Book Write-Up: The Faithful Shepherd, by David Hall

David D. Hall.  The Faithful Shepherd: A History of the New England Ministry in the Seventeenth Century.  University of North Carolina Press, 1972.

I took Professor Hall for a class on early American religion back when I was a student at Harvard Divinity School.  I enjoyed the subject matter, especially the part of the class about the Puritans (and you can read about my interest in the Puritans here).  I also liked Professor Hall’s dry sense of humor in his lectures.

The Faithful Shepherd is about Puritanism in America.  It is set against the background of Puritanism in England, as well as the Protestant Reformation.  The book is also about how Puritanism in America began a certain way and drifted away from that with new generations.

According to David Hall, Puritanism in seventeenth century America was congregationalist.  That means that each congregation was independent and rather democratic.  Each congregation was to be an exclusive holy community, and people had to demonstrate repentance and the work of God’s grace on their lives in order to join a particular Puritan church.  Some of these trends began in England, as Puritanism there opposed the priestly system of the Church of England in favor of a congregational model.  At the same time, there was diversity within English Puritanism, for some Puritans preferred to work within the system rather than in opposition to it, and there were Puritans who were not particularly exclusive about church membership: they were open to welcoming people to church even if they did not meet specific criteria of repentance or grace, out of the hope that God could use church as a way to make himself known to these people.  The Puritanism that came to America, however, did so with the goal of establishing an exclusive holy community.

Hall details the conflicts involving Puritanism in seventeenth century America.  Puritans had a complex relationship with the state: they wanted the state to enforce certain religious laws, yet they did not care for how people went over the church’s head and went to the state to get what they wanted.  Some magistrates wanted the colonists to focus more on farming than attending election sermons.  Meanwhile, non-members were resentful of how exclusive the churches were as well as the special privileges that church members were receiving.  The church was rather small, but second generation Puritans became more open to an inclusive stance, and third generation Puritans became even more open to it.  Times were changing, and harsh jeremiads about God’s wrath were not stemming the tide!

Something that surprised me as I read this book was the Puritan stances towards the church sacraments.  These stances reminded me of the view of Christians who argue that baptism is irrelevant to salvation, for what saves a person is faith.  For some reason, I was expecting the Puritans to have a stronger view of the sacraments than that.

Another issue that interested me was that of faith and works.  Puritans believed in God’s grace, yet many of them treated good works as a means through which God can show grace.  Meanwhile, Anne Hutchinson and the antinomians were exhorting people, not to focus on their good works or whether they were manifesting proper signs of repentance and God’s grace on their hearts, but rather to look to Christ alone: to desire Christ.  I identify with both perspectives, probably with the latter a bit more.

There was a lot of nuance in this book, and sometimes I had difficulty keeping track of the characters and who believed what.  I did enjoy the book, however, on account of its nuance, and also my love for the Puritans.  As I looked at Hall’s bibliography, I was tempted to check out those books (or more current books about the same topics).

Ramblings on Isaiah 58, the Sabbath, and Edward J. Young

I’ve been reading the Book of Isaiah for my daily quiet time.  A while back, I got Edward J. Young’s three volume, verse-by-verse commentary on the Book of Isaiah, which dates to the 1960′s-1970′s.  The commentary is conservative in that it believes that there was only one Isaiah who wrote the Book of Isaiah, namely, Isaiah of Jerusalem, plus it treats the Book of Isaiah as infallible Scripture that points to Jesus Christ.  At the same time, it interacts with liberal scholarly views, and there are many times when it attempts to explain passages in light of their contexts.  Overall, I’d say that I have been impressed with this commentary, and I especially like how it offers an explanation for every verse (and almost every phrase) in the Book of Isaiah.  Yet, there are times when I wish that it would seek to explain certain verses in light of their historical contexts rather than Christ.  That’s me, though!  I happen to like the Antiochian Christian school of biblical interpretation!  It’s the historical-critic in me!

