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.
Thank you so much for posting this link and starting this thread.
For clarity, I will quote the problem as listed in the link:
“Even without the Talmud’s admonition, it is impossible to reconcile the simple reading of the text with Torah law. According to Jewish law, 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.”
We know the problem and we know the solution. Judaism is an intellectual, questioning religion applying logically the legal principles of Torah. Here we see the way we get from the problem to the solution. This is what is discussed in the article.
This is pretty basic stuff from a Jewish point of view. In fact, a knowledgeable Jew reading the text would have additional understanding of the text, for example, the Batsheva was bathing as part as the normal cleansing ritual after menstruation.
It is also clear, that a Christian, believing that their god is also the Messiah ben David, has no interest in fostering either illegitimacy or adultery on the line of David.
However, by the responses we see how differently the Jew reads and understands the Jewish scriptures than the way of the Christian. One poster mistakenly interprets the Talmud as meaning that David committed no sin rather than that he did not commit the sin of murder or adultery. In good Christian fashion, they solve the problem through David’s repentance, as if this would suddenly turn Solomon from being illegitimate, if that was the case.
Others attempted to argue Jewish law without any real understanding of the meaning of “Get” or “Agunot” or “Mamzer” in Jewish law.
The best response was by the poster who referred to not coveting your neighbor’s wife. Indeed, this commandment is different from others in that it takes place in your heart. It does not require formally injuring another or even carrying out the feeling. Yet it is a sin against God.
