Thank you for telling the truth. I gleaned the act was one of rape and for a time it made it hard to read that the Lord counted "David as a man after His own heart." In the end, I came to accept it as a demonstration of how deep, and how wide God's love can reach... even to sexual immorality... even to rape. Which is staggering.
May the Lord return quickly! Amen. God is merciful. He always forgives. Never be ashamed to take your failures to him. He is for you, not against you! God is with you in the storm. He knows your troubles, he hears you! He is for you, on your side, always! It may feel silent at times, but he’s holding you close! May the Lord return soon! We are drawing closer. He is coming! Believe and trust in the Lord, you will be saved. Period. May the Lord bless you all! Hang in there family. Stay strong. It is not easy following the Lord. We are scoffed at. We give up our earthly dreams, our fleshly desires. What the enemy offers is short lived, but heaven is forever! Life may seem or be unfair, but God is with you! Always remember that. Things may get better or worse for you, but a kingdom awaits you! Finish the race! Repent daily and carry your cross. This world is fading fast. Your troubles are temporary! New channel here, I’d appreciate any kind of support. Don’t give up! God loves you so much! So do I. The Lord bless you!
2 Sam 11:26 It's right there. One simple verse. I think she loved her husband or she would not have mourned for him when she had heard he was dead. That verse didn't have to be there. But it is. There's nothing worse than mourning for s/o, wishing you could see their face again, hear their voice or have a chance to say goodbye. This to me is what this verse says. Contrast this to David's attitude in the previous verse "meh, one sword devours one as well as another, don't let this bother you" when he says this to the servant reporting Uriah's death. God alone could see Bathsheba's heart and her pain at the loss of her husband, just as He saw David's relief and indifference. I think she was happy being the one special girl in her husband's life rather than being one of many in some king's harem. Nathan's illustration shows us how special to Uriah Bathsheba was and how bored David was with his many wives.
It says nothing. Women fake cry all the time to be seen as virtuous. We have no way of knowing if it was true mourning or not. Also, if David saw Bathsheba from the rooftop… she had to be close enough for him to see her. And if it was true mourning… I think the marriage between David and Bathsheba would’ve been more tumultuous. Because she would’ve hated him.
@@joesandwhich3909 I think the Bible reveals to the reader the true emotions that others at the time could never know. It doesn't say she pretended to mourn for him.
@@joesandwhich3909 Why do you think this detail was included in the narrative? It's just like the Bible to give us clues into the hearts and minds of persons in a story that no one else can see. However, It looks as though you've already made up your mind about this woman and that you have a resentment towards women in general. Since she is a woman she must be a fake cryer, a manipulater. If this is true, God would see it wouldn't he? So what is your problem? Are you accusing God of being unfair rather than admit the hateful filter you have on?
I believe too from the reading that no accusation is made against her, therefore we should not make an accusation of her behaving in an inappropriate way. So it’s at night, he gets up out of his bed, He’s the king, he’s got the highest balcony around. He should have gone back inside when he saw her. Then he inquired, then he sent messengers to bring her to him. This was multiple steps where he chose the wrong direction each time. Then he plans against Uriah. God has Nathan illustrate it with a story, she is portrayed as a lamb.That should be end of it, I don’t understand why other people make her out to be a seductive person. If someone was peeking in your window and sees you at night? That doesn’t make you the guilty one.Some people are saying she shouldn’t have gone to the king, like why?She didn’t know what he was up to. Remember when Nabal refused David food, he was going to kill him, so refusing to go wouldn’t be a likely response.Interesting how many people choose to judge her guilty without any scripture to justify it. I found this helpful and encouraging thank you
@@JR-rs5qs Right. I mean we don't really know honestly. I was saying the point of the passage isn't really the specific nature of the sin, but that the sin took place in a manner that called back to the fall of man in Gen 3. That's what the Spirit means to communicate here. Whether she was willing in it, to me is somewhat irrelevant, would David had been more excused in his sin if it was a rape or a consensual relationship? Not even a little bit brothers and sisters.
@@TheDrummaBen From David's perspective, yes, absolutely, he coveted his neighbor's wife and took actions to obtain her in the way he wanted to. However, when a word like 'took' is used, it communicates a theft, which it was, but the text does not say anything about an unwilling theft on Bathsheba's part. Much can be said about David using his position, but it's quite commonly known that there are many, many women who are happy and willing to participate in a multitude of sins with rich, powerful men and they cannot be excused of their sin. So many ministries like Desiring God take this line of 'the poor, innocent, angelic woman was taken advantage of' and it's a twisted, unbiblical take. All it leads to are feminist, unhappy women, and cowardly, effeminate men and unhappy, disastrous marriages.
@@JR-rs5qs No women back in the day would say no to the king or any powerful man as the consequence could be death to her and her family. So yeah David took what wasn't his and used his power to get her.
@@ihavetubes How about Queen Vashti? What need would Nathan have in confronting David over his sin if power dynamics were only at play and it was societally acceptable? If what you're saying is true, there'd be no need for it because might makes right. David sought to hide what he had done by putting Uriah in a position where he'd surely lose his life because if it became known what he had done, even though he was the king, he was accountable to God's law. Piper has trained a whole swath of typically younger people around my age and younger to think about Old Testament characters and stories in terms of a modern day woke, feminist viewpoint, based on power dynamics, modern conceptions of race, etc. It's sad. David is responsible for his own sin, but so is Bathsheba of hers, yet this is such a hard thing for the effeminized church to accept.
never thought of it this way but the things that piper brought up certainly makes it seem very plausible and gives God even greater glory for being able to forgive and even make up for what david did thank you Lord for your forgiveness we need it much more than we even think we do
7:06: ... all Christians are influential one way or the other, and they can be influential in harmful ways or influential in helpful ways." And there's the challenge! Thanks, Pastor John!
Culturally and as a devout Jew she would not have wanted it. She was summoned by the king, she didn’t know why. Also the the story off the sheep. Illustrates it was not consentual
2 Samuel 11:4 And David sent messengers, and took her; and she came in unto him, and he lay with her; for she was purified from her uncleanness: and she returned unto her house. Daniel 12:10 Many shall be purified, and made white, and tried; but the wicked shall do wickedly: and none of the wicked shall understand; but the wise shall understand. Matthew 5:8 Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God.
I never thought of Bathshiba as an adulteress. Maybe because of how God set the story up. “On a day when kings went to battle…” David shouldn’t have even been there. He probably blew off his awaiting chariot. Just a bad state of mind for a king. Plus he knew she was married so yeah, not one of his better days
My only question is why was she bathing in the open ? Was bathing on the roof something common at that time? No, I’m not accusing her of anything, I’m just curious.
It actually never says that SHE was bathing on the roof, but that David was on the roof when he saw her bathing (I have heard sermons about her ritual bathing) in accordance with what is lawful. It is the kings house that was high enough to see out and perhaps in on others. All while he should’ve been at war and not home in the first place. 2 Sam 11:1-5
@@iprobablyhaveapoint the Hebrews took care not to be in the sight of anyone when cleansing or other private acts... they did not do these things publicly for all to see. Nakedness was shameful and they knew this.
I always thought she was less innocent than that. The text doesn't really gives a lot of clues tio what exactly she felt. Morning after her husband death might have been a usual thing: a certain number od days you wear black (or whatever equivalent) . One thing that strikes me she never mentioned it to her husband when he came back from war. But again she might have concealed it from shame - there are cases when nowadays women do not report either. It was a different era then, women had no voice, no power, their word in court wasn't asked.
When reading the bible use Jesus as the standard. Everything needs to line up with what He said! When you do all sorts of truth will be shared with us! In the end it's the truth that sets you free! We learn in James 2:19 that even the demons believe! Does that mean that the demons are saved? How do we know if we believe then? In order to find out if we believe in Jesus we must believe His word is truth. HIS word is first, not the apostles, not Paul and not your pastor or priest ... HIS! We need to read the words of our Messiah and use THEM as the standard. In that remember Jesus also said: Do """"ALL""""" that Moses said. Matthew 23:1-3 In John 5:47 Jesus says "But if you dont believe in Moses writings, how will you believe in His! In Luke 16:31 "" If they dont listen to Moses & the prophets, they won't listen if someone rises from the dead"" Gee I wonder do you who rose from the dead that He was talking about? It comes down to this; if you dont accept Moses writings, or the prophets, you won't accept what Jesus says. Jesus ""never contradicted the Father therefore He never contradicted what Moses wrote. Jesus didn't start a new religion. If He did, the pharisees would've crucified Him for that! Remember they found no fault in Him!!! That means when they studied the writings of Moses there wasn't any contradiction with what He said and what the Father had Moses write down. He didn't teach a new religion He came to show us "The Way" to walk out the old one. Don't let Jesus say to you "" Depart from me you who practice lawlessness"" Instead believe His words """ If you love me keep my commandments"""" His commands are exactly the fathers commands. These very commands that Moses wrote!
And David was declared a man after God’s own heart. So looks like even a rapist, who knew God when he committed that act, can be called a man after God’s own heart. And even more so, Jesus came directly from the lineage of that rape. David did suffer consequences, but that doesn’t negate how he is ultimately declared and how God used the situation.
I"m gonna go with yes. Why? The gender flipped version of Potiphar's wife suggests what she should've done. But wait, isn't David a mighty king? Couldn't he have had armed guards at the door pointing sharp objects at her if she tried to flee him? The Bible also suggests that telling a mighty king no and dying to prove your point is also a length God expects you to go to avoid sin. Over there in Daniel, good old King Neb tells Daniel to worship him. "Nope." "Okay, Lion's Den." Then, Shadrach, Mishac, Abendigo, "Hey, you guys, worship me!" "Nope." "Okay, Fiery Furnace!" In the New Testament, the same deal happens. "Renounce Christ!" "Nope!" "Okay, die!" In short, "Fear not him who kills the body, rather, fear Him who after killing the body, burns the soul in Hell."
@@linzlove eh. If she was meant to be seen as a hero of faith, it would have mentioned resistance of some kind. Instead, it just mentions she was purified of her uncleanness. Which sounds to me like she was forgiven, not that no wrong was done.
@@MegaMommaUlman God isn't in the habit of letting people off the hook. No matter how understandable the action may be, there is, technically, always a choice. She could've chosen death over submitting to David's sinful desire. As I say above, many OT and NT people do in fact choose death over sin.
Perhaps death wasn't an option. You can't prove a point based on the fact the Bible is silent as to any resistance she might or might not have put up, any injuries she might have suffered.
This is a good question. I've often wondered about the killing of innocent women, children & animals in the Old Testament, as a punishment of men's actions. We will never fully understand God's heart until we are in heaven. Until then, we have questions, and we must trust God's judgement & love for humanity. His love is far above ours, as are his thoughts & plans.
@@natalielinden “men’s actions” sins have consequences on others not just on those who commit them. God creates us and has every single right to brings us back to Himself.
Questions about if she knew or did not know about him seeing her bathing ..that's like the modern day question of "how was she dressed" when a woman gets raped. Victim blaming.
No, it's not victim blaming, it's a legitimate point. If a woman dresses and acts like a prostitute, then it shouldn't be a surprise to anyone when she gets treated like one.
@@lawrencestanley8989 If a woman doesn't give consent, it's rape. It doesn't matter how she was dressed, or how she was acting. "She was asking for it" is a disgusting excuse that men still use to try and lessen their guilt.
@@natalielinden And she gave consent the moment she left her home looking and acting like a prostitute. Let’s be honest, when brothels exhibit their inmates more chastely and modestly dressed than the average woman wishing to express her "femininity," and then these same women seem surprised and appalled at men who then act according to their natural hormonal responses, these women are guilty not so much of ignorance, but of MADNESS. Little heed can be given to holy thoughts by men who are forced to constantly look to and fro to avoid prolonged exposure to this living pornography; a pornography not relegated to back alleys and discrete scenarios as it once was, but one that is proudly paraded in front of all as if it is something to be celebrated.
I think a plainer reading suggests that she was actually indeed complicit: First, I think it's very telling that, when it comes to the case of Tamar, who was for certainty raped, there is a different verb used (translated as "violated" or "raped") even though it is in the same book and by the same writer. If what Amnon did in bed was truly equivalent to what David did, why not just use the same verb? But the more telling part yet may be Bathsheba being receptive when David goes to comfort her (2 Sam. 12:24), enough to choose to have a child with him. By this point, scripture uses the word "his wife" to describe her. If she was really sexually traumatized by David, would this make any sense? We also read that David was handsome (1 Sam. 16:12), so it's not too crazy to believe that she was tempted, too, just like David. I think there is strong evidence that it was indeed a consensual, actual affair.
Psalm 51:4 Against you, you only, have I sinned and done what is evil in your sight, so that you may be justified in your words and blameless in your judgment. -- If David sinned against Bathsheba in terms of rape of domineering her, David could not say this before God. He would have otherwise had to say "Against you and Bathsheba, have I sinned"...stop reading into the Bible rather than from it.
@@halinkap5217 I didn't reply to the above question for several reasons, but when one understands the position that David was given by God (of which he was unable to fulfill because he's not perfect as Christ is, and God knew that!), the statement becomes clear. It's not that he didn't sinned against Uriah, he did, but the motivation of his sin was a dissatisfaction with the great abundance that God himself gave to David and covetousness. He shouldn't have been home since he was supposed to be out at war. This is a recurrent sin for men: abdication of responsibility. When one sins like this, other people become functional collateral damage. Not that people are ever really collateral damage, but in the process of David's sin, he treated others as such. It's a 10th commandment issue. 2 Samuel 7-12 makes all of this clear: 7 Then Nathan said to David, “You are the man! This is what the Lord, the God of Israel, says: ‘I anointed you king over Israel, and I delivered you from the hand of Saul. 8 I gave your master’s house to you, and your master’s wives into your arms. I gave you all Israel and Judah. And if all this had been too little, I would have given you even more. 9 Why did you despise the word of the Lord by doing what is evil in his eyes? You struck down Uriah the Hittite with the sword and took his wife to be your own. You killed him with the sword of the Ammonites. 10 Now, therefore, the sword will never depart from your house, because you despised me and took the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be your own.’
What's the point of proving whether Bathsheba sinned with David or not? God, who is ALL-KNOWING, has already deemed it JUST to punish David specifically for his sin. It was said in the Bible that the prophet Nathan even personally delivered the news to David that he will be punished for what he did. Now how God dealt with Bathsheba is between them! But trying to obsess over whether Bathsheba is complicit or not in the affair won't change anything nor invalidate God's decision. What do we want to get out of proving that Bathsheba was equally responsible for this sin? God already handed his punishment and that should be enough! Stop with the theories and fan fictions and focus instead on God's mercy and redemption which is the actual POINT of this story.
I think the point is that the author intended to present David’s action as rape. So it’s not about “fan fiction” it is about the author’s intent. There are some who take issue with saying David raped Bathsheba but I’m not sure why.
@@elkellenhabla Yes sorry I wasn't referring to the author specifically I was referring to some comments here who are spinning out theories about Bathsheba and David etc, basically things that weren't revealed to us in the text, because theyre trying to prove their own agenda. It's almost as if they're trying to treat this as some unsolved crime mystery when God already handed his judgment. That is what I was saying... This is why I referred to them w/ sarcasm as "fan fictions." But the author's question is valid.
It’s funny how we all hear. I liked the breakdown of Nathan’s parable to show that the fault lay at David’s door. My takeaway from this teaching was about leadership. Leadership is about servanthood. There was an abuse of power. We all need to be mindful of that. My mind went straight to how the Apostle Paul spoke about serving the people, earning his own living instead of expecting financial support. In contrast I thought about some of the megachurch pastors - how many are servant leaders? How many do we see fall into sin? When you are a leader humility is a must. By the way did you notice in the genealogy of Jesus in the book of Matthew: “and Jesse the father of King David. David was the father of Solomon, whose mother had been Uriah’s wife,” Matthew 1:6 NIVUK bible.com/bible/113/mat.1.6.NIVUK
@@inaughtonart518 Yes if you read my comment above yours, I actually explained that I commented that because of the people trying to invalidate the possibility of Bathsheba being raped because according to them, she might have "got naked on purpose" to seduce David, etc. That's what I meant when I said WHATS THE POINT of proving that Bathsheba was complicit. That's what I was referring to as theories and fan fictions. Maybe I got a little emotional because I can't believe some people would go that far just to make sense of something that doesn't align with their views. I actually agree with everything that you said. I also said in my reply above that the author's question is valid and I wasn't referring to him/her in any way.
I know the lord was not pleased with it..Back then it may be I don't know...In today's time it's definitely sin...In the old testament...it said everyone use to neigh after each others wife...Then their is a verse talking about I will not punish your spouses for adultery and your daughters when they comitt whoredom...Then Solomon was allowed at one point to have 700 wives and 300 concubines...Can't nobody do stuff like that nowadays and the Lord not charge them with sin....It was alot of crazy stuff back then....They definitely sinned...She was married and her and David slept together and she got pregnant Maybe she forgot she was married and had a husband Lord I ain't no adulteresses I honestly forgot I had a husband I forgot I was married my bad...Or did David get her husband killed first in the war and then slept with her after her husband was dead...He did get her husband killed...What do you call that..Or is that a different woman...she was married to Uriah right or am I wrong...about that I ain't read the story in a while I could look it up..I don't feel like it though....May be it wasn't sin back then maybe it's father forgive them for they know not what they do I guess....Alot of strange things happened in old testament...
listen again to the video. Bathsheba did sleep with David while uriah was alive, but the evidence from the text is that she was probably not complicit. But david definitley was sinning. Solomon's fall was through the women that he was with- this is definitley not painted as good, godly living.
It’s not even the point. It’s far beyond anything on her intentions. Scripture is giving us a powerful lesson about David’s sin and repentance . That’s the whole point and lesson. Honesty couldn’t care less about Bathshebas side of this.
Why not... it is very important because women are looked at as evil if they tempt a man.. instead of vulnerable and taken advantage of?? I think that can drastically change the meaning of the text... he was the king she HAD to agree period point blank she had no choice! You must be a man to not understand how women are treated especially back then...sheesh have some compassion... or are women just responsible for all men's nasty thoughts...hmm
@@MegaMommaUlman If she intentionally tried to tempt him, then that's evil (sinful). Its clear that David lusted after her (which is not her fault), because it has to do with the condition of David's heart, not hers. Unfortunately, women were/are mistreated in the church and even back then. Men are mistreated in the church too and face different issues than women. It's not a contest. We should just focus on the things we know from scripture rather than speculate on things that can't ever be known.
John Piper leans very liberal in his views, when he says David raped Bathsheba... he uses the word "took" to prove it reading the ESV translation (not all translations are in agreement with that translation) if you read the Hebrew transcript it translates directly in English as "and sent David messengers and took (the Hebrew word 3947 also means "brought") her and she came to him and he lay with her for she was cleansed from her impurity and she returned to her house". So it's not as clear as John tries to make it seem. And let's not forget she was bathing on her roof in plain view of the palace, not inside her house or off in a distant river... David seen her close enough to recognize her beauty... she must have known she was in view. The passage clearly says "sent David messengers took/brought her and she came to him. So he sent a messenger and she was taken or led and she went to him... sounds pretty mutual to me.
@@Blacque... Did David live in his palace alone? Or would he not have had many servants as King... the fact that Bathsheba was on her roof nude in plain sight of whoever could see her shows promiscuity.
@Blacque... That came out wrong, but the fact remains that she was bathing in plain view of a very busy palace filled with many people... if I swim naked in a hotel pool, should I not expect people to watch me from thir rooms. She was being an exhibitionist and wanting attention. I personally would never bath anywhere I could even possibly be seen.
@Blacque... Really I'm sure his guard, cooks, maids, and various other servants would have been all in the basement completely out of sight. Come on get over your excuses, and stop with the modern liberal feminist bias. I'm not saying David was innocent but I am saying neither was Bathsheba... it takes two to tango and she is just as guilty as he is. This was an affair/adultery not rape. Stop trying to twist the bible and adding your own thoughts into it and just let it say what it says without adding anything. That is the difference between proper exegesis and eisegesis... learn hermeneutics and stop adding to the word of God. Bible says "took" not rape, not force, not assault, not attack. I'm done with you have a nice life.
I think she was not raped because the scripture would have said so. In the same book, the scripture clearly mentioned that Amnon raped tamar. If david raped bathsheba, wouldn't the scripture use the same verb as well?
It was a case of undue influence, not rape. Bathsheba was probably overwhelmed by the fact that the King wanted her company. If you want to know the mind of God concerning this matter read the Law of Moses on rape and punishment for consensual sex. There's no indication whatsoever of Bathsheba crying out for help or resisting David. She easily yielded to David because of his power as a King.
David sent messengers and took her, and when she came to him, he lay with her; and when she had purified herself from her uncleanness, she returned to her house. (2 Samuel 11:4, NASB) Compare Genesis 34:2 When Shechem son of Hamor the Hivite, prince of the region, saw her, he seized her and lay with her by force. Couple things first love Piper but I’m sorry I feel he is reading into the text what is not there. First he did not compare any texts where rape is clearly there to see if the word used is the same word in Hebrew for rape. Second the whole verse explains she went to David and laid with him, had her menstruation, then purified herself, then she left. This does not appear to be rape. Now she may have been in a situation like Ester which she didn’t go seeking the Persian king, she was taken, but she went willing to bed. So again, I don’t wanna assume bad intentions from Piper but I think he’s way off basis with this.
First, David is a prophet whom God gave kingship, and what is said about David in terms of accusations against him is incorrect. These accusations do not befit prophets, but unfortunately the ones who invented these false accusations are the Jews, because they say that David is a king and not a prophet.
"Did Bathsheba Sin with David?" The answer kind Sir; could be either Yes or No! Now IF...we had more details... Sadly, that information is not in the bible; enough for us to say it either way. Now IF... 1. Bathsheba "seduced" David; OR...she went along; because she was lonely; while her husband was away fighting a war; etc, etc and ETC?. The answer would be YES! And she was punished 7 fold for her sin(s). Because... Leviticus 26:28 Then Jesus (who IS God) will walk contrary (against) you also in fury (wrath); and I, even I, will chastise (punish in today's English language) you seven times for your sins. That goes for EVERY sin (except for one) that any one commits; from birth to death. Oh indeed. For this is WHY there is "tears, sorrows, pains and even death" from Creation all the time on this earth. And why Jesus says this; to those who are born Again on Judgment Day... Revelation 21:4 And Jesus shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away. Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. 2. On the other hand, IF...Bathsheba was forced by David; or...she fought like a tiger; etc, etc ETC; and she had NO desire to commit adultery atoll (even in thought); she did NOT sin. Then Jesus blessed her untold; for her obeying His commandment #7 (of the 10 commandments). ...In any case kind Sir, Please Pray OFTEN and Praise Jesus OFTEN; for He is the ONLY true "God Almighty"; there will ever have been. And may Jesus bless you and yours always. AMEN!
Oh, she was DEFINATELY complicit in the sin. She was bathing on her roof in PLAIN SIGHT of the King. Now, she was either complicit and intended to entice the King, or she was incredibly stupid and had no idea that bathing naked on her roof in plain sight of the King would have an affect on him.
@@inaughtonart518 I stand corrected. However the point still stands in that binoculars did not exist, so if he could see her, she could see him, and if he could see that she was very beautiful, then he was close enough to see the whites of her eyes, if her eyes were what he was looking at, which it wasnt. So, whether she was on her roof, in the courtyard, or in the back yard, she HAD to have known that particular spot was visible to the King.
Why does it matter though? Some women will do this on purpose for selfish reasons and some women get forced to do sexual things against their will. We're all just called to trust in the Lord and persevere when trials come, abide in Him and He will comfort us and give us strength. We're all sinners.
@@inaughtonart518 And at a "significant" distance, David could tell that she was beautiful? Doubtful. Oh, and I thank you for "thinking" (not conjecturing) on what I know or don't know. I am so thankful that I have you to tell me what I know or don't know.
Putting. She did.I find it hard to believe that David could see her but she couldn't see him.And that her timing of taking an outside bath,at the same time he's out on the balcony,which he probably did every day. URIAH left her alone all the time,when he was finally home never paid her much attention.And when David called him home ,he slept on the front porch.Yea,that girl had a strategy. She knew,David was checking her out.women know when your looking,every time they have sonar.ha ha.Ask any woman if she knows when someone is really looking,they will all say yes.God don't seem to hold women as accountable as men.Another thing that was strange about all that was Uriah was a hetite a foriener.By Jewish laws her marriage was wrong to begin with,they weren't to marry outside their tribe.I know it started a chain reaction of bad events for David and his family..and the punishment for their actions flooded over to the whole nation of Israel.go figure.
God doesn't hold women as accountable as men? That's a lie and against God's character. "For the Lord your God is the God of gods and the Lord of lords, the great, the mighty, and the awesome God who does not show partiality nor take a bribe."
We have no details on their marriage, about Uriah leaving her alone all the time. Let's not mix up what we have been given with fiction about David and Bathsheba. 1. She was taking a purification bath at that time. She probably had just finished her period. 2. God holds all - men and women - accountable for their sins. We are simply told about the incident from David's angle because the essence of the Bible is about and leading up to Jesus. David was not the only one who lost a child. She lost her husband and and her Child. She suffered for her sins. That's one of the reasons why she needed to be comforted in verse 24. 3. Did Bathsheba sin with David? For the sexual act, we do not know but there might be an abuse of power on David's path. Subsequently? She might have sinned by keeping it a secret and attempting to cover it up. Or she could simply have been ashamed and terrified.
where does scripture say she too an outside bath? Nowhere.. Read the text. David the rapist is on.his roof of his palatial home peeri g into the homes of others when he should be away at war.
Highlighted,oh thats right she lived in the condo next door palaces are generally way taller then regular houses they are primitive,and did not have indoor plumbing,and bathed out side.
Hifhlighted,Highlighted, was sarcasm about the condos.they also had roof top baths,And she knew the hours of the day the king walked his porches.Or are you saying she lived next door to the king and never once looked over there observing the luxurious life.And calling David a rapist is obsurd.He had hundreds of concubines just waiting to be called to his chamber.thet even used to audition to gain access to the king through their beauty.He could of had sex 3 times a day for a year and never with the same women.He thats why the prophet gave David the parable of the man who had hundreds of sheep and his neighbor had one.and as far as Uriah being neglectful toward his wife,what if you were married,and your husband was a marine,he was fighting in Afghanistan for a long time, and he got leave.He comes home don't come in the house to give you a kiss ,and say at least,honey I'm home.he just lays his gear down on the front porch,goes to sleep and heads out in the morning,If that's not neglect,I sure don't know what is.I suppose your going to tell me the woman,Pharaohs righthand man Pottifer,wife ripped of Joseph's towel and made him leave naked is because there was a towel shortage in the land,and then she yell a fake rape and got him thrown in prison for quite a few years because he wouldn't have sex with her.
Hi, I just wanted to say we should be very careful to infer that from the Bible because it only says: " One evening David got up from his bed and walked around on the roof of the palace. From the roof he saw a woman bathing. The woman was very beautiful, and David sent someone to find out about her. The man said, “She is Bathsheba, the daughter of Eliam and the wife of Uriah the Hittite.” Then David sent messengers to get her. She came to him, and he slept with her." (2 Samuel 11:2-4) There is no reference to why she was bathing in the open in the later sections in the Bible. This is the only information we're given.
How would anyone know from their homes down below what rooms and what vantage point or which person from what time is up there looking down from a huge palace with many rooms looking over the city? Perhaps she had always done this after her previous monthly periods and not encountered any problems before. It was David who was not at his usual post. He was lazing around at the time when kings would normally go to war in that culture. (2Sam 1) it says "but David remained in Jerusalem". He was the one who was out of his routine. His staying home when he should have been with his generals is actually the first sin he committed that led to a larger sin and then an even larger one. How would she know he was even there, where his room was or that he was even in Jerusalem when normally he would not be? Not only that, in one verse, verse 25 it says she mourned for her husband when she heard he was killed. I think she loved her husband. The bible would not have put that verse in there.
@@gmac8586 Although you have a point its hard to imagine that she was a victim. Even today if I am living next to or at a visible distance to the White House my first reaction as I come out of my house or my courtyard would be to look what's going on in the White House. Who is coming in and who is going out. And if the President is at home I'll know coz there would be plenty of activity in and around the White House and secret service every where. Now I imagine myself living next to a king who was much more powerful than the US President. I would definitely know that the king is on the roof.
@@keithfoote2012 I don't think David was accompanied by secret police since there would have been guards at the entrance. It says he walked out on the roof at evening. He would be able to see into people's homes as they lit their lamps, no one would see him as he was outside in the dark. I don't think the common folk would have known the king's palace like people today know the Whitehouse. Jerusalem is very hilly and houses were small and crammed together with one on top of the other with narrow streets. The palace probably overlooked them all. The bible says David walked about at a time he wouldn't have normally even been in Jerusalem. It was the spring when kings leave to go fight. 2 Sam 11:1 but David for some reason stayed behind. He wasn't supposed to be there. So, that is why I don't think Bathsheba was trying to seduce anyone. I think as David looked into people's homes, he may have been wondering about how they were doing, bored about his life, asking questions, not meaning to be a peeping tom. He just happened to see something that should have made him turn away his gaze. Clearly he was restless. He should have turned to God with his feelings. Instead, he let his eye linger and allowed his heart to play with lust.
Well your first mistake is listening to man and not being able to understand the Bible because you don’t have the Holy Spirit you can not understand God’s word
Thank you for the continual service that you offer around the world.
From South Africa 🇿🇦
Thank you for telling the truth. I gleaned the act was one of rape and for a time it made it hard to read that the Lord counted "David as a man after His own heart." In the end, I came to accept it as a demonstration of how deep, and how wide God's love can reach... even to sexual immorality... even to rape. Which is staggering.
great comment. You've put that awesomely. the love of god for sinners is truly staggering
May the Lord return quickly! Amen. God is merciful. He always forgives. Never be ashamed to take your failures to him. He is for you, not against you! God is with you in the storm. He knows your troubles, he hears you! He is for you, on your side, always! It may feel silent at times, but he’s holding you close! May the Lord return soon! We are drawing closer. He is coming! Believe and trust in the Lord, you will be saved. Period. May the Lord bless you all! Hang in there family. Stay strong. It is not easy following the Lord. We are scoffed at. We give up our earthly dreams, our fleshly desires. What the enemy offers is short lived, but heaven is forever! Life may seem or be unfair, but God is with you! Always remember that. Things may get better or worse for you, but a kingdom awaits you! Finish the race! Repent daily and carry your cross. This world is fading fast. Your troubles are temporary! New channel here, I’d appreciate any kind of support. Don’t give up! God loves you so much! So do I. The Lord bless you!
Going through suicidal ideations but This really blessed me. God bless you. I’ll sub to your channel
Amen 🙏!!!!!!!!!!
@@greatgeneralrenpa1327 don't give up, Stay strong.
2 Sam 11:26 It's right there. One simple verse. I think she loved her husband or she would not have mourned for him when she had heard he was dead. That verse didn't have to be there. But it is. There's nothing worse than mourning for s/o, wishing you could see their face again, hear their voice or have a chance to say goodbye. This to me is what this verse says. Contrast this to David's attitude in the previous verse "meh, one sword devours one as well as another, don't let this bother you" when he says this to the servant reporting Uriah's death. God alone could see Bathsheba's heart and her pain at the loss of her husband, just as He saw David's relief and indifference. I think she was happy being the one special girl in her husband's life rather than being one of many in some king's harem. Nathan's illustration shows us how special to Uriah Bathsheba was and how bored David was with his many wives.
Wow! This is rich! I love this view!!!
It says nothing. Women fake cry all the time to be seen as virtuous. We have no way of knowing if it was true mourning or not. Also, if David saw Bathsheba from the rooftop… she had to be close enough for him to see her. And if it was true mourning… I think the marriage between David and Bathsheba would’ve been more tumultuous. Because she would’ve hated him.
@@joesandwhich3909 I think the Bible reveals to the reader the true emotions that others at the time could never know. It doesn't say she pretended to mourn for him.
@@gmac8586 It doesn't say she was sincere about mourning for him either.
@@joesandwhich3909 Why do you think this detail was included in the narrative? It's just like the Bible to give us clues into the hearts and minds of persons in a story that no one else can see. However, It looks as though you've already made up your mind about this woman and that you have a resentment towards women in general. Since she is a woman she must be a fake cryer, a manipulater. If this is true, God would see it wouldn't he? So what is your problem? Are you accusing God of being unfair rather than admit the hateful filter you have on?
I believe too from the reading that no accusation is made against her, therefore we should not make an accusation of her behaving in an inappropriate way. So it’s at night, he gets up out of his bed, He’s the king, he’s got the highest balcony around. He should have gone back inside when he saw her. Then he inquired, then he sent messengers to bring her to him. This was multiple steps where he chose the wrong direction each time. Then he plans against Uriah. God has Nathan illustrate it with a story, she is portrayed as a lamb.That should be end of it, I don’t understand why other people make her out to be a seductive person. If someone was peeking in your window and sees you at night? That doesn’t make you the guilty one.Some people are saying she shouldn’t have gone to the king, like why?She didn’t know what he was up to. Remember when Nabal refused David food, he was going to kill him, so refusing to go wouldn’t be a likely response.Interesting how many people choose to judge her guilty without any scripture to justify it. I found this helpful and encouraging thank you
The “he took her” I think is a call back to the fruit of the tree. David saw, desired, and took. Just like the fruit.
2 Samuel 11:4 Then David sent messengers to get her. SHE CAME TO HIM, and he slept with her.
@@JR-rs5qs Right. I mean we don't really know honestly. I was saying the point of the passage isn't really the specific nature of the sin, but that the sin took place in a manner that called back to the fall of man in Gen 3. That's what the Spirit means to communicate here. Whether she was willing in it, to me is somewhat irrelevant, would David had been more excused in his sin if it was a rape or a consensual relationship? Not even a little bit brothers and sisters.
@@TheDrummaBen From David's perspective, yes, absolutely, he coveted his neighbor's wife and took actions to obtain her in the way he wanted to. However, when a word like 'took' is used, it communicates a theft, which it was, but the text does not say anything about an unwilling theft on Bathsheba's part. Much can be said about David using his position, but it's quite commonly known that there are many, many women who are happy and willing to participate in a multitude of sins with rich, powerful men and they cannot be excused of their sin. So many ministries like Desiring God take this line of 'the poor, innocent, angelic woman was taken advantage of' and it's a twisted, unbiblical take. All it leads to are feminist, unhappy women, and cowardly, effeminate men and unhappy, disastrous marriages.
@@JR-rs5qs No women back in the day would say no to the king or any powerful man as the consequence could be death to her and her family. So yeah David took what wasn't his and used his power to get her.
@@ihavetubes How about Queen Vashti? What need would Nathan have in confronting David over his sin if power dynamics were only at play and it was societally acceptable? If what you're saying is true, there'd be no need for it because might makes right. David sought to hide what he had done by putting Uriah in a position where he'd surely lose his life because if it became known what he had done, even though he was the king, he was accountable to God's law. Piper has trained a whole swath of typically younger people around my age and younger to think about Old Testament characters and stories in terms of a modern day woke, feminist viewpoint, based on power dynamics, modern conceptions of race, etc. It's sad. David is responsible for his own sin, but so is Bathsheba of hers, yet this is such a hard thing for the effeminized church to accept.
Jesus Christ my God and love above all
never thought of it this way but the things that piper brought up certainly makes it seem very plausible and gives God even greater glory for being able to forgive and even make up for what david did thank you Lord for your forgiveness we need it much more than we even think we do
7:06: ... all Christians are influential one way or the other, and they can be influential in harmful ways or influential in helpful ways." And there's the challenge! Thanks, Pastor John!
Culturally and as a devout Jew she would not have wanted it. She was summoned by the king, she didn’t know why. Also the the story off the sheep. Illustrates it was not consentual
2 Samuel 11:4
And David sent messengers, and took her; and she came in unto him, and he lay with her; for she was purified from her uncleanness: and she returned unto her house.
Daniel 12:10
Many shall be purified, and made white, and tried; but the wicked shall do wickedly: and none of the wicked shall understand; but the wise shall understand.
Matthew 5:8
Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God.
I never thought of Bathshiba as an adulteress. Maybe because of how God set the story up. “On a day when kings went to battle…” David shouldn’t have even been there. He probably blew off his awaiting chariot. Just a bad state of mind for a king. Plus he knew she was married so yeah, not one of his better days
A very profound teaching!
Wow wow wow. 🙏🙏🙏🙏👍👍👍👍 thank you so much
My only question is why was she bathing in the open ? Was bathing on the roof something common at that time? No, I’m not accusing her of anything, I’m just curious.
Private bathrooms isn't a thing back then. Everything is public.
I've heard an interpretation that she was performing the required ritual purification after menstruation.
It actually never says that SHE was bathing on the roof, but that David was on the roof when he saw her bathing (I have heard sermons about her ritual bathing) in accordance with what is lawful. It is the kings house that was high enough to see out and perhaps in on others. All while he should’ve been at war and not home in the first place. 2 Sam 11:1-5
@@iprobablyhaveapoint the Hebrews took care not to be in the sight of anyone when cleansing or other private acts... they did not do these things publicly for all to see. Nakedness was shameful and they knew this.
I often wondered if it could have been rape as him being the king, she really couldn't say no.
I always thought she was less innocent than that. The text doesn't really gives a lot of clues tio what exactly she felt. Morning after her husband death might have been a usual thing: a certain number od days you wear black (or whatever equivalent) . One thing that strikes me she never mentioned it to her husband when he came back from war. But again she might have concealed it from shame - there are cases when nowadays women do not report either. It was a different era then, women had no voice, no power, their word in court wasn't asked.
in that time women will was not considered they were considered property of men, sheep analogy explains it
she didn't scream or show resistance. mosaic law clear on how she should have conducted herself.
I prefer the Rabbi's answer.
When reading the bible use Jesus as the standard.
Everything needs to line up with what He said!
When you do all sorts of truth will be shared with us!
In the end it's the truth that sets you free!
We learn in James 2:19 that even the demons believe!
Does that mean that the demons are saved?
How do we know if we believe then?
In order to find out if we believe in Jesus we must believe His word is truth.
HIS word is first, not the apostles, not Paul and not your pastor or priest ... HIS!
We need to read the words of our Messiah and use THEM as the standard.
In that remember Jesus also said: Do """"ALL""""" that Moses said. Matthew 23:1-3
In John 5:47 Jesus says "But if you dont believe in Moses writings, how will you believe in His!
In Luke 16:31 "" If they dont listen to Moses & the prophets, they won't listen if someone rises from the dead""
Gee I wonder do you who rose from the dead that He was talking about?
It comes down to this; if you dont accept Moses writings, or the prophets, you won't accept what Jesus says.
Jesus ""never contradicted the Father therefore He never contradicted what Moses wrote.
Jesus didn't start a new religion. If He did, the pharisees would've crucified Him for that!
Remember they found no fault in Him!!!
That means when they studied the writings of Moses there wasn't any contradiction with what He said and what the Father had Moses write down.
He didn't teach a new religion He came to show us "The Way" to walk out the old one.
Don't let Jesus say to you "" Depart from me you who practice lawlessness""
Instead believe His words """ If you love me keep my commandments""""
His commands are exactly the fathers commands.
These very commands that Moses wrote!
And David was declared a man after God’s own heart. So looks like even a rapist, who knew God when he committed that act, can be called a man after God’s own heart. And even more so, Jesus came directly from the lineage of that rape.
David did suffer consequences, but that doesn’t negate how he is ultimately declared and how God used the situation.
I"m gonna go with yes. Why? The gender flipped version of Potiphar's wife suggests what she should've done. But wait, isn't David a mighty king? Couldn't he have had armed guards at the door pointing sharp objects at her if she tried to flee him? The Bible also suggests that telling a mighty king no and dying to prove your point is also a length God expects you to go to avoid sin. Over there in Daniel, good old King Neb tells Daniel to worship him. "Nope." "Okay, Lion's Den." Then, Shadrach, Mishac, Abendigo, "Hey, you guys, worship me!" "Nope." "Okay, Fiery Furnace!" In the New Testament, the same deal happens. "Renounce Christ!" "Nope!" "Okay, die!" In short, "Fear not him who kills the body, rather, fear Him who after killing the body, burns the soul in Hell."
You presume she didn't try to flee him.
@@linzlove eh. If she was meant to be seen as a hero of faith, it would have mentioned resistance of some kind. Instead, it just mentions she was purified of her uncleanness. Which sounds to me like she was forgiven, not that no wrong was done.
@@Angelalex242 uncleanness could just be from having sex or having child or the fact that she was committing adultery even if it wasn't her choice??
@@MegaMommaUlman God isn't in the habit of letting people off the hook. No matter how understandable the action may be, there is, technically, always a choice. She could've chosen death over submitting to David's sinful desire. As I say above, many OT and NT people do in fact choose death over sin.
Perhaps death wasn't an option.
You can't prove a point based on the fact the Bible is silent as to any resistance she might or might not have put up, any injuries she might have suffered.
Amen
better to ask why this god killed a child for no fault of his own.
The child went to live in paradise with the Lord. He gave the child to them and He decided to take the child back.
This is a good question. I've often wondered about the killing of innocent women, children & animals in the Old Testament, as a punishment of men's actions. We will never fully understand God's heart until we are in heaven. Until then, we have questions, and we must trust God's judgement & love for humanity. His love is far above ours, as are his thoughts & plans.
@@natalielinden “men’s actions” sins have consequences on others not just on those who commit them. God creates us and has every single right to brings us back to Himself.
Ravi Zacharias' story sounds like David's.
I do not know why I am glad you said this. His exposure absolutely hurt. No one could do apologetics like him.
@@joshuastoltzfus4910 you are so right. His work still lives on, we should not forget his work, he touched many lives, though he hurt many.
Questions about if she knew or did not know about him seeing her bathing ..that's like the modern day question of "how was she dressed" when a woman gets raped. Victim blaming.
No, it's not victim blaming, it's a legitimate point. If a woman dresses and acts like a prostitute, then it shouldn't be a surprise to anyone when she gets treated like one.
@@lawrencestanley8989 It's not a legitimate point. It's a disgusting excuse.
@@ichi5974
No one is excusing rape. My point is that if a woman dresses like a prostitute and acts like one, it isn't rape.
@@lawrencestanley8989 If a woman doesn't give consent, it's rape. It doesn't matter how she was dressed, or how she was acting. "She was asking for it" is a disgusting excuse that men still use to try and lessen their guilt.
@@natalielinden
And she gave consent the moment she left her home looking and acting like a prostitute. Let’s be honest, when brothels exhibit their inmates more chastely and modestly dressed than the average woman wishing to express her "femininity," and then these same women seem surprised and appalled at men who then act according to their natural hormonal responses, these women are guilty not so much of ignorance, but of MADNESS. Little heed can be given to holy thoughts by men who are forced to constantly look to and fro to avoid prolonged exposure to this living pornography; a pornography not relegated to back alleys and discrete scenarios as it once was, but one that is proudly paraded in front of all as if it is something to be celebrated.
I think a plainer reading suggests that she was actually indeed complicit:
First, I think it's very telling that, when it comes to the case of Tamar, who was for certainty raped, there is a different verb used (translated as "violated" or "raped") even though it is in the same book and by the same writer. If what Amnon did in bed was truly equivalent to what David did, why not just use the same verb?
But the more telling part yet may be Bathsheba being receptive when David goes to comfort her (2 Sam. 12:24), enough to choose to have a child with him. By this point, scripture uses the word "his wife" to describe her.
If she was really sexually traumatized by David, would this make any sense? We also read that David was handsome (1 Sam. 16:12), so it's not too crazy to believe that she was tempted, too, just like David.
I think there is strong evidence that it was indeed a consensual, actual affair.
Feminists… 🤦🏽♂️🙄
Psalm 51:4 Against you, you only, have I sinned and done what is evil in your sight, so that you may be justified in your words and blameless in your judgment. -- If David sinned against Bathsheba in terms of rape of domineering her, David could not say this before God. He would have otherwise had to say "Against you and Bathsheba, have I sinned"...stop reading into the Bible rather than from it.
Did not David sin against her husband by having him killed?
I was just going to say too: he doesn't say "against you and Uriah i sinned"
@@halinkap5217 I didn't reply to the above question for several reasons, but when one understands the position that David was given by God (of which he was unable to fulfill because he's not perfect as Christ is, and God knew that!), the statement becomes clear. It's not that he didn't sinned against Uriah, he did, but the motivation of his sin was a dissatisfaction with the great abundance that God himself gave to David and covetousness. He shouldn't have been home since he was supposed to be out at war. This is a recurrent sin for men: abdication of responsibility. When one sins like this, other people become functional collateral damage. Not that people are ever really collateral damage, but in the process of David's sin, he treated others as such. It's a 10th commandment issue. 2 Samuel 7-12 makes all of this clear: 7 Then Nathan said to David, “You are the man! This is what the Lord, the God of Israel, says: ‘I anointed you king over Israel, and I delivered you from the hand of Saul. 8 I gave your master’s house to you, and your master’s wives into your arms. I gave you all Israel and Judah. And if all this had been too little, I would have given you even more. 9 Why did you despise the word of the Lord by doing what is evil in his eyes? You struck down Uriah the Hittite with the sword and took his wife to be your own. You killed him with the sword of the Ammonites. 10 Now, therefore, the sword will never depart from your house, because you despised me and took the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be your own.’
What's the point of proving whether Bathsheba sinned with David or not? God, who is ALL-KNOWING, has already deemed it JUST to punish David specifically for his sin. It was said in the Bible that the prophet Nathan even personally delivered the news to David that he will be punished for what he did. Now how God dealt with Bathsheba is between them! But trying to obsess over whether Bathsheba is complicit or not in the affair won't change anything nor invalidate God's decision. What do we want to get out of proving that Bathsheba was equally responsible for this sin? God already handed his punishment and that should be enough! Stop with the theories and fan fictions and focus instead on God's mercy and redemption which is the actual POINT of this story.
I think the point is that the author intended to present David’s action as rape. So it’s not about “fan fiction” it is about the author’s intent.
There are some who take issue with saying David raped Bathsheba but I’m not sure why.
@@elkellenhabla Yes sorry I wasn't referring to the author specifically I was referring to some comments here who are spinning out theories about Bathsheba and David etc, basically things that weren't revealed to us in the text, because theyre trying to prove their own agenda.
It's almost as if they're trying to treat this as some unsolved crime mystery when God already handed his judgment. That is what I was saying... This is why I referred to them w/ sarcasm as "fan fictions."
But the author's question is valid.
@@inaughtonart518 “utterly stupid”? What scripture have you read that tells you it’s okay to address someone like that?
It’s funny how we all hear. I liked the breakdown of Nathan’s parable to show that the fault lay at David’s door.
My takeaway from this teaching was about leadership. Leadership is about servanthood. There was an abuse of power. We all need to be mindful of that. My mind went straight to how the Apostle Paul spoke about serving the people, earning his own living instead of expecting financial support. In contrast I thought about some of the megachurch pastors - how many are servant leaders? How many do we see fall into sin? When you are a leader humility is a must.
By the way did you notice in the genealogy of Jesus in the book of Matthew: “and Jesse the father of King David. David was the father of Solomon, whose mother had been Uriah’s wife,”
Matthew 1:6 NIVUK
bible.com/bible/113/mat.1.6.NIVUK
@@inaughtonart518 Yes if you read my comment above yours, I actually explained that I commented that because of the people trying to invalidate the possibility of Bathsheba being raped because according to them, she might have "got naked on purpose" to seduce David, etc. That's what I meant when I said WHATS THE POINT of proving that Bathsheba was complicit. That's what I was referring to as theories and fan fictions. Maybe I got a little emotional because I can't believe some people would go that far just to make sense of something that doesn't align with their views. I actually agree with everything that you said. I also said in my reply above that the author's question is valid and I wasn't referring to him/her in any way.
I know the lord was not pleased with it..Back then it may be I don't know...In today's time it's definitely sin...In the old testament...it said everyone use to neigh after each others wife...Then their is a verse talking about I will not punish your spouses for adultery and your daughters when they comitt whoredom...Then Solomon was allowed at one point to have 700 wives and 300 concubines...Can't nobody do stuff like that nowadays and the Lord not charge them with sin....It was alot of crazy stuff back then....They definitely sinned...She was married and her and David slept together and she got pregnant Maybe she forgot she was married and had a husband Lord I ain't no adulteresses I honestly forgot I had a husband I forgot I was married my bad...Or did David get her husband killed first in the war and then slept with her after her husband was dead...He did get her husband killed...What do you call that..Or is that a different woman...she was married to Uriah right or am I wrong...about that I ain't read the story in a while I could look it up..I don't feel like it though....May be it wasn't sin back then maybe it's father forgive them for they know not what they do I guess....Alot of strange things happened in old testament...
listen again to the video. Bathsheba did sleep with David while uriah was alive, but the evidence from the text is that she was probably not complicit. But david definitley was sinning. Solomon's fall was through the women that he was with- this is definitley not painted as good, godly living.
Very #Metoo
It’s not even the point. It’s far beyond anything on her intentions.
Scripture is giving us a powerful lesson about David’s sin and repentance .
That’s the whole point and lesson. Honesty couldn’t care less about Bathshebas side of this.
Why not... it is very important because women are looked at as evil if they tempt a man.. instead of vulnerable and taken advantage of?? I think that can drastically change the meaning of the text... he was the king she HAD to agree period point blank she had no choice!
You must be a man to not understand how women are treated especially back then...sheesh have some compassion... or are women just responsible for all men's nasty thoughts...hmm
@@MegaMommaUlman If she intentionally tried to tempt him, then that's evil (sinful). Its clear that David lusted after her (which is not her fault), because it has to do with the condition of David's heart, not hers. Unfortunately, women were/are mistreated in the church and even back then. Men are mistreated in the church too and face different issues than women. It's not a contest. We should just focus on the things we know from scripture rather than speculate on things that can't ever be known.
John Piper leans very liberal in his views, when he says David raped Bathsheba... he uses the word "took" to prove it reading the ESV translation (not all translations are in agreement with that translation) if you read the Hebrew transcript it translates directly in English as "and sent David messengers and took (the Hebrew word 3947 also means "brought") her and she came to him and he lay with her for she was cleansed from her impurity and she returned to her house". So it's not as clear as John tries to make it seem. And let's not forget she was bathing on her roof in plain view of the palace, not inside her house or off in a distant river... David seen her close enough to recognize her beauty... she must have known she was in view. The passage clearly says "sent David messengers took/brought her and she came to him. So he sent a messenger and she was taken or led and she went to him... sounds pretty mutual to me.
Your comment is DESPICABLE. He raped her. She had no choice
@@Blacque... You made a whole lot of assumptions there with no biblical support.
@@Blacque... Did David live in his palace alone? Or would he not have had many servants as King... the fact that Bathsheba was on her roof nude in plain sight of whoever could see her shows promiscuity.
@Blacque... That came out wrong, but the fact remains that she was bathing in plain view of a very busy palace filled with many people... if I swim naked in a hotel pool, should I not expect people to watch me from thir rooms. She was being an exhibitionist and wanting attention. I personally would never bath anywhere I could even possibly be seen.
@Blacque... Really I'm sure his guard, cooks, maids, and various other servants would have been all in the basement completely out of sight. Come on get over your excuses, and stop with the modern liberal feminist bias. I'm not saying David was innocent but I am saying neither was Bathsheba... it takes two to tango and she is just as guilty as he is. This was an affair/adultery not rape. Stop trying to twist the bible and adding your own thoughts into it and just let it say what it says without adding anything. That is the difference between proper exegesis and eisegesis... learn hermeneutics and stop adding to the word of God. Bible says "took" not rape, not force, not assault, not attack. I'm done with you have a nice life.
I didn't put putting on this message my phone digits supposed to say,Yes,she did know.
huh?
I think she was not raped because the scripture would have said so. In the same book, the scripture clearly mentioned that Amnon raped tamar. If david raped bathsheba, wouldn't the scripture use the same verb as well?
It was a case of undue influence, not rape. Bathsheba was probably overwhelmed by the fact that the King wanted her company. If you want to know the mind of God concerning this matter read the Law of Moses on rape and punishment for consensual sex. There's no indication whatsoever of Bathsheba crying out for help or resisting David. She easily yielded to David because of his power as a King.
David sent messengers and took her, and when she came to him, he lay with her; and when she had purified herself from her uncleanness, she returned to her house. (2 Samuel 11:4, NASB)
Compare
Genesis 34:2
When Shechem son of Hamor the Hivite, prince of the region, saw her, he seized her and lay with her by force.
Couple things first love Piper but I’m sorry I feel he is reading into the text what is not there. First he did not compare any texts where rape is clearly there to see if the word used is the same word in Hebrew for rape. Second the whole verse explains she went to David and laid with him, had her menstruation, then purified herself, then she left. This does not appear to be rape. Now she may have been in a situation like Ester which she didn’t go seeking the Persian king, she was taken, but she went willing to bed. So again, I don’t wanna assume bad intentions from Piper but I think he’s way off basis with this.
First, David is a prophet whom God gave kingship, and what is said about David in terms of accusations against him is incorrect. These accusations do not befit prophets, but unfortunately the ones who invented these false accusations are the Jews, because they say that David is a king and not a prophet.
I totally disagree according to scripture. Its a politically correct commentary given. Bathsheba willing married King David.
"Did Bathsheba Sin with David?"
The answer kind Sir; could be either Yes or No! Now IF...we had more details...
Sadly, that information is not in the bible; enough for us to say it either way. Now IF...
1. Bathsheba "seduced" David; OR...she went along; because she was lonely; while her husband was away fighting a war; etc, etc and ETC?. The answer would be YES! And she was punished 7 fold for her sin(s). Because...
Leviticus 26:28 Then Jesus (who IS God) will walk contrary (against) you also in fury (wrath); and I, even I, will chastise (punish in today's English language) you seven times for your sins.
That goes for EVERY sin (except for one) that any one commits; from birth to death. Oh indeed. For this is WHY there is "tears, sorrows, pains and even death" from Creation all the time on this earth. And why Jesus says this; to those who are born Again on Judgment Day...
Revelation 21:4 And Jesus shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.
Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
2. On the other hand, IF...Bathsheba was forced by David; or...she fought like a tiger; etc, etc ETC; and she had NO desire to commit adultery atoll (even in thought); she did NOT sin. Then Jesus blessed her untold; for her obeying His commandment #7 (of the 10 commandments).
...In any case kind Sir, Please Pray OFTEN and Praise Jesus OFTEN; for He is the ONLY true "God Almighty"; there will ever have been. And may Jesus bless you and yours always. AMEN!
You must have not even listened
Oh, she was DEFINATELY complicit in the sin. She was bathing on her roof in PLAIN SIGHT of the King. Now, she was either complicit and intended to entice the King, or she was incredibly stupid and had no idea that bathing naked on her roof in plain sight of the King would have an affect on him.
@@inaughtonart518
I stand corrected. However the point still stands in that binoculars did not exist, so if he could see her, she could see him, and if he could see that she was very beautiful, then he was close enough to see the whites of her eyes, if her eyes were what he was looking at, which it wasnt. So, whether she was on her roof, in the courtyard, or in the back yard, she HAD to have known that particular spot was visible to the King.
Why does it matter though? Some women will do this on purpose for selfish reasons and some women get forced to do sexual things against their will. We're all just called to trust in the Lord and persevere when trials come, abide in Him and He will comfort us and give us strength. We're all sinners.
@@inaughtonart518
You conjecture as to what she was thinking and you tell me to stop adding to scripture? Hypocrite...
@@inaughtonart518
Ah, so thinking "x" is not the same as conjecture on "x." Ah, silly me...
@@inaughtonart518
And at a "significant" distance, David could tell that she was beautiful? Doubtful. Oh, and I thank you for "thinking" (not conjecturing) on what I know or don't know. I am so thankful that I have you to tell me what I know or don't know.
Putting. She did.I find it hard to believe that David could see her but she couldn't see him.And that her timing of taking an outside bath,at the same time he's out on the balcony,which he probably did every day. URIAH left her alone all the time,when he was finally home never paid her much attention.And when David called him home ,he slept on the front porch.Yea,that girl had a strategy. She knew,David was checking her out.women know when your looking,every time they have sonar.ha ha.Ask any woman if she knows when someone is really looking,they will all say yes.God don't seem to hold women as accountable as men.Another thing that was strange about all that was Uriah was a hetite a foriener.By Jewish laws her marriage was wrong to begin with,they weren't to marry outside their tribe.I know it started a chain reaction of bad events for David and his family..and the punishment for their actions flooded over to the whole nation of Israel.go figure.
God doesn't hold women as accountable as men? That's a lie and against God's character.
"For the Lord your God is the God of gods and the Lord of lords, the great, the mighty, and the awesome God who does not show partiality nor take a bribe."
We have no details on their marriage, about Uriah leaving her alone all the time. Let's not mix up what we have been given with fiction about David and Bathsheba.
1. She was taking a purification bath at that time. She probably had just finished her period.
2. God holds all - men and women - accountable for their sins. We are simply told about the incident from David's angle because the essence of the Bible is about and leading up to Jesus. David was not the only one who lost a child. She lost her husband and and her Child. She suffered for her sins. That's one of the reasons why she needed to be comforted in verse 24.
3. Did Bathsheba sin with David? For the sexual act, we do not know but there might be an abuse of power on David's path. Subsequently? She might have sinned by keeping it a secret and attempting to cover it up. Or she could simply have been ashamed and terrified.
where does scripture say she too an outside bath? Nowhere.. Read the text. David the rapist is on.his roof of his palatial home peeri g into the homes of others when he should be away at war.
Highlighted,oh thats right she lived in the condo next door palaces are generally way taller then regular houses they are primitive,and did not have indoor plumbing,and bathed out side.
Hifhlighted,Highlighted, was sarcasm about the condos.they also had roof top baths,And she knew the hours of the day the king walked his porches.Or are you saying she lived next door to the king and never once looked over there observing the luxurious life.And calling David a rapist is obsurd.He had hundreds of concubines just waiting to be called to his chamber.thet even used to audition to gain access to the king through their beauty.He could of had sex 3 times a day for a year and never with the same women.He thats why the prophet gave David the parable of the man who had hundreds of sheep and his neighbor had one.and as far as Uriah being neglectful toward his wife,what if you were married,and your husband was a marine,he was fighting in Afghanistan for a long time, and he got leave.He comes home don't come in the house to give you a kiss ,and say at least,honey I'm home.he just lays his gear down on the front porch,goes to sleep and heads out in the morning,If that's not neglect,I sure don't know what is.I suppose your going to tell me the woman,Pharaohs righthand man Pottifer,wife ripped of Joseph's towel and made him leave naked is because there was a towel shortage in the land,and then she yell a fake rape and got him thrown in prison for quite a few years because he wouldn't have sex with her.
I would say she knew David was on the roof and decided to take a bath in the open for him to see.
Hi, I just wanted to say we should be very careful to infer that from the Bible because it only says:
" One evening David got up from his bed and walked around on the roof of the palace. From the roof he saw a woman bathing. The woman was very beautiful, and David sent someone to find out about her. The man said, “She is Bathsheba, the daughter of Eliam and the wife of Uriah the Hittite.” Then David sent messengers to get her. She came to him, and he slept with her." (2 Samuel 11:2-4)
There is no reference to why she was bathing in the open in the later sections in the Bible. This is the only information we're given.
How would anyone know from their homes down below what rooms and what vantage point or which person from what time is up there looking down from a huge palace with many rooms looking over the city? Perhaps she had always done this after her previous monthly periods and not encountered any problems before. It was David who was not at his usual post. He was lazing around at the time when kings would normally go to war in that culture. (2Sam 1) it says "but David remained in Jerusalem". He was the one who was out of his routine. His staying home when he should have been with his generals is actually the first sin he committed that led to a larger sin and then an even larger one. How would she know he was even there, where his room was or that he was even in Jerusalem when normally he would not be? Not only that, in one verse, verse 25 it says she mourned for her husband when she heard he was killed. I think she loved her husband. The bible would not have put that verse in there.
@@gmac8586 Although you have a point its hard to imagine that she was a victim. Even today if I am living next to or at a visible distance to the White House my first reaction as I come out of my house or my courtyard would be to look what's going on in the White House. Who is coming in and who is going out. And if the President is at home I'll know coz there would be plenty of activity in and around the White House and secret service every where. Now I imagine myself living next to a king who was much more powerful than the US President. I would definitely know that the king is on the roof.
@@keithfoote2012 I don't think David was accompanied by secret police since there would have been guards at the entrance. It says he walked out on the roof at evening. He would be able to see into people's homes as they lit their lamps, no one would see him as he was outside in the dark. I don't think the common folk would have known the king's palace like people today know the Whitehouse. Jerusalem is very hilly and houses were small and crammed together with one on top of the other with narrow streets. The palace probably overlooked them all. The bible says David walked about at a time he wouldn't have normally even been in Jerusalem. It was the spring when kings leave to go fight. 2 Sam 11:1 but David for some reason stayed behind. He wasn't supposed to be there. So, that is why I don't think Bathsheba was trying to seduce anyone. I think as David looked into people's homes, he may have been wondering about how they were doing, bored about his life, asking questions, not meaning to be a peeping tom. He just happened to see something that should have made him turn away his gaze. Clearly he was restless. He should have turned to God with his feelings. Instead, he let his eye linger and allowed his heart to play with lust.
Well your first mistake is listening to man and not being able to understand the Bible because you don’t have the Holy Spirit you can not understand God’s word
Amen