Chapter 2

1 David, having given a charge to Solomon, 3 of religiousness, 5 of Joab, 7 of Barzillai, 8 of Shimei, 10 dieth. 12 Solomon succeedeth. 13 Adonijah, moving Bath-sheba to sue unto Solomon for Abishag, is put to death. 26 Abiathar, having his life given him, is deprived of the priesthood. 28 Joab fleeing to the horns of the altar is there slain. 35 Benaiah is put in Joab’s room, and Zadok in Abiathar’s. 36 Shimei, confined to Jerusalem, by occasion of going thence to Gath, is put to death.

1. Now the days of David. This chapter continues the narrative of the previous chapter, with the same vivid detail and graphic style. The account as given in Chronicles omits the story of Adonijah’s insurrection and gives instead an account of a great assemblage of “all the princes of Israel, with the priests and the Levites,” “the captains of the companies that ministered to the king,” and the leading men of all the realm (1 Chron. 23:1, 2; chs. 28, 29), for the making of Solomon “king the second time” (ch. 29:22). Both Saul (1 Sam. 11:14, 15) and David (2 Sam. 5:1–3) had been set apart a second time as king, and thus it was also in the case of Solomon. His first anointing was on quick notice on a rather impromptu occasion, called for by the pressure of circumstances, at which time only a few of the people from the immediate vicinity could be present. Thus it was only fitting that there should be a second and more general coronation, with due solemnity and display, before the representatives of the entire nation.

2. Way of all the earth. This expression reminds us of the words of Joshua (Joshua 23:14) as he faced the end. Death shows no partiality. The greatest heroes of earth take their place with the lowliest of men and both go together to a common grave. Worldly distinctions are only for a moment, and the glories of kings disappear wherever death holds sway.

Be thou strong. David’s thoughts are not of himself but of his son, not of the past but of the future. He speaks as a loving father, a soldier and patriot, and above all as a man who has shown himself every whit a king. He charges Solomon to be strong as he undertakes the responsibilities of leadership, even as Moses charged Joshua (Deut. 31:7), and as the Lord Himself had charged Joshua (Joshua 1:7).

Shew thyself a man. In spite of his youth, Solomon now was king, and particularly as such he must show himself a man. He was to be a man in full control of himself and of his people, fearless, above bribery and corruption. He was to seek first, not his own interests, but those of the people whom he had been appointed to serve and of the God whose representative he was.

Keep the charge. David’s charge to Solomon was, above all, of a religious nature. Solomon was first to be true to God. The Israelites were the people of God, and Solomon was to rule over them as a servant of God. The last words of David to Solomon were not so much those of a father to his son, but rather those of a head of Israel, a theocratic state, to his divinely appointed successor upon the throne. It is from this standpoint that the whole discourse is to be viewed. As king of Israel, Solomon was “to sit upon the throne of the kingdom of the Lord” (1 Chron. 28:5). When he had taken the kingdom, he “sat on the throne of the Lord” (1 Chron. 29:23). Israel was a nation of which Jehovah was king and of which the human ruler was only a servant and representative of the heavenly King.

Walk in his ways. The king was to know the ways of God and to walk in them, not only for his own best interests but also as an example to the people. The ways of God were ways of righteousness and peace, and would bring to him blessing and prosperity.

Keep his statutes. The statutes are the provisions of the law. God gave His commandments to the people, and then prescribed further regulations to make clear exactly what obedience entailed in specific cases. Such detailed statutes, judgments, and testimonies are found in the law of Moses. There are ceremonial ordinances, civil statutes, laws of health, as well as moral requirements.

Mayest prosper. All the laws of God were given for the benefit of man. God placed His children under law because He desired to see them happy and prosperous. His prescriptions and injunctions were not given to display His supreme authority but to ensure the welfare and happiness of the children of earth. Walking in harmony with the laws of Heaven, man was to find joy, peace, contentment of spirit, health of body, and fullness of life. Disobeying those laws would bring trouble, sorrow, sickness, woe, pain, and death. This has been made plain at the beginning of Israel’s history. It was constantly pointed out by the prophets down to the very end. “If ye be willing and obedient, ye shall eat the good of the land: but if ye refuse and rebel, ye shall be devoured with the sword: for the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it” (Isa. 1:19, 20; cf. Jer. 7:5–7). When Israel finally perished, it was made clear that the reason was failure to comply with the commandments of the Lord (2 Kings 17:7–20).

4. May continue his word. God’s original promise was made to David through Nathan the prophet (2 Sam. 7:11–17), and later, it seems, directly to David himself (Ps. 89:3, 4). The promise was that David’s house and his kingdom would be established forever. The fulfillment of this promise to the children of David was on condition of continued obedience to God’s commands (Ps. 132:12). David reminds Solomon of these conditions in order to encourage continued fidelity on his part and obedience to the Lord’s commands.

6. Do therefore. Joab had murdered Abner (2 Sam. 3:27–30). David, at the time, made it clear he had had no part in the crime, and announced that in due time the Lord would “reward the doer of evil according to his wickedness” (2 Sam. 3:31–39). Joab had also murdered Amasa, whom David had just appointed to take Joab’s place (2 Sam. 19:13; 20:8–10). The death of these two was to be avenged. At the time these crimes were committed David was not in a position to punish Joab, owing to Joab’s knowledge of David’s part in the death of Uriah the Hittite (2 Sam. 11:14–25). But the dictates of justice demanded that such crimes as Joab had committed should not go unpunished. Therefore, David, speaking not as a private individual who had received many years of hard and faithful service from the man he now condemned, but as a theocratic king, gave directions that Joab’s crimes should be punished by a man whose hands were clean and who owed Joab nothing. It should be remembered, further, that Joab was guilty also of acts that David does not here expressly mention, such as the slaying of Absalom against David’s express command (2 Sam. 18:14, 15), and his recent treason in the support of Adonijah (1 Kings 1:7), which no doubt had already embittered Solomon against him.

7. Shew kindness. A pleasant contrast is David’s remembrance of Barzillai’s hospitality to him on the occasion of his flight from Absalom (2 Sam. 19:31–39). To eat at the king’s table meant to receive support from the royal treasury (2 Sam. 9:7; 1 Kings 18:19; Neh. 5:17). Barzillai had a son called Chimham (2 Sam. 19:37). Some have thought that Jeremiah’s reference to “the habitation of Chimham” (Jer. 41:17) as being by Bethlehem, indicates that David had given the son of Barzillai an inheritance there from property that was especially his own.

8. Shimei. This man, who had acted so traitorously toward David, might prove a source of danger to Solomon in those turbulent times (see vs. 36–46).

10. David slept. The account of David’s death is very brief. The record of Chronicles adds only that “he died in a good old age, full of days, riches, and honour” (1 Chron. 29:28).

Buried. Evidently in Mt. Zion, on royal ground near David’s palace (2 Sam. 5:9). The “sepulchres of David,” the tombs of the successors of David, are mentioned by Nehemiah (Neh. 3:16), and were probably south of the Temple (Eze. 43:7–9). They were undoubtedly excavated in the rock underlying Jerusalem. Josephus reports that the tomb was rifled for its treasures by Hyrcanus and later by Herod (Antiquities vii. 15. 3; xvi. 7. 1). It was in existence in NT times (Acts 2:29), but its exact location is at present unknown. The so-called Tombs of the Kings, once thought to be the mausoleum of the kings of Judah, actually dates from the 1st century a.d.

11. Seven years. More exactly, “seven years and six months” (2 Sam. 5:5; 1 Chron. 3:4).

12. Was established greatly. Compare v. 46, which, after the mention of the deaths of Adonijah, Joab, and Shimei, and the humbling of Abiathar, states that “the kingdom was established in the hand of Solomon.” It seems clear that during the early part of Solomon’s reign there existed elements of disaffection and unrest which threatened the establishment of the young king’s throne. Solomon dealt swiftly and firmly with these forces of unrest and revolt, and as a result the kingdom was firmly established under his control.

13. Comest thou peaceably? The very appearance of Adonijah upon the scene raised a question concerning his intentions. Had he reconciled himself to his fate and was he ready to support Solomon, or was he still hoping by some means to secure the kingdom?

