Steven_J says...
From the standpoint of the Gibeonites, it was "retaliation."
Yes, retaliation, as in meaning the Gibeonites were seeking just compensation for an evil done to them. Yes, we see that in the text.
Steven_J says...
From David's point of view, who knows? I personally suspect David saw it as a way to get rid of potential political rivals, but I admit I cannot prove that.
Not only can you "not prove that", Steven there is not any suggestion of that in the text. There is no verse or passage that supports your inference.
Rather, the text clearly states David's intent. David was seeking a blessing on Israel, he was seeking an end to the drought. But you disregard the statement that is made in the text, and you instead ascribe to David a motive of your own invention.
You also suggest that David is "utterly ignorant" of God's principles of justice, when the text clearly tells us that David received word from God. You suggest that David's response to God's instruction is to "get rid of potential political rivals".
For some reason, you find it necessary to infer ideas that are contrary to what the author of the text says, and then use those ideas to bolster your other peculiar interpretations of the text. It's almost as if you are choosing to reject outright any reading which would allow the author's meaning to be represented by the author's words.
Tuesday, January 31, 2012
seems utterly ignorant
Steven J says...
David, for example, seems utterly ignorant of the principle when he kills many of the surviving descendants of Saul in retaliation for Saul's murder of the Gibeonites),
Actually, Steven, if you read the account a little more clearly, you will see that 'The LORD said, "There is bloodguilt on Saul and on his house, because he put the Gibeonites to death."'
In response to God's instruction, David sought atonement for Saul's sins. He offered to give the Gibeonites just compensation for the evil that Saul had done.
You opt to use the word "retaliation" to identify David's motive; I suspect that for many readers, that word has a familiar connotation which is beyond the author's meaning, which would really be rendered more accurately as "adequate compensation" or "atonement".
The account tells us that David was seeking a blessing on Israel; it doesn't tell us that David was satisfying some sort of bloodlust rage.
We also note that it was not David that killed Saul's descendants. Rather, it was the Gibeonites who put the men to death. David equitably satisfied the compensation requested by the Gibeonites.
You likely consider this a minor point, that David handed over the men to the Gibeonites to be put to death, rather than killing the men himself. You are likely to see this as a trivial distinction unworthy of note.
But I suggest to you that the author of the account does deem this particular point to be "worth noting". It's of sufficient importance to be noted by the author.
You also suggest that David is "utterly ignorant" of the LORD's principles. Yet in the account we read that it is the LORD himself that gives David instruction, pointing out that there has been no atonement made for Saul's sin.
David, for example, seems utterly ignorant of the principle when he kills many of the surviving descendants of Saul in retaliation for Saul's murder of the Gibeonites),
Actually, Steven, if you read the account a little more clearly, you will see that 'The LORD said, "There is bloodguilt on Saul and on his house, because he put the Gibeonites to death."'
In response to God's instruction, David sought atonement for Saul's sins. He offered to give the Gibeonites just compensation for the evil that Saul had done.
You opt to use the word "retaliation" to identify David's motive; I suspect that for many readers, that word has a familiar connotation which is beyond the author's meaning, which would really be rendered more accurately as "adequate compensation" or "atonement".
The account tells us that David was seeking a blessing on Israel; it doesn't tell us that David was satisfying some sort of bloodlust rage.
We also note that it was not David that killed Saul's descendants. Rather, it was the Gibeonites who put the men to death. David equitably satisfied the compensation requested by the Gibeonites.
You likely consider this a minor point, that David handed over the men to the Gibeonites to be put to death, rather than killing the men himself. You are likely to see this as a trivial distinction unworthy of note.
But I suggest to you that the author of the account does deem this particular point to be "worth noting". It's of sufficient importance to be noted by the author.
You also suggest that David is "utterly ignorant" of the LORD's principles. Yet in the account we read that it is the LORD himself that gives David instruction, pointing out that there has been no atonement made for Saul's sin.
create something imperfect
Joshua asks...
How does something perfect like God create something imperfect? How is something omniscient like God not know ahead of time that Adam was going to sin? If He did know before hand, why not stop him?
Joshua,
God creates things that perfectly suit his purpose. What you view as imperfect, God sees as entirely complete and suitable, with the capacity for being re-made perfect. God is a maker. God has the ability to re-make things, in a way that perfectly suits his purpose.
For by that one offering he forever made perfect those who are being made holy. Hebrews 10:14 NLT
Perhaps it is in the process of re-making tin soldiers into men that God sees perfection.
How is something omniscient like God not know ahead of time that Adam was going to sin?
God did know.
You aren't suggesting here that eternal God, creator of time, beyond the bounds of time... you aren't suggesting here that there was something God did not already know, before there was time.
If He did know before hand, why not stop him?
Because it did not suit God's purpose to "stop him". God's purpose was served by allowing Adam to disobey. God's purpose was served by allowing sin to enter the world through Adam's disobedience.
