Did David Rape Bathsheba?

Bert Perry wrote:

Rajesh, the argument that Nathan's story includes a metaphor for rape does not depend on whether the host actually eats the lamb.  It depends on whether the host kills, butchers, and cooks the lamb, which the host certainly did.  The brutality of killing and butchering parallels the brutality of rape.

And for the record, I'm pretty sure that the reason the host is not recorded as having eaten is because....it simply didn't need to be said.  Of course you would eat with your guests, and if you didn't, they might wonder if they were being poisoned.  To this day, Middle Eastern hospitality is built around communal dishes from which all are free to partake.

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?

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 wrote:

Add one more commentary to the list.  Eugene Merrill wrote in Bible Knowledge Commentary:  "David arose, went to a rooftop of the palace, and from there happened to observe Bathsheba, wife of his neighbor Uriah.  She was bathing out in the open.  One may not fault David for perhaps seeking the cooler breezes of the late afternoon, but Bathsheba, knowing the proximity of her courtyard to the palace, probably harbored ulterior designs toward the king.  Yet David's submission to her charms is inexcusable, for the deliberate steps he followed to bring her to the palace required more than enough time for him to resist the initial, impulsive temptation (cf. James 1:14-15)."    

"Having discovered her identity, he sent for her at once and and, assured of her ritual purity (cf. Lev. 12:2-5: 15:19-28), had intercourse with her.  The bathing itself may have been for the purpose of ritual purification and would therefore not only advertise Bathsheba's charms but would serve as a notice to the king that she was available to him."  (comments on II Samuel 11:2-5)   

What, another Old Testament Hebrew scholar making dumb mistakes!   (or not)

"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.

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.

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:

You probably know the story that follows. One night David couldn’t sleep. He went for a walk on the roof of the palace. From there he saw a beautiful woman bathing. He sent a messenger to find out about her. The messenger told him two facts, either of which should have stopped him cold. He said her name was Bathsheba the wife of Uriah the Hittite, one of David’s soldiers. David disregarded common decency. He sent for her. They committed adultery. She went home. Time passed. She realized that she was pregnant. 

Few things frighten me more than this testimony of David’s life. We too could be persons of character and integrity, and, without apparent warning, destroy our ministries and ourselves through the choice to gratify our sudden lusts. Like David, a few short verses could record the story of our downfall. 

As you consider this story, don’t be drawn into their sin by romantic—and false—notions. We cannot afford to justify their behavior through sympathy. In our culture we justify immoral behavior with the excuse that two people were “in love.”Even if two people are emotionally entangled, don’t call self-gratification and breaking promises to God and others love. David and Bathsheba didn’t even have that flimsy excuse. They were not in love. They simply chose to act in a dishonorable and destructive way. We could speculate that he was intoxicated by her beauty mixed with an opportunity to display his power. She may have been enamored with his wealth and prestige.

About Nathan's confrontation she says, 

God wanted David to recognize that he deserved to die. Bathsheba also deserved death, according to Hebrew law.

And of the eventual birth of Solomon she writes, 

Out of grace God removed the curse on the sinful union of David and Bathsheba. Their union had been wrong. Their motive was wrong.

Come to think of it, I wonder if Beth will offer a correction on this book, too. 

T Howard wrote:

 

Bert Perry wrote:

 

Rajesh, the argument that Nathan's story includes a metaphor for rape does not depend on whether the host actually eats the lamb.  It depends on whether the host kills, butchers, and cooks the lamb, which the host certainly did.  The brutality of killing and butchering parallels the brutality of rape.

 

However, the parable doesn't provide the graphic detail you insist it does.  The ESV translates the verse, "but he took the poor man's lamb and prepared it for the man who had come to him."  The Hebrew word translated "prepare" does not convey "the brutality of killing and butchering." There is a Hebrew word that could have been used that means "to butcher" or "to slaughter," but that word isn't used here.

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.

Bert Perry wrote:

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.

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. 

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!

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.)

Bert Perry wrote:

Guys, please stop just citing commentaries and start addressing the evidence for yourself. 

I did. Your arguments have no merit. Good night.

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. 

Keil and Delitzsch:

The information brought to him, that the beautiful woman was married, was not enough to stifle the sensual desires which arose in David’s soul. “When lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin” (Jas. 1:15). David sent for the woman, and lay with her. 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 any one 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.

Nevertheless in any case the greatest guilt rests upon David, that he, a man upon whom the Lord had bestowed such grace, did not resist the temptation to the lust of the flesh, but sent to fetch the woman. “When she had sanctified herself from her uncleanness, she returned to her house.” Defilement from sexual intercourse rendered unclean till the evening (Lev. 15:18). Bathsheba thought it her duty to observe this statute most scrupulously, though she did not shrink from committing the sin of adultery.

Henry, that randy old Puritan non-conformist, no doubt wrote with an aim to preserve the patriarchy:

He saw a woman washing herself, probably from some ceremonial pollution, according to the law. The sin came in at the eye, as Eve’s did. Perhaps he sought to see her, at least he did not practise according to his own prayer, Turn away my eyes from beholding vanity, and his son’s caution in a like case, Look not thou on the wine When it is red. Either he had not, like Job, made a covenant with his eyes, or, at this time, he had forgotten it.

2. The steps of the sin. When he saw her, lust immediately conceived, and, (1.) He enquired who she was (v. 3), perhaps intending only, if she were unmarried, to take her to wife, as he had taken several; but, if she were a wife, having no design upon her. (2.) The corrupt desire growing more violent, though he was told she was a wife, and whose wife she was, yet he sent messengers for her, and then, it may be, intended only to please himself with her company and conversation. But, (3.) When she came he lay with her, she too easily consenting, because he was a great man, and famed for his goodness, too.

Surely (thinks she) that can be no sin which such a man as David is the mover of. See how the way of sin is down-hill; when men begin to do evil they cannot soon stop themselves. The beginning of lust, as of strife, is like the letting forth of water; it is therefore wisdom to leave it off before it be meddled with. The foolish fly fires her wings, and fools away her life at last, by playing about the candle.

3. The aggravations of the sin. (1.) He was now in years, fifty at least, some think more, when those lusts which are more properly youthful, one would think, should not have been violent in him, (2.) He had many wives and concubines of his own; this is insisted on, ch. 12:8. (3.) Uriah, whom he wronged, was one of his own worthies, a person of honour and virtue, one that was now abroad in his service, hazarding his life in the high places of the field for the honour and safety of him and his kingdom, where he himself should have been. (4.) Bath-sheba, whom he debauched, was a lady of good reputation, and, till she was drawn by him and his influence into this wickedness, had no doubt preserved her purity. Little did she think that ever she could have done so bad a thing as to forsake the guide of her youth, and forget the covenant of her God; nor perhaps could any one in the world but David have prevailed against her. The adulterer not only wrongs and ruins his own soul, but, as much as he can, another’s soul too.

(5.) David was a king, whom God had entrusted with the sword of justice and the execution of the law upon other criminals, particularly upon adulterers, who were, by the law, to be put to death; for him therefore to be guilty of those crimes himself was to make himself a pattern, when he should have been a terror, to evil doers. With what face could he rebuke or punish that in others which he was conscious to himself of being guilty of? See Rom. 2:22. Much more might be said to aggravate the sin; and I can think but of one excuse for it, which is that it was done but once; it was far from being his practice; it was by the surprise of a temptation that he was drawn into it. He was not one of those of whom the prophet complains that they were as fed horses, neighing every one after his neighbour’s wife (Jer. 5:8); but this once God left him to himself, as he did Hezekiah, that he might know what was in his heart, 2 Chr. 32:31. Had he been told of it before, he would have said, as Hazael, What! is thy servant a dog? But by this instance we are taught what need we have to pray every day, Father, in heaven, lead us not into temptation, and to watch, that we enter not into it.

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:

Verse 4

And David sent messengers,.... To invite her to his palace:

and took her; not by force, but through persuasion:

and she came in unto him; into the apartment where he was:

and he lay with her; she consenting to it, being prevailed upon, and drawn into it through the greatness and goodness of the man, which might make the sin appear the lesser to her. This is recorded to show what the best of men are, when left to themselves; how strong and prevalent corrupt nature is in regenerate persons, when grace is not in exercise; what need the saints stand in of fresh supplies of grace, to keep them from falling; what caution is necessary to everyone that stands, lest he fall; and that it becomes us to abstain from all appearance of sin, and whatever leads unto it, and to watch and pray that we enter not into temptation; and such a record as this is an argument for the integrity of the Scriptures, that they conceal not the faults of the greatest favourites mentioned in them, as well as it serves to prevent despair in truly penitent backsliders:

for she was purified from her uncleanness; this clause is added in a parenthesis, partly to show the reason of her washing herself, which was not for health and pleasure, and to cool herself in a hot day, but to purify herself from her menstruous pollution, according to the law in Leviticus 15:19; the term of her separation being expired; and partly to give a reason why she the more easily consented, and he was the more eager to enjoy her; and in this he sinned, not that he did not lie with an unclean person; but, then, as some observe, he did that which was much worse, he committed adultery; also this may be added to observe, that she was the more apt for conception, as Ben Gersom notes, and to account for the quickness of it, with which the philosopher agrees:

and she returned unto her house; whether that evening, or next morning, or how long she stayed, is not said.

Verse 5

And the woman conceived,.... Whereby the sin would be discovered, and shame, and disgrace, or worse,would follow upon it:

and sent and told David, and said, I am with child; this message she sent to David, that he might think of some ways and means to prevent the scandal that would fall both upon him and her, and the danger she was exposed unto; fearing the outcries of the people against her, in acting so unfaithful a part to her husband, so brave a man, who was now fighting for his king and country; and the rage and jealousy of her husband when he should come to the knowledge of it, and the death which by the law she was guilty of, even to be stoned with stones, see John 8:5.

John, that arch cad, wrote:

Verse 2

And it came to pass in an eveningtide, that David arose from off his bed, and walked upon the roof of the king's house: and from the roof he saw a woman washing herself; and the woman was very beautiful to look upon.

Arose from off his bed — Where he had lain, and slept for some time. And the bed of sloth often proves the bed of lust.

Washing herself — In a bath, which was in her garden. Probably from some ceremonial pollution.

Verse 3

And David sent and enquired after the woman. And one said, Is not this Bathsheba, the daughter of Eliam, the wife of Uriah the Hittite?

He inquired — Instead of suppressing that desire which the sight of his eyes had kindled, he seeks rather to feed it; and first enquires who she was; that if she were unmarried, he might make her either his wife or his concubine.

Verse 4

And David sent messengers, and took her; and she came in unto him, and he lay with her; for she was purified from her uncleanness: and she returned unto her house.

Took her — From her own house into his palace, not by force, but by persuasion.

Lay with her — See how all the way to sin is down hill! When men begin, they cannot soon stop themselves.

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.

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.

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? 

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.

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.

Mark_Smith wrote:

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.

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. 

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, 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.

Jay wrote:

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.

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.

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."?

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.

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. 

TylerR wrote:

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.

That's pretty much my position on this as well.

G. N. Barkman wrote:

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 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.

Opposing the "David-raped-Bathsheba" is important for many reasons, including these that I have written about elsewhere:

In my opinion, espousal of the “David-raped-Bathsheba view” is having a profoundly detrimental effect on some of God’s people. It seems to be poisoning their minds so that they are in danger of developing or having and accepting a distinctly unbiblical and wrong overall perspective toward David as a man of God.

Yes, David sinned horrifically in what he did, and God dealt with him intensely for what he did. We must not, however, allow these facts to lead us to hold wrong overall views about David as a man of God.

Furthermore, the Bible reveals that God has dealt decisively with David’s sin:

2 Samuel 12:13 And David said unto Nathan, I have sinned against the LORD. And Nathan said unto David, The LORD also hath put away thy sin; thou shalt not die.

Because God has dealt fully with David about his sin, Christians who now still denounce him as a wicked man for what he did back then are in danger of asserting that David’s sin with Bathsheba has not been fully and properly dealt with yet. They seem to me to think that David must be denounced in our day as a “rapist” and that people therefore should have a very negative and lasting overall regard for David.

Let us beware espousing any such unbiblical sentiments and lasting perspectives about king David!

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:

 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?

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. 

Was David rising from his bed (waking from sleep or a nap at an unpredictable time), or was he not?

There is no evidence in the text that this is true.

Does it tell us that David sent multiple men to fetch Bathsheba, or does it not?

It does, but there is no evidence in the text as to the significance of this. 

Does it tell us she was "cleansed of her impurity" (and thus performing a religious obligation), or does it not? 

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.

Does it tell us that Ahitophel tried to get David killed, or does it not?

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.

Does the Scripture say Bathsheba mourned Uriah, or does it not?  

Yes, but that would hardly be surprising. \

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. 

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.

What you want is something more like this; a scholarly length appraisal.  Notice his techniques if making inferences from 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. 

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. 

When did anyone tell Luther, Calvin, or Wesley these things? I have never heard that. Can you point us to a source for it?

Learn to think these things through for yourself. 

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.

Your analysis is spot on!