You may subscribe yourself at the Ascension site here and receive notifications in your email, or just follow along on my blog. Bible in One Year Readings Index
Chapter 4: The Death of Ishbaal son of Saul
2 Samuel 4:1-3 ~ Unrest in Israel after Abner's Murder
The Semitic expression that "his hands grew weak" in the literal translation is similar to the English idiom "he lost his grip," and expresses Ishboseth's fear and inability to take charge of his responsibilities after the loss of Abner, his military commander and chief protector. All of Israel was alarmed because the people knew Ishboseth was not up to the task of leading Israel.
2 Samuel 4:4 ~ Jonathan son of Saul had a son with crippled feet. He was five years old when the news about Saul and Jonathan came from Jezreel. His nurse picked him up and fled but, as she hurried away, he fell and was lamed. His name was Meribbaal.
David swore to Jonathan that if Jonathan died he would protect his family (2 Sam 20:14-15). David will fulfill this oath by taking Jonathan's son Meribbaal into his household (2 Sam 9:1-13). The importance of this passage, coming in the middle of the account concerning Ishbaal, is that being crippled from an accident Jonathan's son is no longer fit to serve as Israel's king and is not a threat to David's kingship.
2 Samuel 4:5-12 ~ The Murder of King Ishbaal
Ishbaal, king of Israel, is living in humble accommodations since having been driven out of his father's fortress at Gibeah by the Philistines. Without Abner to see to his security, there is only one old woman serving as his doorkeeper with no soldiers to guard him, unless of course that was the duty of the men who became his assassins.
Question: These Gentile brothers are making an assumption about David that is similar to what other Gentile in an earlier episode? See 4:10 and 2 Sam 1:8-16.
Answer: They make the same dangerous assumption as the Amalekite who thought David would reward him for killing Saul. They were wrong and were condemned to death like the Amalekite.
The other possible reason the brothers may have murdered Saul's son was because of a "blood debt." Saul attempted to wipe out the Gentiles living within the tribal lands of Benjamin that would have included their own people at Beeroth. The Gibeonites will seek retribution for the massacre against Saul's descendants (see 2 Sam 21:1-6).
Question: For what two reasons does David execute these two men? One reason is obvious and the other is less obvious but sets an important precedent.
Answer:
- They have killed an unarmed man to whom they owed their allegiance and who had done them no harm.
- Their execution, like the execution of the Amalekite who killed Saul, establishes the precedent that regicide (king-murder) is a death penalty offense. It is not in David's interest nor is it in the interest of his future dynasty that such an act be tolerated.
CHALLENGE: “If Matthew’s exceptive clauses on divorce don’t mean you can get remarried (see Day 122), what do they mean?”
DEFENSE:There are a number of possibilities.
In Matthew 5:32, Jesus states: “Everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of unchastity, makes her an adulteress; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.” Social conditions in the ancient world pressured divorced women to remarry, so to divorce a woman was, in effect, to make her an adulteress—unless she already was one. Matthew may mean that a husband could divorce an adulterous wife without being guilty of forcing her into adultery, for she had already chosen that path. Adultery thus might be a valid ground for divorce, but it would not permit remarriage. Note that Jesus says that anyone who marries a divorced woman commits adultery, without making any exceptions (cf. Day 82). This was the classical understanding of the exceptive clauses found in the writings of the Church Fathers.
Another theory points out that the word used in Greek for “unchastity” (porneia) and “adultery” (moicheia) are different, suggesting that “unchastity” should be taken as a reference to something other than adultery, such as sex with someone else before a marriage had been consummated. If infidelity were discovered before consummation, a person might be able to divorce and remarry, because marriage only becomes indissoluble when it is consummated (CCC 2382).
On either of the above theories, Matthew may have included the exceptive clauses to bring out this aspect of Jesus’ teaching because he previously mentioned that Joseph had planned to divorce Mary when, prior to their living together, she was discovered to be with child. Yet he calls Joseph “a just man” (Matt. 1:19). How could he be just if divorce was always wrong? Thus Matthew may have included the exceptive clauses to make it clear how Joseph’s intent could be reasonable for a just man to divorce.
Another theory, which has been argued in recent years, is that the word porneia here refers to incestuous marriages that were practiced by Gentiles but forbidden by the Jewish Law. Matthew may have wished to make it clear for his Jewish readers that such Gentile marriages were not valid. For a defense of this view, see John P. Meier, The Vision of Matthew, 248–57.
Jimmy Akin, A Daily Defense: 365 Days (Plus One) to Becoming a Better Apologist
No comments:
Post a Comment