1 Kings 2:1–46

2:5–9 If David stopped his fatherly advice at this point, it would surely have been better. However, the end of David’s life is marked by the same moral ambiguity characterizing his earlier years. He reminds Solomon of two incidents narrated in 1–2 Samuel: Joab’s execution of Abner and Amasa (2 Sam. 3:26–30; 20:1–13) and Shimei’s cursing of David (2 Sam. 16:5–14; 19:16–23).

These incidents are fascinating. In the case of Joab, despite Abner’s defection to David, Joab avenges the killing of his brother Asahel by murdering Abner. David’s conclusion is that “these men, the sons of Zeruiah, are more severe than I. The Lord repay the evildoer according to his wickedness” (2 Sam. 3:39). David acknowledges the problem yet appears strangely passive in pursuing justice. It seems that political expediency is the main motivation for his inactivity. After Joab is replaced by Amasa as the head of the army in the wake of Absalom’s rebellion (2 Sam. 19:11–13), Joab simply bides his time before killing Amasa in cold blood (2 Sam. 20:7–10a). There is no record of any adverse reaction from David, who simply gives Joab his old job back (2 Sam. 20:23). In short, 2 Samuel bears witness to David’s discomfort with the methods (and motives) of the sons of Zeruiah but also highlights David’s ineffectiveness in curbing their excesses.

Unexpectedly, David also tells Solomon to deal with Shimei, who memorably cursed David to his face (2 Sam. 16:5–14). However, in both passages referring to Shimei, David insists that he be treated with mercy, whereas Joab demands he be killed. Now, at the end of David’s life, it seems he is resorting to the methods of the sons of Zeruiah he so often derided. Joab and his brothers were known for “avenging in time of peace for blood that had been shed in war, and putting the blood of war on the belt around his waist and on the sandals on his feet” (1 Kings 2:5). The stain (and the associated guilt) of bloodshed in peacetime stubbornly clings to the sons of Zeruiah. Now it seems that, despite the Deuteronomic advice just given (vv. 1–4), David is encouraging Solomon to do exactly the same thing. The text is silent on David’s motivation (possibly political expediency, a desire for vengeance, or even a hope to remove the curse uttered by Shimei), but there is little doubt that the writer is making it plain that these actions are not those of a godly king.

The most striking phrase in this section is undoubtedly David’s instruction to “act therefore according to your wisdom” (v. 6). Surprisingly, the first mention of wisdom in connection with Solomon is not a positive one. This wisdom is decidedly worldly—David qualifies his advice by warning, “But do not let his gray head go down to Sheol in peace.” Joab is to be given a taste of his own medicine. Similarly, after parading his own integrity, displayed by keeping his vow, David states that Shimei is to receive similar treatment, which is again directly linked to Solomon’s wisdom: “Do not hold him guiltless, for you are a wise man. You will know what you ought to do to him, and you shall bring his gray head down with blood to Sheol” (v. 9). This clearly reflects badly on both David and Solomon. In particular, it casts a shadow over the descriptions of Solomon’s wisdom to follow. It is not simply that Solomon starts well and loses the plot at the end. There are significant question marks from the very beginning over the nature of his wisdom.

The contrast with David’s instructions concerning the sons of Barzillai the Gileadite is marked. The respect Barzillai showed David (2 Sam. 19:31–40) obviously had a significant impact on the king, who urges Solomon to continue to repay that debt. The aging David’s view of the world is simple: he has friends and enemies, and his days of showing grace-driven mercy have been left far behind.

2:10–11 Unlike the deaths of Moses (Deut. 34:5–12), Joshua (Josh. 24:29–33), or even Saul (1 Samuel 31), the passing of David, the most notable king in the OT, is noted without any fanfare at all: “Then David slept with his fathers and was buried in the city of David.” This silence is surely designed to underline what we have seen in the opening passages of 1 Kings: David is a pale shadow of the man he once was. After the details of his reign have been noted—“reigned seven years in Hebron [cf. 2 Sam. 2:3–4] and thirty-three years in Jerusalem [cf. 2 Sam. 5:5ff.]”—we pass on swiftly to the next generation.

2:12 The fact that Solomon’s “kingdom was firmly established” on the dubious wisdom of Solomon, acting on the compromised advice of his father, David, does not bode well for the kingdom of Israel. This will be confirmed in v. 46.

2:13–15 Before we come to the reign of Solomon proper, there is the small matter to resolve of Adonijah’s continuing aspirations. Despite being foiled in his bid for the throne in chapter 1, Adonijah is not to be put off easily. In 2:13–17 Adonijah hatches a brilliant scheme to advance his cause. He approaches Bathsheba and asks her to put in a good word for him to Solomon concerning the small matter of Abishag the Shunammite, David’s former bed companion. Adonijah wants to marry her. Verse 13 is a reminder of the complexity of relationships in the royal family and of the fact that it will be through Bathsheba’s son that the messianic line is continued—“Adonijah the son of Haggith came to Bathsheba the mother of Solomon.” The roundabout way in which Adonijah approaches the queen mother, and the suspicious way in which she responds (“Do you come peacefully?”), build tension. However, on the surface Adonijah’s words amount to an expression of allegiance to Solomon and an acceptance of the will of Yahweh. Despite his aspirations, Adonijah acknowledges that the kingdom “was [Solomon’s] from the Lord.” This does seem like a remarkable turnaround, and it is not clear whether this is another ploy or a genuine change of heart.

2:16–18 It quickly becomes clear—to the reader, at least—where Adonijah’s intentions lie. Like a crafty child attempting to manipulate a parent, he attempts to elicit from Bathsheba a commitment to help him without telling her what he is asking: “And now I have one request to make of you; do not refuse me.” With an impressive mixture of flattery and audacity, he asks Bathsheba to intercede with Solomon on his behalf in the matter of Abishag the Shunammite, David’s former “companion.” There is little doubt that such a request will be construed as strengthening Adonijah’s claim to the throne.¹ When one conquered another king in the ancient world, the conqueror would claim the vanquished king’s wives and harem. This is what Adonijah is attempting to do. He knows it. Bathsheba knows it. And pretty soon Solomon will know it too. This is an unsubtle attempt to overthrow the new king. And Adonijah pays a huge price for his pride (v. 23). Perhaps the most puzzling aspect of the exchange is the fact that Bathsheba readily agrees to bring the request to her son. It may be that this is evidence of the powers of persuasion and personal magnetism of Adonijah, as it results in Bathsheba’s inadvertently siding with him against her own son.

2:19–25 Unaware of the threat, Solomon treats his mother with affection and respect, as he “rose to meet her and bowed down to her.” Adonijah’s strategy is clearly a smart one, given the esteem in which Solomon holds his mother. Adonijah’s approach clearly has the desired effect, as Bathsheba not only echoes his words but actually develops his case, saying, “I have one small request to make of you; do not refuse me.” Solomon, trusting his mother implicitly, initially promises to grant the request but then sees through it instantly. “Ask for him the kingdom also, for he is my older brother, and on his side are Abiathar the priest and Joab the son of Zeruiah.” David’s advice may not have been particularly godly, but clearly it was politically astute, given the apparent alliance between Joab, Abiathar, and Adonijah himself. Solomon does not seem to blame his mother but wastes no time in taking action against the usurper (v. 23).

The terms in which Solomon asserts his right to rule are striking: “As the Lord lives, who has established me and placed me on the throne of David my father, and who has made me a house, as he promised. . . .” Solomon’s legitimacy is based on 2 Samuel 7. However, the methods by which he seeks to hold on to the throne owe more to the sons of Zeruiah than to anyone else, as Benaiah is sent to assassinate Adonijah. Solomon’s grip on the kingdom grows firmer, but at what cost?

2:26–27 After dealing with Adonijah, Solomon turns his attentions to Abiathar the priest. He declares that the priest “deserve[s] death” (lit., is a “marked man”). But in recognition of his loyalty to David, Solomon simply expels Abiathar from his role. Abiathar is not mentioned in the context of Adonijah’s latest grab for power, but his previous backing of Adonijah (1:19) seems to provide enough evidence for Solomon to act against his father’s old friend. Solomon bars him from the priesthood, so fulfilling the prophecy concerning the house of Eli and the sanctuary at Shiloh (1 Sam. 2:30–36). The word of God is controlling the outworking of events, but it is not entirely clear whether Solomon is driven by political astuteness, faithfulness to God, or a mixture of both. This reminder that, despite the political machinations, even these events are unfolding according to the “word of the Lord” is a vital insight into the agenda of the book of Kings (see also 8:56; 12:24; 13:5, 26; 14:7).

2:28–35 Joab is not as fortunate as Abiathar. Any credit he accrued with David in the past (e.g., by not supporting Absalom) has been squandered by his choice to support Adonijah. Joab knows he is now a “marked man”; he “fled to the tent of the Lord and caught hold of the horns of the altar.” Joab now adopts the tactic that appeared to work for Adonijah in 1:50. However, this time the strategy is not so successful. Solomon’s response is brief and brutal: “Go, strike him down.” Benaiah, whose role as Solomon’s “Joab” is now starkly highlighted, is dispatched to the sanctuary.

Joab’s refusal to leave the altar and Benaiah’s reluctance to kill him where he stands both suggest a strong sense of the holiness of this place. Solomon has no such qualms, ordering that Joab be killed on the spot. At this point, Solomon offers an extremely revealing rationale for his actions. The king insists that Joab’s death will “take away from me and from my father’s house the guilt for the blood that Joab shed without cause.” This is not simply vengeance or political expediency (although the writer repeatedly suggests that these motives are also in play). Solomon insists that this judicial killing will remove the bloodguilt from the house of David, which has apparently accrued by association with Joab. It does seem strange, however, that Solomon should be so concerned with guilt by association of killing in cold blood but is less bothered with commanding the execution of the fugitive Joab in the tent of meeting while Joab grasps the horns of the altar.

As a result, Solomon’s assertion that he and his house are now freed from “the guilt for the blood that Joab shed without cause” is vaguely troubling. On the one hand, in the ancient world bloodguilt was (legitimately) removed by shedding the blood of the offender. But, on the other hand, the means of removing the problem does in itself seem problematic (the same applies to the assertion concluding 1 Kings 2:33). In any case, Solomon claims that as a result of this killing, “for David and for his descendants and for his house and for his throne there shall be peace from the Lord forevermore.” God had promised David, “I will appoint a place for my people Israel and will plant them, so that they may dwell in their own place and be disturbed no more. And violent men shall afflict them no more, as formerly, from the time that I appointed judges over my people Israel. And I will give you rest from all your enemies” (2 Sam. 7:10–11). Solomon seems to have his own take on how this peace will be established.

When Benaiah finally carries out the king’s orders, and Joab is “struck . . . down” and buried in obscurity, the transition from David’s henchmen to Solomon’s is now complete: “The king put Benaiah the son of Jehoiada over the army in place of Joab, and the king put Zadok the priest in the place of Abiathar.”

2:36–38 With Joab dealt with according to Solomon’s wisdom (and his father’s wishes) and Abiathar exiled, the main threats to Solomon’s rule have been neutralized, allowing him to finish his “commission” and deal with Shimei. The fact that Solomon puts Shimei under “house arrest” (albeit in a house he is allowed to build) may reflect some discomfort with his father’s instructions or may simply reflect the fact that Solomon wants Shimei where he can see him. Shimei knows that if he crosses the brook Kidron (which may be shorthand for leaving Jerusalem rather than a specific prohibition of crossing the stream), the consequences will be drastic: “Know for certain that you shall die. Your blood shall be on your own head.” Solomon’s concern to preserve his own “innocence” seems to be at odds with his willingness to “do what it takes” to secure his kingdom and avenge his father.

2:39–46 This arrangement works for a considerable time (“three years,” to be exact), but then two of Shimei’s household flee to Philistia. Interestingly, they run “away to Achish, son of Maacah, king of Gath.” This is either the same king David consorted with in 1 Samuel 21:10 or one of his heirs. The fact that Shimei goes to Gath is emphasized throughout the narrative (“Shimei . . . went to Gath to Achish. . . . Shimei went and brought his servants from Gath. . . . Shimei had gone from Jerusalem to Gath and returned”). The suggestion may be that Shimei’s going there is not an act of sedition. The fact that he travels to Gath (to the west), which does not involve actually crossing the Kidron (to the east), may be part of the point, although see the comments above. The note that Shimei appears to return before his absence is noted probably suggests that this is an unthinking, accidental violation of the terms of the previous verses. On the other hand, the emphasis on Gath may rather be to underline that this is no minor violation of the terms of his house arrest.

In any case, Solomon’s response is swift and brutal. First he highlights the seriousness of the violation: “Why then have you not kept your oath to the Lord and the commandment with which I commanded you?” This language is significantly strengthened in comparison to the description of verses 36–38. Solomon’s response is also more draconian that one might expect, citing both the extent of the harm Shimei did to David and, surprisingly, the alleged threat he is to Solomon’s reign. “But King Solomon shall be blessed, and the throne of David shall be established before the Lord forever.” Once more Solomon is concerned with the fulfillment of 2 Samuel 7. However, he is not slow to engineer the fulfillment of those promises with direct means. The establishment of his kingdom rests on the “wisdom” of deploying Benaiah, Solomon’s very own “Joab,” to do whatever is necessary: “Then the king commanded Benaiah the son of Jehoiada, and he went out and struck him down, and he died. So the kingdom was established in the hand of Solomon.”