Did Saul get a bum deal?

[dybmh]

Kind of a natural human response, David was much better at the things kings are often valued for. Saul seems to have had some kind of mental instability too, making it less likely he would be able to manage those emotions. He wasn’t given the option of stepping down gracefully, either. Throughout the story he is increasingly backed into a corner.

the best I can say is... I need to reread these stories!

 

[dybmh]

I don’t think you can copy that kind of thing - David wore his heart on his sleeve. A different kind of person trying to emulate that would be phoney.

I completely disagree. That is a defeatest attitude. If you feel that way hopefully that means you have never really regretted something and have never needed to repent.

 

[Tomef]

I completely disagree. That is a defeatest attitude. If you feel that way hopefully that means you have never really regretted something and have never needed to repent.

Defeatist about what? It’s a bit daft to suggest that if someone doesn’t put on a public show and/or write poetry about it, they haven’t ‘really really’ repented. That’s just indoctrination- you can recognise it as such as it doesn’t correspond with reality.

 

[Ebionite]

Ah I think that qualifies as murder. Instructing an officer to put some guy in the thickest part of the fighting, then withdraw everyone around him and leave him to a certain death. No ambiguity about that.

David was commander in chief, so he had the right to issue those instructions. Nathan's parable describes David's sin in terms of greed or lack of pity, but not murder.

 

[Tomef]

David was commander in chief, so he had the right to issue those instructions. Nathan's parable describes David's sin in terms of greed or lack of pity, but not murder.

Maybe just read the relevant passage. If you think issuing orders to have a soldier killed by proxy for personal reasons fits this rather inane and thought-free interpretation of the text, the real question would be, well, why? I think the answer to that is outside the scope of this thread, though.

 

[Ebionite]

Maybe just read the relevant passage.

What point do you think I missed?

inane and thought-free interpretation

Labelling it as such doesn't show that any defects exist.

 

[Tomef]

What point do you think I missed?

Labelling it as such doesn't show that any defects exist.

“In the letter he wrote, “Put Uriyah on the front lines of the fiercest fighting; then pull back from him, so that he will be wounded and killed.”

 

[Ebionite]

“In the letter he wrote, “Put Uriyah on the front lines of the fiercest fighting; then pull back from him, so that he will be wounded and killed.”

Do you think I would have written "David was commander in chief, so he had the right to issue those instructions." if that wasn't true?

 

[Tomef]

Do you think I would have written "David was commander in chief, so he had the right to issue those instructions." if that wasn't true?

I have no idea how to respond to this. I suppose I should be glad you’re happy with your notions about it, it could be that the world needs more people who think their favourite leader can do no wrong. I mean, it’s not like there’s any precedent for that not working out well.

 

[Ebionite]

the world needs more people who think their favourite leader can do no wrong

How is my description of David's sin consistent with that idea?

 

[Tomef]

How is my description of David's sin consistent with that idea?

I can’t make you think it through and join up the dots. Have a go, you might learn something.

 

[Ebionite]

I can’t make you think it through and join up the dots. Have a go, you might learn something.

This forum isn't for debates. If you really think that you have a a point to prove, then feel free to repost your claim somewhere appropriate.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

sending uriah to battle gauranteed that the marriage to bathsheba was annuled. that's Jewish law. it wasn't murder, it was a loophole. still not OK, but not as bad as described in the OP.

"Perhaps the earliest attempt at preventing the eventuality of a wife becoming an agunah is the practice the Talmud (Ketubot 9b) ascribes to the time of King David. Soldiers “going out to the wars of the House of David” would customarily “write a bill of divorce” for their wives"

If I send you to be killed because I intend you to be killed, I escape the charge of murder solely by virtue of my cleverness. As for Ketubot 9b, I would love to see some evidence that it is something other than fanciful midrash.

 

[dybmh]

Defeatist about what? It’s a bit daft to suggest that if someone doesn’t put on a public show and/or write poetry about it, they haven’t ‘really really’ repented. That’s just indoctrination- you can recognise it as such as it doesn’t correspond with reality.

Defeatist about applying the method in psalms 51 ( and other psalms of David ) for the purpose of repentence and/or inspiration. I didn't say or imply that a public show or writing poetry was needed at all. Psalms 51 is the opposite of putting on a public show. It's all internal.

For you do not desire sacrifice; or else would I give it; you do not delight in burnt offering.​

The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit; a broken and contrite heart, O God, you will not despise.​

... you do not desire sacrifice... = ... you do not desire a public show ...

... a broken spirit ... a broken heart ... = internal crushing of the ego

A public show feeds the ego. That is the opposite of crushing the heart. I was definitely not saying that a public show was needed. I was talking about crushing one's own heart. And it absolutely corresponds with reality. It's a real objective proven method for making lasting change in a person's life, sometimes referred to as "hitting rock bottom".

There is something important and effective about making a commitment out loud or in writing. That's also true. I gave the example of working with children. Even if a person doesn't have children theemself, perhaps they can recall being a child and being asked to verbalize a commitment. It also works with adults. Saying it out loud or writing it down solidifies the commitment and intention. But I did not say make a public show of it.

However I did say that if a person claims that crushing their own heart is not possible unless they are the same sort of person as David, then, hopefully, that means they have never needed to repent and really regretted something. I think that's true. Not making a show, but experiencing a broken heart, I think, is a universal human emotion that almost everyone goes through in life. Only the extremely rare person is incapable of doing this. It is the definition of repentence. It's the difference between regret and repentence.

 

[Tomef]

Defeatist about applying the method in psalms 51 ( and other psalms of David ) for the purpose of repentence and/or inspiration. I didn't say or imply that a public show or writing poetry was needed at all. Psalms 51 is the opposite of putting on a public show. It's all internal.

For you do not desire sacrifice; or else would I give it; you do not delight in burnt offering.​

The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit; a broken and contrite heart, O God, you will not despise.​

... you do not desire sacrifice... = ... you do not desire a public show ...

... a broken spirit ... a broken heart ... = internal crushing of the ego

A public show feeds the ego. That is the opposite of crushing the heart. I was definitely not saying that a public show was needed. I was talking about crushing one's own heart. And it absolutely corresponds with reality. It's a real objective proven method for making lasting change in a person's life, sometimes referred to as "hitting rock bottom".

There is something important and effective about making a commitment out loud or in writing. That's also true. I gave the example of working with children. Even if a person doesn't have children theemself, perhaps they can recall being a child and being asked to verbalize a commitment. It also works with adults. Saying it out loud or writing it down solidifies the commitment and intention. But I did not say make a public show of it.

However I did say that if a person claims that crushing their own heart is not possible unless they are the same sort of person as David, then, hopefully, that means they have never needed to repent and really regretted something. I think that's true. Not making a show, but experiencing a broken heart, I think, is a universal human emotion that almost everyone goes through in life. Only the extremely rare person is incapable of doing this. It is the definition of repentence. It's the difference between regret and repentence.

Sure, I get what you mean about a genuinely broken heart. I’m not sure about phrases like ‘crushing your own heart’, that kind of religious terminology is a bit confusing outside of its context, but I can see what you mean here. Still, people are different. My oldest niece, for example, is extremely quiet and studious. You’d never get anything like an emotional expression out of her a la psalm 51, but if you know her you know she feels things very deeply. But yes if what you are talking about is a genuinely broken and contrite heart then I can see what you mean.

 

[Tomef]

It's the difference between regret and repentence.

I think that’s more about what a person actually does, what changes they make. But even then, not everyone has the same degree of agency, for all kinds of complicated reasons. You can’t condemn a person who has no clue how to manage or respond to feelings of guilt on the basis of some essentially religious, and hence somewhat contrived, notion of repentance.

 

[dybmh]

If I send you to be killed because I intend you to be killed, I escape the charge of murder solely by virtue of my cleverness.

When I replied to the OP about Bathsheba I had the sequence of events wrong and I was missing part of the story. I thought that David desired Bathsheba, then sent Uriah to battle in the front-line, exploiting a loophole, Uriah was killed from the battle, but not directly caused by David. Intended? yeah probably, but not exactly murder. I forgot that David's letter instructed the withdrawl for the purpose of his death. This explains my comment.

The OP said: David is "willing to do murder to get what he wants". I objected to this because exploiting the loophole such that he could get what he wanted produced the annulment and *maybe* Uriah's death. That's not murder. I'm not sure what to call it. It's not a crime, but it's definitely dark, sinister, devious, and the product of a selfish criminal mind.

On review of the story, what is *actually* written?

Uriah is already at war. The marriage is already annuled. David exploits the loophole to get what he wants. I was corrrect about that. On return, Uriah publically defies David's orders at a time of war, then is insubordinate to his face. Uriah says: "As you live, and as your soul lives, I will not do this thing [ which you commanded ]."

What was "this thing" that Uriah is talking about? Here's the full quote:

​

And Uriah said to David, The ark, and Israel, and Judah, remain in tents; and my lord Joab, and the servants of my lord, are encamped in the open fields; shall I then go into my house, to eat and to drink, and to lie with my wife? As you live, and as your soul lives, I will not do this thing.​

Now the story makes sense, doesn't it? There is something dark and sinister happening inside of David. But it wasn't murder. Uriah had commited a capital offense while David was attempting to cover up his encounter with Bathsheba. She had become pregnant. If Uriah had followed orders, re-established his marriage with Bathsheba, would Uriah have been sent to the front? Would David have sent that letter? It wasn't murder, it wasn't a crime to execute Uriah. How he did it matters. And specifically how it happened matters. I'll get to that.

Once Uriah had defied the orders, David felt he had no choice on multiple levels. He probably felt cornered. However, David is a man of faith, he probably convinced himself that divine providence, the "hand" of God was guiding this entire episode. From the initial "sighting" of Bathsheba, to the conception of the child, to Uriah's insubordination... hashgacha pratis. Even the battle itself, and Uriah's position as a soldier, the annulment, all of that, I think, are signifcant to the "green-light" David felt *in his heart* for choosing to possess Bathsheba and then cover it up, and then order Uriah to be killed. But he was wrong. The child died. And Nathan says: "...therefore the sword shall never depart from your house."

What did David miss? How did he misinterpret the "signs". Was he following Derech HaAretz? Isn't this his root? Isn't this the beginning of his story? The very beginning of the story of David? Lot's daughter? Is it coincidence that Lot's daughters produced Moab and Ammon by following Derech HaAretz? David comes from Moab through Ruth. And here we are? Uriah was slain by the ammonite sword? The sword emblazoned with the serpent Dagon?

Nathan says: "Why have you despised the commandment of the Lord, to do evil in his sight? You have killed Uriah the Hittite with the sword, and have taken his wife to be your wife, and have killed him with the sword of the Ammonites."

Notice the repetition? For emphasis, it's not just any sword.

Now, which daughter produced David? The older. The older convinced the younger to corrupt their father and take what was not intended for them citing Derech HaAretz. How? By misinterpretting the signs of Sodom's destruction as total annihilation of every other human being. But she was wrong too. Just like David. How do we know it was wrong? Wine was required to exploit the father. It's a loophole in the human condition which can be exploited, intoxication.

As for Ketubot 9b, I would love to see some evidence that it is something other than fanciful midrash.

Sure! So would I! But that doesn't matter. Your desire to discredit the story has been noted. It's in your first reply, and seems to be your priority in spite of its silliness almost anytime a biblical story is discussed. Correctly, the OP reminded you, it's a story and we're discussing it. Yes, the instituion in which you put your faith attempts to discredit the institution in which I put my faith. Discreditting Talmud and Midrash is doctrine of the institution of your faith. But that doesn't matter. What mattters is the story that is told and the lesson being taught.

The story that I am telling includes the annulment because it agrees with the lesson being taught. It's very important! I am connecting David to his root in Moab! The loophole is critical! The annulment is the first loophole attempting to be exploited. Commanding Uriah to "go home and be with his wife" is yet another attempt to exploit a loophole, plausible deniability. If David needed to cover it up, is that actually what God intended for David to do? Commanding the execution to happen covertly by a death in battle instead of doing it in a conventional manner, is, yet another cover-up. It's another loophole being exploited. And then going back to the original desire for Bathsheba, was it holy? If David needed to exploit a loophole to possess her, is that desire he felt *in his heart* in harmony with the will of God? That's 3 loopholes. If Lot's daughter needed to employ wine, was that what God intended for them to do?

That's the story I'm telling, and I think it is strongly consistent with what's written. That's why I remembered that detail about the annulment. It sets the scene for the story I'm telling. I didn't read the article you brought from the JWA. It's feminist, so it's probably going to focus on Bathsheba as a victim, and David as a rapist, and the evil biblical patriarchy, again discrediting the institution. Clearly omittting the detail about the annulment, assuming that Bathsheba did not consent, and making Bathsheba the center of the story even though she is mentioned only in 2 verses. The story they are telling is probably not strongly connected to what is written in this story but goes all over the place to forward an agenda. And that's fine. But it's a totally different story, with a totally different lesson. My question to you is:

What's the story you are telling, and what is the lesson you are teaching? Replies which are only 1 or 2 sentences long do not say much, are not teaching much, but I think you have a lot to offer that is not being said. Just go ahead and say it! Tell me a story, teach me a lesson.

 

[dybmh]

Sure, I get what you mean about a genuinely broken heart. I’m not sure about phrases like ‘crushing your own heart’, that kind of religious terminology is a bit confusing outside of its context, but I can see what you mean here. Still, people are different. My oldest niece, for example, is extremely quiet and studious. You’d never get anything like an emotional expression out of her a la psalm 51, but if you know her you know she feels things very deeply. But yes if what you are talking about is a genuinely broken and contrite heart then I can see what you mean.

Respectfully, why do you keep cycling back to an "emotional expression" this sounds like you're still imagining a "public show"? Is it something written in the psalm? There's a famous line in there, for Jewish people, maybe it's coming from there? I feel like I've said repeatedly in different ways what's happening is internal, but the verbal/written expression helps. Not required, but it helps. Conversely, making a public show sabatoges it.

Hopefully that's clear? Not that you need to agree with me, just that I have been clear?

Regarding the phrasing "crushing the heart", it's just a reminder of the method which is described in the psalm. Line by line, there is an intellectual/emotive progressive how-to to acomplish this. It does not require an individual to be "like David with his heart on his sleeve."

Verse 6 reads: "Against you, you alone, have I sinned, and done this evil in your sight; so that you are justified in your sentence, and clear in your judgment."

This indicates to me that the petitioner is working directly with God. No one else is involved. It's not a show, it's not an outward expression. And this can also be applied, maybe, to the comparisson with Saul. Saul went to a third party to intercede, David goes straight to God. This is a very Jewish approach, and a very Jewish lesson, naturally, coming from the Hebrew bible.

I think that’s more about what a person actually does, what changes they make. But even then, not everyone has the same degree of agency, for all kinds of complicated reasons. You can’t condemn a person who has no clue how to manage or respond to feelings of guilt on the basis of some essentially religious, and hence somewhat contrived, notion of repentance.

I think you're making some great points. I'm not condeming anyone. Like I said before, I really need to re-read these stories. I don't know Saul's story well enough to say whether or not he would have known how to respond to his own feelings of guilt. Regarding what a person actually does, yes, I agree 100%. So, how does a person make permanent changes to their behavior? What is a method to use? In the religious context, which is what we're discussing, it's called repentence. How does one know if the method worked? It's like you said "it's more about what the person actually does."

And, once it's agreed on what these words mean, then it can be discussed, David did X and it is considered a virtue, why? Saul did Y and it is considered a fault, why? Maybe Saul thought he had repented, but was wrong, maybe he did it wrong? How can I avoid that pitfall? What if David repented properly, and was forgiven, then back-pedalled? What does that mean? Did he actually repent? He must have, else he wouldn't have been forgiven? Was being forgiven the same as absolution? That's an important lesson too, I think.

 

[Tomef]

Respectfully, why do you keep cycling back to an "emotional expression" this sounds like you're still imagining a "public show"? Is it something written in the psalm? There's a famous line in there, for Jewish people, maybe it's coming from there? I feel like I've said repeatedly in different ways what's happening is internal, but the verbal/written expression helps. Not required, but it helps. Conversely, making a public show sabatoges it.

Hopefully that's clear? Not that you need to agree with me, just that I have been clear?

Regarding the phrasing "crushing the heart", it's just a reminder of the method which is described in the psalm. Line by line, there is an intellectual/emotive progressive how-to to acomplish this. It does not require an individual to be "like David with his heart on his sleeve."

Verse 6 reads: "Against you, you alone, have I sinned, and done this evil in your sight; so that you are justified in your sentence, and clear in your judgment."

This indicates to me that the petitioner is working directly with God. No one else is involved. It's not a show, it's not an outward expression. And this can also be applied, maybe, to the comparisson with Saul. Saul went to a third party to intercede, David goes straight to God. This is a very Jewish approach, and a very Jewish lesson, naturally, coming from the Hebrew bible.



I think you're making some great points. I'm not condeming anyone. Like I said before, I really need to re-read these stories. I don't know Saul's story well enough to say whether or not he would have known how to respond to his own feelings of guilt. Regarding what a person actually does, yes, I agree 100%. So, how does a person make permanent changes to their behavior? What is a method to use? In the religious context, which is what we're discussing, it's called repentence. How does one know if the method worked? It's like you said "it's more about what the person actually does."

And, once it's agreed on what these words mean, then it can be discussed, David did X and it is considered a virtue, why? Saul did Y and it is considered a fault, why? Maybe Saul thought he had repented, but was wrong, maybe he did it wrong? How can I avoid that pitfall? What if David repented properly, and was forgiven, then back-pedalled? What does that mean? Did he actually repent? He must have, else he wouldn't have been forgiven? Was being forgiven the same as absolution? That's an important lesson too, I think.

Sure, but I think you’re over-egging it a bit. You can’t really get to those conclusions from the texts, I mean other than as a personal interpretation. There are various things there, unpacking it is more useful for me than trying to nail it all down to one of the common religious tropes about this person’s heart vs this other person’s heart etc. It’s never very satisfying, it leads to some head-nodding in church groups maybe but ultimately it’s just a bit of a skim of the most salient points.

 

[dybmh]

Sure, but I think you’re over-egging it a bit. You can’t really get to those conclusions from the texts, I mean other than as a personal interpretation. There are various things there, unpacking it is more useful for me than trying to nail it all down to one of the common religious tropes about this person’s heart vs this other person’s heart etc. It’s never very satisfying, it leads to some head-nodding in church groups maybe but ultimately it’s just a bit of a skim of the most salient points.

I don't feel like that's what I am describing or intending to say at all. One person's heart vs. another person's heart?

If this is your position, it seems like there cannnot be any way to "nail down" anything about Saul's so-called bum deal. The answer will always be maybe-so-maybe-not. At the very least a list should be able to be compiled of what Saul did. Then a list can be made about the things an individual thinks Saul should have done differently. Same with David, same with any character in any story.

I'm not Christian, so, I am virtually clueless of the context you seem to be applying to what I'm saying. This is the Hebrew bible. I personally think overlaying Christianity onto it is folly. Excluding showing their contrasts or perhaps a Christian polemic.