Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament

J HE books of the Kings, which were but one book originally like the books of Samuel, and which, like the latter, were divided into two books by the Alexandrian translators (see the Introduction to the books of Samuel), contain, in accordance with their name (D07D), the history of the Israelitish theocracy under the kings, from the accession of Solomon to the extinction of the monarchy on the overthrow of the kingdom of Judah, when Jerusalem was destroyed by the Chaldaeans and the people were carried away into exile in Babylon. They embrace a period of 455 years, from 1015 to 560 B.C., that is to say, to the reign of the Babylonian king Evil-merodach. And as every kingdom culminates in its king, and the government of the kings determines the fate of the kingdom, the contents of the books before us, which are named after the kings of Israel, consist for the most part of a history of those kings; inasmuch as, whilst on the one hand the reigns of the several kings form the historical and chronological framework for the description of the historical development of the people and kingdom, on the other hand the leading phases which the monarchy assumed furnish the basis of the three periods, into which the history of this epoch and the contents of our books are divided.

Theirs* period (1015-975 B.C.) embraces the forty years of

Solomon's reign over the undivided kingdom of the twelve tribes of Israel, when the Israelitish kingdom of God stood at the summit of its earthly power and glory; though towards the end of this period it began to decline, inasmuch as the rebellion of Solomon against the Lord in the closing years of his reign prepared the way for the rebellion of the ten tribes against the house of David. — The second period commences with the division of the one kingdom into the two kingdoms, Israel (or the ten tribes) and Judah, and stretches over the whole period during which these two kingdoms existed side by side, terminating with the destruction of the kingdom of the ten tribes by the Assyrians, i.e. from 975 to 722 B.C. — The third period embraces the still remaining years of the continuance of the kingdom of Judah, until its eventual dissolution by the Chaldaeans and the carrying away of the people into exile in Babylon, viz. from 722 to 560 B.C.

The first part of our books (1 Kings i.-xi.) therefore contains a description of the reign of Solomon, (a) in its commencement, viz. his ascent of the throne and the consolidation of his power (ch. i. and ii.); (b) in the gradual development of the strength and glory of his government, by his marriage, his sacrifice and prayer at Gibeon, his judicial wisdom, and his court (iii. 1-v. 14), — also by the building of the temple and royal palace and the dedication of the temple (v. 15-ix. 9), by the erection of his other edifices and the introduction of navigation and commerce (ix. 10-28), by the spreading abroad of the fame of his wisdom, and by the increase of his wealth (ch. x.); and (c) in its eventual decline in consequence of the sin into which the aged monarch fell through his polygamy and idolatry (ch. xi.). The second part opens with an account of the falling away of the ten tribes from the royal family of David, and relates in a synchronistic narrative the history of the two kingdoms in the three stages of their development: viz. (a) the early enmity between the two, from Jeroboam to Omri of Israel (xii. 1— xvi. 28); (b) the establishment of friendship and intermarriage between the two royal houses under Ahab and his sons, down to the destruction of the two kings Joram of Israel and Ahaziah of Judah by Jehu (xvi. 29-2 Kings x.); (c) the renewal of hostilities between the two kingdoms, from Jehu's ascent of the throne in Israel and Athaliah's usurpation of the throne in Judah to the overthrow of the kingdom of Israel in the sixth year of Hezekiah's reign in Judah

(xi. wii.). And, lastly, the third pari contains the history of the kingdom of Judah from Hezekiah bo the destruction of.Jerusalem by the Chaldseans, and carries it down to the thirty-seventh year of the imprisonment of king Jehoiachin in exile (ch. xviii.— xxv.). Now, although the history of the kings, or the account of both the duration and character of their reigns, and also of their various enterprises, so far as they promoted or hindered the progress of the kingdom of God, forms the principal substance of these books, they do not consist of a mere chronicle of the deeds and fortunes of the several kings, but describe at the same time the ministry of the prophets in the two kingdoms, and that to some extent in so elaborate a manner, that whilst some have discovered in this a peculiarly " proplietico-didactic purpose" (Havemick, De Wette, etc.), others regard it as an endeavour " to set forth the history of the Israeli tish and Jewish kings in its relation to the demands, the doings, the proclamations, and the predictions of the prophets, from Solomon to the Babylonian exile" (Kern). But however unmistakeable the proplietico-didactic character may be, which the books of Kin^s have in common with the whole of the historical writings of the Old Testament, a closer investigation of their character will show that there is no ground for the assertion that there is any prophetico-didactic purpose in the mode in which the history is written. For the account of the ministry of the prophets is introduced into the history of the kings as the spiritual leaven which pervaded the Israelitish monarchy from the beginning to the end, and stamped upon its development the character of the theocracy or divine rule in Israel. Jehovah, as the invisible but yet real King of the covenant nation, had created the peculiar instruments of His Spirit in the prophets who maintained His law and right before the kings, standing by their side to advise and direct, or to warn and punish, and, wherever it was necessary, proving their utterances to be words of God by signs and wonders which they did before the people. Thus the Lord directed the prophet Samuel to anoint Saul and David princes over His people, and the prophet Nathan to communicate to David the promise of the everlasting endurance of his throne (2 Sam. vii.). But when at a later period David sinned (2 Sam. xi. and xxiv.), it was the prophets Nathan and Gad who threatened him with punishment from God, and on his confession of sin and repentance announced the forgiveness and favour of God (2 Sam. xii. 1-15, xxiv. 11-19). Through the medium of the prophet Nathan, Solomon was also appointed the successor of David upon the throne (2 Sam. xii. 25), and not only anointed king, but installed in defiance of the machinations of Adonijah (1 Kings i.). But since the monarchy was transmitted from Solomon in a direct line through his descendants by virtue of the divine promise in 2 Sam. vii., it is only in connection with important enterprises, or when the kingdom is involved in difficulties, that we find the prophets coming forward in after times to help or advise those kings who walked in the ways of the Lord; whereas under the idolatrous and godless rulers they offer, in the power of God, such energetic resistance to idolatry and to everything evil and ungodly, that princes and people are compelled to bow before them and succumb to their divine words. In this way the prophets accompanied the monarchy in all its course from Solomon to the captivity as guardians of the rights of the God-King, and as interpreters of His counsel and will. Under Solomon, indeed, there was apparently a long period, during which prophecy fell into the background; since the Lord Himself not only appeared to this king in a dream at Gibeon shortly after he ascended the throne, but also appeared to him a second time after the dedication of the temple, and promised him the fulfilment of his prayers, and the glorification and eternal continuance of his kingdom, on condition of his faithful observance of the divine commands (1 Kings iii. 5 sqq., ix. 1 sqq.). But towards the end of his reign it rose up again in all the more threatening attitude, against the king who was then disposed to fall away from Jehovah. It was no doubt a prophet who announced to him the separation of ten parts of his kingdom (1 Kings xi. 11 sqq.), — possibly the same Ahijah who promised Jeroboam the government over ten tribes (xi 29 sqq.). But after the division of the kingdom, when Jeroboam proceeded, in order to fortify his throne, to make the political division into a religious one, and to this end exalted the image-worship into the state religion, the prophets continued to denounce this apostasy and proclaim to the sinful kings the destruction of their dynasties. And when at a still later period Ahab the son of Omri, and his wife Jezebel, endeavoured to make the Phoenician worship of Baal and Asherah into the national religion in Israel, Elijah the Tishbite, u the prophet as fire, whose words burned as a torch" (Ecclus. xlviii. 1), came forward with the irresistible power of God and maintained a victorious conflict against the prophets and servants of Baal, warding off the utter apostasy of the nation by uniting the prophets into societies, in which the worship of God was maintained, and the godly in Israel were supplied with a substitute for that legal worship in the temple which was enjoyed by the godly in Judah. And in the kingdom of Judah also there were never wanting prophets to announce the judgments of the Lord to idolatrous kings, and to afford a vigorous support to the pious and God-fearing rulers in their endeavours to promote the religious life of the nation, and to exalt the public worship of God in the temple. But since the kingdom of Judah possessed the true sanctuary, with the legal worship and an influential body of priests and Levites; and since, moreover, the monarchy of the house of David was firmly established by divine promises resting upon that house, and among the kings wrho sat upon the throne, from Rehoboam onwards, there were many godly rulers who were distinguished for their lofty virtues as governors; the labours of the prophets did not assume the same prominent importance here as they did in the kingdom of the ten tribes, where they had to fight against idolatry from the beginning to the end.

This explains the fact that the ministry of the prophets assumes so prominent a position in the books of the Kings, whereas the history of the kings appears sometimes to fall into the background in comparison. Nevertheless the historical development of the monarchy, or, to express it more correctly, of the kingdom of God under the kings, forms the true subjectmatter of our books. It was not a prophetico-didactic purpose, but the prophetico-historical point of view, which prevailed throughout the whole work, and determined the reception as well as the treatment of the historical materials. The progressive development of the kingdom was predicted and described by the Lord Himself in the promise communicated to David by the prophet Nathan: " And when thy days shall be fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, I will set up thy seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build a house for my name; and I will stablish the throne of his kingdom for ever. I will be his Father, and he shall be my son, that if he go astray, I may chasten him with man's rod, and with stripes of the children of men; but my mercy will not depart from him, as I caused it to depart from Saul, whom I put away before thee. And thy house and thy kingdom shall be for ever before thee, thy throne will be established for ever" (2 Sam. vii. 12-16). This thoroughly glorious promise forms the red thread which runs through the history of the kings from Solomon to the Babylonian captivity, and constitutes the leading idea in the record of this history in our books. The author's intention is to show in the history of the kings how the Lord fulfilled this gracious word, how He first of all chastised the seed of David for its transgressions, and then cast it off, though not for ever. To this end he shows in the history of Solomon, how, notwithstanding the usurpation of the throne attempted by Adonijah, Solomon received the whole of his father's kingdom, as the seed of David promised by the Lord, and established his power; how the Lord at the very beginning of his reign renewed to him at Gibeon the promise made to his father on the condition of his faithful observance of His law, and in answer to his prayer gave him not only a wise and understanding heart, but also riches and honour, so that his equal was not to be found among all the kings of the earth (1 Kings i. 1— v. 14); how Solomon then carried out the work of building the temple, entrusted to him by his father according to the will of the Lord; and how, after it was finished, the Lord again assured him of the fulfilment of that promise (ch. v. 15- ix. 9); and, lastly, how Solomon, having attained to the highest earthly glory, through the completion of the rest of his buildings, through the great renown of his wisdom, which had reached to nations afar off, and through his great riches, acquired partly by marine commerce and trade, and partly from tributes and presents, forgot his God, who had bestowed this glory upon him, and in his old age was led astray into unfaithfulness towards the Lord through his numerous foreign wives, and had at last to listen to this sentence from God: " Because thou hast not kept my covenant and my statutes, which I have commanded thee, 1 will surely rend the kingdom from thee, and give it to thy servant: notwithstanding in thy days I will not do it, for David thy father's sake; but I will rend it out of the hand of thy son. Howbeit I will not rend away all thy kingdom; but will give one tribe to thy son for David my servant's sake, and for Jerusalem's sake which I have chosen" (ch. ix. 10-xi. 13). Thus, because God had promised to the seed of David the eternal possession of the throne (2 Sam. vii. 12 sqq.), one portion of the kingdom was to be left to the son of Solomon, with the chosen city of Jerusalem, and his servant (Jeroboam, ch. xi. 26—40) was only to obtain dominion over ten tribes. The historical realization of this prophecy is shown in the history of the two divided kingdoms.