I was reading Isaiah 58 last night before I went to bed.  Isaiah 58 criticizes the Israelites for strife and indicates that God does not accept their fasts.  The chapter proclaims that the type of fast that God will accept is one that helps the poor and loosens the bonds of oppression.  The chapter than goes on to promote Sabbath observance: not doing one’s own pleasure on God’s holy day, but calling the Sabbath a delight.

I was consulting Young’s commentary because I had a question: Was Isaiah 58 saying that the Israelites should help the poor while they are fasting from food, or that they should help the poor instead of fasting?  What does it mean to call helping the poor a “fast”?  Is the author here saying that helping the poor will accomplish what the Israelites are looking to fasting to do: to get God’s attention so that Israel will be blessed?

As far as I could tell, Young did not address this question explicitly.  But he did have some interesting notes.  On pages 425-426 of volume 3, he interacts with liberal scholarship regarding Isaiah 58.  First of all, Young mentions the argument that Isaiah 58 is post-exilic because of its reference to the Sabbath, which was especially important in the time of Nehemiah (a post-exilic leader).  Young, as one who believes that all of the Book of Isaiah was pre-exilic, disagrees with this argument, thinking that it is a mere presupposition.  Young appears to regard the argument as rather circular: these liberal scholars assume that the Sabbath came to be emphasized later in Judaism, and so, whenever they find the Sabbath mentioned in an earlier book, they ascribe to that particular passage a later date.  How can one falsify that?

Second, Young refers to a scholar, J.D. Smart, who thinks that vv 13-14 (the part of Isaiah 58 that concerns the Sabbath) were added even later to Isaiah 58, and thus were not originally a part of Second Isaiah.  (Smart must have believed that Isaiah 58 was part of Second Isaiah, rather than attributing it to Third Isaiah.  Young does not divide Isaiah up in this fashion, for Young believes that one Isaiah wrote all of the Book.  A number of scholars, however, date First Isaiah to Israel’s pre-exilic period, Second Isaiah to Israel’s exilic period, and Third Isaiah to her post-exilic period.  Yet, there are many scholars who argue that there are exilic and post-exilic elements even in First Isaiah.)  According to Young, Smart’s problem is that “it makes nonsense of the prophet’s sermon to have him reject fasting as a substitute for works of love and mercy and then to insist that if only the people observe the sabbath, all will be well.”  Smart’s view is that vv 13-14 “come not from ‘second’ Isaiah but from a later orthodox community which had an enthusiasm for the sabbath” (Young’s words).  Smart wonders why a prophet would emphasize love and mercy above ritual, only then to promote Sabbath observance, a ritual.  Smart’s conclusion is that he would not, and thus a later hand added to Isaiah 58 the part about the Sabbath.

Young disagrees with Smart, though, and he explores why Isaiah 58 would be mentioning the Sabbath.  Young finds the Sabbath to be consistent with principles of love and mercy, not in conflict with them.  Young later states that the Sabbath was not a Mosaic ordinance, but was actually established at creation.  The pre-exilic Isaiah, according to Young, was stressing the Sabbath in Isaiah 58 with the realization that Israel would soon experience exile.  Perhaps Young’s point is that Isaiah realized that Israel would especially need the Sabbath in exile, after being cut off from her land and her temple!  The Sabbath in exile could preserve Israel’s identity as a people and her relationship with God by being a weekly time of rest and worship.

I found this discussion to be interesting.  Here are my thoughts:

1.  I was recently listening to a debate between skeptic Robert Price and Christians Gary Habermas and Mike Licona on whether Jesus rose from the dead.  Price said that many biblical scholars engage in speculation in that they try to figure out when to historically situate certain developments: at what time would a particular concept in Scripture (or other writings one is trying to date) make sense?  My impression is that this is why many scholars date the weekly Sabbath to a later stage of Israelite religion, such as the exile: they believe that its origin would make sense then.  After Israel’s temple was destroyed, she wanted some way to maintain her contact with God and her identity as a people, and so she established a sanctuary in time (the Sabbath) rather than one in space.  She could observe the Sabbath and be close to God in exile, without a temple.  After she returned from exile, she kept on observing the Sabbath, even when she had a temple.

