King David and Bathsheba: Adultery or Something Else?

The below post seeks to address the recent and now common refrain that David raped Bathsheba. In it, I address rape in a rather direct fashion. It’s not my goal nor intention to cause any victims of rape to relive trauma as a result of this straightforwardness. While that may be a negative consequence for some regarding this post, I still believe this to be worthwhile because of a commitment to accurate, faithful handling of God’s word. A simple Google search of the words “King David Rape” will bring no shortage of articles, posts, and sermons that seem to provide a consensus that King David actually raped Bathsheba—not due to some forceable physical action on David’s part but because of the “power dynamic” associated with his position as king. Note that the suggestion of rape is a relatively recent interpretation of the biblical account, and most are aware that the text doesn’t clearly state this was rape. It also seems to be the sort of discussion that comes up annually and receives some unfortunate traction. In researching the merits of this claim to prepare for this post, I found an excellent article here from GotQuestions.org. The article graciously and tactfully outlines many of the reasons why I also believe the rape claim is unlikely and faulty. Therefore, in this post, rather than reiterate my points that are already better articulated on their site, I’ll briefly provide five reasons why the idea that King David “raped” Bathsheba is a dangerous hermeneutical approach, one which Christians should avoid. Before we get into those five reasons, it’s appropriate to define rape, as this definition—which I believe to be clear and thorough—will be referenced throughout this post.

Rape (n.): “unlawful sexual activity and usually sexual intercourse carried out forcibly or under threat of injury against a person’s will or with a person who is beneath a certain age or incapable of valid consent because of mental illness, mental deficiency, intoxication, unconsciousness, or deception” (Merriam-Webster Dictionary Online, accessed July 24, 2022).

1. It diminishes God’s (and David’s) centrality in the passage.

This is the principal and greatest reason why the idea that David raped Bathsheba is dangerous. Doing so “majors in the minors” and doesn’t allow the author of Samuel to highlight, by the Holy Spirit (2 Tim. 3:16; 1 Pt. 1:20-21), what needs to be highlighted. Imagine if you were a CEO of a large company and you sent an email to all employees emphasizing your initiatives to reduce costs so that you could continue to keep the company profitable and not resort to layoffs. In that message, you mentioned teleworking, moving to smaller offices, using energy efficient devices, and lowering board of director bonuses. Now, imagine if most of your employees, instead of focusing on your goal of maintaining profitability, focused on your Arial font choice. They believed Arial was far too “early 2000s” and not keeping with modern trends. While they could be right about your choice of font, they’ve grossly missed the point of the email and your concerns as the CEO. The same thing happens when we project our bias into the Bible: we miss out on God’s point through his inspired authors (see this post for an understanding of biblical interpretation). God is the star of both 1 and 2 Samuel, not Samuel, not Saul, not David, not Uriah, and not Bathsheba. Yet, David is one of the principal figures for long stretches of those books because of the covenant promise that will be fulfilled through him. In all of this, God is still the star (notice who actually did the things attributed to David according to 2 Sam. 12:7-8). More specifically, in 2 Sam. 11, the author focuses on a time when King David sinned, principally through abusing his power in a series of bad decisions. David first elected not to go into battle, saw a beautiful woman (Bathsheba) bathing on her rooftop, inquired about her, requested her presence, and then slept with her, knowing she was married to Uriah. When she was found to be pregnant, David concocted a plan to bring Uriah home so that he could sleep with his own wife and cover up the pregnancy/affair. When Uriah proves to be too noble to sleep with his own wife while his comrades are off at war, David resorts to sending instructions to allow Uriah to be killed on the frontlines. The end of David’s sinful affair and murder is confrontation, rebuke, and judgment from God through the prophet Nathan; the death of the child; and the promise of continual division and violence in his family house. Nothing about that situation is meant to highlight Bathsheba or anyone else to a more prominent role than the author intended. It’s meant to focus on David’s sin, while highlighting God’s judgment and grace. This may run counter to modern sensibilities, but we must allow God’s word to place emphasis where He wants it placed or else we’ll miss the message and, ultimately, miss out on God. David sinned. It was his sin and his alone. That’s the point.

2. It requires an expanded and confusing definition of rape.

In general, I greatly appreciate nuance, so the fact that we have expanded categories of what constitutes rape is generally a good thing. Unfortunately, in an effort to ensure victims of sexual assault and rape can receive justice (another good thing), the categories are sometimes so broad that they capture ideas under the auspices of “rape” that don’t fit with the aforementioned definition. Within Merriam-Webster’s thorough definition, it’s clear that their definition includes statutory, gang, date rape (drug), and the like. Yet, the one that’s strangely missing from the definition is the modern idea of “power rape,” the type of rape many attempt to attribute to David and Bathsheba. While I couldn’t find a clear and succinct definition from reputable sources online, the idea is that any time sexual acts are requested by one in authority, then, even if there are no threats and even if there is consent, it’s still rape because the belief is that it’s impossible to have consent in such situations. This definition of “power rape” is problematic because it declares things as rape regardless of whether both parties consent without coercion. It removes ideas like “forcibly” and “against one’s will” from the definition and only focuses on external factors like job title, wealth, or social status in order to ascribe rape. It also removes moral agency (the capacity to act) from cognitively functioning adults, thus conflating rape with consensual relations and removing personal responsibility.

3. It opens the door for greater interpretive liberties (slippery slope of eisegesis).

If we read whatever we want into biblical narratives or read modern themes into areas where they don’t belong, we’ll create an assortment of ideas that seem like biblical truth but are really just manifestations of idolatry. This is what eisegesis does. Anyone who’s had any instruction in biblical interpretation knows that exegesis (essentially, “to draw out”) is proper, providing clarity and truth, while eisegesis (essentially, “lead into”) is improper, providing falsehood and bias. If we read concepts of rape “into” the biblical account of David and Bathsheba—due to new, broad definitions—when it’s clear the author didn’t intend to show it (the same author clearly shares an example of rape with David’s children a couple chapters later in 2 Sam. 13:11-14), then why stop there? This skewed and staunch interpretive view of David-Bathsheba can create other conflicting ideas due to what’s not stated in the text. First, presuming “power rape” on David’s part is similar to ascribing seductive motives to Bathsheba since both interpretive “arguments from silence” exclude or limit the possibility of the other. That is, the Bathsheba seduction scenario precludes or limits the possibility that David power raped Bathsheba, and the David “power rape” scenario precludes or limits the possibility that Bathsheba was illicit and seductive. Admittedly, both interpretations are unlikely based on exegesis. Second, since David and Bathsheba later marry and give birth to the next King of Israel (Solomon), does the idea of “power rape” now necessitate a forced union idea and second pregnancy situation where Bathsheba had to live with her (power) rapist? In the end, the point is that there’s no shortage of wild-eyed ideas that can be “read into” the Bible if we’re not committed to exegesis. Further, make no mistake—even if one doesn’t eisegetically “read into” biblical texts consistently, this is still an act to be avoided. It’s akin to poisonous food. A meal can be 98% nourishing and edible but have 2% deadly venom, and it’ll still kill you. Eisegesis is that poison.

4. Gives false support and hope to rape victims and survivors

Rape is sinful, horrible, wicked, and quite damaging to victims. Modern progress to properly aid victims, enact laws, and seek justice is good and often needed. Survivors of rape can find truth, clarity, and comfort in the God who both consoles the broken and avenges the innocent. His word is meant to be comfort for the physical, emotional, and mental brokenness that arises in those who have been victimized. There are plenty of Scriptures that provide hope and encouragement, and there also are several passages that directly surround rape. With that said, believing that one must read the Bible through the lens of “sexual assault” is to provide comfort through falsehood. Hope rooted in deceit is not hope, and it isn’t consistent with the character of God (Jn 14:6; 2 Cor. 1:3-7; 2 Cor. 7:6). It’s like a medical doctor who knows his patient has terminal cancer, with only weeks to live, but who refuses to share such information to him and instead tells him his health is “outstanding.” It’s comfort through falsehood, and it’s fleeting. We do not need to do such. Christianity comforts with truth—even if that truth is uncomfortable or doesn’t provide the specific type of comfort that an individual thinks they need.

5. It produces an unreliable, divided testimony to a lost world.

Finally, if Christians aren’t committed to truth and integrity with handling the historical account in the Bible between David and Bathsheba, why should they be believed on matters like the resurrection or salvation by grace? Changing the narrative focal point of David and Bathsheba in the 21st century may have what’s perhaps a noble motive but will yield a disastrous result: an unreliable witness to a lost world. Sure, the church may attract those who look for such an eisegetical interpretation, but it will lose those who seek truth. At the same time, those who are attracted to such a framework will just as easily be repelled once a given passage of Scripture is opposed to what they believe or what they want to believe it says. If David is unnecessarily vilified beyond the unfiltered depiction we have in Scripture, will such an interpretation allow one to reconcile that David was also described as “a man after [God’s] own heart” (Acts 13:22). More than this, if the Body of Christ can’t agree on the more clear elements of David and Bathsheba, then what can we agree on? The narrative isn’t the most difficult text and doesn’t have an array of scholarly historical divide (at least not of which I’m aware). Another unfortunate result of this new take on David and Bathsheba is more division in Christendom—with some holding to David’s abuse of power, committing adultery and murder, and others holding to a story of rape and murder, painting Bathsheba as a heroic victim who has not been adequately acknowledged in the history of the church. In the end, I’m not really advocating for either case; what I’m really advocating for is truth, which is found in the author’s intent communicated in Scripture (both the author of Samuel and God). Therefore, let us, as Christians, not exhaust ourselves trying to prove our side or support a given stance, but let us exhaust ourselves “rightly dividing the word of truth” because doing so will allow us to hear God most clearly and apply His word most appropriately.

1. It diminishes God’s (and David’s) centrality in the passage.

2. It requires an expanded and confusing definition of rape.

3. It opens the door for greater interpretive liberties (slippery slope of eisegesis).

4. Gives false support and hope to rape victims and survivors

5. It produces an unreliable, divided testimony to a lost world.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply