The above statement was made about Adonijah, son of David and Haggith. Haggith was one of several wives in the harem of the king. Although the names of wives and mothers were often identified with men in the Old Testament, the responsibility for child discipline for sons appears to have been identified, in the public mind, with the father of a child. That the mothers were important to discipline there can be no doubt, but their influence was more commonly perceived as private and forceful in family context. For example, some kings who were of this or that character were sometimes identified as influenced by their mothers. Both parents then were important to the matter of discipline. It is likely that, in an influential family, like David’s, the various mothers pushed their own children forward to gain some privilege from the father who had power or wealth, or both – and sons aplenty. It is likely that Adonijah was taught by his mother to present himself a certain way in the competition of David’s sons for attention and favor. Absalom, like Adonijah, maneuvered for personal benefit. Both sons missed and Solomon ascended to the throne, aided by his mother Bathsheba wielding strong influence with David.
The serious student of discipline is appalled at the general ignorance in society about the meaning of discipline, what it is and how to carry it through in the lives of dependent children. It seems always to have been a major problem, perhaps more so in some generations than others. It is limited by: 1) lack of knowledge of what characterizes discipline; 2) reluctance by parents and society in carrying through on even that which is known; and, 3) breakdown of cultural values including marriage/family fracturing – all of which relate to discipline. Each of these factors deserves, even begs for, extensive treatment not possible in the space afforded here.
For many persons discipline is one or more of the following: a) simple response of yes/no on some request; b) physical punishment for serious wrongdoing; c) stern or threatening language delivered in harsh voice and mien; and, d) put down, bribery, guilt and the like, including abandonment. Genuine discipline, differentiated from punishment, grows out of love, involvement, meaning of conducts, patience, sharing values, identification, follow through, appeals to life meaning, and skills in the use of language, especially in the use of non-judgmental questions. Discipline is concerned about future conduct. Punishment is for past wrongdoing. Punishment is best suited for adults, required when self-discipline is absent from the individual’s life. That may mean jail.
King David was an effective administrator, and leader of adults, but he was a poor father. The parenthetical statement made by the author of First Kings, noted above, connects Adonijah’s arrogance and presumption partly to the fact that his father never disciplined him. The discipline here is identified, not with corporal punishment but with failure of David to talk with his son. David loved his children deeply, but he seems not to have had a clue about his children’s personal formation. The serious oversight appears to have occurred for all of his children, with the possible exception of Solomon. David’s experience with God, his family and the people was diluted in neglect of discipline for himself and his family. His failures are repeated often three thousand years later, suggesting that we have learned little about unchanging factors in changing cultures and society. We might wonder if, on the level of practical daily life for the population, there is adequate nurturing for truly effective life performance. A part of wisdom is to give conscious attention to personal formation for fulfillment. (Luke 2:52) *Mark W. Lee, Sr. — 2016, 2020