Bathsheba

[RainbowBrains]

Second guessing Yahweh is not a good idea, ever.
Genesis 50:20 ESV - As for you, you meant evil against me, - Bible ...
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+50:20&version=ESV
As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good, to bring it about that many people should be kept alive, as they are today.

Yehovah didn't say that he couldn't have gotten Yosef into Egypt without his brothers hating him so muc that they sold him into slavery. I'm not second guessing Yah, I just notice tat he didn't say thatt was te only way to do it, Yosef did. Yosef getting into Egypt sounds like Yah. The method used, not necessarily.

Even if I was second guessing him, Yah isn't scared of getting second guessed. He has a way of getting truth out there.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

There is no evidence of what you say in Scripture nor in history.
In fact, remember King David thanked Yahweh that Abigail (a married woman) prevented him from sin.
TODAY, the views you hold are more prevalent instead of believing the Bible, Yahweh's Holy Word,
and it seems multitudes of people have fallen for modern thoughts about this
instead of agreeing with Yahweh's Word. Yahweh also prophesies that this would happen in these days we live in - He apparently sent/sends "a famine of the hearing of the Word of Yahweh".....

I mean that he didn't seem to value them.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Somewhere in Proverbs Yahweh says it is not good to say such things as you pursue - not to say or think or wish "it would have been better if" type , as if Yahweh did not plan perfectly always.

Yehovah didn't say that he couldn't have gotten Yosef into Egypt without his brothers hating him so muc that they sold him into slavery. I'm not second guessing Yah, I just notice tat he didn't say thatt was te only way to do it, Yosef did. Yosef getting into Egypt sounds like Yah. The method used, not necessarily.

Even if I was second guessing him, Yah isn't scared of getting second guessed. He has a way of getting truth out there.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Not only "other religion" (which is always opposed to Yahweh and His Word,
but even some so-called "Christian" teachers and groups teach or preach man's thoughts opposed to Yahweh and against / contrary/ to His Word as you post here. I don't know which ones in particular, but it is indicative of doctrines shared that are not from Scripture but are definitely contrary to Scripture and opposed to Yahweh's Perfect Wisdom and Yahweh's Plan and even opposed to Salvation (from such things as man's teachings) in Jesus.

I mean that he didn't seem to value them.

He can be after Yah's heart and still be messed up. Women were under a curse at te time. I cant remember which of Yah's festivals didnt het celebrated properly the entire time he was king. He was still a man after God's heart. I'm not trying ti take that from him.

He sent for a woman he knew was married, putting her in a bad position at best, he failed to do anything other than be mad when his daughter got raped by his son, later he mourns the mess out of his son when he is killed by her brother (no mourning or justice for her eh?). I understand him having to leave Mikhal for a while I guess but the brave warrior makes no attempt to get her back until (Avner?) decided to defect and he had her taken from the husband she was with. That just doesn't sound to me like a man who values women, or at least, that doesn't necessarily value the women in his life. It is what it is.

 

[RainbowBrains]

Somewhere in Proverbs Yahweh says it is not good to say such things as you pursue - not to say or think or wish "it would have been better if" type , as if Yahweh did not plan perfectly always.

I think Yehovah plans perfectly. I don't necessarily think his plan required injustice or adultery. People are jacked up and they sin. Does Yah orchestrate everyones sins?

If you give me some time, I can find and post all the biblical accounts I mentioned about David for you.

 

[RainbowBrains]

Oh dear, someone's been checking out my profile. In this case, "other religion" simply meant that, although I believe that Yeshua is the messiah, the son of the living god, I don't do Christmas or some of the other stuff I don't see in the bible. I wasn't sure what to call that as, in my experience, Christians hold Christmas with a very tight fist. It may trip people up to see my profile simply state Christian and then find that I prefer Yah's holidays over Christmas and Easter etc. Not Messianic either as I don't do oral torah. Only the bible for me. I'll be getting those biblical accounts now.

 

[RainbowBrains]

Here we go:

BATSHEVA
2 Sam 11:3 David made inquiries about the woman and was told that she was Bat-Sheva the daughter of Eli‘am, the wife of Uriyah the Hitti. 4 David sent messengers to get her, and she came to him, and he went to bed with her (for she had been purified from her uncleanness). Then she returned to her house. Dude put her in a rough position. Knowing that she was married, he knew it was adultery. In his position as king, it would possibly have been unsafe of her to refuse.

