Introduction to Biblical Grumps Round Three: David
1 Kings 1 & 2 When Good Kings End Badly
Posted
Monday, October 10, 2005
by
Gerald Vreeland
1 Kings 1 & 2
The Third Accession/Succession Narrative
Epilogue: The Consolidation Of An Empire
The Narrator Has Come Not To Praise David, But To Bury Him
or When Good Kings End Badly
Exiles, House Arrests and Assassinations
1 Kings 1
Indecision And Adonijah
“His Father Had Never Crossed Him At Any Timeâ€
We often refer to King David as "the Man after God's Own Heart." Is this really the case? Is this always and only the case? We know that God is looking for one; but has He found him? Can one really be found?
In 1 Sam. 13:14, we read: "For now your kingdom shall not endure. The LORD has sought out for Himself a man after His own heart, and the LORD has appointed him as ruler over His people, because you have not kept what the LORD commanded you." These are Samuel's words to Saul in the heat of the moment. There is no Divine precedent as yet in the text of Scripture. Samuel may be working without a net here – especially in view of the fact that no alternative has been suggested by God. Samuel has not yet been commissioned to anoint the least of Jesse's sons. Samuel the seer could be flying blind.
Three chapters and several major events and royal failures later, Samuel is sent to Bethlehem to anoint the next king. When he sees the oldest of Jesse's sons and says to himself, "Surely the LORD's anointed is before Him (1 Sam. 16:6). But verse seven says: ". . . the LORD said to Samuel, 'Do not look at his appearance or at the height of his stature, because I have rejected him; for God sees not as man sees, for man looks at the outward appearance, but the LORD looks at the heart." These are God's words to Samuel with respect, of course, to Jesse's oldest son, Eliab. However, much later when God says, "Arise, anoint him; for this is he" in v. 12, we know that "he" is the king; but we still do not know that this is "The Man After God's Own Heart." We are left to guess as much – and history will prove us right to question.
There does not seem to be any other place in the Old Testament from which such an appellative could be derived. Where does it come from then, mere inference? No, the title actually comes from a few extempore words from the Apostle Paul in Acts. In the middle of a speech to the people in the synagogue in Pisidian Antioch, Paul says, "And after He had removed [Saul], He raised up David to be their king, concerning whom He also testified and said, 'I have found David the son of Jesse, a man after My heart, who will do all My will'" (Acts 13:22). Paul, like Samuel before him is working without a net. The great Apostle of the Grace of God is without a biblical antecedent. In fact, we have no text wherein those exact words may be found. What we have are allusions and inferences. What we have in the text of 1 & 2 Samuel and 1 Kings is much more indicative of the real state of affairs. We have a man, a gifted leader, with feet of clay and a nature very much like our own. He is a man, who not only calls the Messiah, Lord; but he is also a man for whom that greater son will have to die. Like us, given an opportunity and apart from a close walk with God, there will be the abuse of power and the manipulation of matters to one's own perceived benefit.
In the past I have used the following as theme: Finishing well should be the prime objective of every leader. 1. To arrive safely at new leadership requires one of three perspectives: a. You are the surviving king ("After" the dust has settled, you are the "last" man standing). b. You are on the side of the surviving king (following "after"; moral support, yes; but being an enabler is better). c. You are smart enough to stay out of the line of fire (walking "after" the gun; suggesting either disinterest, low profile or temporary exile). 2. A request needs to be made with integrity and circumspection; others will be affected. 3. If powerful friends are not the right friends, the adventure is condemned to disaster. (Political, religious or economic: the right associations are crucial.) 4. We cannot know the true nature of the repentant heart: we should accept the words at their face value always being ready for the worst. (Solomon should probably not trust Adonijah; the reverse should also pertain! Watch, do not condemn.) But for this time, I will note that:
Some Grumps Get Worse And Even Grump At Us From Beyond The Grave.
Textual Observations
After: Comparison Between 2 Samuel 2 And 1 Kings 1
One of the most repeated words in these two accession narratives (2 Samuel 2 and 1 Kings 1) is the word "after." Robert Polzin uses it as an example of stylized language and says with respect to 2 Samuel, "To understand the importance of 'ahiarê in chapter 2 is to begin to understand how the chapter functions within its literary context." In 2 Samuel 2, this particularly shows up with respect to following after people in the battle of Gibeon during the period of civil war between the northern federation and Judah. Although it is used as a single word (a couple of forms) in Hebrew, it appears as several different words or phrases in English: afterwards, after this, in the end, behind, after, back are all within its semantic range. Polzin says that this in mirror reading that helps the reader answer the question as to who will rule after Saul. Let us allow Polzin free rein here:
As in all stories, the basic kind of succession indicated by
construction using 'ahiar is narrative "after this" (v. 1) and "in the
end" (v. 26). In addition, "to be behind someone" is to support or
obey them (v. 10); similarly, "to gather behind someone" is to fight
on their side (v. 25). On the other hand, "to pursue after' is to
follow after someone with harmful intent (vv. 19, 24, 28). Such
pursuits can end when one "takes oneself away from after" (v. 27)
or "turns aside from after" (vv. 21, 22, 26, 30) one's quarry. The
proper sequence involved in such pursuits is indicated by someone
"turning (to look) behind oneself" at the pursuer (v. 20). Finally,
we find in chapter 2 the end of such pursuits in the "end" of
Abner's spear ('ahiarê hahianît) which sticks out "the back of"
Asahel (me'ahiarayw) (v. 23). What is behind such obviously
stylized language?
