Chapter 14.11

OT Characters & Mega Mysticism

Table of Topics

A) Abraham

B) Abraham’s servant

C) Rebecca

D) Moses

E) Joshua

F) Gideon

G) Samuel

H) David

I) Jonathan

J) Other OT examples

Extras & Endnotes

Primary Points

• The Scripture concerning Abraham’s servant finding Isaac a wife provides apparent support for three specific aspects of the [mega mystical] view: (1) the granting of detailed guidance beyond the moral will of God, (2) the validity of using a circumstantial fleece to discover God’s will, and (3) the notion that God’s individual will includes the specific person a believer is supposed to marry. The problem is that the experience was not normative. Virtually no one is inclined to take it that way. Who would be willing to send out a servant to seek a wife for a son, and then accept that servant’s choice on the basis of a drink of water for man and beasts?
• Mega mystics use the example of Gideon to claim we can give God tests to discern His extra-biblical, hidden, private will for our lives. In essence, when you put out a fleece you say to God, “If you really want me to carry out plan A, then please make the telephone ring at 9:10 p.m., then I will know that plan A is what you want.” The problem is that it is highly unlikely that we would ever find ourselves in Gideon’s circumstances.
• Putting out a fleece sometimes works because the “fleece” chosen is something that would make the decision a wise one. But this does not mean the decision is God’s will.
• In spite of David’s extraordinary revelatory experiences, including receiving biblical revelation himself, it is noteworthy to observe his great admiration for, and dependence on, the written word of God.
• Jonathan’s exploit was an extraordinary miracle and therefore rare and not something for the Christian to expect in their own life. If someone still thinks Jonathan’s example provides biblical instruction on divine guidance, it needs to be asked whether they would attack a cliff with merely swords, on which enemy soldiers were posted with a 10 to 1 advantage, risking their life and that of their valued companion? We think not.

A) Abraham

The life of Abraham offers no biblical support for the mega mystical idea that God guides us in extrabiblical matters through mental telepathy or the correct interpretation of divinely interpreted circumstances. We read, “The word of the LORD came to Abram in a vision” (Gen 15:1). Also, as demonstrated elsewhere, Abraham was frequently visited by the Angel of the Lord. ^[1]

B) Abraham’s Servant

It should interest us that by far the most promising character in all of Scripture for mega mystical beliefs is also one of the most obscure characters. We don’t even know his name. ^[2] In Genesis 24 we read:

Abraham was now old and well advanced in years, and the LORD had blessed him in every way. ² He said to the chief servant in his household, the one in charge of all that he had, “Put your hand under my thigh. ³ I want you to swear by the LORD, the God of Heaven and the God of Earth, that you will not get a wife for my son from the daughters of the Canaanites, among whom I am living, ⁴ but will go to my country and my own relatives and get a wife for my son Isaac.” (Gen 24:1-4)

Accordingly, Abraham sent his servant to Mesopotamia to find a wife for Isaac among Abraham’s relatives. When the servant arrived in “the town of Nahor” he prayed:

O LORD, God of my master Abraham, give me success today, and show kindness to my master Abraham. ¹³ See, I am standing beside this spring, and the daughters of the townspeople are coming out to draw water. ¹⁴ May it be that when I say to a girl, ‘Please let down your jar that I may have a drink,’ and she says, ‘Drink, and I’ll water your camels too’—let her be the one you have chosen for your servant Isaac. By this I will know that you have shown kindness to my master. (Gen 24:12-14)

And we know the rest of the story. Rebecca arrives and does precisely as the servant had prayed (cf. Gen 24:15-21). As Dr. Friesen notes:

This passage provides apparent support for three specific aspects of the [mega mystical] view: (1) the granting of detailed guidance beyond the moral will of God, (2) the validity of using a circumstantial fleece to discover God’s will, and (3) the notion that God’s individual will includes the specific person a believer is supposed to marry. ^[3]

Dr. Friesen first responds with some common sense:

The problem with arguing these points from Genesis 24 is that the experience of Abraham’s servant is not normative. Virtually no one is inclined to take it that way. Who would be willing to send out a servant to seek a wife for a son, and then accept that servant’s choice on the basis of a drink of water for man and beasts?

Of course, it could be done. Making cultural allowances, a father could hire a Christian dating agency. He could then send its agent on a search to find a wife for his son. The agent could drive into a service station, offer a prayer, and sign up the first woman who meets his request for a drink by filling his water jug and checking his radiator! The idea sounds preposterous, because Genesis 24 is not normative. ^[4]

Several special circumstances indicate that this example cannot be applied to the Christian’s life concerning divine guidance. First, we should notice that Isaac’s marriage had critical consequences in God’s plan of salvation for the world. His wife would be in the lineage of Christ. This is similar to the circumstances surrounding the marriage of Joseph and Mary and the need for Joseph to be in the ancestral line of David. Not just anyone would do in such marriages, as they needed to fulfill biblical prophecy.

Secondly, we notice a promise in the text that most Christians could not claim, but was necessary to this story turning out as it did. Abraham had told his servant:

The LORD, the God of Heaven, Who brought me out of my father’s household and my native land and Who spoke to me and promised me on oath, saying, ‘To your offspring I will give this land’—He will send His Angel before you so that you can get a wife for my son from there. (Gen 24:7, 40)

While we have a biblical statement that Angels are, “ministering spirits sent to serve those who will inherit salvation” (Heb 1:14), it would be foolish to presume that one of their God-given tasks is helping every Christian find a spouse. Abraham’s servant had such a response based on a miraculous revelation that Abraham had received. It was no doubt because of such a supernatural promise that the servant was inclined to pray the prayer he did. As Dr. Friesen points out, such a practice was evidently not normative even then:

From the behavior of Abraham’s servant, it is clear that the circumstantial fleece was not the usual method of guidance even then. Having no other ideas on how to proceed, but being fully assured of God’s guidance, the servant asked God to give the needed guidance through this method (24:12). He did not know for sure that the Lord would do what he asked; he simply asked, and then watched to see what would happen.

Even when the sign was quickly fulfilled, he was still not sure that God was using his sign (24:21). Even when the woman’s background was discovered to be acceptable (24:23-24), the matter was not concluded in the servant’s mind until Rebekah indicated a willingness to return with him (24:58). If her family would not let her go, he would look elsewhere for a wife (24:49). By his careful investigation following the fulfillment of the sign, the servant showed his awareness that such a procedure was highly unorthodox, and not to be fully trusted until all other conditions were met. ^[5]

Accordingly, Dr. Friesen concludes:

Genesis 24 does not contain a promise of specific guidance, nor approval for providential signs, nor any indication that God will choose and reveal one’s perfect mate. From the text it is clear that events unfolded as they did because of the existence of a special covenant, the promise of angelic assistance guaranteeing success, and God’s willingness to use a nonnormative method in response to the servant’s prayer.

This account of special guidance was recorded in detail not because it describes how God normally leads, but because it was an important step in the fulfillment of God’s promise to Abraham [and the world]. God proved to be faithful to each part of the covenant, including the promise of a great seed-a promise that is central to the theme of the book of Genesis [and God’s plan of salvation]. ^[6]

C) Rebecca

During Abraham’s lifetime, we read of his daughter-in-law Rebecca:

Rebekah became pregnant. The babies jostled each other within her, and she said, “Why is this happening to me?” So she went to inquire of the LORD. The LORD said to her, “Two nations are in your womb, and two peoples from within you will be separated; one people will be stronger than the other, and the older will serve the younger. (Gen 25:21-23)

Did God’s answer to Rebecca “inquiring of the Lord” come in the form of mega mystical means? On the contrary, it would be best to conclude that this divine revelation occurred in the same manner as that experienced by Abraham and Sarah, including visions and the Angel of the Lord.

D) Moses

Henry Blackaby is famous for using Moses as a biblical example of a man receiving extrabiblical revelation through mental telepathy or interpreting circumstances. Unfortunately for Dr. Blackaby, there is not a single example of such a thing in Moses’ life. Methods of divine revelation during the time of Moses is described by God when He says:

When a Prophet of the LORD is among you, I reveal Myself to him in visions, I speak to him in dreams. But this is not true of My servant Moses; he is faithful in all My house. With him I speak face to face . . . he [physically] sees the form of the LORD. (Num 12:6-8)

Seeing God’s “face” is quite different from any of the means of private inspiration espoused by mega mystics. ^[7] And while there is nothing unbiblical about God speaking to people today through “visions” or “dreams” we would suggest it is extremely rare. Accordingly, we are not aware that any of the popular mega mystics today including Dr. Blackaby, Dallas Willard, or John Eldredge have claimed to experienced visions or dreams from God. ^[8] As demonstrated elsewhere, other divine revelations that Moses experienced, including the “burn bush” incident (cf. Exod 3:2-6) came through the voice of God which he heard with his physical ears. ^[9]

For all the effort that Dr. Blackaby makes to claim that we should expect to experience God as Moses did, the Scriptures say, “Since then [the death of Moses], no Prophet has risen in Israel like Moses, whom the LORD knew face to face” (Deut 34:10).

E) Joshua

In the days of Joshua we read regarding the nature of the Gibeonites: “The men of Israel sampled their provisions but did not inquire of the LORD” (Josh 9:14). How would they have done that? Mega mystics today would tell us to have a time of prayer, and maybe even fasting, and wait for some sort of strong mental impression. There is no biblical example of such a thing, and this is not one of them either. ^[10] The Bible tells us precisely how people in that day would “inquire of the Lord.” In Numbers we read:

So the LORD said to Moses, “Take Joshua son of Nun, a man in whom is the Spirit, and lay your hand on him. Have him stand before Eleazar the Priest and the entire assembly and commission him in their presence. Give him some of your authority so the whole Israelite community will obey him. He is to stand before Eleazar the priest, who will obtain decisions for him by inquiring of the Urim before the LORD. At his command he and the entire community of the Israelites will go out, and at his command they will come in. (Num 27:18-21)

As we have discussed elsewhere, the Urim and Thummim were stones placed in the breastpiece (Ephod) of a Priest’s clothing that was used by God to provide revelation. ^[11] We first read of it when God directs: “Also put the Urim and the Thummim in the breastpiece [of the priestly Ephod] . . . Thus Aaron [and subsequent Priests] will always bear the means of making decisions for the Israelites over his heart before the LORD” (Exod 28:30). In addition to “inquiring of the Lord” through the Ephod, Joshua used the “casting of lots.” ^[12] Also, he encountered the Angel of the Lord (cf. Josh 5:13-15) and perhaps heard God in the Tent of Meeting as Moses did (cf. Exod 33:11). Again, none of these biblical examples of divine guidance offer any support for the claims of modern mega mystics.

F) Gideon

In Judges we read:

Now all the Midianites, Amalekites and other eastern peoples joined forces and crossed over the Jordan and camped in the Valley of Jezreel. ³⁴ Then the Spirit of the LORD came upon Gideon, and he blew a trumpet, summoning the Abiezrites to follow him. ³⁵ He sent messengers throughout Manasseh, calling them to arms, and also into Asher, Zebulun and Naphtali, so that they too went up to meet them.

Gideon said to God, “If you will save Israel by my hand as you have promised— ³⁷ look, I will place a wool fleece on the threshing floor. If there is dew only on the fleece and all the ground is dry, then I will know that you will save Israel by my hand, as you said.” ³⁸ And that is what happened. Gideon rose early the next day; he squeezed the fleece and wrung out the dew—a bowlful of water.

Then Gideon said to God, “Do not be angry with me. Let me make just one more request. Allow me one more test with the fleece. This time make the fleece dry and the ground covered with dew.” ⁴⁰ That night God did so. Only the fleece was dry; all the ground was covered with dew. (Judg 6:33-40)

Understandably, mega mystics use the example of Gideon to claim that we too can give God tests to discern His otherwise extra-biblical, hidden, private will for our lives. Accordingly, Dr. Friesen writes:

For many in the [mega mystical] view, “putting out a fleece” is a method of determining God’s individual will in a specific situation by asking God to guide through a circumstantial sign. Here is a good description of the method. Gideon’s fleece has become the basis of a practice among some Christians which is called “putting out a fleece.” In essence, when you put out a fleece you say to God, “If you really want me to carry out plan A, then please make the telephone ring at 9:10 p.m., then I will know that plan A is what you want.” (You can make the “fleece” anything you wish, just so long as it can serve as a “sign” to you). ^[13]

