Bathsheba’s Bath
Now when evening came David arose from his bed and walked around on the roof of the king’s house, and from the roof he saw a woman bathing; and the woman was very beautiful in appearance. 2 Samuel 11:2 NASB
Bathing – Inexplicable. Oh, did you think that what was strange about this verse was David’s sin? No, there’s a lot more to it than that. First, let’s notice that this verse begins with the same “accidental” wording as the previous verse. Vayhiy (or vayhi’)—and it happened—but for some inexplicable reason, the NASB chooses to render this as “now.” In other words, the accidental engineering is obscured. We don’t see that it is just as odd that David is at home when kings should be at war as it is for him to be on the roof at sundown. But this is just the beginning of our inexplicable verse.
The second element is that fact that David arises from bed at sundown. Oh, yes, the verse says “late in the afternoon,” but the Hebrew is le’et ‘erev. Do you practice ‘erev shabbat? Then you know that this expression is not “late in the afternoon.” It is just those few minutes immediately before and after sundown. This should cause us to ask a few questions. First, why is David in bed before the sun does down? The text tells us nothing, but perhaps the fact that he is not where he is supposed to be (at battle) has led him to introspection and mental exhaustion. Now he gets up. The sun is just going down. He goes up to the roof. What does he see? A naked woman bathing. Perhaps his already diminished defenses are caught off-guard and instead of looking away, he observes. Understandable? Certainly. But this act also requires some explanation.
David has already had at least seventeen other women as wives or consorts. Bathsheba will be number eighteen. So David is not a man of sexual restraint. In fact, sex and politics have been part of his life since his first encounter with Saul. You might review the intrigue of sexual maneuvering surrounding Saul’s daughters and Saul’s wife. David is no stranger to another sexual partner. But in the past, beauty has not been the primary motivator. Politics dominates David’s sexual liaisons. Now (as it happened), something else takes over, something else catches him at a moment when his resistance is low. Inexplicable? Maybe not, if we know a bit of David’s history. The big difference here is that this woman offers no political advantage. And maybe that’s why she is so appealing. Sex with her does not require careful evaluation of inter-dynastic impact. It’s just pleasure and, at this point, pleasure is a nice escape from the trauma of avoiding the responsibilities of a king. Why not just forget about it for one evening?
And then there’s Bathsheba. The inexplicable element of Bathsheba’s side of this story is why she is on the roof in view of the palace in the first place. If she is the chaste, innocent victim of a king’s lust, how do we explain her choice to bathe where only the king can observe her? Are we to imagine that this woman of virtue is so naïve that she pays no attention to the fact that someone on the roof of the palace can see her? If she were really the pure woman we want her to be, would we not also be shocked at her exhibitionism? Inexplicable. Except—
What if Bathsheba engineered the event? What if she bathed naked on the roof in order that the king might see? What if it were her purpose to provide enough sexual temptation to a man that she knew had few sexual restraints so that she might advance herself? According to the story, it just happened that David’s one-night stand with her resulted in pregnancy. How likely is that? Are we to assume that Bathsheba didn’t know that she was at a fertile time of the month? Are we to believe that it “just happened”? Or does it make more sense that Bathsheba engineered the circumstances so that she had the greatest potential to bear the son of a king, and thereby become part of the king’s dynasty?
How much of this bath was about the baby?
Topical Index: Bathsheba, vayhiy, ‘erev, and it happened, 2 Samuel 11:2
Skip, are you going to continue this? We were just rollicking along there, and then halfway through, we stopped! Keep going! I have wondered about (“and it happened – but for some inexplicable reason”) why it was BATHSHEBA’S son that was the next king; why he was gifted with one of the most dangerous gifts ever afforded a person – that of wisdom – and why Mary supposedly, at least according to one of the genealogy records, anyway, did NOT descend from Solomon (um, that would be her husband, who was Yeshua’s adopted father, Joseph), but instead we are told she came from his half brother, Nathan (who was his mother?). Was David such a bad father (he apparently was, because his children acted just like ignored and undisciplined brats vying for attention) to his other kids because he did NOT love their mothers? Was this why Solomon was the exception?
