Showing posts with label 1 Samuel. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 1 Samuel. Show all posts

Thursday, June 18, 2026

Inspiration and Incarnation: Other Ancient Near East Literature

By User:Daderot - File:Tablet in Akkadian language recording court proceedings with seal impressed envelope, Yorgan Tepe, Kingdom of Mittani, 1450-1350 BC, clay - Oriental Institute Museum, University of Chicago - DSC07088.JPG, CC0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=115709323 / Image source.

I've been reading Peter Enns's book, "Inspiration and Incarnation," which is about how the bible was written in the context of ancient Near East culture, and truly fits into that world, and Christians should not view this as a problem, as if it means the bible is not the word of God. Instead, we should view it as God speaking to people in their own culture, in ways they could understand.

In this post, I'll talk about chapter 2, "The Old Testament and Ancient Near Eastern Literature." 

This chapter goes through a bunch of examples of archeological discoveries from ancient Near Eastern cultures similar to ancient Israel. We see that these texts that were discovered are very similar to passages from the bible- so, what does that mean? How should we view those similarities? 

This chapter brings up a lot of really fascinating ancient Near East texts that I had never heard of. I can't fit them all in this blog post, so if you're interested in this topic, you should just go buy the book.

Remember when I said that I don't necessarily care what the bible originally meant in its ancient context? Okay I was wrong, I do care. All the examples from this chapter were incredibly fascinating.

The texts are grouped into 3 categories:

---

"Group 1-- Creation and the Flood: Is Genesis Myth or History?"

Wednesday, February 11, 2026

"The Kingdom of Children" (a book about child liberation theology)

Book cover for "The Kingdom of Children"

I've been reading The Kingdom of Children: A Liberation Theology by R. L. Stollar. This book is great; I'm so excited about it. 

I haven't read the whole thing yet, but I want to write down some of my thoughts about what I've read so far. And there will be more blog posts about this book, so stay tuned for that.

Thursday, March 13, 2025

David and Jonathan's (One-Sided) Friendship

Artwork showing Jonathan giving David a sword. Image source.

I've been reading this really amazing book, "Text, Image, & Otherness in Children's Bibles," which is a collection of academic papers which discuss children's bibles. One of the papers is called "No Greater Love: Jonathan and His Friendship with David in Text, Tradition, and Contemporary Children's Literature," by Cynthia M. Rogers and Danna Nolan Fewell. This paper makes a lot of excellent points, so let's talk about it.

First of all, if you're not familiar with the story of David and Jonathan, here's an overview (this is from the book of 1 Samuel in the bible): This is about David, as in King David, widely seen as the best king in the bible, and a role model of how to devote your life to God. David as in David and Goliath. We meet David when the prophet Samuel is sent by God to anoint David and proclaim that he will be the next king. At that time, though, David was a nobody, and Saul was the king. Saul had a son named Jonathan. David gets noticed by Saul- David kills Goliath, David plays music for Saul, David is a leader in the army, David marries Saul's daughter Michal. And Jonathan becomes best friends with David. Jonathan gives him a bunch of gifts. Later, when Saul wants to kill David, Jonathan takes David's side and helps him escape. Then David is on the run for a while, and we don't hear much about Jonathan, and eventually Saul and Jonathan are both killed in battle, and David becomes the next king.

(Some people say that David and Jonathan were a gay couple. I personally don't believe that, but I'm glad there are queer Christians exploring that interpretation. I mean, how could there not be, when 2 Samuel 1:26 says, "Your love for me was wonderful, more wonderful than that of women"? The fanfiction practically writes itself.)

The story of David and Jonathan is one of those bible stories that you commonly see in children's bibles, and it's framed as a nice moral lesson to teach kids about friendship. Be a good friend, like Jonathan. Jonathan was a role model of friendship. That's what we teach little kids about Jonathan.

The "No Greater Love" chapter by Rogers and Fewell makes the point that Jonathan is often treated as a side character, while David is the main character of the story. Jonathan is seen as significant only because of his connection to David and to Saul- he is caught in the middle- but what about Jonathan as a person himself, outside of his friendship with David? I like how this paper examines 1 Samuel 13-14, which contains a story about Saul and Jonathan but not David. Check out this quote (p 141):

But despite the narrator's valiant efforts to push David into the spotlight, Jonathan's exploits in 1 Sam 13-14 challenge the centripetal force of David's personality. Jonathan is the protagonist for a day. Time slows to accommodate his feats and to allow an unobstructed view of the ways in which he relates to political oppressors, to fellow soldiers, to his father, and to God. This brief portrait presents a young leader who fights oppressors because they are oppressors, who (unlike David) doesn't calculate personal gain (cf. 17:24-27, 30), who (unlike David or Saul) doesn't ask his troops to do anything he's not willing to do himself (cf. 22:17-19; 2 Sam 11), who (unlike David or Saul) has earned and can rely upon the support and protection of his followers (cf. 1 Sam 22:7-8; 23:12; 2 Sam 15-17). He is a son whose loyalty to his father also accommodates correction, critique, and confrontation; he is a religious person who values, but does not bank on, divine favor and who, moreover, is not paralyzed by divine silence. The stubborn memory of his heroism casts a critical shadow over David's character and reign, suggesting an ancient community politically divided and theologically mixed.

