I fail to understand as a man who has a reasonable understanding of the English language, whether the ‘meaning’ of the words have assumed meanings not conveyed through the words of the statute, and if so, as a common man of normal prudence would my understanding of the law be tenable at all?
Let us read the provisions of Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code:
Whoever has sexual intercourse with a person who is and whom he knows or has reason to believe to be the wife of another man, without the consent or connivance of that man, such sexual intercourse not amounting to the offence of rape, is guilty of the offence of adultery, and shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years, or with fine, or with both. In such case the wife shall not be punishable as an abettor.
CLASSIFICATION OF OFFENCE
Punishment—Imprisonment for 5 years, or fine, or both—Non-cognizable—Bailable—Triable by Magistrate of the first class—Non-compoundable.
Upon a plain reading of the provisions of Section 497 it appears to me that the following ingredients are essential for the commission of the offence.
0. The perpetrator of the offence has to be a male;
0. That male has to have had sexual intercourse with a woman who should, at that time of such intercourse, have been married to a man, other than the perpetrating male;
0. The perpetrating male should know for a fact that the woman with whom he had intercourse was married to someone other than himself, or that the perpetrator should have had reasons to believe that she was married to some other man at the time of such intercourse;
0. Such intercourse should have been without the consent or connivance of the man married to that woman, with whom the perpetrator is alleged to have had sexual intercourse;
0. That such intercourse should not be within the ingredients of the offence of rape; &
0. The woman cannot be made an abettor of this offence.
What I understand of these ingredients is that if a man despite knowing that a woman is married to another man though has sexual intercourse with her with the consent of the married woman (not being rape) but without the consent or connivance of the husband, the PERPETRATING MALE has to be punished under the provisions of Section 497 of the IPC for Adultery.
There are multiple issues which flow out of this offence. If during the subsistence of the marriage, the husband had access to the woman during the period when she conceived the child of the perpetrating male, the presumption in law would be that the HUSBAND OF THE MOTHER OF THE CHILD WOULD BE THE FATHER OF THE CHILD under Section 112 of the Evidence Act.
We have been squabbling in the courts over not bastardising children by skirting illegitimacy issues of a child, but what about perpetrating a lie in the mouth of a child who believes that his/her mother’s husband was her biological father?
If for any reason the child after reaching adulthood finds out that facts were not facts and embarks on a quest to find hi/her biological father, we would not only have a nice Bollywood script on our hands at the cost a generation of such adults, but also traumatise those adults irretrievably.
You might ask: What if the woman had sexual intercourse with a man out of consent from her husband and conceived? In such a case, the risk of exposure is less as the couple had ‘agreed’ and it would not be a ‘discovery’ to the husband consequently the husband may not have any sane reason to expose. The risk at least gets minimised to the extent that the child may not be embroiled in taking sides with either of his/her parents. With Time, the fact could become a non-issue.
The unfairness that follows by casting a burden on an unsuspecting husband to maintain not only the cuckoo but also the she-cuckoo revolts against the much bandied ‘polluter pays’ Principle in the Environmental issues.
There are facts which one can let pass, but as a society, though there are bound to be infringements, we need to uphold certain positions which would not encourage lies which could spill over to generations.
The cuckoo nest story is a lot decent as the egg breaks into a cuckoo and flies out in due course, but in these cases, the she-crows egg itself has been fertilised by the cuckoo!
I am inclined to read the provisions of Sec. 497 as a norm of the society to uphold the Brotherhood of Man. The underlying principle is hoary and timeless: No man in the normal course, wants to nurture and lavish his resources on whom he doesn’t believe to be his child. Much less, leave a legacy at his passing away.
Men leave their women folk behind like Uriah and go to the battlefront to eke out a living, sometimes for honour and mostly impelled by a drive to improve his economic conditions. In his absence, there are bound to be Davids, who might watch, entice, ensnare and subsequently commit adultery, which could end up in conception, as in the case of Bathsheba. But the society has to have some laws in place to assure those menfolk who have to depart in pursuit of business. It is for this reason that this Section was put in place.
Like in any law, it starts with harsh punishments and after achieving a certain threshold of compliance, the law falls into desuetude. Likewise Section 497 had fallen into disuse. But that Damocles’ sword was essential to those Davids, who could go full fledged in sowing their oats on unsuspecting women.
By an amendment to this section in 1992 by the then united Andhra Pradesh Government, this was made into a COGNIZABLE OFFENCE. As in communities, which are quartered by castes, these adulterous issues could end up in spilling of much blood.
To interpret the provisions of Section 497 of the IPC as a triumph of ‘equality of genders’ is ridiculous. If the law had been interpreted by striking down the “abettor” clause as DISCRIMINATORY, in terms of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, I could have conceded, but not when the breach of the bond of brotherhood is not visited with a threat of incarceration.
I see the striking down of Section 497, as the removal of the final societal sanction against breaking the bonds of Brotherhood.
Man has to have some taboos. It is not for nothing that married women in our society were encouraged to wear prominently vermillion on their foreheads as a mark of them being married. Even if one were to get past that, there were rings in the second toes of married women’s feet. The reasons for a man to know that an Indian woman is in a matrimony are plenty, whether he looks her in her eye or looks at her feet. ‘Notice’ can never be wanting, but now that the threat has gone, it is only limited to ‘age’ and ‘consent’.
Yeah! Some direction ‼️
Posts tagged ‘bathsheba’
As per the Old Testament of the Bible, King David when he was stricken with age, was provided for with a ‘YOUNG‘ virgin to cause heat to his body. One ought to read the King James Version to get to the poetic expression, which is excerpted as follows from I Kings 1 chapter verses 1-4:
1 Now king David was old and stricken in years; and they covered him with clothes, but he gat no heat.
2 Wherefore his servants said unto him, Let there be sought for my lord the king a young virgin: and let her stand before the king, and let her cherish him, and let her lie in thy bosom, that my lord the king may get heat.
3 So they sought for a fair damsel throughout all the coasts of Israel, and found Abishag a Shunammite, and brought her to the king.
4 And the damsel was very fair, and cherished the king, and ministered to him: but the king knew her not.
The words which drew my curiosity were “YOUNG VIRGIN” and “KNEW HER NOT”! King David must have been around 70 years of age when this episode took place. It is not clear whether Ms Abishag was able to produce enough heat by “lying in his bosom”! Nevertheless Abishag’s story does not end there, subsequent to the death of King David, Adonijah, the son of David and Haggith wanted to marry her and needed the permission of the then King, Solomon. Haggith being the co-wife to Bathsheba, the uterine mother of King Solomon, approached Bathsheba and requested for the hand of Abishag on behalf of Adonijah. The bizarre developments which take place at this request borders on the internecine succession battles of the prince siblings: King Solomon tells his mother as follows:
And king Solomon answered and said unto his mother, And why dost thou ask Abishag the Shunammite for Adonijah? ask for him the kingdom also; for he is mine elder brother; …… (I KINGS 2:22)
I have dealt with, what could possibly have been the motives for King Solomon linking Abishag with the kingdom of Israel, in an earlier blog.
In the present context, when i read the news item which said that Mr. Berlusconi, was to marry a lady 48 years his junior, it set my mind thinking on the heat generating concept promoted by the servants of King David! What is interesting about Berlusconi and differentiates him from King David is that Berlusconi has not waited till his body has stopped producing “HEAT”, instead has made arrangements ON HIS OWN in the name of MARRIAGE! Our PLAYBOY owner HUGH HEFNER, who must be beyond his seventies, also wanted to marry a YOUNG LADY and in the last few days before the scheduled date, the wedding was called off!
In the meanwhile there have been a spate of GAY MARRIAGES, both in the US and in the UK. So the definition and purpose of MARRIAGE have not merely changed, but people have started making their own arrangements with companions and bringing those relationships under the umbrella of marriage!
When the old E V Ramasami Naicker, wanted to marry his helper Maniammai, there was a huge furore in the Dravida Kazhagam and some were of the opinion why a old man at that age had to have ‘PRURIENT” thoughts? It was presumed that marriage by an old man was ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF ‘CAPTIVE’ SEX!
But now i am happy and somewhat relieved that the society has accepted not only marriages between an old man and a young lady but between same sex also. Thereby the society appears to have matured to look at marriage as something which is beyond SEX and CHILDREN!
I for one am happy for BERLUSCONI, as i see him as a person who has concealed his tax commitments more than his liaisons! Whether the MARRIAGE would still have an ‘exclusivity of sex’ clause, would be interesting to watch. If the future Mrs. Berlusconi also decides to receive wild oats like her husband had been known for sowing earlier, Clarke Gable’s memorable line in GONE WITH THE WIND: “Who might the happy father be?” might be the answer to watch out for!
Long live mighty age-gap and gender indifferent marriages!
In INDRA NAGAR, Bangalore there is a very popular church among Christians by name Full Gospel Assemblies of God, the chief pastor being one Paul Thangiah. He speaks forcefully and i like listening to him! I do not go to his church as fundamentally the beliefs subscribed to by FGAG is contrary to my belief system. However, as a Christian who is open minded and listen to the various interpretations of the Bible, i am not averse to listening to his sermons. Pastor Paul Thangiah is a forceful speaker and appears to believe in the brand of Christianity which places a lot of emphasis on personal epiphany of Christianity.
What is PERSONAL EPIPHANY OF CHRISTIANITY?
Well when Paul of Tarsus, was on his way to Damascus armed with letters for persecution from the Synagogue of Jerusalem, he was struck with blindness and subsequently converted to Christianity and also cured of his blindness through the prayers of one Annanias of Damascus. This personal intervention of Jesus was cited by Paul to be the reason for his choice by Christ himself, for him to become the Apostle of the Gentiles. Good luck to his beliefs! The brand of Christianity which Paul spread through his ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURES is still seen as the model to be emulated by some Christians. Paul Thangiah belongs to that class of Christians who believe in the CHURCH ORGANIZATION more than eternal personal vigilance to be a Christian of DEEDS. This i believe, should also exist, as without an ORGANIZATION there is no way Christianity would be ably represented in POLITICAL FORA. But this Sunday, i heard Pastor Paul Thangiah speak of some junior pastors who are supposed to be working against the Church leadership of his FGAG. Those are internal issues a i have nothing against it, nor should i have and therefore i have no issues against it.
However, he compared those rebellious minded pastors to that of Joab , the Commander-in-Chief of the army of David, the king of Israel. Joab killed Abner, the Commander-in-Chief of Saul. Abner had met David privately, and had assured David of bringing the tribes of Benjamin and others under the authority of David. It is not clear from the Bible, if that was to be brought about through a rapprochement between Ishbosheth and David, or through betrayal of Ishbosheth by Abner. In any case, before such an arrangement could take effect, Joab kills Abner citing avenging the earlier killing of Joab’s brother by Abner. Later, Joab supports Adonijah in his succession efforts, but gets upstaged by the cleverness of Bathsheba and Solomon, is made King of Israel. As per Solomon, his father David at the time of his death had told Solomon that Shimei and Joab should not be allowed to have a natural death, as the former had insulted David while David was fleeing the takeover bid of Absalom and the latter, as Joab had shed blood during peace time by killing Abner.
If there was one person who was loyal to David, it was Joab, as he was firstly a blood relative to David, their mothers were sisters! In Bathsheba’s matter, it was he who carried out the orders of David in executing Uriah, so that David could legitimize his relationship with Bathsheba. Moreover, there is at least one instance wherein Joab sent for David just before taking over a city in a battle, so that David could have the GLORY and not him (Joab). Joab’s advice to David after the death of Absalom is laudable. So to malign Joab is merely falling into the HISTORY WRITTEN BY THE VICTOR. Since Solomon’s elder brother was supported by Joab and as Joab probably had the letter of David sent for setting up Uriah, Solomon’s mother’s first husband, Solomon MUST HAVE BEEN KEEN on eliminating Joab and therefore USED DAVID’S NAME TO JUSTIFY SOLOMON’S ACTS!
Pastor Paul Thangiah uses the symbol of Joab, to describe the pastors who had probably undermined his authority in FGAG. This seems to be without a proper parallel. Pastor Paul Thangiah’s outburst was interesting- at least it showed how offended he was by others’ deeds.
Both Karna and Ekalavya are symbols of self-taught highly skilled persons who were defeated because they lacked the MENTAL PRESCIENCE to foresee the consequences of their WORDS and their COMMITMENT to keep their word even to their detriment.
Karna was thought of to be a charioteer’s son and Ekalavya was born to a then thought to be a lower caste woman. But both were highly self motivated INDIVIDUALS who believed that through planned and sustained hardwork they would be able to achieve the highest distinction in their chosen field. Coincidentally the chosen field of both of them was ARCHERY. We all know that Ekalavya had shot off a string of arrows on the mouth of a barking dog and thereby silenced the dog without killing the dog. Likewise Karna was able to shoot not just one eye of the wooden bird, but both the eyes with 2 arrows strung in a a single bow shot. It was these display of their skills which alarmed the GURUS.
The gurus were DRONACHARYA for Ekalavya and Bhagwan Parashurama for Karna.
Ekalavya had not been taught by Dronacharya yet his discipline and his ‘will to skill’, just like Nietzsche‘s “WILL TO POWER” , was so consuming that he made a statue of Dronacharya and believed in his blessings and learnt the skill of ARCHERY. When Drona meets and asks for the right thumb of Ekalavya, he does not THINK why on earth would Drona want his right thumb? In his passion for learning the skill of ARCHERY, Ekalavya had ignored developing his PRESCIENCE. There was no BALANCE in his EDUCATION. His skill was not tempered with the higher knowledge that anyone who asks for your life or your tools of life is your YAMA.
In KARNA’S case it was the curse of Parashurama which did him in. Karna had lied to Parashurama that he was a Brahmin (and Parashurama hated Kshatriyas) and when the endurance of Karna, while offering his lap for a pillow raised Parashurama’s doubts regarding Karna’s varna, Karna admitted that he was NOT a Brahmin and earned the CURSE of Parashurama. But it was not the CURSE per se which did Karna in, but his promise to Kunti that he would not use the astra a second time which did him in. It is the lack of PRESCIENCE, again- like Ekalavya.
ALL THE TALK ABOUT DESTINY IS NOTHING BUT A PACKAGED STORYLINE POST-FACTO THE EVENTS. BUT THE WISE KNOW THAT DESTINY IS BUILT THROUGH PROMPT, EFFICIENT AND PRESCIENT ACTIONS.
The point to be made in this blog is that SKILL in unsuited hands is quickly deprived by the ACHARYAS. These Acharyas are the final arbiters to decide whose hands are suited and “unsuited”!
NO MATTER WHAT ANYONE TELLS YOU, THERE ARE THREE THINGS ONE SHOULD NEVER EVER FORGET:
1. THERE IS A HIERARCHY EVERYWHERE.
2. EVERYONE IS FIGHTING FOR THE RESOURCES (capital, land and labour of fellowmen)
3. THERE IS SOMEONE WATCHING, WHO HAS PLANS TO FIT YOU TO SUIT HIS INTERESTS.
Ekalavya and Karna were victims of lack of ADVISERS. Had Karna gone to Duryodhana and asked him about the promise which Kunti wanted him to make, Duryodhana would have advised him to falsely promise Kunti and NOT to keep it in the battlefield when other LIFE issues are at stake. Likewise, if Ekalavya had asked an adviser, he would have enlightened Ekalavya to tell Drona, ” As Drona was only his MENTAL GURU and was not directly involved in mentoring him, Drona could have Ekalavya’s right thumb MENTALLY too!”.
Contrast this with what Lord Krishna tells Arjuna in the battlefield: DO NOT FAIL IN YOUR DUTY. A statement which is disguised in NOBILITY but the underlying principle is that EITHER YOU KILL OR GET KILLED. CHOOSE LIFE OR DEATH. It is that choice of LIFE over “oaths” and “promises” and “respect for elders” which is recommended. ARJUNA chooses LIFE as if he was merely doing his DUTY.
But Karna and Ekalavya fall victims of their “WORD”.
What the GURUS teach the pupils are different things. A guru knows that a WORD given, is to be honoured, but not at the cost of one’s LIFE. There is a primary “DUTY” one owes to oneself.
But that is a lesson to a Kshatriya, what is taught to a Vaishya is that DO NOT HAVE FALSE MEASURES, DO NOT MAKE UNCONSCIONABLE PROFIT. What is taught to a Sudra is: BE OBEDIENT; RESPECT ELDERS; GIVE YOUR LIFE FOR THE DUTY ASSIGNED TO YOU. So one could see that the same Guru teaches different things to different classes of people. That is why the Gurus were apprehensive about taking and mentoring pupils outside a particular class. Drona did not want the self taught Ekalavya to use even his self taught skills. Parashurama did not want a Kshatriya to have the skills which could be detrimental to his BRAHMIN class. In effect each GURU has his niche pupils. To overcome the WORD, PRESCIENCE is needed.
A good example is King Solomon. He was truly PRESCIENT. Solomon’s mother Bathsheba asks Solomon to give the Shunamite for wife to his half brother Adonijah. Solomon tells Bathsheba, ” Why do you ask for the Shunemite and why don’t you ask for the kingdom instead?” Solomon foresaw that Shunamite having been with King David in his last days had been witness to the machinations of Bathsheba and if she were to become Adonijah’s wife she might, in all probability, squeal about the intrigues conducted by Bathsheba, Benaiah and Nathan. So Solomon not merely denies the Shunamite’s hand, but gets Adonijah killed for having asked!! That is PRESCIENCE. When one has been raised in palaces one knows the CONSEQUENCES of one’s decisions and to FORESEE that and to decisively act is DESTINY.
AMONG THE MANY FACTORS WHICH DID EKALAVYA AND KARNA IN, IT WAS LACK OF ADVISERS WHICH I BELIEVE WEIGHS MOST. beware OF GURUS. THEIR MESSAGES COULD BE CONFUSING, IF NOT DETRIMENTAL, IF THEIR MESSAGE IS NOT ADDRESSED TO THE CLASS TO WHICH YOU BELONG
The title relates to the Biblical characters who find a place in the Book of Genesis and Judges respectively. The point that is the focus of my blog is the relationship that Joseph and Samson had with their respective women.
Joseph was a slave in Egypt, because his brothers (especially Judah, who had the bright idea that what would the brothers benefit if they killed him, so more as a matter of greed they agree with Judah and sold Joseph to the Ishmaelites) had sold him and he winds up in the Pharoah’s Chief of Guards house and becomes a steward there. The Chief of the Guards is one Potiphar, who has a wife who eyes Joseph and openly and shamelessly makes a declaration of her lust to Joseph and says, “LIE WITH ME.” The story goes that one day when Joseph was alone, Potiphar’s wife tries to seduce him and Joseph runs away leaving his cloak behind, making that cloak a piece of evidence for Potiphar’s wife to bolster her accusation that the slave Joseph was trying to force himself upon her. Potiphar believes her and puts him in the Special Jail meant for the Royal Prisoners (persons who were working for the royalty and fell out of favour with the Royalty for one reason or the other!)
Let us see Samson’s story. He was from the tribe of Dan, not a powerful tribe within the Jewry like Ephraim, Manasseh, Benjamin or Judah, and he was a VALOROUS MAN. A man who with the jaw-bone of an ass, killed a thousand men (Judges 15:15). He had taken many women from time to time but the Bible says that he fell in LOVE with a woman called DELILAH.
Whether she loved Samson or not is a mystery, but to put it a woman’s lib way, “DELILAH LOVED SAMSON IN HER OWN WAY!!” She was however under the payroll of the Philistine Lords who promised her 1100 pieces of silver each for finding out the secret of the strength of Samson and revealing the same to the Philistine Lords. Then one of the most terrible of charades of love unfolds, where Delilah PESTERS him daily for telling him the secret of his strength.
Judges 16:15 And she said unto him, How canst thou say, I love thee, when thine heart is not with me? thou hast mocked me these three times, and hast not told me wherein thy great strength lieth.
16 And it came to pass, when she pressed him daily with her words, and urged him, so that his soul was vexed unto death;
17 That he told her all his heart, and said unto her, There hath not come a razor upon mine head; for I have been a Nazarite unto God from my mother’s womb: if I be shaven, then my strength will go from me, and I shall become weak, and be like any other man.
Samson is caught, after his locks were shaven while he was lulled into sleep by Delilah on her lap, taken bound hand and foot and made a spectacle before the Philistines. He was caught by the guile of the Philistines and the treachery of Delilah. Samson could not take it anymore and his hair had grown (Philistines were so dumb that they did not get his head shaved on a daily basis) and his strength was returning!! So one day while the SPECTACLE OF THE BLINDED SAMSON WAS GOING ON IN A CLOSED THEATRE HE PRAYS TO HIS GOD THUS-
JUDGES 16:28 And Samson called unto the LORD, and said, O Lord God, remember me, I pray thee, and strengthen me, I pray thee, only this once, O God, that I may be at once avenged of the Philistines for my two eyes.
30 And Samson said, Let me die with the Philistines. And he bowed himself with all his might; and the house fell upon the lords, and upon all the people that were therein. So the dead which he slew at his death were more than they which he slew in his life.
NEVER ONCE WAS THAT VERSE 28 OF CHAPTER 16 READ BY ME WITHOUT TEARS WELLING UP IN MY EYES WITH PITY FOR THE VALOROUS SAMSON.
The man who cared for none, and had led a life where he had taken STRENGTH for granted , begs God, for REMEMBERING him THIS ONLY ONCE for committing a SUICIDAL ATTACK. From a Jew’s point of view, he had even forgotten that there was a life after Death and through this prayer he seeks a finality not only to his woes, but also to any FURTHER CONSCIOUSNESS. It is the ultimate passage in PATHOS, which out-pathoses even KING LEAR of Shakespeare.
Now these two characters i.e Joseph and Samson are in stark contrast. One FLEES FROM THE TEMPTATION OF A PHYSICAL RELATIONSHIP WITH A WOMAN and THE OTHER WALKS INTO IT WITHOUT HAVING A CLUE AS TO WHERE IT WAS LEADING HIM.
7 And beheld among the simple ones, I discerned among the youths, a young man void of understanding,
8 Passing through the street near her corner; and he went the way to her house,
9 In the twilight, in the evening, in the black and dark night:
11 (She is loud and stubborn; her feet abide not in her house:
12 Now is she without, now in the streets, and lieth in wait at every corner.)
13 So she caught him, and kissed him, and with an impudent face said unto him,
15 Therefore came I forth to meet thee, diligently to seek thy face, and I have found thee.
18 Come, let us take our fill of love until the morning: let us solace ourselves with loves.
21 With her much fair speech she caused him to yield, with the flattering of her lips she forced him.
VERSES 6-18 OF THE CHAPTER 7 OF PROVERBS, defines both Potiphar’s wife as well as Delilah. The consequences of having a physical relationship with women of that type is enumerated in verses 21-23 of the same chapter. So this is the statistical TRUTH. Mostly, if humans were to take to such women, they are likely to end up the way, as mentioned above. As an example to these verses Joseph and Samson could be cited.
But unfortunately, LOGIC does not end here. It goes beyond and tries to apply the formula in respect of every case. So when we apply this formula to the case of KING DAVID, it miserably fails. King David was not only a notorious womanizer, but at least in one case, i.e in Bathsheba’s case was an adulterer and a murderer. That is leaving out the case of Abigail, the wife of Nabal- as it is difficult to believe that Nabal died out of a contrite spirit and not of the conspiracy entered into between Abigail and David the previous night based on their meeting. Maybe Nabal died more out of the knowledge that his wife Abigail had met David on the sly without his knowledge!! As it is Nabal did not have a good opinion of David and in sexual matters he must have had a fairly good idea of David’s proclivities.
But David survives it all, and proves to be an exception. That is GRACE. David had obtained IMMUNITY from the general RULE. That is because he TRUSTED in THE MERCY OF GOD. And at every instance, when he was informed of his wrongdoing, he was not merely PENITENT but also took all reasonable steps to ensure that his GUILT is not made a PUBLIC ISSUE. In fact, if Adonijah had become the King, it would have been quite possible that Adonijah would have made the Prophets and Priests as the witnesses and proved the guilt of adultery between Bathsheba and King David, and got Bathsheba executed for adultery after the death of King David. So King David, while still alive, WISELY declares Solomon, the son of Bathsheba and David as the heir to the throne and protects his own name after his death besides protecting the interests of the co-adulterer. AFTER ALL ONLY A SON COULD BE TRUSTED WITH THE JOB OF PROTECTING THE MOTHER’S HONOUR AND NOT A STEP SON, U SEE!!
If one asks the question, why Samson was caught up in the snare of the woman Delilah but not David, when both of them had led a dissolute life, there is no logical answer to it. Jesus beautifully solves this conundrum in the Gospel of Luke chapter 13 as follows:-
3 I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.
5 I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.
So what Jesus says is that we are still ALIVE by HIS GRACE and let us not squander our TIME by taking individual instances and testing the ESSENTIAL TRUTHS against isolated cases, which have escaped the general laws of RETRIBUTION. Let us make use of the TIME to REPENT and REFORM. As that is the objective of LIFE.
WHAT HAS ABISHAAG GOTTA DO WITH THE KINGDOM OF ISRAEL?, that when Adonijah asked for her hand King Solomon should blow his top?
To refresh the memory of the Bible readers and aid the persons not familiar with the story of Abishaag, the Shunamite:-
Abishaag was a young virgin who according to the Bible was brought to the palace of King David of Israel to keep him warm thru body contact in his old age. Even before the death of King David, there was Palace intrigue initiated by Bathsheba to promote her uterine son Solomon to become the king of Israel. The reason being that Adonijah the son of King David and Haggith had declared himself the King of Israel without the consent of the King.
However Bathsheba’s camp went on to write history, being the winners in the race for Kingship. So Adonijah wanted to get married to the woman who was warming up King David in his last years. Therefore he sends his mother Haggith ( a co-wife to Bathsheba) to the Queen Mother Bathsheba to persuade the new king Solomon to give Abishaag as his wife. All hell broke loose. Solomon asks his mother Bathsheba, ” Why ask for Abishaag only, whu don’t you ask for the whole kingdom- after all he is my elder brother?”, and gets him murdered.
BUT WHY DID SOLOMON GET ADONIJAH MURDERED?
Reason must be that Abishaag was the only one who could have been privy to the drama enacted by Bathsheba, Benaiah the priest and the prophet, to crown Solomon- stated to have been with the consent of David, as she was in the presence of the King David. David never appeared before the public – even though he is stated to have blessed Solomon and proffered him the advise to kill Joab, Shimei etc.
This drama by Bathsheba carried the ring of approval of the vegetating David and this myth would have been blown up if Abishaag had become the spouse of Adonijah. This prospect of unveiling must have terrified Solomon, hence the outburst of telling his mom to have asked him the kingdom for Adonijah.
TRUTH IS ALWAYS HIDDEN- LOOK FOR IT, ALWAYS.
David importunes Uriah to go to his house, hoping probably that he would sleep with Bathsheba and hence could pass off the child as the legitimate child of the couple! When his plans failed, he sends a letter to Joab thru Uriah scheming his death. No contraceptives were available, in any case even if some quacky precautions had been taken they were not efficacious. Now, what Bathsheba did none knows.
She had ample opportunity to pervert history- being the king’s mom(Solomon), had attained a position whereby she could control the perceptions of the erudite and the knowledge of the masses! But it could be speculated that she could have threatened David- maybe persuasively that it would not be in king’s interest to be exposed for adultery!
In any case, David had decided to jump from covetousness to adultery to murder! Uriah was a brave fool, not wondering why the king should take such a great interest in him. But what amazes me is that even if uriah did not go to his house, why did not the bitch Bathsheba go and meet her husband who had returned from the front Alive!
A feminist view would be to view her situation sympathetically- that the pregnant dame was carrying the symbol of her fallen status and did not want to present herself with hypocritical chastity (it was exactly the type of hiding, that Adam and Eve went into after eating of the TREE OF KNOWLEDGE, when the Lord came calling in the eventide!).
Coming to Uriah’s refusal to go home- had he got to know that his wife had visited the king in his absence (after all, Uriah was a commander in his own right too! and therefore must have had pals who had hinted). And was it the reason for his refusal to soil his pestle in her mortared unchaste pussy?
None could know the pain- except for Uriah- had he known!
In all uriah , his wife’s child – all dead paved the way for a peaceful interpretation of history.
Winston Churchill once said I HOPE HISTORY WOULD TREAT ME KINDLY- AS I INTEND TO WRITE IT!