A Definitive Case: David and Bathsheba

If you are active on Twitter (Give us a follow: @freethinkmin, @JoshRKlein), or social media in general, you might notice that every so often the story of David and Bathsheba bubbles to the surface.  It is an interesting debate, seemingly between liberal (in the technical sense) and conservative theologians, about whether David’s actions with Bathsheba constitute, not only adultery and murder, but rape as well. The "conservative" theologians saying that there is no evidence that David raped Bathsheba, but that he was guilty of adultery, and the "liberal" theologians adamant that the power imbalance between David and Bathsheba was too great for consent to be meaningfully given by Bathsheba. Due to the power imbalance alone, Bathsheba would not have had the option to refuse the King’s advances and thus, she was raped. Having waded through both arguments I am here to give you the definitive position on the issue.  So buckle in! I am kidding of course. Part of the problem with this debate is that both sides have legitimate issues and evidence to support their position. Thus, this is not, as some suppose, a liberal versus conservative debate, instead, it is a debate on interpretational methodology and definitions. I take no pleasure in having to debate such sensitive subjects, but I do believe a faithful reading of the text is necessary for proper discipleship and understanding of sin. Too often, scripture can be twisted to fit our own cultural narratives. Treating narratives like this with honesty regarding the text, history, and culture of the audience is important. First, narrative writing is descriptive rather than prescriptive. In other words, the stories elucidated in narrative form are not meant to tell the reader how he or she ought to live, but to relate to the reader how those within the narrative did live.  The main character within scriptural narrative is not the human being, but God.  How does God respond to wickedness and how does he respond to righteousness? This view of narrative helps us to understand how we ought to look at our own narratives (lives) in light of God’s holiness. Second, we must be careful to avoid carrying presuppositions to the text. We mustn’t treat David with kid gloves because of the affinity we have for him as a character, but we must also avoid transplanting standards and ideas from the 21^st century into a text written in the context of ancient Israel. The question then, becomes this: how was rape understood in the 10^th century BC and how did God respond to David within that context?

The Affirmative Case

The case for David’s actions in 2 Samuel 11 being rape is simple. While both sides of the argument agree that David’s actions are extremely immoral, even to the point of adultery, murder, and laziness (“when kings go out to war” – David stayed home). The affirmative case rests on David’s position. The argument goes that since David is King of Israel any sexual relationship he initiates with a common person could be (and perhaps

should

) seen as rape due to the power differential. There are some that will dismiss this view based on the mistaken notion that it is predicated solely on the foundations of Critical Theory and Intersectionality’s grid of oppressed and oppressor, but it is not.  The concept of rape through power

is

a western concept, but it is not necessarily false because it sounds progressive. Examples of this sort of behavior abound. This definition has been used, in history, in situations where it is impossible for the offended party to meaningfully consent. Examples include teacher-student intercourse or human-animal. However, in recent years, this has also extended to unequal power dynamics in which the offended party felt the necessity to “consent” lest the repercussions of saying no be devastating. This type of coercive rape, using one’s position and authority, is a relatively new concept.  That does not mean the concept is wrong, but it does mean it may not have been something on the minds of 10

^th

Century BC individuals. Whether that might be the case or not matters little to this position. The fact that we would define such actions as rape from a 21

^st

century view is enough. People who hold this position would argue that God himself felt that David’s actions constituted rape, so their position is justified.

The Negative Case

Those arguing for the negative case would not deny most of what is written above, but they tend to seek to take the text at its word. They compare the Bathsheba story with other rape stories in scripture and use that as evidence that the author and the participants in the narrative indicate that no rape occurred. One chapter after this story we find the story of Amnon and Tamar (2 Samuel 13) where it is clear that Amnon rapes his sister.  The text does not hide the fact that this is what is being done (translated from Hebrew literally – “but, being stronger – than she – forced her – and lay – with her”).  No such verbiage is used in 2 Samuel 11:4 where David’s act is recorded. The way the author and characters in the story respond to Amnon’s sexual deviancy is markedly different than the way David and Bathsheba seem to respond. There is no detailing of Bathsheba responding in a similar way to Tamar, and thus, the sexual encounter with David was adultery, abhorrent as that is, but not rape. Similarly, they might point to the clear forceful gangrape of the Levite’s concubine in Judges or the rape of Dinah (Genesis 34 – uses similar Hebrew as with Amnon) as narratives that seem to indicate a different response altogether from the story of David and Bathsheba. It may also be worth noting that David 