Questions! This is driving me nuts!
I have given a few lectures on this topic (Solomon and his family) in Virginia and South Africa. Hopefully there will be a book, much like Crossing. I think most of the story of these men (and women) is about family dysfunctionality and trauma, not about theological conclusions. But small pieces of this will be forthcoming in Today’s Word.
Skip, quick question. Urriah, Bathsheba’s husband, in one of the books that chronologies David’s might men, was this the same Urriah listed – one of David’s 40, or just another guy with the same name?
I think the same guy, but he is a Hittite, not Hebrew. That is also part of the story.
Can’t wait!
I always liked Uriah, a (seemingly depicted) honorable man who had so much integrity with his troops that he slept outside his wife’s gates rather then partake of the comforts of home when his men were in battle.
He was murdered for his troublesome adherence to his code of ethics.
There are people in religious circles today who would say his death reflected some hidden sin, or YHVH would have protected him.
They would also be the same peeps who would then have to admit that Hitler was, by that same reasoning, one blessed dude.
My take on the cross being “an offense” is that if you are not being stoned or staked you probably haven’t found the way yet to live and speak enough truth to provoke the same. I am not sure what planet those folks you are referring to think they live on…
Yes. There definitely appears to be the possibility, even likelihood, of BATH-sheba’s (sheba – daughter of an oath, in a bath) engineering these circumstances. Yet the greater interest I have is understanding this in the context of the question of YHWH’s engineering in these and many other like circumstances in the history of his “new ideas” (plans) He allowed or purposed in His greater plan of redemption and restoration, like the birth and development of the 12 tribes of Israel with multiple wives and a myriad of counter-torah choices and actions of His people involved in the process. In other circumstances, He might have visited these people with His wrath and wiped them out one way or another. But in these, He acts with relative favor. So, another question is, was there also such unrighteousness in the lives of all the other so-called righteous people that He “used” for His greater purposes that was not recording, i.e. Noah.
Who is this Elohim, we call YHWH? Definitely “unsearchable”! Full of mystery! Amazing! To be feared! To searched out! To be bowed down to! Who are we that He should consider us?
The “BATH-sheba” thing here is, maybe not so obviously, intended to be “tongue-in-cheek”, not scholarly, and certainly just a side-bar comment just for humor’s sake, even if only for my own.
I will add my amen to that last paragraph Jerry. Like Ezekiel these days my standard comment is – only You know Lord. Who is a God like Him this God we adore and serve.
I know the female is often (not always) accused of being “responsible” in rape or seduction cases…sometimes accurately, sometimes not. Since, in this case, it’s all speculation anyway, I suppose we should consider the possibility that Bathsheba was just innocently bathing. Homes were tightly packed together in Jerusalem. Privacy was not always easy to come by. Perhaps early evening was a time she assumed few people would be on their roof tops…least of all, the King. Shouldn’t David have been in his Palace getting read to be served a king’s meal…contemplating which wife he would be with after dinner. Or, as Jerry suggests, was YHVH engineering the entire scenario…moving His plans and purposes forward?
Nice thought, but . . . as we read more about Bathsheba’s actions later we see a different picture – a woman who is quite resourceful and, dare I say, manipulative, when it comes to making sure she and her son get the upper hand. I would love to read this part of the story as “innocent,” but there is just too much from the rest of the story to ignore her part. Not that any of this justifies David. It doesn’t. But I suspect we have TWO parties in the sin, not just one.
Nonetheless…regardless of David or Bathsheba’s motives…God was moving His Plan forward. It’s good to rest in the knowledge that He can work with and around our sin.
True. It’s just fascinating to see how much HUMAN nonsense is involved in YHVH’s recalibration.
“recalibration”. My new fav God word.
