KevinGlenn.net
growing up as a matter of life and death:a Study of
Adolescent Patterns of Thought and Behavior in David and His Sons
growing up as a matter of life and death:a Study of
Adolescent Patterns of Thought and Behavior in David and His Sons
Growing Up as a Matter of Life and Death
A Study of Adolescent Patterns of Thought and Behavior in David and His Sons
by: Kevin Glenn
Adolescence is a period of transition from egocentric and irresponsible behavior to individuation and
maturity. That transition is happening at a later and later time in our current culture with alarming
consequences. This however is not a new phenomenon. The members of David's household and even
David himself exhibited behaviors identical to what social scientists would consider adolescent. The
purpose of this paper is to examine theological and sociological implications of such behavior in the lives of
David and his sons, Amnon, Absalom, Adonijah and Solomon.
Being a youth minister, I do have a vocational bias toward the study of adolescence. While it is an
important time, I suggest it should be viewed as a time through which one should pass, rather than a
period in which to indulge. Prolonged adolescent thought and behavior contributes negatively to spiritual,
emotional and societal growth. It's my opinion that such a practice of immaturity aided in the
establishment of a dysfunctional pattern of relationships between David and his sons. Further, I intend to
demonstrate how David’s choices foreshadow a pattern of similar dysfunctional decision making by his
offspring.
I will focus on accounts of these men as recorded in the books of 2 Samuel 11-19 and 1 Kings 1-11,
operating on the presupposition that these men existed historically. I will appeal to psychological and
sociological material on adolescence as it is appropriate for a foundational understanding of the issue,
keeping in mind that this is primarily a theological study, not a study of social science. I do not command
Hebrew.
What is Adolescence?
Adolescence is a hard thing to describe. It is even harder to define. Throughout the history of civilization,
dominant cultures has have held up the young as their most precious and sacred treasure. Historically,
there have been just two primary stages of the human lifespan: childhood and adulthood. Children were
seen as a precious and nurtured resource and as such were led into their place in the culture by those
entrusted with their care. These were members of family and the community at large. At the point in time
when a child had completed certain rituals and training experiences necessary to be accepted into
interdependent relationships within the adult community, he or she was fully assimilated as an adult
member of that community. In 1908, Arnold van Gennep named this process “rite of passage”, and
recognized its three elements: separation from the old status; transition, usually through a specific ritual;
and incorporation into the adult community.
The span of time between childhood and adulthood was first labeled and identified near the beginning of
the twentieth century. The period, seen as beginning with puberty and ending when full adult
responsibilities and even economic independence were achieved, was roughly three years. This
recognition of a transitional period between childhood and adulthood introduced new terms such as
teenager and youth, and raised questions about the nature of who adolescents are. Are they big children
or little adults? Or are they a blend of both, “sort of adults and sort of kids”?
“The opaque glance and the pimples. The fancy new nakedness they’re all dressed up in with no place to
go. The eyes full of secrets they have a strong hunch everybody is on to. The shadowed brow. Being not
quite a child and not quite a grown-up either is hard work, and they look it. Living in two worlds at once is
no picnic.”
The most generally accepted definition of adolescence has been offered by
developmental psychologist John Santrock. He describes adolescence as “the period of life between
childhood and adulthood…[The process] lasts from roughly 10-13 years of age and ends at 18-22 years of
age. [However,] defining when adolescence ends is not an easy task. It has been said that adolescence
begins in biology and ends in culture.” Santrock offers as concise a definition as is appropriate for the
fluctuating experience of the phenomenon. The standard academic answer comes down to “two main
components-separateness and self-assertion.” Other social scientists add the components of a desire to
move toward the discovery of community, belonging and interdependence. Adolescence, then, is a
“psychological, independent search for a unique identity or separateness, with the end goals being a
certain knowledge of who one is in relation to others, a willingness to take responsibility for who one is
becoming, and a realized commitment to live with others in community.”
Defining the parameters of adolescence-where it begins and ends and what it involves, is important to
understanding it. Using Santrock’s definition-that adolescence ends when culture affirms one’s entrance
into the adult community- we can say that adolescence is the journey from biological adulthood to societal
adulthood. This process of societal maturity is referred to by many social scientists as “second
individuation”. The adolescent entering the world of adulthood seeks to embrace a new season of
development, draw attention to his or her own uniqueness and move toward an internal locus of control,
while at the same time remaining connected to those relationships that form community. For many, the
term individuation is at the core of the adolescent process and is therefore the motivating task of moving
through adolescence itself. “When culture affirms that someone has individuated in terms of identity, is
willing to take responsibility for his or her life choices, and has entered interdependently into the
community of adult relationships, that person is said to be an adult.” Yet this begs the question, how many
true adults are out there? How often do people really have a grasp on who they are? How often are the
ties that bind us to a community tattered and torn because of family dysfunction? And responsibility?
Playing the blame game started in Eden when Adam blamed his wife for disobeying God, and we have
been players in that game ever since. If individuation marks the end of adolescence, then behaviors that
indicate an adolescent bent must be issues for any person at any age.
It is decision making and behavior indicative of adolescence that I submit contributed to the downfall of
one of the Bible’s most famous families. The cycle set forth by King David, and imitated in varying degrees
by his sons, demonstrates a lack of identity, responsibility, and healthy interdependence. David and his
sons fall short of individuation, with tragic consequences.
The Family Dynamic
“’I’ll tell you something I never told an adult. In fact I’ll tell you something I never told anybody. Three
years ago my parents got divorced, and they decided to keep it a secret. They told me and my sister that
we weren’t allowed to tell anyone, not even our grandparents, or we would get in big trouble. So for three
years we have all been living a lie. I haven’t told my friends, my coaches, my teachers, nobody, and
neither has my little sister. My parents hate each other, and they fight all the time, but they pretend to be
happily married around everyone else. It sucks!’ As I was trying to hide my shock and anger over what
this young boy was being forced to carry, a shy girl on my left began to squirm and bite her nails. ‘Me too,’
she said quietly. ‘Excuse me?’ ‘Okay, I guess it doesn’t matter anymore anyway. My parents did the same
thing last year to us. I hate them! I hate them both!’”
This exchange recorded in Clark’s book highlights the devastating effects of a dysfunctional family system
on the children caught in the midst of it. Is it surprising that feelings of rage, hatred and contempt are
leveled at the parents of these teenagers? Overwhelming data regarding the influence of parents on child
and adolescent development reveals that the most important place of safety for a young person is a
supportive dual-parent setting. The kind of environment where a developing child may ultimately be
strengthened as he or she navigates the road of adolescence with a relationally committed father and
mother and a home setting that is safe. Where, even in the darkest times, the child knows that they are
unconditionally loved and accepted.
The Beginning of the End
David is held in high esteem as a man after God’s own heart. Yet a closer study reveals something else.
For all of David’s military, political, and spiritual victories, his personal life is threaded with patterns of
inconsistency and dysfunction. As a Jewish man, David bore a responsibility to live out the law of God in a
way that would teach the members of his household to do the same. Serving as king did not excuse David
from the Shema.
“Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one. Love the LORD your God with all your heart and with
all your soul and with all your strength. These commandments that I give you today are to be upon your
hearts. Impress them on your children. Talk about them when you sit at home and when you walk along
the road, when you lie down and when you get up. Tie them as symbols on your hands and bind them on
your foreheads. Write them on the doorframes of your houses and on your gates.” (Deuteronomy 6:4-9
NIV).
With this command came the responsibility to serve as an example to home, and in David’s case, to the
entire nation. This did not imply that David was to be perfect, but it did require that David “be there”.
Being there means more than physical presence according to the expectations set forth in the Shema. It
requires the context of supportive shaping of the personality through loving, but firm discipline. There is
overwhelming evidence that fathers have a profound impact on the way in which their children regard
religious belief and practice. “Several studies have shown a correlation between religious value consensus
and a father’s verbal communication of these values to his son or daughter. Father’s emotional support
has also been shown to correlate with religious consensus.” Through such an environment, children are
taught the three elements of individuation as described above (identity, responsibility, and community).
