(I'm away this weekend, so this is auto-posted. I apologize if the formatting turns out different from the way it appeared in the preview when I composed it!)
Today we read about David's successful second attempt to bring the Ark of the Covenant back to its rightful place in the temple. After realizing he was obviously not transporting it the way God had instructed, he inquired of the priests to find out how it was supposed to happen. And when they started out again, this time with the ark being properly carried on the shoulders of the priests, there was great cause for celebration and David immediately builds an altar to offer a sacrifice of praise.
And then we come to the well-known part about David dancing naked in the streets and his re-acquired wife Michal being embarrassed. I've always thought she kind of had good reason to be a little ashamed, but it appears most Bible scholars agree David was NOT naked; that he was actually fully clothed, but he was wearing the same thing everyone else was. He didn't stand out as king. He had taken off his royal robes and was dancing with abandon among the priests and commoners. He was simply rejoicing together with the people ~ with "the entire house of Israel," the Bible says. In fact, Michal sort of seems to be the only person not celebrating the return of the ark.
Michal's biting remark after David returns to his home earns her a life of loneliness. By this time, David had several wives and concubines and so whether her barrenness was a divine curse or just that David simply never had marital relations with her again after this point, we don't know. I think it's safe to surmise it was a punishment either way, and that Michal likely led a fairly unhappy existence for the rest of her life.
It's interesting how there are two very different views of David's response to Michal. One commentary (which I should have bookmarked, but forgot to and later couldn't find again!) says David responded with a cutting remark of his own, pointing out that God chose him over Michal's father, Saul. The writer figures he could have been more gracious and left that part out.
Most commentaries, however, focus on the part of his response that points out David wasn't dancing for HER benefit, that he was dancing and singing his praises for God and that he's willing to humiliate himself much further yet, if that's what serving God requires.
There's no doubt about it, David was a man with a very humble attitude towards God, and in his response to Michal, I think the phrase, "...when he appointed me ruler over the LORD's people Israel..." speaks volumes. If he had indeed been responding sarcastically, like that one commentary said, somehow I think he would have also claimed Israel was HIS kingdom, HIS people. But he doesn't. He recognizes himself as the appointed leader, but that the people, the kingdom, belong to God. Somehow that doesn't fit with the idea of a sarcastic reply in my opinion!
This whole passage makes me wonder how well I "celebrate before the LORD" and to what lengths I'm willing to humble myself to do it.
Tomorrow's passage: 2 Samuel 7:1-8:14, 1 Chronicles 17:1-18:13, Psalm 60.
2 comments:
For some reason I've never had the impression that he was naked, but that he wore some kind of undergarment or something. There are differing opinions as to what constitutes a "linen ephod" (I did a quick Google search) - some define it as a "tunic", which would have been at least somewhat modest, shall we say, if perhaps not culturally appropriate.
I always had the same impression as you Tammi and I'm not sure why. Other than Michal's words to David, the text certainly indicates he was clothed. I think the commentators are correct in assuming that Michal didn't like the fact that he wasn't acting very kingly. And wow, what a punishment she got for this - childless forever. A huge reminder to watch our tongue!
Post a Comment