Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadPulpit Commentary - 1 Kings 2:26 - 2:35
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
1Ki_2:26
And unto Abiathar the priest [see note on 1Ki_1:8. The historian now relates the end of Adonijah's confederates] said the king, get thee to Anathoth [The Heb. is extremely curt and authoritative, corresponding well with the anger and determination of the speaker. Anathoth, the home of Abiathar, was also the residence of another high priest, Hilkiah (Jer_1:1). It was in Benjamin, a priests' city, and had suburbs (Jer_21:1-14 :18, 17, 18). It has been identified by Robinson with Anita, a village 1.25 hrs. N.N.E, of Jerns. The name (= Answers) according to Gesenius, means, "answers to prayer," but according to the Talmud, "echoes"], unto [ òÇì is here almost the equivalent of àÆì . Cf. 2Sa_15:4, 2Sa_15:20, Hebrews etc.] thine own fields [the patrimony of his family] for thou art worthy of death; [Heb. a man of death; LXX. ἀνὴρ θανάτου , i.e; ἔνοχος θανάτου , Mat_26:66.] but I will not at this time [Heb. in this day] put thee to death [i.e; the sentence of death was deferred during good behaviour. It is hardly correct to say that Abiathar was "spared for a time, but only for a time" (Stanley). More correctly Corn. a Lapide: "Misit eum in patriam ut ibi vitam, quam ei condonabat, quiete traduceret." For aught we know, he died in peace because thou barest the ark of the Lord God before David my father [Thenius, quite needlessly would read for "ark," .... "ephod" (1Sa_23:6). Zadok and Abiathar had borne the ark (not of course in person, but per altos, viz; the Levites Uriel, Joel, etc.: 1Ch_15:11), when David brought it up to Jerusalem, and also during his flight from Absalom (2Sa_15:24-29). Abiathar had thus been associated both with David's joys and sorrows] and because thou hast been afflicted in all wherein my father was afflicted. [See 1Sa_22:17-23; 2Sa_15:24, etc.]
1Ki_2:27
So Solomon thrust out Abtathar from being priest unto the Lord, that he might fulfil [Heb. to fulfil "An addition of the narrator, not the intention of Solomon. It is the ἵνα πληρωθῇ of the New Testament." Bähr] the word of the Lord, which he spake concerning the house of Eli in Shiloh [1Sa_2:31-35. Abiathar was the last descendant of the house of Ithamar. With his deposition the high priesthood reverted to the house of Eleazar, and so another "word of the Lord" had its fulfilment (Num_25:15).]
No one can justly accuse Solomon of unnecessary severity or of cruelty in his treatment of Abiathar. On the occasion of his first conspiracy, Abiathar seems to have escaped even censure. And yet that conspiracy, had it succeeded, would almost certainly have involved Solomon's death (1Sa_1:12). He is now found plotting again, for the action of Solomon proves that there had been a second plot. Oriental usages would have justified his death. He is simply warned and banished.
1Ki_2:28
Then tidings [Heb. And the report, etc. Not necessarily of Abiathar's deposition, but certainly of Adonijah's death] came to Joab, for Joab had turned after [same expression as in Exo_23:2; Jdg_9:3] Adonijah, though [lit; and] he turned not after Absalom. [The LXX. (Cod. Vat.), Vulg; and all ancient versions except the Chald; here read Solomon, which Ewald and Thenius adopt. This reading is perhaps too summarily dismissed by most commentators, as involving a statement which would be self evident and superfluous. But it is not so. The meaning would then be that Joab had inclined to Adonijah, and had not, subsequently, gone over to the side of Solomon—information which is much less obvious than that he had not "gone after Absalom." The Arabic version may thus be nearest the truth, which reads, "Neither did he love Solomon." Somewhat similarly Josephus.] And Joab fled unto the tabernacle of the Lord, and caught hold of the horns of the altar. [As Adonijah had done before him (1Ki_1:50). His flight is almost certain evidence of his guilt. ("Joab vero seipsum prodidit." Munster.) Why should he flee, if conscious of innocence? Solomon had acted generously before, and Joab would not be aware of David's dying instructions. His two assassinations had remained so long unpunished that he would hardly expect to be called to an account for them now. We have here, therefore, another indication of a second conspiracy, and it is an old belief (Theodorot, al.) that Joab had suggested to Adonijah the plan of marriage with Abishag. Some have asked why Joab should flee to the altar when his crimes deprived him of the right of the sanctuary. But a drowning man grasps at a straw. It is probable that he never thought of his murders, but only of his treason. According to the Rabbis, death at the altar ensured him burial amongst his fathers (Munster). But, if this were so, it would hardly enter into his calculations.
1Ki_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. [The LXX. here inserts, "And Solomon the king sent to Joab, saying, What has happened thee, that thou art fled to the altar? And Joab said, Because I feared before thee, and I fled to the Lord." This is only a gloss, but it is an instructive one. It shows that the author regarded Joab's flight as betraying a guilty conscience.] Then Solomon sent Benaiah, the son of Jehoiada, saying, Go, fall upon him. [The LXX. adds, "and bury him."]
1Ki_2:30
And Benaiah came to the tabernacle of the Lord, and said unto him [Benaiah evidently "hesitated to stain the altar with blood." It was only the sanctity of the altar which made it an asylum. There was strictly no "right of sanctuary"], Thus saith the king, Come forth. [Probably Solomon bad directed that Joab should, if possible, be induced to leave the altar. Every Jew would dread its profanation by strife and bloodshed.] And he said, Nay; but I will die here. [Heb. "here will I die." Joab may possibly have thought that Solomon would hardly venture to put him to death there, and that so he might somehow escape with his life. But it is more probable that he counted on death, and that a feeling of superstition, or of defiance, had decided him to meet his doom there. It should be borne in mind that gross superstition not uncommonly accompanies irreligion and brutality; and it is quite conceivable that Joab hoped for some indefinable benefit from the shadow of the altar, much as the poor Polish Jew expects from burial in Jerusalem. Or his motive may have been defiance, thinking he would "render Solomon odious to the people, as a profaner of the Holy Place" (M. Henry). It can hardly have been to put off forever so short a time the execution, as Bishop Hall imagines.]
1Ki_2:31
And the king said unto him do as he hath said, and fall upon him [the law decreed (Exo_21:14) that, if a man had slain his neighbour with guile, he should be taken from the altar to die. Possibly the desperate character of Joab made literal compliance with this command well nigh impossible. The attempt to drag him from his place of refuge might have led to a bloody encounter. And the king evidently felt that Joab's crimes justified exceptional measures], and bury him [why this injunction? Possibly because the spirit of Deu_21:23 seemed to Solomon to require it. Both Bähr and Keil think it was that Joab's services to the kingdom might be requited with an honourable sepulture. Was it not rather that the corpse might be removed with all possible haste from the sanctuary, which it defiled, and hidden from view, as one accursed of God, in the earth? So Bishop Hall: "He sends Benaiah to take away the offender both from God and men, from the altar and the world"]; that thou mayest take away [LXX. "today," σήμερον ] the innocent blood [for the construction cf. 1Sa_25:31; Neh_2:12; and Ewald, 287d. Innocent blood, i.e; blood not shed in war, or forfeited to justice, rested upon the community, or the authorities responsible for its punishment (Num_35:33; Deu_19:10, Deu_19:13; Deu_21:9. Cf. Gen_4:10) until satisfaction was made. See on Neh_2:5], which Joab shed, from me, and from the house of my father. [Heb. "from upon me." Solomon evidently believed that the guilt of blood was upon him and his house so long as Abner's and Amasa's blood remained unavenged ("The blood that is not required from the murderer will be required from the magistrate." Henry), and that he and his seed might have to answer for it, as Saul's seed had done (2Sa_21:1, 2Sa_21:9). This is one of the many considerations which show that both David and Solomon were actuated not by "cold-blooded vengeance" or "long-cherished resentment" (Stanley), but by a sense of duty. In fact, Jewish law imperatively demanded the death of Joab, and to spare him was to violate all law, and to imperil the throne and the people. "Only a superficial observer," says Ewald, "can here reproach Solomon with needless severity."]
1Ki_2:32
And the Lord shall return [LXX. ἐπέστρεψε , returns, or returned] his blood [LXX. τὸ αἷμα τῆς ἀδικίας αὐτοῦ , i.e; the blood he had shed. Cf. 1Ki_2:33, 1Ki_2:44] upon his own head, who fell upon [same word as in 1Ki_2:29, 1Ki_2:31. So that it was strictly a retaliation. The lex talionis was carried out to the letter] two men more righteous and better than he, and slew them with the sword, my father David not knowing. [Heb. "and my father David knew not," i.e; was not privy thereto. Solomon thinks of the unjust suspicions which these crimes cast upon his father.]
1Ki_2:33
Their blood shall therefore return upon the head of Josh, and upon the head of his seed [according to Exo_20:5; Exo_34:7; Le Exo_20:5; Exo_26:1-37 :39. There is an obvious reference to David's curse 2Sa_3:29, which thoroughly agreed with the spirit of the Old Testament in comprehending the children in its sweep. And it is to be noticed that the sins of the fathers are still, by the operation of natural laws, and by the constitution and laws of society, visited upon the children, to the third and fourth generation] forever: but upon [Heb. to] David, and upon his seed, and upon his house, and upon his throne, shall there be [or "be," optative; LXX. γένοιτο ] peace [i.e; prosperity] forever from the Lord. [So persuaded is Solomon that he is fulfilling a religious duty in decreeing the execution of Joab; so little thought has he of malice, revenge, or any baser motive, that he counts on the Divine blessing m perpetuity for the deed.]
1Ki_2:34
So Benaiah, the son of Jehoiada, went up [not because the altar" stood higher up Mount Zion than Solomon's house" (Keil), but because Gibeon, where the tabernacle and brazen altar then were, stood higher than Jerusalem. It is remarkable that retribution thus overtook Joab on the very scene of his last murder, for it was "at the great stone which is in Gibeon" (2Sa_20:8), that he slew Amasa. Cf. 2Ki_9:26 : "I will requite thee in this plat, saith the Lord"], and fell upon him, and slew him: and he was buried in his own house [possibly in the courtyard: hardly in the garden. The same is recorded of Samuel (1Sa_25:1). It was evidently an exceptional occurrence. Remembering the estimation in which the Jew held the corpse and the grave (Num_19:11, Num_19:16, Num_19:22; cf. Mat_23:27), it must have been a singular honour to make of the house a mausoleum. No doubt it was designed to be such in Joab's case. Whatever his crimes, his services had deserved well of his country. Possibly his friends were led to pay him this special honour as a kind of counterpoise to the ignominy of his death] in the wilderness [i.e; of Judah. Joab's mother was of Bethlehem, which was on the border of the desert. The "wilderness of Tekoah" (2Ch_20:20), according to Jerome, was visible from Bethlehem, being but six Roman miles distant.
1Ki_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. [It is hardly likely that Joab would be retained in command of the army after the conspiracy of 1Ki_1:1-53; nor is this implied in this verse, the meaning of which is that Benaiah took the place of Josh, and that Zadok henceforward was sole high priest.]
I. THAT PRIESTS HAD BETTER NOT MEDDLE WITH POLITICS. No one can deny their abstract right to do so. They are men, if they are clergymen, and "nihil humani," etc. As citizens, they may have convictions. Having convictions, they may surely give effect to them. No one can deny again that they have often interfered to good purpose. Witness the case of Jehoiada. It may sometimes be a duty to interfere. But all the same, their plane is not the plane of politics. Their πολίτευμα is the Church. And what is lawful, is not always expedient. Their meddling has often cost not only them, but the Church, dear. Well had it been for Abiathar; well for the Wolseys, Richelieus, and many more, had they never given up "to party what was meant for mankind." There are questions—imperial questions of right and wrong—where the clergy must speak out; there are other questions—party questions -- where, for their own and their flocks' sake, they had better hold their peace.
II. THAT PRIESTS ARE MEN OF LIKE PASSIONS WITH OTHER MEN. Abiathar apparently was not free from that "last infirmity of noble minds." It was probably jealousy of Zadok impelled him to conspire against Solomon, and to join hands with the murderer Josh against the prophet Nathan. Neither the holy anointing oil nor the discharge of the priest's office destroys the phronema sarkos (see Art. IX.) It is worthy of note that the first high priest was guilty of idolatry, envy, and murmurings; that the sons of Eli committed abominable crimes; and that the high priests Annas and Caiaphas condemned the Lord of Glory. Every high priest needed to "make atonement for his own sins (Le 1Ki_16:6, 1Ki_16:11). Abiathar, the minister of God, was a traitor against God and His anointed. Having the frailties, temptations, and passions of other men, priests often commit sins, sometimes commit crimes.
III. THAT PRIESTS MAY BE PUNISHED FOR THEIR CRIMES BY THE SECULAR POWER. For centuries the Latin Church contended with our forefathers for the exemption of ecclesiastics front the authority of civil tribunals. But the Jewish priests enjoyed no such exemption. Abiathar was threatened by Solomon with death, and was thrust out of his office. Our Great High Priest respected the tribunal of Pontius Pilate. And His apostle answered for himself before Felix and Festus, and before great Caesar himself. (Cf. Art. 37, of the "Articles of Religion.") But
IV. PRIESTS ARE TO BE TREATED WITH THE REVERENCE DUE TO THEIR OFFICE. "Because thou barest the ark of the LORD GOD." Criminous clergy are not to be so punished as to bring their sacred calling into contempt (not, e.g; to be set to sweep the streets, as General Butler forced one of the American bishops to do in New Orleans). If the man is entitled to no consideration, the office is. He wears the livery of the Great King. The vessel is "earthen," but the treasure "heavenly" (2Co_4:7). "As men are to God's ministers, they will find Him to them."
V. PRIESTS MAY BE DEGRADED FROM THEIR POSITION, BUT CANNOT BE DEPRIVED OF THEIR PRIESTHOOD. They did not derive their authority from the civil power. It did not give, and it cannot take away. David did not make Abiathar priest, and Solomon could not unmake him. We find from 1Ki_4:4 that he was still called "priest." He that is "called of God, as was Aaron," can only be recalled of God. When Solomon "thrust out Abiathar," he "deprived him of his dignity, but did not strip him of his priesthood" (Theodoret). The state may fine, imprison, banish, put to death Christ's ambassadors according to their deserts, but it may not alter their message, tamper with their creeds, confer their orders, or prescribe their ordinances. "To Caesar the things which are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's."
VI. IN REMOVING THE UNWORTHY PRIEST THE CIVIL POWER IS FULFILLING THE WILL OF THE LORD. The "sure word of prophecy"—indeed a double prophecy—had its fulfilment when Solomon banished Ahiathar. The secular power thereby accomplished the good pleasure of God declared four hundred years before (Num_25:13). And the magistrate who, in the exercise of the authority conferred on him by God for the punishment of evil doers, degrades the criminous priest, silences him, visits him with appropriate pains and penalties, is doing God service; is fulfilling the will of God, who would have evil ministers above all others brought to justice and chastised; the more influential their example, the more need of conspicuous and exemplary punishment.
1Ki_2:26-35
I. WHY IS HE HERE? It is
(1) because his conscience has made him a coward. He who never turned his back on the foe, has fled before a breath, a mere rumour. He has not been attacked, not even threatened; but the secret is out, the conspiracy is discovered, his head is forfeited. He betrays his guilt by his flight. Time was when he would have faced almost any danger, when he would have died rather than fled. But then he had a support and stay, in the consciousness of rectitude, which he has not now. Now, his own heart denounces him.
"None have accused thee; 'tis thy conscience cries."
The man whose conscience is burdened with crime has an enemy, a traitor, within the camp. But why has he fled to the sanctuary; why chosen the tabernacle of God for his refuge? For Joab has not loved the habitation of God's house. The tabernacle of the Lord could not be "amiable" to that guilty heart. His choice would be "the congregation of evildoers." A stranger to the tabernacle and its services, why is he here? It is
(2) because men often betake themselves in adversity to the religion they despised in prosperity. Yes, Joab's is no solitary case. It is too common. Witness the so called deathbed repentances; witness the cries and prayers which go up in the hour of peril from lips which never prayed before. Men who have neglected God and contemned the ordinances of religion in health often turn to Him and to them in sickness. "It is the fashion of our foolish presumption to look for protection where we have not cared to yield obedience." But
(3) the altar of God is for sacrifice, not for sanctuary. The purpose of the altar, its raison d'etre, was that sacrifices, i.e; that worship, might be offered thereon. It was an accident, so to speak, that made of it a sanctuary; the accident of its sacredness. Because it was ordained of God, fashioned after a Divine pattern and employed in the Divine service, it was naturally and rightly regarded as holy, as a structure not to be profaned, and hence the manslayer fled thither for protection. But this use of the altar was quite beside its original intention. It was made for worship, for the service of God, not for the defence of man. Joab disregarded its proper use; he used it for his own convenience. And have we not seen something like this in our own days? Religion is ordained for man to live by. Its primary purpose is the glory of God. It exists that man may offer "spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God;" that man may be himself "a living sacrifice." But there are those who would use it only as a sanctuary, as a place to flee to when they can sin no longer. They want the benefits of religion without its obligations; they pervert it from its proper and holy, to a purely selfish purpose; they want it for death and it was meant for life. They act, i.e; much as Joab did, and it is to be feared their last end will not be unlike his. The altar they have slighted will not shelter them in the day of evil.
II. But let us now ask, secondly, WHY IS HE PUT TO DEATH HERE? The altar was never meant to be stained with human blood. If it was not for sanctuary, still less was it for slaughter. And it has sheltered many; why may it afford him no asylum? It is
(1) Because he has come to it too late. Had he come before, and come as a worshipper, he would not have needed to come now as a fugitive. Had he even come, after his great crimes, as a sincere penitent, he might, perchance, have found forgiveness. David was delivered from blood guiltiness, and why not Joab? But he only comes to the altar because he is driven to it; because he can do nothing else. Yes, "it is too late to cry for mercy when it is the time of justice." Those who put off repentance fill they can sin no longer find that such feigned repentance profits them nothing. There is a time when "the door is shut."
2. Because "he shall have judgment without mercy that shewed no mercy." Joab's murders could not have been more treacherous, more cruel. "The blood of wax in peace." "Took him aside in the gate to speak with him peaceably". "Took Amasa by the beard with the right hand to kiss him" (2Sa_20:9). There is a lex talionis which governs the dealings of God with transgressors. The cruel murderer shall be cruelly murdered. The assassin shall be executed at the altar. He that "showed no pity" shall receive none.
3. Because God pays sure, even if he pays slowly. It was thirty-four years—an entire generation—since Abner's blood first cried from the ground. Eight years had elapsed since Amasa's death. And Joab, meanwhile, had maintained his position. Still "over all the host of Israel," still second only to the king. If ever he or others had dreamed of punishment, they must by this time have given up all fear, or all hope. David had died and Joab stir lived. Joab had conspired once and yet he was spared. Is there, men would ask, a retributive Justice? is there a "God that judgeth the earth"? Yes, though Joab has "hoar hairs," though he has all but gone down to the grave in peace, his sin has found him out. And the blood which reddens those gray hairs, the blood which crimsons the sanctuary, proves that there is a Nemesis for crime: that if Justice has a halting foot, she nevertheless overtakes the fleetest offender; that "if the mills of God grind slowly, yet they grind exceedingly small."
4. Because "without shedding of blood there is no remission." Only the blood of Joab could expiate the bloodshed he had wrought. Nothing else could cleanse the land. For innocent blood guilty blood; this was the law. How different is the gospel. The blood of Christ speaketh better things than the blood of Abel, ay, than the blood of Joab. The blood of Joab made an atonement for the land. There the guilty died because of the innocent. The blood of JESUS made an atonement for the world. Here the innocent dies because of the guilty. The blood of Joab tells of vengeance, of retribution, of death. The blood of JESUS speaks of mercy, of restitution, of life and love and peace. Yes, the death of Joab may surely speak to us, but it speaks to little purpose, unless it tells us of "the precious blood of Christ."