A comparative analysis of the narrative and the parable reveals the strategy for bringing David to repentance.
Sungjin Kim
The story of David and Bathsheba appears twice in 2 Samuel. The first is through the narrative in 2 Samuel 11, and the second is through the parable of Nathan in 2 Samuel 12. The narrative is a detailed record of David’s actions in chronological order. Except for the last verse, the narrative lists facts without evaluating the characters or judging their behavior. The prophet Nathan’s story, however, shifts the narrative into another literary genre, a parable.
This shift in genre involved a variety of strategies. First, by omitting much of the narrative, the parable helps the reader to distinguish between secondary and primary content. Second, by modifying some of the narrative, the parable not only prevented David from realizing that it was his story, but also gives the reader a clearer sense of the nature of the events. Third, by adding new information to the parable that was not mentioned in the narrative, the reader could focus on the characters’ emotions rather than just knowing the facts.
This study examines the strategy of the text by analyzing the process of omission, modification, and addition through comparative analysis of the narrative in 2 Samuel 11 and the parable in 2 Samuel 12:1 to 4. It is beyond the scope of this study to debate whether the strategy of the text is Nathan’s, the narrator’s, or a third editor’s. As Greg A. King wrote, the narrator’s viewpoint appears in historical narrative, sometimes in the arrangement and in the structure of the narrative, sometimes by the words uttered by the characters, by explicit comment or by summary statement. However, the narrator’s viewpoint in the Bible reflects the divine perspective, not the thoughts of a single individual. In that sense, King contends that historical narrative also intends to communicate theological truth to the reader.[1] The purpose of this study is to analyze the strategy of the text through a close reading of it as suggested by King, and finally find the divine perspective in it.
The Narrative in 2 Samuel 11
David’s Initiative
The narrative in 2 Samuel 11 is a chronological account of events, all of which were driven by David’s actions. The word that most characterizes David’s initiative is sent. In this narrative, David appears as a sender. He sent Joab and all Israel to the battle (vs. 1). He sent messengers to the woman to know her and to take her (vss. 3, 4). He also ordered Joab, his military commander, to send Uriah to him (vs. 6). He sent a letter to Joab through Uriah’s hand (vs. 14), and he sent a servant to bring Bathsheba to his palace after Uriah’s death (vs. 27). In this way, David’s being in a position to send someone indicates that he has power.[2] When the subject of sent is a king or a person in power, and a woman is associated with this verb, it most often indicates the power of the sender. For example, in Genesis 20:2, Abimelech, king of Gerar, sent and took Sarah. Jephthah sent his daughter away for two months in Judges 11:38. In 2 Samuel 3:14, David sent a messenger to Ishbosheth and let him bring Michal back to him. Also, David sent Tamar to Amnon’s house in 2 Samuel 13:7.[3] It is evident from these usages that the description of David as a sender indicates his power, and that the murder and adultery were the result of this power.
Another word that shows David’s initiative is took. The subject of both sent and took in verse 4 is David, as emphasized by Richard Davidson. This demonstrates that David and Bathsheba’s sexual activity was not a voluntary choice on her part, but rather the result of David’s abuse of power.[4] Cheryl Exum has also indicated that the two verbs (came and return) with Bathsheba as their subjects describe a weak woman who has no initiative.[5] The use of came rather than went demonstrates that David’s perspective is more favorable.[6] Interestingly, in the LXX, unlike the Masoretic text, the subject of come in verse 4 is David, not Bathsheba. The MT says “she came to him” which shows the possibility of her acting on her own initiative. But the LXX denies the possibility of her having taken voluntary action.[7] The early Greek interpreter highlighted that David came to her, and she was a victim of his political power.[8]
Bathsheba’s silence in the narrative is another indication of David’s initiative. She has no control over her sexual relationship with David. Even the statement “‘I am pregnant’” is uttered by the agent and not by her. In this narrative, she does not think or speak. Her silence does not mean consent. This is a defining feature of power rape. Her reaction to David’s action is completely disregarded, and her silence reveals her powerlessness.[9] Therefore, it is evident from this account that David, the king, is in control of all of the events in the story. He is the sole ruler, and virtually everything is accomplished as the result of his initiative.
Contrast Between David and Uriah
Most of the characters move in accordance with David’s command. Uriah is the only one who does not obey the king. He refuses David’s command for two reasons. First, the ark is on the battlefield. This fact shows that the war is a holy war, waged in the name of God. When going to a holy war like this, it was necessary for the soldiers participating in it to maintain their ritual purity, which included abstaining from sexual relations (Lev. 15:18).[10] Uriah probably refused to sleep with Bathsheba for this reason. David, however, violated his obligation to maintain ritual purity and had sex with the wife of one of his soldiers. In the narrative, the text draws a stark contrast between David and Uriah.
This contrast is also evident in Uriah’s solidarity with his fellow soldiers on the battlefield. His second reason for refusing David’s command is that he believed it was wrong for him to come home alone to eat, drink, and lie with his wife while his commander and his comrades were on the battlefield. Uriah believed that his place was on the front lines, fighting a fierce battle against the enemy, and that the king’s order would cause him to break his solidarity with his comrades. Uriah’s thoughts are in stark contrast to those of David, who remains in Jerusalem after sending his entire army to war.
Thus, the text shows that Uriah, a Hittite, is more righteous than the king of Israel in terms of religious convictions and solidarity with his comrades. This demonstrates that Uriah acknowledged a higher authority than the king of Israel and had the courage to refuse the king’s orders when they contradicted God’s will. Uriah is removed from the narrative, however, because he disobeys the king’s authority. Nonetheless, Uriah’s story does not end here. David, who eliminates Uriah from the story by killing him, unexpectedly encounters him in Nathan’s parable.
Strategy in the Parable of 2 Samuel 12:1–4
Chapter 11, a chronological account of the events that unfolded as the result of David’s actions and commands, ends with God’s assessment, “The thing that David had done displeased the Lord” (vs. 27, NKJV).[11] Whereas up to this point, the narrative has been a list of facts without a moral or religious assessment of David’s behavior, this suggests direct intervention by God. Chapter 12 begins with a narrative of sending: “The Lord sent Nathan to David” (vs. 1). The change of sender from David to the Lord indicates a complete reversal of the power structure. David is no longer a sender. He now appears as someone who hears and obeys the sender’s command. This demonstrates the emergence of a new power, the power that transcends power. This power has never before appeared in the narrative, but it now takes center stage.
God sends Nathan to David to deliver His judgment. It is unclear whether the parable was directly addressed to Nathan by God or was composed by Nathan himself. What is clear, however, is that the text employs a variety of strategies to condense the content of the long narrative into a short parable: omissions, modifications, and additions.
Omission: Uriah’s Death
Uriah’s death is a very important part of the narrative as a strategy David uses to cover up his sin. In 2 Samuel 12:9 it says that David’s sin was twofold: taking Bathsheba and killing Uriah. God’s judgment for those two sins was also twofold: first, openly taking David’s wives before his very eyes and giving them to another man (vs. 11), and second, the death of the child born to David and Bathsheba. Thus, both the narrative and God’s oracle place great importance on the death of Uriah.
However, there is no allusion to Uriah’s death in the parable. There is only an allusion to Bathsheba’s loss of a child that is mirrored in the loss of a ewe’s lamb. From this, it appears that the parable focuses on the deprivation of Bathsheba’s child as one of David’s two sins. This does not mean that the text overlooks David’s sin of having Uriah murdered. Verse 12:9 clearly includes the killing of Uriah among David’s offenses. Nevertheless, the omission of Uriah’s death in Nathan’s parable seems to be to emphasize that the root of all these sins is David’s lust for Bathsheba. The omission of Uriah’s death also prevents David from recognizing that the parable is pointing to his sin. In particular, this parable uses a strategy of discrepancy so that the listener does not know that the parable is his/her story.[12] This strategy made David understand the parable as a legal case, and the judgment he had made immediately returned to him.
Modification 1: a shift from political power to economic power. The narrative is based on the political power of a king. In contrast, the parable depicts the same event as a conflict between the rich and the poor. The only information provided about the parable’s characters is their socioeconomic status. No names, tribal origins, or political positions are listed. It states only that one is rich, and the other is poor. However, the rich have the power to deprive the poor of their property, just as David did. Although the parable tells the story of a single individual, it should be taken as a universal story that illustrates the state of society at the time, because an unrealistic parable can lead the audience to doubt the parable. The rich man taking from the poor without any guilt, and the poor man accepting his situation without rebellion or anger, suggests that exploitation by the use of economic power was widespread in society.[13]
This exploitation of economic power had been evident throughout Israel’s history. The Hebrew word for “the poor” refers to the lowest social classes. David stated in 1 Samuel 18:23 that he was too poor to be the king’s son-in-law. This demonstrates the close relationship between wealth and power. Additionally, Proverbs 22:7 states, “The rich rule over the poor” (NIV). The poor will be governed by the rich. Also, the Bible repeatedly commands power not to oppress the poor (Ex. 22:25, 23:11; Lev. 19:10, 23:22, 25:25; Isa. 3:14, 15; Eze. 18:12, 17, 22:29; Amos 4:1, 5:11). The ideal would be to create an Israel without the poor, but this is impossible in practice (Deut. 15:4, 7, 11).
This modification of political power to economic power is a device to keep David from recognizing that the parable is about him. Nathan’s parable has been defined as a “juridical parable.” In a juridical parable, a real-life violation of the law is disguised as a parable and told to the offender so that he will judge himself.[14] Even though the shift arouses the king’s anger at the unfairness of society, he does not realize that the anger will subsequently be directed at his own sin. Thus, the shift from political power to economic power seems to be one of the text’s strategies to maximize the features of the juridical parable.
Modification 2: a shift from feeing self to feeding another. In chapter 11, David committed murder and adultery to satisfy his own desires. In the parable, however, the rich man took the poor man’s ewe lamb, not for his own consumption, but to satisfy the hunger of a visitor. It’s hard to say for sure why this modification occurs. It is unusual for a visitor to suddenly appear in the story of the poor and the rich. Gunkel asserts that chapters 11 and 12 are independent of each other because the person corresponding to the traveler does not appear in chapter 11.[15] However, this study, which focuses on the final form of the text, summarizes the text’s strategies in this shift as follows: First, the appearance of the traveler reminds the reader of David walking on the roof. The word translated “visitor” or “traveler” occurs twice in the Old Testament: once in 1 Samuel 14:26, where it is used to refer to “dropping honey” and here where it refers to a “visitor” to the rich man. Paul Evans explains that the text’s use of visitor is intentionally an allusion to David’s “walking on the roof” (11:2), which was the trigger for this incident. This strategy in the text serves to intrigue the reader with the subtle connections between the narrative and the parable. Second, this strategy serves to emphasize David’s contradictions. The rich man in the parable scrupulously follows the obligation of hospitality to visitors (Gen. 18:5–8; 19:3) while completely ignoring the law to love one’s neighbor (Lev. 19:18). He acts generously to the visitor by providing him with food obtained by taking the neighbor’s most precious thing. The rich man’s behavior serves as a literary device to highlight the contradictions between David’s image as a holy leader of the people and his murder and adultery.
Modification 3: a shift from adultery and murder to exploitation or stealing. In the parable, the rich man’s sin is much less heinous than David’s sin. According to the Law of Moses, murder and adultery are punishable by death (Ex. 21:12; Lev. 24:17; Num. 35:30; Deut. 22:22–24). However, if an Israelite stole something that belonged to someone else, he or she had to make restitution of four or five times that amount (Ex. 22:1). When David judged the rich man by saying he should “‘restore the lamb fourfold’” (12:6), he saw this situation as the same as the stealing referred to in Exodus 22:1. In this sense, the parable minimizes David’s sin much more than the narrative. Of course, this textual strategy may have helped David avoid recognizing that the parable was his story. But at the same time, this strategy focuses readers not on the type of sin, but on the nature of the transgression. David is not being judged because he committed a sin worse than stealing. Regarding the nature of these sins, both are rooted in a self-centered desire, and both have grave consequences that destroy the lives of others. This idea is made clear by the verbs used to describe the two sins. The text intentionally uses the same word translated as “took” to indicate the sin of David and the rich man. This demonstrates that the text considers these two sins to be identical in nature.
Addition: relational aspect. Another strategy used in parables is to add something new that does not appear in the narrative. The parable focuses on the intimate relationship between the ewe lamb and its owner, which is not present in the narrative. The text says he bought this ewe lamb.[16] At this point, it seems as if this livestock is just a piece of property that can be bought and sold for money. Through relational activities such as eating, drinking, and lying down with him, however, the ewe lamb becomes an invaluable being to him, a daughter. There has been a shift from economic to relational value, which cannot be converted to currency. This relational value never appeared in the narrative. It was added in the parable.
It is important to focus on three expressions used to show the relational aspect of the poor man and his ewe lamb. These three actions—eating, drinking, and lying down—serve to connect the two into a special relationship. A similar example is the story of Ruth and Boaz. She ate, drank, and lay down with Boaz (Ruth 2:9, 14; 3:7). These three actions united Ruth with Boaz, and he became a redeemer. Another story in which these three verbs appear together is the story of Elijah under the broom tree. He asked God to take away his life. But God provided him with a cake baked on hot stones and a jar of water. After eating, drinking, and lying down, Elijah regained his strength and was able to reach the mountain of God and to enter into a deeper relationship with Him (1 Kings 19:6–8). Therefore, these three actions—eating, drinking, and lying down together—make their relationship special. It is interesting to note that all three verbs are used to describe the relationship between Uriah and Bathsheba (2 Samuel 11:11).
Also, the expression “became like a daughter” reminds readers of Bathsheba because the Hebrew בַּת is the same as the first syllable of Bathsheba (בַּת־שֶׁ֣בַע).[17] This metaphor shifts the reader’s attention from economic values to relational values. As mentioned above, the world of this parable is a place where possession is power. It is a place where those who have more can take from those who have less. But the parable invites readers to shift their focus from economic values to relational values, an aspect that David never considered when he committed sin to satisfy his lust. He didn’t care about the grief of the man whose wife was taken from him. David was only concerned with satisfying his own desires. But the parable causes David to focus on the relational aspect of the two. As a result, he pronounces the following sentence on the rich man: “‘As the Lord lives, the man who has done this shall surely die! And he shall restore fourfold for the lamb, because he did this thing and because he had no pity’” (2 Sam. 12:5, 6). This sentence has a clear semantic parallel.
A the man who has done this deserves to die,
B and he shall restore the lamb fourfold,
B′ because that he did this thing
A′ and because that he had no pity (2 Sam 12:5, 6)
This section consists of two sins with two corresponding judgments. The sin of “taking the ewe lamb” is linked with “restore the lamb fourfold,” and “having no pity” is linked with “deserves to die.” The judgment for the rich man’s actions is that he pay back four times what he stole. This appears to be a judgment based on Exodus 22:1.[18] In Israel, a person who stole a sheep paid back the sheep four times, and that was the end of his or her legal obligation. However, the lack of pity for the poor is different. It is not about the action but about the motivation. The act of taking the poor’s ewe lamb occurs because of a lack of pity. However, this is not an official judgment of David but rather an idiomatic expression of rebuking a person who has committed a great sin. The same expression is found in 1 Samuel 26:16, in which David rebukes Saul’s servant Abner for failing to keep Saul and says, “‘You deserve to die.’” It means Abner’s sin was too great. Therefore, the death penalty here in 2 Samuel 12:5 is an idiomatic judgment that reveals the seriousness of not having pity on the poor. Thus, David, who had no pity for Uriah, has pity for the poor man because he sees the relational aspect of the parable. This is the strategy of the parable, and why the text devotes the most space to describing the relational aspect of the poor man and the ewe’s lamb (2 Sam. 12:3).
A change of perspective. David, enraged at the rich man, receives a shocking reply from Nathan, “‘You are the man!’” (vs. 7). David has heard the parable from an omniscient third-person perspective up until this point. He has been able to observe the close relationship between the poor man and his lamb. He recognized how cruel, inhumane, and mortally sinful the rich man’s action was. However, the phrase “‘You are the man!’” allows David to enter the parable from the outside. When he was living in the first-person central perspective, he was unaware of the emotions of others. In the narrative, David is the center of power, sending people wherever he chooses, and taking a woman. He does not care about the feelings of others. He has no pity on them. The people around him such as Uriah, Bathsheba, Joab, and other subjects are nothing more than tools he uses for his needs. David is, however, able to perceive the suffering and loss of others after his perspective shifts.[19] He sees how deeply his sin has hurt others. As such, the parable uses the strategy of changing perspective to help David realize the seriousness of his sin.
