Posted by Erik on September 06, 1999 at 20:45:49:
In Reply to: Hey, feet, how's it going? . . . posted by blue on September 05, 1999 at 21:59:20:
: For the record, David's crime was adultery, not rape. There is no evidence Bathsheba was in any way unwilling.
Well, for the record, David's chief crime was to order the murder of Uriah, something for which a just God would have had him dethroned and imprisoned, not merely chastened by the prophet Nathan. Instead of punishing the guilty, the "Lord struck the child that Uriah's wife bare unto David" (2 Samuel 12:15), killing a baby for the crime of it's father. Nice society, eh?
As for the charge of rape, while there is no evidence to prove she was unwilling, there is very little reason to believe she was. In 2 Samuel 11:4 it says (KJV): "And David sent messengers, and took her; and she came in unto him and he lay with her." Now the word "took" could possibly be construed as forcible, but I will confess to ignorance as to the original Hebrew here. But consider Bath-Sheba's position - called before an absolute monarch in a society where women were treated as property with almost no rights and where a word from him could end her life (or make her wish it to end). Think she would have physically resisted even if she was unwilling? Unfortunately, there is no real way to be sure about her consent or lack therof.
But, irregardless of the charge of rape, it is still a black mark against Israel and the Old Testament God that David was allowed to remain king after murdering one of his own loyal soldiers. The amazing thing is that this is probably one of the tamer injustices cataloged in the Old Testament.
-Erik