The Background

2 Samuel chapter 6 tells the story of king David bringing the Ark of the Covenant-- one of the holiest artifacts of ancient Israel-- into the new capital city of Jerusalem. Previously, the Ark had been taken in battle by the Philistines, which caused them a whole lot of Raiders of the Lost Ark types of trouble. So the Philistines left it abandoned in a field for fear of incurring anymore of YHWH’s wrath. After which, it was moved around a bit, before coming to rest in Kiriath-jearim in the house of Abinadab (1 Samuel 5:1-7:2).  But when David becomes king, he decides it’s time to bring the Ark home.

The Story

With thirty thousand men, David collected the Ark and formed a parade route to Jerusalem. It was general merriment for all (except for Uzzah who got struck dead by God for touching the Ark, but that’s a Card Talk for another time).

Above all, King David was having a good time; maybe too much of a good time:

So David went and brought up the ark of God from the house of Obed-edom to the city of David [Jerusalem] with rejoicing; and when those who bore the ark of the Lord had gone six paces, he sacrificed an ox and a fatling. David danced before the Lord with all his might; David was girded with a linen ephod. So David and all the house of Israel brought up the ark of the Lord with shouting, and with the sound of the trumpet.

~ 2 Samuel 6:12-15

David was dancing, playing, and singing with the crowd, but he also stopped the procession every few yards to erect an altar and make a sacrifice to God. Once they reached the Tabernacle-- the religious tent where the Ark would be housed-- David presented more sacrifices and burnt offerings to YHWH. He then blessed the people, fed them, and then sent them home (vs. 17-19). It was a proper party and everyone was happy. Everyone except Michal, David’s first wife.  

As the ark of the Lord came into the city of David, Michal 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. …

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’ maids, as any vulgar fellow might shamelessly uncover himself!” (vs. 16 and 20)

Seriously, what was her problem?

Interlude:

Over a decade ago, the infant of two people I love, died.

The joy in the hearts of two parents fell silent in the middle of the night. The family was devastated, utterly. And so was I. It was hard to enter a church, listen to another pray, or pray myself with grief hanging over everything like a burial shroud. With the overwhelming question “why” pervading every interaction with a supposedly loving God.

There was no dancing in this story. No praise given to God. No rejoicing. No enemies defeated or divine presence felt. Just anger, confusion, and questions.

Who Wears Short Shorts?

Our card comes from the debate over what David was wearing and Michal's response. The passage gives two clues as to why Michal was so upset with David. The first is in verse 14, which reads “David danced before the Lord with all his might; David was girded with a linen ephod.” The second is found in Michal’s words in verse 20: “…uncovering himself today before the eyes of his servants’ maids, as any vulgar fellow might shamelessly uncover himself!”

There is archaeological debate over what David was wearing. Was it only a linen ephod, or did he have it over other clothes? What was the cut of the ephod? How revealing was it? We think some of this debate is pointless. Obviously from Michal's statement, she felt like he was not wearing enough clothing in this moment, or at least there was a voiced fear that his royal member would be exposed. 

In vs 20 the Hebrew word for “uncover” is גָּלָה (galah). While the word does mean to literally take the covering off of something, biblically it often has a sexual connotation when referring to the body of a person. We have discussed this word before and at length. It is the same word found in Genesis 9, Leviticus 18, and Ruth 3 which we discussed in our Card Talks about 1) Noah’s awkward sexual encounter with his son, 2) not having sex with your mother, and 3) Ruth’s sexual encounter with Boaz. 

At the very least, Michal is saying that David’s gyrations are leaving him exposed to the young women watching. His royal scepter is summoning the assembled. His rod of rule is flashing.

His penis was out.

Interlude:

After child died, I didn't really know what to do with myself. At the time I had a crappy little blog. A place to share music and random musings. Sometimes they were theological, or at least theopoetical. 

So I took to the internet to express some of the pain and confusion I was feeling. I used it to ask some tough questions of God and/or whoever was listening. 

Not everyone who was listening was happy with what they heard.

Matters of Reputation

Michal had another reason for her anger at David's behavior. She said his behavior was only worthy of “vulgar fellows” [רֵיק] or, as Professor Gregory Mobley entitled his book, “empty men.”  Mobley explains that these are considered “men with nothing,” “worthless men,” and “unprincipled.” They are “men alienated from or alien to traditional structures, outlaws or outlanders, misfits or mercenaries” (Mobley, 36-37). 

These men stand in contrast to men who are full of God’s blessings, men like David, who are king over all they see. Michal is commenting on the power and prestige that David has. He just defeated Saul’s (Michal’s father) armies and united the land under his rule. He conquered Jerusalem and established it as the new capital: he should not be acting like one of those people who do not have an honorable reputation. Ironically, these are exactly sort of men who allied themselves with David when he was on the run from Saul’s armies (See 1 Samuel 22:1-2).

But maybe that is part of Michal’s point. David surrounded himself with “empty men” and was an empty man himself. It was this class of man, with the help of YHWH, that put David on the throne. Michal doesn’t want him going backward. Now that he has kingdom, he needs to start acting like it. He’s not a ruddy shepherd/warrior boy with a slingshot anymore. Nor is he a bandit warrior mercenary working for the highest bidder (including the Philistines), on the run from Saul, engaged in guerrilla warfare. He is king. He is respectable. He needs to start acting like it.

Dancing with one’s dick hanging out does not a respectable king make.

Interlude:

My girlfriend at the time was irate when she read my post. 

Didn't I know that I can't say such thing? That I can't ask such questions?

Given my position in the Church, the people who look up to me, those who look to me for spiritual and social guidance, I do not have the luxury to express my anger and fears. Don't I know that people will be offended? Don't I care?

My pain, my doubts: those are things that should be kept private. Covered up. They are not for public display. Anything else is scandalous.

It's just not done. 

David's reply

David was not one who could have ever been described to magnanimous to the women in his life. But in his arrogance, there is something to be admired in his response:

“It was before the Lord, who chose me in place of your father and all his household, to appoint me as prince over Israel, the people of the Lord, that I have danced before the Lord. I will make myself yet more contemptible than this, and I will be abased in my own eyes; but by the maids of whom you have spoken, by them I shall be held in honor” (2 Samuel 6:21-22).

First off, damn David! Didn't have to bring up her dead father like that! But he moves on to address the politics underlying some of Michal's critique of his actions. 

He does have new roles and reputation, but he focuses on how those are given by God. He says he will make himself look like an idiot if he has to, if his purpose is giving God glory. And those women Michal is concerned about will look at him as even greater because of his display of faith. Or his dick.

With David's track record with women, it's hard to say which direction he was going with this.

He was a bit of a scumbag and it caused him a set of unending problems.

Interlude:

I refrained from simply saying "fuck off," mostly because I didn't swear at the time. My reply was more diplomatic, truth spoken in love. But also anger. Red hot anger.

It is because of what the Lord is doing, or has allowed, that I speak. The same one who put me in the respectable, spiritual positions, the places of regard that others hold me in, is the same one who has caused, or allowed, or watched this tragedy take place.

So I will share my questions, my doubts, my pain, before the Lord and before those who follow Him. I will scream all the louder to get answers, or at least catharsis.

Some may see me as worse for doing so, but who cares. There are others who will be refreshed by the honesty. And feel freedom to do the same themselves. 

In Clear View

Nothing in this story negates Michal’s right to be upset with her husband: David’s junk is flapping in the wind and he already has a dodgy pattern of his relationship with women (and maybe her brother Jonathan). 

In fact, Michal holds a unique place in the Bible as being the only woman who says she loves a man and the sentiment is not explicitly returned in the text (Gafney). And she did so much for him. She sided with David against her own father, told David when her dad was after him. She physically lowered him out of a window to help him escape an assassination plot, and placed a dummy in their bed to confuse the attackers. She was given to another man as a wife for two years, until David finally came back for her, but only after he had taken an indeterminate number of wives/concubines in the meantime. She has legitimate baggage for not wanting David to be attracting more women.

Similarly, my ex had some baggage too. Familial. Relational. Spiritual. None of which was her fault in any way, shape, or form. And with distance and time I can now see her point: those in leadership positions need to be mindful of what and how they reveal aspects of their lives. Their influence has the potential to do great harm as much as hold great benefits. I have personally experienced both in my own life: been impacted by those who have come before me, positively and negatively. 

These stories are not the same. I'm no David. I wasn't dating Michal. One is a story of great joy, the other of unbearable sadness. One is life coming in to the city, the other life's exit from this world. But there is overlap.

The repression of public emotion is the same.

Perhaps...no. No "perhaps" this time. 

We do not have to shit on other people’s joy or pain while processing our own legitimate emotions. There is room for both.

 Period. 

But what do we know: we made this game and you probably think we're going to Hell. 

Postscript

My childhood would not allow me to end this post without referencing this song.