Did Uriah not love his wife, the beautiful Bathsheba?

[tonychanyt]

After David had illicit sex with Bathsheba and impregnated her, 2 Samuel 11:

6 So David sent word to Joab, “Send me Uriah the Hittite.” And Joab sent Uriah to David. 7 When Uriah came to him, David asked how Joab was doing and how the people were doing and how the war was going. 8 Then David said to Uriah, “Go down to your house and wash your feet.”

i.e., have sex with your beautiful wife

And Uriah went out of the king’s house, and there followed him a present from the king. 9 But Uriah slept at the door of the king’s house with all the servants of his lord, and did not go down to his house.

Was there some marriage trouble between Uriah and Bathsheba?

10 When they told David, “Uriah did not go down to his house,” David said to Uriah, “Have you not come from a journey? Why did you not go down to your house?”

A loving husband would have at least seen his wife and talked to her.

11 Uriah said to David, “The ark and Israel and Judah dwell in booths, and my lord Joab and the servants of my lord are camping in the open field. Shall I then go to my house, to eat and to drink and to lie with my wife? As you live, and as your soul lives, I will not do this thing.”

This is a false dichotomy. You can be loyal to the army and to your wife. Was Uriah using this loyalty to the army as an excuse not to see his wife?

12 Then David said to Uriah, “Remain here today also, and tomorrow I will send you back.” So Uriah remained in Jerusalem that day and the next. 13 And David invited him, and he ate in his presence and drank, so that he made him drunk.

OK, let's try again.

And in the evening he went out to lie on his couch with the servants of his lord, but he did not go down to his house.

Again, the same response from Uriah.

Uriah seemed to have failed in his responsibility as a loving husband. He chose his job over his wife when he could have both.

I am not trying to justify David's evil behaviors in this whole affair nor diminishing Uriah's loyalty to David or Joab.

 

[Reluctant Theologian]

We can't really know for sure purely based on the text ... maybe trouble was brewing, maybe Uriah just showed solidarity with his fellow soldiers to not enjoy the privilege of a home visit as they also obviously couldn't.

The Medieval Jewish commentator Rashi's view was there was tension in the marriage already (it may explain why there is no report of Bathsheba resisting David's invitation - as that would be her righteous duty as a wife); others have different views.

For me, 2 Samuel 11:11 provides a credible hint to Uriah's solidarity - maybe that was the military code of the day (see below). Or maybe it was a combination of both.

In 1 Samuel 21:4-5, when David requests holy bread from the priest Ahimelech, he mentions that his men have kept themselves from women - this shows David also perceived abstinence as part of military conduct.

 

[Rose_bud]

We can't really know for sure purely based on the text ... maybe trouble was brewing, maybe Uriah just showed solidarity with his fellow soldiers to not enjoy the privilege of a home visit as they also obviously couldn't.

The Medieval Jewish commentator Rashi's view was there was tension in the marriage already (it may explain why there is no report of Bathsheba resisting David's invitation - as that would be her righteous duty as a wife); others have different views.

For me, 2 Samuel 11:11 provides a credible hint to Uriah's solidarity - maybe that was the military code of the day (see below). Or maybe it was a combination of both.

In 1 Samuel 21:4-5, when David requests holy bread from the priest Ahimelech, he mentions that his men have kept themselves from women - this shows David also perceived abstinence as part of military conduct.

I agree with this view, it sounds more plausible. I believe the narrator also wants us to know that Uriah the Hittite (a Gentile) in contrast to David (a true Israelite) is more righteous. Uriah means "light of God" (Strongs 223, flame of Yah). The light of God is in contrast to Davids heart that is darkening, darkening to the point of murder to cover up his criminal behavior. The ark of the Covenant in the camp is synonymous with the presence of God.

What is also interesting is that David was the one who wanted to build a house for the ark of the covenant that was in a tent (2 Samuel 7:2).

he said to Nathan the prophet, “Here I am, living in a house of cedar, while the ark of God remains in a tent.

Uriah response was
"The ark and Israel and Judah are staying in tents..."

Uriahs piety and response should have triggered the time when David desired only God and His righteousness and to do what is just and right for all God's people. Especially since God made him the promises concerning His own house.

 

[tonychanyt]

Uriah means "light of God"

See The meaning of "Uriah"

 

[KevinT]

Uriah seemed to have failed in his responsibility as a loving husband. He chose his job over his wife when he could have both.

I am not trying to justify David's evil behaviors in this whole affair nor diminishing Uriah's loyalty to David or Joab.

I have understood this situation to be that God was actively intervening to prevent David from getting away with murder.

If I was God, this is how I would do it. Imagine Uriah sitting around the fire with his men, and they have just had a hard day of battle with friends being harmed or killed. Suddenly the word arrives Uriah has been called home from the front lines. An angel prompts jealousy in the other men. They would love to be at home with their own wives, and are likely horny for sex due to prolonged abstinence. So the men start jibbing him about how he is going to be living the good life while they continue to suffer and do the real hard work. Uriah, loyal to his companions, determines to not enjoy luxury until they can all enjoy it together.

So I see Uriah's refusal to go home to his wife as a form of loyalty to his men back still fighting rather than a rift between him and his wife. And I think God made sure this was so.

KT

 

[RDKirk]

You guys have missed an important point:

David went to Nob, to Ahimelek the priest. Ahimelek trembled when he met him, and asked, “Why are you alone? Why is no one with you?”

David answered Ahimelek the priest, “The king sent me on a mission and said to me, ‘No one is to know anything about the mission I am sending you on.’ As for my men, I have told them to meet me at a certain place. Now then, what do you have on hand? Give me five loaves of bread, or whatever you can find.”

But the priest answered David, “I don’t have any ordinary bread on hand; however, there is some consecrated bread here—provided the men have kept themselves from women.”

David replied, “Indeed women have been kept from us, as usual whenever I set out. The men’s bodies are holy even on missions that are not holy. How much more so today!” -- 1 Samuel 21

Uriah had been one of David's "Men of Valor" at that time and was well aware that David did not permit his men at war to engage in sexual intercourse. Uriah probably thought David was testing him for some reason, and was thus so emphatic about not going in to his wife.

 

[tonychanyt]

David did not permit his men at war to engage in sexual intercourse.

verse?

 

[RDKirk]

verse?

I gave you the verse. It was in red. 1 Samuel 21.

 

[Reluctant Theologian]

You guys have missed an important point:

David went to Nob, to Ahimelek the priest. Ahimelek trembled when he met him, and asked, “Why are you alone? Why is no one with you?”

....

David replied, “Indeed women have been kept from us, as usual whenever I set out. The men’s bodies are holy even on missions that are not holy. How much more so today!” -- 1 Samuel 21

Uriah had been one of David's "Men of Valor" at that time and was well aware that David did not permit his men at war to engage in sexual intercourse. Uriah probably thought David was testing him for some reason, and was thus so emphatic about not going in to his wife.

That fact I had already mentioned in my posting on 3 September - so I agree with you that it is likely this supports Uriah's righteous behaviour.

 

[RDKirk]

That fact I had already mentioned in my posting on 3 September - so I agree with you that it is likely this supports Uriah's righteous behaviour.

Ah, yes, you did.

 

[tonychanyt]

I gave you the verse. It was in red. 1 Samuel 21.

David replied, “Indeed women have been kept from us, as usual whenever I set out. The men’s bodies are holy even on missions that are not holy. How much more so today!”

The above verse does not say, "David did not permit his men at war to engage in sexual intercourse."

Note the bold.

 

[RDKirk]

David replied, “Indeed women have been kept from us, as usual whenever I set out. The men’s bodies are holy even on missions that are not holy. How much more so today!”

The above verse does not say, "David did not permit his men at war to engage in sexual intercourse."

Note the bold.

Check several translations. It's pretty clear that David's men were expected not to be engaged in sexual intercourse during war.

 

[tonychanyt]

Check several translations. It's pretty clear that David's men were expected not to be engaged in sexual intercourse during war.

Did David universally prohibit his men at war from engaging in sexual intercourse?

 

[RDKirk]

Did David universally prohibit his men at war from engaging in sexual intercourse?

David answered the priest instantly and unequivocally. He didn't have to run a survey of his men.

...as usual whenever I set out.

That is an indication that it was a standing order.

The men’s bodies are holy even on missions that are not holy.

That means the reason was consistent.

And to be remembered, Uriah was one of David's generals, a man of long standing with David, a man who would most scrupulously adhere to all appearances of the king's standard procedure and protocol. A soldier of lesser integrity might ask "But is that a universal order?" but not someone like Uriah.

 

[tonychanyt]

A soldier of lesser integrity might ask "But is that a universal order?" but not someone like Uriah.

Good point

See also
Did David universally prohibit his men at war from engaging in sexual intercourse? and follow up there.