I’ve always assumed that David had sex with Bathsheba once. However, the text says that when David first saw her, she was bathing to purify herself of her uncleanness (2 Sam 11:1-5). This is referring to the bathing a woman would undergo after her menstrual cycle ended. Since one is least fertile immediately following menstruation, this suggests that David’s fling with Bathsheba was no one-night stand. Bathsheba probably remained with David for a number of days before returning to her house, during which they had sexual relations multiple times. If so, David’s sin was not a one-time mistake, but an ongoing sin.
October 6, 2025
David’s adultery with Bathsheba was more than a one-night stand
Posted by Jason Dulle under Hamartiology, Theology[3] Comments
Thinking to Believe 
October 8, 2025 at 8:18 am
The argument claims that David’s sin with Bathsheba wasn’t a one-time act but an ongoing affair, based on the detail that she was purifying herself from her menstrual uncleanness. Since fertility is typically low immediately after menstruation, the reasoning goes that Bathsheba wouldn’t have conceived from a single encounter, implying that David must have had sex with her multiple times over several days.
But this assertion is a tad hasty. Fertility windows vary, and conception can occur even during low-probability phases. The fact that Bathsheba became pregnant doesn’t prove multiple encounters—it only proves that conception occurred, which could have happened from a single act. The text itself says David lay with her and she returned to her house. There’s no indication of an extended stay or repeated visits. To infer that from the pregnancy is speculative and goes beyond what the passage supports.
A more plausible reading is that David may have assumed the timing made pregnancy unlikely. Bathsheba had just completed her purification, and David may have thought he could indulge without consequence. That assumption would explain his shock and urgency when she later sent word that she was pregnant. It wasn’t the act itself that exposed him—it was the unexpected result. His subsequent actions—summoning Uriah, attempting a cover-up, and arranging a death—suggest panic, not premeditated escalation.
So the argument fails not only because it stretches the text, but because it overlooks a simpler and more coherent explanation: David thought he could get away with it. The pregnancy shattered that illusion. The sin was grievous, but its gravity doesn’t depend on repetition. It depends on intent, abuse of power, and the consequences that followed.
LikeLike
October 17, 2025 at 10:25 am
Scalia,
You represent the traditional reading of the text. And you could be right. I never claimed certainty about my argument, evidenced by my use of words such as “suggests,” “probably,” and “if so.”
The fact of the matter is that the text does not give any indication as to how long Bathsheba was at David’s palace. All we know is that he brought her there, “lay with her,” and then she returned home. There is no mention about the number of days or hours she was there. Based solely on the words of the text itself, it is just as much of an assumption to conclude that it was a one-night stand as it is to conclude that it happened over the period of several days (or weeks). What I’m arguing is that our knowledge of fertility and the menstruation cycle tips the scales in favor of the assumption that the affair lasted more than one night.
Yes, conception can occur even at low-probability phases. I never said or implied otherwise. But possibilities come cheap. What is more probable? We know it’s very unlikely for a woman to conceive right after her menstruation ends. According to chatGPT, the odds of getting pregnant in the four days following menstruation is 2-5%. Again, not impossible, but highly unlikely. So if one has to bet on which is more likely, it’s more likely that the affair lasted for days (or weeks) rather than a single day. And yet you want to place your bet on a one-night stand. If the text clearly indicated that it was just a one-night stand, then I would appeal to the possible/unlikely to explain how Bathsheba got pregnant against any detractor who would say it’s not possible. But the text does not tell us it was a one-night stand, so I have no reason to appeal to the improbable. I’m going with the probable, and the probable would indicate that the affair lasted more than one night.
There’s another possibility that I did not explore and you did not mention: Several days could have passed between David seeing Bathsheba and him calling her to his palace. This would place her closer to peak fertility. Having raised this possibility, however, I’ll admit that I don’t find it likely. A horny king probably isn’t going to wait for days to fulfill his lust.
You call my observation and reasoning an “assertion” and a “stretch[ing] of the text.” An assertion is a claim without supporting evidence. I provided my reasoning, and thus it’s wrong to categorize this as an assertion. It’s a conclusion to an abductive argument. As for “stretching the text,” talk about the kettle calling the pot black. You think it’s “more plausible” that David assumed Bathsheba wouldn’t get pregnant since her menstrual cycle just ended. You are free to speculate all you want, but your psychoanalyzing of David with no textual basis is the true “stretching the text.” My explanation does not require me divining the thoughts of dead men. It just requires some knowledge of the menstrual cycle and fertility.
Yes, David probably thought he would get away with it, which would mean he was not expecting her to get pregnant. But there’s no reason to think his confidence was based on the fact that they only had sex one time at a low-fertility period of her menstrual cycle. His confidence could have been based on his performance. The ancients were well aware of the effectiveness of pulling out, you know (Genesis 38:8–10).
LikeLike
October 17, 2025 at 2:55 pm
Jason,
The text in 2 Samuel 11 is deliberately concise, and that brevity is meaningful. It says David saw Bathsheba, sent for her, lay with her, and she returned to her house. There’s no mention of an extended stay, no indication of repeated encounters, and no narrative space given to a drawn-out affair. In biblical storytelling, especially in historical narrative, the absence of detail often implies simplicity rather than complexity. If the affair had lasted days or weeks, we would expect some textual signal—especially given how much detail is devoted to David’s cover-up once Bathsheba becomes pregnant.
And that cover-up is crucial. David’s reaction to the pregnancy is not calm or calculated—it’s panicked. He immediately summons Uriah, tries to get him to sleep with Bathsheba, and when that fails, orchestrates his death. These are not the actions of someone who expected a pregnancy. They’re the actions of someone who thought he had committed a sin in secret and was blindsided by the consequences. That reaction makes far more sense if David believed the timing of the encounter made pregnancy unlikely. If he had been sleeping with Bathsheba over a longer period, the risk of pregnancy would have been obvious, and his response would likely have been more premeditated.
You argue that your view is more probable based on fertility statistics, and yes, conception right after menstruation is statistically less likely. But biblical narratives aren’t governed by statistical likelihood—they’re governed by theological and moral significance. The fact that Bathsheba conceived from a low-probability encounter doesn’t undermine the story; it reinforces it. David’s sin, though brief, had enormous consequences. That’s a recurring theme in Scripture: a single act of disobedience can unravel a kingdom, domain or reputation.
You also suggest that your argument isn’t speculative because it’s based on abductive reasoning. But abductive reasoning is still speculative—it’s inference to the best explanation, not proof. And your explanation depends on assumptions about David’s sexual behavior, Bathsheba’s fertility, and the timing of events that the text simply doesn’t support. You critique my suggestion that David assumed he could get away with it as psychoanalysis, but it’s actually a straightforward inference from his reaction. He didn’t plan for Uriah’s death until his attempts to cover up the pregnancy failed. That sequence tells us a lot about his expectations.
As for your mention of withdrawal and Genesis 38, that’s an interesting parallel, but it’s not relevant here. There’s no indication that David used any form of contraception, and the text doesn’t invite us to speculate about it. The focus is on the abuse of power, the violation of covenant, and the consequences of sin—not on the mechanics of conception.
In the end, your argument is creative and worth engaging, but it stretches the text beyond what it supports. The simplest and most coherent reading is that David committed a grievous sin in a single act, thought he could hide it, and was caught off guard by the pregnancy. That reading aligns with the narrative structure, the theological message, and David’s own behavior. The gravity of the sin doesn’t depend on repetition—it depends on intent, exploitation, and the fallout that followed.
LikeLike