His answer to this question is that ". . . various expressions concerning who follows after whom . . . are deliberately chosen to support and focus the main theme of the chapter . . . sharpen the thematic focus of the chapter . . . uses both semantic and ritual sequencing to reinforce an ongoing theme concerning royal succession: the pursuit of kings and the pursuit of one's brethren are to be intimately connected in Israel's coming history." And his conclusion, which I view as a bit more of a reach, is that: "Both are tantamount to turning aside from (following) after the LORD." This is the case because "turning aside after" in the law of Moses pertains more to disobedience and idolatry. I do not personally view the monarchy as any more inherently evil than any other kind of government that Israel subjected itself to (e.g., anarchy, foreign domination, charismatic judgeships, governor vassalship to foreign powers, etc.). How does this play here in 1 Kings? Polzin again:
The story in 1 Kings 1 revolves around the person who will "reign
after" (malak 'ahiarê) David (1:13, 17, 24, 30) or "sit upon the
throne after" him (1:20, 27). Questions of royal succession involve
the support of influential Israelites like the priest, Abiathar, and the
commander, Joab, who "help after" pretenders to the throne such
as Adonijah (1:7), who, for all his pretensions, was unfortunately
'born after" (yalad 'ahiarê) Absolom (v. 6). Nathan, however, will
support Bathsheba's claims to David in behalf of Solomon by
conspiring to "come after" her into the king's presence to confirm
her words (9v. 14). Finally, royal pursuits demand that priest and
people "ascend after" ('alah 'ahiarê) the king (v. 35, 40).
Regardless of what we think of Polzin's conclusions respecting disobedience to the law, such close configurations of the word "after" are indicative of the way a succession narrative is to be written. The deployment of such words offers the answer to the question, "Who will reign"? Depending upon who is "after" whom, the answer also includes who will be swept along in the monarch's triumph and who will be swept away because of it. "After" all is said and done, who will reign is the last man standing. But there is at least one principle here: To arrive safely at new leadership requires one of three perspectives: a. You are the surviving king ("after" the dust has settled, you are the "last" man standing). B. You are on the side of the surviving king (following "after"; moral support, yes; but being an enabler is better). C. You are smart enough to stay out of the line of fire (walking "after" the gun; suggesting either disinterest, low profile or temporary exile).
Abishag: The Prop Of Contention
Like Benjamin in the Joseph Narrative, Abishag moves; but she never speaks – neither will she ever speak. Human props are an interesting lot; but, like Benjamin, they need not always end in oblivion. Most probably, however, Abishag will die the death of defamed women in biblical narrative: childless isolation. In the mean time we should note that she is triply introduced. Initially she is named and honored as the winner of something of a beauty contest (1:2-4). She is selected for the job of keeping poor old circulatorily challenged, King David warm – one wonders at this point what has happened to the other wives – Bathsheba will, after all, make several appearances in the narrative. Surely the others could not have all died or had circulation problems of their own. Perhaps, the real issue is that David does not really have a wife according to the accept rules of engagement. Perhaps the other wives with their internecine rivalries have gotten on his nerves so much that he cannot cohabit with them. More questions may be asked than answered from this text! Nevertheless, the juxtaposition of the Abishag material and the Adonijah insurrection casts the shadow of intrigue before it happens.
Secondly, Abishag is seen doing her job when Bathsheba enters the room (1:15). The story could have been told without this woman intruding; but she is named for two reasons: this is the second introduction into the narrative; and she must be seen in an awkward moment with Bathsheba for the plot to coagulate when Abishag becomes the bone of contention. The notation that Abishag is doing what she was hired to do when Bathsheba enters the room is indicative of a part the two will play together. Abishag disappears for quite a few verses and then she reappears as the subject of Adonijah's infatuation (2:13-18). Whether the relationship between Abishag and Bathsheba's husband David sparked any more than the usual amount of ire between rival females is a question unanswerable at this point. My suspicions are awakened, however, and I think we will see Bathsheba act to remove a rival from her son as well as a rival from herself. She has already filled King David's ears with, "Otherwise it will come about, as soon as my lord the king sleeps with his fathers, that I and my son Solomon will be considered sinners" (1 Kings 1:21). She has already expressed her fear in a live situation; it is not much more of a reach to say that she converted her fear into paranoia and developed a series of conspiracy theories and connived plans to thwart them before they materialized.
When Abishag reappears, she is part of the main discussion that will end the life of the man who wants her (2:19-25). Bathsheba inters into the king's presence and after proper decorum, the discussion begins. Using very much the words of Adonijah in her introduction, "I am making one small request of you; do not turn away my face," Bathsheba then makes the request to her son the regent: "Let Abishag the Shunammite be given to Adonijah your brother as a wife." Brothers kill brothers in biblical narrative and bells ought to peal in our heads at this point. Proof that Adonijah is not a prophet, Solomon does in fact "turn away the face" of Bathsheba. Because of rivalries being what they are in the harem, Bathsheba's request is loaded. Abishag has taken the place of Bathsheba in the status of the favored wife. She is now the companion and playmate of the king. But Bathsheba and her son Solomon are God's choice for the future of the monarchy. Abishag is as much of a rival as was the man who wants her, Adonijah. Solomon's words and action as described by the narrator are only the superfluous acting out of what we already know will transpire. Adonijah will die the violent death of brothers who are royal usurpers and Abishag will die the death of disgraced women in Israel, childless oblivion.
In addition, because of the capital consequences to Adonijah, and the public nature of the oaths, sentencing and execution, those same consequence will entail the deterrence of anyone else from asking for the hand of Abishag in marriage. Hence, she either goes into a childless oblivion, or into the harem with, ultimately, 1000 other wives and concubines (1 Kings 11:3). Either way, she dies the death of disgraced women in Israel: childless isolation. A point: A request needs to be made with integrity and circumspection; others will be affected. (We need to have the personal desire not to hurt people; and we need to do our research carefully so that we do not inadvertently hurt people.)
Adonijah: Number 4 - Doubly!
At the end of Nathan’s parable, David said that the perpetrator deserved to die, and then perhaps sensing a trap he retracted a bit. And so David's final indictment in 2 Samuel 12:5-6 includes the execution of a fourfold retributive sentence ultimately upon himself. Three of the four rounds of retributive justice have been executed: Bathsheba's first son passed away in infancy; Amnon is dead by treachery; Absalom is dead in the civil war following insurrection and now Adonijah is about to meet his fate. Another way of looking at it is from the order of heirs to the throne: the firstborn, Amnon and son number 3, Absolom, are dead. The second born, Chileab, the son of the wise woman, Abigail, is either dead or disinterested. And so, thinking perhaps of being like his ancestor Judah, son number 4, Adonijah, supererogates himself to national leadership. Handsome men (Saul, David, Absalom) have bad things happen to them and brothers kill brothers in the Samuel Narratives. Adonijah's association with the handsome man, Absalom his brother (1 Kings 1:6) should portend his doom clearly. If that were not enough, we are told that David, his father, never crossed him at any time or challenged this insurgent.
In doing so, Adonijah involves several key players that will both have a life beyond this part of the story and lose it. Because Joab and Abiathar follow "after" and help Adonijah (v. 7), they will prove to be doomed. They are either players on the wrong team, or players in the wrong game. These are the old men of Adonijah's father's regime, they are ceasing to be useful and are ready to make a timely but messy exit from the stage of Israel's monarchical theater. It is said that Adonijah "invited all his brothers, the king's sons, and all the men of Judah, the king's servants" (v. 9). However, "he did not invite Nathan the prophet, Benaiah [the captain of the guard], the mighty men, and Solomon his brother." These, too, were key players in the kingdom of David. However, my theory is that they are the second line, younger and therefore more useful in the coming kingdom. Nathan (along with probably Gad) took the place of Samuel much earlier and Benaiah as captain of the guard is always in a strategic position and about to become supreme commander. The mighty men were probably still formidable. Solomon, of course, is the real subject of interest. He is therefore placed last as the point of departure for the scene with Bathsheba, Nathan and David (with Abishag attendant). The stage is set for either another civil war, one bloodbath of a purge, or a shift in the expectations of both Israel and the readers: all eyes look to the old, cold monarch. Accessions of any kind have attendant principles and here is one for the Adonijah's of the world: If powerful friends are not the right friends, the adventure is condemned to disaster. (Political, religious or economic: the right associations are crucial.)
Nathan's Narrative Surprise And The Charge To Solomon: 1 Chron. 22:6-19
The story proceeds breathlessly in four movements: First, Nathan and Bathsheba will conspire to take the monarchy away from Adonijah and deliver it safely into the hands of Solomon. Secondly, in an act with two scenes, Bathsheba and then Nathan will enter the king's chamber and persuade him to act on Solomon's behalf. Third, the king plans Solomon's accession. Fourth, the players act out the kings wish on the stage of history. There is an epilogue where everybody on the wrong side of the stage slinks off and Adonijah is handed his life hanging by a thread.
Where does the oath come from? "Have you not, my lord, O king, sworn to your maidservant, saying, "Surely Solomon your son shall be king after me and he shall sit on my throne'? . .". Bathsheba expands upon this and says, "My lord, you swore to your maidservant by the LORD your God, saying, 'Surely your son Solomon shall be king after me and he shall sit on my throne.'" And she continues to give David the play-by-play. Where does this material come from? We do not have an antecedent in the Samuel Narratives; but the Chronicler makes a major contribution to where this tradition has arisen from:
And David said to Solomon, "My son, I had intended to build a
house to the name of the LORD my God. But the word of the
LORD came to me, saying, 'You have shed much blood, and have
waged great wars; you shall not build a house to My name,
because you have shed so much blood on the earth before Me.
Behold, a son shall be born to you, who shall be a man of rest; and
I will give him rest from all his enemies on every side; for his
name shall be Solomon, and I will give peace and quiet to Israel in
his days. He shall build a house for My name, and he shall be My
son, and I will be his father; and I will establish the throne of his
kingdom over Israel forever.'. ." (2 Chronicles 22:7-10).
Back in 1 Kings, David then calls Bathsheba and says "As the LORD lives, who has redeemed my life from all distress, surely as I vowed to you by the LORD the God of Israel, saying, 'Your son Solomon shall be king after me, and he shall sit on my throne in my place'; I will indeed do so this day" (1 Kings 1:29-30). When this was that David originally spoke to Bathsheba, we can only hazard a guess. Perhaps between the death of Bathsheba's first son and the birth of the "Beloved of the LORD" is when the promise was made both to David and then subsequently to Bathsheba.
Then David comforted his wife Bathsheba, . . . and she gave birth
to a son, and he named him Solomon. Now the LORD loved him
and sent word through Nathan the prophet, and he named him
Jedidiah for the LORD's sake (2 Samuel 12:24-25).
At the point where word is sent through Nathan, the revelation may have become common currency. Beyond this we are left in the story to suppose a plot of succession. Regardless, we are left with the feeling that these frail, feeble human beings feel that they must help God's program along. It is only a point of morbid curiosity to ask what would have happened if Bathsheba and Nathan had left well enough alone. . . .
This having been accomplished, Solomon is anointed and the roaches scurry for cover of darkness – or the horns of the altar as the case may be. Solomon's first act as regent is to extend a conditional clemency to his "older brother" Adonijah. "If he will be a worthy man, not one of his hairs will fall to the ground; but if wickedness is found in him, he will die" (1 Kings 1:52). And so Adonijah is brought to the king and is told: "Go to your house" (v. 53). Notice that like Joab before him, there is no peace in Solomon's heart for Adonijah. The customary dismissal would have been "Go in peace." Brothers, rivals, accomplices and those sent without peace are doomed to a bloody demise in the Samuel Narratives. A subliminal point might be that: We cannot know the true nature of the repentant heart; we should accept the words at their face value always being ready for the worst. (Solomon should probably not trust Adonijah; the reverse should also pertain! Watch, do not condemn.)
Textual Applications and Anecdotes
1 Kings 1
vs.
1. Good circulation seems to be inversely proportional to age.
2. Royalty may pursue exotic means to mundane ends.
3. In the Bible, beauty is treacherous. (David, Absalom, Adonijah?
Abishag? Solomon?)
4. Beauty is not usually the best reason to do something.
5. What a surprise: the king's son wants to be king!
6. Insurrections against the fathers are cased by uncrossed (unpained)
sons.
7. Royal wannabe's surround themselves with deposed generals and
defrocked clerics. (A show, at least has to be made of national
security and ancestral tradition.)
8. Pick the wrong people and your empire will crumble.
Pick the wrong people and your empire will never begin.
9. A banquet in the wrong house is a disaster in the making.
10. Miss the power core and lose the kingdom.
Miss the power core and lose your life.
11. It is a frightening thing when power and ignorance combine.
12. Often we need the wise prophet to give us life saving counsel.
13. Lay well the foundation of your plans - otherwise you may be
buried in them.
In politics, any son is not necessarily the favorite son.
When biblical faith and politics collide, the people's favorite son
will lose out against God's favorite son.
14. Timing is everything.
In accession, timing is a matter of life and death.
How blessed is a timely word.
15. When wives meet, there may be a silent war.
16. The presumptuous wife is the prostrate wife.
In a plurality of wives, there must be the maintenance of proper
decorum in respect to the
reigning patriarch (Bathsheba prostrates herself).
17. The memorial of a former oath carries much weight in the
discussion.
18. The surprise of the usurper is the ignorance of the usurped.
19. Get the guest list! What is important is who is not there.
20. At the point of transference between kingdoms, the subjects hold
their breath.
21. When you are not invited to the party, watch out!
22. When plans are made and alterations happen, the wise prophet
thinks well on his feet.
(The change in the menu between what he has programmed
Bathsheba to say and what she actually says. . . .)
23. A potentially defrocked prophet conducts himself with proper
decorum and circumspection.
24. A consistent double witness compounds the weight of the
evidence.
25. Do not embellish the testimony; but do not spare the details either.
26. When the priest, the captain of the guard and the son are not
invited, it portends a bad day.
27. Impossible crucial questions require definitive answers
nonetheless.
28. The wife summoned is the wife standing.
29. A monarch's vows based on the living Lord are binding.
30. The desired promise of a monarch kept is a relief and a joy . . . but
there may yet be drama to be played out.
31. The monarch's kept promise causes proper decorum to be more
heartfelt. (Bathsheba prostrates herself again.)
32. Loyal officers of the father are a legacy to the son.
33. Loyal officers of the father will see his will done for a worthy son.
34. Loyal officers of the father will see protocol followed to the letter.
35. Matters of succession are at once grave and detailed.
36. When the captain of the guard agrees, there is a lot of influence on
your side.
37 Any real father wants things to be better in the life of his son that it
was for him.
38. When the real power of the military is behind a project, it has a
better chance of accomplishment.
39. Proper protocol respected, mission accomplished.
40. A landslide succession is a succession indeed.
41. The deposed general is the first to hear the trumpet.
42. A messenger's bad news is compounded by his timing.
43. A biblical precedent is the reversal of the rights of primogeniture.
A narrative technique is the reversal of expectations.
