Why do we judge Michal so harshly?

jiminpa · Feb 23, 2010

What the scriptures said: David danced with abandon before the Lord in public. Michal had a problem with that and rebuked David. Scripture points to that as the pivotal point in Michal's bareness.

What we know from Christian forums: there are those on this forum who consistently criticize others for serving God with abandon, and not dutifully conforming to their sense of decorum.

JimB · Feb 23, 2010

jiminpa said:
*****

What we know from Christian forums: there are those on this forum who consistently criticize others for serving God with abandon, and not dutifully conforming to their sense of decorum.

You mean like the Apostle Paul? 1 Cor. 14.23, 40

~Jim

Some things have to be believed to be seen.

JimB · Feb 23, 2010

Balance said:
As have I.

See, the difference is that i believe if the issue was
Davids dancing, or how he treated his wife, or tension in the home that David caused, God would have addressed those issues, or at the very least mentioned them.

But God did not, the only one God addressed was Davids wife.

And that is as plain as Gods words on the matter.

As for assumption police.

read the siggy. If it describes a theological approach ..... Well.....

I hate to say it, but I think your interpretation is still, um, assumingthere, I said itassuming a lot.

~Jim

Some things have to be believed to be seen.

JimB · Feb 23, 2010

jiminpa said:
What the scriptures said: David danced with abandon before the Lord in public. Michal had a problem with that and rebuked David. Scripture points to that as the pivotal point in Michal's bareness.

*****

Well, thats the standard P/C version. I just dont buy it.

~Jim

Some things have to be believed to be seen.

Always in His Presence · Feb 23, 2010

JimB said:
You mean like the Apostle Paul? 1 Cor. 14.23, 40

~Jim

Some things have to be believed to be seen.

Two things

if God had an issue with Davids worship style, He sure didn't say anything about it, but only addressed his wife. (I think Ive heard that before).

And

I don't think there is one person on this forum that comes close to acting like Paul.

Always in His Presence · Feb 23, 2010

JimB said:
I hate to say it, but I think your interpretation is still, um, assuming—there, I said it—assuming a lot.

No assumption on my part Jim -

You will note the scripture verses you cited.

Here’s the biblical text from 2 Samuel 6:

12And it was told King David, "The LORD has blessed the household of Obed-edom and all that belongs to him, because of the ark of God." So David went and brought up the ark of God from the house of Obed-edom to the city of David with rejoicing. 13And when those who bore the ark of the LORD had gone six steps, he sacrificed an ox and a fattened animal. 14And David danced before the LORD with all his might. And David was wearing a linen ephod. 15So David and all the house of Israel brought up the ark of the LORD with shouting and with the sound of the horn.

16As the ark of the LORD came into the city of David, Michal the daughter of Saul looked out of the window and saw King David leaping and dancing before the LORD, and she despised him in her heart. 17And they brought in the ark of the LORD and set it in its place, inside the tent that David had pitched for it. And David offered burnt offerings and peace offerings before the LORD. 18And when David had finished offering the burnt offerings and the peace offerings, he blessed the people in the name of the LORD of hosts 19and distributed among all the people, the whole multitude of Israel, both men and women, a cake of bread, a portion of meat, and a cake of raisins to each one. Then all the people departed, each to his house.

20And David returned to bless his household. But Michal the daughter of Saul came out to meet David and said, "How the king of Israel honored himself today, uncovering himself today before the eyes of his servants’ female servants, as one of the vulgar fellows shamelessly uncovers himself!" 21And David said to Michal, "It was before the LORD, who chose me above your father and above all his house, to appoint me as prince over Israel, the people of the LORD—and I will make merry before the LORD. 22I will make myself yet more contemptible than this, and I will be abased in your eyes. But by the female servants of whom you have spoken, by them I shall be held in honor." 23And Michal the daughter of Saul had no child to the day of her death.

Highlighted in Red is everything God said negatively about King David's worship and his action towards his wife.

Highlighted in Green is said negatively about Michal and her actions toward her husband.

I have reduced all the other words to a smaller font gray.

