Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

nothing but a fair opportunity to declare it. He is now with thee. Hold him fast, keep him continually under thine eye to prevent his doing any mischief; and if thou findest him guilty of any malpractices, his hoar head bring thou down to the grave with blood; cut him off as an old offender, and dangerous enemy, to secure thy own peace, and the safety of thy government.

death, for a crime that made him worthy of it? There is but one possible inconveniency that would have attended it, and that is, there would have been wanting one noble instance of his generous disposition, and the government of his passions; which is now recorded, to do honour to his memory, and heighten the glory of his truly illustrious character. But supposing that this was not a season for proceeding to extremities, yet when David recovered his throne, and had Shimei fully in his power, this surely was a season for David's coming to any just extremities that he pleased, and he did not want very powerful advisers to make use of them; for Abishai said to him: "Shall not Shimei be put to death for this, because he hath cursed the Lord's anointed?" And is there any one man in the world, that would not have applauded David's justice, in ordering to execution a wretch that had cursed and pelted him with stones in his adversity? It is true, Shimei owned his fault, and, as it is expressed, reflecting on David's vindictive temper, came to make his submission, and petition forgiveness. This persuasion, one would think, would certainly have kept Shimei from ever coming near him, and forced him to seek safety by flight. I should rather have imagined, that, reflecting on David's merciful and forgiving temper, and the experience he had lately of it, in David's not permitting his officers to cut him off, when he was actually cursing and stoning him, he made his submission, and petitioned for mercy. If David had been the vindictive Nero, which he hath been represented to be, Shimei's owning his fault would not have been his security, and he would have paid dearly for the scurrility of his abusive tongue; especially as he was one of Saul's family, whom, it is said, lest they should hereafter prove thorns in his side, he concluded it expedient to cut off. But notwithstanding this expediency, David accepted his acknowledgments, and told him with an oath: Thou shalt not die.

[ocr errors]

But what shall we think, it is said, when we see this Nero of the Hebrews die in a manner uniform and consistent with the whole course of his life? What will be our reflections, when we find him, with his last accents, delivering two murders in charge to his son Solomon? One against Joab, the other against Shimei, which we are now to consider. The charge that David gave to Solomon concerning him runs thus: 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 I swore to him by the Lord, saying, I will not put thee to death with the sword. 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." This is the ground of the accusation brought against David; that when he lay on his death-bed, where all mankind resign their resentments and animosities, his latest breath was employed in dictating this posthumous murder to his son Solomon. My reader will not forget who Shimei was; of the house and family of Saul; that he was a person of great power and influence in the tribe of Benjamin, of whom he had a thousand in his train, when he made his submission to David upon his restoration; and that the manner in which he accosted David, when fleeing from Jerusalem, discovered the inward rancour of his heart, and his readiness to join in any measures to distress and disturb his government, and cause the crown to revert to the house of Saul. Therefore David puts Solomon in mind, that Shimei cursed him with a grievous curse, in the day that he went down to Mahanaim; that he was an implacable enemy to his person and family, one who was not to be trusted, and would not fail to show his hatred upon any proper occasion. It appears further by the expression: "Behold thou hast with thee Shimei;" that he was now in Jerusalem; and that therefore David thought this a proper opportunity of confining him, that he might not spread disaffection to Solomon's government, among those of his own tribe, or of any of the other tribes of Israel; a precaution the more necessary in the infancy of Solomon's reign, and as some of his brethren were inclined to dispute with him the succession to the crown; and therefore David said: "But now do not thou hold him guiltless;" i. e. though I forgave him, and swore to him that he should not die, do not thou let him go off, do not leave him at liberty, nor treat him as an innocen. man, that is reconciled to my family, and thy succesion in the throne of Israel. He is Shimei still, and wants

Further, David's telling Solomon that he sware to Shimei by the Lord, that 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 him. For can any one imagine, that David should tell Solomon, that he had sworn by the Lord not to put Shimei to death, and, in the same breath, order him, in defiance of the oath, to be put to death by Solomon? Common decency and prudence would have made him conceal the circumstance of the oath, uDless he intended to brand himself publicly for the grossest perfidy and perjury; or, what is the real truth, to prevent Solomon from putting Shimei to death, in resentment for a crime for which he had solemnly sworn he would never execute him; and therefore it may be allowed Mr. Bayle, that strictly speaking, a man, who promises his enemy his life, doth not acquit himself of that promise, when he orders him to be put to death by his will. But this doth not affect David's integrity, who either never promised him absolutely his life, or never gave any positive orders by his will to execute him. I add therefore, that the words themselves, when rightly rendered, imply no such order. The common rendering of them is? His hoar head bring thou down to the grave with blood. But it is a better interpretation, and supported by parallel passages, if we render them, Bring down his gray hairs to the grave for blood, or for being guilty of it. Shimei was a man in blood, intentionally of murdering the king, and who actually attempted it by stoning him; and, on that account, deserved to be put to death. Now, though David could not order Solomon to put him to death for this attempt, because he had forgiven him, yet he might justly urge it, as a reason why Solomon should keep a constant strict guard over him, in order to prevent him from any seditious practices, or put him to death, if he found him guilty of any. The authors of the critical remarks give another turn to the words, which may be justified also by many other places of like nature. They would have the middle words put into a parenthesis, and the negative particle A L repeated in the last clause from the first; thus: "Now therefore do not hold him guiltless (for thou art a wise man, and knowest what thou oughtest to do for him,) but do not bring down his hoary head with blood." I would propose a little alteration in the reading of the prefix vaw. "Do not hold him guiltless, (for thou art a wise man,) nor bring down his hoary head with blood." According to this translation, David's direction to Solomon will be: That he should not put Shimei to death for having cursed him, because he had forgiven him upon oath; but, at the same time, should not hold him guiltless; leaving it to Solomon's wisdom to inflict a proper punishment on him, provided it was not a capital one. If David had intended that Solomon should immediately put him to death, there would be no sense nor reason in what David adds: “ Thou art a wise man, and knowest what thou oughtest to do to him;" which is evidently the same thing as saying: I give thee no particular directions about him, only observe him. Thou art a wise man, and knowest how to manage him, and to thy prudence and care I entirely leave him. This is the natural proper meaning of the expression, which cannot be construed into any other sense, without doing violence to the words. Now, 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 this sense? The thing is absurd in its nature, and there can be no meaning in a charge of this kind, viz. giving any man an absolute order to put another to death for a crime, and, in the same breath, leaving him entirely to the management of his own wisdom and prudence, to put him to death or not. If he gave a positive order for his death, he did not leave him to Solomon's wisdom; and if he left him to Solomon's wisdom, as he certainly did, he did not give him any positive order for his death.

It is certain that Solomon did not understand his father in this sense, of putting Shimei to death for his treason at Mahanaim; but only that he should have a watchful eye

over him, and prevent him from all seditious practices for the future. For what doth Solomon do after his father's death? What, instantly put Shimei to death? No, but as a wise man, who knew what he ought to do to him, orders him to build a house for hiniself at Jerusalem; where he confines him that he might be perpetually under his inspection, and bound him by an oath never to go further out of it than to the brook Kidron; telling him, that whenever he passed it, he should surely die. This is further evident from the different manner in which Solomon treated Joab and Shimei. Joab he immediately, on his accession, put to death, because David could be understood in no other sens, in the charge he gave concerning him, but absolutely to cut him off; for he gives no intimation that he had pardoned him, or that he left it to his son's prudence to do with him as he should think proper; but says peremptorily, after recounting the two murders he had committed: Do thou according to thy wisdom. Do justice on him, and thereby show thyself a wise man, and let not his hoar head go down to the grave in peace. Now if the charge had been the same in reference to Shimei as it was to Joab, what should have prevented Solomon from immediately executing Shimei as well as Joab? Solomon had much less to apprehend from executing Shimei, than Joab. Joab had an interest in the army, and had David's sons, and the high-priest of his party, which Shimei could not have, as he was a powerful man of the house of Saul: a circumstance this, however, enough to incline a jealous prince to get rid of him if he fairly could do it. And if Solomon had David's positive order to do it, the regard to his father's command, and the rules of policy, would have engaged him to have immediately executed him. But this Solomon, in his wisdom, knew he could not do; for David told him that he had pardoned Shimei to prevent his execution, because his offence was personal, and David had a right to forgive it. But he had never pardoned Joab, nor in justice could do it; because he was guilty of death, for repeated murders, by the laws of God and man. Solomon therefore acted wisely and justly in putting Joab to death, and showed his prudence in reference to Shimei, by sparing him; but honourably confining him, that he might have the proper security for his future good behaviour. But to this it is objected, that the executing Joab, and sparing Shimei, was owing to a different cause from what I have now assigned. For Joab, by joining the party of Adonijah, had furnished the pretence for putting him to death, which Shimei doth not appear to have done. Joab therefore was assassinated, and Shimei watched. But this contradicts the history; for David, in his order to put Joab to death, mentions not one word about his being of Adonijah's party, but orders him to be cut off expressly for the treacherous assassination of Abner and Amasa. And when Solomon ordered his execution, not a word of Adonijah; but take away the innocent blood which Joab shed from me, and from the house of my father. So that, as the cause of Joab's execution was not his being of Adonijah's party, so the cause of Shimei's being spared, cannot be said to be, because he was not of Adonijah's party. The true reason of their treatment, was the different nature of their crimes, and the difference of the order relating to them. And as Joab was put to death for repeated murders, by the express order of the king, it is with great injustice that his death is censured as an assassination; especially as he was executed in the same manner as state criminals at that time generally were.

Besides, if, as hath been asserted, David had, without any condition, and by a positive injunction, ordered Shimei to be put to death, then his joining, or not joining Adonijah, had been a circumstance of no weight; for, whether the one, or the other, Solomon ought not to have ordered him to be watched, but instantly to have put him to death, as he did Joab. And if, because he was not of Adonijah's party, Solomon spared him, and ordered him only to be watched, then Solomon did not think his father's order to be an order to cut him off, but only to have a watchful eye over him. For David knew Shimei's circumstances as well as Solomon, and Solomon's conduct to Shimei is an abundant explication of the nature of his father's command, and how he himself understood it. This is the sentiment of F. Houbigant, who doth not so much as give a single intimation that Shimei was watched, and not put to death, because he was not of Adonijah's party; but absolutely denies that David

gave any order at all to Solomon to put him to death for the crimes hich he had pardoned him, but only to watch his conduct, till he should render himself guilty by some fresh transgression. And when upon breaking his oath, he was sent for by Solomon, the king reproached him for his perjury, for acting contrary to the condition of life, which he himself acknowledged to be just and equitable, and for the wickedness that his heart was privy to in his conduct to his father David; the mercy that had been shown him, in the pardon of that offence, aggravating his fresh crime in violating his oath, and in transgressing the king's command; a crime that showed he was of a restless spirit, and incapable of being restrained within due bounds by the most solemn oaths, or any sense of interest, gratitude, or duty, whatsoever. Solomon adds: "The Lord shall return thy wickedness on thine own head, and King Solomon shall be blessed: and the throne of David shall be established before the Lord for ever;" plainly intimating, that Solomon now cut him off, as an act of prudence and justice, because he knew him to be a turbulent implacable enemy to his person and government, and saw it necessary for establishing the throne of David before the Lord.

I would further add, that Shimei himself, sensible of Solomon's great kindness to him, approves the sentence pronounced on him, and therefore the charge that David gave him, promising him upon oath obedience to the condition, on which his life was afterward to depend. "The sentence is good. As my Lord the king hath said, so will thy servant do." It doth not appear that Solomon mentioned one word about Shimei's cursing David, when he ordered him to confine himself to Jerusalem, and that therefore this was not the immediate reason why he confined him, but as his father had forewarned him, because he thought it would be a dangerous thing to suffer a person of Shimei's family, tribe, interest, and known rancour to his crown and government, to be entirely at liberty. And, upon this supposition, Shimei could not but own the justice of the sentence, and Solomon's lenity in pronouncing it. But if Shimei had any apprehension that David had violated his oath of safety to him by the charge he gave Solomon concerning him, or that Solomon had broken it, by making his life depend on a new condition, which his father had never obliged him to come under; why did he not plead David's oath and promise, and that had no condition annexed to it, when he appeared before Solomon; that the annexing a new condition to it was actually reversing it, and therefore a breach of oath in David, if he directed it, or in Solomon, if it was his order only, and not David's? And though David, being dead, Shimei could not reproach him to his face, yet he might have reproached him, and Solomon himself to his own face, for this breach of oath, if there had been any. But Shimei urges nothing of all this in favour of himself, and instead of reproaching David or Solomon, acknowledges the king's moderation, and says: The sentence is good. It is most just and merciful. As my lord the king hath said, so will thy servant do. Shimei therefore knew, either that he had an absolute pardon from David, or that he had forfeited that pardon, or that, whatever was the purport of David's oath to him, no injustice had been done him, either by David's charge to Solomon, or by Solomon's executing it. The adversaries of David may choose which they please. David's honour, and Solomon's justice, will be abundantly vindicated.

"Shall

Let me beg the candid reader's attention to another remark: That though it hath been positively affirmed, that David guarantied Shimei's pardon with a solemn oath, yet this is by no means certain from the history. For let it be observed, that after Shimei's confession of his fault, Abishai said to David: "Shall not Shimei be put to death, because he cursed the Lord's anointed ?" Meaning, be put to death instantly, as appears by David's answer: there be any man put to death this day in Israel? Do I not know that I am this day king over Israel ?" Therefore the king said to Shimei: "Thou shalt not die;" and the king swore to him, viz. that he should not then, or that day, or at that time, be put to the sword. And it is observable, that the Arabic version expressly mentions this circum stance: "Thou shalt not die this day." This was certainly all that the king declared to Abishai, that, as he was that day restored to the exercise of his regal power, no · man should that day be put to death; and therefore he

swore to Shimei, that he should not then die. So again, in David's direction to Solomon about Shim, the same version hath the same word: "I sware to him by God: will not put thee to the sword this day." Thus also Josephus understands the words. He assured him, says he, that he should suffer nothing at that time. And indeed nothing further can be certainly collected from the words, as they stand connected, but that David reprieved Shimei from immediate execution, and left him at liberty to call him to an account, at any other time, for the outrage and treason that he had been guilty of. To this it is objected, that probity is greatly wounded by such excuses. By what excuses? What, by excusing David from breaking a promise that he never made; or, for putting a criminal to death whom he only reprieved, but never pardoned? The question is, whether David guarantied Shimei's pardon with a solemn oath? Or, sware that he should never be put to death for cursing and stoning him? The history makes it somewhat probable that David never swore this, but only that he should not be put to death at that time, as Joab and Abishai thought reasonable. If this was all that David promised, David broke no oath in afterward ordering him, for just reasons of state, for execution; and probity is not at all wounded by thus excusing David, because it is an excuse founded in truth. Instances enough may be produced, even in our own nation, of offenders being brought to justice, after a very considerable reprieve, perfectly consistent with the probity and equity of govern

ment.

And how is this inconsistent with piety, or the advice unworthy a just and religious prince on his death-bed? It is true, the forgiveness of enemies is a duty, provided they cease to become our enemies; but no man is obliged, by any law that I know of, 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 his 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; and 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 to the public good, and even the execution of particular persons, if, by abusing the lenity of government, and the respite they once obtained, they should become guilty of new and capital offences. David may therefore still be, the man after God's own heart. I shall only add, that it is a very uncharitable and groundless supposition of Mr. Bayle, that David only let him live, first to gain the glory of being a merciful prince, and afterward, on his death-bed, charged his son to put him to death, to avoid being reproached to his face of having broken his word. But surely David's resolution, that no man in Israel should be put to death who had been concerned in the rebellion, and the moderation and lenity of his whole reign over his people, were much nobler evidences of his being a merciful prince, than his sparing Shimei, whose execution, had it been immediately ordered, all the world would have commended as an exemplary act of justice, without the least impeachment of his goodness and mercy. Besides, if David was so false and unprincipled a wretch, as this supposes him, I cannot but think he would have little regarded such reproaches, if he had had an inclination, in his lifetime, out of revenge to have put him to death; and if he was so cautious of these reproaches while he lived, I can scarce think he would have given an order that should have blasted the glory of that character, and eternally stained his memory with the complicated guilt of hypocrisy, perfidy, and cruelty, and subjected his memory to them after death. Besides, whose reproaches would he have been afraid of? What, Shimei's? Surely he might have put him to death by the hands of his officers, without ever permitting Shimei to reproach him to his face; and I presume few of his courtiers would have cared, or dared, thus o reproach him. The truth of the case is the charge concerning Shimei could not be given till David had established Solomon on his throne. It concerned Solomon only, and he gave him the caution, because necessary to the peace and security of his future reign; and it was of such

a nature, as to deserve no reproach while he lived, and to expose him to no just reproach after his death. And if Mr. Bayle cannot prove, that David died immediately after this charge to Solomon concerning Shimei, he might have lived long enough to be reproached for it to his face; and therefore it could not be to avoid this reproach, that he gave this charge to Solomon towards the conclusion of. I cannot help therefore thinking, that the same reasons that led him to spare Shimei, when he cursed and stoned him, in his retreat from Jerusalem, induced him to spare him upon his return to it; viz. as Mr. Bayle himself expresses it-his acknowledging and adoring the hand of God, in the reproaches with which that furious Benjamite loaded him; and that as God had done what he scarce allowed himself to hope for, looked upon his affliction, and requited him with good for Shimei's cursing, he was resolved, in imitation of his God, to requite Shimei with good, and to bless the man who had reviled, cursed, and despitefully used him.-CHANDLER.

Another view of this charge to Solomon is given by Kennicott, whose remarks are well deserving attention. "David is here represented in our English version, as finishing his life with giving a command to Solomon to kill Shimei; and to kill him on account of that very crime, for which he had sworn to him by the Lord, he would not put him to death. The behaviour thus imputed to the king and prophet, should be examined very carefully, as to the ground it stands upon. When the passage is duly considered, it will appear highly probable that an injury has been done to this illustrious character. It is not uncommon in the Hebrew language to omit the negative in a second part of a sentence, and to consider it as repeated, when it has been once expressed, and is followed by the connecting particle. The necessity of so very considerable an alteration, as inserting the particle NOT, may be here confirmed by some other instances. Thus Psalm i. 5, 'The ungodly shall not stand in the judgment, NOR (Heb. and, signifying and not) sinners in the congregation of the righteous. (Psalm ix. 18. Psalm xxxviii. 1. Psalm lxxv. 5. Prov. xxiv. 12.) If then, there are in fact many such instances, the question is, whether the negative, here expressed in the former part of David's command, may not be understood as to be repeated in the latter part; and if this may be, a strong reason will be added why it should be so interpreted. The passage will run thus: Behold, thou hast with thee Shimei, who cursed me, but I sware to him by the Lord, saying, I will not put thee to death by the sword. Now therefore, hold him not guiltless, (for thou art a wise man, and knowest what thou oughtest to do unto him) but bring not down his hoary head to the grave with blood.' Now, if the language itself will admit this construction, the sense thus given to the sentence derives a very strong support from the context. For, how did Solomon understand this charge? did he kill Shimei in consequence of it? Certainly he did not. For, after he had immediately commanded Joab to be slain, in obedience to his father, he sends for Shimei, and knowing that Shimei ought to be well watched, confines him to a particular spot in Jerusalem for the remainder of his life."-B.

Ver. 16. And now I ask one petition of thee, deny me not. And she said unto him, Say on. The Hebrew has for "deny me not," "turn not away my face." When a man has gained the attention of the person to whom he wishes to speak, he generally says oru-kcalve-materam, i. e. one request only, to show he is not going to give him much trouble, and to ask for many things. Adonijah said to Bathsheba, "turn not away my face:" under similar circumstances it would be said here, "Ah! do not make my face ashamed-Do not put away my face-Reject not my face."-ROBERTS.

Ver. 19. Bath-sheba therefore went unto king Sol

omon, 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.

When visited by a superior, the Persian rises hastily, and

meets his guest nearly at the door of the apartment. On 'he entrance of an equal, he just raises himself from his seat, and stands nearly erect: but to an inferior he makes the motion only of rising.-MORIER.

Ver. 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. 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 a house, as he promised, Adonijah shall be put to death this day. 25. And King Solomon sent by the hand of Benaiah, the son of Jehoiada; and he fell upon him that he died.

Far are we from vindicating Solomon in all his actions, any more than David in the matter of Uriah: his severity to his brother, for a seemingly small offence, looked like revenge, and as if he had taken the first opportunity to cut him off for his former attempt upon the kingdom; and yet we cannot but imagine, from Solomon's words to his mother, that there was some further conspiracy against him, though not mentioned in holy writ, of which he had got intelligence, and in which Joab and Abiathar were engaged; and that he looked upon this asking Abishag in marriage as the prelude to it, and the first overt act, as it were, of their trea

son.

It is certain, that they thought to impose upon the king, as they had done upon his mother, and carry their point, without ever discovering the malevolent intent of it.

The wives of the late king (according to the customs of the East) belonged to his successor, and were never married to any under a crowned head. Abishag was, doubtless, a beautiful woman, and by her near relation to David might have a powerful interest at court; Adonijah might therefore hope, by this marriage, to strengthen his pretensions to the crown, or, at least, to lay the foundation for some future attempt, upon a proper opportunity, either if Solomon should die, and leave a young son, not able to contest the point with him, or if, at any time, he should happen to fall under the people's displeasure, as his father had done before him. This might be Adonijah's design, and Solomon, accordingly, might have information of it. But, supposing that his brother's design was entirely innocent, yet since his request, (according to the customs then prevailing,) was confessedly bold and presumptuous, and had in it all the appearance of treason, it was none of Solomon's business to make any further inquiry about it, or to interpret the thing in his brother's favour. It was sufficient for him that the action was in itself criminal, and of dangerous consequence to the state, for it is by their actions, and not intentions, that all offenders must be tried. Adonijah indeed, had he lived under our constitution, would have had a fair hearing before conviction. But we ought to 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 had been much more to his commendation had he showed more clemency, and spared his life.-STACKHOUSE. Ver. 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. 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.

How far the high-priest Abiathar was concerned in the plot against Solomon, the sacred history does not particu

larly inform us; but such was the reverence paid to the sacerdotal character, that Solomon would have hardly dared to have deposed such a one from his office, had not the constitution of the nation authorized him so to do. The kings in the East, indeed, soon found out ways to make themselves absolute; but it looks as if, at the first establishment, the king was at the head of the Hebrew republic, and to his correction: insomuch that, when any one abused the high-priest his subject, and, in all civil affairs, submitted the power of his office, to the prejudice of the commonweal, or endangering the king's person, the king might justly deprive him of his honours and titles, of his temporalities when Abiathar by his conspiracy had merited all this, and emoluments, and even of life itself. And therefore, whatever was dependant on the crown (as all the revenues of this place, as well as the liberty of officiating in it, were dependant) Solomon might lawfully take from him; but the sacerdotal character, which he received from God, and to which he was anointed, this he could not alienate and therefore we may observe, that, after his deprivation, and even when Zadok was in possession of his place, he is nevertheless still mentioned under the style and title of the priest. The truth is, there is a great deal of difference between depriving a man of the dignity, and of the exercise of his function, in such a determinate place: between taking from him an authority that was given him by God, and the profits and emoluments arising from it, which were originally the gift of the crown. The former of these Solomon could not do, and the latter, it is probable, he was the rather incited to do, out of regard to the prophecy of Samuel, wherein he foretold Eli (from whom Abiathar was descended) that he would translate the priesthood from his to another family, as he did in the person of Zadok, who was of the house of Eleazar, even as Eli was of that of Ithamar; so that, by this means, the priesthood reverted to its ancient channel.-STACKHOUSE.

Ver. 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.

This refers to the interment of Joab, who was slain by the hands of Benaiah. It is probable that Joab had built this house for the purpose of being buried in it, as it is not reasonable to suppose that he would erect a house in such a place to be the habitation of the living. Children or parents often build a house in a retired place, over, or for the remains of their dead; and the rest of the family also when they die are buried there. In some of these places may be seen the funeral car, or palanquin, in which the corpse was taken to its long home, suspended from the roof. At the anniversary of the death of a father, mother, or any other near relation, the friends go thither to perform the annual rites for the benefit of their manes. Such a house, so long as the descendants of the dead interred there have the power to prevent it, will never be allowed to go to decay.-ROBERTS.

Ver. 38. And Shimei dwelt in Jerusalem many days.

Ask a man how long he has lived in the village, or a priest how long he has officiated in the temple, the answer is not a long time, or many years, but veagu-nal, i. e. many days. "How long were they digging that tank ?"—" Ah! many days." "Who built that temple ?"-"Ah! my lord, how can I tell? it has been built many days."."I hear you were at the taking of Seringapatam, when the great Tippoo Saib was slain."-"Yes, I was." "How long is that since?"—"I cannot really tell, but many days."-ROBERTS.

CHAPTER III.

Ver. 4. And the king went to Gibeon to sacrifice there; for that was the great high place: a thousand burnt-offerings did Solomon offer upon that altar.

An exception has been taken to the account of the great quantity of sacrifices which he is said to have offered on one altar only; but without recurring to any miracle for this, or without supposing this fire, which originally came

from heaven, was more strong and intense than any common fire, and therefore, after the return from the captivity, the altar (as some observe) was inade larger, because there wanted this celestial flame: without any forced solution like this, we have no reason to think that all these sacrifices were offered in one day. The king, we may imagine, upon one of the great festivals, went in procession with his nobles, to pass his devotion at Gibeon, where was the tabernaele ant the brazen altar, which Moses had made. Each of the great festivals lasted for seven days; but Solomon might stay much longer at Gibeon, until, by the daily oblations, a thousand burnt-offerings were consumed; and, at the conclusion of this course of devotion, he might offer up his ardent prayer to God for wisdom, and God, for the confirmation of his faith, might appear to him in a dream by night, and have that converse with him, that the scripture takes notice of.-STACKHOUSE.

Ver. 7. And now, O LORD my God, thou hast made thy servant king instead of David my father; and I am but a little child: I know not how to go out or come in.

So said Solomon when he came to the kingdom of his father; and so say men here, though they be advanced in years, when they wish to speak of their incapacity for any performance. "What can I do in this affair; I am but a boy of yesterday's birth?" When a man pleads for forgiveness, he says, “I am but a little child, it was my ignorance." Has a man insulted another by not bowing to him, or refusing to take off his sandals in his presence, or by the use of some improper expressions; those who go to intercede for him, say, "Forgive him, sir, he is but an infant of yesterday." A person wishing to compliment a holy or learned person, says, "I am but a little infant when compared with you."-ROBERTS.

Ver. 25. And the king said, Divide the living child in two, and give half to the one, and half to the other.

This was apparently a very strange decision; but Solomon saw that the only way to discover the real mother was by the affection and tenderness she would necessarily show to her offspring. The plan was tried, and succeeded; and it was a proof of his sound judgment, penetration, and acquaintance with the human heart, if not of his extraordinary and supernatural wisdom. There are several similar decisions recorded by heathen writers. Suetonius, in his Life of the Emperor Claudian, whom he celebrates for his wonderful sagacity and penetration, tells us, that this emperor discovered a woman to be the real mother of a young man, whom she refused to acknowledge, by commanding her to marry him, the proofs being doubtful on both sides; for, rather than commit incest, she confessed the truth. Diodorus Siculus also informs us, that Ariopharnes, king of Thrace, being appointed to decide between three young men, each of whom professed to be the son of the deceased king of the Cimmerians, and claimed the succession, discovered the real son, by ordering each to shoot an arrow into the dead body of the king: two of them did this without hesitation; but the real son of the deceased monarch refused.-Greenfield.

The great merit of the king in this matter was finding out the true mother. "A woman who was going to bathe left her child to play on the banks of the tank, when a female demon who was passing that way carried it off. They both appeared before the deity, and each declared the child was her own: the command was therefore given that each claimant was to seize the infant by a leg and an arm, and pull with all their might in opposite directions. No sooner had they commenced than the child began to scream, when he real mother, from pity, left off pulling, and resigned her claim to the other. The judge therefore decided, that as she only had shown affection, the child must be hers." The decision of a Hindoo magistrate in the case of some travellers is also in point. "Two travellers once went into a rest-house to sleep; the one had on beautiful earrings, the other had none. In the night the later arose, and while the other slept, took off one of his rings and put in his own ear. In the morning the former finding one

of his rings missing, looked at his companion and saw it in his ear. He immediately charged him with the theft, but the thief retorted, and charged him with having stolen one of his rings. They disputed for some time, and at last each determined to make his complaint before a magistrate: his worship patiently heard the case, but as each swore that the other was the thief, and as neither of them could [to duce a witness, he was at a loss how to decide. He then took one of them into a private apartment, and said, I cannot find out who is guilty, but as I perceive the rings are worth one hundred rupees, I will sell them; you shall each pay a fine of twenty-five rupees, and the remaining filty you may divide betwixt yourselves. The man replied, 1 will not have the twenty-five rupees; they are my own rings, you can do as you please.' The magistrate then called the other man into the room, and proposed the same thing; he replied, 'What can I do, my lord, I must submit to your pleasure; I accept of the twenty-five rupee. His worship saw that the man was much pleased with the prospect of getting the rupees, and therefore concluded that he was the thief. The ring was then given to the other man, who was the rightful owner."-ROBERTS.

Ver. 26. For her bowels yearned upon her son.

The Hebrew has for yearned, "were hot." A mother, in lamenting over her suffering child, says, "Ah! my bowels are hot over the child." My bowels burn in his misery." "My heart is burnt to ashes."-ROBERTS.

[ocr errors]

CHAPTER IV.

Ver. 7. And Solomon had twelve officers over all Israel, which provided victuals for the king and his household: each man his month in a year made provision.

The eastern people to this day, it seems, support the expenses of government, in common, by paying such a proportion of the produce of their lands to their princes. These are their taxes. No wonder it was so in remoter ages. Chardin gives us this account: "The revenues of princes in the East are paid in the fruits and productions of the earth. There are no other taxes upon the peasants." The twelve officers of Solomon then, mentioned 1 Kings iv. 7-19, a.e to be considered as his general receivers. They furnished food for all that belonged to the king; and the having provisions for themselves and attendants, seems to have been, in those times of simplicity, all the ordinary gratification his ministers of state, as well as his meaner servants, received. Silver, gold, horses, armour, precious vestments, and other things of value, came to him from other quarters: partly a kind of tribute from the surrounding princes, partly from the merchants, whom he suffered to pass through his country to and from Egypt, or elsewhere, partly from his own commerce by the Red Sea. The horses and armour he seems to have distributed among the most populous towns, who were to find horsemen and people to drive chariots to such a number when called for; and out of the silver, and other precious things that came to him, he made presents upon extraordinary occasions to those that distinguished themselves in his service. And according to this plan of conducting the expenses of civil government, the history of Solomon is to be explained. Comm ntators have not always had this present to their minds when illustrating this part of scripture.-HARMER.

Ver. 23. Ten fat oxen, and twenty oxen out of the pastures, and a hundred sheep, besides harts. and roe-bucks, (antelopes,) and fallow-deer, and fatted fowl.

"Harts." Dr. Shaw (Trav. p. 414) understands the original ayil as the name of the genus, including all the species of the deer kind, whether they are distinguished by round horns, as the stag; or by flat ones, as the fallow-deer; or by the smallness of the branches, as the roe.

"Fallow-deer." The Hebrew on yachmur, rendered bubalus by the Vulgate, probably denotes the buffalo; and though the "flesh of a buffalo does not seem so well tasted as beef, being harder and more coarse, yet in our times per.

« AnteriorContinuar »