David and Bathsheba

Torah Ideals ^ | Rabbi Yonason Goldson

[Former Fetus]

It is a convention of biblical scholarship that scripture sometimes presents seemingly contradictory information that forces us to evaluate the misdeeds of extraordinary people in the context of their times and circumstances. To warn us against superficially interpreting David’s episode with Bathsheba, the Talmud records the oral tradition that, “Anyone who says that David sinned is in error.”1

Even without the Talmud’s admonition, it is impossible to reconcile the simple reading of the text with Torah law. According to Jewish law, an adulteress is forbidden to marry a man with whom she committed adultery, even after divorce or the death of her husband.2 Any descendant from such a union would be a mamzer, i.e., illegitimate, and would thus be disqualified both from reigning as king and from marrying into the general community of permitted Jewish women. Because David remained married to Bathsheba after the incident without reprimand, and because their son, Solomon, was allowed to rule and perpetuate the messianic line, we have no choice but to conclude that David, whatever his sin may have been concerning Bathsheba, did not commit adultery.3

A number of details concerning Bathsheba are not addressed by scripture. Early in his reign, David had decreed that every soldier must give his wife a get, a divorce document, stipulating that if he did not return after the war the woman would be considered divorced retroactively to the giving of the get. David instituted this practice to protect every soldier’s wife from the unfortunate status of agunah, a woman prohibited from marrying because her husband is missing in action but not confirmed to be dead.

Consequently, when Uriah, a soldier in David’s army, did not return home from the war, the get he had given to his wife, Bathsheba, rendered her technically divorced from before the time of David’s first involvement with her.4

Furthermore, Uriah and Bathsheba had never consummated their marriage, indicating some severe dysfunction in their relationship.5 Although this would not by any means justify adultery, it does suggest a motive—other than Uriah’s stated reason of empathy for his fellow soldiers—for Uriah’s refusal to comply with David’s order to return home to his wife.6

When Uriah was called before David, he made reference to his general as “my master, Joab” (2 Samuel 11:11). Although this form of address would have been proper in the presence of his commanding officer, referring to anyone other than the king as master in the presence of the king himself constituted an act of rebellion punishable by death.7 Uriah also disobeyed David’s order to return home to his wife.8 On two separate counts, therefore, Uriah placed himself in the category of mored b’malchus, a rebel against the king. As such, Uriah forfeited his life immediately since the extralegal powers of the monarch include the authority to invoke the death penalty upon rebels without the due process of law.9

Undeniably, the law gave David the right to bring Uriah before the Sanhedrin and demand his execution. Nevertheless, David worried (for good reason) that the people would question the integrity of a king who ordered a man’s death and immediately married his widow, and David sought to avoid the public appearance of conspiracy and impropriety when he married Bathsheba.10 Therefore, rather than demanding Uriah’s execution from the Sanhedrin, David instructed his general, Joab, to arrange Uriah’s death in battle.11

It is clear, therefore, that David was neither an adulterer nor a murderer. Indeed, when the prophet Nathan presented David with the parable of the rich man who stole the poor man’s sheep, he alluded to theft but to neither murder nor adultery.12 Had David been truly guilty of murdering Uriah, what possible explanation could there have been for the prophet to employ a parable that implied theft but not murder?

What was David’s crime? Some say David erred by arranging Uriah’s death himself and circumventing the formal process of indictment and sentencing. Although David had the authority to invoke the death penalty, he should have gone to the Sanhedrin and confirmed that Uriah’s actions constituted an act of rebellion before executing justice.13 According to this, it was David’s desire to avoid the appearance of wrongdoing that, ironically, resulted in his real transgression.

So why does scripture leave David’s innocence so concealed and elusive? Let us recall that the stories recounted in the Bible often magnify the sins of great people so that later generations can appreciate the severity of their transgressions. For a spiritual giant such as David, his indiscretions with Bathsheba and Uriah were indeed comparable to adultery and murder. However, to believe that David actually committed either adultery or murder is to miss both the greatness of David and the real lessons of the biblical record.

Despite his failure, when confronted by the prophet with his sin David immediately accepted responsibility for his actions with the words, “Chotosi LaShem—I have sinned against God” (2 Samuel 12:13). Although innocent of adultery and murder—sins against man—David had nevertheless sinned against G-d when he failed to uphold the divine will by manipulating the intent behind the law.14

For his transgression, David endured the most severe punishments: the death of his first son from Bathsheba, and the rebellions of his sons Absalom and Adonijah. But because of his spontaneous and unqualified repentance, David retained his distinction as founder the messianic line. It was he who prepared Israel for its crowning glory, the building of the Temple.

