Kings I and Kings II are really one work.  The same is true of Samuel I and Samuel II; and Chronicles I and Chronicles II.

Vs.33,34 David was probably startled and unprepared to put Solomon on the throne while he was still living.  But the usurpation of Adonijah forced the issue.  However, all this was in Yahweh's plan. 

Putting Solomon on the throne instead of David, while yet alive, made a clear prophetical distinction (2Chron 1:8). Yahweh's promise, through Nathan could only be accomplished after David's death (2Sam 7:12-16; 1Chron 17:11-14). 

Therefore, the promise could not be referring to Solomon.  And so, Solomon cannot be confused with the promise that pertains to the Lord Jesus, the son of David. 

Adonijah was David's 4th son, born while David was King in Hebron (1Chron 3:1,2), so that makes him  between 30 and 40 years old when he tried to usurp the kingship in today's chapter. He had the ability to recruit Joab and Abiathar the priest, but David's more godly followers did not join the rebellion. The first really wise deed Solomon did was to postpone any punishment on Adonijah, and sent him home
(1Kin 1:53)

1:10  Adonijah clearly knew that those who had advised his father David would not support his uprising.

V.7 It is interesting to ask why would both Joab and Abiathar who had been loyal to David in difficult and trying times go against him at this time. It appears that Joab had lost favor because of the assination of Absalom, while Abiathar was fearful of being replaced by Zadok as high priest. Adonijah would only have to mention that Zadok would be replaced and Abiather would come on board in his attempt to be king.

V.1 David, nearing the end of his life, was approximately seventy years of age (2Sam 5:4).  Now that Absalom was dead, Adonijah was his oldest son. 

V.6 Adonijah believed that he could do anything he wanted.  David was somewhat to blame as he did not discipline him as a child.  The exhortation to us is clear (Prov 22:6).

1Kin 1:6  It is interesting that David did not appear to have had good parenting skills, and had not properly disciplined his children. The result was that they went their own ways, some to David's own hurt. The marginal cross reference is to 1Sam 3:13 where God reprimands Eli for not having disciplined/restrained his sons. We know from Scripture the importance of bringing children up correctly & disciplining them for their own good, as God does us. It doesn't guarantee that they will subsequently try to lead godly lives, but it is our responsibility as parents.

1:1   David clearly was not in a fit state to rule the kingdom yet he did not relinquish power to his son Solomon. Why not?  Maybe he was hoping to die before Solomon was crowned in the hope that Solomon was the son promised in 2Sam 7:12 ‘when … thou sleep with thy fathers’.

1:7 That Adonijah sought advice from Joab and wished to involve him in the plot to take the throne indicates that Joab, at this time, was unsure about his future as captain of the army of Israel.

V.2 Of general interest: This practice, of supplying body heat from a woman, was carried on in England.  It was called bundling.

The dictionaries define the term: BUNDLE (bundled, bundling). To occupy the same bed without undressing;-said of a man and woman, especially during courtship.-(Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, et al).

In England, a guest would be offered one of the host’s daughters to keep him warm during the night.  Often, the ankles of the girls were bound to ensure that no untoward behaviour would occur.

The practice came to America with the colonists: Bundling Was a Legitimate Custom, to all intents and purposes - with all its dangers - among most of the American colonists, in one way or another in those early days - A. Monroe Aurand Jr.

Native North Americans also practiced bundling.  Aurand writes about the Mohawks: The Custom of Bundling was practiced among our people on a scarcity of beds, where, on occasion, husbands frequently permitted travelers to bundle with wives; and more frequently, with daughters.

Without heating in homes, this practice was considered an acceptable gesture of hospitality.  However, precautions were often made, such as the female's donning a bundle bag which was a specially designed garment to keep the female secure and restricted.

1:8 Benaiah figures in David’s life and then in Solomon’s life as a faithful man, executing Solomon’s judgements as he had that of his father. Thus a this time we see a man who was happy to wait for the outcome of events because God was involved. He would have been happy to serve any king of God’s choosing.

