• Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.

David and Bathsheba?

A

Aussies

Member
Male
Re David, Uriah and Bathsheba;

Why weren’t David and Bathsheba put to death for adultery, as required by Gods Law?

Most of the explanations I have been given in this matter hinge totally on David’s repentance. Yet nowhere in the Hebrew scriptures is an allowance made for a man’s repentance in the case of adultery, the outcome was mandatory. It is true that David was repentant, but could there be more to this story?

When we give thought to David’s first wife, Michal, when David fell out with Saul, Saul gave Michal to Paltiel as a wife (1 Samuel 25:44).

If we now consider 2 Samuel 3: 12-16 and note the comments in verse 14 “Give me my wife Michal, to whom I became engaged for 100 foreskins of the Philistines.” And verse 15 “So Ishbosheth sent to take her from her husband, Paltiel the son of Laish.”

From this account it becomes clear that David never gave up the right as husband to Michal and yet she had become another mans wife. So why wasn’t she charged with adultery?

If we now have a look at Exodus 21: 2-6 it becomes apparent that in the case of a man that was the slave of another, the right of the master outweighed the right of the husband, verse 4 makes the matter clear, “If the master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the wife and her children will become her masters, and he will go out by himself.”

This raises the point of ownership or headship.

At 1 Corinthians 7:39 the point is clearly made that a wife is under the law of her husband, this is again confirmed in Romans 7:2-3.

When it comes to the headship principle 1 Corinthians 11:3 shows the line of decent, Jehovah, Jesus Christ, man, woman. But not so in Israel, there it was Jehovah, the King and or master, man, woman.

So, if the right of the master out weighed the right of the husband (Ex 21:4) and the ultimate master, under God was the King, in this case David, or in the case of Michal, Saul. The King held total authority over the people, even to the point of life and death. So, if the King (master) owned the people, then his right out weighed even the right of the husband. As such, were David’s actions a matter of adultery or an abuse of his power and authority?

If we give some thought to 1 Kings 15:5 “For David did what was right in the eyes of Jehovah, and he did not turn aside from anything that he had commanded him all the days of his life, except in the matter of Uriah the Hittite.”

The issue here is noted as David’s conduct regarding “Uriah” not Bathsheba. If this had been a case of simple adultery, then it would have been his conduct regarding Bathsheba. But as David held the right of the ultimate master under God, then was it matter of adultery or as Nathan explained it by means of illustration, simple hard heartedness and greed on the part of David (2 Samuel 12: 1-9) Verse 9 says “Why did you despise the word of Jehovah by doing what was bad in his eyes? You struck down Uriah the Hittite with the sword! Then you took his wife as your wife after you killed him by the sword of the Ammonites.” If we consider the expressions of David as found in verse 6 “And he should pay for the lamb four times over, because he did this and showed no compassion.”

Neither David or Bathsheba were put to death for adultery. Yet the law commanded that if a man took the wife of another he was to be put to death (Deuteronomy 22: 22).

My thinking is that the issue is not one of morality as Christendom has insisted but rather one of headship. If a wife was to become another mans, the one thing that had to occur was that her husband gave up his right to headship over that woman before she became the wife of another, this was done by means of divorce, a right that only the husband had! Provided divorced had been given, she was free to remarry, and no adultery took place regardless of how many times this was done.

As David was the ultimate head of Israel, under God, then he did not commit adultery as he was the owner or head of Israel (under god) but rather was extremely hard hearted towards Uriah and chose to kill him rather than expose his own greed to Israel.

As Malachi 3:6 points out, Jehovah does not change, so any understanding of this matter needs to be in total harmony with the rest of the inspired word of God, without a duel standard or any contradiction. Thus, if David did indeed commit adultery with Bathsheba and yet was not put to death, would this not be a duel standard and indeed a condoning of adultery by God himself? If however the right of the master outweighed the right of the husband then no adultery took place and the scriptures stand intact without contradiction or a change in standard.

I might be completely wrong in my thinking in this matter, what do you think?
 
Deuteronomy 17:18-20

18 “Now when he sits on the throne of his kingdom, he is to write for himself a copy of this Torah on a scroll, from what is before the Levitical kohanim. 19 It will remain with him, and he will read in it all the days of his life, in order to learn to fear Adonai his God and keep all the words of this Torah and these statutes. 20 Then his heart will not be exalted above his brothers, and he will not turn from the commandment to the right or to the left—so that he may prolong his days in his kingship, he and his sons, in the midst of Israel.

