What Was David’s Sin?

It was a fateful day in 2018 when I first heard a pastor casually comment in a sermon that “David raped Bathsheba.” This surprised me, and I immediately wanted the data to support this declaration—none was offered. He said it like it was established fact. He said it like it was common knowledge. He said it to increase the outrage at David’s depravity. In context, he also said it to highlight the grace of God (since it was a sermon on Psalm 51).

We’ll come back to God’s grace at the end of this post, but first I want to critique this understanding of David’s sin. Did David rape Bathsheba, or was she a willing party in the affair?

As noted, I first heard this argument in 2018, and a quick Google Search for “Did David rape Bathsheba?” returns no dated hits prior to 2006, and most of them are within the past 6 years (2018 or later). It’s a debate that comes and goes like the waves of the sea. It is worth noting that “Me Too” was first vocalized in 2006 and the hashtag movement started in 2017, which is an interesting coincidence.¹ If the Bible speaks to all of life—which it does—then it necessarily has something to say about sexual abuse. But like the title of G. K. Beale’s collection of essays on the New Testament’s use of the Old Testament—it is possible to get the right doctrine from the wrong text.

In what follows I will begin by offering several arguments for why it is likely incorrect to understand David to have raped Bathsheba, continue by explaining my recommendation for insisting on this (which includes comment on #metoo—though not how you’d expect), and conclude by considering the words of Jesus in Matthew 5.

Reasons why David did not rape Bathsheba

Exegetical Argument

In the Hebrew Bible, no word consistently translates to “rape” from Hebrew to English. But throughout the HCSB, there are four verbs that are translated “rape.” It will be helpful for our purposes here to highlight these four verbs, briefly observe the contexts in which they occur, and then bring that information to bear on the text under consideration: 2 Samuel 11:4.

שׁכב

The most common Hebrew verb translated “rape” is שׁכב. This word seems to be used primarily to describe the general act of reclining, sometimes with a sexual overtone (Leviticus 15:18, 24, 33; 20:11, 12, 20), other times as part of a euphemistic term for death and burial (Genesis 47:30; 2 Samuel 7:12), and other times speaking of general rest and relaxation (1 Samuel 3:2, 3; 2 Samuel 4:5, 7). The most explicit contexts in which it refers to “rape” are in Deuteronomy 22:25-29, where it occurs four times without an additional verb, and in Genesis 34:2 and 2 Samuel 13:14, where, in each, it is paired with another verb.

This word does occur in 2 Samuel 11:4, but given the wide range of uses, it is best to understand this word as simply explaining that they reclined together in a way in which a child could be conceived (see “Biblical Argument” below).

ידע

The HCSB translates the verb ידע one time as “rape” (Judges 19:25). This word also occurs a couple verses earlier when the mob states their intention, there translated as “so we can have sex with him” (19:22). Interestingly, this is paralleled by the mob outside Lot’s door in Genesis 19; the same word is used to describe the mob’s intention, and–again–it is not translated as “rape,” though the Judges story highlights that rape was what they intended.

However, this word need not refer to “rape.” In Genesis 4:1 and 1 Samuel 1:19, it is used to describe marital intimacy. Further, the most neutral understanding of the word is simply “to know.” In fact, the verb occurs with Yahweh about 70 times throughout the Hebrew Bible, highlighting God’s mission that people would “know that I am Yahweh” (e.g., Exodus 7:5; 29:46; Isaiah 49:26).

This term does not occur in the David and Bathsheba narrative (other than referring to various characters’ knowledge (2 Samuel 11:16, 20; 12:22). What is interesting about this word is how the partner of the raped woman in Judges 19:25 relates the incident in Judges 20:5. For this, we need the next word:

ענה

This verb occurs throughout the Hebrew Bible in various contexts, but four times the HCSB translates it as “rape” (Genesis 34:2; Judges 20:5; 2 Samuel 13:14; Lamentations 5:11).² This includes the three clearest texts describing rapes in the Hebrew Bible.³ As such, any exegetical discussion of “rape” in the Hebrew Bible must compare each of these texts (excluding Lamentations 5:11), especially the verbs.

• “When Shechem son of Hamor the Hivite, a prince of the region, saw her, he took [לקח] her and raped [שׁכב and ענה] her.” (Genesis 34:2, HCSB)
• “They intended to kill me, but they raped [ענה] my concubine, and she died.” (Judges 20:5, HCSB)
• “he refused to listen to her, and because he was stronger [חזק] than she was, he raped [ענה and שׁכב] her.” (2 Samuel 13:14, HCSB)

(In Genesis 34:2 and 2 Samuel 13:14, two Hebrew words are summarized by the singular English word “rape.”)

There is only one word here that is consistent between all three texts, and a second that is consistent between the two narrated rapes: ענה and שׁכב. When we bring 2 Samuel 11:4 into the discussion, we read:

• “David sent (שׁלח) messengers to get (לקח) her, and when she came (בוא) to him, he slept with (שׁכב) her.” (2 Samuel 11:4, HCSB)

As many commentators have noted, the Hebrew indeed specifies that the subject of לקח is singular, referring to David, thus exonerating the messengers who physically retrieved Bathsheba for David. However, despite this comparison to Genesis 34:2, and despite the existence of שׁכב–like both Genesis 34:2 and 2 Samuel 13:14–it is critical to note that the word is missing in this narrative: ענה.

As Ellen Van Wolde highlights, “This verb is used as an evaluative term in a juridical context denoting a spatial movement downwards in a social sense.”⁴ Abisili confirms this understanding when he writes that this “is in line with LXX, which translates all the occurrences of ענה in the Hebrew bible with ταπεινόω ‘to make low,’ ‘to make humble.'”⁵

In other words, exegetically, if Bathsheba had been raped by David, then it would not have been hard for the narrator to include ענה to evaluate the situation, but this verb is conspicuously absent throughout the entire pericope related to Bathsheba (2 Samuel 11-12). The narrator could easily have included this word, even inserting it into Nathan’s rebuke of David or the depiction of the war with Ammon,⁶ but it does not occur between 2 Samuel 7:10 and 13:12. For this reason, we should be cautious before charging David with rape.

Biblical Argument

As I mentioned prior, the most explicit discussion of “rape” (as opposed to narrative depiction) in the Hebrew Bible is in Deuteronomy 22.⁷ This text describes two different alleged rapes. In both, the woman is engaged to someone else, but in the first (22:23-24), it occurs in the city and she does not cry out. Due to the lack of crying out, she is deemed guilty of adultery and they are both to be executed (cf. 22:22). In the second (22:25-27), it occurs in the open country, and she is innocent because it is assumed that she cried out but there was no one there to hear her. In this second case, the man is to be executed.

In 2 Samuel, we see two different versions of the first situation between 2 Samuel 11-13. In 2 Samuel 11, Bathsheba comes to David, and David lies with her (in the city). Nothing is said about her crying out. In 2 Samuel 13, when Amnon rapes his half-sister, Tamar–presumably in the same building–the narrator is very careful to relate her protest.

Therefore, according to Scripture, Bathsheba was not actually raped, and–according to the Law of Moses–she deserved the death penalty just as much as David.

This is even more clearly shown when we note that the Hebrew is clear that Bathsheba herself came to David;⁸ in fact, given the plethora of masculine singular verbs in 2 Samuel 11:4, the presence of a feminine singular should be jarring. And it is. It was so jarring that the Septuagint changed it to a masculine singular to make it flow better.⁹

Bathsheba is also mentioned in Matthew 1:6–in the genealogy of Jesus. Well, sort of. Her name is not mentioned, but her person is definitely mentioned: “the wife of Uriah the Hittite.”⁸ This mention highlights the breaking of God’s law that reverberates all the way through the following genealogy, culminating in the exile (Matthew 1:11-12), and requiring a savior–Jesus Christ–who would save his people from their sin (Matthew 1:21). As such, the existence of Bathsheba in Jesus’ genealogy, far from being a statement of her innocence, reiterates the adultery that ultimately resulted in the birth of David’s heir.⁹

