• Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.

Meat David and Michal

  • Thread starter Thread starter Cap
  • Start date Start date
There is certainly a degree of tension between the statement about David's near-sinlessness and Romans' statement that all are sinners. How do each of you reconcile this @Philip and @frederick?

Personally, I think both need some qualification in order to be plausibly understood.

I find it very difficult to imagine that David never sinned ever his entire life other than with Bathsheba. Undoubtedly he was a very, very good man, or we would not have such a statement about him. Yet it seems very difficult to imagine that he would have never stolen something small, or falsely accused his brother to their mother after a childhood squabble. I tend to read this as saying that David didn't sin in any major way except regarding Bathsheba.

Likewise, Romans 3 states "there is none that seeketh after God" - but we know there are people who seek after God. There are even many people who do not follow Him yet, who earnestly seek Him and eventually find Him. So I think that passage in Romans needs to be interpreted as hyperbole. The point being that the natural tendency of all mankind is to reject God and sin, and every individual will do this at some point, notwithstanding the fact that a few will seek Him and strive to not sin.

The truth must lie somewhere in between the plain language of these two opposing proof-texts.
 
Cap said:
Just to touch on a couple, Michal was in danger after David left and she had to hide David's departure and hoped it would work out.
Click to expand...
Another point on this is that it is easy to over-critique something in hindsight. Michal was certainly going to be in danger had she fled with David (because he was being chased by men trying to kill him). As you have said, it is also possible she was in danger when she stayed - although I think that is less clear it is possible. Assuming there was danger both staying and leaving, David had to make a choice as to whether it would be safer to leave her or take her.

Even if he made the wrong choice, that would just be a mistake. It would not be sinful. Just an error in judgement because he did not have access to all the facts (he did not know where he was going or how long he would be gone or what would happen while he was there, nor did he know what would happen to Michal if he left her with her father). I don't see much benefit in probing this line of critique very far especially when we have so little information about the dangers David perceived in both options at that moment in time.
 
FollowingHim said:
There is certainly a degree of tension between the statement about David's near-sinlessness and Romans' statement that all are sinners. How do each of you reconcile this @Philip and @frederick?

Personally, I think both need some qualification in order to be plausibly understood.

I find it very difficult to imagine that David never sinned ever his entire life other than with Bathsheba. Undoubtedly he was a very, very good man, or we would not have such a statement about him. Yet it seems very difficult to imagine that he would have never stolen something small, or falsely accused his brother to their mother after a childhood squabble. I tend to read this as saying that David didn't sin in any major way except regarding Bathsheba.

Likewise, Romans 3 states "there is none that seeketh after God" - but we know there are people who seek after God. There are even many people who do not follow Him yet, who earnestly seek Him and eventually find Him. So I think that passage in Romans needs to be interpreted as hyperbole. The point being that the natural tendency of all mankind is to reject God and sin, and every individual will do this at some point, notwithstanding the fact that a few will seek Him and strive to not sin.

The truth must lie somewhere in between the plain language of these two opposing proof-texts.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the comment. I would suggest you have a careful read of Ephesians 2:1-7 because it is a statement concerning who believers were before God saved them. Jesus said no one comes to Him unless they are drawn by the Father (John 6:44, 65) so, if they are coming to Christ it's because the Father is drawing them closer.
 
1 Samuel 19:12 (KJV)
So Michal let David down through a window: and he went, and fled, and escaped.

Maybe David could not have taken her with him if he needed her to let him down.
Also, a daughter of the king living a life on the run? Hiding in caves, etc? She would have endangered both of them.
Her father obviously loved her, she was in far less danger facing him than running. I’m sure that being given to another man wasn’t any fun, but it wasn’t the worst that could have happened.
 
Julia Mykaele said:
Michal and Paltiel's relationship was not adultery. It is said that Paltiel was her husband.

2 Samuel 3:15
Click to expand...
It says that Paltiel was her man. This has been translated "husband" in most Bibles, but don't read too much into that English translation and assume it is a justification of the relationship. The original word is simply "man".
 
