Bathsheba as an Example of Honoring Biblical Womanhood

Introduction

Reality shapes theology. The necessity to revisit the biblical text and bring a new theological perspective is part of the process of the constant change of how society works. Such a process is present within the biblical text as the covenant between God and humanity progresses and adapts from Adam until the final covenant with Jesus Christ. Scripture demonstrates itself as a living text when different generations keep being able to bring a significance for their life from the text while being faithful to its meaning. Douglas Estes stated, “In a few short decades in the latter half of the twentieth century, the interpretation of the Bible underwent a notable shift such as had happened only occasionally over the last few thousand years.”[1] He explained that, consequently, “the focus in biblical interpretation began to shift from what the text can teach us about the past to also include what the text can teach us about the text (and ourselves).”[2] The process of seeing the application of a passage in the Bible is crucial to live the relevance of Scripture today.

However, before considering the theological instance of a text, the study of the biblical text in its original purpose is part of the process of understanding the message rooted in Scripture for its original audience. In view of 1 and 2 Samuel, the literary structure tells more information about the conclusions and lessons the author intended when putting the stories in such order. Meir Sternberg affirmed that “like all social discourse, biblical narrative is orientated to an addressee and regulated by a purpose or a set of purposes involving the addressee.”[3] When it comes to 1 and 2 Samuel story about David’s life, the narrative about the rape of Bathsheba works as a pivotal moment in the king’s narrative.[4]At the same time, Bathsheba’s character arc is a prominent example that if claiming a definition for biblical womanhood is possible, what Scripture defines as a model for womanhood is to be an active and equal participant in God’s covenant and plan for the coming of the Messiah.

David before and after the Rape of Bathsheba

For this article to be of good use, the reader needs to consider the interpretation that the story of David and Bathsheba in chapter 11 of 2 Samuel was about a rape and not about adultery that came from the consent of both parts.[5]Therefore, the thesis of this paper considers that Bathsheba was not culpable of what happened in the story because she could not consent in a power rape narrative. Before considering the literary conclusion regarding the consequences of such rape in Bathsheba’s character arc, analyzing the portrayed of David during the whole book of 1 Samuel and in the first chapter of 2 Samuel is essential to understand the shift that happens after chapter 11 and 12.[6] When the literary concept of the connection between different books is applied to 1 Samuel, some of the messages that came with the beginning of kingship in Israel becomes clear. Some details that are interesting to point out are the literary contrast in the stories that the author(s) of 1 Samuel chose to tell to introduce Saul and, later, to introduce David. First, the information from 1 Samuel about Saul and David makes sense when seen through the lenses of the end of the book of Judges. On chapter 19, the most violent story in the Bible[7] introduces a considerable amount of characters. The gang rape done to the concubine happened in Gibeah, where the Benjaminites lived (verse 16). The only person portrayed in a good light by the text (besides the victim) is her father, from Bethlehem (verse 2).

In 1 Samuel 9, the author(s) introduced Saul as part of the tribe of Benjamin and as a man not capable and committed to take care of his father’s donkeys. On the other hand, in chapter 16 when the author(s) introduced David, besides that he was from Bethlehem, he was a good shepherd to his father’s sheep.[8] Such information about which tribe Saul and David were from resonates with the ending of the book of Judges that started to create the expectation for kingship in Israel.[9] Mark K. George stated that “by claiming that he [David] is a shepherd who cares for and defends his flock — that is, a good shepherd — David inscribes he royal overtones inherent in the metaphor on himself and on his body.”[10] Therefore, since some elements present in the book of Judges, the narrative is indicating that Saul would not be a good king while David would.

Therefore, from 1 Samuel 16 forward, the narrative shifts to focus on David’s life. Walter Brueggemann explained that “scholars commonly refer to this extended literary piece as ‘the rise of David.’”[11] Brueggemann explained that “the narrative begins with David as an unknown, unvalued shepherd boy and ends with David fully established as the ‘shepherd of Israel’ (II Sam 5:2).”[12] David’s life worked as a line that went up until chapter 10 of 2 Samuel. After chapter 11 with the rape of Bathsheba, the line started to go down until his death. Such view about David’s story is not uncommon, especially if considering how degrading was his situation before he died.

The best event in David’s life should be consider chapter 7 when God made a covenant with him and his offspring, considering that the main importance of 1 and 2 Samuel when looked through Christian Scripture lenses is that it contains such crucial information about the coming of the Messiah. The first consequences that the text presents for David’s sin is the death of his child with Bathsheba. However, through literary features, chapter 13 demonstrates not just another combination of indication that the event in chapter 11 was rape but keeps demonstrating the fall of David as a man portrayed with a good character.

One factor that help understand the connection between chapters 11–12 with chapter 13 is remember the different literary units that can be seen in 1 and 2 Samuel. Brueggemann explained that Leonhard Rost believed that the “entire literature of II Samuel 9–20 and I Kings 1–2 (…) was the story of how Solomon succeeded to David’s throne…”[13]Visualizing all these chapters as working in a unit (at least depending on the purpose) helps to comprehend the connection between Bathsheba and Tamar’s rape.

The key factor in chapter 13 when in relation to David is the fact that he does not do anything about Amnon’s severe sin of raping Tamar. Brueggemann stated that “the response of David to Amnon’s affront” is “sandwiched between Absalom’s two responses to Tamar and to Amnon.”[14] David Toshio Tsumura pointed out that “the name Absalomappears four times, hinting that he will become the major character in the subsequent story.”[15] Considering this shift of which character the author(s) is (are) focusing on is crucial not just for the type of literature pointed by Rost but also to better visualize what happened in the first two chapters of 1 Kings.

Bathsheba

The division between David before the rape of Bathsheba and David after the rape of Bathsheba is not hard to visualize; even for people who defend the adultery position, the consequences of what happened chapter 11 are clear. However, even more than to understand such narrative information regarding the stories in 1 and 2 Samuel, visualizing the shift in the plot of Bathsheba’s life is a crucial aspect of the text. In the book of 1 Kings, Bathsheba’s actions can divide interpretation regarding her character arc. When analyzing a biblical text in the narratives of the Hebrew Bible, considering the light that the author(s) puts the character under is a considerable step to interpret the initial intent of a passage. Considering the texts that are in question in this paper, 2 Samuel 11, for example, paints Bathsheba and Uriah as followers of the Law and people of character while (some people argue) set the event putting David being in the wrong place.[16] However, when thinking about what Bathsheba did in the first and second chapter of 1 Kings, some scholars will argue that she and Nathan deceived David into making Solomon king.[17] Therefore, to understand the conclusion of Bathsheba’s character arc, 1 Kings 1–2 is the answer.

The biblical text introduces Bathsheba in a good light[18] as someone that obeyed the Law and, as the events in chapter 11 happened, the text portrays her as a victim. Even during Nathan’s prophecy to David, she is compared to a lamb (12:3). Matthew Newkirk defended that to interpret that she deceived David to make Solomon king is an issue to other aspects of the biblical text, because many that say that she deceived David will claim (as a logical conclusion of such approach) that Solomon should not have been the king.[19] Newkirk argued that in 1 Chr 22:10 “YHWH himself affirms Solomon as David’s successor, and thus to posit a negative depiction of Solomon’s succession in 1 Kings 1 would be incongruent its portrayal in Chronicles.”[20] Therefore, by just recognizing that the biblical text defended that Solomon was the son that was related to God’s covenant with David,[21] the idea that Bathsheba and Nathan were deceiving David into making Solomon king does not work well with the rest of the narrative.

Other elements of 1 Kings point to an interpretation that does not fit the idea of Bathsheba deceiving David. Newkirk argued that the first argument against Bathsheba and Nathan deceiving David is “the characterization of Adonijah.”[22] He explained that “several elements in the text suggest that Adonijah is characterized as seditious and therefore attempting to usurp the throne. (…) [and] Adonijah is depicted as a second Absalom, and thus like Absalom is characterized as rebellious.”[23] The second argument is “the portrayal of Solomon.”[24] Newkirk stated that the text contains many “hints… that Solomon is depicted as the rightful king.”[25] The third and last argument is “the witness of Chronicles.”[26] Therefore, Nathan and Bathsheba’s plan was not to deceive David.

Considering that Solomon was the rightful successor of king David, what Bathsheba did was the right choice. Therefore, realizing the similarity between her character and Rebekah’s from Genesis is interesting. The ambiguity present in Rebekah’s plan to Jacob receive the blessing made many Bible readers and scholars also consider her as a deceiver and going against Isaac as the patriarch. However, just by considering what God reveled to her about what was happening inside of her womb, seeing that she was doing God’s will is what might be the right interpretation.[27] David J. Zucker pointed out in his article many of the narrative indications that Isaac and Rebekah always worked well as a couple with love and compatibility for each other, and he defended that they formulated together the plan so Jacob would get the blessing.[28] Therefore, in both cases, Bathsheba and Rebekah’s, even that in surface level the right interpretation seems to be that they deceived their husband, when considering literary features of the text, the narrative points otherwise.

Bringing the focus to Bathsheba again, the two first chapters of 1 Kings demonstrates a shift in her character compared to the way the narrative portrayed her in 2 Samuel 11–12. Nessler stated that “Bathsheba’s story is split by a wide chasm of male dominated texts…”[29] Nessler explained how the text demonstrates aspect of how “Bathsheba’s body speaks” of her trauma and affirmed that “the significance of her personhood is nevertheless stripped from her in the world of the text, both creating the sense that Bathsheba has been dehumanized and foreshadowing an isolation from relative safety with the impending death of Uriah.”[30] When considering the rape of Bathsheba, to visualize that this meant that she went through a recovery process of the trauma of also losing her husband and mourning his death[31] is part of understanding the direction that the narrative will point to in 1 Kings.

What might be one of the most crucial literary aspects of Bathsheba’s story is how little she is present in an active way during the two chapters in 2 Samuel. Since she is not present during the rest of the story in the book of 2 Samuel, the chapters 11–12 (2 Samuel) and 1–2 (1 Kings) are a literary structure that works in the same way that a sandwich in the Gospels in the New Testament does.[32] The story of the rape of Tamar and the revolt in the household of David as the center. The Tamar story working as a parallel to Bathsheba’s with many connections in description of behavior by the different characters[33] and the revolt working as the path that explains how Solomon became king. Therefore, to understand Bathsheba’s character arc, a comparison of chapters 11–12 and 1–2 demonstrates how these two sets of texts work as a unit in a narrative perspective.[34] Nessler pointed out that, in 1 Kgs 1, Nathan’s conversation with Bathsheba is the first time that the text mentioned someone speaking with her[35] and that, in verse 17, “Bathsheba declares what Nathan suggested she only ask.”[36] Such details and some others contribute to the formation of a mirror aspect, a contrast, between how the text portrays Bathsheba.

While chapter 11 of 2 Samuel works as a pivotal narrative in David’s life, the biblical text deals with Bathsheba in two moments demonstrating in 1 Kings the conclusion of her story. Nessler stated, “The woman whom David had taken now takes the kingship from him, establishing safety for her and her son.”[37] While in the western society, literature seems to use descriptions and details to add to the main information and description, Hebrew literature adds information that makes a case for what the author(s) wanted to claim. Therefore, one of the literary features that makes such parallel in the two events of Bathsheba’s life has even a poetic and ironic connotation, since it would not be a “coincidence that the moment David is introduced to the reader as sexually impotent, Bathsheba reappears to speak for the first time.”[38]Beverly W. Cushman argued that, “at the critical moment” of chapter 1 of 1 Kings, “Nathan sought Bathsheba as the head of the household. (…) [Bathsheba’s] “unannounced entry, physical position, and the very fact that she makes that claim [that Solomon should be king] (and does so with verbal force) are all consistent with the power of a Great Lady with regard to the king.”[39] The story of 1 Kgs 1–2 demonstrates that Bathsheba became an active character regarding the succession of David as a king, and even sat on Solomon’s right with a throne for her (2:19).

Conclusion

The story present in 2 Samuel 11–12 until 1 Kings 1–2 concerning Bathsheba’s character demonstrates a shift from a victim of rape to the principal wife of David who helped to secure Solomon’s throne as the rightful successor of his father. While chapter 11 of 2 Samuel is a pivotal moment in David’s life in a negative way, the same chapter works as the beginning of Bathsheba’s character arc as someone who overcame abuse, oppression, and the lack of autonomy. Considering that the Bible constantly honors human beings who recognize God’s will and act accordingly, Bathsheba is one of the examples of how women are present in God’s plan until the final and perfect covenant with Christ.

The genealogy of Matthew brings four women by giving special mention to crucial people in the coming of the Messiah. However, besides being the ones bearing the descendants of the Abrahamic covenant, God constantly used women as active characters as part of his operational purpose towards his people and the Gentiles. Narrative features present in Scripture claim different conclusions concerning the women that readers of the Bible deemed as deceitful. Bathsheba (as Rebekah, Rahab, Deborah, Jael, and Esther) acted according to God’s instructions and will by actively participating in his people and covenant, demonstrating that biblical womanhood is about fearing God and obeying him. A theology faithful to such a concept must claim that women are not second to men but co-partner as the royal priesthood of God’s creation.

[1] Douglas Estes, “Introduction: The Literary Approach to the Bible,” in Literary Approaches to the Bible, ed. Douglas Mangum and Douglas Estes (Bellingham: Lexham Press, 2017), 1.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Meir Sternberg, The Poetics of Biblical Narrative: Ideological Literature and the Drama of Reading(Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1987), 1.

[4] Such statement was also affirmed by Brueggemann in Walter Brueggemann, First and Second Samuel, Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Preaching and Teaching (Louisville: John Knox Press, 1990), 271.

[5] Adultery versus rape has been a considerable debate in the last decades, so many authors have produced different materials regarding their attempt to contribute to the interpretation of chapters 11 and 12. If the reader wants to understand more the argument to affirm that David raped Bathsheba, some texts can be of good help: Richard M. Davidson, “Did King David Rape Bathsheba? A Case Study in Narrative Theology,” Journal of the Adventist Theological Society 17, no. 2 (Autumn 2006), https://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/. D.E Garland and D.R Garland, Flawed Families of the Bible: How God’s Grace Works Through Imperfect Relationships (Brazos Press, 2007): 22.

[6] One of the most essential aspects to understand about the Hebrew Bible is that different from the New Testament, structure from within the text points to more than one author for many of the sixty-six books and an editor(s) that putted the books together tying the story with some expressions and phrases that can be seen throughout the whole Old Testament. Considering this view helps to visualize the connections between the stories present in different books and how they connect to each other. Such connections is not just about chronological order of the events happening throughout Scripture, but also about the literary aspects of the text that add to the message of what the author(s) wrote. One source that can be helpful is: Reinhard Müller, Juha Pakkala, and Romeny Bas ter Haar, Evidence of Editing: Growth and Change of Texts in the Hebrew Bible (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2014).

[7] A horror story that makes It by Stephen King a fairy tale.

[8] David’s abilities as a shepherd is also mentioned in chapter 17 verses 34 to 36.

[9] Such expectation also comes from the phrase “in those days there was no king in Israel; all the people did what was right in their own eyes” (NRSVUE) present both in chapter 17 verse 6 and in chapter 21 verse 25.

[10] Mark K. George, “Constructing Identity in 1 Samuel 17,” Biblical Interpretation 7, no. 4 (1999): 404.

[11] Brueggemann, 119.

[12] Ibid.

[13] Ibid, 265.

[14] Ibid, 289.

[15] David Toshio Tsumura, The Second Book of Samuel, (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2019), 211.

[16] “In the spring of the year, the time when kings go out to battle (…) David remained in Jerusalem” (2 Samuel 11:1, NRSVUE). However, some scholars will disagree if David staying in Jerusalem was a mistake by itself or if verse one is not trying to paint David in a bad light just by saying that he did not go to battle. One of the reasons for the disagreement is that David also did not go to battle in chapter 10, but nothing in the text pointed that as a mistake by itself.

[17] Matthew Newkirk, in his article “Reconsidering the Role of Deception in Solomon’s Ascent to the Throne,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 57, no. 4 (2014), footnoted some sources regarding such interpretation of Bathsheba and Nathan’s actions on chapter 1 of 1 Kings. Some of the sources are John Gray, I and II Kings: A Commentary, (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1963), 85 and Harry Hagan, “Deception as Motif and Theme in 2 Sam 9–20; 1 Kgs 1–2,” Bib 60 (1979), 302.

[18] “Now she was purifying herself after her period” (2 Samuel 11:4, NRSVUE).

[19] Newkirk, 705.

[20] Ibid. Newkirk explained that he understands that the Chronicle’s author(s) had a different “goal” than the author(s) of Kings “leading the Chronicler to be selective and only include positive information about David and Solomon,” but “these positive data must be considered when forming biblical-theological view of Solomon’s ascent” (pages 705–706).

[21] Walter Brueggemann stated that “in these verses [2 Samuel 7:12–17] the oracles moves to its most extravagant claim. Verse 12 seems to allude to Solomon, who will have the kingdom and who will build a temple” (First and Second Samuel, page 255).

[22] Newkirk, 710.

[23] Ibid.

[24] Ibid, 711.

[25] Ibid. Two of the indication that Newkirk pointed out are the fact that even Adonijah stated that Yahweh wanted Solomon to be king (1 Kgs 2:15) and that “the only comment the narrator makes about Solomon before this episode is that “YHWH loved him….” (2 Sam12:24)” (Newkirk, 711).

[26] Ibid, 712. The summary of his third argument is that, even that the text of 1 ad 2 Samuel does not contain any indication that David knew and wanted Solomon to succeed him, the book of Chronicles contain such information.

[27] David J. Zucker pointed out that “some of the Patristics praise Rebekah” for what she did regarding Jacob receiving the blessing. David J. Zucker, “Cold Case: Restoring Rebekah, Intrigue Genesis 27,” The Asbury Journal 71, no. 2 (2016), 117.

[28] Ibid. For a better understanding of how he defended such interpretation considering aspects of the text, read his article. I will not cover in detail since this paper is about Bathsheba. The summary of the plan that Isaac and Rebekah formulated together involved in a code-language using the name Yahweh.

[29] Brent Nessler, “Tracing Bathsheba’s Metamorphosis through the Lens of Trauma and Recovery,” Journal of Biblical Literature 142, no. 1 (2023), 91.

[30] Ibid, 100.

[31] “When the wife of Uriah heard that her husband was dead, she made lamentation for him” (2 Samuel 11:26, NRSVUE).

[32] For more information, read Mark Strauss, Four Portrays, One Jesus: An Introduction to Jesus and the Gospels, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2007).

[33] For more details, consider Julia Michelle Hogan, “David’s Women: A Critical Comparison of Michal, Bathsheba, and Tamar in 1 and 2 Samuel,” University of Birmingham Research Archive, https://etheses.bham.ac.uk/id/eprint/5118/5/Hogan14MRes.pdf, 46–47.

[34] Nessler argued that “the “very beautiful” description for Abishag, the reemergence of Bathsheba’s (and Nathan), and the new patronymic applied to Bathsheba’s name [“Bathsheba, mother of Solomon”] — suggest that the events of 1 Kgs 1–2 are a continuation of those [of] 2 Sam 11–12” (105). It is also worth reading Joseph Blenkinsopp, “Another Contribution to the Succession Narrative Debate (2 Samuel 11–12; 1 Kings1–2),” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 38, no. 1 (2013): 35–58.

[35] Ibid.

[36] Ibid, 106.

[37] Ibid.

[38] Ibid, 106–107.

[39] Beverly W. Cushman, “The Politics of the Royal Harem and the Case of Bat-Sheba,” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 30, no. 3 (2006): 338. She explained that “traditionally, the designation of gebîrâ was understood as a personal epithet referring to a royal woman who was notable for her strong character, personal influence, and ambitions” (328).

Bibliography

Blenkinsopp, Joseph. “Another Contribution to the Succession Narrative Debate (2 Samuel 11–12; 1 Kings1–2).” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 38, no. 1 (2013): 35-58. https://www.jstor.org/.

Brueggemann, Walter. First and Second Samuel. Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Preaching and Teaching. Louisville: John Knox Press, 1990.

Cushman, Beverly W. “The Politics of the Royal Harem and the Case of Bat-Sheba.” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 30, no. 3 (2006): 327–343. https://www.jstor.org/.

Davidson, Richard M. “Did King David Rape Bathsheba? A Case Study in Narrative Theology.” Journal of the Adventist Theological Society 17, no. 2 (Autumn 2006): 81-95. https://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/.

Estes, Douglas Estes. “Introduction: The Literary Approach to the Bible.” In Literary Approaches to the Bible, edited by Douglas Mangum and Douglas Estes. Bellingham: Lexham Press, 2017.

Garland, D.E and D.R Garland. Flawed Families of the Bible: How God’s Grace Works Through Imperfect Relationships (Brazos Press, 2007): 22–33. https://www.gnjumc.org/.

George, Mark K. “Constructing Identity in 1 Samuel 17.” Biblical Interpretation 7, no. 4 (1999): 389–412. https://d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net/.

Gray, John. I and II Kings: A Commentary. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1963.

Hagan, Harry. “Deception as Motif and Theme in 2 Sam 9–20; 1 Kgs 1–2.” Biblica 60, no. 3 (1979): 301–326. https://www.jstor.org/.

Hogan, Julia Michelle. “David’s Women: A Critical Comparison of Michal, Bathsheba, and Tamar in 1 and 2 Samuel.” University of Birmingham Research Archive, https://etheses.bham.ac.uk/id/eprint/5118/5/Hogan14MRes.pdf.

Müller, Reinhard, Juha Pakkala, and Romeny Bas ter Haar. Evidence of Editing: Growth and Change of Texts in the Hebrew Bible. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2014.

Nessler, Brent. “Tracing Bathsheba’s Metamorphosis through the Lens of Trauma and Recovery.” Journal of Biblical Literature 142, no. 1 (2023): 91–109.https://scholarlypublishingcollective.org/.

Newkirk, Matthew. “Reconsidering the Role of Deception in Solomon’s Ascent to the Throne.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 57, no. 4 (2014): 703–713. https://www.etsjets.org/.

Sternberg, Meir. The Poetics of Biblical Narrative: Ideological Literature and the Drama of Reading. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1987.

Strauss, Mark. Four Portrays, One Jesus: An Introduction to Jesus and the Gospel. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2007.

Tsumura, David Toshio. The Second Book of Samuel. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2019.

Zucker, David J. “Cold Case: Restoring Rebekah, Intrigue Genesis 27.” The Asbury Journal 71, no. 2 (2016): 115–124. https://place.asburyseminary.edu/.