2 Samuel · Chapter 21

V. 1. Then-The things related here and 2 Samuel 24:1-25, 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, 2 Samuel 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, ‘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, 2 Samuel 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, 2 Samuel 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 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.

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.

Verse 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, verse 15, &c., so long after he had fully subdued them, 2 Samuel 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, 2 Samuel 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 Joshua 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.

Verse 1. There was a famine three years, and in succession. Men, under the aspects of dying, like the seamen in Jonah’s case, are led to the profoundest researches of conscience.

THE GIBEONITES AVENGED, 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 verse 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. 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 verses 2 and 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, (Joshua 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. 1 Samuel 22:7. In this case the members of his own family doubtless shared largely in the plunder.

V. 2. Sought-That is, he sought how he might cut them off with some colour of justice, aggravating their faults, and punishing them worse than they deserved; oppressing them with excessive labours, and intending by degrees to wear them out.

Verse 2. The remnant of the Amorites] The Gibeonites were Hivites, not Amorites, as appears from Joshua 11:19: but Amorites is a name often given to the Canaanites in general, Genesis 15:16; Amos 2:9, and elsewhere.

Verse 2. In his zeal for the children of Israel and Judah — When Joshua and the princes made a league with the Gibeonites, the people were greatly offended with them, as appears, Joshua chap. 9. Whatever the pretences of this resentment might be, the true reason seems sufficiently apparent; they were, by this league, deprived of the lands and spoils of the Gibeonites. Did these reasons cease in the days of Saul? Or rather, did they not still subsist, and with more force, in proportion as the people of Israel and their wants increased, in a narrow land? But however this may be, why did Saul slay them? The text plainly saith, that he did it in his zeal for the children of Israel and Judah. But the question still returns: How could the destroying these poor people manifest his zeal for Israel and Judah? There is seemingly but one imaginable way how this could be done. The Gibeonites had one city in the tribe of Judah, and three in Benjamin; and when they were destroyed out of these cities, who could pretend any right to them but Israel (that is, Benjamin) and Judah? So that Saul destroyed the Gibeonites, as the most obliging thing he could do for his people. See Delaney.

2. Of the Amorites — They are called Hivites at Joshua 9:7; but the name Amorites is more general and often used of all the Canaanitish tribes. Genesis 15:16; Amos 2:9. Had sworn — See Joshua 9:3-21.

Verse 3. Wherewith shall I make the atonement] It is very strange that a choice of this kind should be left to such a people. Why not ask this of God himself?

Verse 3. David said unto the Gibeonites, What shall I do for you? — Josephus supposes that when God acquainted David what was the occasion of the famine, he likewise declared that it should be removed if he made the satisfaction which the Gibeonites themselves should require. That ye may bless the inheritance of the Lord — That, atonement being made, and God’s anger being turned away, his inheritance may be blessed, and plenty restored again to Israel.

3. Make the atonement — Make the necessary satisfaction. The inheritance of the Lord — The land and people of Israel.

Verse 4. We will have no silver nor gold of Saul, &c. — Neither silver nor gold was a just equivalent for the loss they had sustained by Saul and his bloody house. Neither for us shalt thou kill any man in Israel — Except of Saul’s family, as it here follows. The marginal reading, however, seems preferable, Neither pertains it to us to kill any man, &c. They were in such a state of servitude as did not allow them to take the only proper retribution, blood for blood. This appears to be the meaning, because David immediately replies, What you shall say, that will I do.

4. No silver nor gold — The marginal reading is more liberal. The meaning is, The price of blood is not to be paid to us in silver or gold: we will have blood for blood. The law said: “Ye shall take no satisfaction for the life of a murderer.” Numbers 35:31. Neither… any man in Israel — That is, We wish not to take innocent blood, but the blood of those who helped devise our destruction, and now live upon the lands they violently took from us.

Verses 5, 6. They answered, The man that consumed us, &c. — They desired no reparation of private damages, or revenge of injuries; all they required was that a public sacrifice should be made to justice, and to the divine vengeance inflicted upon the land. Let seven of his sons be delivered unto us, and we will hang them up before the Lord — As a satisfaction to his honour for an injustice and cruelty committed in defiance of a solemn oath given in his holy name. But it may be inquired, if Saul was thus wicked in destroying a people contrary to a solemn oath, ratified in the name of God, why should his sons and grandsons be punished for it? To this it may be answered, with great reason, and upon a good foundation, that they were not punished because Saul was guilty, but because they themselves were guilty, and had been the executioners of his unjust decrees. We have reason to conclude that his sons and his grandsons were among his captains of hundreds, and captains of thousands, as that was the practice of those days: and if so, undoubtedly they were employed in executing his cruel and unjust commands in regard to the Gibeonites, especially as the purpose of destroying them seems to have been to take their possessions; for we can scarcely suppose Saul to have been so solicitous to increase the fortunes of any, as those of his sons and grandsons. And this supposition the text before us seems to prove, as it not only entitles Saul bloody, but his house too: Saul and his bloody house. And it is likely that some of these still possessed some of the possessions of the Gibeonites, and that they defended and commended this action of Saul whenever there was any question about it: and, therefore, they very justly and deservedly suffered for it. See Delaney. In Gibeah of Saul — To make the punishment more remarkable and shameful, this being the city where Saul lived both before and after he was king. Whom the Lord did choose — This aggravated his guilt, that he had broken the oath of that God by whom he had been so highly favoured.

