By SI Filings
Nov
13
2019
"If I were asked this question, and I have been asked this question in the past, I would respond with a very qualified, 'I’m not sure.'" - John Ellis
3288 reads
There are 67 Comments
Bert Perry wrote:
If the manner in which the host treated the lamb matters and is supposed to correspond to the reality of what happened and shows that David raped Bathsheba, who did David share Bathsheba with when he raped her (as you claim he did)? Saying that the one detail corresponds to the reality of what happened but the other does not would be a selective handling of the data.
A consistent handling of the parable must account for what the parable says. Who does the traveler in the parable for whom the rich man prepared the lamb represent in what actually happened with David and Bathsheba?
Thanks, Tyler
The various commentaries are all helpful and instructive. None suggests David's view of Bathsheba was after dark. Apparently the Hebrew does not require that at all. None require that we consider Bathsheba complicit in enticing David, but neither can that be ruled out entirely. We simply don't know. It's clear that presuppositions tend to color the way the Biblical evidence is viewed. None require us to construe David's actions as rape, though presuppositions lead some to read that into the account. Nathan's parable lends no objective support to the rape allegation. Only strong presumption finds such support in the parable.
In short, much less is said than some believe. The episode is sufficiently sinful without exaggerating the extent of David's guilt. As Mike Harding helpfully wrote earlier, we are best served when we teach what the Bible clearly states, and leave additional speculations alone.
G. N. Barkman
That would be a polite way of putting it
"Dumb mistakes" would be a polite way of putting it. He even does your analysis one better (worse) by assuming, per the book of Elmer Gantry, I suppose, that the possibility of a mikveh actually rendered people more susceptible to these sins instead of acting as an indication that they were less likely to commit them. Merrill is apparently of the view that in choosing someone with whom to commit a capital sin, it's very important to find someone who is ritually clean, even though the very sin committed--and the very act David would have done often in his harem--made a person ceremonially unclean. It's a very strange bit of analysis, to put it nicely. One would suppose, to draw an analogy, that baptisms are a great place to pick up girls, instead of a place where you will find people trying to commit themselves to Christ.
Otherwise, what he's doing is the same thing you are; assuming that because David saw her bathing, and that because the word "force" is not used, that she was trying to entice him. He then proceeds to simply ignore the many Biblical hints that, no, Bathsheba was not a willing participant. It is to argue, really, that unless something controversial is stated in as many words--David's soldiers cast Bathsheba into the chamber and closed the door, upon which David forcibly removed her clothes and threatened to kill her unless she let him have sex with her, or some such thing--we won't believe that she was actually raped.
And that's a dangerous position. Fundamentalists don't shy away, in general, from taking a look at the subtext of a story "when we like the way this is going." When we do it in this kind of case, we first of all miss what Scripture is telling us, and we second of all train ourselves to miss the cries of the wounded. Like Bathsheba, there are a lot of women out there who have been violated and did not see an acceptable way of proceeding. If we train ourselves to miss the signs that Bathsheba was a victim and not a willing participant, that's going to leave a mark in our churches.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
Bert, Bert, Bert
Bert, you are an interesting and intelligent man. However, you have a preconceived narrative, and no amount of evidence must be allowed to call your speculations into question. You insist that your understanding of the passage is superior to a host of Biblical scholars who know the Scriptures and the Hebrew language better than yourself. You are caustic and disdainful toward those who question your opinions.
You clearly have gifts which can be used to advance the cause of Christ. I would appeal to you to develope a more becoming humility which will make your efforts more fruitful.
G. N. Barkman
Trump card
So I wondered what the esteemed Bible teacher and MeToo supporter Beth Moore would say about this. Happened to have a copy of her book, A Heart Like His, on my kindle. Here are the relevant excerpts to help us conclusively resolve this issue:
About Nathan's confrontation she says,
And of the eventual birth of Solomon she writes,
Come to think of it, I wonder if Beth will offer a correction on this book, too.
It's a metaphor
Tom, it's a metaphor that Nathan is most likely using because if he addresses David's sin straight up, he knows David will fight him and ultimately "win" (at least on earth if not before God) because he's the judge of Israel. You don't spell everything out in a metaphor any more than you spell everything out in a poem.
Besides, if you "prepare a lamb" for your guest, is there any doubt in your mind that you have had it killed, butchered, and cooked? The brutality there is implicit. Honestly, there are times on this forum when I suspect that if something isn't SPELLED OUT IN BIG BOLD LETTERS WITH ALL CAPS, that most people are not going to get the point. There is a point where we need to start to learn to read between the lines here and figure out the subtext. It's a valid literary technique that any serious critic of any text uses.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
The Gig is Up
Bert, I've read this thread with some fascination. You've been trying to argue that the Bible portrays David's rape of Bathsheba with great certainty. However, the passage never describes this encounter as rape (even though the very next chapter, Scripture does describe Amnon raping Tamar). You've insisted that Nathan's parable has a 1:1 correspondence to the actual events that took place, including the brutality and violence suffered by Bathsheba. Yet, the parable is significantly different than reality, and the vocabulary used in the parable doesn't communicate brutality and violence at all. Now, you insist that we must read between the lines to really understand what God is trying to communicate to us about David and Bathsheba.
Bert, please stop. Even Beth Moore disagrees with you.
Tom and GN, please stop
Guys, please stop just citing commentaries and start addressing the evidence for yourself. Does the Scripture say it was evening, or does it not? Does this word have a consistent usage meaning "after sundown", or does it not? Was David rising from his bed (waking from sleep or a nap at an unpredictable time), or was he not? Does it tell us that David sent multiple men to fetch Bathsheba, or does it not? Does it tell us she was "cleansed of her impurity" (and thus performing a religious obligation), or does it not? Does it tell us that Ahitophel tried to get David killed, or does it not? Does the Scripture say Bathsheba mourned Uriah, or does it not?
If those commentaries don't address these questions, guess what? It means that the editors allowed 2-3 paragraphs per passage, and the writer couldn't dig in that deeply, whether he would get it right or wrong. Commentaries also tend to preserve the "standard corporate line". So what you've noted is precisely zero surprise to anyone who understands the genre.
What you want is something more like this; a scholarly length appraisal. Notice his techniques if making inferences from the text.
Regarding "oh you need to give it up because the commentaries disagree"; that's precisely what they told Luther, Calvin, Wesley, and others whose work has benefited us all. Learn to think these things through for yourself. Really, if your criterion for decision making is (a) is it completely obvious from a skimming of the text or (b) is it stated in my favorite commentaries, you've got to question your commitment to the First Fundamental and Sola Scriptura. In practice, you've got Sola Commentaria, really, just like the old Magisterium. Say hi to Tetzel for me!
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
Bert
So now you believe you are the only one who studies Scripture and thinks for himself. But, those who did exactly that, and arrived at a different understanding were derided in various ways. So, some started consulting commentaries to see if our independent study was off base. And guess what? We found nearly all the commentaries agreed with us. So now, not only are SI commentators wrong if they disagrees with you, but a plethora of Hebrew scholars as well. You continue to insist that you alone have the proper understanding. You are convinced of this, but apparently not so many others. Your efforts would be more useful if mixed with a modicum of humility. (Hint: Strong's Concordance definitions are hardly the full and final authority for the range of meanings of a Hebrew word.)
G. N. Barkman
Signing Off
I did. Your arguments have no merit. Good night.
GN
What I'm saying, GN, is that when you discard Biblical arguments on the basis of commentaries, as you did, that you are in effect taking an appeal to authority/appeal to popularity argument in lieu of looking at the direct textual evidence for yourself.
Now, one more invitation, with links, to look at how the words "evening" and "uncleanness" are used in their original contexts, courtesy of Biblehub. It does Strong's one better by linking directly to the Hebrew words. Feel free to look them up in Brown-Driver-Briggs, Moody, or whatever Hebrew lexicon you like, and you will see the same thing. I have.
First, let's see how 6153 is used. Every last use is "evening", "twilight", or "night". Now do the same with the word for "uncleanness", Strong's 2932. Notice that the usage of the word is always for ceremonial uncleanness or sin, not the filth of the body. There is, moreover, no room for metaphorical or poetic language here; it is straight narrative in this text. In other words, textually speaking, there is absolutely no doubt that Bathsheba was in the mikveh when it was getting dark.
Why do the commentaries miss this? The nice way of saying it is that they have a blind spot and only 3 paragraphs. They don't have the initiative or column-inches to dig deeper. The more cynical way of saying it is that they are well aware of these realities, but decide to downplay that because you cannot sustain the standard explanation if you admit it was dark and she was performing a religious rite.
I started this discussion with the nicer explanation. I'm not so sure anymore.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
K & D
Keil and Delitzsch:
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and an Investigations Manager with a Washington State agency. He's the author of the book What's It Mean to Be a Baptist?
Matthew Henry
Henry, that randy old Puritan non-conformist, no doubt wrote with an aim to preserve the patriarchy:
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and an Investigations Manager with a Washington State agency. He's the author of the book What's It Mean to Be a Baptist?
Gill
John Gill, that Calvinist hater of the #metoo movement, explained that David saw the woman, "Some time in the afternoon, when the sun began to decline; not in the dusk of the evening, for then the object he saw could not have been seen so distinctly by him:"
Gill continued:
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and an Investigations Manager with a Washington State agency. He's the author of the book What's It Mean to Be a Baptist?
John Wesley
John, that arch cad, wrote:
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and an Investigations Manager with a Washington State agency. He's the author of the book What's It Mean to Be a Baptist?
Tyler
You mock, but that is Rachel Denhollander's point as she spoke at the Caring Well Conference, that the patriarchy has assigned blame to Bathsheba, thus covering up David's rape.
Stop lying
Mark, I keep correcting you on this lie and you keep repeating it. That is not at all what Rachael said and you are lying when you say this, as is anyone else who makes that claim.
You need to stop because it is a sin against God and both Denhollanders.
Tyler, I'm the person who directly asked Rachael for textual support for this claim on Twitter because I'd seen it before but never seen textual support for it. I've read all the commentaries you quoted and a few more besides. There is a legitimate textual case to make that this was rape, which was Rachael's entire point. The Denhollanders have even said that they know there are people who disagree and they're OK with this being an area of disagreement.
Even hard-complementarian scholars like Denny Burk and Justin Taylor have admitted that it is possible to make the case that this was rape. They will (I think, weakly) try to dodge out of it by saying that it wasn't "rape-rape" in the 21st century of the word or that there was no recorded outcry by Bathsheba while in the king's palace so it couldn't have been rape in a Deut. 22 sense of the word, or whatever, but adding snide remarks and referring to commentaries when the text indicates otherwise is not helpful to anyone.
One more word - with everything that is going on in the SBC, is this really a hill to die on and for? Particularly as they are predominately in the news for covering up a slew of high profile sexual assaults and coverups including Matt Chandler, Paige Patterson and more? Don't they have enough headaches without picking fights over a disputable argument made by John Piper and others referenced in this article by Russ Meek? And more importantly, why is everyone singling out Denhollander when others have made this claim for years? Piper is on the record from 2008. Why aren't people going at him with this level of ferocity?
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
Jay
I'm not dying on any hill. I don't spend any time at all pondering this topic. I'm not singling out Denhollander for anything and barely know who she is. Don't know what Piper said and don't have time to care. Don't know anything about the alleged sins of Chandler (et al) and have no time to care.
I just spent eight minutes yesterday afternoon posting commentary excerpts, that's all. There is no ferocity from me. There is only amused indifference.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and an Investigations Manager with a Washington State agency. He's the author of the book What's It Mean to Be a Baptist?
Jay
I invite anyone to listen to Rachel's comments in context. And to be clear, I AM NOT SAYING she said ALL THE BLAME went to Bathsheba, if that is your hangup. I said "blame", as in some, a little, a part of it. Yes, her point was that for 2000 years the male dominated church has used stories like Bathsheba as a tool to cover up sexual abuse.
Yes, it is linked to sexual abuse cover-ups
Again, here's video. No need to go back and forth when each person can judge for himself.
Just for kicks, I took a look through the commentaries, and found that there are three basic strains, and that all of them tend to disagree on a lot. So GN's contention that "they all agree with me" is silly at best. Most of them--really all of them that I found prior to JFB in 1871--do not suggest Bathsheba was trying to seduce David at all.
Strain 1 is Bergen and Expositor's, and they (like Piper and Denhollander) take the position that David compelled Bathsheba to have sex. They don't agree on every point, but that is of course my position as well. In my view, the vast majority of the evidence fits the conclusion of Strain 1.
Strain 2 is the majority historic position, which holds that it was adultery because the word "force" isn't used. That said, neither is the word "seduce" used, and you've got to assume one or the other about the situation. It will get you in trouble today this way; a lot of people assume that if a rape isn't forcible--if the girl doesn't end up with injuries visible to the naked eye, or if weapons weren't used--that it was somehow consensual. You can differentiate between forcible rape and lesser levels of sexual assault this way, but not between sexual assault altogether and consensual, legal relationships.
Strain 2 runs into a number of problems, including David's authority and history with Michal, Bathsheba's not contacting him for weeks or months, the # of men sent to fetch her, and the simple fact that most women are simply not that easy, especially when a "pregnancy with bad timing" can get them stoned without mercy.
Strain 3 is the nastiest version, and it's the version that seems to prevail in a lot of fundagelical circles today; it's the assumption that Bathsheba was actively trying to seduce David. This stems from the lack of the word "force" in the passage and the fact she was taking a bath where people could see her. Today, the equivalent is the claim "she was wearing/doing/drinking/etc.. this and was asking for it", and this kind of thing forms the core of GRACE's critique of how BJU handled sexual assault cases.
Strain 3 runs into the same problems as does Strain 2, as well as a bunch of issues related to the type of bath it was, the time of day, and how she could not know when it would be possible to seduce David without attracting every other pervert in the city.
It is an interesting question why earlier commentators did not claim Strain 3, as far as I can tell. My best guess is that they lived in an era where families lived in one room (e.g. log cabins, etc..), and hence children were in the room when younger siblings were conceived, born, nursed, and the like. The whole family shared one bathtub--that's where "don't throw the baby out with the bathwater" comes from. So more or less, they understood, as we tend not to, that earlier generations had a lesser expectation of privacy than we do today.
If you want some really interesting--and horrendous--interpretations of the story, go to the rabbis. Layer after layer of excuses for David, to put it mildly, and it's a beautiful illustration of how religious tradition overrode the law of Moses in many cases.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
Me
Bert's basic summary of the three positions is accurate. I don't believe the text says either way, and I don't believe the point at issue is the point of the passage. It's eisegesis to suggest otherwise, I believe.
What do I think, even though the text doesn't say either way? I suspect she had little choice. I also suspect she made the best of a bad and weird situation. The Bible wasn't interested in telling us her thoughts or her opinions of how it all went down. When we get to heaven, we can ask her, I suppose. We can ask Nathan about the parable, too.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and an Investigations Manager with a Washington State agency. He's the author of the book What's It Mean to Be a Baptist?
2 thoughts
Tyler, there's a TON of heat around not just this issue but about the complementarian / sexual abuse / role of women debate within the SBC and involving several major groups of whatever is left of evangelical and fundamentalist Chernobyl. Count yourself blessed you don't know the intricacies and can laugh at it.
Mark, Rachael's talk at the Caring Well Conference is available right here. Anyone with a basic awareness of wanting to be fair to her or to this debate is more than welcome to review it; frankly, I am at the point where I wish people would have to see it before they can respond. If there's a particular line that is problematic to you, feel free to provide specifics.
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
Perspective
Jay wrote:
I am aware of the cultural moment conservative evangelicalism finds itself in regarding these issues. I just do not follow it obsessively. You have lost your perspective and think this is much bigger than it really is. There is no Chernobyl. You believe a nuclear reactor has melted down because of Twitter. The reactor is still running just fine.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and an Investigations Manager with a Washington State agency. He's the author of the book What's It Mean to Be a Baptist?
What is the point?
It's worth noting that the passage in question is narrative, with a punctuation of metaphor with Nathan's story. If we are going to talk about the "main point" of a passage, I'd argue that we are specifically talking about a clearly didactic passage like many of Paul's letters, the Sermon on the Mount, and the like. A narrative, on the other hand, is quite a bit harder to handle, because there are simply times where the narrative doesn't have any particular point except to tell us what happened. The statements there can have any range of uses, and legitimately.
And in this case, you've got a bazillion great questions to ask. Was it adultery or rape? Why is it that Bathsheba is the only one of David's wives who appears to have had more than one or two children? Was it tenderness, or did she have him by the "eggs" because of his sin, or a little bit of both? What was the arrangement by which God--and David--chose Solomon as David's heir? How does all this fit in with David being a man after God's own heart? And of course, what lessons can we learn for today--beyond "don't get ideas when you see someone not your wife lookin' good."?
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
I should probably just let this go, but
Having invested too much time already, I hate to bail out before its over. Bert, I probably should not have said that all the commentaries agree with me. What I should have said was, none of the approximately ten commentaries I have in my library agree with you. I was going to mention the word "eisegesis", but Tyler beat me to it. What you characterize as skillfully reading between the lines to discover what the author really meant, but does not say, looks to others like reading into the passage what you think it ought to say instead of what it actually says. If you think you've discovered something others missed, you are free to say so. I have no objections to a nice, "It's my opinion that..., or I think there may be more than meets the eye here"... statements.
But the dogmatism you employ, forcing questionable conclusions upon the passage, and insisting those who fail to agree are dumb and worse, is beyond the pale of helpful discussion. I consulted my commentaries to survey the findings of those whose scholarship is superior to mine. (and yours) Your response? Attack the commentaries! Of course we all agree that Scripture is the only infallible authority, not commentaries. But no one agrees that your interpretation of Scripture is the final authority. I wonder if you understand the difference between those two claims? You characterized anyone who disagrees with you as returning to Rome and other outlandish statements. That's why I suggested a little humility would be helpful.
G. N. Barkman
On the reactor
The key thing to note regarding "the reactor" and how these things are handled is that in the SBC, and really in a great number of other evangelical and even fundamental churches, there is an uneasy tension between a plurality of motivated inerrantist complementarians, and a large number of those who are either indifferent or even leaning towards an egalitarian/modernist position. So as with any significantly political calculation (and that's what it is IMO), you can have a wild swing in results if just a small portion of members decide they're going to openly oppose the current path.
The bright side of all this is that if complementarians manage to figure out how to address these things well, they not only defuse this issue, but also take a great step to help their churches move from "association for friendship's or tradition's sake" to "association for doctrine's sake, too." There is a great hazard, but there is a great opportunity, too.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
"Hangups"
That's pretty much my position on this as well.
I think this sums up the majority of the objections expressed in this thread and the other one to the "David must have raped" view. If you want to know why the statement "David raped. It's important that we get this right." generated so much heat, I suspect in most cases it's way more a function of the dogmatic phrasing and unwarranted assumption of the exegetical "high ground" rather than who said it. It's certainly true in my case.
Dave Barnhart
Some reasons for opposing the "David-raped-Bathsheba" view
Opposing the "David-raped-Bathsheba" is important for many reasons, including these that I have written about elsewhere:
Since we are talking about
Since we are talking about speculation, virtually everything here is speculation combined with bad hermeneutics.
Let's start with the parable. There is no reason to assume that the parable is an allegory, that Bathsheba was stolen, prepared, and eaten. That's not speculation. That's bad interpretation. Parables have a point. The details are not part of that point. The preparing and eating is because there was a dinner in the parable. That has nothing to do with Bathsheba. It explains why the sheep was stolen--so the man could feed his friend. As Rajesh points out, it wasn't to feed himself. And you wouldn't eat a live sheep or raw sheep Of course you are going to cook it. The story makes no sense otherwise. The point was to use an analogy that David would condemn and then show his own guilt. BTW, to turn Bathsheba into a sheep is a rather unfortunate and awkward identification. I would hate to try to defend that one to the #metoo and #churchtoo crowds. Better to let it stand on its own and accept the point that it is a condemnation of David.
We could go back to Bert's comments in another thread where he likened himself to Calvin, Luther, and Spurgeon. I would never be so bold as to make that comparison with myself, but the idea of interpreting Scripture in light of history and culture is unremarkable. It is what many of us have been saying for a long time. But virtually everything else Bert said there was speculation. Even historical context and cultural context is about the text. And the text simply doesn't say what many here are saying. Cultural and historical context is not a license to ignore the text in favor of our own points. God could have made all the points Bert wants to make. God didn't do that, so why did Bert?
Let's address a few of his questions:
Scripture uses the word 'ereb, but no, it doesn't always mean "after sundown." It can mean evening, night, dark, period of time between sunrise and sunset, dusk, twilight, etc. To insist that it means late at night or dark is simply wrong.
There is no evidence in the text that this is true.
It does, but there is no evidence in the text as to the significance of this.
There is a little bit of debate about this, but most agree. But again, there is no indication of the relevance of this other than perhaps the timing that would indicate a higher chance of pregnancy.
Yes, but it does not give the significance of Ahithophel trying to get David killed. It is likely because he had defected to Absalom. The reason for that is not given in the Bible. A good number of people had done that, so there is no biblical connection to this.
Yes, but that would hardly be surprising. \
Or it could mean that these are not significant questions that arise from the text. They are imposed on the text by other considerations and thus, don't belong in a discussion of the text. Or perhaps they just aren't that controversial. And commentaries don't tend to preserve the standard corporate line. If you want to make a commentary useful, you would try to find something new or different. The reason why there is a "standard corporate line" is because they are devoted to the text.
This is an interesting article but not entirely convincing for a lot of reasons. As you note, it is largely based on inferences. It largely ignores alternative explanations. Consider his #2 about historical context and the "times that kings go forth to war," and make the claim (as many do) that David was not where he should have been. Strangely, he makes no reference to 2 Sam 21:17, which is a pretty major consideration. Why does he ignore that? Perhaps because so much other argumentation there and here, it doesn't make the point he wants to make. It, in fact, gives an alternative that paints the picture in an entirely different light. It is possible he is correct. It is also possible that he isn't.
When did anyone tell Luther, Calvin, or Wesley these things? I have never heard that. Can you point us to a source for it?
I don't think anyone would disagree with this. But it seems a bit contradictory to speak of "work [that] has benefited us all" while saying that questions one's "commitment to the First Fundamental and Sola Scriptura." Much of your argument hasn't been your own thinking but that of others. You simply have chosen to follow the line that others have not.
In this case (as in all others), we should stick with what the text says in order to make the point that God wants to make. If you want to make your point, then write your own book and use your own stories. Don't use God's stories to make your point.
If you want to condemn rape, and you should want to and should condemn it, then use the words of Scripture that do that. But there is no reason to do it from this passage. It isn't the point of the passage and it undermines the authority of the text to make it say something it doesn't say.
Thanks, Larry
Your analysis is spot on!
G. N. Barkman
Pages