1 Sam. 28
- Lev. 20:1-5. 1 Kings 11:7, Acts
7:43, Is. 57:9, Jer. 32:35, Jer. 49:1 Who/what was Molech? Look it up in
a Bible Dictionary or a Bible Encyclopedia. You might try the
International Standard Bible Encyclopedia.
- Read Lev. 20:6, 27, and compare Dt.
- When Saul was searching for his father's
donkeys, his servant had encouraged him to consult a man of God (1 Sam 9)
and the text explained, "when a man went to inquire of God, he used to say,
'Come let us go to the seer'; for he who is called a prophet now was
formerly called a seer" (vs. 9). At the end of his life, when Saul was
threatened by the Philistines, why couldn't he consult the man of God?
- What other means had there been for
consulting the Lord, and were they available to Saul? (1 Sam. 28:6)
- To what sort of person did Saul resort?
- Why was the woman reluctant to accommodate
him? (28:9, cf. 28:3).
- What is the penalty for adultery
according to Lev. 20:10?
- There is very weak evidence for John 7:53-8:11 in the ancient
manuscripts of the New Testament, and accordingly, most modern translations
give some indication of the doubtfulness of the passages authenticity.
Nonetheless, it's difficult to explain how the passage came to be in so many
of the later manuscripts if it didn't describe an incident that had some
basis in fact. Perhaps the story belongs to the category of things
mentioned in Jn. 21:25. In any event, in what circumstances had the
Pharisees found the woman? (Jn. 8:3) Assuming the accuracy of the
story, doesn't that suggest they knew the identity of the man involved? Why
didn't they bring him?
- Do you see what significance the words, "let him that is without sin..."
might have had, not only in a general way, but in a very specific and
- Dt. 24:1-4 says that a man who puts away his wife, having found some
shameful thing, some indecency in her, cannot take her back if she has since
become another man's wife. There is much discussion about the meaning of
"shameful thing" or "thing of indecency" in vs. 24:1, some insisting that it
refers to sexual infidelity and some arguing that it is more broad in
meaning. What bearing might Lev. 20:10 have on this question?