107 replies to this topic

[Brant Gardner]

Rob Bowman, on 06 May 2011 - 12:29 PM, said:

You say that "they left out things that might weaken their attack." Yes, that could be argued, just as it could be argued that Brant left out things that might weaken his defense, as I have documented.

Let us please remember that I offered a critique of the film, not a defense of the Book of Mormon. I would (and have) argued that point very differently.

The issue of the review was to show how the film created an illusion that it was offering some strong historical evidence, but did so only by offering a distorted picture that misrepresented some information and (with what can only be assumed as intention) ignored others. Reviewing what the film claims and what it actually did leads to the conclusion of an attempt to create an illusion at best, and to delude at worst.

[Rob Bowman]

Brant,

You wrote:

Brant Gardner, on 06 May 2011 - 01:30 PM, said:

I suspect that it comes from different views of the construction of the text. I am suggesting that there were changes in the way temples were conceived before and after the exile, and that the restriction to the Jerusalem temple was part of a political agenda to concentrate both secular and religious authority in the same place. Therefore, the previous practices that allowed for temples (and shrines) outside of Jerusalem were changed to meet political exigencies rather than following the dictate from God.

However, if you posit that this was dictated by God, then that defines the reason that we see the data differently. In that case, I am arguing from history, and you are arguing from a faith-proposition. That is fine, but it tells us that there is no way for the two to meet.

I am extremely dubious about the historical reconstruction you are suggesting (or following). It is part of a radical historical revisionist theory of the origins of the Old Testament that is itself, I would suggest, part of an ideological agenda to dismantle the practical religious and theological authority of the Old Testament. This is an agenda that questions the existence of the patriarchs and of Moses, denies the Exodus and the Conquest or pacifies them into something theologically unremarkable, and claims that "monotheism" was a postexilic innovation of the Deuteronomists. I have both historiographical and theological objections to that revisionism. Obviously, this is a huge subject and we can hardly even scratch the surface of it here. But I wish to state for now that the issue as I see it is a historical issue with theological implications.

You wrote:

Quote

Actually, I was quite sure of that. It uses information that I believe is absolutely relevant but which I suspect you see as entirely different. Paul had to address Jesus' non-Levitical descent. Therefore:

Hebrews: 5:3-6
3  And by reason hereof he ought, as for the people, so also for himself, to offer for sins.
4  And no man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron.
5  So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest; but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, to day have I begotten thee.
6  As he saith also in another place, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.

The question Paul is answering is how Christ can offer a sacrifice for sin and not be of the line of Aaron or the tribe of Levi. Paul indicates that there is another way, and that it is legitimate.

Please assume that I would use Paul's argument for why Lehi might also offer a sacrifice.

I guess you may need to connect the dots of this argument for me a little more, but I will respond as best I understand your argument. Jesus qualifies to be a priest not because * surprise! * there are actually two earthly priesthoods and Jesus, along with all other non-Levites, happens to qualify for the non-Aaronic one. Nor is the point in Hebrews 5:3-6 that God can make an exception to the Levites-only rule if he wants, from which precedent one might argue that if God can make an exception for Jesus he can make an exception for Lehi too (!). The point of the passage is that the Old Testament reveals (as shown by the quotations from Psalm 2:7 and 110:4) that God intended all along to supersede the Aaronic priesthood with a very different kind of priest in the person of the Messiah. As the writer of Hebrews lays out his argument, he explains in Hebrews 7 that Jesus is uniquely qualified by virtue of his innocence, death, resurrection, and exaltation to heaven to offer his own death as the final, ultimate sacrifice for sins. Jesus is not one of many members of another earthly priesthood; he is the sole "member" of a new order of priest as our one and only heavenly, great high priest. Lehi, even if he existed, could not have qualified to be that kind of priest. Hebrews 5:3-6, in context, is completely useless as precedent for someone like Lehi serving as a priest under the covenant God made with Israel.

