craigernaught said:

---

One thing to add here that I think is interesting.

The NRSV uses the term "to get" while others often use "to take" - "So David sent messengers to get/to take her". That word in Hebrew, "laqach", means: "to take, get, fetch, lay hold of, seize, receive, acquire, buy, bring, marry, snatch, take away." It's also used in 1 Samuel 8 when Samuel warns what Israel's king will do.

---

There are a whole lot of words in that definition list that have a wide range of connotations. Bathsheba was a noble. It's not like soldiers snatched her up on the street kicking and screaming. She was summoned for an audience with the king.

I don't think David is getting a pass just because some people consider the affair consensual. He was guilty of abusing power, adultery, and murder. That's not enough?

I agree with all of this. And I heard similar arguments in school and from my friends on the extreme Christian left about how all sex in these societies was rape - but even then such arguments were rare and were usually quickly abandoned.

But I don't think I'm using such arguments to make my claim here. I'm trying to stick to the situation the characters were in and what the text says. Even still, in such a messy and world of grey, not all wrongs are equal. As swimmer points out, you see David comfort Bathsheba when the baby dies. As someone else said, they stay married and produce children in a long line that the NT uses to connect to Jesus.

I like that the Bible wades through messy waters. And I like that it isn't afraid to make its heroes into complicated figures where they often act monstrously. It makes for interesting reading and stories that have real moral clout with which we have to wrestle.

Frok said:

---

What if Bathsheba bathed naked on the roof in hopes of being seen by the King? What if there was already some sort of flirting going on?

We don't know. I disagree that he clearly raped her. Maybe he did but it certainly isn't clear. Regardless we already know he is guilty of other major sins.

---

David wasn't supposed to be there. He was supposed to be with his men in the field. He was supposed to be with Bathsheba's husband and father who are members of his elite corps of the Thirty who he would know intimately. He was in the wrong place. She wasn't.

The text doesn't say she was bathing on the roof. It says he was on the roof and she was bathing. People bathe outside. She was doing ritual bathing that she is required to do. She has no other options.

The what ifs here are irrelevant to the story. Stick to what the story says.

Quote:

---

I don't think David is getting a pass just because some people consider the affair consensual. He was guilty of abusing power, adultery, and murder. That's not enough?

---

No. Just because a person is rightly labeled a murderer, it doesn't mean that you don't label him as a rapist if he raped someone.

Quote:

---

I like that the Bible wades through messy waters. And I like that it isn't afraid to make its heroes into complicated figures where they often act monstrously. It makes for interesting reading and stories that have real moral clout with which we have to wrestle.

---

Ramblin, out of curiosity, if the word "rapist" includes modern assumptions about sex, power, and individual rights that don't fit into the ancient world, does this not also apply to "adulterer", which David is often labeled? The heading in my bible for the section is "David Commits Adultery with Bathsheba"

What would you label him then? Adulterer? Rapist? Possible Rapist?

What can we say?

Bathsheba's role in this is a topic that has been debated for centuries, for what it's worth.

I think it's instructive to note that the fathers - while condemning the historical fact as vile and wrong - allegorically elevated the story to something beautiful and instructive: identifying Bathsheba with the gentiles, the church, or the law; and David in all cases as Christ drawing it or her to Himself.

Adulterer is an easy one. Definitely a rapist in the modern context. Possibly a rapist in the context of his own society. It would be nice to have something from Bathsheba's side of the story

craigernaught said:

---

Frok said:

---

What if Bathsheba bathed naked on the roof in hopes of being seen by the King? What if there was already some sort of flirting going on?

We don't know. I disagree that he clearly raped her. Maybe he did but it certainly isn't clear. Regardless we already know he is guilty of other major sins.

---

David wasn't supposed to be there. He was supposed to be with his men in the field. He was supposed to be with Bathsheba's husband and father who are members of his elite corps of the Thirty who he would know intimately. He was in the wrong place. She wasn't.

The text doesn't say she was bathing on the roof. It says he was on the roof and she was bathing. People bathe outside. She was doing ritual bathing that she is required to do. She has no other options.

The what ifs here are irrelevant to the story. Stick to what the story says.

---

Good point. Yeah just spit-balling theories there.

Overall interesting discussion.

A clue to this being rape may come from the actions of Ahithopel, Bathsheba's grandfather. He had been David's most esteemed advisor. However, he conspired with Absalom to overthrow David.

I think another piece of evidence that points to this not being consensual is just how Nathan referred to her when he confronted David. She was a 'ewe lamb', which when used in Scripture is typically in reference to something/someone who is innocent/blameless.

https://relevantmagazine.com/culture/was-king-david-a-rapist/

https://www.dennyburk.com/adultery-or-rape-what-happened-between-david-and-bathsheba/

Quote:

---

It will help greatly if you read through Abisili's exegesis of Deut. 22:23-27 because that is the scriptural basis of what he calls "Hebrew biblical-rape." His point is that if you are using a modern definition of rape, you are likely to label what David did as "rape." If you are using the Old Testament legal definition, then you will not. Abisili explains:

The clause 'and he lay with her' does not explicitly imply the use of physical force by David in subduing Bathsheba. Surely, the language here lacks the physical overpowering attested in Amnon's rape of Tamer (2 Sam 13) and consequently, Bathsheba is not depicted as 'crying out' during or after the sexual intercourse. Even the argument that the power gap between Bathsheba and David may supply the reason why she does not cry out is not sufficient for reading violent subjugation into the context; therefore, it is not a case of 'biblical-rape'. At most there may be psychological (even social and political) coercion which allows the use of contemporary concept of rape for describing the event. Nevertheless, given our understanding of the 'Hebrew biblical' concept of rape, it does not qualify as 'biblical-rape'. [p. 12]

After a close exegesis of 2 Samuel 11-12, Abisili concludes:

In the Hebrew bible, however, the concept of rape, without excluding psychological or social or political or emotional domination, of necessity includes the use of physical force/violence in compelling a woman to nonconsensual sexual intercourse. Here, only a man can rape a woman and she is expected to cry-out (or be assumed to have cried-out [Deut 22:25-27]) for help. This distinction, as our analysis reveals, has significant implications for the understanding of the sexual encounter between David and 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]

Notice that Abisili does not foreclose the possibility of referring to David's abuse of power as rape. He concedes that it may very well fit a modern definition of rape. Nevertheless, he argues that it falls short of the narrow definition of rape provided in Deuteronomy.

---

Lost in 2 pages of discussion is does it really matter what David did...raped? Fornicated? The point is Jesus redeems.

"power" has been used 20 times in this thread. As mentioned in the second post, does any use of power or influence to get sex constitute rape?

I think that is instructive the difference in the discussion about Tamer versus Bathsheba.

In NIV, 2 Sam reads:

Quote:

---

Then he said to Tamar, "Now bring the food into my bedroom and feed it to me here." So Tamar took his favorite dish to him. 11 But as she was feeding him, he grabbed her and demanded, "Come to bed with me, my darling sister."
12 "No, my brother!" she cried. "Don't be foolish! Don't do this to me! Such wicked things aren't done in Israel. 13 Where could I go in my shame? And you would be called one of the greatest fools in Israel. Please, just speak to the king about it, and he will let you marry me."
14 But Amnon wouldn't listen to her, and since he was stronger than she was, he raped her.

---

Some points:

1) This still doesn't mean that David didn't rape Bathsheba. There is an implicit danger in turning down the requests of a King. If the threat of death hung in the air in the conversation between the two, I don't know how you can qualify that as anything but rape. But, those words are not in the text. It's just impossible to know how much Bathsheba feared for her life.

2) I think it very unlikely that David forced himself on Bathsheba in the way that Amnon did to Tamar. If that were the case, why describe Tamar's rape so explicitly, but not David's.

3) The fact that Tamar would consent to marrying her half brother rather than be raped also says some interesting things about the power dynamic at that time between men and women. She was more concerned about her reputation / purity than she was about who she would eventually marry.

4) Bathsheba did not mourn in the same way as Tamar, ripping her clothes and pouring ash on her face. The different responses of the two women to this event is also interesting.

5) David became very angry at Amnon for the rape of Tamar. There is no mention that David had remorse for Bathsheba in that discussion.

When you put it all together, I think that physical rape is unlikely, but that doesn't mean the threat of death wasn't there.