Commentaria in II Regum (II Samuelis)
You ask whether this their demand was fair and just? I answer that it was partly just, because some of Saul’s descendants had cooperated with him in the slaughter of the Gabaonites; for this is signified in verse 1, where Saul’s family is called “a bloody house”: and partly unjust, because it is likely that some of Saul’s descendants were free and innocent of the slaughter of the Gabaonites, who therefore by human law could not be put to death for the sin of their father or kinsmen. For, as Ezechiel says, chapter 18: “The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, but the soul that sinneth, the same shall die.” For no prince or king can condemn a son to death for the sin of the father alone; whence in no tribunal of the faithful is the son put to death for the father. I say of the faithful; for among infidels and barbarians, as among the Japanese, when the father sins not only he, but his sons too are punished. Wherefore this demand of the Gabaonites has something of rancour, vengeance and insolent, barbarous and Turkish fury: unless you say that they asked it not of themselves, but from God’s instinct, and this is hinted in verse 9, when it is said: “They crucified them on a hill before the Lord,” and verse 6, where they themselves say: “That we may hang them up unto the Lord”; the Chaldee: and we will hang them before the Lord, as anathemas, expiations and atonements of Israel. For on God’s part this demand was just and holy. For God had sent this famine on Israel precisely that, in atonement for Saul’s sin, his descendants should be put to death; since Saul himself, being dead, could not be punished and killed. For God is the Lord of the life and death of all, guilty as well as innocent; wherefore he can punish guilty fathers in innocent sons, according to that of Deuteronomy 5:9: “I am the Lord thy God, a jealous God (the Septuagint: zealous), visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, unto the third and fourth generation.” See what is said there.
God, then, wished here to punish Saul in his sons, for many causes. The first is, to show how much the oppression of the poor Gabaonites by Saul displeased him, and the violation of the oath given them by Josue at the first; to show, I say, by the public and infamous punishment of Saul’s descendants, namely by crucifying them. The second, to indicate how deep a hatred he had conceived against Saul, whose race he wished to be cut off utterly, so that Miphiboseth rightly said: “For all of my father’s house were no better than deserving of death before the Lord God.” The third, to give an example to future ages, by which to restrain fathers from offending and from crimes against him; as if to say: What I have done to Saul my enemy, by cutting off his family, I shall do to any king, prince or private person, that if he offend me, I will afflict and destroy not only him, but his sons and all posterity, as in this age we have often seen done; God, namely, for the sins of parents, having plainly overthrown and cut down the most ancient and noble families. The fourth, to provide for public quiet, that civil wars might not be stirred up between the descendants of Saul and David, such as had been between David and Isboseth the son of Saul. Finally, no injury was done to the innocent sons, both because God was lord of their life; and because on account of original sin we are all guilty of death; and because they had other sins of their own, for which they could justly be punished with death and the cross by God: for they deserved this from him.
8. SO THE KING TOOK THE TWO SONS OF RESPHA.—David did not sin in delivering the sons of Saul, even innocent ones, to the Gabaonites for the cross, because he saw that this was the will of God, who for that reason had sent the famine on Israel. He conformed himself, therefore, to the divine will, which was most just and holy for the causes given in verse 9. David therefore did this by God’s admonition, and, as it seems, an oracle having been had through the pontiff and the Urim, of which in verse 1; he did it, I say, as executor of the justice of God, who punishes sins to the third and fourth generation. For Saul, being dead, could be punished only in his sons; and therefore here the justice of God could not be satisfied except by killing his sons. But this princes, magistrates and human justice may not imitate, because they ought to punish the guilty head itself, and not his sons and descendants. So Abulensis, Cajetan and others.
AND THE FIVE SONS OF MICHOL THE DAUGHTER OF SAUL, WHOM SHE BORE TO HADRIEL.—These sons were not of Michol, but of Merob the sister of Michol, whom Michol, having no children, had adopted as sons; for Merob was the wife of Hadriel, and Michol of David. Wherefore when it is said, “whom she bore to Hadriel,” understand her sister Merob, in whose place Michol had succeeded by adopting them. Others think that Merob was called by another name Michol. Cajetan, however, thinks it is an error, and that Merob should be substituted for Michol. But all the Hebrew, Greek and Latin codices have Michol, not Merob. The Chaldee, however, has, and the five sons of Merob, whom Michol the daughter of Saul had brought up; because she had adopted them, as I said.
9. WHO CRUCIFIED THEM ON A HILL BEFORE THE LORD,—namely to appease the Lord, or in honour of the Lord, that by this crucifixion of his family, as by a public atonement and victim for sin, satisfaction might be made to his vindictive justice and for the offence done by Saul and his family. Where note that God is honoured and glorified by the execution of justice. For while the guilty are punished, the justice and holiness of God who punishes shines forth, as one who hates sins and sinners and does not suffer them to go unpunished. Hence Deuteronomy 13:16, God commands idolaters to be burnt to him with the whole city. “Thou shalt consume all,” he says, “to the Lord thy God.”
ON A HILL,—namely on the hill of Gabaa, which had been the country and seat of Saul, that the sin might be punished in the place where it had been committed by Saul, and all might gather the same from the place of punishment.
WHEN THE REAPING OF THE BARLEY BEGINS,—that is, at the beginning of spring at Pasch, to show that they remained on the cross as an atonement for several months, as will be plain from what follows.
10. AND RESPHA (the mother of two of the crucified, and kinswoman of the rest) TOOK HAIRCLOTH, AND SPREAD IT UNDER HER UPON THE ROCK, FROM THE BEGINNING OF THE HARVEST, TILL WATER DROPPED UPON THEM FROM HEAVEN,—so that, remaining and lying on haircloth, she might continually guard the corpses of her sons, lest they be torn by birds, dogs and wild beasts. Understand that she did not remain alone, but with menservants and maidservants, says Cajetan.
TILL IT DROPPED.—David had ordered that these bodies, expiatory of famine and sin, should remain on the cross until God showed himself appeased by rain, which hitherto, by denying it, he had sent sterility and famine on Israel, and thus shown himself angry. Hence this case is not comprehended by the law of Deuteronomy 21:23, which commands that the crucified be buried the same day. For there it treats of one who is crucified in punishment for his own crime; here, of those who for another’s and a public fault, and therefore for the whole people, become an atonement for bringing back rain and fertility. So Abulensis and others. Whence Josephus says: “And immediately, God sending rain, the earth, laying aside its squalor, returned to its former fertility.” The Hebrews further hand down that these bodies remained on the cross for six months, namely from March to September: for then in Palestine the rains begin, which cease during the summer. See here, then, and admire the piety and patience of Respha, who so long under the open sky stood unmoved by day and night, to keep the bodies of her sons untouched. These are the bowels of a mother’s piety.