Interreligious Reading Group Thread

Maybe I've become desensitized by reading so much ancient/medieval history and literature, but I actually don't find this chapter that morally problematic aside from one part. What's happening here seems more like justice than revenge. I'm not a big fan of the death penalty, but I can see that it has its basis in the concept of justice and I can understand why some would argue for it.

The people killed in chapter two are Adonijah, Joab, and Shemai. Adonijah had tried to usurp power in the past, was let off and told to not do it again, but he made another attempt at seizing power, and was killed. Shimei had cursed David in the past and, while that might seem like a minor offence to us, curses carried a lot more weight in the ancient world. When someone brought a curse on someone, they thought it would have an effect on events, kind of like a magic spell. So when Shimei brought a curse on David the king, he was committing treason. Solomon was prepared to show mercy towards Shimei by essentially placing him under "house arrest". Shimei broke the conditions of the mercy shown towards him and was killed. In both cases, Solomon showed that he was willing to show mercy, but only once. I think that's understandable. It's certainly more than most ancient kings would have done.

And then there's Joab. Joab murdered both Abner and Amasa in cold blood. Like the crime of treason, murder is one of the crimes that many people think warrants the death penalty down to this day, so again, I may disagree with the death penalty, but I think Joab's execution is understandable. The thing that shocked me is how Joab was executed by the altar of the LORD and there is nothing else said about it. Joab was clearly expecting to be spared by appealing to the altar and I'm not sure if that is part of the Law or just a custom, but I'm surprised the author didn't say something about it, either justifying or condemning it. I know that 1-2 Kings is first and foremost a historical record, but the division between sacred and secular (or the practice of "objective" secular history) didn't exist in ancient Jewish culture and the author of 1-2 Kings has no issue with praising and condemning other acts, so why not this one?

But, yeah, that aside, I don't find this chapter all that problematic. Another thing to keep in mind is that the executions were not carried out by the people who had an emotional stake in the criminal's offences, thus emphasizing justice over petty revenge. Shimei and Joab both committed crimes against David, but rather than deal with them himself, he passes it on to Solomon. The actual executions, including Adonijah's who had committed a crime against Solomon, were carried out not by Solomon himself, but by Benaiah. So barring the bizarre fact that Joab was executed by the altar of the LORD, everything was done according to the legal expectations of the time. It may seem harsh to us, but this wasn't Solomon taking the law into his own hands or killing innocent people like you might see on GoT.

And on to 1 Kings 3: I love this chapter. Solomon's judgement in the case of the two women each claiming the child is theirs is brilliant how it exposes each of their characters. One only wants the baby out of envy of the other woman and is willing to let him die as long as the other woman doesn't have a leg up on her. The other clearly wants what is best for the child and if that means giving him up so that he won't be killed, then so be it. That is real love. I can't imagine the baby's real mother would allow him to be cut in half, but even that was the case, this trial reveals who would make a better mother of the two.