Now the days of David drew nigh that he should die. 1 Kings 2:1, 2 Human equality Pulpit Analyst. We have here the dying charge of an old and experienced king to a young one. I. THAT ALL MEN ARE EQUAL IN THE SIGHT OF GOD; because — 1. Kings even are not exempt from human mortality. 2. Nor from human frailty (ver. 2). 3. Nor from human responsibility (ver. 3). II. THAT OBEDIENCE TO THE WILL OF GOD INEVITABLY ISSUES IN PROSPERITY, in the best sense of the word. ( Pulpit Analyst. ) David in view of death J. Parker, D. D. The setting of David's sun was a gradual process, as. is shown by the words, "Now. the days of David. drew nigh that he should die" (ver. 1). A very pathetic utterance is found in the second verse, namely, "I go the way of all the earth." From his earliest days he had Been a favourite and a hero, and has it come to this, that at the last he must simply take his place in the great world-crowd, and go down to the common grave? God is no respecter of persons. Let us learn that all earthly distinctions are temporary, and that many exaltations only show their corresponding abasements the more conspicuously. Although the king is about to take his journey into far country from which there is no return, he yet takes an interest in the future of Israel and the immediate responsibilities of his own house. His words to Solomon are the words of a soldier and a patriot: "Be thou strong therefore, and show thyself a man." There is no sign of death in this high moral energy. We can hardly imagine the voice of the speaker to have fallen into a whisper: it seems rather to resound with the force and clearness of a trumpet tone. A noble motto this — "Show thyself a man." Is it possible for a man to do otherwise? All human history returns an answer which cannot be mistaken. The man is not in the gender but in the character. By a "man" David means king, hero, prince; a soul thoroughly self-controlled, fearless, above all bribery and corruption, and vitally identified with the enduring interests of the people. It must be observed that the charge delivered to Solomon by his father was intensely religious in its spirit. Not only was Solomon introduced to a throne, but the book of the law was placed in his hands, and he was simply to peruse it, under. stand it, and apply it. Nothing was to be invented by the king himself. He begins his monarchical life with the whole law clearly written out before him. This is the advantage with which we begin our life, namely, that we have nothing to write, invent, suggest, or test by way of perilous experiment; we have simply to consult the holy oracles, to make them the man of our counsel, and to do nothing whatever which is not confirmed by their spirit. Where, then, is originality? We must find the originality in our personal faithfulness. It will be originality enough for God if He can find us acting consistently with the knowledge we already possess, and embodying it in new and sacrificial incarnations. Now we come to official words. From this point so terrible is the charge which David delivers to Solomon that we must impress ourselves with the fact that the charge is official rather than personal. We must imagine David seated upon the throne of judgment and delivering sentences as the messenger of God; this will save his speech from the charge of vindictiveness and cruelty. It should be noticed also, in connection with these judgments and sentences, that in every case a reason was assigned. That is a vital point. Looking at Joab's conduct to David, to the two captains of the hosts of Israel, and to Abner, and to Amass, and unto Absalom, we cannot but feel that the proportion between the guilt and the doom is measured by righteousness. That David was not carried away by indiscriminate retaliation is proved by the change of tone which he adopts when he comes to speak of the sons of Barzillai the Gileadite: "Let them be of those that eat at thy table"; in this ease also a reason is assigned for the judgment: "for so they came to me when I fled because of Absalom thy brother." Instances of this kind show how clear was the mental vision of the king even in the near approach of death. Nothing was forgotten. Judgment was meted out with discernment. David does not forget that when Shimei came down to meet him at Jordan, he sware unto the Lord, saying that Shimei should not be put to death with the sword. In Israel all pardon ceased with the death of the king, and it was for his successor to say whether this pardon should be renewed, or whether judgment should take effect. David seems to refer to this law when, concerning Joab, he said to Solomon: " Do therefore according to thy wisdom" (ver. 6). These words would seem, to open a door of possible escape. But Joab proved himself unworthy of any protection, and brought his death upon his head with his own hand. So in the case of Shimei, David said to Solomon, "Thou art a wise man, and knowest what thou oughtest to do unto him," so the judgment was not to be an act of violence or mere triumph of might over weakness; it was to be marked by that terrible calmness which adds to judgment its most awful elements of impressiveness. David was now giving judgment according to the age in which he lived: it was not a highly civilised age: the law had only reached a certain point of development: David, therefore, must not be held responsible for the law under which we ourselves live. David's Lord said — "Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you." "So David slept with his fathers, and was buried in the city of David" (ver. 10). He died as it were in the act of pronouncing judgment, and himself went to be judged by the Eternal King. How near is that bar to every one of us; the final word is not spoken by man; he can but give judgment according to his light, or to his immediate understanding of the circumstances which appeal to him; there is one Judge who will rectify all our decisions and readjust everything which we have thrown into disorder. ( J. Parker, D. D. ) The close of life not to be dreaded by the believer A. Maclaren. Why should we be pensive and wistful when we think how near our end is? Is the sentry sad as the hour for relieving guard comes nigh? Is the wanderer in far-off lands sad as he turns his face homeward? And why should not we rejoice at the thought that we, strangers and foreigners here, shalt soon depart to the true metropolis, the mother country of our souls? I do not. know why a man should be either regretful or afraid as he watches the hungry sea eating away his "bank and shoal of time" upon which he stands, even though the tide has all but reached his feet, if he knows that God's strong arm will be stretched forth to him at the moment when the sand dissolves from under him, and will draw him out of many waters and place him on high, above the floods in that stable land where there is "no more sea." ( A. Maclaren. ) Be thou strong therefore, and shew thyself a man. 1 Kings 2:2 Religion not unmanly R. A. Hallam, D. D. This is interesting in many ways, interesting as a picture, and as a specimen of counsel. It is an old man speaking to a young one, a king to his successor, an aged warrior to a youthful man of peace, a man of action to a man of knowledge, a dying man to a man on the threshold of his earthly career, one who had done with earth to one who was entering on its fulness, a father to a son, a David to a Solomon. When he advised Solomon to show himself a man, he attached no low and feeble sense to the term. David was a judge of manliness. Yet to his advice to Solomon to be manly he appends a description of character and of a course of action, which therefore was in his estimation manly, or at the least not unmanly. "Show thyself a man," he says, "and keep the charge of the Lord thy God, to walk in His ways, to keep His statutes, and His commandments, and His judgments, and His testimonies, as it is written in the law of Moses." Now all this is summed up in one word, and that is religion. In the opinion of King David, then, religion is manly. Religion then furnishes ample room for manly sentiments and manly courses of action. Nay, it requires them and makes them necessary. I. IT INVOLVES THE CHOICE OF A GREAT OBJECT. It sets a man upon living for a great end, the greatest end that he can live for. To see grown-up men occupying themselves in petty concerns, suffering them to engross their thoughts and their time and their powers, making them their all, concentrating upon them their energies and their efforts, following them with a zeal, an earnestness, and a pertinacity utterly disproportionate and exaggerated, it is a pitiable sight, ridiculous if it were not also melancholy. This is puerile, boyish, effeminate. The things of a child are very proper things for a child. There is fitness, there is beauty, there is use, in his devotion to them. But how unseemly, how contemptible, how offensive, is such a devotion in a man. We judge of men by the elevation and magnitude of their pursuits. We think a fop a puerile creature, who lives to look pretty and smell sweet. And the man "whose God is his belly," who lives to eat, and lays out his mind on marketing and cookery, is another great child. Such men are still busy with their playthings a little changed in form. But does any man rise to the height of himself who lives for this world? Is there not in an such living the same sort of dwarfing and disparagement of the true greatness and dignity of human nature, the same sad incongruity and disproportion? II. THERE IS MANLINESS AGAIN IN DECISION, FIRMNESS, AND CONSTANCY OF PURPOSE. It is characteristic of children that they do not know their own minds, that they are the sport of whim and caprice, unsteady, vacillating, freakish, easily diverted from their aim, easily discouraged by difficulties, deficient in persistency, resolution, and concentration. When we see a child more fixed and consistent in the choice of an end than children are wont to be, we call him precocious, a manly child; and if this quality is not so prominent as to be premature and unnatural, we say it augurs well for the boy's future. To see a grown man the victim of fugitive preferences, impressions, and impulses, "a wave of the sea, driven with the wind and tossed," is wretched. We say then that fixedness, concentration, steadfastness, are attributes of a man, are essential to the development of a truly manly character. And where are they so exhibited as in religion, if it be genuine and true? What else so tends to form and foster them? What else so draws the whole life as it were to a single focus? — so forces all its streams to run into one reservoir? What else gives life such unity, coherence, and connection of parts? III. THERE IS MANLINESS IN INDEPENDENCE; and this is emphatically a religious virtue. The Christian must be singular, and pursue a path not trodden by the multitude. And he must be content ordinarily to pursue it in the face of misconception, misconstruction, remonstrance, and derision. This is to no small extent "the offence of the cross." To be unlike others, to be looked upon with curiosity, to be thought affected or ostentatious, is trying. So, to keep a separate and isolated position, to be one by one's self, and stand an anomaly and exception, self-centred and self-sustained, without the ordinary props of human opinion and usage, requires largely independence of character. Independence is a quality of manhood. A child is a conformist and a copyist. It leans upon the parent, and holds itself up by clinging to an older person, as the ivy hangs upon the tree or wall It goes in leading strings, and looks timidly out for examples and precedents and authorities. To think and act for himself, to mark out his own line of action and pursue it, to have the reasons and the law of his actions in himself, and not to swerve from his path at dictation or censure or contempt, is to vindicate one's maturity, to act the part of a man. Does not religion then stand vindicated from the charge of unmanliness? And is not David s counsel to Solomon his son justified and sustained — Be manly and be religious, be manly in your religion, and religious in order to be manly? Is not religion successfully rescued from one of, the most effective and damaging aspersions that is ever cast upon it — that it is unmanly, that it is a suitable thing for the softer sex, and pretty in children, but not at all fit for robust, hardy, deep-thinking, bold-acting men? It is not in the slightest degree true. ( R. A. Hallam, D. D. ). Dignity of man N. Emmons, D. D. The dignity of man appears from his bearing the image of his Maker. God has, besides, enstamped a dignity upon man by giving him not only a rational, but an immortal existence. The soul, which is properly the man, shall survive the body and live for ever. The dignity of man also appears from the great attention and regard which God hath paid to him. God indeed takes care of all His creatures, and His tender mercies are over all His works: but man has always been the favourite child of Providence. I. MAN HATH A CAPACITY FOR CONSTANT AND PERPETUAL PROGRESSION IN KNOWLEDGE. II. MAN HATH A CAPACITY FOR HOLINESS AS WELL AS KNOWLEDGE. His rational and moral faculties both capacitate and oblige him to be holy. His perception and volition, in connection with his reason and conscience, enable him to discern and feel the right and wrong of actions, and the beauty and deformity of characters. This renders him capable of doing justly, loving mercy, and walking humbly with God. III. THAT MAN HATH A CAPACITY FOR HAPPINESS, EQUAL TO HIS CAPACITY FOR HOLINESS AND KNOWLEDGE. Knowledge and holiness are the grand pillars which support all true and substantial happiness; which invariably rises or falls, accordingly as these are either stronger or weaker. Knowledge and holiness in the Deity are the source of all his happiness. Angels rise in felicity as they rise in holiness and knowledge. And saints here below grow in happiness as they grow in grace, and in the knowledge of holy and Divine objects. IV. THAT MAN HATH A CAPACITY FOR GREAT AND NOBLE ACTIONS. 1. We may justly infer from the nature and dignity of man, that we are under indispensable obligations to religion. Our moral obligations to religion are interwoven with the first principles of our nature. And, as man is formed for religion, so religion is the ornament and perfection of his nature. The man of religion is, in every supposable situation, the man of dignity. Pain, poverty, misfortune, sickness and death, may indeed veil, but they cannot destroy his dignity, which sometimes shines with more resplendent glory under all these ills and clouds of life. 2. This subject may help us to ascertain the only proper and immutable boundaries of human knowledge: such boundaries of our knowledge as arise from the frame and constitution of our nature, and not from any particular state or stage of our existence. 3. This subject gives us reason to suppose, that men, in the present state, may carry their researches into the works of nature, much farther than they have ever yet carried them. The fields of science, though they have been long traversed by strong and inquisitive minds, are so spacious, that many parts remain yet undiscovered. 4. The observations, which have been made upon the nobler powers and capacities of the human mind, may embolden the sons of science to aim to be originals. They are strong enough to go alone, if they only have sufficient courage and resolution. They have the same capacities, and the same original sources of knowledge, that the ancients enjoyed. 5. We are under indispensable obligations to cultivate and improve our minds in all the branches of human knowledge. All our natural powers are so many talents, which, in their own nature, lay us under moral obligations to improve them to the best advantage. Being men, we are obliged to act like men, and not like the horse or the mule which have no understanding. ( N. Emmons, D. D. ) Show thyself a man W. J. Woods, B. A. On the sixth of March, in the year 1741, the brilliant statesman, William Pitt, afterwards Earl of Chatham, felt it necessary to apologise from his place in the House of Commons for what he styled "the atrocious crime of being a young man." The sneers at youth which provoked this wrathful protest are seldom heard to-day. In this more democratic age the value of young men as a factor in human affairs is better understood. The elder Disraeli has pointed out that "almost everything that is great in" the story of the race has been done by youth, and Thomas Carlyle has taught us that the history of heroes is the history of young men. We remember that in war the victories of Hannibal and Alexander, of Clive and Napoleon, were the triumphs of young men; that Innocent m. and Leo X., the greatest of the Popes, had won the tiara before they were thirty-seven, and that Martin Luther at five-and-thirty had achieved the Reformation. We remember that Pascal and Sir Isaac Newton had written their greatest treatises before they were thirty; that Raphael and Correggio among painters; Byron, Shelley, and Keats among poets; Mozart, Beethoven, Mendelssohn, Schubert, and Bellini among musicians — these, and many more too numerous to quote, had won their place among the immortals and died while they were yet young men. We have come to recognise that the qualities which command success — dash, courage, hopefulness, fertility of invention and resources — are often more abundant in youth than in age; and knowing how largely young men have made the world's history in time past, we look to young men as the history-makers of time present and to come. There is little peril to-day of our despising young men on account of their youth; we rather need to be warned against despising old men on account of their age. The position which young men thus take in modern life adds a tone of deeper emphasis and keener urgency to the ancient, familiar, and inspiring exhortation of my text. The injunction echoes the words which Moses addressed to Joshua when he entrusted him with command. A thousand years later we meet it again in Paul's appeal to Timothy: "Thou, therefore, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus," as also in the exhortation to the Corinthians, when Timothy was coming amongst them: "Watch ye; stand fast in the faith; quit you like men; be strong!" Again and again in profane history, in the pages of Homer, Herodotus, or Xenophon, we find great chieftains charging their followers in the same strain. modern history likewise takes up the call, Latimer in the fire exclaiming: "Be of good comfort, Master Ridley; play the man!" Nelson at Trafalgar sounding the war-cry: "England expects every man to do his duty." Every mother who sends her son into the world breathes the spirit of it.. The words imply an ideal. John Trebonius, Martin Luther s schoolmaster, always took his hat off to his schoolboys. "Who can tell," he would say, "what man there may be here? "There was wisdom in the act, for among those boys was the solitary monk that shook the world. Yet it is not every man who becomes all that we mean by a man. Vanity emasculates some. and they become — not men, but the show-blocks of their hatter, the lay-figures and walking advertisements of their tailor. Indolence destroys others, and they become — not men, but manikins dependent on the charity of their relations, and parasites that live by suction. Vice is, the degradation of others, until, sinking below shame, unworthy utterly of the human form — erect, divine," they become as swine in sensuality or as wolves in brutal ferocity. But even if men escape these degradations they may still remain immeasurably below the standard implied in this great word, "a man." Unless above himself he can Erect himself, how poor a thing is man! What, then, is this ideal? What is it that every woman puts into her love and every man into his self-respect when we sound the challenge: "Show thyself a man? What are the marks by which a sterling manhood may be known. I. ONE MARK OF MANHOOD IS STRENGTH. "Be thou strong, therefore, and show thyself a man." In the notion of an ideal man we all include the attribute of physical strength. It is true that some have asserted their manhood in spite of bodily infirmity. The Apostle Paul carried the Gospel over two continents, notwithstanding that he was half blind and paralysed. Richard Baxter , the most voluminous writer and most successful pastor of his day, was a lifelong invalid. Dr. George Wilson was accustomed to deliver his lectures with a great blister on his chest. Bishop Butler, who wrote the Analogy of Religion , and James Watt, inventor of the steam engine, were both so harassed with bile and consequent melancholy as to be constantly tempted to make away with themselves. The lives of such men are notable illustrations of the triumph of mental energy over bodily infirmities, and should encourage those of us who suffer from constitutional debility; but they do not make physical weakness either natural or desirable. Young men ought to be strong, ought to take pleasure in vigorous exercises, ought to remember the ancient proverb: "The glory of young men is their strength." In this matter of physical culture I say to every young man: "Shew thyself a man." More, however, than either physical or mental strength, as sunlight is more than moonlight or starlight, is moral strength. In the high firmament of ideal manhood, moral strength is the greater light that rules the day. You must put the dement of conscience, you must put love for righteousness and hatred of evil-doing into your conception of manly vigour, or you never can truly say of any man what Marc Antony said of Brutus: — The elements were So mixed in him that Nature might stand up And say to all the world — this was a man. II. A SECOND MARK OF MANHOOD IS SAGACITY. Milton asks: "What is strength without a double share of wisdom?" and then he adds: "Strength is not made to rule, but to subserve, where wisdom bears command." He that would show himself a man must couple sagacity with strength; for we live in a world of illusions, which are like traps at a young man's feet. You young men of this new generation are face to face with what Carlyle described as "the Everlasting No." To every precept of heaven the devil brings a "No." "Fear God and keep His commandments." "No," says the devil; "indulge your passions." "Man's chief end is to glorify God and enjoy Him for ever." "No," says the devil; "man's chief end is to glorify himself and enjoy his own way." "He that findeth his life shall lose it, and he that loseth his life for My sake shall find it." "No," says the devil; "let every other man be damned, body and soul, and what does it matter to you? This "Everlasting No" meets us at every call of duty, and has to be resisted and foresworn once and for ever, or we cut ourselves adrift from every possibility of achieving the ideal manhood. Thousands of men to-day are crippled and emasculated by this negative of unbelief. Their loss is incalculable. Themselves are stripped of blessing, and their influence is emptied of power. To the devil's "Everlasting No" do you oppose God's "Everlasting Yes." Be positive and practical; add sagacity to strength. III. A third mark of manhood is saintliness. A saint is one who lives unto God, and in whom God's will is law. Here manliness completes itself. Man being created in the image of God, we can regard none as attaining the ideal of manhood who does not in thought, purpose, impulse, and deed reflect the God in whom he lives, moves, and has his being; and is not this what we mean by saintliness? Saintliness includes honesty, for it accepts the golden rule: "Whatsoever ye would that men should do to you do ye also to them"; and does not Pope affirm " an honest man's the noblest work of God"? Saintliness includes the service of others; for every saint is a follower of Him who "came not to be ministered unto, but to minister and give His life a ransom for many." And does not Lord Lytton remind us — That man is great, and he alone Who serves a greatness not his own For neither praise nor pelf. Content to know and be unknown, Whole in himself!Strength, sagacity, saintliness — these three, and the greatest of these is saintliness, if any one of us would show himself a man. ( W. J. Woods, B. A. ) Manhood G. H. Smyth. The last words of any one, as he takes his departure for the eternal world, are always of interest to those left behind. Even the last utterances of the criminal on the scaffold will be read by thousands, who would not have listened to one word of his when he stood begging at their door. The last words of great and good men, when spoken to those near and dear to them, are therefore of especial interest. I. THE CHARGE OF THE DYING FATHER. It is that of a king to his successor, who is soon to ascend the throne of Israel. The position is so responsible, the charge will be long and weighty. But no; how short the address, how few the directions — "Show thyself a man" Be a man, that is all. Yes, but that is everything. Be a man, such as God made; not the distorted, crooked, perverted creature sin has made. II. WHAT IS IMPLIED IN THIS CHARGE. Vir was the word the Romans used for man, and from which our word virtue comes. Virtue, too, with them meant courage, heroism. Whatever therefore is virtuous is manly. Truthfulness is a virtue, and therefore manly. God is truth. Man is most manly when most like God, for he was made in the image of God. Honesty is paying our just debts, paying honour to whom honour is due, exercising supreme love to God, and loving our fellow-men as ourselves ( Matthew 22:27 ). Hence, a true man, a real man, must be a Christian and a gentleman. Temperance, patience, kindness, gentleness, unselfishness, are all virtues, and therefore manly. The gentleman's code of honour is found in Philippians 4:8 . III. THE FOUNDATION OF MANHOOD IS STRENGTH. Strength of purpose, will-power, determination, self-control, power to resist popular customs when wrong, prevalent vices that have become aristocratic, fashions and habits of evil that have fastened on people whom you consider above you in age, experience, and profession; power to be called eccentric, odd, queer, to be sneered at. You need a courage that will not dilly-dally with evil, but at the first solicitation say "no," that will "dare to do right, dare to be true." Hence in this brief charge the very first accents are, " Be thou strong." David knew it required strength. IV. THE SOURCE OF THIS STRENGTH IS IN GOD. Moses, Joshua, Paul, Luther, Wesley, were men of mighty power, and they all found their strength in God. V. THE IMPORTANT AIM OF THIS CHARGE WAS THE RIGHT DEVELOPMENT AND FORMATION OF CHARACTER. This should be the first aim of every young man. This is the first aim of the Gospel, now so often overlooked in this busy, bustling, noisy age. Paul's first; instruction to Timothy was, "Take heed unto thyself." Deceit, falsehood, lust, etc., are all intruders. Cast them out, show thyself. Let not the animal reign, but the man. Be a man, and then you will be what every true man is — a king. ( G. H. Smyth. ) How men are made D. H. Martin, D. D. To be a man requires a trinity of qualities: a strong body, a full-orbed mind, and a spiritual nature. 1. Young men, it is your duty to cultivate your physical strength by athletic sports, gymnastics, and other exercises that will help to fortify the noble temple in which God has housed your mind and soul. It matters not how valuable the possessions that are stored in a house, if the house is insecure or the roof leaky. It is no credit to a man to be so careless about the house in which the priceless treasures of mind and spirit are placed that the building becomes worn out before its time. If you and I are going to do efficient work in this the busiest age of the world's history, if we are to hold our own in the fierce competition of this the greatest of all commercial periods, we will need sturdy muscles, stout lungs, healthy livers, and good digestion. A man handicaps himself seriously in the race of life who pays no regard to the rules of health. On the other hand, a man with a healthy body has better chances of success, because health inspires him with hope and ambition. Thomas Carlyle gave to the world a jaundiced view of many things because he had a weak stomach. What misery he caused in his own home, and in the life of that patient martyr-wife of his, has been revealed in the letters of Jane Welsh Carlyle. Many a man who most sacredly keeps the Ten Commandments breaks with impunity the laws of health. 2. The development of the body, however, is not all that makes up man. A prize-fighter has a well-developed body, but his influence does not count for much outside of the prize-ring. There is a mind to be cultivated and a soul. The man who devotes himself entirely to physical development will be apt to forget the needs of the other two parts of his nature. If all the energy in a man's nature is running to brawn, there will be nothing left to run to brain. The men who have compelled the world's attention have not been physical giants hut men of mental and moral muscle. Napoleon, Wellington, and Grant were not great in body. If the ideal of a perfect man consisted only in physical qualities, we should be lower in the scale than certain animals. The ex surpasses a man in muscular strength; the antelope in speed; the hound in keenness of scent; the eagle in eyesight; the rabbit in acuteness of hearing; the honey-bee in delicacy of taste; the spider in fineness of nervous energy. So we cannot measure a man by his body, nor by his material possessions. We have advanced beyond the age in which the world counted as its greatest heroes Hercules, Ajax, Croesus, Miltiades. The world to-day is ruled not by muscle, but by mind and heart. The bravest are the tenderest, the loving are the daring. A young man's value to the world and to himself depends largely on the cultivation of his intellect. Just as in the cultivation of the body you have to regard suitable food and proper exercise, so in the development of the mind you have to consider the kind of food. Every young man ought to mark out for himself a course of reading in history, biography, poetry, and philosophy. Another thing: As you would not knowingly take into your system diseased meat, or decayed fruit or vegetables, in like manner you will not desire to poison your mind by the reading of impure books. The quality of our thoughts determines the quality of our character. Impure thoughts are worms which eat away the tissues of moral character. The man who falls a victim to temptation is the man whose character has become worm-eaten. Guard most sacredly the door of the mind, and keep it closed against the entrance of evil thoughts. Had General Grant been a man of weak will, he never could have carried the campaigns of the Civil War through to success. Yet his memoirs reveal a man with a heart as tender as a girl's, hating war and disliking the very sound of a gun, but possessed of such self-command that to foresee a thing necessary to be done was to command, even though he had to fight it out on one line all summer. Opposition, discouragement, difficulties, never can keep a man of will power down. The party leaders at Rome thought they would get rid of the ambitious young Caesar, so they gave him a commission which necessitated a prolonged absence from Rome and a difficult expedition into the heart of an un-civilised and unexplored region of country. They said: "Rome never again will hear of young Caesar." But the young man conquered Gaul, and returning after a campaign of ten years seized the sceptre of imperial power. It is a sad thing to see a man in whom the will power has gone to decay. Dr. Maudsley, the English scientist, says the beginning of recovery from mental derangement is always a revival of the power of the will. When an expert in an insane asylum finds a patient able to execute some new plan of conduct, and to hold himself in the pursuit of it for hours at a time, he is apt to say that that man will soon go out of the asylum. 3. Let me now come to the final quality that goes into the makeup of symmetrical manhood, and that is the spiritual nature. Physical strength is good, but it is only the cellar foundation

Benson Commentary 1 Kings 2:1 Now the days of David drew nigh that he should die; and he charged Solomon his son, saying, 1 Kings 2:1-2 . The days of David drew nigh, that he must die — As he himself was sensible. And he charged Solomon his son — After the example of Abraham, the father of the faithful, Genesis 18:19 . I go the way of all the earth — Even the sons and heirs of heaven must go the way of all the earth, of all who dwell thereon. But they walk with pleasure in this way, through the valley of the shadow of death. Prophets, yea, kings, must go this way to brighter light and honour than prophecy or sovereignty. Be thou strong — For, to govern his people according to the law of God, required great fortitude or strength of mind. And show thyself a man — In manly wisdom, and courage, and constancy, though thou art but young in years. 1 Kings 2:2 I go the way of all the earth: be thou strong therefore, and shew thyself a man; 1 Kings 2:3 And keep the charge of the LORD thy God, to walk in his ways, to keep his statutes, and his commandments, and his judgments, and his testimonies, as it is written in the law of Moses, that thou mayest prosper in all that thou doest, and whithersoever thou turnest thyself: 1 Kings 2:3-4 . And keep the charge of the Lord thy God — Here we find David inculcating, in his last moments, the great ruling principle; the foundation-stone of the Hebrew state, and which in some measure distinguishes it from all other governments that have ever subsisted. For the whole strength and stability of that state was built, not upon the riches or forces of the kingdom, but upon a strict observance of the statutes and commandments of the Lord. As it is written in the law of Moses — Which the prince was enjoined to transcribe and read, ( Deuteronomy 17:11 ,) that he might govern his own and his people’s actions by it. That thou mayest prosper — Or, behave thyself prudently. Hereby he intimates that religion is the truest reason of state, and that all true wisdom and good success depend upon piety. That the Lord may confirm his word — Fulfil his promise, the condition upon which it was suspended being performed. Thus, to engage him to keep the charge of the Lord, he represents unto him the gracious promise which God had made him, to perpetuate the kingdom in his family without interruption, provided his children sincerely and heartily cleaved to God in faithful and conscientious obedience to his commandments. 1 Kings 2:4 That the LORD may continue his word which he spake concerning me, saying, If thy children take heed to their way, to walk before me in truth with all their heart and with all their soul, there shall not fail thee (said he) a man on the throne of Israel. 1 Kings 2:5 Moreover thou knowest also what Joab the son of Zeruiah did to me, and what he did to the two captains of the hosts of Israel, unto Abner the son of Ner, and unto Amasa the son of Jether, whom he slew, and shed the blood of war in peace, and put the blood of war upon his girdle that was about his loins, and in his shoes that were on his feet. 1 Kings 2:5 . Moreover, thou knowest, &c. — After David had given Solomon this general charge, he proceeded to direct him to do some particular acts of justice and kindness, and first of all, bids him remember how Joab had acted. We must not look upon this admonition of David, on his death-bed, as proceeding from a spirit of private revenge, but as advising the execution of a public piece of justice which the circumstances of things would not permit him to inflict before. Certainly the punishment of Joab was owing both to God and man, for his treacherous and cruel murder of Abner and Amasa; and, therefore, David here, in justice to his people, and the divine laws, ordered his son and successor to do that, when his throne was fully established, which he could not execute himself for want of sufficient power, Joab’s interest being then so great, that it might have thrown the state into a fresh civil war, had any steps been taken to inflict punishment upon him. What Joab the son of Zeruiah did to me — That is, against me. For Joab’s murder of Abner and Amasa was a great injury to David, as it was a breach of his laws and peace, a contempt of his person and government, a pernicious example to his subjects, and a great scandal to him, giving people reason to suspect that Joab had been only David’s instrument, to effect what he secretly designed. And shed the blood of war in peace — He slew them as if they had been in the state of war, when there was not only a cessation of arms, but also a treaty of peace. And put the blood of war upon his girdle — This is added to denote his impenitence, that although by his perfidious manner of killing them, when he pretended to embrace them, he stained his own garments with their blood, yet he was not ashamed of it, but gloried in it, and marched boldly along with the army, with the same girdle and shoes which were sprinkled with their blood. 1 Kings 2:6 Do therefore according to thy wisdom, and let not his hoar head go down to the grave in peace. 1 Kings 2:6 . Do therefore according to thy wisdom — What in reason and justice thou seest to be fit. For though I was forced to forbear him, I never forgave him. Let not his hoar head go down to the grave in peace — Punish him according to his demerits. “This dying order of David,” says Dr. Dodd, referring to Dr. Chandler, “was an order worthy of a good king, and fit to be given in the last moments of his life. The crimes which drew down this punishment upon Joab, have already been expatiated upon. Many reasons concurred to prevent David’s calling him to an account; but it is plain he never forgot nor forgave his crime: nay, he could not, consistently with the law, have forgiven him if he had been inclined to it. His deferring his punishment so long, was no reason why he should always do it. Reasons of state prevented its being inflicted before, and reasons of state required its being put in execution at this juncture. In time of war it was dangerous to attempt it, on account of the power, influence, and military skill of Joab; in time of peace it was safe, because Joab’s power was then upon the decline, and his services were unnecessary. Joab was ambitions, enterprising, and restless, and having not proved very loyal to the father, might have practised the same perfidy against the son; who being young, and scarcely settled in his throne, might have suffered from his treachery, his want of fidelity, and his ambitions views, which were insatiable.” 1 Kings 2:7 But shew kindness unto the sons of Barzillai the Gileadite, and let them be of those that eat at thy table: for so they came to me when I fled because of Absalom thy brother. 1 Kings 2:7 . Show kindness to the sons of Barzillai — David’s gratitude here expressed is remarkable. Barzillai only desired him to show kindness to Chimham, 2 Samuel 19:37 ; but he extends it to all his sons. Let them be of those that eat at thy table — As Mephibosheth had done at David’s table. It is probable Mephibosheth was now dead, for otherwise David would not have forgotten him. For so they came to me — Such kindness they showed me; inviting him to Barzillai’s house, who sustained him in his great distress, 2 Samuel 19:32 . 1 Kings 2:8 And, behold, thou hast with thee Shimei the son of Gera, a Benjamite of Bahurim, which cursed me with a grievous curse in the day when I went to Mahanaim: but he came down to meet me at Jordan, and I sware to him by the LORD, saying, I will not put thee to death with the sword. 1 Kings 2:8 . Behold thou hast with thee Shimei, &c., which cursed me with a grievous curse — “David,” says Delaney, “when he was importuned to punish Shimei, ( 2 Samuel 16:9 ; 2 Samuel 19:21 ,) imitated the mercy of God, who waits that he may be gracious. Had he copied after any lower pattern, he had not spared Shimei, in the very instant of passion and provocation; nor would he afterward have forgiven him, in the fulness of prosperity and power. He very well knew how much the remission of personal injuries became the kingly character, and, therefore, he gave Shimei his life, and confirmed the grant by an oath. But then it must be remembered, that the obligation of the oath was purely personal; for so he himself explains it, saying, I sware unto him by the Lord, I will not put thee to death by the sword. And, therefore, though David was bound, Solomon was at full liberty to vindicate the majesty of kings, in chastising this high insult upon his father in such a manner as he thought fit: nor was there any danger of doing this to excess, when the chastisement was deferred to the calm and cool season of dispassionate justice; when neither passion nor personal resentment could inflame the vengeance. David well knew how much it became the piety of his character to submit himself and his concerns to the divine disposal, throughout the whole course of his life; but could he, for this reason, wholly renounce the interest of justice? Or, if he could, he very well knew how dangerous an example it might be to his successors, to suffer such injuries and insults upon majesty to pass unpunished: and, therefore, when he had acted up to the piety and dignity of his own character, he very wisely admonished his son to act up to the wisdom of his.” 1 Kings 2:9 Now therefore hold him not guiltless: for thou art a wise man, and knowest what thou oughtest to do unto him; but his hoar head bring thou down to the grave with blood. 1 Kings 2:9 . Now therefore hold him not guiltless — Though I spared his life, do not treat him as an innocent person, nor consider him as one reconciled to my family, and to thy succession to the throne. He is Shimei still, and wants nothing but a fair opportunity to declare it. Clear him not, therefore, as I did, if thou findest him guilty of any mal-practices; but his hoar head bring down, &c. — Cut him off as an old offender and dangerous enemy, to secure thy own peace, and the safety of thy government. In this sense Josephus understands the words. But, certainly, David’s telling Solomon, that he sware to Shimei he would not put him to death for his outrage and treason, is a demonstrative proof that he did not advise Solomon to put him to death for the crime that he himself had solemnly forgiven; for can any one imagine David would tell Solomon that he had sworn not to put Shimei to death, and in the same breath order him, in defiance of his oath, to be put to death? If he had intended that Solomon should immediately put him to death, there would have been neither reason nor sense in the words, Thou art a wise man, and knowest what thou oughtest to do unto him. For to what purpose was it to tell Solomon that he knew how to behave to Shimei, if David’s command was immediately to cut him off, and Solomon understood him in that sense? But it is certain Solomon did not understand his father in that sense, by his ordering him to build a house for himself in Jerusalem, ( 1 Kings 2:36 ,) as well as from the different manner in which he treated Shimei and Joab. The fact is, David advised his son to keep a strict watch over Shimei, and to put him to death only, if, on any new offence, he should again forfeit his life; and this, it is hoped, has been made appear to be the truth of the case. Now, how is this inconsistent with piety, or the advice of a prince on his death-bed? It is true, forgiveness of enemies is a duty, provided they cease to become our enemies; but no man is obliged, by any law, so to forgive an enemy, continuing such, as not to take the proper methods to guard against the effects of his enmity, and bring him to justice, if no other method will prove effectual. Much less is a prince obliged so to forgive an implacable enemy to his crown and government, and one who is likely to disturb the settlement of the crown in his successor, as not to order the successor to be upon his guard against him, and punish him, when guilty, according to his demerits. Such a caution and order is what he owes to his people; he may die as a private person, in charity with all mankind, and forgive every private injury against himself; and yet, as a prince, advise what is necessary for the public good after his decease, and even the execution of particular persons, if, by abusing the lenity and respite they once received, they should be guilty of new and capital offences. — Chandler. Doctor Waterland, Le Clerc, and Calmet, give the same interpretation with Doctor Chandler. The reader will probably think that the above reasoning sufficiently justifies David in this particular, even on supposition that the text is rightly translated, which, however, Dr. Delaney is of opinion it is not. The Hebrew particle, ? , vau, he thinks, ought to have been rendered here, as in all similar cases, not connectively, but disjunctively, as it is Proverbs 30:8 , and in many other places. “Agur,” says he, “beseeches God to keep him from the extremes of poverty and wealth. If the particle vau were to be interpreted here connectively, the petition would run thus: Give me not poverty and riches. Every one sees the absurdity of this petition; and therefore the translators rightly rendered it, Give me neither poverty nor riches. In the same analogy, the passage in question, rightly translated, will stand thus: Now, therefore, neither hold him guiltless, ( for thou art a wise man, and knowest what thou oughtest to do unto him, ) nor his hoar head bring thou down to the grave with blood. This advice, in this sense, is full of humanity, as well as wisdom, and Solomon (we see) understood and observed it in this sense, and in no other.” 1 Kings 2:10 So David slept with his fathers, and was buried in the city of David. 1 Kings 2:10-11 . So David slept with his fathers — He died with the satisfaction of seeing his own son his successor, the wisest and the hopefulest prince of the whole earth, and with the assurance of God’s peculiar favour to his posterity, from whence he had already, in the clearest light of prophetic vision, seen the Messiah, the Lord of life, to arise; of whose dominion, and the increase of his government and glory, he well knew, by the Spirit of God upon him, there would be no end. And was buried in the city of David — In that part of Jerusalem which was called by his name, because he took it from the Jebusites. Seven years reigned he in Hebron — More precisely, seven years and six months; ( 2 Samuel 5:5 ;) but smaller numbers are often omitted in Scripture computations, and only the larger noticed. 1 Kings 2:11 And the days that David reigned over Israel were forty years: seven years reigned he in Hebron, and thirty and three years reigned he in Jerusalem. 1 Kings 2:12 Then sat Solomon upon the throne of David his father; and his kingdom was established greatly. 1 Kings 2:12 . Then sat Solomon upon the throne, &c. — The kingdom was settled upon him with universal consent and approbation. His kingdom was established — He had the hearty affections of his people, which all men know to be a prince’s best and surest establishment. 1 Kings 2:13 And Adonijah the son of Haggith came to Bathsheba the mother of Solomon. And she said, Comest thou peaceably? And he said, Peaceably. 1 Kings 2:13-15 . She said, Comest thou peaceably? — Or with some evil design against me or my son? which she might well suspect, knowing his ambition and envy at Solomon, and his hatred against her, as the chief cause of his being cast down from his aspiring views and high hopes. He said, Thou knowest that the kingdom is mine — Both by right of primogeniture and actual inauguration. And all Israel set their faces on me — They looked on me as their king and my father’s successor, and expected that he would confirm my election. He pretends that the generality of the people favoured his views, and wished him to be king. Howbeit the kingdom is turned about, and is become my brother’s — Is translated from me to him by the vicissitude of human affairs, and the changeable humour of the people. For it was his from the Lord — Either, 1st, By God’s providence so disposing David’s mind, and the people’s hearts: or rather, 2d, By God’s appointment, and particular designation: wherein he seems to acquiesce, affectionately terming Solomon his brother, that he might deceive both her and him into a belief that he was far from any design of usurping the government. 1 Kings 2:14 He said moreover, I have somewhat to say unto thee. And she said, Say on. 1 Kings 2:15 And he said, Thou knowest that the kingdom was mine, and that all Israel set their faces on me, that I should reign: howbeit the kingdom is turned about, and is become my brother's: for it was his from the LORD. 1 Kings 2:16 And now I ask one petition of thee, deny me not. And she said unto him, Say on. 1 Kings 2:17 And he said, Speak, I pray thee, unto Solomon the king, (for he will not say thee nay,) that he give me Abishag the Shunammite to wife. 1 Kings 2:17 . That he give me Abishag to wife — It is not likely that either Adonijah or Bath-sheba was ignorant that it was unlawful for any man to marry his father’s wife: but they perhaps thought that as David knew her not, the marriage had not been completed. 1 Kings 2:18 And Bathsheba said, Well; I will speak for thee unto the king. 1 Kings 2:19 Bathsheba therefore went unto king Solomon, to speak unto him for Adonijah. And the king rose up to meet her, and bowed himself unto her, and sat down on his throne, and caused a seat to be set for the king's mother; and she sat on his right hand. 1 Kings 2:19 . The king rose up to meet her, and bowed himself — For the high dignity to which he was advanced, did not make him forget the honour due to a parent: an amiable example this, to teach all children to continue to show respect to their parents, how much soever they may be advanced above them in wealth, dignity, or honour. She sat on his right hand — The most honourable place, next to the king. 1 Kings 2:20 Then she said, I desire one small petition of thee; I pray thee , say me not nay. And the king said unto her, Ask on, my mother: for I will not say thee nay. 1 Kings 2:20-21 . I desire one small petition of thee — So she esteemed it, because she did not perceive Adonijah’s design in it, nor the circumstances connected with it. I will not say thee nay — Supposing thy request can be lawfully and safely granted, and will be productive of no injury to myself or others. Let Abishag be given to Adonijah thy brother — That is, thy brother by the father’s side, and whom brotherly affection and relation oblige thee to gratify; at least, in small things. 1 Kings 2:21 And she said, Let Abishag the Shunammite be given to Adonijah thy brother to wife. 1 Kings 2:22 And king Solomon answered and said unto his mother, And why dost thou ask Abishag the Shunammite for Adonijah? ask for him the kingdom also; for he is mine elder brother; even for him, and for Abiathar the priest, and for Joab the son of Zeruiah. 1 Kings 2:22 . Ask for him the kingdom also — His design is not upon Abishag, but upon the kingdom; which by this means he hopes to recover. “That Adonijah had such a design is very probable,” says Poole, “both from his temper, for he was an aspiring and designing man, highly discontented with Solomon’s government, and desirous of a change; and from the nature of the thing, because he would not have made so daring and presumptuous a request, if he had not had some great design in it.” For he is my elder brother — And therefore looks on the kingdom as his by birthright, and the law of nations, and thinks he may lawfully endeavour to recover his own, and cast me out as a usurper; to accomplish which the seeking Abishag to wife is the first step. Even for him, and for Abiathar and Joab — “It is very likely,” says the author last quoted, “though not expressed, that he, and Joab, and Abiathar, were engaged in some design against Solomon, and that Solomon had obtained information of it; and therefore he did, and reasonably might, take this attempt of Adonijah to obtain Abishag, for an indication, and the first overt act of his treason.” 1 Kings 2:23 Then king Solomon sware by the LORD, saying, God do so to me, and more also, if Adonijah have not spoken this word against his own life. 1 Kings 2:23 . Then King Solomon sware by the Lord — Once here, and again 1 Kings 2:24 , which he did to oblige himself irrevocably to perform his resolution, and to prevent all intercession for Adonijah’s life, the matter being, he believed, of the greatest importance to him. 1 Kings 2:24 Now therefore, as the LORD liveth, which hath established me, and set me on the throne of David my father, and who hath made me an house, as he promised, Adonijah shall be put to death this day. 1 Kings 2:24 . And set me on the throne of David — For, though Adonijah be my elder brother, yet I have an undoubted right and title to the crown, from the promise and appointment of that God who disposes of all kingdoms, and especially this of Israel, to whom he pleaseth; and therefore Adonijah in this and his former attempt is guilty of treason against me, and of rebellion against God. And who hath made me a house — Who hath given me posterity, as this phrase often means; see Exodus 1:21 ; for Rehoboam was probably born before this time: or rather, who hath established me in the house and throne of David, and so hath fulfilled in and to me the promise made to him respecting his house, ( 2 Samuel 7:11 ,) and the settlement of the crown in him and his seed. Adonijah shall be put to death this day — “Had Adonijah lived under our constitution, he would have had a fair hearing before conviction. But we should remember that in the kingdoms of the East the government was absolute, and the power of life or death entirely in the prince; so that Solomon, without the formality of any process, could pronounce his brother dead; and because he conceived that in cases of this nature delays were dangerous, might send immediately and have him despatched; though we cannot but say that it would have been more to his commendation, had he showed more clemency and spared his life.” — Dodd. 1 Kings 2:25 And king Solomon sent by the hand of Benaiah the son of Jehoiada; and he fell upon him that he died. 1 Kings 2:25 . Solomon sent by the hand of Benaiah, &c. — For the execution of justice was not then committed to obscure persons, as it is now, but to persons of great honour and authority. Notwithstanding what has been observed in the two or three preceding notes, probably the reader will be inclined to think, as certainly many are, that it is far from being clear Solomon acted right in putting Adonijah to death, or that the latter had any ill design in asking Abishag. And yet, what certainly is of great weight, we nowhere find Solomon censured in the Scriptures for this action. 1 Kings 2:26 And unto Abiathar the priest said the king, Get thee to Anathoth, unto thine own fields; for thou art worthy of death: but I will not at this time put thee to death, because thou barest the ark of the Lord GOD before David my father, and because thou hast been afflicted in all wherein my father was afflicted. 1 Kings 2:26-27 . Unto Abiathar — said the king, Get thee to Anathoth — This was a city of the priests, ( Joshua 21:28 ,) where he commanded him to lead a private life; either in that part of the suburbs which fell to his share, or in some land which he had purchased. I will not, at this time, put thee to death — He does not fully pardon him, but reserves to himself a liberty of punishing him afterward if he should see occasion. This he does to keep him in awe, that he might not dare to raise or foment discontents or tumults among the people, which otherwise he might have been inclined to do. Because thou didst bear the ark of the Lord before my father — When he thought fit to carry it out with him; and when thou, as high-priest, wast called to attend upon it. Thus Solomon shows his respect to the sacred office. Because thou hast been afflicted, &c. — Exposed to all the hardships David endured all the time of his exile under Saul, 1 Samuel 22:20 , &c. Here Solomon mixes mercy with justice, and requites Abiathar’s former kindness to David; hereby teaching princes, that they should not write injuries in marble, and benefits in sand and water, as they have been too often observed to do. So Solomon thrust out Abiathar — Either from his office, or at least from the execution of it. That he might fulfil the word of the Lord — Solomon did not do this that he might fulfil the word of the Lord, but because Abiathar had taken the part of Adonijah. But by Solomon’s being moved to do this on account of Abiathar’s rebellion, the word of the Lord was fulfilled, which he had spoken concerning the house of Eli in Shiloh. And in this sense we are to take the same kind of expressions in the New Testament, where things are frequently said to be done to fulfil certain prophecies. 1 Kings 2:27 So Solomon thrust out Abiathar from being priest unto the LORD; that he might fulfil the word of the LORD, which he spake concerning the house of Eli in Shiloh. 1 Kings 2:28 Then tidings came to Joab: for Joab had turned after Adonijah, though he turned not after Absalom. And Joab fled unto the tabernacle of the LORD, and caught hold on the horns of the altar. 1 Kings 2:28 . Then tidings came to Joab — Concerning Adonijah’s death, and Abiathar’s deposition. And Joab fled unto the tabernacle of the Lord — This makes it appear that Joab had had a hand in the counsel mentioned 1 Kings 2:22 , as Solomon suspected. And caught hold on the horns of the altar — It appears from this and some other instances, that it was now become a custom among the Israelites, though by no divine law, to flee to the altar of the Lord, as to an asylum; however, by Solomon’s treatment of Joab on this occasion, it appears, that this privilege was only allowed for some misdemeanours, and not for capital offences, especially murder. And Solomon ( 1 Kings 2:31 ) showed that the altar had better be stained with the blood of a murderer, than be polluted with his touch, in seeking an asylum from it, and thereby escaping the punishment which the divine laws required to be inflicted on him. 1 Kings 2:29 And it was told king Solomon that Joab was fled unto the tabernacle of the LORD; and, behold, he is by the altar. Then Solomon sent Benaiah the son of Jehoiada, saying, Go, fall upon him. 1 Kings 2:29-30 . Go, fall upon him — Namely if he will not come out from thence, as I foresee he will not. Thus saith the king, Come forth — That the king gave this command, though it be not mentioned before, is evident, both from the nature of the thing, for Solomon would not pollute the altar without necessity, and from Benaiah’s affirmation of it; for why should he tell a lie without a cause? It appears, also, from his returning to the king for new orders, upon Joab’s resolution not to come out thence, He said, Nay, but I will die here — For he supposed, either that Solomon would not defile that place with his blood, but would spare him for his respect to it, as he had done Adonijah; or, he had a superstitious conceit, that his dying there might give his guilty and miserable soul some advantage. 1 Kings 2:30 And Benaiah came to the tabernacle of the LORD, and said unto him, Thus saith the king, Come forth. And he said, Nay; but I will die here. And Benaiah brought the king word again, saying, Thus said Joab, and thus he answered me. 1 Kings 2:31 And the king said unto him, Do as he hath said, and fall upon him, and bury him; that thou mayest take away the innocent blood, which Joab shed, from me, and from the house of my father. 1 Kings 2:31 . Do as he hath said — Kill him, though he be there; take him from that place, and then kill him: for Exodus 21:14 , doth not command the ruler to kill the murderer there, but to remove him thence; to take him from the altar, that he may die. That thou mayest take away the innocent blood from me — Kings or judges owe that justice to God, whose vicegerents they are, as to inflict those punishments on offenders which the divine laws require them to inflict: or otherwise, the punishment due to the offenders may with justice fall upon their own heads, as, by not executing the punishment, they, in some measure, give their approbation to the crime. 1 Kings 2:32 And the LORD shall return his blood upon his own head, who fell upon two men more righteous and better than he, and slew them with the sword, my father David not knowing thereof, to wit , Abner the son of Ner, captain of the host of Israel, and Amasa the son of Jether, captain of the host of Judah. 1 Kings 2:32-34 . The Lord shall return his blood — The guilt of the blood which he hath shed. Upon his own head — Shall make him alone bear the punishment of his iniquity. Who fell upon two men more righteous than he — Of more ingenuous and generous tempers, abhorring such treacherous practices; and both of them devoted to, and employed in my father’s service. Prejudice, however, and anger seem here too much to have dictated Solomon’s expressions; for, it is certain, Joab had always been a firm friend to David, and had done him considerable service at a time when both Abner and Amasa had acted against him. Upon the head of his seed for ever — Either as long as he shall have a posterity, or for a long time, as that phrase is frequently used. So that Solomon here pronounces that Joab’s own death should not expiate his guilt; but that his posterity should suffer for it in future generations, according to what David had said, 2 Samuel 3:28-29 . If Solomon spoke by inspiration of God when he uttered these words, no doubt the prediction was fulfilled, and God visited the sins of the father upon the children, as he often does, when the children tread in their progenitors’ sinful steps. But whether, or how far, this was the case, the Scriptures give us no information. But upon David and upon his seed — shall there be peace — In and by this execution of justice upon Joab and such malefactors, my throne shall be established, and God will bless me and mine with peace and prosperity, He was buried in his own house — That is, in some ground belonging and adjoining to his house, and accounted a part of the mansion. In the wilderness — So they called those parts of the country which were but thinly inhabited. 1 Kings 2:33 Their blood shall therefore return upon the head of Joab, and upon the head of his seed for ever: but upon David, and upon his seed, and upon his house, and upon his throne, shall there be peace for ever from the LORD. 1 Kings 2:34 So Benaiah the son of Jehoiada went up, and fell upon him, and slew him: and he was buried in his own house in the wilderness. 1 Kings 2:35 And the king put Benaiah the son of Jehoiada in his room over the host: and Zadok the priest did the king put in the room of Abiathar. 1 Kings 2:36 And the king sent and called for Shimei, and said unto him, Build thee an house in Jerusalem, and dwell there, and go not forth thence any whither. 1 Kings 2:36 . Go not forth thence any whither — Solomon, it is likely, suspected Shimei’s loyalty and fidelity, and therefore ordered this, 1st, for his own security. For by confining him to the royal city, he would have him always under his eye, and in a place where, as in a public theatre, all his words and actions would be narrowly observed. And by removing him from that part of the country where his kindred, and estates, and interest lay, to a place where he was almost a stranger, and yet sufficiently odious for his former and never to be forgotten insolence toward his lord and king, he would be rendered utterly incapable of raising any tumults or seditions. Solomon enjoined this, 2d, as a kind of penalty for his former wickedness, wherein yet there was more mercy than justice, and from which David had not promised him any security, but had only given him his life for the present, or during his own life and reign. 1 Kings 2:37 For it shall be, that on the day thou goest out, and passest over the brook Kidron, thou shalt know for certain that thou shalt surely die: thy blood shall be upon thine own head. 1 Kings 2:37 . In the day thou passest over the brook Kidron, &c. — Which Solomon mentions, because it was in the way to Bahurim, where Shimei’s former and settled habitation was, as appears by comparing 2 Samuel 15:23 , with 1 Kings 16:5 . But Solomon’s meaning was, and so, no doubt, was understood by Shimei, that if he went out of Jerusalem any way, to a greater distance than Kidron was from thence, he should die for it; for when he went to Gath, after his servants,

Expositor's Bible Commentary 1 Kings 2:1 Now the days of David drew nigh that he should die; and he charged Solomon his son, saying, DAVID’S DEATH-BED 1 Kings 2:1-2 " Omnibus idem exitus est, sed et idem domicilium ." -PETRON., Satyr . IN the Book of Samuel we have the last words of David in the form of a brief and vivid psalm, of which the leading principle is, "He that ruleth over men must be just, ruling in the fear of God." A king’s justice must be shown alike in his gracious influence upon the good and his stern justice to the wicked. The worthless sons of Belial are, he says, "to be beaten down like thorns with spear-shafts and iron." The same principle dominates in the charge which he gave to Solomon, perhaps after the magnificent public inauguration of his reign described in 1 Chronicles 28:1-21 ; 1 Chronicles 29:1-30 . He bade his young son to show himself a man, and be rigidly faithful to the law of Moses, earning thereby the prosperity which would never fail to attend true righteousness. Thus would the promise to David-"There shall not fail thee a man on the throne of Israel"-be continued in the time of Solomon. With our Western and Christian views of morality we should have rejoiced if David’s charge to his son had ended there. It is painful to us to read that his last injunctions bore upon the punishment of Joab who had so long fought for him, and of Shimei whom he had publicly pardoned. Between these two stern injunctions came the request that he would show kindness to the sons of Barzillai, the old Gileadite sheykh who had extended such conspicuous hospitality to himself and his weary followers when they crossed the Jordan in their flight from Absalom. But the last words of David, as here recorded, are: "his (Shimei’s) hoar head bring thou down to the grave with blood." In these avenging behests there was nothing which was regarded as unnatural, nothing that would have shocked the conscience of the age. The fact that they are recorded without blame by an admiring historiographer shows that we are reading the annals of times of ignorance which God "winked at." They belong to the era of imperfect moral development, when it was said to them of old time, "Thou shalt love thy neighbor and hate thine enemy," and men had not fully learnt the lesson, "Vengeance is Mine; I will repay, saith the Lord." We must discriminate between the vitia temporis and the vitia hominis . David was trained in the old traditions of the "avenger of blood"; and we cannot be astonished, though we may greatly regret, that his standard was indefinitely below that of the Sermon on the Mount. He may have been concerned for the safety of his son, but to us it must remain a proof of his imperfect moral attainments that he bade Solomon look out for pretexts to "smite the hoary head of inveterate wickedness," and use his wisdom not to let the two offenders go down to the grave in peace. The character of Joab furnishes us with a singular study. He, Abishai, and Asahel were the brave, impetuous sons of Zeruiah, the sister or half-sister of David. They were about his own age, and it is not impossible that they were the grandsons of Nahash, King of Ammon. In the days of Saul they had embraced the cause of David, heart and soul. They had endured all the hardships and fought through all the struggles of his freebooting days. Asahel, the youngest, had been in the front rank of his Gibborim , and his foot was fleet as that of a gazelle upon the mountain. Abishai had been one of the three who, with jeopardy of their lives, had burst their way to Bethlehem when David longed to drink of the water of its well beside the gate. He had also, on one occasion, saved David’s life from the giant Ishbi of Gath, and had slain three hundred Philistines with his spear. His zeal was always ready to flash into action in his uncle’s cause. Joab had been David’s commander-in-chief for forty years. It was Joab who had conquered the Ammonites and Moabites and stormed the City of Waters. It was Joab who, at David’s bare request, had brought about the murder of Uriah. It was Joab who, after wise but fruitless remonstrance, had been forced to number the people. But David had never liked these rough imperious soldiers, whose ways were not his ways. From the first he was unable to cope with them, or keep them in order. In the early days they had treated him with rude familiarity, though in late years they, too, were obliged to approach him with all the forms of Eastern servility. But ever since the murder of Uriah, Joab knew that David’s reputation and David’s throne were in his hand. Joab himself had been guilty of two wild acts of vengeance for which he would have offered some defense, and of one atrocious crime. His murder of the princely Abner, the son of Net, might have been excused as the duty of an avenger of blood, for Abner. with one back-thrust of his mighty spear, had killed the young Asahel, after the vain warning to desist from pursuing him. Abner had only killed Asahel in self-defense; but, jealous of Abner’s power as the cousin of King Saul, the husband of Rizpah, and the commander of the northern army, Joab, after bluntly rebuking David for receiving him, had without hesitation deluded Abner back to Hebron by a false message and treacherously murdered him. Even at that early period of his reign David was either unable or unwilling to punish the outrage, though he ostentatiously deplored it. Doubtless in slaying Absalom, in spite of the king’s entreaty, Joab had inflicted an agonizing wound on the pride and tenderness of his master. But Absalom was in open rebellion, and Joab may have held that David’s probable pardon of the beautiful rebel would be both weak and fatal. This death was inflicted in a manner needlessly cruel, but might have been excused as a death inflicted on the battle-field, though probably Joab had many an old grudge to pay off besides the burning of his barley field. After Absalom’s rebellion David foolishly and unjustly offered the commandership of the army to his nephew Amasa. Amasa was the son of his sister Abigail by an Ishmaelite father, named Jether. Joab simply would not tolerate being superseded in the command which he had earned by lifelong and perilous services. With deadly treachery, in which men have seen the antitype of the world’s worst crime, Joab invited his kinsman to embrace him, and drove his sword into his bowels. David had heard, or perhaps had seen, the revolting spectacle which Joab presented, with the blood of war shed in peace, dyeing his girdle and streaming down to his shoes with its horrible crimson. Yet, even by that act, Joab had once more saved David’s tottering throne. The Benjamite Sheba, son of Bichri, was making head in a terrible revolt, in which he had largely enlisted the sympathy of the northern tribes, offended by the overbearing fierceness of the men of Judah. Amasa had been either incompetent or half-hearted in suppressing this dangerous rising. It had only collapsed when the army welcomed back the strong hand of Joab. But whatever had been the crimes of Joab they had been condoned. David, on more than one occasion, had helplessly cried, "What have I to do with you, ye sons of Zeruiah? I am this day weak though anointed king, and these men, the sons of Zeruiah, are too hard for me." But he had done nothing, and, whether with or against his will, they continued to hold their offices near his person. David did not remind Solomon of the murder of Absalom, nor of the words of menace-words as bold as any subject ever uttered to his sovereign-with which Joab had imperiously hushed his wail over his worthless son. Those words had openly warned the king that, if he did not alter his line of conduct, he should be king no more. They were an insult which no king could pardon, even if he were powerless to avenge. But Joab, like David himself, was now an old man. The events of the last few days had shown that his power and influence were gone. He may have had something to fear from Bathsheba as the wife of Uriah and the granddaughter of Ahithophel; but his adhesion to the cause of Adonijah had doubtless been chiefly due to jealousy of the ever growing influence of the priestly soldier Benaiah, son of Jehoiada, who had so evidently superseded him in his master’s favor. However that may be, the historian faithfully records that David, on his death-bed, neither forgot nor forgave; and all that we can say is, that it would be unfair to judge him by modern or by Christian principles of conduct. The other victim whose doom was bequeathed to the new king was Shimei, the son of Gera. He had cursed David at Bahurim on the day of his flight, and in the hour of his extremest humiliation. He had walked on the opposite side of the valley, flinging stones and dust at David, cursing him with a grievous curse as a man of Belial and a man of blood, and telling him that the loss of his kingdom was the retribution which had fallen upon him for the blood of the House of Saul which he had shed. So grievous was the trial of these insults that the place where the king and his people rested that night received the pathetic name of Ayephim , "the place of the weary." For this conduct Shimei might have pleaded the pent-up animosities of the House of Saul, which had been stripped by David of all its honors, and of which poor lame Mephibosheth was the only scion left, after David had impaled Saul’s seven sons and grandsons in human sacrifice at the demand of the Gibeonites. Abishai, indignant at Shimei’s conduct, had said, "Why should this dead dog curse my lord the king?" and had offered, then and there, to cross the valley and take his head. But David rebuked his generous wrath, and when Shimei came out to meet him on his return with expressions of penitence, David not only promised but swore that he should not die. No further danger surely could be anticipated from the ruined and humiliated House of Saul; yet David bade Solomon to find some excuse for putting Shimei to death. How are we to deal with sins which are recorded of God’s olden saints on the sacred page, and recorded without a word of blame? Clearly we must avoid two errors-the one of injustice, the other of dishonesty. 1. On the one hand, as we have said, we must not judge Abraham, or Jacob, or Gideon, or Jael, or David, as though they were nineteenth-century Christians. Christ Himself taught us that some things inherently undesirable were yet permitted in old days because of the hardness of men’s hearts; and that the moral standards of the days of ignorance were tolerated in all their imperfection until men were able to judge of their own deeds in a purer light. "The times of ignorance God overlooked," says St. Paul, "but now He commandeth men that they should all everywhere repent." {Act 17:30} "Ye have heard that it was said, Thou shalt love thy neighbor, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies," said Our Lord. {Mat 5:43-44} When Bayle and Tindal and many others declaim against "the immorality of the Bible" they are unfair in a high degree. They pass judgment on men who had been trained from infancy in opinions and customs wholly unlike our own, and whose conscience would not be wounded by many things which we have been rightly taught to regard as evil. They apply the enlightenment of two millenniums of Christianity to criticize the more rudimentary conditions of life a millennium before Christ. The wild justice inflicted by an avenger of blood, the rude atrocity of the lex talionis , are rightly abhorrent to us in days of civilization and settled law: they were the only available means of restraining crime in unsettled times and half-civilized communities. In his final injunctions about his enemies, whom he might have dreaded as enemies too formidable for his son to keep in subjection, David may have followed the view of his day that his former condonations had only been co-extensive with his own life, and that the claims of justice ought to be satisfied. 2. But while we admit every palliation, and endeavor to judge justly, we must not fall into the conventionality of representing David’s unforgiving severity as otherwise than reprehensible in itself. Attempts to gloss over moral wrongdoing, to represent it as blameless, to invent supposed Divine sanctions and intuitions in defense of it, can but weaken the eternal claims of the law of righteousness. The rule of right is inflexible: it is not a leaden rule which can be twisted into any shape we like. A crime is none the less a crime though a saint commits it; and imperfect conceptions of the high claims of the moral law, as Christ expounded its Divine significance, do not cease to be imperfect though they may be sometimes recorded without comment on the page of Scripture. No religious opinion can be more fatal to true religion than that wrong can, under any circumstances, become right, or that we may do evil that good may come. Because an act is relatively pardonable, it does not follow that it is not absolutely wrong. If it be dangerous to judge the essential morality of any earlier passage of Scripture by the ultimate laws which Scripture itself has taught us, it is infinitely more dangerous, and essentially Jesuitical, to explain away misdeeds as though, under any circumstances, they could be pleasing to God or worthy of a saint. The total omission of David’s injunctions and of the sanguinary episodes of their fulfillment by the author of the Books of Chronicles, indicates that, in later days, they were thought derogatory to the pure fame both of the warrior-king and of his peaceful son. David slept with his fathers, and passed before that bar where all is judged of truly. His life is an April day, half sunshine and half gloom. His sins were great, but his penitence was deep, lifelong, and sincere. He gave occasion for the enemies of God to blaspheme, but he also taught all who loved God to praise and pray. If his record contains some dark passages, and his character shows many inconsistencies, we can never forget his courage, his flashes of nobleness, his intense spirituality whenever he was true to his better self. His name is a beacon-light of warning against the glamour and strength of evil passions. But he showed us also what repentance can do, and we are sure that his sins were forgiven him because he turned away from his wickedness. "The sacrifices of God are a troubled spirit: a broken and a contrite heart, O God, Thou wilt not despise." "I go the way of all the earth," said David. "In life," says Calmet, "each one has his particular route: one applies to one thing, another to another. But in the way to death they are all re-united. They go to the tomb by one path." David was buried in his own city-the stronghold of Zion; and his sepulcher-on the south part of Ophel, near the pool of Siloam-was still pointed out a thousand years later in the days of Christ. As a poet who had given to the people splendid specimens of lyric songs; as a warrior who had inspired their youth with dauntless courage; as a king who had made Israel a united nation with an impregnable capital, and had uplifted it from insignificance into importance; as the man in whose family the distinctive Messianic hopes of the Hebrews were centered, he must remain to the end of time the most remarkable and interesting figure in the long annals of the Old Dispensation. 1 Kings 2:13 And Adonijah the son of Haggith came to Bathsheba the mother of Solomon. And she said, Comest thou peaceably? And he said, Peaceably. AVENGING JUSTICE 1 Kings 2:13-46 . The wrath of a king is "as messengers of death."- Proverbs 16:14 THE reign of Solomon began with a threefold deed of blood. An Eastern king, surrounded by the many princes of a polygamous family, and liable to endless jealousies and plots, is always in a condition of unstable equilibrium; the death of a rival is regarded as his only safe imprisonment. On the other hand, it must be remembered that Solomon allowed his other brethren and kinsmen to live; and, in point of fact, his younger brother Nathan became the ancestor of the Divine Messiah of his race. It was the restless ambition of Adonijah which again brought down an avalanche of ruin. He and his adherents were necessarily under the cold shadow of royal disfavor, and they must have known that they had sinned too deeply to be forgiven. They felt the position intolerable. "In the light of the king’s countenance is life, and his favor is as a cloud of the latter rain"; but Adonijah, in the prime of strength and the heyday of passion, beautiful and strong, and once the favorite of his father, could not forget the banquet at which all the princes and nobles and soldiers had shouted, "Long live King Adonijah!" That the royalty of one delirious day should be succeeded by the dull and suspected obscurity of dreary years was more than he could endure, if, by any possible subtlety or force, he could avert a doom so unlike his former golden dreams. Was not Solomon at least ten or fifteen years younger than himself? Was not his seat on the throne of his kingdom still insecure? Were not his own followers powerful and numerous? Perhaps one of those followers-the experienced Joab, or Jonathan, son of Abiathar-whispered to him that he need not yet acquiesce in the ruin of his hopes, and suggested a subtle method of strengthening his cause, and keeping his claim before the eyes of the people. Every one knew that Abishag, the fair damsel of Shunem, the ideal of Hebrew maidenhood, was the loveliest virgin who could be found throughout all the land of Israel. Had she been in the strict sense David’s wife or concubine, it would have been regarded as a deadly contravention of the Mosaic law that she should be wedded to one of her stepsons. But as she had only been David’s nurse, what could be more suitable than that so bright a maiden should be united to the handsome prince? It was understood in all Eastern monarchies that the harem of a predecessor belonged to the succeeding sovereign. The first thing that a rival or a usurper aimed at was to win the prestige of possessing the wives of the royal house. Nathan reminds David that the Lord had given his master’s wives into his bosom. Ishbosheth, weak as he was, had been stung into indignation against his general and great-uncle the mighty Abner, because Abner had taken Rizpah, the daughter of Aiah, Saul’s concubine, to wife, which looked like a dangerously ambitious encroachment upon the royal prerogative. Absalom, by the vile counsel of Ahithophel, had openly taken possession of the ten concubines whom his father, in his flight from Jerusalem, had left in charge of the palace. The pseudo-Smerdis, when he revolted against the absent Cambyses, at once seized his seraglio . It is noted even in our English history that the relations between the Earl of Mortimer and Queen Isabella involved danger to the kingdom; and when Admiral Seymour married Queen Catharine Parr, widow of Henry VIII, he at once entered into treasonable conspiracies. Adonijah knew well that he would powerfully further his ulterior purpose if he could secure the hand of the lovely Shunamite. Yet he feared to make the request to Solomon, who had already inspired him with wholesome awe. With pretended simplicity he sought the intercession of the Gebira Bathsheba, who, being the queen-mother, exercised great influence as the first lady of the land. She it was who had placed the jeweled bridal crown with her own hand on the head of her young son ( Song of Solomon 3:11 ). Alarmed at his visit she asked, "Comest thou peaceably?" He came, he humbly assured her, to ask a favor. Might she not think of his case with a little pity? He was the elder son; the kingdom by right of primogeniture was his; all Israel, so he flattered himself, had wished for his accession. But it had all been in vain, Jehovah had given the kingdom to his brother. Might he not be allowed some small consolation, some little accession to his dignity? at least some little source of happiness in his home? Flattered by his humility and his appeal, Bathsheba encouraged him to proceed, and he begged that, as Solomon would refuse no request to his mother, would she ask that Abishag might be his wife? With extraordinary lack of insight, Bathsheba, ambitious as she was, failed to see the subtle significance of the request, and promised to present his petition. She went to Solomon, who immediately rose to meet her, and seated her with all honor on a throne at his right hand. She had only come, she said, to ask "a small petition." "Ask on, my mother," said the king tenderly, "for I will not say thee nay." But no sooner had she mentioned the "small petition" than Solomon burst into a flame of fury. "Why did she not ask for the kingdom for Adonijah at once? He was the elder. He had the chief priest and the chief captain with him. They must be privy to this new plot. But by the God who had given him his father’s kingdom, and established him a house, Adonijah had made the request to his own cost, and should die that day." The command was instantly given to Benaiah, who, as captain of the bodyguard, was also chief executioner. He slew Adonijah that same hour, and so the third of David’s splendid sons died in his youth a death of violence. We pause to ask whether the sudden and vehement outburst of King Solomon’s indignation was only due to political causes? If, as seems almost certain, Abishag is indeed the fair Shulamite of the Song of Songs, there can be little doubt that Solomon himself loved her, and that she was "the jewel of his seraglio ." The true meaning of Canticles is not difficult to read, however much it may lend itself to mystical and allegorical applications. It represents a rustic maiden, faithful to her shepherd lover, resisting all the allurements of a king’s court, and all the blandishments of a king’s affection. It is the one book of Scripture which is exclusively devoted to sing the glory of a pure love. The king is magnanimous; he does not force the beautiful maiden to accept his addresses. Exercising her freedom, and true to the dictates of her heart, she rejoicingly leaves the perfumed atmosphere of the harem of Jerusalem for the sweet and vernal air of her country home under the shadow of its northern hills. Solomon’s impetuous wrath would not be so unaccountable if an unrequited affection added the sting of jealousy to the wrath of offended power. The scene is the more interesting because it is one of the very few personal touches in the story of Solomon, which is chiefly composed of external details, both in Scripture and in such fragments as have been preserved of the pagan historians Dios, Eupolemos, Nicolas Polyhistor, and those referred to by Josephus, Eusebius, and Clemens of Alexandria. The fall of Adonijah involved his chief votaries in ruin. Abiathar had been a friend and follower of David from his youthful days. When Doeg, the treacherous Edomite, had informed Saul that the priests of Nob had shown kindness to David in his hunger and distress, the demoniac king had not shrunk from employing the Edomite herdsman to massacre all on whom he could lay his hands. From this slaughter of eighty-five priests who wore linen ephods, Abiathar had fled to David, who alone could protect him from the king’s pursuit. {1Sa 22:23} In the days when the outlaw lived in dens and caves, the priest had been constantly with him, and had been afflicted in all wherein he was afflicted, and had inquired of God for him. David had recognized how vast was his debt of gratitude to one whose father and all his family had been sacrificed for an act of kindness done to himself. Abiathar had been chief priest for all the forty years of David’s reign. In Absalom’s rebellion he had still been faithful to the king. His son Jonathan had been David’s scout in the city. Abiathar had helped Zadok to carry the Ark to the last house by the ascent to the Mount of Olives, and there he had stood under the olive tree by the wilderness ( 2 Samuel 15:18 (LXX)) till all the people had passed by. If his loyalty had been less ardent than that of his brother-priest Zadok, who had evidently taken the lead in the matter, he had given no ground for suspicion. But, perhaps secretly jealous of the growing influence of his younger rival, the old man, after some fifty years of unswerving allegiance, had joined his lifelong friend Joab in supporting the conspiracy of Adonijah, and had not even now heartily accepted the rule of Solomon. Assuming his complicity in Adonijah’s request, Solomon sent for him, and sternly told him that he was "a man of death," i.e. , that death was his desert. But it would have been outrageous to slay an aged priest, the sole survivor of a family slaughtered for David’s sake, and one who had so long stood at the head of the whole religious organization, wearing the Urim and carrying the Ark. He was therefore summarily deposed from his functions, and dismissed to his paternal fields at Anathoth, a priestly town about six miles from Jerusalem. We hear no more of him; but Solomon’s warning, "I will not at this time put thee to death," was sufficient to show him that, if he mixed himself with court intrigues again, he would ultimately pay the forfeit with his life. Solomon, like Saul, paid very little regard to benefit of the clergy. The doom fell next on the arch-offender Joab, the white-haired hero of a hundred fights, "the Douglas of the House of David." He had, if the reading of the ancient versions be correct, "turned after Adonijah, and had not turned after Solomon." Solomon could hardly have felt at ease when a general so powerful and so popular was disaffected to his rule, and Joab read his own sentence in the execution of Adonijah. On hearing the news the old hero fled up Mount Zion, and clung to the horns of the altar. But Abiathar, who might have asserted the sacredness of the asylum, was in disgrace, and Joab was not to escape. "What has happened to thee that thou hast fled to the altar?" was the message sent to him by the king. "Because," he answered, "I was afraid of thee, and fled unto the Lord." It was Solomon s habit to give his autocratic orders with laconic brevity. "Go fall upon him" he said to Benaiah. The scene which ensued was very tragic. The two rivals were face to face. On the one side the aged general, who had placed on David’s head the crown of Rabbah, who had saved him from the rebellions of Absalom and of Sheba, and had been the pillar of his military glory and dominion for so many years; on the other the brave soldier-priest, who had won a chief place among the Gibborim by slaying a lion in a pit on a snowy day, and "two lion-like men of Moab," and a gigantic Egyptian whom he had attacked with only a staff, and out of whose hand he had plucked a spear like a weaver’s beam and killed him with his own spear. As David lost confidence in Joab he had reposed more and more confidence in this hero. He had placed him over the bodyguards, whom he trusted more than the native militia. The Levite-soldier had no hesitation about acting as executioner, but he did not like to slay any man, and above all such a man, in a place so sacred, {2Ki 11:15} -in a place where his blood would be mingled with that of the sacrifices with which the horns of the altar were besmeared. "The king bids thee come forth," he said. "Nay," said Joab, "but I will die here." Perhaps he thought that he might be protected by the asylum, as Adonijah had been; perhaps he hoped that in any case his blood might cry to God for vengeance, if he was slain in the sanctuary of Mount Zion, and on the very altar of burnt offering. Benaiah naturally scrupled under such circumstances to carry out Solomon’s order, and went back to him for instruction. Solomon had no such scruples, and perhaps held that this act was meritorious. {Deu 19:13} "Slay him," he said, "where he stands; he is a twofold murderer; let his blood be on his head." Then Benaiah went back and killed him, and was promoted to his vacant office. Such was the dismal end of so much valor and so much glory. He had taken the sword, and he perished by the sword. And the Jews believed that the curse of David clung to his house forever, and that among his descendants there never lacked one that was a leper, or a lame man, or a suicide, or a pauper. {2Sa 3:28-29} Shimei’s turn came next. A watchful eye was fixed implacably on this last indignant representative of the ruined House of Saul. Solomon had sent and ordered him to leave his estate at Bahurim, and build a house at Jerusalem, forbidding him to go "any whither," and telling him that if on any pretence he passed the wady of Kidron he should be put to death. As he could not visit Bahurim, or any of his Benjamite connections, without passing the Kidron, all danger of further intrigues seemed to be obviated. To these terms the dangerous man had sworn, and for three years he kept them faithfully. At the end of that time two of his slaves fled from him to Achish, son of Maachah, King of Gath. When informed of their whereabouts, Shimei, apparently with no thought of evil, saddled his mule and went to demand their restoration. As he had not crossed the Kidron, and had merely gone to Gath on private business, he thought that Solomon would never hear of it, or would at any rate treat the matter as harmless. Solomon, however, regarded his conduct as a proof of retributive dementation. He sent for him, bitterly upbraided him, and ordered Benaiah to slay him. So perished the last of Solomon’s enemies; but Shimei had two illustrious descendants in the persons of Mordecai and Queen Esther. {Est 2:5} Solomon perhaps conceived himself to be only acting up to the true kingly ideal. "A king that sitteth on the throne of judgment scattereth away all evil with his eyes." "A wise king scattereth the wicked, and bringeth the wheel over them." "An evil man seeketh only rebellion; therefore a cruel messenger shall be sent against him." "The fear of a king is as the roaring of a lion, whoso provoketh him to anger endangereth his own soul." {Pro 19:11, Pro 20:2; Pro 19:8; Pro 19:26} On the other hand, he continued hereditary kindness to Chimham, son of the old chief Barzillai the Gileadite, who became the founder of the Khan at Bethlehem in which a thousand years later Christ was born. {1Ki 2:7; Jer 41:17} The elevation of Zadok to the high priesthood vacated by the disgrace of Abiathar restored the priestly succession to the elder line of the House of Aaron. Aaron had been the father of four sons: Nadab, Abihu, Eleazar, and Ithamar. The two eldest had perished childless in the wilderness apparently for the profanation of serving the tabernacle while in a state of intoxication and offering "strange fire" upon the altar. The son of Eleazar was the fierce priestly avenger Phinehas. The order of succession was as follows:- AARON Eleazar Ithamar Phinehas (gap.) Abishua Eli Bukki Phinehas Uzzi Ahitub Zerahiah Ahiah {1Sa 14:3} Meraioth Ahimelech Amariah Abiathar {1Sa 22:20} Ahitub Zadok The question naturally arises how the line of succession came to be disturbed, since to Eleazar, and his seed after him, had been promised "the covenant of an everlasting priesthood." {Num 25:13} As the elder line continued unbroken, how was it that, for five generations at least, from Eli to Abiathar, we find the younger line of Ithamar in secure and lineal possession of the high priesthood? The answer belongs to the many strange reserves of Jewish history. It is clear from the silence of the Book of Chronicles that the intrusion, however caused, was an unpleasant recollection. Jewish tradition has perhaps revealed the secret, and a very curious one it is. We are told that Phinehas was high priest when Jephthah made his rash vow, and that his was the hand which carried out the human sacrifice of Jephthah’s daughter. But the inborn feelings of humanity in the hearts of the people were stronger than the terrors of superstition, and arising in indignation against the high priest who could thus imbrue his hands in an innocent maiden’s blood, they drove him from his office and appointed a son of Ithamar in his place. The story then offers a curious analogy to that told of the Homeric hero Idomeneus, King of Crete. Caught in a terrible storm on his return from Troy, he too, owed that if his life were saved he could offer up in sacrifice the first living thing that met him. His eldest son came forth with gladness to meet him. Idomeneus fulfilled his vow, but the Cretans rose in revolt against the ruthless father, and a civil war ensued, in which a hundred cities were destroy