Love this! Love to see Jonathan as more than just a role model of friendship. More than just a side character to David, the main character.

This chapter of "Text, Image, & Otherness" talks about how maybe Jonathan and David didn't really have a healthy friendship. Yeah, wait a second, in all the children's bible stories that feature Jonathan and David, the story is all about what Jonathan did for David, and nothing about what David did for Jonathan. Well, that's why those children's bibles say that Jonathan is the role model of friendship, and they don't say David is. But, uh, maybe you shouldn't give so much to a friend who doesn't give back? Maybe that could be an important lesson to teach kids too?

Also, there are political dimensions to this, obviously. There was a prophecy that David would be the next king, meanwhile Jonathan here is King Saul's oldest son- typically you would expect that Jonathan would be the next king. I don't remember any children's books I've read that mentioned this. Later, when I got older, I came across the idea that, hey wouldn't Jonathan have expected he would be the next king, and he was giving that up for David? I realized that Jonathan's devotion to David was more of a big deal than I had thought. But, still, I didn't really think Jonathan was "giving up" his chance to be king. God had already said David would be the next king, so there was never any possibility that Jonathan could be king. Right? I mean obviously we all believe God's promises come true, right? Jonathan would have believed that too, right? So Jonathan knew it was a foregone conclusion that David would be king and he himself would not, right? I mean, I was kinda naive back then.

Here, look at this quote from p 135:

Cartoonlike characters have become popular in Bibles and Bible stories developed for very young children. The Beginner's Bible: Timeless Bible Stories strives to be age-friendly with colorful drawings of Jonathan and David (Henley 1993-2005, 188). By 2005 gender inclusiveness dictates that Michal also join the childhood chums (182; fig. 6.5). In this cartoon world, friendship simply happens, enhanced by goodwill and generosity. The relational triad of Michal, Jonathan, and David is devoid of any dynamics that smack of personal or political advancement on the part of David, or personal or political naïveté on the parts of Michal and Jonathan. The little girl Michal never grows up to become David's angry and abandoned wife, and young Jonathan's highly suggestive gifts of armor and clothing are nothing more than thoughtful tokens upon which the friendship is built.

The Read and Learn Bible (American Bible Society 2005) also uses cartoon illustrations to target children ages five to eight. Its chapter from 1 Sam 18-19, entitled "David's Friend," describes Jonathan's role in protecting David, but it keeps central David's character, safety, and reputation. David's social prominence is explained by the comment "God was with David," which may suggest to young readers that popularity is a sign of God's favor, and doing whatever is necessary to befriend the popular is a service to God. Missing is any emphasis on the mutuality and give-and-take of friendship. Rather, the lesson appears to be an endorsement of unidirectional care while questions of reciprocal responsibility, interpersonal relations, complicating circumstances are left unexplored. In a similar vein, The Adventure Bible (Richards) includes an application box entitled "Let's Live It!": "SHOWING FRIENDSHIP: Read about the friendship of David and Jonathan in 1 Samuel 20:1-42. After reading the story, name three ways that Jonathan showed his friendship with David. Name three ways you can be a friend to someone" (1984, 335).

And I also love this quote from p 137-138:

If the Jonathan and David story is to serve as the model lesson on friendship, we must ask how children's biblical literature constructs both the biblical text and biblical messages about friendship. In a world of peer pressure, bullies, queen bees, wannabees, cliques, clubs, and gangs of all types, what do these renditions of the Jonathan and David story communicate? Are there no limits to loyalty in friendship? Is unquestioning trust always a good thing? Are some friends more deserving of devotion than others? Is popularity a sign of divine favor? Is it appropriate to ignore familial responsibilities, to repress one's own interests and talents, to sacrifice one's physical wellbeing or one's own future for the sake of a friend? Should an attachment to someone else be an individual's defining identity marker? Is true friendship possible only with those who share our theological, political, and social views?

We would be the last to suggest that teaching children to value friendship and to act in friendly ways is misguided. Moreover, as educators, we understand the importance of pitching biblical study at developmentally appropriate levels. Nevertheless, we wonder if this tendency to reduce both the biblical text and the notion of friendship underestimates the moral, social, and political challenges that even young children face (see Coles 1997; Davis 2001; Parker 2003, 2006) and inhibits more mature ways of reading the Bible once they become older. Both verbal ideas and visual images can leave firm imprints in early childhood that are often difficult to augment or change as children become able to handle more complex ideas (Stein 2009).

