I've never heard anyone blame Bathsheba, nor anyone excuse David in my whole life as a Christian (both as a Catholic and Evangelical). At around 15:30, Dr Imes talks about a shift in contemporary culture that now apparently acts as a hermeneutical lens for reading this bible story. One question to ask is how do we know that this current cultural lens, compared to previous ones, is a better or worse hermeneutical lens? The most reasonable conclusion about Bathsheba's attitude here is one of agnosticism, and here is why: 1) David, as a warlord king, would have been able to, both formally and informally, rape Bathsheba, and 2) Bathsheba may have desired to be with David as well. Both of these can be true. But the biblical data is inconclusive about internal motivation other than David's desire for Bathsheba. Also, contemporary women living in WEIRD societies, may also need to realize that women in ancient times, like Bathsheba, weren't "just like them." They, like David, would have been psychologically different from us in many, significant ways. Not that anyone would have wanted to be raped (morality is morality), but they may have been more open to the idea of being called by the King for sexual favors (and probably also for being lavished with gifts and benefits).
If you look at Matthew's genealogy of Jesus, the women mentioned all have serious sexual sin. Tamar baby trapped Judah pretending to be a temple prostitute. Ruth was a Moabite not allowed into the Temple to the 10th generation; a problem for David. Rehab was a prostitute in Jericho. Bathsheba committed adultery with David. Matthew under the guidance of the Holy Spirit knew she was guilty of sin.
I grew up fundamentalist evangelical (Bill Gothard's cult) and we were taught how NOT to act as a woman based on the story of Bathsheba. She was shamed and we were warned not to be like her.
@@AmyKnott2020 Me too. I was going to respond in a very, very similar way. We were constantly told that Bathsheba was an adulterous woman. Even in the genaeologies of Jesus, it was pointed out that the 4 women mentioned (Rahab, Tamar, Bathsheba, and Ruth) were undesirable women.
We have to be careful of me -too and church-too interpretations based soley on power dynamics and over-identification with victim status. The story does not focus on the victim, but on the tyrant in all of us. We all are guilty of expressing sinful "power" over something, regardless of our perceived or real station in culture. Bathsheba is a supporting character...as harsh as it sounds, it is almost irrelevant if she was a seductive adulteress or a rape victim. In either case, David was sinful in his use of power and had to face the consequences.
Although this is an interesting conversation, it never mattered to me whether or not Bathsheba was seductive toward David because the focus of the author was on David's sin. God held him fully responsible for giving in to his sinful desires.
I love the empasis on the context of this story in this video. I think the point is not is Bathsheba innocent or not. Its the sin of David and the contrast (as said) between him and Uriah in this story. If there is a moral, its that when we sin, God sees us and we must also repent fully. The caution of knowing who we speak to now in oir culture and awarness of others experiances is also significant. Thanks for having these conversations.
2 Samuel 11:4 tells us that Bathsheba was purifying herself from her monthly uncleanness. She was performing the ceremonial washing which, by the time of Christ and now, is called Mikvah. It is required that the participant be completely naked with hair untied and makeup and jewellery removed so that nothing can come between the participant and the water. Like Holy Communion, it is a Jewish practice which Christians repurposed with a different significance in baptism.
This is wrong, as the chapter tells us that she was bathing in view of David's palace where he regularly took walks. She knew exactly what she was doing by exposing herself to David at that specific time. She was not the innocent damsel ppl want to believe she was, especially because David never forced himself on her.
Thank you for this expose. Neither of you mention what the charge is that God brought to David by Nathan. Nathan mentioned that The little lamb was "slaughtered". The punishment was also severe, insofar that the child died shortly after death. Does this not highlights that David's crime/sin was severe?
I see a problem with the role of "power" dynamics discussed here. 15:24. She gives the example of an underaged woman being taken advantage of and says it is R because of an imbalance of power. NO it is because the girl lacks the ability to consent. One person being perceived as more powerful doesn't automatically make the other person a victim of R. We are setting up a system of oppressed and oppressor where the powerful are always at fault. Even when the other person is enthusiastic... The real question is about consent. And God only knows that there are many who love to consent with those more "powerful" than them.
What about power? Yes, David is the king, but what about a woman's power of seduction? Women do this all the time with high up men. Look at the NFL where women thrown themselves at the players to get child support money. If Bathsheba were a victim, then Matthew under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, would not have thrown her in with Tamar, Ruth, and Rehab (Matthew 1). To say she is innocent is no different from the married women who cheated on their husbands with John Crist. See "Shepherds for Sale" by Megan Basham.
God was clear in chapter 12 David alone was at fault, and he raped her. David's wives are to be humiliated / raped. "Before your very eyes I will take your wives and give them to one who is close to you, and he will sleep with your wives in broad daylight. 12 You did it in secret, but I will do this thing in broad daylight before all Israel.’" Do we really think that 'sleep with' here implies some form of amorous event and not rape. Which in turn speaks to David's actions.
My issue is that, yes, this whole “rape” narrative is partly a response to people reading into the text Bathsheba’s guilt. But it seems clear to me that Dr. Imes is also reading into the text by heavily implying she’s innocent. The text doesn’t say anything at all of her innocence or guilt. This seems completely a bias influenced by the me too movement.
Or... Or it's common sense considering David was the sole monarch and TOOK her. He didn't request she visit him, he sent soldiers to bring her out of her own home. Use your brain.
Where does she read into he innocence? She clearly states that it is difficult to prove either innocence or guilt, and provides evidence on both those fronts
@@Contrarian-v7pDavid was also the king. Do you really think there weren't thousands of young women who would have killed to be noticed by God's Anointed, the King of Israel? Regardless of whether or not she knew the purpose of the summons before she got there, there is a strong possibility that she would leap at the chance to even be intimate with David for prestige and pride purposes even if it was something that no one even ever learned about. There's always a strong bias towards labeling women as some perpetually innocent creature when they are fully capable of atrocious acts as well.
Was Matthew (under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit) reading into the text? See his genealogy of Jesus (Matthew 1). He threw Bathsheba in with Tamar who played a temple prostitute and baby trapped Judah (Genesis 38), Rebah the prostitute from Jericho (Joshua 2), and Ruth was a Moabite who threw herself at Boaz on the threshing floor (Ruth 3). Clearly, Bathsheba was guilty of serious sexual sin along with these other women. Speaking of Moabites, why does no one bring up the fact that Lot's daughters raped him? (Genesis 19:30-38)
I disagree with her interpretation and conclusions about David being a man after God’s own heart. The biblical narrative frequently compares later kings to David, highlighting where they fell short in areas like obedience, justice, and devotion to God. 1 Kings 15:3: "And he did evil in the sight of the Lord, not walking in the way of his father David, as the Lord had commanded."
I agree. Because of those contrasts to evil kings, I think there's a good argument to be made that the phrase is talking about loyalty to YHWH and rejection of idol worship. Not at all a claim of holiness or purity, but rather a testament to God being the only recipient of his worship.
It’s based on knowledge of Hebrew idioms; are those present in the phrase you cited? David worshipped passionately, made terrible mistakes, and repented. Other Israelite kings should have done the same, but this still does not suggest David in all aspects of his life was utterly Christlike. Additionally, the idiomatic phrase speaks to God’s choice of David, the runt, over and against the people’s choice, Saul, a specimen, but a consistently disobedient king and leader.
Let's be clear God called David a sinner. in Chapter 12 verse 9 " Why did you despise the word of the Lord by doing what is evil in his eyes? You struck down Uriah the Hittite with the sword and took his wife to be your own. You killed him with the sword of the Ammonites." and verse 13 - 14 [Then David said to Nathan, “I have sinned against the Lord.” Nathan replied, “The Lord has taken away your sin. You are not going to die. 14 But because by doing this you have shown utter contempt for the Lord, the son born to you will die.”] Since we live in a fallen world God can compare levels of wickedness - David does not have to be blameless for him to be a standard, just as Abraham had his own faults yet is recognized as a hero of the faith. (Heb. 11) We aspire to the good parts of those listed. They are not perfect - but illustrative of God grace and mercy.
This conversation is somewhat alien to me in its context. Not at any time have I ever heard anyone place blame on Bathsheba. David was always a complicated person, because he was a real person. In fact, his conduct was always a cautionary tale. While I'm sure it is out there somewhere, I have never even heard blame partially put on her. God placed no blame on her through Nathan, though certainly there would have been ramifications and she certainly sinned. But ALL lessons, sermons and teachings I've ever read, rested on David's transgressions. I think perhaps, this is making a mountain out of a mole hill.
It's less of a mountain out of a mole hill as it is using feminism to interpret scripture rather than other scripture. God did place blame on her. See Matthew's genealogy of Jesus (Matthew 1). The only women mentioned are a prostitute (Rehab), a women pretending to be a prostitute and baby trapped Judah (Tamar), a Moabite who threw herself at Boaz (Ruth), and Bathsheba. Where are the good girls we know are in Jesus' family like Sarah or Leah? Matthew (under inspiration of the Holy Spirit) is saying that these women are being redeemed by Jesus. Think back to Eve would be redeemed through childbirth (1 Timothy 2:15). Using feminism or any other modern understanding leads to heresy. Heresy leads to hell. Progressive Christianity does this BS all the time when they call the atonement "cosmic child abuse." These things matter.
Maybe I'm the exception, but I've never heard that David was faultless in this situation. 2 Sam 11 opens with "the time when kings go out to battle" and King David is not "out to battle". That alone is enough to lay blame at the foot of David.
I agree, the lesson here is that when we put ourselves into places we shouldn't be then we see things we shouldn't see and then do things we shouldn't do... 1. If David goes to war - he would never see Bathsheba 2. When he finds out she has a husband - he should've done nothing. 3. David then tries to cover up his mistake.. 4. Nothing is hidden from God 5. David repents and God forgives Him... If what David done was so bad in God's eyes (now what he done was extremely bad) then he would have taken the throne from him, like he done with Saul..
15:32 oh great, now the Marxist critical lens comes in and we're not talking about the text we're talking about modern culture. Drives me bananas because the text is so much more interesting on its own terms, than if we read our cultural concerns into it.
The false cultural lens been in full effect [Bathsheba bears some blame] - while the scripture is clear, David alone is at fault. The lamb in the story had NO agency - the punishment of David's wives speaks to the thing he did in secret. They will be 'slept with' in broad daylight. Do we really think the 'slept with' is an amorous / or romantic event - it is rape.
32:36 How much clearer can the inspired text be than 2 Sam 11:1??? Yet Sean opens the door for Carmen to explain away what is clearly repeated 2x! What becomes evident throughout this interview is that where the text is vague, the egalitarian hermeneutic is eager to read into it. But where the text is clear, suddenly the egalitarian hermeneutic is hesitant to say what is clearly said. The approach presented here is not letting the Scriptures sit in authority over our opinions, rather it’s sitting in authority over the Scriptures.
26:49 notice how Carmen’s hermeneutic decides what is appropriate for reading into the text. “Consent” is not useful in her opinion but reading aspects of “Me Too” is appropriate. It is all very subtle and shaped by a modern agenda and an egalitarian approach to Scripture.
Speculation and interjection of Biblical passages is not good. If you don’t know, then you don’t know. Interjecting modern ideas is 10x worse, it ups the probability of us missing information
I agree speculation is dangerous, and that is my objection to the discussion held here - Chapter 12 clearly illustrates God's perspective on the events. Wealth and power are corrosive. Privileged men have a tendency to 'take'. Bathsheba was and is innocent. The lamb bore No responsibility for the actions of the rich man. The lamb had no agency or power over it's fate. To suggest otherwise is to ignore God's clear explanation shared by Nathan the prophet.
When Joseph was called by Potiphar's wife he was still responsible to say no. He did not have an excuse because "power imbalance." Bathsheba was an adultress. There is nothing in the Bible that gives you any reason to say otherwise.
@Norrin777Radd So when Nathan goes to David to condemn David for David's actions you expect him to also condemn Bathsheba? And if Nathan doesn't condemn another person to David when he is taking to David that means the other person is in the clear. Shall I point out the logical fallacies or are you capable of figuring them out. The entire biblical narrative has standards. There is no excuse given for sin due to power dynamics. She was called she came, that's adultery. Check the example of Joseph.
Nathan goes to David to confront David for David's sin. You expect Nathan to also explicitly condemn other people and if he doesn't explicitly condemn someone then that person isn't guilty. There are very serious logical problems with that reasoning. The Bible doesn't give excuse for sin because of power balance or possible danger to yourself. In the example of Joseph he pays a high price for refusing sex with a woman who held power over him. He also says that failure to refuse sex would be sin against God. We aren't allowed to deny Christ because we might be punished for believing in Him. The Bible doesn't make excuse for sin because of the modern idea of "power imbalance." David called Bathsheba she came they had sex. She is also an adulteress. If there were anything in the story to suggest that David forced her you would have an argument. No such information exists.
@@Norrin777Radd that’s true and that’s meaningful. But using the hermeneutic that Sean and Carmen apply several times in this interview - if the Bible doesn’t explicitly say it then you can’t assume it even though the surrounding context makes it clear - means you’re left with uncertainty about what is and what is not clearly said in the text. As you listen to this interview, Carmen especially goes back-and-forth on how she handles the Scriptures.
Thank you Sean, I found your comment, “That’s helpful” most helpful. I appreciate your way of respectfully interacting with people - past and present! I’ve been letting the what I call “Jim Tour style” of studying scripture in, sit and let God speak to me from his word until he is finished , then move to the next passage. This one will take me some time and your conversation was helpful.
I found this very enlightening, I've never really wrestled with it as you have done, back and forth. I am pretty persuaded by her arguments to be honest. I really liked the framing that you both said about it being David vs Uriah, I think that makes so much sense. Then I read some comments and thought they also raised some good points. Knowing exactly what happened with Bathsheba might be one of those things we will find out when we're dead. I would love you to wrestle like this with another passage Sean, I found it so exciting, like an iron sharpens iron moment, watching sparks fly and being excited about how much more there is to learn and think about.
First question - if you are going to say the expression "a man after God's heart" as a Hebrew idiom... then provide proof more than your statement. For example why would God say he sought out a man after his heart (1 Sam 13:14) if it was simple a man that God chose. Was God seeking a man to choose? It seems your "idiom" conflicts with a reading of the text.
I suspect we have a clue as to why David was staying away from the battle based on what Joab tells us. Whoever liberates a city has it named after him. He was being a faithful servant of the king by telling David to hurry up and claim the victory. So we should ask, is this the only battle going on at this time? If there were a number of battles in different directs, David could not be present at all of them. So he waits, centrally, until the time is right and goes to oversee the victory in one place or another, as he should. It could also be that this is important in assuring confidence in the newly liberated city and maintaining cohesion within a kingdom - as opposed to having an area on the edge of the kingdom that owes allegiance to a commander and has never even seen the king. As for Bathsheba, it's strange, I always understood the point of the story to be that David was abusing his power in stealing a loyal man's wife and never really questioned much beyond that. Was David guilty of Rape or Adultery? David is a sinner regardless, so to change the nature or intensity of his sins doesn't have any theological import to my understanding. But it seems clear that David is the "bad guy" of the story. And I think there's an argument that David violated the last 5 of the ten commandments in this story.
I loved this. I learned a lot about the text. I didn't realize there was so much here. I've had some of these questions but I always laid the blame at David's feet. There simply isn't enough information to think anything of Bathsheba. I find the death of the child disturbing but its been noted that if they were both killed then the baby would have lost its life anyway. Also it wasn't until my late 20s that I started to like David. I felt God showed him favoritism. It wasn't until i really looked at his earlier life that i started to appreciate God's loyal love for David.
The fact that Nathan addressed David doesn't absolve Bathsheba of her guilt. Nathan went to David because _he_ was supposed to know better as God's anointed king. As the scriptures show, God said that _David_ gave His enemies occasion to blaspheme His name. David had the greater office, so he had to bear much of the guilt.
Of all the OT characters, if there was any man who could have been misconstrued as being the Messiah, it would have been David. He was a king, a warrior and a prophet. He gave Israel unprecedented power and prosperity. Yet, no living person today says that the Messiah has come 3,000 years ago, not 2,000 years ago. Everyone knows David couldn't have been the Messiah because of how the Bible speaks of him, especially in the matter of Bathsheba. I see the Bible doing so intentionally for all patriarchs and prophets. Scripture is clear in pointing to Jesus as the Messiah, and in excluding everyone else.
I also don't understand the argument about "emulating David's" or any Biblical character's behavior in all aspects of life. If someone is actually claiming this then they severely misunderstand the Bible
@@wayfinderaknot Paul, even a little bit? Not Mary? They are not due the ultimate honor Christ is due, and should not be worshipped, but we would do well to imitate holiness in the biblical record. Of course discernment is required.
@@Telorchid we should only imitate Paul in as much as Paul is imitating Jesus. In which case we aren't imitating Paul at all but rather Jesus who he is imitating. And which Mary are you referring to?
I'm 55 and have attended church all my life. I can't remember ever hearing Bathsheba getting any blame at all when this story was told. Because Nathan came and told David that David was the one who had sinned, I always assumed that it was David who was at fault. When I was a child my family lived in southern Mexico. The houses there has a main room that opened directly onto the street and then several open doored rooms that surrounded a walled in yard. The neighbouring property had a large and very tall fruit tree in it (there was no house built yet, just an empty yard). When the fruit was ripe, someone would come over with a bag over their shoulder and climb the tree, collecting the fruit. Whenever he was up in the tree he would always sing or whistle as he worked. Later, I noticed that if a man was up on his roof replacing tiles, he would also whistle as he worked. It came to my mind, that they were probably doing this in order to make the people in the surrounding houses aware that someone was in a location where they could see down into their yards and perhaps through open doors into their rooms as well. I remember thinking that perhaps David should have been whistling as he walked upon his roof so that Bathsheba would have known that it was not a good time to be bathing. I would assume from my experience in Mexico, that before the days of indoor plumbing and drainage, people probably did bathe in the yard so that the water could soak into the ground and not get all over a floor.
I read the CRI article and I wonder what your thoughts are if you apply some of those principles to Luke 1 and Mary because the same case can be made if you consider that the power dynamic between God and Mary is infinitely wider than David and Bathsheba.
Your suggestion is outrageous - Mary is recorded as consenting "38 “I am the Lord’s servant,” Mary answered. “May your word to me be fulfilled.” Then the angel left her." - God is recorded as asking. Would God have impregnated her without consent? NO! This points to the danger associated with misrepresenting scripture. God speaks through the prophet Nathan clearly, David is at fault. David raped Bathsheba. Read chapter 12:11-12 "Before your very eyes I will take your wives and give them to one who is close to you, and he will sleep with your wives in broad daylight. 12 You did it in secret, but I will do this thing in broad daylight before all Israel.’" Do we really think that 'sleep with' here implies some form of amorous event and not rape. Which in turn speaks to David's actions.
The most common error in Bible interpretation is eisegesis: “reading in” facts or ideas. This is the opposite of exegesis: reading what the actual text says. One form of eisegesis is assuming nefarious deeds when the text does not include them. It’s true the Bible doesn’t always provide minute details, but we need to be careful not to assume something is true unless Scripture gives us overwhelming reasons. In the case of David and Bathsheba, limited details result in limited conclusions.
Chapter 12 gives us God's take through the prophet Nathan. Any discussion outside God's take is assumptive and not supported. God declared her innocent - she is likened to the lamb of the poor man, beloved. Yet a rich entitled rich man stole the lamb and slaughtered it. The lamb was blameless. Later the prophet Nathan instructed by God, would say "Before your very eyes I will take your wives and give them to one who is close to you, and he will sleep with your wives in broad daylight. 12 You did it in secret, but I will do this thing in broad daylight before all Israel.’" Do we really think that 'sleep with' here implies some form of amorous event and not rape? Which in turn speaks to David's actions: He saw, he lusted, he acted on that lust - sent for her' and he 'raped' her. I don't know why we bauk at 'rape' and not the 'murder' plot David was both a murderer and a rapist according to scripture
@@warrencaulton7859 You left out that she became his wife and bore two children for David. One of which would become the next king of Israel. Generally speaking the Bible uses the term defiled, but not in this situation. But either way, David is to blame regardless of intentions. The same way Adam is to blame because it was his responsibility to lead, protect and provide. And hence the Second Adam came to die for us as the truly blameless lamb. Uriah means, "Yahweh is my light". David couldn't cover up what Yahweh brings to light. It's a foreshadow of divine justice. Nothing is hidden from God and those who have not repented and accepted His forgiveness will not escape His judgement.
If this case went to trial, the evidence points to adultery, not rape. God called David an offender, focusing on his theft and coercion, not on rape. If rape was the issue, God had the opportunity to address it, but the text emphasizes David’s abuse of power and sin against God.
Obviously you missed God's declaration of the rape in chapter 12:11-12 "Before your very eyes I will take your wives and give them to one who is close to you, and he will sleep with your wives in broad daylight. 12 You did it in secret, but I will do this thing in broad daylight before all Israel.’" Do we really think that 'sleep with' here implies some form of amorous event and not rape. Which in turn speaks to David's actions: "You did it in secret, but I will do this thing in broad daylight before all Israel." what was being done to the wives in broad daylight?
I thoroughly enjoy the way Dr. Imes models a close reading of the biblical text and the way you both model how to discuss a challenging narrative to interpret. May your tribe increase! As an aside, is there any chance Dr. Imes would be amenable to posting her ETS paper on line? I would enjoy reading about this further. Thanks for a great conversation!
She dismisses the grammatical subject change of the one verb hinting at an active part for Bathsheba too quickly. It’s not conclusive but it was done for a reason by the writer of 2 Samuel.
When I was in Israel last year a historian/ archeologist and a Hebrew told us that Bathsheba was taking a foot bath. He asked us to think about what Hebrew woman would go in public naked? He could see her, but she was not naked.
2 Samuel 12:24 Says David comforted Bathsheba. I have a close relative who was r*ped. There is no way on the planet he could have comforted her. As to a power imbalance, how many beautiful women will be with an old rich man for personal gain? I think we should err on the side of caution when pulling new interpretations from the text. David is honored throughout Scripture. I seriously doubt God would hold him up as a standard to which only Jesus can surpass ("The Lord has said to my Lord" passage of Scripture in Psalms and Hebrews).
Except she didn't approach him by choice, he sent in men to TAKE her out of her home. Men in the OT didn't think anything of raping women, including David. He didn't even protect his daughter Tamar after she was raped by his own son.
@Contrarian-v7p a story in the Bible that made it so very difficult for me to read that God called David a man after His own heart. He not only didn't defend her honor he commanded her to go to her brother in the first place.
@@Contrarian-v7p He was the king. Leaders delegate. Also, if David were a rapist, then Matthew would not have thrown Bathsheba in with Tamar of Genesis 38, Ruth, and Rehab. All were guilty of serious sexual sin. Use Scripture to interpret Scripture.
The inference that this is a new interpretation is false. God speaks through the prophet Nathan clearly, David is at fault. David raped Bathsheba. Read chapter 12:11-12 "Before your very eyes I will take your wives and give them to one who is close to you, and he will sleep with your wives in broad daylight. 12 You did it in secret, but I will do this thing in broad daylight before all Israel.’" Do we really think that 'sleep with' here implies some form of amorous event and not rape? Which in turn speaks to David's actions. We know that people can become attached to their abuser. Her willingness to marry David may have been due to the phycological trauma she experienced: the death of her husband, the death of her child, her understanding of love? But scripture is clear on the point chapter 11 "26 And when the wife of Uriah heard that Uriah her husband was dead, she mourned for her husband. 27 And when the mourning was past, David sent and fetched her to his house, and she became his wife" She did not go to David, she was 'fetched'.
@@Contrarian-v7p Responding to the King's summons isn't the same thing as agreeing to have s3x with him. With respect to Tamar, we don't have biblical evidence for what David did or did not do other than him getting really angry.
I think my take away lands on how this passage points us back to God's grand plan of redemption of sinful people! A few thoughts are: Uriah is an example of God's righteousness, David is an example of man's sin against God, and the baby is a picture of the innocent lamb (Jesus) that pays the price for sin. Nathan - being the prophet revealing this truth to David, and bringing about repentance (which is an example of Israel ignoring prophets again and again). David then being a picture of a heart turned to repentance. Bathsheba represents how our sin affects everyone around us. I think it perfectly does not give us an answer of her innocent or guilt or her opinion because even though many of us may be a victim of others sin, it does not mean we are righteous or sinless in our own being. ( I love how all of scripture tells us of God's nature, and reveals who He is inspite of how we like to read ourselves into His story.) Most often we have to say "Scripture is for me but not about me".
Well said. Thank you. Trying to apportion blame and complicity may be cognitively seductive but can be an unprofitable distraction especially in terms of the lessons to be learnt from the relevant passages of scripture, and applied in our individual and collective walk of faith which imho seems to be the primary aim of the author. Also, the Body of Christ in the rest of the world (read non-western) which is a not inconsiderable number of believers, doesn’t share a similar art and song legacy, making many of the assumptions, presumptions and interpretations of David and Bathsheba’s character, conduct and motivations difficult to relate to. It would be useful to keep this in mind in future discussions because of the global audience this platform attracts.
I find your take on Bathsheba curious. In Chapter 12 God declares her innocent, only David is guilty. The child is not the innocent lamb (Jesus) he is representative of the life required in scripture for the murder. God spares David yet the consequences of His sin will reverberate throughout his family. Your broad interpretation is an example of how Scripture is often mishandled.
I agree with the other comment about Nathan’s rebuke giving credence to the story being more about David v Uriah & Bathsheba being more like the lamb-a possession.
This story is about the corrosiveness of wealth and greed. God makes it clear in his rebuke of David by way of Nathan the prophet - "a rich man" unwilling to suffer a loss "took" from the "poor man" a lamb - "Bathsheba" she was highly prized and loved by the poor man, yet the rich man felt entitled to "take". God is clearly showing it was/is about power and position and by punishing David by humiliating him with the daylight rape of his wives, chapter 12 vs 11-12, God also clearly makes it about the rape of Bathsheba.
@@warrencaulton7859 If that is the case, why does Matthew include Bathsheba in his genealogy of Jesus? The only women in it are guilty of serious sexual sin.
I’d be curious to a discussion, why did the prophetic story end with, “You are that man,” and not, “so, in keeping with the Law that God gave through Moses, I stopped by the quarry on my way here and there is a wagon of stones parked out front.”
I think it’s because, although the prophet knew what happened, the law says no one will be put to death on the testimony of one witness. (Deu 19:14, Num 35:30.) Although, in Deu 22:24, it says if a man is with someone else’s wife in the city (i.e within hearing distance of people) they should both be stoned because she did not cry out. Now I’m wondering if that was the case with Bathsheba or if she did cry out but no one did anything because he was the king…🤔
There's some interesting take (supported by InspiringPhilosophy) that the OT law was meant as a general guideline for judicial function rather than a law as we view it today. Perhaps that's included. I may be wrong.
To truly answer this question, we first have to ask what the scripture teaches is rape. There is a very clear definition in Deuteronomy 22:23-27 of what constitutes rape. No where in Deuteronomy does it mention power dynamics. In fact scripture teaches that we are to do the right thing even if we are pressured into doing the wrong thing. This also gets interesting when you contrast is with the story of Joseph. When Joseph flees potifars wife, she uses her power to punish Joseph, but Joseph did the right thing regardless. Scripture teaches that we are always culpible for our own actions. This whole idea of a power dynamic doesn’t come from scripture and shouldn’t be used as a lens to look at scripture with. We are to use scripture to interpret scripture.
With this whole story if you're not weeping for Uriah and want David facing execution - you've misunderstood the story. Also is there a thematic like to Genesis 3 and Genesis 6:1-5.
I've experienced the opposite attitude when I've heard preaching on this passage. What I have heard usually is blame placed squarely on David and just about none placed on Bathsheba!
The Bible is clear that what David did was super bad. As far as Bathsheba? We do not know. The point of the text is about David and not Bathsheba. I think we should not blame Bathsheba or exonerate her either. Certainly there is a power imbalance but does she have any blame at all? The Bible does not answer the question. I think adding possible contexts or conversations is an issue. The Bible does not say Bathsheba was blameless or not. Arguing Bathsheba couldn’t say no seems wrong just as saying she consented. Another example the king told Shadrach and his friends to bow down to an idol or they would die. Would it be still a sin if they did even though there is such an imbalance of power?
Chapter 12 is clear. Bathsheba was innocent. she is represented by the lamb of the poor man, whom the rich man stole and killed out of greed and a sense of his privilege in society. David understood how outrageous it was and would seek justice on behalf of the poor man. Also in chapter 12 God clearly reveals to us that David raped Bathsheba in vs 11-12 "Before your very eyes I will take your wives and give them to one who is close to you, and he will sleep with your wives in broad daylight. 12 You did it in secret, but I will do this thing in broad daylight before all Israel.’" Do we really think that 'sleep with' here implies some form of amorous event and not rape. Which in turn speaks to David's actions. Ps. the story from Daniel has no bearing on this story. This illustrates what I have found to be faulty biblical study. When God explains a series of events such as with Chapter 12 of 2 Sam. We need to acknowledge that God has given us the answers in that segment of scripture.
2nd question - at 18 minutes you raise the issue of agency, but you never suggest that perhaps David's request for her to come was perceived by Bathsheba as an opportunity to plead for Uriah to be placed at a safer place in battle instead of being in the middle of the battle. Why is that not also a possibility? FYI - I am not making a case for either side, but trying to be fair to both sides.
I find the need to be "fair to both sides" to be at the heart of our nation's division, where as God through Nathan clearly delineates where the fault lies. David alone bears the fault. In fact God clearly shows that Bathsheba as raped. in chapter 12 God says "Before your very eyes I will take your wives and give them to one who is close to you, and he will sleep with your wives in broad daylight. 12 You did it in secret, but I will do this thing in broad daylight before all Israel.’" Do we really think that 'sleep with' here implies some form of amorous event and not rape. Which in turn speaks to David's actions.
It might have been a BibleProject discussion where I heard this, but that the narrator uses the terms "saw" and "took," hearkening back to the sin in the garden, is another implication against David.
The problem as I can see is that we are trying to force modern sensibilities about power dynamics on an ancient text. The Bible is not shy about stating when a rape occurs, but it doesn’t do so in the David and Bathsheba story.
Your clearly don't understand the meaning of the word's spoken by the prophet Nathan to David in chapter 12 Which in turn speaks to David's actions. "Before your very eyes I will take your wives and give them to one who is close to you, and he will sleep with your wives in broad daylight. 12 You did it in secret, but I will do this thing in broad daylight before all Israel.’" Do we really think that 'sleep with' here implies some form of amorous event and not rape. Which in turn speaks to David's actions.
I enjoyed this, thank you both for breaking this down. I think it is very possible that she might have want to upgrade to a King but how was she to know he would be on the roof at that time. I also can’t imagine her in that day being able to say “No” to the king.
In Chapter 12, Bathsheba is declared by God to be fully innocent [no suggestion that she wanted to trade up]. There is no way the lamb, beloved by the poor man, could have been to blame for it's theft and slaughter. Later in that same chapter God would declare: "Before your very eyes I will take your wives and give them to one who is close to you, and he will sleep with your wives in broad daylight. 12 You did it in secret, but I will do this thing in broad daylight before all Israel.’" Do we really think that 'sleep with' here implies some form of amorous event and not rape. Which in turn speaks to David's actions.
But have you read the Old Testament? Much of it is given as narrative accounts in which the reader is supposed to consider the facts presented, and then use spiritual wisdom. A lot of Judges, Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles are written that way, for example. Or consider the early life of Moses, when he struck and killed the Egyptian. At that moment in the narrative, it COULD look like he was ready to lead the revolt against Pharaoh. But the next thing we see is that his brothers immediately learned to fear him rather than trust him, and God's next move for Moses sends him away to spend 40 years learning how to correctly care for flocks.
Your clearly don't understand the meaning of the words spoken by the prophet Nathan to David in chapter 12 Which in turn speaks to David's actions. "Before your very eyes I will take your wives and give them to one who is close to you, and he will sleep with your wives in broad daylight. 12 You did it in secret, but I will do this thing in broad daylight before all Israel.’" Do we really think that 'sleep with' here implies some form of amorous event and not rape. In this example the word rape is not used but what else could it be. They were to be publicly sexually violated - that is rape - and God said it was to show what David had done in secret.
She’s missing an obvious element showing that Bathsheba was complicit. What good would it have done for David to summon Uriah to have him go to Bathsheba if she wasn’t complicit in fooling him? She may have been completely naive when he called her to him but the text strongly suggests she was complicit afterwards. So does the punishment God gave them both.
@@shawnglass108 Except if David was essentially commanding her to fool her husband, what choice would she have? He was her king and the sole monarch of Israel. She could no more resist his plans than go against him and risk death or imprisonment. She is also portrayed as a slain LAMB in Nathan's story. Doesn't sound particularly complicit to me. David also later goes on to completely ignore his daughter Tamar's rape at the hands of Amnon. David valued his homoerotic friendship with Jonathan over any bond he had with a woman. David did not care much for women, is it that far fetched to think he thought nothing of forcing himself on one?
All David had to do was give a word and she would have been killed. As shown by how he had Uriah killed, doesn't take much to realize that whether she wanted to be complicit or not, she was pretty much going to go along with it. David was definitely intent on what he wanted and really that's pretty much all we're told. That's part of the problem is we keep inferring a lot into the text that's been actually given to us and therein lies the problem. Yes, she was punished as well but I know that we sometimes suffer the fall out of the consequences of someone else's sin.
@ That would be adding a whole new element to scripture that is not even hinted at in scripture. To claim that she was threatened by David if she did not lie to her husband, sleep with her husband, and afterwards claim that David’s baby was her husband’s. The text does not say that at all. That would’ve taken David’s evil to another level. God’s choice not to put that in scripture leads us to conclude Bathsheba was complicit. God does not tell us he threatened Bathsheba in any way. God certainly wasn’t trying to hide David’s sin from us. He was exposing it and if he had threatened Bathsheba I believe God would’ve absolutely told us..Adding to scripture, especially in a way that completely changes a narrative, is extremely dangerous at best. It is certainly not how responsible Bible exegesis is done.
@shawnglass108 Lol, you're doing the exact same thing you're accusing me of. Why is it so difficult to believe that considering the type of man David was? He didn't care for women. Hedid nothing to avenge his daughter's rape at the hands of his son. God also chose to present Bathseba as a lamb in Nathan's story... A slaughtered lamb at that. Doesn't sound particularly complicit to me.
@ , I’m not adding anything to the scripture. God tells us David’s sins and God does not tell us in any way that he threatened Bathsheba to not go along with his plan. If David had actually been that way then he could’ve just killed Bathsheba or made her disappear or not even worried about getting her pregnant at all but David didn’t want that reputation and to have people know he had done such a thing. Why would a king who was so threatening even care? Here’s the facts. God does not tell us he threatened Bathsheba in any way. It leads us to believe that Bathsheba was complicit. To get that he raped and threatened her if she didn’t go along with his plan requires eisegesis. Adding to the scriptures things that God did not say. I think God would’ve absolutely told us if David had committed these atrocities. God certainly doesn’t hold back from telling us about David’s sins or the other atrocities, including rape and dismemberment, throughout scripture. Obviously you can believe whatever you choose. I try to avoid eisegesis at all costs. It can be extremely dangerous. I’m sorry if I was accusing you of anything. My intention was just to get you, or anyone else reading my comments, to consider what they’re doing by adding to scripture things it does not say. God Bless
@@Dizerner There were no pressure or implied threats on David's part, which is why God killed the baby. Both David and Bathsheba were equally culpable for the sin, even though David had to take most of the blame.
Here's the thing, the word bat sheba, means daughter of Sheba. So she's actually unnamed, because she's not the focus of the narrative. She's the daughter of Sheba, the wife of Uriah. And so, it follows Matthew doesn't give her a name, because he doesn't know it?
She was the daughter of Eliam, one of David’s elite warriors (2 Samuel 11:3) and granddaughter of Ahithophel, David’s best counselor (2 Samuel 23:34, 15:12, 16:23).
This discussion does little to explore God's clear interpretation/explanation of the events. Chapter 12 gives us God's perspective, David alone is to blame, Bathsheba was indeed raped, and wealth and privilege are corrosive and lead to evil (injustice).
Thanks to both you and Dr. Imes for approaching this topic, as so many are afraid to address this issue within and without the church. Women face harassment on a regular basis, and the majority of us have experienced rape and sexual abuse. Unfortunately, women have tremendous shame over this issue…even though it’s not their fault. This topic needs to be discussed far more than it is! IRS encouraging to see you both discuss extremely painful and sensitive topic!
'In the spring, at the time when kings go off to war, David sent Joab out with the king’s men and the whole Israelite army. They destroyed the Ammonites and besieged Rabbah. But David remained in Jerusalem.' This context suggests that David should have been on the battlefield as Kings would do, but he wasn't where he was supposed to be which is a lesson for all of us about being where we shouldn't be. If David was in the battlefield this wouldn't have happened.... however, God is so good and gracious that He and only He can redeem the story and from this passage the Messiah came from this because God can redeem even the worst of sinners and He can work ALL THINGS together for good of those who love Him and are called according to His purpose. This is a horrific moment in David's life, and He made many mistakes in this part but He was still a man after God's heart and he took his punishments with grace because he recognised his sin and repented.
You are assuming she was at the beginning of the ritual cleaning - which is not supported by the text. Most likely she waited to go to the king after the prescribed days were complete so as to not make the king unclean, since she was observant of the laws for ritual cleansing.
At 26 minutes the case is made for "Power differential" - There is (almost) always power differential. Some women will submit to that differential, and others exchange sex in an attempt to manipulate that power in their favor. As you mentioned the military context, you ignore that she may have sought to exchange sex for a better military assignment. Why don't you mention that as a possible motive.
When it comes to power differentials, I think the relevant point is whether they *use* the power differential: did David request it, making clear sha had a choice, or did he command it? The text doesn’t say, but given David’s state of mind at the time, I wouldn’t, put anything past him.
@@IamGrimalkin As I mentioned, it's possible that he commanded it, but why? The story is silent but allows for a lot of speculation and conjecture. It is unwise to build a case on something that cannot be proven. What is known is that David was wrong in several areas that are clearly mentioned. What isn't clear is anything forcing a sexual encounter.
@@IamGrimalkin I wouldn''t put it past him, but I wouldn't put it past her to seek to exchange s-x for a favor of getting her husband assigned a safer place.
We must rely on the scripture to explain what is going on here. Through the prophet Nathan God gives us His take. God declared her innocent - she is likened to the lamb of the poor man, beloved. Yet a rich entitled rich man stole the lamb and slaughtered it. The lamb was blameless. Later the prophet Nathan instructed by God, would say "Before your very eyes I will take your wives and give them to one who is close to you, and he will sleep with your wives in broad daylight. 12 You did it in secret, but I will do this thing in broad daylight before all Israel.’" Do we really think that 'sleep with' here implies some form of amorous event and not rape? Which in turn speaks to David's actions
@@warrencaulton7859 The problem of taking Nathan's story and assigning innocence to Bathsheba is one of context and audience. Parables are generalized tales to make a desired point to the audience in attendance. Nathan was confronting David for David's part in this encounter. He was not addressing Bathsheba and to make that inference is reading into the text. The Bible has no difficulty declaring all type of sexual sin, it doesn't hide or sugarcoat it. In this situation the scripture is vague and unclear about the type of encounter other than it was sexual and that David is a guilty party in many ways. Bathsheba's participation is also unclear. We know she was summoned, she went, and she had sexual relations with David. After these clearly states truths, the Bible leave room for speculation, but not enough evidence for undeniable proof. This is what is known... 1 - David should have been off to battle.(2 Sam 11:1) 2- David, the King inquired about her and summoned for her. (vs 3,4) 3 - They layed with each other. (4) What is unknown is everything between points 2 and 3. 1 Did David see her, lust after her - YES - and lust when it is conceived brings forth sin. (James 1:15) 2. Did Bathsheba have a choice to go to David? Yes, there is always a choice, but realistically, did she have anything to fear from him? 2b - Perhaps in her going to him, she was hoping to hear news about her husband. Perhaps she thought it may present an opportunity to curry favor for him. Both of these scenarios are reasonable possibilities. 3 - Did David use his position of power to emotionally force Bathsheba into sexual relations? It is possible, as it is clearly revealed elsewhere in scripture where it occurred, so why isn't it clearly indicated here? 4 - Is it possible that both parties saw this encounter as a "win-win" - David satisfied his lust, and she (thought) she gained favor for Uriah? Again, this is a situation we see in scripture in other places. But here, the Bible is silent about motivation and intentions. So, I respect your speculations. They are reasonable, but they are still speculations and nothing more
It was so encouraging and fascinating for me to listen to this conversation. When I have brought up the idea to friends the idea that Bathsheba might not be guilty in this situation, I’ve had a negative reaction or shock from some people with me suggesting that. I think what I also wonder about in this situation is similar to what Dt. Imes was wondering about is, did Bathsheba know why she was being summoned by David and if he had never shown sexual interest in her before, did it take her off guard? Was her perception of King David as a leader that could be trusted. I recently heard a statistic where when people who are sexually harassed or abused, the number of them that reported it is very low. Because of the surprise element, instead of going into flight or flight mode, did she freeze, which many sexual abuse victims do. It is speculation on my part but I agree with Dr. Imes that this is an abuse of power situation and seems very likely her ability to say no would be very limited with his position and the culture she was living in.
This is were Dr. Imes and Sean McDowell failed to use the scriptures to explain what happed. in Chapter 12, Bathsheba id pronounced by God to be innocent and alone David is guilty. God by way of the prophet Nathan explains His take on the events. He even says that David's wives will be raped. "Before your very eyes I will take your wives and give them to one who is close to you, and he will sleep with your wives in broad daylight. 12 You did it in secret, but I will do this thing in broad daylight before all Israel.’" Do we really think that 'sleep with' here implies some form of amorous event and not rape? Which in turn speaks to David's actions.
I've never seen this account as an instance of rape. The Bible has never been bashful about calling rape...rape. And in the confrontation of David and the following outline of consequences, the accusation of rape is never stated. I do not think that power differentials between a grown man and grown woman is enough by itself to label a sexual affair rape. The lion's share of my scorn falls on David, but I don't walk away with the sense that Bathsheba laid with David out of fear for her well-being.
This points to the danger associated with misrepresenting scripture. God speaks through the prophet Nathan clearly, David is at fault. David raped Bathsheba. Read chapter 12:11-12 "Before your very eyes I will take your wives and give them to one who is close to you, and he will sleep with your wives in broad daylight. 12 You did it in secret, but I will do this thing in broad daylight before all Israel.’" Do we really think that 'sleep with' here implies some form of amorous event and not rape. Which in turn speaks to David's actions.
@@warrencaulton7859 This is not clear indication that David raped Bathsheba. You're still imposing an assumption. We see that the punishment God pronounces is rape by the way in which God states it, "before your eyes," and by the way the actions of Absalom unfold. So there is no ambiguity there. And as recorded throughout scripture, the punishments that God sends for sin are not always an exact duplicate of the crime being punished. For example, God has sent plagues for the crime of sexual immorality. God punished David for numbering the people by letting loose murderous enemies of Israel to descend upon Israel. It does not follow then that Absalom taking David's wives through rape means that David took Bathsheba in rape. And David being blamed does not automatically mean Bathsheba is blameless. We see echoes of this throughout scripture as well. Adam is often mentioned singularly as the reason we all inherit the spiritual disease of sin, even though we know that Eve was the first to engage in the disobedience that brought ruin to all mankind.
Isn't this the story that leads to the Psalm that says "Create in me a clean heart oh Lord, and renew a right spirit within me"? Because if I'm right on this, how could anyone interpret David as being seduced? If he WAS seduced he seems to have been fairly eager at least until he meets Nathan. Further, from a Christian's point of view this is an ancestor of Jesus.
My comment may seem victim shaming, but all through the discussion we see David being shamed. He has been atoned of his sin - Scripture attests to that fact. (2Sam12:13, Psalm 51) A closer look may give another perspective... Some Points that are against Bathsheba... Tamar, Daughter of David, Once raped by Amnon publicly cries and goes to her home. 2 Sam 13. (David though was angry with Amnon did nothing to bring justice... That's another point of discussion, David's failure as a parent.) However we read that Bathsheba did purify herself and went home. While she became pregnant, she might have feared being stoned for her adultery alone, she could have sent word to David. But that did not erase her quietly purifying herself and go home after a sexual relationship. Can someone accuse a King and not fear for life... That's a point to ponder. But King is not above the Mosaic Law. She could have approached the priestly judges. Name meaning of - Bathsheba means Daughter of oath. We can safely assume that she had David to make an oath that the offspring of hers would succeed the throne, which she reminds David in 1 Kings. Also Bathsheba is referred as Bathshuah in 1 Chronicles, which means daughter of Opulence. Why was this difference recorded in the scriptures? May be... She was probably not satisfied with the opulence she had - as a wife of David's warrior Uriah, or daughter of David's warrior Eliab or grand daughter of King David's advisor Ahithopel - but she wanted to be the opulent consort of the King and Queen mother. So, in my above textual readings - this holds both David and Bathsheba were culpable for this sin and rightly judged by the LORD by smiting the firstborn of Bathsheba. Remember, David, Uriah are mentioned in Matthew 1 and not Bathsheba. Our LORD knows the heart of the people.
You misread the scriptures. Chapter tells us all we need to know. God declared her innocent - she is likened to the lamb of the poor man, beloved. Yet a rich entitled rich man stole the lamb and slaughtered it. The lamb was blameless. Later the prophet Nathan instructed by God, would say "Before your very eyes I will take your wives and give them to one who is close to you, and he will sleep with your wives in broad daylight. 12 You did it in secret, but I will do this thing in broad daylight before all Israel.’" Do we really think that 'sleep with' here implies some form of amorous event and not rape? Which in turn speaks to David's actions: He saw, he lusted, he acted on that lust - sent for her' and he 'raped' her. Her name not being mentioned in Matthew is not a slight towards her but a reminder of the sin of David. The other women mentioned are being elevated as having been granted grace and honor - privileged to be mentioned along side many men, who were also sinners in their nature as well as actions.
I think a plain reading of the scripture it's clear what David did was wrong. But it was normal for the culture of that day. This is God's word & it should be revered not questioned & looked at through todays culture.
God did not view David's actions as 'Normal for the culture of that day" God said through Nathan “The Lord has taken away your sin. You are not going to die. 14 But because by doing this you have shown utter contempt for the Lord, the son born to you will die.” Nathan also told David 12:11 “This is what the Lord says: ‘Out of your own household I am going to bring calamity on you. Before your very eyes I will take your wives and give them to one who is close to you, and he will sleep with your wives in broad daylight. 12 You did it in secret, but I will do this thing in broad daylight before all Israel.’” " Do we really think that 'sleep with' here implies some form of amorous event and not rape. Which in turn speaks to David's actions.
Not according to scripture. God declared her innocent - she is likened to the lamb of the poor man, beloved. Yet a rich entitled rich man stole the lamb and slaughtered it. The lamb was blameless. Later the prophet Nathan instructed by God, would say "Before your very eyes I will take your wives and give them to one who is close to you, and he will sleep with your wives in broad daylight. 12 You did it in secret, but I will do this thing in broad daylight before all Israel.’" Do we really think that 'sleep with' here implies some form of amorous event and not rape? Which in turn speaks to David's actions: He saw, he lusted, he acted on that lust - sent for her' and he 'raped' her.
I’m so happy to see this subject! I’m a new Christian and have a hard time with David being “a man of God’s heart” because of the advantage that was taken over her.
David swayed and lost Gods favor though. Hence when all his troubles piled up. David even got into the occult lol. The Lord uses Leaders to carry out his will.
I think it's also important to realise that God called David a "man after his own heart" just like he called Abraham "friend of God". Abraham doubted God and tried to manipulate events. Those names they are given is a testimony to how God chooses to see us despite what we have done. It's a message of grace and forgiveness. At the end of the day those names are way less about David and Abraham as they are about the gracious nature of God
@@cbpaddingtonbear2606 very true. Also that even the most favored and blessed by God can fall away. The Bible is so humanizing and relatable. I don’t know of many texts that are so critical of the “hero’s”, just shows how flawed and influenced by sin humans can be. And how forgiving the Lord is. This story much like most of the Bible is so very multilevel and complex but also the lowest level reader can get good takeaways. It continues to amaze me and confirms my beliefs about the Bible and its divinity.
The point I took there, was to illustrate the power discrepancy between David as absolute monarch, and Bathsheba, in a way that a 21st century audience might grasp. Bathsheba had NO agency in regards to David's wishes, which may be part of the reason why the biblical author spends little time describing her role or activities. The example of relationships within chattel slavery is probably the closest example available to a modern western reader, and even then, responses in these comments suggest many viewers are still struggling to grasp the meaning.
@@aaronvienot Yeah as if women are not attracted to power. And of course she has no agency because women only have agency when they are doing the right things, amirite?🤣 I actually like to view women as human beings who are capable of doing wrong. 🤷♂
Its almost the opposite, but Ive never interpreted “the rape of Dinah”, who was Jacob’s daughter, as assault. I’ve only ever heard it referred to as such, but reading the passage to me it seemed consensual.
@ so that’s what everyone says, but the Bible doesn’t say that. It says that Shechem loved her, comforted her and his soul cleaved to her. He was also willing to suffer agony to marry her. Her brothers are also cursed for their actions, not blessed. I may be wrong, but I think a more consistent view is that she had consensual relationships, they wanted to get married, her dad agreed but her brothers didnt and took matters into their own hands out of pride
Admittedly, I clicked your video discussion to see where you would go awry. But, I stayed based on her wonderful deep dive exploration. We may still have differing conclusions, but I very much appreciate your approach. I am curious why you're hesitant to simply call Bathsheba, David's favorite wife. Consort sounds weird.. Another question I have had is in regards to Uriah and his disobedience upon his return. Why did he disobey David, and not go home. Was it common for fighting soldiers to ignore their wives during times of war, yes. 51:30 I would love to hear your arguments on monogamy vs polygamy as well. David is often cited on the subject of marriage as well.
@@SeanMcDowell It seemed to me that the discussion was about what the third-person narrator of the story meant, not what God meant. In this day of so many undermining God's authorship of Scripture, I wanted to clarify that.
Rebecca and Isaac have a pretty clear loving relationship. Including this love at first sight. They're later outed as being a married couple by Abimelech becuase they are affectionate in public.
Excellent discussion. I think this text is a perfect example of why people need to study the Bible itself carefully rather than just assume what they were told in a sermon is correct.. Dr. Imes raises very good questions. I began to hear these concepts before the Me Too Movement, but they were raised by Leslie Vernick, a Christian counselor. This text is worth deep study to find all that God is telling us through it. Thanks for an excellent example of what good Bible scholars can show us about taking a deeper dive into God's Word.
As a teenager I use to consider this to be rape. But then read something about how Bathsheeba name isn't mentioned in Jesus' genealogy. But is called Uriah's wife. And the writer stated it seemed like the NT writer implied that Bathsheeba may have also been in the wrong. Which caused me to think of this passage differently. But still on the fence. Haven't really wrestled too much further with it, if I'm honest.
I think the mention of Bathsheba as Uriah's wife speaks to how God sees her as a the victim not someone to blamed. Chapter 12 of 2Sam is clear. God declared her innocent - she is likened to the lamb of the poor man, beloved. Yet a rich entitled rich man stole the lamb and slaughtered it. The lamb was blameless. Later the prophet Nathan instructed by God, would say "Before your very eyes I will take your wives and give them to one who is close to you, and he will sleep with your wives in broad daylight. 12 You did it in secret, but I will do this thing in broad daylight before all Israel.’" Do we really think that 'sleep with' here implies some form of amorous event and not rape? Which in turn speaks to David's actions: He saw, he lusted, he acted on that lust - sent for her' and he 'raped' her. God blamed ONLY David.
Why do people keep overthinking this? David was called "a man after God's heart" when he was a teenager. When he committed adultery with Bathsheba he was middle aged and had fought in wars , gotten married multiple times and had several children so he was not the same guy at that point.
This is false, as David actually became better at repenting the older he grew. It does not make sense to believe that David was a worse man as he grew older when Jeremiah and Ezekiel both prophesy that David will rule directly over all of Israel when he is resurrected into God's Kingdom. His place is already guaranteed.
@theeternalsbeliever1779 You dont know if David became better at repenting as he got older. When David was younger he wasn't committing adultery or having someone killed so he would not have had to repent at least as much when he was younger. David being a king and ruler and being saved is besides the point .
Interesting conversation. You know something I've never heard someone bring out before, is who was the traveler in 2 Samuel 12:4? Could be a demonic spirit... _And a traveler came to the rich man, who refused to take from his own flock and from his own herd to prepare one for the wayfaring man who had come to him; but he took the poor man's lamb and prepared it for the man who had come to him. (2 Sam. 12:4 NKJ)_
Really shows how David really did evil, paid the price with his son, yet God still loves and blesses him. I understood that she wanted to be faithful, that she likely had to give in but because David could not use her husband to cover up their infidelity, he sends his most loyal to war to cover his infidelity. I know Bethsheba didn’t want to be unfaithful…I wonder what happened that caused her to be pregnant, like was it an issue where she couldn’t refuse her king by law?
Also, we have no idea whether Bathsheba and Uriah had a "good marriage;" whatever that might have looked like in those days. What if Uriah was a greater thug than David? Do we know?
God argued in Chapter 12 it was rape. God declared her innocent - she is likened to the lamb of the poor man, beloved. Yet a rich entitled rich man stole the lamb and slaughtered it. The lamb was blameless. Later the prophet Nathan instructed by God, would say "Before your very eyes I will take your wives and give them to one who is close to you, and he will sleep with your wives in broad daylight. 12 You did it in secret, but I will do this thing in broad daylight before all Israel.’" Do we really think that 'sleep with' here implies some form of amorous event and not rape? Which in turn speaks to David's actions: He saw, he lusted, he acted on that lust - sent for her' and he 'raped' her.
You are discounting women's power of seduction. How many powerful men have been taken down by a conniving woman? Look at Jezebel. Ahab had more power than her and she tried to seduce Jehu. It didn't work. How about Potiphar's wife? She had even more power over Joseph than David did over Bathsheba. Would it have been a betrayal if Joseph slept with her?
Great podcast. As I listen to this conversation, I wonder if we have to look at this story within the full context of Scripture... looking back from the New Testament to the Old. As Carmen suggests, Uriah's Wife (Bathsheba) is mentioned in Matthew's genealogy, along with Tamar, Rahab, and Ruth, whose lifestyles and/or nationality was in direct opposition to the law of God. The line of Jesus includes human beings who have sin natures, it is not a bloodline of perfect people and shows that the birth of Jesus is fully dependent on God's will and authority and not that of human's. It also demonstrates a fuller expression of the grace and mercy provided only in Christ. From a similar perspective, this story is in Scripture for the same reason Sampson is mentioned in Hebrews 11. When we read about him in Judges, he is a hot mess who appears to defy God's laws not just once or twice, but in about every way and every direction, but God in His mercy and grace is some how glorified through Sampson. The story of salvation is initiated and sustained only in Christ and is not dependent on any human effort (Eph. 2:8-9).
Guys, I'm like the most world renown expert on David and Uriah and Bathsheba and nothing else so trust me when I say: I always kind of thought David didn't care how she felt about it, he just got what he wanted. Not the same way we see that today, as rape, but only because of the culture of that time. But idk if anyone would care if a non virgin was taken advantage of in that way anyway. At the end of the day, had David not been the king, both would have been stoned. I do want to know what her setup was like because I've never understood how David was able to see her but it still wouldn't have been her fault. I don't believe she wanted to be seen because of the way they treat her name hundreds of years later. She's not called Davids wife but Uriah's wife. That's a statement of who was in the wrong. At least to me it is. And thats my super expertyest expert factual opinion on this topic. Thank you for your agreement.
As to how David could see Bathsheba bathing... In that place and time, the roof of a home was another living space. Bathsheba was bathing on the roof. This would not have been visible to anyone without a great height advantage. I've always assumed David lived in a multi-story palace overlooking the city. David was on a balcony or at window, surveying his domain (instead of being out with his army trying to defend and strengthen it), and he caught sight of her, desired her, and called for her. That's when things went very wrong.
@@astrongmama As Carmen herself pointed out, there is no biblical evidence Bathsheba was bathing on the roof. David was on the roof, Bathsheba could have been anywhere
@IamGrimalkin, to be honest, I posted my comment before listening, and without looking it up, (something I don't usually do). When I heard that, I thought, "Oops, I need to check out my comment." I would have edited it if no one had yet commented. You beat me to it. As it is, I'll leave it here with this mea culpa. 🤷♀️🤦♀️
I am SO happy to see this video and someone addressing it. I grew up in a Christian school, home, and been in church my entire life and from an early age disliked David. Once I heard his story past Goliath and the sling shot, I thought, this is not a really great guy. Why is he praised so much and why is he so beloved in the Bible?! And HOW is he a man after God's own heart?! I really appreciate her explaining that phrase and doing this research on the entire story.
She's completely wrong and unjustified in that interpretation. However, it was applied earlier in David's life when he was called, not later on. It is very clear he backslid.
I think it's understandable why you might dislike David for this horrible thing that he done, however I think when you look at David's whole life I think you'll find he was far more like a man after God's own heart and I think there's an extremely strong case for him being the most significant character in the Old Testament. I pray that you can see David's whole story and recognises that in all of us there is mistakes but our God is a God Who is Mighty to Save and His redemptive power is even greater than our failures.
@Dizerner I believe Jesus calls David a man after God's own heart, so I think it's still a valid assessment, even after these events. I also think this was out of character for David. Before this, we know only good things. After his repentance of this, we see almost all good things. The story of David is an illustration of how we should not judge a life by its ugliest moment.
@@astrongmama I respect your view on this. I am not saying we should hold people's sins against them. I just don't see the same passion in the last half of David's life that I see in the first.
Unfortunately Carmen Imes Pr.D. is not biblical in her perspectives or exegesis. A couple points to consider: The Bible says that both are guilty of adultery unless the woman cried out for help. Carmen asks, "well would that have done any good?" Yes Carmen, it would have otherwise God would not have said for that to be one of the stipulations for determining if it was rape or not. Secondly, the "power differential" is irrelevant to God in the context of disobedience. Just because someone with more power than you in any context tells you, invites you or entices you to do something wrong, doesn't mean you can do it without guilt. But most importantly, the Bible does not use the word rape in this story, thus we know it wasn't. If it was, it would have used the right word because the text is inspired for clarity and truth. And the way we know it was consensual is because the punishment was pointed at both David and Bathsheba equally. If David was in the wrong, but not Bathsheba, then the punishment would have been directed at him as it would be unjust of God to punish someone for something they are not guilty. And THAT is really what shows that this thing between David and Bathsheba was an affair that both consented to and wanted.
Unfortunately you are wrong in your reading of Chapter 12. God declared her innocent - she is likened to the lamb of the poor man, beloved. Yet a rich entitled rich man stole the lamb and slaughtered it. The lamb was blameless. Later the prophet Nathan instructed by God, would say "Before your very eyes I will take your wives and give them to one who is close to you, and he will sleep with your wives in broad daylight. 12 You did it in secret, but I will do this thing in broad daylight before all Israel.’" Do we really think that 'sleep with' here implies some form of amorous event and not rape? Which in turn speaks to David's actions: He saw, he lusted, he acted on that lust - sent for her' and he 'raped' her.
Bathsheba, being Athiophel's granddaughter, married to Urriah, it's easy to think there was access to David's inner circle. It probably wasn't strange to be relationally close to David. It would also explain athiophel rooftop revenge.
I think it is also helpful to see how this passage runs in parallel to Genesis 3 (also some similarity in Samuel 12 to Genesis 2 in terms of Gods available blessing to Adam/David). David is not the one who will destroy the seed of satan since he is fallen. We need a divine king to solve our fallen state. Might be a theological reason why the passage focuses on David to go along with the political reason of establishing Solomonic legitimacy to claim David’s throne.
What is missing is that men had to have the blessing of the father BEFORE even moving toward taking a wife. One of David's mighty men was Bathsheba's father. He would indeed known the family and even her. So there indeed some distance in knowing exactly who the person is, at first. There is a very good possibility with David's ability to take on extra wives where her dad may have wanted to betroth her to David and he knew about it perhaps. Solomon writes about " the law of your mother" and I think it tells a lot about Bathesheba. He writes Proverbs with lament of his many wives. I really think that Bathsheba didn't want to rival David's wives and ended up with a woman man, Uriah. The patriarchal blessing is totally being missed in our Western mindset. Her father didn't seem to resist this infidelity and with invested interest. We got to keep that in mind too.
Question, so if she's cleaning from menstrual, that means she shouldn't have been ovulating to lead to pregnancy, so the pregnancy would be pretty miraculous. Also what do we know about how the purification was done? Was it similar to the hand washing purification with a pitcher and basin?
The oldest reading of the manuscripts has David going to Beth instead of Beth coming to David, and some believe this represents the first-century reading of the text.
I don't think the author is interested in Bathsheba at all. I think the author's two goals are: 1. Point out David's sin 2. Explain how Solomon becomes king The author has no problem pointing out David's sin, so it stands to reason they'd have no problem pointing out whether or not he had forced himself. As mentioned, the author isn't shy about pointing out force when it comes to Amnon. Additionally, Bathsheba sends him word that she's pregnant. Something that seems unlikely if he had forced himself. She's not asking him to take responsibility for the pregnancy, she's worried they'll _both_ be exposed. It's also very clear that David was trying to get Uriah to go home to sleep with his wife. He wasn't "gloating" over Uriah. This alleged possibility was very weird to hear... Finally, in Psalm 51, David prays for God to forgive him for "bloodguiltiness" and not for "forcing himself". In David's eyes, it seems to have been consensual. A couple of things that do stand out as possibly alluding to force: 1. David had to be on the roof in order to see Bathsheba. She may have been in an upper room, away from street traffic, but still visible from the palace. So it doesn't seem she was "enticing" David. 2. The second thing that occurs to me is in Nathan's rebuke, the lamb is killed by the rich man. This suggests a "destruction" of sorts which, when applied to Bathsheba, might imply David was forceful.
'the author'? this is why I objected to the discussion on the video, they spoke of the narrator as if it was someone other than God. "all scripture is God breathed ..." so God is clearly telling this story. I would say the second point is the devastating effects of sin. The baby dies, his wives are raped, his family becomes dysfunctional, his daughter is raped... at it all started with his decision to stay home, to be lazy - in bed during the day and raising in the evening.
I've never heard anyone blame Bathsheba, nor anyone excuse David in my whole life as a Christian (both as a Catholic and Evangelical). At around 15:30, Dr Imes talks about a shift in contemporary culture that now apparently acts as a hermeneutical lens for reading this bible story. One question to ask is how do we know that this current cultural lens, compared to previous ones, is a better or worse hermeneutical lens? The most reasonable conclusion about Bathsheba's attitude here is one of agnosticism, and here is why: 1) David, as a warlord king, would have been able to, both formally and informally, rape Bathsheba, and 2) Bathsheba may have desired to be with David as well. Both of these can be true. But the biblical data is inconclusive about internal motivation other than David's desire for Bathsheba.
Also, contemporary women living in WEIRD societies, may also need to realize that women in ancient times, like Bathsheba, weren't "just like them." They, like David, would have been psychologically different from us in many, significant ways. Not that anyone would have wanted to be raped (morality is morality), but they may have been more open to the idea of being called by the King for sexual favors (and probably also for being lavished with gifts and benefits).
If you look at Matthew's genealogy of Jesus, the women mentioned all have serious sexual sin. Tamar baby trapped Judah pretending to be a temple prostitute. Ruth was a Moabite not allowed into the Temple to the 10th generation; a problem for David. Rehab was a prostitute in Jericho. Bathsheba committed adultery with David. Matthew under the guidance of the Holy Spirit knew she was guilty of sin.
I grew up fundamentalist evangelical (Bill Gothard's cult) and we were taught how NOT to act as a woman based on the story of Bathsheba. She was shamed and we were warned not to be like her.
@@AmyKnott2020 Me too. I was going to respond in a very, very similar way. We were constantly told that Bathsheba was an adulterous woman. Even in the genaeologies of Jesus, it was pointed out that the 4 women mentioned (Rahab, Tamar, Bathsheba, and Ruth) were undesirable women.
Old movies on Bathsheba depicted as the "temptress bathing on the roof purposly to get David to lust after her"
@@LuciendaSky Matthew's genealogy does point out how each of those women have serious sexual sin. But Jesus ultimately redeemed them.
We have to be careful of me -too and church-too interpretations based soley on power dynamics and over-identification with victim status. The story does not focus on the victim, but on the tyrant in all of us. We all are guilty of expressing sinful "power" over something, regardless of our perceived or real station in culture.
Bathsheba is a supporting character...as harsh as it sounds, it is almost irrelevant if she was a seductive adulteress or a rape victim. In either case, David was sinful in his use of power and had to face the consequences.
That’s a good point. I think it makes sense with his statement to God in Psalm 51 “against you, you only, have I sinned”
Only a man would think it doesn't matter. Still sad to read.
@@alanv7464 Of course you're a man saying it doesn't matter. Then again God is male so he doesn't seem to care that much either about women.
@@Contrarian-v7p
Except that he didn't say that it doesn't matter.
@@brittybee6615 I think you are reading too much into Psalm 51. David murdered Uriah, after all.
I believe that Nathan's story gives more insight as to how we are to view Bathsheba in that situation.
Absolutely! Context is so important
Yes! The "lamb" imagery suggests a pawn more than a person with agency.
I totally agree
@@sarahfield9758i was just thinking that
You mean, view her as property?
Although this is an interesting conversation, it never mattered to me whether or not Bathsheba was seductive toward David because the focus of the author was on David's sin. God held him fully responsible for giving in to his sinful desires.
I also am looking forward to meeting her husband Uriah, who is a hero in my eyes.
I love the empasis on the context of this story in this video. I think the point is not is Bathsheba innocent or not. Its the sin of David and the contrast (as said) between him and Uriah in this story. If there is a moral, its that when we sin, God sees us and we must also repent fully. The caution of knowing who we speak to now in oir culture and awarness of others experiances is also significant. Thanks for having these conversations.
2 Samuel 11:4 tells us that Bathsheba was purifying herself from her monthly uncleanness. She was performing the ceremonial washing which, by the time of Christ and now, is called Mikvah. It is required that the participant be completely naked with hair untied and makeup and jewellery removed so that nothing can come between the participant and the water. Like Holy Communion, it is a Jewish practice which Christians repurposed with a different significance in baptism.
This is wrong, as the chapter tells us that she was bathing in view of David's palace where he regularly took walks. She knew exactly what she was doing by exposing herself to David at that specific time. She was not the innocent damsel ppl want to believe she was, especially because David never forced himself on her.
Interesting side note - leviticus 15 does not require women to actually wash with water after menstruation
Thank you for this expose. Neither of you mention what the charge is that God brought to David by Nathan. Nathan mentioned that The little lamb was "slaughtered". The punishment was also severe, insofar that the child died shortly after death. Does this not highlights that David's crime/sin was severe?
I see a problem with the role of "power" dynamics discussed here. 15:24. She gives the example of an underaged woman being taken advantage of and says it is R because of an imbalance of power. NO it is because the girl lacks the ability to consent.
One person being perceived as more powerful doesn't automatically make the other person a victim of R. We are setting up a system of oppressed and oppressor where the powerful are always at fault. Even when the other person is enthusiastic... The real question is about consent. And God only knows that there are many who love to consent with those more "powerful" than them.
What about power? Yes, David is the king, but what about a woman's power of seduction? Women do this all the time with high up men. Look at the NFL where women thrown themselves at the players to get child support money.
If Bathsheba were a victim, then Matthew under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, would not have thrown her in with Tamar, Ruth, and Rehab (Matthew 1). To say she is innocent is no different from the married women who cheated on their husbands with John Crist. See "Shepherds for Sale" by Megan Basham.
God was clear in chapter 12 David alone was at fault, and he raped her. David's wives are to be humiliated / raped. "Before your very eyes I will take your wives and give them to one who is close to you, and he will sleep with your wives in broad daylight. 12 You did it in secret, but I will do this thing in broad daylight before all Israel.’" Do we really think that 'sleep with' here implies some form of amorous event and not rape. Which in turn speaks to David's actions.
My issue is that, yes, this whole “rape” narrative is partly a response to people reading into the text Bathsheba’s guilt. But it seems clear to me that Dr. Imes is also reading into the text by heavily implying she’s innocent. The text doesn’t say anything at all of her innocence or guilt. This seems completely a bias influenced by the me too movement.
Or... Or it's common sense considering David was the sole monarch and TOOK her. He didn't request she visit him, he sent soldiers to bring her out of her own home. Use your brain.
She clearly says it’s not adultery OR rape. I think she’s the most balanced person on this I’ve ever heard.
Where does she read into he innocence? She clearly states that it is difficult to prove either innocence or guilt, and provides evidence on both those fronts
@@Contrarian-v7pDavid was also the king. Do you really think there weren't thousands of young women who would have killed to be noticed by God's Anointed, the King of Israel? Regardless of whether or not she knew the purpose of the summons before she got there, there is a strong possibility that she would leap at the chance to even be intimate with David for prestige and pride purposes even if it was something that no one even ever learned about. There's always a strong bias towards labeling women as some perpetually innocent creature when they are fully capable of atrocious acts as well.
Was Matthew (under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit) reading into the text? See his genealogy of Jesus (Matthew 1). He threw Bathsheba in with Tamar who played a temple prostitute and baby trapped Judah (Genesis 38), Rebah the prostitute from Jericho (Joshua 2), and Ruth was a Moabite who threw herself at Boaz on the threshing floor (Ruth 3). Clearly, Bathsheba was guilty of serious sexual sin along with these other women.
Speaking of Moabites, why does no one bring up the fact that Lot's daughters raped him? (Genesis 19:30-38)
I disagree with her interpretation and conclusions about David being a man after God’s own heart. The biblical narrative frequently compares later kings to David, highlighting where they fell short in areas like obedience, justice, and devotion to God. 1 Kings 15:3:
"And he did evil in the sight of the Lord, not walking in the way of his father David, as the Lord had commanded."
pleasing to the LORD, but not like his ancestor David; he did just as his father Joash had done
I agree. Because of those contrasts to evil kings, I think there's a good argument to be made that the phrase is talking about loyalty to YHWH and rejection of idol worship. Not at all a claim of holiness or purity, but rather a testament to God being the only recipient of his worship.
It’s based on knowledge of Hebrew idioms; are those present in the phrase you cited? David worshipped passionately, made terrible mistakes, and repented. Other Israelite kings should have done the same, but this still does not suggest David in all aspects of his life was utterly Christlike. Additionally, the idiomatic phrase speaks to God’s choice of David, the runt, over and against the people’s choice, Saul, a specimen, but a consistently disobedient king and leader.
@ like Mr. McDowell said, lots of brilliant scholars also disagree. She has no special knowledge. It’s her opinion.
Let's be clear God called David a sinner. in Chapter 12 verse 9 " Why did you despise the word of the Lord by doing what is evil in his eyes? You struck down Uriah the Hittite with the sword and took his wife to be your own. You killed him with the sword of the Ammonites." and verse 13 - 14 [Then David said to Nathan, “I have sinned against the Lord.”
Nathan replied, “The Lord has taken away your sin. You are not going to die. 14 But because by doing this you have shown utter contempt for the Lord, the son born to you will die.”] Since we live in a fallen world God can compare levels of wickedness - David does not have to be blameless for him to be a standard, just as Abraham had his own faults yet is recognized as a hero of the faith. (Heb. 11) We aspire to the good parts of those listed. They are not perfect - but illustrative of God grace and mercy.
This conversation is somewhat alien to me in its context. Not at any time have I ever heard anyone place blame on Bathsheba. David was always a complicated person, because he was a real person. In fact, his conduct was always a cautionary tale. While I'm sure it is out there somewhere, I have never even heard blame partially put on her. God placed no blame on her through Nathan, though certainly there would have been ramifications and she certainly sinned. But ALL lessons, sermons and teachings I've ever read, rested on David's transgressions. I think perhaps, this is making a mountain out of a mole hill.
It's less of a mountain out of a mole hill as it is using feminism to interpret scripture rather than other scripture. God did place blame on her. See Matthew's genealogy of Jesus (Matthew 1). The only women mentioned are a prostitute (Rehab), a women pretending to be a prostitute and baby trapped Judah (Tamar), a Moabite who threw herself at Boaz (Ruth), and Bathsheba. Where are the good girls we know are in Jesus' family like Sarah or Leah? Matthew (under inspiration of the Holy Spirit) is saying that these women are being redeemed by Jesus. Think back to Eve would be redeemed through childbirth (1 Timothy 2:15).
Using feminism or any other modern understanding leads to heresy. Heresy leads to hell. Progressive Christianity does this BS all the time when they call the atonement "cosmic child abuse." These things matter.
Maybe I'm the exception, but I've never heard that David was faultless in this situation. 2 Sam 11 opens with "the time when kings go out to battle" and King David is not "out to battle". That alone is enough to lay blame at the foot of David.
I agree, the lesson here is that when we put ourselves into places we shouldn't be then we see things we shouldn't see and then do things we shouldn't do...
1. If David goes to war - he would never see Bathsheba
2. When he finds out she has a husband - he should've done nothing.
3. David then tries to cover up his mistake..
4. Nothing is hidden from God
5. David repents and God forgives Him...
If what David done was so bad in God's eyes (now what he done was extremely bad) then he would have taken the throne from him, like he done with Saul..
15:32 oh great, now the Marxist critical lens comes in and we're not talking about the text we're talking about modern culture.
Drives me bananas because the text is so much more interesting on its own terms, than if we read our cultural concerns into it.
The false cultural lens been in full effect [Bathsheba bears some blame] - while the scripture is clear, David alone is at fault. The lamb in the story had NO agency - the punishment of David's wives speaks to the thing he did in secret. They will be 'slept with' in broad daylight. Do we really think the 'slept with' is an amorous / or romantic event - it is rape.
32:36 How much clearer can the inspired text be than 2 Sam 11:1??? Yet Sean opens the door for Carmen to explain away what is clearly repeated 2x!
What becomes evident throughout this interview is that where the text is vague, the egalitarian hermeneutic is eager to read into it. But where the text is clear, suddenly the egalitarian hermeneutic is hesitant to say what is clearly said. The approach presented here is not letting the Scriptures sit in authority over our opinions, rather it’s sitting in authority over the Scriptures.
Love this conversation and discussion...lots of points i was not aware of. Thank you both for this
26:49 notice how Carmen’s hermeneutic decides what is appropriate for reading into the text. “Consent” is not useful in her opinion but reading aspects of “Me Too” is appropriate. It is all very subtle and shaped by a modern agenda and an egalitarian approach to Scripture.
Speculation and interjection of Biblical passages is not good.
If you don’t know, then you don’t know.
Interjecting modern ideas is 10x worse, it ups the probability of us missing information
I agree speculation is dangerous, and that is my objection to the discussion held here - Chapter 12 clearly illustrates God's perspective on the events. Wealth and power are corrosive. Privileged men have a tendency to 'take'. Bathsheba was and is innocent. The lamb bore No responsibility for the actions of the rich man. The lamb had no agency or power over it's fate. To suggest otherwise is to ignore God's clear explanation shared by Nathan the prophet.
Merry Christmas everyone 😊
MERRY CHRISTMAS to you as well!🎄
Merry Christmas! 🎄⛄✝️
All the best to you and yours this Christmas, and every day going forward!
When Joseph was called by Potiphar's wife he was still responsible to say no. He did not have an excuse because "power imbalance." Bathsheba was an adultress. There is nothing in the Bible that gives you any reason to say otherwise.
The absence of any hint of condemnation of Bathsheba by Nathan.
@Norrin777Radd So when Nathan goes to David to condemn David for David's actions you expect him to also condemn Bathsheba? And if Nathan doesn't condemn another person to David when he is taking to David that means the other person is in the clear.
Shall I point out the logical fallacies or are you capable of figuring them out.
The entire biblical narrative has standards. There is no excuse given for sin due to power dynamics. She was called she came, that's adultery. Check the example of Joseph.
Nathan goes to David to confront David for David's sin. You expect Nathan to also explicitly condemn other people and if he doesn't explicitly condemn someone then that person isn't guilty. There are very serious logical problems with that reasoning.
The Bible doesn't give excuse for sin because of power balance or possible danger to yourself. In the example of Joseph he pays a high price for refusing sex with a woman who held power over him. He also says that failure to refuse sex would be sin against God. We aren't allowed to deny Christ because we might be punished for believing in Him. The Bible doesn't make excuse for sin because of the modern idea of "power imbalance."
David called Bathsheba she came they had sex. She is also an adulteress. If there were anything in the story to suggest that David forced her you would have an argument. No such information exists.
@@Norrin777Radd that’s true and that’s meaningful. But using the hermeneutic that Sean and Carmen apply several times in this interview - if the Bible doesn’t explicitly say it then you can’t assume it even though the surrounding context makes it clear - means you’re left with uncertainty about what is and what is not clearly said in the text. As you listen to this interview, Carmen especially goes back-and-forth on how she handles the Scriptures.
Thank you Sean, I found your comment, “That’s helpful” most helpful. I appreciate your way of respectfully interacting with people - past and present! I’ve been letting the what I call “Jim Tour style” of studying scripture in, sit and let God speak to me from his word until he is finished , then move to the next passage. This one will take me some time and your conversation was helpful.
I found this very enlightening, I've never really wrestled with it as you have done, back and forth. I am pretty persuaded by her arguments to be honest. I really liked the framing that you both said about it being David vs Uriah, I think that makes so much sense. Then I read some comments and thought they also raised some good points. Knowing exactly what happened with Bathsheba might be one of those things we will find out when we're dead. I would love you to wrestle like this with another passage Sean, I found it so exciting, like an iron sharpens iron moment, watching sparks fly and being excited about how much more there is to learn and think about.
David has always been one of the most unattractive bible characters to me. He was a great king, but he never was a good husband, nor a good father....
First question - if you are going to say the expression "a man after God's heart" as a Hebrew idiom... then provide proof more than your statement. For example why would God say he sought out a man after his heart (1 Sam 13:14) if it was simple a man that God chose. Was God seeking a man to choose? It seems your "idiom" conflicts with a reading of the text.
I had the same frustration.
I suspect we have a clue as to why David was staying away from the battle based on what Joab tells us. Whoever liberates a city has it named after him. He was being a faithful servant of the king by telling David to hurry up and claim the victory. So we should ask, is this the only battle going on at this time? If there were a number of battles in different directs, David could not be present at all of them. So he waits, centrally, until the time is right and goes to oversee the victory in one place or another, as he should. It could also be that this is important in assuring confidence in the newly liberated city and maintaining cohesion within a kingdom - as opposed to having an area on the edge of the kingdom that owes allegiance to a commander and has never even seen the king.
As for Bathsheba, it's strange, I always understood the point of the story to be that David was abusing his power in stealing a loyal man's wife and never really questioned much beyond that. Was David guilty of Rape or Adultery? David is a sinner regardless, so to change the nature or intensity of his sins doesn't have any theological import to my understanding. But it seems clear that David is the "bad guy" of the story. And I think there's an argument that David violated the last 5 of the ten commandments in this story.
I loved this. I learned a lot about the text. I didn't realize there was so much here. I've had some of these questions but I always laid the blame at David's feet. There simply isn't enough information to think anything of Bathsheba. I find the death of the child disturbing but its been noted that if they were both killed then the baby would have lost its life anyway. Also it wasn't until my late 20s that I started to like David. I felt God showed him favoritism. It wasn't until i really looked at his earlier life that i started to appreciate God's loyal love for David.
This was excellent! Thank you 🙏
Nathan would not have addressed David as a thief if the onus was not on him
I agree. God sent Nathan. God knows the hearts and minds of us all...
@@terraloft I think it's more that men seem to have primacy before God. God is less concerned with women it seems.
The fact that Nathan addressed David doesn't absolve Bathsheba of her guilt. Nathan went to David because _he_ was supposed to know better as God's anointed king. As the scriptures show, God said that _David_ gave His enemies occasion to blaspheme His name. David had the greater office, so he had to bear much of the guilt.
@theeternalsbeliever1779 So why was she portrayed as a slain LAMB and not a co-conspirator?
@@theeternalsbeliever1779maybe but it kind of an argument from silence.
Of all the OT characters, if there was any man who could have been misconstrued as being the Messiah, it would have been David. He was a king, a warrior and a prophet. He gave Israel unprecedented power and prosperity. Yet, no living person today says that the Messiah has come 3,000 years ago, not 2,000 years ago. Everyone knows David couldn't have been the Messiah because of how the Bible speaks of him, especially in the matter of Bathsheba. I see the Bible doing so intentionally for all patriarchs and prophets. Scripture is clear in pointing to Jesus as the Messiah, and in excluding everyone else.
I also don't understand the argument about "emulating David's" or any Biblical character's behavior in all aspects of life. If someone is actually claiming this then they severely misunderstand the Bible
The only Biblical character we should strive to emulate is Jesus.
@@wayfinderaknot Paul, even a little bit? Not Mary? They are not due the ultimate honor Christ is due, and should not be worshipped, but we would do well to imitate holiness in the biblical record. Of course discernment is required.
@@Telorchid we should only imitate Paul in as much as Paul is imitating Jesus. In which case we aren't imitating Paul at all but rather Jesus who he is imitating. And which Mary are you referring to?
josiah would have been a far better match (he is not the messiah of cos)
I'm 55 and have attended church all my life. I can't remember ever hearing Bathsheba getting any blame at all when this story was told. Because Nathan came and told David that David was the one who had sinned, I always assumed that it was David who was at fault. When I was a child my family lived in southern Mexico. The houses there has a main room that opened directly onto the street and then several open doored rooms that surrounded a walled in yard. The neighbouring property had a large and very tall fruit tree in it (there was no house built yet, just an empty yard). When the fruit was ripe, someone would come over with a bag over their shoulder and climb the tree, collecting the fruit. Whenever he was up in the tree he would always sing or whistle as he worked. Later, I noticed that if a man was up on his roof replacing tiles, he would also whistle as he worked. It came to my mind, that they were probably doing this in order to make the people in the surrounding houses aware that someone was in a location where they could see down into their yards and perhaps through open doors into their rooms as well. I remember thinking that perhaps David should have been whistling as he walked upon his roof so that Bathsheba would have known that it was not a good time to be bathing. I would assume from my experience in Mexico, that before the days of indoor plumbing and drainage, people probably did bathe in the yard so that the water could soak into the ground and not get all over a floor.
I read the CRI article and I wonder what your thoughts are if you apply some of those principles to Luke 1 and Mary because the same case can be made if you consider that the power dynamic between God and Mary is infinitely wider than David and Bathsheba.
Your suggestion is outrageous - Mary is recorded as consenting "38 “I am the Lord’s servant,” Mary answered. “May your word to me be fulfilled.” Then the angel left her." - God is recorded as asking. Would God have impregnated her without consent? NO! This points to the danger associated with misrepresenting scripture. God speaks through the prophet Nathan clearly, David is at fault. David raped Bathsheba. Read chapter 12:11-12 "Before your very eyes I will take your wives and give them to one who is close to you, and he will sleep with your wives in broad daylight. 12 You did it in secret, but I will do this thing in broad daylight before all Israel.’" Do we really think that 'sleep with' here implies some form of amorous event and not rape. Which in turn speaks to David's actions.
The most common error in Bible interpretation is eisegesis: “reading in” facts or ideas. This is the opposite of exegesis: reading what the actual text says. One form of eisegesis is assuming nefarious deeds when the text does not include them. It’s true the Bible doesn’t always provide minute details, but we need to be careful not to assume something is true unless Scripture gives us overwhelming reasons. In the case of David and Bathsheba, limited details result in limited conclusions.
