A veteran military commander faces the fatal consequences of his political choices, prompting a desperate flight for asylum. The immediate catalyst for his escape is a piece of alarming news. The primary approach among commentators is that he received word of Adonijah’s execution and the banishment of the priest Abiathar, making him realize that as a fellow conspirator, his own life is in imminent danger [מצודת דוד, רד״ק, ביאור שטיינזלץ]. Others suggest the news was actually David’s final testament instructing Solomon to have him executed [רש״י], or that Solomon is actively comparing past uprisings to establish his treason [אלשיך].
The contrast between his current treason and his past loyalty during Absalom's rebellion exposes his true motives. If he had supported Absalom, his actions might be excused as an ideological stance in favor of the firstborn or simply following the masses. However, his previous loyalty to David reveals that his current alignment with Adonijah stems from personal animosity. He harbors a deep fear and hatred of Solomon, knowing the new king will seek justice for his past murders of Abner and Amasa [מצודת דוד, רד״ק, מלבי״ם]. Conversely, some argue he actually wanted to support Absalom but was too afraid of David’s strength at the time; he only dares to act openly now because David is old and weak [רש״י, רד״ק]. Another perspective suggests a dual sense of guilt: he not only crowned Adonijah against David’s wishes but also remembers that during Absalom’s uprising, he defied David’s explicit orders by killing Absalom instead of sparing him [רלב״ג].
It is also possible he does not view his support for Adonijah as a rebellion at all, but rather as a natural transition of power due to David’s advancing age. He may favor Adonijah for personal reasons or believe his lineage is superior, as Adonijah’s mother was married to David in a conventional manner, subtly implying a flaw in the lineage of Solomon’s mother [ביאור שטיינזלץ, חומת אנך]. Nevertheless, this uprising is considered exceptionally severe because it directly opposes David’s will, Solomon's rightful succession, and the prophecy delivered by Nathan [חומת אנך, רד״ק].
Driven by fear, he seeks refuge in the Tent of God in Jerusalem, which houses the Ark and the Altar, grasping the horns of the altar. He assumes Solomon will not dare defile a holy site by executing him there [מצודת דוד, ביאור שטיינזלץ, רד״ק]. However, in his panic, he makes three fundamental legal errors regarding the laws of asylum. First, the altar only protects an active priest engaged in service, whereas he is a regular Israelite. Second, only the altar within the permanent Temple grants asylum, not a temporary structure. Third, protection is strictly afforded to someone standing on the roof of the altar, not to someone merely holding its horns [מלבי״ם, אלשיך]. Furthermore, clinging to the altar provides no legal protection for an intentional murderer or a rebel against the crown, both of whom can be lawfully executed even from that sacred space [רלב״ג].
Recognizing the futility of this strategy, he later releases his grip on the horns and stands nearby at a location symbolizing the seat of the Sanhedrin. He makes this calculated move in the hope of being tried by the religious high court rather than by the king. If executed by the court, his property will lawfully pass to his heirs, whereas the assets of a rebel executed by the crown are automatically confiscated by the royal treasury [אלשיך].