Lori Alexander wrote on this a few weeks ago where she was saying how David did not rape her. I have been in a few churches where the sin is placed on Bathsheba. So glad to see more and more realizing that she had no choice but to submit. The comments on her FB some men were saying Bathsheba wanted to be with the King and she bathed in public on purpose.

Thank you.

>>>Samuel goes on to tell David that he showed utter contempt to God and calamity would fall on his household because of his actions. On the other hand, Bathsheba is called out in the lineage of David.<<<

Shouldn't that be Nathan instead of Samuel, and the lineage of Jesus instead of David? (or maybe I'm misreading it)

The whole David/Bathsheba thing is as sordid today as it was back then.
And the story is as worn out as the tires on a poorly maintained big-rig.
Rahab was my kind of gal and she probably ran a fairly decent cat-house too.

To his credit, when confronted with the fact that his sin was known, David confessed that he was the one responsible and guilty. And didn’t go on and on about anything she did to entice him to his behavior or other things that would excuse him (drugs, etc).
There would be a lot less to talk about here if the current subjects reported on would follow that part of his example.

No matter the shortcomings of those analyzing what occurred with David and Bathsheba in hindsight, it is still wise to be very precise and not go beyond what is written.

Whether people want to stay with a concept of where David’s mind was and his inclination was (as well as hers), there is enough silence on key parts of the matter that it does not seem wise to make a definitive declaration. Now, is the first thing that comes to mind concerning the initial encounter that no matter the initial physical impetus, two hearts found love at first sight in the initial encounter? Possibly not, but we actually don’t know because of the dearth of information, so it does not seem that can be definitively ruled out.

This is pertinent when we do have the case of Amnon and Tamar, where even though it is said that he initially loved her, the encounter shows clear evidence of Tamar resisting her brother due to her words (2 Samuel 13:13) and that the encounter occurred as he was “stronger than her, and humbleth her“ (cf. 2 Samuel 13:14). And in the next verse, we read about how Amnon “hateth her” and that “greater [is] the hatred with which he hath hated her than the love with which he loved her”. Once again, there is clear information that can lead to a definitive conclusion as far as their hearts, which is not the case on certain aspects of the heart as far as the initial encounter with David and Bathsheba.

Again, not going into the motives of those who might be using certain interpretations towards their own agendas and narratives, but one of the reasons people can speak definitively on David’s adultery and his role in Uriah’s death is because there is abundance of written evidence. The point about not impugning Bathsheba based on presumptions not made clear in Scripture is legitimate. However, as what transpired in her heart is not clear, it does not appear we can speak definitively as far as absolute victimhood as much as one might be able to regarding Tamar. That’s even with Bathsheba being subject to the great weight of pressure brought to bear with kings and guards etc. While cases be made with references to circumstantial evidence, it still does not appear to be clear enough to be able to definitively declare before God and man with a level of certainty.

It also comes to mind — as it has some similar elements though it is assuredly not apples to apples on the power dynamic, so bear with the thought — that we also have a case of Joseph and Potiphar’s wife as far as pressures brought to bear by those with authority. Obviously, Joseph had the physical strength to tear away (and she was evidently relying on no other servants being there, which is another difference in dynamic), but it evidently was a case of pressure being brought to bear with consequences for resistance, and where levels of resistance were made clear in Scripture as they seemed to be with Tamar. Again, the common thread that I’m trying to focus on has to deal with how much is actually made clear in Scripture, and the limits that that creates as far as definitive conclusions.

JDV,

I’m inclined to think that the author’s intent in chapters 12 and 13, is that the subsequent events of Amnon/Tamar and Absalom/Amnon are to be understood as the first, prompt, fulfillments of Nathan’s prophecy that YHWH would visit on David’s family what David had done to Uriah’s family. That would tend to support the inference that in spite of the terse language of chapter 11, which could be cited to justify a posture of uncertainty on the matter, the David/Bathsheba liaison was, from Bathsheba’s perspective, not consensual.

The David and Bathsheba story could be a case study in people reading their own cultural assumptions back into the text. The biblical account never assigns blame to a single person but David, and David himself is depicted as accepting that blame in full. Yet the story has been subjected to all sorts of distortions.

JDV,

Honestly your comments were TL:DR.

This jumped out at me, though: “as what transpired in her heart is not clear, it does not appear we can speak definitively as far as absolute victimhood”

What?? Her immediate contemporary, the prophet Nathan, had no problem figuring out she was a victim (even though what happened to her may not have met the legal definition of rape at the time). The perpetrator, David, agreed with Nathan’s assessment. Seems to me we can be quite definitive without going an inch beyond the text itself.

Max: I thought “My God, David raped Bathsheba and put a plan in motion to have her husband killed!” … then I got exposed to preaching which tried to explain all that away since David was a man after God’s heart, etc.

Given contemporary examples covered on this blog, Mighty ManaGAWD and indulging sexual appetites under cover of Authority/POwer go hand-in-hand. WHich is probably one of the reasons why it being All Bathsheba’s Fault became The Party Line.

I have similar experiences to your first thought. When I was just starting out, my first thoughts were a lot like yours. Then I got exposed to The Party Line on pain of God’s Wrath, where anything other than The Party Line was As The Sin of Witchcraft.

The main difference was in The Age of Hal Lindsay, The Party Line was entirely concentrated around Genesis 1, John 3:6, Altar Call Salvation, and the entire Book of Revelation/Book of Daniel/Late Great Planet Earth. i.e. What you’d find in Jack Chick tracts.

Jack Chick + Hal Lindsay is a VERY destructive combination.

Another woman that gets shamed is the woman at the well. What we know from scripture is that she has had 5 husbands, and the man she now has is not her husband. How often do you hear sermons that make her into a very sinful bed hopping woman?

Truth is, we don’t know. She could be just that. But given the culture of the time she could simply be a woman unlucky enough to have had 5 legitimate husbands die on her. Or 5 decide to divorce her. Maybe she had bad breath, lousy cooking, carried a disease like typhoid, or maybe her dear old dad had not supplied much of a dowry. Maybe she simply could not or had not conceived and born children.

Maybe she did not want the life of being a harlot, had no one to provide for her, and so agreed to move in with this dude. Maybe he felt he would be shamed if he became husband number 6.

No matter what her past, Jesus saw fit to make her the first real evangelist. Nuff said.

Let’s remember Lot wasn’t exactly a paragon of virtue but he made it into the faith hall of fame in Hebrews 11. It truly isn’t about what we do, but about what He did.

I tend to agree David raped Bathesheba, but since I was not there and scripture does not tell me, I have no clue if she was a loyal wife of Uriah or saw this event as a chance to move on up. That knowledge will have to wait til heaven and a long glass of sweet tea with the lady. That David sinned is clear, the state of her heart can only be speculation.

And praise God with us–we got 1 1/4 inches of rain last night. Still short about 5 inches or so for the year, still burned up and in extreme drought officially, but any water from the sky helps.

Do Not Blame the Victim! Arcangela Tarabotti (1604-1652) “Why on earth publish lying fictions just when you dedicate yourselves to assaulting the fortress of chastity as Cupid’s disciples? You preach a sheltered life for women, digging up evidence from the tale of Bathsheba: while bathing in an open place she made even King David lie—that holy prophet whose heart was in tune with God’s. Ask yourselves, witless ones, who was the true cause of her fall, and then deny it if you can. It was nothing else but the king’s lust. Uriah’s wife was at home, minding her own affairs bathing—whether for enjoyment or necessity, it matters little—but David eyed her too. Her beauty inflamed him, and his eyes were the gateway to his heart; by various ruses he obtained the satisfaction his sensuality demanded. What blame can one possibly attribute to that innocent woman, overwhelmed by the splendor of the king’s majesty? She is more worthy of pardon than the royal harp player: she allowed herself to be overcome by a force from on high, as it were; he succumbed to the pull of flesh doomed soon to rot and darts from two eyes that pierce only those wanting to be wounded. (Paternal Tyranny).

2 Samuel 11:3–5 (12S12K12C:OTV5): David the Monster. John Calvin: Now here is a story that should make our hair stand straight up on end whenever we think of it—that a servant of God as excellent as David should fall into such a serious and enormous sin that he could be judged as the most morally lax and promiscuous person in the world. For it would be extremely difficult to find anyone anywhere among the tyrants, or among those who have been the most desperate of all, committing such an excessive crime as David, who thus put himself in the class of monster! For here was David, who was the king and consequently ought to have been the soul of the law in order to give it force. He should have maintained control so that each person could enjoy their own possessions. He should have been the protector of chastity in order to preserve marriages. He should have maintained the life of his subjects. He should have prevented anyone from committing any violence or extortion. (Sermons on 2 Samuel) (Although he does also say that Bathsheba should have exercised discretion so as not to be seen, and cites the stories of Susannah and Isaac and Rebekah as cautionary tales).

(Source: Reformation Commentary on Scripture: Old Testament, Vol 5, 1-2 Samuel, 1-2 Kings, 1-2 Chronicles
Edited by Derek Cooper and Martin J. Lohrmann).

Muff Potter: Brainy women have always been an aphrodisiac for me.

One would hope brainy men and brainy women can work together without the complication and self-gratification of sexual excitement. Or, any men and any women can work together, the same.

Last night we watched the bio of Shania Twain on Netflix. Admirable how she is beautiful but never sinks into the sleaze of the entertainment industry while working mainly with guys. Their comments endorsed her drive and talent, but never aphrodisial.

That being said, it’s always nice when people try to look and act their best, if only for pleasantness while working together.

Headless Unicorn Guy: Hal Lindsay

and just how many wives has Brother Hal had? more than David?

Friend: Since you can imagine love, maybe you can also imagine a married woman’s terror when armed guards come to the door and force her to go see a despot, who happens to hold her husband’s life in his royal hands.

If this happened to me, I would be far too frantic and terrified to do anything but try to survive.

That was allowed for in what I referenced, noting “Bathsheba being subject to the great weight of pressure brought to bear with kings and guards etc.” In your response, you talk about where your head and heart would be at, which is made clear in your words. It is not explicitly clear or stated in Scripture in terms of Bathsheba’s thoughts, no matter the surrounding situation. It is not discounting that factor but acknowledging it, while focusing on taking the circumstantial evidence and taking the next step into making a definitive declaration that appears to be dependent on what was in the heart of both of them.

This might be an example that goes towards making the point or it might completely fail, but here goes. I’ve never read the book for Gone with the Wind, but watched the film version quite a while ago. A woman I know well made a reference to having an issue with the story because of what she called when Rhett carried off Scarlett and then “raped her” (her words IIRC) as she objected and struggled. An issue raised was that her mom seemed to see the incident in romantic terms and that as we see the Scarlett smiling in bed the morning after and seeking after Rhett, it was what she really wanted etc. especially in the greater context of the story.

It seems clear that somebody objecting as Scarlett was portrayed as doing seems to clearly fit definitions of rape. And lest someone think I’m going down the path of saying it’s a matter of perspective, what I’m trying to get at is from the communicating among church folk perspective (which seemed to be the focus of the article), people are already going to be coming in with their preconceived notions. It seems prudent to be precise as possible on what we can make definitive declarations on and what we can’t, as things can devolve and go into certain directions with strawmen being raised and such, as one would think that’s not going to serve the purpose of recognizing abuse of power dynamics.

Going with explaining the circumstances as spelled out in Scripture will hopefully convey the aspect that both you and I referenced of dealing with somebody in authority with guards in isolation, as people have to ponder the realities associated with that. Not that I feel I have to signal bona fides as it were, but I hope the I’ve conveyed in my posts here over the years an appreciation for the dangers inherent in power dynamics and the need to call it out and turn it over to authorities.

If somebody wants to couch concerns with the initial encounter in terms such as “under the current definition of Wisconsin law as far as the power dynamic as well as the perception of imprisonment as to what would trigger charges of abuse, rape, what have you under statute X, the district attorney could use the circumstances as contributing to such charges”, that’s one thing.

However, the article was referencing how people in a church environment would interpret biblical text. Once again, that was my focus and on what could be definitively stated about it versus not having enough definitive information, and (I thought) I took pains to make that the focus (thus, the length of the response at least one found problematic). The reality is that someone could legitimately challenge a categorical, unequivocal declaration that David raped Bathsheba by commenting on the state of their hearts.

Again, the point that I’m making has to do with unequivocal statements related to David and Bathsheba’s initial encounter and where their heads and hearts were at as far as what is exclusively stated in Scripture. It seems wise to be careful not to go beyond what is stated, especially with the propensity of people to come up with their own narratives and agendas and abuse that.

Samuel Conner:
JDV,

I’m inclined to think that the author’s intent in chapters 12 and 13, is that the subsequent events of Amnon/Tamar and Absalom/Amnon are to be understood as the first, prompt, fulfillments of Nathan’s prophecy that YHWH would visit on David’s family what David had done to Uriah’s family. That would tend to support the inference that in spite of the terse language of chapter 11, which could be cited to justify a posture of uncertainty on the matter, the David/Bathsheba liaison was, from Bathsheba’s perspective, not consensual.

A posture of uncertainty on the matter is justified because of the limit as to what was said. Of course, bring up the further context to the likes of Strachan as far as things to consider may serve the point of pointing out the dangers of abuse of power dynamics. Going beyond that, however, carries the aforementioned risks of making categorical assertions where the lack of information works against supporting that.

Ava Aaronson: It seems like power got to David, even after he was carefully seeking God wholeheartedly in his youth.

Like some of these pastor kings who rise in their kingdoms then go off the rails?

Mega-mania has created some bad-boy preachers who started out on the straight and narrow … until the pursuit of power and prestige led them off-track. Of course, some of them were off-track already and deceived followers into believing otherwise. In my long journey through the American church, I’ve known only a handful of church leaders after God’s own heart.

Headless Unicorn Guy: The main difference was in The Age of Hal Lindsay, The Party Line was entirely concentrated around Genesis 1, John 3:6, Altar Call Salvation, and the entire Book of Revelation/Book of Daniel/Late Great Planet Earth. i.e. What you’d find in Jack Chick tracts.

Jack Chick + Hal Lindsay is a VERY destructive combination.

Dunno about the others, but Hal Lindsey is a money machine, published by Penguin Random House – so big numbers, big bucks.

Lindsey has it all figured out … not the future, as in prophecy, but the now, as in how to make money off of seekers.

His gospel is grift, selling books via hooey.

Ava Aaronson: Dunno about the others, but Hal Lindsey is a money machine, published by Penguin Random House – so big numbers, big bucks.

That’s what a shrink told be back in the Eighties. After my breakup with Ann, I was taking (non-Neuthetic) counseling for a lot of built-up things in my past, including End Times Paranoia which triggered strong panic attacks with every Rapture Scare rumor.

Said counselor had run across Hal Lindsay in person, and told me “He wrote those books entirely for the money.”
To which I replied “Great. He’s laughing all the way to the bank while I’m having flashbacks like a ‘Nam Vet.”

P.S. The Rapture Scare panic-attack flashbacks did not fade away completely until around 1990. (With one exception earlier this year when the Russo-Ukranian War kicked off and Putin started threatening Nuclear War.)

Friend: Without reference to any one comment here, the phrase “women secretly want it” leaps to mind.

“Women Secretly Want It”…
Isn’t that what a RAPIST would say?
As well as being a common trope in Rape-Fantasy Porn?

linda: I tend to agree David raped Bathesheba, but since I was not there and scripture does not tell me, I have no clue if she was a loyal wife of Uriah or saw this event as a chance to move on up. That knowledge will have to wait til heaven and a long glass of sweet tea with the lady. That David sinned is clear, the state of her heart can only be speculation.

Whatever the details, Nathan took into account the Power Differential when assinging blame.

Something today’s Mighty MenaGAWD seem to overlook for their own convenience.

Ava Aaronson: He is now in the course of his fourth marriage with Jolyn Lindsey, having divorced his first three wives.” (www.truechurchfalsechurch.com)

Hal Lindsey.

At his age, Mr. Lindsey probably won’t catch David … who had 8 wives named in Scripture (possibly more).

For the record, I don’t have anything against David … just the false teaching about his encounter with Bathsheba. Mr. Lindsey, on the other hand, should know better about keeping his pants on.

Muff Potter: I’ve always been drawn to the ‘bad girls’ of the Bible, I believe they had brains too.

