+- Rogue-Nation Discussion Board (https://rogue-nation.com/mybb)
+-- Forum: Spirits and the Spiritual (https://rogue-nation.com/mybb/forumdisplay.php?fid=81)
+--- Forum: Religions and Matters of Faith (https://rogue-nation.com/mybb/forumdisplay.php?fid=84)
+--- Thread: The coup that failed (/showthread.php?tid=1936)
The coup that failed - DISRAELI - 03-27-2024
David was coming to the end of his life and growing more feeble (1 Kings ch1).
Obviously the issue of succession to the throne would have to be confronted. Once again, polygamy would be a major complicating factor. The later Ottoman empire illustrates the problem, showing how polygamy tends to produce too many possible candidates for the throne. Being born from different mothers reduces the sense of kinship among the sons and heightens the sense of rivalry. In fact the competition for the throne becomes an anxious necessity, if they know that the winner of the race is likely to kill his brothers afterwards.
Thus there is no security in the status of “eldest son”. Even their father’s preference may be diverted to a son of his favourite wife. It will be helpful if the candidate is popular among the people, but he needs to find allies in the military leadership, the religious leadership, and the royal household. The household is important partly because those close to the monarch will be the first to know about his death, priceless information which they may be able to keep to themselves until they have perfected their own arrangements.
At first glance, the obvious heir to David’s throne was Adonijah, the fourth of his Hebron sons and probably the eldest surviving son. “His father had never at any time displeased him by asking; Why have you done thus and so?” (v4) He was aware of David’s decline, and exalted himself, saying “I will be king”. He prepared for himself chariots and horsemen and fifty men to run before him.
At the same time, there was also a “son of the favourite wife”. David had already sworn an oath to Bathsheba, that her son Solomon would reign after him. Unfortunately the child was still too young to be a plausible war-leader, which may be one of the reasons why the decision had not been announced publicly. I’m sure Adonijah would have guessed the secret, though.
Adonijah had secured the support of two leading figures. Joab, as commander of the host, and Abiathar, as priest-custodian of the ark, might be seen as the heads of their respective
“departments”. Yet this combination was not as strong as it looked. Adonijah’s party did not include Benaiah the son of Jehoiada, captain of the king’s bodyguard. Nor did it include the rest of David’s “mighty men”. Where, then, was Abishai, Joab’s elder brother, once “commander of the thirty”? Probably retired or dead, having been active since the very beginning of the reign. It’s likely that the
“thirty” had disappeared altogether. Joab and
Abishai together had controlled the court. Without Abishai, and in the absence of the host (which had not been called out for war), Joab was an old commander with immense prestige and no soldiers.
There were also other religious leaders besides Abiathar. Zadok, head of the rival priestly line, remained loyal to David, as did Nathan the prophet.
For that matter, there is no sign that Adonijah had been able to suborn anyone surrounding David, within the royal household. This was important, because his prospects would depend upon his timing. If he tried to claim the throne while David was still conscious and capable of making decisions, he would be crushed. If he waited for David’s death to be announced, the king’s chosen successor would be proclaimed at the same time. At the very least he needed a spy, to tell him how quickly the king’s life was ebbing away. The key factor in one of the most fateful days in David’s reign may have been that Adonijah made his move just a whisker too soon.
Adonijah “crossed the Rubicon” by arranging a great sacrifice and feast at En-rogel, just outside Jerusalem. The two things go together, because the guests would be feasting on the sacrificed animals. He invited his brothers (apart from Solomon) and all the royal officials. Presumably the plan was that Abiathar the priest would rise from the table at some point and anoint Adonijah as king. His guests would acclaim him and swear allegiance. By this means, he would have taken over the kingdom. If nothing went wrong.
A feast planned on that scale could not be kept secret, so his purpose was transparent. While this was happening, Nathan the prophet was in the king’s palace, alerting Bathsheba to the state of crisis. They needed to warn David. Nathan shrewdly managed the affair by telling Bathsheba to make the first approach on her own. He would then follow, giving a second warning to reinforce the first. This would have more impact than a single message given jointly. Between them, they would sting David into action.
In their separate audiences, Bathsheba and Nathan described what was happening across the valley and pleaded for action. “And now, my lord the king, the eyes of all Israel are upon you, to tell them who shall sit upon the throne of my lord the king after him. Otherwise it will come to pass, when my lord the king sleeps with his fathers, that I and my son Solomon will be counted offenders [and executed]” (vv20-21).
After Nathan said his piece, David recalled
Bathsheba to his presence and swore an oath to the Lord renewing his previous promise. Escorted by the king’s bodyguard (the Cherethites and Pelethites), Zadok, Nathan, and Benaiah the son of
Jehoiada took Solomon down to the spring of Gihon. Zadok collected the sacred horn of oil from the tent, which must have been close by, and anointed Solomon. Then they blew the trumpet and all the people joyfully acclaimed Solomon as king.
