David Says He Will See Absolam Again

Note: I did not write this. I found this article and idea I'd put information technology up because I never could offering an caption for this. Source here.

This was part of a stream of questions from a dear, but agonized, soul who was/is convinced that God hates women…

What near when God gives 10 women to be raped to punish David for sleeping with Bathsheba? I empathize about the culture but for God to treat an individual womans' body as a man'southward possession speaks volumes, well-nigh how he hates/devalues women?

I recall I accept some good news for you lot about this passage, friend–it has zip at all to do with "rape"…nor does it remotely teach that a woman'southward body is a man's possession…and, although there are some cultural problems associated with this passage, even when those are taken into account we still won't be able to conclude fairly that God committed some atrocity hither…

Let'south look at the passage and the dynamics in it, and hopefully y'all will hold…

Subsequently David committed the treachery with Uriah and Bathsheba, God spoke to David through Nathan thus:

Then Nathan said to David, "You are the man! This is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says: 'I anointed you king over Israel, and I delivered y'all from the hand of Saul. 8 I gave your master's house to you lot, and your master's wives into your arms. I gave yous the house of Israel and Judah. And if all this had been also little, I would have given you lot even more. nine Why did yous despise the discussion of the LORD by doing what is evil in his optics? You struck down Uriah the Hittite with the sword and took his wife to be your own. You killed him with the sword of the Ammonites. ten Now, therefore, the sword will never depart from your firm, because you despised me and took the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be your own.'…xi "This is what the LORD says: 'Out of your own household I am going to bring calamity upon you. Earlier your very optics I will take your wives and give them to ane who is close to you, and he will lie with your wives in wide daylight. 12 You did it in surreptitious, but I will do this thing in wide daylight before all State of israel.'" (2 Sam 12.7ff)

The FIRST thing to discover in this text is that David had been given Saul's wives (verse 8)–but what does THAT hateful?

Here we have to go into the Ane cultural and historical groundwork some, to run into the significance of this argument.

a. Virtually royal marriages and concubinage (for both princes and princesses) were national affairs, non personal affairs of the king:

"Matrimony was a tool of diplomacy throughout the ancient Near East. Towns, city-states, tribes or nations who wished to ally themselves with a rule or come nether his protection sealed the treaty with a union of a daughter of their master family to the suzerain or his son. This was an act of loyalty on the part of the vassal, who would then have a personal stake in preserving the dynasty. For instance, Zimri-Lim, the kind of Mari during the eighteenth century B.C., successfully placed his daughters in the harems of nearby kingdoms and married several foreign wives himself to increment his power and the stability of his realm Similarly Pharaoh Thutmose Iv (1425-1412 B.C.) arranged a marriage with a daughter of the Mitannian king to demonstrate expert relations and end a series of wars with that middle Euphrates kingdom." [BBCOT: at two Sam v.13]

b. Imperial succession was normally occasioned by a king's death (making his family widows and orphans), and care and protection of the royal 'harem' would be a responsibly of the new ruler.

"Since royal marriages were a reflection of the power of a monarch and represented political and economic alliances made in the proper name of the country, it would take been necessary, at the succession, for the harem of the former rex to go the responsibility of the new monarch. In this style there was continuity of treaty obligations." [BBCOT:in loc.]

c. For example, in this case–in which David 'inherited' Saul's wives–it was an act of kindness toward the family of the deceased king:

"Later on the expiry of Ishbosheth (2 Sam 4:5-7) and David's rise to kingship, it would have been expected that he would extend his protection Saul's family unit, including his harem. Thus it is possible that the cursory reference to David'due south union to Ahinoam in 1 Samuel 25:43 is a reference to his taking Saul's wife Ahinoam (1 Sam xiv:50)" [BBCOT: in loc.]

And so, upon the expiry (or abdication or overthrow) of a king, the successor bore responsibility for standing the all-important political marriages and intendance of the royal harem.

Now, the fulfillment of this judgment on David is in chapter 16:

"And then Absalom said to Ahithophel, "Give u.s.a. your counsel; what shall we do?" 21 Ahithophel said to Absalom, "Go in to your male parent's concubines, the ones he has left to wait after the house; and all Israel will hear that y'all take made yourself odious to your father, and the hands of all who are with you will be strengthened." 22 So they pitched a tent for Absalom upon the roof; and Absalom went in to his begetter's concubines in the sight of all Israel.' [NRSV]

Let's wait at various aspects of the text/context:

a. The concubines left backside by David might accept been from leading Jerusalemite families (likely volunteers), and therefore 'safe' with Absalom (who was in league with those families):

"It is possible that the concubines left behind were those that David had taken into his harem from the leading Jebusite families of Jerusalem (come across 5.13) or from some of the families that were supporting Absalom in Hebron." [BBCOT: at ii Sam fifteen.xvi]

b . The bodily event itself was equivalent to a regal hymeneals, and not a 'rape' past any means:

"The tent was, near likely, the bridal tent (cf. Ps nineteen:5[iv]; Joel 2:16), and the whole proceedings were, more or less, equivalent to a royal wedding (and so Stolz, 262) just with wider implications." [WBC, in.loc…note also that David wed Saul's widow Ahinoam]

"Gunn (King David, 116) has pointed out that Absalom'southward accept-over of David's concubines may accept been a formal act, while von Rad (The Problem of the Hexateuch, 184) calls it "a symbolic activity intended to gain the confidence of the people for Absalom." [WBC, in. loc.]

c. Since marrying a father's married woman was forbidden in Israelite law, the whole incident may well accept been staged as a 'argument' that David was dead (instead of some outrageously offensive criminal offense in front of his new denizens!):

"This cohabitation in our context may have served equally an indication that every bit far every bit Absalom was concerned–David was dead. Was it a deliberate deception to give the impression to the people in full general that David was actually dead (cf. Budde, 278)? Co-ordinate to Lev 18:8; xx:xi; Deut 22:thirty [MT 23:one]; 27:xx it was forbidden for a son to take his male parent's married woman, at to the lowest degree while the father was alive (cf. besides Gen 35:22; 49:three-4). If then, the deception (?) may have strengthened the resolve of Absalom's supporters since this concluding humiliation of David was a deliberately public act, at least according to the narrator."

d. Members of the imperial harem were all upper-class figures, representing important political alliances, both strange and domestic. These women often had of import duties in the administration, in most of the surrounding cultures of the Ane. For example, in Ebla a couple of millennia earlier:

"The royal harem was structured like its equivalents in Sometime Babylonian Mari. It included DAM EN, "women of the king', who lived in their ain building and who were assisted by a group of officials…These women were sometimes placed in charge of of import sectors of palace work, peculiarly the manufacture of textiles.' [OT:Cane:1224, note that the ten concubines were left "in charge of the palace", an administrative job–not "just" housekeeping!]

For a new ruler, BEFORE State of israel actually 'came to ability', to publicly and violently rape "high-brow" daughters of leading families of his constituency and of his international allies would be unthinkable and diplomatic suicide! Absalom was not 'politically naïve'-his ascent to power as described in chapter 15 shows an exceptionally crafty and polish private.

due east. The whole point of the action was to 'enter the harem' (hence the tent) in front of the citizenry. The harem (in all the Ane) was off-limits to anyone except the king (and pre-pubescent princes). By visually entering the tent (in which the mini-harem was), the damage was washed: the throne usurped, the predecessor declared 'dead and gone', claims to any of the posterity that might have resulted from whatsoever sex activity (assuming there was whatsoever-at that place demand not have been any for this outcome to be totally effective in the historical situation and context) with the new wives/concubines clearly established, and the responsibilities of intendance for the national alliances (represented past the newly causeless royal marriages) undertaken.

f. That this event was understood as a marriage–instead of a rape–is besides supported by David's actions upon his render and later the death of Absalom: the women were placed in a separate harem-house, provided for, and treated as royal widows:

"David went to his palace in Jerusalem, and the rex took the ten concubines he had left to heed the palace and put them in a guarded identify; he provided for them, just he did not cohabit with them. They remained in seclusion until the day they died, in living widowhood . (2 Sam twenty.3, JPS)

This does Not hateful they were placed or confined in a prison house of sorts. Rather, the 'seclusion' was from the "agile/living harem" and the 'confinement' was into "living widowhood". Keil & Delitzsch comment on this verse:

"Equally soon as David returned to his palace at Jerusalem, he brought the ten concubines whom he had left backside, and with whom Absalom had lain, into a place of safety, and took intendance of them, without going in unto them anymore…Thus they were shut up into living widowhood" (in loc.)

What this nets out to is this:

1. the event beingness described looks like a royal wedding (and not like a rape)

two. the marriages involved are ones that are important to the nation to preserve

iii. the undertaking of the rights and responsibilities of the ruler was a clear message to the citizenry that David was "dead" or "out of the motion-picture show birthday"

four. at that place is no hint of rape, and the entire context of who these women were argues confronting there being Any brutality, Any violation, and Any disgrace

5. These marriages (and wives) were non David'southward "possession" in any sense of the word-they were more similar 'national assets' (like a rex would exist). Their status was loftier, their importance was significant, and the male monarch had to treat them with diplomacy and care.

In other words, the historical data would argue that this incident was not, in fact, a case of public rape of 10 women.

jaynesfroved.blogspot.com

Source: https://boldlyproclaimingchrist.wordpress.com/2008/03/02/did-god-callously-give-davids-wives-to-absalom-to-rape/

Share this post