# David and Bathsheba and rape



## alexandermsmith (Oct 15, 2019)

Well this is going well...

https://twitter.com/R_Denhollander/status/1179951763295817728?s=20

AD Robles has a good (and concise) commentary on this:

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Pergamum (Oct 15, 2019)

Bathsheba wasn't a temptress. But that doesn't mean it fits modern definitions of rape:

"Concerning the accusation of Bathsheba’s seduction of David, our analysis reveals that Bathsheba neither intentionally lured David into sexual intercourse by bathing in an auspicious place nor desired the sexual relationship for an ulterior motive. Both the grave consequences of marital sexual infidelity (death penalty, stoning, trial by ordeal etc) and the acknowledged integrity of David support this interpretation. Bathsheba was simply taking a purificatory bath after her menstruation without knowing that the ‘good’ King was spying on her. The specific mentioning of the time of the bath, (‘in the evening’) further exonerates Bathsheba. Since her seven day ritual impurity ended at sunset (evening) on the seventh day (Lev 15:19), then her taking of a ritual bath at that time is not unexpected. It was David’s inability to control his sexual passion stirred by the bathing woman’s beauty that made him send messengers to get Bathsheba. To blame Bathsheba for the sexual intercourse is tantamount to blaming her for David’s lack of self-control. Without doubt, Bathsheba was a victim of David’s sexual lust. We argue, consequently, against the suggestion that Bathsheba seduced David. [p. 15]"

Alexander Izuchukwu Abasili, “Was It Rape?: The David and Bathsheba Pericope Re-Examined,” _Vetus Testamentum_ 61, no. 1 (2011): 1–15.


Did David rape Bathsheba:

"On whether David raped Bathsheba or not, we first note that David’s lordship of the sexual encounter, which hinges on the power difference between him and Bathsheba, creates an opening for a subtle (non-physical) use of coercion by David, but to conclude that he ‘raped’ Bathsheba (in the Hebrew biblical understanding of ‘rape’) would be to push the evidence too far and read too much of our contemporary conception of rape into the biblical text. Obviously, the type of physical force implied in the Hebrew biblical concept of rape is absent in 2 Sam 11:4. Therefore, the sexual encounter between David and Bathsheba is not a case of biblical-rape. [p. 14]"


*The property angle:*
But...

If it were consensual adultery, however, the Prophet Nathan also owes Bathsheba a rebuke, too. None is found in Scripture; Nathan appears to regard Bathsheba as a victim. 

......or property. 

And this angle is missing in all the modern discussions. Wives were seen more like acquirements than partnerships in the OT. Adultery is spoken of as "defrauding a brother" (spoiling his property). She is spoken of more like a possession in the narrative than anything else.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## greenbaggins (Oct 15, 2019)

This is a very important issue for Jewish evangelism, as many Jews defend David to the hilt, even claiming that he did not sin at all (despite Psalm 51 and Nathan's confrontation!). They reinterpret all those passages in quite mind-bogglingly gymnastic ways to do so.


----------



## alexandermsmith (Oct 16, 2019)

I thnk to bring "power dynamics" into the event is anachronistic. Obviously David had more power as he was king. But to follow the power dynamic argument to its conclusion wouldn't that mean that any sexual act between husbands and wives back then could be construed as rape?


----------



## Von (Oct 16, 2019)

Even though Eve was deceived, Adam was not.
Maybe Bathsheba was deceived, but David knew full well that what he was doing is wrong.
Those with more revelation would be judged more strictly.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## alexandermsmith (Oct 16, 2019)

Certainly. Doesn't make it rape though.


----------



## Seeking_Thy_Kingdom (Oct 16, 2019)

alexandermsmith said:


> I thnk to bring "power dynamics" into the event is anachronistic. Obviously David had more power as he was king. But to follow the power dynamic argument to its conclusion wouldn't that mean that any sexual act between husbands and wives back then could be construed as rape?


I agree, no where in the text does it say that David forced himself on Bathsheba. Additionally, Psalm 51 only shows David repenting of a singular sin, v4, and that is bloodguiltiness, v14, not rape. Clearly Denhollander is projecting her own social structures of power dynamics into the biblical text, a big no-no.

What worries me more is that one person, with 8 words in a span of a few seconds, is able to throw the entirety of the Church into an uproar and debate, it should not be so.

Reactions: Like 2 | Amen 2


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Oct 16, 2019)

Rachael Denhollander (I’ve never even heard of her): “Getting this wrong is crushing.” Eye-roll.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Seeking_Thy_Kingdom (Oct 16, 2019)

Jeri Tanner said:


> Rachael Denhollander (I’ve never even heard of her): “Getting this wrong is crushing.” Eye-roll.


I did not follow the story very closely, but Denhollander is a victim in a massive rape case regarding Olympic gymnastics. She gave a very moving testimony and shows that she does have a strong theological background:






However, she also made the claim that during and following her abuse the Church, mainly the SBC, was the last place she would go to for help... everything has spiraled into controversy since then and has turned herself into a Evangelical celebrity.

Reactions: Sad 1


----------



## Von (Oct 16, 2019)

The video linked above contains explicit content according to the warning - maybe not wise to link it?


----------



## alexandermsmith (Oct 16, 2019)

Seeking_Thy_Kingdom said:


> I did not follow the story very closely, but Denhollander is a victim in a massive rape case regarding Olympic gymnastics. She gave a very moving testimony and shows that she does have a strong theological background:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I wanted to _refrain _from saying this at the outset but this is exactly the issue. Because of what happened to her she has been elevated to a very prominent position in evangelical circles. Her personal experience is touted as qualification for her to speak on these issues. But is it really? We now have her spouting theological interpretations of Biblical passages on Twitter viewed through what is clearly an intersectional lens.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Seeking_Thy_Kingdom (Oct 16, 2019)

Von said:


> The video linked above contains explicit content according to the warning - maybe not wise to link it?


I purposefully did not post a video with excerpts, I strongly prefer unedited media. I listened though it and I do not believe she goes to far into the details of her abuse, if the mods disagree please remove. 




alexandermsmith said:


> Her personal experience is touted as qualification for her to speak on these issues. But is it really? We now have her spouting theological interpretations of Biblical passages on Twitter viewed through what is clearly an intersectional lens.


It clearly does not, and shows the destructive nature of celebrity culture combined with the power of social media.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## BottleOfTears (Oct 16, 2019)

Seeking_Thy_Kingdom said:


> I agree, no where in the text does it say that David forced himself on Bathsheba. Additionally, Psalm 51 only shows David repenting of a singular sin, v4, and that is bloodguiltiness, v14, not rape. Clearly Denhollander is projecting her own social structures of power dynamics into the biblical text, a big no-no.


Following the logic of your interpretation of Psalm 51, David is not guilty of adultery. Which is manifestly false. Looks like in order to refute the "SJWs" you just misinterpreted scripture. Should you be accused of projecting your own biases into the biblical text?



alexandermsmith said:


> I wanted to _refrain _from saying this at the outset but this is exactly the issue. Because of what happened to her she has been elevated to a very prominent position in evangelical circles. Her personal experience is touted as qualification for her to speak on these issues. But is it really? We now have her spouting theological interpretations of Biblical passages on Twitter viewed through what is clearly an intersectional lens.


I would say that the main reason this "blew up" as it were, is not just that some people disagreed with her interpretation, it is as her husband says, because people rejected her interpretation out of hand because she is a victim of sexual abuse and therefore _has_ to reading her biases into the text. It seems to me you are making the opposite move from the people you are speaking about and regarding her experience as disqualification for interpreting the text.

So tell me, how exactly is she "clearly" using an "intersectional lens" when interpreting this text? What does intersectionality have to do with this?

Let's have a look at some of these other SJWs who also clearly read scripture through an intersectional lens shall we?

John Piper
who says calls it rape very explicitly

Chris Rosebrough - Pirate Christian Radio
who says Bathsheba did not consent and that it was sexual assualt

Doctrine and Devotion
who say it may/may not be rape but it is sexual assault

Are they part of the "woke" crowd now? Hardly.

Frankly, I'm not bothered at all by people disagreeing with a bit of exegesis, but the way Mrs Denhollander's exegesis is being disregarded as "woke/SJW/intersectionality" because of her background is very troubling.


----------



## alexandermsmith (Oct 16, 2019)

BottleOfTears said:


> I would say that the main reason this "blew up" as it were, is not just that some people disagreed with her interpretation, it is as her husband says, because people rejected her interpretation out of hand because she is a victim of sexual abuse and therefore _has_ to reading her biases into the text. It seems to me you are making the opposite move from the people you are speaking about and regarding her experience as disqualification for interpreting the text.
> 
> So tell me, how exactly is she "clearly" using an "intersectional lens" when interpreting this text? What does intersectionality have to do with this?
> 
> ...



It's a wrong interpretation. Scripture nowhere calls it rape nor does the writer anywhere use terms which would suggest he thought of it as rape. Look at how rape is defined in Scripture and it is clear from the narrative that what takes place is not rape. Muh "power dynamics" does not make it rape. It is an intepretation that is actually pretty novel in the history of Biblical hermeneutics.

There are a number of factors which would make me dismiss her interpretation of any part of Scripture. However the reason she has a platform within the evangelical community is because of her personal experience. That is the *only *reason we know who she is and why we are talking about her views on Scripture. Well her personal experience does not qualify her to broadcast to all of twitter her thoughts on how to read Scripture. She is not just a private individual giving her opinion. She is a public figure who has spoken at the annual meeting of the Southern Baptist Convention and who is being given a position at the table to advise on church policy. Her words, unfortunately, carry weight. And to slander David like this is pretty outrageous. The Holy Spirit nowhere thought it appropriate to call it rape and therefore not only are we without warrant to call it such but to do so is slander. The sin of *murdering* Uriah is far more serious than what David did to Bathsheba but frankly this is typical of the MeToo movement and the female narcissism that movement is built on to focus on imaginary wrongs committed against women and ignore the *real* wrongs committed against men.

I don't care what John Piper says on this matter. And I don't know who the other two are.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Seeking_Thy_Kingdom (Oct 16, 2019)

BottleOfTears said:


> Following the logic of your interpretation of Psalm 51, David is not guilty of adultery. Which is manifestly false. Looks like in order to refute the "SJWs" you just misinterpreted scripture. Should you be accused of projecting your own biases into the biblical text?
> 
> 
> I would say that the main reason this "blew up" as it were, is not just that some people disagreed with her interpretation, it is as her husband says, because people rejected her interpretation out of hand because she is a victim of sexual abuse and therefore _has_ to reading her biases into the text. It seems to me you are making the opposite move from the people you are speaking about and regarding her experience as disqualification for interpreting the text.
> ...


