2 Samuel Chapter 21
Avenging the Gibeonites
A. David avenges the Gibeonites.
(2 Samuel 21:1) — “Then there was a famine in the days of David three years, year after year; and David enquired of the Lord. And the Lord answered, It is for Saul, and for his bloody house, because he slew the Gibeonites.”
David faced a national calamity of famine lasting for three consecutive years. Such a prolonged crisis could not be ignored, and David, as both king and spiritual leader, sought divine understanding regarding its cause. His inquiry before the Lord demonstrated his dependence upon God and his spiritual discernment to seek beyond the physical explanation of drought or agricultural failure. While the first and second years may have been attributed to natural causes, the continuation into a third year compelled David to recognize that there was a moral or divine reason behind the suffering.
David did not attribute every hardship to direct divine punishment, yet he also did not close his eyes to the hand of God in the circumstances of the nation. A wise ruler, and indeed any discerning believer, must balance both spiritual and practical insight. The famine was a means through which God brought attention to an unaddressed national sin, revealing that divine justice was not yet satisfied.
The Lord’s response was direct and sobering: the famine was “for Saul, and for his bloody house, because he slew the Gibeonites.” This sin, though committed in the past, had defiled the nation’s standing before God. The covenantal violation had national consequences. The Gibeonites had been granted protection under oath by Joshua and the elders of Israel, even though they had deceived Israel into making that covenant (Joshua 9:3–27). Despite their deception, the oath was binding, and God Himself expected Israel to honor it. Saul’s later attempt to destroy the Gibeonites was an act of national treachery that broke a sacred promise.
The Word of God declares in Numbers 30:2, “If a man vow a vow unto the Lord, or swear an oath to bind his soul with a bond; he shall not break his word, he shall do according to all that proceedeth out of his mouth.” This principle applied not only to individuals but also to nations. Saul’s zeal to purge the land of non-Israelites, while politically convenient, directly violated Israel’s sworn covenant, and God held the nation accountable for it.
This passage teaches several key theological truths. First, God expects His people to keep their promises, for breaking an oath dishonors His name. Second, He expects nations to honor their covenants, for divine justice applies to corporate entities as much as individuals. Third, the passage reminds us that time does not erase sin when it remains unconfessed and unatoned for. Saul’s sin, committed years before, still cried out for justice in David’s day. Fourth, the enduring famine demonstrates that God’s correction can be delayed yet remains certain.
Finally, the same God who demands faithfulness from man is Himself eternally faithful to His word. In Revelation 4:3, it is written, “And he that sat was to look upon like a jasper and a sardine stone: and there was a rainbow round about the throne, in sight like unto an emerald.” That emerald rainbow signifies God’s unchanging remembrance of His covenant with His people. Thus, while divine justice demanded recompense for broken promises, divine faithfulness assures believers that God will never fail to uphold His own.
(2 Samuel 21:2) — “And the king called the Gibeonites, and said unto 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 sought to slay them in his zeal to the children of Israel and Judah).”
David, upon learning that the famine was a divine judgment for Saul’s violation against the Gibeonites, immediately took initiative to address the matter. His response was not one of neglect or political evasion but of righteous responsibility. The text says, “The king called the Gibeonites, and said unto them.” This reveals David’s recognition that true national restoration required repentance and reconciliation. It was not enough to simply identify the sin; the covenant that had been broken had to be honored, and justice had to be satisfied according to God’s standards.
The Gibeonites were described as “not of the children of Israel, but of the remnant of the Amorites.” This statement recalls their history in Joshua 9, where they deceived Joshua into making a peace treaty with them, pretending to come from a far country. Despite the deception, the leaders of Israel had sworn an oath before the Lord to spare them. When their deceit was discovered, Israel could not retract the covenant, for it was made in the Lord’s name. Joshua 9:19 says, “But all the princes said unto all the congregation, We have sworn unto them by the Lord God of Israel: now therefore we may not touch them.” Thus, they were spared but made servants, assigned as woodcutters and water bearers for the house of God.
God honored this covenantal arrangement, even though the Gibeonites had entered it through deception. To break that oath was to profane the name of the Lord under which it was sworn. Saul, however, in his misguided “zeal for the children of Israel and Judah,” had attempted to exterminate the Gibeonites, perhaps believing he was purging the land of idolatry or foreign influence. Yet his zeal was not according to knowledge, and his supposed act of patriotism was in truth an act of rebellion against God’s revealed word.
This narrative reminds us of the warning in Romans 10:2, where Paul wrote of his own people: “For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge.” Zeal, when disconnected from divine truth, becomes dangerous. It can lead to persecution, pride, and disobedience cloaked in the appearance of righteousness. Saul’s zeal was self-willed and fleshly, driven by political motives rather than obedience to God.
The lesson here is timeless: good intentions never sanctify sinful behavior. As believers, we must be careful not to justify wrongdoing because we believe our motives are noble. God judges both the heart and the action. Proverbs 21:2 declares, “Every way of a man is right in his own eyes: but the Lord pondereth the hearts.” Saul’s offense teaches that sincerity is not the same as obedience. What may appear as religious fervor can, in truth, be rebellion when it contradicts God’s commands.
In contrast, David’s conduct in this passage displays humility and spiritual discernment. He approached the Gibeonites with respect, acknowledging that Israel’s oath bound them to these people. His actions demonstrate that true leadership seeks righteousness and reconciliation, not merely national image or pride.
(2 Samuel 21:3–6) — “Wherefore David said unto the Gibeonites, What shall I do for you? and wherewith shall I make the atonement, that ye may bless the inheritance of the Lord? And the Gibeonites said unto him, We will have no silver nor gold of Saul, nor of his house; neither for us shalt thou kill any man in Israel. And he said, What ye shall say, that will I do for you. And they answered the king, The man that consumed us, and that devised against us that we should be destroyed from remaining in any of the coasts of Israel, let seven men of his sons be delivered unto us, and we will hang them up unto the Lord in Gibeah of Saul, whom the Lord did choose. And the king said, I will give them.”
After discovering the cause of the famine, David sought reconciliation between Israel and the Gibeonites. His first words, “What shall I do for you? and wherewith shall I make the atonement,” reveal a spirit of humility and justice. David did not approach the matter as a sovereign imposing his will but as a servant seeking restoration on behalf of his people. He recognized that atonement was necessary for the bloodguilt resting upon the nation, for according to the law, “So ye shall not pollute the land wherein ye are: for blood it defileth the land: and the land cannot be cleansed of the blood that is shed therein, but by the blood of him that shed it” (Numbers 35:33). The slaughter of the Gibeonites had brought defilement upon Israel’s land, and that defilement required satisfaction according to divine justice.
David’s question, “that ye may bless the inheritance of the Lord,” shows his ultimate concern for God’s favor to be restored. He did not merely seek to appease the Gibeonites but to lift God’s chastening hand from Israel. The famine was evidence of divine displeasure, and reconciliation was not complete until those wronged could bless the Lord’s inheritance rather than curse it. The word “inheritance” here refers to the covenant people of Israel. David desired peace and the removal of God’s wrath through righteous restitution.
The Gibeonites’ response is noteworthy for its restraint and integrity. They said, “We will have no silver nor gold of Saul, nor of his house; neither for us shalt thou kill any man in Israel.” They did not demand wealth, possessions, or widespread vengeance. Their grievance was not material but moral. They sought justice, not profit. Although Saul had wronged them grievously, they refused to turn their vengeance upon the innocent. This stands in contrast to the world’s view of revenge, showing that even among the Gibeonites, there was a recognition of divine principle.
Their request, “Let seven men of his sons be delivered unto us,” reflected the ancient understanding of corporate responsibility and blood justice. Under the Mosaic Law, the concept of substitutionary atonement was well established. The idea that bloodguilt could be expiated through the death of the guilty or those legally bound to him was consistent with their cultural and legal framework. Seven, being the number of completeness or divine fulfillment, symbolized a full measure of justice. The Gibeonites desired to publicly execute these men “before the Lord in Gibeah of Saul, whom the Lord did choose.” By naming Gibeah, the hometown of Saul, they connected the crime and its punishment directly to the offender’s legacy.
