Polygamy is not bad because of God's attitude towards it, but God's attitude towards it reflects its evil. Polygamy is what it is, so God's attitude towards it has not changed, since polygamy has not changed. What changes is the light that people have.

Divorce is another example. God always hated divorce, but He "permitted" it because of the hardness of men's heart. But divorce has always been something horrible, and God's attitude towards it hasn't changed.

Could polygamy and divorce be two of the reasons why, unlike the Sabbath that will exist forever, marriage ends at death, and also won't exist after the second coming of Christ?

No, I don't see how that could be the case, Daryl, from a logical standpoint. Leaving aside the question as to whether your assumptions regarding marriage are valid, just considering the logic, if violation of God's designs for marriage (polygamy and divorce) could cause marriage to cease to exist, then violation of God's designs for the Sabbath could cause it to cease to exist. So the reason that the Sabbath continues to exist, while marriage does not (according to your hypothesis) cannot be that which you suggested.

Why then will marriage not continue in heaven, but the Sabbath will?

Could it be solely because marriage is unique to our planet, whereas the Sabbath is observed throughout all of the other inhabited planets?

Sabbath is unique to our planet as well, isn't it? (since the time period is marked by our planet)

Has the question of marriage in the afterlife been discussed here? Before discussing the differences between marriage and the Sabbath in the afterlife, it probably would be a good idea to come to grips with what we're talking about. Marriage in the afterlife is understood in quite different ways by different people, and there's really very little about the subject in inspiration, which lends itself to dogmatism and speculation (although these can exist just as well when there is a lot written about a subject in inspiration as well). At any rate, this seems to be getting a bit off topic for this discussion, so perhaps could merit a separate thread.

Samuel was a priest, but I don't see anywhere where it says Elkanah was a priest. What I get from the chapter in PP is that he was a Levite.



Perhaps Samuel was a priest in the order of Melchizedek? As a judge, prophet, and priest he was already a type of Christ. Maybe another one won't hurt. WDYT?

I do tend to wander from the the lesson format, but I needed to find some type of scriptural support for Ellen's statement, as it appear on the surface to conflict with Scripture.

In my study of the lesson, I noted that scripture names Elkanah as an Ephramite, while Ellen calls him a Levite:

"Elkanah faithfully observed the ordinances of God. The worship at Shiloh was still maintained, yet it had become irregular, and in some respects incomplete. Hence, Elkanah had no regular employment at the tabernacle, to whose service, being a Levite, he was to be especially devoted. Notwithstanding this, his zeal in the service of God was unfaltering. With his family he went up to Shiloh to worship and sacrifice at the appointed gatherings." {ST, October 27, 1881 par. 4}

From this statement I gather, that the temple works was a bit slow and even though Elkanah wasn't needed to assist, he attended the "appointed gatherings".

Upon first reading of Elkanah in Scripture, it appears that he is of the tribe of Ephraim, and that there is a conflict between Scripture and Ellen's work, but reading (1 Sam 2:18, 1 Sam 3:1, 1 Sam 7: 8-12) that Samuel wore the epod and worked in the Sanctuary, as well as offer sacrifice, I conclude that he would have to have been a Levite. I do not know if all Levite's were priests, but it is my understanding that all priest were of Levi.

I recall that King Saul got into some big trouble when he attempted to sacrifice for Israel.
" With growing impatience he awaited the arrival of Samuel and attributed the confusion and distress and desertion of his army to the absence of the prophet. The appointed time came, but the man of God did not immediately appear. God's providence had detained His servant. But Saul's restless, impulsive spirit would no longer be restrained. Feeling that something must be done to calm the fears of the people, he determined to summon an assembly for religious service, and by sacrifice entreat the divine aid. God had directed that only those consecrated to the office should present sacrifices before Him. But Saul commanded, "Bring hither a burnt offering;" and, equipped as he was with armor and weapons of war, he approached the altar and offered sacrifice before God. " {PP 618.2}

"Saul Could Have Offered Prayer.-- He [Saul] could have offered humble prayer to God without the sacrifice; for the Lord will accept even the silent petition of a burdened heart; but instead of this, he forced himself into the priesthood" (YI Nov. 17, 1898). {2BC 1014.5}

Ellen tells us that during the time of Eli's sons, some thought it better to offer their sacrifices themselves. I don’t find a comment whether this was appropriate or not. Perhaps it was ok for the family patriarch, as "priest of the house" to offer sacrifice for the family, but only the "appointed ones", those consecrated to the office should present sacrifices before the "I AM", for the nation or congregation?

"Sins of Priests Caused Some to Offer Own Sacrifices.--As the men of Israel witnessed the corrupt course of the priests, they thought it safer for their families not to come up to the appointed place of worship. Many went from Shiloh with their peace disturbed, their indignation aroused, until they at last determined to offer their sacrifices themselves, concluding that this would be fully as acceptable to God, as to sanction in any manner the abominations practiced in the sanctuary" (ST Dec. 1. 1881). {2BC 1010.4}

In Judges 17, 18 we can read an example of the times prior to the birth of Samuel. “In those days there was no king in Israel, but every man did that which was right in his own eyes.” Judges 17: 6. Micah, a man of Ephraim hired a Levite to be a priest for his household, for his graven image and molten image; his house of gods, for which he had made an ephod, and teraphim. Later, some Danites stole the Levite away from the Ephramite. So apparently a Levite was preferred even in the corrupt form of worship.

Of this particular Levite it says; “And there was a young man out of Bethlehemjudah of the family of Judah, who was a Levite, and he sojourned there.” Judges 17:7.

Were Levites dispersed through out the tribes of Israel and known or identified by the Tribe they lived amongst? It appears so to be the case.

“But unto the tribe of Levi Moses gave not any inheritance: the LORD God of Israel was their inheritance, as he said unto them. Joshua 13: 33

“. . .therefore they gave no part unto the Levites in the land, save cities to dwell in, with their suburbs for their cattle and for their substance.” Joshua 14: 4

Joshua 21 , tells how these cities and their suburbs. were chosen by lot among each Tribe. Verse 41 tells us that “All the cities of the Levites within the possession of the children of Israel were forty and eight cities with their suburbs.”

Prophesying about Levi and Simeon, Jacob said, "I will divide them in Jacob And scatter them in Israel." (Genesis 49:7) This was fulfilled. But because of Levi's faithfulness, the curse was turned into a blessing.

Sorry for the late reply, but it’s that my husband and I are in the middle of an evangelistic campaign. I did some more research about some points presented here.

Crater,


Yes, this is correct, and Ellen White confirms it:

“Elkanah, a Levite of Mount Ephraim, was a man of wealth and influence, and one who loved and feared the Lord.” {CC 137.2}

Elkanah lived at Ramah, within the borders of Ephraim:

Judges 4:5 ... between Ramah and Bethel in Mount Ephraim...
1 Samuel 2:11 And Elkanah went to Ramah to his house.

Arnold,


Elkanah belonged to the family of the Kohathites (1 Chron. 6:27, 28, 33-38), definitely a non-priestly levitical family.

In the story of Gideon, we find this:

“Gideon was commanded to destroy this altar and to erect an altar to Jehovah over the rock on which the offering had been consumed, and there to present a sacrifice to the Lord. The offering of sacrifice to God had been committed to the priests, and had been restricted to the altar at Shiloh; but He who had established the ritual service, and to whom all its offerings pointed, had power to change its requirements. The deliverance of Israel was to be preceded by a solemn protest against the worship of Baal. Gideon must declare war upon idolatry before going out to battle with the enemies of his people.” PP 547
“Because he had been commanded to offer sacrifice upon the rock where the Angel appeared to him, Gideon concluded that he had been appointed to officiate as a priest. Without waiting for the divine sanction, he determined to provide a suitable place, and to institute a system of worship similar to that carried on at the tabernacle. ... Gideon constructed an ephod and a breastplate, in imitation of those worn by the high priest. His course proved a snare to himself and his family, as well as to Israel. The unauthorized worship led many of the people finally to forsake the Lord altogether, to serve idols.” PP 555, 556

Perhaps as a sign that He had removed His approval from the corrupt priesthood at Shiloh (the house of Eli), God made Samuel a priest. But Samuel, unlike Gideon, was divinely appointed.

I've edited this because it occurred to me that, to belong to the order of Melchizedek, he would have had to be a king, too.