Thoughts on the OT

[marvmax]

I don't know if this is the place for it or not, but I've been reading through the Old Testament, and I just thought I'd share the thoughts that come to me. The idea is that maybe there could be some interaction on what the Bible means to each other.

The thing that got me to thinking about this was this scripture.

1 Sam 8
1 And it came to pass, when Samuel was old, that he made his sons judges over Israel.
2 Now the name of his firstborn was Joel; and the name of his second, Abiah: they were judges in Beer-sheba.
3 And his sons walked not in his ways, but turned aside after lucre, and took bribes, and perverted judgment.

I just thought how poignant it was that Samuel's sons turned out the same as Eli's sons. In the next couple of chapters the people of Isreal tell Samuel that they want a king. Samuel says that they are rejecting the Lord but I can't help but feel that Samuel might feel that they are rejecting him also, just as Eli seems to be rejected. At least none of Eli's children became the leaders of Israel as Samuel's will not either.

 

[gort]

Hey Marv

What do you mean by poignant?


Samuel is prolly my fave prophet.


This your first time thru the OT?

 

[marvmax]

Hey Marv

Hey Gort;
Nice to see you over here.

What do you mean by poignant?

Maybe I've misused the word. I mean sad in an ironic way. I mean Samuel takes over from Eli, and then Samuel's kids seem to turn out the same way that Eli's did. Sometime kids can just break your heart.

Samuel is prolly my fave prophet.


This your first time thru the OT?

No no not my first time through by a long shot. It used to be a goal of mine to read all of my scriptures (if you know what I mean) through in a year. I did that for a number of years but I found the pace to hectic and it seemed like I was just trying to finish a race. Now I just read for enjoyment, and hopefully spiritual enlightenment and a closeness to Heavenly Father and his Son, at whatever pace feels good. I honestly don't know how many times I've read through the OT.

When I was in high school I read through the Bible completely for the first time, and I hated the OT and thought that I would never read it again. But as I've gotten older I find that I enjoy it. With losing the fire of youth I find that I'm a lot more accepting of others, and my foibles, and I find great comfort in how patient the Lord was in dealing with the obvious weaknesses of the OT participants.

 

[gort]

Do you see a validation for infant baptism from the perspective of Samuels Mum?

 

[gort]

Samuel says that they are rejecting the Lord but I can't help but feel that Samuel might feel that they are rejecting him also, just as Eli seems to be rejected

1Sa 8:7 And Jehovah said to Samuel, Listen to the voice of the people in all that they say to you. For they have not rejected you, but they have rejected Me, that I should not reign over them.

Difficult to say, it's just not told to us. Ultimately, they don't want Gods rule, they want their own king. And this is the major point.

1Sa 8:8 According to all the works which they have done since the day that I brought them up out of Egypt even until this day, works with which they have forsaken Me and served other gods, so they do also to you.

And Jesus said...

Joh 15:18 If the world hates you, you know that it hated Me before it hated you.
Joh 15:19 If you were of the world, the world would love its own. But because you are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hates you.

 

[marvmax]

Do you see a validation for infant baptism from the perspective of Samuels Mum?

Thanks for participating gort. This is why I love reading the Bible or other books with others. I've never even considered this.

I would say no. I've always thought that the validation of infant baptism was because of circumcision at 8 days old.

11 And she vowed a vow, and said, O LORD of hosts, if thou wilt indeed look on the affliction of thine handmaid, and remember me, and not forget thine handmaid, but wilt give unto thine handmaid a man child, then I will give him unto the LORD all the days of his life, and there shall no razor come upon his head.

Hannah dedicate Samual before he is even concieved and it sounds like he is going to take a Nazarene vow like Sampson did, except in that case an angel told the Sampson's parents what to do.

21 And the man Elkanah, and all his house, went up to offer unto the LORD the yearly sacrifice, and his vow.
22 But Hannah went not up; for she said unto her husband, I will not go up until the child be weaned, and then I will bring him, that he may appear before the LORD, and there abide for ever.

We're not told for sure that Samual is even circumsised, and the mother is going to wait until Samual is weaned. Now weaning in poorer countries even today can take place when a child is up to 3-4. My wife told stories about being in Puerto Rico where toddler age childern would come up to their mothers and start unbuttoning their shirts because they wanted to nurse.

So I don't really know that much about infant baptism, but the ones that I've attended they were all much younger than when Hannnah finally took Samual to Eli.

 

[marvmax]

7 And the LORD said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them.
8 According to all the works which they have done since the day that I brought them up out of Egypt even unto this day, wherewith they have forsaken me, and served other gods, so do they also unto thee.

Difficult to say, it's just not told to us. Ultimately, they don't want Gods rule, they want their own king. And this is the major point.

No we're not told specifically, but here is where I think the scriptures get very interesting. Or at least they do for me. From the Lord's answer it would seem that Samuel is saying that the people are rejecting him. You could read the Lord's answer in vs. 7 in two ways. One would be a Lord who is chastising Samuel for being to arrogant in his assumptions. The other would be a Lord who is soothing a faithful servant. Of course because it's the scriptures it is possible, even probably, that both ways are correct depending on what lesson the reader needs to take away this verse.

I highlighted the same words you did in vs. 7 because you highlited them, but I highlighted and bolded the word in vs. 8 because I have never noticed them before, and wouldn't have this time through the OT if you hadn't quoted them. It seems that the Lord is comparing Samuel to himself in those words. That's astounding, and as you also point out Jesus said it of us also, that's also astounding. I'm going to have a lot of thinking to do here.

Thanks for sharing your insights.

 

[marvmax]

I probably noticed these verses for the first time because I've been reading N.T. Wright. He points out that Paul taught that the Gospel had been taught during the OT time period.

1 Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God,
2 (Which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures,)

When Saul is looking for his fathers asses he goes to the Samuel.

Here is another thing I'm wondering about.

6 And he said [the servant said] unto him, Behold now, there is in this city a man of God, and he is an honourable man; all that he saith cometh surely to pass: now let us go thither; peradventure he can shew us our way that we should go.

So it is the servants idea to go to the prophet. I can't help but wonder about the faithfulness of the poorer people. This reminds me of Naaman's servant. Saul is obviously the chosen of the Lord but he needs to be reminded of the prophet who can provide the Lord's help. Is this because when the Lord blesses us with material things we to start forgetting who we are truly dependent on?

Now back to my original pondering.

Samuel tells Saul what is going to happen to him the next day

6 And the Spirit of the LORD will come upon thee, and thou shalt prophesy with them, and shalt be turned into another man.
9 ¶ And it was so, that when he had turned his back to go from Samuel, God gave him another heart: and all those signs came to pass that day.
10 And when they came thither to the hill, behold, a company of prophets met him; and the Spirit of God came upon him, and he prophesied among them.

This sounds remarkably like a conversion, or born again, experience. Another thing that might have had an effect on me seeing this for the first time is that I've been involved, very slightly, in a thread regarding TULIP. If this is a conversion experience, how would the P of TULIP apply here, if it is even relevant.

Just my pondering's this time through the OT. This is why I love the scriptures every time through is a new journey with the Lord.

Oh yeah one other thing. Who are the Philistine prophets?

 

[skylark1]

Hi marvmax and gort,

One of my favorite parts of 1 Samuel is when

1 Samuel 3​

1And the child Samuel ministered unto the LORD before Eli. And the word of the LORD was precious in those days; there was no open vision.​

2And it came to pass at that time, when Eli was laid down in his place, and his eyes began to wax dim, that he could not see;​

3And ere the lamp of God went out in the temple of the LORD, where the ark of God was, and Samuel was laid down to sleep;​

4That the LORD called Samuel: and he answered, Here am I.​

This passage reminds me of the song, "Here I Am." If you aren't familiar with it, you can read the lyrics here, and liste to a recording of it here. It reminds me that God calls to each of us; that he asks us to serve him with all of our lives; with our of our heart, soul, mind, and strength.

I also found it curous that both Eli and Samuel had sons who turned aside from following God. In 1 Samuel 2:29 a man told Elei that the lord says, "Why do you honor your sons more than me by fattening yourselves on the choice parts of every offering made by my people of Israel? By allowing hs sons to continue in their wicked ways, Eli was honoring his sons more than he was God. I wonder in what ways we in our own lifes honor our family members more than we honor God? This also reminds me of this passage from Matthew 10:

37"He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. 38"And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me.​

 

[dimwhitt]

i am a big lover of the OT
ill jump in now and again

 

[marvmax]

i am a big lover of the OT
ill jump in now and again

Feel welcome to jump in anytime.

Skylark;
That certainly something to think about. I love my family immensely, but I don't think that I put them before loving the the Lord. Still it is something to consider.

1 Sam 13 is where Saul offers sacrifices when he shouldn't have. There could be a lot going on behind this. In the other kingdoms that the Isrealites said they wanted to emulate, the King was generally the highest priest, if not considered the divine son of their god. Perhaps this was in the back of Saul's mind. Anyway he get found out and says

12 Therefore said I, The Philistines will come down now upon me to Gilgal, and I have not made supplication unto the LORD: I forcedhttp://scriptures.lds.org/en/1_sam/13/12a myself therefore, and offered a burnt offering.

This type of self justification is something that I am all to familiar with. It is a constant prayer of mine that I might be able to bring my will into line with the Savior's, and his Fathers, but I find myself sometimes resorting to this type of justification. Not that I'm excused by it, it's just an example of how I relate to the players of the OT.

1 Sam 14 seems to be recounting the first tremors in Saul's family. Although it doesn't say so could Saul have been so gung ho to sacrifice his son because of jealousy? Jonathan it seems in the hero in this battle, and later we learn the Saul becomes jealous of David, my be this is the first indication of that.

Also, it is disturbing that Saul considers it OK to sacrifice his son. Perhaps sacrifice is not the right word, perhaps Saul just was going to kill him as a criminal. I can't help but remember the story of Jepthath and his daughter in Judges 11.

 

[marvmax]

52 And there was sore war against the Philistines all the days of Saul: and when Saul saw any strong man, or any valiant man, he took him unto him.

We see that Saul is acting in the way that the Lord through Samuel predicted he would.

22 And Samuel said, Hath the LORD as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the LORD? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams.
23 For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry. Because thou hast rejected the word of the LORD, he hath also rejected thee from being king.

24 ¶ And Saul said unto Samuel, I have sinned: for I have transgressed the commandment of the LORD, and thy words: because I feared the people, and obeyed their voice.

I like this passage. I think it shows that the Jews were not slaves to the works of the law like they are sometimes portrayed as. Then Saul again tries to justify why he has disobeyed.

14 ¶ But the Spirit of the LORD departed from Saul, and an evil spirit from the LORD troubled him.

This is probably the answer to the question that I posed about the P of TULIP. The way this is written it bothers me because it seems to show that the Lord will lead people to destruction. It also reminds me of the Pharaoh who the OT says that the Lord hardened his heart and thus brought about a terrible result to the people of Egypt. I pretty much choose to ignore this because I'm LDS, but I wonder how people who are not LDS, but do think that humans have free will, handle this.

 

[gort]

No we're not told specifically, but here is where I think the scriptures get very interesting.

I find that if we are'nt told something, it's not that important. There are too many backstories made from things we are'nt told.
People start makin stuff up.

You could read the Lord's answer in vs. 7 in two ways. One would be a Lord who is chastising Samuel for being to arrogant in his assumptions. The other would be a Lord who is soothing a faithful servant. Of course because it's the scriptures it is possible, even probably, that both ways are correct depending on what lesson the reader needs to take away this verse.

I think that I should not reign over them tells the focus of the verses.

It seems that the Lord is comparing Samuel to himself in those words.

Not really. Samuel is the prophet God chose to speak through. Ultimately, the rejection is to God, not Samuel. But that ol saying, kill the messenger has some validity here.

But it is still a form of what Jesus taught. They rejected God, they rejected the prophets.

 

[gort]

This is probably the answer to the question that I posed about the P of TULIP. The way this is written it bothers me because it seems to show that the Lord will lead people to destruction. It also reminds me of the Pharaoh who the OT says that the Lord hardened his heart and thus brought about a terrible result to the people of Egypt. I pretty much choose to ignore this because I'm LDS, but I wonder how people who are not LDS, but do think that humans have free will, handle this.

Originally Posted by 1 Sam 16
14 ¶ But the Spirit of the LORD departed from Saul, and an evil spirit from the LORD troubled him.

Ah, an important concept part here.

First off, does God have an evil spirit? If not, how do you explain this?


Secondly, don't you think Pharoah had hardened his own heart first? Think along the lines how hard a heart it takes to enslave a people and treat them badly?

 

[marvmax]

I find that if we are'nt told something, it's not that important. There are too many backstories made from things we are'nt told.
People start makin stuff up.

I like reading the scriptures and trying to feel in the blanks. However, I do have to be careful that I keep the differences in mind from what I'm imagining and what is really there.

I think that I should not reign over them tells the focus of the verses.

I agree.

Not really. Samuel is the prophet God chose to speak through. Ultimately, the rejection is to God, not Samuel. But that ol saying, kill the messenger has some validity here.

But it is still a form of what Jesus taught. They rejected God, they rejected the prophets.

I agree that they are rejecting Heavenly Father, but I still think that in vs 8 the Lord is saying that they are rejecting both. I thought that was the point you were trying to point out when you quoted the words of the Savior in the NT. In the NT it sounds like not only will the prophets be rejected but also those who follow the Savior.

Ah, an important concept part here.

First off, does God have an evil spirit? If not, how do you explain this?


Secondly, don't you think Pharoah had hardened his own heart first? Think along the lines how hard a heart it takes to enslave a people and treat them badly?

Well I was hoping that someone might be able to explain it to me. After all it doesn't say that the Pharao, and Saul first hardened their hearts

14 ¶ But the Spirithttp://scriptures.lds.org/en/1_sam/16/14a of the LORD departedhttp://scriptures.lds.org/en/1_sam/16/14b from Saul, and an evil spirit fromhttp://scriptures.lds.org/en/1_sam/16/14c the LORD troubled him.
15 And Saul’s servants said unto him, Behold now, an evil spirit fromhttp://scriptures.lds.org/en/1_sam/16/15a God troubleth thee.

3 Andhttp://scriptures.lds.org/en/ex/7/3a I will harden Pharaoh’s heart, and multiply my signs and my wondershttp://scriptures.lds.org/en/ex/7/3b in the land of Egypt.
...
13 Andhttp://scriptures.lds.org/en/ex/7/13a he hardened Pharaoh’s heart, that he hearkened not unto them; as the LORD had said.
14 ¶ And the LORD said unto Moses, Pharaoh’s heart is hardened, he refuseth to let the people go.

Now I think that Saul and Pharaoh both hardened their hearts without the Lord doing it, but I'm LDS, as you know gort, and believe in modern prophets who have said that is how the text should read. I know you don't accept that and I wouldn't usually even bring it up. I'm here to try and learn from others, and share my viewpoints, but I limit my viewpoints to the generally accepted Christian Scriptures.

I looks to me, from the text, that the Lord clearly hardened the Pharaoh's heart and then killed all the people in Egypt. This seems like a really good case for the Calvinist viewpoint that we're all just pupets and the Lord does what he wants with us (that my unprofessional viewpoint of Calvinist doctrine.) I'm just wondering how others see this, if they're willing to participate.

 

[skylark1]

Skylark;
That certainly something to think about. I love my family immensely, but I don't think that I put them before loving the the Lord. Still it is something to consider.

I was thinking of commenting a sin of ommission if we are too permissive with our children, and ignore something that we should correct. Maybe it is hard sometimes to let our kids suffer the natural consequences. Anyway, you guys are way past this.

I thought that this commetary offered some interesting thoughts concerning an evil spirit from the Lord tormenting Saul.

But the spirit of the Lord departed from Saul, and an evil spirit from the Lord troubled him (1Sa 16:14).

What does that mean "an evil spirit from the Lord?" Well, I guess it means an evil spirit from the Lord, but that is difficult for us to reconcile in our minds.

Now I don't want you all to get up and leave in a huff because I say something that may sound very radical. But I am convinced that in a unique and unusual kind of a way, Satan is actually serving God. He is serving purposes of God. If it were not for Satan then we would have no power of choice. If we had no power of choice, then God wouldn't know if you really loved Him or not.

