Bathsheba (2 Samuel 11; 12; 1 Kings 1) – Part 5

2 Samuel 11:1: “At the time when kings go off to war,” David stayed at home, and sent someone else. [“Here am I, Lord; send Joab!”]

David had business to take care of, but instead of doing that he lounged around the palace, bored and susceptible to temptation.

While Joab and his army were busy besieging and capturing Rabbah, the fortress of the king of Ammon, David’s own “fortress” was being besieged and captured, in a matter of minutes, by a woman! “Better a man who controls his own spirit than one who captures a city” (Prov 16:32).

The woman in the case

Bathsheba was the granddaughter of Ahithophel, David’s close and trusted coun­selor, and the (much younger: 2Sa 12:1-3?) wife of Uriah the Hittite, one of David’s mighty warriors (2Sa 23:34,39). Although a Gentile, Uriah (signifying “the light of Yahweh”) was evidently a devout convert to the hope of Israel (cp. 11:11).

Question: How “innocent” is Bathsheba?

Was she deliberately exposing herself in the courtyard of her house, in order to seduce the king? Or was David “spying” (in a quite improper way) upon an in­nocent event?

If it were the former, then David could have sent a warning to Bathsheba of the dangers of such an activity. Instead, he sent to “find out about her” (v 3).

• The servant asks, “Isn’t this Bathsheba, the daughter of Eliam and the wife of Uriah the Hittite?” as if to say, ‘Don’t you know she’s a married woman? You should leave her alone.’
• Probably David hoped to learn that she was unmarried. But the knowledge that she was married did not stop him. Even the punishment for the sin of adultery was put out of his mind; he had to have her!

“She came to him.” She must have known what his invitation meant. Couldn’t she have refused? Even if she didn’t understand his intention until she got to his private chambers, couldn’t she have resisted, and protested most strenuously?

*****

An interesting comparison: consider how the righteous woman Abigail turned aside the temper and the anger of David by kind, carefully-chosen words when he contem­plated, not adultery that time, but murder? The account is in 1 Samuel 25:21-35. Knowing that David was coming with his soldiers to kill Nabal, Abigail got together food and, with her servants, went to meet David. Bowing down before him, and presenting him with the food, she reminded him of his God and his anointing, and of the type of man, righteous and kind, that he was known to be:

“Please forgive your servant’s offense, for the LORD will certainly make a lasting dynasty for my master, because he fights the LORD’s battles. Let no wrongdoing be found in you as long as you live. Even though someone is pursuing you to take your life, the life of my master will be bound securely in the bundle of the living by the LORD your God. But the lives of your enemies he will hurl away as from the pocket of a sling. When the LORD has done for my master every good thing he promised concerning him and has appointed him leader over Israel, my master will not have on his con­science the staggering burden of needless bloodshed or of having avenged himself. And when the LORD has brought my master success, remember your servant” (1Sa 25:28-31).

And David gratefully said to Abigail, “Praise be to the LORD, the God of Israel, who has sent you today to meet me. May you be blessed for your good judgment and for keeping me from bloodshed this day and from avenging myself with my own hands” (vv 32,33).

In all of this, Abigail could have been a model for Bathsheba.

David was an honorable and honest and good man: his faults were rooted in an emotional, impulsive nature. Bathsheba could have made an appeal to his well-known and beloved character: ‘You are a man after God’s own heart. Surely you must realize how wrong this is. Think about what you are doing.’ Such an appeal would surely have turned him aside (as it had when Abigail made it in the earlier case) from a terrible sin undertaken in the impulse of emotion. If Bathsheba had made such an appeal successfully, then afterward she would have won the same gratitude as David showed toward Abigail on that earlier occasion.

*****

On the other hand, Bathsheba is characterized by the prophet Nathan, in his parable, as a “little ewe lamb” (2Sa 12:3). The “lamb” did not, after all, “cook” and “eat” the rich man, but the other way around! So, while there seems to be blame on both sides, where is most of the blame? On David’s side? But by what proportion? In the last analysis, does it really matter exactly how much guilt is assessed here, and how much there? We should be grateful that we don’t have to judge.

“A man who commits adultery lacks judgment; whoever does so destroys himself. Blows and disgrace are his lot [and many were to come upon David], and his shame will never be wiped away” (Prov 6:32,33b).

*****

Question: Did the sight of the woman cause David to sin? Such an assessment is easy to make (‘He/she made me do it!’ ‘I just can’t control myself. There’s some­thing about him when he comes into the room…’)

Such excuses are not much different, really, from the silly parody that points out the false doctrine: “The devil made me do it.” But of course he didn’t. We cause ourselves to sin.

Did the woman cause David to sin? No. The right answer is found in James 1:14,15: “Every man is tempted when, by his own evil desire, he is dragged away and enticed. Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death.”

Although it may suggest the idea, no external temptation or outside stimulus can really cause a man to commit sin. His own lust is the true cause.

2 Samuel 11:4: Then “she went back home.” Now everything would be forgotten, except…

V 5: … “I am pregnant.” Such complications! Was this simple chance, or was it by God’s design? As Moses told the children of Israel on one occasion: “You may be sure that your sin will find you out!” (Num 32:23). Fig leaves couldn’t hide the sin of our first parents, and no “fig leaves” of our own contriving can truly hide our sins either. It is so foolish to try.

Vv 6-8: Now (for those familiar with modern politics) there follows a cover-up of the first magnitude. Quite often, as we have seen, the cover-up is worse than the original crime. The sin must be concealed, even (as it turns out) at the expense of even more heinous sins. This is the first step down the slippery slope. What a tangled web we weave…

V 9: But Uriah (hearing the palace gossip? and what was the point of his being called back on such short notice anyway?) does not go home.

Vv 10,11: When David was told, “Uriah did not go home,” he asked him, “Haven’t you just come from a distance? Why didn’t you go home?” Uriah said to David, “The ark and Israel and Judah are staying in tents, and my master Joab and my lord’s men are camped in the open fields. How could I go to my house to eat and drink and lie with my wife? As surely as you live, I will not do such a thing!”

What a reproof and a reproach it was to a man like David. But his guilt tied his tongue from responding.

Vv 12,13: Then David said to him, “Stay here one more day, and tomorrow I will send you back.” So Uriah remained in Jerusalem that day and the next. At David’s invitation, he ate and drank with him, and David made him drunk. In the evening Uriah went out to sleep on his mat among his master’s servants; he did not go home.

A second attempt to cover up also proves futile. Was it because Uriah made sure it didn’t work? Did he know?

Vv 14,15: In the morning David wrote a letter to Joab and sent it with Uriah. In it he wrote, “Put Uriah in the front line where the fighting is fiercest. Then withdraw from him so he will be struck down and die.”

David takes the last and ugliest step down into the swamp of sin. The ill-considered but momentary sin of passion leads inexorably into the cold-blooded, calculating sin of murder. Now even more people (and especially Joab) will know of David’s scheme. How many times will David pay for this in years to come? (Did Joab keep the letter for purposes of blackmail?)

Vv 16-25: The risky plan actually “works” (if that’s the right term), but at what a price! Other innocent men die as well (v 24).

Vv 26,27: “When Uriah’s wife heard that her husband was dead, she mourned for him. After the time of mourning was over, David had her brought to his house, and she became his wife, bearing him a son, but the thing David had done dis­pleased the LORD.”

The mourning for Uriah could have lasted as little as seven days (cp. 1Sa 31:13; John 11:17,31). Then would come the hasty marriage of David and Bathsheba. (Very hasty it was, but not quick enough, of course. People can always count, and servants can talk. By now, many people would know, or strongly suspect, what had actually happened.)

*****

Now for Bathsheba, and the other side of the ledger:

Like Tamar, Rahab, and Ruth (but with decidedly different motives on her part), Bathsheba is now initiated into the royal line of Judah. Why her, and not some “more righteous” wife of David, like Abigail, for example?

Bathsheba plays a part in both Matthew’s genealogy, through Solomon, and in Luke’s, through Nathan, another son of hers (1Ch 3:5). She is thus the mother of both the sons of David found in the genealogies of the Lord.

The first three women in Matthew 1 were treated by many as outcasts, “sinners”, but they were justified by their extraordinary faith. Her situation is somewhat different, and her sin serious and beyond question, but may not Bathsheba have been justified also, by a great faith?

*****

Some considerable time passes, not just a few months, but more than several years. How do we know? Right after the “child” in question (i.e., the first child, the one conceived in the adultery) dies (a punishment to David and Bathsheba), God gives them another son, Solomon (2Sa 12:24,25). But we know also (from 1Ch 3:5, so it would seem), that Solomon is not the second son born to David and Bathsheba, but the fourth. [As for the “seventh day” of 2Sa 12:18, on which the child died, this will be dealt with in just a moment.]

This “small” point helps us to see that the grief, illness, and other consequences of his hidden sin (described by David in some of his psalms: 6, 32, 38, and 51) were not short-lived. They lasted as much as several years, and took a terrible toll on him. The ensuing repentance, outlined in 2 Samuel 12 (and described by David in Psa 32), was not a simple and easy fix! Reading this Bible narrative quickly, as we sometimes do, may convey the first impression that everything happened much quicker and easier than it really did.

Perhaps several years later, we come to…

2 Samuel 12:1-4: Like some of Christ’s parables, Nathan’s parable was a suitable way of conveying unpleasant truths to closed ears, and unwilling minds. By his parable Nathan used subtlety to ‘take the barricades’, that is, to breach the mental defenses men build up carefully around themselves, to shield themselves from contemplat­ing the consequences of their sins. Even David built up such defenses.

An interesting side-note: Archeologists have shown how David and Joab must have used the hidden, secret passageway from the Gihon Spring up into the city, to capture Jebus or Jerusalem (2Sa 5:6-8). In the same way the parable of Nathan, like a “thief in the night”, sneaks into the heart unexpectedly and accomplishes its purpose.

V 4: “Now a traveler came to the rich man, but the rich man refrained from taking one of his own sheep or cattle to prepare a meal for the traveler who had come to him. Instead, he took the ewe lamb that belonged to the poor man and prepared it for the one who had come to him.”

The phrase “a traveler” suggests that such lust was not the constant companion of David. It was just a passing thought, that should have been sent packing im­mediately, but instead was allowed to hang around.

Vv 5,6: David burned with anger against the man and said to Nathan, “As surely as the LORD lives, the man who did this deserves to die! He must pay for that lamb four times over, because he did such a thing and had no pity.”

Here is the wrong way to listen to the word of exhortation: i.e., with an eye as to how it applies to someone else. David’s first emotional reaction (he is often emotional) is to cry out, “Kill him!” (Similarly, Judah had immediately sought the death of his daughter-in-law Tamar, having forgotten entirely any sin of his own.) But David’s first reaction is followed, quickly, by the more measured “Restore fourfold”, which is what the Law required for this specific offence (Exod 22:1).

V 7: Now Nathan springs the trap: “You are the man!” And there comes to David the sudden, lightning-bolt realization: “I am the man!” Such a paradigm shift, or attitude adjustment, must come to each of us from time to time when reading the Bible, when it suddenly dawns upon us that a lesson hidden to our eyes and hearts for perhaps years, has been brought home with powerful effect: “It IS I!”

I ought to say, “If that never happens to you, then my guess is you’re not really paying attention. Why bother reading, in the first place, if the warnings, parables, and examples of the Bible never have anything to say to you? And so one of the most important questions we can ask ourselves as we read the Bible is, “Lord, is it I?” And sometimes, the answer we each “hear” is, “Yes, you are the man”, or “the woman”! We can count on it.

Vv 7b-9: ‘I made you king over all Israel. Knowing your weakness for women, I gave you many wives. It was not enough! Now the enemies of the LORD gloat over this vile sin, blaspheming the name of the God you pretend to serve.’ Nathan was a prophet,and his prophecy is still true today. (In what other nation could a religious man speak thus to a king?)

V 13a: David’s nobility and honesty of character reassert themselves. “I have sinned.” Now he makes no excuses, and no pathetic pleas for mercy. There is just a plain humble admission of the awful truth.

A remarkable thing happened as soon as the words left his lips.

V 13b: “The LORD has taken away your sin!” Although possible years had passed in the darkness of unrepented sin, and illness and worry and fear had followed David, it is just as simple as that! There IS mercy with the Most High!

Nevertheless there are limits to what God’s mercy can do.

V 14: “The child will die”: Which child? The child of the adulterous union, now probably several years old. (Remember: some considerable time has passed, as we discussed earlier. This means the “seventh day” of verse 18 is not the seventh day of the baby’s life, but probably the seventh day since the parable and the pronouncement of Nathan.)

Lesson: Sins may be forgiven, and still have terrible and far-reaching consequences. This was only the beginning: “The sword will never depart from your house!” (v 10): David would pay fourfold (cp. v 6):

1. Bathsheba’s son…
   But even the death of Bathsheba’s child would not truly close this chapter of David’s life. Next there would also be:
2. Amnon,
3. Absalom, and
4. Adonijah

These last three would die (victims of lust and greed and hunger for power), in part because of the subsequent events David’s adultery, like a pebble tossed in a still pond, set in motion.

As we think back on the genealogy and the lessons of Matthew 1, we remember 2 Samuel 12:10 again: “The sword will never depart from your house”: It would reach all the way to Golgotha. See the words of the prophet Simeon to Mary and Joseph in the Temple: Luke 2:28-35 (v 35 esp: “A sword shall pierce your own soul also”).

The “scarlet thread” of sin and suffering (and the consequent need for a true sacrifice for sins) would stretch down the ages, from mother to child, and mother to child again, generation after generation. It would continue until it reached the cross, and there it would all be wrapped up and done away with.

We think once again of Matthew 1:21: “He shall save his people from their sins.” Jesus would take upon himself the burden of the sins of others, even those of his own family.

*****

V 24: Theirs had been a particularly terrible sin (and sins, plural). But once it was forgiven, the book of account on David and Bathsheba (at least for this incident) could be closed, and blessings could come, such as the perpetuation of the royal line of the Messiah through two adulterers. For God chose one of Bathsheba’s sons to sit on His throne, and to build His temple. Even more extraordinary, another of her descendants will sit on God’s throne forever, and build His eternal temple.

*****

Now notice a special comparison, among all four of the women of Matthew 1:

1. Tamar had two husbands. Both died, and she was still childless. Instead, a prince of the tribe (Judah himself) raised up a godly seed to continue what would become the royal line of Judah.
2. Rahab had had many “husbands”, fornicators and idolaters, but no child. Again, a prince of Judah (Salmon) married her and raised up a godly seed in the royal line of Judah.
3. Ruth had a first husband who died, leaving her no children. Once more, a prince of Judah (Boaz) married her and raised up a godly seed to continue the line of Judah.
4. Now Bathsheba, married to Uriah but childless, marries David the king of Israel, and even after their adultery becomes the mother of the next king, and a progenitor of the royal line of Judah.

So those who seem to have been barren women are all given seed, after their first “husbands” die, by a prince of Judah!

The final chapter in Bathsheba’s history: 1 Kings 1

Here we reflect on the later character of Bathsheba. At a time of crisis for the throne of Israel, she showed great faith in the promise of God to her son Solomon. When David was on his deathbed, and the succession was uncertain, it was Bathsheba who went to the aged king:

“My lord, you yourself swore to me your servant by the LORD your God: ‘Solomon your son shall be king after me, and he will sit on my throne’ ” (v 17).

Then, vv 29-31: “May my lord King David live forever!” What a marvelous hope is bound up in this wish! “Because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions — it is by grace you have been saved” (Eph 2:4,5).

Despite her past sins, Bathsheba (her name signifies “daughter of the oath, or the covenant”) proved to be a woman of faith. Her faith in her coming descendant, the promised Messiah, was shown by her deeds in seeking David’s rightful selection of Solomon for the throne. This secured her rightful place in the lineage of the Son of God: As Peter preached to the Jews, “God had promised [David] on oath that he would place one of his descendants on his throne” (Acts 2:30).

Bathsheba made sure that the right son of David would be chosen.

Finally, Proverbs 31. There is a tradition that King “Lemuel” (signifying “belong­ing to God”) is simply another name for Solomon, and therefore that the “king’s mother” in that verse is Bathsheba. If this is so, then consider the weight of her words in Proverbs 31:1-5, especially:

• “Son of my vows”, i.e., the promised son, dedicated to God. As if to say, ‘Since you have forgiven my sin, I dedicate my son, this Solomon, to you.’
• “Do not spend your strength on women”: Bathsheba’s motherly counsel was born out of her own bitter experiences. (Sadly, it appears Solomon did not heed her warnings.)

*****

Nevertheless, the “scarlet thread” of hope, binding together generation after generation of the tribe of Judah, is sufficient protection even for an adulteress (just as it was for a harlot).

The rest of us, conscious of our own sins (even if less spectacular), and disregard­ing any (presumed) “righteous works” (could such works make up for our sins?), may say, “Thank God it is so.”

The one who saves “his people” from their sins will save us from our sins because we, you and I, are “his people” too!