Charles Ellicott Commentary 2 Samuel 21

Then there was. —Read, and there was, there being no indication of time in the original. It is plain from 2 Samuel 21:7 that the events narrated here occurred after David had come to know Mephibosheth; and if in 2 Samuel 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.

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.

For his bloody house. Better: for the blood-guilty house. Saul’s family and descendants are regarded, according to the universal ideas of the times, as sharers in his guilt. The story of the Gibeonites and of Joshua’s league with them is told in Joshua 9, but Saul’s attempt to destroy them is mentioned only here. It is clear, from what is said of them in 2 Samuel 21:8, that they had never become incorporated with the Israelites by circumcision but remained a distinct people.

Saul’s sin consisted in the violation of the solemn oath, made in the Lord’s name, by which the nation of Israel was bound to the Gibeonites. “His zeal” in that case was of the same ungodly character as many other acts of his reign, in which pride, arrogance, and self-will were cloaked under a zeal for God’s honor and His people’s welfare.

The Amorites. More precisely, the Gibeonites were Hivites (Joshua 9:7); but they are called Amorites (meaning mountaineers) as a common general name for the ancient people of Palestine.

Two questions are often asked in connection with this narrative:

1. Why should the punishment for Saul’s sin have been so long delayed?
2. And why should it finally have fallen upon David and his people, who had no share in committing the sin?

The answer to both questions is that Israel both sinned and was punished as a nation.

Saul killed the Gibeonites, not simply as the son of Kish, but as the king of Israel, and therefore involved all Israel with him in the violation of the national oath. Consequently, until the evil was put away by the execution of the immediate offender or his representatives, all Israel had to suffer.

The lesson of the continuity of the nation’s life, and of its continued responsibility from age to age, was greatly enhanced by the delay. Furthermore, there were so many other grievous sins for which Saul was to be punished that it was hardly possible to make clear during his lifetime the special Divine displeasure for this particular sin.

Make the atonement. —This is the same technical word as is used throughout the Law in connection with the propitiatory sacrifices. It means literally, to cover up, and is here used in that literal sense. David asks what he can do to so cover up the sin of Saul as to remove it from the sight of those against whom it had been committed—the Gibeonites as the earthly sufferers from it, and God Himself as the one against whom he had chiefly offended. Then God’s blessing might again return to His people.

No silver nor gold.—Money compensations for sins of blood were extremely common among all ancient nations, but were expressly forbidden in the Law of Moses (Numbers 35:31), and in this respect the Gibeonites appear to have accepted the teaching of the law of Israel.

Kill any man in Israel. —Although the guilt of Saul’s sin, until it should be expiated, rested upon all Israel, the Gibeonites recognize that he had committed it, and do not seek that, apart from their connection with him, any Israelite should suffer on their account. David appreciates the fairness of their view of the matter, and promises beforehand to do whatever they require.

Let seven men of his sons. —The head of the house and his household were closely identified in all the ideas of antiquity. Saul being dead, his male descendants were considered as standing in his place, representing him, and responsible for his acts, just as is largely the case in legal affairs and matters of property today. The number seven is undoubtedly fixed upon, first, as a considerable and sufficient number, and then on account of its sacred associations and its representation of completeness.

We will hang them up. —The sons of Saul are only to be given up by David; their actual execution is to be carried out by the Gibeonites. The method is that of hanging or fastening to a stake, either by impaling or by crucifixion, the word being used for both methods of execution.

Unto the Lord —that is, publicly. (Compare a similar expression in Numbers 25:4.) The sin had been outrageous; its punishment must be conspicuous. The place of execution was suitably chosen in the home of Saul. It seems strange that he should be spoken of here as “the Lord’s chosen.” However, this description and the expression “unto the Lord” are connected. What Saul had done, he had done as the head of the theocracy, as God’s chosen ruler; consequently, his family must now be punished in the presence of Him against whom he had offended—“before the Lord.” The idea of regarding the execution of these men as a propitiatory human sacrifice is utterly without foundation.