I am put in mind of the story of Abishag.
When Adonijah, the new King Solomon’s brother, asked Bathsheba to get her for him, the King has him put to death.

It really seems possible that the perception of authority was connected to each of those girls.
David had to take authority over the woman that King Saul had given him, or his own authority would be diminished in his kingdom.
Adonijah wanted the virgin Abishag, who had been given to King David, in order to usurp some of King Solomon’s authority. Notice that the King’s first response to his mother after she makes the request is basically “Why ask this, why not ask for the kingdom also?”

Also remember King David’s son, Absalom, taking his father’s concubines in the sight of all Israel during the time that he was attempting to take the kingdom from his father.

I have the feeling that there is more to learn when it comes to the subject of authority and wives.
 
A thought about the Adonijah/Abishag story.
When his mother asked the King for “one small petition”, he responded “Ask on, my mother: for I will not say thee nay.”
Denying the petition would make a liar out of him, but by putting Adonijah to death, the petition was no longer grantable.

(Yes, it’s a word. I looked it up)
 
frederick said:
Romans 3:3-18 says What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin;
As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:
There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.
They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.
Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips:
Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness:
Their feet are swift to shed blood:
Destruction and misery are in their ways:
And the way of peace have they not known:
There is no fear of God before their eyes.
Click to expand...
Paul never invents new scripture, he just quotes it. In this case, he is quoting Psalm 5 and Psalm 14 and Psalm 53
But, he is taking out of context, combining different contexts, and paraphrasing. In context, the "fool" and the "deceitful" are being described, and the Psalmist (David?) is contrasting himself from them. So in the original context we see that David (and others) are not a fit for the descriptions Paul quotes.
Did Paul know this? Was he twisting scripture? Not exactly. He simply made a point, and used some scripture to back it up that was not a perfect fit for what he was saying. We all do this a bit. Paul was only human. I don't think he intended for us to assume that he was completely overriding the context of the quoted scriptures. (the anti-Paul camp may disagree)
These statements are NOT to be applied to every human who ever lived. It would contradict too much other scripture (and my own personal experience, as I for one was never swift to shed blood, and was seeking Him my whole live).
 
FollowingHim said:
There is certainly a degree of tension between the statement about David's near-sinlessness and Romans' statement that all are sinners. How do each of you reconcile this @Philip and @frederick?

Personally, I think both need some qualification in order to be plausibly understood.

I find it very difficult to imagine that David never sinned ever his entire life other than with Bathsheba. Undoubtedly he was a very, very good man, or we would not have such a statement about him. Yet it seems very difficult to imagine that he would have never stolen something small, or falsely accused his brother to their mother after a childhood squabble. I tend to read this as saying that David didn't sin in any major way except regarding Bathsheba.

Likewise, Romans 3 states "there is none that seeketh after God" - but we know there are people who seek after God. There are even many people who do not follow Him yet, who earnestly seek Him and eventually find Him. So I think that passage in Romans needs to be interpreted as hyperbole. The point being that the natural tendency of all mankind is to reject God and sin, and every individual will do this at some point, notwithstanding the fact that a few will seek Him and strive to not sin.

The truth must lie somewhere in between the plain language of these two opposing proof-texts.
Click to expand...
I would agree that very minor offenses can be overlooked when scripture affirms someone was perfect, especially considering that those offenses could be covered by an animal sacrifice.
 
Philip said:
Paul never invents new scripture, he just quotes it. In this case, he is quoting Psalm 5 and Psalm 14 and Psalm 53
But, he is taking out of context, combining different contexts, and paraphrasing.
Click to expand...
Thanks for your comments @Philip. We are told by Paul himself in 2 Timothy 3:16 that all scripture is God breathed; it is given by divine inspiration. Paul attaches his name to 13 epistles, all of which contain new divine revelation. Although Paul is the one who writes, God is always the Author so Paul never misquotes or quotes scripture out of context. That would be something that is impossible for the Author of "all scripture" to do. What Paul wrote in Romans 3 (quoted above) is absolutely consistent with the rest of Scripture; see above where I suggested one read carefully through e.g. Ephesians 2:1-7 - which is from another of the epistles Paul wrote. But what about those who are saved? Do those whom God has saved still sin on occasion? Certainly they do! In his First Epistle, John writes to those who are saved saying; If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us (1 John 1:8-10). The confession of sin is a proof of genuine salvation. Shalom
 
FollowingHim said:
She was David's wife, and he never divorced her. Therefore, even though she had been forcibly given to someone else, that entire relationship was actually adultery and not a valid marriage. Saul had no authority to marry her to someone else without David first releasing her, which he did not.