This is what I think the source of David's sin is.

Here's a Midrash about the subject.

David and Bathsheba

It is impossible to reconcile the simple reading of the text with Torah law. According to Torah, an adulteress is forbidden to marry a man with whom she committed adultery, even after divorce or the death of her husband.

Any descendant from such a union would be a mamzer, i.e., illegitimate, and would thus be disqualified both from reigning as king and from marrying into the general community of permitted Jewish women. Because David remained married to Bathsheba after the incident without reprimand, and because their son, Solomon, was allowed to rule and perpetuate the messianic line, we have no choice but to conclude that David, whatever his sin may have been concerning Bathsheba, did not commit adultery.

A number of details concerning Bathsheba are not addressed by scripture. Early in his reign, David had decreed that every soldier must give his wife a get, a divorce document, stipulating that if he did not return after the war the woman would be considered divorced retroactively to the giving of the get. David instituted this practice to protect every soldier’s wife from the unfortunate status of agunah, a woman prohibited from marrying because her husband is missing in action but not confirmed to be dead.

Consequently, when Uriah, a soldier in David’s army, did not return home from the war, the get he had given to his wife, Bathsheba, rendered her technically divorced from before the time of David’s first involvement with her.

Furthermore, Uriah and Bathsheba had never consummated their marriage, indicating some severe dysfunction in their relationship.

Although this would not by any means justify adultery, it does suggest a motive—other than Uriah’s stated reason of empathy for his fellow soldiers—for Uriah’s refusal to comply with David’s order to return home to his wife.

When Uriah was called before David, he made reference to his general as “my master, Joab” (2 Samuel 11:11). Although this form of address would have been proper in the presence of his commanding officer, referring to anyone other than the king as masterin the presence of the king himself constituted an act of rebellion punishable by death.

Uriah also disobeyed David’s order to return home to his wife.8 On two separate counts, therefore, Uriah placed himself in the category of mored b’malchus, a rebel against the king. As such, Uriah forfeited his life immediately since the extralegal powers of the monarch include the authority to invoke the death penalty upon rebels without the due process of law.

Undeniably, the law gave David the right to bring Uriah before the Sanhedrin and demand his execution. Nevertheless, David worried (for good reason) that the people would question the integrity of a king who ordered a man’s death and immediately married his widow, and David sought to avoid the public appearance of conspiracy and impropriety when he married Bathsheba.

Therefore, rather than demanding Uriah’s execution from the Sanhedrin, David instructed his general, Joab, to arrange Uriah’s death in battle.

It is clear, therefore, that David was neither an adulterer nor a murderer. Indeed, when the prophet Nathan presented David with the parable of the rich man who stole the poor man’s sheep, he alluded to theft but to neither murder nor adultery.

Had David been truly guilty of murdering Uriah, what possible explanation could there have been for the prophet to employ a parable that implied theft but not murder?

What was David’s crime? Some say David erred by arranging Uriah’s death himself and circumventing the formal process of indictment and sentencing. Although David had the authority to invoke the death penalty, he should have gone to the Sanhedrin and confirmed that Uriah’s actions constituted an act of rebellion before executing justice.

According to this, it was David’s desire to avoid the appearance of wrongdoing that, ironically, resulted in his real transgression.

So why does scripture leave David’s innocence so concealed and elusive? Let us recall that the stories recounted in the Bible often magnify the sins of great people so that later generations can appreciate the severity of their transgressions. For a spiritual giant such as David, his indiscretions with Bathsheba and Uriah were indeed comparable to adultery and murder. However, to believe that David actually committed either adultery or murder is to miss both the greatness of David and the real lessons of the biblical record.

Despite his failure, when confronted by the prophet with his sin David immediately accepted responsibility for his actions with the words, “Chotosi LaShem—I have sinned against G-d” (2 Samuel 12:13). Although innocent of adultery and murder—sins against man—David had nevertheless sinned against G-d when he failed to uphold the divine will by manipulating the intent behind the law.

For his transgression, David endured the most severe punishments: the death of his first son from Bathsheba, and the rebellions of his sons Absalom and Adonijah. But because of his spontaneous and unqualified repentance, David retained his distinction as founder the messianic line. It was he who prepared Israel for its crowning glory, the building of the Temple.

Moreover, David becomes an eternal symbol of the power of repentance. Through sincere repentance, David demonstrates for all future generations that anyone, no matter how grave his sins, can find redemption if he truly regrets his misdeeds and commits himself with all his heart and all his soul to correct them.

Edit: Theres another thread where this is explored thoroughly.
 
Last edited:
This seems pretty plain to me:
Wherefore hast thou despised the commandment of the LORD, to do evil in his sight? thou hast killed Uriah the Hittite with the sword, and hast taken his wife to be thy wife, and hast slain him with the sword of the children of Ammon. Now therefore the sword shall never depart from thine house; because thou hast despised me, and hast taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be thy wife. Thus saith the LORD, Behold, I will raise up evil against thee out of thine own house, and I will take thy wives before thine eyes, and give them unto thy neighbour, and he shall lie with thy wives in the sight of this sun. For thou didst it secretly: but I will do this thing before all Israel, and before the sun. And David said unto Nathan, I have sinned against the LORD. And Nathan said unto David, The LORD also hath put away thy sin; thou shalt not die.
Click to expand...
David did sin, and the Lord covered it. I don't see how one can read it any other way.
 
andrew said:
This seems pretty plain to me:

David did sin, and the Lord covered it. I don't see how one can read it any other way.
Click to expand...
No argument from me.

Just presenting food for thought.


As for Malachi 3:6, all through out the Tanahk, G-d forgives and shows mercy to those who have sinned but repented so in the case of David it would still be in His nature to forgive.
 
Kevin said:
No argument from me.

Just presenting food for thought
Click to expand...
Yeah, sorry that came out a little pointed. Wasn’t aimed at you, just me thinking out loud.
 
Kevin said:
It is impossible to reconcile the simple reading of the text with Torah law. According to Torah, an adulteress is forbidden to marry a man with whom she committed adultery, even after divorce or the death of her husband.
Click to expand...

Thanks Kevin you have obliviously given a great deal of thought to this subject. If I may I do have a question or two.

When it comes to the Torah? One dictionary stated
1) The body of Jewish literature and oral tradition as a whole, containing the laws and teachings of the religion. 2) Capital T a. The Pentateuch.

Which one are you referring to?
The reason I ask is that in Leviticus 20:10 states "and the man that committeth adultery with another mans wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbors wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death." KJ (This is obviously from the Pentateuch.)Thus how is that the "adulteress is forbidden to marry a man with whom she committed adultery, even after divorce or the death of her husband" if she is already dead herself?
If on the other hand the Torah referred to is "The body of Jewish literature and oral tradition as a whole, containing the laws and teachings of the religion." Then what did Jesus mean at Mark 7:13 Matthew 15:3? Is the Torah as presented in the Pentateuch both clear and correct or is it the Torah being the body of Jewish literature and oral tradition as a whole, containing the laws and teachings of the religion, correct?
Your reply was beautifully composed and made some very strong points, but can each of those points be established in scripture (2Tim 3:16-17), the word of God, or are those points established by means of Jewish literature and oral tradition which according to the dictionary quoted above is the basis for the teachings of the Jewish religion?
Again thanks Kevin you input definitely gave food for thought. I just want to be sure that we are considering the word of God and not just the laws and traditions of men.
 
I have wondered about authority.
Who has the authority to stone the king?
How would it have been done?
Would Samuel have told him to come out into the street and submit to being stoned? Would the palace guard stand down?
 
steve said:
I have wondered about authority.
Who has the authority to stone the king?
How would it have been done?
Would Samuel have told him to come out into the street and submit to being stoned? Would the palace guard stand down?
Click to expand...

It seems to me that God is the one who eventually 'stones' a king, by either having him removed from office, made to go crazy, or just killed in battle. God has His ways.
 
Cap said:
It seems to me that God is the one who eventually 'stones' a king, by either having him removed from office, made to go crazy, or just killed in battle. God has His ways.
Click to expand...
But the Law required stoning by fellow Israelites.
 
Aussies said:
When it comes to the Torah? One dictionary stated
1) The body of Jewish literature and oral tradition as a whole, containing the laws and teachings of the religion. 2) Capital T a. The Pentateuch.

Which one are you referring to?
Click to expand...


Kevin said:
It is impossible to reconcile the simple reading of the text with Torah law. According to Torah,
Click to expand...
The Torah was talking about is Biblical Torah. I meant to say According to the Completed Torah (Yeshua completing Torah by uniting the Spirit with the letter)

Aussies said:
I just want to be sure that we are considering the word of God and not just the laws and traditions of men
Click to expand...
I wish I could take credit for the midrash. It's a pretalmudic midrash that parts of it such as "adulteress is forbidden to marry a man with whom she committed adultery, even after divorce or the death of her husband" found its way into the Talmud, the teachings of the Apostolic fathers, and all the way to the reformers. I tried to present it removing the elements only found in the oral tradition.

Before we can look at "adulteress is forbidden to marry a man with whom she committed adultery, even after divorce or the death of her husband" we have to clear up a misconception about Torah.

There is a misconception that in Exodus 21:23-25 "But if any harm follows, then you are to penalize life for life, eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, blow for blow." Meant that under Torah you must exact the maximum punishment under the Law with out mercy. In Matthew 5:38-42 Yeshua repudiates that notion. "You have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also." This is also supported throughout the Tanahk including the many times G-d did not divorce or "stone " Israel for adultery. Many times through out scripture G-d shows not only is he a just G-d but a merciful one aswell. The Tanahk is full of examples of men would broke covenant with the Lord or committed an act that the maximum punishment was death yet G-d showed mercy.
Aussies said:
adulteress is forbidden to marry a man with whom she committed adultery, even after divorce or the death of her husband" if she is already dead herself?
Click to expand...

Yeshua address this in his teachings about divorce and remariage “It was also said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.’ But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery. This would forbid her from marring the man she committed adultery with, IMO. We reap what we sow.

Galatians 6:7-8

Do not be deceived—G-d is not mocked. For whatever a man sows, that he also shall reap. For the one who sows in the flesh will reap corruption from the flesh. But the one who sows in the Ruach will reap from the Ruach eternal life.
 
Last edited:
WARNING!! Pure speculation follows.

I was thinking about the OP and then steve's post,

steve said:
I have wondered about authority.
Who has the authority to stone the king?
How would it have been done?
Would Samuel have told him to come out into the street and submit to being stoned? Would the palace guard stand down?
Click to expand...

Then I started thinking about Uriah and the fact that he possibly disobeyed an order from the king. Then it got me thinking about why Bathsheba would be bathing out in the open. Why would Uriah not go be with his wife? Why would Bathsheba be trying to draw attention to herself?

Could it be that Uriah, well, was a 'workaholic'? Maybe it was so bad that he had abandoned his wife, therefore guilty of 'wife neglect'. And that is why things became a mess.

So, the question is, why didn't God require the Law to be fulfilled about stoning for adultery? And maybe it is because we are all guilty of some Law we have broken and deserve death. Maybe if God actual had everyone killed because they have broken the Law, there would be no one left. And so, in God's Mercy He differs judgement. And actually, in reality, we are all going to die for our sins and so through God's Love he delays it so that we can learn to love Him in return and then receive the gift of eternal life.

Maybe Uriah had something to do with David and Bathsheba not being stoned. Because, maybe he was at fault too. Maybe there was no one around that was not guilty to throw the first stone. The punishment was that their son was to die, but yet one of the greatest kings ever came from them afterwards. Uriah died but David and Bathsheba went on to bring the Son of God to this earth, something seems really strange about that. I do realize David did suffer greatly in his life from his choices.

How could God not follow His own Law? I submit that He did but not in the time frame one would think. Uriah, David, Bathsheba, and the rest of us will die for our sins. Stoning, being shot with an arrow, hanging, sickness, the end result is death. But in all that, the possibility of obtaining a true relationship with the Creator brings life afterwards.

End of Speculation
 
Cap said:
Maybe it was so bad that he had abandoned his wife, therefore guilty of 'wife neglect'.
Click to expand...

My boy Uriah was guilty of being a patriot.

If David would not drink water that his men shed blood for, how much less should his servant enjoy his own wife when his men were busy shedding their blood.
Uriah wasn't neglecting his wife by going to war, David was neglecting his duty by NOT going to war.
 
Slumberfreeze said:
My boy Uriah was guilty of being a patriot.

If David would not drink water that his men shed blood for, how much less should his servant enjoy his own wife when his men were busy shedding their blood.
Uriah wasn't neglecting his wife by going to war, David was neglecting his duty by NOT going to war.
Click to expand...

Not going to argue about speculation, just food for thought. But David was king he could do whatever he wants, and apparently he did just that. We are left to try and figure out why God allowed certain things so we can learn from it.
 
If the command to kill all Hittite was obeyed the whole scenario wouldn't have happened because Uriah the Hittite would not have been married to Bathseba.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top