Resultados para: "AMNON"

<p>We have here the progress of Cain&#039;s anger, and the issue of it in Abel&#039;s murder, which may be considered two ways: -
I. As Cain&#039;s sin; and a scarlet, crimson, sin it was, a sin of the first magnitude, a sin against the light and law of nature, and which the consciences even of bad men have startled at. See in it, 1. The sad effects of sin&#039;s entrance into the world and into the hearts of men. See what a root of bitterness the corrupt nature is, which bears this gall and wormwood. Adam&#039;s eating forbidden fruit seemed but a little sin, but it opened the door to the greatest. 2. A fruit of the enmity which is in the seed of the serpent against the seed of the woman. As Abel leads the van in the noble army of martyrs (Mat 23:35), so Cain stand in the front of the ignoble army of persecutors, Jde 1:11. So early did he that was after the flesh persecute him that was after the Spirit; and so it is now, more or less (Gal 4:29), and so it will be till the war shall end in the eternal salvation of all the saints and the eternal perdition of all that hate them. 3. See also what comes of envy, hatred, malice, and all uncharitableness; if they be indulged and cherished in the soul, they are in danger of involving men in the horrid guilt of murder itself. Rash anger is heart-murder, Mat 5:21, Mat 5:22. Much more is malice so; he that hates his brother is already a murderer before God; and, if God leave him to himself, he wants nothing but an opportunity to render him a murderer before the world. Many were the aggravations of Cain&#039;s sin. (1.) It was his brother, his own brother, that he murdered, his own mother&#039;s son (Psa 50:20), whom he ought to have loved, his younger brother, whom he ought to have protected. (2.) He was a good brother, one who had never done him any wrong, nor given him the least provocation in word or deed, but one whose desire had been always towards him, and who had been, in all instances, dutiful and respectful to him. (3.) He had fair warning given him, before, of this. God himself had told him what would come of it, yet he persisted in his barbarous design. (4.) It should seem that he covered it with a show of friendship and kindness: He talked with Abel his brother, freely and familiarly, lest Abel should suspect danger, and keep out of his reach. Thus Joab kissed Abner, and then killed him. Thus Absalom feasted his brother Amnon and then killed him. According to the Septuagint [a Greek version of the Old Testament, supposed to have been translated by seventy-two Jews, at the desire of Ptolemy Philadelphus, above 200 years before Christ], Cain said to Abel, Let us go into the field; if so, we are sure Abel did not understand it (according to the modern sense) as a challenge, else he would not have accepted it, but as a brotherly invitation to go together to their work. The Chaldee paraphrast adds that Cain, when they were in discourse in the field, maintained that there was no judgment to come, no future state, no rewards and punishments in the other world, and that when Abel spoke in defence of the truth Cain took that occasion to fall upon him. However, (5.) That which the scripture tells us was the reason why he slew him was a sufficient aggravation of the murder; it was because his own works were evil and his brother&#039;s righteous, so that herein he showed himself to be of that wicked one (Jo1 3:12), a child of the devil, as being an enemy to all righteousness, even in his own brother, and, in this, employed immediately by the destroyer. Nay, (6.) In killing his brother, he directly struck at God himself; for God&#039;s accepting Abel was the provocation pretended, and for this very reason he hated Abel, because God loved him. (7.) The murder of Abel was the more inhuman because there were now so few men in the world to replenish it. The life of a man is precious at any time; but it was in a special manner precious now, and could ill be spared.
II. As Abel&#039;s suffering. Death reigned ever since Adam sinned, but we read not of any taken captive by him till now; and now, 1. The first that dies is a saint, one that was accepted and beloved of God, to show that, though the promised seed was so far to destroy him that had the power of death as to save believers from its sting, yet still they should be exposed to its stroke. The first that went to the grave went to heaven. God would secure to himself the first-fruits, the first-born to the dead, that first opened the womb into another world. Let this take off the terror of death, that it was betimes the lot of God&#039;s chosen, which alters the property of it. Nay, 2. The first that dies is a martyr, and dies for his religion; and of such it may more truly be said than of soldiers that they die on the bed of honour. Abel&#039;s death has not only no curse in it, but it has a crown in it; so admirably well is the property of death altered that it is not only rendered innocent and inoffensive to those that die in Christ, but honourable and glorious to those that die for him. Let us not think it strange concerning the fiery trial, nor shrink if we be called to resist unto blood; for we know there is a crown of life for all that are faithful unto death.</p>

<p>Dinah was, for aught that appears, Jacob&#039;s only daughter, and we may suppose her therefore the mother&#039;s fondling and the darling of the family, and yet she proves neither a joy nor a credit to them; for those children seldom prove either the best or the happiest that are most indulged. She is reckoned now but fifteen or sixteen years of age when she here occasioned so much mischief. Observe, 1. Her vain curiosity, which exposed her. She went out, perhaps unknown to her father, but by the connivance of her mother, to see the daughters of the land (Gen 34:1); probably it was at a ball, or on some public day. Being an only daughter, she thought herself solitary at home, having none of her own age and sex to converse with; and therefore she must needs go abroad to divert herself, to keep off melancholy, and to accomplish herself by conversation better than she could in her father&#039;s tents. Note, It is a very good thing for children to love home; it is parents&#039; wisdom to make it easy to them, and children&#039;s duty then to be easy in it. Her pretence was to see the daughters of the land, to see how they dressed, and how they danced, and what was fashionable among them. She went to see, yet that was not all, she went to be seen too; she went to see the daughters of the land, but, it may be, with some thoughts of the sons of the land too. I doubt she went to get an acquaintance with those Canaanites, and to learn their way. Note, The pride and vanity of young people betray them into many snares. 2. The loss of her honour by this means (Gen 34:2): Shechem, the prince of the country, but a slave to his own lusts, took her, and lay with her, it should seem, not so much by force as by surprise. Note, Great men think they may do any thing; and what more mischievous than untaught and ungoverned youth? See what came of Dinah&#039;s gadding: young women must learn to be chaste, keepers at home; these properties are put together, Tit 2:5, for those that are not keepers at home expose their chastity. Dinah went abroad to look about her; but, if she had looked about her as she ought, she would not have fallen into this snare. Note, The beginning of sin is as the letting forth of water. How great a matter does a little fire kindle! We should therefore carefully avoid all occasions of sin and approaches to it. 3. The court Shechem made to her, after he had defiled her. This was fair and commendable, and made the best of what was bad; he loved her (not as Amnon, Sa2 13:15), and he engaged his father to make a match for him with her, Gen 34:4. 4. The tidings brought to poor Jacob, Gen 34:5. As soon as his children grew up they began to be a grief to him. Let not godly parents, that are lamenting the miscarriages of their children, think their case singular or unprecedented. The good man held his peace, as one astonished, that knows not what to say: or he said nothing, for fear of saying amiss, as David (Psa 39:1, Psa 39:2); he smothered his resentments, lest, if he had suffered them to break out, they should have transported him into any decencies. Or, it should seem, he had left the management of his affairs very much (too much I doubt) to his sons, and he would do nothing without them: or, at least, he knew they would make him uneasy if he did, they having shown themselves, of late, upon all occasions, bold, forward, and assuming. Note, Things never go well when the authority of a parent runs low in a family. Let every man bear rule in his own house, and have his children in subjection with all gravity.</p>

<p>Joseph&#039;s mistress, having tried in vain to make him a criminal, now endeavours to represent him as one; so to be revenged on him for his virtue. Now was her love turned into the utmost rage and malice, and she pretends she cannot endure the sight of him whom awhile ago she could not endure out of her sight. Chaste and holy love will continue, though slighted; but sinful love, like Amnon&#039;s to Tamar, is easily changed into sinful hatred. 1. She accused him to his fellow servants (Gen 39:13-15) and gave him a bad name among them. Probably they envied him his interest in their master&#039;s favour, and his authority in the house; and perhaps found themselves aggrieved sometimes by his fidelity, which prevented their purloining; and therefore they were glad to hear any thing that might tend to his disgrace, and, if there was room for it, incensed their mistress yet more against him. Observe, When she speaks of her husband, she does not call him her husband, or her lord, but only he; for she had forgotten the covenant of her God, that was between them. Thus the adulteress (Pro 7:19) calls her husband the good man. Note, Innocence itself cannot secure a man&#039;s reputation. Not every one that keeps a good conscience can keep a good name. 2. She accused him to his master, who had power in his hand to punish him, which his fellow servants had not, Gen 39:17, Gen 39:18. Observe, (1.) What an improbable story she tells, producing his garment as an evidence that he had offered violence to her, which was a plain indication that she had offered violence to him. Note, Those that have broken the bonds of modesty will never be held by the bonds of truth. No marvel that she who had impudence enough to say, Lie with me, had front enough to say, &quot;He would have lien with me.&quot; Had the lie been told to conceal her own crime it would have been bad enough, yet, in some degree, excusable; but it was told to be revenged upon his virtue, a most malicious lie. And yet, (2.) She manages it so as to incense her husband against him, reflecting upon him for bringing this Hebrew servant among them, perhaps at first against her mind, because he was a Hebrew. Note, It is no new thing for the best of men to be falsely accused of the worst of crimes by those who themselves are the worst of criminals. As this matter was represented, one would have thought chaste Joseph a very bad man and his wanton mistress a virtuous woman; it is well that there is a day of discovery coming, in which all shall appear in their true characters. This was not the first time that Joseph&#039;s coat was made use of as a false witness concerning him; his father had been deceived by it before, now his master.</p>

<p>These laws relate to the seventh commandment, laying a restraint by laying a penalty upon those fleshly lusts which war against the soul.
I. If a man, lusting after another woman, to get rid of his wife slander her and falsely accuse her, as not having the virginity she pretended to when he married her, upon the disproof of his slander he must be punished, Deu 22:13-19. What the meaning of that evidence is by which the husband&#039;s accusation was to be proved false the learned are not agreed, nor is it at all necessary to enquire - those for whom this law was intended, no doubt, understood it: it is sufficient for us to know that this wicked husband, who had thus endeavoured to ruin the reputation of his own wife, was to be scourged, and fined, and bound out from ever divorcing the wife he had thus abused, Deu 22:18, Deu 22:19. Upon his dislike of her he might have divorced her if he had pleased, by the permission of the law (Deu 24:1), but then he must have given her her dowry: if therefore to save that, and to do her the greater mischief, he would thus destroy her good name, it was fit that he should be severely punished for it, and for ever after forfeit the permission to divorce her. Observe, 1. The nearer any are in relation to us the greater sin it is to belie them and blemish their reputation. It is spoken of as a crime of the highest nature to slander thy own mother&#039;s son (Psa 50:20), who is next to thyself, much more to slander thy own wife, or thy own husband, that is thyself: it is an ill bird indeed that defiles its own nest. 2. Chastity is honour as well as virtue, and that which gives occasion for the suspicion of it is as great a reproach and disgrace as any whatsoever: in this matter therefore, above any thing, we should be highly tender both of our own good name and that of others. 3. Parents must look upon themselves as concerned to vindicate the reputation of their children, for it is a branch of their own.
II. If the woman that was married as a virgin was not found to be one she was to be stoned to death at her father&#039;s door, Deu 22:20, Deu 22:21. If the uncleanness had been committed before she was betrothed it would not have been punished as a capital crime; but she must die for the abuse she put upon him whom she married, being conscious to herself of being defiled, while she made him believe her to be a chaste and modest woman. But some think that her uncleanness was punished with death only in case it was committed after she was betrothed, supposing there were few come to maturity but what were betrothed, though not yet married. Now, 1. This gave a powerful caution to young women to flee fornication, since, however concealed before, so as not to mar their marriage, it would very likely be discovered afterwards, to their perpetual infamy and utter ruin. 2. It is intimated to parents that they must by all means possible preserve their children&#039;s chastity, by giving them good advice and admonition, setting them good examples, keeping them from bad company, praying for them, and laying them under needful restraints, because, if the children committed lewdness, the parents must have the grief and shame of the execution at their own door. That phrase of folly wrought in Israel was used concerning this very crime in the case of Dinah, Gen 34:7. All sin is folly, uncleanness especially; but, above all, uncleanness in Israel, by profession a holy people.
III. If any man, single or married, lay with a married woman, they were both to be put to death, Deu 22:22. This law we had before, Lev 20:10. For a married man to lie with a single woman was not a crime of so high a nature, nor was it punished with death, because not introducing a spurious brood into families under the character of legitimate children.
IV. If a damsel were betrothed and not married, she was from under the eye of her intended husband, and therefore she and her chastity were taken under the special protection of the law. 1. If her chastity were violated by her own consent, she was to be put to death, and her adulterer with her, Deu 22:23, Deu 22:24. And it shall be presumed that she consented if it were done in the city, or in any place where, had she cried out, help might speedily have come in to prevent the injury offered her. Qui tacet, consentire videtur - Silence implies consent. Note, It may be presumed that those willingly yield to a temptation (whatever they pretend) who will not use the means and helps they might be furnished with to avoid and overcome it. Nay, her being found in the city, a place of company and diversion, when she should have kept under the protection of her father&#039;s house, was an evidence against her that she had not that dread of the sin and the danger of it which became a modest woman. Note, Those that needlessly expose themselves to temptation justly suffer for the same, if, ere they are aware, they be surprised and caught by it. Dinah lost her honour to gratify her curiosity with a sight of the daughters of the land. By this law the Virgin Mary was in danger of being made a public example, that is, of being stoned to death, but that God, by an angel, cleared the matter to Joseph. 2. If she were forced, and never consented, he that committed the rape was to be put to death, but the damsel was to be acquitted, Deu 22:24-27. Now if it were done in the field, out of the hearing of neighbours, it shall be presumed that she cried out, but there was none to save her; and, besides, her going into the field, a place of solitude, did not so much expose her. Now by this law it is intimated to us, (1.) That we shall suffer only for the wickedness we do, not for that which is done to us. That is no sin which has not more or less of the will in it. (2.) That we must presume the best concerning all persons, unless the contrary do appear; not only charity, but equity teaches us to do so. Though none heard her cry, yet, because none could hear it if she did, it shall be taken for granted that she did. This rule we should go by in judging of persons and actions: believe all things, and hope all things. (3.) That our chastity should be as dear to us as our life when that is assaulted, it is not at all improper to cry murder, murder, for, as when a man riseth against his neighbour and slayeth him, even so is this matter. (4.) By way of allusion to this, see what we are to do when Satan sets upon us with his temptations: wherever we are, let us cry aloud to heaven for help (Succurre, Domine, vim patior - Help me, O Lord, for I suffer violence), and there we may be sure to be heard, and answered, as Paul was, My grace is sufficient for thee.
V. If a damsel not betrothed were thus abused by violence, he that abused her should be fined, the father should have the fine, and, if he and the damsel did consent, he should be bound to marry her, and never to divorce her, how much soever she was below him, and how unpleasing soever she might afterwards be to him, as Tamar was to Amnon after he had forced her, Deu 22:28, Deu 22:29. This was to deter men from such vicious practices, which it is a shame that we are necessitated to read and write of.
VI. The law against a man&#039;s marrying his father&#039;s widow, or having any undue familiarity with his father&#039;s wife, is here repeated (Deu 22:30) from Lev 18:8. And, probably, it is intended (as bishop Patrick notes) for a short memorandum to them carefully to observe all the laws there made against incestuous marriages, that being specified which is the most detestable of all; it is that of which the apostle says, It is not so much as named among the Gentiles, Co1 5:1.</p>

<p>Here is, I. The struggle that David had with the house of Saul before his settlement in the throne was completed, Sa2 3:1. 1. Both sides contested. Saul&#039;s house, though beheaded and diminished, would not fall tamely. It is not strange between them, but one would wonder it should be a long war, when David&#039;s house had right on its side, and therefore God on its side; but, though truth and equity will triumph at last, God made for wise and holy ends prolonged the conflict. The length of this war tried the faith and patience of David, and made his establishment at last the more welcome to him. 2. David&#039;s side got ground. The house of Saul waxed weaker and weaker, lost places, lost men, sunk in its reputation, grew less considerable, and was foiled in every engagement. But the house of David grew stronger and stronger. Many deserted the declining cause of Saul&#039;s house, and prudently came into David&#039;s interest, being convinced that he would certainly win the day. The contest between grace and corruption in the hearts of believers, who are sanctified but in part, may fitly be compared to this recorded here. There is a long war between them, the flesh lusted against the spirit and the spirit against the flesh; but, as the work of sanctification is carried on, corruption, like the house of Saul, grows weaker and weaker; while grace, like the house of David, grows stronger and stronger, till it come to a perfect man, and judgment be brought forth unto victory.
II. The increase of his own house. Here is an account of six sons he had by six several wives, in the seven years he reigned in Hebron. Perhaps this is here mentioned as that which strengthened David&#039;s interest. Every child, whose welfare was embarked in the common safety, was a fresh security given to the commonwealth for his care of it. He that has his quiver filled with these arrows shall speak with his enemy in the gate, Psa 127:5. As the death of Saul&#039;s sons weakened his interest, so the birth of David&#039;s strengthened his. 1. It was David&#039;s fault thus to multiply wives, contrary to the law (Deu 17:17), and it was a bad example to his successors. 2. It does not appear that in these seven years he had above one son by each of these wives; some have had as numerous a progeny, and with much more honour and comfort, by one wife. 3. We read not that any of these sons came to be famous (three of them were infamous, Amnon, Absalom, and Adonijah); we have therefore reason to rejoice with trembling in the building up of our families. 4. His son by Abigail is called Chileab (Sa2 3:3), whereas (Ch1 3:1) he is called Daniel. Bishop Patrick mentions the reason which the Hebrew doctors give for these names, that his first name was Daniel - God has judged me (namely, against Nabal), but David&#039;s enemies reproached him, and said, &quot;It is Nabal&#039;s son, and not David&#039;s,&quot; to confute which calumny Providence so ordered it that, as he grew up, he became, in his countenance and features, extremely like David, and resembled him more than any of his children, upon which he gave him the name of Chileab, which signifies, like his father, or the father&#039;s picture. 5. Absalom&#039;s mother is said to be the daughter of Talmai king of Geshur, a heathen prince. Perhaps David thereby hoped to strengthen his interest, but the issue of the marriage was one that proved his grief and shame. 6. The last is called David&#039;s wife, which therefore, some think, was Michal, his first and most rightful wife, called here by another name; and, though she had no child after she mocked David, she might have had before.
Thus was David&#039;s house strengthened; but it was Abner that made himself strong for the house of Saul, which is mentioned (Sa2 3:6) to show that, if he failed them, they would fall of course.</p>

<p>We have here an account of the murder of Abner by Joab, and David&#039;s deep resentment of it.
I. Joab very insolently fell foul upon David for treating with Abner. He happened to be abroad upon service when Abner was with David, pursuing a troop, either of Philistines or of Saul&#039;s party; but, upon his return, he was informed that Abner was just gone (Sa2 3:22, Sa2 3:23), and that a great many kind things had passed between David and him. He had all the reason in the world to be satisfied of David&#039;s prudence and to acquiesce in the measures he took, knowing him to be a wise and good man himself and under a divine conduct in all his affairs; and yet, as if he had the same sway in David&#039;s cause that Abner had in Ish-bosheth&#039;s, he chides David, and reproaches him to his face as impolitic (Sa2 3:24, Sa2 3:25): What hast thou done? As if David were accountable to him for what he did: &quot;Why hast thou sent him away, when thou mightest have made him a prisoner? He came as a spy, and will certainly betray thee.&quot; I know not whether to wonder more that Joab had impudence enough to give such an affront to his prince or that David had patience enough to take it. He does, in effect, call David a fool when he tells him he knew Abner came to deceive him and yet he trusted him. We find no answer that David gave him, not because he feared him, as Ish-bosheth did Abner (Sa2 3:11), but because he despised him, or because Joab had not so much good manners as to stay for an answer.
II. He very treacherously sent for Abner back, and, under colour of a private conference with him, barbarously killed him with his own hand. That he made use of David&#039;s name, under pretence of giving him some further instructions, is intimated in that, but David knew it not, Sa2 3:26. Abner, designing no harm, feared none, but very innocently returned to Hebron, and, when he found Joab waiting for him at the gate, turned aside with him to speak with him privately, forgetting what he himself had said when he slew Asahel, How shall I hold up my face to Joab thy brother? (Sa2 2:22), and there Joab murdered him (Sa2 3:27), and it is intimated (Sa2 3:30) that Abishai was privy to the design, and was aiding and abetting, and would have come in to his brother&#039;s assistance if there had been occasion; he is therefore charged as an accessary: Joab and Abishai slew Abner, though perhaps he only knew it who is privy to the thoughts and intents of men&#039;s hearts. Now in this, 1. It is certain that the Lord was righteous. Abner had maliciously, and against the convictions of his conscience, opposed David. He had now basely deserted Ish-bosheth, and betrayed him, under pretence of regard to God and Israel, but really from a principle of pride, and revenge, and impatience of control. God will not therefore use so bad a man, though David might, in so good a work as the uniting of Israel. Judgments are prepared for such scorners as Abner was. But, 2. It is as certain that Joab was unrighteous, and, in what he did, did wickedly. David was a man after God&#039;s own heart, but could not have those about him, no, not in places of the greatest trust, after his own heart. Many a good prince, and a good master, has been forced to employ bad men. (1.) Even the pretence for doing this was very unjust. Abner had indeed slain his brother Asahel, and Joab and Abishai pretended herein to be the avengers of his blood (Sa2 3:27, Sa2 3:30); but Abner slew Asahel in an open war, wherein Abner indeed had given the challenge, but Joab himself had accepted it and had slain many of Abner&#039;s friends. He did it likewise in his own defence, and not till he had given him fair warning (which he would not take), and he did it with reluctancy; but Joab here shed the blood of war in peace, Kg1 2:5. (2.) That which we have reason to think was at the bottom of Joab&#039;s enmity to Abner made it much worse. Joab was now general of David&#039;s forces; but, if Abner should come into his interest, he would possibly be preferred before him, being a senior officer, and more experienced in the art of war. This Joab was jealous of, and could better bear the guilt of blood than the thoughts of a rival. (3.) He did it treacherously, and under pretence of speaking peaceably to him, Deu 27:24. Had he challenged him, he would have done like a soldier; but to assassinate him was done villainously and like a coward. His words were softer than oil, yet were they drawn swords, Psa 55:21. Thus he basely slew Amasa, Sa2 20:9, Sa2 20:10. (4.) The doing of it was a great affront and injury to David, who was now in treaty with Abner, as Joab knew. Abner was now actually in his master&#039;s service, so that, through his side, he struck at David himself. (5.) It was a great aggravation of the murder that he did it in the gate, openly and avowedly, as one that was not ashamed, nor could blush. The gate was the place of judgment and the place of concourse, to that he did it in defiance of justice, both the just sentence of the magistrates and the just resentment of the crowd, as one that neither feared God nor regarded men, but thought himself above all control: and Hebron was a Levites&#039; city and a city of refuge.
III. David laid deeply to heart and in many ways expressed his detestation of this execrable villany.
1. He washed his hands from the guilt of Abner&#039;s blood. Lest any should suspect that Joab had some secret intimation from David to do as he did (and the rather because he went so long unpunished), he here solemnly appeals to God concerning his innocency: I and my kingdom are guiltless (and my kingdom is so because I am so) before the Lord for ever, Sa2 3:28. It is a comfort to be able to say, when any bad thing is done, that we had no hand in it. We have not shed this blood, Deu 21:7. However we may be censured or suspected, our hearts shall not reproach us.
2. He entailed the curse for it upon Joab and his family (Sa2 3:29): &quot;Let it rest on the head of Joab. Let the blood cry against him, and let divine vengeance follow him. Let the iniquity be visited upon his children and children&#039;s children, in some hereditary disease or other. The longer the punishment is delayed, the longer let it last when it shall come. Let his posterity be stigmatized, blemished with an issue or a leprosy, which will shut them out from society; let them be beggars, or cripples, or come to some untimely end, that it may be said, He is one of Joab&#039;s race.&quot; This intimates that the guilt of blood brings a curse upon families; if men do not avenge it, God will, and will lay up the iniquity for the children. But methinks a resolute punishment of the murderer himself would better have become David than this passionate imprecation of God&#039;s judgments upon his posterity.
3. He called upon all about him, even Joab himself, to lament the death of Abner (Sa2 3:31): Rend your clothes and mourn before Abner, that is, before the hearse of Abner, as Abraham is said to mourn before his dead (Gen 23:2, Gen 23:3), and he gives a reason why they should attend his funeral with sincere and solemn mourning (Sa2 3:38), because there is a prince and a great man fallen this day in Israel. His alliance to Saul, his place as general, his interest, and the great services he had formerly done, were enough to denominate him a prince and a great man. When he could not call him a saint or a good man, he said nothing of that, but what was true he gave him the praise of, though he had been his enemy, that he was a prince and a great man. &quot;Such a man has fallen in Israel, and fallen this day, just when he was doing the best deed he ever did in his life, this day, when he was likely to be so serviceable to the public peace and welfare and could so ill be spared.&quot; (1.) Let them all lament it. The humbling change death puts all men under is to be lamented, especially as affecting princes and great men. Alas! alas! (see Rev 18:10) how mean, how little, are those made by death who made themselves the terror of the mighty in the land of the living! But we are especially obliged to lament the fall of useful men in the midst of their usefulness and when there is most need of them. A public loss must be every man&#039;s grief, for every man shares in it. Thus David took care that honour should be done to the memory of a man of merit, to animate others. (2.) Let Joab, in a particular manner, lament it, which he has less heart but more reason to do than any of them. If he could be brought to do it sincerely, it would be an expression of repentance for his sin in slaying him. If he did it in show only, as it is likely he did, yet it was a sort of penance imposed upon him, and a present commutation of the punishment. If he do not as yet expiate the murder with his blood, let him do something towards it with tears. This, perhaps, Joab submitted to with no great reluctancy, now he had gained his point. Now that he is on the bier, no matter in what pomp he lies. Sit divus, modo non sit vivus - Let him be canonized, so that he be but killed.
4. David himself followed the corpse as chief mourner, and made a funeral oration at the grave. He attended the bier (Sa2 3:31) and wept at the grave, Sa2 3:32. Though Abner had been his enemy, and might possibly have proved no very firm friend, yet because he had been a man of bravery in the field, and might have done great service in the public counsels at this critical juncture, all former quarrels are forgotten and David is a true mourner for his fall. What he said over the grave fetched fresh floods of tears from the eyes of all that were present, when they thought they had already paid the debt in full (Sa2 3:33, Sa2 3:34): Died Abner as a fool dieth? (1.) He speaks as one vexed that Abner was fooled out of his life, that so great a man as he, so famed for conduct and courage, should be imposed upon by a colour of friendship, slain by surprise, and so die as a fool dies. The wisest and stoutest of men have no fence against treachery. To see Abner, who thought himself the main hinge on which the great affairs of Israel turned, so considerable as himself to be able to turn the scale of a trembling government, his head full of great projects and great prospects, to see him made a fool of by a base rival, and falling on a sudden a sacrifice to his ambition and jealousy - this stains the pride of all glory, and should put one out of conceit with worldly grandeur. Put not your trust in princes, Psa 146:3, Psa 146:4. And let us therefore make that sure which we cannot be fooled out of. A man may have his life, and all that is dear to him, taken from him, and not be able to prevent it with all his wisdom, care, and integrity; but there is that which no thief can break through to steal. See here how much more we are beholden to God&#039;s providence than to our own prudence for the continuance of our lives and comforts. Were it not for the hold God has of the consciences of bad men, how soon would the weak and innocent become an easy prey to the strong and merciless and the wisest die as fools! Or, (2.) He speaks as one boasting that Abner did not fool himself out of his life: &quot;Died Abner as a fool dies? No, he did not, not as a criminal, a traitor or felon, that forfeits his life into the hands of public justice; his hands were not pinioned, nor his feet fettered, as those of malefactors are: Abner falls not before just men, by a judicial sentence; but as a man, an innocent man, falleth before wicked men, thieves and robbers, so fellest thou.&quot; Died Abner as Nabal died? so the Septuagint reads it. Nabal died as he lived, like himself, like a sot; but Abner&#039;s fate was such as might have been the fate of the wisest and best man in the world. Abner did not throw away his life as Asahel did, who wilfully ran upon the spear, after fair warning, but he was struck by surprise. Note, It is a sad thing to die like a fool, as those do that in any way shorten their own days, and much more those that make no provision for another world.
5. He fasted all that day, and would by no means be persuaded to eat any thing till night, Sa2 3:35. It was then the custom of great mourners to refrain for the time from bodily refreshments, as Sa2 1:12; Sa1 31:13. How incongruous is it then to turn the house of mourning into a house of feasting! This respect which David paid to Abner was very pleasing to the people and satisfied them that he was not, in the least, accessory to the murder (Sa2 3:36, Sa2 3:37), of which he was solicitous to avoid the suspicion, lest Joab&#039;s villany should make him odious, as that of Simeon and Levi did Jacob, Gen 34:30. On this occasion it is said, Whatever the king did pleased all the people. This intimates, (1.) His good affection to them. He studied to please them in every thing and carefully avoided what might be disobliging. (2.) Their good opinion of him. They thought every thing he did well done. Such a mutual willingness to please, and easiness to be pleased, will make every relation comfortable.
6. He bewailed it that he could not with safety do justice on the murderers, Sa2 3:30. He was weak, his kingdom was newly planted, and a little shake would overthrow it. Joab&#039;s family had a great interest, were bold and daring, and to make them his enemies now might be of bad consequence. These sons of Zeruiah were too hard for him, too big for the law to take hold of; and therefore, though by man, by the magistrate, the blood of a murderer should be shed (Gen 9:6), David bears the sword in vain, and contents himself, as a private person, to leave them to the judgment of God: The Lord shall reward the doer of evil according to his wickedness. Now this is a diminution, (1.) To David&#039;s greatness. He is anointed king, and yet is kept in awe by his own subjects, and some of them are too hard for him. Who would be fond of power when a man may have the name of it, and must be accountable for it, and yet be hampered in the use of it? (2.) To David&#039;s goodness. He ought to have done his duty, and trusted God with the issue. Fiat justitia, ruat coelum - Let justice be done, though the heavens should fall asunder. If the law had had its course against Joab, perhaps the murder of Ishbosheth, Amnon, and others, would have been prevented. It was carnal policy and cruel pity that spared Joab. Righteousness supports the throne and will never shake it. Yet it was only a reprieve that David gave to Joab; on his death-bed he left it to Solomon (who could the better wield the sword of justice because he had no occasion to draw the sword of war) to avenge the blood of Abner. Evil pursues sinners, and will overtake them at last. David preferred Abner&#039;s son Jaasiel, Ch1 27:21.</p>

<p>When David&#039;s project of fathering the child upon Uriah himself failed, so that, in process of time, Uriah would certainly know the wrong that had been done him, to prevent the fruits of his revenge, the devil put it into David&#039;s heart to take him off, and then neither he nor Bath-sheba would be in any danger (what prosecution could there be when there was no prosecutor?), suggesting further that, when Uriah was out of the way, Bath-sheba might, if he pleased, be his own for ever. Adulteries have often occasioned murders, and one wickedness must be covered and secured with another. The beginnings of sin are therefore to be dreaded; for who knows where they will end? It is resolved in David&#039;s breast (which one would think could never possibly have harboured so vile a thought) that Uriah must die. That innocent, valiant, gallant man, who was ready to die for his prince&#039;s honour, must die by his prince&#039;s hand. David has sinned, and Bath-sheba has sinned, and both against him, and therefore he must die; David determines he must. Is this the man whose heart smote him because he had cut off Saul&#039;s skirt? Quantum mutatus ab illo! - But ah, how changed! Is this he that executed judgment and justice to all his people? How can he now do so unjust a thing? See how fleshly lusts war against the soul, and what devastations they make in that war; how they blink the eyes, harden the heart, sear the conscience, and deprive men of all sense of honour and justice. Whoso committeth adultery with a woman lacketh understanding and quite loses it; he that doth it destroys his own soul, Pro 6:32. But, as the eye of the adulterer, so the hand of the murderer seeks concealment, Job 24:14, Job 24:15. Works of darkness hate the light. When David bravely slew Goliath it was done publicly, and he gloried in it; but, when he basely slew Uriah, it must be done clandestinely, for he is ashamed of it, and well he may. Who would do a thing that he dare not own? The devil, having as a poisonous serpent, put it into David&#039;s heart to murder Uriah, as a subtle serpent he puts it into his head how to do it. Not as Absalom slew Amnon, by commanding his servants to assassinate him, nor as Ahab slew Naboth by suborning witnesses to accuse him, but by exposing him to the enemy, a way of doing it which, perhaps, would not seem so odious to conscience and the world, because soldiers expose themselves of course. If Uriah had not been in that dangerous post, another must; he has (as we say) a chance for his life; if he fight stoutly, he may perhaps come off; and, if he die, it is in the field of honour, where a soldier would choose to die; and yet all this will not save it from being a wilful murder, of malice prepense.
I. Orders are sent to Joab to set Uriah in the front of the hottest battle, and then to desert him, and abandon him to the enemy, Sa2 11:14, Sa2 11:15. This was David&#039;s project to take off Uriah, and it succeeded, as he designed. Many were the aggravations of this murder. 1. It was deliberate. He took time to consider of it; and though he had time to consider of it, for he wrote a letter about it, and though he had time to have countermanded the order afterwards before it could be put in execution, yet he persisted in it. 2. He sent the letter by Uriah himself, than which nothing could be more base and barbarous, to make him accessory to his own death. And what a paradox was it that he could bear such a malice against him in whom yet he could repose such a confidence as that he would carry letters which he must not know the purport of. 3. Advantage must be taken of Uriah&#039;s own courage and zeal for his king and country, which deserve the greatest praise and recompence, to betray him the more easily to his fate. If he had not been forward to expose himself, perhaps he was a man of such importance that Joab could not have exposed him; and that this noble fire should be designedly turned upon himself was a most detestable instance of ingratitude. 4. Many must be involved in the guilt. Joab, the general, to whom the blood of his soldiers, especially the worthies, ought to be precious, must do it; he, and all that retire from Uriah when they ought in conscience to support and second him, become guilty of his death. 5. Uriah cannot thus die alone: the party he commands is in danger of being cut off with him; and it proved so: some of the people, even the servants of David (so they are called, to aggravate David&#039;s sin in being so prodigal of their lives), fell with him, Sa2 11:17. Nay, this wilful misconduct by which Uriah must be betrayed might be of fatal consequence to the whole army, and might oblige them to raise the siege. 6. It will be the triumph and joy of the Ammonites, the sworn enemies of God and Israel; it will gratify them exceedingly. David prayed for himself, that he might not fall into the hands of man, nor flee from his enemies (Sa2 24:13, Sa2 24:14); yet he sells his servant Uriah to the Ammonites, and not for any iniquity in his hand.
II. Joab executes these orders. In the next assault that is made upon the city Uriah has the most dangerous post assigned him, is encouraged to hope that if he be repulsed by the besieged he shall be relieved by Joab, in dependence on which he marches on with resolution, but, succours not coming on, the service proves too hot, and he is slain in it, Sa2 11:16, Sa2 11:17. It was strange that Joab would do such a thing merely upon a letter, without knowing the reason. But, 1. Perhaps he supposed Uriah had been guilty of some great crime, to enquire into which David had sent for him, and that, because he would not punish him openly, he took this course with him to put him to death. 2. Joab had been guilty of blood, and we may suppose it pleased him very well to see David himself falling into the same guilt, and he was willing enough to serve him in it, that he might continue to be favourable to him. It is common for those who have done ill themselves to desire to be countenanced therein by others doing ill likewise, especially by the sins of those that are eminent in the profession of religion. Or, perhaps, David knew that Joab had a pique against Uriah, and would gladly be avenged on him; otherwise Joab, when he saw cause, knew how to dispute the king&#039;s orders, as Sa2 19:5; Sa2 24:3.
III. He sends an account of it to David. An express is despatched away immediately with a report of this last disgrace and loss which they had sustained, Sa2 11:18. And, to disguise the affair, 1. He supposes that David would appear to be angry at his bad conduct, would ask why they came so near the wall (Sa2 11:20), did they not know that Abimelech lost his life by doing do? Sa2 11:21. We had the story (Jdg 9:53), which book, it is likely, was published as a part of the sacred history in Samuel&#039;s time; and (be it noted to their praise, and for imitation) even the soldiers were conversant with their bibles, and could readily quote the scripture-story, and make use of it for admonition to themselves not to run upon the same attempts which they found had been fatal. 2. He slyly orders the messenger to soothe it with telling him that Uriah the Hittite was dead also, which gave too broad an intimation to the messenger, and by him to others, that David would be secretly pleased to hear that; for murder will out. And, when men do such base things, they must expect to be bantered and upbraided with them, even by their inferiors. The messenger delivered his message agreeably to orders, Sa2 11:22-24. He makes the besieged to sally out first upon the besiegers (they came out unto us into the field), represents the besiegers as doing their part with great bravery (we were upon them even to the entering of the gate - we forced them to retire into the city with precipitation), and so concludes with a slight mention of the slaughter made among them by some shot from the wall: Some of the king&#039;s servants are dead, and particularly Uriah the Hittite, an officer of note, stood first in the list of the slain.
IV. David receives the account with a secret satisfaction, Sa2 11:25. Let not Joab be displeased, for David is not. He blames not his conduct, nor thinks they did wrong in approaching so near the wall; all is well now that Uriah is put out of the way. This point being gained, he can make light of the loss, and turn it off easily with an excuse: The sword devours one as well as another; it was a chance of war, nothing more common. He orders Joab to make the battle more strong next time, while he, by his sin, was weakening it, and provoking God to blast the undertaking.
V. He marries the widow in a little time. She submitted to the ceremony of mourning for her husband as short a time as custom would admit (Sa2 11:26), and then David took her to his house as his wife, and she bore him a son. Uriah&#039;s revenge was prevented by his death, but the birth of the child so soon after the marriage published the crime. Sin will have shame. Yet that was not the worst of it: The thing that David had done displeased the Lord. The whole matter of Uriah (as it is called, Kg1 15:5), the adultery, falsehood, murder, and this marriage at last, it was all displeasing to the Lord. He had pleased himself, but displeased God. Note, God sees and hates sin in his own people. Nay, the nearer any are to God in profession the more displeasing to him their sins are; for in them there is more ingratitude, treachery, and reproach, than in the sins of others. Let none therefore encourage themselves in sin by the example of David; for those that sin as he did will fall under the displeasure of God as he did. Let us therefore stand in awe and sin not, not sin after the similitude of his transgression.</p>