2 Samuel 11:3,4 makes _clear_ that David committed adultery, the text does _not _say that he forced himself on her. If he had done so, either Scripture would have made this clear, or Bathsheba would have cried out, Deuteronomy 22:24, she did not. 

I admit that Psalm 51 does not completely remove any possible accusation of rape, but again, nowhere does Scripture show that David raped. We can not insert any worldly ideology into exegesis, and clearly Denhollander does this. As for the other big evangelical names, I would have to say the same, and until they can show from Scripture that David raped her, I will consider them wrong at this point as they have no justification for going beyond what has been revealed in Gods Word.

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## alexandermsmith (Oct 16, 2019)

I should also have said that because it is a wrong interpretation, and the only way it could be conceived of as rape is because of the "power dynamics" involved, then that is why it is an intepretation influenced by intersectionality. It is a definition of rape which is not based on how rape is defined by Scripture but by intersectionality.

In the spirit of charity I will say that her experience _does_ give her qualifications to help counsel other victims of abuse and that is certainly a valuable asset to have in a church. But it does not give her the qualifications to interpret- or re-interpret- Scripture for the church at large. She is assuming a role which is outwith her competency.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Susan777 (Oct 16, 2019)

BottleOfTears said:


> Following the logic of your interpretation of Psalm 51, David is not guilty of adultery. Which is manifestly false. Looks like in order to refute the "SJWs" you just misinterpreted scripture. Should you be accused of projecting your own biases into the biblical text?
> 
> 
> I would say that the main reason this "blew up" as it were, is not just that some people disagreed with her interpretation, it is as her husband says, because people rejected her interpretation out of hand because she is a victim of sexual abuse and therefore _has_ to reading her biases into the text. It seems to me you are making the opposite move from the people you are speaking about and regarding her experience as disqualification for interpreting the text.
> ...


Why would I go to Rachel Denhollander for biblical interpretation? Or to Pirate Radio or to “joe and Jimmie” or some other blog? Are they Ministers of the Word? In what way are they qualified to make any such pronouncements?

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 2


----------



## BottleOfTears (Oct 16, 2019)

Seeking_Thy_Kingdom said:


> 2 Samuel 11:3,4 makes _clear_ that David committed adultery, the text does _not _say that he forced himself on her. If he had done so, either Scripture would have made this clear, or Bathsheba would have cried out, Deuteronomy 22:24, she did not.
> 
> I admit that Psalm 51 does not completely remove any possible accusation of rape, but again, nowhere does Scripture show that David raped. We can not insert any worldly ideology into exegesis, and clearly Denhollander does this. As for the other big evangelical names, I would have to say the same, and until they can show from Scripture that David raped her, I will consider them wrong at this point as they have no justification for going beyond what has been revealed in Gods Word.


I have no problem with you rejecting said piece of exegesis, it was more that you claimed for some reason that Psalm 51 proved that David had only commited one sin during that series of events and that was murder and therefore David could not be guilty of rape. I just meant to point out that you could easily insert "adultery" in there and make the same argument. 


alexandermsmith said:


> It's a wrong interpretation. Scripture nowhere calls it rape nor does the writer anywhere use terms which would suggest he thought of it as rape. Look at how rape is defined in Scripture and it is clear from the narrative that what takes place is not rape. Muh "power dynamics" does not make it rape. It is an intepretation that is actually pretty novel in the history of Biblical hermeneutics.
> 
> There are a number of factors which would make me dismiss her interpretation of any part of Scripture. However the reason she has a platform within the evangelical community is because of her personal experience. That is the *only *reason we know who she is and why we are talking about her views on Scripture. Well her personal experience does not qualify her to broadcast to all of twitter her thoughts on how to read Scripture. She is not just a private individual giving her opinion. She is a public figure who has spoken at the annual meeting of the Southern Baptist Convention and who is being given a position at the table to advise on church policy. Her words, unfortunately, carry weight. And to slander David like this is pretty outrageous. The Holy Spirit nowhere thought it appropriate to call it rape and therefore not only are we without warrant to call it such but to do so is slander. The sin of *murdering* Uriah is far more serious than what David did to Bathsheba but frankly this is typical of the MeToo movement and the female narcissism that movement is built on to focus on imaginary wrongs committed against women and ignore the *real* wrongs committed against men.
> 
> I don't care what John Piper says on this matter. And I don't know who the other two are.


Whose experience does qualify them to tweet about their views on a passage of scripture? I think talking about "qualifications" here is unhelpful, and it seems strange to me that you would "dismiss her interpretation on any part of scripture". That sounds like you have decided she is in error before you look at the evidence. 

That aside, the point that she is a public figure, and thus must be careful about what she tweets is very true. On the point of slander, would you agree that those who regard Bathsheba as a "gold-digging temptress" to be guilty of slander also?

Now on the subject of the MeToo movement, I find your comments here interesting. Particulary, 



alexandermsmith said:


> movement is built on to focus on imaginary wrongs committed against women and ignore the *real* wrongs committed against men.


Are you honestly arguing that all these cases of sexual assualt are "imaginary"? Do you think Harvey Weinstein is completely innocent? And what "*real* wrongs" are being ignored here? Like the sexual assault commited against Terry Crews? How is that female narcissism exactly? 

What wrongs against men are being ignored here exactly? Please explain.

In terms of John Piper, the point I was making is that he is not exactly a "woke feminist". I mean most "thin complementarians" would object to his views on women. Do you think he is being influenced by "intersectionality" here?


Susan777 said:


> Why would I go to Rachel Denhollander for biblical interpretation? Or to Pirate Radio or to “joe and Jimmie” or some other blog? Are they Ministers of the Word? In what way are they qualified to make any such pronouncements?


I'm not saying you have to go to her, I'm just saying that her interpretation is not necessarily wrong because she has been sexually assaulted.

Chris Rosebrough is a Lutheran pastor and "Joe and Jimmie" are both also RB pastors. I simply gave them as examples because if you are familiar with Chris Rosebrough he is hardly pro-feminist. He is also a Lutheran and thus outside our little "Reformed/Reformed Baptist" arguments and feels little need to prove himself to be either as woke or as un-woke as possible.

Going by your logic, why should I listen to the majority of people on this thread, who are not ministers of the Word? Do you think they are unqualified?


----------



## OPC'n (Oct 16, 2019)

I don’t buy the whole rape thing. The Bible states David was an adulterer not a rapist and the NT won’t even speak her name. She’s not innocent in this affair.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Smeagol (Oct 16, 2019)

In the very least people should recognize and be conscience of what platform they have and decide to avoid using tweeter since/if it has caused such a ruckus for the church (regarding tweet wars). We are all likely not quite as important as we think we are to the online masses.

Reactions: Like 7


----------



## Seeking_Thy_Kingdom (Oct 16, 2019)

BottleOfTears said:


> why should I listen to the majority of people on this thread, who are not ministers of the Word? Do you think they are unqualified?


Never take anything I ever say as authoritative, and judge all that I say by the Word of God. Which is why I reject the rape accusation, there simply is no Scriptural warrant for it.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Oct 16, 2019)

The modern feminist movement claims that anytime there is an imbalance of power, sexual relations between the imbalanced parties is by definition coerced, and this could be part of why we are seeing this in regards to Bathsheba. 

As far as the actual facts of the case, while it is certainly possible that David used his power to coerce Bathsheba in some fashion, the text simply does not reveal this to us and so it is best not to speculate.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Susan777 (Oct 16, 2019)

Qualifications? I’ve endured too many bible studies where participants would say “this is what this verse/passage means to me” and now we have people tweeting out these one-liners that cause needless controversies. It only feeds our fleshly appetites.

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 1


----------



## lynnie (Oct 16, 2019)

In defense of Rachel, she never claimed to be raped, she was one of many women abused by a doctor's sinful hands going where they should not have gone while she was a girl training in hopes for the Olympics. Her testimony- I think she was the first to break the story- among others put the MD behind bars and helped many of his victims. 

She is a lawyer with a precise and detailed mind, in a Reformed Baptist Church, who does not just spout opinions but lays things out in a methodical way. Her IQ probably matches the brightest people here.

I followed her because we went to an SGM church in the 90s, and she is the person who sat down with Al Mohler and laid out for him point by point where SGM lied and misconstrued to him their response to sex abuse cases. (We had left long ago because we could never submit up the chain to Mahaney after things we saw, in their apostolic polity where he was the top authority). I think she single handedly got Mohler to open his eyes and face certain hard facts that led to his break up with Mahaney and SGM, thus effectively giving a blow to the insidious penetration of SGM into NeoCalvinism. SGM is another subject and I don't want to digress. But Rachel deserves the prominence she has gotten. It doesn't make her right, but she is worth listening to.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## BottleOfTears (Oct 16, 2019)

Seeking_Thy_Kingdom said:


> Never take anything I ever say as authoritative, and judge all that I say by the Word of God. Which is why I reject the rape accusation, there simply is no Scriptural warrant for it.


I'm not saying we should just take other peoples words as infallible. I was replying to the idea that Chris Rosebrough et al's views on said passage were irrelevant because they are not ministers (a rather unprotestant view I might add), which they are, by the way, and mentioning the fact that that claim would rule out most people on this thread.


Susan777 said:


> Qualifications? I’ve endured too many bible studies where participants would say “this is what this verse/passage means to me” and now we have people tweeting out these one-liners that cause needless controversies. It only feeds our fleshly appetites.


No one in this thread, nor any of the people I have mentioned are saying anything ridiculously post-modern as "this is what this passage means to me". I find it rather unfair that you would make that comparison.

I think rejecting people who have a different intepretation than you do as "unqualified", and yet listening to people who are actually less qualified who agree with you is rather dishonest.

If you want to see an actual pastor doing some in-depth exegesis on this subject, I suggest you watch Chris Rosebrough's video on it. He *is* qualified and he's hardly one for feeding fleshly appetites.

We can talk about Rachael Denhollander causing "needless controversies" by one tweet, but we can also talk about those who stir up controversy by unfairly accusing her of being a "woke SJW" reading scripture through an "intersectional lens" because of said tweet.


