David's Epic Fail

Prairie Chapel (Photo: Crystal Gillespie)

It's a story we've all heard before: David's notorious rendezvous with Bathsheba. But how well do we actually understand the dynamics of the narrative?

I was asked to preach on 2 Samuel 11-12 in chapel at Prairie College, and I soon found that my questions far outnumbered the answers.

• Why is David not with his men in battle?
• Why is he getting up in the evening?
• Why can David see Bathsheba bathing?
• Does Bathsheba want to be seen bathing?
• Is it normal to bathe outside?
• Is there indoor plumbing in Jerusalem during David's reign?
• Is Bathsheba bathing at home or in a public pool?
• How is a ritual bath different than a regular one?
• Is her bath 7 days after the beginning of her period? or 7 days after it ended? (This determines whether she could have conceived during a one-night stand. See Leviticus 15:19 and 18:19)
• How could David not know Bathsheba? She's married to one of his 30 mighty men, and the daughter of another mighty man.
• How does she feel when David summons her?
• Is David's primary motivation sexual or political?
• When she sends words to David that she is pregnant, what does she hope David will do?
• Does Uriah know what has taken place?
• Is David trying to cover his guilt? or save face?
• Why does David send Uriah a gift? Is this his way of buying Uriah's silence?
• Is David trying to catch Uriah in a ritual infraction? Normally, David's men are prohibited from sexual intimacy during a military campaign (1 Sam 21:4-5; Deut 23:9-11).
• Does David think that Uriah knows his wife his pregnant? or that he doesn't know?
• Does Uriah guess the contents of the letter he brings to Joab?

However we answer these questions, what becomes crystal clear is that David thinks he has all the power. He is like a master chess player, shrewdly planning his moves so that his opponents are left with no way out. And who is his opponent? A member of his own team. It reminds me of another king of Israel who spent all his royal energy chasing a successful commander from his own army all through the wilderness. Doesn’t it? What has happened to David that he should become so much like Saul? Perhaps he feels Uriah is a threat. We’re not told. At the very least, Uriah stands in the way of what David wants. And David has come to believe that because he has power, he can have whatever he wants, when he wants it. Is David feeling like ‘less of a man’ because he’s not on the front lines fighting? Does this conquest of his neighbor’s wife and life restore his sense of power? If so, it shows us how twisted David’s thinking has become.

Let’s be clear: This is not about David’s sexual needs. He has 7 wives and multiple concubines by this point in the story. If he was “in the mood,” he had plenty of honorable options. David is living in a dream world of his own making, a world where he’s above the law and can have whatever he wants. To make matters worse, his men are on the front lines, far from the comforts of home and wife, fighting his battles. 

The hinge of the narrative is when God takes a page from David's playbook by sending Nathan to him. Nathan is shrewd enough to know that he must awaken David’s conscience before his rebuke will hit home. How does he awaken a king whose conscience has been lulled into delusional thinking? He tells a story. It works. In response, David unwittingly pronounces his own sentence. And Nathan goes for the jugular: “YOU are the man.”

David has a lot to say in the Psalms about those who accuse him falsely. But this time the accusation is painfully true. David has failed abysmally. David knows he is in the wrong. This is where his story becomes an example for us to follow. His response is just two words in Hebrew, “I have sinned against YHWH.” He offers no defense. No equivocation. He’s been caught in the act.


I can imagine the responses he might have given: But she shouldn’t have been naked where I could see her! But Uriah should have gone home to his wife and I wouldn’t have had to have him killed! But the Ammonites killed him, not me! David offers none of these excuses. He simply takes responsibility.

With every failure we stand at a crossroads. We can hedge and whine and deflect and give excuses, shifting the blame, or we can take responsibility, repent, and become reconciled to God.

David’s more lengthy confession is found in Psalm 51. This psalm is his cry for mercy. With no small irony, David asks God to bathe him: “Wash away all my iniquity and cleanse me from my sin! . . . Cleanse me with hyssop and I will be clean; wash me, and I will be whiter than snow.” 

May each of us have the courage to face our failures, own our sin, and receive God's mercy.

