Thad Hutcheson, Jr.
Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of Old Testament Courses
Old Testament Historical Books and Minor Prophets
Houston Graduate School of Theology
May 2000
And God said….“David kept my commands and followed me with all his heart,
doing only what was right in my eyes.” 1 Kings 14: 8.
The Bible devotes more space to David than anyone, even without the Psalms thrown in. The amount of literature about David is extraordinary.[1] As musician, tactician, warrior, King, husband, father, poet, and friend he is one of the most frequently depicted characters. There are abundant interpretations, in all forms of artistic expression. The thought of adding anything original to the pile is daunting.
There is a wide spectrum of opinion when David is the subject. Some books praise his heart.[2] Others portray him as a manipulative, deceiving writer of his own history, who invented ruses to hide the blood on his hands.[3] Some see David as one of the most relevant figures to our individual life, offering spirituality for everyday Christians.[4] A recent book examines our
inheritance of the Davidic concept that government must honor a binding covenant with God and God’s people.[5]
David’s story is far more than the story of an underdog who defeated a giant in a battle. David’s story is about a heart formed and led by the hand of God. God loved David and David returned the compliment. David sometimes failed in his personal life, but he never quit seeking to be in a relationship of love with the Lord. Each of us has this opportunity!
David had such a full life! He endured many changes, experienced setbacks and victories, and accomplished a great deal. He consistently tried to keep his covenant with God and God’s people, and in doing so set the standard by which all of us and those who govern us are measured.
The character of David inspires me. I make associations from his character that are personal and genuinely my own. I do not spend a great deal of effort trying to define his character. Yet I feel I know a fair amount about him. Over my lifetime, I will probably count David as one of the most worthwhile friends I have made! My knowledge of his character grows from Scripture, as well as from the interpretations of David by others.
In this paper I shall consider some inspirational interpretations of David in famous statuary, by Donatello, Verocchio, Michelangelo and Bernini. Then I shall comment upon the depth of David’s grief when his best friend, Jonathan, died and again when his firstborn son by Bathsheba died. Then I focus on the ways the Latter Prophets tracked the “falling away” of the “House of David” during their time, foretelling the coming of God in Christ as the only true King. Then, I visit Shakespeare’s Hamlet and discuss the way David’s life was in the background of that play, highlighting its message of Covenant for Elizabethan England. In conclusion, I make a few observations about how some of the most human aspects of David’s life enable us to incorporate him into our own.
Talking of Michelangelo[6]
My associations from David’s character begin where the conventional tale of David and Goliath leaves off. I first discard the diminutive David in the "David and Goliath" stereotype and go to a startling, oversized figure of David. I speak now of Michelangelo’s 15-foot high sculpture of the young David, crafted in 1501. [7]
I first saw Michelangelo’s David in the Accademia Museum in Florence in 1971. I had studied David and seen pictures of the statue as part of my general and Biblical education. In the physical presence of the statue by Michelangelo, I first felt in awe of David. Myself a relatively young man of thirty years, I was then impressed with the exterior of the statue, the musculature, and the shining, perfect form.
So it was that three thousand years after his life, David became most real for me not through the Bible, or through a painting, but through Michelangelo’s statue. I saw him as a transforming warrior, appropriately redacted by Michelangelo as a giant in youth’s clothing. I thought it remarkable that Michelangelo sculpted David in the exaggerated stature of Goliath. I surmised this was deliberate, to portray the incarnation in David of the “Freedom Fighter,” the prototypical Renaissance man. I imagined Goliath as a crude brute, more suited to the paranoid world of Hobbes’ Leviathan than the world of civilized men. The overlarge size of the statue seemed indicative of the power over evil of outsized faith.
I again visited Florence with my wife some twenty years later, in 1992. Again I found myself face to face with this selfsame statue. I had anticipated repeating my earlier experience, but both the statue and I were altered. A deranged person had broken off the forepart of the left foot with a hammer. In my maturity, I seized on this advantage. Where the foot was sheared off, my imagination was led inside the statue. I began to wonder, what was David really like? What was his character?
His reference to Goliath beforehand showed his complete contempt, as well his faith:
“ For who is this uncircumcised Philistine, that he should taunt the armies of the living God?" 1 Sam 17:26 (NAS)
David beheaded Goliath with Goliath’s own sword,[9] but David did not depart from the battle with Goliath’s sword. There are different interpretations of why this was so. The most plausible is that David was too young to wield Goliath’s sword. This assumes David at the time of slaying Goliath would not have grown into the sort of imposing physical specimen envisioned by Michelangelo.
Verrocchio’s bronze casts Goliath’s sword in David’s hands as small and capable of deft use. The statue makes deliberate contrast between Goliath’s diminutive sword and the giant head of Goliath under David’s legs. This too has its effect. In the hands of a brute, a deft, swift sword could be especially intimidating. I have worked extensively in the Middle East, where bodyguards often carry an icepick on their person. It is considered among the most fearsome of quiet weapons, because of its possibilities, which may be imagined by anyone.
Some years after the event, David recovered Goliath’s sword from Ahimelech, the high priest.[10]
This may have been “age appropriate” because David would by then have become full-grown. Ahimelech had kept Goliath’s sword hidden in cloth behind an ephod.
The ephod was a sacred vestment originally designed for the high priest of gold, blue, and purple, and scarlet, and fine twined linen, held together by two shoulder-pieces and a skillfully woven band which served as a girdle for the ephod.[11] On the shoulderpieces were two onyx stones on which were engraved the names of the twelve tribes of Israel. It is not known whether the ephod extended below the hips or only to the waist. From the historical books we learn that ephods were worn by persons other than the high priest. Thus, the boy Samuel was girded with a linen ephod while assisting the aged high priest.[12] David was girded with a linen ephod when he danced in the procession that brought the ark into Jerusalem. [13]While little is known about the size of an ephod, this may suggest Goliath’s sword was not oversized.
When David asked for the sword, he said:
"There is none like it; give it to me." 1 Sam 21:9(NAS)
What David meant by this comment can be a matter of speculation. Presumably its outstanding feature was plainly evident to the persons present in Ahimelech’s cave. David could have been alluding to the size of the sword, the temper of its metal, or some other aspect. Only one with David’s particular experience would know to what extent size mattered, but the sculptors clearly disagreed.
