Bible Commentaries

The anointing of Solomon as king, which was effected by David'scommand (1 Kings 1), is only briefly mentioned in 1 Chronicles 23:1 in the words,“When David was old and full of days, he made his son Solomon king overIsrael;” which serve as an introduction to the account of the arrangementsmade by David during the closing days of his life. After thesearrangements have been described, there follow in 1 Chron 28 and 29 hislast instructions and his death. The aged king gathered together the tribe-princes and the rest of the dignitaries and superior officers to a diet atJerusalem, and having introduced Solomon to them as the successor chosenby God, exhorted them to keep the commandments of God, and urgedupon Solomon and the whole assembly the building of the temple, gave hisson the model of the temple and all the materials which he had collectedtowards its erection, called upon the great men of the kingdom tocontribute to this work, which they willingly agreed to, and closed this lastact of his reign with praise and thanksgiving to God and a great sacrificialfestival, at which the assembled states of the realm made Solomon king asecond time, and anointed him prince in the presence of Jehovah (1 Chronicles 29:22). - A repetition of the anointing of the new king at the instigation ofthe states of the realm, accompanied by their solemn homage, had alsotaken place in the case of both Saul (2 Sam 11) and David (2 Samuel 2:4 and2 Samuel 5:3), and appears to have been an essential requirement to secure thegeneral recognition of the king on the part of the nation, at any rate inthose cases in which the succession to the throne was not undisputed. In order, therefore, to preclude any rebellion after his death, Davidsummoned this national assembly again after Solomon's first anointing andascent of the throne, that the representatives of the whole nation mightpay the requisite homage to king Solomon, who had been installed as hissuccessor according to the will of God. - To this national assembly, whichis only reported in the Chronicles, there are appended the last instructionswhich David gave, according to 1 Chronicles 29:1-9 of our chapter, to his successorSolomon immediately before his death. Just as in the Chronicles, accordingto the peculiar plan of that work, there is no detailed description of theinstallation of David on the throne; so here the author of our books hasomitted the account of this national diet, and the homage paid by theestates of the realm to the new king, as not being required by the purposeof his work, and has communicated the last personal admonitions andinstructions of the dying king David instead.

(Note: To refute the assertion of De Wette, Gramberg, and Thenius,that this account of the Chronicles arises from a free mode of dealingwith the history, and an intention to suppress everything that did notcontribute to the honour of David and his house,- an assertion whichcan only be attributed to their completely overlooking, not to saystudiously ignoring, the different plans of the two works (the books ofKings on the one hand, and those of Chronicles on the other),- it willbe sufficient to quote the unprejudiced and thoughtful decision ofBertheau, who says, in his Comm. on 1 Chronicles 23:1: “These few words(1 Chronicles 23:1) give in a condensed form the substance of the accountin 1 Kings 1, which is intimately bound up with the account of thefamily affairs of David in the books of Samuel and Kings, andtherefore, according to the whole plan of our historical work, wouldhave been out of place in the Chronicles.”)

1 Kings 2:1-3

David's Last Instructions and Death. - 1 Kings 2:1-4. When David sawthat his life was drawing to a close, he first of all admonished his sonSolomon to be valiant in the observance of the commandments of God. “Igo the way of all the world” (as in Joshua 23:14), i.e., the way of death; “bestrong and be a man,” - not “bear my departure bravely,” as Theniussupposes, but prove thyself brave (cf. 1 Samuel 4:9) to keep thecommandments of the Lord. Just as in 1 Samuel 4:9 the object in which thebravery is to show itself is appended simply by the copula Vâv; so is ithere also with וגו ושׁמרתּ. The phrase יי את־משׁמרת שׁמר, to keep the keeping of Jehovah, which so frequently occurs inthe Thorah, i.e., to observe or obey whatever is to be observed in relationto Jehovah (cf. Genesis 26:5; Leviticus 8:35; Leviticus 18:30, etc.), always receives its moreprecise definition from the context, and is used here, as in Genesis 26:5, todenote obedience to the law of God in all its extent, or, according to thefirst definition, to walk in the ways of Jehovah. This is afterwards morefully expanded in the expression וגו חקּתין לשׁמר,to keep the ordinances, commandments, rights, and testimonies ofJehovah. These four words were applied to the different precepts of thelaw, the first three of which are connected together in Genesis 26:5; Deuteronomy 5:28; Deuteronomy 8:11, and served to individualize the rich and manifold substance of thedemands of the Lord to His people as laid down in the Thorah. תּשׂכּיל למען, that thou mayest act wisely and execute well, as inDeuteronomy 29:8; Joshua 1:7.

1 Kings 2:4-5

Solomon would then experience still further this blessing ofwalking in the ways of the Lord, since the Lord would fulfil to him Hispromise of the everlasting possession of the throne. וגו יקים למען is grammatically subordinate to תּשׂכּיל למען in 1 Kings 2:3. The word which Jehovah has spoken concerning David(עלי דּבּר) is the promise in 2 Samuel 7:12., the substanceof which is quoted here by David with a negative turn, וגו יכּרת לא, and with express allusion to the condition on which Godwould assuredly fulfil His promise, viz., if the descendants of Davidpreserve their ways, to walk before the Lord in truth. בּאמת ismore precisely defined by נפשׁם … בּכל. For the factitself see Deuteronomy 5:5; Deuteronomy 11:13, Deuteronomy 11:18. The formula וגו יכּרת לא is formed after 1 Samuel 2:33 (compare also 2 Samuel 3:29 and Joshua 9:23). “There shall not be cut off to thee a man from upon the throne of Israel,”i.e., there shall never be wanting to thee a descendant to take the throne; inother words, the sovereignty shall always remain in thy family. Thispromise, which reads thus in 2 Samuel 7:16, “Thy house and thy kingdomshall be continual for ever before thee, and thy throne stand fast for ever,”and which was confirmed to Solomon by the Lord Himself after his prayerat the consecration of the temple (1 Kings 8:25; 1 Kings 9:5), is not to beunderstood as implying that no king of the Davidic house would be thrustaway from the throne, but simply affirms that the posterity of David wasnot to be cut off, so as to leave no offshoot which could take possessionof the throne. Its ultimate fulfilment it received in Christ (see at 2 Samuel 7:12.). The second לאמר in 2 Samuel 7:4 is not to be erased assuspicious, as being merely a repetition of the first in consequence of thelong conditional clause, even though it is wanting in the Vulgate, theArabic, and a Hebrew codex.

After a general admonition David communicated to his successor a fewmore special instructions; viz., first of all (2 Samuel 7:5, 2 Samuel 7:6), to punish Joab for hiswickedness. “What Joab did to me:” - of this David mentions only the twoprincipal crimes of Joab, by which he had already twice deserved death,namely, his killing the two generals. Abner (2 Samuel 3:27) and Amasa theson of Jether (2 Samuel 20:10). The name יתר is written יתרא in 2 Samuel 17:25. Joab had murdered both of them out of jealousy ina treacherous and malicious manner; and thereby he had not onlygrievously displeased David and bidden defiance to his royal authority,but by the murder of Abner had exposed the king to the suspicion in theeyes of the people of having instigated the crime (see at 2 Samuel 3:28, 2 Samuel 3:37). דּמי מ ויּשׂם “and he made war-blood in peace,” i.e., heshed in the time of peace blood that ought only to flow in war (שׂים in the sense of making, as in Deuteronomy 14:1; Exodus 10:2, etc.), “and broughtwar-blood upon his girdle which was about his loins, and upon his shoesunder his feet,” sc. in the time of peace. This was the crime therefore: that Joab had murdered the two generals in atime of peace, as one ought only to slay his opponent in time of war. Girdle and shoes, the principal features in oriental attire when a man ispreparing himself for any business, were covered with blood, since Joab,while saluting them, had treacherously stabbed both of them with thesword. David ought to have punished these two crimes; but when Abnerwas murdered, he felt himself too weak to visit a man like Joab with thepunishment he deserved, as he had only just been anointed king, andconsequently he did nothing more than invoke divine retribution upon hishead (2 Samuel 3:29). And when Amasa was slain, the rebellions of Absalomand Sheba had crippled the power of David too much, for him to visit thedeed with the punishment that was due. But as king of the nation of God,it was not right for him to allow such crimes to pass unpunished: hetherefore transferred the punishment, for which he had wanted therequisite power, to his son and successor.

1 Kings 2:6

“Do according to thy wisdom (“mark the proper opportunity ofpunishing him” - Seb. Schmidt), and let not his grey hair go down into hell(the region of the dead) in peace (i.e., punished).” The punishment of sopowerful a man as Joab the commander-in-chief was, required greatwisdom, to avoid occasioning a rebellion in the army, which was devotedto him.

1 Kings 2:7

If the demands of justice required that Joab should be punished,the duty of gratitude was no less holy to the dying king. And Solomonwas to show this to the sons of Barzillai the Gileadite, and make themcompanions of his table; because Barzillai had supplied David withprovisions on his flight from Absalom (2 Samuel 17:27., 2 Samuel 19:32.). שׁלחנך בּאכלי והיוּ, “let them beamong those eating of thy table;” i.e., not, “let them draw their food fromthe royal table,” - for there was no particular distinction in this, as all theroyal attendants at the court received their food from the royal kitchen, asan equivalent for the pay that was owing - but, “let them join in the meals atthe royal table.” The fact that in 2 Samuel 9:10-11, 2 Samuel 9:13, we have על־שׁלחן אכל to express this, makes no material difference. According to 2 Samuel 19:38, Barzillai had, it is true, allowed only one son to follow the king tohis court. “For so they drew near to me,” i.e., they showed the kindness tome of supplying me with food; compare 2 Samuel 17:27, where Barzillaialone is named, though, as he was a man of eighty years old, he wascertainly supported by his sons.

1 Kings 2:8-9

On the other hand, Shimei the Benjamite had shown greathostility to David (cf. 2 Samuel 16:5-8). He had cursed him with a vehementcurse as he fled from Absalom (נמרצת, vehement, violent, notill, heillos, from the primary meaning to be sick or ill, as Theniussupposes, since it cannot be shown that מרץ has any suchmeaning); and when David returned to Jerusalem and Shimei fell at his feet,he had promised to spare his life, because he did not want to mar the joyat his reinstatement in his kingdom by an act of punishment (2 Samuel 19:19-24), and therefore had personally forgiven him. But the insult whichShimei had offered in his person to the anointed of the Lord, as king andrepresentative of the rights of God, he could not forgive. The instructiongiven to his successor (אל־תּנקּהוּ, let him not be guiltless) did notspring from personal revenge, but was the duty of the king as judge andadministrator of the divine right.

(Note: “Shimei is and remains rather a proof of David's magnanimitythan of vengeance. It was not a little thing to tolerate the miscreantin his immediate neighbourhood for his whole life long (not evenbanishment being thought of). And if under the following reign alsohe had been allowed to end his days in peace (which had never beenpromised him), this would have been a kindness which would havefurnished an example of unpunished crimes that might easily havebeen abused.”This is the verdict of J. J. Hess in his Geschichte Davids,ii. p. 221.)

It follows from the expression עמּך, with thee, i.e., in thyneighbourhood, that Shimei was living at that time in Jerusalem (cf. 1 Kings 2:36).

1 Kings 2:10-11

After these instructions David died, and was buried in thecity of David, i.e., upon Mount Zion, where the sepulchre of David stillexisted in the time of Christ (Acts 2:29).

(Note: The situation of the tombs of the kings of Judah upon Zion,Thenius has attempted to trace minutely in a separate article inIllgen's Zeitschrift für die histor. Theol. 1844, i. p. 1ff., and moreespecially to show that the entrance to these tombs must have beenon the eastern slope of Mount Zion, which falls into the valley ofTyropoeon, and obliquely opposite to the spring of Siloah. This is inharmony with the statement of Theodoret (quaest. 6 in iii. Reg.), tothe effect that Josephus says, τὸ δὲ μνῆμα ( τῆς ταφῆς ) παρὰ τὴν Σιλοὰμ εἶναι ἀντροειδὲς ἔχον τὸ σχῆμα, καὶ τῆν βασιλικὴν δηλοῦν πολυτέλειαν; although thisstatement does not occur in any passage of his works as they havecome down to us.)

On the length of his reign see 2 Samuel 5:5.

Accession of Solomon and Establishment of his Government. - 1 Kings 2:12 is aheading embracing the substance of what follows, and is more fullyexpanded in 1 Chronicles 29:23-25. Solomon established his monarchy first ofall by punishing the rebels, Adonijah (1 Chronicles 29:13-25) and his adherents (1 Chronicles 29:26 -35), and by carrying out the final instructions of his father (vv. 36-46).

1 Kings 2:13-18

Adonijah forfeits his life. - 1 Kings 2:13-18. Adonijah came toBathsheba with the request that she would apply to king Solomon to givehim Abishag of Shunem as his wife. Bathsheba asked him, “Is peace thycoming?” i.e., comest thou with a peaceable intention? (as in 1 Samuel 16:4),because after what had occurred (1 Kings 1:5.) she suspected an evilintention. He introduced his petition with these words: “Thou knowestthat the kingdom was mine, and all Israel had set its face upon me that Ishould be king, then the kingdom turned about and became my brother's;for it became his from the Lord.” The throne was his, not because he hadusurped it, but because it belonged to him as the eldest son at that time,according to the right of primogeniture. Moreover it might have been thecase that many of the people wished him to be king, and the fact that hehad found adherents in Joab, Abiathar, and others, confirms this; but hisassertion, that all Israel had set its eyes upon him as the future king, wentbeyond the bounds of truth. At the same time, he knew how to cover overthe dangerous sentiment implied in his words in a very skilful manner byadding the further remark, that the transfer of the kingdom to his brotherhad come from Jehovah; so that Bathsheba did not detect the artifice, andpromised to fulfil his request (1 Kings 2:16.) to intercede with king Solomonfor Abishag to be given him to wife. את־פּני אל־תּשׁבי, “do not turnback my face,” i.e., do not refuse my request.

1 Kings 2:19

When Bathsheba came to Solomon, he received her with thereverence due to the queen-mother: “he rose up to meet her” (a pregnantexpression for “he rose up and went to meet her”), made a low bow, thensat upon his throne again, and bade her sit upon a throne at his right hand. The seat at the right hand of the king was the place of honour among theIsraelites (cf. Psalm 110:1), also with the ancient Arabian kings (cf. Eichhorn,Monumenta Antiq. Hist. Arab. p. 220), as well as among the Greeks andRomans.

1 Kings 2:20-22

To her request, “Let Abishag of Shunem be given to Adonijahthy brother for a wife” (את יתּן, cf. Ges. §§143, 1, a.),which she regarded in her womanly simplicity as a very small one(קטנּה), he replied with indignation, detecting at once theintrigues of Adonijah: “And why dost thou ask Abishag of Shunem forAdonijah? ask for him the kingdom, for he is my elder brother; and indeedfor him, and for Abiathar the priest, and for Joab the son of Zeruiah.” Therepetition of לו inולו (1 Kings 2:22), for the purpose of linkingon another clause, answers entirely to the emotional character of thewords. “For him, and for Abiathar and Joab:” Solomon said this, becausethese two men of high rank had supported Adonijah's rebellion and wishedto rule under his name. There is no ground for any such alterations of thetext as Thenius proposes. - Although Abishag had been only David's nurse,in the eyes of the people she passed as his concubine; and among theIsraelites, just as with the ancient Persians (Herod. iii. 68), takingpossession of the harem of a deceased king was equivalent to anestablishment of the claim to the throne (see at 2 Samuel 12:8 and 2 Samuel 3:7-8). According to 2 Samuel 16:21, this cannot have been unknown even toBathsheba; but as Adonijah's wily words had disarmed all suspicion, shemay not have thought of this, or may perhaps have thought that Abishagwas not to be reckoned as one of David's concubines, because David hadnot known her (1 Kings 1:4).

1 Kings 2:23-24

Solomon thereupon solemnly swore (the formula of an oath,and the כּי introducing the oath, as in 1 Samuel 14:44, etc.), “Adonijahhas spoken this word against his own life.” בּנפשׁו, at the costof his life, as in 2 Samuel 23:17, i.e., at the hazard of his life, or to hisdestruction. 2 Samuel 23:24. “And now, as truly as Jehovah liveth, who hathestablished me and set me on the throne of my father David, and hathmade me a house, as He said (verbatim, 2 Samuel 7:11): yea, to-day shallAdonijah be put to death.” Jehovah established Solomon, or founded himfirmly, by raising him to the throne in spite of Adonijah's usurpation. Inויושׁיביני the central י has got into the text through a copyist's error. בּית לי עשׂה, i.e., He has bestowed uponme a family or posterity. Solomon had already one son, viz., Rehoboam,about a year old (compare 1 Kings 11:42 with 1 Kings 14:21 and 2 Chronicles 12:13).

(Note: When Thenius denies this, and maintains that Rehoboamcannot have been 41 years old when he began to reign, referring tohis discussion at 1 Kings 14:21, he answers himself, inasmuch as at 1 Kings 14:21 he demonstrates the fallacy of the objections which Cappellushas raised against the correctness of the reading “41 years.”)

1 Kings 2:25

Solomon had this sentence immediately executed upon Adonijahby Benaiah, the chief of the body-guard, according to the oriental customof both ancient and modern times. The king was perfectly just in doingthis. For since Adonijah, even after his first attempt to seize upon thethrone had been forgiven by Solomon, endeavoured to secure his end byfresh machinations, duty to God, who had exalted Solomon to the throne,demanded that the rebel should be punished with all the severity of thelaw, without regard to blood-relationship.

1 Kings 2:26-27

Deposition of Abiathar. - The conduct of Solomon towardsthe high priest Abiathar is a proof how free his actions were from personalrevenge or too great severity. Abiathar had also forfeited his life throughthe part he took in Adonijah's conspiracy; but Solomon simply sent himto Anathoth (i.e., Anata; see at Joshua 18:24), to his own fields, i.e., to hisproperty there, telling him, “Thou art indeed a man of death,” i.e., thouhast deserved to die, “but I will not put thee to death to-day, because thouhast borne the ark of Jehovah,” namely, both on the occasion of its solemnconveyance to Jerusalem (1 Chronicles 15:11.) and also on David's flightfrom Absalom (2 Samuel 15:24, 2 Samuel 15:29), that is to say, because of his high-priestly dignity, and because thou didst endure all that my father endured,i.e., thou didst share all his afflictions and sufferings, both in the period ofSaul's persecution (1 Samuel 22:20., 1 Samuel 23:8.), and during the rebellion ofAbsalom (2 Samuel 15:24.). ההוּא בּיּום (to-day) puts alimit upon the pardon, because Solomon could not foresee whetherAbiathar would always keep quiet, and not forfeit his life again by freshcrimes.

(Note: There is no meaning in the objection of Thenius, thatAbiathar did not carry the ark himself, since this was not the duty ofthe high priest. For, in the first place, it is questionable whetherAbiathar did not lend a helping hand at the removal of the ark duringAbsalom's conspiracy. And, secondly, the duty binding upon the highpriest, to superintend and conduct the removal of the ark, might verywell be called carrying the ark. The conjecture, that for ארון we should read אפוד, founders on the preteriteנשׂאת; for Abiathar had not only worn the ephod oncebefore, but he wore it till the very hour in which Solomon deposedhim from his office.)

1 Kings 2:27

The banishment of Abiathar to his own private possessioninvolved his deposition from the priesthood. And, as the historian adds,thus was the word of the Lord concerning the house of Eli fulfilled (1 Samuel 2:30-33). למלּא corresponds to the New Testament ἵνα πληρωθῇ . For further remarks on this prophecy and its fulfilment,see at 1 Samuel 2:30.

