Did David Rape Bathsheba?

“David didn’t fornicate. David raped. And if you understand the power dynamics and you understand the Hebrew and you look at the Levitical examples and discussion of rape and you understand what Nathan is saying in his parable, it is abundantly clear from that text that David raped.”¹ So said Rachael Denhollander, the American Olympic team gymnast who was first to publicly accuse team physician Larry Nassar of sexual assault. She is emphatic that rape is the only evidential and logical explanation of what happened between David and Bathsheba. Sadly, Denhollander endured a lot of sexual abuse in her life, and we hurt for her, but we disagree with her contention that David raped Bathsheba.²

Denhollander is, of course, not alone. Especially since the advent of the #MeToo movement, there are many who assert that David raped Bathsheba. But we are going to argue that the evidence doesn’t support that contention.

Arguments That Bathsheba Was Raped

We begin with an examination of the arguments employed by those who say David did rape Bathsheba.

Unequal Power Dynamics Remove the Ability to Consent. Notice that the first thing Denhollander says after “David raped” was “if you understand the power dynamics.” Biola professor Carmen Joy Imes writes in Christianity Today: “Those arguing that David committed adultery often try to pin blame on Bathsheba for bathing in public, thereby seducing David, while those arguing that David raped her point to the uneven power dynamics between them”³ (emphasis added). Bonnie Kristian, an editor at Christianity Today, agrees, “perhaps most compelling, beyond these textual details, are the broader power dynamics in play: David is king. Bathsheba cannot reject his uninvited attention”⁴ (emphasis added). Former Baylor University deans David E. Garland and Diana R. Garland explain the power dynamic:

Perhaps she was flattered by his attention. He was a handsome man; perhaps she found herself attracted to him. Even if she was flattered by the attention of the king, however, and even if she found him attractive, she was not responsible for what happened. Since consent was impossible, given her powerless position, David in essence raped her. Rape means to have sex against the will, without the consent, of another — and she did not have the power to consent. Even if there was no physical struggle, even if she gave in to him, it was rape.⁵ (emphasis added)

Notice the Garlands wrote that Bathsheba was so powerless that even “consent was impossible.”

We could quote others who argue this way, but the point is made: the David-raped apologists appeal to uneven “power dynamics.” Imes judges that David had “come to believe that because he has power, he can have whatever he wants when he wants it”⁶ (emphasis in original). And regarding Bathsheba, Imes writes, “David summons her. Does she have a choice? Her husband and her father are both soldiers under his command. No one can refuse the king.”⁷ In short, Bathsheba was powerless and was therefore raped.

This uneven power dynamic talk springs from contemporary critical theory (or the less precise cultural or neo-Marxism). Neil Shenvi and Pat Sawyer in their excellent book, Critical Dilemma: The Rise of Critical Theories and Social Justice Ideology, explain that contemporary critical theory is composed of four principles. The first is that “society is divided into dominant/privileged/oppressor groups and subordinate/marginalized/oppressed groups.” Second, “Oppression and domination are not limited to cruelty or overt acts of injustice, but also include the ways in which dominant social groups impose their values, traditions, norms, and ways of being and doing on society such that they are accepted as natural, normal, or even God-ordained.” Third, “the lived experience of minoritized and oppressed groups rivals and at times is prioritized over objective evidence and reason when it comes to understanding the world.” Fourth, “Social justice is concerned with the transformation of society via the emancipation and empowerment of marginalized and disenfranchised groups.”⁸

Although they may not realize it, the David-raped apologists employ the first two principles: King David had all the power and Bathsheba had none. David’s power was so pervasive, and Bathsheba’s power non-existent, that she didn’t have the ability to decline or, as we saw earlier, she didn’t even have the power to consent to David’s request.⁹ Author Sheila Wray Gregoire writes, “When someone cannot say no, then they also cannot say yes. That means consent is not possible. That means it is rape”¹⁰ (emphasis in original). Shenvi and Sawyer point out how this effects the David-raped apologists’ interpretation of Scripture: “It places the authority to determine the meaning of the text with the receiver of the text versus the giver of the text. Consequently, it substitutes an analysis of power dynamics for exegesis”¹¹ (emphasis added).

Otherwise, did David rape all of his wives, except for King Saul’s daughter Michel, because of the tremendous power differential between them?

Now, of course, we do agree that minors can’t give consent to adults because minors do not understand the significance of their actions nor the consequences of having sex with adults. But this is different. As mentioned above, Imes, the Garlands, and Denhollander are saying that even for an adult, consent is impossible if a very powerful person asks for sex from a less powerful person.

But does this make sense? Are we really to believe that an adult can’t tell a more powerful adult, even a much more powerful adult, “Please don’t do this,” or “I really don’t want to have sex with you,” or “You shouldn’t do this, I’m a married woman,” and so on? That would certainly be considered a lack of consent. Are Imes, the Garlands, and Denhollander saying it’s impossible or unwise for these words to come out of the mouth of someone significantly less powerful than the person seeking sex?

Here we’re going to employ a reductio ad absurdum (the carrying of something to an absurd extreme to show its folly). Suppose Bathsheba was twenty-nine years old, suppose she was incredibly lonely, that she was also a very sexual person, that she had fantasized for months, maybe even years, about having sex with King David, that she had noticed that he walks around his rooftop at twilight, that she was bathing completely naked and was watching for David to appear on the roof top, and that when David did appear and looked down and saw her completely naked, she gave him a “come hither look.” Suppose also that after she arrives at the palace, he asks if he can kiss her and she drops her robe, and passionately kisses him. Now, of course, we aren’t saying that any of these things happened; this is a reductio ad absurdum to point out that it was possible for Bathsheba to have given her consent. To say that if those things had happened, that at that point she still had not given her consent, is ridiculous. The only way one could argue in this situation that she had not given her consent is if one already defined consent as impossible, but that commits the fallacy of circular reasoning.

David Should Have Been Off to War, Not in Jerusalem. The David and Bathsheba saga begins with 2 Samuel 11:1: “In the spring of the year, the time when kings go out to battle, David sent Joab, and his servants with him, and all Israel. And they ravaged the Ammonites and besieged Rabbah. But David remained at Jerusalem.”¹² About this the David-raped apologists claim that David wasn’t supposed to be in Jerusalem in the first place. As Imes puts it, “He ought to be at war with his men, but nevertheless, there he is, bored.”¹³ Imes also writes, “David fails to take the mission seriously. He doesn’t lead the troops in battle. Instead, he stays home and preys on the ‘war widow’ next door.”¹⁴ Similarly, Tara-Leigh Cobble, in her popular study guide, The Bible Recap: A One-Year Guide to Reading and Understanding the Entire Bible, writes that David staying home is “exposing a gap in his leadership: passivity. He shirks responsibility.”¹⁵ Although the passage doesn’t say that Bathsheba was bathing on the roof, Cobble then writes that David “sees Bathsheba bathing on a roof, which is where people bathe because rain water collects there. She’s keeping God’s command, purifying herself.”¹⁶ Cobble writes that “We have no reason to think she’s trying to seduce David. She likely assumes the king is off to war like he is supposed to be, since that’s where her husband, Uriah, is”¹⁷ (emphasis added). In other words, both Imes and Cobble (and a host of others) say that David is in sin prior to even seeing Bathsheba because it was his duty to be elsewhere.¹⁸

But as Robert D. Bergen points out in his commentary, 1, 2 Samuel,

The king’s absence from the battlefield at this time should not be understood as dereliction of duty. David had previously remained in Jerusalem when the Ammonites were attacked (cf. [2 Samuel] 10:7). Furthermore, at some point in David’s military career — quite possibly prior to the events of this passage — David’s men had pleaded with him to avoid an active role in military campaigns (cf. 21:17) out of concern for the king’s safety and the best interests of the nation.¹⁹

Some might think it odd for Bergen to suggest that what occurred in 2 Samuel 21 where David’s men “pleaded with him to avoid an active role in military campaigns” occurred prior to David’s staying home from battle (10:7, 11:1), but chapters 21–24 are not chronological. They list notable events without telling the reader when they took place.²⁰

J. Robert Vannoy in the Cornerstone Biblical Commentary provides further detail about David not going to battle:

At the beginning of his reign David sent Joab on important missions while he remained at home ([2 Sam] 2:12–32; 3:20–23). In addition there is also no indication that David fought in all the battles against Edom (1 Kgs 11:14–16; 1 Chr 18:12–13; Ps 60 title), and in the immediate context David had sent Joab and Abishai to engage the Arameans and Ammonites while he remained in Jerusalem ([2 Sam] 10:7–14). It was not until the development of a more serious threat by a larger Aramean coalition that David himself accompanied his troops against them (10:17–19). But the military operation in view in this particular passage [11:1] was not a continuation of normal combat, but rather the siege of a city (Rabbah), which would likely last for a long time, and not something for which David’s presence was necessary. So while it is clear that David’s remaining in Jerusalem provided the occasion for his sinful behavior that ensued, it does not seem warranted to conclude that this, in itself, should be regarded as a culpable act.²¹

Indeed, the bottom line is that those who accuse David of a dereliction of duty are reading into the text what isn’t there.

Bathsheba’s Bathing Was Pious. Imes writes that “This was no ordinary bath, either. She was purifying herself ritually following menstruation (2 Sam. 11:4). This practice indicates that she was a pious keeper of Israelite purity law.”²² This proves she was pious? We laughed. Maybe piety had something to do with it, but what woman doesn’t want to bathe when her period is over?

But there’s more. Proverbs chapter 7 is entirely about a married woman seducing a man — even a potential king since Solomon wrote this to his sons. The seductress says to him in verse 14, “I had to offer sacrifices, and today I have paid my vows.” About this verse Duane A. Garrett in the New American Commentary writes, “She uses the pretext of religious devotion in order to assuage the young man’s conscience about going to her.”²³ In other words, she is assuring her conquest that she’s pious. Now, we absolutely are not saying that Bathsheba told David that her bathing was ceremonial to pursue him, but unless she explained, he wouldn’t have known why she was bathing.

Imes also writes that “the text never says that she was naked.”²⁴ True, but neither does the text say she wasn’t naked. Absence of evidence isn’t evidence of absence. Now, again, we’re not arguing that Bathsheba was trying to seduce David; we’re just trying to separate fact from assumption.

Nathan Blames Only David. One of the major arguments that David-raped apologists raise is that the prophet Nathan blames only David. In 2 Samuel 12:1–7 we read:

And the Lord sent Nathan to David. He came to him and said to him, “There were two men in a certain city, the one rich and the other poor. The rich man had very many flocks and herds, but the poor man had nothing but one little ewe lamb, which he had bought. And he brought it up, and it grew up with him and with his children. It used to eat of his morsel and drink from his cup and lie in his arms, and it was like a daughter to him. Now there came a traveler to the rich man, and he was unwilling to take one of his own flock or herd to prepare for the guest who had come to him, but he took the poor man’s lamb and prepared it for the man who had come to him.” Then David’s anger was greatly kindled against the man, and he said to Nathan, “As the Lord lives, the man who has done this deserves to die, and he shall restore the lamb fourfold, because he did this thing, and because he had no pity.”

Nathan said to David, “You are the man!”

So Imes writes, “For me, the clincher is this: The narrator is unequivocal in blaming David (2 Sam. 11:27). The prophet Nathan is unequivocal in blaming David (2 Sam. 12:1–12). And Bathsheba is never chastised.”²⁵

There are several problems with this reasoning. First, Nathan went to see David, the king of Israel, the anointed one from whom the Savior of the world would come. That Nathan didn’t mention Bathsheba having guilt doesn’t mean she had none. Again, absence of evidence isn’t evidence of absence.

Second, there’s no doubt that even if Bathsheba was trying to seduce David, he still, by far, had the greater sin. David should have at the very least looked away. How silly would it sound, while Nathan was rebuking David, if David said, “Yeah, but Bathsheba was flirting with me!”

Third, writing that Bathsheba was “never chastised” assumes too much. Most of the time, when people sin, their only form of rebuke comes from their guilty conscience. It also assumes that the loss of her child wasn’t chastisement. In 2 Samuel 12:15, 18–19 we read: “And the Lord afflicted the child that Uriah’s wife bore to David, and he became sick….On the seventh day the child died. And the servants of David were afraid to tell him that the child was dead….But when David saw that his servants were whispering together, David understood that the child was dead.”

Bathsheba may not be mentioned in Nathan’s rebuke to David (she wasn’t present) — he was the king of Israel after all and certainly did commit a gargantuan sin in orchestrating Uriah’s death and at the very least committing adultery — but the punishment inflicted by the Lord would have affected Bathsheba more profoundly. Imes writes this off as “Yes, she loses her son, but that loss is never characterized as her punishment. She suffers for David’s sin, as subjects always do when their leader is recalcitrant.”²⁶ “Yes, she loses her son”? Wow, that’s a huge understatement of the emotional trauma of her losing her first-born son akin to the old joke, “Other than that, how did you like the play, Mrs. Lincoln?” Bathsheba carried that baby to term and then would have immediately started nursing him. That would have affected her significantly more than David! We have experienced several miscarriages and although they were very sad to Clay, they were devastating to Jean. Her firstborn son, whom she would have been nursing, died in her arms!

Further, if the Lord wanted, the omniscient, omnipotent Lord certainly could have exacted a punishment that would hurt only David. But while David beseeched the Lord and “fasted and went in and lay all night on the ground” (2 Samuel 12:16), and so didn’t even know when his child had died, Bathsheba would have nursed and watched her firstborn child die in her arms. How devastating for her. And then when the child had died, we read in verse 24, “Then David comforted his wife, Bathsheba, and went in to her and lay with her, and she bore a son, and he called his name Solomon.”²⁷ If David had not only had her husband killed but actually raped her, and then the Lord killed her child because of David’s raping her, it’s hard to imagine what comforting words David might tell her while they were again having sex.

Fourth, after David impregnated Bathsheba and had her husband killed, 2 Samuel 11:27 says, “the thing that David had done displeased the Lord.” But whether David’s sex with Bathsheba was rape or adultery, it would still be true that it would displease the Lord. Bathsheba’s name isn’t even mentioned. Instead, the narrator writes, “the LORD struck the child that Uriah’s wife had borne to David” (2 Samuel 12:15). Bergen observes, “The sober reality that this child was the product of a sinful union is highlighted by the fact that his mother was referred to as ‘Uriah’s wife.’ Immediately the newborn son ‘became ill.’”²⁸ Bathsheba’s name isn’t mentioned and her first-born child is struck down. Nathan is rebuking David. If he had been addressing Bathsheba, whether in David’s presence or not, he might have chosen his words quite differently.

David Sent Servants Who “Took” Her. Second Samuel 11:4 reports, “So David sent messengers and took her, and she came to him, and he lay with her.” Pastor John Piper comments about this, “He didn’t invite her. He didn’t woo her. He didn’t lure her. He didn’t trick her. He took her. That’s what the text says: he took her. In other words, the description is of a completely one-sided, powerful exertion of his desire, with no reckoning with hers.”²⁹ Piper’s not alone. Tara-Leigh Cobble writes, “As she’s being obedient, armed guards show up at her door and bring her to David’s palace.”³⁰ Similarly, Paul Carter in The Gospel Coalition Canada writes, “David sent armed guards to bring one of his subjects into his bed — in every civilized country in the world that is considered rape.”³¹

“Armed guards”? Wow. The Hebrew word means “a messenger, an angel.”³² And of the more than 50 English translations of that verse in Bible Gateway, every English translation uses “messengers” except for three of them, and those three don’t use anything close to “armed guards.”³³ There are three Hebrew words for guards, and none of them were used here.

There are several problems with the argument that “took” means by force. First, the meaning of the word “took” must be discerned by its context. Although it often means “grasp” or “seize,” the same Hebrew word is used in Ruth 4:13, which reads, “Boaz took Ruth, and she became his wife.” Except for those who already have their minds flooded with cultural Marxism, no one reading the book of Ruth could conclude anything other than Ruth desperately wanted to marry Boaz.

Second, Piper ignored the significance of the next words: “So David sent messengers and took her, and she came to him” (emphasis added). John B. Carpenter explains that the verb “is active, meaning that the subject (Bathsheba) is acting, rather than simply being acted upon….The verb means ‘come’ or ‘go.’ Bathsheba came. It doesn’t say she ‘was brought’ or ‘compelled.’ The object of the action is ‘him,’ in this case it is David. Thus, ‘She came to him.’”³⁴ Carpenter asks, “Why is it in the text? If she had no choice, why state ‘she came to him’? The reality is that ‘she came to him’ states her action and agency.”³⁵

Third, the verse could have ended with “and David raped her.” It’s not like the author of 2 Samuel is afraid to talk about rape, since just two chapters later in 13:14, we learn about Amnon’s raping his sister Tamar who is pleading with him to not violate her. But Amnon “refused to listen to her, and since he was stronger than she, he raped her.”³⁶ The underlying word translated “rape” means to afflict, oppress, or humble someone.³⁷ But 2 Samuel 11:4 does not use this word. It merely says that David “lay with her.”³⁸

Arguments That Bathsheba Was Not Raped

Each point that follows may not be decisive in itself but is part of a cumulative case against the assertion that David certainly raped Bathsheba.

Solomon Warns His Sons to Beware Adulterous Women. Proverbs 1–9 is a collection of Solomon’s advice for his sons, one of whom would be king. Of course, Solomon — the wisest man in the world — was also the son of either the most famous adulterers in the history of the world or, if we are going to believe the power dynamic definition of rape, the most famous rapist in the world. Notice that Solomon never warns his sons against committing rape. But he has much to say to his sons about guarding against the adulterous woman.

In Proverbs 2 Solomon tells his sons to pay close attention to his words, “So you will be delivered from the forbidden woman, from the adulteress with her smooth words, who forsakes the companion of her youth and forgets the covenant of her God” (vv. 16–17). Solomon warns his sons that adulterous women are out to seduce them with “smooth words.” These women are dangerous to them (v. 19). Lesson: beware married women who would like to seduce you.

Proverbs 6:23–26 reads, “For the commandment is a lamp and the teaching a light, and the reproofs of discipline are the way of life, to preserve you from the evil woman, from the smooth tongue of the adulteress. Do not desire her beauty in your heart, and do not let her capture you with her eyelashes; for the price of a prostitute is only a loaf of bread, but a married woman hunts down a precious life.” Lesson: beware beautiful married women who would like to seduce you.

Now consider the seventh chapter of Proverbs, which is entirely about a married woman succeeding in seducing a man. It begins in verse 1 with “My son, keep my words and treasure up my commandments with you.” In the next three verses he continues to emphasize the importance of following his commands and walking in wisdom. Then Solomon explains why in verse 5: they will “keep you from the forbidden woman, from the adulteress with her smooth words.” Solomon talks about seeing a “man lacking sense” (v. 7) who is out at dusk passing by a street on which he has seen a loose woman previously (v. 8). He’s doing this at “twilight” (v. 9) — that’s when David was on his roof and when Bathsheba was taking her bath — and then encounters the woman he’s looking for who “kisses him” (v. 13) and tells him that she offered sacrifices and today “paid my vows” (v. 14) — reminiscent of Bathsheba performing her ceremonial cleansing. This woman entices him saying she has “perfumed” her bed (v. 17), and then says, “let us delight ourselves with love” (v. 18). She says her husband has gone on “a long journey,” so they won’t get caught (v. 19) — similarly, Uriah was away at war. Ultimately, he gives in “as an ox goes to the slaughter” (v. 22). Lesson: some married women will try to seduce you but that will end in your slaughter (whether actual or metaphorical).

Solomon’s sons would certainly have tremendous power as compared to any woman who might try to seduce one of them. But it’s ridiculous to say that the women described above are in any sense being raped because of a “power differential.” Rather, the women described here know exactly what they want and are striving to get it — to have sexual relations with someone to whom they aren’t married.

Further, it’s naïve to think that there aren’t some women who want to build their self-images by seducing the powerful. How many women have sex with famous rock stars? And we do, after all, realize the tremendous power differential between a stadium packing rock star and an 18-year-old waitress. Are we going to call that rape? Many years ago, when Clay was a pastor, two different women confessed to him that they had had affairs with pastors — and they were proud of it. Are we going to call that rape? By the way, after these women confessed that, Clay never saw either of them again.

Although Monica Lewinsky was herself single, she had an affair with the married President Bill Clinton, considered the most powerful man in the world. “In the course of flirting with him, she raised her jacket in the back and showed him the straps of her thong underwear, which extended above her pants.”³⁹ About her affair Lewinski wrote, “Sure, my boss took advantage of me, but I will always remain firm on this point: it was a consensual relationship. Any ‘abuse’ came in the aftermath, when I was made a scapegoat in order to protect his powerful position.”⁴⁰ Lewinsky wanted to have sex with Bill Clinton, and the “power differential” didn’t make it sexual abuse unless one is going to define it that way, which is circular reasoning.

The Focus Is on What David Did to Uriah. First Kings 15:5 tells us that “David did what was right in the eyes of the Lord and did not turn aside from anything that he commanded him all the days of his life, except in the matter of Uriah the Hittite.” Notice again that only Uriah is mentioned. It could easily have said, “in the matter of Uriah the Hittite and the rape of Bathsheba.”

“Bathsheba” Isn’t Named in the Genealogy of Jesus. It’s interesting that Matthew’s genealogy mentions the names of several prominent women in the ancestry of Jesus, but not Bathsheba’s. Here’s the beginning of the genealogy of Jesus as found in Matthew 1:1–6:

The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham. Abraham was the father of Isaac, and Isaac the father of Jacob, and Jacob the father of Judah and his brothers, and Judah the father of Perez and Zerah by Tamar, and Perez the father of Hezron, and Hezron the father of Ram, and Ram the father of Amminadab, and Amminadab the father of Nahshon, and Nahshon the father of Salmon, and Salmon the father of Boaz by Rahab, and Boaz the father of Obed by Ruth, and Obed the father of Jesse, and Jesse the father of David the king. And David was the father of Solomon by the wife of Uriah. (emphasis added)

Tamar was a woman of faith who pretended to be a prostitute to get pregnant from Judah. Rahab had been a prostitute in the land of the Canaanites but is nonetheless mentioned by name as she was a woman of faith. Ruth is one of the holiest women mentioned in the Bible. It would have been easy to write, “David was the father of Solomon by Bathsheba the wife of Uriah.” But her name isn’t mentioned. Instead, she is only addressed as “the wife of Uriah.” If she had been raped and thus completely innocent in her relationship with David, why not honor her by mentioning her name?

The Accusation of Rape Is Based on Contemporary Critical Theory. Larry Alex Taunton argues that saying that David raped Bathsheba is a relatively new idea. He says he checked 20 commentaries written prior to 2000 and noticed, “Not a single one of them addressed the issue of rape. You know, meaning that wasn’t on the table. That just wasn’t an issue that they were addressing.”⁴¹ He goes on to point out that what was addressed among them was the degree of Bathsheba’s guilt: “they are unified that she committed adultery too….None of them took the view that she had been raped.”⁴²

John B. Carpenter explains how “power imbalance” is related to cultural Marxism:

The claim that David raped Bathsheba shows what is embedded at the heart of the community that makes it: a fundamental suspicion of authority. “The power imbalance” is to blame. Power imbalances always foster abuse, according to this “community.” These assumptions about authorities arise from what some have called “cultural Marxism.” Just as classic, economic Marxism assumed that all the institutions existed for the power and privilege of the bourgeois elite. So, “cultural Marxism” assumes that power is merely for the patriarchal, racial, or religious elite. It’s all a power play. These assumptions, whatever you might call them, are embedded in part of our culture. They are rarely laid out by those who hold them but smuggled into the debate with test cases such as David and Bathsheba.⁴³

Bathsheba Should Have Resisted. As quoted earlier, Imes wrote, “David summons her. Does she have a choice? Her husband and her father are both soldiers under his command. No one can refuse the king.”⁴⁴ Several things.

First, she should have cried out. Deuteronomy 22:24 commands that if a woman has sex with someone to whom she’s not married, then “you shall stone them to death with stones, the young woman because she did not cry for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbor’s wife. So you shall purge the evil from your midst.” Some have said that crying out wouldn’t have done any good in this case as no one would have heard her. But they don’t know that. That’s just speculation. The Scripture says that if someone is trying to rape a woman, she should cry for help.

Also, the David-raped apologists don’t know that if Bathsheba had resisted, even a little bit, that David wouldn’t have apologized and let her go. To say that a woman shouldn’t try to resist at all is contrary to Scripture and contrary to common sense. Now, if David grabbed a knife and put it to her throat, well, that would be the time to give in and that would certainly be rape. But she could cry out before it came to that.

Second, notice that not agreeing that David raped Bathsheba is personal for many women who say they experienced an encounter for which they had no choice because of a power differential. If the power differential factor is removed, then that means that they weren’t raped and that they might bear some responsibility for their sexual encounter. For confidentiality’s sake we can’t give examples, but we’ve personally known women who were seduced who later called it abuse.⁴⁵

Each instance of sexual molestation/rape needs to be taken case by case. Sexual intercourse, where there is no threat of physical violence, can’t be sweepingly defined as rape by a power differential. Again, Monica Lewinski wrote, “Sure, my boss took advantage of me, but I will always remain firm on this point: it was a consensual relationship. Any ‘abuse’ came in the aftermath, when I was made a scapegoat in order to protect his powerful position.”⁴⁶ Many women want to have sex with powerful men, and doing so doesn’t make it rape.

One of the things we find most troubling from the David-raped apologists is that they argue that the powerless are incapable of resisting the powerful. That’s historically false. It’s also insulting to women to say they’re incapable of resisting in the absence of physical threat.

But before we go any further, we need to make one point clear. We certainly think it’s better to be sexually violated than dead. If a woman has a knife to her throat or a gun to her head, then it’s better for her to allow the perpetrator to have his way than be killed.

During the pre-Christian Roman Empire, the Romans had all the power and Christians had none. But these powerless Christians were willing to be tortured to death rather than deny Christ. W. E. H. Lecky in his History of European Morals sums up the Roman torture of Christians:

Those hateful games, which made the spectacle of human suffering and death the delight of all classes, had spread their brutalizing influence wherever the Roman name was known, had rendered millions absolutely indifferent to the sight of human suffering, had produced in many, in the very centre of an advanced civilisation, a relish and a passion for torture, a rapture and an exultation in watching the spasms of extreme agony.…The most horrible recorded instances of torture were usually inflicted, either by the populace, or in their presence, in the arena. We read of Christians bound in chains of red-hot iron, while the stench of their half-consumed flesh rose in a suffocating cloud to heaven; of others who were torn to the very bone by shells, or hooks of iron; of holy virgins given over to the lust of gladiator or to the mercies of the pander; of two hundred and twenty-seven converts sent on one occasion to the mines, each with the sinews of one leg severed by a red-hot iron, and with an eye scooped from its socket; of fires so slow that the victims writhed for hours in their agonies; of bodies torn limb from limb, or sprinkled with burning lead; of mingled salt and vinegar poured over the flesh that was bleeding from the rack; of tortures prolonged and varied through entire days. For the love of their Divine Master, for the cause they believed to be true, men, and even weak girls, endured these things without flinching, when one word would have freed them from their sufferings.⁴⁷

Indeed, “one word would have freed them from their sufferings”!

When it comes to “even weak girls,”⁴⁸ consider that in AD 203, the 22-year-old Vibia Perpetua and a slave girl named Felicity walked into the arena to be killed by wild beasts. Here’s a portion of the testimony about their entering the arena: “They were stripped therefore and made to put on nets; and so they were brought forth. The people shuddered, seeing one a tender girl, the other her breasts yet dropping [milk] from her late childbearing.⁴⁹ So they were called back and clothed in loose robes. Perpetua was first thrown, and fell upon her loins.”⁵⁰

To avoid this all they needed to do was to flick incense to Caesar, and they would then be free to raise their children (Perpetua had just weaned her child prior to entering the arena). But, nonetheless, she honored Christ through it. In her diary Perpetua wrote, “And Hilarian the procurator — he that after the death of Minucius Timinian the proconsul had received in his room the right and power of the sword — said: ‘Spare your father’s grey hairs; spare the infancy of the boy. Make sacrifice for the Emperors’ prosperity.’ And I answered: I am a Christian.”⁵¹ The David-raped apologists need to rethink the notion that the powerless cannot resist the powerful — all the martyrs of the Christian church are a witness against them. —Clay Jones and Jean E. Jones

Clay Jones is the author of Why Does God Allow Evil?: Compelling Answers for Life’s Toughest Questions (Harvest House, 2017), Immortal: How the Fear of Death Drives Us and What We Can Do about It (Harvest House, 2020), and co-author with his wife Jean E. of How Does God Use Suffering for Good? (Harvest House, forthcoming).

Jean E. Jones is the co-author of several books, including Discovering Good News in John (Harvest House, 2022), Discovering Wisdom in Proverbs (Harvest House, 2023), and How Does God Use Suffering for Good? (Harvest House, forthcoming).

NOTES

1. Rachael Denhollander: “David Didn’t Fornicate with Bathsheba, David Raped,” Woke Preacher Clips, YouTube, October 27, 2022, 2:03, accessed July 25, 2024, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L04p97e4Or8.
2. It’s important to point out that Denhollander wants what David and Bathsheba did to be rape. As Ruth Graham wrote about their interview:

• Denhollander was silently relieved when a girl in the class responded that Bathsheba couldn’t have said no. “I don’t think that’s right,” a boy replied. “She could have chosen death. This wasn’t abuse.” Denhollander easily grasped his point. “If they see Bathsheba that way, they would see me that way too,” she writes, “better off dead than violated.” This week, a pastor and ministry leader echoed the same perspective online: Bathsheba should have told David to “prepare the furnace” rather than obey him — and, he added, today’s daughters should be taught to do the same. For young people who have absorbed similar messages in Christian spaces, the redemption of Bathsheba matters very much indeed. Ruth Graham, “Why Evangelicals Are Arguing Online about David and Bathsheba: Did David Woo Bathsheba? Or Did He Rape Her?” Slate, October 10, 2019, accessed July 24, 2024, https://slate.com/human-interest/2019/10/bathsheba-david-rape-evangelical-abuse.html.

There’s much to say about this. First, “prepare the furnace” is a ridiculously callous remark.

Second, we do think that if someone’s life is clearly endangered by resisting rape that it is better to be violated than killed. The Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego allusion about them being thrown into a furnace had to do with them refusing to worship Nebuchadnezzar as God. Christians are not called to give their lives to avoid being sexually abused. But Christians are to give their lives rather than worship another god (more on that later).

Third, we’re a little confused about Denhollander’s applying her own situation to David and Bathsheba. Denhollander was misled, again and again, into thinking that the molestation happening to her was for her good. Here are her words in her victim impact statement:

I was barely 15 when Larry began to abuse me, and as I lay on the table each time and tried to reconcile what was happening with the man Larry was held out to me to be, there were three things I was sure of:

1. This was something Larry did regularly.

2. Because this was something he did regularly, it was impossible that at least some people at MSU and USAG were unaware of this regular method of treatment.

3. Because people at MSU and USAG HAD to be aware of these treatments and had not stopped them, there surely could be no question about its legitimacy. This must. Be. Medical. Treatment.

Rachael Denhollander, “In Her Own Words: Nasser Victim’s Emotional Statement,” Detroit News, January 24, 2018, accessed August 1, 2024, https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/local/michigan/2018/01/24/rachael-denhollander-larry-nassar-statement/109781984/.

What happened to her was horrific, but, again, it happened to her under the guise of being medical treatment. That’s not similar to the story of David and Bathsheba, whether one concludes that Bathsheba was raped or not.

Fourth, we do not understand why Denhollander would say: “If they see Bathsheba that way, they would see me that way too.” We think it is possible, even likely, that Bathsheba wasn’t raped. But even if Bathsheba was sexually molested but didn’t verbally object to it, how does that apply to someone who is sexually molested but accepts it because she believes it is for her medical healing?

Fifth, women should express their unwillingness to be knowingly sexually molested, but, again, how does that apply if, as was the case with Denhollander, she was misled?

Sixth, we are concerned that women are being told they don’t have agency.

Seventh, we are concerned that women who have been seduced by powerful men (or sometimes powerful women) will then begin to call what happened to them rape rather than what it was — a willing sexual encounter. Women (or men) don’t have to repent of being raped but they do have to repent of allowing themselves to be seduced.

3. Carmen Joy Imes, “Blame David, Not Bathsheba. The Prophet Nathan Did.” Christianity Today, July 18, 2022, accessed July 15, 2024, https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2022/july-web-only/rape-david-bathsheba-adultery-sexual-sin-prophet-nathan.html.

4. Bonnie Kristian, “The Political Implications of a Biblical rape: Why Christians Are Suddenly Arguing over Whether King David Was a Rapist,” The Week, October 10, 2019, accessed July 31, 2024, https://theweek.com/articles/870277/political-implications-biblical-rape.

5. David E. Garland and Diana R. Garland, “Bathsheba’s Story: Surviving Abuse and Loss,” Baylor.edu, accessed October 15, 2024, https://www.baylor.edu/content/services/document.php/145462.pdf, excerpt from Flawed Families of the Bible: How God’s Grace Works through Imperfect Relationships (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2007). David Garland was the Dean, George Truitt Theological Seminary, Baylor University. Diana Garland was Dean of Social Work, Baylor University.

6. Imes, “Blame David, Not Bathsheba.” Both of us have many times carefully read David’s life story in 1–2 Samuel and 1 Kings, and the many psalms David wrote, and we consider Imes’s judgment here to be not only speculative but slanderous. How does Imes know David’s inner life? Further, the Lord said that David was “a man after his own heart” (1 Samuel 13:14; cf. Acts 13:22), and even if that implies that God chose David for His own purposes, as V. Philips Long put it, “the idea that Yahweh’s king, David, has a heart attuned to Yahweh’s will and purposes should not be diminished.” V. Philips Long, Zondervan Illustrated Bible Background Commentary, vol. 2, John Walton, ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2009), 329.

7. Imes, “Blame David, Not Bathsheba.” For an excellent article on this subject, especially examining the power dynamic, see John Carpenter, “Bathsheba Wasn’t Raped and Why It Matters,” Truth Script, November 2, 2023, accessed July 21, 2024, https://truthscript.com/theology/bathsheba-wasnt-raped-and-why-it-matters/.

8. Neil Shenvi and Pat Sawyer, Critical Dilemma: The Rise of Critical Theories and Social Justice Ideology — Implications for the Church and Society (Eugene, OR: Harvest House, 2023), 92–93, Kindle Edition.

9. Carl R. Trueman adds, “The attraction of critical theories for Christians lies in the fact that they grasp an aspect of the truth. The problem lies in the fact that they press this to the point where other truths are marginalized, subverted, or even rejected.” “Foreword,” Shenvi and Sawyer, Critical Dilemma.

10. Sheila Wray Gregoire, “Did David Rape Bathsheba? Why a Power-Rape Interpretation Matters,” Bare Marriage, March 15, 2023, accessed July 21, 2024, https://baremarriage.com/2023/03/did-david-rape-bathsheba/.

11. Shenvi and Sawyer, Critical Dilemma, 405.

12. Bible quotations are taken from the ESV, unless noted otherwise.

13. Imes, “Blame David, Not Bathsheba.”

14. Imes, “Blame David, Not Bathsheba.”

15. Tara-Leigh Cobble, The Bible Recap: A One-Year Guide to Reading and Understanding the Entire Bible (Minneapolis: Bethany House, 2020), 282.

16. Cobble, The Bible Recap, 282.

17. Cobble, The Bible Recap, 282.

18. Makes us think that in the David-raped apologists’ minds, “David did what was right in the eyes of the Lord and did not turn aside from anything that he commanded him all the days of his life, except in the matter of Uriah the Hittite” (1 Kings 15:5) should be amended to include “except he shirked his war responsibilities and in the matter of Uriah the Hittite.”

19. Robert D. Bergen, 1, 2 Samuel, vol. 7, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1996), 363–364.

20. Bergen writes, “The events recorded here cannot be correlated with previous narrative accounts. It is likely that they occurred earlier, rather than later, in David’s career — probably prior to the Bathsheba affair (cf. comments at [2 Samuel] 11:1).” Bergen, 1, 2 Samuel, 448.

21. J. Robert Vannoy, Cornerstone Biblical Commentary: 1–2 Samuel, vol. 4 (Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale, 2009), 331–332.

22. Imes, “Blame David, Not Bathsheba.”

23. Duane A. Garrett, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, vol. 14, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1993), 104.

24. Imes, “Blame David, Not Bathsheba.”

25. Imes, “Blame David, Not Bathsheba.”

26. Imes, “Blame David, Not Bathsheba.”

27. “Comforted” is נָחַם nāḥam: “The verb always means to console or comfort. Jacob refused to be comforted when he believed that Joseph had been killed (Gen. 37:35). To console is synonymous with showing kindness to someone, as when David consoled Hanun, king of the Ammonites, over the death of his father (2 Sam. 10:2). God refused to be consoled over the destruction of His people (Isa. 22:4; 40:1); yet He comforts those who need it (Ps. 119:82; Isa. 12:1).” Warren Baker and Eugene E. Carpenter, The Complete Word Study Dictionary: Old Testament (Chattanooga, TN: AMG Publishers, 2003), 723.

28. Bergen, 1, 2 Samuel, 374.

29. John Piper, “Did Bathsheba Sin with David?” Desiring God, January 24, 2022, accessed July 20, 2024, https://www.desiringgod.org/interviews/did-bathsheba-sin-with-david.

30. Cobble, The Bible Recap, 282.

31. Paul Carter, “Did King David Rape Bathsheba?,” The Gospel Coalition: Canada, April 22, 2018, accessed July 12, 2024, https://ca.thegospelcoalition.org/columns/ad-fontes/did-king-david-rape-bathsheba/.

32. Warren Baker and Eugene E. Carpenter, The Complete Word Study Dictionary: Old Testament (Chattanooga, TN: AMG Publishers, 2003), 613–14. Also, none of the 55 English versions of the Bible listed in Bible Gateway translate the word as “armed guard.” Overwhelmingly the word is translated “messenger.” EASY uses the world “servants.” TLB doesn’t mention any word at all. MSG uses “agents.”

33. See 2 Samuel 11:4 at Bible Gateway (biblegateway.com), accessed July 24, 2024, https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/2%20Samuel%2011:4.

34. Carpenter, “Bathsheba Wasn’t Raped and Why It Matters.” John B. Carpenter, Ph.D., Th.M., Th.M., M.Div., is pastor of Covenant Reformed Baptist Church, in Danville, Virginia, and the author of Seven Pillars of a Biblical Church (Wipf and Stock, 2022) and the Covenant Caswell Substack. Here is Carpenter’s fuller explanation:

• Second Samuel 11:4, while saying that David sent messengers (mal-’ā-ḵîm, one who conveys a message) who “took her,” also says “she came to him” (wat-tā-ḇō-w ’ê-lāw, אֵלָיו֙ וַתָּב֤וֹא). This two-word sentence consists of an active verb with a “waw” prefix attached to it, simply translated as “and,” as this prefix commonly is. A “waw” attached to a verb is usually a “waw consecutive” indicating the next action in the narrative. After the messengers, “she came to him.” The verb (wat-tā-ḇō-w) is active, meaning that the subject (Bathsheba) is acting, rather than simply being acted upon. Carpenter, “Bathsheba Wasn’t Raped and Why It Matters.”

35. Carpenter, “Bathsheba Wasn’t Raped and Why It Matters,”

36. NIV. Of the over 50 English versions on Bible Gateway, 18 use the word “raped,” 25 use the word “forced,” and seven use the word “violated.” See 2 Samuel 13:14 at Bible Gateway, accessed October 17, 2024, https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/2%20Samuel%2013%3A14.

37. Also, in Genesis 34:2 we read of Dinah’s rape. The NIV and NASB translate the word for what happened to Dinah as “rape” and the ESV translates the word “humiliated.” Scripture could have used those words in the case of Bathsheba.

38. “שָׁכַב šāḵaḇ: A verb meaning to lie down, to sleep. It means to put oneself in a reclining position when sleeping or resting (Gen. 19:4; Lev. 14:47; Deut. 6:7; Josh. 2:1; Ps. 3:5[6]; Prov. 3:24); when ill, to recover (Lev. 15:4; 2 Kgs. 9:16). It is used of sexual intercourse, lying with a woman or man (Gen. 19:32–35; Num. 5:13, 19; Judg. 16:1; 2 Sam. 13:14).” Baker and Carpenter, The Complete Word Study Dictionary, 1134.

39. Clémence Michallon, “Impeachment: American Crime Story — Monica Lewinsky Explains Why She Included Thong-Flashing Moment in Series: Lewinsky Is a Producer on the Anthology Series’ New Season,” Independent, September 7, 2021, accessed July 25, 2024, https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/tv/news/monica-lewinsky-impeachment-american-crime-story-b1909281.html.

40. Monica Lewinsky, “Shame and Survival,” Vanity Fair, May 28, 2014, accessed July 25, 2024, https://www.vanityfair.com/style/society/2014/06/monica-lewinsky-humiliation-culture.

Since 2014, Lewinsky said she is rethinking what happened. “I’m beginning to entertain the notion that in such a circumstance the idea of consent might well be rendered moot. (Although power imbalances — and the ability to abuse them — do exist even when the sex has been consensual.)….‘This’ (sigh) is as far as I’ve gotten in my re-evaluation; I want to be thoughtful. But I know one thing for certain: part of what has allowed me to shift is knowing I’m not alone anymore.” Monica Lewinsky, “Monica Lewinsky: Emerging from ‘the House of Gaslight’ in the Age of #MeToo, Vanity Fair, February 25, 2018, accessed July 20, 2024, https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2018/02/monica-lewinsky-in-the-age-of-metoo.

41. Larry Alex Taunton, “Marxism & Biblical Interpretation: The Story of David & Bathsheba,” The Larry Alex Taunton Show, ep. 8, YouTube, May 25, 2022, 1:15:13, accessed July 24, 2024, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o3MlzHAVod8.

42. Taunton, “Marxism & Biblical Interpretation.”

43. Carpenter, “Bathsheba Wasn’t Raped and Why It Matters.”

44. Imes, “Blame David, Not Bathsheba.”

^45. We started to give examples but decided that we couldn’t be vague enough and not have the individuals feel betrayed.

46. Lewinsky, “Shame and Survival.”

47. William Edward Hartpole Lecky, History of European Morals: From Augustus to Charlemagne, 9th ed. (London: Longmans, Green, 1890), vol. 1., 469–470. Available at https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/39273.

48. Consider also the intertestamental book of Susanna, which is an example of a virtuous woman who chose virtue over disgrace and death. Two scoundrels demand Susanna sleep with them or they will testify they saw her commit adultery and she will die. She replies, “I choose not to do it; I will fall into your hands, rather than sin in the sight of the Lord” (Susanna 23, NRSV). They falsely accuse her, and she’s condemned to die. But she entrusts herself to God, who stirs a prophet to examine the witnesses separately and thereby proves their word false.

49. Felicity had just given birth.

50. St. Perpetua, The Passion of Saints Perpetua and Felicity, trans. W. H. Shewring (London: 1931), Internet Medieval Sourcebook, accessed July 17, 2024, https://sourcebooks.web.fordham.edu/source/perpetua.asp.

51. St. Perpetua, The Passion of Saints Perpetua and Felicity.