And the king said, I will give them — Having doubtless consulted God in the matter; who, as he had before declared Saul’s bloody house to be the cause of this judgment, so now commanded that justice should be done upon it, and that the remaining branches of it should be cut off; as sufficiently appears from hence that God was well pleased with the action; which he would not have been if David had done it without his command; for then it had been a sinful action of David’s, and contrary to a double law of God. Deuteronomy 21:23, and 24:16.

But here another question arises; supposing Saul’s sons and grandsons engaged in the fact, and therefore justly punished for it, how came it, or for what reason was it, that the whole people of Israel were afflicted with famine on that account? Undoubtedly because they were partakers too in Saul’s guilt, and had been abetting, aiding, and assisting in it; or, at least, had not opposed it, as they ought to have done. It is said expressly that Saul sought to slay the Gibeonites in his zeal for the children of Israel and Judah. Is it not absurd to think that any thing was done in zeal for them which they did not approve of? Or is there much reason to doubt whether they did not lend their hand to it? Is there the least colour to believe that they in any degree remonstrated against or opposed this proceeding of their prince? as they had a right, nay, were obliged by all the laws of justice to do, as a nation bound to make good the public faith they had given, and sworn to preserve. And if this was the case, were they not guilty as well as Saul, and were they not with justice punished?

THE GIBEONITES AVENGED, 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 verse 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. 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 verses 2 and 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, (Joshua 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. 1 Samuel 22:7. In this case the members of his own family doubtless shared largely in the plunder.

V. 6. I will-Having doubtless consulted God in the matter; who as he had before declared Saul’s bloody house to be the causes of this judgment, so now commanded that justice should be done upon it, and that the remaining branches of it should be cut off; as sufficiently appears from hence, that God was well pleased with the action; which he would not have been, if David had done it without his command; for then it had been a sinful action of David’s, and contrary to a double law of God, Deuteronomy 21:23 24:16.

Verse 6. Seven men of his sons] Meaning sons, grandsons, or other near branches of his family. It is supposed that the persons chosen were principal in assisting Saul to exterminate the Gibeonites. But where is the proof of this?

Verses 5, 6. They answered, The man that consumed us, &c. — They desired no reparation of private damages, or revenge of injuries; all they required was that a public sacrifice should be made to justice, and to the divine vengeance inflicted upon the land. Let seven of his sons be delivered unto us, and we will hang them up before the Lord — As a satisfaction to his honour for an injustice and cruelty committed in defiance of a solemn oath given in his holy name. But it may be inquired, if Saul was thus wicked in destroying a people contrary to a solemn oath, ratified in the name of God, why should his sons and grandsons be punished for it? To this it may be answered, with great reason, and upon a good foundation, that they were not punished because Saul was guilty, but because they themselves were guilty, and had been the executioners of his unjust decrees. We have reason to conclude that his sons and his grandsons were among his captains of hundreds, and captains of thousands, as that was the practice of those days: and if so, undoubtedly they were employed in executing his cruel and unjust commands in regard to the Gibeonites, especially as the purpose of destroying them seems to have been to take their possessions; for we can scarcely suppose Saul to have been so solicitous to increase the fortunes of any, as those of his sons and grandsons. And this supposition the text before us seems to prove, as it not only entitles Saul bloody, but his house too: Saul and his bloody house. And it is likely that some of these still possessed some of the possessions of the Gibeonites, and that they defended and commended this action of Saul whenever there was any question about it: and, therefore, they very justly and deservedly suffered for it. See Delaney. In Gibeah of Saul — To make the punishment more remarkable and shameful, this being the city where Saul lived both before and after he was king. Whom the Lord did choose — This aggravated his guilt, that he had broken the oath of that God by whom he had been so highly favoured.

And the king said, I will give them — Having doubtless consulted God in the matter; who, as he had before declared Saul’s bloody house to be the cause of this judgment, so now commanded that justice should be done upon it, and that the remaining branches of it should be cut off; as sufficiently appears from hence that God was well pleased with the action; which he would not have been if David had done it without his command; for then it had been a sinful action of David’s, and contrary to a double law of God. Deuteronomy 21:23, and 24:16.

