There are some Christians out there who believe that neither exegesis nor hermeneutics are important when dealing with Scripture. They believe that one should read it and allow the Holy Spirit to interpret it for you. Sadly, this attitude can lead one to grossly misinterpret the Bible. Now, I have no idea whether or not the author of the blog post: The Sin of Bathsheba believes in exegesis, but it seems clear that she failed to use it when writing her piece. The author, understanding the importance of biblical modesty, interprets Bathsheba’s bathing on her rooftop to be a sin that we can learn from, a minor sin, but a sin nonetheless. She believes that Bathsheba has committed a sin of immodesty.
On the one side, it was only a little carelessness —only a little thoughtless, unintentional exposure of herself before the eyes of David. But on the other side, adultery and guilt of conscience; murder and the loss of a husband, besides the death in battle of other innocent men; great occasion for the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme; the shame of an illegitimate pregnancy, and the death of the child; the uprising and death of Absolom; and the defiling of David’s wives in the sight of all Israel; and the sword never departing from David’s house. (IISam. 12:11-18 ) Again I say, “Behold how great a matter a little fire kindleth!” None of this great evil would ever have taken place if Bath-sheba had only been careful not to display her body in the sight of a man.
I was surprised, when I read this quote some time ago. I was aware of the story of Bathsheba, but wondered why the Bible hadn’t made a bigger deal out of Bathsheba’s little sin if it was ultimately the cause of such pain and grief. So, I decided to study the text using exegesis as a start. The bible tells us:
One evening David got up from his bed and walked around on the roof of the palace. From the roof he saw a woman bathing. The woman was very beautiful, and David sent someone to find out about her. The man said, “Isn’t this Bathsheba, the daughter of Eliam and the wife of Uriah the Hittite?” Then David sent messengers to get her. She came to him, and he slept with her. (She had purified herself from her uncleanness.) Then she went back home. The woman conceived and sent word to David, saying, “I am pregnant.” 2 Samuel 11:2-5
In Judaism when a woman menstruates, she enters a time of niddah or separation. While Bathsheba’s husband Uriah was a Hittite, Bathsheba was a Jewish woman, and would have observed this custom. During niddah she would not have slept in her husbands bed or even touched him. When menstruation ended, she would have waited seven days before being cleansed in a ritual bath called a mikvah. Jewish law requires that a woman be completely immersed in the waters of the mikvah, and there can be nothing that separates her body from the water. No clothing, no jewelry, no nothing. Not even dirt. She has to clean herself well before she enters. It is a ritual cleansing for which she must be nude.
If that were the end of the story, it wouldn’t justify Bathsheba doing her nude bathing on the roof of her home. But, when we look at the mikvah further, we find that it is actually required that the waters be naturally gathered. That means you can’t take water from a local stream or well and pour it into a tub in a private room of the house. Mikvah’s weren’t just used for women, but for cleaning cooking utensils in accordance with Jewish dietary laws, cleansing after coming in contact with a dead body, or other situations in which Jewish law calls for ritual cleansing. So men and women used it. In fact, it made sense for ancient Isrealites, if they could, to build one in their home. Often, on the roof where it could collect water naturally.
When we study the time, the rituals, and what we know of the architecture of homes in Isreal at the time of Bathsheba, it seems more than likely that Bathsheba wasn’t sinning by bathing on the roof. She wasn’t being immodest. She was cleansing herself in accordance with Jewish law. That’s the reason that the Scripture includes the line “She had purified herself from her uncleanness.” The sin was David’s and the Bible rightfully makes that clear as it says “the thing David had done displeased the LORD.”
I’m all for understanding the importance of modesty as taught in Scripture. Where I think we must draw the line is in seeing sin that does not exist, and attributing sin to those not guilty of it. Bathsheba and David were guilty of many things, but immodestly bathing just wasn’t one of them.
Here is a recent sermon that Cally/Jennifer clued me in to on just this subject for anyone who is interested.
