The First Book of Kings: A Study in Prophetic History

Copyright © 2017 by Martin Sicker.

ISBN:                        Softcover                        978-1-5434-3748-5

                                  eBook                              978-1-5434-3749-2

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted

in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system,

without permission in writing from the copyright owner.

Any people depicted in stock imagery provided by Thinkstock are models,

and such images are being used for illustrative purposes only.

Certain stock imagery © Thinkstock.

Rev. date: 07/21/2017

Xlibris

1-888-795-4274

www.Xlibris.com

755210

Contents

Preface

1      Solomon Succeeds David

2      Solomon Takes Control

3      Solomon the Sagacious

4      The Structure of Solomon’s Regime

5      Solomon Initiates His Development Plan

6      Dedication of the Temple

7      Further Internal Developments

8      Queen of Sheba & Solomon’s Wealth

9      Consequences of Solomon’s Arrogance

10    End of the Dual Monarchy

11    Jereboam and the Prophets

12    The Houses of Jereboam and Reheboam

13    The Reigns of Abijam and Asa in Judah & Nadab in Israel

14    The Reigns of Baasha, Elah, Zimri, Omri & Ahab in Israel

15    Elijah Enters the Scene

16    Elijah vs. Ahab

17    Elijah’s Final Mission

18    The Aram-Israel Wars

19    Naboth’s Vineyard

20    The Final Years of Ahab’s Reign

References

Notes

Preface

The subject of this study is the continuing story of the transition of the ancient Israelites from a loose confederation of ethnically related tribes into a territorially-based nation and state, and its subsequent transition to a monarchy, as depicted in the biblical books of Samuel. The work that follows begins with the succession of Solomon to the throne of David and the subsequent division of David and Solomon’s kingdom into the two independent kingdoms of Israel and Judah, and concludes with the reign of Ahab as the king of Israel, a period of approximately one hundred and twenty years. I have used the term story rather than history in characterizing the period covered by this book because the biblical book is a history only in the very special sense of prophetic history, which bears little relationship to history in the modern sense of the term.

It should be noted that prophecy in biblical thought is not fatalistic and does not predict future events. What it does do is assert that the moral course that a society chooses to follow in the present can determine its probable but not inevitable future. In the biblical view, man is divinely endowed with free will and will individually be held accountable by both God and society for his choices. However, the fate of a society is a rather different matter, its future is entirely dependent on whether it is divinely considered morally eufunctional or dysfunctional, and if the latter whether there are sufficient numbers of righteous people in it to constitute a critical mass capable of arresting its moral decline. Thus the biblical narrative tells us that God promises Abraham that He ultimately will give the land of Canaan to his descendants, but only after four centuries because the iniquity of the Amorite is not yet full (Gen. 15:16). That is, the Amorites are proceeding slowly downward on the moral slope, without sufficient numbers of righteous people to arrest the moral decline that will make their society irredeemably dysfunctional and unworthy of perpetuation. The prophet’s task is to alert the members of the society that it is on the slippery downward moral slope to oblivion that can be aborted if they so choose.

The distinguishing feature of prophetic history is that it is history written from a prophetic perspective with a particular purpose in mind, namely, to illustrate to later generations of the children of Israel the historical consequences of failure by its political and religious leaders to observe and comply with the terms of the divine covenant entered into between God and the children of Israel at Mount Sinai, following the exodus from Egypt. Understood in this manner, the stories related in this First Book of Kings concern the struggles, internal as well as external, that the Israelites underwent to secure their future in the land originally promised to their ancestral patriarchs.

This collection of stories, as well as the narratives in the other biblical works commonly but misleadingly designated as the historical books of the Bible, are based on historical events that clearly were believed to have taken place. However, the recounting of those events in the biblical text is presented as viewed through a prophetic prism. It is noteworthy in this regard that the so-called historical books of the Bible are referred to in Judaic tradition as the books of the early prophets. Accordingly, the primary focus of these prophetic narratives is on the moral implications of the decisions and actions taken by men rather than the factual historical accuracy of the details of the events described.

The focus in this study is primarily on what the authors and editors of the Hebrew Masoretic text of the First Book of Kings are purporting to teach us in their own special way. It is only peripherally concerned with many of the issues of primary interest to the modern academic studies of biblical texts such as when the text was finalized and by whom, literary analysis of the language employed, comparative analysis of the text and other ancient literature, and other such topics. All of these issues are of valid intellectual concern but, with some notable exceptions contribute little to understanding what the authors and editors of the Hebrew Masoretic text are trying to convey to us, which, as indicated, is the principal concern of this study.

