David and Bathsheba

[Scarlett O.]

God gave David who was already married, Saul's wives. And if that weren't enough, God would have provided him with more wives. Is this a God who is seriously concerned with sexual sin? Any sensible reading of this can see that God's anger is not about sexual sin but rather injustice.

I agree with much of what you say. I must say though that I don't see God telling David that he would have given him more wives.

He already said that kings were NOT to multiply their wives to themselves. Deuteronomy 17:17. So how could God say that he would give David as many wives as he wanted?

Here is the statement from the King James and the ESV.

• 2 Samuel 12:8 = "And I gave thee thy master's house, and thy master's wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things."
• 2 Samuel 12:8 = "And I gave you your master's house and your master's wives into your arms and gave you the house of Israel and of Judah. And if this were too little, I would add to you as much more.

There can't be "more" house of Israel or "more Judah". So he can't be talking about "more" wives. The King James said, "I would moreover have given you such and such things."

The ESV says, "if this were too little" - not in quantity - but in more beyond the kingdom and wives.

Saul's wives should have been murdered. A new king usually slaughtered the familes of the defeated king. God made provision for these women not to suffer that by giving them to David.

 

[Scarlett O.]

This story is about immoral sexual behavior and injustice.

It's about a horrible injustice of a king abusing his power via immoral sex. The injustice weighs heavier, but it's about both.

 

[Alcott]

I just avoid making assumptions about what the scriptures do not tell us. All David's fault? At least some, anyway. All Bathsheba's fault?.. not all, but we don't know how much. We do know David made arrangements to meet her, but we don't know whether she had been conniving at it, nor do we know for sure if she went long willingly. We are not told if she resisted, but if she did not, it may have been because she was afraid of some unpleasant penalty, or because being a woman in that time and culture she had no choice and she just accepted that.

It may or may not compare to recent reports of rich, popular, celebrities and their bragging about how many people they have had relations with. Wilt Chamberlain claimed to have slept with "at least 20,000" women when he was on the road as a the top NBA player. Elvis-- especially after the death of his mother-- would spend days at Graceland when hundreds of fans, mostly female, lurked outside the gate, hoping to get a look at him and maybe even attract his attention. He would tell one of his guys to go to the gate area and find, for example, a redhead, about 5'7", big up front, and to bring her to his bedroom, and he would usually get his "order" and the girl/woman wasn't going to act as if she didn't 'want' him-- after all, why was she ultimately there? To get as much of him as she could.

And we've heard many stories from the "groupies'" point of view-- their justifications for wanting celebrities' intimate promiscuous contacts. Could that have been like Bathsheba? We don't know for sure. But David had no excuse for taking another man's wife, and I think Elvis, Wilt and so many of these others have no excuse on Judgement Day, either. Unfortunately, this happens in Christian entertainment, too. Amy Grant, once a favorite of mine, became rather slimy about her indiscretions and divorce, saying "God understands why I did it." Sandi Patty did cancel her concert tour for (I think) a year or two, accepting her church's discipline, and now I understand she has already had her "farewell tour."

The point of all this is that when God's People become big celebrities, people do "throw themselves" at them, and since they're still human, they're not likely to resist the temptations continually, as they have the same drives as their more worldly counterparts, and too many opportunities from 'fans' who want 'pieces of them.' And that's another thing we're not told by scripture-- how many other such opportunities Davd had.

 

[MartyF]

He already said that kings were NOT to multiply their wives to themselves. Deuteronomy 17:17. So how could God say that he would give David as many wives as he wanted?

But remember the God considered the demand of a King to be a personal rejection of him.

1 Samuel 8:7 NLT
“Do everything they say to you,” the LORD replied, “for they are rejecting me, not you. They don’t want me to be their king any longer.

Last I remember, rejecting God was a sin. The king was a sin in and of itself. In Deuteronomy, God was simply asking that the sin be moderated. Once again, he was accommodating sin.

2 Samuel 3:2-5 NLT
These are the sons who were born to David in Hebron: The oldest was Amnon, whose mother was Ahinoam from Jezreel. [3] The second was Daniel, whose mother was Abigail, the widow of Nabal from Carmel. The third was Absalom, whose mother was Maacah, the daughter of Talmai, king of Geshur. [4] The fourth was Adonijah, whose mother was Haggith. The fifth was Shephatiah, whose mother was Abital. [5] The sixth was Ithream, whose mother was Eglah, David’s wife. These sons were all born to David in Hebron.

Six "wives" mentioned here.

2 Samuel 3:13-16 NLT
“All right,” David replied, “but I will not negotiate with you unless you bring back my wife Michal, Saul’s daughter, when you come.” [14] David then sent this message to Ishbosheth, Saul’s son: “Give me back my wife Michal, for I bought her with the lives of 100 Philistines.” [15] So Ishbosheth took Michal away from her husband, Palti son of Laish. [16] Palti followed along behind her as far as Bahurim, weeping as he went. Then Abner told him, “Go back home!” So Palti returned.

Boy, oh boy! Nothin dicey or sexually immoral about this right? And remember, David has already had sons from six different women. We're up to 7 named "wives". Even worse, the scripture later implies that David ended up hating Michal.

And here's the clincher . . .

2 Samuel 5:13-16 NLT
After moving from Hebron to Jerusalem, David married more concubines and wives, and they had more sons and daughters. [14] These are the names of David’s sons who were born in Jerusalem: Shammua, Shobab, Nathan, Solomon, [15] Ibhar, Elishua, Nepheg, Japhia, [16] Elishama, Eliada, and Eliphelet.

So, since concubines and wives are both plural, you have to add at least four more for a total of eleven. That is a very conservative estimate. At this point David likely has more than a score of "wives" before Bathsheba comes into the picture.

And you have problems believing that God might have provided more? Ok, let's say he didn't. David could easily have added to his stable of women more choice women without resorting to the murder of Uriah and the theft of his wife. And God had placed David in the position where he did have many wives and could continue to have more wives.

But David went too far with the murder of Uriah, and God would not accommodate that.

David was fornicating and adulterating right and left and people think that the adultery with Bathsheba was what pushed God over the edge? That was what caused God to say, "No More!" ???

It defies imagination, logic, reason, and everything that is written to jump to the conclusion that sex with Bathsheba was the straw that broke the camel's back. Yes, sex was there and was wrong and one might argue that the murder of Uriah was done to cover a sexual sin. But having sex with Bathsheba was not what caused God to send Nathan to confront David.

Scarlett, I apologize for going on like with you since you did say you had agreed with me about some things, but I am frustrated with people's misinterpretation of this passage and I guess I was too lazy to stop.

I feel like this passage may be misinterpreted because some pastor started preaching about it a certain way and everyone else followed and made the false interpretation some perverted sort of tradition. I know the bathing on the roof nonsense was around in 1899.

Bathsheba, 1899 - Jean-Leon Gerome (If you do a web search of it, it's nude art painting - shows the butt. She's on a large roof of a city - completely nude.)

The idea of scandalizing Bathsheba was pre-Reformation.

Bathsheba Bathing (detail), leaf from the Hours of Louis XII, 1498–99, Jean Bourdichon. Tempera colors and gold on parchment, 9 9/16 x 6 11/16 in. The J. Paul Getty Museum, Ms. 79, recto (An older nude art painting with frontal nudity. Shows Bathsheba in the pool of what looks like a garden with golden blond hair.)

So this insane tradition dates back to Catholicism. I wonder if someone more familiar with Catholic writers can tell me who started it.

Editing note: I replaced the links with descriptions just in case there might be someone offended by old nude or really old nude paintings.

 

[FollowTheWay]

KJV is the only translation that uses the word "washing". Every other translation I checked says "bathing".

Agree with OP that Bathsheba needn't be on the roof of an adjacent building. David could have seen her through a window from his rooftop.


Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

Here's another interesting observation. I found this on a Biblical archeology web site. It's an assumed picture of David's palace in Jerusalem based on the most current archeology. As such it is not as significant as Biblical support but I think does provide some clues into this story.
https://www.ritmeyer.com/product/im...ings-chronicles/davids-palace-in-jerusalem-2/



It shows the palace as next to the North wall resting on a foundation high above the city. How high is a question for debate. Without any kind of spyglass which wasn't invented until hundred's of years later, I would argue that David could have only really observed someone near the palace and on the roof. Think about trying to gaze into the window of one of the buildings in this rendition. I would assume that Uriah's house was near the palace because of his status in the army. In my opinion, Bathsheba would have had to have been dressed in somewhat of a provocative manner to entice David from his vantage point.
Again, I recognize that this is a non-Biblical argument but I think does raise some interesting question.

 

[MartyF]

Here's another interesting observation. I found this on a Biblical archeology web site. It's an assumed picture of David's palace in Jerusalem based on the most current archeology. As such it is not as significant as Biblical support but I think does provide some clues into this story.
https://www.ritmeyer.com/product/im...ings-chronicles/davids-palace-in-jerusalem-2/

View attachment 2646

It shows the palace as next to the North wall resting on a foundation high above the city. How high is a question for debate. Without any kind of spyglass which wasn't invented until hundred's of years later, I would argue that David could have only really observed someone near the palace and on the roof. Think about trying to gaze into the window of one of the buildings in this rendition. I would assume that Uriah's house was near the palace because of his status in the army. In my opinion, Bathsheba would have had to have been dressed in somewhat of a provocative manner to entice David from his vantage point.
Again, I recognize that this is a non-Biblical argument but I think does raise some interesting question.

Here's a "better" picture.

 

[The Archangel]

But remember the God considered the demand of a King to be a personal rejection of him.

1 Samuel 8:7 NLT
“Do everything they say to you,” the LORD replied, “for they are rejecting me, not you. They don’t want me to be their king any longer.

