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)
