1st Kings Chapter 2 verse 5 Holy Bible

Pulpit Commentary

Pulpit CommentaryVerse 5. - "Moreover, thou knowest also what Joab, the son of Zeruiah [there is no "emphasis on these words: he who was mine own sister's son," as Wordsworth, see on 1:113, did to me and [this last word has no place in the original, and should be left out, as it is misleading. It makes David demand the death of Joab partly because of the private injuries he had suffered at his hands, and partly because of his two brutal murders mentioned presently. But this is just what David did not do; for he is careful to exclude all mention of his private wrongs. It is true, he says, "what Job did to me," but that is because "the sovereign is smitten in the subject" (Bp. Hall), and because the first of these murders had caused David to be suspected of complicity, while each had deprived him of an able officer. And the words that follow] what he did to the two captains of the hosts of Israel [these words are clearly explicative of the "what he did to me." Only thus can we explain the absence of the "and"] unto Abner the son of Jether [2 Samuel 3:27. This was one of those foul murders to which the law expressly denied any right of sanctuary, for it was "with guile" (Exodus 21:14). Joab "took Abner aside in the gate to speak with him peaceably, and smote him there in the abdomen"], and unto Amasa the son of Jether [or Ithra. In 2 Samuel 27:24, Ithra is called "an Israelite," an obvious mistake for "Ishmaelite," as indeed it stands in 1 Chronicles 2:17. Amasa's mother, Abigail, was sister of David and Zeruiah; Amasa, consequently, was Joab's first cousin. This murder was even fouler than that of Abner. Here there were ties of blood; they were companions in arms, and there was no pretence of a vendetta], whom he slew and shed [lit., "put," a somewhat strange expression. It almost looks as if עָלָיו, "upon him," had dropped out. The meaning "make," which Keil assigns to שִׂים is not borne out by his references, Deuteronomy 14:1; Exodus 10:2. "Showed," "displayed," is nearer the original], the blood of war in peace [the meaning is obvious. Blood might lawfully be shed in time of war, in fair fight; and Joab might have slain the two captains in battle without guilt. But he slew them when they were at peace with him and unprepared, by treachery], and put the blood of war [the LXX. has αῖμα ἀθῶον, "innocent blood"] upon his girdle that was about his loins, and in his shoes that were on his feet [we are not to suppose that the girdle and sandal are mentioned as "die Zeichen des Kriegerstandes " (Bahr), i.e., military insignia; nor yet that the idea is "from the girdle to the sandal" (Ewald), i.e., copiously. These are, usual (hardly "principal," as Keil) articles of Eastern dress, of the civilian's as well as of the soldier's, and these two are mentioned because, no doubt, the horrible details of the two murders, and especially of the last (see 2 Samuel 20:8), had been reported to David. He had been told at the time how the blood of Amasa had spurted on to the girdle of Joab, and streamed down into his sandals, and these details, which no doubt made a deep impression upon his mind, are recited here to show how dastardly and treacherous was the deed, and how thoroughly Joab was stained with innocent blood, blood which cried to heaven for vengeance (Genesis 4:10)].

Ellicott's Commentary

Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers(5) What Joab . . . did.--The charge as to Joab has a certain righteousness in it. David could not--probably since Joab's knowledge of his great crime, he dared not--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," spirting 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 wrought out by the duty laid in ancient law on the "avenger of blood." David disclaims it (2Samuel 3:28-29; 2Samuel 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, does not dare to blame it, and quietly acquiesces in the resumption by Joab of the dignity conferred on the murdered man. That these crimes should be punished by a king whose hands were clean, and who owed Joab nothing. was perhaps just, certainly within the letter of the law; though clemency might have spared the old and now fallen warrior, who had at least served David ably with long and faithful service. It is singularly true to nature, that the old King makes no mention of the act for which nevertheless, in all probability, he most bore grudge against Joab--the reckless slaughter of Absalom against his own express commands and entreaties--and does not deign to allude to his recent treason, which probably had already embittered Solomon against him.