The Bible NETWork ~ Impacting the World for Christ one post at a time!

[The following discussion is split off from a discussion of Wisdom in the Discipleship forum. For readability, I'm starting it out with a partial quote from Becki, to which Obadiah responded. - Gideon]


Becki:

What leads you to believe Bathsheba did anything wrong here?

The text nowhere implies that she's in the wrong. It holds David completely responsible for the sin.

Maybe that's partly because saying Bathsheba sinned would have been stating the obvious, and partly because King David was the central character in the story.

_________________
Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brothers to dwell together in unity!

Forum Code of Conduct
The Bible NETWork Doctrinal Statement
The NET Bible Study Environment
Pastors Pro-Life Resource Center
Biblical Eldership

Gideon:

How is it obvious that Bathsheba sinned?

Well, Bathsheba was Uriah's wife, she committed adultery with David, and adultery is proscribed in the law of Moses.

Exodus 20:14 14 “You shall not commit adultery. Context (NET)

_________________
Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brothers to dwell together in unity!

Forum Code of Conduct
The Bible NETWork Doctrinal Statement
The NET Bible Study Environment
Pastors Pro-Life Resource Center
Biblical Eldership

Bathsheba committed adultery?

Do you seriously think the woman had a choice? In a culture where women are trained from birth to be subservient to men, the king's servants knock on the door and invite Bathsheba to come over to the palace for a little rendezvous with his royal highness? In my best mafioso accent, this was an offer she couldn't refuse.

Perhaps we could fault Bathsheba for not demonstrating an extraordinary level of heroism by refusing the king's advances. (Perhaps we could also fault the servants David dispatched to fetch her for saving their own lives by obeying the king's command.) But it's hardly realistic to expect a woman in such a thoroughly male-dominated culture, whose husband isn't there to defend her, to spurn the king's advances, knowing such action would likely result not only in her own death but her husband's as well.

David raped Bathsheba. Perhaps not in the literal sense of throwing her down and forcing himself on her physically, but through an almost irresistibly powerful level of intimidation, he raped her.

Obadiah, I think you are assuming facts not in evidence. It may be your opinion that David raped Bathsheba, but the scriptures certainly don't tell us that. And I am inclined to doubt that Bathsheba was unaware that she was bathing in view of the king's house where David might see her.

2 Samuel 11:2-3 2 One evening David got up from his bed and walked around on the roof of his palace. From the roof he saw a woman bathing. Now this woman was very attractive. 3 So David sent someone to inquire about the woman. The messenger said, “Isn’t this Bathsheba, the daughter of Eliam, the wife of Uriah the Hittite?” Context (NET)

_________________
Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brothers to dwell together in unity!

Forum Code of Conduct
The Bible NETWork Doctrinal Statement
The NET Bible Study Environment
Pastors Pro-Life Resource Center
Biblical Eldership

Gideon:

My assumptions are based on a reading of the culture in which this incident took place. I believe my analysis speaks for itself.

As to your assumption that Bathsheba was promiscuous, there's certainly nothing in the text to suggest it. From what is known of the architecture of the period, most likely Uriah's house would have had a parapet around the roof which would have obscured Bathsheba from the view of anyone except the king, whose palace would have been higher than the surrounding houses. Had David been leading his troops into battle instead of lounging around in the palace, this incident would not have happened.

I'm gonna go ahead and second everything Obadiah has said so far (and frankly, I'm surprised so many people think Bathsheba was at fault in the story). According to the Torah, she should have screamed or something, but the text doesn't say anything about that one way or the other, and I'm not sure how much we should read the law into this episode, since nobody follows the law in any of the rest of Samuel, and it doesn't seem to be a big deal.

In terms of the original post, I wouldn't read too much into them calling wisdom "she" in general. Everything is either called he or she in Hebrew. Even the Spirit of God is called she (though it may... I'm not sure... but they may call it 'he' a couple of times. I know there is a tendency like this in some of the Targums). Interestingly, in Greek, "spirit" is neutral, so it should be called 'it', but they sometimes refer to it as 'he'. When something like that happens, you know the author is trying to do something.

However, in Proverbs, there is a feminine personification of wisdom. This is probably because much of the book seems to be addressed to young men just coming out into the world. The 'good wife' in Proverbs 31 is very close to being a personification of wisdom as described in chapters two and eight. Wisdom is heavily contrasted with the personification of folly as an adulteress. This kind of thing sexually charges the whole discussion, which accomplished a couple things. One, it probably makes young men more interested, and secondly, it highlights how central sexual ethics are to living a wise and godly life. The rise and fall of many men are determined by what women the become involved with, and then what they do with those women.

Women face a somewhat (but not altogether) different set of difficulties. I don't know what proverbs would have looked like if it was addressed more specifically to women (not that women can't learn a lot from it), but I'm sure many parts would look a lot different. Unfortunately, we don't have that book... or maybe we do...

"Do not stir up or awaken love until it desires..."

That does seem to put it's finger directly on the plight of young women, doesn't it?

_________________
http://biblerants.blogspot.com

Obadiah (and Aaron), I appreciate that you acknowledge you are making assumptions. And you may well be reading the historical culture accurately. My point is that you are basing your conclusion entirely on your reading of the culture because nothing in the text suggests either that David forced himself on Bathsheba or that she was innocent in the matter. And if David had in fact raped her--if Bathsheba were entirely innocent, I would expect that she would have told her husband, at least to warn him that the king was not to be trusted. But the way the story reads, it is clear that she kept the matter a secret from her husband. And why, if David had raped her, did she send word to him when she realized she was pregnant? Why would a married woman tell her rapist and not her husband that she had become pregnant? What did she expect David to do about it? Help her to keep their sexual liaison a secret from her husband? To me, hers are not the actions of an innocent party here.

Based on the story as it is given to us, I see no reason to exonerate Bathsheba. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.

Let me also add that I have not assumed Bathsheba was promiscuous. When I suggest that she knew she was bathing within view of the king (and surely she knew that David had not gone out to battle along with her husband), that's all I'm saying. I'm not suggesting that she was promiscuous or even that she expected anything would follow between her and David. Perhaps she merely wanted him to desire her, in which case the ensuing events are more understandable. But even this is speculation. The text doesn't tell us why Bathsheba bathed within view of the king. It simply tells us that she did.

I guess we should return to the real topic of this thread, so I'll not say anything more about Bathsheba. You may have the last word if you like. And thanks for sharing your perspective.

_________________
Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brothers to dwell together in unity!

Forum Code of Conduct
The Bible NETWork Doctrinal Statement
The NET Bible Study Environment
Pastors Pro-Life Resource Center
Biblical Eldership

I would agree that there was a definite lack of modesty on Bathsheba's part as most homes of the era utilized the rooftops as a place to dwell as well as the inside, and many roofs were probably visible to more than just the king. This raises the question of; Why was she taking a bath on the roof? As Gideon pointed out, she was probably seeking favor.
The old saying 'It takes two to tango.' comes to mind.
David himself said in Psalm 51:4 that He sinned against God, and God alone; which by implication, means she took an equal part in the event. At least the adulterous part, if not the rest, since we are not told. She did however seem content to be his wife.

_________________

_____________________________________________________
Forum Code of Conduct
The Bible NETWork Doctrinal Statement
http://www.answersingenesis.org/

Gideon:

I appreciate that you acknowledge you are making assumptions.

And I appreciate that about you as well. All interpreters make assumptions; the only difference is whether or not we own up to it.

And you may well be reading the historical culture accurately. My point is that you are basing your conclusion entirely on your reading of the culture because nothing in the text suggests either that David forced himself on Bathsheba or that she was innocent in the matter.

You're right. The text, as is so often the case in Scripture, is delightfully ambiguous, inviting us to draw our own inferences and become God's partners in storytelling.

And if David had in fact raped her--if Bathsheba were entirely innocent, I would expect that she would have told her husband, at least to warn him that the king was not to be trusted. But the way the story reads, it is clear that she kept the matter a secret from her husband.

Perhaps she wasn't confident her husband would believe her.

And why, if David had raped her, did she send word to him when she realized she was pregnant? Why would a married woman tell her rapist and not her husband that she had become pregnant? What did she expect David to do about it? Help her to keep their sexual liaison a secret from her husband? To me, hers are not the actions of an innocent party here.

I can see how you're reading this as the reaction of a co-conspirator. I read it as the reaction of a woman who sees no better way out than to play along with David's charade. (This is where in the movie they'd have Uriah saying, "Gosh, honey, the baby sure doesn't look much like me…")

Based on the story as it is given to us, I see no reason to exonerate Bathsheba. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.

So we shall. But since we're disagreeing amicably, I'm OK with that -- and I believe Christ is OK with it, too.

Let me also add that I have not assumed Bathsheba was promiscuous. When I suggest that she knew she was bathing within view of the king (and surely she knew that David had not gone out to battle along with her husband), that's all I'm saying. I'm not suggesting that she was promiscuous or even that she expected anything would follow between her and David. Perhaps she merely wanted him to desire her, in which case the ensuing events are more understandable. But even this is speculation. The text doesn't tell us why Bathsheba bathed within view of the king. It simply tells us that she did.

Once again, that lovely biblical ambiguity!

I guess we should return to the real topic of this thread, so I'll not say anything more about Bathsheba. You may have the last word if you like. And thanks for sharing your perspective.

Sounds fair to me. I truly appreciate the mutual respect, especially from moderators.

Guy:

David himself said in Psalm 51:4 that He sinned against God, and God alone; which by implication, means she took an equal part in the event. At least the adulterous part, if not the rest, since we are not told. She did however seem content to be his wife.

I infer from this that you're reading this verse to the effect that David was saying he sinned only against God -- and not against Bathsheba. But, if that's the case, you're forgetting about Uriah. Regardless of whether or not Bathsheba is complicit, there's simply no way to slice up this episode without acknowledging that David sinned against a man whose wife he took and whom he had killed.

We have to be careful in reading Psalms to recognize the highly emotional state of their authors. When David exclaims, "Against You -- only You! -- have I sinned," this is not a theological assertion. It's the bursting forth of David's heart. What does he mean by this? We know that David had rationalized his actions until Nathan confronted him (Psalm 32:4-5). Perhaps he justified taking Bathsheba because she was a subject of his kingdom and having Uriah killed because he was under the king's command. Whatever his excuses may have been, Nathan shot through it all by forcing David to recognize that he had sinned, first and foremost, against God, breaking two of the ten commandments. In David's heart, his having sinned against Bathsheba and Uriah paled in comparison to how horribly he had betrayed the God of Israel who had taken him from the sheepfold and placed him on the throne.

As to Bathsheba's consenting to being David's wife, the only alternative was to live the life of a widow and a suspected adulteress. I don't see where she had a realistic choice.

Let me extend to you the same kind invitation Gideon proffered me: the final word is yours.

Ah,... but she did choose, and she chose the king! She had a choice; live or die. But... God had a different plan. And from this line came our king. Let us not forget that the line of kings was full of gentiles. Ruth was not of the line of David but yet our king is from that line. Off topic, but; gentiles have been in the mix for ages.

_________________

_____________________________________________________
Forum Code of Conduct
The Bible NETWork Doctrinal Statement
http://www.answersingenesis.org/

Obadiah may or may not be basing his conclusions entirely on a reading of the culture, though I don't really suspect so. I'm not doing that. I might not go as far as Obadiah either, to insist that Bathsheba was clearly innocent (though I think it quite possible). I'm thinking more in literary and linguistic terms (as is my wont), though I think they're in harmony with the cultural argument, and I'll show you why...
There it is. The text doesn't explicitly call it rape, it's true. It doesn't talk about Bathsheba's sin anywhere either. She appears to be completely passive in whole story. In fact, the story-teller couldn't be less interested in her. The only thing she does of her own volition is tell David that she's pregnant and mourn for her husband.

I agree that there is little in the text suggest that it was rape, unless it be wayyiqqāḥehā in verse four, "and he took her." There is no consistent term for rape in the pre-exilic prose outside of the normal words for sexual relations. There are some preceding verbs that occasionally make it quite clear. Deuteronomy 22:25 and 28 use two different verbs, but they have similar meaning, heḥĕzîq and tāp̄aś (not to be confused with the Spanish dish..), to "grab" and to "seize." "To take" doesn't have quite as harsh a sound to it, but it is used here in a similar formula. Incidental, the same formula could also mean "He married her and slept with her," but that certainly isn't the case here.