You can listen to my entire message here.

prostitutes, polygamy, and other gnarly things in the Old Testament

The Old Testament is full of fodder for questions. Gnarly questions about violence and sexual deviancy and deception and war. Every year new books are released that try to wrestle with these questions from a Christian point of view. Here are a few examples from recent years, most of them focused on violence in the Old Testament:

• The God I Don't Understand: Reflections on Tough Questions of Faith by Christopher J. H. Wright (Zondervan, 2008)
• Is God a Moral Monster? Making Sense of the Old Testament God by Paul Copan (Baker, 2011)
• God Behaving Badly: Is the God of the Old Testament Angry, Sexist and Racist? by David T. Lamb (IVP, 2011)
• The Violence of Scripture: Overcoming the Old Testament's Troubling Legacy by Eric A. Seibert (Fortress, 2012)
• The Morality of God in the Old Testament: Christian Answers to Hard Questions by Gregory K. Beale (P&R Publishing, 2013)
• Did God Really Command Genocide? Coming to Terms with the Justic of God by Paul Copan & Matt Flannagan (Baker, 2014)
• The Skeletons in God's Closet: The Mercy of Hell, the Surprise of Judgment, the Hope of Holy War by Joshua Ryan Butler (Thomas Nelson, 2014)
• Tough Questions about God and His Actions in the Old Testament by Walter Kaiser Jr. (Kregel, 2015)
• Wrestling with the Violence of God: Soundings in the Old Testament by J. Blair Wilgus & M. Daniel Carroll R. (Eisenbrauns, 2015)

Last year David Lamb added a second book of his own to this collection: Prostitutes and Polygamists: A Look at Love, Old Testament Style (Zondervan, 2015). I was asked to review it for Themelios, the digital journal of The Gospel Coalition. My review went live yesterday.

I hesitated to accept. The book struck me as edgy and irreverently playful on a subject matter that deserves steady and non-sensational reflection. Frankly, I didn't seem to fit the target audience. But the editor had reasons to ask me (my gender, my cross-cultural experience, and my background in Old Testament ethics), so in the end I agreed to write a review. You can read it here. You might find it to be just the thing for the college group at your church, but I hope my review will help guide your group discussions in order to avoid some of the potential pitfalls of Lamb's approach.

While I have your attention, I'll put in a plug for two books I like better. Wright's book, listed first above, is an outstanding yet accessible introduction to tough issues involving suffering and evil, the Canaanites, the cross, and the end of the world. (His more scholarly tome, Old Testament Ethics for the People of God, is also well worth reading, if your attention span can last nearly 500 pages.) Paul Copan's book, listed second above, comes highly recommended as well. I haven't read the whole thing yet, but I find his approach much more satisfying than Lamb's.


If you're wrestling with some of these tough questions, please know that there are answers. From our vantage point we may never be fully satisfied with the ways that the Old Testament narrates the story of Israel's faith. It's too foreign and too far in the distant past to make perfect sense to us. But if we apply ourselves diligently to the text of Scripture and broaden our understanding of its ancient context, we can come a long way toward making sense of the Old Testament. It's a journey worth making!

Wheaton Theology Conference 2013: Christian Political Witness

The annual Wheaton Theology Conference has just come to a close. This year's topic was Christian Political Witness. I enjoyed stimulating lectures by Peter Leithart, Stanley Hauerwas, Mark Noll, and David Gushee and a lunch discussion with retired Anglican Archbishop of Kenya, Rev. David Gitari (in conjunction with our monthly Global Theological Education Discussion Group meeting).

Leithart's message was provocative: God is never violent and never condones violence. The key to his message was learning to define violence the way the Scriptures do: "Violence is unjust and sinful use of force." Leithart called the church the "one true polity and God's main instrument against violence."

Hauerwas made us laugh, groan, and gasp with his profound analysis of the problems facing the church in America (and, yes, with his colorful language). He imagines an ecclesial alternative to power, that is, a church so convinced that "Jesus is Lord" that peaceful non-resistance is the only option. His provocative lecture concluded with these words: "I believe Christendom is finally coming to an end. . . . Let's make the most of it."

Noll spoke about the use of Scripture by Christians in politics, cautioning us that the use of Scripture does not guarantee the "Christianness" of a political endeavor. He called us to a way of reading Scripture marked by comprehensive discernment of biblical theology that takes into account cultural, contextual, and theological issues (as opposed to proof-texting). My fuller report of his lecture may be found on the Wheaton Blog.

Gushee had the delightful task of getting into the "nitty-gritty" of Christian political witness by speaking prophetically on the issues that confront the church today. He took this job seriously, addressing a whopping 10 hot issues in 45 minutes: abortion, creation care, the death penalty, modern capitalism, gay rights, guns, immigration, torture, war-making, and women's issues. His exhortation to us was clear and unequivocal: "We must remain calm and steady in engaging public and political issues, believing that the kingdom of this world will become the kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ."

These lectures should be available for viewing on the conference website in the near future, and they will be released in print by IVP later this year. In the meantime, summaries of many of the lectures will be available on the Wheaton Blog (written by Wheaton PhD students). I've just posted my notes on Mark Noll's lecture here. You can read about Gitari's lecture here. Check back for more lecture notes written by other Wheaton students. It's been a lively conversation!

John Piper on interracial marriage

John Piper and I don't always see eye to eye. But I, like many others, have learned a lot from him, and I'm grateful for his ministry. His has, time after time, pointed the church to the vision of God's Glory.

Today I simply want to share a link to a wonderful chapel message he gave at Wheaton on October 3rd on interracial marriage. Piper was honest about his own racism while he was an undergraduate student at Wheaton, and during his growing-up years in the 50s and 60s. But his story includes several key moments where that racism was challenged. Now he insists that the Bible does not condemn interracial marriage, and neither should we. In his words:

"Our oneness in Christ is profound and transforms racial barriers into blessings."

"Few things - I think - are more beautiful than when a Christian couple across racial lines, overcomes every racial prejudice, every ethnic slur, every gospel-contradicting fear, and then display in a marriage the covenant-keeping commitment and love of Christ for his church. That's what marriage is for."

"Marriage is mainly displaying to the world the covenant keeping love of God between Christ and this church and this church and Christ (Ephesians 5). Dream that dream, and it will profoundly affect whom you marry."

"Christians are people who move towards justice, who move towards beauty. They don't move towards security at every point."

"Don't underestimate the challenges of marriage. . . .When it comes to interracial marriage, celebrate the beauty of it."

In the end, Piper called interracial marriage "good for the church, good for the world, and good for the glory of God."

Amen to that!

do Catholics worship Mary?

One of the most obvious practical differences between Catholics and Protestants is our respective postures towards Mary. Protestants don’t dislike her, but she simply takes her place alongside all of the other heroes of the faith, no better than the rest. For Catholics, on the other hand, Mary is unequaled among humans. Sculptures and paintings feature Mary almost as often as Christ; Churches, schools, and holy societies are devoted to her memory. Even Notre Dame (“Our Lady”) is named after her, and the main administration building is crowned with her golden statue. The Rosary, prayed daily by devout Catholics, is punctuated with “Hail, Mary” and directed toward to the “Most Blessed Mother.” Mary is celebrated, revered, and held up as the highest example of faith. In fact, Dr. Cavadini says, “Without devotion to Mary there is something lacking in Christian worship.”

So . . . why all the fuss about Mary?

The first thing to make clear is that Catholics do not worship or adore Mary. She is instead venerated, or shown respect and devotion for her faith. Because Mary’s faith in Jesus and submission to God’s will are what make her special, contemplation of Mary fosters deeper faith in Christ. She serves as the prime example of saving faith. In class, Dr. Cavadini explained that “Devotion to Mary is devotion to the incarnation. . . . The repetition of the 'Hail Mary' calls to mind the mystery of the incarnation.” Pope John Paul II saw that in the Rosary, "Mary leads us to discover the secret of Christian joy" (On the Most Holy Rosary, 28). The Rosary is one way that Mary invites Catholics to think about Christ.

Conservative Protestants agree with Catholics that Mary was a virgin when she conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit (§484–486, 496–498). She was chosen by God for this purpose because of her “free cooperation” with the Holy Spirit, enabled by God’s grace (§488, 490). She can be thought of as the “exalted daughter of Sion,” the culmination of a long line of women who hoped in God (§489). Responding to an ancient debate, the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) says it is proper to call Mary theotokos, or “Mother of God” (§495; 509). Protestants agree.

