# 1 Samuel 19:13 David married to an idolator



## Eoghan (Aug 19, 2013)

[BIBLE]1 Samuel 19:13[/BIBLE]

How on earth did David end up with a wife who had life-size idols in the house?


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Aug 19, 2013)

He killed some really bad Dude:



> Now Saul and they and all the men of Israel were in the Valley of Elah, fighting with the Philistines. And David rose early in the morning and left the sheep with a keeper and took the provisions and went, as Jesse had commanded him. And he came to the encampment as the host was going out to the battle line, shouting the war cry. And Israel and the Philistines drew up for battle, army against army. And David left the things in charge of the keeper of the baggage and ran to the ranks and went and greeted his brothers. As he talked with them, behold, the champion, the Philistine of Gath, Goliath by name, came up out of the ranks of the Philistines and spoke the same words as before. And David heard him.
> All the men of Israel, when they saw the man, fled from him and were much afraid. And the men of Israel said, “Have you seen this man who has come up? Surely he has come up to defy Israel. And the king will enrich the man who kills him with great riches and will give him his daughter and make his father's house free in Israel.” And David said to the men who stood by him, “What shall be done for the man who kills this Philistine and takes away the reproach from Israel? For who is this uncircumcised Philistine, that he should defy the armies of the living God?” And the people answered him in the same way, “So shall it be done to the man who kills him.” (1 Samuel 17:19-27, ESV)


----------



## Eoghan (Aug 19, 2013)

I think this little example could be a text on which to base the Puritan idea of a long courtship(and short engagement). How well did David really know her. Later on when she mocks him for dancing in a parade the passage concludes with the note that she remained childless until she died! Be not unequally yoked does seem a strong text for this passage!


----------



## Miss Marple (Aug 19, 2013)

David is not a paradigm of virtue, is he? I am not surprised he married an idolater. 

I don't mean to act holier than thou but when I think of David I don't necessarily thing of an example to emulate.


----------



## deleteduser99 (Aug 19, 2013)

Miss Marple said:


> David is not a paradigm of virtue, is he? I am not surprised he married an idolater.
> 
> I don't mean to act holier than thou but when I think of David I don't necessarily thing of an example to emulate.



I'm wondering why he didn't consider the spiritual history of his would-be father-in-law Saul, and try to discern why it is that Samuel anointed him as Saul's replacement. He would've quickly found that Saul wasn't merely itching to change jobs.


----------



## VictorBravo (Aug 19, 2013)

> For who is this uncircumcised Philistine, that he should defy the armies of the living God?”



I'm pretty sure David's primary motivation was his outrage at this "uncircumcised Philistine." Given what we know of David's nature, I think he would have engaged Goliath even if Saul only offered a free meal and a pat on the back.

Michal was more likely an afterthought.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Aug 20, 2013)

We aren't absolutely compelled to the conclusion that this "image" had a cultic function. Yes, the word is used for "household idols" as in Gen.31:19. However, the image in 1Sam.19:13 appears to be considerably larger than those other items that had the name. At the very least, this variation might lead one to assume an "image" of a different order, a different use.

Objets d'art, such as statues, are far more likely to be found in wealthy/privileged homes (like this one), than in ordinary dwellings. Israel had artisans aplenty, and did trade with other countries. We might as well assume that this was such an item (and shared a terminological connection), as assume that it was an unusually large household idol. In other words, it is the _type of thing,_ based on appearance, rather than its _use_ that places it among David's goods.

It's even possible that a indeterminate item was called an "image" simply based on the *purpose* that Michal made of the item. She could have made a simple stock of firewood (handy) INTO an "image" or rough simulacrum of David's body lying abed. We're told she put a goats hair mop at the "head" and covered up the rest of the solid body, so obviously the top sticking out would have hardly fooled anyone, even in a dim bedroom. As it happened, the subterfuge worked just long enough to effect David's escape. That is, it was an "image" only until its true nature was exposed.


"Idol," "Statue," "Representation," here are three options that this word "image" could mean in this context. For my part, I think the second is the most reasonable, followed by the third, the "idol" being least fit for the context.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Aug 20, 2013)

Miss Marple, you said:

"David is not a paradigm of virtue, is he? . . . when I think of David I don't necessarily think of an example to emulate."
​
Who of us is "a paradigm of virtue"? We may see a meager handful in the Scripture, such as Samuel and Daniel, but the vast majority are rank sinners saved by sheer grace. Why do you suppose David was called by God, "a man after mine own heart, which shall fulfil all my will" (Acts 13:22; cf. 1 Sam 13:14)? And Abraham, or Jacob; or Peter, or Paul – why are such men thought of as "after God's own heart"?

