Bound

During David's reign there was a famine for three successive years, so David inquired of the LORD. The LORD answered, "It is because of the blood shed by Saul and his family when he killed the Gibeonites." The Gibeonites were not Israelites but rather a remnant of the Amorites. The Israelites had taken an oath concerning them, but Saul had tried to kill them in his zeal for the Israelites and Judah.2 Samuel 21:1-2 (HCSB)

There's a lot more to this passage, but it's too much for a single blog post. So I'm just going to look at the first two verses.

First off, I want to comment about the location of this passage within the Bible. The previous chapters give a seemingly chronological (and rollercoaster-like) account of David's reign in Israel. This passage, however, doesn't necessarily procede these events; it appears to recount an incident that occured "during David's reign." My guess is that this happened shortly after he was formally recognized as King by all of Israel, following Ishboseth's death. Otherwise, it would be odd to experience a famine for something that had happened over 30 years ago.

Chronology aside, here are some interesting things to take away from this:

• The famine was a caused because of wrongdoing by the deposed King of Israel.
• The wrong committed was the violation an oath that Joshua had made with the Gibeonites.
• The oath was made under false pretenses. Joshua didn't realize the Gibeonites were living in the land they were taking control of.
• Joshua and the leaders of Israel made the oath without consulting God.
• Had not Joshua made the oath, the Gibeonites would have been destroyed by Israel during their conquest of the promised land.
• Saul lost his Kingdom because he did not kill all of the Amalekites as God had instructed him to.
• Saul had killed the Gibeonites out of zealousness for his country.
• The famine was not stayed by Saul's death nor by David's righteousness.

To me, this is a classic example of Matthew 18:18, "I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." Here you have a people group destined for destruction that were instead sworn to safety by human intervention, resulting in a heavenly change in destiny. This is evident because God now punished Israel for killing the Gibeonites, whereas before the oath, God was moreso endorsing getting rid of the Gibeonites. What had been bound on earth was bound in heaven. (For another example, read the account of 1 Kings 20 when King Ahab spared the life of Ben-hadad, king of Aram.)

Also, this is a sobering example of the power of oaths. First, the oath was made well over a hundred years earlier by men long dead. Secondly, the oath came about by means of deception--had not the Gibeonites lied, then most likely Joshua would never had made the oath. Thirdly, the oath effectively reversed the original decree of God, that Israel force out the inhabitants of the promised land. Nowadays, I wouldn't be surprised that in lieu of this evidence that a judge might declare that the oath is not binding. But God definitely considers it binding.

Shechem's Redemption

Then the Lord spoke to Joshua. He said, "Tell the people of Israel to choose the cities to go to for safety, just as I directed you through Moses. Anyone who kills a person by accident can run there for safety. So can anyone who kills a person without meaning to. The one who is charged with murder will be kept safe from the nearest male relative of the person who was killed. Suppose the one who is charged runs for safety to one of those cities. Then he must stand in the entrance of the city gate. He must state his case in front of the elders of that city. They must let him come into their city. They must give him a place to live there. Suppose the nearest male relative of the person who was killed comes after him. Then the elders must not hand him over to that relative. That's because he didn't mean to kill his neighbor. He didn't make evil plans to do it. He must stay in that city until his case has been brought to the community court. He must stay there until the high priest who is serving at that time dies. Then he can go back to his own home. He can return to the town he ran away from." So the people of Israel set apart Kedesh in Galilee. It's in the hill country of Naphtali. They set apart Shechem. It's in the hill country of Ephraim. They set apart Kiriath Arba. It's in the hill country of Judah. Kiriath Arba is also called Hebron. Joshua 20:1-7 (NIRV)

In an earlier post, I recalled an incident where the entire population of the town of Shechem was slaughtered by Simeon and Levi because its prince had raped their sister, Dinah. With that fresh in my mind, I was reading through the book of Joshua when I came to the chapters discussing the allotment of Canaan to the tribes, particularly the cities of safety (or, "cities of refuge", the term I'm more familiar with).

The basic idea is that if someone accidentally killed a person, he could flee to a city of refuge to protect himself from the deceased's relatives, who presumably would attempt to avenge the death. I'm not sure this killing-your-kinfolk's-killer was an ancient cultural rite or just a common practice, but in any case, God provides an end to the cycle by allowing the killer to avoid this fate by living in one of the cities of refuge (provided, of course, the killing was judged unintentional).