I agree Judi. Nothing in scripture states that she plotted/planned. Maybe I’m wrong, but doesn’t scripture state when a person is at fault/heart not right with the Lord? Just because she plots and plans later on, doesn’t mean she did it in the beginning. Secondly, are we applying 20th century knowledge about the ovulation window to a time when that insight didn’t exist? I believe Skip is a proponent of reviewing text in the times it was written, but appears to be straying from it here. And I believe the Lord works with us based on our decisions – grace and mercy.
Hold on, please! What makes you think that only women in the 20th century knew anything about ovulation. In fact, Deuteronomy contains practices that PROMOTE the possibility of pregnancy exactly along these lines. You’re the one who is reading into the text now. This is an ANCIENT practice well-known in ancient cultures. Take a look at Egyptian sexual practices to see just how sophisticated these people were on this subject.
Apparently Matthew thought her name should be removed from the Book of Life. Tamar and Rahab were both women of faith and included in the genealogy of Jesus. But Bathsheba was not just ignored, as was Leah, but intentionally removed with scars.
‘Sheba’ means ‘fulfilled’ but the final ayin in her name suggests ‘in the flesh’. Bar with an ayin means ‘son of evil’.
It is related to shabbat by the two-letter gate shab. Shabbat is the final fulfillment (tov-last letter of the alphabet): rest.
When the letters of a gate are reversed, an opposite meaning applies. But not as a Greek would expect.
Bash, opposite of shab, means ‘ashamed’. Shame ‘bash’ began our long journey of wrestling with the flesh, and we will finally enter his rest ‘shab’ at the end of it. Meanwhile we attempt to fulfill our desires in the flesh with Bathsheba. The daughter of fulfillment of the flesh.
This line of reasoning makes me sad. First, even if the “and it happened” phrase was mistranslated, the subject of the “and it happened” phrase was David, not Bathsheba. I don’t know how she was supposed to know that 1) David was not at battle, but even if she did, 2) that he would sleep all day and get up at dusk and be on the roof when she’s getting ready to go to bed. I’m a military wife, and when all the guys deploy, the atmosphere becomes much more relaxed. So maybe she wasn’t being as careful, but I think it could easily have been because the soldiers were deployed. And later we know that Nathan came to see David about his sin, but there’s no record of him visiting Bathsheba. To me, even the idea that she engineered the situation is ludicrous: why would she want to become the last addition to the 16-17 women in a harem when she already had a husband that adored her? Her everyday life must have been so miserable. And then her first son dies, and the second one is the “favorite” which always makes life miserable for all involved..it’s just wrong to put this on her.
You missed the point, and ignored her deliberate calculation with David at the end of his life. Having a husband who adored her (which, by the way, is also an interpretation not in the text) does not insure her prosperity and survival in the political environment of that day, particularly because he is NOT Hebrew. The entire story from way before Bathsheba comes not the scene is loaded with POLITICAL maneuvering. And she shows the same kind of traits when she makes sure Solomon gets the throne and Adonijah is EXECUTED (take a closer look at the way she misrepresents the message to her son, now the king). Also please remember that David NOT being at war would be quite common knowledge in the city. She knows he is still in the palace and she knows that she can be seen from the palace. Or are you going to suggest that she is so innocent that she is UNAWARE that someone from the palace might see her naked ON THE ROOF. Do you think that Hebrew women typically bathed on rooftops where they might be seen?
I realize that this line of questioning makes people upset, but does it upset you because you WANT her to be the VICTIM of an aggressive man, or are you willing to look at the clues in the text that she may have ALSO (not exclusively) had a hand in providing the opportunity. It is still David’s sin, of course, since he is KING and supposed to hold the high moral ground. And he is responsible for the murder and conspiracy, which is what he is blamed for by Nathan. So I am not proposing that David is off the hook. It’s just that this story has a lot more to it than our Sunday school versions.