Originally posted to another blog of mine in September of 2007
You need to add her to the “Faith blogs to avoid”…
THANKYOU!!!! I have been saying this exact same thing for a decade. I truly wish I knew who the “brother” was that wrote the “Sin of Bathsheba”. This guy seems too distracted by almost everything. I would hope that he would have enough sense to know to sit in front of the church instead of at the back where he is closely scrutinizing what the women in his church are wearing on any given Sunday.
Also, since David was the King, he lived in the palace that had a vantage point since it was above all the other dwellings in the city. David was supposed to be at war but he stayed home, instead, and slept all day and rose at night. I think that we should start there to examine this situation.
Excellent points, Corrie. I think the Bible is pretty clear putting blame for the sin on David. And I think the reasoning would have been well understood to the original audience of the text. After all, this started out as Jewish Scripture. And a practicing Jew would have understood the law well enough to understand what happened. That’s why we must practice good exegesis.
Bathsheba’s sin was engaging in adultery with the king. She didn’t have to submit to David. Even if David attempted to force her, the Law clearly states that a woman is responsible to cry out if she is attacked in the city. See Deuteronomy 22:22 – 27. Both the man and the woman are held responsible by the Law when they commit consensual adultery. There was no obligation to “obey the king” when the king’s command went against the Law of God (e.g. Saul’s Hebrew soldiers refused–with no recorded consequences– to obey his command to murder Ahimelech and his family; Doeg the Edomite did that terrible deed.) David bears the primary responsibility and guilt; but by clear, objective, biblical criteria Bathsheba was complicit in their sin. There is no need to speculate about her motives for bathing on the roof in order to establish her “guilt”.
I don’t think anyone is arguing the sin of adultery.
“The Sin of Bathsheba” article I was responding to makes the claim that Bathsheba’s sin is in her bathing on the rooftop. That was simply not Bathsheba’s sin. Yes, both commited a sin in adultery, but, Biblically, no blame is ever laid at Bathsheba’s feet for her bathing on the rooftop because none should be.
The sin that started this tragic chain of events is David’s coveting of another man’s wife, of using his position as King to look at a woman that he shouldn’t have been looking at, not Bathsheba being immodest.
I think with proper exegesis it’s clear that Bathsheba was, in fact, acting in accordance with Jewish law. That she commits sin elsewhere is undeniable.
Peace.
As some have already said, the reasons for Bathsheba’s bathing are interesting and informative, and certainly absolve her of guilt in terms of her nudity when David cast his gaze upon her.
What is particularly obnoxious in this (man’s) anonymous writing is that throughout the essay, he seems to equate exposure of ANY portion of a woman’s body, other than hands, feet and face, with Bathsheba’s nudity during her purification.
The author’s detailed description of what a woman should wear/not wear only belies his fixation and lechery, and his unwillingness to face his sin head-on, instead of blaming the women in his environment.
I’ve been a male my entire life. Women are naturally attractive to me. As a Christian man, or even a decent secular man, you know very well when “not to look”, and if you do it’s shame on you, not the dear lady in your gaze.
Everyone here has totally missed the point. Bathsheba didn’t expose herself by bathing on a roof–it was KING DAVID WHO WAS ON HIS ROOF! Please read the text again. “David got up from his bed and walked around on the roof of the palace. From the roof he saw a woman bathing.” There is a lot we’re not told in the passage, leaving us to fill in the gaps. But while you’re filling in the gaps, PLEASE GET THE FACTS THAT WE DO HAVE RIGHT! Thank you.
Cheryl, you are correct that David was on his roof. But that doesn’t exclude Bathsheba from being on hers. In fact, the Jewish Mikvah has to be water from a natural source or collected naturally. Most Jews at that time would have used rainwater collected in a pool in an open area or roof of the house.
nothing about the text precludes that bathsheba was inside her own courtyard, or a room with a window. nothing indicates that she was on the roof; seems to me that was a red herring thrown in long ago to color the story a certain way–toward bathsheba looking guilty.
The mikvah certainly could have been in an inner courtyard, but considering the way mikvah’s were placed in homes at that time, I doubt that she would have been in a windowed room.
My point is that it doesn’t matter where she was. The sin still isn’t hers. She was following Jewish law by doing her ritual bathing. She was obeying God.