TAMAR
Many of us know the story of how Tamar was violated by her brother Amnon, so I won't post it here, but I will post this
2 Sam:20 But Tamar remained desolate in her brother Avshalom’s house. V21- When King David heard about all these things, he became very angry,

That's all we get about David as it pertains to feeling or doing anything about this.
As per verse 23, it was TWO YEARS LATER, when Avshalom finally killed his brother, and his father, even after finding out that only Amnon was dead,still cried out in great pain. Then he had to get reconciled to the death of his son before he started longing to see Avshalom again, but no mention of any attempt to bring justice for his daughter in two years.

MIKHAL
1 Samuel 19 tells us that Mikhal helped David escape. By chapter 25 she's been given to Palti as a wife. It isn't until 2 Samuel 3, when Shaul is dead and Ish-Boshet is king that we hear of David attempting to get her back. David sends someone to go take her from Palti.

As far as Avigail goes, why did you emphasize that she was married? It didn't matter to thier interaction, she wasn't married to him at the time, and she didn't marry him until Naval was dead. Thanking a woman doesn't mean he values or respects them.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Sad that you seem to have tried to keep learning, yet never arrived at knowledge of the truth. You just make things more and more confused, as you learned them.....
Thus Yahweh's Word says ".... even Salvation is hidden from the educated..."
I don't have anything to offer you , until Yahweh says to.

bye.

I think Yehovah plans perfectly. I don't necessarily think his plan required injustice or adultery. People are jacked up and they sin. Does Yah orchestrate everyones sins?

If you give me some time, I can find and post all the biblical accounts I mentioned about David for you.

 

[PloverWing]

Thank you all for your thoughts. It's been an intense few days, working with this passage. What keeps standing out to me is a) the power imbalance between David and Bathsheba, and b) that no one in the story seems to care about Bathsheba herself, as a person -- not David, not the writer.

It'll be interesting to see what this morning's sermon is. I acknowledge that Ephesians and the Feeding of the 5000 are much easier passages to preach on.

 

[RDKirk]

Thank you all for your thoughts. It's been an intense few days, working with this passage. What keeps standing out to me is a) the power imbalance between David and Bathsheba, and b) that no one in the story seems to care about Bathsheba herself, as a person -- not David, not the writer..

I don't know what "as a person" means in this context or what you expected. The words give no more "as a person" consideration to Uriah than it does to Bathsheba. Both were pawns to David's scheme.

Uriah was certainly just as pitiable. He had been one of David's "Men of Valor" back when David was on the run from Saul.

Uriah knew that the Law forbade men from coming directly from combat into the bedchamber--they were required to take a week for cleansing. Uriah also knew that David himself required men in combat to remain celibate. So he would have thought David's invitation for him to go to his wife was a test...that he thought he'd passed.

 

[RainbowBrains]

I don't know what "as a person" means in this context or what you expected. The words give no more "as a person" consideration to Uriah than it does to Bathsheba. Both were pawns to David's scheme.

Uriah was certainly just as pitiable. He had been one of David's "Men of Valor" back when David was on the run from Saul.

Uriah knew that the Law forbade men from coming directly from combat into the bedchamber--they were required to take a week for cleansing. Uriah also knew that David himself required men in combat to remain celibate. So he would have thought David's invitation for him to go to his wife was a test...that he thought he'd passed.

Are you saying because there was a possility that Uriah had touched a dead body? I'd appreciate it if you could post the scriptures or at least the chapters and verses in which it states that soldiers have to clease for a week before having sex and where it says that David required celibacy of his warriors. I'm just not seeing it. Even if that is true, Uriyah passing a test wpuld have possobly bolstered him in the soght of his king. We know more about what he said to David than we do about what Bathsheba said before they had sex. Bathsheba would have knowm thjs wasnt a test and who refuses a king?

What is the problem with knowing David put Bathsheba in a very bad position in that he, her king, knew she was married and still sent for her to have sex with her anyway? What's with the basically saying, " No, Bathsheba's situation isn't any worse than Uriyah." Does it lower David's standing in your eyes or something? David was not perfect and the bible never says he was.

 

[PloverWing]

Oh, yes, Uriah is on the receiving end of some terrible stuff from David too. Here Uriah is, valiantly carrying out David's orders on the battlefield, while (as Dave-W noted) David is lounging about his palace, and David ultimately sends him to Joab carrying a letter ordering his own execution. I'm not trying to run a contest to see who was hurt most by David.

By "Bathsheba herself as a person", I mean that we don't get to see any of the story from Bathsheba's point of view. Compare, say, the story of Esther, where we get to see a whole lot of the world from Esther's point of view.

 

[RDKirk]

Are you saying because there was a possility that Uriah had touched a dead body? I'd appreciate it if you could post the scriptures or at least the chapters and verses in which it states that soldiers have to clease for a week before having sex and where it says that David required celibacy of his warriors. I'm just not seeing it.

Anyone who has killed someone or touched someone who was killed must stay outside the camp seven days.
...
On the seventh day wash your clothes and you will be clean. Then you may come into the camp.” -- Numbers 31

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

Even if that is true, Uriyah passing a test wpuld have possobly bolstered him in the soght of his king. We know more about what he said to David than we do about what Bathsheba said before they had sex. Bathsheba would have knowm thjs wasnt a test and who refuses a king?

David wasn't testing Uriah, David was trying to hide the evidence of his adultery. But in doing so, David was inviting Uriah to sin.

How would Uriah understand David inviting him to sin? I believe Uriah would have taken that as a test of some kind, which he would have thought that he'd passed.

And that compounds David's sin, that Uriah's faithfulness and adherence to righteousness was used against him.

What is the problem with knowing David put Bathsheba in a very bad position in that he, her king, knew she was married and still sent for her to have sex with her anyway? What's with the basically saying, " No, Bathsheba's situation isn't any worse than Uriyah." Does it lower David's standing in your eyes or something? David was not perfect and the bible never says he was.

To be sure, in this matter only David had the power of choice, only David had authority, and thus only David was to blamed, and in fact, scripture blames nobody but David. David "caused" Bath-sheba to sin, and Jesus had harsh things to say about those who "caused" less powerful persons to son.

Where scripture explicitly points out that David was not where he was supposed to be, it also points out explicitly that Bath-Sheba was where she was supposed to be and doing what she was supposed to be doing.

Scripture characterizes Bath-Sheba as a lamb, which is the very specific and consistent symbol of innocence in scripture.

 

[RDKirk]

Oh, yes, Uriah is on the receiving end of some terrible stuff from David too. Here Uriah is, valiantly carrying out David's orders on the battlefield, while (as Dave-W noted) David is lounging about his palace, and David ultimately sends him to Joab carrying a letter ordering his own execution. I'm not trying to run a contest to see who was hurt most by David.

By "Bathsheba herself as a person", I mean that we don't get to see any of the story from Bathsheba's point of view. Compare, say, the story of Esther, where we get to see a whole lot of the world from Esther's point of view.

The author of 2 Samuel doesn't really do that for anyone beyond David--Bath-sheba is not singled out for scant narration. The character of narrative of 2 Samuel is very different (I would say more it's literately much more primitive) from the character of narrative of Esther.

 

[RainbowBrains]

Anyone who has killed someone or touched someone who was killed must stay outside the camp seven days.
...
On the seventh day wash your clothes and you will be clean. Then you may come into the camp.” -- Numbers 31

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

Thanks. The first still doesn't apply though. If Uriyah can't have sex because because of possibly touching a dead body, he definitley shouldn't have been sleeping at the door of David's palace or anywhere inside the camp. Does not apply, or they didn't care.

David wasn't testing Uriah, David was trying to hide the evidence of his adultery. But in doing so, David was inviting Uriah to sin.

How would Uriah understand David inviting him to sin? I believe Uriah would have taken that as a test of some kind, which he would have thought that he'd passed.

And that compounds David's sin, that Uriah's faithfulness and adherence to righteousness was used against him.

I didn't say that David was testing Uriyah. You said that he may have thought it was a test. David was not not necessarily inviting Uriyah to sin as we don't know that Uriyah had touched a dead body, or that he was unclean in any way. He was still freely interacting with the king and possibly others.

To be sure, in this matter only David had the power of choice, only David had authority, and thus only David was to blamed, and in fact, scripture blames nobody but David. David "caused" Bath-sheba to sin, and Jesus had harsh things to say about those who "caused" less powerful persons to son.

Where scripture explicitly points out that David was not where he was supposed to be, it also points out explicitly that Bath-Sheba was where she was supposed to be and doing what she was supposed to be doing.

