Jump to content
  • Welcome Guest

    For an ad free experience on Online Baptist, Please login or register for free

....his bloody house....


Recommended Posts

  • Members
No need to get hot under the collar' date=' I would like to think you are right, I am just not sure the passage supports it.[/quote'] It says: "and for his bloody house".




That "Gibeonites are not Israelites" is irrelevant. It was Israelites who were in power and authority in the situation. And it was Israel who turned the men over, and granted permission to perform the executions.


Once again, three key words : "his bloody house", indicaters they DID commit crimes. They were members of his "house" were they not? The word "house" means his family. And "bloody house" means his family were violent killers.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Heartstrings,

I have watched your response to the various posters for someone who has some questions you seem to be very defensive toward anyone who does not respond like you think they should.

Here is something else to consider Saul?s house would not have been just his family but also anyone who was employed by him including generals, servants, aunts, uncles, sisters, brothers, butchers, bakers etc.

Secondly look at who was given to Gibeonites the five sons of Michal. I am sure they were involved at 2 to 10 years of age in the killing those Gibeonites.

You seem to be hung up on one verse Deuteronomy 24:16 in a response to that verse let us go to Exodus and ask if the father refused to put the blood of a lamb on the door posts and lentils of his house; who died?

orvals :wave:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
That "Gibeonites are not Israelites" is irrelevant. It was Israelites who were in power and authority in the situation. And it was Israel who turned the men over, and granted permission to perform the executions.


Deuteronomy 21:22-23 And if a man have committed a sin worthy of death, and he be to be put to death, and thou hang him on a tree: His body shall not remain all night upon the tree, but thou shalt in any wise bury him that day; (for he that is hanged is accursed of God;) that thy land be not defiled, which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance.

We see from this passage that Israel was commanded not to let the bodies of those that were hanged remain hanging but to promptly bury them.

2 Samuel 21:9-10 And he delivered them into the hands of the Gibeonites, and they hanged them in the hill before the LORD: and they fell all seven together, and were put to death in the days of harvest, in the first days, in the beginning of barley harvest. And Rizpah the daughter of Aiah took sackcloth, and spread it for her upon the rock, from the beginning of harvest until water dropped upon them out of heaven, and suffered neither the birds of the air to rest on them by day, nor the beasts of the field by night.

From this we can see that the Gibeonites did not bury them at all but left them to rot. Clearly they were not following all of Israels laws but David allowed them to do as they saw fit anyway.

Secondly look at who was given to Gibeonites the five sons of Michal. I am sure they were involved at 2 to 10 years of age in the killing those Gibeonites.


This wasn't the same Michael that was Davids wife so I don't think we can know their ages.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Revelation,

Actually it is the same Michal that was David's wife but I believe you are correct that they were not all her sons born of her body. I did not research originally I just looked at the passage but upon further inspection the sons seem to have been the sons of her elder sister. Perhaps one or two might have been hers but there is no way to know that. Thanks for pointing this out to me.

orvals

edited for clarity of thought

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
Heartstrings,

I have watched your response to the various posters for someone who has some questions you seem to be very defensive toward anyone who does not respond like you think they should.

Here is something else to consider Saul?s house would not have been just his family but also anyone who was employed by him including generals, servants, aunts, uncles, sisters, brothers, butchers, bakers etc.

Secondly look at who was given to Gibeonites the five sons of Michal. I am sure they were involved at 2 to 10 years of age in the killing those Gibeonites.

You seem to be hung up on one verse Deuteronomy 24:16 in a response to that verse let us go to Exodus and ask if the father refused to put the blood of a lamb on the door posts and lentils of his house; who died?

orvals :wave:


Do you have chapter and verse which says these guys were "2 to 10 years old"? Please show me.
And the deal about the "blood of the lamb on the doorpost" wasn't it God who did the killing"?
Once again, God told MAN.....MAN sir....He told MAN not to kill a child for his father's sin.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Heartstrings,

Once again let us go through this reasonably.

First David inquired of the Lord the cause of the drought

Secondly God told him it was for Saul and his bloody house because he slew the Gibeonites.
It was by the order of Saul that the Gibeonites were attacked, he was the king and he had the power of life and death.

Thirdly David enquired of Gibeonites as to what could be done to make Saul?s transgression right.

Fourthly the Gibeonites choose the punishment (not David). The Gibeonites were a heathen nation living under the protection of Israel and her king.

Fifthly the Gibeonites asked for seven sons of Saul, Why? Because Saul had attacked the Gibeonites without a justifiable reason for doing so! David could have given the son of Jonathan but chose not to because of the oath between David and Jonathan. Mephibosheth could have been sent and yet there was no way Mephibosheth could have been guilty of blood because he could not be a warrior because he had a lame leg from his early childhood.

Sixthly David chose seven sons of Saul?s family and delivered them to the Gibeonites. David did not kill them the Gibeonites killed them.

Deuteronomy 24:16 was a law given to the judges of Israel not to the judges of heathen nations. You cannot enforce biblical principles on a heathen nation they will not understand.

I certainly see what you are trying to say but I believe you are forcing the passage to say something it does not say.

orvals

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
Heartstrings,

I have watched your response to the various posters for someone who has some questions you seem to be very defensive toward anyone who does not respond like you think they should.

Here is something else to consider Saul?s house would not have been just his family but also anyone who was employed by him including generals, servants, aunts, uncles, sisters, brothers, butchers, bakers etc.

Secondly look at who was given to Gibeonites the five sons of Michal. I am sure they were involved at 2 to 10 years of age in the killing those Gibeonites.

You seem to be hung up on one verse Deuteronomy 24:16 in a response to that verse let us go to Exodus and ask if the father refused to put the blood of a lamb on the door posts and lentils of his house; who died?

orvals :wave:





I asked you to verify this statement. Did you forget to?
And how am I "forcing the passage to say something it does not say"?
Orvals, Once again, it says....

Then there was a famine in the days of David three years, year after year; and David inquired of the LORD. And the LORD answered, It is for Saul, and for his bloody house, because he slew the Gibeonites.

Please tell me, Orvals, what the phrase "bloody house" means in this context. I'm pretty sure that I know BTW, but tell me what it means to you.


Sixthly David chose seven sons of Saul?s family and delivered them to the Gibeonites. David did not kill them the Gibeonites killed them.


Orvals,
If someone grabs your children and puts them into a cage full of hungry lions. Are you going to blame the lions? Sir, DAVID had full authority and control of this situation. Doesn't matter who he handed them over to. The fact is, he seized these men BY FORCE, and handed them over knowing full well they were going to be executed....... So, I say again.; if they were innocent of the "bloody" crimes, then David would have been breaking God's law.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
I asked you to verify this statement. Did you forget to?


If you look you will see he agreed in a round about way he had been mistaken about this even before you brought it up the first time. He was thinking that they were sons of Michal Davids wife(who was actually childless) from her other marriage and was calculating their approximate ages from that I believe. An easy mistake to make.

If someone grabs your children and puts them into a cage full of hungry lions. Are you going to blame the lions? Sir, DAVID had full authority and control of this situation. Doesn't matter who he handed them over to. The fact is, he seized these men BY FORCE, and handed them over knowing full well they were going to be executed....... So, I say again.; if they were innocent of the "bloody" crimes, then David would have been breaking God's law.


If that is true he broke Gods law anyway by allowing the Gibeonites to leave their bodies to rot as I pointed out.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members


If you look you will see he agreed in a round about way he had been mistaken about this even before you brought it up the first time. He was thinking that they were sons of Michal Davids wife(who was actually childless) from her other marriage and was calculating their approximate ages from that I believe. An easy mistake to make.



If that is true he broke Gods law anyway by allowing the Gibeonites to leave their bodies to rot as I pointed out.


Orvals,
Sorry man, I missed that.
My bad.

Revelation,
Actually, if they HAD indeed been innocent, wouldn't it actually have been God Himself sanctioning the breaking of his own commandment? Because it was God who brought the drought, informed David of the cause....
But God didn't just say "it is because of Saul" and stop there. No sir, he said "it is for Saul and for his bloody house". Kind of reminds me of another man with a "bloody house": Saddam Hussein. His two sons, Uday and Qusay, were just as wicked, if not more so, than he was.

My point for the whole thread is that God would neither go against, nor deny His own word. Nor would He instigate man to do so. Absolutely not.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Heartstrings,

It is obvious that we are approaching the question from very different perspectives. I am not so much attacking your position (it is reasonable) as I am your stance you are coming across very dogmatically concerning a passage that can truly not be proved either way. If you hold to ?his bloody house? as a precursor proof that Saul?s children and grandchildren were involved in the actual crime then your reasoning would be correct. On the other hand IMO you can not prove that his grandchildren were actually involved in the slaughter of Gibeonites.

