There was a famine in the days of David for three years, year after year; and David sought the face of Yahweh. Yahweh said, “It is for Saul, and for his bloody house, because he put the Gibeonites to death.”
The king called the Gibeonites, and said to them (now the Gibeonites were not of the children of Israel, but of the remnant of the Amorites, and the children of Israel had sworn to them; and Saul sought to kill them in his zeal for the children of Israel and Judah); and David said to the Gibeonites, “What should I do for you? And with what should I make atonement, that you may bless Yahweh’s inheritance?”
The Gibeonites said to him, “It is no matter of silver or gold between us and Saul, or his house; neither is it for us to put any man to death in Israel.” He said, “I will do for you whatever you say.”
They said to the king, “The man who consumed us, and who devised against us, that we should be destroyed from remaining in any of the borders of Israel, let seven men of his sons be delivered to us, and we will hang them up to Yahweh in Gibeah of Saul, the chosen of Yahweh.” The king said, “I will give them.”
Geneva Bible translators 1599 · Public Domain On vv1, 3, 4, 6 Hebrew, sought the face of the Lord.
Hebrew, sought the face of the Lord.
Hebrew, year after year.
Read full note →
Thinking to gratify the people, because these were not of the seed of Abraham.
Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain.
John Trapp 1656 · Public Domain On vv1–6 2Sa 21:1 Then there was a famine in the…
2Sa 21:1 Then there was a famine in the days of David three years, year after year; and David enquired of the LORD. And the LORD answered, [It is] for Saul, and for [his] bloody house, because he slew the Gibeonites.
Ver. 1. Then there was a famine in the days of David.] Bella fame excipiuntur: Wars usually ended with famine: which, if it be extreme, is worse than war, {Lam 4:9}
Read full note →
In the days of David three years.] The first and second year he might look upon it as a punishment laid upon them for the common sins of the land: but when he saw it continuing a third year also, he thought there was something in it more than ordinary, and therefore, although he well knew the natural cause of this famine to be drought, {2Sa 21:10} yet he inquired after the supernatural, as wise men should do. Fools look only who stands on the next stair or step; but Jacob, when he saw the angels ascending and descending, he inquired who stood on the top of the ladder and sent them to and fro. Ezekiel also inquireth who standeth on the top of the wheel. Whatever is the instrument of our sufferings, let God be looked upon as the chief agent, and his favour reobtained. The whole people suffered for Saul’s sin; either because they approved it, or at least bewailed it not; neither did what they could to hinder it; whereby they became accessary.
It is for Saul and for his bloody house.] Which God had now a purpose to root out, that they might not be further troublesome to David - who had lately suffered so much - in the quiet enjoyment of the kingdom. We must also, whensoever afflicted, find out the cause, the special sin that God smiteth at, saying as Job, "Do not condemn me, show me wherefore thou contendest with me." {Job 10:2} "Surely it is meet to be said unto God, I have borne chastisement, I will not offend any more. That which I see not, teach thou me: if I have done iniquity, I will do no more" {Job 34:31-32}
Because he slew the Gibeonites.] Contrary to oath, and although they were proselytes, afterwards called Nethinims, as men devoted and given up to God. This sin of Saul’s slept a long time - viz., till forty years after: like a sleeping debt not called for of many years. So Joab’s killing of Abner slept all David’s days.
John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Matthew Poole 1685 · Public Domain On vv1–6 Then there was a famine: when? Either, first, after…
Then there was a famine: when? Either, first, after Absalom’s and Sheba’s rebellion, as it is here related; or rather, secondly, in some other time before. It is well known and confessed that the particle then doth not always note that the thing was done in that order in which it is mentioned, but is oft of an indefinite signification; as also that the Scripture in its histories and relations doth not always observe the order of time, but the order of things, putting that after which was done before, as occasion requires. And so it seems to be here. The things related here and 2Sa 24 are by the most and best interpreters conceived to have been done long before Absalom’s rebellion. And this opinion is not without sufficient grounds.
First, This particle then is here explained, in the days, i.e. during the life and reign of David; which general and indefinite words seem to be added as an intimation that these things were not done after the next foregoing passages, for then the sacred writer would rather have added, after these things, or some such expression, as it is 2Ch 32:1, and in many other places.
Read full note →
Secondly, Here are divers passages which it seems very improbable to ascribe to the last years of David’s reign: such as these, first, That Saul’s sin against the Gibeonites should so long remain unpunished. And indeed that this was done, and Saul’s seven sons hanged by David’s order before that time, seems plainly to be intimated by that passage, 2Sa 16:8, where he is charged with the blood of the house of Saul; for which there was not the least colour till this time.
Secondly, That David should not remove the bones of Saul and Jonathan to their proper place, here, 2Sa 21:12-14, till that time.
Thirdly, That the Philistines should wage war with David again and again, 2Sa 21:15, &c., so long after he had fully subdued them, 2Sa 8:1; and that David in his old age should attempt to fight with a Philistine giant, or that his people should suffer him to do so.
Fourthly, That David should then have so vehement a desire to number his people, 2Sa 24:1, &c., which being an act of youthful heat and vanity, seems not at all to agree with his old age, nor with that state of deep humiliation and great affliction in which he then was. And the reason why these matters are put here out of their proper order is plainly this, because David’s sin being once related, it was very convenient that David’s punishments inflicted for it should immediately succeed; this being very frequent in Scripture story, to put those things together which belong to one matter, though they happened at several times. And this is the more considerable, because it tends to the clearing of that great difficulty, 2Sa 15:7.
David inquired of the Lord concerning the reason of his displeasure, and this judgment.
Because he slew the Gibeonites; which was not only an act of cruelty, but also of perfidiousness and perjury, because it was a direct and public violation of that solemn oath given to them for their security by Joshua and the princes, in the name of all the Israelites, of that and of succeeding generations, and consequently a great scandal to the true religion, and the professors of it, and a mean to discourage others from embracing it, as the Gibeonites had done.
Quest. Why did not God punish Saul whilst he was alive for this fault, but his innocent children, and David, and the Israelites of this age?
Answ. First, God did severely punish Saul for this and his other sins.
Secondly, As God may justly inflict temporal punishments upon any offender, either in his person or in his posterity, when he pleaseth; so it is meet he should take his own time for it; and it is folly and wickedness in us to quarrel with God for so doing.
Thirdly, The Israelites might sundry ways make themselves guilty of Saul’s sin, though it be not particularly mentioned in Scripture; advising or encouraging him to it; or by assisting him in the execution of it; or by conniving at it; or by rejoicing in it for some worldly advantage which they received or expected from it; or by not repairing the injuries which Saul had done them as far as they might.
And some of these ways David himself might be involved in the guilt, although indeed this evil fell principally upon the people. And whereas many of the people probably were innocent of that crime, yet they also were guilty of many other sins, for which God might punish them, though he took this occasion for it. And it may be further observed, that God is pleased many times severely to punish lesser delinquents, and to suffer the greater for the present to go unpunished; and that not only to manifest his own sovereign power and liberty, but also to give the world thereby assurance of a future judgment, and punishments reserved for the next life.
Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Matthew Henry 1710 · Public Domain On v1 Here I. Were are told of the injury which…
Here I. Were are told of the injury which Saul had, long before this, done to the Gibeonites, which we had no account of in the history of his reign, nor should we have heard of it here but that it came now to be reckoned for. The Gibeonites were of the remnant of the Amorites (Sa2 21:2), who by a stratagem had made peace with Israel, and had the public faith pledged to them by Joshua for their safety. We had the story Jos. 9, where it was agreed (v. 23) that they should have their lives secured, but be deprived of their lands and liberties, that they and theirs should be tenants in villanage to Israel. It does not appear that they had broken their part of the covenant, either by denying their service or attempting to recover their lands or liberties; nor was this pretended; but Saul, under colour of zeal for the honour of Israel, that it might not be said that they had any of the natives among them, aimed to root them out, and, in order to that, slew many of them. Thus he would seem wiser than his predecessors the judges, and more zealous for the public interest; and perhaps he designed it for an instance of his royal prerogative and the power which as king he assumed to rescind the former acts of government and to disannul the most solemn leagues. It may be, he designed, by this severity towards the Gibeonites, to atone for his clemency towards the Amalekites. Some conjecture that he sought to cut off the Gibeonites at the same time when he put away the witches (Sa1 28:3), or perhaps many of them were remarkably pious, and he sought to destroy them when he slew the priests their masters. That which made this an exceedingly sinful sin was that he not only shed innocent blood, but therein violated the solemn oath by which the nation was bound to protect them. See what brought ruin on Saul's house: it was a bloody house.
II. We find the nation of Israel chastised with a sore famine, long after, for this sin of Saul. Observe, 1. Even in the land of Israel, that fruitful land, and in the reign of David, that glorious reign, there was a famine, not extreme (for then notice would sooner have been taken of it and enquiry made into the cause of it), but great drought, and scarcity of provisions, the consequence of it, for three years together. If corn miss one year, commonly the next makes up the deficiency; but, if it miss three years successively, it will be a sore judgment; and the man of wisdom will by it hear God's voice crying to the country to repent of the abuse of plenty. 2. David enquired of God concerning it. Though he was himself a prophet, he must consult the oracle, and know God's mind in his own appointed way. Note, When we are under God's judgments we ought to enquire into the grounds of the controversy. Lord, show me wherefore thou contendest with me. It is strange that David did not sooner consult the oracle, not till the third year; but perhaps, till then, he apprehended it not to be an extraordinary judgment for some particular sin. Even good men are often slack and remiss in doing their duty. We continue in ignorance, and under mistake, because we delay to enquire. 3. God was ready in his answer, though David was slow in his enquiries: It is for Saul. Note, God's judgments often look a great way back, which obliges us to do so when we are under his rebukes. It is not for us to object against the people's smarting for the sin of their king (perhaps they were aiding and abetting), nor against this generation's suffering for the sin of the last God often visiteth the sins of the fathers upon the children, and his judgments are a great deep. He gives not account of any of his matters. Time does not wear out the guilt of sin; nor can we build hopes of impunity upon the delay of judgments. There is no statute of limitation to be pleaded against God's demands. Nullum tempus occurrit Deo - God may punish when he pleases.
Read full note →
III. We have vengeance taken upon the house of Saul for the turning away of God's wrath from the land, which, at present, smarted for his sin.
1. David, probably by divine direction, referred it to the Gibeonites themselves to prescribe what satisfaction should be given them for the wrong that had been done them, Sa2 21:3. They had many years remained silent, had not appealed to David, nor given the kingdom any disturbance with their complaints or demands; and now, at length, God speaks for them (I heard not, for thou wilt hear, Psa 38:14, Psa 38:15); and they are recompensed for their patience with this honour, that they are made judges in their own case, and have a blank given them to write their demands on: What you shall say, that will I do (Sa2 21:4), that atonement may be made, and that you may bless the inheritance of the Lord, Sa2 21:3. It is sad for any family or nation to have the prayers of oppressed innocency against them, and therefore the expense of a just restitution is well bestowed for the retrieving of the blessing of those that were ready to perish, Job 29:13. "My servant Job, whom you have wronged, shall pray for you," says God, "and then I will be reconciled to you, and not till then." Those understand not themselves that value not the prayers of the poor and despised.
2. They desired that seven of Saul's posterity might be put to death, and David granted their demand. (1.) They required no silver, nor gold, Sa2 21:4. Note, Money is no satisfaction for blood, see Num 35:31-33. It is the ancient law that blood calls for blood (Gen 9:6); and those over-value money and under-value life, that sell the blood of their relations for corruptible things, such as silver and gold. The Gibeonites had now a fair opportunity to get a discharge from their servitude, in compensation for the wrong done them, according to the equity of that law (Exo 21:26), If a man strike out his servant's eye, he shall let him go free for his eye's sake. But they did not insist on this; though the covenant was broken on the other side, it should not be broken on theirs. They were Nethinim, given to God and his people Israel, and they would not seem weary of the service. (2.) They required no lives but of Saul's family. He had done them the wrong, and therefore his children must pay for it. We sue the heirs for the parents' debts. Men may not extend this principle so far as life, Deu 24:16. The children in an ordinary course of law, shall never be put to death for the parents. But this case of the Gibeonites was altogether extraordinary. God had made himself an immediate party to the cause and no doubt put it into the heart of the Gibeonites to make this demand, for he owned what was done (Sa2 21:14), and his judgments are not subject to the rules which men's judgments must be subject to. Let parents take heed of sin, especially the sin of cruelty and oppression, for their poor children's sake, who may be smarting for it by the just hand of God when they themselves are in their graves. Guilt and a curse are a bad entail upon a family. It should seem, Saul's posterity trod in his steps, for it is called a bloody house; it was the spirit of the family, and therefore they are justly reckoned with for his sin, as well as for their own. (3.) They would not impose it upon David to do this execution: Thou shalt not for us kill any man (Sa2 21:4), but we will do it ourselves, we will hang them up unto the Lord (Sa2 21:6), that if there were any hardship in it, they might bear the blame, and not David or his house. By our old law, if a murderer had judgment given against him upon an appeal, the relations that appealed had the executing of him. (4.) They did not require this out of malice against Saul or his family (had they been revengeful, they would have moved it themselves long before), but out of love to the people of Israel, whom they saw plagued for the injury done to them: "We will hang them up unto the Lord (Sa2 21:6), to satisfy his justice, not to gratify any revenge of our own - for the good of the public, not for our own reputation." (5.) The nomination of the persons they left to David, who took care to secure Mephibosheth for Jonathan's sake, that, while he was avenging the breach of one oath, he might not himself break another (Sa2 21:7); but he delivered up two of Saul's sons whom he had by a concubine, and five of his grandsons, whom his daughter Merab bore to Adriel (Sa1 18:19), but his daughter Michal brought up, Sa2 21:8. Now Saul's treachery was punished, in giving Merab to Adriel, when he had promised her to David, with a design to provoke him. "It is a dangerous matter," says bishop Hall upon this, "to offer injury to any of God's faithful ones; if their meekness have easily remitted it, their God will not pass it over without a severe retribution, though it may be long first." (6.) The place, time, and manner, of their execution, all added to the solemnity of their being sacrificed to divine justice. [1.] They were hanged up, as anathemas, under a peculiar mark of God's displeasure; for the law had said, He that is hanged is accursed of God, Deu 21:23; Gal 3:13. Christ being made a curse for us, and dying to satisfy for our sins and to turn away the wrath of God, became obedient to this ignominious death. [2.] They were hanged up in Gibeah of Saul (Sa2 21:6), to show that it was for his sin that they died. They were hanged, as it were, before their own door, to expiate the guilt of the house of Saul; and thus God accomplished the ruin of that family, for the blood of the priests, and their families, which, doubtless, now came in remembrance before God, and inquisition was made for it, Psa 9:12. Yet the blood of the Gibeonites only is mentioned, because that was shed in violation of a sacred oath, which, though sworn long before, though obtained by a wile, and the promise made to Canaanites, yet is thus severely reckoned for. The despising of the oath, and breaking of the covenant, will be recompensed on the head of those who thus profane God's sacred name, Eze 17:18, Eze 17:19. And thus God would show that with him rich and poor meet together. Even royal blood must go to atone for the blood of the Gibeonites, who were but the vassals for the congregation. [3.] They were put to death in the days of harvest (Sa2 21:9), at the beginning of harvest (Sa2 21:10), to show that they were thus sacrificed for the turning sway of that wrath of God which had withheld from them their harvest-mercies for some years past, and to obtain his favour in the present harvest. Thus there is no way of appeasing God's anger but by mortifying and crucifying our lusts and corruptions. In vain do we expect mercy from God, unless we do justice upon our sins. Those executions must not be complained of as cruel which have become necessary to the public welfare. Better that seven of Saul's bloody house be hanged than that all Israel be famished.
Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible (1708–1710) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
John Gill 1763 · Public Domain On vv1–6 Then there was a famine in the days of…
Then there was a famine in the days of David three years, year after year,.... That is, three years running, one after another; some think this, though here related, was before the rebellions of Absalom and Sheba, and not after, and there are several things which may incline to it, as that the sin of Saul should otherwise be so long unpunished, and that the bones of Saul and Jonathan were not sooner removed, here related; and that there should be so many battles the Philistines after they were subdued, as recorded in this chapter; and in one of the Jewish (e) writings it is said, that this was the year after Saul was slain; though, in other copies of the same book, it is said to be thirty years after; and so in that Abarbinel used, and who is of the mind that what is here related stands in the order in which it was, and of the same opinion are some of our best chronologers (f):
and David inquired of the Lord; before the high priest by Urim and Thummim, what should be the cause of the famine perhaps suspecting it was some sins of his; the first year he might take no notice of it, hoping for a more fruitful season the next year, it arising, as he might suppose, from some natural cause; the second year he might begin to think it was for some national sins, but might be remiss in his inquiry into them; but the third year he was alarmed, and concluded there was something extraordinary and special, and feared it was on his account, and this put him on making inquiry:
Read full note →
and the Lord answered, it is for Saul, and for his bloody house; on account of the blood shed by him and his family; which answer must in a good measure relieve the mind of David, if he was fearful it was for his sins:
because he slew the Gibeonites: which was contrary to the oath that Joshua and all Israel had given them not to slay them, but save them alive, Jos 9:15. When this was done is not certain; the Jews commonly say (g) that he slew them when he slew the priests at Nob, they being hewers of wood and drawers of water to them, and were slain with them; or because their maintenance depended on the priests, they being slain, it was in effect slaying them; but rather this refers to another time, and to other action or actions of Saul, who sought by various means to destroy these people, and root them out of the land. The Heathens had a notion that barrenness, unfruitfulness, and famine, were inflicted by God for murder. Philostratus (h) reports of the Ethiopian Indians, that for the murder of their king, Ganges, their ground was unfruitful, their cattle starved, their wives abortive, and their cities and houses fell to ruin, until the murderers were destroyed.
(e) Pirke Eliezer, c. 17. (f) Usser. Annal. Vet. Test. p. 55. Bedford's Scripture Chronology, p. 558. (g) T. Bab. Bava Kama, fol. 119. 1. (h) Vita Apollon. Tyanei, l. 3. c. 6.
John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
John Wesley 1765 · Public Domain On vv1, 2, 6 A famine, caused by Saul's killing the Gibeonites, ver.…
A famine, caused by Saul's killing the Gibeonites, ver. 1-3. Seven of his family put to death, ver. 4-9. Care taken of their dead bodies, and of the bones of Saul, ver. 10-14. Battles with the Philistines, ver. 15-22.
Then - The things related here and chap. xxiv, 1-25, are by the best interpreters conceived to have been done long before Absalom's rebellion. And this opinion is not without sufficient grounds: first, this particle, then, is here explained, in the days, that is, during the reign of David: which general words seem to be added as an intimation that these things were not done after the next foregoing passages, for then the sacred writer would rather have added, after these things, as it is in many other places. Secondly, here are divers passages which it seems improbable to ascribe to the last years of David's reign: such as first, that Saul's sin against the Gibeonites should so long remain unpunished. And indeed that this was done, and Saul's seven sons hanged by David's order before that time, seems to be intimated by that passage, chap. xvi, 8, where he is charged with the blood of the house of Saul: for which there was not the least colour 'till this time. Secondly, that David should not remove the bones of Saul and Jonathan to their proper place, 'till that time. Thirdly, that the Philistines should wage war with David again and again, ver. 15, &c. so long after he had fully subdued them, chap. viii, 1, and that David in his old age should attempt to fight with a Philistine giant, or that his people should suffer him to do so. Fourthly, that David should then have so vehement a desire to number his people, chap. xxiv, 1, which being an act of youthful vanity, seems not at all to agree with his old age, nor with that state of deep humiliation in which he then was. And the reason why these matters are put here out of their proper order, is plainly this, because David's sin being once related, it was very convenient that David's punishments should immediately succeed: this being very frequent in scripture-story, to put those things together which belong to one matter, though they happened at several times. He flew - Which was not only an act of cruelty, but also of perfidiousness, because it was a public violation of that solemn oath given to them by Joshua and the princes, in the name of all the Israelites, of that and succeeding generations. "But why did not God punish Saul whilst he was alive for this, but his children, and the Israelites of this age?" First, God did severely punish Saul for this and his other sins. Secondly, as God may justly inflict temporal punishments upon any offender, either in his person, or in his posterity, when he pleaseth; so it is meet he should take his own time for it; and it is folly in us to quarrel with God for so doing. Thirdly, the Israelites might sundry ways make themselves guilty of Saul's sin, tho' it be not particularly mentioned, advising or encouraging him to it; or, assisting him in the execution of it. And whereas many of the people were probably innocent of that crime, yet they also were guilty of many other sins, for which God might punish them, though he took this occasion for it.
John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.
Adam Clarke 1810 · Public Domain On vv1, 2, 3, 6 A famine taking place three successive years in Israel,…
CHAPTER XXI
A famine taking place three successive years in Israel, David
Read full note →
inquired of the Lord the cause; and was informed that it was
on account of Saul and his bloody house, who had slain the
Gibeonites, 1.
David inquires of the Gibeonites what atonement they require,
and they answer, seven sons of Saul, that they may hang them
up in Gibeah, 2 6.
Names of the seven sons thus given up, 7-9.
Affecting account of Rizpah, who watched the bodies through the
whole of the time of harvest, to prevent them frown being
devoured by birds and beasts of prey, 10.
David is informed of Rizpah's conduct, and collects the bones of
Saul, Jonathan, and the seven men that were hanged at Gibeah,
and buries them; and God is entreated for the land, 11-14.
War between the Israelites and Philistines, in which David is
in danger of being slain by Ishbi-benob, but is succoured by
Abishai, 15-17.
He, and several gigantic Philistines, are slain by David and his
servants, 18-22.
NOTES ON CHAP. XXI
Verse 1. Then there was a famine] Of this famine we know nothing; it is not mentioned in any part of the history of David.
Because he slew the Gibeonites.] No such fact is mentioned in the life and transactions of Saul; nor is there any reference to it in any other part of Scripture.
Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Joseph Benson 1811 · Public Domain On vv1–5 2Sa 21:1. Then there was a famine, &c. —…
2Sa 21:1. Then there was a famine, &c. — The things related here, and chap. 24., are, by the best interpreters, conceived to have been done long before Absalom’s rebellion. And this opinion is not without sufficient grounds. For, first, this particle, then, is here explained, in the days, that is, during the reign of David: which general words seem to be added as an intimation that these things were not done next after the foregoing passages, for then the sacred writer would have said, after these things, as it is in many other places. Secondly, Here are divers particulars which cannot, with probability, be ascribed to the last years of David’s reign: such as, that Saul’s sin against the Gibeonites should so long remain unpunished; that David should not remove the bones of Saul and Jonathan to their proper place till that time; that the Philistines should wage war with David again and again, 2Sa 21:15, &c., so long after he had fully subdued them, 2Sa 8:1; that David in his old age should attempt to fight with a Philistine giant, or that his people should suffer him to do so; that David should then have so vehement a desire to number his people, 2Sa 24:1, which, being an act of youthful vanity, seems not at all to agree with his old age, nor with that state of deep humiliation in which he then was. And the reason why these matters are put here out of their proper order is plainly this; because David’s sin being once related, it was very proper that his punishments should immediately succeed: this being very frequent in Scripture story, to put those things together which belong to one matter, though they happened at several different times.
