Available via license: CC BY
Content may be subject to copyright.
Pharos Journal of Theology ISSN 2414-3324 online Volume 104 Issue 1 - (2023)
Copyright: ©2023 Open Access/Author/s - Online @ http//: www.pharosjot.com
1
King David Between Power and Adultery:
Jewish Perspectives on David and Bathshebas
Relationship
Bobby Kurnia Putrawan
Sekolah Tinggi Teologi Moriah, Tangerang, Indonesia
bkputrawan@gmail.com
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1651-7883
Yusak Tanasyah
Sekolah Tinggi Teologi Moriah, Tangerang, Indonesia
ytanasyah@gmail.com
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0450-8314
Alisaid Prawiro Negoro
Sekolah Tinggi Teologi Moriah, Tangerang, Indonesia
alisaidpn@moriah.ac.id
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1909-3062
Ester Agustini Tandana,
Chang Jung Christian University, Tainan, Taiwan
107m02318@mailst.cjcu.edu.tw
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5182-178X
Susanti Embong Bulan
Sekolah Tinggi Teologi Misi William Carey, Medan, Indonesia
susantiebulan@gmail.com
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4418-4222
Doi:
Abstract
David and Bathsheba's biblical tale is both dramatic and ambiguous: A strong man spots a
stunning stranger and tells his men to call her. She conceives a child. The man makes a
feeble attempt to hide it, but in the end, he kills the woman's husband, and they
subsequently get married. Recent days have seen frenzied internet debates among
evangelicals on an issue pertaining to this old story: Did David have an affair with
Bathsheba, or did he rape her? The solution has effects on a biblical hero's reputation as
well as how youngsters are taught the well-known narrative. However, the discussion itself
sheds light onand may even alterthe perspectives held by evangelical Christians on
gender, sex, power, consent, and abuse. Like the Bible, the midrashim regarding Bathsheba
and her son King Solomon and her husband King David place her in a supporting role. She
is never punished for her connection with David, even though her emotions and feelings are
never discussed; this suggests that the rabbis thought of her as a virtuous, guiltless woman.
The rabbis highlight that God approved of David's marriage to Bathsheba and pardoned
David for his transgression against Uriah, the husband of Bathsheba. The rabbis present
Bathsheba as Solomon's mentor during his lifetime, correcting him when he deviated from
morality. This article is a contribution to biblical studies on a Jewish Perspective. The study
sheds light on the debate about David having an affair with, or raping Bathsheba. This
places David's narrative between the discussion of power and adultery.
Keywords: King David, Bathsheba, power, adultery, Old Testament.
Open RubricOpen RubricOpen Rubric
Pharos Journal of Theology ISSN 2414-3324 online Volume 104 Issue 1 - (2023)
Copyright: ©2023 Open Access/Author/s - Online @ http//: www.pharosjot.com
2
Introduction
The Old Testament's second book of Samuel (2 Samuel 11:1-24) contains the tale of King
David and Bathsheba, the soldier's wife. David first watches Bathsheba bathing, then goes
to great efforts to trick her noble husband, finally sending the poor man to the front lines of
an ongoing battle. Bathsheba gives birth to the future King Solomon after her marriage to
David. The core line presents the incident as an ominous turning point in the life of the
biblical patriarch, concluding with the statement that "the act David had done grieved the
Lord." However, the language is unclear as to what was so offensive, let alone what it ought
to be termed.
The Tosefta (an assemblage information collected from other sources of Jewish oral law
from the late 2nd century CE), shows that one of the portions that is not recited during the
public readings from the Torah and the Prophets (haftarot), nor are they translated into the
vernacular [i.e., Aramaic] before the public, is the Biblical story of David and Bathsheba's
transgression. Despite this, the instructor is permitted to recite these passages in the way in
which he typically teaches portions of Scripture (Megillah, 3:38). The Tosefta seems to
believe that there is value in telling the narrative, from which we might learn something, but
he believes that it is inappropriate to share it in public; rather, it should be studied in the
more private setting of a teacher's teachings to his students (Kadari, 1999).
Although Bathsheba is a minor character, King David undoubtedly isn't, and Bathsheba
plays a crucial part in David's tale. David is undoubtedly "the main person in Israel's
narrative," and Bathsheba makes her debut barely four chapters after the majestic Davidic
covenant in 2 Samuel 7. Walter Brueggemann did not exaggerate when he called David "the
dominant figure in Israel's narrative." In several respects, Bathsheba stands in contrast to
David; she is relatively helpless while he is at his most powerful, and she uses her position
of influence to support her son's ascension to the kingdom when David is frail and on the
verge of death (Koenig, 2018: 2).
