Bible Commentaries

II.

The narrative in this chapter still continues much in the same graphic style and detail as in the previous chapter. During the interval between the two chapters we have in 1 Chronicles 28, 29 the record of a great assembly of the “princes of Israel” and the whole realm—a solemn farewell of David to the people, with charge to aid in building the Temple, followed by offerings for it; and the making of “Solomon king the second time” (1 Chronicles 29:22). This possibly represented his accession to the royalty not only over Judah, but over the rest of Israel, with formal acceptance by the representatives of all the tribes. (Comp. 1 Kings 12:1, in respect of the accession of Rehoboam.) In this detailed record it is specially noticed (1 Chronicles 28:2) that the old king “stood up on his feet,” as though the excitement of the great occasion had renewed for a time his strength, and enabled him to rise from his bed. It is also recorded that “all the sons of David,” who had apparently favoured Adonijah, submitted themselves to Solomon the king (1 Chronicles 29:24).

(2) I go the way of all the earth.—Comp. Joshua 23:14.

(3) Keep the charge.—The main charge to Solomon is noble enough. He is to “show himself a man,” in spite of his youth; he is to take heed in all things to follow the Law of the Lord; he is to trust both in the general promise of God to obedience, and in the special promise made to the house of David (2 Samuel 7:12-16). It is remarkably in harmony with the beautiful Psalm, “the last words of David,” preserved in 2 Samuel 23:3-5, telling how “he that ruleth over men must be just, ruling in the fear of God,” and, in spite of consciousness of shortcomings from this high ideal, trusting in the “everlasting covenant of God” with him, “ordered in all things, and sure.” Nor does it accord less with the equally beautiful prayer of 1 Chronicles 29:18-19, for Solomon and for the people. In all this David speaks in the spirit of a true servant and saint of God. But in the special charges that follow we see the worldly prudence of the old statesman, and in one case some trace of long-remembered grudge, singularly true to imperfect human nature, although utterly unworthy of an ideal picture of a hero-king.

(5) What Joab . . . did.—The charge as to Joab has a certain righteousness in it. David could not—probably since Joab’s knowledge of his great crime, he dared not—punish him as he deserved. There is a graphic vividness in the description of the blood of his victims, shed as “the blood of war in peace,” spirting over the girdle and sandals of the murderer, which shows how the horror of the crimes had dwelt on David’s imagination. The murder of Abner, treacherous as it was, probably had some show of justification in the rough justice wrought out by the duty laid in ancient law on the “avenger of blood.” David disclaims it (2 Samuel 3:28-29; 2 Samuel 3:37-39), without actually condemning it as inexcusable. The more recent and shameful murder of Amasa was simply one of revenge and ambition, because Amasa had been put in Joab’s place; yet David, broken in spirit, does not dare to blame it, and quietly acquiesces in the resumption by Joab of the dignity conferred on the murdered man. That these crimes should be punished by a king whose hands were clean, and who owed Joab nothing. was perhaps just, certainly within the letter of the law; though clemency might have spared the old and now fallen warrior, who had at least served David ably with long and faithful service. It is singularly true to nature, that the old King makes no mention of the act for which nevertheless, in all probability, he most bore grudge against Joab—the reckless slaughter of Absalom against his own express commands and entreaties—and does not deign to allude to his recent treason, which probably had already embittered Solomon against him.

(7) Shew kindness.—The charge of favour to the sons of Barzillai (see 2 Samuel 19:37-40) stands out in pleasant contrast. It has been noted that in Jeremiah 41:17 there is a reference to “the habitation of Chimham,” as being “by Bethlehem,” David’s own birthplace; as if David had given him inheritance there, out of what was especially his own.

(8) Thou hast with thee Shimei.—The most ungenerous charge is the virtual withdrawal of the pardon, freely granted to Shimei long before (2 Samuel 19:18-23). It is, perhaps, partly dictated by policy; for the notice of Shimei (2 Samuel 16:5-8; 2 Samuel 19:17) shows that he was powerful, and that he assumed a dangerous championship of the fallen house of Saul. But there are unmistakable traces of the old grudge rankling in David’s heart, reminding us of the bitterness of such psalms as Psalms 69.

(10) Buried in the city of David—that is, evidently in Mount Sion. In Nehemiah 3:16 the “sepulchres of David” are noticed, and they are plainly alluded to in Ezekiel 43:7; Ezekiel 43:9. They became the regular tombs of the kings, with some exceptions particularly noticed. It was in token of special honour that the high priest Jehoiada, the preserver of the royal dynasty, was buried therein (See 2 Chronicles 24:16).

(12) His kingdom was established greatly.—From the notice in the closing verse of the chapter, that after the deaths of Adonijah, Joab, and Shimei, and the degradation of Abiathar, “the kingdom was established in the hand of Solomon,” it would seem that, under the smooth surface of apparent loyalty, there lurked some elements of disaffection and danger—perhaps aggravated by enmity from without; for we gather from 1 Kings 11:14-25 that the death of David was the signal for some attempts at rebellion in the conquered nations. But these are apparently crushed without the slightest effort, though with no little fierceness and severity; and the royalty of Solomon rises at once to a colossal greatness.

(13) And Adonijah . . . came.—The application of Adonijah to Bath-sheba, and the signs of honour paid to her by the king—of which there is no trace in her approach to the presence of David (1 Kings 1:15-16; 1 Kings 1:28; 1 Kings 1:31)—illustrate the universal custom of Eastern monarchies; by which, while the wives of the king, being many, are seldom held to be of any great political account, the mother of the reigning king is a person of great dignity and influence. We may notice how constantly the name of each king’s mother is recorded in the history.

(15) Thou knowest.—Adonijah’s words show craft, flattering Bath-sheba by extolling her influence, and making merit of his surrender to Solomon, in obedience to the Lord’s decree, of a kingdom which, in evident contradiction to fact, he asserts to have been destined to him by popular desire. The petition, however, apparently harmless, and (since Abishag was concubine of David only in name) involving nothing unnatural, had perhaps a covert design: for, by universal Eastern custom, to take a king’s wives was the known privilege or duty of his successor. Hence the counsel, most unseemly but still probably politic, given by Ahithophel to Absalom (2 Samuel 16:21). If, therefore, Adonijah had publicly espoused Abishag, it might have seemed a virtual renewal of his claim to the crown. This Solomon sees at once, though Bath-sheba, strangely enough, does not see it.

(22) And why dost thou ask?—In Solomon’s answer there is a certain bitterness, venting itself in irony, which seems to argue the mingling with kingly dignity and policy of some passionate feeling, not unlike the bursts of passion in his father, as in the case of Nabal (1 Samuel 25:21-22). It certainly gives some probability to the conjecture (see Note on 1:3) that Abishag was the “fair Shulamite” of the Song of Solomon, already loved by the youthful king. In his wrath he infers, rightly or wrongly, that the hand of the conspirators is seen in this petition, and executes vengeance accordingly, summarily and without giving them any trial or opportunity of excusing themselves.

(23) God do so to me, and more also.—See Ruth 1:17; 1 Samuel 3:17; 1 Samuel 14:44; 1 Samuel 20:13; 1 Samuel 25:22, 2 Samuel 11:14, &c. This well-known formula of imprecation—which the LXX. renders, “May God do these things to me and add these things also “—was probably accompanied with some gesture signifying utter destruction.

(24) As the Lord liveth, which hath . . .—There is something characteristic in this adjuration, as compared with that of David in 1 Kings 1:29. In David we always see the living man, whose soul longs after God with a vivid personal devotion. Solomon is emphatically the king, sitting on the throne of David, with his house established for ever. In the majesty of his royalty his individual character is to us almost entirely merged.

(25) Sent by the hand of Benaiah.—The chief of the body-guard is the chief of “the executioners” (see 1 Kings 1:38), apparently, in the case of great criminals, carrying out the sentence of condemnation with his own hand. (Comp. Judges 8:20-21.)

(26) Anathoth is noted, in Joshua 21:18; 1 Chronicles 6:60, as a city of the priests in the territory of Benjamin, but a few miles from Jerusalem, and is best known to us as the birthplace of Jeremiah (Jeremiah 1:1; Jeremiah 32:7).

It is notable that it is not Abiathar’s priestly character which protects him, but the remembrance of his long friendship to David in adversity, and probably of that special promise which David made to him, perhaps not without remorse, when he found that his deceit to Ahimelech had drawn down Sauľs bloody vengeance upon him and his family (1 Samuel 22:20-23).

(27) That he might fulfil.—In these words is described, not the purpose, but the effect of Solomon’s action. The prophecy referred to is, of course, that of 1 Samuel 2:30-35; 1 Samuel 3:11-14, fulfilled by the degradation, in Abiathar’s person, of the house of Ithamar, and the exaltation, or restoration, in Zadok, of the house of Eleazar, to whom, as the elder son of Aaron, the primacy would have seemed naturally to belong. It seems clear from 1 Kings 2:35 that Abiathar had hitherto had some superiority, although in the various notices of the two, Zadok’s name stands first; but whether of actual authority, or only of priority of dignity, cannot be determined. While the Tabernacle remained at Gibeon under Zadok’s charge, and the Ark was in Mount Zion under Abiathar, there might, indeed, be something like co-ordination between the two. This, in any case, must have disappeared at the building of the Temple; and the disgrace of Abiathar determined that the undivided dignity should pass to Zadok.

(28) Joab had turned.—It is strange that Joab should have been in no danger or anxiety immediately after the actual failure of the conspiracy; and it is also notable that, although the real motive for putting him to death was to punish his support of Adonijah, now renewed, yet Solomon’s words in pronouncing sentence on him refrain from mention of anything except the old crimes dwelt upon in the dying charge of David. Possibly this was done to bring Joab’s case within the emphatic declaration of the Law, that no sanctuary should protect the wilful and treacherous murderer, and that innocent blood, so shed and left unavenged, would pollute the land (Exodus 21:14; Numbers 35:33). It is significant, moreover, of the increased power of the monarchy, even in hands young and yet untried, that the old captain of the host, who had been “too hard” for David, even before David’s great sin, should now fall, as it would seem, without a single act of resistance or word of remonstrance on his behalf, after a long career of faithful service, only once tarnished by disloyalty. It has been noticed that if (as is probable) the “Tabernacle of the Lord” at Gibeon is meant, Joab falls close to the scene of his murder of Amasa, “at the great stone in Gibeon” (2 Samuel 20:18).

(35) And the king put.—Benaiah succeeds to Joab’s command over the host: but it is notable that in the Hebrew text of 1 Kings 4:2-6, there is no mention of any successor to his command over the body-guard.

(36) Called for Shimei.—The command given to Shimei is in itself a reasonable precaution against treason, in one already powerful and of doubtful fidelity; and the reference to crossing the Kedron shows that it was designed to prevent his resorting to his native place, Bahurim. But it is difficult, in face of David’s charge, to doubt that it was in some degree intended as a snare; and this view is confirmed by Solomon’s words in 1 Kings 2:44, which refer back to the old offence of Shimei against David. The narrative gives no hint that Shimei’s expedition to Gath was not made in good faith, simply to regain his slaves; and a command, which had its justification in the danger likely to result from his residence in Bahurim, among his own people, could hardly be disobeyed in spirit by a temporary journey to a foreign country. Legally the execution was justifiable, and it may have been politic; but it cannot stand examination on the ground of equity or generosity. It is here probably related by anticipation.

(39) Achish son of Maachah.—In 1 Samuel 27:2 we read of Achish son of Maoch, king of Gath; but chronology makes it most unlikely that the same person should here be referred to. The name may have been hereditary.