Theodicy and Execution for Expiation in 2 Samuel 21:1-14
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Andrews University Digital Commons @ Andrews University Master's Theses Graduate Research 2009 Theodicy and Execution for Expiation in 2 Samuel 21:1-14 Carrie S. Rhodes Andrews University Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/theses Recommended Citation Rhodes, Carrie S., "Theodicy and Execution for Expiation in 2 Samuel 21:1-14" (2009). Master's Theses. 50. https://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/theses/50 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate Research at Digital Commons @ Andrews University. It has been accepted for inclusion in Master's Theses by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ Andrews University. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Thank you for your interest in the Andrews University Digital Library of Dissertations and Theses. Please honor the copyright of this document by not duplicating or distributing additional copies in any form without the author’s express written permission. Thanks for your cooperation. Andrews University Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary THEODICY AND EXECUTION FOR EXPIATION IN 2 SAMUEL 21:1-14 A Thesis Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Arts by Carrie S. Rhodes 2009 ABSTRACT THEODICY AND EXECUTION FOR EXPIATION IN 2 SAMUEL 21:1-14 by Carrie S. Rhodes Adviser: Roy E. Gane ABSTRACT OF GRADUATE STUDENT RESEARCH Thesis Andrews University Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary Title: THEODICY AND EXECUTION FOR EXPIATION IN 2 SAMUEL 21:1-14 Name of researcher: Carrie S. Rhodes Name and degree of faculty adviser: Roy E. Gane, Ph.D. Date completed: December 2009 Problem The execution of Saul’s descendants in 2 Sam 21:1-14 has long been interpreted as resulting from David’s succession motives, and may appear to be posthumous ruler punishment, expiation on Saul’s behalf, or an error in judgment on David’s part in whom to turn to in order to know what to do in this case. In addition, the delay in justice until David’s reign for something that Saul had done is puzzling. Method Analysis of the Hebrew text, comparison between ANE and biblical homicide law, examination of the sociological structure of the ANE family, examination of the characters of Saul and David, and intertextual analysis of Scripture contribute to a clearer understanding of the roles of the characters and how justice was achieved. Conclusions Close examination of the text and its cultural background reveals that Saul’s descendants died for inheritable corporate culpability that polluted the land as a result of his mass murder that violated an oath taken in YHWH’s name. The narrative begins with a famine and ends with the phrase God “was moved by prayer for the land,” which appears to give approval to the actions that precede it. This narrative demonstrates that restoration of justice is necessary for healing of the land. By delaying the famine until the reign of David, who enjoyed a positive relationship with God himself, God facilitated the limitation of retributive justice to a few responsible individuals. © Copyright by Carrie S. Rhodes 2010 All Rights Reserved TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ..............................................................................................v Chapter I. EXEGETICAL INTRODUCTION .................................................................... 1 The Nature of Saul’s Crime ........................................................................ 3 The Problem of the Remedy for Saul’s Crime.......................................... 12 The Problem of Theodicy ......................................................................... 15 History of Research............................................................................. 15 Rabbinic Interpretations ...................................................................... 16 Modern Research ................................................................................ 17 Statement of the Problem .................................................................... 27 Scope of the Thesis ............................................................................. 27 II. KIPPER THROUGH RETRIBUTIVE JUSTICE FOR HOMICIDE .............. 28 Retributive Justice for Homicide Administered by Humans .............. 28 Retributive Justice in the Ancient Near East ...................................... 28 Homicide ............................................................................................. 32 Retributive Justice for Homicide in Israel’s Monarchy ...................... 33 Homicide ............................................................................................. 34 Retributive Justice Administered by the Deity ......................................... 36 2 Samuel 24......................................................................................... 39 Non-substitutionary Kipper ................................................................ 40 Delayed Retibution or Expiation ........................................................ 42 Delayed Punishment for Joab ............................................................. 42 Delayed Punishment for Shimei ......................................................... 45 Delayed Justice for the Gibeonites ..................................................... 46 Conclusion .......................................................................................... 48 III. BEYOND INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY ................................................ 49 Corporate Solidarity (Sociological Background) ...................................... 49 The Ancient Near Eastern Household ................................................. 50 Justice within the Household .............................................................. 53 The Clan and Tribe as Extensions of the Household .......................... 57 Inheritance and Transfer of Guilt in the Ancient Near East ............... 60 Intertextual Analysis Regarding Inherited Responsibility iii and Punishment ............................................................................. 63 Exodus 20:5b ...................................................................................... 63 Exodus 34:7 ........................................................................................ 65 Leviticus 26:39-40 .............................................................................. 69 Deuteronomy 24:16 ............................................................................ 69 Ezekiel 18............................................................................................ 70 Jeremiah 32:17-19 ............................................................................... 71 Lamentations 5:7 ................................................................................. 71 Royal Administration .......................................................................... 71 Inherited Responsibility at the Royal Level........................................ 74 Accountable to the Deity .................................................................... 76 Famine................................................................................................. 77 Communal Responsibility and Ruler Punishment .............................. 81 Communal Responsibility, Including Household ............................... 81 Ruler Punishment ................................................................................ 83 Conclusion .......................................................................................... 88 IV. IMPLICATIONS OF 2 SAMUEL 21:1-14 FOR THEODICY IN LIGHT OF THE BROADER BIBLICAL CONTEXT .................................... 90 Conceptual Synthesis .......................................................................... 90 Theodicy and Inherited Guilt .............................................................. 91 Conclusion .......................................................................................... 93 BIBLIOGRAPHY ....................................................................................................... 96 iv List of Abbreviations ABC Anchor Bible Commentary ANE Ancient Near East ANET Ancient Near Eastern Texts BHS Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia COS Context of Scripture DSS Dead Sea Scrolls LXX Septuagint MT Masoretic Text NASB New American Standard Bible NIV New International Version Application Commentary Pseudo-Yonatan Targum Pseudo-Jonathan Samaritan Samaritan Pentateuch TY Targum Jonathan TN Targum Neophyti CHAPTER I EXEGETICAL INTRODUCTION Amnesty International reports that as of September 10, 2008, there are 137 countries worldwide that have abolished the death penalty or its practice. Even within the religious community in Israel, most modern Jewish religious leaders now believe that the death penalty should remain unused, although provisions for it still exist.1 With this mind- set toward capital punishment, it is almost impossible for today’s moderns to conceive of a legal system that requires, not just allows for, the death penalty as punishment for murder. Yet this form of punishment was reality for the ancient Israelites. One of the most troubling narratives in Scripture is that of the execution of “seven men from the sons” of King Saul, even though it was Saul who was responsible for committing the murder (2 Sam 21:1).2 At first glance, we do not know if they participated in his activities, as the original narrative is not available to us.3 Following the Lord’s 1In Israel, it is still possible