The translation of the Hebrew text employed in this study, with some minor modifications made for further clarity, is that of the old Jewish Publication Society version of the Scriptures. Although there are many modern translations available, I have demurred from using them because every translation is also an interpretation and, unfortunately, some translations take a bit too much liberty with the ancient Hebrew text. I have found the old JPS version, with all its archaisms and other difficulties, many of which will be discussed in the body of this work, to best reflect the language of the Masoretic Hebrew version, making it easier to analyze and hopefully to comprehend some of the subtleties of the ancient text.

As will be seen, the First Book of Kings appears to end rather abruptly, but actually flows into the beginning of the Second Book of Kings because both were originally a single book, as were the two books of Samuel and the two books of Chronicles. The widely accepted reason why these Hebrew books were divided in two is that when originally translated into Greek, each work made use of approximately fifty percent more words than the Hebrew original. Thus, each of the three books contain about 25,000 words in Hebrew, whereas the Greek translation contains 37,000-38,000 words. For the sake of convenience in handling, each of these large works was divided in two and copied on separate scrolls.

1

Solomon Succeeds David

(1:1-1:53)

Introduction

¹.¹ Now king David was old and stricken in years; and they covered him with clothes, but he could get no heat. ¹.² Wherefore his servants said unto him: ‘Let there be sought for my lord the king a young virgin; and let her stand before the king, and be a companion unto him; and let her lie in thy bosom, that my lord the king may get heat.’ ¹.³ So they sought for a fair damsel throughout all the borders of Israel, and found Abishag the Shunammite, and brought her to the king. ¹.⁴ And the damsel was very fair; and she became a companion unto the king, and ministered to him; but the king knew her not.

As David approached the end of his tenure, he was old and stricken in years. At this point he was close to seventy years old, as stated in an earlier text, David was thirty years old when he began to reign, and he reigned for forty years (2 Sam. 5:4). Although he was not especially old chronologically, the hard life he led as a young man, going from fearless and heroic warrior to bandit, and then to the trials and tribulations of politics and the awesome responsibilities of leadership, evidently took its toll on his health as he aged. Moreover, the aggravation over the scandalous behavior of his eldest son Amnon, his presumptive heir, who raped his half-sister Tamar and was subsequently murdered by her brother Absalom, whom David loved more than any of his other children, and who subsequently sought to overthrow his father, may also have contributed to making him feel older than his actual age. As he appeared to be deteriorating, and his end seemed imminent, his aides became very concerned that he might pass away before the matter of his successor was settled, a matter which if left unattended to could result in chaos.

It would appear that David was experiencing hypothermia, a drop in body temperature which made him feel cold all the time, and although his attendants covered him with clothes in an effort to warm him, he could get no heat, it proved ineffective. Although the text is unclear on the point, it seems reasonable to assume that David was primarily bedridden, as his servants did what they could to raise his temperature. While the phrase covered him with clothes is an accurate translation of the Hebrew vayekhasuhu babegadim, it is noteworthy that the noun beged, normally intended to refer to a garment, has also been used to refer to a ‘cloth,’ as in the text describing the covering of the ark of the testimony for transport, one layer of which is a beged kelil tekhelet, translated as a cloth all of blue (Num. 4:6). In other words, David was covered with layers of blankets, all to no avail in raising his body temperature, a matter of grave concern to those responsible for his care.

According to an ancient reading of the text, his servants refers to the royal physicians who came up with the idea that what might alleviate the problem would be to raise the king’s bodily temperature by stimulating his sensuality.¹ Toward this end it was proposed to David, Let there be sought for my lord the king a young virgin; and let her stand before the king, and be a companion unto him; and let her lie in thy bosom, that my lord the king may get heat. It has been noted that the use of a youth to restore vital warmth was an ancient medical practice.² Presumably, they recommended that she be a virgin to make her more enticing to an old man already possessed of many older wives. It has been suggested that the phrase, let her stand before the king, should be understood as saying that she should always be on standby, ready to intercede if the king did not recuperate on his own.³

It was known that David always had a predilection for beautiful women, as evidenced by his attraction to Abigail, described as a woman of good understanding, and of a beautiful form (1 Sam. 25:3), and Bathsheba who was very beautiful to look upon (2 Sam. 11:2). Thus, and notwithstanding his state of physical decline, David instinctively was amenable to the suggestion and a necessarily speedy nationwide search for a suitable young and beautiful girl was carried out. Ultimately, the nomination went to Abishag the Shunammite, who was very fair, and hopefully able achieve to goal set before her.⁴ She became David’s constant companion and ministered to him, presumably by warming him with her body, whenever required. However, the king knew her not; that is, although the bodily contact was surely pleasurable, there was no sexual relationship, presumably because David could no longer so engage, or possibly because the king’s debilitating illness went into spontaneous albeit temporary remission, and he had no interest in arbitrarily deflowering a young girl. It is noteworthy that some early commentators rejected the former argument and insisted that David was still virile despite his illness.⁵ With regard to the latter argument it has been suggested that his self-control testifies to his life-long repentance after the incident of Bathsheba, that is, the adulterous affair for which he was sharply berated by the prophet Nathan (2 Sam. 12:1-15).⁶