But here another question arises; supposing Saul’s sons and grandsons engaged in the fact, and therefore justly punished for it, how came it, or for what reason was it, that the whole people of Israel were afflicted with famine on that account? Undoubtedly because they were partakers too in Saul’s guilt, and had been abetting, aiding, and assisting in it; or, at least, had not opposed it, as they ought to have done. It is said expressly that Saul sought to slay the Gibeonites in his zeal for the children of Israel and Judah. Is it not absurd to think that any thing was done in zeal for them which they did not approve of? Or is there much reason to doubt whether they did not lend their hand to it? Is there the least colour to believe that they in any degree remonstrated against or opposed this proceeding of their prince? as they had a right, nay, were obliged by all the laws of justice to do, as a nation bound to make good the public faith they had given, and sworn to preserve. And if this was the case, were they not guilty as well as Saul, and were they not with justice punished?

6. Seven men — A sacred number, not only among the Israelites, but among other Oriental nations. Hang them up — Impale or crucify them. According to the Jewish interpreters the persons were first put to death, and then their bodies were impaled or tied upon a stake. Compare Joshua 8:29, note. Unto the Lord — That is, to expiate his wrath. Gibeah of Saul — See marginal references. The place of Saul’s residence was chosen to make the punishment of his crimes more signal. Whom the Lord did choose — Mark the sentiment and the terrible irony. Hang up unto the Lord the sons of him whom the Lord chose! I will give them — David dared not refuse the demand, for the penal famine pressed upon the land, and the law had said, “The land cannot be cleansed of the blood that is shed therein but by the blood of him that shed it.” Numbers 35:33. It has been asked why similar satisfaction was not required for the massacre of the priests at Nob. 1 Samuel 22:9-19. “The answer is, that the people, and even the family of Saul, had no sympathy with or part in this tragedy, which none but an alien (Doeg) 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.” — Kitto.

V. 7. Spared-For the Gibeonites desiring only such a number, it was at David’s choice whom to spare. Of Jonathan-This is added, to distinguish him from the other Mephibosheth, ver. 8.

Verses 7, 8. The king spared, &c. — For the Gibeonites desiring only such a number, it was at David’s choice whom to spare. The son of Jonathan — This is added to distinguish him from the other Mephibosheth, verse 8. Because of the Lord’s oath, &c. — This was a just reason for not delivering him up. The five sons of Michal, whom she brought up for Adriel — In the original it is, whom she bare to Adriel. And as Michal was not the wife of Adriel, but her elder sister Merab, it is probable that Michal’s name has here crept into the text by the mistake of some transcriber for Merab’s. Or else it should stand as the margin of our Bible has it, Michal’s sister.

THE GIBEONITES AVENGED, 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 verse 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. 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 verses 2 and 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, (Joshua 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. 1 Samuel 22:7. In this case the members of his own family doubtless shared largely in the plunder.

Verse 8. Five sons of Michal-whom she brought up] Michal, Saul’s daughter, was never married to Adriel, but to David, and afterwards to Phaltiel; though it is here said she bore hdly yaledah, not brought up, as we falsely translate it: but we learn from 1 Samuel 18:19, that Merab, one of Saul’s daughters, was married to Adriel.

Two of Dr. Kennicott’s MSS. have Merab, not Michal; the Syriac and Arabic have Nadab; the Chaldee has properly Merab; but it renders the passage thus:-And the five sons of Merab which Michal the daughter of Saul brought up, which she brought forth to Adriel the son of Barzillai. This cuts the knot.

Verses 7, 8. The king spared, &c. — For the Gibeonites desiring only such a number, it was at David’s choice whom to spare. The son of Jonathan — This is added to distinguish him from the other Mephibosheth, verse 8. Because of the Lord’s oath, &c. — This was a just reason for not delivering him up. The five sons of Michal, whom she brought up for Adriel — In the original it is, whom she bare to Adriel. And as Michal was not the wife of Adriel, but her elder sister Merab, it is probable that Michal’s name has here crept into the text by the mistake of some transcriber for Merab’s. Or else it should stand as the margin of our Bible has it, Michal’s sister.

Ver. 8. The five sons of Michal the daughter of Saul. Merab, not Michal, was married to Adriel. Therefore the sons are called Michal’s after the Hebrew manner of speaking, because as a mother, having no children of her own, she had undertaken to bring them up. See Genesis 16:2. 30:3. 1:23. Ruth 4:17. So Jeremiah’s uncle is put for his uncle’s son: Jeremiah 32:12.

8. Rizpah — A concubine of Saul. 2 Samuel 3:7. Michal — Rather, Merab. See 1 Samuel 18:19. The insertion of Michal for Merab was, probably, the mistake of an early copyist.

Verse 9. In the beginning of barley harvest.] This happened in Judea about the vernal equinox, or the 21st of March.

Ver. 9. Hanged them in the hill—in the beginning of barley harvest. These seven were religiously slain as victims to the Lord. It is very remarkable that the druids every five years, and at the vernal equinox, which is the beginning of barley harvest, did offer human sacrifices to the Lord. There cannot be a doubt but all human victims were instituted from a corrupt notion of the words of God to Adam, that the serpent should bruise the heel, or occasion the death of Christ, which really took place at the jewish passover, or the vernal equinox. The whole gentile world had once this horrid but mysterious practice. The Hindoos still keep this custom. The Burmese every five years offer up a young man about twenty five years of age. This is affirmed by the missionaries, since the English have invaded that country.

