We start I Kings with David at death’s door. His oldest
remaining son, Adonijah, takes steps to become the next king. Meanwhile, the
prophet Nathan and Bathsheba conspire to make Solomon king instead. (If David
ever made any promises to Bathsheba about Solomon in the past, we have no
record of it. It is hard to tell here if David is remembering a past event or
simply responding to their suggestions.) Regardless, he arranges for Solomon to
be anointed as king instead. Is this really how the LORD’s promise to David
will be fulfilled – through messy politics and backroom deals? Apparently so.
After warning his son to follow the LORD and the laws of
Moses faithfully (the LORD’s promise to keep the Davidic line on the throne
suddenly sounds more conditional than it did back in II Samuel 7), David
charges Solomon with the executions of Joab (for the murders of Abner, Amasa,
and most likely Absalom – although Absalom’s name is not mentioned here) and
Shimei (the relative of Saul who cursed David as he fled from Absalom). While
David swore not to kill Shimei, he’s not above having his son order the hit. To
be fair, he also asks Solomon to “deal loyally” with the sons of old Barzillai
– who provided well for him while he was in flight. With these scores settled
and his son securely on the throne, David dies.
The rejected son, Adonijah, goes to Bathsheba and asks if
she will approach Solomon for him on behalf of the woman who cared for David in
his old age, Abishag. Bathsheba agrees, but Solomon suspects this as a power
move on Adonijah’s part. He has Adonijah killed, banishes the priest Abiathar
for siding with Adonijah against him, and proceeds to have Joab executed as
well – in order to “take away from me and from my father’s house the guilt for
the blood that Joab shed without cause” (2:31). As for Shimei, Solomon places
him under house arrest and commands him not to leave under penalty of death.
When Shimei seeks out his escaped slaves three years later, Solomon does not
forget their arrangement and has Shimei executed for failing to follow the
rules.
After making an alliance with the Pharaoh by marrying his
daughter (how times have changed since the days of Moses!), Solomon has a dream
in which he asks the LORD for “an understanding mind (literally, a “listening
heart”) to govern your people, able to discern between good and evil” (3:9).
The LORD approves this request and grants it to him, along with riches and a
long life. We end our tale with David’s son Solomon standing before the ark of
the covenant in Jerusalem, the city of David, offering burnt offerings and
providing a feast for his people. So far anyway, the LORD’s promise to David
stands.
What has Solomon learned from his father about leadership
of the LORD’s people? What have we learned? Knowing what we know now, what
sense does it make to call Jesus of Nazareth “son of David”?
Click on
“comments” to add your thoughts, and then join us on Sunday, October 28th
at 5pm in Parish Hall for our potluck celebration and presentation!
David grew old; he acquired a young virgin to warm him. David’s son Adonijah tried appoint himself king—without the blessing of the prophet Nathan, the chief warriors, or of his brother Solomon. In fact, David was not told, until Nathan and Bathsheba conspired to inform him. (Bathsheba, it seems, was never out of favor.) They remind [or tell???] David that he has intended Solomon to succeed him. David sends his three closest followers to anoint Solomon. Adonijah is informed and fears for his life, but Solomon spares him. (1:53)
ReplyDeleteDavid charges Solomon to be strong and courageous, and walk in the ways of the Lord, obeying God’s laws. (2:4) [Nothing is said of the direct spiritual closeness between David and God; for Solomon, David seems to intend laws to substitute for an I-Thou relationship. Is this rather like an Oedipal struggle, in which the father does not intend the son to have all the strength that he had?]
David then tells Solomon to kill Joab, who had murdered, but whom David did not punish because Joab had continued to be useful to him. [Is this a lesson in expediency for Solomon? It’s certainly a lesson about dealing with your enemies.] He instructs Solomon to be generous to the Gileadites, who had been loyal.
And Solomon was to execute Shimei. David had told Shimei that he would not kill him, and for David’s apparent advantage Shimei was allowed to live—but Solomon could kill him without seeming to break David’s promise. (2:9) [More cunning expediency?]
Then Adonijah devised yet another plot to take the throne from David, and Solomon had him killed. Joab had supported Adonijah, so he was killed at the altar where he had taken refuge. David regarded this killing as a purge of the kingdom’s guilt for wrongfully-shed blood, and regarded the banishment of the priest Abiathar as punishment for disloyalty. [Those of dubious loyalty, to whom David had shown mercy, he now instructed Solomon to kill. Perhaps it was expedient for David to show mercy earlier, and for Solomon to kill or banish the same persons later.]
Solomon temporarily showed some additional mercy to Shimei, but Shimei defied the terms of his reprieve, and was executed. [At last, at least symbolically--] “... the kingdom was established in the hand of Solomon.” (2:46) [Reminds me of the Russian Revolution and its purges.]
Solomon marries, and continues to be obedient to the law. (There is as yet no place to sacrifice to the Lord.) The Lord then appears to Solomon and asks him what he desires—he asks for the wisdom to discern, to distinguish, between good and evil. (3:9) The Lord promises Solomon greatness—his wish was pleasing to the Lord.
Solomon’s wisdom is shown when two prostitutes claim the same baby. “All Israel heard of the judgment,” and honored Solomon.
[But are wisdom, and regard for the ways of the Lord, enough. The reigns of David and of Solomon were absolute monarchies, tempered by a fear of God and a desire to appear virtuous (as well as strong) in the eyes of the people. Were God’s “laws” enough to guide and limit a king possessed of absolute power?
Centuries later, Aristotle (apparently unaware of the OT) argued that good government requires a legal framework higher then a king—so that the king rules both under God and under a constitution. Centuries after that, first in England and some Scandinavian and Nordic countries, this notion became to some extent a working part of actual governments. But the absolute ruler, limited by nothing except raw power and an claim to divine authority, remains with us today.]
Throughout the David story, aren't there some very different voices. There is the speaker of a history-like story, one which might or might not coincide with events as seen by others in their time. And the other is the speaker about persons in relation to a God who guides, communicating through a relationship that is not directly observable. This latter story, an inner, spiritual story, though not observable even in its own time, is a matter of inference and interpretation, both by early tellers of the tale, and by us.
ReplyDeleteAnd are there not at least two speakers of that history-like story? One eulogizes then persons of whom he or she speaks, while the other includes faults in the narrative.
So the mystery is--how much of the David story has been added or reshaped by the speakers and writers and editors--and how much subtracted. And how has God worked through the imaginations of those who have contributed to this story--and to our readings of it.