Poole on 2 Samuel 21:2-9: God's Avenging of the Broken Covenant with the Gibeonites

Verse 2:[1]  And the king called the Gibeonites, and said unto them; (now the Gibeonites were not of the children of Israel, but (Josh. 9:3, 15-17) 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)…

[The were…remnants of the Amorites]  But they were Hivites, Joshua 11:19 (Menochius).  Responses:  1.  Perhaps they were dwelling on the borders of both peoples (Martyr).  2.  They are called Amorites synecdochically (Malvenda out of Junius).  Ten nations are called Amorites from the stronger part, Genesis 15:16 (Grotius, similarly Sanchez).

[He sought to smite]  That is, to kill (Piscator).  And he smote some, asit now follows, and Josephus narrates[2] (Grotius).

Saul sought to slay them, that is, he sought occasions and pretences how he might cut them off with some colour of law or justice, diligently searching out and aggravating their faults, and punishing them worse than they deserved; oppressing them with excessive labours, and openly killing some of them, and intending by degrees to wear them out.

[In his zeal, as if in the place of the children of Israel and Judah]  That is, as if he were going to fulfill that which they had omitted (Tirinus, Menochius).  He was supposing that Joshua and the people had sinned in dismissing them (Tirinus).  With the commandment of God set before him, Exodus 23:32; Deuteronomy 1:20 (Malvenda out of Junius).  Saul justified his desire to root them out under the pretext of the public good, that the Israelites might have their goods (Martyr); so that they might add their inheritance to Judah, etc. (Vatablus).  It was especially provoking to him, that they were inhabiting Gibeon, whence Saul was to arise,[3] Cephirah, etc.[4]  Perhaps he was coveting those goods for himself and his family.  It is expressly said, in his zeal, which was of himself, not from God, nor for God’s glory, but so that he might win the applause of men.  Question:  Why did not the Gibeonites, with Saul dead, complain to David?  Response:  What is wont to happen to oppressed men befell them:  they were daring nothing.  Perhaps they were supposing that the son-in-law of Saul would be unwilling to rescind the acts of his father-in-law (Martyr).  Saul had a zeal, but not according to knowledge, as in Romans 10:2.  For, upon no pretext ought public faith to have been violated.  Concerning which see Joshua 9 (Grotius).

In his zeal to the children of Israel and Judah; conceiving, or rather pretending, that it was not for the honour, nor comfort, nor advantage of God’s people, to nourish any of that viperous brood in their bosoms; and that howsoever Joshua and the princes which then were, had by their fraud been drawn into an oath to preserve them, Joshua 9:15, yet in truth that oath was contrary to God's command, Exodus 23:32; Deuteronomy 7:2, and therefore (as he thought) not to be observed.  This was his pretence.  But how little zeal he had for God, or for the public good of his people, is evident by the whole course of his life; and therefore it is more than probable he had some particular motive or design in the case; either because some of them had highly provoked him, for whose sake he would be revenged of the whole race; or because, they being cut off, their estates might be forfeited to the crown; or for some other reason now unknown.

Verse 3:[5]  Wherefore David said unto the Gibeonites, What shall I do for you? and wherewith shall I make the atonement, that ye may bless (2 Sam. 20:19) the inheritance of the LORD?

[He said to the Gibeonites]  To their legates (Piscator).

Unto the Gibeonites; to some of the chief of them, who were to impart it to the rest.

[What shall I do for you?]  Put a valuation on the case (Grotius); but he appears to act too liberally.  The option was not to be given to them.  Penalties were to be imposed in accordance with laws.  Response:  It is to be supposed, that an oracle showed both the cause of the evil, and its remedy, that what they had asked might be recompensed to them (Martyr).

What shall I do for you? what satisfaction do you expect or require for the injuries formerly done to you?

[And what will be the atonement of you? ‎וּבַמָּ֣ה אֲכַפֵּ֔ר]  And in what shall I expiate? or cleanse? that is, the guilt of Saul, so that his guilt and punishment might not devolve upon us (Malvenda).  And with what thing shall I placate? understanding, you (Vatablus), thus (Piscator), towards the Israelites (Martyr).

