Bathsheba

[bekkilyn]

It's been a while since I read this story, but I wonder if reading more of what happens concerning David and Bathsheba later might be of help. I'm remembering that Bathsheba got pregnant, but that they then lost that first child due to their sin, but I can't remember if scripture says or implies that it was *their* sin, or David's sin specifically.

Then later they had Solomon and David specifically promised Bathsheba that it would be *her* son Solomon that would inherit the throne, and when one of his other sons tried to assume the throne just before David's death, Bathsheba went to notify David and he proclaimed that Solomon was the king.

Was Absalom also Bathsheba's son, or was he David's by another woman? Can't remember offhand.

None of this may actually help with the actual question, but I tend to like to see the whole picture of every encounter between characters to try to determine their relationships. Bathsheba did remain David's wife until his death, so it wasn't just a one-time encounter after he got what he wanted that day.

 

[RDKirk]

It's been a while since I read this story, but I wonder if reading more of what happens concerning David and Bathsheba later might be of help. I'm remembering that Bathsheba got pregnant, but that they then lost that first child due to their sin, but I can't remember if scripture says or implies that it was *their* sin, or David's sin specifically.

Then later they had Solomon and David specifically promised Bathsheba that it would be *her* son Solomon that would inherit the throne, and when one of his other sons tried to assume the throne just before David's death, Bathsheba went to notify David and he proclaimed that Solomon was the king.

Was Absalom also Bathsheba's son, or was he David's by another woman? Can't remember offhand.

None of this may actually help with the actual question, but I tend to like to see the whole picture of every encounter between characters to try to determine their relationships. Bathsheba did remain David's wife until his death, so it wasn't just a one-time encounter after he got what he wanted that day.

Yes, it might be an implied further absolution of Bath-sheba in that she was given the son who would follow as king, thus solidifying her own physical well-being for the rest of her life.

 

[Paidiske]

David "caused" Bath-sheba to sin...

Did he though? Isn't this the question? Did she go willingly, or was she raped? Because if the latter, she didn't sin at all.

 

[bekkilyn]

Did he though? Isn't this the question? Did she go willingly, or was she raped? Because if the latter, she didn't sin at all.

I'm also not sure that there was any sin on Bathsheba's part, even if she wasn't raped. When Nathan admonished David, he admonished David alone, not Bathsheba and/or the two of them together. It does not appear that she was held accountable for any sin, and it seems like it would have been specifically pointed out if such was the case.

 

[RainbowBrains]

It's been a while since I read this story, but I wonder if reading more of what happens concerning David and Bathsheba later might be of help. I'm remembering that Bathsheba got pregnant, but that they then lost that first child due to their sin, but I can't remember if scripture says or implies that it was *their* sin, or David's sin specifically.

Then later they had Solomon and David specifically promised Bathsheba that it would be *her* son Solomon that would inherit the throne, and when one of his other sons tried to assume the throne just before David's death, Bathsheba went to notify David and he proclaimed that Solomon was the king.

Was Absalom also Bathsheba's son, or was he David's by another woman? Can't remember offhand.

None of this may actually help with the actual question, but I tend to like to see the whole picture of every encounter between characters to try to determine their relationships. Bathsheba did remain David's wife until his death, so it wasn't just a one-time encounter after he got what he wanted that day.

2SAM 12:13 David said to Natan, “I have sinned against Adonai.”
Natan said to David, “Adonai also has taken away your sin. You will not die. 14 However, because by this act you have so greatly blasphemed Adonai, the child born to you must die.” 15 Then Natan returned to his house.

To his credit, David immediatley becomes repentant and takes responsibilty.

2 SAM 3:3 the third, Avshalom, whose mother was Ma‘akhah the daughter of Talmai king of G’shur;

It would be pretty bad of David to kill off her husband, especially being that she was pregnant with David's child, and then not take her as his wife.

In 1 Chronicles 28, David says that Yah chose Solomon as the next king. Plus, the bible says that Yah loved Solomon, even giving him a name meaning loved by God. I'm not entirely sure that his eventual kingship was about Batsheva.

 

[bekkilyn]

So it wasn't Bathsheba who was the mother of Absalom. I wasn't sure going off of memory.

 

[RDKirk]

Did he though? Isn't this the question? Did she go willingly, or was she raped? Because if the latter, she didn't sin at all.

You're right.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

She went willingly, and was not raped, and did not sin according to Yahweh's Word.

 

[RDKirk]

She went willingly, and was not raped, and did not sin according to Yahweh's Word.

Scripture doesn't say she was willing, but it does say she was under the orders of the king. If she had no choice but death, that's not willing. It was not her will to go.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Yahweh says she was willing, and had no sin. Accept this or not - it won't change.

 

[RDKirk]

Yahweh says she was willing, and had no sin. Accept this or not - it won't change.

I'll accept it, if you point me to the "Bath-sheba was willing" scripture.

 

[Paidiske]

She went willingly, and was not raped, and did not sin according to Yahweh's Word.

If she willingly committed adultery, that's sin. I don't see how this can add up.

Yahweh says she was willing, and had no sin. Accept this or not - it won't change.

Chapter and verse please.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

Bathsheba was like an especially cared for and loved person to her husband but a sexual object to David. Nathan's rebuttal portrays God's objection. I even wonder as to the Nathan in Mary's genealogy that differs from the other genealogy as being a very real consequence. Also Solomon seems to show a preference for the culture of her deceased husband that may shed a light on her feelings. All speculations when history is silent.

 

[Dave-W]

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.

Do you have chapter and verse for those statements?

That runs counter what I have understood. Israelite husbands were to give their wives sexual satisfaction as often as possible. So any self respecting Jewish man would have went in to his wife. So Uriah going into Bathsheba would have been a cover for her pregnancy.

But Uriah was Hittite, a more war-like tribe. It is very possible that Hittites had the cultural rule of not engaging in sexual activity during a war. That foiled David's cover story.

 

[Dave-W]

Yahweh says she was willing, and had no sin. Accept this or not - it won't change.

Willing or not, there was a HUGE power differential between the KING and the wife of one of his soldiers. She had no choice.

Yahweh says she was willing, and had no sin. Accept this or not - it won't change.

There is no scripture anywhere that says she had no sin. I know some rabbis have argued that, but it is far from the truth.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

Hittites had 1000 temples dedicated to different gods, while Solomon had 1000 wives/concubines of different gods.

http://www.kultur.gov.tr/EN,100073/hittites-nation-of-1000-gods-exhibit-opening-in-berlin.html

 

[bekkilyn]

Do you have chapter and verse for those statements?

That runs counter what I have understood. Israelite husbands were to give their wives sexual satisfaction as often as possible. So any self respecting Jewish man would have went in to his wife. So Uriah going into Bathsheba would have been a cover for her pregnancy.

But Uriah was Hittite, a more war-like tribe. It is very possible that Hittites had the cultural rule of not engaging in sexual activity during a war. That foiled David's cover story.

There is a verse in 1 Samuel 21:5 that states, "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!" It suggests that sexual abstinence may have been a requirement for soldiers on active duty. As to whether this requirement was due to ritual cleanliness or something that was instituted for other reasons, a study note I have on this chapter says that David may have been seeking to legally entrap him and get rid of him that way, as well as cloud over any paternity issues.

 

[Dave-W]

There is a verse in 1 Samuel 21:5 that states, "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!" It suggests that sexual abstinence may have been a requirement for soldiers on active duty.

Not so. While that was not unusual (wives did not go to the battle fields) it was not a requirement. The only reason it was required here was because they wanted the consecrated bread reserved for priests on duty at the tabernacle. And that was because of ceremonial uncleanness.

 

[RDKirk]

Not so. While that was not unusual (wives did not go to the battle fields) it was not a requirement. The only reason it was required here was because they wanted the consecrated bread reserved for priests on duty at the tabernacle. And that was because of ceremonial uncleanness.

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. "

David explicitly says that it was usual for his men to eschew sex while on in combat, and that the reason was to remain holy (consecrated to one purpose). That was not just because they were going to eat the showbread that day. Or are you saying that David was lying to the priest?

But in addition, after having dealt hand-to-hand with death, they were also supposed to take seven days to cleanse themselves before returning to the camp:

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

So a man intended to be uncompromisingly righteous, and who had been one of the men with David when they ate the showbread, would have reason to not to go in to his wife straight out of combat.

Not to mention that Uriah provided yet another ethical soldier's reason--that was a conviction unto David as well:

Uriah said to David, "The ark and Israel and Judah are staying in tents, and my commander Joab and my lord's men are camped in the open country. How could I go to my house to eat and drink and make love to my wife?"

That should have been a conviction unto David, for it directly contrasted with:

In the spring, at the time when kings go off to war, David sent Joab out with the king's men and the whole Israelite army. They destroyed the Ammonites and besieged Rabbah. But David remained in Jerusalem.

Uriah, to his own unwitting doing, did nothing but frustrate in every way David's attempt to hide his wrongdoing. We are given all this in the scripture to make sure we understand how wrong David was.

 

[Dave-W]

David explicitly says that it was usual for his men to eschew sex while on in combat, and that the reason was to remain holy (consecrated to one purpose). That was not just because they were going to eat the showbread that day. Or are you saying that David was lying to the priest?

NO, David was not lying. But you are assuming that there was some kind of ceremonial rather than circumstantial reason they had not been with their wives. I submit it was entirely circumstantial.

But in addition, after having dealt hand-to-hand with death, they were also supposed to take seven days to cleanse themselves before returning to the camp:

Another assumption: that Uriah had actually killed someone in the last several days, and another assumption: that "camp" in Num 31 (where the Ark was) is equivalent to his house.

Uriah said to David, "The ark and Israel and Judah are staying in tents, and my commander Joab and my lord's men are camped in the open country. How could I go to my house to eat and drink and make love to my wife?"

According to the Mishnah, any man returning home from an extended trip is considered clean for marital purposes; and so is his wife even if she is on her period.

Uriah was NOT Jewish. If he was, he would have understood the command to satisfy his wife trumped any prohibition, even biblical ones.

Not to mention that Uriah provided yet another ethical soldier's reason--that was a conviction unto David as well:

Like I said before - that is the mentality of a warrior culture. It was not necessarily Israel's. Uriah was NOT Israeli.

Uriah, to his own unwitting doing, did nothing but frustrate in every way David's attempt to hide his wrongdoing. We are given all this in the scripture to make sure we understand how wrong David was.

On that point we completely agree. Even if we get there by different routes.