Looking for some Catholic exegesis on 1 Samuel

[Mort_Alz]

1 Samuel 2:25 “‘If a man sins against another man, God may mediate for him; but if a man sins against the LORD, who will intercede for him?’ His sons, however did not listen to their father’s rebuke, for it was the LORD’s will to put them to death.”

They did not listen to the rebuke, for it was the LORD’s will to put them to death.

This makes it sound like the word “for” could be changed to “because”

“…did not listen to their father’s rebuke, because it was the LORD’s will to put them to death.”

makes it kinda sound like God caused them not to repent because He wanted them to die and knew that if they repented He must give them mercy. That interpretation can’t be right.

1 Samuel 3:14 “Therefore, I swore to the house of Eli, ‘The guilt of Eli’s house will never be atoned for by sacrifice or offering.’”

Isn’t this totally contrary to Catholic teaching that there is not a man, woman, or child, today, yesterday, or tomorrow, for whom Christ did not die? This seems more in line with limited atonement.

Any sound exegesis to be provided or any explanation will be greatly appreciated

Thanks in advance.

 

[fisherman_carl]

They did not listen to the rebuke, for it was the LORD’s will to put them to death.

This makes it sound like the word “for” could be changed to “because”

“…did not listen to their father’s rebuke, because it was the LORD’s will to put them to death.”

makes it kinda sound like God caused them not to repent because He wanted them to die and knew that if they repented He must give them mercy. That interpretation can’t be right.

There are 2 kinds of will. One is God’s antecedent will which is that all should be saved (1 Tim. 2:4, 2 Pet. 3:9). And, then there is God’s consequent will. So it may be God’s antecedent will that person x should be saved. But, if person x rebels against God and becomes an unrepentant murderer, it is not God’s will that person x should be saved. God is not going to justify an unrepentant sinner. God’s consequent will comes into effect and that is that the person would receive punishment for their sins.

 

[fisherman_carl]

1 Samuel 3:14 “Therefore, I swore to the house of Eli, ‘The guilt of Eli’s house will never be atoned for by sacrifice or offering.’”

Isn’t this totally contrary to Catholic teaching that there is not a man, woman, or child, today, yesterday, or tomorrow, for whom Christ did not die? This seems more in line with limited atonement.

Any sound exegesis to be provided or any explanation will be greatly appreciated

Thanks in advance.

Again. This is God’s consequent will. At some point God pronounces judgment for sins committed on an unrepentant sinner. The sacrifice or offering that it talks about is the sacrificing of animals, which Paul says can never take away sins (Heb 10:4).

 

[Mort_Alz]

There are 2 kinds of will. One is God’s antecedent will which is that all should be saved (1 Tim. 2:4, 2 Pet. 3:9). And, then there is God’s consequent will. So it may be God’s antecedent will that person x should be saved. But, if person x rebels against God and becomes an unrepentant murderer, it is not God’s will that person x should be saved. God is not going to justify an unrepentant sinner. God’s consequent will comes into effect and that is that the person would receive punishment for their sins.

Hmm. Thank you for your reply. That makes sense

 

[Mort_Alz]

Again. This is God’s consequent will. At some point God pronounces judgment for sins committed on an unrepentant sinner. The sacrifice or offering that it talks about is the sacrificing of animals, which Paul says can never take away sins (Heb 10:4).

mmmmmm, not quite good enough. It says “will never be atoned for by sacrifice or offering.”

The key word is never and the literary mechanic is “by sacrifice OR offering.”

concerning the latter, it seems to indicate that the Old Testament author was making this pretty concrete. Even eternally. So, that would seem to me to say it includes Christ’s sacrifice (or offering). Necessitating that Christ’s atonement was limited.

I believe everything the Catholic Church believes; I just have to write a paper about these verses and I cannot (for the life of me) interpret them correctly on my own. (Private interpretation).

 

[SonCatcher]

Mort,

It is also important to remember that when Eli’s sons were put to death, Eli’s family effectively ceased to be. Eli couldn’t raise any more sons to take their place in history. Thus, he had no descendants to see the day of Jesus. Nothing could bring them back.

Also, 1 Samuel records events long before the Jews developed the doctrine of resurrection. The only way they saw everlasting life as possible at the time was if one had children to carry one’s name. Since there was no offering or sacrifice that could give Eli more children, his family was doomed with their deaths (thus, could not be atoned).

 

[fisherman_carl]

mmmmmm, not quite good enough. It says “will never be atoned for by sacrifice or offering.”

The key word is never and the literary mechanic is “by sacrifice OR offering.”

concerning the latter, it seems to indicate that the Old Testament author was making this pretty concrete. Even eternally. So, that would seem to me to say it includes Christ’s sacrifice (or offering). Necessitating that Christ’s atonement was limited.

I believe everything the Catholic Church believes; I just have to write a paper about these verses and I cannot (for the life of me) interpret them correctly on my own. (Private interpretation).

It seems to me the kind of sacrifice or atonement does matter. At the time of that writing the only kind of sacrifice was of animals and offerings. How can you assume it is speaking of Christ’s sacrifice on the cross?

Anyways, we speak of Christ’s sacrifice as being sufficient for all, but only efficacious for his church.
archive.catholic.com/thisrock/1993/9307fea1sb1.asp

limited atonement says that Christ’s sacrifice was only sufficient for some. Catholics and most Protestants deny limited atonement.
archive.catholic.com/thisrock/1993/9307fea1.asp

 

[fisherman_carl]

"The Bible maintains that there is a sense in which Christ died for all men. John 4:42 describes Christ as “the Savior of the world,” and 1 John 2:2 states that Christ “is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world.” 1 Timothy 4:10 describes God as “the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe.” These passages, as well as the official teaching of the Church, [See Ott, 188f], require the Catholic to affirm that Christ died to atone for all men.

Aquinas stated, “Christ’s passion was not only a sufficient but a superabundant atonement for the sins of the human race; according to 1 John 2:2, ‘He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world.’” [ST III:48:2].

This is not to say there is no sense in which limitation may be ascribed to the atonement. While the grace it provided is sufficient to pay for the sins of all men, this grace is not made efficacious (put into effect) in the case of everyone. One may say that although the sufficiency of the atonement is not limited, its efficiency is limited. This is something everyone who believes in hell must acknowledge because, if the atonement was made efficacious for everyone, then no one would end up in hell."
archive.catholic.com/thisrock/1993/9309fea1.asp

 

[fisherman_carl]

Also, here is the Haydock commentary on that scripture,’

“Ver. 14. Sworn. We read not of an express oath; (Calmet) but the denunciation of God was equivalent. (Haydock) — Iniquity, or punishment. Nothing could withhold the indignation of the Lord, in correcting the sinner, though he would shew mercy eternally to the penitent. But he saw the obstinacy of these priests, and their unhappy end. The sacrifices of the old law always presupposed suitable internal sentiments, to grant the remission of sin; and even for the avoiding of the legal punishments, they must have been offered in a true spirit of religion, which these abandoned wretches despised and neglected. (Calmet) — God threatens that he will punish their crimes for ever, as he abominates the contempt of priest. (Tirinus)”
haydock1859.tripod.com/id613.html

So, while Christ’s sacrifice is sufficient for all it is not efficacious to the unrepentant sinner.