Meat David and Michal

[Cap]

The story of David and Michal, I think, is more interesting and intriguing than David and Bathsheba, but both stories do create a problem for those who hold the line of the Law first before Grace. If it was not for Grace David could never be the biblical patriarch he is suppose to be.

This story is important to me personally because of the details but better shared at a retreat, however I would like to find out how those here deal with the subject of David taking his wife back, forcefully, after she was already married to someone else?

This is a complicated story and is mostly dismissed because it complicates a lot of preconceived religious views and most people can't deal with it.

Interested to know the thoughts here.

 

[Mojo]

What are your thoughts on it?

 

[PeteR]

First off, nobody here believes "Law first before Grace." That's a weak strawman designed to stir the pot. Second, without Law, there is no Grace. Period.

Now, to the real issue: Why did David take Michal back?

The politics of the situation are likely much more complex than we understand with the story given in Scripture. She was the daughter of the former king and presumptive dynasty. She was the wife of the current king and presumptive dynasty. She was the sister of Jonathan, a man with whom David had entered covenant... Kings who conquered other kings typically took the women to adulterate any previous lineage which may explain why David needed her alive and secluded to prove that no progeny was born that was either his of the other man's.

Was grace extended? Possibly. Were David's actions politically expedient? Maybe. We do know that as a man judges is the manner in which he will be judged... A more interesting question is whether David's mercy to Michal factored into Yah's mercy re: Batshevah...

 

[Cap]

First off, nobody here believes "Law first before Grace." That's a weak strawman designed to stir the pot. Second, without Law, there is no Grace. Period.

I have more to say in regards to this thread but I don't have the time right now, but I did want to address this and state that you are incorrect in you assumption that I'm trying to 'stir the pot'. This is not true. I make statements based on my belief and you make them based on yours. How I frame a comment may offend you because we think differently, but that is not the purpose. It just comes out the way it does because that's the way I think. I know you abhor Christian thought but some of us are Christians and that is the way it comes out. Unless your intention is to irradicate them from here, I hope we can come to a mutual understanding that we see things differently.

 

[FollowingHim]

I would like to find out how those here deal with the subject of David taking his wife back, forcefully, after she was already married to someone else?

She was David's wife, and he never divorced her. Therefore, even though she had been forcibly given to someone else, that entire relationship was actually adultery and not a valid marriage. Saul had no authority to marry her to someone else without David first releasing her, which he did not.

Therefore he was completely entitled to take back his adulterous wife.

Obviously, the man she had been given to did love her, and may have genuinely believed the marriage was legitimate. He may have been a completely unwitting victim of Saul's schemes - Saul may have asserted that Michal was divorced, when she was not. Also, we have no idea what Michal thought of the whole matter - whether she wanted to be with this other man and was a willing adulterer, or whether she was forced and was a victim herself. Much of the detail and emotional side is in the realm of speculation.

But I think David had a very clear legal right to take her back, since he had never divorced her in the first place.

 

[Bartato]

She was David's wife, and he never divorced her. Therefore, even though she had been forcibly given to someone else, that entire relationship was actually adultery and not a valid marriage. Saul had no authority to marry her to someone else without David first releasing her, which he did not.

Therefore he was completely entitled to take back his adulterous wife.

Obviously, the man she had been given to did love her, and may have genuinely believed the marriage was legitimate. He may have been a completely unwitting victim of Saul's schemes - Saul may have asserted that Michal was divorced, when she was not. Also, we have no idea what Michal thought of the whole matter - whether she wanted to be with this other man and was a willing adulterer, or whether she was forced and was a victim herself. Much of the detail and emotional side is in the realm of speculation.

But I think David had a very clear legal right to take her back, since he had never divorced her in the first place.

That's how I see it as well. David never divorced Michal. Saul had no right or authority to give her to another. The second "marriage" was adultery not marriage. David clearly did the right thing.

 

[Bartato]

Doesn't Law always proceed Grace?

 

[Cap]

I know this is hypothetical, but what if he did divorce her? And how does the argument that sex creates marriage work, if that is valid?

 

[Sons of Issachar]

I know this is hypothetical, but what if he did divorce her? And how does the argument that sex creates marriage work, if that is valid?

If he did divorce her, can we assume her new husband died? Or is it clearly stated that he was still alive when David took her back?

 

[Cap]

If he did divorce her, can we assume her new husband died? Or is it clearly stated that he was still alive when David took her back?

Scripture clearly states he did not die, but followed after her crying.

 

[Sons of Issachar]

Scripture clearly states he did not die, but followed after her crying.

Oh wow, that is so sad. In that case, I am confident that David did not divorce her. Otherwise a prophet would have come to him and rebuked him for taking back a woman that he divorced that another man took.

 

[Cap]

First off, nobody here believes "Law first before Grace." That's a weak strawman designed to stir the pot. Second, without Law, there is no Grace. Period.

Now, to the real issue: Why did David take Michal back?

The politics of the situation are likely much more complex than we understand with the story given in Scripture. She was the daughter of the former king and presumptive dynasty. She was the wife of the current king and presumptive dynasty. She was the sister of Jonathan, a man with whom David had entered covenant... Kings who conquered other kings typically took the women to adulterate any previous lineage which may explain why David needed her alive and secluded to prove that no progeny was born that was either his of the other man's.

Was grace extended? Possibly. Were David's actions politically expedient? Maybe. We do know that as a man judges is the manner in which he will be judged... A more interesting question is whether David's mercy to Michal factored into Yah's mercy re: Batshevah...

I can agree with the semantics of what you are trying to say, but I think there is a personal story here. Michal loved David, but yet David appeared to see this as a political relationship. Who betrayed who? However, if she was honorable she would have gone with David when Saul tried to kill him. Maybe Saul reasoned that David abandoned her and that's why Saul gave her to someone else. David clearly was not the greatest husband. He knew he left her. If he was so bent on taking her because he had the right, why didn't he do it in the beginning the first time? Clearly there was inter marital problems between them. David's motives don't seem so pure.

 

[FollowingHim]

I know this is hypothetical, but what if he did divorce her?

That would completely change the situation and make David's subsequent action in taking her back sinful. It would also make him a sinner for divorcing her without cause in the first place. So it would make David sin twice regarding marriage.

As we know that David "did that which was right in the eyes of the LORD, and turned not aside from any thing that he commanded him all the days of his life, save only in the matter of Uriah the Hittite", this cannot have occurred. We have zero reason to even suggest that hypothetical idea, because without it the scripture makes perfect sense and with it the scenario makes no sense. It's even less valid than suggesting that hypothetically David might have had a pet elephant.

I can agree with the semantics of what you are trying to say, but I think there is a personal story here. Michal loved David, but yet David appeared to see this as a political relationship. Who betrayed who? However, if she was honorable she would have gone with David when Saul tried to kill him. Maybe Saul reasoned that David abandoned her and that's why Saul gave her to someone else. David clearly was not the greatest husband. He knew he left her. If he was so bent on taking her because he had the right, why didn't he do it in the beginning the first time? Clearly there was inter marital problems between them. David's motives don't seem so pure.

You are assuming too much. David ran away in a hurry, fearing for his life. He did not fear for Michal's life, she was in no danger. Taking her with him would have however placed her into uncertainty and danger. He also did not know how long he would be away for - he may, at the time, have assumed he'd be gone only briefly. We have NO reason to suggest:

• David saw this only as politics. In fact scripture indicates quite the opposite - David had initially rejected marriage to the king's daughter for political reasons, he later relented and married Michal who was personally attracted to him. If he just wanted a political alliance he could have accepted the first offer.
• Michal should have fled with David. She was in no danger and had no need to flee, David kept her safe by leaving her behind.
• David was not the greatest husband. That's just based on the previous assertions which are invalid.
• There were intermarital problems between them. That is based solely on one argument years later (after David's naked dancing) and the fact that Michal was barren to the day of her death. The fact she was barren is best explained by her being infertile - if she had not been infertile she would have become pregnant to the man Saul gave her to, or David earlier on. And the one argument indicates nothing, every couple argues.
• David's motives weren't pure. Again, a supposition based on previous invalid assertions.

You are creating a cloud of fictional negative assumptions in your own mind.

 

[Cap]

That would completely change the situation and make David's subsequent action in taking her back sinful. It would also make him a sinner for divorcing her without cause in the first place. So it would make David sin twice regarding marriage.

As we know that David "did that which was right in the eyes of the LORD, and turned not aside from any thing that he commanded him all the days of his life, save only in the matter of Uriah the Hittite", this cannot have occurred. We have zero reason to even suggest that hypothetical idea, because without it the scripture makes perfect sense and with it the scenario makes no sense. It's even less valid than suggesting that hypothetically David might have had a pet elephant.

You are assuming too much. David ran away in a hurry, fearing for his life. He did not fear for Michal's life, she was in no danger. Taking her with him would have however placed her into uncertainty and danger. He also did not know how long he would be away for - he may, at the time, have assumed he'd be gone only briefly. We have NO reason to suggest:

• David saw this only as politics. In fact scripture indicates quite the opposite - David had initially rejected marriage to the king's daughter for political reasons, he later relented and married Michal who was personally attracted to him. If he just wanted a political alliance he could have accepted the first offer.
• Michal should have fled with David. She was in no danger and had no need to flee, David kept her safe by leaving her behind.
• David was not the greatest husband. That's just based on the previous assertions which are invalid.
• There were intermarital problems between them. That is based solely on one argument years later (after David's naked dancing) and the fact that Michal was barren to the day of her death. The fact she was barren is best explained by her being infertile - if she had not been infertile she would have become pregnant to the man Saul gave her to, or David earlier on. And the one argument indicates nothing, every couple argues.
• David's motives weren't pure. Again, a supposition based on previous invalid assertions.

You are creating a cloud of fictional negative assumptions in your own mind.

Because David did that which was right in the eyes of the LORD, and turned not aside from any thing that he commanded him all the days of his life, save only in the matter of Uriah the Hittite.”

That's an interesting statement, I had forgotten about that. Thanks for bringing it up. I'll have to think about it.

 

[Cap]

You are creating a cloud of fictional negative assumptions in your own mind.

It's called chewing the cud, trying to figure things out. I did not post this thread because I knew what I was talking about.

 

[Cap]

Just as in the benefits of the Chosen series, there is a story behind the story, and the people in the bible didn't all where halos, and there is something to learn by considering the backstory.

 

[Cap]

That would completely change the situation and make David's subsequent action in taking her back sinful. It would also make him a sinner for divorcing her without cause in the first place. So it would make David sin twice regarding marriage.

As we know that David "did that which was right in the eyes of the LORD, and turned not aside from any thing that he commanded him all the days of his life, save only in the matter of Uriah the Hittite", this cannot have occurred. We have zero reason to even suggest that hypothetical idea, because without it the scripture makes perfect sense and with it the scenario makes no sense. It's even less valid than suggesting that hypothetically David might have had a pet elephant.

You are assuming too much. David ran away in a hurry, fearing for his life. He did not fear for Michal's life, she was in no danger. Taking her with him would have however placed her into uncertainty and danger. He also did not know how long he would be away for - he may, at the time, have assumed he'd be gone only briefly. We have NO reason to suggest:

• David saw this only as politics. In fact scripture indicates quite the opposite - David had initially rejected marriage to the king's daughter for political reasons, he later relented and married Michal who was personally attracted to him. If he just wanted a political alliance he could have accepted the first offer.
• Michal should have fled with David. She was in no danger and had no need to flee, David kept her safe by leaving her behind.
• David was not the greatest husband. That's just based on the previous assertions which are invalid.
• There were intermarital problems between them. That is based solely on one argument years later (after David's naked dancing) and the fact that Michal was barren to the day of her death. The fact she was barren is best explained by her being infertile - if she had not been infertile she would have become pregnant to the man Saul gave her to, or David earlier on. And the one argument indicates nothing, every couple argues.
• David's motives weren't pure. Again, a supposition based on previous invalid assertions.

You are creating a cloud of fictional negative assumptions in your own mind.

You points of rebuttal can all have responses and there are a multitude of commentaries that have other ideas.

Just to touch on a couple, Michal was in danger after David left and she had to hide David's departure and hoped it would work out. David's dealings with Bathsheba, his problems with Michal, his issue with his children, does not lend very well to David being the Father of the year. But I think that's the point, David was a failure, just like we are, but God still sees us as being right before Him through Christ.

 

[Bartato]

... David "did that which was right in the eyes of the LORD, and turned not aside from any thing that he commanded him all the days of his life, save only in the matter of Uriah the Hittite",

That verse is a very important one in destroying the "monogamy only" argument. It was key to me in understanding that God approved of David's plural marriages, and polygyny in general. 2nd Samuel 12 and the above verse from 1 Kings destroyed the legitimacy of *monogamy only".

 

[Sons of Issachar]

David was a failure, just like we are, but God still sees us as being right before Him through Christ.

This is what the monogamy-only crowd argues. So you won't find much support here for it. Scripture says the opposite, that David lived a perfect life except for 2 sins. You may find it interesting, that scripture says some others lived a perfect life. Living perfectly according to His will as written, is not as hard as people think, especially for those who grew up with more righteousness in their culture (like David's family) and were agrarian. Scripture says "the law is not too hard for you". Deut 30:11 It is actually pretty easy! It is harder, when you were not raised in it, because of changing habits and being counter-cultural. To say that David was struggling is to project today's issues onto his time.

 

[frederick]

This is what the monogamy-only crowd argues. So you won't find much support here for it. Scripture says the opposite, that David lived a perfect life except for 2 sins. You may find it interesting, that scripture says some others lived a perfect life. Living perfectly according to His will as written, is not as hard as people think, especially for those who grew up with more righteousness in their culture (like David's family) and were agrarian. Scripture says "the law is not too hard for you". Deut 30:11 It is actually pretty easy! It is harder, when you were not raised in it, because of changing habits and being counter-cultural. To say that David was struggling is to project today's issues onto his time.

Romans 3:3-18 says What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin;
As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:
There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.
They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.
Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips:
Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness:
Their feet are swift to shed blood:
Destruction and misery are in their ways:
And the way of peace have they not known:
There is no fear of God before their eyes.