44. Observed protocol and decorum is terrifying to those left out –
whether by design or default.
45. The noise is good if you are on the winning team; but woe to those
deposed, defrocked, decommissioned and defeated.
46. The matter is concluded; cut your losses!
47. When the king bows to his son, matters are concluded.
48. When a good outcome is assured, we may know that the Lord's
hand is in it and his blessing is upon it.
49. The power of terror: the rats scurry away into the cover of
darkness.
50. A usurper covers himself with religion ("Religion is the last
bastion of the scoundrel.")
51. The hope of appeal of the guilty from a position of weakness is
clemency.
52. Lay a test at the feet of a suspected scoundrel: "if he will be a
worthy man, not one of his hairs will fall to the ground; but if
wickedness is found in him, he will die."
53. Obtained mercy? Go home and stay there!
Mercy today may be judgment deferred.
1 Kings 2
The Last Commission And King David Passes Away
Let The Purge Begin
(Epilogue: Part Two)
Textual Observations
In the past, I have use the following for continued theme and further points. Theme: Finishing well should be the prime objective of every leader. 1. Old leader, die with dignity! Take your bitterness to the grave with you; Do not pass it on to the next generation. Another way of looking at this: Old leader, be freed from your bitterness: repent and accept God's forgiveness. 2. Those who commission assassinations of any kind are not respected and honored as much as abhorred and feared. 3. Men, take care of your girls - all of them; they are more vulnerable to the world's atrocities than we have been led to believe! 4. We understand human nature: it is one thing to be suspicious; it is entirely another to assume everything to be a conspiracy against us. 5. Executions protect society from further outrage; but they are never remedial for either the person executed or those that condemn them.
Our main idea is still that:
Some Grumps Get Worse And Even Grump At Us From Beyond The Grave.
Commissioned For The Rise And Fall Of Many In Israel
Well, the rise of a few and the fall of many. . . . This last, last word of David as a commission to the succeeding monarch, Solomon, develops in two movements: First, there is the matter about obedience to the law of Moses so that Solomon will have success. Secondly, there is a rather surprising matter of the disposal of various nuisances in the realm. That in a moment. . . . One of the intriguing matters about having a successful reign is that Solomon "shall not lack a man on the throne of Israel" (1 Kings 2:4). Success and posterity are related directly to obedience to the law of Moses; and yet in defiance to that law, David is going to have Solomon dispatch with certain people who have caused David no small amount of grief in the past. They have outlived their usefulness apparently and the cost to benefit ratio indicates that they should be retired - some without pension! Who are these who rise and fall?
Joab, the man who had no peace in his heart in respect to Abner, is raised up for discussion and dismissal.
Now you also know what Joab the son of Zeruiah did to me, what
he did to the two commanders of the armies of Israel, to Abner the
son of Ner, and to Amasa the son of Jether, whom he killed; he
also shed the blood of war in peace. And he put the blood of war
on his belt about his waist, and on his sandals on his feet. So act
according to your wisdom, and do not let his gray hair go down to
Sheol in peace (1 Kings 2:5-6).
The implication of the passage is that Solomon is to have Joab killed – which he will do (vs. 28-35). It is a point of interest that in both cases Joab assassinated someone slated to take his place. Solomon's read on this is that Joab killed "two men more righteous and better than he . . . while my father David did not know" (v. 32). Solomon apparently read things the same way the narrator has explained them to us (2 Samuel. 3:26). We might also notice the careful usage of the words "gray hair." By this I think we need not assume customary usage – that in the by and by, this person will pass away apart from peace. David is saying that this man is of no further use to the kingdom and should be dispatched. Because of the manner in which Joab wielded power, my suspicion is that David was afraid of him. I doubt that he could overcome his cowardice and have him removed himself. So he commissions a boy to do a man's job. The other side of it is that perhaps Joab had maintained some semblance of usefulness up to the point where he sided with Adonijah. Having not only outlived his usefulness but rather become part of a rival faction, David, ever the political genius, counsels Solomon to remove this vicious threat.
In an unusual moment of graciousness for the dying monarch, David singles out Barzillai. Barzillai would not return with David to live in Jerusalem (2 Samuel 19:31-39); but David has Solomon extend the invitation to Barzillai's sons.
But show kindness of the sons of Barzillai the Gileadite, and let
them be among those who eat at your table; for they assisted me
when I fled from Absolom your brother (1 Kings. 2:7)
One wonders at this point if this included Adriel son of Barzillai. Adriel was married to Merab, daughter of Saul. Their two sons, if Adriel is the son of the right Barzillai, were sacrificed on the altar of Saul's decimation of the Gibeonites. More later. . . .
Next, David singles out Shimei for the personal insult he had given to David when Absalom rebelled against the monarchy of his father and usurped the throne. David fled east and remembers the affront.
Shimei . . cursed me with a violent curse on the day I went to
Mahanaim. But when he came down to me at the Jordan, I swore
to him by the LORD, saying, 'I will not put you to death with the
sword.' Now therefore, do not let him go unpunished, for you are a
wise man; and you will know what you ought to do to him, and
you will bring his gray hair down to Sheol with blood" (vs. 8-9).
Again, as in the case of Joab, there is the mention of "gray hair." Old bitterness may never die but leaves its legacy to fester in the heart of the next generation. Solomon will execute this sentence by setting a trap for the old man. Technically, David is being faithful to his oath because he, David, will not put him "to death with the sword." However, commissioning a son as assassin hardly exonerates the old dying monarch. The only difference is that you cannot indict a dead man.
What follows in nearly arithmetic sequence will be the deposition of the will of the departed father. Narrative distance being what it is, the time may be longer or shorter but similar allotment of text will be given to each execution. Throughout all this, it is difficult to know which word to use. My English Bible uses the word "Executed" as a heading before each of the three major sections. I struggle with that. Is the word execution? Assassination? Murder? Blandly, killing? It is a difficult call. . . . Because of the nature of due process and the Mosaic legislation, it is difficult for me to see anything of legality behind this. These people are assassinated apart from any legal proceedings. Some overarching thoughts are in order: Old leader, die with dignity! Take your bitterness to the grave with you; do not pass it on to the next generation. Another way of looking at this: Old leader, be freed from your bitterness: repent and accept God's forgiveness.
The Death Of David: How The Mighty Are Fallen!
The wording used by the narrator is crucial in understanding this accession narrative. Notice that the verses about David's death are 1 Kings 2:10-11. They simply rehearse facts:
Then David slept with his fathers and was buried in the city of
David. And the days that David reigned over Israel were forty
years: seven years he reigned in Hebron, and thirty-three years he
reigned in Jerusalem. And Solomon sat on the throne of David his
father, and his kingdom was firmly established.
There is nothing about him being mourned by all Israel. Even in Chronicles there is not much more:
Then he died in a ripe old age, full of days, riches and honor; and
his son Solomon reigned in his place. Now the acts of King David,
from first to last, are written in the chronicles of Samuel the seer,
in the chronicles of Nathan the prophet, and in the chronicles of
Gad the seer, with all his reign, his power and the circumstances
which came on him, on Israel, and on all the kingdoms of the lands
(1 Chronicles 29:28-30).
Apart from a bit of bibliography referring us to what we have already read, there are only some polite notices about dying having lived a full life with wealth and honor. The ceremonies, even the formalities, are left out whereas they are remembered with some of the other kings.
Back in the Kings passage, we should examine the covers of the standardized and stylized obituary book. We will notice on the front cover that the last words to Solomon are words of David's vendetta. Indeed, the last words before verse 10 are "with blood to Sheol" in Hebrew. On the back cover of the obituary, the ink dries as Adonijah vies for the hand of Abishag, David's most recent "woman" – we cannot tell if she is a wife or a concubine or just a woman. What does this say about David? What does this say about the "man after God's own heart"? We cannot tell for certain; but it would appear that he died with considerable pent-up bitterness. He unleashes perhaps the most powerful king in Israel's history, Solomon, to avenge him of all the wrongs done to him in life. David may have left this world first; but he will make absolutely sure that certain of his enemies leave it soon afterward.
It did not have to be this way. Solomon was powerful enough to protect himself from external and internal adversaries. David tells Solomon that it is a point of wisdom to act this way (2:6, 9). Sometimes wisdom does not kill its enemies. Sometimes it allows them time enough to prove that they were in fact really friends that loved us enough to tell us what we did not wish to hear. And sometimes wisdom allows them time to prove beyond all possible doubt that they are in fact enemies. Death?
Deserves it! I daresay he does. Many that live deserve death. And
some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not
be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very
wise cannot see all ends.
So says Gandalf to Frodo at Frodo’s astonishment over Bilbo, the Elves and Gandalf allowing Gollum to live.
I have not much hope that Gollum can be cured before he dies, but
there is a chance of it. And he is bound up with the fate of the
Ring. My heart tells me that he has some part to play yet, for good
or ill, before the end; and when that comes, the pity of Bilbo may
rule the fate of many – yours not least.
Meanwhile back in the book of Kings, there is a little notice that tips the balance here. 1 Kings 2:13-46 is filled with intrigue, assassination and exile. On both covers of the "assassination narratives" as I call them are two nearly identical notices: "And his kingdom was firmly established" (v. 12), and ". . . the kingdom was established in the hands of Solomon" (v. 46). But if it was firmly established before the assassinations, incarcerations and exiles, why is it that we say it again afterward? Is it the case that our omniscient narrator's editor has missed a detail? Actually, the language of verse 12 is stronger than that of verse 46. Perhaps after the dust has settled – and blood, the people more fear than respect Solomon and the last commissions of David are less successful than he would have hoped. The kingdom was secure, so why mess it up? Is it wisdom to fix something that "ain't broke"?
Again, it did not have to end this way. Solomon could have let it go. David could have let it go. Only Joab committed any capital crime – and he should have had due process. In most cases, it could have been argued that he was operating on behalf of the military. Abner and Amasa's murder were crimes that should have put Joab before the bench, rather than a shady assassination apart from due process. Solomon is just throwing his weight around so that everyone knows that he means business. With how quickly people desert Rehoboam, Solomon's son, after Solomon's death, it looks as though there was never any real loyalty, respect and honor for Solomon. There was only fear of reprisals by the emperor of vendetta. We will have to see how history plays Solomon's tune. But initially, he has not made a good start – and I maintain that David is partially to blame. There is a principle here: Those who commission assassinations of any kind are not respected and honored as much as feared and abhorred.
Misplaced Concubines In The Samuel Narratives
Again, before the ink is dry on the narrative text relating the death of the late monarch and his burial, intrigue begins in earnest. It has to do with Abishag the Shunemmite – David’s "Three-Dog-Night." It is said that she became David's nurse; but "he did not know her" (1 Kings 1:4). Adonijah, the recently deposed usurper, would like to have her for a wife. On the surface of it, it seems like a reasonable request. But concubines, being what they are, become the exclusive property of the monarch. That is, the deposition of the harem was to Solomon as heir. They were not up for sale. Abishag was beautiful and Adonijah was handsome . . . it seemed like a good idea at the time. Being singled out by looks is a death sentence in biblical narrative. And so, Adonijah seeks the aid of an intermediary and is undone in the process. What about these not-quite-wives? How do they fare in biblical narrative?
As we will recall from Genesis and apart from a formal elevation in status, concubines are second-class wives and their children receive gifts rather than an inheritance. Abraham will serve as an illustration: "Now Abraham gave all that he had to Isaac; but to the sons of his concubines, Abraham gave gifts while he was still living, and sent them away from his son Isaac eastward, to the land of the east" (Gen. 25:5-6). In theory, that would include both the sons of Hagar and Keturah; however, there was always a powerful attachment between Abraham and Ishmael (17:18; 21:11), and so "his sons Isaac and Ishmael buried him in the cave of Machpelah. . ." (v. 9). Not much has changed over the intervening centuries – Mosaic regulation of abuses not withstanding. Concubines are accorded the status of second-class wives – barely meriting a consideration above breeding stock. Their sons become the rabble of the empire and fodder for their fathers' follies. Let us focus specifically on those of the Samuel Narratives.
How do Saul's Concubines fare in biblical narrative? We do not really know of that many of them. We are told in 1 Samuel 14:50, that Saul's wife (only one?) was named Ahinoam the daughter of Ahimaaz. By her, Saul had Jonathan, Ishvi, Malchishua and two daughters, Merab and Michal. Later on we discover that there is also an Abinadab (1 Samuel 31:2) and an Ish-Bosheth (perhaps Ishvi? [2 Sam. 2:8]). Are these by the same wife? Hard to say. . . . Alright, what about the concubine we know? Her name is Rizpah and she shows up in two biblical tragedies (2 Samuel 3:6-11; 21:1-14). She will fare badly in both instances. Like Benjamin in the Joseph Narrative, she is a voiceless prop. Unlike him and more like Abishag, she will be a widowed plaything. Unlike Abishag, she will be the producer of doomed children. Rizpah is mentioned four times by name. The first three, we may hesitatingly suggest, are by way of introduction and the fourth is the focus. The fourth is where Rizpah dies the death of disgraced women in ancient Israel: childless oblivion.
In the first episode (2 Samuel 3:6-11), she becomes the topic of discussion in a heated argument between Ish-Bosheth, Saul's heir and temporary regent of the northern federation, and Abner, the commander of the armies of Israel. Ish-Bosheth accuses Abner of impropriety with respect to Rizpah. Abner's response is one of indignation. What we cannot know from the text is whether his indignation is righteous or feigned. He says:
Am I a dog's head that belongs to Judah? Today I show kindness
to the house of Saul your father, to his brothers and to his friends,
and have not delivered you into the hands of David; and yet today
you charge me with a guilt concerning the woman. May God do so
to Abner, and more also, if as the LORD has sworn to David, I do
not accomplish this for him, to transfer the kingdom from the
house of Saul, and to establish the throne of David over Israel and
over Judah, from Dan even to Beer-Sheba (vs. 8-10)
The bookends of this episode are merely: "Abner was making himself strong in the house of Saul" (v. 1), and ". . . [Ish-Bosheth] could no longer answer Abner a word, because he was afraid of him" (v. 11). It is possible that Ish-Bosheth viewed a presumed affront upon the royal harem as tantamount to a coup as would later be illustrated by the case of Absolom and David's concubines (2 Samuel 16:20-23). Rizpah already has children as we will see in the next episode. She is truly a widow and protected by the laws of Israel as such. Why else, then, would Ish-Bosheth go to such lengths to indict the general? Regardless, Abner's words have a doubly desired affect: first, he admits to no guilt "concerning the woman." Secondly, Ish-Bosheth correctly, in my estimation, fears for his life and keeps quiet. One desired effect that apparently Abner's words do not have is to acquire Rizpah – if that was ever his intention. Rizpah is left a widow and even if she were to hook up with Abner, he would be dead within a few days and she would be widowed again. The concubines of decapitated heads of state do not fare well in Samuel. Episode two. . . .
Her widowhood complete, David, in the mid- to late-flight of his monarchy, must bring Rizpah the bad news that has come to her from her neighbors. As the result of a protracted famine, "David sought the presence of the LORD" (2 Samuel 21:1), and has ascertained something we could not otherwise have known. God tells David: "It is for Saul and his bloody house, because he put the Gibeonites to death." Since the days of Joshua, the Gibeonites had been protected by Israel – enslaved vassals, but protected from extermination at the least, by treaty (Joshua 9-10). Apparently, somewhere decades in the past, Saul had killed them either on one of his oscillations toward legalism as with the spirit mediums (1 Samuel 28:3), or toward nationalism (2 Samuel 21:2). There had been an affront, we might guess, and the Gibeonites were decimated. King David then called in the survivors and asked them how these wrongs might be righted. The Gibeonites show amazing reserve in the form of retributive justice they would exact:
We have no concern of silver or gold with Saul or his house, nor is it for us to put any man to death in Israel . . . The man who consumed us, and who planned to exterminate us from remaining within any border of Israel, let seven men from his sons be given to us, and we will hang them before the LORD in Gibeah of Saul, the chosen of the LORD (vs. 4-6).
David does not want to do any damage to his memory of Jonathan and so Mephibosheth is exempted - "because of the oath of the LORD which was between them, between David and Saul's son Jonathan" (v. 7). So who perishes? The answer is at once alarming and expected. After the battle with Goliath, the first option for David's wife was Merab. David decided against becoming son-in-law to King Saul via Merab. She was rejected at that point and hence doomed to the death of disgraced women in Israel: childless oblivion. However, she goes on to have something of a productive life. David acquires and surrenders to the Gibeonites the five sons of Adriel and Merab - all five sons! Adriel could very well be the son of David's friend Barzillai the Gileadite. How this is going to play back home at court? I have no idea. Here he is called "the Meholathite" perhaps to hide from the casual reader the treachery involved. "Meholah" might be the fords of the Jordan at Abel-Meholah, and Rogelim might be the memory of the spies crossing the Jordan to take a look at Jericho (2 Samuel 17:27). Firm chain? No, but thoughts the narrator has put in the head of the careful reader. What I am growing more certain of is that when God or His anointed king reject someone (Merab, here), it portends an ignominious end.
But the particular disaster in focus here has to do with Rizpah introduced above in 2 Samuel 3:7. Saul is long since dead. Abner is long since dead. Now David takes away her two sons. "So the king took the two sons of Rizpah the daughter of Aiah, Armoni and Mephibosheth whom she had born to Saul. . ." (2 Samuel 21:8). These two sons of Saul's concubine are "exposed" probably hung or impaled and displayed publicly for what seemed to their mother an interminable time. We are told in a belabored fashion about what she did in mourning the dead, in protecting the dead from the intrusion of scavengers, and how she kept her vigil day and night. Then we are told about how her behavior came to the ear of the king, her deceased are properly interred along with the remains of those slain a generation earlier at the battle of Gilboa, Saul and Jonathan. Then she is summarily dismissed from the pages of biblical narrative. We are told by the omniscient narrator who has a special window into the counsels of God. ". . . after that God was moved by entreaty for the land" (v. 14). By that we are led to believe that the famine has ended. But Rizpah joins the ranks of Michal, Abishag, Tamar, Merab and others in the death of disgraced women in Israel: childless oblivion. How is it with David's concubines?
Of course we remember the coup of Absalom and what he did to David's Concubines. But we must remember that they are not just words on the page; they were real people. David's first six wives, after Michal, are named and half of those have sons complicit in palace intrigues and insurrections (2 Samuel 3:2-5). When he moved from Hebron to Jerusalem, he "took more concubines and wives from Jerusalem . . . and more sons and daughters were born to David" (2 Samuel 13). However, these wives are not named here, only the children. One of those "concubines and wives from Jerusalem" will, upon inspection, prove to be Bathsheba because Solomon is named (v. 14). What about the other nameless "concubines and wives"? Toys and slaves! When they are mentioned in Chronicles (1 Chronicles 3:5-9; cf. 14:3-7), more focus is put upon the queen mother, Bathsheba and her sons. A distinction may also be apparent between the children of the regular wives and the children of the concubines. These latter appear to remain nameless and thus second rate. Maybe that was the mistake Adonijah made with respect to Bathsheba: perhaps he thought she was only a concubine.
Be that as it may, when David abdicates in the face of Absalom's coup, his concubines are left to "keep house" in Jerusalem. Catch the pathos: "So the king went out and all his household with him. But the king left ten concubines to keep the house." The idea here cannot be military. They are extra baggage and they are regarded as janitorial staff by the king. In addition, concubinage being what it is, when you are on the run, there really is not time for a man's play toys. Pathos again: they are not considered part of "all his household." They are left behind, orphaned, widowed, alone. . . . What Ahithophel counsels Absalom is beyond an atrocity, it is the shear cold political facts of a military coup. He says: "Go in to your father's concubines, whom he has left to keep the house; then all Israel will hear that you have made yourself odious to your father. The hands of all who are with you will also be strengthened" (2 Samuel 16:21). Not only are the girls – and some of them might have been young, Abishag was – "left to keep the house," not only are they left alone, they are left defenseless against the evil monstrosity Absalom has become. With an almost alarmingly cavalier indifference, our omniscient narrator reports their rape at the hands of Absalom. Now, they are alone and violated. These events may be viewed as the fulfillment of God's words to David through the Prophet Nathan: "I will even take your wives before your eyes, and give them to your companion, and he shall lie with your wives in broad daylight.