Did David rape Bathsheba?

[tonychanyt]

I don't think so.

2 Samuel 11:

2 It happened, late one afternoon, when David arose from his couch and was walking on the roof of the king’s house, that he saw from the roof a woman bathing; and the woman was very beautiful. 3And David sent and inquired about the woman. And one said, “Is not this Bathsheba, the daughter of Eliam, the wife of Uriah the Hittite?” 4 So David sent messengers and took her, and she came to him, and he lay with her.

That's it. There was no detailed description of the act. There was no mention of how Bathsheba felt about it.

Later, David arranged for her husband to be killed.

26 When the wife of Uriah heard that Uriah her husband was dead, she lamented over her husband. 27 And when the mourning was over, David sent and brought her to his house, and she became his wife and bore him a son.

Again, there was no mention of any resistance from Bathsheba.

How did she feel about the affair with David and then marrying David afterward?

God didn't like what David did and sent Nathan the prophet to tell David a parable, 2 Samuel 12:

4b [the rich man] took the poor man’s lamb and prepared it for the man who had come to him.

David was the rich man. Uriah was the poor man. Bathsheba was the lamb.

David was the most powerful man in the country. Bathsheba's husband was only a poor soldier. Bathsheba was an innocent lamb/pawn in this game without a strong volition against the king's actions. I don't think David needed to rape her forcibly.

In contrast, the very next chapter details Amnon raping Tamar in vivid language, 2 Samuel 13:

11 when she [Tamar] brought them near him [Amnon] to eat, he took hold of her and said to her, “Come, lie with me, my sister.” 12 She answered him, “No, my brother, do not violate me, for such a thing is not done in Israel; do not do this outrageous thing. 13 As for me, where could I carry my shame? And as for you, you would be as one of the outrageous fools in Israel. Now therefore, please speak to the king, for he will not withhold me from you.”

The writer described Tamar's protest.

14 But he would not listen to her, and being stronger than she, he violated her and lay with her.

Amnon raped Tamar by force.

Did David forcibly rape Bathsheba?

I don't think he needed to. In any case, he abused his position of power over Bathsheba and Uriah.

 

[AlexB23]

I don't think so.

2 Samuel 11:


That's it. There was no detailed description of the act. There was no mention of how Bathsheba felt about it.

Later, David arranged for her husband to be killed.


Again, there was no mention of any resistance from Bathsheba.

How did she feel about the affair with David and then marrying David afterward?

God didn't like what David did and sent Nathan the prophet to tell David a parable, 2 Samuel 12:


David was the rich man. Uriah was the poor man. Bathsheba was the lamb.

David was the most powerful man in the country. Bathsheba's husband was only a poor soldier. Bathsheba was an innocent lamb/pawn in this game without a strong volition against the king's actions. I don't think David needed to rape her forcibly.

In contrast, the very next chapter details Amnon raping Tamar in vivid language, 2 Samuel 13:


The writer described Tamar's protest.


Amnon raped Tamar by force.

Did David forcibly rape Bathsheba?

I don't think he needed to. In any case, he abused his position of power over Bathsheba and Uriah.

According to the biblical account in 2 Samuel 11, David did not forcibly rape Bathsheba. Instead, the text indicates that David saw Bathsheba bathing from a rooftop and sent messengers to bring her to his house. They slept together, and she became pregnant with his child. After discovering that Bathsheba was pregnant, David tried to cover up his affair by having her husband Uriah killed in battle (2 Samuel 11:14-17).

The text does not explicitly state that David forcibly raped Bathsheba, but rather portrays their encounter as an act of seduction and adultery. The lack of consent in this situation comes from David's deception and manipulation, leading to Bathsheba's husband Uriah being killed.

It is important to remember that interpretations of religious texts can vary widely depending on individual perspectives and beliefs. Some might argue for a more nuanced understanding, recognizing the complexities of human relationships and power dynamics in the text. Others may view it as an instance of sexual assault based on their personal beliefs or moral frameworks. Ultimately, the biblical narrative does not provide definitive evidence for either interpretation.

 

[Paidiske]

We simply don't know whether Bathsheba consented or not. At best, it is hard not to read this as some level of coercion from David, given his power as king.

 

[Reluctant Theologian]

From the Torah we can read clearly that if adultery was committed and it happened in a city (not in a far-away rural area) and the woman did not scream/resist, both the man and the woman had to be stoned as both were assumed to be guilty.

Deuteronomy 22: 23-24 (ESV)

If there is a betrothed virgin, and a man meets her in the city and lies with her, then you shall bring them both out to the gate of that city, and 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.​

The case of David and Bathsheba undeniably falls into this category. She could have resisted but apparently she didn't. The fact that it would have been hard to resist because of the imbalance of status/power is no excuse (compare e.g. Joseph and Potiphar's wife - also a power imbalance, yet he rightfully resisted). From the application of the Torah Bathsheba's guilt also follows.

Still, David was the initiator and used his status/power to seduce and possibly coerce her - so God by Nathan held him accountable. Bathsheba's child died afterwards, so she also paid a price.

It should be noted that both would normally deserve the death penalty - no sacrifice was available for this kind of offence; that is why God forgoing David's execution was so extraordinary - yet the death of their child was still a punishment (and also the sword would not depart from his house).

2 Samuel 12: 13-14 (ESV)

David said to Nathan, “I have sinned against the Lord.” And Nathan said to David, “The Lord also has put away your sin; you shall not die. Nevertheless, because by this deed you have utterly scorned the Lord, the child who is born to you shall die.“​

David still had to wrestle with his sin and God's contempt - Psalm 51 details his struggle in that. As an anointed king and prophet he begged God not to take away His Holy Spirit from him.

 

[RDKirk]

Did David forcibly rape Bathsheba?

I don't think he needed to. In any case, he abused his position of power over Bathsheba and Uriah.

That is still rape.

 

[RDKirk]

According to the biblical account in 2 Samuel 11, David did not forcibly rape Bathsheba. Instead, the text indicates that David saw Bathsheba bathing from a rooftop and sent messengers to bring her to his house. They slept together, and she became pregnant with his child. After discovering that Bathsheba was pregnant, David tried to cover up his affair by having her husband Uriah killed in battle (2 Samuel 11:14-17).

And it came to pass in an eveningtide, that David arose from off his bed, and walked upon the roof of the king’s house: and from the roof he saw a woman washing herself; and the woman was very beautiful to look upon.
....
And David sent messengers, and took her; and she came in unto him, and he lay with her; for she was purified from her uncleanness: and she returned unto her house.

First, Bathsheba was not on her roof, David was on the roof of his palace. It is specifically noted that Bathsheba had just been "purified from her uncleanness." That means she had just done the necessary post-menstrual cleansing ceremony in the city mikvah that was near the palace...within David's view. There would have been many women present, all of them entering the water while clothed. But only Bathsheba caught David's eye.

It says that David "took" Bathsheba. The Hebrew word used is לקח laqach, which means: "To lay hold of, seize, receive, acquire, buy, bring, marry, take a wife, snatch, take away." None of those terms imply that the woman did or even could consent.

The text does not explicitly state that David forcibly raped Bathsheba, but rather portrays their encounter as an act of seduction and adultery. The lack of consent in this situation comes from David's deception and manipulation, leading to Bathsheba's husband Uriah being killed.

Scripture doesn't specify it because her consent was irrelevant to the situation.

David initially attempted to encourage Uriah to have sex with his wife to cover up the deed (again, Bathsheba's input--whether she told her husband or not--was irrelevant to the situation). However, we had already learned in 1 Samuel 21 that David forbade his men to have sexual intercourse while at war. Uriah, who had been one of David's "might men" even then and knew David's policy, refused to have sex with his wife (I suspect he thought David was testing him).

However, the fact that David ordered the murder of Uriah to cover his deed and the fact that Nathan placed the complete blame totally on David absolves Bathsheba from having any agency in the situation. If Nathan had intended to imply any guilt on Bathsheba, he might have compared her to a "backsliding heifer" or something else, but not a lamb. Bathsheba is compared to a lamb, which is the consistent scriptural symbol of innocence. There is nothing more to imagine about the situation. She had zero agency because that's what scripture is telling us.

 

[AlexB23]

And it came to pass in an eveningtide, that David arose from off his bed, and walked upon the roof of the king’s house: and from the roof he saw a woman washing herself; and the woman was very beautiful to look upon.
....
And David sent messengers, and took her; and she came in unto him, and he lay with her; for she was purified from her uncleanness: and she returned unto her house.

First, Bathsheba was not on her roof, David was on the roof of his palace. It is specifically noted that Bathsheba had just been "purified from her uncleanness." That means she had just done the necessary post-menstrual cleansing ceremony in the city mikvah that was near the palace...within David's view. There would have been many women present, all of them bathing while clothed. But only Bathsheba caught David's eye.

It says that David "took" Bathsheba. The Hebrew word used is לקח laqach, which means: "To lay hold of, seize, receive, acquire, buy, bring, marry, take a wife, snatch, take away." None of those terms imply that the woman did or even could consent.

Scripture doesn't specify it because her consent was irrelevant to the situation.

David initially attempted to encourage Uriah to have sex with his wife to cover up the deed (again, Bathsheba's input--whether she told her husband or not--was irrelevant to the situation). However, we had already learned in 1 Samuel 21 that David forbade his men to have sexual intercourse while at war. Uriah, knowing this, refused to have sex with his wife (I suspect he thought David was testing him).

However, the fact that David ordered the murder of Uriah to cover his deed and the fact that Nathan placed the complete blame totally on David absolves Bathsheba from having any agency in the situation. She had zero agency because that's what scripture is telling us.

Ok. I am not Hebrew, but from your post, it seems that David raped Bathsheba.

 

[Reluctant Theologian]

....
And David sent messengers, and took her; and she came in unto him, and he lay with her; for she was purified from her uncleanness: and she returned unto her house.
...
It says that David "took" Bathsheba. The Hebrew word used is לקח laqach, which means: "To lay hold of, seize, receive, acquire, buy, bring, marry, take a wife, snatch, take away." None of those terms imply that the woman did or even could consent.
...

The word 'took' (H3947) does not imply the use of force as it is used in the TNK/OT. It simply means to take intentionally. See e.g.:

Genesis 4:19

Lamech took (H3947) two wives. The name of the one was Adah, and the name of the other Zillah.​

Bathsheba walked all the way from her house to David's palace. A married woman normally would never do that without her husband's knowledge/consent. She could have resisted/screamed at so many different moments before conceiving her child - that she let it happen is the most likely scenario.

 

[RDKirk]

The word 'took' (H3947) does not imply the use of force as it is used in the TNK/OT. It simply means to take intentionally. See e.g.:

Genesis 4:19

Lamech took (H3947) two wives. The name of the one was Adah, and the name of the other Zillah.​

Bathsheba walked all the way from her house to David's palace. A married woman normally would never do that without her husband's knowledge/consent. She could have resisted/screamed at so many different moments before conceiving her child - that she let it happen is the most likely scenario.

You don't know that she didn't. You also don't know that she "walked." Bathsheba was arrested. In fact, it wasn't completely clear that David wasn't fully within his authority to take her. The role and authority of the king wasn't clear at that point even in the light of the Law (it was the later analysis of the scribes and lawyers of events such as this that made the position of the King's authority vis a vis the Law more clear).

The fact is, Bathsheba is compared to a lamb, and a lamb is the indisputable symbol of innocence in scripture.

 

[Reluctant Theologian]

You don't know that she didn't. You also don't know that she "walked." Bathsheba was arrested. In fact, it wasn't completely clear that David wasn't fully within his authority to take her. The role and authority of the king wasn't clear at that point even in the light of the Law (it was the later analysis of the scribes and lawyers of events such as this that made the position of the King's authority vis a vis the Law more clear).

The fact is, Bathsheba is compared to a lamb, and a lamb is the indisputable symbol of innocence in scripture.

I would disagree Bathsheba was arrested; the text says that David sent messengers (H3947), not soldiers ... force is not implied there. We also should take note of what the text does not say, i.e. that she resisted. It also says 'she came (H935) to him' (David) which suggests an action of her own (not being dragged).

This is not an uncommon view, e.g. the commentary of Rashi (Rabbi Shlomo Yitzchaki) (11th century):

"David sent messengers and took her. - This was his mistake, for he should have sent for her husband first. She had been married to Uriah, the Hittite, for David had no right to her until she was divorced. But she, too, was not clear of guilt, for she could have refused to come to him, as she was married."​

 

[RDKirk]

I would disagree Bathsheba was arrested; the text says that David sent messengers (H3947), not soldiers ... force is not implied there. We also should take note of what the text does not say, i.e. that she resisted. It also says 'she came (H935) to him' (David) which suggests an action of her own (not being dragged).

This is not an uncommon view, e.g. the commentary of Rashi (Rabbi Shlomo Yitzchaki) (11th century):

"David sent messengers and took her. - This was his mistake, for he should have sent for her husband first. She had been married to Uriah, the Hittite, for David had no right to her until she was divorced. But she, too, was not clear of guilt, for she could have refused to come to him, as she was married."​

God is more just than any rabbi.

The fact is, Bathsheba is compared to a lamb, and a lamb is the indisputable symbol of innocence in scripture.

 

[Reluctant Theologian]

God is more just than any rabbi.

The fact is, Bathsheba is compared to a lamb, and a lamb is the indisputable symbol of innocence in scripture.

The parable by Nathan indeed depicts Bathsheba as a lamb, but to deduce from only that - ignoring the rest - that Bathsheba was nothing to blame goes too far for me personally.

When I read the parable it strikes me that the ewe-lamb (H3535) is so precious to the man's family it was to him like a daughter. The main take away for the parable to me seems to be the sense of extremely high (emotional) value of the ewe-lamb to the man and his family; not its innocence.

Had the writer of Samuel wanted to make sure we would perceive Bathsheba as innocent (given the Law in Deuteronomy 22: 23-24) there would have been an explicit mention of her resistance. E.g. compare the story of Joseph and Potiphar's wife where we do find that explicit mention of Joseph's resistance. The current text in 2 Samuel 11-12 would make Bathsheba liable for being complicit in adultery given Deuteronomy as her resistance is obviously absent.

We may agree to disagree - and of course I may be wrong - I just try to make the best of it. As you do as well I'm sure.

Be blessed !

 

[RDKirk]

The parable by Nathan indeed depicts Bathsheba as a lamb, but to deduce from only that - ignoring the rest - that Bathsheba was nothing to blame goes too far for me personally.

There isn't anything to deduce about Bathsheba's other actions. What does scripture actually say about her discretion? At no point does scripture say Bathsheba was either willing or had discretion. People in more modern times suppose that she did, but she had no agency, no discretion at all. People in more modern times can only blame her for not committing suicide, which is far more unjust than God.

But we do know some things about David. For one, David was a "Kill him where he stands" king....which everyone knew. He was essentially a tyrant, a despot. The Mosaic Law required trials and hearings before executions...how often did David grant a trial when he was offended by someone? Were his "messengers" going to report back to him empty handed?

 

[throughfiierytrial]

I don't think so.

2 Samuel 11:


That's it. There was no detailed description of the act. There was no mention of how Bathsheba felt about it.

Later, David arranged for her husband to be killed.


Again, there was no mention of any resistance from Bathsheba.

How did she feel about the affair with David and then marrying David afterward?

God didn't like what David did and sent Nathan the prophet to tell David a parable, 2 Samuel 12:


David was the rich man. Uriah was the poor man. Bathsheba was the lamb.

David was the most powerful man in the country. Bathsheba's husband was only a poor soldier. Bathsheba was an innocent lamb/pawn in this game without a strong volition against the king's actions. I don't think David needed to rape her forcibly.

In contrast, the very next chapter details Amnon raping Tamar in vivid language, 2 Samuel 13:


The writer described Tamar's protest.


Amnon raped Tamar by force.

Did David forcibly rape Bathsheba?

I don't think he needed to. In any case, he abused his position of power over Bathsheba and Uriah.

Some readers I have read and heard claim that it is somewhat implied that Bathsheba was acting seductively by bathing in King David's view.

 

[Reluctant Theologian]

There isn't anything to deduce about Bathsheba's other actions. What does scripture actually say about her discretion? At no point does scripture say Bathsheba was either willing or had discretion. People in more modern times suppose that she did, but she had no agency, no discretion at all. People in more modern times can only blame her for not committing suicide, which is far more unjust than God.

But we do know some things about David. For one, David was a "Kill him where he stands" king....which everyone knew. He was essentially a tyrant, a despot. The Mosaic Law required trials and hearings before executions...how often did David grant a trial when he was offended by someone? Were his "messengers" going to report back to him empty handed?

I think you're underestimating what women could or were supposed to do, even in those days. The Torah expected women in such cases to scream or resist (if in the vicinity of others). Her resistance could have made David very angry or worse, but God would have expected her to cop his anger rather than sin against God and her husband. Joseph went to jail for two years for his righteous refusal.

Mosaic Law required trials and hearings indeed, but the judge ultimately was the king himself (e.g. Solomon's case with the two prostitutes). That creates some context for a time where there was war, treason, political intrigues, coup d'etats - he had the authority to intervene directly himself in these cases; they could be matters of life or death for the monarchy.

David fought many wars - yet God calls him a man after God's heart (1 Samuel 13:14), a prophet, a man with compassion even (e.g. the story about Mephibosheth (2 Samuel 9), sparing Saul's life twice (1 Samuel 24 and 26)). Israelites and Jews after him would speak with high esteem and affectionately about him - even in Jesus' day - they wouldn't use the 'tyrant' qualification which is negative by definition.

 

[RDKirk]

Some readers I have read and heard claim that it is somewhat implied that Bathsheba was acting seductively by bathing in King David's view.