I then visited Donatello’s statue, also in the Bargello. This statue came first in time of the best-known statues of David, in 1409.[14] This statue was commissioned for the town hall, but the graceful and nonchalant pose was probably a surprise to the patrons. Donatello had studied the ancients, and knew that pre-Christian art in Rome mirrored life. Thus his naturalistic rendering of David may be seen as more realistic than the overdone heroic image of Michelangelo. But then again, maybe not.
I have included close-ups in the Appendix showing Donatello’s portrayal of the victorious David. David’s face bears a pacific, otherworldly appearance, coming to the viewer as a young man who can win at war, but loves God, and loves peace. There is a powerful expression in the contrast between the live David and the dead Goliath. Note that David is not standing on Goliath’s head, which would be a symbol of humiliation. Once Goliath is dead and beheaded, God’s victory is complete.
I now see in the reproduction in the Appendix something original with Donatello that I missed when previously in Florence. The large size of the stone embedded in the head of Goliath may be a reminder of the unerring accuracy of David’s throw, guided by the sure hand of God. The aperture of the opening in Goliath’s armor must have been barely larger than the size of the stone necessary to kill him on the spot.[15]
In basketball terms (if that informality can be forgiven), David’s contest with Goliath would be like putting a fourteen year old one-on-one in a slam dunk contest with Shaq O’Neal. The sling enabled David to avoid close contact with Goliath, to kill him from a distance. But he would probably only have one chance. David’s victory required the equivalent of a three-point shot from beyond mid-court. In one sense David prevailed by force of superior arms, directed by a superior guidance system, in the form of a superior God. Speaking partly facetiously, David’s defeat of Goliath marks the beginning of the arms race in the Middle East.
Two hundred years following Donatello’s masterpiece, and following Verrocchiio’s and Michelangelo’s as well, Bernini offered a radically different portrayal of David.[16] This rendering resides in the Galleria Borghese, in Rome. Here the focus is external to the statue, capturing the moment when David is releasing the stone with all the force he can muster. There is an eerie sense that Goliath is standing behind the viewer’s right shoulder. On first confronting this statue, one is tempted to duck! This is an illustration of Bernini’s genius in portraying a moment of dramatic action.
Each of the great masters we have discussed speaks through his creation to a different reading of David. These statues are in no sense copies of one another. The later versions were done with knowledge of the former. These masters had minds as capable as the best of ours, lived in a culture more devout than ours, and saw no requirement for a fixed description of David’s character. Rather, they saw a need to interpret David in their own way. And what was the purpose of their art? Much could be said in answer to this question. In the simplest terms they wanted to say something of David to us, in a way that would be helpful to us, so long as the very stone and metal in their hands might last.
These statues illustrate in a small way why the Renaissance in its rediscovery of classical values holds much that remains relevant for us. Each of these artists really had something to say about personal character and the advantage of being in covenant with God. Each left us a way we could look to the character of David to find the inward springs from which we can be nourished. Disregarding for a moment what is written on the subject of David, these great statues open up our thinking in nonverbal ways.
As these statues have survived through the ages, so does the memory of David’s steadfastness. When David was anointed as God’s chosen, the Spirit of the Lord came upon David in power. [17] Then fifteen years passed before he was crowned king.[18] Not one of these years was lost to David. During these years David faced many trials, but he continued to learn about himself, and to know more about God. He continued to grow in understanding as he served God.
In our times God gives us the opportunity to have many friends. Is it not wonderful that the Bible gives us such a friend in David, so approachable, so reliable, and offering us so many possibilities of guidance for our own lives? Could it be said that there was an inappropriate tendency in the Renaissance rediscovery of the classical era, to see David in the somewhat god-like terms in which ancient statuary portrayed towering individuals? Could we have more valid interpretations today by acknowledging his more human aspects?
Following the slaying by David of Goliath, David and Jonathan formed a friendship that came from God:
“[T]the soul of Jonathan was knit to the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as himself.” 1 Sam 18:1(NAS)
David and Jonathan developed this friendship while they were young, before the inherited burdens of palace intrigue would weigh upon them. God gave them the gift of friendship early enough that it grew strong free of motive, and remained immune from the taint of ambition.
Jonathan loved David without
reservation, made a covenant with him, and gave him his own armor, robe and
weapons.[19] This
symbolized that David would be king instead of him. Most importantly for
covenant interpretation, Jonathan’s covenant with David was based on Jonathan’s
love, not David’s response.
As these men matured, surely their friendship was tested. Jonathan was the blood heir to Saul’s dynasty, and David was the only person standing in the way of the establishment of Saul’s dynasty. Conversely, Jonathan was the only blood heir standing in the way of David’s kingship.[20] David’s marriage to Michal, Saul’s daughter, positioned David to became an indirect heir to the Crown as Saul’s son-in-law. The political value of the marriage with Michal was underscored by David’s later request that Abner return Michal at the time David established his Kingdom.[21] Circumstances from the time of this marriage would have cast David as an open rival among Jonathan’s courtiers. But Jonathan’s covenant with David was true, and he did not waver. Jonathan saw in David a character fit for a king. By way of contrast, when Adonijah, the elder son of David, asked for the hand of Abishag, who was an inheritor from David, Solomon saw his scheme to gain the throne, and had him put to death .[22]
Some commentators suggest David’s friendship with Jonathan was contrived to remove him as a rival, as the first step in a coup.[23] This view may be corroborated by David’s use of other friends, particularly the women in his life.
If one attempts to draw inferences about David from his relationships with women, it is possible to question the authenticity of any of David’s relationships. David, as Solomon after him, used marriages in excess to establish his international kingdom. David had at least fifteen wives and concubines. Here they are listed:
Michal (1 Sam. 18; 25:44; 2 Sam. 6:20-23)
Ahinoam (1 Sam. 25:43; 2 Sam.2;2:2)
Abigail (1 Sam. 25; 2 Sam. 2:2;3:3)
Maacah (2 Sam. 3:3)
Haggith (2 Sam. 3:4)
Abital (2 Sam. 3:4)
Eglah (2 Sam. 3:5)
Unnamed (2 Sam. 5:13-16)
To concubines (2 Sam. 15:16; 16:21-22; 20:3)
Bathsheba (2 Sam.11-12; 1 Kings 1-2)
Abishag (1 Kings 1-2).
All of the above marriages with the possible exception of Bathsheba were political.[24] For example, Maacah, Absalom’s mother, was a Geshurite princess.[25]
David’s marriage to Abigail was a later example of a political marriage. Overnight he obtained Nabal’s wife, property and position.[26] The marriage with Abigail made him the head of the Calebites, the most important clan in Judah. It gave him financial resources with which to campaign for kingship over all of Judah.[27]
These are only the wives of which we know. After David established the Government in Jerusalem, he took other wives as well as many concubines.[28] He left ten concubines to look after his palace when he fled before Absalom.[29]
When measured in the context of other relationships with men, the validity of Jonathan’s and David’s friendship is confirmed in part by the refusal of Jonathan to revoke it. Theirs was a friendship in which, in a material sense, Jonathan had everything to lose, and David had everything to gain. Once Saul determined to execute David, all Jonathan had to do to become King was allow that to happen. Instead, Jonathan intervened against his father as the agent of David’s preservation.[30]
In an exception to general experience, Jonathan and David’s friendship rose above internecine rivalry. Jonathan stepped aside from his rightful claim to Kingship in deference to David.[31] Jonathan’s covenant to David had a quality of beauty and commitment, both in substance and in expression, rivaled by Ruth’s covenant to Naomi.[32]
It is ironic that David’s lament in 2 Samuel 1:17-27 is for “Saul and Jonathan” together. The former made himself David’s mortal enemy, the latter his mortal friend. David’s lament for Jonathan is pregnant with meaning:
"How have the mighty fallen in the midst of the battle! Jonathan is slain on your high places.
"I am distressed for you, my brother Jonathan; you have been very pleasant to me. Your love to me was more wonderful than the love of women.” (Emphasis supplied) 2 Sam 1:25-26 (NAS)
I believe it is questionable scholarship to infer anything untoward about David’s friendship with Jonathan from this comment. While not conclusive by any means, my experience in the region of the Middle East and Asiatic cultures is that the friendships among men are quantitatively different than mens’ relationships with women. I surmise this was the case with David. Today’s understanding of the man who goes from woman to woman suggests he probably did not experience the fullness of committed friendship with any woman. His only experience of commitment was with Jonathan. Jonathan’s death left David without one true friend.
In one of my discussions of David with Richard Kew, he suggested that a fruitful area of reflection is the codependency of sorts between himself and Joab. Joab was David’s hit man on so many occasions, and seems to have positioned himself to be above criticism – even from the king. Kew finds it interesting that there seems to be a whole “class” of leaders today who have their Joab, their hit man, who does the dirty work for them in return for the power that comes with being associated with someone who is the source of that power.[33] I have been the victim of this sort of behavior on three occasions. I take its proliferation to be one of God’s ways of conditioning the wealth of our economy with an increase of evil in the world.
I have not seen the comparison made elsewhere, but I make an association between the loss of Jonathan and the loss of David’s son by Bathsheba. I surmise that David’s error with Bathsheba may have been an attempt to rediscover some of the joy he shared with his one true friend of years past. The act being done, he may have hoped his son by Bathsheba would be the new friend he needed in life. Following upon the loss of Jonathan, the taking by God of this child was a second taking of a greater nature. It likely further skewed David’s personal relations and at a minimum contributed to his inability to discipline his children.
David and his servants had different knowledge of the death of the child. Only David knew the infant’s death was foreordained by Yahweh as atonement for David’s sin.[34] Nathan had no sooner left the room than the infant became mortally ill. There is no record that David ever discussed his foreknowledge of God’s verdict and sentence with anyone.
Kierkegaard focused on God’s
command to Abraham to kill his son Isaac as a supreme test of Abraham’s faith,
because it is impossible to understand and therefore is “absurd.” Kierkegaard
used this example to illustrate the “teleological suspension of the ethical.” Yet in Abraham’s case the
message was softened by a stay of execution, and it was not a complete loss.[35]
In the instance of the killing of David’s infant son, the teleological
absurdity rises to a level that is not reached elsewhere in the Bible. God
commits outright murder of an innocent child. It is painful to frame the death
of the child in these terms, but it must have seemed so to David, even if
justifiable homicide. In every sense the
sins of the father are visited upon the son.
McCarter has a summary of the conventional speculations about David’s behavior during the child’s illness and death, as to which there is a variety of interpretations.[36] It is taken as strange that during the child’s illness David’s fasting and self-humiliation was akin to mourning the dead; but when the child dies, David ceases mourning. This is different than conventional habits of mourning. In some ways it could be said that David pleaded for the son’s life while there was life, but it was logical to stop imploring God when the petition has failed.
Was David’s time wasted in asking God to spare his son? I think not. David knew God is a merciful God. God created mankind in his own image, to have a relationship with us. David went on his knees to God for seven days, to plead with God to change his mind. David surely wished that he could die instead, particularly as the sin was his, and against God.[37] God’s punishment was unrelenting because David had taken multiple wives and concubines, taken another man’s wife, and caused her husband to be killed. In all these acts, David thought he could hide his sin from God. Perhaps at the height of his reign he thought he could act as though he were God.
Because David was King of God’s holy nation, he suffered the sternest of lessons. In his deep grief David restored his own relationship with God. From the time of the child’s death David realized he had in God the friend he had lost in Jonathan. He learned that the best of friendships we have on this earth are only with us by the grace of God. Thereafter he looked to God as his one true friend in every moment of need.
While God did not answer David’s specific prayers, there is to me persuasive evidence that God suffered alongside David in the death of David’s son. The evidence I find compelling is that God came back to David in a special way. God could not give David what he wanted because He had to perform an eternal work and teach an eternal lesson.[38] For the House of David, God did something else:
Then David comforted his wife Bathsheba, and went in to her and lay with her; and she gave birth to a son, and he named him Solomon. Now the LORD loved him
and sent {word} through Nathan the prophet, and he named him Jedidiah for the LORD'S sake. 2 Sam 12:24-25 (NAS)
This could mean David’s grief was so painfully felt that it reach God at God’s level. Our culture spends a lot of time bringing God to our level. Why not as well reach to God’s level? If prayers can work that way, why not pain? When we learn hard lessons, we know we come into closer relationship with God: “For those whom the Lord loves He disciplines, and He scourges every son whom He receives." Heb 12:5-6 (NAS).
Is it not marvelous that God could make something as wonderful as Solomon from a situation as bad as this? Was it not kind of God to give Nathan this renewing assignment,[39] so David would know right away that the Lord loved his newborn son? Is it not fascinating that the Lord led Nathan into the old King’s room two decades later to facilitate Solomon’s being put on the throne ahead of the older Adonijah?[40] The hand of the Lord consistently supported the House of David during the life of David, seeing that responsibility for keeping the covenants should pass to one loved by God.
The birth of Solomon did not heal David of his dysfunction as a father. When David was advised that Amnon raped his half-sister Tamar, the Old Greek and Qumran versions add the statement, “David would not punish his son Amnon, because he loved him, for he was his firstborn.” (Emphasis supplied)[41]
I surmise the populace, or at least the palace staff, knew of the death of David’s son by Bathsheba. Others were probably not aware the son died for the sins of the father. Following the loss of Jonathan, and the killing by God of his infant son for his own transgressions, it is perhaps understandable that David would have a disability in disciplining his sons. The truth is, not one of us can speak to this experience from our own experience. We may have lost a loved one, but not at God’s command, and not for our own transgressions. Upon the death of the child, I find David’s statement to his servants one of the most moving passages in the Bible. It was an expression, not an exegesis:
And he said, "While the child was {still} alive, I fasted and wept; for I said, 'Who knows, the LORD may be gracious to me, that the child may live.'
"But now he has died; why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he will not return to me." 2 Sam 12:22-23 (NAS)
So here I take stock. In my life I have seen no heavier burden upon my friends than when they have been predeceased by their own children. It is our primordial instinct that our children shall join us in death, and not we them! Is it any wonder David was quieted by the child’s death? After the death of David’s innocent son, foretold by the word of God’s prophet, by the plan of the God he loved, as atonement for David’s sins, there is nothing David, for all his gifts with words, can add by further discussion.[42]
The death of David’s unnamed child by Bathsheba may be fruitfully compared with the death of Jesus. Each died free of sin, and for the sins of others. In the case of David, the atonement is particular; in Jesus, the atonement is universal. Life for David in the first instance, and for mankind in the second, would never be the same again. If any words are appropriate to express David’s grief, they are Hamlet’s last words: “All the rest is silence.”[43]
From the beginning of David’s kingship, Nathan brought him the word of God:
“ … I will give you rest from all your enemies. The LORD also declares to you that the LORD will make a house for you.
"When your days are complete and you lie down with your fathers, I will raise up your descendant after you, who will come forth from you, and I will establish his kingdom.
"He shall build a house for My name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever.
"I will be a father to him and he will be a son to Me; when he commits iniquity, I will correct him with the rod of men and the strokes of the sons of men, but My lovingkindness shall not depart from him, as I took {it} away from Saul, whom I removed from before you."And your house and your kingdom shall endure before Me forever; your throne shall be established forever."'" 2 Samuel 7:11-16.(NAS)
This “Davidic Covenant” is often characterized as freely given. Scottish theology especially emphasizes that the Davidic Covenant is not based on any considerations of worth, merit or prior claim.[44]This interpretation places it in direct line with the Abrahamic Covenant, promising Abraham descendants like the stars in the heavens and the sands of the sea. Hence it became the bridge between the Abrahamic Covenant and the birth, crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus as the one true King, the Messiah. The Book of Matthew places these three as the pillars of God’s theological temple:
“The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham” Matt 1:1(NAS); and
“Therefore all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; and from David to the deportation to Babylon fourteen generations; and from the deportation to Babylon to {the time of} Christ fourteen generations.” Matt 1:17 (NAS)
The characterization of the Davidic Covenant as “freely given” is consistent with the Genesis concept of God’s creation of the world as an act of grace, from nothing, ex nihilo. It is beautiful symmetry to think of both the world and God’s Covenant as freely given, and this is my own interpretation. But that is not the end of the matter. A covenant freely given requires reciprocity, in the form of performance.
David united Judah and Israel. He defeated Ammon and Syria.[45]
He captured and united Jerusalem and made it the center of government. He
brought the ark to Jerusalem to build a house for God. He placed the Lord at
the center of his Kingdom. He eliminated from his kingdom the worship of any
other god but Yahweh. When in his human failings he failed, he paid a great
price, but he strove in his heart to perform his obligation under his covenant
with God.
David’s conduct showed he believed God’s promises freely carried a relationship obligation. During David’s life, he tried never to flag in his relationship with God. This was pleasing to God, but required conscious effort on the part of the House of David.
After David’s death, and during the latter part of the reign of Solomon, a division of Israel began, followed by a deterioration of spiritual conditions in the Northern and Southern Kingdoms. The Davidic covenant was not kept on the side of the House of David, with dire consequences.
One of the most succinct records of nonperformance by the House of David comes from the books of the twelve “Latter Prophets”, who spoke in the latter days of the Old Testament. These are sometimes called the “Minor Prophets” due to the brevity of their books, with the consequence they are not given the attention they deserve. Their condemnation and prophecies document the “falling away” of the House of David during a four-hundred-year span of history from approximately 840 BC through 430 BC. These were the times of the ascendancy of the Assyrian, Babylonian and Persian empires, during which times the people of Israel were again enslaved as they had been in Egypt. But for the shining clairvoyance of the Latter Prophets, this might be called the “Dark Ages” for Israel,
How did the House of David fall away? I will show some of these ways as the Latter Prophets mention them, in the canonical order of the books. It should be noted the canonical order is not the chronological order. For ease of reference, the chronological order would be Obadiah, Joel, Jonah, Amos, Hosea, Micah, Nahum, Zephaniah, Habakkuk, Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi.
