Verses 1-14
The Legacy Of Saul. YHWH Judges Israel With Famine Because Of The Great Sin Of The House Of Saul, A Judgment Which Is Only Removed At The Cost Of The Blood Of Saulides (2 Samuel 21:1-14 ).
In this passage we are taken back to the time of Saul and learn of a major crime of Saul, which had not been mentioned previously, the attempted genocide of the Gibeonites who were under YHWH’s protection. It is a crime which summarises all his other crimes, for its seriousness (in ignoring an oath made to God) parallels his previous willingness to ignore both the importance of the sacredness of the Sanctuary (1 Samuel 13:5-14) and the importance of not appropriating to himself things which had been devoted to YHWH (1 Samuel 15:0). In this particular case he ignored the sacred oath made by Joshua to the Gibeonites, which had protected them from being driven out of Canaan or being subjected to death (Joshua 9:3-27). As ever Saul is seen as being prone, when it suited him, to deal lightly with sacred things of a most serious kind, even though he could at the same time be particular on matters of less importance. He offered the sacrifices without the obedience (1 Samuel 15:22).
It is apparent from what is said here that Saul and his house had determined to rid Israel of the Canaanite Gibeonites once and for all, and that he did it ‘in his zeal for the children of Israel and Judah’. From his narrow religious viewpoint, and in his varying moods, he wanted to be rid of them for ever, because he saw them as a blot on his people. With that in view he had carried out a mass slaughter among them, and by doing so he and his followers had ignored Israel’s permanently sacred oath, made in the sight of YHWH, with regard to them. His actions were thus themselves a blot on the whole of Israel, and we must remember in this regard that many Israelites must have assisted him in the venture, while most of them must have gone along with him in it. There is certainly no evidence at any time of any major objections. Thus this must not be seen as just the sin of one man. It was a sin in which all partook. All knew that the Gibeonites were under YHWH’s direct protection, and must not be touched, and yet no one had seemingly lifted a finger to help them. |Most probably felt that they had had it coming to them, and mention of his house as ‘his bloody house’ almost certainly suggests that his family had continued the work that he had begun.
Oaths were considered to be a very serious matter in those days. We have already observed how firmly David considered himself bound by an oath made to YHWH, even when it was obtained under false pretences (2 Samuel 14:8-11), and how he had constantly spared Saul because he was YHWH’s Anointed and therefore protected by YHWH Himself. Such sacred oaths were considered inviolable, however obtained, and it is apparent that Joshua and Israel had previously also held the same view in Joshua 9:0. Thus we must not see Saul’s action as involving anything other than the gravest of crimes in terms of the thinking of those days. To slaughter a people protected by a sacred oath was an act which would have produced appalled horror even among non-Israelites. But what was worse was that, as a result of breaching the oath, he had shed innocent blood on YHWH’s very inheritance, the blood of people protected by an oath, and in view of that his, or his representatives’, blood would need to be shed in order to cleanse the land (compare Exodus 21:12-14; Numbers 35:33. See also Deuteronomy 21:1-9, although the substitution with a heifer only applied when the culprit could not be found. If he was found he would himself die). Until that shedding of blood had occurred the land would remained uncleansed (it was a life for a life).
It is clear from this passage that the plight of the Gibeonites as a result of Saul’s activities had become so extreme that YHWH was deeply concerned for them, as He was for all who were weak and unprotected, and ill-used. The thoroughness with which Saul had in fact carried out his task comes out in the extreme bitterness still prevalent among the Gibeonites these many years afterwards, although reference to his ‘bloody house’ suggests that Saul’s descendants had continued the action that he had begun, thus stoking up the bitterness (21:4-6). The Gibeonites may well have been driven into the hills and have consequently been living in appalling conditions. Consequently when YHWH was consulted about the severe famine, which must have occurred some way into David’s reign (certainly after Mephibosheth had been drawn to his attention in chapter 9 but probably before Shimei’s accusation that he had spilt the blood of the house of Saul), He chose to use the occasion in order to draw attention to the plight of the Gibeonites.
Our modern minds necessarily recoil from the thought of a man’s family having to take responsibility for his sins (although in many ways they do often have to, even now), but in those days the law of blood vengeance was clear, a life was required for a life, and it was seen as applying to the whole family. The family accepted joint responsibility for each other. And it was treated as a very serious matter. We have already seen how Joab was presumably able to justify his assassination of Abner on the grounds of blood vengeance, without repercussions, and there is a clear instance of the same idea in the life of Gideon (Judges 8:18-21). Blood vengeance was not considered to be a question of personal revenge, or to be an option, but was seen as one of doing what was right and obtaining justice for the whole family. The man who failed to obtain blood vengeance was actually seen as having failed in his clear duty, for it was by enforcing the law of blood vengeance that lawlessness would be avoided. We should note, however, that while YHWH was Himself demanding that the Gibeonites receive justice, the solution decided on was not a solution actually demanded by YHWH. The demand was made by the Gibeonites themselves on the grounds of the universally recognised law of blood vengeance, a law so ancient that it preceded the Sinaitic covenant (e.g. Genesis 4:23-24; Genesis 9:6) and was already known to Cain (Genesis 4:14). In the view of everyone, therefore, they would simply have been seen as obtaining their legally deserved rights. YHWH in contrast would presumably have been satisfied with the offering of a substitute in order to cleanse the land, as He will be in 2 Samuel 24:25, together with an offer of compensation, if that had been acceptable to the Gibeonites. But there is no doubt that they were within their rights to demand what they did.
Analysis.
a And there was a famine in the days of David for three years, year after year, and David sought the face of YHWH (2 Samuel 21:1 a)
b And YHWH said, “It is for Saul, and for his bloody house, because he put to death the Gibeonites” (2 Samuel 21:1 b).
c And the king called the Gibeonites, and spoke 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 unto them, and Saul had sought to slay them in his zeal for the children of Israel and Judah, and David said to the Gibeonites, “What shall I do for you? And with what shall I make atonement, that you may bless the inheritance of YHWH?” (2 Samuel 21:2-3).
d And the Gibeonites said to him, “It is not a 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.” And he said, “Whatever you shall say, that will I do for you.” And 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 YHWH in Gibeah of Saul, the chosen of YHWH.” (2 Samuel 21:4-6 a).
e And the king said, “I will give them”. But the king spared Mephibosheth, the son of Jonathan the son of Saul, because of YHWH’s oath which was between them, between David and Jonathan the son of Saul (2 Samuel 21:6-7).
d But the king took the two sons of Rizpah the daughter of Aiah, whom she bore to Saul, Armoni and Mephibosheth, and the five sons of Michal the daughter of Saul, whom she bore to Adriel the son of Barzillai the Meholathite, and he delivered them into the hands of the Gibeonites, and they hanged them in the mountain before YHWH, and they fell all seven together (2 Samuel 21:8-9 a).
c And they were put to death in the days of harvest, in the first days, at the beginning of barley harvest. And Rizpah the daughter of Aiah took sackcloth, and spread it for her on the rock, from the beginning of harvest until water was poured on them from heaven, and she allowed neither the birds of the heavens to rest on them by day, nor the beasts of the field by night (2 Samuel 21:9-10).
b And it was told David what Rizpah the daughter of Aiah, the concubine of Saul, had done, and David went and took the bones of Saul and the bones of Jonathan his son from the men of Jabesh-gilead, who had stolen them from the street of Beth-shan, where the Philistines had hanged them, in the day that the Philistines slew Saul in Gilboa, and he brought up from there the bones of Saul and the bones of Jonathan his son, and they gathered the bones of those who were hanged. And they buried the bones of Saul and Jonathan his son in the country of Benjamin in Zela, in the sepulchre of Kish his father, and they performed all that the king commanded (2 Samuel 21:11-14 a).
a And after that God was entreated for the land (2 Samuel 21:14 b).
Note that in ‘a’ David sought the face of YHWH with regard to the severe famine, and in the parallel YHWH was entreated for the land. In ‘b’ YHWH’s verdict was that the whole house of Saul were blood guilty, and in the parallel David has mercy on the whole house of Saul, once they have been punished (the bones were seen as representing the whole man), because of the example set by Rizpah, with the result that he arranges for their proper burial. In ‘c’ we learn that the Gibeonites were under protection due to an oath made to YHWH, and in the parallel Rizpah protects the bodies of her sons, in the same way as the Gibeonites should have been protected by Saul. In ‘d’ the Gibeonites were asked what compensation they required, and they required the deaths of seven sons of the house of Saul, and in the parallel the seven sons of the house of Saul are given to them. Centrally in ‘e’ David fulfils his own oath and protects Jonathan’s son Mephibosheth.
‘ And there was a famine in the days of David for three years, year after year, and David sought the face of YHWH. And YHWH said, “It is for Saul, and for his bloody house, because he (or his house) put to death the Gibeonites.” ’
We are not told when this famine took place, although it was clearly some years into the reign of David over Israel, for it comes after Mephibosheth has come to his knowledge (2 Samuel 9:0). It was thus well over seven years after the death of Saul (for we know that David had reigned in Hebron for seven years before receiving the throne of Israel). All we know is that it was a protracted famine which had lasted for ‘three years, year after year’, and was thus severe enough to raise serious questions in David’s mind. The rains had not come, and the ground was bone dry and not producing its harvests, which meant misery and starvation for the people.
This caused David as the intercessor for Israel, to earnestly seek the face of YHWH in order to discover the reason for the famine. YHWH’s reply was that what was in His mind was Saul and his ‘bloody house’, because he (or ‘they’, but expressed in the singular in Hebrew because ‘house’ is singular. Compare the use of ‘I’ in 2 Samuel 21:4 speaking of the Gibeonites) had slaughtered the Gibeonites. The description of Saul’s house as a ‘bloody house’ would suggest that it was not only Saul himself who had slaughtered the Gibeonites, but that his house had continued to treat them in the same way, for many of the Gibeonites would be in Benjaminite territory (compare Joshua 18:25; Joshua 21:17) and would therefore still be on the lands of Saulides. Saul’s ‘bloody house’ would thus appear to have been continuing what Saul had begun. That would explain why they were seen as equally guilty with Saul, and why the famine came this late, God having given the family time for repentance. It was probably not just a case of the sons bearing the iniquity of their fathers, except in the sense that they were themselves being punished for doing what their fathers had taught them.
‘ And the king called the Gibeonites, and spoke 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 unto them, and Saul had sought to slay them in his zeal for the children of Israel and Judah.’
The king therefore summoned the Gibeonite elders in order to discuss matters with them, and we are reminded by the writer that the Gibeonites were not true Israelites, but were in fact Canaanites (Amorites), who had been spared from slaughter because they had obtained a treaty under false pretences (Joshua 9:0). Nevertheless, false pretences or not, a sacred treaty had been made, with the result that the Gibeonites had thereby come under the protection of YHWH. In consequence for Saul to seek to commit genocide by slaughtering them was not only a major crime, but was also a breach of a most sacred oath made before YHWH. However, as we know, Saul in fact tended to ride lightly over what was most sacred, even though at the same time he was particular about less important religious issues. He therefore appears to have considered, and to have taught the same to his family, that the Gibeonites, as Canaanites, were a blot on the landscape, a fact which counted for more than any oath. In his view, therefore, they had to be purged.
‘ And David said to the Gibeonites, “What shall I do for you? And with what shall I make atonement, that you may bless the inheritance of YHWH?” ’
As a result of all this David asked the Gibeonites what he could do in order to put right their wrongs, so that they would ‘bless the inheritance of YHWH’. (They had no doubt been calling down curses on it). He wanted to ‘make atonement’ and remove the curse from the land. ‘Making atonement’ primarily involved removing the antipathy of YHWH against the sin by the shedding of blood. But it also included propitiating the Gibeonites.
‘ And 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.” And he said, “Whatever you shall say, that will I do for you.” ’
Their reply was that it was not monetary compensation that they were seeking, and that they were in no position to put anyone to death in Israel, because of who they were. This was typical oriental understatement and the indication to be gathered from this was that they would only be satisfied with the application of the law of blood vengeance, which they looked to David to ensure. David consequently assured them that whatever they required he would do for them (as long, of course, as it was within the Law). “Whatever you shall say, that will I do for you.”
‘ And 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,” ’
The reply of the Gibeonites was immediate and simple. They wanted blood vengeance on the household of Saul, for Saul was the man who had ‘eaten them up’ and had devised plans against them so as to ensure that they could not remain within the borders of Israel, in other words in their ancient home, and whose ‘bloody house’ was presumably continuing with the same policy.
“ Let seven men of his sons be delivered to us, and we will hang them up to YHWH in Gibeah of Saul, the chosen of YHWH.” And the king said, “I will give them.”
They therefore requested that seven sons of Saul be handed over to them. In terms of what had happened to them their request was not in fact unreasonable. A large number of their own people had been slaughtered, and yet all that they asked in return was seven of Saul’s descendants as compensation. The number seven would indicate to them divine completeness and perfection. This would therefore be sufficient to satisfy their sense of justice. Then they would hang them up before YHWH in Gibeah of Saul, the place out of which their persecution had been organised and where much of the blood would have been shed, in order to display to YHWH that they had obtained ‘satisfaction’ so that Israel might no longer be seen as guilty. And this Saul, they reminded the king in deep irony, was the Saul who had declared himself to be the ‘the chosen of YHWH’. The phrase ‘the chosen of YHWH’ was probably intended to be sarcastic. They were declaring that he had claimed to be ‘the chosen of YHWH’ and yet had acted directly contrary to YHWH’S will (which was the theme of the latter part of 1 Samuel). David acknowledged their right and promised that their request would be granted. The purpose of this was in order to ‘cleanse the land’ by ensuring that justice was done (Numbers 35:33; and see Deuteronomy 21:1-9).
‘ But the king spared Mephibosheth, the son of Jonathan the son of Saul, because of YHWH’s oath which was between them, between David and Jonathan the son of Saul.’
David knew, however, that Mephibosheth must be spared, and be exempted from the seven, because he was protected by a counter-oath, an oath made between himself and Jonathan (1 Samuel 18:3; 1 Samuel 20:8; 1 Samuel 20:16). He did not consider that he could break one oath in order to fulfil another. To him it was important that every oath made before YHWH should be observed. It is noteworthy from this that YHWH had so led the Gibeonites in making their request that it enabled Mephibosheth to be spared.
‘ But the king took the two sons of Rizpah the daughter of Aiah, whom she bore to Saul, Armoni and Mephibosheth, and the five sons of Michal the daughter of Saul, whom she bore to Adriel the son of Barzillai the Meholathite,’
The king consequently took two sons of Rizpah, the daughter of Aiah, the concubine of Saul whom Abner had slept with when he had offended Ish-bosheth (2 Samuel 3:7), and five sons of ‘Michal, the daughter of Saul, whom she bore to Adriel’. In fact we know that it was Merab, Saul’s eldest daughter, who was married to Adriel (1 Samuel 18:19). This may therefore suggest:
1). That Merab also bore the name Michal, that being a family name, and a name then also given to her younger sister as a first name.
2). That Merab had died (possibly in childbirth) and that Michal had been called on to bring up her children, becoming their substitute mother, with the description ‘which she bore to Paltiel’ simply abbreviating the situation in order to bring in the name of the natural father (such an idea of adoption by a woman is not, however, testified to elsewhere. But it must have been very common given the uncertainties of life in those days).
3). That it was a copyist’s error. That, however, does not seem very likely for it was a mistake that would not be likely to have been made by a copyist familiar with Israel’s history, simply because the correct name would have been too well known to have allowed such an error to occur. (Although it must be admitted that even modern scholars can occasionally make such mistakes).
It is quite possible that some, if not all, of these seven had themselves been involved in direct activities against the Gibeonites, thus following in their ‘father’s’ footsteps. It would be less likely that Jonathan’s son Mephibosheth had been involved.
‘ And he delivered them into the hands of the Gibeonites, and they hanged them in the mountain before YHWH, and they fell all seven together. And they were put to death in the days of harvest, in the first days, at the beginning of barley harvest.’
These sons were handed over to the Gibeonites who hung them (or ‘impaled’ them) in the mountain before YHWH, all seven at the same time. Gibeah (which means ‘the hill’) was, of course, itself in mountainous country so that this was clearly a ‘mountain’ closely connected with Gibeah, possibly the hill of Gibeah itself. The continual stress on their being hung up ‘before YHWH’ suggests that the Gibeonites were equally concerned about the drought and with how to satisfy YHWH. They too would be suffering through the lack of harvest. They were among the poor and there would be few gleanings at such a time.
We then learn that this was done ‘in the days of harvest, in the first days, at the beginning of barley harvest.’ At such a time the barren conditions would be most obvious to all due to the failure of the harvests. Their deaths could have been seen as to some extent replacing the lack in the firstfruits, as well as atoning for the land.
‘ And Rizpah the daughter of Aiah took sackcloth, and spread it for her on the rock, from the beginning of harvest until water was poured upon them from heaven, and she allowed neither the birds of the heavens to rest on them by day, nor the beasts of the field by night.’
Rizpah was naturally broken-hearted at what was happening to her sons, and being totally distraught, was determined that while they might execute her sons and display their bodies openly, no scavenging animals or birds would be able to ravage them. So she spread sackcloth (probably indicating mourning) on a rock near the execution site, on which she lay and herself provided the bodies with constant protection. As she acted in this way from the commencement of harvest in the month of Nisan (March/April) up to the time when the rains actually came (October/November), she was clearly there for some considerable time. Note the confirmation from this that that year the rains did actually come, demonstrating that, as a result of justice having been obtained, the drought was ended.
But we do Rizpah less than justice if we do not pause and consider the intensity of this brave woman’s ordeal. It was almost beyond the bounds of human bearing. Day after day she had to watch the decaying bodies of her two beloved sons impaled to the city wall, and was constantly called on to approach them, whether by day and by night, in order to drive away the scavengers who would have torn their decaying flesh, but her mother love was so great that she would not desert them however long and intense her ordeal. Indeed her ordeal was such that it would even move the heart of the king. But if this woman was willing to go through such trauma for love of her sons, how much more should we be willing to go through hardship for love of the One Who was impaled for us. She shames our very prayerlessness and our inactivity. ‘Could you not watch with Me one hour?’ (Matthew 26:40-41). Her flesh too was weak, and yet her spirit did not give way, and she watched for many hours, and days, and weeks, and months. Will she not stand up before the Judgment Seat of Christ and be a rebuke to us for our apathy?
We should note that the requirement in Deuteronomy 21:22-23 did not apply to this case because the impaling was seen as having the purpose of drawing YHWH’s attention to the fact that justice had been done and that ‘a life had been given for a life’. Their bodies would thus be required to hang there until the rains came.
‘ And it was told David what Rizpah the daughter of Aiah, the concubine of Saul, had done.’
News reached David of what Rizpah had done, and he was so moved by it that he determined that he also would act so as to ensure the protection and decent burial of the bodies of her sons, and of Saul and all his household, for he too felt that he was involved in this ordeal. It was, after all, because of his initial activity and his zeal for YHWH that her sons were there.
‘ And David went and took the bones of Saul and the bones of Jonathan his son from the men of Jabesh-gilead, who had stolen them from the street of Beth-shan, where the Philistines had hanged them, in the day that the Philistines slew Saul in Gilboa, and he brought up from there the bones of Saul and the bones of Jonathan his son, and they gathered the bones of those who were hanged.’
The bones of Saul and Jonathan themselves had been hanged (or ‘impaled’) as an act of shaming, by the Philistines, on the wall in the marketplace or street (the space around the gatehouse) and had not been decently buried, but rather had been sneaked away by the men of Jabesh-gilead who had given them a hurried burial in a secret place. So David arranged for the collection of their bones, along with the bones of those recently hanged (or ‘impaled’), in order to give them proper burial, a privilege won for them by the love of a faithful mother. All had suffered the same fate, but they were to enjoy a proper burial, a fitting reward for Rizpah’s sacrificial love. The whole house of Saul was thus seen to be involved, first in being punished, and then in being restored because of the love of a lowly concubine, and the loyalty of a king.
“In the day (yom)” means ‘at the time that’. It does not restrict the event to a particular day. ‘Yom’ has a wider meaning than just ‘day’.
‘And they buried the bones of Saul and Jonathan his son in the country of Benjamin in Zela, in the sepulchre of Kish his father, and they performed all that the king commanded.’
The assumption must be made here that along with the bones of Saul and Jonathan were buried the bones of their newly slain relatives. Thus all the ‘bloody house’ were buried together in the sepulchre of Kish, Saul’s father, in Zela in Benjamin, having suffered the penalty of impalement. Justice was wholly satisfied. The importance of the bones lay in the fact that the bones were seen as representing the whole man (an idea also found in the fact that the skull and crossbones flag, later taken over by pirates, initially indicated the hope of the resurrection).
‘And after that God was entreated for the land.’
The due processes of the Law having been carried out, and justice having been done, ‘God was entreated for the land’, and the rains came (2 Samuel 21:10). With the execution and burial of the Saulides Israel’s famine was over. Proper retribution had been made. Now all depended on David maintaining true justice in the land.
Be the first to react on this!
