Dean does homework...

To be honest, I only made it up to about page 70 of this book. One thing I did surmise to that point is that Mr. McKnight does not know how to construct flow charts very well. I mean, seriously, if you are going to publish a book and expect people to pay for it, put a little effort into the presentation. If I had written this paper in crayon, would you bother to read past the first paragraph? He really needs to figure out how Microsoft Visio works, or at least get some help from someone who does. Just about any sixth grader should suffice.

 

However, from what I gather, McKnight advocates a “relational” approach to what is written in the bible versus an “authoritative” approach. This is to say that when reading a story in the bible, one should not take every word literally, but should keep in mind the contextual factors around the story (such as differences between society at the time of the story and modern society) and try to see the true message behind the story. He wants us to look more for what God is trying to say to us personally through the story, not so much a word for word direct interpretation of the bible. This is especially pertinent when examining moral issues which are not clearly defined in the bible.

 

I didn’t have a bible handy, but I did check it out on Wikipedia.

 

I think the Bathsheba story is a good example of how ambiguous situation and actions can be. On the surface, it would seem that David has committed the sins of adultery and murder. However, a closer examination of the facts might raise doubt.

 

Take Bathsheba. David first noticed her from his palace roof top while she was bathing. During that time, people were exceptionally modest about showing their bodies, and it would be hard to believe that Bathsheba did not realize she was in clear view of the palace.

 

Also, I was able to find the following pictures of Bathsheba:

 

Do you notice anything that these pictures have in common? It would seem clear that Bathsheba was what we call a “skank” in today’s society. I think that if she had lived today, she’d be working down at Dream Girls, trying to hook up with NBA players in her spare time. One minute she’s married to a foreigner occupying a low level of society, then a short while later she’s pregnant and the King has to marry her. Now, I’m not saying Bathsheba was a gold digger, but she wasn’t messin’ with no broke n****.

 

It appears to me that Bathsheba was the seductress in this adulterous story, and David was the hapless victim.

 

As for Uriah, he was a soldier in David’s army. Soldiers are often killed in combat. That is what they are there for. Military commanders often have to make difficult decisions about who will live and who must die. At best, this could be viewed as an unfortunate decision necessitated by the tactical combat situation (with a bit of royal serendipity). At worst, it could be viewed as generally shady, and an abuse of power. This, however, was certainly not murder.

 

Although, the fact that David had Uriah deliver the secret order that sent him to his death was COLD BLOODED!!!!

 

I wouldn’t draw an immediate connection between this story and the Adam/Eve story. I think there are more parallels between this story and another story about John Connor, Kyle Reese and Sarah Connor.

 

John Connor had to select one of his men for a dangerous military mission. One in which the selected operative would have to go back in time, battle a T-1000 terminator robot, and save/knock-up his own mother, Sarah Connor. John selected Kyle Reese for that mission, knowing that in the past, Kyle had already accomplished this mission and impregnated his mother – with him! All the while, Kyle Reese knew only that he was on a mission to defend Sarah Connor. So, John Connor sent Kyle Reese on a suicide mission, to his death, knowing that Kyle would hook up with his mom.

 

John Connor had to deal with similar conflicted decisions. He sent Kyle Reese to his death. He put Kyle Reese in a very sexually charged situation, facilitating a sexual relationship with Sarah Connor. The big difference, though, is that John Connor was not condemned as a sinner. He was praised as a hero, savior of humanity (which brings up obvious parallels with the whole Jesus story, but I’ll save that for another paper).

 

Putting aside the contradiction of receiving forgiveness, but then being continually punished (is God a woman???), the following are considered David’s punishments.

God sent Nathan the Prophet to visit David and call him out. That must have been embarrassing.

 

The son David fathered with Bathsheba was stuck ill and died a few days after his birth. Now, I’m not sure how you really call that a punishment. David has his hot new stripper wife, with whom he can have constant sex, and now he doesn’t have to deal with taking care of the bastard kid. That’s like catching your child stealing, and for his punishment, he gets to keep what he stole, plus you give him an ice cream cone. I would seem to me a better punishment would have been if God had not smote the kid. Instead, smite David’s wiener. Keep in mind, this was waaaay before Viagra. That way, he has to continually see the object of his desires (Bathsheba), but cannot use it for its intended purpose (sex).

There were some other “unfortunate events” that occurred, like David’s son Absalom instigating a civil war and having sex with ten of his father’s concubines in public. Another of David’s sons, Amnon, raped his sister Tamar. While these may have been punishments for the Bathsheba incident, they don’t seem all that much different than the events that occurred throughout many royal families of the time (and into the Middle Ages). These types of things just seem to happen when kids grow up with power and money. It’s kind of like saying that Rick Hilton must have committed some horrific sin to explain Paris Hilton.