Tough Times reveal good leaders
Notes
Transcript
I. Difficult Justice
I. Difficult Justice
About the Murder of the Gibeonites
Killing the Gibeonites was a problem because Joshua promised to protect them Josh 9:3-17. Keeping this covenant was important enough that Joshua’s long day was precipitated by a battle to deliver the Gibeonites from the Southern Canaanite coalition. Josh 10:6
Murder is also quite serious Num 35:33. However, you may notice a problem. Saul in fact did die a violent death, and is now dead. His grandsons had nothing to do with this crime other than unfortunately being related to Saul. The law is quite clear: children should not pay for their parent’s crimes Deut 24:16; Ezek 18:20. So why isn’t the guilt gone, since Saul is dead?
So you shall not pollute the land where you are; for blood defiles the land, and no atonement can be made for the land, for the blood that is shed on it, except by the blood of him who shed it.
“Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor shall children be put to death for their fathers; a person shall be put to death for his own sin.
The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.
The problem arose because Saul was king at the time. In the days of the judges, this did not happen, as Judges were not ruling over the whole nation and passing it to their sons. Saul, as king, represents the nation. So while his personal guilt was satisfied by his death, he also brought on national guilt due to his position as king. 1 Samuel 12:14-15 indicates that now, in order for the nation to be blessed, both the King and the nation must obey the Lord. That is, if the king disobeys, the nation will be judged for the king’s actions, even if the people don’t follow.
If you fear the Lord and serve Him and obey His voice, and do not rebel against the commandment of the Lord, then both you and the king who reigns over you will continue following the Lord your God.
However, if you do not obey the voice of the Lord, but rebel against the commandment of the Lord, then the hand of the Lord will be against you, as it was against your fathers.
Nations, unlike individuals, cannot be punished or rewarded in the afterlife. The only penalty they can suffer must be dealt out in this life. So when Saul died, his personal guilt for his many murders was satisfied, but the national guilt he inflicted on the nation did not end, for the nation continued to exist and it was a party to Saul’s actions, since Saul represented the nation.
Ok, so that’s why the nation was indicted for the Gibeonites. But how does killing Saul’s son’s solve the problem?
David when talking to the Gibeonites actually uses the word for atonement כָפַר. But this isn’t atonement in the usual sense. Child sacrifice was very very illegal in ancient Israel. Or it was supposed to be, anyway. Yet David clearly believes that he must make some sort of deal with the Gibeonites to make the famine go away.
God was very clear about how he expected peaceful foreigners to be treated. Exod 22:21-24. The section in Hebrew begins with “and”, which is good Hebrew but terrible English which is why many translations omit the word. But that means that v21-22 are all means when God threatens to punish. Now what God is saying is that he will enact the curses of the Covenant if they mistreat foreigners, and if those foreigners at all cry out to God, God will most definitely hear them. So the death promised is the most extreme end of the curse, but the lesser curses, such as famine could also be exacted.
The Gibeonites may have lived alongside Israel for 500 years, and were already residents in the land for centuries before that, but they are still foreigners, as they don’t have an inheritance given to them by God. So when Saul killed them and tried to drive them away, they cried out to God, and God heard them.
Since the covenant that Joshua made with them wasn’t authored by God, it likely didn’t have any particular provision for what to do if it was broken. So to heal the breach, David has to work from scratch. The Gibeonites need to be satisfied that justice has been done to compensate them for their suffering, or they will keep crying out to God and God will keep hearing them. That’s why David has to make a deal with the Gibeonites.
So that’s why David has to ask the Gibeonites what will satisfy them. And they want vengeance - to mar the inheritance of the one who tried to destroy them and their property. (They might not have land, but they do live in cities, and Saul was trying to destroy the lives and only livelihoods they had). But that creates a new problem - they want seven sons of Saul. There’s no magic in the number seven here. It’s just the number that the Gibeonites agreed to, possibly after extensive negotiations.
David swore both to Saul and to Jonathan
He spares Mephibosheth due to the oath he made with Jonathan 1 Samuel 20:15-16.
but you shall not cut off your kindness from my house forever, no, not when the Lord has cut off every one of the enemies of David from the face of the earth.”