<p>It seems to have been a great while after David had been guilty of adultery with Bath-sheba before he was brought to repentance for it. For, when Nathan was sent to him, the child was born (Sa2 12:14), so that it was about nine months that David lay under the guilt of that sin, and, for aught that appears, unrepented of. What shall we think of David&#039;s state all this while? Can we imagine that his heart never smote him for it, or that he never lamented it in secret before God? I would willingly hope that he did, and that Nathan was sent to him, immediately upon the birth of the child, when the thing by that means came to be publicly known and talked of, to draw from him an open confession of the sin, to the glory of God, the admonition of others, and that he might receive, by Nathan, absolution with certain limitations. But, during these nine months, we may well suppose his comforts and the exercises of his graces suspended, and his communion with God interrupted; during all that time, it is certain, he penned no psalms, his harp was out of tune, and his soul like a tree in winter, that has life in the root only. Therefore, after Nathan had been with him, he prays, Restore unto me the joy of thy salvation, and open thou my lips, Psa 51:12, Psa 51:15. Let us observe,
I. The messenger God sent to him. We were told by the last words of the foregoing chapter that the thing David had done displeased the Lord, upon which, one would think, it should have followed that the Lord sent enemies to invade him, terrors to take hold on him, and the messengers of death to arrest him. No, he sent a prophet to him - Nathan, his faithful friend and confidant, to instruct and counsel him, Sa2 12:1. David did not send for Nathan (though he had never had so much occasion as he had now for his confessor), but God sent Nathan to David. Note, Though God may suffer his people to fall into sin, he will not suffer them to lie still in it. He went on frowardly in the way of his heart, and if left to himself, would have wandered endlessly, but (saith God) I have seen his ways, and will heal him, Isa 57:17, Isa 57:18. He sends after us before we seek after him, else we should certainly be lost. Nathan was the prophet by whom God had sent him notice of his kind intentions towards him (Sa2 7:4), and now, by the same hand, he sends him this message of wrath. God&#039;s word in the mouth of his ministers must be received, whether it speak terror or comfort. Nathan was obedient to the heavenly vision, and went on God&#039;s errand to David. He did not say, &quot;David has sinned, I will not come near him.&quot; No; count him not an enemy, but admonish him as a brother, Th2 3:15. He did not say, &quot;David is a king, I dare not reprove him.&quot; No; if God sends him, he sets his face like a flint, Isa 50:7.
II. The message Nathan delivered to him, in order to his conviction.
1. He fetched a compass with a parable, which seemed to David as a complaint made to him by Nathan against one of his subjects that had wronged his poor neighbour, in order to his redressing the injury and punishing the injurious. Nathan, it is likely, used to come to him upon such errands, which made this the less suspected. It becomes those who have interest in princes, and have free access to them, to intercede for those that are wronged, that they may have justice done them. (1.) Nathan represented to David a grievous injury which a rich man had done to an honest neighbour that was not able to contend with him: The rich man had many flocks and herds (Sa2 12:2); the poor man had one lamb only; so unequally is the world divided; and yet infinite wisdom, righteousness, and goodness, make the distribution, that the rich may learn charity and the poor contentment. This poor man had but one lamb, a ewe-lamb, a little ewe-lamb, having not wherewithal to buy or keep more. But it was a cade-lamb (as we call it); it grew up with his children, Sa2 12:3. He was fond of it, and it was familiar with him at all times. The rich man, having occasion for a lamb to entertain a friend with, took the poor man&#039;s lamb from him by violence and made use of that (Sa2 12:4), either out of covetousness, because he grudged to make use of his own, or rather out of luxury, because he fancied the lamb that was thus tenderly kept, and ate and drank like a child, must needs be more delicate food than any of his own and have a better relish. (2.) In this he showed him the evil of the sin he had been guilty of in defiling Bath-sheba. He had many wives and concubines, whom he kept at a distance, as rich men keep their flocks in their fields. Had he had but one, and had she been dear to him, as the ewe-lamb was to its owner, had she been dear to him as the loving hind and the pleasant roe, her breasts would have satisfied him at all times, and he would have looked no further, Pro 5:19. Marriage is a remedy against fornication, but marrying many is not; for, when once the law of unity is transgressed, the indulged lust will hardly stint itself. Uriah, like the poor man, had only one wife, who was to him as his own soul, and always lay in his bosom, for he had no other, he desired no other, to lie there. The traveller or wayfaring man was, as bishop Patrick explains it from the Jewish writers, the evil imagination, disposition, or desire, which came into David&#039;s heart, which he might have satisfied with some of his own, yet nothing would serve but Uriah&#039;s darling. They observe that this evil disposition is called a traveller, for in the beginning it is only so, but, in time, it becomes a guest, and, in conclusion, is master of the house. For he that is called a traveller in the beginning of the verse is called a man (ish - a husband) in the close of it. Yet some observe that in David&#039;s breast lust was but as a wayfaring man that tarries only for a night; it did not constantly dwell and rule there. (3.) By this parable he drew from David a sentence against himself. For David supposing it to be a case in fact, and not doubting the truth of it when he had it from Nathan himself, gave judgment immediately against the offender, and confirmed it with an oath, Sa2 12:5, Sa2 12:6. [1.] That, for his injustice in taking away the lamb, he should restore four-fold, according to the law (Exo 22:1), four sheep for a sheep. [2.] That for his tyranny and cruelty, and the pleasure he took in abusing a poor man, he should be put to death. If a poor man steal from a rich man, to satisfy his soul when he is hungry, he shall make restitution, though it cost him all the substance of his house, Pro 6:30, Pro 6:31 (and Solomon there compares the sin of adultery with that, Pro 6:32); but if a rich man steal for stealing sake, not for want but wantonness, merely that he may be imperious and vexatious, he deserves to die for it, for to him the making of restitution is no punishment, or next to none. If the sentence be thought too severe, it must be imputed to the present roughness of David&#039;s temper, being under guilt, and not having himself as yet received mercy.
2. He closed in with him, at length, in the application of the parable. In beginning with a parable he showed his prudence, and great need there is of prudence in giving reproofs. It is well managed if, as here, the offender can be brought ere he is aware, to convict and condemn himself. But here, in his application, he shows his faithfulness, and deals as plainly and roundly with king David himself as if he had been a common person. In plain terms, &quot;Thou art the man who hast done this wrong, and a much greater, to thy neighbour; and therefore, by thy own sentence, thou deservest to die, and shalt be judged out of thy own mouth. Did he deserve to die who took his neighbour&#039;s lamb? and dost not thou who hast taken thy neighbour&#039;s wife? Though he took the lamb, he did not cause the owner thereof to lose his life, as thou hast done, and therefore much more art thou worthy to die.&quot; Now he speaks immediately from God, and in his name. He begins with, Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, a name sacred and venerable to David, and which commanded his attention. Nathan now speaks, not as a petitioner for a poor man, but as an ambassador from the great God, with whom is no respect of persons.
(1.) God, by Nathan, reminds David of the great things he had done and designed for him, anointing him to be king, and preserving him to the kingdom (Pro 6:7), giving him power over the house and household of his predecessor, and of others that had been his masters, Nabal for one. He had given him the house of Israel and Judah. The wealth of the kingdom was at his service and every body was willing to oblige him. Nay, he was ready to bestow any thing upon him to make him easy: I would have given thee such and such things, Pro 6:8. See how liberal God is in his gifts; we are not straitened in him. Where he has given much, yet he gives more. And God&#039;s bounty to us is a great aggravation of our discontent and desire of forbidden fruit. It is ungrateful to covet what God has prohibited, while we have liberty to pray for what God has promised, and that is enough.
(2.) He charges him with a high contempt of the divine authority, in the sins he had been guilty of: Wherefore hast thou (presuming upon thy royal dignity and power) despised the commandment of the Lord? Pro 6:9. This is the spring and this is the malignity of sin, that it is making light of the divine law and the law-maker; as if the obligation of it were weak, the precepts of it trifling, and the threats not at all formidable. Though no man ever wrote more honourably of the law of God than David did, yet, in this instance, he is justly charged with a contempt of it. His adultery with Bath-sheba, which began the mischief, is not mentioned, perhaps because he was already convinced of that, but, [1.] The murder of Uriah is twice mentioned: &quot;Thou hast killed Uriah with the sword, though not with thy sword, yet, which is equally heinous, with thy pen, by ordering him to be set in the forefront of the battle.&quot; Those that contrive wickedness and command it are as truly guilty of it as those that execute it. It is repeated with an aggravation: Thou hast slain him with the sword of the children of Ammon, those uncircumcised enemies of God and Israel. [2.] The marrying of Bath-sheba is likewise twice mentioned, because he thought there was no harm in that (Pro 6:9): Thou hast taken his wife to be thy wife, and again, Pro 6:10. To marry her whom he had before defiled, and whose husband he had slain, was an affront upon the ordinance of marriage, making that not only to palliate, but in a manner to consecrate, such villanies. In all this he despised the word of the Lord (so it is in the Hebrew), not only his commandment in general which forbade such things, but the particular word of promise which God had, by Nathan, sent to him some time before, that he would build him a house. If he had had a due value and veneration for this sacred promise, he would not thus have polluted his house with lust and blood.
(3.) He threatens an entail of judgements upon his family for this sin (Pro 6:10): &quot;The sword shall never depart from thy house, not in thy time nor afterwards, but, for the most part, thou and thy posterity shall be engaged in war.&quot; Or it points at the slaughters that should be among his children, Amnon, Absalom, and Adonijah, all falling by the sword. God had promised that his mercy should not depart from him and his house (Pro 7:15), yet here threatens that the sword should not depart. Can the mercy and the sword consist with each other? Yes, those may lie under great and long afflictions who yet shall not be excluded from the grace of the covenant. The reason given is, Because thou hast despised me. Note, Those who despise the word and law of God despise God himself and shall be lightly esteemed. It is particularly threatened, [1.] That his children should be his grief: I will raise up evil against thee out of thy own house. Sin brings trouble into a family, and one sin is often made the punishment of another. [2.] That his wives should be his shame, that by an unparalleled piece of villany they should be publicly debauched before all Israel, Pro 6:11, Pro 6:12. It is not said that this should be done by his own son, lest the accomplishment should have been hindered by the prediction being too plain; but it was done by Absalom, at the counsel of Ahithophel, Pro 16:21, Pro 16:22. He that defiled his neighbour&#039;s wife should have his own defiled, for thus that sin used to be punished, as appears by Job&#039;s imprecation, Job 31:10, Then let my wife grind unto another, and that threatening, Hos 4:14. The sin was secret, and industriously concealed, but the punishment should be open, and industriously proclaimed, to the shame of David, whose sin in the matter of Uriah, though committed many years before, would then be called to mind and commonly talked of upon that occasion. As face answers to face in a glass, so does the punishment often answer to the sin; here is blood for blood and uncleanness for uncleanness. And thus God would show how much he hates sin, even in his own people, and that, wherever he find it, he will not let it go unpunished.
3. David&#039;s penitent confession of his sin hereupon. He says not a word to excuse himself or extenuate his sin, but freely owns it: I have sinned against the Lord, Sa2 12:13. It is probable that he said more to this purport; but this is enough to show that he was truly humbled by what Nathan said, and submitted to the conviction. He owns his guilt - I have sinned, and aggravates it - It was against the Lord: on this string he harps in the psalm he penned on this occasion. Psa 51:1, Against thee, thee only, have I sinned.
4. His pardon declared, upon this penitent confession, but with a proviso. When David said I have sinned, and Nathan perceived that he was a true penitent,
(1.) He did, in God&#039;s name, assure him that his sin was forgiven: &quot;The Lord also has put away thy sin out of the sight of his avenging eye; thou shalt not die,&quot; that is, &quot;not die eternally, nor be for ever put away from God, as thou wouldest have been if he had not put away the sin.&quot; The obligation to punishment is hereby cancelled and vacated. He shall not come into condemnation: that is the nature of forgiveness. &quot;Thy iniquity shall not be thy everlasting ruin. The sword shall not depart from thy house, but, [1.] It shall not cut thee off, thou shalt come to thy grave in peace.&quot; David deserved to die as an adulterer and murderer, but God would not cut him off as he might justly have done. [2.] &quot;Though thou shalt all thy days be chastened of the Lord, yet thou shalt not be condemned with the world.&quot; See how ready God is to forgive sin. To this instance, perhaps, David refers, Psa 32:5, I said, I will confess, and thou forgavest. Let not great sinners despair of finding mercy with God if they truly repent; for who is a God like unto him, pardoning iniquity?
(2.) Yet he pronounces a sentence of death upon the child, Sa2 12:14. Behold the sovereignty of God! The guilty parent lives, and the guiltless infant dies; but all souls are his, and he may, in what way he pleases, glorify himself in his creatures. [1.] David had, by his sin, wronged God in his honour; he had given occasion to the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme. The wicked people of that generation, the infidels, idolaters, and profane, would triumph in David&#039;s fall, and speak ill of God and of his law, when they saw one guilty of such foul enormities that professed such an honour both for him and it. &quot;These are your professors! This is he that prays and sings psalms, and is so very devout! What good can there be in such exercises, if they will not restrain men from adultery and murder?&quot; They would say, &quot;Was not Saul rejected for a less matter? why then must David live and reign still?&quot; not considering that God sees not as man sees, but searches the heart. To this day there are those who reproach God, and are hardened in sin, through the example of David. Now, though it is true that none have any just reason to speak ill of God, or of his word and ways, for David&#039;s sake, and it is their sin that do so, yet he shall be reckoned with that laid the stumbling-block in their way, and gave, though not cause, yet colour, for the reproach. Note, There is this great evil in the scandalous sins of those that profess religion, and relation to God, that they furnish the enemies of God and religion with matter for reproach and blasphemy, Rom 2:24. [2.] God will therefore vindicate his honour by showing his displeasure against David for this sin, and letting the world see that though he loves David he hates his sin; and he chooses to do it by the death of the child. The landlord may distrain on any part of the premises where he pleases. Perhaps the diseases and deaths of infants were not so common in those days as they are now, which might make this, as an unusual thing, the more evident token of God&#039;s displeasure; according to the word he had often said, that he would visit the sins of the fathers upon the children.</p>

<p>We have here a particular account of the abominable wickedness of Amnon in ravishing his sister, a subject not fit to be enlarged upon nor indeed to be mentioned without blushing, that ever any man should be so vile, especially that a son of David should be so. Amnon&#039;s character, we have reason to think, was bad in other things; if he had not forsaken God, he would never have been given up to these vile affections. Godly parents have often been afflicted with wicked children; grace does not run in the blood, but corruption does. We do not find that David&#039;s children imitated him in his devotion; but his false steps they trod in, and in those did much worse, and repented not. Parents know not how fatal the consequences may be if in any instance they give their children bad examples. Observe the steps of Amnon&#039;s sin.
I. The devil, as an unclean spirit, put it into his heart to lust after his sister Tamar. Beauty is a snare to many; it was so to her. She was fair, and therefore Amnon coveted her, Sa2 13:1. Those that are peculiarly handsome have no reason, on that account, to be proud, but great reason to stand upon their watch. Amnon&#039;s lust was, 1. Unnatural in itself, to lust after his sister, which even natural conscience startles at and cannot think of without horror. Such a spirit of contradiction there is in man&#039;s corrupt nature that still it desires forbidden fruit, and the more strongly it is forbidden the more greedily it is desired. Can he entertain the thought of betraying that virtue and honour of which, as a brother, he ought to have been the protector? But what wickedness so vile as not to find admittance into an unsanctified unguarded heart, left to itself? 2. It was very uneasy to him. He was so vexed that he could not gain an opportunity to solicit her chastity (for innocent converse with her was not denied him) that he fell sick, Sa2 13:2. Fleshly lusts are their own punishment, and not only war against the soul, but against the body too, and are the rottenness of the bones. See what a hard master sinners serve, and how heavy his yoke is.
II. The devil, as a subtle serpent, put it into his head how to compass this wicked design. Amnon had a friend (so he called him, but he was really an enemy to him), a kinsman, that had in him more of David&#039;s blood (for he was his nephew) than of David&#039;s spirit, for he was a subtle man, cunning to carry on any bad design, especially an intrigue of this nature, Sa2 13:3.
1. He took notice that Amnon looked ill, and, being a subtle man, concluded that he was love-sick (Sa2 13:4), and asks him, &quot;Why art thou, being the king&#039;s son, lean from day to day? Why dost thou pine, being the king&#039;s eldest son, and heir to the crown. Being the king&#039;s son,&quot; (1.) &quot;Thou hast the pleasures of the court to divert thee; take those pleasures then, and with them drive away the sorrow, whatever it is.&quot; Content and comfort are not always to be found in royal palaces. With much more reason may we ask dejected and disconsolate saints why they, who are the children of the King of kings and heirs of the crown of life, are thus lean from day to day. (2.) &quot;Thou hast the power of a prince to command what thou wantest and wishest for; use that power therefore, and gratify thyself. Pine not away for that which, lawful or unlawful, thou, being the king&#039;s son, mayest have. Quicquid libet licet - Your will is law.&quot; Thus Jezebel to Ahab in a like case (Kg1 21:7), Dost not thou govern Israel? The abuse of power is the most dangerous temptation of the great.
2. Amnon having the impudence to own his wicked lust, miscalling it love (I love Tamar), Jonadab put him in a way to compass his design, Sa2 13:5. Had he been what he pretended (Amnon&#039;s friend), he would have startled at the mention of such horrid wickedness, would have laid before him the evil of it, what an offence it was to God and what a wrong to his own soul to entertain such a vile thought, of what fatal consequence it would be to him to cherish and prosecute it; he would have used his subtlety to divert Amnon from it, by recommending some other person to him, whom he might lawfully marry. But he seems not at all surprised at it, objects not either the unlawfulness or the difficulty, the reproach or so much as his father&#039;s displeasure, but puts him in the way to get Tamar to his bed-side, and then he might do as he pleased. Note, The case of those is very miserable whose friends, instead of admonishing and reproving them, flatter them and forward them in their sinful ways, and are their counsellors and contrivers to do wickedly. Amnon is already sick, but goes about; he must take upon him to be so ill (and his thin looks will give colour enough to the pretence) as not to be able to get up, and to have no appetite to any thing but just that which pleases his fancy. Dainty meat is abhorred, Job 33:20. The best dish from the king&#039;s table cannot please him; but, if he can eat any thing, it must be from his sister Tamar&#039;s fair hand. This is what he is advised to.
3. Amnon followed these directions, and thus got Tamar within his reach: He made himself sick, Sa2 13:6. Thus he lieth in wait secretly, as a lion in his den, to catch the poor, and to draw them into his net, Psa 10:8-10. David was always fond of his children, and concerned if any thing ailed them; he no sooner hears that Amnon is sick than he comes himself to visit him. Let parents learn hence to be tender of their children and compassionate towards them. The sick child commonly the mother comforteth (Isa 66:13), but let not the father be unconcerned. We may suppose that when David came to see his sick son he gave him good counsel to make a right use of his affliction, and prayed with him, which yet did not alter his wicked purpose. At parting, the indulgent father asks, &quot;Is there any thing thou hast a mind to, that I can procure for thee?&quot; &quot;Yes, Sir,&quot; says the dissembling son, &quot;my stomach is weak, and I know not of any thing I can eat, unless it be a cake of my sister Tamar&#039;s making, and I cannot be satisfied that it is so unless I see her make it, and it will do me the more good if I eat it at her hand.&quot; David saw no reason to suspect any mischief intended. God hid his heart from understanding in this matter. He therefore immediately orders Tamar to go and attend her sick brother, Sa2 13:7. He does it very innocently, but afterwards, no doubt, reflected upon it with great regret. Tamar as innocently goes to her brother&#039;s chamber, neither dreading any abuse (why should she from a brother, a sick brother?) nor disdaining, in obedience to her father and love to her brother (though but her half-brother), to be his nurse, Sa2 13:8, Sa2 13:9. Though she was a king&#039;s daughter, a great beauty (Sa2 13:1), and well dressed (Sa2 13:18), yet she did not think it below her to knead cakes and bake them, nor would she have done this now if she had not been used to it. Good house-wifery is not a thing below the greatest ladies, nor ought they to think it a disparagement to them. The virtuous woman, whose husband sits among the elders, yet works willingly with her hands, Pro 31:13. Modern ages have not been destitute of such instances, nor is it so unfashionable as some would make it. Preparing for the sick should be more the care and delight of the ladies than preparing for the nice, charity more than curiosity.
4. Having got her to him, he contrives to have her alone; for the adulterer (much more so vile an adulterer as this) is in care that no eye see him, Job 24:15. The meat is ready, but he cannot eat while he is looked at by those about him; they must all be turned out, Sa2 13:9. The sick must be humoured, and think they have a privilege to command. Tamar is willing to humour him; her chaste and virtuous soul has not the least thought of that which his polluted breast is full of; and therefore she makes no scruple of being alone with him in the inner chamber, Sa2 13:10. And now the mask is thrown off, the meat is thrown by, and the wicked wretch calls her sister, and yet impudently courts her to come and lie with him, Sa2 13:11. It was a base affront to her virtue to think it possible to persuade her to consent to such wickedness when he knew her behaviour to be always exemplarily modest and virtuous. But it is common for those that live in uncleanness to think others such as themselves, at least tinder to their sparks.
III. The devil, as a strong tempter, deafens his ear to all the reasonings with which she resisted his assaults and would have persuaded him to desist. We may well imagine what a surprise and terror it was to the young lady to be thus attacked, how she blushed and how she trembled; yet, in this great confusion, nothing could be said more pertinently, nor with greater strength of argument, than what she said to him. 1. She calls him brother, reminding him of the nearness of the relation, which made it unlawful for him to marry her, much more to debauch her. It was expressly forbidden (Lev 18:9) under a severe penalty, Lev 20:17. Great care must be taken lest the love that should be among relations degenerate into lust. 2. She entreats him not to force her, which intimates that she would never consent to it in any degree; and what satisfaction could he take in offering violence? 3. She lays before him the great wickedness of it. It is folly; all sin is so, especially uncleanness. It is wickedness of the worst kind. Such abominations ought not to be committed in Israel, among the professing people of God, that have better statutes than the heathen have. We are Israelites; if we do such things, we are more inexcusable than others, and our condemnation will be more intolerable, for we reproach the Lord, and that worthy name by which we are called. 4. She represents to him the shame of it, which perhaps might influence him more than the sin of it: &quot;For my part, whither shall I cause my shame to go? If it should be concealed, yet I shall blush to think of it as long as I live; and, if ever it be known, how shall I be able to look any of my friends in the face? For thy part, thou shalt be as one of the fools in Israel,&quot; that is, &quot;Thou wilt be looked upon as an atrocious debauchee, the worst of men; thou wilt lose thy interest in the esteem of all that are wise and good, and so wilt be set aside as unfit to rule, though the first-born; for Israel will never submit to the government of such a fool.&quot; Prospect of shame, especially everlasting shame, should deter us from sin. 5. To divert him from his wicked purpose at this time, and (if possible) to get clear of him, she intimates to him that probably the king, rather than he should die for love of her, would dispense with the divine law and let him marry her: not as if she thought he had such a dispensing power, or would pretend to it; but she was confident that, upon notice given to the king by himself of this wicked desire, which he would scarcely have believed from any one else, he would take an effectual course to protect her from him. But all her arts and all her arguments availed not. His proud spirit cannot bear a denial; but her comfort, and honour, and all that was dear to her, must be sacrificed to his brutish and outrageous lust, Sa2 13:14. It is to be feared that Amnon, though young, had long lived a lewd life, which his father either knew not or punished not; for a man could not, of a sudden, arrive at such a pitch of wickedness as this. But is this his love to Tamar? Is this the recompence he gives her for her readiness to attend him in his sickness? Will he deal with his sister as with a harlot? Base villain! God deliver all that are modest and virtuous from such wicked and unreasonable men.
IV. The devil, as a tormentor and betrayer, immediately turns his love of her into hatred (Sa2 13:15): He hated her with great hatred, greatly, so it is in the margin, and grew as outrageous in his malice as he had been in his lust.
1. He basely turned her out of doors by force; nay, as if he now disdained to touch her with his own hands, he ordered his servant to pull her out and bolt the door after her, Sa2 13:17. Now, (1.) The innocent injured lady had reason to resent this as a great affront, and in some respects (as she says, Sa2 13:16) worse than the former; for nothing could have been done more barbarous and ill-natured, or more disgraceful to her. Had he taken care to conceal what was done, her honour would have been lost to herself only. Had he gone down on his knees and begged her pardon, it might have been some little reparation. Had he given her time to compose herself after the horrid confusion she was put into, she might have kept her countenance when she went out, and so have kept her counsel. But to dismiss her thus hurried, thus rudely, as if she had done some wicked thing, obliged her, in her own defence, to proclaim the wrong that had been done her. (2.) We may learn from it both the malignity of sin (unbridled passions are as bad as unbridled appetites) and the mischievous consequences of sin (at last, it bites like a serpent); for here we find, [1.] That sins, sweet in the commission, afterwards become odious and painful, and the sinner&#039;s own conscience makes them so to himself. Amnon hated Tamar because she would not consent to his wickedness, and so take part of the blame upon herself, but to the last resisted it, and reasoned against it, and so threw all the blame upon him. Had he hated the sin, and loathed himself for it, we might have hoped he was penitent. Godly sorrow worketh indignation, Co2 7:11. But to hate the person he had abused showed that his conscience was terrified, but his heart not at all humbled. See what deceitful pleasures those of the flesh are, how soon they pass away, and turn into loathing; see Eze 23:17. [2.] That sins, secret in the commission, afterwards become open and public, and the sinners themselves often make them so. Their own tongues fall upon them. The Jewish doctors say that, upon the occasion of this wickedness of Amnon, a law was made that a young man and a young woman should never be alone together; for, said they, if the king&#039;s daughter be so used, what will become of the children of private men?
2. We must now leave the criminal to the terrors of his own guilty conscience, and enquire what becomes of the poor victim. (1.) She bitterly lamented the injury she had received, as it was a stain to her honour, though no real blemish to her virtue. She tore her fine clothes in token of her grief, and put ashes upon her head, to deform herself, loathing her own beauty and ornaments, because they had occasioned Amnon&#039;s unlawful love; and she went on crying for another&#039;s sin, Sa2 13:19. (2.) She retired to her brother Absalom&#039;s house, because he was her own brother, and there she lived in solitude and sorrow, in token of her modesty and detestation of uncleanness. Absalom spoke kindly to her, bade her pass by the injury for the present, designing himself to revenge it, Sa2 13:20. It should seem by Absalom&#039;s question (Has Amnon been with thee?) that Amnon was notorious for such lewd practices, so that it was dangerous for a modest woman to be with him; this Absalom might know, and yet Tamar be wholly ignorant of it.</p>

<p>for she was a virgin--Unmarried daughters were kept in close seclusion from the company of men; no strangers, nor even their relatives of the other sex, being permitted to see them without the presence of witnesses. Of course, Amnon must have seen Tamar, for he had conceived a violent passion for her, which, though forbidden by the law (Lev 18:11), yet with the sanction of Abraham&#039;s example (Gen 20:12), and the common practice in neighboring countries for princes to marry their half sisters, he seems not to have considered an improper connection. But he had no means of making it known to her, and the pain of that disappointment preying upon his mind produced a visible change in his appearance and health.</p>

<p>HE DEFILES HER. (2Sa. 13:6-27)

Amnon lay down, and made himself sick--The Orientals are great adepts in feigning sickness, whenever they have any object to accomplish.

let Tamar my sister come and make me a couple of cakes--To the king Amnon spoke of Tamar as &quot;his sister,&quot; a term artfully designed to hoodwink his father; and the request appeared so natural, the delicate appetite of a sick man requiring to be humored, that the king promised to send her. The cakes seem to have been a kind of fancy bread, in the preparation of which Oriental ladies take great delight. Tamar, flattered by the invitation, lost no time in rendering the required service in the house of her sick brother.</p>

<p>do not force me--The remonstrances and arguments of Tamar were so affecting and so strong, that had not Amnon been violently goaded on by the lustful passion of which he had become the slave, they must have prevailed with him to desist from his infamous purpose. In bidding him, however, &quot;speak to the king, for he will not withhold me from thee,&quot; it is probable that she urged this as her last resource, saying anything she thought would please him, in order to escape for the present out of his hands.</p>

<p>Then Amnon hated her exceedingly--It is not unusual for persons instigated by violent and irregular passions to go from one extreme to another. In Amnon&#039;s case the sudden revulsion is easily accounted for; the atrocity of his conduct, with all the feelings of shame, remorse, and dread of exposure and punishment, now burst upon his mind, rendering the presence of Tamar intolerably painful to him.</p>

<p>Tamar put ashes on her head, and rent her garment of divers colours . . . laid her hand on her head, and went on crying--that is, sobbing. Oriental manners would probably see nothing beyond a strong sense of the injury she had sustained, if Tamar actually rent her garments. But, as her veil is not mentioned, it is probable that Amnon had turned her out of doors without it, and she raised her hand with the design to conceal her face. By these signs, especially the rending of her distinguishing robe, Absalom at once conjectured what had taken place. Recommending her to be silent about it and not publish her own and her family&#039;s dishonor, he gave no inkling of his angry feelings to Amnon. But all the while he was in secret &quot;nursing his wrath to keep it warm,&quot; and only &quot;biding his time&quot; to avenge his sister&#039;s wrongs, and by the removal of the heir-apparent perhaps further also his ambitious designs.</p>

<p>What Solomon says of the beginning of strife is as true of the beginning of all sin, it is as the letting forth of water; when once the flood-gates are plucked up, an inundation follows; one mischief begets another, and it is hard to say what shall be in the end thereof.
I. We are here told how David resented the tidings of Amnon&#039;s sin: He was very wroth, Sa2 13:21. So he had reason to be, that his own son should do such a wicked thing and draw him to be accessory to it. It would be a reproach to him for not giving him a better education; it would be a blot upon his family, the ruin of his daughter, a bad example to his kingdom, and a wrong to his son&#039;s soul. But was it enough for him to be angry? He ought to have punished his son for it, and have put him to open shame; both as a father and as a king he had power to do it. But the Septuagint here adds these words: But he saddened not the spirit of his son Amnon, because he loved him, because he was his first-born. He fell into Eli&#039;s error, whose sons made themselves vile, and he frowned not on them. If Amnon was dear to him, his punishing him would have been so much the greater punishment to himself for his own uncleanness. But he cannot bear the shame those must submit to who correct that in others which they are conscious of in themselves, and therefore his anger must serve instead of his justice; and this hardens sinners, Ecc 8:11.
II. How Absalom resented it. He resolves already to do the part of a judge in Israel; and, since his father will not punish Amnon, he will, from a principle, not of justice or zeal for virtue, but of revenge, because he reckons himself affronted in the abuse done to his sister. Their mother was daughter to a heathen prince (Sa2 3:3), which perhaps they were upbraided with sometimes by their brethren, as children of a stranger. As such a one Absalom thought his sister was now treated; and, if Amnon thought her fit to be made his harlot, he would think him fit to be made his slave. This enraged him, and nothing less than the blood of Amnon will quench his rage. Here we have,
1. The design conceived: Absalom hated Amnon (Sa2 13:22), and he that hateth his brother is a murderer already, and, like Cain, is of that wicked one, Jo1 3:12, Jo1 3:15. Absalom&#039;s hatred of his brother&#039;s crime would have been commendable, and he might justly have prosecuted him for it by a due course of law, for example to others, and the making of some compensation to his injured sister; but to hate his person, and design his death by assassination, was to put a great affront upon God, by offering to repair the breach of his seventh commandment by the violation of his sixth, as if they were not all alike sacred. But he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill, Jam 2:11.
2. The design concealed. He said nothing to Amnon of this matter, either good or bad, appeared as if he did not know it, and maintained towards him his usual civility, only waiting for a fair opportunity to do him a mischief. That malice is the worst, (1.) Which is hidden closely, and has no vent given to it. If Absalom had reasoned the matter with Amnon, he might have convinced him of his sin and brought him to repentance; but, saying nothing, Amnon&#039;s heart was hardened, and his own more and more embittered against him; therefore rebuking our neighbour is opposed to hating him in our hearts, Lev 19:17. Let passion have vent and it will spend itself. (2.) Which is gilded over with a show of friendship; so Absalom&#039;s was, his words smoother than butter but war in his heart. See Pro 26:26. (3.) Which is harboured long. Two full years Absalom nursed this root of bitterness, Sa2 13:24. It may be, at first, he did not intend to kill his brother (for, if he had, he might have had as fair an opportunity to do it as he had at last), and only waited for an occasion to disgrace him or do him some other mischief; but in time his hatred ripened to this, that he would be no less than the death of him. If the sun going down once upon the wrath gives such place to the devil (as is intimated, Eph 4:26, Eph 4:27), what would the sunsets of two full years do?
3. The design laid. (1.) Absalom has a feast at his house in the country, as Nabal had, on occasion of his sheep-shearing, Sa2 13:23. Attentive as Absalom was to his person (Sa2 14:26), and as high as he looked, he knew the state of his flocks and looked well to his herds. Those who have no other care about their estates in the country than how to spend them in the town take a ready way to see the end of them. When Absalom had sheep-shearers he would himself be with them. (2.) To this feast he invites the king his father, and all the princes of the blood (Sa2 13:24), not only that he might have this opportunity to pay his respects to them, but that he might make himself the more respected among his neighbours. Those that are akin to great folks are apt to value themselves too much on their kindred. (3.) The king would not go himself, because he would not put him to the expense of his entertainment, Sa2 13:25. It seems Absalom had an estate in his own hands, on which he lived like himself; the king had given it to him, but would have him to be a good husband of it: in both these he is an example to parents, when their children have grown up, to give them a competency to live upon, according to their rank, and then to take care that they do not live above it, especially that they be no way accessory to their doing so. It is prudent for young house-keepers to begin as they can hold out, and not to spend the wool upon the shearing of it. (4.) Absalom got leave for Amnon, and all the rest of the king&#039;s sons, to come and grace his table in the country, Sa2 13:26, Sa2 13:27. Absalom had so effectually concealed his enmity to Amnon that David saw no reason to suspect any design upon him in that particular invitation: &quot;Let my brother Amnon go;&quot; but this would make the stroke more cutting to David that he was himself drawn in to consent to that which gave the opportunity for it, as before, Sa2 13:7. It seems, David&#039;s sons, though grown up, continued to pay such a deference to their father as not to go such a small journey as this without leave. Thus ought children, even when they have become men and women, to honour their parents, consult them, and do nothing material without their consent, much less against their mind.
4. The design executed, Sa2 13:28, Sa2 13:29. (1.) Absalom&#039;s entertainment was very plentiful; for he resolves that they shall all be merry with wine, at least concludes that Amnon will be so, for he knew that he was apt to drink to excess. But, (2.) The orders he gave to his servants concerning Amnon, that they should mingle his blood with his wine, were very barbarous. Had he challenged him, and, in reliance upon the goodness of his cause and the justice of God, fought him himself, though that would have been bad enough, yet it would have been more honourable and excusable (our ancient law, in some cases, allowed trial by battle); but to murder him, as he did, was to copy Cain&#039;s example, only that the reason made a difference: Abel was slain for his righteousness, Amnon for his wickedness. Observe the aggravations of this sin: - [1.] He would have Amnon slain when his heart was merry with wine, and he was consequently least apprehensive of danger, least able to resist it, and also least fit to go out of the world; as if his malice aimed to destroy both soul and body, not giving him time to say, Lord, have mercy upon me. What a dreadful surprise hath death been to many, whose hearts have been overcharged with surfeiting and drunkenness! [2.] His servants must be employed to do it, and so involved in the guilt. He was to give the word of command - Smite Amnon; and then they, in obedience to him, and, upon presumption that his authority would bear them out, must kill him. What an impious defiance does he bid to the divine law, when, though the command of God is express, Thou shalt not kill, he bids them kill Amnon, with this warrant, &quot;Have not I commanded you? That is enough. Be courageous, and fear neither God nor man.&quot; Those servants are ill taught who obey their masters in contradiction to God, and those are wicked masters who have taught them to do so. Those are too obsequious that will damn their souls to please their masters, whose big words cannot secure them from God&#039;s wrath. Masters must always command their servants as those that know they also have a Master in heaven. [3.] He did it in the presence of all the king&#039;s sons, of whom it is said (Sa2 8:18) that they were chief rulers; so that it was an affront to public justice which they had the administration of, and to the king his father whom they represented, and a contempt of that sword which should have been a terror to his evil deeds, while his evil deeds, on the contrary, were a terror to those that bore it. [4.] There is reason to suspect that Absalom did this, not only to revenge his sister&#039;s quarrel, but to make way for himself to the throne, which he was ambitious of, and which he would stand fair for if Amnon the eldest son was taken off. When the word of command was given Absalom&#039;s servants failed not to execute it, being buoyed up with an opinion that their master, being now next heir to the crown (for Chileab was dead, as bishop Patrick thinks), would save them from harm. Now the threatened sword is drawn in David&#039;s house which should not depart from it. First, His eldest son falls by it, himself being, by his wickedness, the cause of it, and his father, by his connivance, accessory to it. Secondly, All his sons flee from it, and come home in terror, not knowing how far their brother Absalom&#039;s bloody design might extend. See what mischief sin makes in families.</p>

<p>AMNON IS SLAIN. (Sa2 13:28-36)

Absalom had commanded his servants, saying . . . when Amnon&#039;s heart is merry with wine . . . kill him, fear not--On a preconcerted signal from their master, the servants, rushing upon Amnon, slew him at the table, while the rest of the brothers, horror-struck, and apprehending a general massacre, fled in affrighted haste to Jerusalem.</p>

<p>Here is, I. The fright that David was put into by a false report brought to Jerusalem that Absalom had slain all the king&#039;s sons, Sa2 13:30. It is common for fame to make bad worse; and the first news of such a thing as this represents it as more dreadful than afterwards it proves. Let us not therefore be afraid of evil tidings, while they want confirmation, but, when we hear the worst, hope the best, at least hope better. However, this false news gave as much affliction to David, for the present, as if it had been true; he tore his garments, and lay on the earth, while as yet it was only a flying story, Sa2 13:31. It was well that David had grace; he had need enough of it, for he had strong passions.
II. The rectifying of the mistake in two ways: - 1. By the sly suggestions of Jonadab, David&#039;s nephew, who could tell him, Amnon only is dead, and not all the king&#039;s sons (Sa2 13:32, Sa2 13:33), and could tell him too that it was done by the appointment of Absalom, and designed from the day Amnon forced his sister Tamar. What a wicked man was he, if he knew all this or had any cause to suspect it, that he did not make David acquainted with it sooner, that means might be used to make up the quarrel, or at least that David might not throw Amnon into the mouth of danger by letting him go to Absalom&#039;s house. If we do not our utmost to prevent mischief, we make ourselves accessory to it. If we say, Behold, we knew it not; doth not he that pondereth the heart consider whether we did or no? See Pro 24:11, Pro 24:12. It is well if Jonadab was not as guilty of Amnon&#039;s death as he was of his sin; such friends do those prove who are hearkened to as counsellors to do wickedly: he that would not be so kind as to prevent Amnon&#039;s sin would not be so kind as to prevent his ruin, when, it should seem, he might have done both. 2. By the safe return of all the king&#039;s sons except Amnon. They and their attendants were speedily discovered by the watch (Sa2 13:34, Sa2 13:35), and soon arrived, to show themselves alive, but to bring the certain sad news that Absalom had murdered their brother Amnon. The grief David had been in for that which was not made him the better able to bear that which was, by giving him a sensible occasion, when he was undeceived, to thank God that all his sons were not dead: yet that Amnon was dead, and slain by his own brother is such a treacherous barbarous manner, was enough to put the king and court, the king and kingdom, into real mourning. Sorrow is never more reasonable than when there is sin in the case.
III. Absalom&#039;s flight from justice: Absalom immediately fled, Sa2 13:34. He was now as much afraid of the king&#039;s sons as they were of him; they fled from his malice, he from their justice. No part of the land of Israel could shelter him. The cities of refuge gave no protection to a wilful murderer. Though David had let Amnon&#039;s incest go unpunished, Absalom could not promise himself his pardon for this murder; so express was the law in this case, and so well known David&#039;s justice, and his dread of blood-guiltiness. He therefore made the best of his way to his mother&#039;s relations, and was entertained by his grandfather Talmai, king of Geshur (Sa2 13:37), and there he was protected three years (Sa2 13:38), David not demanding him, and Talmai not thinking himself obliged to send him back unless he were demanded.
IV. David&#039;s uneasiness for his absence. He mourned for Amnon a good while (Sa2 13:37), but, he being past recall, time wore off that grief: he was comforted concerning Amnon. It also wore off too much his detestation of Absalom&#039;s sin; instead of loathing him as a murderer, he longs to go forth to him, Sa2 13:39. At first he could not find in his heart to do justice on him; now he can almost find in his heart to take him into his favour again. This was David&#039;s infirmity. Something God saw in his heart that made a difference, else we should have thought that he, as much as Eli, honoured his sons more than God.</p>

<p>Here is, I. Joab&#039;s design to get Absalom recalled out of banishment, his crime pardoned, and his attainder reversed, Sa2 14:1. Joab made himself very busy in this affair. 1. As a courtier that was studious, by all ways possible, to ingratiate himself with his prince and improve his interest in his favour: He perceived that the king&#039;s heart was towards Absalom, and that, the heat of his displeasure being over, he still retained his old affection for him, and only wanted a friend to court him to be reconciled, and to contrive for him how he might do it without impeaching the honour of his justice. Joab, finding how David stood affected, undertook this good office. 2. As a friend to Absalom, for whom perhaps he had a particular kindness, whom at least he looked upon as the rising sun, to whom it was his interest to recommend himself. He plainly foresaw that his father would at length be reconciled to him, and therefore thought he should make both his friends if he were instrumental to bring it about. 3. As a statesman, and one concerned for the public welfare. He knew how much Absalom was the darling of the people, and, if David should die while he was in banishment, it might occasion a civil war between those that were for him and those that were against him; for it is probable that though all Israel loved his person, yet they were much divided upon his case. 4. As one who was himself a delinquent, by the murder of Abner. He was conscious to himself of the guilt of blood, and that he was himself obnoxious to public justice, and therefore whatever favour he could procure to be shown to Absalom would corroborate his reprieve.
II. His contrivance to do it by laying somewhat of a parallel case before the king, which was done so dexterously by the person he employed that the king took it for a real case, and gave judgment upon it, as he had done upon Nathan&#039;s parable; and, the judgment being in favour of the criminal, the manager might, by that, discover his sentiments so far as to venture upon the application of it, and to show that it was the case of his own family, which, it is probable, she was instructed not to proceed to if the king&#039;s judgment upon her case should be severe.
1. The person he employed is not named, but she is said to be a woman of Tekoah, one whom he knew to be fit for such an undertaking: and it was requisite that the scene should be laid at a distance, that David might not think it strange that he had not heard of the case before. It is said, She was a wise woman, one that had a quicker wit and a readier tongue than most of her neighbours, Sa2 14:2. The truth of the story would be the less suspected when it came, as was supposed, from the person&#039;s own mouth.
2. The character she put on was that of a disconsolate widow, Sa2 14:2. Joab knew such a one would have an easy access to the king, who was always ready to comfort the mourners, especially the mourning widows, having himself mentioned it among the titles of God&#039;s honour that he is a Judge of the widows, Psa 68:5. God&#039;s ear, no doubt, is more open to the cries of the afflicted, and his heart too, than that of the most merciful princes on earth can be.
3. It was a case of compassion which she had to represent to the king, and a case in which she could have no relief but from the chancery in the royal breast, the law (and consequently the judgment of all the inferior courts) being against her. She tells the king that she had buried her husband (Sa2 14:5), - that she had two sons that were the support and comfort of her widowed state, - that these two (as young men are apt to do) fell out and fought, and one of them unhappily killed the other (Sa2 14:6), - that, for her part, she was desirous to protect the manslayer (for, as Rebekah argued concerning her two sons, Why should she be deprived of them both in one day? Gen 27:45), but though she, who was nearest of kin to the slain, was willing to let fall the demands of an avenger of blood, yet the other relations insisted upon it that the surviving brother should be put to death according to law, not out of any affection either to justice or to the memory of the slain brother, but that, by destroying the heir (which they had the impudence to own was the thing they aimed at), the inheritance might be theirs: and thus they would cut off, (1.) Her comfort: &quot;They shall quench my coal, deprive me of the only support of my old age, and put a period to all my joy in this world, which is reduced to this one coal.&quot; (2.) Her husband&#039;s memory: &quot;His family will be quite extinct, and they will leave him neither name nor remainder,&quot; Sa2 14:7.
4. The king promised her his favour and a protection for her son. Observe how she improved the king&#039;s compassionate concessions. (1.) Upon the representation of her case he promised to consider of it and to give orders about it, Sa2 14:8. This was encouraging, that he did not dismiss her petition with &quot;Currat lex - Let the law take its course; blood calls for blood, and let it have what it calls for:&quot; but he will take time to enquire whether the allegations of her petition be true. (2.) The woman was not content with this, but begged that he would immediately give judgment in her favour; and if the matter of fact were not as she represented it, and consequently a wrong judgment given upon it, let her bear the blame, and free the king and his throne from guilt, Sa2 14:9. Yet her saying this would not acquit the king if he should pass sentence without taking due cognizance of the case. (3.) Being thus pressed, he made a further promise that she should not be injured nor insulted by her adversaries, but he would protect her from all molestation, Sa2 14:10. Magistrates ought to be the patrons of oppressed widows. (4.) Yet this does not content her, unless she can get her son&#039;s pardon, and protection for him too. Parents are not easy, unless their children be safe, safe for both worlds: &quot;Let not the avenger of blood destroy my son (Sa2 14:11), for I am undone if I lose him; as good take my life as his. Therefore let the king remember the Lord thy God,&quot; that is, [1.] &quot;Let him confirm this merciful sentence with an oath, making mention of the Lord our God, by way of appeal to him, that the sentence may be indisputable and irreversible; and then I shall be easy.&quot; See Heb 6:17, Heb 6:18. [2.] &quot;Let him consider what good reason there is for this merciful sentence, and then he himself will be confirmed in it. Remember how gracious and merciful the Lord thy God is, how he bears long with sinners and does not deal with them according to their deserts, but is ready to forgive. Remember how the Lord thy God spared Cain, who slew his brother, and protected him from the avengers of blood, Gen 4:15. Remember how the Lord thy God forgave thee the blood of Uriah, and let the king, that has found mercy, show mercy.&quot; Note, Nothing is more proper, nor more powerful, to engage us to every duty, especially to all acts of mercy and kindness, than to remember the Lord our God. (5.) This importunate widow, by pressing the matter thus closely, obtains at last a full pardon for her son, ratified with an oath as she desired: As the Lord liveth, there shall not one hair of thy son fall to the earth, that is, &quot;I will undertake he shall come to no damage upon this account.&quot; The Son of David has assured all that put themselves under his protection that, though they should be put to death for his sake, not a hair of their head shall perish (Luk 21:16-18), though they should lose for him, they shall not lose by him. Whether David did well this to undertake the protection of a murderer, whom the cities of refuge would not protect, I cannot say. But, as the matter of fact appeared to him, there was not only great reason for compassion to the mother, but room enough for a favourable judgment concerning the son: he had slain his brother, but he hated him not in time past; it was upon a sudden provocation, and, for aught that appeared, it might be done in his own defence. He pleaded not this himself, but the judge must be of counsel for the prisoner; and therefore, Let mercy at this time rejoice against judgment.
5. The case being thus adjudged in favour of her son, it is now time to apply it to the king&#039;s son, Absalom. The mask here begins to be thrown off, and another scene opened. The king is surprised, but not at all displeased, to find his humble petitioner, of a sudden, become his reprover, his privy-counsellor, an advocate for the prince his son, and the mouth of the people, undertaking to represent to him their sentiments. She begs his pardon, and his patience, for what she had further to say (Sa2 14:12), and has leave to say it, the king being very well pleased with her wit and humour. (1.) She supposes Absalom&#039;s case to be, in effect, the same with that which she had put as her son&#039;s; and therefore, if the king would protect her son, though he had slain his brother, much more ought he to protect his own, and to fetch home his banished, Sa2 14:13. Mutato nomine, de te fabula narratur - Change but the name, to you the tale belongs. She names not Absalom, nor needed she to name him. David longed so much after him, and had him so much in his thoughts, that he was soon aware whom she meant by his banished. And in those two words were two arguments which the king&#039;s tender spirit felt the force of: &quot;He is banished, and has for three years undergone the disgrace and terror, and all the inconveniences, of banishment. Sufficient to such a one is this punishment. But he is thy banished, thy own son, a piece of thyself, thy dear son, whom thou lovest.&quot; It is true, Absalom&#039;s case differed very much from that which she had put. Absalom did not slay his brother upon a hasty passion, but maliciously, and upon an old grudge; not in the field, where there were no witnesses, but at table, before all his guests. Absalom was not an only son, as hers was; David had many more, and one lately born, more likely to be his successor than Absalom, for he was called Jedidiah, because God loved him. But David was himself too well affected to the cause to be critical in his remarks upon the disparity of the cases, and was more desirous than she could be to bring that favourable judgment to his own son which he had given concerning hers. (2.) She reasons upon it with the king, to persuade him to recall Absalom out of banishment, give him his pardon, and take him into his favour again. [1.] She pleads the interest which the people of Israel had in him. &quot;What is done against him is done against the people of God, who have their eye upon him as heir of the crown, at least have their eye upon the house of David in general, with which the covenant is made, and which therefore they cannot tamely see the diminution and decay of by the fall of so many of its branches in the flower of their age. Therefore the king speaks as one that is faulty, for he will provide that my husband&#039;s name and memory be not cut off, and yet takes no care though his own be in danger, which is of more value and importance than ten thousand of ours.&quot; [2.] She pleads man&#039;s mortality (Sa2 14:14): &quot;We must needs die. Death is appointed for us; we cannot avoid the thing itself, nor defer it till another time. We are all under a fatal necessity of dying; and, when we are dead, we are past recall, as water spilt upon the ground; nay, even while we are alive, we are so, we have lost our immortality, past retrieve. Amnon must have died, some time, if Absalom had not killed him; and, if Absalom be now put to death for killing him, that will not bring him to life again.&quot; This was poor reasoning, and would serve against the punishment of any murderer: but, it should seem, Amnon was a man little regarded by the people and his death little lamented, and it was generally thought hard that so dear a life as Absalom&#039;s should go for one so little valued as Amnon&#039;s. [3.] She pleads God&#039;s mercy and his clemency towards poor guilty sinners: &quot;God does not take away the soul, or life, but devises means that his banished, his children that have offended him, and are obnoxious to his justice, as Absalom is to thine, be not for ever expelled from him,&quot; Sa2 14:14. Here are two great instances of the mercy of God to sinners, properly urged as reasons for showing mercy: - First, The patience he exercises towards them. His law is broken, yet he does not immediately take away the life of those that break it, does not strike sinners dead, as justly he might, in the act of sin, but bears with them, and waits to be gracious. God&#039;s vengeance had suffered Absalom to live; why then should not David&#039;s justice suffer him? Secondly, The provision he has made for their restoration to his favour, that though by sin they have banished themselves from him, yet they might not be expelled, or cast off, for ever. Atonement might be made for sinners by sacrifice. Lepers, and others ceremonially unclean, were banished, but provision was made for their cleansing, that, though for a time excluded, they might not be finally expelled. The state of sinners is a state of banishment from God. Poor banished sinners are likely to be for ever expelled from God if some course be not taken to prevent it. It is against the mind of God that they should be so, for he is not willing that any should perish. Infinite wisdom has devised proper means to prevent it; so that it is the sinners&#039; own fault if they be cast off. This instance of God&#039;s good-will toward us all should incline us to be merciful and compassionate one towards another, Mat 18:32, Mat 18:33.
6. She concludes her address with high compliments to the king, and strong expressions of her assurance that he would do what was just and kind both in the one case and in the other (Sa2 14:15-17); for, as if the case had been real, still she pleads for herself and her son, yet meaning Absalom. (1.) She would not have troubled the king thus but that the people made her afraid. Understanding it of her own case, all her neighbours made her apprehensive of the ruin she and her son were upon the brink of, from the avengers of blood, the terror of which made her thus bold in her application to the king himself. Understanding it of Absalom&#039;s case, she gives the king to understand, what he did not know before, that the nation was disgusted at his severity towards Absalom to such a degree that she was really afraid it would occasion a general mutiny or insurrection, for the preventing of which great mischief she ventured to speak to the king himself. The fright she was in must excuse her rudeness. (2.) She applied to him with a great confidence in his wisdom and clemency: &quot;I said, I will speak to the king myself, and ask nobody to speak for me; for the king will hear reason, even from so mean a creature as I am, will hear the cries of the oppressed, and will not suffer the poorest of his subjects to be destroyed out of the inheritance of God,&quot; that is, &quot;driven out of the land of Israel, to seek for shelter among the uncircumcised, as Absalom is, whose case is so much the worse, that, being shut out of the inheritance of God, he wants God&#039;s law and ordinances, which might help to bring him to repentance, and is in danger of being infected with the idolatry of the heathen among whom he sojourns, and of bringing home the infection.&quot; To engage the king to grant her request, she expressed a confident hope that his answer would be comfortable, and such as angels bring (as bishop Patrick explains it), who are messengers of divine mercy. What this woman says by way of compliment the prophet says by way of promise (Zac 12:8), that, when the weak shall be as David, the house of David shall be as the angel of the Lord. &quot;And, in order to this, the Lord thy God will be with thee, to assist thee in this and every judgment thou givest.&quot; Great expectations are great engagements, especially to persons of honour, to do their utmost not to disappoint those that depend upon them.
7. The hand of Joab is suspected by the king, and acknowledged by the woman, to be in all this, Sa2 14:18-20. (1.) The king soon suspected it. For he could not think that such a woman as this would appeal to him, in a matter of such moment, of her own accord; and he knew none so likely to set her on as Joab, who was a politic man and a friend of Absalom. (2.) The woman very honestly owned it: &quot;Thy servant Joab bade me. If it be well done, let him have the thanks; if ill, let him bear the blame.&quot; Though she found it very agreeable to the king, yet she would not take the praise of it to herself, but speaks the truth as it was, and gives us an example to do likewise, and never to tell a lie for the concealing of a well-managed scheme. Dare to be true; nothing can need a lie.</p>

<p>David had much affliction in his children. Amnon and Absalom had both been his grief; the one his first-born, the other his third, Sa2 3:2, Sa2 3:3. His second, whom he had by Abigail, we will suppose he had comfort in; his fourth was Adonijah (Sa2 3:4); he was one of those that were born in Hebron; we have heard nothing of him till now, and here we are told that he was a comely person, and that he was next in age, and (as it proved) next in temper to Absalom, Kg1 1:6. And, further, that in his father&#039;s eyes he had been a jewel, but was now a thorn.
I. His father had made a fondling of him, Kg1 1:6. He had not displeased him at any time. It is not said that he never displeased his father; it is probably that he had done so frequently, and his father was secretly troubled at his misconduct and lamented it before God. But his father had not displeased him, by crossing him in his humours, denying him any thing he had a mind to, or by calling him to an account as to what he had done and where he had been, or by keeping him to his book or his business, or reproving him for what he saw or heard of that he did amiss; he never said to him, Why hast thou done so? because he saw it was uneasy to him, and he could not bear it without fretting. It was the son&#039;s fault that he was displeased at reproof and took it for affront, whereby he lost the benefit of it; and it was the father&#039;s fault that, because he saw it displeased him, he did not reprove him; and now he justly smarted for indulging him. Those who honour their sons more than God, as those do who keep them not under good discipline, thereby forfeit the honour they might expect from their sons.
II. He, in return, made a fool of his father. Because he was old, and confined to his bed, he thought no notice was to be taken of him, and therefore exalted himself, and said, I will be king, Kg1 1:5. Children that are indulged learn to be proud and ambitious, which is the ruin of a great many young people. The way to keep them humble is to keep them under. Observe Adonijah&#039;s insolence. 1. He looked upon the days of mourning for his father to be at hand, and therefore he prepared to succeed him, though he knew that by the designation both of God and David Solomon was to be the man; for public notice had been given of it by David himself, and the succession settled, as it were by act of parliament, in pursuance of God&#039;s appointment, Ch1 22:9; Ch1 23:1. This entail Adonijah attempted by force to cut off, in contempt both of God and his father. Thus is the kingdom of Christ opposed, and there are those that say, &quot;We will not have him to reign over us.&quot; 2. He looked upon his father as superannuated and good for nothing, and therefore he entered immediately upon the possession of the throne. He cannot wait till his father&#039;s head be laid low, but it must now be said, Adonijah reigns (Kg1 1:18), and, God save king Adonijah, Kg1 1:25. His father is not fit to govern, for he is old and past ruling, nor Solomon, for he is young, and not yet able to rule; and therefore Adonijah will take the government upon him. It argues a very base and wicked mind for children to insult over their parents because of the infirmities of their age. 3. In pursuance of this ambitious project, (1.) He got a great retinue (Kg1 1:5), chariots and horsemen, both for state and strength, to wait on him, and to fight for him. (2.) He made great interest with no less than Joab, the general of the army, and Abiathar the high priest, Kg1 1:7. That he should make his court to those who by their influence in church and camp were capable of doing him great service is not strange; but we may well wonder by what arts they could be drawn to follow him and help him. They were old men, who had been faithful to David in the most difficult and troublesome of his times, men of sense and experience, who, one would think, would not easily be wheedled. They could not propose any advantage to themselves by supporting Adonijah, for they were both at the top of their preferment and stood fast in it. They could not be ignorant of the entail of the crown upon Solomon, which it was not in their power to cut off, and therefore it was their interest to oblige him. But God, in this matter, left them to themselves, perhaps to correct them for some former misconduct with a scourge of their own making. We are told (Kg1 1:8) who those were that were of such approved fidelity to David that Adonijah had not the confidence so much as to propose his project to them - Zadok, Benaiah, and Nathan. A man that has given proofs of his resolute adherence to that which is good shall not be asked to do a bad thing. (3.) He prepared a great entertainment (Kg1 1:9) at En-rogel, not far from Jerusalem; his guests were the king&#039;s sons, and the king&#039;s servants, whom he feasted and caressed to bring them over to his party; but Solomon was not invited, either because he despised him or because he despaired of him, Kg1 1:10. Such as serve their own belly, and will be in the interest of those that will feast them what side soever they are of, are an easy prey to seducers, Rom 16:18. Some think that Adonijah slew these sheep and oxen, even fat ones, for sacrifice, and that it was a religious feast he made, beginning his usurpation with a show of devotion, as Absalom under the colour of a vow (Sa2 15:7), which he might do the more plausibly when he had the high priest himself on his side. It is a pity that any occasion should ever be given to say, In nomine Domini incipit omne malam - In the name of the Lord begins all evil, and that all religious exercises should be made to patronise all religious practices.</p>

<p>Here is, I. The ruin of the family of Baasha foretold. He was a man likely enough to have raised and established his family - active, politic, and daring; but he was an idolater, and this brought destruction upon his family.
1. God sent him warning of it before. (1.) That, if he were thereby wrought upon to repent and reform, the ruin might be prevented; for God threatens, that he may not strike, as one that desires not the death of sinners. (2.) That, if not, it might appear that the destruction when it did come, whoever might be instruments of it, was the act of God&#039;s justice and the punishment of sin.
2. The warning was sent by Jehu the son of Hanani. The father was a seer, or prophet, at the same time (Ch2 16:7), and was sent to Asa king of Judah; but the son, who was young and more active, was sent on this longer and more dangerous expedition to Baasha king of Israel. Juniores ad labores - Toil and adventure are for the young. This Jehu was a prophet and the son of a prophet. Prophecy, thus happily entailed, was worthy of so much the more honour. This Jehu continued long in his usefulness, for we find him reproving Jehoshaphat (Ch2 19:2) above forty years after, and writing the annals of that prince, Ch2 20:34. The message which this prophet brought to Baasha is much the same with that which Ahijah sent to Jeroboam by his wife.
(1.) He reminds Baasha of the great things God had done for him (Kg1 16:2): I exalted thee out of the dust to the throne of glory, a great instance of the divine sovereignty and power, Sa1 2:8. Baasha seemed to have raised himself by his own treachery and cruelty, yet there was a hand of Providence in it, to bring about God&#039;s counsel, concerning Jeroboam&#039;s house; and God&#039;s owning his advancement as his act and deed does by no means amount to the patronising of his ambition and treachery. It is God that puts power into bad men&#039;s hands, which he makes to serve his good purposes, notwithstanding the bad use they make of it. I made thee prince over my people. God calls Israel his people still, though wretchedly corrupted, because they retained the covenant of circumcision, and there were many good people among them; it was not till long after that they were called Loammi, not a people, Hos 1:9.
(2.) He charges him with high crimes and misdemeanours, [1.] That he had caused Israel to sin, had seduced God&#039;s subjects from their allegiance and brought them to pay to dunghill-deities the homage due to him only, and herein he had walked in the way of Jeroboam (Kg1 16:2), and been like his house, Kg1 16:7. [2.] That he had himself provoked God to anger with the work of his hands, that is, by worshipping images, the work of men&#039;s hands; though perhaps others made them, yet he served them and thereby avowed the making of them, and they are therefore called the work of his hands. [3.] That he had destroyed the house of Jeroboam (Kg1 16:7), because he killed him, namely, Jeroboam&#039;s son and all his: if he had done that with an eye to God, to his will and glory, and from a holy indignation against the sins of Jeroboam and his house, he would have been accepted and applauded as a minister of God&#039;s justice; but, as he did it, he was only the tool of God&#039;s justice, but a servant to his own lusts, and is justly punished for the malice and ambition which actuated and governed him in all he did. Note, Those who are in any way employed in denouncing or executing the justice of God (magistrates or ministers) are concerned to do it from a good principle and in a holy manner, lest it turn into sin to them and they make themselves obnoxious by it.
(3.) He foretels the same destruction to come upon his family which he himself had been employed to bring upon the family of Jeroboam, Kg1 16:3, Kg1 16:4. Note, Those who resemble others in their sins may expect to resemble them in their plagues, especially those who seem zealous against such sins in others as they allow themselves in; the house of Jehu was reckoned with for the blood of the house of Ahab, Hos 1:4.
II. A reprieve granted for some time, so long that Baasha himself dies in peace, and is buried with honour in his own royal city (Kg1 16:6), so far is he from being a prey either to the dogs or to the fowls, which yet was threatened to his house, Kg1 16:4. He lives not either to see or feel the punishment threatened, yet he was himself the greatest delinquent. Certainly there must be a future state, in which impenitent sinners will suffer in their own persons, and not escape, as often they do in this world. Baasha died under no visible stroke of divine vengeance for aught that appears, but God laid up his iniquity for his children, as Job speaks, Job 21:19. Thus he often visits sin. Observe, Baasha is punished by the destruction of his children after his death, and his children are punished by the abuse of their bodies after their death; that is the only thing which the threatening specifies (Kg1 16:4), that the dogs and the fowls of the air should eat them, as if herein were designed a tacit intimation that there are punishments after death, when death has done its worst, which will be the sorest punishments and are most to be dreaded; these judgments on the body and posterity signified judgments on the soul when separated from the body, by him who, after he has killed, has power to cast into hell.
III. Execution done at last. Baasha&#039;s son Elah, like Jeroboam&#039;s son Nadab, reigned two years, and then was slain by Zimri, one of his own soldiers, as Nadab was by Baasha; so like was his house made to that of Jeroboam, as was threatened, Kg1 16:3. Because his idolatry was like his, and one of the sins for which God contended with him being the destruction of Jeroboam&#039;s family, the more the destruction of his own resembled that, the nearer did the punishment resemble the sin, as face answers to face in a glass.
1. As then, so now, the king himself was first slain, but Elah fell more ingloriously than Nadab. Nadab was slain in the field of action and honour, he and his army then besieging Gibbethon (Kg1 15:27); but the siege being then raised upon that disaster, and the city remaining still in the Philistines&#039; hands, the army of Israel was now renewing the attempt (Kg1 16:15) and Elah should have been with them to command in chief, but he loved his own ease and safety better than his honour or duty, or the public good, and therefore staid behind to take his pleasure; and, when he was drinking himself drunk in his servant&#039;s house, Zimri killed him, Kg1 16:9, Kg1 16:10. Let it be a warning to drunkards, especially to those who designedly drink themselves drunk, that they know not but death may surprise them in that condition. (1.) Death comes easily upon men when they are drunk. Besides the chronic diseases which men frequently bring themselves into by hard drinking, and which cut them off in the midst of their days, men in that condition are more easily overcome by an enemy, as Amnon by Absalom, and are liable to more bad accidents, being unable to help themselves, (2.) Death comes terribly upon men in that condition. Finding them in the act of sin, and incapacitated for any act of devotion, that day comes upon them unawares (Luk 21:34), like a thief.
2. As then, so now, the whole family was cut off, and rooted out. The traitor was the successor, to whom the unthinking people tamely submitted, as if it were all one to them what kind they had, so that they had one. The first thing Zimri did was to slay all the house of Baasha; thus he held by cruelty what he got by treason. His cruelty seems to have extended further than Baasha&#039;s did against the house of Jeroboam, for he left to Elah none of his kinsfolks or friends (Kg1 16:11), none of his avengers (so the word is), none that were likely to avenge his death; yet divine justice soon avenged it so remarkably that it was used as a proverb long after, Had Zimri peace who slew his master? Kg2 9:31. In this, (1.) The word of God was fulfilled, Kg1 16:12. (2.) The sins of Baasha and Elah were reckoned for, with which they provoked God by their vanities, Kg1 16:13. Their idols are called their vanities, for they cannot profit nor help. Miserable are those whose deities are vanities.</p>

<p>We had an account of David&#039;s sons, Sa2 3:2, etc., and Sa2 5:14, etc. 1. He had many sons; and no doubt wrote as he thought, Psa 127:5. Happy is the man that hath his quiver full of these arrows. 2. Some of them were a grief to him, as Amnon, Absalom, and Adonijah; and we do not read of any of them that imitated his piety or devotion except Solomon, and he came far short of it. 3. One of them, which Bath-sheba bore to him, he called Nathan, probably in honour of Nathan the prophet, who reproved him for his sin in that matter and was instrumental to bring him to repentance. It seems he loved him the better for it as long as he lived. It is wisdom to esteem those our best friends that deal faithfully with us. From this son of David our Lord Jesus descended, as appears Luk 3:31. 4. Here are two Elishamas, and two Eliphelets, Ch1 3:6, Ch1 3:8. Probably the two former were dead, and therefore David called two more by their names, which he would not have done if there had been any ill omen in this practice as some fancy. 5. David had many concubines; but their children are not named, as not worthy of the honour (Ch1 3:9), the rather because the concubines had dealt treacherously with David in the affair of Absalom. 6. Of all David&#039;s sons Solomon was chosen to succeed him, perhaps not for any personal merits (his wisdom was God&#039;s gift), but so, Father, because it seemed good unto thee.</p>

<p>Jerusalem stands indicted by the name of Aholibah, for that she, as a false traitor to her sovereign Lord the God of heaven, not having his fear before her eyes, but moved by the instigation of the devil, had revolted from her allegiance to him, had compassed and imagined to shake off his government, had kept up a correspondence had joined in confederacy with his enemies, and the pretenders to a deity, in contempt of his crown and dignity. To this indictment she has pleaded, Not guilty: I am not polluted; I have not gone after Baalim. But it is found against her by the notorious evidence of the fact, and she stands convicted of it, nor has any thing material to offer why judgment should not be given and execution awarded according to law. In these verses, therefore, we have the sentence.
I. Her old confederates must be her executioners; and those whom she had courted to be her leaders in sin are now to be employed as instruments of her punishment (Eze 23:22): &quot;I will raise up thy lovers against thee, the Chaldeans, whom formerly thou didst so much admire and covet an acquaintance with, but from whom thy mind is since alienated and with whom thou hast perfidiously broken covenant.&quot; They are called thy lovers (Eze 23:22) and yet (Eze 23:28) those whom thou hatest. Note, It is common for sinful love soon to turn into hatred; as Amnon&#039;s to Tamar. Those of headstrong and unreasonable passions are often very hot against those persons and things that a little before they were as hot for. Fools run into extremes; nay, and wise men may see cause to change their sentiments. And therefore, as we should rejoice and weep as if we rejoiced not and wept not, so we should love and hate as if we loved not and hated not. Ita ama tanquam osurus - Love as one who may have cause to feel aversion.
II. The execution to be done upon her is very terrible.
1. Her enemies shall come against her on every side (Eze 23:22), those of the several nations that constituted the Chaldean army (Eze 23:23), all of them great lords and renowned, whose pomp, and grandeur, and splendid appearance made them look the more amiable when they came as friends to protect and patronise Jerusalem, but the more formidable when they came to chastise its treachery and aimed at no less than its ruin. (1.) They shall come with a great deal of military force (Eze 23:24), with chariots and wagons furnished with all necessary provisions for a camp, with arms and ammunition, bag and baggage, with a vast army, and well armed. (2.) They shall have justice on their side: &quot;I will set judgment before them&quot; (they shall have right with them as well as might; for the king of Babylon had just cause to make war upon the king of Judah, because he had broken his league with him), &quot;and therefore they shall judge thee, not only according to God&#039;s judgments, as the instruments of his justice, to punish thee for the indignities done to him, but according to their judgments, according to the law of nations, to punish thee for thy perfidious dealings with them.&quot; (3.) They shall prosecute the war with a great deal of fury and resentment. It being a war of revenge, they shall deal with thee hatefully, Eze 23:29. This will make the execution the more severe that their swords will be dipped in poison. Thou hatest them, and they shall deal hatefully with thee; those that hate will be hated and will be hatefully dealt with. (4.) God himself will lead them on, and his anger shall be mingled with theirs (Eze 23:25): I will set my jealousy against thee; that shall kindle this fire, and then they shall deal furiously with thee. If men deal ever so hatefully, ever so furiously, with us, yet, if we have God on our side, we need not fear them; they can do us no real hurt. But if men deal furiously with us, and God set his jealousy against us too, what will become of us?
2. The particulars of the sentence here passed upon this notorious adulteress are, (1.) That all she has shall be seized on. The clothes and the fair jewels, with which she had endeavoured to recommend herself to her lovers, these she shall be stripped of, Eze 23:26. All those things that were the ornaments of their state shall be taken away: &quot;They shall take away all thy labour, all that thou hast gotten by thy labour, and shall leave thee naked and bare,&quot; Eze 23:29. Both city and country shall be impoverished and all the wealth of both swept away. (2.) That her children shall go into captivity. &quot;They shall take thy sons and thy daughters, and make slaves of them (Eze 23:25); for they are children of whoredoms, unworthy the dignities and privileges of Israelites,&quot; Hos 2:4. (3.) That she shall be stigmatized and deformed: &quot;They shall take away thy nose and thy ears, shall mark thee for a harlot, and render thee for ever odious,&quot; Eze 23:25. This intimates the many cruelties of the Chaldean soldiers towards the Jews that fell into their hands, whom, it is probable, they used barbarously. Some will have this to be understood figuratively; and by the nose they think is meant the kingly dignity, and by the ears that of the priesthood. (4.) That she shall be exposed to shame: Thy lewdness and thy whoredoms shall be discovered (Eze 23:29), as, when a malefactor is punished, all his crimes are ripped up, and repeated to his disgrace; what was secret then comes to light, and what was done long since is then called to mind. (5.) That she shall be quite cut off and ruined: &quot;The remnant of thy people that have escaped the famine and pestilence shall fall by the sword; and the residue of thy houses that have not been battered down about thy ears shall be devoured by the fire,&quot; Eze 23:25. And this shall be the end of Jerusalem.
III. Because she has trod in the steps of Samaria&#039;s sins, she must expect no other than Samaria&#039;s fate. It is common, in giving judgment, to have an eye to precedents; so has God in passing this sentence on Jerusalem (Eze 23:31, etc.): &quot;Thou hast walked in the way of thy sister, notwithstanding the warning thou hast had given thee, by the fatal consequences of her wickedness; and therefore I will give her cup, her portion of miseries, into thy hand, the cup of the Lord&#039;s fury, which will be to thee a cup of trembling.&quot; Now, 1. This cup is said to be deep and large, and to contain much (Eze 23:32), abundance of God&#039;s wrath and abundance of miseries, the fruits of that wrath. It is such a cup as that which we read of, Jer 25:15, Jer 25:16. The cup of divine vengeance holds a great deal, and so those will find into whose hand it shall be put. 2. They shall be made to drink the very dregs of this cup, as the wicked are said to do (Psa 75:8): &quot;Thou shalt drink it and suck it out, not because it is pleasant, but because it is forced upon thee (Eze 23:34); thou shalt break the shreds thereof, and pluck off thy own breasts, for indignation at the extreme bitterness of this cup, being full of the fury of the Lord (Isa 51:20), as men in great anguish tear their hair, and throw every thing from them. Finding there is no remedy, but it must be drank (for I have spoken it, saith the Lord God), thou shalt have no manner of patience in the drinking of it.&quot; 3. They shall be intoxicated by it, made sick, and be at their wits&#039; end, as men in drink are, staggering, and stumbling, and ready to fall (Eze 23:33): Thou shalt be filled with drunkenness and sorrow. Note, Drunkenness has sorrow attending it, to such a degree that the utmost confusion and astonishment are here represented by it. Who would think that that which is such a force upon nature, such a scandal to it, which deprives men of their reason, disorders them to the last degree, and is therefore expressive of the greatest misery, should yet be with many a beloved sin, that they should damn their own souls to distemper their own bodies? Who has woe and sorrow like them? Pro 23:29. 4. Being so intoxicated, they shall become, as drunkards deserve to be, a laughing-stock to all about them (Eze 23:32): Thou shalt be laughed to scorn and had in derision, as acting ridiculously in every thing thou goest about. When God is about to ruin a people he makes their judges fools and pours contempt on their princes, Job 12:17, Job 12:21.
IV. In all this God will be justified, and by all this they will be reformed; and so the issue even of this will be God&#039;s glory and their good. 1. They have been bad, very bad, and that justifies God in all that is brought upon them (Eze 23:30): I will do these things unto thee because thou hast gone a whoring after the heathen, and (Eze 23:35) because thou hast forgotten me and cast me behind thy back. Note, Forgetfulness of God, and a contempt of him, of his eye upon us and authority over us, are at the bottom of all our treacherous adulterous departures from him. Therefore men wander after idols, because they forget God, and their obligations to him; nor could they look with so much desire and delight upon the baits of sin if they did not first cast God behind their back, as not worthy to be regarded. And those who put such an affront upon God, how can they think but that it should turn upon themselves at last? Therefore bear thou also thy lewdness and thy whoredoms; that is, thou shalt suffer the punishment of them, and thou alone must bear the blame. Men need no more to sink them than the weight of their own sins; and those who will not part with their lewdness and their whoredoms must bear them. 2. They shall be better, much better, and this fire, though consuming to many, shall be refining to a remnant (Eze 23:27): Thus will I make thy lewdness to cease from thee. The judgments which were brought upon them by their sins parted between them and their sins, and taught them at length to say, What have we to do any more with idols? Observe, (1.) How inveterate the disease was: Thy whoredoms were brought from the land of Egypt. Their disposition to idolatry was early and innate, their practice of it was ancient, and had gained a sort of prescription by long usage. (2.) How complete the cure was notwithstanding: &quot;Though it has taken root, yet it shall be made to cease, so that thou shalt not so much as lift up thy eyes to the idols again, nor remember Egypt with pleasure any more.&quot; They shall avoid the occasions of this sin, for they shall not so much as look upon an idol, lest their hearts should unawares walk after their eyes. And they shall abandon all inclinations to it: &quot;They shall not remember Egypt; they shall not retain any of that affection for idols which they had from the very infancy of their nation.&quot; They got it, through the corruption of nature, in their bondage in Egypt, and lost it, through the grace of God, in their captivity in Babylon, which this was the blessed fruit of, even the taking away of sin, of that sin; so that whereas, before the captivity, no nation (all things considered) was more impetuously bent upon idols and idolatry than they were, after that captivity no nation was more vehemently set against idols and idolatry than they were, insomuch that at this day the image-worship which is practised in the church of Rome confirms the Jews as much as any thing in their prejudices against the Christian religion.</p>