Biblical Hermeneutics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for professors, theologians, and those interested in exegetical analysis of biblical texts. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

There's a small story of ten concubines spread across Samuel:

And a messenger came to David, saying, “The hearts of the men of Israel have gone after Absalom.” Then David said to all his servants who were with him at Jerusalem, “Arise, and let us flee, or else there will be no escape for us from Absalom. Go quickly, lest he overtake us quickly and bring down ruin on us and strike the city with the edge of the sword.” And the king's servants said to the king, “Behold, your servants are ready to do whatever my lord the king decides.” So the king went out, and all his household after him. And the king left ten concubines to keep the house. And the king went out, and all the people after him. And they halted at the last house.—2nd Samuel 15:13-17 (ESV)

Then Absalom said to Ahithophel, “Give your counsel. What shall we do?” Ahithophel said to Absalom, “Go in to your father's concubines, whom he has left to keep the house, and all Israel will hear that you have made yourself a stench to your father, and the hands of all who are with you will be strengthened.” So they pitched a tent for Absalom on the roof. And Absalom went in to his father's concubines in the sight of all Israel.—2nd Samuel 16:20-22 (ESV)

And David came to his house at Jerusalem. And the king took the ten concubines whom he had left to care for the house and put them in a house under guard and provided for them, but did not go in to them. So they were shut up until the day of their death, living as if in widowhood.—2nd Samuel 20:3 (ESV)

From a modern perspective, this seems like an unjust punishment of rape victims. But I wonder if from the ancient perspective the king's actions were actually seen as merciful. How ought we to read this vignette?

share|improve this question
up vote 6 down vote accepted

Because Absalom had intercourse with them, it would be detestable for David to do so:

But if the second husband also turns against her and divorces her, or if he dies, the first husband may not marry her again, for she has been defiled. That would be detestable to the Lord.— Deuteronomy 24:3-4

I would argue that in the context of the rest of the Mosaic marital/sexual laws, David correctly applied this law to the situation. (As I understand it, this was one of the purity laws, which was to mark Israel off as a holy people.)

His actions would have been seen as merciful because he continued to provide for them. Providing for your wife was a big deal (e.g. Isaiah 4:1).

share|improve this answer
    
I'm arguing that as it was a case law, an example situation, it should be applied here, even though it was not a divorce case, particularly since this was a form of incest. – Kazark Apr 2 '12 at 21:41
1  
@Monica: When reading the resolution of the story, it sounded to me like David was divorcing them. Since they were concubines, not wives, I'm not sure divorce was really possible. Actually, I'm not at all sure what their legal status was either before or after Absalom raped them. (But the whole story is very sad.) – Jon Ericson Apr 2 '12 at 22:15
3  
What would have been their status if David has released them? As divorced concubines of the king, would they have been able to find other husbands? Would the rape make them less likely to be able to remarry? If either is so, it makes this a merciful outcome. – Frank Luke Apr 3 '12 at 13:52

If memory serves, in just about every part of the ancient world, a woman who had previously been married to a king (either in full, with the status of wife, or de facto in the lesser status of concubine) could not be remarried to anyone except another king. Remember also that legal rights of a woman were reckoned through her husband, and that divorced women faced a difficult life.

In that context, given that his son had violated these concubines, David could not take them back as his own. However, had he divorced them and released them, they could not have been remarried either; meaning that these women would therefore have lacked many legal rights and protections. Therefore, he took the third option - he maintained them in the Harem, but granted them the premature status of royal widows. This was important not only because of their intrinsic value as people, but because of their positions - concubines of the King would almost certainly be nobles either from within Israel or the countries around about, and to mistreat one of them could have led to internal struggles within the Kingdom, or possibly even an international incident.

share|improve this answer

Some of the information contained in this post requires additional references. Please edit to add citations to reliable sources that support the assertions made here. Unsourced material may be disputed or deleted.

2  
Welcome to BH.SE Johnathan! If you could follow up with an edit verifying this information it would be much appreciated. That way other users can verify your claims. Thanks! – Dan Jul 30 '13 at 14:30

David had no qualms about breaking Mosaic law: Deut 17:15-17 "You shall surely set a king over you whom the LORD your God chooses... Neither shall he multiply wives for himself, lest his heart turn away; nor shall he greatly multiply silver and gold for himself."

But this is nothing new as all of the kings that "God chose" acted in this same fashion. They were all immoral over the entire duration of their reigns amassing both riches and women and being praised for doing so.

Absalom, like his father David, was trying to usurp the throne. Raping his father's concubines was a political act saying that he was the rightful inheritor of his father's wives and concubines, just as David inherited King Saul's wives and concubines when he took the throne. David had no problem violating Mosaic law. (See 2 Samuel 11-12 where he steals Uriah's wife) Thus, his act of locking away his own concubines was merely a statement to Absalom and the kingdom about who was still in charge. It would now be beneath him to have sex with these violated women. This was not an act of mercy, it was a show of power.

share|improve this answer
1  
Welcome to Stack Exchange, we are glad you are here. Please consider registering an account to fully take advantage of what this site has to offer. Also, be sure to check out the site tour and read up on how this site is a little different than other sites around the web. This is not a comment on the quality of your answer, but rather a standard welcome message. – ThaddeusB Oct 29 '15 at 20:22

It's important to first understand that it was prophesied that King David's wives would be violated in such a manner.

2 Samuel chapter 12 (NLT)

The LORD sent Nathan the prophet to tell David ...

... The LORD, the God of Israel, says, 'I anointed you king of Israel and saved you from the power of Saul. I gave you his house and his wives and the kingdoms of Israel and Judah. And if that had not been enough, I would have given you much, much more. Why, then, have you despised the word of the LORD and done this horrible deed? For you have murdered Uriah and stolen his wife. From this time on, the sword will be a constant threat to your family, because you have despised me by taking Uriah's wife to be your own.

"'Because of what you have done, I, the LORD, will cause your own household to rebel against you. I will give your wives to another man, and he will go to bed with them in public view. You did it secretly, but I will do this to you openly in the sight of all Israel.'" Then David confessed to Nathan, "I have sinned against the LORD."

David understood then that his wives were violated because of his past sins. So he knew he had to care for them even though they'd been with another man. But the stigma of the culture of the day was such that he could never lay in bed with them again.

share|improve this answer
    
This is an interesting connection, but I'm not sure it answers the question except the final sentence. Can you expand on the cultural stigma aspect? – Jon Ericson Apr 27 at 15:11
    
And would it be "cultural" or "religious"? Thanks. – WoundedEgo Apr 27 at 15:49
    
Culture and religion are often times interconnected. And this is certainly the case in ancient Israel. So it would be both a cultural and religious thing. While scripture cites many methods and rituals to wash or make clean something that has been made unclean, there is nothing taught that can make clean a woman who has been made unclean by way of rape, fornication, or adultery. There was then no means David had available to him to make the women clean enough for him to be able to sleep with once again. – TrustinJC Apr 28 at 16:50
    
Welcome to Biblical Hermeneutics Stack Exchange, thanks for contributing! Be sure to take our site tour to learn more about us. We're a little different from other sites. I think it would be good if you could edit your answer to include the information from your comment, so as to make a more comprehensive Answer to the OP's question. – Steve Taylor May 3 at 8:13

The perspective that David was correctly following ToRaH is problematic; David's life was an endless, ignorant violation of ToRaH: murder, theft, deceit, adultery, failed parent, failed king. But he ardently pursued the "great commandment", and for YaHoVeH ELoHIM that was enough.

Without further biblical reference, its just as likely David committed yet one more thoughtless abuse against these ten, already maligned women.

Through 2000 years of scripture, the FATHER, SON and SPIRIT reveal their tender heart and ways - to a vicious, malevolent, corrupt world.

David's action was cruel and without compassion; it in no way is what JESUS would have done. Reducing women to sex slaves and collecting them was, from the beginning, never congruent with GOD's ways. David was a filthy pig who found the tender mercy of GOD.

share|improve this answer
1  
Welcome to Stack Exchange, we are glad you are here. Please consider registering an account to fully take advantage of what this site has to offer. Also, be sure to check out the site tour and in particular what constitutes a good answer. We aren't a discussion board, so answers are expected to 1) answer only the question asked and 2) do more than just state your opinion. – ThaddeusB Oct 16 '15 at 23:52

Just a thought. When David's own daughter Tamar was raped by Amnon his son, she became a desolate woman. She was disgraced and lived in her brother Absalom's house. David was furious about what had happened to Tamar, but there appears to be no further consequences for Amnon. Absalom later kills Amnon (because of what he had done to beautiful Tamar). And David mourned greatly for him. (2 Samuel 13).

share|improve this answer
    
Welcome to the forum, Lynn. Since this post doesn't answer the question posed (which is why I am giving it a down vote), can you please delete it and enter it as a comment instead? Thanks. – WoundedEgo Apr 27 at 3:09
    
@WoundedEgo: I don't believe she has enough rep to make a comment at this point. – Simply a Christian Apr 27 at 7:52
    
@SimplyaChristian Ah, thanks, sorry. – WoundedEgo Apr 27 at 10:37

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.