Sometimes, to really get God’s attention, a prophet just has to get naked. At least that’s the way it worked for Saul.
The story begins with Saul being plagued by an evil spirit from God.
And the evil spirit from the LORD was upon Saul. 1 Samuel 19:9
Then Saul tries to kill David, but David’s wife, Michal, helped him escape.
So Saul sent messengers to find David, but they found Samuel and a group of prophesying prophets instead.
And Saul sent messengers to take David: and when they saw the company of the prophets prophesying, and Samuel standing as appointed over them. 19:20a
When the messengers saw everyone prophesying, the Spirit of God came upon them and they started prophesying too.
The Spirit of God was upon the messengers of Saul, and they also prophesied. 19:20b
When Saul found out that his messengers were prophesying, he sent more messengers--and when they got to the prophesying party, they started “prophesying likewise.”
When it was told Saul, he sent other messengers, and they prophesied likewise. 19:21a
And when Saul heard that his second set of messengers were prophesying, he sent a third group of messengers and “they prophesied also.”
And Saul sent messengers again the third time, and they prophesied also.19:21b
After sending the three groups of messengers who all began prophesying, Saul decided to go there himself. As soon as he arrived, the Spirit of God came upon Saul also, and he began prophesying.
And he [Saul] went thither to Naioth in Ramah: and the Spirit of God was upon him also, and he went on, and prophesied. 19:23
And not only did Saul prophesy, but he stripped off all of his clothes “also.” Apparently when the Spirit of the Lord comes upon you and you start prophesying, you’ve got to take off all your clothes. God likes to see what he’s dealing with.
And he stripped off his clothes also. 19:24a
Saul was naked in front of God and everybody all day and all night.
And lay down naked all that day and all that night. 19:24b
That’s why they say, “Is Saul also among the prophets?”
Wherefore they say, Is Saul also among the prophets? 19:20-24c
I know that’s why I always say it.
But how come nobody prophesies naked anymore?
19 comments:
"And not only did Saul prophesy, but he stripped off all of his clothes “also.” Apparently when the Spirit of the Lord comes upon you and you start prophesying, you’ve got to take off all your clothes. God likes to see what he’s dealing with."
"But how come nobody prophesies naked anymore?"
Verse 24 actually means that Saul was the only one without clothes. This was an additional action by Saul which was unrelated to the others who were prophesising. Everyone except for Saul still had their clothes on.
Oh, gosh, thanks bob. I don't know how you know these things, but maybe the Spirit of the Lord comes upon you when you're prophesying. Do you keep your clothes on or off when that happens?
If on, I think you should reconsider. God told Isaiah to go completely naked as a sign and a wonder for 3 years in Isaiah 20:2-4 and Micah (or God) went stripped and naked in Micah 1:8. And, of course, David danced nearly naked in front of God and everybody in 2 Samuel 6:14.
Just something to consider while you're prophesying.
"I don't know how you know these things..."
Just read the verses in order instead of mixing them up to suit your own imagination.
"but maybe the Spirit of the Lord comes upon you when you're prophesying. Do you keep your clothes on or off when that happens? If on, I think you should reconsider."
We are talking about Saul, not me.
The actions of Saul, Isaiah and Micah were unique events. In Isaiah's case it was a warning against putting trust in the world rather than God.
Now look! You are trusting in the staff of this broken reed, Egypt, on which if a man leans, it will go into his hand and pierce it. So is Pharaoh king of Egypt to all who trust in him. 2Kings 18:21
And because the world is naked and weak before God it also cannot save us from his wrath, which in Isaiah’s time came through the Assyrians (Isaiah 20:4-6) who God used as an instrument of his wrath, and who were also subsequently punished themselves.
“Woe to Assyria, the rod of my anger and the staff in whose hand is my indignation. I will send him against an ungodly nation, and against the people of my wrath I will give him charge, to seize the prey and to tread them down like mire in the streets. However, this is not his intention (nor is the Assyrian aware that he is doing this at my bidding), neither does his mind so think and plan; but it is in his mind to destroy and cut off many nations.” Isaiah 10:5-7
The Assyrian himself says:
“By the strength of my hand I have done it, and by my wisdom, for I am prudent; also I have removed the boundaries of the people, and have robbed their treasuries; so I have put down the inhabitants like a valiant man. My hand has found like a nest the riches of the people, and as one gathers eggs that are left, I have gathered all the earth; and there was no one who moved his wing, nor opened his mouth with even a peep.” Isaiah 10:13, 14
But God says:
“Shall the axe boast itself against him who chops with it? Or shall the saw magnify itself against him who saws with it? As if a rod could wield itself against those who lift it up, or as if a staff could lift up, as if it were not wood!” Isaiah 10:15
“For yet a little while and my indignation against you [Israel] shall be accomplished, and my anger shall be directed to destruction [of the Assyrian].” Isaiah 10:25
The book of Micah is a prophesy by Christ, the Lord of hosts, through the prophet Micah about Himself (Micah 1:2-3) which includes his extreme grief (v.8) at the people’s sins/crimes and idolatry.
The book of Micah sounds to me like it was written by someone on drugs.
1:8 Therefore I will wail and howl, I will go stripped and naked: I will make a wailing like the dragons, and mourning as the owls.
There's that nakedness again. Was he prophesying while wailing like a dragon? No wonder no one took him seriously.
I'd better leave bible reading to the professionals! :lol:
Steve Weeks
"The book of Micah sounds to me like it was written by someone on drugs."
That is understandable, for the following reason.
But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. 1Corinthians 2:14
Well, I guess that makes me a natural man! :-)
Steve Weeks, NM
If by 'natural man' you mean that part of a man which can only relate to worldly matters, or one who believes that the totality of life consists only of the physical/material universe, and that there is no spiritual component to life, then I would agree.
@Bob:
If by "spiritual component of life" you mean "that for which there is no evidence", then we are on the same wavelength. And, yes, come to think of it, the physical/material universe *is* all there is. It doesn't mean I don't have transcendent experiences such as joy, love, sadness... the whole range of emotions. But I accept that these are manifestations of highly evolved chemical reactions in my brain.
So I guess I'm a "natural man" any way you look at it. :-)
Cheers!
Steve Weeks
No, I don't mean "that for which there is no evidence"
And what evidence do you have that,
"the physical/material universe *is* all there is" since there is no experiment that has ever spontaneously produced life from chemicals?
Simply because no experiment has ever created life from - as you put it - chemicals is *not* evidence for god. Abiogenesis is not understood at the present time, and it may never be understood since it happened billions of years ago. However, possible mechanisms by which it *could* have happened are being studied and may one day yield a plausible answer to the question.
Even if you think the existence of life is sufficient evidence for the existence of god, what makes you think it is the god of the bible? And what is your evidence that this god gives a rat's behind about you, me or anything else?
Here is my standard for evidence for these things: when an amputee has the missing limb restored to form and function by prayer *alone* under verifiable conditions.
According to Matthew 7:7 this should be possible.
Steve Weeks
“Simply because no experiment has ever created life from - as you put it - chemicals is *not* evidence for god.”
There are only two options. Either life arose on its own spontaneously, or it was brought into existence by a higher intelligence/power.
continued...
“Abiogenesis is not understood at the present time, and it may never be understood, since it happened billions of years ago.”
At the present time it is understood that abiogenesis does not work. No one knows that it happened billions of years ago because no one was there to witness it.
“However, possible mechanisms by which it *could* have happened are being studied and may one day yield a plausible answer to the question.”
All the studies have increasingly shown that it is not even remotely possible, as can be shown by the following excerpts.
The DNA molecule is the most compact and efficient information storage system in the known universe. For example, the amount of information that could be stored in a single pinhead of DNA would be equivalent to a pile of paperback novels 240 times as high as the distance from the earth to the moon, or 100 million times more information than a 40 gigabyte hard drive could hold on your computer. Even if we could explain the creation of complex coded information by chance, there would be another problem. We would need at the same time to create a mechanism capable of reading and using this coded information; otherwise, the information alone is useless. A fully functional system for writing, reading, and using information is required. This is an example of “irreducible complexity.” That is, to be fully functional, the writing mechanism, the reading mechanism, and the mechanism for using the information must all be present at the very first instance it appears. If one of these components is missing, the system won’t work. Since life is built on a hierarchy of such “irreducibly complex” machines, the idea that natural processes could have made mere chemicals into living systems is untenable. [Gary Bates, Alien Intrusion – UFO’s and the Evolution Connection, page 119. An expose of the UFO phenomena]
“…Thousands of man-years of research as well as unprecedented technological developments were required to produce a Megabit chip, but we are expected to believe that the storage principles embodied in DNA, with their much higher degree of integration, developed spontaneously in matter which was left to itself. Such a “theory” is, to say the least, absurd in the highest degree.”
“There is no known law of nature, no known process, and no known sequence of events which can cause information to originate by itself in matter… Not even the physical building blocks required for the storage of information can construct themselves.” [From: In The Beginning Was Information by Dr Werner Gitt, pages 194, 106]
And information itself is not a living entity. In and of itself it can do nothing without a will to direct it, but for something to have a will it must be living.
Since it is not a living entity, then it must have originated from a living, intelligent information giver that has a will to direct it.
To our physical eye, another person’s mind and intellect are invisible, but we know they exist because they manifest themselves through the persons’ words and creativity. So God’s invisible mind is also manifested through his word and his creation.
For since the creation of the world his invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse. Romans 1:20
“Even if you think the existence of life is sufficient evidence for the existence of god, what makes you think it is the god of the bible?”
The God of the Bible (his word) is the only one that properly fits human history from the beginning to now, and accurately explains the human condition.
“And what is your evidence that this god gives a rat's behind about you, me or anything else?”
The whole Bible, from beginning to end speaks of salvation for a lost world through Jesus’ (God was manifested in the flesh. 1Timothy 3:16) work on the cross.
...of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. Revelation 13:8
“Here is my standard for evidence for these things: when an amputee has the missing limb restored to form and function by prayer *alone* under verifiable conditions. According to Matthew 7:7 this should be possible.”
This means while serving God. It’s not a party trick. And witnessing miracles does not guarantee a change of heart either.
Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the mighty works which were done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. Matthew 11:21
The whole of creation is a miracle, but it is at the same time under the curse of sin and death because of mans rebellion towards his Creator, that is, Christ (John 1:1-14).
Bob, I see you subscribe to the "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit" school of thought.
Just show me the amputee with the limb restored by prayer. I'm waiting.
But not holding my breath.
Here's another project for you that won't take hours of cutting and pasting. I realize that *I* can't ask this imaginary deity for a favor, because I don't believe it exists. But as a true believer, *you* can ask for anyting and it will be granted. So, here's my suggestion: YOU pray for ME to believe in your god and his son. This should be no challenge at all, and it would be a really spectacular coup for the man upstairs.
I'll let you know when it happens!
Steve Weeks
Forget the amputee, Bob needs a leg to stand on.
Bob said: "At the present time it is understood that abiogenesis does not work. No one knows that it happened billions of years ago because no one was there to witness it."
I just want to point out the flaw in this particular argument ("no one was there to see it...").
Police detective solve crimes all the time even though no one actually "saw" it, because of *evidence* and the use of their higher faculties.
Most likely, no one saw your great-grandparents having sex... but YOU are pretty good evidence that they did. :-)
Steve Weeks
"If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit"
That’s a bit rich coming from an evolutionist.
"Here's another project for you that won't take hours of cutting and pasting"
About 10 minutes actually.
"But as a true believer, *you* can ask for anyting and it will be granted. So, here's my suggestion: YOU pray for ME to believe in your god and his son."
Will do.
"Police detective solve crimes all the time even though no one actually "saw" it because of *evidence*...”
