WHEN KING DAVID was old and well advanced in years, he could not keep warm even when they put covers over him. 2So his servants said to him, “Let us look for a young virgin to attend the king and take care of him. She can lie beside him so that our lord the king may keep warm.”
3Then they searched throughout Israel for a beautiful girl and found Abishag, a Shunammite, and brought her to the king. 4The girl was very beautiful; she took care of the king and waited on him, but the king had no intimate relations with her.
5Now Adonijah, whose mother was Haggith, put himself forward and said, “I will be king.” So he got chariots and horses ready, with fifty men to run ahead of him. 6(His father had never interfered with him by asking, “Why do you behave as you do?” He was also very handsome and was born next after Absalom.)
7Adonijah conferred with Joab son of Zeruiah and with Abiathar the priest, and they gave him their support. 8But Zadok the priest, Benaiah son of Jehoiada, Nathan the prophet, Shimei and Rei and David’s special guard did not join Adonijah.
9Adonijah then sacrificed sheep, cattle and fattened calves at the Stone of Zoheleth near En Rogel. He invited all his brothers, the king’s sons, and all the men of Judah who were royal officials, 10but he did not invite Nathan the prophet or Benaiah or the special guard or his brother Solomon.
11Then Nathan asked Bathsheba, Solomon’s mother, “Have you not heard that Adonijah, the son of Haggith, has become king without our lord David’s knowing it? 12Now then, let me advise you how you can save your own life and the life of your son Solomon. 13Go in to King David and say to him, ‘My lord the king, did you not swear to me your servant: “Surely Solomon your son shall be king after me, and he will sit on my throne”? Why then has Adonijah become king?’ 14While you are still there talking to the king, I will come in and confirm what you have said.”
15So Bathsheba went to see the aged king in his room, where Abishag the Shunammite was attending him. 16Bathsheba bowed low and knelt before the king.
“What is it you want?” the king asked.
17She said to him, “My lord, you yourself swore to me your servant by the LORD your God: ‘Solomon your son shall be king after me, and he will sit on my throne.’ 18But now Adonijah has become king, and you, my lord the king, do not know about it. 19He has sacrificed great numbers of cattle, fattened calves, and sheep, and has invited all the king’s sons, Abiathar the priest and Joab the commander of the army, but he has not invited Solomon your servant. 20My lord the king, the eyes of all Israel are on you, to learn from you who will sit on the throne of my lord the king after him. 21Otherwise, as soon as my lord the king is laid to rest with his fathers, I and my son Solomon will be treated as criminals.”
22While she was still speaking with the king, Nathan the prophet arrived. 23And they told the king, “Nathan the prophet is here.” So he went before the king and bowed with his face to the ground.
24Nathan said, “Have you, my lord the king, declared that Adonijah shall be king after you, and that he will sit on your throne? 25Today he has gone down and sacrificed great numbers of cattle, fattened calves, and sheep. He has invited all the king’s sons, the commanders of the army and Abiathar the priest. Right now they are eating and drinking with him and saying, ‘Long live King Adonijah!’ 26But me your servant, and Zadok the priest, and Benaiah son of Jehoiada, and your servant Solomon he did not invite. 27Is this something my lord the king has done without letting his servants know who should sit on the throne of my lord the king after him?”
28Then King David said, “Call in Bathsheba.” So she came into the king’s presence and stood before him.
29The king then took an oath: “As surely as the LORD lives, who has delivered me out of every trouble, 30I will surely carry out today what I swore to you by the LORD, the God of Israel: Solomon your son shall be king after me, and he will sit on my throne in my place.”
31Then Bathsheba bowed low with her face to the ground and, kneeling before the king, said, “May my lord King David live forever!”
32King David said, “Call in Zadok the priest, Nathan the prophet and Benaiah son of Jehoiada.” When they came before the king, 33he said to them: “Take your lord’s servants with you and set Solomon my son on my own mule and take him down to Gihon. 34There have Zadok the priest and Nathan the prophet anoint him king over Israel. Blow the trumpet and shout, ‘Long live King Solomon!’ 35Then you are to go up with him, and he is to come and sit on my throne and reign in my place. I have appointed him ruler over Israel and Judah.”
36Benaiah son of Jehoiada answered the king, “Amen! May the LORD, the God of my lord the king, so declare it. 37As the LORD was with my lord the king, so may he be with Solomon to make his throne even greater than the throne of my lord King David!”
38So Zadok the priest, Nathan the prophet, Benaiah son of Jehoiada, the Kerethites and the Pelethites went down and put Solomon on King David’s mule and escorted him to Gihon. 39Zadok the priest took the horn of oil from the sacred tent and anointed Solomon. Then they sounded the trumpet and all the people shouted, “Long live King Solomon!” 40And all the people went up after him, playing flutes and rejoicing greatly, so that the ground shook with the sound.
41Adonijah and all the guests who were with him heard it as they were finishing their feast. On hearing the sound of the trumpet, Joab asked, “What’s the meaning of all the noise in the city?”
42Even as he was speaking, Jonathan son of Abiathar the priest arrived. Adonijah said, “Come in. A worthy man like you must be bringing good news.”
43“Not at all!” Jonathan answered. “Our lord King David has made Solomon king. 44The king has sent with him Zadok the priest, Nathan the prophet, Benaiah son of Jehoiada, the Kerethites and the Pelethites, and they have put him on the king’s mule, 45and Zadok the priest and Nathan the prophet have anointed him king at Gihon. From there they have gone up cheering, and the city resounds with it. That’s the noise you hear. 46Moreover, Solomon has taken his seat on the royal throne. 47Also, the royal officials have come to congratulate our lord King David, saying, ‘May your God make Solomon’s name more famous than yours and his throne greater than yours!’ And the king bowed in worship on his bed 48and said, ‘Praise be to the LORD, the God of Israel, who has allowed my eyes to see a successor on my throne today.’”
49At this, all Adonijah’s guests rose in alarm and dispersed. 50But Adonijah, in fear of Solomon, went and took hold of the horns of the altar. 51Then Solomon was told, “Adonijah is afraid of King Solomon and is clinging to the horns of the altar. He says, ‘Let King Solomon swear to me today that he will not put his servant to death with the sword.’”
52Solomon replied, “If he shows himself to be a worthy man, not a hair of his head will fall to the ground; but if evil is found in him, he will die.” 53Then King Solomon sent men, and they brought him down from the altar. And Adonijah came and bowed down to King Solomon, and Solomon said, “Go to your home.”
2:1When the time drew near for David to die, he gave a charge to Solomon his son.
2“I am about to go the way of all the earth,” he said. “So be strong, show yourself a man, 3and observe what the LORD your God requires: Walk in his ways, and keep his decrees and commands, his laws and requirements, as written in the Law of Moses, so that you may prosper in all you do and wherever you go, 4and that the LORD may keep his promise to me: ‘If your descendants watch how they live, and if they walk faithfully before me with all their heart and soul, you will never fail to have a man on the throne of Israel.’
5“Now you yourself know what Joab son of Zeruiah did to me—what he did to the two commanders of Israel’s armies, Abner son of Ner and Amasa son of Jether. He killed them, shedding their blood in peacetime as if in battle, and with that blood stained the belt around his waist and the sandals on his feet. 6Deal with him according to your wisdom, but do not let his gray head go down to the grave in peace.
7“But show kindness to the sons of Barzillai of Gilead and let them be among those who eat at your table. They stood by me when I fled from your brother Absalom.
8“And remember, you have with you Shimei son of Gera, the Benjamite from Bahurim, who called down bitter curses on me the day I went to Mahanaim. When he came down to meet me at the Jordan, I swore to him by the LORD: ‘I will not put you to death by the sword.’ 9But now, do not consider him innocent. You are a man of wisdom; you will know what to do to him. Bring his gray head down to the grave in blood.”
10Then David rested with his fathers and was buried in the City of David. 11He had reigned forty years over Israel—seven years in Hebron and thirty-three in Jerusalem. 12So Solomon sat on the throne of his father David, and his rule was firmly established.
13Now Adonijah, the son of Haggith, went to Bathsheba, Solomon’s mother. Bathsheba asked him, “Do you come peacefully?”
He answered, “Yes, peacefully.” 14Then he added, “I have something to say to you.”
“You may say it,” she replied.
15“As you know,” he said, “the kingdom was mine. All Israel looked to me as their king. But things changed, and the kingdom has gone to my brother; for it has come to him from the LORD. 16Now I have one request to make of you. Do not refuse me.”
“You may make it,” she said.
17So he continued, “Please ask King Solomon—he will not refuse you—to give me Abishag the Shunammite as my wife.”
18“Very well,” Bathsheba replied, “I will speak to the king for you.”
19When Bathsheba went to King Solomon to speak to him for Adonijah, the king stood up to meet her, bowed down to her and sat down on his throne. He had a throne brought for the king’s mother, and she sat down at his right hand.
20“I have one small request to make of you,” she said. “Do not refuse me.”
The king replied, “Make it, my mother; I will not refuse you.”
21So she said, “Let Abishag the Shunammite be given in marriage to your brother Adonijah.”
22King Solomon answered his mother, “Why do you request Abishag the Shunammite for Adonijah? You might as well request the kingdom for him—after all, he is my older brother—yes, for him and for Abiathar the priest and Joab son of Zeruiah!”
23Then King Solomon swore by the LORD: “May God deal with me, be it ever so severely, if Adonijah does not pay with his life for this request! 24And now, as surely as the LORD lives—he who has established me securely on the throne of my father David and has founded a dynasty for me as he promised—Adonijah shall be put to death today!” 25So King Solomon gave orders to Benaiah son of Jehoiada, and he struck down Adonijah and he died.
26To Abiathar the priest the king said, “Go back to your fields in Anathoth. You deserve to die, but I will not put you to death now, because you carried the ark of the Sovereign LORD before my father David and shared all my father’s hardships.” 27So Solomon removed Abiathar from the priesthood of the LORD, fulfilling the word the LORD had spoken at Shiloh about the house of Eli.
28When the news reached Joab, who had conspired with Adonijah though not with Absalom, he fled to the tent of the LORD and took hold of the horns of the altar. 29King Solomon was told that Joab had fled to the tent of the LORD and was beside the altar. Then Solomon ordered Benaiah son of Jehoiada, “Go, strike him down!”
30So Benaiah entered the tent of the LORD and said to Joab, “The king says, ‘Come out!’”
But he answered, “No, I will die here.”
Benaiah reported to the king, “This is how Joab answered me.”
31Then the king commanded Benaiah, “Do as he says. Strike him down and bury him, and so clear me and my father’s house of the guilt of the innocent blood that Joab shed. 32The LORD will repay him for the blood he shed, because without the knowledge of my father David he attacked two men and killed them with the sword. Both of them—Abner son of Ner, commander of Israel’s army, and Amasa son of Jether, commander of Judah’s army—were better men and more upright than he. 33May the guilt of their blood rest on the head of Joab and his descendants forever. But on David and his descendants, his house and his throne, may there be the LORD’s peace forever.”
34So Benaiah son of Jehoiada went up and struck down Joab and killed him, and he was buried on his own land in the desert. 35The king put Benaiah son of Jehoiada over the army in Joab’s position and replaced Abiathar with Zadok the priest.
36Then the king sent for Shimei and said to him, “Build yourself a house in Jerusalem and live there, but do not go anywhere else. 37The day you leave and cross the Kidron Valley, you can be sure you will die; your blood will be on your own head.”
38Shimei answered the king, “What you say is good. Your servant will do as my lord the king has said.” And Shimei stayed in Jerusalem for a long time.
39But three years later, two of Shimei’s slaves ran off to Achish son of Maacah, king of Gath, and Shimei was told, “Your slaves are in Gath.” 40At this, he saddled his donkey and went to Achish at Gath in search of his slaves. So Shimei went away and brought the slaves back from Gath.
41When Solomon was told that Shimei had gone from Jerusalem to Gath and had returned, 42the king summoned Shimei and said to him, “Did I not make you swear by the LORD and warn you, ‘On the day you leave to go anywhere else, you can be sure you will die’? At that time you said to me, ‘What you say is good. I will obey.’ 43Why then did you not keep your oath to the LORD and obey the command I gave you?”
44The king also said to Shimei, “You know in your heart all the wrong you did to my father David. Now the LORD will repay you for your wrongdoing. 45But King Solomon will be blessed, and David’s throne will remain secure before the LORD forever.”
46Then the king gave the order to Benaiah son of Jehoiada, and he went out and struck Shimei down and killed him.
The kingdom was now firmly established in Solomon’s hands.
Original Meaning
THE KINGS NARRATIVE proceeds on the assumption that the account of the rise of David is familiar to the reader. The conspiracy depicted here for the throne is a new development in the story of David. The question of succession is first raised by Bathsheba (1:20).1 The main protagonists, Solomon and Adonijah, have had no role in the previous events of David’s household. After the birth of Solomon, Bathsheba vanishes from the scene. This struggle for the throne provides the transition from the story of David’s reign to Solomon as the new king.
In the early monarchy of Israel, the right of the firstborn to succeed on the throne (primogeniture) seems to have been recognized (cf. 1 Sam. 20:31; 1 Kings 2:22). Adonijah, the oldest surviving brother, has rallied to his side the leaders who have been with David from the days of his flight from Saul. These include Abiathar the priest and Joab, one of David’s leading military generals. This right of succession, if it existed, is not uncontested. Supporting Solomon are Benaiah the military leader, Zadok the priest, and Nathan the prophet. The rivalry between these two parties has the appearance of the traditional leadership of the “men of Judah” (1:9) protecting their interests against a younger generation of rivals. David appears as a weak and vacillating king. His failure to declare a successor continues the conflict that has plagued his household from the days when Solomon was born.
Advancing Debilitation of David (1:1–4)
THE INABILITY OF David to function as king creates a crisis in the young kingdom. His inability to stay warm when provided an abundance of coverings is a sign of impending death. David’s political advisers and protectors attempt to assist him by seeking out a beautiful young woman to provide him with personal care. In a society that accepted concubines as the right of a king, it is her duty to be his bedmate as well.2 None of this would be shocking or even unusual in a society that expected kings to have the services of a large harem. Their provision of a young woman for David does not suggest they believed a king could not function when lacking sexual potency, or that by primitive rite of contractual magic they could convey health and heat of a young body to the old king.3 The narrative provides no indication that Abishag is sought for the purpose of restoring virility. David’s failure to respond is an indication that the vigor for which he was renowned has left him.
The position of Abishag is left ambiguous, since she is not fully inducted into his harem. Her intimacy with David and her extraordinary beauty gives her a special status. Solomon no doubt intends to make her a part of his own harem. When Adonijah requests her as a wife, Solomon interprets it a plot for the throne (2:21–22). She becomes the occasion for Solomon to rid himself of Adonijah in taking charge of the kingdom as the rightful successor to David.
Enthronement of Solomon (1:5–53)
THE SUCCESSION OF Solomon to the throne of David follows a pattern all too typical of ancient kingdoms. Rivalry for the throne often led to violence and death among family members and their associated supporters. The attempted coup by Adonijah and the counter-coup of Solomon are the outcome of moral compromises of David’s reign. Adonijah is David’s fourth son (2 Sam. 3:4), and apparently the oldest surviving son. Amnon, the oldest son of David, was killed by Absalom because of the rape of his sister Tamar (13:28–29). Absalom, the third oldest son, died in his revolt against David (18:14–15).
Adonijah believes he is entitled to be heir and attempts to take over the throne; David is either negligent in the matter of not fulfilling his earlier oath to Bathsheba (1 Kings 1:13, 17, 30), or he secretly sympathizes with the ambitions of Adonijah. Nathan the prophet intervenes for the safety of Bathsheba and her son; he devises a scheme to call the king to account for his earlier promise that Solomon will reign. David has not been in control of his own household (1:6), a pattern seen during his reign. After Solomon is installed as king by the authority of David, the group supporting Adonijah disbands, and Adonijah is offered conciliation. This is not God’s design for the succession to the throne he established forever (2 Sam. 7:13–14). The brutal employment of military force leads to violence and guilt on all sides. Manipulative tactics and ruthless quest for political power are a drastic departure from Israel’s political ideals.
Adonijah is aggressive in seizing the throne (1:5, 7, 9). He employs a personal chariot force and guard of honor to give him the status of king and to prepare for his coup. Though David has made limited use of chariotry (2 Sam. 8:4), Adonijah is well aware of its power. Joab, the powerful military leader of David’s army, joins in the revolt, along with Abiathar, a leading priest.
Joab is a relative of David (1 Chron. 2:15–16) and the ruthless leader of David’s army (2 Sam. 3:27; 18:15; 20:10). With Joab at the head of the conspirators, Adonijah has access to the entire army (2 Sam. 20:23), a far greater force than the palace guard of Benaiah. Abiathar the priest has served David from the beginning of his struggles (1 Sam. 22:20–23); he escaped from the slaughter of the priests at Nob, took refuge with David, and became a priest in the kingdom along with Zadok (2 Sam. 20:25). Adonijah calls together the royal family and all the men of Judah (1 Kings 1:9), his own clansmen, who under Joab constitute the striking force of the national army.
The location of the celebration of investiture is at the “Serpent Stone,” or more probably the “Rock Slide.”4 It is outside Jerusalem, but close enough that the counter-celebrations within the city can be heard (v. 41). It is located near En Rogel, at the present time a shaft tapping a subterranean stream just below the confluence of the Hinnom and Kidron valleys,5 on the southeast corner of the city.
The counter forces consist of Zadok the priest, Benaiah the general of the standing army, Nathan the prophet, and Shimei, who had the status of friend of the king (v. 8).6 Zadok appeared after David’s occupation of Jerusalem (2 Sam. 8:17) and functioned as a leading priest along with the representative of the line of Eli (20:25). Benaiah also took office after David’s conquest of Jerusalem (8:18); he was the commander of the royal army, those soldiers employed by the king and detached from their home communities. Nathan the prophet emerged after David took office in Jerusalem as well (7:2). He was always associated with the king and had sufficient influence he could confront and correct the king, as in the Bathsheba affair (12:1–15). Adonijah underestimated the resistance of those loyal to Solomon. His deliberate exclusion of them indicated that he did not intend to function with a peaceful coalition (1 Kings 1:10), and he overestimated the power of his forces to overcome them (v. 12).
Nathan the prophet previously served as the conscience to the king in the matter of temple building (2 Sam. 7:1–11). Knowing the oath of succession, Nathan is committed to ensuring the promise is fulfilled. Previous weakness of David in dealing with his children included the rape of Tamar, which merely roused his ineffective anger against Amnon (2 Sam. 13:21), and his lenience toward Absalom, which nearly cost him the loyalty of his troops (19:1–7). David may have had similar sympathies with Adonijah, and the results would have been similarly disastrous. This time Nathan brings his rebuke through the influence of Bathsheba. David would feel a sense of obligation to her, especially since the oath was initially made to her (1 Kings 1:17). Nathan does not trust David to live up to his obligations and is determined to be present to ensure the oath is fulfilled, though he makes no reference to it in speaking with David. Instead, he arrives as a messenger to report to David that the investiture of Adonijah is in progress. As on previous occasions, Nathan directly addresses the failure of the king without violating royal prerogative or rousing the anger of the king.
When confronted with his failures, David accepts responsibility for his wrong. His oath assures Nathan and Bathsheba that he will keep the vow made earlier (vv. 29–30). Prophet, priest, and general (Nathan, Zadok, and Benaiah) are to commence the coronation of Solomon immediately. Solomon mounts David’s private mule, dramatic and visual evidence that royal authority has been turned over to the rightful heir. The Gihon Spring is the famous water source of Jerusalem in the Kidron Valley not far from the temple, about a quarter mile up the valley from the spring where the celebrations of Adonijah are taking place.
Zadok the priest anoints Solomon as king with the authority of Nathan the prophet. The trumpet blast announces the installation of the new king. With this prophet, priest, and general set out with the royal guard described as Kerethi and Pelethi (v. 38).7 Zadok the priest anoints Solomon in a distinguished ceremony. A joyful procession follows with the playing of flutes or dancing.8 The celebrations “split the land” as if an earthquake has taken place (v. 40),9 marking this as a most significant occasion.
The tumult of the coronation attracts the attention of Adonijah’s party just down the valley. Jonathan, the son of Abiathar the priest and a man of status, is apparently present at the proceedings of the anointing of Solomon and reports everything that has transpired. The last word, spoken by David himself, is a thanksgiving prayer that the dynasty will continue (v. 48). The party of Adonijah quickly disperses, unwilling to challenge the will of David and the forces who are with Solomon. Adonijah himself seeks refuge in the sanctuary, the place where the innocent can be protected from summary execution. He fears the fate of death at the hands of Solomon, since no doubt this is what he planned for Solomon had he been successful. The sanctuary protects the innocent, but it is of no help to the guilty. Adonijah seems to think he is in a position to bargain for mercy. Solomon grants him security on the condition that he conduct himself with loyalty and honor.
Solomon Consolidates His Rule (2:1–46)
CHAPTER 2 HAS a sharp disjunction between two distinct sections: the last words of David (vv. 1–9) and the consolidation of the kingdom under Solomon (vv. 12b–46). The report of David’s death and the statement of Solomon’s taking the throne serve as a transition to the topic of Solomon establishing his kingdom (vv. 10–12a).
David’s charge to Solomon and his death (2:1–11). This chapter is a sequel to the enthronement of Solomon. The charge of David to deal with Joab and Shimei serve as a prolepsis for the task Solomon will have in securing his throne. The problem of Abiathar and Adonijah has already been established in the anointing of Solomon. Joab had a role in those events (2:28), though he was not mentioned, and Shimei humiliated David when he fled from Absalom (2 Sam. 16:5–14). The previous episode of Solomon gaining the throne is continued by introducing the role David had in securing the throne in the midst of various rivalries that carried over from his time.
The charge of David to Solomon (2:2–4) is typical Deuteronomistic theology, expressing the ideology of the kingdom. The fundamental obligation of the king is to rigorously observe the divine mandate (v. 3a), which is “written in the Law of Moses”—that is, Deuteronomy and its requirement of covenant faithfulness (cf. Deut. 30:10; 31:9–13).10 Faithfulness to the covenant is the single discriminating factor in determining whether kings are good or bad. These final words of David are the fundamental first words for every succeeding king. They express the need for uncompromising faithfulness if the dynastic succession is to continue as God has promised (v. 4). Before David comes to the specifics of Solomon securing his own rule, he reminds Solomon of the one indispensable condition for the continuity of the kingdom.