Moreover, David becomes an eternal symbol of the power of repentance. Through sincere repentance, David demonstrates for all future generations that anyone, no matter how grave his sins, can find redemption if he truly regrets his misdeeds and commits himself with all his heart and all his soul to correct them.15

1. Babylonian Talmud, Shabbos 56a

2. Ibid., Sotah 25a

3. Malbim on 2 Samuel 11

4. B.T., Kesuvos 9b

5. Zohar 1:8b

6. See note 43 below.

7. B.T., Shabbos 56a

8. 2 Samuel 11:7ff; see Malbim ad loc.

9. Maimonides, Laws of Kings 3:8–10

10. Malbim on 2 Samuel 11:15

11. 2 Samuel 11:14ff

12. 2 Samuel 12

13. B.T., Shabbos 56a and Tosfos there, divrei hamaschil: Sh’hayoh lecha lidono b’sanhedrin

14. Zohar 2:107a

15. Sifri, Va’eschanan 1

Excerpted from Dawn to Destiny: Exploring Jewish History and its Hidden Wisdom by Rabbi Yonason Goldson.

[Former Fetus]

A very INTRIGUING study of David's sin with Bathsheba. Not quite the story you learned in Sunday school! I'm not necessarily agreeing (or disagreeing) with it, but I can not in good conscience ignore 3000 years of Jewish scholarship!

[Sister_T]

This is very intriguing! Thank you. This is something to think about and study.

[Tennessee Nana]

BookMark

[Netizen]

This is the part that bugs me.

For his transgression, David endured the most severe punishments: the death of his first son from Bathsheba,

Surely there must have been a better way to punish David than killing an innocent baby. jmo

[lurk]

[the Talmud records the oral tradition that, “Anyone who says that David sinned is in error.”1]

Then David was in error. Nathan confronted him for his adultery, lies, cover up and murder. David said, I have sinned against the LORD.

Rabbis have a reflex when reading scripture. It’s the “That’s not really what it was supposed to say” reflex. Arrogance.

[chesley]

but I can not in good conscience ignore 3000 years of Jewish scholarship!

I can. This is the kind of rationalization that "scholars" have been using for hundreds of years to avoid truths that they find unpleasant.

Obviously, Nathan used the metaphor of theft for the adultery so that David would condemn himself out of his own mouth. Which he did.

From 2 Samuel 12:

7 Then Nathan said to David, “You are the man! This is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says: ‘I anointed you king over Israel, and I delivered you from the hand of Saul.

8 I gave your master’s house to you, and your master’s wives into your arms. I gave you all Israel and Judah. And if all this had been too little, I would have given you even more.

9 Why did you despise the word of the LORD by doing what is evil in his eyes? You struck down Uriah the Hittite with the sword and took his wife to be your own.

Obviously, God thought that Bathsheba was Uriah's wife, hence what David did WAS adultery. The Bible tells its stories of God's men giving their warts and all.

And of course David sinned. Or God would not have punished him with the loss of his child, as a declared judgment. All have sinned.

As a further statement, Jewish tradiotion does not have the force of the autority of God's inspired written Word. A least not in my book.

[Buggman]

It's more like the, "Let's actually look at ALL the data before coming to a conclusion" reflex. Something I wish more Christians would develop.

Yes, often the rabbis will go out of their way to exonerate the Patriarchs, prophets, or kings of Israel of the full impact of their sins. Christians do the same thing with their heroes; look at how far some will stretch to exonerate Martin Luther of his patent anti-semitism, John Calvin of using the Geneva judiciary to set a theological opponent on fire, etc.

The fact is that David committed not one, but TWO capital crimes under the Torah if we take the simplest reading of the text. The Torah also does not allow the murderer or the adulterer to atone by way of repentence and sacrifice; his life is forfeit, plain and simple. Therefore, to look deeper to understand just why this penalty wasn't applied to David is not only warrented, but necessary.

I think the article goes to far in trying to get David off the hook, but it does make a kind of sense that David would have worked out the kind of legal justification in his own mind that is described above. And since Hashem is well-understood to issue punishments that fit the crime--the principle is called "measure for measure"--it also makes sense that Hashem would, in effect, say, "Oh, you want to play legal games? Then I will a) send you Nathan to point out how grevious your sin would be even if it were just theft, and b) while I will keep My promises to you that your line will never end, the sword shall never depart from your house and you too will know what it is to lose a loved one to a King's judgment."

If you would cut out the reflex rabbi-bashing, you might learn a thing or two.

Shalom

[JSDude1]

Sorry, but King David was a sinner (and he even admits it), that is why he relied upon God (and His promise of a Savior) in the future.

J.S.

[JSDude1]

Silly argument that states that David did not commit adultery (or at least lust for another man’s wife-which accourding to Jesus is the same as adultery). God Did punish David by killing the first born out of this relationship, even sending the prophet Nathan to warn/condemn his sin so that he would repent!

Lesson: God uses even sinners for His plan.

[M1903A1]

Interesting reading/SFL ping

[Former Fetus]

EVERYBODY, SLOW DOWN!!!!

The article NEVER said that David did not sin. The point that Rabbi Goldson was making was that maybe David's big sin was not adultery, at least not "technically". But he did sin, and we all know how Jesus expanded the definition of adultery. However, I still think it is an interesting article, it gives some important information on Jewish law, and VERY IMPORTANT it supports the statement I once heard J. Vernon McGee make that "in his opinion, David's greatest sin was not adultery".

[Verginius Rufus]

Uriah did not go home and spend the night with his wife (which would have allowed David to "get away with it" because he would think that David's child was his) because he was a soldier in the midst of a campaign, and men were required to abstain from sex during a campaign, or so I read somewhere.

David is punished not only by the death of Bathsheba's child, but by a series of events which follows--Amnon's rape of Tamar, Absalom's murder of Amnon, Absalom's rebellion, Joab's slaying of Absalom.

[GourmetDan]

"Surely there must have been a better way to punish David than killing an innocent baby. jmo"

When a man commits adultery, he takes the spiritual position of Satan coming between a husband (God) and his wife (Israel). The godly offspring of God and Israel is Jesus Christ. The anti-Christ will be the offspring of adultery, i.e., Satan and Israel. This is also true of the spiritual relationship between Jesus Christ and the Church. Satan takes the position of an adulterer in trying to alienate the affections of the Church for her Lord.

The child had to die because he represented the anti-Christ in a spiritual sense and the anti-Christ will never be king over Israel. Notice that the child died on the 'seventh day', representing the death of the anti-Christ at the end of the Tribulation Period. Only the godly offspring of God and Israel (Jesus Christ) will be King over Israel.

That is the picture being portrayed in this event and that is why the child had to die.

[GourmetDan]

"Even without the Talmud’s admonition, it is impossible to reconcile the simple reading of the text with Torah law. According to Jewish law, an adulteress is forbidden to marry a man with whom she committed adultery, even after divorce or the death of her husband. Any descendant from such a union would be a mamzer, i.e., illegitimate, and would thus be disqualified both from reigning as king and from marrying into the general community of permitted Jewish women."

Anybody know where this is coming from?

I'm not sure this is in Torah.

At least not directly.

[Buggman]

The article gives the references. The one in question is the Babylonian Talmud, Sotah 25a:

Said R. Judah of Disqarta, “No, it is to prohibit the woman to marry her lover as she is prohibited to remain wed to her husband. For we have learned in the Mishnah: Just as she is forbidden to her husband, so she is forbidden to her lover.”

A better proof comes from Mishnah Yevamot 2:8:

He who is suspected [of having intercourse] with a married woman, and they [the court] dissolved the marriage with her husband, even though he [the suspect] married [the woman], he must put her out.

Both Sotah and the above passage from Yevamot are commenting on the ceremony of the bitter waters described in Num. 5:11-31. The text describes in detail what to do if the woman goes through with the ceremony, but what do you do if she refuses to finish it? The rabbis understood that to be a de-facto admission of guilt. Such a self-confession is inadmissable in a Jewish court for the purposes of invoking the death penalty (Judaism's version of the 5th Amendment--no one can be convicted solely out of their own mouth), so what is to be done with the woman?

Num. 5:14 specifically states that a woman who commits adultery "defiles herself" (nit'ma'ah), lit. "makes herself ritually unclean." The rabbis interpret this to mean that she is in the same state of ritual impurity as she is when niddah (having her period; see Lev. 15:19-24)--which only makes sense, since why should someone who committed adultery be less unclean than a woman who was simply having her period? Therefore, from the time a husband made an official statement of jealous suspicion to the time the woman was cleared by fulfilling the bitter water ceremony, she was forbidden to him just as if she were unclean from her period. Therefore, if she refused to complete the ceremony, she would become permanently forbidden to her husband as unclean and they would have to divorce.

And if a woman were forbidden to her husband by adultery, how much more should she be forbidden to her lover?

So yes, the principle that David would have been forbidden to marry Bathsheba following an outright act of adultery is definitely Biblical, though the Torah doesn't come out and state it. It is a perfectly valid derived law.

Having said that, I could see the case made that the husband is not required to divorce his wife in all cases, since Scripture is clear that Hashem did not divorce His adulterous wife, Israel. However, forbidding the wife to the adulterer, as Hashem continued to forbid Israel to the pagan gods, would still stand.

Shalom

[GourmetDan]

"So yes, the principle that David would have been forbidden to marry Bathsheba following an outright act of adultery is definitely Biblical, though the Torah doesn't come out and state it. It is a perfectly valid derived law."

Yeah, that's why I said, "I'm not sure this is in Torah. At least not directly."

The article said, "...it is impossible to reconcile the simple reading of the text with Torah law. According to Jewish law, an adulteress is forbidden to marry a man with whom she committed adultery, even after divorce or the death of her husband."

This implied that they were referring to Torah and I did not remember such a 'simple reading' in Torah. It's not there.

[Buggman]

It's there, just not spelled out for those who aren't willing to engage the text. One cannot find "Trinity" or "One God in Three Persons" anywhere in Scripture either, but as a Christian you would argue that those are doctrines that you can derive from the text, would you not?

Give the rabbis some credit, seeing that they've spent a lot more time with the original Hebrew text of the Torah than you. There are times when one may come to a different conclusion after careful study (as I've got a slightly different view of what's going on in the above passage), but it's arrogant to just dismiss them out of hand based on a superficial reading of a mere translation of the Scriptures.

Shalom

[GourmetDan]

"It's there, just not spelled out for those who aren't willing to engage the text. One cannot find "Trinity" or "One God in Three Persons" anywhere in Scripture either..."

Yeah, well the other thing that rabbis can be counted on is to find a way around any 'simple reading' of Torah. It's like saying that the Trinity is based on a 'simple reading' of the text. You are equivocating.

"...but it's arrogant to just dismiss them out of hand based on a superficial reading of a mere translation of the Scriptures.

Ah yes, the 'arrogance' charge. Right on time. I never dismissed them out of hand. That's your inference and one you certainly seem insistent on applying to me.

You misspelled riyb.

[Buggman]

And Christians can be counted on to come to vast conclusions from half-vast data.

I never dismissed them out of hand.

You most certainly did. You started out with the conclusion that the rabbis habitually twist Scripture--a conclusion that you've repeated in your latest post. And to assume that those who study the Torah daily in the original Hebrew as a living part of their lives must be the ones twisting Scripture if they come to a conclusion different than someone who considers it "fulfilled" (and therefore doesn't care about the details) and reads it only in a translation can be called nothing else but arrogant.

I'm not calling it arrogant because you disagree. If you had disagreed with my explanation of the rabbis' conclusions regarding whether an adulterous couple may marry on some point of fact or interpretation, I wouldn't be making that charge. Nor would I if you had laid out a specific reason why that conclusion shouldn't apply to David and Bathsheba, or why Solomon wouldn't be disqualified as a mamzer (one of illegitimate birth) anyway. Doing either would show that you are thinking the problem through and engaging the rabbis' alternate interpretation rather than dismissing it out of casual prejudice.

But you haven't, and you won't, so I am going to cease casting pearls before swine and move on from this thread.

Shalom

[GourmetDan]

"And Christians can be counted on to come to vast conclusions from half-vast data."

It's pretty easy to see where this all started and all I said was, "I'm not sure this is in Torah. At least not directly."

How you jumped from what I posted to "...Christians can be counted on to come to vast conclusions from half-vast data." is a lesson in misrepresenting others to support your own position.

"You most certainly did. You started out with the conclusion that the rabbis habitually twist Scripture..."

Again with the misrepresentation. I obviously started from "I'm not sure this is in Torah. At least not directly." That's the 'simple reading' of what I posted. If modern rabbis had a good command of Scripture they would recognize the Person and Work of Yashua Hamashiach in it according to the Lord's own words. (John 5:39) If you want to argue that 'except for that glaring omission they're quite good', go right ahead. It's farcical on it's face.

"I'm not calling it arrogant because you disagree."

I don't care whether you can justify your charge or arrogance or not. Obviously you will assign motives and justify your charge of arrogance no matter what. That is the point.

"But you haven't, and you won't, so I am going to cease casting pearls before swine and move on from this thread."

Let's see... equivocation, charges of arrogance, assignment of motive and now name-calling. I'd say you've presented a very unconvincing 'defense'. Apparently the priests of Solomon's time didn't come to the same conclusion as modern rabbi's. Might be the whole Talmud/Babylon thing on display here since most of the 'support' is Talmudic.

"Shalom"

You misspelled riyb again.