The feasters at En-rogel could hear the trumpet and the clamour in the city, but did not know what it meant. It was Jonathan, son of Abiathar, who came in to report the bad news of Solomon’s elevation to the throne. At that moment, Adonijah knew that his two aces, Joab and Abiathar, had been trumped. The game was up. “Then all the guests of Adonijah trembled and rose and each went his own way.” Adonijah took refuge at the horns of the altar, inside the tent, but Solomon promised him his life, on condition of good behaviour.
“So the kingdom was established in the hand of Solomon”
[P.S. This is an extract from the newly-published “Prophets, Priests and Politics”, a survey of Old Testament history through the eyes of the prophets.]
RE: The coup that failed - EndtheMadnessNow - 03-28-2024
DISRAELI - "Horns of the altar"
In the old Roman Catholic pre-Vatican II Latin Missal regarding the "horns" of the altar...
There are no horns on the Roman Catholic altar.
So, what does the expression mean?
On those old altars, why are they there?
Do you happen to know what those horns symbolised?
Just curious.
RE: The coup that failed - DISRAELI - 03-28-2024
(03-28-2024, 02:29 AM)EndtheMadnessNow Wrote: DISRAELI - "Horns of the altar"Horns keep cropping up in the Old Testament, and I regard them as a symbol of power, probably inspired by the horns of bulls.Hence the scene in 1 Kings ch22 where the false prophet Zedekiah son of Chenaanah had horns of iron made for himself (or may have kept them as a permanent prop) so that he could act out the Syrians being pushed away in battle.
In the old Roman Catholic pre-Vatican II Latin Missal regarding the "horns" of the altar...
There are no horns on the Roman Catholic altar.
So, what does the expression mean?
On those old altars, why are they there?
Do you happen to know what those horns symbolised?
Just curious.
The Lamb of Revelation ch5 has seven of them, and the second beast of ch13 has "the horns of a lamb" in imitation.
The westen European designers of the Catholic altar were not part of the same cultural world. And in any case, that piece of furniture was originally supposed to be a table, for the celebration of a meal.
RE: The coup that failed - SomeJackleg - 03-28-2024
(03-28-2024, 08:23 AM)DISRAELI Wrote: Horns keep cropping up in the Old Testament, and I regard them as a symbol of power, probably inspired by the horns of bulls.Hence the scene in 1 Kings ch22 where the false prophet Zedekiah son of Chenaanah had horns of iron made for himself (or may have kept them as a permanent prop) so that he could act out the Syrians being pushed away in battle.
The Lamb of Revelation ch5 has seven of them, and the second beast of ch13 has "the horns of a lamb" in imitation.
The westen European designers of the Catholic altar were not part of the same cultural world. And in any case, that piece of furniture was originally supposed to be a table, for the celebration of a meal.
i believe your are correct in that they are probably a symbol of power. no matter who was using or what they were describing when used or placed on, for both the sinful and faithful.
i also believe that they were a symbol of protection and forgiveness. if i recall right off the top of my head the horns on the alter in Jerusalem for those who would lay hold of them seeking asylum, and the pouring of blood on them and the priest using their finger to place blood on them for the sin offerings.
RE: The coup that failed - DISRAELI - 03-28-2024
(03-28-2024, 11:42 AM)SomeJackleg Wrote:Yes, my take on touching the horns is that it is understood as a way of making contact with God, the nearest way of "grasping his hand" or putting something into his hand.(03-28-2024, 08:23 AM)DISRAELI Wrote: Horns keep cropping up in the Old Testament, and I regard them as a symbol of power, probably inspired by the horns of bulls.Hence the scene in 1 Kings ch22 where the false prophet Zedekiah son of Chenaanah had horns of iron made for himself (or may have kept them as a permanent prop) so that he could act out the Syrians being pushed away in battle.
The Lamb of Revelation ch5 has seven of them, and the second beast of ch13 has "the horns of a lamb" in imitation.
The westen European designers of the Catholic altar were not part of the same cultural world. And in any case, that piece of furniture was originally supposed to be a table, for the celebration of a meal.
i believe your are correct in that they are probably a symbol of power. no matter who was using or what they were describing when used or placed on, for both the sinful and faithful.
i also believe that they were a symbol of protection and forciveness. if i recall right off the top of my head the horns on the alter in Jerusalem for those who would lay hold of them seeking asylum, and the pouring of blood on them and the priest using their finger to place blood on them for the sin offerings.
RE: The coup that failed - Snarl - 03-31-2024
Living horn is warm to the touch. To me, it always feels like shaking someone else's hand.