Post: Week 4

Reeves_Week 4

Reeves_Week 4

by Neil D. Reeves -
Number of replies: 3

Collin portrays David as an individual with mixed characters. Collins admits that David was chosen by God but stated David wasn't “flawless or innocent.” [151].  He stated that “David was at various times an outlaw, a deserter, and a Philistine mercenary, and he was at best conspicuous by his absence when Saul was killed.” [151] 

One instance where Collins portrays David in a positive light is when David had an opportunity to kill Saul but he didn’t. David states, in regard to Saul, “I will not raise my hand against the Lords anointed.” [152]. Another instance Collins cites is where David showed compassion to Amnon and Absalom, his sons, “regardless for what they did.” [164]

In supporting why he felt David was a mercenary, Collins stated that David demanded “protection payment from a sheep farmer in Carmel.” [152]. Collins also stated that David was engaged in extortion after Nathan died and David took Nathan’s wife, Abigail, as his wife. [152]. Collins further stated that David had the murderers of Saul’s son, Ishbaal, executed. [155]

Furthermore, Collins asserted that David had his general, Joab, “set Uriah up to be killed in battle and, after appropriate interval, took Bathsheba, Uriah’s wife, and married her. [163]. Collins stated that other biblical scholars also portrayed David as a man “who was very fallible, end even sinful.” [165]


In reply to Neil D. Reeves

Re: Reeves_Week 4

by Ryan Tobin -

Neil, your post clearly lays out the case that David did not "earn" God's favor through his own righteousness, but rather was chosen by God to succeed Saul. I agree that this is idea is supported by Collins and by the biblical text. I still find it difficult to reconcile the different treatment that David and Saul receive at the hand of God. Both men commit offenses that offend God; personally, it seems to me that David's treatment of Uriah (for example) is greater than the offenses of Saul. The biblical text would have us believe that God is more tolerant of David than of Saul. This does support Collins' characterization of some of the biblical text as pro-David propaganda (151).

If that is true, we can at least credit the author of 1 & 2 Samuel of giving the opposing viewpoint. As you say, David is depicted as having a mixed character, which makes the story more compelling and more relatable. In my view, the story reinforces the idea that God's ways are not our ways; it is difficult for me to understand why God favored David over Saul, but it is clear that God chose David to be the recipient of God's favor.

In reply to Neil D. Reeves

Re: Reeves_Week 4

by Caroline Bashore -

Neil and Ryan - Thank you for pointing out that God seems to tolerate David's flaws and offenses more than Saul's, I have never thought of it that way. It will be interesting for me to go back and reread and try to be more aware of why I have else felt that Saul's acts were worse than Davids and how God plays a role. I think that maybe the key factor into this is that even though David was fallible and sinful, he loved God and God loved him. Repentance and grace seems to play a huge role in their relationship. 

In reply to Neil D. Reeves

Re: Reeves_Week 4

by Julia O'Brien -

Neil, you did a great job of lifting up the aspects up the story that paint David in a less than positive light.

One scholar named Steve McKenzie suggests that the whole account is trying to clean up David story. Mckenzie reads underneath the story to see what the text is trying to protect him from.

You didn't talk about the second part of the question: why someone writing in exile would characterize David in this way