My favorite clever girl story of the Bible is that of Tamar and Judah. She wasn’t a prostitute but played a similar role cleverly, one time, in response to injustice or unkept cultural promise, if that is injustice.

Gen 38:26 Judah recognized them (his seal, cord and staff). “She is more righteous than I, since I wouldn’t give her to my son Shelah.”

“And he did not sleep with her again.” I’ve always read that as a sign of respect, provision and privilege, rather than punishment.

And later when Judah offers his own life to his father as assurance for Benjamin’s return from Egypt, I was impressed that he had more of himself in the process than some of his other brothers, it seems to me in the story.

I love that Judah and Tamar are both listed in the genealogy of Jesus. I don’t think their story gets enough billing time…

dee: the “walk of shame.”

2 Samuel 12, Nathan confronts David, where the shame belongs.

Regarding the back and forth about Bathsheba… did she want it? and such.

What a question. With the women of the time, does “what she wants” even exist?

The context: polygamy, power hierarchies (all male), prophets all male except 5 who each get 1 verse except Huldah who gets 6 verses, priests all male, kings all male and only one queen. Wouldn’t this be considered a man’s world?

With this level of power in the men’s corner, it would behoove a man to be a gentleman. David failed. He ogled, dispatched his enforcers, dropped his drawers, then ditched the woman. Not a gentleman.

Whatever Bathsheba wanted or didn’t want was never a factor.

Faulting her is the same thinking that faults NOT the professionals – mainly men sometimes women – (pastors, scout leaders, counselors, teachers, police) who engage in on-the-job indiscretions that should end their careers.

“Aw, poor little professional who couldn’t keep their privates to themselves in their profession, ‘cuz temptations arise on the job.”

If anyone should have shown discretion and responsibility, it would have been the king after God’s own heart. The king’s heart strayed, big time, to rape and murder.

For those who blame Bathsheba: Who was at fault for the murder of Uriah?

For the pastors who preach that men get a pass on adultery, because of David, is murder OK too? Is murder, like adultery, just a part of being a normal red-blooded man in a world of tantalizing women? Go ahead, ‘cuz God forgives? Is that the next step for all of the adulterous clergy we see in the News nowadays? Who are discovered in indiscretions, granted forgiveness, then put back in place as spiritual leaders?

Headless Unicorn Guy: Nathan

We need more “Nathan”s in the 21st century church who will point a finger in “David’s” face and shout “You are the man!” (not in a dudebro sense, but in soul-shaking proclamation against sin).

Headless Unicorn Guy: “Women Secretly Want It”…
Isn’t that what a RAPIST would say?

Headless, take a look at the rapist character in the film ‘The Last Duel’ and there is portrayed a person who seems to ‘imagine’ that woman he rapes is actually ‘willing’,
so was this ‘cultural’ in the ‘old days’ of ‘western civilization’?

Good grief. I can REMEMBER in my own life-time that some courts permitted ‘slut shaming’ and it worked against the victims of rape in those days.
How entrenched was ‘slut-shaming’ in our Western tradition??? How long has it been used against women victims and to protect male rapists???

Linda, re the woman at the well, I read a post recently (shame on me, I can’t remember where) as to why she had five husbands. The writer made a point that perhaps she was infertile, didn’t get pregnant, so each man divorced her. Admittedly, we have no proof of this. We don’t know the whole story. Still, offspring (especially males) were important and there were few men like Elkanah who loved his barren wife. Ditto Zechariah and Elizabeth in the New Testament.

Lowlandseer: John Calvin: Now here is a story that should make our hair stand straight up on end…

Calvin is a mixed bag. He also wrote this:
“From this it is easy to conclude how foolish and frail is the support of divine justice afforded by the suggestion that evils come to be not by [God’s] will, but merely by his permission. Of course, so far as they are evils, which men perpetrate with their evil mind, as I shall show in greater detail shortly, I admit that they are not pleasing to God. But it is a quite frivolous refuge to say that God permits them, when Scripture shows Him not only willing but the author of them.” (John Calvin, The Eternal Predestination of God)

And this:
“Let him, therefore, who would beware of such unbelief, always bear in mind, that there is no random power, or agency, or motion in the creatures, who are so governed by the secret counsel of God, that nothing happens but what he has knowingly and willingly decreed.” (John Calvin, ICR 1:16:3)

Per Calvin, all the abuse talked about on TWW is exactly according to God’s secret plan, for his pleasure and glory.

JDV,

“it is still wise to be very precise and not go beyond what is written”
+++++++++++++++++

dear, Bathsheba was coerced.

Friend,

“Without reference to any one comment here, the phrase “women secretly want it” leaps to mind. That mentality is a deep problem, and it always has been.”
+++++++++++++++++++

well, how many decades of film have we been exposed to where this very thing is depicted?

sexual assault happens in private. so the closest imagery society has been exposed to is curated by the film industry, for example.

i have so many recollections of watching a film (or tv) from the past where a man playing a hero role forces himself on a woman,

she struggles, struggles, oh the drama, and the scary music reaches a crescendo and then

breaks into major mode with something akin to the love theme from Tchaikovsky’s Romeo & Juliet as she is suddenly overcome by his irresistible manliness and gives in to him.

goodness, art is a powerful influence.

the truth reflected back to us is not necessarily at face value of what we’re supposed to be seeing/hearing, though.

Ava Aaronson: Wouldn’t this be considered a man’s world?

Even James Brown sang about it.

Max: If you burned the beans in Old Testament days, your old man could divorce you!

Makes you wonder if some beans were burned on purpose.

Rev Ed Trevors is an Anglican priest in Canada’s Maritime Provinces who runs a YouTube channel of the same name. Today I got linked to this video of his from about a year ago, going over the Bible verses (priarily Leviticus and Corinthians) usually used as clobber verses for Same-Sex Pelvic Issues (i.e. GAWD H8S FAGS):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=thBLhWiMKso

He presents that in the original language, a lot of the same-sex taboo verses seem to be referring more to Forced Sex via Power Differential. Like KING David and commoner Bathsheba; like slaveowner and slave; like Penetrate/Colonize/Conquer/Plant and Lie Back and Accept; like Commander ESQUIRE and OfDoug his Handmaid; like Pastor and Pewsitter; like Youth Pastor and Youth Group jail bait. Lowborn victim says “No”, Highborn predator invokes “GOD”.

Paul D.: Not surprisingly, it is often easier for non-believing scholars to read the Bible at face value than it is for believers.

IMHO, the key is scholarship.

History, scholarly factual history, with regard to the Bible, clarifies and enlightens.

Historians Dr. Beth Allison Barr at Baylor, Dr. Kristin Kobes Du Mez at Calvin U, and Dr. Ruth Ben-Ghiat at NYU, have all produced historical works that shed light on men and women throughout history, including biblical history. What do they believe? No idea. But they certainly believe facts.

Jeffrey Chalmers: KINGS at the time could “legally” do whatever they wanted….

“I have the Absolute Right to do Anything to Anybody.”
— Caesar Caligula

Ken F (aka Tweed),

With reference to the first quotation, Calvin also says this “ What cause, or whose cause is it, then, that Paul maintains? After he had adopted the. above axiom–that God hardens whom He will and has mercy on whom He will–he subjoins the supposed taunt of a wicked reasoner: “Why doth He yet find fault? For who hath resisted His will?” (Rom. ix. 19.) He meets such blasphemy as this by simply setting against it the power of God. If those clothe God with the garment of a tyrant, who refer the hardening of men even to His eternal counsel, we most certainly are not the originators of this doctrine. If they do God an injury who set His will above all other causes, Paul taught this doctrine long before us. Let these enemies of God, then, dispute the matter with the apostle. For I maintain nothing, in the present discussion, but what I declare is taught by him.“. (The treatise is a lengthy one and covers all sorts of points).

As for the second, the preceding sentence gives the context “ But as unbelievers transfer the government of the world from God to the stars, imagining that happiness or misery depends on their decrees or presages, and not on the Divine will, the consequence is, that their fear, which ought to have reference to him only, is diverted to stars and comets”.

But all this is a diversion from the topic under discussion, unless you are implying that God is the author of David’s sin.

Muff, HUG and now Friend no doubt have their own reasons for their sarcasm and misrepresentation, but they too are going off topic.

David was forgiven, Bathsheba was blessed and God’s purpose fulfilled – Great is the mystery of godliness; God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

Muff Potter,

Lowlandseer,

Lowlandseer, your badly chosen quote doesn’t shed good enough light on Paul’s intention.

Then the low calibre religious leaders whom we criticise rabbit it out for the audience they have trained to be unthinking.

What God actually counsels is that people, including those in power over others, have to be allowed to harden their own hearts beyond what is in their lights (informed conscience). The entire Bible is an indictment of bad religious leaders.

At the same time the rest of us are asked to supplicate for those leaders that their hearts be softened, thus if we don’t do so, we enter in some degree in complicity with their carelessness and cruelty.

Moses ten times asked Pharaoh to do what was right, doing him the kindness of informing his conscience.

If we are supplicating, maybe hitherto bad religious leaders will find their hearts softening to follow their consciences. Look at Zacchaeus the high status extortioner.

Older style writing up to the time of Paul was shorthand proverbs and just-so stories. This is his method of working God’s sovereignty in together with His respect for our free will. This is also the theme of Gen chapters 3-4.

Paul did not intend later theologians influenced by sophistry (a kind of pharisaism) to pass this off as a logical analysis per se; the reader and hearer is trusted to use power of inference as well as insight into the actual work of Jesus and Holy Spirit.

The word is not the same as the thing and we always have to make the effort to get good code out of language.

elastigirl,

According to “finishing school” stiletto heels and “bust thrusting” (and latterly, inches deep in make up) were supposed to help boys and men along in making friends.

(Not to knock individual ladies’ ideas of feeling the way they are.)

Whereas quite a lot of boys and men valued straightforward behaviour as an aid in making friends.

The chillingly attentuated vision of “friendship” among secular and christian thinkers alike, underlies these problems and no wonder everyone has to “contrive” to have anything resembling friendships of whatever level of intensity, or to cope with “being in love”.

Like father, like son….

Amnon and Tamar

13 In the course of time, Amnon son of David fell in love with Tamar, the beautiful sister of Absalom son of David.

2 Amnon became so obsessed with his sister Tamar that he made himself ill. She was a virgin, and it seemed impossible for him to do anything to her.

3 Now Amnon had an adviser named Jonadab son of Shimeah, David’s brother. Jonadab was a very shrewd man. 4 He asked Amnon, “Why do you, the king’s son, look so haggard morning after morning? Won’t you tell me?”

Amnon said to him, “I’m in love with Tamar, my brother Absalom’s sister.”

5 “Go to bed and pretend to be ill,” Jonadab said. “When your father comes to see you, say to him, ‘I would like my sister Tamar to come and give me something to eat. Let her prepare the food in my sight so I may watch her and then eat it from her hand.’”

6 So Amnon lay down and pretended to be ill. When the king came to see him, Amnon said to him, “I would like my sister Tamar to come and make some special bread in my sight, so I may eat from her hand.”

7 David sent word to Tamar at the palace: “Go to the house of your brother Amnon and prepare some food for him.” 8 So Tamar went to the house of her brother Amnon, who was lying down. She took some dough, kneaded it, made the bread in his sight and baked it. 9 Then she took the pan and served him the bread, but he refused to eat.

“Send everyone out of here,” Amnon said. So everyone left him. 10 Then Amnon said to Tamar, “Bring the food here into my bedroom so I may eat from your hand.” And Tamar took the bread she had prepared and brought it to her brother Amnon in his bedroom. 11 But when she took it to him to eat, he grabbed her and said, “Come to bed with me, my sister.”

12 “No, my brother!” she said to him. “Don’t force me! Such a thing should not be done in Israel! Don’t do this wicked thing. 13 What about me? Where could I get rid of my disgrace? And what about you? You would be like one of the wicked fools in Israel. Please speak to the king; he will not keep me from being married to you.” 14 But he refused to listen to her, and since he was stronger than she, he raped her.

15 Then Amnon hated her with intense hatred. In fact, he hated her more than he had loved her. Amnon said to her, “Get up and get out!”

16 “No!” she said to him. “Sending me away would be a greater wrong than what you have already done to me.”

But he refused to listen to her. 17 He called his personal servant and said, “Get this woman out of my sight and bolt the door after her.” 18 So his servant put her out and bolted the door after her. She was wearing an ornate[a] robe, for this was the kind of garment the virgin daughters of the king wore. 19 Tamar put ashes on her head and tore the ornate robe she was wearing. She put her hands on her head and went away, weeping aloud as she went.

20 Her brother Absalom said to her, “Has that Amnon, your brother, been with you? Be quiet for now, my sister; he is your brother. Don’t take this thing to heart.” And Tamar lived in her brother Absalom’s house, a desolate woman.

21 When King David heard all this, he was furious. 22 And Absalom never said a word to Amnon, either good or bad; he hated Amnon because he had disgraced his sister Tamar.

NIV

Jeffrey Chalmers,

I’ve tried to respond, I sent a response to friend, but alas the response was rejected.

Wild Honey: Makes you wonder if some beans were burned on purpose.

I was worried about that the first time my wife made biscuits and gravy, one of my favorite foods. We had only been married a couple of weeks and she cooked some B&G for breakfast … it was so thick, the spoon literally stood up in the middle of it! (I was greatly relieved when all subsequent batches were perfect)

dee: If you have followed this blog, you will know that I do not do comment on political issues. My expertise, so to speak, is within the faith as well as within abuse issues that apply to those in the faith. I do have opinions on those situations you mention but those I discuss with family and close friends (and even then have had serious relationship issues.) So, no comment.

Fair enough Dee, political issues are visceral, what about the power dynamics of rich/ powerful/ wealthy entertainers i.e. Elvis, Almost famous situations, is this an either/or or both/ and situation
Are these type situations cut and dry, or are there individual situational circumstances at play?

dee: I wonder if we should wonder if Bathsheba was secretly glad that Uriah was killed by David.

My guess is that Bathsheba was honored to be married to such a good man as Uriah. David tried to make the pregnancy appear as Uriah’s by calling him from the battlefield to be with Bathsheba. We get a glimpse at just how noble and faithful to king and country Uriah was:

“Then David sent word to Joab, saying, “Send me Uriah the Hittite.” So Joab sent Uriah to David. When Uriah came to him, David asked him how Joab was, how the people were doing, and how the war was progressing. Then David said to Uriah, “Go down to your house, and wash your feet, spend time at home.” Uriah left the king’s palace, and a gift from the king was sent out after him. But Uriah slept at the entrance of the king’s palace with all the servants of his lord, and did not go down to his house. When they told David, “Uriah did not go down to his house,” David said to Uriah, “Have you not just come from a long journey? Why did you not go to your house?” Uriah said to David, “The ark and Israel and Judah are staying in huts (temporary shelters), and my lord Joab and the servants of my lord are camping in the open field. Should I go to my house to eat and drink and lie with my wife? By your life and the life of your soul, I will not do this thing.” Then David said to Uriah, “Stay here today as well, and tomorrow I will let you leave.” So Uriah remained in Jerusalem that day and the next. Now David called him to dinner, and he ate and drank with him, so that he made Uriah drunk; in the evening he went out to lie on his bed with the servants of his lord, and still did not go down to his house. “In the morning David wrote a letter to Joab and sent it with Uriah. He wrote in the letter, “Put Uriah in the front line of the heaviest fighting and leave him, so that he may be struck down and die … people among the servants of David fell; Uriah the Hittite also died … When Bathsheba heard that her husband Uriah was dead, she mourned for her husband” (2 Samuel 11)

Benn: JFK had women escorted to the White House, you just don’t walk right in there ( unless you know Hunter maybe) so is it a different dynamic in our day and time? Yes and no

The mention of “Hunter” makes me think “QAnon Christian” with a side of Whataboutism.

Benn: Friend, maybe you never had an entourage sent for you.

Fancy surroundings do not blind women to the violence of rape.

I knew the man who tried to rape me; in fact, I had known him for years. I was a nobody, and he had power and influence. He lured me with a charming invitation, and then attacked me. I did not report the assault to the police, because I would have been accused of having a “vagenda.”

Of course, that left him free to go find more victims. But hey, maybe some random women fall in love with rapists, particularly if they have nice mansions.