David is an archetype of the man of God, and a type of the God-Man that was to come. We may say, If David was loved and accepted despite his outrageous sins and faults (they were covered, after all, by the precious blood), and what was counted of David were his love of God and his faith in Him in the face of many dire oppositions – even so may we take courage to run the gauntlet of this demonic world with the high praises of God in our mouths and a twoedged sword in our hands.

And we may see in David what is true for us all (for we ourselves have also sinned grievously),

He hath not dealt with us after our sins;​nor rewarded us according to our iniquities.​For as the heaven is high above the earth,​so great is his mercy toward them that fear him.​As far as the east is from the west,​so far hath he removed our transgressions from us.​Like as a father pitieth his children,​so the Lord pitieth them that fear him. (Ps 103:10-13)​


----------



## Eoghan (Aug 20, 2013)

Is there not a general prohibition on graven images? I was amused to see that Michael Pailin (?) observed in the former soviet block that rubbing a statue was supposed to bring you luck. This in an atheist state suggests a certain human facility for imbuing images with more than artistic qualities. (see http://townhall.com/news/politics-e...wmakers-told-not-to-rub-statues-toes-n1654897)

Surely any graven image is in breach of the prohibition on graven images?


----------



## a mere housewife (Aug 20, 2013)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Who of us is "a paradigm of virtue"? We may see a meager handful in the Scripture, such as Samuel and Daniel, but the vast majority are rank sinners saved by sheer grace. Why do you suppose David was called by God, "a man after mine own heart, which shall fulfil all my will" (Acts 13:22; cf. 1 Sam 13:14)? And Abraham, or Jacob; or Peter, or Paul – why are such men thought of as "after God's own heart"?
> 
> David is an archetype of the man of God, and a type of the God-Man that was to come. We may say, If David was loved and accepted despite his outrageous sins and faults (they were covered, after all, by the precious blood), and what was counted of David were his love of God and his faith in Him in the face of many dire oppositions – even so may we take courage to run the gauntlet of this demonic world with the high praises of God in our mouths and a twoedged sword in our hands.
> 
> ...



Thank you for this. I have been thinking lately how all saints are only sinners God loves, and awareness of our sins is a necessary aspect of dwelling with God (Psalm 51). Perhaps God allows some of our falls because this point -- of humility and contrition -- is so much more important than a clean record of 'self-righteousness' as a requirement for being in His presence. I have been thinking of this especially in connection with my own tendency to shift this focus on the awareness of sin -- if the awareness is focused instead (as so often happens when I feel my own slate is clean) on _one another's sins_, if we begin to look down on each other as if our faults were somehow more acceptable than theirs, to become bitter, to lose patience, to close our hearts against one another, to stop thinking the best of one another (as our Lord does) -- we wind up unable to live with each other, and that is _not like Him_. God dwelt so closely with David that He was not ashamed to honor him with a singular title of love and nearness, though David had so much glaring sin to repent of.


----------



## earl40 (Aug 20, 2013)

Miss Marple said:


> David is not a paradigm of virtue, is he? I am not surprised he married an idolater.
> 
> I don't mean to act holier than thou but when I think of David I don't necessarily thing of an example to emulate.



Spoken as someone with experience with either children with different tempermants or someone that understands how even Christians can have bad temperments.  Been there and doing that.


----------



## Miss Marple (Aug 20, 2013)

None of us is a paradigm, that was pretty much my point. I don't think David's behaviors are prescriptive in nature, at least not a lot of them. So I am not surprised to read of (yet another) of David's sins. Do I sin more than he? Quite possibly. I am not presenting myself as somehow better, and I know God loved David.


----------



## a mere housewife (Aug 20, 2013)

Ms. M, I ought to clarify that my remarks weren't directed at you (how ironic would that be : it's just that what Mr. Rafalsky said was helpful to me with other things I had been thinking of recently.

Although, re: your question, I am not so sure that we should not follow David's example: not of sin, but of repentance from sin; and of cherishing our walk with the Lord, and our increasing experience of conformity to Christ's image, as the real treasure we carry in life through every kind of affliction -- even the ones we've brought on ourselves. Certainly David was so deeply conformed to Christ through everything, that Christ found David's words adequate for His own heartfelt cries.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Aug 20, 2013)

Miss M,

In light of Pastor Bruce's remarks we cannot be sure this image business pertained to sin, so we ought not impute such to him or his wife. The trouble with a jaundiced view of David is 1) in God's eyes he is clean and his sins have been removed from him "As far as the east is from the west" (Ps 103:12); 2) he was given by the Holy Spirit to write,

"Blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered. 
Blessed is the man unto whom the Lord imputeth not iniquity,
and in whose spirit there is no guile." (Ps 32:1,2)​
This is a holy and blessed man, a prophet and a poet used by the LORD to write some of the choicest Scripture. If we look askance upon the character of the inspired penman, it may well detract from our receiving what he wrote, to our immense detriment. 3) What God has covered by the blood of the Lamb, we ought not uncover and hold against any person; many of God's saints would be undone were this allowed. The way we overcome the accusations of Satan is as such: "And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto the death." (Rev 12:11)

There are worse sins in the camp of the saints than murder and adultery.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Aug 20, 2013)

Eoghan said:


> Surely any graven image is in breach of the prohibition on graven images?



Where is this general prohibition? 

Is this supposed in reference to the Second Commandment? There is no general prohibition against art in general, or statuary in particular. Using the "threat" that any such item might be misused, therefore God blanket-prohibits the making of all statuary, is a rabbinic kind of refuge in "fencing the law."

Nor is the terminology the same, 1Sam.19:13 etc. (teraphim), and Ex.20.4 (pesel)

The statements of the 2C cannot be interpreted apart from the purpose inherent in the 2C, or the order of all Ten Commandments. The 2C is a prohibition against _worshipping the One God (of the First Commandment)_ in any manner of human devising. Here, the term "graven image" has the technical meaning of "idol." When this law is commented on elsewhere in the Pentateuch, e.g. Lev.26:1 or Dt.4:15-19, it is abundantly clear that graven images--items that have no legitimate purpose, being idols crafted for worship purposes--are forbidden. They are forbidden precisely because the true and living God cannot be imagined.

Of course, images of other so-called gods are also to be repudiated and zealously destroyed out of the church. But this is properly a function of 1C obedience, rather than 2C. In Gen.35:2,-4, Jacob purges "the strange gods" (elohei hanakar), which family and servants had smuggled out of Haran (e.g. Rachel's/Laban's teraphim, 31:19).

However, it does not follow that any and all items that might be described as "images" (teraphim) must because of the terminology be (strictly speaking) an idol. A plain example of simple artisan-work were the cherubim figures found in the Holy of Holies. No one questions that these shapes were perfectly legitimate, expressly authorized by God. Nor were they objects of worship, though they stood wholly within the most sacred shrine of the Israelite service. They were not crafted for the purpose of distracting devotion, or even for enhancing it. And there was profusion of such artisanship all around the Temple (including the huge Sea on the backs of bulls).

It does not do to exempt the Temple as a "one off," regarding a supposed blanket prohibition on all statuary. Yes, that could be an argument, and has been made no doubt countless times. But it is not an especially good argument. There is a gaping (missing) "argument from silence" in the prophets, if this were really the case. The fact that among all the rebukes, there is none against an appeal to the presence of "legitimate imagery" taken from the Temple service, is rather a strong indication that this argument never suggested itself; and that because Israel was never meant to be a picture/carving free zone.

The prohibition of the 2C is directed against the worship-use of every imaginary depiction of the one true and living, spiritual and invisible God. We don't eliminate the problem of making idols by eliminating raw categories of artistic expression. In that case, one might as well include a child's doll in the exclusionary parameters.

There may be other arguments as to why statuary is problematic, or movies, or paintings, or whatever. Those strike me as pragmatic rule-making (and possibly a dangerous trend toward legalism). But they do not find proper expression flowing out of the 2C.


----------



## Miss Marple (Aug 21, 2013)

"There are worse sins in the camp of the saints than murder and adultery. "

What are they?

Murder and adultery, being death penalty crimes both, rank pretty high.


----------



## earl40 (Aug 21, 2013)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> The trouble with a jaundiced view of David is 1) in God's eyes he is clean and his sins have been removed from him "As far as the east is from the west" (Ps 103:12); 2) he was given by the Holy Spirit to write,
> 
> "Blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered.
> Blessed is the man unto whom the Lord imputeth not iniquity,
> ...



Though we are indeed covered The Lord knows what is under His covering, and I believe Miss M. was just pointing out something my mother used to point out. Sometimes those we love do sometimes run with the wolves and many times they are the leader of the pack.


----------



## Elizabeth (Aug 21, 2013)

Miss Marple said:


> "There are worse sins in the camp of the saints than murder and adultery. "
> 
> What are they?
> 
> Murder and adultery, being death penalty crimes both, rank pretty high.



Perhaps pride, the mother of both sins?

As Heidi pointed out, sometimes we don't know, have no real concept of, how great our pride until we fall hard out of our self-righteousness into contrition and humility.


----------



## earl40 (Aug 21, 2013)

Elizabeth said:


> Miss Marple said:
> 
> 
> > "There are worse sins in the camp of the saints than murder and adultery. "
> ...



Good point. I also think it is interesting and informative that Our Lord put murder and adultery behind the first tablet of the law.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Aug 21, 2013)

I believe all Ten Commandments (individually) had at least one death-penalty violation recorded in the case-law (Moses).

That is to say: in ancient Israelite society, at some level of abuse, any _manner_ of sinning could cross the line that marked the last limit of the judges' patience. The sin of incorrigibility (technically abuse of the 5th commandment) had breadth of application across society, and across the crime-spectrum. Think of it as the "nuclear option" regarding *disturbing the peace*.

Not all sin is crime. Not all vice is adequately or accurately punished as crime (religious institution is typically more effective in dealing with vice). But all wrongdoing can get so bad, so out of hand, that it must be socially curbed, or it will produce a cascade of social misery. Sin left to itself will eventually make a criminal showing, and have to be dealt with in terms of the justice of that social order.


----------



## Miss Marple (Aug 21, 2013)

Pride is worse? Yet it is not a death penalty sin.

Although I suppose all sins are death penalty sins, since the least sin will condemn us to hell forever, outside of Christ's covering.

That would make all sins "equal," it seems.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Aug 21, 2013)

Thus, we see the value in definitions.

Sin is one thing (a broad category). Vice is something else. Crime is something else again.

Is something "worse" because it is a most heinous and anti-social instantiation of a certain kind of sin? Or is it "worse" which is a very fund of all sorts of evil and ungodliness, even private?

One person's notion of "worse" in the conversation could be taking them in a different direction than another's.


----------



## VictorBravo (Aug 21, 2013)

Miss Marple said:


> Pride is worse? Yet it is not a death penalty sin.



Another way of putting it is acting on pride in some ways definitely makes it a death penalty crime.

A prideful attitude might lead only to rebuke or censure. Acting on pride may lead to blood guilt (as David almost did before Abigail stopped him).


----------



## Mr. Bultitude (Sep 12, 2013)

Contra_Mundum said:


> A plain example of simple artisan-work were the cherubim figures found in the Holy of Holies. No one questions that these shapes were perfectly legitimate, expressly authorized by God. Nor were they objects of worship, though they stood wholly within the most sacred shrine of the Israelite service. They were not crafted for the purpose of distracting devotion, *or even for enhancing it.* And there was profusion of such artisanship all around the Temple (including the huge Sea on the backs of bulls).



If this doesn't take the thread too far afield... what then _was_ the purpose of the cherubim?


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Sep 12, 2013)

The cherubim (whatever was their precise appearance in Israelite iconography) were angelic, ceremonial guardians of the throne. In Ezekiel, they provide the locomotion of the throne.

Insofar as the Temple on earth represented the throne in heaven, the carved cherubim symbolized the worshipful loyal heavenly beings who ever stand before the divine Majesty.

On earth, these stood either in complete darkness (there was no earthly light within the veil), or else they were illumined exclusively by (or more likely within) the shekina glory of the presence of Jehovah. Whether darkness or light to an observer, the cloud was a frequent emblem of God's presence.

So from the average Israelite, even to the ordinary priests, there was no description of these carvings other than what was recorded in the Torah. They were never seen or looked upon, only by the high priest once a year. Like all that pertained to the Temple service, the acts and the symbols and the beauty, everything, including the cherubim, between whom God "dwelt," pointed to the unseen reality, and to the God who cannot be represented by any form of any kind.


----------