The actual time frame of the drought is not known but KDOTC suggest that it was early in David?s reign as king. During the drought David was impressed upon to inquire of the Lord as to why there was a drought. And the Lord told David that it was because of ?Saul?s bloody house?.

As stated earlier Saul?s house would have included all that were under his authority yet the accusation is specifically leveled against Saul and not Israel. Also it is stated specifically in verse 2 that Saul sought to slay Gibeonites in order to demonstrate his zeal to Israel and Judah thus seemingly eliminating Israel and Judah as participants of the deed.

Through out scripture God consistently judges wrong motives and it is my belief that Saul?s zeal was a cover up for Saul?s greed. Saul was a Benjamite and his home was Gibeah where abode the Gibeonites who were indentured to Israel and specifically to Benjamin as slaves from the time of Joshua. Early in the books of history we find that Gibeah was referred to as Gibeah of Benjamin (Judges, 1 Sam 13:2, 15, 16) but after 1 Samuel 14:16 Gibeah is always referred to as Gibeah or Saul?s Gibeah. I deduce that between chapter 13 and 14 Saul tried to wipe out the Gibeonites and claimed Gibeah as his possession alone.

Who was involved in this slaughter of innocents? Certainly Saul was involved but also Saul?s servants and Saul?s family all of which give parameters to ?his bloody house?. My thought here is that Saul?s three sons and his daughters would be pretty young. Saul at this point in his life is in his late forties or early fifties. For sake of argument let us say that Saul?s children are in their mid 20?s at best their children could only be in their mid teens hardly capable of combat and murder.

The scriptures record that Saul married Ahinoam and they had four sons: Jonathan, Abinadab, Malchishua, and Ish-bosheth and two daughters Merab and Michal (who was childless until her death 2 Sam. 6:23). Saul also fathered two sons with Rizpah: Armoni and Mephibosheth. Ish-bosheth becomes the king of Israel at 40 years of age but is killed when he is 42. Intimating two things:

He would have been born the year Saul became king which would have made him 20 years old when Saul was fifty
The drought was after his death.

In 1 Samuel 17:1 David is offered Merab Saul?s Daughter to wife David accepts and then Saul gives her to another after which David is given Michal to wife about 12 years after he had killed Goliath (years are based on historical research which I cannot duplicate here for sake of time) which would make David around 27 years of age. Most scholars believe David was born between 1037-1034 which would make the time of marriage between 1010 and 1007. David becomes king of Judah when he is thirty so the more probable date is 1010 which would make the years of his running from Saul approximately 3 years.

Why do I bring this up? It is very unlikely that Saul?s daughters would have been in their late twenties when offered as brides as a matter of fact it would have been more likely that each would have been under 20 years of age. Saul will die within the next 3-4 years because history records that David became king of Judah in 1007 and king of a united Israel in 1000. David reigns for 40 years or until 970 BC.

In all likely hood the slaughter of the Gibeonites occurred before most of the grandchildren were born but if they were not, the grand children would have been very young and definitely did not participate in slaughter.

Once again Heartstrings I am not saying your theory is wrong I am saying that your stance does not leave you any room to consider another possibility. To say that David would not break God?s law is a false belief because David did at other parts of his life. Keep in mind David was the king and not a judge whom the law in Deuteronomy was given to. Also remember that David took back Michal to wife even though she was married to another man. Divorce, marriage and remarriage?

I am at peace with my study I hope you can now see my side of the debate. God bless I am going on a vacation for a week. Please pray we have no problems.

orvals

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
Heartstrings,

It is obvious that we are approaching the question from very different perspectives. I am not so much attacking your position (it is reasonable) as I am your stance you are coming across very dogmatically concerning a passage that can truly not be proved either way. If you hold to ?his bloody house? as a precursor proof that Saul?s children and grandchildren were involved in the actual crime then your reasoning would be correct. On the other hand IMO you can not prove that his grandchildren were actually involved in the slaughter of Gibeonites.

The actual time frame of the drought is not known but KDOTC suggest that it was early in David?s reign as king. During the drought David was impressed upon to inquire of the Lord as to why there was a drought. And the Lord told David that it was because of ?Saul?s bloody house?.

As stated earlier Saul?s house would have included all that were under his authority yet the accusation is specifically leveled against Saul and not Israel. Also it is stated specifically in verse 2 that Saul sought to slay Gibeonites in order to demonstrate his zeal to Israel and Judah thus seemingly eliminating Israel and Judah as participants of the deed.

Through out scripture God consistently judges wrong motives and it is my belief that Saul?s zeal was a cover up for Saul?s greed. Saul was a Benjamite and his home was Gibeah where abode the Gibeonites who were indentured to Israel and specifically to Benjamin as slaves from the time of Joshua. Early in the books of history we find that Gibeah was referred to as Gibeah of Benjamin (Judges, 1 Sam 13:2, 15, 16) but after 1 Samuel 14:16 Gibeah is always referred to as Gibeah or Saul?s Gibeah. I deduce that between chapter 13 and 14 Saul tried to wipe out the Gibeonites and claimed Gibeah as his possession alone.

Who was involved in this slaughter of innocents? Certainly Saul was involved but also Saul?s servants and Saul?s family all of which give parameters to ?his bloody house?. My thought here is that Saul?s three sons and his daughters would be pretty young. Saul at this point in his life is in his late forties or early fifties. For sake of argument let us say that Saul?s children are in their mid 20?s at best their children could only be in their mid teens hardly capable of combat and murder.

The scriptures record that Saul married Ahinoam and they had four sons: Jonathan, Abinadab, Malchishua, and Ish-bosheth and two daughters Merab and Michal (who was childless until her death 2 Sam. 6:23). Saul also fathered two sons with Rizpah: Armoni and Mephibosheth. Ish-bosheth becomes the king of Israel at 40 years of age but is killed when he is 42. Intimating two things:

He would have been born the year Saul became king which would have made him 20 years old when Saul was fifty
The drought was after his death.

In 1 Samuel 17:1 David is offered Merab Saul?s Daughter to wife David accepts and then Saul gives her to another after which David is given Michal to wife about 12 years after he had killed Goliath (years are based on historical research which I cannot duplicate here for sake of time) which would make David around 27 years of age. Most scholars believe David was born between 1037-1034 which would make the time of marriage between 1010 and 1007. David becomes king of Judah when he is thirty so the more probable date is 1010 which would make the years of his running from Saul approximately 3 years.

Why do I bring this up? It is very unlikely that Saul?s daughters would have been in their late twenties when offered as brides as a matter of fact it would have been more likely that each would have been under 20 years of age. Saul will die within the next 3-4 years because history records that David became king of Judah in 1007 and king of a united Israel in 1000. David reigns for 40 years or until 970 BC.

In all likely hood the slaughter of the Gibeonites occurred before most of the grandchildren were born but if they were not, the grand children would have been very young and definitely did not participate in slaughter.

Once again Heartstrings I am not saying your theory is wrong I am saying that your stance does not leave you any room to consider another possibility. To say that David would not break God?s law is a false belief because David did at other parts of his life. Keep in mind David was the king and not a judge whom the law in Deuteronomy was given to. Also remember that David took back Michal to wife even though she was married to another man. Divorce, marriage and remarriage?

I am at peace with my study I hope you can now see my side of the debate. God bless I am going on a vacation for a week. Please pray we have no problems.

orvals


Orvals,
Saul also fathered two sons with Rizpah: Armoni and Mephibosheth.

First of all. you are forgetting that these two guys were sons, not grandchildren. And being sons, they would have been half brothers of Jonathan would they not? And was not Jonathan killed in battle, at least three years before this happened?
Secondly, wasn't Saul killed at around age 60? That's more than old enough to have even grandchildren capable of violence and murder. And remeber, two of them could have been old enough to be grandpas at execution time.
And thirdly,
The Bible says the Gibeonites asked for "men"; not "children", or even "lads".

2Sa 21:6 Let seven men of his sons be delivered nto us, and we will hang them up unto the LORD.......

Yes, praying that you have a safe and fun vacation. We'll be taking a mini-vacation this weekend too. Going to a blugrass festival.
God bless
Wayne
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Orvals,
Brotherman, I've already pointed out to you that Jonathan was a grown man and. ....and two of these guys were his half brothers. Now unless they were fathered in Saul's old age, I don't see how half BROTHERS of a grown, battle hardened soldier had to be little kids. Come on dude!! :bonk::wave: :ideas: :Green
Not only that, another brother, Ishbosheth, was 40, the Bible says.

Wasn't Saul about 60 when he died?
When Saul was 40....that's old enough to have grandkids right?
So by the time he's 55, he's old enough to have some 15 year old grand yunguns right?
So at 55 there's 5 more years till Saul's death, right?
So, beginning at 15, how much trouble can a young man get into in 5 years?

The Gibeonites asked for MEN......
They were likely two grandpas(Rizpah's) and five young men(Michal's).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...