Alternative Views of Bathsheba in the David and Bathsheba Story

Review of the previous post

The previous post, post number 4 of 23, 23 discussed how the Biblical story of David and Bathsheba could be translated into a modern work.

Preview of this post

This post, post number 5 of 23, discusses how David did not act like a good commander.

David

David did not act like a good commander

It should be noted that David stayed away from the war, even though a Commander’s place is in the field with his troops, thought he could have Bathsheba, thought he could force Uriah to sleep with Bathsheba even though it was against the soldier’s code (David, as a former soldier, should have known that Uriah would refrain from sleeping with his wife while his comrades were at war) because David thought his position as King and Commander in Chief allowed him to do this to people. David might even have been manipulated by Bathsheba as will be discussed in greater detail below.

David’s actions and reactions will be made clearer from an examination of Bathsheba’s actions.

David Payed a Price

The connection between David and Bathsheba became public knowledge which is where Nathan came in. He was a prophet, which may really have been like the News Media of today and he was famous enough so David could not have him “removed.” So Nathan could confront David and get away with it. When David found out that what he did was public knowledge, he really had no choice but to confess and do penance so he could keep his position. However, he also had to look out for Bathsheba, just like any Mafiosi boss has to take care of the family of a “missing” person, so David made Bathsheba one of his concubines. This way David could take care of her and also have access to her at any time he wished…a “win/win” situation for both David and Bathsheba.

Maybe this is why Absalom felt that it was time for David to be replaced, David had become so corrupt, incompetent, tyrannical and untrustworthy that he should be removed^[1].

Preview of the next post

The next post, post number 6 of 23, introduces the topic of Bathsheba as it relates to the thesis of the posts in this series.

^[1] It might also be interesting and enlightening to compare David to Saul. David was thoughtful, scheming, and his mind controlled his heart…..except in the case of Bathsheba which proved to be the beginning of his downfall. Until Bathsheba, David was an effective ruler of a country because he used his mind and not his emotions. On the other hand, Saul was ruled by his emotions, he allowed his emotions to control his actions, he was impulsively emotional. This is not what constitutes a good ruler of a country and led to his downfall. Thus, a good ruler understands his emotions and allows his mind to control his emotions. This very character trait was explored extensively by Shakespeare in his Henriad series of plays. The contrast is perfectly shown by comparing Richard II to Henry V. Richard II felt that his right to rule was bestowed from the Devine – the Devine Right of Kings and he never understood his subjects, in fact, he remained aloof from them; whereas, Henry fully understood his subjects from his time as Hal and enthusiastically intermingled with them, certainly under the influence of Falstaff. Hal/Henry knew how to use his mind to control his emotions where Richard did not. The analogy between Richard and Saul and Henry and David is striking. Saul remained aloof while David cavorted. The story of David’s dancing naked before the Arc of the Covenant and Michal’s rebuke that he was cheapening himself before the masses and had descended to their level (which clearly reflected her upbringing by her father, Saul) shows the contrast between the two views of leadership. The story of David and Bathseba and the story of Saul thus could be considered as being cautionary tales to a leader to never allow his emotions to rule his mind and to understand those who are ruled.