“The king said to them, ‘Take with you the servants of your lord, have Shlomo my son ride on my own mule and bring him down to Gichon. There Tzadok the cohen and Natan the prophet are to anoint him king over Israel. Sound the shofar and say, ‘Long live King Shlomo!’ Then escort him back; he is to come and sit on my throne; for he is to take my place as king. I have appointed him to rule over Isra’el and Y’hudah.”-1 Kings 1:33-35
As soon as Solomon was anointed by Tzadok, he became the new King of Israel
So, technically speaking, David, at that instant, was no longer king.
Why do I say “technically speaking?”
Because David, as the father, would keep his seniority until he passed on to the next world.
Solomon would be under David’s authority until David died.
Now, verse 35 says something of supreme importance that flies over the heads of most folks.
We’re told that Solomon was to become king over both Judah and Israel.
In other words, just as his father did, Solomon was to rule over all 12 tribes.
This wasn’t automatically understood.
It had to be made clear to both the northern and southern tribes of Israel.
Why do I say that?
Because from an earthly political perspective, it would’ve been wise for David to make Solomon king over Judah and Adoniyah king over the northern tribes.
There would’ve been a few advantages to doing that.
FIRST, this would do away with the necessity of one son having to kill the other.
SECOND, it was a convenient way for David to keep his promise to Bathsheba while at the same time fulfilling the custom that the oldest living son should inherit the throne.
THIRD, this would have satisfied both of the existing political factions at the time—those who supported Solomon and those who were for Adoniyah.
Yet, as convenient as it would’ve been…
And as deeply entrenched as this division between north and south was embedded in Hebrew thinking at the time…
David didn’t do that.
Why?
Because when King David declared that Solomon would rule over both Judah and Israel, he made a decision that went far beyond politics.
His decision was based on a solid understanding of what Israel actually was.
Israel was not some loose collection of tribes like all of the chaos you see among the Arab nations.
It was a covenant nation, established under ONE God.
To divide it, even for the sake of peace, would’ve compromised its identity.
David recognized that unity was not just a political preference.
It was foundational to the nation itself.
There was also the issue of Adoniyah’s actions.
This homie didn’t simply didn’t have the patience to wait for the natural order of succession.
He moved ahead of it, declaring himself king and gathering support.
If David had responded by giving Adoniyah a portion of the kingdom, it would have sent the dangerous message that ambition and pressure could secure power.
This leads to today’s takeaway, which is directly connected to Israel’s struggle with the so-called Palestinians.
Based on what I just shared, can you see why it would be so dangerous for Israel to adopt a ridiculous two-state solution that the UN and other nations are pressuring it to do?
By refusing to divide the throne, David made it clear that rebellion, even subtle or strategic rebellion, would NOT be rewarded.
Via this same logic, if modern Israel today kowtows to demands to divvy up its land that the Lord has declared ONLY belongs to His People, it will result in the opposite of peace.
Hell man, if October 7th ain’t proof of that, I dunno what is.
So that’s your lesson for today.
On the surface, dividing the kingdom might have seemed like the wiser move.
It could’ve reduced tension, satisfied competing factions, and avoided immediate bloodshed (especially with Adonijah positioning himself as a rival to the throne).
But David refused that path.
Instead, he chose covenant unity, even though it carried greater short-term risk.
And modern Israel today must do the same.
Obedience, though difficult, is always more important than political convenience in God’s economy.
And it is the only thing that will lead to long-lasting peace in the end.
Ya feel me?
Done.
The problem with the idea of a two-state solution is that it is fundamentally faulty- to have two states you need to have two populations that want their own state.
Israel certainly has shown that it wants to be a state, but the so-called “Palestinian people” do not want a state.
Know your history: the people who are being propagandized as “Palestinians” are really Jordanians and Syrians, for the most part, who have traditionally been nomadic shepherds, moving their herds from their country into Israel, denuding the land, then returning to their own country. For hundreds and hundreds of years, pretty much since the third rebellion against Rome sometime around the middle of the Second Century, after Rome decimated the Jews living in Judea and reloctaed many of them, then renaming Judea to Paelestina, the surrounding Arab nations could have moved in and taken possession of all that land.
They never did.
The surrounding Arab people, as well as the ones that have moved into Israel and built homes and tent cities (mostly illegally) do not want the land- all they want is the Jews dead.
That is why a two-state solution has consistently been refused when offered- not refused by Israel, but by the leaders of the alleged “Palestinians”.
Great summary of the situation.