1Kin 1:3 - "Shunammite" (7767) means "double resting place".

1Kin 1:5 - Adonijah wanted to be king and much like Absalom had chariots, horses and 50 men run ahead of him (2Sam 15:10,1). 1Kin 1:6 - Adonijah was handsome not unlike Absalom his older brother (2Sam 14:25). 1Kin 1:9,11 - Adonijah sacrificed animals at the Stone of "Zoheleth" [(2120) means "serpent"] as part of his preparation of becoming king without David's knowing and it would seem we have in this false king a possible echo of a false Christ and/or perhaps a symbol of sinful fleshly desire if not sin itself. Perhaps there is a lesson here for believers who might seek somewhat similar privilege to inappropriately "rule" within the confines of ecclesial life. 1Kin 1:17,28-30 - David gave Bathsheba an oath that Solomon would be his successor. 1Kin 1:33-35 - Solomon was put on King David's mule (a sign that the king's successor was on the throne) and anointed at the "Gihon" (1521) means "bursting forth" and it is the same name as of one of the rivers in the garden of Eden (Gen 2:13).  1Kin 1:50-51 - Adonijah sought refuge from Solomon on the horns of the altar; it has been said by some the altar was regarded as a place of refuge for criminals deserving of death; but according to Exodus it was only allowed to afford protection in cases of unintentional slaying (Exo 21:12-14).

Hananiah broke Jeremiah’s yoke (as in yesterday’s chapter, Jer 27:2,3). But his false message was not from God, and he died just 2 months later, (Jer 28:1,17).  This should have left the people in no doubt Who was the true God, and who was His true prophet.

28:6 Jeremiah’s response to Hananiah’s evil words is interesting. Rather than argue with him Jeremiah says he would like what he had said to be true, but that his words would not come to pass. |Hananiah was confrontational, Jeremiah simply restated God’s message and left the hearers to decide who to believe.

Vs.1-4 Zedekiah began to reign in 596 BC.  Hananiah's prediction would have been made in 593 BC.  He predicted that Babylon would be neutralized and Judah restored by 591 BC.  This did not happen and Jerusalem was eventually destroyed in 587 BC. 

According to Yahweh's standards, Hananiah proved to be a false prophet (Deut 18:22).  The people would plainly see that.  There were still four years for the people to hearken to Jeremiah's warnings and repent, but they chose to ignore the opportunity. 

Vs.16,17 Ironically, Hananiah means Jah has favored, but as we know Yahweh did not favor him.

28:17 The death of Hananiah actually showed that Jeremiah was a prophet from God – Deut 18:20-22

28:2-3 Hananiah not only spoke evil word. He must have been convinced that they were true as he set a time limit – two years – for the fulfilment of his words. The cat this false prophet could speak so confidently was no indication that his words were true, though doubtless they deceived some of the people who liked what they heard. Likewise we should not be deceived by words just because the speaker of those words is confident.

28:12 Whilst we might read the dialogue between Jeremiah and Hananiah as the sort of dialogue that might have taken place between two men we see here that Jeremiah was directed by God as to what he should say.

V.8 The prophets who preceded Jeremiah were: Joel, Amos, Hosea, Micah, Zephaniah, Nahum, Habakkuk.

V.9 The pronouncements of future events come true for the genuine prophets of Yahweh (Deut 18:22).  False prophets, like Hananiah, are caught in a lie (v.15). 

Jesus was a true prophet, proven by His prediction of the temple’s destruction, which occurred in 70AD (Luke 21:5,6).

V.11 Contrast Hananiah's false prediction with Jeremiah’s true prediction of which we read yesterday in Jer 27:7.

Vs.16,17 Jeremiah was proved to be a true prophet of Yahweh.  And yet, the people still wanted to believe and do as they wished.  Such is human nature.

27:13 ‘why will ye die ...’ is the stark and blunt question of the prophet. However the king and the people would not listen. This is, basically our message. We should be careful not to dilute, for fear of offending people, the message we preach.

So it is with the Sabbath in v27. The pharisees were placing the importance of the sabbath above the importance of the man, for whom the sabbath was made. They were placing the regulation for observing the fasting ritual, above the benefit that it was designed to give. It was the wrong way round. In Ezekiel 20v11-13 God explains how he had given these things for their benefit "which, if a man does, he shall live by them". The statutes of God had been given to benefit men and women if they would keep them. The Pharisees had made them into ordinances that would merely condemn men and women if they didn't keep them. They had got it completely the wrong way round.

V.15 Jesus had chosen to operate his ministry from Capernaum which was now considered his city (Matt 9:1).  He had a house there.  Whether this was the house described in v.1 is not clear.  Peter, Andrew and Matthew appear to have resided there, and perhaps John and James also.  And so, the house of v.1 could have been one of theirs.

Vs.19-22 In Mark's account (and Matthew's) the parable of the garment and bottles seem to be attached to the discussion of the bridegroom.  Luke's account seems to separate them and so, perhaps, we can consider the two independently (Luke 5:36).   

The two examples are showing the same thing.  First, attaching a piece of new cloth to an old garment will make the tear worse.  That is because the new piece has not been shrunk.  When it does shrink, it will pull out the stitching and make the tear worse. Likewise, old wineskins (bottles) cannot take new wine because they are cracked and will leak. 

The message that the Lord is conveying is that the new covenant he is bringing cannot be contained in old vessels - they are incompatible.  In order for one to accept the gospel, the old person has to change to conform to the new way.

V.6-7 We have here the scribes carrying on a dialogue, throwing thoughts back and forth. What they are saying is Why does this fellow talk like that? He's blaspheming  He is claiming for himself a prerogative that belongs to God alone, and is guilty of blasphemy. He is robbing God of the honor that belongs to no one else, for Who can forgive sins but God alone. Jesus gives them the unexpected answer in V.10.

2:8 Jesus perceived in his spirit' that the scribes were finding fault with him in their hearts. How did Jesus know this? We might think that he has a revelation from God. However we should rather think of it being a product of is acute awareness of what was in man. (John 3:25). He could read people's body language. We should be very aware of body language so that we are able to correctly judge a situation.

V.18 Jews were only required to fast publicly three times per year.  It was common to fast on occasions of mourning, which is what the disciples of John were doing in mourning his death.  Notice that the Pharisees were also fasting.  They fasted twice per week as a public show of piety (Matt 23:5).   

2:1 In saying that Jesus ‘again entered into Capernaum’ we have to conclude that after the events recorded in Mark 1 Jesus left the area for some time before returning. Mark does not give much detail of the intervening period because in this area of his gospel he is, by the spirit, focusing on events in Capernaum.

2:25-26           Notice that Jesus said of David ‘when he had need’ David’s behaviour was not a capricious flouting of the Law of Moses even though his behaviour violated Lev 24:9. There are many areas where the Law of Moses is superseded by need – for example the ox in the ditch.

V.5 The scribes thought that Jesus was blasphemous when He forgave sins.  The Jews judged by sight and not by faith.  They could accept the physical miracle that Jesus performed because they could see it with their eyes.  But, they could not accept Jesus' forgiveness of sins, because they could not physically see it. 

Vs.9,10 Eyes of faith are needed to accept things which cannot be physically seen.  Jesus points this out.

2:14-15 Notice the threefold repetition of ‘follow’. Just a point of detail in which the way Scripture repeats key words that we might see the force of the events.

V.4 Palsy means paralysis. And so someone sick of the palsy would be paralyzed in some part of his body. This condition can be accompanied by convulsions and difficult breathing.

Roofs on houses in the Ancient Near East were flat. A trap door allowed the occupants of the house to access the roof. It was not uncommon to sleep on the roof during the hot summer nights. Also, the roof was a good place to store or dry things.

The paralytic could not be lowered through the trap door because his mattress was too big. And so, part of the roof around the trap door was broken open to allow him access.

Vs.25,26 See 1Sam 21:3-6.