The problem with applying this to our own lives is that it is highly unlikely that we would ever find ourselves in Gideon’s circumstances. The Angel of the Lord (Jesus ^[14]) had personally appeared to him (cf. Judg 6:11-22) and commanded him to risk his own life and the lives of others to attack a monstrous army. If you find yourself in a similar situation perhaps God would give you a sign. But notice that Gideon was not simply arbitrarily asking for a sign to make a decision. On the contrary, the sign was intended to authenticate that it really was the Angel of the Lord who had appeared to him. Gideon’s situation does not apply to the way we are to make decisions in our life, unless an Angel has appeared to us and told us to kill a bunch of people and endanger our lives and the lives of a multitude of others. Then we can ask for authenticating signs. Otherwise, to apply it to making a decision in life would be not only unbiblical but foolish and potentially harmful.

Nonetheless, Dr. Friesen notes;

So if putting out a fleece is improper, why does it sometimes seem to work? The answer is that on some occasions the fleece that is chosen is really wisdom in disguise. The distinguishing feature of this whole process is that the decision
maker chooses the circumstantial sign. Now the person who chooses a bizarre fleece or a sign unrelated to the decision risks being fleeced.

Here are two examples: “I will know God is telling me to change jobs if I see a 1957 automobile run a stop sign today’; “I will know God wants me to go to Bible school if the Detroit Tigers baseball team wins today.” These fleeces range from improbable to a 50-50 chance of fulfillment. But a flip of a coin has the same degree of reliability. Decisions made on the basis of such circumstances are determined by chance. But some fleeces often lead to good decisions in spite of themselves. These are the fleeces that reflect wisdom.

Let’s say, by way of illustration, that a church is considering a building project. The leadership puts out a fleece: “If 90 percent of the membership wants to build and is willing to sacrifice for the project, then God is telling us to build.” All other things being equal, this is really wisdom under the guise of a fleece. It is wise and usually necessary for a church to postpone building until the members are united and consider it important enough to sacrifice. ^[15]

G) Samuel

The essence of mega mysticism is the claim of a conversational back and forth relationship with God. Let us see what that really looks like in the life of the Prophet Samuel:

The LORD said to Samuel, “How long will you mourn for Saul, since I have rejected him as king over Israel? Fill your horn with oil and be on your way; I am sending you to Jesse of Bethlehem. I have chosen one of his sons to be king.” . . . ³Invite Jesse to the sacrifice, and I will show you what to do. You are to anoint for Me the one I indicate” . . .

⁶When they arrived, Samuel saw Eliab and thought, “Surely the LORD’S anointed stands here before the LORD.” ⁷But the LORD said to Samuel, “Do not consider his appearance or his height, for I have rejected him. The LORD does not look at the things man looks at. Man looks at the outward appearance, but the LORD looks at the heart.” ⁸Then Jesse called Abinadab and had him pass in front of Samuel. But Samuel said, “The LORD has not chosen this one either.”  ⁹Jesse then had Shammah pass by, but Samuel said, “Nor has the LORD chosen this one.”  ¹⁰Jesse had seven of his sons pass before Samuel, but Samuel said to him, “The LORD has not chosen these.” 

¹¹So he asked Jesse, “Are these all the sons you have?” “There is still the youngest,” Jesse answered, “but he is tending the sheep.” Samuel said, “Send for him; we will not sit down until he arrives.” ¹²So he sent and had him brought in. He was ruddy, with a fine appearance and handsome features. Then the LORD said, “Rise and anoint him; he is the one.” (1 Sam 16:1-2, 6-12)

Only a self-deluded or intentionally deceiving person would claim conversations with God like the Prophet Samuel experienced. Yet this greatly resembles precisely what mega mystics are claiming. In addition, as demonstrated elsewhere, this conversation did not occur as simply thoughts in Samuel’s head, but was an audition of some kind affecting his hearing faculties. ^[16]

Not only are we wrong to claim Samuel’s conversational experience with God, but neither can anyone claim his position as a Prophet of God, unless they can perfectly and precisely foretell the future as all biblical Prophets did (cf. 1 Sam 9:1-20; 10:1-10). ^[17] Nor can few, if any, claim a task such as Samuel’s which was picking out of the nation of God’s people the one man God had chosen to be their king, lead them to their zenith of power and prosperity, be a type and descendant of the Son of God Himself, and reign over the Jews for all eternity (cf. Isa 55:3-4; Jer 30:9; Ezek 34:23-4; 37:22-28; Hos 3:5). Again, if you can claim such a man’s God-given responsibility, then perhaps you can claim his miraculous revelatory experiences.

