Bible stories a la Squeech

[Squeech]

The early history of the people of Israel, as recounted in the Bible, goes something like this: once Joshua had led them into Canaan and to victory over the previous inhabitants, the 12 tribes set up agrarian communities presided over by wise men (and, notably, a few women) who won renown as judges. Then, after a time (and admittedly the beginning of war with the Philistines), the people began to clamor for a king. Samuel, as holy and insightful a prophet as there was in the Bible, told them they were making a humongous mistake, but the Israelites wanted to be known as a modern nation state, and to them, that meant a king.

Samuel anointed Saul, who was a decent general but an administrative disaster, and then found David, who was a major hero. David begat Solomon, who inherited the throne and built the Temple (interestingly, Jehovah didn't allow David to build the Temple, and I was taught that this was because he'd shed blood in war). And then there was a succession crisis, the dynasty splintered, and Israel soon crumbled.

Now the way I was taught, this was a clear indication on the part of Jehovah that an administration based on justice was clearly superior to one based on "divine right of kings." Was anybody else brought up in this sort of tradition?

Now of course the wingers want to squelch our judges in favor of the divinely ordained principles of Bushlandia. Not for the first time, I wonder whether they're reading the same Bible I am.

(Also, I must admit, I wonder if the Judges' government would ever have had the resources, or the divine authority, to build the Temple.)

[stellanoir]

1. well

"because he'd shed blood in war). And then there was a succession crisis, the dynasty splintered, and Israel soon crumbled."

I thought it was because he lusted for Bathsheba when a bird knocked over her screen when she was bathing. But what the heck do I know???

All seems kind of trivial to me.

good shabbos

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

3. I thought it was because

he intentionally put Bathsheba's husband at the front of the battle so he would be killed.....this was the blood he shed. Was that right?

Shalom

[Squeech]

5. No, even before

There were some battles against forces loyal to Saul, before he could safely be crowned.

Although to be consistent, any use of arms in battle should be grounds for non-Templeworthiness, even heroic fights like the bout with Goliath.

And I wonder how this reconciles with the injunction to stomp Amalek off the face of the earth...

[Squeech]

4. Thanks

The way I remember it, there was a specific punishment for his dalliance with Bathsheba (really his incidental murder of her rightful husband)-- they couldn't have any children. (Maybe there was something grislier, like they had one kid who died in the crib.)

Though how could there be anything more trivial than taking one verse out of Leviticus and using it as a club against 10% of the population, all while eating shellfish (forbidden by another trivial verse two chapters further down)?

Have a productive and fun time in New Haven!

[Kat45]

7. I believe the punishment was that their first baby died

I think they had children later. I don't believe the murder of her husband was incidental, either. He deliberately sent him out to the front lines in a battle he was unlikely to come back from so that he could have Bathsheba. And God didn't like that.

[Squeech]

9. Correct

I meant "incidental" in the sense that, while his real purpose was just to sleep with Bathsheba, he had to have Uriah die to make it happen. And yeah, that was the real crime.

His first wife was Saul's daughter, who got really peeved at him when he broke with Saul, even though he was careful not to take up arms against Saul personally (just after his death, when he had to settle with some of those dead-enders from the old regime).

But, as was the case among crowned heads in those days, he had quite the harem. Solomon wasn't certain to accede to the throne, despite being David's favorite; he had to survive some serious conspiracies amongst his various half-siblings first (and arguably was lucky he didn't have to kill anybody and thereby win the right to build the temple).

[Redbear]

2. I agree.

The way I learned it, God continually resisted the Israelites having a king, but they persisted and he finally agreed.

It went badly. God's point was made. Those who believe in a king above have no need for an earthly king and it can only bring calamity.

[Squeech]

6. Exactly

So God appears to favor an administration of judges. And now the wingers are trying to drum judges out of power.

Am I missing something, or are they?

[Joe Chi Minh]

8. There are strange ambiguities and contradictions, though.

God did warn them, I believe, that if the Jewish people persisted with their wish to have a king, he would put upon them no end, pressing their sons into forced labour for his personal benefit. But after God had finally acceded to their wishes, David vehemently reiterated that, under no circumstances, would he raise his hand against the Lord's Anointed; this, even though Saul actively sought his life, and on occasions, David had him at his complete mercy.

As regards God telling David he was passing him over in favour of Solomon, as the builder of a temple for him, because he had shed much blood over the earth, he spoke kindly to him about how he had been content to live in a tent al the time he had been with him (David), and had never asked David for more sumptuous or dignified quarters.

And there certainly seems to be some ambiguity about it too, insofar as most of the blood of Israel's enemies that David, as the C-in-C of the armed forces, had been responsible for shedding, would have been at the behest of God. So, to our eyes, at least, that might have been a little easier to understand, if he had cited David's murder of Uriah, Bathsheba's husband.

It is also interesting to note that Solomon was the second child born of Bathseba, and not of any of David's kind of pristine, uncompromised unions with his other wives or concubines; which calls to mind Paul's precept, that everything works together for good to them that love God. However, his forgiveness by God should be seen in the context of David's life of extraordinary magnanimity. "Love covers many sins".

In fact, as befits a mortal man whose patronymic the living God chose for his own, David was honoured with the unimaginably sovereign compliment, i.e that he had carried out his whole purpose. And then surely the ultimate tribute that the all-powerful eternal God could pay to mortal creature of his: "In my eyes, your throne is like the sun; like the moon it will endure forever".

Just as their counterparts in society at large, unwittingly blaspheme in the depths of their spiritual darkness, it has not infrequently happened that crass wordlings, in the guise of some of the most distinguished scripture-scholar priests, have displayed their spiritual ignorance by having the blasphemous temerity to write David off in encycopaedias of the Bible as, to quote one, now I believe deceased, "little better than a bandit!!! Little wonder then that Pope John Paul II deplored and warned against such clerical scolars taking their vocation simply as an alternative to the pursuit of a worldy career.

The thing is, of course, that it was in obedience to God, himself that David lived the life of an outlaw for so long - when, indeed, he might have killed Saul and taken his throne there and then. After all, he had been anointed for that very purpose by Samuel.

From the earliest times, eminent Christian scholar saints have rightly, of course, lauded David for what he was: one of the ultimate "big shots" of all time, in the history of Israel, in God's own eyes. As a lad, he had been a shepherd, who had fought and killed bears and lions, on at least one occasion, with his bare hands; he was a field marshall who had fought as a "grunt" at the sharp end, in a succession of fierce battles, eventually becoming an administrator and king; and elsewhere. It is stated by a sacred writer, that, I think in one of the psalms, it is written that David rose seven times during the night to pray. He was also, of course, a musician and a sublime writer of psalms - the ultimate prayers-cum-poems.

It is also noteworthy that the propensity for mindless violence of the sons of his sister, Sarvia - I think Joab was one of them - appalled him.

Solomon eventually displeased God by following foreign women, who led him into idolatry, although his throne would be secure, as long as he lived. When David was an old man, he was given Abishag the Sunamite as a bed fellow, to keep him warm, but didn't mate with her, and I suspect it was at least partly because he didn't want to spoil her future as some presumably lucky young man's wife. One can only speculate, but I wonder if Solomon would have abstained in his place.

[Squeech]

10. Thanks

I am indebted to you for this in-depth analysis.

I am also reminded of one other great favor God did for David: he told David on what day of the week he would die, and that it would be the Sabbath. David used this information to prolong his own life, by praying around the clock every Sabbath, because the angel of death, melech hamovis, was supposed to have been enjoined from snuffing anyone in the act of prayer. So he had to work out a subterfuge where David tripped over something in his path, lost his train of thought, and was struck with his fatal illness. (At least that's how I learned it as a kid.)

Of course the other way to look at it is, David didn't screw Abishag because he was already senile by then-- his eye had dimmed, and his natural force abated.

[Joe Chi Minh]

11. My pleasure, Squeech,

but I'm indebted to you for your fable/anecdote about David. It seems delightfully wry and droll, in that characteristically Jewish way. Not that I think David would really have been reluctant to meet his Maker at that age. Far lesser mortals are ready to leave this life in hope and confidence when they do breathe their last, aren't they?

But as for your second point, personally, if it was serious, I can't buy it - though I'd have to say I'm prejudiced. There is no mention in scripture, to my knowledge - such as it is - of David ever becoming senile.

But sure, age, itself, in conjunction with the enhanced spiritual state, which, by God's grace, he would have achieved over the years, would have made it a lot easier. In his younger days, she would presumably have become another of his wives or concubines.