15. The kingdom was mine. Adonijah’s reference to his unsuccessful attempt to secure the throne gives evidence that the matter was still very much alive within his heart. Bath-sheba’s apprehensions seem to have been well founded.

From the Lord. A seemingly pious acceptance of the divine will, but actually an ill-concealed purpose of endeavoring to secure by craft the kingdom which he could not secure by force.

17. Give me Abishag. He might, perhaps, as well have asked for the kingdom. The real burden of his heart was probably not a romantic concern for the fair Abishag, but the kingdom he hoped to acquire by possession of her. In the ancient Orient the wives of a king were taken over by his successor. So David, when he succeeded Saul, took over his wives (2 Sam. 12:8). Absalom, in accordance with the advice of Ahithophel, went in to his father’s concubines in the sight of all the people, thus giving public announcement that he had assumed the rights of his father’s throne (2 Sam. 16:20–22). Abishag was doubtless looked upon as the last wife, or at least the last concubine, of David. For Adonijah now to ask for Abishag could be construed as asking for the throne itself. Yet before Bath-sheba he played the part of a devout and repentant young man, reconciled to his fate, and needing only the fair young maiden to soothe his aching heart.

18. Speak for thee. Why was Bath-sheba willing to speak for Adonijah before the king? Did she think him sincere, or did she see through his wiles but consent to his request in the hope that his heart might be set at rest and the kingdom thus made more sure for her son?

19. Bowed himself unto her. The honor Solomon showed toward his mother provided a fitting example for the people of his day, even as it does for us today. In ancient courts the queen mother was often highly honored.

22. The kingdom also. Perhaps Bath-sheba did not see anything dangerous in Adonijah’s request, but Solomon instantly did. To have granted Adonijah’s request would have provided strong encouragement to his pretensions. Those sympathetic with him would have a firm footing on which to rest the elder brother’s claims.

For Abiathar. The words are not clear, but the sense is. Solomon is giving vent to his disgust at his mother’s shortsightedness for having allowed herself to be drawn into such a situation as this. Things were already bad enough without her lending her aid to the efforts of Adonijah to secure the throne. Adonijah was, after all, the elder brother, and many would think he had a just claim to the throne. And at his side were two of the most influential men of the land, Abiathar, the high priest, and Joab, the commander in chief, aiding and abetting him in every possible way. Now the king’s mother had allowed herself to be taken in to the extent that she was actually asking for nothing less than the kingdom for the elder son. Solomon said in effect, “Why ask only for Abishag, why not ask for the kingdom as well? He is my elder brother, and does it not by right belong to him? And in proof of his claims, does he not have with him Abiathar the priest and Joab as well, in support of his cause and giving evidence to all that he indeed is in the right?” Bath-sheba evidently understood the needed rebuke.

23. Against his own life. The request of Adonijah was tantamount to treason and as such was punishable by death. The young man was a dangerous character, and his plottings must not be allowed to jeopardize the security of the state. Thus Solomon reasoned.

24. Which hath established. The scheming of Adonijah was directed not only against man but also against God. It was the Lord who had established Solomon upon the throne as the successor of his father David, but now Adonijah was apparently making plans to found a dynasty through union with Abishag. That must not be permitted. The previous conspiracy had been pardoned, but this new attempt at rebellion against God could not be condoned. Solomon was king by God’s choice, sitting upon the throne of David, which was to be established forever. Knowing that what he was doing was in accord with the will of Heaven, Solomon, with a solemn adjuration, gave judgment that Adonijah be put to death that day.

26. Unto Abiathar. Solomon was not content with halfway measures. He probably correctly surmised that in this new attempt to secure the crown Adonijah had accomplices, including Abiathar.

To Anathoth. Abiathar received mercy because of his long friendship with David in his adversity. Instead of forfeiting his life, he would merely be deprived of his office and sent home. Anathoth was a city of priests in the territory of Benjamin (Joshua 21:17–19; 1 Chron. 6:60). The town lay 3 mi. to the northeast of Jerusalem. It is best known as the birthplace of Jeremiah (Jer. 1:1; 32:7).

27. That he might fulfil. The prophecy fulfilled was that of 1 Sam. 2:30–35; 3:11–14. Abiathar was a descendant of the house of Eli and was the sole survivor of the slaughter of the sons of Ahimelech by Doeg (1 Sam. 22:9–23; 23:6). With the deposition of Abiathar, the high priesthood passed from the house of Ithamar to the house of Eleazar, the elder son of Aaron, to which Zadok belonged (Num. 25:11–13; 1 Chron. 24:1–6). Both Abiathar and Zadok had hitherto acted as priests, with some measure of coordination between the two while the tabernacle was at Gibeon under Zadok’s charge, and the ark in Mt. Zion under Abiathar. After the disgrace of Abiathar the dignity of the office of the high priesthood passed to Zadok.

It must not be thought that the purpose of Solomon in humbling Abiathar was merely for the purpose of bringing about the fulfillment of prophecy. His act was prompted solely by the merits of the case. God decrees because He foresees.

29. Fall upon him. Upon receipt of the news of Adonijah’s death, Joab fled for sanctuary. If he had felt himself entirely free from complicity in the recent conspiracy, he would hardly have feared for his life. Solomon’s words in pronouncing sentence upon him make no reference to anything except the old crimes mentioned in the dying charge of David. One of the reasons, no doubt, was that sanctuary was denied in cases of willful murder (Ex. 21:14). The laws against the shedding of blood were so rigid that it is doubtful whether a murderer could be pardoned according to law (Num. 35:16–34; Deut. 19:11–13). If sentence against willful murder were not executed, the land would carry the guilt of blood (Num. 35:33). The altar provided asylum only for those who had killed unwittingly, but this was not the case with Joab. Knowing well the law, Joab knew the fate in store for him. Rough and hardy soldier though he was, “too hard” even for the rugged warrior David, the old captain met his doom without a word of remonstrance or an act of resistance. He was guilty of crimes for which he knew he could present no defense.

36. Go not forth. The situation within the realm was such that Solomon deemed it necessary to keep a close watch on all suspected persons. Restless Shimei was among those who might be expected to throw in their lot against the king whenever the opportunity might come. He was known to be an adherent of the house of Saul and a bitter foe of the house of David. To restrict Shimei to the confines of Jerusalem was only a reasonable precaution against treason.

37. Kidron. The valley running north and south, just outside the east wall of Jerusalem. Beyond it lay what later became known as the Mt. of Olives. At the present time no brook flows in this valley except during the rainy season.

The reference to crossing the Kidron shows that it was for the purpose of preventing him from returning to his native domain, Bahurim (2 Sam. 16:5), where he would have the greatest influence and the best opportunity of stirring up trouble. Bahurim was in the vicinity of the Mt. of Olives on the way from Jerusalem to the Jordan.

39. Gath. A city formerly held by the Philistines, but taken by David (1 Chron. 18:1). It is here said to have a king, but the king was probably under the control of the Hebrew monarchy.

40. Shimei arose. The narrative gives no hint that Shimei’s journey to Gath for the sake of bringing back his servants was not made in good faith. But the fact remains that he had been disobedient to the king’s command and had broken his own solemn vow. It is upon this that stress is laid. If Shimei had wished to remain true to his oath, he should have informed the king of the circumstances, made request for permission to go and bring his servants back, and awaited the king’s command. But by taking matters into his own hands, and by venturing into a foreign land that had often been at war with Solomon’s father, Shimei was certainly laying himself open to suspicion.

42. Called for Shimei. Solomon did not pass judgment upon Shimei without due consideration of the case and without setting all the facts clearly before the accused. With searching questions Solomon made it clear that Shimei was without defense. Shimei had given his solemn oath that he would abide by the king’s decree. Why had he not kept that oath? The answer of silence became the sentence of death.

44. Is privy to. No man knows so well all the hidden wickedness of the heart as the transgressor himself. With his life at stake, Shimei knew that his own wicked heart was the most telling witness against himself.

Thine own head. God is not an arbitrary executioner of the sentence against transgression. Sinners reap in judgment what they themselves have sown. It was Shimei’s own iniquity, not merely the judgment of an earthly king, that condemned him to death.

46. Kingdom was established. See on v. 12.

Ellen G. White comments

1–4PK 26; PP 753

2     MH 174

2, 3 5T 509