When I was a new, born again Christian all I would hear in bible studies, from men was, David was a man after God’s own heart. I always had questions about his affair and then he was always held up as this heroic man who confessed. God doesn’t give us all the details of everything but if we’re willing, He gives us wisdom in time to better understand.
So I was actually in a IRL discussion today when someone stated the possibility that the “man after God’s own heart” was a contrast to Saul. Saul was the people’s choice. David was God’s choice to lead the people of Israel. I still want to ponder this idea, but I’ll put it out here for consideration. This person state that the saying did not reflect the condition of David’s heart but was a reflection of God’s sovereignty….something to consider.
While I have always considered the activity by David to be his sin alone, with Bathsheba being the innocent lamb, I have never viewed in the context of sexual sin in the Church. Very thought provoking. I also suspect her willingness to stay after was due to her grief after the loss of her first son, David’s guilt being publicly exposed to the world, his immediate repentance in a visible way and his accepting of the consequences. There is probably some lessons for the church leadership and members over there reaction to the sin.
Valid Point although I suspect even if the King wanted to get rid of her, he would have set up a solid situation. But who knows. His abandonment of his first wife still doesn’t sit well with me.
Thank you for your hard-hitting insights. Only recently did I realize that the prophet Nathan, using a parable given by God, used no negative language about Bathsheba. I had previously wondered if there was some kind of hero worship involved that made B. willing. It seems her father was one of David's inner circle of warriors.
I think it was her murdered husband that was one of David’s inner circle. Maybe her father was too? I don’t remember that but Uriah the Hittite is listed as in David’s inner circle.
It honestly never occurred to me to "blame" Bathsheba for what David did to her. But it also never occurred to me to call it "rape." That gets us into a whole world of legal, moral and religious terminology.
As a lawyer, to me, rape is sexual intercourse without consent. Consent is a bit different from "coercion." Coercion tends to imply a physical threat or fear of harm. Consent is far more encompassing. One cannot consent if they are under a certain age (wildly varying by jurisdiction), if they are drunk, under fear of physical harm, and various other conditions. Consent can be negated by trickery (did Tamar "rape" Judah? did Lot's daughter's "rape" him?). In some jurisdictions, there are rules about consent based on an imbalance of power, or an employment relationship. It can get quite complex.
To me, this has never been the question presented by David's "taking" of Bathsheba. David was the king of Israel, she was a subject, in that time and place the king "took" whatever woman he wanted. And women who were subjects "subjugated" themselves to the king's wishes. How do we understand "consent" in that context? Don't we have a responsibility to understand the stories in the Bible, at least to some extent, in the context in which they happened?
One does not need to "blame" Bathsheba to conclude that what David did was not "rape" per se. By modern moral standards, it was wrong, very wrong. But I don't think "rape" is quite the right word. Because of the historical/societal context. I think David's punishment was more for what he did *afterwards*. I also think it may be wrong to say that only David experienced punishment for what happened - Bathsheba lost a child. Is that not pain?
The first time I read through the Bible beginning to end, one of the things that most struck me is - damn, the book is *full* of sex! All kinds of sex. And all kinds of consequences from it. Sex, desire, temptation... seems to me those things are a very large part of what the biblical story is.
I don't know that we need to parse Bathsheba's state of mind, or concepts of consent in 1000 B.C. in Israel, to understand the David story?
I also can't help but think ... Bathsheba was the mother of Solomon, and a direct ancestor of Jesus... along with Rahab the (Gentile) prostitute, and Ruth the wonderfully loving Moabite. God loved and blessed Bathsheba, but was it because she didn't sin? Or was there some other reason?
I would argue that just because it was normal for men to use women like sexual receptacles to use and discard does not mean it was ok or right or any less rapey.
I think maybe you misunderstood what I said? I am not saying that it was "less rapey" because it was "normal for men to use women like sexual receptacles." I was talking about the role of kingship in ancient Palestine, and the role and expectations and perceived obligations of women in that setting. And I was talking about that in the context of parsing "consent," because in my view, if you're trying to decide what to call the sex they had, consent is the issue. I wouldn't defend it in modern terms, I'm just saying one has to read the Bible as both scripture and history.
Anyway, he didn't "discard" her.
