rebellious movement; and ill-suppressed tribal jealousies, of whose existence Shimei had, at a critical period,

given such p ainful evidence. The leaders of two of these parties had long forfeited their lives; indeed, only

the necessities of the time could have excused either the impunity with which Joab's treachery and his

murder of Abner and Amasa had been passed over, or the indulgence extended to such conduct as that of

Shimei. On the other hand, gratitude to such tried adherents in adversity as the family of Barzillai had

proved, was alike dictated by duty and by policy. It was not, as some would have us believe, that on his

death-bed David gave utterance to those feelings of revenge which he was unable to gratify in his lifetime,

but that, in his most intimate converse with his son and successor, he looked at the dangers to a young and

inexperienced monarch from such powerful and unscrupulous partisans. In these circumstances it was only

natural that, before dying, he should have given to his son and successor such advice for his future

guidance as his long experience would suggest; and similarly that, in so doing, he should have reviewed the

chief dangers and difficulties which had beset his own path, and have referred to the great public crimes

which, during his reign, had necessarily been left unpunished. The fact that, even before his death, an

attempt had been made to elevate Adonijah to the throne, contrary alike to the known will of God and the

appointment of David, and that the chief actors in this had been Joab and Abiathar, must have recalled the

past to his mind, and shown him that the fire had been smoldering these many years, and might at any time

burst into flame. But, however natural, and even lawful, such feelings on the part of David, it is impossible to

read his parting directions and suggestions to Solomon without disappointment and pain. Truly, even the

most advanced of the "children were in bondage under the elements of the world" (Galatians 4:3).

How far did the type fall short of the reality, and how dim and ill-defined were the foreshadowings of Him,

"Who when He was reviled, reviled not again; when He s uffered, He threatened not; but committed Himself

to Him that judgeth righteously!"

And yet events soon proved that David's apprehensions had been only too well grounded. The aged king

died, and was buried in his own "City of David," amidst the laments of a grateful nation, which ever

afterwards cherished his memory (Acts 2:29). It seems that Adonijah, although obliged to submit to

Solomon's rule, had not given up all hope of his own ultimate accession. The scheme which he conceived

for this purpose lacke d, indeed, the courage of open rebellion, but was characterized by the cunning and

trickery of a genuine Oriental intrigue. To marry any of the late king's wives or concubines was considered

in the East as publicly claiming his rights (2 Samuel 12:8; 16:21, 22). If such were done by a rival, it would be

regarded as implying an insult to which not even the weakest monarch could submit without hopelessly

degrading his authority in public opinion (2 Samuel 3:7). If Adonijah's primary object was to lower Solomo n

in public estimate, and that in a manner which he could neither resist nor resent, no better scheme could

have been devised than that of his application for the hand of Abishag. By combined flattery and parade of

his supposed wrongs and injuries, he gained the queen-mother as unconscious accomplice and even

instrument of his intrigue. Any scruples might be set aside by the plea, that there could be no wrong in his

request, since, in the strict sense, Abishag had neither been the wife nor the concubine of David. To punish

with death so cunning and mean an intrigue can scarcely be called excessive severity on the part of

Solomon. It was rather a measure necessary, if tranquillity was to be preserved in the land, all the more that,

by his own admission, Adonijah still entertained the opinion that rightfully the kingdom was his, and that

"all Israel set their faces on him that he should reign" (1 Kings 2:15).

Whether or not Abiathar and Joab were involved in this intrigue, is matter of uncertainty. At any rate an

attempt so daring, and coming so soon after that in which these two had taken a leading part, called for

measures which might prevent rebellion in the future, and serve as warning to the turbulent in Israel. That

Joab felt conscious his conduct deserved the severest punishment, appears from the circumstance that he

anticipated his sentence. On hearing of Adonijah's execution, he sought refuge within the sacred precincts

of the Tabernacle. It would have been not only a dangerous precedent, but contrary to the express direction

of the law (Exodus 21:12; Deuteronomy 19:11-13), to have allowed a criminal by such means to escape

justice. However, it was not for his part in Adonijah's recent schemes that Joab now suffered the extreme

penalty of the law, but for his former and still unpunished crimes, which his recent treasonable conduct

seemed to bring afresh to view, just as some accidental ailment does a long latent fatal disease. As for