Charles Ellicott Commentary 1 Kings 2

I go the way of all the earth. — Compare to Joshua 23:14.

Keep the charge: The main charge to Solomon is noble enough. He is to show himself a man, in spite of his youth; he is to take heed in all things to follow the Law of the Lord; he is to trust both in the general promise of God to obedience, and in the special promise made to the house of David (2 Samuel 7:12–16).

It is remarkably in harmony with the beautiful Psalm, “the last words of David,” preserved in 2 Samuel 23:3–5, telling how he that ruleth over men must be just, ruling in the fear of God, and, in spite of consciousness of shortcomings from this high ideal, trusting in the everlasting covenant of God with him, ordered in all things, and sure. It is no less in harmony with the equally beautiful prayer of 1 Chronicles 29:18–19, for Solomon and for the people.

In all this David speaks in the spirit of a true servant and saint of God. But in the special charges that follow we see the worldly prudence of the old statesman, and in one case some trace of long-remembered grudge, singularly true to imperfect human nature, although utterly unworthy of an ideal picture of a hero-king.

What Joab ... did.—The charge concerning Joab has a certain righteousness in it. David could not—probably since Joab’s knowledge of his great crime, he did not dare—punish him as he deserved. There is a graphic vividness in the description of the blood of his victims, shed as the blood of war in peace, spurting over the girdle and sandals of the murderer, which shows how the horror of the crimes had dwelt on David’s imagination. The murder of Abner, treacherous as it was, probably had some show of justification in the rough justice carried out by the duty prescribed by ancient law on the “avenger of blood.” David disclaims it (2 Samuel 3:28–29; 2 Samuel 3:37–39), without actually condemning it as inexcusable.

The more recent and shameful murder of Amasa was simply one of revenge and ambition, because Amasa had been put in Joab’s place; yet David, broken in spirit, did not dare to blame it, and quietly acquiesced in the resumption by Joab of the dignity conferred on the murdered man. That these crimes should be punished by a king whose hands were clean, and who owed Joab nothing, was perhaps just, certainly within the letter of the law; though clemency might have spared the old and now fallen warrior, who had at least served David ably with long and faithful service.

It is remarkably true to nature, that the old King made no mention of the act for which, nevertheless, in all probability, he bore the strongest grudge against Joab—the reckless slaughter of Absalom against his own express commands and entreaties—and did not deign to allude to his recent treason, which probably had already embittered Solomon against him.

Show kindness.—The charge of favor to the sons of Barzillai (see 2 Samuel 19:37–40) stands out in pleasant contrast. It has been noted that in Jeremiah 41:17 there is a reference to the habitation of Chimham, as being by Bethlehem, David’s own birthplace; as if David had given him inheritance there, out of what was especially his own.

You have with you Shimei.—The most ungenerous charge is the virtual withdrawal of the pardon, freely granted to Shimei long before (2 Samuel 19:18–23). It is, perhaps, partly dictated by policy; for the notice of Shimei (2 Samuel 16:5–8; 2 Samuel 19:17) shows that he was powerful, and that he assumed a dangerous championship of the fallen house of Saul. But there are unmistakable traces of the old grudge rankling in David’s heart, reminding us of the bitterness of such psalms as Psalm 69.