David the lawbreaker

King David was a serial breaker of the laws of Moses.
People try to scandalise us by highlighting the adultery with Bathsheba, but they don’t know the half of it.

Taking his offences one by one;

On the subject of the shewbread, the Law says;
“You shall take fine flour and bake twelve cakes of it…
Every Sabbath day Aaron shall set it in order before the Lord continually on behalf of the people of Israel as a covenant for ever.
And it shall be for Aaron and his sons, and they shall eat it in a holy place, since it is for him a most holy portion”. Leviticus ch24 vv5-9
And on the subject of the Sabbath, the Law says;
“Remain every man of you in his place, let no man go out of his place on the Sabbath day”. Exodus ch16 v29

What happened in David’s case;
When David was in flight from Saul, he went to the priests of the Lord, who were currently taking refuge at Nob, and asked them for bread. He told them he was on the way to a rendezvous.
They had no bread whatever except the shewbread, so the priest gave him the bread which had (just?) been removed from the Presence of the Lord and replaced by hot bread.
This implies that David was travelling on the Sabbath. David seems to confirm this when he declares that the vessels of his young men are always holy, on any expedition, and “how much more today will their vessels be holy?”

As Jesus points out, David was not entitled to eat this bread, which was reserved for the priests.
But Ahimelech was obviously intimidated. He “came to meet David trembling”.
Seeing the king’s right-hand man travelling alone and on the Sabbath day would be startling, and both points would be enough to make him anxious.
He let David have what he wanted, saving his face with the proviso that David’s expected companions should be free from recent sexual contact with women. 1 Samuel ch21 vv1-6

On the subject of divorce, the Law says;
“When a man gives his wife a bill of divorce…and if she goes and becomes another man’s wife… then [even after the second husband’s death or another divorce] the former husband, who sent her away may not take her again to be his wife, after she has been defiled; for that is an abomination before the Lord”. Deuteronomy ch24 vv1-4

What happened in David’s case;
David was married to Saul’s daughter Michal.
When David took flight, Saul gave her to another husband.
After Saul’s death, David’s rival, Abner, wanted to negotiate with him.
David imposed the condition that his former wife Michal be returned to him, and she was duly taken away from her second husband. 2 Samuel ch3 vv12-16
Now the Deuteronomy law does not technically cover the case, because David had never divorced Michal.
However, he clearly ignored the spirit of the law, the principle that a wife who has been with another man in adultery or otherwise is “defiled” for her former husband.

Killing and adultery and even coveting a neighbour’s wife are forbidden in the Ten Commandments;

What happened in David’s case;
He saw Bathsheba, the wife of Uriah the Hittite.
He coveted her and committed adultery with her.
Then he found that the only way to conceal the deed was to contrive Uriah’s death in battle.
As Nathan summed it up; “You have smitten Uriah the Hittite with your sword, and have taken his wife to be your wife, and have slain him with the sword of the Ammonites”. 2 Samuel ch12 v9

On the subject of incest, the Law says;
“If a man takes his sister, a daughter of his father or a daughter of his mother, and sees her nakedness, and she sees his nakedness, it is a shameful thing, and they shall be cut off in the sight of the children of their people”. Leviticus ch20 v17
And on the subject of rape, the Law says;
“If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, then…she shall be his wife, because he has violated her; he may not put her away all his days”. Deuteronomy ch22 vv28-29

What happened in David’s case;
Amnon, one of the sons of David, violated his half-sister Tamar, daughter of David by a different wife.
When the struggle began, one of her arguments was “Speak to the king, for he will not withhold me from you”.
That is, she assumed, and was probably right to assume, that David would be willing to disregard the incest prohibitions in order to give his son what he wanted.
After the event, Amnon compounded the offence by rejecting her instead of keeping her with him;
“This wrong in sending me away is greater than the other which you did to me”.
In her eyes, since she had been put to shame and prevented from marrying anyone else, the situation could only be rescued by turning it into a permanent liaison of some kind.
But David would not enforce even that solution.
When he heard about the rape, he was angry, but did nothing.
In other words, he was condoning Amnon’s breach of two different laws. 2 Samuel ch14.

On the subject of sacrifice, the standard rule in the Law is that offerings must be brought to the priest.

What happened in David’s case;
When plague was approaching Jerusalem, David bought the threshing-floor of Araunah the Jebusite, built an altar there, and offered burnt offerings and peace offerings himself. 2 Samuel ch24 vv18-25

On the subject of inheritance, the Law says;
“If a man has two wives… he may not treat the son of the loved wife as the firstborn in preference to the son of the disliked wife, who is the firstborn… He shall acknowledge the firstborn by giving him a double portion of all that he has”. Deuteronomy ch21 vv15-17

What happened in David’s case;
When David was on his deathbed, he took steps to ensure the succession of Solomon.
But whatever Solomon’s merits, he was not the eldest son.
The eldest surviving son was probably Adonijah, who was in the middle of presenting his own claim.
This was a classic case of giving preferential treatment to the son of the favourite wife. 1 Kings ch1

A defence might be found for David on the grounds that some of the laws he broke did not exist at the time when he was breaking them, whatever the Pentateuch says.
Even so, the disregard of legality is breath-taking.

I think this presents an important theological point.
On the one hand, David was named as “a man after God’s own heart”. (1 Samuel ch13 v14 and Acts ch13 v22).
On the other hand, he clearly did not win that description by obedience to the Law.
The implication is that Paul was right; being in a right relationship with God does NOT depend on conformity with the written law of Moses.
For if salvation was achieved by “the works of the Law”, David would not stand a chance.
However, David is credited with depending upon God and giving him his full trust, and that must have been the way to God’s heart.

So will David be one of those who will be brought out with Christ at the Resurrection? Since only Christ can reconcile us to God in our sin ...

a reply to: ketsuko
I don't see why not.
He might be counted amongst those who had faith "looking forwards", like Abraham.

David must have been doing something right, if he was called "a man after God's own heart." Probably because David was "Fighting The Good Fight" to unit the land under one brave, just and wise king - and stop the slaughter of endless fighting between clan/tribal groups in the area.

And to prove how much God wanted David and his army to succeed, he ordered David at one point to "stone to death all the whores." There was no knowledge of microbe-causing-disease in those days. But God knew that if David's soldiers had sex with diseased prostitutes, the soldiers would hardly be in fighting condition to win the battles God wanted David to win. Even without understanding, David obeyed and killed all the prostitutes in the city.

And even tho' God loved David for trudging along that dangerous but righteous path thru endless wars (why he never finished God's temple), not all that David did was forgiven. David first child with Bathsheba was born dead, as penance for their adultry and (worse) tricking Bathsheba's husband into a battle position he couldn't survive, so David was clear to marry Bathsheba.

And in dangerous times, you want a King/Leader who will stand up to Evil and not be tricked into endless, manipulative diplomacy. David chose Solomon to follow him on the throne. Not because Solomon was the son of his favorite wife, but because he was wise beyond his years, and was determined to complete God's temple David had started.

On his deathbed, David's speech to Solomon was spoken from a loving father's heart, emphasizing the importance of holding to the Laws of Moses always. No bragging of Laws broken, or doing whatever you can get away with. But adhering to the path God set for you, and truly trying to uphold His Law.


"I go the way of all the earth; be strong, therefore, and prove yourself a man.
"And keep the charge of the Lord your God: to walk in His ways, to keep His statutes, His commandments, His judgements, and His testimonies, as it is written in the Law of Moses. That you may prosper in all that you do and wherever you turn." 1 Kings 2:2 & 3

a reply to: MKMoniker
Thank you for that contribution.
Yes, David was not perfect by any means, but his intentions were set towards God.
Where do you find that story about killing the prostitutes, though? I don't remember it.

a reply to: DISRAELI

As soon as I saw the title, I knew it was a Disraeli post .

I think we discussed this several months ago, but I will contribute when I can.

originally posted by: DISRAELI
King David was a serial breaker of the laws of Moses.
People try to scandalise us by highlighting the adultery with Bathsheba, but they don’t know the half of it.

Taking his offences one by one;

On the subject of the shewbread, the Law says;
“You shall take fine flour and bake twelve cakes of it…
Every Sabbath day Aaron shall set it in order before the Lord continually on behalf of the people of Israel as a covenant for ever.
And it shall be for Aaron and his sons, and they shall eat it in a holy place, since it is for him a most holy portion”. Leviticus ch24 vv5-9
And on the subject of the Sabbath, the Law says;
“Remain every man of you in his place, let no man go out of his place on the Sabbath day”. Exodus ch16 v29

What happened in David’s case;
When David was in flight from Saul, he went to the priests of the Lord, who were currently taking refuge at Nob, and asked them for bread. He told them he was on the way to a rendezvous.
They had no bread whatever except the shewbread, so the priest gave him the bread which had (just?) been removed from the Presence of the Lord and replaced by hot bread.
This implies that David was travelling on the Sabbath. David seems to confirm this when he declares that the vessels of his young men are always holy, on any expedition, and “how much more today will their vessels be holy?”

As Jesus points out, David was not entitled to eat this bread, which was reserved for the priests.
But Ahimelech was obviously intimidated. He “came to meet David trembling”.
Seeing the king’s right-hand man travelling alone and on the Sabbath day would be startling, and both points would be enough to make him anxious.
He let David have what he wanted, saving his face with the proviso that David’s expected companions should be free from recent sexual contact with women. 1 Samuel ch21 vv1-6

On the subject of divorce, the Law says;
“When a man gives his wife a bill of divorce…and if she goes and becomes another man’s wife… then [even after the second husband’s death or another divorce] the former husband, who sent her away may not take her again to be his wife, after she has been defiled; for that is an abomination before the Lord”. Deuteronomy ch24 vv1-4

What happened in David’s case;
David was married to Saul’s daughter Michal.
When David took flight, Saul gave her to another husband.
After Saul’s death, David’s rival, Abner, wanted to negotiate with him.
David imposed the condition that his former wife Michal be returned to him, and she was duly taken away from her second husband. 2 Samuel ch3 vv12-16
Now the Deuteronomy law does not technically cover the case, because David had never divorced Michal.
However, he clearly ignored the spirit of the law, the principle that a wife who has been with another man in adultery or otherwise is “defiled” for her former husband.

Killing and adultery and even coveting a neighbour’s wife are forbidden in the Ten Commandments;

What happened in David’s case;
He saw Bathsheba, the wife of Uriah the Hittite.
He coveted her and committed adultery with her.
Then he found that the only way to conceal the deed was to contrive Uriah’s death in battle.
As Nathan summed it up; “You have smitten Uriah the Hittite with your sword, and have taken his wife to be your wife, and have slain him with the sword of the Ammonites”. 2 Samuel ch12 v9

On the subject of incest, the Law says;
“If a man takes his sister, a daughter of his father or a daughter of his mother, and sees her nakedness, and she sees his nakedness, it is a shameful thing, and they shall be cut off in the sight of the children of their people”. Leviticus ch20 v17
And on the subject of rape, the Law says;
“If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, then…she shall be his wife, because he has violated her; he may not put her away all his days”. Deuteronomy ch22 vv28-29

What happened in David’s case;
Amnon, one of the sons of David, violated his half-sister Tamar, daughter of David by a different wife.
When the struggle began, one of her arguments was “Speak to the king, for he will not withhold me from you”.
That is, she assumed, and was probably right to assume, that David would be willing to disregard the incest prohibitions in order to give his son what he wanted.
After the event, Amnon compounded the offence by rejecting her instead of keeping her with him;
“This wrong in sending me away is greater than the other which you did to me”.
In her eyes, since she had been put to shame and prevented from marrying anyone else, the situation could only be rescued by turning it into a permanent liaison of some kind.
But David would not enforce even that solution.
When he heard about the rape, he was angry, but did nothing.
In other words, he was condoning Amnon’s breach of two different laws. 2 Samuel ch14.

On the subject of sacrifice, the standard rule in the Law is that offerings must be brought to the priest.

What happened in David’s case;
When plague was approaching Jerusalem, David bought the threshing-floor of Araunah the Jebusite, built an altar there, and offered burnt offerings and peace offerings himself. 2 Samuel ch24 vv18-25

On the subject of inheritance, the Law says;
“If a man has two wives… he may not treat the son of the loved wife as the firstborn in preference to the son of the disliked wife, who is the firstborn… He shall acknowledge the firstborn by giving him a double portion of all that he has”. Deuteronomy ch21 vv15-17

What happened in David’s case;
When David was on his deathbed, he took steps to ensure the succession of Solomon.
But whatever Solomon’s merits, he was not the eldest son.
The eldest surviving son was probably Adonijah, who was in the middle of presenting his own claim.
This was a classic case of giving preferential treatment to the son of the favourite wife. 1 Kings ch1

A defence might be found for David on the grounds that some of the laws he broke did not exist at the time when he was breaking them, whatever the Pentateuch says.
Even so, the disregard of legality is breath-taking.

I think this presents an important theological point.
On the one hand, David was named as “a man after God’s own heart”. (1 Samuel ch13 v14 and Acts ch13 v22).
On the other hand, he clearly did not win that description by obedience to the Law.
The implication is that Paul was right; being in a right relationship with God does NOT depend on conformity with the written law of Moses.
For if salvation was achieved by “the works of the Law”, David would not stand a chance.
However, David is credited with depending upon God and giving him his full trust, and that must have been the way to God’s heart.

I think it important to note also, David exhibited something as a teenager, because that's when he was anointed to be king. We don't know what God sees, but apparently God saw something worthwhile about David.

a reply to: MKMoniker

The after his own heart could be taken two ways.

a reply to: WarminIndy
Yes, that's a very important point.
The choice of David came from God's knowledge of his heart, not from his deeds.

I've noticed you bend scripture yet again to suit your needs. We're taught quite clearly not to alter scripture, or ad to it. 2 Samuel 18-25 above, you either clearly misinterpret, or blatantly omit the important stuff.

David goes and sets up the alter at God's command. He performs this deed, to the letter, insisting on buying it, when it is freely offered. He makes the sacrifice, and the plague is withdrawn.

God commands a deed be performed. David performs the deed, and builds the alter. God then grants relief, after David performs the works commanded.



a reply to: DISRAELI

a reply to: Ignatian
The command was for the building of the altar. I don't see a specific command that David should be the one who made the offerings.
(Though I did add that a defence might be found on some of the points)

If you're going to be indignant at that paragraph, there'll be a lot worse to come over the next three weeks.

originally posted by: DISRAELI
a reply to: Ignatian
The command was for the building of the altar. I don't see a specific command that David should be the one who made the offerings.
(Though I did add that a defence might be found on some of the points)

If you're going to be indignant at that paragraph, there'll be a lot worse to come over the next three weeks.

David was only allowed to build that altar in the tabernacle, not the temple, because the temple was not built yet. However, remember that when the ark was brought back to Israel, David danced before it?

David might have done some really bad things, but as king, he knew very well the best interest for the people that without that ark, and respect for the covenant, then the people would fall away again into idolatry once again and publicly he made that statement.

What other deeds he did, those were private.

So there is the public obligation that David performed and the private mistakes, that Nathan caught him on and reminded him of. One thing that can be said, is that David did indeed keep the public obligation of worship as the king.

Remember, he did say that he could have killed Saul in that cave, but refused to kill the Lord's anointed? Saul was not keeping the public obligation of worship, and that may be the difference.

I think perhaps that is what it most important, the public image vs. the private life. As king, David did the right thing as far as public obligation.

Correct, there's no reference in the passages as to who actually performed the ritual. We then must assume it was done according to The Law, because his works, his deeds were righteous by God, the proof being the plague was lifted. You, on the other hand, make the assumption, David performed it himself.

Do you spend all your time trying to defend one verse from Paul in the NT? Is your entire theology based on that one verse, even when countless other verses clearly refute it? It's kinda sad actually.


a reply to: DISRAELI

a reply to: WarminIndy
Well, that particular paragraph isn't essential to the argument, given all the others.
I wasn't trying to show that David was a bad man; only that he could not be called "good" if "good" was defined as "living in strict conformity with the laws of the Pentateuch". I was using that as illustrating Paul's teaching that "living by the Law" is not how men become righteous in the eyes of God.

"A lot worse". Your words not mine. I'll agree with you ahead of time.

I see a lot worse from you a lot of time. I just rarely point them out. But it's Saturday, I get to sit still on Saturday.

I'm only supposed to rebuke you twice,then shake the dust off my sandals. I'll make an exception with you. I like you.

"A sower went out to sow.......nah, never-mind, you know the parable. Birds or thorns, I can't quite put my finger on it yet.





a reply to: DISRAELI

a reply to: Ignatian
Survey the threads in my profile, and you will see that my theology is based on a lot of other things.
Though I think it ill becomes a Christian to be sneering at the thought of basing our theology on the New Testament.

a reply to: MKMoniker

The Bible does say that the plague came upon Israel after David took the census, of which he had to quickly repent of.

David kind of had a heart attack, the KJV says his heart smote him. Maybe it was just that he felt the immediate pangs of knowing he did wrong.

originally posted by: DISRAELI
a reply to: WarminIndy
Well, that particular paragraph isn't essential to the argument, given all the others.
I wasn't trying to show that David was a bad man; only that he could not be called "good" if "good" was defined as "living in strict conformity with the laws of the Pentateuch". I was using that as illustrating Paul's teaching that "living by the Law" is not how men become righteous in the eyes of God.

David may have been a great king, but he is that example of a man torn by two world views. But Jesus references Solomon more and says "Behold, a greater than Solomon is here".

David is a good example of what you are trying to say. I think David is a man with many faults, that is abundantly clear. But he was very quick to repent when called for his bad behavior.

Why do you look to Paul? Jesus blatantly showed that right in front of The Pharisees, when he WORKED on the sabbath day. Oh, the horror.


a reply to: DISRAELI

originally posted by: Ignatian
"A lot worse". Your words not mine. I'll agree with you ahead of time.

I see a lot worse from you a lot of time. I just rarely point them out. But it's Saturday, I get to sit still on Saturday.

I'm only supposed to rebuke you twice,then shake the dust off my sandals. I'll make an exception with you. I like you.

"A sower went out to sow.......nah, never-mind, you know the parable. Birds or thorns, I can't quite put my finger on it yet.





a reply to: DISRAELI

Rocks too, don't forget the rocks.

Disraeli is a wonderful teacher.