But what kind of environment is established if the father has failed to exhibit these elements in his own
life? David’s incident with Bathsheba is a pivotal moment that unveils a deeply engrained streak of
adolescent thinking and behavior.
According to the account in 2 Samuel 11, the time of year for kings to go to war finds the “king’s men”
besieging Rabbah, while the king himself is back in Jerusalem. After an afternoon nap, David sees
Bathsheba and is stricken by her beauty. Inquiring of her identity, he ignores the fact that she is the wife
of one of his soldiers and the granddaughter of his most trusted advisor, Ahithophel. After the encounter,
David learns of Bathsheba’s pregnancy, David brings Uriah home, hoping his time with Bathsheba will
make it appear to all that the child is his. David’s plan is foiled by Uriah’s loyalty, Uriah’s vow as a holy
warrior. There is another possibility. Some scholars believe that Uriah actually knew about the affair and
refused to go home to his wife, knowing the entire plan was an attempt to save the royal image.
Whatever the combination of reasons, the plan failed and David eliminated Uriah from the scene through a
staged military action, a plan some believe Bathsheba was fully aware of and cooperated with.
This kind of egocentrism and deceptive behavior is the antithesis of one who understands who they are,
how they are responsible, and how their actions affect the community they are connected with. A brief
breakdown of the elements appears as follows:
Identity - David’s absence from the battlefield points to a failure in his execution of his identity as
commander and chief of the armies of Israel. The sex act violates his own identity as a holy warrior, his
own marriage covenant, and is a presumptuous violation his covenant with Yahweh. David’s identity as
the covenant-keeping shepherd of Israel is reduced to that of a selfish, unrestrained, conniving shell of his
former self.
Responsibility – The moment David learns of Bathsheba’s identity he is given an opportunity to change
directions. His taking of Bathsheba points to a failure of his execution in his responsibility as her protector-
king, and as a Jewish man, his responsibility as a protector of her marriage covenant with Uriah. Upon
learning of her pregnancy, David is given another opportunity to take responsibility for his choices. He
instead attempts a cover-up that costs the life of an innocent subject, the loyalty of his top advisor and
sets in motion a pattern of violent indiscretion that will haunt him and his family the rest of their lives.
Community- David, above all the members of the royal household should have understood the value of
preserving and passing on wisdom, unity and morale among his subjects, his soldiers and especially his
sons. His actions have a direct impact on the community to which he belongs. David’s actions in this entire
affair reveal a tragically adolescent disregard for those around him. The ripple effect moves outward from
Bathsheba, to her husband, to Joab, to Joab’s military unit (how many other soldiers were put in danger
when the retreat was ordered?), to Ahithophel and others in the inner circle, to David’s court, to Nathan,
to the dead child, to the nation, to all readers of scripture. Nathan’s warning is chilling, “the sword will
never depart from your house…Out of your own household I will bring calamity on you…the son born to
you will die.” (2 Samuel 12:10, 11, 13).
To be sure, David repented before God, and his life was spared. But a pattern was set, a pattern that
would show up again and again in David’s sons for the rest of his life and long after his death. “The story
of turmoil in the kingdom and royal family in 2 Samuel 13-20 typically is read at face value as the result of
David’s personal weaknesses and as a punishment for his sin with Bathsheba.”
The child of the affair with Bathsheba dies, but another is born. Amnon rapes his sister, Tamar. Absalom
avenges the act, thrusting himself into the position of heir apparent. He then seizes David’s throne, but is
finally and brutally slain by the same person (Joab) who earlier brought about reconciliation. Now two
more sons (Adonijah and Solomon) compete for the crown. One will kill the other in the end over Adonijah’
s grasping after David’s concubine, an attempt to indirectly subvert the throne of Solomon.
“The king’s sons, after all, are like their father in many ways; one might say even say that in the private
actions of father king (David) we have seen-like some sort of dreaded premonition-the deeds of his sons
and would-be heirs. But it is not simply a question of politics. It is also, and may be more so, a matter of
family and kin, bad blood and spilled blood, of human grasping and giving, of breaks and disruptions, and
of reconciliations, of a sort. The secret between David and Bathsheba sets in motion a series of events,
brought forth like a caricatured offspring…what is sown at the beginning is reaped throughout, like a curse
from which one is never set free.”
A closer examination of the actions of each of David’s sons will yield further insight into the manner by
which this pattern emerges. In the following section I will deal with each son according to the three
elements of individuation (identity, responsibility and community).
The Pattern Up Close-Amnon
Identity-Amnon is the crown-prince of Israel. Yet he behaves as a love-sick schoolboy in 2 Samuel 13.
“Amnon seems to have inherited some of the lust which his father expressed in his desire for Bathsheba.”
His intense desire for his half-sister caused him to become “ill”. A scheme was devised to have Tamar
come to his room and feed him homemade cakes. During the preparation time Amnon’s lust took control.
Instead of a man of Israel, future king and loving brother, Amnon became the prototype of those who
“sit…on the edge of their beds” (Amos 3:12), or one who “plot evil on their beds” (Micah 2:1). Both of
these references allude to sexual immorality according to Gray. By following through with the rape of his
sister, Amnon, in spite of Tamar’s warning, becomes part of the company of “wicked fools” (2 Samuel 13:
13), a term used to describe a sexual transgression (Jeremiah 29:23), with a particular emphasis on the
crime of rape (Genesis 37:4, Judges 19:23, 20:6).
Responsibility- When Amnon makes moves to rape his sister; she desperately attempts to reason with
him. Tamar’s questions give Amnon multiple opportunities to take responsibility for his intention, avoiding
the humiliation it will bring upon him and the dehumanization it will bring to her life. In a sense, it is as if
Yahweh Himself is warning speaking through Tamar.
“The threefold imperative of the negative injunction in v. 12 emphasizes her implacable opposition to his
proposal in its present form, while the series of questions in v.13 seeks to turn him from evil by first
appealing to whatever atrophied moral sensibility he might have left (‘what about me?’) and secondly by
playing up to his sense of self interest (‘what about you?’). In a sense it might be argued that by
performing this role…Tamar stands in a relationship to Amnon not unlike the one in which Yahweh stands
to Israel.”
Community-To say that Amnon’s sin devastates Tamar would be an understatement. Her torn robe is an
outward expression of a life that has been ripped to shreds. David’s passivity adds insult to injury and
fuels a rage in Absalom that continues the cycle of destruction among David’s sons. Gray makes the
observation that Amnon’s proposal in 13:11 is eerily similar to the phrase used by Potiphar’s wife in her
attempt to seduce Joseph in Genesis 39:7. The narrator seems to be drawing a deliberate parallel. Gray
writes that the narrator is “shrewdly indicating that Amnon is willing to indulge in a level of sexual
dissipation greater than that encountered by Joseph in Egypt…Amnon, a prince of the royal family, is thus
marked as one who perpetrates evil against those familially closest to him.”
The Pattern Up Close-Absalom
Identity- Absalom came to the rescue of his devastated sister, Tamar. As a son and subject of David, he
rightly approached the king for justice in the matter. This is where things begin to go south. “Astonishingly,
David does nothing to punish Amnon for his criminal behavior. Thus, David’s passivity drives Absalom to
take matters into his own hands.” The disillusionment with his father and the rage toward his brother
sends Absalom into a vacuum of identity. He is now defined by spite and vengeance. Some scholars
believe David’s passivity made him a greater enemy to Absalom than Amnon was. Whatever may have
been his aspirations for the throne before; they now were immersed in hostility.
Responsibility- While David is certainly not without fault in this dysfunctional relationship, Absalom too,
shares responsibility for reconciling with his father. The first act of irresponsibility comes when Absalom
takes Tamar into his own house. According to Moore, this action was a “public slap in David’s face.”
Absalom lapses into a deeper hate-induced irresponsibility through the calculated ambush of Amnon.
There is a range of opinion among scholars regarding this event. Daube believes Absalom’s reason for
pressing David to attend was to kill him outright. David “smelled a rat” and agreed to send Amnon,
deciding that “a killing of him (Amnon) would be an acceptable step towards a termination of the affair.”
In contrast, Moore cites David’s questions to Absalom (Why should Amnon go with you?) as evidence of
David’s utter detachment from and ignorance of the dark bitterness of Absalom. Whether David is
politically shrewd or relationally clueless, Absalom knows exactly what he is doing. His judgment, and
therefore his sense of responsible and reconciliatory actions have been compromised by anger.
Community-A final scene of immaturity is found during Absalom’s invasion of Jerusalem. Absalom had
already gathered many to his cause. Israel was divided. Once in the city itself Absalom heeds the advice
of Ahithophel and has sex with his father’s concubines. This is the ultimate act of disrespect and defiance.
Absalom’s appetite for revenge has now created an irreparable breach. The damage to the concubines
themselves is lifelong, as David kept them confined, “living as widows (2 Samuel 20:3). Absalom’s
emotions can be understood, but his actions driven by those emotions brought division and death to the
kingdom of Israel.
The Pattern Up Close-Adonijah
Identity-Adonijah is the next son to engage the pattern of adolescent behavior. David’s passive-
aggressive parenting style avoided the discipleship / discipline needed to form Adonijah into the kind of
man fit for the throne. The text of 1 Kings 1:6 reads simply that “[David] never rebuked him by asking,
‘Why do you act the way you do?’” Adonijah’s problem stemmed from the fact that he was not who he
thought he was. He grasped at something he was not ready for. Moore calls it an “adolescent desperation”
, Long refers to his actions as “adolescent seizing”.
Celebrities like Tom Cruise surround themselves with people who tell them what they want to hear. No one
ever tells Tom how foolish he looks jumping on a couch on the Oprah show confessing his love for a
woman less than half his age. No one tells Tom how misinformed he is in his criticism of modern medicine
as he rails against psychiatry. Tom Cruise is losing the respect of millions because he will not listen to
anyone who disputes him. Part of identity formation is the ability to heed the advice of counselors who will
say what one needs to hear, not just what one wants to hear. In the same way, Adonijah refused to listen
to balanced voices of experience. Voices whose advice could have helped him dramatically. Adonijah could
never lead as a king must lead because he had not learned to listen as a king must listen.
Responsibility- Adonijah’s coronation party is eclipsed by the announcement that Solomon has been
crowned king. Adonijah reacts understandably in fear, grasping the horns of the altar. Solomon lays out
his expectations for Adonijah if his life is to be spared. However, Adonijah commits a fatal act of
irresponsibility by asking for the hand of Abishag, David’s former concubine. The request makes Adonijah
a rival to the throne and the action is seen as a direct challenge to Solomon’s authority. Adonijah is
executed. He should have listened.
Community- Adonijah’s grasping for the throne demonstrated a lack of willingness to embrace sound
counsel. His lack of willingness to live by the expectations of Solomon cost him his life. Of the two men
who conspired with him, one was banished, and one struck down. If adolescence is identified by a lack of
healthy assimilation with the adult community, Adonijah demonstrated how dangerous such a failure can
be.
The Pattern Up Close-Solomon
“Solomon has long been a paradoxical figure in the biblical tradition. His court is depicted as the glorious
high point of the Davidic dynasty; yet apparently because of is policies, tensions developed during his
reign that would at his death sunder the bonds David had forged to weld northern and southern tribes into
a single federation. He is condemned by Yahweh as an idolater, yet he is remembered by posterity as the
builder of Yahweh’s temple. He is led astray from Yahweh by his foreign wives, yet he is revered through
the ages as a paragon of wisdom.”
Identity- God visits Solomon in a dream at Gibeon. Solomon’s request is for a “listening heart” (1 Kings 3:
9). His identity is quickly tied to God’s outpouring of wisdom upon him. For all the wonders of Solomon’s
intellect, all the beauty of his building projects, all the staggering wealth he brings to the nation, one word
reveals a crack in the foundation of his identity. This crack would eventually cause Solomon to forget who
he is. The word is “however”. Moore writes “the temple is yet to be built…however the people are still
sacrificing at the high places. Solomon loves Yahweh…however, he continues to sacrifice at the high
places.” It begins with a marriage to a foreign wife, the building of a palace, the building of pagan shrines,
and ends with the crumbling of Solomon’s character and the rending of the kingdom.
Responsibility-Solomon fails to obey the commands of Yahweh regarding marriage to foreign wives. His
irresponsibility is tragically simple, “King Solomon, however, loved many foreign women…Solomon held
fast to them…his heart was not fully devoted to the Lord his God.” (1 Kings 11:1-6)
Community- Solomon’s downfall held devastating consequences for all of Israel. His polytheism set in
motion of pattern of idolatry that remained in practice for most of the monarchal period in Judah. Moore
adds,
“Solomon therefore opens a door in Israel which can never again be shut. In lieu of a listening heart,
Israel develops into a stubborn people, despising ‘His statutes, and His covenant that He made with their
ancestors, and the warnings that He gave them’ (2 Kings 17:15). All this lies behind the opening words of
17:14: ‘they…would…not…listen.’”
Conclusion
A failure to move through adolescence to individuation is a destructive pattern of living. David and his sons
are tragic examples of this reality. This pattern of deep-seeded adolescent behavior would eventually
bring about the end of the united monarchy. As the broken nation imitated its leaders, the downward spiral
would eventually result in exile.
Bibliography
Books
Blos, Peter. “The Second Individuation Process of Adolescence,” in The Adolescent Passage, ed. Peter
Blos. New York: International Universities Press, 1979.
Buechner, Frederick. Whistling in the Dark. San Francisco, California: Harper, 1993
Clark, Chap. Hurt: Inside the World of Today’s Teenagers. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 2005.
Davis, John & Whitcomb, John. Israel, from Conquest to Exile: A Study of Joshua-2 Kings. Winona Lake,
Indiana: BMH Books, 1971.
Moore, Michael S. Reconciliation: A Study of Biblical Families in Conflict. Joplin, Missouri: College Press,
1994.
Moore, Michael S. Faith Under Pressure: A Study of Biblical Leaders in Conflict. Siloam Springs, Arkansas:
Leafwood Publishers, 2003.
Santrock, John. Adolescence, 8th edition. New York, New York: McGraw-Hill, 2001.
Santrock, John. Life-Span Development. Madison, Wisconsin / Dubuque, Iowa: Brown and Benchmark,
1995.
van Gennep, Arnold. The Rites of Passage, trans. Monika B. Vizedom and Gabrielle L. Caffe. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1960.
Dictionaries
Handy, L.K. “Solomon,” Dictionary of the Old Testament: Historical Books, Downers Grove, Illinois: Inter
Varsity Press, 2005, pp.921-928.
McKenzie, S.L. “David and His Family,” Dictionary of the Old Testament: Historical Books, Downers Grove,
Illinois: Inter Varsity Press, 2005, pp.211-215.
Journals
Clark, Chap. “Changing Face of Adolescence”. Journal of Clinical Psychology 55, no.4 (1999) pp.497-513.
Daube, David. “Absalom and the Ideal King”. Vetus Testamentum 48.3 (July 1998) pp. 315-325.
Gray, Mark. “Amnon: A Chip Off the Old Block? Rhetorical Strategy in 2 Samuel 13:7-15. The Rape of
Tamar and the Humiliation of the Poor”. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 77.1 (March 1998) pp.
39-54.
Herzbrun, Michael B. “Father-Adolescent Religious Consensus in the Jewish Community: A Preliminary
Report”. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 32 (Je 1993), pp. 163-168.
Long, Burke O. “A Darkness Between Brothers”. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 19.1 (Feb.
1981) pp.79-94.
Solarz, Andrea. “American Psychological Association Healthy Adolescents Project”. Adolescent
Development Project. Washington, D.C. American Psychological Association, 2002.
Walsh, Jerome T. “The Characterization of Solomon in 1 Kings 1-5”. The Catholic Biblical Quarterly 57
(July 1995) pp.471-493.
Weingreen, J. “The Rebellion of Absalom”. Vetus Testamentum 19.2 (April 1969) pp. 263-266.
John Santrock. Life-Span Development. (Madison, Wisconsin / Dubuque, Iowa: Brown and Benchmark,
1995), 353.
Arnold van Gennep, The Rites of Passage, trans. Monika B. Vizedom and Gabrielle L. Caffe (Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1960), 21-22
John Santrock. Adolescence, 8th edition. (New York, New York: McGraw-Hill, 2001), 25-27
Chap Clark. Hurt: Inside the World of Today’s Teenagers. (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic,
2005), 27.
Frederick Buechner. Whistling in the Dark. (San Francisco, California: Harper, 1993), 2.
John Santrock. Adolescence, 8th edition. (New York, New York: McGraw-Hill, 2001), 28-29
Ibid.
Chap Clark. “Changing face of Adolescence”. Journal of Clinical Psychology 55, no.4 (1999), 499.
Chap Clark. Hurt: Inside the World of Today’s Teenagers. (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic,
2005), 28.
Peter Blos, “The Second Individuation Process of Adolescence,” in The Adolescent Passage, ed. Peter Blos
(New York: International Universities Press, 1979), 141-170.
Chap Clark. Hurt: Inside the World of Today’s Teenagers. (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic,
2005), 29.
Ibid. 102.
Robert H. Bradley and Robert F. Corwyn, “Home Enviornment and Behavioral Development during Early
Adolescence: The Mediating and Moderating Roles of Self-Efficacy Beliefs, “Merrill-Palmer Quarterly 47 no.
2 (2001) 165-187
Michael S. Moore. Faith Under Pressure: A Study of Biblical Leaders in Conflict. (Siloam Springs, Arkansas:
Leafwood Publishers, 2003), 63
Michael B. Herzbrun “Father-Adolescent Religious Consensus in the Jewish Community: A Preliminary
Report”. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 32 (Je 1993), 163.
David Daube. “Absalom and the Ideal King”. Vetus Testamentum 48.3 (July 1998), 318.
2 Samuel 16:23 sheds light on the value of Ahithophel’s counsel “Now in those days the advice Ahithophel
gave was like that of one who inquires of God. That was how both David and Absalom regarded all of
Ahithophel's advice.”
According to Moore, “holy warriors always abstain from sexual contact during battle.” Michael S. Moore.
Reconciliation: A Study of Biblical Families in Conflict. (Joplin, Missouri: College Press, 1994), 130.
Weingreen suggests that affair would have been common court gossip, rather than a well-guarded secret.;
J. Weingreen. “The Rebellion of Absalom”. Vetus Testamentum 19.2 (April 1969) 265. I find this plausible if
Ahithophel had knowledge of the affair. Daube writes of Ahithophel’s delimma, “The conflicting demands of
the situation on this citizen of outstanding well founded repute defy imagination: how much loyalty does he
owe to the sovereign engaged in the most abject of maoevures?, how much to the innocent Hittite
guardsman and son-in-law who has become a threat to the king entirely through the latter’s frivolity? Least
bearable: must he watch passively his granddaughter’s merciless exposure to ugly, final ruin?”; David
Daube. “Absalom and the Ideal King”. Vetus Testamentum 48.3 (July 1998), 321
“The scene… could not be embarked on without her being fully informed and, indeed, fully co-operatin-on
whatever grounds.” David Daube. “Absalom and the Ideal King”. Vetus Testamentum 48.3 (July 1998),
321.
John Davis & John Whitcomb. Israel, from Conquest to Exile: A Study of Joshua-2 Kings. (Winona Lake,
Indiana: BMH Books, 1971), 299-300.
“David thinks he can interpret God’s promise never to take away His ‘steadfast love’ as a license to do
whatever he wants.” Michael S. Moore. Reconciliation: A Study of Biblical Families in Conflict. (Joplin,
Missouri: College Press, 1994), 129.
Ahithophel is the only member of David’s inner circle to eventually shift is loyalty to Absalom. David
Daube. “Absalom and the Ideal King”. Vetus Testamentum 48.3 (July 1998), 320
S.L.McKebzie. “David and His Family,” Dictionary of the Old Testament: Historical Books, (Downers Grove,
Illinois: Inter Varsity Press, 2005), 215.
Burke O. Long. “A Darkness Between Brothers”. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 19.1 (Feb.
1981), 89.
Mark Gray. “Amnon: A Chip Off the Old Block? Rhetorical Strategy in 2 Samuel 13:7-15. The Rape of
Tamar and the Humiliation of the Poor”. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 77.1 (March 1998), 39.
See Mark Gray’s article for an intriguing analysis of how the language of “kneading the dough” is carefully
used by the narrator to graphically describe Amnon’s growing sexual desire during this encounter.
Ibid. 51
Ibid. 51
Ibid. 50
Ibid. 49
Michael S. Moore. Reconciliation: A Study of Biblical Families in Conflict. (Joplin, Missouri: College Press,
1994), 52.
David Daube. “Absalom and the Ideal King”. Vetus Testamentum 48.3 (July 1998), 317.
Long points to Absalom’s vengeance as fuel for a “secret ambition for the throne.” Burke O. Long “A
Darkness Between Brothers”. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 19.1 (Feb. 1981), 88.
Michael S. Moore. Reconciliation: A Study of Biblical Families in Conflict. (Joplin, Missouri: College Press,
1994), 52
David Daube. “Absalom and the Ideal King”. Vetus Testamentum 48.3 (July 1998), 318.
Michael S. Moore. Reconciliation: A Study of Biblical Families in Conflict. (Joplin, Missouri: College Press,
1994), 53
Michael S. Moore. Faith Under Pressure: A Study of Biblical Leaders in Conflict. (Siloam Springs, Arkansas:
Leafwood Publishers, 2003), 60.
Burke O. Long “A Darkness Between Brothers”. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 19.1 (Feb.
1981), 87.
Cruise recently appeared on “Good Morning America” and condemned psychiatry as a “pseudo-science”.
His remarks are related to his criticism of fellow celebrity Brooke Shields, who has publicly shared about
her battle with post-partum depression, and how medication from her psychiatrist helped her and can help
millions of women suffering from the same problem. Cruise, a member of the Church of Scientology,
denies the existence of psychological dysfunction. He claims all health is controlled by a healthy mind and
body.
“Solomon identifies this request as a covert claim to the throne. In light of the tradition that the king’s
successor inherits his concubines, Solomon’s assertion has a basis in cultural practice. ” Jerome T. Walsh.
“The Characterization of Solomon in 1 Kings 1-5”. The Catholic Biblical Quarterly 57 (July 1995), 473.
Ibid. 471.
Michael S. Moore. Faith Under Pressure: A Study of Biblical Leaders in Conflict. (Siloam Springs, Arkansas:
Leafwood Publishers, 2003), 269.
L.K. Handy. “Solomon,” Dictionary of the Old Testament: Historical Books, (Downers Grove, Illinois: Inter
Varsity Press, 2005), 927.
Mark Gray proposes that the 2 Samuel 13-20 texts “begins to prefigure God’s abandonment of Israel to
exile.” Mark Gray. “Amnon: A Chip Off the Old Block? Rhetorical Strategy in 2 Samuel 13:7-15. The Rape
of Tamar and the Humiliation of the Poor”. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 77.1 (March 1998),
40.
A Study of Adolescent Patterns of Thought and Behavior in David and His Sons
by: Kevin Glenn
Adolescence is a period of transition from egocentric and irresponsible behavior to individuation and
maturity. That transition is happening at a later and later time in our current culture with alarming
consequences. This however is not a new phenomenon. The members of David's household and even
David himself exhibited behaviors identical to what social scientists would consider adolescent. The
purpose of this paper is to examine theological and sociological implications of such behavior in the lives of
David and his sons, Amnon, Absalom, Adonijah and Solomon.
Being a youth minister, I do have a vocational bias toward the study of adolescence. While it is an
important time, I suggest it should be viewed as a time through which one should pass, rather than a
period in which to indulge. Prolonged adolescent thought and behavior contributes negatively to spiritual,
emotional and societal growth. It's my opinion that such a practice of immaturity aided in the
establishment of a dysfunctional pattern of relationships between David and his sons. Further, I intend to
demonstrate how David’s choices foreshadow a pattern of similar dysfunctional decision making by his
offspring.
I will focus on accounts of these men as recorded in the books of 2 Samuel 11-19 and 1 Kings 1-11,
operating on the presupposition that these men existed historically. I will appeal to psychological and
sociological material on adolescence as it is appropriate for a foundational understanding of the issue,
keeping in mind that this is primarily a theological study, not a study of social science. I do not command
Hebrew.
What is Adolescence?
Adolescence is a hard thing to describe. It is even harder to define. Throughout the history of civilization,
dominant cultures has have held up the young as their most precious and sacred treasure. Historically,
there have been just two primary stages of the human lifespan: childhood and adulthood. Children were
seen as a precious and nurtured resource and as such were led into their place in the culture by those
entrusted with their care. These were members of family and the community at large. At the point in time
when a child had completed certain rituals and training experiences necessary to be accepted into
interdependent relationships within the adult community, he or she was fully assimilated as an adult
member of that community. In 1908, Arnold van Gennep named this process “rite of passage”, and
recognized its three elements: separation from the old status; transition, usually through a specific ritual;
and incorporation into the adult community.
The span of time between childhood and adulthood was first labeled and identified near the beginning of
the twentieth century. The period, seen as beginning with puberty and ending when full adult
responsibilities and even economic independence were achieved, was roughly three years. This
recognition of a transitional period between childhood and adulthood introduced new terms such as
teenager and youth, and raised questions about the nature of who adolescents are. Are they big children
or little adults? Or are they a blend of both, “sort of adults and sort of kids”?
“The opaque glance and the pimples. The fancy new nakedness they’re all dressed up in with no place to
go. The eyes full of secrets they have a strong hunch everybody is on to. The shadowed brow. Being not
quite a child and not quite a grown-up either is hard work, and they look it. Living in two worlds at once is
no picnic.”
The most generally accepted definition of adolescence has been offered by
developmental psychologist John Santrock. He describes adolescence as “the period of life between
childhood and adulthood…[The process] lasts from roughly 10-13 years of age and ends at 18-22 years of
age. [However,] defining when adolescence ends is not an easy task. It has been said that adolescence
begins in biology and ends in culture.” Santrock offers as concise a definition as is appropriate for the
fluctuating experience of the phenomenon. The standard academic answer comes down to “two main
components-separateness and self-assertion.” Other social scientists add the components of a desire to
move toward the discovery of community, belonging and interdependence. Adolescence, then, is a
“psychological, independent search for a unique identity or separateness, with the end goals being a
certain knowledge of who one is in relation to others, a willingness to take responsibility for who one is
becoming, and a realized commitment to live with others in community.”
Defining the parameters of adolescence-where it begins and ends and what it involves, is important to
understanding it. Using Santrock’s definition-that adolescence ends when culture affirms one’s entrance
into the adult community- we can say that adolescence is the journey from biological adulthood to societal
adulthood. This process of societal maturity is referred to by many social scientists as “second
individuation”. The adolescent entering the world of adulthood seeks to embrace a new season of
development, draw attention to his or her own uniqueness and move toward an internal locus of control,
while at the same time remaining connected to those relationships that form community. For many, the
term individuation is at the core of the adolescent process and is therefore the motivating task of moving
through adolescence itself. “When culture affirms that someone has individuated in terms of identity, is
willing to take responsibility for his or her life choices, and has entered interdependently into the
community of adult relationships, that person is said to be an adult.” Yet this begs the question, how many
true adults are out there? How often do people really have a grasp on who they are? How often are the
ties that bind us to a community tattered and torn because of family dysfunction? And responsibility?
Playing the blame game started in Eden when Adam blamed his wife for disobeying God, and we have
been players in that game ever since. If individuation marks the end of adolescence, then behaviors that
indicate an adolescent bent must be issues for any person at any age.
It is decision making and behavior indicative of adolescence that I submit contributed to the downfall of
one of the Bible’s most famous families. The cycle set forth by King David, and imitated in varying degrees
by his sons, demonstrates a lack of identity, responsibility, and healthy interdependence. David and his
sons fall short of individuation, with tragic consequences.
The Family Dynamic
“’I’ll tell you something I never told an adult. In fact I’ll tell you something I never told anybody. Three
years ago my parents got divorced, and they decided to keep it a secret. They told me and my sister that
we weren’t allowed to tell anyone, not even our grandparents, or we would get in big trouble. So for three
years we have all been living a lie. I haven’t told my friends, my coaches, my teachers, nobody, and
neither has my little sister. My parents hate each other, and they fight all the time, but they pretend to be
happily married around everyone else. It sucks!’ As I was trying to hide my shock and anger over what
this young boy was being forced to carry, a shy girl on my left began to squirm and bite her nails. ‘Me too,’
she said quietly. ‘Excuse me?’ ‘Okay, I guess it doesn’t matter anymore anyway. My parents did the same
thing last year to us. I hate them! I hate them both!’”
This exchange recorded in Clark’s book highlights the devastating effects of a dysfunctional family system
on the children caught in the midst of it. Is it surprising that feelings of rage, hatred and contempt are
leveled at the parents of these teenagers? Overwhelming data regarding the influence of parents on child
and adolescent development reveals that the most important place of safety for a young person is a
supportive dual-parent setting. The kind of environment where a developing child may ultimately be
strengthened as he or she navigates the road of adolescence with a relationally committed father and
mother and a home setting that is safe. Where, even in the darkest times, the child knows that they are
unconditionally loved and accepted.
The Beginning of the End
David is held in high esteem as a man after God’s own heart. Yet a closer study reveals something else.
For all of David’s military, political, and spiritual victories, his personal life is threaded with patterns of
inconsistency and dysfunction. As a Jewish man, David bore a responsibility to live out the law of God in a
way that would teach the members of his household to do the same. Serving as king did not excuse David
from the Shema.
“Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one. Love the LORD your God with all your heart and with
all your soul and with all your strength. These commandments that I give you today are to be upon your
hearts. Impress them on your children. Talk about them when you sit at home and when you walk along
the road, when you lie down and when you get up. Tie them as symbols on your hands and bind them on
your foreheads. Write them on the doorframes of your houses and on your gates.” (Deuteronomy 6:4-9
NIV).
With this command came the responsibility to serve as an example to home, and in David’s case, to the
entire nation. This did not imply that David was to be perfect, but it did require that David “be there”.
Being there means more than physical presence according to the expectations set forth in the Shema. It
requires the context of supportive shaping of the personality through loving, but firm discipline. There is
overwhelming evidence that fathers have a profound impact on the way in which their children regard
religious belief and practice. “Several studies have shown a correlation between religious value consensus
and a father’s verbal communication of these values to his son or daughter. Father’s emotional support
has also been shown to correlate with religious consensus.” Through such an environment, children are
taught the three elements of individuation as described above (identity, responsibility, and community).