[Bill Hamblin]

Rob Bowman, on 06 May 2011 - 06:42 PM, said:

I am extremely dubious about the historical reconstruction you are suggesting (or following). It is part of a radical historical revisionist theory of the origins of the Old Testament that is itself, I would suggest, part of an ideological agenda to dismantle the practical religious and theological authority of the Old Testament. This is an agenda that questions the existence of the patriarchs and of Moses, denies the Exodus and the Conquest or pacifies them into something theologically unremarkable, and claims that "monotheism" was a postexilic innovation of the Deuteronomists. I have both historiographical and theological objections to that revisionism. Obviously, this is a huge subject and we can hardly even scratch the surface of it here. But I wish to state for now that the issue as I see it is a historical issue with theological implications.

The Bible itself suggests something like this happened with the story of Josiah's reforms and the discovery of the lost book (presumably Deuteronomy) in the temple.  

Rob Bowman, on 06 May 2011 - 06:42 PM, said:

I guess you may need to connect the dots of this argument for me a little more, but I will respond as best I understand your argument. Jesus qualifies to be a priest not because * surprise! * there are actually two earthly priesthoods and Jesus, along with all other non-Levites, happens to qualify for the non-Aaronic one. Nor is the point in Hebrews 5:3-6 that God can make an exception to the Levites-only rule if he wants, from which precedent one might argue that if God can make an exception for Jesus he can make an exception for Lehi too (!). The point of the passage is that the Old Testament reveals (as shown by the quotations from Psalm 2:7 and 110:4) that God intended all along to supersede the Aaronic priesthood with a very different kind of priest in the person of the Messiah. As the writer of Hebrews lays out his argument, he explains in Hebrews 7 that Jesus is uniquely qualified by virtue of his innocence, death, resurrection, and exaltation to heaven to offer his own death as the final, ultimate sacrifice for sins. Jesus is not one of many members of another earthly priesthood; he is the sole "member" of a new order of priest as our one and only heavenly, great high priest. Lehi, even if he existed, could not have qualified to be that kind of priest. Hebrews 5:3-6, in context, is completely useless as precedent for someone like Lehi serving as a priest under the covenant God made with Israel.

If God can call Samuel an Ephramite (1 Sam. 1:1) to serve as a priest in his temple/tabernacle (1 Sam 2:18), it is not clear why you object to the same possibility with Nephi.

[Rob Bowman]

Bill,

You wrote:

Bill Hamblin, on 06 May 2011 - 07:18 PM, said:

The Bible itself suggests something like this happened with the story of Josiah's reforms and the discovery of the lost book (presumably Deuteronomy) in the temple.

Naw. The biblical narrative speaks of the discovery of the book of the Law in the temple and presents Josiah's reforms as restorative of teachings and practices of the Law that had been neglected. The modern liberal revisionist narrative claims that the book (or at least the beginnings of the book) originated in the time of Josiah and represented an innovative, unprecedented new direction in the history of Israel.

You wrote:

Quote

If God can call Samuel an Ephramite (1 Sam. 1:1) to serve as a priest in his temple/tabernacle (1 Sam 2:18), it is not clear why you object to the same possibility with Nephi.

1 Samuel 2:18 does not say that God called Samuel to serve as a priest. The passage says that Samuel worked as a servant to a priest, not that he was a priest himself (see v. 11). It was natural enough for assistants of the priests to wear a linen ephod, but this didn't make those assistants priests themselves.

[Bill Hamblin]

Rob Bowman, on 06 May 2011 - 09:07 PM, said:

1 Samuel 2:18 does not say that God called Samuel to serve as a priest. The passage says that Samuel worked as a servant to a priest, not that he was a priest himself (see v. 11). It was natural enough for assistants of the priests to wear a linen ephod, but this didn't make those assistants priests themselves.

It was? CFR.

How about the fact that Moses and Samuel are equated in  Jer. 15:1.
    Moses and Aaron were among his priests,
    Samuel was among those who called upon his name. (Ps 99:6)
Here, in Hebrew poetic parallelism, Samuel is a priest like Moses.
What about Samuel offering burnt offerings (1 Sam. 7:9)?

So:
1- he wears priestly robes (1 Sam 2:18)
2- he "serves" in the temple/tabernacle (1 Sam 2:18), a technical term for temple liturgy (HALOT 1661-2)
3- he offers sacrifice (1 Sam 7:9)--supposedly a prerogative of priests.
4- he, like Moses is "stands before the Lord" (Ps 99:6 and Jer. 15:1)

The obvious conclusion is that Samuel was a priest, though not a Levite.  Alas, since it doesn't match your Evangelical theology, you reject the obvious meaning of the text.

