David Dancing

[lakesidelady]

2 Sam. 6: 14
David dancing with all his might wearing a linen ephod. My pastor insists that since the verse says he was wearing a linen ephod, that he wasn't wearing anything else. and that his wife Michal was upset because his private parts were waving all over the place when he jumped around and danced. I'm saying that just because something is lacking in the Bible doesn't mean it didn't exist. I say that Michal was upset because he wasn't acting "kingly". He was clothed decently but she felt that he should stand and act what we would call presidental.

It comes to principles of interpetation. Do we only take what the Bible specifically says and assume something is wrong if it says nothing about it?

what is your point of view on David's underclothes and the interpetation principles?

 

[JJM]

2 Sam. 6: 14
David dancing with all his might wearing a linen ephod. My pastor insists that since the verse says he was wearing a linen ephod, that he wasn't wearing anything else. and that his wife Michal was upset because his private parts were waving all over the place when he jumped around and danced. I'm saying that just because something is lacking in the Bible doesn't mean it didn't exist. I say that Michal was upset because he wasn't acting "kingly". He was clothed decently but she felt that he should stand and act what we would call presidental.

It comes to principles of interpetation. Do we only take what the Bible specifically says and assume something is wrong if it says nothing about it?

what is your point of view on David's underclothes and the interpetation principles?

I agree with you

 

[Nazarite]

Most scholars seem to believe that the language in this passage would indicate that David did, in fact, expose himself. The word translated dancing in this passage is used nowhere else in the OT scriptures and it a type of whirlling devotional dance much like that employed by muslims today. http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?tocId=13824&query=dervish&ct=

As I read the text there seems to be no approval given to this by God. Further, David doesn't deny Michal's charge that uncovering himself in front of the maids is contemptable. His only justification was that he was doing it before the Lord.

 

[Nazarite]

I just thought I would add this since I read it in the devotional section "Hard Sayings of the Bible" I really reading from that site. Check it out sometime.

Was David's Public Dancing Indecent?
Was Michal correct in her estimate of David's dancing in front of the ark of God as it was being brought to the tent David had prepared for it in his city? Or did she misinterpret David's actions and purpose?

If David had expected his wife Michal, the daughter of Saul, to rejoice with him in the arrival of the ark of God in the capital city, he had a long wait coming. It is a real question if this ever was a happy marriage, for as Alter notes, "Until the final meeting between Michal and David, at no point is there any dialogue between them--an avoidance of verbal exchange particularly noticeable in the Bible, where such a large part of the burden of narration is taken up by dialogue. When the exchange finally comes, it is an explosion."

In one sentence Michal's sarcastic words tell us what she thinks of David's actions. To her way of thinking, the king had demeaned himself by divesting himself of his royal robes and dressing only in a "linen ephod" (2 Sam 6:14). With abandoned joy David danced before the Lord as the ark, properly borne this time on the shoulders of the Levites, went up to Jerusalem.

Michal did not even deign to go out on the streets to be part of the festivities, but she watched from a window (2 Sam 6:16). Obviously, there was more bothering Michal than David's undignified public jubilation. Her words about David "distinguish[ing] himself" are further punctuated by her disdainfully emphasizing the fact three times over that the king had "disrob[ed]" (the final clause of 2 Sam 6:20 literally reads, "as any vulgar fellow, disrobing, would disrobe"). Was David's dress, or lack thereof, as scandalous as Michal made it out to be? Though some have thought that they detected overtones of orgiastic rituals in preparation for sacred marriage rites (in, for example, the presence of slave girls), such suggestions are overdrawn if we are to take seriously David's rejoinders to Michal in 2 Samuel 6:21-22. David speaks of his election and appointment to the office of king by God. He does rub in the fact that God chose him over her father Saul. But as far as David was concerned, it was not an issue of public nudity or scandalous dress, but a matter of humiliating himself before the Lord. Furthermore, he danced not for the "slave girls," but for the Lord. The "linen ephod" consisted probably of a linen robe used normally by the Levites.

 

[Stan the Man]

I would say that the fact that Michal refers specifically to the maids who are watching him, that he is indeed only wearing the ephod.

In terms of interpretation principles, I would say that it is very clear cut. You should always, always, pray before you read scripture. You should pray for insight and for God to grant you understanding of the passage you are about to read. If you do not, or you do and are still unsure about something, then you should ask God to make it plain to you. It's His word, he's the best interpreter there is

 

[Trench777]

Ummmm....

IF Michal was "right" in her rebuke of her hubby, why did she suffer the ultimate humiliation of O.T. women; no child. 2SA 6:23 Therefore (I.E. BECAUSE of the preceeding actions) Michal the daughter of Saul had no child unto the day of her death.

I would say given that fact, she was judged "wrong" in the eyes of her hubby and The Lord.

I'd like to add, on a side note, that if David's dancing irked Michal like it did, she'd HATE seeing me get all crazy worshipping God with shameless abandon, when the Spirit leads me! (Heheh!)

DISCLAIMER: I don't dance naked, tho! And...I don't think I'd recognise an "ephod" if my wife snuck one in the closet for me.

May His Word be a light to your path!

T777

 

[Nazarite]

Make notice of who Michael was married to. It may be likely that she had no children from that day because David never slept with her again after the stinging rebuke.

 

[Trench777]

Make notice of who Michael was married to. It may be likely that she had no children from that day because David never slept with her again after the stinging rebuke.

Which would have been a VERY harsh punishment for an O.T. woman to endure (short of death, argueably the most harsh). Given David's character, I'm going to make the leap that he would not have denied her this way, without the advocation of God in the matter. As child-bearing was seen as God's Hand at work in a womans life, for David to refuse to sleep with her would have virtually been taking God's Will into David's own hands.

So, either; David refused to sleep with her, or; God shut up her womb. Either scenario came about directly because of her rebuke of David, regardless.

T777

 

[Nazarite]

I'm not trying to be a smartie pants here but consider this one final point. It would seem that many of David's marriages were for political reasons. It seems very possible to me that he would not sleep again with Michael. Also consider that David broke the Law when he brought Michael to be his wife again.

the first husband who sent her away may not marry her again after she has been defiled, because that would be detestable to the Lord. You must not bring guilt on the land the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance. Deuteronomy 24:4

 

[lakesidelady]

Wow, there sure are a lot of great ideas here! This one below is a good principle that I'll keep in mind. I'm right now trying to go through the NT and it is difficult at times. I'm in 2 Corinthians right now. Gettin' in bog territory right now. (i.e. hard to get through)

I would say that the fact that Michal refers specifically to the maids who are watching him, that he is indeed only wearing the ephod.

In terms of interpretation principles, I would say that it is very clear cut. You should always, always, pray before you read scripture. You should pray for insight and for God to grant you understanding of the passage you are about to read. If you do not, or you do and are still unsure about something, then you should ask God to make it plain to you. It's His word, he's the best interpreter there is

 

[pimorton]

Whether David was exposing himself or not, I don't know. And I seriously doubt he would have realized it himself while he was "dancing with all his might." He was in a spiritual state at the time, and thoughts of modesty did not even cross his mind as he was celebrating an intimate encounter with Most High God.
I think the focus of Michal's disapproval was exactly that David was not being "kingly" or "presidential." He had, after all, removed the royal robes and taken on the garment of a simple priest - not even the high priest.
She was, after all, the daughter of King Saul, and she knew how a king should act. She wanted David to act like Daddy, like the kings of the other nations.
Please notice that the Bible never refers to Michal as "the wife of David." Rather, she is referred to as "the daughter of Saul," even after her marriage to David.

 

[chunkofcoal]

David in his happy place! That always makes me smile!
Maybe what we are supposed to ponder about this is the difference between David and Adam and Eve. David danced uncovered before the Lord, but Adam and Eve, when they realized they were naked, tried to hide themselves.
I think you are right, Pimorton. David's wife didn't think his actions were appropriate, and "normal". Makes me think about what Jesus said in Luke 7:31-35. Neither He nor John the Baptist acted the way people thought they should have.
We have to watch out for people with a "Just like us" attitude.