(David and Bathsheba)
Last week's lection began by saying that the LORD had given David rest from all his enemies round about, yet chs 8,9,10 describe David's warfare, and today's pericope is set against the background of war with Ammon. 2 Sam 11.1--"The kings" who went out were those mentioned in ch 10, Ammonites and Arameans, engaged in war vs David in the previous year. Now when they renew the battle, David does not accompany the Israelite forces to war. He remains in the palace and at least on the present occasion he doesn't get out of bed till late afternoon.
From the palace roof "he saw a woman bathing" (literal Heb word order). 2 Sam 11.3 describes her as very beautiful, tovat mar'eh, the same phrase applied to Rebekah (Gen 24.16; 26.7), Queen Vashti (Est 1.11) the young virgins sought as the queen's replacement (2.2&3) and Esther herself (2.7). All these cases imply sexual attraction as a feature of the description. At 1 Sam 16.12, an almost exact synonym describes David himself. David and Bathsheba make two of a kind.
When David inquires about her identity he learns first her father's name Eliam and then her husband's Uriah. Why this unusual note? 2 Sam 23.34 lists among David's most famous warriors an Eliam son of Ahithophel the Gilonite, and 2 Sam 15.12 tells that Ahithophel, one of David's most skillful counsellors, defected and joined the revolt of Absalom. Was Bathsheba's father this same Eliam son of Ahithophel? If not, why else would the biblical record mention him? 2 Sam 23.39 also lists her husband Uriah the Hittite as another of David's warrior heroes. His name, meaning "my light is YAH" and his responses to David in 11.11 reveal him to be a loyal worshipper of the God of Israel, though his racial origin marks him member of an alien race. He may have been a ger, or resident alien, who became a full member of the people of God by circumcision.
By specifying the detail of Bathsheba's purification, the record seems to draw attention to her having just finished her menstrual period and hence most susceptible to impregnation. Verse division between 4 & 5 obscures the significance, but Anchor Bible translates, "she returned home a pregnant woman."
Given all the messengers going and coming between David and Bathsheba, one can hardly believe that Uriah alone failed to know the exact facts of his situation. Whether genuine or feigned, Uriah's piety puts the king in a very bad light: While David lolls at home in luxury, the ark of YHWH and all David's armed forces abide in tents on the field of battle. Not only David's mercenary forces, but "all Israel" (the tribal muster called out for holy war) participate in this enterprise. Therefore sexual abstention prevails as a condition of war, and Uriah will not take advantage of this summons from the king to indulge himself by sleeping with his wife. Did he not suspect David's motive in calling him?
At an earlier time (2 Sam 7) David had expressed concern that the ark (equals YHWH in person) still resided in a tent while he himself had a cedar palace to live in. Now in the heat of his passion all such concern flies out the window. Pursuant to his orders to "take care of" Uriah, Joab also manages to sacrifice the lives of some eighteen others of the army of YHWH.
In its present form, the biblical record usually takes pains to excuse David from blame in affairs which might show him in an unfavorable light: 1] his alliance with the enemy Philistines; 2] his holding hostage Saul's grandson Mephibosheth; 3] his claim of non-participation in the deaths of Ishbaal and Abner; and 4] his giving up seven others of Saul's descendants --not Jonathan's--to the vengeance of the Gibeonites. In the Bathsheba/ Uriah incident, however, the biblical author offers no extenuating circumstances but shows David up as a lustful brute.
What of Bathsheba? Rembrandt's portrait of Bathsheba admirably depicts the ambiguity of the situation. She sits nude on the edge of her bath, holding in her hand the king's letter. The inscrutable look on her face leaves the viewer wondering what thoughts run through her mind. Was she the aggressor as some have supposed? Was she a tool of her grandfather Ahithophel? Was she an innocent female forced by circumstance to surrender to the lust and power of her sovereign? Where was YHWH in all of this?
(Very similar to Ps 53, with only slight variations)
In vs 2ff the psalmist seems to denounce the the total depravity of all humankind, and in Rom 3.10-12 Paul quotes freely from this psalm among others to the same effect. Soul-winners make the declaration "There is none good, no, not one" a chief weapon of assault on the forces of iniquity. As we peruse the poem, however, we wonder whether "bene-adam" (sons of men, NRSV humankind) really means the whole human race. In the mind of the psalmist,they seem to stand in contrast to the people of God.
14.1. The fool [nabal] does not deny the existence of God, only God's interest, concern, or power to act. Is 32.6 describes the character and behavior of the fool:
[F]ools speak folly, and their minds plot iniquity: to practice ungodliness, to utter error concerning the LORD, to leave the craving of the hungry unsatisfied, and to deprive the thirsty of drink.
Heb nabal denotes not mere ignorance but moral perversity, and often has nuance of sexual corruption: When Amnon tried to seduce Tamar she appealed to him, "Do not do anything so vile [hannebalah hazz'oth=this foolishness]...you would be as one of the scoundrels [hannebalim=fools] in Israel" (2 Sam 13.12f).
"They are corrupt"--lit. "they have corrupted...their deeds." Corrupt [shachat = go to ruin]; in hiphil as here has causative effect; with direct object may mean "destroy " (1 Sam 26.9,15 David's opportunity to destroy Saul).
".. do abominable deeds" (KJV become filthy) from ta`ab = be an abomination, in both ritual and ethical sense. Here hiphil, to cause deeds to be abominable. In 1 Chron 21.6, David's command to take a census of the people was abominable (NRSV abhorrent) to Joab. deeds [`alilah from root `alal = to act arbitrarily], may apply either to God or humans. "there is no one who does good." Such is the fool, and the psalmist seems to think they are numerous if not universal. Thus, Kirkpatrick (Cambridge Bible) suggests vs 1-3 describe humanity at the time of the flood.
vs 2. "YHWH looks down from heaven" as though leaning out the window, "on bene-adam to see if there are any who are wise" [Heb maskil, participle from sakal = be prudent, act circumspectly, have success; the word has many meanings, not always clear which] "who seek after God." To seek God [darash] was the formal expression to describe going to the shrine where the deity resided in order to make an inquiry, pay a vow, or offer sacrifice. Amos 5.4-7 condemns the merely formal, ritualistic aspect of such seeking devoid of moral seriousness.
vs 3 contains the well-known declaration, "There is none good, no, not one." Yet vs 4ff seem to distinguish between all these "fools" on the one hand and "my people," "the company of the righteous," and "the poor." The extreme doctrine of total depravity has less biblical support than many assume.
vs 7a in Heb asks a question: "Who will give from Zion salvation of Israel?" The psalmist answers by reiterating the hope expressed elsewhere that YHWH will restore the fortunes of his people (Jer 29.14; 30.3; 48.47; Ezek 16.53; 29.14.
In 1 Sam 18.5,14,15,30 the verb sakal describes David, who "acted wisely" (KJV) or "had success" (NRSV) as Saul's chief warrior. The participial form maskil, the exact usage in Ps 14.2, applies to David in 1 Sam 18.14, "David had success [maskil] in all his undertakings, for the LORD was with him" and therefore Saul feared him. Yet in 2 Sam 11.1ff David acts the fool in following his lust for Bathsheba, resulting in the murder of Uriah and 17 other soldiers of David's army under Joab. In that case, David acted like the fool who thinks God does not know or care.
The pericope begins "For this reason..." itself a repetition of the exact words in 3.1. The general context of this reiterated phrase deals with the welcome of the Gentiles into the privileges of the people of God. 2.11-22 (16th Ord), states that Gentiles now participate fully in the covenants, promises, hope, and commonwealth formerly considered the exclusive possession of Israel. 3.2-13 calls this "the mystery of Christ" and credits Paul with having received this great truth by direct revelation. It intimates that Paul's sufferings on behalf of the Gentile believers has some relationship to this new revelation.
With all this as the underlying reason, Paul says "I bow my knees before the Father, from whom every family in heaven and on earth is named" (RSV). I wish to focus attention here on the Fatherhood of God in this Ephesian context. Some women take offense at the idea of the fatherhood of God and the patriarchal society of biblical times. While acknowledging the masculine abuse of those ideas and sympathizing with the critics, we must attempt to salvage the positive elements in the biblical material. Compared to pagan religion, biblical faith used the father image for God very sparingly. Biblical writers did not adopt the pagan epithet for god as begetter of the wrold, but reserved the term to describe the relation between deity and the national community of God's people. Even so, a reluctance to encourage the view of a natural/biological relationship between deity and humankind contributed to the sparsity of references. When we check them out we find (among others):
- Ex 4.22-23: YHWH acknowledges paternity by designating Israel as "my firstborn son" and demanding of the oppressive Pharaoh, "Let my son go..." Here, fatherhood=liberation.
- Dt 8.5: "Know then in your heart that, as a man disciplines his son, the LORD your God disciplines you" (RSV). Discipline is for the child's good--instructional, not abusive.
- Deut 32.4-18 pictures God as creator and father (vs 6), also mother (vs 18); lists the blessings bestowed upon Israel as God's children; and upbraids them for ingratitude and provocation. The sequel, indeed, threatens dire punishment (vs 39-43), but...
- Hos 11.1ff contains the classic declaration that despite the child's apparently incorrigible rebellion, God will not abandon it, for the divine heart suffers pain on behalf of the child.
- Jer 31.18-20 recounts how Ephraim begins to respond to divine disciplining, and like Hosea tells of the pain of God in response to the wayward child's behavior--"surely I will have mercy on him..."
- Ps 103.13 "As a father has compassion for his children, so the LORD has compassion for those who fear him." Fatherhood=compasssion, a basically "feminine" characteristic, where the Heb word is racham, etymologically related to rechem, the mother's womb.
- Is 49.15 declares that even a nursing mother may forget to show compassion for the child of her womb, but YHWH will never forget Zion.
- Is 63.7-9 (RSV) describes YHWH's deeds of favor to Israel, accepting them as sons, "and he became their savior. In all their affliction he was afflicted...he redeemed...lifted...carried them all the days of old." Vs 10 Israel rebelled, and for a time YHWH "turned to be their enemy." 11-19 But they remembered the salvation of old and turned back: "For thou art our Father, though Abraham does not know us and Israel does not acknowledge us; thou, O LORD, art our Father, our Redeemer from of old is thy name" (vs 16). Acc to TDNT 5/978 rabbinical exegesis built heavily on this verse and Dt 32.6 in developing the concept of God as Father.
- Three functions of "father"seem to have been particularly important in early Jewish literature. First, "father" functions to designate God as the refuge of the afflicted and persecuted, especially those persecuted by the unbelieving. Second, "father" frequently accompanies a petition for or an assurance of forgiveness. These two functions are grounded by a third: "father" evokes the power and providence that governs the world.
Eph 3.14-15 refers simply to "the father from whom every family in heaven and on earth is named." The God here called simply Pater (Father) is the source and support of every patria (family, tribe, people, nation) not only on earth (human) but in heaven (angelic). Such designation specifically lifts the idea of fatherhood and family out of Jewish exclusiveness and ties in with what 2.11-3.13 had argued concerning the unity of Jews and Gentiles made possible through Christ. Scholars debate whether God should properly be called father of all people or only of believers. Despite absence of specific texts to that effect, I believe the immediate context of Jew/Gentile unity, the inclusion of heavenly families as well as human, and the universalizing thrust of Eph 1.9-10, all give us authority to speak of all human beings as God's children.
Schrenk (TDNT 5/1016-19) notes that patria in LXX translates mishpahah to refer to a gentile "family of the north" (Babylon) and in Ezek 20.32 "families of the nations goyim. Thus in Eph 3.14-15, "The whole world of nations is in view. Each patria on earth means Israel and the ethne, mentioned 3 times since 3.1" (p 1018). God is the creator of all things, including patriai. But "as the revealed Father in Christ...God has a relation to every patria (p 1019).
Seeing it in its contemporary milieu and as a resistance to imperial Roman political patriarchalism, we can recognize positive aspects to the fatherhood of God expressed in Eph 3.14-15. At the same time we have to recognize that the Jewish/Christian emphasis made possible a subsequent theological absolutizing of the ideology of fatherhood for God. Eph 5.21ff with its patriarchal ordering of the Christian household shows to what extent the writer was still governed by age-old pagan beliefs about the pater potestas. D'Angelo's article concludes:
- Neither Jesus nor the NT can be shown to have used the word "father" in a way that constitutes a transhistorical revelation that is unique and will be irreparably lost if twentieth-century theology and practice choose other imagery for God. But the use of "father" in the NT cannot be ignored; it is important not only to diversify language and imagery for God but also to attend to the patriarchal and imperial horizons within which Christianity was born and has lived, and to continue to ask how they have limited our visions of the divine. (p 630)
(Comments to Arch at arch.taylor@ecunet.org.)