King of Kings

by Malachi Martin

Fact, legend, myth, and history merge in an epic portrait of the first great captain-king, the shepherd boy who slew Goliath, conquered the Philistines, overthrew Saul, and became the leader of the Jews.

Genres: Historical Fiction, Fiction, Religion

505 pages, Paperback

First published February 23, 1980

Reviews

[Neil · Rating 2 out of 5]

I had pretty mixed feelings about this book, which made it an okay read to me. It was a somewhat-interesting take on King David's life, from just before he was born up until his death. Honestly, trying to cover over seventy years of a man's life with the limited information available in the Old Testament would be hard to do, but the author gives it a good shot. I think if I had been less familiar with the various biblical characters mentioned in the book, I would have thought it had some really good and some really interesting character development scattered throughout the book. As it was, the 'character development' that did occur was so 'out-of-character' from what I had been taught and what I had read in the Old Testament that it started to take away from the overall story for me. There is a lot of exposition in it with limited moments of action. Some of the book moves pretty quick, but most of it felt like it was plodding ponderously along to the end. That being the case, the author did manage to hold my interest long enough for me to finish the book (some of that interest could have stemmed from my comparing the biblical accounts of David with the author's narrative and discovering numerous discrepancies, per se).

Now, I thought the author did have some good (strong?) insight into what was going on during the time of King Saul and King David. I felt the author did a great job making sure the reader understood there was more than just physical battles going on between Hebrews and Philistines; there was also a spiritual battle being waged over the eternal fates of people, over whose god would reign supreme - Dagon and Astarte, the Philistine's two major gods in this book, or Adonai, the God of the Hebrew people. At one point, the author makes it clear there is a spiritual war being waged for the soul of Saul (173 – 175), and another time it is mentioned that there is a war going on for the state of David's soul and affection (324 – 325). I thought they were strong, potent reminders of what Paul said in the New Testament, about how a believer's battle is spiritual in nature and not necessarily physical (there might be some physicality involved, but it is mostly a spiritual battle).

I also enjoyed the 'bickering' and bargaining between King David and Araunah, the owner of the threshing floor where the angel of the Lord stopped spreading the pestilence, was pretty hilarious (458 – 459). David intends to purchase the property to turn it into a sacred place to worship the Lord but Araunah is content to give the threshing floor and the rest of his property to King David as a gift. Araunah ends up agreeing to selling it for fifty silver shekels (which was hilarious, because every time he refused to sell to David, David upped the price). The Old Testament does not indicate if David started right off with offering fifty silver shekels or not, or if he 'bargained his way up' to offering fifty silver shekels, but the author did a nice job in the telling of that moment in his story, making it quite memorable.

There was a lot I was not too keen on in the story, though. For example, David has an ‘odd’ conversation with an Egyptian ‘slave girl’/servant girl about what constitutes fornication versus adultery versus “making love” (148 – 153). She (Lassatha) clearly wants to copulate with him, claiming it will be some sort of spiritual/religious experience that her goddess, Astarte, will bless. She also claims it will help David become a better, more complete man, if he consummates his desire(s) for her with her. Otherwise, he will never be able to truly love anybody because he will never be able to give himself fully to somebody until it is ‘too late.’ It will be ‘too late’ because he will have “secretly” been waiting for years for the ‘right woman to come along’ while having loved other women and not being able to love them completely and fully in return. By the time he meets ‘the right woman’ for him, it will be ‘too late’ for him and he will remain unfulfilled for the rest of his days. It was really kind of stupid; the implication is that this Lassatha knows more about “love” and “love making” than David ever will, when all it really sounds like is that she is trying to emotionally manipulate him into doing something he believes is wrong while trying to convince him it is really okay, that it is ‘not wrong’ or ‘not sin’ for him to enjoy the passionate fruits of their intense love-making as it will make him more of a man than he already is and it will ‘complete’ him like nothing else and nobody else can (or, so she claims/implies). So, we have David refusing the advances of Lassatha early and he does not fornicate with her (even though she claims it would not be sin) and he refuses to tell her, at the very least, that he cannot do so because Adonai does not allow it, that Adonai forbids it. Then, the NEXT time he sees her, the two fornicate all night long (220 – 221) and the author makes the statement that “finally it was Astarte’s turn, and the goddess did not disappoint” (220). Really? This Egyptian slave girl is supposed to be David’s “one true love” the he forever pined for and desired over all of his wives? And, he feels no guilt or remorse or need to repent of what he did, how he sinned “all night long” (from the way it reads) with this woman? I thought it was bunk, in my opinion.

Also, the author has Saul cavorting with prostitutes at one point in the book, cheating on his wife in the process. He has David continually “losing his faith in Adonai” throughout the book. He claims David went to the Philistines because he was depressed and had lost faith in Adonai and Adonai’s blessing. He claims that David was willing to engage in a homosexual relationship with the leader of the Philistine city where he was staying. The author fails to use quotes from the Bible in his story about David, especially at some of what I would consider to be “key points” in the narrative. He has Joab inspire David by slicing his arm and vowing a blood oath after the Amalekites attacked Ziklag and took all of their family members as captives and spoils-of-war. He has David showing more concern for his step-mother than he does for his own wives.

In regard to Joab slicing open his arm, the Bible mentions nothing in I Samuel 30 about Joab cutting his arm to make a blood vow; nor does the Old Testament state that this act inspired David to ‘man up’ and follow Joab’s lead to go after the Amalekites and get their families back. Also, the Old Testament clearly states that David saved his two wives; it says nothing about how he “rescued his step-mother.” So, I am not sure why the author has David telling his ‘first true wife,’ Abigail that he ‘does not love her’ despite having married her; it’s really stupid. Plus, having Abigail get upset over David’s concern for his step-mother as opposed to either of his wives was idiotic in the extreme, especially considering she was never even there to be captured.

The Old Testament talks about how David would go out and continue attacking allies of the Philistines who were also enemies of the Israelites; he would claim to be raiding Israeli towns and settlements when asked, but he was attempting to help Israel by weakening her enemies (I Samuel 27). Instead of talking about this, the author focuses on some Philistine version of the Greek’s “Olympic games” that David has to prepare for in order to be fully accepted by the Philistines ‘as one of them’ and how David has to wear a fake foreskin in order to be able to compete. It’s really stupid and unnecessary.

Or, how the author has David tell Achish tell Achish he (David) is ready to engage in homosexual behavior with Achish, but Achish refuses because if they do so, then ‘everything’ that makes David, ‘David’ and desirable to Achish, will be ‘gone’ and ‘lost forever.’ Achish claims he cannot do such a thing with David because of Adonai, as well, even though Achish is a Philistine lord and does not fully believe in Adonai (272 – 274). It is a very weird conversation, as David is completely ready to renounce his faith in Adonai and Adonai’s blessing, being Adonai’s Chosen One, and Achish rejects him because, without Adonai, David is nothing and not the least bit desirable. It is BECAUSE of Adonai that David has accomplished all that he has accomplished, and Achish recognizes this and refuse to get in the way of Adonai’s plans for David. Nowhere in Scripture does it say David had these doubts to the point of being willing to engage in homosexuality or renounce his God, Adonai (Yahweh) (Jehovah).

I assume the author is trying to make David ‘more human, more relatable’ to the ‘average’ person, be that person a Catholic, Christian, or pagan. He is going about it the wrong way. I think in some of David’s Psalms we see moments of doubt being expressed, of frustrations and anger being expressed, of worry and anxiety being expressed, but it always turns back to “yet will my soul rise again and praise my Lord and my God;” the song never fails to turn its focus back on God, on Yahweh. I think he would have done David more justice if he HAD shown David as struggling with doubts and fears and anger and moments of feeling betrayed before letting it go and keeping his trust in Yahweh.

The author twists the events around in II Samuel 24. The Old Testament merely tells us that the seer (prophet) Gad approached David with a word from God (Adonai) about David’s taking a census, which was contrary to the will of Adonai. Three punishments are offered up, and it appears in the Old Testament book that David asks Adonai to make the choice instead of himself. The pestilence is then chosen, and the angel of God begins striking people down until David weeps and repents, taking responsibility for his sin and begging for mercy on behalf of his kinsmen and people. The Lord relents and stops the pestilence from spreading any further. In the book, the author has Nathan convince David to choose the pestilence. It was never ‘the angel of the Lord’ spreading the pestilence. Human suggestions are made to stop the spread of the disease(s), and then David lies to use the situation to his advantage (according to the author). Then, in the book, David lie and claim he had a vision of the angel of the Lord striking hundreds, even thousands, of people dead despite being told that people were growing sick and dying because of ordinary poisoning due to the poor sewage system of most towns and villages.

It is funny, but David writes down some lines of poetry to be given to Solomon to improve upon (476); as it turns out, they are stanzas that will be used in Song of Solomon chapters 2 and 3. It made me laugh at how the author implies that David had a hand in writing Solomon’s love song.

It is sad, though, that David did tell Solomon to kill any who might pose a threat to his throne as well as had offended David during David’s reign as king. David promised not to kill people himself, but he got his son to do his dirty work for him after Solomon ascended to the throne, which included killing some of David’s own children and closest friends as well as some of Saul’s survivors.

