Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of 1 Kings 2:26
And unto Abiathar the priest said the king, Get thee to Anathoth, unto thine own fields; for thou [art] worthy of death: but I will not at this time put thee to death, because thou didst bear the ark of the Lord GOD before David my father, and because thou hast been afflicted in all wherein my father was afflicted.
26 27. Punishment of Abiathar (Not in Chronicles)
26. Get thee to Anathoth ] This city was in the tribe of Benjamin, and has been identified by Robinson with Anta at the distance of 1 hours N.N.E. of Jerusalem. It is mentioned as a priest’s city with suburbs in Jos 21:18; 1Ch 6:60, and Jeremiah was sprung from ‘the priests that were in Anathoth’ (Jer 1:1). Here Abiathar must have had some ground, and to this Solomon banished him. We find that the cousin of Jeremiah, Hanameel, possessed land at Anathoth, which Jeremiah purchased (Jer 32:6-12).
worthy of death ] Hebrew, a man of death, deserving it. So in 1Ki 20:42 ‘a man whom I appointed to utter destruction’ is literally ‘the man of my doom,’ i.e. whom I had doomed.
thou barest the ark of the Lord ] Abiathar was with David in his flight before Absalom (2Sa 15:24-29) when the ark of God was carried away from Jerusalem, and he and Zadok bore it back again according to David’s orders.
hast been afflicted ] Abiathar fled from Nob and came to David when he was pursued by Saul (1Sa 22:20), and also remained with him in the dangerous days which followed. See 1Sa 23:8-9.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
For Anathoth and the allusions in this verse, see the margin reference.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
1Ki 2:26-27
And unto Abiathar the priest said the king.
Friends that fail us
In middle life–much more in old age–we may have many acquaintances, but we have few friends. If, said an old man quaintly, my acquaintances would fill a church, my real friends could go in the pulpit. Socrates used to keep two chairs only in his house: One for myself, and another for a friend–when I find him! How well then it is that there is a Friend who sticketh closer than a brother–a Guide and Comforter whom we cannot fail to find if we look for Him with the eyes of faith! (Quiver.)
Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell
To Anathoth, a city of the priests, Jos 21:18, to lead a private life there.
Unto thine own fields; either that part of the suburbs which fell to his share, or other land which he had purchased there. See Jer 32:7.
At this time: he doth not fully pardon him, but only forbears him, and reserves to himself a liberty of punishing him afterwards, if he saw occasion; which he doth to keep him in awe, that he might not dare to raise or foment discontents or tumults among the people, which otherwise he might be prone to do.
Because thou barest the ark of the Lord God before David my father, when he thought fit to carry it out with him; as 2Sa 15:24,29; 1Ch 15:11,12; when he as high priest was to attend upon it. Thus Solomon showeth his respect to his sacred function.
Thou hast been afflicted in all wherein my father was afflicted: here he mixeth mercy with justice, and requites Abiathars former kindness to David; hereby teaching princes that they should not write injuries in marble, and benefits in sand or water, as they have been too oft observed to do.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
26, 27. unto Abiathar the priestsaid the kingThis functionary, as the counsellor or accompliceof Adonijah, had deserved to share his fate. But partly from regardto his priestly dignity, and partly from his long associations withthe late king, Solomon pronounced on him the mitigated sentence ofbanishment to his country estate at Anathoth, and thereby, as God’svicegerent, deprived him of his office and its emoluments. The sacredwriter notices the remarkable fulfilment, Abiathar’s degradation fromthe high priesthood (see on 1Ki4:4), of the doom denounced against the house of Eli (1Sa2:30).
1Ki2:28-45. JOAB SLAIN.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
And unto Abiathar the priest said the king,…. Who was either at court, or he sent for him, and thus addressed him:
get thee to Anathoth; a city of the tribe of Benjamin, given to the priests, Jos 21:18; of which place Abiathar might be originally, and whither he is bid to return:
unto thine own fields; which belonged to him there, either by inheritance or purchase; and these he was to mind, and not perform the functions of his office, however as high priest, and at Jerusalem, and the tabernacle there, and still less appear at court, or meddle with state affairs, only to attend to his private domestic concerns:
for thou [art] worthy of death; in joining with Adonijah in the lifetime of David, and setting him up as a king without his knowledge, and in opposition to Solomon, contrary to the will of God, and promise of David, of which he, being high priest, cannot be thought to be ignorant, and for his late confederacy with Adonijah, of which Solomon had knowledge:
but I will not at this time put thee to death; he does not give him a full pardon, only a respite; suggesting, that should he be guilty of any overt act, he would be put to death another time, though not now:
because thou barest the ark of the Lord God before David my father; when he fled from Absalom, 2Sa 15:24;
and because thou hast been afflicted in all wherein my father was afflicted; shared with him in all his afflictions under the persecutions of Saul, from the time he slew the priests at Nob, and at the rebellion of Absalom; in each of which he accompanied him, and suffered and sympathized with him.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
| Joab Put to Death. | B. C. 1015. |
26 And unto Abiathar the priest said the king, Get thee to Anathoth, unto thine own fields; for thou art worthy of death: but I will not at this time put thee to death, because thou barest the ark of the Lord GOD before David my father, and because thou hast been afflicted in all wherein my father was afflicted. 27 So Solomon thrust out Abiathar from being priest unto the LORD; that he might fulfil the word of the LORD, which he spake concerning the house of Eli in Shiloh. 28 Then tidings came to Joab: for Joab had turned after Adonijah, though he turned not after Absalom. And Joab fled unto the tabernacle of the LORD, and caught hold on the horns of the altar. 29 And it was told king Solomon that Joab was fled unto the tabernacle of the LORD; and, behold, he is by the altar. Then Solomon sent Benaiah the son of Jehoiada, saying, Go, fall upon him. 30 And Benaiah came to the tabernacle of the LORD, and said unto him, Thus saith the king, Come forth. And he said, Nay; but I will die here. And Benaiah brought the king word again, saying, Thus said Joab, and thus he answered me. 31 And the king said unto him, Do as he hath said, and fall upon him, and bury him; that thou mayest take away the innocent blood, which Joab shed, from me, and from the house of my father. 32 And the LORD shall return his blood upon his own head, who fell upon two men more righteous and better than he, and slew them with the sword, my father David not knowing thereof, to wit, Abner the son of Ner, captain of the host of Israel, and Amasa the son of Jether, captain of the host of Judah. 33 Their blood shall therefore return upon the head of Joab, and upon the head of his seed for ever: but upon David, and upon his seed, and upon his house, and upon his throne, shall there be peace for ever from the LORD. 34 So Benaiah the son of Jehoiada went up, and fell upon him, and slew him: and he was buried in his own house in the wilderness.
Abiathar and Joab were both aiding and abetting in Adonijah’s rebellious attempt, and it is probable were at the bottom of this new motion made of Adonijah for Abishag, and it should seem Solomon knew it, v. 22. This was, in both, an intolerable affront both to God and to the government, and the worse because of their high station and the great influence their examples might have upon many. They therefore come next to be reckoned with. They are both equally guilty of the treason, but, in the judgment passed upon them, a difference is made and with good reason.
I. Abiathar, in consideration of his old services, is only degraded, 1Ki 2:26; 1Ki 2:27. 1. Solomon convicts him, and by his great wisdom finds him guilty: “Thou art worthy of death, for joining with Adonijah, when thou knewest on whose head God intended to set the crown.” 2. He calls to mind the respect he had formerly shown to David his father, and that he had both ministered to him in holy things (had borne before him the ark of the Lord), and also had tenderly sympathized with him in his afflictions and been afflicted in them all, particularly when he was in exile and distress both by Saul’s persecution and Absalom’s rebellion. Note, Those that show kindness to God’s people shall have it remembered to their advantage one time or other. 3. For this reason he spares Abiathar’s life, but deposes him from his offices, and confines him to his country seat at Anathoth, forbids him the court, the city, the tabernacle, the altar, and all inter-meddling in public business, with an intimation likewise that he was upon his good behaviour, and that though Solomon did not put him to death at this time he might another time, if he did not conduct himself well. But, for the present, he was only thrust out from being priest, as rendered unworthy that high station by the opposition he had given to that which he knew to be the will of God. Saul, for a supposed crime, had barbarously slain Abiathar’s father, and eighty-five priests, their families, and city. Solomon spares Abiathar himself, though guilty of a real crime. Thus was Saul’s government ruined and Solomon’s established. As men are to God’s ministers, they will find him to them. 4. The depriving of Abiathar was the fulfilling of the threatening against the house of Eli (1 Sam. ii. 30), for he was the last high priest of that family. It was now above eighty years since the ruin was threatened; but God’s judgments, though not executed speedily, will be executed surely.
II. Joab, in consideration of his old sins, is put to death.
1. His guilty conscience sent him to the horns of the altar. He heard that Adonijah was executed and Abiathar deposed, and therefore, fearing his turn would be next, he fled for refuge to the altar. Many that, in the day of their security, care not for the service of the altar, will be glad of the protection of it in the day of their distress. Some think Joab designed thereby to devote himself for the future to a constant attendance upon the altar, hoping thereby to obtain his pardon, as some that have lived a dissolute life all their days have thought to atone for their crimes by retiring into a monastery when they are old, leaving the world when it has left them and no thanks to them.
2. Solomon ordered him to be put to death there for the murder of Abner and Amasa; for these were the crimes upon which he thought fit to ground the sentence, rather than upon his treasonable adherence to Adonijah. Joab was indeed worthy of death for turning after Adonijah, in contempt of Solomon and his designation to the throne, though he had not turned after Absalom, v. 28. Former fidelity will not serve to excuse any after treachery; yet, besides that, Joab had merited well of the house of David, to which and to his country he had done a great deal of good service in his day, in consideration of which, it is probable, Solomon would have pardoned him his offence against him (for clemency gives great reputation and establishment to an infant government), and would have only displaced him as he did Abiathar; but he must die for the murders he had formerly been guilty of, which his father had charged Solomon to call him to an account for. The debt he owed to the innocent blood that was shed, by answering its cries with the blood of him that shed, he could not pay himself, but left it to his son to pay it, who, having power wherewithal, failed not to do it. On this he grounds the sentence, aggravating the crime (v. 32), that he fell upon two men more righteous and better than he, that had done him no wrong nor meant him any, and, had they lived, might probably have done David better service (if the blood shed be not only innocent, but excellent, the life more valuable that common lives, the crime is the more heinous), that David knew not of it, and yet the case was such that he would be suspected as privy to it; so that Joab endangered his prince’s reputation in taking away the life of his rivals, which was a further aggravation. For these crimes, (1.) He must die, and die by the sword of public justice. By man must his blood be shed, and it lies upon his own head (v. 32), as theirs does whom he had murdered, v. 33. Woe to the head that lies under the guilt of blood! Vengeance for murder was long in coming upon Joab; but, when it did come, it remained the longer, being here entailed upon the head of his seed for ever (v. 33), who, instead of deriving honour, as otherwise they might have done, from his heroic actions, derived guilt, and shame, and a curse, from his villainous actions, on account of which they fared the worse in this world. The seed of such evil doers shall never be renowned. (2.) He must die at the altar, rather than escape. Joab resolved not to stir from the altar (v. 30), hoping thereby either to secure himself or else to render Solomon odious to the people, as a profaner of the holy place, if he should put him to death there. Benaiah made a scruple of either killing him there or dragging him thence; but Solomon knew the law, that the altar of God should give no protection to wilful murderers. Exod. xxi. 14, Thou shalt take him from my altar that he may die, may die a sacrifice. In case of such sins as the blood of beasts would atone for the altar was a refuge, but not in Joab’s case. He therefore orders him to be executed there, if he could not be got thence, to show that he feared not the censure of the people in doing his duty, but would rectify their mistake, and let them know that the administration of justice is better than sacrifice, and that the holiness of any place should never countenance the wickedness of any person. Those who, by a lively faith, take hold on Christ and his righteousness, with a resolution, if they perish, to perish there, shall find in him a more powerful protection than Joab found at the horns of the altar. Benaiah slew him (v. 34), with the solemnity, no doubt, of a public execution. The law being thus satisfied, he was buried in his own house in the wilderness, privately, like a criminal, not pompously, like a soldier; yet no indignity was done to his dead body. It is not for man to lay the iniquity upon the bones, whatever God does.
3. Solomon pleased himself with this act of justice, not as it gratified any personal revenge, but as it was the fulfilling of his father’s orders and a real kindness to himself and his own government. (1.) Guilt was hereby removed, v. 31. By returning the innocent blood that had been shed upon the head of him that shed it, it was taken away from him and from the house of his father, which implies that the blood which is not required from the murderer will be required from the magistrate, at least there is danger lest it should. Those that would have their houses safe and built up must put away iniquity far from them. (2.) Peace was hereby secured (v. 33) upon David. He does not mean his person, but, as he explains himself in the next words, Upon his seed, his house, and his throne, shall there be peace for ever from the Lord; thus he expresses his desire that it may be so and his hope that it shall be so. “Now that justice is done, and the cry of blood is satisfied, the government will prosper.” Thus righteousness and peace kiss each other. Now that such a turbulent man as Joab is removed there shall be peace. Take away the wicked from before the king, and his throne shall be established in righteousness, Prov. xxv. 5. Solomon, in this blessing of peace upon his house and throne, piously looks upward to God as the author of it. “It shall be peace from the Lord, and peace for ever from the Lord.” The Lord of peace himself give us that peace which is everlasting.
Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary
Joab Executed, Vs 26-35
The second of the conspirators dealt with by Solomon was Abiathar the priest. David had felt responsible for Abiathar, for it was his falsehood to the high priest Ahimelech which led to the slaughter of the priests by Saul when David was a fugitive from Saul (1Sa 21:1-9; 1Sa 22:6-23). Abiathar was the lone escapee, and David had sheltered him all through their mutual danger from King Saul, and had even allowed him to exercise the high priesthood, along with Zadok the proper high priest. Abiathar’s family was already under judgment from the Lord for the sins of Eli, his forefather, and his sons in the last day of the judges (1Sa 2:27-36). Abiathar’s reason for returning from David to Adonijah is not revealed in Scripture.
He was an old man, and already his son had succeeded him, and he may have felt that his position, and that of his son, might be more secure under Adonijah than under Solomon, who seemed to prefer Zadok.
Yet, Solomon would not condemn Abiathar to death, because he had suffered hardships with David and because he had borne the ark of God. Instead he banished him to the priest city of Anathoth, and the long-standing prophecy against the house of Eli was fulfilled.
The behavior of the aged Joab certainly implies that he was privy to the contrivances of Adonijah to yet usurp the kingdom. As soon as he heard what had happened to his cohorts he rushed to Gibeon to the tabernacle, and grasped the horns of the brazen sacrifice altar. This symbolized his desire for mercy.
The sacrifices on the brazen altar were atonement offerings symbolizing the need for mercy on the part of those sacrificing. In the end hard, cruel old Joab, who had shown no mercy of Abner, and Amasa, begged for mercy from King Solomon. How like this it surely will be in the last day, when those who never treasured mercy, nor sought it, in their lifetime cry out for mercy too late (Lu 16:25).
When the word reached Solomon he again sent out Benaiah with the sword of execution. When he called on Joab to emerge from the tabernacle and accept his fate, he refused, preferring to die in the sacred precincts of the sanctuary. Benaiah hesitated to shed blood of men in the tabernacle, and only complied when commanded by the king. Joab was buried in his own house in the wilderness, probably in the area southeast of Jerusalem toward his native city of Bethlehem.
It was a terrible end for a brave man, who had done much good on Israel’s behalf during his lifetime, and won many battles for his king and country. But he had never concerned himself with mercy and the future until it was too late. His evil heart deceived him to the end, though he at last realized his need for mercy too late.
This should be a sober warning to all people today to prepare for the future as early as possible in life, lest the opportunity slip out of the grasp before it is expected (Gal 6:7-8).
Solomon proceeded to fill the vacancies by elevating Benaiah into the place of the captain of the host. Zadok finally assumed his rightful role as the sole high priest of Israel. So the kingdom of Solomon grew steadily stronger.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
CRITICAL AND EXPLANATORY NOTES.
1Ki. 2:26. Not at this time put thee to deathIt did not contain a threat that what was now deferred would be executed at a later date; the sentence would depend on Abiathars future conduct.
HOMILETICS OF 1Ki. 2:26-27
THE RETRIBUTION OF A FAITHLESS FRIENDSHIP
Formerly, Abiathar had been a firm and attached friend of David, had attended him in all his wanderings when he fled from Saul, and was esteemed by the king with a special tenderness. It may be Abiathar had grown jealous of Zadok, and feared being supplanted by him; or, it may be, he was drawn into rebellion by the masterly strategy and astute opposition of the wilful and discontented Joab. He thus became, equally with Joab, involved in the guilt of treason, though a difference is made in the final judgment passed upon the two. The subject suggested by the whole passage is the retribution of a faithless friendship.
I. That a faithless friendship may merit the severest punishment. For thou art worthy of death (1Ki. 2:26). Treachery on the part of one we have trusted is an act of basest cruelty; and in proportion to the intimacy enjoyed will be the mischief wrought. It is an exquisitely painful experience when, for the first time, our confidence in human nature is broken. Such an experience has driven many into general infidelity and a reckless course of iniquity. We begin to discover the truth of the proverbConfidence in an unfaithful man in time of trouble is like a broken tooth and a foot out of joint (Pro. 25:19). Few men can be trusted to do all we expect, still less to do all we require. Faithless conduct is ungrateful. All the kindnesses of a long, fond friendship are forgotten and despised. He who calls a man ungrateful, says Swift, sums up all the evil a man can be guilty of. Such conduct entails unspeakable suffering. To the pang of disappointment is added a series of disasters. No one sin is alone; it is the cause of many others: it is like the letting out of waters. Such conduct will meet with severe punishment. The unfaithful friend often suffers more than his victim. Conscience will speak, and its every tone is full of torture. The most callous will be goaded into agony by the stings of a retributive remorse.
II. That the severity of retribution is often moderated by the recollection of acts of fidelity in the past.
1. Respect is had to the religious office and conduct of Gods ministers. Because thou barest the ark of the Lord God (1Ki. 2:26). Whatever we do for God in sincerity and truth will not be forgotten when trouble overtakes us. The virtuous part of a life that may afterwards sink in the moral scale is looked back upon with admiration and regret. Justice draws near with reluctance, and sorrows while it smites.
2. Respect is had to the exhibition of a genuine fellow-sympathy in times of suffering. And because thou hast been afflicted in all wherein my father was afflicted (1Ki. 2:26). Abiathar had been with David in his exile and distress, caused both by the persecution of Saul and the rebellion of Absalom, and shared all the hardships of those trying times. Friendship is cemented and strengthened by suffering. Our love to any one may be measured by the extent we are prepared to suffer for him. The father and brethren of Abiathar were slain for Davids sake. Those who show kindness to Gods people will have it recompensed to them sooner or later. It is a sad reflection that a friendship that has borne the test of suffering may, nevertheless, prove untrue.
III. That the retribution of a faithless friendship consigns its victim to a condition of shame and obscurity.
1. It involves a dismissal from the royal presence. Get thee to Anathoth, &c. (1Ki. 2:26). This would be a heavy blow to Abiathar, whose life had hitherto been spent at court, and occupied with the highest affairs of state. He must now exchange the excitement and display of the city for the obscurity of Anathoth. And yet he must have dreaded a heavier punishment when he remembered the fate of Adonijah, and the fate that threatened Joab. His life was mercifully spared, though he was excluded from that which had before been the sunshine and joy of his lifethe favour of the king. Cain felt his curse all the more bitterly because he was driven from the presence of the Lord; and the lot of the finally impenitent will be all the more unendurable because they are for ever shut out from the presence of the Great King.
2. It involves a degradation from the most honourable office. So Solomon thrust out Abiathar from being priest unto the Lord (1Ki. 2:27). He had disqualified himself for the holy duties of his office by his opposition to that which he knew was the will of God. The priesthood of Abiathar, as it aggravated his crime, so it shall preserve his life. Such honour have good princes given to the ministers of the sanctuary that their very coat has been defence enough against the sword of justice: how much more should it be of proof against the contempt of base persons! Saul cruelly slew the father of Abiathar, and eighty-five priests with their families, for a supposed crime: Solomon spares Abiathar himself, though guilty of a real crime. Mark the judgment of history in those two cases: the government of Saul was disgraced and ruined; the throne of Solomon was established. As men are to Gods ministers, they will find Him to them. When circumstances permit, mildness and forgiveness should go hand-in-hand with justice. The highest ecclesiastical office does not lift a man above the power of the law to punish for wrong-doing.
IV. That the retribution of a faithless friendship may be the unconscious fulfilment of a long-threatened judgment against a sinful generation. That he might fulfil the word of the Lord, which He spake concerning the house of Eli in Shiloh (1Ki. 2:27). Eighty years had rolled away since the words of doom were spoken against the house of Eli, and it seemed very unlikely that they would ever be fulfilled (1Sa. 2:31-36). But time has no power to wipe out the Divine record, or to enfeeble the justice of the Divine hand. The deposition of Abiathar involved the rejection of the house of Ithamar (1Ch. 24:3), to which Eli belonged, and the re-establishment of the high-priesthood in the line of Eleazar, to which Zadok belonged (Num. 25:13; 1Ch. 24:5-6). The wickedness of a generation cannot be purged away, though its punishment may be arrested by the virtues of individuals. If God pays slowly, He pays sure. Delay of most certain punishment is neither any hindrance to His justice, nor any comfort to our miseries. Solomon had no immediate intention of punishing the descendants of Eli, and, perhaps, never thought of the prophecy. Man is often the unconscious instrument of carrying out the Divine purposes. Faithlessness will not go unpunished for want of agencies to punish. All the forces of the universe are at the service of the Supreme Judge. Rebellion in a priest, who should teach loyalty, is doubly criminal.
LESSONS:
1. A treacherous friend may work serious mischief.
2. Is punished with reluctance.
3. Yet cannot escape the inevitable retribution of his treachery.
GERM NOTES ON THE VERSES
1Ki. 2:26-27. Solomon allowed Abiathar to go unpunished at first, which scarcely any other Eastern prince would have done. But when the repeated attempt of Adonijah to seize the kingdom was discovered, Abiathar could no longer be passed over. Yet, instead of inflicting death upon him, he deprived him of his influential office, and let him live at liberty on his estate, on account of his former good behaviour. Here was no severity, but gratitude, kindness, and generosity. Ecclesiastical office can be no protection from just punishment of crime (see Luk. 12:47; 1Co. 9:27). Former fidelity cannot efface later treachery. It is most lamentable that a man who was faithful in times of trouble should end his career as a sinner (1Co. 10:12).Lange.
1Ki. 2:26. Thou art worthy of death. The voice of law to the sinner.
1. He has forfeited life by transgression.
2. It is the function of law to convince him of that fact.
3. Law offers no gleam of hope as to any escape from death.
4. Christ alone redeems from the curse of the law.
Because thou hast been afflicted. But for this he had now been a dead man. So God by the rod preventeth the sword; and therefore will not condemn his saints for their sins, because they have suffered (1Co. 11:31), and in His account have suffered double (Isa. 40:1).Trapp.
1Ki. 2:27. Solomon might lawfully take from Abiathar all the revenues of his place, as well as the liberty of officiating in it; but the sacerdotal office, which he received from God, and to which he was anointed, he could not alienate. He was still styled the priest (1Ki. 4:4). There is a great difference between depriving a man of the dignity and of the exercise of his function in such a determinate place, and taking from him an authority which was given him by God, and the profits and emoluments which were the gifts of the crown or the nation.
Fuente: The Preacher’s Complete Homiletical Commentary Edited by Joseph S. Exell
D. THE PLIGHT OF OTHER CONSPIRATORS 2:2635
It would appear that Abiathar and Joab were again involved in the conspiracy to give the throne to Adonijah. At least this is the interpretation which Solomon put on their conduct. Thus it was in conjunction with the execution of Adonijah that Solomon (1) expelled Abiathar from the priesthood (1Ki. 2:26-27); and (2) executed Joab (1Ki. 2:28-35).
1. THE EXPULSION OF ABIATHAR (1Ki. 2:26-27)
TRANSLATION
(26) Then to Abiathar the priest the king said, Go to Anathoth to your fields, for you are a man of death; but I will not execute you, because you carried the ark of the Lord GOD before David my father, and because you suffered all those things which my father suffered. (27) So Solomon expelled Abiathar from being a priest of the LORD to fulfill the word of the LORD which He had spoken concerning the house of Eli in Shiloh.
COMMENTS
That the priest Abiathar was again involved in plotting the overthrow of the king is implied in the action taken by Solomon against him. This priest, who on the occasion of the first conspiracy escaped even censure, was summoned to the palace. The king curtly ordered him to retire from the priestly office and to return to his home at Anathoth. The town of Anathoth[123] has been identified with the modern village of Anata, a village just north and east of Jerusalem. As far as Solomon was concerned, Abiathar was worthy of death (lit., a man of death) for his past treasonous conduct. But on account of his associations with David, Solomon was inclined to be lenient with the old priest. Abiathar was responsible for carrying the precious ark of the Lord both when that sacred chest was transported to Jerusalem (1Ch. 15:11)a moment of great joy for Davidand later when the ark accompanied David on his flight from Absalom (2Sa. 15:24-29). Abiathar had also endured all the afflictions of David during the period of Sauls persecution as well as the period of Absaloms rebellion. For these reasons Abiathar was sentenced to banishment rather than death. There is an ominous limitation placed upon the kings graciousness in the words this day. Solomon is obviously suggesting that Abiathar would forfeit his life if he engaged in any new crimes (1Ki. 2:26).
[123] The later great high priest Hilkiah and Jeremiah the prophet hailed from Anathoth.
With the deposition of Abiathar, the last descendant of the Ithamar branch of the priestly family, the high priesthood reverted to the descendants of Eleazar who was represented in Solomons day by Zadok. Solomons action fulfilled a prophecy made over a century earlier concerning the house of Eli in Shiloh (1Ki. 2:27). The reference is to 1Sa. 2:31-36 where Eli was cursed by an unnamed prophet with cessation of the priesthood from his family. Abiathar was of the fifth generation of Elis house.
2. THE EXECUTION OF JOAB (1Ki. 2:28-35)
TRANSLATION
(28) Now the report came unto Joab, for Joab had turned after Adonijah, although after Absalom he had not turned. And Joab fled unto the tent of the LORD, and seized the horns of the altar. (29) When King Solomon was told that Joab had fled unto the tent of the LORD, and that he was there beside the altar, Solomon sent Benaiah the son of Jehoiada, saying, Go fall on him! (30) And Benaiah went unto the tent of the LORD, and said unto him, Thus the king has said: Come out! And he said, No! But I shall die here. And Benaiah returned the king word, saying, Thus said Joab, and thus he answered me. (31) And the king said to him, Do as he has spoken! Fall on him, and bury him, that the innocent blood which Joab shed may be removed from upon me and from upon the house of my father. (32) And the LORD will return his blood upon his head, because he fell upon two men more righteous and better than he, and slew them with the sword (and my father David did not know): Abner the son of Ner, captain of the host of Israel, and Amasa that son of Jether, captain of the host of Judah. (33) Now their blood shall be returned upon the head of Joab and on the head of his seed forever; but for David, his seed, his house and his throne, may there be peace forever from the Lord. (34) and Benaiah the son of Jehoiada went up and fell on him, and slew him; and he was buried in his house in the wilderness. (35) And the king appointed Benaiah the son of Jehoiada to his place over the host, and Zadok the priest to take the place of Abiathar.
COMMENTS
When Joab heard of the execution of Adonijah and the deposition of Abiathar, he knew that he would be next on Solomons extermination list. Though Joab had not supported Absalom in his rebellion against David, he had lent his support, influence and prestige to the ill-fated conspiracy of Adonijah. Realizing that his treason was a capital crime, Joab fled to the tent of the Lord on Mt. Zion and clasped the horns of the altar (1Ki. 2:28) where he thought he would find sanctuary as Adonijah had found before him (1Ki. 1:50). Since the altar provided no sanctuary to murderers, it cannot be because of his two assassinations that Joab fled there. These crimes had so long remained unpunished that Joab had no doubt pushed them to the back of his mind. It was because of his political intrigue that Joab expected to incur the wrath of the king. But if Joab had rendered loyal, albeit somewhat grudging, support to Solomon since the coronation of the king, why did he now flee? Perhaps his flight was an indication that Joab had been involved in the second conspiracy. It is an ancient belief that Joab suggested to Adonijah the plan of marriage with Abishag.[124]
[124] Hammond, PC., p. 41.
