David & Bathsheba

 

The Bible account of David and Bathsheba illustrates the importance of abstaining from the appearance of evil and not making provision for the flesh. It is self-delusional and morally dangerous to assume that morally compromising situations are harmless. (II Samuel 11 & 12; Proverbs 28:26; Isaiah 42:19; I Thessalonians 5:22; Romans 13:14; James 1:14-15; I John 1:8-10) The account also demonstrates that sin plants a seed that will keep growing. (Galatians 6:7)

Would merely knowing what is right and deciding not to fornicate have prevented sexual immorality? No. King David already knew God's law. (Deuteronomy 17:18) David had already been compromising standards; for example, he became a polygamist contrary to God's command for kings. (Deuteronomy 17:17) Compromising in ways that seem insignificant often leads to greater compromises. (Luke 16:10)

If David had been leading his troops in battle, he would not have given himself opportunity to fulfill this temptation, and if David had concerned himself with loving his wives he would not have given himself opportunity to be romantically involved with Bathsheba. (II Samuel 11:1-2; Romans 13:14; I Thessalonians 5:22) If the problem was merely a desire for sex David already had several wives, but David was in bed alone and got out of bed in the evening after being in bed all day. As is still customary in parts of the Middle East, it was customary for women to bathe on the rooftop in the evening and it was understood that during that time men should stay on the grounds or indoors; David did not accidentally see a woman bathing. (II Samuel 11:2)

The prophet Nathan was in Jerusalem while this was going on, and David could have called for Nathan instead of calling for Bathsheba and received wise counsel. (Proverbs 12:15; 19:20-21)

Having several wives may have contributed to the problem: How much of an intimate bond with a woman can a man have if he has more than one lover? (Consider Ecclesiastes 7:26-28) In the Bible domestic happiness is always associated with monogamy. (Psalm 128:1-6; Proverbs 5:18-20; Ecclesiastes 9:9; etc.) Polygyny was tolerated in the Old Testament for the sake of women, not men; continual wars and other problems sometimes meant a severe reduction in the male population. (Consider Isaiah 4:1) The Law discouraged polygyny and made it impractical by requiring standards and restrictions that led to the eventual abolition of polygamy; for example, a husband was obliged to provide each wife with sufficient food, proper clothing, and regular sexual relations. (Exodus 21:10; compare Leviticus 15:16, 18) While polygamy was tolerated in the Old Testament, monogamy was the normal standard and God’s original intent; the change was not so much about forbidding something that God once permitted as it was restoring marriage to God’s original intent. (Genesis 2;24; Matthew 19:8-9; Mark 10:2-12; I Corinthians 7:2-4; Ephesians 5:31. It is sometimes argued that Christ permitted polygamy by not directly forbidding polygamy. But by the time Christ walked the Earth polygamy was not practiced in Greek or Roman societies, was abolished among most Jewish peoples, and only existed in a particular subculture of Judaism and was generally confined to the aristocracy. A careful reading of the words of Christ on divorce in Matthew 19:8-9 and Mark 10:2-12 makes restoration of the original standard of monogamy quite clear, as the argument fails if having multiple wives is acceptable.)

Violating the tenth commandment naturally led to violating the seventh commandment. (II Samuel 11:2-4) Why would King David be concerned about hiding his adultery in a world and a time when this was considered a royal privilege? While this may have been acceptable among the heathen nations, adultery was not among the privileges granted the king of Israel. If David's officers learned how David behaved while they were fighting on his behalf there could easily have been a mutiny or an assassination. When Bathsheba gave birth to a child that was obviously illegitimate, she would surely tell Uriah and everyone else who the father was in her defense. These and many other likely scenarios made David determined to keep his adultery hidden.

The account indicates that Uriah knew what happened, but devotion to duty and a rare nobility of character kept him from acting irrationally or being quick to make accusations. David and Bathsheba were not entirely discreet. David sent messengers to bring Bathsheba to him, and after his enquiries the purpose of this visit was obvious. (II Samuel 11:3-4) Bathsheba did not personally tell David that she was pregnant, she used a messenger. (II Samuel 11:5) Obviously the people at the palace knew what happened, and Uriah had friends in the palace who would have informed him. (II Samuel 11:9) Uriah was not a recruit, Uriah was an experienced soldier who knew that king David was already receiving the answers to his questions in regular reports from his officers. (II Samuel 11:7) His devotion to duty as a soldier in the army of Israel during a military campaign would explain why Uriah did not sleep with his wife, but this does not explain why he would not eat a meal with her or even greet her. (II Samuel 11:8-13)

Could David have avoided murdering Uriah? Yes, but after he committed adultery he felt compelled to do whatever was necessary to hide this. Was it possible to avoid the loss of other innocent soldiers in the process? Not after it was decided to make Uriah's death look like a natural consequence of war. (II Samuel 11:15-17)

Did marrying Bathsheba make things right? No, “the thing that David had done displeased the LORD.” (II Samuel 11:27) When adulterers believe that a new marriage is a good replacement for repentance, and that marrying their illicit lover will make things right and absolve them from blame, guilt, and responsibility, they deceive themselves. “He that covereth his sins shall not prosper: but whoso confesseth and forsaketh them shall have mercy.” (Proverbs 28:13)

In Christian circles today we sometimes hear excuses or explanations of how adultery is acceptable or not so bad in this or that situation. But consider this: “These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him: A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief, A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren.” (Proverbs 6:16-19) Think: Which of these things that God hates is not involved in adultery (either directly or indirectly)?

King David did set a good example of genuine repentance. He hated sin, accepted the consequences of sin, and did not regret parting ways with sin; false repentance just hates the consequences of sin. He accepted godly counsel and accountability; resentment of authority and godly counsel, confidence in one’s ability to live right, and blaming others for the problems caused by one’s own sin, often characterise false repentance. (II Samuel 12:13; Psalm 51)

The account also demonstrates the mercy of God. Despite David's wicked behaviour God forgave him when he repented. (II Samuel 12:13) You cannot change the past, but no matter where you have been or what you have done God will forgive you when you repent, and He always wants to forgive more than we want to be forgiven. (Psalm 103:8-14)