Shechem was designated as one of such cities, which I thought was redeeming, so to speak, given that a massive, vengeful slaughter occurred there some 450-odd years earlier. But the "redemption" doesn't end with that; Shechem was also designated as a Levitical city, too. Levites were chosen by God to serve as his ministers and priests, and consequently weren't assigned any territory in Israel. They were, however, assigned towns among the other tribes' territories to live in. So not only was Shechem a city of refuge, but it was a town of ministers of the Lord.

There's still more redemption for Shechem by the end of the book of Joshua:

And Joseph's bones, which the Israelites had brought up from Egypt, were buried at Shechem in the tract of land that Jacob bought for a hundred pieces of silver from the sons of Hamor, the father of Shechem. This became the inheritance of Joseph's descendants. Joshua 24:32 (NIV)

The town once destroyed by the sons of Israel (the man) was later redeemed, in my opinion, by the sons of Israel (the nation), by declaring that it be a city of refuge, a city of the Lord's ministers, and the burial place of Joseph.

Achan and the Family Stoned - Joshua 7:24-26

Then Joshua and all Israel with him took Achan son of Zerah, the silver, the cloak, and the bar of gold, his sons and daughters, his ox, donkey, and sheep, his tent, and all that he had, and brought them up to the Valley of Achor. Joshua said, "Why have you troubled us? Today the LORD will trouble you!" So all Israel stoned him to death. They burned their bodies, threw stones on them, and raised over him a large pile of rocks that remains to this day. Then the LORD turned from His burning anger. Therefore that place has been called the Valley of Achor to this day. Joshua 7:24-26 (HCSB)

Achor is the Hebrew word for "trouble," and admittedly this passage is troubling to me. In Joshua 6, Israel conquers the city of Jericho, the first city after entering the Promised Land. God instructs them to put the entire city "under the ban"--that is, destroy everything: men, women, virgins, children, babies, cattle, donkies, etc. The only things they were allowed to spare were gold, silver, copper/brass/bronze and iron vessels, which had to be put into the Lord's treasury. (Also Rahab the prostitute's house was spared because she aided the spies Joshua had sent to Jericho earlier.) Achan, however, decided to take some silver and gold for himself, along with a cloak. This, in turn, caused the Lord to temporarily abandon Israel, leading to their defeat in an attempt to capture the city of Ai.

Joshua was himself troubled by the loss; after asking the Lord, he discovers that Achan had some banned items in his possession. This culminates in the passage above, where they recover the items and stone/burn Achan and his whole household. Rough stuff.

What troubles me is the severity of the punishment. Not so much Achan's death, but the death of his entire household, especially in light of this passage:

Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their fathers; each is to die for his own sin. Deuteronomy 24:16 (NIV)

That's why I was pleasantly surprised to read the Revised English Bible's take on the passage.

Then all the Israelites stoned [Achan] to death; and they raised over him a great cairn of stones which is there to this day. So the LORD's anger was abated. Joshua 7:25b,26a (REB)

In this rendition it doesn't explicitly mention that his entire family was burned to death, just that Achan himself was stoned. It briefly gave me hope that his family didn't get killed after all. Of course, there is a footnote about how some manuscripts include the verse about his family, and every other translation I've looked at does indeed include that particular verse directly in the text. Furthermore, later on we encounter this verse:

Remember the treachery of Achan son of Zerah, who defied the ban, and the whole community of Israel suffered for it; he was not the only one who paid with his life for that sin. Joshua 22:20 (REB)

Achan wasn't the only one who died; there were also the thirty-six that died during their attempt to take Ai, and the evidence does seem to include his family, too. Ah well. Instead of wishing that the family wasn't killed, I've attempted to come to terms with their death.

Judah Cleansing

Notice that Achan was from the tribe of Judah, the tribe from which Jesus Himself descended. This is likely over-speculative, but maybe God was interested in ensuring that the line of Judah was "pure" enough to be worthy of being the family tribe of God Incarnate. The first two sons of Judah, Er and Onan, were apparently bad eggs, and God put them to death. I don't recall any another examples of this kind of immediate punishment for general wickedness in the Old Testament; God is patient and merciful...even the country of Judah's most wicked king, Manasseh, had the longest reign (55 years). Perhaps God wanted to set the Judah clan off on the right foot? Achan, then, could be another example of ensuring Judah kept on a righteous course. But I believe there is less speculative justification for the severity of Achan's punishment.

Principle of the First Offense

Whenever God establishes a new law, covenant, principle, commandment, or what-have-you, the first violator seems to get severely punished. God wants to encourage others not to repeat the error--what better way to do that than by putting to death the first offender? For example, the first Israelite who violated the Sabbath by gathering some sticks was stoned to death (Numbers 15:32-36). The first time Aaron's priestly authority was challenged, the earth swallowed the leader of the rebels and fire from heaven burned up the rest (Numbers 16:1-35). The first time someone tried to feign total fiscal commitment to The Way, he was put to death on the spot (Acts 5:1-5).