H) David

Few men in history have enjoyed as intimate a relationship with God as King David, the “man after [God’s] own heart (1 Sam 13:14). If any mere man were to exemplify a mega mystical lifestyle, he would. But he does not. In all the biblical history we have concerning the life of David, there is not a single instance of the kind of mental telepathy or subjective interpretation of circumstances regarding extra-biblical matters ever recorded in David’s life.

David certainly received divine revelation that is recorded in Scripture, particularly many of the Psalms. For example, we read:

These are the last words of David: “The oracle of David son of Jesse, the oracle of the man exalted by the Most High, the man anointed by the God of Jacob, Israel’s singer of songs: “The Spirit of the LORD spoke through me; His word was on my tongue. The God of Israel spoke, the Rock of Israel said to me: ‘When one rules over men in righteousness, when he rules in the fear of God, he is like the light of morning at sunrise on a cloudless morning, like the brightness after rain that brings the grass from the Earth.’” (2 Sam 23:1-4).

That is a clear claim to divine revelation. David’s experience as a recipient of biblical revelation and a writer of Scripture puts him in a different category than the biblical examples mega mystics are looking for to support the idea of a rather constant flow of extra-biblical revelation to guide one’s life.

This includes David’s reception of divine revelation regarding how the temple was to be built (cf. 1 Chr 28:12, 19). However, this was divine revelation to be obeyed by others, such as apostolic or prophetic revelation. Accordingly, David’s revelatory experience is described in a way that suggests the experience of an OT Prophet. We read:

Then David gave his son Solomon the plans for the vestibule, its houses, its treasuries, its upper chambers, its inner chambers, and the place of the mercy seat;  ¹²and the plans for all that he had by the Spirit, ^[18] . . . ¹⁹ “All this,” said David, “the Lord made me understand in writing, by His hand upon me, all the works of these plans.” (1 Chron 28:11-12, 19 NKJV)

Keil and Delitzsch interpret David here as simply referring to “a writing coming by divine revelation, or a writing composed in consequence of divine revelation.” ^[19] David says he received these “plans” or “writing” “by the Spirit” when God’s “hand” was “upon,” him. This language is used by other OT Prophets to describe revelatory visions when they received biblical divine revelation that others were to obey, just as David did here (cf. 2 Kgs 3:15; Ezek 1:3; 3:14). Accordingly, again, this is not the kind of revelation that mega mystics are seeking biblical support for.

In light of the fact that David was a man who actually did experience divine revelation, there are two aspects of his life that should be noted by advocates of mega mysticism: 1) his contentment to receive God’s word indirectly through others, and 2) his reverence for the superiority of Scripture.

The first point is illustrated in the biblical description of how David “inquired of the LORD” (cf. 1 Sam 23:2, 4; 30:8; 2 Sam 2:1; 5:19, 23). For example, we read:

When David was told, “Look, the Philistines are fighting against Keilah and are looting the threshing floors,” he inquired of the LORD, saying, “Shall I go and attack these Philistines?” The LORD answered him, “Go, attack the Philistines and save Keilah.” . . . ⁵So David and his men went to Keilah, fought the Philistines and carried off their livestock. He inflicted heavy losses on the Philistines and saved the people of Keilah.  (1 Sam 23:1-2, 5)

A mega mystical interpretation would immediately interpret this as praying to God for direction and receiving some immediate thought, impulse, or “sign” as an answer. However, perhaps because the Holy Spirit anticipated such an erroneous application, we read immediately in verse 6: “Now Abiathar son of Ahimelech had brought the Ephod down with him when he fled to David at Keilah,” clearly implying that such revelation came through this indirect unique means. Accordingly, we read later in the same chapter:

When David learned that Saul was plotting against him, he said to Abiathar the Priest, “Bring the Ephod.” ¹⁰ David said, “O LORD, God of Israel, Your servant has heard definitely that Saul plans to come to Keilah and destroy the town on account of me. ¹¹ Will the citizens of Keilah surrender me to him? Will Saul come down, as Your servant has heard? O LORD, God of Israel, tell Your servant.” And the LORD said, “He will.” Again David asked, “Will the citizens of Keilah surrender me and my men to Saul?” And the LORD said, “They will.” (1 Sam 23:9-12)

