Brent Pollard
July 15, 2025, seemed like an ordinary day, but it became extraordinary when a CEO was caught canoodling with a fellow employee on the kiss cam during a Coldplay concert. The intimate moment quickly went viral, especially since the CEO was married. Many likely felt schadenfreude over the fall of a wealthy individual worth between $20 and $70 million. This contemporary scandal provides a lens through which to examine how we often misread similar biblical narratives. Frankly, I believe it is best to heed the words of Paul: while we expose evil deeds, we do not speak in detail about what is done in secret (Ephesians 5.11–12). Still, I needed to establish this cultural backdrop for this article.
One of those quick to offer a take on the July 15 incident was the satirical site The Babylon Bee. I typically enjoy their brand of humor, but this time they missed the mark. They likened the scandal to the biblical account of David and Bathsheba. If Bathsheba truly were the gold-digging seductress some portray her as, then the comparison might be justified. But she wasn’t. Bathsheba was a victim of a powerful man’s abuse, which makes The Bee’s joke not only flat but also deeply inappropriate.
This article will build a case, as if in a court of law, defending Bathsheba against unjust accusations. I will argue that she was a victim of rape and that her husband was murdered to conceal the crime. The evidence is found in 2 Samuel 11.
First, the text reveals David’s negligence and sets the stage for what follows. Verse one sets the tone: it was the season when kings customarily led their troops into battle. But David stayed home. He was not where he was supposed to be. Then in verse two, we find that David is getting out of bed in the evening. The text doesn’t say why, but the timing is odd. I can’t help but think of the words attributed to David’s son: “How long will you lie down, O sluggard? When will you arise from your sleep?” (Proverbs 6.9). It reminds us of the adage that idle hands are the devil’s workshop. This context of David’s negligence becomes crucial when we examine what happens next. Had David been at the front, none of what follows may have occurred.
As David walks on his rooftop, he sees a woman bathing. The text tells us she was very beautiful (2 Samuel 11.2). Unlike Job, who made a covenant with his eyes not to gaze lustfully (Job 31.1), David does not look away. Instead, he inquires about her (v. 3). The answer he receives is revealing: this is Bathsheba, the daughter of Eliam, and the wife of Uriah the Hittite. Bathsheba has three direct relational ties to David. Uriah and Eliam were part of David’s elite band of mighty men (2 Samuel 23.34, 39). Additionally, Eliam was the son of Ahithophel, one of David’s counselors (2 Samuel 15.12).
So, did David not know who she was? It’s difficult to believe that a woman connected to three men in David’s inner circle was a stranger to him. More likely, the evening light and David’s rooftop vantage point allowed him to see her form but not recognize her. This is important: Bathsheba was not bathing at a time or place where she should have expected to be seen.
Second, examining Bathsheba’s actions shows she was following the Law, not acting seductively. There is debate about why Bathsheba was bathing. Some translations imply she was purifying herself from her monthly period; others suggest she was washing after intercourse with David. But here’s the key: if she were washing after sex, then both she and David would have had to bathe according to Leviticus 15.18. Yet the text only describes Bathsheba bathing.
More importantly, verse four tells us she was purifying herself from her impurity. The Hebrew word tum’ah refers to ritual uncleanness, and in Leviticus 15.19–30, this term is explicitly used for menstrual impurity. The law outlines a process of purification following menstruation, including waiting seven days and bathing before being considered clean. So the context supports that Bathsheba was obeying the Law of Moses, not reacting to a sinful encounter.
Furthermore, we are not told where Bathsheba was bathing. Was it on a rooftop, as depicted in art? We don’t know. The only specified location is David’s. He was on a rooftop with a clear, elevated view. Suggesting that Bathsheba was being immodest or trying to attract attention assumes she knew David was not at war, knew he was home, and knew he would be waking up and wandering onto the roof at that very moment—all highly improbable. The seduction theory collapses under its weight.
When we scrutinize the text, it becomes clear that Bathsheba was where she was supposed to be, doing what the Law required. David was not. He was idle, indulgent, and willfully blind. What followed was not an affair. It was an act of power and violation. We must stop blaming Bathsheba for being seen and instead call David’s sin what it truly was. I know we are uncomfortable calling David a rapist, but we don’t seem to have a problem with acknowledging his premeditated murder of Uriah.
Finally, the prophet Nathan’s parable confirms this interpretation and validates Bathsheba’s innocence. Of course, David later repented (Psalm 51), and Scripture still calls him a man after God’s own heart (1 Samuel 13.14). But his heart was not aligned with God in 2 Samuel 11. The prophet Nathan’s parable does not depict Bathsheba as a co-conspirator. She is the poor man’s beloved lamb, taken and slaughtered by one who had many (2 Samuel 12.1–4). The lamb does not seduce the butcher.
Justice for Bathsheba does not mean denying David’s restoration. It simply means telling the truth: she was not the temptress. She was the victim.
The Preacher Pollard Blog 