David is supremely emblematic of e dissonance between the religion of the Rabbis and
the Book from which it is suppos the driving force behind Midrashic
exegesis. The biblical text virtually disappears before the rabbinic position that holds all
those who claim David sinned to be in error the prophet
against Da
for violating . Piper is saying
that the narrative of David's transgressions told by the prophet Nathan is likewise instructive
(Diamond, 2007; Kadari 1999). In the narrative, Nathan describes a rich guy who had
several flocks and herds and who resided close to a poor man who had just one lamb. The
beggar had a childlike affection for his lamb. However, when the wealthy man had a visitor,
he took the lamb from his underprivileged neighbor, slaughtered it, and fed it to the visitor
instead of providing food from his own flocks or herds. In the areas of theft and murder,
[Nathan] genuinely recreated adultery. "The small, little, innocent pet lamb being slain and
offered up as a meal is sort of Bathsheba's killing, not Uriah's killingand that's extra evil,
Piper said. In the areas of theft and murder, [Nathan] genuinely recreated adultery. "The
small, little, innocent pet lamb being slain and offered up as a meal is sort of Bathsheba's
killing, not Uriah's killingand that's extra evil, Piper said. We are not exaggerating when we
refer to David's misuse of his authority in the satisfaction of his sinful passion in the way he
took Bathsheba because of these two factors, in my opinion (Chamberlain, 2022; Weigle &
Allen, 2017).
Interpretations of Bathsheba's personality are numerous and diverse. She's been interpreted
in a number of different ways, such as an innocent victim, survivor who seizes the
opportunity, or cunning schemer (Davidson, 2006; Létourneau, 2018; Gravett, 2004). Her
Pharos Journal of Theology ISSN 2414-3324 online Volume 104 Issue 1 - (2023)
Copyright: ©2023 Open Access/Author/s - Online @ http//: www.pharosjot.com
3
innocence has been defended with several strong grounds. The grammar of 2 Samuel 11:4
really indicates a non-consensual sexual offense, or what we would refer to as "rape", which
is something that no one has noticed, and I intend to contribute to that observation. This
interpretation is supported by the surrounding context, early translations, and rabbinic
sources.
The narrator solely describes what David did: dispatched, took, brought her, and laid with
her. Regarding Bathsheba's responses, the author says nothing. Was she awestruck or
flattered? Did she find David's popularity and influence alluring or terrifying? Bathsheba had
no legal authority to agree to have sex with David under Israelite law. She was a married
lady, and adultery would bring humiliation to her, to her family, and endanger her life
because adultery was punishable by death (Leviticus 20:10). A woman's honor in Israel was
determined by her excellent reputation, which also included her virginity. The treatment
Bathsheba received at the hands of David ruined her honor as a woman.
The biblical text says nothing about Bathsheba's perspective on the relationship. She says
nothing during the entire incident. She only spoke to David to inform him of her pregnancy.
She could have been forced to enter the palace. Going to the royal palace may have been a
protest and an objection on her part. On the other hand, she may have been compelled to
appear before David out of fear for her life. Caspi, and
his relationship with Bathsheba
and Abishag, since in their minds he was the rightful and chosen founder of the royal house.
There is no way for them to portray him, the King, the Psalmist, and the source of the future
Messiah as evil, human, and weak (Caspi & Cohen, 1999: 54).
Another option to defend David, is to claim that Bathsheba persuaded him to have sex with
her by taking a naked bath on her home's rooftop. One strategy to hold Bathsheba
accountable is to claim that she wanted a child with David for her son to inherit the throne.
Gale Yee references R. C. Bailey in her essay on Bathsheba who said that Bathsheba was
"a co-conspirator in a political conspiracy to marry" David. She "is no longer an innocent
victim but a willing participant in the affair who intends her own son to become king,"
according to the author. She is persuaded to wed David by his assurances that her son
would succeed him as king (Yee, 1992:627).
Discussion
The Leader and Sexual Harassment
Bathsheba is not the center of attention; rather, David is and he gets out of bed, wanders
around, sees, sends, and inquires. Bathsheba was nothing more than the eroticized object of
his lust and sexual fantasies. David had no idea who this lovely lady was, implying that they
had never met. She is identified in the text. Bathsheba had a name and was a real person. If
Eliam is the same person named in 2 Samuel 23:34, she was his daughter. Eliam was a
famous fighter in David's team known as "the Thirty" and the son of David's trusted advisor
Ahitophel (2 Samuel 16:23). She was married to Uriah, who was gone fighting for David.
David is not deterred by any of this information. He didn't care about her as a person; she
was just another lovely object to possess, another victory for him. David was overjoyed to
accept God's gift of the kingdom of Israel. As king, he can take whatever he wants, including
another man's wife. He stared down on her from his rooftop vantage point above her, as well
as from his position of authority over her.
According to Kaplan, the countenance of a powerful man matters and men don't just stare;
they also possess the power of action and possession that women's gazes lack. "Women
can catch and return glances, but they can't respond to them" (Kaplan, 1983: 31). Bathsheba
Pharos Journal of Theology ISSN 2414-3324 online Volume 104 Issue 1 - (2023)
Copyright: ©2023 Open Access/Author/s - Online @ http//: www.pharosjot.com
4
was unable to see David's first impression. She had no idea that David was trying to get her.
She was helpless and didn't realize that a strong man was in possession of her. She wasn't
someone with her name, her family, or her own life; she was merely a spark to fan the
flames of his devotion (Cohen, 1965: 142148; Grey, 2021). David ruled as monarch. As her
husband fought in the war of David, he was responsible for the welfare of his people, and
perhaps for Bathsheba in particular. Was David's lustrous look a coincidence? Did he
happen to be on the roof while she was cleaning? Or was he, so to speak, vandalizing the
rooftop for sexual conquest? The text doesn't tell us. But the consequences of his gaze are
obvious and devastating. The appearance led to desire. Desire for intention; intent to pursue;
and pursuit of action (Garland, 2006: 419-447; Bodi, 2010). Batsheva was the victim of an
authority who abused his power, the leader of his people-like sexual harassment by today's
employers and sexual abuse by clergy (Garland, 2006; Ademiluka, 2021).
Nicol (1988) argue that the word came t terrupts the
frenzy through 5 verbal clauses, indicating that she changed into a inclined participant.
Others think that it clearly shows her subordinate reputation, because
the identical phrases are used of Uriah, who got here er being despatched for in
eleven. Her obedience therefore does now not characterize compliance. It is also crucial to
be aware that the word came variation, and the Septuagint
omits it. this can be because the word is not original to the text, or it may were unnoticed to
emphasize that it turned into not consensual (Garsiel, 1993: 244-262).
David's Acts and His Love for Bathsheba
To keep things brief, we'll concentrate on his actions of king David and his romance with
Bathsheba in order to keep things succinct. The fascinating biblical tale focuses on David's
humanity. "Anyone who believes King David 'sinned' is just mistaken," says Rabbi Judah
HaNasi (BT Shabbat 56a). Winkler (1998) admits where the Talmudic viewpoint is illogical.
In spite of having sex with a married woman, David orders his general to leave Bathsheba's
husband Uriah exposed and unprotected in the middle of a bloody conflict. According to
Talmudic interpretation, Uriah granted his wife a religious divorce (also known as a "get")
before departing for the fight. As a result, Bathsheba was not truly "married," but rather
"halachically" divorced (Samuel, 2012; Ademiluka, 2021).
The popularity of studying the Babylonian Talmud is unchanged. Rabbanu Tam, a 12th
century French Talmudist (and Rashi's grandson), states that the study of the Babylonian
Talmud is now the primary area of study. Scholars in the early generations spent one-third of
their time studying the Scriptures. Contrary to the widely held belief that David sinned with
Bathsheba, this perspective says that David was innocent and that anybody who asserts that
he did so is mistaken. According to the Talmud, David was defended by Rabbi Judah the
Prince, a descendant of the Davidic line. He asserted that when the prophet Nathan scolded
David, asking him (in II Samuel 12:9), "Why then have you disobeyed the Lord's order and
done what grieves Him?," he was referring to David's actions. he was criticizing him for an
act he intended to do but refrained from doing. David may have had the intention to
transgress, but his acts did not go beyond what was permitted by the law (Kadari, 1999).
Winkler wonders how, in view of the Talmud's statement that: "With this categorical
announcement, our sages set forth a challenge to all orthodox biblical academics and
students, we can understand the account of David and Bat-Sheva as it is discovered and
suggested in the text. Despite numerous references to David's wrongdoing in the text, did he
not commit any sin at all? What message were the great rabbis of old giving to the next
generation? (Winkler, 2011: 108). This is undoubtedly not the David who is so devoted to
his friends and his nation, the David who is so moral and God-sensitive. After pointing out
the text's clear and simpler meaning, Winkler makes a confession. David did not commit
Pharos Journal of Theology ISSN 2414-3324 online Volume 104 Issue 1 - (2023)
Copyright: ©2023 Open Access/Author/s - Online @ http//: www.pharosjot.com
5
adultery since it was common practice under the Davidic line's kingdom for a man to grant
his wife a conditional writ of divorce. In accordance with this agreement, if the husband were
to die in battle, his wife would be divorced retroactively as of the day he left for the front
lines. This custom was instituted to keep women from becoming agunot (chained women
who are forbidden to remarry). In those days, it was normal for married men to divorce their
spouses before going to war so that, if they were "lost" in action, their wives may remarry
(Isaacs, 1948). As a result, Uriah had gotten a divorce from his wife. Bathsheba was not
married when David had sex with her since Uriah had prepared a writ of divorce for her and
was murdered during the conflict. She was not yet married; hence this act of sexual activity
was an act of matrimony (Koenig, 2018).
Winkler explores several solutions for the exegetical issue he raises. One view holds that the
Talmudic word should not be taken literally but should be considered more of a "Midrashic"
homily. This view states that David's acts are simply "beyond our comprehension." While
naive yeshiva students may be pleased with this kind of attitude, folks who are grounded in
reality are not. Thankfully, Winkler turns down this unscrupulous ploy. Everyone is aware
that King David had a penchant for gorgeous women. David was about to have an
extramarital relationship with Abigail until her husband unexpectedly passed away. After
Nabal dies, David immediately asks Abagail to marry him (cf. 1 Samuel 25:40-42).
Winkler surprisingly claims that David did not engage in adultery because, if he had, he
would have received the death penalty. Nevertheless, he has committed a "moral infraction"
(McGeough, 2018). David did nothing "wrong" by the standards of a Gentile monarch, but
God demands more of His anointed. Winkler's archaeological experience may have aided
him on his final argument. In the ancient world, adultery was not regarded acceptable
behavior by any Semitic monarch! Adultery is referred to as the great sin by the
Philistine King Abimelech in Genesis 20:9. When Joseph tries to persuade Potiphar to leave,
he warns her that adultery is Even by the standards of Gentile
Kings, adultery is clearly a sin. It is hard to reconcile a straightforward interpretation of the
passage with Torah law, even without the Talmud's warning. Even after a divorce or the
passing of her spouse, a woman who has engaged in adultery is not permitted by Jewish law
to remarry the man (Winkler, 1998). Any offspring from such a coupling would be considered
a mamzer, or illegitimate, and as such would be ineligible for both kingship and marriage into
the larger society of accepted Jewish women. We are forced to draw the conclusion that
David, whatever his guilt may have been with Bathsheba, did not commit adultery since he
chose to stay married to her after the occurrence without being censured and because their
son, Solomon, was permitted to govern and continue the messianic line (Goldson, 2010;
Ibnzahav, 1951).
The scorn for adultery in ancient Israel is congruent with the societal sentiments of Israel's
neighbors. Adultery, for example, is referred to as a "grave crime" in documents discovered
in Ugarit and Egypt. Adultery was viewed by the ancients as a transgression against the
gods rather than a crime against a life partner. Because the family is the cornerstone of
society, protecting the integrity of the family unit was essential (Rumimpunu et all, 2020).
Although Winkler's statements may more accurately describe the despicable actions of
Roman emperors, I believe the Semitic kings of the ancient Near East had much higher
moral standards.
Winkler's proofs are intriguing yet contentious. (1) The prophet Nathan never demands an
explanation from David for his adultery. He accuses David of organizing Uriah's death
instead. (2) When David confesses his sin and repents, he carefully says, "I have sinned to
God," meaning that he did not commit the sin against Bat Sheva. As more evidence, Winkler
quotes the verse, "Against you, you alone, have I sinned, and done what is wrong in your
Pharos Journal of Theology ISSN 2414-3324 online Volume 104 Issue 1 - (2023)
Copyright: ©2023 Open Access/Author/s - Online @ http//: www.pharosjot.com
6
sight. The third verse from the Bible that Winkler cites is 1 Kings 15:5, where the biblical
narrator briefly mentions "the difficulties of Uriah the Hittite" before forgetting about it.
Halpern (2003) refers to complimentary causation and argues that God must intervene
because of David's sin in the Bathsheba incident by analyzing practically all the significant
events in the biblical text from this point on and up to Solomon's accession to power.
However, Yahweh's purposes are ultimately achieved through a combination of human
actors behaving naturally in response to the situations they are placed in. The conclusion is
that the concerned personalities' autonomy is somewhat at risk. This relates to the Original
Sin (Adam and Eve's trespass) in the Genesis 23 chapter about the Garden of Eden. It is
analogous to the felix culpa notion. The first human pair would not have been expelled from
Eden, that is, from God's presence, had they not disobeyed divine prohibition and eaten the
fruit of knowledge (Tumanov, 2009: 499-509; Barrick, 2020).
Another reason, the Talmud (Sanhedrin 107a) argues that one of the reasons God tested
David was because David deliberately requested it (Psalms 26:2). David sought to
demonstrate his devotion for God and his ability to rival the Patriarchs. The Talmud draws
the conclusion that we should never implore God to put us to the test so that we can
demonstrate our worth. God is aware of the ideal moments for tests (Adelman, 2014).
The Scriptures make clear every terrible detail of his illicit affair, so how could David say, "I
have sinned to the LORD," if he had not "sinned"? As the scripture states, "Against you, you
alone, have I sinned, and done what is bad in your sight... ", why did he make an effort to
repent in the most fitting way? (Psalms 51:5)? On this point, i am unable to and will not
disagree with the Scriptures on this matter! The fact that King David tells Uriah, "You have
just returned from a journey," refutes Rebbe's assertion that he offered religious divorces to
all of his warriors "in the case they died in combat." Why didn't you visit your home down
here? (2 Samuel 11:10). I would prefer to assert that King David actually sinned, that he
sincerely repented, and that he through great suffering before achieving atonement (Lowery,
2003).
The Talmud states that it was customary for Jewish warriors to divorce their spouses before
to entering combat out of fear that they might perish in battle and prevent their women from
ever being able to remarry. Throughout Jewish history, up to World War II, this was the
custom. Therefore, King David did not technically commit adultery (Rosenfeld, 2016). He
took a single woman with him. Later, when Nathan the Prophet came to condemn David, he
compared David's transgression to stealing, using the parable of the rich man who steals the
poor man's one tiny lamb as an example. David's fault was taking something he shouldn't
have, not really committing adultery, may God forbid. There weren't many girls available for
the taking in Bathsheba. Naturally, if Uriah had come home, she would have remarried. And
because of this, God was quite critical of David. Such a deed, for a man of his greatness,
was pure adultery. And the Torah, in its customary dramatic tone, paints a picture of David's
wrongdoing that we would have taken literally had our Oral Torah not clarified the situation
for us (Rosenfeld, 2016).
David’s Misuse of Power and Reputation
David's role as a shepherd was to safeguard God's sheep, not to mistreat them. The entire
purpose of Nathan the Prophet's pastoral account to King David is to make this point (2
Samuel 12:1-6). Since David had the possibility to be saved, Nathan did not need to explain
every transgression David had done in his respectful approach to the King. The significance
of Abarbanel's comment is that it implies that he wants the reader to be entirely truthful with
the material. Along with Abarbanel's wording, a fascinating Mishnah on moral responsibility
exists. "If someone throws out fire into the hands of a dumb [person], a deaf-mute, or a child,
Pharos Journal of Theology ISSN 2414-3324 online Volume 104 Issue 1 - (2023)
Copyright: ©2023 Open Access/Author/s - Online @ http//: www.pharosjot.com
7
they are not subject to the laws of man, but they are subject to the laws of Heaven" (Kamma,
6: 5) (see also Hain, 2020: 2; McGeough, 2018).
It is surprising that David's plot to assassinate Uria was never brought up during the Talmud
debate. I have a suspicion that the Rabbi was afraid of offending King David and Rabbi
Judah Hanashi. If anything, Uria's tale shows that even after ordering someone to execute a
terrible act, a person can still be held accountable. Sure, this has altered the rabbi's
viewpoint, but what else is a post-modernist supposed to do? In the end, all people are
accountable to God for their acts. The text clearly demonstrates that the monarch is ethically
responsible if he hires someone to sow confusion on his behalf, even though this concept
does not apply to irresponsible people in the case of the king. King David and King Ahab, in
contrast, offer interesting research. Ahab is anxious for the "Navos Vineyard". Evil Isabel
uses a trick to kill Navos to "curse God and the King," the poor Navos is killed, and his
vineyard is confiscated (1 Kings 21: 5-16). At first, Ahab's actions seem more forgiving, as
Jezebel was unaware of his plans to drive Navos away. But when he silently goes to the
execution of Navos, everything changes! Elijah boldly declares, "You should tell to him, Thus
says the Lord: Have you killed, and seized possession?" in response to Ahab's (and
Jezebel's) actions. "Thus says the Lord: Dogs will suck up your blood as dogs licked up the
blood of Naboth," you must tell him (1 Kings. 21:5-16). Like Saul, Naboth shows no remorse
for his acts.
With the exception of his infidelity with his wife, which led to Uriah's death in battle, 1 Kings
15:5 already emphasizes that David was entirely innocent. The parable of the prophet
Nathan and David's confession of wrongdoing come after the account of David's deed in 2
Samuel 11 which Nathan was informed by David that he had transgressed the Lord. The
Lord has pardoned your wrongdoing; you will not perish, Nathan informed David (2 Samuel
12:13). Instead, the son from the adulterous connection will perish because of the penalty.
Christian authors in the first five centuries C.E. regularly referenced the biblical tale of
David's transgression and God's pardon (Hezser, 2021). The focus on David's request for
God's mercy is included in 1 Clement, a letter sent to Christians in Corinth by a Roman
Christian leader around the end of the first or beginning of the second century C.E. and is
comparable to the rabbinic passage in Sifre Deuteronomy (1 Clem 18:1 -3).
David's Secret Demons: Messiah, Murderer, Traitor, King: Suspicions Extend Even to
Absalom's Rebellion is the title of a book by Baruch Halpern. He speculates that David could
have sparked Absalom's uprising to increase his hold over the northern tribes. Furthermore,
David's repentance is so complete that the only offense of which he is charged was made
up. The Bathsheba narrative aims to prove that David, and not Uriah, is Solomon's biological
father. Halpern speculates that Bathsheba herself may have inspired the story. Halpern says
that his work would recreate David from the perspective of his adversaries (Halpern, 2003;
Bosworth, 2006).
David's confession to God is not limited to his explicit admissions of sin. If his error was the
erasure of Uriah's legacy, he should do everything he can to remind people that Uriah was a
skilled commander who was treated unfairly by the king. He seems to go beyond merely
admitting guilt by acting to repair it. David would find it difficult to make such a confession
since it would damage his reputation while enhancing Uriah's, yet it would be required if the
fault was to be addressed. Rabbinic tradition does, however, imply that the prophets were
free to write genuine stories without being constrained by royal censorship. However, we
shouldn't assume this. Instead, this defense of the prophetic/scribal "estate" should be
viewed as a significant accomplishment and a magnificent realization of the monarchy
described in Deuteronomy (Lumingkewas, et al., 2022).
Pharos Journal of Theology ISSN 2414-3324 online Volume 104 Issue 1 - (2023)
Copyright: ©2023 Open Access/Author/s - Online @ http//: www.pharosjot.com
8
More precisely, it is possible to see the publication of this narrative as a potent act of
yibbum. Why does our text claim that David had an extramarital affair with Bathsheba? After
all, it appears that this information was not well known in David's court. How do we know that
Uriah was a heroic warrior who suffered injustice? It appears that David gave his permission
for this tale to be told in response to both inquiries (Bassali, 2012). Thus, if our assumptions
regarding the publication process are accurate, David would have taken extraordinary
measures to remedy both his overall gross misuse of power and his inability to continue
Uriah's legacy. He would have promoted Uriah's reputation and publicized his misuse of
power by telling this tale, one that would eternally tarnish his own legacy (I Kings 15:5), so
that it would endure for all time as a warning to all future kings and leaders (Ludwig &
Longenecker, 1993; Firth, 2008).
Conclusion
From the discussion above it shows that David was a successful leader with God's inclusion.
This successful leadership was shown by David with many victories in wars against the
nations around Israel. David's leadership and obedience to God can be an example of the
life of God's people. In the success of his leadership, 2 Samuel 11:1-27 tells that David had
two deeds in his life that caused him to fall into evil sins in the eyes of God. First, he had
wanted and had sexual intercourse with Uriah's wife, Bathsheba. Second, David planned to
kill Uriah to protect his honor and cover up his shame.
On the other hand, the Talmud recalls the oral tradition that "Anyone who argues that David
sinned is in mistake," in order to caution us from reading too much into David's event with
Bathsheba. Despite his failure, David instantly accepted responsibility for his conduct when
the prophet pointed out his wrongdoing, saying, "Chotosi La ShemI have sinned against
God" (2 Samuel 12:13). David had committed offenses against God when he failed to follow
the divine will by twisting the law's original design, although being free of the human sins of
adultery and murder. David becomes a timeless allegory for the effectiveness of confession.
David shows all future generations through genuine repentance, that anybody may achieve
redemption regardless of how serious their transgressions, provided they really regret their
wrongdoing and dedicate themselves with all their heart and soul to making amends. Biblical
study has a tradition of presenting seemingly incongruous facts that makes us consider the
deeds of remarkable individuals in the context of their eras and environments.
References
Adelman, R. (2017). Who Was Bathsheba (Batsheva)? in Shalvi/Hyman Encyclopedia of
Jewish Women. [Available online at: https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/bathsheba.]
Ademiluka, S. O. (2021). Interpreting the DavidBathsheba narrative (2 Sm 11:24) as a
response by the church in Nigeria to masculine abuse of power for sexual assault, HTS
Teologiese Studies / Theological Studies, 77(4), a5802. [Available online at:
http://dx.doi.org/10.4102/hts.v77i4.5802.]
Barrick, W.D.(2020). DIVINE PERSONS IN GENESIS: The Theological Implications.
MAHABBAH: Journal of Religion and Education, 1(2), 21-41. [Available online at:
https://doi.org/10.47135/mahabbah.v1i1.5.]
Bassali, M. (2012). David’s Nine Inquiries Of The Lord, Danville, IL: Tafj. [Available online at:
https://tafj.org/2012/01/06/davids-nine-inquiries-of-the-lord/]
Bodi, D. (2010). The Demise of the Warlord. A New Look at the David Story, Hebrew Bible
Monographs, 26. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix.
Pharos Journal of Theology ISSN 2414-3324 online Volume 104 Issue 1 - (2023)
Copyright: ©2023 Open Access/Author/s - Online @ http//: www.pharosjot.com
9
Bosworth, D. (2006). Evaluating King David: Old Problems and Recent Scholarship, The
Catholic Biblical Quarterly, 68(2), 191-210. [Available online at:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/43725698.]
Brueggemann, W. (1990). First and Second Samuel, Louisville: Westminster John Knox
Press.
Caspi, M. M. & Cohen, S.B. (1999). Still Waters Run Deep: Five Women of the Bible Speak,
New York: University Press of America.
Chamberlain, D. (2022). Did Davi. Church
Leaders. [Available online at: https://churchleaders.com/news/415702-did-david-rape-
bathsheba-john-piper-weighs-in.html?]
Cohen, H.H. (1965). David And Bathsheba, Journal Of The American Academy Of Religion,
Xxxiii, 2, 142148. [Available online at: https://doi.org/10.1093/Jaarel/Xxxiii.2.142].
Colonnese, F. (2015). , Studies in
Visual Arts and Communication: an International Journal 1(2), 1-17. [Available online at:
http://journalonarts.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/SVACij-Vol1_No2_2014-
COLONNESE_Fabio-Beyond-perspective.pdf.]
Davidson, R. M. (2006). Did King David Rape Bathsheba? A Case Study in Narrative
Theology, Journal of the Adventist Theological Society, 17(2), [Available online at:
https://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/jats/vol17/iss2/4]
Diamond, J. A. (2007). "King David of the sages: rabbinic rehabilitation or ironic parody?"
Prooftexts: A Journal of Jewish Literary History, 27(3). [Available online at.
https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A179242298/LitRC?u=anon~137158b1&sid=googleScholar&x
id=fafe1735].
Firth, D. G. (2008).
Reading and Re-Reading 2 Samuel 11, Old Testament Essays, 20(2), 310-328. [Available
online at: https://journals.co.za/doi/pdf/10.10520/EJC85951.]
Garland, D. (2006). Concepts of Culture in the Sociology of Punishment, Theoretical
Criminology, 10(4), 419447. [https://doi.org/10.1177/1362480606068873.]
Garsiel, M. (1993). The Story of David and Bathsheba: A Different Approach, The Catholic
Biblical Quarterly, 55(2), 24462. [Available online at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/43721228.]
Goldson, Y. (2010). Dawn to Destiny: Exploring Jewish History and its Hidden Wisdom, New
York, NY: Judaica Press.
Gravett, S. (2004). , Journal
for the Study of the Old Testament 28(3), 279299. [Available online at: https://doi.
org/10.1177/030908920402800303]
Grey, J. N. (2021). "A Prophetic Call to Repentance" in Grieving, Brooding, and
Transforming: The Spirit, The Bible, and Gender, 46. Leiden: Brill. [Available online at
https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004469518_005.]
Pharos Journal of Theology ISSN 2414-3324 online Volume 104 Issue 1 - (2023)
Copyright: ©2023 Open Access/Author/s - Online @ http//: www.pharosjot.com
10
Hain, E.S. (2020). Talmud from the Balcony. Beyond the Limits of Law: Repairing the Fabric
of Society, New York, NY: Shalom Hartman Institute.
Halpern, B. (2003). David’s Secret Demons: Messiah, Murderer, Traitor, King. Grand
Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing.
Hezser, C. (2021). "The Contested Image of King David in Rabbinic and Patristic Literature
and Art of Late Antiquity." in Torah, Temple, Land: Constructions of Judaism in Antiquity,
Jens Schroter, Markus Witte, and Verena M. Lepper (eds.). TSAJ 184, Tuebingen: Mohr
Siebeck, 277-298.
