# The role of Bathsheba in the adultery. And Queen Esther.



## Pergamum (Jul 4, 2015)

Was Bathsheba totally innocent, mostly innocent, a temptress, co-conspirator, or what?

She was bathing outside in view of the palace. Not sure if this was normal without curtains or means of modesty. 

Of course, what was David doing on the roof? Did he just innocently notice, or was he there purposely for a snoop due to knowing her residence? This quote seems to indicate that it was by chance:


> The fact that David is “walking around” (hitpa{el of haœlak, v. 2) and happens to see Bathsheba bathing also implies chance circumstances, not a plot.




The bible also says,


> She came to him, and he slept with her.



Nothing is said of resistance or even hesitancy on her part. I have always assumed she played a guilty part and shared in the sin.

But this quote points out that her house was down-hill from the palace:



> The text indicates that Bathsheba’s
> house was among those dwellings in the valley below the palace (vv. 8–
> 13 repeat five times the necessity of Uriah to “go down” [yaœrad] to his
> house from the palace). The architectural reconstructions of the typical
> ...



It also appears that Bathsheba had no choice but to wash then and there due to ritual obligations:



> The Time of Day (v. 2) and Purpose of Bathing (vv. 2,4). It is
> not merely incidental that the narrator mentions the time of day when
> David sees Bathsheba bathing. It is early evening (the Hebrew narrator
> punctuates this with deliberateness: le∑ {eœœt haœ{ereb, literally “to the time of
> ...




Here are also two articles that challenge the view that Bathsheba was somehow a co-conspirator in this affair. They bring up good points, but seem one-sided: 



> http://juniaproject.com/what-you-need-to-know-bathsheba-in-new-light/



This article also proposes that David possibly raped Bathsheba (a "power-rape" due to his authority.... I am not sure, however, what to think of this new term "power-rape").

And how does this impact how we view the actions of Queen Esther, who was recruited for those very purposes in a beauty-pageant of sorts (she knew what she was getting into, but did not resist or try to hide it seems)... Though it seems that Esther was forcefully recruited and did not volunteer, did she bear any duty to resist or try to get out of it? Or would she have been duty-bound to resist had it not been for Mordechai's counsel?

http://www.atsjats.org/publication_file.php?pub_id=318&

With reference to Bathsheba, most commentators call it adultery and not rape, and most treat Bathsheba as a co-conspirator and possibly a temptress. There is, however, many very current writers trying to say this was a power-rape. 

With reference to Queen Esther, she is hailed as a heroine. She was compelled to marry against her will, doesn't seem to resist, and uses it to save her people.

Why such a negative view of Bathsheba and the positive view of Esther? How different were their actions?


----------



## Pergamum (Jul 4, 2015)

Concerning Esther's actions in the harem, a tradition says this:


> The midrash relates that Esther hid from Ahasuerus’s agents who sought women for the king. She succeeded in remaining concealed for four years, but was eventually found and brought to the royal palace. Unlike the other women, who wanted to be chosen, Esther tried to evade the king, but she was the one picked to be queen. This shows that her selection was part of the divine plan; Esther was meant to rule in order to bring deliverance to all Israel (Seder Olam Rabbah 29; Midrash Panim Aherim, version B, para. 20).


----------



## Pergamum (Jul 4, 2015)

> The Narrator’s Explicit Indictment of David, not Bathsheba
> (v. 27).
> 
> In this same verse is a crucial statement of culpability: “The
> ...



From the linked article, which makes a good case for Bathsheba being the victim of rape.


----------



## OPC'n (Jul 4, 2015)

Matthew 1, while going through Christ's genealogy, lists the names of women who we know to be of God's children while leaving out Bathsheba's name and only stating, "And David was the father of Solomon by the wife of Uriah", as though to identify her through her husband while not speaking her name. 

If she were completely innocent (being raped), then why would God refuse to speak her name in Christ's genealogy while freely speaking other women's names in His genealogy? And if she were not raped, then she slept with him of her own will. She might not have set out to tempt him with her bathing (most likely she didn't since it's not mentioned she had this plan), but she did not refuse him either.


----------



## Miss Marple (Jul 4, 2015)

I am leery of accusing women in those sort of civilizations of complicity when basically ordered to have sex with the man in charge.

They were, I think, conditioned to believe that the king was to be obeyed without question and to disobey was to refuse God's will itself; to refuse the Lord's anointed.

To resist would have meant death in my opinion. Now perhaps we'll say that we are required to choose death over adultery or fornication. I am not so sure.

They may have been in error, but I doubt they were sinning. Similar to a child who does something wrong on a scary, intimidating order from their father. It is a sin but I think the sin is dad's.

Similarly I think the sin is the king's in the cases of Bathsheba and Esther.

Esther pleased the king. Implied there is effort, not a stoic resistance to fornication or adultery. Plus she went through great efforts to make herself alluring, for what a year? before she got called in. Yet she is held up as a genuine heroine. Not condemned.

Perhaps she is a heroine IN SPITE of her sin. Also what about Mordecai? He seems to be in the role of, like, procurer (there are worse words for that).

I don't mean to impugn him, or Esther. I find the whole question very puzzling.


----------



## Pergamum (Jul 4, 2015)

Or....Matthew chooses to highlight David's sin in this matter by pointing out that he took the wife of Uriah by his authority and force.

Was Bathsheba morally obligated to resist David and, if so, how much? By verbal rebuke, by physical resistance? I would also think that passivity on her part would be sin. But the narrative seems to treat him as guilty without mentioning her as guilty. 



> David “takes her” and he “lies with her.” The word laœqahΩ [“take”] in this context (of sending royal messengers) should probably be
> understood in the sense of “fetch” (NJB) or “summon” and clearly implies psychological power pressure on the part of David and not voluntary collusion on the part of Bathsheba.
> 
> According to the text, David sends “messengers” (plural), but the verb laœqahΩ [“take”] has a singular
> ...



I admit that I am shocked to hear King David referred to as a "rapist" and this is hard to accept. Also, if a young maiden drove a tent peg through the temple of a king in the OT and was praised for it, Bathsheba's passivity doesn't seem very praiseworthy or honoring to Uriah that she is not said to have uttered so much as a peep.


----------



## Pergamum (Jul 4, 2015)

Reading the news, I am also reminded of the Nigerian school-girls and the Yazidi women captured by ISIS. Being scared and intimidated, I am sure many merely accept their fate silently.


----------



## Miss Marple (Jul 4, 2015)

I'd assume that most of us would not accuse any minor girls of sin in fornication or adultery. I see no scriptural warrant for charging a child for adultery or fornication. There are not at an age of accountability, truly able to consent and are certainly not but victims - in re: Nigerian schoolgirls.

The question of how much Bathsheba and/or Esther should have resisted is one that has long concerned me, though. Esther particularly since she is extolled as a heroine, etc.


----------



## bookslover (Jul 17, 2015)

Bathsheba was married to Uriah the Hittite. So, she was guilty of adultery.


----------



## Unoriginalname (Jul 17, 2015)

Miss Marple said:


> I'd assume that most of us would not accuse any minor girls of sin in fornication or adultery. I see no scriptural warrant for charging a child for adultery or fornication. There are not at an age of accountability, truly able to consent and are certainly not but victims - in re: Nigerian schoolgirls.
> 
> The question of how much Bathsheba and/or Esther should have resisted is one that has long concerned me, though. Esther particularly since she is extolled as a heroine, etc.



While not living in a monarchy, I imagine any idea of consent is not present when the king demands you lay with him. We don't get any details as to how David convinced Bathsheba to lay with him and the text primarily is concerned with David's sin. Whatever role Bathseba had in the affair is treated as relatively minor compared to David's sin in the text, as the death of their sin is said to be judgment against David and not both of them.


----------



## Pergamum (Jul 17, 2015)

bookslover said:


> Bathsheba was married to Uriah the Hittite. So, she was guilty of adultery.



Not if she was raped. 

It would seem she would be expected to resist; but I am not sure what such resistance would look like in a day of monarchs who were also war leaders.


----------



## Romans922 (Jul 17, 2015)

Pergamum said:


> Not if she was raped



There is no way to confirm or deny this. The whole question is moot since the Scripture does not say. So that is not to be our focus or care.

Was she a sinner? Yes. 
Did she break the 7th commandment? Yes all the time. 
Did she break it in this particular case with David in thought/word/deed? Unknown and not to be speculated about for Scripture doesn't speak to the issue.


----------



## Pergamum (Jul 17, 2015)

I disagree. 

There is not "no way" we can know. The question is not "moot" since the Scripture devotes considerable space to this event and since similar actions occur every day in our world. It is also not warranted to say that Bathsheba broke the 7th commandment "all the time." The text seems to treat her as comparatively innocent when compared to David's sin. 

It seems there may be clues by which we can reach some probable conclusions (I have linked articles above).


----------



## Miss Marple (Jul 17, 2015)

"as the death of their sin is said to be judgment against David and not both of them. " excellent point, thank you


----------



## Alan D. Strange (Jul 18, 2015)

The narrative in II Samuel does not depict this in any fashion other than David saw what was not his and took it (Uriah's wife). And then, to cover his tracks on her becoming pregnant, he ordered Uriah and others (to cover that he was just aiming for Uriah) to be put in an exposed military position so as to be killed. 

We could walk through the narrative line-by-line and see that the text simply evinces no interest whatsoever in addressing any blameworthiness on the part of Bathsheba. This is not to say that no blame at all attached to her in the counsels of God, but we cannot on the basis of the text affirm that the Bible shows any interest in attaching blame respecting her. The clear interest of the text is to show David's guilt with respect to the two victims of his sexual desire (Bathsheba and her husband, Uriah). I believe that Matthew 1, in the genealogy, says "Uriah's wife" rather than simply Bathsheba to remind us of David's sin: with one reference, we are reminded both that he took the man's wife and had the man killed. The genealogy teaches us how much we need a Savior, manifestly evident in the ancestors of our Lord. 

Notice II Sam. 11:3--"David sent and inquired," and then v.4--"David sent messengers and took her, and she came to him, and he lay with her." Nothing about this suggests anything other than sin on David's part. He "took her...and he lay with her." Here the king has his way with his subjects. The king is supposed to shepherd, care for, and feed the flock; instead, he feeds on it! 

David is rapacious and murderous. The great king of Israel needs a Savior himself! This is why the Lord Jesus Christ came. 

Peace,
Alan


----------



## Ken (Jul 22, 2015)

Interesting that David knew the details of her menstrual cycle:
2 Samuel 11:4: "4 And David sent messengers, and took her; and she came in unto him, and he lay with her; for she was purified from her uncleanness: and she returned unto her house."

The timing didn't workout as planned, she still become pregnant; despite, just going through her menstrual cycle. 

God bless you and keep you,
Ken


----------



## Miss Marple (Jul 22, 2015)

He didn't necessarily know in advance. He could have found out after he sent for her. 

Also, only doing it during a "clean" time was no guard against pregnancy. Normally you are fertile during at least part of your "clean" time - otherwise who could be conceived in Israel?


----------

