Literary Features and Techniques
The narrative of David and Bathsheba in 2 Samuel 11:1-27 provides a quintessential example of a tragic moral collapse. However, the depth of meaning and significance of the narrative may remain hidden without adequate attention paid to the narrator’s presentation. A brief examination of the literary features and techniques, the potential resolution of a controversial interpretive issue, and the timeless theological principles of the well-known story enhances the reader’s understanding of the story’s theological significance.
The most significant literary features and techniques of 2 Samuel 11 include setting, repetition, contrast, and ambiguity. First, John Lawlor recognizes that the David and Bathsheba account exists within the larger literary framework of the Ammonite war, which begins in 2 Samuel 10:1 and continues to 2 Samuel 12:31.[1] When the king of the Ammonites died, David sent his servants to console his son, Hanun (2 Sam. 10:1-2).[2] However, the Ammonites questioned the motives of the Israelites and publicly embarrassed David’s servants, which laid the groundwork for the military engagement that ensues (10:3-19). The Israelite victory over the Ammonites concludes at the end of the literary unit in 2 Samuel 12:26-31. It is within the context of dangerous military activity that the story of David and Bathsheba interrupt the narrative. A further exploration of the significance of the setting ensues upon examination of the timeless theological principles.
The second important literary technique used in 2 Samuel 11 is repetition. Referring to Martin Buber’s term, Leitwort, Robert Alter suggests that repetitive words assist the reader in understanding the depth of meaning within the text.[3] Within the David and Bathsheba narrative, Lawlor notes that the transliterated Hebrew term šlḥ, meaning “to send,” is used more than 20 times within the framework of the Ammonite war and over half of these iterations originate from David (2 Samuel 10-12). According to Lawlor, the narrator’s repetition features David’s authority and appears to display a “conscious development of a power motif.”[4] For example, in 2 Samuel 11:6 the Leitwort appears three times as Bathsheba’s husband, Uriah, becomes entangled in the snare of David’s power. The practical application of the power principles within the narrative is palpable.
Contrast is the third significant literary technique utilized by the narrator. David attempts to coerce Uriah to sleep with Bathsheba in order to extricate himself from his adultery (2 Sam. 11:8-10). The narrator employs direct speech to highlight Uriah’s commitment to Israel by expressing Uriah’s words, “The ark and Israel and Judah are staying in temporary shelters, and my lord Joab and the servants of my lord are camping in the open field. Shall I then to my house to eat and to drink and to lie with my wife? By your life and the life or your soul, I will not do this thing” (2 Sam. 11:11). Within the dialog, Lawlor highlights the contrast between David’s selfishness and Uriah’s selflessness, David’s deception and Uriah’s credulousness, and finally, David’s infidelity and Uriah’s fidelity to Israel.[5] The contrast exhibited by the narrator accentuates the nefarious actions of the King.
The fourth influential literary technique employed by the narrator is ambiguity. George Nicol smartly states, “Ambiguity…is the spice of biblical narrative, without which everything would be cut, dried, and most certainly insipid.”[6] The minimalistic narrative of the David and Bathsheba encounter uses only four verses to communicate the time from David’s first observance of the beautiful woman to the time he is aware of the pregnancy (2 Sam. 11:2-5). The ambiguities are numerous and, according to Nicol, include whether Bathsheba enticed David or whether David forcibly pursued Bathsheba.[7] The ambiguities naturally lead to a discussion regarding one of the most controversial interpretive problems of the story – culpability.
Interpretive Issue: A Victim or Seducer?
A scholarly argument exists as to whether Bathsheba was an attractive seductress who lured David into bed or a victim of coercion. Hans Hertzberg proposes the possibility that Bathsheba captivated David with “feminine flirtation.”[8] Alternatively, Cheryl Exum vehemently opposes Hertzberg by stating, “The narrator who disrobes Bathsheba and depicts her as the object of David’s lust is the real perpetrator of the crime against Bathsheba, and commentators like Hertzberg, who imply Bathsheba may have desired the king’s attentions, perpetuate the crime.”[9] Although a direct reading of the text does create ambiguity, Richard Davidson provides evidence through narrative analysis that clears Bathsheba of culpability.[10]
First, the narrator begins the episode by stating, “Then it happened in the spring, at the time when kings go out to battle…David stayed at Jerusalem” (2 Sam. 11:1). The setting’s ironic contrast between kings going to battle and David staying at home foreshadows the King’s misguided actions.[11] Next, the narrator states in 2 Samuel 11:2 that the time of day is evening, which provides evidence that Bathsheba was bathing for the purpose of ritual washing, not provocation (see Lev. 15:19, 28-29).[12] Third, the writer explains that David was simply walking around on his roof, which suggests a random event, not a plot of seduction on the part of Bathsheba (2 Sam. 11:2).[13] Fourth, the narrator specifically mentions Bathsheba’s identity by stating she was the “daughter of Eliam, the wife of Uriah the Hittite” (2 Sam. 11:3). The significance of Bathsheba’s identity is that the writer intended to highlight the recklessness of David’s actions, not Bathsheba’s, by referring to Eliam and Uriah, who were both part of David’s select group of friends – the thirty mighty men (see 2 Sam. 23).[14] Fifth, Davidson recognizes the acceleration of the narrative in 2 Samuel 11:4, which represents David’s impulsive behavior.[15] Sixth, the sentence structure in 2 Samuel 11:4 states that David “took her” and David “lay with her” emphasizing the psychological pressure applied by the subject of the sentence.[16] Additionally, the narrator explains that, after the sexual encounter, Bathsheba “returned to her house” (2 Sam. 11:4). In other words, Bathsheba did not attempt to remain with David, but instead, desired to return to her husband.[17] Eighth, when Bathsheba receives word that her husband died, the writer selects a Hebrew verb for mourning that means, “wails/laments with loud cries” (2 Sam. 11:26).[18] In other words, it seems unlikely Bathsheba conspired to support her husband’s death in order to further a seductive conspiracy. Next, David, not Bathsheba, was specifically indicted by the narrator who states, “The thing that David had done was evil in the sight of the Lord” (2 Sam. 11:27). Finally, Nathan also indicted David, not Bathsheba, in the following chapter and simultaneously refers to Bathsheba as a “little ewe lamb,” which solidifies Bathsheba as “an innocent victim” (2 Sam. 12:3).[19] In light of the evidence provided, the exoneration of Bathsheba is necessary.
Timeless Theological Principles
Numerous timeless theological principles exist within the story of David and Bathsheba that apply to a Christian’s life. The following analysis summarizes three key principles for application. The principles include: (1) the abuse of power; (2) the danger of prosperity; and (3) the risk of secrecy.
The first timeless principle is that power risks abuse of power. Scripture seems to align with the famous quote of historian and moralist Lord Acton who stated, “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”[20] In the story of David and Bathsheba, Alter’s concept of Leitwort may best represent the corruption. David uses his power to “send” armies to battle, “send” messengers to perform his tasks, “send” for Bathsheba to gratify himself, and even “send” for the victim of his murder. It often appears that little has changed in the last few thousand years. Just as Israel cried out for a king, today megachurches measure their effectiveness by the attendance and finances that result from the performance of their “kings.” From the infamous stories of Jim and Tammy Bakker to the tragedies of child molestation of the Roman Catholic Church, sexual sin continues when power and arrogance corrupt. More recently in 2013, the stories of three megachurch pastors in Florida made headlines for sexual immorality.[21] Unfortunately, the risk of power for megachurch pastors does not stop with sexual immorality. For example, the recent investigation and subsequent resignation of Mark Driscoll for abuse of power at Mars Hill appears to have nothing to do with sex.[22] However, the lesson is clear, not just for megachurches, but for every church – from the beginning of the Old Testament, to the end of the New Testament, God is the one and only King. At this point, regrettably, Christians may fall into the trap of thinking that more accountability and sin management will solve the problem that pastors face. Nothing could be further from the truth. The institutional church must reject the temptation to rank its effectiveness using attendance and finances empowered by personality driven growth. Instead, the church must embrace the meaning of real church – lives lived in relationship with God, other Christians, and non-Christians in a community of transformational growth and grace where “knowing and caring” for individuals is more important than “getting and controlling” individuals to volunteer or tithe (see Acts 2; Eph. 4; 1 Cor. 12).
The second timeless principle is that prosperity is dangerous. Sadly, in America, the vision of a church that rejects outward prosperity seems an unlikely proposition. However, the danger of prosperity may be more ominous than the abuse of power. Bob Deffinbaugh astutely points out, “From a spiritual point of view, David never did better than he did in adversity and weakness. Conversely, David never did worse than he did in prosperity and power.”[23] When asked whether one’s relationship with God seems deeper during adversity or prosperity, the answer is unanimous – adversity. However, the lure of a prosperity gospel driven by the American Dream established by personalities such as Benjamin Franklin, rather than person of Christ, is often too tempting to resist. Alternatively, James audaciously claims that challenges empower growth by encouraging Christians to consider it all joy when facing adversity (James 1:2-4). Moreover, Paul asserts that challenges develop character, thus Christians are to “exult in our tribulations” (Romans 5:3-5). Furthermore, Jesus states that blessed individuals are those who are poor in spirit, mourning, and persecuted (Matthew 5:3, 4, 10). Accordingly, detachment from prosperity is an important lesson for every Christian. By depending on Christ for one’s life and identity, instead of depending on the external prosperity markers of success, painless circumstances, and finances, Christ offers a life of blessedness rather than prosperity, service rather than power, and peace rather than anxiety.
The third timeless principle, within the story of David and Bathsheba, pertains to the risk of secrecy. David’s sin of adultery was certainly reprehensible, but the subsequent sins to conceal the sin surpassed even the egregious sin of adultery. Proverbs states, “He who conceals his transgressions will not prosper, but he who confesses and forsakes them will find compassion” (Proverbs 28:13). With 33% of the pastors acknowledging inappropriate sexual behavior with someone in the church and clergy experiencing the second-highest divorce rate among all professions, the sagacious Proverb may be more relevant today than ever.[24] The rampant sexual sins of unhealthy pornography, inappropriate masturbation, as well as emotional and physical affairs inevitably result in hiding. Just as David’s cover up caused additional damage, hiding sin confers more power to the offense. However, the lesson of transparency not only provides instruction for the transgressor, but also the one receiving the confession. In other words, one wonders if David trusted anyone enough to be vulnerable. Is it possible that David experienced the same feeling that so many senior pastors feel – it is lonely at the top. John Lynch, Bill Thrall, and Bruce McNicol state, “What if there was a place safe enough to tell the worst about you and still be loved just as much, if not more, for sharing it?”[25] If there were a place that safe, then maybe sin concealment would lose its grip on the church. The lesson of sin concealment not only requires a transparent transgressor, but also a safe receiver of the confession.
Many other timeless theological principles exist within the David and Bathsheba episode. Additional investigation may encompass lessons regarding the development of sin and sin’s impact, the example of Uriah as a faithful servant, the reminder of God’s sovereignty in the face of Uriah’s outcome, and the power of God’s grace during the remainder of David’s life. However, without question, the abuse of power, the danger of prosperity, and the risk of secrecy provide lessons of timeless truths that are especially applicable to contemporary society.
[1] John I. Lawlor, “Theology and Art in the Narrative of the Ammonite War (2 Samuel 10-12),” Grace Theological Journal 3, no. 2 (September 1982): 193.
[2] Unless otherwise noted, all biblical passages referenced are in the New American Standard Bible (La Habra, CA: Lockman Foundation, 1995).
[3] Robert Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative (New York: Basic Books, 2011), 116–17.
[4] Lawlor, “Theology and Art in the Narrative of the Ammonite War (2 Samuel 10-12),” 196.
[5] Ibid., 198.
[6] George G. Nicol, “The Alleged Rape of Bathsheba: Some Observations on Ambiguity in Biblical Narrative,” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, no. 73 (March 1997): 44.
[7] Ibid., 51.
[8] Hans Wilhelm Hertzberg, I & II Samuel: A Commentary (London: SCM, 1964), 309.
[9] J. Cheryl Exum, Fragmented Women: Feminist (Sub)versions of Biblical Narratives (Valley Forge: Trinity, 1993), 174.
[10] Richard M. Davidson, “Did King David Rape Bathsheba?: A Case Study in Narrative Theology,” Journal of Adventist Theological Society 17, no. 2 (Autumn 2006): 81–95.
[11] Ibid., 82–83.
[12] Ibid., 84–85.
[13] Ibid., 85.
[14] Ibid., 86–87.
[15] Ibid., 87.
[16] Ibid., 88.
[17] Ibid., 89.
[18] Ibid., 90.
[19] Ibid., 92.
[20] Gary Martin, The Meaning and Origin of the Expression: Power Corrupts; Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely, http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/absolute-power-corrupts-absolutely.html (accessed November 22, 2014).
[21] Jennifer LeClaire, Why Megachurch Pastors Keep Falling into Sexual Immorality, http://www.jenniferleclaire.org/articles/why-megachurch-pastors-keep-falling-into-sexual-immorality (accessed November 22, 2014).
[22] Mars Hill Megachurch Dissolves after Investigation into Lead Pastor Mark Driscoll, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/01/mars-hill-megachurch-dissolve-mark-driscoll_n_6085278.html (accessed November 22, 2014).
[23] Bob Deffinbaugh, David and Bathsheba: 2 Samuel 11:1-4, https://bible.org/seriespage/david-and-bathsheba-2-samuel-111-4 (accessed September 30, 2014).
[24] H. B. London and Neil B. Wiseman, Pastors at Greater Risk (Ventura, CA: Gospel Light, 2003), 20, 86.
[25] John Lynch, Bill Thrall, and Bruce McNicol, Bo’s Cafe (Newbury Park, CA: Windblown Media, 2009), 90.
Bibliography
Alter, Robert. The Art of Biblical Narrative. New York: Basic Books, 2011.
Davidson, Richard M. “Did King David Rape Bathsheba?: A Case Study in Narrative Theology.” Journal of Adventist Theological Society 17, no. 2 (Autumn 2006): 81–95.
Deffinbaugh, Bob. David and Bathsheba: 2 Samuel 11:1-4. https://bible.org/seriespage/david-and-bathsheba-2-samuel-111-4 (accessed September 30, 2014).
Exum, J. Cheryl. Fragmented Women: Feminist (Sub)versions of Biblical Narratives. Valley Forge: Trinity, 1993.
Hans Wilhelm Hertzberg. I & II Samuel: A Commentary. London: SCM, 1964.
Lawlor, John I. “Theology and Art in the Narrative of the Ammonite War (2 Samuel 10-12).” Grace Theological Journal 3, no. 2 (September 1982): 193–205.
LeClaire, Jennifer. Why Megachurch Pastors Keep Falling into Sexual Immorality. http://www.jenniferleclaire.org/articles/why-megachurch-pastors-keep-falling-into-sexual-immorality (accessed November 22, 2014).
London, H. B., and Neil B. Wiseman. Pastors at Greater Risk. Ventura, CA: Gospel Light, 2003.
Lynch, John, Bill Thrall, and Bruce McNicol. Bo’s Cafe. Newbury Park, CA: Windblown Media, 2009.
Mars Hill Megachurch Dissolves after Investigation into Lead Pastor Mark Driscoll. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/01/mars-hill-megachurch-dissolve-mark-driscoll_n_6085278.html (accessed November 22, 2014).
Martin, Gary. The Meaning and Origin of the Expression: Power Corrupts; Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely. http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/absolute-power-corrupts-absolutely.html (accessed November 22, 2014).
Nicol, George G. “The Alleged Rape of Bathsheba: Some Observations on Ambiguity in Biblical Narrative.” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, no. 73 (March 1997): 43–54.
