David and Bathsheba and rape

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.:detective:

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

“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?

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, though she was likely under authoritative pressure. Joseph was under authoritative pressure. Joseph had less rights that 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, though obvious.


"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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top