Sotah 015

Yes, David is a flawed character. But then is it not the case that almost all biblical heroes are flawed in some way or another? Is not Abraham's treatment of Sarah in Egypt a flaw in his character? Is not Isaac's doting on Esau a flaw in his character? Is not Jacob a severely flawed character? And Joseph? And Moses? None of Israel's great heroes is presented as a perfect human being – probably because there is no such thing as a perfect human being, not even those vouchsafed to be the agents of God.

In my view, Jim is correct when he puts David's treatment of the members of his family as flawed and negligent. Would that this were the only flaw in David's character. The greatest failure of David in his whole career is surely not his failure to control Amnon, or his failure to act against Absalom: his greatest failure was his inability to curb his own appetite. And for that he paid the heaviest price that divine justice, with its character of 'measure for measure' can mete out. And, I believe, that David's behaviour towards his children can be understood in the light of his own knowledge that he is powerless to act: all that is happening was ultimately caused by himself. The strife within his family is part of God's punishment, therefore there is nothing that he can do about it. He probably recalls all the time the stinging words of Natan the prophet: 'I hereby create trouble for you from within your own house…'

But the real crux of Jim's query is on a different plane. Given that David acted (and failed to act) as he did – whatever the reasons might be – how can we hold him in honour?

I do not agree with the answer given Jim by the rabbi he consulted, that 'the rules for kings are different.' Under law, the king has certain rights, privileges and duties. These do not include the right to fornicate with the wife of one of the high-ranking officers in his military. And these certainly do not include what is probably the greatest crime that David could commit as a monarch: using his powers as commander-in-chief to organise and orchestrate the loss of a battle, in which many of his own men lost their lives, simply in order to encompass the death of the innocent man the affections of whose wife he has suborned. And all this against the expressed expert advice of his senior officers.

I believe that David is honoured not because of these flaws but ins spite of these flaws. I believe that the implied message is that even people whose character is severely flawed can aspire to greatness. David's other achievements are not diminished because of his enormous personal failure. The character of Saul is also flawed, tragically. In his confrontation with Samuel after his victory over the Amalekites he does not even admit his fault, but excuses it. But in his heart of hearts he knows he is guilty: to himself he admits his failure. The difference between Saul and David is that Saul permits his failures to permeate every other aspect of his rule, to his ultimate downfall. David freely acknowledges his guilt, expresses remorse, and for the rest of his life anguishes under his understanding of the nature of the divine punishment. But he does not permit this anguish to infect the manner of his rule outside his family. David is great because he demonstrates that it is possible to achieve and maintain greatness when faults are admitted and their punishment humbly accepted.

This is my reading of David's greatness. I wish I could offer a similar rationale for Solomon. But I have to agree with the essential description of his rule given by Jim. Jacob and Solomon are the two biblical figures who, in my view, have been 'whitewashed' by subsequent evaluation.

In his original message Jim also mentioned Samuel. I believe that Samuel is also a flawed character. The demand of the people for a king is seen by him as being their rejection of him as leader. In their very first meeting Samuel sees the major flaw in Saul's character: his inferiority complex. And Samuel decides to exploit this flaw. Saul's innate sense of his own inferiority makes him dependent on Samuel, a true 'authority figure', and when Samuel rejects him at the first sign of independent thinking Saul's mental deterioration is inevitable, and his manic depression leads ultimately to his demise and death.