That makes sense to me, but I am not absolutist about it.  If conservative scholars can offer a reason that the weekly Sabbath would emerge in Israel’s pre-exilic context, then I am open to it.  Granted, pre-exilic Israel most likely had festivals: that is how many scholars understand the Sabbaths in biblical writings that they consider pre-exilic—-not as a weekly Sabbath, but as festivals.  Other ancient Near Eastern countries had festivals, too, even without going into exile.  But why would the weekly Sabbath originate in pre-exilic times?  What need would it meet at that point?  Would its origin make sense then?

2.  As I look at Isaiah 58, I can somewhat sympathize with Smart’s position that vv 13-14 were added later, for these are the only verses in the chapter that mention the Sabbath.  Still, I can appreciate Young’s point that the promotion of the Sabbath does not necessarily contradict what the rest of Isaiah 58 is talking about.  Isaiah 58 is about doing things correctly: loving the poor rather than fighting and looking to fasting for salvation, and honoring God on the Sabbath rather than seeking one’s own pleasure.  Smart raises a good question, as do many biblical interpreters who question whether certain strands in the Bible are as beneficent or as noble as believers might think.  Still, in my opinion, there is a place for trying to view biblical writings from a positive perspective, rather than just construing certain parts of the Bible negatively (i.e., someone added this ritualistic part to a passage about love and mercy).

3.  Young’s comments on the Sabbath being a creation ordinance rather than a Mosaic ordinance stood out to me, for that is a key issue in debates among Christians about whether Christians should observe the seventh-day Sabbath.  One side says “no” and argues that the Sabbath was given only to the Jews, whereas another side says “yes” and claims that the Sabbath existed as a holy institution before there even were Jews—-at creation.  Sabbatarians claim that, because the Sabbath was instituted at creation, all people, Jews and Gentiles, are commanded to observe it.

Young views the Sabbath as a creation ordinance and affirms that it was a “pattern of the heavenly sabbath rest which the redeemed are to enjoy in the presence of the eternal God.”  I doubt, though, that Young believed that Christians had to observe the seventh-day Sabbath.  I wonder what exactly he did believe about this issue.  Did he think that the Sabbath was a creation ordinance, but it was replaced by Sunday once Christ rose from the dead, and now Sunday is the Sabbath?  Did he believe that the Sabbath foreshadowed Christ and now is null-and-void because Christ has come?

Ramblings on Reading and Following Blogs

I had fun reading blogs yesterday.  Of course, that was not all that I did yesterday, since I had research to do.  But, yesterday, I did something that I don’t normally do.  I had just finished my blog post about William Lane Craig’s 1980 book, The Cosmological Argument from Plato to Leibniz (see my post here).  Because Craig is a Christian apologist, and the cosmological argument is an argument that many classical Christian apologists like to use, my post got tagged on WordPress with the label of “apologetics.”  WordPress then asked me if I wanted to see what other people were writing about apologetics.  I indicated that I did, and I was lead to a page that looks like my WordPress reader—-where I read the posts of blogs that I am following—-only it had blogs that I was not following.  I found some interesting posts there!

It was like an adventure.  I was going out into the unknown.  I like to do that, every now and then.  I keep the number of blogs that I follow at a minimum for a variety of reasons.  Perhaps the biggest reason is that I want the posts on my WordPress reader to be posts that interest me, and I do not want posts that do not interest me as much to crowd them out.  Moreover, I was one time following a blog, and this guy’s stuff was virtually dominating my WordPress reader!  I did not care for that, so I stopped following the blog.  I also don’t care for when WordPress recommends other blogs for me to follow.  Sometimes I follow its recommendations, but often I don’t.

How do I find out about blogs?  I guess that, ordinarily, its through links that people make to them.  Someone in the biblioblogosphere refers to a post, I check it out, and I look at the rest of the blog to see if its general content interests me, or if I can find it useful.  Or someone makes a comment on another blog that catches my eye, and I then follow the trail to that person’s blog and make my determination over whether or not to follow it.  Or someone comments on my blog, and I check out that person’s blog.  In some cases, I have no idea how I encountered particular blogs, but I somehow found them, and I kept on reading them.  I’ve actually been following some blogs for years.  It doesn’t seem to me like it’s been that long, but it has.

In some cases, I’m upset when there is not much reciprocity—-when I comment and get no response, or I share a post and get no thank you.  Most of the time, though, I am not that sensitive, and this surprises me, since I can be quite touchy.  It probably depends on a blog’s content.  If I get little reciprocity, yet I enjoy reading the blog, I’ll keep on following it.  If it has just all-right (in my eyes) content and I’m getting no reciprocity, I may stop reading it.  Then there’s the matter of expectations: if it’s a big blog that has lots of followers and tons of comments, then I don’t expect reciprocity, and I’m not disappointed when I don’t receive it.

Anyway, yesterday was fun because I got to explore, something I don’t do that often.

I probably sound like a huge blog-snob.  I’m not, though.  I respect everyone who chooses to write and tell his or her story.  There are just things that interest me, and things that do not so much.  That goes for how others may respond to my blog, for that matter!  But my interests are not always the key to whether I keep on reading a blog.  Sometimes, it is a matter of relationships: if I have read and enjoyed a blog for a period of time, and the blogger and I have conversed, then I will keep on reading that blog, even if not all of the posts fit my areas of interest.
Those are my ramblings for today!

Book Write-Up: The Cosmological Argument from Plato to Leibniz

William Lane Craig.  The Cosmological Argument from Plato to Leibniz.  New York: Barnes and Noble Books, 1980.  (This book was first published in the United Kingdom by the MACMILLAN PRESS LTD, and in the United States by Harper and Row Publishers, Barnes and Noble Import Division.)

William Lane Craig is a Christian apologist and philosopher.  I wanted to read Dr. Craig’s Cosmological Argument from Plato to Leibniz after I had read his 2013 book (with Joseph E. Gorra), A Reasonable Response: Answers to Tough Questions on God, Christianity and the Bible (see my review of that here).  Dr. Craig’s presentation of the cosmological argument often seemed to me to be rather simple, and I wanted to see if he addressed the nuances and different formulations of the cosmological argument.  Moreover, since I was reading about Greek philosophy and the Enlightenment, I figured that Dr. Craig’s book might teach me more about these topics.

Well, I did not find The Cosmological Argument from Plato to Leibniz to be simple!  It was quite nuanced, its presentation of different philosophers’ arguments could be heavy, and, as Dr. Craig often does, it valued precision.  I probably would have enjoyed the book more had it possessed a greater narrative element, giving background about the philosophers and conveying their arguments in more of a storytelling fashion.  In addition, while I understood many of the words that Dr. Craig used in their dictionary-definition sense, I was not always clear about their meaning within a philosophical context: essence and existence, for example, and how essence does not necessarily imply existence.  A couple of apologetics books that I have read have bibliographies that mark books by level of difficulty, labeling them as basic, intermediate, or advanced.  I would either put this book in the advanced category, saying that it requires background in philosophy to be an easy read, or I would call it intermediate, while adding that it may require an intense level of concentration in order for many readers to grasp its contents fully.  I got something out of the book, but I am sure that I missed certain nuances.

Still, while the book and I did not have much of a chemistry, the book would probably be valuable to scholars in philosophy.  Craig states that his goal is to clarify the different formulations of the cosmological argument, since a number of scholars tend to conflate them.  Craig also attempts to correct what he deems to be inaccurate interpretations and applications of Thomas Aquinas’ cosmological argument.

The Cosmological Argument from Plato to Leibniz is about the cosmological argument in the thought of Plato, Aristotle, Arabic theologians and philosophers, Jewish philosophers, Thomas Aquinas, John Duns Scotus, Benedict de Spinoza, and G.W.F. Leibniz.  What is the cosmological argument?  Well, it varies!  The argument that Dr. Craig usually presents in debates is the Kalam version, and it states that (1.) everything that began to exist was caused to exist, (2.) the universe began to exist, and therefore (3.) the universe was caused to exist.  The cosmological argument often pertains to the question of where the universe came from, or what brought it into existence.  The implication is that God was the one who brought the universe into existence.

But the Kalam version of the cosmological argument was only one version, and Dr. Craig chronicles the various versions.  Plato and Thomas Aquinas stressed movement: things are causing other things to move and to change, and there had to be a first mover, one (or, perhaps for Plato, more than one) who was not moved by another.  Aristotle did not believe that the universe came to exist after not existing, per se, for he regarded the universe and its movements as eternal, yet he maintained that a primary unmoved mover was sustaining the universe and continually acting as the source of its movements.  The Kalam version held by Arabic thinkers posited that the universe and time had a beginning.  John Duns Scotus stressed that the cause of the universe’s existence had to come from outside of the material world: one who was transcendent rather than material.  Spinoza, by contrast, was a pantheist, who equated God with the universe.  And Leibniz focused on the question of why something exists rather than nothing, proposing that God is a sufficient reason for the universe’s existence.

Dr. Craig explores the reasons and arguments that the philosophers offered for their positions. What comes up often in this book, and also in other places where Dr. Craig has discussed the cosmological argument, is the impossibility of an infinite regress.  Certain Arabic thinkers maintained that time and the universe had to begin at some point, otherwise they have always existed, and we would never have arrived at the present moment.  How could we arrive at the present moment, if time goes back forever and ever?  There needs to be some starting point, in short.  Dr. Craig in debates often appeals to the Big Bang Theory, which posits that the universe had a beginning, and he argues that something cannot naturally come from nothing, and thus there is good reason to believe that God caused that something to exist.  But the Big Bang Theory does not come up in The Cosmological Argument from Plato to Leibniz, for it was unknown by the philosophers whom Dr. Craig discusses.  Those in this book who believed that the universe had a beginning had other reasons for their position, such as the impossibility of an infinite regress.

Another issue seems to be that certain philosophers thought that what was finite and contingent had to be caused by a source that was infinite and necessary in its existence—-that something finite or contingent would not be adequate as an ultimate cause or source.

I cannot say that I feel spiritually inspired after reading Dr. Craig’s apologetics or philosophical arguments, for they are rather technical.  At the same time, there is some spiritual part of me to which the cosmological argument appeals: that we are finite in our lives, that we are limited, and that someone greater than us needed to bring us into existence, otherwise we would not exist.  We are dependent, according to the cosmological argument.  Humbling thought!

Book Write-Up: No Place to Hide

W. Lee Warren.  No Place to Hide: A Brain Surgeon’s Long Journey Home from the Iraq War.  Zondervan, 2014.

W. Lee Warren was an American medic in Iraq during the Iraq War.  He treated Americans and Iraqis, including Iraqi insurgents.  He even met Saddam Hussein after Saddam’s overthrow.  This book is largely about the operations that he performed on Americans and Iraqis, and the carnage with which he came into contact.  Writing his story was a way for him to address his post-traumatic stress.

The most insightful parts of the book, in my opinion, were Warren’s spiritual and political reflections.  I could identify with his spiritual reflections.  He was once a person who believed that he had to look all-right to the outside world, especially Christians, even when things were not all right.  He learned, however, that there were things in life that he could not control, and that worship was coming to God in a state of honest vulnerability.

While Christian author Philip Yancey states in the book’s afterword that Warren leaves to others the debates about whether the Iraq War was right or wrong, Warren did offer political opinions about the war.  Overall, Warren struck me as rather ambivalent.  Warren believed that the Americans were the good guys, noting that Americans treated the enemy combatants who were wounded or dying, whereas the enemy did not do the same for the Americans.  Warren also indicates that he believes that the Iraq War was, at least in part, about bringing democracy to Iraq.  At the same time, Warren laments the torture that certain American soldiers performed at Abu Ghraib, asking what would have happened if they chose instead to love their enemies and end the cycle of sorrow and hate.  On page 275, Warren wishes that he could have asked both George W. Bush and Saddam Hussein if the war was truly worth it: “In the grand scheme of things, what have you gained from all the palaces and parades, from the bombs and the bullets and the dollars spent and the lives lost?”  Warren also reflects about how a number of Iraqis were becoming insurgents in order to feed their families.
This was a thoughtful book—-often technical, but thoughtful.

Note: I received a complimentary review copy of this book through the BookLook Bloggers (http://booklookbloggers.com/) book review bloggers program.  The program does not require for my review to be positive, and my review reflects my honest reaction to the book.

Ramblings About Different Places, a Coming Bible Study, and Mother's Day

The church service at my church this morning focused on Christ as the good shepherd.  In the closing prayer, the pastor said that Christ knows all of our temperaments.

I was thinking about a similar issue as I was walking to church, and as I was walking back: that we are all in different places.  There are reasons that our hearts are closed, hard, and cold to what they’re closed, hard, and cold to, and that they’re warm, soft, and open to what they’re warm, soft, and open to.  I cannot control what other people believe or don’t believe, for there are reasons that they are where they are.  I can try to be a positive influence, whenever I can, but people are where they are.  But I do pray that God might minister to people wherever they are.  Does he?  Well, I don’t know.  Some testify that he does.  My heart, however, remains cold and hard to God and many people.

I can perhaps accept the belief that God is, somehow, a good shepherd.  This could be the case, even if there is suffering and death in this life, for God can shepherd people’s souls into the afterlife.  But Christianity also demands a subjective response on our part.  That is where I struggle: can I give the subjective response that God wants?

I’ll be going to my church’s Bible study this week.  The Bible Study group will be using the curriculum, When God’s People Pray.  The bulletin described the study as follows (and I do not know if it is quoting something): “Prayer can change lives and circumstances like nothing else can.  What are the keys that unlock its power, turn prayer from a mere activity into a vital link with God and all God’s resources?  In this 6-session DVD based study we will discover the power of God to restore hope, ignite faith, work miracles, and change lives—-through prayer.”

I certainly can improve my prayer life.  It is not that I don’t pray: I do often.  But I often feel that it is a mere activity, that I am not truly connecting with God.  And I felt this way when I was a fundamentalist, not just now.  Moreover, I wonder what exactly I am supposed to be expecting from prayer: that my outward circumstances will change, that God will strengthen me to cope with any circumstance, both of those things, or neither of them?  Maybe this study will give me insight.  Will I like or agree with everything I hear?  Probably not.  But my hope is that I will just experience life, with its highs and lows, rather than judging life, or getting worked up about it.  And I will blog about the study.  My posts will probably not be widely liked or disliked, but they will get read.  How do I know?  Because all of them do, by at least someone.

Anyway, those are my ramblings for the day.  I wish those celebrating Mother’s Day a Happy Mother’s Day.  I am thankful to my Mom for her love for me.  If anyone models to me God’s love and patience (assuming God is a God of unconditional, or overwhelming, love), it’s her.

I Chronicles 9

I came across a couple of interesting Jewish interpretations in my study of I Chronicles 9.  Here are two items.

1.  I Chronicles 9:2 states: “Now the first inhabitants that dwelt in their possessions in their cities were, the Israelites, the priests, Levites, and the Nethinims” (KJV).

Who were the Nethinim?  The Nethinim were non-Israelites who were given to the Levites to assist them in their work surrounding the Tabernacle, later the Temple.  E.W. Bullinger in his comment on I Chronicles 9:2 refers to Numbers 31:47 and Ezra 8:20.  Numbers 31:47 states that Moses took one out of fifty of the men from Israel’s plunder and gave them to the Levites.  These men were foreign captives from Israel’s war.  And Ezra 8:20 states that David and the princes appointed Nethinim to serve the Levites.

According to Jastrow’s dictionary, rabbinic literature interpreted the Nethinim to be the descendants of the Gibeonites, who appear in Joshua 9.  The Gibeonites were Canaanites, and they were afraid that they would be destroyed in Israel’s conquest of Canaan.  Consequently, they sent representatives to Joshua, falsely claimed to be from a faraway country, and tricked Joshua into entering an alliance with them.  Joshua did so, which meant that he could not destroy the Gibeonites.  Later, when Joshua learned that the Gibeonites had misrepresented themselves to him, Joshua made them “hewers of wood and drawers of water for the congregation, and for the altar of the LORD, even unto this day, in the place which he should choose” (Joshua 9:27 KJV).  Since the Gibeonites served the altar, as the Nethinim did, rabbinic literature tended to associate the Nethinim with the Gibeonites.

The Gibeonites appear again in II Samuel 21.  God has sent a famine to Israel, and the reason is that King David’s predecessor, King Saul, killed Gibeonites.  II Samuel 21 does not mention Joshua, but the reason that God in II Samuel 21 was so mad at Saul may have been that Saul violated Joshua’s promise not to kill the Gibeonites, or at least Saul violated the alliance between Israel and the Gibeonites for which Joshua 9 attempts to provide an etiology.  David in II Samuel 21 asks the Gibeonites what he should do, and they suggest that he hang seven of the sons of Saul.  David does so, and the famine goes away.

This story is an example of how disturbing the Old Testament can be to modern people, who generally believe that people should be punished for their own sins, not the sins of their parents or ancestors.  They may have problems with hanging, too, though I am sure that there are conservatives who believe that we should return to that as a method of capital punishment.  It turns out that there were rabbis who found the story to be disturbing, too.  According to Babylonian Talmud Yebamoth 78b-c, Saul killed Gibeonites indirectly, when he slaughtered the priests of Nob in I Samuel 22.  The idea here is that the priests were the ones who were supplying the Gibeonites with food, since the Gibeonites worked for the priests, and so, by killing the priests of Nob, Saul was depriving the Gibeonites of food.  Years later, during the events of II Samuel 21, David acceded to the Gibeonites’ request that he hang seven of the sons of Saul to atone for what Saul did to them.  Yet, in B.T. Yebamoth 78b-c, David was not happy with their request.  He considered it to be brutal and unmerciful, and therefore he excluded the Nethinim from the Israelite community by forbidding them to intermarry with the Israelites.  David himself issued a decree that would punish descendants for the misdeeds of their ancestors: because of what Gibeonites in his day requested, their descendants would never be able to join the community of Israel.

2.  I Chronicles 9:20 states: “And Phinehas the son of Eleazar was the ruler over them in time past, and the LORD was with him” (KJV).  The Jewish commentator Rashi seems to wonder why this verse says that Phinehas the priest ruled Israel in time past.  Why highlight that Phinehas’ rule was in the past?  Rashi says that it does so because Phinehas in the past prophesied to Israel, but God removed God’s Shechinah (presence) from Phinehas because Phinehas did not annul Jephthah’s vow to sacrifice his daughter to God (Judges 11).  Phinehas was the priest in Judges 20:28, so Rashi believes that Phinehas was the priest during the time of Jephthah and had the authority to nullify Jephthah’s troubling vow.  That is one Jewish attempt to deal with Jepthah’s vow: to say that God disapproved of it!

Incidentally, I wrote in my post here about the high priesthood and how there appears to be diversity within the Hebrew Bible about which family should have the high priesthood: Should it go through Aaron’s son Ithamar (through whom Eli and Abiathar came), or Aaron’s son Eleazar (though whom Phinehas and, according to the Chronicler, Zadok came)?  I’m not saying that there is any place in the Hebrew Bible that supports Ithamar, but it is interesting to me that Ithamar’s descendants were the high priests in I-II Samuel, when God had promised Eleazar’s son Phinehas an everlasting priesthood in Numbers 25:13, plus Phinehas appears to be the high priest in Judges 20:28.  What happened to Phinehas?  Was the priesthood taken away from him and given to Ithamar’s line?  Could the Jewish story of how God removed God’s presence from Phinehas be (at least in part) an attempt to address this question?  In any case, Phinehas’ line got the high priesthood back, assuming that Zadok was the descendant of Phinehas.