5<\/strong>. what Joab the son of Zeruiah did to me<\/em> ] This one of the sons of Zeruiah had been all through his reign too strong for his uncle. See 2Sa 3:39<\/span>: and for the rough remonstrances of Joab with David, cf. 2Sa 19:5-7<\/span>. The slaughter of Absalom, though neither mentioned here by David, nor afterwards by Solomon, when Joab is put to death, must have been constantly present to their minds.<\/p>\n unto Abner the son of Ner<\/em> ] Ner being brother of Kish (1Ch 9:36<\/span>), the father of Saul, we can understand how Abner became a man of much importance in the court of Saul, under whom he was commander-in-chief. After the death of Saul it was Abner who proclaimed Ishbosheth and supported him against David, until some quarrel arising Abner made overtures to David which were favourably received. During the earlier events of the war between Ishbosheth’s supporters and those of David, Abner to save his own life had slain Asahel, Joab’s younger brother. To avenge this death and probably also from jealousy, lest Abner coming into David’s service should become more influential than himself, Joab calling Abner aside as he was departing from the court, in conjunction with Abishai his brother treacherously slew him. Owing to Abner’s early course of action David might have been suspected of conniving at his murder. The exposure to such a suspicion no doubt aggravated the king’s sorrow. David’s lament over Abner’s death is found 2Sa 3:33-34<\/span>. He never forgave the murder, though he was unable during his lifetime to take vengeance on the perpetrator.<\/p>\n unto Amasa the son of Jether<\/em> ] Amasa was a son of David’s sister Abigail, and the name of her husband is elsewhere (2Sa 17:25<\/span>) written ‘Ithra.’ Amasa took the side of Absalom when that prince rebelled against his father, but David forgave this, when Absalom had been slain by Joab, and appointed Amasa commander-in-chief in Joab’s place (2Sa 19:13<\/span>). Afterwards, under the pretence of saluting Amasa, Joab gave him a fatal wound with a sword which he held hidden in his left hand (2Sa 20:10<\/span>).<\/p>\n the blood of war in peace<\/em> ] For both these murders were committed when the opportunity had been gained under the guise of friendship.<\/p>\n his girdle his shoes<\/em> ] Both these portions of his dress must have been covered with the blood spurting and flowing from wounds inflicted at such close quarters.<\/p>\n In his directions with respect to certain important persons, David, anxious for the security of his young successors kingdom, allows old animosities to revive, and is willing to avenge himself indirectly and by deputy, though he had been withheld by certain scruples from taking vengeance in his own person. We must not expect Gospel morality from the saints of the Old Testament. They were only the best men of their several ages and nations. The maxim of them of old time, whether Jews or Gentiles, was Love your friends and hate your enemies (see Mat 5:43<\/span>); and David perhaps was not in this respect in advance of his age. Joabs chief offence against David, besides his two murders, was no doubt his killing Absalom 2Sa 18:14<\/span>. Another serious crime was his support of the treasonable attempt of Adonijah 1Ki 1:7<\/span>. But besides these flagrant misdemeanours, he seems to have offended David by a number of little acts. He was a constant thorn in his side. He treated him with scant respect, taking important steps without his orders 2Sa 3:26<\/span>, remonstrating with him roughly and rudely 2Sa 2:24-25<\/span>, almost betraying his secrets 2Sa 11:19-21<\/span>, and, where he disliked the orders given him, disobeying them 1Ch 21:6<\/span>. David allowed his ascendancy, but he chafed against it, finding this son of Zeruiah, in particular too hard for him (margin reference).<\/P> Put the blood of war upon his girdle … – <\/B>Meaning The blood of Amasa spirited all over the girdle to which the sword of Joab was attached; and the sandals on his feet were reddened with the stains left by the falling corpse.<\/P><\/p>\n Verse 5<\/span>. Thou knowest – what Joab – did to me<\/B><\/I>] He did every thing bad and dishonourable in itself, in the murder of Abner and Amasa, and indeed in the death of the profligate Absalom.<\/P> <\/P> Shed the blood of war – upon his girdle – and in his shoes<\/B><\/I>] He stabbed them while he pretended to embrace<\/I> them, so that their blood gushed out on his girdle, and fell into his shoes! This was a most abominable aggravation of his crimes.<\/P> <\/p>\n Did to me, <\/B>i.e. against me; either, first, Directly and immediately; how insolently and imperiously he hath carried himself towards me from time to time, trampling upon my authority and commands when they thwarted his humour or interest, provoking my spirit by his words and actions. See 2Sa 3:39<\/span>; 19:7<\/span>. Or, secondly, Indirectly, in what he did against Abner and Amasa; whose death was a great injury to David, as it was a breach of his laws and peace; a contempt of his person and government; a pernicious example to others of his subjects upon the like occasions; a great scandal and dishonour to him, as if Joab had been only Davids instrument, to effect what he secretly desired and designed; whereby the hearts of his people either were or might have been alienated from him, and inflamed against him, and the wounds which were well nigh healed might have been widened again, and made to bleed afresh. <\/P> And what he did, <\/B>or, even<\/I>; the following branches being added as an explication of the foregoing, to show what and how he acted towards or against David. Or, and particularly<\/I>; as his other miscarriages, so these especially. <\/P> Shed the blood of war in peace; <\/B>he slew them as if they had been in the state and act of war, when there was not only a cessation of arms, but also a treaty and agreement of peace, of which also they were the great procurers and promoters. <\/P> Upon his girdle that was about his loins, and in his shoes that were on his feet:<\/B> this is added to note his impudence and impenitency, that although by his perfidious manner of killing them, when he pretended to embrace them, he stained his own garments with their blood, yet he was not ashamed of it, but gloried in it, and marched boldly along with the army with the same girdle and shoes which were sprinkled with their blood. See 2Sa 20:10<\/span>. <\/P> <\/p>\n 5, 6. thou knowest also what Joab .. . did<\/B>The insolent and imperious conduct of that general hadnot only been deeply offensive to the feelings (2Sa 18:5-15<\/span>;2Sa 19:5-7<\/span>), but calculatedto bring reproach on the character, to injure the prospects, andendanger the throne of David. Passing over the injuries committeddirectly against himself, David dwelt with strong feelings on thebase assassination of Abner and Amasa. <\/P> shed the blood of war inpeace,<\/B> c.The obvious meaning is, that in peace he actedtowards them as if they had been in a state of warfare but perhapsthese graphic expressions might be designed to impress Solomon’s mindmore strongly with a sense of the malice, treachery, and cruelty bywhich those murders were characterized.<\/P><\/p>\n Moreover thou knowest also what Joab the son of Zeruiah did unto me<\/strong>,…. In slaying Absalom, contrary to his orders, and in behaving insolently towards him on account of his mourning for him, and at other times; but as these things might not be personally known to Solomon, only by hearsay, this may respect his disloyalty towards him, in joining with Adonijah, who set himself up for king in his lifetime, and without his knowledge and consent; or it may respect the instances next mentioned, in which he did injury to the interest, honour, and character of David:<\/p>\n [and]<\/strong>, or “even”,<\/p>\n what he did to the two captains of the host of Israel, unto Abner the son of Ner, and unto Amasa the son of Jether, whom he slew<\/strong>; to Abner who was under Ishbosheth, and Amasa under David, who had not only the promise of the post, but was actually in it when Joab slew him; and indeed out of envy to him for it:<\/p>\n and shed the blood of war in peace<\/strong>; when they were at peace with him, as if they had been in open war; and even under a pretence of friendship to them, asking of their peace and welfare, as if he meant nothing less than to behave peaceably towards them; hence the Targum is,<\/p>\n “whom he slew in craftiness:”<\/p>\n and put the blood of war upon the girdle that [was] about his loins<\/strong>,<\/p>\n and in his shoes that [were] in his feet<\/strong>; which particularly respects the affair of Amasa, whose blood he shed with his sword, that dropped out of its scabbard, girded upon his loins, and into which he put it again, all over bloody, and wore it girded upon his loins; and which he also stooped for when it fell, as if he was going to unloose or buckle his shoes, and into which the blood ran down when he stabbed him; and after this barbarous action marched on without any shame or remorse, with his bloody sword on his loins, and the blood of the murdered in his shoes.<\/p>\n CRITICAL AND EXPLANATORY NOTES.<\/strong><\/p>\n 1Ki. 2:5<\/span>. Shed the blood of war in peace;<\/strong> i.e.<\/em>, murderously slew the inoffensive; shed, in peace, blood which should only flow in war. Put the blood of war on his girdle and in his shoes<\/strong>The girdle was the military band, and to which his sword was attached, worn by a warrior, suggestive, therefore, of his rank; while his shoes suggest his marching equipment; and these insignia of his office and dignity he soiled with murder! (comp. Lange). <\/p>\n 1Ki. 2:6<\/span>. Do according to thy wisdom<\/strong>At fitting time, and in fitting manner, mark his crimes with abhorrence, and requite his guilty deeds. <\/p>\n 1Ki. 2:7<\/span>. Eat at thy table, for so they came to me<\/strong>, i.e.<\/em>, they did me kindness in entertaining me. <\/p>\n 1Ki. 2:8<\/span>. Bahurim<\/strong>A village beyond Olivet, five and a quarter miles distant from Jerusalem. A grievous curse<\/strong>Not merely cursed me, but a grievous, violent curse (as in Mic. 2:10<\/span>, sore<\/em> destruction); heinous, dreadful. Such punishment of Shimei was not vindictiveness on Davids part, but a vindication of the Divine justice against a ribald impiety. <\/p>\n HOMILETICS OF <\/em>1Ki. 2:5-9<\/span><\/em><\/p>\n THE TERRIBLE PERTINACITY OF REVENGE<\/p>\n It is unfair to judge Old Testament characters according to the standard of New Testament morality. Viewed in the light of the religious ideas of the nineteenth century, the temper and conduct of David on his death-bed are irreconcileable with the spirit and genius of Christianity. But the religious era of David was initial and imperfect in its development; and it is no marvel if we detect serious blemishes alongside what is best in its experimental life. Besides, it should not be overlooked that in the instance before us David spoke not as a private individual, but as a theocratic king, uttering the decrees of the righteous vengeance of Heaven against gross wrong-doing. We may regard the whole passage as illustrative of the terrible pertinacity of revenge<\/em>.<\/p>\n I. That a spirit of revenge is difficult to suppress<\/strong>. <\/p>\n 1. It may obtruds itself amid the solemnities of the dying hour<\/em>. When the soul is about to quit its frail, worn tenement, and is pluming its wings to soar into the invisible and eternal, it is desirable that its latest thoughts on earth should savour of amity, peace, and concord, and that its words should be free from bitterness and enmity. But such is the subtle, pertinacious character of revenge, that it clings to the soul for years, and disturbs the repose of the dying pillow. It is the dark, grim shadow of mans better self, ever present, consciously or unconsciously, and which sometimes never vanishes but into the deeper shadow of the grave. <\/p>\n 2. It mars a character otherwise noble and generous<\/em>. There was much in the character of David of moral beauty, of noble impulse, and lofty aspiration. In the complexity of its elements, passion, tenderness, generosity, fiercenessthe soldier, the shepherd, the poet, the statesman, the priest, the prophet, the king, the romantic friend, the chivalrous leader, the devoted fatherthere is no character of the Old Testament at all to be compared to it. Jacob comes nearest in the variety of elements included within it. But Davids character stands at a higher point of the sacred history, and represents the Jewish people just at the moment of their transition from the lofty virtues of the older system to the fuller civilization and cultivation of the later. In this manner he becomes naturally, if one may so say, the likeness or portrait of the last and grandest development of the nation and of the monarchy in the person and period of the Messiah. Pity it is that a character of qualities so fine and varied should be blurred by the dark, unsightly blot of revenge! making every allowance for David as representing in his last utterances the intentions of avenging Heaven. Revenge threatens the destruction of every virtue.<\/p>\n II. That a spirit of revenge retains a vivid recollection of past injuries<\/strong>. <\/p>\n 1. The particular occasions of past injuries are retentively remembered<\/em> (1Ki. 2:5<\/span>; 1Ki. 2:8<\/span>.) Joabs chief offence against David, besides his murder of Abner and Amasa, was, no doubt, his killing Absalom (2Sa. 18:14<\/span>), despite the kings orders to the contrary. Another serious crime was his support of the treasonable attempt of Adonijah. But, besides these, he seems to have offended David by a number of little acts. He was a constant thorn in his side. He treated him with scant respect, taking important steps without his orders (2Sa. 3:26<\/span>), remonstrating with him roughly and rudely (ib.<\/em> 1Ki. 2:24-25<\/span>), almost betraying his secrets (ib.<\/em> 11. 1Ki. 2:19-21<\/span>), and where he disliked the orders given him, disobeying them (1Ch. 21:6<\/span>). David allowed his ascendancy, but he chafed against it, finding this son of Zeruiah in particular, too hard for him (2Sa. 3:39<\/span>). Shimeis cursing was all the more grievous because David was in distress at the time (2 Samuel 16<\/span>); and the Jews say the insult was all the greater because Shimei upbraided him with his descent from Ruth. the Moabitess. The hatred and virulence of the curse indicated that the Benjamites resented the loss of royalty in their tribe, even in the palmiest days of Davids monarchy. Revenge notes every minute detail of the injury inflicted, broods over it in secret, and watches for the moment of retaliation; its memory is infallible, its hatred intense, its patience stern and unwearying, and its sting venomous and cruel. <\/p>\n 2. The character of past injuries modifies the character of the revenge they provoke<\/em>. The injuries in this case were of the gravest kindcursing and murder. Sometimes the revenge is more terrible than the offence. In other instances the acts are so flagrant and sinful that to cherish and execute revenge simply amounts to the infliction of the righteous punishment of outraged justice. Magistrates are the avengers of the blood of those of whom they have charge. There are some sins which it would be a greater sin to allow to go unnoticed and unrequited. The murderer and blasphemer were punishable with death (Lev. 24:14<\/span>; Exo. 22:27<\/span>; 2Sa. 16:9<\/span>; ib.<\/em> 2Sa. 19:22<\/span>). <\/p>\n 3. Great forbearance may be shown before revenge is gratified<\/em> (1Ki. 2:8<\/span>). Shimei had seen and confessed his sin, and obtained a reprieve, at least during Davids lifetime (2Sa. 19:16-23<\/span>). But his offence was of such a character, and his turbulent, malicious temper so well known, that Solomon was warned not to let slip the opportunity which any new offence offered of inflicting the punishment he deserved. The spirit of revenge may be for a while restrained by the prevalence of a more generous feeling, from motives of policy, or in order to choose the best time for its gratification; but, sooner or later, the stroke will fall. For a justification of Davids conduct in committing to judgment a man whom he had forgiven, see Keil<\/em> on 1Ki. 2:8-9<\/span>, with foot note.<\/p>\n III. That a spirit of revenge is terribly pertinacious in its demands<\/strong> (1Ki. 2:6-9<\/span>). <\/p>\n 1. It surrenders its victims to the extreme penalties of justice<\/em>. Hold him not guiltless,do not treat him as an innocent man; but punish him as in thy wisdom may seem best. Not at once; but when the next delinquency is committed, hesitate not to punish with the utmost severity. So that deferring payment is no breach of bond: there will come a time wherein the Lord will have a full blow at the impenitent person, be the pretences of impunity what they will.Trapp<\/em>. The hoary head of both must be brought to the grave with blood, else Davids head could not be brought to his grave in peace. Due punishment of malefactors is the debt of authority: if that holy king has run into arrearages, yet, as one that hates and fears to break the bank, he gives orders to his paymaster, it shall be defrayed, if not by him, yet for him.Bishop Hall<\/em>. Revenge may slumber for years; but when it is once roused, terrible is the havoc which it works. It burns with irresistible fierceness. It exacts the uttermost farthing of the penalty. <\/p>\n 2. The aged are allowed no exemption from its severest punishments<\/em>. Grey hairs, if found in the way of righteousness, are a crown of glory (Pro. 16:31<\/span>), adorned with which man may go the way of all flesh in peace and comfort; but an old sinner, whom even grey hairs have not brought to repentance, goes down to the grave without solace or peace. Age in itself is no protection from justice. The longer man continues in sin, the more fearful will be his punishment (Isa. 65:20<\/span>). A life of wasted opportunities, abused privileges, and unrepented sins will bring an old age of suffering and dishonour.<\/p>\n IV. That a spirit of revenge is often relieved by the exhibition of an opposite spirit of kindness and liberality<\/strong>. But shew kindness unto the sons of Barzillai (1Ki. 2:7<\/span>). A good deed will not go unrewarded. Even successions of generations fare better for one good parent (Pro. 27:10<\/span>). The children of Barzillai inherit the fruits of their fathers timely hospitality (2Sa. 17:27-29<\/span>). Generous natures are never ungrateful. Agesilaus, king of Sparta, was always very grateful for any courtesies he received, and used to say that it was not only an unjust thing not to be thankful, but if a man did not return greater kindness than he received. The honour of eating at the royal table is a custom thoroughly oriental, and has prevailed in all ages. How much more bountiful is the Father of Mercies in the remuneration of our poor, unworthy services! The heart that is susceptible of the bitterest revenge is often most lavish in affection and generosity.<\/p>\n LESSONS:<\/p>\n 1. Revenge is strangely out of place on a death-bed<\/em>. <\/p>\n 2. The predominance of the Christian spirit destroys revenge<\/em>. <\/p>\n 3. To forgive an injury is more noble than to retaliate<\/em>.<\/p>\n HOMILETICS OF <\/em>1Ki. 2:8-9<\/span><\/em><\/p>\n THE SINS OF GODLY MEN<\/p>\n A man of God retains to the last the bias of nature with which his Maker endowed him at the first. Christianity does not reduce men to one dead level; it rather brings out in greater relief those parts of our character which are in harmony with its principles, while tending to tone down others with which it has no affinity. If the good man in the present age is so misunderstood, and his actions so unmercifully criticised, what little chance is there of the characters of men in past times being rightly appreciated and justly dealt with? The Almighty is ever the same; but the peoples of every age, in every land, differ from their sires. Where once the stalwart Roman stood, there now the effeminate Italian basks in languid ease. The bandit lurks where erst the philosophic Greek discoursed. All this God recollects, if we forget, and assuredly will judge men as well from that outside them, as from that within their hearts. There are three ways in which David may have been influenced in giving this dying injunction to his son:<\/p>\n I. As the agent, unconscious or otherwise, of Divine justice<\/strong>. We cannot conceive this measure as being the consummation of a Divine purpose, it had apparently so much about it of human plan. The Almightys power, when exerted in support of justice, has always been certain and direct in its action, without any references to contingencies. With God it is all justice or all mercy: no half measures. How different from mans punishment is this! The very manner of Shimeis death is the greatest argument against it having been ordained by God (1Ki. 2:36-46<\/span>). Even David and his son were ashamed of it; and shall God be credited with what they despised? For the honour of his fathers name, as well as his own, Solomon disguised his real object by laying a trap for Shimei, puerile in its meanness, and yet sufficient to attain the end desired. Davids conduct in giving this dying injunction to his son may have been influenced<\/p>\n II. By a conscientious desire to administer human justice according to the will of God<\/strong>. David, we are told, was a man of God, one after His own heart. Intimately acquainted with the Divine naturekeenly alive to heavens requirements, and inspired most devoutly with the desire to imitate his Makers characterhe is prominently put forth as, in many respects, the model of a godly man How, then, with such clear perceptions of the Divine attributes, can we conceive of him as acting in this matter conscientiously and with cool judgment, in the full belief of the harmony of his decree with Almighty rectitude? To do so is to dishonour the unswerving uprightness of Gods justice, or to depreciate Davids experiences and knowledge of the Divine character. We would rather be left to our final alternative in<\/p>\n III. Regarding his injunction as prompted by revenge<\/strong>. As a man he forgave Shimei at the time of his crime, which then should have been effaced from his memory. Heavenly justice, if not satisfied, would have taken its own way of vindicating itself, without further action on Davids part. With David, as a man of God and Israels lawgiver, we must utterly disconnect this act, and attribute it entirely to a flaw in his character, which, at the last, reasserted its natural power in antagonism to Divine grace. Feud and retaliation have ever been the preceders of law, order, and Christianity; and even now, among some nations, one of the most sacred principles a man acknowledges is to avenge a loved ones death, or his own personal wrong, till the third and fourth generations. Undoubtedly, in Davids time, this custom of revenge and retaliation was rife among the Eastern nations, along with many other practices at variance with progress and religion. Men were brought up to them, accepted them as their moral clothing, and acted up conscientiously to their injunctions. So it was with David. Though a man of God, in whom He delighted, yet the customs of his time, the habits of thought of those about him, with the silent effect of their example, hadunknown, maybe, to himso impregnated his being as to germinate into ungodly actions at any sudden temptation or crisis, with sufficient power to sweep away for a time the tuition and principles of his heavenly life. In Davids case, what mighty lessons this should teach! Here was a patriarch indeed, at the last moments of his existence succumbing to the seducing wiles and powerful instincts of his grosser nature Men may well dread death, for then is the last great struggle between earth and heavennay hell and heaven. It is Satans last chance, and he puts forth his mighty energies in one last grand endeavour, in which the deadliest hate and fear, and every terrible passion, is at work, striving to counteract the power of his Almighty antagonist. But the Almighty knows him, and He knows us. Like David, we may be vengeful on our death-bedour spirits may become dim, and weak, and faint; yet He knows our hearts that we are in Him, and He in us, and pardons the wanderings of our faltering footsteps as we totter to His threshold, until, as we gain the door and faintly knock, it opens wide, disclosing a scene of light, and joy, and bliss, with the inspiriting words sounding gladly in our earsBe of good courage, I will never leave thee or forsake thee!Homilist<\/em>.<\/p>\n GERM NOTES ON THE VERSES<\/em><\/p>\n 1Ki. 2:5-9<\/span>. Perhaps the dying monarch is solely anxious for the security of his young successors kingdom. Perhaps he allows old animosities to revive, and is willing to avenge himself indirectly and by deputy, though he had been withheld by certain scruples from taking vengeance in his own person. We must not expect gospel morality from the saints of the Old Testament. They were only the best men of their several ages and nations. The maxim of them of old time, whether Jews or Gentiles, was Love your friends and hate your enemies (Mat. 5:43<\/span>), and David, perhaps, was not, in this respect, in advance of his age. It would have been more magnanimous had he, either now or previously, freely forgiven these great offenders (Joab and Shimei) their offences against himself; but it would have been a magnanimity unexampled in the previous history of the world, and which we have no right to look for in one who was the warrior king of a nation just emerging from barbarism. If David was actuated by a sense of his own wrongs in the injunctions which he gave with respect to Joab and Shimei, we cannot justify the morality of his conduct; but it ought not to occasion us any surprise or difficulty. At any rate, it is satisfactory to see that, if David did allow himself to accept the unchristian half of the maxim above quoted, and to indulge malevolent feelings against his enemies, at least he accepted equally the other half, and entertained warm feelings of affection towards his friends. His hatred pursues only the individuals who have done him wrong. His gratitude and love pass on from the doer of a kindness to the doers children after their fathers death.Speakers Comm.<\/em><\/p>\n 1Ki. 2:7<\/span>. A noble heart does not forget what was done for him in times of trouble especially, and thinks of it even in the hour of death. The world is ungrateful. A blessing rests on deeds of faithfulness, and self-sacrificing, disinterested love; and it descends to children and childrens children.Lange<\/em>.<\/p>\n A spirit of kindness<\/strong><\/p>\n 1. Has a lively appreciation of help rendered in time of need. 1Ki. 2:8-9<\/span>. A curse rests on those who curse the powers which are Gods ministers, instead of praying for them, and they are made, sooner or later, to feel the curse (1Pe. 2:17<\/span>; 1Pe. 2:6<\/span>). The Lord prayed for those who cursed Him; but when they did not repent and become converted, Divine judgment came down on them. No doubt a wicked man often goes a long time unpunished for his deeds; but Divine justice does not fail to overtake him finally, ere he is aware. It required wisdom to punish: a premature, ill-judged chastisement does more harm than good.Lange<\/em>.<\/p>\n C. SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS 2:511<\/p>\n TRANSLATION<\/strong><\/p>\n (5) And also as for you, you know that which Joab son of Zeruiah did to me, which he did to two captains of the hosts of Israel, to Abner son of Ner and to Amasa the son of Jether both of whom he slew. He shed the blood of war in peace, and thereby put the blood of war on his girdle which is upon his loins, and on his sandals which are upon his feet. (6) Now act in your wisdom, but do not allow his gray head to go down in peace to Sheol. (7) But to the sons of Barzillai the Gileadite show kindness, and let them be among those who eat of your table, for thus they rallied unto me when I fled from before Absalom your brother. (8) And behold Shimei son of Gera, a Benjaminite from Bahurim is with you. Now he cursed me with a vicious curse in the day I went to Mahanaim, but he came down to meet me at the Jordan, and I swore to him by the LORD, saying, I will not slay you with the sword. (9) But now do not consider him to be innocent, for you are a wise man. So take note of that which you shall do to him and bring down his gray hair in blood to Sheol. (10) Then David slept with his fathers and they buried him in the city of David. (11) Now the time that David ruled over Israel was forty years. In Hebron he ruled seven years, and in Jerusalem he ruled thirty-three years. (12) And Solomon sat on the throne of David his father, and his kingdom was firmly established.<\/strong><\/p>\n COMMENTS<\/strong><\/p>\n Certain obligations which David had neglected to fulfill, or had promised to fulfill, now devolve upon his son and successor. First, there was Joab who had literally gotten by with murder during the reign of David. Solomon was reminded of the two great crimes which Joab had committed against the crown, viz., the slaying of Abner and Amasa, two generals of the army of Israel. Abner was murdered in the city gate at Hebron (2Sa. 3:22-27<\/span>) in retaliation for his slaying of Joabs brother Asahel who had been slain in war and in self-defense (2Sa. 2:12-23<\/span>). It would appear that jealousy was the prime motive in the murder of Amasa some thirty years later (2Sa. 20:4-10<\/span>). No doubt Joab rationalized his crimes on the basis that Abner and Amasa were threats to David and therefore must be eliminated. While it is true that both generals at one time commanded armies which fought against David, there is no evidence to suggest that either one of them had any hostile intentions toward the king at the time Joab decided to kill them. Joabs ruthlessness is described by David in the words, He shed the blood of war in peace, i.e., in a time of peace he shed blood that only ought to flow in time of war. The ruthlessness of these crimes is further indicated in the reference to Joabs girdle and sandals being spattered with the blood of war (1Ki. 2:5<\/span>). It was while feigning friendship and while moving close so as to plant the kiss of greeting up their cheeks that Joab smote these unsuspecting comrades beneath the fifth rib.[111]<\/p>\n [111] Blood on the girdle and sandals might also have symbolic meaning: the girdle about the loins might suggest that Joab had brought blood guiltiness upon his progeny; blood on the sandals suggests that the unrequited blood would dog the steps of Joab until it was avenged. Cf. Gray, OTL, p. 98.<\/p>\n Davids instruction regarding Joab does not appear to have been motivated by personal revenge. He excluded all mention of personal grievances against his general. He might have mentioned how Joab had disobeyed a direct order of his king and had slain Absalom in battle. He might also have mentioned the fact that Joab had backed Adonijahs bid for the throne. But these incidents were ignored. It is true that David says in 1Ki. 2:5<\/span> what Joab did to me, but that phrase is then immediately explained as referring to the murders of Abner and Amasa. Both of these murders deprived David of able officers and at the same time caused David to be suspected of complicity (2Sa. 3:28<\/span>; 2Sa. 3:37<\/span>). Furthermore, at the time they were slain Amasa was head of Davids army and Abner was in negotiation with the king. For this reason David may have felt personally responsible for their deaths.<\/p>\n The heinous deeds of Joab cried out for judicial revenge. As king of the nation David should have ordered Joab executed when he slew Abner thirty-three years previously. But David at that time was weak, not having yet gained the recognition of the Northern tribes. In exasperation, David could only invoke divine retribution upon the head of Joab (2Sa. 3:29<\/span>). At the time Amasa was slain, David had just come through the rebellions of Absalom and Sheba, and the authority of the crown was at low ebb. Undoubtedly David had intended to punish Joab for his dastardly deeds, but procrastination had robbed him of any further opportunities to deal with his general. It can only be regarded as somewhat cowardly of David to instruct Solomon to do what he had been unwilling to do for thirty-three years! Nevertheless, the instruction is given: Let not his gray hairs (indicative of Joabs age) go down to Sheol (abode of the dead) in peace. Joab must not be allowed to die a natural death. He must pay for his crimes with his life. Yet, David warned, your wisdom must be your guide (1Ki. 2:6<\/span>). The execution of such a powerful man as general Joab could trigger a rebellion in the army which appears to have been quite loyal to its commander. Therefore, Solomon must find a plausible pretext for bringing Joabs just deserts upon him.<\/p>\n The situation is completely different with the sons of Barzillai. Barzillai and his sons[112] had befriended David by bringing him food and supplies when the king had been forced to flee across the Jordan during the Absalom revolution (2Sa. 17:27<\/span> ff; 2Sa. 19:32<\/span> ff). David felt that he owed Barzillai a debt which he could never fully repay. There is no way of knowing how many sons Barzillai had. It is likely, though not certain, that the Chimham of 2Sa. 19:37<\/span> was his son.[113] From Ezr. 2:61<\/span> it would appear that the family of Barzillai was still in existence in the days of the restoration from captivity. David encouraged Solomon to allow Barzillais family to be included among those who ate at his table (1Ki. 2:7<\/span>). Some interpret this phrase literally; others see it as a technical term for receiving an allowance from the king.[114]<\/p>\n [112] That Barzillais sons assisted him is reasonable in view of the fact he was eighty years old at the time.<\/p>\n [113] Some identify Chimham with Chemoham of Jer. 41:17<\/span> which speaks of the habitation of Chemoham near Bethlehem. From this some have drawn the inference that David or Solomon must have given Chimham land near Bethlehem.<\/p>\n [114] Completely far-fetched is Grays suggestion that this entertainment might have been designed to hold these men as hostages for allegiance of Israelites in Transjordan (OTL, p. 99).<\/p>\n While Barzillai and his sons befriended David in his hour of distress, Shimei had taken malicious delight in the kings humiliation and worse, had vehemently cursed him (2Sa. 16:5-8<\/span>). Shimei, a Benjamite, was of a family of the house of Saul and for this reason he detested David, regarding him as a usurper and illegitimate king. Shimei lived in the village of Bahurim just north of Bethany on the east slope of the Mt. of Olives on the way to Jericho.[115] The phrase you have Shimei with you is puzzling and capable of more than one interpretation. David may mean nothing more than that Shimei lives in the vicinity and that Solomon would easily have access to him. On the other hand it is possible to interpret with you as meaning that Shimei was backing Solomon, supporting his claims to the throne. Reference has already been made to Shimei who supported Solomon during the Adonijah revolt (1Ki. 1:8<\/span>). Shimei was a leader of considerable influence in the tribe of Benjamin (cf. 2Sa. 19:16<\/span> f.) and it may have been a matter of critical importance which of the two princes he supported. If he did come out in support of Solomon, he undoubtedly would have been given favorable treatment by the young king and would no doubt have ranked among his inner circle of friends.[116]<\/p>\n [115] Bahurim was alluded to earlier in the David narratives, 2Sa. 3:16<\/span>; 2Sa. 17:18<\/span>.<\/p>\n [116] Hammond, PC, p. 27.<\/p>\n In spite of the fact that Shimei was a supporter of Solomon, David reminded his son that it was this man who cursed him vehemently in the day he was forced to flee across the Jordan to Mahanaim. One of Davids officers would have executed Shimei on the spot, but the king, depressed and confused by recent events, restrained him. When David defeated the insurrection of Absalom, Shimei was one of the first to come down to the Jordan to greet him and beg his forgiveness. Not wishing to mar the joy of his reinstatement by an act of punishment, David took an oath that he would not slay Shimei (1Ki. 2:8<\/span>; cf. 2Sa. 19:23<\/span>). But in taking this hasty and inadvised oath, David had pardoned what he had no power to pardon, viz., a sin to which the Law of Moses attached the death penalty (Exo. 22:28<\/span>). Shimei had yet to suffer the penalty for his crime, and in fact on two occasions he had had his life spared by order of the king, the one who was charged with upholding and enforcing the Law of God. As David lay in his death chamber, the guilt of this negligence weighed heavily upon his mind. David felt that his oath prevented him from taking action against Shimei. But Solomon was under no such obligation. Therefore, David exhorted his son not to hold Shimei guiltless, i.e., not leave him unpunished. Solomon, being a wise man, knew what, according to law, had to be done. As king it would be his responsibility to execute Shimei for his capital crime of blasphemy against the Lords anointed. Even though Shimei was now an old gray-haired man, the punishment which had so long been delayed must now overtake him (1Ki. 2:9<\/span>).<\/p>\n The morality of Davids injunction concerning Shimei and Joab has been called into question. No hint of malice or vindictiveness is evident in this passage; he was not bequeathing to Solomon a dark legacy of hate as one writer puts it. While unscrupulous men like Joab and Shimei might constitute a threat to the young king, Davids primary concern is not the safety and security of Solomons kingdom. 1Ki. 2:2-4<\/span> set the tone for these special instructions. What was uppermost in Davids mind was strict observance to the Law of God including the stipulated punishments therein. In asking his son to execute the murderer and the blasphemer, David is tacitly admitting to failure on his own part in enforcing that law. He himself was now too old and sickly to execute the sentence against Joab and Shimei. It would give David a great deal of comfort in his final hour to know that his son would perform those unpleasant legal tasks which he had neglected.<\/p>\n Following his instructions to Solomon, David slept (lit., lay down) with his fathers, i.e., he died. Since David was not buried in his family tomb at Bethlehem, the phrase with his fathers would seem to indicate an awareness of reunion with ones relatives in Sheol, the abode of the dead. The kings body was laid to rest in the city of Davidthat part of Jerusalem which his personal troops had conquered from the Jebusites. (1Ki. 2:10<\/span>). His sepulcher on Mt. Zion still existed in the time of Christ (Act. 2:29<\/span>). Josephus records two occasions when his tomb was plundered, once by John Hyrcanus and once by Herod the Great.[117] Davids tomb is thought to have been identified through recent excavations.[118] David had reigned a total of forty years over his people. The figure seven years for Davids reign of Judah alone is a round figure. He actually reigned there six months longer than that (cf. 2Sa. 5:5<\/span>).<\/p>\n [117] Ant. VII, 15.3; XIII, 8.4; XVI, 7.1.<\/p>\n [118] de Vaux, AI, p. 58.<\/p>\n (5) What Joab . . . did<\/strong>.The charge as to Joab has a certain righteousness in it. David could notprobably since Joabs knowledge of his great crime, he dared notpunish him as he deserved. There is a graphic vividness in the description of the blood of his victims, shed as the blood of war in peace, spirting over the girdle and sandals of the murderer, which shows how the horror of the crimes had dwelt on Davids imagination. The murder of Abner, treacherous as it was, probably had some show of justification in the rough justice wrought out by the duty laid in ancient law on the avenger of blood. David disclaims it (2Sa. 3:28-29<\/span>; 2Sa. 3:37-39<\/span>), without actually condemning it as inexcusable. The more recent and shameful murder of Amasa was simply one of revenge and ambition, because Amasa had been put in Joabs place; yet David, broken in spirit, does not dare to blame it, and quietly acquiesces in the resumption by Joab of the dignity conferred on the murdered man. That these crimes should be punished by a king whose hands were clean, and who owed Joab nothing. was perhaps just, certainly within the letter of the law; though clemency might have spared the old and now fallen warrior, who had at least served David ably with long and faithful service. It is singularly true to nature, that the old King makes no mention of the act for which nevertheless, in all probability, he most bore grudge against Joabthe reckless slaughter of Absalom against his own express commands and entreatiesand does not deign to allude to his recent treason, which probably had already embittered Solomon against him.<\/p>\n 5<\/strong>. <\/strong> Thou knowest what Joab did <\/strong> For the facts, see marginal references. This charge concerning Joab is but a particular application of the more general charge in 1Ki 2:3<\/span>. A strict regard for the honour of Jehovah, and for his statutes, laws, judgments, and testimonies, required that the crimes of the bloody Joab should receive their merited penalty; but David seems to have felt that his own hands were too full of blood, and his own heart had been too deeply stained with “blood-guiltiness,” (Psa 51:14<\/span>) to allow him to be the instrument of Joab’s punishment. His own unworthiness made him feel that the son of Zeruiah was too strong for him, and hence this charge to Solomon. It was not “a dark legacy of long-cherished vengeance,” as Stanley avers, though personal feelings were no doubt involved, but a solemn responsibility resting on the king of Israel as the guardian of Jehovah’s honour. He that “keeps the charge of Jehovah” must, if he regard the safety of the kingdom and the honour of its laws, show that “he beareth not the sword in vain.” See Rom 13:4<\/span>. “David does not mention, among Joab’s sins, that one which caused him personally <\/em> the most poignant grief the murder of Absalom. Not for sins committed against David as a father, but for sins committed against the law and majesty of God, does David advise Solomon the king, as the keeper of God’s law and the guardian of God’s honour, to punish the guilty offender.” Wordsworth. <\/p>\n <\/em><\/p>\n Shed the blood of war in peace <\/strong> Shed in time of peace, blood which should have been shed only in warfare. As in the case of Abner, with whom David had made a treaty of peace, but whom Joab treacherously slew at the gate of Hebron. 2Sa 3:12-30<\/span>. <\/p>\n Put the blood of war upon his girdle and in his shoes <\/strong> That is, he stained his garments with innocent blood, the blood of those whom he could have lawfully slain only in battle. The words are to be taken literally, and with special reference to the case of Amasa. See 2Sa 20:8-10<\/span>. When Joab, after the murder of Amasa, returned his sword to its girdle he doubtless stained the girdle, and probably his feet also, with the blood of the slain captain. Or we suppose that the one fearful thrust that disembowelled Amasa caused the blood to spurt out, and spatter Joab from his girdle to his feet.<\/p>\n “<\/strong> Moreover you know also what Joab the son of Zeruiah did to me, even what he did to the two captains of the hosts of Israel, to Abner the son of Ner, and to Amasa the son of Jether, whom he slew, and shed the blood of war in peace, and put the blood of war on his girdle that was about his loins, and in his shoes that were on his feet.” <\/p>\n David then went on to give advice about individual matters where he felt that his experience could be a guide to his son. David was well aware that Joab had supported Adonijah, and he knew perfectly well what Joab was capable of. He feared that a man who could catch out two experienced generals and kill them in cold blood would think little of doing the same to a less experienced king who was getting in the way of his ambitions. And he knew that while he had himself known that he could always count on Joab’s loyalty, because there had been a bond forged between them by the hardship which they had suffered together, he could not be so confident that Solomon would be able to do so, especially as Joab would know that by supporting Adonijah he had, as far as Solomon was concerned, almost certainly said goodbye to any ambitions for the future he might have had. David was well aware that Joab, found in that situation, would be a very dangerous man, a man who could stoop to anything. <\/p>\n But David, in warning Solomon, would not want to raise the spectre of Adonijah’s actions again, for Adonijah was his son, and he wanted peace between his sons, and so he chose a different tack. He reminded Solomon of what Joab had done to David himself in the past, when he had slain two men in a way which had brought part of the blame on David. There were indeed still men, and Shimei was probably one, who believed that David himself had been responsible in some way for Abner’s death, while others, especially of the house of Judah, no doubt held Amasa’s death against him. And it was all because of Joab’s willingness to spill blood so easily. <\/p>\n Of course Joab had had a good excuse in both cases. In the case of Abner he could justifiably claim that he was avenging the shedding of the blood of his brother. And that was unquestionably true. He was strictly within his rights to slay the killer of his brother when that killer had not sought ‘refuge’ and a fair trial. Especially when the killing had taken place in a civil war provoked by Abner. In the case of Amasa he had no doubt claimed with some justification that Amasa had been acting treacherously. And there can be no doubt that Amasa’s failure to do his duty had merited severe punishment. But in both cases, as both he and David well knew, he had acted over and above what he had known David wanted him to do, and partly did it because the two men stood in the way of his ambition to continue as commander-in-chief of all Israel. Both men had come openly to make peace with David and Joab, and Joab’s response had been to strike them down. He had ‘shed the blood of war in peace’ without trial. Technically he had been justified (compare Gideon’s act in Jdg 8:18-21<\/span>), but, as Joab had been aware, both men had been under David’s protection, and the result was that Joab’s actions had thus brought dishonour on David and had revealed what kind of a man Joab, was. And the result was that the girdle that held his sword was seen as stained with blood that could never be washed off, as were the shoes on his feet. He was a man of blood. He was a man who shed blood and trod blood wherever he went, and that could not be good news for Solomon. Thus the warning. <\/p>\n (5) Moreover thou knowest also what Joab the son of Zeruiah did to me, and what he did to the two captains of the hosts of Israel, unto Abner the son of Ner, and unto Amasa the son of Jether, whom he slew, and shed the blood of war in peace, and put the blood of war upon his girdle that was about his loins, and in his shoes that were on his feet. (6) Do therefore according to thy wisdom, and let not his hoar head go down to the grave in peace. (7) But show kindness unto the sons of Barzillai the Gileadite, and let them be of those that eat at thy table: for so they came to me when I fled because of Absalom thy brother. (8) And, behold, thou hast with thee Shimei the son of Gera, a Benjamite of Bahurim, which cursed me with a grievous curse in the day when I went to Mahanaim: but he came down to meet me at Jordan, and I sware to him by the LORD, saying, I will not put thee to death with the sword. (9) Now therefore hold him not guiltless: for thou art a wise man, and knowest what thou oughtest to do unto him; but his hoar head bring thou down to the grave with blood.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n It should seem, from the particular charges David gave to Solomon concerning those men, Joab and Shimei, that his conscience told him he had not done justice in suffering a murderer like Joab to go unpunished. And with respect to Shimei, the grievous curse perhaps of which he complains was of a spiritual nature, leveled against the covenant. I am, I confess, inclined to think so; as being in David’s view what belonged not to him to pardon. If Shimei’s conduct came at all under this description, it came not within the power of David to pardon. See Deu 13:12-17<\/span> .<\/p>\n 1Ki 2:5 Moreover thou knowest also what Joab the son of Zeruiah did to me, [and] what he did to the two captains of the hosts of Israel, unto Abner the son of Ner, and unto Amasa the son of Jether, whom he slew, and shed the blood of war in peace, and put the blood of war upon his girdle that [was] about his loins, and in his shoes that [were] on his feet.<\/p>\n Ver. 5. What Joab the son of Zeruiah did to me.<\/strong> ] Why, what did Joab to David? Pellican justifieth him, and commendeth Joab highly for a good man; but few interpreters are of his mind. David had much ado with him all along, and complained of his insolences, which yet he dared not punish, till in his old age the armies fell off from him, and Benaiah, captain of the guard, was able to deal with him. What is it that David here meaneth which Joab had done against him, is uncertain. The Hebrews tell us, that he showed David’s letters to him concerning the death of Uriah, which was much to his disgrace. Others hold that the death of Absalom still stuck in David’s stomach, together with that rough and rude language which Joab gave him for his excessive mourning thereupon. Theodoret thinketh it was his siding with Adonijah, and the evil that he might yet work against Solomon, whom he never loved, but held him unworthy to reign for his scandalous birth. <\/p>\n <\/p>\n And what he did to the two captains, &c.<\/strong> ] This seemeth to be the very thing that he did against David; for besides that the sovereign is smitten in the subject, David had given the public faith to these two captains for their safety, and, therefore, appropriateth their slaughter, as good reason he had. <\/p>\n <\/p>\n And put the blood of war upon his girdle, &c.<\/strong> ] In a bold and public way, as if he had bragged of his murders; like as Alexander Pheraeus is said to have consecrated the javelin wherewith he slew his uncle Polyphron, and called it his god Tychon, of great luck. a<\/em> <\/p>\n<\/p>\n a<\/em> Plutarch, in Pelopida.<\/p>\n Joab. Zeruiah. David’s own sister’s son. <\/p>\n did to me. David does not mention the worst sin, the death of Absalom. <\/p>\n Abner. Compare 2Sa 3:27, 2Sa 3:39. <\/p>\n Amasa. Compare 2Sa 20:9-11. 1Ch 2:17. <\/p>\n Joab: 1Ki 1:7, 1Ki 1:18, 1Ki 1:19, 2Sa 3:39, 2Sa 18:5, 2Sa 18:12, 2Sa 18:14, 2Sa 19:5-7 <\/p>\n Abner: 2Sa 3:27 <\/p>\n Amasa: 2Sa 20:10 <\/p>\n Jether: 2Sa 17:25, Ithra <\/p>\n shed: Heb. put <\/p>\n put: Jer 2:34, Jer 6:15, Eze 24:7, Eze 24:8 <\/p>\n Reciprocal: Gen 9:6 – by Num 35:20 – if he thrust Deu 19:12 – General 2Sa 11:16 – he assigned 2Sa 14:19 – of Joab 2Sa 16:10 – What have 1Ki 2:31 – which 1Ki 2:32 – Jether 1Ch 2:17 – Amasa Psa 55:23 – bloody and deceitful men shall not live out half their days Ecc 8:12 – a sinner Isa 5:27 – neither Hos 6:8 – polluted with blood Mat 5:21 – and<\/p>\n 1Ki 2:5. Moreover, thou knowest, &c. After David had given Solomon this general charge, he proceeded to direct him to do some particular acts of justice and kindness, and first of all, bids him remember how Joab had acted. We must not look upon this admonition of David, on his death-bed, as proceeding from a spirit of private revenge, but as advising the execution of a public piece of justice which the circumstances of things would not permit him to inflict before. Certainly the punishment of Joab was owing both to God and man, for his treacherous and cruel murder of Abner and Amasa; and, therefore, David here, in justice to his people, and the divine laws, ordered his son and successor to do that, when his throne was fully established, which he could not execute himself for want of sufficient power, Joabs interest being then so great, that it might have thrown the state into a fresh civil war, had any steps been taken to inflict punishment upon him. What Joab the son of Zeruiah did to me That is, against me. For Joabs murder of Abner and Amasa was a great injury to David, as it was a breach of his laws and peace, a contempt of his person and government, a pernicious example to his subjects, and a great scandal to him, giving people reason to suspect that Joab had been only Davids instrument, to effect what he secretly designed. And shed the blood of war in peace He slew them as if they had been in the state of war, when there was not only a cessation of arms, but also a treaty of peace. And put the blood of war upon his girdle This is added to denote his impenitence, that although by his perfidious manner of killing them, when he pretended to embrace them, he stained his own garments with their blood, yet he was not ashamed of it, but gloried in it, and marched boldly along with the army, with the same girdle and shoes which were sprinkled with their blood.<\/p>\n 2:5 Moreover thou knowest also what Joab the son of Zeruiah did to me, [and] what he did to the two captains of the hosts of Israel, unto Abner the son of Ner, and unto Amasa the son of Jether, whom he slew, and {d} shed the blood of war in peace, and {e} put the blood of war upon his girdle that [was] about his loins, and in his shoes that [were] on his feet.<\/p>\n (d) He shed his blood in time of peace, as if there had been war.<\/p>\n (e) He put the bloody sword into his sheath.<\/p>\n Moreover thou knowest also what Joab the son of Zeruiah did to me, [and] what he did to the two captains of the hosts of Israel, unto Abner the son of Ner, and unto Amasa the son of Jether, whom he slew, and shed the blood of war in peace, and put the blood of … Continue reading “Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of 1 Kings 2:5”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-8787","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-commentary"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8787","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=8787"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8787\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=8787"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=8787"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=8787"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible <\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
2. Is prompt to acknowledge its obligations.
3. Delights in showing greater kindness than it received.
4. Is an important, practical feature of the Christian spirit.<\/p>\nFuente: The Preacher’s Complete Homiletical Commentary Edited by Joseph S. Exell<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"