House+of+Saul

toc

Throughout II Samuel David has key encounters with the descendents of Saul. Providing further insights into David’s character and role as Israel’s Covenant king.

**Michal**

**Early Days** Michal means “Who is Like God?” [i] She is introduced in the narrative as a younger daughter of Saul who falls in love with David early in his career. (I Samuel 18:20). She is offered by her father to David as a wife on the condition he submit proof of killing one-hundred Philistines (1 Samuel 18:25). The text emphasizes that Saul considered the feat impossible and he had only extended the proposal as a “snare” for David. Whom he considered a threat to the thone (1 Samuel 18:15-16, 25). However, David successfully completed the task, earning Michal as his wife (1 Samuel 18:27). David was now legally tied to the House of Saul. Later, when Saul sought David’s life Michal was instrumental in helping him escape. As Saul became increasingly frustrated with his attempts to corner David he retaliated by annulling Micah’s marriage to David. Remarrying her to Palti from Gallim (I Samuel 25:44). From II Samuel we know the marriage was at least moderately successful, producing five sons (II Samuel 21:1-14). **Return** Michal reappears in the narrative after Saul’s death and David has established himself as king in Hebron (II Samuel 3:13-16). David is now in a position to insists on her return and utilizes the situation to gauge the loyalty of Saul’s general, Abner. The general would be a valuable asset for David and his native Judah in their attempts to wrestle the eleven northern tribes away from the House of Saul. To test the sincerity of Abner’s offer of allegiance, David asks him to return his Micah (2 Samuel 3:14). Abner follows through on the request, forcing Ishbosheth to tear Michal away from her current husband and over to David

**The Dance** Michal makes her final appearance (II Samuel 6:16-23) when confronting David on the day the Ark of the Covenant is brought to Jerusalem. She accuses her husband’s celebration dance for the event of being a “shameful display (II Samuel 6:16). In the text emphasis is placed on Michal being a daughter of Saul (II Samuel 6:16), indicating she is acting like Saul when opposing David [ii]. Michal’s attitude toward David’s dance is portrayed thinly screened disgust (II Samuel 6:16). When confronted with the accusation of acting as “one of the base fellows” David reminds her of her position as a daughter of a defeated house. The scene ends by the author explaining Michal remained childless as a result of this incident, effectively ensuring no Davidic king would come from the Saulic dynasty. A heir that would have had a very strong claim to the throne considering he was descended from two kings of Israel. [iii]

**Ish-bosheth**

**Claim** Ish-bosheth, “Man of Shame” [iv] becomes king of Israel’s eleven northern tribes after the death of his father, King Saul, in 1010 B.C. [v] (II Samuel 2:8-11). Throughout the text Ish-boshth is portrayed more as a figurehead, with Abner, Saul’s general, as the real power behind the throne. A contrast is made between Ish-bosheth and David, when Abner crowns Ish-bosheth, while David was made king collectively by Judah (II Samuel 2:4). Distinguishing between the popular sovereign and the puppet [vi] **Death** Ish-bosheth remains in the background as Abner attempts to unify Israel around the House of Saul. Ish-bosheth eventually challenges Abner rule by confronting him for sleeping with Saul’s concubine (II Samuel 3:6-11). Culturally, Abner’s actions were a ploy for the Saulic throne. [vii] Consequently, Abner deserts Ish-bosheth, leaving him alone to make the most he can of his father’s rule. Once Ish-bosheth is left protector-less [viii] he is assassinated in his bed by soldiers looking to win favor with David (II Samuel 4:7-8). **Post-Death** Ish-bosheth’s death becomes a deciding factor in Israeli politics. Apart from clearing the throne for David’s reign, God also used the incident to cement Israel around David’s. When the murders of Ish-bosheth arrived, expecting a reward for their crime, David executed them (II Samuel 4:10). Although David’s primary motivation was to judge the men for the murder of a “righteous person” (II Samuel 4:11) it was also a brilliant political ploy. [ix] Merrill points out that by executing the assassins, David demonstrated his righteousness and respect for a fellow sovereign. There were still a substantial amount of Israelites supporting Saul’s dynasty and this act was the perfect show of honor, righteousness, and respect to win the hearts of rogue Israel. **Mephibosheth**

**Introduction** The first mention of Mephibosheth occurs alongside the assassination of Ish-bosheth (II Samuel 4:4). Emphasizing the two men are the last hurtle David faces between him and the throne. [x] However, as Youngblood explains, the text ‘explicitly” removes one, while the other is removed “implicitly.” [xi] Ish-bosheth is assassinated, while Mephibosheth is automatically disqualified by being “lame in both feet.” **Hesed** Although Mephibosheth is introduced in chapter four as Saul’s crippled grandson, his direct relationship with David isn’t established until chapter nine. Its later, after David has established his monarchy, that David searches for a descendant of Saul, eventually finding Mephibosheth (II Samuel 9:13). David’s plan is to find and patronize a descendant of Saul in memory of his friendship with Saul’s son, Jonathan. David’s friendship with Jonathon was a very special one (II Samuel 18:1). Early in their careers, before Saul saw David as a rival to his throne, Jonathan and he became devoted friends. They bound their friendship in a covenant of “hesed, where each vowed eternal loving-kindness for the other. [xii] The two remained friends until the death of Jonathan on Mt. Gilboa in 1010 B.C. [xiii] In the shadow of this relationship, David tries to show the //hesed// toward Mephibosheth he was no longer able to show toward his father. Mephibosheth himself is portrayed as completely unworthy of any attention. A “a dead dog” (II Samuel 9:8) whose lameness prevents him from being taken seriously. [xiv] Throughout the interview, Mephibosheth unworthiness is stressed by David’s tendency to deal with Mephibosheth’s servant Ziba. (II Samuel 9:9). However, David is able to honor his covenant with Jonathan, restoring Mephibosheth’s ancestral property. David even goes so far as to maintain Mephibosheth personally at the palace for the rest of his life (II Samuel 9:9 &10). **The Ruse** Mephibosheth is again mentioned in the narrative when David is fleeing from Jerusalem at Absalom’s rebellion (II Samuel 16:1-4). While David is retreating, Mephibosheth’s servant, Ziba, arrives with provisions for David’s army. When questioned about Mephibosheth’s absence, Ziba explains that Mephibosheth’s has abandoned David and is now with his enemies. Ziba’s entire performance is portrayed as a ploy to discredit Mephibosheth’s and swindle him out of his land. David is apparently taken in and hands the servant his master’s property. [xv] **Restoration** Mephibosheth, personally reappears after Absalom’s defeat and David is reestablished in Jerusalem (II Samuel 19:24-30). During David’s exile, Mephibosheth tried to prove his inseparable connection with David by mirroring its hardships. He had neglected personal hygiene, refusing, to take care of his body or change his clothes since the king left Israel (II Samuel 19:24). A very public and devoted demonstration for the cripple to identify himself with his hunted lord. It’s in this condition Mephibosheth appears to greet his returned sovereign. The first thing David asks when on seeing the cripple is, “why did you not go with me?” (II Samuel 19:26). Without going into the obvious restriction of his lameness, Mephibosheth explains how ZIba deceived him. How Ziba had deserted him when he left to provision the king, giving Ziba the opportunity to trick David into giving him Mephibosheth’s land (II Samuel 16:1-4). But now Mephibosheth has placed himself at the mercy of the king, expressing only his thankfulness that the Lord’s anointed should have returned. David responds to Mephibosheth adoration by agreeing to subdivide the property between Mephibosheth and his servant. Mephibosheth proves his sincerity by refuting his claim to his ancestral holdings, preferring to show his extreme loyalty to his sovereign (II Samuel 16:4). There is the interpretation that David, in offering to divide the land, was utilizing the ploy Solomon would later make famous when he offered to divide the child between two women who both claimed it was theirs ( Kings 3:16-28). [xvi] It’s possible that David was gauging Mephibosheth loyalty by offering to divide the inheritance. Watching to see if Mephibosheth would complain about his ill-treatment or renounce it his suit. If this was the case Mephibosheth left no doubt where his allegiances stood (II Samuel 19:30). **Shimei**

**The Stoning** Shimei translates as “Jehovah is Glory [xvii] .” Although his exact relationship to Saul is uncertain, he is identified with his house (II Samuel 16:5). Shimei is introduced in the same section when Ziba tricks David into giving him Mephibosheth’s inheritance. David has left Jerusalem, fleeing for his life from Absalom. Shimei takes advantage of David’s troubles to accuse David of being a scoundrel with a propensity toward “blood-thirstyness.” [xviii] Apparently Shimei holds David accountable for the deaths in Saul’s house and the usurpation of the throne. He looks on David’s current situation as judgment from God for David’s supposed role in the deaths of Saul and his offspring. Shimei asserts God has used David’s own son to wrest the kingdom form him, as David supposedly did to Saul. To emphasize his accusations, Shimei pelts David’s following with stones and curses. David resists the temptation to kill the man, preferring to leave the matter for God to develop (II Samuel 16:12-13).