Friend,

Friend, I think you are a very thoughtful and compassionate individual, so so sorry for what was done to you. I have a niece that was sexually assaulted by her older sister’s boyfriend ( or we thought he was at the time), won’t go into details but it destroyed my niece.

In a nutshell all I’m saying is- the Bible doesn’t give us enough details to know for sure
David’s actions make it virtually impossible to ever view him in any favorable light, even if it wasn’t rape.

Lowlandseer: Muff, HUG and now Friend no doubt have their own reasons for their sarcasm and misrepresentation, but they too are going off topic.

In addition to being a crime, rape is also an act of tyranny.
The burden of proof is on you to show me how, Muff, HUG, and Friend are off topic.
If you can, I’ll go to the peanut gallery, sit down, and shut-up.

Max: My guess is that Bathsheba was honored to be married to such a good man as Uriah

This is my guess, too. And I stop there in regard to imagining her relationship with Uriah and how she may have felt about it.

Samuel Conner: I’ve long thought that 2 Samuel should be on everyone’s Bible study agenda. It’s a good way to learn to fear sin.

Agreed … we don’t consider the consequences of sin as we ought.

Samuel Conner: One wonders if David’s withdrawal from public life (no longer judging cases, which gave Absalom his opening to “steal the hearts of the sons of Israel”) was necessitated by widespread knowledge, spread sotto voce , of what David had done.

It would not surprise me.
Even long before Social Media, such a scandal goes Very Viral Very Fast.
I wonder if David also had to watch his back around his own military after what happened to Uriah. They sure couldn’t trust him after that. Maybe that’s why Joab rose to prominence.

Samuel Conner: I’ve long thought that 2 Samuel should be on everyone’s Bible study agenda. It’s a good way to learn to fear sin.

And a much more grown-up way of teaching it. How what you do has echoes throughout the future. How “What Could Possibly Go Wrong?” gets followed by “But How Was I To Know?”

All too often it’s taught as God Waiting for a chance to SMITE! SMITE! SMITE! for any little thing or instant of hesitation. Teaching Coverup and Virtue Signalling.

Anyone remember a Nineties TV series The Young Indiana Jones? Chronicling the youth of the pulp hero of Raiders of the Lost Ark? Putting the future pulp hero in position to see (and sometimes influence) major events of history being made?

Well, the most depressing episode of the series was “Versailles 1919”, about the wheeling and dealing that formally ended World War One. It showed how all this wheel-and-deal between the winners dismantling and crushing Germany/Austria/Turkey (and reaping the immediate benefits) planted the seeds that grew into World War 2, The Cold War (i.e. slo-mo World War 3), Vietnam, and the entire Middle East mess/Islam’s Revenge Binge.

I think it’s important (for our benefit today, and others today, in the “land of the living”) to call the dynamic between David and Bathsheba, what it was then , an abuse of power and coercion, that is rape and that’s what it is today. I’ve heard/read that the word “sex” ought not be used for this dynamic either, it’s violence, actually. It’s done without honoring human dignity/ informed consent.

If there’s a resistance to using a current culture’s language that makes the dynamic clearly a humanitarian violation (since women are actually human, were then, and are now), then I do have to wonder whether there’s a game of normalizing rape, or keeping rape normalized, going on. And these thoughts apply to more than women, they also apply to children and men who may be targets and not targeteers.

Friend: I do not worship a God who glorifies himself through rape.

Men rape men, too. How would that feel, guys? Like to God be the glory?

How is it that no matter how violent the sexual assault, there is still the eye-wink suggestion, or even worse the theology, that somehow underlying it all, both female victim and God wanted it? Projection? Justification?

Simple observation: the God be glorified viewpoint is generally a male preacher projecting that lens onto female victims of the most awful crimes. The theologies of schadenfreude and sadism, it seems.

Did David rape Bathsheba? I believe he did.

But we have to realize that while it is quiet perfectly plausible that she only gave in due to the power differential, we have to remember that in that culture she was ALSO merely chattel to Uriah. He may have been an aces hubby, or he may have been an abusive jerk. Her response to David does not in any way shape or form let him off the hook for the rape.

We simply cannot assume she loved Uriah, did not love him, or mourned him the way we think of when we read she mourned him. She could have just fulfilled the cultural funeral mourning.

Her emotions are not the point in considering the guilt of David. If she “wanted it” he still used his power to get her and defrauded, then killed, Uriah. If she was pure as the driven snow, he still did all that. If she detested David and what he did but was not all that truly upset to be rid of Uriah and move into the Big House, David is still just as guilty.

Bible is not real clear about her as it is about him. So anything about how she must have felt is only projection and rationalizing on our part.

Lowlandseer: introduced the Calvin quote to show that he did not excuse or justify David’s action.

Who cares what Calvin wrote about this other than Calvin defenders? Calvin was not exactly a role model of Christian virtue. Why not quote someone like Mark Driscoll? Here is a Driscoll quote on this topic:
“Despite polygamy being forbidden for kings (Deuteronomy 17:17), he married multiple women. This included committing adultery with a godly soldier’s wife named Bathsheba, impregnating her, and then murdering her unknowing husband Uriah to cover his crime.”
Does this quote absolve Driscoll? Bringing Calvin (or Driscoll) into the discussion causes more harm than good.

Lowlandseer: • She was bathing in a location that could be seen from the palace. This is probably the (flat) roof of her house.

This never excuses King David sending his guard to fetch her, so he could plunder her, then discard her, then murder her husband to hide his first sin. No excuses: Not personally, not spiritually, not legally.

Every day male doctors see beautiful women that they do not assault. Teachers of all ages teach attractive young students. Counselors meet with lovely clients who share their most intimate secrets. Law enforcement comes to the aid of needy beautiful people for their rescue. Pastors disciple good-looking parishioners. Is the power position to be an avenue of plunder or sex? Never. Moral law and civic law condemn this.

The professional upholds their position by honoring respectable boundaries in doing their job, no matter the vulnerability or exposure of those they serve. King David became unfit to be king by his own decisions and actions.

Every sermon I’ve ever heard on this story faults Bathsheba for tempting David, then forgives the poor guy King David who “fell” into her entrapment. Sick. No wonder the Houston Chronicle can document hundreds, thousands, of wayward church leaders who seem to just “fall” into entrapment because like David, they simply can’t help themselves.

Fortunately, Jesus paints a completely different picture in his interactions with women. He met them at their most vulnerable places and never crossed a line. Never lust, always love. Jesus. Jesus followers do the same: love, never lust, never twisted, just love.

Benn,

I am sorry for what happened to your niece, and I hope she has recovered.

dee: That is why, in this situation, we have to lean heavily on Nathan’s depiction of Bathsheba as well as her listing in Matthew’s lineage of Jesus a “the wife of Uriah.” Those speak to the heart of issues of Bathsheba while we need to watch the development of David’s messed up heart and his eventual punishment.

Good point.

Nathan the prophet – good enough for Nathan and approved by God would be good enough for me, in my understanding of the authenticity of a true prophet of God. (There were false prophets.)

dee,

The thought occurs that even if one were to reckon that Bathsheba was intentionally tempting David, he always had the option available to him that was taken by Joseph when he was pursued by Potiphar’s wife.

At this point in his life, David may have already left off from shepherding Israel with integrity.

—

It’s hard to know when things began to go downhill for David, but at some point he started “collecting” women. Maybe it would have been good to have not married Abigail, after all, nor anyone else at all after Michal. Rulers in the New Testament church are to be “one woman men.” It may have been better had this been the practice in Old Israel, as well.

—

Regarding Nathan’s employment of “lamb” in the allegory with which he elicited David’s self-accusation, that could have a darker interpretation. Lambs are property and the sin, in the allegory, was the deprivation of the poor man of a beloved piece of property, which would make the whole thing about David’s sin against Uriah, first by cutting in on his marriage covenant, and then by killing him. It may be that “sin against Bathsheba” is not even in view in Nathan’s thinking (that’s a bitter pill to swallow, but the ancient Hebrews did not think about these things the way we do. Per the provisions in the Law, Amnon’s crime was … not marrying the women he had forced himself on. And he probably didn’t bother paying David the bride-price, either).

Having said that, my sense of the story and its aftermath, is that Bathsheba was an unwilling participant.