Bathsheba was doing her post-menstrual ceremonial ablutions in the public mikvah. That's why the writer could know she was immediately post-menstrual. She would have been fully clothed as she went into the water, and she would not have been the only woman doing so.

 

[RDKirk]

I think you're underestimating what women could or were supposed to do, even in those days. The Torah expected women in such cases to scream or resist (if in the vicinity of others). Her resistance could have made David very angry or worse, but God would have expected her to cop his anger rather than sin against God and her husband. Joseph went to jail for two years for his righteous refusal.

Joseph was a man. Don't pretend there was no difference in the power dynamics of men versus women.

Mosaic Law required trials and hearings indeed, but the judge ultimately was the king himself (e.g. Solomon's case with the two prostitutes). That creates some context for a time where there was war, treason, political intrigues, coup d'etats - he had the authority to intervene directly himself in these cases; they could be matters of life or death for the monarchy.

Where in the Law does it say the judge is ultimately the king? God didn't even want them to have kings...the Law he gave to Moses does not share authority with a king. That is authority the kings took upon themselves apart from the Law or the intention of God.

David fought many wars - yet God calls him a man after God's heart (1 Samuel 13:14), a prophet, a man with compassion even (e.g. the story about Mephibosheth (2 Samuel 9), sparing Saul's life twice (1 Samuel 24 and 26)). Israelites and Jews after him would speak with high esteem and affectionately about him - even in Jesus' day - they wouldn't use the 'tyrant' qualification which is negative by definition.

But we know what a tyrant is, and David fits the bill as described. God loved David, but that had nothing to do with David being a good king. He was a poor husband and father as well, and made poor decisions right until his death...all clearly exposed in scripture.

 

[Rose_bud]

Hi there

I understand it to be a sexual abuse of power. David using his privilege and power to take what he wanted.

David sent and took until God sent Nathan.

Also the incident may be a lot more related to the following passage.

‭Deuteronomy 22:26-27
Do nothing to the woman; she has committed no sin deserving death. This case is like that of someone who attacks and murders a neighbor, for the man found the young woman out in the country, and though the betrothed woman screamed, there was no one to rescue her.

Had she screamed, who of Davids messengers or soldiers would rescue her?. Even Joab was complicit in murdering one of his soldiers on the order of the King.

The kings palace was most likely just as silent as an open country.

David was doing what God said kings would do in 1 Samuel 8:9-17...take. That is why Jesus is the true King... He gave.

 

[Reluctant Theologian]

Joseph was a man. Don't pretend there was no difference in the power dynamics of men versus women.

Where in the Law does it say the judge is ultimately the king? God didn't even want them to have kings...the Law he gave to Moses does not share authority with a king. That is authority the kings took upon themselves apart from the Law or the intention of God.

But we know what a tyrant is, and David fits the bill as described. God loved David, but that had nothing to do with David being a good king. He was a poor husband and father as well, and made poor decisions right until his death...all clearly exposed in scripture.

A different power dynamics exist between men and women, but Potiphar's wife certainly had the upper hand status and power wise - she was an early example of inappropriate manipulative sexual behaviour towards men. Nearly any king before democracy was gradually implemented in Europe could be classified as an absolute ruler. But I would refrain from describing David as a bad king, husband or father. Mistakes in life are made, no one is perfect - I feel we don't do justice to David as the founding King of the nation of Israel and prophet with those labels.

The Law didn't demand a king but as soon as Israel had one (God gave in to that desire) he held ultimate authority in practice - for good and bad. The Law didn't specify what authority would have to enforce its instructions and condemnations, it just makes perfect sense for that to be the king in those days - but of course that might have been a prophet as well.

I believe all viewpoints have been shared in this thread - thanks all - this will be my final contribution for this thread

 

[RDKirk]

A different power dynamics exist between men and women, but Potiphar's wife certainly had the upper hand status and power wise - she was an early example of inappropriate manipulative sexual behaviour towards men.

In my latter years in the military, there were a number of circumstances in which junior ranking men nevertheless exerted power against higher ranking women...even in the modern era, the power dynamic learned in the younger years doesn't vanish

Bathsheba was raised in an environment where men held all the power. As had been mentioned, Bathsheba knew there was no help from anyone when the king's men arrived to take her, and there was no help for her in the king's palace. There are exceptionally assertive women in the bible, but Bathsheba is not at all pictured as an exceptionally assertive woman.

Scripture explicitly identifies David as directly responsible for two rebellions and the greatest catastrophe to strike Israel up to the Captivity.