Troublw w/2 kings (2 samuel) 7:13- 15

[jen_fla]

… and I will establish his kingdom.13 He shall build a house to my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom for ever. 14 I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son: and if he commit any iniquity, I will correct him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of men. 15 But my mercy I will not take away from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I removed from before my face.

i am having some trouble with this passage referring to Christ.

12 “I will establish his kingdom”… This prophecy partly relateth to Solomon: but much more to Christ, who is called the son of David in scripture, and who is the builder of the true temple, which is the church, his everlasting kingdom, which shall never fail.

taken from here:

drbo.org/chapter/10007.htm

who is it that could commit iniquity?

 

[tobinatorstark]

… and I will establish his kingdom.13 He shall build a house to my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom for ever. 14 I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son: and if he commit any iniquity, I will correct him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of men. 15 But my mercy I will not take away from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I removed from before my face.

i am having some trouble with this passage referring to Christ.

12 “I will establish his kingdom”… This prophecy partly relateth to Solomon: but much more to Christ, who is called the son of David in scripture, and who is the builder of the true temple, which is the church, his everlasting kingdom, which shall never fail.

taken from here:

drbo.org/chapter/10007.htm

who is it that could commit iniquity?

From the Haydock Bible Commentary

Ver. 14. Men, who are not to be entirely destroyed, like the Chanaanites. (Calmet) — This is not unlike the human temptation of which St. Paul speaks, 1 Corinthians x. 13. See Psalm lxxii. 5., and lxxxviii. 33. (Haydock) — The rod of men denotes war, and stripes signify those punishments which God inflicts. (St. Jerome, Trad.) — Some parts of this declaration regard Christ; others Solomon, Hebrews i. 5. (Du Hamel)

 

[Peter_Dawson]

… and I will establish his kingdom.13 He shall build a house to my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom for ever. 14 I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son: and if he commit any iniquity, I will correct him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of men. 15 But my mercy I will not take away from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I removed from before my face.

i am having some trouble with this passage referring to Christ.

12 “I will establish his kingdom”… This prophecy partly relateth to Solomon: but much more to Christ, who is called the son of David in scripture, and who is the builder of the true temple, which is the church, his everlasting kingdom, which shall never fail.

taken from here:

drbo.org/chapter/10007.htm

who is it that could commit iniquity?

The plaintext meaning is that the thing which will last forever is “Solomon’s THRONE.” Israel, succeeded by Judaism, including in exile, succeeded by the Church, and by this means Solomon’s throne lasting forever.

At the plaintext level, Solomon, not Christ, is the iniquity committer.

It is indeed conceivable that Christ is the one symbolized by Solomon, at the sensus plenior level, despite the reference to “committing iniquity.” How could this be so? In the same sense that Adam, symbolizing Christ, received the forbidden fruit from Eve, in order to portray Christ taking our sins and, materially, the punishment for our sins on his own back, so that, as Paul also says, Christ is “He-Who-did-not-know-sin-Who-was-made-to-be-sin.”

 

[jen_fla]

i just finished Reasons to Believe by Scott Hahn. i understood and agreed with the whole book except this passage he is referring to.

he quotes 2 sam 7:11-16 and then goes over the terms of God’s covenant. pages 154 - 155 which you can read here:

books.google.com/books?id=P9H08z9szPgC&dq=reasons+to+believe+hahn&printsec=frontcover&source=bl&ots=vvSqgNqJS4&sig=42DfAFz19_jROX-3s9xNEyEytM8&hl=en&ei=2S3_SfFumswy1r38vAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3#PPA154,M1

he wrote:
*
I will be his father and he shall be My son* : David’s son would be adopted as God’s own son. This is the first time divine sonship is explicitly applied to one individual. Before this, the whole people of Israel had been called God’s firstborn son, but no single person has ever been called “son of God”.

maybe i am missing something, but it seems like scott is saying that Jesus is this son. i mean who else could it be when you qualify it with divine? it just isn’t clear to me and maybe i’m missing something obvious.

would really love it if someone could go read through those two pages. appreciate your help on this. it has been bothering me.