[Bill Hamblin]

Rob Bowman, on 06 May 2011 - 09:07 PM, said:

Naw. The biblical narrative speaks of the discovery of the book of the Law in the temple and presents Josiah's reforms as restorative of teachings and practices of the Law that had been neglected. The modern liberal revisionist narrative claims that the book (or at least the beginnings of the book) originated in the time of Josiah and represented an innovative, unprecedented new direction in the history of Israel.

Of course, that's your spin.  What the Bible says actually is that the Passover had not been properly kept between the days of Samuel and the days of Josiah (2 Kgs 23:21-22; 2 Chr 35:18).  This is confirmed by the fact that the Passover is never mentioned between Josh 6:10 and these passages.  That obviously demonstrates that whatever is going on, the Passover temple rituals of the days of Josiah were new, not something that had been neglected.

[Rob Bowman]

Historical Figures

  Critique: The film discounts the reality of the Book of Mormon prophets because no evidence for them exists outside the Book of Mormon, in contrast to the extrabiblical documentation for the existence of various figures mentioned in the Bible. However, this lack of evidence for the Book of Mormon figures is due to the paucity of texts: “For the great majority of Mesoamerica, no adequate texts have survived to tell us about anything, let alone personal names.”

  Response: The lack of evidence for such Book of Mormon figures as Lehi or Nephi is not a strong argument against the historicity of the Book of Mormon. I would agree that the general lack of texts with proper names during the Book of Mormon period means that the absence of evidence is in this respect not evidence of absence.

  ----------

  Critique: The film argues that because there is no evidence that Christ ever visited the Americas—and no evidence for Christianity there during the Book of Mormon era—Joseph Smith made it up. Brant replies that the lack of evidence for Christ’s visit is again the result of a lack of texts. As for the absence of Christianity, Brant argues that “the land” that was Christianized would have been a local region only, not the entire hemisphere, and that any iconographic evidence is likely to be ambiguous, since Christian iconography in the Old World is also often ambiguous.

  Response: 4 Nephi 1 is as expansive as it could be in describing the Christianization of the Book of Mormon land: “the people were all converted unto the Lord, upon all the face of the land…. the people of Nephi did wax strong, and did multiply exceedingly fast…. And it came to pass that there was no contention among all the people, in all the land…. There were no robbers, nor murderers, neither were there any Lamanites, nor any manner of –ites…. the people had multiplied, insomuch that they were spread upon all the face of the land….” (4 Ne. 1:2-23). Let us assume for the sake of argument a limited Mesoamerican setting for the Book of Mormon. We would still be looking here at a whole civilization converted to faith in Christ and living consistent with that belief for about two centuries. This civilization was so widespread and dominant that it did not have to worry about robbers or murderers in their midst; they were ethnically one people without “any manner of –ites” polluting their culture. This description rules out a “limited presence” scenario in which the Christian Nephites were just one of several religious and cultural traditions mixed together in the same civilization. But that is the context in which the ambiguous Jewish and Christian iconography of the Old World is found. Besides, while some iconography in the Old World is ambiguous, a lot of it is not, a point that Brant’s argument ignores. The fact is that if what 4 Nephi says is true, we should find some iconographic evidence of a Christian-like civilization in the first two centuries AD in Mesoamerica. But as Brant concedes, we don’t. As best I understand it, the evidence we have for the area that most LDS scholars claim was the Book of Mormon region shows a decidedly non-Christian religious and cultural civilization throughout the Book of Mormon era.

[Rob Bowman]

Bill,

You wrote:

Bill Hamblin, on 06 May 2011 - 10:52 PM, said:

Of course, that's your spin.  What the Bible says actually is that the Passover had not been properly kept between the days of Samuel and the days of Josiah (2 Kgs 23:21-22; 2 Chr 35:18).  This is confirmed by the fact that the Passover is never mentioned between Josh 6:10 and these passages.  That obviously demonstrates that whatever is going on, the Passover temple rituals of the days of Josiah were new, not something that had been neglected.

Guffaw.

If we take both your Joshua and 2 Kings references at face value, "what the Bible actually says" is clearly that the Passover was not new in the days of Josiah but something that had long been neglected. "And the king commanded all the people, 'Keep the Passover to the LORD your God, as it is written in this Book of the Covenant.' For no such Passover had been kept since the days of the judges who judged Israel, or during all the days of the kings of Israel or of the kings of Judah" (2 Kings 23:21-22 ESV). This passage clearly states that the Passover was part of the "Book of the Covenant," that it had been observed during the time of the judges, and that it had been neglected between the time of the judges (Judges 5:10-11, by the way, not 6:10) and the time of Josiah. This means that the Book of the Covenant originated no later than the time of the judges. That is "what the Bible actually says," of course.

I wonder, when you offered the above argument, if you had forgotten that the Passover is not mentioned even once in the entire Book of Mormon?

Edited by Rob Bowman, 09 May 2011 - 10:39 AM.

[Rob Bowman]

Bill,

I had written: "1 Samuel 2:18 does not say that God called Samuel to serve as a priest.  The passage says that Samuel worked as a servant to a priest, not that  he was a priest himself (see v. 11). It was natural enough for  assistants of the priests to wear a linen ephod, but this didn't make  those assistants priests themselves." You replied:

Bill Hamblin, on 06 May 2011 - 10:39 PM, said:

It was? CFR.

I just gave you a reference. 1 Samuel 2:18 describes Samuel as a servant to a priest, not as a priest.

Jeremiah 15:1 says that Moses and Samuel both "stood before" the LORD. How does this prove that Samuel was a priest? Out of all the possible comparisons you might make between the two men, what in this text is the basis for claiming that it means they were both priests? Leviticus 9:5 says that the entire congregation of Israel "stood before the LORD" in front of the tent of meeting (see also 2 Chron. 20:13). Parties in a dispute were to "stand before the LORD" (Deut. 19:17). Moses and Samuel both interceded in prayer to the LORD on behalf of Israel. This is something that priests did, of course, but not only priests (e.g., Abraham also interceded with God on behalf of the cities in the plain).

Psalm 99:6 is indeed parallelism, but even "synonymous" parallelism does not mean an exact equivalency is being made. Thus, "Moses and Aaron were among his priests" explicitly identifies them as priests, while "Samuel was among those those called upon his name" describes him in general, non-official terms, as doing something that (again) priests did but others could do also.

Your strongest argument is that Samuel offered a burnt sacrifice (1 Sam. 7:9). Again, though, while this was something priests did (and was especially characteristic of priests), it was something that others also did, though never in the tabernacle.

You wrote:

Quote

So:
1- he wears priestly robes (1 Sam 2:18)
2- he "serves" in the temple/tabernacle (1 Sam 2:18), a technical term for temple liturgy (HALOT 1661-2)
3- he offers sacrifice (1 Sam 7:9)--supposedly a prerogative of priests.
4- he, like Moses is "stands before the Lord" (Ps 99:6 and Jer. 15:1)

The obvious conclusion is that Samuel was a priest, though not a Levite.  Alas, since it doesn't match your Evangelical theology, you reject the obvious meaning of the text.

My evangelical theology has nothing to do with the issue here, as far as I'm concerned. If you want to play ad hominem circumstantial games, I could just as easily assert that your LDS theology forces you to look for non-Levite priests in the Old Testament.

Your interpretation is possible but not necessarily correct. But let us assume that you are right and that Samuel was a priest. 1 Chronicles 6:28 appears to identify Samuel as a member of the tribe of Levi. You will say this contradicts 1 Samuel 1:1, but there need not be a contradiction: since Levites did not have their own territory, it would be natural to describe a Levite from the territory of Ephraim as an Ephraimite.

[Bill Hamblin]

Rob Bowman, on 09 May 2011 - 10:38 AM, said:

Bill,

You wrote:



Guffaw.

If we take both your Joshua and 2 Kings references at face value, "what the Bible actually says" is clearly that the Passover was not new in the days of Josiah but something that had long been neglected. "And the king commanded all the people, 'Keep the Passover to the LORD your God, as it is written in this Book of the Covenant.' For no such Passover had been kept since the days of the judges who judged Israel, or during all the days of the kings of Israel or of the kings of Judah" (2 Kings 23:21-22 ESV). This passage clearly states that the Passover was part of the "Book of the Covenant," that it had been observed during the time of the judges, and that it had been neglected between the time of the judges (Judges 5:10-11, by the way, not 6:10) and the time of Josiah. This means that the Book of the Covenant originated no later than the time of the judges. That is "what the Bible actually says," of course.

I wonder, when you offered the above argument, if you had forgotten that the Passover is not mentioned even once in the entire Book of Mormon?

What was the Book of the Covenant?  The book found in the temple (2 Chr 34:30; 2 Kgs 23:2), right?
What is the book found in the temple?  Nearly everyone thinks its some version of Deuteronomy, right?

So, the Bible says either that Passover had not been kept at all in the days of the monarchy, or that it hadn't been kept as proscribed in the Book of the Covenant/Deuteronomy.  Either way, the proscriptions in Deuteronomy had been unknown for four hundred years (2 Chr 34:21; 2 Kgs 22:13).  The Passover regulations were utterly new to the people of Josiah's day.  If they had this text about the Passover that they had merely neglected, why did they need to discover a new book to convince them to do the Passover right?  All they would have to do is follow the requirements they already knew about in the books they already had.  That is not what happened.  

You can see some of the differences by comparing the Deuteronomic description of Passover (16:1- with those in Ex 12-13.  There are a number of important differences.  In Deut you have to go to the temple for Passover, can offer cattle instead of sheep, you must boil the meat instead of roasting it, and the offering must be done at the temple as a sacrifice.  The Deuteronomic Passover was something new.  That's why scholars talk about Deuteronomistic writings, and Deuteronomic reforms, etc.

[Bill Hamblin]

Rob Bowman, on 09 May 2011 - 11:21 AM, said:

Bill,

I had written: "1 Samuel 2:18 does not say that God called Samuel to serve as a priest.  The passage says that Samuel worked as a servant to a priest, not that  he was a priest himself (see v. 11). It was natural enough for  assistants of the priests to wear a linen ephod, but this didn't make  those assistants priests themselves." You replied:



I just gave you a reference. 1 Samuel 2:18 describes Samuel as a servant to a priest, not as a priest.

We are obviously reading a different Bible.  Mine's the Masoretic.  What's yours?
1 Sam 2:18
"Samuel was engaged in the service of the Lord as an attendant, girded with a linen ephod." (JPS)
This text does not say Samuel was a servant of the priests.  The Hebrew is mešāret 'et peney YHWH.  He was "ministering/serving before the face of YHWH," a technical term for temple service.  
Can you name any example in the Bible where an ephod is worn by anyone other than a priest or king involved in temple/cultic-related activities?

[Bill Hamblin]

Rob Bowman, on 09 May 2011 - 11:21 AM, said:

Your strongest argument is that Samuel offered a burnt sacrifice (1 Sam. 7:9). Again, though, while this was something priests did (and was especially characteristic of priests), it was something that others also did, though never in the tabernacle.

So, in 1 Sam 13:8 Saul offers a burnt offering without Samuel, and loses his kingship for it (1 Sam 13:14).  To Samuel it was obviously important that he offer the sacrifice rather than Saul.  This makes no sense if Samuel doesn't have a special relationship with sacrifices, that is, unless he is a priest.

[Bill Hamblin]

Rob Bowman, on 09 May 2011 - 11:21 AM, said:

My evangelical theology has nothing to do with the issue here, as far as I'm concerned. If you want to play ad hominem circumstantial games, I could just as easily assert that your LDS theology forces you to look for non-Levite priests in the Old Testament.

There is absolutely no problem finding clear biblical examples of non-Levitical and even non-Israelite priests of YHWH.

1- Melchizedek (Gen 14)
2- Jethro the Midianite (Ex 3:1, 18:1)
3- Ideally all Israel (Ex 19:6; Num 8:16-19)
4- Israelite priests before the Sinai covenant (Ex 19:22, 24), that is before the Levites are given exclusive priesthood rights (Num 8:16-19; cf. Ex 32:29; Num 3)
5- Samuel (as discussed here)
6- David's sons (2 Sam. 8:18)
7- Isaiah enters the Holy of Holies (Isa 6) implies priesthood

[Rob Bowman]

Bill,

You wrote:

Bill Hamblin, on 09 May 2011 - 01:31 PM, said:

We are obviously reading a different Bible.  Mine's the Masoretic.  What's yours?

Can you possibly stop being so condescending?

Your response in fact ignores the text I cited.

"And the boy ministered to the LORD in the presence of Eli the priest" (1 Sam. 2:11 ESV).
"And the child did minister unto the LORD before Eli the priest" (1 Sam. 2:11 JPS).

This text clearly distinguishes between the boy and the priest. The boy served the Lord under the priest. He was the priest's attendant or servant. Unlike the wicked servants of the priest who used their position to steal from the people (vv. 13-15, which uses the expression "the priest's servant"), Samuel was a good and faithful servant of the priest.

You wrote:

Quote

1 Sam 2:18
"Samuel was engaged in the service of the Lord as an attendant, girded with a linen ephod." (JPS)
This text does not say Samuel was a servant of the priests.  The Hebrew is mešāret 'et peney YHWH.  He was "ministering/serving before the face of YHWH," a technical term for temple service.  
Can you name any example in the Bible where an ephod is worn by anyone other than a priest or king involved in temple/cultic-related activities?

If a king can be an exception, then there can be other exceptions. I agree that Samuel ministered before YHWH, but he did so as Eli's assistant or attendant.

[Bill Hamblin]

Rob Bowman, on 09 May 2011 - 01:56 PM, said:

Can you possibly stop being so condescending?

Probably not.  

Rob Bowman, on 09 May 2011 - 01:56 PM, said:

Your response in fact ignores the text I cited.

"And the boy ministered to the LORD in the presence of Eli the priest" (1 Sam. 2:11 ESV).
"And the child did minister unto the LORD before Eli the priest" (1 Sam. 2:11 JPS).

This text clearly distinguishes between the boy and the priest. The boy served the Lord under the priest. He was the priest's attendant or servant. Unlike the wicked servants of the priest who used their position to steal from the people (vv. 13-15, which uses the expression "the priest's servant"), Samuel was a good and faithful servant of the priest.

Actually, you cited 2:18, not 2:11.  I responded to 2:18.  At any rate, of course Samuel ministered with Eli.  He was learning how to be a priest.  Why would Eli have a non-priest assist him in the tabernacle rituals?    Samuel "served/ministered YHWH in the presence of Eli."  It does not say he was serving Eli.  It says he was serving YHWH in the presence of Eli.  

Look at 3:3.  "The lamp of God had not yet gone out, and Samuel was lying down in the temple of the LORD, where the ark of God was." (ESV)  Only priests could enter the Holy Place.  Notice Samuel was sleeping in the temple, and has a temple theophany there.  Why would Eli allow a non-priest to do this?

[Bill Hamblin]

Rob Bowman, on 09 May 2011 - 01:56 PM, said:

If a king can be an exception, then there can be other exceptions. I agree that Samuel ministered before YHWH, but he did so as Eli's assistant or attendant.

How does Samuel being an attendant of Eli make him less of a priest?  Young priests served as attendants to older priests.  That's precisely how they learned how to be priests.  This is precisely what Samuel is described as doing.

Note, too, that in 1 Sam 2:18 Samuel wears the ephod, while in 2:28 the "man of God" describes the selection of Aaron, Eli's ancestor as priest in the following words: "Did I choose him [Aaron] out of all the tribes of Israel to be my priest, to go up to my altar, to burn incense, to wear an ephod before me?"  Part of the description of being a priest is wearing the ephod before YHWH.  This is precisely how Samuel is described a few verses earlier in 2:18, where he is described as wearing an ephod before YHWH.  I think this can hardly be coincidence, when in chapter 3 Samuel receives a vision in the temple prophesying that Eli's family will lose its priesthood.  

How much more evidence do you want?

At any rate, you've now agreed that "there can be other exceptions" so you criticism of Nephite priesthood is moot.

[Rob Bowman]

Bill,

Regarding whether you could stop being condescending, you wrote:

Bill Hamblin, on 09 May 2011 - 02:13 PM, said:

Probably not.  

Okay, I have been warned.

You wrote:

Quote

Actually, you cited 2:18, not 2:11.  I responded to 2:18.

No, you cited 2:18 and I replied (see here) by citing 2:11: "The passage says that Samuel worked as a servant to a priest, not that he was a priest himself (see v. 11)."

You wrote:

Quote

At any rate, of course Samuel ministered with Eli.  He was learning how to be a priest.  Why would Eli have a non-priest assist him in the tabernacle rituals?    Samuel "served/ministered YHWH in the presence of Eli."  It does not say he was serving Eli.  It says he was serving YHWH in the presence of Eli.  

Look at 3:3.  "The lamp of God had not yet gone out, and Samuel was lying down in the temple of the LORD, where the ark of God was." (ESV)  Only priests could enter the Holy Place.  Notice Samuel was sleeping in the temple, and has a temple theophany there.  Why would Eli allow a non-priest to do this?

And you wrote this:

Quote

How does Samuel being an attendant of Eli make him less of a priest?   Young priests served as attendants to older priests.  That's precisely  how they learned how to be priests.  This is precisely what Samuel is  described as doing.

Note, too, that in 1 Sam 2:18 Samuel wears the ephod, while in 2:28 the  "man of God" describes the selection of Aaron, Eli's ancestor as priest  in the following words: "Did I choose him [Aaron] out of all the tribes  of Israel to be my priest, to go up to my altar, to burn incense, to wear an ephod before me?"   Part of the description of being a priest is wearing the ephod before  YHWH.  This is precisely how Samuel is described a few verses earlier in  2:18, where he is described as wearing an ephod before YHWH.  I think  this can hardly be coincidence, when in chapter 3 Samuel receives a  vision in the temple prophesying that Eli's family will lose its  priesthood.

I think you've made a good case that Samuel was in training to become a priest. As I said, if this is correct, it may be because he was in fact a Levite from the area of Ephraim, not a member of the tribe of Ephraim (1 Sam. 1:1; 1 Chron. 6:28).

You wrote:

Quote

At any rate, you've now agreed that "there can be other exceptions" so you criticism of Nephite priesthood is moot.

Come on, Bill. I said that "there can be other exceptions" to the rule that only priests wore an ephod while performing temple-related activities, not to the rule that only Levites could be priests under the old covenant.

You wrote:

Quote

There is absolutely no problem finding clear biblical examples of non-Levitical and even non-Israelite priests of YHWH.

1- Melchizedek (Gen 14)
2- Jethro the Midianite (Ex 3:1, 18:1)
3- Ideally all Israel (Ex 19:6; Num 8:16-19)
4- Israelite priests before the Sinai covenant (Ex 19:22, 24), that is  before the Levites are given exclusive priesthood rights (Num 8:16-19;  cf. Ex 32:29; Num 3)
5- Samuel (as discussed here)
6- David's sons (2 Sam. 8:18)
7- Isaiah enters the Holy of Holies (Isa 6) implies priesthood

1. Melchizedek was not a priest under the old covenant. He is a type of Christ. See #4 below.
2. Jethro the Midianite was not a priest under the old covenant; he was a priest of Midian, not a priest of Israel. However, because he had already been a priest before Sinai and was Moses' father-in-law, he was, as we would put it, "grandfathered" in as a priest and did perform at least one public priestly function (Ex. 18:12).
3. This is a figurative use of the term anticipating or foreshadowing the new covenant community in which in this metaphorical sense all are priests.
4. No one claims that only Levites could be priests before the Levitical priesthood was established in the wilderness!
5. Samuel was apparently a Levite (1 Chron. 6:28).
6. The context suggests a non-sacral, political function for David's sons, hence the translations "chief ministers" (JPS, NASB), "chief officials" (HCSB), "chief rulers" (KJV), "royal advisers" (NIV); see also the LXX.
7. Isaiah 6 describes a vision; it does not mean that Isaiah was literally in the temple let alone the Holy of Holies.But he might have been a Levite; all we know about his family line is that his father's name was Amoz.

[Bill Hamblin]

Rob Bowman, on 09 May 2011 - 05:03 PM, said:

I think you've made a good case that Samuel was in training to become a priest. As I said, if this is correct, it may be because he was in fact a Levite from the area of Ephraim, not a member of the tribe of Ephraim (1 Sam. 1:1; 1 Chron. 6:28).

And this is an example of precisely why people think Evangelicals read scripture with their special blinders.

