King David seemed like a tyrant

by Gopher 16 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • Gopher
    Gopher

    The Bible presents many writings by the second king of Israel, David. He is presented as a musician with many psalms and praises to Jehovah, the God of Israel.

    The chronicles of Israel tell us that despite all his faults (including some accounts presented in detail in those chronicles), that King David was a man whose heart was close to Jehovah and in whom Jehovah found great favor.

    Certainly David was a courageous warrior. He routed the Jebusites out of the hilly city of Jerusalem, a feat very difficult to accomplish. And his victory against Goliath and the Philistines at such a young age was quite impressive. And when his son Absalom swayed the majority of Hebrews against him and he had to flee, the way he fooled the enemy into thinking he was insane was very shrewd.

    So was he a cunning, daring warrior with terrific battle plans, or was it that he really had God's favor and God was fighting for him and his nation?

    The Israelite law said a king was not to take multiple wives. Yet David (in line with the common practice of polygamy in the region) not only took Saul's daughter Michal, but also Bathsheba (at the cost of the life of Uriah, Bathsheba's husband) and others. David's example of polygamy set a fine example for his son Solomon, who went on to marry hundreds of wives!

    David took a census, which was clearly a violation of Israel's law which said to trust in their God rather than in superior manpower. David was given a choice of 3 penalties for this violation, and he took a slaughter of his people for a few days as the choice. What had these innocent people done to deserve such a fate, just because their King ignored what was understood to be God's law?

    Then when David was supposed to be out defending his territory (the chronicles say it was the time of the year when kings sally forth in warfare), he was spying on his neighbor's wife, Uriah's wife Bathsheba. Deciding he just had to have her, he called her into the palace and got her pregnant. Then he tried to cover it up by inviting Uriah to come back from battle for a conjugal visit with his wife. Uriah refused, saying it was his duty to stay focused on warfare rather than such family matters. So then David has Uriah sent to the front lines, and then ordered that the troops withdraw from behind Uriah so that he would be facing the enemy all alone, guaranteeing his death.

    And David's penalty for all this? The priest Uriah went to the king and gently told David he was a guilty man for this combination adultery and manslaughter. David, upon confessing his wrong in one brief sentence, was spared. But his wife had to suffer when the child died shortly after birth, and his family suffered strife from then on.

    Another account was where David guarded the flocks and house of Nabal and his wife Abigail. When Nabal failed to repay the kindness, David got indignant and started to plot the death of this disrespectul man, Nabal. It took the sensibleness and generosity of Abigail to prevent David from murdering one of his own countrymen. David was supposed to be warring against enemy nations, not his own people.

    David did all kinds of wrong, and the people around him suffered.

    And yet the chronicles tell us he was a righteous man, one with a good heart before the God of Israel. He sure could write a good psalm.

    Even though the chronicles seem to contain an honest recounting of David's mistakes, in the end we are told he is a wonderful man of God.

    He got to enjoy the spoils of his warfare, and the resultant material blessings are evidently some kind of confirmation of God's blessing.

    It seems to me that the winning warriors get to write history.

    Was David a tyrant, or a meek servant of God?

  • Golf
    Golf

    Gopher, I'm aware of David's exploits, is it fair? What's the moral of the story? We may think he had the best of two worlds, but did he?

    My only answer to your observation is, you play the role of God and tell me why your allowing such conduct/behavior to be written down for us to read. Gopher, what about King Manasseh's conduct? 2 Kings chapter twenty-one reveals how he, "...made his own son pass through the fire, and he practiced magic and looked for omens and made spirit mediums and professional foretellers of events. He did on a 'large' scale what was bad in Jehovah's eyes, to offend him." How many Kings had gone corrupt and asked for forgiveness?

    Guest 77

  • peacefulpete
    peacefulpete

    Gopher..Saul (meaning 'asked of god', referring to the peoples' demand for a king) and David (meaning Beloved indicating special relationship with Yahweh) were literary creations. Some form of the the legend was likely very old, perhaps especially the warrior hero aspects, like David's killing bears and giants. However at the time that David and Solomon (peace, alluding to the peaceful golden age under his rule) were purported to have been vanquishing Canaan and lavishing in gold palaces (9th-10th cent. bc) , in reality the tribe that became the Jews was a few thousand people eeking out a living in the harsh mountains. Jerusalem was nothing more than an Egyptian outpost as I recall. The David and Solomon legends are a mix of mythology, 5th century politics, and 5th century religious polemics against polytheism and adultery. I hold that the names themselves are cues to the roles they play in the fictional stories. To be sure someone was king or chief of these people, but his name was not likely David, and he most certainly did not conquer Canaan.

  • Gopher
    Gopher
    you play the role of God and tell me why your allowing such conduct/behavior to be written down for us to read.

    Golf -- The Bible apparently is teaching a lesson in redemption and restoration, that it is possible for people to change for the better. That's what I take from it. As to whether it's to be taken literally, I'm struggling with that. As I alluded to earlier, the winning warriors get to write the history. The Bible seems to have earmarks indicating that imperfect men originated it. But that's just my opinion.

    Pete -- As a JW, I took the historicity of the David and Solomon accounts without a second thought. Now, looking back into religious writings as an outsider, things seem so convoluted and contradictory that I just get a headache. Thanks for the view you shared. We weren't there, and the truth is so hard to get at through the tangle of stories and due to the distance that the centuries have put between us and whatever original events transpired that caused these writings.

  • gumby
    gumby
    We weren't there, and ......the truth is so hard to get at through the tangle of stories .....and due to .....the distance that the centuries have put between us..... and whatever original events transpired that caused these writings.

    That's the whole damn problem Gophermeister! We do have "writings", but those writings were tampered with, and those that supposedly weren't tampered with have question marks all over them. As man progresess to compare the bible story with older legends, it becomes more obvious it's a legend in itself. It's hard to comprehend.....isn't it?

    Gumby

  • bigboi
    bigboi

    I see the story of David as mainly one of a man of awesome power and responsibilty, who also happened to be quite flawed. However, despite all that he never wavered in his devotion to and faith in God. I for one don't see anything wrong with that.

  • Leolaia
    Leolaia

    PP....I agree for the most part, but I do not doubt the antiquity of the name, considering its attestation on the 9th century BC Tell Dan stele. I find contrary arguments to be rather unconvincing as the phrase byt dwd (despite the lack of a word marker) occurs in parallelism with ysr'l in a usage reminiscent of the Deuteronomistic history:

    "[killed Jeho]ram son of [????] king of Israel and killed [Ahaz]iah son of [???? ki]ng of byt dwd" (Tell Dan inscription).
    "So Israel has been in rebellion against the House of David to this day" (1 Kings 12:19).
    "A son named Josiah will be born to the House of David" (1 Kings 13:2).

    This dynastic usage is also well-attested in the OT (cf. "House of Jehu" in Hosea 1:4; "House of Jeroboam" in 1 Kings 13:34, 14:10, 13; "House of Ahab" in 2 Kings 8:18, 27; 9:7-9; 10:1, 10-11, 30; 21:13) and in inscriptions (cf. Assyrian inscriptions referring to Israel as the "land of the House of Omri" or Bit-Humria in COS 2.118F, 2.118G, 2.118H). This pattern suggests to me that byt dwd refers to a political entity and dwd itself occurs as a PN. This does not mean that such a David personage was a historical figure per se, much less that he is to be identified with the David of the Deuteronomistic history. At most it suggests that Judahites named their "House" after this personage, most likely as a founder. It is not unusual at all for ANE city-states to have legendary founders. I have read some interesting studies on the king lists of Ugarit and Ebla. In both cases, the latter kings are clearly historical while the first one or two are eponymous and most likely legendary. That a cycle of legends circulated about David (as attested by 1 and 2 Samuel) would be consistent with the view that pre-exilic Judahites looked to a legendary David as their political founder. I'm also not adverse to the idea that a historical figure may lie ultimately behind the tradition. The David cycle, while positing David as ruling from Jerusalem, has him originally at Hebron -- and it is possibly there that a real David may have existed as a military leader and ruler. I have earlier speculated, on the basis of previous suggestions by others, that the biblical "Citadel of David" at Jerusalem was really no more than a military outpost and refuge; an origin also reflected in the name Zion. This is quite consistent with the archaeological evidence demonstrating that Jerusalem had not yet existed as a city during this period (much less with an extravagent temple), though it does evidence fortifications. I have also suspected, however, that the name "David" is a dim memory of the Egyptian Djehuty which is the name of the general and administrator who famously secured the lands that later made up Judah, part of the name of the pharaoh under which Djehuty served (Thutmose III), and the god Thoth who was a god of wisdom, music, and learning. And while dwd means "beloved," it is a perfectly natural base for a theophoric suffix ("Beloved of DN"), so I wonder if the name is a hypocoristicon....

    As for Solomon, I think it is pretty clear that the name derives not from "peace" but from the god Shalem, considering Solomon's traditional association with the temple, the historical evidence of Jerusalem as a site of Shalem worship (including the mention of Shalem/Shalman's consort Shulmanitu as the "Ishtar of Jerusalem"....both Ishtar and Shalem were astral deities of the planet Venus), and the Song of Solomon's association of Solomon with the "Shulamite maiden". The association with "peace", I suspect, is secondary....

  • peacefulpete
    peacefulpete

    Leolaia..I agree that the name is ancient ans some of the legends as well. I suspected that the killing the bear and giant stories for exmple were early.

    I liked your comment as always and have no objections with the logic. Yet even if the David and Solomon names had primary origins completely alien to the OT story, the writer of these particular legends was using the names (and their secondary meanings) as cues to their respective roles, No? Any thoughts about Saul?

  • candidlynuts
    candidlynuts

    after the account of the 70,000 killed on account of davids taking the census didnt God say after that that the people would no longer be punished because of the sins of the king? ( i dont have a bible anymore and tried to find the scripture online but couldnt find what i was looking for)

  • blondie
    blondie

    I think that is "sins of the father."

    Compare Exodus 20:5 and Deuteronomy 24:16 then also ask why David's first son by Bathsheba was allowed to die?

    You must not bow down to them nor be induced to serve them, because I Jehovah your God am a God exacting exclusive devotion, bringing punishment for the error of fathers upon sons, upon the third generation and upon the fourth generation, in the case of those who hate me; EXODUS 20:5

    "Fathers should not be put to death on account of children, and children should not be put to death on account of fathers. Each one should be put to death for his own sin. DEUTERONOMY 24:16

    David now said to Nathan: "I have sinned against Jehovah." At this Nathan said to David: "Jehovah, in turn, does let your sin pass by. You will not die. 14 Notwithstanding this, because you have unquestionably treated Jehovah with disrespect by this thing, also the son himself, just born to you, will positively die." 2 SAMUEL 12:13-14

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit