Claude Mariottini has a remarkable post on the story of Rizpah from 2 Samuel 21:1-14. It is a Mother’s Day reflection unlike those you will probably hear in church this Sunday. I encourage you to check it out.

His post got me curious about a couple of issues, so I headed for my commentaries. I only found one commentary on Samuel. Walter Brueggemann’s commentary on Samuel in the ??????Interpretation series was resting among a legion of commentaries on Leviticus and Numbers.

Oddly enough, Brueggemann does not comment on Rizpah’s role in the story. He focuses exclusively on David and the question of whether to read David in a positive or negative light. A positive read would see David as doing what he must to save his kingdom from famine. A negative reading — which Brueggemann adopts — sees the private oracle as a fiction invented by David as an excuse to get rid of any remaining political rivals from the house of Saul.1

But regardless of the interpretation of David’s role, I think Brueggemann misses an important element of the text in overlooking Rizpah. While David’s actions may be ambivalent,2 Rizpah’s certainly are not. Her actions exhibit exemplary faithfulness. And they force (or shame) David into faithful action as well. In response to what she has done, David takes the bones of Saul and Jonathan and buries them in Zela. This is something that David should have done when they were killed at the beginning of his kingship, but only now does he do it at the end of his reign. Rizpah’s faithful actions bring benefit not only to her two sons and the five sons of Merab, but also to Saul and Jonathan.


  1. Brueggemann, First and Second Samuel, 336–38. [back]
  2. In the text, David’s actions are seen in a positive light. Although Brueggemann may be right in suspecting that the oracle is a historical invention, the text presents it as a reality. Brueggemann opts for a historical reading, while my interpretation for the purposes of this post is more literary. [back]
Permalink