View this lesson in a browser and print a "take-away" weekly copy. CLICK HERE (see link below)
An Eye for an Eye or a Convenient Solution?
There is a bad famine in Israel. The Hebrew text emphasizes the long period without any rain (“for three years, year after year.”) This was not normal. People considered God directly responsible for giving rain and withholding rain. David sought “the face of the Lord.” We are not told by what means he receives God’s answer, but its content is very clear: “There is bloodguilt on Saul and on his house” (2 Sam. 21:1, ESV).
Read 2 Samuel 21:1–6. Why should Saul’s descendants suffer for their forefather’s guilt? Does this not contradict Deuteronomy 24:16; Jeremiah 31:29, 30; and Ezekiel 18:1–4?
This is a hot issue and causes debates among scholars. Where is God’s justice here? Is justice something collective or something individual? Some commentators suggest that David used the famine as a convenient excuse to get rid of possible rivals for the throne and that the “[speaking] of the Lord” in 2 Samuel 21:1 was a clever manipulation of divine messages for David’s own purpose; yet, there is no indication in the biblical text that this was David’s motivation. What the text clearly states is that Saul sought to annihilate the Gibeonites, who are connected with the “Amorites,” the original inhabitants of Canaan before Israel took control of Palestine.
The text highlights a very important principle of Scripture: although salvation may depend on our decisions, our actions and choices affect those around us and never take place in isolation. When faithful kings reigned in Jerusalem, Judah followed God’s law and sought to live accordingly; on the other hand, unfaithful kings brought down many in Israel.
In the historical texts of the Old Testament, there are no references to Saul’s attempt to destroy the Gibeonites. However, the example of Saul’s revenge on the priestly town of Nob (1 Samuel 21) suggests that Saul was capable of this. Saul’s zeal looks good from the outside (after all, the Gibeonites were foreigners), but the divine evaluation of this act underlines God’s high regard for faithfulness (Josh. 9:15–21). God expects us to honor our promises. As we will see, Rizpah gives us (and King David!) an object lesson in faithfulness.
Though we don’t fully understand why there should be a famine because of Saul’s sins, we must always remember that our actions come with consequences—always. Yet, as Christians, shouldn’t we avoid doing wrong, not because of the potential consequences of the act but because of the wrongness of the act itself? What keeps you in line more: fear of the consequences of your wrong actions, or your desire not to do wrong, period?
| TUESDAY | November 23 |
There is a bad famine in Israel. The Hebrew text emphasizes the long period without any rain (“for three years, year after year.”) This was not normal. People considered God directly responsible for giving rain and withholding rain. David sought “the face of the Lord.” We are not told by what means he receives God’s answer, but its content is very clear: “There is bloodguilt on Saul and on his house” (2 Sam. 21:1, ESV).
Read 2 Samuel 21:1–6. Why should Saul’s descendants suffer for their forefather’s guilt? Does this not contradict Deuteronomy 24:16; Jeremiah 31:29, 30; and Ezekiel 18:1–4?
This is a hot issue and causes debates among scholars. Where is God’s justice here? Is justice something collective or something individual? Some commentators suggest that David used the famine as a convenient excuse to get rid of possible rivals for the throne and that the “[speaking] of the Lord” in 2 Samuel 21:1 was a clever manipulation of divine messages for David’s own purpose; yet, there is no indication in the biblical text that this was David’s motivation. What the text clearly states is that Saul sought to annihilate the Gibeonites, who are connected with the “Amorites,” the original inhabitants of Canaan before Israel took control of Palestine.
The text highlights a very important principle of Scripture: although salvation may depend on our decisions, our actions and choices affect those around us and never take place in isolation. When faithful kings reigned in Jerusalem, Judah followed God’s law and sought to live accordingly; on the other hand, unfaithful kings brought down many in Israel.
In the historical texts of the Old Testament, there are no references to Saul’s attempt to destroy the Gibeonites. However, the example of Saul’s revenge on the priestly town of Nob (1 Samuel 21) suggests that Saul was capable of this. Saul’s zeal looks good from the outside (after all, the Gibeonites were foreigners), but the divine evaluation of this act underlines God’s high regard for faithfulness (Josh. 9:15–21). God expects us to honor our promises. As we will see, Rizpah gives us (and King David!) an object lesson in faithfulness.
Though we don’t fully understand why there should be a famine because of Saul’s sins, we must always remember that our actions come with consequences—always. Yet, as Christians, shouldn’t we avoid doing wrong, not because of the potential consequences of the act but because of the wrongness of the act itself? What keeps you in line more: fear of the consequences of your wrong actions, or your desire not to do wrong, period?
No comments:
Post a Comment