by Arthur W. Pink
by Arthur W. Pink
Philologos Religious Online Books
Philologos.org
by Arthur W. Pink
August, 1943
DAGON DESTROYED.
We resume at the point where we left off: “And she said, The glory is departed from Israel, for the ark of God is taken” (1 Sam 4:22). Such was the dying lament of the daughter-in-law of Eli, the high priest of Israel. The sacred chest, the lid of which was “the mercy-seat” that constituted the throne of Jehovah in the midst of His people and where the Shekinah glory abode, had been removed from its appointed place in the holy of holies and conducted to the field of battle, in the hope that it would overthrow the enemies of the Hebrews. But their presumptuous expectation had not been realized. So far from it, Israel had been utterly routed, the sons of the high priest slain, and the ark of the covenant captured by the Philistines. Before expiring, the daughter-in-law of Eli named the son to which she had just given birth “Ichabod,” saying “the glory is departed from Israel.” The name of her son memorialized the fearful catastrophe which had overtaken the favoured nation, and described the spiritual desolation which had fallen upon it.
That which is described in 1 Samuel 4 is something more than an historical event which happened in the remote past: it illustrated and adumbrated certain basic and unchanging principles in the governmental dealings of God, which have been made manifest again and again in the course of history. Subsequently the ark of the covenant was restored to Israel and when Solomon erected the temple and the ark was set in its appointed place we are told that “the cloud [the Shekinah] filled the house of the Lord, so that the priests could not stand to minister because of the cloud: for the glory of the Lord had filled the house of the Lord” (1 Kings 8:10,11). But history repeated itself: the Lord was again despised, those who bore His name trampled upon His law, conformed to the ways of the heathen, worshipped false gods, and refused to heed the expostulations of His prophets. Carnality and idolatry became rampant, and though God bore long with the waywardness of his people, giving many warnings and solemn threatenings before He smote them in His wrath, the time eventually came when His awful vengeance fell.
Nearly four hundred years after Solomon the Lord delivered Israel into the hands of Nebuchadnezzar, many being carried away to Babylon: yet even that calamity produced no national repentance. Among the captives was Ezekiel and if we turn to his prophecies we obtain light on the spiritual situation as it then existed, particularly in connection with the departure of the Shekinah—the visible and awe-inspiring emblem of Jehovah's presence in the midst of Israel. In chapter 8 we find the prophet brought in vision “to Jerusalem” and he tells us “Behold, the glory of the God of Israel was there” (v 4). In 9:9 we find Jehovah complaining “The iniquity of the house of Israel and Judah is exceeding great, and the land is full of blood, and the city full of perverseness.” Then in 10:4 we read “the glory of the Lord went up from the cherubim and stood over the threshold of the house,” and in 10:18 “the glory of the Lord departed from off the threshold of the house.” Finally, in 11:23 we are told, “The glory of the Lord went up from the midst of the cherubim and stood upon the mount which is upon the east side of the city.” Slowly and gradually as though reluctant to leave, the Shekinah glory had departed and once more “Ichabod” described their sad state.
There is no intimation that the Shekinah ever returned unto Israel during the remainder of the OT period. Another temple was built in the days of Ezra and Nehemiah, and though God owned it as His house yet nothing is said of “the glory of the Lord filling it.” But at the beginning of the NT era something yet more wonderful and blessed took place. As John declares in his Gospel, “The Word was made [or “became”] flesh and dwelt [“tabernacled”] among us, and we beheld His glory—the glory as of the Only-begotten of the Father—full of grace and truth” (1:14). Once again Israel was put upon trial: their long-promised Messiah appeared in their midst, making unmistakable demonstration of His divine credentials. He preached to them the Gospel, went about doing good, healed their sick. But they had no heart for Him. He bade them repent, but they refused. He came unto His own, and His own received Him not. They despised and rejected Him. Then it was He said unto them “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, that killest the prophets and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not. Behold your house is left unto you desolate” (Matt 23:37,38). Once again “Ichabod” was written over Israel.
Has the above no meaning and message for us? Is the history of Christendom without anything approaching a parallel? A literal duplication, not but something strictly analogous, yes. The outstanding characteristic of this dispensation and the climacteric gift of God unto His people is the presence of the Holy Spirit in their midst. That brings before us a many-sided theme, but we must confine ourselves unto that which is germane to our present inquiry. The Spirit of God indwells the Church corporately and the saint individually. He sustains a special relation to the servants of Christ, enduing them with power and making their labours fruitful. Normally, He is therefore in the midst of “Christendom,” that is, the whole body of Christian profession, for even the unregenerate are made “partakers” of His presence and blessings while in outward fellowship with the saints (Heb 6:4), as they are bidden to “hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches” (Rev 3:22) and hence they are guilty of doing “despite unto the Spirit of grace” (Heb 10:29) when they refuse to hear Him and apostatize from their profession.
It is to be noted that one of our statements in the above paragraph is qualified: under normal conditions the Spirit of God is in the midst of Christendom generally and in the local churches (which have always contained a mixture of believers and unbelievers) particularly. But because He is the Holy Spirit He may be “grieved” (Eph 4:30) and “quenched” (1 Thess 5:19). He is “grieved” by the individual Christian when his conversation is unbecoming, and then He withholds His comforts. He is “quenched” or put out by the corporate body when His ministrations are “despised” (1 Thess 5:20), that is, when unbelievers are allowed to predominate in the local assembly, or if it becomes carnal and worldly, or if false doctrine be tolerated, or if a Scriptural discipline be not maintained. Any impartial reader of ecclesiastical history is aware that at various periods the Spirit was “quenched” and His power and blessing withdrawn from Christendom as a whole. Only those who are determined to call bitter sweet and darkness light, or who apply a wrong standard of measurement, will take exception to that assertion.
The Holy Spirit was certainly “quenched” at the beginning of the fourth century, when Constantine adopted Christianity as the state religion, when the simplicity of spiritual worship was superceded by an imposing and elaborate ritual, when those who professed to be “strangers and pilgrims” in this scene (1 Peter 2:11) sought after worldly prestige and emoluments and when vast multitudes were compelled to be “baptized” at the point of the sword. The insignificant minority who had eyes to see were painfully conscious that God had written “Ichabod” over Christendom, that the Holy Spirit, grieved and quenched, had withdrawn, no longer working in their midst. True, God still maintained unto Himself a “remnant”—raising up an isolated witness for Himself here and there, and little companies of His people meeting in secret for prayer and the ministry of the Word; but the collective system, the corporate body, was indeed a House now left unto them “desolate,” as was evident from the “dark ages” which followed, when Rome completely dominated things.
It is not our purpose now to review the whole past nineteen centuries and trace the revivals and declensions that have followed each other: rather would we come much closer to our own times and observe the present application of what has been before us above. One has only to read the writings of C. H. Spurgeon—perhaps God's most valuable gift unto His people since the days of the Puritans—from 1880-1890 to discover the terrible departure from the truth and practical godliness which had taken place even then. Plainly and pointedly did that faithful minister denounce the “Downgrade Movement” in the churches, and when the leaders refused to right things, withdrew his “tabernacle” from the “Baptist Union.” During 1890-1910, which falls within the memory of this writer, the decline accelerated rapidly: there was scarcely a theological seminary in Germany, Britain or the USA, which was not a hotbed of heresy. Ministers vied with each other in preaching “higher criticism,” the “evolutionary hypothesis” and the so-called “new theology,” and only here and there was a feeble voice raised in outcry.
In thousands of instances “churches” became little better than social clubs and places of entertainment. Well do we remember, some forty-odd years ago, the innovation and popularization of the “Pleasant Sunday afternoon” services, when worldly vocalists and instrumentalists tickled the ears of the audiences with semi-sacred and then downright secular items of music. And the so-called “Christian Brotherhoods” to whom the pastor gave a talk on “Christian Socialism” or the local member of parliament was invited to air his political views before them. And the multiplication of “bazaars” opened by the “mayoress,” “socials,” “whist drives,” charades and plays to attract and “hold the young people.” Even the pretence of requiring creditable evidence of regeneration before one was received into church-fellowship was dropped, and the maintenance of Scripture discipline ceased. Such was the awful sowing: now we are reaping the horrible harvest. How could it be otherwise, then, that the Holy Spirit should be grieved and quenched by such a travesty—conducted in the name of Christ!
To-day all who have eyes to see cannot fail to perceive that “Ichabod” has once more been written over a degenerate Christendom, though only those with honest hearts will acknowledge it. The glory of God—the token and evidence of His presence—has “departed.” The Spirit of God has withdrawn His unction and blessing, and their House is left unto them “desolate.” The temple remained standing in Jerusalem for forty years after Christ pronounced the awful sentence of Matthew 23:28 before Titus destroyed it in AD 70: the priesthood continued to function and its services were perpetuated, but God no longer owned it. Thus it is with Christendom: the body still exists, but it is lifeless; the “form of godliness” has not yet entirely disappeared, but its power has. Even the smaller groups who came out from the apostate mass, though some of them have preserved “the landmarks of the fathers,” yet they are so pharisaical that the Spirit of God is quenched there too. Pride is as hateful to God as worldliness and false doctrine, and those who boast “the temple of the Lord are these” (Jer 7:4), “the Testimony of God is with us,” “all others have departed from the Truth except our party”; are too lacking in spiritual discernment to perceive their own sad condition. Lookers-on generally see most!
Except for a few details there is little original in the above, the ground having been frequently gone over. But we have never heard or read anything along the line of what follows, namely, that which happened unto the ark after it was captured by the Philistines, and its present bearing upon and application unto our own times. Others have recognized that the Holy Spirit has departed from Christendom—not absolutely and entirely so, but from the corporate body and in withdrawing the manifestations of His presence. Personally we have no doubt that what is recorded in 1 Samuel 5, equally with the preceding chapter, illustrates and adumbrates fundamental principles in the ways of God with that people who are called by His name. Yea, we cannot get away from the conviction that our own generation has witnessed and is witnessing a solemn repetition of what took place in the house of Dagon. The striking incidents narrated in 1 Samuel 5 supply a description of literal historical facts, yet which, we believe, possess an allegorical signification. As to how little or how far we have succeeded in interpreting the same in this and the following article (D.V.) we leave to the judgment of our readers.
“And the Philistines took the ark of God and brought it from Eben-ezer unto Ashdod. When the Philistines took the ark of God they brought it into the house of Dagon and set it before Dagon” (1 Sam 5:1,2). Elated over such a capture, they placed it in their temple in honour of Dagon, the god whom they worshipped (Judg 16:23). But “the triumphing of the wicked is short and the joy of the hypocrite for a moment” (Job 20:5). And so it proved here, for the next thing we are told is, “And when they of Ashdod arose early on the morrow, behold, Dagon was fallen on 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” (vv 4,5).
What would constitute the modern form or equivalent of “Dagon”? In seeking the answer to that question we must be governed by the information which Scripture supplies about him, or it, and all the accompanying details. First, let us consider more definitely what the ark stands for in this connection, and because it possesses a manifold significance we must follow a process of elimination. Let it be duly noted at this point that never once in 1 Samuel 5 or 6 is “the glory of the Lord” mentioned: it is utterly unthinkable that the Shekinah, emblem of the Holy Spirit, should enter a heathen shrine. The ark was the basis of the mercy-seat, the throne of God in Israel's midst, and a blessed type of the person and work of Christ; but in none of these respects do we think it should here be contemplated. Rather it is as “the ark of testimony” (Exo 25:16) we regard it. It was repeatedly designated thus because of the “testimony” (Exo 25:16,21) deposited therein, namely, the two tables of stone on which were inscribed the ten commandments (1 Kings 8:4).
Thus, in this Christian era we regard the Truth of God as the antitype of the “ark of testimony.” And the sacred ark had fallen into the hands of the uncircumcised! Does it strike the ears of our readers as an incongruous statement to speak of God's holy and eternal Truth being delivered unto His enemies? Surely it should not, when the Lord Himself makes use of the expression “Truth is fallen in the street” (Isa 59:14). Perhaps it may not appear so strange and startling if we next consider who it was that had captured the ark. It was neither the Ammonites, the Moabites, or the Midianites; but the Philistines. And who were they? Their origin and genealogy is given in Genesis 10. They were the descendants of Ham (v 6), and Ham is, as his name denotes, the “black one” or sun-burnt. He is a symbol and picture of the man who has turned away from God—the Light. He portrays those who have received the Light, but hated and rejected it. But though the Truth enlightens them not, yet it must have some effect, namely to darken them; and the more light received and refused, the darker they become.
Ham begat “Mizraim” (Gen 10:6), who gave his name to the country of Egypt—the house of bondage to God's people (cf. Isa 31:1). Mizraim begat “Casluhim” (Gen 10:14), which signifies “folly”—that which issues from turning away from Wisdom: see Romans 1:22, 23, where we have described the descent of the religious man of the earth, getting further and further away from God. From Casluhim came the Philistines, which means the “migrators” or “wanderers,” so named because they left Egypt and settled in Canaan, “Palestine” deriving its name from them—they dwelt in its southwest part, on the sea coast. The Philistine is never seen outside the land of Canaan. Although he was no true “pilgrim” or “sojourner” as were Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (Heb 11:9,13), yet he claimed a home in the domain of faith. Thus we must not look for his modern counterpart in heathendom as such, nor in the openly-defiant and profane world, but rather inside Christendom itself: they are children of the flesh, yet with pretensions to the blessings of faith.
Everything recorded of the Philistines in Scripture helps to identify their successors. In Genesis 26:14,15 we find them making trouble for Isaac and his herdmen, by stopping up the walls which his father had digged—figure of depriving God's people of the Water of Life. One of their women infatuated Samson the Nazarite, figure of one consecrated to God, and brought about his ruin (Judg 14). In that same chapter we find him propounding a riddle to thirty of her companions, but after pondering it for seven days they were unable to declare its meaning—no Philistine is let into the secret of how (contrary to nature) a devourer can yield meat: they know nothing of how God comes in and makes everything serve His purpose, bringing blessing to His people out of their strongest foe. Their guile, treachery and cruelty are seen in the treatment which they meted out to Samson. Their haughty demeanour and contempt of those who dare to oppose them appeared in Goliath's attitude and language unto David. The final reference made to them in Holy Writ is found in Jehovah's solemn announcement “I will cut off the pride of the Philistines” (Zech 9:6).
The Pharisees were the Philistines of our Lord's day. Firmly entrenched in Immanuel's land they hotly contested every attempt made to eject them. Plainly stamped upon them were the features of Ham. Though they held the lead in the religious realm, yet were they in gross darkness. For when the Light of the world appeared in their midst, the “true,” bright Light shining before their eyes, they asked Him for a “sign” (Matt 12:38). What proof was that of their blindness, for it was like asking for a candle at noonday! They were the ones figured by the “elder son” in Luke 15:28, etc.,—the real “Wanderer,” never at home with God. And wherever phariseeism has been found during the last nineteen centuries there was the moral embodiment of the Philistine: chiefly, of course, in Romanism, but that abominable mother has many children. Many theological professors and doctors of divinity, prating of their superior scholarship and riding roughly over any who opposed them, bore the stamp of the Philistine. (Part of the above we have culled from a work, now out of print, by F. C. Jennings on Judges.)
The limited space here at our disposal precludes us from now taking up other collateral considerations, so in the closing of this article let us bring together the two points already considered and notice a striking omission. In view of the great importance of the ark one had naturally supposed that the loss of it would have made the deepest possible impression on Israel, that they had made the most desperate efforts to recover it from the Philistines; or that they had unitedly humbled themselves before the Lord and with fastings and prayers besought Him to intervene and remove the grievous dishonour cast upon His name. But apart from the grief of Eli and his daughter-in-law, there is no hint of any perturbation in the Nation. They appear to have been stolidly indifferent. And has not the same grievous lack of zeal and concern for God's glory characterized Christendom? When British and American professors echoed the infidelity of the German neologians, when almost every cardinal doctrine of the Christian faith was denied by the very men who had taken solemn ordination vows to defend it, was not their wicked perversion of the Divine Testimony met, generally, with callous apathy! How none of the churches followed Spurgeon's example when he withdrew from the corrupt system. And though here and there an individual protested and walked out, the majority complacently tolerated or approved. AWP
Philologos | Bible Prophecy Research | The BPR Reference Guide | About Us