This Week's Focus Passage

David: The Permissive Father

Focus Passage: 1 Kings 1:6

‘His father had not displeased him at any time in saying, Why hast thou done so?’

David is a wonderful example for us in many ways; in many things he is one to whom we may look as a guide. But as an example for us of what a father ought to be, and what a father ought to do, his example is lacking very much. While he exemplifies for us, in so many instances, the great and fearless warrior; the wise and righteous king, he has set before us an example of fatherhood that, rather than giving to us positive instruction, presents vivid warnings of what fathers ought not to do in the bringing up of their children.

Benjamin Spock published his book, Baby and Child Care, in 1946. It is said that in its first 52 years, it was the second best-selling book, next to the Bible. It is noteworthy that its’ date of publication was, as one source states, ‘just in time for the post-World War 2 baby boom, and became a best-selling guide to child rearing.’ It is further asserted that this book encouraged new parents to use common sense and to treat children with respect. This led some critics to call him the ‘Father of Permissiveness.’ This seems to be the crux of the shortcoming of David as a father. Benjamin Spock would most likely have given his imprimatur to David’s course of action suggested in our focus passage, His father had not displeased him at any time in saying, Why hast thou done so?

There are many who contend that the timing of the ‘swinging sixties’ was no accident, but rather that it evolved out of the post war baby boom, which was heavily influenced by the teaching of Benjamin Spock. There certainly seems to be a distinct correlation in the chronological order, making it difficult to consider it as simply coincidental. Many in an entire generation were raised on the basis of this permissive parenting model. It is alleged that this generation of children growing up under the ‘never say no’ rule, blossomed into the ‘swinging sixties’ as the generation of those that ‘make love, not war.’ It is not likely fair, or correct, to give all the ‘credit,’ or blame to the book of one pediatrician. There were surely many other factors contributing to the bursting forth of the so-called ‘love generation,’ and Spock’s book was only one of those factors. Nonetheless, it undoubtedly wielded great influence upon parents in the forties and fifties. The title of the popular sit-com, ‘Leave it to Beaver’ takes on a different perspective when we consider the whole idea of permissiveness toward children.

The words of our focus passage are spoken of Adonijah, the son of David who attempted to overthrow the wishes of his father with regard to his successor to the throne of Israel. This Adonijah was the fourth of six sons born to David in Hebron, according to the record of 1 Chronicles 3:

Now these were the sons of David, that were born unto him in Hebron: the first-born, Amnon, of Ahinoam the Jezreelitess; the second, Daniel, of Abigail the Carmelitess; the third, Absalom the son of Maacah the daughter of Talmai king of Geshur; the fourth, Adonijah the son of Haggith; the fifth, Shephatiah of Abital; the sixth, Ithream by Eglah.

The first-born, and next-in-line for the throne according to the normal order of the succession of kings, was Amnon. He was, of course, murdered—we might say executed by Absalom—for the rape of Absalom’s sister, Tamar. This left Absalom as next in the line of succession, but he was, like the Prodigal Son, unwilling to wait for his inheritance and initiated a rebellion against his father for the throne. In the course of the heated battle, Absalom was slain by David’s general, Joab. This resulted in Adonijah being left the heir-apparent to the throne of Israel, although he likely knew that God had determined upon his half-brother and the son of Bathsheba, Solomon, for that honor. As David was lying on his deathbed, this son of Haggith determined that he would attempt to usurp the prerogative of both God and his father, David, and take the throne unto himself.

He may well have anticipated that his father would have a change of heart and relent, giving way to the kingship of his next-in-line, for this is what seems to be intimated in the author’s ‘commentary’ on this situation, when he said, His father had not displeased him at any time in saying, Why hast thou done so? We can easily surmise from that description that Adonijah might readily expect that David would not displease him in this usurpation; that he would not say ‘Why hast thou done so?’ Adonijah might have been strongly influenced by the history of his father’s slowness to admonish his sons. We can easily imagine him reflecting upon the fact that David never punished Amnon for raping Tamar. He never expressed his displeasure toward Amnon; he never asked Amnon, ‘Why hast thou done so?’ And if that did not give Adonijah cause to expect that he could abuse the love of his father, he may have reflected upon David’s reaction to the murder of Amnon by ‘the appointment of Absalom this hath been determined from the day that he forced his sister Tamar.’ What was that reaction? We are told that ‘David mourned for his son every day,’ but we are not told expressly for which son he was mourning, Amnon or Absalom. We are given a hint in the few verses that follow when we are told that ‘the soul of king David longed to go forth unto Absalom.’ Even after Absalom was seeking to take, not only the throne but the life of his father, David insisted that his warriors do no harm to the young man, and when he was slain by Joab, David’s crying ‘Absalom, Absalom, would that I had died for thee!’ brought a stern rebuke to him from general Joab. From the records that we have, David could well have been, speaking anachronistically of course, a disciple of Benjamin Spock; one who would never say no to his sons. We are witnesses to what such permissiveness led to, and still leads to today.

David Farmer, elder

Fellowship Bible Church

service-times-bg

Join us Sunday at 

10:30am