And what about my question about Tamar? How do we understand that? Because rape is not just men "coercing" women into sexual relationships, rape is a person having sex with another person without their (informed) consent.
You have expressed some of my thoughts very eloquently. We do have a tendency to judge the past by modern WEIRD (Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, Democratic) standards. As you said, Bathsheba was also punished by the loss of her child. I am not sure what to make of this, but I agree that calling it rape is possibly overstating the case. What we know is, God disapproved mightily of David's behavior. Whether Bathsheba was partially to blame, only God himself knows, but David was the one called to account.
I’m not particularly concerned with “western standards.” I’m concerned with God’s standards. I think to hold Bathsheba accountable in any capacity when Scripture does not is a grave disservice to many on a number of levels.
I’m not Christian but think this is an interesting and relevant take, especially in light of this morning’s Pelicot verdict. Thank you for your thoughtful essays.
Very well written. I am confident that Bathsheeba was never even close to being a willing participant. David was the king and who will refuse him? And if I am honest, that is what scares me lately about the current administration.
I really appreciate your writing and your willingness to wrestle with these hard issues. This is a great example of iron sharpening iron in this present day! Thank you and Merry Christmas to you and your family !
To me, the power differential between David and Bathsheba means that there are very few circumstances under which their encounter would not be assault. The text makes it clear that none of those circumstances existed. Therefore, David committed sexual assault.
There are several instance of rape recorded in the Bible: Dinah, Tamar, the concubine of the Levite in Judges 19. The Bible is clear on these transgressions being rape. If David had committed rape the Bible would clearly state this—it does not. David is chastised for taking another man’s wife to be his wife, and for having Uriah murdered. The Bible is the final authority for all things faith and practice. We should take it as truth exactly as written and believe the words to be true. David is never called or chastised as a rapist so therefore David didn’t commit rape. Which infers Bathsheba was complicit in their sexual encounter….that does not mean she is to be blamed—as He sought her out, and made way for the opportunity (she didn’t seek it out)…but when the time came she was willing. Lest we forget, she lost her child too as a consequence of those actions. David was many things: a man of war, a man after God’s own heart, a murderer of Uriah, an adulterer-but it is never inferred he was a rapist.
Hello Kaeley, thank you for this article; an important read.
Would you consider the extensive exhortation of the mother of the Author of Proverbs against the temptress to be of interest to the question?
That and Bathsheba’s seeming not to inform her husband strike me as the most damning charge that can be raised against her. (Also she did tell David she was pregnant, but that arguably doesn’t necessarily make much difference)
And that is the narrative brilliance of the biblical author(s) of Samuel. Here we are, 3000 years later, still arguing on how to best gapfill the deliberately missing thoughts, emotions and motives of the world of the text (see Meir Sternberg, Poetics of Biblical Narrative, particularly the chapter(s) on narrative gapfilling).
Verse 27 is critical in interpreting the text, because in 1-2 Samuel the narrator's voice only *very* rarely makes an explicit moral judgement or comment.
The rest of the narrative forces us to form a hypothesis on what happened, in this case Kaeley argued that it was a rape by David. But if it was a rape, why did not Bathsheba cry out for help (Deut. 22:23-24) and David get executed? Yes, we are to wrestle with Deuteronomy as well, since Samuel is punctuated with Deuteronomic insinuations.
These are all hypotheses we must form, argue and retain/discard as we engage with the text, because the text itself leaves these gaps *intentionally*. And that is why I say it is brilliant authorship.
Ive always taken as a given that many if not most of the wives and concubines we read about throughout the Old Testament were forced into that situation against their will. Even Esther didn't have a say in the matter, and the Bible is pretty vague about what her "tryout" entailed; pretty sure it wasn't a bake-off.
For any woman, when the king called for them - perhaps a different one every night, probably throughout the day too - refusal simply wasn't an option. Bathsheba was no different.
Sexual sin and subjugation is one of those things we prefer not to talk about, then or now.
"...victim blaming is actually its own form of evil that keeps the wounded far from God."
Yeah and Amen.
When I was a new, born again Christian all I would hear in bible studies, from men was, David was a man after God’s own heart. I always had questions about his affair and then he was always held up as this heroic man who confessed. God doesn’t give us all the details of everything but if we’re willing, He gives us wisdom in time to better understand.
So I was actually in a IRL discussion today when someone stated the possibility that the “man after God’s own heart” was a contrast to Saul. Saul was the people’s choice. David was God’s choice to lead the people of Israel. I still want to ponder this idea, but I’ll put it out here for consideration. This person state that the saying did not reflect the condition of David’s heart but was a reflection of God’s sovereignty….something to consider.
While I have always considered the activity by David to be his sin alone, with Bathsheba being the innocent lamb, I have never viewed in the context of sexual sin in the Church. Very thought provoking. I also suspect her willingness to stay after was due to her grief after the loss of her first son, David’s guilt being publicly exposed to the world, his immediate repentance in a visible way and his accepting of the consequences. There is probably some lessons for the church leadership and members over there reaction to the sin.
She also probably had no choice but to stay, with no husband and the king wanting her.
Valid Point although I suspect even if the King wanted to get rid of her, he would have set up a solid situation. But who knows. His abandonment of his first wife still doesn’t sit well with me.
Thank you for your hard-hitting insights. Only recently did I realize that the prophet Nathan, using a parable given by God, used no negative language about Bathsheba. I had previously wondered if there was some kind of hero worship involved that made B. willing. It seems her father was one of David's inner circle of warriors.
I think it was her murdered husband that was one of David’s inner circle. Maybe her father was too? I don’t remember that but Uriah the Hittite is listed as in David’s inner circle.
Thank you for diving deep into this subject!! You’ve caused me to go deeper into my own history, and look at some painful truths.
It honestly never occurred to me to "blame" Bathsheba for what David did to her. But it also never occurred to me to call it "rape." That gets us into a whole world of legal, moral and religious terminology.
As a lawyer, to me, rape is sexual intercourse without consent. Consent is a bit different from "coercion." Coercion tends to imply a physical threat or fear of harm. Consent is far more encompassing. One cannot consent if they are under a certain age (wildly varying by jurisdiction), if they are drunk, under fear of physical harm, and various other conditions. Consent can be negated by trickery (did Tamar "rape" Judah? did Lot's daughter's "rape" him?). In some jurisdictions, there are rules about consent based on an imbalance of power, or an employment relationship. It can get quite complex.
To me, this has never been the question presented by David's "taking" of Bathsheba. David was the king of Israel, she was a subject, in that time and place the king "took" whatever woman he wanted. And women who were subjects "subjugated" themselves to the king's wishes. How do we understand "consent" in that context? Don't we have a responsibility to understand the stories in the Bible, at least to some extent, in the context in which they happened?
One does not need to "blame" Bathsheba to conclude that what David did was not "rape" per se. By modern moral standards, it was wrong, very wrong. But I don't think "rape" is quite the right word. Because of the historical/societal context. I think David's punishment was more for what he did *afterwards*. I also think it may be wrong to say that only David experienced punishment for what happened - Bathsheba lost a child. Is that not pain?
The first time I read through the Bible beginning to end, one of the things that most struck me is - damn, the book is *full* of sex! All kinds of sex. And all kinds of consequences from it. Sex, desire, temptation... seems to me those things are a very large part of what the biblical story is.
I don't know that we need to parse Bathsheba's state of mind, or concepts of consent in 1000 B.C. in Israel, to understand the David story?
I also can't help but think ... Bathsheba was the mother of Solomon, and a direct ancestor of Jesus... along with Rahab the (Gentile) prostitute, and Ruth the wonderfully loving Moabite. God loved and blessed Bathsheba, but was it because she didn't sin? Or was there some other reason?
I would argue that just because it was normal for men to use women like sexual receptacles to use and discard does not mean it was ok or right or any less rapey.
I think maybe you misunderstood what I said? I am not saying that it was "less rapey" because it was "normal for men to use women like sexual receptacles." I was talking about the role of kingship in ancient Palestine, and the role and expectations and perceived obligations of women in that setting. And I was talking about that in the context of parsing "consent," because in my view, if you're trying to decide what to call the sex they had, consent is the issue. I wouldn't defend it in modern terms, I'm just saying one has to read the Bible as both scripture and history.
Anyway, he didn't "discard" her.
And what about my question about Tamar? How do we understand that? Because rape is not just men "coercing" women into sexual relationships, rape is a person having sex with another person without their (informed) consent.
Try to imagine the story from Bathsheba’s point of view.
You have expressed some of my thoughts very eloquently. We do have a tendency to judge the past by modern WEIRD (Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, Democratic) standards. As you said, Bathsheba was also punished by the loss of her child. I am not sure what to make of this, but I agree that calling it rape is possibly overstating the case. What we know is, God disapproved mightily of David's behavior. Whether Bathsheba was partially to blame, only God himself knows, but David was the one called to account.
I’m not particularly concerned with “western standards.” I’m concerned with God’s standards. I think to hold Bathsheba accountable in any capacity when Scripture does not is a grave disservice to many on a number of levels.
Someday I’d love to hear your analysis of the story about Lot and his daughters.
I’m not Christian but think this is an interesting and relevant take, especially in light of this morning’s Pelicot verdict. Thank you for your thoughtful essays.
Seems pretty cut and dried to me. That kind of relative power difference would make it all about him unless she was really working for it.
Very well written. I am confident that Bathsheeba was never even close to being a willing participant. David was the king and who will refuse him? And if I am honest, that is what scares me lately about the current administration.
I really appreciate your writing and your willingness to wrestle with these hard issues. This is a great example of iron sharpening iron in this present day! Thank you and Merry Christmas to you and your family !
To me, the power differential between David and Bathsheba means that there are very few circumstances under which their encounter would not be assault. The text makes it clear that none of those circumstances existed. Therefore, David committed sexual assault.
There are several instance of rape recorded in the Bible: Dinah, Tamar, the concubine of the Levite in Judges 19. The Bible is clear on these transgressions being rape. If David had committed rape the Bible would clearly state this—it does not. David is chastised for taking another man’s wife to be his wife, and for having Uriah murdered. The Bible is the final authority for all things faith and practice. We should take it as truth exactly as written and believe the words to be true. David is never called or chastised as a rapist so therefore David didn’t commit rape. Which infers Bathsheba was complicit in their sexual encounter….that does not mean she is to be blamed—as He sought her out, and made way for the opportunity (she didn’t seek it out)…but when the time came she was willing. Lest we forget, she lost her child too as a consequence of those actions. David was many things: a man of war, a man after God’s own heart, a murderer of Uriah, an adulterer-but it is never inferred he was a rapist.
Hello Kaeley, thank you for this article; an important read.
Would you consider the extensive exhortation of the mother of the Author of Proverbs against the temptress to be of interest to the question?
That and Bathsheba’s seeming not to inform her husband strike me as the most damning charge that can be raised against her. (Also she did tell David she was pregnant, but that arguably doesn’t necessarily make much difference)
And that is the narrative brilliance of the biblical author(s) of Samuel. Here we are, 3000 years later, still arguing on how to best gapfill the deliberately missing thoughts, emotions and motives of the world of the text (see Meir Sternberg, Poetics of Biblical Narrative, particularly the chapter(s) on narrative gapfilling).
Verse 27 is critical in interpreting the text, because in 1-2 Samuel the narrator's voice only *very* rarely makes an explicit moral judgement or comment.
The rest of the narrative forces us to form a hypothesis on what happened, in this case Kaeley argued that it was a rape by David. But if it was a rape, why did not Bathsheba cry out for help (Deut. 22:23-24) and David get executed? Yes, we are to wrestle with Deuteronomy as well, since Samuel is punctuated with Deuteronomic insinuations.
These are all hypotheses we must form, argue and retain/discard as we engage with the text, because the text itself leaves these gaps *intentionally*. And that is why I say it is brilliant authorship.
Ive always taken as a given that many if not most of the wives and concubines we read about throughout the Old Testament were forced into that situation against their will. Even Esther didn't have a say in the matter, and the Bible is pretty vague about what her "tryout" entailed; pretty sure it wasn't a bake-off.
For any woman, when the king called for them - perhaps a different one every night, probably throughout the day too - refusal simply wasn't an option. Bathsheba was no different.
Sexual sin and subjugation is one of those things we prefer not to talk about, then or now.