In 1 Kings 2:16-20, Adonijah understands the power and the authority that the queen mother, Bathsheba wields; therefore, he approaches her to plead on his behalf to the king, so that he could take his father’s concubine as his wife. Bathsheba in this story is a willing intercessor who boldly approaches the king, her son.
Obviously Solomon willingly yields to the request of the queen mother as evidenced by 1 Kings 2:20 (”Then she said, ‘I have one small request to make of you; do not refuse me.’ And the king said to her, ‘Make your request, my mother, for I will not refuse you.”).
While Bathsheba had the role of intercessor in 1 Kings 2:16-20, this pericope also points beyond itself to a greater context, to that of Mary, the Queen Mother. When Mary approaches the great Davidic King, Jesus, she can boldly approach him as our intercessor, because like Solomon, Jesus will not refuse her. I think, one can obviously conclude that we can approach Mary to intercede on our behalf before the King, Jesus (her Son).
I would image that a Protestant who would read the above interpretation of 1 Kings 2:16-20 by now would be writhing after the purposed exegesis of the passage, and understandably so. But why would such an interpretation bother a Protestant? Would a Protestant be bothered because it upsets their theology, or would a Protestant be upset because it upsets their approach to Scripture?
I don’t advocate the above interpretation, and I can’t think of a single Protestant that would either; however, the same interpretive methodology is often used to interpret Isaiah 14 (see my recent post). Individuals, that would never advocate that 1 Kings 2:16-20 teaches that Mary serves as humanity’s intercessor, are often more than comfortable to make the exegetical leap of saying that the King of Babylon points to a greater reality, to that of Lucifer (aka. Satan), despite the fact, that such an interpretation rapes the context of the passage.
Ultimately I believe the reason people are willing to make one conclusion and not another is because it upsets their theological system, not their interpretive methodology, and that is where I think the problem lies.
Side Note: The interpretation that I presented on 1 Kings 2:16-20 is the R.C. official position of this passage.
I suppose then one can come to the same conclusion regarding Esther. In that she went to her King (husband) on behalf of her people.
By: Gail H. on March 19, 2008
at 12:34 pm
I agree, using Esther in that way would also be an example of bad exegesis. However, I don’t think the R.C. takes that position on Esther, because it is her husband and not her son.
We need consistency in our interpretation of scripture, in order to guard ourselves from certain theological bias. In the end, it is not about being right, but knowing truth. Christians, too often, try to “proof text” their way through an argument without paying much attention to the context of a given passage. It appears that what is more important for many is maintaining their theology, regardless of the meaning behind the text.
Thanks for reading
By: parkersmood on March 19, 2008
at 1:23 pm