’m not sure I know how to interpret the Bible. Then I might make some progress! That is my point here: do not too easily assume that – well, of course, you know how to apply this narrative.

‘Handles’ that can lead to application

I would like to provide some help for the Bible reader or Bible teacher for moving from narrative to application, or, as some put it, from preaching to meddling. I’m a bit reluctant because I don’t have a sure-fire, ready-made recipe for doing so. I can identify a few of what I call ‘handles’ (or ‘pointers’) that one can look for in texts that may lead one to application. I can label or categorize these ‘handles’ and discuss them. But the categories are not air-tight, the list is not exhaustive; it’s only a gimmick meant to give the illusion of organization while we discuss such things. As long as these caveats are understood we can proceed.⁵

Procedural

Here I mean that I get a clue for application by analyzing the procedure that is going on in the text, often a procedure that the lead character or characters are following. Case in point: 1 Kings 14:1-18, especially verses 1-6.

Royal Relief

Here we find King Jeroboam prepping his wife on how to approach the old prophet Ahijah. King and Mrs. Jeroboam’s son is ill, likely the heir to the throne. Jeroboam wants to know if he’ll recover and he insists on certain matters likely to maximize Ahijah’s giving them a good word about the lad. His wife must disguise herself – no imported perfume, no classy attire; she must look like Mrs. Ordinary Israelite. (Jeroboam needn’t have bothered – Ahijah couldn’t see anyway). Why was he so concerned the prophet not recognize the royal wife? The text doesn’t explicitly say but our guess is all but certain. When Ahijah had originally informed Jeroboam of his coming kingship over ten tribes, he had warned him that he must live a David-like life if he wanted a David-like dynasty (1 Kings 11:38). But Jeroboam got to thinking it over and decided Israel needed its own ‘down home’ religion in place of the authorized worship in Jerusalem. Hence the bull in Bethel and in Dan (12:25-33). He felt more secure having a religion he could control and a people who weren’t cozying up to Jerusalem. He held to this course (13:33-34). So naturally Jeroboam is ill-at-ease about this Ahijah encounter. Ahijah likely views Jeroboam and his religious policy with disdain and will surely answer any query from the king with a scathing denunciation. But if Jeroboam sends his wife, and in disguise, why, Ahijah was much more likely to be compassionate, or at least ‘objective.’ Who could pronounce a severe word against a dear Israelite mother worried to death over her son? This was likely Jeroboam’s thinking. But though Ahijah’s sight was shot his hearing was superb, and Yahweh tipped him off about the king’s whole scheme (14:4-5). And Ahijah did have a heavy word for her (vv. 7-16).

When we focus on Jeroboam’s procedure here, doesn’t it open up a path for application (though not the only one from this passage)? Commendably, Jeroboam wants the word of God in his trouble; not so commendably, he has ignored that word throughout his reign. He wants to hear that his son will recover, but he doesn’t want to eradicate the bastard worship he has injected into Israel’s bloodstream. He wants God’s word to alleviate his distress; he does not want it to set his course. He wants that word for his relief but not for his rule; he wants to use but not to follow God’s word. He welcomes it as a horoscope to give light on his present dilemma but not as a compass to direct his whole journey. It is a resource he consults, not a regimen to which he submits. He needs its comfort but wants none of its correction. The word of God has become a prostitute – for temporary use only. Once we see this Jeroboam-pattern here we immediately recognize that we see it repeatedly in the course of ministry – one frequently finds people eager for Jesus’ aspirin but not interested in his kingship. How often ‘Jeroboam’ comes to the pastor’s study for help. It’s even scarier: sometimes the pastor sees the same tendency in his own soul.

Major Mess

Take a look at Genesis 27 – a major fiasco with each human character operating on his/her own principle. We must remember God’s previous word in Genesis 25:23 as we come to Genesis 27: ‘The older shall serve the younger.’

Immediately we run smack into stubborn Isaac (vv. 1-4). He wants some of Esau’s wild game barbecue (cf. 25:28) and then he intends to give Esau his blessing before he dies. Isaac lives by his senses; to be sure, he has no sight (v. 1), so he leans on taste (v. 4), touch (vv. 11, 16, 21-22), smell (vv. 15, 27), and hearing (v. 22). Though he has most of his senses, he has little true sense. Without a doubt he must have known God’s clear word to Rebekah in 25:23 (one can’t conceive of Rebekah hiding such an urgent and weighty matter from her husband); and yet, here he is flying in the face of it (27:4). By his ‘Esau plan’ he stands in direct opposition to the clearly given word of God. He will arrange covenant affairs his way. It seems so blatant but one can usually rationalize such matters easily enough. In any case, here is Isaac operating by palate over promise. He is the patron saint of all who say, ‘I don’t really care what the word of God says, I must follow my feelings.’

