[Note: because of the questions and discussion on the former post, I thought that this article might serve to help in the area of prayer, providence and miracles ~rlp].
She was a godly woman as far as the scriptures say, and she was married to a godly man. But like her forebear, Sarai, she went for many years without bearing any children for her beloved Elkanah.
Some have recently called upon the story of Hannah as evidence or proof that God works supernatural deeds today. Never mind the fact that the events of 1 Samuel 1 occurred during the days that God admittedly worked through supernatural acts, are the events recorded about the conception and birth of Samuel examples of God's supernatural intervention in human affairs? Regarding most of the events detailed the answer to this question is no.
The story of Hannah should encourage every faithful child of God to fervently pray for God's blessings, but it does not teach that God always answers prayers supernaturally. In fact it teaches the opposite view: God's answers to prayers are usually (today always) answered by His working through the natural laws He ordained at the beginning of time.
Samuel records the events that led up to his birth in the first chapter of 1 Samuel. Hannah was one of Elkanah's two wives. The other wife, Peninnah, had no difficulty bearing children for her husband, but despite Elkanah's greater love for Hannah, she bore him none.
Samuel writes that "the Lord had shut up her womb" (1 Sam. 1:5). We do not know if this means that the Lord specifically caused Hannah to be barren, or (more likely) if it simply means that God allowed her to be so (cf. Job 2:3). Whatever the proper interpretation, however, there is no reason to assume that God employed supernatural power to cause her to be without child. The scriptures often describe things done by the Lord that must be accomplished through natural means (Acts 16:14).
During one of her annual pilgrimages to Shiloh to worship with her husband, Hannah bowed herself in fervent prayer to God that He might grant her request for a son. Eli, the high priest and judge over Israel at the time, at first thought she was drunken and rebuked her, but when he learned her true state of mind, he proclaimed, "Go in peace: and the God of Israel grant thee thy petition that thou hast asked of Him" (v. 17).
This grant gave Hannah peace after many long years of concern, so she was no longer sad. Though it would still be a little while before Samuel was conceived, and even longer before she had any physical evidence of that conception, she believed the words of Eli, and was comforted (v. 18).
Next we read that "Elkanah knew Hannah his wife; and the Lord remembered her" (v. 19). Then, just as Eli said, "when the time was come about after Hannah conceived," Samuel was born to the faithful woman who prayed a fervent prayer.
Now, just what events in this story give evidence of God working supernaturally? Must God work a miracle to answer her prayer?
As mentioned above there is no reason to believe that it was supernatural that Hannah's womb was closed for so many years. Many women have gone without the ability to have children, and there are commonly recognized natural reasons for such to occur.
Was Hannah's prayer endued with supernatural power? Surely not! The prayer she offered differed little from prayers we might hear ordinarily every day.
How about Samuel's conception; was it supernatural? Not according to the text—it occurred in the ordinary way when Elkanah and Hannah shared the marriage bed. But someone might say that in Hannah's case it must have been supernatural, because she had gone so long without the ability before. There are thousands of documented cases, however, where this occurs naturally today. There is no reason to assume a supernatural event, and since the presumption is always in favor of natural law, we should not assume anything other than that.
Was there anything supernatural about Samuel's gestation? Again the answer is no. Samuel was born "when the time was come about" just as every other healthy human child is born.
The only supernatural act that occurred in this story in as far as the record is concerned is the pronouncement of Eli that Hannah's prayer had been granted even before Samuel was conceived. How was it that Eli could know this? Only by the supernatural (miraculous) power of God that worked within him.
All of the other events occurred in complete conformity with nature's laws.
What does this mean fohe knowledge that God can and does work within the laws of nature to answer our prayers. "The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man [… or woman] availeth much" (Jas. 5:16).
~ Gil Yoder http://www.letusreason.com/
Wednesday, January 31, 2007
The Prayer of a Righteous Woman Availeth Much
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
I guess in the Church of Christ alot of times we are preaching so hard against "Biblical Miracles Peformed Today" and rightfully so, that to the public it looks as though we want to take God completely out of the equation. When in fact we believe that God does work he just doesn't circumvent the natural law as he did in times past. Am I on the right track?
I think that you are on the right track. Far too many even within the Lord's church see "miracles" where "miracles" do not exist.
The importance of this subject is that is cheapens true biblical miracles.
What power does the virgin conception of Jesus have if every baby that comes into the world is a "miracle"?
What power does the resurrection have if everyone is having "near-death" experiences wherein they travel to heaven and back?
just my thoughts,
rick
When Jesus taught his disciples to pray, "Give us this day our daily bread," he surely did not mean for them to pray for a miraculous loaf. They were to pray "daily" for simple blessings such as this, and be thankful when God granted their request.
To insist as some do that God cannot answer prayer without superceeding the laws of nature is to suggest that bread that comes through natural means is not a blessing from God.
Herein is a simple yet profound point often overlooked. Thanks Gil.
rick
I am troubled by the way many within the church have sold out to the post-Enlightenment assumptions between science and religion. The distinction between providence and miracle is a 19th century developement and not a concept from which biblical writers worked. Likewise, the distinction ignores the theology and purpose of scripture. The author of 1 Samuel - a pre-enlightenment author - would have never made such a distinction. The point of 1 Samuel is that Hannah's womb was opened by God. Just as God had "closed her womb" he appears to "open" Hannah's womb. If this all happens according to natural law, why did she need to pray? The entire theology of 1 Samuel is grounded in the belief that, just as God had done something remarkable in the past with similar situations, he was begining to do a great work in Israel again.
According to the defintion that providence takes place according to natural law removes God totally from the picture. Natural law means that which will naturally occur (with or without prayer). If God does anything to influence the situation beyond what would naturally occurr, then it ceases to be natural. To say that God worked through natural means is a contradiction of terms. Why would God need to influence what would naturally occurr? You are left with only one of two options. Either (1) God has set natural laws to carry out his answer to every prayer today or (2) God intervenes in naturally occurring processes to answer prayer. If position 1 is correct, you are left with Deism and have no reason to pray outside of the psychological benefits. If 2 is correct then you have to admit that any action of God is beyond "naturally occurring events" which equals supernaturalism.
The assumption that God does not work miracles today is based upon falty exegesis and, saddly, a compromise with the scientific world. The preference for natural law when trying to determine an action of God is the same case made by those who oppose the resurrection of Jesus. Natural law forbids it.
Second, upon what scriptural grounds do we oppose God's working miracles today? 1 Corinthians 13 is not dealing with direct actions of God in the opening of wombs or calming of storms. 1 Corinthians 13 is discussing the place of miraculous gifts performed through the hands of Christians. Such gifts would, and have ceased. However, 1 Corinthians 13 says nothing about what God can and will do directly. Another text must be used for that. Such a text to my knowledge does not exist.
While I appreciate the time and thought Gil has put into his article, I disagree. Scripture does not make a distinction between providence and miraculous actions of God. Such a distinction is a post-enlightenment use of terms to compromise with science and naturalism. The church must pray. The church must believe that God will answer prayer acording to his will. And, God who established natural law can and does work around them when he sees fit.
Your obsession with the post-enlightenment has nothing to do with Gil’s article, nor my personal beliefs in regards to providence and miracles, yet it has everything to do with your concept of miracles. You write... “And, God who established natural law can and does work around them when he sees fit.” I would contend that you cannot prove that statement, nor can you prove that He cannot work through natural law as oppose to around it.
I believe that you make an incorrect assumption in the following statement which cannot be proved, saying... “If God does anything to influence the situation beyond what would naturally occurr, then it ceases to be natural.”
What does this statement really mean – “The author of 1 Samuel - a pre-enlightenment author - would have never made such a distinction.” All biblical authors are pre-enlightenment authors including Paul who authored 1 Corinthians 13 which spoke of the secession of prophecy with the completion of the revelation of God’s word. Did Paul deny what Eli did? No, he was simply speaking of a different time frame. In other words a discussion of pre or post enlightenment has no value in this discussion. It adds no credibility to your argument.
By the way, Gil is planning to deal with your post on at www.letusreason.com
rick
I did not intend for the reflections staff to take my comments as an attack of any kind. I do appreciate the time and thought that went into the article. I regret that men and women who love the Lord and are working in his kingdom cannot discuss honest differences without it turning into an "us" verses "them" type of discussion. This is my first time to post on this blog and it appears from your reply that my honest questioning will only generate animosity. I am sorry for that.
My statement concerning the post-enlightenment is not part of an "obsession". I was only pointing out that, prior to the enlightenment, the tension between attributing things to God verses attributing them to "natural law" was not as prevalent. The claim that "God is dead" came about, in part, because people believed science could explain everything from weather phenomena to gravity. Therefore, since science could explain it, there seemed to be no need for God. I bring this up only as a way of saying that Gil's distinction between "providence" and "miracle" seems grounded in this post-enlightenment development. That is why I mentioned the enlightenment. This bias toward “naturalism” is what lead numerous liberal theologians to explain away the miraculous events in scripture (the Red Sea, Calming of Storm, Resurrection, etc) with some kind of naturalistic claim. It appears that this same “spirit” is at work among us when we try to explain away any mention of modern miracles.
Your question as to whether it can be proven that God works outside of natural law or even through natural law is built upon many of the same assumptions. Liberal scholars and skeptics have long believed that miracles could not be proven even if they did take place and therefore maintained that they should not be believed (see David Hume, etc.). While I pray Gil and the reflection’s staff do not hold this position – and as a brother in Christ I give you the benefit of the doubt - your question sounds as if you agree with the skeptics.
The biblical text never makes the distinction between “providence” and “miracle” as so many have tried to do. What the biblical text is saying is that God is responsible for Hannah’s ability to have a child. Was it “miraculous” or was it through “natural law” that this happened? The question is irrelevant to the text. The text is saying, “God is responsible”. However it happened, God is to be praised!
Jesus’ calming of the storm is a perfect example. Would this be classified as natural or miraculous? Storms gather everyday and go away every day. It is a “natural process”. Whenever Jesus said, “peace be still” the storm ended. It was natural in that the storm ceased (as storms often did). It was miraculous in that it occurred precisely the moment when Jesus spoke. (If you did not hear Jesus speak and saw the storm calm, would you have considered it a miracle? Or providencial?). However, the biblical claim is that Jesus had the ability to calm the storm. While it may have been a naturally occurring event (the calming of a storm), it was an unnatural occurrence because God acted to change what was naturally occurring. The biblical writer’s did not make the distinction between providence or miraculous. Their point was that Jesus had the power to calm the storm. How it happened was irrelevant.
As to 1 Corinthians 13, we are in agreement that Paul is dealing with the ending of prophecy, tongues and other spiritual gifts that were performed through the medium of Christians. But, where does this passage apply to God’s performance of miracles apart from the medium of individuals? That issue was not even in Paul’s mind as he deals with the specific problem at Corinth. The events of 1 Samuel and the events at Corinth are two different issues.
I hope this clarifies my previous post. I am not looking to fight or debate anyone. My concern is that we sometimes get so caught up in “correcting” anyone who claims God has done extraordinary things in his or her life (especially if they use the word “miracle”) that we suddenly find ourselves in the same camp of the liberal theologians who sought a compromise with naturalism. We tend to dismiss the liberal theologians’ arguments when it comes to the textual accounts, only to use them when trying to explain away modern events claimed as miracles.
Like the biblical writers, we must offer praise to God for the things he does in our life. How God chooses to influence the world today – “miraculously” or “providentially” - was not a concern for the biblical authors and should not be of such concern for us today.
I did not see your past as an attack in the sense of hostile but it was a strong disagreement with the article. Nor did I intend for my comments to be see by you as an attack simply a strong disagreement with your post. I do believe that we can and should be able to discuss these honest differences. I assure you there is no animosity at all. I may have misread your comments with regards to obsession but post-enlightenment was the thread that ran through the entire post. By obsession I had in mind a preoccupation with a fixed idea.
I don’t think that you should misunderstand Gil’s article, nor my post. I cannot speak entirely for Gil (I know he would agree), but as for me I do not have a problem when people attribute things to God but that is not the same as attributing them to God’s miraculous activity. This discussion is not about does God work but “how” does He work. You will find that both Gil and I are well aware of the post-enlightenment claims and reject the notion that God is dead and or does not work.
We are not deists, but one extreme should not cause us to go to the other. We do not agree with the skeptics nor with a world of denominationalism and Catholicism that sees miracles around every corner. By the way, let me state this here for the record that I do believe that a miracle is a manifestation of God’s providence. “Providence” is defined as... “Care or preparation in advance; foresight. Prudent management; economy. The care, guardianship, and control exercised by a deity; divine direction:” (American Heritage Dictionary).
You are correct in stating that the storm is a natural event - the miracle is the timing of its departure. In answer to your question, as per the former definition, it is both a miracle and providence. Are we to pray for our daily food? Are we also required to work to supply that food? Is a man that does not supply these daily necessities for his family worse than an unbeliever? Is it not also the case that God is to be thanked for supplying our meals? So I ask, with your limited view of providence, how is this all possible?
I do think that the biblical writers were concerned about the difference between miraculous event and non-miraculous events and they could tell the difference. Charlatans (such as Simeon in Acts 8) could tell the difference.
Allow me to ask if every birth is a miracle what is so special about the birth of Jesus? If every near death event is a miracle what is so special about the resurrection?
By the way, the first definition of debate is... “to consider something; deliberate.” I think that is what we are doing. I understand that you might be using the word in an obsolete manner such as... “to fight or quarrel.” This is the way that the KJV uses the word in Romans 1:29.
I have enjoyed considering this topic with you and look forward to reading Gil’s post at www.letusreadon.com
rick
I minister for the disciples brethren and deny the working of miracles today.
Do you mind if I inquirer as to the percentage of Disciples' preachers you know deny miracles?
The reason why I ask is that every one that I have studied with promted modern day miracles.
Just curious?
rick
Could one not argue that miracles in the NT were very much different from providence in that as John calls them... SIGNS??
They had to be obvious in their working in that something was profoundly altered outside of the limits of nature to do so.
Water can become wine naturally, but it takes a whole lot of time. But Jesus did it instantaneously.
Doctors can replace severed limbs with stitches etc. But Jesus healed a man's ear instantaneously.
--j. dean (okc) is correct and biblical text gives us telltale signs when necessary to clarify the difference between providence (God's care through natural means) and providence (God's care through supernatural means).
rick
read your comments again. u made an error
Post a Comment