Therefore he was completely entitled to take back his adulterous wife.

Obviously, the man she had been given to did love her, and may have genuinely believed the marriage was legitimate. He may have been a completely unwitting victim of Saul's schemes - Saul may have asserted that Michal was divorced, when she was not. Also, we have no idea what Michal thought of the whole matter - whether she wanted to be with this other man and was a willing adulterer, or whether she was forced and was a victim herself. Much of the detail and emotional side is in the realm of speculation.

But I think David had a very clear legal right to take her back, since he had never divorced her in the first place.
Click to expand...

This is exactly correct.
 
Philip said:
If he did divorce her, can we assume her new husband died? Or is it clearly stated that he was still alive when David took her back?
Click to expand...

It does not matter. Even if the second man died the first man cannot take her back according to the Torah.
 
frederick said:
Thanks for your comments @Philip. We are told by Paul himself in 2 Timothy 3:16 that all scripture is God breathed; it is given by divine inspiration. Paul attaches his name to 13 epistles, all of which contain new divine revelation. Although Paul is the one who writes, God is always the Author so Paul never misquotes or quotes scripture out of context. That would be something that is impossible for the Author of "all scripture" to do. What Paul wrote in Romans 3 (quoted above) is absolutely consistent with the rest of Scripture; see above where I suggested one read carefully through e.g. Ephesians 2:1-7 - which is from another of the epistles Paul wrote. But what about those who are saved? Do those whom God has saved still sin on occasion? Certainly they do! In his First Epistle, John writes to those who are saved saying; If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us (1 John 1:8-10). The confession of sin is a proof of genuine salvation. Shalom
Click to expand...
Paul usually quotes scripture, and explains it. There are a few cases where he claims to be speaking from the Spirit, and a few cases where he claims to be speaking from himself. The fact that he points out these exceptions, make them exceptions.
Ephesians was written to the Ephesians, not to Zechariah and Elizabeth (Luke 1:5-6)
John on the other hand is writing to everyone.
I do believe they are both correct in as far as no one but Yeshua lived absolutely perfect. I did mention already that I believe you can have some minor offenses and still be labeled righteous in scripture.
But another aspect is "group sin" and "family sin". We see in scripture that we need to repent on behalf of our nation and on behalf of our forefathers, not just for ourselves. This may be an important element of a virgin birth.
 
Philip said:
There are a few cases where he claims to be speaking from the Spirit, and a few cases where he claims to be speaking from himself. The fact that he points out these exceptions, make them exceptions.
Click to expand...
And yet, ALL Scripture is θεόπνευστος; i.e. literally, God breathed. If you claim that Paul, or any other penman wrote what he thought or believed and it is not God breathed, you open the door for error and the doctrine of the inerrancy of Scripture is gone. Once you open that door, you can't close it because it ultimately just comes down to personal preference.

There is something else that we must keep in mind and that is; all sin is sin, and the wages of sin is death. Adam and Eve only ate a little bit of fruit they were told not to eat. If your kids ate a piece of cake after being told not to eat it, I'm guessing it wouldn't be a life and death issue to you. Ananias and Sapphira only kept back a little of their promised offering. If someone kept back a little of their offering in the church they were part of, no church I know of would make it a life and death issue. But God makes all sin a life and death issue, and that's why Jesus died, was buried, and rose again on the third day in fulfillment of the Scriptures. The wages of sin is death, unless of course you believe that is only Paul "speaking from himself." Shalom
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top