But what kind of environment is established if the father has failed to exhibit these elements in his own
life? David’s incident with Bathsheba is a pivotal moment that unveils a deeply engrained streak of
adolescent thinking and behavior.
According to the account in 2 Samuel 11, the time of year for kings to go to war finds the “king’s men”
besieging Rabbah, while the king himself is back in Jerusalem. After an afternoon nap, David sees
Bathsheba and is stricken by her beauty. Inquiring of her identity, he ignores the fact that she is the wife
of one of his soldiers and the granddaughter of his most trusted advisor, Ahithophel. After the encounter,
David learns of Bathsheba’s pregnancy, David brings Uriah home, hoping his time with Bathsheba will
make it appear to all that the child is his. David’s plan is foiled by Uriah’s loyalty, Uriah’s vow as a holy
warrior. There is another possibility. Some scholars believe that Uriah actually knew about the affair and
refused to go home to his wife, knowing the entire plan was an attempt to save the royal image.
Whatever the combination of reasons, the plan failed and David eliminated Uriah from the scene through a
staged military action, a plan some believe Bathsheba was fully aware of and cooperated with.
This kind of egocentrism and deceptive behavior is the antithesis of one who understands who they are,
how they are responsible, and how their actions affect the community they are connected with. A brief
breakdown of the elements appears as follows:
Identity - David’s absence from the battlefield points to a failure in his execution of his identity as
commander and chief of the armies of Israel. The sex act violates his own identity as a holy warrior, his
own marriage covenant, and is a presumptuous violation his covenant with Yahweh. David’s identity as
the covenant-keeping shepherd of Israel is reduced to that of a selfish, unrestrained, conniving shell of his
former self.
Responsibility – The moment David learns of Bathsheba’s identity he is given an opportunity to change
directions. His taking of Bathsheba points to a failure of his execution in his responsibility as her protector-
king, and as a Jewish man, his responsibility as a protector of her marriage covenant with Uriah. Upon
learning of her pregnancy, David is given another opportunity to take responsibility for his choices. He
instead attempts a cover-up that costs the life of an innocent subject, the loyalty of his top advisor and
sets in motion a pattern of violent indiscretion that will haunt him and his family the rest of their lives.
Community- David, above all the members of the royal household should have understood the value of
preserving and passing on wisdom, unity and morale among his subjects, his soldiers and especially his
sons. His actions have a direct impact on the community to which he belongs. David’s actions in this entire
affair reveal a tragically adolescent disregard for those around him. The ripple effect moves outward from
Bathsheba, to her husband, to Joab, to Joab’s military unit (how many other soldiers were put in danger
when the retreat was ordered?), to Ahithophel and others in the inner circle, to David’s court, to Nathan,
to the dead child, to the nation, to all readers of scripture. Nathan’s warning is chilling, “the sword will
never depart from your house…Out of your own household I will bring calamity on you…the son born to
you will die.” (2 Samuel 12:10, 11, 13).
To be sure, David repented before God, and his life was spared. But a pattern was set, a pattern that
would show up again and again in David’s sons for the rest of his life and long after his death. “The story
of turmoil in the kingdom and royal family in 2 Samuel 13-20 typically is read at face value as the result of
David’s personal weaknesses and as a punishment for his sin with Bathsheba.”
The child of the affair with Bathsheba dies, but another is born. Amnon rapes his sister, Tamar. Absalom
avenges the act, thrusting himself into the position of heir apparent. He then seizes David’s throne, but is
finally and brutally slain by the same person (Joab) who earlier brought about reconciliation. Now two
more sons (Adonijah and Solomon) compete for the crown. One will kill the other in the end over Adonijah’
s grasping after David’s concubine, an attempt to indirectly subvert the throne of Solomon.
“The king’s sons, after all, are like their father in many ways; one might say even say that in the private
actions of father king (David) we have seen-like some sort of dreaded premonition-the deeds of his sons
and would-be heirs. But it is not simply a question of politics. It is also, and may be more so, a matter of
family and kin, bad blood and spilled blood, of human grasping and giving, of breaks and disruptions, and
of reconciliations, of a sort. The secret between David and Bathsheba sets in motion a series of events,
brought forth like a caricatured offspring…what is sown at the beginning is reaped throughout, like a curse
from which one is never set free.”
A closer examination of the actions of each of David’s sons will yield further insight into the manner by
which this pattern emerges. In the following section I will deal with each son according to the three
elements of individuation (identity, responsibility and community).
The Pattern Up Close-Amnon
Identity-Amnon is the crown-prince of Israel. Yet he behaves as a love-sick schoolboy in 2 Samuel 13.
“Amnon seems to have inherited some of the lust which his father expressed in his desire for Bathsheba.”
His intense desire for his half-sister caused him to become “ill”. A scheme was devised to have Tamar
come to his room and feed him homemade cakes. During the preparation time Amnon’s lust took control.
Instead of a man of Israel, future king and loving brother, Amnon became the prototype of those who
“sit…on the edge of their beds” (Amos 3:12), or one who “plot evil on their beds” (Micah 2:1). Both of
these references allude to sexual immorality according to Gray. By following through with the rape of his
sister, Amnon, in spite of Tamar’s warning, becomes part of the company of “wicked fools” (2 Samuel 13:
13), a term used to describe a sexual transgression (Jeremiah 29:23), with a particular emphasis on the
crime of rape (Genesis 37:4, Judges 19:23, 20:6).
Responsibility- When Amnon makes moves to rape his sister; she desperately attempts to reason with
him. Tamar’s questions give Amnon multiple opportunities to take responsibility for his intention, avoiding
the humiliation it will bring upon him and the dehumanization it will bring to her life. In a sense, it is as if
Yahweh Himself is warning speaking through Tamar.
“The threefold imperative of the negative injunction in v. 12 emphasizes her implacable opposition to his
proposal in its present form, while the series of questions in v.13 seeks to turn him from evil by first
appealing to whatever atrophied moral sensibility he might have left (‘what about me?’) and secondly by
playing up to his sense of self interest (‘what about you?’). In a sense it might be argued that by
performing this role…Tamar stands in a relationship to Amnon not unlike the one in which Yahweh stands
to Israel.”
Community-To say that Amnon’s sin devastates Tamar would be an understatement. Her torn robe is an
outward expression of a life that has been ripped to shreds. David’s passivity adds insult to injury and
fuels a rage in Absalom that continues the cycle of destruction among David’s sons. Gray makes the
observation that Amnon’s proposal in 13:11 is eerily similar to the phrase used by Potiphar’s wife in her
attempt to seduce Joseph in Genesis 39:7. The narrator seems to be drawing a deliberate parallel. Gray
writes that the narrator is “shrewdly indicating that Amnon is willing to indulge in a level of sexual
dissipation greater than that encountered by Joseph in Egypt…Amnon, a prince of the royal family, is thus
marked as one who perpetrates evil against those familially closest to him.”
The Pattern Up Close-Absalom
Identity- Absalom came to the rescue of his devastated sister, Tamar. As a son and subject of David, he
rightly approached the king for justice in the matter. This is where things begin to go south. “Astonishingly,
David does nothing to punish Amnon for his criminal behavior. Thus, David’s passivity drives Absalom to
take matters into his own hands.” The disillusionment with his father and the rage toward his brother
sends Absalom into a vacuum of identity. He is now defined by spite and vengeance. Some scholars
believe David’s passivity made him a greater enemy to Absalom than Amnon was. Whatever may have
been his aspirations for the throne before; they now were immersed in hostility.
Responsibility- While David is certainly not without fault in this dysfunctional relationship, Absalom too,
shares responsibility for reconciling with his father. The first act of irresponsibility comes when Absalom
takes Tamar into his own house. According to Moore, this action was a “public slap in David’s face.”
Absalom lapses into a deeper hate-induced irresponsibility through the calculated ambush of Amnon.
There is a range of opinion among scholars regarding this event. Daube believes Absalom’s reason for
pressing David to attend was to kill him outright. David “smelled a rat” and agreed to send Amnon,
deciding that “a killing of him (Amnon) would be an acceptable step towards a termination of the affair.”
In contrast, Moore cites David’s questions to Absalom (Why should Amnon go with you?) as evidence of
David’s utter detachment from and ignorance of the dark bitterness of Absalom. Whether David is
politically shrewd or relationally clueless, Absalom knows exactly what he is doing. His judgment, and
therefore his sense of responsible and reconciliatory actions have been compromised by anger.
Community-A final scene of immaturity is found during Absalom’s invasion of Jerusalem. Absalom had
already gathered many to his cause. Israel was divided. Once in the city itself Absalom heeds the advice
of Ahithophel and has sex with his father’s concubines. This is the ultimate act of disrespect and defiance.
Absalom’s appetite for revenge has now created an irreparable breach. The damage to the concubines
themselves is lifelong, as David kept them confined, “living as widows (2 Samuel 20:3). Absalom’s
emotions can be understood, but his actions driven by those emotions brought division and death to the
kingdom of Israel.
The Pattern Up Close-Adonijah
Identity-Adonijah is the next son to engage the pattern of adolescent behavior. David’s passive-
aggressive parenting style avoided the discipleship / discipline needed to form Adonijah into the kind of
man fit for the throne. The text of 1 Kings 1:6 reads simply that “[David] never rebuked him by asking,
‘Why do you act the way you do?’” Adonijah’s problem stemmed from the fact that he was not who he
thought he was. He grasped at something he was not ready for. Moore calls it an “adolescent desperation”
, Long refers to his actions as “adolescent seizing”.
Celebrities like Tom Cruise surround themselves with people who tell them what they want to hear. No one
ever tells Tom how foolish he looks jumping on a couch on the Oprah show confessing his love for a
woman less than half his age. No one tells Tom how misinformed he is in his criticism of modern medicine
as he rails against psychiatry. Tom Cruise is losing the respect of millions because he will not listen to
anyone who disputes him. Part of identity formation is the ability to heed the advice of counselors who will
say what one needs to hear, not just what one wants to hear. In the same way, Adonijah refused to listen
to balanced voices of experience. Voices whose advice could have helped him dramatically. Adonijah could
never lead as a king must lead because he had not learned to listen as a king must listen.
Responsibility- Adonijah’s coronation party is eclipsed by the announcement that Solomon has been
crowned king. Adonijah reacts understandably in fear, grasping the horns of the altar. Solomon lays out
his expectations for Adonijah if his life is to be spared. However, Adonijah commits a fatal act of
irresponsibility by asking for the hand of Abishag, David’s former concubine. The request makes Adonijah
a rival to the throne and the action is seen as a direct challenge to Solomon’s authority. Adonijah is
executed. He should have listened.
Community- Adonijah’s grasping for the throne demonstrated a lack of willingness to embrace sound
counsel. His lack of willingness to live by the expectations of Solomon cost him his life. Of the two men
who conspired with him, one was banished, and one struck down. If adolescence is identified by a lack of
healthy assimilation with the adult community, Adonijah demonstrated how dangerous such a failure can
be.
The Pattern Up Close-Solomon
“Solomon has long been a paradoxical figure in the biblical tradition. His court is depicted as the glorious
high point of the Davidic dynasty; yet apparently because of is policies, tensions developed during his
reign that would at his death sunder the bonds David had forged to weld northern and southern tribes into
a single federation. He is condemned by Yahweh as an idolater, yet he is remembered by posterity as the
builder of Yahweh’s temple. He is led astray from Yahweh by his foreign wives, yet he is revered through
the ages as a paragon of wisdom.”
Identity- God visits Solomon in a dream at Gibeon. Solomon’s request is for a “listening heart” (1 Kings 3:
9). His identity is quickly tied to God’s outpouring of wisdom upon him. For all the wonders of Solomon’s
intellect, all the beauty of his building projects, all the staggering wealth he brings to the nation, one word
reveals a crack in the foundation of his identity. This crack would eventually cause Solomon to forget who
he is. The word is “however”. Moore writes “the temple is yet to be built…however the people are still
sacrificing at the high places. Solomon loves Yahweh…however, he continues to sacrifice at the high
places.” It begins with a marriage to a foreign wife, the building of a palace, the building of pagan shrines,
and ends with the crumbling of Solomon’s character and the rending of the kingdom.
Responsibility-Solomon fails to obey the commands of Yahweh regarding marriage to foreign wives. His
irresponsibility is tragically simple, “King Solomon, however, loved many foreign women…Solomon held
fast to them…his heart was not fully devoted to the Lord his God.” (1 Kings 11:1-6)
Community- Solomon’s downfall held devastating consequences for all of Israel. His polytheism set in
motion of pattern of idolatry that remained in practice for most of the monarchal period in Judah. Moore
adds,
“Solomon therefore opens a door in Israel which can never again be shut. In lieu of a listening heart,
Israel develops into a stubborn people, despising ‘His statutes, and His covenant that He made with their
ancestors, and the warnings that He gave them’ (2 Kings 17:15). All this lies behind the opening words of
17:14: ‘they…would…not…listen.’”
Conclusion
A failure to move through adolescence to individuation is a destructive pattern of living. David and his sons
are tragic examples of this reality. This pattern of deep-seeded adolescent behavior would eventually
bring about the end of the united monarchy. As the broken nation imitated its leaders, the downward spiral
would eventually result in exile.
Bibliography
Books
Blos, Peter. “The Second Individuation Process of Adolescence,” in The Adolescent Passage, ed. Peter
Blos. New York: International Universities Press, 1979.
Buechner, Frederick. Whistling in the Dark. San Francisco, California: Harper, 1993
Clark, Chap. Hurt: Inside the World of Today’s Teenagers. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 2005.
Davis, John & Whitcomb, John. Israel, from Conquest to Exile: A Study of Joshua-2 Kings. Winona Lake,
Indiana: BMH Books, 1971.
Moore, Michael S. Reconciliation: A Study of Biblical Families in Conflict. Joplin, Missouri: College Press,
1994.
Moore, Michael S. Faith Under Pressure: A Study of Biblical Leaders in Conflict. Siloam Springs, Arkansas:
Leafwood Publishers, 2003.
Santrock, John. Adolescence, 8th edition. New York, New York: McGraw-Hill, 2001.
Santrock, John. Life-Span Development. Madison, Wisconsin / Dubuque, Iowa: Brown and Benchmark,
1995.
van Gennep, Arnold. The Rites of Passage, trans. Monika B. Vizedom and Gabrielle L. Caffe. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1960.
Dictionaries
Handy, L.K. “Solomon,” Dictionary of the Old Testament: Historical Books, Downers Grove, Illinois: Inter
Varsity Press, 2005, pp.921-928.
McKenzie, S.L. “David and His Family,” Dictionary of the Old Testament: Historical Books, Downers Grove,
Illinois: Inter Varsity Press, 2005, pp.211-215.
Journals
Clark, Chap. “Changing Face of Adolescence”. Journal of Clinical Psychology 55, no.4 (1999) pp.497-513.
Daube, David. “Absalom and the Ideal King”. Vetus Testamentum 48.3 (July 1998) pp. 315-325.
Gray, Mark. “Amnon: A Chip Off the Old Block? Rhetorical Strategy in 2 Samuel 13:7-15. The Rape of
Tamar and the Humiliation of the Poor”. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 77.1 (March 1998) pp.
39-54.
Herzbrun, Michael B. “Father-Adolescent Religious Consensus in the Jewish Community: A Preliminary
Report”. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 32 (Je 1993), pp. 163-168.
Long, Burke O. “A Darkness Between Brothers”. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 19.1 (Feb.
1981) pp.79-94.
Solarz, Andrea. “American Psychological Association Healthy Adolescents Project”. Adolescent
Development Project. Washington, D.C. American Psychological Association, 2002.
Walsh, Jerome T. “The Characterization of Solomon in 1 Kings 1-5”. The Catholic Biblical Quarterly 57
(July 1995) pp.471-493.
Weingreen, J. “The Rebellion of Absalom”. Vetus Testamentum 19.2 (April 1969) pp. 263-266.
John Santrock. Life-Span Development. (Madison, Wisconsin / Dubuque, Iowa: Brown and Benchmark,
1995), 353.
Arnold van Gennep, The Rites of Passage, trans. Monika B. Vizedom and Gabrielle L. Caffe (Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1960), 21-22
John Santrock. Adolescence, 8th edition. (New York, New York: McGraw-Hill, 2001), 25-27
Chap Clark. Hurt: Inside the World of Today’s Teenagers. (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic,
2005), 27.
Frederick Buechner. Whistling in the Dark. (San Francisco, California: Harper, 1993), 2.
John Santrock. Adolescence, 8th edition. (New York, New York: McGraw-Hill, 2001), 28-29
Ibid.
Chap Clark. “Changing face of Adolescence”. Journal of Clinical Psychology 55, no.4 (1999), 499.
Chap Clark. Hurt: Inside the World of Today’s Teenagers. (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic,
2005), 28.
Peter Blos, “The Second Individuation Process of Adolescence,” in The Adolescent Passage, ed. Peter Blos
(New York: International Universities Press, 1979), 141-170.
Chap Clark. Hurt: Inside the World of Today’s Teenagers. (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic,
2005), 29.
Ibid. 102.
Robert H. Bradley and Robert F. Corwyn, “Home Enviornment and Behavioral Development during Early
Adolescence: The Mediating and Moderating Roles of Self-Efficacy Beliefs, “Merrill-Palmer Quarterly 47 no.
2 (2001) 165-187
Michael S. Moore. Faith Under Pressure: A Study of Biblical Leaders in Conflict. (Siloam Springs, Arkansas:
Leafwood Publishers, 2003), 63
Michael B. Herzbrun “Father-Adolescent Religious Consensus in the Jewish Community: A Preliminary
Report”. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 32 (Je 1993), 163.
David Daube. “Absalom and the Ideal King”. Vetus Testamentum 48.3 (July 1998), 318.
2 Samuel 16:23 sheds light on the value of Ahithophel’s counsel “Now in those days the advice Ahithophel
gave was like that of one who inquires of God. That was how both David and Absalom regarded all of
Ahithophel's advice.”
According to Moore, “holy warriors always abstain from sexual contact during battle.” Michael S. Moore.
Reconciliation: A Study of Biblical Families in Conflict. (Joplin, Missouri: College Press, 1994), 130.
Weingreen suggests that affair would have been common court gossip, rather than a well-guarded secret.;
J. Weingreen. “The Rebellion of Absalom”. Vetus Testamentum 19.2 (April 1969) 265. I find this plausible if
Ahithophel had knowledge of the affair. Daube writes of Ahithophel’s delimma, “The conflicting demands of
the situation on this citizen of outstanding well founded repute defy imagination: how much loyalty does he
owe to the sovereign engaged in the most abject of maoevures?, how much to the innocent Hittite
guardsman and son-in-law who has become a threat to the king entirely through the latter’s frivolity? Least
bearable: must he watch passively his granddaughter’s merciless exposure to ugly, final ruin?”; David
Daube. “Absalom and the Ideal King”. Vetus Testamentum 48.3 (July 1998), 321
“The scene… could not be embarked on without her being fully informed and, indeed, fully co-operatin-on
whatever grounds.” David Daube. “Absalom and the Ideal King”. Vetus Testamentum 48.3 (July 1998),
321.
John Davis & John Whitcomb. Israel, from Conquest to Exile: A Study of Joshua-2 Kings. (Winona Lake,
Indiana: BMH Books, 1971), 299-300.
“David thinks he can interpret God’s promise never to take away His ‘steadfast love’ as a license to do
whatever he wants.” Michael S. Moore. Reconciliation: A Study of Biblical Families in Conflict. (Joplin,
Missouri: College Press, 1994), 129.
Ahithophel is the only member of David’s inner circle to eventually shift is loyalty to Absalom. David
Daube. “Absalom and the Ideal King”. Vetus Testamentum 48.3 (July 1998), 320
S.L.McKebzie. “David and His Family,” Dictionary of the Old Testament: Historical Books, (Downers Grove,
Illinois: Inter Varsity Press, 2005), 215.
Burke O. Long. “A Darkness Between Brothers”. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 19.1 (Feb.
1981), 89.
Mark Gray. “Amnon: A Chip Off the Old Block? Rhetorical Strategy in 2 Samuel 13:7-15. The Rape of
Tamar and the Humiliation of the Poor”. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 77.1 (March 1998), 39.
See Mark Gray’s article for an intriguing analysis of how the language of “kneading the dough” is carefully
used by the narrator to graphically describe Amnon’s growing sexual desire during this encounter.
Ibid. 51
Ibid. 51
Ibid. 50
Ibid. 49
Michael S. Moore. Reconciliation: A Study of Biblical Families in Conflict. (Joplin, Missouri: College Press,
1994), 52.
David Daube. “Absalom and the Ideal King”. Vetus Testamentum 48.3 (July 1998), 317.
Long points to Absalom’s vengeance as fuel for a “secret ambition for the throne.” Burke O. Long “A
Darkness Between Brothers”. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 19.1 (Feb. 1981), 88.
Michael S. Moore. Reconciliation: A Study of Biblical Families in Conflict. (Joplin, Missouri: College Press,
1994), 52
David Daube. “Absalom and the Ideal King”. Vetus Testamentum 48.3 (July 1998), 318.
Michael S. Moore. Reconciliation: A Study of Biblical Families in Conflict. (Joplin, Missouri: College Press,
1994), 53
Michael S. Moore. Faith Under Pressure: A Study of Biblical Leaders in Conflict. (Siloam Springs, Arkansas:
Leafwood Publishers, 2003), 60.
Burke O. Long “A Darkness Between Brothers”. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 19.1 (Feb.
1981), 87.
Cruise recently appeared on “Good Morning America” and condemned psychiatry as a “pseudo-science”.
His remarks are related to his criticism of fellow celebrity Brooke Shields, who has publicly shared about
her battle with post-partum depression, and how medication from her psychiatrist helped her and can help
millions of women suffering from the same problem. Cruise, a member of the Church of Scientology,
denies the existence of psychological dysfunction. He claims all health is controlled by a healthy mind and
body.
“Solomon identifies this request as a covert claim to the throne. In light of the tradition that the king’s
successor inherits his concubines, Solomon’s assertion has a basis in cultural practice. ” Jerome T. Walsh.
“The Characterization of Solomon in 1 Kings 1-5”. The Catholic Biblical Quarterly 57 (July 1995), 473.
Ibid. 471.
Michael S. Moore. Faith Under Pressure: A Study of Biblical Leaders in Conflict. (Siloam Springs, Arkansas:
Leafwood Publishers, 2003), 269.
L.K. Handy. “Solomon,” Dictionary of the Old Testament: Historical Books, (Downers Grove, Illinois: Inter
Varsity Press, 2005), 927.
Mark Gray proposes that the 2 Samuel 13-20 texts “begins to prefigure God’s abandonment of Israel to
exile.” Mark Gray. “Amnon: A Chip Off the Old Block? Rhetorical Strategy in 2 Samuel 13:7-15. The Rape
of Tamar and the Humiliation of the Poor”. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 77.1 (March 1998),
40.
| All rights reserved. |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |