Solomon & Shimei (part 1 of 3)

Early in his reign, Solomon has Adonijah (his brother) and Joab (general of the army) dispatched.  Following that, Solomon turns his attention to a man named Shimei.  He does so because Shimei is mentioned within his father’s dying words.  David said to Solomon: “Note well, you still have to contend with Shimei son of Gera, the Benjaminite from Bahurin, who tried to call down upon me a horrible judgment when I went to Mahanaim” (1 Kings 2:8a).  This is not entirely true, so David seemed to have been employing exaggeration with some effect.  What Shimei is recorded to have said to David was “Leave!  Leave!  You man of bloodshed, you wicked man!  The Lord has punished you for all the spilled blood of the house of Saul, in whose place you rule.  Now the Lord has given the kingdom into the hand of your son Absalom.  Disaster has overtaken  you, for you are a man of bloodshed!” (2 Samuel 16:7) 

Apart from a subjective rhetorical flourish when Shimei declares that the Lord is punishing David for the spilled blood of the house of Saul, this cursing by Shimei rings true.  David was not punished for bloodshed related to the house of Saul, but rather, it was the blood spilled within his own house (Absalom’s slaying of Amnon as a result of Amnon’s rape of Tamar), as well as the blood spilled by his own command (David using Israel’s enemies to have Uriah murdered), that had led to the situation which gave Shimei the opportunity to speak forth such words.  Beyond the improper of attribution of the spilling of blood there mentioned, it is difficult to find fault with Shimei’s message to David.  At that point, since David was fleeing Jerusalem, Absalom, by all appearances, had taken the kingdom.  With the peaceful transfer of power, one could easily look upon Absalom’s taking of the throne as having divine sanction. 

With regard to referring to David as a man of bloodshed, it must be said that Shimei does not appear to be incorrect in his assessment.  If we were to look ahead to the first book of the Chronicles, we would there find a record of David speaking to Solomon and saying “My son, I really wanted to build a temple to honor the Lord my God.  But the Lord said to me: ‘You have spilled a great deal of blood and fought many battles.  You must not build a temple to honor Me, for you have spilled a great deal of blood on the ground before Me” (1 Chronicles 22:7-8).  Apparently, God Himself referred to David as a man of bloodshed. 

It’s useful here to consider, if the blood David spilled in battle was (according to the Scriptural record) almost entirely at the Lord’s direction, why that same God would use the fact of spilled blood as a reason to bar David from building His Temple.  The most likely reason is that a temple constructed by a king that was known to have waged vigorous military campaigns, and through those campaigns to have extended his territory and his power, would be seen as a temple constructed in honor of a conquering, warring, subjugating god that would bear a great deal of resemblance to the gods of the surrounding nations.  A temple built to honor such a god would simply be one amongst many.  This point is drawn out by what the Lord is reported to have said to David after making mention of his acts of bloodshed, which was “Look, you will have a son, who will be a peaceful man.  I will give him rest from all his enemies on every side.  Indeed, Solomon will be his name; I will give Israel peace and quiet during his reign.  He will build a temple to honor Me; he will become My son, and I will become his Father.  I will grant to his dynasty permanent rule over Israel” (22:9-10). 

The temple to be built by Solomon would not be constructed by a man of war, nor could it be perceived as a symbol of military conquest, which would have been common in that day.  The Temple that would be honoring to God alone (rather than a temple that would be partly honorific for David) would be built by one known as a peaceful man, though the fact that blood was spilled in abundance at the beginning of Solomon’s reign seems a bit troubling in this light.  Nevertheless, this Temple that was to be associated with rest and peace and quiet would be raised into existence by one about whom God spoke of as being His son.  This Temple would be the symbol of a permanent rule over the people of God, and by extension, over the territory occupied by that people.  Here, the analogies to the One that would eventually come, as a Son, in place of the Temple, and Who would raise up an eschatological Temple to God, are so stark and clear that they need not even be detailed. 

Reverting our attention now to David and his directives concerning Shimei that were passed along to Solomon, we find him moving from a recounting of the Shimei situation in connection with his escape from Jerusalem, to his dealings with Shimei upon his return to Jerusalem, and saying “He came down and met me at the Jordan, and I solemnly promised him by the Lord, ‘I will not strike you down with the sword.’” (2:8b).  To this David added, “But now,” speaking to Solomon, “don’t treat him as if he were innocent.  You are a wise man and you know how to handle him; make sure he has a bloody death” (2:9).  In the record of the Kings, these are the final words of David.  Ironically, and in a way that probably indicates that the author wants this to be acknowledged, these last words of David have to do with him calling for the bloody death of the man that had referred to him as a man of bloodshed.      

Solomon's Early Struggles (part 2 of 2)

Effectively, Abishag becomes one of David’s concubines, and this is the woman that is being requested by Adonijah.  Bathsheba sees no harm in this, so she passes the request on to her son.  Solomon, somewhat surprisingly, responds by saying “Why just request Abishag the Shunamite for him?  Since he is my older brother, you should also request the kingdom for him” (2:22a).  Solomon goes on to say, “May God judge me severely, if Adonijah does not pay for this request with his life!  Now as certainly as the Lord lives… Adonijah will be executed today!” (2:24a,c)  This can be looked at in at least two ways.  The first way is to see it as Adonijah’s attempt to again partially emulate Absalom (who had sex with ten of his father’s concubines as part of his securing himself as king and reminding the people of his father’s shameful act and the prophecy of Nathan that Absalom fulfilled by this act), as part of his ongoing schemes to gain the throne.  Such thinking is supported by Adonijah’s prefacing his request with “You know that the kingdom was mine and all Israel considered me king.  But then the kingdom was given to my brother, for the Lord decided it should be his” (2:15).  Taking Abishag for himself could possibly give the appearance of Davidic sanction of kingship for Adonijah. 

On the other hand, this can be looked at as a bit of a black mark on Solomon’s early reign, with him following in the not-so-glorious footsteps of his father, and not initially trusting in the faithful and exodus-providing (rescue and deliverance from enemies, both real and potential) God, by seizing upon a relatively harmless request (the request for a beautiful, young virgin that was part of David’s royal harem) as the grounds to carry out a politically calculated execution that would remove a potential challenger to the throne and serve as a warning to the rest of David’s sons that any uprising would not be tolerated, and would be punished severely. 

For good measure, Solomon takes the additional steps of removing Abiathar as priest, while also having Joab executed.  This is another overtly political calculation, as both had supported Adonijah, and because Joab commanded the allegiance of the army.  In his dealings with Joab, Solomon is merely carrying out the dying wishes of his father, who justifies the need to execute Joab by recounting that “he murdered two commanders of the Israelite armies” (2:5b).  David told Solomon that Joab, during peacetime, “struck them down like he would in battle; when he shed their blood as if in battle,” and that by this, “he stained his own belt and the sandals on his feet” (2:5c).  Owing to this, therefore, Solomon is instructed to “Do to him what you think is appropriate, but don’t let him live long and die a peaceful death” (2:6).  How terribly ironic these words must be seen to be as they come from David, who had used Joab as his instrument to murder Uriah, and had used the Gibeonites, during a time of peace and under the pretext of a famine, to murder seven sons and grandsons of Saul.  Solomon is commencing his exodus (entrance into God’s purposes for him) by delivering exile to those that could be perceived as able to thwart those purposes.  He is eliminating potentially subjugating powers.        

Now, we do not want to be too down on Solomon, just as we do not want to be too down on David.  Both were men prone to corruption and failures, as evidenced by the Biblical record that is unflinching and unswerving in its criticism of those that find themselves deserving of such.  We can however, lay bare the lives of both, but the faithful God of Israel is not diminished in the least.  With our first look into the life of Solomon, we find him following what would seem to be the less-than-noble path that had been previously traveled by his father.  Any examination of Solomon would, of necessity, include an examination of the idolatrous, exile generating practices into which he would fall.  However, what we will also find is that Israel’s God, viewed through the life of Solomon, continues to stand undiminished.  To quote the Apostle Paul, albeit slightly out of context as we consider the lives of men that God raised up and anointed, but who often failed and fell, we say “What then?  If some did not believe, does their unbelief nullify the faithfulness of God?  Absolutely not!” (Romans 3:3-4a)  God’s redemptive plan, of rescue and deliverance for His image-bearers and His creation, will continue its inexorable and indefatigable march towards its consummating eschatological climax! 

So quickly looking again at Solomon, so as to “rescue” him from consignment to the realm of politically calculating tyrants, we can revisit our analysis of what Solomon had actually undertaken in the executions that he had ordered near the commencement of his reign.  We decided that Solomon began his journey on to the exodus path of God’s purposes for him, and for Israel through his leadership, by bringing about a state of exile (death) for those that might be able to thwart the purposes that had been determined by God; and that he took it upon himself to eliminate those that were potential rivals to his power that could either subjugate him, or alternately, lead God’s people down a path not purposed by the Lord, which could then lead to their subjugation.  Solomon’s “rescue” is accomplished by our acknowledging that in this area, Solomon becomes something of a mimicking forerunner of Jesus.  No, Jesus did not put his political opponents to death, but rather, dealt with the power that stood behind any and all opposition to His purposes (and the purposes of God---recognizing that Jesus, as Messiah, was the embodiment of the Creator God).  That power to which Jesus delivered exile, to which He stood up to eliminate, to which He would not be subject, to which He would ultimately not allow God’s people to be subject, was death itself. 

Solomon's Early Struggles (part 1 of 2)

As first Kings commences, we read that “Adonijah, son of David and Haggith, was promoting himself, boasting, ‘I will be king!’” (1 Kings 1:5a)  Along with this, he attempted to partially emulate Absalom’s eminently successful approach to taking the throne, as “He managed to acquire chariots and horsemen, as well as fifty men to serve as his royal guard” (1:5b).  Additionally, “He collaborated with Joab… and with Abiathar the priest, and they supported him” (1:7), which is also reminiscent of Absalom’s efforts.  Though there are parallels here, they are slight, as Adonijah is merely taking advantage of his father’s age and deteriorating condition, rather than pointing out the injustices (and therefore the increasingly illegitimate and possibly exile inducing rule) of his father, as had Absalom.  Adonijah, though seizing upon the covenantal promise to David, is not doing so within the exile and exodus narrative, and therefore his efforts, unlike Absalom’s, with had actually served to secure the throne in what temporarily appeared to be within the will of God (until he agreed to raise his hand against David after God had already clearly vindicated him), proved to be futile. 

Like both Absalom and Adonijah, we will find that Solomon also relied upon the promise that Israel’s God is reported to have made to David, expecting his kingship to be established, strengthened, and extended, based upon that promise and a record of divine faithfulness.  This extended beyond Solomon himself, as in the midst of the power struggle that commenced with Adonijah’s attempt to establish himself as king, we hear David speaking to Bathsheba (Solomon’s mother), saying “I will keep the oath I swore to you by the Lord God of Israel: ‘Surely Solomon your son will be king after me; he will sit in my place on the throne.’” (1:30)  Now Scripturally, this is the first we are hearing of this promise concerning Solomon as king, though its recitation here seems to signify that it is supposed to be relatively well known.  If it is known, then it serves to explain Adonijah’s efforts to elevate himself as king in the eyes of the people before David’s death and the natural handing over of the throne that would take place at that point.  Up until now, all we know of Solomon is that “the Lord loved the child” (2 Samuel 12:24), which does not provide any direct indication that he is to be king, unless we connect this statement with the promise to David and the “loyal love” of the Lord in connection with the permanent dynasty that God is establishing through David and his sons.

Adonijah, as he is seeking something of an exodus for himself (in a very loose analogy), eventually receives exile for his troubles.  David summons the appropriate individuals and tells them to “Take your master’s servants with you, put my Solomon on my mule, and lead him down to Gihon.  There Zadok the priest and Nathan the prophet will anoint him king over Israel; then blow the trumpet and declare, ‘Long live King Solomon!’  Then follow him up as he comes and sits on my throne.  He will be king in my place; I have decreed that he will be ruler over Israel and Judah” (1 Kings 1:33-35).  This directive is carried out, generating quite the great stir.  Adonijah hears about what has happened and quite rightly fears for his life.  He had not won the hearts of the people as Absalom did, knowing full well that the vast majority of the people were going to follow in the direction in which they were led by David.  The result was that “Adonijah feared Solomon, so he got up and went and grabbed hold of the horns of the altar” (1:50), which was an established method of pleading for mercy. 

Solomon’s response to the plea to which Adonijah gave voice while also signifying with his actions, was “If he is a loyal subject, not a hair of his head will be harmed, but if he found to be a traitor, he will die” (1:52).  This was reported to Adonijah, so “He came and bowed down to King Solomon” (1:53b).  Now, the exile that would come to Adonijah would be the ultimate exile of death at the hands (figuratively speaking) of Solomon.  The proximate cause of his death was a request by Adonijah, to Solomon, that was relayed to Solomon by Bathsheba.  That request was “Please ask King Solomon if he would give me Abishag the Shunamite as a wife, for he won’t refuse you” (2:17).  Abishag came onto the Scriptural scene when David, though covered with blankets, could not get warm (1:1).  To rectify this situation, it was decided that “A young virgin must be found for our master, the king, to take care of the king’s needs and serve as his nurse” (1:2a).  It was said to David that “She can also sleep with you and keep our master, the king, warm” (1:2b).  This resulted in Abishag being brought to David.  We learn that “The young woman was very beautiful; she became the king’s nurse and served him, but the king did not have sexual relations with her” (1:4).