We act as if God does not live when we deliberately live in sin as David and Bathsheba did. And this is our second day to park in this chapter. I'm gonna go ahead and read the whole chapter, 2 Samuel chapter 11. It happened in the spring of the year at the time when kings go out to battle that David sent Joab and his servants with him at old Israel. And they destroyed the people of Ammon and besieged Raba. But David remained in Jerusalem. And it happened one evening that David arose from his bed and walked on the roof of the king's house. And from the roof he saw a woman bathing. And the woman was very beautiful to behold. So David sent and inquired about the woman. And someone said, Is this not Bathsheba, the son of Eliam, the wife of Uriah the Hittite? Then David sent messengers and took her, and she came to him, and he lay with her, for she was cleansed from her impurity, and she returned to her house. And the woman conceived. So she sent and told David and said, I am with child. Then David sent to Joab saying, send me Uriah the Hittite. And Joab sent Uriah to David. When Uriah had come to him, David asked how Joab was doing and how the people were doing and how the war prospered. And David said to Uriah, Go down to your house and wash your feet. So Uriah departed from the king's house, and a gift of food from the king followed him. But Uriah slept at the door of the king's house with all the servants of his lord and did not go down to his house. So when they told David, saying, Uriah did not go down to his house, David said to Uriah, Did you not come from a journey? Why did you not go down to your house? And Uriah said to David, The ark and Israel and Judah are dwelling in tents. And my Lord Joab and the servants of my Lord are encamped in the open fields. Shall I then go to my house to eat and drink and to lie with my wife? As you live and as your soul lives, I will not do this thing. Then David said to Uriah, wait here today also and tomorrow I will let you depart. So Uriah remained in Jerusalem that day and the next. Now when David called him, he ate and drank before him and he made him drunk. And at evening he went out to lie on his bed with the servants of his Lord, but he did not go down to his house. In the morning it happened that David wrote a letter to Joab and sent it by the hand of Uriah. And he wrote in the letter saying, set Uriah in the forefront of the hottest battle and retreat from him that he may be struck down and die. So it was while Joab besieged the city that he assigned Uriah to a place where he knew there were valiant men. Then the men of the city came out and fought with Joab, and some of the people of the servants of David fell, and Uriah the Hittite died also. Then Joab sent and told David all the things concerning the war and charged the messenger, saying, When you have finished telling the matters of the war to the king, if it happens that the king's wrath arises and he says to you, Why did you approach so near to the city when you fought? Did you not know that they would shoot from the wall? Who struck Abimelech, the son of Jerubesh? Jerubbesheth, was it not a woman who cast a piece of a millstone on him from the wall so that he died in Thebes? Why did you go near the wall? Then you shall say, your servant Uriah the Hittite is dead also. So the messenger went and came and told David all that Joab had sent by him. And the messenger said to David, surely the men prevailed against us and came out to us in the field. Then we drove them back as far as the entrance of the gate. The archers shot from the wall at your servants, and some of the king's servants are dead, and your servant Uriah the Hittite is dead also. Then David said to the messenger, thus you shall say to Joab, do not let this thing displease you. The sword devours one as well as another. Strengthen your attack against the city and overthrow it. So encourage him. When the wife of Uriah heard that Uriah her husband was dead, she mourned for her husband. And when her mourning was over, David sent and brought her to his house and she became his wife and bore him a son. But the thing that David had done displeased the Lord. Father, we do not want to displease you in thought, word, or deed, and yet we recognize how easy it is for sinful thoughts and sinful words and sinful actions to flow from those hearts. And so we pray that you would subdue our flesh under the feet of King Jesus, that you would draw us ever closer into the holiness that Jesus purchased with his dear blood. Help us to be as holy as it is possible for a sinful people to be. and father may you be glorified as we respond to your word in jesus name we pray amen you may be seated on july 29 1981 those of us who have a little bit of british background in us watched the magnificent glamorous marriage of prince charles to lady diana i don't know how many of you remember that but it seemed like everybody was watching it was in the news for quite some time I had read that there was an estimated audience of 750 million people watching this on TV. Wedding was described as being a fairy tale marriage of a royal prince and a beautiful lady in a fabulous cathedral surrounded by adoring subjects. And they really did adore Lady Diana. They just loved her. They were the envy of millions. They were rich, young, handsome, well-mannered, pleasing to be around. And newspapers said it was a marriage made in heaven. Do you remember that? Well, sadly, we know that this fairy tale turned into a horrible nightmare as the couple became more and more distant as affairs ensued and got discovered. And the marriage made in heaven collapsed into a bitter divorce. And one of the narrators at the time said that it takes more than a prince, a beautiful lady, and a castle to make a good marriage. And obviously, that's correct. The old saying goes that marriages may be made in heaven, but the maintenance must be done on earth. Now, I would add that the maintenance must be done on earth with the power of heaven's grace, right? We don't approach anything in life apart from God's grace. But if you don't get anything else out of this sermon than that one saying, being inflamed in your soul, I think you'll have done fairly well. There's going to be a whole lot of other lessons than that. But marriages may be made in heaven, but the maintenance must be done on earth. And it was in the area of maintenance that Bathsheba miserably failed. I want to start by saying how surprising this adultery was. Her marriage to Uriah was really a fairy tale marriage. Now it's true that Uriah was a foreigner but he had been converted to the true faith and he was such a devoted follower of Yahweh that he caught the attention of David and he rose through the ranks fairly quickly until he became one of the elite of the elite in Israel, one of the 37 mighty men. And of course she was like Lady Diana. beautiful woman from the aristocracy. They both were from the upper classes of Israel and initially it seemed like it was a wonderful marriage. Everything was going well for them and I want to explain why I believe that is the case. I really only know of one person who denies this. I'm sure there are others who deny it. But I've only read of this one. Gigi Nicole claims that she had the scheming, manipulative heart of a harlot. Claims that there was evidence that she was a scheming manipulator all the way through to 1 Kings 1 when she managed to manipulate her son into getting onto the throne of Israel. She was the mother of Solomon. And so he claims that Bathsheba fully intended to lure David into adultery right from the beginning. This was premeditated and it was by a scheming woman. And while there is some credibility to what he is saying, especially verse 2, I mean you look at that and you say, what is with that? What was going on there? Yet every commentator that I have strongly disagrees with that conclusion. And when you look at the weight of evidence that they pile up to show that Nicole is wrong, you really have to come up with a different alternative theory. And I'm going to be presenting that alternative theory to you. And I think it's the only theory that really fits all of the evidence. And so first of all, under point one, I want to explain why this would have been a surprising adultery and actually much more surprising than David's fall. Almost everyone believes that Uriah was quite the catch in a husband. As I've already mentioned, he was one of the top in the 37 mighty men of valor who were the elite of Israel. He had the equivalent rank of a major general, perhaps a lieutenant general. You can't really compare exactly because they had a different makeup than our military does. But when you read the two scriptures that I've listed there, you realize that Uriah was not only respected by David, he was respected and loved by his men as well. There was a reason why he was in the position that he was in. Bathsheba was a Lady Diana. She was the daughter of Eliam, another of the 37 most famous generals in Israel. And she was the granddaughter of Ahithophel, who was the wisest counselor, was David's chief counselor at that day. And lest you think that this was an arranged marriage completely devoid of love and that she was dissatisfied, I want you to consider just a few points here. Verses 26 through 27 seem to indicate that she loved Uriah. She certainly mourned his death and the text indicates she was not faking this mourning. It's God Himself who says there, when the wife of Uriah heard that Uriah her husband was dead, she mourned for her husband. She suddenly realized what a loss that she had. Now, there are two different Hebrew words for mourning in verse 26 and verse 27. And between those two words, they cover the basis for outward mourning and inward grieving. She was grieving for the loss of her husband. And you might wonder, how could that be? How could you love your husband and commit adultery? Well, it happens all the time in America. Adulteries don't typically happen because people hate each other. There's other factors that are going on. It's a part of what we examined last week under the mystery of iniquity. In many ways, it doesn't make sense. In fact, you look at some of the people that women get married to after their divorce and you're thinking they are definitely not trading up. They're trading down. What is going on in that situation? Very strange. Anyway, if you women think that love alone can protect you from adultery, I would point out that there have been many, many women who have grieved deeply that they have ruined a wonderful marriage through one indiscretion. The fact that you love your spouse is not a guarantee that adultery cannot happen. There are other things that need to be in place as well. This is one of the reasons why Paul says we've got to be on guard in this area. He says, let him who thinks he stands take heed lest he fall. We need heaven's grace every single day to be the best husbands and to be the best wives that we can possibly be. And last week we looked at the dangers men face. Today we're looking at the dangers that women face. And by the way, I'm bringing these points up and these sub points under Roman numeral one to make the observation that hedges without grace are legalism. You're not going to get anywhere without God's grace. But they're also to say that the absence of some of these things are not going to guarantee that anybody is going to fall into adultery if you're clinging to the Lord Jesus. But I want you to look at point C. Some people say that when a husband stops being a nurturing husband, that the lack of affection can easily lead to temptation. And while that is certainly true, I want to point out that God paints Uriah as a very nurturing husband. And I want you to look at chapter 12, the first four verses at the word picture that God, through his prophet Nathan, gives of Uriah. Then the Lord sent Nathan to David, and he came to him and said to him, there were two men in one city, one rich and the other poor. The rich man had exceedingly many flocks and herds, but the poor man had nothing except one little ewe lamb, which he had bought and nourished. And it grew up together with him and with his children. It ate of his own food and drank from his own cup and lay in his bosom. And it was like a daughter to him. And the traveler came to the rich man who refused to take from his own flock and from his own herd. to prepare one for the wayfaring man who had come to him, but he took the poor man's lamb and prepared it for the man who had come to him." Now that word picture describes Uriah as being nurturing, protecting, spending time with, and caring for Bathsheba. He was not a neglectful husband. He was the exact opposite. So don't automatically assume that when a divorce has taken place, that it's the fault of both partners. Many people assume that, oh yeah, takes two to tango, there's always gonna be problems on both sides. That's absolutely false. You can have a splendid marriage, and you women can have a perfect husband, you can still fall into adultery. It does happen. Now while neglect by the husband can indeed lead to temptation, the fact that you have a great husband who nurtures you, cares for you, is not a guarantee that you will be faithful. And all this means is you, too, need God's grace. We saw last week that David's fall happened after a time, really, of a lot of spiritual successes in his life. And so it's not just men who must say, there but for the grace of God go I. even women who have wonderful homes can destroy those homes through indiscretion. Another thing that made this fall surprising is that unlike Uriah, Bathsheba had grown up in a Christian home that had an incredible Christian heritage passed on starting with her grandfather Ahithophel, who by the way was still alive and he was going to be alive for quite a number of years, which means Bathsheba was pretty young when she got married. And that will factor into some of our thinking a little bit later on. But let me read chapter 16 verse 23 that describes Ahithophel. It says, The advice of Ahithophel, which he gave in those days, was as if one inquired at the oracle of God. So was all the advice of Ahithophel, both with David and with Absalom. So here was a man who was wiser than anybody else in Israel. He was constantly giving sound biblical advice And he's indicating there, when you got advice from Ahithophel, it was almost exactly the same as if you went to a prophet and got direct, inspired revelation from God Himself. And we'll deal a little bit later as to this whole thing of him siding with Absalom instead of with his Father, who was a murderer. We'll get into that whole situation there. But he's saying that the advice of Ahithophel was constantly good advice, which means Bathsheba's father grew up in a home where good biblical worldview was constantly being talked about. And the likelihood is that Elyam, her dad, passed that kind of good teaching on to her daughter. So there's no indication that she grew up deprived of a good education. And I know several cases of good young girls who are second and third generation Christians who have given into adultery because they have not set up hedges that we're gonna be talking about today. But this certainly made the adultery a great surprise. Nor could you excuse her adultery with the thought that Uriah was a poor catch. You might think, well, yeah, he was a Hittite. She didn't really have that great of a marriage. There were tensions and other things going on there. We're gonna be seeing in a future sermon that Uriah had far greater character than David did in some respects. But in any case, he would have been considered a wonderful catch and she had no excuse for envy whatsoever. Let's consider some of those points. First of all, he was well-respected. In fact, 1 Chronicles 11 lists him as the 21st ranking general amongst those 37 mighty men. And there is no way that a Hittite would have gotten to that position if he did not have some pretty good qualifications. But verse 11 of our chapter gives a hint that he was spiritual as well. Take a look at verse 11. And Uriah said to David, the ark and Israel and Judah are dwelling in tents, and my Lord Joab and the servants of my Lord are encamped in the open fields. Shall I then go to my house to eat and to drink and to lie with my wife? As you live and as your soul lives, I will not do this thing. Now, there are two things going on here. Commentators point out that the mention of the ark shows that his solidarity with Yahweh prevented him from having intimate relations with his wife. And we need to ask why. Why would that be the case? And they also point out that his solidarity with the soldiers prevented him from having intimate relations with his wife. Why? Because that certainly would not be true in ordinary warfare. What is the connection between the ark in a tent and the soldiers being in the tents? And the answer is that this war against Ammon must have been declared to be a holy war that required complete sanctification. And when that happened, the men were not allowed to have sexual relations with their wives on the days that they were fighting. And so what David is doing here is he's asking Uriah to break a vow. In his attempt to cover up his own sin, he is either unwittingly or perhaps very callously and deliberately asking Uriah to break his vow concerning this war, asking him to sin. So Uriah's refusal to go home was really a temporary fasting in order to be devoted, dedicated to this holy war. It's much like 1 Corinthians 7 where God says husbands and wives can fast for a short time, you know, two or three days of prayer and fasting for purposes of being set apart to God. But he says, it needs to be short lest you fall into temptation. Now, I'm not claiming that Uriah is perfect, okay, as we're going through these points. Far from it, I mean, David was able to get him drunk, right? Says he made him drunk. So he can fall into temptation as well. But the point here is that he had a conscience. He wanted to keep his vow before the Lord. This also shows self-discipline. It also shows that he was a man who did not buckle easily under pressure. Our commentators have pointed out that his speech was pretty strong and that's why David didn't even bother to try to talk him out of it. His mind was made up. He was not going to do this thing. So he attempts to get him drunk the next day. When that doesn't work, he figures he has no point but to do away with him. In verses 10 through 11, It appears that Uriah is not self-indulgent. That's a great quality characteristic in a husband. He's not selfish. In verse 11, he shows loyalty to David and to Israel and to God despite the pressures to do otherwise. And I want you to take a look at something remarkable in verse 14. In the morning it happened that David wrote a letter to Joab and sent it by the hand of Uriah. And what's in that letter? Verse 15. And he wrote in the letter saying, set Uriah in the forefront of the hottest battle and retreat from him that he may be struck down and die. So he is carrying in his hands the instructions for his death. And he's going to be carrying that to Joab. This implies to me that David knew this is a man with the utmost integrity. He's never going to peek into that letter. I know it. I can safely give that letter. I know it's going to get to Joab and there's not going to be any danger of my being found out about this. And so he was a man of trustworthiness and integrity. Of course, he was a man of courage and valor. Verses 15 through 17 show he's willing to follow Joab's orders even when they are risky orders. And as I read those verses, I want you to know, yes, Joab follows through on what David told him to do to a point. He gets the job done in getting Uriah killed, but he's not gonna do exactly what David did because that would just be too obvious. In fact, his men would suspect that this is a deliberate attempt to kill Uriah. So what he has to do is do it much more subtly, which automatically means there's a bunch of other people that are killed as well. And I believe that's why Joab is worried in his speech that he makes to his messenger, hey, if David gets really angry, here's what you explain. And he tries to cover for himself because he was not following through on David's instructions. Anyway, let me read this. And he wrote in the letter saying, set Uriah in the forefront of the hottest battle, retreat from him that he may be struck down and die. So it was while Joab besieged the city that he assigned Uriah to a place where he knew there were valiant men. Then the men of the city came out and fought with Joab and some of the people of the servants of David fell and Uriah the Hittite died also. And I'm bringing all of those descriptions of Uriah up because it's so easy to assume that the only way that women are going to fall into adultery is if they have miserable, miserable circumstances. And that is absolutely false. Statistics indicate that women in very good marriages who love their husbands also find themselves tempted to engage in adultery if they have failed to guard their hearts. Okay, so hopefully by now you're convinced that the rest of the sermon really is important to listen to, and it's especially in the area of heart and emotions that women are prone. Roman numeral two, point A, deals with three risk factors that should have put Bathsheba on a heightened alert mode. even if she didn't even remotely feel she was tempted to sin. Number one factor often cited in studies as a reason for infidelity is neglect by the husband and lack of affection. And I think that's fairly well known. Now, we've already seen Uriah gave her affection. This was not true of his marriage, but here is the point. He was not around. He'd been gone for quite some time. And so he was not there to give such affection. She was used to it. She would have missed it while he was gone. And of course, we can only speculate as to whether this was a factor that was present. I'm not saying that it did. I'm just saying that affection was absent while Uriah was absent, and that is one of the top reasons for adultery. And we men, we need to make sure that we are giving lots of affection and nurturing to our wives and to our daughters and not leave an emptiness there. And by the way, it's a lack of affection that's one of the top reasons why daughters fall into sexual sin and why they start dating somebody they shouldn't be dating. It's many times a factor. It's not always there, but it is many times. And so, what we need to do is we need to make sure that we are feeding into our families the kind of nurture and affection that should be there. In fact, the scripture over and over commands this. Let me give you one example. 1 Corinthians 7 verse 2 says, let the husband render to his wife the affection due her. Now the word for affection in the Byzantine text, that's the majority text, is a fuzzy, feely word. Let me describe it for you. It refers to feelings of kindness favor goodwill It's rendered as supportive feelings positive attitudes You could basically say this word says you men need to be investing EQ emotional quotient Into your family now, that's where exactly where we men tend to struggle There are some men who are really strong on this But we tend to struggle in this area and that's one of the reasons why God commands us to do it He commands us in the area of our weakness. We have to work at it. But the husband is responsible for making sure that he's investing feelings of affection in his wife and daughters. Now, obviously, even when it's not present there, there's no excuse whatsoever for adultery. But I'm pointing out to women, you need to be on heightened alert that you could be more vulnerable to attention when this is lacking. That's all I'm saying here. Second risk factor, lengthy separation. Verse 1, It happened in the spring of the year at the time when kings go out to battle that David sent Joab and his servants with him and all Israel. And they destroyed the people of Ammon and besieged Rabbah. But David remained at Jerusalem. So even before we get to verse 2, there has been a process of war. They've won that war. Now they're cleaning up. They're besieging the city of Rabbah. So there's a fair bit of time that has transpired while he is gone. Lengthy separations are times when both husbands and wives need to guard their hearts. And again, it's a lousy reason for adultery, but it is a risk factor that means you need to guard your heart. You need to cling to the cross of Christ. Risk factor three, is when the first two risk factors are present. And she's around a charming, attractive, charismatic, fascinating, strong, understanding, kind, articulate guy who's just full of life. OK, there's another risk that could be there. And David was all of those all of those things. And one of the earlier sermons in the series of sermons we've gone through here on the life of David We pointed out that there were many women in Israel who just thought he was the coolest guy ever. They sang his praises. Some of them had crushes on David. This was something that she may have done herself as a teenager, but it was an area she needed to guard her heart against. If there's anything even remotely approximating a crush creeping into her heart, A woman needs to recognize it and close the door firmly. And by the way, it's a heart issue. It's not a distance issue. So if you've got caring men in this congregation, don't be rude to them, okay? Just recognize, okay, I just need to realize this is an area my emotions need to be on guard against. So you don't need to be rude and say, I'm not talking to you. I should point out too that the husband doesn't actually need to be handsome for a woman to succumb in this area, not at all. Now, women have committed adultery with guys that really aren't that great looking and have a number of deficits compared to their current husbands, and people scratch their heads and wonder, why in the world is that happening? Many times, the reason it happened is because these guys were showing such caring concerning the issues and the problems and the emotional struggles that they were going through, and because of the heart connections, the women got further connections. And this is one of the reasons why I tell men they should not evangelize and disciple women alone. You know, here you are. You've won a woman to Christ. You've saved her from eternal hellfire. She's going to be ever so grateful to you. And then you continue caringly discipling this woman and showing concern and helping guide her life. And it's not surprising at all that over time some emotional attachments begin to take place, even unconsciously. This is why so many Christian women commit adultery with Christian counselors. Believe me, it happens all across America. Why? Because the counselor is showing caring that she is not experienced in the home and it opens up her heart to have a heart connection. They can happen too easily and that's why Paul told Timothy to do this kind of thing. We recommend and Paul definitely recommends that the women disciple other women, that women be involved in evangelism of other women. Now, don't go overboard and treat every caring man as if he's making passes at you, okay? It's a hard issue, but just be aware that it can be an issue. Anyway, David had characteristics that could have led Bathsheba to think, wow, this is an awesome guy, and if Uriah was ever to die in battle, he's the kind of man that I would want to marry. Women who are smart will immediately be careful if they find themselves thinking in that way. They will repent before the Lord, and they'll say, Lord, I know my husband has deficits, but I want to be satisfied with the gift that you have given. I do not want to be the unthankful person who starts down that road in Romans chapter one. We aren't told what Bathsheba thought, we just know there were the conditions present that have led countless other women to fall in the same way. So there are factors we should be aware of. Now, people have hypothesized some other possible issues as well. There's one theory that says, okay, Uriah came from a different Hittite culture, quite different from Israelite culture, and maybe there were some irritations and conflicts that had entered in that made her dissatisfied with Uriah. I really doubt that that's a factor, but, you know, it's worth thinking about. Anytime two people from two families marry there's going to be differences that can be tough to deal with and and Conflicts when you add to that cultural differences, you know, it is possible that Irritations can easily let in if you're the kind of person who can't ever let go of your way of doing in fact a great movie that shows some of these cultural differences is my Big fat Greek wedding. Is that the name of it? What a hilarious movie in showing the tensions that can develop when you've got two cultures that are going together. So anyway, some people have hypothesized maybe there were frustrations that have added to this other thinking. We aren't told. Others have posited curiosity as being a key factor. We definitely saw there was a Hebrew word that says curiosity was a central factor in David's falling into sin. And women can have the same kind of issues with curiosity as well. It could go from wondering what David looked like, how he acted in bed, what it would be like to be with him. And it is just as imperative that women have disciplined thoughts as that men have disciplined thoughts as well. And we'll talk about that under the next point. But it's clear under point A that at least some of the risk factors were present and it should have made Bathsheba on guard. But instead, Bathsheba gave way in the direction of slipping modesty. And this is crystal clear from the text. Now, even before we dive into this, let me point out that modesty is not simply an outward issue, it is an inward issue. And there's a set of tapes that I strongly, strongly recommend that you listen to by Doug Wilson on modesty. I think he just does a fabulous job of dealing with the heart aspects of modesty. But 1 Timothy 2 verse 9 commands women to adorn themselves in modest apparel with propriety and moderation. Now the propriety and moderation are the inward aspects of modesty. Modest apparel is the outward definition of modesty, but both are needed. You could be perfectly modestly dressed, and yet because you're inwardly immodest, it could lead you to you know, strutting and flirting and other immodest thoughts, actions, and words as well. So both are needed. And I want to read from Kyle and DeLeach's commentary on the meaning of verse 4 because how you view this really does factor into how you interpret all the rest of the stuff. He's one of the most noted Hebrew scholars and he says this. In the expression, he took her and she came to him, there is no intimation whatever that David brought Bathsheba into his palace through craft or violence, but rather that she came at his request without any hesitation and offered no resistance to his desires. Consequently, Bathsheba is not to be regarded as free from blame. The very act of bathing in the uncovered court of a house in the heart of the city into which it was possible for anyone to look down from the roofs of the houses on higher ground does not say much for her feminine modesty, even if it was not done with an ulterior purpose, as some commentators suppose. And it's that issue of modesty that I want to look at. So let's start with verse 2. Then it happened one evening that David arose from his bed and walked on the roof of the king's house, and from the roof he saw a woman bathing, and the woman was very beautiful to behold. Now we're gonna be seeing that the Israelites spent a lot of time on their roofs, especially in the heat of the day. You still see it in the Middle East. You travel to the Middle East, you see men up there, especially when it's hotter, because you get a little bit of wind. So it is not at all surprising that David was on the roof And from his vantage point, it would have been very easy for him to look down through an open or uncovered window into her house or into the courtyard if she was in the courtyard. I do not believe she was bearing herself to the public. She may have, but I doubt extremely. I agree with Kylan DeLeach. I doubt that that was the case. Now, here's what was probably happening. She had seen David strolling on the roof from time to time and she was probably playing with the temptation to accidentally be seen by him. I think that's what's going on probably in the house, not in the courtyard. I think that would have been just far too risque given her upbringing for her to have done that. But nobody believes it was really an accident that she was seeable, if that's a word. We don't know to what degree she had bared herself while bathing, but there was enough for it to be a stumbling block to David. Now, let me emphasize that men are responsible no matter what temptations are put before them, but I would plead with women to take seriously this issue of wearing and bearing. In light of last week's sermon, be merciful to the men of the congregation. Do not dress purely in terms of fashion. Make modesty one of your uppermost criterion for how you dress. Now, a lot of women will say, I'm not even remotely doing anything like what Bathsheba was doing in this chapter, but I would encourage you to at least be willing to challenge that assumption. Is what Bathsheba did really any different in principle from the deliberate bearing of skin that happens with low cleavage, miniskirts, and with bikini bathing suits? I don't think so. In fact, to partially cover is much more alluring to men than total nakedness is. And it is the rare, rare man that thinks otherwise. And the reason that partial covering is more alluring in public is precisely because of the problem of curiosity that we looked at last week. And so the first issue of modesty is the issue of how much you're willing to wear or bear. And I'm probably not gonna have an opportunity to talk on modesty for a long, long time. So I'm gonna dig into this a little bit more today, okay? And try to give you some concrete guidelines. When 1 Timothy 2.9 calls women to dress modestly, it is wanting the scripture to define what modesty is. He is not saying, oh yeah, just do whatever your culture is saying is modest, and yet that's what many women automatically assume. They're saying, hey, I'm modest compared to my culture. Or they might say, in our culture, this is considered to be modest. But Paul did not want people's consciences bound by culture. Some people think that we ought to go back to the styles in early America. Well, what makes early America the standard for modesty? That would be binding men's conscience by culture. Other people want us to go back to the Victorian age and, you know, their hoops, skirts down to the ground. Let me tell you something, most of those aristocratic women were not dressed modestly. And if the movies are any guide, it's like, whoa. Yeah, I don't think their culture should bind our consciences. Other people think that we should be bound by the frumpy styles of the Mennonites. And what I'm saying is that it's not man's ideas that should bind people's consciences. There's a number of problems when we do that. First problem is it contradicts both Christ and Paul who said that nothing in culture should bind the conscience, that's legalism, to the law and to the prophets. If they do not speak according to this word, it is because there is no light in them. And that is saying the Bible alone is our guide. The second problem is that Paul was bucking the culture of his day as being too immodest. Now we have a tendency to think that the Romans and the Greeks were kind of prudish because, man, they wore these gowns all the way down to the ground. And Paul didn't think so. He thought that they were actually immodest in their dress and The third problem with this is that the standards of...since culture is constantly changing and what they think is modest, your standards are going to constantly be changing, which completely evaporates the authority of Paul's command to be modest. So what I want to do this morning is I want to make a stab at showing you an objective biblical standard for outward modesty that is not based on culture at all. And I'm going to start with a story because I think I need to, right out of the chute, stave off, you know, a bazillion objections that people are going to make. And I'm giving you this story to illustrate the problems you can have if you allow culture to define Modesty. Back in, I think it was 1980 or 1981, I was going to Covenant College and there was a guest speaker. It was a lady from Papua New Guinea. It was a missionary there. And she said that when she first went to that culture, the men were stark naked. All they had was a thin rattan cord around their waist And she said, wow, I just felt extremely uncomfortable with all these men squatting in front of me receiving my teaching. I think she should have felt just as uncomfortable about her teaching the men, but that's a subject for another day. But she just thought this is just not right for men's privates to be exposed. And so what she did is she brought in quite a number of barrels of clothing, shorts for these guys. Oh, they were excited when she was doling out these gifts. They took the belts out of the shorts, threw the shorts away, and took off their rattan cords and put the belts around their waist. And they were just pumped. This was great stuff. And she finally said, I just gave up even trying to clothe them. And over time, I realized, she said, that that rattan cord was their definition of modesty. I'm not making this up, guys. And she said, they wouldn't be caught dead without that rattan cord. They would have been so embarrassed if they did not have that court around their race And so she her conclusion was we must not impose Western standards of modesty upon her tribe or even first century standards well needless to say I think you could guess that I wasn't too impressed with her her lecture But while I didn't want to impose Western standards of modesty either, because I think our standards are corrupt too, at that time I still hadn't made up my mind. I couldn't figure out where the standard was. I wasn't comfortable with saying that modesty is relative and totally up for grabs. On the other hand, I didn't want to legalistically impose an arbitrary standard upon others either. And so I was trying to make a stab, just saying a suggestion. I wasn't even saying this is absolutely true. I tried to suggest a potential standard based on Genesis 3. Wow, my fellow students got so angry. They came after me with all kinds of questions. And they said, well, what makes down to the knee a standard? You show me a scripture that says I can't have it one inch above the knee. And if you can have it one inch above the knee, why not three inches? And if three inches is okay, why not eight inches? And besides that, what in the world makes the knee something that is immodest to show? Didn't God say that Isaiah should uncover his bottom. And by the way, Adam and Eve were totally naked, so it could not have been a sin. And they had all kinds of objections. And I didn't know how to answer. I started studying, and I couldn't figure it out. I knew something was wrong. I smelled a rat. Has it smelled a rat in Denmark? I smelled something wasn't right. And it seems strange to me that God would give a command to be modest and then just leave it up to us to define that. There is no standard. If each person does that which is right in his own eyes, it completely removes any authority from Paul's command. I'm not going to give you the whole ball of wax on what constitutes a modesty this morning. I hope to write a book on this eventually. I've been on the back burner. I've got a publish or perish folder with just tons and tons of different books in there. It started, but it'll take a long time probably to finish. But let me try to give you some information, because based on what we said last week about men, I think you women already know, this is the men's chief stumbling block, okay? It needs to be addressed, and if you disagree with me, fine, let's discuss it. You can show me from the Bible why I'm wrong, but I wanna give you a few points as to why I think I'm not wrong, why I think I'm right. First, it's my contention that the scripture never imposed a cultural custom upon the consciences of believers. When Paul says that he was all things to all men, that he might by some means win some, He was talking about non-ethical issues, okay? Because there is a command to be modest, this is not a non-ethical issue. It's an ethical issue, okay? Consider these facts. Scripture forbids Christians from submitting, quote, to the traditions of men, Mark 15, 1 through 9. Mark 7, 1-13. Colossians 2, 8. What the culture-bound advocates are saying when they say, hey, the culture defines what is modest, they are ironically saying that the very person who insisted, quote, that you may learn in us not to think beyond what is written, that's 1 Corinthians 4 verse 6, was in 1st Timothy 2.9 doing the exact opposite. He was imposing on the consciences of Timothy's congregation a cultural standard that could not be found in the Bible. That does not make any sense to me whatsoever. And second, Christ condemned those who, quote, teach as doctrines the commandments of men, Matthew 15, verse 9. Paul also reacted against false teachers who imposed unbiblical restrictions through their touch not, taste not, handle not code in Colossians 2, 20 through 23 Pharisees were big on that but Paul's maxim there was let no man judge you and do not submit to the Commandments and doctrines of men that's Colossians 2 verse 22 So that means that American culture is not a good standard for what is modesty My opinion is not a good standard for what is modesty. It's not enough for you to say yeah, but I think this is modest It's immaterial what you think the question is, what does God think? He's the one who gave the command, right? And so God didn't like the opinion of modesty that he found in some of the people in Timothy's congregation. That's why he gave the command. So let's give up this idea that modesty is culturally relative and that there is no absolute, objective standard of modesty. There is. Second, scripture seems to assume that any Christian should be able to tell the difference between, quote, the clothing of a prostitute That's Proverbs 7, verse 10. And modest apparel, that's 1 Timothy 2, 9. You should be able to tell the difference and you parents should be able to very clearly discuss with your children, no, no, no, that's bordering into the kind of clothing a prostitute would wear. That's not modest clothing. You need to be able to understand and tell the difference between the true. And that verse, the clothing of a prostitute, makes it crystal clear that prostitutes wear clothes, right? With most prostitutes, it is not an issue of nakedness. I know some of them bear a lot more than others, but it's clear that most prostitutes did not walk around half naked. They didn't in Africa, where I grew up. They don't in downtown Omaha. They didn't in any ancient culture that I am aware of. And the reason is pretty obvious. They understood the psyche of men. They understood the issue of curiosity that we looked at last week. And they hide some things, but they do it suggestively. And I think you women need to understand this. I think some women are totally naive on how clothing can impact men. And I think you dads need to understand this issue of modesty as well. Proverbs 7's clothing of a prostitute was much more attractive than simple nakedness, just as modern immodesty is much more attractive than simple nakedness. So your criteria, but it's so cute, is not enough. When Christian women dress in things that are not much different at all from high-class prostitutes, there is something really wrong that is going on. I should have clipped the cartoon from the World Herald a few years ago. I lost it, but it perfectly describes it. Kachera did a cartoon where he had a man leering at a woman who had the lowrider you know, outfit and the bare belly. And he was asking her how much. And she's looking obviously very angry and upset at him for propositioning her. But the point of the cartoon was, if you don't want to be propositioned like a prostitute, why are you dressing like a prostitute? I think that's exactly what he was saying. He didn't say it in words, but I think that was pretty clear from the commentary. And you fathers, you need to give instruction to your children if you don't want them propositioned to dress in ways where they will not be propositioned. Third, modesty and the covering of shame is equally applied in the Bible to both men and women. Now, it's especially an issue for women because of the psyche of men that we looked at last week. But I want to point out that Adam and Eve both sensed shame. That's good. And they tried to partially cover themselves with an apron. Now, most translations have loincloth. It wasn't a cloth. It was made out of leaves. And the New King James has apron. But the Hebrew indicates it's somewhere between an apron and a loincloth. It was a girdle, pretty much, of leaves that they covered their front and their back parts. It means to go around, okay? And so there was a covering of their peri area, basically. But God was not content with this covering for either of them. For both Adam and Eve, it says, the Lord God made tunics of skin and clothed them. And clothed them. Okay? He didn't consider them adequately clothed prior to that. Now we can later debate the exact parameters of a tunic. I'm pretty sure I know what a tunic is from just biblical usage. Some people debate, you know, whether it's, you know, the above the shoulder, the neck down to the knee, down to below the knee, down to the ground. You can debate whether it has long sleeves, short sleeves, no sleeves. We're not going to get into the fine nuances of all of that this morning. But I want you to notice that the covering that Adam and Eve made for themselves was probably just as substantial as the shorts many men and women run around in. Okay? And God did not consider it to be adequate. But the point is, it applied to men and women equally. Fourth, there appear to be degrees of modesty in the Bible. Paul says that our unpresentable parts have greater modesty. 1 Corinthians 12 verse 23. Now the word parts is in the plural, and it indicates that there's more than one part of your body that needs to be unpresentable. I don't think it's just talking about the peri area. The breasts should not see the day of light when in public. Paul says our unpresentable parts have greater modesty. Now if there's greater modesty for some parts of the body, then there is logically lesser modesty needed for other parts. In other words, there's some flexibility. And I think this is probably why Peter felt quite comfortable dressing in a certain fashion when he was in the boat fishing with his relatives No other women around. But when Christ came up to the lake, He put on an outer garment in order to come to Christ. So there's modesty that's appropriate for one context. It's maybe inappropriate for another context. Related to the previous point, degrees of modesty, is that there are degrees of nakedness. And so we can't take an all or none approach. Any Greek or Hebrew dictionary will explain that the terms for naked can refer to people who are totally naked, Genesis 3, 7, Job 1, 21, to people who are in rags with inadequate covering from the cold, Job 24, 7, and even to people who are underdressed for an occasion, Isaiah 20, verse 3, John 21, verse 7. So let me give you an example. Job 22 6 accused someone of quote, having stripped the naked of their clothing. So they were considered naked in some sense while they had their clothing or the clothing wouldn't have been stripped from the naked. Okay. The Apostle John would be a case in point. Even though John had an undergarment, and it speaks about his outer garment, when they grabbed him and he left behind his outer garment, he was said to have fled naked. But we know from the text he wasn't completely naked. He had an undergarment, but it was not such that you would want to be caught dead in in public. So it wasn't a complete a complete nakedness. And the reason I'm bringing this up and we can't go into it in detail is because I want us to avoid both legalism and the idea that there is no standard set in the scripture. One example would be war. And that shows context. The Bible allows men, you've heard the expression from the King James, to gird up the loins You know, gird up the loins of your mind, but that was a metaphor of girding up the loins. What the men did is they pulled their robes up and they kind of tied them around so they were like shorts, but they were short shorts because they needed to be able to move their legs in all directions, be very, very quick when they were fighting. Well, there weren't any women around in that warfare context and so that was perfectly appropriate. So there are degrees of liberty and there's different degrees of context that you need to think about. But anyway, we do have a definition of modesty that God gave in Genesis 3 that he illustrated in a number of other places, and that is from the top of the shoulder down to at least the knee, but it was probably below the knee, just below the knees. Now, there was another time that God defined modesty. God commanded the priests, clothe them with tunics, and I've got a bunch of scriptures here, and these tunics, again, went, from where I said, from the shoulder to below the knees, But there's more. God gave the priests, quote, trousers to cover their nakedness. And I've got, what is it, six scriptures here that talk about that. So though tunics went from the shoulder down to knee or below the knee, these trousers were interesting. They went from above the belly button down to the knees or perhaps had something that grasped around the bottom there. And here's why it's interesting. Bush in his commentary, let me quote from him first. The drawers worn by the priest reached from above the navel to the knee. And so the tunic is hiding their nakedness from the people, but it says concerning the trousers that it was to keep their nakedness from being exposed on the steps going up to the altar, that your nakedness may not be exposed on the altar. Okay, so that's the exposition there. So that is crystal clear. God-given definition of modesty versus inappropriate nakedness. It's collar to at least the knee, probably just below the knee. Now we could go through the Gospels and the book of Revelation to show God's covering of shame has never changed. It's the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Now this is such a shocking difference from our modern standards that Christians immediately react against the definition of modesty and they want to fight with me. I'm not willing to fight. I'm just God's messenger. You can fight with God about it if you want. Or you can tell me, Hey, I don't think you got the message from God right. Good. Let's debate. I'm fully willing to discuss the scriptures, but it is my contention if you don't have a biblical standard, come to me from the Bible. If you don't have a biblical standard of modesty, there is no objective standard of modesty and it's impossible to obey Paul's command. So just be Bereans and see whether what I have said is true. Okay, let's go back to the text. That was a long excursus, but I won't have any justification for talking on modesty for a long time, so forgive me, okay? Had to deal with it. But back to our text, it's my contention that we should not be surprised at what Bathsheba was willing to wear and bear when it's obvious from history and from the commands of scripture that this has been a constant temptation for women down through history. Why are women willing to be seen in bikinis in public that cover less than a lot of underwear covers? Well, we're going to deal with that. It's something they should be ashamed of. Why do they allow such incredible cleavage? We're going to be seeing there's good reasons for that. But clothing is not just about a standard of what is covered. Clothing must also examine the issue of seductivity. Men will tell you there's a reason why prostitutes prefer to dress seductively than to be naked. Nakedness in public is just too much of a shock for most men. A naked body is rarely alluring to a man when it's seen in public. What is alluring is suggestive clothing. 17. Such clothing is suggesting what might be there. Let me illustrate with the issue of one piece bathing suits. Now a lot of people say these are modest bathing suits. I guarantee you Paul would not consider that modesty but we'll leave that aside for now. I just want to illustrate the whole issue of seductivity using that. Some women, and it's counterintuitive to you women I know, but some women think, hey, if we add more material to this one-piece bathing suit, it's going to become more modest. Nuh-uh. Let me tell you something about the psyche of men. If you add a little bit of material and you just make a mini skirt on that swimming suit, all of a sudden that swimming suit has become more seductive, not less. Why? Because it's barely covering something that arouses immediately the curiosity in a man. It is counterintuitive, I know, but it is something that you can talk with psychologists about. It is well known. Same is true of what is alluring in the area of a neckline for women. Now the book His Needs Her Needs says there is no part of a woman's body that is statistically more arousing to a man than a woman's breasts. This fits into Paul's phrase Unpresentable parts. So why do women present? What Paul says is Unpresentable I try to instruct our kids that clothing really should draw attention to the face just like in a painting you look at any painting and And you can look at 10 people who go to that painting, instantly their eyes, their first point of focus is going to be in exactly the same place. They've constructed the painting to draw your attention to a focal point. And I say this is the way we ought to instruct our children to dress in such a way so that the focal point is to the face, not to some other part of the body. But there are other practical questions beyond focal point that should be asked. Is your clothing slinky? Now, I don't want to get legalistic and go beyond scripture, but I do encourage you to ask your husbands for their input. And men, don't be shy about instructing your family. Women aren't men, and they cannot guess at what will communicate wrong things to a man as well as you can. I think in many cases, fathers are derelict in their duty of judging their daughters' and their wives' wardrobes. And I personally think there really needs to be some discussion in the families about incredibly tight clothing, as well as some of the stretchy tight clothing that shows every fold of skin that's under that clothing. You might as well just put paint on. It's really no different than painting your body. Now, I hope you don't go home and start arguing with your husbands and getting into huge fights about this. Just say, look, I'm not a man. And I think you men are weird, but give me a little bit of guidance on where we should go on this. Trust them, okay? Trust the men that they're gonna look at things a little bit differently than you are. Okay, the second area of modesty has to do with having a strong sense of privacy. Usually you think of bathing in the context of a closed room, but this woman was bathing either in a room with an open window, which is what I'm 100% convinced of, or in her courtyard. Now to be sure, she probably felt that it wasn't much of a problem because she's got high fences all around her courtyard. But the point is, verse 3 says, he saw a woman bathing. If there was a line of vision to the roof, She knew that she could be seen from the roof. That's all we need from the text to prove she was not being as private as she should have been. Now this sense of privacy has been systematically broken down in our culture. Public schools have opened showers. Voyeurism on TV and newspaper ads is rampant. Some Christian homes do not help by the way that the whole family wanders around in very revealing Night clothes and I'm not even talking about temptations for siblings necessarily I'm just talking about training and what it means to be private. Okay in college I Knew a girl whose whole family wandered around the house routinely in underwear. I mean, I was just shocked She didn't think anything about it. We're family who cares but here's the point if you don't learn privacy in the home and It's unlikely you're going to be learning that privacy outside the home. I was staying overnight in a home a few years ago. I had to completely turn my body away from the teenage girl who was in PJs. It looked to me like lingerie, not PJs. And anytime she'd move, I mean, I just very consciously moved because it was just revealing way too much. It just blows my mind how people don't get it in this area. Even the peripheral vision was way, way too much. The church has lost its sense of modesty and its sense of where privacy is appropriate. We no longer blush at indecent exposure. Now I've noticed that some of you are blushing and I think that's good. This is a tough, tough topic to address. It's not a topic I enjoy addressing. And by the way, the reason I say it's good that you blush is that the Bible says that when a culture or when people no longer have the ability to blush, they are under God's curse. Okay? That's Jeremiah 6 verse 15, Jeremiah 8 verse 12. And I'm not going any further than what the Pentateuch says that I should preach on. I try to be very circumspect in how I do things, but I know I'm pushing the boundaries on this, and I know it's uncomfortable, but it has to be. It has to be addressed. Now, we trained our children to shut the bathroom door while sitting on the toilet. That's a very simple thing to do. Train them that it's not good for brothers and sisters to see each other in their underwear, okay? Train the boys that the girls' room is off limits and vice versa. A lot of parents are utterly naive at the kind of temptations to sexual sin that can go on in the family. They just think, hey, never happened to me. They don't even consider that it's a possibility. But those temptations that happen all across America would not be taking place if they were trained in privacy. No, that's not appropriate for you to go into that room. That's their private room. But the fourth point under modesty is that modesty has to do with our thoughts. And extensive studies have shown that the sinful thinking process in women tends to be different than it is with men. Let me summarize it in the phrase that Dr. Crobendom used. He said, men tend to lust. Women tend to lust to be lusted after. It's a subtle difference, but really it's quite a difference, and it factors quite differently into how they're tempted. Men tend to lust. Women tend to lust to be lusted after. Sometimes without even realizing it, women enjoy the attention of men, even if they have no desire to go further than to get that attention. And a lot of the hedges in the outline deal with closing the door firmly on this lust to be lusted after. Sometimes it's only fantasizing in the thoughts. We can only guess at what was going on in Bathsheba's mind, but here's as good a guess as any, and let me back up a little bit and give some context. Because she was next to the palace, And the reason she was next to the palace is she was the daughter of one of the big generals. I mean, the wife of one of the big generals and the daughter of one of the most important men in Israel. So she was almost undoubtedly in a walled compound next to the palace. So it's guaranteed that almost no one could see her unless they were looking from an elevated area. Verse two says, from the roof he saw a woman bathing. Now it makes sense that David's Roof would be the highest building in the area. It would afford a good view into a window or into a courtyard, depending on where she was. And so Bathsheba's bearing of herself was probably a calculated risk. People weren't on the roof all hours of the day. And if they were, she might not have been daring enough to do this. So the theory is that Bathsheba was one of the women in the earlier chapters who thought David was the coolest guy ever. Perhaps she was even one of the ones who had sung over David and had a crush on David. She was pretty young back then, perhaps a teenager. She had gotten married. In the meantime, but when David moved in next door, she could see him entering and leaving the palace, walking on the roof from time to time for quiet, experiencing the coolness of the day. And she started feeling those old romantic feelings coming back. She remembered this crush that she had on him. Rather than slamming the door shut on those feelings, she allowed her imagination to run wild through a lot of what ifs. She loved her husband, but she couldn't help thinking about what David was like. Now her husband had been gone for quite a long time. She was having some struggles with loneliness. So she left her window open, of course, just to get in fresh air. and perhaps to occasionally catch a glimpse of David walking on the roof. And it gave her butterflies in her stomach to undress at night and go to bed even though she never saw David on the roof when she did so. But on this theory, it was the risk that gave her that rush. She rationalized, really, there's no risk of anyone being on the roof at this time of day. And so it had become a little bit of a habit to leave the window open while Uriah was gone. And on this particular afternoon, she took the risk one step further. Rather than quickly changing clothes, she took her bath in plain sight of the roof. And the text implies that her bath started before David got there. Now she could rationalize, hey, nobody's gonna be looking anyway, and David's a godly man, he won't invade this house with his eyes, and if he did, that's his problem. If he's got a dirty mind, it's not my problem. He's the one that shouldn't be looking into my house. And of course, David did see, and those arguments are arguments people use, you know, with their immodest dressing, and they just say, hey, if he's got a dirty mind, that's his problem. It's really, there is a parallel. When David sent messengers in verse 3, a bit of fear may have crept into her heart wondering if she had gone too far. But they were simply asking questions about who she was. And this gave her a rush of mixed thoughts and pleasures that having been noticed by and inquired of by King David. But the inquiry probably really got her fantasies going. She did not slam the door shut at that point. Verse 4, It goes on to say, then David sent messengers and took her and she came to him. We'll stop there. Why did she go to him? I've already mentioned that Kyle and Delete show that this was totally voluntary on her part. She may have rationalized that she wasn't going to do anything, but this was an incredible honor to be able to talk to the king. It made her feel good about herself that she got his head to turn. Most women who flirt have no intention of going too far. But when heads turn, wow, it makes them feel good. Why? because they lust to be lusted after. And when they can get a king's attention with their clothing and their good looks, it especially feels good. And now she just wanted to talk to him and to get to know him a little bit better. Now, whether that's the scenario or not, it was certainly immodest for her to even be willing to spend time alone with a man where temptation could happen. One of the hedges that women can make is to make sure that alone time with men never happens or is kept to an absolute minimum if there are emergencies. And then finally, modesty has to do with what they say. After she came in, we're not told what kind of a conversation that they had. It may have been extended, it may have been short, but somehow he discovers why she took her bath. It says he lay with her for she was cleansed from her impurity. And the implication is he would not have laid with her if he was not sure. We don't know what they talked about but there are some subjects that men and women should not talk about alone, period. Modesty has to do with what we're willing to say and even women who are in absolutely no danger of adultery should still seek to shore up their modesty simply because the Bible commands them to. But by this time her thoughts had gone too far. And when he mentions that he accidentally saw her bathing and he apologizes for that but mentions, wow, she was so beautiful, it sent her over the edge. And her response showed that she was really interested. And one thing led to another. rest of the story is recorded in Scripture. So that's the theory. Okay, that's the theory. Now, slipping chastity kind of overlaps with slipping modesty. Consider why it was that David never saw her bathe before. Perhaps it was because