I don't think it automatically implies rape, but it leaves the door open for that reading. I have a feeling an Israelite from the Iron Age might have know if it was talking about rape or not just from hearing the formula used, but I don't know any of them, unfortunately. What it definitely does do is make it clear that David was in complete control over the situation. I doesn't sound as if she had much choice in the matter, though there is no description of the manner in which she was "taken."

Interesting, if one reads carefully, one finds out that Ahithophel, Bathsheba's grandfather (he was the father of Eliam, II Samuel 23:34) was one of the chief advisors in Absalom's coup, having formerly been among David's wisest. It does cause one to wonder if he didn't have any personal reasons for the grudge. However, that is a pretty big game of connect the dots, and I don't see any literary intention behind this connection.

The only thing we know about Bathsheba's feelings is that she finds it appropriate to mourn at her husband's death, though this could have had to do with social pressure as well. In any case, the story has very little interest in Bathsheba's role there. She simply provides the occasion for David's sin, and not too much else is said. She eventually becomes the mother of Solomon, and makes the plea that he become's David's successor, but this doesn't really inform our situation much.

So, we have little evidence as to how Bathsheba was 'taken,' but we have no evidence that she sinned inside the text. The argument that she was on the roof and she shouldn't have been doesn't carry much weight because it can equally be understood by the fact that she was in the process of purification and she didn't want to make any of the household items unclean (This isn't sure either, but it goes to show that there's more than one way to explain it). The story doesn't even say she was naked, for goodness sake.

As Obadiah said, their should have been parapets in any case. We only know this from descriptions. All that actually remains for us to see in relevant ruins are foundations and a few feet of wall (if that), so we almost never know anything about the upper parts of buildings from hard evidence. However, the very fact that the roof was used as a dwelling gives us good reason to suspect the use of a parapet. I don't want neighbors looking in my living quarters! Of course, parapets wouldn't really be a big deal if she wasn't actually naked (most people these days bathe naked, but so what? They're not on the roof!). There are any number of explanations for what she might have been doing on roof. And really, it doesn't even say she was on the roof (except in the song "Hallelujah"). David was on his roof, but he could have been looking through her window. It's not so strait forward about the matter.

You can say that we assume Bathsheba was innocent based purely on cultural grounds (though I have tried to bring a piece of linguistic evidence that allows the conclusion as well), but as far as I can tell, there are no grounds assuming she was to blame. I prefer the cultural evidence to the absence of evidence. In the end, it isn't of much interest to the narrator. He makes it clear that David was calling the shots, and that's all that matters to him.

Also, being a late-comer, I'm not offering anyone the final word yet! (though I don't know that I have much more to say about it).

_________________
http://biblerants.blogspot.com

wonderful, and I think speaking of Bathsheba is exatly with the thought of the orginal thread, for wisdom is called a she
and regardless of what any one thinks, Bahtsheba was a she, that cannot be argued
as far as her 'knowing' David was watching her, I am not so sure~~~
it may have been just where they bathed, does not give David any right to look,
we cannot assume to understand anything these two may have been thinking or their intent, we can only judge from what we KNOW is the truth.
the truth is, David took advantage of his authority ~ and took this woman ~ we do not read she complained, or resisted, and as duly noted, she also kept this thing from her loyal husband, ( who by the way is forever remembered in genology of Christ as a righteous man )

but what she did, even though NOT sleeping with him may have cost her life, she did succomb to his advances and this was NOT wise, it was FOOLISH

this whole thing reminds me of another woman, who was not Jewish, who stood up to her drunken husband/king and refused to become sport for him, Vashti, in the book of Esther

she was expelled from kingdom, but her intregity remained in tact.

what if the three Hebrew boys thought, 'hmmm, if I refuse we might be killed!"

wisdom will lead in right direction even when 'man' warns us to stay away from.

it is interesting however that wisdom is called 'she' and I may be reading more into it that I ought. but this also reminds me of another saying

"it takes 6 men to carry a man to his grave and 1 woman to put him there"

women may be the weaker sex in some areas, but they can have strong hold on man, and it is choice we must make in this walk

will we choose to be 'WISE'
or will we choose to be "FOOLISH'

our decisions will be clearly seen, even if we justify ourselves. ( which if we ever do, justify ourselves, we have already sinned JOb 9:20)

Easy with the caps there!

_________________
http://biblerants.blogspot.com