David’s answer, “I will give them,” shows that he discerned the righteousness of the request. Though the action might seem severe by modern standards, in that historical context it fulfilled divine justice. Saul’s descendants likely shared in the guilt, either through participation or benefit from the massacre. Moreover, this act would satisfy the covenantal breach, bringing peace between the Israelites and the Gibeonites, and removing the divine curse from the land.
In all of this, David demonstrated a respect for divine order. He knew that true peace could not be achieved without righteousness. It was not enough to overlook the sin or offer gifts; atonement had to be made according to God’s justice. Proverbs 21:3 says, “To do justice and judgment is more acceptable to the Lord than sacrifice.” David’s actions reveal that principle at work.
We must also remember Abraham’s declaration in Genesis 18:25, “Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?” Even when the exact details of this event are not recorded, we can rest in the assurance that God’s judgments are always righteous. David’s decision aligned with divine justice and covenant law, illustrating that mercy cannot bypass truth. Reconciliation with God and man requires a righteous basis, and in this instance, it came through just atonement.
(2 Samuel 21:7–9) — “But the king spared Mephibosheth, the son of Jonathan, the son of Saul, because of the Lord’s oath that was between them, between David and Jonathan, the son of Saul. But the king took the two sons of Rizpah, the daughter of Aiah, whom she bare unto Saul, Armoni and Mephibosheth; and the five sons of Michal, the daughter of Saul, whom she brought up for Adriel, the son of Barzillai the Meholathite: and he delivered them into the hands of the Gibeonites, and they hanged them in the hill before the Lord: and they fell all seven together, and were put to death in the days of harvest, in the first days, in the beginning of barley harvest.”
David faithfully carried out the agreement he made with the Gibeonites, but he did so in strict obedience to the moral and covenantal standards of God. The passage opens with the statement, “But the king spared Mephibosheth, the son of Jonathan, the son of Saul, because of the Lord’s oath that was between them.” Although Mephibosheth, being Saul’s grandson, would have been the most prominent target for retribution, David could not betray his solemn oath to Jonathan. The covenant between David and Jonathan, established in 1 Samuel 20:14–17, was made before the Lord, binding David by divine oath to preserve Jonathan’s descendants in kindness and protection. David’s decision shows his unwavering integrity; he would not seek to resolve one covenant violation by committing another.
This example demonstrates that David understood the sanctity of oaths. He refused to compromise his promise even when doing so would have simplified matters politically. It would have been convenient to include Mephibosheth in the number handed over, but David feared God more than man. This reflects the truth of Ecclesiastes 5:4–5, “When thou vowest a vow unto God, defer not to pay it; for he hath no pleasure in fools: pay that which thou hast vowed. Better is it that thou shouldest not vow, than that thou shouldest vow and not pay.” David honored his word because it had been made in the name of the Lord, demonstrating his deep respect for divine truth.
Instead, David selected seven male descendants of Saul—two sons of Rizpah, named Armoni and Mephibosheth (a different Mephibosheth, not Jonathan’s son), and five sons of Michal, Saul’s daughter. The text notes that Michal had “brought them up” for Adriel, the son of Barzillai the Meholathite, indicating she raised them though they were likely born to her sister Merab, who had originally been promised to David (see 1 Samuel 18:19). This selection was deliberate and just, fulfilling the Gibeonites’ request for seven men of Saul’s line to bear the guilt of his actions.
The execution took place publicly, “on the hill before the Lord,” signifying that it was done under divine observation and approval. The phrase “before the Lord” shows that this was not an act of personal vengeance but an offering of justice, a national act of atonement for the covenant that Saul had violated. The manner of death—public hanging—also carried deep theological significance. According to Deuteronomy 21:22–23, “And if a man have committed a sin worthy of death, and he be to be put to death, and thou hang him on a tree: His body shall not remain all night upon the tree, but thou shalt in any wise bury him that day; (for he that is hanged is accursed of God).” By hanging, the executed bore the visible mark of divine curse. Saul’s house had brought guilt upon the nation, and his descendants bore that curse in order to remove the divine wrath upon Israel.