I disagree with the idea that Bathsheba is completely innocent. Look at Matthew 1, the genealogy of Jesus. In it, four women are named, a major deviation from the cultural norm of only listing men, and these are Ruth (a Moabite and a righteous example), Rahab (a repentant Canaanite prostitute), Tamar (one who used incest to guarantee her line), and “the wife of Uriah the Hittite.” Matthew clearly does not like her if he does not mention her name and associates her with a foreigner, since it is a Middle Eastern practice to taboo someone’s name if they have brought major dishonor on themselves. Why not mention her, a Jew, if her sin was merely careless immodesty among all these flagrant sinners? What did she do to so dishonor her name? Let’s start with Uriah. In Israel, a foreigner was not treated very well, repentant or not, and this would have affected Bathsheba, herself a Jew. Second, the mikvah. The law required that the mikvah hold “living water,” meaning that the water had to be constantly moving. Something like that would not be located on the roof, but on ground level or below ground, where rainwater could be gravity-fed into the mikvah from a cistern. Also, since purity required nudity, the mikvah would not be located in an open place such as the roof or a courtyard, but inside a private room, away from any outside eyes; however, Bathsheba found a way to make herself visible to David, which would not be hard in his Jerusalem of only 12-15 acres. An interesting note is that all through David’s life from that point, she manipulated David quite a bit, beginning with the handing off of the responsibility for her pregnancy to the switching of the inheritance of the throne to save her name. With this in mind, it is not hard to also make the conclusion that her actions were intentional, from waiting until her husband was away in battle, to her choice of bathing location and unusual time, all to upgrade her status from the wife of a lowly paid foreigner to that of the king’s wife. This is why her name is tabooed and Matthew has refused to write it. Bathsheba, the unsubmissive wife. (An example of the woman in the streets from Proverbs?)
Drew, I never said that Bathsheba was completely innocent. She is ultimately an adulteress and that is a sin she must carry.
I hardly think the omission of Bathsheba’s name is a sign of her being guilty for being seen nude by David. You yourself said that only a few women are mentioned in the genealogy of Jesus. Did the women who were not mentioned at all dishonor their names? No. If she were dishonored, she wouldn’t have been mentioned at all. Omission of Bathseba’s name is evidence of nothing.
If we want to look at the Bible for evidence than I think it’s important to note that Scripture itself puts the sin of seeing Bathsheba nude squarely on David’s shoulders. If it were her fault, especially in biblical times, the author would have said so.
Mikvah water does not have to be constantly moving. That it’s “living water” refers to how it is collected. It has to be water from a “divine source” such as rainwater.
Ultimately, scripture supports my take on this far more than an omission of a name (where women’s names were routinely omitted). Scripture tells us that she was bathing, and follows that by telling us that she had cleaned from her impurity. It seems most likely from the text that she was engaging in her ritual cleansing following her menses. And what David had done displeased the Lord.
I see nothing in the scriptures regarding these events to suggest that David was simply a virtuous man manipulated by Bathsheba (who simply could not have known that David would make her a queen). Considering that David was so beloved by both God and his people, why wouldn’t the author have made that clear in the text?
“nothing indicates that she was on the roof; seems to me that was a red herring thrown in long ago to color the story a certain way–toward bathsheba looking guilty.”
Beth,
Good point. She was not on the roof; David was. She could have well been in an enclosed type of area but because King David had the vantage point overlooking the whole city (he would have been at the highest point in the city by being on the roof), he could have easily seen INside this enclosure.
Anne,
I agree with you that just because her name was not mentioned, that it means she was guilty. It seems to me that there is quite a lot of speculation and bias being read into this story. We cannot read our own experiences into the Bible.
Drew,
“An interesting note is that all through David’s life from that point, she manipulated David quite a bit, beginning with the handing off of the responsibility for her pregnancy to the switching of the inheritance of the throne to save her name. With this in mind, it is not hard to also make the conclusion that her actions were intentional, from waiting until her husband was away in battle, to her choice of bathing location and unusual time, all to upgrade her status from the wife of a lowly paid foreigner to that of the king’s wife. This is why her name is tabooed and Matthew has refused to write it. Bathsheba, the unsubmissive wife. (An example of the woman in the streets from Proverbs?)”
That is quite a lot of speculation on your part. What do you mean by the “handing off of the responsibility for her pregnancy”? What Chapter and verse can I read this in?
We do not know that her name is “tabooed” at all. Maybe it is to delineate her from any other “Bathsheba” who might have been part of David’s coterie of wives?
About Bathsheba being manipulative? You obviously haven’t read the passage where Nathan the Prophet counsels Bathsheba in what she must do! 1 King 1 will clearly show that she was NOT being manipulative but obeying the Lord’s prophet who was over her. David was the one that vowed to the Lord that Solomon would be the one to take his throne. This was all part of God’s plan and God used Bathsheba and Nathan to make sure that Adonijah didn’t get away with his plan to usurp David’s throne. I am not sure why you are misrepresenting Bathsheba like this? It was David who wished that Solomon got the throne. Bathsheba was not traying to “save her name”, that is ridiculous! She was being an obedient servant and preserving the line of Jesus and preserving not only her son’s life but the lives of all that served David. For surely, Adonijah would have slaughtered any who were a threat to his usurpation of the throne!
And how can you say that she waited until her husband was in battle? Women have their periods every month, Drew. She was obeying the Law of God by bathing in the Mikvah. She would have done that every month, especially if her husband was away because she wouldn’t have been pregnant. She was a faithful wife and for all we know, she was a faithful servant to God.
BTW, were women allowed to say “no” to the King? Tamar cried out when her brother raped her and the palace guards made sure that the rape could go on undisturbed. You think that even though Bathsheba said “no” that someone would have dared to interfere in the King’s business? The Bible tells us that David dispatched his men and the “TOOK” her. She probably was not at all aware that she was being watched by the King since he was supposed to be away at war with her husband instead of tarrying in Jerusalem.
The Hebrew word for “took” means to “seize”, to “snatch away”, to “take possession of”, to acquire, etc.
Is it not interesting that Bathsheba’s house was in close proximity to David’s palace. So close that David could see explicitly the nudity of this woman. The bible is silent about the build up of the story to the point when David eventually called for Bathsheba. James pointed to the origin of man’s sin when he said that every man is tempted when he is drawn away by his own lust. It appears that David was watching Bathesheba bathing for more than five days during her cleansing period. Hence he started feeding his eyes on this woman who appeared to be the finality of God’s creation.Concidentally when he was overcome and drawn by his own lust Bathsheba also had finished cleansing herself. So he did what a man had to do.It is difficult not to speculate that Bathesheba also saw David from the roof top during the course of the five days. she could have done something about it, like changing her place of bathing. But she decided to expose herself before David. Obviously she knew that she was hot and was carrying irrisistable and precious cargo. She also knew that David had an eye for beautiful women. Remember Abigal, Michael and the virgins who came to warm his bed. So she intelligently set herself up to give David a nice view that would purchase and secure her future. When her husband was eventually killed, I guess all she had were crocodile tears for the bible clearly says, when the days of mourning were over, David called for Bathsheba and he comforted her, he went inside her until she became pregnant.!This was her score card.She knew she had David where she wanted him. She manufactured the sin and David was the target market who fell into her erotic advertisments. In the end we all agree that both sinned but for some reasons the bible seems to exhonerate her from this adulterous mess.
Andrew you’re so off base in that comment that I’m writing a new blog post just to answer it. See The Sin Of Bathsheba 2
Anne,
I am not off base in my comment, I am expressing an opinion. Noone of us on this site has the absolute truth, we are all speculating based on what we have read and heard. There is a Nigerian proverb which says let everyman’s foolishness be heard so that we may all have wisdom. So if you don’t agree with me is it not noble to express your opinion without a Mugabe’s clenched fist, after all we are brethren.
I respectfully disagree, Andrew. I think you are way off base and that your comments are blatantly sexist. That’s mymy opinon. You paint Bathsheba as a temptress and poor David as the poor vulnerable man unable to resist her feminine wiles and forced into sin. That is not supported by scripture or logic.