The police detective also exposes false claims by exposing the *lack* of evidence for them, which is precisely how we know that evolution is not possible, but rather, it is probably the greatest mass delusion ever perpetrated in all of human history. In other words, a crime.
“...and the use of their higher faculties."
As has been shown, “higher faculties” are not the exclusive domain of the evolutionist.
"Most likely, no one saw your great-grandparents having sex... but YOU are pretty good evidence that they did. :-)"
Which equally applies to evidence for a Creator.
@bob...
"...which is precisely how we know that evolution is not possible..."
OK, I see the brick wall here: your mind. This isn't an argument any more, it's abuse... in your case, of the "self" variety. ;-)
I recommend you read a little more widely. Jerry Coyne's "Why Evolution is True" would be a good start.
Virtually *all* scientists accept that evolution has occurred and continues to occur; the evidence is overwhelming except for those who refuse to consider it. The *mechanism* by which evolution takes place, "natural selection", is the theoretical part. I, and all those other scientists, would be wide open to an alternative proposal which accounts for the abundance of evidence for natural selection. The one who proposes an alternative other than simply "goddidit" would win the Nobel Prize for sure. I notice this hasn't happened.
I realize the brick wall isn't interested in this, so I'm going to leave you to your world-view.
Meanwhile, I'll be looking for that amputee with the restored limb, and I'll certainly report when I start believing. Oh, wait... I know god has the habit of hardening peoples' hearts so he can fry 'em for eternity. Such a loving fellow.
Steve Weeks
"Virtually *all* scientists accept that evolution has occurred and continues to occur; the evidence is overwhelming except for those who refuse to consider it."
It has been considered and found wanting.
"The *mechanism* by which evolution takes place, "natural selection", is the theoretical part."
Natural selection is a description of an observable process. It was thought of by creationists such as Edward Blyth 25 years before Darwin.
Natural selection (a principle recognized by creationists) is acknowledged as a part of life, but gives no support to evolution (the naturalistic origin of life and its diversity) because it generates no new genetic information, which is required to turn a microbe into a monkey.
There should be hundreds of specific examples of mutations generating new genetic information, (which is then sorted by natural selection), which increase the information in the genome, which is what evolution requires. But there is not.
Natural selection is a culling force, not a creative one.
"I, and all those other scientists, would be wide open to an alternative proposal which accounts for the abundance of evidence for natural selection."
Again, natural selection is already acknowledged by creationists as a part of life.
"I recommend you read a little more widely. Jerry Coyne's "Why Evolution is True" would be a good start."
And I would recommend:
review coyne why evolution is true-creation.com
And some books:
The Greatest Hoax On Earth? and, By Design, by Jonathan Sarfati PH.D.
And also: No Excuse, by Werner Gitt
And for some theology:
What Luther Says, by Ewald M. Plass
"Oh, wait... I know god has the habit of hardening peoples' hearts so he can fry 'em for eternity. Such a loving fellow."
That is true, loving but at times also wrathful, and with good reason.
The coming of the lawless one is according to the working of Satan, with all power, signs, and lying wonders and with all unrighteous deception among those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth that they might be saved. And for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie, that they all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness. 2Thessalonians 2:9-12.
The previous verse refers to the rejection of God’s offer of salvation. For example, you send your only son, who you love very much, off to war to rescue some people, who you also love, at great personal risk and cost to himself and his family, but then those same people make light of it and treat it as a joke or even disbelieve it and call you a liar. Eventually this kind of disrespect would make you boil with anger despite your longsuffering, kind and patient nature.
“...so I will choose their delusions, and bring their fears on them; because when I called no one answered, when I spoke they did not hear...” Isaiah 66:4
But even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those that are perishing, whose minds the god of this age [Satan] has blinded, who do not believe, lest the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine on them. 2Corinthians 4:4
If we reject God, we end up with the devil by default.
Well, Bob, it looks like you have answers for everything. Except maybe the amputee business. And so far your prayers haven't had any influence on me. But, otherwise...
Be well, enjoy life and try not to hold public office. ;-)
Steve Weeks
Post a Comment