As we have discussed elsewhere, the Ephod was a part of a priest’s clothing that contained the Urim and Thummim that God had provided for receiving revelation (cf. Num 27:21). ^[20] The importance of the Urim and Thummim in the Ephod as a means of divine communication in David’s day is illustrated when we read of Saul: “He inquired of the LORD, but the LORD did not answer him by dreams or Urim [ephod] or Prophets” (1 Sam 28:6). These evidently were the means available for extra-biblical revelation. Accordingly, on several occasions, messages from God came through David’s personal Prophets including Gad (cf. 1 Sam 22:5; 2 Sam 24:11-12, 18-20) and Nathan (2 Sam 7:4-17; 2 Sam 12:1-14, 25).

In other instances where direct revelations came from the Lord to David in unspecified ways, are we to assume it came by direct mental telepathy or by the means already clearly noted elsewhere? Good biblical hermeneutics would not have us argue from silence, but precedent, and assume that in these other cases of direct divine revelation a priest with an ephod or a Prophet of God was present (cf. 1 Sam 10:20-24; 2 Sam 2:1; 5:19-24; 1 Chr 14:8-16). And again, we should remember that David himself was a Prophet of God writing Scripture.

If this is the case, then a few observations can be made. First, the instances of divine direction coming through ephods and Prophets is not normative for Christians today and cannot be used as biblical support for divine revelations of extra-biblical guidance. For those who want to claim that biblical Prophets exist today, we deny this as well and discuss why elsewhere. ^[21] Also, it is remarkable to read through the direction that God gave David through indirect means and notice how important and personal these revelations were. And yet, even a man as close to God as David received them through indirect means, not direct and mystical means. So much for the mega mystical claim that if God loves us He is eager to speak directly to us on our most important private matters. This was not the experience of the great King David.

The second observation we would like to make about David’s revelatory experiences is his great admiration for the written word. This is especially noteworthy when we recognize that he had experienced many of the more direct means of divine communication that is craved in mega mysticism, including being a recipient of biblical revelation himself. Nonetheless, in Psalm 1 David writes: “Blessed is the man [whose] delight is in the [written] law of the LORD, and on His [written] law he meditates day and night (v. 1-2). In Psalm 37 David says, “The mouth of the righteous man utters wisdom, and his tongue speaks what is just [because] the [written] law of his God is in his heart; his feet do not slip (vs. 30-1). He exclaims in Psalm 40 “I desire to do Your will, O my God; Your [written] law is within my heart” (v. 8). He also penned Psalm 19 which reads:

The [written] law of the LORD is perfect, reviving the soul. The [written] statutes of the LORD are trustworthy, making wise the simple. The [written] precepts of the LORD are right, giving joy to the heart. The [written] commands of the LORD are radiant, giving light to the eyes. . . . The [written] ordinances of the LORD are sure and altogether righteous. They are more precious than gold, than much pure gold; they are sweeter than honey, than honey from the comb. By them [the written word of God] is your servant warned; in keeping them there is great reward. (vs. 7-12)

So much for the mega mystical claim that we need extra-biblical revelations to be men and women of God.

Accordingly, at the end of his life, David told his son Solomon:

Now, my son, the LORD be with you, and may you have success and build the house of the LORD your God, as He said you would. May the LORD give you discretion and understanding when He puts you in command over Israel, so that you may keep the [written] law of the LORD your God. Then you will have success if you are careful to observe the [written] decrees and laws that the LORD gave Moses for Israel. (1 Chr 22:11-13)

Rather than point his son to the need to receive direct divine revelation from God, David wished that Solomon would understand the Scriptures, and promised him success if he obeyed them. We believe that the mega mysticism that is so popular today would be thoroughly denounced by the “man after [God’s] own heart” himself (1 Sam 13:14). David is biblical proof that a very intimate, God-pleasing, fruitful relationship with the Lord can be experienced through meditating on and obeying the written word of God.

I) Jonathan

In 1 Samuel 14:6-15 we read the following memorable story:

Jonathan said to his young armor-bearer, “Come, let’s go over to the outpost of those uncircumcised fellows. Perhaps the LORD will act in our behalf. Nothing can hinder the LORD from saving, whether by many or by few. ”

“Do all that you have in mind,” his armor-bearer said. “Go ahead; I am with you heart and soul.”

