Davidic Dirt - the Dirt on David

Like many individuals discussed in the Bible, the Israelite king David is more complex than is often reflected in the oversimplified platitudes formulated about him in Sunday School classes. A common version of the events tells us that a happy little shepherd boy became a brave king, and wrote a few psalms along the way.

The text gives us more nuanced data.

To be sure, Scripture characterizes David as "a man after God's own heart" (I Samuel 13:14), as one who "walked before God in integrity of heart and uprightness" (I Kings 9:4), as "God's servant who kept God's commands and followed God with all his heart, doing only what was right in God's eyes" (I Kings 14:8), and as a man "whose heart was fully devoted to the Lord" (I Kings 15:3).

All of which would incline us to accept the hagiographic version of the David narrative, except for less obvious but still intentional hints in the text that David entered into service for a Philistine king, attacking Israel as a mercenary (I Samuel 27:8, 30:26). In addition, David arranges for cold-blooded executions, ordering the slaughter of the blind and the lame (II Samuel 5:6-10), hardly battlefield heroics. He further commits adultery and arranges a murder (II Samuel 11:1 to 11:27). He hires heathen Philistines as his bodyguards (II Samuel 15:13 to 15:18), causing the reader to wonder why David couldn't trust his own countrymen to guard him. Despite earlier promises to protect the offspring of Saul (I Samuel 20:15 and 24:21; II Samuel 19:23), he orders the execution of Saul's children and grandchildren (II Samuel 21; I Kings 2:8); the one surviving grandson of Saul is placed under house arrest, so that David can keep an eye on him, lest he develop dynastic ambitions (II Samuel 9). As David lies on his deathbed, he orders a final round of executions to get rid of his political enemies.

Some efforts have been made over the centuries to bowdlerize David's biography. Some scholars argue that he did not attack Israelite cities, but merely pretended to attack them, while working as a mercenary for the Philistines; one is hard-pressed to imagine that the Philistines were stupid enough to be thus fooled, or easy-going enough to allow such behavior on the part of a hired gun. Some would argue that David was showing kindness and hospitality to Mephibosheth, but anyone familiar with the dynamics of hereditary monarchies in the Ancient Near East will understand that any living offspring of a former monarch was immediately and universally understood to be a threat to the life of the current monarch; Mephibosheth's mere existence was effectively an assassination attempt on David. David was acting on the old maxim that one should keep one's friends close, but one's enemies closer.

Despite this list of sins, Scripture keeps David as an example of a godly man. His son, Solomon, is judged (II Kings 11:4) as not having lived up to the Davidic standard:

when Solomon was old his wives turned away his heart after other gods, and his heart was not wholly true to the Lord his God, as was the heart of David his father.

We have here a hint as to why the text is willing to overlook David's many and significant sins. David did not commit idolatry. David's life, including his sins, and especially his sins, was lived in the consciousness of the one true God. It is to this Lord that David repents.

One might think that David retains his status as role-model in the Bible because of his political and military exploits; he has been, at times, a sort of folk hero to the Israelites. Although some of the Jews may have in fact retained David as a hero for that reason, it is for different reasons that the text retains him as a spiritual template.

It is worth noting that David called Jerusalem "the City of David" (II Samuel 5:9), whereas God called Bethlehem "the City of David" (Luke 2:4 and 2:11). God focuses not on David's hero status, but on David's spiritual status. The Messiah would be called the "Son of David" - the Israelites took this to indicate David's worldly exploits; God took it to mean a man of faith. The Jews connected David to Jerusalem - he made it into a political and ecclesiastical capital - but Jesus found Jerusalem distasteful (Ezekiel 16:48, Matthew 23:37, Luke 13:34).

David is not the hero of the narrative. God is the hero. David is a flawed, finite, and sinful man. God uses David, and through David, God accomplishes great things. David is an instrument; by means of David, God works. There is good news in this. If God was willing to use a man so sinful and flawed as David was, then God will be willing to use people so sinful and flawed as I am, and as you are.

God's Laws

God is, among other things, a legislator. God has issued laws throughout history. The first laws He gave were to Adam and Eve. After that, He gave other laws to other people, notably Noah. It is not wise to attempt exact dates for these, but we can safely assume that laws were issued to Adam and Eve sometime prior to 4000 B.C., whereby the phrase 'sometime prior to' can cover years, centuries, or even a couple of millennia. It is also prudent to refrain from attempting an exact dating for Noah, but rather we might note that laws were given to Noah sometime after they were given to Adam and Eve, and sometime before God spoke to Abraham. Abraham we may posit as living around 1950 B.C., give or take a century.

But God's most prolific legislative activity occurred during the life of Moses. We will assign a date of 1400 B.C. to the activities of Moses, again allowing a century in either direction for approximation. To Moses God gave many laws - 613 by traditional rabbinical count - and these laws attract considerable interpretive attention, among Christians, among Jews, and among skeptics.

One claim made by the skeptics runs along these lines: modern Christians seem to pick and choose from among God's laws. Christians assert the validity of, and make earnest if flawed attempts to adhere to, regulations like "you shall not commit adultery" and "love your neighbor as yourself" (Leviticus 19:18) and "Do not deny justice to your poor people" (Exodus 23:6). Simultaneously, however, Christians feel free to ignore laws like "Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" or "Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard" (both found in Leviticus, chapter 19). The skeptic will note that the Christians seem arbitrary in their choices: these laws are found in the same texts, often within the same passage or subsection within that text, yet one is diligently enforced and the other dismissed. The skeptic asserts that there is no rational choice here, and that the Christian is picking and choosing within the text according to his personal preference, not according to any logical axiom.

Such debate is not new, of course, and the Christians have standard replies to such allegations. One common response is to say that the laws can be logically, historically, and textually divided into a number of categories. For example, one might say that some of the laws are ceremonial, and apply to the cult and the rituals of the Israelites during their Tabernacle phase or during their Temple phase; other laws might be regarded as civil laws, to govern the nation-state which existed from the time that the land was occupied under the command of Joshua, around 1400 B.C., up until the last captives were taken to Babylon, around 588 B.C., those dates defining a continuous legal tradition and the continuous existence of a geo-political entity governed by such laws; a third and final category contains timeless moral laws which are understood to govern all humans.

Having sorted the laws into these categories, some modern Christians think that they have answered the skeptic's challenge, by arguing that they are obliged to follow only those laws in the third category, the timeless moral laws. The laws in the first two categories, the civil laws and the ceremonial laws, applied only to the historically-conditioned nation-state of Israel as it existed during Old Testament times.

A similar procedure can be applied to New Testament laws; some are dismissed as historically or culturally conditioned, while other are seen as timeless spiritual precepts.

The debate will go at least another round, however. The skeptic argues that the Christian may be making arbitrary assignments in placing various laws in various categories. First, it can be noted that the text has scattered and mixed these laws among each other, and neither mentions any system of categorization nor assigns laws to categories. Second, even if the skeptic grants for the sake of argument the existence of such categories, the assignation of any specific law to a particular category becomes an interpretive ambiguity: is the command to "Stand up in the presence of the aged" a civil law of ancient Israel, or a timeless moral law for all humanity? Is the Sabbath command to "Six days do your work, but on the seventh day do not work, so that your ox and your donkey may rest" a ceremonial law, a civil law, or moral law? A few minutes of reflection will reveal that nuanced arguments can be made for conflicting categorization of such laws. A third proposition which the skeptic can use is this: it is theologically attractive to the Christian to assert that God's laws are all timeless and eternal; it seems at least disrespectful, and at most blasphemous, to assert that God's laws, or at least some of them, have expired.

The third objection raised by the skeptic can, however, be turned by the Christian to his defense.

Acknowledging that all of God's laws are timeless and eternal, the Christian can then dispense with the categories of civil, ceremonial, and moral. Instead the Christian can reply thusly: every law given by God is still in full effect and will remain so; the question is not whether the law has expired, but rather whom the law is intended to govern. Some of God's laws are given specifically to the Jews; others were given to all mankind.

There is textual evidence to support this approach: the laws given to Adam and Eve, and the laws given to Noah, can arguably be read as given to all humanity; the Noahide covenant, extrapolated from Genesis (chapter 9), can be understood as a relatively clear foundational statement of commonly accepted morality in Western Civilization, the Judeo-Christian tradition, and European culture. Likewise, much of the New Testament's legislation is universal. By contrast, Mosaic law can be understood as applying to Judaism, narrowly construed. Thus the modern Christian need not be bound by dietary and ceremonial laws, although they are still in full effect for the modern Jew.

This discussion of God's laws can, and in some situations has, gone on for a few more - or many more - rounds. The danger in this debate, however, is that one can finally lose sight of the bigger picture: God's laws are only a part of God's Word.

To think only of God's laws, or even to think primarily of God's laws, is to lose sight of God's nature. God is above all else loving. The beginning of time and space, the beginning of matter and energy, was God's creation of the universe - time and space being called into being by the One Who existed outside of them. This beginning of all things was an act of love. God created in order that He might love. At the end of all time, God awaits His creatures, freely offering unearned and unmerited forgiveness and inviting those creatures to enjoy an eternal life in peace and joy after the end of time. Between the beginning of time and the end of time, God's chief activity is loving His creatures - providing for them, guiding them, encouraging them.

Remembering that the Hebrew vocabulary items translated into English as 'law' - the word Torah is chief - can also be rendered as 'instruction' or 'direction' or 'guidance' or 'training' or 'coaching', manifests the loving motive behind the issuance of the law.

It is in this larger context of God's love that His laws must be viewed. It is good and important that we analyze His laws and try to understand them. But it is better and more important that we have a notion of God's activity as a whole. The Formula of Concord notes that

The law has been given to people for three reasons: first, that through it external discipline may be maintained against the unruly and the disobedient; second, that people may be led through it to a recognition of their sins; third, after they have been reborn — since nevertheless the flesh still clings to them — that precisely because of the flesh they may have a sure guide, according to which they can orient and conduct their entire life.

Each of these three purposes can ultimately be understood in the context of the larger theme of God's love. The first use of the law provides for some manner of civil decency and safety: God's desire to form a good environment for His creatures. The second use of the law enlightens humans as to their imperfect natures and their need for God's forgiveness. The third use of the law keeps humans ever aware of their imperfections - as they attempt to live properly and find it continuously impossible - and prevents humans from thinking that their actions might atone for their imperfections. The Formula of Concord continues:

For although they are regenerate and renewed in the spirit of their mind, yet in the present life this regeneration and renewal is not complete, but only begun, and believers are, by the spirit of their mind, in a constant struggle against the flesh, that is, against the corrupt nature and disposition which cleaves to us unto death.

As humans try and fail to live perfectly, the net effect of the third use of the law is to drive them back to the second use of the law. To be sure, the third use of the law also contains the notion of the law as a "guide" to behavior. We might rightly consider that the third use of the law has two distinct points within it. But the entire discussion of God's law, properly considered, serves to continually highlight human imperfection and the impossibility of human obedience. On those rare occasions when we do seem to obey God's law, it is in fact the Holy Spirit acting within us. We are ever reliant on God's grace.