David and Bathsheba and rape

[Reformed Covenanter]

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)

 

[Grant]

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.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

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.

 

[Edward]

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.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

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.

 

[Pergamum]

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]

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]

...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?

 

[Susan777]

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.

 

[Grant]

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]

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.

 

[Jeri Tanner]

"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.

 

[Jeri Tanner]

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.

 

[Grant]

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.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

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.

 

[Grant]

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.

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]

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.

1. David had some time on his hands. (The reason is another subject)
   
2. He happened to see a very beautiful [partly?] naked woman and became obsessed with her.
3. 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.
   
4. "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.
5. Bathseba came to him, and they had sex. (not, was brought to him)
   
6. "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.

 

[lynnie]

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.

 

[Grant]

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

2. no

Why?

 

[lynnie]

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?

 

[Grant]

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]

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

 

[Pergamum]

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.

 

[A.Joseph]

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]

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]

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.

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

 

[A.Joseph]

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]

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]

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]

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 ?