Whereas the author of the Sabbath School lesson deals with the issues consequential to the sin of David and Bathsheba, I have chosen to deal with the circumstances that made the sin possible, if not unavoidable. It seems to me that idleness and maybe casual voyeurism, on the one hand, and provocation (unintended?), on the other, are the ingredients of the deadly explosive mixture that set the stage for the most sordid story recorded in the Bible.

Idleness is the first ingredient that the story identifies. Second Samuel 11:1 reads: "Now it came to pass in the spring of the year, at the time when kings go out to battle, that David sent Joab and his servants with him, and all Israel; and they destroyed the people of Ammon and besieged Rabbah. But David remained in Jerusalem"

The episode occurred at a time when it was customary for kings to lead their armies into battle. The custom remained in force well into the Middle Ages. We can speculate about the reasons why David decided to remain behind, but that will lead nowhere. I prefer to focus for a while on the issue of idleness. A French proverb has it that idleness is the mother of all vices. Ezekiel was inspired to make the following comment on the sin of Sodom: "this was the iniquity of Sodom…pride, fullness of food, and an abundance of idleness.…" (16:49).

The major problem with idleness is that it leaves the mind with lots of free time, and all of us know how easy it is for the mind to turn mischievous when left in the idle mode. Idleness must not be confused with laziness. Laziness is a state of being, a mental state that makes one adverse to labor, inclined to inaction. Idleness, in contrast, is the deliberate choice to be and stay inactive for a while. To some extent, the lazy person is controlled by laziness, whereas the idle person decides to be so. Laziness keeps one from any kind of activity, physical and mental. Idleness goads one into unwarranted/unhealthy activity, mental or physical. I believe that David’s path into disgrace started with idleness.

Proverbs 26:14 reads: "As the door turns on its hinges, the idle turns on his bed." This seemed to have been the case with David on that fateful evening/night. He got out of bed and went on the roof of the palace. Again, we need not speculate about whether he knew what he was going to see because the roof provided a plunging view into the property next door…and indeed a view of whoever was in the spa. David had an eye for pretty women (1 Sam. 25:3; 2 Sam. 11:2).

Voyeurism is the deliberate viewing of sexually titillating scenes from a vantage and hidden position. Granted that David may not have been a voyeur according to the full meaning of the word, but the fact remains that he went up, saw a woman bathing, and did not turn his gaze away. It is not known when David wrote Psalm 101, but verse three says, "I will set nothing wicked before my eye." He not only gazed, but he also played and replayed naughty scenes in his mind. A Matabele (a tribe in Zimbabwe) proverb crudely says that when a man allows his penis to get in the way of wisdom trouble is sure to follow. Males who live in sex-crazed societies such as ours need to be told that David’s sin is never far from every man, including Seventh-day Adventists.

This next segment might anger some readers. Archibald D. Hart, a highly acclaimed psychologist and author, writes the following in his book, The Sexual Man (Nashville, Tenn.: W. Publishing Group, 1994): "Strong, urgent, forceful, and impatient, the sex drive dominates the mind and body of every healthy male. Like it or not, that’s the way it is" (5). (My personal comment: It makes sense that God created it so, because no sex drive of the male equals the death of the human race. Woman can be impregnated whether or not they have a sex drive, but a man without a sex drive simply has no sex.)

Many women do not understand the male sex drive. They are generally less obsessed with sex than men and do not develop the same compulsiveness about it.…Some women, further, are naïve about their appearance and behavior. They dress provocatively, perhaps to attract a particular male. They seem to expect other men, for whom the provocation is not intended, to turn a blind eye. These women do not seem to understand that all men are turned on by revealing dresses, short skirts, evocative perfume, or close proximity.…Of course men are ultimately responsible for their own sexuality, and there is no excuse for harassment…But women must also must also accept the possibility that when they flaunt their sexuality, men will notice and will be aroused. (7; emphasis mine)

(Recently, a Muslim cleric caused a huge uproar in Australia when he said the same, but in a crude way: "leave meat uncovered and the dogs and cats will go for it.")

"Do they [women] have a clue about what effect their dressing has on men?" asks Hart.

Yes and no. They dress in a certain way to attract male attention and admiration. But do they realize that when a healthy man sees a lot of thigh, tight skirts or low-cut blouses [we may add jeans that barely cover the pubic area] he has a pretty good chance of becoming aroused.…This happens all the time to healthy men; both bad men and good men.…I do not know any technique that can stop sexual arousal in the normal male when breasts are displayed.…Provocative dress is not neutral. (159, 161)

Bathsheba the unsuspecting (?) woman bathing naked in the moonlight had the above described effect on the idle and peeping David, and the results were catastrophic for him, his family, her, her husband, and ultimately the nation because no nation will morally rise above the morality of its ruler. The same explosive mix is as potent today as it was back then.

EMAIL THIS ARTICLE