The news that Nathan brought to Bathsheba called for swift action on her part. It called for action because the situation, as we have suggested, threatened her life and the life of her son Solomon. Therefore, Nathan counselled Bathsheba as to what she should do.
His advice was to the effect that Bathsheba go to the king as quickly as she can. Go in at once to King David,
he said. The literal sense of the language from the Hebrew is, “Go and go immediately” (“laki uboi”). There was no time for delay; every minute counted.
Nathan told her that she should ask a pointed question to David. She was to question the king concerning the oath that David has sworn to her that Solomon would be king after him. This statement has caused some interpreters to suggest that Nathan fabricated this oath, hoping that the king’s weakened memory would not discover the deceit. For example, Paul House1 says that this suggestion is a matter that the reader must decide for himself, while Donald J. Wiseman weakly says, David’s supposed oath…may not have been fabricated.
2,3
We cannot reject such a suggestion without considering it, but I find it highly unlikely. First, it would have been politically dangerous for both Nathan and Bathsheba if David’s memory was better than Nathan thought, and the swift action that David takes to correct matters show that, though David was physically declining, there was nothing wrong with his mind.
Second, there was spiritual danger for both Bathsheba and Nathan if they were to use deceit to accomplish their purposes. Lying is the mark of Satan, he is a liar and the father of lies.
It is hard to believe that Nathan, the prophet of God, would resort to satanic methods to secure the Davidic line in such a manner that it would produce Jesus the Messiah.
Third, the argument that the reality of the oath is suspect because it is not mentioned in 2 Samauel is an argument from silence. Logic tells us that an argument from silence proves nothing one way or another. The Holy Spirit reveals what he wants in Scripture and is under no obligation to satisfy our curiosity on every point.
Furthermore, we ask why the witness of 1 Chronicles 22:5–19 is not consulted. There David appears to have been in good health and capable of taking charge of the affairs of the kingdom. He was giving instructions to Solomon concerning Solomon’s construction of the temple. Thus, we must deduce that David considered Solomon the heir to the throne long before the time frame of 1 Kings 1:1–53.
Finally, God appears to support Nathan’s method of procedure by his subsequent blessing upon Solomon. This is implied in God’s use of Solomon to build the temple, which takes up a considerable portion of the book. The Lord particularly refused to let David construct the temple. Are we to believe that he was not particular about which of David’s sons would be allowed to construct it?
Nathan further advised Bathsheba that, after reminding David of his oath, she was to ask the question, Why then is Adonijah king?
This question was phrased in a manner that allowed two possibilities. The first possibility, which is contrary to fact, is that David knew about Adonijah’s action and had consciously changed his mind about the accession. The second possibility was the supposition that the king did not know what Adonijah had done. In that way David’s interest and concern would be awakened.
This was Nathan’s advice to Solomon’s mother, but his plan has another element to it. This can be seen in the next verse.
12 Now therefore come, let me give you advice, that you may save your own life and the life of your son Solomon.