Why do we judge Michal so harshly?

[Always in His Presence]

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

Who exactly is saying that?

Now, I've only spent six years in the Assemblies of God and 20 in the Word of Faith as a minister in both.

I don't recall anyone ever saying this, do we have some type of reference for it?

 

[probinson]

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

God did not change; the covenant did.

 

[Tamara224]

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.

The only parallel I "attempted" to draw was with Job.

So, is it your contention that Job happened under the New Covenant?

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.

Well... let's be quite clear here.... Show me in the passage where it explicitly says that "Michal was wrong to despise David in her heart."

Here's the passage.... go ahead and highlight the part that says it was "wrong" for her to feel the way she felt.

16 As the ark of the LORD was entering the City of David, Michal daughter of Saul watched from a window. And when she saw King David leaping and dancing before the LORD, she despised him in her heart.
17 They brought the ark of the LORD and set it in its place inside the tent that David had pitched for it, and David sacrificed burnt offerings and fellowship offerings [f] before the LORD. 18 After he had finished sacrificing the burnt offerings and fellowship offerings, he blessed the people in the name of the LORD Almighty. 19 Then he gave a loaf of bread, a cake of dates and a cake of raisins to each person in the whole crowd of Israelites, both men and women. And all the people went to their homes.
20 When David returned home to bless his household, Michal daughter of Saul came out to meet him and said, "How the king of Israel has distinguished himself today, disrobing in the sight of the slave girls of his servants as any vulgar fellow would!"
21 David said to Michal, "It was before the LORD, who chose me rather than your father or anyone from his house when he appointed me ruler over the LORD's people Israel—I will celebrate before the LORD. 22 I will become even more undignified than this, and I will be humiliated in my own eyes. But by these slave girls you spoke of, I will be held in honor."
23 And Michal daughter of Saul had no children to the day of her death.
​

 

[probinson]

The only parallel I "attempted" to draw was with Job.

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.

You "attempted" to draw a parallel to "any other time" "anyone" said God causes "illness, disease, etc".

Well... let's be quite clear here.... Show me in the passage where it explicitly says that "Michal was wrong to despise David in her heart."

Here's the passage.... go ahead and highlight the part that says it was "wrong" for her to feel the way she felt.

This is what I suspected, and you just confirmed it for me. You appear to be attempting to justify the way Michal felt in her heart.

I don't know how anyone can read the Bible and come to the conclusion that it's not wrong to despise someone in their heart.

 

[Tamara224]

Who exactly is saying that?

Now, I've only spent six years in the Assemblies of God and 20 in the Word of Faith as a minister in both.

I don't recall anyone ever saying this, do we have some type of reference for it?

I've heard it preached. Just because you haven't heard it doesn't mean it hasn't been said. Unless you're now claiming omniscience and omnipresence.

Besides...here, a quick Google search:

Dance of the God-Struck | Christianity Today | A Magazine of Evangelical Conviction

Halfway down the page.

Opposition to the Work of the Lord

The end of the second to last paragraph.

COME AWAY, MY BELOVED

Point 1(c)

Despising Praise

Pretty much the whole thing... but especially toward the end.

 

[Tamara224]

You "attempted" to draw a parallel to "any other time" "anyone" said God causes "illness, disease, etc".

I only specifically mentioned Job, though.

This is what I suspected, and you just confirmed it for me. You appear to be attempting to justify the way Michal felt in her heart.

Nope. Don't assume you know my motives. If I want to say that she wasn't wrong, I will explicitly say "she wasn't wrong." I am not the type of person who hints around and implies instead of just saying it straight out.

I want us to be quite clear about our "assumption theology" here.

To say that God called her attitude wrong is reading into the text something that isn't explicitly there.

That is the only point I'm making.

Now... if you want to go to a different passage of Scripture and establish that it is wrong to despise someone in one's heart and then come back to this portion of Scripture and apply that principle to Michal... fine. I have no problem with that.

But let's be diligent to rightly divide the word of truth here. To do so we must note that the passage we are discussing does not explicitly state that it was wrong for Michal to despise David in her heart. It simply and matter-of-factly states that she despised him.

Any moral judgment of her attitude or behavior has to be added to the text.

 

[probinson]

Nope. Don't assume you know my motives. If I want to say that she wasn't wrong, I will explicitly say "she wasn't wrong." I am not the type of person who hints around and implies instead of just saying it straight out.

I want us to be quite clear about our "assumption theology" here.

To say that God called her attitude wrong is reading into the text something that isn't explicitly there.

That is the only point I'm making.

Then why all the detailed explanation of all the woes of Michal in your first post in the thread where you said you felt sorry for her?

From what I've read, you appear to be empathizing with Michal so much that you're willing to entertain the possibility that it was not wrong for her to despise David in her heart, since the scripture doesn't explicitly say it right then and there.

This is a pretty weak argument though. That scripture doesn't need to directly state that it's wrong to despise someone in your heart, because that is made clear through the bulk of scripture. This would be akin to reading about a murder, and claiming that you couldn't decide whether it was wrong or not, since it was not explicitly stated.

Now... if you want to go to a different passage of Scripture and establish that it is wrong to despise someone in one's heart and then come back to this portion of Scripture and apply that principle to Michal... fine. I have no problem with that.

But let's be diligent to rightly divide the word of truth here. To do so we must note that the passage we are discussing does not explicitly state that it was wrong for Michal to despise David in her heart. It simply and matter-of-factly states that she despised him.

Let me ask you directly, do you think it's ever OK to despise someone in your heart?

If not, what bearing does any of this have on the discussion, other than to obfuscate the fact that it was wrong for Michal to despise David in her heart?

 

[probinson]

This is interesting;

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Geneva]And thus she that vilified David brought a reproach upon herself, as barrenness was always reckoned, and no one descending from her arrived to royal dignity, and sat on the throne of David; and so it was ordered in Providence, as Abarbinel observes, that the seed of David and of Saul might not be mixed. [/FONT]
Source: The New John Gill Exposition of the Entire Bible

Michal's barrenness was not necessarily the result of Divine judgment. It may be that David never had marital relations with her again. Nevertheless, the principle stands: there is often barrenness in the life and ministry of the overly critical.
Source: David Guzik's Commentaries on the Bible

David was contented thus to justify himself, and did not any further animadvert upon Michal's insolence; but God punished her for it, writing her for ever childless from this time forward, 2 Samuel 6:23. She unjustly reproached David for his devotion, and therefore God justly put her under the perpetual reproach of barrenness. Those that honour God he will honour; but those that despise him, and his servants and service, shall be lightly esteemed.
Source: Matthew Henry Complete Commentary on the Whole Bible

Therefore - Because of her proud and petulant speech and carriage to David, which God justly punished with barrenness. No child - After this time.
Source: John Wesley's Explanatory Notes on the Whole Bible​

So it would seem that upon examining many Bible commentaries, the idea that Michal was struck barren is not just the "P/C spin" that the OP would have us to believe. It's a pretty widely held belief in all of Christianity.

This emphasized sentence is the one statement that summarizes my thoughts on the thread, and on the lessons learned here from Michal's response;

Michal's barrenness was not necessarily the result of Divine judgment. It may be that David never had marital relations with her again. Nevertheless, the principle stands: there is often barrenness in the life and ministry of the overly critical.
​

 

[Yekcidmij]

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.

... 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.

Good point Jim. I did forget to take into account that Michal was one of David's wives. That being taken into account, she is left barren because (1) she curses David, and (2) is Saul's daughter. We aren't told exactly how she was struck with barrenness, but it's probably a good guess that the passage is saying that it's simply because David wouldn't have anything more to do with her as one of his wives. Perhaps it's that God struck her with it, but I don't think the story is concerned with HOW or by what method she was made barren. Being one of David's wives, David probably just didn't want anything more to do with her.

It makes sense that the passage isn't concerned with how she was made barren since the purpose of this entire passage is about moving the Ark to Jerusalem wich is an important piece for legitimizing David as King. This passage isn't about giving a theology behind Michal's barren status or giving commentary on valid and invalid worship practices. I think it's interesting that the writer thinks he needs to slide into the story a comment about one of David's wives, and more importantly a daughter of Saul, and how she never had any children because she cursed David. It seems to fit in with the overall effort of legitimizing David as King.

 

[Tamara224]

Then why all the detailed explanation of all the woes of Michal in your first post in the thread where you said you felt sorry for her?

From what I've read, you appear to be empathizing with Michal so much that you're willing to entertain the possibility that it was not wrong for her to despise David in her heart, since the scripture doesn't explicitly say it right then and there.

Just because I feel sorry for her and empathize with her doesn't mean I think she was right at that one moment in her life. Since when is understanding where someone is coming from a justification of their sins?

Geez, Pete. I just think the woman is often judged really unmercifully and self-righteously. People have been throwing figurative stones at her for millennia because she dared to criticize the king. But I can't help but wonder if Jesus would be so quick to throw a stone at her.

This is a pretty weak argument though. That scripture doesn't need to directly state that it's wrong to despise someone in your heart, because that is made clear through the bulk of scripture. This would be akin to reading about a murder, and claiming that you couldn't decide whether it was wrong or not, since it was not explicitly stated.

That's not my argument. In fact, I said:

Now... if you want to go to a different passage of Scripture and establish that it is wrong to despise someone in one's heart and then come back to this portion of Scripture and apply that principle to Michal... fine. I have no problem with that.

Again, I am just trying to clarify that IN THIS PARTICULAR PASSAGE God did not expressly or explicitly DECLARE that Michal was wrong.

I don't know for sure why you want to argue with me about it other than it goes against your grain to admit that I'm correct.

Also... Do you remember recently in another thread how I corrected your wrong use of the word "implicitly" when you meant "explicitly"? Funny how it's a "weak argument" for me to point out that Scripture doesn't explicitly state something but not for you to.
http://www.christianforums.com/t7442453-2/#post54174816

Let me ask you directly, do you think it's ever OK to despise someone in your heart?

No.

If not, what bearing does any of this have on the discussion, other than to obfuscate the fact that it was wrong for Michal to despise David in her heart?

The bearing it has on this discussion is this:

Some people believe that God struck Michal with barrenness as a punishment for her making fun of David when he was dancing.

But.... when the passage is looked at and strictly construed it is clear that
1) it doesn't explicitly stated that God made Michal barren; and
2) it doesn't explicitly state that Michal was wrong to despise David in her heart or to chastise David for his behavior.


I am not trying to obfuscate anything. Only to clarify that whatever moral judgments we make about the rightness or wrongness of Michal's (or David's) behavior in this passage of Scripture are based not on the explicit language of this passage but on other sources (albeit possibly other Biblical sources).


People keep throwing around accusations of "assumption theology" and what-not and I just want to point out that we are ALL drawing inferences and applying principles of morality to this passage of Scripture to make our conclusions about who was right and who was wrong here.

There is no explicit statement of right/wrong - it is all based on inference and application of other Scriptural principals to this passage.

 

[probinson]

Also... Do you remember recently in another thread how I corrected your wrong use of the word "implicitly" when you meant "explicitly"? Funny how it's a "weak argument" for me to point out that Scripture doesn't explicitly state something but not for you to.
http://www.christianforums.com/t7442453-2/#post54174816

The difference is, scripture does explicitly state that it's wrong to despise people in our hearts, just not right here. It is a very weak argument to say that because it's not declared here that makes it an "assumption".

You're drawing really bad parallels today.

The bearing it has on this discussion is this:

Some people believe that God struck Michal with barrenness as a punishment for her making fun of David when he was dancing.

But.... when the passage is looked at and strictly construed it is clear that
1) it doesn't explicitly stated that God made Michal barren; and

I'm with you here. Scripture doesn't state that God made Michal barren. He may have, or maybe Michal never had marital relations with David. I see that as completely inconsequential to the undeniable fact that Michal never had children. So whether she was "barren" in the sense that she was unable to conceive, or simply did not have children, the end result of despising David in her heart was the same; she had no children.

2) it doesn't explicitly state that Michal was wrong to despise David in her heart or to chastise David for his behavior.

This is what I am calling a "weak argument". The scripture doesn't need to explicitly state that it was wrong for Michal to despise David in her heart because we know from other scripture that it's wrong for ANYONE to despise another person in their heart.

I am not trying to obfuscate anything. Only to clarify that whatever moral judgments we make about the rightness or wrongness of Michal's (or David's) behavior in this passage of Scripture are based not on the explicit language of this passage but on other sources (albeit possibly other Biblical sources).

People keep throwing around accusations of "assumption theology" and what-not and I just want to point out that we are ALL drawing inferences and applying principles of morality to this passage of Scripture to make our conclusions about who was right and who was wrong here.

There is no explicit statement of right/wrong - it is all based on inference and application of other Scriptural principals to this passage.

Again, I agree that scripture is not clear if Michal was struck barren or not. However, scripture (albeit not this scripture) is pretty clear, and you even seem to agree, that it is never right to despise someone in your heart. So while it may be an assumption that Michal was made barren, it is not an assumption to state that Michal was wrong to despise David in her heart.

 

[Tamara224]

The difference is, scripture does explicitly state that it's wrong to despise people in our hearts, just not right here. It is a very weak argument to say that because it's not declared here that makes it an "assumption".

I



DID



NOT



SAY



it



was



an


assumption.

You're drawing really bad parallels today.

No. Your reading comprehension skills are really poor today. Apparently, you can't tell the difference between the words "inference" and "assumption."

I'm with you here. Scripture doesn't state that God made Michal barren. He may have, or maybe Michal never had marital relations with David. I see that as completely inconsequential to the undeniable fact that Michal never had children. So whether she was "barren" in the sense that she was unable to conceive, or simply did not have children, the end result of despising David in her heart was the same; she had no children.

Okay. Cool, glad to know your opinion on it.

This is what I am calling a "weak argument". The scripture doesn't need to explicitly state that it was wrong for Michal to despise David in her heart because we know from other scripture that it's wrong for ANYONE to despise another person in their heart.

You're calling something an "argument" that I never argued. I just observed, I didn't "argue." You keep trying to make it out that I'm advocating something I'm simply not.

Again, I agree that scripture is not clear if Michal was struck barren or not. However, scripture (albeit not this scripture) is pretty clear, and you even seem to agree, that it is never right to despise someone in your heart. So while it may be an assumption that Michal was made barren, it is not an assumption to state that Michal was wrong to despise David in her heart.

Oh, my goodness....

Do you honestly not realize that there's a difference between an assumption and an inference? Or are you just being obtuse on purpose?

I know that you're really good at using the online dictionary when you want to, Pete, so please - go and do that.

I have NEVER said that ANYONE is assuming anything.




Seriously... if you'd just stop looking for things to argue with me about and read what I'm actually writing, I think you'd see that I'm not saying anything nearly so shocking as you might at first have thought.

 

[nephilimiyr]

This is interesting;

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Geneva]And thus she that vilified David brought a reproach upon herself, as barrenness was always reckoned, and no one descending from her arrived to royal dignity, and sat on the throne of David; and so it was ordered in Providence, as Abarbinel observes, that the seed of David and of Saul might not be mixed. [/FONT]
Source: The New John Gill Exposition of the Entire Bible

Michal's barrenness was not necessarily the result of Divine judgment. It may be that David never had marital relations with her again. Nevertheless, the principle stands: there is often barrenness in the life and ministry of the overly critical.
Source: David Guzik's Commentaries on the Bible

David was contented thus to justify himself, and did not any further animadvert upon Michal's insolence; but God punished her for it, writing her for ever childless from this time forward, 2 Samuel 6:23. She unjustly reproached David for his devotion, and therefore God justly put her under the perpetual reproach of barrenness. Those that honour God he will honour; but those that despise him, and his servants and service, shall be lightly esteemed.
Source: Matthew Henry Complete Commentary on the Whole Bible

Therefore - Because of her proud and petulant speech and carriage to David, which God justly punished with barrenness. No child - After this time.
Source: John Wesley's Explanatory Notes on the Whole Bible
​

So it would seem that upon examining many Bible commentaries, the idea that Michal was struck barren is not just the "P/C spin" that the OP would have us to believe. It's a pretty widely held belief in all of Christianity.

This emphasized sentence is the one statement that summarizes my thoughts on the thread, and on the lessons learned here from Michal's response;

Michal's barrenness was not necessarily the result of Divine judgment. It may be that David never had marital relations with her again. Nevertheless, the principle stands: there is often barrenness in the life and ministry of the overly critical.
​

Good research Pete.

Yah know, I was just thinking, the very first time I ever heard anybody preach putting down Michal and blameing her barreness on God judging her and making that happen was many years ago by a Baptist preacher on tv, and he wasn't full gospel.

 

[nephilimiyr]

Mod Hat
I know this thread was put here for discussion but I think for the most part this has been a debate so I'm moving this to the debate forum.​

 

[JimB]

This is interesting;

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Geneva]And thus she that vilified David brought a reproach upon herself, as barrenness was always reckoned, and no one descending from her arrived to royal dignity, and sat on the throne of David; and so it was ordered in Providence, as Abarbinel observes, that the seed of David and of Saul might not be mixed. [/FONT]
Source: The New John Gill Exposition of the Entire Bible

Michal's barrenness was not necessarily the result of Divine judgment. It may be that David never had marital relations with her again. Nevertheless, the principle stands: there is often barrenness in the life and ministry of the overly critical.
Source: David Guzik's Commentaries on the Bible

David was contented thus to justify himself, and did not any further animadvert upon Michal's insolence; but God punished her for it, writing her for ever childless from this time forward, 2 Samuel 6:23. She unjustly reproached David for his devotion, and therefore God justly put her under the perpetual reproach of barrenness. Those that honour God he will honour; but those that despise him, and his servants and service, shall be lightly esteemed.
Source: Matthew Henry Complete Commentary on the Whole Bible

Therefore - Because of her proud and petulant speech and carriage to David, which God justly punished with barrenness. No child - After this time.
Source: John Wesley's Explanatory Notes on the Whole Bible
​

So it would seem that upon examining many Bible commentaries, the idea that Michal was struck barren is not just the "P/C spin" that the OP would have us to believe. It's a pretty widely held belief in all of Christianity.

This emphasized sentence is the one statement that summarizes my thoughts on the thread, and on the lessons learned here from Michal's response;

Michal's barrenness was not necessarily the result of Divine judgment. It may be that David never had marital relations with her again. Nevertheless, the principle stands: there is often barrenness in the life and ministry of the overly critical.
​

Well, I think we woiuld all agree that since none of these commentators spoke in tongues or prayed for the sick that their interpretations of scripture were not always correct.

BTW, who's David Guzik?

~Jim

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

 

[probinson]

No. Your reading comprehension skills are really poor today. Apparently, you can't tell the difference between the words "inference" and "assumption."

Enlighten us.

FYI, a thesaurus lists the word "assumption" as a synonym for the word "inference". Perhaps there isn't such a vast expanse of difference between the 2 words like you're trying to portray.

You're calling something an "argument" that I never argued. I just observed, I didn't "argue." You keep trying to make it out that I'm advocating something I'm simply not.

So what exactly are you advocating? It would seem rather arbitrary to bring up that these scriptures don't mention that it was wrong for Michal to despise David in her heart unless you have a point.

The fact is, it's wrong to despise someone in your heart. It is not an inference, assumption, conjecture, supposition, presumption or any other such synonym to state that quite matter-of-factly, because the Bible is quite clear on that fact.

Oh, my goodness....

Do you honestly not realize that there's a difference between an assumption and an inference? Or are you just being obtuse on purpose?

Again, enlighten us.

If you look up the definitions of the words "assumption" and "inference" in a dictionary, you'll find that they are remarkably similar, some might say interchangeable, in their definitions.

So please explain to us all what this seemingly large difference between the 2 words really is that causes you to call into question my reading comprehension.

Seriously... if you'd just stop looking for things to argue with me about and read what I'm actually writing, I think you'd see that I'm not saying anything nearly so shocking as you might at first have thought.

I don't know why you're hung up on thinking that I'm looking for reasons to argue with you. It actually seems to me like you're the one looking for a reason to argue, by going down this strange path of claiming inferences and assumptions are such vastly different things.

The fact is, no one is assuming and/or inferring anything to say that Michal was wrong to despise David in her heart. Scripture confirms for us that it is wrong for us to despise people in our heart.

 

[probinson]

Well, I think we woiuld all agree that since none of these commentators spoke in tongues or prayed for the sick that their interpretations of scripture were not always correct.

That's not the point. You're trying to portray the belief that Michal was struck barren as "P/C spin" on the story, but a quick look at these commentaries shows that not to be the case at all. In fact, the idea that Michal was struck barren is not a belief unique to Pentecostals or Charismatics. It's a pretty widely accepted belief in most of Christianity.

BTW, who's David Guzik?

Beats the heck outta me. I was just reading the available commentaries at StudyLight.org - Plug in, turn on and be enlightened!.

 

[JimB]

The P/C spin on this story is that Michal was “struck barren” (which the context does not support) because she was critical of David’s wild dance. The usual application being that we are not supposed to criticize wild gyrations in public worship services, a convenient application for those who think Sunday’s are showtime down at the Pentecostal church.

~Jim

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

 

[Always in His Presence]

in·fer·ence

   /ˈɪn

fər

əns, -frəns/ Show Spelled[in-fer-uh

ns, -fruh

ns] Show IPA
–noun1.the act or process of inferring.

2.something that is inferred: to make rash inferences.

3.Logic. a.the process of deriving the strict logical consequences of assumed premises.

b.the process of arriving at some conclusion that, though it is not logically derivable from the assumed premises, possessessome degree of probability relative to the premises.

c.a proposition reached by a process of inference.

he ya go Pete

 

[Always in His Presence]

The P/C spin on this story is that Michal was “struck barren” (which the context does not support) because she was critical of David’s wild dance. The usual application being that we are not supposed to criticize wild gyrations in public worship services, a convenient application for those who think Sunday’s are showtime down at the Pentecostal church.

~Jim

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

IMO - That position has as much scriptural strength as this one.

What 2 Samuel does is give us an objective look into David’s personal life by showing us the tension between David and his wife. In the story I can hear Michal’s jealousy and irritation at what she felt was David’s flirtatious behavior toward women (after all, David was not the most martially faithful person in the Bible). IMO, she was justified in calling his hand and feeling that David had “uncovering himself today before the eyes of his servants’ female servants, as one of the vulgar fellows shamelessly uncovers himself!" David’s past (and future) actions warranted such suspicion.

Also, David’s lack of understanding by justifying his actions (I couldn’t help it; God made me do it) and his insensitivity to his wife’s feelings are not something I mark up to his credit.

Finally, Michal the daughter of Saul had no child to the day of her death not because God punished her (the text does not say that) but because the tension that existed between her and her husband caused such a breach that they did not cohabit as husband and wife and, therefore, she had no child to the day of her death.

​

Since neither is correct or can plainly be supported by the scriptures, we could say:

The usual application being that we are not supposed to criticize wild gyrations in public worship services, a convenient application for those who think Sunday’s are showtime down at the Pentecostal church.
​

about both.