Things We Can Be Reasonably Sure David Knew When He Chose to Assault Bathsheba & Murder Uriah

Reflections inspired by reading Deuteronomy early in the morning

In recent weeks I've been rethinking David’s relationship with Bathsheba, as it is depicted in 2 Samuel 11. (I hope to share a long reflection on that topic soon.) Meanwhile I've been reading through Deuteronomy in my personal devotion. One morning I was struck by a section about how Israel’s kings are expected to behave. Deuteronomy 17:18 explains: "And when the king sits on the throne of his kingdom, he shall write for himself in a book a copy of this law, approved by the Levitical priests.”

That means that if David followed this prescription, he had his own personal copy of the Law of Moses, something no other Israelite (so far as I know) had access to. He was expected, furthermore, to read it:

"And it shall be with him, and he shall read it in all the days of his life, that he may learn to fear the Lord his God by keeping all the words of this law and these statutes, and doing them, that his heart may not be lifted up above his brothers, and that he may not turn aside from the commandment, either to the right hand or to the left, so that he may continue long in his kingdom, he and his children, in Israel." (17:19-20)

I don’t know of any narrative evidence that David kept a copy of the Law and read it—no stories in Samuel or Kings where we see him having a quiet time. But the ideal is preserved in places like Psalm 1:2, where the psalmist writes, “Blessed is the one…whose delight is in the law of the Lord, and who meditates on his law day and night.” The only person with his own copy of the Bible on which to meditate day and night would have been the king.

If you recall any of the details of 2 Samuel 11, you know that David failed spectacularly in keeping even the most fundamental precepts of the Law. You can argue he broke commandments six through ten in one fell swoop. Which means David failed to keep all the words of this law and these statutes. And in his abuse of Bathsheba and Uriah, in which he involved numerous unnamed servants and Israel’s general, Joab, it seems plain David’s heart was indeed lifted up above his brothers, such that he felt free to use them as he pleased. David brazenly and obviously turned aside from the commandment. He and his children paid dearly for it (2 Samuel 12:10). 

David would’ve known all this if he read his personal copy of the Bible, as he was supposed to. After reading through Deuteronomy with David on my mind, I think there are other things we can be reasonably sure David knew when he chose to assault Bathsheba and murder Uriah.

1. He would have known the difference between rape and adultery. 

The Mosaic Law was sensitive to the question of female consent. (It seems to presume male consent.) Whereas in the modern West consent is not assumed until it is explicitly granted, in Deuteronomy consent is presumed unless the woman objects (Deuteronomy 22:24). That's why if a man seizes a woman to have sex with her "in the country," the intercourse is automatically considered rape, because there is no one to hear her—and help her—if the cries out. It is interesting that in the absence of potential witnesses the Law prioritizes the safety and testimony of the woman. Sex in the country could potentially be consensual, but the Law takes the woman's innocence for granted if there are no witnesses to claim otherwise (22:26-27).

The situation is different "in the city." Where there is no shortage of potential witnesses, the onus falls on the woman to cry out in objection if she doesn’t consent (22:23-24).

David sends for Bathsheba and sleeps with her "in the city." He would’ve known, if he read his Bible, that Bathsheba's consent would be presumed if she didn't resist by crying out when he sent his host of servants to bring her to his house. The whole palace complex and its surroundings was full of witnesses. I wonder if he knew he was putting her in an impossible position when he took her publicly, even though her agency to resist was limited by his position. 

2. He would have known that the penalty for both adultery and rape was death. 

Punishments were doled out differently in cases of adultery and rape. In the event of adultery, both the man and woman "shall die” (Deuteronomy 22:22, 24). In the case of rape (or any encounter "in the country") only the man is put to death, for the woman, "has committed no sin punishable by death" (22:22-26).

That means however we characterize David's conduct with Bathsheba, he was guilty of a sin that required the death penalty. He would've known he had done evil that must be purged from Israel (22:22, 24).

3. He would've known the penalty for premeditated murder was likewise death. 

The Law distinguishes between accidental death ("anyone hills his neighbor unintentionally without having hated him in the past" [Deuteronomy 19:4]) and premeditated murder ("if anyone hates his neighbor and lies in wait for him and attacks him and strikes him fatally so that he dies" [19:10]). There is no penalty for accidental death. For premeditated murder, the penalty is death (19:13).

David would've known when he made a plan to have Uriah killed in battle, a plan that included the murders of many other men as collateral damage (2 Samuel 11:24), that he was bringing "the guilt of innocent blood "upon Israel, a sin punishable by death.

4. He would have known that the Law makes no provision for redeeming adulterers, rapists, and murderers.

The sins of adultery, rape, and murder were punishable by death because the Law provided no other means of redemption for them. For other sins, there was restitution, sacrifice, forgiveness. But these sins, like the sin of idolatry, are "evils that must be purged from the land.” For the good of the nation, the people were not to pity the perpetrators of these sins but eliminate them, in order to spare the nation as a whole.

David would’ve known that someone guilty of these sins would require a special measure of grace and forgiveness from God for his own salvation. In the absence of divine intervention, David was doomed—and he did it all anyway.

Which brings us to the last point—

5. He would've known his conduct put the whole community in danger of God’s discipline. 

Near the end of Deuteronomy, as the people are preparing to renew their covenant with God, Moses warns them against “a root bearing poisonous and bitter fruit." This is someone who, "when he hears the words of this sworn covenant, blesses himself in his heart, saying, 'I shall be safe, though I walk in the stubbornness of my heart'" (Deuteronomy 29:18-19).

The Law has harsh words for this person who flagrantly and fearlessly flouts God’s law:

"The Lord will not be willing to forgive him, but rather the anger of the Lord and his jealousy will smoke against that man, and the curses written in this book will settle upon him, and the Lord will blot out his name from under heaven." (29:20)

The community that permits such a person to thrive without consequence is likewise subject to judgment.

David would've known that his brazen sexual sin and murder, committed in full view of the people with no apparent fear of the consequences, that he was presuming on God, who promised to punish such an evil doer. David appears to have felt safe—safe from punishment at the hands of his subjects, safe to act with impunity, safe from the judgment of God. 

At the end of 2 Samuel 11, the narrator tells us that even though he initially got away with it all, “the thing David had done displeased the LORD” (2 Samuel 11:27). “The thing” David had done turns out to be more than just breaking a couple commandments. He broke them out loud and in living color. God says through the prophet Nathan that David’s conduct proves that David “despised the word of the LORD” (2 Samuel 12:9) and even despised God himself (12:10).

David committed sins deserving of death and I suspect everybody knew it. This, of course, makes God’s merciful forgiveness (2 Samuel 12:13) all the more remarkable. And as for Uriah and Bathsheba, they are not forgotten. God honors them—and preserves a small record of David’s shame—by listing them in the genealogy of Jesus in Matthew’s gospel (1:6).