Yes, this is absolutely right. Children's experiences of navigating friendships are much more complicated than "Jonathan was a good friend because he gave David his robe and his sword; be like Jonathan." Let's not treat children like they're incapable of understanding that friendship is not that simple. And that sometimes people act like they're your friends, but they are using or manipulating you- was David using and manipulating Jonathan?

The thing is... as a child I was presented with this framework where each bible story has a nice moral lesson to teach us- and then when I grew up, I continued to view the bible with that framework. I "knew" that the story of David and Jonathan was a lesson about friendship- children's bibles present only the very basic broad strokes of it, and as an adult you learn more of the details and nuances, but still it's a lesson about friendship. Right? Occasionally someone tells me I shouldn't criticize children's bibles for being oversimplified, because we need to simplify stories for children, but that's not my actual issue- my issue is, do we expect children to eventually grow up and wonder "did David take advantage of Jonathan?" Which is a question you should ask, as an adult reading this story. But to get there, children have to rebel against the interpretation they've heard all their lives. It's not a matter of learning a simplified version, and then later finding out the actual story is more complicated than what you would have been able to understand as a child. We're actually teaching kids something that is not right. The story is NOT a nice model of friendship. That's not what it is. We just pretend it is, because we think the point of bible stories is to teach kids moral lessons. But that's not what the bible is.

When I was evangelical, I really believed that every bible passage has something to teach me, that I can apply to my life. Even the boring passages, like the detailed instructions about how to burn offerings- those passages teach us that God pays attention to details, and it's very important to get those things right, and we should follow God's rules exactly. Yes, really, I really thought every passage had a lesson I could apply to my life. Why did I think that? ... Well, that's a very evangelical belief. We believed that the bible isn't like other pieces of writing. The bible is living and active. The words of the bible are powerful, God-breathed. The word of God does not return void

We believed we should sit down every day and read the bible, and those few minutes of reading and praying would make us into better people, make us closer to God, simply because it was exposure to the spiritual power of the bible. (With some caveats like "it won't work if you have the wrong attitude" etc.)

I no longer believe each bible passage has an explicit lesson to teach us. I think we can learn the bible and experience the bible; we can find concepts that have always been true of human nature- good ones like friendship, but also bad ones like politically-motivated manipulation. It's not about "this is what you should do" or "this is what you should not do"... it's living and active. We bring our own experiences and our own cultural ideas to the bible, and we see the characters and stories through those lenses, and find things that are meaningful to us. And so we can't say the conclusions we draw are automatically true since they come from the bible, like evangelicals believe. It's not about "believing the bible" or not "believing the bible", it's not about winning arguments- it's about making it into something meaningful for you.

So I'm glad Rogers and Fewell are pointing out that maybe David and Jonathan's friendship wasn't good for Jonathan. Pointing out all the questions we should be asking when we read this story- was Jonathan too naive? did David use him? should Jonathan have fought for his own claim to the throne? It's not as simple as "Jonathan is a role model of friendship." And children's actual real-world experiences with friendship aren't that simple either.

---

Posts about "Text, Image, & Otherness in Children's Bibles":

"Text, Image, & Otherness in Children's Bibles" (I LOVE THIS BOOK SO MUCH)
David and Jonathan's (One-Sided) Friendship
Who Cut Samson's Hair? (a post about reading the bible for what it is)
The way we write children's bibles is "an act of bad faith"
Children's Bibles and the 2 Creation Stories
Children's Bibles and "presenting mass slaughter to children" 
Children's Bibles and "turning ambiguity into clear articulations"
Children's Bibles and the Victims of the Flood 
The Problem of Equating the Bible's God with a Real God

---

Related:

Michal wasn't here for David's worship, and now neither am I

Why did I think David was the good guy in the story of Abigail?

Bathsheba's Son

Saturday, December 21, 2024

Why did I think David was the good guy in the story of Abigail?

Abigail kneels down before David. Image source.

I've been reading Wilda Gafney's book, "Womanist Midrash," which is a womanist perspective on the bible. ("Womanism" means feminism from a black perspective.) I was really interested in her take on the story of David and Abigail, so let's talk about that.

This bible story in found in 1 Samuel 25. Let me summarize: This is before David became king. Saul is still the king, but there is a prophecy that David will be king eventually, so he is on the run from Saul. David and his men send a message to Nabal, a wealthy man, asking for him to give them some food. The message says that David's men had previously helped Nabal's shepherds and servants.

Nabal replies that he doesn't know who David is, and he's not going to give him anything.

In response to this, David is mad. He tells his men to get their swords, and they're going to go and kill every man in the house of Nabal. 

Nabal's wife Abigail hears about this. She gets a whole bunch of food ready, and comes out to meet David as he is on his way to attack Nabal's household. Here's what she does:

When Abigail saw David, she quickly got off her donkey and bowed down before David with her face to the ground. She fell at his feet and said: “Pardon your servant, my lord, and let me speak to you; hear what your servant has to say. Please pay no attention, my lord, to that wicked man Nabal. He is just like his name—his name means Fool, and folly goes with him. And as for me, your servant, I did not see the men my lord sent. And now, my lord, as surely as the Lord your God lives and as you live, since the Lord has kept you from bloodshed and from avenging yourself with your own hands, may your enemies and all who are intent on harming my lord be like Nabal. And let this gift, which your servant has brought to my lord, be given to the men who follow you.

“Please forgive your servant’s presumption. The Lord your God will certainly make a lasting dynasty for my lord, because you fight the Lord’s battles, and no wrongdoing will be found in you as long as you live. Even though someone is pursuing you to take your life, the life of my lord will be bound securely in the bundle of the living by the Lord your God, but the lives of your enemies he will hurl away as from the pocket of a sling. When the Lord has fulfilled for my lord every good thing he promised concerning him and has appointed him ruler over Israel, my lord will not have on his conscience the staggering burden of needless bloodshed or of having avenged himself. And when the Lord your God has brought my lord success, remember your servant.”

It works. She's able to talk David out of killing anybody.

David said to Abigail, “Praise be to the Lord, the God of Israel, who has sent you today to meet me. May you be blessed for your good judgment and for keeping me from bloodshed this day and from avenging myself with my own hands. Otherwise, as surely as the Lord, the God of Israel, lives, who has kept me from harming you, if you had not come quickly to meet me, not one male belonging to Nabal would have been left alive by daybreak.”

Then David accepted from her hand what she had brought him and said, “Go home in peace. I have heard your words and granted your request.”

Then Abigail goes home, and Nabal is drunk, so she doesn't say anything to him right then. The next day, she tells him what happened. The bible says, "About ten days later, the Lord struck Nabal and he died."

When David hears that Nabal is dead, he sends messengers to ask Abigail to come and marry him. So she does. Also, David marries Ahinoam of Jezreel. And his first wife, Michal, was given to a new husband when David was on the run from Saul.

That's the story.

Now, this is not one of the really well-known bible stories that you always hear about in church, but it comes up if you ever do a bible study on the life of David. So I've read some Christian leaders' takes on it. Back when I was evangelical, here's how I viewed this story:

First of all, Abigail is the hero of this story. She was very wise and took action to stop David from overreacting and killing the men of Nabal's household. She was courageous, and she knew what to say to convince him. Good job. We love Abigail.

And Nabal- we don't like Nabal. He's rude to David. Abigail calls him a fool. He gets drunk and doesn't even know that Abigail is out there fixing the damage he's done and saving his life.

That's how the Christian commentaries I read long ago viewed Abigail and Nabal, and Gafney's take agrees with them. No issues there. The really striking thing is the difference in how they see David in this story.

I won't say "this is evangelicals' view on the story of David and Abigail" because this is not a well-known bible story, so most evangelicals don't have any opinion on it at all. But I remember reading a book about the life of David, back then, and reading bible commentaries. Here's what they said about David: When David announces that he's going to go and kill every man in Nabal's house, David is definitely in the wrong. Nabal was rude, and inhospitable, and that was a very serious thing in ancient near east culture- but you don't go on a murderous rampage because of that. Not cool, David. Good thing Abigail was there to talk him out of it.

All of us make bad decisions sometimes, and it's very important to have someone in your life- a trusted friend or partner, perhaps- who can call you out on it. It's so important to have someone like Abigail, who can see that you're making a bad decision, and has the courage to tell you (in a nice way) to stop. And you should have the humility to listen to them.

That's was how I viewed this story, way back then. David was in the wrong, but in the sense of "we all make bad decisions sometimes, and the lesson we learn from this story is that we should listen to wise friends who call us out on it." David is still the hero of the story- the good guy, though he clearly has flaws- and Nabal is the bad guy.

But then I read "Womanist Midrash," and I'm like, why did I think David was the good guy?

It is chilling as a modern woman to hear the beloved David of Scripture prepare to blame Abigail and God for the lethal violence he would have inflicted upon her in mere moments if she had not the God-given sense to hurry to him with gifts and obeisance. As a womanist, I am reminded of the ways in which batterers blame their victims for their assaults, sometimes invoking religious justifications. Abigail is not a romantic. The valorization of Abigail's buying her life and those of the servants and/or slaves on her husband's estate with her self-abasement and his pilfered goods overlooks her vulnerability to David. The union of Abigail and David is no more romantic than those of battered women who do and say anything to calm their abusers in the hope of preventing today's beating. Abigail's generosity and submission is a last-ditch, desperate gamble masked in charm.

!!!!

She's right.

When Abigail goes and bows down and apologizes to David and offers him a bunch of food, people's lives are in danger. I always read this story like it was about "is David going to commit a very bad sin or not" but that's not it at all. It's "there is a violent group of men coming to attack us, what can I do or say to save our lives?"

From Abigail's perspective, if her family is killed, it doesn't matter if they're killed by a "bad guy" or by a "good guy who has flaws, none of us are perfect ya know."

And Abigail's whole speech about "oh I know you're such a good guy and God has chosen you, and wouldn't it be such a shame if there was a black mark on your name for committing mass murder"- none of that is genuine. She is just saying whatever she needs to say to get him to not kill her people.

Like an abuse victim, being sweet and nice in an attempt to talk a violent man out of hurting her. Even when it works, when he calms down and says "I was wrong," that's still not a good relationship. It hasn't actually solved any problems. It just means that he won't hurt her this time.

Why did I think Nabal was the bad guy in the story, and David was the good guy? David asks Nabal for food, and Nabal says "who tf is David"- that was bad, so Nabal is a bad guy. David responds by announcing to his army, "LET'S KILL HIM," so David is... well we love David, David is a good guy, but he wasn't perfect, as you can see here.

Isn't David worse than Nabal in this story? Why did I think Nabal was the bad guy and David was the good guy? Aren't they kind of... the same?

"Womanist Midrash" says:

Abigail may have learned how to negotiate with a violent man in her own home. ...

She is clever and savvy and knows her way around a power-hungry man's ego.

The way I used to view this story is like... superhero morality. You ever watch a superhero movie, and the hero kills a bunch of the bad guy's minions without even thinking about it, and that makes him so cool and badass, and then the villain kills the hero's best friend, and the movie treats that as such a big deal? We know and understand the hero, so his actions may be wrong or violent sometimes but we still love him and see him as a good guy. And we don't care about his victims.

That's fine when it's a fictional story, but evangelicals believe that these bible stories really happened. That there really were innocent servants in Nabal's household, that David was going to kill- and don't their stories matter just as much as David's?

At the end of 1 Samuel 25, Nabal dies, and David sends messengers to ask Abigail to marry him. I always viewed this as a happy ending, like "oh it's so great that she doesn't have to be married to that jerk Nabal any more, now she can be with David, who is a good guy!" But, was David a good husband? Why do we think he would be better than Nabal? 

And did she even have a choice? David asks Nabal for free food, Nabal says no, and David's response is "LET'S KILL HIM." I wonder what would have happened if David asked Abigail to marry him and she said no.

Why did I think David was the good guy in this story? It's a result of a view of the bible which holds up certain characters as heroes, role models of faith, and we believe we should learn from their example. And we say "he wasn't perfect, he did bad things sometimes, and we should also learn from that, it shows us what not to do" but where's the compassion for his victims? It's all about what actions an individual should or shouldn't take, to be a good moral person, with very little awareness of how his actions affect other people.

I'll end by posting this tweet from 2021. (The tweet is related to the story of David and Bathsheba, which is not the one I discussed in this blog post- David rapes Bathsheba, murders her husband, and then marries her. Then the prophet Nathan comes and tells him that was wrong. The typical Christian framing of this story is "well clearly David did a bad thing, he wasn't perfect, but isn't it so wonderful that God used him anyway?")

When Abigail's servants' lives were in danger, it didn't matter if David was "a man after God's own heart." It didn't matter to Abigail, who said whatever she needed to say to talk him down. Why did I think David was any better than Nabal in this story?

---

Posts about the book "Womanist Midrash" by Wilda C. Gafney:

Womanist Midrash 
The Slavery We Ignore in the Book of Exodus 
The Second-Worst Bible Story 
Michal wasn't here for David's worship, and now neither am I
Why did I think David was the good guy in the story of Abigail?
David's Womanizing
The Bible and "Purity"

---

Related:

For Rizpah (or, a post about human sacrifice in the bible)

"Christians Aren't Perfect" When It's Convenient

Tuesday, November 19, 2024

Michal wasn't here for David's worship, and now neither am I

King David dancing before the Ark of the Covenant. Image source.

I've been reading Wilda Gafney's book "Womanist Midrash," and it's got me thinking about the story of Michal, in the bible. Let's talk about Michal.

