Did David rape Bathsheba?

I really don’t want to get into a rehash of the debate, but you really, really ought to read the replies to her tweet or corresponding internet commentary rather than insisting that it’s her fault. There was a LOT of pushing back based on her gender and her experiences.

As for this:

She even takes the kindergarten teacher, 1st-person plural voice “we” that teachers use to talk down to students in an instructional tone that’s meant to brook no disagreement. Her opinion, like those of others, is subject to criticism, and if the opinion can’t stand up to criticism, then its worth is self-evident.

It’s easy for her husband to claim that disagreement with her is not misogynistic, but her tone leaves no question that disagreement is agreement with abusers. I’m sorry, but we don’t need to be lectured to by her or anyone else with her experiences, and when that tone is used, those using it should expect some pushback. I don’t care whether she was emotional or not, and the motivation for her comment has no bearing on my disagreement with its attempt to claim “right because I say it is.”

Why is it hard to understand that “we” is likely used as an all inclusive term and avoid reading all sorts of malicious and nasty intent into what she said?

[Jay]

There was a LOT of pushing back based on her gender and her experiences.

Jay, I already have stated that I agree that that was stupid, and it is also not called-for. I don’t think that lets her original statement off the hook, however.

Why is it hard to understand that “we” is likely used as an all inclusive term and avoid reading all sorts of malicious and nasty intent into what she said?

Personally, I suspect you’re ignoring the tone because you either agree with her or respect her because of what she had to suffer. Be that as it may, the tone in her statement is quite clear to anyone not predisposed to ignore it. (Which, by the way, is quite likely why it ignited a fire rather than a more civil discussion.) Again, I’m not going to give any credit to those attacking her emotions or gender, or saying it only comes from her experiences. But I think she knew exactly what she was doing when she stated things the way she did, and as a result, should expect some pushback, just as I expected some for my disagreement with her statement as written.

A Twitter user named “GeekyGuyJay” asked Mrs. Denhollander point blank about how she established that position, and she (and others) answered politely. So to argue that she “brooks no dissent” really ignores what one would see if one, ahem, read through the thread. Sorry, Dave, but you misread that in a big way.

Really, on a broader note, there are all kinds of cases where we fundagelicals in general are too sensitive to the “tone” others use, especially when the person is not a pastor or others “authorized” to speak that way. And let’s be honest; would we say anything if most pastors said “It’s important that we get this right?” Of course not; it’s standard in sermons. No surprise that many would point out that this point of view is objecting to the messenger, not really the tone of the message.

This is an especially important thing to note when you’re working with those who have been sexually assaulted; we’re talking about a level of trauma that puts many in counseling for decades, and leads others to take their own lives. You’re going to hear a level of vehemence (and some f-bombs and the like) that aren’t part of a typical fundagelical church. News flash: if you want to minister to them (possibly 25% of the young ladies your church might minister to), get used to it.

[Bert Perry]

A Twitter user named “GeekyGuyJay” asked Mrs. Denhollander point blank about how she established that position, and she (and others) answered politely. So to argue that she “brooks no dissent” really ignores what one would see if one, ahem, read through the thread. Sorry, Dave, but you misread that in a big way.

I didn’t say she had no support for her position (even though I disagree). It was the way her statement came off. I realize you think I misread it, but I think the reaction shows that I’m not that far off.

Really, on a broader note, there are all kinds of cases where we fundagelicals in general are too sensitive to the “tone” others use, especially when the person is not a pastor or others “authorized” to speak that way. And let’s be honest; would we say anything if most pastors said “It’s important that we get this right?” Of course not; it’s standard in sermons. No surprise that many would point out that this point of view is objecting to the messenger, not really the tone of the message.

I’m probably just a grumpy old guy, but I object to that form of address after a controversial statement even when used by pastors (and I realize it’s common today). And I don’t accept condescension (or at least I stop really paying attention) in tone from my pastor or anyone else for that matter. If a pastor would say something like “Those who are pre-trib are wrong. It’s important that we get this right,” something is clearly intended by the 2nd sentence of that structure, and it’s not a good thing.

I won’t even disagree that for some it might be the messenger more than the message. And yet, I know it’s not always the case, and I stand by my assertion that she likely knew what kind of reaction her statement would generate.

You’re going to hear a level of vehemence (and some f-bombs and the like) that aren’t part of a typical fundagelical church. News flash: if you want to minister to them (possibly 25% of the young ladies your church might minister to), get used to it.

Yeah, I think I would avoid most interactions where I’m going to be considered “privileged,” “racist,” “misogynistic,” etc. when I’m not willing to buy the micro-aggression of the week.

I didn’t (and wouldn’t generally) get involved in discussions like the one Jay references and participated in. I usually just ignore them. As you said, we can be oversensitive. But I sometimes respond to those who decry the reaction to something when they generally didn’t pay attention to what it sounded like in the first place. I get that some who have experienced something unjust often feel justified in their use of anger to those of us they think aren’t listening. Maybe they think it will provoke someone to “do right.” What they don’t get is that it will just make many of us tune them out.

This whole discussion should be a good reminder of the authority of Scripture and how much modern evangelicalism and fundamentalism are devoid of it. The text does not tell us the specifics. Therefore, all this speculation about the events and the dynamics of it are the assertion of authority apart from the Scripture. The Bible had no problem telling us that Dinah was raped or that Tamar was raped. So why is it silent on that here? It might be because God has no intention of us making a point of that here. No matter how we read the text, whatever the dynamics of Bathsheba’s situation was is not the point.

One of the most common things you hear in complaint about fundamentalism is speaking where Scripture has not spoken to try to make a cultural application. And here we have some who have no problem doing exactly that—speaking where Scripture is silent to try to make a cultural application. And is it not unnoticed that one of the most vocal proponents of (a very misguided notion of) “sola scriptura” has no problem going beyond “sola scriptura” here.

Rape is wrong. Abuse of power is wrong. Coercion from positions of authority is wrong. We don’t need David and Bathsheba to know that. But if we will have authority with the Scripture, we must say what Scripture says, even if it is not what we might like to say. If we say something other than or more than what Scripture says, we have made ourselves the authority.

Better to stick with the text and make the point the text does.

[TylerR]

My thoughts:

1. OC law sees rape as being done by physical force.
2. Our modern understanding of rape, from secular law, is more broad and could, in some way, cover implicit coercion.
3. To apply these more nuanced understandings to an OC context is anachronistic
4. David was not rebuked for his sexual sin with the woman. He was rebuked for murder.

Let’s not put something in the text that isn’t there.

Let’s be a little bit more specific here; the Torah speaks to “forcing” a woman, not “raping” her, specifically. For that matter, the word “rape” originally meant to “force” in English, and has only acquired the nearly exclusive connotation of sexual assault relatively recently. That does not, however, mean that the ancients were not concerned with sexual assaults that did not involve direct force.

In this case, Nathan clearly accuses David of “stealing the lamb”, meaning in context stealing the sexual affections of Bathsheba from her husband. Nathan also uses the metaphor of “dressing” (killing, cooking, and eating) the lamb for David’s enjoyment; in other words, the brutal treatment of Bathsheba. Yes, Nathan does indeed rebuke David for a sexual assault here. Uriah is, again, analogous to the lamb’s owner, not the lamb.

Elsewhere in Scripture, read Exodus 21:10; if men were not prone to obtaining multiple wives by fraud and abusing them, why would this be in the Torah? You’ve got the same thing with Deuteronomy 17:17, and amplified because of the power of the king. You also have Song of Songs 8:9, which notes that families would take actions to protect their daughters from a premature marriage—what we’d call “statutory rape”.

In other words, the ancients did have a concept of sexual assault that is remarkably close to our own. To argue otherwise, what you’ve generally got to do is to say that the examples of powerful/rich men who ignored what the Torah said about polygamy override what we know from the Torah, Nathan’s rebuke, the Song of Songs, and a lot more.

Now why, per Denhollander’s original tweet, is it so important to get this right? We might argue that events of 3000 years back are not that important to us, but for one thing; if we fail to recognize the signs of sexual assault in this case, and suggest that it was somehow consensual, we are going to miss the hints that someone in our lives, in our churches, is being sexually assaulted today. That’s pretty darned important, and worth an emphatic tone. I’d further argue we feel like kindergartners precisely because we’ve been missing these obvious hints for decades and claiming this was consensual.

Regarding the claim that it was consensual, it more or less boils down to the assumption that Bathsheba was a slut. Either she was trying to attract David’s attention during a religious Mitzvah (while everybody else on their roof could watch moreover), or she decided she was willing at the palace without compulsion in the space of a few minutes. That’s hard to square with the reality that the family had allocated resources to build their own ritual bath (Mikveh), and used it routinely. It was likely on the roof because most of David’s city is above the Gihon spring, and it (a) had to be a permanent part of a building (not portable) and (b) had to be filled with rain or spring/river water without using jars and other containers to carry it. Hence you put it on the roof to collect runoff, where (bonus) the sun warms it, too.

I don’t know if Bathsheba was raped or not. But I do feel that the way evangelicals are treating Rachel right now on Twitter and elsewhere is beyond the pale.

I am curious as to why there is such pushback on her and in (often) a very nasty way. It would seem she is trying to do a good thing. There is clearly an abuse problem in our culture and she is trying to fix it. She is gracious even when attacked. She is articulate and knowledgeable which is more than you can say for many that attack her.

What gives? Why do (generally speaking) older, male evangelicals have such a problem with her? Is it that she comes across as preachy and know-it-all? Do they associate her with liberalism? Do they not like being lectured by a woman? Do they all know men that have been (in their view) falsely accused? Are they jealous of the attention she gets?

Scripture does not say that the MIkveh was on the roof, but rather only that it was visible from the roof. The rest about the sun warming the water, etc., would still hold. If, as the text indicates, she was carrying out a Mitzvah, the reason she’s doing it at dusk is because that’s the start of the day in Hebrew culture. She is becoming ritually clean as quickly as she can, which again militates against the notion that she’s “looking for love in all the wrong places”.

Really, as fans of Pastor Steven Anderson know too well, there are a number of Hebrew cultural habits, including doing all kinds of things on the roof and against the wall, which are “not exactly how we do it today.”

There continues to be a lack of Scripture in Bert’s argument about 2 Samuel 11. For someone who claims to believe in sola scriptura, you sure don’t mind ignoring it. The better option here is to stay silent on things Scripture is silent about. There is no need for 2 Sam 11 to be rape. It might be. It might not be. God didn’t say. So why do we feel the need to fill in what God, in his wisdom, did not fill in? Why the need to speak where God hasn’t spoken?

Larry, what I’m doing, and what you should have learned during your time at 4th Baptist, is simply to apply what we know of the cultural and historic norms of the time to the situation. It is what every decent teacher of the Word does. Literarily, it’s known colloquially as “reading between the lines” and more clearly as “understanding the subtext.” There is no coherent Sola Scriptura without an application of knowledge of the culture and history, which is why, when you read Luther, Calvin, Spurgeon, and a host of others, they’re doing the exact same thing as I am.

Regarding 1 Samuel 11, I guess you could suggest that a woman carrying out religious obligations was eager to become part of a harem, that she was flirting with David in full sight of everyone else who was also on their roof, that she was rebuked without the rebuke being mentioned in Scripture, that either she was happy to be separated from a lover for months or saw him at other times before she knew she was pregnant, that her note “I’m pregnant” had nothing to do with the fact that this fact would likely get her killed for adultery, that Nathan’s characterization of David’s sin as theft and “dressing” the lamb had nothing to do with the character and severity of his crimes, and that Ahitophel’s attempt to get David killed had nothing to do with a crime against his granddaughter—just did it on a lark, I suppose.

(and all of these points count as a “lack of Scripture”? Excuse me, but I’m the one bringing Scripture in, not you, Larry)

That said, Ockham’s Razor suggests we do better to accept the clear implications of all these things: Bathsheba was raped. Really, your approach to Scripture—not being willing to accept strong hints of something to come to a likely (if not airtight) conclusion is one that really doesn’t allow one to infer the Trinity, or most of the Baptist distinctives.

So you’re welcome to debate my points, but if you want to just take potshots, I’ll thank you to back away from the keyboard.

The kind of allegorical interpretation that sees the David/Bathsheba story as one about rape is the same one that sees Mk 6:45-52 as being about Jesus being with you through the storms of life …

[josh p]

The “Bathsheba was raped” argument is largely built on over-applying the details of an analogy which is a common exegetical error that has caused many to come to terrible conclusions elsewhere. It is not proper hermeneutics to try and draw a parallel between every detail of an analogy or parable. It is intended to teach one truth. Church history shows us the gravity of the error here. The fact is the passage does not say and there is not enough to go on, in Nathan’s rebuke at least, to conclude that she was. I would be interested if any commentators in history have come to this conclusion. If no one saw this passage correctly until the #metoo movement came along, I’m even more skeptical.

First of all, John Piper made the argument back in 2008, so it’s at least that old, well older than #MeToo. Regarding where to take the analogy, it’s worth noting that there are only two places where Nathan’s story clearly does not have a link to reality are (a) the presence of the guest and (b) the owner treating her as a daughter instead of a wife. (a) is necessary to set up the slaughter of the lamb, and (b) is necessary because David won’t be persuaded to take the side of a man who was committing bestiality. There is no such reason to treat the “dressing” of the lamb differently, especially in light of the fact that (e.g. “Rape of the Sabine Women” in Roman mythology) a lot of the ancients would have assumed the theft meant a rape as well.

Airtight case? No, not even when you list the other factors indicating a rape—and let’s add to that the fact that David does not even recognize her, but must ask who she is. But what we have at the end of the day is a number of factors suggesting sexual assault, vs. none suggesting otherwise. Ockham’s Razor tells us to go to the most likely conclusion.

Josh, if I’m reading into the passage something that is not there, prove it. What’s the better interpretation? Why should I believe that Nathan’s analogy stops mid-sentence? Keep in mind here that the other two deviations from reality—the insertion of the guest and the description of the lamb as daughter rather than wife/lover, have some very clear reasons.

Along with the other bunch of factors I’ve mentioned, of course. To be honest, the argument “well it wasn’t so” doesn’t really go much further than “well it wasn’t so”, “you’re reading into the passage”, potshots, etc.. Why not an alternative hypothesis? Give it a try.

And really, what’s the resistance to going from what we know—that David was clearly violating his power, not to mention Deuteronomy 17:17 and Exodus 21:10—to asserting that, while it wasn’t classic forcible stranger rape, it was indeed sexual assault? We do indeed have a lot of hints that it was, and none that it wasn’t.