Among Evangelical Christians, King David is seen as a pillar of the Christian faith, one whose love for the Lord was unparalleled and whose actions were (almost) perfect. From his anointing as a young boy, to his defeat of Goliath, to his flight from Saul, to his dancing before the ark through to the end of his life, David is perceived to be a penitent man of forward-moving faith for the Lord, who is blessed with an eternal dynasty by God in return. This tends to lead to theologies that emphasize ‘faith’ as a quantitative factor within blessings from God.
This probably comes from within Evangelical circles through historically faulty readings of the books of Samuel, most notably 2 Samuel, that emphasize a need for Israelite kings (despite Samuel’s warnings in 1 Samuel 8 ) a need for a centralized temple within Israel (despite having a centralized Tabernacle), and a belief in the saving faith of the believer (Sinner’s Prayer anyone?).
What if, persay, the blessing bestowed onto David was not based on the faith of David, but on the faithfulness of the God of Israel?
We hear that David was a man after God’s own heart, and we infer that to mean that David was all about doing God’s work, with the exception of flubbing up with the whole Bathsheba debacle. What is implicit (and sometimes explicit) in the text however, is that David also had people murdered, lied, stole wives, had many wives, horses, silvers, and golds (breaking specific laws for kings in Deuteronomy). Basically the only thing David didn’t do was commit idolatry – good for him. So David was not a nice dude. So what do we do about this whole ‘man after God’s own heart’ stuff?
How about this: ‘man after God’s own heart’ doesn’t have to do with the man following God, but God following the man ‘after his own heart’?
This would mean that no matter what evil stuff David did, God was always with him, through thick and thin, and for his descendents too. David’s faith had nothing to do with his blessing by God.
I think this is an important thing to drive home, because prosperity doctrines and their ilk are running rampant in our churches and, I think, have seeped into our daily prayer lives, subliminally. God will do what he will, when he will, how he will – you can’t stop him. And God’s will is that none shall perish and creation will be made new. We serve a mighty God, and we have no need to pray, ‘with more faith.” Faith in a loving God is good enough.
WK
This entry was written by , posted on October 25, 2008 at 12:22 am, filed under Christianity, Church and tagged Bible, Christianity, David, Prayer. Leave a comment or view the discussion at the permalink.
In an effort to prove to my housemate Pat that I keeping with blogging this time around, I am going to make a statement that I hope others will comment on.
Here Goes:
Time to unpack that statement.
The reason that I say this is because I’ve heard so many Christians tell me that God’s word is living and active, and if I say that something can only be a certain way, then I must be the most arrogant man in the Universe.
In the Universe.
Well I’m not. (yes, I know that, in itself, is a hilariously ironic – and possibly even hypocritical – response) Having done biblical studies for two years now, I’ve decided that people need to start taking certain things seriously in their ‘interpretations’ of the good book. For those who aren’t in biblical studies, we need to delineate between two kinds of interpretation: exegesis and hermeneutics. Exegesis is the interpretation of what the text originally intended/meant. Hermeneutics is the subsequent study of how to apply the exegetical work.
Essentially, the main/big difference between exegesis and hermeneutics is that exegesis should have one answer (albeit one with possible other layers, like any good author should be) and hermeneutics is far more up for grabs. Sadly, most people skip exegesis and move to hermeneutics or, even worse, blend the two into some horrific mind monster. That’s wrong. And this is where people get miffed at me.
This post is about the need for a correct exegesis of the Bible, of what it meant to the people of the time, (at which point I can, if I so choose, apply that knowledge to my life [hermeneutics]) but most Christians tend to get all existential (feelings-oriented) and New-Agey about their interpretations of the Bible. Case in point: Revelation is not correctly interpreted as pre-tribulation, pre-millenialism rapture promises and warnings. I propose that this idea comes mostly from some guy getting a little loose and liberal with his theology, tradition and his scholarship and came up with what is now the 8-Bajillion-dollar industry we have today.
When it comes to application, go nuts. Do whatever floats your boat. But when it comes to what it says, there IS a right answer.
Deal with it.
WK
This entry was written by , posted on April 18, 2008 at 12:23 am, filed under Biblical Study and tagged Bible, Christianity, Interpretation. Leave a comment or view the discussion at the permalink.