Scripture characterizes Bath-Sheba as a lamb, which is the very specific and consistent symbol of innocence in scripture.

Why even bring Uriyah up as if it changed anything if you agree that David abused his authority? David didn't seem to care what she wanted, he didn't care about her. Why can't her situation stand alone?

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

In Scripture and in spirit we are granted Yahweh's point of view as He Chooses to Reveal - the only important point of view overall, the only one that matters.

we don't get to see any of the story from Bathsheba's point of view. Compare, say, the story of Esther, where we get to see a whole lot of the world from Esther's point of view.

 

[RDKirk]

Thanks. The first still doesn't apply though. If Uriyah can't have sex because because of possibly touching a dead body, he definitley shouldn't have been sleeping at the door of David's palace or anywhere inside the camp. Does not apply, or they didn't care.

Ceremonial cleanliness was required for marital intercourse, but it was not required in order to enter the presence of the king, as we see in other cases of men leaving the battlefield and directly entering the presence of the king.

Nor would ceremonial cleanliness be required up to the gate of Uriah's home, as we see Peter specifically stating that as boundary of how far he could have normally entered Cornelious' home.

But Uriah certainly could not have had intercourse with his wife before making himself clean.

Also, if a man were in combat, the presumption we see in scripture is that he would have touched a dead body. There is no "if" in the instructions.

 

[RainbowBrains]

Ceremonial cleanliness was required for marital intercourse, but it was not required in order to enter the presence of the king, as we see in other cases of men leaving the battlefield and directly entering the presence of the king.

Nor would ceremonial cleanliness be required up to the gate of Uriah's home, as we see Peter specifically stating that as boundary of how far he could have normally entered Cornelious' home.

But Uriah certainly could not have had intercourse with his wife before making himself clean.

Also, if a man were in combat, the presumption we see in scripture is that he would have touched a dead body. There is no "if" in the instructions.

So you're saying that the only thing that he can't do is have sex? Numbers 19 also has regulations concerning what happens when you touch a dead body. Toward the end it has this to say.

Numbers 19:22- Anything the unclean person touches will be unclean, and anyone who touches him will be unclean until evening.”

It would seem from this, that touching his wife, or anyone at all, would have made the other person unclean, if he was actually unclean. Hopefully he didn't touch anyone at all.

Again, why did you bring up Uriyah as if it changes anything about David's interaction with Batsheva, the abuse of authority, or the fact that he didn't necessarily care about her?

 

[RDKirk]

So you're saying that the only thing that he can't do is have sex? Numbers 19 also has regulations concerning what happens when you touch a dead body. Toward the end it has this to say.

Numbers 19:22- Anything the unclean person touches will be unclean, and anyone who touches him will be unclean until evening.”

It would seem from this, that touching his wife, or anyone at all, would have made the other person unclean, if he was actually unclean. Hopefully he didn't touch anyone at all.

Most things, particularly outside the home, did not have to be ceremonially clean on a day-to-day basis, particularly before such issues were ramped up by the Pharisees.

But marital sexual intercourse was one of those things, as were certain provisions specific to disease.

Again, why did you bring up Uriyah as if it changes anything about David's interaction with Batsheva, the abuse of authority, or the fact that he didn't necessarily care about her?

My point, explained in a later post, is that the writer of 2 Samuel does not particularly narrate anyone "as a person." It's a fault of the character of the narrative, not an issue specific to Bath-sheba.

 

[RainbowBrains]

Most things, particularly outside the home, did not have to be ceremonially clean on a day-to-day basis, particularly before such issues were ramped up by the Pharisees.

But marital sexual intercourse was one of those things, as were certain provisions specific to disease.

So as long as someone unclean from touching the dead touches you outside the house, you're still clean? As long as you don't have sex with that person they can touch you all they like?

I recognize that it doens't seem like you'd have to be ceremonially unclean all of the time, but it do if the problem was that he was unclean due to dead bodies, he'd apparently have made anyone else he touched unclean as well.

My point, explained in a later post, is that the writer of 2 Samuel does not particularly narrate anyone "as a person." It's a fault of the character of the narrative, not an issue specific to Bath-sheba.

Bringing Uriyah into this does not introduce or bolster that point at all. We actually get to hear what Uriyah said to David. This is more than we get for Batsheva. The first time we hear from Batsheva is when she tells David she's pregnant. The addition of Uriyah doesn't change anything about what the OP said.