Did Jesus Dishonor His Earthly Parents?

Scarlett O. -

Just a couple of things, brother. First, welcome to the board. I hope you stay awhile. Please don't take what I have to say as anything but friendly chatter.

I'd probably call myself a Calvinist - does that make any difference?


Samuel was not the first judge. He was the last.

Thought someone would point that out so I just let it go.

His birth was only miraculous in that God heard the prayers of Hannah, his mother. His birth really can't be compared to Christ's birth.

Well, we know that Samuel's birth was absolutely a miracle and Hannah would not have given birth otherwise. And also, Hannah was incapable of having children at all - Mary could have given birth naturally, and in fact did have several other children (just sayin'). Also, considering that John the Baptist miraculous birth is described right along side Christ's in Luke means that we are meant to compare them in some sense.



Yes, Samuel was dedicated to God. Hannah made a vow that if God would give her a son, that she would give him back. But he wasn't given to the Temple. There was no Temple when Samuel was born. He was given to the priests at Shiloh.

(1 Sam 1:9-10 NKJV) Once when they had finished eating and drinking in Shiloh, Hannah stood up. Now Eli the priest was sitting on a chair by the doorpost of the Lord's temple. In bitterness of soul Hannah wept much and prayed to the LORD.

(1 Sam 1:24-25 NKJV) After he was weaned, she took the boy with her, young as he was, along with a three-year-old bull, an ephah of flour and a skin of wine, and brought him to the house of the LORD at Shiloh. When they had slaughtered the bull, they brought the boy to Eli...

Was this the tabernacle, presumably? That would have fullfilled the same function as the actual temple, with a Holy of Holies, sacrifices, burnt offerings, etc. And now that I think of it, why was God originally opposed to Solomon's temple, since it was only a more permenant tabernacle.

(Also, I believe Eli was the high priest).

(I actually don't like the NKJV either).



The Temple was not built for along time to come. Samuel has to grow up, serve as a prophet under Saul, then under David. David had to die and Solomon became king then Solomon built the Temple. I don't think Samuel ever saw the Temple as he died and Nathan was prophet during the latter part of David's reign.

And why would Jesus expect to become a mere Temple priest or be dedicated to serve there?

Jesus didn't come for that. His Priesthood was vastly different.

And Jesus was Prophet and Priest and King and Lamb and Sacrifice. He was and is everything.

To put him in a man-made Temple and have him serve there would have limited Him severely. It isn't what He came for.

Hope to chat with you more! :flower:

Thanks for pointing out that Jesus was prophet and priest and King, etc, saves me having to mention the Book Of Hebrews (i.e. Jesus description as High Priest in it), the "Son of David" title for him, etc. Jesus was in a singular category in one sense, in another he fit into the existing Hebraic religious and historical infrastructure.

The more I think of it, the fact that Jesus evidently thought he belonged at the temple, must mean that he did, and that it was his parents that dropped the ball. Samuel was also not High Priest but was raised (reared) at the temple.

Thanks for your comments.

 

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup: