The coup that failed

David was coming to the end of his life and growing more feeble (1 Kings ch1).

One of the symptoms of aging was that he always felt cold, so a young woman called Abishag was brought in to nurse him, and to lie in his bosom to keep him warm. That is not a euphemism, I think, but even so she was technically a concubine. This would be significant later.

Obviously the issue of succession to the throne would have to be confronted. Once again, polygamy would be a complicating factor. The old Ottoman empire illustrates the problem; polygamy tends to produce too many candidates for the throne. Being born from different mothers reduces the sense of kinship among the sons and heightens the sense of rivalry. In fact the competition for the throne becomes an anxious necessity, if they know that the winner of the race is likely to kill his brothers afterwards.

Thus there is no security in the status of “eldest son”. Even their father’s preference may be diverted to a son of his favourite wife. The candidate needs to find allies in the military leadership, the religious leadership, and the royal household. The household is important partly because those close to the monarch will be the first to know about his death.

At first glance, the obvious heir to David’s throne was Adonijah, the fourth of his Hebron sons and probably the eldest surviving son. “His father had never at any time displeased him by asking; Why have you done thus and so?” (v4) He was aware of David’s decline, and exalted himself, saying “I will be king”. He prepared for himself chariots and horsemen and fifty men to run before him. In modern times, of course, this would have been a motorcade.

At the same time, there was also a “son of the favourite wife”. David had already sworn an oath to Bathsheba, that her son Solomon would reign after him. Unfortunately the child was still too young to be a plausible war-leader, which may be one of the reasons why the decision had not been announced publicly. I’m sure Adonijah would have guessed the secret, though.

Adonijah had secured the support of two leading figures. Joab, as commander of the host, and Abiathar, as priest-custodian of the ark, might be seen as the heads of their respective “departments”. Yet this combination was not as strong as it looked. Adonijah’s party did not include Benaiah the son of Jehoiada, captain of the king’s bodyguard. Nor did it include the rest of David’s “mighty men”. Where, then, was Abishai, Joab’s elder brother, once “commander of the thirty”? Probably retired or dead, having been active since the very beginning of the reign. It’s likely that the “thirty” had disappeared altogether. Joab and Abishai together had controlled the court. Without Abishai, and in the absence of the host (which had not been called out for war), Joab was an old commander with immense prestige and no soldiers.

There were also other religious leaders besides Abiathar. Zadok, head of the rival priestly line, remained loyal to David, as did Nathan the prophet.

For that matter, there is no sign that Adonijah had been able to suborn anyone surrounding David, within the royal household. This was important, because his prospects would depend upon his timing. If he tried to claim the throne while David was still conscious and capable of making decisions, he would be crushed. If he waited for David’s death to be announced, the king’s chosen successor would be proclaimed at the same time. At the very least he needed a spy, to tell him how quickly the king’s life was ebbing away. The key factor in one of the most fateful days in David’s reign may have been that Adonijah made his move just a whisker too soon.

Adonijah “crossed the Rubicon” by arranging a great sacrifice and feast at En-rogel, just outside Jerusalem. The two things go together, because the guests would be feasting on the sacrificed animals. He invited his brothers (apart from Solomon) and all the royal officials. Presumably the plan was that Abiathar the priest would rise from the table at some point and anoint Adonijah as king. His guests would acclaim him and swear allegiance. By this means, he would have taken over the kingdom. If nothing went wrong.

A feast planned on that scale could not be kept secret, so his purpose was transparent. While this was happening, Nathan the prophet was in the king’s palace, alerting Bathsheba to the state of crisis. They needed to warn David. Nathan shrewdly managed the affair by telling Bathsheba to make the first approach on her own. He would then follow, giving a second warning to reinforce the first. This would have more impact than a single message given jointly. Between them , they would sting David into action.

In their separate audiences, Bathsheba and Nathan described what was happening across the valley and pleaded for action. “Otherwise it will come to pass, when my lord the king sleeps with his fathers, that I and my son Solomon will be counted offenders [and executed]” (vv20-21).

After Nathan said his piece, David recalled Bathsheba to his presence and swore an oath to the Lord renewing his promise. Escorted by the king’s bodyguard, Zadok, Nathan, and Benaiah the son of Jehoiada took Solomon down to the spring of Gihon. Zadok collected the sacred horn of oil and anointed Solomon. Then they blew the trumpet and all the people acclaimed Solomon as king.

The feasters at En-rogel could hear the trumpet and the clamour in the city, but did not know what it meant. It was Jonathan, son of Abiathar, who came in to report the bad news of Solomon’s elevation to the throne. At that moment, Adonijah knew that his two aces, Joab and Abiathar, had been trumped. The game was up. “Then all the guests of Adonijah trembled and rose and each went his own way.” Adonijah took refuge at the horns of the altar, inside the tent, but Solomon promised him his life, on condition of good behaviour.

After David’s death, there was a wary conversation between Adonijah and Bathsheba; “You know that the kingdom was mine, and that all Israel fully expected me to reign; however, the kingdom has turned about and become my brother’s, for it was his from the Lord” (v14). In compensation, would she use her influence with Solomon, to enable him to take Abishag as his wife?

Solomon promised to give Bathsheba anything she wanted, but backtracked quickly when he realised what the request was. He asked bitterly why she did not ask for the whole kingdom as well. Taking over the old king’s concubines was a known part of the symbolism of taking over a kingdom. In response to Adonijah’s request, Benaiah the son of Jehoiada was ordered to strike him down.

Abiathar was protected by his services to David, but he was expelled from Jerusalem. Zadok, of the other priestly line, received his office; “Thus fulfilling the word of the Lord which he had spoken concerning the house of Eli in Shiloh” (v27).

Joab fled to the horns of the altar. Solomon believed that the law allowed him to ignore this protection. Joab was a murderer, because he had killed Abner and Amasa by treachery.“But if a man wilfully attacks another to kill him treacherously, you may take him from my altar, that he may die” (Exodus ch21 v14). Joab could not be pulled away, preferring to die on the spot, so Benaiah killed him on the spot. Then Benaiah became the new commander of the army.

“So the kingdom was established in the hand of Solomon.”

The above is a modified extract from a draft chapter of "Prophets, priests and politics", which aims to cover the background of all the prophets from Deborah to Malachi.

I have a thread for next week on the sayings of Jesus about "for me or against me"; after that, there is a document on various Biblical aspects of "God or not-God" which can be spread over a month or a couple of months as it turns out to be convenient

David was quite a man but didn't do so well as a parent.

IIRC his son Absalom also tried to take the throne (and failed of course)

succession fights helped doom the Assyrian Empire.

too bad they didn't follow the Biblical suggestion of one husband, one wife.

thanks for the post.

a reply to: ElGoobero
He was over-indulgent. Couldn't say "No, you mustn't" to any of his sons.

a reply to: DISRAELI

If any of you KNEW (in the intimate Biblical sense) your Bible you would know all of this happened to testify of Jesus Christ.

Your Roman Catholic distortions never cease.

a reply to: ChesterJohn

www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: DISRAELI

If any of you KNEW (in the intimate Biblical sense) your Bible you would know all of this happened to testify of Jesus Christ.

Your Roman Catholic distortions never cease.

Roman Catholic Distortions TODAY!

Roman Catholic Distortions TOMORROW!

Roman Catholic Distortions FOREVER!!!

All Hail the Church Triumphant!

a reply to: DISRAELI

You should know better than to listen to lying familiar spirits.

a reply to: ChesterJohn



www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: DISRAELI

You think you know something but it is a lie. something about lying spirits you should know. They come a calling for their due and you cannot pay them in full.

My Lord rebuke thee.

a reply to: ChesterJohn

www.abovetopsecret.com...

P.S. www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: DISRAELI

Obviously the issue of succession to the throne would have to be confronted. Once again, polygamy would be a complicating factor. The old Ottoman empire illustrates the problem; polygamy tends to produce too many candidates for the throne. Being born from different mothers reduces the sense of kinship among the sons and heightens the sense of rivalry. In fact the competition for the throne becomes an anxious necessity, if they know that the winner of the race is likely to kill his brothers afterwards.

Good teaching as usual DISRAELI. I have a question.
This teaching is old covenant and being of its own set of laws it seems very difficult to me as to why the Priestly authority did not intervene after the act of adultery was performed by David. Regardless of losing his son due to punishment of adultery by God, how could David then make a promise to reward this sin with another sin of promise of Kingship to his bastard child Solomon? It reeks of lawlessness and mockery of the Mosaic law in my understanding. My understanding is that the priestly authority would have a commoner's head for doing this very same thing thing.

a reply to: Seede
Firstly, there are some very practical answers. My reading of the denunciation scene is that is was private between David and Nathan. I don't think it was made public until the narrative was written up after his death. In other words, nobody knew the full story at the time except God, Nathan, David, and Joab (whose job was made more secure by the blackmailing rights it gave him).

Who's going to indict a king, anyway? The priesthood had no independent power at the time. Only a prophet dared even say anything.

Incidentally, Solomon was not the child of adultery. That child died of sickness soon after being born. When Solomon was born, Bathsheba had become David's wife along with his other wives. Though the promise to Solomon seems to break the more obscure law that on matters of inheritance, a man should not favour the son of his favourite wife at the expense of the rights of his eldest son.

But yes, David did break the laws of Moses, not just on this occasion but many times. E.g., on the day when he ate the shewbread, which Jesus talks about, we can also see, reading between the lines, that he has been travelling on the sabbath. I've written a thread about the whole series of breaches.
The theological question is, how does this equate with David being "a man after God's own heart". My conclusion was that he won that status by his trust in God and his commitment to God. In other words, David's whole sinful life is a demonstration that even the men of the OT were saved by their faith, not by their works.