Bathsheba’s Sin?
“Otherwise it will come about, as soon as my lord the king sleeps with his fathers, that I and my son Solomon will be considered offenders.” 1 Kings 1:21 NASB
Offenders – The NASB translation of hattaim tries to avoid the implication of the root word hata. That’s because the root is usually translated “sin,” and thus we would read, “I and my son Solomon will be considered sinners.” Actually, it might even be stronger than this. “Will be considered” is also an attempt to soften the blow. We might literally translate this as “I and my son Solomon have become sinners.” Of course, it’s very unlikely that Bathsheba raises this concern with David on his deathbed. She isn’t worried about being a sinner. She is worried that she and Solomon will be executed after David dies because the new king will consider them a threat to his throne. Clearly, we need to modify the meaning of hattaim in this context. The rabbis recognize this.
“. . . in the Book of Kings I (1:21). King David is on his deathbed and his wife, Bathsheba, comes to him and says, ‘If Solomon does not become king after you then Solomon and I will be chataim.’ Solomon and Bathsheba will be sinners? It means that Solomon and Bathsheba will not reach their potential, will not make the grade, will not measure up.”[1] (Please note that the online article in the footnote is critically important.)
The point of this translation exercise is not about the politics of ancient kings. The point is that hata is not about sin. “What? Are you saying that just because it can’t mean ‘sinners’ in this instance, the root word isn’t about moral corruption and guilt?” Yes, that’s what I’m saying. AISH, an online Jewish site, notes:
“Off target,” “not reaching the mark,” “mistake,” and “unintentional” are all indications that the word chait does not mean “sin.” A more accurate translation of the Hebrew chait is “error” or “mistake.” People don’t “sin.” People make mistakes. After all, we are human. And the Jewish way is to learn from our mistakes. We apologize, clean up any mess, and move on with life. Of course, there can be real ramifications to our mistakes.[2]
Does this change your view of your own struggles with “sin”? Do you wonder how much of your critical self-assessment is really the result of a long cultural history of Platonism via Augustine and Luther? Do you feel the same emotional trauma about “mistake” as you do about “sin”? How much of our constant spiritual deprecation is really Protestant culture, not biblical exegesis? When you make a mistake, with God or men, do you feel as though you deserve Hell, or do you just clean up the mess and get on with living?
Topical Index: sin, hata, AISH, 1 Kings 1:21
[1] http://www.aish.com/jl/p/ph/48964596.html
[2] Ibid.
Hebrews 10:26 “For if we sin willfully after we have received the KNOWLEDGE OF THE TRUTH, there remains no more sacrifice for sins.” If what you said above is not the case, Skip, this verse makes no sense. Even the devil, apparently, was making mistakes that he could not see the full knowledge of the truth of, right up to and until Yeshua died, which, of course, was the full consequence of his choices. But, then, of course, it was too late. There was no sacrifice possible for him left. John 16:11 informs us that Yeshua clarified up front that that particular confrontation was when the “prince of this world is judged”. Up until then, apparently, he could have turned around, otherwise, he would have been judged long before. There are many inexplicable things we cannot seem to figure out as hard as we try, but, then, perhaps what happens on this planet is not just about this planet, either.
We sin because we are deceived. Scripture teaches us this. If we are deceived, then we would perhaps make a different choice if we knew the full truth. THIS is why we can be forgiven. I think this is also why it is so hard to repent sometimes. We want to fall for the illusion that we ONLY make choices that we are confident about, and we want to believe that those choices are ‘right’, somehow. It is humiliating to admit that we could have been a fool, but repentance always contains that admission. That’s why it hurts! But, apparently, according to Scripture, that is also why it is possible.
Great TW!
Hey Laurita, good morning. A consideration of the passage in Hebrews is that it is a direct reference to the order of the levitical sacrifices. The “sin” offering was given for unintentional sin, for an intentional one, (even though we are deceived) one isn’t provided. Note that the one who offers or isn’t allowed too is still under covenant. But, the offering is about the heart and correction not about damnation or forgiveness as only God is the one who forgives. David is a good example as he was certainly forgiven for the sin, but because it was intentional he was required to bear the brunt of what he indulged in. He got to close to the fire. The writer of Hebrews speaks of these issues in the same passage, as the blood of bulls and goats can not (impossible) to take away sins, and what is left is a fearful expectation of judgment. But, God is merciful and Good, even in judgment.
Well, Robert, I can intentionally sin, which is to say I know that something is supposed to be ‘wrong’, but because I still cannot see WHY it is wrong, I can still be deceived into thinking that there is some sort of exception clause, or some way around the consequences. I think there are always consequences for all fractures with reality and relationship, and, you are right, it is grace that steps into the gap, but we still have to learn from even unintentional mistakes. Therefore, consequences fall upon the unintentional along with the intentional. But, learning from mistakes and being forgiven for those mistakes cannot be equated. Even if I am forgiven, I still have to learn by experience because of the Tree. If I step off the cliff, gravity still takes over, even if I could not see the cliff.
I have thought long and hard about the unpardonable sin; the only one that cannot, by its very nature, be forgiven. All other sin, must then, in some way, be because of delusion or coercion, which would throw it into the category of something that still can be learned from (delusion replaced with the truth). The unpardonable sin must be one that CANNOT be learned from, then. We could conclude that all mistakes can be learned from; therefore are forgivable. Only one that cannot possibly be learned from is unforgivable (I still have to repent from even the smallest mistake, however, to be forgiven) – that fumble can be redeemed. Granted, that redemption is still going to cost a Life (blood = life), but at least it is not mine, but the life of One Who willingly laid it down as the ransom for many. Halleluah!
I don’t think there is any question of whether consequences come to bear whether it’s intentional or not, but it’s the degree to which it’s meted out that is the difference. To the “hardened” sinner who thinks that he’s an exception to the rule, the response can be more severe, but again it’s concerning correction and that, not necessarily, only to the one who committed the act. God maintains perfectly balanced scales for conducting business and, as His people, so should we. But again, the response was in regard to Hebrews, and how we tend to misunderstand that whole passage, which addresses the “extension” of the new covenant in regards to the formula of the “old” and that it’s not only one sided (grace) but also the judgment by God of His people.
You are right, Robert, we have to correct misunderstandings at every turn, for sure. Just as long as we not only correct the understanding of sin, but also of the word “judgment”. There is judgment that is really correction, in which YHVH CONTENDS with us – that is, He disagrees with us in our death choices, and sets out to show us where we are wrong so we can choose again., but there is also judgment in the sense that He AGREES with our death wish, and fulfills it. That would be, specifically, Judgment Day, which I do not think is going to be about giving any of us another chance to choose again. All knees will bow. Some because they want to, some because they don’t have any more resistance, but only the ones who agree with Him will ever get back up again. Our terminology corruption is truly awful. No wonder we have such a hard time thinking clearly with it, much less actually getting ideas across with it. Here’s to language reclamation!
Thanks, as usual, for making my day.
Just a question concerning the footnote. When we try to access the article it brings us to the website but not the article you make note of, how do we properly access the article?
http://www.aish.com/jl/p/ph/48964596.html