Was David really a good king?

[jmdrake]

The subject of kings came up in the theonomy debate. David was mentioned as a possible "good king." But the more I think about it, the less I'm sure about that. Sure David was a "man after God's on heart." But that's due to God's love and mercy and David responding to that in his love for God. David was quick to repent for his mistakes and that's good. But David almost brought Israel to ruin. Most are of course familiar with David's sin with Bathsheba and many are familiar with David's later sin of instituting a census. What's less clear is David's sins of omission in his own household. David married multiple wives and had concubines. (Not a sin as Nathan told David that God gave him those women and would have given him more if he wanted, but unwise anyway). The son of one of those wives raped the daughter of a different wife and then shamed her on top of it by putting her out. David should have punished that but didn't. Tamar's brother, Absolom, killed his half brother in revenge. David didn't punish Absolom either. Absolom, emboldened by David's lack of action, started a full scale rebellion forcing David to flee. One of Absolom's top advisers, Ahithofel, was a relative of Bathsheba and likely friends with Uriah, the man David had killed to cover up his sin with her. Many man died on both sides. David's general pointed this out to David when, after the battle, all David seemed to care about was Absolom.

Now yes, David did a lot of good things. But ultimately there is none good but God. So why seek to have anyone but God be king over you?

[pcosmar]

A King was never God's plan,, and David was not the worst.
I think as Kings go,, Solomon was likely the best.

[Ronin Truth]

Well, if he ever really existed, the girls seemed to like him.

[wizardwatson]

The bible makes it pretty obvious God didn't choose the jews for their moral fiber.

If you're going to crucify a people to forge a priesthood by putting them through extra hell here on earth, it goes over easier if they are more deserving of it. God loves making sinners into saints. It's his forte.

[heavenlyboy34]

The subject of kings came up in the theonomy debate. David was mentioned as a possible "good king." But the more I think about it, the less I'm sure about that. Sure David was a "man after God's on heart." But that's due to God's love and mercy and David responding to that in his love for God. David was quick to repent for his mistakes and that's good. But David almost brought Israel to ruin. Most are of course familiar with David's sin with Bathsheba and many are familiar with David's later sin of instituting a census. What's less clear is David's sins of omission in his own household. David married multiple wives and had concubines. (Not a sin as Nathan told David that God gave him those women and would have given him more if he wanted, but unwise anyway). The son of one of those wives raped the daughter of a different wife and then shamed her on top of it by putting her out. David should have punished that but didn't. Tamar's brother, Absolom, killed his half brother in revenge. David didn't punish Absolom either. Absolom, emboldened by David's lack of action, started a full scale rebellion forcing David to flee. One of Absolom's top advisers, Ahithofel, was a relative of Bathsheba and likely friends with Uriah, the man David had killed to cover up his sin with her. Many man died on both sides. David's general pointed this out to David when, after the battle, all David seemed to care about was Absolom.

Now yes, David did a lot of good things. But ultimately there is none good but God. So why seek to have anyone but God be king over you?

Fear of the unknown. It seems to be a natural weakness in most people. "No King But Jesus" was a popular slogan in the US at one time. Sad, but not surprisingly, that went away quite quickly.

[erowe1]

I have gone through the books of Samuel investigating this, and found that practically every good thing about David comes from his life before he began to reign as king. There is a clear turning point from good to bad that coincides with that event.

That said, he is later often referred back to in comparison with other kings as the prototype of a good king. I think there is need for a good explanation for that fact. My inkling is that it has to do with David being a type of the Messiah, and not with David's own sinful rule.

[Christian Liberty]

A King was never God's plan,, and David was not the worst.
I think as Kings go,, Solomon was likely the best.

Well, with Solomon you actually have textual evidence of bad rule

I have gone through the books of Samuel investigating this, and found that practically every good thing about David comes from his life before he began to reign as king. There is a clear turning point from good to bad that coincides with that event.

That said, he is later often referred back to in comparison with other kings as the prototype of a good king. I think there is need for a good explanation for that fact. My inkling is that it has to do with David being a type of the Messiah, and not with David's own sinful rule.

I'm not sure that that explanation makes sense, but I'll have to look at it.

[AuH20]

David let the whole king thing go to his head. Didn't he like the boys as well?

[erowe1]

David let the whole king thing go to his head. Didn't he like the boys as well?

No. If you heard somebody argue that, they were probably basing it on his relationship with Jonathan, whom he was said to have loved more than a woman. But their friendship is never described as sexual.

[pcosmar]

Well, with Solomon you actually have textual evidence of bad rule

Enlighten me.

He had no wars,, and even other monarchs came to see his peaceful and prosperous Kingdom.

For he was ruling over all the west of the River from Tiphsah up to Gaza, over all the kings west of the River; and he had peace from every side all around. Judah and Israel lived in security, each man under his vine and under his fig tree, from Dan as far as Beersheba, all the days of Solomon.

They came from all the nations to hear the wisdom of Solomon; from all the kings of the earth who had heard of his wisdom.

[Sola_Fide]

Did David implement the civil polity of Moses? According to Reconstructionism, how could he be good if he didn't do that?

[Christian Liberty]

Did David implement the civil polity of Moses? According to Reconstructionism, how could he be good if he didn't do that?

I'm pretty sure even the non-theonomist argument would say the civil polity of Moses was in effect until the expiration of Israel as a nation, which Israel was certainly a nation under David.

That said, I would not say that any ruler who fails to perfectly implement Mosaic polity is "good". I would say that that's the ideal. And, I never claimed to be a reconstructionist. I said I was a theonomist.

[William Tell]

Yes, he was a good King. The Bible says God thought so anyway, maybe you have higher standards, though.

2 Kings 18 New International Version (NIV)

Hezekiah King of Judah


Hezekiah King of Judah

18 In the third year of Hoshea son of Elah king of Israel, Hezekiah son of Ahaz king of Judah began to reign. ² He was twenty-five years old when he became king, and he reigned in Jerusalem twenty-nine years. His mother’s name was Abijah^[a] daughter of Zechariah. ³He did what was right in the eyes of the Lord, just as his father David had done.

2 Kings 22 New International Version (NIV)

The Book of the Law Found

22 Josiah was eight years old when he became king, and he reigned in Jerusalem thirty-one years. His mother’s name was Jedidah daughter of Adaiah; she was from Bozkath. ² He did what was right in the eyes of the Lord and followed completely the ways of his father David, not turning aside to the right or to the left.

[erowe1]

Yes, he was a good King. The Bible says God thought so anyway, maybe you have higher standards, though.

But notice how you only get those statements from later times looking back on him. The account of his own rule as it happened is a lot more bad than good.

[Christian Liberty]

But notice how you only get those statements from later times looking back on him. The account of his own rule as it happened is a lot more bad than good.

First question, how do you know this? By what standard? It seems like the Bible disagreed.

Second of all, was his reign exhaustively detailed in the Biblical text? Or were specific things recorded to teach us lessons (possibly that even the best of leaders can grow corrupt with power.)

BTW: I don't think we should appoint kings, though that might be better than the rabid democracy we have today.

[jmdrake]

Yes, he was a good King. The Bible says God thought so anyway, maybe you have higher standards, though.

David was "good" in that he didn't lead Israel into idolatry. That seems to be the only criteria. That and his being willing to repent. Saul wasn't a bad king but he was unrepentent.

[Christian Liberty]

David was "good" in that he didn't lead Israel into idolatry. That seems to be the only criteria. That and his being willing to repent. Saul wasn't a bad king but he was unrepentent.

I'm not sure that's actually the case (1 Samuel 8 clearly suggests that its immoral to draft people into the army, take ten percent of their incomes, use eminent domain, or enslave the people in any other way) but if that's the case, why would we think we know what a good king is better than God would?

[PierzStyx]

Enlighten me.

He had no wars,, and even other monarchs came to see his peaceful and prosperous Kingdom.

Well, there was that whole think with sacrificing babies to false gods by burning them alive in 1 Kings 11.

[PierzStyx]

David's kingdom devolved into civil war and bloodletting because he was an adulterer and a murderer. No, David was not a good king. Israel had almost no good kings. Some were better, some were worse. But they all proved God's point to Samuel, when you reject God's rulership and follow after the State the result is ruin.

[Ronin Truth]

Maybe if you just don't get all hung up and bothered about that annoying 10 Commandments no adultery thing.

[erowe1]

First question, how do you know this? By what standard? It seems like the Bible disagreed.

Just read it. It's there. Maybe tomorrow I'll come back and give details. But I don't think you can read about David's reign in the Bible and come to a different conclusion.

I don't think the Bible disagreed. But have you ever noticed how the Bible consistently, when it looks back on heroes from a later time, it always highlights the positive and not the negative. Think about how Samson and Jephthah look in Hebrews 11 versus their depictions in Judges. I see it as a similar thing here. I agree that there's something going on that deserves more attention. But we can't just ignore the original recounting of David's reign.

[jmdrake]

I'm not sure that's actually the case (1 Samuel 8 clearly suggests that its immoral to draft people into the army, take ten percent of their incomes, use eminent domain, or enslave the people in any other way) but if that's the case, why would we think we know what a good king is better than God would?

It doesn't seem like you understood what I wrote. Are you familiar with Jesus (also God) saying "There is none good but God?" Do you think Jesus doesn't know "good" when He sees it? Again I will repeat, David was "good" in that he didn't lead Israel into idolatry. Are you debating that? Because that's pretty much not up for dispute. Also David had the same access to imputed righteousness as anyone who repents. God declares all repentant sinners "good." But that doesn't mean what they did before being declared "good" was all that good.

[jmdrake]

Just read it. It's there. Maybe tomorrow I'll come back and give details. But I don't think you can read about David's reign in the Bible and come to a different conclusion.

I don't think the Bible disagreed. But have you ever noticed how the Bible consistently, when it looks back on heroes from a later time, it always highlights the positive and not the negative. Think about how Samson and Jephthah look in Hebrews 11 versus their depictions in Judges. I see it as a similar thing here. I agree that there's something going on that deserves more attention. But we can't just ignore the original recounting of David's reign.

For the life of me I don't know why Jeptha and Barak got mentioned in Hebrews 11 but not Deborah.

[pcosmar]

Well, there was that whole think with sacrificing babies to false gods by burning them alive in 1 Kings 11.

Well he was distracted by some of his many wives.. and went after other Gods.. (big mistake)
But I was referring to his "Kingdom",, which was the longest time of peace and prosperity ever.

It would be interesting to read the "Acts of Solomon". (another book that we no longer have) that is mentioned in that chapter.

[jmdrake]

Well he was distracted by some of his many wives.. and went after other Gods.. (big mistake)
But I was referring to his "Kingdom",, which was the longest time of peace and prosperity ever.

It would be interesting to read the "Acts of Solomon". (another book that we no longer have) that is mentioned in that chapter.

Well from that measure some Jewish historians consider Ahab a good king.

[pcosmar]

Well from that measure some Jewish historians consider Ahab a good king.

Which is why the idea of a "good King" is a bad idea. The idea of Government is a bad idea..

The Founders understood this. Government is evil. (perhaps a necessary evil,,but still evil) and sought to limit it.

It was a good idea,,

and they said to him, "Behold, you have grown old, and your sons do not walk in your ways. Now appoint a king for us to judge us like all the nations." But the thing was displeasing in the sight of Samuel when they said, "Give us a king to judge us." And Samuel prayed to the LORD. The LORD said to Samuel, "Listen to the voice of the people in regard to all that they say to you, for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected Me from being king over them.…

[Christian Liberty]

It doesn't seem like you understood what I wrote. Are you familiar with Jesus (also God) saying "There is none good but God?" Do you think Jesus doesn't know "good" when He sees it? Again I will repeat, David was "good" in that he didn't lead Israel into idolatry. Are you debating that? Because that's pretty much not up for dispute. Also David had the same access to imputed righteousness as anyone who repents. God declares all repentant sinners "good." But that doesn't mean what they did before being declared "good" was all that good.

The thing is, his kingdom is also described as having done "what was right in the eyes of the Lord."

[heavenlyboy34]

Which is why the idea of a "good King" is a bad idea. The idea of Government is a bad idea..

The Founders understood this. Government is evil. (perhaps a necessary evil,,but still evil) and sought to limit it.

It was a good idea,,

Some did. Others were quite fond of a powerful Fed regime. (Washington, for example, wanted to be referred to as "your majesty"[and to rule as a sort of king] when he was POTUS-and only stopped because people laughed at him so much) That's just conveniently ignored by apologists for them.

[William Tell]

David married multiple wives and had concubines. (Not a sin as Nathan told David that God gave him those women and would have given him more if he wanted, but unwise anyway).

I don't know why you say its unwise for David to have those wives and concubines. Like you said, its clear they were a blessing from God. Why should he have not accepted a blessing? Who else in the Bible should have rejected blessings?

[erowe1]

I like the idea of looking at the good and bad of David's reign. I think a whole lot can be said about it. In this post I'm not going to touch on the difficult verses already mentioned where David is held up as the prototype of a good king when comparisons are made with other later kings. I'll save that for later. What I want to do here is just survey some of what the Bible says about David before and after he becomes king.

Before he became king:

• He was a man after God's own heart (1 Sam 13:14)
• He was better than Saul (1 Sam 15:28)
• The Lord chose him not because of outward appearances, but the heart (1 Sam 16:7)
• The Spirit of the Lord came upon him (1 Sam 15:13)
• Saul recognized that he was a man of valor, prudent in speech, handsome, and that God was with him (1 Sam 16:18)
• The whole thing with Goliath, his humility, dependance on God, glorification of God, recognition that God does not save by the sword (1 Sam 17:36-47)
• He behaved more wisely than all the servants of Saul (1 Sam 18:30)
• He was an innocent victim of Saul's persecution having never sinned against him (1 Sam 19:4, et al)
• He prayed for God's guidance and did what God said without hesitation (1 Sam 23:4ff.)
• He spared Saul's life, as the Lord's anointed, and left judgment to God (1 Sam 24:12-15; 26:9)
• He trusted the Lord to deliver him from all tribulation (1 Sam 26:24)
• The Gentile Achish saw that David was upright and as good as an angel (1 Sam 29:6-9)
• He wept over the death of his enemy Saul, the Lord's anointed (2 Sam 1:12-14)

After he became king:

• He took many wives and concubines (2 Sam 5:12-13; notice the immediate connection of this with his becoming king)
• He committed adultery with Bathsheba and murdered Uriah (2 Sam 11)
• This is followed by a downward spiral in all David's fortunes (death of son, rape of daughter, treason of Absalom, etc.)
• Shimei interprets David's misfortunes as his just dessert, being a bloodthirsty rogue (2 Sam 16:7-8)
• David aroused the wrath of the Lord with a census (2 Sam 24:1)
• There are good points too during David's reign, such as his admissions of guilt, his mercy to Shimei and kindness to Mephibosheth, and his praise of God in 2 Sam 22-23. But these are occasional glimmers of light in a sad story that began in 2 Samuel 5, in total contrast with the constant positivity surrounding David throughout 1 Samuel.