9. In the hill — See on 1 Samuel 10:5. The beginning of barley harvest — About the first of April.

V. 10. Spread it-As a tent to dwell in: being informed that their bodies were not to be taken away speedily, as the course of the law was in ordinary cases, but were to continue there until God was intreated, and removed the present judgment. On the rock-In some convenient place in a rock, near adjoining. Until water-Until they were taken down: which was not to be done ‘till God had given rain as a sign of his favour, and a mean to remove the famine, which was caused by the want of it. Thus she let the world know, that her sons died not for any sin of their own, not as stubborn and rebellious sons, whose eye had despised their mother: but for their father’s sin, and therefore her mind could not be alienated from them by their hard fate.

Verse 10. Rizpah-took sackcloth] Who can read the account of Rizpah’s maternal affection for her sons that were now hanged, without feeling his mind deeply impressed with sorrows?

Did God require this sacrifice of Saul’s sons, probably all innocent of the alleged crime of their father? Was there no other method of averting the Divine displeasure? Was the requisition of the Gibeonites to have Saul’s sons sacrificed to God, to be considered as an oracle of God? Certainly not; God will not have man’s blood for sacrifice, no more than he will have swine’s blood. The famine might have been removed, and the land properly purged, by offering the sacrifices prescribed by the law, and by a general humiliation of the people.

Until water dropped upon them] Until the time of the autumnal rains, which in that country commence about October. Is it possible that this poor broken-hearted woman could have endured the fatigue, (and probably in the open air,) of watching these bodies for more than five months? Some think that the rain dropping on them out of heaven means the removal of the famine which was occasioned by drought, by now sending rain, which might have been shortly after these men were hanged; but this by no means agrees with the manner in which the account is introduced: “They were put to death in the days of harvest, in the first days, in the beginning of barley harvest. And Rizpah-took sackcloth, and spread it for her on the rock, from the beginning of harvest, until water dropped upon them out of heaven.” No casual or immediately providential rain can be here intended; the reference must be to the periodical rains above mentioned.

Verse 10. Rizpah took sackcloth — Or rather, hair-cloth, of which tents were commonly made. And spread it for her — As a tent to dwell in: being informed that their bodies were not to be taken away speedily, as the course of the law was in ordinary cases, but were to continue there until God was entreated, and removed the present judgment. On the rock — In some convenient place in a rock, near adjoining. Until water — Until they were taken down: which was not to be done till God had given rain as a sign of his favour, and a means to remove the famine, which was caused by the want of it. Thus she let the world know that her sons died not as stubborn and rebellious sons, whose eye had despised their mother: but for their father’s crime, and that of the nation in violating the public faith, in which crime, if they had participated, it had only been in common with others; and therefore her mind could not be alienated from them.

Ver. 10. Until water dropped; that is, till rain fell, indicating that heaven was pacified by sending fruitful showers. She stayed till the rain forced her away.

RIZPAH’S MATERNAL AFFECTION, 10.

This single verse contains a mournful tale, which none can read without emotion.

10. Took sackcloth — The sign of mourning. Spread it for her upon the rock — For the purpose of a seat and bed. Until water dropped — Until rain came and ended the three years’ famine, which had probably been caused by drought; but how long she had to wait upon the rock beside the exposed bodies of her sons before the rain came is not quite clear. Josephus says that it came soon after the execution, and Harmer thinks it was a late spring rain, which is sometimes known to fall as late as June in seasons when the usual rains of spring have failed. But the statement, from the beginning of harvest until water dropped, most naturally means that she kept up her sad and woful watching during all the summer season, from April until the early autumnal rains began. Neither the birds… nor the beasts — To be devoured by birds or beasts of prey was the foulest ignominy that could visit the dead. Compare 1 Samuel 17:44.

V. 11. David-Who heard it with so much approbation, that he thought fit to imitate her piety, being by her example provoked to do what hitherto he had neglected, to bestow an honourable interment on the remains of Saul and Jonathan, and, with them, upon those that are now put to death, that the honour done to them herein, might be some comfort to this disconsolate widow.

Verse 11. It was told David what Rizpah had done — And he heard it with so much approbation, that he thought fit to imitate her piety, being by her example provoked to do what hitherto he had neglected, to bestow an honourable interment on the remains of Saul and Jonathan, and, with them, upon those that were now put to death, that the honour done to them therein might be some comfort to this disconsolate widow.

BURIAL OF THE BONES OF SAUL AND JONATHAN, 11-14.

11. It was told David — And it deeply touched his sensitive nature, and prompted him to the action next described.

Verse 12. Took the bones of Saul] The reader will recollect that the men of Jabesh-gilead burned the bodies of Saul and his sons, and buried the remaining bones under a tree at Jabesh. See 1 Samuel 31:12, 13. These David might have digged up again, in order to bury them in the family sepulchre.