----------



## A.Joseph (Oct 16, 2019)

I’m just gonna lay it out. I don’t appreciate her analysis here at all. I’ve never heard this type of commentary on the passage and I don’t like her using it to push a modern political agenda. Whether she’s aware she is doing so is not my concern. I was a big supporter of her bringing attention to underreported instances of sex abuse in the church, but her application here is out of bounds and ultimately irrelevant, unless she’s part of a Christian feminist agenda, which is what it seems she aligns with now

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## A.Joseph (Oct 16, 2019)

We could use the same power dynamic illustration with Joseph, but why on earth would we want to?

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## Susan777 (Oct 16, 2019)

BottleOfTears said:


> I think rejecting people who have a different intepretation than you do as "unqualified", and yet listening to people who are actually less qualified who agree with you is rather dishonest.


I’m not saying that Rachel has no right to assert her opinion, but only that she has no right to assert what is not in Scripture. David’s taking of Bathsheba was not considered rape in that day and time. Rachel seems to feel that it is of utmost importance that we agree that David was a rapist, that we “get this right”. What is going on here? What is the point of this? David sinned greatly and God forgave him. All Glory be to God!

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 1


----------



## Seeking_Thy_Kingdom (Oct 16, 2019)

BottleOfTears said:


> If you want to see an actual pastor doing some in-depth exegesis on this subject, I suggest you watch Chris Rosebrough's video on it. He *is* qualified and he's hardly one for feeding fleshly appetites.


This was a good video, thank you for sharing.

He makes a very thoughtful and thorough exegesis of the text, there is a lot to think about. I would like to point out that no one here has placed any kind blame of Bathsheba, the text certainly does not say she seduced him or even wanted an affair.

He makes a small leap at verse 13, when implies that when David gave wine to Uriah in order to make him drunk, he may have done the same with Bathseba. For someone who was staying true to the text the entire time, it is a shame he suddenly adds a detail that is not given. No where does it say that David forced Bathsheba to lie with him, he did use his power as king to bring her to him, but beyond that we simply can not say that she did not willingly sleep with him. If he had gotten her drunk of forced himself on her, it would be a small thing to add that detail to the text, but it is absent.
The parable in chapter 12 is convicting. God describing her a ewe lamb is probably the best reason to think that David did rape her, but again it is not explicitly there.

When God punishes David by the death of his son, Bathsheba lost her son as well... but again, we do not hear her side of the story.


----------



## Pergamum (Oct 16, 2019)

alexandermsmith said:


> I thnk to bring "power dynamics" into the event is anachronistic. Obviously David had more power as he was king. But to follow the power dynamic argument to its conclusion wouldn't that mean that any sexual act between husbands and wives back then could be construed as rape?



Of course, if you send armed guards to go fetch a woman that might influence things.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Pergamum (Oct 16, 2019)

p.s. If Rachel Denhollander is wrong about David "raping" Bathsheba, this does not mean (1) That David's sin was merely adultery. It was also an abuse of power most likely, and (2) if Miss Denhollander is wrong on this one particular issue, this does not mean she is wrong about her advocacy in general.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## A.Joseph (Oct 16, 2019)

Pergamum said:


> p.s. If Rachel Denhollander is wrong about David "raping" Bathsheba, this does not mean (1) That David's sin was merely adultery. It was also an abuse of power most likely, and (2) if Miss Denhollander is wrong on this one particular issue, this does not mean she is wrong about her advocacy in general.


Do you believe the power dynamic is the heart of the message? Of course David used his position to sin against God and his fellow man. But using a power dynamic against women is a feminist rendering of the passage. Why not use Joseph and his masters wife as an example? These are not the true expositions but rather politically motivated commentary. We are all sensitive to such handling of scripture these days.

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## Pergamum (Oct 16, 2019)

*The "sin" of going along and not crying out:*

Some are saying that Bathsheba consented or did not fight against David. But I would like to ask if it is sinful if a woman does NOT cry out or fight during a rape.

Certainly some people get frozen in fear or at least silent in fear. I've heard of women being raped in their house while the kids slept and stayed silent and still (and even somewhat participatory) when the rapist mentioned threats concerning the children. Her efforts were to placate and please and thus spare the children any harm. Out of sheer starvation and to feed the children, some women have prostituted themselves. While we may call this sin, we should at least acknowledge mitigating factors. When a girl is brought before the king, who has the power to kill both her and her extended family, she may not have the strength of backbone to resist to the death.

In my region of the jungle we have young girls given over to marry older men. These poor girls sometimes fight. But many are resigned to their fate and go into the man's home out of family pressure and try to make the best of it (their families exchanged goods for her, after all).

What exactly is consent in these situations, after all? She is still a victim, even if she is silent.

The expectation that is is better to be dead than violated is not really true.

And even if it were, it is easy to be an armchair judge and criticize a woman for "going along" due to fear or intimidation. Joseph stayed in Potipher's house for a little while knowing that Potipher's wife fancied him, but we see no condemnation of him for not seeing the future when he would be forced to flee naked (didn't he know this was coming, after all)?

I will also point out that in Joseph's case, his concern was not sinning against Potipher by sleeping with his wife. Again, the property element comes into play again. Adultery is defrauding another man. And Joseph would not defraud his boss. Later Joseph would take CORRECTION an Egyptian wife and these actions don't seem to be condemned.


The Power dynamics angle:

Yes, the difference in power is important. Even though many woman are gold-diggers and seduce those in power, and even though some whorish women do much on the casting couch to get famous and then seek to punish those that helped make them famous in exchange for sexual favors later, this does not negate the principle. We see in the text that David approached her (rather, his soldiers approached her), and she did not seek him out. The fact that she was visible while bathing is because they were of the same extended family and shared the same complex of living spaces, probably, not because she was providing a peep show. She was simply taking her ritual bath after her menstruation.


*Conclusion:*

While Denhollender goes too far to label it rape, neither was it mere adultery. It was abuse. 

Denhollander was trying to correct the much more egregious misinterpretation that still often prevails in many Fundamentalist churches, particularly those who are sticklers for modesty and make much of Bathsheba's bath and little of David' sin in this episode. It is a needed correction, even if a slight over-correction.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## A.Joseph (Oct 16, 2019)

Pergamum said:


> *The "sin" of going along and not crying out:*
> 
> Some are saying that Bathsheba consented or did not fight against David. But I would like to ask if it is sinful if a woman does NOT cry out or fight during a rape.
> 
> ...



So the focus becomes the sexual relations? Joseph was locked up...
I think those people who make
Bathsheba to appear a temptress are just as misguided. So if that’s what DenHollander is pushing back against I guess I’m glad I have no part in this type of discussion. I don’t want to hear a child of God deemed a ‘rapist,’ and I don’t want a helpless female and victim of circumstance deemed a temptress. I don’t think it’s a healthy discussion.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Oct 16, 2019)

I think great care needs to be taken with God’s word and with how we speak about the sin of David, the man after God’s own heart, the sweet Psalmist of Israel. Yes, David sinned against God and against Bathsheba and against Uriah (and primarily, as he confessed, against God). Nowhere does the text say or imply that he threatened or forced himself upon her and we should forbear where the Scriptures do. Nowhere do the Scriptures say that Bathsheba acted inappropriately in her bathing and so we should forbear from saying any such thing. 

I checked several of the older, dependable commentators and to a man, they view David’s “sending messengers” to her (1 Samuel 11:4) as an invitation. This would fit perfectly with all passages relating David’s other interactions and relationships with women. He was a gentle man really, even though a man of war, and a man of deep feeling and sensitivity. His story with Bathsheba shows what can happen to the best when one sin leads to another, and none of us can think themselves exempt from this. It’s a shame for this story to be pulled from its context and meaning for Christians and the church and bandied about rather carelessly to make points about abusive men. We’re to read the story with a holy fear, with tears for the tragedy of sin and the incomparable, redemptive mercy of God.

Reactions: Like 5 | Amen 5


----------



## meanderingwanderer (Oct 16, 2019)

A thoughtful article on the naming/non-naming of Bathsheba in 2 Sam. 11-12 is found here:

“Foregrounding of the Designation, The Wife of Uriah the Hittite in II Samuel xi-xii.” Vetus Testamentum (54) 2004: 403-406.
Many have understood the several times Bathsheba is not named explicitly as a sign of her unimportance or guilt. However, as Dr. Petter argues above, it is actually the opposite of this.


----------



## Pergamum (Oct 16, 2019)

meanderingwanderer said:


> A thoughtful article on the naming/non-naming of Bathsheba in 2 Sam. 11-12 is found here:
> 
> “Foregrounding of the Designation, The Wife of Uriah the Hittite in II Samuel xi-xii.” Vetus Testamentum (54) 2004: 403-406.
> Many have understood the several times Bathsheba is not named explicitly as a sign of her unimportance or guilt. However, as Dr. Petter argues above, it is actually the opposite of this.



Can you explain more fully or provide a link so we can read the article?


----------



## meanderingwanderer (Oct 16, 2019)

Pergamum said:


> Can you explain more fully or provide a link so we can read the article?



You can sign up for JSTOR (it’s free) and read it online. Or, if you have library access (physical or virtual) JSTOR may be one of the journals provided.

I can give a more detailed explanation of the article if any of the above is not feasible. I may even be able to get a copy from the author/scholar. I did not study under her, but I did her husband. I may be able to contact him for assistance.

The short of it is to say that Bathsheba is not typically explicitly named; rather, she is referred to as, e. g. “the wife of Uriah”. Many have taken the biblical writer’s non-use of her personal name (in the majority of instances in which she is referred to in 2 Sam. 11-12) as reticence on his part, or perhaps an indication of her guilt (seductress, seducer). That is, he does not afford her the dignity of “naming” her the majority of the time, showing disgust for her.

In the article, it is argued the opposite is true. By referring to her as “the wife of Uriah”, the disgust and blame are squarely placed on David. It could also be seen as a way of protecting her “good” name.

The naming (designating) of a person or thing in the Hebrew narrative is important. This would be but one instance of this and its significance.

I hope this helps. I am on my phone, so a bit limited in my response. If you have further questions, let me know.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Tom Hart (Oct 16, 2019)

The mention in Matthew's geneology of "her that had been the wife of Urias" might be taken as a rather explicit reminder of David's sin.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## meanderingwanderer (Oct 17, 2019)

Tom Hart said:


> The mention in Matthew's geneology of "her that had been the wife of Urias" might be taken as a rather explicit reminder of David's sin.


