 |
| Author | Post |
|---|
andersent
Member
| Joined: | Mon Apr 30th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 23 |
| First Name: | Todd | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Formerly united methodist, now Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 26th, 2007 11:47 pm |
|
Hi, I have a question about 2 sam 21.
1 During the reign of David, there was a famine for three successive years; so David sought the face of the LORD. The LORD said, "It is on account of Saul and his blood-stained house; it is because he put the Gibeonites to death."
2 The king summoned the Gibeonites and spoke to them. (Now the Gibeonites were not a part of Israel but were survivors of the Amorites; the Israelites had sworn to spare them, but Saul in his zeal for Israel and Judah had tried to annihilate them.) 3 David asked the Gibeonites, "What shall I do for you? How shall I make amends so that you will bless the LORD's inheritance?"
4 The Gibeonites answered him, "We have no right to demand silver or gold from Saul or his family, nor do we have the right to put anyone in Israel to death."
"What do you want me to do for you?" David asked.
5 They answered the king, "As for the man who destroyed us and plotted against us so that we have been decimated and have no place anywhere in Israel, 6 let seven of his male descendants be given to us to be killed and exposed before the LORD at Gibeah of Saul—the Lord 's chosen one."
So the king said, "I will give them to you."
7 The king spared Mephibosheth son of Jonathan, the son of Saul, because of the oath before the LORD between David and Jonathan son of Saul. 8 But the king took Armoni and Mephibosheth, the two sons of Aiah's daughter Rizpah, whom she had borne to Saul, together with the five sons of Saul's daughter Merab, [a] whom she had borne to Adriel son of Barzillai the Meholathite. 9 He handed them over to the Gibeonites, who killed and exposed them on a hill before the LORD. All seven of them fell together; they were put to death during the first days of the harvest, just as the barley harvest was beginning.
10 Rizpah daughter of Aiah took sackcloth and spread it out for herself on a rock. From the beginning of the harvest till the rain poured down from the heavens on the bodies, she did not let the birds of the air touch them by day or the wild animals by night. 11 When David was told what Aiah's daughter Rizpah, Saul's concubine, had done, 12 he went and took the bones of Saul and his son Jonathan from the citizens of Jabesh Gilead. (They had taken them secretly from the public square at Beth Shan, where the Philistines had hung them after they struck Saul down on Gilboa.) 13 David brought the bones of Saul and his son Jonathan from there, and the bones of those who had been killed and exposed were gathered up.
14 They buried the bones of Saul and his son Jonathan in the tomb of Saul's father Kish, at Zela in Benjamin, and did everything the king commanded. After that, God answered prayer in behalf of the land.
I understand that in those days the head of a family and certainly the head of Israel (king Saul) was responsible for his family. So if he sinned, he brought disgrace upon his family. We don't think of things like that today, but we are too far indivdiualistic in our culture. Perhaps they were too far corporately minded. At any rate, I can see that in the Ancient Near East the sort of vindictive justice that is presented in this story made sense to their ethical system. What I wonder about though, is the part of the story that attributes the 3 year plague to what Saul had to the Gibeonites and the way that the Lord seems to be appeased by the revenge that the Gibeonites demand. Why would this appease God? I can see that He was upset about what King Saul did to the Gibeonites but doesn't this seem like a case of two wrongs making a right? It just doesn't seem to me that God would be pleased with the solution. But yet the story says that after this act, the land was blessed. So what do we have here?
Also, the Gibeonites seem to realize that they cannot demand any of the Israelites be put to death. But yet, they are asking for the former king's sons. Are they not considered Israelites?
|
|
|
Juan
Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 17th, 2006 |
| Location: | Texas USA |
| Posts: | 247 |
| First Name: | unregister | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | unregister |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 27th, 2007 02:27 am |
|
Hi, I have a question about 2 sam 21.
Shoot.
1 During the reign of David, there was a famine for three successive years; so David sought the face of the LORD. The LORD said, "It is on account of Saul and his blood-stained house; it is because he put the Gibeonites to death."
2 The king summoned the Gibeonites and spoke to them. (Now the Gibeonites were not a part of Israel but were survivors of the Amorites; the Israelites had sworn to spare them, but Saul in his zeal for Israel and Judah had tried to annihilate them.) 3 David asked the Gibeonites, "What shall I do for you? How shall I make amends so that you will bless the LORD's inheritance?"
4 The Gibeonites answered him, "We have no right to demand silver or gold from Saul or his family, nor do we have the right to put anyone in Israel to death."
"What do you want me to do for you?" David asked.
5 They answered the king, "As for the man who destroyed us and plotted against us so that we have been decimated and have no place anywhere in Israel, 6 let seven of his male descendants be given to us to be killed and exposed before the LORD at Gibeah of Saul—the Lord 's chosen one."
So the king said, "I will give them to you."
