Abstract
Contextual hermeneutics allows interpreters to read the Bible from their location. However, interpreters not only read meaning into the text, as a number of scholars claim, but in the process, they actually illuminate the original context underlying the text. To demonstrate this point, I will be analyzing the story of Rizpah through the lens of a current event, the Japanese government’s efforts to remove the ‘comfort women’ bronze statues in Korea. The bronze statues embody counter-narratives that challenge and ultimately threaten the master narrative of the Japanese government. Likewise, Rizpah who stands on a boulder also functions as a counter-monument against King David. She resists the royal historian’s effort to whitewash David’s involvement in the murder of the Saulide descendants. However, to understand the specific way in which Rizpah challenges the royal court propaganda, it is necessary to engage critical methods of reading.
Introduction
With the influx of contextual interpretations in biblical studies, fresh readings have been introduced to the field. 1 Reading from one’s location has been the most common approach to the Bible; it was and is still a way for people to make the ancient text meaningful. Despite the popularity of these readings, they have been recently considered legitimate in the field of biblical studies via the philosophy of cultural hermeneutics. 2 The principles underlying cultural hermeneutics provide the theoretical explanation and therefore justification for finding the ‘cultural meaning’ or ‘meaning for us’. 3 Despite this theoretical underpinning, more traditional scholars have resisted, if not rejected outright, this methodology. 4 Since the focus is to elucidate meanings for ‘our’ present community, critics have been concerned about the problem of eisegesis. 5 The criticism is not completely without merit. However, many interpreters who engage in contextual hermeneutics are very well-versed in the ancient context of the text. They facilitate conversations between the present and the past. In fact, contextual hermeneutics in dialogue with other critical methods expands our knowledge of the text in its ancient context. Many themes, like the politics of oppression, are universal; therefore, they are not only manifest in the present but in the past as well. 6 The task is to engage the traditional historical-critical methods to understand the specific way in which these universal themes in present situations are displayed in an ancient text.
This article will analyze the way in which a current event, the furore over the Korean ‘comfort women’ bronze statues, provides a lens through which to critically analyze the story of Rizpah in the Bible. 7 In the last two years, the Japanese government has embarked on a vigorous campaign to remove the bronze statues of the ‘comfort women’, specifically those located in front of the Japanese consulate in Seoul and Busan. Because of the Korean government’s inability or refusal to remove the statues, the Prime Minister has threatened to cut diplomatic ties at a time of heightened North Korean threat. But how can a bronze statue cause an international impasse at a critical juncture in Asia? Although it may seem like an innocent statue, it was perceived to undermine the authority of the Japanese government. The bronze statue embodied a counter-narrative that challenged the master narrative of the Japanese government (Figure 1). By representing the stories of the ‘comfort women’ who were systematically enslaved for sex during World War II (WWII), the statue dared to question and therefore tarnish a sovereign nation’s dominant historical narrative of Imperial Japan. This very current event will provide the lens by which one can read the story of Rizpah who stands on a boulder to challenge King David. She is not just a mourning mother but a bold protester of the massacre of innocent lives. In so doing, she becomes a counter-monument which ultimately exposes David’s involvement in the murder of the Saulide family. Consequently, she subverts the master narrative in which the court historian tries to present David as the faithful restorer of fertility in the land.
Comfort Women statue facing the Japanese embassy in Seoul (https://justiceforcomfortwomen.org/tag/comfort-women-statue/)
In order to highlight the present in the past, I will first briefly discuss the method that informs this article. Second, I will analyze the controversy over the ‘comfort women’ bronze statues which function as counter-monuments against the Japanese government. Third, I will discuss the way in which Rizpah herself constitutes a counter-monument against King David by critically examining the text. In conclusion, I will discuss how Rizpah’s example can become a rallying cry for the ‘comfort women’ allies.
Method
Contextual hermeneutics allows the reader to interpret the Bible in his or her actual or poetic location. 8 Since traditional methods have focused on defining the ‘original’ meaning of the text without acknowledging the role of the present culture in the reading process, objectivity has been the hallmark of good scholarship. Therefore, an interpreter is expected to read meaning out of, not into the text. However, contextual hermeneutics depends on the reader, who is usually on the margins, to be subjective; he or she is to engage the text from his or her location. Consequently, one is expected to draw from a personal experience and use it as a springboard to read the Bible. In the creative process of ‘devouring’ the Bible however, they draw upon universal human experiences, like the politics of oppression. 9 They are thus able to situate themselves in the biblical stories and identify with marginal characters. They re-enact the ancient plot from a personal and communal perspective; consequently, they breathe humanity into a text that is removed in space and time.
As a case in point, traditional interpreters of the story of Rizpah have highlighted the role and characterization of King David and the historical background of his rule. They have provided a backstage pass to the ancient cultural context that produced the text; therefore, we now have more information about David and limited access to Rizpah who is usually depicted as a grieving mother. 10 Yet in many discussions, traditional interpreters rarely identify with the characters or infuse them with life. For these interpreters, the characters are essentially two-dimensional figures on a page from a remote period. However, contextual readings have resurrected Rizpah as a force de resistance against the tyranny of King David. 11 She comes to represent people, specifically powerful mothers, who challenge corrupt rulers. Since they want to see Rizpah through their situation, they are able to make her present in their world. When a character leaps out of the pages into real life, the story begs the question, ‘How did powerless widow-concubine rattle a king who disposed his enemies at will?’ 12 This is where the bronze statue of a petite Korean girl can shed light on the ancient story. Just like the bronze statue which threatens to undermine the Japanese government, Rizpah embodies a counter-narrative that challenges the master narrative of King David.
Counter-narratives are essentially stories from the margins; they provide alternative realities that tend to challenge or resist the master narratives. Master narratives are then stories of the dominant culture, or the majority, who usually control the means of representation, that is, history books and media. If the master narratives are inclusive, then counter-narratives become obsolete; they become part of the dominant story. However, tension and outright conflict develop when master narratives justify and/or perpetuate oppression by ignoring, denying, and/or silencing the stories of the minority. This is an example where master narratives try to impose their version of reality so that no alternative realities can exist. Their assumption of universality and claim to truth forbid any other narratives so that they are held to be ‘normal, standard, and universal’. 13
However, counter-narratives essentially challenge this very assumption and claim. They ‘contest a system of hegemony by constructing alternative subjectivities and selfhood’; they resist the dominant narrative. 14 As stories of the oppressed, counter-narratives tend to represent stories of ‘melancholy’ over the injustice or the history of loss. 15 They are not just narratives about individual grievances but reflect in their personal stories a broader socio-political problem that demands justice or ‘recovery’. Therefore, they ‘destabilize and interrogate’ the dominant discourse. 16 Consequently, master narratives cannot insist on their claims; they would have to address and change them or lose their legitimacy. This is how a bronze statue with its counter-narrative challenges the Japanese government; it forces a sovereign nation to reflect on and change its history of Imperial Japan. Since it refuses to change the narrative, the Japanese government is rightfully concerned that it will lose its legitimacy. This is the lens through which one can read the story of Rizpah.
