1 Kings 1:6 notes of Adonijah that his father had never at any time rebuked him by asking why he behaved as he did — and that he had been born next after Absalom and was very handsome.

This verse is given to us so that we can see the link between an absence of correction and the folly and self-destruction that followed in Adonijah's case. When a parent declines to correct a child, other forces will supply the correction instead, and they are rarely gentler. Proverbs speaks to this repeatedly: that whoever withholds correction does not love his child, while whoever loves him is diligent to train him (Proverbs 13:24); that we should discipline our children while there is hope (Proverbs 19:18); that folly is bound up in the heart of a child and correction drives it out (Proverbs 22:15); and that correction produces wisdom, while a child left to himself brings shame (Proverbs 29:15).

AI-Expanded Reflection

The textual observation is worth keeping: 1 Kings singles out the fact that David never once asked Adonijah why he was doing what he was doing, and the detail is offered as explanation. Alongside the earlier material on Eli, the books of Samuel and Kings do present a pattern in which fathers in positions of authority fail to confront sons, with national consequences. That is a real theme and the comment identifies it correctly.

The application requires more care than the original gave it, for three reasons.

First, the equation does not hold. Declining to use corporal punishment is not the same as declining to discipline, and treating the two as identical misrepresents a great many parents who correct their children consistently by other means. Faithful Christians, including whole denominations and traditions, differ on this question, and the disagreement is not between people who take Proverbs seriously and people who don't — it is about how the wisdom literature's language functions and how its instruction applies across cultures and legal settings.

Second, what Adonijah's case actually illustrates is closer to the absence of any correction at all. The text does not say David failed to strike him; it says David never asked him a question. The verse indicts complete non-engagement, which every side of the corporal punishment debate would identify as a failure.

Third, a line assuring parents that a child will not die from physical discipline is not something to circulate without qualification on a page read by people in varied circumstances. Whatever a reader concludes about the practice, the proverbs on this subject are addressed to a context with its own assumptions, and Scripture elsewhere warns fathers specifically not to provoke their children to anger or discourage them (Ephesians 6:4; Colossians 3:21). Any account of biblical discipline that omits those verses is incomplete, and the goal Proverbs states throughout is a child's wisdom and life, not a parent's authority.

As David's death approaches, he charges his son Solomon — telling him he's about to go the way of all the earth, so Solomon should be strong, act like a man, and observe what the LORD requires: walking in obedience, keeping His decrees and commands as written in the Law of Moses, so he'll prosper wherever he goes, and so the LORD will keep His promise that David's descendants would never fail to have a successor on Israel's throne, if only they walked faithfully before Him with all their heart and soul (a paraphrase of 1 Kings 2:1–4).

What a legacy for a father to leave his son — "act like a man and observe what the Lord your God requires." If only more fathers instructed their sons this way. Even though David wasn't sinless, he remained faithful to the one true God of Israel. When he sinned, he repented and found forgiveness, turning his heart back to the LORD. One sin David never committed was idol worship.

Solomon had a great beginning — his kingdom firmly established against every enemy, the LORD giving him wisdom, wealth, and honor. What was his eventual downfall? He married foreign women who turned his heart toward other gods. As Solomon grew old, his wives turned his heart away, and though the LORD had appeared to him twice, warning him not to follow other gods, Solomon didn't keep His command (a paraphrase of 1 Kings 11:4, 9–10). Because of this, the LORD tells Solomon the kingdom will be torn from his son — and when Rehoboam later comes to power, the kingdom divides exactly as God said. Our God is jealous, refusing to be worshiped alongside false gods — yet He remained gracious even toward Solomon, since the very man who opens Ecclesiastes declaring everything utterly meaningless (Ecclesiastes 1:2) ends the same book concluding that the whole duty of mankind is simply to fear God and keep His commandments, since God will bring every deed into judgment, even what's hidden, whether good or evil (a paraphrase of Ecclesiastes 12:13–14). The man who had everything — money, women, power — concludes that everything is meaningless except fearing the Lord and obeying His commands. Isn't that exactly what his father David told him, even before he became the greatest king on earth?

How far will we fall before learning the same lesson Solomon finally learned in his old age?

AI-Expanded Reflection

The full circle this comment traces — David's opening charge to Solomon, and Solomon's own closing conclusion in Ecclesiastes decades later — is worth noticing as more than a nice literary bookend, since it suggests Solomon eventually returned, through immense personal cost, to the exact same starting point his father had already handed him for free. Everything Solomon acquired in between — unmatched wisdom, wealth, and pleasure — ultimately led him back to the identical conclusion David offered at the very outset of his reign. That's a sobering way to read Ecclesiastes: not primarily new wisdom Solomon discovered late in life, but old wisdom he'd been given at the start, finally, expensively relearned.

I had the same question as Fernando and read your explanation. But it said Abishag had no sexual relations with David — I guess that didn't matter? The rest of your explanation holds up regardless of whether she was a virgin or not, just curious I suppose.

Also, there was a lot of death at the beginning of Solomon's reign. When he kills Joab, he says his father knew nothing about the deaths of Abner and Amasa, Israel's and Judah's respective army commanders (a paraphrase of 1 Kings 2:5, 32). But in chapter 2, verse 5, David tells Solomon the story of exactly what happened. Was what Solomon said simply pomp and formality, an excuse to kill Joab? Why did Solomon specifically claim his father knew nothing about these deaths? Maybe this is starting to set the stage to show how "wise" he is, or will become?

My other question is why David charged Solomon with carrying out these executions at all. Why didn't David kill Joab himself when he first learned of the murders? Why let Shimei live, only to order his son to kill him later? And is the story of Adonijah "manipulating" Solomon's mother a foreshadowing of Solomon's coming wisdom — not refusing his own mother outright, but seeing through Adonijah's scheme and declining the actual request — similar to the point above?

Yujin responds... Regarding Joab's murders, the expression "knew nothing about the deaths" doesn't mean David wasn't aware Joab killed the two commanders, but that he wasn't aware of Joab's specific plots in advance. As for why he didn't have Joab killed once he learned of the murders, the chief reason may be that David himself had used Joab to carry out Uriah's murder — the guilt of that sin likely weighed on him throughout his reign regarding Joab specifically. Some have also rightly suggested David felt somewhat powerless against this popular, formidable general. Finally, Joab remained loyal to David his entire life, never joining Absalom's rebellion.

Regarding Shimei, the text indicates David had sworn to God not to kill him personally, binding himself by oath. Solomon had no such constraint, and wisely let Shimei effectively dig his own grave while preserving his throne's reputation.

Regarding Adonijah, Solomon's insight here does reveal genuine wisdom. Even though he'd later pray for wisdom and receive it in even greater measure, he was clearly already wise — even David himself acknowledges this about his son (1 Kings 2:9).

AI-Expanded Reflection

The distinction Yujin draws — David knowing Joab committed the murders, but not knowing his specific plots in advance — is worth sitting with as a genuinely useful clarification of what "knew nothing about" actually means in ancient royal speech. It wasn't a claim of total ignorance, but a specific denial of prior involvement or advance approval — a meaningful legal and moral distinction that matters for understanding why David could publicly condemn Abner's murder while still, for complicated reasons of his own, never bringing Joab to justice for it during his own lifetime.

Why did Adonijah get killed for asking for Abishag?

Yujin responds... Great question, Fernando! Solomon saw through Adonijah's plot. Abishag wasn't David's wife, but she functioned like a concubine to him, and so was part of the royal harem. Recall that David's other son, Absalom, previously slept with David's concubines specifically to solidify his claim to the throne while usurping it from David. Adonijah may have had a similar plan in mind. Also, since Abishag had been with David until his death, she'd be an important witness to whether David had actually pronounced Solomon king or not — if Adonijah could marry her, she'd likely be inclined to defend her new husband against Solomon's claim. Adonijah's own words reveal his lingering resentment: he tells Bathsheba that the kingdom had been his, and all Israel had expected him to reign, but that it had shifted to his brother instead, since it was his from the LORD (a paraphrase of 1 Kings 2:15). Also, rather than approaching Solomon directly, he tried to work through Solomon's mother instead. Solomon recognized the treason in both the goal and the approach — which is likely why he had him killed, as suggested by Solomon's own sharp reply to Bathsheba, essentially asking why she was requesting Abishag for Adonijah at all, and not simply the kingdom itself for his older brother, along with the priest Abiathar and Joab (a paraphrase of 1 Kings 2:22).

AI-Expanded Reflection

Solomon's suspicion wasn't paranoid overreaction — this exact move had already worked once in his family's recent history, and everyone in the room would have known it. Absalom's public claim on David's concubines wasn't just an act of disrespect; 2 Samuel 16:21 records it being done explicitly to signal to all Israel that his break with his father was final and irreversible. Adonijah, requesting a woman functionally identical in status, was reaching for the same symbolic move that had once nearly cost David his throne. Solomon wasn't punishing a harmless romantic request — he was recognizing a rerun of a coup attempt his own family had barely survived once already.