|
Post by michelle on Nov 13, 2007 20:13:43 GMT -8
17 "What was it he said to you?" Eli asked. "Do not hide it from me. May God deal with you, be it ever so severely, if you hide from me anything he told you." 18 So Samuel told him everything, hiding nothing from him. Then Eli said, "He is the LORD; let him do what is good in his eyes."
I became very saddened by this passage. Neither Eli nor Samuel pleads with God on Eli's behalf. We saw how effective Moses' intercessions on behalf of Israel were. And I know that Moses did not change God's mind, but the point was to talk with God about it. Here, neither Samuel nor Eli are moved to do that. It served as a reminder to me that while I am here to do God's will and I need to submit to that, I can still talk with God and be frank with Him about how I am feeling in a situation.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Nov 14, 2007 14:55:45 GMT -8
Wow. I have never thought about that passage that way. That's staggering.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Jan 22, 2011 21:48:47 GMT -8
Our next Old Testament study will be of the book 1st Samuel. We'll be starting it toward the end of February, but I just want to let people know now because the more reading along the better. If anyone wants to get a jump on the first two chapters, dig in and share your thoughts.
|
|
|
Post by stevekimes on Jan 22, 2011 22:09:05 GMT -8
I've just finished teaching I Samuel to my Saturday congregation today. What a marvelous book. What an amazing story. Has anyone read Robert Alter's translation of it? I highly recommend it, as well as his commentary.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Jan 23, 2011 9:18:25 GMT -8
Thanks for the recommendation- I'll look into it! I just picked up the Brazos Theological Commentary on 1 Samuel by Francesca Aran Murphy based on a good review from Christianity Today, but I haven't opened it yet. I'm excited to bring to bear some divergent perspectives. I think the real force of 1 Samuel is it's "story power", which, for the most part, is what Scripture is really all about, and it's the very thing that hits people (from child to adult) straight to the heart. I think if when we are reading Scripture we imagined ourselves around a campfire hearing a story, it would quickly dispel some of our modern hangups with the Bible. BTW, I'm curious if you have any thoughts on this: The Bible As Story
|
|
|
Post by stevekimes on Jan 23, 2011 14:56:49 GMT -8
I completely agree with that sentiment. The Bible is a primarily the story of God's relation with humanity. The morality of these stories are occasionally vague and the doctrine is pretty minor. But the stories are fantastic. Some of the best stories ever written-- obviously, for we are still captivated by them.
But the purpose of Scripture, according to Jesus and the apostles is fulfillment and moral and doctrinal truth. How do we make that transition? How did the NT?
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Jan 23, 2011 17:28:13 GMT -8
What do you mean by "fulfillment"? Do you mean prophetic fulfillment or personal fulfillment?
I guess I don't really think there was a "transition". Jesus (and by extension, much of the NT) has plenty of what I'd call "story authority". Even the epistles, if you think about it, have a ton of "story authority" because they are set in a time and a place. Some of the elements some people wonder why God included in his sacred word (such as Paul's mentioning of situations or individuals long forgotten) are precisely what make even the epistles a story and not just a catalogue of "timeless" truths.
|
|
|
Post by stevekimes on Jan 24, 2011 1:12:29 GMT -8
I don't mean a transition from one form of Scripture to another.
Jesus focuses on the OT as a form of fulfillment. And I am sure that it is not just fulfillment of prophecy, but fulfillment of story. There is a way that the OT stories were supposed to conclude, but they didn't. David was supposed to be a righteous king, bringing in a utopia, but he didn't. Jesus did instead. Moses was supposed to be a righteous ruler being faithful to God and entering the promised land. He wasn't. Jesus did instead. The children of Israel were supposed to receive God's full salvation due to their obedience. They didn't. Jesus did instead.
Paul says that all Scripture is good for "doctrine and instruction in righteousness". So how is story good for this, if one cannot come with a clear doctrine or moral from a story?
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Feb 21, 2011 21:28:18 GMT -8
As I'm preparing my lesson for Sunday, I want to kick off some discussion about both key ideas in these chapters and also potentially problematic passages to discuss.
Some questions for discussion:
1. 1:5 But to Hannah he gave a double portion because he loved her, and the LORD had closed her womb.
Do you think this implies that barrenness is always caused by God, just in this case, or this is merely figurative language?
2. When Eli responds to Hannah with: 17 Eli answered, “Go in peace, and may the God of Israel grant you what you have asked of him.” do you think he believes what he's saying or is just trying to shoo her off?
3. Does Hannah's prayer in chapter 2 seem a bit like uncharitable gloating over Elkanah's other wife?
4. In 2:25 when it says that Eli's sons did not listen to his rebuke, what are we to make of the phrase for it was the LORD’s will to put them to death. in light of other passages like 2 Peter 3:9 or Ezekiel 18:32 which say God does not want anyone to perish?
5. Can you imagine delivering as harsh a prophecy as the one in 2:27-36? If God wants his servants to be gentle, why did he send such a message?
6. What is the major change that God is bringing about in the story of his people through the life of Samuel, hinted at in 3:11-14? I think it's more than the demise of Eli's family.
7. What can we learn from Hannah's example in this passage?
8. What can we learn from Eli's family disaster in this passage?
Anyone's thoughts on any of these points (or some points of your own) would be great!
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Feb 21, 2011 21:43:35 GMT -8
Jesus focuses on the OT as a form of fulfillment. And I am sure that it is not just fulfillment of prophecy, but fulfillment of story. There is a way that the OT stories were supposed to conclude, but they didn't. David was supposed to be a righteous king, bringing in a utopia, but he didn't. Jesus did instead. Moses was supposed to be a righteous ruler being faithful to God and entering the promised land. He wasn't. Jesus did instead. The children of Israel were supposed to receive God's full salvation due to their obedience. They didn't. Jesus did instead. Paul says that all Scripture is good for "doctrine and instruction in righteousness". So how is story good for this, if one cannot come with a clear doctrine or moral from a story? somehow I forgot to respond to this, steve. Since it's a more broad topic than just 1 Sam. 1-3, I responded here: www.aletheia.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=inspiration&thread=600&page=1
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Feb 26, 2011 9:14:20 GMT -8
How about this?
1 Samuel 2:30 (New International Version, ©2010)
30 “Therefore the LORD, the God of Israel, declares: ‘I promised that members of your family would minister before me forever.’ But now the LORD declares: ‘Far be it from me! Those who honor me I will honor, but those who despise me will be disdained.
9. Do we have a place in our theology for God to rescind a promise in certain circumstances?
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Feb 27, 2011 8:34:36 GMT -8
Last question.
10. In 1 Samuel 3:11-14 God says that the punishment He is going to bring on Eli's family will never be atoned for by sacrifice or offering. How does this square with a God of mercy who only judges each man for his own sin? (Ezekiel 18)
I'd really like to get into any of these points (1-10) with some of you. Don't be bashful. Or jump in with your own questions/ comments.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Feb 27, 2011 21:36:13 GMT -8
Last question. 10. In 1 Samuel 3:11-14 God says that the punishment He is going to bring on Eli's family will never be atoned for by sacrifice or offering. How does this square with a God of mercy who only judges each man for his own sin? (Ezekiel 18) Michelle brought up a good parallel between this passage and the "unforgiveable sin" of the New Testament- blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. Looking at it from another angle, I wonder if God is referring to merely ritual cleansing, ie, the blood of bulls, as opposed to the blood of Jesus, freely given, which can cleanse us of all our sins.
|
|