Narrative Argument

So far, we have seen that the Hebrew text supports the understanding that Bathsheba was not raped by King David, we have seen that Bathsheba was a willing partner (both in 2 Samuel 11:4 and according to Deuteronomy 22:22-24), and we have seen that Matthew utilizes this event to highlight the breaking of God’s Law that ultimately resulted in the exile from the land. A close look at the narrative will also confirm that Bathsheba was very likely guilty of willful adultery.

First of all, we should note that Bathsheba was not bathing in an attempt to seduce David. She did not know he was looking at her. She did not know he was lusting after her. She did not know he’d be out on his roof at that time. She was bathing at the time the Law demanded.¹⁰

But while she was following the Law, King David noticed her. In fact, he couldn’t recognize her, and when the messenger returns with her identity, the information conveys that David should recognize her–or at least her family (2 Samuel 11:3). “It is unusual for a woman’s patronymic to be given, especially when she is identified by her husband’s name . . . This suggests that the identity of Bathsheba’s father was significant.”¹¹ And in fact, both her husband and her father are significant. In the list of David’s mighty men in 2 Samuel 23:24-39, we find “Eliam son of Ahithophel the Gilonite” (23:34) and “Uriah the Hittite” (23:39). David was well acquainted with them.

These were trusted officers in David’s army. When the messengers explained that the woman David was inquiring about was “the daughter of Eliam and the wife of Uriah the Hittite,” they were confronting him with the “severe moral test of coveting another’s wife.”¹² David failed this test, choosing the pleasures of sin rather than remembering the consequences of breaking God’s Law. And from 2 Samuel 11:4 until 12:13, when David confesses, “I have sinned against the Lord,” David is compounding sin with sin.

But the question under consideration is “What role did Bathsheba play?” And the narrative lends itself to the understanding that Bathsheba had indeed consented to the adultery. There are two reasons for this. The first can be shown from the text, and the second is a simple inference from the details that have already been shown.

First, Uriah’s response is not the response of a husband who knows that his wife was sexually mistreated. Rather, Uriah’s response to the situation reads like a man who found out that his wife had consensually committed adultery with his friend. Garsiel has an interesting discussion about Uriah.¹³

When Uriah is fetched from the front, he has no reason to suspect anything, but when David sends him home “to wash his feet” (2 Samuel 11:8),¹⁴ he might overhear some gossip from David’s bodyguard (or whoever carried the “gift”) as they escort him out. This explains why he stays with “all” David’s servants (עֶ֫בֶד) the first night (2 Samuel 11:9), in which he has further conversations and gains more details, as he is also a member of this group (a detail that is lacking in the discussion of the next two nights). When David asks Uriah why he didn’t go home the next day, Uriah’s words bite–because he is angry and knows fully what David had done:

“The ark, Israel, and Judah are dwelling in tents, and my master Joab and his soldiers (עֶ֫בֶד) are camping in the open field. How can I enter my house to eat and drink and sleep with my wife? As surely as you live and by your life, I will not do this!” (2 Samuel 11:11).

However, in the end, Uriah refuses to go see his wife. Why would he have refused if the word came out that David had violated his wife against her will? Surely he would have gone to comfort her, like any loving husband should in that situation. The best explanation is that she was a willing partner in the adultery, and Uriah was feeling betrayed by both his wife and his friend/king.¹⁵ In this case, Bathsheba’s tears at the news of Uriah’s death are tears of grief, regretting the part she willingly played in his destruction (2 Samuel 11:26).

Second, the fact that Uriah was one of David’s mighty men implies that in times of peace, David’s men and their families would be around, whether for banquets or the like. Now, while David might not have known all of the family members of all of his men, everyone would have known him. Bathsheba would have been very aware of David. Scripture testifies three times to David’s handsome appearance (1 Samuel 16:12, 18; 17:42).

For this reason, just because “the brief and succinct nature of the description of the sexual intercourse agrees with common biblical practice” does not mean that it must follow that “David’s passion does not permit the enticing of Bathsheba with seductive words.”¹⁶ David very well could have wooed her that evening, even if the text does not state it explicitly (by this logic, all sexual activity narrated in the Bible could be called “rape” since it is the “common biblical practice” to describe it briefly and succinctly).

The narrator in this text is setting up the second half of his book, describing the disintegration of Israel as a result of David’s sin. He does not care to describe the sultry conversation that may or may not have taken place between David and Bathsheba in the moment. In fact, for the narrator to prove that it was a consensual adultery, it would have detracted from the actual narrative he was crafting. (However, given the details included between Amnon and Tamar, it is clear that he could have declared Bathsheba innocent if she truly was innocent.)

As such, it seems best to continue seeing this as “adultery” rather than “rape.”

Debunking Counter Arguments

Nathan’s Parable

Several scholars have put forward the view that Nathan’s parable contributes to Bathsheba’s innocence because she is compared to an “innocent” lamb.¹⁷ However, a couple lines of thought object to this position.

First, nowhere does Nathan call the lamb “innocent.” Just because a lamb is an animal–and amoral as such–does not imply that that aspect of the story is pertinent to the point that Nathan was making. In parables, the story is typically told to highlight a deeper truth, and not for every little detail to correspond to something else.¹⁸

Second, if we want to make the lamb represent Bathsheba, we have to keep in mind that the lamb is murdered, so in a real sense, the lamb also represents Uriah.

Rather, the point of the parable is to highlight the theft and destruction of a poor man’s only lamb (David used to be a shepherd) by a rich man who had more than enough to spare for his guest. This breaking of the Law makes David angry, and he condemns himself by condemning the rich man. It is only at this point that Nathan brings in the condemnation. And while he does implicitly call Bathsheba the lamb (2 Samuel 12:9-10), he nowhere implies her innocence in the matter.

To insist on Bathsheba’s innocence as a result of this parable demands that the sheep in Jesus’ parables must also be innocent. But as those sheep represent all of us–in our sinful rebellion and walking away from God–we cannot do this in good conscience.

Even though Bathsheba is herself guilty of adultery, the point of Nathan’s parable is that David initiated the sin by sending for her, since David was the representative of the nation. God holds leaders to a higher standard.

“He took (לקח) her”

Another argument against Bathsheba’s guilt in this story is that the text says David “took” (לקח) her. This word is said to imply force, so if David “took” (לקח) her, then it means she must have been raped.²¹ As Abasili explains, this word “underlines David’s lordship of the situation.”²² This could lead to the charge of a psychological, power rape, but a couple points argue against this possibility.

First, the overwhelming weight of evidence–lexical, exegetical, biblical, and narratival–makes it likely that Bathsheba consented to the sexual activity with David. Regardless, as will be delineated in what follows, the point of לקח is to charge David with responsibility.

When the people of Israel demanded Samuel give them a king like the other nations (1 Samuel 8), he told them the king would be a “taker” (לקח). The various casualties of the king’s “taking” are sons for the army (8:11), daughters for servants (8:13), fields for his servants (8:14), and servants for his own tasks (8:16). When Nathan confronts David in his sin, David’s primary sin is “taking” (לקח) the wife of Uriah the Hittite (2 Samuel 12:9, 10). In the parable, Nathan specifies that the rich man “could not bring himself to take (לקח) one of his own sheep” but instead “took (לקח) the poor man’s lamb” (2 Samuel 12:4). McCarter explains:²³

The rich man’s crime is not merely an instance of the theft of an animal, which in Israel was a simple tort that would hardly have needed to be brought before the king; it is an instance of taking, i.e., the abuse of the poor by the rich, of the powerless by the powerful. The king was supposed to uphold the cause of the powerless and prevent such abuse (Ps 72:2,4, 12-14; etc.). In prophetic circles, however, the king was regarded as the taker par excellence . . . and it is the crime of taking that Nathan’s parable lays at David’s door.

In order to justify the claim that Nathan charging David with “taking” (לקח) does not imply Nathan charging David with “rape,” it must be noted that this word is often used in the context of “taking a wife” (e.g., 1 Samuel 25:39, 40, 43; 2 Samuel 5:13; 12:9-10; Ruth 4:13; Genesis 4:19; 24:67; 25:1, 20). I would posit that narrativally (especially given Nathan’s charge in 2 Samuel 12:9-10) the use of לקח in 2 Samuel 11:4 sets the stage for the synonymous phrase “she became (היה) his wife” (11:27). The whole text (11:2-27) highlights how David gained the wife of Uriah as his own wife.

What is at stake in this debate?

Why do I insist on this understanding of the text?

There are three reasons. First, I believe the argument that David raped Bathsheba represents more eisegesis than exegesis (importing into the text what the interpreter wants to see rather than drawing out what is already there). Second, I believe this position trivializes rape (if everything can be called rape, then it loses its meaning). Third, I believe this position–rather than drawing attention to a blight in our culture–actually causes us to shift the blame (and not deal with our own hearts). I’ll touch on each of these arguments in a moment, but first, a caveat.

Do I argue this way to diminish David’s guilt?

Absolutely not! Just like Adam and Eve, Eve clearly sinned but we always focus on Adam—the same is true here. David should be our target of blame as the man and as the head of his nation. Does this make Bathsheba innocent? Clearly not! But we don’t need to capitalize on her sinfulness, even though she likely was guilty. To do so would be to play the part of the Pharisees in the story of the woman caught in adultery (John 7:53-8:11). Just as there was mercy and grace for David, so there was mercy and grace for Bathsheba.

And when it comes to the #metoo movement, the fact of the matter is that males are guilty. Not all of them, but many of us. As a gender, we need to look to Christ–whether presently inside or outside of the Church–and plead with him to create in us a clean heart that honors and respects women so that charges of misconduct would not be able to stick. In the Church today–even in modern-day evangelicalism–there is an epidemic of sexual abuse. This must be addressed, but the David and Bathsheba story is likely not the best text to use in this regard.

Deuteronomy 22 is all the text we need to preach strongly against taking advantage of women. God is for women, and those who have abused women–and insist on declaring their innocence despite the evidence–will face God’s wrath in the end. Deuteronomy calls for the death penalty; wouldn’t you agree the death of your ministry and platform is a much preferable consequence to the eternity of judgment awaiting you if you don’t repent and confess?

As Jesus declared in Mark 9:42-48,

But whoever causes the downfall of one of these little ones who believe in Me—it would be better for him if a heavy millstone were hung around his neck and he were thrown into the sea. And if your hand causes your downfall, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life maimed than to have two hands and go to hell—the unquenchable fire, where

Their worm does not die,
and the fire is not quenched.

And if your foot causes your downfall, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life lame than to have two feet and be thrown into hell—the unquenchable fire, where

Their worm does not die,
and the fire is not quenched.

And if your eye causes your downfall, gouge it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into hell, where

Their worm does not die,
and the fire is not quenched.

I’ll step off my soapbox now. But to expand on my three reasons for insisting on the “adultery” understanding of this text:

1) To claim that David raped Bathsheba is to be guilty of the charge of eisegesis, since it imports 21st-century thinking onto the Bible’s narration, ignores the original cultural context, and implies that the original audience would have understood our 21st-century mentality in 1000 BC. This is a problem. We are to “correctly teach the word of truth” (2 Timothy 2:15), which means we must be on guard against exegetical error.

D.A. Carson describes several historical fallacies in exegesis that “have to do with explaining a certain historical development on the basis of specific choices and preferences. In the worst cases it is an attempt to psychoanalyze one or more of the participants in a past event, without having access to the patient–indeed, without having access to anything more than fragmentary records of the event.”²⁴ Interpreters who exonerate Bathsheba and make David guilty of rape fall into this fallacy.²⁵

2) There are clear cases of rape in the Bible. This one is not one of them. To add David and Bathsheba to the category of biblical accounts of rape is to do a disservice to the #metoo movement. When everything is included, then there is nothing that stands out about the movement anymore. So also, when David is said to have raped Bathsheba, it trivializes Dinah’s rape (Genesis 34), the Levite’s concubine’s rape (Judges 19), and Tamar’s rape (2 Samuel 13).

We must stand with the victims of sexual abuse. We must mourn with the victims of sexual abuse. We must seek justice for the victims of sexual abuse. But to call every account of sexual activity “sexual abuse” is to drain the meaning out of the term “sexual abuse.” This must be resisted with every ounce of our being!

The Biblical mandate is to give the woman the benefit of the doubt (Deuteronomy 22:23-27) and to hold men primarily responsible (2 Samuel 11-12), but at the same time we must remember that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, regardless of gender (Romans 3:23). To treat women as if they cannot willingly sin in this way is to suffocate the #metoo movement and the victims of legitimate sexual abuse.

3) Did David rape Bathsheba? I say, “No.” Others say, “Yes.” We can speculate forever but never know for certain one way or the other, since neither David nor Bathsheba are here to tell us their sides of the story, but it’s really just our opinion. And at the end of the day, it’s really just a way to shift blame.

It’s a lot easier to point fingers at David and declare him a rapist than it is to take a look at our own hearts. In fact, it’s easier to look at both of them and declare them both willing adulterers than it is to take a look at our own hearts.

But let’s do that real quick. Let’s look at our hearts.

Jesus raised the stakes

I would like to illustrate the problem with the alternative position with an excerpt from my novel Stranded.²⁶ At this point, Jay Liyfer has been captured by the villain—Red Savage—who has mountains of evidence to convict Jay as guilty of breaking God’s Law.

“God can’t hear you, Jay.” Red was smirking. His tongue passed between his teeth and over his lips, and it brought images of snakes to my mind. He kept talking, “You created this island yourself. You’re scared to death of Hell, and that’s why I’m here. You said God’s not real, so that’s why he isn’t going to hear you. You’ve committed the most heinous crimes—thievery, lying, disobeying authorities, raping women, and murdering people—so the proof has all been tattooed across your body, so you never forget, for all eternity, how much God hates you and how much you fit in perfectly with me…”

Red was still talking, but I was completely lost. When had I ever stolen anything? When had a lie been a big deal? When did I disobey the law? When had I raped anyone? When had I murdered someone? Since when does God hate anyone? Church has always told me that God loves everybody. This lunatic is smoking something strong. There’s no other explanation.

“Would you like photographic proof of all these crimes? I have them. In fact, I have more than you can imagine. The Titanic couldn’t hold them all—especially the rape, murder, and thievery ones. They’re stacked a mile high.”

. . .

Red grabbed a stack of photos from the last pile. The pile that was significantly taller than the rest of them combined.

I took the ones he handed me and grimaced. The photo Jared had showed of me and Jaime. I felt sick. I threw it to the ground and saw more—of other girls—every girl in my class, Camille, girls from church whose names I didn’t even know, porn stars from the computer, girls I’d seen at amusement parks. I threw the remaining photos on the ground—not wanting to look at them.

“I never did any of that!” I protested loudly. My shout shot pain throughout my whole body.

Red’s tongue flicked out between his teeth. “The pictures don’t lie, Jay. Just imagine how much pain you’d be in if every one of those girls’ significant others were here, and they could carve the word ‘rapist’ in you.

“ . . . You’re an evil, freaking rapist. How can you ever expect God to love you?” Red laughed a deep, guttural laugh, stared me straight in the eyes, and said, “You, my friend, are no virgin. Don’t deceive yourself!”

When I wrote this book, Red represented the Devil. As I got to thinking about it more, though—and as I worked on the sequel (still forthcoming)—I realized that Red is more representative of the Law. But then I realized that both can be true. The Devil’s accusing power is a result of his commandeering of the Law. He takes our infractions and blows them up—blows them up way out of proportion. Jay had never physically raped anybody; he was the literal definition of a virgin. But he definitely had a huge lust problem.

If we want to get pedantic—like those trying to relabel David’s sin with Bathsheba as rape–then we are all guilty of mental rape. Jesus declared in Matthew 5:

“You have heard that it was said, Do not commit adultery. But I tell you, everyone who looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.” (Matthew 5:27-28)

As such—since the objects of our “secret” lust by no means willingly consent to it—Jesus should have called it “rape.” He would have been perfectly just (especially in our current 21^st-century context) to do so, but he didn’t. He called it “adultery.”

Does this mean Jesus was a coward and couldn’t call sin “sin”? Does this mean Jesus didn’t believe in women’s voices?

Absolutely not!

It means that Jesus believes in grace. It means Jesus believes in not piling up excessive condemnation and shame on people. It means Jesus wants to help us change. Adding to the condemnation (when that extra condemnation cannot be substantiated) is to play the role of the Devil, and it should have no place among those who call themselves Christians.

We’re all guilty to various extents. In fact, I would posit that we are all guilty of breaking Matthew 5:27-28 (regardless of gender and sexual orientation). As such, we are all in desperate need of Jesus. We all need his grace. We all need him to help us change. We all need him to keep us from drowning in shame and self-destruction (what starts as lust of the eyes can too easily turn to internet pornography and full-blown affairs).

We must take responsibility for the sin we know we’re guilty of (like David does in Psalm 51). We must confess our sins to one another so they can’t fester in the dark, unknown (cf. 1 John 1:9; James 5:16; Matthew 6:12-13). We must say “No” to ungodliness and worldly lusts, striving to live like Jesus in the midst of a watching world–by his grace (Titus 2:11-14; 3:3-7).²⁷

Jesus took our sin in his body on the cross. He took the punishment we deserve. As a result, we must forsake these sins if we call ourselves believers, since we’ve already lived long enough practicing these things (cf. 1 Peter 4:3).

Trust Him by faith and leave your life of sin (John 8:11).

In this with you.

Soli Deo Gloria
Sola Gratia
Solus Christus
Sola Scriptura
Pro Ecclesia

Thanks for reading.

References

1. To be fair to the evidence, there are a handful of sources that planted the seeds for this understanding prior to 2006 (see footnotes in Richard M. Davidson, “Did King David Rape Bathsheba?: A Case Study in Narrative Theology,” Journal of the Adventist Theological Society 17 no. 2 [2006]: 81–95). Some of Davidson’s points will be discussed below. ↩︎
2. In addition, it occurs in Deuteronomy 22:24 and 22:29, where it serves to clarify the meaning of שׁכב in that context. ↩︎
3. The fourth word that is translated as “rape” is שׁגל. This word only occurs four times in the Hebrew Bible (Deuteronomy 28:30; Isaiah 13:16; Jeremiah 3:2; Zechariah 14:2), and it is worth noting that one of them is textually uncertain as to whether it should be שׁכב instead (Deuteronomy 28:30). However, due to the lack of this word in 2 Samuel 11-12, or any narrative contexts involving “rape,” it does not require further comment. ↩︎
4. E. van Wolde, “Does ‘Inna’ Denote Rape? A Semantic Analysis of a Controversial Word,” VT 52 (2002): 543. She opts for translating consistently as “debase,” a decision I disagree with. ↩︎
5. A. I. Abasili, “Was it Rape? The David and Bathsheba Pericope Re-examined,” VT 61 (2011): 3. ↩︎
6. See E. Anne Clements, “She of Uriah,” in Mothers on the Margin: The Significance of the Women in Matthew’s Genealogy (Cambridge: The Lutterworth Press, 2014), 131. ↩︎
7. The whole pericope of sexual situations (22:13-30) can be outlined as follows:
    I. Question of a newlywed’s virginity (22:13-21)
    II. Adultery (22:22) 
    III. Rape allegations (22:23-29)
     A. In the city (22:23-24)
     B. In the country (22:25-27)
     C. A questionable case (22:28-29)
    IV. A son marrying his father’s wife (22:30)
   However, as it relates to this article, we will only focus on 22:23-27, though it should be noted that 22:28-29 is probably not best lumped under the “rape” category, but that is a question for another time. ↩︎
8. David Toshio Tsumura, The Second Book of Samuel, NICOT (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2019), 178 highlights that the grammar “may imply that Bathsheba consented to lie with him.” ↩︎
9. There are two Hebrew manuscripts that also support this reading. And there are lots of scholarly debates about whether or not the LXX is more trustworthy than the Hebrew or not, but it would seem best to understand this text as a simple case of keeping the subject of the verbs consistent. I don’t even think the LXX was trying to say David raped Bathsheba. Rather, it was simply trying to emphasize that he was the one who deserved the most blame. ↩︎
10. For a fantastic discussion, though I disagree with the narrative reading, see Clements, “She of Uriah,” 121-144. It should be noted that this was not Matthew depersonalizing her as a result of misogyny; if it was, none of the women in Matthew 1 would have been named. ↩︎
11. Contra Davidson, “Did King David Rape Bathsheba,” 93. This conclusion is influenced by Clements, “She of Uriah,” 142-144. ↩︎
12. While it is not to be used as an argument for Bathsheba’s guilt, it is interesting that the “strange woman” in Proverbs 7 highlights the offerings and vows she has just fulfilled. This is especially interesting in light of the theory that “Proverbs 1-9 does not transmit the teaching of a father to his son; instead, here a (fictional) mother speaks to her son” (Silvia Schroer, “Divine Wisdom and Postexilic Monotheism,” in Wisdom has Built Her House: Studies on the Figure of Sophia in the Bible [Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2000], 27). Did Solomon gain some of the inspiration for Proverbs from Bathsheba? ↩︎
13. P. Kyle McCarter Jr, II Samuel: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1984), 285. ↩︎
14. Moshe Garsiel, “The Story of David and Bathsheba: A Different Approach,” CBQ 55 (1993): 253. ↩︎
15. The following paragraph summarizes Garsiel, “The Story of David and Bathsheba,” 256-259. ↩︎
16. Garsiel notes “This cannot be a euphemism for sexual intercourse, as David cannot bring suspicion on himself by a direct order, although it is what he is hoping for” (“The Story of David and Bathsheba,” 257). ↩︎
17. This conclusion is my own and is not found in Garsiel, “The Story of David and Bathsheba,” 256-259. ↩︎
18. Abasili, “Was it Rape?” 9. ↩︎
19. See e.g., Davidson, “Did King David Rape Bathsheba,” 91-92. ↩︎
20. See G. P. Anderson, “Parables,” in Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, ed. Joel B. Green, Jeannine K. Brown, and Nicholas Perrin (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2013), 661-663. ↩︎
21. Garsiel, “The Story of David and Bathsheba,” 256. Interestingly, Abasili (“Was it Rape?” 10), specifies that this does not imply the use of physical force in this context. ↩︎
22. Abasili, “Was it Rape?” 10. ↩︎
23. McCarter, II Samuel, 299. Emphasis in original. ↩︎
24. D.A. Carson, Exegetical Fallacies, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 1984), 134-135. ↩︎
25. It should be noted that the same could potentially be said of my own position, though I would argue one cannot accuse me of this fallacy without successfully countering every argument put forward in this article. ↩︎
26. The excerpt that follows is from Joshua Wingerd, Stranded: Awakening, book 1 (Victorville, CA: Wingerd Writings, 2017), 289-292. Emphasis in original. ↩︎
27. Each sentence in this paragraph deserves its own blog post, though the most important is certainly the centeral sentence. ↩︎