A. M. 2981. A. C. 1023; OR, ACCORDING TO HALES, A. M. 4375. A. C. 1036. 2 SAM. xix—1 KINGS viii. whose mother was of the tribe of Dan, but his father a Tyrian; and, what was prodigious, his abilities extended to all kind of works, whether in gold, silver, brass, or iron, whether in linen, tapestry, or embroidery; and by his direction all the curious furniture of the temple was both designed and finished. was building. Such admirable care and contrivance was used, in preparing and adjusting the materials, before they were brought together. And now all things being in readiness, the foundation of the temple was laid in the a fourth year of king Solomon's reign, in the year of the creation 2992, 480 years after the Israelites' escape from the Egyptian bondage; and, in the space of seven years and a half was completed with such dexterity, that neither hammer, nor axe, nor any tool of iron was heard in it, all the while that it b с professed artists that could undertake the work of the temple; but in Tyre and Sidon there were many, for both in his Iliad and his Odyssey, Homer gives the people of these two places this character, whom, upon every turn, he calls IIoλudadáλous, excellent artists in several kinds of works.-Patrick's Commentary. a If it be asked, why Solomon did not begin the building of the temple sooner, and even in the first year of his reign, since his father had left him a plan, and all things necessary for the undertaking? Abarbinel's answer is this,-That Solomon would not make use of what his father had prepared, but was resolved to build this temple all at his proper cost and charge. He therefore put into the treasure of the Lord's house all that David had dedicated to the work; and, to gather together as much gold and silver as was necessary to defray so vast an expense, four years can be counted no unreasonable time. Nay, even suppose that he had made use of the treasure which his father had amassed, yet, if the materials that his father had provided lay at a considerable distance, and were left rude and unfashioned, it would cost all this time to form them into the exact symmetry, wherein the Scripture represents them before they were brought together, especially considering, that the very stones which made the foundation, were very probably vast blocks of marble, or porphyry. (1 Kings v. 17;) and all polished in the most exquisite manner. Patrick's Commentary, and Poole's Annotations. 6 The temple itself was indeed but a small edifice, but the many courts and offices that were about it, made the whole a vast pile, and the exquisiteness of the art, and the fewness of the artists that could be employed about it, made a longer time requisite. It must be owned, however, that, considering all things, Solomon made an extraordinary despatch: for, if the building of Diana's temple at Ephesus employed all Asia for the space of 200 years, and no less than 360,000 men, for twenty years together, were taken up in erecting one pyramid, as Pliny, (b. 36. c. 12.) affirms, no reasonable man can wonder, that this temple was seven years and a half in building.-Poole's Annotations, and Calmet's Commentary. e The Jewish doctors have entertained a very odd conceit, upon the occasion of this passage in the sacred history, wherein the temple is said to have been built without noise. They tell us, that the Dæmon Asmodeus drove Solomon once from his throne, and reigned in his place, while that prince was forced to travel over the several kingdoms and provinces of the world; but that at his return to Jerusalem, he defeated Asmodeus, and having chained him so that he could do no hurt, he compelled him to teach him the art of cutting stones for the temple, without making any noise, which was done, as they say, not with any tool or instrument, but by the help of a worm, called samir, which cuts and polishes stone with a marvellous facility. But the foundation of all this fiction, (as Bochart. Hieroz. p. 2. b. 6. c. 11.) has observed, is laid in somebody's mistaking the sense of the word samir, which signifies a very hard stone, called smiris, that is of use to cut and polish other stones, and which Solomon's workmen might possibly have recourse to upon this occasion. But the true reason why no noise was heard in the building of the temple was, that the stones, and other materials, were hewn and squared, and fitted at a distance; so that when they were brought to the place where the temple was to stand, there was nothing to do but to join them together. And this might be done, not only for the ease and convenience of the carriage, but for the magnificence of the work, and the commendation of the workmen's skill and ingenuity.-Poole's Annotations; and Calmet's Dic tionary, under the word Solomon, CHAP. II.-Difficulties Obviated, and Objections Answered. THERE is hardly any one passage in Scripture more difficult to give a satisfactory account of, than this relation of Saul's cruelty to the Gibeonites; because we have little or no intimation, either when, or where, or why their slaughter was committed. The Gibeonites were not of the children of Israel, but the remains of the Amorites, who, upon Joshua's taking possession of the promised land, imposed upon him and his counsellors, and cunningly drew the Israelites into a league with them, which was instantly confirmed by an oath; and because it was so confirmed, for above three hundred years, was reputed inviolable. But though the Gibeonites, by their craft and fallacy, saved their lives, yet it was upon this condition, that they should become hewers of wood and drawers of water, for the service of the tabernacle.' Now while the tabernacle was at Nob, which was a city of the priests, and where some of the Gibeonites, their attendants, may be supposed to reside, the sacred history informs us, that Saul in revenge to the priests, whom he took to be favourers of David's cause, destroyed the city, and massacred all the inhabitants thereof; so that several of the Gibeonites must have been slain upon this occasion, and for shedding of their blood this famine was sent. This is the account which some learned men give us of the matter: but they never considered, 3 that as Saul's sin in murdering the priests was greater than in slaying the Gibeonites, God should have inflicted this severe punishment upon the land for It has been said the greater sin, rather than the less. indeed, that for the slaughter of the priests, God had avenged himself on Saul before, by suffering him and his sons to be slain in battle by the Philistines, but that the slaughter of the Gibeonites was not as yet expiated; yet it will be difficult to conceive, why there should be two different and distinct punishments for one and the same sin, committed at the self-same time. 4 When, or by whom, or on what occasion, the tabernacle and altar of burnt-offerings, which were made by Moses in the wilderness, were removed from Nob to Gibeon we cannot tell, because the Scripture is silent: but it is the conjecture of some learned men, that it was not long after the murder of the priests at Nob; and that Saul, very probably, to regain the favour of the people, which he found he had lost by being so barbarous to men of their sacred character, quarrelled with the Gibeonites, and banished them out of their city, in order to make room for the tabernacle of the Lord. 2 we know, was confederate with Saul in murdering the Gibeonites, or guilty at least in not hindering it; when the next generation was involved in the guilt, by not sing the horror and detestation of it by some public act; when an act of discipline might, at this time, be necessary, to preserve the remaining Gibeonites from insults, to beget in the Israelites a proper respect for them, to prevent the like murders for the future, and the like breaches of national compacts. Nay, supposing the people, who lived in that time when the famine prevailed, to be never so innocent of the blood of the Gibeonites; yet it cannot be denied, but that God, who is the author and giver of life, has an absolute right over the lives of all, and can recall that gift whenever he pleases. And therefore, if, in the case before us, he made a demand, as certainly he had a right to do it, of so many lives at such a time, and in such a manner, as might best answer the ends of discipline; then, that which was just in other views, and without any such special reason, could not become unjust, by having that additional reason to recommend it. In a word, if the thing was righteous, considered merely as an act of dominion in God, it could not but be both righteous and kind, by being made, at the same time, an act of discipline for the punishment of sin and perfidy, and the promotion of justice and godliness among men. A. M. 2981. A. C. 1023; OR, ACCORDING TO HALES, A. M. 4375. A. C. 1036. 2 SAM. xix-1 KINGS viii. 'that the children of Israel envied these miserable people, insomuch that Saul thought he could not do a more popular act, than to cut them off: But by the children of Israel, some rather under-repairing the injury as much as possible, or not expresstand the tribe of Benjamin in particular, namely, that very tribe from whence king Saul descended; and thence they infer, that his zeal or earnest desire to promote his own tribe to riches and grandeur, made him seek occasion to fall foul upon the Gibeonites, in order that the three cities which they possessed in the territories of Benjamin might fall into his hands, and so be divided among his own family. That he either had, or intended to advance and enrich his own tribe, is manifest from these words of his: "Hear now, ye Benjamites, will the son of Jesse give every one of you fields and vineyards, and make you all captains of thousands, and captains of hundreds ?' that is, will he do for you, as I have, and mean to do? Now, if we look into the actions of Saul, we do not find, that he made any purchase of the possessions of another tribe, or that he took from his enemies any considerable territories, in order to accommodate his Benjamites; and are therefore left to suppose, that the fields and vineyards wherewith he enriched them, he unjustly acquired by destroying and dispossessing the Gibeonites. It is but supposing, then, that some of the chief of these Gibeonites had, in some instance or other, offended Saul, for which he was minded to destroy the whole race; or, that he had cast a greedy eye upon their lands and possessions, which, in case of their excision, would be forfeited to the crown, and so might be given to his own family; and then he had allegations plausible enough against them, pretending, "That it was not for the honour or interest of God's people, to nourish any of that viperous brood in their bosoms; and that however Joshua and the princes, who then bore sway, had by their fraud been drawn into an oath to preserve them, yet, in truth, that oath was contrary to God's cominand, which required them to smite them, and utterly destroy them; and therefore, ought not, as he thought, to be observed." 4 6 Thus Saul might set up for a restorer of the divine laws to their ancient rigour, and strictness of execution, and a supplier of the default of Joshua, and the princes of Israel, in sparing the Gibeonites, even though they were comprised in the general ordinance of extirpation; and, under this character, he might easily draw in his own subjects to abet and assist his cruelty against a poor people, for whom they had never any good liking. After the king's fashion is the known maxim; and therefore we may easily suppose, that a wicked and hardhearted people, who had assisted Saul in the persecution of David; had adhered to his son Absalom in his rebellion against his own father; and who at the beck of so many impious princes, left the true worship of God, and fell into idolatry; would not be backward to assist Saul in putting in execution any of his contrivances against the poor Gibeonites. And if so, we cannot but admire the wisdom and justice of God, in making the punishment national, when the whole nation, for aught Le Clerc in locum. The History of the Life of King David, vol. 3. We must all allow, that God, as he is a most just and righteous being, can never require, that the innocent should die for the guilty; and therefore we have reason to believe, that, when Saul for reasons above mentioned, was so outrageous against the Gibeonites, his sons and grandsons, might be instruments of his cruelty, and very probably bear some part in the military execution. For it frequently so happens, that whatever a king commands, be it never so abominable, is generally approved and executed by his family; and therefore, when we are told from the mouth of God, that the plague, sent upon the people, was for Saul and his bloody house, because he slew the Gibeonites,' it seems to be evident, that it was for their guilt as well as his; nor can we imagine, that this guilt of theirs could be any thing less than that of being the executioners in this slaughter. It is plain, that they were his captains of thousands and captains of hundreds; and it is as plain, that as such, they must be the instruments of his cruelty; fer if they were not, why are they called bloody? They refused indeed to slaughter the priests at his command; but there is no reason to believe, that they were so scrupulous in regard to the Gibeonites; and if they were not, is there less equity in God's destroying their sons for the sins of their fathers which they adopted and shared in, than there was in his destroying Jehoram, the son of Ahab, for that vineyard which the father had cruelly and unjustly acquired, and the son as unjustly detained? Without calling then to our assistance God's great prerogative, 8 of visiting the sins of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation,' we may Scripture Vindicated, part 2. The History of the Life of King David, vol. 3. a The words which we render he slew, might as properly be rendered they slew. A. M. 2931. A. C. 1023; OR, ACCORDING TO HALES, A. M. 4375. A. C. 136. 2 SAM. xix-1 KINGS viii. fairly say, that if these descendants of Saul did either | both alike; had it not been to repair the injury done concur in this murder of the Gibeonites, when doing, or to his most holy name, in the violation of the compact avow and defend it when done, they became culpable which both Joshua and the princes of Israel made with upon their own, as well as their ancestors' account, and this people, and confirmed with the solemnity of an thereupon justly deserved to be delivered up to the re- oath; had it not been by this exemplary punishment, to sentment of a people that had suffered so much by their | give mankind a lesson of instruction concerning the inhumanity. sacredness of oaths and treaties, and how religiously they ought to be observed, even towards those that are in the lowest state and circumstances of life. Upon this supposition then, for it is by supposition that we must go in this obscure part of history, that both the people and the princes of the blood were accessory or instrumental to Saul's cruelty, the reason why God delayed their punishment so long is obvious; even because his infinite goodness waited for their repentance, which goodness we badly requite, if we pervert it as an argument against his providence. For may not God be gracious and merciful as long as he pleases? Or have we any right to set bounds to his patience and longsuffering? It is but supposing then, that while God continued in this state of expectance, upon some special occasion or other, to us unknown, both the people of Israel and Saul's posterity might discover, that they were so far from repenting, that they gloried in the murder of the Gibeonites, and this would determine God, who had hitherto waited for their penitence in vain, to pour out his indignation, upon them, and exact a severe punishment both for their cruelty and obstinacy. Whether the Gibeonites did right or wrong in exacting so severe a retaliation, as that of hanging up seven of Saul's progeny, for the injury that he and his family had done them, the sacred history is no ways concerned. It relates the transaction just as it happened; but to show us from whence this barbarous custom of hanging up men to appease the anger of the gods did proceed, it prefaces the account of the matter with this observation:These Gibeonites were not of the children of Israel,' for among them they learned no such practice, but a remnant of the Amorites,' who were addicted to this horrid superstition, of which the Gibeonites, notwithstanding their abode among people of better sentiments, still retained some tincture, and propounded it to David, as an expedient to make the earth become fruitful again: Let seven of Saul's sons be given unto us, and we will hang them up unto the Lord.' 26 Under these considerations only could the death of Saul's sons be acceptable to God; and how far David, in like manner, came to be concerned in it, we shall now proceed to consider. Both the Septuagint and vulgar Latin translation make the demand of the Gibeonites, when David sent to offer them satisfaction, run in this strain:-The man who consumed us, and oppressed us unjustly, we ought utterly to destroy, so as not to leave one of his race remaining in the coasts of Israel; and, in this demand, we may presume that they persisted, until David, partly by his authority, and partly by kind entreaties, prevailed with them to be content with seven only. Here then was a fair opportunity for David, had he been so minded, to have cut off the whole race of Saul, as it were at one blow, and to have avoided all the odium of the action, by but barely saying, "That the Gibeonites demanded all, and his instructions from God were, to grant whatever they demanded." But instead of that, we find him, before this happened, making inquiry for such left of Saul's family, that he might show kindness to them for Jonathan's sake;' interposing his good offices here with the Gibeonites, to have them abate the keenness of their resentment, and make the slaughter of Saul's devoted house as moderate as possible; and, after that slaughter was over, giving them a public and solemn interment, with the bones of Saul and Jonathan his son, in the sepulchre of their ancestors, and himself attending them in person to the grave. 6 56 as were The death of Saul's posterity, procured by the Gibeonites, had it not proceeded from God's positive command, but been only a plausible pretence for David to get rid of his rivals in empire, we cannot imagine why he should slay no more than seven of these descendants, why he should cut off only collateral branches, and spare all those who were in a direct line of succession to the throne; why he spared Ishbosheth, his competitor for the kingdom, whom, by Abner's means, he might have despatched, and according to their desert punished the two traitors, who had officiously murdered him; and why he spared Mephibosheth the son of Jonathan, and Micah his son, and Micah's four sons, whom in all probability he lived to see, and in them a long generation, all descended from Saul's family, and all related to the crown. Had this affair of the Gibeonites happened indeed The Scripture, you see, speaks in the dialect of these people; but from thence we make a wrong conclusion, if we think that God can be delighted with human sacrifices, which so frequently, and so vehemently, we find him, declaiming against, and professing his utter detestation of. He desires the death or punishment of no man, except it be in pursuance of the ends of his wise providence, or when the criminal, by his bad conduct, has forfeited his life to the government he lives under; nor would he have required the execution of any of Saul's posterity, had it not been to procure the poor distressed Gibeonites, who were true drudges to their Hebrew mas-about the beginning of David's reign over all Israel, soon ters, a kinder treatment, and better quarter for the future; and had it not been to testify his abhorrence of all oppression and violence; to show that the cries of the meanest slave, as well as of the mightiest monarch, enter the ears of the Most High; that with him there is no respect of persons, but the rich and the poor to him are after the death of Ishbosheth, and when he had reason to apprehend, that some other rival might, perchance spring up in his stead, there might then be some umbrage to think, that the branches of Saul's family were to be 3 Calmet's Commentary in locum. 7 2 Sam. ix. 1. 2 Sam. xxi. 5. 2 Sam. xxi. 12, 13. The History of the Life of King David, vol. 3. See 1 Chron. viii. 33, &c. A. M. 2981. A. C. 1023; OR, ACCORDING TO HALES, A. M. 4375. A. C. 1036. 2 SAM. xix-1 KINGS viii. cut off for reasons of state, and to make his possession of the crown more safe: but, since these things came to pass very near the conclusion of his reign, when, as he himself acknowledges in the very next chapter, God had not only covered him with the shield of his salvation, and so enlarged his steps under him, that his feet =could not slip, but given him likewise the necks of his enemies, and made him the head over many strange nations;' he could have no just conception of danger from any quarter, and consequently no necessity to establish his throne by blood. It could not be then for any private end, that David delivered these children of Saul into the hands of the Gibeonites, but purely in obedience to the will of God, who had both directed, and warranted him to do so. For we cannot but suppose, as Josephus does, that, when David consulted the oracle concerning the famine, God informed him, not only for what crime it was inflicted, but by what means likewise it was to be removed: and therefore being let into all this, he was not at liberty to do what he pleased, but compelled rather to give up the children as so many victims, notwithstanding his promise and oath to their father; because a superior power interposed, and in so doing, cancelled the prior obligation. His making a grant of Mephibosheth's estate to a vile miscreant of a servant, without giving his master a fair hearing, is another exception that is commonly made to the justice of king David's proceedings in this period of time. But how could David have leisure to send for Mephibosheth from mount Olivet to Jerusalem, and inquire into the merits of the cause depending between him and his servant, when he was in so great a hurry, and under flight from the arms of his rebel son? Or how could he suppose that Ziba could have dared to have told him so notorious a lie, when it might in a short time be disproved? Every circumstance, in short, on Ziba's side looked well; but none on the master's. To him David had been extremely kind in restoring him to the forfeited estate of his grandfather Saul, and in allowing him to eat at his own table, as one of the king's sons; and now at the general rendezvous of his friends, David might well have expected, that the person to whom he had extended so many favours, should not have been so negligent of his duty, as to absent himself, unless it had been upon some extraordinary business; and therefore, when Ziba acquaints him with the occasion of his absence, though it was a mere fiction, yet with David it might find a readier credence, because at this time he had reason to mistrust every body, and seeing his own family disconcerted and broken, might think the crown liable to fall to any new claimant, that could pretend to the same right of succession that Mephibosheth might. 2 as wise a man as David might have been induced to believe the whole to be true, and upon the presumption of its being so, might have proceeded to pass a judgment of forfeiture (as in most eastern countries every crime against the state was always attended with such a forfeiture) upon Mephibosheth's estate, and to consign the possession of it to another. 6 All therefore that David can be blamed for in this whole transaction, is an error in judgment, even when he was imposed upon by the plausible tale of a sycophant, and had no opportunity of coming at the truth; but upon his return to Jerusalem, when Mephibosheth appears before him, and pleads his own cause, we find this the decision of it. 36 Why speakest thou any more of thy matters? I have said, Thou and Ziba divide the land:' which words must not be understood, as if he appointed, at that time, an equal division of the estate between Mephibosheth and his servant, for where should the justice of such a sentence be; but rather that he revoked the order he had given to Ziba, upon the forfeiture of his master, and put things now upon the same supposed establishment they were at first. 4 I have said,' that is, my first grant shall stand, when I decreed that Mephibosheth should be lord of the whole estate, and Ziba his steward to manage it for him.' The words of the grant are these: 5 Then the king called Ziba, Saul's servant, and said unto him, I have given unto thy master's son all that pertained to Saul, and to all his house. Thou therefore, and thy sons, and thy servants, shall till the land for him, and thou shalt bring in the fruits, that thy master's son, may have food to eat,' that is, may be enabled to maintain himself and family in plenty; but Mephibosheth, thy master's son, shall eat bread always at my table.' From whence it seems manifest, that this Ziba had been an old steward in Saul's family, and had managed his private estate, which lay at Gibeah of Benjamin. 6 This estate, upon one account or other, had come into David's possession, either in right of his wife, upon the death of Saul's son, or by forfeiture to the crown, upon Ishbosheth's rebellion; but he, being willing now to do a generous act to Saul's family, in memory of his friendship to Jonathan, passed a free grant or dedition of it to his son, and that he might make a provision for all his dependants at once, put Ziba into the same place he had enjoyed before, constituting him a steward of the royal manor of Gibeah, even as he had been in the life of Saul. So divide the land,' refers us to this original grant, and that David's sentence or determination, thou and Ziba consequently implies no more, than that all things should be in the same situation they were in before, namely, that Ziba, and his sons, should manage the estate, and support themselves out of it, as usual, and that the re 76 On the contrary, every thing appeared bright and mainder of the profits which accrued from thence, they plausible on Ziba's side. He, though but a servant, came to join the king, and, instead of adhering to his master's pretended schemes of advancement, had expressed his duty to his rightful sovereign, in bringing him a considerable present, enough to engage his good opinion. The story that he told of his master likewise, though utterly false, was cunningly contrived, and fitly accommodated to the nature of the times; so that, in this situation of affairs, 22 Sam. ix. 11. 12 Sam. xxii. 36, &c. should bring to Mephibosheth, for him to dispose of as 3 2 Sam. xix. 29. 52 Sam. ix. 10, 11. Selden de Successionibus, 25. 6 Poole's Annotations in locum. 7 2 Sam. xix. 29, 30. a The ancient way of tenancy, nor is it yet quite disused, was that of occupying the land, and giving the proprietor a certain anhalf of the annual produce, he was called colonus partiarius;' nual proportion of the fruits of it. When the tenant paid one and such, in the judgment of the best critics, was Ziba to Mephibosheth, as he had been before to Saul.-The History of the Life of King David, vol. 3. A. M. 2981. A. C. 1023; OR, ACCORDING TO HALES, A. M. 4375. A. C. 1036. 2 SAM. xix-1 KINGS viii. he pleased; and to this sense of the words the following reply seems to be accommodated, ' yea let him have all,' namely, to his own use and property, since my lord the king is come again in peace.' "Thou rememberest likewise what Joab did unto me; with what insolence he treated me in the time of the war against Absalom; how, contrary to my orders, he slew him, and afterwards talked to me in a menacing and imperious manner. Thou rememberest what he did to Amasa, whom I intended to have put in his place, and made the general of all my forces; and what to Abner, who was then endeavouring to gain over to my party all that adhered to the house of Saul. The injury done to these two brave men redounds upon me, since they were both under my protection, and both murdered, basely murdered, because I had an esteem for them; and till justice be done to their murderer, which I, in my lifetime, had not power to do, their innocent blood will not depart from my house.' Do thou therefore take care to assoil thee, let the blood of these two valuable men be charged to his account, and let him, as he has long deserved, be put to death. That which leads many into a misconception of David, as if he left the world in a vindictive and unforgiving temper, because we find him giving his son some instructions concerning two persons who had grossly misbehaved towards him, has been nothing else but the want of distinguishing between the same person, when acting or advising in a public, and when in a private capacity. Shimei curses David in the time of his troubles, and yet David forgives him, and promises he shall not die. Joab does many valorous and brave acts for the honour of his king, and the enlargement of his dominions; but then he sullies all with his insolent behaviour, and bar-it; and whenever he commits any transgression against barous murders. They both had committed crimes enough to forfeit their lives; David, however, for reasons of state, thought it not advisable to seize either of them for the present, but directed his son, if ever they should give him a sufficient provocation not to spare them. "Thou hast Shimei with thee, and some share perhaps he may have in thy favour; but trust him not, he is no friend to kings, or kingly power. Remember what he did to me in my distress; how bitterly, how virulently, he cursed me to my face; and I make no doubt, but that he would be the same to thee in the like circumstances. I forgave him in my exile, because I looked upon him as an instrument in God's hands to humble me for my great offence. I forgave him in my return home, because he came to me when my heart was open, and unwilling to damp the joy of my restoration with the effusion of any blood. I promised him his life; and let not that promise be violated in my days: but what I did is no rule or obligation to thee. Let him not die however for his offence against me, but rather watch his conduct, and if he should chance to give thee a fresh occasion, be sure to lay hold of it, because it is not in his nature to be a good subject." a 'Patrick's Commentary on 2 Kings ii. 8. This is the sense of David's words to his son concerning these two men; and it is easy to observe, that in these dying instructions of his, he is not to be considered as a private man, acting upon principles of resentment, but as a king and governor, giving advice to his son and successor in aflairs of state. It was for the public good, that such offenders, as Shimei and Joab, should suffer at a proper time, and as prudence should direct: and therefore, since his promise and oath to one of them, and the formidable power and interest which the other had usurped, restrained him, in his lifetime, from punishing them as they deserved; and since it would have been an unjust thing in itself, and a derogation to the glory of his reign, to suffer such public and crying sins to go unpunished, he recommended the consideration of these things to his son, and, like a wise magistrate, laid a scheme for the punishment of wickedness, without regard to any private revenge. David, as we said, durst not call Joab to an account, 3 21 Kings ii. 31. * Scripture Vindicated, part 2. p. 106, Calmet's and Le Clerc's Commentaries on 1 Kings ii. rebuke me not in thy wrath, neither (and, for and not) chasten me in thy hot displeasure.' (Ps. lxxv. 5.) Lift not up your horn on high: (and then the negative, understood as repeated by the conjunction, now dropped,) speak not with a stiff neck,' (Prov. xxix. 12.) Our version is this: Doth not he that pondereth the heart consider it? and he that keepeth the soul, doth not he know it? and shall not he render to every man according to his works And (Prov. xxx. 3.) I neither learned wisdom, nor (and, it and not) have the knowledge of the holy. If then there are in fact many such instances, the question is, whether the negati here, expressed in the former part of David's command, may be understood as to be repeated in the latter part; and it th may be, a strong reason will be added why it should be so inte preted. The passage will run thus: Behold thou hast with the Shimei, who cursed me: but I swore to him by the Lord, savir I will not put thee to death by the sword. Now, therefore, hi al him not guiltless: for thou art a wise man, and knowest what the oughtest to do unto him, but bring not down his hoary head to t grave with blood.' Now if the language itself will admit of th construction, the sense thus given to the sentence derives a very For how did Solomon under stand this charge? Did he kill Shimei in consequence of i Certainly he did not; for after he had immediately commande Joab to be slain, in obedience to his father, he sends for Shims and knowing that Shimei ought to be well watched, confines to a particular spot in Jerusalem for the remainder of his : 1 Kings ii. 36-42: see also Job. xxiii, 17; xxx. 20; xxxi. 20.o This is the best mode of interpreting this text.-ED. a The way in which this passage here commented upon, should be understood and translated, has already been noticed, p. 393, but for the satisfaction of the curious and inquiring reader we here subjoin Dr Kennicott's criticism on the text. He says "David is here represented in our English version as finishing his life, with giving a command to Solomon to kill Shimei, and to kill him on account of that very crime for which, as David here says, he had sworn to him by the Lord he would not put him to death. The behaviour thus imputed to the king and prophet, and which would be justly censurable, if true, should be examined very carefully as to the ground it stands upon; and when the passage is duly considered, I presume it will appear highly probable that an injury has been here done to this illustrious character. The point to which I now beg the reader's attention is this: that it is not uncommon in the Hebrew language to omit the negative in a second part of the sentence, and to consider it as repeated when it has been once expressed: and is followed by the connecting particle. And thus on (Is. xiii. 22,) the late learned annotator says, 'the negative is repeated or referred to by the conjunction vau, as in many other places.' So also (Is. xxiii. 4.) The necessity of so very considerable an altera-strong support from the context. tion as inserting the particle not, may be here confirmed by some other instances. (Ps. i. 5.) The ungodly shall not stand in judgment nor (the Hebrew is and, signifying and not) sinners in the congregation of the righteous. (Ps. ix. 18.) The needy shall not always be forgotten: (and then the negative understood as repeated by the conjunction now dropped,) the expectation of the poor shall not perish for ever.' (Ps, xxxviii, 1.) O Lord, |