The House of David: Episodes 1-3 (Christian TV Review)
Verdict: The Chosen meets Game of Thrones (without the filth), the new series boasts plenty of intrigue, drama, and action; it’s a promising biblical epic unlike anything else in the faith-based genre.
About the Show
The Bible is the most sublime work of literature ever written. Its sweeping themes and dynamic narratives have inspired countless Hollywood films. Even so, translating biblical material onto the screen has proven challenging at times. Jesus is thriving at the movies these days, but many recent Hollywood attempts at biblical epics have been either too overtly “churchy” or too divergent from the source material to satisfy viewers. Amazon Prime’s The House of David series—from creative talents Jon Erwin (Jesus Revolution), Jon Gunn (Ordinary Angels), and Dallas Jenkins (The Chosen)—may finally fill that void. The Chosen meets Game of Thrones (without the filth), the new series boasts plenty of intrigue, drama, and action; it’s a promising biblical epic unlike anything else in the faith-based genre.
The story of David is a thrilling archetypal hero’s journey that is ripe for cinematic adaptation. The first episode doesn’t immediately find its footing due to a clunky opening sequence of non-linear flashforwards and flashbacks. But once the series settles into a rhythm, it delivers a consistently entertaining story. Newcomer Michael Iskander, a young actor with no other credits to his name on IMDb, was a gem of a discovery by the filmmakers and is excellent in the title role. He is joined by an impressive ensemble cast, including the always-great Stephen Lang, who adds some gravitas in the role of Samuel.
Tonally, The House of David is gritty, serious, and violent, but in the sense that “the Old Testament is violent” rather than in a “this isn’t your grandpa’s faith-based entertainment” attempt at Game of Thrones-esque edginess. The show is refreshingly unrestrained in a way faith-based entertainment often isn’t. It tells an engaging story without sanitizing the material. The primary audience for faith-based entertainment has historically been middle-aged women. Thus, many entries into the genre have focused on romance or inspirational stories. In contrast, The House of David has more traditionally masculine energy. It’s by no means “just for boys.” But it is a rare faith-based show that men will likely want to watch, not one they merely tolerate out of a sense of marital or fatherly duty.
The show was partially filmed on location in Greece, and there is some beautiful cinematography. Even so, its budget limitations are evident at times. A CGI lion is unimpressive, and some of the large-scale action sequences occur in dimly lit, smoky locations that feel more like a dozen people on a soundstage rather than offering the sweeping scope the scenes demand. But these drawbacks are minimal, especially since the narrative remains fixed on the characters rather than on spectacle. It’s a tightly scripted, well-paced show, with everyone on both sides of the cameras delivering quality work. The coming-of-age journey of David and the political intrigue within the House of King Saul would be compelling even if it were wholly a work of fiction rather than an adaptation of sacred Scripture….
.…which begs an important question: How much of the show is a work of fiction? A direct page-to-screen adaptation is unrealistic. But unlike Netflix’s Mary, The House of David never strays too far from the biblical text. The bones of the source material remain intact, but the show fills in the narrative gaps around the edges. Compared to shows like The Chosen, it has the advantage of some distance from the person of Jesus, which may make its creative additions feel less consequential. For example, fleshing out the personality or backstory of a character like Jonathan (King Saul’s son) is perhaps less cause for handwringing than putting words into Christ’s mouth. Even so, 1 Samuel—the primary source for the show—is Scripture, and Christians should measure the dramatized show against the truth of the Bible.
Beyond the narrative additions, the series (like all Bible adaptations) is also a work of interpretation. For example, depending on the translation, Psalm 51:5 can refer either to original sin and innate sinfulness (HCSB, NIV), or it can imply that David’s conception and birth was itself an act of sinfulness (KJ, ESV). The show chooses the latter, with David being interpreted as a bastard son of Jesse. Likewise, while the historical Goliath remains largely shrouded in mystery, the show portrays him as a sort of gigantic, mythological demigod (implied to be a descendant of the enigmatic Nephilim described in Genesis 6), which I found to be a bit hokey. In other words, even if elements are drawn from Scripture, The House of David still reflects a specific creative perspective of the biblical narrative, including some interpretations that aren’t aligned with the traditionally prevailing hermeneutical views.
Whether The House of David succeeds cannot fully be evaluated until all eight episodes have aired, but the show is off to a promising start. The initial three episodes offer gripping entertainment that even a non-Christian can enjoy, yet it doesn’t compromise its adherence to Scripture. With a strong debut, The House of David might be exactly the large-scale, ambitious biblical epic audiences have been waiting for.
For Consideration
Language: Several uses of the word “bastard,” used in its proper sense rather than as a curse.
Violence: Blood sprays as characters are hacked and slashed with swords in battle, although the most gruesome moments (such as two scenes in which a character repeatedly hacks a body with a sword) occur just off screen. A woman is mauled by a lion off screen (her screams are audible), and her bloodied body is later shown.
Sexuality: A character is implied to be sexually promiscuous and seems to desire sex with a servant girl.
Other: Dark sorcery and magic are present in the biblical text, and the show embraces these elements. A male sorcerer writes runes in the sand. In another episode, a female sorcerer chants an incantation while placing a voodoo-esque doll into a caldron as part of her ritual to cure King Saul (she may be the Witch of Endor described in 1 Samuel 28). Saul is cursed and tormented, with several camera angles appearing to come from the POV of a spirit or external force. A woman claims to experience “visions” of the future.
House of God vs. House of Man
In these opening episodes, despite not yet sharing the screen, the show pits David and Saul against each other on a thematic level. King Saul is blind in his ambition and greed, claiming glory for his own name and house rather than giving God the credit for his victories and success. Conversely, David honors and trusts God in all that he does, even as a simple shepherd boy. Eventually, while anointing David, Samuel observes that God does not look at external qualities as man does; he looks at the heart.
In a pivotal scene, Samuel declares, “God will not be mocked.” That important truth becomes a prevailing theme in the story. God can anoint Saul king and raise him out of a small tribe (as characters repeatedly remind him). But what God provides, he can also take away. The House of David demonstrates the temporal futility of man’s own accomplishments when divorced from God’s power.