Skip,
Holding the woman accountable for her actions at the end of David’s life is a far cry from holding her accountable for that initial night.
Let’s be clear on some points: 1) She wasn’t on the roof, like some seductive spider spinning a web to snag some sexual weak male. The text reads DAVID was on the roof. The text does NOT state where Bathsheba was, but it does clarify that she what she was doing (thank you Leslee for setting this straight). See 2 Samuel 11:2 for specifics
She was doing her monthly post-menses ritual.
So, let’s be clear here, it was hugely improbable that she was going to get pregnant that very night. There is science that indicates that while it is possible to get pregnant immediately after one’s monthly cycle, chances are slim to….not. That only leads, by implication, to the thought there was more then one tryst.
Additionally, Nathan did not hold her in any way responsible for the situation when he confronted David; neither Scripture nor prophets have any issue holding women accountable, see the story of Jezebel and Potiphar’s wife concerning Joesph. Women. No. Issue.
If she had responsibility in those early trysts it would have been noted by the prophet, i am certain.
For additional insights on this train of thought please google “5 Reasons Bathsheba wasn’t on the Roof”. That should get you where you want to be.
I have no problem believing she was molded by court life into a conniving survivor she felt she needed to be by the end of David’s life.
Also, please see “white washed feminists + the sin of Bathsheba” (part 1 + part 2). Pls read the comments, look for Drew. he is especially offensive.
You certainly seem to have taken strong offense with the suggestion that Bathsheba is (slightly) complicit in this story. I can’t help but wonder if your reaction is personal, rather than textual. I do appreciate that 2 Samuel 11 adds some information we need to know, but doesn’t this imply that David probably had sex with her more than once before Uriah was called home? And where is the record of her crying out (in the city) as commanded by the Law so that she would be absolved of any guilt?
And you seem very intent upon making her a conniving playboy bunny, to coin a phrase, perhaps that is YOUR personal rather then textual?
As a (this will be offensive, my apologies) white male accustomed to being in a position of comfort and at least a modicum of personal power, you do not have the ability to consider that a woman in her position would have not have screamed out or resisted in any way?
She had no power, who would believer her? Against the KING???
Really? do you REALLY believe that ANY woman would have?
For every ‘cry wolf’ report of rape there are thousands of girls/women who are raped and simply do not say or do anything about it because they (ever so rightly) believe it would be pointless.
Even Nathan the prophet lays that original incident at the feet of David. And David accepts?
That’s not enough for you?
In the genealogy that (Bob?) brings up/points out, yes, Bathsheba’s name is omitted, but the righteous name of Uriah is presented. Uriah’s righteousness is the point, not Bathsheba’s guilt.
You can not even conceive what it would be like to have no power of any kind, personal or otherwise, and try to live through a situation like this. Of that i am sure.
But thanks for the response. I’m contending what she may have become, i’m contending that the evidence of where she was, both physically and emotionally, in the beginning just doesn’t add up to what you are presenting.
**I’m contending…. should read “I’m NOT contending…”
But I think you missed the point. The Mosaic code actually anticipates the situation where women have no power and are subjected to sexual advances by men. In that code there is a specific reference to crying out in the city, as opposed to the countryside where no one will hear. There is no record that Bathsheba made any attempt to resist, particularly when she had the right and the command to do so. Furthermore, if as you suggest it took more than once to get pregnant, why is there no record of ANY resistance to the advances of the king?
Please, I am not suggesting that she acted as a whore or a conniving “playboy bunny.” I am suggesting that since there seems to be no protest we might look deeper than the “poor innocent victim” explanation. I am suggesting that there was a real motivation for her to comply. Not that David wasn’t responsible – and guilty – but that she also had other fish to fry given the opportunity.
Is that not even POSSIBLE in your book? Are you going to stick with the “women are always abused by men” perspective? Or are you willing to see that Hebrew stories are often far more complicated that we would like them to be?
See, your paradigm, about me, is that *I* do not see Hebrew stories about real people.
You are projecting an expectation on to me w/out even considering that you have no idea what i believe or think in that regard.
That would be error on your part.
To the victor goes the spoils, and the historical record.
In this case you would be wrong. I absolutely beat you to the punch in believing that Scripture is about real people. I have taught that since 2001. So. There’s that.
I can see your point of 1 tryst = 1 pregnancy (i thought i had been clear on that) but throwing out the ‘women are always abused by men’ is a red herring because you don’t want to budge on your perspective.
Shaming me into conceding could make YOU look like a pompous male bully. Not that shame has ever been much of a motivator for me, as my ex-husband will attest. (sorry, couldn’t resist).
I’d rather stand in front of YHVH on my perspective here, then yours, even if it doesn’t make for a good book.
You can keep your point and your perspective, Skip, it’s just that, singularly, will have no regard for it.
and who am i, anyway.
My gosh, you do take all of this personally, don’t you?
And you would rather focus on my taking it personal then reviewing my points?
But I keep trying to make points about the text. Let’s try one more time. Do you not think it is possible that the story as told in the text contains clues to deeper personal and political motivations for the characters? Is the story to be read as if it were a comic strip, or are we as readers of the Hebrew accounts expected to see alternative human motivations in what is said and what is NOT said (cf. Ruth)? Isn’t this concern with what is in the text, not what we personally experienced in life so that we read those things back into the stories?
Maybe I should ask this another way. Why do we NEED Bathsheba to be a victim?
But you are NOT sticking to the text! As soon as you throw in WHAT IF and then go off on some tangent (you didn’t even get Bathsheba’s location correct, via the text because the text is silent on it!) then YOU are creating the text, filling the void with YOUR paradigms.
Based solely on the text you can not make Bathsheba INITIALLY the conniver you are striving to paint her as…especially when you take in the whole of the connotations of Nathan, David and YHVH’s response in the text!
Did YHVH send Nathan to Bathsheba? Does the text record ANYWHERE her guilt on ANY LEVEL??? Am i to believe otherwise based on YOUR newfound “what if”? Did David even attempt to implicate? We know Adam did….don’t be throwing stones my way when i have a pile like the above at my feet that i hadn’t thrown yours (heretofore, anyway)
PS: no offense. I understand this is just a discussion and you are going to do what ever it is you are going to do and we are not going to agree.
I’m not angry or upset….much, anyway.
Re: “why do we NEED Bathsheba to be a victim”.
We don’t, actually.
Maybe she was a blatant opportunist, having a little side rib herself and David was just the schmuck that presented himself as the perfect cover up. Maybe the baby was Joe Schmuckatellies and David was the perfect foil.
as long as we are playing ‘what if’, the field is wide open, right?
Except if she WERE guilty of any of the above, there is NO precedent for her NOT being called out, Scripturally.
None.
I have to go to work. Thank you for the exchange.
btw, you make a good point that this whole thing, according to the record, is about Uriah’s righteousness. AND a big part of that righteousness was refusing to bed his wife on leave. There is no way he would not have known. No way. BUT, he did not say anything either! His refusal to ‘go along’ with the situation (he refused a direct order, according to Skip, to bed his wife, and THAT refusal would have been enough to have gotten him executed too) could be interpreted to be that he also was powerless, as his protest was as mute as Bathsheba’s. What could he do for his wife at that point? Nothing. He was helpless too! That protest of not bedding his wife is what I believe could have made him “righteous”. btw is pointing out that neither he nor Bathsheba were blamed by anyone; not even David. She thinks that that is significant. I do too. It was up to Uriah to legally take responsibility for his wife’s issues, as she already had no power. He did the best he could.
I concur with btw’s point that when the powers that be are the abusers themselves, the law has already been made null and void, and is therefore useless. That has been my experience more than once, anyway. I was told to go home when I tried to protest abuse of the law by the law and no legal firm would touch the case. Why? They knew the judges were bought out, too.
What do you do when there is no one in the forest to hear you when you cry? In David’s city, the evidence suggests that there could well have been no ‘ears’ to hear either Bathsheba or Uriah (for all we know they DID try) but the situation suggests that they might have been trees falling silently in an earless (lawless) forest.
Thank you. I appreciate that.
Re: “How likely is that?”
I am the product of a first time sexual encounter. So was my first and third pregnancies, so was the oldest child of Niece 1 and Niece 2 as well as two of my best friends. #sinceyouasked
So? In a world without birth control mechanisms, can you imagine that Bathsheba didn’t know when she might get pregnant? Women all over the world know this kind of thing, and especially in cultures where getting pregnant is highly prized. Put aside the “innocent” Bathsheba for a moment and ask yourself about the other clues to this woman’s character.
No.
As a woman who has to deal with people playing the ‘what if’ game with MY reputation, and drawing conclusions on who i am based on 3rd party discussions w/others that don’t even, don’t even know me, never met me face to face or had any kind of in-depth conversation about me and yet were able to make decision on my character and the underlying reasons i ever did anything…..
i’m not following you down the “what if” rabbit trail on this one. In fact this has so p!ssed me off that if you were in front of me we would be in a face to face.
Any woman who has been summoned by or discarded by a man who had money, power, and position to destroy her if she didn’t dance to his tune would shred you in a heart beat.
Scripture has plenty to say about bearing tales, speaking about someone unjustly and false accusation. I absolutely will not participate in this discussion and i can not think of anything strong enough to state how disgusting i think this is that doesn’t include a string of Marine.
“Be silent where the text is silent” is an expression I learned from one of my Scripture teachers. The text is silent about so many of these suppositions up for consideration. Uriah the Hittite, one of David’s Thirty, his might men, this is his wife. And the servant David asked, he cautioned David. David didn’t listen. If Bathsheba was a Jewess/Israelitess, she was possibly following Torah and bathing before sundown at the end of the prescribed time after her menses… a time of fertility! So she could be clean.
Bathsheba was the daughter of Eliam (God’s people). 2 Sam 23:34 tells us “Eliam [is the] son of Ahithophel (brother of foolishness) the Gilonite,” Giloh (exile) is a town in the mountainous part of Judah, named in the first group with Debir and Eshtemoh (Jos 16:51). Ahithophel, a native of Giloh, was a privy councilor of David, whose wisdom was highly esteemed, though his name had an exactly opposite signification. 2Sa 16:23. (B.C. 1055-1023). He was the grandfather of Bathsheba. And he was a Jew, so my proposal has merit. And Uriah – grafted in!
Ahithophel joined the conspiracy of Absalom against David, and persuaded him to take possession of the royal harem, 2Sa 16:21, and recommended an immediate pursuit of David. His advice was wise; but Hushai advised otherwise. When Ahithophel saw that Hushai’s advice prevailed, he despaired of success, and returning to his own home “put his household in order and hanged himself.” 2Sa 17:1-23. Perhaps that was the foolish end he could have chosen against.
Of additional note, is that Torah calls for a woman to scream for help if she is taken in a city. If she does not scream and is found out she is to be killed, along with her assailant. (Deut 22:22-23) And the verse before this (v21) says in the case of a man who takes another man’s wife, they are both to die. Torah pronounced judgment.
David repented when Nathan (fearful, too, for his life?) confronted him. Mercy. Grace. Instead, the child died. And Uriah died. And the sword never left David’s house, and disaster came from his own family. I still remember the time I read through this greater section of Scripture and my heart went out to Joab, whose own heart may have been hardened as he did (obeyed) what he was ordered to do to cover David’s sin.
There is SO MUCH to this story.
Leslee, that was fantastic!
Thanks for the additional material. Doesn’t change what I have tried to examine, however. For example, as you point out, why is there no record of Bathsheba crying out? Why does she not inform her husband immediately upon his return? Why does David change the name given by the prophet to “Solomon”? Why does Bathsheba change the request she makes to her son who is now King? Why does she conspire with Nathan to convert a promise to a vow before David dies? And why, if she is so orthodox, does she bath in public view, at least to the King? I realize we don’t like to think of the intrigue that might be involved, but the Bible characters are rarely one-dimensional. For example, Naomi, who is often portrayed in Christian circles as the loving but bereft mother-in-law but the text certainly demonstrates that she does all she can to put Ruth in jeopardy. It’s time to read these people as REAL, with complex emotional motivations, and especially in the stories surrounding David which are all full of political manipulation.
Skip, you are welcome. Not an effort on my part to change the examination. I am “guilty” of digging deeply down all the connectors I can find in Scripture to see the text in a fuller light. This family connection may add to the intrigue (I have never considered) you propose… hmm… the text is silent regarding any effort by Bathsheba to entice (may be wrong word) her husband to be with her. What wife would not want her husband’s company after time apart described during war? David wanted to cover the sin, Bathsheba doesn’t seem to be helping with his plan. Uriah (the light of Yah), so righteous, as another comment states.
As I mentioned, the plot is a lot more complicated than the Sunday school version we have grown up with.
wanted to add that 2Sam 11:4 does say she was purifying herself from her uncleanness, so that is in the text.
This line of thought is quite new to me… I see the point that in this case there was more to the story on both side… like attracts like. And iniquity travels through family trees… I think of the the kings former wives and what you said, about politics and sex…. I think of Saul & his Daughter, what Envy and Jealousy & treachery they had. He ends up on that roof, maybe his thoughts, spiritually, took him to see Bathsheba. Maybe she did have have a plan, if she was an exhibitionist. Maybe they both had perversity. Envy and Jealousy sure would have no problem killing the husband to have what the king wanted… lacking in his real duty’s as a righteous “at the moment” king… I look at his kids WHAT A MESS!! Solomon wise? yes and a resounding no. I wonder if he had asked YHVH for LOVE, he would have gotten the whole package, including wisdom….. And would have refrained from sleeping and going the way of pagan women… who would want all of Solomon wives? He sure sounded depressed to me in Ecclesiastics… . One of David sons rapes his sister and the other is a treacherous usurper- there is so much ill will, covetousness and perversity in this family. David, coveted this bathing woman… the king knew better. and the union was not blessed losing a child… Nathan told the king, “YOU are the man”.. yet David repented and good came forth. I guess I have a lot to learn.
I’ve wondered how is it that she became married to a Hittie, and why there were no children from this marriage.
Sorry, *Hittite.
Well it’s all interesting speculations, and they do illuminate possibilities but speculationts are a tright of the Greek mind and as such something Paul warns about. Granted sex appeals and certainly helps sell books. I also find the blame shifting to Bathsehba intriguing . The salient point for me remains regarding Yaweh’s views on the Matter. As I recall when Nathan sums up the Life of David”the man after God’s own heart” he never mentions the incident, not even Uriah’s murder . It is the census that Yahweh condemns David for. So the weighty matter for me is not why he was on his bed but that he was not at war, doing his proscribed duty. Had he been doing his job he would not have been susceptible to the at blazen hussy at all…so the moral of this story to me remains; be about your calling or you’ll get yourself in trubble.
I have heard tell that one Ultra orthodox Jewish perspective is that the reason David “took” and then wed Bathsheba, even though she was a married woman, was that YHWH had shown him (them?) that she was his soul-mate and they were destined to be married from before the foundation of the earth, but a Hittite – sent by HaSatan in an attempt to thwart YHWH’s eternal decree and plans to have a Solomon- married her first. Thus it was “permissable” for King David to take her, kill the rogue usurper Urriah and reestablish order in Universe. Thus David’s sin was neither adultry nor murder, but only the fact that he didn’t get the order straight in the first place. Timing, apparently, IS everything .