I did not intend to watch House of David, but when a few people told me they were enjoying it and asked what I thought, I decided to give it a go. But before I discuss House of David, I want to talk about The Chosen.
I have not watched The Chosen and do not intend to because it’s my conviction that it would violate the Second Commandment (or at least the spirit of the Second Commandment). I was raised around catechisms that were written at the time of the Reformation when a pressing question was whether Christians should create or venerate images of God. They were uniformly opposed. So from my youngest days, I have had an uneasy relationship with portrayals of Jesus, especially when they are meant to be realistic and to cause us to think we are “seeing Jesus” through an actor. A cartoon Jesus in a children’s Bible is less offensive to me than a human actor portraying him, though I prefer neither. I have not watched The Chosen because my conscience tells me it would be both unwise and sinful for me to watch. However, while those are my convictions, I pass no judgment on those who can watch freely and with a clear conscience. Each man before the Lord.1
That brings us to House of David. I do not believe it is in the same category as The Chosen because even though it is derived from the Bible, it does not portray God.2 I do not believe that the Bible speaks specifically to a show like House of David which is prefaced with this message:
Some of the events depicted in this series may not accurately represent all historical or biblical facts or figures. While we have made efforts to portray certain aspects of history authentically, creative liberties have been taken for storytelling purposes.
The show is honest about what it is: A lot of dramatic license wrapped around a framework of factual events. It is not the Bible and is not meant to be a true-to-life telling of the biblical account. It’s perhaps more like a story set in ancient Israel that uses historical events as milestones but fabricates what happens between them. The characters and main events are familiar, but much of the story is not. In that way, it’s perhaps in a similar category as a children’s play at Christmastime, a Christian high school’s production of the story of Ruth and Boaz, or the film The Price of Egypt.
Hence, I believe the decision of whether or not to watch it falls into the realm of wisdom and conscience. Some may judge it unwise to watch it and some may find that their conscience forbids them. Both should heed and refrain. But others will find it acceptable to watch and be able to do so with a clear conscience. While I would not judge those who choose to abstain, I found that my conscience permitted me to watch it. And as I did so, I was generally impressed.
The story is quite compelling, which isn’t surprising since it is based on one of the greatest stories in all of human history. It follows David from obscurity to his battle with Goliath, setting up a season two that will advance toward David taking the throne. It uses flashbacks to tell his backstory and flash-forwards to show the eventual fall of the house of Saul and David’s rise to power. It has some notable strengths such as aptly showing the sheer unlikeliness of David being chosen from among his brothers and from among all Israel. The growing madness of Saul is well-portrayed as is the growing love between David and Michal. Jonathan is presented as noble and good even as he begins to realize the kingdom will never be his, while Abner is mysterious and uncertain. The final battle is overly dramatic but faithfully ascribes the victory to God rather than to David, for as David insists, “It is not about the greatness of the giant. It is about the greatness of God.”
House of David isn’t without its weaknesses. There is a bit too much Disney in David—too much talk of his destiny and the desire to be validated through great deeds. There’s a bit too much twenty-first-century anachronism in the way he and Michal relate to authority. While I enjoyed much of Samuel’s portrayal, he is perhaps a bit too Gandalf-like (they might as well have called him “Samuel the Gray”). While we see various forms of pagan worship, we see little of the purity of true worship, a matter that would have made paganism all the more evil by contrast. I rather doubt David and Michal shared their first kiss as he was leaving his tent to slay the giant. A couple of palace scenes may tip almost into the lascivious, though I’m certain they are not nearly as lascivious as Saul’s court would have been at its worst—one good reason the Bible is a book rather than a miniseries.
The filmmakers made some interesting choices to fill out the story. David is said to have been born of Jesse’s second wife whom he married unlawfully, thus making David illegitimate. This explains his brothers’ spite toward him while also making him something of a societal outcast. I presume they based this on a possible but unlikely interpretation of Psalm 51:5: “I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.” Saul’s wife Ahinoam is shown as dabbling in paganism and eventually leading Saul away from the true God and toward false gods while their son Eshbaal uses his father’s madness to attempt to claim the throne. Doeg the Edomite plays the role of an evil supervillain who appears to ultimately be loyal to nobody but himself. The writers provide explanations for the origins of Goliath, the identity of the Nephilim, and other disputed passages.
The production quality is excellent and the scenery, sets, and costumes are better than expected for a show with a relatively modest budget. The casting is appropriate to the time and place while the acting is good at times and excellent at others. Ali Suliman as King Saul is especially convincing in his role. The production team makes good use of forced perspective to make Goliath appear mammoth. I do feel that the sound is perhaps a bit overdone. Do we really need a bass drum for every step Goliath takes? Was he really so large that he literally shook the ground? I doubt it.
Overall, I enjoyed House of David and look forward to the next season.3 I’ll be interested to see how they handle the infamous matter of the 200 foreskins, the “better than the love of women” friendship between David and Jonathan, and perhaps later on Michal’s hatred for David. While the series is not entirely true to the Bible, it is not meant to be. Even as it adds some details and leaves out others, it does not undermine or deny the historic account. It respects the story instead of disrespecting it. It is a nod and tribute to the biblical account instead of a denial or transgressive retelling of it.
Something unexpected happened as I watched the final episode: I was struck by how much I love the Bible. Just as a good love story can deepen your love for your spouse, this series reminded me of just how much I love Scripture. Perhaps that’s because I know the real story of David and the even real-er story behind it—not just the story that lays out the facts of David’s life but also the story it foretells of a true and better David. While House of David is not without its flaws and should not be watched as if it is the Bible, I enjoyed it on its own terms and am thankful to have seen it.4
- If you are confused about matters of conscience and how to relate to those whose conscience differs from your own, I highly recommend this book. ↩︎
- There is a repeated scene that involves the angel of the Lord who appeared to Joshua (and in this story, to David either for real or in a dream sequence). Most Christians believe this is the pre-incarnate Christ. The filmmakers obscure the person so his human form is seen, but not his face or body. ↩︎
- Forbes points out with some interest that House of David has been a smash hit, but one that almost no one in traditional media circles is talking about. It is outperforming shows that are garnering much more attention and that were produced with much bigger budgets. ↩︎
- For an alternate and dissenting perspective, perhaps watch Todd Friel’s video. ↩︎