The offenses are full of meaning for our day, as each of us in our daily lives can find ourselves falling into temptations in the directions indicated.
Israel’s most consistent offense was falling into worship of idols and false gods. This was compared to harlotry in the book of Hosea. This unfortunate man was told by God to take an adulterous wife so he could speak to the pain God felt from Israel’s unfaithfulness. He then married the notorious Gomer, who left him for a life of harlotry. [46] Having “taken Gomer to Court” for her offenses, Hosea then “courted” Gomer, here the symbolic Israel, inviting her to faithfulness after a period of penance.[47] Hosea took her back but thereafter had no intimacy with her, symbolic of God’s reaction to Israel’s promiscuity. Hosea offers a beautiful illustration of God’s faithfulness, but does not release Israel from punishment for breaking its vows.
Joel sought to emphasize the absolute supremacy of God over all the peoples of the earth. Joel said Israel would be invaded by a “swarm of locusts”. Only a “pouring out of the Spirit”[48], or a supernatural intervention by God, could save Israel. This was thought to foreshadow the coming of the Messiah.
Amos condemned the practice of ritual without content, using David’s faithfulness as the marker. He noted the people “strum away on their harps like David,” but lacked the commitment of David in particular.[49] Amos had a particularly vivid confrontation with Amaziah, the high priest of Bethel, condemning him as a false prophet who plays courtier to profligate royalty.[50]
Obadiah singled out the lack of commitment of a sister state, Edom. This spoke to dishonored alliances, whether individually or collectively.
Jonah experienced near death for disobeying God’s instructions to preach to the gentiles in Ninevah, and for using anger to reject God. God asked Jonah: “What right have you to be angry?”[51] This was a condemnation of being self-centered and not caring about others.
Micah condemned the radical corruption of society at all levels: rulers, priests, judges, prophets, and rent-collectors.[52] He saw deliverance coming from Bethlehem, the birthplace of King David. In Micah’s famous prophecy, 730 years before the coming of Christ, he said:
“"But as for you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, {too} little to be among the clans of Judah, from you One will go forth for me to be ruler in Israel. His goings forth are from long ago, from the days of eternity."
Therefore, He will give them {up} until the time when she who is in labor has borne a child. Then the remainder of His brethren will return to the sons of Israel.
And He will arise and shepherd {His flock} in the strength of the LORD, in the majesty of the name of the LORD His God. And they will remain, because at that time He will be great to the ends of the earth.” Micah 5:2-4 (NAS)
Though Jonah had converted Ninevah, Ninevah later fell back into idolatry and brutality. Nahum predicted that Ninevah would fall despite its apparent invincibility as the stronghold of Assyria. In highly entertaining language, Nahum described how this great city would fall, just as Thebes had fallen in earlier times.[53] Nahum’s prediction happened with force; Ninevah was destroyed without a trace, such that Alexander the Great later crossed over the site of Ninevah without noticing it.
Habakkuk spoke to Israel’s inability to hold to God when evil prevails. Habakkuk was privileged by having God speak directly to him, saying “those who build their realm by unjust gain” will perish at the hands of the Babylonians, [54] but those who are steadfast and rejoice in the Lord by faith will be saved.[55]
Zephaniah condemned false prophets,[56] seeing all nations being judged by the one living God. He correctly predicted the capture of Judah by Babylon, under Nebuchadnezzar, and looked to the future restoration of Israel.
Following the Babylonian exile, Haggai singlemindedly exhorted the Jews to finish rebuilding the temple they had begun as the house of the Lord. His point was, if you start something for God, then finish it!
Zechariah, a true visionary, made the point that Jerusalem is not measured by its walls, nor God by his temple.[57] In speaking to Zechariah in a dream, the Lord predicted the “House of David” would have its “honor restored,” so that the feeblest among the inhabitants of Jerusalem will be strong “like David.” The Lord would “pour out on the House of David a spirit of grace and supplication.”[58] How would this come about? By the arrival of a “shepherd”, who would open a “fountain” in the House of David to cleanse all sin and impurity.[59] Zechariah is perhaps the latter prophet most often quoted in the New Testament.[60]
Malachi was the last of the Latter Prophets in both canonical and chronological order. The second Temple had been built, but the people and priests had backslidden and become mechanical in their observance of the law. Malachi gave a stern warning to infuse meaning and energy into prayer and worship, saying empty recital and ritual had no value for God. This thought is later stated eloquently in Hamlet’s famous prayer scene:
“My words fly up, my thoughts remain below:
Words without thought never to heaven go.” Hamlet, Act III, Scene iii.
It is made clear that the falling away of the House of David led to destruction and captivity. The meaning for all time is that if the covenant with God is broken, the price will be paid. But in this particular instance, because of God’s unrelenting love, a “righteous remnant” of Israel would be restored.
In his prime Solomon expressed the significance of the Davidic Covenant. At Gibeon, the Lord appeared to Solomon in a dream and invited Solomon to express his wishes.
It is a possible interpretation that the Lord did not promise to give Solomon whatever he requested.[61] The Lord later said because Solomon did not ask for wealth or the death of his enemies, but asked for wisdom, the Lord would grant his request.[62] In granting Solomon’s request, God made reference as well to David’s having walked before the Lord “in truth and righteousness and uprightness of heart.” If Solomon had asked the Lord for something bad for God’s people, the Lord might not have granted that request. Thus Solomon received a discerning heart from the Lord, by making a discerning request. This may also indicate that God’s covenant with God’s people takes priority over God’s covenant with the House of David.
The point I am making is that God’s covenant freely given does not confer absolute freedom. It confers a relationship.[63] This is an important lesson for our times, as freedom carries responsibility. David fulfilled his part of the Davidic Covenant because he had the right intentions in his heart. [64]
The blessings of God ill fit a person with a wrong heart, whether of royal or ordinary station. Eventually, God’s justice will overcome the schemes of men. These were lessons of the Latter Prophets for all the peoples of the world. These lessons were again forcefully re-taught from the model of the House of David to Elizabethan England by the most famous play[65] in the English language, Shakespeare’s Hamlet.
In the summer of 1999 I was
privileged to read Harold Bloom’s Shakespeare,
the Invention of the Human.[66] Bloom associates Hamlet with “David and the
Jesus of Mark” as “a charismatic of charismatics.” Charismatics are described
by Bloom as having an “aura of the preternatural”.[67]
By “preternatural” is meant a character whose scope is beyond what is normally found in nature, impinging on
the concept of supernatural.
As between David and Hamlet, there are certainly parallels that may be drawn. Bloom notes Shakespeare had lost his eleven-year-old son while writing The Tragedy of Hamlet, Prince of Denmark.[68] Bloom considers it no coincidence that the Play itself and the Books of 1 and 2 Samuel share a preoccupation with family dysfunction. [69] Each of Hamlet and David came into a road to Kingship while being mortally opposed by a reigning King who was not his father. The destiny of each was predetermined by the supernatural intervention of ghosts.[70] Each successfully feigned madness in the presence of a king, to save his own life. [71] Hamlet’s presumption with Ophelia, in which she had little choice but to consent, is reminiscent of David’s taking of Bathsheba. Hamlet sent Rozencrantz and Guildenstern abroad carrying their own death warrant, unbeknownst to them. David did the same with Uriah.
To extirpate what is rotten in the State, each of David and Hamlet must displace the reigning king before he himself is slain. When David is retreating from Saul, as Hamlet from Claudius, his quintessence is never to be wholly committed to any stance or attitude. When stratagems put the slayer-Kings at their disposal, helpless and oblivious, each of David and Hamlet is unable to consummate the execution (if justified, perhaps not an assassination). The bar to action is each King’s association with God. In the instance of David, Saul’s association is as the “Anointed One.” In Hamlet, Claudius is in prayer, creating an association with God more suited to Elizabethan sensibilities than Divine Kingship.
In life, each of David and Hamlet exhibits a beyondness that has to do with the mystery of kingship. Each sees himself on a grand stage, living a “play within a play,” each but players in it. David and Hamlet are each presented as capable of seeing the fullness of possibilities in life’s way. Each shows the capacity for love and the capacity for cold-blooded killing. Each says farewell to his youth in the course of their life story. Nothing remains of Hamlet’s “antic disposition” after Act IV, nor of David’s youth after the transition from 2 Samuel to 1 Kings. Each then goes in a royal way to his end.
Shakespeare borrowed heavily from the plot of the Bible’s story of David, as the following comparison of the lives of David and Hamlet suggests:
“A young man, with a right to the throne, is set in conflict with a king who alternately flatters him and tries to kill him. The young man feigns madness. He comes upon his enemy, helpless and oblivious of his presence, but forgoes the perfect opportunity for revenge. This partial outline of the plot of Hamlet is also that of the biblical story of David, which likewise includes a ghost, fratricide, incest, and a dissembling avenger who invites his enemy to a feast so that he might be killed, unsuspecting and unprepared.”[72]
In Elizabethan times, unlike our own, education was not secular. “Covenant Theology” derived from Davidic concepts of kingship was well understood by the audience, and a principal tool of Elizabethan Puritanism. There was substantial debate as Elizabeth sought to become “England’s David”, with “God on her side”, and as to what that meant.[73]
The story of David was so familiar that Shakespeare’s variations on Davidic themes account in part for the immediate success of the play. The technique of the play was a form of criticism that evaded censorship. The audience knew that God was Christianity’s true King. David was in contemporary Elizabethan consciousness the pre-eminent “Covenant-King,” a servant king honoring obligations to God and to the people. The intentional insinuation of the play is that “David’s crown might not fit comfortably on Elizabeth’s head.”[74]
Horatio, the loyal disciple of Hamlet, refers to the ghost of Hamlet’s father in a deliberately Biblical way: “A mote it is to trouble the mind’s eye.”(Act I, Scene 1) This has to be the “mote” referenced in Matthew 7:3-5 and Luke 6:41-42, a “mote” to trouble the clear eye of Royal rule, and one that cannot be cast out. This statement may be compared with John Dean’s famous advice to President Nixon that Watergate had put a “cancer” on the Presidency. The ghost tells Hamlet allegorically that Satan holds the authority of the crown: “The serpent that did sting thy father’s life now wears this crown.” (Act I, Scene 5) Then Hamlet sets his whole course of action, including a plan to kill the King, based on his covenant with his father’s ghost:
“And thy commandment all alone shall live
Within the book and volume of my brain,
Unmixed with baser matter….
My tables! My Tables! Meet it is I set it down….”
(Act I, scene v.)
Hamlet’s reference to a commandment and an inscription upon tablets is intended to confer a “Sinaitic character” to Hamlet’s covenant.[75] The statement that “something is rotten in the State of Denmark” is directed at all royal prerogatives, including England’s. Hamlet’s charge that the “eldest primal curse” of Cain and Abel is the foundation of the Crown was a spectacularly bold stroke. Though on the surface directed at the outside principality of Denmark, it bespoke of broken covenant. Western Europe had recently been shocked by the deposition of Mary Queen of Scots in 1567, followed by her execution in 1587. This raised acutely the question of the covenant of a sovereign to God and His people.[76]
The mission of Hamlet as a play is to measure the authenticity of the Crown against the foundations of the Davidic Covenant, with consequences for the players as catastrophic as anything contemplated by the Latter Prophets. At the end of Hamlet, none of the leading participants has survived.
That the play survived the Royal Censors at all is in some ways remarkable, perhaps reflecting the indirect hand of God. Shakespeare leaves no doubt about God’s ever-present knowledge of man’s sins:
“Foul deeds will rise,
Though all the earth o’whelm them, to men’s eyes.”(Act I, Scene 2)
The Davidic Covenant is carried through the Play, and the Play’s the thing wherein Shakespeare catches the conscience of the King![77] But is not the conscience of the audience his real target?
We have seen that David is brought forward to our day in forms of art as well as Scripture.
David is interpreted in a wide variety of ways because he was the exemplary, multi-faceted “Renaissance Man.” Like Admiral Nelson, he was a ferocious, fearless warrior. As a harpist, his fame spread throughout the country.[78] That he was emulated as a musician in later history is affirmed by Amos.[79] As a poet, we have his elegies on Saul, Jonathan and Abner,[80] and his closing oracle.[81] As a Psalmist, nothing exceeds the beauty of his thoughts:
“Create in me a clean heart, O God, and renew a steadfast spirit within me.
Do not cast me away from Thy presence, and do not take Thy Holy Spirit from me.
Restore to me the joy of Thy salvation, and sustain me with a willing spirit.”
Ps 51:10(NAS)
Knowledge works in ever-increasing ways. When one avenue of learning opens, other avenues are opened wider in the process. All ways of learning reinforce each other. The written material about David in the Scriptures and elsewhere gains reinforced meaning from the arts, because David was a master of the arts, and through his arts we know him and his possibilities. Through the arts, we gain additional insight into David, the inner man.
Though a good and Godly king, David provides through his humanity a powerful example for us. We can speculate endlessly on the sources of his personal difficulties, going beyond what we have already considered. The dysfunctionality of David’s family could very well be linked to some of the points made earlier about his loss of Jonathan and his relationships with women. But David appears to have been a man who was himself severely damaged emotionally. Consider the implied rejection of his childhood when Jesse did not even consider him worthy to be among the other sons as one to anoint. Moreover, his brother did not think him worthy to speak when he arrived at the battlefield prior to his encounter with Goliath – probably an attitude picked up from their father. In his attempt to redress the wrongs he had experienced as a child we see David making a whole set of his own mistakes with his offspring – right down to favoritism of the very worst kind. It is interesting that Jesus should be born as the “son”[82] and descendant of this very fallen David.
David’s life shows the best rewards come not in terms of achievement but in appreciating the meaning of life. Experience taught him that we walk with God wherever we go. From God no secrets are hid. Our performance of our covenants is measured by Him. Our friends may sustain us, and some may disappoint us. Friends of long standing may lose interest in us. Our usefulness to others may change. But God showed with David He can bring new friends and new possibilities into our lives, and work in ways that are beyond our reckoning. His friendship is steadfast, He is with us always, and He has created for our enjoyment a world more full of fruit than we can harvest.
David’s incident with Bathsheba can help us understand that mid-life is a period of high risk.
At the peak of our influence and scope, we begin to lose some of the critical energy of youth. Mistakes can occur despite our best intentions. Our mistakes when young usually will not have the broad effect they can have later, bringing whole groups, and ourselves, to ruin. Also, as we move farther along in life, our habits of trust can become misplaced. We become more vulnerable to others who have become untrustworthy, and who have more means to hurt us. In our collective and individual lives, we encounter many incarnations of Bathsheba, and of Absalom. Lacking the talents of King David, we require God’s help to an even greater extent than David required.
David found it a privilege to meditate on the statutes of God day and night.[83] He lived as Hosea would later say God suggested we live, increasing our knowledge of God. God said it so well:
“I delight in loyalty rather than sacrifice, and in the knowledge of God rather than burnt offerings.” Hosea 6:6 (NAS)
Our lives, though different than David’s, benefit from meditating on God all the time, and keeping our covenants. Our burdens come in the form of resolving that which is not yet resolved, and integrating the disparate parts of our wide experience. God gives us the discernment to manage these burdens as appropriate to our age. There is much work to be done, and it can be done without a beginning or an end.
[1] By way of anecdotal evidence, a search of Amazon.com on April 20, 2000 for books about “King David” shows 655 publications.
[2] Beth Moore, A Heart Like His (Life Way Press, Nashville, Tennessee 1999).
[3] Steven L. McKenzie, King David, A Biography (Oxford University Press, 2000).
[4] Eugene H. Peterson, Leap Over a Wall (Harper San Francisco, 1997).
[5] Elazar and Kincaid, The Covenant Connections, From Federal Theology to Modern Federalism (Lexington Books, 2000).
[6] “In the room the women come and go
Talking of Michelangelo.” T.S. Eliot, The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock
[7] See Reproductions of Michelangelo’s David, Appendix. Note the literature of the Sculpturegallery advertisement offers “fig leaf optional”! That advertisement also notes, “Shakespeare through the mouth of Hamlet expressed in words that which Michelangelo with his David expressed in marble.” The association of David with Hamlet is one we shall visit later.
[8] See Verrocchio’s David, Appendix.
[9] 1 Samuel 17:51.
[10] 1 Samuel 21:9.
[11] Exodus 28: 4 ff.
[12] 1 Samuel 2:18.
[13] 2 Samuel 6:14
[14] See Donatello’s David, Appendix.
[15] “And {he had} a bronze helmet on his head, and he was clothed with scale-armor which weighed five thousand shekels of bronze.{He} also {had} bronze greaves on his legs and a bronze javelin {slung} between his shoulders.”
1 Sam 17:5-6
(NAS)
[16] See Bernini’s David, Appendix.
[17] 1 Samuel 16:13.
[18] Moore, p. 31.
[19] “Then Jonathan made a covenant with David because he loved him as himself. And Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that was on him and gave it to David, with his armor, including his sword and his bow and his belt.” 1 Sam 18:3-4
(NAS)
[20] Jonathan was Saul’s oldest surviving son, and by tradition the means of preserving Saul’s dynasty.
[21] And he said [as a message to Abner], "Good! I will make a covenant with you, but I demand one thing of you, namely, you shall not see my face unless you first bring Michal, Saul's daughter, when you come to see me." 2 Sam 3:13
(NAS)
[22] “And King Solomon answered and said to his mother [Bathsheba], "And why are you asking Abishag the Shunammite for Adonijah? Ask for him also the kingdom-- for he is my older brother-- even for him, for Abiathar the priest, and for Joab the son of Zeruiah!" Then King Solomon swore by the LORD, saying, "May God do so to me and more also, if Adonijah has not spoken this word against his own life. "Now therefore, as the LORD lives, who has established me and set me on the throne of David my father, and who has made me a house as He promised, surely Adonijah will be put to death today." I Kings 2:22-24
(NAS)
[23] McKenzie, p. 84-88.