In the synchronistic account of these kingdoms, according to the principle already adopted in the book of Genesis, of disposing of the subordinate lines of the patriarchs before proceeding with the main line (see Comm, on Pent. vol. i. p. 3 7), the reigns of the kings of Israel are described before those of the contemporaneous kings of Judah, and to some extent in a more elaborate manner. The reason of this, however, is, that the history of the kingdom of Israel, in which one dynasty overthrew another, whilst all the rulers walked in the sin of Jeroboam, and Ahab even added the worship of Baal to that sin, supplied the author with more materials for the execution cf his plan than that of the kingdom of Judah, which had a much quieter development under the rule of the house of David, and of which, therefore, there was less to relate. Apart from this, all the events of the kingdom of Judah which are of any importance in relation to the progress of the kingdom of God, are just as elaborately described as those connected with the kingdom of Israel; and the author does equal j ustice to both kingdoms, showing how the Lord manifested Himself equally to both, and bore with them with divine long-suffering and grace. But the proof of this necessarily assumed different forms, according to the different attitudes which they assumed towards the Lord. Jeroboam, the founder of the kingdom of Israel, when told that he would be king over the ten tribes, had received the promise that Jehovah would be with him, and build him a lasting house as He built for David, and give Israel to him, on condition that he would walk in the ways of God (1 Kings xi. 37, 38). This implied that his descendants would rule over Israel (of the ten tribes) so long as this kingdom should stand; for it was not to last for ever, but the separation would come to an end, and therefore he is not promised the everlasting continuance of his kingdom (see at 1 Kings xi. 38). But Jeroboam did not fulfil this condition, nor did any of the rulers of Israel who succeeded him. Nevertheless the Lord had patience with the kings and tribes who were unfaithful to His law, and not only warned them continually by His prophets, and chastised them by threats of punishment and by the fulfilment of those threats upon the kings and all the people, but repeatedly manifested His favour towards them for the sake of His covenant with Abraham (2 Kings xiii. 23), to lead them to repentance — until the time of grace had expired, when the sinful kingdom fell and the ten tribes were carried away to Media and Assyria. — In the kingdom of David, on the contrary, the succession to the throne was promised to the house of David for all time: therefore, although the Lord caused those who were rebellious to be chastised by hostile nations, yet, for His servant David's sake, He left a light shining to the royal house, since He did not punish the kings who were addicted to idolatry with the extermination of their family (1 Kings xv. 4; 2 Kings viii. 19); and even when the wicked Athaliah destroyed all the royal seed, He caused Joash, the infant son of Ahaziah, to be saved and raised to the throne of his fathers (2 Kings xi.). Consequently this kingdom was able to survive that of the ten tribes for an entire period, just because it possessed a firm political basis in the uninterrupted succession of the Davidic house, as it also possessed a spiritual basis of no less firmness in the temple which the Lord had sanctified as the place where His name was revealed. After it had been brought to the verge of destruction by the godless Ahaz, it received in Hezekiah a king who did what was right in the eyes of Jehovah, as his father David had done, and in the severe oppression which he suffered at the hands of the powerful army of the proud Sennacherib, took refuge in the Lord, who protected and saved Jerusalem, " for His own and His servant David's sake," at the prayer of the pious king of Jerusalem (2 Kings xix. 34, xx. 6). But when at length, throughout the long reign of Manasseh the idolater, apostasy and moral corruption prevailed to such an extent in Judah also, that even the pious Josiah, with the reformation of religion which he carried out with the greatest zeal, could only put down the outward worship of idols, and was unable to effect any thorough conversion of the people to the Lord their God, and the Lord as the Holy One of Israel was obliged to declare His purpose of rejecting Judah from before His face on account of the sins of Manasseh, and to cause that purpose to be executed by Nebuchadnezzar (2 Kings xxiii. 26, 27, xxiv. 3, 4); Jehoiachin was led away captive to Babylon, and under Zedekiah the kingdom was destroyed with the burning of Jerusalem and the temple. Yet the Lord did not suffer the light to be altogether extinguished to His servant David; but when Jehoiachin had pined in captivity at Babylon for thirty-seven years, expiating his own and his fathers' sins, he was liberated from his captivity by Nebuchadnezzar's son, and raised to honour once more (2 Kings xxv. 27-30). — The account of this joyful change in the condition of Jehoiachin, with which the books of the Kings close, forms so essential a part of their author's plan, that without this information the true conclusion to his work would be altogether wanting. For this event shed upon the dark night of the captivity the first ray of a better future, which was to dawn upon the seed of David, and with it upon the whole nation in its eventual redemption from Babylon, and was also a pledge of the certain fulfilment of the promise that the Lord would not for ever withdraw His favour from the seed of David.1

Thus the books of the Kings bring down the history of the Old Testament kingdom of God, according to the divine plan of the kingdom indicated in 2 Sam. vii., from the close of David's reign to the captivity; and the fact that in 1 Kings i. 1 they are formally attached to the books of Samuel is an indication that they are a continuation of those books. Nevertheless there is no doubt that they formed from the very first a separate work, the independence and internal unity of which are apparent from the uniformity of the treatment of the history as well as from the unity of the language. From beginning to end the author quotes from his original sources, for the

1 Stahelin makes the following remark in his Einleitung (p. 122): " The

books of the Kings form an antithesis to the history of David. As the latter shows how obedience to God and to the utterances of His prophets is rewarded, and how, even when Jehovah is obliged to punish, He makes known His grace again in answer to repentance; so do the books of the Kings, which relate the overthrow of both the Hebrew states, teach, through the history of these two kingdoms, how glorious promises are thrown back and dynasties fall in consequence of the conduct of individual men (compare 1 Kings xi. 38 with xiv. 10, and still more with 2 Kings xxi. 10 sqq. and xxiii. 27). The sins of one man like Manasseh are sufficient to neutralize all the promises that have been given to the house of David." There is no

need to refute this erroneous statement, since it only rests upon a misinterpretation of 2 Kings xxi. 10 sqq., and completely misses the idea which runs through both books of the Kings; and, moreover, there is no contradiction between the manifestation of divine mercy towards penitent sinners and the punishment of men according to their deeds.

most part with certain standing formulas; in all important events he gives the chronology carefully (1 Kings vi. 1, 37, 38, vii. 1, ix. 10, xi 42, xiv. 20, 21, 25, xv. 1, 2, 9, 10, etc.); lie judges the conduct of the kings throughout according to the standard of the law of Moses (1 Kings ii. 3, iii. 14; 2 Kings x. 31, xi. 12, xiv. 6, xvii. 37, xviii. 6, xxi. 8, xxii. 8 sqq., xxiii. 3, 21, etc.); and he nearly always employs the same expressions when describing the commencement, the character, and the close of each reign, as well as the death and burial of the kings (compare 1 Kings xi. 43, xiv. 20, 31, xv. 8, 24, xxii. 51; 2 Kings viii 24, xiii. 9, xiv. 29; and for the characteristics of the.several kings of Judah, 1 Kings xv. 3, 11, xxii. 43; 2 Kings xii. 3, xiv. 3, xv. 3, etc.; and for those of the kings of Israel, 1 Kings xiv. 8, xv. 26, 34, xvi. 19, 26, 30, xxii. 53; 2 Kings iii. 2, 3, x. 1)(.>, 31, xiii. 2. 11, etc.). And so, again, the language of the books remains uniform in every part of the work, if we except certain variations occasioned by the differences in the sources employed; since we find throughout isolated expressions and forms of a later date, and words traceable to the Assyrian and Chaldaean epoch, such as 13 for ton in 1 Kings v. 2, 25: P?4!? in 1 Kings xi. oo; IT), in 2 Kings xi. 13; nfono in 1 Kings xx. 14, 15, 17, 19; fapf in 2 Kings xv. 10; D^nn n'- in i Bangs xv. 20, 2 Kings xxv. 2;;, 2<i; tfnao m in 2 Kings xxv. 8; HH9 in 1 Kings x. 15, xx. 24. 2 Kings xviii. 24; and many others, which do not occur in the earlier historical books. — The books of the Kings are essentially distinguished from the books of Samuel through these characteristic peculiarities; but not so much through the quotations which are so prominent in the historical narrative, for these are common to all the historical books of the Old Testament, and are only more conspicuous in these books, especially in the history of the kings of the two kingdoms, because in the case of all the kings, even of those in relation to whom there was nothing to record of any importance to the kingdom of God except the length and general characteristics of their reign, there are notices of the writings which contain further information concerning their reigns. — The unity of authorship is therefore generally admitted, since, as De vVette himself acknowledges, " you cannot anywhere clearly detect the interpolation or combination of different accounts." The direct and indirect contradictions, however, which Thenius imagines that he has discovered, prove to be utterly fallacious on a closer inspection of the passages cited aa proofs, and could only have been obtained through misinterpretations occasioned by erroneous assumptions. (See, on the other hand, my Lehrbuck der Einleitang in das A. T. p. 184 sqq.)

All that can be determined with certainty in relation to the origin of the books of Kings is, that they were composed in the second half of the Babylonian captivity, and before its close, since they bring the history down to that time, and yet contain no allusion to the deliverance of the people out of Babylon. The author was a prophet living in the Babylonian exile, though not the prophet Jeremiah, as the earlier theologians down to Havernick have assumed from the notice in the Talmud {Baha bathra, f. 15, 1): Jcremias scripsit libmim sunm et librum Regum ct Thrcnos. For even apart from the fact that Jeremiah ended his days in Egypt, he could hardly have survived the last event recorded in our books, namely, the liberation of Jehoiachin from prison, and his exaltation to royal honours by Evil-merodach. For inasmuch as this event occurred sixty-six years after his call to be a prophet, in the thirteenth, year of Josiah, he would have been eighty-six years old in the thirty-seventh year after Jehoiachin had been carried awav into exile, even if he had commenced his prophetic career when only a young man of twenty years of age. Now, even if he had reached this great age, he would surely not have composed our books at a later period still Moreover, all that has been adduced in support of this is seen to be inconclusive on closer inspection. The similarity in the linguistic character of our books and that of the writings of Jeremiah, the sombre view of history which is common to the two, the preference apparent in both for phrases taken from the Pentateuch, and the allusions to earlier prophecies,— all these peculiarities may be explained, so far as they really exist, partly from the fact that they were written in the same age, since all the writers of the time of the captivity and afterwards cling very closely to the Pentateuch and frequently refer to the law of Moses, and partly also from the circumstance that, whilst Jeremiah was well acquainted with the original sources of our books, viz. the annals of the kingdom of Judah, the author of our books was also well acquainted with the prophecies of Jeremiah. But the relation between 2 Kings xxiv. 18 sqq. and Jer. lii. is not of such a nature, that these two accounts of the destruction of Jerusalem and the carrying away of the remnant of the people could have emanated from the hand of Jeremiah; on the contrary, a closer inspection clearly shows that they are extracts from a more elaborate description of this catastrophe (see at 2 Kings xxiv. 1 8 sqq.).

As sources from which the author has obtained his accounts, there are mentioned, for the history of Solomon, a new *W TfiD, or book of the acts (affairs) of Solomon (1 Kings xi. 41); for the history of the kings of Judah, nrwr *£dp QW ncn 1DD, book of the daily occurrences of the kings of Judah (1 Kings xiv. 29, xv. 7, 23, xxii. 46; 2 Kings viii. 23, xii. 20, etc.); and for that of the kings of Israel, aofe* 9^ BWJ TO TfiD, book of the daily occurrences of the kings of Israel (1 Kings xiv. 19, xv. 31, xvi. 5, 14, 20, 27, xxii. 39; 2 Kings L 18). These are quoted as writings in which more is written concerning the life, the deeds, and the particular undertakings, buildings and so forth, of the several kings. The two last-named works were evidently general annals of the kingdoms: not, indeed, the national archives of the two kingdoms, or official records made by the B*Y?JB of the reigns and acts of the kings, as Jahn, Movers, Stahelin, and others suppose; but annals composed by prophets, and compiled partly from the public year-books of the kingdom or the national archives, and partly from prophetic monographs and collections of prophecies, which reached in the kingdom of Israel down to the time of Pekah (2 Kings xv. 31), and in that of Judah to the time of Jehoiakim (2 Kings xxiv. 5). Moreover, they were not written successively by different prophets, who followed one another, and so carried on the work in uninterrupted succession from the rise of the two kingdoms to the death of the two kings mentioned; but they had been worked out into a " Book of the history of the times of the Kings" for each of the two kingdoms, a short time before the overthrow of the kingdom of Judah, by collecting together the most important things that had been written both concerning the reigns of the several kings by annalists and other historians who were contemporaneous with the events, and also concerning the labours of the prophets, which were deeply interwoven with the course of public affairs, whether composed by themselves or by their contemporaries. And in this finished form they lay before the author of our work. This view of the annals of the kingdoms of Judah and Israel follows unquestionably from the agreement which exists between our books of the Kings and the second book of the Chronicles, in the accounts common to both, and which can only be explained from the fact that they were drawn from one and the same source. But in the Chronicles there are different writings of individual prophets quoted, beside the day-books of the kings of Judah and Israel; and it is expressly stated in relation to some of them that they were received into the annals of the kings (compare 2 Chron. xx. 34 and xxxii. 32, and the Introduction to the books of the Chronicles). Moreover, there are no historical traces of public annalists to be found in the kingdom of the ten tribes, and their existence is by no means probable, on account of the constant change of dynasties. The fact, however, that the frequently recurring formula " to this day" (1 Kings ix. 13, x. 12; 2 Kings ii. 22, x. 27, xiv. 7, xvi. 6, [xvii. 23, 34, 41,] xx. 17, xxi. 15) never refers to the time of the captivity, except in the passages enclosed in brackets, but always to the time of the existing kingdom of Judah, and that it cannot therefore have emanated from the author of our books of the Kings, but can only have been taken from the sources employed, is a proof that these annals of the kingdom were composed towards the close of the kingdom of Judah; and this is placed beyond all doubt, by the fact that this formula is also found in many passages of the books of the Chronicles (compare 1 Kings viii. 8 with 2 Chron. v. 9; 1 Kings ix. 2 1 with 2 Chron. viii. 8; 1 Kings xii. 1 9 with 2 Chron. x. 1 9; and 2 Kings viii. 2 2 with 2 Chron. xxi. 10). — In a similar manner to this must we explain the origin of the flu?® *V3R "IQD, since three prophetic writings are quoted in 1 Chron. xxix. 29 in connection with Solomon's reign, and their account agrees in all essential points with the account in the books of the Kings. Nevertheless this " history of Solomon " never formed a component part of the annals of the two kingdoms, and was certainly written much earlier. — The assumption that there were other sources still, is not only sustained by no historical evidence, but has no certain support in the character or contents of the writings before us. If the annals quoted were works composed by prophets, the elaborate accounts of the working of the prophets Elijah and Elisha might also have been included in them. — Again, in the constant allusion to these annals we have a sure pledge of the historical fidelity of the accounts that have been taken from them. If in his work the author followed writings which were composed by prophets, and also referred his readers to these writings, which were known and accessible to his contemporaries, for further information, he must have been conscious of the faithful and conscientious employment of them. And this natural conclusion is in harmony with the contents of our books. The life and actions of the kings are judged with unfettered candour and impartiality, according to the standard of the law of God; and there is no more concealment of the idolatry to which the highly renowned Solomon was led astray by his foreign wives, than of that which was right in the eyes of God, when performed by the kings of the ten tribes, which had fallen away from the house of David. Even in the case of the greatest prophet of all, namely Elijah, the weakness of his faith in being afraid of the vain threats of the wicked Jezebel is related just as openly as his courageous resistance, in the strength of the Lord, to Ahab and the prophets of Baal — Compare my Einldtung in das Altc Test. §§ 56-60, where adverse views are examined and the commentaries are also noticed.

AVID had not only established the monarchy upon a firm basis, but had also exalted the Old Testament kingdom of God to such a height of power, that all the kingdoms round about were obliged to bow before it. This kingdom was transmitted by divine appointment to his son Solomon, in whose reign Judah and Israel were as numerous as the sand by the sea-shore, and dwelt in security, every man under his vine and under his fig-tree (ch. iv. 20, v. 5). The history of this reign commences with the account of the manner in which Solomon had received the kingdom from his father, and had established his own rule by the fulfilment of his last will and by strict righteousness (ch. i. and ii.). Then follows in ch. iii.-x. the description of the glory of his kingdom, how the Lord, in answer to his prayer at Gibeon, not only gave him an understanding heart to judge his people, but also wisdom, riches, and honour, so that his equal was not to be found among the kings of the earth; and through his wise rule, more especially through the erection of the house of Jehovah and of a splendid royal palace, he developed the glory of the kingdom of God to such an extent that his fame penetrated to remote nations. The conclusion, in ch. xi, consists of the account of Solomon's sin in his old age, viz. his falling into idolatry, whereby he brought about the decay of the kingdom, which manifested itself during the closing years of his reign in the rising up of opponents, and at his death in the falling away of ten tribes from his son Kehoboam. But notwithstanding this speedy decay, the glory of Solomon's kingdom is elaborately depicted on account of the typical significance which it possessed in relation to the kingdom of God. Just as, for example, the successful wars of David with all the enemies of Israel were a prelude to the eventual victory of the kingdom of God over all the kingdoms of this world; so was the peaceful rule of Solomon to shadow forth the glory and blessedness which awaited the people of God, after a period of strife and conflict, under the rule of Shiloh the Prince of peace, whom Jacob saw in spirit, and who would increase government and peace without end upon the throne of David and in his kingdom (Isa. ix. 5, 6; Ps. lxxii.).

The attempt of Adonijah to seize upon the throne when David's strength was failing (vers. 1-10), induced the aged king, as soon as it was announced to him by Bathsheba and the prophet Nathan, to order Solomon to be anointed king, and to have the anointing carried out (vers. 11—40); whereupon Adonijah fled to the altar, and received pardon from Solomon on condition that lie would keep himself quiet (vers. 41-53).

Vers. 1-4. When king David had become so old that they could no longer warm him by covering him with clothes, his servants advised him to increase his vitality by lying with a young and robust virgin, and selected the beautiful Abishag of Shunem to perform this service. This circumstance, which is a trivial one in itself, is only mentioned on account of what follows, — first, because it shows that David had become too weak from age, and too destitute of energy, to be able to carry on the government any longer; and, secondly, because Adonijah the pretender afterwards forfeited his life through asking for Abishag in marriage. — The opening of our book, ^srn (and the King), may be explained from the fact that the account which follows has been taken from a writing containing the earlier history of David, and that the author of these books retained the Vav cop. which he found there, for the purpose of showing at the outset that his work was a continuation of the books of Samuel D'pjn N3 |pT as in Josh. xiii. 1, xxiii. 1, Gen. xxiv. 1, etc. " They covered him with clothes, and he did not get warm!* It follows from this that the king was bedridden, or at least that when lying down he could no longer be kept warm with bed- clothes. D*1J3 does not mean clothes to wear here, but large cloths, which were used as bed-clothes, as in 1 Sam. xix. 13 and Num. iv. 6 sqq. Brv is used impersonally, and derived from Don, cf. Ewald, § 193, b, and 138, b. As David was then in his seventieth year, this decrepitude was not the natural result of extreme old age, but the consequence of a sickly constitution, arising out of the hardships which he had endured in his agitated and restless life. The proposal of his servants, to restore the vital warmth which he had lost by bringing a virgin to lie with him, is recommended as an experiment by Galen (Method, medic, viii. 7). And it has been an acknowledged fact with physicians of all ages, that departing vitality may be preserved and strengthened by communicating the vital warmth of strong and youthful persons (compare Trusen, Sitten Gebrauche u. Kranhheitender Hebraer, p. 257 sqq.). The singular suffix in SP*? is to be explained on the ground that one person spoke, HTirn rny^ a maid who is a virgin. *)a? "J»y, to stand before a person as servants to serve (cf. Deut. i. 38 with Ex. xxiv. 13). nj?D, an attendant or nurse, from }3p=J3^ to live with a person, then to be helpful or useful to him. With the words " that she may lie in thy bosom," the passage passes, as is frequently the case, from the third person to a direct address. — Vers. 3, 4. They then looked about for a beautiful girl for this purpose, and found Abishag of Shunem, the present Sulem or Solam, at the southeastern foot of the Duhy or Little Hermon (see at Josh. xix. 18), who became the king's nurse and waited upon him. The further remark, " and the king knew her not," is not introduced either to indicate the impotence of David or to show that she did not become David's concubine, but simply to explain how it was that it could possibly occur to Adonijah (ch. ii. 17) to ask for her as his wife. Moreover, the whole affair is to be judged according to the circumstances of the times, when there was nothing offensive in polygamy.

Vers. 5-10. Adonijah seized the opportunity of David's decrepitude to make himself king. Although he was David's fourth son (2 Sam. iii. 4), yet after the death of Ammon and Absalom he was probably the eldest, as Chileab, David's second son, had most likely died when a child, since he is never mentioned again. Adonijah therefore thought that he had a claim to the throne (cf. ch. ii. 15), and wanted to secure it before his father's death. But in Israel, Jehovah, the God-King of His people, had reserved to Himself the choice of the earthly king (Deut. xvii. 15), and this right He exercised not only in the case of Saul and David, but in that of Solomon also. When He gave to David the promise that his seed should rule for ever (2 Sam. vii. 12-16), He did not ensure the establishment of the throne to any one of his existing sons, but to him that would come out of his loins {i.e. to Solomon, who was not yet born); and after his birth He designated him through the prophet Nathan as the beloved of Jehovah (2 Sam. xii 24, 25). David discerned from this that the Lord had chosen Solomon to be his successor, and he gave to Bathsheba a promise on oath that Solomon should sit upon the throne (vers. 13 and 30). This promise was also acknowledged in the presence of Nathan (vers. 11 sqq.), and certainly came to Adonijah' s ears. Adonijah said, f* I will be king," and procured chariots and horsemen and fifty runners, as Absalom had done before (2 Sam. xv. 1). 33*1, in a collective sense, does not mean fighting or war chariots, but state carriages, like roaio in 2 Sam. xv. 1; and Dtns are neither riding nor carriage horses, but riders to form an escort whenever he drove out. — Ver. 6. " And ( = for) his father had never troubled him in his life (F*J??f a diebus ejus, i.e. his whole life long), saying, Why hast thou done this?" Such weak oversight on the part of his father encouraged him to make the present attempt. Moreover, he "was very beautiful," like Absalom (see at 2 Sam. xiv. 25), and born after Absalom, so that after his death he appeared to have the nearest claim to the throne. The subject to?TOJ is left indefinite, because it is implied in the idea of the verb itself: "she bare," i.e. his mother, as in Num. xxvi. 59 (vid. Ewald, § 294, b). There was no reason for mentioning the mother expressly by name, as there was nothing depending upon the name here, and it had already bi.en given in ver. 5. — Ver. 7. He conferred (for the expression, compare 2 Sam. iii. 17) with Joab and Abiathar the priest, who supported him. "ity 'a "nntt, to lend a helping hand to a person, i.e. to support him by either actually joining him or taking his part. Joab joined the pretender, because he had fallen out with David for a considerable time (cf. ii. 5, 6), and hoped to secure his influence with the new king if he helped him to obtain possession of the throne. But what induced Abiathar the high priest (see at 2 Sam. viii. 17) to join in conspiracy with Adonijah, we do not know. Possibly jealousy of Zadok, and the fear that under

Solomon he mii?ht be thrown still more into the shade. For although Zadok was only high priest at the tabernacle at Gibeon, he appears to have taken the lead; as we may infer from the fact that he is always mentioned before Abiathar (cf. 2 Sam. viii. 17, xx. 25, and xv. 24 sqq.). For we cannot imagine that Joab and Abiathar had supported Adonijah as having right on his side (Thenius), for the simple reason that Joab did not trouble himself about right, and for his own part shrank from no crime, when he thought that he had lost favour with the king. — Ver. 8. If Adonijah had powerful supporters in Joab the commander-in-chief and the high priest Abiathar, the rest of the leading officers of state, viz. Zadok the high priest (see at 2 Sam. viii. 17), Benaiah, captain of the king's body-guard (see at 2 Sam. viii. 18 and xxiii. 20, 21), the prophet Nathan, Shimei (probably the son of Elah mentioned in ch. iv. 18), and Eei (unknown), and the Gibborim of David (see at 2 Sam. xxiii. 8 sqq.), were not with him. — Vers. 9 sqq. Adonijah commenced his usurpation, like Absalom (2 Sam. xv. 2), with a solemn sacrificial meal, at which he was proclaimed king, " at the stone of Zocheleth by the side of the fountain of Rogel" i.e. the spy's fountain, or, according to the Chaldee and Syriac, the fuller's fountain, the present fountain of Job or Neheiniah, below the junction of the valley of Hinnom with the valley of Jehoshaphat (see at 2 Sam. vii. 17 and Josh. xv. 7). E. G. Schultz (Jerusalem, eine Vorlesung, p. 79) supposes the stone or rock of Zocheleth to be " the steep, rocky corner of the southern slope of the valley of Hinnom, which casts so deep a shade." "This neighbourhood (Wady el Bubdb) is still a place of recreation for the inhabitants of Jerusalem." To this festal meal Adonijah invited all his brethren except Solomon, and " all the men of Judah, the king's servants," i.e. all the Judaeans who were in the king's service, i.e. were serving at court as being members of his own tribe, with the exception of Nathan the prophet, Benaiah, and the Gibborim. The fact that Solomon and the others mentioned were not included in the invitation, showed very clearly that Adonijah was informed of Solomon's election as successor to the throne, and wa3 also aware of the feelings of Nathan and Benaiah.

Vers. 11-31. Adonijah's attempt was frustrated by the vigilance of the prophet Nathan. — Vers. 11 sqq. Nathan informed Solomon's mother, Bathsheba (see at 2 Sam. xi. 3), that Adonijah was making himself king ppD *3, that he had become [as good as] king: Thenius), and advised her, in order to save her life and that of her son Solomon (*?*?*, and save = so that thou mayest save; cf. Ewald, § 347, a), to go to the king and remind him of his promise on oath, that her son Solomon should be king after him, and to inquire why Adonijah had become king. If Adonijah had really got possession of the throne, he would probably have put Solomon and his mother out of the way, according to the barbarous custom of the East, as his political opponents. — Ver. 14. While she was still talking to the king, he (Nathan) would come in after her and confirm her words. T3fl n!?o, to make a word full, i.e. not to supply what is wanting, but to make full, like irXvpovv, either to fill by accomplishing, or (as in this case) to confirm it by similar assertion. — Vers. 15—21. Bathsheba followed this advice, and went to the king into the inner chamber (JTJ"]C'?), since the very aged king, who was waited upon by Abishag, could not leave his room (msro for nme>D • cf. Ewald, § 188, b, p. 490), and, bowing low before him, communicated to him what Adonijah had taken in hand in opposition to his will and without his knowledge. The second nw is not to be altered into WIKJ, inasmuch as it is supported by the oldest codices and the Masora,1 although about two hundred codd. contain the latter reading. The repetition of HJjjn (" And now, behold, Adonijah has become king; and now, my lord king, thou knowest it not") may be explained from the energy with which Bathsheba speaks. " And Solomon thy servant he hath not invited " (ver. 19). Bathsheba added this, not because she felt herself injured, but as a sign of Adonijah's feelings towards Solomon, which showed that he had reason to fear the worst if Adonijah should succeed in his usurpation of the throne. In ver. 20, again, many codd. have »""injn in the place of nnw; and Thenius, after his usual fashion, pronounces the former the " only correct" reading, because it is apparently a better one. But here also the appearance is deceptive. The antithesis to what Adonijah has already done is brought out quite suitably by nnsi; Adonijah has made himself king, etc.; but thou my lord king must decide in the matter. " The eyes of all Israel are turned towards thee,

1 Kimchi says: " Plures scribse errant in hoc verbo, scribentes nn&O cum Aleph, quia sensui hoc conformius est; sed constat nobis ex correctis MSS. et masora, scribendum esse nnjtt cum Ain." Hence both Norzi and Bruns have taken nnjfi under their protection. Compare de Rossi, varies lectt. ad h. I.

to tell them who (whether Adonijah or Solomon) is to sit upon the throne after thee." " The decision of this question is in thy hand, for the people have not yet attached themselves to Adonijah, but are looking to thee, to see what thou wilt do; and they will follow thy judgment, if thou only hastenest to make Solo-* mon king." — Seb. Schmidt. To secure this decision, Bathsheba refers again, in ver. 21, to the fate which would await both herself and her son Solomon after the death of the king. They would be D^ljn, i.e. guilty of a capital crime. " We should be punished as though guilty of high treason" (Clericus). — Vers. 22 sqq. While Bathsheba was still speaking, Nathan came. When he was announced to the king, Bathsheba retired, just as afterwards Nathan went away when the king had Bathsheba called in again (cf. ver. 28 with ver. 32). This was done, not to avoid the appearance of a mutual arrangement (Cler., Then., etc.), but for reasons of propriety, inasmuch as, in audiences granted by the king to his wife or one of his counsellors, no third person ought to be present unless the king required his attendance. Nathan confirmed Bathsheba's statement, commencing thus: " My lord king, thou hast really said, Adonijah shall be king after me...? for he has gone down to-day, and has prepared a feast,... and they are eating and drinking before him, and saying, Long live king Adonijah! " And he then closed by asking, " Has this taken place on the part of my lord the king, and thou hast not shown thy servants (Nathan, Zadok, Benaiah, and Solomon) who is to sit upon the throne of my lord the king after him? " The indirect question introduced with EK is not merely an expression of modesty, but also of doubt, whether what had occurred had emanated from the king and he had not shown it to his servants. — Vers. 28-30. The king then sent for Bathsheba again, and gave her this promise on oath: " As truly as Jehovah liveth, who hath redeemed my soul out of all distress (as in 2 Sam. iv. 9), yea, as I swore to thee by Jehovah, the God of Israel, saying, Solomon thy son shall be king after me,... yea, so shall I do this day." The first and third *3 serve to give emphasis to the assertion, like imo, yea (cf. Ewald, § 330, b). The second merely serves as an introduction to the words. — Ver. 31. Bathsheba then left the king with the deepest prostration and the utterance of n blessing, as an expression of her inmost gratitude. The benedictory formula, " May the king Jive for ever," was only used by the Israelites on occasions of special importance; whereas the Babylonians and ancient Persians constantly addressed their kings in this way (cf. Dan. ii. 4, iii 9, v. 10, vi. 22; Neh. ii. 3. Aeliani var. hist. i. 32, and Curtius de gestis Alex. vi. 5).

Vers. 32-40. David then sent for Zadok, Nathan, and Benaiah, and directed them to fetch the servants of their lord pyj*1!*, a pluralis majestatis, referring to David alone), and to conduct Solomon to Gihon riding upon the royal mule, and there to anoint him and solemnly proclaim him king. The servants of your lord (O^T1** *J?£) are the Crcthi and Plcthi, and not the Gibborim also (Thenius), as ver. 38 clearly shows, where we find that these alone went down with him to Gihon as the royal body-guard, v "MWC nTiBTyvp, upon the mule which belongs to me, i.e. upon my (the king's) mule. When the king let any one ride upon the animal on which he generally rode himself, this was a sign that he was his successor upon the throne. Among the ancient Persians riding upon the king's horse was a public honour, which the king conferred upon persons of great merit in the eyes of all the people (cf. Esth. vi. 8, 9). '"'lis, the female mule, which in Kahira is still preferred to the male for riding (see Kosenmuller, bibl. Althk. iv. 2, p. 56). Gihon (pn*) was the name given, according to 2 Chron. xxxii. 3 0 and xxxiii. 14, to a spring on the western side of Zion, which supplied two basins or pools, viz. the upper watercourse of Gihon (2 Chron. xxxii. 30) or upper pool (2 Kings xviii. 17; Isa. vii. 3, xxxvi. 2), and the lower pool (Isa. xxii. 9). The upper Gihon still exists as a large reservoir built up with hewn stones, though somewhat fallen to decay, which is called by the monks Gihon, by the natives Birket el Mamilla, about 700 yards W.N.W. from the Joppa gate, in the basin which opens into the valley of Hinnom. The' lower pool is probably the present Birket es Sultan, on the south-western side of Zion (see Eobinson, Palestine, i p. 485 sqq., 512 sqq., and Biblical Researches, p. 142 sqq.). The valley between the two was certainly the place where Solomon was anointed, as it is not stated that this took place at the fountain of Gihon. And even the expression DWTifci jina ^y inx (take him down to Gihon) agrees with this. For if you go from Zion to Gihon towards the west, you first of all have to descend a slope, and then ascend by a gradual rise; and this slope was probably a more considerable one in ancient times (Kob. Pal. i. p. 514, note).1 — Ver. 34. The blowing of the trumpet and the cry " Long live the king" (cf. 1 Sam. x. 24) were to serve as a solemn proclamation after the anointing had taken place. — Ver. 35. After the anointing they were to conduct Solomon up to Zion again; Solomon was then to ascend the throne, as David was about to appoint him prince over Israel and Judah in his own stead. Both the anointing and the appointment of Solomon as prince over the whole of the covenant nation were necessary, because the succession to the throne had been rendered doubtful through Adonijah's attempt, and the aged king was still alive. In cases wdiere there was no question, and the son followed the father after his death, the unanimous opinion of the Eabbins is, that there was no anointing at all Israel and Judah are mentioned, because David had been the first to unite all the tribes under his sceptre, and after the death of Solomon Israel fell away from the house of David. — Vers. 36, 37. Benaiah responded to the utterance of the royal will with a confirmatory " Amen, thus saith Jehovah the God of my lord the king;" i.e. may the word of the king become a word of Jehovah his God, who fulfils what He promises (Ps. xxxiii. 9); and added the pious wish, " May Jehovah be with Solomon, as He was with David, and glorify his throne above the throne of David," — a wish which was not merely " flattery of his paternal vanity" (Thenius), but which had in viewr the prosperity of the monarchy, and was also fulfilled by God (cf. iii. 11 sqq.). — Vers. 38-40. The anointing of Solomon was carried out immediately, as the king had commanded. On the Crethi and Plethi see at 2 Sam. viii. 18. " The oil-horn out of the tent" (i.e. a vessel made of horn and containing oil) was no doubt one which held the holy anointing oil, with which the priests and the vessels of the sanctuary wrere anointed (see Ex. xxx. 22 sqq.). The tent (^C0> however, is not the tabernacle

1 The conjecture of Thenius, that pna should be altered into Jiy23, is hardly worth mentioning; for, apart from the fact that all the ancient versions confirm the corectness of jinn the objections which Thenius brings against it amount to mere conjectures or groundless assumptions, such as that Zadok took the oil-horn out of the tabernacle at Gibeon, which is not stated in ver. 39. Moreover, Gibeon was a three hours' journey from Jerusalem, so that it would have been absolutely impossible for the anointing, which was not commanded by David till after Adonijah's feast had commenced, to be finished so quickly that the procession could return to Jerusalem before it was ended, as is distinctly recorded in ver. 41.

at Gibeon, but the tent set up by David for the ark of the covenant upon Mount Zion (2 Sam. vi. 17). For even though Zadok was appointed high priest at the tabernacle at Gibeon, and Abiathar, who held with Adonijah, at the ark of the covenant, the two high priests were not so unfriendly towards one another, that Zadok could not have obtained admission to the ark of the covenant in Abiathar's absence to fetch away the anointing oil. — Ver. 40. All the people, i.e. the crowd which was present at the anointing, went up after him, i.e. accompanied Solomon to the citadel of Zion, with flutes and loud acclamation, so that the earth nearly burst with their shouting. ypzin, " to burst in pieces" (as in 2 Chron. xxv. 12), is a hyperbolical expression for quaking.

Vers. 41-53. The noise of this shouting reached the ears of Adonijah and his guests, when the feast was just drawing to a close. The music, therefore, and the joyful acclamations of the people must have been heard as far off as the fountain of Eogel. When Joab observed the sound of the trumpet, knowing what these tones must signify, he asked " wherefore the sound of the city in an uproar " (i. e. what does it mean)? At that moment Jonathan the son of Abiathar arrived (see 2 Sam. xv. 27, xvii. 17 sqq.). Adonijah called out to him: " Come, for thou art a brave man and bringest good tidings;" suppressing all anxiety with these words, as he knew his father's will with regard to the succession to the throne, and the powerful and influential friends of Solomon (see vers. 5, 19, 26). — Vers. 43 sqq. Jonathan replied: 73«, "yea but," corresponding to the Latin imovero, an expression of assurance with a slight doubt, and then related that Solomon had been anointed king by David's command, and the city was in a joyous state of excitement in consequence (B'nri as in Ruth i. 19), and that he had even ascended the throne, that the servants of the king had blessed David for it, and that David himself had worshipped and praised Jehovah the God of Israel that he had lived to see his son ascend the throne. The repetition of D31 three times (vers. 46—48) gives emphasis to the words, since every new point which is introduced with EM raises the thing higher and higher towards absolute certainty. The fact related in ver. 47 refers to the words of Benaiah in vers. 36 and 37. The Chcthib Tfj^jl is the correct reading, and the Keri Dwj| an unnecessary emendation. The prayer to God, with thanksgiving for the favour granted to him, was offered by David after the return of his anointed son Solomon to the royal palace; so that it ought strictly to have been mentioned after ver. 40. The worship of the grey-headed David upon the bed recalls to mind the worship of the patriarch Jacob after making known his last will (Gen. xlvii. 31). — Vers. 49, 50. The news spread terror. All the guests of Adonijah lied, every man his way. Adonijah himself sought refuge from Solomon at the horns of the altar. The altar was regarded from time immemorial and among all nations as a place of refuge for criminals deserving of death; but, according to Ex. xxi. 14, in Israel it was only allowed to afford protection in cases of unintentional slaying, and for these special cities of refuge were afterwards provided (Num. xxxv.). In the horns of the altar, as symbols of power and strength, there was concentrated the true significance of the altar as a divine place, from which there emanated both life and health (see at Ex. xxvii. 19). By grasping the horns of the altar the culprit placed himself under the protection of the saving and helping grace of God, which wipes away sin, and thereby abolishes punishment (see Bahr, Symbolik des Mos. Cult. i. p. 474). The question to what altar Adonijah fled, whether to the altar at the ark of the covenant in Zion, or to the one at the tabernacle at Gibeon, or to the one built by David on the threshing-floor of Araunah, cannot be determined with certainty. It was probably to the first of these, however, as nothing is said about a flight to Gibeon, and with regard to the altar of Araunah it is not certain that it was provided with horns like the altars of the two sanctuaries.— Vers. 51, 52. When this was reported to Solomon, together with the prayer of Adonijah that the king would swear to him that he would not put him to death with the sword (DK before WW, a particle used in an oath), he promised him conditional impunity: " If he shall be brave (^CHS, vir probus), none of his hair shall fall to the earth," equivalent to not a hair of his head shall be injured (cf. 1 Sam. xiv. 45); " but if evil be found in him," i.e. if he render himself guilty of a fresh crime, " he shall die." — Ver. 53. He then had him fetched down from the altar ("P^n, inasmuch as the altar stood upon an eminence); and when he fell down before the king, i.e. did homage to him as king, he gave him his life and freedom in the words, " Go to thy house." The expression ^Wi? "H? does not imply his banishment from the court (compare ch. ii. 1 3 and 2 Sam. xiv. 2 4). Solomon did not wish to commence his own ascent of the throne by infliction of punishment, and therefore presented the usurper with his life on the condition that he kept himself quiet.

chap. ii. david's last instructions and death, solomon ascends the throne and fortifies his government.

The anointing of Solomon as king, which was effected hy David's command (ch. L), is only briefly mentioned in 1 Chron. xxiii. 1 in the words, "When David was old and full of days, he made his son Solomon king over Israel f which serve as an introduction to the account of the arrangements made by David during the closing days of his life. After these arrangements have been described, there follow in 1 Chron. xxviii. and xxix. his last instructions and his death. The aged king gathered together the tribe-princes and the rest of the dignitaries and superior officers to a diet at Jerusalem, and having introduced Solomon to them as the successor chosen by God, exhorted them to keep the commandments of God, and urged upon Solomon and the whole assembly the building of the temple, gave his son the model of the temple and all the materials which he had collected towards its erection, called upon the great men of the kingdom to contribute to this work, which they willingly agreed to, and closed this last act of his reign with praise and thanksgiving to God and a great sacrificial festival, at which the assembled states of the realm made Solomon king a second time, and anointed him prince in the presence of Jehovah (1 Chron. xxix. 22). — A repetition of the anointing of the new king at the instigation of the states of the realm, accompanied by their solemn homage, had also taken place in the case of both Saul (1 Sam. xi.) and David (2 Sam. ii. 4 and v. 3), and appears to have been an essential requirement to secure the general recognition of the king on the part of the nation, at any rate in those cases in which the succession to the throne was not undisputed. In order, therefore, to preclude any rebellion after his death, David summoned this national assembly again after Solomon's first anointing and ascent of the throne, that the representatives of the whole nation might pay the requisite homage to king Solomon, who had been installed as his successor according to the will of God. — To this national assembly, which is only reported in the Chronicles, there are appended the last instructions which David gave, according to vers. 1-9 of our chapter, to his successor Solomon immediately before his death. Just as in the Chronicles, according to the peculiar plan of that work, there is no detailed description of the installation of David on the throne; so here the author of our books has omitted the account of this national diet, and the homage paid by the estates of the realm to the new king, as not being required by the purpose of his work, and has communicated the last personal admonitions and instructions of the dying king David instead.1

Vers. 1-11. David's Last Instructions and Death. — Vers. 1-4. When David saw that his life was drawing to a close, he first of all admonished his son Solomon to be valiant in the observance of the commandments of God. " I go the way of all the world" (as in Josh, xxiii. 14), i.e. the way of death; "be strong and be a man," — not " bear my departure bravely," as Thenius supposes, but prove thyself brave (cf. 1 Sam. iv. 9) to keep the commandments of the Lord. Just as in 1 Sam iv. 9 the object in which the bravery is to show itself is appended simply by the copula Vdv; so is it here also with 'Ul p1*?K^. The phrase '* rnDBtomK "1D6P, to keep the keeping of Jehovah, which so frequently occurs in the Thorah, i.e. to observe or obey whatever is to be observed in relation to Jehovah (cf. Gen. xxvi. 5, Lev. viii. 35, xviii. 30, etc.), always receives its more precise definition from the context, and is used here, as in Gen. xxvi. 5, to denote obedience to the law of God in all its extent, or, according to the first definition, to walk in the ways of Jehovah. This is afterwards more fully expanded in the expression 'W vnpn "ibis?, to keep the ordinances, commandments, rights, and

1 To refute the assertion of De "Wette, Gramberg, and Thenius, that this account of the Chronicles arises from a free mode of dealing with the history, and an intention to suppress everything that did not contribute to the honour of David and his house, — an assertion which can only be attributed to their completely overlooking, not to say studiously ignoring, the different plans of the two works (the books of Kings on the one hand, and those of Chronicles on the other), — it will be sufficient to quote the unprejudiced and thoughtful decision of Bertheau, who says, in his Comm. on 1 Chron. xxiii. 1: "These few words (1 Chron. xxiii. 1) give in a condensed form the substance of the account in 1 Kings i., which is intimately bound up with the account of the family affairs of David in the books of Samuel and Kings, and therefore, according to the whole plan of our historical work, would have been out of place in the Chronicles."

testimonies of Jehovah. These four words were applied to the different precepts of the law, the first three of which are connected together in Gen. xxvi. 5, Deut. v. 28, viii. 11, and served to individualize the rich and manifold substance of the demands of the Lord to His people as laid down in the Thorali. ]Vup yz&R, that thou mayest act wisely and execute well, as in Deut. xxix. 8, Josh. i. 7. — Ver. 4. Solomon would then experience still further this blessing of walking in the ways of the Lord, since the Lord would fulfil to him His promise of the everlasting possession of the throne, 'til D*pJ ]Vg? is grammatically subordinate to T'SfeTI ]Vv> in ver. 3. The word which Jehovah has spoken concerning David (vj lyi) *s the promise in 2 Sam. vii 12 sqq., the substance of which is quoted here by David with a negative turn, 'tfl 1T}3* &6, and with express allusion to the condition on which God would assuredly fulfil His promise, viz. if the descendants of David preserve their ways, to walk before the Lord in truth. r>9?? *s more precisely defined by Defea... 5>b3. For the fact itself see Deut. v. 5, xi. 13, 18. The formula 'til TP3] to is formed after 1 Sam. ii. 33 (compare also 2 Sam. iii. 29 and Josh. ix. 23). "There shall not be cut off to thee a man from upon the throne of Israel," i.e. there shall never be wanting to thee a descendant to take the throne; in other words, the sovereignty shall always remain in thy family. This promise, which reads thus in 2 Sam. vii. 16, "Thy house and thy kingdom shall be continual for ever before thee, and thy throne stand fast for ever," and which was confirmed to Solomon by the Lord Himself after his prayer at the consecration of the temple (ch. viii. 25, ix. 5), is not to be understood as implying that no king of the Davidic house would be thrust away from the throne, but simply affirms that the posterity of David was not to be cut off, so as to leave no offshoot which could take possession of the throne. Its ultimate fulfilment it received in Christ (see at 2 Sam. vii. 12 sqq.). The second "ib&6 in ver. 4 is not to be erased as suspicious, as being merely a repetition of the first in consequence of the long conditional clause, even though it is wanting in the Vulgate, the Arabic, and a Hebrew codex.

After a Greneral admonition David communicated to his suecessor a few more special instructions; viz., first of all (vers. 5, 6), to punish Joab for his wickedness. " What Joab did to me: " — of this David mentions only the two principal crimes of Joab, by which he had already twice deserved death, namely, his killing the two generals, Abner (2 Sam. iii. 27) and Amasa the son of Jether (2 Sam. xx. 10). The name W is written &0$ in 2 Sam. xvii. 25. Joab had murdered both of them out of jealousy in a treacherous and malicious manner; and thereby he had not only grievously displeased David and bidden defiance to his royal authority, but by the murder of Abner had exposed the king to the suspicion in the eyes of the people of having instigated the crime (see at 2 Sam. iii. 28, 37). 'DWDtog, " and he made war-blood in peace," i.e. he shed in the time of peace blood that ought only to flow in war (D^ in the sense of making, as in Deut. xiv. 1, Ex. x. 2, etc.), "and brought warblood upon his girdle which was about his loins, and upon his shoes under his feet," sc. in the time of peace. This was the crime therefore: that Joab had murdered the two generals in a time of peace, as one ought only to slay his opponent in time of war. Girdle and shoes, the principal features in oriental attire when a man is preparing himself for any business, were covered with blood, since Joab, while saluting them, had treacherously stabbed both of them with the sword. David ought to have punished these two crimes; but when Abner was murdered, he felt himself too weak to visit a man like Joab with the punishment he deserved, as he had only just been anointed king, and consequently he did nothing more than invoke divine retribution upon his head (2 Sam. iii. 29). And when Amasa was slain, the rebellions of Absalom and Sheba had crippled the power of David too much, for him to visit the deed with the punishment that was due. But as king of the nation of God, it was not right for him to allow such crimes to pass unpunished: he therefore transferred the punishment, for which he had wanted the requisite power, to his son and successor. — Ver. 6. "Do according to thy wisdom ("mark the proper opportunity of punishing him" — Seb. Schmidt), and let not his grey hair go down into hell (the region of the dead) in peace (i.e. unpunished)." The punishment of so powerful a man as Joab the commanderin-chief was, required great wisdom, to avoid occasioning a rebellion in the army, which was devoted to him. — Ver. 7. If the demands of justice required that Joab should be punished, the duty of gratitude was no less holy to the dying king. And Solomon was to show this to the sons of Barzillai the Gileadite, and make them companions of his table; because Barzillai had supplied David with provisions on his flight from Absalom (2 Sam. xvii. 27 sqq., xix. 32 sqq.). 1J$f ^*? *™, "let them be among those eating of thy table; " i.e. not, " let them draw their food from the royal table," — for there was no particular distinction in this, as all the royal attendants at the court received their food from the royal kitchen, as an equivalent for the pay that was owing, — but, " let them join in the meals at the royal table." The fact that in 2 Sam. ix. 10, 11, 13, we have inr^"7V?3X to express this, makes no material difference. According to 2 Sam. xix. 38, Barzillai had, it is true, allowed only one son to follow the king to his court. " For so they drew near to me," i.e. they showed the kindness to me of supplying me with food; compare 2 Sam. xvii. 27, where Barzillai alone is named, though, as he was a man of eighty years old, he was certainly supported by his sons. — Ver. 8. On the other hand, >sy, inui the Benjamite had shown great hostility to David (cf. 2 Sam. xvi. 5-8). He had cursed him with a vehement curse as he fled from Absalom (n^p.°P, vehement, violent, not ill, hcillos, from the primary meaning to be sick or ill, as Thenius supposes, since it cannot be shown that p_o has any such meaning); and when David returned to Jerusalem and Shimei fell at his feet, he had promised to spare his life, because he did not want to mar the joy at his reinstatement in his kingdom by an act of punishment (2 Sam. xix. 19-24), and therefore had personally forgiven him. But the insult which Shimei had offered in his person to the anointed of the Lord, as king and representative of the rights of God, he could not forgive. The instruction given to his successor (tflgFTTK, let him not be guiltless) did not spring from personal revenge, but was the duty of the king as judge and administrator of the divine right.1 It follows from the expression ^V, with thee, i.e. in thy neighbourhood, that Shimei was living at that time in Jerusalem (cf. ver. 36). — Vers. 10, 11. After these instructions David died, and was buried in the

1 M Shimei is and remains rather a proof of David's magnanimity than of vengeance. It was not a little thing to tolerate the miscreant in his immediate neighbourhood for his whole life long (not even banishment being thought of). And if under the following reign also he had been allowed to end his days in peace (which had never been promised him), this would have been a kindness which would have furnished an example of unpunished crimes that might easily have been abused." This is the verdict of J. J. Hess in his Geschichte Davids, ii. p. 221.

city of David, i.e. upon Mount Zion, where the sepulchre of David still existed in the time of Christ (Acts ii. 29).1 On the length of his reiirn see 2 Sam. v. 5.

Vers. 12-4G. Accession of Solomon and Establishment of his Government. — Ver. 12 is a heading embracing the substance of what follows, and is more fully expanded in 1 Chron. xxix. 23-25. Solomon established his monarchy first of all by punishing the rebels, Adonijah (vers. 13-25) and his adherents (vers. 26-35), and by carrying out the final instructions of his father (vers. 36—46).

Vers. 13-25. Adonijah forfeits Ms life. — Vers. 13-18. Adonijah came to Bathsheba with the request that she would apply to king Solomon to give him Abishag of Shunem as his wife. Bathsheba asked him, " Is peace thy coming?" i.e. comest thou with a peaceable intention? (as in 1 Sam. xvi. 4), because after what had occurred (ch. i. 5 sqq.) she suspected an evil intention. He introduced his petition with these words: " Thou knowest that the kingdom was mine, and all Israel had set its face upon me that I should be king, then the kingdom turned about and became my brother's; for it became his from the Lord." The throne was his, not because he had usurped it, but because it belonged to him as the eldest son at that time, according to the right of primogeniture. Moreover it might have been the case that many of the people wished him to be king, and the fact that he had found adherents in Joab, Abiathar, and others, confirms this; but his assertion, that all Israel had set its eyes upon him as the future king, went beyond the bounds of truth. At the same time, he knew how to cover over the dangerous sentiment implied in his words in a very skilful manner by adding the further remark, that the transfer of the kingdom to his brother had come from Jehovah; so that Bathsheba did not detect the artifice, and pro-

1 The situation of the tombs of the kings of Judah upon Zion, Thenius has attempted to trace minutely in a separate article in Illgen's Zeitschrift fur die histor. Theol. 1844, i. p. 1 sqq., and more especially to show that the entrance to these tombs must have been on the eastern slope of Mount Zion, which falls into the valley of Tyropoeon, and obliquely opposite to the spring of Siloah. This is in harmony with the statement of Theodoret (quxst. 6 in iii. Reg.), to the effect that Josephus says, to Bs [avvj^cc (ttis retQyis) nvccpu. tvju SAoos^ uux: clvrpon'hig 'iy^ou to o^ij^a, koci tvjv (iccai\iK7iu o/i'Kovu irohVTihiicLV; although this statement does not occur in any passage of his works as they have come down to us.

mised to fulfil his request (vers. 1G sqq.) to intercede with king Solomon for Abishag to be given him to wife. *3KflJvK "03'rix, " do not turn back my face," i. e. do not refuse my request. — Ver. 19. When Bathsheba came to Solomon, he received her with the reverence due to the queen-mother: " lie rose up to meet her" (a pregnant expression for " he rose up and went to meet her "), made a low bow, then sat upon his throne again, and bade her sit upon a throne at his right hand. The seat at the right hand of the king was the place of honour among the Israelites (cf. Ps. ex. 1), also with the ancient Arabian kings (cf. Eichhorn, Monumenta Antiq. Hist. Arab. p. 220), as well as among the Greeks and Romans. — Vers. 20 sqq. To her request, " Let Abishag of Shunem be given to Adonijah thy brother for a wife " (n^ P*i cf. Ges. sj 143, 1, a), which she regarded in her womanly simplicity as a very small one (nJ^P), he replied with indignation, detecting at once the intrigues of Adonijah: " And why dost thou ask Abishag of Shunem for Adonijah? ask for him the kingdom, for he is my elder brother; and indeed for him, and for Abiathar the priest, and for Joab the son of Zeruiah." The repetition of v in V) (ver. 22), for the purpose of linking on another clause, answers entirely to the emotional character of the words. " For him, and for Abiathar and Joab:" Solomon said this, because these two men of high rank had supported Adonijah's rebellion and wished to rule under his name. There is no ground for any such alterations of the text as Thenius proposes. — Although Abishag had been only David's nurse, in the eyes of the people she passed as his concubine; and among the Israelites, just as with the ancient Persians (Herod, iii. 68), taking possession of the harem of a deceased king was equivalent to an establishment of the claim to the throne (see at 2 Sam. xii. 8 and iii. 7, 8). According to 2 Sam. xvi. 21, this cannot have been unknown even to Bathsheba; but as Adonijah's wily words had disarmed all suspicion, she may not have thought of this, or may perhaps have thought that Abishag was not to be reckoned as one of David's concubines, because David had not known her (ch. i. 4). — Vers. 23 sqq. Solomon thereupon solemnly swore (the formula of an oath, and the *3 introducing the oath, as in 1 Sam. xiv. 44, etc.), " Adonijah has spoken this word against his own life." ^33, at the cost of his life, as in 2 Sam. xxiii. 1 7, i.e. at the hazard of his life, or to his destruction. Ver. 24. " And now, as truly as Jehovah liveth, who hath established me and set me on the throne of my father David, and hath made me a house, as He said (verbatim, 2 Sam. vii. 11): yea, to-day shall Adonijah be put to death." Jehovah established Solomon, or founded him firmly, by raising him to the throne in spite of Adonij ah's usurpation. In WB'PI the central ' has got into the text through a copyist's error, rvn v nby, i.e. He has bestowed upon me a family or posterity. Solomon had already one son, viz. Rehoboam, about a year old (compare xi. 42 with ch. xiv. 21 and 2 Chron. xii. 13).1 — Ver. 25. Solomon had this sentence immediately executed upon Adonijah by Benaiah, the chief of the body-guard, according to the oriental custom of both ancient and modern times. The king was perfectly just in doing this. For since Adonijah, even after his first attempt to seize upon the throne had been forgiven by Solomon, endeavoured to secure his end by fresh machinations, duty to God, who had exalted Solomon to the throne, demanded that the rebel should be punished with all the severity of the law, without regard to blood-relationship.

Vers. 26, 27. Deposition of Abiathar. — The conduct of Solomon towards the high priest Abiathar is a proof how free his actions were from personal revenge or too great severity. Abiathar had also forfeited his life through the part he took in Adonij ah's conspiracy; but Solomon simply sent him to Anathoth (i.e. Anata; see at Josh, xviii. 24), to his own fields, i.e. to his property there, telling him, " Thou art indeed a man of death," i.e. thou hast deserved to die, " but I will not put thee to death to-day, because thou hast borne the ark of Jehovah," namely, both on the occasion of its solemn conveyance to Jerusalem (1 Chron. xv. 11 sqq.) and also on David's flight from Absalom (2 Sam. xv. 24, 29), that is to say, because of his high-priestly dignity, and because thou didst endure all that my father endured, i.e. thou didst share all his afflictions and sufferings, both in the period of Saul's persecution (1 Sam. xxii. 20 sqq, xxiii. 8 sqq.), and during the rebellion of Absalom (2 Sam. xv. 24 sqq.). wnn Dis3 (to-day) puts a limit upon the pardon, because Solomon could not foresee whether Abiathar would

1 When Thenius denies this, and maintains that Rehoboam cannot have been 41 years old when he began to reign, referring to his discussion at ch. xiv. 21, he answers himself, inasmuch as at ch. xiv. 21 he demonstrates the fallacy of the objections which Cappellus has raised against the correctness of the reading " 41 years."

always keep quiet, and not forfeit his life again "by fresh crimes.1 — Ver. 27. The banishment of Abiathar to his own private possession involved his deposition from the priesthood. And, as the historian adds, thus was the word of the Lord concerning the house of Eli fulfilled (1 Sam. ii. 30-33). *?q> corresponds to the New Testament iva irXrjpoyOfi. For further remarks on this prophecy and its fulfilment, see at 1 Sam. ii. 3 0 sqq.2 Thus was the high-priesthood of the house of Eli extinguished, and henceforth this dignity passed through Zadok into the sole possession of the line of Eleazar.

Vers. 28—34. Execution of Joab. — When the report (of the execution of Adonijah and the deposition of Abiathar) came to Joab, he fled to the tent of Jehovah (not to the tabernacle, but to the holy tent upon Zion) to seek protection at the altar (see at ch. i. 50). The words HDJ *6... agl* *3 are introduced as a parenthesis to explain Joab's flight: " for Joab had leaned after Adonijah/' i.e. taken his side (^HM HBJ as in Ex. xxiii. 2, Judg. ix. 3), " but not after Absalom." 3 There is

1 There is no meaning in the objection of Thenius, that Abiathar did not carry the ark himself, since this was not the duty of the high priest. For, in the first place, it is questionable whether Abiathar did not lend a helping hand at the removal of the ark during Absalom's conspiracy. And, secondly, the duty binding upon the high priest, to superintend and conduct the removal of the ark, might very well be called carrying the ark. The conjecture, that for nix we should read itex, founders on the preterite fiNEO;

for Abiathar had not only worn the ephod once before, but he wore it till the very hour in which Solomon deposed him from his office.

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

3 Instead of DibcOtf the LXX. (Cod. Vat.), Vulgate, Syr., and Arab, have adopted the reading Tifcfaw, and both Thenius and Ewald propose to alter the text accordingly. But whatever plausibility this reading may have, especially if we alter the preterite ntD3 into the participle ntDJ after the %v

KiKhiKug of the LXX., as Thenius does, it has no other foundation than an arbitrary rendering of the LXX., who thought, but quite erroneously, that the allusion to Absalom was inapplicable here. For inx PIDj, to take a no foundation in the biblical text for the conjecture, that Joab had given Adonijah the advice to ask for Abishag as his wife, just as Ahithophel had given similar advice to Absalom (2 Sam. xvi. 21). For not only is there no intimation of anything of the kind, but Solomon punished Joab solely because of his crimes in the case of Abner and Amasa. Moreover, Abiathar was also deposed, without having any fresh machinations in favour of Adonijah laid to his charge. The punishment of Adonijah and Abiathar was quite sufficient to warn Joab of his approaching fate, and lead him to seek to save his life by fleeing to the altar. It is true that, according to Ex. xxi. 13, 14, the altar could afford no protection to a man who had committed two murders. But he probably thought no more of these crimes, which had been committed a long time before, but simply of his participation in Adonijah's usurpation; and he might very well hope that religious awe would keep Solomon from putting him to death in a holy place for such a crime as that. And it is very evident that this hope was not altogether a visionary one, from the fact that, according to ver. 30, when Joab refused to leave the altar at the summons addressed to him in the name of the king, Benaiah did not give him the deathblow at once, but informed Solomon of the fact and received his further commands. Solomon, however, did not arrest the course of justice, but ordered him to be put to death there and afterwards buried. The burial of the persons executed was a matter of course, as, according to Deut. xxi. 23, even a person who had been hanged was to be buried before sunset. When, therefore, Solomon gives special orders for the burial of Joab, the meaning is that Benaiah is to provide for the burial with distinct reference to the services which Joab had rendered to his father. " And take away the blood, which Joab shed without cause, from me and my father's house." So long as Joab remained unpunished for the double murder, the blood-guiltiness rested upon the king and his house, on whom the duty of punishment devolved (cf. Num. xxxv. 30, 31; Deut. xix. 13). D3n W, blood without cause, i.e. blood shed in innocence. On the connection of the adverb with the substantive, at which Thenius takes offence, comp. Ges. § 151, 1, and Ewald, § 287, d person's side, would suit very well in the case of Adonijah and Absalom, but not in that of Solomon, whose claim to the throne was not a party affair, but had been previously determined by God.

— For ver. 32, compare ver. 5. The words of Solomon in ver. 33a point back to the curse which David uttered upon Joab and his descendants after the murder of Abner (2 Sam. iii. 28, 29). " But to David, and his seed, and his house, and his throne, let there be salvation for ever from Jehovah." This wish sprang from a conviction, based upon 2 Sam. vii. 14, that the Lord would not fulfil His promise to David unless his successors upon the throne exercised right and justice according to the command of the Lord. — Ver. 34. Benaiah went up (/£?!), inasmuch as the altar by the ark of the covenant stood higher up Mount Zion than Solomon's house. Joab was buried " in his house " (i.e. in the tomb prepared in his house, either in the court or m the garden: cf. 1 Sam. xxv. 1), " in the desert," probably the wilderness of Judah, as Joab's mother was a stepsister of David, and therefore probably dwelt in the neighbourhood of Bethlehem. — Ver. 35. Solomon appointed Benaiah commander-in-chief in the place of Joab, and put Zadok in Abiathar's place (cf. ch. i. 8, 9).

Vers. 36—46. Punishment of Shimei. — Solomon thereupon ordered Shimei to come, probably from Bahurim, where his home was (2 Sam. xvi. 5), and commanded him to build himself a house in Jerusalem to dwell in, and not to leave the city " any whither " (H3XJ nJiJ), threatening him with death if ever he should cross the brook Kidron. The valley of Kidron is mentioned as the eastern boundary of the city with an allusion to the fact, that Bahurim was to the east of Jerusalem towards the desert. — Ver. 38. Shimei vowed obedience, and that on oath, as is supplementarily observed in ver. 42, though it has been arbitrarily interpolated by the LXX. here; and he kept his word a considerable time. — Vers. 39, 40. But after the lapse of three years, when two slaves fled to Gath to king Achish, with whom David had also sought and found refuge (1 Sam. xxvii. 2, compare ch. xxi. 1 1 sqq.), he started for Gath as soon as he knew this, and fetched them back. — Vers. 41 sqq. When this was reported to Solomon, he sent for Shimei and charged him with the breach of his command: " Did I not swear to thee by Jehovah, and testify to thee, etc.? Why hast thou not kept the oath of Jehovah (the oath sworn by Jehovah)..?" — Ver. 44. He then reminded him of the evil which he had done to his father: " Thou knowest all the evil, which thy heart knoweth (i.e. which thy conscience must tell thee); and now Jehovah returns the evil upon thy head," namely, by decreeing the punishment of death, which he deserved for blaspheming the anointed of the Lord (2 Sam. xvi. 9). — Ver. 45. " And king Solomon will be blessed, and the throne of David be established before Jehovah for ever," namely, because the king does justice (compare the remark on ver. 33). — Ver. 46. Solomon then ordered him to be executed by Benaiah. This punishment was also just. As Solomon had put Shimei's life in his own hand by imposing upon him confinement in Jerusalem, and Shimei had promised on oath to obey the king's command, the breach of his oath was a crime for which he had no excuse. There is no force at all in the excuses which some commentators adduce in his favour, founded upon the money which his slaves had cost him, and the wish to recover possession of them, which was a right one in itself. If Shimei had wished to remain faithful to his oath, he might have informed the king of the flight of his slaves, have entreated the king that they might be brought back, and have awaited the king's decision; but he had no right thus lightly to break the promise given on oath. By the breach of his oath he had forfeited his life. And this is the first thing with which Solomon charges him, without his being able to offer any excuse; and it is not till afterwards that he adduces as a second fact in confirmation of the justice of his procedure, the wickedness that he practised towards his father. — The last clause, " and the kingdom was established by (T3) Solomon," is attached to the following chapter in the Cod. Al. of the LXX. (in the Cod. Vat. it is wanting, or rather its place is supplied by a long interpolation), in the Vulgate, and in the Syriac; and indeed rightly so, as Thenius has shown, not merely because of the PI in ch. iii. 2, but also because of its form as a circumstantial clause, to which the following account (ch. iii. 1 sqq.) is appended.

The establishment of the government in the hands of Solomon having been noticed in ch. ii., the history of his reign commences with an account of his marriage to an Egyptian princess, and with a remark concerning the state of the kingdom at the beginning of his reign (vers. 1-3). There then follows a de- scription of the solemn sacrifice and prayer at Gibeon, by which Solomon sought to give a religious consecration to his government, and to secure the assistance of the Lord and His blessing upon it, and obtained the fulfilment of his desire (vers. 4-15). And then, as a practical proof of the spirit of his government, we have the sentence through which he displayed the wisdom of his judicial decisions in the sight of all the people (vers.

Vers. 1-3. Solomons marriage and the religious state of the kingdom. — Ver. 1. When Solomon had well secured his possession of the throne (ch. ii. 46), he entered into alliance with Pharaoh, by taking his daughter as his wife. This Pharaoh of Egypt is supposed by Winer, Ewald, and others to have been Psusennes, the last king of the twenty-first (Tanitic) dynasty, who reigned thirty-five years; since the first king of the twentysecond (Bubastic) dynasty, Sesonchis or Sheshonk, was certainly the Shishak who conquered Jerusalem in the fifth year of Eehoboam's reign (ch. xiv. 25, 26). The alliance by marriage with the royal family of Egypt presupposes that Egypt was desirous of cultivating friendly relations with the kingdom of Israel, which had grown into a power to be dreaded; although, as we know nothing more of the history of Egypt at that time than the mere names of the kings (as given by Manetho), it is impossible to determine what may have been the more precise grounds which led the reigning king of Egypt to seek the friendship of Israel. There is, at any rate, greater probability in this supposition than in that of Thenius, who conjectures that Solomon contracted this marriage because he saw the necessity of entering into a closer relationship with this powerful neighbour, who had a perfectly free access to Palestine. The conclusion of this marriage took place in the first year of Solomon's reign, though probably not at the very beginning of the reign, but not till after his buildings had been begun, as we may infer from the expression null? in>3 ly (until he had made an end of building). Moreover, Solomon had already married Naamah the Ammonitess before ascending the throne, and had had a son by her (compare ch. xiv. 21 with xi. 42, 43). — Marriage with an Egyptian princess was not a transgression of the law, as it was only marriages with Canaanitish women that were expressly prohibited (Ex. xxxiv. 16; Deut. vii. 3), whereas it was allowable to marry even foreign women taken in war (Deut. xxi. 10 sqq..). At the same time, it was only when the foreign wives renounced idolatry and confessed their faith in Jehovah, that such marriages were in accordance with the spirit of the law. And we may assume that this was the case even with Pharaoh's daughter; because Solomon adhered so faithfully to the Lord during the first years of his reign, that he would not have tolerated any idolatry in his neighbourhood, and we cannot find any trace of Egyptian idolatry in Israel in the time of Solomon, and, lastly, the daughter of Pharaoh is expressly distinguished in ch. xi 1 from the foreign wives who tempted Solomon to idolatry in his old age. The assertion of Seb. Schmidt and Thenius to the contrary rests upon a false interpretation of ch. xi 1. — " And he brought her into the city of David, till he had finished the building of his palace," etc. Into the city of David: i.e. not into the palace in which his father had dwelt, as Thenius arbitrarily interprets it in opposition to 2 Chron. viii. 11, but into a house in the city of David or Jerusalem, from which he brought her up into the house appointed for her after the building of his own palace was finished (ch. ix. 24). The building of the house of Jehovah is mentioned as well, because the sacred tent for the ark of the covenant was set up in the palace of David until the temple was finished, and the temple was not consecrated till after the completion of the building of the palace (see at ch. viii. 1). By the building of " the wall of Jerusalem" we are to understand a stronger fortification, and possibly also the extension of the city wall (see at ch. xi. 27). — Ver. 2. "Only the people sacrificed upon high places, because there was not yet a house built for the name of Jehovah until those days." The limiting PI, only, by which this general account of the existing condition of the religious worship is appended to what precedes, may be accounted for from the antithesis to the strengthening of the kingdom by Solomon mentioned in ch. ii. 46. The train of thought is the following: It is true that Solomon's authority was firmly established by the punishment of the rebels, so that he was able to ally himself by marriage with the king of Egypt; but just as he was obliged to bring his Egyptian wife into the city of David, because the building of his palace was not yet finished, so the people, and (according to ver. 3) even Solomon himself, were only able to sacrifice to the Lord at that time upon altars on the high places, because the temple was not yet built. The participle B^naro denotes the continuation of this religious condition (see Ewald, § 168, c). The ntoa, or high places,1 were places of sacrifice and prayer, which were built upon eminences or hills, because men thought they were nearer the Deity there, and which consisted in some cases probably of an altar only, though as a rule there was an altar with a sanctuary built by the side (nioa JV2, ch. xiii. 32; 2 Kings xvii. 29, 32, xxiii. 19), so that HB3 frequently stands for HD3 rva (e.g. ch. xi. 7, xiv. 23; 2 Kings xxi. 3, xxiii. 8), and the <^9? is also distinguished from the narp (2 Kings xxiii. 1 5; 2 Chron. xiv. 2). These high places were consecrated to the worship of Jehovah, and essentially different from the high places of the Canaanites which were consecrated to Baal. Nevertheless sacrificing upon these high places was opposed to the law, according to which the place which the Lord Himself had chosen for the revelation of His name was the only place where sacrifices were to be offered (Lev. xvii. 3 sqq.); and therefore it is excused here on the ground that no house (temple) had yet been built to the name of the Lord. — Ver. 3. Even Solomon, although he loved the Lord, walking in the statutes of his father David, i.e. according to ch. ii. 3, in the commandments of the Lord as they are written in the law of Moses, sacrificed and burnt incense upon high places. Before the building of the temple, more especially since the tabernacle had lost its significance as the central place of the gracious presence of God among His people, through the removal of the ark of the covenant, the worship of the high places was unavoidable; although even afterwards it still continued as a forbidden cultus, and could not be thoroughly exterminated even by the most righteous kings (ch. xxii. 2 4; 2 Kings xii. 4, xiv. 4, xv. 4, 35).

coppice," is only based upon untenable etymological combinations, and cannot be proved. And Ewald's view is equally unfounded, viz. that " high places were an old Cananaean species of sanctuary, which at that time had become common in Israel also, and consisted of a tall stone of a conical shape, as the symbol of the Holy One, and of the real high place, viz. an altar, a sacred tree or grove, or even an image of the one God as well " (Gesch. iii. p. 390). For, on the one hand, it cannot be shown that the tall stone of a conical shape existed even in the case of the Canaanitish bamuth, and, on the other hand, it is impossible to adduce a shadow of a proof that the Israelitish bamoth, which were dedicated to Jehovah, were constructed precisely after the pattern of the Ba.&Ys-bamoth of the Canaanites.

Vers. 4-15. Solomon's Sacrifice and Dream at Gibeon (cf. 2 Chron. i. 1-13). — To implore the divine blessing upon his reign, Solomon offered to the Lord at Gibeon a great sacrifice— a thousand burnt-offerings; and, according to 2 Chron. i. 2, the representatives of the whole nation took part in this sacrificial festival. At that time the great or principal hamuli was at Gibeon (the present el Jib; see at Josh. ix. 3), namely, the Mosaic tabernacle (2 Chron. i. 3), which is called ^Dan, because the ark of the covenant, with which Jehovah had bound up His gracious presence, was not there now. " Upon that altar/' i.e. upon the altar of the great bamah at Gibeon, the brazen altar of burnt-offering in the tabernacle (2 Chron. i. 6). — Vers. 5 sqq. The one thing wanting in the place of sacrifice at Gibeon, viz. the ark of the covenant with the gracious presence of Jehovah, was supplied by the Lord in the case of this sacrifice by a direct revelation in a dream, which Solomon received in the night following the sacrifice. There is a connection between the question which God addressed to Solomon in the dream, " What shall I give thee?" and the object of the sacrifice, viz. to seek the help of God for his reign. Solomon commences his prayer in ver. 6 with an acknowledgment of the m?eat favour which the Lord had shown to his father David, and had continued till now by raising his son to his throne (W Dis3, as it is this day: cf. 1 Sam. xxii. 8, Deut. viii. 18, etc.); and then, in vers. 7-9, in the consciousness of his incapacity for the right administration of government over so numerous a people, he asks the Lord for an obedient heart and for wisdom to rule His people. nnjn introduces the petition, the reasons assigned for which are, (1) his youth and inexperience, and (2) the greatness or multitude of the nation to be governed. I am, says he, P?T ">P, i.e. an inexperienced youth (Solomon was only about twenty years old); u I know not to go out and in," i.e. how to behave myself as king, or govern the people (for iCaj nx¥ compare the note on Num. xxvii. 17). At ver. 8 he describes the magnitude of the nation in words which recall to mind the divine promises in Gen. xiii. 16 and xxxii. 13, to indicate how gloriously the Lord has fulfilled the promises which He made to the patriarchs. — Ver. 9. nra, therefore give. The prayer (commencing with nnjn in ver. 7) is appended in the form of an apodosis to the circumstantial clauses 'til *35w and 'til *pnjn which contain the giving heed to the law and right of God, " to judge Thy people, (namely) to distinguish between good and evil (i.e. right and wrong)." " For who could judge this Thy numerous people," sc. unless, Thou gavest him intelligence? ^23, heavy in multitude: in the Chronicles this is explained by bfa\. — Vers. 1 0 sqq. This prayer pleased God well. " Because thou hast asked this, and hast not asked for thyself long life, nor riches, nor the life (i.e. the destruction) of thy foes," all of them good things, which the world seeks to obtain as the greatest prize, " but intelligence to hear judgment (i.e. to foster it, inasmuch as the administration of justice rests upon a conscientious hearing of the parties), behold I have done according to thy word" (i.e. fulfilled thy request: the perfect is used, inasmuch as the hearkening has already begun; for nsn in this connection compare Ewald, § 307, c), " and given thee a wise and understanding heart." The words which follow, " so that there has been none like thee before thee," etc., are not to be restricted to the kings of Israel, as Clericus supposes, but -are to be understood quite universally as applying to all mankind (cf. ch. v. 9—11). — Vers. 13, 14. In addition to this, according to the promise that to him who seeks first the kingdom of God and His righteousness all other things shall be added (Matt. vi. 33), God will also give him the earthly blessings, for which he has not asked, and that in great abundance, viz. riches and honour such as no king of the earth has had before him; and if he adhere faithfully to God's commandments, long life also (^"wni, in this case I have lengthened). This last promise was not fulfilled, because Solomon did not observe the condition (cf. ch. xi. 42). — Ver. 15. Then Solomon awoke, and behold it was a dream; i.e. a dream produced by God, a revelation by dream, or a divine appearance in a dream. Dvn as in Num. xii. 6. — Solomon thanked the Lord again for this promise after his return to Jerusalem, by offering burnt-offerings and thank-offerings before the ark of the covenant, i.e. upon the altar at the tent erected for the ark upon Zion, and prepared a meal for all his servants (viz. his court-servants), i.e. a sacrificial meal of the D^jk*. — This sacrificial festival upon Zion is omitted in the Chronicles, as well as the following account in vers. 16—28; not, however, because in the chronicler's opinion no sacrifices had any legal validity but such as were offered upon the altar of the Mosaic tabernacle, as Thenius fancies, though without observing the account in 1 Chron. xxi