But then eavesdropping Rebekah goes into action (vv. 5-10). Follow Rebekah and watch how action eclipses faith. She doesn’t diddle around – something had to be done. One wonders if Rebekah wasn’t a tad irked at the way Isaac went goo-goo over Esau’s culinary skills.⁶ Why, she could stir up the same stuff with goat meat! Rebekah is the patron saint of all who serve the ‘helpless God,’ who has no hands but our hands, etc., no schemes but my schemes. She does not bring up the promise issue with Isaac and leave the matter in Yahweh’s hands; rather, she seeks to manipulate and deceive. Sometimes our activity may be an expression of faith and sometimes it may be a substitute for faith – and Rebekah’s was the latter. We help God out because he is not adequate to care for his own cause. God is a great Promiser, we think, but we cannot trust him to care for and protect his own promise.

There is no ‘Mother! That’s totally devious!’ in Jacob’s reactions. He is not shocked by Rebekah’s ethics but by the flaws in her plan. He does not say it is wicked but unworkable (vv. 11-12). He has no problem with straight-out, bare-faced lying (vv. 18-19, 24), but one must be careful to be successful at it. His principle is pragmatism over righteousness. He was the typical American before there ever was one.

When Rebekah and Jacob’s ‘successful’ scheme comes to light, it blows Isaac’s socks off (v. 33) and sends Esau into a pity-filled rage (vv. 34, 36, 38). And before sympathy clouds our reason, we must keep 25:29-34 in mind. Esau had already sold his birthright (and thus his right to the blessing) to Jacob for a mere meal.⁷ The writer tells us how we are to assess Esau’s sale: ‘So Esau despised the birthright’ (25:34). We can admit Esau to have been a real man’s man – certainly his father’s favorite. An outdoorsman par excellence. One imagines him always having a copy of Field and Stream sticking out of his back pocket. And one can grant that he was terribly wronged in Jacob’s deceiving Isaac. Still, 25:34 gives the bald truth in the matter. It’s as if the writer is saying: Don’t let the tears (27:38) fool you; he didn’t give a rip about the birthright and therefore the blessing; soup mattered more. Pulling this together we can say that indifference in spite of emotion characterizes Esau here.

In the summary above I’ve highlighted the approach of the characters in this episode and, hopefully, in each case you can see a ‘handle’ for moving toward application. However, in this text (and the text rules, doesn’t it?) we must not become so enamored with the human characters that we miss the big point.⁸ Where are we left at the end of Genesis 27? With four sinners – and all of them in the wrong, all of them misusing or abusing Yahweh’s promise (25:23) in some way. Did Yahweh approve of Rebekah and Jacob’s shenanigans since they were both pro-promise? No. Nor of Isaac’s thick-headed resistance to it. But Yahweh’s promise did come to pass. So the text teaches us that Yahweh’s promise will prove true in spite of all efforts to sabotage it. In spite of the network of ‘free’ and sinful wills opposing or ‘aiding’ his decision, God brings his word to pass – if not through man’s consent then in the face of his resistance, if not through man’s cooperation then through and in spite of his rebellion. What hope and help that should give his people! It can be useful to trace the procedure of characters in a narrative and thereby to find pointers for application; but it’s wrong to be so taken with those items that we turn our eyes off the invincible God the text reveals.

Conceptual

Some narrative texts want to make us think or change the way we think; they want, as we say, to play with our mind. Hence some texts lend themselves to what I would call a conceptual application. We are not too keen on this these days; we would rather textual applications move our emotions or explain our duty. We may think all of application involves either soothing our feelings or directing our behavior, not renewing our mind. But often a biblical narrative wants to get us to change our thinking or adopt its perspective on matters. Several examples…

The worst of times

Take a look at 1 Kings 16:29-17:1. The writer introduces Ahab, Israel’s new king – and the new paganism he brings in with him. Jeroboam had already spread a pallor of death over Israel with his bull-calf worship (12:25-33), but Ahab was giving her the lethal injection of Baal worship. The writer pounds this peril into us as he tells us that Ahab married Jezebel, the daughter of Ethbaal, that he served Baal, erected an altar to Baal, and built a temple of Baal (16:31-32). Just like that. Nothing to stop him. Then:

Elijah the Tishbite from the sojourners in Gilead said to Ahab, ‘By the life of Yahweh the God of Israel, before whom I stand, there will not be dew or rain these years except by my word’ (1 Kings 17:1).