Jonathan said, “Come, then; we will cross over toward the men and let them see us. ⁹ If they say to us, ‘Wait there until we come to you,’ we will stay where we are and not go up to them. ¹⁰ But if they say, ‘Come up to us,’ we will climb up, because that will be our sign that the LORD has given them into our hands.”

So both of them showed themselves to the Philistine outpost. “Look!” said the Philistines. “The Hebrews are crawling out of the holes they were hiding in.” ¹² The men of the outpost shouted to Jonathan and his armor-bearer, “Come up to us and we’ll teach you a lesson.”

So Jonathan said to his armor-bearer, “Climb up after me; the LORD has given them into the hand of Israel.”

Jonathan climbed up, using his hands and feet, with his armor-bearer right behind him. The Philistines fell before Jonathan, and his armor-bearer followed and killed behind him. ¹⁴ In that first attack Jonathan and his armor-bearer killed some twenty men in an area of about half an acre.

Then panic struck the whole army—those in the camp and field, and those in the outposts and raiding parties—and the ground shook. It was a panic sent by God. (1 Sam 14:6-15)

The reason the story is so memorable is because it is filled with so many amazing miracles. The Philistine army consisted of: “three thousand chariots, six thousand charioteers, and soldiers as numerous as the sand on the seashore” (1 Sam 13:5). However, King Saul’s army was “quaking in fear” (13:7) and “scattering” (13:11) such that only “about six hundred” soldiers remained (13:15). In this context, God wanted to give the Israelites a great victory and purposed to use a miracle wrought through Jonathan to initiate it.

Accordingly, “Jonathan and his armor-bearer” simultaneously fought and “killed some twenty men” (v. 14), apparently without receiving even a scratch. God sent a panic throughout the entire Philistine army by actually making the ground shake (14:15). Likewise, Jonathan’s exploit and the way it occurred is to be interpreted as another extraordinary miracle granted in order for the will of God to be accomplished. And as a miracle, it is by definition rare and not something for the Christian to expect in their own life. ^[22]

If someone still thinks Jonathan’s example provides biblical instruction on divine guidance, it needs to be asked whether they would truly follow his example. Would they attack a cliff with merely swords, on which enemy soldiers were posted with a 10 to 1 advantage, risking their life and that of their valued companion? We think not. Therefore, if you would not do what Jonathan did, then don’t use him as an example of how God would guide you.

Dr. Friesen adds why God was so generous with miracles in this event:

As was the case with the selection of Isaac’s bride, the explanation for this unusual incident lies in the nature of God’s covenant with Israel. Israel’s conflict with the Philistines is categorized as “holy war.” In a holy war, God was fighting His enemies through the army of Israel. For such warfare, God provided supernatural guidance for His earthly king through revelatory dreams, the Urim and Thummim, or a prophet (I Samuel 28:6). When the army obeyed God’s commands, victory was certain.

In such cases, supernatural guidance was normative. That direct revelation was anticipated in the crisis of a holy war is evidenced in the near context where Saul sought direction for specific battle plans through the Urim and Thummim in the ephod (14:36-37). Also, he later employed lots, just as Joshua did to implicate Achan (Joshua 7:13-21), to identify those who disobeyed his command to fast (I Samuel 14:41-42). . . .

In view of his father’s disobedience, Jonathan went out with only his armor bearer to secretly fight for God. In doing this, Jonathan was cut off from the “normal” sources of supernatural guidance. For he had no prophet with him, and the Urim and Thummim in the ephod were with Saul (14:3). And if God revealed a plan to Saul through a dream, Jonathan had no way of learning it. Though cut off from the usual channels of divine guidance, Jonathan nevertheless thought that “perhaps” the Lord would lead him through circumstantial signs (14:6). ^[23]

J) Other OT Examples

Other instances of OT characters “inquiring of God” and getting an answer should be explained in similar ways as those discussed above, if we are going to stick to the Bible instead of our imagination. Often the presence of a Priest with the Ephod is mentioned (cf. Exod 28:29-30; Judg 18:5-6; 20:18-28; 1 Sam 14:36-7; 22:10-13; 23:1-6; 2 Chr 20:13; Ezra 2:62-63). Accordingly, the OT scholars Keil and Delitzsch note that before Prophets become available in Israel with the appearance of Samuel, “to ask with Jehovah for the purpose of obtaining a declaration of the divine will, is substantially the same as to inquire the will of the Lord through the Urim and Thummim of the high priest.” ^[24]

Later, the presence of a Prophet is mentioned in the context of asking God specific questions (cf. 1 Sam 9:5-9; 10:20-22; 1 Sam 28:5-7; Kgs 22:7; Jer 37:6-7; Ezek 14:7; 20:11). The place of Prophets in divine inquiries is illustrated in the apparent editorial note made at 1 Samuel 9:9 where we read, “Formerly in Israel, if a man went to inquire of God, he would say, “Come, let us go to the Seer,” because the Prophet of today used to be called a Seer.” Nonetheless, we have discussed at length elsewhere that this ministry and gift is no longer provided by God. ^[25]

Extras & Endnotes

Gauging Your Grasp

1) Are there any arguments above that you feel are questionable? Why?

Publications & Particulars

1. Regarding Abraham’s experiences with the Angel of the Lord see section 10.9.C. ↑

2. Understandably most speculate that the “servant” addressed here is Eliezar mentioned in Genesis 15. This could be, but nonetheless, he is not important enough to mention by name in this story. ↑

3. Gary Friesen and John Maxon, Decision Making and the Will of God (Multnomah, 2004), 302. ↑

4. Ibid., 302-303. ↑

5. Ibid., 303-4. ↑

6. Ibid., 304. ↑

7. Regarding the nature of seeing God’s face see section 10.10.B. ↑

8. In fact, John Eldredge shares an example of a dream his wife had that was erroneously interpreted as divine revelation, setting them up for a great deal of disappointment. Regarding this see section 10.11.A.7. ↑

9. Regarding Moses’ experience of divine auditions with his physical ears see 10.10.A. ↑

10. The description of people praying and fasting and waiting to hear from God will, for some, bring to mind the case of Christian Prophets telling Paul and Barnabas to embark on their evangelistic ministry (cf. Acts 13:1-3). But this again offers no biblical support for mega mysticism. For further discussion of this incident see section 9.7.B. ↑

11. Regarding revelation through the Urim and Thummim contained in the ephod see section 10.8.C.2. ↑

12. Regarding the “casting of lots” as a source of divine revelation see section 10.8.C.3. ↑

13. 213-14. ↑

14. Regarding biblical evidence that the OT Angel of the Lord was Jesus Christ see ↑

15. Friesen, 215. ↑

16. Regarding the types of revelation experienced by Prophets see chapters 9.5; 10.10-11. ↑

17. For the biblical view of the authentication of God sent Prophets see chapters 9.9-9.12. ↑

18. The word translated here as “Spirit” is the Hebrew ruach which literally means “breath, wind, spirit” and is often translated as “spirit” (human spirit, mind) or “Spirit” (God’s Spirit). Against most translations (NASB, ESV, RSV, NRSV, NLT, NCV) and Barnes which translate it as referring to David’s “mind,” the correct translation would seem to be reflected in the KJV and NKJV and Keil and Delitzsch which translate it as God’s “Spirit.” (Commentary on the Old Testament, Electronic Edition STEP Files CD-ROM [Findex.com, 2000]). This is supported by the fact that in verse 19, the plans are clearly described as coming from the Spirit of God, not the mind of David.

    However, the NIV seems to add a mega mystical twist to the 1 Chron 28:12 by translating ruach as: “He [David] gave him [Solomon] the plans of all that the Spirit had put in his mind.” Ruach is only used once in the text and David is simply saying that the Spirit gave him a revelation. ↑

19. Keil and Delitzsch, 1 Chron 28:11-12. ↑

20. Regarding revelation through the Urim and Thummim contained in the ephod see section 10.8.C.2. ↑

21. Regarding the fraud of modern day claims to the gift of prophecy see Book 9 and esp. chapter 9.3-9.4. ↑

22. Regarding the rarity of miracles see section 10.2.B. ↑

23. Friesen, 218. ↑

24. Keil and Delitzsch, Judg 1:1-2. ↑

25. Regarding the cessation of the gift of prophecy see chapter 9.13. ↑