Satan could not exist unless God allowed him to exist, and the very fact that God allows him to exist means that he must be serving a purpose for God, otherwise there would be no reason of having Satan around at all. If he were not serving a purpose of God then God surely wouldn't allow him his freedom today. But because he is serving a purpose of God, in order that you might be tested, in order that your love for God might indeed be a love of free choice, God has allowed Satan the liberty for he serves a purpose of God.

So in a broad sense all of creation is still serving the purposes of God. Even Satan, in his rebellion, for God has a purpose in that. You see, to give us the power of choice, and yet if there is no choice to make, what value is it to have a power of choice? "Here choose what book you want out of my hand."

"Well there is no choice."

In order to exercise choice there has to be the opposing side. So God has allowed Satan's rebellion, has allowed Satan to go on, has allowed Satan the freedom, has allowed Satan the freedom to come and to tempt you and to hassle you, and to work on you, and to make it difficult for you to serve God. So that as you serve God, it is because of choice of serving God in spite of the obstacles, in spite of the difficulties. "God, I do love You." My love for God is more or less proved by my choice to love Him in spite of the difficulty and obstacles that are placed in my way. Thus, God is assured that my love is genuine and my love for Him is true.

If I would say to my son, "Stay in the backyard while I go downtown." and I go out and chain him to the big tree. When I get home, I go in the backyard and unlock him and say, "Aha, I'm proud of my boy; he's obedient to his dad. Stayed right there in the backyard. Good boy." Proud father.

My neighbors say, "You should've heard him cursing and screaming trying to get free." He had no choice. There has to be the open door, the possibility, the opportunity to disobey in order that obedience is meaningful.

God wants from you meaningful love. Therefore, the choice must be given. Thus "an evil spirit from the Lord" or God allowed, perhaps, if that fits you better, an evil spirit to come, the spirit of the Lord.

Now I am convinced when the Spirit of God departs from your life, the door is open for evil spirits to really come. So an evil spirit allowed by the Lord, at least, came and began to harass Saul. The Spirit of God departed from him. What a sad time in a person's life when God's Spirit departs from his life. "And an evil spirit began to move in, and it troubled him."

http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-...html#36&{Chuck+Smith&&Select.x=26&Select.y=16
​

 

[gort]

Well I was hoping that someone might be able to explain it to me. After all it doesn't say that the Pharao, and Saul first hardened their hearts

As it is often the actions of a person which speak loudly, yes? The Sciptures may not explicitly say Pharoah or Saul hardened their hearts, but action speak just as well, yes?

I like reading the scriptures and trying to feel in the blanks. However, I do have to be careful that I keep the differences in mind from what I'm imagining and what is really there.

I'm very careful.

Now I think that Saul and Pharaoh both hardened their hearts without the Lord doing it, but I'm LDS, as you know gort, and believe in modern prophets who have said that is how the text should read

Yes, they had hardened hearts from the start. God is not the one who is first resonsible in this matter. Later, God did harden their hearts further.

I'm not here to argue about your lds views. I hope this thread pertains to just what the text says.

I looks to me, from the text, that the Lord clearly hardened the Pharaoh's heart and then killed all the people in Egypt. This seems like a really good case for the Calvinist viewpoint that we're all just pupets and the Lord does what he wants with us (that my unprofessional viewpoint of Calvinist doctrine.) I'm just wondering how others see this, if they're willing to participate.

Well, GOd did'nt kill all the people. You should converse with a Calvinist cuz I don't think you have a proper perspective on this.

But God did harden Pharoahs heart even more. You'll find a judgement against Egypt in this story. Just as God judged other peoples all thru the OT.

 

[gort]

I was thinking of commenting a sin of ommission if we are too permissive with our children, and ignore something that we should correct. Maybe it is hard sometimes to let our kids suffer the natural consequences. Anyway, you guys are way past this.

I thought that this commetary offered some interesting thoughts concerning an evil spirit from the Lord tormenting Saul.

But the spirit of the Lord departed from Saul, and an evil spirit from the Lord troubled him (1Sa 16:14).

What does that mean "an evil spirit from the Lord?" Well, I guess it means an evil spirit from the Lord, but that is difficult for us to reconcile in our minds.

Now I don't want you all to get up and leave in a huff because I say something that may sound very radical. But I am convinced that in a unique and unusual kind of a way, Satan is actually serving God. He is serving purposes of God. If it were not for Satan then we would have no power of choice. If we had no power of choice, then God wouldn't know if you really loved Him or not.

Satan could not exist unless God allowed him to exist, and the very fact that God allows him to exist means that he must be serving a purpose for God, otherwise there would be no reason of having Satan around at all. If he were not serving a purpose of God then God surely wouldn't allow him his freedom today. But because he is serving a purpose of God, in order that you might be tested, in order that your love for God might indeed be a love of free choice, God has allowed Satan the liberty for he serves a purpose of God.

So in a broad sense all of creation is still serving the purposes of God. Even Satan, in his rebellion, for God has a purpose in that. You see, to give us the power of choice, and yet if there is no choice to make, what value is it to have a power of choice? "Here choose what book you want out of my hand."

"Well there is no choice."

In order to exercise choice there has to be the opposing side. So God has allowed Satan's rebellion, has allowed Satan to go on, has allowed Satan the freedom, has allowed Satan the freedom to come and to tempt you and to hassle you, and to work on you, and to make it difficult for you to serve God. So that as you serve God, it is because of choice of serving God in spite of the obstacles, in spite of the difficulties. "God, I do love You." My love for God is more or less proved by my choice to love Him in spite of the difficulty and obstacles that are placed in my way. Thus, God is assured that my love is genuine and my love for Him is true.

If I would say to my son, "Stay in the backyard while I go downtown." and I go out and chain him to the big tree. When I get home, I go in the backyard and unlock him and say, "Aha, I'm proud of my boy; he's obedient to his dad. Stayed right there in the backyard. Good boy." Proud father.

My neighbors say, "You should've heard him cursing and screaming trying to get free." He had no choice. There has to be the open door, the possibility, the opportunity to disobey in order that obedience is meaningful.

God wants from you meaningful love. Therefore, the choice must be given. Thus "an evil spirit from the Lord" or God allowed, perhaps, if that fits you better, an evil spirit to come, the spirit of the Lord.

Now I am convinced when the Spirit of God departs from your life, the door is open for evil spirits to really come. So an evil spirit allowed by the Lord, at least, came and began to harass Saul. The Spirit of God departed from him. What a sad time in a person's life when God's Spirit departs from his life. "And an evil spirit began to move in, and it troubled him."

http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-...html#36&{Chuck+Smith&&Select.x=26&Select.y=16
​

Thanx for posting this. This is important. Some people I know actually think this evil spirit did come from God Himself.

But this is Gods sovereignty. God withdrew His SPirit, and God sovereignly allowed an evil spirit to enter Saul. This is a judgement against Saul.

In the NT, there are several instances where we are shown this.

 

[gort]

marvmax quotes:

I would say no. I've always thought that the validation of infant baptism was because of circumcision at 8 days old.

If a Mum and Pops take their infant child to be baptized, it may be a formality exercise (like circuscision), or it may be done in earnest appeal as Samuels Mum did.

The circumcision of the flesh is an outward show. It really reflects nothing of the inward part of people. The inward show is an earnest appeal that parents may have to God for their children.

But we do know that what happened to Samuel reflects his Mums appeals.

I think this also reflects in the NT. While Jesus says you must be baptized, it must reflect the inward man, and not be done as mere regulatory statutes require.

 

[marvmax]

If a Mum and Pops take their infant child to be baptized, it may be a formality exercise (like circuscision), or it may be done in earnest appeal as Samuels Mum did.

The circumcision of the flesh is an outward show. It really reflects nothing of the inward part of people. The inward show is an earnest appeal that parents may have to God for their children.

But we do know that what happened to Samuel reflects his Mums appeals.

I think this also reflects in the NT. While Jesus says you must be baptized, it must reflect the inward man, and not be done as mere regulatory statutes require.

Thanks gort;
I've never thought of the dedication of Samuel in that manner.