In the narratives of David, readers see extensive combat experience, and are able to discern how he engages his God in the midst of it. But does Scripture speak to David’s view of war? What does he think about combat? How does he process it? How does it intersect with his faith? David does not provide an account of his thinking on the issue, but the reader can piece together fragments of his thinking through his written material.
For David, everything about warfighting was spiritual. In his context, some of the wars he fought were sanctioned by God (2 Sam 5:19). Yet, many wars were not explicitly sanctioned (2 Sam 10:4-14). In both scenarios, David operated the same way. He sought God before going to battle (1 Sam 23:1-5), depended on God in the midst of battle (1 Sam 17:44-49), and gave God the credit at the end of battle (2 Sam 5:20). David recognized that his combat training, ability, and effectiveness did not originate from him. For David, God is the trainer of hands and fingers for battle (Ps 144:1; 2 Sam 22:35). It is God who enables speed, agility, and courage to attack in combat (Ps 18:29; 2 Sam 22:30, 34). He fought with the knowledge that his God was a warrior, the Lord of Armies who battled for him (Ps 24:8-10). He knew victory did not come from numbers, technology, or expertise but from the hand of God (1 Sam 17:46-47; Ps 20:7, 33:16-17).[1]
As a student of the biblical law, David was well versed in the war guidance of Deuteronomy 20 along with the pre- and post-war rituals woven through the Old Testament.[2] These spiritual practices would likely have been implemented in his approach to warfare. Further, God’s commands given in the Mosaic Law provided accountability and parameters within which combatants must operate for the sake of their brothers in arms, their families, their enemies, and themselves.[3]
War drove David to God, it placed him in a position of desperation and dependence. It regularly placed him on his knees for wisdom, help, and strength. It sharpened his theological grasp of God, himself, and the world around him. It pushed him to lean on the community of faith for support and stability. It forced him to get comfortable with mortality and to live with death at his back. For David, war was a catalyst to move the warrior toward his Creator.
David’s spiritual framework for war did not exempt him from its horrors. David was haunted by his experiences, and, as a man of blood, he knew well the inevitable trauma that chases the warrior. His enemies were never far from his mind. When pouring out his heart to God, the Psalms reveal expressions of despair, sorrow, guilt, shame, fear, anxiety, and grief. As a leader, his combat losses weighed heavily on his soul.
His war experiences hit close to home on numerous occasions. He knew what it was like to have his home destroyed in the midst of war (1 Sam 30:1-3), to lose family members to violent conflict (2 Sam 18:15, 33), to have his family torn apart because of war (2 Sam 15:13-37; 1 Sam 30:1-3), and to experience the impact of war on being a husband and father (2 Sam 11-15). While never physically wounded in battle, David did not walk away unscathed. He bore the moral wounds of combat until the day of his death.[4]
David’s perspective on war combines realism with faith. He did not downplay the dread of war or minimize its fallout. He was honest about combat’s impact on his soul, his family, and his colleagues. At the same time, he infused his view of war with faith and spirituality. His training, pre-war rituals, experience in combat, and post-war practices were all executed before the face of God. This interface of realism and faith produced a rugged, resilient warrior.[5]
[1]“In, with, and through the narrative of 1 Samuel 17, a theological thrust is conveyed, that the outcome of all battles depends upon God, no matter what the stature, resources, or experience possessed by the warring entities.” Abraham Kuruvilla, “David v. Goliath (1 Samuel 17): What is the Author Doing with what He is Saying?” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 58, no. 3 (2015): 506. Robert Chisholm states, “The warriors Jonathan and David recognize that Yahweh alone determines the outcome of the battle. Soldiers and weapons have no impact on the outcome when Yahweh is involved (1 Sam 14:6; 17:47).” Robert B. Chisholm Jr., “Yahweh’s Self Revelation in Deed and Word: A Biblical Theology of 1-2 Samuel,” Southwestern Journal of Theology 55, no. 2 (2013): 225.
[2]Wood argues that Deuteronomy 20 prefigures the contours of just war thinking. Such principles informed David’s warfighting. Wood, Perspectives on War in the Bible, 147-151.
[3]As mentioned above, the Scripture provides the foundation for the Christian’s warrior code. Susan French rightly argues that the warrior code protects the humanity of warfighters and all those connected to them, even their enemies. “The code of the warrior not only defines how warriors should interact with their own warrior comrades, but also how they should treat other members of their society, their enemies, and the people they conquer. The code restrains the warrior. It sets boundaries on acceptable behavior. It distinguishes honorable acts from shameful acts…warriors need the restraint of a warrior’s code to keep them from losing their humanity and their ability to enjoy a life worth living outside the realm of combat.” Susan E. French, “The Code of the Warrior: Ideals of Warrior Cultures Throughout History,” The Journal of Character & Leadership Integration (2017): 65, 67. In another work, French explores key warrior cultures through history and how they imbued their warfighters with combat values. In every culture and period of history, a warrior code has been essential for safeguarding men and women in arms along with their communities. Susan E. French, The Code of the Warrior: Exploring Warrior Values Past and Present (New York: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2003).
[4]Chris Adsit frames David as a PTSD sufferer based on the lament psalms. He argues that David is the template for healing the wounds of combat trauma. Utilizing the psalms as a paradigm, he suggests a number of select prayers, promises, and praises for the wounded warrior on the journey toward wellness. Though Adsit’s position reaches beyond the biblical data, his observation of the combat impact on David’s life is sound. Chris Adsit, The Combat Trauma Healing Manual: Christ-centered Solutions for Combat Trauma (Newport News: Military Ministry Press, 2007), 165-170. Grimell’s intriguing work forms a dialogue between combat trauma research and biblical studies. She states, “insights can be gained into how different biblical characters handled their darker war selves and deplored actions, their potential moral and/or spiritual injuries in relation to God and others, their commitment to military purpose, loyalty to unit and battle buddies, and their difficulties in readjustment after combat.” She suggests that David was an “extremely resilient veteran” and yet there were a number of combat experiences and decisions that illustrated “potential moral injury events.” Grimell, “Contemporary Insights from Biblical Combat Veterans,” 242, 244-245. Tick states, “David has been called a ‘PTSD sufferer’ but also, in contrast to Saul, a ‘PTSD victor.’ His life was replete with personal, familial and historical traumas. He was involved in betrayals, murders, infidelity, incest and conflicts with his children unto making war son upon father. His Psalms reveal a man, warrior and king in confusion, despair, loneliness and spiritual collapse. They also reveal a person of deep faith who sometimes felt Divine presence and favor, in distress sought its renewal, and through life gave it praise. David’s invisible wound sang through his flood of anguished poetry and sounded a relentless appeal for Divine help.” Tick, Warrior’s Return, 111-115.
[5]David Bosworth argues that the narratives of 1-2 Samuel characterize David as a resilient individual. Defining resilience as an individual’s “capacity to continue with their lives more or less as normal in spite of trauma, loss, or other adversity that might be expected to result in significant dysfunction.” Focusing on the death of Bathsheba’s firstborn, Bosworth concludes, “the resilient faith that David displays in this incident is consistent with the depiction of his character elsewhere. David frequently demonstrates his resilient faith in God in times of adversity. He invokes pious motives for preferring to endure adversity rather than kill Saul (1 Sam 24:7; 26:9-11) or Shimei (2 Sam 16:12).” David A. Bosworth, “Faith and Resilience: King David’s Reaction to the Death of Bathsheba’s Firstborn,” The Catholic Biblical Quarterly 73 (2011): 692, 706.