,
10 tweets,
2 min read
Read on Twitter
Some thoughts regarding the David & Bathsheba debate currently going on twitter: I think it's important to understand how very normal it would have been considered in the ancient world for a king to appropriate a woman for himself, simply because he was the king and he could.
In Genesis, we have not one but two incidents where Abraham is so concerned about the ruler of the land he is traveling through killing him for his wife that he pretends Sarah is his sister (Gen 12:10-20, 20:1-18). In both cases, Sarah is in fact appropriated by the king.
In Deuteronomy 17:14-20, the law establishes standards for any Israelite king, and among them are that the king shall not multiply either riches or wives for himself - something that would have made Israelite kings peculiar within the ancient mindset.
In Proverbs 31:1-9 - King Lemuel's mother advising him on wise ways of ruling - her first injunction is not to give his strength to women, "nor your ways to that which destroys kings." Since the next section is on the blessing of a good wife, clearly "womEN" is the emph here.
My point is that kings accumulating women as part of their luxurious lifestyle, in order to build their dynasty, and also in order to flaunt their power (see Absolom's taking of David's wives in broad daylight in 2 Sam 16) was normative.
It was also something that Israelite kings were explicitly forbidden to do, as we've seen in Deuteronomy 17.
The inference that Bathsheba was "trying to get David's attention" is not in the text. The expectation that she should have struggled, or said no, etc etc, is naive.
I have NEVER seen anyone suggest that Sarah should have resisted being taken by Pharoah in Gen 12 or by Abimelech in Gen 20. In fact, some commentators praise her submission to Abraham's request as an act of great faith.
Why do we apply a different standard to Bathsheba for submitting to David as king? Maybe she, too, was trusting that God would deliver her from this situation.
Speculation about Bathsheba's motivations or responsibility is just that ... speculation. And it is not what the text draws attention to. The Bible isn't shy about calling women adulterous. I think if that was what we were supposed to take away from the story, it would be there.