I think this passage sums up the first offense principle nicely (emphasis mine):

"If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who does not obey his father or mother and doesn't listen to them even after they discipline him, his father and mother must take hold of him and bring him to the elders of his city, to the gate of his hometown. They will say to the elders of his city, 'This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious; he doesn't obey us. He's a glutton and a drunkard.' Then all the men of his city will stone him to death. You must purge the evil from you, and all Israel will hear and be afraid. Deuteronomy 21:18-22 (HCSB)

I don't think there were any recorded occurences of this happening, but I imagine if a rebellious son were put to death by his parents, their town would have much more obedient children.

Aiding and Abetting

The other way I try to justify the death of Achan's family is reckoning that they were also guilty themselves in this matter. After all, Achan did bury the loot in their tent, and I doubt he could have done that without the family knowing. Given how God doesn't want children punished for their father's sin, I can only assume that that they also sinned. Maybe that's not really comforting, but it's the best I can do.

Preparing for War - Joshua 5:2-8

At that time the LORD said to Joshua, "Make flint knives and circumcise the Israelite men again." So Joshua made flint knives and circumcised the Israelite men at Gibeath-haaraloth. This is the reason Joshua circumcised [them]: All the people who came out of Egypt who were males—all the men of war—had died in the wilderness along the way after they had come out of Egypt. Though all the people who came out were circumcised, none of the people born in the wilderness along the way were circumcised after they had come out of Egypt. For the Israelites wandered in the wilderness 40 years until all the nation's men of war who came out of Egypt had died off because they did not obey the LORD. (So the LORD vowed never to let them see the land He had sworn to their fathers to give us, a land flowing with milk and honey. Joshua raised up their sons in their place; it was these he circumcised. They were still uncircumcised, since they had not been circumcised along the way. After the entire nation had been circumcised, they stayed where they were in the camp until they recovered. Joshua 5:2-8 (HCSB)

To give you some context, Moses has just died and Joshua has taken over leadership of the Israelites. Prior to his death, east of the Jordan river, Moses charged Israel and Joshua to march into the Promised Land and conquer the nations living there. So Joshua and Israel just crossed over to the west Jordan in a miraculous fashion (God separated the waters of the Jordan and they crossed through on dry land--one of four such water-dividing occasions mentioned in the Bible) and now they're in the enemey territory at last and they take their first course of action--circumcising themselves!

Now, I can't really attest to what it feels like to be circumcised (I was a baby when I got the snip-snip), but I have a suspicion that it's painful. Even the Bible attests to that notion:

All the able-bodied men listened to Hamor and his son Shechem, and all the able-bodied men were circumcised. On the third day, when they were still in pain, two of Jacob's sons, Simeon and Levi, Dinah's brothers, took their swords, went into the unsuspecting city, and killed every male. Genesis 34:24,25 (HCSB)

I won't get into the circumstances of this story, but suffice it to say, a whole town was circumcised and three days later two guys were able to come in and slay them all; it goes to show that circumcision can really take the fight out of you for a while. And this is why it amuses me that the first thing the Israel army does when arriving in enemy territory is put themselves into the same position the men of Shechem were in when they were destroyed by two angry brothers.

Of course, the Israel army would have certainly lost their all-important ally, the one and true living God, had they not done this. Therefore, it was a wise decision.

The other aspect of this story I find interesting is that the children of Israel were not circumcised during their sojourn through the wilderness. You'd think with the fervor in which Moses demanded the Israelites to obey the law, that'd he'd make sure Israelites would have circumcised their male children along the way--but I guess not. Although maybe that's not too surprising considering Moses' own track record with circumcision (no offense to Moses, God bless him):

On the trip, at an overnight campsite, it happened that the LORD confronted [Moses] and sought to put him to death. So Zipporah took a flint, cut off her son's foreskin, and threw it at Moses' feet. Then she said, "You are a bridegroom of blood to me!" So He let him alone. At that time she said, "You are a bridegroom of blood," referring to the circumcision. Exodus 4:24-26 (HCSB)

This happened right after God commissioned Moses to confront Pharoah about the slavery of the Israelites--and He was prepared to kill Moses because he didn't honor the covenant of circumcision. So don't doubt for a moment that God would have allowed Israel to fail in their conquest had not they circumcised themselves.