Patricia,

I have never thought that it was Bathsheba's fault. I have always felt that she and David BOTH sinned. Women are capable you know.

I know that it is popular today to take any and every story and make it the male's fault, but the fact is that the Bible doesn't tell us.

Could it be that PERHAPS he saw her, liked her looks, she saw him and liked his looks too? REMEMBER the Bible says that David was handsome (1 Samuel 17:42).

Is it really your view that she would only have sex with David because of his "brute force?" You don't think that women deal with the temptation of lust? Or that they are not attracted to physical features?

John Clayton's article put the blame clearly on David. Teresa Kindred seemed to put it on both of them. Why do feminist have to make men evil ALL THE TIME? Is it EVER a woman's fault or at least partly her fault?

The Bible does not tell us either way. Why try to vilinize anyone?

Chris

Ark

Romans 9:11-13--"Yet before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad--in order that God's purpose in election might stand: not by works but by him who calls--she was told, 'the older will serve the younger.'Jacob i loved, but Esau I hated.'"

seekr

Chris,

Certainly "villianising" is not the point of Bible Study. For the true seeker, truth is the goal.

All we can know from the story is that David "saw" Bathsheba. We can't know if he saw her as voyer or by accident. However, we can wonder why it happened that the king of the Isrealites rose from his couch to walk on the roof at the time of day when it was custom for the women to purify themselves on the rooftops. We can only wonder what was going on his head that he would allow his gaze to rest upon a woman who was involved in the ritual purification following her monthly period. All of the women of the houshold were probably there purifying at once since women who live together menstruate together. This cyclical ritual purification was a routine you could set your sundial by, so his stumbling into this moment is curious.

David performs an inquiry and discovers that the woman is married to a soldier in the army ... a soldier who is away on duty.

Then we find out that the king's messengers show up at Bathsheba's home to take her to the king. It does not appear in the text that she was asked to go or invited to go. In fact it says she was taken.

Apparently, there was at least one night of sexual intercourse. Whether it was consensual, we cannot know. But when a warrior king desires a woman's company -- especially when that woman's husband is under his complete mercy and utterly controlled by him -- she does as she is told or as she feels she must. From the text it appears that she had no time to think this over or to run or to seek help. Of course, the possiblity exists that she was honored to be invited before the handsome Hebrew king and happily consented to adultery. But the text does not in even the slightest way support that idea.

Now this is interesting. Before the sexual union, the text calls her by her name, Bathsheba. After the sex, her name changes to "woman" -- "and the woman concieved" -- She tells David, "I am with child." This is a problem. David does not want "the woman" punished for what he has done. If she had seduced him ... if she had some or even equal responsiblity in this pregnancy I don't think that David would try to salvage her life. It seems that David acted out of guilt with his bumbling "get Uriah to sleep with his woman" plan. But Uriah, like many warriors in that period, believed that having sex with women would rob them of strength in battle. Evidently, he never even exchanged words of welcome and "how do you do's" with his wife for fear of breaking his oath of wartime celibacy.

The story makes it clear now that many people who were close to David knew what he did in taking Uriah's wife and having him killed. I wonder if it is the pressure of this guilt that David takes "the wife of Uriah" into his household as his own wife after she laments her husbands death and mourns him. It is interesting that the text mentions her sorrow for her murdered husband ... David "comforts" her over the loss of her infant son ... but, other than the sex that produces Solomon, there appears to be no tenderness, no further personal relationship between Bathsheba and David.  Her behavior toward him is very formal and awkward when she goes before him with the plan Nathan tutored onto her tongue ... the plan that would save her life and the life of her son. It also appears to me that Nathan is playing on David's conscience and bringing up the past by putting Bathsheba before him ... a woman who's life would not be threatened if she were still the wife of a lowly soldier. But as the wife of a dead king, she and her son would be slaughtered. By taking Bathsheba for a night, David has put her life in peril twice. So, Nathan reminds David of that, by placing Bathsheba before David, Nathan resurrects the past so the king can make corrections that are within his power to correct. He does. She thanks him in the appropriate formal fashion. David dies. The queen mother does not seem to need any comforting. The next scene has Bathsheba sitting at the right hand of her son.

I just do not see anything in this story of Bathsheba to implicate her as a willing seductress and adultress. Biblical history acquits her of responsiblity in the relationship.

Two of the articles on GCM mentioned Bathsheba this week. I wonder how many of you put Bathsheba in the category of calculating seductress and willing adultress and how many of you wonder if her sexual relations with David were consensual or manipulated by his power?

To stimulate your thinking on this ... I have done some research in art history on the subject of biblical women and it appears from that from a visual art point of view before the mid 18th century Bathsheba's participation in sin with David went from brute force to emotional abuse and threats, while the more contemporary painters -- though not all -- go for the titillating seduction theory.

This story is an example, I think, of how much influence art can have on our perceptions about rather large biblical themes.

What do you think about Bathsheba and why?

I am not sure that I would put any blame on Bathsheba myself.  I did not live in that time of course, but I would imagine if the king said do something, you did it.  What power did Bathsheba have in that time?  Could she say no to a king?  Could anyone say no to a king, much less a woman in the BC time.  

Second reason I believe the fault to lay on David is the fact that the consequences were always directed at David.  His child through her dies.  He is the one who faces the consequences of his act with her.  

Rape?   I am not sure, but wrong exercise of kingly power, I think yes.

In Him,

Jonesy

Jonesy,

Nathan's ewe lamb parable speaks to me too. Bathsheba is the most silent of the female ancestresses of Christ mentioned in Matthew. We never get into her thoughts, we can only project our own thoughts and words onto her. Even the advice she offers David on his death bed is orchestrated by Nathan just as David orchestrated the unsuccessful seduction of Uriah.

Patricia,

You have really studied this. I stand corrected. It appears that Bathsheba was not a consenting partner. I didn't know for sure if she was or not, but left it open. After reading your arguements I agree with you...that's rare. :-)

Chris