So Jonathan made a covenant with the house of David, saying, “Let the Lord require it at the hand of David’s enemies.”
But he also swore not to extinguish the house of Saul 1 Samuel 24:21-22.
Therefore swear now to me by the Lord that you will not cut off my descendants after me, and that you will not destroy my name from my father’s house.”
So David swore to Saul. And Saul went home, but David and his men went up to the stronghold.
Solution - David didn’t extinguish all of Saul’s offspring. Mephibosheth was lame, but he did have a son, and his descendants did inherit Saul’s land. So both promises kept, but the author wants us to feel the agony of making this decision. We know from everything else David did that he didn’t want to punish Saul’s descendants. It was necessary to restore justice, and if he didn’t, many more people would die.
So he makes us watch in our mind’s eye as we see poor Rizpah keeping the lonely vigil over her two son’s dead bodies.
The other five sons are the descendants of Saul’s daughter. Now there’s an issue with the text here. I believe that when I preached on 2 Samuel 6, I said that Michal was the poor mother, and that’s possible. But having taking a closer look, there are some Hebrew manuscripts and the Septuagint that say Merab. We are told that Merab married Adriel (1 Samuel 18:19), whereas Michal married Paltiel (1 Samuel 25:44, and David had taken her back in chapter 3). We are told that Michal had no children, so she either lost them, or wasn’t the one who had the kids. It makes more sense that Merab is the one who bore these five sons.
But it happened at the time when Merab, Saul’s daughter, should have been given to David, that she was given to Adriel the Meholathite as a wife.
But Saul had given Michal his daughter, David’s wife, to Palti the son of Laish, who was from Gallim.
God also takes oaths very seriously
The whole reason for having to deal with this in the first place is because God is taking a 500 year old oath seriously.
Along the way, remember that Saul was on record with making extreme vows no one could keep, and should never have been made. It’s better not to vow than to vow and not pay. Eccl 5:4-5 Oathbreaking was incredibly serious to God - It’s the third of the ten commandments (Exod 20:7). It was so serious Jesus later said that we should avoid swearing by the Lord to do something wherever possible Matt 5:34-35
When you make a vow to God, do not delay to pay it; For He has no pleasure in fools. Pay what you have vowed—
Better not to vow than to vow and not pay.
“You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes His name in vain.
But I say to you, do not swear at all: neither by heaven, for it is God’s throne;
nor by the earth, for it is His footstool; nor by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King.
David therefore is an example, for he did not take oaths lightly, and here he takes the only tact that keeps both his oaths to Saul and Jonathan, and Joshua’s covenant with the Gibeonites.
Finally, this section is intended to show us that real leadership requires making tough decisions. In order to restore Israel’s prosperity, David has to choose between famine and the death of seven of Saul’s descendants, and he must do so wisely to avoid breaking his own vows. This is a variation of the “trolley problem” in ethics. If David does nothing, many many more people are going to die slowly and painfully from hunger, including, very likely, many children. But the only action he can take to end the famine means directly commanding the deaths of seven of Saul’s offspring.
II. Contagious Courage
II. Contagious Courage
The main point is clearly to relate four events where David’s mighty men killed giants
David’s last battle here. He fought against the Philistines, probably sometime after 2 Samuel 12, as when Joab beseiged Rabbah, he expected David to fight, but here David’s men swear that he will never go to battle with them again. But other than that, we have no way of knowing when in David’s reign this took place. In this fight, David becomes too weary to keep fighting, and too weary to run away. Seeing his opportunity to kill the King, the giant Ishbi-benob, equipped with a new sword, tried it. Only the intervention of David’ problem nephew Abishai saved David’s life. The reason for David’s weariness might be simply because as King he attracts more fighting, or because he is getting older and no longer has the stamina to keep up with the young men. It stands to reason that any king will eventually not be able to directly lead armies into battle anymore, if he lives long enough. David’s men declare that he is the “lamp of Israel”, too important to be lost, so that they won’t let him fight anymore. The wise woman of Tekoa uses similar language.
There was war at Gob (location unknown). Here Sibbecai the Hushathite struck down Saph
Elhanan the son of Jaare-oregim killed Goliath the Gittite. the problem with this is obvious. Back in 1 Samuel 17, the same author spent quite a long time describing the battle between David and Goliath. As that battle was covered so extensively, it isn’t reasonable that the author of Samuel would make a mistake of that magnitude. So there must be some good explanation. Here are two good ones
1 Chron 20:5 declares that Elhanan killed Lahmi Goliath’s brother. If this is correct, then the present text is probably corrupted, and Chronicles is right.
Again there was war with the Philistines, and Elhanan the son of Jair killed Lahmi the brother of Goliath the Gittite, the shaft of whose spear was like a weaver’s beam.
Other alternative is given by traditional Judaism, and that is that Chronicles is the corrupted text, and that David is the name David took when he became king. Elhanan would then be his given name. Jair=Jaare=Jesse. the last part of the complicated name here means “weavers” so it should probably be translated “Jaare the Weaver”. David means “beloved” which seems like an odd choice for an eighth son, but a really obvious choice for Israel’s new King. Supporting this idea is that the section ends by saying that the four were killed by David and his men, yet David doesn’t kill anyone in this section. Unless Elhanan is David.
Jonathan David’s Nephew killed another large man who had six fingers and six toes.
Similarly, David’s Mighty Men have several other feats
David’s mighty men was basically the equivalent of medals and honors in our military. The highest honor was reserved for just three. There was a band of thirty as well, a lesser honor, but as David’s men numbered 600, to be one of the thirty was still quite an honor. There are actually 37 men, probably because some of them died in battle, like Asahel the brother of Joab, for example (23:24
Josheb-basshebeth was the chief of David’s three most mighty men. He killed 800 men at one time with a spear (23:8). Similarly Abishai killed 300 men at once. He wasn’t one of the three, probably because he caused David so many problems. But he was the commander of the thirty. (23:18-19)
Eleazar son of Dodo fought so long he couldn’t hold his sword up anymore
Shammah the son of Agee fought the Philistines in a plot of lentils and was responsible for a victory
Three of the thirty mighty men broke through when David was hiding at the cave of Adullam, so right at the beginning. He idly wished to drink from the well in his hometown, and they went and got it. But he was shocked at this, and wouldn’t drink it because they risked their lives for his own personal pleasure, something he didn’t want them to do.
Benaiah the son of Jehoidah was later Solomon’s chief executioner killed two lion-like men of moab. Killed a lion in a pit on a snowy day. And struck down an Egyptian who had a spear and Benaiah apparently didn’t have one because he killed the Egyptian with his own spear.
Question is, why so many brave people appear in David’s mighty men? Saul actively looked for brave men throughout his reign, and never do we find a list like this for him. (1 Samuel 14:52). In fact, that’s how David found his way into Saul’s court. Saul’s servants were on the lookout for brave men, and recommended David to Saul (1 Samuel 16:18).
Now there was fierce war with the Philistines all the days of Saul. And when Saul saw any strong man or any valiant man, he took him for himself.
Then one of the servants answered and said, “Look, I have seen a son of Jesse the Bethlehemite, who is skillful in playing, a mighty man of valor, a man of war, prudent in speech, and a handsome person; and the Lord is with him.”
That’s because of the power of a leader’s example. Saul may have been a competent commander, but he wasn’t known for his leadership ability. His example was erratic and inconsistent. He’d jump into action when the odds were in his favor, but when they were stacked against him, he couldn’t trust God to bring the victory. David, on the other hand, demonstrated courage, not just when he fought Goliath, but throughout his entire life. His example inspired his men, and they fought for him.
The New Testament also teaches us about the importance of leading by example 1 Pet 5:3; Phil 3:17. You should be on the lookout for those who are doing it right, and imitate them.
nor as being lords over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock;
Brethren, join in following my example, and note those who so walk, as you have us for a pattern.