David and Bathsheba and rape

[alexandermsmith]

Well this is going well...

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

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

 

[Pergamum]

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.

 

[greenbaggins]

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]

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]

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.

 

[alexandermsmith]

Certainly. Doesn't make it rape though.

 

[Seeking_Thy_Kingdom]

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.

 

[Jeri Tanner]

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

 

[Seeking_Thy_Kingdom]

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.

 

[Von]

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

 

[alexandermsmith]

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.

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.

 

[Seeking_Thy_Kingdom]

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.

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.

 

[BottleOfTears]

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?

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]

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.

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.

 

[Seeking_Thy_Kingdom]

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.

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.

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.

 

[alexandermsmith]

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.

 

[Susan777]

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.

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.

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?

 

[BottleOfTears]

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.

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,

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?

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]

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.

 

[Grant]

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.

 

[Seeking_Thy_Kingdom]

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.

 

[Bill The Baptist]

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.

 

[Susan777]

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.

 

[lynnie]

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.

 

[BottleOfTears]

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.

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]

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

 

[A.Joseph]

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

 

[Susan777]

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!

 

[Seeking_Thy_Kingdom]

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]

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.