Ronald Wallace has captured this moment so well that I quote him at length:

Elijah appears on the scene with startling suddenness. Indeed, his appearance is a mystery. We want to know more about this man when we suddenly see him stand before the king. We want to know where he came from, and where he was trained in the things of God. We want to know how he received his call to be a prophet to his time. But we know as little about him as Ahab knew about him, and it is better so. For to see him appear thus reminds us that we need not despair when we see great movements of evil achieving spectacular success on this earth, for we may be sure that God, in unexpected places, has already secretly prepared His counter-movement....Therefore the situation is never hopeless where God is concerned. Whenever evil flourishes, it is always a superficial flourish, for at the height of the triumph of evil God will be there, ready with His man and His movement and His plans to ensure that His own cause will never fail.⁹

I think Wallace nicely grabs hold of the way the text wants us to think. Here is swaggering, domineering, government-sponsored paganism carrying the day in Israel. Out of nowhere Elijah appears. He so much as asks if Ahab has his fertility worship all ready to go and then declares that Yahweh has decided to cancel fertility until further notice. Then he disappears (vv. 2-3). The suddenness and strangeness of the text are meant to affect the way we look at such times – and at such a God.

Dwight Eisenhower had risen to commander of all the Allied forces in Europe during World War II. Riding a crest of post-war popularity he was elected president of the United States in 1952. Having been in ‘higher’ positions for some time Eisenhower had grown accustomed to lesser details being handled by ‘lesser lights’ around him. During his presidency, he even had someone dress him. His valet, John Moaney, would put Eisenhower’s watch on him while Ike held out his wrist. He would pull up Ike’s boxer shorts. But the lifestyle backfired. After he left public office, Ike was almost totally ignorant of how to pay for things at a department store, adjust a TV set, get past a tollbooth on the highway – or even to dial a phone!¹⁰ There he was, at the top, but practically helpless, unprepared for life where it is lived.

I think we can construct a graven image of God like that. We can say all the orthodox things about God but wonder if he is caught unprepared in the emergencies of his people. We wouldn’t question that Yahweh is mighty, we simply wonder sometimes if he is competent. Sometimes we can nearly get sucked into the ‘helpless god’ syndrome (HGS), as if we have a Dagon on our hands (1 Sam. 5:1-5). So we need mind-correcting texts like 1 Kings 17:1. We need to see afresh that when evil has its heyday and comes steamrolling over the people of God, he is not caught unprepared. Elijah’s epiphany reminds us that ‘God, in unexpected places, has already secretly prepared his counter-movement’ and that ‘at the height of the triumph of evil God will be there.’

Hills-and-plains theology

There is a section of 1 Kings 20, verses 23-30 to be exact, that almost grabs a reader by the shirt and says, ‘Well, how do you think about God?’ Let’s back up and get a running start at this chunk of narrative.

Ben-hadad (probably II) and the Syrians had suffered a disastrous reverse in battle at the hands of Israel (vv. 13-21) and the king’s military advisors were advocating a revised plan in order to recoup Syrian honor. There were two problems with their previous engagement with Israel. (Actually, three: alcohol for lunch proved a poor choice, v. 16). One was strategy (vv. 24-25), the other theology (v. 23). The latter is rather heartening to hear, for it’s hard to find military personnel willing to talk theology:

Their gods are gods of the hills – that’s why they were stronger than we; however, let’s fight with them on level ground – surely we will prove stronger than they (v. 23).

And Ben-hadad took their advice. At war season next year the Syrians chose their ground at the Aphek east of the Sea of Chinnereth/Galilee. But Syria’s theology drew heav...

Table of contents

• Testimonials
• Title
• Indicia
• Contents
• About the Author
• Preface
• Approach
• Quirks
• Theology
• Packaging
• Nasties
• Macroscope
• Appropriation
• Center
• Synthesis
• Christian Focus