Defending Bathsheba
Updated: 18 hours ago
“Bathsheba was clearly trying to seduce King David by bathing naked on the rooftop.” These were the words that the Bill Gothard enthusiast, 1 homeschooling mom (I’m not against homeschooling!) shared with me when I was a young youth pastor. Well, it was close to something like that—35 years ago. I had never considered that before. What was that temptress doing? It made sense to me then. However, recently, I went back to look at the text it actually says nothing about her being a temptress or exhibitionist. The entire focus is on King David’s unbridled power, which led to his sin. Let’s take a look.
Time to Fight
The story begins with King David, staying behind while the army of Israel goes off to war. The text seems to indicate that it was David’s responsibility to be with the troops: “In the spring of the year, the time when kings go out to battle” (2 Sam 11:1). The winter rains are over, and the weather is more favorable for military campaigns.
David is walking on the roof of his palace when he sees a woman bathing. He finds out who she is, and then has her brought to him. They sleep together, and she gets pregnant. Then David comes up with a scheme to kill her husband so he can marry Bathsheba. Thus, no one will know she was already pregnant. The Lord was angry with David (1 Sam 11:1-27).
Three wrong assumptions
People make certain postulations about the story that are not in the text.
Bathsheba was on a rooftop.
She knew that King David could see her.
She seduced him into adultery.
If any of these assumptions were true, the author would have included them in the story. However, the author goes out of his way to show that King David was the abuser and Bathsheba was the victim. King David was the one with all the power and he is the one who is judged at the end of the story.
Let’s address these three assumptions. The text says that David saw from the roof, but clearly Bathsheba was somewhere on the ground. If you’ve been to the City of David in Jerusalem, you know that it is built on the steep hill in the old Jebusite fortress. “In 2005, Dr. Eilat Mazar discovered remains of a monumental structure dated to the tenth century BCE, at the top of the City of David.” It is believed that this was King David’s Palace, though some dispute this. Why wouldn’t the king build this palace on top of the hill? He would’ve had a view over the entire city.
No Bubble Bath
Bathsheba likely had no idea that she was being watched from above. Furthermore, most people ignore the fact that she was not simply taking a luxurious bubble bath; she was being cleansed according to the law of Moses after her menstruation. It was a ritual bath. How do we know this? Well, that actually is in the text: “Now she had been purifying herself from her uncleanness” (v. 4).
David and Diana Garland write:
The law required ritual washing at the conclusion of her menstrual period. A woman would be highly unlikely to conduct such a cleansing from her menstrual period as a come-on. If she were in public view, she would have washed without disrobing. There is no reason even to assume that she was naked. Public nudity was not acceptable in this ancient Jewish culture but instead was considered shameful. There is no foundation for assuming she was some kind of exhibitionist. 2
Scholar Robert Bergan writes, “There is no indication in the text that the woman deliberately positioned herself so as to entice David…The writer’s omission of an explicit motive behind Bathsheba’s action reinforces the conviction that this story is not so much about Bathsheba’s actions but David’s.” 3
There’s a Whole Lotta “Sending” Going On
The late Eugene Peterson (The Message Bible) presents David as succumbing to the temptations of power. He says that the author uses the verb “send/sent” שלח, all throughout the chapter to show that David was abusing his power.
David “sent” שלח Joab to war and stayed behind.
David “sent”שלח people to find out who Bathsheba is.
David “sent” שלח messengers, and “they took her” יקחה.
David “sent” שלח word to Joab to arrange for Uriah’s death.
Peterson says, "The repeated [usage of the verb ‘to send’ is] employed to exhibit a ruthless use of bare power, cut free from the constraints of morality or responsibility or personal relationship.” 4 While the NIV says that messengers went to “get her,” the Hebrew is more forceful: “they took her.”
If you’re not convinced that the author is using the verb “to send” as a literary device, keep reading.
In v. 5 she “sends” word that she is pregnant.
In v. 18, Joab “sends” word that Uriah is dead.
Then, the final decisive and dramatic usage of this verb comes in 12:1, where the author writes: “The Lord sent Nathan to David.” The intent of the writer is evident. Only God has power. Any power that David has is a gift from God to serve his people. To make this clear, God sent his prophet to confront the king about his abuse of power.
Nathan understands that this is about David’s corruption, which is why David’s course correction is a big part of the Bible (Ps. 51). The Bible says nothing regarding Bathsheba’s role. When Nathan speaks, he rebukes only David for taking what did not belong to him. The author’s entire emphasis is on David's corruption.
The story Nathan tells David about a rich man who takes the lamb from a poor man, even though he has many flocks, is about David. As David is outraged over the rich man’s abuse of power and lack of compassion, Nathan utters the famous words, “You are the man!” In other words, you are the one who lacks compassion for the poor. You are the one who is guilty of abusing your power.
Betrayal of Three Generations
David’s abuse was not only against Bathsheba, but Uriah. “She was the daughter of one of David’s best fighters (cf. 23:34),” writes Bergan, “the granddaughter of his most trusted counselor (cf. 16:23; 23:34), and the wife of one of his inner circle of honored soldiers (cf. 23:39).” 5 It was an un-covenantal act of disloyalty and abuse of power at the highest levels.
Why this is important
A few months ago, a video went viral of a pastor saying that if a woman dressed inappropriately was raped, and he was on the jury, he would let the rapist go free. “If you dress like [this] and you get raped and I'm on the jury, he's gonna go free.” After being confronted with all the unwanted attention, he apologized.
King David was in control of himself. To turn this text into an indictment against women is unfaithful to the scripture. It is about unfettered power. Every time Jesus' disciples expressed their desire for power, he rebuked them. He reminded them that the kind of leader he’s looking for is one who will wash the feet of their disciples.
Furthermore, even if you make the case that Bathsheba should’ve taken her stand against the king of Israel, you cannot ignore the power differential. She was a woman at a time when women were not expected to speak up for themselves. She was summoned by one of the most powerful men in the world. What do you expect her to do?
Correctly Naming Your Sin
Recently, I sent an email to a minister who initiated an inappropriate relationship with an adult student. He claims to have repented and now wants to be an advocate for the abused. I shared with him that first, “You need to correctly name your sin as ‘clergy sexual abuse,’ not merely sexual sin.” I explained that he used his celebrity and (supposed) prophetic gifts to woo the woman by giving “prophetic” words and telling her she was more special than other students. He did not respond and continues to minimize the severity of his abuse.
And, of course, comparing ministers who fall into sin to King David, like so many people do, is unbiblical. If God could still use King David, he can use me is how it goes. If you want to understand why it is unbiblical, I share some thoughts here.
1. Bill Gothard was a Christian leader with a cult-like influence over tens of thousands. He ran the Institute in Basic Life Principles, which was extremely fundamentalist in its views. It turns out that he himself was not living according to the principles and was dismissed in 2014 after being accused of sexually harassing more than 30 women.
2. David Garland and Diana Garland, Flawed Families of the Bible (Baker Publishing Group) 156, Kindle.
3 Robert D. Bergen, 1, 2 Samuel, vol. 7, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1996), 364-365.
4. Eugene H. Peterson, First and Second Samuel, ed. Patrick D. Miller and David L. Bartlett, Westminster Bible Companion (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 1999), 183.
5. Robert D. Bergen, 1, 2 Samuel, vol. 7, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1996), 364.