Upon reflection, this passage raises the questions of why it was included in the narrative at all, and especially why the role of Abishag and her relationship with David is spelled out in such detail. It is assumed by many that the passage is included in the narrative primarily because the relationship between David and Abishag takes on political significance later, at the outset of the reign of Solomon. Its immediate relevance is that it was imperative that the king, whose health was declining rapidly, be able to make a clear-headed decision regarding the succession, and the possible contribution of Abishag to assuring this may have been a critical factor in forestalling an imminent succession crisis. The death of his much beloved son Absalom evidently devastated David, who increasingly withdrew from direct management of the affairs of state, and who had simply refused to address the question of the succession that became urgent as the king was perceived to be approaching his natural end.

Viewing this vignette from a rather different perspective it might be asked why it was necessary to conduct a time consuming search for a fair damsel throughout all the borders of Israel, it being difficult to believe that such a maiden could not be found in nearby Judah. The idea for a national beauty contest originated with the servants of the king. But who were these anonymous servants? We are given a clue a few verses later when we are told that Adonijah, who campaigned to become David’s successor, invited all the men of Judah the king’s servants to what was intended to be his coronation feast. One might conclude from this that the anonymous servants who proposed the national search for an appropriate girl were aligned with Adonijah and the proposal was for his benefit, part of a scheme to advance his cause. Considered from this perspective, the purpose of the national beauty contest was to make the entire country aware that the king was seriously ill and dying and that he had not yet named his successor, albeit that Adonijah was the obvious choice.⁷ Of course, the time consumed by an unnecessary national search, time during which the king was getting weaker, would further heighten concern about his inability to deal with the critical issue, setting the stage for Adonijah’s publicly acceptable usurpation of the throne.

The matter of the succession was a complicated business. The notion of dynastic rule in the kingdom was by no means taken for granted, although there were several factors favoring it. For one thing, the capital and its environs belonged neither to Israel nor to Judah; Jerusalem was the personal domain of David by traditional right of conquest and would go to his chosen heir regardless of whether or not that heir followed him as head of the dual monarchy. Given that Jerusalem was now in the process of becoming the religious center of the nation, it would be awkward in the extreme for it to be ruled by someone other than the king of Israel and Judah. And, if David were not to name a successor, how would his successor be selected? There could be no turning back to the days when Saul was selected for his regal role by a third party, a charismatic prophet such as Samuel, and then confirmed by popular acclaim.

David had originally been accepted as king of Judah, his own tribe, before there was any prospect of a union between it and Israel in the person of the king. It is extremely unlikely that Judah would now accept a king from any of the tribes of the northern kingdom. Conversely, it is doubtful that Israel would accept anyone else from Judah in such a role, given the level of existing discontent with David. That is, it was uncertain that Israel would even accept a successor from the house of David. Finally, the array of David’s vassals both in Transjordan as well as Cisjordan owed fealty to David and not necessarily to either the kingdom of Israel or that of Judah. That obligation might reasonably be expected to extend to an heir from the house of David, but most assuredly not to anyone else. This raised the specter of a new series of wars on Israel and Judah’s periphery just to maintain the status quo, if in fact the dual monarchy even survived David’s departure from the scene. Accordingly, as a practical matter, prudent political leaders in both kingdoms concluded that continuation of the dual monarchy with as little change and disruption as possible was the most desirable course to pursue, and this required a dynastic succession coupled with the hope that it would suffice to maintain the political status quo for the foreseeable future. As it turned out, that hope was realized for most of the reign of David’s successor. However, at the time that David’s health began to fail, there was little certainty about who that successor would be.

Within David’s own circle of ministers and advisers, there emerged two schools of thought on the matter of the succession. It was natural for those who were interested in stabilizing the institution of kingship and assuring the permanency of the dynasty to have favored a procedure which would establish the succession on an automatic basis and therefore to have supported the claim of the oldest living son. It was equally natural, in the absence of precedent or fixed tradition, for David’s loyal personal followers to have attributed to him the prerogative of choosing his successor.⁸ Moreover, although primogeniture seemed the more natural approach to succession and was a principle well established in the wider region, Israelite tradition was less clear about it. In a number of significant instances it appeared to favor ultimogeniture, giving priority to a younger over an older son, as was the case in the choice of Isaac over Ishmael, Jacob over Esau, and Judah over Reuben during the period of the patriarchs. It is noteworthy, in this same regard, that both Moses and David were themselves younger sons.

Given that there was no established precedent of succession through primogeniture in Israelite society, there was little basis for an automatic assumption that David’s eldest surviving son Adonijah would in fact succeed to the throne. Nonetheless, by virtue of the fact that, as in the case of Absalom, David permitted Adonijah to go about with a substantial retinue, it appeared that David expected the latter to succeed him. This perception, however, failed to distinguish between the king having made an implicit political decision with regard to the succession, and David as a doting or perhaps inept parent simply ignoring the follies of another of his children.

With regard to Adonijah, the biblical writer explicitly acknowledges that David had not grieved him all his life in saying: ‘Why hast thou done so?’ (1:6). That is, David had never rebuked or corrected Adonijah, and simply allowed him to do whatever he wished. It is therefore understandable that Adonijah would consider himself his father’s favorite, as would all observers of the contemporary scene who were not privy to what was taking place behind the doors of the palace. In fact, however, the question of the succession was actually far from settled. One of David’s younger sons, Solomon, was also a prospective candidate for the throne, although he was by no means next in the generally accepted line of succession after Adonijah. His candidacy was predicated on a secret promise, probably known only to a few in the palace, that was given by David to Solomon’s mother Bathsheba, that her son would succeed him, presumably as compensation for the sorrows she endured as a result of their adulterous affair and the subsequent death of their first child that it produced.

Reflecting the first of the two perspectives regarding the matter of the succession discussed above, it will soon become clear that Adonijah had the support of Joab, the commander of the army, and the high priest Abiathar, two of the most powerful and influential men in the kingdom, as well as most of the royal household and the tribal leaders of Judah. Solomon’s candidacy, which was supported by those who maintained the second perspective, had the support of the other high priest Zadok and Benaiah, commander of the palace guard, as well as the still formidable group of distinguished heroes, the gibborim, comrades in arms long associated with David. In addition, Solomon also had the formidable support of the prophet Nathan. It has been suggested that the glaring omission of a prophet from Adonijah’s team informs us that he is not concerned about receiving the messages of God—or, alternatively, that no prophet would associate with him!⁹ Faced by this division in the kingdom’s ruling circle, David procrastinated in reaching a decision regarding the succession, even as his health continued to fail. It thus remained unclear whether David would honor the commitment to Bathsheba and designate Solomon or follow the general principle of primogeniture and elevate Adonijah.

Nonetheless, it might reasonably have been construed that David had already given some public indication of his support for Solomon’s candidacy. The biblical account seems to suggest that, as early as a year before his death, David had arranged for a political marriage between Solomon and Naamah, an Ammonite princess, presumably for the purpose of strengthening relations between Israel-Judah and Ammon, or as some suggest, as a reward for Ammon’s support of David during the rebellion of Absalom. According to the biblical chronology, Solomon subsequently reigned for forty years (11:42), and Rehoboam, his first-born son by Naamah, was forty-one when he succeeded Solomon (2 Chron. 12:13), indicating that the royal marriage was contracted a year before Solomon ascended the throne.¹⁰ The fact that it was Solomon and not Adonijah who was chosen to participate in that political arrangement might readily be interpreted as a clear sign that David was evidently grooming Solomon for the throne. This would have served as a cause for alarm among the party supporting Adonijah, and may have helped propel the succession crisis that was now taking shape.¹¹

The question must be asked whether it was really a difference of opinion over the principle by which the succession should be governed that caused such a split among David’s principal military and religious officials, placing Joab and Abiathar in opposition to Benaiah and Zadok, with regard to David’s successor? It has been suggested that with regard to the military leaders, Joab saw in Adonijah an opportunity to bring about the reorganization of the kingdom’s armed forces along lines that he preferred, whereas Benaiah expected Solomon to retain the existing structure established by David. Joab, the ever-faithful right hand of David, had always considered the latter to be too trusting, and had therefore repeatedly intervened against David’s wishes whenever he believed the king had made an error of judgment in that regard. Thus, Joab killed Absalom, whom David wanted taken alive and whom he probably would have pardoned, only to have his ambitious son attempt to overthrow the king again whenever the opportunity presented itself. Having spent his entire career in total commitment to the king, Joab demanded the concentration of military power in the hands of reliable men, a stern subordination of the individual to the will of the king, who for him embodied the state, and to whom he himself bowed.¹² However, Joab’s desires in this regard were never fully realized during David’s reign, presumably because the king was wary of giving him too much power considering some of the things Joab did that did not have David’s approval. He was, it is true, commander-in-chief of the army, but there were other military forces such as the foreign mercenaries and the fiercely loyal warriors that served as David’s personal comrades in arms that were commanded by others such as Benaiah, who came from their ranks. It has therefore been suggested that Joab’s principal motive in supporting Adonijah was that under the latter he would be able to get rid of the Cherethites and Pelethites, as well as David’s gibborim, whom he evidently did not completely trust to be as loyal to his successor as they had been to David, and thus bring all of the armed forces in the country under his personal overall command.

