Inspiration challange

Discussion in 'General Baptist Discussions' started by Deacon, Sep 20, 2015.

  1. Deacon

    Deacon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2002
    Messages:
    6,970
    Likes Received:
    128
    I've been teaching from 1 Samuel recently and have been reading ahead regarding the practice of prophecy during the time of the Kings.

    There are two portions that challenge my ideas regarding how God might have inspired the writers of scripture.

    1 Samuel 10:5–7 (NIV)
    “After that you will go to Gibeah of God, where there is a Philistine outpost. As you approach the town, you will meet a procession of prophets coming down from the high place with lyres, timbrels, pipes and harps being played before them, and they will be prophesying. The Spirit of the LORD will come powerfully upon you, and you will prophesy with them; and you will be changed into a different person. Once these signs are fulfilled, do whatever your hand finds to do, for God is with you."​


    1 Samuel 19:18–24 (NIV)
    When David had fled and made his escape, he went to Samuel at Ramah and told him all that Saul had done to him. Then he and Samuel went to Naioth and stayed there. Word came to Saul: “David is in Naioth at Ramah”; so he sent men to capture him. But when they saw a group of prophets prophesying, with Samuel standing there as their leader, the Spirit of God came on Saul’s men, and they also prophesied. Saul was told about it, and he sent more men, and they prophesied too. Saul sent men a third time, and they also prophesied. Finally, he himself left for Ramah and went to the great cistern at Seku. And he asked, “Where are Samuel and David?” “Over in Naioth at Ramah,” they said. So Saul went to Naioth at Ramah. But the Spirit of God came even on him, and he walked along prophesying until he came to Naioth. He stripped off his garments, and he too prophesied in Samuel’s presence. He lay naked all that day and all that night. This is why people say, “Is Saul also among the prophets?”

    Both concern the Lord's direct control of a person's actions.

    They challenge my theories concerning God's direct control in the process of inspiration.

    What do you think?

    Rob
     
  2. wpe3bql

    wpe3bql
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2015
    Messages:
    979
    Likes Received:
    12
    I'm not exactly sure what you mean when you said that these two passages in 1 Samuel challenge your ideas of how God might have inspired the writers of scripture.

    Are you saying that because Saul "prophesized" in these passages he was "inspired" in the same sense that Samuel was when he wrote 1 Samuel?

    Or are you asking about how God "controlled" Saul to say whatever he said while he was in the ecstatic state that obviously he was in, i.e., his becoming "a different person"?

    Or are you asking something completely different than these two questions?
     
  3. Deacon

    Deacon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2002
    Messages:
    6,970
    Likes Received:
    128
    Morning musing in Samuel

    The second of the three.

    I've always been adverse to the idea of 'divine dictation' when it comes to the writing of scripture; it may also defined as the direct divine control of the author.

    The common phrase, "Thus says the LORD..." also bears some examination.
    Could the LORD be speaking directly through the vocal cords of the prophet?
    ...or was the prophet merely echoing what the LORD told him to say?

    Rob
     
  4. wpe3bql

    wpe3bql
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2015
    Messages:
    979
    Likes Received:
    12
    "Divine dictation" probably was the only way that Moses could have written what he did in Genesis, and more than likely this too would have been how the Apostle John would have received what he wrote in Revelation 4:1 through to at least 22:20a.

    There are possibly other passages throughout the Bible that are like that such as in the "Mosaic" Book of Deuteronomy 34, which had to have been written by someone else (probably Joshua) since that chapter records the events surrounding Moses's death and burial.

    Most of the other books do show--at least to some extent--the human author's personality, and, on occasion, his purpose in writing the book--John 20:30-31 is an example of this.

    I tend to agree with you that in the remaining "narrative" books (Those books that aren't considered "poetic" in their contents.), they weren't, for the most part, "divine dictations.
     
  5. Darrell C

    Darrell C
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2010
    Messages:
    6,249
    Likes Received:
    118
    I think it goes without question that the Spirit of God came upon the Bible Writers, rather than dictated through them, and that is what we are seeing here, I believe. It is the same Ministry that empowered men for service (and in the first quote King and Prophet).


    You have underlined concerning Saul being a changed man, and that was true, for not only did prophesy, but was made King.

    Again we see prophesying as a result of the Spirit coming upon the men. Again, this is what happened when the Bible Writers wrote. Both are a manner of men speaking forth that which God revealed to them.

    What are your theories about Inspiration?


    God bless.
     
  6. JamesL

    JamesL
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2013
    Messages:
    2,245
    Likes Received:
    76
    I've always thought of the two in different ways. Prophesying, like tongues, as the Spirit "gave utterance"

    Not the same as, but maybe similar to, when Balaam's donkey spoke.

    Jesus told the disciples in Matt 10:19-20 "don't worry about what you will say, for it is not you who speak, but the Father speaking through you..."

    However, Paul at one point differentiated between what came from him and what came from God - 1Cor 7:10-12

    He also said... "I" desire men should lift holy hands, and "I" don't allow a woman to teach... - 1Tim 2:8-12 and there was no hint that this came from God


    I believe the spoken word of (or from) God is as the Spirit intricately directs. But the writing of scripture involved a man thinking about what God was directing
     
  7. Deacon

    Deacon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2002
    Messages:
    6,970
    Likes Received:
    128
    Yet both instance you mention are by definition, 'inspired' ...'breathed-out' by God... and no less a message from God than any other.

    ... the same can be said for the red-lettered words in scripture... they are no more inspired than the rest.

    Rob
     
  8. wpe3bql

    wpe3bql
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2015
    Messages:
    979
    Likes Received:
    12
    I actually came across a man whose wife almost literally had to drag him to church who told me that he truly believed that the words in red in his own Bible (One that the Masons had printed.) were the only really truly inspired words in the NT.

    When I asked him that, if that's true, do you sincerely desire to follow what Christ tells you to do in those red-lettered words?

    His answer was: "Well I don't even try to obey what He said there, but, one of these days I just might take a stab at it. Gutta go! I'm outta here!!"

    That was the last time I ever saw him at church.
     
  9. JamesL

    JamesL
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2013
    Messages:
    2,245
    Likes Received:
    76
    ? By definition ?

    Whatchu mean?
     
  10. tyndale1946

    tyndale1946
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2001
    Messages:
    6,179
    Likes Received:
    226
    I Peter 1:16 For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.

    1:17 For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

    1:18 And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount.

    1:19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:

    1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

    1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

    Were those who prophesied also eyewitness to Gods majesty?... Seem to me that the standard of measurement weather directly or indirectly is the eye witnessing of the same. Is there a difference in Peters time at Pentecost or during Samuels time?... Brother Glen
     
  11. Deacon

    Deacon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2002
    Messages:
    6,970
    Likes Received:
    128
    You brought up 1Cor 7:10-12, where "Paul at one point differentiated between what came from him and what came from God."

    and 1Tim 2:8-12, where you stated, "He also said... "I" desire men should lift holy hands, and "I" don't allow a woman to teach... - and there was no hint that this came from God."

    Both instances are found in "scripture" and therefore by Paul's own admission (in 2 Timothy 3:16), 'inspired, ...God-breathed'.

    IMO, if some parts are more inspired than others we tread a very fine line, calling some parts of God's word unimportant and ignorable.

    Regarding the comments and verses by Tyndale1946 regarding 1 Peter 1:21 and the phrase, "moved by the Holy Spirit".

    The phrase is undefined and doesn't speak of a mechanism of action.


    ***************
    To complicate matters a bit as I've pondered this today, I've thought about 2 Timothy's definition and perhaps it doesn't apply to the verses I began the thread with.

    Timothy deals with WRITTEN scripture. The LORD was working in the men of 1 Samuel without a written record of what they said. What is important in the passage was that God worked in them in a distinctive way... Hebrew zombies ;-)

    Rob
     
    #11 Deacon, Sep 21, 2015
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 21, 2015
  12. tyndale1946

    tyndale1946
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2001
    Messages:
    6,179
    Likes Received:
    226
    So are you saying Rob with further study into the OP you have cancelled your own post?... Brother Glen
     
  13. Deacon

    Deacon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2002
    Messages:
    6,970
    Likes Received:
    128
    Just thinking aloud online...

    I'm going into the passages concerning the ark of the covenant in 1 Samuel 4 in our Adult Sunday Bible Class.

    The passage I'm working on this week is chapter 3 where Samuel is called a prophet. A common word used is "word" - I'll connect it with the NT with John 1:1.

    I'm still working with a possible connection between the early chapters of 1 Samuel (1-3) [God revealing himself through the "word"], with the next few (4-7?) where the ark (a visible symbol of God's presence) plays a prominant role.
    Following the ark passages Saul enters and that is where the prophets begin to show up.

    Feel free to give me ideas.

    Rob
     
  14. wpe3bql

    wpe3bql
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2015
    Messages:
    979
    Likes Received:
    12
    If you're referring to the Ark of the Covenant whose dimensions and physical appearance is described in Exodus 37, I'm not sure how that chest-like box that was placed in the Holy of Holies of the Tabernacle, in and of itself, would constitute the word of God.

    Granted, the Ark of the Covenant did hold the two stone tablets on which the Ten Commandments were inscribed (Ex. 40), but these two stone tablets were physically separate from the Ark.

    The only human contact with these two stone tablets--actually there was no direct physical contact with them--was when the High Priest sprinkled the blood of the unblemished lamb on them on Yom Kippur, the "Day of Atonement" which was the most day in the Hebrew religious calendar and usually fell very close to our autumnal equinox that marked the beginning of our fall season.

    In the OT historical books we read how the ark was used for positive things such as when Joshua ordered the priests to stand in the Jordan River as a sort of symbolic act by which God stopped the Jordan River (which at that time of the year was in its high flooding season) to allow the Israelites to cross it and enter into the Promised Land (Josh. 3 & 4) and also it was carried along with the Israelites when they march around the walls of Jericho just before they collapsed (Josh. 6).

    But, by the time of Samuel's writings, the Israelites seemed to consider it little more than a good luck charm that'd guarantee good fortune if their enemies, in this case the Philistines, attacked them (See 1 Sam. 4 - 7).
    ------------------------------------------------------
    (Just FYI, that very day will begin this evening [September 22, 2015] at sunset. "Observant" Jews usually commemorate it by having lengthy services at their synagogue and by personally "repenting" for what sins that they consider to be important to the individual, and also by fasting for a period of time.)
    ------------------------------------------------------
    Again, I still don't see how a person would consider the mere presence of the Ark to be equivalent to, say, what was written on the scrolls of the Torah.

    Maybe you've got another angle on this. If you do, I'd be curious to know what that angle is.
     
  15. Deacon

    Deacon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2002
    Messages:
    6,970
    Likes Received:
    128
    The ark of the Covenant of the LORD represented the very presence of the LORD. It was very much associated with God communicating to the people.

    Exodus 25:22 (NIV)
    There, above the cover between the two cherubim that are over the ark of the covenant law, I will meet with you and give you all my commands for the Israelites.

    Numbers 7:89 (NIV)
    When Moses entered the tent of meeting to speak with the LORD, he heard the voice speaking to him from between the two cherubim above the atonement cover on the ark of the covenant law. In this way the LORD spoke to him.

    Deuteronomy 10:8 (NIV)
    At that time the LORD set apart the tribe of Levi to carry the ark of the covenant of the LORD, to stand before the LORD to minister and to pronounce blessings in his name, as they still do today.

    Judges 20:27–28 (NIV)
    And the Israelites inquired of the LORD. (In those days the ark of the covenant of God was there, with Phinehas son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron, ministering before it.) They asked, “Shall we go up again to fight against the Benjamites, our fellow Israelites, or not?” The LORD responded, “Go, for tomorrow I will give them into your hands.”​

    True, the people during the time of Samuel misused the ark as a "good luck charm', it was still very much a powerful symbol of God's presence in Israel. Levite priests commune with God in the presence of the ark.

    Rob
     
    #15 Deacon, Sep 22, 2015
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 22, 2015
  16. JamesL

    JamesL
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2013
    Messages:
    2,245
    Likes Received:
    76
    I don't believe Paul had any "admission" about what he wrote to Timothy and the Corinthians.

    When he said "all scripture...." he *most likely* had in mind the OT.


    Scripture isn't scripture simply by declaring it so, Scripture bears out its truth.

    Do you think God spoke through Paul "do this, but it isn't from me." ???

    I'm pretty firmly convinced that when Paul said "this is from me, not God" that he was being truthful - it was not from God. Paul's preference, not binding. And when he said "I" don't allow women to teach", why did he not simply say women are not to teach? Why word it as though it was simply a preference with good reasoning behind it?

    Considering that, if an apostle had a preference, there's probably a good reason. But then again, he had a preference in his dispute over John Mark....right?

    I don't think it's a good idea to have a mystical view of things like "please send my books...please bring my coat....greet so-and-so"
     

Share This Page

Loading...