[That ye might bless the inheritance of Jehovah[6]]  Thus he calls both the region and the inhabitants (Vatablus).  That ye might pray good things (Vatablus, Grotius, Martyr).  For he saw that they were pleasing to God.  Those that vex the pious are afterwards compelled to ask their prayers (Martyr).  That they might bless, etc. (Junius and Tremellius).  With these words, he turned his speech to counsel; that is to say, that they, concluding a reconciliation confirmed by oath, might avert His wrath from Israel; thus in Genesis 20:7 (Junius).  Perhaps after the manner of the Hebrews it is to be taken impersonally, that it might be blessed; properly it is imperative, ‎וּבָרְכוּ, and bless ye (Malvenda).  That ye may bless; that is, that ye might not bring it to pass that the divine curse is death to us (Menochius out of Sanchez).

That ye may bless the inheritance of the Lord; that by your acknowledgment of satisfaction received, the guilt and curse may be removed from the land and people of God, and by this means, as also by your prayers, God may be reconciled, and may restore his blessing of plenty to us, which hitherto he hath denied us.

Verse 4:[7]  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 (or, it is not silver nor gold that we have to do with Saul or his house, neither pertains it to us to kill,[8] etc.) any man in Israel.  And he said, What ye shall say, that will I do for you.

[Not…concerning silver, etc., אֵֽין־לִ֜י כֶּ֤סֶף וְזָהָב֙ עִם־שָׁא֣וּל וְעִם־בֵּית֔וֹ]  [The Kethib is לִי, to me; the Qere, לָנוּ, to us.]  Not to me, namely, the people of the Gibeonites; or, not to us; for there is a twofold reading in the Hebrew; but the latter is correct, as it is evident from the following member (Piscator).  There is not to us silver and gold with Saul, etc. (Montanus, Malvenda).  It is not to us a question over silver and with Saul, etc. (Pagnine, similarly Junius and Tremellius, Vatablus); we are not needy to accept silver and gold from Saul (Jonathan); not do we ask for ourselves gold, etc. (Tigurinus, similarly Munster, Vatablus, Castalio).  They speak in this way, because they were poor, and they were thinking that David supposed that the damages of this case were able to be assessed in money (Martyr).  There is no silver for us…in the house of Saul, etc., that is, that we would claim as our due; just as creditors are said to have money in the debtors’ house[9] (Piscator).  Saul does not owe, or was not owing, to us, etc. (Syriac, Arabic).  The sense:  We have a suit with Saul and his posterity, which does not concern goods and wealth, but their person and life (Osiander).

[Neither do we wish that a (understanding, any other [Osiander]) man of Israel be killed, ‎וְאֵֽין־לָ֥נוּ אִ֖ישׁ לְהָמִ֣ית בְּיִשְׂרָאֵ֑ל]  Neither do we have a desire to kill anyone in Israel (Pagnine), that is, with the family of Saul excepted (Piscator).  Neither is there for us a man, or anyone (understanding, out of the others [Vatablus]) to kill, etc.; that is, whom we would wish to be killed (Pagnine, Drusius).  Neither are we talking about killing anyone, etc. (Syriac, Junius and Tremellius).  We have no enemy among the Israelites, whom we would wish to kill (Arabic).

Any man in Israel; except Saul’s family, as it here follows.  What you shall say, to wit, in any reason, and as far as God’s law will permit.

Verse 5:[10]  And they answered the king, The man that consumed us, and that devised against us (or, cut us off[11]) that we should be destroyed from remaining in any of the coasts of Israel…

[The man that wore us out, etc.,הָאִישׁ֙ אֲשֶׁ֣ר כִּלָּ֔נוּ וַאֲשֶׁ֖ר דִּמָּה־לָ֑נוּ נִשְׁמַ֕דְנוּ מֵֽהִתְיַצֵּ֖ב בְּכָל־גְּבֻ֥ל יִשְׂרָאֵֽל׃]  The man’s (or that man’s [Junius and Tremellius], or that man, the Nominative posited absolutely in accordance with the idiom of the Hebrews; that is to say, as far as that man is concerned [Piscator], or, it is that man [Pagnine, Vatablus], namely, Saul [Vatablus]), who consumed, or exterminated, us (Montanus, Pagnine, Junius and Tremellius, Piscator, Jonathan).  And who thought unto, or against, us (Montanus, Pagnine, Jonathan, Junius and Tremellius, Piscator), understanding, either evil, that is, ruin (Piscator); or vicious thoughts (Vatablus), [that] we should be destroyed from remaining (or, and we were destroyed or cut off, so that we might not stand [Pagnine, Vatablus, Jonathan]; or such that we might be destroyed [Vatablus]; or through whom we were expelled, that we might not remain [Junius and Tremellius, Piscator]) in all (or any [Junius and Tremellius, Piscator, Pagnine, Jonathan]) border of Israel (Montanus).  [The cutting off mention these refer to the Gibeonites.  Moreover, some of these suspend the sense, and with the following verse continue it, verse 5, that man’s, etc., verse 6, of his sons, therefore, let be there be given, etc. (Junius and Tremellius, similarly the Arabic, Piscator).  Others refer the cutting off to the posterity of Sul, and render the passage differently:]  The man that destroyed us, etc., we shall destroy or blot out (or let us blot out), that he might not remain, or stand, in any border of Israel (Munster, similarly Tigurinus, Septuagint, Syriac, Castalio, Mariana).  That there might not be an survivor to him out of all the borders of Israel (Strigelius).  This sense is favored by the Atnah Accent ( ֑ ), whereby the senses are distinguished; after it, he speaks of others, namely, the posterity of Saul.  But, the former sense is favored by the verb, ‎נִשְׁמַדְנוּ, which is passive,[12] and signifies, they were cut off.  But, because Grammatical rules in the Hebrew tongue are not always kept, it is better that the passive be taken for active, and we say, let us destroy, namely, the man, etc. (Mariana).  Our translation takes שָׁמַד in the Niphal, to be destroyed, actively and transitively, which is not altogether contrary to custom in that formula (Malvenda).

That we should be destroyed from remaining in any of the coasts of Israel:  That we should be either killed, or banished from the land of Israel; which is as bad as death to us, because here, and here only, God is truly worshipped and enjoyed.  Whereby it seems divers of them were hearty proselytes, and godly persons; and therefore God is more severe in punishing the injuries done to them.  Compare 1 Samuel 26:19.

Verse 6:[13]  Let seven men of his sons be delivered unto us, and we will hang them up unto the LORD (1 Sam. 10:26; 11:4) in Gibeah of Saul, (1 Sam. 10:24) whom the LORD did choose (or, chosen of the LORD[14]).  And the king said, I will give them.

[Let seven men be given to us, etc.]  Previously they were wishing to destroy all; afterwards they ask only seven.  Perhaps David, since these speeches are muddled, had signified that he would not give Mephibosheth; and so they ask only seven, so that David might be able to spare him, and any other, if he should wish (Menochius, similarly Tostatus in Sanchez).  I discern here the nature of a raging spirit, which at first has severe furies; but, with those calmed, thinks soberer things, and moderates and calms himself (Sanchez).

[Of his sons]  That is, grandsons (Vatablus, Piscator).

[That we might crucify them (thus Vatablus), ‎וְהוֹקַעֲנוּם [15]]  And we will fasten them (Munster); or let us fix (Vatablus), hang (Montanus, Junius and Tremellius, Malvenda, etc.); we will rack (Malvenda); ἐξηλιάσωμεν, we will hang in the sun (Septuagint); here, that is, let us hang them from a post openly under heaven, that is, with them having been previously killed; which is tacitly understood; as in Numbers 25:4 (Grotius).

[To the Lord]  Unto the honor of Jehovah (Piscator).  To placate the Lord (Vatablus, Menochius, Piscator).  By this is signified the manifestation of the Divine judgment; in this manner God willed to avenge the innocence of the Gibeonites (Munster).  Or in the place where the ark of the Lord is (Mariana).

Unto the Lord; to vindicate his honour, which was injured by Saul’s violation of the oath and covenant of God, and to appease his wrath.

[In Gibeah of Saul]  That was the native country of Saul.  This was pertaining to his great shame (Martyr), that what had belonged to the royal splendor, the same would be the theater of the hanging (Sanchez, similarly Menochius).  Thus Haman suffers for the greater shame of his house[16] (Sanchez, similarly Martyr).  They chose hanging, so that the punishment might be more evident, and the Jews warned, 1.  lest they receive proselytes in an ill way; 2.  that they should keep their oaths for the future (Martyr).

In Gibeah of Saul; Saul’s country, 1 Samuel 10:26; 11:4, for their greater shame.

[Formerly the chosen of God]  That is, whom God had formerly chosen to be King (Osiander); that is to say, who, nevertheless, had been chosen King by the commandment of the Lord (Vatablus).  But it is not probable that the Gibeonites wished to speak so honorifically concerning Saul, their enemy (Piscator).  ‎בְּחִ֣יר יְהוָ֑ה, the chosen of the Lord (Montanus) [and a great many interpreters], chosen to be King (Menochius).  O chosen of Jehovah! (Junius and Tremellius), that it might be an Apostrophe[17] to David (Malvenda).  I translate it, on the mount of Jove:  it appears that בְּהַר, on the mount, is to be read, not ‎בְּחִיר/ chosen, as a little afterwards he repeats the same word:  otherwise the sentence does not have a fitting sense (Castalio).

Whom the Lord did choose; this is added to aggravate Saul’s offence, that it was committed not only against them, but also against the Lord, who had chosen and advanced him, and therefore did little deserve this from Saul’s hand, to have his laws broken, and his name dishonoured by perjury.

[And the King says, I will give them]  With the Prophets consulted, which Josephus expressly adds here;[18] and which a famine θεήλατος, sent by God, was requiring.  And certainly, if it were otherwise, David had not only sinned against a law sufficiently clear, Deuteronomy 24:16, and always observed by good Kings, 2 Kings 14:6; 2 Chronicles 25:4; but also against a second law, Deuteronomy 21:23.  But also among all the prudent he would have loaded himself with the suspicion, that he sought a pretext to deliver himself and his posterity from the posterity of Saul, with only one, and that one a cripple, preserved.  See what things have been said concerning this argument in Concerning the Law of War and Peace 2:22:14 (Grotius).  It is likely that there was a response by oracle (which David consulted in verse 1), that by the petition of the Gibeonites the injury done to them might be expiated.  And so David does not so much perform the office of a judge, as of the executor of the divine sentence.  Now, by the judgment of God, in whose presence no one is innocent, the sons rightly atone for the sins of the fathers (Estius).

I will give them; 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 satisfied and 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, which none but God himself could dispense with.

Verse 7:[19]  But the king spared Mephibosheth, the son of Jonathan the son of Saul, because of (1 Sam. 18:3; 20:8, 15, 42; 23:18) the LORD’S oath that was between them, between David and Jonathan the son of Saul.

[And the king spared Mephibosheth, ‎וַיַּחְמֹל]  But he showed mercy to, that is, he did not deliver him over (Vatablus).  The king is said to have spared, because he procured by request, that others would spare; or, since the Gibeonites only asked for seven, he exempted him from that septenary number; or by his petitions or authority he obtained from the Gibeonites, that they would not demand more than seven for the cross (Sanchez).

The king spared Mephibosheth; for the Gibeonites desiring only such a number, without designing the persons, it was at David’s choice whom to spare.  Or, he prevailed with the Gibeonites that they did not demand him; and with the Lord, that he might not be one of those who were devoted to destruction.  The son of Jonathan:  this is expressly added, to distinguish him from the other Mephibosheth, verse 8.

Verse 8:[20]  But the king took the two sons of (2 Sam. 3:7) Rizpah the daughter of Aiah, whom she bare unto Saul, Armoni and Mephibosheth; and the five sons of Michal (or, Michal’s sister) the daughter of Saul, whom she (1 Sam. 18:19) brought up (Heb. bare to Adriel[21]) for Adriel the son of Barzillai the Meholathite…

Rizpah; Saul’s concubine, 2 Samuel 21:11; 3:7.

[The sons of Michal…whom she had begotten to Adriel, etc.]  A difficult question is raised here, how these things might be true, since Michal was not married to Adriel, but to Phaltiel, 1 Samuel 25:44; 2 Samuel 3:15.  But to Adriel was married Merab, the sister of Michal (Estius).  And Michal had no sons (Grotius).  Response 1:  Taking all things into consideration, it appears that מֵירָב/Merab is to be read, not ‎מִיכַל/Michal (Cappel’s Sacred Criticism, thus Cajetan in Estius, Salian in Menochius, Cano[22] in Tirinus, Osiander, Nebrissensis’[23] An Explanation of Fifty Passages[24] 30).  But great (is this) impudence, since Michal is found in all languages.  For what is that other than to make all passages doubtful by that exception? (Mariana).  The Septuagint, Chaldean, and Hebrew codices all consistently read Michal (Buxtorf’s Vindication 2:13).  Response 2:  They are improperly called the sons of Michal, because she raised the sons born of Merab, her sister (Hebrews in Grotius, similarly Estius, Menochius, Sanchez, Martyr, Malvenda, Kimchi and Rabbi Salomon and others in Martyr).  Merab had already died, or had fallen from her former prosperity, for which reason Michal adopted them (Sanchez).  Thus in Genesis 36:2, Aholibamah is called the daughter of Anah (because he was her true father), but the daughter of Zibeon (because she was brought up in his house).  Thus in Exodus 2:10, the daughter of Pharaoh called Moses her son.  Thus in Numbers 3:1, the sons of Aaron call themselves the stock of Moses.  Thus the son of Ruth is called the son of Naomi, Ruth 4:17 (Buxtorf’s Vindication 2:13).  But it appears to hinder, that Michal is said to have begotten these sons[25] (Estius).  Response:  יָלַד [which here they translate she had given birth to, or had begotten] is sometimes taken for to bring up, as in Genesis 50:23[26] and Ruth 4:17[27] (Buxtorf).  The language of begetting is taken for what it is, to remove children to to raise them as one’s own μεταληπτικῶς/metaleptically[28] (Junius, similarly Bertram’s[29] Lucubrations in Frankenthal[30] 6, in which see more things).  As they are figuratively called the sons of Michal, with an expression of similitude understood, as, as if, etc., because they were her sons, as it were, that is, in love and care; so by the same figure they are said to have been begotten by her, that is, as if begotten by her, because they were thus treated by her, as if they had been conceived by her, etc. (Sanchez).  Thus in Livy’s History of Rome, Theoxena, so that the children of her sister might be brought up in her hands, married Poris;[31] and she had the same care of her own and her sister’s sons, as if she had begotten them all (Gataker).  The Greeks do not translate it, whom she begat; but τοὺς τεχθέντας, who were begotten to Adriel; understanding, by his wife, Merab (Buxtorf).  I was suspecting that they read, not ‎יָלְדָה, she begat, but ‎יָלְדִי/begotten (Mariana).  She begat; it is put in the place of, who were begotten; by their true mother.  Thus in 2 Samuel 21:8, the son of Michal, whom one begat, namely, not herself, but Merab (Broughton’s[32] Harmony of Sacred Scripture[33] in Gataker).  The Chaldean translates it, the sons of Merab, whom Michal had brought up, whom she (that is, Merab) had begotten to Adriel, Josephus’ Antiquities 7:4 (Mariana).  Response 3:  There is an Ellipsis here of a term signifying relationship, which sort is found in verse 19 (Junius, Piscator, Malvenda, thus Willet).  The five sons of the sister of Michal, etc. (Junius and Tremellius).  Thus in Jeremiah 32:12, uncle is expressed in the place of uncle’s son, with son supplied out of verse 7.  It was common to the Hebrews in a curt manner of speaking to omit words of relation, like brother, sister, son, etc. (Willet).

The five sons of Michal, or, of Michal’s sister, to wit, Merab; for Michal had no children, 2 Samuel 6:23, nor was she married to this Adriel, but to Phalti, or Phaltiel, the son of Laish, 1 Samuel 25:44; 2 Samuel 3:15; and Merab her sister was married to this very Adriel the Meholathite, 1 Samuel 18:19.  And it must be remembered, that the Hebrew language is very short, and full of ellipses or defects of words, which yet may be easily understood from the sense.  Particularly relative words are oft lacking, and to be supplied; as Goliath is put for Goliath’s brother, here, verse 19, and uncle for uncle’s son, Jeremiah 32:7, 12.  Or, the sons of Merab are called the sons of Michal, to wit, by adoption; or, the near kindred and next heirs of Michal, and brought up by her; for upon that and such-like accounts the title of son is oft given in Scripture, as Genesis 48:5; Exodus 2:10; Deuteronomy 25:5, 6; Ruth 1:11, 12; 4:17.  Question:  But why then are not these called the sons of Merab?  Answer:  Because they were better known by their relation to Michal, who was David’s wife, and, it may be, alive at this time, and having no children of her own, took these, and bred them up as her own; when Merab was now a more obscure person, and possibly dead many years before this.  Whom she brought up; for so this Hebrew verb, which primarily and properly signifies to bear, is sometimes used, as Genesis 50:23; Ruth 4:17, because the education of children is a kind of bearing of them, as requiring frequently no less care and pains than the bearing doth; whence it is that nurses are reputed as mothers, and sometimes go under that name both in sacred and profane writers.  See Ruth 4:16, 17; and compare Genesis 16:2; 30:3; Numbers 11:12; Galatians 4:19.  The Meholathite; of Abel-meholah in the tribe of Benjamin, Judges 7:22; so he is here called by way of distinction from Barzillai the Gileadite, 2 Samuel 19:31.

[1019 BC]  Verse 9:[34]  And he delivered them into the hands of the Gibeonites, and they hanged them in the hill (2 Sam. 6:17) 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.

He delivered them into the hands of the Gibeonites.  Question:  How could David do this, when he had sworn that he would not cut off Saul’s seed, 1 Samuel 24:21, 22?  Answer:  Because he had special warrant and direction from God about it, who, as all confess, can dispense with men’s oaths and with his own laws when he sees fit.  And that he did so here is manifest, because God was pleased with it, and removed the judgment upon it; whereas otherwise David had been guilty of the same sin with Saul, to wit, of the breach of his oath and covenant, for which this famine was inflicted.  See the note on 1 Samuel 24:22.

[Who crucified, etc.]  The Gibeonites, not David or his attendants, crucified them.  But that is done, so that David might not be made a perjurer (Martyr).

[In the hill]  But in verse 6 it is said in Gibeah.  Responses:  1.  Theodoret and the Complutensian have in the hill in verse 6 also (Nobilius).  2.  Both are true; for that mount was near Gibeah.  Thus Christ baptized in Bethany, John 1,[35] that is, near it (Sanchez).

In the hill, or, in a hill, in or near Gibeah; in a conspicuous place, for their greater infamy, and for the caution and terror of others who should make any attempt upon the Gibeonites for the future.

[Before the Lord]  Either, 1.  because the ark of the Lord was in the closest city (Vatablus); or, 2.  to appease the Lord (Menochius, Lapide); or, 3.  unto the honor of God and of His justice (Lapide); or, 4.  publicly, in the sight of God, the just judge (Osiander).  Under heaven, toward the sky; thus Horace, Odes 1, …under frigid Jove the Hunter remains (Malvenda).

Before the Lord; as a sacrifice offered up to God to appease his wrath; or, unto the Lord, as was said, 2 Samuel 21:6.

[And they fell (thus Vatablus)]  They died (Pagnine).  Those that die are said cadere, to fall, whence the term cadaver among the Latins (Vatablus).

They fell, that is, died; for so the word to fall is oft used, as Exodus 19:21;[36] 1 Chronicles 21:14; Psalm 91:7; Jeremiah 39:18; Hosea 5:5; or were executed.

[With the harvest of barley beginning]  Which is done in Judea around the spring equinox, and the feast of Unleavened Bread (Menochius out of Sanchez).  The whole time of the harvest was divided into two parts; the first of the barley harves, and the latter of the wheat harvest.  Barley was reaped in March, but wheat finally in the month of April (Bochart’s A Sacred Catalogue of Animals 1:3:13:858).

The barley harvest was before the wheat harvest.

[1] Hebrew: ‎וַיִּקְרָ֥א הַמֶּ֛לֶךְ לַגִּבְעֹנִ֖ים וַיֹּ֣אמֶר אֲלֵיהֶ֑ם וְהַגִּבְעֹנִ֞ים לֹ֣א מִבְּנֵ֧י יִשְׂרָאֵ֣ל הֵ֗מָּה כִּ֚י אִם־מִיֶּ֣תֶר הָאֱמֹרִ֔י וּבְנֵ֤י יִשְׂרָאֵל֙ נִשְׁבְּע֣וּ לָהֶ֔ם וַיְבַקֵּ֤שׁ שָׁאוּל֙ לְהַכֹּתָ֔ם בְּקַנֹּאת֥וֹ לִבְנֵֽי־יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל וִיהוּדָֽה׃

[2] Antiquities 7:12.

[3] See 1 Samuel 10:26; 11:4; 15:34; 2 Samuel 21:6; Isaiah 10:29.

[4] See Joshua 9:17.

[5] Hebrew: ‎וַיֹּ֤אמֶר דָּוִד֙ אֶל־הַגִּבְעֹנִ֔ים מָ֥ה אֶעֱשֶׂ֖ה לָכֶ֑ם וּבַמָּ֣ה אֲכַפֵּ֔ר וּבָרְכ֖וּ אֶת־נַחֲלַ֥ת יְהוָֽה׃

[6] Hebrew:  ‎וּבָרְכ֖וּ אֶת־נַחֲלַ֥ת יְהוָֽה׃.

[7] Hebrew: ‎וַיֹּ֧אמְרוּ ל֣וֹ הַגִּבְעֹנִ֗ים אֵֽין־לִ֜י כֶּ֤סֶף וְזָהָב֙ עִם־שָׁא֣וּל וְעִם־בֵּית֔וֹ וְאֵֽין־לָ֥נוּ אִ֖ישׁ לְהָמִ֣ית בְּיִשְׂרָאֵ֑ל וַיֹּ֛אמֶר מָֽה־אַתֶּ֥ם אֹמְרִ֖ים אֶעֱשֶׂ֥ה לָכֶֽם׃

[8] Hebrew:  אֵֽין־לִ֜י כֶּ֤סֶף וְזָהָב֙ עִם־שָׁא֣וּל וְעִם־בֵּית֔וֹ וְאֵֽין־לָ֥נוּ אִ֖ישׁ לְהָמִ֣ית.

[9] See Deuteronomy 24:10, 11.

[10] Hebrew:  ‎וַיֹּֽאמְרוּ֙ אֶל־הַמֶּ֔לֶךְ הָאִישׁ֙ אֲשֶׁ֣ר כִּלָּ֔נוּ וַאֲשֶׁ֖ר דִּמָּה־לָ֑נוּ נִשְׁמַ֕דְנוּ מֵֽהִתְיַצֵּ֖ב בְּכָל־גְּבֻ֥ל יִשְׂרָאֵֽל׃

[11] Hebrew:  ‎דִּמָּה־לָנוּ.

[12] In the Niphal conjugation.

[13] Hebrew: ‎יִנָּתֶן־לָ֜נוּ שִׁבְעָ֤ה אֲנָשִׁים֙ מִבָּנָ֔יו וְהוֹקַֽעֲנוּם֙ לַֽיהוָ֔ה בְּגִבְעַ֥ת שָׁא֖וּל בְּחִ֣יר יְהוָ֑ה ס וַיֹּ֥אמֶר הַמֶּ֖לֶךְ אֲנִ֥י אֶתֵּֽן׃

[14] Hebrew:  ‎בְּחִ֣יר יְהוָ֑ה.

[15] יָקַע signifies to be dislocated.

[16] Esther 7:9, 10; 8:7; 9:13, 14, 25.

[17] That is, an exclamatory passage addressed a person or thing.

[18] Antiquities 7:12.

[19] Hebrew: ‎וַיַּחְמֹ֣ל הַמֶּ֔לֶךְ עַל־מְפִי־בֹ֖שֶׁת בֶּן־יְהוֹנָתָ֣ן בֶּן־שָׁא֑וּל עַל־שְׁבֻעַ֤ת יְהוָה֙ אֲשֶׁ֣ר בֵּֽינֹתָ֔ם בֵּ֣ין דָּוִ֔ד וּבֵ֖ין יְהוֹנָתָ֥ן בֶּן־שָׁאֽוּל׃

[20] Hebrew: ‎וַיִּקַּ֣ח הַמֶּ֡לֶךְ אֶת־שְׁ֠נֵי בְּנֵ֙י רִצְפָּ֤ה בַת־אַיָּה֙ אֲשֶׁ֣ר יָלְדָ֣ה לְשָׁא֔וּל אֶת־אַרְמֹנִ֖י וְאֶת־מְפִבֹ֑שֶׁת וְאֶת־חֲמֵ֗שֶׁת בְּנֵי֙ מִיכַ֣ל בַּת־שָׁא֔וּל אֲשֶׁ֥ר יָלְדָ֛ה לְעַדְרִיאֵ֥ל בֶּן־בַּרְזִלַּ֖י הַמְּחֹלָתִֽי׃

[21] Hebrew:  ‎יָלְדָ֛ה לְעַדְרִיאֵ֥ל.

[22] Melchior Cano (c. 1509-1560) was a Spanish Dominican theologian.  He held the theological chair at the Salamanca, and his abilities are amply demonstrated in his De Locis Theologicis.

[23] Anthony Nebrissensis (1441-1552) was a Spanish Renaissance scholar and classicist.  He employed his learning to further classical literature among his people, to produce the first grammar of the Spanish language, and to assist in the production of the Complutensian Polyglot Bible.

[24] Quinquaginta Locorum Explanatio.

[25] 2 Samuel 21:8:  “But the king took the two sons of Rizpah the daughter of Aiah, whom she bare (‎יָלְדָה) unto Saul, Armoni and Mephibosheth; and the five sons of Michal the daughter of Saul, whom she bare (‎יָלְדָה) unto Adriel the son of Barzillai the Meholathite…”

[26] Genesis 50:23:  “And Joseph saw Ephraim’s children of the third generation:  the children also of Machir the son of Manasseh were brought up (‎יֻלְּדוּ) upon Joseph’s knees.”

[27] Ruth 4:17:  “And the women her neighbours gave it a name, saying, There is a son born (‎יֻלַּד) to Naomi; and they called his name Obed:  he is the father of Jesse, the father of David.”

[28] That is, a figure of speech in which a word or expression from figurative speech is used in a new context.

[29] Bonaventure Cornelius Bertram (1531-1594) was minister of the Gospel and Professor of Hebrew at Geneva, at Frankenthal, and at Lausanne.  His revision of the French Bible is used by French Calvinists to the present day.

[30] Lucubrationes Franktallenses, sive Specimen Expositionum in Difficillima Utriusque Testamenti Loca.

[31] Theoxena (flourished in the late third-, early second-, century BC.  She was a noblewoman of Thessaly, who married her sister’s widower, Poris, to ensure the proper raising of her sister’s children.

[32] Hugh Broughton (1549-1612) was an English divine, sympathetic to the Puritans.  He developed an international reputation for his Hebrew scholarship.

[33] Concentus Sacræ Scripturæ.

[34] Hebrew: ‎וַֽיִּתְּנֵ֞ם בְּיַ֣ד הַגִּבְעֹנִ֗ים וַיֹּקִיעֻ֤ם בָּהָר֙ לִפְנֵ֣י יְהוָ֔ה וַיִּפְּל֥וּ שִׁבְעָתַ֖יִם יָ֑חַד וְהֵ֙ם הֻמְת֜וּ בִּימֵ֤י קָצִיר֙ בָּרִ֣אשֹׁנִ֔ים תְּחִלַּ֖ת קְצִ֥יר שְׂעֹרִֽים׃

[35] John 1:28:  “These things were done in Bethabara (in Bethania, in the Vulgate) beyond Jordan, where John was baptizing.”

[36] Exodus 19:21:  “And the Lord said unto Moses, Go down, charge the people, lest they break through unto the Lord to gaze, and many of them perish (‎וְנָפַ֥ל מִמֶּ֖נּוּ רָֽב׃, and many of them fall).”