1 Sam 1:1 says Samuel was an Ephraimite.  
1 Chr. 6:28 says Samuel was a Levite.
This is an obvious contradiction.  
You therefore make up hypothetical speculation about how to reconcile the verses because, according to your presuppositions, the Bible cannot contain contradictions.

A more reasonable explanation is that Samuel was an Ephraimite according to the ancient tradition, and that the editors of Chronicles (writing centuries after Samuel lived) produced a Levitical genealogy for him to reconcile precisely the problem you are facing here--a non-Levitical priest.

A much more straightforward explanation is that God could call non-Levites to be priests if he wanted to.

[Rob Bowman]

Bill,

Actually, the explanation I offered is a Jewish explanation. Oops. Sorry to burst your simplistic bubble.

Bill Hamblin, on 09 May 2011 - 08:03 PM, said:

And this is an example of precisely why people think Evangelicals read scripture with their special blinders.

1 Sam 1:1 says Samuel was an Ephraimite.  
1 Chr. 6:28 says Samuel was a Levite.
This is an obvious contradiction.  
You therefore make up hypothetical speculation about how to reconcile the verses because, according to your presuppositions, the Bible cannot contain contradictions.

A more reasonable explanation is that Samuel was an Ephraimite according to the ancient tradition, and that the editors of Chronicles (writing centuries after Samuel lived) produced a Levitical genealogy for him to reconcile precisely the problem you are facing here--a non-Levitical priest.

A much more straightforward explanation is that God could call non-Levites to be priests if he wanted to.

[Bill Hamblin]

Rob Bowman, on 09 May 2011 - 05:03 PM, said:

1. Melchizedek was not a priest under the old covenant. He is a type of Christ. See #4 below.
2. Jethro the Midianite was not a priest under the old covenant; he was a priest of Midian, not a priest of Israel. However, because he had already been a priest before Sinai and was Moses' father-in-law, he was, as we would put it, "grandfathered" in as a priest and did perform at least one public priestly function (Ex. 18:12).
3. This is a figurative use of the term anticipating or foreshadowing the new covenant community in which in this metaphorical sense all are priests.
4. No one claims that only Levites could be priests before the Levitical priesthood was established in the wilderness!
5. Samuel was apparently a Levite (1 Chron. 6:28).
6. The context suggests a non-sacral, political function for David's sons, hence the translations "chief ministers" (JPS, NASB), "chief officials" (HCSB), "chief rulers" (KJV), "royal advisers" (NIV); see also the LXX.
7. Isaiah 6 describes a vision; it does not mean that Isaiah was literally in the temple let alone the Holy of Holies.But he might have been a Levite; all we know about his family line is that his father's name was Amoz.

Notice you are adding all sorts of qualifiers here.  The question is, can there be non-Levitical priests of YHWH.  The answer is, obviously, yes.  

1.  So what if Melchizedek is a type of Christ.  He's still a priest of the Most High God without being a Levite.
2. Jethro was a priest of YHWH who happened to be a Midianite, and not a Levite.  You are fantasizing about "grandfathering" him.  He was a priest of God, period.  
3. This is pure retrojection of Evangelical theology onto Hebrew Bible.    
4. Then you admit there are non-Levitical priests.  At last!
5. See earlier
6.  So all those translations say they weren't priests.  That's fine, expect for the unpleasant fact that the Hebrew original says there were kōhanîm = priests.  There's plenty of other Hebrew words for these other offices.  Why does the inerrant text say priests if it really meant something else?
7.  Nothing about Isaiah activities indicates he was a Levite.  Isaiah entered the Holy of Holies because God called him.  

And that's just the point of Lehi.  God can given the priesthood to whomever he wants--Melchizedek, Jethro, Moses, non-Levite Israelites before Sinai, Samuel, David's sons, or Isaiah.  (Note that David and Solomon also appear to perform priestly functions.)  That's the obvious message of the Hebrew Bible.  The ritual order was organized around Levites.  But God can supersede that ritual order whenever, wherever and however he wants.  If God wants to give priesthood to Lehites, he can do it, just as he gave it to Melchizedek, Jethro, Moses, and Samuel.

Edited by Bill Hamblin, 10 May 2011 - 10:13 AM.