Specifically, I want to talk about the scene where Michal judges David for how he worships God. But, "Womanist Midrash" has made me realize we can't just look at that 1 passage by itself. We need the whole history between David and Michal, the way he treated her. So here it is:

  • Michal was one of Saul's daughters. Saul was chosen by God to be the king, but later God rejected him and chose David instead. So you've got this awkward period of time where Saul is still the king, but David has God's promise that someday he'll be king, and there's conflict between Saul and David because of that.
  • Anyway, Saul sees that his daughter Michal loves David, so Saul tells David he can marry her, and the bride-price is 100 Philistine foreskins (wtf). Saul hopes that maybe David will die in battle fighting the Philistines. But David succeeds and comes back with 200 Philistine foreskins (WTF). So he and Michal are married.
  • Then Saul decides to kill David. He sends men to David's house. Michal helps David escape out of the window, and she lies to the men, saving David's life.
  • While David is on the run, he marries a few other women: Abagail and Ahinoam. Saul ends up giving Michal in marriage to another man, Paltiel.
  • Oh and at some point David married 4 additional women: Maakah, Haggith, Abital, and Eglah.
  • Years later, after Saul dies, Saul's son Ish-Bosheth becomes king. There is conflict between David's supporters and Ish-Bosheth's supporters. Finally, Abner (who was originally on Saul's side) comes to David to negotiate how to make David king. One of David's conditions is that Michal comes back to him. So, she is forcibly taken from her husband Paltiel, who follows after her, crying, until Abner tells him to give up and go home.
  • Even though David and Michal were "together" again, it seems he wasn't having sex with her, or acting like a husband at all really. We can infer this because he's having lots of babies with his other wives, but none with Michal.
  • And then, after all this, we come to the scene where Michal criticizes David for how he worships God. Now, after establishing all this history, we can talk about that.

2 Samuel 6:12-23

Now King David was told, “The Lord has blessed the household of Obed-Edom and everything he has, because of the ark of God.” So David went to bring up the ark of God from the house of Obed-Edom to the City of David with rejoicing. When those who were carrying the ark of the Lord had taken six steps, he sacrificed a bull and a fattened calf. Wearing a linen ephod, David was dancing before the Lord with all his might, while he and all Israel were bringing up the ark of the Lord with shouts and the sound of trumpets.

As the ark of the Lord was entering the City of David, Michal daughter of Saul watched from a window. And when she saw King David leaping and dancing before the Lord, she despised him in her heart.

They brought the ark of the Lord and set it in its place inside the tent that David had pitched for it, and David sacrificed burnt offerings and fellowship offerings before the Lord. After he had finished sacrificing the burnt offerings and fellowship offerings, he blessed the people in the name of the Lord Almighty. Then he gave a loaf of bread, a cake of dates and a cake of raisins to each person in the whole crowd of Israelites, both men and women. And all the people went to their homes.

When David returned home to bless his household, Michal daughter of Saul came out to meet him and said, “How the king of Israel has distinguished himself today, going around half-naked in full view of the slave girls of his servants as any vulgar fellow would!”

David said to Michal, “It was before the Lord, who chose me rather than your father or anyone from his house when he appointed me ruler over the Lord’s people Israel—I will celebrate before the Lord. I will become even more undignified than this, and I will be humiliated in my own eyes. But by these slave girls you spoke of, I will be held in honor.”

And Michal daughter of Saul had no children to the day of her death.

Back when I was a good evangelical, "on fire for God," I loved this passage. I danced at church when we sang worship songs, and I had complicated feelings about it... I felt good, I loved God and wanted to express it in that way, but I also felt very self-conscious and kinda embarrassed. What if everyone is looking at me and thinking I'm weird? What if I'm bad at dancing? What if this is just super awkward?

I always heard Christians say "worship is just you and God." Meaning, we shouldn't care what people think. We should just repress those feelings of embarrassment; all that matters is that in God's eyes, you're genuinely expressing your worship towards Them.

And I truly believed that was the ideal. I strove to worship God in all the big wild ways I wanted to, and to repress my fears that I was being weird and people were judging me. This passage about David was an inspiration to me. The way I understood it, David was being a role model of what worship should be like, dancing in the streets without caring about how weird he looked, and Michal was being a wet blanket and judging him. She was in the wrong, and he told her so. He even told her "I will become even more undignified than this, and I will be humiliated in my own eyes." That verse was one of my favorites. It's all about expressing our love for God, I thought, regardless of what other people think.

(There's even a song about it, "Undignified" by David Crowder Band.)

But now that I'm reading "Womanist Midrash," which has a section on Michal, tying together all these events from her life, giving the reader a clear picture of how David and Saul mistreated her throughout her life, now I'm seeing 2 Samuel 6 completely differently.

Now I see it like this:

When Michal judged David for how he worshiped God, it wasn't about "wow you look so weird, dancing in the streets in your underwear, you should feel embarrassed about that."

Instead, her feelings were more like this: "You love God? You love God? After what you did to me, you have the audacity to go out there in public and act like you're just so wholeheartedly devoted to God? Come on."

