slain in battle by the Philistines, but that the slaughter of the Gibeonites was not as From 2 Sam. yet expiated; yet it will be difficult to conceive, why there should be two different and xix. to 1 Kings distinct punishments for one and the same sin, committed at the self-same time When, or by whom, or on what occasion, the tabernacle and altar of burnt-offerings, which were made by Moses in the wilderness, were removed from Nob to Gibeon, we cannot tell, because the Scripture is silent: But it is the conjecture of (a) some learned men, that it was not long after the murder of the priests at Nob; and that Saul, very probably, to regain the favour of the people, which he found he had lost by being so barbarous to men of their sacred character, quarrelled with the Gibeonits, and banished them out of their city, in order to make room for the tabernacle of the Lord. 66 The Scripture indeed acquaints us, that (b)" he sought to slay the Gibeonites in his zeal to the children of Israel and Judah;" where the expression seems to denote, (c) that the children of Israel envied these miserable people, insomuch that Saul thought he could not do a more popular act than to cut them off. But by the children of Israel, (d) some rather understand the tribe of Benjamin in particular, viz. that very tribe from whence king Saul descended; and thence they infer, that his zeal, or earnest desire to promote his own tribe to riches and grandeur, made him seek occasion to fall foul upon the Gibeonites, in order that the three cities which they possessed in the territories of Benjamin might fall into his hands, and so be divided among his own family. That he either had, or intended to advance and enrich his own tribe, is manifest from these words of his : (e)" Hear now, ye Benjamites, will the son of Jesse give every one of you fields and vineyards, and make you all captains of thousands, and captains of hundreds?" i. e. will he do for you as I have, and mean to do? Now, if we look into the actions of Saul, we do not find that he made any purchase of the possessions of another tribe, or that he took from his enemies any considerable territories, in order to accommodate his Benjamites; and are therefore left to suppose, that the fields and vineyards wherewith he enriched them, he unjustly acquired by destroying and dispossessing the Gibeonites. It is but supposing, then, that some of the chief of these Gibeonites had, in some instance or other, offended Saul, for which he was minded to destroy the whole race; or that he had cast a greedy eye upon their lands and possessions, which, in case of their excision, would be forfeited to the crown, and so might be given to his own family; and then he had allegations plausible enough against them, pretending, "That it was not for the honour or interest of God's people to nourish any of that viperous brood in their bosoms; and that however Joshua and the princes, who then bore sway, had by their fraud been drawn into an oath to preserve them, yet, in truth, that oath was contrary to God's command, which required them (ƒ) 'to smite them, and utterly destroy them;' and therefore ought not, as he thought, to be observed." Thus Saul might set up for a restorer of the Divine laws to their ancient rigour and strictness of execution, and a supplier of the default of Joshua, and the princes of Israel, in sparing the Gibeonites, even though they were comprised in the general ordinance of extirpation; and, under this character, he might easily draw in his own subjects to abet and assist his cruelty against a poor people, for whom they had never any good liking. Regis ad exemplum is the known maxim; and therefore, we may easily suppose, that a wicked and hard-hearted people, who had assisted Saul in the persecution of David, had adhered to Absalom in his rebellion against his own father; and who, at the beck of so many impious princes, left the true worship of God, and fell into idolatry, would not be backward to assist Saul in putting in execution any of his contrivances against the poor Gibeonites. And if so, we cannot but admire the wis (a) Calmet's Commentary on 1 Sam. xxii.19. (d) The History of the Life of King David, vol. iii. (b) 2 Sam. xxi. 2. (e) 2 Sam. xxii. 7. (c) Le Clerc in locum. viii. &c. or 4375. Ant. Chris. 1023, &c. or 1036. A. M. 2981, dom and justice of God, in making the punishment national, when the whole nation (for aught we know) was confederate with Saul in murdering the Gibeonites, or guilty at least in not hindering it; when the next generation was involved in the guilt, by not repairing the injury as much as possible, or not expressing their horror and detestation of it by some public act; when an act of discipline might, at this time, be necessary, to preserve the remaining Gibeonites from insults, to beget in the Israelites a proper respect for them, to prevent the like murders for the future, and the like breaches of national compacts. Nay, supposing the people, who lived in that time when the famine prevailed, to be never so innocent of the blood of the Gibeonites, yet it cannot be denied, but that God, who is the author and giver of life, has an absolute right over the lives of all, and can recal that gift whenever he pleases: And (a) therefore, if in the case before us he made a demand (as certainly he had a right to do it) of so many lives, at such a time, and in such a manner, as might best answer the ends of discipline; then, that which was just in other views, and without any such special reason, could not become unjust by having that additional reason to recommend it. In a word, if the thing was righteous, considered merely as an act of dominion in God, it could not but be both righteous and kind, by being made, at the same time, an act of discipline for the punishment of sin and perfidy, and the promotion of justice and godliness among men. We must all allow, that God, as he is a most just and righteous Being, can never require that the innocent should die for the guilty; and therefore we have reason to believe, that, when Saul (for reasons above-mentioned) was so outrageous against the Gibeonites, his sons and grandsons might be the instruments of his cruelty, and very probably bear some part in the military execution. For it frequently so happens, that whatever a king commands, be it never so abominable, is generally approved and executed by his family; and therefore, (b) when we are told from the mouth of God, that the plague sent upon the people was " for Saul and his bloody house, because † he slew the Gibeonites;" it seems to be evident, that it was for their guilt as well as his; nor can we imagine, that this guilt of theirs could be any thing less than that of being the executioners in this slaughter. It is plain, that they were his "captains of thousands, and captains of hundreds ;" and it is as plain, that, as such, they must be the instruments of his cruelty; for if they were not, why are they called bloody. They refused, indeed, (c) to slaughter the priests at his command, but there is no reason to believe that they were so scrupulous in regard to the Gibeonites; and if they were not, is there less equity in God's destroying their sons for the sins of their fathers, which they adopted and shared in, than there was in his destroying Jehoram, the son of Ahab, for that vineyard which the father had cruelly and unjustly acquired, and son as unjustly detained? Without calling, then, to our assistance God's great prerogative, (d) " of visiting the sins of the father upon the children, unto the third and fourth generation," we may fairly say, that, if these descendants of Saul did either concur in this murder of the Gibeonites when doing, or avow and defend it when done, they became culpable upon their own, as well as their ancestors account, and thereupon justly deserved to be delivered up to the resentment of a people that had suffered so much by their inhumanity. Upon this supposition, then, (for it is by suppositions that we must go in this obscure part of history) that both the people and the princes of the blood were accessary, or instrumental to Saul's cruelty, the reason why God delayed their punishment so long is obvious; even because his infinite goodness waited for their repentance; which goodness we badly requite, if we pervert it as an argument against his Providence. For may not (a) Scripture Vindicated, part ii. viii. God be gracious and merciful as long as he pleases? Or have we any right to set bounds From 2 Sam. to his patience and long-suffering? It is but supposing, then, that while God continued xix. to 1 Kings in this state of expectance, upon some special occasion or other, to us unknown, both, the people of Israel and Saul's posterity might discover, that they were so far from repenting, that they gloried in the murder of the Gibeonites; and this would determine God, who had hitherto waited for their penitence in vain, to pour out his indignation upon them, and exact a severe punishment both for their cruelty and obstinacy. Whether the Gibeonites did right or wrong, in exacting so severe a retaliation, as that of hanging up seven of Saul's progeny, for the injury that he and his family had done them, the Sacred History is no ways concerned. It relates the transaction just as it happened; but to shew us from whence this barbarous custom of hanging up men to appease the anger of the gods did proceed, it prefaces the account of the matter with this observation :-(a) "These Gibeonites were not of the children of Israel (for among them they learnt no such practice), but a remnant of the Amorites," who were addicted to this horrid superstition, of which the Gibeonites (notwithstanding their abode among people of better sentiments) still retained some tincture, and propounded it to David, as an expedient to make the earth become fruitful again; (b) Let seven of Saul's sons be given unto us, and we will hang them up unto the Lord." .6 The Scripture, you see, speaks in the dialect of these people; but from thence we make a wrong conclusion, if we think, that God can be delighted with human sacrifices, which so frequently and so vehemently we find him declaiming against, and professing his utter detestation of. He desires the death or punishment of no man, except it be in pursuance of the ends of his wise Providence, or when the criminal, by his bad conduct, has forfeited his life to the government he lives under; nor would he have required the execution of any of Saul's posterity, had it not been to procure the poor distressed Gibeonites (who were true drudges to their Hebrew masters) a kinder treatment, and better quarter for the future; had it not been to testify his abhorrence of all oppression and violence; to shew, that the cries of the meanest slave, as well as of the mightiest monarch, enter the ears of the Most High; that with him there is no respect of persons, but "the rich and the poor to him are both alike:" (c) Had it not been to repair the injury done to his most holy name, in the violation of the compact, which both Joshua and the princes of Israel made with this people, and confirmed with the solemnity of an oath: Had it not been by this exemplary punishment, to give mankind a lesson of instruction concerning the sacredness of oaths and treaties, and how religiously they ought to be observed, even towards those that are in the lowest state and circumstances of life. Under these considerations only could the death of Saul's sons be acceptable to God; and how far David, in like manner, came to be concerned in it, we shall now proceed to consider. Both the Septuagint and vulgar Latin translation make the demand of the Gibeonites, when David sent to offer them satisfaction, run in this strain :-(d) "The man who consumed us and oppressed us unjustly, we ought utterly to destroy, so as not to leave one of his race remaining in any of the coasts of Israel:" and in this demand, we may presume, that they persisted, until David, partly by his authority, and partly by kind entreaties, prevailed with them to be content with seven only. Here then was a fair opportunity for David (had he been so minded) to have cut off the whole race of Saul as it were at one blow, and to have avoided all the odium of the action, by but barely saying, "That the Gibeonites demanded all, and his instructions from God were, to grant whatever they demanded." But instead of that, we find him, before this happened, (a) 2 Sam. xxi. 2. (d) 2 Sam. xxi. 5. (b) Ibid. ver. 6. (c) Calmet's Commentary in locum. A. M. 2981, &c. or 4375. 1023, &c. Ant. Chris. or 1036. making enquiry for such (a) "as were left of Saul's family, that he might shew kindness to them for Jonathan's sake;" interposing his good offices here with the Gibeonites, to have them abate the keenness of their resentment, and make the slaughter of Saul's devoted house as moderate as possible; and, after that slaughter was over, (6) giving them a public and solemn interment, "with the bones of Saul and Jonathan his son," in the sepulchre of their ancestors, and himself attending them in person to the grave. The death of Saul's posterity, procured by the Gibeonites, had it not proceeded from God's positive command, but been only a plausible pretence for David to get rid of his rivals in empire," (c) we cannot imagine why he should slay no more than seven of these descendants; why he should cut off only collateral branches, and spare all those who were in a direct line of succession to the throne; why he spared Ishbosheth, his competitor for the kingdom, whom, by Abner's means, he might have dispatched, and, according to their desert, punished the two traitors who had officiously murdered him; and why he spared Mephibosheth the son of Jonathan, and Micah his son, and Micah's four sons, (whom in all probability he lived to see) and in them (d) a long generation, all descended from Saul's family, and all related to the crown. Had this affair of the Gibeonites happened indeed about the beginning of David's reign over all Israel, soon after the death of Ishbosheth, and when he had reason to apprehend that some other rival might perchance spring up in his stead; there might then be some umbrage to think, that the branches of Saul's family were to be cut off for reasons of state, and to make his possession of the crown more safe: but since these things came to pass very near the conclusion of his reign, when (as he himself acknowledges (e) in the very next chapter) God had not only "covered him with the shield of his salvation, and so enlarged his steps under him, that his feet could not slip, but given him likewise the necks of his enemies, and made him the head over many strange nations;" he could have no just conception of danger from any quarter, and consequently no necessity to establish his throne by blood. It could not be then for any private end that David delivered these children of Saul into the hands of the Gibeonites, but purely in obedience to the will of God, who had both directed and warranted him so to do. For we cannot but suppose, (as Josephus does) that when David consulted the oracle concerning the famine, God informed him not only for what crime it was inflicted, but by what means likewise it was to be removed; and therefore, being let into all this, he was not at liberty to do what he pleased, but compelled rather to give up the children as so many victims, notwithstanding his promise and oath to their father, because a superior power interposed, and in so doing cancelled the prior obligation. His making a grant of Mephibosheth's estate to a vile miscreant of a servant, without giving his master a fair hearing, is another exception that is commonly made to the justice of king David's proceedings in this period of time. But how could David have leisure to send for Mephibosheth from Mount Olivet to Jerusalem, and enquire into the merits of the cause depending between him and his servant, when he was in so great an hurry, and under flight from the arms of his rebel son? Or how could he suppose that Ziba could have dared to have told him so notorious a lie, when it might, in a short time, be disproved? Every circumstance, in short, on Ziba's side looked well, but none on his master's. To his master, David had been extremely kind in restoring to him the forfeited estate of his grand-father Saul, and in allowing him (ƒ)" to eat at his own table, as one of the king's sons; and now, at the general rendezvous of his friends, David might well have expected that the person to whom he had extended so (a) 2 Sam. ix. 1. (b) Ibid. xx. 12. 13. (c) The History of the Life of King David, vol. iii. (f) 2 Sam. ix. 11. (e) 2 Sam. xxii. 36, &c. xix. to 1 Kings many favours, should not have been so negligent of his duty as to absent himself, unless From 2 Sam. it had been upon some extraordinary business; and therefore, when Ziba acquaints him viii. with the occasion of his absence, though it was a mere fiction, yet with David it might find a readier credence, because at this time he had reason to mistrust every body, and seeing his own family disconcerted and broken, might think the crown liable to fall to any new claimant that could pretend to the same right of succession that Mephibosheth might. On the contrary, every thing appeared bright and plausible on Ziba's side. He, though but a servant, came to join the king, and instead of adhering to his master's pretended schemes of advancement, had expressed his duty to his rightful sovereign, in bringing him a considerable present, enough to engage his good opinion. The story that he told of his master likewise, though utterly false, was cunningly contrived, and fitly accommodated to the nature of the times: so that in this situation of affairs, as wise a man as David might have been induced to believe the whole to be true, and, upon the presumption of it being so, might have proceeded to pass a judgment of forfeiture (as in most eastern countries every crime against the state was always attended with such a forfeiture) upon Mephibosheth's estate, and to consign the possession of it to another. All therefore that David can be blamed for in this whole transaction is an error in judgment, even when he was imposed upon by the plausible tale of a sycophant, and had no opportunity of coming at the truth; but upon his return to Jerusalem, when Mephibosheth appears before him, and pleads his own cause, we find this the decision of it :-(a)" Why speakest thou any more of thy matters? I have said, thou and Ziba divide the land:" which words must not be so understood as if he appointed at that time an equal division of the estate between Mephibosheth and his servant, (for where would the justice of such a sentence be?) but rather that he revoked the order he had given to Ziba, upon the supposed forfeiture of his master, and put things now upon the same establishment they were at first. (b) “ I have said,” i. e. “My first grant shall stand when I decreed that Mephibosheth should be lord of the whole estate, and Ziba his steward to manage it for him." 66 1 The words of the grant are these :-(c)" Then the king called to Ziba, Saul's servant, and said unto him, I have given unto thy master's son all that pertained to Saul and to all his house. Thou, therefore, and thy sons, and thy servants, shall till the land for him, and thou shalt bring in the fruits, that thy master's son may have food to eat," i. e. may be enabled to maintain himself and family in plenty; " but Mephibosheth, thy master's son, shall eat bread alway at my table." From whence it seems manifest, that this Ziba had been an old steward in Saul's family, and had managed his private estate, which lay at Gibeah of Benjamin. (d) This estate, upon one account or other, had come into David's possession, either in right of his wife, upon the death of Saul's son, or by forfeiture to the crown upon Ishbosheth's rebellion; but he being willing now to do a generous act to Saul's family, in memory of his friendship to Jonathan, passed a free grant or dedition of it to his son, and (that he might make a provision for all his dependants at once) put Ziba into the same place he had enjoyed before, constituting him † steward of the royal manor of Gibeah, even as he had been in the life of Saul. So that David's sentence or determination, (e) "thou and Ziba divide the land," refers us (a) 2 Sam. xix. 29. (b) Selden, de Successionibus 25. (c) 2 Sam. ix. 10. 11. (d) Pool's Annotations in locum. The ancient way of tenancy (nor is it yet quite disused) was that of occupying the land, and giving the proprietor a certain annual portion of the fruits of it. When the tenant paid one-half of the annual (e) 2 Sam. xix. 29. 30. |