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
Day 139: Reparation to the Gibeonites
2 Samuel 21
Chapter 21: Israel's Blood-guilt and Exploits against the Philistines
Avenging the Gibeonites
2 Samuel 21:1-9 ~ The Three Years of Famine
These events probably took place not long after David became king of Israel. A three year famine has struck the land. God promised to protect Israel from famine so long as the people were obedient to His laws, but if they became disobedient and violated His covenant, God told them He would remove His hand of protection and the people would be subject to the same consequences of temporal judgments due to sin in the world as their neighbors (Lev 26:14-16, 26 and Dt 28:15, 38-40).
Question: David consults Yahweh through the priestly ocular devices of the Urim and Thummim. What is he told?
Answer: Israel has incurred the collective sin of blood-guilt, a violation of the laws concerning homicide, in participating in Saul's attempt to wipe out the Gibeonites. It was a pogrom in which all Israel and Judah (David's tribe) willingly participated.
Question: Who are the Gibeonites and what is their relationship with Israel?
Answer: They were Gentile residents of Canaan from four cities of Amorites and Hivites who deceived Joshua into making a treaty with them that included a vow not to harm them. It was a vow that was sealed in an oath by the princes of the tribes of Israel. Even when they discovered that they had been deceived, it was decided that Israel was bound by the oath.
David asks the Gibeonites to tell him what action that he can take that will give them justice for what their people have suffered.
Question: What do they demand?
Answer: They refuse monetary reparations and demand the lives of seven of Saul's descendants.
Question: What is the problem with their demand? What was the law concerning a child being held accountable for a parent's sin?
Answer: The law prohibited a child being held accountable for the crimes of his parents. What the Gibeonites have demanded is forbidden under the Law of the Sinai Covenant.
Question: Why then did David agree to the Gibeonites' demand?
Answer: Before he heard their demand, David said he would agree to whatever they asked, but that is not a good excuse. He probably agreed because their request served his interests by ridding him of all the possible heirs to Saul's throne; it was a politically expedient act. He has manipulated the law for his own benefit.
David handed over the sons and grandsons of Saul with the exception of Jonathan's son Meribbaal. It was probably these deaths that Meribbaal referred to in 2 Samuel 19:29.
Question: Why did David spare Meribbaal? See 1 Sam 20:14-17.
Answer: He spared him because of his covenant oath to Jonathan to protect his son.
2 Samuel 21:10-14 ~ Rizpah's Grief and the Burial of Saul's Murdered Family
Rizpah was Saul's concubine who bore him two sons. Merab was Saul's elder daughter and the sister of Michal (1 Sam 14:49; 18:17, 20). This event would account for the love Michal bore David turning to hatred as indicated in 2 Samuel 6:20-23.
The Gibeonites have not only murdered the descendants of Saul in a particularly brutal way but they have also denied them a proper burial contrary to Israelite practices.
2 Samuel 21:15-22 ~ David's Campaigns against the Philistines
The incident in verses 15-17 sets the time just prior to 2 Samuel Chapter 11 when David is no longer accompanying his men into battle because of the vow he made to them. It is understood that there were four "sons of Rapha" in this episode. Originally there were five sons, the first son being Goliath who was killed by David in 1 Samuel 17:40-51. The "Goliath of Gath" named in verse 19 cannot be the same Goliath killed by David in 1 Samuel 17:40-54:
- This incident occurred not when David was just a boy but years later when David is king.
- The Israelite warrior who kills the giant is Elhanan son of Jair and not David son of Jesse.
- The location is different. David killed Goliath on a battlefield located in the Shephelah lowlands in the tribal lands of Judah, fourteen miles west of Bethlehem (1 Sam 17:1-4), but in 2 Samuel 21:19 the battlefield is at Gob in Philistine territory (2 Sam 21:19).
- 1 Chronicles 20:5 records that Elhanan son of Jair killed Lahmi the brother of Goliath.
Either the second Goliath killed by Elhanan is a son of the first or, as it has been suggested by some scholars, that "Goliath" wasn't a name but a title like "designated champion;" but it is more likely that three words are missing from the text. In 1 Chronicles 20:5 the name of the Philistine killed by Elhanan is given as "Lahmi brother of Goliath of Gath;" the words "Lahmi brother of" are the only words missing from 2 Samuel 21:19, otherwise the sentence is the same as the 1 Chronicles verse. The location of Gob has not been determined but 1 Chronicles 20:4 identifies the site of the battle as the Philistine city of Gezer. The Goliath killed by David was one of five sons of Rapha, which is why David picked up five stones when he faced the Philistine in mortal combat in 1 Samuel 17:40.
+++
A Daily Defense
CHALLENGE: “The Real Presence can’t be true—Jesus would be commanding cannibalism! The Bible also tells us that we are not allowed to consume blood (Gen. 9:4; Lev. 17:14; Deut. 12:23).”
DEFENSE: The Real Presence does not imply cannibalism. Cannibalism involves chewing another person’s flesh, swallowing it, and extracting nutrients from it by digestion. None of that happens to Jesus’ flesh when a person receives the Eucharist. Jesus’ body and blood remain whole and undigested under the appearances of bread and wine.
Only the appearances are altered by consumption, and when they cease to have the appearance of bread and wine, the Real Presence ceases. God may make “the body and blood of Christ enthroned gloriously in heaven” (Paul VI, Credo of the People of God) simultaneously present in the Eucharist, but they are in no way damaged. Therefore, no cannibalism occurs.
The Old Testament prohibition on consuming blood forbade its normal consumption—where blood was eaten and digested as a food. Christ’s blood is not digested, and so the Eucharist does not violate the Old Testament prohibition on blood consumption.
This prohibition was part of the dietary regulations that kept Jews culturally and religiously distinct from their pagan neighbors. Globally, many cultures use blood in cooking (e.g., blood sausages like the “black pudding” eaten today in England), and Jesus removed these dietary restrictions when he “declared all foods clean” (Mark 7:19).
The reason the Israelites were prohibited from consuming blood was ritual: The blood represented the life of the animal, and so it belonged to God, the giver of life. Such ritual requirements are gone today, and now God gives us spiritual life through Jesus and the reception of his blood. Jesus declared: “Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you” (John 6:53).
If consuming the Eucharist were cannibalism, then saying the elements are merely symbolic would not solve the problem. In that case, Jesus would be commanding us to symbolically cannibalize him. This would be as problematic as making the symbolic commission of any intrinsically evil act (e.g., sodomy, rape) part of a sacrament.
Jimmy Akin, A Daily Defense: 365 Days (Plus One) to Becoming a Better Apologist
No comments:
Post a Comment