The remainder of his days was as disastrous as the beginning had been prosperous. Rape, incest, murder, and rebellion, raged among his children: he was deserted by his friends, reviled by his enemies, banished from his capital, and plunged into the deepest affliction by the ingratitude and death of his favourite and rebellious son, Absalom; and, to fill up the measure of his calamities, by a dreadful plague brought upon his subjects by his last offence: so that he died exhausted at seventy, still older in constitution than in years.

THE BONDAGE OF THE AMMONITES.

David has been censured for his cruelty to the Ammonites, after the reduction of Rabbah, which seems to have taken place after the birth of Solomon, about the twentieth year of his reign; but the Hebrew text will admit of a milder construction than that of the English Bible, 2 Sam. xii. 31.

"And David took the king's crown from off his head, (the value whereof was a talent of gold) with the precious stone, (which Josephus says was a Sardonyx, set in the front of the crown. Ant. VII. 7, 5.)

"And David brought forth the people that were therein, and put them to saws, and to harrows of iron, and to axes of iron, and made them pass by [or to] the brick-kilns; and thus did he unto all the cities of the children of Ammon." That is, he put them to hard labour, and the most servile employments +.

It is generally supposed, with our received Translation, that "the weight of the crown was a talent of Gold:" that is, 125 pounds weight, and would be much too heavy to wear on the head. For the Hebrew talent, amounted to 3000 shekels, (or 12,000 Attic drams, which made two Attic talents,) Exod. xxxviii. 25, 26. But the silver shekel of the Sanctuary weighed 20.

+ The preposition, which is rendered under, in rather an unusual sense, by the English Bible, in several places signifies to or for; as in the following passage, where it is connected with the same verb,, to put," or to appoint," or "impute:"

"This shall be the manner of the king that shall reign over you: He shall take your sons to himself, and appoint them to (or for) his chariots, and to (or for) his horsemen," &c. 1 Sam. viii. 11.

"Let not the king impute [blame] to his servant, [nor] to all my father's house," &c. 1 Sam. xxii. 15.

But what shall we say to the parallel passage, 1 Chron. xx. 3, which in our English Bible is rendered, "He cut them with saws, and with harrows of iron, and with axes?" Here the verb, if derived from, Serravit, may not unreasonably signify to divide or separate the people to these different servile employments; but I am persuaded it is incorrectly written for W, "he put," as in the former passage, only obliterating or omitting the lower part of the Mem final,, which would leave a complete Resh, q.

And David was justified in thus enslaving the Ammonites by the law of Moses. "An Ammonite or a Moabite shall not enter [as a freeman] into the congregation of Israel, even to their tenth generation." Deut. xxiii. 3.

The mother of Rehoboam was Naamah, an Ammonitess, 1 Kings xiv. 21. She could not therefore be the wife of Solomon, she was only a concubine.

THE RAPE OF TAMAR.

We may date this first domestic calamity that befel David "out of his own house," as predicted by Nathan, about the twenty-third of his reign, before the commencement of which, Amnon, his eldest son, was probably born.

David's remissness in punishing this outrage, though it made him "very wroth" at the time, 2 Sam. xiii. 23, probably led to Amnon's assassination by Absalom, the brother of Tamar, about two full years after, or the twenty-fifth of David's reign, 2 Sam. xiii. 22-29. The affliction of David must have been greatly aggravated by the first hasty report, that Absalom had slain all the king's sons, and that there was not one of them left! And though relieved by the safe return of the rest," the king and all his servants wept very sore."

Absalom fled for refuge to his grandfather Talmai, king of Gesher, where he remained in disgrace three years, 2 Sam. xiii. 37, 38; and though he was then permitted to return to Jerusalem, by the policy and intercession of Joab, David did not admit him into his presence till two full years after. We may therefore date this reconciliation in the thirtieth year of David's reign, 2 Sam. xiv. 1—33.

ABSALOM'S REBELLION.

This ambitious and turbulent youth ill requited his father's lenity and kindness. He studied to gain popularity, and "stole away the hearts of the men of Israel;" and fomented a con

And in this milder sense, the Syriac and Arabic Version understood the two parallel passages, declaring expressly in the latter, (1 Chron. xx. 3.) that David "put none of them to death." However, on the other hand, the Greek Sept. Latin Vulgate, and Josephus, all adopt the received interpretation, that he put them to the torture, and then slew them. Antiq. VII. 7, 5. This cruel treatment of the conquered Ammonites (if it be true, which still may be doubted) is the most barbarous act of David's reign; and cannot be justified by the heinous abuse and affront offered to his ambassadors.

spiracy, which, at the end of four years, broke out into open rebellion, in the thirty-fourth year of David's reign, at Hebron, about twelve miles south of Jerusalem, xv. 1-13.

Alarmed at this formidable rebellion so close to him, David hastily took his flight, with his family and servants, "by the ascent of Mount Olivet, [or the upper road to Jericho] and wept as he went up, barefoot, and with his head covered; and all the people that were with him covered every man his head, weeping as they went up," in token of extreme sorrow and humiliation, xv. 14—30.—By the same descent, the divine Son of David, above a thousand years after, wept over Jerusalem, at the prospect of her impending woes!He wept, not for "himself," but for "the daughters of Jerusalem, and for their children," Luke xix. 37-41, xxiii. 28.