**Forgiveness** Shimei doesn’t encounter David again until after the king’s victory over Absalom. The Saulite intersects David on the east side of the Jordan on his triumphal march back to Jerusalem. He arrives with a thousand fellow Benjamites (II Samuel 19:16) to assist David in crossing the Jordan [xix], denoting his own importance within Benjamin and his earnestness to appease David. In begging for mercy (II Samuel 19:18-23) Shimie identifies himself with the house of Joseph, an idiom for collected Israel. [xx] Preferring to associate himself with the nation rather than the House of Saul. Once again David is in a position to avenge himself. Abishai, the brother of Joab and a prominent general in his own right, urged David to execute the Saulite. However, Shimei is again spared by David, who, although he doesn’t forget the offense, guarantees the Saulites’ life. Josephus, views David’s mercy as a matter of policy. It would be imprudent to begin his restored reign by purging his enemies. Now was the time for showing mercy, not to “raise new troubles and rebellions.” [xxi] Josephus indicates that killing the Benjamite prince with a thousand supporters would have been imprudent at a time when David was doing his best to bring the nation together. **Death** David may have shown Shimei mercy on this occasion, but he never forget the offence. As he lay dying, David charged Solomon to repay Shimei for the his curses on the road to Manhanaim (II Kings 2:8-10). David explained that his own hands were still tied by his pledge, (II Samuel 19:23) however, Solomon that was free to pursue vengeance. After David’s death, Solomon forbad Shimei from ever leaving Jerusalem (I Kings 2:36-45). When, after three years, Shimei disregarded the command Solomon had him executed. = **Armoni, Mephibosheth, and the Five Sons of Michal** =

Although this encounter with the House of Saul isn’t recorded until II Samuel 21:1-14, Merrill dates the event in the middle of David’s reign. [xxii] Merrill suggests a date in the mid 990’s B.C., between Mephibosheth’s arrival in Jerusalem and the Ammonite wars. He basis his estimate on the fact Mephibosheth was already under David’s protection (II Samuel 21:7), and the actions of Rizpah make more sense for a younger woman in good health. [xxiii]

After three years of famine David tries to pinpoint the problem by asking God. He finds out that the famine is actually a punishment for Saul’s un-atoned slaughter of the Gibeonites. During the conquest the Gibeonites, ethnic Canaanites, had tricked Joshua into an alliance, assuring interminable protection from Israel (Joshua 9:3-27). Saul had apparently violated this sacred treaty, cursing the land with famine. A standard punishment for unrighteousness in the Mosaic Law (Deuteronomy 11:16-17). When David tried to rectify the problem the Gibeonites demand the blood of seven descendents of Saul. Consequently, David handed over Armoni, Mephibosheth, along with the five sons of Michal by her other husband. This is not the same Mephibosheth, the son of Jonathon that was under David’s protection, but Saul’s son through Rizpah, Saul’s concubine. The Gibeonites then hung the Saulites to atone for the persecutions of Saul, leaving them for public display.

The incident didn’t end with the hanging. Rizpah, the mother of Armoni and Mephibosheth, stood watch over the bodies. Emphasizing, leaving the bodies on display was a violation of the Mosaic Law (Deuteronomy 21:23). This act of piety and devotion inspired David to release the bodies, as well as the bodies of Saul and Jonathon to the Saulic House. It was after the bodies were properly buried then that the drought came to an end (II Samuel 21:14).

[i] Ronald F. C. Youngblood, //1,2 Samuel//, vol. 3, The Expositor's Bible Commentary (Zondervan, 1973), 709. [ii] Ibid., 3:874. [iii] Jonathan Kirsch, //King David: The Real Life of the Man Who Ruled Israel// (New York, New York: Ballantine Books, 2000). [iv] Ronald F. C. Youngblood, //1,2 Samuel//, 3:823. [v] Andrew Hill and John H. Walton, //A Survey of the Old Testament//, Third. (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 2009), 260. [vi] Ronald F. C. Youngblood, //1,2 Samuel//, 3:823. [vii] Ibid., 3:833. [viii] Leon Wood, //A Survey of Israel's History// (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1970), 262. [ix] Eugene H. Merrill, //Kingdom of Priests// (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books House Company, 1987), 252-253. [x] Ronald F. C. Youngblood, //1,2 Samuel//, 3:843. [xi] Ibid. [xii] Ibid., 3:722. [xiii] Hill and John H. Walton, //A Survey of the Old Testament//, 260. [xiv] Ronald F. C. Youngblood, //1,2 Samuel//, 3:788. [xv] Ibid., 3:999. [xvi] Ibid., 3:1037. [xvii] Giuseppe Petrelli, //From Darkness to Light// (New York, New York: Van Rees Press, 1957), 37. [xviii] Jonathan Kirsch, //King David: The Real Life of the Man Who Ruled Israel//, 234 and 235. [xix] Ronald F. C. Youngblood, //1,2 Samuel//, 3:1035. [xx] Ibid. [xxi] Josephus, //The New Complete Works of Josephus// (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Kregal Publications, 1999), 254. [xxii] Eugene H. Merrill, //Kingdom of Priests//, 253. [xxiii] Ibid., 254.

media type="custom" key="7873933"

media type="custom" key="7873935"