CRITICAL AND EXPLANATORY NOTES.—
1 Kings 2:5. Shed the blood of war in peace; i.e., murderously slew the inoffensive; shed, in peace, blood which should only flow in war. Put the blood of war on his girdle and in his shoes—The “girdle” was the military band, and to which his sword was attached, worn by a warrior, suggestive, therefore, of his rank; while his “shoes” suggest his marching equipment; and these insignia of his office and dignity he soiled with murder! (comp. Lange).
1 Kings 2:6. Do according to thy wisdom—At fitting time, and in fitting manner, mark his crimes with abhorrence, and requite his guilty deeds.
1 Kings 2:7. “Eat at thy table, for so they came to me,” i.e., they did me kindness in entertaining me.
1 Kings 2:8. Bahurim—A village beyond Olivet, five and a quarter miles distant from Jerusalem. A grievous curse—Not merely cursed me, but קְלָלָה נִמְרֶצֶת a grievous, violent curse (as in Micah 2:10, “sore destruction”); heinous, dreadful. Such punishment of Shimei was not vindictiveness on David’s part, but a vindication of the Divine justice against a ribald impiety.
HOMILETICS OF 1 Kings 2:5-9
THE TERRIBLE PERTINACITY OF REVENGE
It is unfair to judge Old Testament characters according to the standard of New Testament morality. Viewed in the light of the religious ideas of the nineteenth century, the temper and conduct of David on his death-bed are irreconcileable with the spirit and genius of Christianity. But the religious era of David was initial and imperfect in its development; and it is no marvel if we detect serious blemishes alongside what is best in its experimental life. Besides, it should not be overlooked that in the instance before us David spoke not as a private individual, but as a theocratic king, uttering the decrees of the righteous vengeance of Heaven against gross wrong-doing. We may regard the whole passage as illustrative of the terrible pertinacity of revenge.
I. That a spirit of revenge is difficult to suppress.
1. It may obtruds itself amid the solemnities of the dying hour. When the soul is about to quit its frail, worn tenement, and is pluming its wings to soar into the invisible and eternal, it is desirable that its latest thoughts on earth should savour of amity, peace, and concord, and that its words should be free from bitterness and enmity. But such is the subtle, pertinacious character of revenge, that it clings to the soul for years, and disturbs the repose of the dying pillow. It is the dark, grim shadow of man’s better self, ever present, consciously or unconsciously, and which sometimes never vanishes but into the deeper shadow of the grave.
2. It mars a character otherwise noble and generous. There was much in the character of David of moral beauty, of noble impulse, and lofty aspiration. In the complexity of its elements, passion, tenderness, generosity, fierceness—the soldier, the shepherd, the poet, the statesman, the priest, the prophet, the king, the romantic friend, the chivalrous leader, the devoted father—there is no character of the Old Testament at all to be compared to it. Jacob comes nearest in the variety of elements included within it. But “David’s character stands at a higher point of the sacred history, and represents the Jewish people just at the moment of their transition from the lofty virtues of the older system to the fuller civilization and cultivation of the later. In this manner he becomes naturally, if one may so say, the likeness or portrait of the last and grandest development of the nation and of the monarchy in the person and period of the Messiah.” Pity it is that a character of qualities so fine and varied should be blurred by the dark, unsightly blot of revenge! making every allowance for David as representing in his last utterances the intentions of avenging Heaven. Revenge threatens the destruction of every virtue.
II. That a spirit of revenge retains a vivid recollection of past injuries.
1. The particular occasions of past injuries are retentively remembered (1 Kings 2:5; 1 Kings 2:8.) Joab’s chief offence against David, besides his murder of Abner and Amasa, was, no doubt, his killing Absalom (2 Samuel 18:14), despite the king’s orders to the contrary. Another serious crime was his support of the treasonable attempt of Adonijah. But, besides these, he seems to have offended David by a number of little acts. He was a constant thorn in his side. He treated him with scant respect, taking important steps without his orders (2 Samuel 3:26), remonstrating with him roughly and rudely (ib. 1 Kings 2:24-25), almost betraying his secrets (ib. 11. 1 Kings 2:19-21), and where he disliked the orders given him, disobeying them (1 Chronicles 21:6). David allowed his ascendancy, but he chafed against it, finding “this son of Zeruiah” in particular, “too hard” for him (2 Samuel 3:39). Shimei’s cursing was all the more grievous because David was in distress at the time (2 Samuel 16); and the Jews say the insult was all the greater because Shimei upbraided him with his descent from Ruth. the Moabitess. The hatred and virulence of the curse indicated that the Benjamites resented the loss of royalty in their tribe, even in the palmiest days of David’s monarchy. Revenge notes every minute detail of the injury inflicted, broods over it in secret, and watches for the moment of retaliation; its memory is infallible, its hatred intense, its patience stern and unwearying, and its sting venomous and cruel.
2. The character of past injuries modifies the character of the revenge they provoke. The injuries in this case were of the gravest kind—cursing and murder. Sometimes the revenge is more terrible than the offence. In other instances the acts are so flagrant and sinful that to cherish and execute revenge simply amounts to the infliction of the righteous punishment of outraged justice. Magistrates are the avengers of the blood of those of whom they have charge. There are some sins which it would be a greater sin to allow to go unnoticed and unrequited. The murderer and blasphemer were punishable with death (Leviticus 24:14; Exodus 22:27; 2 Samuel 16:9; ib. 2 Samuel 19:22).
3. Great forbearance may be shown before revenge is gratified (1 Kings 2:8). Shimei had seen and confessed his sin, and obtained a reprieve, at least during David’s lifetime (2 Samuel 19:16-23). But his offence was of such a character, and his turbulent, malicious temper so well known, that Solomon was warned not to let slip the opportunity which any new offence offered of inflicting the punishment he deserved. The spirit of revenge may be for a while restrained by the prevalence of a more generous feeling, from motives of policy, or in order to choose the best time for its gratification; but, sooner or later, the stroke will fall. For a justification of David’s conduct in committing to judgment a man whom he had forgiven, see Keil on 1 Kings 2:8-9, with foot note.
III. That a spirit of revenge is terribly pertinacious in its demands (1 Kings 2:6-9).
1. It surrenders its victims to the extreme penalties of justice. “Hold him not guiltless,”—do not treat him as an innocent man; but punish him as in thy wisdom may seem best. Not at once; but when the next delinquency is committed, hesitate not to punish with the utmost severity. “So that deferring payment is no breach of bond: there will come a time wherein the Lord will have a full blow at the impenitent person, be the pretences of impunity what they will.”—Trapp. The hoary head of both must be brought to the grave with blood, else David’s head could not be brought to his grave in peace. Due punishment of malefactors is the debt of authority: if that holy king has run into arrearages, yet, as one that hates and fears to break the bank, he gives orders to his paymaster, it shall be defrayed, if not by him, yet for him.—Bishop Hall. Revenge may slumber for years; but when it is once roused, terrible is the havoc which it works. It burns with irresistible fierceness. It exacts the uttermost farthing of the penalty.
2. The aged are allowed no exemption from its severest punishments. Grey hairs, if found in the way of righteousness, are a crown of glory (Proverbs 16:31), adorned with which man may go the way of all flesh in peace and comfort; but an old sinner, whom even grey hairs have not brought to repentance, goes down to the grave without solace or peace. Age in itself is no protection from justice. The longer man continues in sin, the more fearful will be his punishment (Isaiah 65:20). A life of wasted opportunities, abused privileges, and unrepented sins will bring an old age of suffering and dishonour.
IV. That a spirit of revenge is often relieved by the exhibition of an opposite spirit of kindness and liberality. “But shew kindness unto the sons of Barzillai” (1 Kings 2:7). A good deed will not go unrewarded. Even successions of generations fare better for one good parent (Proverbs 27:10). The children of Barzillai inherit the fruits of their father’s timely hospitality (2 Samuel 17:27-29). Generous natures are never ungrateful. Agesilaus, king of Sparta, was always very grateful for any courtesies he received, and used to say that it was not only an unjust thing not to be thankful, but if a man did not return greater kindness than he received. The honour of eating at the royal table is a custom thoroughly oriental, and has prevailed in all ages. How much more bountiful is the Father of Mercies in the remuneration of our poor, unworthy services! The heart that is susceptible of the bitterest revenge is often most lavish in affection and generosity.
LESSONS:—
1. Revenge is strangely out of place on a death-bed.
2. The predominance of the Christian spirit destroys revenge.
3. To forgive an injury is more noble than to retaliate.
HOMILETICS OF 1 Kings 2:8-9
THE SINS OF GODLY MEN
A man of God retains to the last the bias of nature with which his Maker endowed him at the first. Christianity does not reduce men to one dead level; it rather brings out in greater relief those parts of our character which are in harmony with its principles, while tending to tone down others with which it has no affinity. If the good man in the present age is so misunderstood, and his actions so unmercifully criticised, what little chance is there of the characters of men in past times being rightly appreciated and justly dealt with? The Almighty is ever the same; but the peoples of every age, in every land, differ from their sires. Where once the stalwart Roman stood, there now the effeminate Italian basks in languid ease. The bandit lurks where erst the philosophic Greek discoursed. All this God recollects, if we forget, and assuredly will judge men as well from that outside them, as from that within their hearts. There are three ways in which David may have been influenced in giving this dying injunction to his son:—
I. As the agent, unconscious or otherwise, of Divine justice. We cannot conceive this measure as being the consummation of a Divine purpose, it had apparently so much about it of human plan. The Almighty’s power, when exerted in support of justice, has always been certain and direct in its action, without any references to contingencies. With God it is all justice or all mercy: no half measures. How different from man’s punishment is this! The very manner of Shimei’s death is the greatest argument against it having been ordained by God (1 Kings 2:36-46). Even David and his son were ashamed of it; and shall God be credited with what they despised? For the honour of his father’s name, as well as his own, Solomon disguised his real object by laying a trap for Shimei, puerile in its meanness, and yet sufficient to attain the end desired. David’s conduct in giving this dying injunction to his son may have been influenced—
II. By a conscientious desire to administer human justice according to the will of God. David, we are told, was a man of God, one after His own heart. Intimately acquainted with the Divine nature—keenly alive to heaven’s requirements, and inspired most devoutly with the desire to imitate his Maker’s character—he is prominently put forth as, in many respects, the model of a godly man How, then, with such clear perceptions of the Divine attributes, can we conceive of him as acting in this matter conscientiously and with cool judgment, in the full belief of the harmony of his decree with Almighty rectitude? To do so is to dishonour the unswerving uprightness of God’s justice, or to depreciate David’s experiences and knowledge of the Divine character. We would rather be left to our final alternative in—
III. Regarding his injunction as prompted by revenge. As a man he forgave Shimei at the time of his crime, which then should have been effaced from his memory. Heavenly justice, if not satisfied, would have taken its own way of vindicating itself, without further action on David’s part. With David, as a man of God and Israel’s lawgiver, we must utterly disconnect this act, and attribute it entirely to a flaw in his character, which, at the last, reasserted its natural power in antagonism to Divine grace. Feud and retaliation have ever been the preceders of law, order, and Christianity; and even now, among some nations, one of the most sacred principles a man acknowledges is to avenge a loved one’s death, or his own personal wrong, till the third and fourth generations. Undoubtedly, in David’s time, this custom of revenge and retaliation was rife among the Eastern nations, along with many other practices at variance with progress and religion. Men were brought up to them, accepted them as their moral clothing, and acted up conscientiously to their injunctions. So it was with David. Though a man of God, in whom He delighted, yet the customs of his time, the habits of thought of those about him, with the silent effect of their example, had—unknown, maybe, to him—so impregnated his being as to germinate into ungodly actions at any sudden temptation or crisis, with sufficient power to sweep away for a time the tuition and principles of his heavenly life. In David’s case, what mighty lessons this should teach! Here was a patriarch indeed, at the last moments of his existence succumbing to the seducing wiles and powerful instincts of his grosser nature Men may well dread death, for then is the last great struggle between earth and heaven—nay hell and heaven. It is Satan’s last chance, and he puts forth his mighty energies in one last grand endeavour, in which the deadliest hate and fear, and every terrible passion, is at work, striving to counteract the power of his Almighty antagonist. But the Almighty knows him, and He knows us. Like David, we may be vengeful on our death-bed—our spirits may become dim, and weak, and faint; yet He knows our hearts that we are in Him, and He in us, and pardons the wanderings of our faltering footsteps as we totter to His threshold, until, as we gain the door and faintly knock, it opens wide, disclosing a scene of light, and joy, and bliss, with the inspiriting words sounding gladly in our ears—“Be of good courage, I will never leave thee or forsake thee!”—Homilist.
GERM NOTES ON THE VERSES
1 Kings 2:5-9. Perhaps the dying monarch is solely anxious for the security of his young successor’s kingdom. Perhaps he allows old animosities to revive, and is willing to avenge himself indirectly and by deputy, though he had been withheld by certain scruples from taking vengeance in his own person. We must not expect gospel morality from the saints of the Old Testament. They were only the best men of their several ages and nations. The maxim of them of old time, whether Jews or Gentiles, was “Love your friends and hate your enemies” (Matthew 5:43), and David, perhaps, was not, in this respect, in advance of his age. It would have been more magnanimous had he, either now or previously, freely forgiven these great offenders (Joab and Shimei) their offences against himself; but it would have been a magnanimity unexampled in the previous history of the world, and which we have no right to look for in one who was the warrior king of a nation just emerging from barbarism. If David was actuated by a sense of his own wrongs in the injunctions which he gave with respect to Joab and Shimei, we cannot justify the morality of his conduct; but it ought not to occasion us any surprise or difficulty. At any rate, it is satisfactory to see that, if David did allow himself to accept the unchristian half of the maxim above quoted, and to indulge malevolent feelings against his enemies, at least he accepted equally the other half, and entertained warm feelings of affection towards his friends. His hatred pursues only the individuals who have done him wrong. His gratitude and love pass on from the doer of a kindness to the doer’s children after their father’s death.—Speaker’s Comm.
1 Kings 2:7. A noble heart does not forget what was done for him in times of trouble especially, and thinks of it even in the hour of death. The world is ungrateful. A blessing rests on deeds of faithfulness, and self-sacrificing, disinterested love; and it descends to children and children’s children.—Lange.
A spirit of kindness—
1. Has a lively appreciation of help rendered in time of need.
2. Is prompt to acknowledge its obligations.
3. Delights in showing greater kindness than it received.
4. Is an important, practical feature of the Christian spirit.
1 Kings 2:8-9. A curse rests on those who curse the “powers” which are God’s ministers, instead of praying for them, and they are made, sooner or later, to feel the curse (1 Peter 2:17; 1 Peter 2:6). The Lord prayed for those who cursed Him; but when they did not repent and become converted, Divine judgment came down on them. No doubt a wicked man often goes a long time unpunished for his deeds; but Divine justice does not fail to overtake him finally, ere he is aware. It required wisdom to punish: a premature, ill-judged chastisement does more harm than good.—Lange.