Post: Week 4

Kohlhepp_Week 4

Kohlhepp_Week 4

by Gregg Kohlhepp -
Number of replies: 4

The writers of First and Second Samuel present a full view of David, from heroics to transgressions. Early on, David brings salvation to Israel by defeating the Philistine, Goliath. Yet before First Samuel concludes, David has agreed to fight for the Philistines against Israel, casting him as “an outlaw, a deserter, and a Philistine mercenary” (Collins 151).

In Second Samuel, David ascends to the throne after Saul’s death and is rewarded by the Lord with the Davidic covenant, promising that “the Davidic kingship would be restored and last forever” (156). Throughout David’s reign, the favor of the Lord shines upon him, despite the sinfulness of sexual conquest and murder. For in the end, David stands as a testament to the “imperfection of human nature” (165).

In telling David’s story following the fall of Jerusalem, the message reinforces the tremendous value placed upon the “nation” of Israel. All told, David’s kingship represents what Wright would designate as the “state” of Israel. In or following exile in Babylon, “the authorial voice is not that of a king” because the Bible centers around “the ‘vox populi,’ – the voice of the people” (Wright 88). This allows the story of David to provide an allegory for the people of Israel – ones who are chosen, ones who act against their calling, ones who are saved and exalted, ones who cannot escape the sins of humanity, and ones who still hold a covenantal relationship with the Lord. For with David’s brokenness and eventual defeat, the narrative serves to hold the people of Israel together, furthering the establishment of “a national consciousness” (85).


In reply to Gregg Kohlhepp

Re: Kohlhepp_Week 4

by Jennifer Weitzel -

Hey Gregg, I appreciated the balance you provided regarding the life of David. He was not necessarily "just" a hero, rather he was a hero and a mess-up. I'm not sure that one discounts the other, yet I do think it is important to recognize the full range of his actions, motives, and thoughts. I also appreciate how you remind us that God made a covenant through David and how quickly David sought his own pleasures. An overview of his life makes it difficult to make an either/or position about David. 

In reply to Gregg Kohlhepp

Re: Kohlhepp_Week 4

by Ryan Tobin -

Gregg - I think that Wright's understanding that the Davidic kingship is at odds with the biblical account. Wright makes the argument that the eventual destruction of the monarchy "makes sense when we recognize the biblical authors’ concern for Israel’s survival as a people, and not just as a monarchy." (Wright, 89)  The text of 2 Samuel 7:11b-16, as Collins notes, emphasizes that David's dynasty will last forever. (Collins 161)  Collins' excursus about the psalmist's views on the nature of the monarchy provides additional evidence about the high status of the Davidic line in Israelite ideology. (161-3)  

This evidence does not support Wright's view that the Deuteronomist is trying to show that Israel's nationhood (rather than its state apparatuses) are God-given and central to the peoples' identity. If the Deuteronomist wanted to do that, I think they would have had God make a conditional covenant to David ("if my laws are kept, then your descendants can remain on the throne"). Instead, the Deuteronomist makes it clear that God's establishment of the House of David is unconditional, leaving the reader to either decide that God walked away from the promise, or that when God says that something will continue "forever" it can mean "it may get destroyed but I will reestablish it some day." 

In reply to Ryan Tobin

Re: Kohlhepp_Week 4

by Julia O'Brien -
it is interesting that first kings 8 makes the.davidic covenant sound more conditional. look at the paragraph that begins with verse 22.
if the Deuteronomistic History had  pro-monarchy and anti-monarchy sources, as Collins suggests, would the inclusion of 2  Sam 7 rule out other more negative views?


In reply to Gregg Kohlhepp

Re: Kohlhepp_Week 4

by Julia O'Brien -

if the Deuteronomistic History wanted to downplay the monarchy and uplift Israel as a people, why would it use a king as symbol for the people?