This change of perspective is also evident in Leviticus 19:18, which says, “‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’” The phrase “as yourself” can be translated in two ways. Takamitsu Muraoka suggests that “as you (כָּמוֹךָ)” is adjectival, and it should be translated “who is a person like you.”[20] Muraoka thought that this verse would limit the person whom you shall love to Israelites who are the “same as you.” This is because the command to love the stranger comes separately in verse 34. However, it also can be translated as adverbial: “Love (the good) for your fellow as you (love the good for) yourself.”[21] In this interpretation, the phrase “as yourself” does not restrict, but rather expands the scope of love. In other words, this verse encourages a shift in perspective toward others. It requires individuals to listen to others, focus on their emotions, and view them as ends rather than means. In the same way that Nathan changed David’s perspective through a parable, this law requires people to change their perspective.
Conclusion
David’s sin with Bathsheba appears twice, once as a narrative and once as a parable. The author employs various strategies to fit the long narrative into the short parable of verse 4 in 2 Samuel 12, including omissions, modifications, and additions. These strategies can be summarized in several ways. First, the parable omits the death of Uriah. This seems to be a strategy to emphasize that lust for Bathsheba is the starting point for all of these sins, while also keeping David from realizing that the parable is his story. Second, shifting David’s political power to the economic power of the wealthy makes David angry at the exploitation of his people. However, this anger is ultimately directed back at David himself. Third, it makes a difference in whose needs are being fulfilled. In the narrative, David commits murder and adultery to satisfy his sexual desires. In the parable, however, the rich man exploits a poor man’s ewe lamb to feed his visitor. The conflict between the obligation of hospitality and the law to love one’s neighbor (Lev. 19:18) is used as a literary device to highlight the contradictory figure of David sitting on the throne pretending to be holy. Fourth, the sin of the rich man in the parable is much lighter than that of David in the narrative. This is not to defend David, but to show that there is no difference between the two in the nature of sin. Fifth, the parable emphasizes a relational aspect, which is not present in the narrative. It helps David to realize how much pain he caused Uriah’s family. Finally, the parable helped David realize the gravity of his sin by allowing him to see the situation from a third-person, omniscient point of view. Then Nathan draws him into the parable with the words, “‘You are the man!’”
This comparative analysis of the narrative in 2 Samuel 11 and the parable in 12:1 to 4 reveals the text’s strategy for bringing David to repentance. These strategies enabled David to confess to God, “‘I have sinned against the Lord’” (12:13) instead of denying or overlooking his sin.
Sungjin Kim, MDiv, is a PhD student of the Old Testament at Andrews Theological Seminary, Berrien Springs, Michigan, U.S.A.
NOTES AND REFERENCES
1. Greg A. King, “Interpreting Old Testament Historical Narrative,” in Understanding Scripture: An Adventist Approach, George W. Reid, ed. (Silver Spring, Md.: Biblical Research Institute, 2006), 154, 155.
2. Randall C. Bailey, David in Love and War: The Pursuit of Power in 2 Samuel 10–12 (A&C Black, 1990), 75:85.
3. Anne Létourneau, “Beauty, Bath and Beyond: Framing Bathsheba as a Royal Fantasy in 2 Sam 11, 1–5,” Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament (2018): 32:80.
4. David sends “messengers” (plural), but the verb took has a masculine singular subject. Although many modern versions interpret it as it was the messengers who “took” Bathsheba to the palace, MT unambiguously indicates that “he,” i.e., David himself (by means of the messengers), “took” Bathsheba. Richard M. Davidson, “Did King David Rape Bathsheba? A Case Study in Narrative Theology,” Journal of the Adventist Theological Society (2006): 7:88.
5. J. Cheryl Exum, Fragmented Women: Feminist (Sub) Versions of Biblical Narratives (London: Bloomsbury Publishing, 2015), 175.
6. Jacqueline N. Grey, “A Prophetic Call to Repentance: David, Bathsheba, and a Royal Abuse of Power,” Grieving, Brooding, and Transforming: The Spirit, the Bible, and Gender (Boston, Mass.: Brill, 2021), 14.
7. Sara M. Koenig, “Make War Not Love: The Limits of David’s Hegemonic Masculinity in 2 Samuel 10–12,” Biblical Interpretation (2015): 23:506.
8. Sara M. Koenig, Bathsheba Survives (Columbia, S.C.: University of South Carolina Press, 2018), 14.
9. J. Cheryl Exum, “Plotted, Shot, and Painted: Cultural Representations of Biblical Women,” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 215 (Sheffield, U.K.: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996), 3:29.
10. Robert D. Bergen, 1, 2 Samuel, The New American Commentary, E. Ray Clendenen, ed. (Nashville, Tenn.: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1996), 7:366.
11. Unless otherwise noted, all Scripture references in this article are quoted from The New King James Version of the Bible.
12. According to Uriel Simon, a juridical parable contains a realistic story about a legal violation that is told to someone who has committed a similar offense in hopes that the person will unsuspectingly pass judgment on himself or herself. The offender will be caught in the trap only if he or she does not detect prematurely that the parable condemns him or her. Thus, the speaker disguises the parable as a legal case and creates some discrepancy between the parable and the offender’s situation in order to trap the offender. See Uriel Simon, “The Poor Man’s Ewe-Lamb an Example of a Juridical Parable,” Biblica (1967): 48:221.
13. Joyce G. Baldwin, 1 and 2 Samuel, The Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries, D. J. Wiseman. ed. (Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP, 1988), 236.
14. A. A. Anderson, 2 Samuel, Word Biblical Commentary, David A. Hubbard and Glenn W. Barker, eds. (Dallas, Texas: Word Books, 1989), 11:160.
15. According to Herman Gunkel, 2 Samuel 11 focuses on the murder of Uriah, but the parable does not contain a murder. Thus, he concludes that the parable originally existed independent of chapter12. Herman Gunkel, The Folktale in the Old Testament, M. D. Rutter, trans. (Sheffield, Ala.: Sheffield Academic Press, 1987), 54, 55.
16. Craig E. Morrison, Berit Olam: 2 Samuel (Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 2013), 152. From a sacrificial perspective, Morrison explains why Nathan chose the little ewe lamb—noting that the ewe lamb is one of the sacrifices offered by the leper during the purification process. The ewe lamb, a sacrificial animal for expiation, foreshadows David’s eventual atonement for his crimes against Uriah. As a leper washes his clothes and washes himself on the seventh day after being declared clean (Lev. 14:9) and brings two male lambs and an ewe lamb as a sacrifice on the eighth day (vs. 10), so did David lie on the ground for seven days, wash and anoint himself, and change his clothes following the death of his child (2 Sam. 12:20).
17. Robert D. Bergen, 1, 2 Samuel, The New American Commentary, E. Ray Clendenen, ed. (Nashville, Tenn.: B & H Publisher, 1996), 7:370.
18. LXX chose sevenfold instead of fourfold. Sevenfold may reflect a proverbial compensation (Prov. 6:31), which means perfect restitution. Also, sevenfold might be intended to call to mind Bathsheba because “Bathsheba” could mean “daughter of seven.” See P. Kyle McCarter, Jr., 2 Samuel, The Anchor Bible, William F. Albright and David N. Freedman, eds. (New York: Doubleday & Company, 1984), 9:299.
19. Ángel Manuel Rodriguez, ed., Andrews Bible Commentary (Berrien Springs, Mich.: Andrews University Press, 2020), 463.
20. Takamitsu Muraoka, “A Syntactic Problem in Lev. Xix. 18b,” Journal of Semitic Studies 23: 2 (1978), 293.
21. Jacob Milgrom, “Leviticus 17–22, Ab 3a,” Anchor Yale Bible Commentaries (New Haven, Conn.: Yale Univ. Press, 2000), 1,655.
1. Greg A. King, “Interpreting Old Testament Historical Narrative,” in Understanding Scripture: An Adventist Approach, George W. Reid, ed. (Silver Spring, Md.: Biblical Research Institute, 2006), 154, 155.
2. Randall C. Bailey, David in Love and War: The Pursuit of Power in 2 Samuel 10–12 (A&C Black, 1990), 75:85.
3. Anne Létourneau, “Beauty, Bath and Beyond: Framing Bathsheba as a Royal Fantasy in 2 Sam 11, 1–5,” Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament (2018): 32:80.
4. David sends “messengers” (plural), but the verb took has a masculine singular subject. Although many modern versions interpret it as it was the messengers who “took” Bathsheba to the palace, MT unambiguously indicates that “he,” i.e., David himself (by means of the messengers), “took” Bathsheba. Richard M. Davidson, “Did King David Rape Bathsheba? A Case Study in Narrative Theology,” Journal of the Adventist Theological Society (2006): 7:88.
5. J. Cheryl Exum, Fragmented Women: Feminist (Sub) Versions of Biblical Narratives (London: Bloomsbury Publishing, 2015), 175.
6. Jacqueline N. Grey, “A Prophetic Call to Repentance: David, Bathsheba, and a Royal Abuse of Power,” Grieving, Brooding, and Transforming: The Spirit, the Bible, and Gender (Boston, Mass.: Brill, 2021), 14.
7. Sara M. Koenig, “Make War Not Love: The Limits of David’s Hegemonic Masculinity in 2 Samuel 10–12,” Biblical Interpretation (2015): 23:506.
8. Sara M. Koenig, Bathsheba Survives (Columbia, S.C.: University of South Carolina Press, 2018), 14.
9. J. Cheryl Exum, “Plotted, Shot, and Painted: Cultural Representations of Biblical Women,” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 215 (Sheffield, U.K.: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996), 3:29.
10. Robert D. Bergen, 1, 2 Samuel, The New American Commentary, E. Ray Clendenen, ed. (Nashville, Tenn.: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1996), 7:366.
11. Unless otherwise noted, all Scripture references in this article are quoted from The New King James Version of the Bible.
12. According to Uriel Simon, a juridical parable contains a realistic story about a legal violation that is told to someone who has committed a similar offense in hopes that the person will unsuspectingly pass judgment on himself or herself. The offender will be caught in the trap only if he or she does not detect prematurely that the parable condemns him or her. Thus, the speaker disguises the parable as a legal case and creates some discrepancy between the parable and the offender’s situation in order to trap the offender. See Uriel Simon, “The Poor Man’s Ewe-Lamb an Example of a Juridical Parable,” Biblica (1967): 48:221.
13. Joyce G. Baldwin, 1 and 2 Samuel, The Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries, D. J. Wiseman. ed. (Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP, 1988), 236.
14. A. A. Anderson, 2 Samuel, Word Biblical Commentary, David A. Hubbard and Glenn W. Barker, eds. (Dallas, Texas: Word Books, 1989), 11:160.
15. According to Herman Gunkel, 2 Samuel 11 focuses on the murder of Uriah, but the parable does not contain a murder. Thus, he concludes that the parable originally existed independent of chapter12. Herman Gunkel, The Folktale in the Old Testament, M. D. Rutter, trans. (Sheffield, Ala.: Sheffield Academic Press, 1987), 54, 55.
16. Craig E. Morrison, Berit Olam: 2 Samuel (Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 2013), 152. From a sacrificial perspective, Morrison explains why Nathan chose the little ewe lamb—noting that the ewe lamb is one of the sacrifices offered by the leper during the purification process. The ewe lamb, a sacrificial animal for expiation, foreshadows David’s eventual atonement for his crimes against Uriah. As a leper washes his clothes and washes himself on the seventh day after being declared clean (Lev. 14:9) and brings two male lambs and an ewe lamb as a sacrifice on the eighth day (vs. 10), so did David lie on the ground for seven days, wash and anoint himself, and change his clothes following the death of his child (2 Sam. 12:20).
17. Robert D. Bergen, 1, 2 Samuel, The New American Commentary, E. Ray Clendenen, ed. (Nashville, Tenn.: B & H Publisher, 1996), 7:370.
18. LXX chose sevenfold instead of fourfold. Sevenfold may reflect a proverbial compensation (Prov. 6:31), which means perfect restitution. Also, sevenfold might be intended to call to mind Bathsheba because “Bathsheba” could mean “daughter of seven.” See P. Kyle McCarter, Jr., 2 Samuel, The Anchor Bible, William F. Albright and David N. Freedman, eds. (New York: Doubleday & Company, 1984), 9:299.
19. Ángel Manuel Rodriguez, ed., Andrews Bible Commentary (Berrien Springs, Mich.: Andrews University Press, 2020), 463.
20. Takamitsu Muraoka, “A Syntactic Problem in Lev. Xix. 18b,” Journal of Semitic Studies 23: 2 (1978), 293.
21. Jacob Milgrom, “Leviticus 17–22, Ab 3a,” Anchor Yale Bible Commentaries (New Haven, Conn.: Yale Univ. Press, 2000), 1,655.