7 The king spared Mephibosheth son of Jonathan, the son of Saul, because of the oath before the LORD between David and Jonathan son of Saul. 8 But the king took Armoni and Mephibosheth, the two sons of Aiah's daughter Rizpah, whom she had borne to Saul, together with the five sons of Saul's daughter Merab, [a] whom she had borne to Adriel son of Barzillai the Meholathite. 9 He handed them over to the Gibeonites, who killed and exposed them on a hill before the LORD. All seven of them fell together; they were put to death during the first days of the harvest, just as the barley harvest was beginning.
10 Rizpah daughter of Aiah took sackcloth and spread it out for herself on a rock. From the beginning of the harvest till the rain poured down from the heavens on the bodies, she did not let the birds of the air touch them by day or the wild animals by night. 11 When David was told what Aiah's daughter Rizpah, Saul's concubine, had done, 12 he went and took the bones of Saul and his son Jonathan from the citizens of Jabesh Gilead. (They had taken them secretly from the public square at Beth Shan, where the Philistines had hung them after they struck Saul down on Gilboa.) 13 David brought the bones of Saul and his son Jonathan from there, and the bones of those who had been killed and exposed were gathered up.
14 They buried the bones of Saul and his son Jonathan in the tomb of Saul's father Kish, at Zela in Benjamin, and did everything the king commanded. After that, God answered prayer in behalf of the land.
I understand that in those days the head of a family and certainly the head of Israel (king Saul) was responsible for his family.
Correct.
So if he sinned, he brought disgrace upon his family.
Correct.
We don't think of things like that today, but we are too far indivdiualistic in our culture. Perhaps they were too far corporately minded. At any rate, I can see that in the Ancient Near East the sort of vindictive justice that is presented in this story made sense to their ethical system. What I wonder about though, is the part of the story that attributes the 3 year plague to what Saul had to the Gibeonites and the way that the Lord seems to be appeased by the revenge that the Gibeonites demand.
God is punishing Israel for Saul's sin.
Why would this appease God?
Atonement for sin is a major part of God's Revelation. Whether we are aware of it or not, even today, nations atone for national sins.
I can see that He was upset about what King Saul did to the Gibeonites but doesn't this seem like a case of two wrongs making a right?
No. God is not bound by His Sacraments and Laws. God gives life and takes it. It is not right for man to take a human life without cause. But God takes human lives all the time. Our lives end on God's time, not ours.
It just doesn't seem to me that God would be pleased with the solution.
It is better for seven to die than for an entire nation.
But yet the story says that after this act, the land was blessed. So what do we have here?
We have an explanation of what happened to Israel because of Saul's sins.
Also, the Gibeonites seem to realize that they cannot demand any of the Israelites be put to death. But yet, they are asking for the former king's sons. Are they not considered Israelites?
Perhaps not. If I remember correctly, Saul is a member of the Benjaminites. The tribe that was taken away from Israel.
Judges 21
6 And the children of Israel being moved with repentance for their brother Benjamin, began to say: One tribe is taken away from Israel.
1 Paralipomenon 12
29 And of the sons of Benjamin the brethren of Saul, three thousand: for hitherto a great part of them followed the house of Saul.
Sincerely,
Juan
|
|
|
andersent
Member
| Joined: | Mon Apr 30th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 23 |
| First Name: | Todd | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Formerly united methodist, now Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 27th, 2007 11:28 am |
|
| Juan, thanks for your good responses. I have to think this over a bit. Here is a follow up reply for now though....I guess I'm looking at this through the lens of the revelation of Christ and that's where it becomes difficult for my mind to reconcile this..i.e. if, today, a king like say, S. Hussein (when he was still in power and alive), killed some people wrongly (as of course, he did), would New Testament ethics have a new king in authority avenge this wrong by killing 7 of Hussein's kids? I realize that Christ would never have the individual take the law into his own hands and seek such revenge. But would it be just for the new king to kill Hussein's sons even if they had nothing to do with the wrongs that thier father committed? Is this actually ethical, in other words given the full revelation of God after the time of Christ? Wouldn't we today (even us who have this passage in 2 sam) be somewhat horrified or upset if the way that the new king acted was to kill Hussein's kids in order to get even with the already dead Hussein? I guess there is a part of me that can see this kind of justice atoning for sin but i also think that it would be a bad thing to try to set the sins of Iraq right but killing Hussein's sons. it would just seem like more unneccessary bloodshed I guess. i'm still thinking it through though. Maybe I'm missing some distinction.
|
|
|
Juan
Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 17th, 2006 |
| Location: | Texas USA |
| Posts: | 247 |
| First Name: | unregister | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | unregister |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 27th, 2007 11:59 am |
|
Juan, thanks for your good responses.
You're welcome.
I have to think this over a bit. Here is a follow up reply for now though....I guess I'm looking at this through the lens of the revelation of Christ and that's where it becomes difficult for my mind to reconcile this..i.e. if, today, a king like say, S. Hussein (when he was still in power and alive), killed some people wrongly (as of course, he did), would New Testament ethics have a new king in authority avenge this wrong by killing 7 of Hussein's kids? I realize that Christ would never have the individual take the law into his own hands and seek such revenge. But would it be just for the new king to kill Hussein's sons even if they had nothing to do with the wrongs that thier father committed? Is this actually ethical, in other words given the full revelation of God after the time of Christ? Wouldn't we today (even us who have this passage in 2 sam) be somewhat horrified or upset if the way that the new king acted was to kill Hussein's kids in order to get even with the already dead Hussein? I guess there is a part of me that can see this kind of justice atoning for sin but i also think that it would be a bad thing to try to set the sins of Iraq right but killing Hussein's sons. it would just seem like more unneccessary bloodshed I guess. i'm still thinking it through though. Maybe I'm missing some distinction.
Yes. God's direct communication. The distinction is that in Davidic times, God spoke directly to the people. In the example you provided (2 Sam 21), David recognized that God was displeased. God let David know why He was displeased and David took action to satisfy God's displeasure.
The closest equivalent today is the Catholic Church. The example you provided, Sadaam Hussein's bloody reign. When the US threatened to attack Iraq, the Catholic Church counseled against it. But the US did not listen to that counsel.
I don't think there is such a thing as unnecessary bloodshed. We don't like it, but I firmly believe that God has a purpose for everything. God is in command.
Sincerely,
Juan
|
|
|
andersent
Member
| Joined: | Mon Apr 30th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 23 |
| First Name: | Todd | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Formerly united methodist, now Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 27th, 2007 12:08 pm |
|
| you touch on another question here that is constantly on my mind when reading the OT. What does it mean when it just simply says "God said" in the OT? What is our understanding of HOW he spoke directly back then? Would the king, like David always consult a prophet? Or do we think that he just had like visions or apparitions? It just always baffles me when it just says "God said" as if He's just showing up all the time and telling people back then what's what. But as you said, today in the Catholic Church we have God's Holy Spirit in a fuller way, I would say, after the incarnation and with the Church being the bride of Christ. Christ works in his humanity through the Church. But the popes and even the bishops all in unison with the pope at an official council don't seem to have God show up and just say something directly (of course, we believe that what they ultimately do say at such a validly gathered council is ultimately protected by the Holy Spirit from error but no one says that God just shows up and says what's what like He did in OT times). So I guess it's always been a bit odd to me that while more grace is given in the NT we have less access to the direct voice of God than they did in the OT...any thoughts?
|
|
|
Juan
Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 17th, 2006 |
| Location: | Texas USA |
| Posts: | 247 |
| First Name: | unregister | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | unregister |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 27th, 2007 12:59 pm |
|
you touch on another question here that is constantly on my mind when reading the OT. What does it mean when it just simply says "God said" in the OT? What is our understanding of HOW he spoke directly back then? Would the king, like David always consult a prophet?
Not always. But frequently.
Or do we think that he just had like visions or apparitions?
Sometimes.
It just always baffles me when it just says "God said" as if He's just showing up all the time and telling people back then what's what. But as you said, today in the Catholic Church we have God's Holy Spirit in a fuller way, I would say, after the incarnation and with the Church being the bride of Christ. Christ works in his humanity through the Church. But the popes and even the bishops all in unison with the pope at an official council don't seem to have God show up and just say something directly (of course, we believe that what they ultimately do say at such a validly gathered council is ultimately protected by the Holy Spirit from error but no one says that God just shows up and says what's what like He did in OT times). So I guess it's always been a bit odd to me that while more grace is given in the NT we have less access to the direct voice of God than they did in the OT...any thoughts?
They also had false prophets. That tended to confuse the issue.
Yes, I've thought about it frequently. Saints like St. Catherine Sienna come to mind. Other than that, I have no idea why God doesn't seem to speak to Kings and Government leaders the way he did in Old Testament times. Perhaps He wants them to come to the Catholic Church? Whaddayathink? .
St. Matthew 13:10 And his disciples came and said to him: Why speakest thou to them in parables? 11 Who answered and said to them: Because to you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven: but to them it is not given. 12 For he that hath, to him shall be given, and he shall abound: but he that hath not, from him shall be taken away that also which he hath. 13 Therefore do I speak to them in parables: because seeing they see not, and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand. 14 And the prophecy of Isaias is fulfilled in them, who saith: By hearing you shall hear, and shall not understand: and seeing you shall see, and shall not perceive. 15 For the heart of this people is grown gross, and with their ears they have been dull of hearing, and their eyes they have shut: lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them.
16 But blessed are your eyes, because they see, and your ears, because they hear. 17 For, amen, I say to you, many prophets and just men have desired to see the things that you see, and have not seen them, and to hear the things that you hear and have not heard them.
Sincerely,
Juan
|
|
|
Current time is 12:07 am | |
|
|
|
|
|