How does something perfect like God create something imperfect? How is something omniscient like God not know ahead of time that Adam was going to sin? If He did know before hand, why not stop him?
Joshua,
God creates things that perfectly suit his purpose. What you view as imperfect, God sees as entirely complete and suitable, with the capacity for being re-made perfect. God is a maker. God has the ability to re-make things, in a way that perfectly suits his purpose.
For by that one offering he forever made perfect those who are being made holy. Hebrews 10:14 NLT
Perhaps it is in the process of re-making tin soldiers into men that God sees perfection.
How is something omniscient like God not know ahead of time that Adam was going to sin?
God did know.
You aren't suggesting here that eternal God, creator of time, beyond the bounds of time... you aren't suggesting here that there was something God did not already know, before there was time.
If He did know before hand, why not stop him?
Because it did not suit God's purpose to "stop him". God's purpose was served by allowing Adam to disobey. God's purpose was served by allowing sin to enter the world through Adam's disobedience.
never heard of
Steven_J says...
God acts as if He's never heard of Deuteronomy 24:16, and still thinks that it is fair to punish children for the sins of their fathers.
This is because the injunction given in Deuteronomy 24:16 is not a description of any eternal principle of God's justice. Rather, this instruction pertained to human affairs adjucated by a human court.
We note that Saul's offense to God was not brought before the judicial system. Rather, God himself was dealing with Saul's affront.
There many accounts in the Bible you could choose to point to, Steven, and to which you could say that Deuteronomy 24:16 appears to have had no bearing on whatsoever. But if care to take a closer look at those accounts, you will also note that in each of them it is God himself (and not a human court) that is dealing with offenses against him.
You suggest that the account of David illustrates a "contradiction". You attempt to resolve this contradiction by concluding that David was "utterly ignorant" of Deuteronomy 24:16. "More to the point", you say, God appears to be utterly ignorant of it.
Of course a more plausible explanation is that David is not only familiar with the injunction against vicarious punishment, but that he was also completely aware that this rule constrained only the human judicial system, and that God himself was not bound by this rule.
David was fully aware that this instruction was given specifically in the context of human affairs. David did not share your illusion that this instruction was given as an illustration of God's eternal principles.
Steven, you seem keen to read into verse 16 ideas that are just simply not there. You read into this verse "reasons" that this rule is given to Israel, variously, because it is "fair", or because this is a principle that governs God's dealing with people. You choose to inject your own meaning in place of what the author actually said.
You have failed to demonstrate that it is incumbent upon God to be governed by every rule that he has given to Israel. And you have failed to show any reason (beyond wishful thinking) that we would even imagine this might be or should be so.
Yet you insist that this specific instruction is somehow applicable to God, and should govern how God deals with affronts against him.
In short, there is no real contradiction.
In spite of your claim to the contrary, the simple fact is that Deuteronomy 24:16 is not a repudiation of God's principle of corporate responsibility.
God acts as if He's never heard of Deuteronomy 24:16, and still thinks that it is fair to punish children for the sins of their fathers.
This is because the injunction given in Deuteronomy 24:16 is not a description of any eternal principle of God's justice. Rather, this instruction pertained to human affairs adjucated by a human court.
We note that Saul's offense to God was not brought before the judicial system. Rather, God himself was dealing with Saul's affront.
There many accounts in the Bible you could choose to point to, Steven, and to which you could say that Deuteronomy 24:16 appears to have had no bearing on whatsoever. But if care to take a closer look at those accounts, you will also note that in each of them it is God himself (and not a human court) that is dealing with offenses against him.
You suggest that the account of David illustrates a "contradiction". You attempt to resolve this contradiction by concluding that David was "utterly ignorant" of Deuteronomy 24:16. "More to the point", you say, God appears to be utterly ignorant of it.
Of course a more plausible explanation is that David is not only familiar with the injunction against vicarious punishment, but that he was also completely aware that this rule constrained only the human judicial system, and that God himself was not bound by this rule.
David was fully aware that this instruction was given specifically in the context of human affairs. David did not share your illusion that this instruction was given as an illustration of God's eternal principles.
Steven, you seem keen to read into verse 16 ideas that are just simply not there. You read into this verse "reasons" that this rule is given to Israel, variously, because it is "fair", or because this is a principle that governs God's dealing with people. You choose to inject your own meaning in place of what the author actually said.
You have failed to demonstrate that it is incumbent upon God to be governed by every rule that he has given to Israel. And you have failed to show any reason (beyond wishful thinking) that we would even imagine this might be or should be so.
Yet you insist that this specific instruction is somehow applicable to God, and should govern how God deals with affronts against him.
In short, there is no real contradiction.
In spite of your claim to the contrary, the simple fact is that Deuteronomy 24:16 is not a repudiation of God's principle of corporate responsibility.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)