(Note: Nothing is related concerning the subsequent fate of Abiathar,since the death of a high priest who had been deprived of his officewas a matter of no importance to the history of the kingdom of God. At any rate, he would not survive his deposition very long, as he wascertainly eighty years old already (see Comm. on Sam. p. 267).- Theinference which Ewald (Gesch. iii. pp. 269,270) draws from 1 Samuel 2:31-36 as to the manner of his death, namely, that he fell by thesword, is one of the numerous fictions founded upon naturalisticassumptions with which this scholar has ornamented the biblicalhistory.)

Thus was the high-priesthood of the house of Eli extinguished, andhenceforth this dignity passed through Zadok into the sole possession ofthe line of Eleazar.

1 Kings 2:28-33

Execution of Joab. - When the report (of the execution ofAdonijah and the deposition of Abiathar) came to Joab, he fled to the tentof Jehovah (not to the tabernacle, but to the holy tent upon Zion) to seekprotection at the altar (see at 1 Kings 1:50). The words נטה לא … יואב כּי are introduced as a parenthesis toexplain Joab's flight: “for Joab had leaned after Adonijah,” i.e., taken hisside (אהרי נטה, as in Exodus 23:2; Judges 9:3), “but notafter Absalom.”

(Note: Instead of אבשׁלום the lxx (Cod. Vat.), Vulgate,Syr., and Arab. have adopted the reading שּׁלמה, and bothThenius and Ewald propose to alter the text accordingly. Butwhatever plausibility this reading may have, especially if we alter thepreterite נטה into the participle נטה after the ἦν κεκλικώς of the lxx, as Thenius does, it has noother foundation than an arbitrary rendering of the lxx, whothought, but quite erroneously, that the allusion to Absalom wasinapplicable here. For אחר נטה, to take a person'sside, would suit very well in the case of Adonijah and Absalom, butnot in that of Solomon, whose claim to the throne was not a partyaffair, but had been previously determined by God.)

There is no foundation in the biblical text for the conjecture, that Joab hadgiven Adonijah the advice to ask for Abishag as his wife, just asAhithophel had given similar advice to Absalom (2 Samuel 16:21). For notonly is there no intimation of anything of the kind, but Solomon punishedJoab solely because of his crimes in the case of Abner and Amasa. Moreover, Abiathar was also deposed, without having any freshmachinations in favour of Adonijah laid to his charge. The punishment ofAdonijah and Abiathar was quite sufficient to warn Joab of hisapproaching fate, and lead him to seek to save his life by fleeing to thealtar. It is true that, according to Exodus 21:13-14, the altar could afford noprotection to a man who had committed two murders. But he probablythought no more of these crimes, which had been committed a long timebefore, but simply of his participation in Adonijah's usurpation; and hemight very well hope that religious awe would keep Solomon from puttinghim to death in a holy place for such a crime as that. And it is very evident that this hope was not altogether a visionary one,from the fact that, according to Exodus 21:30, when Joab refused to leave the altarat the summons addressed to him in the name of the king, Benaiah did notgive him the death-blow at once, but informed Solomon of the fact andreceived his further commands. Solomon, however, did not arrest thecourse of justice, but ordered him to be put to death there and afterwardsburied. The burial of the persons executed was a matter of course, as,according to Deuteronomy 21:23, even a person who had been hanged was to beburied before sunset. When, therefore, Solomon gives special orders for theburial of Joab, the meaning is that Benaiah is to provide for the burial withdistinct reference to the services which Joab had rendered to his father. “And take away the blood, which Joab shed without cause, from me andmy father's house.” So long as Joab remained unpunished for the doublemurder, the blood-guiltiness rested upon the king and his house, on whomthe duty of punishment devolved (cf. Numbers 35:30-31; Deuteronomy 19:13). חנּם דּמי, blood without cause, i.e., blood shed ininnocence. On the connection of the adverb with the substantive, at which Theniustakes offence, comp. Ges. §151, 1, and Ewald, §287, d. - For V. 32, compareDeuteronomy 21:5. The words of Solomon in v. 33a point back to the curse which Daviduttered upon Joab and his descendants after the murder of Abner (2 Samuel 3:28-29). “But to David, and his seed, and his house, and his throne, letthere be salvation for ever from Jehovah.” This wish sprang from aconviction, based upon 2 Samuel 7:14, that the Lord would not fulfil Hispromise to David unless his successors upon the throne exercised right andjustice according to the command of the Lord.

1 Kings 2:34

Benaiah went up (ויּעל), inasmuch as the altar by theark of the covenant stood higher up Mount Zion than Solomon's house. Joab was buried “in his house” (i.e., in the tomb prepared in his house,either in the court or in the garden: cf. 1 Samuel 25:1), “in the desert,”probably the wilderness of Judah, as Joab's mother was a step-sister ofDavid, and therefore probably dwelt in the neighbourhood of Bethlehem.

1 Kings 2:35

Solomon appointed Benaiah commander-in-chief in the place ofJoab, and put Zadok in Abiathar's place (cf. 1 Kings 1:8-9).

1 Kings 2:36-37

Punishment of Shimei. - Solomon thereupon ordered Shimei tocome, probably from Bahurim, where his home was (2 Samuel 16:5), andcommanded him to build himself a house in Jerusalem to dwell in, and notto leave the city “any whither” (ואנה אנה),threatening him with death if ever he should cross the brook Kidron. Thevalley of Kidron is mentioned as the eastern boundary of the city with anallusion to the fact, that Bahurim was to the east of Jerusalem towards thedesert.

1 Kings 2:38

Shimei vowed obedience, and that on oath, as is supplementarilyobserved in 1 Kings 2:42, though it has been arbitrarily interpolated by the lxxhere; and he kept his word a considerable time.

1 Kings 2:39-40

But after the lapse of three years, when two slaves fled toGath to king Achish, with whom David had also sought and found refuge(1 Samuel 27:2, compare 1 Kings 21:11.), he started for Gath as soon as heknew this, and fetched them back.

1 Kings 2:41-43

When this was reported to Solomon, he sent for Shimei andcharged him with the breach of his command: “Did I not swear to thee byJehovah, and testify to thee, etc.? Why hast thou not kept the oath ofJehovah (the oath sworn by Jehovah) … ?”

1 Kings 2:44

He then reminded him of the evil which he had done to hisfather: “Thou knowest all the evil, which thy heart knoweth (i.e., whichthy conscience must tell thee); and now Jehovah returns the evil upon thyhead,” namely, by decreeing the punishment of death, which he deservedfor blaspheming the anointed of the Lord (2 Samuel 16:9).

1 Kings 2:45

“And king Solomon will be blessed, and the throne of David beestablished before Jehovah for ever,” namely, because the king does justice(compare the remark on 1 Kings 2:33).

1 Kings 2:46

Solomon then ordered him to be executed by Benaiah. Thispunishment was also just. As Solomon had put Shimei's life in his ownhand by imposing upon him confinement in Jerusalem, and Shimei hadpromised on oath to obey the king's command, the breach of his oath wasa crime for which he had no excuse. There is no force at all in the excuseswhich some commentators adduce in his favour, founded upon the moneywhich his salves had cost him, and the wish to recover possession of them,which was a right one in itself. If Shimei had wished to remain faithful tohis oath, he might have informed the king of the flight of his slaves, haveentreated the king that they might be brought back, and have awaited theking's decision; but he had no right thus lightly to break the promise givenon oath. By the breach of his oath he had forfeited his life. And this is thefirst thing with which Solomon charges him, without his being able to offerany excuse; and it is not till afterwards that he adduces as a second fact inconfirmation of the justice of his procedure, the wickedness that hepractised towards his father. - The last clause, “and the kingdom wasestablished by (בּיד) Solomon,” is attached to the followingchapter in the Cod. Al. of the lxx (in the Cod. Vat. it is wanting, orrather its place is supplied by a long interpolation), in the Vulgate, and inthe Syriac; and indeed rightly so, as Thenius has shown, not merelybecause of the רק in 1 Kings 3:2, but also because of its form as acircumstantial clause, to which the following account (1 Kings 3:1.) isappended.