In the case of Abiathar, there appears to have been at least one issue with which he was concerned that caused him to favor Adonijah’s succession, probably because the latter was favorably disposed to a resolution along the lines he desired. Presumably, Abiathar wished to see Jerusalem become the preeminent cultic site of Israel, with him as its sole high priest. This would in effect restore the house of Eli to its rightful place at the head of the priestly hierarchy, thereby eliminating the present co-high priestly status of Zadok, which Abiathar resented. It is similarly likely that Zadok expected Solomon to maintain the current arrangements, which accorded equal status to the cultic centers at Jerusalem and Gibeon.

Adonijah Makes Public Bid to Succeed David

¹.⁵ Now Adonijah the son of Haggith exalted himself, saying: ‘I will be king’; and he prepared him chariots and horsemen, and fifty men to run before him. ¹.⁶ And his father had not grieved him all his life in saying: ‘Why hast thou done so?’ And he was also a very goodly man: and he was born after Absalom. ¹.⁷ And he conferred with Joab the son of Zeruiah, and with Abiathar the priest; and they following Adonijah helped him. ¹.⁸ But Zadok the priest, and Benaiah the son of Jehoiada, and Nathan the prophet, and Shimei, and Rei, and the mighty men that belonged to David, were not with Adonijah. ¹.⁹ And Adonijah slew sheep and oxen and fatlings by the stone of Zoheleth, which is beside En-rogel; and he called all his brethren the king’s sons, and all the men of Judah the king’s servants; ¹.¹⁰ but Nathan the prophet, and Benaiah, and the mighty men, and Solomon his brother, he called not.

Anticipating David’s early demise, Adonijah apparently assumed that the succession would follow the principle of primogeniture, which made him first in line. Another possible factor in his calculation might be hinted at by his being introduced here as Adonijah the son of Haggith. Because we are told that Adonijah was one of David’s sons that were born in Hebron (2 Sam. 3:4), where David reigned as king before he became king in Jerusalem, it is reasonable to assume that Adonijah’s mother Haggith was the daughter of a prominent Judahite family. Given the strained relations between Israel and Judah since Absalom’s attempted coup, he may have assumed that David would recognize that his succession would bolster the regime’s support in Judah. In this regard it is noteworthy that Adonijah invited all the men of Judah the king’s servants, to demonstrate his support from his father’s tribe. By contrast, his rumored competitor for the throne, Solomon, was the son of Bathsheba who likely was not even an Israelite, and therefore without any familial connection to any of the Israelite tribes.

Nonetheless, Adonijah was fully aware that some of David’s principal aides and advisers were not with Adonijah. These included Zadok the priest, who as co-high priest presided over the sacrificial rite at Gibeon, and Benaiah the son of Jehoiada, commander of an equivalent of the much later ‘praetorian guard’ of the Roman emperors, and Nathan the prophet. Also included in the latter group was Shimei who, it has been suggested, is Shimei the son of Gera, a man of the family of the house of Saul (2 Sam. 16:5). Shimei, a Benjamite leader, first cursed David as he retreated across the Jordan to re-group his forces to face the army mobilized against him by his son Absalom, and later successfully pleaded for the king’s forgiveness (2 Sam. 19:20-24). In the matter of the succession, Shimei was anxious to continue to demonstrate his loyalty to David, who forgave his treason.¹³ It also has been suggested that Rei, literally meaning ‘my friend, refers to Hushai the Archite, an elder statesman who played a major role in preventing David’s immediate defeat upon the outbreak of Absalom’s rebellion, and was subsequently referred to as David’s friend (2 Sam. 15:37).¹⁴ The so-called mighty men that belonged to David refer to his elite ‘companions’ that served with and for him for many years (2 Sam. 23:8-39). These trusted men urged the king to consider an alternative approach to the succession, one which would have given the throne to Solomon.

Adonijah appears to have wished to preempt the possibility of the king’s acceptance of their recommendations by publicly asserting his claim to the throne before David had actually announced his successor. Toward this end, he took steps to suggest to the public that he was in fact David’s choice. Thus, he emulated his popular deceased older brother and pretender to the throne Absalom, like whom he was also a very goodly man, that is, handsome and of commanding figure, attributes that contributed to his popularity.¹⁵ And like Absalom who prepared him a chariot and horses, and fifty men to run before him (2 Sam. 15:1), Adonijah exalted himself. . . and prepared him chariots and horsemen, and fifty men to run before him. It has been suggested that this was a private force probably intended to help carry out a coup d’état, if Adonijah deemed it necessary.¹⁶ It is noteworthy that although David probably had a royal chariot, he apparently eschewed such grandiose displays and it sufficed for his purposes merely to make use of a royal mule (1:33).

It has been suggested that the assertion that he exalted himself may be understood as hinting that he was not esteemed by others, and was actually unqualified for the role he so ardently sought.¹⁷ He also sought to secure the support of major figures in the capital, and for this purpose he conferred with Joab the son of Zeruiah, who was David’s sister, and with Abiathar the high priest in Jerusalem, whose support he considered to be essential to his plan. Joab’s support meant that he would have the army behind him, and Abiathar would bring to him the support of the religious establishment. He received their full support, albeit for the reasons of self-interest discussed above.

His final step was to hold court at a large public feast in his honor, an affair that presumably was cast as a prelude to his formal designation as the ‘heir presumptive.’ At the promotional event, Adonijah slew sheep and oxen and fatlings by the stone of Zoheleth, which was near the spring of En-rogel in the Kidron valley southeast of Jerusalem. It has been observed that the Hebrew text uses the term vayizbah, translated as slew, employing a verb which is normally used in connection with the sacrificial rites, which is probably intended here to indicate the solemnity of the occasion. It was not an ordinary banquet, but a solemn feast to herald a royal proclamation.¹⁸ With regard to the stone of Zoheleth, which literally means ‘crawling or flowing stone,’ the stream from the spring of En-rogel flowed past it and fostered the optical illusion that the stone itself was moving. Because of this it appears that the site had become a popular gathering place or park where people frolicked, played games, and sought to test their strength by attempting to budge the large stone.¹⁹ Adonijah presumably took over the popular meeting place to assure he would be able to accommodate the large number of people he expected to attend his free feast.

It would seem that Adonijah’s plan was to convene a public assembly that would pass a resolution supporting his succession to the throne, following which David’s consent to the popular choice would be solicited. There is nothing to suggest that he was planning to carry out a coup d’état, as was the case with Absalom. It has been suggested that Adonijah thought that if he succeeded in establishing himself as David’s successor while the king yet lived, he would be accepted as such after the king died.²⁰ If a coup had been intended, it is extremely unlikely that it would have been supported by either Joab or Abiathar, whose personal loyalty to David was beyond question. As things stood, their intent surely was to bring the issue to a head before their opponents in the palace might succeed in swaying the king toward an alternate candidate. However, it is also quite possible that Adonijah’s intention went beyond what Abiathar and Joab had in mind, and that the purpose of the elaborate feast was to publicly anoint him and perhaps even crown him as the new king. In this regard it has been suggested that the coronation may have been part of the anticipated plan, but may not have taken place because the sacrificial feast was interrupted before the plan was consummated.²¹

The assembly may have been held outside Jerusalem for at least two possible reasons. First, there simply wasn’t a large enough open space in the crammed city to accommodate the expected crowd, which also made providing adequate security for such an event a problem. Second, and more important, the choice of a spring as the site may have had significant political implications. An ancient tradition recorded in the Talmud asserts that, kings are anointed only at a fountain that their sovereignty may endure.²² That is, the flow of living waters was taken as a sign of continuity. The choice of site for the public assembly and celebratory feast thus suggests that an anointing, which was more important than the actual coronation itself because it conveyed the idea of legitimacy in the eyes of God, was to take place there. (As will be seen below, Solomon was also anointed at a site of running waters.)

The guests invited to this feast included all the notables in Jerusalem and the surrounding region supportive of Adonijah’s elevation to the throne. "The pointed exclusion of Nathan, Benaiah and his officers (ha-gibborim), and Solomon from the meal at Ain Rogel indicates that Adonijah was not prepared for ‘peaceful coexistence’, to which, by ancient Semitic convention, he would have been committed by such a meal. He obviously trusted in the strength of his party to liquidate the opposition, the strength of which, to say nothing of the weakness of the king, he much underrated."²³

¹.¹¹ Then Nathan spoke unto Bathsheba the mother of Solomon, saying: ‘Hast thou not heard that Adonijah the son of Haggith doth reign, and David our lord knoweth it not? ¹.¹² Now therefore come, let me, I pray thee, give thee counsel, that thou mayest save thine own life, and the life of thy son Solomon. ¹.¹³ Go and get thee in unto king David, and say unto him: Didst not thou, my lord, O king, swear unto thy handmaid, saying: Assuredly Solomon thy son shall reign after me, and he shall sit upon my throne? Why then doth Adonijah reign? ¹.¹⁴ Behold, while thou yet talkest with the king, I also will come in after thee, and confirm thy words.’