12. Took the bones — See 1 Samuel 31:10-13, and notes there.

V. 13. The bones-Having first burnt off the flesh which remained upon them when they were taken down. Compare 1 Samuel 31:10, &c.

Verses 13, 14. He brought up the bones of Saul, &c. — From under the tree where they were buried in Jabesh, 1 Samuel 31:13. They gathered the bones of them that were hanged — Having first burned off the flesh which remained upon them: or, perhaps, this was done some time after they were taken down, when nothing but bones remained; and then they had all seven an honourable interment. The bones of Saul and Jonathan — Together with those now mentioned. And after that — After those things were done which were before related; that is, after they were hanged up; for by that God was pacified, and not by the burial. God was entreated — When satisfaction was given to the Gibeonites, God restored plenty to the country.

BURIAL OF THE BONES OF SAUL AND JONATHAN, 11-14.

11. It was told David — And it deeply touched his sensitive nature, and prompted him to the action next described.

V. 14. After that-After those things were done which were before related; that is, after they were hanged up: for by that God was pacified, and not by their burial.

Verses 13, 14. He brought up the bones of Saul, &c. — From under the tree where they were buried in Jabesh, 1 Samuel 31:13. They gathered the bones of them that were hanged — Having first burned off the flesh which remained upon them: or, perhaps, this was done some time after they were taken down, when nothing but bones remained; and then they had all seven an honourable interment. The bones of Saul and Jonathan — Together with those now mentioned. And after that — After those things were done which were before related; that is, after they were hanged up; for by that God was pacified, and not by the burial. God was entreated — When satisfaction was given to the Gibeonites, God restored plenty to the country.

14. Zelah — This town, in the tribe of Benjamin, (Joshua 18:28,) was probably the native place of the family of Kish, and Saul’s early home. Its site is now unknown. After that — After the execution of Saul’s sons, and the decent burial of their bones. God was entreated for the land — He removed the plague of famine. But did God require the execution of Saul’s sons? Undoubtedly; otherwise he would not have scourged the land because of their and their father’s sins, (verse 1,) and removed the plague as soon as they were executed. And did he not the same in the case of Achan (Joshua vii;) and in his holy law declare that he would by no means clear the guilty, but visit the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate him? Exodus 20:5; 34:7.

Verse 15. Moreover the Philistines had yet war] There is no mention of this war in the parallel place, 1 Chronicles 20:4, &c. David waxed faint.] This circumstance is nowhere else mentioned.

Verses 15, 16. The Philistines had yet war again with Israel — After, or besides the other wars with the Philistines mentioned in this book, they yet again disturbed David’s repose. David waxed faint — Being no longer in the vigour of youth, but probably in declining years, though not old in age. Ishbi-benob, of the sons of the giant — Either of Goliath, who, by way of eminence, is called the giant, or rather, as the Hebrew word, hpr, rapha, signifies, any giant. The words should rather be translated, Of the race of the giants, that is, of the Anakims, who fled into this country, particularly to Gath, when Joshua expelled them from Canaan, Joshua 11:22. Whose spear weighed three hundred shekels of brass — This is to be understood of the head of his spear, which weighed half as much as that of Goliath, 1 Samuel 17:7. He being girded with a new sword — One made on purpose for him, larger and heavier than those commonly used. Thought to have slain David — Thought he had a fair opportunity to do it.

HEROIC DEEDS OF DAVID’S MEN IN THE PHILISTINE WARS, 15-22. “The brief accounts contained in these verses of different heroic feats were probably taken from a history of David’s wars drawn up in the form of chronicles, and are here introduced as practical proofs of the gracious deliverance of David out of the hands of all his foes, for which he praises the Lord his God in the psalm of thanksgiving which follows, so that the enumeration of these feats is to be regarded as supplying an historical basis for the psalm.” — Keil.

15. Yet war again — This expression indicates that the document here used by our author contained also accounts of other and earlier wars with the Philistines. Went down — From the heights of Judea to the great plain of Philistia. Waxed faint — Was becoming exhausted.

Verse 16. Being girded with a new sword] As the word sword is not in the original, we may apply the term new to his armour in general; he had got new arms, a new coat of mail, or something that defended him well, and rendered him very formidable: or it may mean a strong or sharp sword.

Verses 15, 16. The Philistines had yet war again with Israel — After, or besides the other wars with the Philistines mentioned in this book, they yet again disturbed David’s repose. David waxed faint — Being no longer in the vigour of youth, but probably in declining years, though not old in age. Ishbi-benob, of the sons of the giant — Either of Goliath, who, by way of eminence, is called the giant, or rather, as the Hebrew word, hpr, rapha, signifies, any giant. The words should rather be translated, Of the race of the giants, that is, of the Anakims, who fled into this country, particularly to Gath, when Joshua expelled them from Canaan, Joshua 11:22. Whose spear weighed three hundred shekels of brass — This is to be understood of the head of his spear, which weighed half as much as that of Goliath, 1 Samuel 17:7. He being girded with a new sword — One made on purpose for him, larger and heavier than those commonly used. Thought to have slain David — Thought he had a fair opportunity to do it.

16. Ishbi-benob — The name means, his dwelling on the hill, and was perhaps given him on account of some high citadel or castle which he occupied. Sons of the giant — Or, sons of Raphah. On the ancient giant race, Rephaim, compare Genesis 14:5; 15:20; and Deuteronomy 3:11. The word Raphah (or Rapha, as in 1 Chronicles 20:4) seems to have been the proper name of the father of a race of giants that dwelt among the Philistines, but he was doubtless related to the more ancient Rephaim. Weight of whose spear — The reference is doubtless to the metal head of his spear. Three hundred shekels — About nine pounds, half the weight of Goliath’s. See 1 Samuel 17:7. New sword — Better to supply the word armour in place of sword. His entire military garb was new.

Verse 17. That thou quench not the light of Israel.] David is here considered as the lamp by which all Israel was guided, and without whom all the nation must be involved in darkness. The lamp is the emblem of direction and support. Light is used in this sense by Homer:— Oude ti Patroklw genomhn faov, audJ etaroisi

Toiv alloiv, oi dh poleev damen JEktori diw.

Iliad, lib. xviii. ver. 102.

“I have neither been a LIGHT to Patroclus nor to his companions, who have been slain by the noble Hector.”

Verse 17. That thou quench not the light of Israel — Lest thou be slain, and thereby thy people lose their glory and happiness, and even be utterly ruined. Good kings are, in Scripture, justly called the light of their people, because the beauty and glory, the conduct and direction, the comfort and safety, and welfare of a people depend greatly upon them. A noble image this of a king!

17. Sware unto him — The word w[bvn seems here to have rather a causative signification, made him swear; that is, administered an oath unto him. Quench not the light of Israel — David’s position as king over Israel and leader of the armies was like that of the sun in the heavens, or a lamp in a house. Let it be suddenly removed, and all would be involved in darkness and terror. Compare 2 Samuel 18:3.

V. 18. After this-After the battle last mentioned.

Verse 18. A battle-at Gob] Instead of Gob, several editions, and about forty of Kennicott’s and Deuteronomy Rossi’s MSS., have nob; but Gezer is the name in the parallel place, 1 Chronicles 20:4.

Verse 18. After this — After the battle last mentioned. There was again a battle at Gob — Or in Gezer, as in 1 Chronicles 20:4, whereby it seems Gob and Gezer were neighbouring places, and the battle was fought in the confines of both. Sibbechai the Hushathite — One of David’s worthies, 1 Chronicles 11:29; slew Saph — One of the same race of Rephaims, descended from the Anakims.

18. Gob — According to the parallel passage in 1 Chronicles 20:4, the place of this battle was Gezer, on the situation of which see Joshua 10:33. The site of Gob is not known, but it was probably close by Gezer. Sibbechai — Probably identical with the Mebunnar of 2 Samuel 23:27, and one of David’s mighty men. 1 Chronicles 27:11. Hushathite — So called from Hushah, his native town.

Verse 19. Elhanan the son of Jaare-oregim-slew-Goliath the Gittite] Here is a most manifest corruption of the text, or gross mistake of the transcriber; David, not Elhanan, slew Goliath. In 1 Chronicles 20:5, the parallel place, it stands thus: “Elhanan, the son of Jair, slew Lahmi, the brother of Goliath the Gittite, whose spear-staff was like a weaver’s beam.” This is plain; and our translators have borrowed some words from Chronicles to make both texts agree. The corruption may be easily accounted for by considering that ארגים oregim, which signifies weavers, has slipped out of one line into the other; and that ymjlh tyb beith hallachmi, the Beth-lehemite, is corrupted from ymjl ta eth Lachmi; then the reading will be the same as in Chronicles. Dr. Kennicott has made this appear very plain in his First Dissertation on the Hebrew Text, p. 78, &c.

Verse 19. Elhanan, a Beth-lehemite — Another of David’s worthy and valiant commanders. Slew the brother of Goliath — The relative word, brother, is not in the Hebrew text, but is properly supplied out of the parallel place. 1 Chronicles 20:5, where it is expressed. The staff of whose spear was like a weaver’s beam — For thickness; that is, like the large roller on which the cloth is fastened in weaving.

19. Elhanan the son of Jaare-oregim — This text, in the Hebrew, is certainly corrupt. Our translators have partially emended it by inserting the brother of, from 1 Chronicles 20:5. The word oregim is transferred from the end of the verse, µygra rwnm, menor oregim, beam of weavers, ymjlh tyb, beth hallachmi, the Beth-lehemite, is a corruption of ymjl ta, eth lachmi, the name of Goliath’s brother, called Lahmi in Chronicles. We consider the text in Chronicles as the correct one, and this passage as corrupted by some early transcribers.