By daring to sit on a platform, the massive boulder, Rizpah was embodying a counter-narrative in which she challenged the court historian’s master narrative. She questioned and therefore undermined the representation of King David as the restorer of fertility. But in order to reimagine her role as a counter-monument in the world she resides, one needs to engage the historical-critical methods to understand specific ways in which she contests the king. Through the traditional methods, one becomes acquainted with the historical background of David’s complicated relationship with Saul and the northern tribes, the Gibeonites’ pact with the Israelites, the redaction history of the text, and the problems within the text. This allows the interpreter to understand why and how Rizpah dismantled the master narrative of the court historian. It is through this dialogue between contextual hermeneutics and historical-critical methods that one gains a fuller appreciation of the text and therefore its meaning for the reader.
Bronze statues of the ‘comfort women’
The bronze sculpture of a young woman was first installed near the Japanese Embassy in Seoul on 14 December 2011. It was initially a memorial of the numerous Korean women who had gathered on Wednesdays (as of 2 January 1992) to demand an apology and compensation from the Japanese government (Wednesday Demonstration; 수요 집회). 17 However, the Japanese government’s persistent denial of the imperial institutionalization of ‘comfort women’ during WWII has made the memorial into a counter-monument. These statues silently call for the Japanese government to acknowledge their oppressive history by accepting the stories of the ‘comfort women’. Rather than have their stories erased, they rightfully want their narratives to be included in the annals of Japan’s past.
The stories of ‘comfort women’ have been seared into Korean consciousness. According to most historians, approximately 200,000 Asian women were systematically enslaved to serve the sexual demands of Japanese soldiers during WWII. Indeed, more women in Korea were forced into sexual slavery than any other country since it was also colonized by the Japanese government. 18 Consequently, it has become a bitter symbol for the Koreans of imperial Japanese colonization and hence, the defilement of Korea. 19 Politicization in of itself is not a problem, to the extent that it brings attention to the history of the Japanese government’s violence against women. However, the current ‘agreement’ made on 28 December 2015 gave precedence to political concerns rather than address the demands of women who had suffered from the institutionalized enslavement. In the 2015 agreement, Japan pledged to apologize and donate money to a Korean foundation, The Reconciliation and Healing Foundation, to support the surviving women. In return, the Korean government under the then President Pak Geun-hye promised to set aside the ‘inconvenient’ issue and remove the statue in Seoul. Instead of listening to the appeals of the ‘comfort women’ not to sign the agreement, the Korean government conceded and yielded to the pressure from the United States. It was mostly political to partially appease and ultimately to buy silence so that the United States, under the former President Obama, could establish a united front against China and North Korea. 20 So the Japanese Prime Minister Abe made a public apology and paid 1 billion yen (approximately $8.9 million USD). Since the Japanese government delivered on its promise, it was time for the Korean government to keep their end of the bargain. However, on account of the popular dissent and the political chaos over the impending impeachment of the now ex-President Park Geun-hye, the Korean government took no action. 21 So the Japanese government is now demanding that the incoming President Moon Jae-in resolve this issue.
One could understand the Japanese government’s perspective; they kept their end of the deal whereas the Korean government had failed to honor its end. However, the Japanese government complied only superficially. Rather than genuinely acknowledge any wrongdoing, it was a political ploy to make the problem go away. The Prime Minister personally apologized but did not legally accept responsibility for the atrocity committed against the ‘comfort women’. Through his Foreign Minister Fumio Kishida, he sent this message: Prime Minister Abe expresses anew his most sincere apologies and remorse to all the women who underwent immeasurable and painful experiences and suffered incurable physical and psychological wounds as comfort women … The issue of comfort women, with an involvement of the Japanese military authorities at that time, was a grave affront to the honor and dignity of large numbers of women, and the government of Japan is painfully aware of responsibilities from this perspective.
22
While appearing to apologize for the ‘involvement of Japanese military authorities’, he failed to acknowledge Imperial Japan’s institutionalization of the comfort stations. The Korean Council for the Women Drafted for Military Sexual Slavery commented, Although the Japanese government announced that it ‘feels (its) responsibilities’, the statement lacks the acknowledgment of the fact that the colonial government and its military had committed a systematic crime … The government had not just been simply involved but actively initiated the activities which were criminal and illegal.
23
In addition, the money was more of a donation, not a ‘compensation’ for the victims, which would legally obligate the Japanese government to the ‘comfort women’. 24 The failure of the Japanese government to address its ‘systematic’ crimes against these women is evident in its refusal to change the wording of its history in the textbooks. 25 As it had done in Japan, the Japanese government had tried to control textbooks in the United States. 26 They basically tried to propagate their version of the imperial history, the master narrative; they wanted to monopolize and therefore control their claim to truth.
To encourage or more likely to pressure the Korean government to concede, the Japanese prime minister, Shinzo Abe, withdrew his ambassador and consul general from South Korea in reaction to a bronze statue installed outside of the Japanese consulate in the city of Busan on 30 December 2016.
27
In addition, he essentially halted all critical economic talks, including the bilateral currency swap agreement, with South Korea. He even contacted the then US Vice President, Joe Biden, to complain.
28
And most recently, when the incoming President Moon Jae-in acknowledged that the December 2015 agreement had ‘failed’ the survivors, the Japanese government demonstrated public outrage.
29
Taro Kono, the Japanese foreign minister, said in a statement, If (South Korea) tries to revise the agreement that is already being implemented, that would make Japan’s ties with South Korea unmanageable and it would be unacceptable.
This most recent standoff comes at a critical juncture of heightened North Korean threat.
But one is prompted to ask the question, why? Why would the Japanese government risk a diplomatic impasse over a statue of a small girl? Is it worth potential conflict with an important ally during an international crisis? Therein lies the power of a counter-monument. With its own version of the past, the bronze statue indicts the Japanese government of whitewashing and glorifying Imperial Japan by denying its institutionalization of sexual slavery. In essence, it ‘re-enact[s] discourses of memory that were rejected, omitted or outright silenced by the (urban/local/national) collectivity and makes a virtue of what would otherwise be deemed a difficult or inconvenient past’. 30 Consequently, the ‘story’ of ‘comfort women’ embodied in the bronze statue subverted the master narrative. 31
This is what ‘comfort women’ statues do; with their counter-narrative, they demand justice by exposing the government’s efforts to rewrite history. The Japanese government cannot continue to perpetuate its master narrative as long as the bronze statue stands. Therefore, they feel the need to demand, even threaten, the Korean government to remove them. This event demonstrates the power of the counter-monument. It has the ability to dramatically impact international politics.
The story of Rizpah
How can this current event provide insight into the biblical story of Rizpah? It allows the reader to understand the power of a mere widow-concubine in dismantling the royal court which tried to hide King David’s involvement in the massacre of innocent men. Contrary to a number of commentators, Rizpah does not just mourn the death of her sons and nephews but protests the unjust actions of King David. By boldly sitting on a boulder, Rizpah challenged the Davidic court’s attempt to promulgate its master narrative. This ancient story, basically a side note in the history of Israelite kings, captures an event in which a woman, more specifically a concubine of the defeated leader, King Saul, shames the untouchable usurper, King David. She unveils the attempt to cover up his involvement in the murder of the Saulide descendants. She, like the ‘comfort women’, showed up, protesting the injustice, thereby forcing David to respond.
Story placement
A few scholars have noted the possibility of an editorial change in which the story of Rizpah was moved from its original place in the Court History of David (2 Samuel 9-20; 1 Kings 1-2) to its present location (2 Sam 21.1-14). 32 Given the chronological justification, the explanation makes sense. But scholars have been reticent in explaining the reason for the move. 33 In light of the story of Rizpah as a counter-narrative, the possible editorial change may reflect a shift in attitude whereby Rizpah becomes a heroine. No longer a casualty of the royal court’s effort to centralize, the new location allows the story to cast a shadow over the dominant royal narrative. Rizpah becomes the personified ‘counter-monument’ who through her actions forces David to bury the Saulide family which brings fertility back to the land.
Chronologically, it would seem most appropriate that the story of Rizpah should precede the episode in which David shows mercy to Mephibosheth, the crippled son of Jonathan (2 Sam 9). 34 In its supposed original location (before 2 Sam 9), the story of Rizpah would have recounted David’s consolidation of his power: 35
Through military might, he had defeated Israel’s enemies (8.1-14) and then began to set up his cabinet (8.15-18). In order to establish fertility in the land, the story would have tried to justify David’s hanging of Saul’s seven grandsons not as an effort to remove the threat against his kingdom but as a means of appeasing God for the Gibeonite bloodguilt. This account would have been balanced by David’s compassion toward Mephibosheth, Saul’s grandson, whom he had shown ‘kindness for the sake of … Jonathan’ (2 Sam 9.7). How could the same king who shows mercy toward Jonathan’s son voluntarily execute Saul’s descendants unless warranted by extenuating circumstances? 36 Like all other episodes in which David’s involvement seems questionable, especially in regard to the Saulide family, here too he is freed from all blame. 37
Instead the story as it stands in the appendix tends to highlight Rizpah, who now becomes a central character in curbing David’s power. In its original location, Rizpah would have been just another victim of King David’s efforts to consolidate his power over the kingdom. Once David becomes king over both Israel and Judah, he settles his foreign (2 Sam 8) and domestic problems (story of Rizpah). It is David who restores peace (2 Sam 8) and fertility in the United Kingdom.
However, in its new location, Rizpah, not David, becomes central to the story.
In the previous section, the court historian narrates the failed rebellion of Absalom (2 Sam 11-19) and Sheba, the son of Bichri, the Benjaminite (2 Sam 20). Under the pretense of restoring justice in the kingdom, Absalom, the fourth son of David, tries to usurp his father’s throne. Explained as a punishment for David’s affair with Bathsheba (2 Sam 11), Absalom manages to force his father out of the palace before he is killed in the battlefield. As David returns to his city, Sheba, a man from Saul’s tribe, calls upon the northern tribes to withdraw their support. His revolt is also squelched. These rebellions reflect the slow demise of David and his hold on the two kingdoms. It is true that David is not overthrown; but nevertheless, his power is questioned. After all, it is Joab, more than David, who initiates and crushes these two rebellions. Therefore, the stories before the appendix tend to move the focus away from David and reflect on Joab’s efforts to secure the kingdom. 38
Whereas Absalom and Sheba are unsuccessful in toppling the aging king, Rizpah succeeds in curbing David’s power. She gets David to acknowledge and fulfill his duty as king. Absalom’s coup ends in his execution by Joab while Sheba is beheaded on account of the advice from a wise woman. With their armies, the usurpers could not enforce justice or address Saul’s grievance. However, Rizpah makes David realize his abuse of power and pay his dues to the Saulide family. But what is it about her story that would grab the attention of an editor to make them want to move the story from its original location? The story has a subversive element that the editor wanted to underscore in a new political environment that was not so pro-Davidic. 39 Rizpah had dared to challenge the invincible King David and she, not David, reestablished fertility in the land.
The story
The story opens with the report of a famine that had occurred for three successive years. 40 In the ancient Near East, a famine of this magnitude would and should have aroused the concern of the king; he, as a representative of the royal deity, needed to ensure the fertility of the land. 41 Even in Israel, David as the servant of YHWH would have been held responsible for the well-being of the land. Therefore, David, the faithful king, seeks Yahweh to determine the reason for the famine. According to the author, God responds, ‘On account of Saul and the blood-stained house since he killed the Gibeonites’ (2 Sam 21.1b). Although the Gibeonites were not Israelites, they were protected by an old covenant made by Joshua. 42 While Saul’s killing of the Gibeonites is not reported anywhere in the Bible, according to this report, he supposedly tried to annihilate them (v. 2). 43 He had basically breached the Israelites’ treaty with the Gibeonites. However, without any record of the event, it is difficult to determine the validity of the accusation.
If the oracle was true, then David, as the king, was ultimately responsible for overseeing atonement for the bloodshed. Within the territory of Israel, bloodshed, both intentional and unintentional, needed to be accounted for since blood defiles the land, that is, bloodguilt. 44 In cases where the murderer deliberately killed an innocent person, he should be killed; ‘his blood on his own head’. Ideally, during the pre-monarchial period, the blood-avenger (or ‘restorer’), usually a close male family member, avenged the death of his family member. 45 In situations where the killing was accidental, the killer had the option of fleeing to one of the cities of refuge, where he was protected from the blood-avenger. In instances where the killer was unknown, the bloodguilt fell on the nearest city, which had to perform a ritual, the slaying of a heifer. With the centralization of the government in the monarchy, however, there was a shift from individual/communal responsibility to the state. The trend was not only a political movement to limit the authority of the individual clans/tribes but an attempt to control blood feuds.
This formed the legal background to the episode that supposedly resulted in the famine. Saul, in ‘his zeal for the people of Israel and Judah’, had deliberately spilled the blood of the Gibeonites which had incurred bloodguilt in the land of Israel. Based on the wording of the massacre, he had killed the Gibeonites to appeal to the people. 46 The bloodshed was not an attempt to carry out a divine directive but to win over the people in order to obtain and maintain his precarious power. Consequently, he had shed innocent blood; however, this bloodguilt was not avenged. Since the Gibeonites were resident aliens in the land of Israel, they could not avenge their own against an Israelite, especially a king. 47
Therefore, within the worldview of the ancient Israelite, the explanation for the famine made sense. Just as the Korean president, according to Japanese Prime Minister, should adhere to the December 2015 agreement by removing the ‘comfort women’ statues, the bloodguilt had to be avenged. The spilled blood had tainted the ground; the ground, not God, responded to the bloodshed with a famine. 48 But one needs to question the simple theological explanation just as one needs to closely examine the December 2015 agreement. First, why does the famine occur during David’s reign when the assault on the Gibeonites occurred during Saul’s rule? 49 Granted, the author did not provide a timeline as to when Saul killed the Gibeonites. However, one would assume that it occurred prior to the final battle against the Philistines where Saul died on the battlefield. Even if the killing occurred right before the battle, the famine could or perhaps should have occurred during the reign of Ish-bosheth, his successor. Second, why did the death of Saul and his sons, Jonathan, Abinadab, and Malchishua (1 Sam 31) not atone for the supposed bloodshed? Were their deaths not sufficient to expiate the bloodguilt, especially since they were the result of Saul’s disobedience (1 Sam 28.15-19)? 50 The explanation for the famine was too convenient, that is for David, who though absolved of responsiblity for all Saulide deaths benefited most from their annihilation. It seems contrived.