And this is the appropriate place for me to share that opinion. It’s my blog. No clenched fists here, Andrew. Just complete shock that you could actually think what you do based on the text.
Thank you, Anne, for a very informative posting. It always amazes me that no matter how long one studies the scriptures, one can always learn something new from another brother or sister!! The great tragedy that I see here is that David – a man after God’s own heart – could have been so much MORE, but he took his eyes off of God and placed them on his friend’s wife (OK, that’s a bit of an assumption that Uriah was one of David’s friends, but I think it’s somewhat logical, considering the fact that Uriah was listed among David’s 30 mighty men).
Keep studying God’s Word! Keep exegeting!!
[...] July 14, 2008 by Anne Click here to read the first installment of the Sin of Bathsheba. [...]
Ok, so I have to say this. I am so tired of this “woe to us men, we are so weak with lust, take special care not to lead us into temptation” bit. First, yes, I affirm that we should all take care to not lead each other into temptation. But why is this particular struggle given so much attention? Why do men think they have a special case and need special attention and lengths gone to for their protection? It’s not just in our country – all fundamentalist religions that I can think of go down this same path. I’ll grant that maybe the average man, at any given time, has more of a problem with lust than the average woman. But I’d put an ovulating woman up against any man! Yes, women also struggle with sexual lust. Maybe not as frequently, but does that make it any different in the eyes of God? But even if they didn’t, all people struggle with lust of all kinds. I lust after a man who comes home for dinner and doesn’t work late. Seriously. I desire this to the point that it makes me crazy some days and unable to think of much else. Does that mean I ask my neighbor to please make sure he goes the back way and not drive by my house where I can see him coming home at 5:30, because it will arouse my lust? No – I know this is my problem, and I will just have to pray and ask God to help me be content with what He has given me. I think that by giving all this weight to “men’s problem” we have given them permission to be weak. Yes, it is sin. Yes, our culture plays into it. Just like it plays into our gluttony, covetousness, and every other sin I can think of. The only way to conquer sin is to have a heart (being) transformed into the likeness of Christ. Did Christ lust after the prostitutes he hung out with? Did he tell them to cover themselves up lest he be overcome by their feminine wiles? No – It wouldn’t have mattered what he saw – his heart was pure. I think the problem some of the fundie men have is that with their lives so perfectly in order, and their theology a little off, their sexual lust is the last thing (in their mind) that stands in the way of them being perfected here on earth. And it’s the women’s fault, of course!
“Obviously she knew that she was hot and was carrying irrisistable and precious cargo.”
Andrew,
Come ON!
What in the world is going on inside of your head?
Scary stuff, man.
“When her husband was eventually killed, I guess all she had were crocodile tears for the bible clearly says, when the days of mourning were over, David called for Bathsheba and he comforted her, he went inside her until she became pregnant.!This was her score card.She knew she had David where she wanted him. She manufactured the sin and David was the target market who fell into her erotic advertisments. In the end we all agree that both sinned but for some reasons the bible seems to exhonerate her from this adulterous mess.”
Okay. I didn’t know it could get any more frightening but it did.
I am not like being inside your mind/thought life.
She manufactured the sin? Okay. I suppose it is always the woman’s fault when a man seizes her and forces himself on her.
This is really nothing new. The jails are riddled with such animals.
I think we found our “anonymous brother”.
Drew-
Since we know that Uriah the Hittite was among the “Thirty” or David’s “Mighty Men” 1 Chronicles 11:10-47, what type of scriptural evidence do you have that Uriah was a lower paid foreigner in David’s army?
Do you know who the majority of David’s “Mighty Men” where? Do you know how David’ met them and what purpose they fulfilled in securing David’s throne?
The fact is that Uriah was part of David’s “Special Forces” and “Special Contingent of Body Guards”.
Obviously you just made that up to support your misinterpretation of scripture.
No, you are badly mistaken; Uriah was just as esteemed and well compensated as any of the others among the “Thirty”.
Good try though