 

[jen_fla]

From the Haydock Bible Commentary

Ver. 14. Men, who are not to be entirely destroyed, like the Chanaanites. (Calmet) — This is not unlike the human temptation of which St. Paul speaks, 1 Corinthians x. 13. See Psalm lxxii. 5., and lxxxviii. 33. (Haydock) — The rod of men denotes war, and stripes signify those punishments which God inflicts. (St. Jerome, Trad.) — Some parts of this declaration regard Christ; others Solomon, Hebrews i. 5. (Du Hamel)

the part in red is something i do not understand. this is why i generally avoid the OT as it has always been too great a mystery for me.

 

[jen_fla]

The plaintext meaning is that the thing which will last forever is “Solomon’s THRONE.” Israel, succeeded by Judaism, including in exile, succeeded by the Church, and by this means Solomon’s throne lasting forever.

At the plaintext level, Solomon, not Christ, is the iniquity committer.

It is indeed conceivable that Christ is the one symbolized by Solomon, at the sensus plenior level, despite the reference to “committing iniquity.” How could this be so? In the same sense that Adam, symbolizing Christ, received the forbidden fruit from Eve, in order to portray Christ taking our sins and, materially, the punishment for our sins on his own back, so that, as Paul also says, Christ is “He-Who-did-not-know-sin-Who-was-made-to-be-sin.”

solomon was a major sinner, it is not sitting right with me that he would be God’s son in a way that is different from us all being God’s children. i don’t understand what Dr Hahn is saying either.

and you write it is conceivable that Christ is the one symbolized, but do we have any official teachings on the matter by the Church? thank you for your help.

 

[tobinatorstark]

the part in red is something i do not understand. this is why i generally avoid the OT as it has always been too great a mystery for me.

What is confusing about the quote??

Hebrews 1:5 from the Douay-Rheims and the Haydock Bible Commentary

5 For to which of the angels hath he said at any time, Thou art my Son, today have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?

Ver. 5. Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee. These words, though commonly expounded of the eternal generation of the Son of God in the day or moment of eternity, yet may be truly applied either to Christ made man by his incarnation, or to Christ risen from the dead, as they are used by St. Paul, (Acts xiii. 33.) because the same Christ both these ways is the Son of God. It was the only true and natural Son of God, who was made flesh, who was made man, who rose from the dead; and the eternal Father manifested his eternal Son by his incarnation, and shewed him triumphing over death by his resurrection. — I will be to him a father, &c. Although these words might be literally spoken of Solomon, yet in the mystical sense (chiefly intended by the Holy Ghost) they are to be understood of Christ, who in a much more proper sense is the Son of God. (Witham)

You really shouldn’t avoid the OT. You miss all the signs of the coming of Christ. You only get the part where Christ fulfills the prophecies. It is like eating only the cream filled middle of an Oreo and avoiding the outsides. You can’t completely expect to understand God fully can you???

 

[jen_fla]

What is confusing about the quote??

Hebrews 1:5 from the Douay-Rheims and the Haydock Bible Commentary

5 For to which of the angels hath he said at any time, Thou art my Son, today have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?

Ver. 5. Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee. These words, though commonly expounded of the eternal generation of the Son of God in the day or moment of eternity, yet may be truly applied either to Christ made man by his incarnation, or to Christ risen from the dead, as they are used by St. Paul, (Acts xiii. 33.) because the same Christ both these ways is the Son of God. It was the only true and natural Son of God, who was made flesh, who was made man, who rose from the dead; and the eternal Father manifested his eternal Son by his incarnation, and shewed him triumphing over death by his resurrection. — I will be to him a father, &c. Although these words might be literally spoken of Solomon, yet in the mystical sense (chiefly intended by the Holy Ghost) they are to be understood of Christ, who in a much more proper sense is the Son of God. (Witham)

You really shouldn’t avoid the OT. You miss all the signs of the coming of Christ. You only get the part where Christ fulfills the prophecies. It is like eating only the cream filled middle of an Oreo and avoiding the outsides. You can’t completely expect to understand God fully can you???

i am very slowly working on it. i need a good study guide first.

so the part in red: the words might be literally spoken of solomon, but they really mean Christ? no, that does not make sense to me.