David inquired of the Lord — It is possible that David, for the first, and even second year, might have ascribed this calamity to natural causes; but in the third year, being well convinced that the visitation was judicial, he applied himself to the sacred oracle of God, to learn the cause of this extraordinary and continued calamity. And God soon informed him that this punishment was on account of the blood shed by Saul and his family. Because he slew the Gibeonites — The history of the Gibeonites is well known: they were a remnant of the Amorites, but by an artful contrivance, related Jos 9:9, obtained a league for their lives and properties from the children of Israel. And, forasmuch as Joshua and the elders had confirmed it by an oath, they thought themselves bound to keep it, only tying them down to the servitude of supplying the tabernacle with wood and water for the public sacrifices, and the service of those who attended upon them. This unhappy people, notwithstanding it is probable that they had renounced their idolatry, and performed the other conditions of their covenant, Saul sought all occasions to destroy; and did so to such a degree of guilt as drew down the divine judgment upon the land. But upon what occasion, or in what manner Saul destroyed them, is not mentioned in the Scriptures, except those that may be supposed to have been slain with the priests in the city of Nob, as being hewers of wood and drawers of water for the tabernacle. But undoubtedly there was some more general destruction of them for which this punishment was inflicted, although the Scripture is silent about it.
Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Albert Barnes 1834 · Public Domain On vv1, 2, 4, 6 There is no note of time whatever, nor any…
There is no note of time whatever, nor any clue as to what part of David’s reign the events of this chapter ought to be assigned.
Enquired of the Lord - Hebrew “sought the face of the Lord,” quite a different phrase from that so often used in Judges (e. g. Jdg 1:1) and the Books of Samuel, and probably indicating that this chapter is from a different source; an inference agreeing with the indefinite “in the days of David,” and with the allusion to the slaughter of the Gibeonites, which has not anywhere been narrated.
Read full note →
And for his bloody house - literally, “the house of blood,” i. e., the house or family upon which rests the guilt of shedding innocent blood.
Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Haydock's Catholic Bible Commentary 1859 · Public Domain On vv1, 2, 3, 4, 6 Of David, after the revolt of Seba. (Calmet) ---…
Of David, after the revolt of Seba. (Calmet) --- House. It seems the family and chief officers of Saul, had concurred in his cruelty and unjust zeal. Hence many of them might be still living, to undergo this chastisement; and the rest of the people were guilty of some faults. (Haydock) --- If they had been perfectly innocent, still God is the dispenser of his own gifts. He is under no obligation of sending health and peace to his creatures. The just often derive greater advantage from crosses than from prosperity. The exemplary punishment of Saul’s family was a lesson to kings, and to all mankind, to teach them how they ought to observe justice and the sanctity of oaths. --- Gabaonites; probably after the slaughter of the priests, at Nobe, 1 Kings xxii. 19. (Calmet)
George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).
Lange's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures 1864 · Public Domain On v1 Chaps. 21–24
THIRD DIVISION
ECLECTIC APPENDIX TO THE CONCLUSION OF THE HISTORY OF DAVID’S REIGN
Read full note →
Chaps. 21–24
FIRST SECTION
Three Years’ Famine on account of Saul’s Crime against the Gibeonites, and Expiration of the Crime
2Sa_21:1-14
1Then [And] there was a famine in the days of David three years, year after year. And David inquired [sought the face]1 of the Lord [Jehovah]; and the Lord answered [Jehovah said], It is for Saul and for his bloody house [for the blood-guilty house2], because he slew the Gibeonites. 2And the king called the Gibeonites, and said unto them; (now [and3] the Gibeonites were not of the children of Israel, but of the remnant of the Amorites; and the children of Israel had sworn unto them; and Saul sought to slay them in his zeal to the children of Israel 3and Judah.) Wherefore [And] David said unto the Gibeonites, What shall I do for you? and wherewith shall I make the atonement, that ye may bless the inheritance of the Lord [Jehovah]? 4And the Gibeonites said unto him, We4 will have no silver nor gold of Saul, nor of his house; neither for us shalt thou kill any man in Israel. And he said, What ye shall say, that will I do for you. 5And they answered [said to] the king, The man that consumed us, and that devised against us that we should be destroyed from remaining in any of the coasts [in any region] of Israel, 6Let seven men of his sons be delivered5 unto us, and we will hang them up unto the Lord [Jehovah] in Gibeah of Saul, whom the Lord did choose [the 7chosen of Jehovah6]. And the king said, I will give them. But [And] the king spared Mephibosheth, the son of Jonathan, the son of Saul, because of the Lord’s [Jehovah’s] oath that was between them, between David and Jonathan the son of 8Saul. But [And] the king took the two sons of Rizpah the daughter of Aiah, whom she bore unto Saul, Armoni and Mephibosheth, and the five sons of Michal [Merab7] the daughter of Saul, whom she brought up for [bare to] Adriel the son 9of Barzillai the Meholathite; And he [om. he] delivered them into the hands of the Gibeonites, and they hanged them in the hill before the Lord [Jehovah]; and they fell all seven together, and were put to death in the days of harvest, in the first days, in the beginning of the barley-harvest.8 10And Rizpah the daughter of Aiah took sackcloth, and spread it for her upon the rock, from the beginning of the harvest until water dropped [poured] upon them out of heaven, and suffered neither [not] the birds of the air to rest on them by day, nor the beasts of the field by night. 11And it was told David what Rizpah the daughter of Aiah, the concubine of Saul, had done. 12And David went and took the bones of Saul and the bones of Jonathan his son from the men [citizens9] of Jabesh-gilead, which [who] had stolen them from the street [square] of Beth-shan, where the Philistines had hanged them, when the Philistines had slain Saul in Gilboa; 13And he brought up from thence the bones of Saul and the bones of Jonathan his son; and they gathered the bones of them that were hanged. 14And the bones of Saul and Jonathan his son10 buried they in the country [land] of Benjamin in Zelah in the sepulchre of Kish his father; and they performed all that the king commanded. And after that God was entreated [ = listened to entreaties] for the land.
SECOND SECTION
Accounts of Victorious Battles against the Philistines
2Sa_21:15-22
15Moreover [And] the Philistines had yet [om. yet] war again with Israel; and David went down, and his servants with him, and fought against the Philistines; 16and David waxed faint. And Ishbi-benob,11 which was of the sons of the giant, the weight of whose spear weighed [was] three hundred shekels of brass in weight [om. in weight], he being girded with a new sword, thought to have slain David. 17But [And] Abishai the son of Zeruiah succored him, and smote the Philistine and killed him. Then the men of David sware unto him, saying, Thou shalt go no more out with us to battle, that thou quench not the light of Israel. 18And it came to pass after this, that there was again a battle with the Philistines at Gob; then Sibbechai the Hushathite slew Saph, which was of the sons of the giant. 19And there was again a battle in Gob with the Philistines, where [and] Elhanan12 the son of Jaare-oregim [Jair], a [the] Bethlehemite, slew the brother of [om. the brother of] Goliath the Gittite, the staff of whose spear was like a weaver’s beam. 20And there was yet a battle in Gath, where [and there] was a man of great stature, that had on every [each] hand six fingers, and on every [each] foot six toes, four 21and twenty in number; and he also was born to the giant. And when [om. when] he defied Israel, [ins. and] Jonathan the son of Shimeah the brother of David slew him. 22These four were born to the giant in Gath, and fell by the hand of David, and by the hand of his servants.
EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL
On the section Chs. 21–24 and its relation to the preceding narration, see Introduction, p. 21 sqq. [Though Dr. Erdmann’s statement of his view—that these chapters present six sections arranged in elaborate symmetry, from the point of view of theocratic historiography—is very ingenious, a comparison between these sections and similar ones in “Chronicles” and “Judges,” makes it at least not improbable, that they constitute an appendix of materials for which no convenient place was found in the body of the history. This appendix is thus not accidental, is truly theocratic (since it gives various sides of David’s character and life, as theocratic king), only has not the somewhat artificial arrangement that Dr. Erdmann proposes.—Tr.].
1. 2Sa_21:1-14. The three years’ famine, and the expiation of a crime committed by Saul against the Gibeonites.
2Sa_21:1. In the days of David, an indefinite phrase, which does not help us to fix the date of the following occurrence.13 The mention of Mephibosheth in 2Sa_21:7 shows that it must be subsequent to the narrative of 2 Samuel 9, where David’s first acquaintance with the young prince is described. It is to be put perhaps before Absalom’s conspiracy (Ew.), since Shimei’s words (2Sa_16:7-8) may refer to the execution here narrated, though also to the deaths of Abner and Ishbosheth.—And David sought the face of the Lord—by prayer he endeavored to learn the cause of this judgment. The answer is given by the oracle [Urim and Thummim] consulted through the high-priest: “concerning Saul and the house of blood-guilt,”14 the house on which rested blood-guiltiness; comp. the phrases “city of blood” Eze_22:2; Eze_24:6; Eze_24:9, “man of blood” 2Sa_16:7-8.—Because he slew the Gibeonites, a fact of which we have no account.15 2Sa_21:2 states only the motive of this act of Saul.16 The Gibeonites are here termed a remnant of the Amorites. According to Jos_9:3-27 an oath was sworn to these “Non-Israelites” that they should not be slain; comp. especially 2Sa_21:20. They are there called “Hivites,” while here they are designated by the general name “Amorites” (Ew.), under which all the Canaanitish tribes are often embraced (Keil) [though in other cases the Amorites are distinguished as a separate tribe from the Hivites.—Tr.] And Saul sought to slay them, that is, to exterminate them. Thenius regards this statement as contradictory of the fact narrated [since he would not incur blood-guiltiness by merely seeking to slay them], and proposes to read “exterminate” 17instead of “slay,”; but no contradiction exists, for, as Böttcher remarks, “it is intended in the words ‘in his zeal’ only to give the motive of the attempt [and it is not said that the attempt did not succeed.].” Saul’s zeal “for the children of Israel and Judah”18 consisted in an attempt (in accordance with Deu_7:2; Deu_7:24) to cleanse the Lord’s people from the remnant of the heathen, as He purified the land from the necromancers and soothsayers (1Sa_28:3) according to the law. He thus “sought” to exterminate the Gibeonites, but his attempt did not succeed, as the presence of these Gibeonites shows. Wherewith shall I appease? namely, the anger of the Lord against this deed, comp. Jos_9:19-20. “So that ye may then bless the Lord’s inheritance,” literally: “bless ye.” The Imperative “is a curt and vigorous expression, indicating a certain result, a Future Imperative, as it were” (Ew. § 347 a).
2Sa_21:4. Literally: “there is not to me19 silver and gold with Saul and with his house,” that is, I have nothing to do with it, have no right to it, according to Num_35:31. [They would not take money as compensation for murder. The custom of so compensating by money was common in ancient times, and its existence is supposed in the law above quoted. See Art. Blood, Revenger of, in Smith’s Bib.-Dict.—Tr.]. And we have no right to kill any one in Israel, that is, it is not permitted us without more ado to execute blood-revenge for the murder of our people; their wrong, they thus intimate, must be expiated by blood, but they cannot proceed without the consent and command of the king.20 The king’s question: What say ye then that21 I shall do for you? assumes the necessity of blood-expiation, and asks them to explain themselves more distinctly, since it is His duty thus to make expiation, and so relieve the land of the famine. [We may also render, as in Eng. A. V.: “what ye say, I will do.”—Tr.].
2Sa_21:5. As to the man22 (Saul) that consumed us; it appears, then, that Saul had broken the power of this tribe by his bath of blood. “And who devised against us, that we should be destroyed,23 so as not to stand in all the territory of Israel.” Comp. Jos_9:15; Jos_9:26.
2Sa_21:6. The Apodosis. For the blood wrongfully shed by Saul, blood must flow from his house in return; according to Num_35:31; Num_35:33 homicide was to be expiated by death [but the death of the murderer, not of his kindred; it is, however, intimated in 2Sa_21:1 that Saul’s kindred had shared in the murderous act.—Tr.]. The execution was to be by hanging with extended limbs, crucifixion [impaling, So the term σταυρόω used for the crucifixion of Christ.—Tr.]. They demand seven men of Saul’s sons. The sacred number seven is determined by the significance of this punishment, as work in the service of God, whereby God’s wrath was to be appeased. They were to be hung up to the Lord (comp. 2Sa_21:9 “before the Lord,” Num_25:4), in God’s honor, to appease His anger, in Gibeah of Saul, because that was the home of Saul’s house, on which the blood-guilt rested. The anointed of the Lord need not be regarded as “holy irony” (Keil). Saul was really the anointed of the Lord; all the more must there be such expiation by blood to the Lord for his sin as the Lord’s Anointed. Exception has been taken to this designation of Saul by non-Israelites, and various conjectures24 made to set it aside: Böttcher makes the adjective plural: “we will hang them as the Lord’s chosen ones” (after the Sept.); Houbigant [and Dathe]: “according to the word (oracular utterance) of the Lord;” Then., Ew. [Bib.-Com.]: “in the mountain of the Lord,” the place of prayer on the mountain at Gibeah (1Sa_10:5); if any change is to be made, the last conjecture is preferable, because it demands only the dropping of a single letter.—David declares himself ready to satisfy this demand immediately.
2Sa_21:7. From the members of Saul’s house he excepts only Mephi-bosheth on account of his oath to his father Jonathan (1Sa_18:3; 1Sa_20:8; 1Sa_20:16; 1Sa_23:18).
2Sa_21:8. Members of Saul’s house doomed to death: two sons of Rizpah25, Saul’s concubine (comp. 2Sa_21:11; 2Sa_3:7), and five sons of Merab. The name Michal in our text is obviously a copyist’s error, for Saul’s oldest daughter, given in marriage to the Meholathite Adriel of Abel-Meholah in Issachar, and named Merab, 1Sa_18:19. The Chald. has: “the sons of Merab, whom Michal had brought up,” a baseless attempt to retain the text-reading. [This is followed by Eng. A. V. Render: sons of Merab, whom she bare to Adriel.—Tr.].
2Sa_21:9. And they crucified them on the mountain, namely, near Gibeah (1Sa_10:5) before the Lord, at the place there devoted to the worship of God, which was indicated by an altar. Retaining the text26, render: “they fell sevenfold at once,” that is, “by sevens, in the same manner” (as the Dual denotes). [This rendering of the Kethib or text: “by sevens” is not appropriate here, since there was only one “seven,” and it is better to adept the Qeri or margin: “the seven of them” (Philippson) or “all seven” (Eng. A. V., Cahen).—Tr.].—The execution occurred at the time of the harvest27 (Keil, Bib. Arch. II. § 118,Winer I. 340 [Smith’s Bib.-Dict., Art. Agriculture]). This chronological statement serves to define the following procedure of Rizpah (Thenius).
2Sa_21:10. Touching picture of Rizpah’s maternal grief. She took the sackcloth, a rough, hairy cloth used in mourning (the Art. points out that it was the cloth usual on such occasions) and spread it out on the rock, for a bed for herself; she wished to remain all the time by the corpses, in order to protect them against beasts and birds; it was regarded as the greatest disgrace for corpses to be left unburied, a prey to ravenous birds and beasts, 1Sa_17:44.—The law (Deu_21:22 sq.) that the hanged were not to be left overnight on the stake, but to be buried before the evening, did not apply here, because the exhibition of the executed persons as a propitiatory offering was necessary till the appearance of the sign that the plague had ceased. From the beginning of harvest till water poured down on them from heaven, i. e., the bodies hung till rain descended on the parched land as sign that God’s anger was appeased. The text says neither that the rain came immediately after the execution (Josephus, Cler., Ew., Böttcher), nor that it did not come till the usual rain-season, October (Thenius). [We therefore do not know how long Rizpah kept her watch.—Tr.]
2Sa_21:11-14. Hearing28 of Rizpah’s touching care of the bodies, David provided for their burial together with the bones of Saul and Jonathan, which for this purpose he caused to be brought from Jabesh in Gilead. [He thus honored the maternal faithfulness and showed that he cherished no ill-will against the house of Saul (Patrick).—Tr.].
2Sa_21:12. [David takes part personally in the matter]. He took the bones of Saul and Jonathan from the citizens of Jabesh, see 1Sa_31:8 sq. There it is said (2Sa_21:10) that the Philistines fastened the corpses on the wall of Bethshan. This is not contradicted by the statement here that the Jabeshites had stolen the corpses (i. e., taken them away secretly) from the square; for this “public square” (רִחֹבּ) is not the market-place in the middle of the city, but the open place at or before the gate (2Ch_32:6; Neh_8:1; Neh_8:3; Neh_8:16), where the people were accustomed to assemble, and where they might see the bodies hung29 on the wall.—“When (בְּיוֹם) the Philistines had slain Saul,” not “on the day when,” but “at the time,” since (1Sa_31:8 sqq.) the hanging up of the corpses did not take place till the day after the battle.
2Sa_21:14. They buried the bones of Saul and Jonathan; from 2Sa_21:13 we must suppose that the bones of the seven executed men were also buried. [Sept. adds: “and the bones of the hanged,” which some critics insert in the Hebrew text; Dr. Erdmann thinks the insertion unnecessary, because the fact would be taken for granted. But it is not clear that the bones of the seven were interred along with those of Jonathan and Saul: they may have been put into a separate sepulchre.—Tr.]—In Zelah; the locality of this city is unknown. Comp. Jos_18:28.
2. 2Sa_21:15-22. Individual heroic deeds in the Philistine wars. This chronicle-like section (and so the similar section 2Sa_23:8-39) is probably taken from a writing that contained a historical-statistical collection of David’s wars and of the exploits of his warriors. As the three deeds here described (2Sa_21:18-22) are attached in 1Ch_20:4-8 to the history of the Ammonite-Syrian war (comp. 2Sa_12:26-31), this collection may be conjectured to belong to a fuller chronicle of David’s wars, to which may have belonged also the sections 2Sa_5:17-25; 2Sa_8:1-14; 2Sa_10:17-19; 2Sa_12:26-31, in which the wars against the Philistines and other nations are narrated.
a. 2Sa_21:15-17. Exploit of Abishai in a new war against the Philistines. The “again” cannot possibly refer chronologically to the immediately preceding narrative, but indicates that the following is a fragment from a history of Philistine wars. Comp. the “again” in 2Sa_5:22. Probably this fragment belongs chronologically in the group 2Sa_5:18-25, in favor of which is the fact that David is here already king of all Israel, since he is called (2Sa_21:17) the “light of Israel.” Comp. 2Sa_5:1-3.—And David was weary. A Philistine giant essayed to take advantage of this weariness of David, and kill him. His name was Ishbobenob, not Ishbo at Nob (De Wette), “for neither the fact that he was born at Nob, nor that the incident occurred at Nob (there is no third supposition) could be so expressed” (Thenius). The name (not to be read with Vulg. [and Eng. A. V.] Jisbibenob) perhaps means: “the dweller on the height” (Gesen.); he probably lived on a high, inaccessible rock. [The name, which has a strange appearance, is probably a corrupt reading, but it is difficult to restore the text. See “Text. and Gram.”—Tr.]—Who belonged to the scions of the Rapha, one of the giant-race of the Raphaites [Rephaim], who formed part of the primitive inhabitants of Canaan, comp. Gen_14:5; Gen_15:20; Deu_2:11; Deu_2:20; Deu_3:11; Deu_3:13; Jos_12:4; Jos_13:12. The name the Rapha, “the giant” designates the ancestor of this race. [Rather the name Harapha seems here to designate simply the father of the four giants here mentioned, since it is said (2Sa_21:22) that they were born to him in Gath. On the old races of Canaan see Art. Giants in Smith’s Bib. Dict.—Tr.) The brazen head30 of his lance weighed three hundred shekels, = eight pounds, half the weight of Goliath’s, 1Sa_17:7.—He was girded with a new suit of armor—so with Böttcher we are to take the Feminine Adjective (חֲדָשָׁה“new”) in a collective sense; comp. Jdg_18:11; Deu_1:41. [The Heb. has: “he was girt with a new,” to which Eng. A. V. supplies sword; Philippson renders as Böttcher: “he was newly armed,” and Wellhausen suggests that the word means not “new,” but some weapon, not otherwise known.—Te.] “And he thought [= purposed] to smite David” (Ew.§ 338 a).
