The Pulpit Commentary — 2 Samuel — Section 28

its infliction. At sunset he recalled the unhappy messenger, and having further quos• tioned him, testified his abhorrence of his deed, and ordered hie execution. Notice- I. THE CRIME which was laid to hie charge, viz. the intentional 1md unjustifiable taking away of the life <if another: 1. Proceeding, like every act of murder, from indifference to the saoredness of human life and the dignity of human nature, created in the image of God. 2. Aggravated in guilt by irrernrence toward the person of the king," the Lord's anointed," who ought-, on account of his high position, to have been held in special honour (1 Sam. xxiv. 6; xxvi. 11; xui. 5). "When the Israelites were under royal authority, it would appear to have been a maxim of their law that the person of the king W86 inviolable, even though he might be t7rannical and unjust; and, in fact, this maxim is necessary, not only to the security o the king, but alBO to the welfare of the subject; for it is tl1e dread of assassination and treacheries Uiat usually makes kin~s tyrants, and novices in tyranny absolute despots" (Michaelis). 3. Exhibiting disobedience to the command of God. "Thou sbalt not kill" (Exod. xx. 13), i.e. do no murder (Exod. xxi. 12). With this law the Amalekite was probalily acquainted. He knew, at least, that it was wrong to ta.ke away life without adequate reason. Hence he sought to justify the act by pleading the request of Saul (ver. 9), and bis suffering condition, which it was mercy to terminate. But how could. Saul authorize another to do to him what he had no right to do to himself? Genuine loyalty and mercy would have promptec. a different course of conduct; and malice and selfishness were clearly the motives of the deed. There was in it nothing praiseworthy, but everything to be abhorred and condemued (ver. 14). II. THE EVIDENCE on "·hich he was convicted. "Thy mouth bath testified against thee," etc. (ver. 16). His confession was: 1. Voluntarily made; not extorted from him by the infliction or threatening of suffering, or the promise of reward. 2. Con- firmed by the signs of bis connection with the death of the king (ver. 10). 3. A sufficient ground, under the circumstances, for judgment, without further .inquiry, Even if, as is probable, he did not actually commit the deed, he took upon himself the responsibility, and justly incurred the consequences thereof. But why did he not retract and repudiate his confession? Perhaps he thought that it. would be of no avail; and he would thereby have .acknowledged his falsehood and mercenariness. Pos- sibly he did retract, and was not believed. For "a liar is not believed though he speak the truth." Considered in relation to his times, the evidence on which David acted was sufficient; but the incident a.fl'ords an illustration of the uncertainty which often pertains to the crime of murder and the fallibiiity of human judgment. Ill THE AUTHORITY by which he was condemned. Although David was not yet publicly recognized as civil ruler, to whom the right of judging properly belonged, yet he was fully justified in assuming the office, inasmuch as: 1. It bad been virtually conferred upon him by the appointment of the Divine King of Israel. 2. The chief hindrance to its exercise was removed by the death of Saul. There was no higher authority than his in the land, and it had been acknowledged by the Amalekite him- self (ver. 10). 3. Its assumption was necessary to the fulfilment of the purpose of his appointment, the manifestation of the justice of God, and the promotion of the welfare of the people. He may have wished to clear himself from the suspicion of complicity in the king's death, to show that he entertained no feeling of revenge against him, and to gain the esteem of the people of Israel; but his main motive was of e. higher nature. He acted on theocratic principles, a.son a subsequent occasion (eh. iv. 9-12), ' IV. THE PUNISHMENT which he suffered (ver. 15). "When the sentence of death was pronounced by the king, it was executed by his body-i;uard n (eh. xv. 18; xx. 23); Capital punishm,e,nt may be upheld on the ground of: 1. The claims of fustice. It bas been generally felt, even from the most ancient period (Gen. iv. 10, 14), that the murderer deserves to die. 2. The teaching of Scripture. " Whoso sbeddeth man's blood, n ,etc. (Gen. ix. 6). "This was the first command having reference to the temporal :aword. By these words temporal government was established, and the sword placed in 'its hand by God" (Luther). It gave the right and imposed the duty of inflicting death; and it is of permanent obligation (Lev. xxiv. 17; John xix. 11; Acts xxv. 11; Rom. xiii. 4). 3. The welfare of society. It exalts the principle of justice; declares the dignity of me.n in the most impressive manner; effectually prevents the offender from repeating hill offence; powerfully deters others from following hie example; and Cllt, I, 1-21.] 'l'trn stWOND llOOK OE' SAMUEL. 2/j