I would say the same for the verses in 2 Sam. 11-12, especially, as Dr. Petter points out, in 2 Sam. 12.15. There, three persons are referenced (other than the LORD and Nathan):

“And Nathan departed unto his house. And the LORD struck the child that Uriah's wife bare unto David, and it was very sick.” ( 2 Sam. 12:15, KJV)

Notice, Bathsheba is not named explicitly, but is referred to as “Uriah’s wife” (though, David had already taken her as his own by this time; cf. 2 Sam. 11.27). The child is unnamed. But, David is explicitly named. You might say “the blame goes with the name”.

Now, an interesting question would be, “Why does Matthew follow suit?” Tradition? Jewish appeal of his Gospel account? Or, simply upholding her innocence and David’s guilt? The designation is all the more striking when considering the other women “named” in the genealogy of our Lord.


----------



## bookslover (Oct 17, 2019)

Pergamum said:


> . . .That David's sin was merely adultery. It was also an abuse of power most likely. . .



I was wondering about this. Could his act be considered rape (along with the adultery), in the sense that he had sex with her "under color of authority?" "I am the king. You are my subject. Therefore, you must submit to me."


----------



## Pergamum (Oct 17, 2019)

meanderingwanderer said:


> You can sign up for JSTOR (it’s free) and read it online. Or, if you have library access (physical or virtual) JSTOR may be one of the journals provided.
> 
> I can give a more detailed explanation of the article if any of the above is not feasible. I may even be able to get a copy from the author/scholar. I did not study under her, but I did her husband. I may be able to contact him for assistance.
> 
> ...



Oh yes, I've heard that argument and think it is a good one. We are reminded more of David's sin in this manner and that the sin was also against the good man Uriah.


----------



## Pergamum (Oct 17, 2019)

bookslover said:


> I was wondering about this. Could his act be considered rape (along with the adultery), in the sense that he had sex with her "under color of authority?" "I am the king. You are my subject. Therefore, you must submit to me."



My tentative conclusion is that it does not fit the definition of rape (taking by force), but fits the definition of abuse (use of coercion and power).


----------



## BottleOfTears (Oct 17, 2019)

Seeking_Thy_Kingdom said:


> This was a good video, thank you for sharing.
> 
> He makes a very thoughtful and thorough exegesis of the text, there is a lot to think about. I would like to point out that no one here has placed any kind blame of Bathsheba, the text certainly does not say she seduced him or even wanted an affair.
> 
> ...


Oh yes, no one here has really fallen into the opposite error as it were. I'm also not arguing for Rachael's view here really, I just think there's a bit more to it than first appearances might suggest.

The parable of the lamb is the main thing Rachael points out to back up her view, as you can see on her reply to her initial tweet, but like you say, it is not explicit in the text.

I'm more or less of the opinion that there's an abuse of power going on here at some level, but I wouldn't be able to confidently say it was rape.


alexandermsmith said:


> I thnk to bring "power dynamics" into the event is anachronistic. Obviously David had more power as he was king. But to follow the power dynamic argument to its conclusion wouldn't that mean that any sexual act between husbands and wives back then could be construed as rape?





Bill The Baptist said:


> The modern feminist movement claims that anytime there is an imbalance of power, sexual relations between the imbalanced parties is by definition coerced, and this could be part of why we are seeing this in regards to Bathsheba.


On a different note, in terms of power dynamics, which has been brought up several times in this thread, it has been claimed that Rachael subscribes to a view that "imbalance in power + sex = rape" and as alexandermsmith points out, that means any relationship with a difference in power including that of some husbands and wives would be considered rape.

As her husband points out on Twitter:


> It's not power difference + sex = rape. It's sex *because* of power difference = rape.


So basically, it's the abuse of power in order to have sex with someone, not merely sex when a difference in power exists.

Again, I would see some abuse of power going on here, I'm not sure we could say it is rape though. On the other hand I don't think I could say it was completely consensual. 

What's interesting to me however, is that the main reason Rachael gives for her position is the parable of Nathan when he confronts David, not "muh power dynamics". However, in the initial video that was posted in this thread, this was not mentioned once, nor was the text of Scripture actually looked at. We were just told that Rachael is importing "feminist views of power differentials" into the text. In fact until I linked the video by Chris Rosebrough actually going through the text, not one person here actually mentioned said parable.

Which seems to me that not many people here had actually read the twitter thread in question, nor tried to find out what Rachael's reasons were, but had simply accepted what the above video had said. And to be honest, I'm not sure said video had thought much through her views either. 

As many people have noted already, Twitter is not the most suitable medium for getting across theological points, so I would suggest watching this video by Chris Rosebrough. He's not on the exact same page as Mrs. Denhollander, but I think he does show a lot of the same reasoning from the text that she would.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Oct 17, 2019)

You guys continue to casually speculate, using weighted and insinuating phrases that inevitably would lead the reader’s mind to unwarranted conclusions. The prophet Nathan pronounced the true charge against King David, and the sentence for it. How is it that you go beyond his words from the mouth of the Lord and find warrant for speculating about ‘abuse’ and ‘rape’? Nathan says nothing about David’s power or the abuse of it, but simply that he already had been given all he could have wanted, and would have been given more, yet he took the only thing Uriah had and then killed him. The crimes were adultery and the theft of a man’s greatest treasure, his trusted wife; and murder.

Reactions: Like 4 | Amen 4


----------



## alexandermsmith (Oct 17, 2019)

Pergamum said:


> Of course, if you send armed guards to go fetch a woman that might influence things.





Pergamum said:


> p.s. If Rachel Denhollander is wrong about David "raping" Bathsheba, this does not mean (1) That David's sin was merely adultery. It was also an abuse of power most likely, and (2) if Miss Denhollander is wrong on this one particular issue, this does not mean she is wrong about her advocacy in general.



Scripture does not say they were armed guards, but messengers. If this is how she is going to about her advocacy then she is wrong. She should restrict her work to helping counsel victims of abuse and not indulging in biblical exegesis.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## alexandermsmith (Oct 17, 2019)

BottleOfTears said:


> Whose experience does qualify them to tweet about their views on a passage of scripture? I think talking about "qualifications" here is unhelpful, and it seems strange to me that you would "dismiss her interpretation on any part of scripture". That sounds like you have decided she is in error before you look at the evidence.
> 
> That aside, the point that she is a public figure, and thus must be careful about what she tweets is very true. On the point of slander, would you agree that those who regard Bathsheba as a "gold-digging temptress" to be guilty of slander also?



As noted above I did not argue that Bathsheba was a gold-digging temptress. The title of that video was deliberately provocative to make the point that there is as much evidence for that notion as there is for David having raped her.

Her personal experience does not _dis_qualify her, nor did I ever make that point. What I said was that it does not _qualify_ her to be making these public pronouncements but it is the only reason we know who she is and she has the platform she does. Because of that she should be far more circumspect in her public pronouncements and stick to what her role is. This is not about her as an individual voicing her own opinions. As you said we do that on this forum and she would be welcome to post here too and we can take or leave whatever we read here. But she has a platform that most individuals do not. Her words carry weight and influence within the church. Because of this she should not be offering her own Biblical exegesis. Especially when it is clearly influenced by unBiblical philososphies.



BottleOfTears said:


> Now on the subject of the MeToo movement, I find your comments here interesting. Particulary,
> 
> 
> Are you honestly arguing that all these cases of sexual assualt are "imaginary"? Do you think Harvey Weinstein is completely innocent? And what "*real* wrongs" are being ignored here? Like the sexual assault commited against Terry Crews? How is that female narcissism exactly?
> ...



I do not think Weinstein is "innocent", clearly he is a degenerate. As are most Hollywood people, including the women who were happy to sleep their way to the top and then cry "rape" when it was trendy to do so or when their careers had hit a dry spot. I don't believe any of the Hollywood women, frankly. They knew full well what sort of industry they were entering and they were quite happy to play the game. I have no sympathy for them. Most of what is being alleged isn't even rape anyway. Being flashed by Weinstein in a hotel room is not rape. These people in Hollywood have been spreading their filth for decades, eroding our culture, pushing anti-Christian, anti-white propaganda, celebrating perversity. You swim in the sewer you're gonna get dirty.

As to ignoring the real wrongs committed against men: well this is a perfect example. Rachel Denhollander "corrected" the original statement to "David raped". If it was going to be corrected it should have been to "David murdered" because that is surely the most heinous crime he committed. Yet to certain women that is irrelevant. It's the imaginary crime committed against Bathsheba that is focused on, not the real crime committed against Uriah.

In terms of our own society we see it all around us how men, especially white men, are being persecuted by our schools, universities, media, professions. Boys are being dragged before kangaroo courts at universities because some girl slept around and then felt bad about it. Some boys are being put on trial and sent to prison because some girl cheated on her boyfriend, got caught and lied about it. I was reading about a boy who suffers from extreme shyness and awkwardness who was arrested because when trying to talk to a girl he put his hand on her. She goes to the papers talking about how "afraid" she was. Get over it. That poor boy has been arrested because some selfish,stuck-up girl didn't like the attention. If he'd been rich she wouldn't have complained I'm sure. She sounds exactly that type.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...ent-19-faces-JAIL-sex-assault-conviction.html

MeToo is pure propaganda. And now it has come into the church.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## alexandermsmith (Oct 17, 2019)

BottleOfTears said:


> On a different note, in terms of power dynamics, which has been brought up several times in this thread, it has been claimed that Rachael subscribes to a view that "imbalance in power + sex = rape" and as alexandermsmith points out, that means any relationship with a difference in power including that of some husbands and wives would be considered rape.
> 
> As her husband points out on Twitter:
> 
> ...



After posting the OP I watched James White's take on it and became aware that she used the parable as her justification. I didn't mention that in later posts because it doesn't change my opinion on the matter. As White pointed out, she is using Nathan's parable as the controlling interpretation of the incident rather than the narrative of what happened, or Psalm 51. Of these three the parable should be the least controlling interpretation because it is a parable. The actual narrative does not describe it as a rape, David's confession in Psalm 51 does not describe it as a rape. Even saying the parable describes it as rape is pushing it. Bathsheba being described as the ewe is surely to significy that she _belonged_ to Uriah, not David, and therefore he was interfering in another's property. So, again, it is the transgression committed against Uriah which would seem to be forefront in the parable, not any transgression committed against Bathsheba.

And as White also pointed out, if the "rape" theory is true then Psalm 51 does not offer a sufficient, or full, confession. This Psalm has been _the_ Psalm of confession for the church. It has been of immense help to the Lord's people. Have we got it wrong all this time? And if we have then David's sin and _lack of _repentance loses the application it has had all this time. It becomes a very different story.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## BottleOfTears (Oct 17, 2019)

alexandermsmith said:


> I do not think Weinstein is "innocent", clearly he is a degenerate. As are most Hollywood people, including the women who were happy to sleep their way to the top and then cry "rape" when it was trendy to do so or when their careers had hit a dry spot. I don't believe any of the Hollywood women, frankly. They knew full well what sort of industry they were entering and they were quite happy to play the game. I have no sympathy for them. Most of what is being alleged isn't even rape anyway. Being flashed by Weinstein in a hotel room is not rape. These people in Hollywood have been spreading their filth for decades, eroding our culture, pushing anti-Christian, anti-white propaganda, celebrating perversity. You swim in the sewer you're gonna get dirty.
> 
> As to ignoring the real wrongs committed against men: well this is a perfect example. Rachel Denhollander "corrected" the original statement to "David raped". If it was going to be corrected it should have been to "David murdered" because that is surely the most heinous crime he committed. Yet to certain women that is irrelevant. It's the imaginary crime committed against Bathsheba that is focused on, not the real crime committed against Uriah.
> 
> ...


I really don't know what to say to that first paragraph. I mean just because someone is an actress that means their accusations of rape must be false? And most of them are as degenerate as Weinstein? You "have no sympathy" for them? Those who are sinners can still be sinned against. This is Pharisaicism of the highest order. I can imagine them saying something similar "Prostitutes are part of dirty industry I have no sympathy for them" Do you have no mercy in your soul?

You honestly think people cried "rape" because it was trendy? Or to boost their career? What? Do you realise how difficult it is for someone to acknowlege something like that? This is just victim blaming. You'd think a sudden reveal of the abuse in Hollywood, would be something we would just condemn as Christians, but instead we are just going to side with the abusers and put the same amount of blame on those who have been sexually abused as we have put on the abusers if not more? Is there actual abuse going on? Nah, its _obviously just propoganda_.

How can you just say all the accusations of sexual assault are false? One article isn't proof of that. I'm sure you wouldn't accept that the US police force is racist because of the cases in which black people have been unjustly shot.

"If he had been rich she wouldn't have complained I'm sure" what is this based on exactly? Why are all the girls greedy and sleeping around then falsely accusing people of rape but the boys are all innocent in your framework? Do you even realise the number of women that have been sexually assualted but have never said anything about it? Frankly, it's insane that you think "all around us" men are being "persecuted".

How do some false accusations invalidate all the real abuse that goes on? Should we just do nothing about it?

You think this is all just pure propoganda? This is the mistake that gets constantly made. The Devil doesn't just play one side here. It seems like you think the "feminists" are the bad side and must be opposed at all costs. But there's loads of people who are definitely not feminists who do great amounts of evil. 

Frankly, it seems like your views on this issue are so skewed you fall into exactly the same problem you accuse Mrs. Denhollander of. You view all of these attempts at exposing sexual abuse to be "pure propoganda". 

As I have made clear already, there are several decidedly "unwoke" people who have the same interpretation as Rachael, it's been 11 years since John Piper has said David raped Bathsheba and no one cares. But because Rachael says it and she's all "MeToo" and stuff, oh no it's evil propoganda infecting the church.

Maybe your view of this situation is just you viewing the text through an "anti-MeToo" lens.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## alexandermsmith (Oct 17, 2019)

BottleOfTears said:


> I really don't know what to say to that first paragraph. I mean just because someone is an actress that means their accusations of rape must be false? And most of them are as degenerate as Weinstein? You "have no sympathy" for them? Those who are sinners can still be sinned against. This is Pharisaicism of the highest order. I can imagine them saying something similar "Prostitutes are part of dirty industry I have no sympathy for them" Do you have no mercy in your soul?
> 
> You honestly think people cried "rape" because it was trendy? Or to boost their career? What? Do you realise how difficult it is for someone to acknowlege something like that? This is just victim blaming. You'd think a sudden reveal of the abuse in Hollywood, would be something we would just condemn as Christians, but instead we are just going to side with the abusers and put the same amount of blame on those who have been sexually abused as we have put on the abusers if not more? Is there actual abuse going on? Nah, its _obviously just propoganda_.
> 
> ...



I side with no one in the MeToo debacle. I have no sympathy for anyone in Hollywood. They shouldn't be in that industry in the first place. Nor, by the way, have any of these "victims" asked for sympathy or mercy from God. They have _demanded_ to be believed despite offering no evidence; they have _demanded_ retribution against whomever they feel like accusing on any particular day without offering any evidence; they have _demanded_ that we celebrate their _vile_ and _depraved _lifestyles while tweeting about how much they _love_ killing unborn babies.

For Rachel Denhollander to bring the thinking of this movement into the church, into discussions of the Bible, makes me very suspicious of her motives and wary of her actions. Perhaps her motivations are only good but what she is dallying with is toxic and is already wreaking havoc in the church.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## lynnie (Oct 17, 2019)

Just for awareness, Rachel got together with Mohler and explained how Mahaney claimed to have had an independent investigation that proved both his church and himself to be innocent of charges of sex abuse cover up.

Mahaney and his leaders got their private law firm, who had no expertise in this subject, to do a so called investigation, during which they did not talk to one single victim. None. Mahaney was very deceitful. This is why he is estranged with Mohler and I think to some degree Together for the Gospel and Gospel Coalition, but not sure what's going on, not interested in them and don't follow.

This is why Mark Galli, the President of Christianity today, wrote a lead editorial calling for a true independent investigation....which hasn't happened.

Rachel has been in the thick of dealing with victims in various situations and legal actions, and she isn't some stupid leftist calling every single touch a molestation, or excusing a Hollywood actress for willing promiscuity.

Rachel is a member of a Reformed Baptist Church. (with hub and kids). I agree with John Piper and Rachel that David committed rape, but that isn't the issue. The issue is even implying she is some sort of leftist woke gal trying to bring a toxic feminist anti-male pro abortion mentality into the church. Its disgusting, Alexander.

Are your hermeneutics perfect? Has your theology changed at all the past years? You can't give a fairly young girl a break who is trying hard to help sex abuse victims? She can't dialogue and discuss online on twitter?? Its twitter, not Sunday School, give us a break.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Adam Olive (Oct 18, 2019)

Jeri Tanner said:


> I checked several of the older, dependable commentators and to a man, they view David’s “sending messengers” to her (2 Samuel 11:4) as an invitation.



It is interesting to compare the language to earlier language in 1-2 Samuel.

(2Sa 11:4) And David _*sent messengers*_, and _*took *_her [the wife of Uriah]; and she came in unto him, and he lay with her ...

(1Sa 25:40-42) When the servants of David came to Abigail at Carmel, _*they said to her, “David has sent us to you to take you to him as his wife.”*_
And she rose and bowed with her face to the ground and said, “Behold, your handmaid is a servant to wash the feet of the servants of my lord.”
And Abigail hurried and rose and mounted a donkey, and her five young women attended her. _*She followed the messengers of David and became his wife*_.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Oct 18, 2019)

lynnie said:


> I agree with John Piper and Rachel that David committed rape



John Piper holds this opinion? Do you have a source?



lynnie said:


> The issue is even implying she is some sort of leftist woke gal trying to bring a toxic feminist anti-male pro abortion mentality into the church. Its disgusting, Alexander.



Did Alexander say that she was bringing a pro-abortion mentality into the church? I may have missed it, but I do not recall him making that claim. He did say in post #50 that "perhaps her motivations are good", but he thinks that she is bringing certain aspects of the #MeToo movement into the church. Given the "creative" exegesis of the passage in question - not to mention the times in which we live - it is hard to dismiss this conclusion entirely.


----------



## Pergamum (Oct 18, 2019)

I know many are unhappy with the excesses of the #Metoo movement. But I believe the world has often dealt with sexual abuse (especially of children) better than the church. The #Churchtoo movement is helpful and a lot of good is happening. We should not resist it due to some minor excesses.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Smeagol (Oct 18, 2019)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> John Piper holds this opinion? Do you have a source?


https://www.desiringgod.org/intervi...ng-him-against-you-and-you-only-have-i-sinned

Sharing only as an FYI. I do not agree with Piper regarding the question at hand.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Oct 18, 2019)

Grant Jones said:


> https://www.desiringgod.org/intervi...ng-him-against-you-and-you-only-have-i-sinned
> 
> Sharing Ailey as an FYI. I do not agree with Piper regarding the question at hand.



Thanks, Grant. I will check it out later today.


----------



## alexandermsmith (Oct 18, 2019)

lynnie said:


> Just for awareness, Rachel got together with Mohler and explained how Mahaney claimed to have had an independent investigation that proved both his church and himself to be innocent of charges of sex abuse cover up.
> 
> Mahaney and his leaders got their private law firm, who had no expertise in this subject, to do a so called investigation, during which they did not talk to one single victim. None. Mahaney was very deceitful. This is why he is estranged with Mohler and I think to some degree Together for the Gospel and Gospel Coalition, but not sure what's going on, not interested in them and don't follow.
> 
> ...



I didn't call her a Leftist, nor did I say she personally was advocating abortion. What I said was that she is using the paradigm of the leftists- wittingly or unwittingly. Frankly her membership of a "Reformed Baptist church" is meaningless to me. What is this church? What are their standards for membership? How rigorous are they in their discipline? I have no idea. I can only judge her on her words and actions. And I find them very concerning.

I have never claimed my hermeneutics are perfect. That is irrelevant, as if only "perfect" people can criticise or draw attention to problems in others' teaching. But neither do I have a big platform on Twitter, or a seat at the SBC Annual Meeting, or a book published by Tyndale being distributed by the big Christian retailers. So actually what she says matters quite a bit.

If she is only "a fairly young girl" then why are we listening to her? Why has she got a book deal? Why is she being raised to prominence within the SBC? You can't have it both ways. What I find _disturbing_ is that a woman has taken it upon herself to start trying to redefine how we understand the Bible in order to promote an agenda. It's not acceptable.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## lynnie (Oct 18, 2019)

Reformed Covenanter/Alexander.... Alexander said this: 

_ they have demanded that we celebrate their vile and depraved lifestyles while tweeting about how much they love killing unborn babies.

For Rachel Denhollander to bring the thinking of this movement into the church, into discussions of the Bible, makes me very suspicious of her motives and wary of her actions._

You are all welcome to your opinions, but your phrasing was awful. "bring the thinking of this movement into the church" follows a reference to loving killing babies. 

I will allow that we all write hastily and poorly at times ( I sure do). You explained what you meant as "I didn't call her a Leftist, nor did I say she personally was advocating abortion. What I said was that she is using the paradigm of the leftists- wittingly or unwittingly."

I don't think she is, I think she is one of many people who are sick of years of churches refusing to call the cops about sex abusers and sweeping victims under the bus. Boz "rhymes with religion" of G.R.A.C.E says that about 75% of churches rally round to try and help and even coddle the perps, while ignoring the victims or even implying it was their fault somehow. The left is not 100% wrong about everything- they have it right about certain things, and one of them is the way women who have been genuinely sexually abused get trashed and ignored, even in churches. 

Just to give you an idea where I am coming from, my niece's husband is a cop who works for the state attorney general, won't say which one. He is in the age 9 and under pedophile p0rn unit. In general they have women who do the really gross stuff involving what you have to see online, he does a lot of arrests. He helps put away behind bars maybe 300 guys a year. Its at the highest professional levels. Doctors, school teachers, youth pastors, lawyers, you name it. These men (maybe a very tiny percent women) are addicted to internet videos of screaming little kids like five year olds being raped. They managed to catch one guy who was filming a two year old girl but she died from the penetration injuring her interior. Some of these addicts go to evangelical churches.

I know another woman in a different state whose husband was a chaplain but is now FULL TIME working with CHURCH LEADERS including many senior pastors who are sex/p0rn addicts in some fashion or other. She told me it is almost incomprehensible how widespread and pervasive it is in churches. If you think being confessional is some sort of magic protection and it isn't in your church or denomination, think again. 

Anyway, if you were well read on this subject, and I don't think you are, you would have more of an idea how endemic the problem is and how often the victims- genuine victims- get brushed aside, and where Rachel is coming from. Yes, plenty of females have slept their way to the top in their careers, and plenty of women after a drunk promiscuous evening start accusing the next morning, when they have nobody to blame but themselves. It isn't black and white.

Rachel may not have it perfect, but she is far closer to the truth than anybody accusing Bathsheba of sin, or anybody accusing Rachel of some sort of toxic feminism. 

Pergammum- I do want to thank you for your many thoughtful posts in this thread.


----------



## Smeagol (Oct 18, 2019)

lynnie said:


> but she is far closer to the truth than anybody accusing Bathsheba of sin,


But that is the question isn’t it? I disagree that she is closer than the likes of Sproul Sr., Gill, Matthew Henry.... the list goes on, whom concur that she gave consent to the affair. David’s sin was no doubt the greater (though not rape), but Bathsheba was certainly not blameless.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Seeking_Thy_Kingdom (Oct 18, 2019)

Adam Olive said:


> (1Sa 25:40-42) When the servants of David came to Abigail at Carmel, _*they said to her, “David has sent us to you to take you to him as his wife.”*_


This is helpful, in the ears of a modern anti-patriarchal feminist this would be tantamount to rape.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Oct 18, 2019)

According to Matthew Poole's commentary on 2 Samuel 11:4, David took Bathsheba "from her own house into his palace, *not by force, but by persuasion*, as desiring to speak with her ... *she so easily yielded to it* ..." (_A Commentary on the Holy Bible_, 1: 606)

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Smeagol (Oct 18, 2019)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> According to Matthew Poole's commentary on 2 Samuel 11:4, David took Bathsheba "from her own house into his palace, *not by force, but by persuasion*, as desiring to speak with her ... *she so easily yielded to it* ..." (_A Commentary on the Holy Bible_, 1: 606)


Indeed. Quite a different response than Joseph. Makes one ask ....Would Joseph have been blameless in giving into Potiphar’s wife? I think not.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Oct 18, 2019)

Grant Jones said:


> Indeed. Quite a different response than Joseph. Makes one ask ....Would Joseph have been blameless in giving into Potiphar’s wife? I think not.



Ding, ding, ding, we have a winner. Potiphar's wife was abusing her power in enticing Joseph, but if he had given in she would not have been guilty of raping him.

Reactions: Like 7


----------



## Edward (Oct 18, 2019)

Certainly, by 21st Century standards, it would be defined as rape, but, then again, some folks try to judge the peculiar institution of our antebellum ancestors by 21st Century standards. 

It might be more productive to judge David by the 10 Commandments. 

Violation of the Third Commandment (WLC 113) ( 2 Sam. 12:5)
Violation of the Fifth Commandment (WLC 129, 130)
Violation of the Sixth Commandment (WLC 136)
Violations of the Seventh Commandment (WLC 139) 
Violation of the Eighth Commandment (WLC 142)
and, of course, the Tenth Commandment (WLC 146)

Six out of 10 in an extended effort.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Oct 18, 2019)

Edward said:


> Certainly, by 21st Century standards, it would be defined as rape



By the standards of the present day, saying "Hi" to a Feminist is tantamount to a rape ... and that is not even an exaggeration.

Reactions: Sad 1


----------



## Pergamum (Oct 19, 2019)

The author of the book is hardly a feminist, though. 

And she gives a better alternative than some of the things Douglas Wilson says. That is one problem in all of these debates, is that EVERYONE I read after about 1990 is wrong...and not a single one gives the correct position. Not since the Puritans put out several books on the duties of family members.


----------



## lynnie (Oct 19, 2019)

Nobody was there. Nobody saw what happened. Nobody knows if she begged him not to do this wicked thing, like Tamar with Amnon.

I was never raped, but I know women who were. Even in today's culture where you are told to fight back, scream and holler and go for the eyeballs, women can freeze. It is almost instinctive. The guy is bigger and stronger. 

This was the KING. Not some British figurehead, but essentially an absolute dictator. He killed Goliath, he led the nation into battle, he was probably as buff as any guy today who spends all his free time at the gym. She would have been terrified to say no. In that culture, women submitted to men. 

Uriah was an unselfish and loyal caring man. She probably loved and respected him. He was not a Nabal. 

If you have any moral equivalency going on in your mind about this (both sides sinned the same, equal mutual consent) you are slandering Bathsheba and making excuses for the wickedness of David, and you need to repent. Even if she seemed to go along with it and seemed to consent, if you can't see how forced it was by the status of David you don't understand sex abuse. 

At the end, nobody was there, nobody saw it, and isn't it the godly response to believe the best of the woman when there are no facts?


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Oct 19, 2019)

lynnie said:


> ...he was probably as buff as any guy today who spends all his free time at the gym


Really Lynnie! Talk about taking liberties with the text.

Get to know King David, because some of you don’t, and get to know his story as it pertains to redemptive history because that is the context of the accounts and that is what God is showing us in the accounts. Bandying about loose words like rape, abuse, when those things are not what the Bible says happened, making what happened with David, Uriah and his wife into fodder somehow related to the contemporary mess of a “conversation” happening on social media is a tragic mistake. We should fear and tremble before the Lord to drag biblical events that are meant to teach us one thing into arenas that are not fitting for such careless, unholy use.

Are a certain segment of the Christian population now unable to just talk about a crime that happened, and why it was evil based on God’s law, without wading into God’s word to try and find a similar wrongdoer among God’s saints?

Reactions: Like 3 | Amen 1


----------



## Susan777 (Oct 19, 2019)

lynnie said:


> If you have any moral equivalency going on in your mind about this (both sides sinned the same, equal mutual consent) you are slandering Bathsheba and making excuses for the wickedness of David, and you need to repent.


I don’t have any moral equivalency going on in my mind because I cannot go beyond Scripture. I must take what God has provided for us in His Word and refrain from speculation. Therefore there is no repentance needed.

Reactions: Amen 2


----------



## Smeagol (Oct 19, 2019)

lynnie said:


> Nobody was there. Nobody saw what happened. Nobody knows if she begged him not to do this wicked thing, like Tamar with Amnon.


Exactly, so we cannot dogmatically say “rape”. However David was there and he confessed his sin, which did not include a confession of rape.

Here are some questions (hurdles) to be considered if one is going to say “David raped”:

1. Was Potiphar’s wife trying to “rape” Joesph or just sleep with him?

2. If Joseph would have given in to the force and authority of Potiphar’s wife, would you have called it rape?

3. Why did Bathsheba wash afterwards? After all, if someone is raped then “cleaning up” (though ceremonial) is odd if she needs to tell someone.

4. If David indeed “raped” her as you say, then why did he call Uriah back? Follow me for a moment. Do you consider Uriah to have been a noble and Godly man? Do you think he loved his wife? It seems both can be dogmatically affirmed! If David raped her, why on earth would he bring Uriah back 1st , before having him killed? Why not have him killed first? Do you not think Uriah would have believed his Wife that she was raped? In other words, if you look at David’s cover-up strategy, it points to both parties being involved in the coverup. If a women is raped, do you not think she would tell her own husband? Of course she would, so why on earth would David call Uriah back to spend the night and sleep with her if David had brutally raped her? David’s plan makes more sense with both parties being involved in the coverup, to have Uriah sleep with his wife to hopefully calm things down with the pregnancy. So if you charge David with rape, you also have to assume terrible things about Uriah’s character.

I hope that makes since and helps

I think those of us who say David did not rape and that Bathsheba as NOT blameless all would agree that David was guilty of greater sin and was rightly held accountable by God through Nathan for the whole matter.


----------



## Ed Walsh (Oct 19, 2019)

Jeri Tanner said:


> Really Lynnie! Talk about taking liberties with the text.



"And he sent and brought him in. Now he was ruddy and had beautiful eyes and was handsome." (1 Samuel 16:12)

I think there is no doubt but that David was in incredibly good shape.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Oct 19, 2019)

Ed Walsh said:


> "And he sent and brought him in. Now he was ruddy and had beautiful eyes and was handsome." (1 Samuel 16:12)
> 
> I think there is no doubt but that David was in incredibly good shape.


Well, David was 50 when he had Uriah killed, as compared to a lad when your description was given... but again, that’s not the point. The liberties with the text consist of speculation about David’s sin using things like whether he was good-looking and buff to justify the accusation that he raped Bathsheba. There is much, much speculation going on that I find troubling. 

One can commit a 9th commandment violation against a dead saint, too. We need to tread much more carefully.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Oct 19, 2019)

Grant, the KJV has “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.” It seems to indicate that the washing for purification was the bathing described initially.


----------



## Smeagol (Oct 19, 2019)

Jeri Tanner said:


> Grant, the KJV has “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.” It seems to indicate that the washing for purification was the bathing described initially.


I think the phrasing is more complicated than that. Maybe someone else can weigh in. If you look at some commentators, they note the post-encounter washing. Check the rendering in the NASB. Regardless the other questions still stand.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Oct 19, 2019)

Grant Jones said:


> 2. Why did Bathsheba wash afterwards? After all, if someone is raped then “cleaning up” (though ceremonial) is odd if she needs to tell someone.


I think calling her behavior "odd" is, well, odd. People are creatures of habit, and living by Mosaic Law ceremonies was a pretty ingrained pattern. It could be menstruation cleansing (pointing to the original bathing 11:2), or

Lev.5:18 Also, when a woman lies with a man, and _there is_ an emission of semen, they shall bathe in water, and be unclean until evening​
Furthermore, that was not a time and place when "forensic evidence" was people's concern. What was she going to do? Find someone to take a certain blue dress into evidence in due time?

The text note could be a further indicator that the Law was active in presence, and was functioning in a convicting way. People will do things to _mitigate _their guilt, or (to placate anyone in a strong mode to deny any failure on B.'s side) even just their _feelings _of guilt, and shame. Bathsheba must have felt shame, even if just for giving in to the king's advances. Women and men placed in position of powerlessness and vulnerability must cope with the aftereffects of their experiences.

Honestly, today one of the big obstacles to right interpretation is that western culture (even the church within it) has lost ALL sense of shame. There are passages of Scripture (I think this is one of them) that are greatly misunderstood because we assume those ancient people, living in an honor/shame culture quite unlike ours, acted out a mindset based on the modern conception of rights-culture.

A man or woman could be caught in a situation that brought _shame _on them, and there was nothing he or she could do to avoid it; just deal with it, perhaps find restoration from it out the other side, or when something new _happened, _to restore them once more a measure of honor. In a way, our original sin problem is a manifestation of a shame problem that happened to us, causing us to be _born in _shame by nature, in Adam.

Another thing the text note teaches is a _definite sign _that a child was possible. It sets us up for the notice that comes later. The coverup will not stand.

There is nothing wrong, actually, with using the modern phrase "power dynamics" to describe particular aggravations (WLC 151) of sin. The redemptive historical reality of David's sin has such a monstrous quality, it is akin to Adam's fall. It makes Bathsheba's participation almost unnoticeable. She is simply overshadowed in the affair, and Scripture treats her with some measure of grace, kind of like it does Eve. She is not presented to us as a a woman of "brazen face," Prv.7:13.

The focus of the story is fixed on David, his adultery, his murderous coverup, his trampling of God's grace and his immense blessings. When we compare these sins of David to the sins that Saul committed, that resulted in the kingdom being torn from him and given to David, David's seem worse when looked at in a purely comparative light. If Saul was rejected for what he did in 1Sam, the book of 2Sam invites us to wonder how David could possibly escape an even greater rejection.

Bathsheba's participation, her compulsion, her trauma, her willingness, her victimhood, her shame, her profiting, her sorrow--so much of her story is simply lost behind David's massive culpability. I think, for spiritual readers and hearers of a more ancient time, they would have seen her situation as _shameful, _per se. And for any or all the reasons we have come up with to place the blame on this and that, on one person or another. And in that, she is all of us, and we are all her.

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## Smeagol (Oct 19, 2019)

Contra_Mundum said:


> I think calling her behavior "odd" is, well, odd. People are creatures of habit, and living by Mosaic Law ceremonies was a pretty ingrained pattern. It could be menstruation cleansing (pointing to the original bathing 11:2), or
> 
> Lev.5:18 Also, when a woman lies with a man, and _there is_ an emission of semen, they shall bathe in water, and be unclean until evening​
> Furthermore, that was not a time and place when "forensic evidence" was people's concern. What was she going to do? Find someone to take a certain blue dress into evidence in due time?
> ...


Bruce,

Thank you for that, I agree. My word choice of “odd” was inaccurate. As I stated earlier, if that washing provides “zero” sway either way, the other questions about Joseph and Uriah still pose some hurdles to the charge “David Raped”.


----------



## Ed Walsh (Oct 19, 2019)

Jeri Tanner said:


> There is much, much speculation going on that I find troubling.



That's why I stayed out of this one. Here's all we know.

2 Samuel 11:2-4
2 It happened, late one afternoon, when David arose from his couch and was walking on the roof of the king's house, that he saw from the roof a woman bathing; and the woman was very beautiful. 3 And David sent and inquired about the woman. And one said, "Is not this Bathsheba, the daughter of Eliam, the wife of Uriah the Hittite?" 4 So David sent messengers and took her, and she came to him, and he lay with her. (Now she had been purifying herself from her uncleanness.) Then she returned to her house.


David had some time on his hands. (The reason is another subject)

He happened to see a very beautiful [partly?] naked woman and became obsessed with her.
David asked about her and found out she was married to one of David's "thirty mighty men." (2 Samuel 20:39) Surely David knew Uriah on some level.

"David sent messengers and _took_ her," The word for 'took' is used 969 times and has a broad-ranging meaning. It can mean taking a willing bride in marriage, receiving something, pick something up, bring, draw, get, to rescue someone from trouble, etc. But it never [rarely] seems to mean taking something by force.
Bathseba _came_ to him, and they had sex. (not, was _brought_ to him)

"Then, she returned to her house."
That's is. We know nothing of Bathsheba's state of mind. There is nothing to indicate rape on the one hand or willing participation on the other.

That's the story. Everything else is arguing from silence.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## lynnie (Oct 19, 2019)

Grant, 1.sleep, 2. no. 3. huh? Who was she going to tell? Read up on little girls who get molested, some of them take several showers a day and change their underpants all the time. There is a desperate desire to feel clean. Washing makes total and complete sense after a man defiles you with his obvious lust. It would not have felt like a loving experience that leaves a woman with positive emotions, it would have left Bathsheba feeling dirtied at best. So tragic. 

To be honest, I figure she maybe sort of consented because she was so intimidated by him being the king, and it happened suddenly, and she was probably so afraid to resist. Classic syndrome. So afterwards she would have been stricken with guilt and shame, and agreed when/if David asked her to keep it secret (OK, I'm speculating). This is perfectly consistent with many stories of abuse I've heard about....it can take years before the women finally says what happened even when it was 100% not her fault. Shame and feeling dirtied is powerful. 

The thread started about Rachel. In the USA, among Calvinist Baptists, John Piper is held in high esteem. I never read his essay on this but somebody posted that Piper called it rape, and I assume-assume- Rachel must have read it in the course of drawing her conclusions. I also know that the Justice Department has widened the definition of rape that was around since the 30s and I'm not sure what the legalese is, but Rachel is a lawyer and it is possible that her use of the word rape is accurate these days given the disparity in power. My main reason to even start in on here was to try and defend Rachel's personal integrity and godliness and valid contributions to any discussion of sex abuse, whether you agree with her or not.


----------



## Smeagol (Oct 19, 2019)

Grant Jones said:


> 2. If Joseph would have given in to the force and authority of Potiphar’s wife, would you have called it rape?





lynnie said:


> 2. no


Why?


----------



## lynnie (Oct 19, 2019)

Grant Jones said:


> Why?


I have no answer because I cant even picture it. A woman can do nothing and freeze and be still and have intercourse. A guy has to move. He has to actively do something. He can't freeze in fear and do it. 

Do we really need to go down this road in discussion? I don't know anything about so called female rape. Is this what they call it when women teachers do it with underage boys? Does this have anything to do with Rachel D and John Piper thinking what David did was rape? Not sure what the legal term for your scenario is...coercion maybe?


----------



## Smeagol (Oct 19, 2019)

lynnie said:


> I have no answer because I cant even picture it. A woman can do nothing and freeze and be still and have intercourse. A guy has to move. He has to actively do something. He can't freeze in fear and do it.


This is false. However, I would rather not discuss the details of that for obvious reasons. We can agree to disagree.


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Oct 19, 2019)

We are going in circles and beyond. I suggest letting the thread die a merciful death.

Reactions: Amen 4


----------



## Pergamum (Oct 19, 2019)

Jeri Tanner said:


> Really Lynnie! Talk about taking liberties with the text.
> 
> Get to know King David, because some of you don’t, and get to know his story as it pertains to redemptive history because that is the context of the accounts and that is what God is showing us in the accounts. Bandying about loose words like rape, abuse, when those things are not what the Bible says happened, making what happened with David, Uriah and his wife into fodder somehow related to the contemporary mess of a “conversation” happening on social media is a tragic mistake. We should fear and tremble before the Lord to drag biblical events that are meant to teach us one thing into arenas that are not fitting for such careless, unholy use.
> 
> Are a certain segment of the Christian population now unable to just talk about a crime that happened, and why it was evil based on God’s law, without wading into God’s word to try and find a similar wrongdoer among God’s saints?



Lynnie did say "probably" and I would agree with her. He was a warrior and fought many battles and was known to have killed many. He might have been intimidating. That is a fair guess.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## A.Joseph (Oct 20, 2019)

Sincere question, when Esther was chosen to be queen, could she have refused? It just seems women were often chosen or given in marriage ....

Should we say that Esther was raped? I’m not trying to hold David to lesser standards or give him a pass...

I just think there may be some legit parallels for further consideration. And I’m not a fan of modern interpretation for the purpose of cherry picking.

I’m not a fan of being loose and free with language, interpretation and accusation outside of what’s confirmed and affirmed in Gods word.

Anyway did anyone see the article in CT?

https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2019/october-web-only/david-bathsheba-debate-murder-rapist.html


----------



## A.Joseph (Oct 20, 2019)

What drives me nuts is the CT author writes,

“Perhaps more intriguing than determining David’s motives is our own determination to spare him from disrepute.”

My issue is viewing and critiquing scripture from an Intersectionality- power dynamic rather than a straight view of sin and Gods mercy and favor. Not because I want to absolve David...

who doesn’t shutter at the fact that a man of Gods own heart can commit such horrific sins against this same God who has blessed him so richly. 

These modern spins are very slippery.


----------



## Susan777 (Oct 20, 2019)

A.Joseph said:


> What drives me nuts is the CT author writes,
> 
> “Perhaps more intriguing than determining David’s motives is our own determination to spare him from disrepute.”
> 
> ...


Hmmm....that’s about par for the course for CT.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## A.Joseph (Oct 20, 2019)

So the CT author goes on to declare (regarding David the murderer vs David the rapist)..

“So why has this particular story become such a contentious one for us? I’m convinced that we don’t want David to be a rapist because we don’t want to reckon with the sin of abusive power.

If David was merely a weak man who fell prey to a tempting woman on a lonely night, then we don’t have to grapple with the far more insidious reality: David was one of many (mostly men) throughout history who used their power for sexual exploitation. He leveraged his position as king to have an innocent man killed after using his power to summon and sexually exploit that innocent man’s wife.

Is it any wonder that this great evil has largely remained unexplored in David’s story when the majority of those entrusted with telling the story stands to profit from not pointing it out? When we get to the story of David and Bathsheba the ones who would benefit most from sitting under the sobering impact of the story are those who are responsible for the telling. The spiritual leaders in our churches, mostly male pastors, must be willing to tell the story the way it is written: as an indictment of the spiritual abuse of power for exploitation. They must measure their life and the culture of leadership in their church in its scales.

We have to consider that we may have misread this story in a major way. Our misunderstanding and misrepresentation of what happened with David and Bathsheba may result in a truncated understanding of God’s good vision of power and sex, just when we so desperately need a holy vision for these things.

Perhaps the story of David isn’t just a cool story about giants defeated and battles won, but also a cautionary tale about the way that power can corrupt even the noble. And that the same power that a king had earlier used to defend the vulnerable could be turned to exploit the vulnerable.

The story of David and Bathsheba is an invitation to all of us, but particularly those in place of spiritual authority and leadership, to consider if we are making use of God’s gift in the way he intended. Power is a gift from God, but the temptation to use it for our own selfish gain is ever-present and endlessly enticing. Those entrusted with power must look to the Son of God, Jesus Christ, as the paradigm for faithful practice of power.

He, who possessed everything by right, surrendered it all for love. Christ, to whom the whole world belonged, approached the vulnerable with care and honor. Christ used his power to dignify the vulnerable and defend the shamed. What will we do with the power we’ve been given?“

I wholly reject this thesis. Maybe there are a few in which this applies, but to make such a grand and sweeping statement is problematic. Maybe being a member of the opc this does not hit home, I don’t know. (We are not really part of Big Eva). But I think she’s truly reaching.

I would argue that women have and would abuse power just as much. This is not a knock on women, it’s a knock on the human condition of fallen humanity.


----------



## A.Joseph (Oct 20, 2019)

Don’t get me wrong, David definitely abuses power. But him having power is not as important as the fact that he was given the power from God and sinned it away. We learn later on that David’s biggest offense was sinning against God. That is the most important part of the message.


----------



## lynnie (Oct 20, 2019)

Thank you for the excellent CT article link.

It is nice I guess that some of you can't relate to what he writes and don't understand how true it is. Sometimes I wish I wasn't aware of the awful things that happen in churches. If God ordained your innocence...or ignorance...its nice you've been sheltered. But I'm glad to know CT published this.


----------



## A.Joseph (Oct 21, 2019)

lynnie said:


> Thank you for the excellent CT article link.
> 
> It is nice I guess that some of you can't relate to what he writes and don't understand how true it is. Sometimes I wish I wasn't aware of the awful things that happen in churches. If God ordained your innocence...or ignorance...its nice you've been sheltered. But I'm glad to know CT published this.


you seem very nice, but it’s a false dichotomy. You can be against pastors who abuse power without handling scripture too loosely. We know enough about the passage to know David meant for the death of Uriah.... the rest not so much. Do you know about Intersectionality? Does abuse of power only apply to men ?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Smeagol (Oct 21, 2019)

lynnie said:


> Thank you for the excellent CT article link.
> 
> It is nice I guess that some of you can't relate to what he writes and don't understand how true it is. Sometimes I wish I wasn't aware of the awful things that happen in churches. If God ordained your innocence...or ignorance...its nice you've been sheltered. But I'm glad to know CT published this.



Lynnie this again is an assumption that contributors here are “innocent or ignorant and sheltered”. That is wrong and again speculation. It further assumes that contributors here have not experienced sexual abuse directly. Others should not have to air out dirty laundry just so their answers seem more informed. Not everyone who has gone through a traumatic experience has to write a book to be validated. There are other ways. Based both on my own experiences and developing a Child Protection Policy for our congregation, I can say I have become closely familiar with cases of sexual abuse and yes have had to deal with some hitting close to home. So yes I can relate and others likely can too based on the statistics, but again I disagree with the conclusion “David raped”.

The Author actually states that David’s actions do NOT meet the biblical definition of rape, but meets the “modern” one.

_“I agree with Abasili’s analysis that the story doesn’t include the details that seem to be specific to instances of a Hebrew understanding of rape—namely, the use of direct physical force and the victim crying out in anguish for help. And yet, the story of David and Bathsheba appears to many modern readers, including me, to meet contemporary definitions of rape.”_


Well there you have it have, the biblical definition (God’s) is being set aside to impose a modern charge of rape on David. So now one would have to admit that society now defines sin instead of God in his Word, if lodging the charge “David raped”. But even then one has to ask himself, do we have enough evidence to charge David with rape as defined in the law today (this already gets close if not crosses into a 9CV)?

See the DOJ’s definition of rape here: https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/blog/updated-definition-rape

Well it looks not to be so, as the text seems to show that Bathsheba gave consent in some way, though she was likely under authoritative pressure. Joseph was under authoritative pressure. Joseph had less rights than Bethsheba as he was a slave. Again, by Joseph's example, you can always say “no” even if persecution comes. You yourself have stated that only a man can rape a women, but a women cannot rape a man. That is folly and you should be able to research cases exposing that fact without me having to explain to details of intercourse, though obvious.

I have no issues charging David with rape, so long as the word of God describes him doing as such.

I am happy to try to hammer this out as it is obviously a question being thrown back at the Church.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Pergamum (Oct 21, 2019)

Grant Jones said:


> Lynnie this again is an assumption that contributors here are “innocent or ignorant and sheltered”. That is wrong and again speculation. It further assumes that contributors here have not experienced sexual abuse directly. Others should not have to air out dirty laundry just so you feel their answers are more informed. Not everyone who has gone through a traumatic experience has to write a book to be validated. There are other ways. I assure you, based both on my own experiences and developing a Child Protection Policy for our congregation, that I have become closely familiar with cases of sexual abuse and yes have had to deal with some hitting close to home. So yes i can relate and others likely can too based on the statistics, but again I disagree with the conclusion “David raped”.
> 
> The Author actually states that David’s actions do NOT meet the biblical definition of rape, but meets the “modern” one.
> 
> ...




"You yourself have stated that only a man can rape a women, but a women cannot rape a man. That is folly..."

Not folly at all.

Fear and abuse tends to kill erections, and the raper usually commits a penetrative act upon the victim. So NO.....a woman cannot rape a man in the same manner as a man rapes a woman. Female teachers may seduce or fondle under-age boys, but rarely is it through brute force that she gets her way. 

Up until a decade or two ago, penile penetration was a legal requirement in the UK for the charge of rape. 

The closest equivalent is a drunk man being used, as we see with Lot and his daughters. But...on a sidenote, we see no Twitter-storm railing against all the Bible commentaries calling this sin "incest" rather than rape.


----------



## Smeagol (Oct 21, 2019)

Pergamum said:


> So NO.....a woman cannot rape a man in the same manner as a man rapes a woman.


No one said the “same manner”.

Can a women rape a man? Yes or No


----------



## Smeagol (Oct 21, 2019)

Pergamum said:


> But...on a sidenote, we see no Twitter-storm railing against all the Bible commentaries calling this sin "incest" rather than rape.


That war would only occur if the genders were reversed and i think you know it.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Pergamum (Oct 21, 2019)

Grant Jones said:


> No one said the “same manner”.
> 
> Can a women rape a man? Yes or No



No. 

The UK's Sexual Offences Act (2003): ‘A person (A) commits an offence if – (a) he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person (B) with his penis, (b) B does not consent to the penetration, and (c) A does not reasonably believe that B consents’ (p.2)."

Note B..."a penis"... so unless she has a penis, she can't rape.


----------



## Smeagol (Oct 21, 2019)

Pergamum said:


> No.
> 
> The UK's Sexual Offences Act (2003): ‘A person (A) commits an offence if – (a) he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person (B) with his penis, (b) B does not consent to the penetration, and (c) A does not reasonably believe that B consents’ (p.2)."
> 
> Note B..."a penis"... so unless she has a penis, she can't rape.


Wow. That is bad news for the mentally ill and male children.

Perg, I will digress. My point is that landing, from God’s Word, that David raped, seems to be an abuse of the text and a redefining of a category of sin.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Phil D. (Oct 21, 2019)

This thread ceased being edifying long ago.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Pergamum (Oct 21, 2019)

Grant Jones said:


> Wow. That is bad news for the mentally ill and male children.
> 
> Perg, I will digress. My point is that landing, from God’s Word, that David raped, seems to be an abuse of the text and redefining of sin.



My conclusions: (1) Yes, you are right. (2) The article I linked (Abasili) is right. The OT definition of rape is not reached, but the modern definition of rape may apply. (3) It was abuse. He abused his power and coerced her. (4) Just because she did not scream or asked to be killed rather than violated, doesn't make it consensual. Women were sort of like property and even dealt as such in the Bible, and so she went along. I see child brides who relent because they don't really have any other choice. (5) I don't think she tempted him or was a seductress. She probably made the best of the situation. (6) The Bible places the blame on David, not on her. (7). Some are discounting other things Denhollender says due to this Tweet. That is a mistake, she is gifted in this area and needs to be listened to. (8). The abuse of children fits under the legal definition of molestation, not rape. Female teachers may molest or seduce a minor, but females have no penis to penetrate with and so older legal definitions of rape are not reached. (9). The Church has had a horrible record in dealing with these issues and the #Churchtoo Movement is a mostly good response to that.

Reactions: Like 2 | Informative 1


----------



## Pergamum (Oct 21, 2019)

Phil D. said:


> This thread ceased being edifying long ago.


Then don't read it.

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## Smeagol (Oct 21, 2019)

Pergamum said:


> 7). Some are discounting other things Denhollender says due to this Tweet. That is a mistake, she is gifted in this area and needs to be listened to



First I commend you for trying to be balanced. I did want to comment on the above. I do not discount her, as I do not know here. However I can only go on what she says. I think she did an excellent job in court. However, I hope this serves as a good lesson for her to grow from. To beware of Twitter Mob Wars and coming off as authoritative on a text that has historically been interpreted otherwise.


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Oct 21, 2019)

Pergamum said:


> Then don't read it.


Threads exist to be read and this one is long past needing to end. I’d hoped a suggestion that it do so would be enough. Shutting it down.

Reactions: Like 4


----------

