Interpreting passages relate to King David's ten concubines

  • Thread starter Thread starter HuyenVu
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
H

HuyenVu

Guest
I’ve encountered this passage today : 2 Sam 12:11-12 NIV: “This is what the Lord says: ‘Out of your own household I am going to bring calamity on you. Before your very eyes I will take your wives and give them to one who is close to you, and he will sleep with your wives in broad daylight. You did it in secret, but I will do this thing in broad daylight before all Israel.’”
This later became true as in passage 2 Samuel 16:22 NIV : " So they pitched a tent for Absalom on the roof, and he slept with his father’s concubines in the sight of all Israel."
How should I understand these passages ? As we all sure believe that The Lord detest all kind of sexual immorality including rape. What truly happened to David’s concubines? I have read many sources which said that they were raped. Were they ?
 
Two different Hebrew verbs, both translated here as “sleep [with]”, are used in these passages in 2 Samuel. In chapter 12 the verb is shakab, meaning literally to lie [with]. In chapter 16 the verb is bo, meaning literally to go [to]. Nothing is said explicitly about the use or threat of violence, which would characterize rape. Is that what you are asking? The status of a concubine in antiquity would presumably mean that she had little choice in the matter.

https://biblehub.com/hebrew/7901.htm

https://biblehub.com/hebrew/935.htm
 
Last edited:
thank you for replying my question. It just that some of the sources explicitly stated that they were raped. I also wonder whether or not Absalom receive permission from these concubines before he slept with them, it might be him using his status power to make these women fear him and agree to sleep with him. There is a high chance that Absalom did not have their permission since they were david’s concubines and would not simply sleep with anyone else. I know these kind of detail was not mentioned in the bible but surely what David did in secret with Bathsheba was wrong. Did the Lord allow the same wrong thing to happen to David’s concubines ?The Lord is good and I may have interpreted these passages in a wrong way, can you shed some light into this ?
 
Last edited:
HuyenVu said:
thank you for replying my question. It just that some of the sources explicitly stated that they were raped. I also wonder whether or not Absalom receive permission from these concubines before he slept with them, it might be him using his status power to make these women fear him and agree to sleep with him. There is a high chance that Absalom did not have their permission since they were david’s concubines and would not simply sleep with anyone else. I know these kind of detail was not mentioned in the bible but is it possible that because of David sin that his concubines has to suffered ?.
What David did in secret with Bathsheba was wrong. Did the Lord allow the same wrong thing to happen to David’s concubines ?The Lord is good and I may have interpreted these passages in a wrong way, can you shed some light into this ?
Click to expand...
If you are concerned about the apparent disregard for human welfare on the part of God…
You have to read these passages in the context of the culture and times they were written in. Those times had different moral standards and the scriptures describe these immoral acts in ways different that we would expect in our culture.

Same with violent passages and other troubling occurrences in the bible.
Context is important.
 
Thank you!! It is always good to be reminded that passages needed to be interpreted within biblical context. Is there any sources that explained these passages in the biblical context that you recommended ?
 
HuyenVu said:
I also wonder whether or not Absalom receive permission from these concubines before he slept with them, it might be him using his status power to make these women fear him and agree to sleep with him.
Click to expand...
As you say, it’s a question of status. I don’t know much about Hebrew society in the year 1000 BC. Was a concubine simply a slave, a possession, who didn’t have the right to question an order? I suspect the answer is probably no, not exactly a slave, but certainly not a free citizen, either.
 
I agree with you. One thing that I want to make sure that this was not the public rape of 10 women and I need to understand the context of it. I am quite relieve to found some information on the forum and other sources suggested that it was not. Since I don’t believe that the lord would allow Absalom to rape these women since rape is one of the sexual immorality that the Lord despise.
 
BartholomewB said:
…
Click to expand...
King David is thought to have died in 961 BC. There was polygamy then. Concubines were lower status wives. In the Second Temple period (530 BC to 70 AD), monogamy was preferred and some Jews did not allow it.
 
Absalom raped his father’s concubines, specifically to create a breach between himself and David that could not be mended.
HuyenVu said:
I know these kind of detail was not mentioned in the bible but surely what David did in secret with Bathsheba was wrong. Did the Lord allow the same wrong thing to happen to David’s concubines
Click to expand...
God did not command the rape of David’s concubines. God knew it would happen and predicted it to David.

Arguably David’s own corruption led to Absalom’s corruption, which led to his rebellion, which led to the atrocity of raping his father’s wives.
 
Last edited:
God foretells when disasters are going to happen. A war that would be even worse than WW1 was foretold at Fatima if people did not change their ways but that doesn’t mean God approved of the evil deeds that would be done during WW2.
 
Last edited:
I think I may have understood the words wrongly… because the passages mentioned “I am going to bring…”. I do agree that God would not approved such thing but according to your words does the sentence “I am going to bring calamity on you…” a prediction ?
 
It’s not the only instance the OT uses such language. The book of Exodus says that God “hardened the heart of Pharaoh”. There are many other instances post-David among the major and minor prophets of Israel & Judah that it says God is going to bring such and such a thing.

The hardening of the heart occurs because of the rejection of grace. Not because God desires it or takes any pleasure in it.
 
Last edited:
Absalom misused these women in order to make a political display of power. There may or may not have been affection or even lust involved. The intent was to usurp David’s role.

That fits my definition of rape, since the women did not consent, or were not even consulted. It may not say that in the story, but it is clear it is motivated by power politics.
 
When one looks at say, e.g., Deuteronoomy- one can glean what had been transpiring way back when via the very instructional restrictions mentioned within the very teaching themselves

E.G. Regarding Rape…

But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then only the man that lay with her shall die. But unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; there is in the damsel no sin worthy of death: for as when a man riseth against his neighbour, and slayeth him, even so is this matter: For he found her in the field, and the betrothed damsel cried, and there was none to save her.
 
Last edited:
HuyenVu said:
I also wonder whether or not Absalom receive permission from these concubines before he slept with them, it might be him using his status power to make these women fear him and agree to sleep with him. There is a high chance that Absalom did not have their permission since they were david’s concubines and would not simply sleep with anyone else.
Click to expand...
In those days, taking one’s father’s harem as one’s own was a very bold action. It essentially was a way of sending a clear message: “my dad isn’t in charge any more; I am.”

We have to be willing to admit that, in those days, women were seen as little more than chattel. So, Absalom was – in that cultural context – merely taking possession of his father’s goods in such a way as to lay claim to his father’s authority.

Absalom certainly did not have permission from his father to take this action. That’s the whole point: he was staging a coup against his father. In fact, by doing so, he was in essence denying David further intercourse with them (their “former husband”).

It was a sinful act. And, as in all things, God allows humans to choose virtue or vice, and to reap the consequences of their choices.
HuyenVu said:
One thing that I want to make sure that this was not the public rape of 10 women and I need to understand the context of it.
Click to expand...
It was not. He was asserting his role as king, and taking these women as his ‘wives.’
 
The Lord doesn’t approve of what Absalom did, but David reaped what he sowed. His failure to control his sexual desire and his poor parenting set a bad example for his sons, and so this thing happened to him.
 
Rape or not, it is the crime of affinity for a man to have relations with his stepmother.
 
HuyenVu said:
I agree with you. One thing that I want to make sure that this was not the public rape of 10 women and I need to understand the context of it. I am quite relieve to found some information on the forum and other sources suggested that it was not. Since I don’t believe that the lord would allow Absalom to rape these women since rape is one of the sexual immorality that the Lord despise.
Click to expand...
This was the public rape of ten women. That they were his father’s concubines was the point of Absalom’s action.
mythbuster1 said:
The Lord doesn’t approve of what Absalom did, but David reaped what he sowed. His failure to control his sexual desire and his poor parenting set a bad example for his sons, and so this thing happened to him.
Click to expand...
Agreed. David reaped what he had sown.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top