Last I remember, rejecting God was a sin. The king was a sin in and of itself. In Deuteronomy, God was simply asking that the sin be moderated. Once again, he was accommodating sin.

There are two major issues here.

First, in Genesis 49:10, Jacob says "the scepter will never pass from Judah." If God never intended Israel to have a king, how is it that there will be an eternal king from Judah?

Secondly, in Deuteronomy 17:14–15, Moses writes:

[14] “When you come to the land that the LORD your God is giving you, and you possess it and dwell in it and then say, ‘I will set a king over me, like all the nations that are around me,’ [15] you may indeed set a king over you whom the LORD your God will choose. One from among your brothers you shall set as king over you. You may not put a foreigner over you, who is not your brother. (ESV)​

Clearly the idea of a king is not in-and-of-itself sinful. The issue, rather, is that the Israelite in demanding a king wanted a king that was similar to the king of the nations around them. They gave no thought to character, only outward appearance. God gave Israel Saul because, at times, God's greatest judgments against us is seen in giving us exactly what we want.

David, on the other hand, was a better king--and, being of Judah, would perpetuate the scepter as Jacob spoke of.

Furthermore, if you are correct that any king sitting on the throne of Israel is committing sin, what do you do with Christ? It is from David's throne He will rule eternally. Are you meaning to suggest that in doing so He would be sinning?

The Archangel

 

[MartyF]

First, in Genesis 49:10, Jacob says "the scepter will never pass from Judah." If God never intended Israel to have a king, how is it that there will be an eternal king from Judah?

I don't believe prophesy = approval. Things happen which God does not approve of. God predicts events which he does not approve of. So, this argument hold no weight with me.

Clearly the idea of a king is not in-and-of-itself sinful.

Deuteronomy 24:1-2 NLT
“Suppose a man marries a woman but she does not please him. Having discovered something wrong with her, he writes a document of divorce, hands it to her, and sends her away from his house. [2] When she leaves his house, she is free to marry another man.

Just because the law of the Old Testament allows something does not mean that what is allowed is not sinful and does not miss the mark.

God gave Israel Saul because, at times, God's greatest judgments against us is seen in giving us exactly what we want.

I don't believe God appointed Saul as an act of judgement.

Furthermore, if you are correct that any king sitting on the throne of Israel is committing sin, what do you do with Christ?

You going down a rabbit-hole here. I'll point out another problem with the question later on. But Christ is God, so choosing Christ is not rejecting God.

It is from David's throne He will rule eternally.

God rules from David's Throne? Or even Christ rules from David's Throne? Or even Jesus rules from David's Throne?

Regardless of how you say it, you're going down a rabbit-hole I have no interest in following.

Ok, I'm getting out of your rabbit-hole now. Back to reality.

You might have disliked what I said because you thought that I believed that Christians should oppose all governments led by a king. I am not saying that. I have been writing about a particular time and place. God did support the kings of Israel but as an accommodation.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The focus of what I have written is to oppose the overemphasis of the sexual sin in the Bathsheba story over sins of injustice and theft which David committed.

Jesus was also upset with wrong emphasis on the law.

Matthew 23:23 NLT
For you are careful to tithe even the tiniest income from your herb gardens, but you ignore the more important aspects of the law— justice, mercy, and faith.

Unless you are writing about this, you're likely going down a theological tangent I'm not interested in following regardless of how correct it may be.

 

[robycop3]

reading the chapter in several different Bible translations, it seems to me that Dave had simply gone for an evening stroll on his roof.(Common in that time/place, due to the way the homes of the well-to-do were built) and, purely by chance, saw Bathsheba bathing & got the hots for her. She didn't know he'd seen her, it seems; she was apparently innocent.

Her father was Eliam, also called Ammiel, which are Hebrew names, one of Dave's 30 greatest warriors, and thus apparently an Israeli, who was obeying Israel's law by bathing after her menstrual period had ended.

Her hubby Uriah was a Hittite, one of a people who had an empire that included what's now Anatolia in Turkey & northwestern Syria. Their power had faded about a hundred years before Dave's time, but there were many of them living in Canaan at the time of the Israeli invasion. We know the Israelis failed to destroy or drive out many Canaanites, so God said they'd dwell with Israel & constantly tempt them with their idols. But also, many of them chose to obey God, and Uriah was among that group, as he also was one of David's 30 elite warriors.

So all the sin was David's. A woman of that time/place almost always obeyed any man who had authority over her, so she didn't dare refuse Dave's advances when he'd sent for her. And Uriah was certainly not an evil man in God's sight or else he wouldn't have risen to high rank in the Israeli army, nor would God have held Dave responsible for his murder.

(A little aside: here we see the principle of a contract murderer's being held more-responsible than the one who actually does the killing.)

In conclusion: David, not Bathsheba, did the sinning in that set of events. It was HE whom God punished.