After he had passed the summit, he was wounded with the false report of the desertion of Mephibosheth, the son of his faithful friend Jonathan, whom he had treated with the utmost kindness and hospitality, and restored to all his grandfather Saul's lands, 2 Sam. ix. 1-13, and too hastily gave away his lands to the treacherous informer Ziba, who had a powerful party. So just is Seneca's observation, that "kings give many things with covered eyes, especially in time of war." And though his eyes were opened afterwards to Mephibosheth's innocence, yet he dared not altogether to rescind the unadvised grant to Ziba, "Do thou and Ziba divide the land." The reply of Mephibosheth was worthy of the son of Jonathan: "Yea, let him take all, since my lord the king is come again to his own house in peace," 2 Sam. xix. 24-30.

Soon after, at Bahurim, on the eastern side of Olivet, David bore with meekness the curses and insults of Shimei, a relation of Saul; and when urged by his nephew Abishai to punish him on the spot, he refused permission: Behold, said he, my son, who came forth of my bowels, seeketh my life, how much more now this Benjamite? Let him alone, and let him curse, for THE LORD hath bidden him. It may be that the Lord will

* Instead of "forty years," the present reading, 2 Sam. xv. 7, the Syriac, Arabic, and several MSS. of the Vulgate, supported by Josephus, Theodoret, and the context, read "four years;" the present reading being utterly inexplicable. It could not, as Usher imagined, denote Absalom's age at the time, when he could not have been much above thirty years old.

look on my affliction, and requite me good for his cursing this day, xvi. 5—13.

They then refreshed themselves in the plains of the wilderness, and without delay passed over Jordan that night, in consequence of intelligence that Absalom had been advised to pursue him with a party of twelve thousand men, and smite him before he could collect an army, xvii. 1—22.

The treacherous adviser Ahitophel, whose wise counsel was defeated by the artful policy of Hushai, David's friend, which made him hang himself in despair, was more successful in his first advice, that Absalom should lie with ten of his father's concubines, whom he had left behind at Jerusalem, "in the sight of all Israel," that it might engage them more heartily in his cause, by precluding the possibility of reconciliation with his father after this heinous insult; the infatuated youth thus unintentionally fulfilling Nathan's prophecy, xvi. 20-22, xvii. 23.

The wretched end of Ahitophel, who was esteemed as THE ORACLE OF GOD for the wisdom of his counsels, was the just punishment of his treason: "The providence of the wisest men being too short to over-reach the providence of GOD; he often permits such Ahitophels for the punishment of their presumption, as well as of their malice, to perish by their own devices," Prideaux's Connections, Vol. I. p. 162.

It is generally supposed that David composed the fifty-fifth Psalm, on occasion of Ahitophel's treachery, but perhaps it may rather refer to the treachery of Judas as a prophecy. The minute predictions of the circumstances of our LORD's passion, which occur in the Psalms, justify this supposition; and lead us to conclude, that the imprecations which abound in this Psalm, the sixty-ninth, and hundred and ninth, &c. are not uttered against the personal enemies of David, but of CHRIST. This is expressly asserted in one place, which may furnish a key to the rest:

"Do not I hate them, O Lord, that hate Thee?

And am not I grieved with those that rise up against Thee?
Yea, I hate them right sorely,

Even as though they were mine enemies."-Ps. cxxxix. 21, 22.

And to confirm it, we may observe, that the imprecations which are usually supposed to be uttered against Shimei, Ps. cix. 6-9, are expressly applied to Judas by St. John, xiii. 27, and by St. Peter, Acts i. 20; and the imprecations against the MES

SIAH'S persecutors, Ps. lxix. 21-26, are also applied to the Jews by St. Peter *, Acts i. 20.

David, we see, refrained from cursing Shimei in return, at the time, when he had the greatest provocation, from a religious motive; and when "he prayed to THE LORD," it was not against Ahitophel himself, but against his counsel: " O LORD, turn the counsel of Ahitophel into foolishness," xv. 31.

This may contribute to remove the offence + which these imprecations have given to many pious and devout admirers of the Psalms of David in general, who have not rightly conceived their drift.

The death of Absalom, who was slain by Joab in his flight from the pitched battle in which he and his adherents were defeated, put an end to his rebellion, but renewed his father's grief, which was excessive, even to weakness, and justified Joab's indignant reproach, "Thou lovest thine enemies, and hatest thy friends;" &c.; and his threat, "I swear by the Lord, if thou go not forth, [to speak comfortably to thy servants] there will not one tarry with thee this night; and that will be worse unto thee than all the evil that befel thee from thy youth until now." This wholesome rebuke and menace roused David from his lethargy of grief, and "he arose without reply, and sate in the gate," to receive the congratulations of his friends; while "all Israel," of Absalom's party, "fled each to his tent," or returned home, xix. 1-8.

Whatever were Joab's crimes, among them disloyalty was not to be reckoned. He was a brave soldier, and a faithful servant, ardently attached to his master in the worst of times, preferring David's interest and glory before his own. Witness his risking his life to get David a drink of water from the well of Bethlehem, 1 Chron. xi. 17, and his giving the glory of the capture of

* In the present text of Acts i. 20, yevn◊ntw ǹ eñavdig avrov epyμoç, the singular, αυτού, his," is avTwv, "their," in the prophecy itself, Ps. Ixix. 25; in the original, in the Sept. (γενηθήτω ἡ επαυλις αυτων ερημωμενη) and in all the ancient versions, warranted by the context; and in the citation, the plural "their," is the reading of the Vulg. and Ethiop. and it seems to be required by the context, where not only Judas, but also his associates, were noticed before," Judas, who was guide to them that apprehended JESUS," Acts i. 16, and who were equally criminal.

↑ Hammond, Merrick, Horne, &c. contend, that these imprecations should be rendered not as imperatives, but as futures; not, Let them be confounded, &c. but, They shall be confounded, &c. as only intimating the future event. But this is a nice distinction, almost without difference, and is overturned by the ancient versions, and the citations in the New Testament, rendering them imperatively.