King David and his historical significance

King David: History, Symbolism, And Controversy

Of all of the famous central characters of the Old Testament, King David is without a doubt both one of the most interesting, as well as the most relevant with regard to the life of Jesus Christ. Not free from controversy, many scholars (respected and otherwise) have put forward theories concerning everything from his supposed homosexual tendencies to the possibility that he may not have existed at all. Be that as it may, the story of King David remains a fascinating one, laden with implications political, spiritual, and practical for Christians (as well as for Jews and Muslims) until the present day.

Although King David is certainly of vast importance to the Christian faith, it is first necessary to understand the importance of David to the people of Israel. Indeed, given that modern day Christianity certainly draws heavily from the books of the Old Testament, it makes sense to first understand the Jewish milieu in which he lived, as well as how Jewish believers understood his life and lessons in history (as well as today).

Perhaps what makes David so interesting within and outside of Jewish circles is his somewhat unique position among Old Testament personalities. He was, both figuratively and quite literally, a kind of "golden child," favored by God seemingly for who he was, alone. Indeed, quite apart from other Israelites, David is chosen not to reveal commandments concerning moral or right conduct (as in Moses' case), nor to "sacrifice" in order to prove his devotion and faith (Abraham), but, instead seems to be almost "installed" by God to fulfill the very temporal and practical purpose (as opposed to spiritual, religious, or moral) of ruling the nation of Israel -- the chosen people of God, both, within his lifetime, and as a function of his descendant, who will be the messiah.

Readers first see David in the Old Testament as the youngest member of a family that included eight living sons. Within the book of First Samuel, one learns that he has been chosen to be king in place of Saul (1 Samuel 16:1-13). Of course, thereafter follows perhaps one of the most famous stories in the Old Testament, whereby David slays Goliath, which not only gains him Saul's fury, but also highlights and foreshadows his eventual greatness and "divine right" to assume the throne in 2 Samuel (1-4) of Judah, and later (Samuel 4:1-12, 5:1-5) over all of Israel.

Of central importance today in the Jewish faith was David's subsequent move of the capital of Israel to Jerusalem (which is still claimed as the capital of the modern state of Israel). Thereafter, it began to be called "the City of David" in 2 Samuel 5:6-7). Additionally, it was under his rule that the kingdom of Israel saw its greatest expansion (again, marking territory that many modern-day Israeli's view as the rightful land of the Jews). Indeed, the reader notes that under David's rule, (2Samuel 8:1-14), the kingdom of Israel grew to encompass the land between the Nile to the Euphrates (in Modern-day Iraq).

It is, perhaps, after this period of conquest and the firm establishment of David's authority in his position as King of Israel that one begins to note David's departures from the standard of upright behavior and conduct that many Jewish and Christian faithful expect from one blessed by God. In 2 Samuel (11:2), the reader notes the first departure from the Godly life. The passage describes David as more that a bit of a cad. Consider the following passage, describing King David's activities while his armies were at war:

David tarried still at Jerusalem...And it came to pass in an evening tide, that David arose from off his bed, and walked upon the roof of the king's house: and from the roof he saw a woman washing herself; and the woman was very beautiful to look upon. And David sent and inquired after the woman....And one said, Is not this Bath-sheba, the daughter of Eliam, the wife of Uriah the Hittite? 4 and David sent messengers, and took her; and she came in unto him, and he lay with her; for she was purified from her uncleanness: and she returned unto her house. And the woman conceived, and sent and told David, and said, I am with child. (11:2-11:5).

Further, and as if this were not bad enough (remember, after all the commandment against adultery, David goes on to the even more calculated and reprehensible action of calling for Bathsheba's husband, Uriah, from the war, pretending to show interest in him and the battle. However, all the while, he seemed to be almost investigating Uriah for what he knew, as well as perhaps setting him up to believe he had impregnated his wife, "...And when Uriah was come unto him, David demanded of him how Joab did, and how the people did, and how the war prospered. And David said to Uriah, Go down to thy house, and wash thy feet. (11:7-8). However, Uriah would have no part in David's plan (although it is unclear if he knew what had transpired between his wife and the King), and instead (and in spite of David's generous gift of meat "to go," "...and there followed him a mess of meat from the king (11:8), and instead "slept at the door of the king's house (11:9)."

It is here that David goes on to add to his sins which seem to grow more abhorrent by the moment. for, after learning of Uriah's night at the door, he again sends for him, asking, "...Uriah, Camest thou not from thy journey? why then didst thou not go down unto thine house?" wherapon Uriah (now more than a bit heroic on many levels), responds, "...The ark, and Israel, and Judah, abide in tents; and my lord Joab, and the servants of my lord, are encamped in the open fields; shall I then go into mine house, to eat and to drink, and to lie with my wife? As thou livest, and as thy soul liveth, I will not do this thing...(11:11)."

Clearly, this passage not only illustrates the nobility of Uriah, who is unwilling to rest in comfort while the other troops of Israel toil in battle, but also in stark contrast highlights the very willingness of David to do both of the things Uriah finds reprehensible -- lying in comfort (as David has done by staying in Jerusalem away from the fray), and lying with a woman, in essence gratifying his lusts while his people suffer.

Although one might imagine that in the face of such goodness and upright behavior, David might regain his senses, perhaps dulled now by power and privilege, and show his repentance by following Uriah's example, he, instead continues in his sin -- by now approaching murder for is own selfish gains. Here, after trying once again to sway Uriah by getting him drunk, he notes with dismay that Uriah, even in his drunken state, will not betray his principles, and again sleeps at the king's door. Thus, in frustration (and, perhaps envy), David writes a letter to Joab and sends it with Uriah, himself, ordering Joab to put him in the front lines of battle and thereafter abandon him, "...that he may be smitten (11:15)."

Hereafter, followed one of the strangest portions of the David story, for, although God did punish David for his sins (the Lord was displeased), God merely took the life of the child born of his illicit union (by all accounts an innocent child), and thereafter granted him another son by her named Solomon (whom the Lord loved) (12:24).

Although God still honored his choice of David as the source of the line of Israel, the reader notes that the repercussions of his actions still follow him. One sees this in the scandalous action of his son, Amnon, who rapes his half-sister, Tamar 2 Samuel (13:19). Amnon is thereafter killed by Tamar's full brother, Absalom, whom, after a period of exile, is called back by David.

Unfortunately, for King David, this seems to have been a pivotal event against his rule, and perhaps a continuation of his divine punishment, for soon after, Absalom gathered an army, took over Jerusalem (which David had fled, leaving behind some ten concubines), and proceeded to sleep with his father's concubines. However, David would eventually prevail, killing Absalom, and later Sheba who would also lead a revolt against him. Eventually, however, David grew old and lost power to his eldest son, Adonijah. However, in his last act as King, he anointed Solomon who went on to rule Israel after David's death.

Although the story of David sets up some interesting questions with regard to moral behavior and the consequences of sin (after all, David and Bathsheba were hardly punished in the end), the main issue of David with regard to Christianity, the New Testament and the divinity of Jesus rests in issues of genealogy. After all, many times Jesus is referred to in the New Testament as the "son of David." Further, as previously stated, in the Jewish tradition, it is believed that the Messiah (whom Christians believe is Jesus), must be a descendent of David's line.

The New Testament in fact introduces Jesus as the son of David and of Abraham (Mt. 1:1). Further, in the Gospel of Luke, he describes how Mary, the mother of Jesus, was descended from King David through one of his sons, Nathan. This leads contemporary Christians to believe that Jesus is the prophesied messiah, as well as the rightful king of Israel.

It is interesting that Jesus, despite the fact of David's obviously sinful nature, follows him in matters of conduct. Indeed, the reader notes that Christ used the actions of the pre-descent David as justification for his own (Luke 6:1-5) concerning the eating of wheat from the fields on the Sabbath. (McCall, 1999). However, even more interesting than David's use as a kind of Biblical "precedent setter" is his most pivotal role with regard to Christianity and the New Testament -- and that is David as prophet (Corbett, 2003).