She had loved him. She saved his life. And he used her as a political pawn in his quest to become king. (Both David and Saul used her in their struggle for power.) He tore her away from her husband, purely as a symbol of his dominance over the house of Saul, and then he didn't even seem to want her as a wife. Just the status, no actual relationship.

You can understand how, if someone treats you like that, and then they're like "I LOVE GOD SO MUCH, I SIMPLY MUST DANCE," you might hate them.

It's like the apostle John says in 1 John 4:20, "For whoever does not love their brother and sister, whom they have seen, cannot love God, whom they have not seen." David treats Michal this badly, and then he's all excited about worshipping God- no. Michal doesn't buy it.

It's like Jesus said in Matthew 5:23-24, "Therefore, if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother or sister has something against you, leave your gift there in front of the altar. First go and be reconciled to them; then come and offer your gift." I remember reading that long ago, reading it as Here Are The Rules For How To Worship Correctly. The hoops that God has arbitrarily set up for us to jump through to get our worship to "count." But wait a minute, maybe it's not about that at all. Maybe Jesus is saying, if you've wronged someone, you need to go make it right, and that's a higher priority than coming to church to participate in "worship."

Maybe Jesus is saying, your relationships with other people have to come first, before your relationship with God. It's not "just you and God."

I think of Michal looking out her window at the way David performed his worship in front of everybody, playing the part of "a man after God's own heart," and I think of sexual abuse coverups in the modern church. Victims are told that they shouldn't speak up, because their abuser is such a good man of God, doing great things for God's kingdom, and to tell the truth about their abuse would [supposedly] be going against God's work.

She saw David dancing, and "despised him in her heart." We see an echo in the words of God, in Amos 5:21-24,

I hate, I despise your religious festivals;

    your assemblies are a stench to me.

Even though you bring me burnt offerings and grain offerings,

    I will not accept them.

Though you bring choice fellowship offerings,

    I will have no regard for them.

Away with the noise of your songs!

    I will not listen to the music of your harps.

But let justice roll on like a river,

    righteousness like a never-failing stream!

Michal was right.

Let justice roll like a river. And after that, you can dance for God.

---

Posts about the book "Womanist Midrash" by Wilda C. Gafney:

Womanist Midrash 
The Slavery We Ignore in the Book of Exodus 
The Second-Worst Bible Story 
Michal wasn't here for David's worship, and now neither am I
Why did I think David was the good guy in the story of Abigail?
David's Womanizing
The Bible and "Purity"

---

Related:

Why I Don't Want to be at a "Revival"

The things I've never let myself say about worship 

"You Weren't There, the Night Jesus Found Me" 

For Rizpah (or, a post about human sacrifice in the bible)

Tuesday, July 9, 2024

Blogaround

1. Acausally Asexual (July 2) "Implicitly: if you ever identify another cause, then you’ve delegitimized your orientation, and discovered that it was never a sexual orientation to begin with. I have some issues with this, to put it mildly."

2. No Kings (July 1)

3. Standard pregnancy care is now dangerously disrupted in Louisiana, report reveals (March 19, via) "'Which is ludicrous, absolutely ludicrous,' said Freehill. 'The least safe thing that we do, no matter if it's early in pregnancy or full-term at your due date, is a C-section.'"

4. Shanghai’s Metro, Through the Eyes of a Guide Dog (July 5)

Also from Sixth Tone: Chinese Cities Roll Back Pandemic-Era Tourist Site Ticketing Systems (July 8) Yeah, during zero-covid, every park or museum you went to in China required you to book tickets with your real name and id number, so they could track you down if someone turned up covid-positive nearby. It's kind of a pain! And why do they need to collect all this information on us? Glad to see a lot of places discontinuing this.

5. Call For Submissions: July / August 2024 (July 7) "I'm self-hosting the Gender Exploration Carnival with the theme of "Flags" for July and August of 2024."

6. Bracket Symbols (July 3) Very useful xkcd!

7. Boeing to plead guilty to criminal fraud charge (July 9) "Boeing has agreed to plead guilty to a criminal fraud conspiracy charge after the US found the company violated a deal meant to reform it after two fatal crashes by its 737 Max planes that killed 346 passengers and crew."

Wednesday, January 18, 2023

Blogaround

1. Black Hole Star – The Star That Shouldn't Exist (December 15) Wow this is wild.

2. Longtermism: the good, the bad and the ridiculous (December 12) You know how I sometimes talk about how hell completely ruins Christianity, because you can justify any atrocity ever by saying "well it's not as bad as hell"/ you can claim that what you're doing is so good and important even though it harms people, because there's a chance you're saving people from hell/ etc? Well, turns out the secular world is able to come up with an equivalent which is bad in all the same ways that heaven/hell are. Great...

