The Pulpit Commentary — 2 Samuel — Section 505

indicated, According to Scripture, all sin jg to be bronght h0me to the sinner. The time may p11ss, e.nd means for so doin~ ;may seem to be lacking; but the universe is God's, o.nd he ho.s in reserve agencies by which the guilty will be found out and the cl11ims of o. viol11ted law will be vindic11ted (Eccles. xi. 9). VI. THE PRINOIPLE OF RETRIBUTION IN HUMAN AFFAIRS. The charcre of the Gibeonitos ngainst the house of Saul was that he, contrary to the solemn co~pact with lame!, had cruelly slain their countrymen, and the demand was that for this wicked viole.Uon of e. tree.ty the lives of his sons should be forfeited. Here was an appearance of hardship on the sons; but, had we the missing clue, it would probably appear that they were parties to the deed. The deed, however, was national, being wroucrht by the representative of the nation; and, acting on the usage of the age in such ~atters the Gibeonites demanded that the lives of the representatives of the nation of that date should be sacrificed. The principle was that of lex talionis-" an eye for an eye... We are not called upon to pronounce a harsh judgment on their demand. It may however, be said, in extenuation, that if Saul and his family were the real murderers of the Gibeonites, there was no more wrong in their execution than in the execution of any modern murderer. 'l'he principle on which the claim proceeded was that of all criminal law in relation to human life. The Law of Moses was based on it. "An eye for an eye" (Exod. xxi. 24) is but a statement of the principle that runs through all the Mosaic le.ws (cf. Lev. xxiv. 17-22). Ox for ox, sheep for sheep, life for life,-this was the form of the old jurisprudence. It is also, so far as circumstances permit, tho principle of modern la.w and modern punishment. According to a. man's crime so is his punishment. With us the loss of liberty is the form punishment takes, but its degree depends on the degree of the crime. Proportion is kept in view in every sentence. The words of our Saviour (Matt. v. 38, 39) are not intended to set aside the administration of justice by the state, but to indicate that the personal feeling of his followers is not to be vindictive. In the spiritual kingdom a.II are brethren beloved, a.nd love is to .be the dominant feeling. Moses was speaking of what "ju<lges," administrators of the public laws of the state, shonld do (Deut. xix. 16-21), and in the discharge of official duty they were to be impartial, and not pity or spare. Christ speaks of what his individual followers should do and be in their personal relations to brethren in the new spiritual kingdom ; they must not imagine, with the Pharisees, that a principle of action designed for "judges" in a state is to be transferred to their private relationships in his kingdom. Moses distinguishes between the rigid execution of justice on crime and the individual cherishing of tender and pitiful feelings (Deut. xix. 16-21; cf. Exod. xxii. 21-27). The rules for a state a.re not to be confounded with rules for individual life. VII. THE DUE MAINTENANCE OF NATIONAL HONOUR. The honour of Israel was at stake in the deed of Saul. Kings compromise the nation. David was quick to see that the wrong done in cruelly violating a. national treaty must be atoned. Apart from the form of atonement in this case, the principle recognized is most important. When nations lose faith in nations, trouble must come in terrible form. A nation's word should be sacred, and in relation to the weakest and most barbarous as to the mightiest and most civilized. The methods adopted for upholding national honour will vary with the conceptions of what that honour is. 'fo keep faith, to be courteous and considerate to the weak, to allow of no unjust concessions to the great because they are great, and to promote peace and righteousness in all relationships,-this is that iu which honour lies. There is no true glory, no maintenance of honour, in creating wars, in mere military triumphs, or in vaunting of greatness. VIII. 'l'HE SACREDNESS OF PROMISES MADE BY RELIGIOUS MEN. The promises made to the Gibeonites in the days of Joshua differed from a.II engagements entered into by other people, in that they were the promises of the chosen race, whose conduct towards others was based on higher principles. David felt at once that it would be shocking ta allow heathen men to im11gine that the servants of the covenant-keeping God could break their vows. The possession of a religious character or the adoption of religious professions lends e. special sacredness to our engagements. It is no wonderful thing if one who believes in no eternal morality easily sets a.side what others hold to be bin<lin" engagements; ancl a careless man of the world, whose religion is only a name, m11y n~t excite surprise if he sometimes violates his word or does a mean action. But  518 THE SECOND DOOR OF SAMUEL. [en. xxi. 1-~2.