could

have covered up his sin even more completely by allowing Bathsheba to take the full brunt of the punishment for adultery.  The king would not be put to death for adultery, but Bathsheba most definitely could be. Rape had a very clear and narrow definition within the context of this culture, so it is impossible to say that David raped Bathsheba.

The Problems with Both

With the affirmative

The differing use of Hebrew language to detail the encounter from other obvious rape stories in the Old Testament is certainly an interpretive problem for those that believe we can rightly call David’s sin with Bathsheba rape.  There are no real linguistic devices present in the text to implicate David in a “forceful” rape of Bathsheba. There is also the issue of historical differences in the understanding of rape.  A king’s power dynamics were obviously real, but neither Bathsheba nor the early readers of 2 Samuel would have corelated this type of sexual encounter with rape. In fact, this sort of behavior would have been considered fairly normative for ancient near eastern royalty. They had a right to as many concubines and women as they desired. Does this make their behavior righteous?  Far from it (which is part of the lesson of the story). In the western understanding of the topic any king taking concubines would be guilty of rape, but that was not so in the ancient world. Women, unfortunately, were seen as tools for treaties and rearing children, not as autonomous individuals with rights and privileges of their own.  This does not absolve David of his behavior regarding Bathsheba, but neither does it mean we can transplant the morality of 21

^st

century America onto the story. David’s response to the situation in which, after he wrongfully murders Uriah to cover up his sin, he marries Bathsheba point to at least some semblance of desire to do right. David could have, and most ancient near eastern kings likely would have, simply put both Bathsheba and Uriah to death to cover his tracks.  After all, what king wants an illegitimate child, the product of rape, to have a rightful claim to the throne?  David’s decision to marry Bathsheba, in that sense, indicates that adultery occurred but rape did not.

With the negative

First, there is no implication that Bathsheba was intent on seducing the king as some have suggested.  Just as there is no textual evidence for the word rape to be used, there is also zero textual evidence that Bathsheba was doing anything provocative. In fact, the evidence suggests otherwise. Bathsheba was not bathing on a roof, she was likely bathing in a courtyard without a roof, private from street level, but not from the king's view from the palace. Bathsheba is given no agency within the scriptures for a reason, there is none there. What is she going to do?  Refuse the king?  While her husband is at war? Could she have? Technically, there’s always the possibility of saying no, but realistically she had no choice. The king has absolute power and could kill her as easily as he ends up killing her husband if he so desired. While there is no implication that Bathsheba struggled and screamed for help, there would also be no point.  Who would rescue her from the king’s bed? No one. She might as well go into survival mode and make it through the night. The power dynamic is obviously real, there is no denying that. In Nathan’s story that reveals David’s sin he likens Bathsheba to a lamb that was used for a feast, slaughtered without regard to her owner (husband) or to her wellbeing. This language alone should get the reader to sit up and assume that something more than an adulterous act is taking place. David is trying to maintain his pristine image while also committing the most heinous act a man can commit, and he wants to keep it a secret. It is also relatively clear from the scriptures that David’s intent is to move on with life as if nothing had ever occurred.  The only reason he even considers Bathsheba is her pregnancy, and then his fear and desire to maintain his image lead him down the road of manipulating Uriah into sleeping with his wife to cover up David’s sin.  When this doesn’t work, he seeks to have Uriah killed and takes Bathsheba as his wife. Forced marriage with her assaulter would be worse than death!