2Sa_21:17. Abishai interposed, and slew31 the giant. Thereupon the men of Israel swore that David should not go into battle with them. Thou shalt not quench the light of Israel, thou shalt not abandon thyself to death, and so quench the light and well-being that the Lord has given Israel in thee. On the designation of David as the light of Israel, comp. 2Sa_22:29 and Psa_18:29 (28).
b. 2Sa_21:18. The exploit of the Hushathite Sibbechai. Comp. 1Ch_20:4. On Sibbechai, one of David’s heroes (1Ch_11:29) comp. 1Ch_27:11, where he is mentioned as leader of the eighth army-division. On “the Hushathi” as patronymic from Hushah comp. 1Ch_4:4. [The “Mebunnai” of 2Sa_23:27 is probably (see Dr. Erdmann’s note there) corruption for “Sibbechai.”—Tr.].—Instead of Gob, an unknown place, the chronicler has Gezer, which Thenius adopts here. But as Gob is mentioned also in 2Sa_21:19 it is better to suppose (Keil) that Gob was perhaps a small place near Gezer, the old Canaanitish royal city (Jos_10:32; Jos_12:12). Perhaps the name may be recognized in El Kubab on the road from Ramleh to Yalo [Rob. III. 143, 144].—Saph = Sippai of Chron., which is the “older form” (Böttcher).
c. 2Sa_21:19. The exploit of Elhanan. He is called the son of Jaare-oregim. 1Ch_20:5 has “son of Jair” without the “Oregim.” This latter is here evidently a repetition by error from the following line. Further, instead of “Elhanan, the Bethlehemite slew Goliath,” Chron. has “Elhanan slew Lahmi the brother of Goliath.”32 The question is, whether our text gives the original reading, and Chron. has changed it (Berth., Böttch., Ew., Then., the last against his former view), or Chron. has the original and our text has been changed (Piscator, Cler., Mich., Movers, formerly Then., Keil). In the former case, the change of text in Chron. is attributed to the difficulty felt in the statement that Elhanan killed a giant Goliath, in connection with David’s combat with Goliath (1 Samuel 17), it being maintained that our text could not have originated from that of Chron. But the supposition of a designed falsification of text by the Chronicler is to be rejected so long as the origination of our text admits of explanation. If the above-mentioned error [insertion of Oregim] crept into our text even in the statement of Elhanan’s descent, this favors the conjecture that the following words also (given correctly in Chron.) have undergone change. Now there is an Elhanan of Bethlehem, who is mentioned among David’s army-leaders, 2Sa_23:24 (comp. 1Ch_11:26). When the error above-mentioned had gotten in, the result might easily be that a transcriber thinking of the Elhanan of 2Sa_23:24, would add the local designation Bethlehemite, and, having in mind the verbal agreement of the descriptions of Lahmi’s spear and Goliath’s (1Sa_17:7), would change the “brother of Goliath” into “Goliath.” Further, it is not probable that there were two giants named Goliath. As for the view that 2Sa_21:19; 2Sa_21:21 “contain the true old model of the elaborate description in 1 Samuel 17” (Then.), and that the latter (notwithstanding the historical fact that underlies it), has, it may be conjectured, borrowed especially the giant’s name from these verses (Ew., Then.)—against this is that (apart from the mention here of two giants, and the description of the giant in 2Sa_21:20, which does not suit the Goliath of 1 Samuel 17.) neither in 2Sa_21:19 or 2Sa_21:21 is David named as the victorious warrior, but two heroes, Elhanan and Jonathan, are the conquerors. [The old opinion (Chald.: “and David, son of Jesse the veil-weaver of the sanctuary, of Bethlehem, killed Goliath,” and so Rashi) that Elhanan is David, is adopted and pressed by Bött., who renders: “and Elhanan, son of Jesse, killed Goliath.” After referring to the fact that a man often had two names, he gives six reasons for his identification of Elhanan and David: 1) the mention of David in 2Sa_21:22 can not, he says, be otherwise explained.—But see note on 2Sa_21:17, and, further, this insertion of David does not necessarily imply more than a general sharing by him in the exploits. 2) Two other sons of Jesse have names containing El.—This proves nothing for the remaining sons. 3) Persons ill-disposed towards David call him simply “son of Jesse” (Ben-Jesse), having forgotten his old name (Elhanan), and avoiding his later, happier name (David). Here that an earlier name was forgotten is assumed without a shadow of evidence. 4) In our passage, something must have stood in the place of the corrupt Oregim, and what can it have been but: “he is David” (הוא דוד)?—There is no need to suppose that anything stood there. 5) In 2Sa_23:24 we find: “Elhanan the son of Dodo,” which, says Böttcher, is for “Elhanan, son of David,” and this (combining 1Ch_11:26) is for: “Elhanan, son of Jesse, he is David of Bethlehem.”—But the change of Dodo into David is unwarranted, and the rest arbitrary. 6) The text of Chron. is corrupt, for ours could not have come from it.—Thus Böttcher builds his opinion on a series of arbitrary assumptions. As Thenius remarks, this sudden and isolated change of name (from David to Elhanan) would be in the highest degree strange and misleading.—The text is difficult, and no satisfactory account of it has been given. All that is clear is that Elhanan killed a giant. See “Text, and Gram.”—Tr.]
d. 2Sa_21:20-21. The exploit of Jonathan, David’s nephew. There was again a battle with the Philistines in Gath. According to the text33 probably: “there was a man of measures, extensions” [Eng. A. V.: of great stature], so De Dieu, Maurer, Movers, Ew., § 177 a. Bertheau and Thenius render: “a man of length;” Böttcher: “a man of strife,” a quarrelsome fellow, bully. Six fingers and six toes, an abnormity that has always occurred, and still occurs. Pliny (Hist. Nat. XI. 43) mentions sedigiti, six-fingered Romans.
2Sa_21:21. He was killed by Jonathan, son of Shimea (called Shimeah in 2Sa_13:3, and Shammah in 1Sa_16:9), Jesse’s third son.—[In our text he is called Shimei, in the margin Shimea.—Tr.]
2Sa_21:22. Concluding remark. These four. Literally: “as to these four (Accus.), they were the scions of the Rapha,” descendants of the race of Rephaim at Gath, remains of the pre-Canaanitish inhabitants, distinguished by their gigantic size. See Jos_11:22.—The phrase: “by the hand of David,” refers, not to his personal conflict with Ishbobenob, 2Sa_21:16 (Then., Keil), but to the fact that his heroes killed these giants under him as commander.
HISTORICAL AND THEOLOGICAL
1. The blood-guilt that Saul had brought on his house by slaying the Gibeonites was produced by his perverted zeal for the purity of God’s people and for the Lord’s honor; the means he chose thereto were violation of oath (Joshua 9) and murder. The result of this crime of the king of Israel, the representative of the people of God, was God’s wrath on the land announced in the famine. A dark shadow here passes from Saul’s time over into David’s, in the account of which the following fundamental thoughts are interwoven. 1) Zeal for the Lord and His cause must not be conjoined with sin; if the good end makes holy the bad means, the bad means makes unholy and void the good end. 2) God’s anger cannot fail against crime committed in ostensible zeal for the honor of His kingdom; in men’s eyes the evil may assume the appearance of the alleged holy end, in God’s eyes the evil impulses in the human heart are evident; the punishment may delay, but comes in its time in all its severity. 3) He who sheds man’s blood, by man shall His blood be shed (Gen_9:5-6), because man is made in God’s image, and murder is therefore a crime against the holy God Himself. Such a crime Saul committed against the Gibeonites, for the law of extermination did not apply to them (Joshua 9), and if they were not members of God’s people, they were men, made in God’s image. 4) Saul’s guilt becomes also the guilt of his house and people. The land must expiate its king’s wrong. This is rooted in the idea of the solidarity of the people and the theocratic king as representative of God’s people, whence comes solidarity of guilt between king and people. If through the fault of an individual member of the theocratic people, the whole theocratic State is unhallowed and exposed to God’s anger, how much more must this be the result of a sin committed by their king. [Kitto: If it be asked—and it has been asked—why vengeance was exacted, rather for this slaughter of the Gibeonites, than for Saul’s greater crime, the massacre of the priests at Nob?—the answer is, that the people, and even the family of Saul, had no sympathy with or part in this latter tragedy, which none but an alien could be found to execute. But both the people and Saul’s family had made themselves parties in the destruction of the unhappy Gibeonites, by their sympathy, their concurrence, their aid—and above all, as we must believe, by their accepting the fruits of the crime. Yet, although this be the intelligible public ground on which the transaction rests, it is impossible to withhold our sympathy for these victims of a public crime in which it is probable that none of them had any direct part.—Tr.]
2. Blood-vengeance was ordered in the Law only in case of intentional killing. The fundamental law is given in Gen_9:5-6; the preciser statements are made in Exo_21:12-14; Num_35:9-34; Deu_19:1-13. The Lord is the proper avenger of blood, Gen_9:5-6; Psa_9:13 [1]; [Rom_12:19]. And no other means of absolution or expiation may be substituted for the blood of the guilty. Num_35:31. For the intentional murderer there is no protection against blood-vengeance, not even at the altar, Exo_21:14—in such case only the blood of the slayer can atone. And so in consequence of this crime Saul was exposed to blood-vengeance according to the divine Law.
3. According to the law, blood-vengeance was to be executed only on the criminal himself. “The legislation of the middle books of the Pentateuch [Ex., Lev., Numb.] never permits the avenger of blood to go beyond the murderer, and seize his family” (Oehler in Herzog, II. 262). Comp. 2Sa_14:6-11. When the Gibeonites demanded seven descendants of Saul (who was fallen under the divine judgment) David was under no legal obligation to yield to the demand. When now he nevertheless yielded, and no complaint was made against him, this points to the fact that custom had originated a practice going beyond the law, based on the oriental notion of the solidarity of the family, and on the idea (found in the law) of guilt inherited by children from parents—and that David acted in accordance with this practice; the words of Deu_24:16 (comp. 2Ki_14:6), as supplement to earlier legislation, may be directed against this practice (Oehler, as above, Kleinert on Deuteronomy, 1872, p. 133). Kurtz (Herz. III. 305): “David yields to their request, and the persons delivered up are hanged. To understand this procedure, we must bear in mind the ancient oriental ideas of the solidarity of the family, strict retaliation and blood-vengeance, ideas that, with some limitation, remained in force in the legislation of the Old Covenant.” [David certainly did wrong, if he yielded to a mere custom against the prescriptions of the law; the custom was a cruel one. Nothing is said in the text, indeed, about a conflict between custom and law; it seems strange that neither priest nor prophet raises his voice against a public crime. But the brevity of the account withholds the circumstances that might throw light on the incident.—Tr.]
HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL
2Sa_21:1 sq. Schlier: A famine in the land is a sign of the divine wrath. The Lord our God has every thing in His hand, even natural phenomena depend on Him; even dew and rain come from Him. [Hall: Justly it is presupposed by David that there was never judgment from God where hath not been a provocation from men; therefore, when he sees the plague, he inquires for the sin. Never man smarted causelessly from the hand of divine justice. O that, when we suffer, we could ask what we have done, and could guide our repentance to the root of our evils.—Tr.]—J. Lange: God does indeed put off His judgments; but He does not therefore annul them, Exo_32:34. [Henry: Time does not wear out the guilt of sin; nor can we build hopes of impunity upon the delay of judgments. There is no statute of limitation to be pleaded against God’s demands.… Let parents take heed of sin, especially the sin of cruelty and oppression, for their poor children’s sake, who may be smarting for it by the just hand of God, when they are in their graves. Guilt and a curse are a bad entail upon a family.—Tr.]
Fr. Arndt: A secret judgment of God goes through history, and he who is spared by time is certainly judged by eternity. That so many years lie between the sin and the punishment, and the expiation comes not in Saul’s, but in David’s time, is only a sign of the divine patience. God often waits long before He punishes; He not seldom makes the whole life a day of grace, and only in the day of judgment, long, long after the guilt was incurred, does the threatened punishment begin.—Osiander: It often happens that God in His righteous judgment visits a wicked man’s great sins not on him, but on His posterity.—Hall: Every sin hath a tongue, but that of blood over-cries and drowns the rest, Gen_4:10.—Osiander: A common prayer and a common curse have very great power; for the sighing of them that suffer violence pierces through the clouds and draws divine vengeance. Sirach 35. [32.] 21–23.—Fr. Arndt: There are also well-founded complaints against us, occasioned by our behaviour, and woe to us if as secret and frightful accusers against us they go up before God’s throne of judgment. [Hall: Little did the Gibeonites think that God had so taken to heart their wrongs, that for their sakes all Israel should suffer. Even when we think not of it is the Righteous Judge avenging our unrighteous vexations.—Tr.]
2Sa_21:6 sq. Schlier: Our time does indeed think of the rights of the criminal; but of the rights of those whom the criminal maltreats or threatens, people no longer think much, and still less do they think now-a-days of duty towards the criminal himself.
2Sa_21:9. Mercy and righteousness do not exclude each other. He who fears God should exhibit both at the same time righteousness in mercy, and also mercy in righteousness.—[2Sa_21:10-11. “One touch of nature makes the whole world kin.” The king is moved by the lowly mother’s devotion. The passage, 2Sa_21:1-14, is impressively treated by Taylor.—Tr.]
2Sa_21:15 sq. The conflict of the world-power against God’s kingdom Isaiah 1) A continual conflict, ever again renewed; 2) A conflict carried on with malicious cunning, frightful power and mighty weapons; 3) A conflict perilous to the people of God, demanding all the power given them by the Lord and their utmost bravery; 4) A conflict that by God’s help at last ends in the victory of His kingdom.
[2Sa_21:1-3. The solidarity of human society (comp. above, “Hist. and Theol.,” No. 3). 1) As to guilt. 2) As to punishments. 3) As to expiations.
2Sa_21:14. “And after that God was entreated for the land.” Reparation of wrong-doing a condition of being heard in prayer.—Tr.]
Footnotes:
[1][2Sa_21:1. The phrase: “to seek the face” is simply “to go to one,” while “to inquire of God” (דרשׁ באלהים) is “to investigate, seek wisdom” at His hands. The two verbs בקש and דרש are often coupled.—Tr.]
[2][2Sa_21:1. It is better to express in the translation the idea of “guilt” contained in the דָּמִים. Sept. renders: “on (עַל) Saul and on his house (בֵּיתוֹ) is iniquity [in death] of blood,” where we may omit ἐν θανάτῳ and αὐτοῦ the הַדָּמיִם being taken as subject and rendered: “iniquity of blood.” Böttcher, Thenius and Wellhausen adopt this text, and render: “On Saul and on his house is blood-guiltiness.” This translation avoids the hard expression: “the house of blood-guiltiness,” where we should expect the possessive pronoun. On the other hand the אֶל = “concerning” (Eng. A. V.: “for”) is a correct expression, and the hardness of the phrase is not unsuitable to an oracular response; the Heb. text is supported also by Vulg., Syr. and Chald.—Tr.]
[3][2Sa_21:2. Böttcher’s view, that this parenthesis is a later insertion, may be correct, for ancient editors were accustomed to make such insertions. But there is no necessity for regarding it as an insertion (particularly, as a marginal gloss), because the Hebrew historical style permits such interposed remarks. Böttcher is unfortunate in charging a historical error on our text in that it has “Amorites” where Jos_9:1 sqq. has “Hivites;” for the name “Amorite” is sometimes a general one, given to the dwellers over a large area (see Art. Amorite in Smith’s Bib.-Dict.). On the other hand Winer thinks that instead of “Hivites” in Jos_9:7 should be read “Amorite.”—Tr.]
[4][2Sa_21:4. Properly: “There is not to us silver and gold with Saul and with his house, and there is not to us a man to kill in Israel,” that is, as some (Thenius, Erdmann): “we have no right to these things,” or, according to others (Böttcher, Bib.-Com., Eng. A. V.): “we lay no claim to them.”—The Qeri “to us” is better than the Kethib “to me.”—Tr.]
[5][2Sa_21:6. The Kethib is Niph. Impf., the Qeri Hoph. Impf.—Tr.]
[6][2Sa_21:6. This phrase is a strange one, and various attempts have been made to amend the text. Three are mentioned by Erdmann; Wellhausen proposes another, to read “Gibeon” instead of “Gibeah,” and to suppose the rest of the verse an insertion from the בהר י֞ of 2Sa_21:9. It is, however, impossible to say whether the Gibeonites would think Gibeon or Gibeah the fitter place for the execution, and the most natural emendation would seem to be to adopt the phrase of 2Sa_21:9, and read: “in Gibeah of Saul, in the mountain in the presence of Jehovah.” The phrase: “mountain of Jehovah,” would require us to suppose some particular mountain at Gibeah (or Gibeon) dedicated to Jehovah, and we do not know of such a one.—Tr.]
[7][2Sa_21:8. “Michal” is clerical error for “Merab,” perhaps, as Böttcher suggests, from the full form מירב.—The “brought up” of Eng. A. V. instead of “bare” is an unwarranted mistranslation, intended (after the Chaldee) to account for the name “Michal.”—Tr.]
[8][2Sa_21:9. As Sept. adds the word “barley” after “harvest” in 2Sa_21:10, Wellhausen would regard this last phrase in 2Sa_21:9 as a false repetition, especially as, if any preposition is to be supplied here, it would most naturally be מִן (since the preceding word ends with ם—but the Qeri supplies בְ), and this would not suit here. But the phrase is so natural a one that there is no good ground for rejecting it.—Böttcher’s explanation of the Kethib שִׁעְבָתַיִם as dual is accepted by Erdmann, though the resulting sense is not clear (see Ewald, § 269 b). The Qeri שְׁבַעְתָּם, “the seven of them” (Eng. A. V.: “all seven”) seems better.—Tr.]
[9][2Sa_21:12. The word בַעַל occurs in the sense of “citizen” in the Books of Joshua, Judges and Samuel only. As it in such cases means (in the plural) “possessors of the city,” it may throw light on the civil-political constitution of ancient city-life. It seems not to occur in this sense in any other Shemitic language.—Tr.]
[10][2Sa_21:14. Sept. here inserts: “and the bones of the exposed” (= impaled, hanged), a very natural insertion (and adopted by Böttcher, Thenius and Wellhausen), but suspicious from its naturalness. Böttcher thinks that the words were purposely omitted in what he calls the “priestly recension” of the Book of Samuel, because offence was taken at the burial of those persons (who were slain as an expiation) along with Saul and Jonathan; against which Thenius remarks that the omission would have been very unwise in the face of the preceding narrative. But the bones of the seven may have been gathered at the same time with those of Saul and Jonathan without being interred in the same place with them.—Tr.]
[11][2Sa_21:16. The strange form of this name has suggested emendations of the text. The Syriac (followed by its copyist the Arabic) omits it altogether, Vulg. and Chald. are as Heb., Sept. has Jesbi. Wellhausen proposes to read: ויּשבוּ בגב, “and they sat down in Gob” (taking Nob as error for Gob), and to place this after the “with him” in 2Sa_21:15; and in the וַיָּעַף דָּוִד he would see the name of the giant, and perhaps some verb, as “and he arose.” The sentence would then read: “David went down and his servants with him, and they sat down [ = took position] in Gob, and fought against the Philistines; and there arose [here the man’s name], who was of the sons,” etc. Similar to this is the emendation proposed in Bib.-Com.: “And David waxed faint. So they halted [ = sat down] in Gob. And there was a man (in Gob), which was of the sons,” etc.; instead of changing the “David waxed faint” (as Wellhausen does), this reading supplies the phrase: “and there was a man.” These are both ingenious, and to both there are objections. The dislocation of a phrase supposed by Wellhausen is not accounted for; and in the other reading the statement that the man was in Gob is unnatural (since he was not residing there, but had come with the army), and David’s weariness (which more naturally explains the giant’s attack on him) is given merely as the reason for the army’s halting. It is likely that the text is corrupt (and the corruption must have been made before the Sept. translation was made), the phrase: “David was weary” receives no explanation as it stands, and the ויאמר supposes another verb before it; but a satisfactory emendation has not yet been proposed, though Wellhausen’s seems the least objectionable.—Instead of the second מִשְׁקַל we should probably read שֶׁקֶל (so perhaps Sept.).—Tr.]
[12][2Sa_21:19. The text here is generally regarded as corrupt, the oregim being manifestly a repetition of the last word of the verse. Whether then we are to adopt the text of 1Ch_20:5 : “And Elhanan the son of Jair slew Lahmi the brother of Goliath the Gittite,” or to regard the latter as a conjectural emendation of ours, or, finally, to consider them both as corruptions of one original, it is hard to decide. Böttcher reads: “Elhanan the son of Jesse the Bethlehemite slew Goliath,” etc., and identifies Elhanan with David, on which see translator’s note in the Exposition. Against the reading of “Chronicles” is the fact that it is the easier, against ours is the improbability of the existence of two Goliaths, or of the identity of Elhanan and David. But these presuppositions are all manifestly untrustworthy. See Erdmann’s discussion in the Exposition, and for various other views see Poole’s Synopsis.—Here and in 2Sa_21:18 some MSS. have Nob instead of Gob.—Tr.]
[13][The whole phrase rather indicates that the chronological order is here not observed (Bib.-Com.).—Tr.]
[14][Sept.: “on Saul and on his house is blood-guiltiness.” See “Text, and Gram.”—Tr.]
[15][Abarbanel (in Patrick) thinks they were slain when the priests were put to death (1 Samuel 22) in Nob; but there is no trace of this in the history.—Tr.]
[16][The way in which this statement is introduced: “And the Gibeonites were not Israelites,” shows not so much that the Book of Joshua was not a part of the same work as the Books of Samuel (Bib. Com.), as that the present Book of Joshua was not in existence when our narrative was written.—Tr.]
[17] לְחַכְרִתָם instead of לְהַכֹּתָם.
[18][The word “Judah” is perhaps a later addition after the division of the kingdom, since the phrase “children of Israel” would in Saul and David’s time include the whole nation.—Tr.]
[19]The Kethib Sing. “to me” (indicating the one person speaking for all) is to be preferred to the Qeri Plu. “to us” [as in Eng. A. V.], which is an imitation of the following “to us.”
[20][According to others (Bib.-Com.) their meaning is that it is not against the nation Israel, but against the individual Saul, that they cry for vengeance, which is better.—Tr.]
[21] כִּי is omitted before the Imperf., as sometimes occurs when the dependent sentence expresses a process or obligation; comp. Lev_9:6; Ew. § 336 b.
[22] הָאִישׁ is asyndetically preposed Accus. Absolute, defined by “his sons” in 2Sa_21:6. Ges. § 145, 2.
[23] נִשְׁמַּדְנוּ depends on דִּמָּה with omission of כִּי. It is unnecessary to supply the ו consec of the Perfect, (Then.), or to read לַשְׁמִידֵנוּ (Ew., Böttcher).
[24]Böttch.: בְּחִירֵי; Houb.;בִּדְבַר; Then.: בְּהַר; [See “Text. and Gram.”—Tr.]
[25][Bib Com. suggests that, as Aiah occurs as a [masculine] Horite name (in Gen_36:24), Rizpah may have been a foreigner, and this may have been the reason for selecting her sons as victims.—Tr.]
[26]Kethib.: שִׁבְעֲתַיִם is with Böttcher to be retained against the Qeri שְׁבַעְתָּם, since the Dual properly denotes what is repeated in equal measure according to the number (Böttcher).
[27] תְּחִלָּה (not Qeri with בְּ) is adverbial Accusative; Ges. § 118. 2.
[28]On the construction of וַיֻּגַּד with אֵת see Ges. § 143, 1a. [According to Gesenius the אֵת here introduces the Accusative of limitation; according to others (not so well) the Nominative.—Tr.]
[29]Kethib תָּלוּם is the Heb. form (from תָּלָה), the Qeri תְּלָאוּם the Aramaizing form; see Ges. § 75, 22; Ew. § 252 a.—Instead of Keth. שָׁם הַפ׳ read Qeri שָׂמָּה פ֞ the Art. being out of place before פּ֞.
[30] קֵינוֹ = ferrum hastœ (Vulg).
[31][Patrick would render: “Abishai helped him, and he (David) slew the Philistine,” in order to explain the mention of David in 2Sa_21:22. The Heb. does not certainly decide this point, but more probably Abishai is said to be the slayer.—Tr.]
[32]Sam.: בֵּית הַלַּחְמִי אֵת גָּלְיִת; Chron.: אֶת־לַחְמִי אֲַחִי גָּלְיָת.
[33]Kethib: מָדִין probably = מִדִּין, as archaic or Aramaic Plural (for which Chron. has Sing. מִדָּה), “extensions;” Berth. and Then. take Qeri מָדוֹן (= מִדָּה of Chron), “length;” Böttcher: Kethib מָדוֹן = מָדִין “contention”
Lange's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures (Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical), ed. John Peter Lange, English translation edited by Philip Schaff (1864–1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset & David Brown 1871 · Public Domain On vv2, 6 in his zeal to the children of Israel and…
in his zeal to the children of Israel and Judah--Under pretense of a rigorous and faithful execution of the divine law regarding the extermination of the Canaanites, he set himself to expel or destroy those whom Joshua had been deceived into sparing. His real object seems to have been, that the possessions of the Gibeonites, being forfeited to the crown, might be divided among his own people (compare Sa1 22:7). At all events, his proceeding against this people was in violation of a solemn oath, and involving national guilt. The famine was, in the wise and just retribution of Providence, made a national punishment, since the Hebrews either assisted in the massacre, or did not interpose to prevent it; since they neither endeavored to repair the wrong, nor expressed any horror of it; and since a general protracted chastisement might have been indispensable to inspire a proper respect and protection to the Gibeonite remnant that survived.
Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
Daniel D. Whedon 1874 · Public Domain On vv1, 2, 3, 4, 6 THE GIBEONITES AVENGED, 2Sa_21:1-9.
THE GIBEONITES AVENGED, 2Sa_21:1-9.
1. Then there was a famine — The date of this occurrence cannot be exactly determined. It “certainly did not take place in the closing years of David’s reign; on the other hand, it is evident from the remark, in 2Sa_21:7, to the effect that Mephibosheth was spared, that it happened after David had received tidings of Mephibosheth, and had taken him to his own table.” — Keil.
Read full note →
David inquired — Rather, as in the margin, David sought the face of Jehovah; an expression noticeably different from the one so often previously used of inquiring by urim. He now sought the Lord by prayer and supplication, and perhaps was answered by a prophet rather than by urim. After the Israelitish monarchy became fully established, and the age of the great prophets approached, Jehovah communicated less and less by urim, and more and more by prophets.
And for his bloody house — The family of Saul, as well as Saul himself, were implicated in the violation of Israel’s oath with the Gibeonites.
He slew the Gibeonites — This fact is nowhere else recorded, and it is impossible to form a positive reason for Saul’s action in the case. From 2Sa_21:2; 2Sa_21:5 we infer that his ostensible reason was to rid Israel of the presence of such foreigners in their midst. In Joshua’s time the people murmured against the league which Joshua made with these Gibeonites; and probably similar murmuring was often heard in Saul’s time, and in his zeal for the peace of Israel he had endeavoured to destroy them from all the land. Or, as Ewald suggests, when the tabernacle was set up again at Gibeon, the ancient Amorite inhabitants may have claimed the right of doing the service of the house of God agreed upon with Joshua, (Jos_9:23;) and a dispute may have arisen on this point, and Saul, with characteristic recklessness, may have driven matters to fearful violence by attempting the utter extermination of the Gibeonites. It has also been plausibly conjectured that in this way he came into possession of the lands and vineyards which he distributed to his brethren of the tribe of Benjamin. 1Sa_22:7. In this case the members of his own family doubtless shared largely in the plunder.
Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges 1878 · Public Domain On vv1, 2, 4, 5, 6 Chap. 2Sa_21:1-11. A Three Years Famine for Saul’s massacre…
Chap. 2Sa_21:1-11. A Three Years Famine for Saul’s massacre of the Gibeonites. The Execution of Saul’s sons
1. Then there was a famine] Render, And there was a famine. There is no adverb of time marking chronological connexion with the foregoing narrative. In Palestine a famine was the almost certain consequence of a failure of the winter rains, on which both cornfields and pasturage depend. See 1Ki_18:2; Joe_1:8-20; for famine as the result of drought; and cp. Gen_12:10; Gen_26:1; Gen_42:5; Rth_1:1; 2Ki_8:1-2.
Read full note →
in the days of David] This famine must have occurred after David became acquainted with Mephibosheth (ch. 2Sa_9:1 ff.), for it is expressly stated that he spared Mephibosheth (2Sa_21:7); and in all probability before Absalom’s rebellion, in the account of which we may trace one, if not two allusions to the execution of Saul’s sons (ch. 2Sa_16:7-8, 2Sa_19:28); but its date cannot be fixed more exactly, and the phrase in the days of David seems designedly indefinite.
For a discussion of some questions connected with the famine and the surrender of Saul’s sons for execution see Additional Note II., p. 234.
inquired of the Lord] Sought the face of Jehovah: a phrase not found elsewhere in Samuel, and perhaps indicating that this chapter was taken by the compiler from a different source. Cp. Psa_24:6; Psa_27:8. David sought to ascertain the cause of this judgment; for famine was one of the “four sore judgments” of God (Eze_14:21; cp. 1Ki_8:35-37).
his bloody house] His blood-guilty house: upon which rested the guilt of shedding innocent blood. Cp. Psa_5:6; Eze_22:2. Unexpiated murder “defiled the land,” and involved the nation in punishment. See Num_35:33-34; Deu_21:7-9. The Sept. text differs slightly, reading: “Upon Saul and upon his house is blood-guiltiness.”
the Gibeonites] On Gibeon see note on ch. 2Sa_2:12.
The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers 1878 · Public Domain On vv1, 2, 3, 4, 6 (1) Then there was.—Read, and there was, there being…
XXI.
(1) Then there was.—Read, and there was, there being no indication of time in the original. It is plain from 2Sa_21:7 that the events here narrated occurred after David had come to know Mephibosheth; and if in 2Sa_16:7 there is (as many suppose) an allusion to the execution of Saul’s sons, they must have happened before the rebellion of Absalom. There is no more definite clue to the time, and the expression “in the days of David” seems purposely indefinite. The narrative is omitted from the Book of Chronicles.
Read full note →
Three years.—A famine in Palestine was always a consequence of deficient winter rains, and was not very uncommon; but a famine enduring for three successive years was alarming enough to awaken attention and to suggest some especial cause.
Enquired of the Lord.—Literally, sought the face of the Lord. The phrase is a different one from that often used in Judges and Samuel, and agrees with other indications that this narrative may have been obtained by the compiler from some other records than those from which he drew the bulk of this book. David turned to the true Source for a knowledge of the meaning of this unusual affliction.
A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Pulpit Commentary 1880 · Public Domain On vv1–6 There was a famine in the days of David;…
There was a famine in the days of David; Hebrew, and there was. There is an entire absence of any mark of time to show in what part of David"s reign this famine took place. It does not even follow, from the mention of Mephibosheth"s name, that it must have happened at a time subsequent to the sending for that prince from Machir"s house; for it may have been the search after the descendants of Saul which made David remember the son of his old friend. The burial, however, of the bones of Saul and Jonathan as an act of respect to the slaughtered king makes it probable that the narrative belongs to the early part of David"s reign, as also does the apparent fact that the seven victims were all young and unmarried. Mephibosheth, we read, had a young son when David sent for him. Now, he was five years old when his father was slain, (2Sa_4:4) and thus at the end of David"s reign of seven years and a half at Hebron, he would be twelve and a half years of age. The famine lasted three years, and if David had been king four or five years when the famine began, Mephibosheth, at the age of twenty, might well have a "young son" in a country where men marry early. We cannot believe that the famine occurred long after David had been king of all Israel, because manifestly it would have been unjust and even monstrous to punish a nation for the sins of a king who had long passed away. The sins of its rulers are visited upon a nation constantly through a long series of years, but it is always in the way of natural development. A statesman may put a nation upon a wrong track, and may involve it in serious difficulties, and even in irretrievable disaster, unless some one be raised up able to make it retrace its steps and regain the rightful direction. But this famine was a direct interference of Providence, and to justify it the sin must be still fresh in the national remembrance. Had it been an old crime long ago forgotten, instead of leading men to repentance, this long and terrible punishment would have hardened men"s hearts, and made them regard the Deity as vindictive. It is even probable that the sin was still being committed; for though commenced and approved by Saul, his oppression and purpose of gradually destroying the native races was too much in accord with men"s usual way of acting not to be continued, unless stopped by the justice of the ruler. We all know how the Red Indian, the Bushman, the Maori, and the Australian disappear before the advance of the white man. It needs only apathy on the part of the government, and rougher methods for clearing them off are practised than men would care to own. So with Gibeonites and Perizzites and other native races, a similar process would be going on. The lands they held, their little villages, their pastures, and above all their strongholds, would be coveted by the dominant race, and entrenchments would lead to quarrels, in which the natives would find any resistance on their part punished as rebellion. Even David seized the hill fortress of Jebus for his capital, though he still left Araunah the nominal title of king. (2Sa_24:23) Saul had lent all the weight of the royal authority to the extermination of the natives, and this chapter records the Divine condemnation of wrong done by the dominantrace to the aborigines. It remains to this day the charter for their protection, and not only forbids their extinction, but requires that they shall be treated with fair and even justice, and their rights respected and maintained. It has been objected that the execution of Saul"s seven sons was a political crime committed to render David"s throne secure. If at all to his advantage, it was so only to a very slight extent. The sons of Rizpah could never have become pretenders to the throne; nor were the sons of Merab likely to be much more dangerous. In a few years they would have married, and formed other ties, and been merged in the general population. Mephibosheth was the heir of Saul, and David protected him and Micha his son. It was quite in the spirit of the times to visit upon Saul"s house the sins of its chief. The principle was the same as when all Israel stoned Achan, his sons and his daughters, his oxen and his asses, his sheep and his tent, for brining iniquity upon the people. (Jos_7:24, Jos_7:25) We keep chiefly in view the doctrine of personal responsibility; in the Old Testament the other doctrine of the collective responsibility of a family, a city, a nation, was made the more prominent It was the Prophet Ezekiel who in ch. 18. stated clearly and with Divine force that "the soul that sinneth it shall die;" but that the sinner"s son, if he walk in God"s statutes, shall not die for the iniquity of his father he shall surely live. But the collective responsibility enacted in the second commandment is still God"s law. In the philosophic jargon of our times the two factors which form human character and decide our fortunes are "heredity and environment." Heredity was the prevailing sentiment in David"s days; and it seemed right to the Gibeonites that the sons of the man who had slaughtered them should die for their father"s sins; and it seemed just to David also. But he spared the heir to Saul"s throne. There is no adequate reason for supposing that David was influenced by political motives, and the more important lesson of the narrative is the emphatic condemnation given in it of wrong and cruelty to aboriginal tribes. David inquired of the Lord; Hebrew, David sought the face of Jehovah. The phrase is remarkable, and not found elsewhere in Samuel. Probably it means that he went to Gibeon to pray in the sanctuary, and consult God by Urim and Thummim. His bloody house. The Hebrew means "the house on which rested the guilt of murder.
HOMILETICS.
Read full note →
Vers. 1-14.
A story of deferred retribution.
The facts are:
1. A famine continuing for three years, and inquiry being made of the Lordby David, he is informed that it was in consequence of Saul"s sin in slaying the Gibeonites.
2. David, asking of the Gibeonites what he shall do for them by way of atonement for the wrong done, is informed that they seek not gold or the life of any man of Israel, but require that seven of Saul"s family should be put to death, and hung up in Gibeah of Saul.
3. David at once yields to the demand, but spares Mephibosheth inconsequence of the special bond between himself and Jonathan.
4. On the seven men being put to death, Rizpah spreads out sackcloth on a rock, and keeps watch by the corpses against beasts and birds of prey till the rain falls.
5. David is told of the deed of Rizpah, and he soon after obtains the bones of Saul and Jonathan from Jabesh-Gilead, and causes the remains of the seven sons to be collected, and has the bones of Saul and Jonathan interred in the family burying place in Zelah of Benjamin. We assume that the record in this chapter refers to an earlier period in the life of David than does the narrative in the few preceding chapters, which evidently are designed to set forth the connection of David"s great sin with its punishment. The story relates the incidents connected with an otherwise unrecorded sin of Saul"s, and the retribution which came in due course upon his house. The varied questions and topics of interest and difficulty suggested by the narrative may be best seen and considered by taking them in their natural order.
I PROVIDENTIAL CALLS TO THE CONSIDERATION OF FORGOTTEN SINS. Whatever physical account may be possible of the famine referred to, looked at in its relation to God"s education and discipline of his ancient people, it is here to be viewed as a providential call to the nation to reflect on sins committed during the reign of Saul. The conduct of Saul was a most scandalous sin. (Jos_9:8-17) When the sin was committed we know not; probably in the latter part of his reign, when all was in confusion. His family were, it would seem from vers. 1, 46, implicated in the deed. It is obvious that the nation had condoned the action of Saul, and for some years subsequent to his death there was no conscience in the people with respect to this great sin. It was for the purpose of arousing the public conscience and giving occasion for bringing this sin to mind that the famine was permitted to arise. Even though the famine was by natural causes, yet it was used by God for this special moral end. There is a tendency in nations especially to be unmindful of their sins, and individuals also are liable to the same danger. The eager rush of affairs and absorption of energy in new lines divert attention from the moral character of acts. The forgotten sins of men are countless. But God does not forget, and now and then events arise calamities, personal troubles, and disagreeable consequences of former deeds which are practically God"s calls to us to remember our transgressions. The prophet no longer proclaims, but God reaches the conscience in manifold ways, and to many an easy-going soul the words will come some day, "Son, remember.
II THE CONNECTION BETWEEN MORAL AND PHYSICAL EVIL. The mention of famine in the land, and the public sin of the late king as being related the one to the other, establishes in this instance, on the authority of God, the close connection of moral and physical evil. Whether famines do not arise where there is no special moral evil of which they are the chastisements or reminders, is not the question, and makes no difference to the fact in this case. God would have his people know that their past sins were now bearing fruit in physical form. Nor is there anything really wonderful or exceptional in the truth here established. To man, physical evil is, as a whole, the fruit of sin. Man"s moral nature is in contact with the physical order by means of a material vehicle, and as his moral nature is supreme and cannot but affect, by its deterioration and wrong direction, the vehicle by which it acts, so the lesser must be disordered by the disorder of the greater. The miseries of human life would not have come had man kept his first estate, All our painful struggles in commerce and war, our diseases and poverty, are the outcome of a heart not as the heart of God. That Sodom should fall under fire, that Pharaoh should be swept into the sea, that Jerusalem should be trodden down, were but physical facts consequent on sin, bold and striking, yet not different in essence from the general connection of sin and suffering. Hence, Christ"s mission to make man"s physical environment forever helpful and not hurtful to him, by rendering his moral nature perfect, and therefore his whole nature in perfect adjustment to all that is.
III THE DUTY OF SEARCHING OUT THE MORAL ELEMENTS CONNECTED WITH OUR PHYSICAL TROUBLES. The famine was a reality in the experience of every one; but it was the will of God that the people should notice its connection with national sin. They must consider its spiritual bearings; they must associate their difficulties with previous conduct. As a rule, there is an indisposition to do this. Physical law, fate, chance, almost anything, is referred to as being occasion or cause of present difficulties and sufferings, rather than personal sin. Of course, individual sin is not the cause of great public calamities, and not immediately of private sufferings. Yet we ought, as a matter of rigid thought, to trace back the physical troubles of the world, so far as man is sufferer, to the moral cause. In nations troubles are referred to the restlessness of other nations, or ignorance of political economy, or of sanitary laws, or decaying commerce; but we should go deeper, and see what pride and arrogance and defiant tone may have done to inflame other nations, and what sinful neglect in spending money on wars rather than on instruction of the people. In personal life we should search and see to what extent failures in business, in health, and enterprise are connected with persistent violation of some of the primary laws which God has given for our guidance.
IV MISSING CLUES TO THE SOLUTION OF DIFFICULTIES. There are evident difficulties connected with this narrative which press upon the ordinary reader at once. The demand for seven lives, and the yielding to the demand, both perplex us. The pressure of a famine on a whole people, and the use of that famine for purposes of chastisement for a sin of years past, do not lessen the perplexity. Apart from this narrative, we know nothing of any act done by Saul toward the Gibeonites. Now, if instead of this abrupt declaration of the existence of a national sin, and of the retribution for it in the terrible form of seven deaths, we were told of the precise circumstances under which Saul violated the national compact of Jos_9:15-17, we should then certainly see the wisdom and appropriateness of the famine to arouse the national conscience, and the justice of the terrible retribution on Saul"s family. The clue here missing because of the incompleteness of history is but an instance of what constantly occurs. In the Bible there are many facts which doubtless would lose all their strangeness and seeming discrepancies and moral difficulties did we but know the details left unrecorded. Historians are guided by this remembrance of missing clues in their estimate of men and characters. In our judgment on conduct we often fail or are in suspense because a clue to some strange feature is lacking.
Especially are we at present lacking the clue to many events in the government of God. When we know more perfectly, we shall see that to be just which is now perplexing, and, as a rule, we may say that our ignorance of hidden facts ought to count in our judgments on revealed truth as much as our knowledge.
V GOD HAS IN RESERVE AGENCIES FOR BRINGING THE FACT OF SIN STRAIGHT HOME TO THE CONSCIENCE. The famine aroused conscience. The men of Gibeon were God"s agents in bringing all the facts home to the conscience of the nation. The confusion and change of government in the last days of Saul and early years of David, before he left Hebron to be king over the entire people, will explain why the Gibeonites did not press their suit earlier. Although the sin was so grievous, it must have appeared to any who now and then reflected on it as though it were being passed by, and that no means were at hand to bring the new king face to face with the wrong done. But at the proper Reason God found means for calling forth the Gibeonites to declare the full facts and to bring the sin home to the national conscience. They proved what the famine only indicated. According to Scripture, all sin is to be brought home to the sinner. The time may pass, and means for so doing may seem to be lacking; but the universe is God"s, and he has in reserve agencies by which the guilty will be found out and the claims of a violated law will be vindicated. (Ecc_11:9)
VI THE PRINCIPLE OF RETRIBUTION IN HUMAN AFFAIRS. The charge of the Gibeonites against the house of Saul was that he, contrary to the solemn compact with Israel, had cruelly slain their countrymen, and the demand was that for this wicked violation of a treaty the lives of his sons should be forfeited. Here was an appearance of hardship on the sons; but, had we the missing clue, it would probably appear that they were parties to the deed. The deed, however, was national, being wrought by the representative of the nation; and, acting on the usage of the age in such matters, the Gibeonites demanded that the lives of the representatives of the nation of that date should be sacrificed. The principle was that of lex talionis eye for an eye." We are not called upon to pronounce a harsh judgment on their demand. It may, however, be said, in extenuation, that if Saul and his family were the real murderers of the Gibeonites, there was no more wrong in their execution than in the execution of any modern murderer. The principle on which the claim proceeded was that of all criminal law in relation to human life. The Law of Moses was based on it. "An eye for an eye" (Exo_21:24) is but a statement of the principle that runs through all the Mosaic laws. (cf. Lev_24:17-22) Ox for ox, sheep for sheep, life for life, this was the form of the old jurisprudence. It is also, so far as circumstances permit, the principle of modern law and modern punishment. According to a man"s crime so is his punishment. With us the loss of liberty is the form punishment takes, but its degree depends on the degree of the crime. Proportion is kept in view in every sentence. The words of our Saviour (Mat_5:38, Mat_5:39) are not intended to set aside the administration of justice by the state, but to indicate that the personal feeling of his followers is not to be vindictive. In the spiritual kingdom all are brethren beloved, and love is to be the dominant feeling. Moses was speaking of what "judges," administrators of the public laws of the state, should do, (Deu_19:16-21) and in the discharge of official duty they were to be impartial, and not pity or spare. Christ speaks of what his individual followers should do and be in their personal relations to brethren in the new spiritual kingdom; they must not imagine, with the Pharisees, that a principle of action designed for "judges" in a state is to be transferred to their private relationships in his kingdom. Moses distinguishes between the rigid execution of justice on crime and the individual cherishing of tender and pitiful feelings (Deu_19:16-21; cf. Exo_22:21-27) The rules for a state are not to be confounded with rules for individual life.
VII THE DUE MAINTENANCE OF NATIONAL HONOUR. The honour of Israel was at stake in the deed of Saul. Kings compromise the nation. David was quick to see that the wrong done in cruelly violating a national treaty must be atoned. Apart from the form of atonement in this case, the principle recognized is most important. When nations lose faith in nations, trouble must come in terrible form. A nation"s word should be sacred, and in relation to the weakest and most barbarous as to the mightiest and most civilized. The methods adopted for upholding national honour will vary with the conceptions of what that honour is. To keep faith, to be courteous and considerate to the weak, to allow of no unjust concessions to the great because they are great, and to promote peace and righteousness in all relationships, this is that in which honour lies. There is no true glory, no maintenance of honour, in creating wars, in mere military triumphs, or in vaunting of greatness.
VIII THE SACREDNESS OF PROMISES MADE BY RELIGIOUS MEN. The promises made to the Gibeonites in the days of Joshua differed from all engagements entered into by other people, in that they were the promises of the chosen race, whose conduct towards others was based on higher principles. David felt at once that it would be shocking to allow heathen men to imagine that the servants of the covenant keeping God could break their vows. The possession Of a religious character or the adoption of religious professions lends a special sacredness to our engagements. It is no wonderful thing if one who believes in no eternal morality easily sets aside what others hold to be binding engagements; and a careless man of the world, whose religion is only a name, may not excite surprise if he sometimes violates his word or does a mean action. But to be a follower of Christ lends an unusual sanctity to everything in life. The Apostle Peter has suggested "what manner of persons" we ought to be by virtue of our holy profession, and our Lord himself expects more of his followers than can be looked for from others. (Mat_5:43-48) We should not forget that we may compromise the honour of our Lord in our words and deeds.
IX THE CONFLICTING OF PUBLIC OBLIGATIONS WITH PRIVATE ENGAGEMENTS. David, acting according to the light and usage of the age, felt bound to give up the male members of the house of Saul; but he had made a personal promise to Jonathan (1Sa_20:14 17 23:16-18) to spare the members of his house, and had especially taken Mephibosheth under his care out of love for his father. Here, then, was a conflict of opposing obligations. The solution was obvious. He had kept his promise, and had not, as kings too often were accustomed to do with the families of rivals, cut off the house of Saul on ascending the throne. If he gave them up now it was not a personal act, but an act in the administration of law. But, further, he seems to have regarded the oath to Jonathan as relating to his own immediate descendants, and hence he spared Mephibosheth in order to keep his kingly promise while making acknowledgment for the sin of Saul. Rulers are bound to be true to national obligations, though at the cost of much feeling, and sometimes it will require more than mere casuistry to be true to private sentiments and obligations while discharging public duties. Self is never to be degraded in public affairs. If in nation or Church the rulers cannot conscientiously discharge obligations involved in the office, the proper alternative is to vacate the office.
X THE HONOUR DUE TO MORTAL REMAINS. The conduct of Rizpah in keeping off birds and beasts of prey from the corpses, and of David in collecting the bones and placing the remains of Saul and Jonathan in their family burying place, was worthy of their character; it indicated a refined feeling, a reverence for the dead, a deep sense of the sanctity of all that pertains to human life and human destiny. The mortal remains of friend and foe are touchingly suggestive of the greatness and littleness of man, of his checkered lot on earth, and the strange unknown experience on which his higher nature enters while his perishable remains abide with us.
HOMILIES BY B. DALE.
Vers. 1-14. (GIBEON, GIBEAH.)
Famine.
there was a famine in the days of David three years, year after year" (ver. 1). Summary of the remaining portion (or appendix) of this book:
1. The famine.
2. Victorious acts in wars with the Philistines (vers. 15-22).
3. David"s song of thanksgiving (looking backward); 2Sa 22
4. 2 Samuel His last prophetic words (looking forward). (2Sa_23:1-7) These two lyrical and prophetic productions of David, the ripest spiritual fruit of his life, form a worthy conclusion to his reign. (Keil)
5. List of his heroes (forming, with 2, a historical framework for 3 and 4); 2Sa_23:8-39.
6. The pestilence (with the famine, "two Divine punishments inflicted uponIsrael, with the expiation of the sins that occasioned them"); ch. 24. This famine took place after Mephibosheth was brought to Jerusalem (ver. 7; ch. 9.); and, perhaps, about seventeen years after the death of Saul. (2Sa_4:4 2Sa_9:12) It is mentioned here "as a practical illustration, on the one hand, of the manner in which Jehovah visited upon the house of Saul, even after the death of Saul himself, a crime which had been committed by him; and, on the other hand, of the way in which, even in such a case as this, when David had been obliged to sacrifice the descendants of Saul to expiate the guilt of their father, he showed his tenderness towards him by the honourable burial of their bones." After long prosperity and plenty there came adversity and destitution. No rain "out of heaven" (ver. 10) for three successive years! What a scene of general, intense, and increasing distress must have been witnessed (Gen_12:10 Gen_26:1 Gen_47:13; Rth_1:1; 1Ki_18:5; 2Ki_6:25 2Ki_25:5; Jer_14:1; Act_11:28) Nor has it been unknown in modern times. Consider it (with its attendant circumstances) as
I CALLING FOR SPECIAL INQUIRY. "And David sought the face of Jehovah" (ver. 1), equivalent to "inquired of Jehovah", (2Sa_5:19) by means of the Urim and Thummim through the high priest (the last recorded instance of this method of ascertaining the Divine will, henceforth more fully revealed through the prophets); urged by the cry of distress, especially among "the poorest sort of the people of the land", (2Ki_24:14) on whom the famine pressed with peculiar severity.
1. The misery of the poor and afflicted produces in every faithful ruler andin every right hearted man a feeling of compassionate and anxious concern.
2. Physical calamities are often due to moral causes; they follow human disobedience to moral laws; being in some cases manifestly connected with such disobedience (as when famine follows desolating wars, agricultural neglect, etc.), in others, however, not directly and apparently so connected. This connection is evident
(1) from the common convictions of men who instinctively associate calamity with crime;
(2) from the plain teachings of Scripture (Deu_28:15, Deu_28:23, Deu_28:24; Eze_14:21) and
(3) from the moral government of the living, personal God, wherein all things are ordered with a view to moral ends.
3. These causes should be diligently searched out, by proper means observation, consideration, prayer in order to their removal. "It is not superstition, but rather the highest piety and the highest philosophy, which leads a people, under such a visitation as that of famine, to turn to Jehovah, saying, "Show us wherefore thou contendest with us W.M. Taylor). "Let us search and try our ways," etc. (Lam_3:40; 1Sa_4:3)
II LEADING TO UNEXPECTED DISCOVERY. "And Jehovah said (through the oracle), Concerning Saul and concerning the blood guilty house, because he slew the Gibeonires." A crime which had been committed, not recently, but twenty or even thirty years before, was brought to remembrance, and set before the national conscience, quickened in its sensibility by the experience of affliction. "David must hitherto have ruled in a very irreproachable manner to render it necessary to go further back to find a cause for the calamity" (Ewald).
1. Its iniquity was great. An attempt was made to exterminate (consume and destroy, ver. 5) a poor, dependent, and helpless people; of the original inhabitants of the laud (ver. 2; Jos_9:3-27) spared by solemn oath, devoted to the service of the sanctuary (now at Gibeon), for more than four hundred years dwelling peaceably among "the children of Israel and Judah" (Jos_9:17; 2Sa_4:3) professing the same faith, and guilty of no offence; many of them being ruthlessly slain, others escaping by flight.
2. Its effects were still felt by the "hewers of wood and drawers of water" (Nethinim, bondmen), who survived, in bitter grief, popular odium, heavier servitude. Their cries "entered into the ears of the Lord of sabaoth. (Jam_5:4)
3. Its guilt was unacknowledged and unexpiated; the wrong unredressed, the sin unrepented of, and even ignored and well nigh forgotten. "It would seem that Saul viewed their possessions with a covetous eye, as affording him the means of rewarding his adherents (1Sa_22:7) and of enriching his family; and hence, on some pretence or other, or without any pretence, he slew large numbers of them, and doubtless seized their possessions. It is said that he did this in his zeal for Israel and Judah, and this cannot be explained but on the supposition that the deed was done in order to give the tribes possession of the reserved territories of the Gibeonites. And there is no doubt this would be, as it was designed, a popular and acceptable act. (Jos_9:18) Saul"s own family must have been active in this cruel wrong, and must have had a good share of the spoil; for we find them all, when reduced to a private station, much better off in their worldly circumstances than can else be accounted for" (Kitto). Here lay the secret of the famine, which was interpreted as a sign of Divine wrath.
He turneth a fruitful land into a salt marsh, Because of the wickedness of them that dwell therein. (Psa_107:34)
III INVOLVING IMPORTANT PRINCIPLES; not merely that sin and crime are followed by Divine punishment, and the wrongs of the poor and needy avenged, (1Sa_30:15-17) but also that men are dealt with by God (in the way of chastisement) as communities, as well as separate. (Eze_18:2-4)
1. The guilt incurred by individuals is participated in by the nation to which they belong when their wrongdoing is connived at, profited by, and not repudiated; and especially when the wrongdoer is its recognized representative.
2. The infliction of suffering on a whole nation, on account of the sins of one or more persons therein, is often needful for the vindication of public justice, the reparation of wrong doing, and the general welfare.
3. Although a nation may be exempted for a season, through theforbearance of God, from the chastisement due to sin, it does not escape altogether, but is surely called to account in this world. "Nations as nations will have no existence in another world, and therefore. they must look for retribution in this" (Wordsworth). "I can perceive in the story a recognition of the continuance of a nation"s life, of its obligations, of its sins from age, to age. All national morality, nay, the meaning and possibility of history, depends upon this truth, the sense of which is, I fear, very weak in our day" (Maurice). "Time does not wear out the guilt of sin, nor can we build hopes of impunity on the delay of judgments" (Matthew Henry).
IV EVOKING RECOGNIZED OBLIGATION. "And the king called the Gibeonites, and said What shall I do for you? and wherewith shall I make the atonement expiation, satisfaction, means of reconciliation, that ye may bless and no more curse the inheritance of Jehovah?" (vers. 2, 3); "What ye say, I will do for you" (ver. 5). Whilst acknowledging the national wrong, he also acknowledged the national obligation, and expressed his purpose:
1. To redress their grievance, satisfy their claim for justice, and secure their favour and intercession.
2. To respect the justice of God (by whom their cause was manifestly maintained), so that prayer might be heard, and the famine removed. Unless right is done, prayer is vain. (Psa_66:18)
3. And to do whatever might be possible and necessary for these ends. "The land must expiate the king"s wrong. This is rooted in the idea of the solidarity of the people, and the theocratic king as representative of God"s people, whence comes solidarity of guilt between king and people" (Erdmann). David herein acted wisely and in a theocratic spirit.
V REQUIRING ADEQUATE SATISFACTION. (Vers. 7-9.) The expiation was made by the crucifixion of the two sons of Rizpah and the five sons of Merab (Hebrew, Michal), "whom she bare to Adriel," according to the demand and by "the hands of the Gibeonites" (ver. 9), under the authority and sanction of the king (and doubtless with the approval of the nation). The demand:
1. Could be satisfied with nothing short of this. "We will have no silver nor gold," etc. (ver. 4); no private compensation could atone for such a public crime and wilful sin "before the Lord.
2. Accorded with the requirements of the Law (Gen_9:5, Gen_9:6; Num_35:31) or at least with the custom of blood vengeance, and the then prevalent ideas of justice. If (as is probable, ver. 1) the hands of the sons of Saul were stained with blood, the Law demanded their death; if (as may have been the case) they were personally guiltless, they suffered from their intimate relationship to the murderer, as a "vicarious sacrifice," and for the benefit of the nation. "To understand this procedure, we must bear in mind the ancient Oriental ideas of the solidarity of the family, strict retaliation and blood revenge ideas that, with some limitation, remained in force in the legislation of the old covenant" (Kurtz).
3. Was restricted by merciful consideration for the assuredly innocent and steadfast fidelity to a solemn engagement. "And the king spared Mephibosheth," etc. (ver. 7). "The obscurities of this narrative probably may never be entirely cleared up. One thing, however, is certain these seven descendants of Saul were not pretenders to the crown; and David cannot be suspected of having embraced such an opportunity to put them out of the way. Neither is it to be supposed that David delivered up the innocent contrary to the Law. (Deu_24:16) They were, therefore, delivered up to the avengers of blood and punished with death, not on account of the crimes of Saul, but for the murders which they themselves, with the connivance of Saul, had committed on the Gibeonites, and for which they had hitherto remained unpunished" (Jahn, "Heb. Com.," 32.).
VI AFFORDING SALUTARY INSTRUCTION (whether the victims be regarded as having actually taken part in the crime or not). "As seen by the people, the execution of Saul"s sons (who were not charged with being in any way personally accessory to their father"s crime) was a judicial act of retribution; but this aspect of the transaction was only an "accommodation" to the current ideas of the age. Viewed in its essential character as sanctioned by God, it was a didactic act, designed to teach the guilt of sin" (Kirkpatrick); to produce repentance, and prevent its recurrence. That melancholy spectacle of a sevenfold crucifixion "on the mountain before Jehovah," in "Gibeah of Saul", (1Sa_10:5 1Sa_22:6) declared:
1. The exceeding culpability of unrighteous zeal, of the wanton violation of sacred pledges, of the unjust taking away of human life. "Let us here
2. learn the danger of trifling with oaths and solemn engagements. Four hundred years had elapsed since the treaty made with the Gibeonites; and yet in the sight of God it was as sacred as ever; so that he who presumed to infringe it drew down a severe judgment on the whole nation" (Lindsay).
3. The inevitable, rigorous, and impartial execution of Divine justice. Princes are not above its correction, nor bondsmen below its protection.
4. The far reaching consequences of transgression; to the children and children"s children of the transgressor. "The evident intention of God in ordering the death of so many of Saul"s family" (which, however, is not expressly stated) "was to give public attestation of the abhorrence of Saul"s perfidy and cruelty, and to strike into the hearts of his successors on the throne a salutary dread of committing similar offences. The death of these seven persons, therefore, is not to be regarded as a punishment inflicted upon them for personal offences, even though they might have a share in their father"s persecution of the Gibeonites, but an act commanded by God in virtue of his sovereign rights over the lives of all men, to teach princes moderation and equity, and to prevent the perpetration of enormous crimes, which are inconsistent with the welfare of the civil government as well as incompatible with the principles of true religion" (Chandler).
VII FOLLOWED BY MERCIFUL DELIVERANCE. "And after that the expiation God was entreated for the land" (ver. 14). "Long forgotten sin had been brought to mind and acknowledged and expiated; homage had been paid to justice; the evil of unfaithfulness had been exposed; the honour of the nation had been purged from foul stains; it had been shown that neither kings nor princes can do wrong with impunity; maternal fondness had been touchingly displayed; a long forgotten duty had been attended to; a noble example had borne fruit; and after that God was entreated for the land. The generous heavens poured down their showers, the languishing life of field and vineyard revived, and the earth was clothed with beauty and teemed with fruitfulness again. There was one more proof of the everlasting truth, "Righteousness exalteth a nation (C. Vince). D.
HOMILIES BY G. WOOD
Ver. 1.
Seeking God"s face.
sought the face of the Lord" (Revised Version). The Authorized Version has here "inquired of the Lord," as in 2Sa_2:1, where it is the translation of a different phrase. Doubtless the substantial meaning is the same. But, as with words, so with phrases, two are seldom wholly synonymous; and the differences are often instructive, suggesting each its own train of thought. So it is with these two phrases. That in the Revised Version leads us to think of
I THE NATURE OF TRUE WORSHIP. It is seeking the face of God, to realize his presence, behold his glory, be made sensible of his majesty, holiness and loving kindness. Or, in greater strictness, this may he said to be preliminary to the worship of him. We come into his presence that we may present to him our adoration, praises, confessions, and prayers. We must not be content with coming into his house, seeing his servants, joining in ceremonies leaving, as it were, our names and messages, engaging and depending on the intercession of those who are supposed to approach nearer to him. Our heavenly Father does not keep such state as to exclude or repel any one from coming near to him. He wishes to see his children, to smile upon them, to embrace them, to speak with them. Any methods of worship which keep men at a distance from him are contrary to his will. The mediation of Christ is not a substitute for intimate converse with God, but a means of attaining it, as we may see by considering
II THE POSSIBILITY AND WARRANT OF SUCH WORSHIP. There are, doubtless, difficulties in the way of the approach of men to God. These are removed pre-eminently by the mediation of our Lord.
1. Ignorance separates from God; Christ makes him known. By his teaching, by his own character, and by the Spirit he imparts to his disciples. "In the face of Jesus Christ" we see that of the Father (2 Corinthians. (Joh_14:8, Joh_14:9)
2. Sin separates from God; Christ delivers from sin.
(1) He has atoned for sin by his death. He "suffered for sins, the Just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God". (1Pe_3:18) He has thus removed the barrier presented by the justice of God and "the curse of the. (Gal_3:13) And through faith in Christ the conscience is purged from sin by his blood, (Heb_9:14) and the believer has "boldness to enter into the holiest". (Heb_10:19-22) Through Christ the face of God shines with a benignant brightness on those who approach him.
(2) Christ cleanses the nature and character from sin. He thus produces that purity of heart which is necessary for those who would "see God". (Mat_5:8)
3. Not only the putting away of sin, but certain positive dispositions are necessary in seeking the face of God. Christ has secured and he imparts these. To his disciples is given "the Spirit of adoption", (Rom_8:15) and thus they come to God with confidence, affection, and self-surrender. Thus Christ is "the Way" by which we "come to the Father". (Joh_14:6) "Through him we have access by one Spirit unto the Father". (Eph_2:18)
III THE NECESSITY OF SUCH WORSHIP. We must seek God"s face if we would behold it with joy. He sometimes surprises men by sudden and unexpected manifestations of himself to them; but this will ordinarily be to those who love him and are in the habit of seeking him. (see Joh_14:19-23) Hence the exhortations, "Seek the Lord,... seek his face evermore"; (Psa_105:4) "Seek, and ye shall find" (Mat_7:7; 2Ch_7:14)
IV GODLY MEN ARE DISTINGUISHED BY SUCH WORSHIP. "This is the generation of them that seek him, that seek thy face, O God of Jacob". (Psa_24:6) "When thou saidst, Seek ye my face; my heart said unto thee, Thy face, Lord, will I seek". (Psa_27:8)
1. The godly are impelled to this:
(1) By love to God, and consequent longing after him. (Psa_42:1, 2 63:1, 2)
(2) By faith in him and in his promises. (Heb_11:6)
(3) By the sense of needs which only God can supply.
(4) By memory of former converse with God, and of the enjoyment and profit derived from it.
2. Hence they seek God"s face daily; and with special earnestness in times of special difficulty or danger. David felt how much he needed Divine guidance in reference to the famine which for three years had harassed the country; hence he "sought the face of the Lord." In trouble the Divine call may be heard, "Seek ye my face;" and many begin to do so when trouble is upon them.
V SUCH WORSHIP IS FRUITFUL OF BLESSING. It is never in vain, (Isa_45:19) although at times it may appear to be so. (Job_23:3-9) "Ye shall seek me, and find me, when ye shall search for me with all your heart" (Jer_29:13) is a promise of universal applicability. And to gain the vision of God"s face is to be blessed indeed. The sight of him:
1. Calms and soothes and comforts the heart. As a mother"s face soothes the suffering child,
Sorrow and fear are gone, Whene"er thy face appears: It stills the sighing orphan"s moan, And dries the widow"s tears:
It hallows every cross; It sweetly comforts me, Makes me forget my every loss, And find my all in thee.
1. Encourages to pray. When his face is seen, we are enabled to tell him all that is in our heart, with the assurance of success in our suit.
2. Sheds light into the soul. The "light of his countenance" scatters the darkness. Perplexities are half solved as soon as we have caught sight of the face of God.
3. Produces likeness to him. "We shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is" (1Jn_3:2) is a promise partially fufilled in the present life.
4. The crowning result is to "see his face" in the fulness of its glory, and forever. (Rev_22:4) But to those who refuse to seek him, turning to him their back, and not their face, (Jer_2:27) he says, "I will show them the back, and not the face, in the day of their calamity" (Jer_18:17) and they will at length say "to the mountains and rocks, Fall on us, and hide us from the face of him that sitteth on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb". G.W. (Rev_6:16)
The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Biblical Illustrator 1887 · Public Domain On v1 Then there was a famine in the days of…
2Sa_21:1-14
Then there was a famine in the days of David three years.
Read full note →
The quickening of Davids conscience by Rizpahs example
Some years since it was found that many returned emigrants were ending their days in English workhouses. When the authorities inquired into the causes of this fact, they ascertained that in nearly every case those who were then paupers had formerly prospered in the colonies; but they had forsaken their prosperity and come back to England, because they could not bear the thought of dying and being buried in the strange lands wherein they had made their homes for a season. While they were in health and vigour, they were comparatively content to be far away from the old country; but as soon as the shadows of evening began to fall they yearned to return to the familiar haunts of lifes morning, in order that, when they fell asleep, they might be laid to rest in their fathers sepulchres. The desire was so strong, that they yielded to it, although they thereby doomed themselves to poverty for the remainder of their days. This is an instinct which cannot be put down by force of argument. After all that can be said about the un-wisdom of it, the voice of nature will still plead for it, and it seems to be the appointment of heaven that the first attachments of which the heart is conscious should be its last. If we have no such desire about out own final resting-places we have about those of our friends, and we like to have the graves of our loved ones near to us, and not far away amongst strangers. This feeling must not be denounced as mere sentimentalism, for it has been cherished as an honourable thing by men who were neither feeble nor foolish. When Barzillai pleaded against the preferment which David was urging upon him, this was his last and most forcible entreaty: Let thy servant, I pray thee, etc. Was it not strange that David should for so many years leave the remains, of Saul and Jonathan in the place of their hasty sepulture, far from the burial of their fathers? It might have been fairly anticipated that, on his coining into power, David would make an early effort to bring the body of Jonathan to his native place, and there inter it with all the honour befitting the burial of such a princely man and faithful friend. Instead of this, David allowed thirty years to pass away before he did what reverence and gratitude for the dead should have constrained him to regard as a sacred duty to be discharged as soon as possible. Towards the close of Davids life, the prosperity f the kingdom was interrupted by a famine. He inquired of the Lord. It will be remembered that, in the days of Joshua, the Gibeonites had, by means of false pretences, obtained a covenant of peace between themselves and the Israelites. They were degraded to perpetual servitude; but with all the sacredness of a solemn oath the public faith was pledged to them for the security of their lives. Under circumstances not fully disclosed to us, Saul broke the oath and forfeited the honour of the nation, by slaying many of the Gibeonites, and by attempting to destroy them all. It has been supposed by some that he was severe and cruel towards the Gibeonites, as a kind of set-off against his pretended compassion towards the Amalekites. Later commentators have thought that light is is to be obtained from the question Saul put to his courtiers when he was disclosing his suspicions against David: Hear now, ye Benjamites, etc. This implies that Saul either had given or would give them fields and vineyards. The sin of Saul was regarded by God as a national sin, either because the people shared in the plunder, or because they sympathised with or connived at the deed. The matter was one of double guilt, for, besides the shedding of innocent blood, there was the violation of a solemn compact. Some men have a feeling that there is an appearance of injustice ii a crime be punished many years after its perpetration. But lapse of time has no power to diminish the guilt of an action, and why should it deter or diminish punishment? If lapse of time work change in the offender, bringing him to repentance, then it is meet for mercy to interpose with pardon, and keep back punishment for ever. This is according to Gods promise. Where, on the other hand, the rolling years reveal no improvement, the guilt is increased instead of diminished. In these cases delayed judgment will be at last heavier judgment. Of course, objectors will ask the old question: Was it just to make one generation suffer for the sins of another? Seeing the famine did not come till more than forty years after the offence, the greater part of the offenders must have entirely escaped the punishment; and it is said, therefore, the delayed judgment must have been an unjust judgment. How is it people never think of asking this other question: Is it just for one generation to be enriched in many ways by the skill and labour and victories of a preceding generation? The law of God that links the generations together is constantly and powerfully working for good. We are all of us more or less better in body, mind, and estate, because of the virtues of those who have lived before us. If we were to be stripped of all the fruit Of the various excellences of bygone generations, how poor and feeble we should be! Our freedom, our art and science, our civilisation, with all its power to mitigate the sorrows and increase the pleasures of life, are not the creation of our wisdom, they are not the product of our virtues. By far the larger portion of them we owe, under God, to the work and worth of those who now sleep in their graves. Other men laboured, and we have entered into their labours. It was doubtless by Gods direction that David suffered the surviving Gibeonites to decide what should be done to expiate the sin. They demanded that seven of Sauls descendants should be publicly executed, and their demand was granted. Saul and his sons had been the leaders in the unprincipled slaughter, and his descendants were most likely the largest holders of the unrighteous spoil. It was contrary to Jewish custom to leave the bodies upon the gibbets to waste away; but it was done in the case of these seven, either because the Gibeonites demanded it, or in order to make the warning more terrible. It gave rise to a most touching display of motherly affection and fidelity. Two of the seven were sons of Rizpah, who, though she had been one of Sauls wives, was still living. She could not bear the thought of their hanging there for the vultures to tear to pieces and devour, and she determined to keep watch over them and drive off the foul birds of prey. She made her home upon the rock, and watched with a vigilance that never slept, and a devotion that never wearied. It was told David what Rizpah had done, and instantly his memory was awakened, and his conscience was quickened. He thought of the bones of Saul and Jonathan sleeping in the place of their somewhat hurried and unseemly burial. He saw the duty he ought to have discharged. He fetched the long-neglected remains from Jabesh-Gilead, and carried them to the country of Benjamin, and buried them in the sepulchre of Kish, the father of Saul. With them he buried also the bodies of the seven, and thus relieved the tender and faithful-hearted Rizpah from the burden of work and woe which her love for her own had laid upon her. Long-forgotten sin had been brought to mind, and acknowledged, and expiated; homage had been paid to justice; the evil of unfaithfulness had been exposed; the honour of the nation had been purged from foul stains; it had been shown that neither kings nor princes can do wrong with impunity; maternal fondness and fidelity had been touchingly displayed; a long-forgotten duty had been attended to; a noble example had borne fruit; and after that God was untreated for the land. The way in which Rizpahs conduct moved David to his duty affords a fine instance of what has been aptly called unconscious influence. She had no design upon the conscience of the king, but her right doing told with great effect. Words are often feeble and in vain, but deeds are seldom fruitless. The most eloquent preachers may have to cry out complainingly--Who hath believed our report? The success of example is far more certain, for its fragrance has never been a sweetness wholly wasted on the desert air. (C. Vince.)