In regard to David's fight with Goliath (180 – 181) - I find myself wishing that the author would have used the verbiage directly from the text instead of putting words in the mouths of both David and Goliath; even if he had filled in around what was said in the Bible with extra verbiage that the Bible does not record. I think it would have been more effective if he had used the words in the Biblical text as opposed to making up what he thought would sound . . . whatever; however he thought it would sound. It really does not fit in that well, and it is not nearly as "inspiring" as what is in Scripture. I found myself laughing at missing not reading Goliath say, "Am I a dog, that you come at me with sticks?" followed by David's retort.

There was an interesting conversation between Nathan and Gad (two Hebrew prophets/seers) (324 – 325). They are talking about David and his still being Adonai’s anointed, if he was still fit to be king over a united kingdom of Israelites. Gad claims that Adonai is not just the God of the Israelites, but also the God of the Philistines and the God of the Great Sea, of the mountains of Egypt, of Assyria, and Phoenicia (324). So, it is an interesting perspective to give an Israelite during that period of time – almost “too modern” and “too liberal” for the time period. Also, Nathan claims that David enjoyed the filthy whores of the Philistines when the Old Testament does not reveal David behaved that way. Seems like more of an assumption on the part of the author. In any case, it was still an interesting conversation.

The author has an Egyptian defending the character of Adonai to David after David again casts doubt upon Adonai and Adonai’s plan for David (444). He points out to David how David has had Adonai’s blessing and hand upon him since the day he was born. He (the Egyptian) also says that Adonai plans to honor David far above anything David can hope or expect or anticipate, that Adonai’s plans are not David’s plans, even if David cannot see or recognize Adonai’s plans or hand upon his life. This Egyptian also recognizes that, through David, Adonai has done something that will last longer than a physical kingdom. Adonai has brought about a spiritual change in a specific group of people, and this change will last longer than either David or David’s kingdom (455).

I did find it interesting that the author had Uriah the Hittite aware that King David had committed adultery with his wife and gotten her pregnant. The author indicated that Uriah had loyal servants who kept him appraised of everything that was going on back in his home while he was on the field of battle. In addition, he is aware that David intends to murder him to cover up his (David's) multiple sins. He tells Joab to get it over with, that had David merely asked, he would gladly have given up his young wife to his King. He loved David but was waiting for David to bring up the tender, touchy subject about the condition of Uriah's wife; he felt it was not his place to bring it up with the king. I did think it was an interesting take on this sordid part of David's life and not something I would have considered otherwise. Even though it is not discussed in the Bible as being 'accurate' or 'true,' it seemed reasonable and logical that events played out the way the author described it in the book, that Uriah would have been aware or had an idea of what had happened but because of his great love for his king and his loyalty, he did not say anything about it to anybody.

Overall, it was an interesting take on an important person in the history of the nation of Israel. It was slow in getting started (all of the "stuff" that occurs before, during, and after David's birth was KUH-RAY-ZEE!!!), but it did slowly pick up speed. It did hold my interest throughout all of the book (even when it slowed down, I pressed on because I wanted to see how it all ended up getting resolved in the end, if it did get resolved). I do not know that it was a 'completely fun' book to read; it has plenty of darkness in it. Also, it is about a brutal time in history when entire populations of towns and villages were wiped out to curry a god's favor or in obedience to a god's command(s). Overall, I think I am glad I took the time to read the book, as it did hold my interest throughout pretty much the entire book.

[P.S. Winn · Rating 4 out of 5]

Great story to add to your religious collection. Whether you think of it as history or not, this is an epic read.

[Angel Idara · Rating 2 out of 5]

Have heard about this book I want to read it by all means

[Robert Marro · Rating 5 out of 5]

Malachi Martin's knowledge of arcane historical details about the wandering Semitic tribe that because the nation of Israel is brilliant, and engrossingly written.

[Clare · Rating 3 out of 5]

I know, I know, this book took me forever to read. Part of the reason for that was that it was a book I owned, so I kept putting it aside to read books borrowed from the library. Part of it was the dearth of characters to keep track of, some showing up once or twice, some continuing throughout and others appearing here and there but not consistently. If this were a movie it would be billed with the line: Cast of Thousands. Most of those would be background characters, but still had much to do with the action.
This story of David is certainly thorough, but at times the amount of information saturated the plot too much and made me lose interest every once in awhile.

[pjr8888 · Rating 4 out of 5]

autographed copy

[Nana]

Book club for March meeting

[Nnamdi Sixtus · Rating 5 out of 5]

I love this book.

[Henry Sturcke · Rating 2 out of 5]

Tried. Couldn't wade through it.