Michael Johnson: Bathsheba Was Complicit in the Crime

In the sermon High Christian Dress Standards preached on April 19, 2023, at Temple Baptist Church, Jacksonville, NC, Michael Johnson makes the claim that Bathsheba knew what she was doing, that she liked to show herself off in public and have men look at her thighs and chest, and she was complicit in David's crime.
Original Sermon Link: • High Christian Dress S...
Let me say, everything he says about David is 100% true. Everything he says about Bathsheba is 100% editorializing and shows his bias in this situation. The Bible says that Bathsheba was washing herself and, "she was purified from her uncleanness." This was a ceremonial happened that took place in the evening. It was required for Jews to wait until after sundown, which starts the next day, for them to go through a ritual purification process when they had become unclean. She wasn't just prancing around nude in public because she liked to. She was cleansing herself according to the Jewish law and custom.
The Bible also says, "David sent messengers, and took her." The word "took" is often translated that way, but also as "seize, capture, take away." The root of the word is used when God took the man and put him in the garden and when God took the rib out of the man to make the woman. The implication is that she was forcibly taken to David. There was no indication that she was trying to get anyone's attention. The Bible does not condemn her. God sent Nathan to indict David, not Bathsheba.
The only person the Bible says was in the wrong was David. He was in the wrong place at the wrong time doing the wrong thing. If I was to editorialize, I would think that David was there because he was taking advantage of a situation, hoping to see someone cleansing herself, and it just happened to be Bathsheba. But, again, that's conjecture on my part.

[@IFBPreachers]

This type of teaching happens a lot; and in my eyes, this is why it happens. The preacher/teacher is detached from the proper context of the Scripture, in this case the historical and cultural context of Israel. Additionally, when he reads the Bible, he has a bias; and that bias is read into the Bible. When he teaches, he then editorializes his bias as Scripture. The people listening take what he says as what the Bible means, and then you have bad theology promulgating among the people. The main key to understanding this passage is verse 4, which he doesn't read down that far. The Bible says Bathsheba was "purified from her uncleanness." To understand that, you have to study what it meant for a woman to be purified from her uncleanness. This type of purification is called "mikvah" and only happened because of a certain number of events. Understanding the mikvah process is key to understanding this passage. A person was to go to a place where water collected naturally. They couldn't be purified by water they collected themselves. Town and cities had places that had been built for this purification process, and David would have known that. Also note, the Bible never condemns Bathsheba as having done anything wrong. It only says David did wrong. He was in the wrong place. He was about doing the wrong thing. The Bible says, "David sent messengers, and took her." That means there was no request here. He didn't offer advances. He spied her out, seized hold of an opportunity, basically captured her in a sense, and had his way with her. And that is why Nathan says to him, "Thou art the man." It was all David. The pastor says he isn't "victim shaming." Of course he's not, because in his eyes, Bathsheba isn't a victim. But according to the Bible, Bathsheba was the victim.

[@MrAntiOrdinary]

Thank you for the very helpful comments in your post. Could you please point out scripture or possibly other sources that explain the mikvah's requirement for a "place where water is collected naturally," as you put it?

[@IFBPreachers]

@@MrAntiOrdinary Absolutely. According to Leviticus 11:36, "clean" water was considered water that flowed from a "fountain", meaning a natural spring, or water in a "pit," that is water that had been collected under natural circumstances. Since that is the only water that God deemed as "clean," the Jews used that type of water for purification. This included water at the sea, because it was considered naturally gathered as well. Every town was supposed to have a mikvah or mikveh (alternate spelling), a place where people could go to cleanse themselves from their impurity. The water was to be deep enough for someone to completely be immersed in it. They were to enter it with nothing covering their bodies, which includes clothes, jewelry, makeup, etc. According to Leviticus 15, a woman was required to cleanse herself 7 days after her menstrual cycle was complete, thus purifying herself. This is referred to as the laws of niddah. That's why the Bible says in II Samuel 11:4, "and he lay with her; for she was purified from her uncleanness." The implication was that David did what he did because she was now pure. Some sources for consideration are www.chabad.org/theJewishWoman/article_cdo/aid/1541/jewish/The-Mikvah.htm and jwa.org/encyclopedia/article/mikveh

[@jonathanclemens4660]

Isn't it great when they preach authoritatively on what the Bible doesn't say?

[@IFBPreachers]

It's quite the stretch to move from David, "saw a woman washing herself," to, "Bathsheba was purposefully showing herself off to David."

[@jonathanclemens4660]

@@IFBPreachers Indeed it is. There is no bridging that gap

[@zerotolerance9128]

​@@IFBPreacherswomen just should stop washing themselves seriously what a depravity 😂

[@swilson7674]

If I can see you doesn't mean you can see me. Also, wasn't her bath on the roof

[@canyonstinky7817]

I am with Pastor Johnson on this one! Great man!

[@IFBPreachers]

You should be with a pastor only if he can show you from the Bible where what he is saying is true, not if he can convince you that his editorializing of the Bible is true.

[@ForwardTalk]

Way to blame the woman. Way to think with western eyes.

[@kenwillispodcast]

As a preacher, man and Bible student, there is so much wrong with this. First of all, all the men were supposed to be gone and at war. David stayed back and was looking out over the roof-tops. There is no cultural, contextual or even suggested evidence that Bathsheba was in the wrong for bathing upon her roof. That was a common practice. David was in the wrong. She sinned when she slept with David, but he initiated everything. TAKE REPSONSIBLITY MEN! We MEN are the ultimate ones God holds responsible. We are to be the protectors and honorable defenders of women, not the self-UNCONTROLLED ones who fall into sin and then blame and shame the weaker vessel. SICK STUFF, but sadly all too typical in the IFB. I say this as someone who has lived in the IFB for over thirty years. Not everyone is like this, but there is a culture of victim blaming and lifting up the "man of God" to a cult-like status of infallibility and untouchability---which is 98% garbage and 2% RUBBISH!

[@IFBPreachers]

Points well said.

[@zerotolerance9128]

A vessel of fallen angels can't protect me from fallen angels

[@MichaelHTaylor08]

Its sad to see these preachers make a mockery of Christians as a whole, they set a bad light for the rest of the world to see.

[@debbiebrown4420]

How does he know Bathsheba saw David and deliberately enticed him? Scripture doesn't say that, and it is possible to be seen by someone without be able to see the one watching you. Bathsheba could've been more discreet, but that doesn't prove she deliberately enticed David. Also, David wasn't condemned by God but merely disciplined by him, and he and Bathsheba both faced the loss of the infant son she bore. It's seems ignorant to me to not know one can be watched without knowing they're being watched. Finally, David was the king, and back then people pretty much obeyed the king's orders without question. People in positions of authority are held more accountable.

[@IFBPreachers]

Great points.

[@DrGero15]

You could make the argument that she sinned when she actually slept with him (adultery), but you absolutely can't pawn David's lust off on her like this. No where does it say she enticed him or knew he was watching her.

[@princybella5386]

But the thing that David had done displeased the LORD. 2 Samuel 11/27

[@jeffdollar1646]

Another spinoff from Hyles' grandchildren, the New IFB.

[@IFBPreachers]

Interestingly, I watched a few things and saw that he claims to be formerly-NIFB associated and now just IFB. Not sure the whole story, but appears to stem from a falling out with one of the NIFB players.

[@jeffdollar1646]

@@IFBPreachers the whole thing blew up a couple years ago, as each of these preachers wanted to be top dog but some couldn't submit to the NIFB pope Steven Anderson. One by one they found themselves on the outside looking in, and now there are several little NIFB groups centered around their own particular heresies.

[@IFBPreachers]

That's interesting. A lot of infighting, then.

[@jeffdollar1646]

@@IFBPreachers it has to be that way, given the nature of the movement. Anderson lost his grip and the other fuhrers all began scrambling to be top dog.

[@CC-iu7sq]

He’s toeing the line a little close there. I’ll say this. If the sinful act is forced, it is never the woman’s fault, period. Doesn’t matter if she’s wearing absolutely nothing. Doesn’t matter if she’s only in her undergarments. It is never the victims fault in the case of forced sex.

[@robertaiken3328]

Doesn't say David forced her

[@s.l.2409]

Where does that spirit come from in the IFB?? My last pastor was all about “pastoral authority” and routinely cracked jokes about women. Yet he had two daughters who completely rebelled and a 3rd is already talking about rebelling. Sad man! Super sad….

[@DrGero15]

Doesn't that literally disqualify him from office?

[@s.l.2409]

@@DrGero15 a LARGE swath of IFB pastors do not adhere to the requirements of a bishop/pastor as mentioned in the NT.

[@robertaiken3328]

She wasn't trying to show anything she was trying tp bathe and no idea that divid was watchin it doesn't say that they were nextdoor neighbors all it says is that David saw her

[@jodirt1286]

He is right! James chapter 1 does say those things. When he reads chapter 3v1, I pray his heart is quick to repent for the “teaching” he gave on Bathsheba.

[@IFBPreachers]

What he said about David was absolutely correct, and does line up with James 1. That's the truth of II Samuel 11.

[@BlueDog8387]

When did Ray Romano become an IBF preacher?

[@JSA1957]

Did she know David was laying out of the battle? I wonder if she thought the king was gone, after all her husband was gone to battle. She might not have behaved the way she did if she knew the king was backslidden and sleeping in the day time. (He got up in the evening) He is taking some time off from being diligent, after all he is the king. He deserves a break right? I can't see her complicit at all. David bears the guilt, not her.

[@NIFBbers123]

Bro, you just gave Steven Anderson and his NIFB crew some ammunition against Michael Johnson

[@jamation9X]

Gross Eisegesis

[@DennisRegling]

I don't condemn David. I am not God. I learn from his story.

[@princybella5386]

Well GOD did!

[@CDaniel1996]

Everyone is personally accountable for their own sin. I don’t see a problem here. The sin of both parties does not acquit the one or the other of personal responsibility before God. This is sound teaching.

[@IFBPreachers]

Actually, Bathsheba didn't do anything wrong. The main key to understanding this passage is verse 4, which he doesn't read down that far. The Bible says Bathsheba was "purified from her uncleanness." To understand that, you have to study what it meant for a woman to be purified from her uncleanness. This type of purification is called "mikvah" and only happened because of a certain number of events. A person was to go to a place where water collected naturally. They couldn't be purified by water they collected themselves. Towns and cities had places that had been built for this purification process, and David would have known that. Understanding the mikvah process is key to understanding this passage. The Bible further says that David sent messengers to take her. There was no proposition. He wanted her and took her. And further, the Bible only indicts David. It never mentions anything Bathsheba did wrong. In every case, it talks about what David did that was wrong, wrong place, wrong time, wrong woman.

[@CDaniel1996]

@@IFBPreachers ok, very interesting. I will look more into it. Thank you.

[@IFBPreachers]

@@CDaniel1996 Certainly. And just to say, I 100% agree with you on the notion of personal responsibility.

[@princybella5386]

Well who did GOD put the blame on?

[@stacybrown4614]

🤮

[@ForwardTalk]

Haha.