However, the Catholic Church goes on to teach two further doctrines related to Mary’s virginity that are generally not held by Protestants: her Immaculate Conception and Perpetual Virginity. The former was declared ex cathedra by the Pope, so it is considered an infallible doctrine by Catholics.

Immaculate Conception 

Catholics believe that Mary was not only a virgin when she conceived, but she was free from original sin. The CCC admits that this doctrine grew up gradually:

"Through the centuries the Church has become ever more aware that Mary, ‘full of grace’ through God, was redeemed from the moment of her conception. That is what the dogma of the Immaculate Conception confesses, as Pope Pius IX proclaimed in 1854:

'The most Blessed Virgin Mary was, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God and by virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, Savior of the human race, preserved immune from all stain of original sin.'" (§491)

Our Lady of Vladimir icon

Dr. Cavadini clarifies that Mary was, from the moment she was conceived, redeemed in anticipation of Christ’s saving work. So her freedom from original sin was on the basis of that redemption in Christ (i.e. the same way you or I are saved later in life). But not only was Mary free from original sin, the CCC teaches that “By the grace of God Mary remained free of every personal sin her whole life long” (§493; cf. 508). She “gave herself entirely to the person and to the work of her Son” (§494). Dr. Cavadini explains, “Her immaculate conception is her complete conformity to the incarnation from the moment of her conception. She was preserved from original sin on the basis of that conformity.”

No direct appeal is made to Scripture in the CCC to support this doctrine other than Luke 1:48, where Mary says, “all generations will call me blessed.” For Protestants it seems a stretch to go from “blessed” (presumably by God) to “blameless”! How do Catholics get there? Protestant readers may be relieved to see that for Catholics Mary’s holiness is derivative of Christ’s own holiness and her election is predicated on God’s grace.

More troublesome to Protestants, however, is the idea that Mary was free from original sin and never sinned during her life, because Scripture never says this explicitly. For Catholics the doctrine has a theological and typological basis. Catholics’ typological views of Mary might be compared to the baptism of infants by many Reformed Protestants. We find no explicit example of or command for infant baptism in Scripture, yet many churches practice it because they see a typological relationship between circumcision and baptism. Just as circumcision of male babies signified their inclusion in the Covenant, so baptism of children stands as a symbol of their inclusion in the New Covenant, based on the promise of God. Not all Protestants believe in infant baptism, but those who practice it have allowed a typological reading of Scripture to shape their Christian practice. This is analogous to the Catholic Church’s teachings on Mary. We might say her sinlessness flows naturally from her portrayal in Scripture as one fully submitted to the will of God. A life completely surrendered is one without sin. If we admit of even the possibility of entire sanctification (something debated among Protestants), then the Catholic vision of Mary stands as the showcase example.

But Mary is more than a role model, or example of faith. For Catholics, the doctrine of her Immaculate Conception is intrinsically connected to Christology, and it arises out of contemplation of the circular nature of the incarnation. How is the incarnation circular? Simply the idea that Mary is the “Mother of God” defies logic — how can God have a mother? Mary then, through Christ’s offering of himself, becomes the daughter of her Son — another conundrum. Edward Oakes explains,

"The implications of the denial of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception should become clear. For such a denial would then make our very salvation dependent on Mary’s free will operating independent of grace. Her Yes to God would have had to have been made, even if ever so slightly, under her own power, which would have the intolerable implication of making the entire drama of salvation hinge on a human work ..." (“Sola Gratia and Mary’s Immaculate Conception,” 3).

In other words, if Mary was not sinless, how could she have given her full consent to the incarnation? And if she was able to give full consent, would not her sinless response have been a work of God’s grace? Therefore, the grace of God must have been in operation from the very moment of her conception, preparing her for this moment of full consent. And that grace is only available on the basis of Christ’s redeeming work. Therefore, Mary is redeemed in anticipation of that saving work of Christ, and her willingness to bear the incarnate Lord makes that redemption possible. (Do you see the circle?)

Perpetual Virginity

For Protestants, another unfamiliar Catholic doctrine is the perpetual virginity of Mary. According to the CCC, Mary continued to be a virgin for the rest of her life (§499; 510). Her virginity is a sign of her faith, the “undivided gift of herself” to God (§506). She then becomes the mother of all who believe (§501; 511; 963). To the objection of Protestants that Jesus had siblings, the Catechism claims that “James and Joseph, ‘brothers of Jesus,’ are the sons of another Mary, a disciple of Christ, whom St. Matthew significantly calls ‘the other Mary.’ They are close relations of Jesus, according to an Old Testament expression” (§500). Mary’s ongoing virginity is the outward expression of her openness to God’s special work in her. She continues to embody the mystery of the incarnation.

Statue of the Holy Family on Notre Dame's Campus

If this seems to downgrade human sexuality, we should note that Catholics do not see married sex as unholy. The holy family is fulfilling a unique vocation, not one to be emulated by married couples. Marital celibacy is not praised by the apostles. On the contrary, Paul tells the married not to deprive each other of sexual fulfillment (1 Cor 7:3,5).

Protestants may still want to object to the Catholic interpretation of Jesus “brothers” as his “cousins” (Matt 13:55 and Mark 6:3). We may also see Matt 1:25 as pointing away from the doctrine of Mary’s perpetual virginity—Joseph kept Mary a virgin “until she gave birth” to Jesus. I for one have understood this to mean that after Jesus was born Mary and Joseph consummated their marriage. However, there is room for disagreement over this issue. Seen typologically, the Catholic doctrine on Mary can be squared with Scripture (though it goes beyond what the Bible explicitly says).

More on Mary


The CCC also teaches that Mary intercedes for the Church (§965; 969). Her mediation, a “maternal role,” is not meant to equal or diminish the uniqueness of Christ’s mediation, but is derivative of it and based on the doctrine of the priesthood of all believers (§969; 975; 1014). She has simply gone before us and represents the end goal of the journey of faith (§972). In fact, Catholics teach that Mary was taken up into heaven directly, where she awaits us. This doctrine is called the “Assumption of Mary” (§966, 974; cf. 1024), and it is also considered infallible. It is not found in the Bible and has no parallel in the Protestant church. It is based on a very ancient liturgical Tradition which can obviously not be proven or disproven. You could think of Enoch, who “walked with God; then he was no more, because God took him” (Gen 5:24 NRSV) or Elijah, who was taken to heaven in a whirlwind (2 Kings 2:11).

Beliefs about Mary can be a real sticking point between Catholics and Protestants. I hope that this post has helped you to understand what Catholics believe about Mary and (to some extent) why. I am coming to a place where these doctrines are at least beginning to make sense, though I am not ready to embrace all of them. Ultimate agreement may be unlikely, but respect, dialogue, and understanding are the goal.

Dr. Cavadini put it to me this way, in an e-mail exchange over this issue:

"So it seems to me that all Christians who believe in the Incarnation can share Mary as 'Mother of God,' and can begin to understand that they are truly linked in this way, and Christians less inclined to cultivate a devotion to Mary can still on the basis of this link, if they are willing to seriously consider it, have an understanding of the devotion that flourishes more explicitly in other communions, and, without participating in it, still feel a link to it, and understanding of it, and an appreciation that someone is in fact holding up that end of the spectrum." (emphasis mine)

He later reminded me that the beauty of Catholic teaching on Mary can get lost in the arguments over particular aspects, adding,

"The Mother of the Incarnate Word is not His mother just by accident—her kid happened to turn out great—but she is consulted and is aware. That maternal love is there for all of us because Christ wills it. Her maternal compassion is there for us and leads us to contemplate the divine mercy of her Son. There is nothing to be afraid of, only beauty, only the special role of a women in our redemption. . . . Remember, there is no jealousy in Heaven. No one is jealous of the Blessed Mother as though her status is competitive—only love."

27 million reasons

I was startled yesterday to learn that there are more slaves today than at any other time in human history.

27 million of them

And we can sit back and be glad that we were born free and that slavery was abolished from our nation a long time ago... or we can decide that we are not willing for any human being to be exploited on our watch.  We have 27 million reasons to take action.

I'm grateful to be part of a church that is willing to do something about it.  Our services for the entire month of December are devoted to the issue of the global slave trade.  And two of our offerings, including Christmas Eve, will be given entirely to the International Justice Mission.

That's cool, but it's not enough.  IJM has freed 1000 slaves so far.  But 200 people a day, many of them children, are captured and forced into slavery.  The sex industry is one of the largest forced labor industries in the world.  A growing demand for younger women has meant that girls as young as 8 are forced to work as prostitutes.

I'm not ok with that.  Are you?

a divine appointment

Last year at ETS I experienced a rapid succession of divine appointments for 3 days straight.  This year felt different because I did a lot of leg work ahead of time to set up appointments with 10 different scholars.  That pretty much filled my schedule, but I prayed that God would orchestrate any other run-ins that I ought to have while I was there.  One of my most treasured divine appointments was with Edsar.

My roommates and I had headed to the mall next door to grab a quick lunch between conference papers.  The food court was packed, and there was simply no way to find 3 seats together that were not directly beside other people eating.  So the 3 of us sat side-by-side across the table from a young man who was eating Chick-fil-A for lunch.  He smiled and noticed our name tags.

"Are you all here for the theology thing going on at the Hilton?"

"Yes, we are."

"Can you tell me what it is?  I mean, like who comes to it?  Is it something for Christians?"

This started a lengthy conversation about theology.  Edsar had a few questions about the Bible that he had been saving up for just such an occasion.  He wanted to know how we got the books in the Bible that we have, and if anything might have been left out.  He was curious how the decisions were made.  Brittany, my conference roommate from Wheaton, did a great job explaining the process of canonization.  Then, under the direct inspiration of the Holy Spirit, she asked Edsar a question:

"May I ask what prompted you to start thinking about these issues?"

It was the perfect question.  We had both assumed that his questions stemmed from bestselling books like The DaVinci Code or some prime time fixation with the "Lost Gospels."  They had not.  Edsar opened up to us, sharing that he had grown up in the church but had recently come to terms with the fact that he is gay.  He knows what the Bible says about homosexual behavior, and he still believes it should be our authority, but he is wrestling deeply with the questions about God.

"How could a loving God create me like this, and then condemn me for it?"

It was a moment drenched in grace.  We all felt it.  Brittany and I affirmed him as a man created in God's image, and that his question is both deeply personal and very important.  We expressed that all of us are affected by our "fallenness" in different ways.  Some are tempted in areas of anger, some by heterosexual lust, some by gluttony. Homosexual behavior is no worse than other areas of sin.  People feel strong desires to do many things that are contrary to God's will.  Desire is not an indication of the rightness of a behavior. 

I told him that we had wrestled in similar ways as women who loved the Bible and felt a strong pull to teach it.  The Bible clearly states that women should not teach, and I have often asked, "God, why would you give me such a strong desire to teach the Bible if I'm not allowed to do it?"  It's a question that cuts to the core of our gender, our identity, and our search to find our place in the grand scheme of things.

Because he was an intelligent guy who would not be put off by an academic book, I recommended one that has been helpful to me: Slaves, Women and Homosexuals by William Webb.  Webb looks at all three issues (slavery, women's roles, and homosexuality) as they are presented in Scripture and concludes that we must follow the trajectory of Scripture beyond what the Bible actually says.  Because the Bible was written to particular people in a particular cultural setting, we cannot assume that the specific prohibitions are timeless or that behavior found in the Bible should always be emulated. This could be a problematic approach in other areas, but with these three issues Webb's conclusions are sound. 

• The Bible does not condemn slavery outright, but it was right for us to outlaw it. 
• The Bible says explicitly that women shouldn't teach, but we are right to affirm women as teachers, even of men.  (If you want to know why you'll have to read the book.  This is a post about homosexuality, not slavery or women!)
• Homosexuality, though, is unilaterally condemned in Scripture.  There is no 'movement' or 'trajectory' that would allow for a change in position on this issue.  About the time that Paul wrote the books of Romans, homosexuality was being exalted as the epitome of love,  yet he is clear that it is contrary to God's will (see Romans 1).

I hope that we communicated this in as loving and gentle way as possible.  We encouraged him that this is his own journey, and that he would have to wrestle with the issues for himself.  Each of us is on a journey to become more like Jesus, and the process of becoming more like him can be painful.  Brittany urged him to bring his questions right to God and seek out his answers.  We told him we'd be praying for him.  And we did, on our way back to the hotel.  We just couldn't go another step without praying for that dear brother who was willing to give us a glimpse into his soul.  It was a great reminder that the study of theology has a huge bearing on everyday life.  May each of us have many more divine appointments such as this one.