Solomon, regarding Joabs flight to the altar as proof of his continuing treasonous intentions, ordered Benaiah to go and slay the old general (1Ki. 2:29). Finding Adonijah still clutching the horns of the altar, Benaiah in the name of the king ordered Joab to come away from the altar. Probably Solomon had given orders to Benaiah to avoid if possible profaning that sacred spot with bloodshed. But Joab refused to leave the altar. Did Joab imagine that Solomon would finally relent and that he would escape with his life? Or was he resigned to death and determined because of superstition to die at that spot? Or could his motive have been one of defiance, thinking that if he forced Solomon to profane that holy spot the king would lose popular support? Joab then would accomplish in his death what he had failed to accomplish in his life. While it is impossible to say with certainty, it would seem that Joab was clutching at straws and hoping against hope that his life might be spared. To cling to that altar, he thought, was his only chance. Because of this unexpected development Benaiah sought further instructions from his king (1Ki. 2:30).
Good reasons existed for denying sanctuary to Joab at the altar, and Solomon spelled out those reasons in 1Ki. 2:31-33.
Since the altar provided no sanctuary for murderers (Exo. 21:14), and since Joab was to be executed as a murderer, Solomon ordered Benaiah to comply with Joabs wishes and slay him at the altar. To attempt to drag Joab away from the altar would have created an ugly stir and might have led to a bloody encounter with some of Joabs numerous friends. After the execution, Benaiah was immediately to bury Joabs corpse thus removing it from the sanctuary it defiled and hiding it away from public view.
Only by the shedding of Joabs guilty blood could the innocent blood of Abner and Amasa be washed away from me and from the house of my father (1Ki. 2:31). Solomon must have had in mind such passages as Num. 35:33[125]
[125] See also Deu. 19:10; Deu. 19:13; Deu. 21:9.
So you shall not pollute the land in which you live, for blood defiles the land; and the land cannot be cleansed of the blood that is shed in it except by the blood of him that shed it.
As supreme magistrate of the land, Solomon felt an obligation to avenge the death of murder victims. Should the blood of Abner and Amasa go unavenged, Solomon felt that he and his sons might have to answer for it. In so ordering the death of Joab, Solomon considered that he was acting as an agent of God. He was fulfilling a religious duty. The blood that Joab had shed would be returned upon his head, i.e., avenged. As if the execution of Joab needed any further justification, Solomon added that the victims of Joabs sword were better men than their assassin. Though many people, no doubt, suspected David of criminal complicity in these murders, the deeds were actually done without his knowledge, much less his approval (1Ki. 2:32).
Not only would Joab die for his crime, his descendants would suffer for it as well. David had placed Joab under a curse on the day he slew Abner, and Joabs children were included in that curse (2Sa. 3:29). A mans children often suffer for the sins he commits. If nothing worse befell the children of Joab, they would never be able to forget that their father had died the death of a murderer. But by avenging the death of the innocent, the stain of blood (obligation to punish) would be removed from the house of David. This being the case, the descendants of David would prosper (1Ki. 2:33). The amazing thing in 1Ki. 2:31-33 is that Solomon never mentions any personal motives for ordering Joabs execution. His motives are so free of malice and revenge that he confidently expects Gods blessing upon his decision!
Having received royal authorization to slay Joab in the Tabernacle, Benaiah hastened back up to Gibeon to perform the deed. It is ironical that it was in this very town that Joab had committed the second of his two murders (2Sa. 20:8). All those who take up the sword shall perish by the sword (Mat. 26:52).
Joabs burial was somewhat unusual in that he was buried in the courtyard of his own house which was located near Bethlehem in the wilderness (open country) of Judah (1Ki. 2:34). It was considered an honor in ancient Israel to make ones house a mausoleum. This honor, which was accorded to Samuel (1Sa. 25:1), was also accorded to Joab in recognition of his service to his country.
With Joab and Abiathar removed from the scene, Solomon consolidated his power by placing his friends Benaiah and Zadok in the positions of commander of the host and high priest respectively (1Ki. 2:35). The Zadokites remained in control of the high priesthood until 171 B.C. when Menelaus who was not even a descendant of Aaron bought appointment to the office.[126]
[126] 2Ma. 4:24.
Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series
(26) Anathoth is noted, in Jos. 21:18; 1Ch. 6:60, as a city of the priests in the territory of Benjamin, but a few miles from Jerusalem, and is best known to us as the birthplace of Jeremiah (Jer. 1:1; Jer. 32:7).
It is notable that it is not Abiathars priestly character which protects him, but the remembrance of his long friendship to David in adversity, and probably of that special promise which David made to him, perhaps not without remorse, when he found that his deceit to Ahimelech had drawn down Saus bloody vengeance upon him and his family (1Sa. 22:20-23).
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
DEPOSITION OF ABIATHAR, 1Ki 2:26-27.
26. Anathoth The modern Anata, four miles northeast of Jerusalem. See on Jos 21:18. It was a city of the priests and the home of Jeremiah. Jer 1:1.
Thou art worthy of death By being an accomplice in the conspiracy of Adonijah. See note on 1Ki 1:7. But Solomon’s respect for his holy work and office, and his knowledge of Abiathar’s association with David in his afflictions, led him to change his punishment from death to banishment.
Thou barest the ark That is, superintended the bearing of it. See note on 2Sa 15:24.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Solomon Deals Firmly With Adonijah’s Fellow-Conspirators, Abiathar and Joab ( 1Ki 2:26-35 ).
In this passage judgment falls on Adonijah’s fellow-conspirators. That they were genuinely so comes out in that Abiathar is included in the judgment in spite of Solomon’s kindly feelings towards him. In his case judgment involved being removed from his influential position as High Priest (a huge step for Solomon to take), and banished to live on his own estates. In the case of Joab, however, it involved the death penalty. This latter was no doubt because, as a powerful military figure and cold-blooded killer, he was adjudged the more dangerous. At the same time the verdict on Joab was used as a way of diverting blame from the house of David for the deaths of Abner and Amasa, the blame for the former emanating from the tribe of Benjamin, the blame for the latter from the tribe of Judah. The fact that in both cases Joab had had some justification for his actions, (even if they did also involve a lot of self-interest), was possibly not widely known. Such things are not usually judged on the facts but on local prejudice and tribal loyalty.
Analysis.
a
b And the news came to Joab, for Joab had turned after Adonijah, although he had not turned after Absalom. And Joab fled to the Tent of YHWH, and caught hold on the horns of the altar. And it was told king Solomon, “Joab is fled to the Tent of YHWH, and, behold, he is by the altar.” Then Solomon sent Benaiah the son of Jehoiada, saying, “Go, fall on him” (1Ki 2:28-29).
c And Benaiah came to the Tent of YHWH, and said to him, “Thus says the king, Come forth.” And he said, “No, but I will die here” (1Ki 2:30 a).
d And Benaiah brought the king word again, saying, “Thus said Joab, and thus he answered me.” And the king said to him, “Do as he has said, and fall on him, and bury him” (1Ki 2:31 a).
e That you may take away the blood, which Joab shed without cause, from me and from my father’s house” (1Ki 2:31 b).
d “And YHWH will return his blood on his own head, because he fell on two men more righteous and better than he, and slew them with the sword, and my father David knew it not, to wit, Abner the son of Ner, captain of the host of Israel, and Amasa the son of Jether, captain of the host of Judah” (1Ki 2:32).
c “So will their blood return on the head of Joab, and on the head of his seed for ever, but to David, and to his seed, and to his house, and to his throne, will there be peace for ever from YHWH” (1Ki 2:33).
b Then Benaiah the son of Jehoiada went up, and fell on him, and slew him, and he was buried in his own house in the wilderness (1Ki 2:34).
a And the king put Benaiah the son of Jehoiada in his place over the host, and Zadok the priest did the king put in the place of Abiathar (1Ki 2:35).
Note that in ‘a’ Abiathar was thrust out from being Priest to YHWH, and in the parallel his position was taken by Zadok. In ‘b’ Solomon commanded Benaiah to ‘fall on Joab’ and in the parallel he did so. In ‘c’ Joab said that he would die at the altar, and in the parallel Solomon declared that thereby the blood of his victims would return to his own head. In ‘d’ Solomon told Benaiah to fall on Joab and bury him, and in the parallel that is how his blood would fall on his own head. Centrally in ‘e’ Solomon stressed that it would remove from his father’s house the blood that Joab shed without cause.
1Ki 2:26
‘ And to Abiathar the priest said the king, “Get yourself to Anathoth, to your own fields, for you are worthy of death, but I will not at this time put you to death, because you bore the ark of the Lord YHWH before David my father, and because you were afflicted in all in which my father was afflicted.” ’
Anathoth was about three and a half miles (five kilometres) north east of Jerusalem. It was a Levitical town in Benjaminite territory (Jos 21:18). That Abiathar was known to be guilty of more than just attendance at Adonijah’s attempt to pre-empt the reception of the kingship comes out here. Solomon’s sympathy undoubtedly ran deep towards Abiathar because he recognised the loyalty that he had demonstrated towards his father, and clearly also took account of his ‘holy’ status (in contrast with Saul’s attitude revealed in 1Sa 22:17-18). And yet he still selected him out for severe punishment and considered him worthy of death. Solomon apparently therefore had specific knowledge about his activities as a continuing conspirator. We note also that there was no protestation of innocence from Abiathar.
His punishment was removal from the office of High Priest, and banishment to live on his own estates where his influence would be limited. There was to be no possibility of his repeating his high treason. While the High Priest always had to be an Aaronide in accordance with the Law, it is apparent from this, and the example of Saul in slaughtering the High Priest and appointing Zadok, and of David in originally appointing Abiathar, that the king was seen as having overall control over who should be High Priest within the limits set by the Law. It was different with the prophets who were seen as more directly responsible to YHWH.
Reference to bearing the Ark of YHWH has in mind the time when the Ark was borne into Jerusalem to be placed in the sacred Tent that David had erected there. Abiathar would not, of course, have carried it himself as it required a number of bearers. But it was Abiathar who had ensured the safe establishment of the sacred Ark in Jerusalem (2 Samuel 6), something which would be an important factor in the eventual ensuring of the acceptability of the Temple as the Dwellingplace of YHWH, which was something for which Solomon had cause to be grateful. It is mentioned first because it gave Abiathar a special significance. It was he who had established YHWH’s worship in Jerusalem, something which meant a great deal in Solomon’s plans for the future. (There are no justifiable reasons for altering ‘Ark’ here to ‘ephod’). Abiathar’s sharing of the afflictions of David has in mind the fact that, after the slaughter of his family at Nob, he had been with David in all his wanderings. Joab, of course, also shared with him in the latter commendation, but in contrast with Abiathar he was far too dangerous a man to be treated lightly, as David himself had made clear. There were very powerful elements who would be loyal to Joab for he had been commander-in-chief for many years.
1Ki 2:27
‘ So Solomon thrust out Abiathar from being priest to YHWH, that he might fulfil the word of YHWH, which he spoke concerning the house of Eli in Shiloh.’
The writer draws our attention to the fact that this treatment of Abiathar was also a fulfilment of YHWH’s prophecy concerning the house of Eli, the descendant of Ithamar, the son of Aaron (1Sa 2:27-36). According to that prophecy the High Priesthood was to be taken from that house and transferred to the house of Eliezer, Aaron’s other son. Zadok was descended from the house of Eliezer, a fact to which the Scriptures continually testify. Originally, in the time of Joshua, Eliezer had been the High Priest (‘the Priest’), but at some stage the High Priesthood had transferred to the other branch of Aaronides, the house of Ithamar, presumably because at that stage no male member of the house of Eliezer had been of age to take up the position. It had then remained in that house by passing from father to son. Now the situation was being reversed because of Abiathar’s treachery, and in accordance with the will of YHWH.
1Ki 2:28
‘ And the news came to Joab, for Joab had turned after Adonijah, although he had not turned after Absalom. And Joab fled to the Tent of YHWH, and caught hold on the horns of the altar.’
As soon as Joab learned what had happened to Abiathar, and to Adonijah, he revealed his guilt for his own part in the plots against Solomon by fleeing for sanctuary to the horns of the altar in the Tent of YHWH. This was probably a reference to the Tent in Jerusalem. (While we ourselves have been told that he was listed with the conspirators, he would not necessarily have known of that fact had he not himself actually have been involved. Thus this confirms that he recognised that their plot had been uncovered). ‘Turning after Adonijah’ involves more than just his having sought to make Adonijah king while David was still alive, for the aim had then only been to make him co-regent with David, so that it had not been parallel in seriousness with the rebellion of Absalom. What had made it as serious as the rebellion of Absalom was his subsequent involvement in the direct plots against Solomon.
The horns of the altar were a regular place of refuge for men who were in danger of being arrested, in order for them to ‘buy time’ so as to present their cases before the justices (see on 1Ki 1:50). It would appear that they had a somewhat similar function to the Cities of Refuge, to which menslayers could flee in order to ensure that their case was properly heard (Num 35:9-34). It was thus a plea for their case to be properly heard under the protection of God. That it was not more in this case comes out in Solomon’s subsequent reaction. (In later times such sanctuary would be seen as wholly inviolable in many countries, until it was brought under tight control, at least in the Roman Empire, in order to prevent its misuse on the grounds that it had filled the temples with evil men).
1Ki 2:29
‘ And it was told king Solomon, “Joab is fled to the Tent of YHWH, and, behold, he is by the altar.” Then Solomon sent Benaiah the son of Jehoiada, saying, “Go, fall on him.” ’
The news was brought to Solomon that Joab had sought sanctuary at the horns of the altar, and as a consequence he sent Benaiah to execute him. This was presumably because he argued to himself that sentence had already been passed on Joab by David, so that two justices (David and himself) had already made their decision on the basis of the evidence. That then justified him in ignoring the sanctuary of the altar on the grounds that in both their eyes Joab was guilty of shedding innocent blood, something that he will shortly attempt to argue.
1Ki 2:30
‘ And Benaiah came to the Tent of YHWH, and said to him, “Thus says the king, Come forth.” And he said, “No, but I will die here.” And Benaiah brought the king word again, saying, “Thus said Joab, and thus he answered me.”
When Benaiah approached the Tent of YHWH and called on Joab to come out, Joab refused, and in essence admitted his guilt, declaring that if he was to die, he would die at the altar. It would seem that he was admitting that he knew that he would have to die, and was wanting to do so in the place of atonement. Such men of violence often get superstitious ideas when they are facing their end. But it was also a challenge as to whether Solomon would have the nerve to do it.
1Ki 2:31
‘ And the king said to him, “Do as he has said, and fall on him, and bury him, that you may take away the blood, which Joab shed without cause, from me and from my father’s house.” ’
Solomon then told Benaiah to grant Joab’s request. If he wanted to die at the altar, he should die there. And he justified this on the grounds of Joab’s blood-guiltiness (see Exo 21:12-14; compare Deu 21:1-9). After that he was to be buried. The aim of this was in order to remove the guilt of the blood which Joab had shed without cause (the blood of Abner and Amasa) from David and Solomon and his father’s house. The death, and burial of the guilty party before nightfall, was looked on as removing the guilt of the blood shed from the land (Deu 21:1-9; Deu 21:22-23). It would also divert the blame for the deaths from Solomon himself and from his whole house, for the facts of the verdict would be publicly proclaimed so that all would know that Solomon and his house disassociated themselves from these deeds of Joab and were placing the guilt where it belonged. It would appear from this that there were still undercurrents of feeling in Judah and Benjamin about the way in which Abner and Amasa had died, and that the blame was being laid on David. Compare Shimei’s verdict on David in 2Sa 16:8.
“Shed without cause” is not strictly true. Joab did consider that he had cause. He was claiming the right of blood vengeance against Abner, killing him before he had entered the City of Refuge (Hebron), and in the case of Amasa was carrying out a field execution of an officer who had failed in his duty. Had he not done the latter there might well have been dangerous delay while seniority was being disputed. He thus no doubt felt completely justified. The fact that we suspect that he had deeper motives as well must not disguise these facts from us. Indeed these explanations by Joab were probably accepted by David at the time, and demonstrate why at that stage he did nothing further about the cases. But what David had clearly not been able to forgive was that by his actions Joab had brought blame on David himself, who was thus suspected of treachery by the two tribes to whom Abner and Amasa belonged. He presumably felt that Joab should have recognised that both men were under the king’s protection, and should have acted accordingly.
The truth appears to be that Solomon was taking Joab’s actual and definite guilt of high treason, something which undoubtedly deserved the death penalty in those days (as Solomon had already stated to Abiathar – 1Ki 2:26), and was using the verdict on him as a means of removing the taint that still lay on the house of David for the deaths of Abner and Amasa.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
The End of Joab
v. 26. And unto Abiathar, the priest, said the king, v. 27. So Solomon thrust out Abiathar from being priest unto the Lord, that he might fulfill the word of the Lord which he spake concerning the house of Eli in Shiloh, v. 28. Then tidings came to Joab, v. 29. And it was told King Solomon that Joab was fled unto the tabernacle of the Lord; and, behold, he is by the altar. Then Solomon sent Benaiah, the son of Jehoiada, v. 30. And Benaiah came to the tabernacle of the Lord and said unto him, Thus saith the king, Come forth. v. 31. And the king, v. 32. And the Lord shall return his blood upon his own head, who fell upon the two men more righteous and better than he, and slew them with the sword, my father David not knowing thereof, to wit, Abner, the son of Ner, v. 33. Their blood shall therefore return upon the head of Joab, v. 34. So Benaiah, the son of Jehoiada, went up and fell upon him, in the sanctuary, and slew him; and he was buried in his own house in the wilderness, v. 35. And the king put Benaiah, the son of Jehoiada,
Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann
EXPOSITION
THE DEPOSITION OF ABIATHAR AND THE DEATH OF JOAB.
1Ki 2:26
And unto Abiathar the priest [see note on 1Ki 1:8. The historian now relates the end of Adonijah’s confederates] said the king, get thee to Anathoth [The Heb. is extremely curt and authoritative, corresponding well with the anger and determination of the speaker. Anathoth, the home of Abiathar, was also the residence of another high priest, Hilkiah (Jer 1:1). It was in Benjamin, a priests’ city, and had suburbs (Jer 21:1-14 :18, 17, 18). It has been identified by Robinson with Anita, a village 1.25 hrs. N.N.E, of Jerns. The name (= Answers) according to Gesenius, means, “answers to prayer,” but according to the Talmud, “echoes”], unto [ is here almost the equivalent of . Cf. 2Sa 15:4, 2Sa 15:20, Hebrews etc.] thine own fields [the patrimony of his family] for thou art worthy of death; [Heb. a man of death; LXX. , i.e; , Mat 26:66.] but I will not at this time [Heb. in this day] put thee to death [i.e; the sentence of death was deferred during good behaviour. It is hardly correct to say that Abiathar was “spared for a time, but only for a time” (Stanley). More correctly Corn. a Lapide: “Misit eum in patriam ut ibi vitam, quam ei condonabat, quiete traduceret.” For aught we know, he died in peace because thou barest the ark of the Lord God before David my father [Thenius, quite needlessly would read for “ark,” …. “ephod” (1Sa 23:6). Zadok and Abiathar had borne the ark (not of course in person, but per altos, viz; the Levites Uriel, Joel, etc.: 1Ch 15:11), when David brought it up to Jerusalem, and also during his flight from Absalom (2Sa 15:24-29). Abiathar had thus been associated both with David’s joys and sorrows] and because thou hast been afflicted in all wherein my father was afflicted. [See 1Sa 22:17-23; 2Sa 15:24, etc.]
1Ki 2:27
So Solomon thrust out Abtathar from being priest unto the Lord, that he might fulfil [Heb. to fulfil “An addition of the narrator, not the intention of Solomon. It is the of the New Testament.” Bhr] the word of the Lord, which he spake concerning the house of Eli in Shiloh [1Sa 2:31-35. Abiathar was the last descendant of the house of Ithamar. With his deposition the high priesthood reverted to the house of Eleazar, and so another “word of the Lord” had its fulfilment (Num 25:15).]
No one can justly accuse Solomon of unnecessary severity or of cruelty in his treatment of Abiathar. On the occasion of his first conspiracy, Abiathar seems to have escaped even censure. And yet that conspiracy, had it succeeded, would almost certainly have involved Solomon’s death (1Sa 1:12). He is now found plotting again, for the action of Solomon proves that there had been a second plot. Oriental usages would have justified his death. He is simply warned and banished.
1Ki 2:28
Then tidings [Heb. And the report, etc. Not necessarily of Abiathar’s deposition, but certainly of Adonijah’s death] came to Joab, for Joab had turned after [same expression as in Exo 23:2; Jdg 9:3] Adonijah, though [lit; and] he turned not after Absalom. [The LXX. (Cod. Vat.), Vulg; and all ancient versions except the Chald; here read Solomon, which Ewald and Thenius adopt. This reading is perhaps too summarily dismissed by most commentators, as involving a statement which would be self evident and superfluous. But it is not so. The meaning would then be that Joab had inclined to Adonijah, and had not, subsequently, gone over to the side of Solomoninformation which is much less obvious than that he had not “gone after Absalom.” The Arabic version may thus be nearest the truth, which reads, “Neither did he love Solomon.” Somewhat similarly Josephus.] And Joab fled unto the tabernacle of the Lord, and caught hold of the horns of the altar. [As Adonijah had done before him (1Ki 1:50). His flight is almost certain evidence of his guilt. (“Joab vero seipsum prodidit.” Munster.) Why should he flee, if conscious of innocence? Solomon had acted generously before, and Joab would not be aware of David’s dying instructions. His two assassinations had remained so long unpunished that he would hardly expect to be called to an account for them now. We have here, therefore, another indication of a second conspiracy, and it is an old belief (Theodorot, al.) that Joab had suggested to Adonijah the plan of marriage with Abishag. Some have asked why Joab should flee to the altar when his crimes deprived him of the right of the sanctuary. But a drowning man grasps at a straw. It is probable that he never thought of his murders, but only of his treason. According to the Rabbis, death at the altar ensured him burial amongst his fathers (Munster). But, if this were so, it would hardly enter into his calculations.
1Ki 2:29
And it was told king Solomon that Joab was fled unto the tabernacle of the Lord; and, behold, he is by the altar. [The LXX. here inserts, “And Solomon the king sent to Joab, saying, What has happened thee, that thou art fled to the altar? And Joab said, Because I feared before thee, and I fled to the Lord.” This is only a gloss, but it is an instructive one. It shows that the author regarded Joab’s flight as betraying a guilty conscience.] Then Solomon sent Benaiah, the son of Jehoiada, saying, Go, fall upon him. [The LXX. adds, “and bury him.”]
1Ki 2:30
And Benaiah came to the tabernacle of the Lord, and said unto him [Benaiah evidently “hesitated to stain the altar with blood.” It was only the sanctity of the altar which made it an asylum. There was strictly no “right of sanctuary”], Thus saith the king, Come forth. [Probably Solomon bad directed that Joab should, if possible, be induced to leave the altar. Every Jew would dread its profanation by strife and bloodshed.] And he said, Nay; but I will die here. [Heb. “here will I die.” Joab may possibly have thought that Solomon would hardly venture to put him to death there, and that so he might somehow escape with his life. But it is more probable that he counted on death, and that a feeling of superstition, or of defiance, had decided him to meet his doom there. It should be borne in mind that gross superstition not uncommonly accompanies irreligion and brutality; and it is quite conceivable that Joab hoped for some indefinable benefit from the shadow of the altar, much as the poor Polish Jew expects from burial in Jerusalem. Or his motive may have been defiance, thinking he would “render Solomon odious to the people, as a profaner of the Holy Place” (M. Henry). It can hardly have been to put off forever so short a time the execution, as Bishop Hall imagines.]
1Ki 2:31
And the king said unto him do as he hath said, and fall upon him [the law decreed (Exo 21:14) that, if a man had slain his neighbour with guile, he should be taken from the altar to die. Possibly the desperate character of Joab made literal compliance with this command well nigh impossible. The attempt to drag him from his place of refuge might have led to a bloody encounter. And the king evidently felt that Joab’s crimes justified exceptional measures], and bury him [why this injunction? Possibly because the spirit of Deu 21:23 seemed to Solomon to require it. Both Bhr and Keil think it was that Joab’s services to the kingdom might be requited with an honourable sepulture. Was it not rather that the corpse might be removed with all possible haste from the sanctuary, which it defiled, and hidden from view, as one accursed of God, in the earth? So Bishop Hall: “He sends Benaiah to take away the offender both from God and men, from the altar and the world”]; that thou mayest take away [LXX. “today,” ] the innocent blood [for the construction cf. 1Sa 25:31; Neh 2:12; and Ewald, 287d. Innocent blood, i.e; blood not shed in war, or forfeited to justice, rested upon the community, or the authorities responsible for its punishment (Num 35:33; Deu 19:10, Deu 19:13; Deu 21:9. Cf. Gen 4:10) until satisfaction was made. See on Neh 2:5], which Joab shed, from me, and from the house of my father. [Heb. “from upon me.” Solomon evidently believed that the guilt of blood was upon him and his house so long as Abner’s and Amasa’s blood remained unavenged (“The blood that is not required from the murderer will be required from the magistrate.” Henry), and that he and his seed might have to answer for it, as Saul’s seed had done (2Sa 21:1, 2Sa 21:9). This is one of the many considerations which show that both David and Solomon were actuated not by “cold-blooded vengeance” or “long-cherished resentment” (Stanley), but by a sense of duty. In fact, Jewish law imperatively demanded the death of Joab, and to spare him was to violate all law, and to imperil the throne and the people. “Only a superficial observer,” says Ewald, “can here reproach Solomon with needless severity.”]
1Ki 2:32
And the Lord shall return [LXX. , returns, or returned] his blood [LXX. , i.e; the blood he had shed. Cf. 1Ki 2:33, 1Ki 2:44] upon his own head, who fell upon [same word as in 1Ki 2:29, 1Ki 2:31. So that it was strictly a retaliation. The lex talionis was carried out to the letter] two men more righteous and better than he, and slew them with the sword, my father David not knowing. [Heb. “and my father David knew not,” i.e; was not privy thereto. Solomon thinks of the unjust suspicions which these crimes cast upon his father.]
1Ki 2:33
Their blood shall therefore return upon the head of Josh, and upon the head of his seed [according to Exo 20:5; Exo 34:7; Le Exo 20:5; Exo 26:1-37 :39. There is an obvious reference to David’s curse 2Sa 3:29, which thoroughly agreed with the spirit of the Old Testament in comprehending the children in its sweep. And it is to be noticed that the sins of the fathers are still, by the operation of natural laws, and by the constitution and laws of society, visited upon the children, to the third and fourth generation] forever: but upon [Heb. to] David, and upon his seed, and upon his house, and upon his throne, shall there be [or “be,” optative; LXX. ] peace [i.e; prosperity] forever from the Lord. [So persuaded is Solomon that he is fulfilling a religious duty in decreeing the execution of Joab; so little thought has he of malice, revenge, or any baser motive, that he counts on the Divine blessing m perpetuity for the deed.]
1Ki 2:34
So Benaiah, the son of Jehoiada, went up [not because the altar” stood higher up Mount Zion than Solomon’s house” (Keil), but because Gibeon, where the tabernacle and brazen altar then were, stood higher than Jerusalem. It is remarkable that retribution thus overtook Joab on the very scene of his last murder, for it was “at the great stone which is in Gibeon” (2Sa 20:8), that he slew Amasa. Cf. 2Ki 9:26 : “I will requite thee in this plat, saith the Lord”], and fell upon him, and slew him: and he was buried in his own house [possibly in the courtyard: hardly in the garden. The same is recorded of Samuel (1Sa 25:1). It was evidently an exceptional occurrence. Remembering the estimation in which the Jew held the corpse and the grave (Num 19:11, Num 19:16, Num 19:22; cf. Mat 23:27), it must have been a singular honour to make of the house a mausoleum. No doubt it was designed to be such in Joab’s case. Whatever his crimes, his services had deserved well of his country. Possibly his friends were led to pay him this special honour as a kind of counterpoise to the ignominy of his death] in the wilderness [i.e; of Judah. Joab’s mother was of Bethlehem, which was on the border of the desert. The “wilderness of Tekoah” (2Ch 20:20), according to Jerome, was visible from Bethlehem, being but six Roman miles distant.
1Ki 2:35
And the king put Benaiah the son of Jehoiada in his room over the host: and Zadok the priest did the king put in the room of Abiathar. [It is hardly likely that Joab would be retained in command of the army after the conspiracy of 1Ki 1:1-53; nor is this implied in this verse, the meaning of which is that Benaiah took the place of Josh, and that Zadok henceforward was sole high priest.]
HOMILETICS
1Ki 2:26, 1Ki 2:27
The Degraded High Priest.
We may find in this section a sermon on Caesarism. The relations of the world power to the Church; the province of the State and the prerogatives of the clergy; what are the proper limits of the temporal power and what is the exclusive domain of the spiritual; these have been vexed questions for many centuries. They are prominent topics at the present day. We may perhaps find in this history a few principles to guide us. For we learn
I. THAT PRIESTS HAD BETTER NOT MEDDLE WITH POLITICS. No one can deny their abstract right to do so. They are men, if they are clergymen, and “nihil humani,” etc. As citizens, they may have convictions. Having convictions, they may surely give effect to them. No one can deny again that they have often interfered to good purpose. Witness the case of Jehoiada. It may sometimes be a duty to interfere. But all the same, their plane is not the plane of politics. Their is the Church. And what is lawful, is not always expedient. Their meddling has often cost not only them, but the Church, dear. Well had it been for Abiathar; well for the Wolseys, Richelieus, and many more, had they never given up “to party what was meant for mankind.” There are questionsimperial questions of right and wrongwhere the clergy must speak out; there are other questionsparty questions — where, for their own and their flocks’ sake, they had better hold their peace.
II. THAT PRIESTS ARE MEN OF LIKE PASSIONS WITH OTHER MEN. Abiathar apparently was not free from that “last infirmity of noble minds.” It was probably jealousy of Zadok impelled him to conspire against Solomon, and to join hands with the murderer Josh against the prophet Nathan. Neither the holy anointing oil nor the discharge of the priest’s office destroys the phronema sarkos (see Art. IX.) It is worthy of note that the first high priest was guilty of idolatry, envy, and murmurings; that the sons of Eli committed abominable crimes; and that the high priests Annas and Caiaphas condemned the Lord of Glory. Every high priest needed to “make atonement for his own sins (Le 1Ki 16:6, 1Ki 16:11). Abiathar, the minister of God, was a traitor against God and His anointed. Having the frailties, temptations, and passions of other men, priests often commit sins, sometimes commit crimes.
III. THAT PRIESTS MAY BE PUNISHED FOR THEIR CRIMES BY THE SECULAR POWER. For centuries the Latin Church contended with our forefathers for the exemption of ecclesiastics front the authority of civil tribunals. But the Jewish priests enjoyed no such exemption. Abiathar was threatened by Solomon with death, and was thrust out of his office. Our Great High Priest respected the tribunal of Pontius Pilate. And His apostle answered for himself before Felix and Festus, and before great Caesar himself. (Cf. Art. 37, of the “Articles of Religion.”) But
IV. PRIESTS ARE TO BE TREATED WITH THE REVERENCE DUE TO THEIR OFFICE. “Because thou barest the ark of the LORD GOD.” Criminous clergy are not to be so punished as to bring their sacred calling into contempt (not, e.g; to be set to sweep the streets, as General Butler forced one of the American bishops to do in New Orleans). If the man is entitled to no consideration, the office is. He wears the livery of the Great King. The vessel is “earthen,” but the treasure “heavenly” (2Co 4:7). “As men are to God’s ministers, they will find Him to them.”
V. PRIESTS MAY BE DEGRADED FROM THEIR POSITION, BUT CANNOT BE DEPRIVED OF THEIR PRIESTHOOD. They did not derive their authority from the civil power. It did not give, and it cannot take away. David did not make Abiathar priest, and Solomon could not unmake him. We find from 1Ki 4:4 that he was still called “priest.” He that is “called of God, as was Aaron,” can only be recalled of God. When Solomon “thrust out Abiathar,” he “deprived him of his dignity, but did not strip him of his priesthood” (Theodoret). The state may fine, imprison, banish, put to death Christ’s ambassadors according to their deserts, but it may not alter their message, tamper with their creeds, confer their orders, or prescribe their ordinances. “To Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s.”
VI. IN REMOVING THE UNWORTHY PRIEST THE CIVIL POWER IS FULFILLING THE WILL OF THE LORD. The “sure word of prophecy”indeed a double prophecyhad its fulfilment when Solomon banished Ahiathar. The secular power thereby accomplished the good pleasure of God declared four hundred years before (Num 25:13). And the magistrate who, in the exercise of the authority conferred on him by God for the punishment of evil doers, degrades the criminous priest, silences him, visits him with appropriate pains and penalties, is doing God service; is fulfilling the will of God, who would have evil ministers above all others brought to justice and chastised; the more influential their example, the more need of conspicuous and exemplary punishment.
1Ki 2:26-35
The Death of Joab.
“Know ye not that there is a prince and great man fallen this day in Israel”so might men say as they heard, so may we say as we read, the history of Joab’s death. After David, he was by far the greatest manthe ablest general, the bravest soldier, the most capable statesmanof that age. He was “the Marlborough, the Belisarius of the Jewish empire.” He had fought David’s battles, won his conquests, captured his citadel, and twice preserved for him his crown. It is a sad and tragic ending of such a brilliant career. The idol of the army, the man who was first in the deadly breach (2Ch 11:6),the ever victorious hero, dies miserably, by the thrust of an old comrade. For him the sanctuary of God has no protection. Though he clings to the horns of the altar, it avails him nothing. No, the blood of the white-headed warrior, winner of a hundred well-fought fields, streams round the consecrated structure and stains the place of the Divine Presence. What are the lessons, let us ask, of such a death? And, first
I. WHY IS HE HERE? It is
(1) because his conscience has made him a coward. He who never turned his back on the foe, has fled before a breath, a mere rumour. He has not been attacked, not even threatened; but the secret is out, the conspiracy is discovered, his head is forfeited. He betrays his guilt by his flight. Time was when he would have faced almost any danger, when he would have died rather than fled. But then he had a support and stay, in the consciousness of rectitude, which he has not now. Now, his own heart denounces him.
“None have accused thee; ’tis thy conscience cries.”
The man whose conscience is burdened with crime has an enemy, a traitor, within the camp. But why has he fled to the sanctuary; why chosen the tabernacle of God for his refuge? For Joab has not loved the habitation of God’s house. The tabernacle of the Lord could not be “amiable” to that guilty heart. His choice would be “the congregation of evildoers.” A stranger to the tabernacle and its services, why is he here? It is
(2) because men often betake themselves in adversity to the religion they despised in prosperity. Yes, Joab’s is no solitary case. It is too common. Witness the so called deathbed repentances; witness the cries and prayers which go up in the hour of peril from lips which never prayed before. Men who have neglected God and contemned the ordinances of religion in health often turn to Him and to them in sickness. “It is the fashion of our foolish presumption to look for protection where we have not cared to yield obedience.” But
(3) the altar of God is for sacrifice, not for sanctuary. The purpose of the altar, its raison d’etre, was that sacrifices, i.e; that worship, might be offered thereon. It was an accident, so to speak, that made of it a sanctuary; the accident of its sacredness. Because it was ordained of God, fashioned after a Divine pattern and employed in the Divine service, it was naturally and rightly regarded as holy, as a structure not to be profaned, and hence the manslayer fled thither for protection. But this use of the altar was quite beside its original intention. It was made for worship, for the service of God, not for the defence of man. Joab disregarded its proper use; he used it for his own convenience. And have we not seen something like this in our own days? Religion is ordained for man to live by. Its primary purpose is the glory of God. It exists that man may offer “spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God;” that man may be himself “a living sacrifice.” But there are those who would use it only as a sanctuary, as a place to flee to when they can sin no longer. They want the benefits of religion without its obligations; they pervert it from its proper and holy, to a purely selfish purpose; they want it for death and it was meant for life. They act, i.e; much as Joab did, and it is to be feared their last end will not be unlike his. The altar they have slighted will not shelter them in the day of evil.
II. But let us now ask, secondly, WHY IS HE PUT TO DEATH HERE? The altar was never meant to be stained with human blood. If it was not for sanctuary, still less was it for slaughter. And it has sheltered many; why may it afford him no asylum? It is
(1) Because he has come to it too late. Had he come before, and come as a worshipper, he would not have needed to come now as a fugitive. Had he even come, after his great crimes, as a sincere penitent, he might, perchance, have found forgiveness. David was delivered from blood guiltiness, and why not Joab? But he only comes to the altar because he is driven to it; because he can do nothing else. Yes, “it is too late to cry for mercy when it is the time of justice.” Those who put off repentance fill they can sin no longer find that such feigned repentance profits them nothing. There is a time when “the door is shut.”
2. Because “he shall have judgment without mercy that shewed no mercy.” Joab’s murders could not have been more treacherous, more cruel. “The blood of wax in peace.” “Took him aside in the gate to speak with him peaceably”. “Took Amasa by the beard with the right hand to kiss him” (2Sa 20:9). There is a lex talionis which governs the dealings of God with transgressors. The cruel murderer shall be cruelly murdered. The assassin shall be executed at the altar. He that “showed no pity” shall receive none.
3. Because God pays sure, even if he pays slowly. It was thirty-four yearsan entire generationsince Abner’s blood first cried from the ground. Eight years had elapsed since Amasa’s death. And Joab, meanwhile, had maintained his position. Still “over all the host of Israel,” still second only to the king. If ever he or others had dreamed of punishment, they must by this time have given up all fear, or all hope. David had died and Joab stir lived. Joab had conspired once and yet he was spared. Is there, men would ask, a retributive Justice? is there a “God that judgeth the earth”? Yes, though Joab has “hoar hairs,” though he has all but gone down to the grave in peace, his sin has found him out. And the blood which reddens those gray hairs, the blood which crimsons the sanctuary, proves that there is a Nemesis for crime: that if Justice has a halting foot, she nevertheless overtakes the fleetest offender; that “if the mills of God grind slowly, yet they grind exceedingly small.”
4. Because “without shedding of blood there is no remission.” Only the blood of Joab could expiate the bloodshed he had wrought. Nothing else could cleanse the land. For innocent blood guilty blood; this was the law. How different is the gospel. The blood of Christ speaketh better things than the blood of Abel, ay, than the blood of Joab. The blood of Joab made an atonement for the land. There the guilty died because of the innocent. The blood of JESUS made an atonement for the world. Here the innocent dies because of the guilty. The blood of Joab tells of vengeance, of retribution, of death. The blood of JESUS speaks of mercy, of restitution, of life and love and peace. Yes, the death of Joab may surely speak to us, but it speaks to little purpose, unless it tells us of “the precious blood of Christ.”
Fuente: The Complete Pulpit Commentary
1Ki 2:26. And unto Abiatharsaid the king, Get thee to Anathoth, &c. How far the high-priest Abiathar was concerned in the plot against Solomon, the sacred history does not particularly inform us: but such was the reverence paid to the sacerdotal character, that Solomon would have hardly dared to have deposed such a one, had not the constitution of the nation authorized him to do so. When Abiathar, by his conspiracy, had merited severe punishment, Solomon might lawfully take from him all the revenues of his place, as well as the liberty of officiating in it: but the sacerdotal office, which he received from God, and to which he was anointed, he could not alienate; and therefore we may observe, that after his deprivation, and even when Zadok was in possession of his place, he is nevertheless still mentioned under the style and title of the priest; ch. 1Ki 4:4. The truth is, there is a great deal of difference between depriving a man of the dignity and of the exercise of his function in such a determinate place, and taking from him an authority which was given him by God, and the profits and emoluments of which were the gifts of the crown or the nation. The former of these Solomon could not do; and the latter, it is probable, he was the rather incited to do, out of regard to the prophesy of Samuel, wherein he foretold Eli, from whom Abiathar was descended, that the Lord would translate the priesthood from his to another family; as he now did in the person of Zadok, who was of the house of Eleazar, as Eli was of that of Ithamar; so that in this way did the priesthood revert to its ancient channel. See Calmet and Stackhouse.
REFLECTIONS.1. Abiathar is degraded, though indeed he deserved death, for his treason and opposition to the declared will of that God at whose altar he served: and thus at last was the threatening against the house of Eli fulfilled, and the priesthood translated from his family into the line of Eleazar. Note; (1.) God’s word will be fulfilled in its season, though sometimes he endures long. (2.) Rebellion in a priest, who should teach loyalty, is doubly criminal.
2. Joab is executed. Justly expecting that his lot would fall next, he seeks to save his life by flying to the horns of the altar. Thither Benaiah is ordered to follow him, and (because Joab refused to depart thence) to slay him there. Such an exemplary piece of justice, Solomon well concludes would be the removal of the guilt of blood from his own house, which, if unpunished, would cry against the negligent sword of the magistrate; and the removal of so turbulent a spirit as Joab’s would conduce also to the peace of the kingdom. Thus fell Joab, according to David’s orders, and was buried at his country-seat, which lay in the wilderness. Note; (1.) Nothing can appease the cries of innocent blood, but the blood of the murderer. (2.) Wicked men entail a curse on their posterity. (3.) A negligent magistrate will bear the sin of the blood that he is not careful to avenge. (4.) Though human laws cannot be satisfied with any thing less than blood for blood, yet if the greatest sinner, if even a murderer, fly to the horns of the true altar, to the atoning blood of the bleeding Lamb of God, he shall never be dragged thence.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
(26) And unto Abiathar the priest said the king, Get thee to Anathoth, unto thine own fields; for thou art worthy of death: but I will not at this time put thee to death, because thou barest the ark of the Lord GOD before David my father, and because thou hast been afflicted in all wherein my father was afflicted. (27) So Solomon thrust out Abiathar from being priest unto the LORD; that he might fulfil the word of the LORD, which he spake concerning the house of Eli in Shiloh.
I do not presume to say as much, but yet I think it is likely, that Abiathar was at the bottom of Adonijah’s proposal concerning Abishag; for Solomon, in his answer to his mother Bath-sheba, seems to hint at it in 1Ki 2:22 . But the degradation of Abiathar from the priest’s office became a confirmation of what God had threatened concerning the house of Eli. Abiathar was the last high priest of that family; which, though predicted fourscore years before, was not confirmed until now. However slow, yet God’s judgments are sure. The apostle makes a striking observation upon it, 2Pe 3:8-10 . How gracious Solomon appears in his dismission of Abiathar. He reminds him of his attachment to his father, and therefore deals gently by him. Think, Reader, in what a multitude of instances the Lord Jesus deals thus with sinners, and how gracious he is in the midst of judgment.
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
1Ki 2:26 And unto Abiathar the priest said the king, Get thee to Anathoth, unto thine own fields; for thou [art] worthy of death: but I will not at this time put thee to death, because thou barest the ark of the Lord GOD before David my father, and because thou hast been afflicted in all wherein my father was afflicted.
Ver. 26. And unto Abiathar the priest. ] Cuius et Ioabi consilio atque auxilio usus est Adoniiah, who together with Joab had conspired with Adonijah, and had his hand elbow deep in this new plot.
Get thee to Anathoth.
Because thou hast been afflicted.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Anathoth. Compare Jos 21:18.
fields. Some codices, with three early printed editions, Septuagint, Syriac, and Vulgate, read “estate”.
worthy of death. Hebrew idiom = “a man of death” = doomed to death. Hebrew. ‘ish. App-14.
Lord GOD = Adonai Jehovah. App-4. (2).
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
Paying Penalty for Bloody Deeds
1Ki 2:26-35
The removal of Abiathar from the office of high priest and the execution of Joab quenched the last faint hopes of the house of Saul. In the case of Abiathar, note the remarkable fulfillment of the divine prediction, 1Sa 2:31-35. God does not fail to keep His word, whether of threatening or of promise.
Joab fled to the altar. Men who, throughout their life, have disregarded or despised religion will often turn to it in their extremity. Those who blaspheme when the seas are smooth, will be the first to cry for mercy when the storm-winds lash the waters into foam.
Joabs attempt to find mercy through the altar was futile; but no sinner ever flees to the Cross in vain. If he fulfills the conditions of repentance and faith, the sword of the avenger cannot touch him there. If we confess and forsake our sins, and humbly trust in the mercy of the Redeemer, no weapon that is formed against us can prosper, and every tongue that rises in judgment is condemned. This is the heritage of the servants of the Lord, Isa 54:17.
Fuente: F.B. Meyer’s Through the Bible Commentary
Abiathar: 1Ki 2:35, 1Ki 1:7, 1Ki 1:25
Anathoth: Jos 21:18, Isa 10:30, Jer 1:1
worthy of death: Heb. a man of death, 1Sa 26:16, 2Sa 12:5, *marg.
barest: 1Sa 22:20-23, 1Sa 23:6-9, 2Sa 15:24, 2Sa 15:29, 1Ch 15:11, 1Ch 15:12
hast been: 2Sa 15:24-29, Mat 10:42, Luk 22:28, Gal 3:4
Reciprocal: 1Sa 2:31 – I will cut 1Sa 2:33 – to consume 1Sa 22:23 – he that seeketh 1Sa 30:7 – Abiathar 2Sa 19:11 – sent 1Ki 4:4 – Zadok 1Ch 6:60 – Anathoth Jer 32:8 – Anathoth Mar 2:26 – Abiathar Rom 6:21 – for the
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
1Ki 2:26-27. Unto Abiathar said the king, Get thee to Anathoth This was a city of the priests, (Jos 21:28,) where he commanded him to lead a private life; either in that part of the suburbs which fell to his share, or in some land which he had purchased. I will not, at this time, put thee to death He does not fully pardon him, but reserves to himself a liberty of punishing him afterward if he should see occasion. This he does to keep him in awe, that he might not dare to raise or foment discontents or tumults among the people, which otherwise he might have been inclined to do. Because thou didst bear the ark of the Lord before my father When he thought fit to carry it out with him; and when thou, as high-priest, wast called to attend upon it. Thus Solomon shows his respect to the sacred office. Because thou hast been afflicted, &c. Exposed to all the hardships David endured all the time of his exile under Saul, 1Sa 22:20, &c. Here Solomon mixes mercy with justice, and requites Abiathars former kindness to David; hereby teaching princes, that they should not write injuries in marble, and benefits in sand and water, as they have been too often observed to do. So Solomon thrust out Abiathar Either from his office, or at least from the execution of it. That he might fulfil the word of the Lord Solomon did not do this that he might fulfil the word of the Lord, but because Abiathar had taken the part of Adonijah. But by Solomons being moved to do this on account of Abiathars rebellion, the word of the Lord was fulfilled, which he had spoken concerning the house of Eli in Shiloh. And in this sense we are to take the same kind of expressions in the New Testament, where things are frequently said to be done to fulfil certain prophecies.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
2:26 And unto Abiathar the priest said the king, Get thee to Anathoth, unto thine own fields; for thou [art] worthy of death: but I will not at this time put thee to death, because thou {m} barest the ark of the Lord GOD before David my father, and because thou hast been afflicted in all wherein my father was afflicted.
(m) When he fled before Absalom, 2Sa 15:24.
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
Abiathar’s dismissal 2:26-27
Solomon granted Abiathar a parole for participating in Adonijah’s rebellion. By removing him from his office, he cut off Eli’s last descendant, thereby fulfilling God’s prophecy to Eli (1Sa 2:27-36). Eli’s fertility ended because he had not obeyed God’s Law faithfully. The writer of Kings drew special attention to God bringing this to pass (1Ki 2:27).