Self-awareness and our feet of clay (1 Sam 11:1-5)

Some years ago, I looked up online one of my former professors in theology, curious if he had retired. He was painfully shy, the stereotype of an absent-minded academic who speaks dozens of dead languages but cannot remember people’s names or know what to say in a social setting. Yet, I remember his lectures and seminars, as he opened up the human dilemmas in biblical narratives with compassion and insight. I heard undergraduates tell of being interviewed by him when he would suddenly produce a puppet animal to relieve the tension and put them at their ease. Nevertheless, I discovered that he was convicted as a paedophile after hours of video material (downloaded from the internet) were found on his computer. I felt shock, revulsion, pity and sadness. It reminded me again how little we know of what darkness resides in each one of us and what sin we are capable of when given the chance.

How the mighty have fallen!

David’s downfall has a similar shock effect because the narrative built him up as a model king, a man after God’s own heart. The war with Ammon, left unfinished before (no peace treaty; 2 Sam 10:14), is resumed in the spring, though the Arameans are now out of the picture (2 Sam 10:19). Although a king need not go to every battle (cf. 2 Sam 10:7), the reference here to usual royal activity in spring and David staying behind (v.1) is ominous.[1] If David’s commitment to royal duty is waning, then he has already opened his heart to temptation. Afternoon siestas in hot climates are usual, so an evening walk on the roof is nothing extraordinary, but into this seeming normality intrudes a quick sequence of events all the more chilling for the narrative’s complete absence of emotion or explanation. David saw, sent, took and lay with the woman he spotted (2 Sam 11:2-4). It reminds us of Eve in the Garden, who similarly saw, took and ate (Gen 3:6).

Bathsheba – seductress or victim?

In famous art, Bathsheba is often portrayed as a seductress; painters showing her naked body to titillate the onlookers’ senses. The narrative, however, is silent about her feelings, though there are possible clues. First, scholars note that her bathing on the rooftop is nothing unusual in that culture and not a ploy to seduce. She may have been going through ritual purification after her menses (mentioned in 2 Sam 11:4 to explain why the child conceived must have been David’s and not Uriah’s),[2] or simply refreshing herself after the heat of the day. Further, throughout the story, Bathsheba is passive; it is David who acts his will on her.[3] Apart from David’s inquiry, she is not called by name (2 Sam 11:3) until after David marries her (2 Sam 12:24). In our reading, she is ‘the woman’ or simply ‘she/her’, an object seized to gratify David’s lust at her beauty (2 Sam 11:2). In fact, David has become the king Samuel warned against, the one who takes, takes, takes (1 Sam 8:10-18) because he has the power to do so. Perhaps Rembrandt’s painting of Bathsheba from 1654 reveals best the human tragedy of this woman as she holds David’s summons crumpled in her hand, being made ready for the assignation and looking sad and resigned.[4] Although David could seize what he wanted, he will not be able to control the outcome. The woman he took is now pregnant (2 Sam 11:5).

God our only hope

While our sins may look different, David’s story reminds us that none of us are immune to temptation. Often, expectations in society or fear of the consequences may create some protective boundaries that stop us from acting out the worst of what our sinful nature is capable of. Yet, the greater the power or influence we have, the greater the possibility becomes for doing what we desire and covering our tracks. This is why it is so detrimental for Christian leaders to be idolised by their congregations. We all have feet of clay and remembering our own sinfulness and relying on God’s help is our only hope. May we nurture our relationship with the Lord in humility and trust and remember as we look at David or others who fall spectacularly that there, but for the grace of God, go we…

---

[1] There is some uncertainty about the Hebrew of v.1 because many manuscripts read ‘when messengers go out’, while many others have ‘when kings go out’. The reference to ‘battle’ is not mentioned in the Hebrew but is implied if the text talks about kings. It could easily be a typo, since the variation between ‘messengers’ and ‘kings’ is one (silent) consonant and the difference in pronunciation is minimal. Kings make better sense here because spring-summer was the usual time for military campaigns. It would also be odd to talk about messengers when David sent out Joab and Israel not as messengers but as troops in war. The statement that David stays behind adds further weight to seeing these two remarks as the narrator’s negative comment on the king. Biblical narrative is terse and only gives necessary information, so telling us that David stayed behind as neutral detail is superfluous. David ‘sent’ Joab (which means he did not go himself) and his presence in Jerusalem will become immediately obvious as we plunge into the story. The fact that it is mentioned draws our attention to it and, in light of what follows, not in a good way.

[2] In some translations, 2 Sam 11:4 reads like a sequence, i.e. that after David took her, she purified herself from the uncleanness (of sexual intercourse?), but this information has no relevance for the story. This is why interpreters assume that the issue is menstruation because it helps identify the child as the result of David’s adultery. This kind of interpolation that inserts crucial information out of chronological order is not unusual in Hebrew narrative. The law on menstruants (Lev 15:19-24) does not specify the details of the purification rite, but it can be gleaned from comparable procedures described in the same chapter. It would have included ritual bathing (as well as sacrifice), and later rabbinic interpretation set the cleansing rite seven days after a woman started her period. If this was the practice that Bathsheba followed, then pregnancy was a plausible outcome after David slept with her, especially if he did so a day or two after she completed her purification. 

[3] Notice, for instance, the impression we get if the text were to say ‘She went up to the rooftop and started bathing. Then David saw her…’ as opposed to how the Bible puts it, ‘he saw a woman bathing’ (v.2). The difference is small, but in the first instance, she is an agent in her own right doing something, in the second, she is acted on.

[4] There are two other indications that Bathsheba is not seen as guilty by the narrator. When Nathan confronts David, Bathsheba herself does not feature at all in the prophet’s accusation. In fact, the parable about the rich man taking the poor man’s ewe lamb that Nathan uses to condemn the king (2 Sam 12:2-4) suggests her helplessness. Further, the consequence that comes on David for his adultery repeats the same pattern of women taken against their will in David’s family (2 Sam 12:11-12). Thus, David’s son, Amnon rapes his half-sister Tamar (2 Sam 13:11-12, 14) and another son, Absalom, will sleep with David’s concubines to assert his royal rights in rebellion to his father (2 Sam 16:21-22).

If you enjoyed this post, please share it with others.