Uriah and Batsheba: David-murder and adultery?

[Crumpy]

Ran across this essay which illustrates some logic within modern Judaism about what David’s sin was with respect to Bathsheba and Uriah. (see 2 Sam)

torahideals.com/essays-and-imaginings/david-and-bathsheba/

The essay at the link argues that David was not guilty of adultery or murder, but that he did sin in a very subtle way, against following the law of God.

 

[LilyM]

Well right off the bat there’s something fishy here. The assertion that David was sinless is not borne out by the accusation by Nathan, his repentance or particularly the loss of his and Bathsheba’s child.

And there’s no reason to suppose, Nathan having declared david forgiven, that the relationship couldn’t continue.

Given that David was married to Michal regardless, whatever Bathsheba’s status may or may not have been, it requires an untenable amount of mental gymnastics to defend the proposition that it wasn’t adultery.

And if there was no adultery in their union then why did Nathan use the example of the man who took a ewe BELONGING TO ANOTHER? What could he mean by it except that David had taken another man’s woman?

Maybe Bill Clinton should’ve employed these jokers to defend his misbehavior with miss lewinsky!

 

[thistle]

Ran across this essay which illustrates some logic within modern Judaism about what David’s sin was with respect to Bathsheba and Uriah. (see 2 Sam)

torahideals.com/essays-and-imaginings/david-and-bathsheba/

The essay at the link argues that David was not guilty of adultery or murder, but that he did sin in a very subtle way, against following the law of God.

David slept with Bathsheba at a time when he was married to other women (not Bathsheba) and she was also married. What clearer definition of adultery is needed?

 

[Bezant]

David slept with Bathsheba at a time when he was married to other women (not Bathsheba) and she was also married. What clearer definition of adultery is needed?

Adultery in Jewish law doesn’t go both ways. It is not adulterous for a married man to sleep with another woman–unless she herself is married or betrothed. The contention here is whether or not he slept with Bathsheva while she was legally married.

I can’t believe that she wasn’t legally married, and that David’s real problem was nothing more than procedural, but I think it’s far more debatable whether David committed murder. As king, wouldn’t he have a right to send his soldiers to war over their wishes–or am I mistaken? To me, the argument that David pulled as fast one by using the rules is more credible.

 

[Julia_Mae]

The essay at the link argues that David was not guilty of adultery or murder…

I believe they call this “thinking outside the box.”

In this case, I assume the box was in Cleveland and the thinker Las Vegas.

 

[Bezant]

I believe they call this “thinking outside the box.”

In this case, I assume the box was in Cleveland and the thinker Las Vegas.

Almost all of the other posters on that site thought so too. On the other hand, he’s using the Oral Law to justify his position. That quote, “Anyone who says David sinned is in error” is the linchpin here and I wonder what the rabbis meant by that.

 

[Bezant]

Given that David was married to Michal regardless, whatever Bathsheba’s status may or may not have been, it requires an untenable amount of mental gymnastics to defend the proposition that it wasn’t adultery.

Again, the issue is Bathsheva’s marital status, not David’s. (It’s a man’s world folks.)

If I’m not mistaken by this time Michal was old news (again…it’s a man’s world ).

 

[Ubenedictus]

Adultery in Jewish law doesn’t go both ways. It is not adulterous for a married man to sleep with another woman–unless she herself is married or betrothed. The contention here is whether or not he slept with Bathsheva while she was legally married.

I can’t believe that she wasn’t legally married, and that David’s real problem was nothing more than procedural, but I think it’s far more debatable whether David committed murder. As king, wouldn’t he have a right to send his soldiers to war over their wishes–or am I mistaken? To me, the argument that David pulled as fast one by using the rules is more credible.

are u implying that if a married man ‘sleep’ with an unmarried woman he has not sinned(adultry) according to the torah? Can u prove that this is the true interpretation (not just some human interpretation) of the torah?

 

[thistle]

Adultery in Jewish law doesn’t go both ways. It is not adulterous for a married man to sleep with another woman–unless she herself is married or betrothed. The contention here is whether or not he slept with Bathsheva while she was legally married.

I can’t believe that she wasn’t legally married, and that David’s real problem was nothing more than procedural, but I think it’s far more debatable whether David committed murder. As king, wouldn’t he have a right to send his soldiers to war over their wishes–or am I mistaken? To me, the argument that David pulled as fast one by using the rules is more credible.

What supports any claim she was not legally married?
Scripture is clear on Bathsheba being the wife of Urias.

2 Sam 11:3 And the king sent, and inquired who the woman was. And it was told him, that she was Bethsabee, the daughter of Eliam,** the wife of Urias**, the Hethite.

2 Sam 11:26 And the** wife of Urias** heard that Urias, her husband, was dead, and she mourned for him.

 

[Julia_Mae]

Again, the issue is Bathsheva’s marital status, not David’s. (It’s a man’s world folks.)

The issue is David’s intent. It is not a “man’s world,” it is God’s world and always was and will be. Thinking the world had anything to do with him is how David turned to sin. David’s intent was murder to satisfy his own lust. Did David break the Law? Did David sin?

:sad_yes:

 

[Evan]

What supports any claim she was not legally married?
Scripture is clear on Bathsheba being the wife of Urias.

2 Sam 11:3 And the king sent, and inquired who the woman was. And it was told him, that she was Bethsabee, the daughter of Eliam,** the wife of Urias**, the Hethite.

2 Sam 11:26 And the** wife of Urias** heard that Urias, her husband, was dead, and she mourned for him.

I guess we might consider the timing. If Urias had died before David slept with her, the the adultery would only come from David being married, for when Urias died, Bathsabee was no longer married.

 

[Bezant]

Adultery in Jewish law doesn’t go both ways. It is not adulterous for a married man to sleep with another woman–unless she herself is married or betrothed. The contention here is whether or not he slept with Bathsheva while she was legally married.

I can’t believe that she wasn’t legally married, and that David’s real problem was nothing more than procedural, but I think it’s far more debatable whether David committed murder. As king, wouldn’t he have a right to send his soldiers to war over their wishes–or am I mistaken? To me, the argument that David pulled as fast one by using the rules is more credible.

are u implying that if a married man ‘sleep’ with an unmarried woman he has not sinned(adultry) according to the torah? Can u prove that this is the true interpretation (not just some human interpretation) of the torah?

All interpretation is human interpretation. Even the Catholic Church’s interpretation.

I only said that a married man who sleeps with an unmarried woman is not guilty of adultery – nothing more, and nothing less.

“If a man is found sleeping with another man’s wife, both the man who slept with her and the woman must die. You must purge the evil from Israel.” (Deuteronomy 22:22)

“'If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife–with the wife of his neighbor–both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death.” (Leviticus 20:10)

 

[Bezant]

Adultery in Jewish law doesn’t go both ways. It is not adulterous for a married man to sleep with another woman–unless she herself is married or betrothed. The contention here is whether or not he slept with Bathsheva while she was legally married.

I can’t believe that she wasn’t legally married, and that David’s real problem was nothing more than procedural, but I think it’s far more debatable whether David committed murder. As king, wouldn’t he have a right to send his soldiers to war over their wishes–or am I mistaken? To me, the argument that David pulled as fast one by using the rules is more credible.

What supports any claim she was not legally married?

That’s what I want to know.

Scripture is clear on Bathsheba being the wife of Urias.

2 Sam 11:3 And the king sent, and inquired who the woman was. And it was told him, that she was Bethsabee, the daughter of Eliam,** the wife of Urias**, the Hethite.

2 Sam 11:26 And the** wife of Urias** heard that Urias, her husband, was dead, and she mourned for him.

But the author is supporting his evidence from Scripture with another source, even if it does seem to contradict the Scripture.

 

[Bezant]

Again, the issue is Bathsheva’s marital status, not David’s. (It’s a man’s world folks.)

If I’m not mistaken by this time Michal was old news (again…it’s a man’s world ).

The issue is David’s intent.

Where does the Torah say that a man is guilty of adultery because a) he’s married and b) he has the intent to commit adultery? It doesn’t.

Catholicism does, but the Torah doesn’t assign the same responsibilities and prohibitions universally, much less sexual responsibilities and prohibitions. Fathers are responsible for guarding their daughters virginity, but not their sons’. A kohen cannot marry a non-virgin, but everybody else can. And the only verses condemning a married man to adultery are concerned with a married man and a married woman–not an unmarried woman.

It is not a “man’s world,” it is God’s world and always was and will be.

My comment was a joke, but in all seriousness Michal’s lot is unfair. It’s naive to say that only God is pulling the strings. We don’t have Michal’s side of the story because men decided it wasn’t relevant for scripture. Looks like our world at work.

Thinking the world had anything to do with him is how David turned to sin. David’s intent was murder to satisfy his own lust.
Did David break the Law? Did David sin?
:sad_yes:

I never said he didn’t break the law or he didn’t sin.

I only said, if David is guilty of adultery it’s not because he’s a married man. He is guilty of adultery only if Bathsheva is married.

 

[Bezant]

I guess we might consider the timing. If Urias had died before David slept with her, the the adultery would only come from David being married, for when Urias died, Bathsabee was no longer married.

Can’t be. David inquires about Bathsheva before he sleeps with her (the verb used in that context has a connotation of improper sex). And after he sleeps with her he meets with Uriah to 1) talk about his battles and 2) cover his hide.

And again–I know we like to look at sexual responsibility as a universal absolute truth but that is not how the Torah necessarily works. Even if Bathsheva was a widow at the time, David would have been guilty of adultery only if Bathsheva were married.

 

[donsnow]

Good evening, all,

According to Mosaic law, David was guilty of breaking the Tenth Commandment: “Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s house; neither shalt thou desire his wife, nor his servant, nor his handmaid, nor his ox, nor his *** nor anything that is his” Exodus 20, 17 DR -Challoner.

David certainly desired Urias’ wife, and that’s a clear disobedience to the Tenth Commandment.

So, David did sin.

God loves all of you, lurkers, too,
Don

 

[Julia_Mae]

Good evening, all,

According to Mosaic law, David was guilty of breaking the Tenth Commandment: “Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s house; neither shalt thou desire his wife, nor his servant, nor his handmaid, nor his ox, nor his *** nor anything that is his” Exodus 20, 17 DR -Challoner.

David certainly desired Urias’ wife, and that’s a clear disobedience to the Tenth Commandment.

So, David did sin.

God loves all of you, lurkers, too,
Don

Exactly. And he plotted the death of her husband to take what he coveted.

 

[donsnow]

Exactly. And he plotted the death of her husband to take what he coveted.

Good evening, Julia,

Yes, he did. And, this story reinforces my opinion that when people break the Tenth Commandment, it opens a spiritual door to break the other Commandments.

God loves you,
Don

 

[porthos11]

I guess we might consider the timing. If Urias had died before David slept with her, the the adultery would only come from David being married, for when Urias died, Bathsabee was no longer married.

I don’t think so. If Uriah had been dead before David slept with her, Bathsheba would then be a concubine, which is an important legal state in the Davidic kingdom, although still inferior to a wife. She would become a wife once David married her.

David was guilty of adultery because he slept with Bathsheba while her husband was still alive. David as a man in those times was permitted to keep multiple wives and concubines (he had already been simultaneously married to Michal, Ahinoam, and Abigail all without moral problems).

 

[Darryl1958]

Adultery in Jewish law doesn’t go both ways. It is not adulterous for a married man to sleep with another woman–unless she herself is married or betrothed. The contention here is whether or not he slept with Bathsheva while she was legally married.

I can’t believe that she wasn’t legally married, and that David’s real problem was nothing more than procedural, but I think it’s far more debatable whether David committed murder. As king, wouldn’t he have a right to send his soldiers to war over their wishes–or am I mistaken? To me, the argument that David pulled as fast one by using the rules is more credible.

This is probably a prime example of the wisdom of St Paul in telling us that the law cannot save us.
Catholicism probably has the clearest teaching of any wisdom literature on the intent of the heart being of primary importance here.

David may well have meticulously followed the letter of the law; nevertheless his real intent came shining through. The consequences were therefore devastating, and this is what led to the schism of Israel from Judea one generation removed from David.
The law alone cannot save us. As much as forgiveness was always open to David, the consequences of the sin untouched by the law, but within his heart nevertheless, played out as surely as the consequences of gravity on a falling object.