But I’m not sure one can draw firm inferences from this (Bathsheba as “lamb” in the allegory) aspect of the story. That Bathsheba had little agency in the situation, however, is clear and I think that is acknowledged by everyone who has commented thus far, including those who are reluctant to firmly decide the matter of consent one way or the other.

I seem to recall that in the culture of David and Bathsheba’s times that “adultery” was a law violation and punishable by death. On the other hand, “rape”, as I recall did not have as severe a punishment for the rapist, anyway, except economic. It’s less clear to me how rape would have been viewed in David’s time but just saying it seems to me I recall that death was not the punishment.

So, in light of that, in today’s culture where the word “adultery” isn’t a violation of civil law, although it may be seen in some church environments as worthy of shunning, even there it doesn’t carry a death penalty. So, the word doesn’t carry the weight that it did in David’s time. But rape, back then, was associated with a clear acknowledgment of the perpetrator and, if named today carries a clear acknowledgment of the perpetrator. Back then the perpetrator ( did the woman have a choice of agreeing or not to this?) was suppose to provide for the victim, if victim agreed to live with them going forward. I’m not completely sure about this.

So, adultery isn’t a heavy enough word to teach the weight of David’s sin in today’s culture. And he and Bathsheba were saved from the law’s penalty( that was applied to both, I think, back then) and it seems that they lived out the penalty, optionally, of rape.

Today, adultery certainly doesn’t carry the death penalty weight in culture or church . David and Bathsheba lived out something closer to the penalty of rape. Today, rape is a violation of civil law, apparently not church life law, in some cases. But since the word is associated with a violation of civil law and that is an Avenue of justice for victims ( while church life is not). I think rape is a more appropriate word to carry the weight and meaning of the dynamic of the events during David’s time…….with the hope that they are instructive for today.

Ella,

what was I thinking? Rape is a violation of criminal law…

Friend,

I was wondering that, too.

Ken F (aka Tweed): How does it help anyone to believe God is somehow pleasured by their abuse?

Well, He certainly wasn’t tickled to death about what David did to Bathsheba and Uriah.

dee: Nathan likens Bathsheba to a lamb. I think that tells us what really happened here.

I agree.
The tale of the little ewe lamb told by Nathan makes tears well up in my eyes every time.
And the traveler who chanced by the rich man is richly symbolic and allegorical.

Lowlandseer: Look four comments down

Yeah, providing quotes of Calvin (pbuh) in context is visceral hysteria. The reason so many religious figures get away with so much abuse is because their followers cannot see how badly flawed they are. Religious leaders ahould be examined and held to a higher standard, not coddled. Calvin is a case study in this. Defend Calvin all you want. I find his teachings to be a gross and damaging misrepresentation of God and his ways.

Ken F (aka Tweed),

Read what he says and you’ll find he doesn’t say what you accuse him of.
Friend, I prove my point.

Which also shows how far off topic you all want to take it. It’s back to the Muppet show with Waldorf and Statler c 1.31
https://youtu.be/SK6TVqbsKVk

Ella,

An edit button would be nice, but at least we get to extend the discussion. 🙂

Ava Aaronson: The armed guard or Secret Service or soldiers become the “entourage”. The lustful man in power who plunders then discards, becomes the prince on a white horse that a woman longs for. An everlasting nightmare is translated into a dreamy fantasy. How convenient.

Actually reminds me of Driscoll’s take on Esther.

dee:
Friend,
You beat me to this and your answer was perfect.

Oh, I definitely wanted this corrected, as I added a correction myself, shortly after my original post. But, I suppose it is good to get multiple corrections so that it will more likely be clear for readers.

Ella: it was not adultery, since Bathsheba could not give consent.

Good point.

Commander-in-Chief, King David, was Uriah the soldier’s boss, adding another dynamic to the dilemma for Uriah’s wife, Bathsheba.

Bathsheba was beholden to the King as a citizen (a woman, so second-class citizen), as well as because her husband worked for David. She had, at the very least, to follow orders to protect not only herself but her husband and his job.

Unfortunately, King David was so evil about the pregnancy (that he caused), that he murdered Uriah, her husband, by proxy.

In the end, through no fault of her own, Bathsheba was not able to save her husband’s job nor her husband’s life. All power was in David’s position. All power. This whole deal was his doing.

Run or duck or hide when a powerful leader messes up. He will even take a life to cover his ego and his tracks. (This lesson is what should be in the preachers’ sermons about David and Bathsheba, instead of throwing shade at the woman – typical for some preachers. Throwing shade at women is what some do and they use their preacher platform to do this. Misuse, that is.)

The only person in the story that is not doing what he was supposed to be David who was at home instead of with the military. Bathsheba is doing the purification ritual; Uriah is at war, even when David tries to manipulate him.

In Nathan’s story, the power differential is a big part of it. The rich man took the poor man’s cherished lamb. That would make it rape. (I understood it to be rape when I first read it, too)

Another part of this story often is overlooked. God’s judgment was also that the baby would die. Of course, that makes people very uncomfortable.

I think there needs to be a lot more talk about how God feels about leaders who abuse their power and oppress people. That tends to make people uncomfortable, too.

SoSickOfAbuseEnabling,

“…the stage for those things IS being set up right now.”
++++++++++++++++

although it seems to me that every generation since NT eschatalogy became a thing has had the same conviction.

i was a little girl in the ’70s, who was so troubled by this thing called the rapture that she slept with her stuffed animals in a big bag next to her so she could grab it and take them all with her.

i overhead my mom and aunt talking about what they thought life would be like in the futuristic year 2000. my aunt said, “i don’t think we’ll be here,” with this this look of wonderment and anticipation in her eyes.

(not unlike marshall applewhite of heaven’s gate)

and so i’ve observed my parents’ generation not planning ahead, not caring about the environment & the earth and its creatures since it’s all going to burn and we won’t be here anyway.

the lack of personal responsibility is abhorrent to me.

i prefer to appreciate & invest in the here & now & tomorrow, for the sheer joy of being alive and on principle for the greater good of others.

Benn,

Benn, God means Scripture meaning to be taught alongside Scripture (a rare occurrence in churches). As you don’t believe it has any, you are wasting your own time.

Lowlandseer: I introduced the Calvin quote to show that he did not excuse or justify David’s action.

Do you have any quotes from Calvin that acknowledge David sinned against Bathsheba? In his commentary on Psalm 51 Calvin said David sinned against Uriah and the army. He was silent on David’s sin against Bathsheba.

Ava Aaronson,

Thank you for this description of Bathsheba’s dilemma. It was an impossible situation for her.

One wonders whether property values in the vicinity of David’s palace in Jerusalem may have declined after news of the scandal leaked out. Who would want to live close enough to the palace that this might happen to them?

Ella: IMO it was not adultery, since Bathsheba could not give consent.

I think that, per the provisions of the Law, the consent of the female is an issue only for the purpose of determining her guilt and penalty (thus the bit about whether the act took place in a remote area, where there was no-one to hear a call for help, versus a populated area where a call for help would more likely have been heard). I think that what determines whether the act is “adultery” is the marriage/betrothal status of the female. If she is married or betrothed, the act violates her covenant with her husband or intended husband and the male perpetrator is presumptively guilty, regardless of the consent or non-consent of the female.

I think your suggestion accurately reflects modern thinking, where the violence against the female victim is the thing that holds our attention, and in that case the violence against the marriage relationship to which the female victim is party is secondary — if there is no consent, the act is rape and not adultery (by either of the parties). I think that within ancient Hebrew culture, the order of concerns is reversed. For them, adultery was about the exclusive right of the husband over his wife. An act could be rape from the perspective of the female but it would still be adultery (breaking in to her marriage covenant with her husband) from the perspective of the male.

Samuel Conner: had David received the just penalty of his deeds at the outset, Absalom may very well have lived into old age.

Had David NOT DONE IT IN THE FIRST PLACE, Absalom may very well have lived into old age.

Jack: Using old testament law David games the system to ensure Uriah was killed so he can possess what was Uriah’s.

“BUT EVERYTHING WE DID WAS LEGAL!”
— Local law firm disbarred en masse for an OSHA-compliance extortion scheme some years ago

Max: “Just say No” didn’t apply to powerful kings and his subjects.

And it still does – witness the MenaGAWD exposed on this and other watchblogs.
“TOUCH NOT MINE ANOINTED!”

dee,

I’ve looked up several Jewish sources now, and have yet to find anybody blaming Bathsheba. She was, after all, the wife of David and mother of Solomon, and so is revered. This Orthodox Jewish source is headed “David meets Bathsheba” but omits any mention of rooftop bathing, the guards fetching her, etc. Yet it places huge blame on David while heaping praise on Bathsheba:

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/463977/jewish/David-and-Bathsheba.htm

Ken F (aka Tweed),

You’re mistaken. The commentary makes it plain that all the sins stemmed from his initial sin against Bathsheba. “He speaks of his sins in the plural number. His transgression, although it sprung from one root, was complicated, including, besides adultery, treachery and cruelty; nor was it one man only whom he had betrayed, but the whole army which had been summoned to the field in defense of the Church of God. He accordingly recognises many particular sins as wrapt up in it…….None was aware of the double wrong which he had inflicted upon Uriah,” Also in note 272 you have this “There may be another reason why David here affirms that God would not accept of a sacrifice, nor be pleased with a burnt-offering. No particular sacrifices were appointed by the Law of Moses to expiate the guilt of murder and adultery. The person who had perpetrated these crimes was, according to the Divine law, to be punished with death…….his criminality was of such a character, that the ceremonial law made no provision for his deliverance from the doom which his deeds of horror deserved;”
And as far as your comment about Alistair Begg goes, he is only reflecting a view that has been long held – “2 Samuel 11:4–5 (1 & 2 Samuel (Lange’s)): Ver. 4. Short but very vivid narrative of the sinful deed committed by David in spite of his learning that Bathsheba was a married woman. That David used force or artifice to get possession of the “innocent” woman (Mich.) is not indicated in the expression: “and he took her.” The narrative leads us to infer that Bathsheba came and submitted herself to David without opposition. This undoubtedly proves her participation in the guilt, though we are not to assume that her bathing there was “purposed,” in order to be seen (Thenius). She was moved doubtless by vanity and ambition in not venturing to refuse the demand of David the king. Her purification (which was according to the Law, Lev. 15:18) was performed while she was yet in the king’s palace. [Eng. A. V., Philippson and others not so well make the purification precede her coming to the palace, putting a full stop after the word “uncleanness.”—Tr.]—Ver. 5. Adultery was, according to Lev. 20:10, punishable with death. Her message to David had in view the avoidance of the consequences of this sin (Keil).” (Commentary on the Books of Samuel, Rev. Dr. CHR. FR. DAVID ERDMANN, 1873)

dee,

“a questionable pastor on Twitter was interesting. he said a woman should accept death when faced with an impending rape. She should do anything to get away, including die if necessary. The comment was not well received.”
+++++++++++++++

…d|psh|t moron in an ivory tower

Ken F (aka Tweed),

I disagree (again). You’re looking to find something that isn’t there because you don’t like Calvin. In my first post Calvin calls David a monster which is pretty damning. His only comment about Bathsheba is that she might have been a bit more circumspect. No condemnation. So I’ll leave it there.

A modernization of David and Bathsheba?

A prominent married man tells a young God-seeking woman or girl: “God has spoken and said [with the authority of sending soldiers to get her] that we should be together,” then splays her out on his office floor.

Yes, our society has kings that misuse authority and power.

[The book of Proverbs fully plays out the evil of women who do chase after and entrap men – so that does exist, too. My husband nicknamed one of our son’s girlfriends, “Entrapment” and then warned our son about her. She has moved on. But this has nothing to do with David and Bathsheba, obviously.]

Lowlandseer: You’re looking to find something that isn’t there because you don’t like Calvin.

That goes both ways: “You’re looking to find something that isn’t there because you like Calvin.” If Calvin thought David did anything like the equivalent of rape, he did not appear to state it in any of his writings. All of his written emphasis was on how he egregiously sinned against the men, not how he sinned against the woman. If it turned out that Bathsheba had been the instigator, like Potifer’s wife, Calvin would not need to change anything he wrote because it was all about the harm David caused the men. The need for Calvinists to find ways to defend Calvin highlights the problem with people wanting to believe their leaders are better than reality. It’s what allows people like those highlighted in TWW to get away with abuse. The more I read about Calvin then more I think he would fit in well with the men highlighted on TWW.

Lowlandseer: the whole army which had been summoned to the field in defense of the Church of God.

Did the author realize that there was no Church of God when these events were unfolding?

I know, I know, my weathered KJV says the Song of Solomon is all about Christ and the Church…

elastigirl: …d|psh|t moron in an ivory tower

You’re too kind elastigirl.
The epithet I would have used would never have cleared customs.

Ella: This little adventure was a bit more difficult to take than I thought it would be at the time.

I take a lot of comfort from Jesus’ words to the apostles in response to their inquiry about “why did Moses write that a man may divorce his wife for any reason’, that it was because of the hardness of men’s hearts that he wrote that.

I think that principle could be extended to other aspects of ancient Semitic culture (and these are not unique to those cultures; they were pretty widespread) that we find troubling, such as slavery and polygyny, both of which are permitted (though with a measure of regulation).

The fact that YHWH tolerated in Israel something that Jesus disapproved of to my mind has significant potential implications for how one reads the New Testament, too. Perhaps the residual hints of patriarchy that one finds in Paul’s letters are also things that the Creator tolerated at that time because of the hardness of people’s hearts, but that were not Intended from the beginning.

elastigirl,

If you look and listen carefully this morning, you will find me waving and shouting Hi from a friendly moon.

I understand, elastigirl.

elastigirl: my religion really is unethical, destructive, & stupid, when it’s not being silly.

but what’s a girl to do. it’s not like i can jump religions like jumping trains. (at least not with honesty… but i can’t stay with honesty either)

I was raised Christian and for both good and bad, I may be an apostate but could not convert to anything else.

That being said, apostasy is not to be taken lightly.

My advice is to look at what works for you. You know right from wrong, you have a conscience. Maybe these folks who are silly and unethical are the problem.

My wife is a Christian (an evangelical one at that). She told me it isn’t about wondering if the bible is true or accepting craziness from your “coreligionists”, for the message of redemption and forgiveness are the core.

She believes in the Resurrection and what it stands for.
Whether it’s literally true or not is not the stumbling block it is for her literalist husband.

As the band MGMT says in “kids”

“Control yourself
Take only what you need from it”

Friend: I’ve known some deeply faithful and highly educated theologians. A God worthy of worship should also be worthy of lifelong study by the finest minds. People of faith don’t have to be scholars, but it does help when scholars devote their lives to studying Hebrew, Greek, the history of the canon, etc.

Help what?

There’s more, IMHO, so another mild protest from even cheaper seats.

Some very educated in Hebrew, Greek, & history guys somehow managed to preach/teach that Bathsheba tempted & duped poor little old King David into sin.

Some very educated in Hebrew, Greek, & history guys have also greatly mishandled CSA cases in churches. Etc.

Here’s only one example:

Iain Donald Campbell (1963-2017) was a minister, former Moderator in the Free Church of Scotland, and prolific author on a range of Biblical topics and church history. Campbell
killed himself amid allegations of multiple extra-marital affairs. -wikipedia

This type of scholarly knowledge is important, yes. For church work, it would be nice if they also studied the scholarly work of, for example, Roy Hazelwood.

Roy Hazelwood (1938–2016) was a former FBI profiler of sex crimes and is generally regarded as the pioneer of profiling sexual predators. He worked for much of his career for the FBI. Hazelwood was also a Christian, a devout Presbyterian. – wikipedia

Samuel Conner: I take a lot of comfort from Jesus’ words to the apostles in response to their inquiry about “why did Moses write that a man may divorce his wife for any reason’, that it was because of the hardness of men’s hearts that he wrote that.

It’s hard for me to find comfort in this section of scripture. I’m impressed with Jesus trying to draw listeners back to consider how it was in the beginning, although that’s hard to imagine, for anyone, but Jesus. But, I get that hard heartedness was/is the problem, and it is refreshing to hear the problem acknowledged, then and now. And that adjustments were made due to this makes some sense, which I’ve read somewhere may have been somewhat protective for women involved. It may be that I’ve been around too much misleading/misused teaching on marriage and divorce to take comfort from this section of scripture.

I’m more comforted by thinking of / imagining that home in Bethany where Jesus liked to hang out. That is, a home with a brother and two sisters and Mary was welcomed to sit at Jesus’ feet and learn along with other disciples. There’s no mention of a wife or husband in that home. And when I imagine that home it seems like something other than hard heartedness is going on.

Samuel Conner: The fact that YHWH tolerated in Israel something that Jesus disapproved of to my mind has significant potential implications for how one reads the New Testament, too.

Yes, I agree.

Samuel Conner: Perhaps the residual hints of patriarchy that one finds in Paul’s letters are also things that the Creator tolerated at that time because of the hardness of people’s hearts, but that were not Intended from the beginning.

Years ago I spent quite a bit of time reading CBE writers on interpretations of Paul’s letters. From reading these, it seemed that Paul didn’t want disorder, worked with the culture of the time, but his hints were more toward Gal. 3:28, Junia, Lydia, Priscilla as teachers and co-workers among others.

Headless Unicorn Guy,

It’s equally scientific and scholarly and needed. Hazelwood, for one, did amazing work. There are others, and more all the time, advancing our knowledge about what we’re dealing with. IMHO, required study for church leadership.

I also recommend my own book but it is a novel not scholarship. I feel that when I write, it’s like Charles Dickens going after the debtors’ prisons and such in England. Social change via realistic story or simply what really happens. We need good voices and excellent multi-faceted research.

I think we see a lot of good stories and research here at TWW. So, thx again, Dee & TWWers.

But what you point out is exactly the problem.

Friend: I’ve known some deeply faithful and highly educated theologians. A God worthy of worship should also be worthy of lifelong study by the finest minds.

No argument here … as long as they are not scribes and Pharisees and miss Jesus.

Jack:I don’t think we can whitewash the reality of life in antiquity and all Christians have to make their peace with scriptures but I think a lot of religions problems with abuse stem from literal reading of these texts.

Great minds think alike, and apparently so do ours – https://www.whyhavewefasted.org/getting-comfortable-with-ambiguity/

Headless Unicorn Guy: how dividing the Spiritual completely from the Physical has caused a lot of damage throughout Christian history.

Physical reality counts. Matter matters. Expertise in the various sciences, including behavioral sciences, is essential.

A detective shares her knowledge after her interview of a guy brought in for questioning:

In the interview the guy said, “She [the girl] was compliant.”

The interviewing detective later reflected, “At that moment I knew we had our suspect because that is exactly how a rapist talks.

(Interviewer in the case of rapist Glen Samuel McCurley who raped and then ended the life of Carla Walker. So “compliant” and “liked it rough” so she ended up dead? By accident? Or her fault?)

Is that what King David said about Bathsheba? She was “compliant”?

Exactly what a rapist says according to the expertise of the detective.

Jack: I think we agree that without context, literal reading of the bible can lead down dark paths.

I agree, how much of that stuff from that way back when do you (generic you) wanna’ try and extrapolate out and make it apply into this here and now?

Jack: Paul also is credited with stating women should have their heads shaved for speaking in church.

I think you are mistakenly conflating two distinct, but controversial by present day standards, things (and ignoring a relevant third thing) in Paul’s letters to the troubled church at Corinth.

Paul admonished that wives not interrupt church proceedings to ask questions — remain silent and ask their husbands afterward. One might argue that he should have admonished the husbands too; fair enough, but perhaps the husbands weren’t doing this to begin with in that congregation.

He also said that women should pray in church with heads (ie, hair) covered. Prayer, of course, involves speaking — it’s hard to see how Paul forbids females to speak in church. The head covering thing seems to be connected in Paul’s thinking (and perhaps in his readers’ thinking too) about the length of female hair, which is where the “let her be shaved bald” thing comes up:

He certainly did not command that heads be shaved as punishment for speaking in church. What I think you are alluding to is his cryptic remark that females who cut their hair short, which he seems to think that the Corinthians themselves understand to be “contrary to nature”, may as well cut it off entirely.

We don’t know what that is about, though there is an intriguing proposal that this related to ancient Mediterranean understandings of the structure of human head hair and its role in male and female reproductive biology. Paul’s “pray with head covered” may have been asking that females not flaunt part of their reproductive anatomy during their public prayers, when listeners might turn their gaze toward them. It doesn’t sound at all outrageous if that’s what he meant. Of course, we don’t think about hair that way today, and neither head coverings nor female hair length are considered to have any religious or physiological significance (unless one is a literalist who insists that what was appropriate in the 1st century church at Corinth is mandatory for all time).

Here’s an entertaining and provocative podcast on the subject:

https://nakedbiblepodcast.com/podcast/naked-bible-86-the-head-covering-of-1-corinthians-1113-15/

I’m not sure we should be hasty to criticize ancient writers for writing things that their readers presumably understood but that we don’t understand. The past is a very different place, and we generally don’t know our way around it very well.

Headless Unicorn Guy,

Birds of a feather. They all find each other. In their favorite Hunting Ground (aka kirk).

It’s amazing how “nice church folk” of Polite Society don’t see this. Choose not to? Uncomfortable? Happy Blinders?

OTOH: “Read about rogue pastors, rich pastors, leaders who cover up child sex abuse, minimize domestic violence & those who brag about leaving piles of bodies under the bus.” (written up by/for TWW)

Ava Aaronson: It’s amazing how “nice church folk” of Polite Society don’t see this. Choose not to? Uncomfortable? Happy Blinders?

Or “Everything’s so Nicey-Nicey Nice Nice Nice — AND DON’T YOU DARE ROCK THE BOAT!”

Christian Monist wrote about some sort of Elder in the rural Tennessee church where he grew up. It was an open secret that Elder was a pedo, but boy could he sing hymns like an Angel! When a new family with children joined that church, the Respectable Pillars of the Church would steer them to Elder Pedo so he would rape THEIR kids, not Ours. But such things were Never, Ever spoken of on pain of The Sin of Gossip.

Ava Aaronson: Satan quoted the Word of God to Jesus. Imagine Satan does the same to everyone else.

And there are CHRISTIANS who obsessively do the same.
Like a Taliban quoting his Koran.

dee,

Did he think that in the end? Not to me. David was a really messed-up guy. He throve on violence. He just did.

All those tales of him don’t speak well of his personality or his actions.

Also, though i realize you may disagree – history is written by the victors, not the vanquished. IMO, Saul is turned into a villain by those who wrote the pro-David narratives in I and II Samuel.

These guys weren’t exactly on a par with, say, the emperors of Persia. They wrre chieftains of tribes in a fairly marginalized geographical area. The talk of kingship makes us, today, think of royal purple, pomp and circumstance. Well, we can read early Irish lit, about regional kings and queens and the High King at Tara – they were all petty chieftains. Most of what’s in the poems and myths as “high deeds” proves it, too – cattle rustling was their biggest thing (when they weren’t at war), because cattle were wealth on the hoof.

I think that, in reality, what’s said about David’s good character = David when he was quite young. As he got older, he became an amoral individual, as with how he treated both Bathsheba and Uriah. Maybe “amoral” is too strong a word, but he certainly wanted what he selfishly wanted *when* he wanted it.

And i absolutely believe he raped her. I cannot imagine having a posse of armed men at my door who then proceeded to drag me off to satisfy a ruler’s momentary lust.

Bathsheba’s story is probably one of the 1st #MeToo accounts in literature of any kind.

Headless Unicorn Guy,

There’s no shortage of that in Judges, I and II Samuel, and I and II Kings. Or in Joshua, for that matter – although it apparently is part of a genre in the Ancient Near East, one where supposedly victorious rulers invade other lands and commit genocide. I wish people understood that every single book of the Bible, both Jewish and Xtian, is part of a literary continuum. Lots of different genres, all collected in an anthology of ancient texts that we often just don’t get b/c it’s not possible to understand them without a background in history and much more. (Meaning something that’s not the same as the “history” we tend to take for granted per the texts that wre in the Bible.) Written sources are often thin on the ground, so we also have to look at archaeology and literary traditions.

None of the books of the Bible was written and edited in a vacuum. All are part of a cultural contiuum re. the ancient Near East.

numo: I think that, in reality, what’s said about David’s good character = David when he was quite young. As he got older, he became an amoral individual, as with how he treated both Bathsheba and Uriah.

Entropy set in over time, and he grew more and more Corrupted.
Until one day everything came to a head with Bathsheba and blew sky-high.