Originally posted by johnp.:
Hello JackRUS.
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Go and read where it says I will have mercy and not sacrifice.
Ok.
Did God have mercy at the expense of His justice or was a sacrifice of atonement also given? Why?
Would you care to explain 1 Sam 3:14 please JackRus?
He died for your sins? How do you know if you are on His exclusive list?
He told me,"Whoever believes is saved." I believe. I believe He paid the penalty for my sin therefore my debt has been paid, nothing else is required, especially from me. I got that from scripture. It was by grace I was saved... I got that from scripture as well. Eph 2:8.
John 3:18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son.
I am not condemned because I believe He died for me and His death was all sufficient to procure my attendance in Heaven now and forever. I trust Him, being confident of this, that he who began a good work in me will carry it on to completion until the day of Christ Jesus.
How's that, what do you think? Your question, He died for your sins? sounds surprised.
You are surprised that one can believe and be saved and know it?
The act of trust performed by Abraham initiated the conversion.
That is a work. You say the father of the faith worked? Cool. They oppose one another. JN 6:29 Jesus answered, "The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent."
Faith is a work and it is a work of God and He bestows it, by His grace, on whoever He choses to bestow it on.
HEB 11:1 Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see. 2 This is what the ancients were commended for.
No doubt ever enters my head has regards to my salvation. I take it as granted. The curtain was torn in two. God's Children are standing face to face with their Father.
john. </font>[/QUOTE]Well, I agree with all that you say and I agree that you can know that you have eternal like (1 John 5:12-13).
But I am wondering about the limited list of folks that can do the same. That is what Limited Atonement supports is it not?
And I don't how your post lends any credence to your view of Limited Atonement.
And as for 1 Sam. 3:14, don't you know that these men were judged by an oath given by God after having countless opportunities to get saved earlier in life?
How does God's judgement about their not being covered by sacrifice preclude the possibility that they were not covered by sacrifices earlier in their life? I don't see the curse being given as retro-active to cover also those sacrifices. And I would argue that if their priestly sacrifices were not efficatious for them in the past, then they also would not have been for the people of Israel either since they were offered together as one. Unless of course unbelief disqualified them.
God said that He would judge “the house of Eli for ever because of their iniquity, and that Eli knew his sons were preparing a curse for themselves and did not prevent them.”
From F. Delitzsch and C. F. Keil – Commentary on the Old Testament
1 SAMUEL 2:27-36
Announcement of the judgment upon Eli and his house.
Before the Lord interposed in judgment, He sent a prophet (a “man of God,” as in Judg 13:6) to the aged Eli, to announce as a warning for all
ages the judgment which was about to fall upon the worthless priests of his house.
In order to arouse Eli’s own conscience, he had pointed out to him, on the one hand, the grace manifested in the choice of his father’s house, i.e., the house of Aaron, to keep His sanctuary (vv. 27b and 28), and, on the other hand, the desecration of the sanctuary by the wickedness of his sons (v. 29). Then follows the sentence: The choice of the family of Aaron still stood fast, but the deepest disgrace would come upon the despisers of the Lord (v. 30): the strength of his house would be broken; all the
members of his house were to die early deaths. They were not, however, to be removed entirely from service at the altar, but to their sorrow were to survive the fall of the sanctuary (vv. 31-34).
But the Lord would raise up a faithful priest, and cause him to walk before His anointed, and from him all that were left of the house of Eli would be obliged to beg their bread (vv. 35, 36). To arrive at the true interpretation
of this announcement of punishment, we must picture to ourselves the historical circumstances that come into consideration here.
Eli the high priest was a descendant of Ithamar, the younger son of Aaron, as we may see from the fact that his great-grandson Ahimelech was “of the sons of Ithamar” (1 Chron 24:3). In perfect agreement with this, Josephus (Ant. v. 11, 5) relates, that after the high priest Ozi of the family of Eleazar, Eli of the family of Ithamar received the high-priesthood. The circumstances which led to the transfer of this honour from the line of Eleazar to that of Ithamar are unknown. We cannot imagine it to have been occasioned by an extinction of the line of Eleazar, for the simple reason that, in the time of David, Zadok the descendant of Eleazar is spoken of as high priest along with Abiathar and Ahimelech, the descendants of Eli (2 Sam 8:17; 20:25).
After the deposition of Abiathar he was reinstated by Solomon as sole high priest (1 Kings 2:27), and the dignity was transmitted to his descendants.
This fact also overthrows the conjecture of Clericus, that the transfer of the high-priesthood to Eli took place by the command of God on account of the grievous sins of the high priests of the line of Eleazar; for in that case Zadok would not have received this office again in connection with Abiathar. We have, no doubt, to search for the true reason in the circumstances of the times of the later judges, namely in the fact that at the death of the last high priest of the family of Eleazar before the time of Eli, the remaining son was not equal to the occasion, either because he was still an infant, or at any rate because he was too young and inexperienced, so that he could not enter upon the office, and Eli, who was probably related by marriage to the high priest’s family, and was no doubt a vigorous man, was compelled to take the oversight of the congregation; and, together with the supreme administration of the affairs of the nation as judge, received the post of high priest as well, and filled it till the time of his death, simply because in those troublous times there was not one of the
descendants of Eleazar who was able to fill the supreme office of judge, which was combined with that of high priest.
For we cannot possibly think of an unjust usurpation of the office of high priest on the part of Eli, since the very judgment denounced against him and his house presupposes that he had entered upon the office in a just and
upright way, and that the wickedness of his sons was all that was brought against him. For a considerable time after the death of Eli the highpriesthood lost almost all its significance. All Israel turned to Samuel, whom the Lord established as His prophet by means of revelations, and whom He also chose as the deliverer of His people. The tabernacle at
Shiloh, which ceased to be the scene of the gracious presence of God after the loss of the ark, was probably presided over first of all after Eli’s death by his grandson Ahitub, the son of Phinehas, as his successor in the highpriesthood.
He was followed in the time of Saul by his son Ahijah or Ahimelech, who gave David the shew-bread to eat at Nob, to which the tabernacle had been removed in the meantime, and was put to death by Saul in consequence, along with all the priests who were found there. His son Abiathar, however, escaped the massacre, and fled to David (1 Sam 22:9-20; 23:6). In the reign of David he is mentioned as high priest along with Zadok; but he was afterwards deposed by Solomon (2 Sam 15:24; 17:15; 19:12; 20:25; 1 Kings 2:27).
Different interpretations have been given of these verses. The majority of commentators understand them as signifying that the loss of the highpriesthood is here foretold to Eli, and also the institution of Zadok in the office. But such a view is too contracted, and does not exhaust the meaning of the words. The very introduction to the prophet’s words points
to something greater than this: “Thus saith the Lord, Did I reveal myself to thy father’s house, when they were in Egypt at the house of Pharaoh?” The ha interrogative is not used for μwOlv; (nonne), but is emphatic, as in Jer
31:20.
The question is an appeal to Eli’s conscience, which he cannot deny, but is obliged to confirm. By Eli’s father’s house we are not to understand Ithamar and his family, but Aaron, from whom Eli was descended through Ithamar. God revealed himself to the tribe-father of Eli by appointing Aaron to be the spokesman of Moses before Pharaoh (Ex 4:14ff. and 27), and still more by calling Aaron to the priesthood, for which the way was prepared by the fact that, from the very beginning, God made use of Aaron, in company with Moses, to carry out His purpose of delivering Israel out of Egypt, and entrusted Moses and Aaron with the arrangements for the celebration of the passover (Ex 12:1,43). This occurred when they, the fathers of Eli, Aaron and his sons, were still in Egypt at the house of Pharaoh, i.e., still under Pharaoh’s rule.
Verse 28. “And did I choose him out of all the tribes for a priest to myself.” The interrogative particle is not to be repeated before rjæB;, but the construction becomes affirmative with the inf. abs. instead of the
perfect. “Him” refers back to “thy father” in v. 27, and signifies Aaron. The expression “for a priest” is still further defined by the clauses which follow: m’ `l[æ `hl;[;, “to ascend upon mine altar,” i.e., to approach my altar of
burnt-offering and perform the sacrificial worship; “to kindle incense,” i.e., to perform the service in the holy place, the principal feature in which was the daily kindling of the incense, which is mentioned instar omnium; “to
wear the ephod before me,” i.e., to perform the service in the holy of holies, which the high priest could only enter when wearing the ephod to
represent Israel before the Lord (Ex 28:12). “And have given to thy father’s house all the firings of the children of Israel” (see at Lev 1:9).
These words are to be understood, according to Deut 18:1, as signifying that the Lord had given to the house of Aaron, i.e., to the priesthood, the sacrifices of Jehovah to eat in the place of any inheritance in the land, according to the portions appointed in the sacrificial law in Lev 6-7, and Num 18.
Verse 29. With such distinction conferred upon the priesthood, and such careful provision made for it, the conduct of the priests under Eli was an inexcusable crime. “Why do ye tread with your feet my slain-offerings and meat-offerings, which I have commanded in the dwelling-place?” Slainoffering and meat-offering are general expressions embracing all the altarsacrifices.
ˆwO[m; is an accusative (“in the dwelling”), like tyiBæ, in the house.
“The dwelling” is the tabernacle. This reproof applied to the priests generally, including Eli, who had not vigorously resisted these abuses. The
words which follow, “and thou honourest thy sons more than me,” relate to Eli himself, and any other high priest who like Eli should tolerate the abuses of the priests. “To fatten yourselves with the first of every sacrificial gift of Israel, of my people.” `μ[æ serves as a periphrasis for the genitive, and is chosen for the purpose of giving greater prominence to the idea of `μ[æ (my people). tyviare, the first of every sacrificial gift (minchah, as in v. 17), which Israel offered as the nation of Jehovah, ought to have been given up to its God in the altar-fire because it was the best; whereas, according to vv. 15, 16, the sons of Eli took away the best for themselves.
1 SAMUEL 3:12-14
On that day I will perform against Eli all that I have spoken concerning his house (see 1 Sam 2:30ff.), beginning and finishing it,” i.e., completely.
rB,Di rv,a}Ata, μyqihe, to set up the word spoken, i.e., to carry it out, or accomplish it. In v. 13 this word is communicated to Samuel, so far as its essential contents are concerned. God would judge “the house of Eli for ever because of the iniquity, that he knew his sons were preparing a curse for themselves and did not prevent them.” To judge on account of a crime,
is the same as to punish it. μl;wO[Ad[æ, i.e., without the punishment being ever stopped or removed. wOl llæq;, cursing themselves, i.e., bringing a curse upon themselves. “Therefore I have sworn to the house of Eli, that
the iniquity of the house of Eli shall not μai, a particle used in an oath, equivalent to assuredly not) be expiated by slain-offerings and meatofferings (through any kind of sacrifice) for ever.” The oath makes the
sentence irrevocable. (On the facts themselves, see the commentary on 1 Sam 2:27-36.)
Don't you know John that in Scripture the emphatic always overrules the implied when passages of Scripture seen to contradict one another? That is a hard and fast rule of Biblical interpretation.
Why wrestle with:
"And He is the propitiation for our sins: and not for our’s only, but also for the sins of the whole world." 1 John 2:2
Is that not plain enough for you? It is for countless four point Calvinists, Baptists and all Arminians. And it quite a bit more to the point and emphatic as far as world atonement goes than 1 Sam. 3:14.
Of course this verse is not an argument for universalism. But rather that Christ's atoning blood is available to all by faith. Rom. 3:25.