This passage also foreshadows the work of Christ. The Apostle Paul drew upon this same principle in Galatians 3:13, “Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree.” Just as the hanging of Saul’s descendants satisfied divine justice and turned away the famine from the land, so the crucifixion of Christ satisfied divine justice and turned away the wrath of God from mankind. The justice that demanded blood under the old covenant was finally fulfilled in Christ, who bore the curse for us so that we might receive the blessing of eternal life.
The execution occurred “in the days of harvest, in the first days, in the beginning of barley harvest.” This detail provides both a historical and symbolic marker. The barley harvest corresponded to the time of Passover, a season of redemption and renewal for Israel. Thus, at the very time when Israel was celebrating deliverance from Egypt, they were also witnessing deliverance from divine chastisement through this act of atonement. The timing underscores the continuity between divine judgment and mercy—God’s justice is always tempered by His desire to restore His people.
(2 Samuel 21:10–14) — “And Rizpah the daughter of Aiah took sackcloth, and spread it for her upon the rock, from the beginning of harvest until water dropped upon them out of heaven, and suffered neither the birds of the air to rest on them by day, nor the beasts of the field by night. 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, which had stolen them from the street of Beth–shan, where the Philistines had hanged them, when the Philistines had slain Saul in Gilboa: and he brought up from thence the bones of Saul and the bones of Jonathan his son; and they gathered the bones of them that were hanged. And the bones of Saul and Jonathan his son buried they in the country of Benjamin in Zelah, in the sepulchre of Kish his father: and they performed all that the king commanded. And after that God was intreated for the land.”
Rizpah, a concubine of Saul and the mother of two of the executed sons, became a striking example of motherly devotion and sorrow. The text says she “took sackcloth, and spread it for her upon the rock, from the beginning of harvest until water dropped upon them out of heaven.” Sackcloth was a symbol of mourning and repentance, and Rizpah’s act of spreading it upon the rock symbolized both her grief and her perseverance. She remained there from the start of the barley harvest, likely around April, until the coming of the late autumn rains, possibly October. For nearly six months she watched over the exposed bodies, protecting them from birds and beasts, refusing to allow their humiliation to continue.
Her vigil demonstrated a love that transcended shame and suffering. The bodies of the seven men were deliberately left unburied as a public testimony that divine justice had been satisfied, in keeping with Deuteronomy 21:22–23, which required that the guilty be displayed when executed for grave sin, but also that they be buried once the judgment was complete. Rizpah’s act was both a protest and a prayer—a mother’s heart breaking in silence before God. Her endurance through months of exposure under the heat of the sun and the chill of night drew national attention and reached the ears of King David himself.
When David heard what Rizpah had done, he was deeply moved. Her steadfast grief stirred him to perform a final act of honor and reconciliation for Saul’s house. He took the bones of Saul and Jonathan from the men of Jabesh–gilead, who had bravely rescued their remains after the Philistines had hung them at Beth–shan (see 1 Samuel 31:8–13), and gathered also the bones of those who had been hanged by the Gibeonites. By burying them together in the family tomb of Kish, Saul’s father, David restored dignity to Saul’s household and brought closure to the long-standing breach between Saul’s legacy and the nation of Israel.
This burial in the ancestral tomb at Zelah in Benjamin symbolized the end of divine chastisement. The act fulfilled both moral duty and covenantal justice, uniting mercy and righteousness in one gesture. David ensured that the house of Saul was given rest in death and that the dishonor of judgment was not left open-ended.
The text concludes, “And after that God was intreated for the land.” The famine that had persisted for three years was lifted, and the rains returned as a visible token of divine mercy. This phrase signifies that God accepted the atonement made through the execution of Saul’s descendants and the righteous acts that followed. As Numbers 35:33 declares, “So ye shall not pollute the land wherein ye are: for blood it defileth the land: and the land cannot be cleansed of the blood that is shed therein, but by the blood of him that shed it.” Until this matter was resolved, Israel’s prayers could not be fully heard.
This sequence of events demonstrates a key spiritual principle: God requires His people to address unresolved sin before He restores blessing. The withholding of rain symbolized divine displeasure, and the subsequent rain symbolized forgiveness and restoration. Isaiah 59:2 affirms, “But your iniquities have separated between you and your God, and your sins have hid His face from you, that He will not hear.” Likewise, when the people of Israel repented and obeyed, the heavens opened in response.
This passage also carries a sobering lesson about unanswered prayer. It was not that God had ceased to hear His people altogether, but that He waited for them to face and correct the wrong that still cried out for justice. In the same way, believers must examine their hearts when prayers go unanswered, as Psalm 66:18 reminds, “If I regard iniquity in my heart, the Lord will not hear me.” Yet when sin is confessed and righteousness is restored, God is gracious to forgive and to bless.
B. Defeat of the Philistine Giants
(2 Samuel 21:15–17) — “Moreover the Philistines had yet war again with Israel; and David went down, and his servants with him, and fought against the Philistines: and David waxed faint. And Ishbi–benob, which was of the sons of the giant, the weight of whose spear weighed three hundred shekels of brass in weight, he being girded with a new sword, thought to have slain David. But Abishai the son of Zeruiah succoured him, and smote the Philistine, and killed him. Then the men of David sware unto him, saying, Thou shalt go no more out with us to battle, that thou quench not the light of Israel.”
The passage marks a transition in David’s life and leadership. It demonstrates both his human frailty and the faithfulness of God in preserving His servant through the strength of others. As king, David had spent much of his life in battle, leading Israel to victory and securing its borders. Yet here we read, “David waxed faint.” Even a man after God’s own heart must face the reality of aging. The warrior who once slew lions, bears, and giants was no longer physically able to bear the same burdens he once did. His faintness in battle does not suggest spiritual decline but natural limitation.
This event occurred in another conflict with the Philistines, Israel’s old enemies who continually reappeared to test the nation’s resolve. Among their ranks was “Ishbi–benob, which was of the sons of the giant,” meaning he was a descendant of the Rephaim, likely of Goliath’s lineage. His spear alone weighed three hundred shekels of brass, approximately eight pounds, indicating great strength and size. Armed with a new sword, he thought to kill David, perhaps seeking to avenge Goliath’s death at David’s hands years earlier (1 Samuel 17:49–51).
In David’s moment of weakness, God raised up a deliverer in Abishai, the son of Zeruiah, one of David’s mighty men and Joab’s brother. The Scripture says, “Abishai succoured him, and smote the Philistine, and killed him.” This shows the providence of God in surrounding His servant with loyal and capable men. When David’s own strength failed, the Lord preserved his life through the strength of another. This event illustrates a key truth of godly fellowship—that God often meets our needs through the faithfulness of those He has placed around us.
This principle is beautifully expressed in Ecclesiastes 4:9–12, “Two are better than one; because they have a good reward for their labour. For if they fall, the one will lift up his fellow: but woe to him that is alone when he falleth; for he hath not another to help him up... and if one prevail against him, two shall withstand him; and a threefold cord is not quickly broken.” Abishai’s intervention saved not only David’s life but the stability of the kingdom.
After this battle, David’s men swore an oath to him, saying, “Thou shalt go no more out with us to battle, that thou quench not the light of Israel.” The term “light of Israel” refers to David as the guiding illumination of the nation. His leadership, wisdom, and covenantal relationship with God were the lamp by which Israel’s course was directed. Proverbs 20:27 declares, “The spirit of man is the candle of the Lord, searching all the inward parts of the belly.” As long as David lived, Israel’s lamp continued to burn bright. To lose him would be to plunge the nation into darkness.
This statement also shows the loyalty and discernment of David’s men. They recognized his value beyond his military prowess. The time had come for him to lay aside the sword and lead from a place of counsel rather than combat. It takes humility for a great man of war to accept that his season of fighting is finished. Yet in doing so, David demonstrated wisdom and submission to the changing purposes of God in his life.
As Clarke observed, “David is considered as the lamp by which all Israel was guided, and without whom all the nation must be involved in darkness.” Matthew Henry similarly noted that when a leader’s strength wanes, God often raises others to uphold his hands, as Aaron and Hur did for Moses (Exodus 17:12). Trapp adds that when the head is above water, the body lives; when the head sinks, all perishes. Thus, the preservation of righteous leadership is vital for the well-being of a nation.
This event reveals a timeless spiritual lesson: every believer has seasons of strength and weakness. God never intended for His people to walk alone, and He ordains fellowship to sustain His servants in moments of frailty. The preservation of David’s life ensured the continuation of God’s covenant promises, proving once again that the Lord’s purposes do not fail even when His servants grow weary.
(2 Samuel 21:18–22) — “And it came to pass after this, that there was again a battle with the Philistines at Gob: then Sibbechai the Hushathite slew Saph, which was of the sons of the giant. And there was again a battle in Gob with the Philistines, where Elhanan the son of Jaare–oregim, a Bethlehemite, slew the brother of Goliath the Gittite, the staff of whose spear was like a weaver’s beam. And there was yet a battle in Gath, where was a man of great stature, that had on every hand six fingers, and on every foot six toes, four and twenty in number; and he also was born to the giant. And when he defied Israel, Jonathan the son of Shimea the brother of David slew him. These four were born to the giant in Gath, and fell by the hand of David, and by the hand of his servants.”
This passage records a series of remarkable victories over the Philistine giants who had long terrorized Israel. It reveals that although David’s strength had waned and his active fighting days were past, God continued to give victory to Israel through men trained and inspired by David’s leadership. The phrase “It came to pass after this” signifies that Israel’s struggle against the Philistines was ongoing, yet so was God’s faithfulness to grant them triumph.
The first champion mentioned is Sibbechai the Hushathite, who killed Saph, one of the sons of the giant. Sibbechai was one of David’s mighty men, listed in 1 Chronicles 11:29, and his victory showed that God’s anointing for deliverance had extended beyond David to his followers. Next, Elhanan the son of Jaare–oregim the Bethlehemite is recorded as slaying the brother of Goliath the Gittite, whose spear shaft was like a weaver’s beam. This detail emphasizes the similarity between these later giants and Goliath himself, whose massive spear had been described in the same terms in 1 Samuel 17:7. Elhanan’s courage in confronting such an enemy showed that the same faith which once drove David now lived on in those he had trained.
A third battle occurred at Gath, where Israel encountered a man “of great stature, that had on every hand six fingers, and on every foot six toes.” This unusual detail, twenty-four digits in total, underscores both his monstrous appearance and the supernatural intimidation the Philistines sought to wield against Israel. Yet his strength availed nothing when he defied Israel, for Jonathan the son of Shimea, David’s brother, rose up and killed him. Jonathan, being David’s nephew, reflected the continuation of David’s valor within his family. The giants who had once struck fear into Israel’s armies were now consistently defeated by David’s men.
These victories serve as a spiritual and generational lesson. The inspired author concludes, “These four were born to the giant in Gath, and fell by the hand of David, and by the hand of his servants.” Though David may not have personally slain each one, the victories are rightly attributed to him because they were the fruit of his influence, leadership, and example. David had established a legacy of faith and courage that equipped others to face their own giants. His earlier triumph over Goliath became the pattern for others to follow, proving that the same God who delivered one faithful man could empower a whole generation.
This demonstrates a critical biblical principle of succession in spiritual warfare: each generation must face its own giants, but the faith and victories of those who came before serve as their foundation. Just as David’s courage emboldened others, so too should the victories of faithful believers inspire future servants of God. The Apostle Paul wrote in 2 Timothy 2:2, “And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also.” David’s mighty men carried on his mission in precisely this way.
The mention of physical abnormalities, such as the six fingers and six toes, has drawn the interest of commentators throughout history. Adam Clarke notes that such deformities are not unknown in human experience, citing examples from history and his own observation. Yet the significance here lies not in the physical anomaly but in the spiritual truth: even the most formidable and extraordinary enemies fall before those empowered by faith in the living God. As Romans 8:31 declares, “If God be for us, who can be against us?”
Finally, these verses remind us that David’s leadership continued to bear fruit even after his strength had diminished. His men were not merely warriors; they were disciples molded in the faith and courage of their king. G. Campbell Morgan aptly wrote, “Let those who after long service find themselves waning in strength, be content to abide with the people of God, still shining for them as a lamp, and thus enabling them to carry on the same Divine enterprises. Such action in the last days of life is also great and high service.” In his later years, David’s greatest contribution was not the battles he fought, but the men he had prepared to fight them.
