Home > Work > David's Truth
1 " I intend to focus on the question of truth. That means I do not inquire about facticity-what happened-but what isclaimed, what is asserted here about reality. "
― Walter Brueggemann , David's Truth
2 " The doxology moves then to assert that Israel is forever and Yahweh's commitment to Israel is also forever. We had better approach any such doxology suspiciously.The word "forever" is a clue word, because when it occurs we are likely dealing with state truth.23 That point would perhaps not be noticeable if Yahweh were forever. But it is the people Israel who are said to be "forever." By such a rhetorical move, the main jeopardy from the dreaded God has been removed for the dynasty. Yahweh has now been claimed as a friendly and reliable patron for the regime.When doxology is used in the context of state truth, it has a political function. Ostensibly it enhances God, but when used as it is used here, it has a political function. Praise of God is by necessary implication praise of and legitimization of the regime. So the "foreverness" is processed as a dynastic claim. The "
3 " The David given here, and the world of David presumed here is liturgically shaped. That is, these are images, pictures, and scenarios that Israel experienced in public worship. The public worship lying behind these texts is not a sober description of what is, but a visionary, evocative portrayal of what will be. The David of these texts is not obvious to everyone in this dismal historical setting, but is the David trusted and hoped-for by this community, which could find little to value in its actual circumstance. "
4 " The point is not to argue that Psalm 132 is superior to Psalm 89 (though my Protestant inclinations are in that direction). It is rather to see that David's truth, even when formulated by the state, is filled with ambiguity, and that there continued to be conflict over it. One cannot just pick one of these texts in preference to the others. Rather, we need to recognize that each has its claim and its social function, and none may be taken as the "true exposition" of 2 Samuel 7, simply because we prefer it so. "
5 " One notices immediately that the First Book of Samuel is mostly ignored by the Chronicler. This truth of the assembly does not want to go back to the rawness of the tribe. It is content to live from the state, and it is glad for the lid that state truth has put upon the tribal versions that might contain embarrassments. The beginning point is only to give a favorable version of the transition. The first narrative disposes of Saul by telling of the suicide. The narrative is crafted so that David is not mentioned, and therefore could not be blamed, until v. 14. "
6 " It takes no great imagination to see that this picture of David is drastically different from the portrayals given in the Samuel traditions. It is not hard to see that such a constructed picture of David surely serves the context of the fifth century and no doubt serves the specific claims of the Levitic priesthood. The truth about David given here is that David is a pious, cultic man who finds his life shaped and enhanced by such explicit religious commitment. He is indeed a "man of the assembly. "
7 " Second, the elders of the city (Bethlehem) are trembling. They want to know why he comes. They do not even know yet whose side he is on. They presume he is still an agent of Saul. If so, the Judeans tremble because Saul is no friend of southerners. Or if he is not an agent of Saul, it is even more dangerous, because then he may come to include them in an act of betrayal, which is more risk than they want. "
8 " what interests us more is that a parable is the chosen mode of communication. Indeed, it must be.33 One cannot address royal power directly, especially royal power so deeply guilty and shamed. It is permissible to talk about speaking truth to power; but if truth is to have a chance with power, it must be done with some subtlety.34 "