A Reasonable Position

Both arguments have their strengths and flaws, and throughout my life in ministry and studying the scriptures I have found myself on both sides. The biggest problem with this conversation is that emotions can guide it, but in order to faithfully exegete the text we must take our emotions out of the interpretation. I believe the answer in interpreting this difficult passage of scripture is to focus on God’s response to David throughout 2 Samuel 12, not to try to parse what is and is not there within the narrative of 2 Samuel 11. We must let the text speak for itself, and the narrative, frankly, is unconcerned with naming the sexual encounter at all.  The text also has nothing at all to say concerning Bathsheba’s emotional and mental disposition during the whole scenario.  We can assume we know what Bathsheba felt, we can empathize with her plight, but we cannot

know

. The only emotion we see out of Bathsheba in the entire narrative is grief at Uriah’s death and her being comforted by David at her child’s death. Bathsheba is most certainly supposed to be seen as a sympathetic figure, but we cannot implicate David’s actions with text that simply is not there.  At the same time, we must recognize that during the whole debacle David is the one that is completely and totally at fault. Nathan’s rebuke of David, and David alone, indicts his behavior 

and

abuse of power, but Nathan’s judgment has just as much to do with David’s behavior concerning Uriah and his lack of leadership in war (2 Samuel 12:9) as it does with the sexual encounter he had with Bathsheba. In other words, the only thing we can rightly glean from the text itself is that David, not Bathsheba, is completely in the wrong in every single situation elucidated in 2 Samuel 11. All of it is laid at David’s feet. And what is more, the largest offense is not to Bathsheba or Uriah, it is to God himself.

"However, since by this deed you have shown utter

disrespect for the Lord, 

the child himself who is born to you shall certainly die."             (

2 Samuel 12:14

)

God’s judgment of David is to humiliate him in the same way he secretly humiliated Uriah and Bathsheba, and God chose to take away the heir conceived in deceit as well primarily for the contempt David's actions showed to God, thinking he could get away with it in secret though he should have known God saw the whole ordeal. Verse 15 then, gives Bathsheba an agency that would not be normal under these circumstances by calling Bathsheba “Uriah’s widow.” The text is implicating that David’s taking of Bathsheba as his wife is not yet recognized by God. It is not until verse 24 that we find the transition from the author’s perspective.  It is David’s comfort of Bathsheba – he

actually

cares for her when he

could

leave her after the loss of his son and, in an act of comfort he provides her with another son, one that would be the rightful heir to the throne – that legitimizes the marriage. The biggest moment in the passage is God’s seal of approval on the child:

“…He named him Solomon. Now the LORD

loved

him”                           (

2 Samuel 12:24

)

David’s repentance is made complete by restoring Bathsheba’s dignity (

a woman's primary purpose in that time was in the provision of children

) and bestowing on her the highest honor he could: the mother of the heir to the throne. God’s response to David’s repentance is complete as well:

“The LORD also has taken away your sin; you shall not die”.                  (

2 Samuel 12:13

)

However, this does not mean that David’s sin would not still affect him. One of the most poignant lessons in this narrative is that this big sin of David’s actually wreaks havoc on the house and line of David for generations. So, did David rape Bathsheba? I believe the answer is both yes and no. Yes, if we are using the modern idea of rape and no if we are using the ancient near east definition. I also believe that this is not the focal point of the narrative and when we make it the focal point we risk missing

the

point. The goal of the narrative is to indicate that sin has lasting consequences and impacts those closest to us and ultimately offends God Almighty but also, that God has the power, ability, and willingness to forgive sins when repentance is authentic. When we get lost in the weeds trying to adjudicate what

type

of sin is being forgiven we inadvertently put ourselves in God’s place within the narrative. God does not give an implication into whether or not

he

considered the sexual encounter with David and Bathsheba rape, but he most certainly does not pull any punches in dealing with David. And then he forgives him. This does not mean David avoids the consequences, he certainly does not, but God judges the matter closed and David is renewed in his position. When we try to make the story about sin rather than God, we miss the point, and when we try to defend David from certain charges, we also miss it. Whether or not David was guilty of rape, he was obviously guilty of offending God in the deepest way imaginable, but God chooses to forgive him. Perhaps, 

that

was the lesson all along.