According to Christians, David was not merely regulated to the role of ruler, or even as a symbol of the people and land of Israel. According to his Catholic Encyclopedia article, John Corbett writes, " 'The spirit of the Lord hath spoken by me and his word by my tongue' (II Kings, xxiii, 2) is a direct statement of prophetic inspiration in the poem there recorded. (2003). Thus, David is clearly set up as an authority on which the divinity and messianic nature of Jesus will be established. Indeed, the reader of the New Testament can note how this same theme, once begun in the Old Testament, is duly picked up in the second. Consider, for example, that in Acts ii, verse 30, Saint Peter relates that David was clearly a prophet, "...Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his -- , according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne tells us that he was a prophet." Further, many point to the Psalms attributed to David as further irreproachable truth that Jesus would come as the Messiah.

Interestingly, it also within the life story of David, himself, that many view some of the most striking symbolism of the Old Testament, in itself a type of prophecy, running under the surface of the text. For example, many cite the shared birthplace (Bethlehem), young David's early profession as shepherd, the five stones hurled against Goliath as a symbol of the "five wounds" of Christ's crucifixion, and the ultimate betrayal that David suffered at the hands of Achitophel to allude to Jesus' Passion (2003).

Be that as it may, for all of the symbolism (according to some -- especially Jewish sources -- extremely far fetched) of David representing Christ (when coupled with New Testament theology), it remains clear that the main emphasis of the King David story in relation to Christianity is rooted mainly in a motivation to authenticate the position of Jesus as the Messiah. This seems even more clear when one considers the rather shaky (and hastily reasoned) arguments that David definitively "repented" of his grave sin -- the punishment for both, according to God in the Old Testament, was no less than death -- and was thus still a positive example of righteousness, worthy of trust. Given, then, the rather clear significance of David as a legitimizing force for the divinity (or at least, messianic nature) of Jesus, one must also consider the very real controversy that exists around David as a historical figure.

In the 2000 work, written by Biblical scholar Stephen McKenzie, the author legitimately asks the question (boundlessly important in its implications), "Was there a King David?" Within the work, he points out that, historically, there has been (and still remains) a significant doubt in historical and archaeological circles as to whether King David was a single, real historical figure, or a composite (or even fictional) creation of the Bible authors.

After noting the various religious, social, and even political arguments against the question (for example, many view the question as a thinly veiled assault on the legitimacy of the modern State of Israel), McKenzie describes the, "...two major questions that must be answered before a biography of David can begin..." Namely, do outside, non-Biblical sources exist to historically support or substantiate the life and rule of King David? Further, is it a legitimate enterprise to use the Bible as a text to reconstruct David's life, or could he have been constructed as an allegorical, or even symbolic character?

Biblical scholar P. Kyle McCarter famously stated, "The Bible is our only source of information about David. No ancient inscription mentions him. No archaeological discovery can be securely linked to him...(Miles, 2000)." Surely, this assertion is more than a little troubling -- even for the most secure Christian or Jewish believer. After all, even if one were to take such a statement with a grain of salt -- and perhaps feel quite comfortable with using the Bible as a historical text in itself whereby David's life may be legitimately reconstructed, such a realization can cause one doubts.

Consider, for example, McKenzie's observation that:

You would think that a person as famous and active as David is in the Bible would have left plenty of indications of his historical existence for archaeologists to dig up. You would also expect to find him mentioned frequently in the records of the ancient countries he conquered or had dealings with.

Again, such a lack of "outside evidence" is troubling on many levels. However, McKenzie goes on to offer a possible cravat. He points out the fact that, although there are thousands of ancient documents not related to Biblical texts that have been unearthed throughout the Middle East, providing information concerning historical, political, cultural, military, and other events during the time of David's reign, they are mostly confined to a region that was highly isolated from the rest of the world, including the Holy Land where David is supposed to have existed. He writes, "...the vast majority of these documents have come from Egypt and Iraq (ancient Mesopotamia), both of which were in stages of rebuilding in 1000 B.C.E." According to the author, this means that, although there may be an abundance of historical records from within these societies, their respective "Dark Ages" during this time may have prevented them from interacting freely with other political entities and geographical areas -- even ones close to home.