Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 13.pdf/97

 72

mands of his royal master, was afraid to do as the king commanded, because of the sacrilege involved, and he therefore sought to induce Joab to come forth, but Joab said to him, "Xay, I will die here." Rather than kill Joab by the side of the altar, the officer returned to the king and reported what had occurred. The king then felt that it was not only necessary that he should justify himself, but also that he should satisfy the scruples of his officer; hence, he deigned to give reasons for his command. The true reason was a political one; it was Joab's participation in Adonijah's usurpa tion; but this reason was not strong enough to destroy Joab's right of sanctuary. The reason that Solomon gave to his officer was a different one. The king said unto him after he had reported that Joab had said "I will die here," "Do as he hath said and put him to death and bury him, that thou mayest take away the innocent blood which Joab shed from me and from the house of my father. And the Lord shall return his blood upon his own head, who fell upon two men more righteous and better than he, and slew them with a sword, my father David not knowing thereof, to wit: Abner, the son of Ner, captain of the Host of Israel, and Amasa, the son of Jether, captain of the Host of Judah. Their blood shall therefore return upon the head of Joab and upon the head of his seed forever; but upon David and upon his seed and upon his house, and upon his throne, shall there be peace forever from the Lord." (r Kings ii, 31-33). By this piece of hypocrisy the king sought to justify his command to kill Joab and to disregard the right of sanctuary; for it was the law that the privilege of sanctuary could not be claimed by a willful murderer. This explanation satisfied the king's offi cer, and he thereupon returned to the taber nacle and killed Joab by the altar. Solomon was an Oriental despot, and it was not at all necessary for him to give reasons for his commands to his subordinates; but the terri

ble nature of this command, which was ap parently a defiance of God and a violation of his sanctuary, required some justification. The sanctity of the altar or the temple, or any other sacred place, is historically con nected with the sacredness of guest-friend ship. Anciently every man's house was a temple, the threshold of which was a sacred place at which the family gods were wor shipped, and the family sacrifices made; and every head of the family was a priest. Per sons who crossed the threshold became ipso facto, for the time being, members of the family, and were entitled to all its rights and privileges. It was the sacred duty of every member of the family to defend every other one from danger, to ransom him when taken prisoner, and to perform certain other defined duties. The stranger who crossed the threshold, by a legal fic tion having become invested with the fam ily rights, had to be protected by the mem bers of the family against any persons pur suing him. Thus, Lot protected two men who had come into his house and had parlaken of his hospitality; and he even per mitted his house to be besieged by the men of Sodom rather than give up the strangers to their vengeance (Genesis xix, 4-11). Sim ilarly the citizen of Gibcah protected the two strangers from his townsmen, because he had lodged and fed them in his house (Judges xix, 22-23). Similarly Rahab pro tected the two spies sent out by Joshua to the City of Jericho. When the king of Jericho heard that these men were lodged at her house, he directed her to produce them; but she concealed them in her house and gave them the protection that guestiriendship required (Joshua ii, 1-7). When, in the course of time, the union of various patriarchal families resulted in the formation of tribal organization, and public places of worship were recognized in addi tion to the sacred thresholds and altars of every man's house, the same sacred charac ter was conferred upon them. The man who took refuge in the House of God which was