THE LORD'S CHOICE OF MOUNT ZION. 313

tribes. This fact was clearly perceived, and its effects fully appreciated, by the descendants of Joseph. Even the statements of David, put forth as a justification of these charges, although evidently intended to be of an apologetic character, could not have been agreeable to men of Ephraim. Speaking on this subject, David says, "So that He forsook the tabernacle of Shiloh, the tent which He placed among men; and delivered his strength into captivity, and his glory into the enemy's hand. He gave his people over also to the sword; and was wroth with his inheritance......Moreover, He refused the tabernacle of Joseph, and chose not the tribe of Ephraim; but chose the tribe of Judah, the Mount Zion which He loved." (Psalm lxxviii. 60-62, 67, 63.)

From all this it is clear that the leading tribe of the house of Joseph, as well as the tribe of Benjamin, was by no means content with its position in the Hebrew kingdom as organized by David. And there can be little doubt that other tribes more or less shared this feeling. It was on a people so circumstanced, that Absalom had to exert his art and to plot his treason. With the graces of a handsome person, his profession of sympathy for the whole people, and his avowed determination to remedy all abuses in the administration of the country, he was able, by a persevering course of flattering attention, to win the favour of the people, withdraw them from their allegiance, attach them to himself, and commence a rebellion with a tolerable prospect of success.

On the return of the king, after the battle in the wood of Ephraim, the men of Israel had two new causes of irritation added to those already mentioned. The friends and relatives of the twenty thousand men who fell in that battle, and who generally doubtless sympa

EE

thized with the cause for which they fell, would naturally look with displeasure on the return of David and his re-establishment on the throne. And when the complaint of the men of Israel, instead of being met in a conciliatory spirit, as sound policy would have required, was fiercely repelled, the breach was made so serious that it only wanted a leader to create a new schism. This want was supplied by Sheba, who, but for the prompt and energetic action of Joab, might have proved a formidable enemy.

A passage in Hebrew history now presents itself to our attention, of such peculiar difficulty, that very few of our expositors have ventured to offer a full explanation of it. The text says: "There was a famine in the days of David three years, year after year; and David inquired of the Lord. And the Lord answered, It is for Saul and for his bloody house, because he slew the Gibeonites. And the king called the Gibeonites, and said unto them, 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, We will have no silver or gold of Saul or 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 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. 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

SAUL AND THE GIBEONITES.

315

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." (2 Sam. xxi. 1-6, 8, 9.)

It will be remembered that the Gibeonites were the descendants of a branch of the Hivites, who inhabited that city in the days of Joshua, and who, after the fall of Jericho and Ai, despairing of resisting the power of the Hebrews by force of arms, succeeded by stratagem in making a league with the elders of Israel, by which they obtained a promise on oath that they should not be destroyed: but, inasmuch as this covenant-promise had been obtained by deceit and falsehood, they and their posterity were doomed to perpetual servitude. From the narrative before us it appears that at some period of Saul's reign he had formed a deliberate purpose to destroy or expel from the Hebrew territory the descendants of this race. Hence it is said, “The man who consumed us, and that devised against us that we should be destroyed from remaining in any of the coasts of Israel." "For Saul sought to slay them in his zeal to the children of Israel and Judah." And it seems, from the terms in which the answer of the Lord was conveyed to David, that the family of Saul was seriously implicated in this wicked purpose; for it was not only Saul, but his "bloody house," who were denounced as the authors of this wickedness.

As there is no mention of this circumstance in the narrative of Saul's reign, we have no further information respecting the case than is given in the Scripture quoted above; and, as to the statement of fact, it is only necessary to observe that we feel bound to accept the whole account as of equal truth and authority. This has not always been done. Otherwise respectable writers have received the account as authentic so far

as it speaks of the execution of the seven men: but they regard the Divine communication announcing the cause of the famine, as a pretence and a deception. This opinion is purely arbitrary and unwarranted. If that part of the narrative is untrue, the whole may be

untrue.

But although the case presents serious difficulties, as arising out of the operation of a political economy known nowhere but in Israel, it contains nothing but what can be easily harmonized with the peculiar character of the Divine government over the elect people. There is nothing improbable in the crime alleged. Gibeon was situated in the tribe of Benjamin, the tribe of Saul. It was occupied by the descendants of the aboriginal idolaters of Canaan. Now, considering the frequency with which he disobeyed Divine direc tions, and the necessity which arose for making provision for a large family, it is surely not incredible that he and his children might have held a promise made by Joshua to their ancestors five hundred years before, as of no effect, and have taken measures for destroying them, or at least for expelling them from the country. But, it is asked, why was not the crime punished before? Why was the whole land visited with famine for three successive years on this account? Why, out of all Saul's descendants, were these seven men made the victims of this vengeance?

If, as hinted above, we had to discuss the application of any system of human jurisprudence to human action, we might feel called on to consider these queries. But this is not the case. God was the Law-giver, and in this case certainly the Administrator of Hebrew law. He saw and condemned the crime, from the guilt of which the nation, in all probability, ought long ago to have purged itself. He took a course which brought

THE FAMINE ON ACCOUNT OF THE GIBEONITES. 317

the transgression fully before the public mind; and when inquiry was made, He pointed out the cause of the infliction, and the mode of its expiation. This is the statement of the Jewish historian, who relates that the Lord told the king, that if he "would permit such vengeance to be taken as the Gibeonites should desire, He would be reconciled to them, and free the mul titude from their miseries." This was done, and the

plague ceased.*

The scriptural answer to all captious objections to this portion of history is, that the theocratic government of the Hebrews in the time of David is a sterling truth, an undoubted reality. The divinely appointed laws of the kingdom were frequently transgressed; but although God sometimes bore with the sin, He at others, as in the case before us, asserted his Divine sovereignty, and enforced the decision of His will. Neither the lapse of time that occurred between the crime and its punishment, nor our inability to connect the seven persons who suffered with the actual slaughter of the Gibeonites, at all affects our view of the

case.

Actions directed by short-sighted and fallible man may be fairly open to censure, which yet may be just and right, when ordered by an infinitely good and allprescient Deity.

If this case had been placed before us as the judgment of David, we should doubt, if not condemn; but to the Divine fiat we reverently submit; for man can only judge from outward appearance, and such evidence as he can obtain, but the Lord not only knows the heart, but can foresee future contingent events, so as not only to be able to do all that is right and necessary tɔ uphold the rectitude of His government, but also cer* JOSEPHUS, Antiq., vii., 12, 1.