As is the case in any transition of power, some matters need immediate attention to prevent continuation of the kind of conflict experienced with Adonijah. During David’s reign there had been rivalry for power within the military. Joab and his brothers Abishai and Asahel (the three sons of Zeruiah) were a central force in David’s wars against the house of Saul (2 Sam. 2:17–18). Abner was the chief of the military for the Benjamites, but he eventually defected to David in an agreement to unite the two political powers (3:12–21). This was a possible threat to Joab as the head of the military, but Joab also had a personal matter to settle. Abner in self-defense had earlier killed the fleet-footed Asahel, who refused to give up pursuit in battle (2:18–23). When Abner made peace with David, Joab lured him back into the gate of Hebron, where he killed him (3:24–27). This was a serious setback for David, since the people of Israel held him responsible for the death of their military leader.
Worse still was the murder of Amasa, a kinsman of David who replaced Joab at the head of the military (2 Sam. 19:13–14). David commissioned Amasa to raise a military force to quell the rebellion of Sheba, but he took too much time (20:1–6). Joab, under the command of Abishai, pursued the rebels, but in a fit of jealousy treacherously killed Amasa when he came to meet them at Gibeon (20:7–10). Joab regained his status as head of the army (20:23), through the death of those better than himself (see 1 Kings 2:32).11 Solomon must now use his political savvy12 to accomplish what David failed to do in bringing stability to the military.
David owes a favor to Barzillai, a Gileadite of Rogelim, who brought food and supplies to him and his followers at Mahanaim during Absalom’s rebellion (2 Sam. 17:27–29). David offered Barzillai a permanent residence in Jerusalem as a member of the royal court, but he declined the offer because of his advanced age and asked that his son Kimham be rewarded instead (19:31–38). David now insists that this son be rewarded for this deed of loyalty. “Eating at the king’s table” may have been an idiom for receiving a pension (cf. 9:7; 19:28), a phrase that had a long history of usage from Egypt to Mesopotamia.13
The name Barzillai is Aramaic, an indication of his residence in the northern part of the Transjordan in the border region between Israel and Syria. One of the purposes of retaining these men in the royal court may have been to help retain allegiance in a border area. Barzillai means “man of iron” and may refer to the profession of metalworker, since he came from the area of Succoth, famous for smelting.14 Since smiths did not have land of their own, they might more readily settle in Jerusalem.
David was never able to overcome the hostility between Benjamin and Judah. The most dangerous rebellion was that instigated by Sheba, a threat greater than that of Absalom (2 Sam. 20:6). The rift of north and south was evident during the rebellion of Absalom when Shimei, a Benjamite relative of Saul in Haburim, publicly cursed David and accused him of bloodguilt in supplanting the house of Saul (6:5–13). When the rebellion was quelled, Shimei petitioned David for his life, and David granted him an oath of clemency (19:16–23). David found it prudent on that occasion not to risk further rebellion by sanctioning revenge against Shimei, as the Benjamites were a large force. Solomon cannot allow such resistance to go unchecked, and David instructs him to find occasion to deal with it coercively.
David then dies and is buried in the “City of David,” the walled fortress of the Jebusites that was first conquered by David and his personal striking force (2 Sam. 5:6–9). It remained crown property of David and his successors within the states of Israel and Judah. Burial within the palace precincts was common in ancient times; Ezekiel refers to the defilement of the temple by the bodies of the kings of Judah (Ezek. 43:7–9). Though Peter makes reference to the tomb of David as known in his time (Acts 2:29), it is no longer possible to authenticate that place. The tombs of Judahite kings have been identified on the south slope of Ophel, and it is more likely David is buried there than on the traditional site on the southern extremity of the western hill.
The summary of David’s reign repeats the information given earlier (cf. 2 Sam. 5:4). The two periods of David’s reign constituted an average adult life. David was thirty years old when he began to reign in Hebron. His rule in Hebron of seven years and six months is here rounded off to the typological seven years. Forty years was considered to be a generation (e.g., the Israelites wandered for forty years in the desert). Seventy years was by no means old for a person of David’s vigor, but it was recognized as the average life span (Ps. 90:10).15 The regnal résumé in customary fashion summarizes several key events in the life of David.
The consolidation of Solomon’s reign (2:12–46). The consolidation of Solomon’s reign is marked with a repetition of the introduction in its closure: “The kingdom was now firmly established in Solomon’s hands” (vv. 12b, 46b).16 The Old Greek versions insert the title of a new book before verse 12, interpreting the introduction to Solomon’s reign as a new beginning.17 The different textual divisions are indicative of the dual function of this verse and the use of the regnal summary as a transition in the narrative.
The investiture of Solomon does not settle the question of succession. Adonijah uses the influence of Bathsheba to rally support for his right to rule as the older brother. Solomon recognizes the popular support that Adonijah would have as the older brother (v. 22), and that he also has the support of a leading priest (Abiathar) and military leader (Joab). Adonijah’s request for Abishag becomes the occasion for Solomon to rid himself of the adversary he has reluctantly spared (cf. 1:52).18 Solomon takes a double oath (vv. 23–24) to express the certainty that Adonijah must die. He ordered his death through the agency of Benaiah (v. 25), who is responsible for the royal guard.
The role of Bathsheba in the proceedings is left somewhat enigmatic in the narrative. She has complied with Adonijah’s request, though he is a rival and feels that his right of kingdom has been taken away (v. 15). Bathsheba is well aware of Solomon’s claim to the throne because of the promise to David (v. 24). It is possible that in delivering the request she knows Solomon will have sufficient reason to bring closure to the question of succession through eliminating her rival.
Solomon bans Abiathar to Anathoth, where he is to make a living from his own estate and never again receive support from the sanctuary (vv. 26–27).19 Abiathar had been David’s faithful priest from the years before he reigned in Hebron and Jerusalem, but he was never able to supersede Zadok. Both Abiathar and Joab were newcomers in the city that David made capital, and as always in such circumstances, the old garde was in conflict with the new arrivals. Adonijah chose to ally himself with the priest of David’s pre-Jerusalem days, as he would more truly represent both Israelites and Judahites. The sentence given to Abiathar as a man marked for death (v. 26) is commuted; this may be the regular form for an accession amnesty.20 Abiathar can no longer function as a priest; according to the judgment of Deuteronomistic theology, this is a consequence of the sins of the house of Eli in Shiloh (1 Sam. 3:12–14). The genealogy from Eli to Ahimelech, priest of Nob, Abiathar’s father, is never given explicitly (22:20), but there may have been independent tradition to confirm it.
The banishment of Abiathar signals to Joab that his time is up (vv. 28–35). Even the most fierce and fearless warrior will die by the sword as he lived by the sword. Joab seeks refuge at the altar and determines to die there if necessary.21 He may have hoped that Solomon will not resort to execution, at least not in the temple, but Solomon’s resolve is undeterred. Joab has acted outside of his authority and for personal reasons in killing Asahel and Amasa; David has already recognized this as tantamount to anarchy, and the only resolution is the death of the anarchist.
Solomon gives amnesty to Shimei (vv. 36–38), but at a considerable cost. He is confined to Jerusalem, which prevents him from again rallying support against the Davidic dynasty in the Benjamite countryside. It also prevents him from managing his own lands in Bahurim, which he places under the care of servants. In the forced absence of their master, the servants are free to act on their own initiative and in their own interests. Two of them run away to Achish son of Maacah king of Gath (v. 39), evidently the same Philistine potentate who had been David’s feudal lord (1 Sam. 27:2).
Shimei knows he is in danger of losing his property. According to the social conventions of Israel, land was safeguarded by kinship relations. By being confined to crown property in Jerusalem, Shimei has lost the protection of traditional residency. He obviously knows the risks of pursuing his servants in seeking to protect his economic interests. Solomon has forbidden him to cross the Kidron (v. 37), a valley just to the east of ancient Jerusalem that separated it from Shimei’s territory in Bahurim. Shimei goes south and west to Gath, perhaps taking literally the prohibition of not crossing the Kidron, in the hope that this will not violate his oath. He returns with his servants before Solomon finds out about his departure, but this does not spare him. Solomon executes the oath according to its intent, if not the exact letter of the law.
Bridging Contexts
THE CRUELTY OF HUMAN POLITICS and the promise of God. The execution of Shimei fulfills the last of David’s injunctions to his successor, assuring the blessing of the kingdom of Solomon and the continuity of the kingdom of David (2:45). For the Deuteronomistic Historian, this is the accomplishment of the purpose of God. The violence of these events demonstrates spiritual failure and the cruelty of human politics. The failure of the narrator to condemn the brutality perpetrated in the struggle for power should not be taken as evidence that these are condoned or regarded as necessary. The focus of the account is to show how the promise of David is fulfilled (1:13, 36–37, 47–48) and the kingdom made secure to Solomon (2:12b, 46b). In spite of arrogance and vengeance within the house of David, the promise of God is realized. There is a condition to the success of the kingdom, as expressed by David in his last words (2:4). The ultimate failure of the Davidic house is a consequence of the failure to meet the one fundamental requirement.
The prophetic account of the succession to David follows the course of history, but the occurrences reported do not have equal significance and value. The narrator understands these events as a dynamic between human volition and divine purpose. The accession of Solomon is a revelation of God seen in the outcome of the struggle with Adonijah. The technique of the narrator is to reveal the divine purpose through the key characters in the story.
The inability of David to “know” Abishag (1:4) indicates his inability to perform his duties as king. The reader hears echoes of the word after Adonijah has proclaimed himself to be king; Nathan tells Bathsheba that David does not know this (v. 11), and Bathsheba informs David what he does not know (v. 18). The legitimate heir to the throne is never in question according to the narrative. Solomon had been declared successor in an oath David had sworn to Bathsheba (1:13). This is the first mention of such a declaration. Adonijah is depicted as presumptuous and manipulative in his quest for the throne; he invites his supporters to a coronation ceremony, deliberately excluding those who may have contested his claims. David’s words to Solomon at the time of his death (2:2–4) make him the heir of the kingdom promised to David in perpetuity.
The investiture of Solomon is recounted in the instructions of David (1:32–35), in the narration of the events themselves (vv. 36–40), and in the report of Jonathan to Adonijah and his guests (vv. 42–48). The divine purpose is revealed in the mouths of various speakers. When David tells Bathsheba he will fulfill his oath, she exclaims: “May my lord king David live forever” (v. 31). Benaiah replies to David’s order to anoint Solomon with “Amen! May my lord the king confirm it” (v. 36).22 Benaiah expands his petition to ask that the throne of Solomon be even greater than that of David (v. 37). In the report of Jonathan, the people repeat this petition, asking that God make Solomon’s fame greater than that of David and his throne more exalted (v. 47). King David himself blesses God for providing one to sit on his throne while he can see it with his own eyes (v. 48).
Even Adonijah acknowledges that his quest for the throne has been in defiance of the divine will (2:15). By the will of the people, the right to the throne was his as the eldest son; the events that transpire to give the throne to Solomon are divinely ordained. Bathsheba declares that the reign of David lives on in his descendants (1:31).23 The prayer of Benaiah declares that God must confirm the rule of Solomon or it will have no effect (v. 36). The frustration of the ambitions of Adonijah is not the sociopolitical outcome of a struggle for succession, but a testimony that God is accomplishing his purpose in spite of the schemes of mortals.
The oath of David repeated by Nathan (1:13), Bathsheba (v. 17), and David himself (v. 30) is critical in the strategy of the narrative. The oath moves David from his lassitude (vv. 1–4) to appropriate action (vv. 28–40). David had earlier been declared to be the man after God’s own heart (1 Sam. 13:14). This idiom has nothing to do with God’s fondness for David or with any quality of David in his obedience to God.24 Rather, it emphasizes the free divine selection of the heir to the throne as the alternative to the endurance of Saul’s dynasty. Individual will as a desire of the heart is expressed in the petition of Psalm 20:4: “May he give you according to your heart and make all your plans succeed.” The sovereign choice of David was rewarded by his determination to do what was right before God (1 Kings 14:8); David became the model of the resolve to follow in God’s ways with all his heart. The sovereign choice of David as the heir to the throne is continued in the choice of Solomon as the successor in the house that God is building for David (2 Sam. 7:11b–12).
Repetition of elements is a technique used to convey critical items in the sequence of transference of power. As is the case in rivals for the throne, either Solomon or Adonijah will be executed. Nathan urges immediate action to ensure that Solomon and Bathsheba are the ones to escape (1 Kings 1:12); Bathsheba in turn informs David that if he does not take immediate action regarding Adonijah’s declaration of rule, both she and Solomon will be held guilty (v. 21). There is but one question that is repeated by Bathsheba (v. 20) and by Nathan (vv. 24, 27): Who will be next king? The answer is that Solomon will be king; the oath must be made effective in the anointing (vv. 34–35, 39). Jonathan brings the news that is anathema to Adonijah: David has made Solomon king (vv. 43, 45, 46). Failure to anoint Solomon would have been disaster, but such an outcome is never actually possible.
God is at work. An enigma not addressed in the narrative is how the violence of succession is to be reconciled with God’s foreordained will. The deathbed speech of David concerning Joab, Barzillai, and Shimei bring matters of the past in the former regime to the present. Joab had done much good for David; Barzillai had long ago renounced his offer to be David’s guest, and Shimei had been among the first to abet David on his return. Time has changed nothing. DeVries describes this as a dangerous “dynamistic fatalism, so endemic in that and many other cultures.”25 The wisdom with which David counsels Solomon could be regarded as petty and vengeful schemes (2:6, 9). The haughtiness of Adonijah and the despotism of Solomon in dealing with him all appear equally lamentable. Joab surely deserves better than an ignominious burial; Abiathar deserves more than summary dismissal. Both have been loyal to David, repeatedly risking their own lives in the days when he was a fugitive fleeing from paranoid king Saul or David’s own rebellious son Absalom. Solomon’s arbitrary treatment of Shimei is motivated by a fear of unrest among the northern tribes. Solomon’s investiture of power appears to be achieved by a ruthless tyranny.
Nothing in the narrative manifests a conviction that God is on the side of the clever or that might makes right. No comment is made on the motives of the players of this drama, their attitude toward God, or the role they think God has in their decisions. Commentators have never been able to agree on whether the story of the succession to David is pro-Solomon or anti-Solomon. Sufficient arguments can be established for either claim; there are no heroes in this all-too-typical account of transference of political power. The concern of the authors is to show that God is at work accomplishing the purposes of his kingdom in spite of personal aspirations and vendettas of the individuals concerned. The purposes of the kingdom of God are not achieved through violence and greed but in spite of them. The narrative appears to be ambivalent toward government as a kind of necessary monster.
The paradox of virtue and villainy excels in the household of David. David holds the highest possible good as his goal (2:4); he understands that God has fulfilled his word, and it is now the obligation of his successors to follow God as single purpose of their “heart” (lēbāb) and their sole desire (nepeš). Neither Solomon nor Adonijah demonstrate a commitment to God in their quest for the throne. The story of David’s household is all too familiar in the world of politics. Assassinations and political revolts are the way of virtually every nondemocratic nation, and often the enmity is directed against family members. In this respect the story of David is like those of all others. There is one distinct dimension to the succession of David in prophetic teaching; the throne of David represents the kingdom of God, which will be forever. For this reason the succession to David is not just a matter of resolving family, priestly, and military rivalries; this is another case of the prophetic word being realized and of David following his commitment as a man seeking God with his whole heart.
After Solomon, succession to the throne is regarded as the right of the firstborn. Solomon understands very well that he has received the throne by countering those loyal to David from his earliest days (Abiathar and Joab), who chose to ally with the son who had the rightful claim to the throne (2:15). David received the throne through the superiority of his charismatic leadership after many wars in his struggle with Saul (2 Sam. 3:1). This was the outcome of a divine choice announced to David through the anointing of Samuel (1 Sam. 16:13).
The divine choice of Solomon was similarly known previously through the oath of David (1 Kings 1:30). David and Solomon alone of the kings of Judah share the distinctive of coming to rule through divine choice apart from the right of primogeniture. Divine choice did not preempt the political process; for the prophetic writers of the Deuteronomistic History, it served to interpret those events. The proper prophetic task is to show how God is at work in his world in the midst of the turmoil of human events.
The divine choice of David and Solomon as the founders of the kingdom is a point developed extensively in Chronicles. Though the Chronicler relies extensively on the history of Samuel and Kings, he has no parallel for the account of the Davidic succession. The word of Yahweh had come to David saying that a son would be born who would be a man of peace (1 Chron. 22:9–10); even his name (šelōmōh) means peace (šālôm). The temple would be built in a time of peace. When David became old, he appointed Solomon to be king (1 Chron. 23:1). Out of all of David’s many sons, God had declared that Solomon would succeed him and build the temple (28:5–7). In David’s final prayer and blessing he asks that Solomon (šelōmōh) have a whole heart (šālēm) to observe the regulations of the covenant and to build the great citadel, which he had prepared (29:19–20). The conflict by which Solomon came to be king has no significance in the version of Chronicles. In this respect the Chronicler interprets the Kings story correctly. The divine plan and purpose are the only matters of importance; it is important to discern them in the melee of human events.
Human government. Civilized societies exist by the order of human government. This is a central point of the Genesis flood story. Being made in the image of God was the power for humans to represent the rule of God in this world. God made his image as male and female (Gen. 1:26–27); they were to be fruitful and multiply because only collectively, as a human society, could they fulfill the mandate of representation, exercising dominion in God’s world on his behalf (v. 28). The human choice to be godlike themselves and determine in their own estimate right and wrong (3:5) led to the disintegration of an orderly society. This disintegration began with the inability of humans to live as a family. Life would continue through childbirth, but the birth of children would bring distress.26
Cain’s killing Abel reached a climax in the horrible statement of Lamech expressing his perverse idea of justice: “I have killed a man for wounding me, a young man for injuring me. If Cain is avenged seven times, then Lamech seventy-seven times” (Gen. 4:23b–24). This philosophy led to a human wickedness in which “every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time” (6:5b). The only possibility was a new beginning, which came about with the earth going back to water and with one family again representing the grace of God. God again provided for human society, requiring this family to also be fruitful, multiply, and fill the earth (9:1, 7). This time there was a provision for the inevitable violence stemming from the ethics of revenge: “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made man” (v. 6). This is a mandate for order; it means that humans who violate the sanctity of the image representing God by killing a person will themselves come under the authority of those who represent the order of God’s will. The enforcement of this order extends to the very right of life itself; human governments under certain conditions may need to exercise an ultimate authority over life.
The Scriptures never suggest that human government is a solution to the power of evil. They recognize that often it is government itself that is the worst perpetrator of violence and evil. There is good reason why the books of Daniel and Revelation describe human governments as horrible beasts trampling, devouring, and killing. Habakkuk complained about the injustice and disorder of human government, even within divine providence.
Why then do you tolerate the treacherous?
Why are you silent while the wicked
swallow up those more righteous than themselves?
You have made men like fish in the sea,
like sea creatures that have no ruler.
The wicked foe pulls all of them up with hooks,
he catches them in his net,
he gathers them in his dragnet;
and so he rejoices and is glad.
Therefore he sacrifices to his net
and burns incense to his dragnet,
for by his net he lives in luxury
and enjoys the choicest food. (Hab. 1:13b–16)
The rule of human government has often seemed out of control, left to the devices of the most wicked, a situation no different than that of Lamech. Even in the best of human governments there is violence and there are victims. The chaos at the transfer of the reign of David was a judgment brought on by David’s own failures and sins, as explained by Nathan the prophet (2 Sam. 12:11–12). Those of his own household would repeat the murder and adultery of David in the Uriah affair. The whole account of David’s succession was a demonstration of the fulfillment of the prophetic word: the rape of Tamar by her brother Amnon, the revolt of Absalom, the revolt of Sheba, and finally the attempted coup of Adonijah. It was the conviction of the prophetic authors of Kings that David was the man “after the heart of God;”27 their point was that God had chosen both David and his successor. That was never meant to suggest that in his life and in his kingdom he was always able to represent the rule and the will of God. Human government is necessary to order, but human government is not the solution to the violent disruption of order, as governments fail and create victims of their own.
A better kingdom. The succession of Solomon was an affirmation of the divine promise to David and a hope cherished by David. It was the search for a better order, the hope of a better kingdom. This hope is implicit in the Deuteronomistic History, as it continues the story of the promise to Abraham (Gen. 12:1–3) and the promise of Nathan (2 Sam. 7:11b–17). The hope of the kingdom lived on after the Exile, though an independent kingdom of David never again became a reality. The New Testament begins with this hope: “A record of the genealogy of Jesus Christ the son of David, the son of Abraham” (Matt. 1:1). The message of Jesus and of the Gospels was that the hope of the kingdom had become a reality. Immediately after the death of John the Baptist Jesus went throughout Galilee “proclaiming the good news of God. ‘The time has come,’ he said. ‘The kingdom of God is near’” (Mark 1:14b–15a).
Like David, those who follow Christ and choose the kingdom often do not have a good record of living up to their ideals. This does not deny the reality of the kingdom of God. It is near—near to the extent that it is found in our midst insofar as God’s will is done on earth as it is in heaven. Like David, those who pursue this hope may have to be called to account for their failures and may suffer the consequences of their sins. Like David, those who pursue this hope must not lose faith in its reality, even in the midst of the ugliness of human politics.
Contemporary Christians find themselves in a more compromised situation than the Deuteronomistic Historians in evaluating right of governance. Since Israel was deemed the chosen nation, there could be no doubt that the enthronement of Solomon was a demonstration of God’s will. Yet the political responsibility of the faithful is comparable. The failure of nationalistic Israel will soon enough make her the object of divine wrath, unworthy of the loyalty of its citizens. Isaiah declares that God will avenge himself of his enemy, the formerly faithful city of Zion, for she has become a harlot in her failure to provide justice (Isa. 1:21–26).
Though Solomon was God’s king and uncompromising allegiance belonged to him, by the end of his reign quite a different assessment is rendered. The verdict is that Solomon has done what was wrong in the Lord’s opinion (1 Kings 11:6). That did not diminish his right to rule or the initial necessity of supporting that rule. The strategy of the whole narrative of Solomon is to show that Israel’s brief moment of greatness is lost by the perverse actions of passionate and headstrong individuals.28 Unqualified and enthusiastic loyalty is obligatory when Solomon comes to the throne.
Christians serve the kingdom of God, a kingdom that can never be identified with any of the kingdoms of human rule. This was true even in the time of David; though David represented the promise of the kingdom, his kingdom did not in itself constitute the kingdom of God. A nationalist state proved unable to serve as the true bearer of the will of God on earth. Though its succession of leaders will be orderly, especially in comparison to the kingdom of Israel in the north, the despotic nature of its dominion is not different in substance. Judah will share in the tyrannies of Israel, often as an ally as long as the state of Israel exists. Though Judah will endure more than a century longer than Israel, her temple and city are similarly doomed. The promise to David, so hopefully anticipated in the accession of Solomon, is not doomed. With the demise of Hebrew nationalism the promise to the son of Jesse comes to be reinterpreted as a kingdom of another order under a king who will truly represent the justice of God (Isa. 11:1–10). In the person of Jesus Christ the promise is realized, the announcement of the kingdom is made.
THE DYNAMIC BETWEEN human volition and divine purpose. The account of Solomon securing his throne remains “a fairly sordid story of power politics disguised as a morality tale.”29 In removing all opposition to his rule, Solomon is depicted as acting in accordance with “wisdom” (2:6, 9); his acquisition of the throne is described according to the defining characteristic of his reign (3:12, 28; 4:29, 30, 34; 5:7, 12; 10:4, 6, 8; 11:41). Though the “wisdom of Solomon” is proverbial, his acquisition of the throne is not remembered as the prototypical example of wise conduct. It was the goal of the biblical authors to show that Solomon was the divine choice in the history of the kingdom. He was granted opportunity to become the greatest of all kings in fulfillment of the promise to David. His enthronement was an example of grace in a long account of missed opportunity and ultimate failure.
The enthusiastic statements about the celebration of Solomon’s rule, with the wish that the fame of Solomon might exceed that of his father, leave no doubt about the conviction of the Deuteronomistic Historians (1 Kings 1:47–48). For the sake of the kingdom of God, it is important that the throne be made secure under Solomon’s dominion, and to that end it is necessary and good that all opposition to his rule be quelled. The skeptical reader will find this to be an indictment of the low spiritual ideals of the time, demonstrating an attitude that the end justified the means. A desire to find God’s will in these events inevitably lends legitimacy to the charge that implicit approval is given to the methods of Solomon. The contemporary Christian faces a similar cynicism when attempting to discern God’s will in current events.
A high theology in this narrative may be discerned in the blunt presentations of the flawed actions of each of the characters. There is no flattering portrayal of a champion; the deeds of each individual are frankly described, even though this may diminish the reader’s estimation of all of the characters. The prophetic authors present a realistic and believable portrait of the succession to David’s throne. They hold God in highest esteem; God alone is allowed to be the hero in an otherwise sordid tale. Understanding the dynamic between human volition and divine purpose becomes particularly difficult in dealing with the depraved behavior of human conflict.
Christians in a more free and democratic society must be grateful for the possibility of succession of power more orderly than that of the succession of David. A more merciful understanding of personal interaction does not require that old animosities need to be settled with liquidation of former opponents. Christians have faith in divine guidance, but they have many different opinions about correct political decisions. No one country or leader can be identified as representing the rule of God, so Christians can never have an exclusive loyalty to one political power. Christians often disagree with political positions of other Christians, and sometimes favor the leadership of a non-Christian to that of someone professing to follow Christ.
In a democratic society, Christians are asked to be a part of the process by which leaders come into power. Admittedly the procedures are often not fair and equitable, and sometimes the leaders are flawed. Nevertheless, these procedures are regarded as a means ordained by God to accomplish his purpose in the world in which his people live. As with Solomon, God carries out his purposes through imperfect people using imperfect methods of achieving their goals.
Though no one nation or leader can be identified with God’s rule in the same way, there is no doubt about the obligation of the Christian to support human government as an institution ordained by God for the good of people. The words of the apostle Paul are rightly cited in this regard: “Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For no authority exists as such except by God’s appointment, and the authorities which are have been ordained by God” (Rom. 13:1).30 Paul’s view is that the state serves the good of its citizens (v. 4), so support for the authority of the state can be regarded as part of one’s debt of love to one’s neighbor (v. 8). When the apostle says that all authorities have been ordained by God, he expresses a truth that is the main point of the succession of Solomon: God accomplishes his purposes for the establishment of his kingdom amidst the foul politics of nations. Those who actually achieve political authority may be deemed to represent the divine purpose in that time and circumstance.
Being subject to authority. Being subject to the governing authorities must not be understood as obedience. Being subject indicates the proper attitude of a Christian to the leaders of the church (Rom. 8:7), to civil authorities (1 Peter 2:13), and to God (James 4:7). It describes the mind of Christian wives to their husbands (Eph. 5:22), servants to their masters (1 Peter 2:18), the young to their elders (5:5), and the church to Christ (Eph. 5:24). Particularly noteworthy is the reciprocal obligation of Christians to each other (5:21). Calvin’s comment on being “subject to one another” provides the clue to Christian responsibility:
God has so bound us to each other that no man ought to avoid subjection. And where love reigns, there is a mutual servitude. I do not except even kings and governors, for they rule that they may serve. Therefore it is very right that he should exhort all to be subject to each other.31
The obligation of being mutually subject to one another becomes clear when compared with other injunctions to believers.32 Paul asks that believers “prefer one another in honor” (Rom. 12:10) and “in humility give consideration to others rather than themselves” (Phil. 2:3). Submission denotes the recognition that the other person has a greater claim upon oneself and the conduct that must be rendered in such a claim. Persons in authority, as Christians, must regard all subordinates as having a greater claim on them than they have on themselves. All other Christians must be regarded as a representative of Christ.
When used of civil authority, submission is a debt assumed under the authority of God. As God’s servant and an instrument of Christ’s kingly rule, a leader must exercise that debt of love to one’s neighbor insofar as the authority of the state is for the good of one’s neighbor. Since Christ himself is mysteriously present in the neighbor of the Christian, the neighbor has a claim greater than that owed to oneself. Such responsibility is not a blind uncritical obedience to every obligation the civil authority might require, because the final arbiter of the obligatory duty is not the state but God. Support of the state is necessary unless its requirements demonstrably violate the obligation of love to one’s neighbor.
Christians may still find themselves in an authoritarian state like that of the nation of Israel, in which they are required to respect their masters and comply with their requirements, insofar as they do not conflict with Christian morality. They must pay their taxes willingly, since no government can function without such resources. The state authority is to be regarded as the agent of good as the appointed minister of God (Rom. 13:3–4).
This does not seem to take into account the possibility of an evil government that punishes good work and gives praise to the evil. It is impossible that Paul, who suffered so much at the hands of civil authority, did not consider this possibility, or that he limited his thought to only those governments that properly carry out their civil authority. The promise appears to be absolute: Christians, when in obedience to God, may be sure that the power of the state will honor them.33 It may indeed punish them for good deeds, but its intended punishment will turn out to be praise. Christians may die under the power of the state, but in so doing will receive a crown of glory. If, however, Christians do wrong, it is the obligation of the state to punish them as the authority ordained of God for this purpose. The reason for this absolute promise is because the state authority is the minister of God (13:4), whether recognized or not.
The principles of Jesus’ kingdom. The Christian lays claim to belonging to the kingdom that was the fulfillment of the promise to David. The desire of the authors who found in Solomon the one anointed of God is realized in the One proclaimed to be the King of all kings. The attitude of citizens of such a kingdom is expressed in the Beatitudes, in which Jesus taught the principles of his kingdom (Matt. 5:3–11). The reward of these Beatitudes is not only divine beneficence but divine approval, as expressed in Psalm 1:1–2. This approval comes on those who recognize their own weakness and poverty before God and accept their utter dependence on God’s grace because of their own sins (Matt. 5:3). Such recognition leads to sorrow, but it is a sadness to which God will provide consolation (v. 4). These are the meek who will inherit the earth (v. 5), as God had said in the promise to David and Solomon.
The citizens of this kingdom desire the justice and mercy of God, and in this quest they will find satisfaction (Matt. 5:6). Having experienced God fulfilling what is right, they will be the ones to show mercy and in turn receive mercy (v. 7). Their motivation is none other than the kingdom of God; the singular focus of their minds will be rewarded with seeing God (v. 8). These are the peacemakers. Peacemakers most often arouse the wrath of all and may suffer the most, even at the hands of civil authority. This, however, will be the mark that they are the children of God (v. 9); when persecuted for reasons of justice, they will be assured that they are citizens of God’s kingdom (v. 10). Such persecution may well come from those who regard themselves as the guardians of justice; such suffering is a cause of joy to the extent that it identifies the citizens of the kingdom with the prophets, who suffered for God in the same way (vv. 11–12).
Working for political influence. It has not been easy for Christians to find their proper place among the political forces of this world. Christians have sometimes had the role of an Adonijah and suffered at the hands of a Solomon, the political power indeed ordained of God. During the time of the Reformation Thomas Müntzer organized an armed insurrection against the state in a resistance known as the Peasant’s Revolt (1524–25). Müntzer was an accomplished scholar of Latin, Greek, and Hebrew, one of the most learned in the writings of the Old and New Testaments. He was attracted to Martin Luther, but soon went his own way with his ideas of the Reformation as a revolution. He organized the working classes into a group called the “Eternal Covenant of God.”
Out of egoistical, material, and provincial motives, Müntzer dismissed resistance to his movement as a revolt against God.34 He attempted to relate his struggles for the immediate concerns of peasants, tradesmen, and commoners with the liberation of all Christendom. The common people briefly triumphed over the religious and civil authorities, but they were defeated by the strength of the princes in the Battle of Frankenhausen in 1525. Müntzer regarded the collapse of the revolt as the judgment of God on the as yet unpurified people, but not as the defeat of the creation of a new society. His revolution became the symbol for revolutionary movements in which there would be a free people, who themselves wielded the sword and who tolerated no governmental authority.
Violent resistance against the state also occurred among the early Anabaptists. Anabaptists were radical reformers in their rejection of the state church and their denial of the validity of infant baptism administered under state authority. A zealot by the name of John of Leiden (originally Jan Beuckelson) attempted to establish their “kingdom of a thousand years” in the city of Münster in 1534. The lawlessness of his theocratic rule seriously discredited the entire Anabaptist movement. In 1535 the local prince-bishop regained control of the city in a violent and bloody struggle. The iron cages in which the bodies of John and his followers were exhibited still hang in the Gothic tower of St. Lambert’s Church.
In contrast to John of Leiden, Balthasar Hubmaier was an Anabaptist whose death at the hands of the state turned to his praise. Hubmaier was a doctor of theology, appointed cathedral preacher at Regensburg. In 1521 he arrived in Switzerland, where he became a leader of the fledging Anabaptist movement. Even the liberal Zwinglians persecuted him for his radical beliefs. Undeterred, he resumed his proselytizing in Augsburg and later in Moravia (modern Czech Republic). Constantly hunted by imperial authorities, Hubmaier was captured and burned at the stake as a heretic at Vienna. His example of living a life of peace and nonresistance against a violent state is vividly portrayed in the film The Radicals (1990). The film brilliantly shows how state leaders in their execution of Hubmaier gave praise to his courage and virtue, even as they believed they were fulfilling their God-given duties of enforcing law and order.
Hubmaier towers as an example of a citizen of the kingdom of God against the millenarian anarchism of Thomas Müntzer and John of Leiden. Regarding the “authority ordained by God” as illegitimate only brought about a great carnage of many victims. Like Adonijah, they regarded their claims as legitimate, oblivious to their own greedy ambitions. The church leaders of state power similarly regarded Hubmaier as a dangerous enemy, but in their brutal actions they unwittingly honored his good work. Fulfilling the will of God in doing good, he put to silence the ignorance of foolish men (1 Peter 2:15). Hubmaier was instrumental in a movement that attempted to live in peace in the midst of violence.
Politics is a subject that is taboo at many family gatherings. Families can agree on basic matters of faith, share similar values and ideals, but be hopelessly in conflict on matters of political policy. This is often true whether the issues concern community, state, national, or international matters. This conflict has been particularly evident at protests against summits dealing with global economic policy. The protesters often have little in common, other than that they oppose what they perceive will be the policies set at such summits by democratically elected governments. These summits are viewed as a collective collusion against the poor. But rather than voice their opinions through their representatives, the compulsion to personally express a different point of view drives them to alternate attempts at exercising political coercion, even some that are illegal. The irony is that often those inside the political process and those protesting against it are seeking to achieve the same goals. They simply differ on the means by which these may be achieved. These differences of opinion often divide those who are most closely bonded in other ways.
Citizens of the modern world must be grateful for the possibility of non-violent political influence. Christians in such societies have opportunity to exercise their debt of love to their neighbors, because the authority of the state takes seriously its responsibility to rule for the good of their neighbors. In a political climate less violent and confrontational than that of the Reformation or the succession of David, there is greater opportunity for Christians to live out the ideals of the kingdom as taught by Christ. This opportunity is both a great responsibility and a difficult challenge.
Politics is almost never truly altruistic. Invariably those who hold strong opinions on political points of view for good order in society have a great deal of personal ego and ambition for power invested in their efforts. Many cases of political conflict are almost purely a matter of individual aggression, but almost never are they solely a matter of self-sacrificing service for the well-being of others. The drive for personal prominence has the power to violate the most sacred of relationships, including those between spouses, siblings, and children. The drive for personal success, combined with personally held values about right and good in human society, becomes a formidable force. Virtually every relationship can be sacrificed for the sake of political power. Charles Colson, the man who went to prison for his activities on behalf of a president of the United States, publicly confessed that at one time he would have sacrificed his own grandmother to achieve his political objectives.
The ideal of democracies is that we live by the will of the majority and protect the rights of the minority. This ideal is rarely, if ever, reached; in spite of ingenious schemes of representation, most of the time a powerful minority rules the majority. At times rights of the minority are in conflict with the rights or values of the majority. The merit of democracies is not that their rule is necessarily better, that they represent the will of the majority, or the rights of all. The merit of democracies is their provision for regular and orderly transfer of power. In human society transfer of power is often desirable for political reasons, but inevitable as leaders pass on.
In this age human government is God’s provision for order, and that must include the means by which governments come into power. In the consummation of God’s promise of the kingdom, the prophets looked for a descendant of David quite different than Solomon:
For to us a child is born,
to us a son is given,
and the government will be on his shoulders.
And he will be will be called
Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
Of the increase of his government and peace
there will be no end.
He will reign on David’s throne,
and over his kingdom,
establishing it and upholding it,
with justice and righteousness,
from that time on and forever.
The zeal of the LORD Almighty
will accomplish this. (Isa. 9:6–7)