Verse 20. On every hand six fingers] This is not a solitary instance: Tavernier informs us that the eldest son of the emperor of Java, who reigned in 1648, had six fingers on each hand, and six toes on each foot. And Maupertuis, in his seventeenth letter, says that he met with two families near Berlin, where sedigitism was equally transmitted on both sides of father and mother. I saw once a young girl, in the county of Londonderry, in Ireland, who had six fingers on each hand, and six toes on each foot, but her stature had nothing gigantic in it. The daughters of Caius Horatius, of patrician dignity, were called sedigitæ, because they had six fingers on each hand. Volcatius, a poet, was called sedigitus for the same reason. See Pliny’s Hist. Nat., lib. xi., cap. 43.

THERE are evidently many places in this chapter in which the text has suffered much from the ignorance or carelessness of transcribers; and indeed I suspect the whole has suffered so materially as to distort, if not misrepresent the principal facts. It seems as if a Gibeonite has had something to do with the copies that are come down to us, or that the first fourteen verses have been inserted from a less authentic document than the rest of the book. I shall notice some of the most unaccountable, and apparently exceptionable particulars:—

1. The famine, 2 Samuel 21:1, is not spoken of anywhere else, nor at all referred to in the books of Kings or Chronicles; and, being of three years’ duration, it was too remarkable to be omitted in the history of David.

2. The circumstance of Saul’s attempt to exterminate the Gibeonites is nowhere else mentioned; and, had it taken place, it is not likely it would have been passed over in the history of Saul’s transgressions. Indeed, it would have been such a breach of the good faith by which the whole nation was bound to this people, that an attempt of the kind could scarcely have failed to raise an insurrection through all Israel.

3. The wish of David that the Gibeonites, little better than a heathenish people, should bless the inheritance of the Lord, is unconstitutional and unlikely.

4. That God should leave the choice of the atonement to such a people, or indeed to any people, seems contrary to his established laws and particular providence.

5. That he should require seven innocent men to be hung up in place of their offending father, in whose iniquity they most likely never had a share, seems inconsistent with justice and mercy.

6. In 2 Samuel 21:8, there is mention made of five sons of Michal, which she bore (hdly yaledah) unto Adriel. Now, 1. Michal was never the wife of Adriel, but of David and Phaltiel. 2. She never appears to have had any children, see 2 Samuel 6:23; this I have been obliged to correct in the preceding notes by putting Merab in the place of Michal.

7. The seven sons of Saul, mentioned here, are represented as a sacrifice required by God, to make an atonement for the sin of Saul. Does God in any case require human blood for sacrifice? And is it not such a sacrifice that is represented here? Dr. Delaney and others imagine that these seven sons were principal agents in the execution of their father’s purpose; but of this there is no proof. Mephibosheth, the son of Jonathan, certainly had no hand in this projected massacre, he was ever lame, and could not be so employed; and yet he would have been one of the seven had it not been for the covenant made before with his father: But the king spared Mephibosheth the son of Jonathan-because of the Lord’s oath that was between them, 2 Samuel 21:7.

8. The circumstance of Rizpah’s watching the bodies of those victims, upon a rock, and probably in the open air, both day and night, from March to October, or even for a much less period, is, as it is here related, very extraordinary and improbable.

9. The hanging the bodies so long was against an express law of God, which ordained that those who were hanged on a tree should be taken down before sunset, and buried the same day, lest the land should be defiled, (Deuteronomy 21:22, 23.) Therefore, 1. God did not command a breach of his own law. 2. David was too exact an observer of that law to require it. 3. The people could not have endured it; for, in that sultry season, the land would indeed have been defiled by the putrefaction of the dead bodies; and this would, in all likelihood, have added pestilence to famine.

10. The story of collecting and burying the bones of Saul and Jonathan is not very likely, considering that the men of Jabesh-gilead had burned their bodies, and buried the remaining bones under a tree at Jabesh, 1 Samuel 31:12, 13; yet still it is possible.

11. Josephus takes as much of this story as he thinks proper, but says not one word about Rizpah, and her long watching over her slaughtered sons.

12. Even the facts in this chapter, which are mentioned in other places, (see 1 Chronicles 20:4, &c.,) are greatly distorted and corrupted; for we have already seen that Elhanan is made here to kill Goliath the Gittite, whom it is well known David slew; and it is only by means of the parallel place above that we can restore this to historical truth. That there have been attempts to remove some of these objections, I know; and I know also that these attempts have been in general without success. Till I get farther light on the subject, I am led to conclude that the whole chapter is not now what it would be, coming from the pen of an inspired writer; and that this part of the Jewish records has suffered much from rabbinical glosses, alterations, and additions. The law, the prophets, and the hagiographa, including Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, &c., have been ever considered as possessing the highest title to Divine inspiration; and therefore have been most carefully preserved and transcribed; but the historical books, especially Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles, have not ranked so high, have been less carefully preserved, and have been the subjects of frequent alteration and corruption. Yet still the great foundation of God standeth sure and is sufficiently attested by his own broad seal of consistency, truth, and holiness.

II SAMUEL

Verses 20-22. There was yet a battle in Gath — That is, in the territory of that city; which circumstance intimates, that this, and consequently the other battles here described, were fought before David had taken Gath out of the hands of the Philistines, which he did many years before this, 2 Samuel 8:1, compared with 1 Chronicles 18:1; and therefore not in the last days of David, as some conceive, from the mention of them in this place. A man of great stature — Or, a man of Medin, or Madon, as the Seventy render it; so called from the place of his birth, as Goliath is said to be of Gath for the same reason. Who had on every hand six fingers, &c. — Tavernier, in his relation of the grand seignior’s seraglio, p. 95, says, that the eldest son of the emperor of Java, who reigned in the year 1648, when he was in that island, had six fingers on each hand, and as many toes on each foot, all of equal length. These four fell by the hand of David — That is, by his conduct and counsel, or concurrence. Indeed he contributed by his hand to the death of one of them; while maintaining a fight with him, he gave Abishai the easier opportunity of killing him. But what is done by the inferior commanders is commonly ascribed to the general, both in sacred and profane authors.

20. Six fingers… six toes — Persons thus abnormal have been elsewhere met with. “Tavernier informs us that the eldest son of the emperor of Java, who reigned in 1648, had six fingers on each hand, and six toes on each foot. Maupertius, in his seventeenth letter, says that he met with two families near Berlin, in which sedigitism was equally transmitted on both the father’s and mother’s side. I once saw a young girl in the county of Loudonderry, in Ireland, who had six fingers on each hand and six toes on each foot, but her stature had nothing gigantic in it. The daughters of Caius Horatius, of patrician dignity, were called sedigitae because they had six fingers on each hand.” — Clarke.

Verses 20-22. There was yet a battle in Gath — That is, in the territory of that city; which circumstance intimates, that this, and consequently the other battles here described, were fought before David had taken Gath out of the hands of the Philistines, which he did many years before this, 2 Samuel 8:1, compared with 1 Chronicles 18:1; and therefore not in the last days of David, as some conceive, from the mention of them in this place. A man of great stature — Or, a man of Medin, or Madon, as the Seventy render it; so called from the place of his birth, as Goliath is said to be of Gath for the same reason. Who had on every hand six fingers, &c. — Tavernier, in his relation of the grand seignior’s seraglio, p. 95, says, that the eldest son of the emperor of Java, who reigned in the year 1648, when he was in that island, had six fingers on each hand, and as many toes on each foot, all of equal length. These four fell by the hand of David — That is, by his conduct and counsel, or concurrence. Indeed he contributed by his hand to the death of one of them; while maintaining a fight with him, he gave Abishai the easier opportunity of killing him. But what is done by the inferior commanders is commonly ascribed to the general, both in sacred and profane authors.

HEROIC DEEDS OF DAVID’S MEN IN THE PHILISTINE WARS, 15-22. “The brief accounts contained in these verses of different heroic feats were probably taken from a history of David’s wars drawn up in the form of chronicles, and are here introduced as practical proofs of the gracious deliverance of David out of the hands of all his foes, for which he praises the Lord his God in the psalm of thanksgiving which follows, so that the enumeration of these feats is to be regarded as supplying an historical basis for the psalm.” — Keil.

15. Yet war again — This expression indicates that the document here used by our author contained also accounts of other and earlier wars with the Philistines. Went down — From the heights of Judea to the great plain of Philistia. Waxed faint — Was becoming exhausted.

V. 22. Born to the giant in Gath-These giants were probably the remains of the sons of Anak, who, tho’ long feared, fell at last.

Verses 20-22. There was yet a battle in Gath — That is, in the territory of that city; which circumstance intimates, that this, and consequently the other battles here described, were fought before David had taken Gath out of the hands of the Philistines, which he did many years before this, 2 Samuel 8:1, compared with 1 Chronicles 18:1; and therefore not in the last days of David, as some conceive, from the mention of them in this place. A man of great stature — Or, a man of Medin, or Madon, as the Seventy render it; so called from the place of his birth, as Goliath is said to be of Gath for the same reason. Who had on every hand six fingers, &c. — Tavernier, in his relation of the grand seignior’s seraglio, p. 95, says, that the eldest son of the emperor of Java, who reigned in the year 1648, when he was in that island, had six fingers on each hand, and as many toes on each foot, all of equal length. These four fell by the hand of David — That is, by his conduct and counsel, or concurrence. Indeed he contributed by his hand to the death of one of them; while maintaining a fight with him, he gave Abishai the easier opportunity of killing him. But what is done by the inferior commanders is commonly ascribed to the general, both in sacred and profane authors.

22. These four — Goliath was the fifth, and they were all sons of Raphah. See on verse 16. By the hand of David — He had personally assisted in the slaughter of Ishbi-benob.