Abingdon Old Testament Commentaries: 1 - 2 Kings

By Prof Gina Hens-Piazza

Engages the reader by amplifying the biblical resonances echoing in our own world today by disclosing how God's Word is embodied and made known by those we least expect. The Abingdon Old Testament Commentaries provide compact, critical commentaries on the books of the Old Testament for the use of theological students and pastors. The commentaries are also useful for upper-level college or university students and for those responsible for teaching in congregational settings. In addition to providing basic information and insights into the Old Testament writings, these commentaries exemplify the tasks and procedures of careful interpretation, to assist students of the Old Testament in coming to an informed and critical engagement with the biblical texts themselves.This study of the Books of Kings unfolds with attention and sensitivity to the immense literary artistry that craft these narratives. While setting forth the literary and theological significance of these traditions concerning the major figures in these canonical books, i.e. Israel's Kings, this commentary consistently trains our attention upon the minor characters also resident in these stories. Fixing upon these individuals as well as the prophets, the exegetical discussion often discloses how God's Word is embodied and made known by those we might least expect. While steadfastly avoiding analogical readings, the theological and ethical exposition skillfully engage the reader by amplifying the resonances in these texts echoing in our own world today. The present volume gives an up-to-date, readable commentary on the books of 1-2 Kings. The commentary covers critical issues section by section while emphasizing the larger theological and literary issues in Kings and illustrating its relevance for modern readers.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Abingdon Press
• Release date: Dec 1, 2006
• ISBN: 9781426759734

Prof Gina Hens-Piazza

Gina Hens-Piazza is at Jesuit School of Theology, Graduate Theological Union in Berkeley, California.

Book preview

INTRODUCTION

First and second Kings comprise the fifth and sixth books of the Former Prophets, the second division of the Hebrew Bible. In some early Jewish sources, 1 and 2 Kings were actually considered one book. Together with 1 and 2 Samuel they set forth a story of the Israelite monarchy from the time of Saul to the exile (960–586 B.C.E.).

Within the biblical canon, the interlacing historical, literary, and theological features of these books qualify 1 and 2 Kings as a unique and eclectic accomplishment. As they recount four centuries of monarchic rule in Israel, some of their compositional sources are undoubtedly historical. Still, they are not historical books per se. Subject of many literary overtures, the books of Kings boast a vast array of genres and forms. Some of the traditions, such as the stories comprising the Elijah-Elisha accounts (1 Kgs 17–2 Kgs 8), manifest remarkable literary integrity and poetic finesse. Yet even the category literature does not adequately capture the character of these works. Further, many have recognized the presence of an overarching theological viewpoint persisting across Kings. Most frequently noted is the consistent representation of God found throughout the various stories across the different literary landscapes. Still, this does not allow us to define these writings solely as theological works. It is evident that there are three elements—history, literary features, and theology—persistently present across these writings.

How then might we describe these tomes? Perhaps the books of Kings are best understood under that familiar rubric salvation history. This implies that these writings, like the other books of the Bible, are testimonies composed over time to witness to a people’s experience of God’s involvement in the unfolding events of their lives. In the instance of Kings, these events constitute the era of monarchic rule. In making these faith professions, the traditions in Kings draw upon historical sources in order to fashion their theological assertions as artistic literature. Thus, defining 1 and 2 Kings by any one of these categories alone—history, literature, theology—shortchanges their character. Indeed, whereas each of the constitutive elements deserves consideration in the discussion that follows, it is only when they are taken together that we grasp the distinctiveness of the witness to faith in the books of Kings.

HISTORICAL CONSIDERATION OF THE BOOKS OF KINGS

At first glance, the title 1–2 Kings encourages us to anticipate a book about history, a history of rulers and the activities of their reigns. The very notion of a king urges us to think of bygone eras when monarchs governed from palaces and when peasants lived under a royal ruling class rather than a republic or democracy. Hence, it is fair to come to books called Kings expecting an account of history.

But the books of Kings are part of a larger work, the Bible, whose purpose we associate less with human history governed by limitations of time and space than with an overarching panorama called salvation history. Story rather than history is the operative genre here. Though these accounts narrate the past, the persons, places, events, and details have all been fashioned into tales that convey a particular message about God. What they tell about the past is always cast within the language of faith and is motivated by belief, rather than a historian’s commitment to objectivity, factuality, or chronology.

Still, we can raise some historical questions, as we do of all stories, when we come to 1 and 2 Kings. Sources, authorship, as well as when these stories were composed, warrant inquiry. Besides being a part of the whole biblical canon, more specifically these books of Kings take up residence in a schema of works within the Bible known as the Deuteronomistic History. The Deuteronomistic History extends from Joshua through 2 Kings but also includes the framework of the book of Deuteronomy. Indeed, Deuteronomy 1–4, which stresses covenantal fidelity to Yahweh, has a formative role on the production of meaning throughout these books. The sacred traditions and theological ideas narrated in the book of Deuteronomy serve as the lens by which events across Joshua through 2 Kings are retold. The laws of Deuteronomy serve as the template by which kings and their deeds are constantly assessed. The person of Moses, so central to Deuteronomy, is frequently cited as authorization for the law and statutes to which the kings are subject (2 Kgs 18:6; 21:9). Hence, though we cannot name the actual author of these writings, the theological coherence that threads throughout the disparate traditions making up the books of Kings is often referred to as the work of the Deuteronomist. We think of the Deuteronomist as an editor or a school of editors who fashioned together the bits and pieces of the records, traditions, and accounts stemming from the time of Israel’s settlement in the land to the era of exile in light of Deuteronomic law and faith.

Exactly what these sources were is for the most part a matter of conjecture. The books of Kings themselves give some clues. They reference at least three definitive sources—the Book of the Acts of Solomon (1 Kgs 11:41); the Annals of the Kings of Judah (i.e., 1 Kgs 14:29; 15:7); and the Annals of the Kings of Israel (i.e., 1 Kgs 14:19; 15:31). Other formerly existing files are suggested by virtue of the kinds of material recorded in these books. Kings are characteristically introduced throughout the chapters by recounting their biographies (i.e., 1 Kgs 15:9-10; 16:8), implying existence of regal records. State archives likely preserved the districting orders and appointment of governors narrated in some of the Solomonic material (1 Kgs 4). Once existing files on foreign affairs, trade deals, and international treaties were likely drawn upon for some of the narratives of the divided monarchy. Architectural and archival records probably informed the narrative recounting the construction of the Solomonic palace and the temple (1 Kgs 5–7). That similar types of records from other ancient Near Eastern societies have been recovered increases the likelihood they existed in ancient Israel.

The date of composition of these books by the Deuteronomist cannot be precisely pinned down. The persistent theological integrity of these writings, connecting God’s relationship to the people with their fidelity to the covenantal law, led Martin Noth to propose that a single individual composed the Deuteronomistic History during the exile (Noth, 9-12). With the understanding and wisdom of hindsight, this individual or group of individuals wove together stories and traditions in a way that witnessed to this theology.

Another widely held proposal grows out of a close reading of the traditions. Although there is a perceptible unity across these books, not all the theological representations completely cohere. Some parts of the tradition demonstrate a witness to God’s unconditional covenant promises, while in other places the tradition argues that God’s promises are conditioned upon fidelity to the law and statutes. Moreover, some of the accounts in 1 and 2 Samuel and 1 and 2 Kings appear to be in favor of the monarchy, whereas others bear evidence of a clear disdain for the establishment of kingship. These differences have led to the proposal that the book of Kings, along with the whole Deuteronomistic History, was the product of two editorial gestures (Cross, 224-28). One version likely grew out of the Josianic era (648–609 B.C.E.). Josiah, one of the later kings of Judah, is credited with addressing widespread apostasy by initiating a massive cultic reform. His efforts to centralize cult in Jerusalem, along with the composition of a promonarchic narrative, aimed to enkindle national spirit, reviving allegiance to the state. Such a setting would readily accommodate a theology assuring not only God’s endorsement of kingship but also the Lord’s unconditional fidelity toward the people no matter what failings they had succumbed to in the past. The scepter of divine justice and the accompanying punishment would still make room for the unconditional promise made to David (2 Sam 7).

In contrast, the experience of the end of the nation and exile in 587–586 B.C.E. would prompt a rewriting of this optimistic view of kingship and covenant. The destruction of Jerusalem coupled with the deportation of Judah’s citizens to Babylon commenced the beginning of exile, one of the most formative periods in the biblical story. With the loss of land, king, and temple, it is easy to imagine the development of a second edition that would accommodate antimonarchic traditions and gravitate toward a more qualified understanding of divine blessings. In this version, the fate of the nation and the people’s destiny itself depended upon fidelity to the Deuteronomic law. The experience of exile was evidence of the conditional nature of divine blessing. Hence, although the books of Kings cannot be read as history, the complexity of historical events echoes throughout these testimonies of a people’s experience of God in their lives.

LITERARY CONSIDERATIONS AND THE BOOKS OF KINGS

The books of Kings set forth a rich storehouse of literary traditions. Though its stories twist and turn across the reigns of both northern and southern kings, an overarching ordering of the material is perceptible. Content, rather than form, suggests a three-part structure for these books. Picking up where the story of David left off in 2 Samuel, the first section (1 Kgs 1–11) opens with the ailing king on his deathbed. It records the succession and reign of Solomon, David’s son, as the last king of the united kingdom. The second section (1 Kgs 12–2 Kgs 17) narrates the tragic rupture of the nation into two states: Israel and Judah, and the subsequent accounts of each. Toward the close of this section, Israel and its capital Samaria fall prey to the imperialist campaign of Assyria. Finally, whereas the story of the nation of Judah continues in the third section (2 Kgs 18–25), it comes to a similar conclusion. Judah eventually succumbs to a foreign power. When Babylon destroys Judah and its capital Jerusalem, the period of exile begins. Hence, the books of Kings end with the end of the monarchy.

The three sections are comprised of large segments of tradition such as the Solomonic account (1 Kgs 1–11), or the lengthy tradition on Ahab’s reign (1 Kgs 20–22), or the extended record describing Josiah’s tenure (2 Kgs 22–23). These in turn give way to a vast catalog of literary forms that together craft the component units. Opening and closing formulas introducing each king, highly stylized speeches, prophetic oracles, and vows are among the many skillfully composed forms. A narrator’s discourse weaves together these small segments of tradition to create the numerous accounts and stories composing these books. For example, the record of King Hezekiah’s reign spans several chapters (2 Kgs 18–20). Making up this vast tradition are smaller units that create individual stories. The brief tale of Hezekiah’s illness (2 Kgs 20:1-11), for instance, employs a dialogue between the king and the prophet Isaiah, as well as an oracle and a prayer.

This world of stories, both large and small, displays three familiar literary stages in the development of the plot: exposition, crisis/problem, and resolution. For example, after an initial exposition that introduces Elijah’s visit to the widow at Zarephath (1 Kgs 17:8-11), a problem is introduced (1 Kgs 17:12-15). The widow and her son are about to die of famine. Resolution, the last feature of plot, comes when Elijah declares the Lord’s promise of sustenance to the woman, and she believes (1 Kgs 17:16). Food is provided for herself, her son, and the prophet. In conjunction with plot development, narrative tension can heighten and create suspense. Narrative speed can slow or be hurried depending upon what is important. Details can be abundant, commanding our attention, or they can be sketchy, urging us to read quickly. Some characters develop gradually across large sections of tradition, whereas others reside in the background, making only brief appearances. Finally, rhetorical devices such as word plays, repetitions, and parallels all work together with these other narrative features to compose the rich textures of these books. Attention to the literary dimensions of 1 and 2 Kings will be amply rewarded in our pursuit to understand these writings.

THE BOOKS OF KINGS AS A THEOLOGICAL WORK

Like any good literature, themes abound, linking together the various stories and infusing a unity to this vast work. The presence of enduring theological themes throughout Kings makes the influence of the Deuteronomist very palpable. The notion of God intimately involved in the reigns of the kings and in the lives of the people threads together a diverse collation of stories. Over the course of the two books, an understanding of God in the life of Israel expands and deepens as the Deuteronomist unveils the numerous dimensions of divine involvement.

Yahweh, who in the early traditions is understood first as a local deity and then as a national deity, is disclosed in Kings as Lord of a far more expansive domain. God is creator and Lord of the heavens and earth (2 Kgs 19:15). Even in Solomon’s dedication of the temple, which occurs early in the tradition, God is recognized as the cosmological power responsible for all that hovers in existence (1 Kgs 8:9, 14-21, 27-30). In addition, this creator God oversees and controls the forces that other nations deify, the forces of nature themselves (2 Kgs 1:2-17; 4:8-37). Elijah the prophet was probably the most pronounced spokesperson for this theological disclosure. As his confrontation with the royal prophets demonstrated, Yahweh, not the Baals, was in charge of the natural elements upon which agriculture depends (1 Kgs 18:20-40). The Deuteronomists insist that Israel’s God, the Lord, not other false gods, also rules history (1 Kgs 11:14, 23; 14:1-18; 2 Kgs 5:1-18; 10:32-33). The Lord controls the outcome of wars. In times of famine, God intervenes to feed the poor. The destiny of kings and the destiny of peasants all unfold according to God’s design.

Yet this great all-powerful God who oversees the creation and the course of events in time and space is, in the Deuteronomist’s theology, not a remote deity. Rather, across these stories, Yahweh is shown to be intimately caught up in the lives of the people. In dreams and visions, kings behold the Lord (1 Kgs 3:5-15; 9:2-9). Through mediators and the miraculous, God’s presence is manifest (1 Kgs 18:41-46; 2 Kgs 19:1-37). Though dwelling in the temple, God is not confined. These stories witness God’s responsiveness to the plight of the Shunnamite woman (2 Kgs 4:8-37). A food crisis among the brotherhood of prophets discloses divine involvement (2 Kgs 4:38-41). The Lord even intervenes in the life of a widow, restoring her son to life at the prophet’s summoning (1 Kgs 17:17-24). This is a God who once promised to dwell among the people as blessing and continues to remain faithful to that commitment.

The Deuteronomist constantly calls attention to the first commandment, I am the LORD your God . . . you shall have no other gods before me (Exod 20:2-3). The oneness of God and the call to fidelity to God alone is what makes the rampant apostasy of kings so difficult. As it endures and continues to sway the whole people away from a covenantal understanding of the Lord, the apostasy becomes increasingly reprehensible. Most problematic of all, it flies in the face of the ultimate disclosure about God that is at the heart of Deuteronomy, beckoning recognition throughout Kings. Hear, O Israel: The LORD is our God, the LORD alone (Deut 6:4). This fundamental theological tenet stands in tension with the stories of the persistent turning away from the Lord and turning toward other deities. According to Kings, apostasy is the stumbling block that ultimately leads to the nation’s demise and its experience of exile.

The numerous thematic theological threads interweaving these traditions attest to a maturing and deepening of the understanding of the covenantal God. Yet, this matter of God in relation to this covenant is the most complex and problematic disclosure of all across Kings. In other traditions in the Deuteronomistic History, God’s promise of fidelity is unconditional (2 Sam 7). Despite human infidelity and failure, the Lord’s steadfast presence and guarantee of a future knows no condition. Grounded in the covenant promised to David, God’s preservation of the king, his offspring, and the nation would be steadfast even if at times they needed to be chastened. However, throughout Kings, the theology of covenant embedded in Deuteronomy echoes most resoundingly (1 Kgs 9:4-7). Moses called the people to a conditional covenant with God, one that unfolds concretely in blessing or curse depending upon the people’s responsiveness or turning away from the Lord.

As mentioned earlier, whether these two understandings of the covenantal God are the result of one or more editorial efforts remains a point of debate. However, a theological solution might also be rallied in the face of this complexity. The conditional understanding of covenant ties itself to the traditions centered upon Moses. These were more likely the sacred stories told and retold by the people of the northern nation Israel. The unconditional understanding of covenant links directly to the line of David that governed the southern nation of Judah. The juxtaposition of both traditions within these writings not only serves to preserve the religious experience and heritage of both communities of the divided monarchy; in the books of Kings, it also explains the nation’s failure in the land while at the same time enkindling a hope for the unending existence of a different kind of kingdom in the age to come.

COMMENTARY: 1 Kings

1 KINGS 1

As 1 Kings opens, it offers a glimpse of the essential humanity at play amid monarchic machinations. The reign of David is over. His weakened, old, passive condition, described in the opening verses of chapter 1, warrants a replacement. A dramatic power struggle erupts between Solomon and Adonijah in response to the implicit question, Who will ascend the throne of David? Just as interpreters struggle over the role of this story, the characters wrestle in response to this underlying question. The account that unfolds details how Solomon comes to the throne. Attention shifts away from the ailing David and spotlights the rise of the young king. An era that contrasts with the weak, pathetic close of the Davidic time is about to begin. The story of Solomon’s inauguration and the public assent it receives raises expectations.

Literary Analysis

Chapter 1 narrates a complex story framed by its own literary borders. In the opening of the story (1:1-10), the disabled, frail condition of King David prompts Adonijah’s plot to seize power and ascend the throne. In the conclusion (1:41-53), the inauguration of Solomon as king necessitates Adonijah’s surrender of these ambitions as well as his plea for clemency. Tension is introduced early in the narrative when Adonijah holds a feast to commence the beginning of his rise to power. Toward the end of the story, that same feast occasions the demise of his agenda and renders him powerless (1:41-49).

Across the development of plot and its resolution, four speeches (vv. 11-14; 15-21; 22-27; 28-35) work to overturn Adonijah’s plan. First, the prophet Nathan invites Bathsheba, Solomon’s mother, to consider the life-threatening consequences for herself if Adonijah becomes king (1:11-14). He enlists her assistance to reverse the young man’s plan. Second, Bathsheba, as instructed by Nathan, goes to David and informs him of Adonijah’s scheming (1:15-21). Additionally, she challenges the ailing king to make good on a vow he made regarding Solomon’s ascent to the throne. Third, Nathan joins Bathsheba before David and further coaxes the failing monarch (1:22-27). Finally, David proclaims Solomon as his successor and gives instructions for the inauguration (1:28-30, 32-37), to which Benaiah, commander of David’s army, affirmatively responds.

Characteristic of Hebrew narrative, what the king orders is described as being immediately carried out. Solomon’s inauguration fulfills David’s orders and accomplishes what the four speeches aimed to procure. Narrative report records the details of the story’s climax (1:38-40). Solomon is placed upon a mule and brought to Gihon. Zadok the priest takes a horn of oil from the tent and anoints Solomon king. As the ram’s horn is blown, the people raise their voices in assent: Long live King Solomon! Narrative elaboration confirms the public assent. The people go up after him, play joyful music, and rejoice loudly. The narrative record of these events concludes on a celebratory note, and the earth quaked at their noise (1:40). The image conjures notions that even the earth participates in the great jubilation over the rise of a monarch. This occasion of the rise of a new star encourages such comprehensive rejoicing. However, the image of the earth quaking could also suggest a splitting or severing of the land and thus foreshadow something else. The following exegetical exposition will consider whether this image narrates the earth’s rejoicing or serves as a threatening portent (vv. 41-53).

Exegetical Analysis

An Ailing King (1:1-4)

Chapter 1 opens in the private quarters of King David’s bedroom. Directly, we are offered a brief but nevertheless unqualified assessment of the languishing monarch’s condition. David is old and cold. No amount of blankets can warm him. This lackluster description is not only about David. The decline of the once powerful king creates a political crisis. The absence of a monarch at the helm creates a power vacuum. That David’s own servants take steps to revive his vitality suggests the gravity of a waning ruler. With wishful fantasies of a bygone era, his servants enlist a young, beautiful virgin to rekindle his virility and to warm him. Abishag, a Shunammite from a small village in the northern tribal territory of Issachar, is brought to the king’s chamber to lie in [his] bosom and to attend to him (1:2). The description echoes the earlier portrait of Bathsheba, who was also described as the one to lie in his bosom (2 Sam 12:3). Like Bathsheba, Abishag is described as beautiful. Images of the past when David was powerful, virile, and woefully unrestrained subtly resonate across the narrative and strain to quell the desperation of those responsible for his care. Perhaps the king’s servants hoped contact with Abishag would heal him. That she was from Shunem, where Elisha the prophet would later restore a child to life by contact with the child’s dead body, encouraged such expectations (2 Kgs 4:32-37). Or perhaps the plan to bring beautiful Abishag to the bedside of the frail king aims to revitalize him. Instead, the gesture not only fails, but further underscores the disabled condition of this monarch. Though the virgin Abishag sleeps with the king, David did not know her sexually (1:4). Such physical impotency in private affairs does not bode well for David’s competence in the public sphere. The loss of virility and vitality signals a political crisis. Who will be David’s heir? Who will ascend the throne?

A Great Feast (1:5-10)

Adonijah, the eldest of David’s remaining sons born at Hebron and thus the likely heir, responds. Taking the initiative, Adonijah prepares for his own enthronement. As he gathers horsemen, chariots, and soldiers to go ahead of him, his forthright, carefully planned activity contrasts sharply with the unresponsive and sickly state of the king. Adonijah’s expression of intent is clear, I will be king (1:5). The description of his handsome appearance and the indulgences of his father (1:6) remind us of another of David’s sons, Absalom. Before he led a revolt to become king, Absalom also held a feast and gathered a regiment of soldiers. Although such parallels encourage us to think of Adonijah’s sacrifice and feast as an occasion for self-coronation, he was more likely rallying his supporters and currying favor among his constituencies. The names of the invited guests suggest an assembly of familiar court officials we know from the past. Joab and Abiathar, early associates of David with an allegiance to the political climate before the unification of the northern tribes, join and support Adonijah. Indeed, his guest list includes all the royal officials of Judah (1:9), those who likely still identify with the self-governing tribal stronghold of the south before David established a capital at Jerusalem. The names of those not invited argue strongly for the partisan nature of Adonijah’s activities. Benaiah, Zadok, and Nathan are not among the guests. It is more than coincidence that these government officials (who entered the David story after the move from Hebron to Jerusalem) are among the uninvited. This banquet at En-rogel and the divisions it suggests must be understood in light of the Judah-Israel tensions already present in 2 Sam 20. Those who long for the good old days rally around Adonijah in opposition to those committed to the unified nation and the future it holds.

Though he is mentioned last, Solomon, the son born to David in Jerusalem, numbers most poignantly among Adonijah’s uninvited guests. That Solomon is introduced as his brother and not the son of Bathsheba highlights the significance of this omission and the familial nature of the latent divisions. Such oppositions can have consequences beyond familial confines. As we shall see in the chapters to come, the tensions between brothers, left unresolved, produce a deadly schism.

Four Speeches (1:11-37)

The scene now shifts from En-rogel to the royal court. Four speeches work to reverse Adonijah’s plan. First, Nathan, the court prophet of David, speaks to Bathsheba (vv. 11-14). At the opening of his address, he inquires whether Bathsheba knows that Adonijah has become king. He then tells her what she must do to reverse this situation. At the close of his address, he urges Bathsheba to confront David with this same question. Whether Nathan, the one responsible for conveying God’s will to the king, acts in good faith remains uncertain. On two accounts, he gives Bathsheba instructions that raise suspicions as to his motives. Though Adonijah has not actually declared himself king, Nathan reports this as a fact. Have you not heard that Adonijah son of Haggith has become king . . . ? (1:12). Next, Nathan urges Bathsheba to remind David of an oath the king allegedly swore that would put Solomon on the throne. However, nowhere in 2 Samuel do we find such an oath on the part of David. On both scores we might wonder about Nathan’s construction of the truth.

Moreover, the script Nathan provides for Bathsheba pairs David and Solomon as king and king-to-be in one rhetorical question over and against Adonijah as king in another. "Go in at once to King David, and say to him, ‘Did you not, my lord the king, swear to your servant, saying: Your son Solomon shall succeed me as king, and he shall sit on my throne? Why then is Adonijah king?’ (1:13). Nathan’s strategy seems troubling. If he can make David angry at his eldest son, he may be able to motivate even the ailing king to act. But to manipulate David, the prophet must first manipulate Bathsheba. Hence, he supplies the motive that will prompt her to cooperate. In his speech, Nathan introduces Adonijah as the son of Haggith," reminding Bathsheba that the powerful role of queen mother is up for grabs. He goes further to ensure her cooperation reminding her that the stakes are nothing less than her life and the life of her son Solomon. Although we don’t know Nathan’s motive, he clearly takes advantage of both David’s condition and Bathsheba’s vulnerability. That Solomon becomes king as a result of Nathan’s scheming raises questions about the legitimacy of the whole succession process. Moreover, the prophet’s efforts to cultivate opposition in order to carry out his plan raise additional questions about Solomon’s kingship.

Bathsheba delivers before David the second speech in this chapter (vv. 15-21). She carries out Nathan’s order and goes to the king’s bedchamber. The status of the king confined to his royal quarters is again rehearsed. The ruler is old and ill. Abishag attends the ailing monarch at his bedside. However, now the description serves to justify Bathsheba’s speech. Replaced by the youthful Abishag, the security of Bathsheba’s royal position is as precarious as the king’s health. Mother of Solomon, she has urgent grounds on which to make her case. Invited to speak, she reviews for David what we already know but what David does not. According to her, Adonijah has become king. Indeed, we know he is at least planning to do so. David’s lack of knowledge regarding these important public matters coincides with his lack of knowledge in the private sphere of sexual relations. As Bathsheba recites the allegations that Nathan has fed her, her embellishments reveal her vested interest. David’s failure to act not only jeopardizes his reputation but also threatens her safety and that of Solomon in the royal court. Additionally, when Bathsheba reminds David of his oath, she adds, You swore . . . by the LORD your God (1:17). The use of God language reminds the king of his responsibility and thus his culpability before God if he remains indecisive. Earlier in his story, David’s military leader, Joab, had sent the wise woman of Tekoa to trick the king into ruling in favor of his son Absalom (2 Sam 14:1-20). Now Nathan commissions another woman, Bathsheba, to prompt David’s ruling on behalf of another son, Solomon.

The third speech commences when Nathan follows Bathsheba into the king’s chamber and reinforces her story (vv. 22-27). Here, the Hebrew is more telling. Nathan did not merely confirm her account as he promised (v. 14); he supplemented her words. Though Nathan’s construction of events is angled differently, it pursues the same outcome. In contrast to Bathsheba’s observation of David’s lack of knowledge of Adonijah’s ascent, Nathan’s opening inquiry questions whether David himself has instigated Adonijah’s behavior and acted in favor of this son. Nathan follows this with a report of the gathering underway at En-rogel. His rendition portrays what may have been a campaign dinner as a royal coronation feast. Though Nathan numbered among the uninvited, he reports firsthand that Adonijah’s guests eat, drink, and proclaim, Long live King Adonijah! (1:25).

Knowing full well that David did not instigate Adonijah’s elevation, the prophet rhetorically crafts his speech to affect David both professionally and personally. On the one hand, the report of Adonijah’s alleged acclamation as king is intended to incite anger on the part of a sickly but nevertheless still reigning monarch. On the other hand, it may also evoke a painful memory about David’s other son Absalom’s rebellious pursuit of the throne (2 Sam 15). Hence, alongside Bathsheba’s account that highlights the conflict between brothers, Nathan’s construal of the events enkindles hostility between father and son. Together, both speeches succeed in inciting David to act.

David delivers the fourth speech (1:28-37). Two parts structure his address. First, he summons Bathsheba. Though she apparently left the chambers when David conferred with his chief advisor Nathan, it is noteworthy that David now summons her and reveals his plan. The king indicates his personal resolve to make good on his word to her, as well as to address the constitutional crisis at hand. He recites the oath that she had recalled for him but with changes. Whereas Bathsheba recounted David swearing by the LORD your God, David now swears by the LORD, the God of Israel (1:30). It is no surprise that the king’s theology is subject to and crafted by his political priorities; for him, Yahweh is a national deity. The officials he summons in the second part of the address confirm these political commitments. He calls Nathan, his prophet; Zadok, his priest; and Benaiah, son of Jehoiada, commander of his military forces. Over and against Adonijah’s cadre of Judahite officials, these men represent the rival establishment of the unified nation Israel.

With forthright decisiveness befitting a powerful monarch, David issues a series of orders that collectively will accomplish both the succession of Solomon as king and the fall of Adonijah. David commands them, Take with you the servants of your lord (1:33a), and mount Solomon on David’s own mule. This will be a sure public sign of the king’s own confirmation of the events. Next, they are to bring Solomon down to the spring Gihon (1:33b). Curiously, this site is close to En-rogel where Adonijah’s feast is underway. Then Zadok and Nathan are commanded to anoint Solomon as king over Israel. Next, they are to blow the trumpet [shofar], the familiar means by which royal announcements are made to the people of the surrounding region. The sound of the shofar will surely be heard in En-rogel, less than a half mile outside the city limits. The sounding of the shofar is to be followed by the proclamation, Long live King Solomon! (1:34). After these inaugural gestures at Gihon, David’s royal officials are ordered, You shall go up following him (1:35), with Solomon in the lead, another indication of this anointed one’s ascent to kingship. Finally, David’s list of commands culminates with a last edict: Solomon is to enter and sit on my throne; he shall be king in my place (1:35).

With this series of monarchic mandates, we reach the climax of the story; a dramatic turn of events has been brought about by a dramatic change in the king. As if awakened from a febrile slumber, the passive, unresponsive king now becomes active and decisive. Whether out of loyalty to Bathsheba, fidelity to an oath, or a determination to save both his honor and the work of his hands, that is, a unified Israel, David swings into action one last time. In response, Benaiah, David’s army commander, makes public supplication that the Lord ordain the King’s commands (vv. 36-37). His prayer confirms that the military will back the implementation of David’s order.

Solomon Becomes King (1:38-40)

The narrative format now assumes the familiar command-fulfillment pattern. Swiftly, with the speed and efficiency befitting the obedience of a loyal subject, the narrative reports that all David commanded is carried out. Although the account summary does not correspond in order or in exact detail to the list of David’s issuances (1:33-35), there is the overarching impression of fulfillment. Everything that the king ordered is in the process of being accomplished. Additional details add greater specificity and reality to the events. The Cherethites and the Pelethites are mentioned among those assembled to acknowledge the new ruler. Though the identity of these parties is uncertain, they were probably mercenaries of some sort. With no clear alliance to either of the Judahite or Israelite parties, these men might be counted on for their unflinching fidelity to the king. Given the partisan polarities threaded across this account, their enlistment is politically expedient. Additionally, when Zadok carries out the command to anoint Solomon, the narrative indicates he does so with oil from the tent. This likely refers to the tent of meeting or tent of the LORD, the symbol of divine presence dwelling among the people (2 Sam 7:2, 6; 1 Kgs 2:28). Thus, the designation of Solomon as king continues the tradition in which both Saul (1 Sam 10:1) and David (1 Sam 16:1, 13) were anointed.

Finally, with the sounding of the shofar and the acclamation of all the people, David’s oath finds fulfillment. However, as readers, we know that not all the people were present for this royal event. Besides the impracticality of assembling all the people with less than a day’s notice for the coronation of a new king, we also know that many of the Judahite people were still gathered at Adonijah’s dinner party. News of Solomon’s coronation will send shock waves throughout the festivities at En-rogel and will prompt disbelieving guests to depart prematurely.

The End of One Celebration (1:41-50)

The noise coming from Gihon interrupts Adonijah’s feasting at En-rogel. Jonathan, son of Abiathar, bursts forth on the scene just as the guests finish eating. With his announcement of Solomon’s enthronement, not only is the meal over, but so also is Adonijah’s bid for the throne. First, Jonathan summarizes what we already know. Solomon was anointed per David’s order. Zadok, Nathan, and Benaiah, along with the Cherithites and Pelethites, mounted Solomon on David’s own mule and proceeded to anoint him. The noise Adonijah and his guests heard was the city in an uproar. Solomon now sits on the throne. The sounding of the shofar signaled the beginning of one celebration and the conclusion of another.

Next, Jonathan adds to his account details and events about which we do not know. King David’s servants have gathered around his bed to congratulate him. David in turn bows down upon his bed and acknowledges their greetings and the new king. There is something disquietingly reminiscent about Jonathan’s role as informant of these events. In 2 Sam 15:17, Jonathan departed from En-rogel to tell David that his rebellious son Absalom had ascended the throne. Now Jonathan travels to En-rogel to alert another ambitious son, Adonijah, that David’s appointee, Solomon, has ascended the throne. In both instances, Jonathan is the herald of trouble for the kingship erupting from family discord.

Jonathan’s return here, along with his alarming announcement, halts the celebration. Realizing that they had been at the wrong party, Adonijah’s guests got up trembling and went their own ways (1:49). Hence, in contrast to the people who assemble and voice their assent to Solomon, Adonijah’s guests scatter and move away from the would-be king. For his part, Adonijah fears and seeks refuge in the only power that can save him. He goes to [lay] hold of the horns of the altar (1:51). These are, most likely, protrusions on the four corners of the altar. To hold them fast evidently ensured one of divine protection.

Strife between Brothers (1:51-53)

The story ends with several firsts. When Solomon sends for Adonijah, it is the first time in the whole episode that the brothers encounter each other. Upon meeting, Adonijah requests a vow that will protect him from his powerful brother. Let King Solomon swear to me first that he will not kill his servant with the sword (1:51). Adonijah’s recitation is not only a plea for clemency but an acknowledgment of his subject-servant status before the new king.

This is also the first time we hear Solomon speak as he responds to his brother’s request. Though Adonijah asked for a vow, Solomon instead delivers the terms of his existence. If he proves to be a worthy man, not one of his hairs shall fall to the ground; but if wickedness is found in him, he shall die (1:52). The expression, Not one of his hairs shall fall from his head in reference to Adonijah is chilling. On another occasion when David used it to ensure his son Absalom’s safety, it became instead a portent of his end (2 Sam 14:11). It was by the very hairs of his own head (2 Sam 18:9) that Absalom met his death. In several ways then, this exchange between Solomon and Adonijah is worrisome. The resolution of the story’s conflict has not ended the strife between brothers.

Theological and Ethical Analysis

The elevation of Solomon as king is at the expense of his brother Adonijah. As Solomon’s fortune rises, Adonijah’s destiny falls. The one brother who would be king must do obeisance before the new monarch. The other brother who merely accepts the regnal office handed him by his father makes his first act as king a gesture of sovereignty over his brother. In the end, Solomon defines the terms of Adonijah’s existence. Hence, this story of how Solomon became king also can be described in other ways. It is a story of strife between brothers, a kind of tale all too common and even foundational to the biblical tradition. Cain and Abel, Jacob and Essau, Joseph and his brothers, Amon and Absalom—the list is as endless as the reverberations triggered by each instance of fraternal strife.

As the primeval history of Genesis has warned, when hostilities between brothers go unchecked they are capable of spawning and nurturing more troublesome divisions. In this story, the strife between brothers may have done just that. The growing enmity between Solomon and Adonijah is not an isolated conflict. When other characters enter the story they, too, become entangled and embroiled in this division. As allies of one brother, they automatically become enemies of others. Bathsheba, the mother of Solomon, is threatened by the potential good fortune of Haggith, the mother of Adonijah. Joab, Adonijah’s would-be secretary of defense, is opposed by his replacement, Benaiah, Solomon’s soon-to-be appointed lieutenant of military affairs. At the level of religious affairs, the priests Zadok and Abiathar are at odds with each other in their regnal alliances. Even the unnamed others in Adonijah’s party, all . . . the king’s sons, and all the royal officials of Judah (1:9), are set in opposition to those groups of persons assembled around Solomon, the Cherethites and the Pelethites (1:38) and all the people (1:40) as a result of this brotherly strife. Such oppositions divide and multiply like cancerous cells and infect whole families, clans, and nations. Hence, strife between two brothers is never just a fraternal matter; it carries with it consequences for the entire world.

In our story, as one brother rises at another brother’s expense, not only do the people rejoice, play music, and give voice to their assent, but we also hear that the the earth quaked (1:40). Whereas the resulting fissure may be a sign of rejoicing in its immediate context, it may also foreshadow something less joyous on the horizon. In the stories to follow, this instance of fraternal strife shows its potential to cultivate a schism of national proportions, the likes of which unfold in the tragedy to come.

1 KINGS 2

Chapter 2 recounts David’s final instructions to the new king before his death. His fatherly advice is followed by an account of the bloody demise of dissenters to Solomon’s new regime. That the chronicler seemed satisfied to report the transition of kingship from David to Solomon in one sentence (When David was old and full of days, he made his son Solomon king over Israel [1 Chron 23:1]) makes the report of these murderous escapades here particularly curious. Are these stories intended merely to explain how Solomon came to consolidate his kingship after his father’s death? Or is something more at work here, something that may turn out to be both hauntingly congruent with the past as well as disquietingly present in the era to follow?

Literary Analysis

Two literary sections structure the material in this second chapter (vv. 1-12, 13-46). First, verses 1-12 narrate David’s final instructions to Solomon followed by the obituary recording David’s death. Content divides the speech into two distinct parts. In the first half (vv. 1-4), David attends to religious matters. Solomon must observe the covenant. In the second half (vv. 5-9), David addresses more mundane concerns. He offers a father’s advice on how to deal with political upstarts. At the end of his final address to his son Solomon, a notice records that David, the aging monarch, dies (vv. 10-11). The conclusion of this section (v. 12) describes Solomon’s ascent as firmly established.

The second division of this chapter (vv. 13-46) sets forth a narrative account of how Solomon acts upon his now deceased father’s directives and consolidates his reign; he issues orders to secure his rule in four isolated episodes (vv. 13-25, 26-27, 28-34, 36-46). In the process, the material serves to narrate a secure and successful transition between the close of the reign of one king and the beginning of his son’s royal tenure.

The narrative summaries (vv. 12, 46b) that conclude each part of this chapter make this overarching intention clear. The statement So Solomon sat on the throne of his father David; and his kingdom was firmly established (2:12) closes part one. Its echo, So the kingdom was established in the hand of Solomon (2:46b), concludes part two. But security and success of such hierarchical establishments are not without high costs. The characters that are expended so that the transition can be carried out specify the price tag for the maintenance of this monarchic monopoly.

Exegetical Analysis

David’s Farewell Address (2:1-9)

Having reigned forty years, seven in Hebron and thirty-three years in Jerusalem, David’s time to die (2:1) draws near. In the familiar format of a dying hero (cf. Gen 49; Josh 23; 1 Sam 12), David delivers a farewell speech and directs it to his son Solomon, the newly enthroned heir. Two sets of instructions structure his address. A litany of religious admonitions that echo the language of the Deuteronomic law code craft the first set of directives. Solomon’s attention must be riveted upon every possible divine mandate. David beseeches him to walk in God’s ways and to observe God’s statutes,