Nathan was spurred to action by Adonijah’s precipitous move, evidently being informed about the arrangements and purpose of sacramental feast. He wanted to intervene with the king before it was too late, but had a problem in doing so because he could not act in this instance in a prophetic capacity, and had no substantial ground on which to act as a royal adviser taking sides in a dispute over the succession. Accordingly, he prevailed upon Bathsheba to immediately approach the king, inform him of Adonijah’s present attempt to circumvent the king’s prerogative with regard to selection of his successor, and implore David to make good on his earlier solemn promise that her son Solomon would succeed him. Although Adonijah had not done anything to usurp the throne as yet, Nathan nonetheless urged her to ask David rhetorically, Why then doth Adonijah reign?, thereby suggesting the inevitable outcome of his machinations if the king does not promptly intervene.²⁴ Nathan also told her that before she concluded her interview with the king, he would enter and confirm her legitimate concerns, and then acting in his capacity as a royal adviser he would urge the king to fulfill his commitment her and designate Solomon as his successor.

As a practical matter, why did Nathan prefer Solomon to Adonijah? It has been suggested that as a prophet, Nathan was responsive to the assertion that the Lord loved him, from his birth, and Nathan therefore called his name Jedidiah [beloved of the Lord] (2 Sam. 12:24-25). In effect, Nathan was favorably disposed toward Solomon since his infancy.²⁵ Alternatively, it has been suggested by some that Nathan’s preference for Solomon resulted from his acquaintance with the prince as a student and his appreciation of the young man’s intelligence and wisdom.²⁶ A third opinion contends that Nathan’s preference actually had little or nothing to do with the comparative qualities of either candidate, but that his choice was predicated solely on the supposition that David had made a binding oath to Bathsheba regarding Solomon being his successor, a commitment which necessarily took precedence over the tenuous argument in favor of primogeniture. The king’s word is law, and its abrogation affects the integrity of his regime. In Nathan’s view, then, it was morally imperative that David should be reminded of his promise and that he be pressed to keep it.²⁷

It is noteworthy that Nathan warned Bathsheba, in the event that she might hesitate to confront David, that getting David to honor his commitment could be a matter of life or death for both her and Solomon. It was a common practice in antiquity for the person who succeeded to the throne to wipe out all other possible claimants to it, as well as their supporters. In the context of Israel’s history, as recorded in Scripture, this was done by Abimelech the son of Gideon who went unto his father’s house at Ophrah, and slew his brethren the sons of Jerubbaal (Gideon), being three score and ten persons (Judg. 9:5). As a mother concerned for the wellbeing of her son, Bathsheba was stirred to action and went to see David, perhaps even in violation of palace protocol, demanding an immediate audience with the king.

¹.¹⁵ And Bathsheba went in unto the king into the chamber.—Now the king was very old; and Abishag the Shunammite ministered unto the king.—¹.¹⁶ And Bathsheba bowed, and prostrated herself unto the king. And the king said: ‘What wouldest thou?’ ¹.¹⁷ And she said unto him: ‘My lord, thou didst swear by the Lord thy God unto thy handmaid: Assuredly Solomon thy son shall reign after me, and he shall sit upon my throne. ¹.¹⁸ And now, behold, Adonijah reigneth; and thou, my lord the king, knowest it not. ¹.¹⁹ And he hath slain oxen and fatlings and sheep in abundance, and hath called all the sons of the king, and Abiathar the priest, and Joab the captain of the host; but Solomon thy servant hath he not called. ¹.²⁰ And thou, my lord the king, the eyes of all Israel are upon thee, that thou shouldest tell them who shall sit on the throne of my lord the king after him. ¹.²¹ Otherwise it will come to pass, when my lord the king shall sleep with his fathers, that I and my son Solomon shall be counted offenders.’

Without waiting to be announced, Bathsheba essentially broke into the king’s bedroom, bowed, and prostrated herself unto the king. Such kowtowing before the king in a private meeting evidently was not expected from a queen. David thus understood that by so doing Bathsheba must have been in a state of distress. Accordingly, he asked her to tell him what was troubling her. The narrator inserts a note pointing out that royal business was now being carried out in the king’s bedroom because the king was very old, and presumably bed-ridden. And, at that time, Abishag the Shunammite ministered unto the king. It may be assumed that the latter notice was a euphemistic way of pointing out that the bedridden king was himself in a state of distress and Abishag was in bed with him, warming him with her body, but that nothing else was going on because David was very old.

What was the narrator’s purpose in informing the reader of Abishag’s presence when Bathsheba entered the king’s bedroom? One could assume that it was to emphasize that the king, health wise, was in dire straits, and that his prompt attention to the matter of naming his successor was urgent. It also is noteworthy that the king did not dismiss her when Bathsheba entered the room, thus allowing her to witness the queen’s allegation against Adonijah, as well as her remonstrance against the David’s failure to fulfill the vow he made to her regarding Solomon, a vow presumably known only to very few if any people close to the king. One important implication of this is that Abishag was more than a nurse; she had become a trusted confidante and possibly David’s concubine with intimate knowledge of state affairs. As will be seen in the following chapter, her implicit special relationship with David would have serious political consequences.

Bathsheba’s assertion that David swore to her by the Lord thy God that Assuredly Solomon thy son shall reign after me, and he shall sit upon my throne, quoting the words of Nathan as he instructed her (1:13), has been seen by some as problematic since it is reasonable to assume that a commitment of such importance would have been mentioned in the narrative concerning the birth of Solomon (2 Sam. 12:24-25). Of course, it is possible that David did in fact make such a private oath of which the previous narrator was unaware. But, it has been argued that if David had taken such an oath Bathsheba would hardly need Nathan to remind her of it.²⁸ Accordingly, this opens a large, though by no means certain, possibility that Nathan the man of God has invented the vow and enlists Bathsheba’s help in persuading the doddering David that he actually made this commitment.²⁹ In any case, if David accepted that he had taken such an oath by the Lord, he surely knew that it was inviolable, leaving him no option other than to abide by it. In this regard it is noteworthy that David is cited elsewhere as having said, of all my sons—for the Lord hath given me many sons—He hath chosen Solomon my son to sit upon the throne of the kingdom of the Lord over Israel (1 Chron. 28:5).

The final point that Bathsheba made to David was that Adonijah knew of his oath concerning Solomon, who alone of all Adonijah’s siblings was not invited to his premature coronation feast. Moreover, by indicating who else was invited and agreed to participate in the event, particularly Abiathar the priest, and Joab the captain of the host, it was clear that it was intended to mobilize critical support for his purported succession to David’s throne. However, there was still a little time to prevent a palace coup from taking place, because the eyes of all Israel are upon thee, that thou shouldest tell them who shall sit on the throne of my lord the king after him. Whatever his decision, the people will accept it, regardless of claims to the throne by others.

She concluded by arguing that if the king failed to clarify his position on the succession immediately, given his state of health, it will come to pass, when my lord the king shall sleep with his fathers, that I and my son Solomon shall be counted offenders. The Hebrew term hataim, translated here as offenders, raises the question of whom they will be accused of offending. The term might therefore be better rendered in its more usual sense of sinners (ArtScroll). In this regard it has been suggested that what Bathsheba is referring to is her adultery with David and the subsequent indirect killing of her husband Uriah (2 Sam. 11:3-4, 15-17). In her view, if David turns against Solomon, it will be interpreted as a sign that she must have sinned and indirectly caused the death of her husband, making her unfit to be the queen mother of a king of Israel, a stigma that would also attach to Solomon.³⁰ Alternatively, they might be labeled as offenders in the sense that they tried to directly challenge Adonijah’s claim to the throne, and would therefore be considered a continuing threat that he surely would eliminate permanently.

¹.²² And, lo, while she yet talked with the king, Nathan the prophet came in. ¹.²³ And they told the king, saying: ‘Behold Nathan the prophet.’ And when he was come in before the king, he bowed down before the king with his face to the ground. ¹.²⁴ And Nathan said: ‘My lord, O king, hast thou said: Adonijah shall reign after me, and he shall sit upon my throne? ¹.²⁵ For he is gone down this day, and hath slain oxen and fatlings and sheep in abundance, and hath called all the king’s sons, and the captains of the host, and Abiathar the priest; and behold, they eat and drink before him, and say: Long live king Adonijah. ¹.²⁶ But not me, thy servant, and Zadok the priest, and Benaiah the son of Jehoiada, and thy servant Solomon, hath he not called. ¹.²⁷ Is this thing done by my lord the king, and thou hast not declared unto thy servant who should sit on the throne of my lord the king after him?

As promised, while she yet talked with the king, Nathan the prophet came in and requested an urgent audience with the king, relying on his status as the king’s prophet to assure him immediate access. As soon as they told the king, saying: Behold Nathan the prophet, Bathsheba withdrew and waited for Nathan to conclude his audience and inform her of David’s