[24] Ibid., p. 84.
[25] 2 Samuel 3:3
[26] 1 Samuel 25:42.
[27] McKenzie, p. 55.
[28] Meanwhile David took more concubines and wives from Jerusalem, after he came from Hebron; and more sons and daughters were born to David. Now these are the names of those who were born to him in Jerusalem: Shammua, Shobab, Nathan, Solomon, Ibhar, Elishua, Nepheg, Japhia, Elishama, Eliada and Eliphelet. 2 Sam 5:13-16 (NAS)
[29] 2 Samuel 15:16.
[30] Then Jonathan said to David, "The LORD, the God of Israel, {be witness}. When I have sounded out my father about this time tomorrow, {or} the third day, behold, if there is good {feeling} toward David, shall I not then send to you and make it known to you?
"If it please my father {to do} you harm, may the LORD do so to Jonathan and more also, if I do not make it known to you and send you away, that you may go in safety. And may the LORD be with you as He has been with my father.
"And if I am still alive, will you not show me the lovingkindness of the LORD, that I may not die?
"And you shall not cut off your lovingkindness from my house forever, not even when the LORD cuts off every one of the enemies of David from the face of the earth."
So Jonathan made a {covenant} with the house of David, {saying} "May the LORD require {it} at the hands of David's enemies."
And Jonathan made David vow again because of his love for him, because he loved him as he loved his own life. 1 Sam 20:12-17 (NAS). See also McCarter, op cit, Comment at p. 343.
[31] “Jonathan is willing to step aside to let David become king (1 Samuel 18:1-5; 23:15-18)”, Mckenzie, op cit, p. 84.
[32] But Ruth said, "Do not urge me to leave you {or} turn back from following you; for where you go, I will go, and where you lodge, I will lodge. Your people {shall be} my people, and your God, my God.
"Where you die, I will die, and there I will be buried. Thus may the LORD do to me, and worse, if {anything but} death parts you and me." Ruth 1:16-17 (NAS)
[33] Interview with Richard Kew, author of Vision Bearers (Morehouse 1996).
[34] Nathan was alone with David when making his famous accusation from God, “You are the man!”. 2 Samuel 12:7. He fearlessly confronted his king and pronounced God’s death sentence on the infant son. 2 Samuel 12:14. See also David M. Howard, The Old Testament Historical Books ( Moody Press 1993), 153, comparing Nathan with other prophets.
[35] Soren Kierkegaard, Christian Discourses (translated by Howard and Edna Hong, Princeton University Press, 1997), 179.
[36] McCarter, op cit, p. 301, note to II Samuel 12: 15-23.
[37] Cf. Psalm 51.
[38] Moore, p. 40.
[39] Nathan having had to bear the bad news to David that because of his sins with Bathsheba and Uriah, the firstborn child of his union with Bathsheba “will die.” 2 Samuel 12:14.
[40] 1 Kings 1:11.
[41] David M. Howard, Jr., An Introduction to the Old Testament Historical Books (Moody Press, Chicago, 1993),164.
[42] Atonement does not relieve us of travails. A sword remains in David’s house as a consequence of the sin: his son Amnon commits incest, and his son Absalom murders Amnon.
[43] Hamlet’s last words, Act V, Scene 2.
[44] Elizar, p. 148.
[45] 2 Samuel 10:6-19.
[46] When the LORD first spoke through Hosea, the LORD said to Hosea, "Go, take to yourself a wife of harlotry, and {have} children of harlotry; for the land commits flagrant harlotry, forsaking the LORD." So he went and took Gomer the daughter of Diblaim, and she conceived and bore him a son. And the LORD said to him, "Name him Jezreel; for yet a little while, and I will punish the house of Jehu for the bloodshed of Jezreel, and I will put an end to the kingdom of the house of Israel. Hosea 1:2-4 (NAS)
[47] Douglas Stuart, Word Biblical Commentary, Vol. 31 (Word Books, 1987), p.54.
[48] Joel 2:28.
[49] Amos 6:5.
[50] Amos 7:10-17.
[51] See Jonah 4:4.
[52] Micah 3:11.
[53] Nahum 3:8.
[54] Habakkuk 2:9.
[55] Habakkuk 3:17-19.
[56] Zephaniah 3:4.
[57] Zechariah 2:3.
[58] Zechariah 12:7-10.
[59] Zechariah 13:1.
[60] Ralph L. Smith, Word Biblical Commentary, Vol.32 (Word Books, 1984), 176.
[61] In Gibeon the LORD appeared to Solomon in a dream at night; and God said, "Ask what {you wish} me to give you."Then Solomon said, "Thou hast shown great lovingkindness to Thy servant David my father, according as he walked before Thee in truth and righteousness and uprightness of heart toward Thee; and Thou hast reserved for him this great lovingkindness, that Thou hast given him a son to sit on his throne, as {it is} this day. IKings 3:5-6(NAS)
[62] 1 Kings 3:10.
[63] James E. Smith, The Books of History, College Publishing Company,
[64] See also 1 Kings 8:17, where the Lord praised David for having it in his heart to build a temple, though the temple would later be built by Solomon.
[65] By way of anecdotal evidence, a search of Amazon.com on April 20, 2000 for books about “Hamlet” shows 629 publications.
[66] Harold Bloom, Shakespeare, The Invention of the Human (Riverhead Books, New York, 1998).
[67] Ibid, p. 384
[68] Ibid., p. 390
[69] After David’s great sins with Bathsheba and Uriah (chap. 11), his first son by Bathsheba died (chap. 12); another son, Amnon, raped David’s daughter Tamar (chap. 13); yet another son, Absalom, killed Amnon (chap. 13); Absalom attempted a coup against his father (Chaps. 15-18); another son, Adonijah, seized the kingship from his brother Solomon (1 Kings 1).
[70] Hamlet by the Ghost of his Father, David by the consultation of Saul with the Medium of Endor.
[71] Hamlet before Claudius, David before Achish, the Philistine King.
[72] Frontain and Wojcik, The David Myth in Western Literature (Purdue University Press, 1980), 70-83, esp. p. 71.
[73] Elazar,169.