So maybe it's easier for people to see why I've said

Balance said:
Second, the scripture. (God Breathed) only addresses one persons heart and attitude. And it's not David.

Balance said:
See, the difference is that i believe if the issue was
Davids dancing, or how he treated his wife, or tension in the home that David caused, God would have addressed those issues, or at the very least mentioned them.

But God did not, the only one God addressed was Davids wife.

And that is as plain as Gods words on the matter.

Balance said:
if God had an issue with Davids worship style, He sure didn't say anything about it, but only addressed his wife. (I think Ive heard that before).

So you and everyone can see it is NOT an assumption to say God only addressed the heart and actions of one person. God who was NEVER slow to correct David when he was wrong said NOTHING in scripture about his actions in worship and/or towards his wife. BUT God DID say something about his wife's actions and attitudes. That is not an assumption or an interpretation, that is simple fact as demonstrated by scripture verses.

JimB · Feb 24, 2010

Balance said:
No assumption on my part Jim -

*****

Of course not, Joe. Its the rest of us who assume stuff. You, of course, are above that sort of thing.

~Jim

Some things have to be believed to be seen.

Yekcidmij · Feb 24, 2010

The passage isn't concerned at all with David's worship style. The purpose of the passage is to be a part of legitimizing David as king. Michal is barren because she (1) curses David and (2) is Saul's daughter. She is not barren because she curses his worship style.

JimB · Feb 24, 2010

Yekcidmij said:
The passage isn't concerned at all with David's worship style. The purpose of the passage is to be a part of legitimizing David as king. Michal is barren because she (1) curses David and (2) is Saul's daughter.

... or (3) because of the context shows the deep rift between David and Michal. If a husband and wife do not live as a husband and wife they will produce no children.

~Jim

Some things have to be believed to be seen.

Always in His Presence · Feb 24, 2010

JimB said:
Of course not, Joe. Its the rest of us who assume stuff. You, of course, are above that sort of thing.

~Jim

Some things have to be believed to be seen.

I've done my best. Showed it in scripture, even used colors to demonstrate what I'm saying. If you cannot see it by now, you most likely never will.

Thank to those who gave all those reps, I'm glad at least some see what I'm saying.

Always in His Presence · Feb 24, 2010

Yekcidmij said:
The passage isn't concerned at all with David's worship style. The purpose of the passage is to be a part of legitimizing David as king. Michal is barren because she (1) curses David and (2) is Saul's daughter. She is not barren because she curses his worship style.

Always in His Presence · Feb 24, 2010

JimB said:
... or (3) because of the context shows the deep rift between David and Michal. If a husband and wife do not live as a husband and wife they will produce no children.

No, Jim it doesn't.

JimB · Feb 24, 2010

Balance said:
No, Jim it doesn't.

Oh, yeah, Joe, it does.

-

Tamara224 · Feb 24, 2010

You know what I think is amusing is that some of the P/C crowd will be quick to say that it was God who made Michal barren (even though the text doesn't explicitly state that) but jump all over anyone who hints or suggests that God actually causes illness, disease, etc any other time. For example: Job. "No, the text doesn't specifically say that God caused Job's suffering, it was Satan. duh!"

How many times have we heard "don't blame God, He doesn't cause suffering/sickness/disease/disability, etc"?

So... like, barrenness isn't a disease, illness, infirmity, disability? Or it's okay for God to do stuff like that when someone is doing something we don't like (i.e. criticizing us for our worship style)?

probinson · Feb 24, 2010

JimB said:
Of course not, Joe. Its the rest of us who assume stuff. You, of course, are above that sort of thing.

Do you even know what the word "assume" means?

Scripture very clearly tells us that Michal despised David in her heart. Now, the speculation and postulating in this thread does a darn good job of attempting to create some level of justification for that despising, but the fact remains that Michal was wrong to despise David in her heart. That is not an "assumption". It can be clearly ascertained from simply reading the scripture.

So whether Michal was barren or simply had no children is really inconsequential. Your OP asks why we judge Michal so harshly, but it seems the question that you really want answered is why did God judge Michal so harshly?

The scripture here neither condones nor condemns David's worship style, but it does directly tell us that Michal despised David in her heart.

probinson · Feb 24, 2010

Tamara224 said:
So... like, barrenness isn't a disease, illness, infirmity, disability? Or it's okay for God to do stuff like that when someone is doing something we don't like (i.e. criticizing us for our worship style)?

You may have forgotten that this occurred under the old covenant, and so your attempt to draw a parallel is horribly flawed, since the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ had not yet taken place.

Good news; people can criticize whoever they want for whatever they want today and God won't strike them barren. That's really good news for some people on CF.

I don't know whether Michal was struck barren or not, since the scripture does not go into detail, but I think it's completely irrelevant and one ginormous red herring, distracting from the fact that Michal was wrong to despise David in her heart.

JimB · Feb 24, 2010

probinson said:
Do you even know what the word "assume" means?

Scripture very clearly tells us that Michal despised David in her heart. Now, the speculation and postulating in this thread does a darn good job of attempting to create some level of justification for that despising, but the fact remains that Michal was wrong to despise David in her heart. That is not an "assumption". It can be clearly ascertained from simply reading the scripture.

So whether Michal was barren or simply had no children is really inconsequential. Your OP asks why we judge Michal so harshly, but it seems the question that you really want answered is why did God judge Michal so harshly?

The scripture here neither condones nor condemns David's worship style, but it does directly tell us that Michal despised David in her heart.

And the scripture also points out David’s serial unfaithfulness to his wife. Why give David a free ride for adultery and condemn Michal for despising him in her heart? She had cause to have contempt for him; he had no cause to be unfaithful.

But I do believe that you are reading way too much into the statement, “And Michal daughter of Saul had no children to the day of her death.” It clearly does not say in any translation that God caused her to be barren or that she was judged by God for being filled with “contempt” (NLT) for her husband’s actions or that it was anything other than a statement that Michal was a childless woman. To assume anything other than what is stated in the verse is an exercise in eisegesis and reading into the story what you want to be there.

Personally, I do not know why Michal was childless (we are not told) but I am pointing out an alternative interpretation that is just as valid as the standard P/C one.

~Jim

Church is the only society on earth that exists for the benefit of non-members.

probinson · Feb 24, 2010

JimB said:
And the scripture also points out David’s serial unfaithfulness to his wife. Why give David a free ride for adultery and condemn Michal for despising him?

I didn't even mention David.

It seems to me like you're trying to justify Michal's sin by pointing out that David's sins.

JimB said:
To assume anything other than what is stated in the verse is an exercise in eisegesis and reading into the story what you want to be there.

Right, and that is exactly what you're doing.

JimB said:
Personally, I do not know why Michal was childless (we are not told)

Neither do I;

probinson said:
I don't know whether Michal was struck barren or not, since the scripture does not go into detail, but I think it's completely irrelevant and one ginormous red herring, distracting from the fact that Michal was wrong to despise David in her heart.

bobznew · Feb 24, 2010

probinson said:
Good news; people can criticize whoever they want for whatever they want today and God won't strike them barren. That's really good news for some people on CF.

That literally made me LOL!

JimB · Feb 24, 2010

probinson said:
You may have forgotten that this occurred under the old covenant, and so your attempt to draw a parallel is horribly flawed, since the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ had not yet taken place.

Good news; people can criticize whoever they want for whatever they want today and God won't strike them barren. That's really good news for some people on CF.

I don't know whether Michal was struck barren or not, since the scripture does not go into detail, but I think it's completely irrelevant and one ginormous red herring, distracting from the fact that Michal was wrong to despise David in her heart.

Is the God of the old covenant different from the God of the new? Did Gods nature change somewhere in the transition?

~Jim

Church is the only society on earth that exists for the benefit of non-members.

Why do we judge Michal so harshly?

Senior Member

Legend

Legend

Legend

Jesus is the only Way

Jesus is the only Way

Legend

Presbyterian, Polymath

Legend

Jesus is the only Way

Jesus is the only Way

Jesus is the only Way

Legend

Well-Known Member

Legend

Legend

Legend

Legend

Regular Member

Legend

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency