Did David Rape Bathsheba?

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]

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]

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]

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!