Who was the Father?

The following is a question and answer session I had with a Messianic acquaintance concerning the child born of David and Bathsheba’s adulterous relationship.  I hope you find his Jewish perspective as interesting and thought-provoking as I did.

Question:  In 2 Samuel 11 and 12 where it gives the account of the baby born of the affair between King David and Bethsheba, since Bathsheba was still married to Uriah when she conceived, who does the Law [of Moses] see the father of the baby to be? Was it David or Uriah?

Answer:  This is an interesting rabbinic question and I am sure that was the confusion that David sought to bring about when he called Uriah home from battle. Had Uriah lived, I presume it would have depended upon him. If he chose to continue the marriage, the child would be his. However, had he accused her of adultery and thus also accused David, the child would have been a mamzer and subject to social stigma, though HaTorah only states that a mamzer can not be a priest. This is why the orthodox refer to Yeshua as a mamzer. In this way they preclude Him from being HaMashiach. Another twist is what is to be done with a pregnant adulteress? Is it proper to kill an unborn child by stoning it's mother? In the case of David, there is no question, Nathan made it clear that since Uriah was dead, the child was the responsibility of David. Then when the child died, the question of the social stigma also is not addressed. However, this probably added to the challenging of his younger brothers succession to the throne (Shlomo). As I eluded to before, this does bring up several rabbinic questions. I do not know of anywhere in HaTorah that these complications are directly addressed. However, I do not think that it is the purpose of HaTorah to directly address complications of sinful behaviors, but to discourage those behaviors to begin with, thus avoiding such complications.

Question:  What got me to wondering about this was my study in Matthew of the genealogy presented in chapter one. Realizing that women are seldom mentioned in ancient genealogies, there are 5 women in Matthew, but only four mentioned by name--Tamar, Rahab, Ruth, and Mary. Bathsheba is described as “the wife of Uriah."

This brings up another question: Does Jewish law see a marriage as being “legal” when the first husband was murdered by the second? That is, a man murders another man so he can marry the victim’s wife. Is that a legal marriage in ancient Judaism?

Answer:  Matthew's genealogy is full of rabbinic implications. It combines the use of significant persons and events with numerology and poetic license to provide the basis for his presentation of Yeshua as HaMeshiach. The peculiar manner of His birth is one of many hurdles Matthew must jump in order to establish his argument. The mistake a lot of evangelicals make when speaking to a non-messianic Jew is that they like to begin with either the story of Miraim and Yoseph or the story of Nakdimon (Jn 3). This is not wise, because the concepts presented in these two stories run counter to rabbinic tradition. Therefore, it is important when speaking to such a one to begin with accepted tradition and move on from there. That is what Matthew is doing. He ties Yeshua to the Tanach with three of the most significant events in all of Judaism. The birth of Yitz'chak (Isaac), the reign of David and the exile to Bavel. This gets the attention of the listener.

By mentioning the four women, he provides a transition from these events to the dilemma of Yeshua's birth. Each of these women represents a serious rabbinic question. Tamar deceives her father-in-law by playing the harlot. In this way she secures her right to an heir. The question, is it acceptable to appear to break one or more commandments in order to secure a right given by Adonai? Rehav the Harlot, who was a Cannanite. The question, what are we to do with a gentile who sides with Adonai's people? Ruth the Moabitess, was from a cursed nation. The question, how does one reconcile Adonai's promise to David with the fact that his grandmother was from a cursed nation? Finally, she who was "the wife of Uriah". The question, how can the child of an adulteress be the heir to the throne? It appears that Matthew learned well from his rabbi, for just as Yeshua addressed questions to His authority with an underlying rabbinic principle, so he prepares his audience for Yeshua's peculiar birth with several examples of Adonai working in ways that raise serious rabbinic questions. Thus, if one were to call Yeshua a mamzer upon hearing the story, the teller can then ask why that one did not raise the traditional rabbinic questions in the four other cases.

Now regarding your question. No it is not permitted in the manner you stated it. An adulterer and a murder are to be put to death on the testimony of two or more witnesses. Why this was not the case for David is a serious rabbinic question. If one causes the death of another in a case less than murder, I would think the principle of restitution would apply. That is the one who caused the death must make things right. This would make David responsible for Bat-Sheva (daughter of the oath or the seventh daughter).

Comment: Your answer was exactly what I was hoping someone could provide. I suspicioned there had to be deep meaning in Matthew's genealogy, but admittedly I am limited by my western worldview.

Reply: If by western worldview you mean a combination of the "rabbinics" of the RCC and the "reformers", secular science and philosphical existentialism, then you are indeed handcapped. Just as the Tanach was not written directly to the rabbis of Yeshua's days, but was interpreted by them in a manner that fit well with their prefered lifestyles, so the Apostolic Writings were not written directly to us today. As Paul tells us, to properly understand the Scriptures we must put on the mind of HaMeshiach. It is important that we not be too myopic. What we see in the Scriptures is applicable to us today, as long as we make sure to recognize too whom it was written and for what purpose. There are portions of the Apostolic Writings that require one to understand Greek rationalism as well as Hebrew rabbinics. However, to the extent one limits oneself to any particular school of thought, one limits one's ability to see what is being communicated. I think this is what Paul is telling the Corintians in 2 Cor. 3. It is not important who wins the argument or if what is being communicated fits well in my prefered lifestyle or way of thinking. As has been said, It is more important to understand than to be understood. When listening it is important to focus on the one who is speaking. When speaking it is important to focus on the one to whom one is speaking. Sorry, for waxing phylosophical. However, it is not the Hebraic prospective or the western prospective that is superior. Rather it is Adonai's prospective that is most important and we learn of that prospective as we talk of His words when we sit in our houses and walk by the way and lie down and rise up.