Conscience assertive
Conscience works after the manner so beautifully set forth in a ring that a great magician, according to an Eastern tale, presented to his prince. The gift was of inestimable value: not for the diamonds and rubies and pearls that gemmed it, but for a rare and mystic property in the metal. It sat easily enough on the finger in ordinary circumstances; but so soon as its wearer formed a bad thought, designed or committed a bad action, the ring became a monitor. Suddenly contracting, it pressed painfully on his finger, warning him of sin. Such a ring, thank God, is not the peculiar property of kings; all, the poorest of us, those who wear none other possess and wear this inestimable jewel--for the ring in the fable is just that conscience which is the voice of God within us. (T. Guthrie.)
Famine in the days of David
I. The connection between moral evil and physical suffering. Do we believe in God as the Moral Ruler of men? Then we cannot but believe that He designs and controls what is occurrent around them to the education and bettering of the moral, nature that is within them. National calamities follow upon national sins. Let no corn-seed be sown; no provision made as far as man can make it for harvest, and famine will come as a Divine retribution. But with all the husbandmens forecast and arduous anticipative toil, famine may still come as a punishment because of a nations sins--drought, mildew, destructive insect life, the ministers of God that do His chastening pleasure. Atheistic philosophy resolves the government of the world into the action of natural laws, as if there could be laws without a Law-giver, as if they could act except He continued to be and continued to make them efficient. Some may point to second causes. These suffice; hence come war, famine, black pestilence. But why hence? Design there cannot be without a Designer. Punishment may smite the nations through the operation of natural law; but that law is the expression of Gods will, and in its operation moves His hidden, but correcting hand. As men deal with their children, God deals with them; from moral evil comes physical suffering. The punishment may be delayed, but it is inevitable. Nations, as such, have no future beyond the bounds of time. Punishment, then, for national sins must fall upon nations now. Sometimes with startling, convicting sharpness. Sometimes after many days--days that have gathered into many years. It was so in the case of the famine that was the punishment for Israels accessory guilt in Sauls crime against the Gideonites forty years before. A truth this not without modern confirmatory instances. France slaughtered many of the Huguenots--her best and purest sons--and chased many more into exile. Two hundred years afterwards came the full appalling punishment for that stupendous crime in the horrors of the French Revolution--in the dire Religion stript of God. America cherished slave-holding into a domestic institution--and, at length, long after the first slave-holders had passed, in tremendous national convulsion, and through the Red Sea of slaughter, the African bondmen made their wondering, exultant way into freedom. Gods judgments often look a long way back.
II. Gods displeasure with national pride and violation of treaty obligations. The famine afflicted Israel because of the perfidy shown to the Gibeonites by Saul and his approving subjects. What instruction, what warning, in these records for England to-day! We are in treaty with many dependent nations and tribes. Let us be faithful to our treaties--honest, kind, not aggressive on the reserved and acknowledged rights of any. To wrong African or Indian tribe--any tribe though as weak and helpless as the ancient Gibeonites, with the national approval, is to assure in coming days for the nation storms of the Divine displeasure. Nor is national pride to go unpunished. And are we guiltless herein? Vast, inclusive of many languages and all climates, the empire that acknowledges our King. But let us not forget who has made us to differ; who has exalted us among the nations; who has lifted us up and can cast us down.
III. In Rizpah we see the unutterable, unvanquishable strength or a mothers love. Her sons were doomed to ignominious, dishonoured end. She will honour them! An aged woman; adult sons; a kings sons--thus to end! To her they are royal still. As her grey hair streams to the wind, as her voice and arms are raised against the prowling creatures, oh strength of resolution! oh, thronging memories in that lonely womans heart!
The barley harvest was nodding white
When my children died on the rocky height,
And the reapers were singing on hill and plain
When I came to my task of sorrow and pain.
But now the season of rain is nigh,
The sun is dim in the thickening sky.
I hear the howl of the wind that brings
The long, drear storm on its heavy wings;
But the howling wind and the driving rain
Will beat on my houseless head in vain.
I shall stay, from my murdered sons to scare
The beasts of the desert and fowls of air.
Unconquerable love! not rewarded--winning comely sepulture for the bodies of her dead. (G. T. Coster.)
Punished sin expiated
1. A famine in Palestine was always a consequence of deficient winter rains, such a deficiency being by no means uncommon; but in this case the famine endured three successive years, and thus became alarming, and impelled men to ask religious questions and make religious arrangements. David inquired of the Lord--in other words, he sought the face of the Lord. Is not the action of David imitated, to some extent at least, by the men of all time? When the east wind blows three days, or three weeks, men do but remark upon it complainingly, and it passes from criticism; but when it continues three months, and three more, and the earth is made white with dust, and every tree stands in blackness and barrenness, and every bird is silent, and the whole landscape is one scene of blank desolation--then men begin to inquire concerning causes, and even the most flippant and obdurate may be easily moved to seek the face of the Lord. Thus selfishness assumes a religious aspect, and religion is degraded by being crowned with selfishness; thus men make confusion in moral distinctions, and imagine themselves to be pious when they are only self-seeking, and suppose themselves constrained by persuasion when they are simply driven by fear.
2. David, having learned the Divine reason for the continued famine, now turned in a human direction, as he was bound to do, saying unto the Gibeonites, What shall I do for you? The word is the term which is used throughout the law in connection with the propitiatory sacrifices. The word literally means to cover up. David inquires what he can do to cover up the sin of Saul, so as to remove it from the sight of the men against whom it had been committed. Saul himself being dead, his male descendants were considered as standing in his place, and were looked at in the solemn light of actually personating him and having responsibility for his evil deeds. The Gibeonites regarded the whole affair as involving theocracy, and not until the execution had been completed could the stains be removed which had been thrown upon the most sacred history of the race. Mens ideas of compensation undergo great changes. It is no surprise that at first the idea of compensation should be considerably rough and formless. Jesus Christ remarking upon it, set it aside in the letter, and displaced it by a nobler spirit:--Ye have heard it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: but I say Unto you . . . and then came the gospel so difficult to be apprehended by the natural reason, but yielding itself as an infinite treasure to the claim of faith and love. David took the two sons of Rizpah the daughter of Aiah. He could not lawfully refuse the demand of the Gideonites, having before him the fact that the law absolutely required that bloodguiltiness should be expiated by the blood of the offender. David spared for Jonathans sake the only descendants of Saul in the direct line who could have advanced any claim to the throne.
3. The beginning of harvest points to the time as being immediately after the Passover (Lev_23:10-11), and consequently about the middle of April. The rains of autumn began in October, so that Rizpahs tender care must have extended over about six months. She waited until water dropped upon them out of heaven--that is, until the water-famine was at an end; and thus the Divine forgiveness was assured. A most vivid and ghastly picture this: see the seven bodies fastened to a stake, either by impaling or by crucifixion, and watch them standing there day by day and week by week, until the clouds gathered and the returning rain attested that God had been satisfied because justice had been done in the earth. The Lord from heaven is watching all our oblations and sacrifices and actions, and when we have done that which His law of justice requires He will not forget to send the rain and the sunshine, and to bless the earth with an abundant harvest.
4. Then we come upon a beautiful expression--And after that God was intreated for the land. There is a solemn lesson here for all time. We must do justice before we can make acceptable prayer, we cannot turn dishonoured graves into altars which God will recognise. If thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee: leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift. Wash you, make you clean; pub away the evil of your doings. These are the conditions upon which God will be intreated.
5. There is a line of true melancholy in the remainder of the chapter. The Philistines had yet war again with Israel, but now when David went down and fought against the Philistines we read that David waxed faint (v. 15). A splendid life is now showing signs of decay. David in his old age was fighting with giants, but he was no longer the ruddy youth who smote Goliath in the forehead. There is a time when a man must cease from war. There is also a time when his character, his peaceful counsels, his benignant smile, may be of more value than the uplifting of his enfeebled arm. Patriots should take care that their leaders are not too long in the field of danger; and these leaders themselves should know that there is an appointed time for withdrawing from the battle and sitting in noble and well-earned seclusion, guiding by counsel when they can no longer lead by example. (J. Parker, D. D.)
Famine and war
This chapter is a double narrative, first of famine, and secondly of waters, in the latter end of Davids days.
1. The time when those three years of famine were, this is uncertain. Some expositors are for a transposition of those stories both of the famine and of the wars, which (they say) fell out before the rebellions both of Absaloms and of Shebas, rendering probable reasons for their opinion; seeing tis said here in the general only that this famine fell out in the days of David (2Sa_21:1), but other authors of profound judgment do see no reason for admitting any such transposition in the Scriptures, seeing it is never safe to allow it, but when it is necessary, and cannot be avoided; and therefore tis best to take them in that order, wherein the Holy Spirit hath placed them; yet sometimes Scripture-story puts those passages that belongs to one matter all together, though they happened at several times.
2. The cause of this famine made known by Gods oracle. The natural cause was the drought (2Sa_21:10). David, though a prophet, knew not the supernatural cause, until he consulted with the Urim, and God told him it was to punish Sauls fallen zeal, who had so perfidiously and perjuriously brought the Gibeonites into perdition (2Sa_21:1-2.)
3. The means made use of for removing this judgment of famine, namely, the getting both God and the Gibeonites reconciled to Israel (2Sa_21:3-5; 2Sa_6:1-23.) Those Gibeonites had complained of their grievances to God, and he had heard them, for he is gracious. (Exo_23:27.) The reason why they had not all this long time complained to King David. That happened to them which befalls all that are deeply oppressed, they are so dispirited that they dare do nothing for their own relief, and possibly they suspected that David would be unwilling to rescind the acts of Saul.
(2) God now rouses David. He asks them what would satisfy them, seeing Saul had-so wronged them from a zeal without knowledge (Rom_10:2), against the public faith, which God (under no pretence) will suffer to be broken, no not though it was won by a wile. (Jos_9:1-5) Yet was it binding to successors.
(3) It was not a money-matter they sought for satisfaction, but that seven of Sauls sons might be hanged up before the Lord in Gibeah of Saul, that the place wherein he plotted to root out our families, even at his royal palace, may now become the open stage for the rooting out of his family.
(4) The matter, manner, and form of the expiation of Sauls sin, whereby God was reconciled, and the famine removed from Israel at the Gibeonites prayer.
(1.) Mephibosheth, Jonathans son, is so named to distinguish him from that other Mephibosheth, the son of Sauls concubine (2Sa_21:7-8). This poor cripple was saved for Jonathans sake, because of the Lords oath between them. How much more will the Father of all mercies be mindful of the children of believers for Jesus sake, and for the covenant made with their parents.
(2) But David, doubtless at Gods direction, took the two sons of Rizpah, Sauls concubine, and the five sons of Merab, who was married to Adriel.
(3) The manner of this expiation, it was the execution of this sevenfold matter, by hanging them all up before the Lord (2Sa_21:9), though David had sworn that he would not cut off Sauls seed (1Sa_24:21-22). Yet God, dispensing with David in this oath, directed him to do thus; otherwise David had been as guilty of perjury as Saul himself was, and God would not have been so well pleased with this sacrifice as to remove the dearth at it.
(4) Rizpahs motherly affection to her two hanged sons. (2Sa_21:10.) She erected a tent upon a continguous rock made of sackcloth (in token of mourning) to secure herself from the parching heat of the sun in the droughty day, and from the malignant vapours of the dark nights. Resolving to watch their bodies from all annoyances, because they were doomed by David with the direction of God, who in this extraordinary case dispensed with his own double law. (Deu_21:23; Deu_24:1-22; Deu_16:1-22.) To hang there until the anger of God was appeased for Sauls sin, and rain reobtained, which Rizpah prayed earnestly for in her mourning tent; and that the Lord would accept the sacrifice of her sons for an atonement, to remove the famine, etc. If so, then Rizpah must be a religious woman, having this providence made an ordinance to her. However, she was certainly a virago of a more than manly courage that durst watch there night and day without fear of wild beasts, etc. Not wanting servants as a kings concubine, yet will she watch herself alone.
5. Davids high commendation of Rizpahs doing, insomuch as he made her his pattern in declaring due respect to the dead. (2Sa_21:11-14.)
(1) Tidings of Rizpahs condoling the death of her sons, etc., being brought to David, it pleased him so well that be willingly learnt to do his own duty to the dead, and not only towards the bodies of these royal persons now executed, but also to the bones of Saul and Jonathan.
(2) David hereupon giveth out his royal order, that the bones of Saul and Jonathan laid up in the sepulchre (where the men of Jabesh Gilead had buried them, 1Sa_31:10-12), should be brought thence, and be buried in the sepulchre of Kish, Sauls father, and for the bodies of those seven sons he ordered also an honourable burial, to make them all the amends be could possibly for their ignominious death: all which do clearly demonstrate that David bare no malice either to Saul (who had been so malicious to him while he lived) nor to his sons, and what little reason Joab had to accuse David for hating his friends (2Sa_19:6), but herein he most piously loved his enemies.
6. The effect of all this. (2Sa_21:14.)
(1) The Lords tenderness towards Rizpah, when God saw her motherly bowels, in lamenting the loss of her sons with so much love and patience, and lodging in such an open air to keep their dead bodies from all harm either by bird or beast, he would not suffer her to suffer this hardship till September (as some say) which was the time of Gods giving Israel their latter rain (as their former rain fell in Nisan or spring before their barley-harvest, the very time wherein they were hanged (2Sa_21:10), for then Rizpah must lodge upon the rock in her sackcloth tent for many months night and day; but God soon sent rain as that phrase intimateth Water dropped upon them out of heaven after so long a drought, causing a dearth, whereby she presently understood Gods anger was appeased, seeing rain was now re-obtained.
(2) The Lord soon sent rain, not only because He saw David had done that due execution of justice (demanded both by God and the Gibeonites) which so far pleased God that the wickedness of wicked Saul, of his sons, and of his subjects was expiated thereby as to temporal punishments, but also God was pleased because David found in his heart (as the phrase is, 2Sa_7:27) to recompense good for evil to his enemies, in ordering an honourable interment to Saul and all his sons, and to bury them honourably in a place of Benjamin, named Jos_18:28.
(3) After their execution God was intreated for the land (verse 14.) Those intreaters were many, not only all the religious people of Israel, but also Rizpah prayed for rain, that a speedy period might be put both to the pinching famine and to her own painful watchings.
7. The wars David had with the Philistines, wherein were four famous battles fought, from verse 15 to the end.
(1) In the first battle David was present in person, though tis expressly said He now waxed faint with old age (verse 15.) Some say this fell out before Absaloms rebellion. Let this story be timed without interruption where the Holy Spirit hath placed it. Here David was in danger to be slain by the giant Ishbi Benob (v. 16), who being made a new colonel, pressed into Israels army, and with his new sword essayed to slay David as a proof of his valour, but Abishai succoured him, and slew the daring monster (v. 17), Josephus saith, it was done as David nursed them, &c.
(2). David was absent in all the three following battles, for his men sware to him because of his former personal danger [That he should descend into no more battles] as they had only obliged his absence (2Sa_18:1-33; 2Sa_3:1-39; 2Sa_4:1-12.)
(3). The issue of these three battles succeeding the first,, and one another as the Philistines (routed in all the four fights) could recruit, and rally their forces. All these victories are ascribed to David (v. 22), learn we to do so unto Christ for all our victories both corporal and spiritual: These all made way for Solomons peaceable reign. (C. Ness.)
Gods Delays in Punishing.
Saul had been some time dead, when this famine, year by year, for three years, visited the people of Israel. You must look back to the book of Joshua, to see what the sin was. There we find that Israel had made a league with the Gibeonites. Joshua, it is written, made peace with them, to let them live; and the princes of the congregation aware unto them And the children of Israel smote them not, because the princes of the congregation had sworn unto them by the Lord God of Israel. But in after times they forgot this oath, by suffering Saul to slay the Gibeonites, and did not see the guilt of letting him take their lives. But the sin, though at first it brought no chastisement, began to put forth thorns and to prick in Davids day. Now we often act like Israel; we brush away from our minds what we have done. We are too busy with to-day; we are interested in what is going on just now. Who likes to look an old folly in the face? Who likes to unrol the book of life, to read the pages that are stained and blackened with old sins? We do not like to rake up all our sins. There is enough of sin in every mans life to put him to the blush. But is it wise thus to treat ourselves and our sins? Is all well because we are at ease, and have got rid of the sting of our old misdeeds? Is all really safe? Is there no cause for a certain fearful looking for of judgment, and fiery indignation.? Are sins to be thrown aside, and got rid of this way? Nay, we may be very easy and composed; but this is not safety; it is only a treacherous peace; true peace must be sought for by the very opposite course. The true way of peace is not to turn away from the past, but to turn towards it, that we may search and see what we have been about; the true way of peace is not to try to forget our sinful or frivolous deeds of old, but to be at pains to recollect and recall them; for the true way of peace lies through the gate of repentance, through a deep, sincere, careful repentance. It is the penitent who can lay hold of the Cross and live. We must not mistake the ways of God in this matter. The famine that fell on Israel for offences long since past shews us that the edge of Gods sword is not blunted, because for a time it is withheld; for every sin there is punishment in store. No man resists the Spirit, and goes unpunished, if he remains impenitent. The Lord often withholds His arm, not because He disregards the sin, bug because He knows the terror of His vengeance, and would fain see the conversion of the sinner. If we are at all moved by the long-suffering and forbearance with which we have been treated, what wiser thing can we do than solemnly and carefully to retrace our steps, and, by a close accurate study of our past lives, to see whether we have much to repent and to confess before the Lord? (J. Armstrong, D. D.)
The enquiry into sin
Here we have an example of the dealings of God with sinners; we see the sin of one man, Saul, coming upon his family, according to that rule which God hath specially laid down among the strictest of his commandments. I, the Lord thy God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me. The first thing to be learned from such a manifestation of the ways of Gods dealing with sin, is the very dreadful extent to which it goes: nearly 200 generations have past since the days of Adam, and yet the effects of his sin have not run out their course. All this world is of a piece; one part is joined on to another, so that no man, however selfish, can do any thing for himself only; some one else must in some way or another come in for his share in it. Can the Christian then take too great heed to himself? The sin of Saul, we seed brought a judgment on the whole land; and it is most instructive to observe how it had been so completely forgotten by men, so that David was obliged to enquire the reason of the judgment. So little do men think of sin until they begin to smart for it. Is not this also a matter of daily experience? But the child of God, and joint-heir with Jesus Christ, has no need of being compelled to enquire of God. He does enquire daily; daily there is presented to his eyes the miserable spectacle of this world, full of sorrow and death, and daily and hourly he feels in his body the tokens of mortality; and daily God gives him an answer with greater clearness, It is for sin. And daily also he sees his Saviour on the cross, in his agony and sufferings; and daily he enquires of the Lord in his heart, Why is this? and daily the answer comes to him with a deeper experience of his own need and Gods abundance, It is for sin. Sin, therefore, is his abhorrence; he sees Gods judgment ever upon it. We see from this chapter that after David had enquired of the Lord, and found the reason of the judgment which was upon the land, he immediately set to work to remove it. But how few will follow the example of David in their own case I God having spoken to their enquiring conscience in a manner not to be mistaken, how slow are they to give up the darling sin to be crucified! Such never can have made serious and earnest enquiry of the Lord. Let all enquire with Davids sincerity, and then they will perform with Davids faithfulness. But the business of the Christian is to enquire with all sincerity, and with daily diligence; ford if he be not less watchful than becomes his profession, he must see both within him and without him continual occasion for such inquiry. And thus they daily grow in the knowledge of themselves, and in the resignation of their wills unto God; thus they become more conformed to the image of the Son of God, who Himself, when in the flesh, though He were a Son, yet learned obedience by the things which He suffered. Thus, as persons find pearls of inestimable price by diving to the bottom of the sea, and groping there amid fear and darkness, so they, searching into the dark depths of their heart with godly fear, bring always up to sight the precious pearl of their redemption in Jesus Christ. (R. W. Evans, B. D.)
The Biblical Illustrator, edited by Joseph S. Exell (c. 1880s–1900s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Expositor's Bible 1887 · Public Domain On v1
CHAPTER X X V I I I
THE FAMINE.
Read full note →
2Sa_21:1-14.
WE now enter on the concluding part of the reign of David. Some of the matters in which he was most occupied during this period are recorded only in Chronicles. Among these, the chief was his preparations for the building of the temple, which great work was to be undertaken by his son. In the concluding part of Samuel the principal things recorded are two national judgments, a famine and a pestilence, that occurred in David's reign, the one springing from a transaction in the days of Saul, the other from one in the days of David. Then we have two very remarkable lyrical pieces, one a general song of thanksgiving, forming a retrospect of his whole career; the other a prophetic vision of the great Ruler that was to spring from him, and the effects of His reign. In addition to these, there is also a notice of certain wars of David's, not previously recorded, and a fuller statement respecting his great men than we have elsewhere. The whole of this section has more the appearance of a collection of pieces than a chronological narrative. It is by no means certain that they are all recorded in the order of their occurrence. The most characteristic of the pieces are the two songs or psalms - the one looking back, the other looking forward; the one commemorating the goodness and mercy that had followed him all the days of his life, the other picturing goodness still greater and mercy more abundant, yet to be vouchsafed under David's Son.
The conjunction "then" at the beginning of the chapter is replaced in the Revised Version by "and." It does not denote that what is recorded here took place immediately after what goes before. On the contrary, the note of time is found in the general expression, "in the days of David," that is, some time in David's reign. On obvious grounds, most recent commentators are disposed to place this occurrence comparatively early. It is likely to have happened while the crime of Saul was yet fresh in the public recollection. By the close of David's reign a new generation had come to maturity, and the transactions of Saul's reign must have been comparatively forgotten. It is clear from David's excepting Mephibosheth, that the transaction occurred after he had been discovered and cared for. Possibly the narrative of the discovery of Mephibosheth may also be out of chronological order, and that event may have occurred earlier than is commonly thought. It will remove some of the difficulties of this difficult chapter if we are entitled to place the occurrence at a time not very far remote from the death of Saul.
It was altogether a singular occurrence, this famine in the land of Israel. The calamity was remarkable, the cause was remarkable, the cure most remarkable of all. The whole narrative is painful and perplexing; it places David in a strange light, - it seems to place even God Himself in a strange light; and the only way in which we can explain it, in consistency with a righteous government, is by laying great stress on a principle accepted without hesitation in those Eastern countries, which made the father and his children "one concern," and held the children liable for the misdeeds of the father.
1. As to the calamity. It was a famine that continued three successive years, causing necessarily an increase of misery year after year. There is a presumption that it occurred in the earlier part of David's reign, because, if it had been after the great enlargement of the kingdom which followed his foreign wars, the resources of some parts of it would probably have availed to supply the deficiency. At first it does not appear that the king held that there was any special significance in the famine, - that it came as a reproof for any particular sin. But when the famine extended to a third year, he was persuaded that it must have a special cause. Did he not in this just act as we all are disposed to do? A little trial we deem to be nothing; it does not seem to have any significance or to be connected with any lesson. It is only when the little trial swells into a large one, or the brief trouble into a long-continued affliction, that we begin to inquire why it was sent. If small trials were more regarded, heavy trials would be less needed. The horse that springs forward at the slightest touch of the whip or prick of the spur needs no heavy lash; it is only when the lighter stimulus fails that the heavier has to be applied. Man's tendency, even under God's chastenings, has ever been to ignore the source of them, - when God "poured upon him the fury of His anger and the strength of battle, and it set him on fire round about, yet he knew not; and it burned him, yet he laid it not to heart " (Isa_42:25). Trials would neither be so long nor so severe if more regard were had to them in an earlier stage; if they were accepted more as God's message - "Thus saith the Lord of hosts, Consider your ways."
2. The cause of the calamity was made known when David inquired of the Lord - "It is for Saul and his bloody house, because he slew the Gibeonites."
The history of the crime for which this famine was sent can be gathered only from incidental notices. It appears from the narrative before us that Saul "consumed the Gibeonites, and devised against them that they should be destroyed from remaining in any of the coasts of Israel." The Gibeonites, as is well known, were a Canaanite people, who, through a cunning stratagem, obtained leave from Joshua to dwell in their old settlements, and being protected by a solemn national oath, were not disturbed even when it was found out that they had been practicing a fraud. They possessed cities, situated principally in the tribe of Benjamin; the chief of them, Gibeon, ''was a great city, one of the royal cities, greater than Ai." In the time of Saul they were a quiet, inoffensive people; yet he seems to have fallen on them with a determination to sweep them from all the coasts of Israel. Death or banishment was the only alternative he offered. His desire to exterminate them evidently failed, otherwise David would have found none of them to consult; but the savage attack which he made on them affords an incidental proof that it was no feeling of humanity that led him to spare the Amalekites when he was ordered to destroy them.
We are not told of any offence that the Gibeonites had committed; and perhaps covetousness lay at the root of Saul's policy. There is reason to believe that when he saw his popularity declining and David's advancing, he had recourse to unscrupulous methods of increasing his own. Addressing his servants, before the slaughter of Abimelech and the priests, he asked, "Hear now, ye Benjamites; will the son of Jesse give you fields and vineyards, that all of you have conspired against me?" Evidently he had rewarded his favourites, especially those of his own tribe, with fields and vineyards. But how had he got these to bestow? Very probably by dispossessing the Gibeonites. Their cities, as we have seen, were in the tribe of Benjamin. But to prevent jealousy, others, both of Judah and of Israel, would get a share of the spoil. For he is said to have sought to slay the Gibeonites "in his zeal for the children of Israel and Judah." If this was the way in which the slaughter of the Gibeonites was compassed, it was fair that the nation should suffer for it. If the nation profited by the unholy transaction, and was thus induced to wink at the violation of the national faith and the massacre of an inoffensive people, it shared in Saul's guilt, and became liable to chastisement. Even David himself was not free from blame. "When he came to the throne he should have seen justice done to this injured people. But probably he was afraid. He felt his own authority not very secure, and probably he shrank from raising up enemies in those whom justice would have required him to dispossess. Prince and people therefore were both at fault, and both were suffering for the wrongdoing of the nation. Perhaps Solomon had this case in view when he wrote;" Rob not the poor because he is poor, neither oppress the afflicted in the gate; for the Lord will plead their cause, and spoil the soul of those that spoiled them."
But whatever may have been Saul's motive, it is certain that by his attempt to massacre and banish the Gibeonites a great national sin was committed, and that for this sin the nation had never humbled itself, and never made reparation.
3. What, then, was now to be done? The king left it to the Gibeonites themselves to prescribe the satisfaction which they claimed for this wrong. This was in accordance with the spirit of the law that gave a murdered man's nearest of kin a right to exact justice of the murderer. In their answer the Gibeonites disclaimed all desire for compensation in money; and very probably this was a surprise to the people. To surrender lands might have been much harder than to give up lives. What the Gibeonites asked had a grim look of justice; it showed a burning desire to bring home the punishment as near as possible to the offender: "The man that consumed us, and that devised against us that we should be destroyed from remaining in any of the coasts of Israel, let seven men of his sons be delivered unto us, and we will hang them up unto the Lord in Gibeah of Saul, whom the Lord did choose." Seven was a perfect number, and therefore the victims should be seven. Their punishment was, to be hanged or crucified, but in inflicting this punishment the Jews were more merciful than the Romans; the criminals were first put to death, then their dead bodies were exposed to open shame. They were to be hanged "unto the Lord," as a satisfaction to expiate His just displeasure. They were to be hanged "in Gibeah of Saul," to bring home the offence visibly to him, so that the expiation should be at the same place as the crime. And when mention is made of Saul, the Gibeonites add, "Whom the Lord did choose." For Jehovah was intimately connected with Saul's call to the throne; He was in some sense publicly identified with him; and unless something were done to disconnect Him with this crime, the reproach of it would, in measure, rest upon Him.
Such was the demand of the Gibeonites; and David deemed it right to comply with it, stipulating only that the descendants of Jonathan should not be surrendered. The sons or descendants of Saul that were given up for this execution were the two sons of Rizpah, Saul's concubine, and along with them five sons of Michal, or, as it is in the margin, of Merab, the elder daughter of Saul, whom she bare (R. V. - not "brought up," A.V.) to Adriel the Meholathite. These seven men were put to death accordingly, and their bodies exposed in the hill near Gibeah.
The transaction has a very hard look to us, though it had nothing of the kind to the people of those days. Why should these unfortunate men be punished so terribly for the sin of their father? How was it possible for David, in cold blood, to give them up to an ignominious death? How could he steel his heart against the supplications of their friends? With regard to this latter aspect of the case, it is ridiculous to cast reproach on David. As we have remarked again and again, if he had acted like other Eastern kings, he would have consigned every son of Saul to destruction when he came to the throne, and left not one remaining, for no other offence than being the children of their father. On the score of clemency to Saul's family the character of David is abundantly vindicated.
The question of justice remains. Is it not a law of nature, it may be asked, and a law of the Bible too, that the son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, but that the soul that sinneth it shall die? It is undoubtedly the rule both of nature and the Bible that the son is not to be substituted for the father when the father is there to bear the penalty. But it is neither the rule of the one nor of the other that the son is never to suffer with the father for the sins which the father has committed. On the contrary, it is what we see taking place, in many forms, every day. It is an arrangement of Providence that almost baffles the philanthropist, who sees that children often inherit from their parents a physical frame disposing them to their parents' vices, and who sees, moreover, that, when brought up by vicious parents, children are deprived of their natural rights, and are initiated into a life of vice. But the law that identified children and parents in Old Testament times was carried out to consequences which would not be tolerated now. Not only were children often punished because of their physical connection with their fathers, but they were regarded as judicially one with them, and so liable to share in their punishment. The Old Testament (as Canon Mozley has so powerfully shown*) was in some respects an imperfect economy; the rights of the individual were not so clearly acknowledged as they are under the New; the family was a sort of moral unit, and the father was the responsible agent for the whole. When Achan sinned, his whole household shared his punishment. The solidarity of the family was such that all were involved in the sin of the father. However strange it may seem to us; it did not appear at all strange in David's time that this rule should be applied in the case of Saul. On the contrary, it would probably be thought that it showed considerable moderation of feeling not to demand the death of the whole living posterity of Saul, but to limit the demand to the number of seven. Doubtless the Gibeonites had suffered to an enormous extent. Thousands upon thousands of them had probably been slain. People might be sorry for the seven young men that had to die, but that there was anything essentially unjust or even harsh in the transaction is a view of the case that would occur to no one. Justice is often hard; executions are always grim; but here was a nation that had already experienced three years of famine for the sin of Saul, and that would experience yet far more if no public expiation should take place; and seven men were not very many to die for a nation. (*Lectures on the Old Testament. Lecture V: "Visitation of Sins of Fathers on Children.")
The grimness of the mode of punishment was softened by an incident of great moral beauty, which cannot but touch the heart of every man of sensibility. Rizpah, the concubine of Saul, and mother of two of the victims, combining the tenderness of a mother and the courage of a hero, took her position beside the gibbet; and, undeterred by the sight of the rotting bodies and the stench of the air, she suffered neither the birds of the air to rest on them by day nor the beasts of the field by night. The poor woman must have looked for a very different destiny when she became the concubine of Saul. No doubt she expected to share in the glory of his royal state. But her lord perished in battle, and the splendour of royalty passed for ever from him and his house. Then came the famine; its cause was declared from heaven, its cure was announced by the Gibeonites. Her two sons were among the slain. Probably they were but lads, not yet beyond the age which rouses a mother's sensibilities to the full. (This consideration likewise points to an early date.) We cannot attempt to picture her feelings. The last consolation that remained for her was to guard their remains from the vulture and the tiger. Unburied corpses were counted to be disgraced, and this, in some degree, because they were liable to be devoured by birds and beasts of prey. Rizpah could not prevent the exposure, but she could try to prevent the wild animals from devouring them. The courage and self-denial needed for this work were great, for the risk of violence from wild beasts was very serious. All honour to this woman and her noble heart! David appears to have been deeply impressed by her heroism. When he heard of it he went and collected the bones of Jonathan and his sons, which had been buried under a tree at Jabesh-gilead, and likewise the bones of the men that had been hanged; and he buried the bones of Saul and Jonathan in Zelah, in the sepulcher of Kish, Saul's father. And after that God was entreated for the land.
We offer a concluding remark, founded on the tone of this narrative. It is marked, as everyone must perceive, by a subdued, solemn tone. Whatever may be the opinion of our time as to the need of apologizing for it, it is evident that no apology was deemed necessary for the transaction at the time this record was written. The feeling of all parties evidently was, that it was indispensable that things should take the course they did. No one expressed wonder when the famine was accounted for by the crime of Saul. No one objected when the question of expiation was referred to the Gibeonites, The house of Saul made no protest when seven of his sons were demanded for death. The men themselves, when they knew what was coming, seem to have been restrained from attempting to save themselves by flight. It seemed as if God were speaking, and the part of man was simply to obey. When mbelievers object to passages in the Bible like this, or like the sacrifice of Isaac, or the death of Achan, they are accustomed to say that they exemplify the worst passions of the human heart consecrated under the name of religion. We affirm that in this chapter there is no sign of any outburst of passion whatever; everything is done with gravity, with composure and solemnity. And, what is more, the graceful piety of Rizpah is recorded, with simplicity, indeed, but in a tone that indicates appreciation of her tender motherly soul. Savages thirsting for blood are not in the habit of appreciating such touching marks of affection. And further, we are made to feel that it was a pleasure to David to pay that mark of respect for Rizpah's feelings in having the men buried. He did not desire to lacerate the feelings of the unhappy mother; he was glad to soothe them as far as he could. To him, as to his Lord, judgment was a strange work, but he delighted in mercy. And he was glad to be able to mingle a slight streak of mercy with the dark colours of a picture of God's judgment on sin.
To all right minds it is painful to punish, and when punishment has to be inflicted it is felt that it ought to be done with great solemnity and gravity, and with an entire absence of passion and excitement. In a sinful world God too must inflict punishment. And the future punishment of the wicked is the darkest thing in all the scheme of God's government. But it must take place. And when it does take place it will be done deliberately, solemnly, sadly. There will be no exasperation, no excitement. There will be no disregard of the feelings of the unhappy victims of the Divine retribution. What they are able to bear will be well considered. What condition they shall be placed in when the punishment comes, will be calmly weighed. But may we not see what a distressing thing it will be (if we may use such an expression with reference to God) to consign His creatures to punishment? How different His feelings when He welcomes them to eternal glory! How different the feelings of His angels when that change takes place by which punishment ceases to hang over men, and glory takes its place! ''There is joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner that repenteth." Is it not blessed to think that this is the feeling of God, and of all Godlike spirits? Will you not all believe this, - believe in the mercy of God, and accept the provision of His grace? ''For God so loved the world that He gave His only-begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on Him should not perish but should have eternal life."
William Robertson Nicoll, ed., The Expositor's Bible (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1887–1910) — public domain. 65 of 66 books (1 Corinthians is not separately keyed, as that volume carries no machine-parseable verse references); section-level commentary keyed to the opening verse. Introductory and overview sections not keyed to a specific passage are excluded.
The Preacher's Complete Homiletical Commentary 1892 · Public Domain On v1 2Sa_21:1. “Then.” Rather, And, consequently there is nothing to…
CRITICAL AND EXPOSITORY NOTES—
2Sa_21:1. “Then.” Rather, And, consequently there is nothing to indicate the period when the events here recorded took place, and many commentators consider that the words, “in the days of David” are “expressly inserted to denote that they are not narrated in their chronological order.” (Biblical Commentary). Keil says, “This occurrence certainly did not take place in the closing years of David’s reign; on the other hand, it is evident from the remark in 2Sa_21:7, to the effect that Mephibosheth was spared, that it happened after David had received tidings of Mephibosheth.” “Three years.” “For the first two seasons the scarcity did not cause much anxiety, since David and the officers of his government probably regarded it as the natural consequence of neglecting the cultivation of the land during the troubles occasioned by Absalom and Sheba, and hoped that the internal resources of the country would be sufficient to supply the wants of the population.” (Jamieson), “His bloody house,” rather “the house of blood-guiltiness.” This expression is in apposition to Saul, and determines the meaning more precisely.” (Keil). “He slew.” Nothing is said elsewhere of this deed. The covenant made with these people is described in Jos_9:3, sq. q.
Read full note →
2Sa_21:4. “No silver,” etc. “Money payments as a compensation for blood-guilt were very common among many nations. Thus the law of Edward the Elder, in England, regulated the wer-gyld to be paid by the slayer upon the principle, “If anyone be slain, let him be paid for according to his birth.” (Biblical Commentary). “Neither for us,” etc., rather, not to us does it pertain to kill, etc., i.e., “it is not permitted us without more ado to execute blood-revenge for the murder of our people.” (Erdmann). “What ye shall say,” etc. “Assuming the necessity of blood-expiation.” (Erdmann).
2Sa_21:5. “The man that consumed,” etc. “It appears then that Saul had broken the power of the tribe by his bath of blood.” (Erdmann).
2Sa_21:6. “Seven men,” etc. “A sacred number, denoting the performance of a work of God.” (Keil). “According to Num_35:31-33, homicide was to be expiated by death but the death of the murderer, not of his kindred; it is, however, intimated in 2Sa_21:1, that Saul’s kindred had shared in the murderous deed. (Translator of Lange’s Commentary). “Hang thee up,” etc., i.e., Crucify them. “Whom the Lord did choose” or, the chosen of the Lord. Exception has been taken to this designation of Saul, and other renderings have been proposed. But the expression seems to indicate that “if Saul was the chosen of the Jehovah, his actions ought to have been more in accordance with his divine election (Keil), and that all the more must there be such expiation to the Lord for his sin as the Lord’s anointed.” (Erdmann).
2Sa_21:7. “The king spared,” etc. “The calamity brought upon Israel by Saul’s breach of the oath to the Gibeonites would make David doubly careful in the matter of his own oath to Jonathan.” (Biblical Commentary). “Rizpah.” (See 2Sa_3:7). “Michal.” Nearly all commentators agree that this is an error of memory or a copyist’s mistake, seeing that Merob, Saul’s eldest daughter, was the wife of Adriel, and it seems almost certain that Michal had no children. (See on 2Sa_6:23). Jamieson says that Kennicott has shown that two Hebrew M.SS. read Merab instead of Michal.
2Sa_21:9. “The hill,” etc. In or near Gibeah, the home of Saul. (1Sa_5:5). “Before the Lord,” i.e., in a place devoted to the worship of Jehovah. “It is true that God had said that the children should not be put to death for the parents (Deu_24:16); but this law, while it controlled the action of the magistrate, did not restrain God, who required and accepted the expiation.” (Wordsworth).
2Sa_21:9. “The barley harvest.” “In the valley of the Jordan this takes place in the last half of April. (Jamieson.)
MAIN HOMILETICS OF THE PARAGRAPH.—2Sa_21:1-9
SAUL’S BREACH OF COVENANT WITH THE GIBEONITES PUNISHED IN HIS DESCENDANTS
I.—Natural laws work or rest as God’s servants. The Bible refers all the workings of the natural world to the will of God. It claims for Him the power to set in motion or to stay the operation of any one or of all the forces of nature as He sees fit. They are not the masters of our earth or of man, but servants obeying Him who is Lord of all. It is true that man will sometimes ignorantly or wilfully pervert and arrest the action of those laws which are to some extent within the reach of his influence, but this does not affect their divine origin. When, therefore, certain ordinary gifts of nature are withheld—when, as was most likely the case in the present instance, rain or sunshine do not visit the earth and quicken the seed into life and growth, those who believe in the God of the Bible refer the event, not to an impersonal law, but to a living Ruler of the universe. Indeed, apart from all scriptural teaching, it seems impossible for men who think to come to any other conclusion, for laws necessarily include a law-giver, and it is impossible to conceive of such a being as in any way fettered by his own methods of working. David was a true philosopher, as well as a devout believer, when he looked to the Lord as the only Being who could give rain from heaven and fruitful seasons, or command the clouds to withhold their blessings and so bring dearth and famine upon the land.
II. The cause of the suspension of beneficent natural laws is to be found not in God but in man. When David inquired of the Lord concerning the repeated dearth in the land, he evidently did so with the conviction that the cause of the dispensation was to be found not in the good nature of God but in the bad nature of man. He had formed such an estimate of the character of Jehovah as to be sure that He would not afflict his children willingly, or withdraw from them any of His gifts out of caprice, still less out of a desire to cause them pain or suffering. For no good human creature would be guilty of such conduct, and it would be blasphemy to ascribe to the ever-blessed God that which we should condemn in a fellow man. If a loving father withholds from his child his accustomed provision for his needs, all unprejudiced minds at once conclude that the reason is to be found, not in the disposition of the parent, but in the character of the child. So God declared of old it was with Him and Israel, and so it must ever be with Him and all His creatures. All His withholdings of good gifts or infliction of positive ills are, either directly or indirectly, the outcome of man’s sin, and are either for his correction or instruction, either to bring him back to the ways of God or to quicken and direct his steps after his return.
III. The punishment of sin is not remitted because it is delayed. The chief actor in this crime had long since left the earth, and had not in his own person received special retribution for this special act, but had been altogether rejected by God for an almost life-long disobedience to His commands. But there were most likely many still living who had been Saul’s willing instruments on this occasion, and they now learnt that this unrighteous deed had not been forgotten by God, although He had so long kept silence concerning it. It is not more certain that the stone thrown into the air will return to the earth than that retribution will follow sin, and, although individuals may escape in this world, the crimes of families, and other communities rarely fail to be punished in the present life, although that punishment may be so long delayed as to pass over many of those who are guilty. This fact in God’s government is closely linked with another, viz:
IV. That one generation of men often suffer for crimes for which other generations are also responsible. It was so in the case of Saul and the Gibeonites. However guilty Saul’s sons might be in this matter, they were not the only guilty persons, nor were they so guilty as their father, yet upon them only fell the penalty for this particular crime. Many generations of Egyptians oppressed the children of Israel, yet only those who lived in the days of the Exodus suffered for it. Many generations of Jews were guilty of killing the prophets, but Christ told those who lived in His day that the righteous blood of all was upon their heads. (Mat_23:35). In secular history we have many similar cases, and if we ask if such a law be just, we can only answer that the God of all the earth can have no motive for wronging any of His creatures, and that there is another world wherein all these apparent inequalities will find their level. Such a law of entail has a bright as well as a dark side, for the blessed influence of righteous deeds descends also, and one great end of such a law in the Divine government is evidently to deter men from iniquity by the consideration of the misery they may bring upon their posterity.
OUTLINES AND SUGGESTIVE COMMENTS
2Sa_21:1. There are things deeper and truer than any such philosophy, and among these I place the spiritual instincts of the human heart. Why is it, we are disposed to ask, that in almost all languages pestilence has been called by a name which—like our own word plague, which means a stroke—directly points to God’s agency in its appearance? and whence comes it that, when a people are enduring such a calamity, there is a general thought of God among them, and their resolution becomes that of Jeremiah: ‘Let us search, and try our ways, and turn again unto the Lord?” Do not these things, and others like them, point to the fact that, by the mystic intuitions of the soul, God is recognised in all such visitations? and while we take into account the laws of external nature, shall we refuse to pay regard to the nature that is within us?—Dr. Taylor.
Let no one think it strange that the penalty should come thus, in famine, upon an entire nation, after a new generation had sprung up. For a nation’s history is a unit; and as there can be no such thing as retribution of a nation in the future state, it follows that if punishment for national sins is to be inflicted at all, it must fall in the subsequent earthly history of the nation that committed them. The generation which was alive in France at the eras of the massacre of St. Bartholomew and the revocation of the Edict of Nantes was a different one from that which lived at the time of the first Revolution; yet in the events of the latter, with its Reign of Terror and rivers of blood, we have the undoubted consequences of the former. Many generations have come and gone in Spain since the days of Philip and the great Armada, yet we can not doubt that the miserable condition of that land for more than a century—a condition out of which its inhabitants find it hard even now to emerge—was due to the sins of those who knew not the day of their visitation, and suppressed the Protestantism which, but for the Inquisition, would have arisen among them, and enabled them to lead the van of European progress. The English occupants of India in 1857 were not the same as those who, under Clive and Hastings, and others, so unrighteously obtained possession of large portions of that empire; nay, they were in many instances men of another order and a nobler nature; yet upon these, ay, even upon the heads of sainted missionaries who repudiated and condemned the cruelty and craft of the first invaders, the terrible Nemesis of the mutiny did fall.—Dr. Taylor.
Fools look only who stands on the next stair or step, but Jacob, when he saw the angels ascending and descending, he inquired who stood on the top of the ladder and sent them to and fro. Ezekiel also inquireth who standeth on the top of the wheel. Whatever is the instrument of our sufferings, let God be looked upon as the chief agent … The whole people suffered for Saul’s sin, either because they approved it, or at least bewailed it not, neither did what they could to hinder it, whereby they became accessory.—Trapp.
2Sa_21:2. Leal to Israel, not to God, whose law, nevertheless, he might seem to have on his side (Deu_8:16, etc.).… And yet he might also be moved to this by covetousness to gain their lands and goods.… The hypocrite is fitly compared to the eagle, which soareth aloft, not for any love of heaven, for her eye is all the while upon the prey which by this means she spieth sooner, and seizeth upon better.—Trapp.
2Sa_21:1-9. Our feelings, influenced by the Gospel, recoil from this proceeding. The implacableness of the Gibeonites astonishes us; and also the compliance of the king appears to us to be in violent contrariety to his whole disposition, as well as to the state of mind in which he was at the time. But let it always be remembered that it was the economy of the law under which those things were done, and with the character of which they harmonised; and that the care of God, in his educating of the human race, aimed above all things at this—that He should be recognised and feared as the Holy One and the Just. To this divine purpose David must bend himself, and make full account of it, whatever inner conflict it may cost him. The great guilt of the house of Saul—perjury and murder at the same time—demanded blood, according to the inviolable law of God’s kingdom. Already, indeed, that house, laden with sins, had been smitten by many judgments; but yet by none which discovered itself at the first glance to every one among the people, as a requital for that most culpable of all their crimes, the murder of the innocent Gibeonites. This special chastisement must not be omitted. For the prevention of doubtful interpretations in Israel, and for the heightening of esteem for every iota of the divine law, it must follow all that went before; and it truly did follow. The majesty and inexorable rigour of the law, as it was in Israel divinely manifested, was scarcely ever more brightly, and in a more alarming manner, brought to view than it was on this occasion.—Krummacher.
Little did the Gibeonites think that God had so taken to heart their wrongs, that for their sakes all Israel should suffer. Even when we think not of it, is the righteous Judge avenging our unrighteous vexations. Our hard measures cannot be hid from Him; His returns are hid from us. It is sufficient for us, that God can be no more neglective than ignorant of our sufferings.—Bp. Hall.
We may learn from this history—
I. What should in every case be the effect of temporal troubles, and afflictive dispensations. They have not answered their first purpose, till they have brought us to God. Had David sooner “inquired of the Lord,” he and his people had been sooner relieved from their distress; but while their hearts continued hard, and their consciences at ease, the evil not only continued, but continued to increase. Such, in general, is our conduct under the calamities of life. The mind is too deeply depressed—too fondly attached to present objects, to rise at once to Him who orders all things, both in heaven and earth. While we are passionately repining,—looking around for modes of relief, or for the sources of our suffering, we are too much occupied with secondary and external causes, to think of the sinful cause in ourselves, which may have drawn down upon us these troubles.… Where-ever God afflicts, there He speaks,—not indeed always in anger, more frequently in mercy.… Yet in such admonitions He will not be disregarded; every successive stroke will be yet heavier and heavier, till it either draw us to Him or drive us from Him. II. The danger of trifling with oaths and solemn engagements.… God would teach us, by this instance of just severity, that His honour is implicated in every oath, and that he will exact an awful retribution for the violation of such solemn engagements. The very insignificance of the injured party, as here, may be a farther reason with Him for taking the cause upon Himself.… In confirmation of this, we have another striking example in Scripture. In the days of Zedekiah a solemn treaty had been ratified with the King of Babylon, upon these humiliating conditions, “that the kingdom might be base, that it might not lift itself up, but that, by keeping of his covenant it might stand.” Zedekiah, thinking to throw off this yoke, rebelled.… Therefore, thus saith the Lord God: As I live, surely mine oath that he hath despised, and my covenant that he hath broken, even it will I recompense upon his own head.” (Eze_17:19).—Lindsay.
This whole narrative strikes us as extraordinary, at first almost staggers us. It places David in a strange light, it seems at first to place God in a strange light, but on a closer examination its mystery vanishes, and it is seen to harmonise both with the character of David and the righteous judgment of God.… What was Saul’s motive in attacking the Gibeonites? There is reason to believe that when he saw his own popularity declining and David’s advancing, he had recourse to base, unscrupulous methods for increasing his own (see 1Sa_22:7-8). Evidently he had rewarded his servants, especially those of his own tribe, with fields and vineyards; ‘but how had he got them? In no other way that we can suppose than by robbing the Gibeonites of theirs.… Probably he would give the larger share to the members of his family, but to prevent the transaction from having a mean personal aspect, he might so arrange that the people generally should have a share of the spoil.… If this was the way in which the transaction was gone about, it was fair that the nation should be visited with chastisement.… No remonstrance had gone forth against the deed.… The authors of the outrage might now be dead, but their children were quietly living on the plunder. Even David himself was not free from blame. When he came to the throne he should have seen justice done to this injured people.… The famine was, therefore, a retribution deserved both by David and his people. It was a lesson on the consequences of riches gained by robbery. It was to show that perfidy and theft cost far more than they bring in.… We now come to the main difficulty in this transaction. Where was the justice, it may be asked, of this frightful execution? Why should these unoffending men be punished so terribly for the long-forgotten sin of their father? It is not the rule of Scripture. “The son shall not bear the iniquity of his father, but every man shall bear his own iniquity.” On the other hand, it may be said, is it not a rule of God’s government? “I, the Lord, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquities of the fathers upon the children, etc.?” There is no real contradiction between these seemingly conflicting rules. In the righteous judgments of God every man has to bear his own iniquity. Saul had to bear every atom of his.… There is no such thing as a son bearing the iniquity of his father in the sense of relieving the father of the load … But there is a law that often operates in the government of God. When a father is addicted to a sin … it often gets ingrained, as it were, into the very substance of the race, and … incases where the iniquity of the fathers is visited upon future generations, it will commonly be found that the children have served themselves heirs to the sins of their fathers.… It was the blood that lay upon the house, as well as on Saul personally, that cried to heaven for vengeance. The sons that were given up to justice were probably living and fattening upon the fruits of that unprincipled massacre.… And if it should be said that, in going into this transaction, David appears to have felt little or no horror, we must remember how sparing the Scriptures are in their mention of men’s feelings in such matters. He may have felt much that is not here expressed; or, if he did feel less concern about this deed of death than might have been expected, we must remember how familiar he had been all his life with the most ghastly scenes and how much familiarity tends to deaden the ordinary sensibilities of our nature.—Blaikie.
The Preacher's Complete Homiletical Commentary (gen. ed. Joseph S. Exell; Funk & Wagnalls, c. 1892) — public domain (pre-1929). A full-Bible homiletical/sermon-outline anthology covering 65 of 66 books (2 John is absent from the source module). Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Sermon Bible 1900 · Public Domain On v1 2Sa 21:10
2Sa 21:10
I. Consider first the Divine dealings with the house of Saul and the people of Israel.
Read full note →
The famine was because Saul and his bloody house had slain the Gibeonites. It was a consequence of that act of his. But the famine was not the punishment of Saul, the most guilty of the offenders. Saul was punished even in this world. In spite of his elevation to the throne and his brilliant successes, he lived a miserable life and died a miserable death. Here was his punishment, but so far as his crime to the Gibeonites was concerned he did not live to share in the misery occasioned by that sinful act.
The thought of this fact, that our actions, independently of their good or evil desert, have inevitable consequences, should make us very circumspect and careful. There exists a mysterious sequence of events which evades our research and reaches beyond the things of this world.
II. The conduct of Rizpah was natural; it was also not without its use, if we look to the moral instead of the physical world. She returned to her home with a softened though a saddened heart, with subdued affections, with a consciousness of having done what she could, and with the knowledge that her conduct had met with the approbation of David.
III. Notice the conduct of David. In his generous heart a generous action was sure to find a ready response. He whose parental affections not even the rebellion of an ungrateful son could annihilate knew how to sympathise with the childless Rizpah, and Rizpah was doubtless consoled when, in a princely burial, she saw honour done to her husband’s house.
Justice first, and then mercy. This is the way of the Lord, and David, as the Lord’s vicegerent, walked in it.
F. W. Hook, Parish Sermons, p. 66.
References: 2Sa 21:10.—Spurgeon, Evening by Evening, p. 91; J. W. Burgon, Ninety-one Short Sermons, No. 66. 2Sa 21:14.—Sermons for Sundays: festivals and Fasts, 2nd series, vol. in., p. 34. 2Sa 21:15, 2Sa 21:16.—S. Baring-Gould, One Hundred Sermon Sketches, p. 89.
2Sa 21:17
The personal influence of King David was the spell by which Israel was reunited after long separations and out of great diversities of interests. A skilful general, a gallant soldier, a perfect bard, a saint of God, and, above all, a lifelong penitent after a great fall, this was the man whom his generals well called the "light of Israel;" this was he on whose life and name, they felt, depended the solidity of a yet fragmentary, a half-barbarised, nation. He was, as it were, the only lamp of God burning in a darkened sanctuary, the one pledge they had that strength, glory, and wisdom are not really of us, but of God.
I. David’s personal influence was invaluable to the tribes; it was the most precious thing that God had given them as a nation. And therefore, valuable as it is on the field of battle, they will not use it there at all; they must keep it for the good of Israel in higher fields and for nobler achievements in the elevation of the people. This story teaches that the power of personal influence is the best gift which God gives to every one.
II. There is none too much light in Israel. If one man’s name is not now, as in the old heroic savage times, a beacon blaze for all, so much the more careful should we be of all the rays of scattered light which here and there betoken that God’s gifts are present.
III. But yet again we may rise higher. Let us not risk the light that is in our own souls. We all of us own some light of God burning in the dark places of our hearts. Bring not these sanctities into danger. Rekindle the light of Israel.
Archbishop Benson, Boy Life: Sundays at Wellington College, p. 55.
References: 2Sam 21—Parker, vol. vii., p. 207. 2Sa 22:20.—J. Baldwin Brown, The Higher Life, p. 131. 2Sam 22—W. M. Taylor, David King of Israel, pp. 269, 284.
The Sermon Bible, ed. William Robertson Nicoll (1888–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
J. R. Dummelow 1909 · Public Domain On v1 These chapters contain six appendices, which have been placed…
These chapters contain six appendices, which have been placed at the end of the book in order not to interrupt the history of the reign. These appendices are (1) the account of a famine (2Sa_21:1-14); (2) exploits against the Philistines (2Sa_21:15-22); (3) a psalm of David (2 Samuel 22); (4) David's last words (2Sa_23:1-7); (5) further exploits against the Philistines and a list of David's heroes (2Sa_23:8-29); (6) the census of the people (2 Samuel 24). Of these six, the first and sixth are closely connected (2Sa_24:1 refers to 2Sa_21:1), while the account of exploits against the Philistines has been cut in two by two psalms. But these psalms, though placed side by side, have no connexion with one another. 2 Samuel 22 is identical with Psalms 18, and is best explained under that title.
The Famine and some Exploits against the Philistines
Read full note →
1. It is for Saul, and for his bloody house] rather, 'upon Saul and his house rests bloodshed.' The Gibeonites] The lives of the Gibeonites had been spared, through fear of God's anger being excited by any breach of the covenant made with them (Joshua 9, especially Jos_9:20).
2. Amorites] Strictly speaking, the Gibeonites were Hivites (Joshua 9, 7), especially 2Sa_21:20).
2. Amorites] Strictly speaking, the Gibeonites were Hivites (Jos_9:7), but 'Amorites' was a general name for the Canaanites.
3. Wherewith shall I make the atonement?] i.e. what sum of money shall I pay as compensation?
4. RV 'It is no matter of silver or gold between us and Saul, or his house; neither is it for us to put any man to death in Israel.' They would not accept compensation in money, nor did they wish that Israel, apart from Saul, should suffer.
6. Hang them up] The method of execution is uncertain.
Whom the Lord did choose] RV 'The chosen of the Lord.'
8. Michal] Evidently a mistake for 'Merab.' It was Merab who married Adriel (1Sa_18:19). Brought up] RV 'bore.'
9, 10. Barley harvest is in April, and the early rain (until water dropped) in October.
15-22. The text in this section and also in its continuation (2Sa_23:8-39) is very corrupt.
15, 16. Read, 'and his servants with him, and settled in Nob, and fought against the Philistines, and---which was of the sons of the giant.' The giant's name has been lost.
19. Jaare-oregim] in 1Ch_20:5; 'Jair.' Elhanan.. slew the brother of Goliath] AV represents the reading of Chronicles. RV represents the text of Samuel, as we now have it, 'Elhanan.. slew Goliath the Gittite.' If we adopt it, we must suppose that Elhanan was another name of David; but see on 1 Samuel 17.
J. R. Dummelow, A Commentary on the Holy Bible (Macmillan, 1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
C. I. Scofield 1917 · Public Domain On v3 (See Scofield "Exo 29:33").
atonement
(See Scofield "Exo 29:33").
The Scofield Reference Bible (1917 edition), notes by C. I. Scofield — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Arno C. Gaebelein 1922 · Public Domain On v1 1. The Famines and the Wars with the Philistines
IV. THE APPENDIX TO THE HISTORY OF DAVID
1. The Famines and the Wars with the Philistines
Read full note →
CHAPTER 21
1. The Famine and the Gibeonites (2Sa 21:1-14)
2. The Wars with the Philistines (2Sa 21:15-22)
The fourth section of the second book of Samuel is an appendix to the history of David. When the great famine happened in the days of David we do not know. After the famine had returned year after year, for three years, David inquired of the Lord. Why did he not inquire in the first year? It is an evidence of the low spiritual state which prevailed at that time. The answer which David received revealed the cause of the judgment which rested upon the land. It was Saul and the blood-guilt in having slain the Gibeonites. The story of the Gibeonites is recorded in Joshua 9. They got in among Israel through deception and Joshua had made peace and a league with them. Though they belonged to the nations doomed to death they were permitted to live and became the hewers of wood and the drawers of water (Jos 9:26-27). Jehovah’s name and an oath assured them of their safety. Saul had violated this covenant and slain some of them. This wrong is now to be righted--David did not inquire again of the Lord what he should do but consulted the Gibeonites instead. And the Gibeonites demand not silver nor gold of Saul and of his house, “neither for us shalt thou kill any man in Israel.” After that they asked that seven men of his sons be delivered unto them and they would hang them up unto the Lord in Gibeah. And again in haste the king promised to do so. Their demand, though piously worded, was not according to the law of God. Children were not to be put to death for the sins of their fathers (Deu 24:16). Saul was the guilty one and he had died. How atonement for the broken covenant and the blood guilt was to be made remained for the Lord to say. David, not asking direction from Him, but turning to the Gibeonites, had failed again. And still the Gibeonites in their awful demand shared the bloodthirsty cruel character of the Canaanites. David carried out the awful request. He spared Mephibosheth. Two sons of Rizpah, a concubine of Saul, and five sons of Merab (Michal in the Authorized Version is incorrect), Saul’s eldest daughter, are the victims. They were hanged by the Gibeonites and then left hanging. Sad it is to think that the horrible deed might have been averted if but David had again turned to the Lord and inquired of Him. And another law is broken, when these bodies were kept hanging for months. “And if a man have committed a sin worthy of death, and he be put to death, and thou hang him on a tree, his body shall not remain all night upon the tree, but thou shalt in any wise bury him that day.” Surely the Lord could not sanction the deed so opposite to His own law. One of the most terrible scenes recorded in the Bible follows. Rizpah, the concubine of Saul, watched by her dead from April till fall, when it began to rain again. Six months she abode there, the only resting place the coarse sackcloth, above her the putrefying corpses of the seven men, including her two sons. While the hot oriental summer lasted she kept her awful watch and chased away by day the screeching birds of prey, while her nights were disturbed by the hungry howls of wolves and jackals. Could there be a more pathetic picture! And she gained something by it. When David hears of it he is stirred to action. The bones of Saul and Jonathan and the seven men who had been hanged were buried. And after that God was entreated for the land. It seems then that David turned to God and He was favorable to the land.
In the record of the battles with the Philistines four giants are mentioned. They represent the power of darkness, which the people of God must overcome. (For a full typical application we refer the reader to the Numerical Bible.)
Arno C. Gaebelein, The Annotated Bible (1913–1922) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Paul E. Kretzmann 1924 · Public Domain On v1 The Difficulty with the Gibeonites Adjusted
The Difficulty with the Gibeonites Adjusted
v. 1. Then there was a famine in the days of David three years, year after year, three successive years, a fact which made the visitation seem a special punishment; and David enquired of the Lord, he sought the face of the Lord, by consulting with the high priest, after earnest prayer. And the Lord answered, It is for Saul and for his bloody house, the house upon which blood-guiltiness rested, because he slew the Gibeonites, he had put to death a number of those people to whom Joshua and the princes of Israel had sworn immunity, Jos 9:15.
Read full note →
v. 2. And the king called the Gibeonites and said unto them; (now the Gibeonites, as the author here inserts for the sake of the people of his time, were not of the children of Israel, but of the remnant of the Amorites, this name here designating the heathen nations of Canaan in general; and the children of Israel had sworn unto them; and Saul, disregarding the oath and the covenant, sought to slay, to exterminate, them in his zeal to the children of Israel and Judah;)
v. 3. wherefore David said unto the Gibeonites, What shall I do for you? And wherewith shall I make the atonement, expiate the wrong done and appease the Lord’s anger, that ye may bless the inheritance of the Lord? He wanted them to change their maledictions upon Israel into blessings.
v. 4. And the Gibeonites said unto him, we will have no silver nor gold of Saul, they wanted no compensation of money in exchange for the blood shed by Saul, nor of his house; neither for us shalt thou kill any man in Israel, they had no right to put any one to death; they wanted blood revenge, but could not proceed without the consent and command of David. And he said, What ye shall say, that will I do for you. It is really a question asking them to express themselves more exactly, to state their request in specific terms.
v. 5. And they answered the king, The man that consumed us, who had slain the best of their tribe and practically annihilated them, and that devised against us that we should be destroyed from remaining in any of the coasts of Israel,
v. 6. let seven men of his sons, descendants, near relatives, be delivered unto us, and we will hang them up, punish them by crucifixion, unto the Lord, before His face, to appease His anger, in Gibeah of Saul, whom the Lord did choose. Saul had been the "chosen of Jehovah," king of Israel, when he had done this wrong, and therefore the whole people was being punished. And the king said, I will give them. He was ready to make the atonement.
v. 7. But the king spared Mephibosheth, the son of Jonathan, the son of Saul, because of the Lord’s oath that was between them, between David and Jonathan, the son of Saul. The oath of the covenant between David and Jonathan had included the promise of sparing the sons of Jonathan, 1Sa 20:15-16.
v. 8. But the king took the two sons of Rizpah, the daughter of Aiah, whom she bare unto Saul, Armoni and Mephibosheth, the sons of Saul’s concubine, and the five sons of Michal, the daughter of Saul, whom she brought up for, literally, "had born to," Adriel, the son of Barzillai the Meholathite. Evidently Michal, who had originally been the wife of David, 1Sa 18:27, and was later given to Phaltiel, 1Sa 25:44, to be returned to David upon his accession to the throne, 2Sa 3:15, had also, for some years, been the wife of this Adriel, for after her contemptuous behavior towards David, 2Sa 6:23, she had no children, she bore no children to David.
v. 9. And he, David, delivered them, the seven men selected by him, into the hands of the Gibeonites, and they hanged them, impaled them with extended limbs, in the hill before the Lord; and they fell all seven together, and were put to death in the days of harvest, in the first days, in the beginning of barley-harvest, at the very beginning of the summer in that climate, about the middle of April,
v. 10. And Rizpah, the daughter of Aiah, the mother of two of the hanged men, took sackcloth, the usual garment of mourners, and spread it for her upon the rock, to serve as her bed, from the beginning of harvest until water dropped upon them out of heaven, until the falling of rain some time during the summer indicated that the anger of God was appeased, and suffered neither the birds of the air to rest on them by day nor the beasts of the field by night. This being a case where the bodies mere to serve as a sign of expiation, they were not taken do-m from the stakes in the evening, Deu 21:22. Since ravenous birds and beasts were not permitted to come near the bodies, they probably dried out quickly.
v. 11. And it was told David what Rizpah, the daughter of Aiah, the concubine of Saul, had done.
v. 12. And David, touched by this evidence of a mother’s faithfulness and loving care, went and took the bones of Saul and the bones of Jonathan, his son, from the men of Jabesh-gilead, in the country east of Jordan, which had stolen them from the street, from the open place near the city gate, where they had been fastened to the wall, 1Sa 31:10-12, of Bethshan, where the Philistines had hanged them, when the Philistines had slain Saul in Gilboa;
v. 13. and he brought up from thence the bones of Saul and the bones of Jonathan, his son; and they gathered the bones of them that were hanged.
v. 14. And the bones of Saul and Jonathan, his son, buried they, most likely with those of the seven executed men, in the country of Benjamin in Zelah, in the sepulcher of Kish, his father, not far from Gibeah; and they performed all that the king commanded. And after that God was intreated for the land, He did not permit the famine to continue. Even the lowliest of men are in God’s care, and He may punish an entire country for an injustice done to them. It is the duty of the believers, therefore, to help the poor and lowly obtain justice.
Paul E. Kretzmann, Popular Commentary of the Bible (1921–1924) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
unfoldingWord translationNotes 2017 · CC BY-SA 4.0 On vv1, 2, 4, 5 sought the face of Yahweh
sought the face of Yahweh
Here "face" is a synecdoche for Yahweh's presence. This means David prayed to Yahweh for an answer about the famine. (See: Synecdoche)
Read full note →
because of Saul and his murderous family
Saul had killed many Gibeonites, and Saul's descendants are guilty because of this sin.
translationWords
famine
David
year
face
Yahweh
Saul (OT)
Gibeon
die
unfoldingWord translationNotes — © Distant Shores Media and the Door43 World Missions Community, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Source: git.door43.org/Door43/en_tn.
Tyndale Open Study Notes 2022 · CC BY-SA 4.0 On vv1, 2, 3, 6 21:1–24:25 The final chapters of 2 Samuel are a…
21:1–24:25 The final chapters of 2 Samuel are a coda, a concluding section that summarizes the important themes from the preceding material. These chapters are thematic, not chronological, and not all the events described here happened at the end of David’s reign (e.g., 22:1). The materials are arranged according to a common Hebrew literary device, a chiasm (mirror-image): A: Saul’s sin against the Gibeonites and its collective punishment (21:1-14); B: David’s heroes and their exploits (21:15-22); C: David’s Psalm (22:1-51); C′: David’s Psalm (23:1-7); B′: David’s heroes and their exploits (23:8-39); A′: David’s sin against the census taboo and its collective punishment (24:1-25). A chiasm highlights the central section—here David’s hymns, which focus not on David but on David’s God.
21:1 asked the Lord: The Hebrew verb is the same as that used when David “begged” for the life of Bathsheba’s child (12:16). On these two occasions, “seeking” was in the desperation of a moment of crisis. However, most often in the Old Testament, “seeking God” refers not to a specific prayer of petition but to the dynamics of daily devotion and obedience to God (e.g., Pss 40:16; 105:4; Prov 28:5). • Saul and his family are guilty: The famine resulted from violating an oath taken before the Lord (Josh 9:19-20). • murdering the Gibeonites: This incident is not elsewhere recorded. Illicit bloodshed had polluted the land, making it sterile and unfruitful (cp. Gen 4:10-12; Num 35:30-34).
Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.