3. The Pro-Life Mayberry Myth (January 8) "People who oppose Clinics aren’t that different from those who oppose colored folk."

4. Back on the (prayer) chain gang (January 13) I wrote about prayer last week- here's another Christian perspective on it. Also, the footnote at the end about how church prayer chains are "women's work" is SPOT-ON.

And another post from the Slacktivist: Tasting and grazing (January 16) [content note: euphemisms for oral sex] "Sex is not a separate universe with a separate set of rules."

5. Mansplaining in the Bible (January 15) "In Hannah’s case, well-meaning but totally clueless Elkanah doesn’t help the situation when he mansplains to Hannah why, in truth, she has no reason to be sad."

6. "For God So Loved The World?" (pdf, published in 1989) This is a very long, very good paper about the concept of "redemptive suffering" as it relates to Christian conceptualizations of what Jesus' death meant, because "redemptive suffering" has been used to argue that it's *okay* that injustice is happening (in particular, this paper mainly focuses on oppression of women) and that victims need to just accept their suffering like Christ did.

A lot of very very good points here. It's long, but since I'm a Christian feminist, I'm extremely interested in all of this, and I recommend reading the whole thing.

My opinion is, the core of the problem being discussed here is that suffering does exist in reality, and all religions have to address that somehow- have to address it by offering some kind of hope in the midst of suffering, something positive or inspirational, something along those lines. But there's a very fine line between "you will move on from this bad thing and have a good future" and "if that bad thing hadn't happened, then this other good thing wouldn't have happened after" [which may be true in a literal, factual, cause-and-effect sense] and "it's actually GOOD that that bad thing happened, because look at these good things that came as a result." There's a very fine line between "God understands what you're going through" and "therefore you're blessed to be in this bad situation because you are getting closer to God." There's a very fine line between "God sees and cares about what you're going through, God knows you don't deserve this, God will make this right someday" and "that's good enough, you don't need to consider whether it's possible for *you* to make a change and get OUT of the bad situation."

I 100% support the idea of using religion to find something positive in a bad situation after the fact. But we have to be careful that we don't buy into those "positive" things so much that we are no longer working to prevent those bad things from happening in the first place. Prevention is much MUCH better than finding a silver lining after the fact, and we have to make sure we NEVER lose sight of that.

For example, when someone dies, you often hear people say "they're in a better place." But nobody really believes that 100%. If you did, then you would kill yourself right there so you could go to "a better place." Everyone knows that *not dying* is better than if someone dies and then everyone convinces themselves to believe "they're in a better place." My god, I hope resurrection is true, but I don't know.

Anyway, my views are probably closest to what this paper calls "the suffering God." I also think the writings of Dr. King and Oscar Romero (also mentioned in the paper) are very important and powerful. They truly did take up the cross, and they had a lot to say about it.

I disagree with the paper's conclusion, because the writers seem to be saying they're not okay with *any* talk of anything positive at all related to suffering, because it can be twisted and used to tell victims that they need to just accept their suffering and that it's somehow good that these things are happening to them. I mean, yes I see that it can be twisted that way- but the reality is that suffering does exist, and I think religion has to at least say something hopeful about it. Otherwise, what good is religion?

Also, the writers of this paper seem to be saying they're not okay with any Christian view that says the cross is important. At the end, they present their own Christian ideology, which includes the point "No one was saved by the death of Jesus," which is, uh, surprising, but DAMN I read this section and I'm like "that'll preach." The Christian ideology they present here at the end is powerful and worth reading.

7. If you know someone is adopted—tell them (January 12) It is shocking to me that apparently there really exist people who adopt kids and then intend for those kids to never find out.

8. Atheist group demands Indiana sheriff end coercive inmate baptisms (January 14) "The problem here isn’t that the prisoners are making a public proclamation about their faith, which is obviously their right. The problem is the Sheriff’s Department promoting these religious events as if they’re inherently positive and treating Christianity as the office’s default faith."

9. Penelope Garcia’s Criminal Minds (December 21) "Historians have their favorite online resources, but where in the digital world is Garcia searching? According to the series, Garcia is accessing a series of digital archives that are equal parts fantasy and aspiration. Watching her work and seeing her archives are opportunities to think about what it would take to make this fantasy the historian’s reality."

10. The Double Standards of Sexual Expectations in Marriage (January 16) Oh my this post is so good. Every single point here is SO REAL. This could be an entire exhibition hall in the museum of "Are the straights okay?" (And no, we are not okay.)

Wednesday, February 21, 2018

Perfect Number Watches VeggieTales "Dave & the Giant Pickle" (1996)


---------------------

To see all my VeggieTales reviews: Perfect Number Watches VeggieTales (Master Post)

AddThis

ShareThis