How to resolve unfinished business

A friend fought to escape her controlling mother by moving to a different city. Yet, when she married and had a daughter, she was confronted with her own controlling behaviour towards her child. She suddenly realised that she may have escaped her mother physically, but she had never resolved that issue of control and now was passing on the same dynamic. It is a pattern we may all recognise in our lives. However, this is not an excuse to blame others but to recognise that whether we created or inherited ‘unfinished business’, we need to resolve these to clear the way for the next generation.

Walking in God’s ways

In the story of Kings, David likewise has unfinished business that needs resolving if his royal line is to survive. David instructs Solomon on his deathbed, much like Moses did Joshua (1 Kings 2:2-3; cf. Josh 1:7-8), starting with general guidance for his son to walk in God’s ways set out in the law (1 Kings 2:4). Such obedience implicitly acknowledges the Lord as ultimate King to whom His earthly representative submits. Although God committed Himself to David’s descendants even if they disobeyed (2 Sam 7:14-16), this was not a permission to live as they pleased.[1] David knew from his own experience that sin and its consequences cast a long shadow (2 Sam 12:1-14).

Doing justice – the problem of bloodguilt

Part of the larger obedience to the law requires the king to administer justice by dealing with wrongdoers and showing generosity to those loyal to his kingship (1 Kings 2:7). David, however, has unfinished business relating first to Joab’s murder of two commanders (1 Kings 2:5).[2] This is serious because when a king does not deal with injustice, he becomes implicated in the crime and passes on the guilt to the next in line. Thus, no justice was done for the Gibeonites massacred by Saul and David inherited the guilt (God sent a famine to alert him; 2 Sam 21:1). Murder was so serious that even if the murderer was unknown, a special ceremony was prescribed to absolve the community and its leaders of guilt (Deut 21:1-9). Only the murderer’s death could atone for his sin; his life could not be ransomed (Exod 21:12, 14; Num 35:30-31, 33-34).[3] David’s language is admittedly bloody, but there is a judicial symmetry in the description: Joab shed the blood of war in peace, so justice requires that he cannot die in peace (vv.5-6, i.e. naturally).[4]

Doing justice – blasphemy

Shimei’s cursing of David (1 Kings 2:8) is another unfinished business, a crime that also called for the death penalty (cf. 2 Sam 19:21).[5] Curses in the ancient world were feared because they were seen as performative, i.e. by pronouncing them (and if God/the gods were behind these), they became reality. Although God restored David and the curse did not eliminate him, Shimei undermined the king as God’s choice. His curse falsely claimed God’s authority for it (2 Sam 16:5-8) and was blasphemous (Exod 20:4). Nevertheless, David’s circumstances at the time made punishing Shimei difficult because it would have signalled to the king’s opposition that they could not expect clemency if they returned to him. It threatened to plunge the country into further civil war. Instead, his generosity to Shimei (1 Kings 2:8 cf. 2 Sam 19:23) united the people behind him. Nevertheless, not dealing with a blasphemer left open the question of the validity of the curse and could still undermine David’s line by leaving doubt around his dynasty’s election by God.

The way forward in resolving unfinished business

While nothing in our experience could match the details of what is required of Solomon, one lesson is that, like David, none of us are able to deal with every issue in our lives (whether due to our weakness or circumstances). Sometimes, for instance, trauma can make a person incapable of breaking its effects on themselves and even with God’s help, progress may be only partial. There are family conflicts that go so deep that perhaps a generation must pass for its poison to dissipate to make reconciliation possible. Such is the nature of our sinful world and our own fallenness. Second, being aware of and acknowledging our unfinished business, as David did to Solomon, is the first step towards resolution. Finally, as the king instructed his son, the key to any change and our only hope is to walk faithfully with God because He is the Giver of Life and the Healer of all our brokenness.

---

[1] It is sometimes alleged that the original unconditional covenant with David is presented here as conditional on obedience (1 Kings 2:4), but these categories are not very helpful here. God’s unconditional commitment should not be treated as a license for sin, nor the call to obedience be treated as if that were the condition of God’s faithfulness. In every relationship there are mutual expectations or obligations placed on the parties even if not fulfilling these do not automatically sever the connection. Thus, the conditional-unconditional categories are too rigid to account for the dynamics of a relationship. For instance, the Abrahamic covenant is recognised to be unconditional, i.e. not based on Abraham’s works or achievement (Rom 4:2-6). Yet the patriarch is told to be blameless before God who will establish His covenant with him (Gen 17:1-2). Further, when God affirms His covenant to Abraham after he was willing to offer up Isaac, it is his obedience that is given as the reason for the blessing that God will confer on him (Gen 22:16-18 cf. James 2:21-24).

[2] Abner was Saul’s general, who eventually allied himself with David and brought over Israelite support to the latter (2 Sam 3:12, 27). Amasa, Joab’s cousin, was made commander of Absalom’s army when the latter rebelled against David (2 Sam 17:25). Later, after the conflict ended and David was restored to kingship, he appointed Amasa over his army (2 Sam 19:13). However, Joab soon killed Amasa (2 Sam 20:8-10) and assumed command over David’s army again.

[3] The obvious question is why David was forgiven for Uriah’s murder and if he was, why he did not forgive Joab? The difference is that David repented, and it was God who forgave him (2 Sam 12:13). Joab never showed any remorse and exhibited the same pattern of behaviour throughout his life. Neither did the king as supreme judge of the land have the right to forgive because it would have made a mockery of the justice system. In any case, taking life unlawfully is a sin against God who gives life and only God could forgive it. It should be noted that the OT understanding of murder did not include killing in war.

[4] That revenge is not in view is evident from David’s focus on the death of these two men, rather than say Joab’s killing of Absalom, a much more emotionally painful incident for David. Moreover, Absalom was a murderer (of Amnon, his brother; 2 Sam 13:28-29), a usurper of the throne, and an adulterer who raped David’s concubines thereby also claiming kingship (2 Sam 16:22). On any of those counts, his death was deserved even if it broke David’s heart.

[5] It is hard for us to appreciate the severity of such a crime from our modern democratic context when leaders (especially during elections) are endlessly maligned. Yet, the death penalty signals that we are dealing with an issue that was seen as extremely serious at the time. Although the penalty is not specified in the legislation that prohibits cursing a ruler (Exod 22:28; v.27 in Hebrew), the death penalty applies to those who curse God, and to those who curse parents (Lev 24:15-16; Exod 21:17). Since all three (God, rulers, parents) represent authority at different levels and two out of three are punished the same way, Jewish interpretation reasonably deduces that the third (rulers) should also be treated likewise. It is a common trait of OT law that not every detail is given in each case, but interpreters are expected to make the necessary connections between similar or analogical issues and fill in the gaps the legislation leaves.

If you enjoyed this post, please share it with others.