Ibnzahav, A. (1951). David and Bathsheba, I. M. Lask (trans.), New York: Crown Publishers.
Ijeoma, S. & Okeke, I.J. (2021). An Exegical
Study Of 2 Samuel 11:1-27 IGWEBUIKE: An African Journal of Arts and Humanities 7(3),
164-172. [Available online at:
https://www.igwebuikeresearchinstitute.org/journal/IGWEBUIKE_7_3_10.pdf]
Isaacs, J. (1948). David and Bathsheba, Brooklyn, NY: Kehot Publication Society. [Available
online at https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/463977/jewish/David-and-
Bathsheba.htm.]
Koenig, S. M. (2018). Bathsheba Survives, South Carolina: University of South Carolina
Press.
Kadari, T. (1999). "Bathsheba: Midrash and Aggadah." Shalvi/Hyman Encyclopedia of
Jewish Women. Jewish Women's Archive. Viewed on July 24, 2022.[Available online at
https://jwa.org/encyclopedia/article/bathsheba-midrash-and-aggadah.]
Kaplan, E. A. (1983). Women in film: Both sides of the camera, London: Routledge.
Létourneau, A. (2018). Beauty, Bath and Beyond: Framing Bathsheba as a Royal Fantasy in
2 Sam 11,1-5, Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament, 32(1), 72-91. [Available online at:
https://doi.org/10.1080/09018328.2017.1376523.]
Lowery, R. H. (2003). David, Bathsheba, Nathan, and War, Tikkun: Spirituality and Law,
18(2), 2362. [Available online at: https://doi.org/10.1215/08879982-2003-2009.]
Ludwig, D. C. & Longenecker, C.O. (1993). The Bathsheba Syndrome: The ethical failure of
successful leaders, Journal of Business Ethics, 12, 265273. [Available online at:
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01666530.]
Lumingkewas, M.S., Mandey, J.E.C. & Missa, A. (2022). GOLDEN CALF NARRATIVE:
Deuteronomist Ideology of Jeroboam Reformation. MAHABBAH: Journal of Religion and
Education, 3(1), 67-85. [Available online at: https://doi.org/10.47135/mahabbah.v3i1.24.]
McGeough, K. M. (2018). The Problem with David: Masculinity and Morality in Biblical
Cinema, Journal of Religion & Film, 22(1), [Available online at:
https://digitalcommons.unomaha.edu/jrf/vol22/iss1/33.]
Nicol, G. (1988). Bathsheba, a Clever Woman? The Expository Times 99(12): 360363.
[Available online at: https://doi.org/10.1177/001452468809901203.]
Pharos Journal of Theology ISSN 2414-3324 online Volume 104 Issue 1 - (2023)
Copyright: ©2023 Open Access/Author/s - Online @ http//: www.pharosjot.com
11
Rosenfeld, D. (2016). David and Bathsheba aish. [Available online at
https://aish.com/david-and-bathsheba/].
Rumimpunu, H. D., Sutrisno, S. & Lumingkewas, M. S. (2020). Mutualitas Keluarga Kristen
Menurut Kolose 3:18-21 (The Quality Of The Christian Family According To Colossians
3:18-21). QUAERENS: Journal of Theology and Christianity Studies, 2(2), 147-164. .
[Available online at: https://doi.org/10.46362/quaerens.v2i2.29].
Tumanov, V. (2009). the King David Report, Neophilologus,
93(3), 499-509. [Available online at: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11061-008-
9109-9].
Weigle, B. D. & Allen, D.A. (2017). Keeping David From Bathsheba: The Four-
Staff as Nathan, Journal of Military Ethics, 16(1-2), 94-113. [Available online at:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15027570.2017.1357327].
Winkler, G. (1998). Sacred Secrets: The Sanctity of Sex in Jewish Law and Lore. Lanham,
Maryland: Jason Aronson.
Yonason, G. (2010). Dawn to Destiny: Exploring Jewish History and its Hidden Wisdom,
Judaica Press.
Yee, G. A. (1992). Bathsheba (Person), The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary, New York:
Doubleday.
Conflict of
I
nterest
Statement
:
The authors
declare
that the
research was conducted
in
the absence
of
any commercial
or
financial
relationships
that
could be
construed
as a
potential conflict
of interest.
This article is
open-access and
distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licence
The use,
distribution or
reproduction
in
other forums
is
permitted, provided the
original
author(s)
and the
copyright owner(s)
are
credited
and that the
original publication
in
this
journal
is
cited,
in
accordance
with
accepted academic practice. No use,
distribution
or
reproduction is
permitted which
does
not
comply
with
these
terms
.