Despite the problem with the explanation, he gives the Gibeonites, the blood-avengers, the power to decide the fate of the country. 51 David asks the survivors, ‘What shall I do for you? How shall I make expiation, that you may bless the heritage of the LORD?’ (v. 3). If David knows that expiation for bloodguilt is blood vengeance, why does David ask the Gibeonites? Is there an ancient tradition in which the blood-avengers could potentially ask something else for the bloodguilt? Perhaps the Gibeonites could have asked for monetary compensation. But then ransom is only allowed in accidental death. 52 This is the reason why the Gibeonites argue, ‘It is not a matter of silver or gold between us and Saul or his house’ (2 Sam 21.4a). 53 The very act of questioning is significant because what follows ultimately becomes the decision of the Gibeonites, not the king. He may have benefited from their decision, but he himself did not decide to have the Saulides killed. They are the ones who requested that seven of Saul’s descendants be given to be impaled before God.
While Saul’s family tree is not fully laid out in the Bible, David would have selected descendants who were most directly related to Saul. David selects two sons of Rizpah, Saul’s concubine, and five grandsons via Merab, Saul’s oldest daughter. 54 Based on this selection, one is to assume that all of Saul’s sons through his legitimate wives were dead. 55 David’s selection and therefore accession to their demand is problematic. According to Assnat Bartor, blood feud had two restrictions: (1) only the slayer was subject to death and (2) only a specific relative of the victim had the right to act. 56 The Gibeonites therefore, could technically ask only for Saul. Since King Saul was dead, they did not have any merit in asking for his descendants. Consequently, David should not have acceded to their demands. He had the power to refuse and should have refused. After all, he had promised Saul that he would not harm any of his descendants (1 Sam 24.21-22). Not only was the explanation for the famine problematic, but David’s concession to the Gibeonites was unjustified. He should not have conceded but instead should have determined a different means to appease the Gibeonites if the famine was really the result of the attempted annihilation.
Instead David delivers the seven descendants of Saul to the Gibeonites who then hang them on the mountain before God in Gibeon. Now, Gibeon was a central politico-religious city in the North; therefore, the impalement was a very public, religious act. 57 If one wanted to make a statement, to draw attention to the bodies, this would have been the ideal location. What exactly was the message that the Gibeonites propagated with the impaled bodies of the Saulides? This is what will happen to anyone who dares to break the covenant and try to annihilate the Gibeonites, the protected resident aliens of Israel. But underlying this message was the hidden Davidic agenda to warn the people of allying with the Saulides. Like Sheba, the son of Bichri, the northerners should not rebel against David in hope of establishing a Saulide dynasty. They, like these impaled Saulides, will be killed.
Whereas hanged bodies are not supposed to be displayed overnight but buried, the Gibeonites leave the bodies on the mountain. According to the Deuteronomic Code, the body of a person who is hanged should not be kept out overnight but be buried on the same day (Deut 21.22). 58 This is not a simple oversight but most likely a purposeful desecration of the bodies. Such practices usually occurred during warfare when people could not properly bury their dead. 59 It was one of the worst curses to befall a person. Despite the ‘sin’ in failing to bury the dead, King David did not intervene and demand that the Gibeonites or allow the men of Gibeah to bury them. Either the king neglected his duties or perhaps more likely, wanted to send a clear message to the tribe of Benjamin. The Benjaminites, especially the men of Gibeah, Saul’s home town, did not, or more likely could not, retaliate. They were powerless and therefore shamed for their inability to protect their own men and properly bury the bodies. 60
Whereas no man was willing to risk his life to stop this shameful desecration, a woman dared to step outside of her conventional boundary and undermine David’s authority. Like many women characters who circumvent traditional methods when men fail in their duties, Rizpah finds herself defying the established authority.
61
Here, Rizpah defies the Gibeonites and thereby David, by publicly shielding the bodies from the natural elements. To understand the import of her actions, it is essential to closely examine v. 10: Then Rizpah the daughter of Aiah took sackcloth, and spread it on a rock for herself. (NRSV)
The translations of the Hebrew word, ha-tzur (‘rock’), is misleading; rather than just any rock, ha-tzur refers most likely to a large boulder which can potentially hold a full-grown woman. 62 Like the ‘comfort women’ statue which is strategically positioned before the Japanese consulate in Seoul and Busan, she sits on top of this rocky platform where she is visible before all the people who come to sacrifice at the Gibeon sanctuary. The use of the sackcloth may lead one to think that she was basically mourning; however, she spreads rather than covers herself with it. 63 More likely, she used the sackcloth to protest the unjust violent acts. 64 The sackcloth brought attention to the bodies not by signifying a lamentation for the dead but protesting an injustice in the prophetic tradition. 65 She positions herself on the boulder, her platform, for up to six months. 66 During this extended period, she weathered the blistering sun and strong winds during the day and cold desert temperature during the night to shield the bodies from harm; she protects them from the birds and wild animals. With her constant vigilance, she brings attention to the innocent bodies that were slain and desecrated; she shames the men of Gibeah, the Gibeonites, and most importantly, King David.
When she shields the corpses, David hears about her activity and is prompted to action. The expression, ‘it was reported’, usually occurs when the news is unfavorable, sometimes serious enough to destabilize a kingdom. 67 This is the reason why David quickly buries not only the seven innocent men but also the bones of Saul and Jonathan from Jabesh-Gilead in the tomb of his father Kish. What does she do that prompts the king to bury the former king, which David did not initially feel necessary to perform? As a named concubine of Saul, she was a privileged woman; therefore her actions would have brought attention to the exposed bodies. 68 Questions would have circulated. First, why are there seven dead bodies in Saul’s family? Second, why are the bodies exposed, not buried? Third, why must a woman, the concubine of Saul, shield the bodies for six months during a time of peace? Such questions would have inevitably brought attention to David and his involvement in the incident. Her daring actions told a story, contrary to the dominant narrative in which David was the hero who tried to stave off the famine that still ravaged the land. Rizpah on top of the boulder was a counter-monument.
As a woman, she may have been transgressing the boundaries of appropriate behavior by defying the king. But her actions brought shame to all the men who had failed to fulfill their duties. She shames Saul’s clan for failing to protect and bury the seven men. She shames the Gibeonites for supposedly demanding that the Saulides be slain and bodies exposed to the elements. And more importantly, she shames David who covers up his questionable actions under the guise of maintaining fertility in the land. He had killed innocent men and worse, men whom he believed posed a potential threat. Therefore, she exposed his political ambition, namely, to squelch any opposition. Strangely, God intervenes on behalf of the land only when David buries the dead so that one can argue that Rizpah is primarily responsible for the autumn rain that stops the famine. If the famine really resulted from bloodguilt, then it is odd that God responds not after the execution of the seven descendants of Saul but their burial. 69 The narrator may have been forced to acknowledge the efficacy of her protest.
Just as ‘comfort women’ statues have been installed in several key locations to challenge the Japanese government, Rizpah sat on a very visible boulder to protect the bodies of her sons from dawn to night to expose the injustice. While the two events are not exactly alike, they demonstrate the power of counter-monuments in dismantling the master narratives of governments. Just as the previous Korean government, under Pak Geun-hye, would have benefited politically and economically from removing the ‘comfort women’ statues, King David gained from the Gibeonites’ request to kill the Saulides. However, it is the Prime Minister Abe Shinzo, not the Korean government, who is trying to suppress the counter-narratives of ‘comfort women’. The Japanese government is refusing to acknowledge Imperial Japan’s systematic enslavement of women for sexual labor. According to them, these women willingly volunteered to become prostitutes of whom the military took advantage. Similarly, the Davidic court historian tried to present the duplicitous King David as the restorer of fertility in the land by avenging the Gibeonites. The king was not complicit in killing innocent Saulide descendants for his political ambition; he needed to save his kingdom from the famine. However, the ‘comfort women’ and Rizpah sat defiantly. Their very presence loudly bespeaks their counter-narratives. As such, they have aroused the consternation of these powerful leaders. 70 The Japanese Empire and glorious era of the United Monarchy have rightfully been tainted.
Conclusion
If the current event has provided insight into the power politics of biblical Israel, what lessons can be gleaned from the biblical story of Rizpah for the current situation with the ‘comfort women’ bronze statues? It is to dare and persist until the master narrative of the Japanese government is dismantled. If Rizpah had not dared but conceded to the propaganda of the Davidic court, David would have continued to terrorize his people. If Rizpah had given up her silent protest after a week or a month, she would not have been able to see her sons and step-grandsons properly buried. If Rizpah had not endured to the very end, the famine would have continued to ravage the land. With her persistence, she shamed David into restoring justice in the land which brought fertility to everyone. Likewise, the ‘comfort women’ dared to tell their stories with their physical presence in front of the Japanese Embassy in Seoul. And a civic group defiantly set up the ‘comfort women’ statue in Busan to demonstrate their outrage over the December 2015 agreement which tried to buy the silence of the Korean people. Now the ‘comfort women’ and the people of Korea must persist; they should pressure President Moon not to concede to the demand of the Japanese Prime Minister Abe who wants the ‘comfort women’ bronze statues removed. They cannot allow ‘alternative facts’ to become the history of the ‘comfort women’.
At the beginning of his presidency, the incoming president, Moon Jae-in, had demurely responded to the question of the ‘comfort women’: The comfort-women agreement that we made with Japan during the last administration is not accepted by the people of Korea, particularly by the victims. They are against this agreement. The core to resolving the issue is for Japan to take legal responsibility for its actions and to make an official [government] apology.
71
However, with the renewed nuclear threats from North Korea, President Moon is pressured yet again to remove the statues. It is a political minefield. Just as there was famine in ancient Israel, so the North Korean threat haunts East Asia. Yet Rizpah persisted despite the rhetoric. So too the Korean government must persist and resist the Japanese government’s effort to eradicate counter-narratives of the ‘comfort women’. Fear of North Korean threat and pressure from the Japanese government and the United States should not undermine their resolve.
In their book, Places of Public Memory, the editors comment on the rhetorical force of objects that become part of society’s ‘public memory’. If the Japanese government accept their responsibility, then the rhetoric of the bronze statues will change; the master narrative would not monopolize but encompass the personal narratives. It will be a reminder of the past and signify its efforts to reform the present and future. As David Lowenthal observes, ‘The prime function of memory, then, is not to preserve the past but to adapt it so as to enrich and manipulate the present’. 72 Memory can and does change to reflect the present. The story of the bronze statues can and will change if the Japanese government admit to and apologize for Imperial Japan’s institutionalized enslavement of women and compensate them accordingly. Then the ‘comfort women’ statue will cease to function as a counter-monument but a memorial to them.
Footnotes
1.
Contextual hermeneutics is known under different names (Asian American Biblical hermeneutics, African American Biblical hermeneutics, African Biblical hermeneutics, etc.). There is no unifying method except its emphasis on the role of culture in the process of interpretation. See Gerald A. Klingbeil, ‘Cultural Criticism and Biblical Hermeneutics: Definition, Origins, Benefits, and Challenges’, Bulletin for Biblical Research, 15 (2005), pp. 261-77.
2.
I am not referring to cultural hermeneutics as a methodology in Biblical Studies but the principles expounded in philosophy. See Suzi Adams, ‘On Ricoeur’s Shift from a Hermeneutics of Culture to a Cultural Hermeneutics’, Ricoeur Studies, 6 (2015), pp. 130-53.
3.
Adams, ‘On Ricoeur’s Shift from a Hermeneutics of Culture to a Cultural Hermeneutics’, pp. 131, 140.
4.
This is what Fernando F. Segovia, Decolonizing Biblical Studies: A View from the Margins (2000), pp. 153-5, discusses as ‘imperial reality’ (p. 154).
5.
Segovia, p. 152, Decolonizing Biblical Studies, correctly observes that all exegesis is eisegesis but to differing degrees. See also Jonathan A. Draper, ‘African Contextual Hermeneutics: Readers, Reading, Communities, and Their Options Between Text and Context’, Religion and Theology, 22 (2015), pp. 3-22.
6.
Tat-siong Benny Liew, What Is Asian American Biblical Hermeneutics? Reading the New Testament (2008), writes, ‘biblical hermeneutics becomes a scrutiny of the construction and operation of power’ (p. 31). It is therefore the responsibility of the interpreter to expose the political structures.
7.
The label, ‘military comfort women’ (jūgun ianfu; ‘prostitutes’) has been euphemistically coined by the post-war Japanese government to belie the systematic abduction and forced sexual slavery of young females throughout Asia. See Chunghee Sarah Soh, ‘From Imperial Gifts to Sex Slaves: Theorizing Symbolic Representations of the “Comfort Women”’, Social Science Japan Journal, 3 (2000), pp. 59-76. Although I realize the complex nature of the history of ‘comfort women’ (see Sarah Soh, The Comfort Women: Sexual Violence and Postcolonial Memory in Korea and Japan (2008)), this article does not intend to prove but instead assumes that Imperial Japan established and perpetuated the institution of ‘comfort women’ stations. This article has not been updated to include the most recent events surrounding the Comfort Women statues.
8.
Contextual hermeneutics which has its beginning in Africa has emphasized the importance of being in the cultural setting in order to interpret for one’s community. See David Tuesday Adamo, ‘What is African Biblical Hermeneutics? ’, Black Theology, 13 (2015), pp. 59-72. This is what Mary Ann Tolbert, ‘When Resistance Becomes Repression: Mark 13:9-27 and the Poetics of Location’, Reading from This Place (Vol. 2; eds. Fernando F. Segovia and Mary Ann Tolbert; 1995), pp. 331-46, would label as ‘poetics of location’. However, the question of location is problematic for Asian American Biblical hermeneutics. As Benny Liew, What Is Asian American Biblical Hermeneutics, p. 35, has observed, diasporic interpreters tend to be transnational, rather than national. Here specifically, I am a Korean American who is reading a biblical text through the lens of a Korean event.
9.
Contextual hermeneutics is very similar to the process of translation called ‘cannibalism’ which was coined by Haroldo Campos. See Rainer Guldin, ‘Devouring the Other: Cannibalism, Translation and the Construction of Cultural Identity’, in P. Nikolaou and M.-V. Kyritsi (eds.), Translating Selves: Experience and Identity Between Languages and Literatures (2008), pp. 109-22.
10.
A typical example of such a reading is Brian Neil Peterson, ‘The Gibeonite Revenge of 2 Samuel 21:1-14: Another Example of David’s Darker Side or a Picture of a Shrewd Monarch?’, Journal for the Evangelical Study of the Old Testament, 1 (2012), pp. 201-222.
11.
For just a sample of contextual readings of Rizpah, see Gerald West, ‘Reading on the Boundaries: Reading 2 Samuel 21:1-14 with Rizpah’, Scriptura, 63 (1997), pp. 527-37; Alicia Winters, ‘The Subversive Memory of a Woman: 2 Samuel 21:1-14’, in Leif E. Vaage (ed.), Subversive Scriptures: Revolutionary Readings of the Christian Bible in Latin America (1997), pp. 142-54; Funlola Olojede (Unisa), ‘Women and the Cry for Justice in Old Testament Court Narratives: An African Reflection’, OTE, 26 (2013), pp. 761-772; Judith E. McKinlay, ‘Biblical Entanglements: Reading David’s Killings in 2 Sam 21:1-14 Alongside Those of Te Kooti at Matawhero in Aotearoa New Zealand’, The Bible and Critical Theory, 13 (2017), pp. 43-53; Monica Jyotsna Melanchthon, ‘Reading Rizpah Across Borders, Cultures, Belongings … To India and Back’, in JioneBible, Borders, Belonging(s): Engaging Readings from Oceania (2014), pp. 171-90; and Paula Gooder, ‘Remembering Rizpah’, Sojourners, January 2004, 
12.
Most contextual readings have highlighted the protest of Rizpah (see footnote 11); however, they have not explored how the protest of one woman, a concubine of a dead king, could agitate the powerful King David. Granted, Rizpah is not alone but is supported by others (see Melanchthon, ‘Reading Rizpah Across Borders’, p. 181). Nevertheless, they do not explicitly contemplate the question, How could Rizpah challenge King David? The modern example of the Korean ‘comfort women’ statue as a counter-monument answers this very question.
13.
Lisa R. Merriweather Hunn, Talmadge C. Guy, and Elain Manglitz, ‘Who Can Speak for Whom? Using Counter-Storytelling to Challenge Racial Hegemony’, in M. Hagen and E. Goff (eds.), The Many Faces of Adult Education: Proceedings of the 47th Annual Adult Research Conference, May 18-21 (2006), p. 245.
14.
Linda Tabar, ‘Memory, Agency, Counter-narrative: Testimonies from Jenin Refugee Camp’, Critical Arts, 21 (2007), p. 9.
15.
Tabar, ‘Memory, Agency, Counter-narrative’, p. 10.
16.
Tabar, ‘Memory, Agency, Counter-narrative’, p. 19.
17.
18.
Pyong Gap Min, ‘Korean “Comfort Women”: The Intersection of Colonial Power, Gender, and Class’, Gender and Society, 17 (2003), pp. 938-57.
19.
In his article, Ji Young Kim, ‘Escaping the Vicious Cycle: Symbolic Politics and History Disputes Between South Korea and Japan’, Asian Perspective, 38 (2014), pp. 31-60, discusses the ‘symbolic politics’ in which the victimization-myth plays into the emotionally charged discussion of ‘comfort women’. It is not just an issue about ‘comfort women’ but the history of colonialism that haunts the relationship between Japan and Korea. This has been underscored by Michael Breen, a Seoul-based historian, who writes that this issue ‘has come to represent all the unpleasantness of the Japanese occupation’ (Steven Borowiec, ‘The Debate Over South Korea’s “Comfort Women”’, Aliazeera, 29 January 2017, ).
20.
In just one of many articles on the agreement, Prakash Panneerselvam, (‘6 Months Later: The “Comfort Women” Agreement’, The Diplomat, 11 May 2016, http://thediplomat.com/2016/05/6-months-later-the-comfort-women-agreement/), outlines the agreement. See also, Simon Tisdall, ‘Korean Comfort Women Agreement Is a Triumph for Japan and the US’, The Guardian, 28 December 2015,
21.
Pak Geun-hye’s presidency was bedeviled by the Sewol Ferry disaster (16 April 2014), questionable relationship with Choi Soon-sil, who was being investigated for extortion (since October 2016), and accusations of accepting bribes until she was officially impeached on 9 December 2016. Since the unpopular ex-President Pak signed and endorsed the December 2015 agreement, the government of Korea has resisted implementing it.
22.
23.
24.
25.
See Mariko Oi, ‘What Japanese History Lessons Leave Out’, BBC News, 14 March 2013, http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-21226068. The ‘peace talks’ are even affecting the textbooks in Korea. See Munenori Inoue, ‘“Comfort Women” Removed from South Korean Textbook’, The Japan News/Yomiuri, 3 March 2016,
26.
See Victoria Kim, ‘“Comfort Women” and a Lesson in How History is Shaped in California Textbooks’, LA Times, 7 February 2016, http://www.latimes.com/local/education/la-me-comfort-women-curriculum-20160207-story.html; Martin Fackler, ‘U.S. Textbook Skews History, Prime Minister of Japan Says’, The New York Times, 29 January 2015, https://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/30/world/asia/japans-premier-disputes-us-textbooks-portrayal-of-comfort-women.html?_r=0; and Alexander Martin, ‘U.S. Publisher Rebuffs Japan on “Comfort Women” Revision’, The Wall Street Journal, 15 January 2015,
27.
28.
Mintaro Oba, ‘Japan’s Terrible Mistake on “Comfort Women”’, The Diplomat, 14 January 2017, http://thediplomat.com/2017/01/japans-terrible-mistake-on-comfort-women/. It was not only a breach of the December 2015 agreement but according to the Japanese government, a violation of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. The statues were erected in the diplomatic compounds (see Julian Ryall, ‘Is the Japan-South Korea “comfort women” Deal Falling Apart’, 9 January 2017, DW,
29.
30.
Natalia Krzyżanowska, ‘The Discourse of Counter-monuments: Semiotics of Material Commemoration in Contemporary Urban Spaces’, Social Semiotics, 26 (2016), p. 471. See also Cecily Harris, ‘German Memory of the Holocaust: The Emergence of Counter-Memorials’, Penn History Review, 17 (2010), pp. 34-59, who labels them ‘counter-memorials’.
31.
Shelly Grabe and Anjali Dutt, ‘Counter Narratives, the Psychology of Liberation, and the Evolution of a Women’s Social Movement in Nicaragua’, Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 21 (2015), pp. 89-105, discuss the power of personal narratives to underscore the consequences of oppression. See Molly Andrew, ‘Opening to the Original Contributions: Counter-narratives and the Power to Oppose’ in Michael G.W. Bamberg and Molly Andrews (eds.), Considering Counter Narratives: Narrating, Resisting, Making Sense (Studies in Narrative 4; 2004), pp. 1-6, who coined the term for ‘master’ narrative, and Farah Godrej, ‘Spaces for Counter-Narratives: The phenomenology of Reclamation’, Frontiers: A Journal of Women Studies, 32 (2011), pp. 111-33.
32.
For brief discussion, see Peterson, ‘The Gibeonite Revenge’, p. 217.
33.
Some scholars have attributed the relocation to a change in the cultural view of trans-generational punishment.
34.
2 Sam 8.15-18 mostly parallels 2 Sam 20.23-26. Both sections record David’s cabinet so that they function as a form of Wiederaufnahme. However, rather than consider 2 Sam 9-20 as supplementary, the editor may have used it (2 Sam 20.23-26) to refer the reader back to the story of Mephibosheth. According to James W. Flanagan, ‘Court History or Succession Document? A Study of 2 Samuel 9-20 and 1 Kings 1-2’, Journal of Biblical Literature, 91 (1972), pp. 172-81, the earlier literary unit showed how David maintained legitimate control prior to the succession additions in which Solomonic sections were added.
35.
Traditionally, the Court History of David has been known as the Succession Narrative (Leonard Rost, Überlieferung von der Thronnachfolge Davids [BWANT 3/6; 1926], pp. 119-253).
36.
Most likely, David showed mercy for Mephibosheth because he was lame. As a disabled man, Mephibosheth could not have posed a threat to the Davidic rule. See Anthony R. Ceresko, O.S.F.S., ‘The Identity of “the Blind and the Lame” (‘iwwēr ûpissēaḥ) in 2 Samuel 5:8b’, Catholic Biblical Quarterly, 63 (2001), pp. 23-30.
37.
In offering an apology for David, the court historian tries to exculpate David of any wrongdoing, especially in the death of Saul and his family. He was not responsible for the death of Saul and his three sons, Jonathan, Abinadab, and Malchishua (1 Sam 31) since he was not even near the battlefield; his commander, Joab, conspired against David and killed Abner, the commander of Saul’s army (2 Sam 3.27-20); and the evil sons of Rimmon killed Ishbaal, the legitimate heir to Saul’s kingdom (2 Sam 4.5-12).
38.
After all, 2 Sam 21.15-22 recounts the military feats of David’s men, not the king so that his accomplishments are overshadowed by others.
39.
Without delving into a detailed discussion of the redaction of the books of Samuel, suffice to say that anti-Davidic material is evident in the History of David’s Rise. See Israel Finkelstein, ‘Saul, Benjamin and the Emergence of “Biblical Israel”: An Alternative View’, ZAW, 123 (2011), pp. 348-67.
40.
Question arises which the Talmud tries to answer, ‘Why does it take David three years before he seeks God?’ The Talmud responds that David suspected idolatry in the first year, harlotry in the second year, and hypocrisy in the third year. See Gary D. Mole, ‘Cruel Justice, Responsibility, and Forgiveness: On Levinas’s Reading of the Gibeonites’, Modern Judaism, 31 (2011), pp. 253-71.
41.
Mesopotamian texts and biblical psalms are replete with suggestions that the king is to sustain agricultural fertility. See Brian Britt, ‘Death, Social Conflict, and the Barley Harvest in the Hebrew Bible’, The Journal of Hebrew Scriptures, 5 (2005), pp. 1-28.
42.
According to an earlier tradition, the Gibeonites deceived the Israelite leader into extending his protection (Josh 9.15) in return for their servanthood as woodcutters and water carriers (Josh 9).
43.
According to Gary D. Mole, ‘Cruel Justice, Responsibility, and Forgiveness’, pp. 253-71, the Talmudists, specifically Kara and Radak, actually locate the killing of the Gibeonites in 1 Sam 22, where Saul murders Ahimelech and his household, among whom were Gibeonites.
44.
The concept of blood having some animated power that demands justice seemed to be current in ancient Israelite thinking (see Gen 4.10 where Abel’s blood ‘cries out’). Consequently, one’s spirit lies within the blood forming the basis of laws requiring that the Israelites do not eat blood with the meat. See Yitzhaq Feder, ‘The Mechanics of Retribution in Hittites, Mesopotamian and Ancient Israelite Sources’, JNES, 10 (2010), pp. 119-57.
45.
For the concept of ‘restorer’ for blood avenger (הדם גואל), see S. David Sperling, ‘Blood, Avenger Of’, ABD I, pp. 763-764. Here it is not so much the right of the victim’s kin to avenge, but his responsibility to the community. See Pamela Barmash, Homicide in the Biblical World (2005), pp. 20-52.
46.
The expression, ‘zeal for Israel and Judah’ does not occur anywhere else. Joshua demonstrated ‘zeal’ for another person, Moses (Num 11.29); however the people of God are expected to show zeal primarily for God (Num 25.13; 1 Kgs 19.10, 14; 2 Kgs 10.16; Ps 69.9) because he is a jealous God. At the same time, one can call upon God to show divine ‘zeal’ for the people (Isa 26.11; 63.15; Joel 2.18; Zech 8.2).
47.
Resident aliens seem to have been bound by Israelite laws: Lev 24.22; Num 9.14, 15.14, 29; Deut 24.17. However, they do not appear to have the privilege of avenging themselves against an Israelite.
48.
This mechanistic worldview is present throughout Bible, especially in the story of Cain and Abel, in which the ground will not yield to Cain for the blood of Abel.
49.
The Gibeonites were not the only victims during Saul’s reign. According to the Deuteronomist, he had also ordered Doeg, the Edomite, to kill the priests of Nob, the descendants of Ahimelech (1 Sam 22.18-19). This senseless decimation is supposedly prophesied by the man of God for Eli’s sons’ complete disregard for the offerings (1 Sam 2.31-34). Although the Deuteronomist tries to link the two incidents together, the prophecy against Eli’s sons was primarily directed against Hophni and Phinehas which later was used to explain the destruction of the priests of Nob. Since there really is no justification for the killings, one must ask the question, Why is there no famine resulting from this annihilation?
50.
Here, Samuel mentions an episode in which Saul failed to carry out a specific directive to wipe out the Amalekites (1 Sam 15).
51.
West, ‘Reading on the Boundaries’, p. 529, explores the perspective of the Gibeonites through the marginalized readers. They saw the Gibeonites as the victims who should rightfully be avenged by a king who was ‘sensitive’ to the power dynamics. While this is a valid reading, I interpret the story from the perspective of Rizpah, who becomes a victim of the Gibeonites and David. This is a clear example of contradictory realities.
52.
This is the basis of the goring ox laws (Exod 21.29-30).
53.
R.G. Branch, ‘Rizpah: Activist in Nation-Building. An Analysis of 2 Samuel 21.1-14’, Journal for Semitics, 14 (2005), p. 80, described the Gibeonites as ‘wordsmiths skilled in deception and manipulation (see Josh 9)’.
54.
Whereas the MT has Michal, Merab was probably the intended daughter given the information about her husband (Adriel son of Barzillai the Meholathite). She was married to Adriel (1 Sam 18.19) while Michal was married to David and then to Palthiel, son of Laish (1 Sam 25.44; 2 Sam 3.15).
55.
Saul and his sons, Jonathan, Abinadab, and Malchishua, die in the battlefield while Ish-baal (Ish-bosheth) is assassinated by his own captains (2 Sam 4.5-8). Based on this account, no other sons seem to have survived the Saulide family.
56.
57.
It is a central sanctuary prior to the establishment of Jerusalem as the city of God (Josh 10.12; 1 Kgs 3.4; 9.2; 1 Chr 16.39; 2 Chr 1.13; Isa 28.21).
58.
The word used here is the Hebrew, תלה (‘to hang’), which is different than the Hebrew word, (hiphil of יקע ‘some solemn form of execution’, BDB 429) used in 2 Sam 21.6, 13. A similar usage is found in Num 25.4 in a very public ‘hanging’ of the chiefs in the sun. H. Cazelles, ‘David’s Monarchy and the Gibeonite Claim (2 Sam. 21:1-14)’, Palestine Exploration Quarterly, 87 (1955), pp. 167-68, thinks that the bodies were dismembered. While the actual process of execution may be different, the need to bury the body is absolute. Joshua follows this law even with respect to the enemies of God (Josh 8.29, 10.26). Hanged bodies were a means to humiliate and shame the opponent. See 2 Sam 21.12 where the Philistines had hanged the bodies of Saul and his son, Jonathan, in the public square of Beth-shan. This account actually contradicts an earlier report in which the inhabitants of Jabesh-Gilead take the bodies of Saul and his sons and bury them in Jabesh. See discussion below.
59.
Exposing the bodies to the natural elements occurred primarily during wartime, not peace (Deut 28.26, Psalm 79, Jer 7.33, 15.3, 16.4, 19.7, 34.20, Ezek 29.5, 32.4), and is typical of a curse formula (1 Sam 17.44, 1 Kgs 14.11, 16.4, 21.24). It was a deliberate humiliation and intimidation in the context of war.
60.
If the immediate family of Saul all perished, then it would have been the responsibility of his clan to bury the dead. If not his clan, then others who are closely allied with his family should have buried their bodies. When Saul and his sons died out in the battlefield, the men of Jabesh Gilead risked their lives to steal their corpses from a Philistine stronghold, Beth Shan (1 Sam 31.8-13).
61.
For a fuller discussion of daring women, see Sandra Ladick Collins, Weapons Upon Her Body: The Female Heroic in the Hebrew Bible (2012).
62.
Melanchthon, ‘Reading Rizpah Across Borders’, p. 179, briefly discusses the significance of the expression, ‘to the rock’. According to her, Rizpah is praying to God, the Rock, for help so that she ‘speaks loudly’, rather than sitting silently in resistance to the political authorities. On the contrary, the significance of the rock lies in its function as a platform, a makeshift counter-monument against King David.
63.
The mourning ritual is not clearly laid out in the Bible. However, no one seems to have mourned beyond 30 days. According to the biblical sources, Joseph mourned 7 days for his father, Jacob, (Gen 50.10) while the Israelites mourned 30 days for Moses (Deut 34.8). This may have been the reason why the captive woman was allowed to mourn for her parents for 30 days (Deut 21.13). Contrast this with the Egyptians who had an extended period; they mourned 70 days for Jacob (Gen 50.3).
64.
See Winters, ‘The Subversive Memory’, p. 152; Olojede, ‘Women and the Cry for Justice’, p. 766; and Melanchthon, ‘Reading Rizpah Across Borders’, p. 181, who discuss the ‘political protest’ that Rizpah makes against David.
65.
Aside from mourning (Gen 37.34, Lev 11.32, 2 Sam 3.31, Joel 1.8, Amos 8.10), one wore sackcloth to demonstrate repentance or need to repent by bringing attention to their contrite state (2 Sam 12.16, 1 Kgs 20.31, 1 Kgs 21.27, 2 Kgs 6.30, 2 Kgs 19.1, 1 Chr 21.16, Neh 9.1, Esth 4.1-4, Ps 35.13, Isa 22.12, 58.5, Jer 4.8, 6.26, Lam 2.10, Ezek 27.31, Dan 9.3, Jon 3.5).
66.
Although not explicit, Brian Britt, ‘Death, Social Conflict, and the Barley Harvest in the Hebrew Bible’, The Journal of Hebrew Scriptures, 5 (2005), pp. 1-28, attributes this particular reference to the barley harvest usually in the month of Nisan (March-April). The rain most likely refers to autumn rain (see Good News Translation). Here West, ‘Reading on the Boundaries’, p. 531, raises an interesting point in which Rizpah was aided by her ‘sisters’. The text is not clear but it is true that Rizpah needed the support of some members of the community to have been able to resist the Davidic administration.
67.
Not always, but in the context of reports made to David, it tends to be negative (2 Sam 10.17).
68.
As a concubine rather than the wife of King Saul, Rizpah would not have all the privileges of a queen. However, a concubine was a wife of ‘secondary rank’ who had a higher rank than a slave. See R.H. McGrath, ‘Concubine (in the Bible) ’, New Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. 4. (2nd ed. 2003), pp. 65-6.
69.
Also noted by a number of commentators, but accentuated by Cheryl J. Exum, ‘Rizpah’, Word and World, 17 (1997), pp. 260-68.
70.
In an honor-shame society, one uses ‘shaming speech’ to publicly embarrass the offender in order to sustain ‘public order’. See Victor H. Matthews, ‘Honor and Shame in Gender-Related Legal Situations in the Hebrew Bible’, in Victor H. Matthews, Bernard M. Levinson, and Tikva Frymer-Kensky (eds.), Gender and Law in the Hebrew Bible and the Ancient Near East (eds.; 1998), p. 100.
71.
72.
Carole Blair, Greg Dickinson, and Brian L. Ott, ‘Introduction: Rhetoric/Memory/Place’, in Brian L. Ott, Carole Blair and Greg Dickinson (eds.), Places of Public Memory: The Rhetoric of Museums and Memorials (Rhetoric, Culture, and Social Critique; 2010), p. 7.