This notion of 'blood' as responsibility for someone's death leads us in an important direction: Execution of a criminal was "legally" self-caused: (2 Sam 1.14ff)
In this situation, we have David (the new king) telling a "young man" to execute the slayer of Saul. But the responsibility for the death of the slayer is on himself--NOT on David, nor on the executor. In an accountability sense, the slayer is responsible for his own death--He "killed himself". [If this principle is applied to the Amalekites, then they are responsible for their own deaths--even at the hands of Israelite soldiers.]
• The "blood" principle also had a visible component--the social recognition of responsibility for a crime. In the wanton killing of a military general, for example, we see that this can apply to descendents: Read I Kings 2.31-34
Notice that only Joab was executed; his family only had to deal with the shame and disgrace of Joab's crime. They were not guilty per se, but they were recipients of the consequences of Joab's guilt.
• We have this even in a "pre-agreed upon" condition of execution: Read I Kings 2:36 -38
In this case we have Solomon pre-announcing the conditions under which Shimei would be executed, and Shimei agreed. In this case, failure to keep the agreement with the authorities was accepted by both parties as a legitimate reason for execution. Shimei agreed that "his blood" would be upon his head, not Solomon's or the executioner. Again, he legally 'killed himself' by going back on his agreement (itself a gracious concession by the royal family, by the way!).
• Again, death as execution is NOT the responsibility of the judge or executioner--it is that of the criminal: Read Ezek 18.10 In Ezek., the person who oppresses others will be put to death, but "his blood" will be upon his own head. In other words, the death is NOT the responsibility of the judge or executioner.
• This blood responsibility also shows up in non-family relations, in which one person could (probably) prevent the death of another: Ezek 33.1 -6
Notice how this would implicate the father in the death of his family. If he knew to flee (perhaps from other encounters with Israel, or just in general from their reputation at the time), then his failure to do so would have brought the blood of his family down upon himself. It would have been HE who killed his family and himself, regardless of who was the actual executioner.
What this basically means is that the father would have been actually responsible for the death of his family, by his continued hostile actions towards the Israelites. The children were not punished FOR the crimes of the father; rather, they were victims OF the crimes of the father.
Think about the implications of this passage for a second: (2Sam 1:14)
1. The young man here is a child of an Amalekite immigrant to Israel ("an alien") 2. Israel allowed Amalekites to become part of the community, in the category of resident-alien 3.This child of an Amalekite was likely a full-bloodied Amalekite. 4. This Amalekite was trusted enough to serve in the army of Saul. 5. Aliens were culturally integrated well enough in Israel to be expected to know the rules about killing those anointed of Yahweh 6.This man was executed by David, not for being an Amalekite, but just as another Israelite would have been in the same way, for the same offense. 7. Any other family members of the young man's father (and extended family, probably) would not have suffered any harm in the attack on Amalek--because their father had the good sense to emigrate to Israel. 8. David does not seem shocked to find an Amalekite among the troops or resident in Israel, and this would likely imply that others had emigrated as well. [The "window" for Amalekites to migrate to Israel would have lasted approximately 200-400 years after the pronunciation of the "destroy them" edict in Ex 17 or Deut. 25!]
Here is a family where the father's wisdom saved the lives of his descendents--the offspring were spared from the destruction not because of their "innocence" or their "guilt", but solely as a consequence of the father's action.
To net this out: the family members were not being punished for the sins of the father, but rather, suffered the consequences of the father's actions--for good or ill.
But why couldnt the Israelites just ignore the Amalekites?
Because the Amalekites wouldnt ignore Israeland responsible Israelite parents would need to do something to protect their lives
Credits and Sources:
Glen Miller: http://www.christian-thinktank.com/
James Patrick Holding: http://www.tektonics.org/
Loading...
9:57
"Genocide" and the Bible Part 20 The Amalekites & 1 Sam 15by mdean1215180 views
All Comments