Chapter 12 gives us God's take through the prophet Nathan. Any discussion outside God's take is assumptive and not supported. God declared her innocent - she is likened to the lamb of the poor man, beloved. Yet a rich entitled rich man stole the lamb and slaughtered it. The lamb was blameless. Later the prophet Nathan instructed by God, would say "Before your very eyes I will take your wives and give them to one who is close to you, and he will sleep with your wives in broad daylight. 12 You did it in secret, but I will do this thing in broad daylight before all Israel.’" Do we really think that 'sleep with' here implies some form of amorous event and not rape? Which in turn speaks to David's actions: He saw, he lusted, he acted on that lust - sent for her' and he 'raped' her. I don't know why we bauk at 'rape' and not the 'murder' plot David was both a murderer and a rapist according to scripture
@@warrencaulton7859 You left out that she became his wife and bore two children for David. One of which would become the next king of Israel. Generally speaking the Bible uses the term defiled, but not in this situation. But either way, David is to blame regardless of intentions. The same way Adam is to blame because it was his responsibility to lead, protect and provide. And hence the Second Adam came to die for us as the truly blameless lamb. Uriah means, "Yahweh is my light". David couldn't cover up what Yahweh brings to light. It's a foreshadow of divine justice. Nothing is hidden from God and those who have not repented and accepted His forgiveness will not escape His judgement.
If this case went to trial, the evidence points to adultery, not rape. God called David an offender, focusing on his theft and coercion, not on rape. If rape was the issue, God had the opportunity to address it, but the text emphasizes David’s abuse of power and sin against God.
Obviously you missed God's declaration of the rape in chapter 12:11-12 "Before your very eyes I will take your wives and give them to one who is close to you, and he will sleep with your wives in broad daylight. 12 You did it in secret, but I will do this thing in broad daylight before all Israel.’" Do we really think that 'sleep with' here implies some form of amorous event and not rape. Which in turn speaks to David's actions: "You did it in secret, but I will do this thing in broad daylight before all Israel." what was being done to the wives in broad daylight?
I thoroughly enjoy the way Dr. Imes models a close reading of the biblical text and the way you both model how to discuss a challenging narrative to interpret. May your tribe increase! As an aside, is there any chance Dr. Imes would be amenable to posting her ETS paper on line? I would enjoy reading about this further. Thanks for a great conversation!
She dismisses the grammatical subject change of the one verb hinting at an active part for Bathsheba too quickly. It’s not conclusive but it was done for a reason by the writer of 2 Samuel.
Matthew clears this up with his genealogy of Jesus throwing Bathsheba in with other women with serious sexual sin. See Matthew 1.
When I was in Israel last year a historian/ archeologist and a Hebrew told us that Bathsheba was taking a foot bath. He asked us to think about what Hebrew woman would go in public naked? He could see her, but she was not naked.
Never thought about it but it makes sense
2 Samuel 12:24 Says David comforted Bathsheba. I have a close relative who was r*ped. There is no way on the planet he could have comforted her. As to a power imbalance, how many beautiful women will be with an old rich man for personal gain? I think we should err on the side of caution when pulling new interpretations from the text. David is honored throughout Scripture. I seriously doubt God would hold him up as a standard to which only Jesus can surpass ("The Lord has said to my Lord" passage of Scripture in Psalms and Hebrews).
Except she didn't approach him by choice, he sent in men to TAKE her out of her home. Men in the OT didn't think anything of raping women, including David. He didn't even protect his daughter Tamar after she was raped by his own son.
@Contrarian-v7p a story in the Bible that made it so very difficult for me to read that God called David a man after His own heart. He not only didn't defend her honor he commanded her to go to her brother in the first place.
@@Contrarian-v7p He was the king. Leaders delegate. Also, if David were a rapist, then Matthew would not have thrown Bathsheba in with Tamar of Genesis 38, Ruth, and Rehab. All were guilty of serious sexual sin. Use Scripture to interpret Scripture.
The inference that this is a new interpretation is false. God speaks through the prophet Nathan clearly, David is at fault. David raped Bathsheba. Read chapter 12:11-12 "Before your very eyes I will take your wives and give them to one who is close to you, and he will sleep with your wives in broad daylight. 12 You did it in secret, but I will do this thing in broad daylight before all Israel.’" Do we really think that 'sleep with' here implies some form of amorous event and not rape? Which in turn speaks to David's actions. We know that people can become attached to their abuser.
Her willingness to marry David may have been due to the phycological trauma she experienced: the death of her husband, the death of her child, her understanding of love? But scripture is clear on the point chapter 11 "26 And when the wife of Uriah heard that Uriah her husband was dead, she mourned for her husband. 27 And when the mourning was past, David sent and fetched her to his house, and she became his wife" She did not go to David, she was 'fetched'.
@@Contrarian-v7p Responding to the King's summons isn't the same thing as agreeing to have s3x with him. With respect to Tamar, we don't have biblical evidence for what David did or did not do other than him getting really angry.
I think my take away lands on how this passage points us back to God's grand plan of redemption of sinful people! A few thoughts are: Uriah is an example of God's righteousness, David is an example of man's sin against God, and the baby is a picture of the innocent lamb (Jesus) that pays the price for sin. Nathan - being the prophet revealing this truth to David, and bringing about repentance (which is an example of Israel ignoring prophets again and again). David then being a picture of a heart turned to repentance. Bathsheba represents how our sin affects everyone around us. I think it perfectly does not give us an answer of her innocent or guilt or her opinion because even though many of us may be a victim of others sin, it does not mean we are righteous or sinless in our own being. ( I love how all of scripture tells us of God's nature, and reveals who He is inspite of how we like to read ourselves into His story.) Most often we have to say "Scripture is for me but not about me".
Well said. Thank you. Trying to apportion blame and complicity may be cognitively seductive but can be an unprofitable distraction especially in terms of the lessons to be learnt from the relevant passages of scripture, and applied in our individual and collective walk of faith which imho seems to be the primary aim of the author. Also, the Body of Christ in the rest of the world (read non-western) which is a not inconsiderable number of believers, doesn’t share a similar art and song legacy, making many of the assumptions, presumptions and interpretations of David and Bathsheba’s character, conduct and motivations difficult to relate to. It would be useful to keep this in mind in future discussions because of the global audience this platform attracts.
I find your take on Bathsheba curious. In Chapter 12 God declares her innocent, only David is guilty. The child is not the innocent lamb (Jesus) he is representative of the life required in scripture for the murder. God spares David yet the consequences of His sin will reverberate throughout his family. Your broad interpretation is an example of how Scripture is often mishandled.
I agree with the other comment about Nathan’s rebuke giving credence to the story being more about David v Uriah & Bathsheba being more like the lamb-a possession.
This story is about the corrosiveness of wealth and greed. God makes it clear in his rebuke of David by way of Nathan the prophet - "a rich man" unwilling to suffer a loss "took" from the "poor man" a lamb - "Bathsheba" she was highly prized and loved by the poor man, yet the rich man felt entitled to "take". God is clearly showing it was/is about power and position and by punishing David by humiliating him with the daylight rape of his wives, chapter 12 vs 11-12, God also clearly makes it about the rape of Bathsheba.
@@warrencaulton7859 If that is the case, why does Matthew include Bathsheba in his genealogy of Jesus? The only women in it are guilty of serious sexual sin.
I’d be curious to a discussion, why did the prophetic story end with, “You are that man,” and not, “so, in keeping with the Law that God gave through Moses, I stopped by the quarry on my way here and there is a wagon of stones parked out front.”
I think it’s because, although the prophet knew what happened, the law says no one will be put to death on the testimony of one witness. (Deu 19:14, Num 35:30.)
Although, in Deu 22:24, it says if a man is with someone else’s wife in the city (i.e within hearing distance of people) they should both be stoned because she did not cry out. Now I’m wondering if that was the case with Bathsheba or if she did cry out but no one did anything because he was the king…🤔
Oh, I forgot that messengerS brought her to him to begin with…
There's some interesting take (supported by InspiringPhilosophy) that the OT law was meant as a general guideline for judicial function rather than a law as we view it today. Perhaps that's included. I may be wrong.
@ I hadn’t considered the two-witness requirement. That makes perfect sense.
@@brittybee6615 they likely wouldn’t have known David’s intentions.
Once again, fantastic and nuanced textual analysis from Dr. Imes! Please have more of her content on your channel! Great work!
More to come!
I follow her channel as well. She is definitely a scholar I appreciate greatly!
To truly answer this question, we first have to ask what the scripture teaches is rape. There is a very clear definition in Deuteronomy 22:23-27 of what constitutes rape. No where in Deuteronomy does it mention power dynamics. In fact scripture teaches that we are to do the right thing even if we are pressured into doing the wrong thing.
This also gets interesting when you contrast is with the story of Joseph. When Joseph flees potifars wife, she uses her power to punish Joseph, but Joseph did the right thing regardless.
Scripture teaches that we are always culpible for our own actions. This whole idea of a power dynamic doesn’t come from scripture and shouldn’t be used as a lens to look at scripture with. We are to use scripture to interpret scripture.
And using the Scriptures recording Nathan's words shows Bathsheba to be a pawn if not a victim, not a willing participant.
With this whole story if you're not weeping for Uriah and want David facing execution - you've misunderstood the story.
Also is there a thematic like to Genesis 3 and Genesis 6:1-5.
I've experienced the opposite attitude when I've heard preaching on this passage. What I have heard usually is blame placed squarely on David and just about none placed on Bathsheba!
The Bible is clear that what David did was super bad. As far as Bathsheba? We do not know. The point of the text is about David and not Bathsheba. I think we should not blame Bathsheba or exonerate her either. Certainly there is a power imbalance but does she have any blame at all? The Bible does not answer the question. I think adding possible contexts or conversations is an issue. The Bible does not say Bathsheba was blameless or not. Arguing Bathsheba couldn’t say no seems wrong just as saying she consented.
Another example the king told Shadrach and his friends to bow down to an idol or they would die. Would it be still a sin if they did even though there is such an imbalance of power?
Chapter 12 is clear. Bathsheba was innocent. she is represented by the lamb of the poor man, whom the rich man stole and killed out of greed and a sense of his privilege in society. David understood how outrageous it was and would seek justice on behalf of the poor man. Also in chapter 12 God clearly reveals to us that David raped Bathsheba in vs 11-12 "Before your very eyes I will take your wives and give them to one who is close to you, and he will sleep with your wives in broad daylight. 12 You did it in secret, but I will do this thing in broad daylight before all Israel.’" Do we really think that 'sleep with' here implies some form of amorous event and not rape. Which in turn speaks to David's actions.
Ps. the story from Daniel has no bearing on this story. This illustrates what I have found to be faulty biblical study. When God explains a series of events such as with Chapter 12 of 2 Sam. We need to acknowledge that God has given us the answers in that segment of scripture.
It just shows how the most righteous man can sin but come back from that sin and become righteous again though faith, God, and now Jesus Christ
2nd question - at 18 minutes you raise the issue of agency, but you never suggest that perhaps David's request for her to come was perceived by Bathsheba as an opportunity to plead for Uriah to be placed at a safer place in battle instead of being in the middle of the battle. Why is that not also a possibility?
FYI - I am not making a case for either side, but trying to be fair to both sides.
I find the need to be "fair to both sides" to be at the heart of our nation's division, where as God through Nathan clearly delineates where the fault lies. David alone bears the fault. In fact God clearly shows that Bathsheba as raped. in chapter 12 God says "Before your very eyes I will take your wives and give them to one who is close to you, and he will sleep with your wives in broad daylight. 12 You did it in secret, but I will do this thing in broad daylight before all Israel.’" Do we really think that 'sleep with' here implies some form of amorous event and not rape. Which in turn speaks to David's actions.
Great discussion! Wish i had more like this in the regular Bible study groups.
this was a great talk. I wish church was like this
Thank you very much for this wonderful teaching and conversation!
It might have been a BibleProject discussion where I heard this, but that the narrator uses the terms "saw" and "took," hearkening back to the sin in the garden, is another implication against David.
The problem as I can see is that we are trying to force modern sensibilities about power dynamics on an ancient text. The Bible is not shy about stating when a rape occurs, but it doesn’t do so in the David and Bathsheba story.
Your clearly don't understand the meaning of the word's spoken by the prophet Nathan to David in chapter 12 Which in turn speaks to David's actions. "Before your very eyes I will take your wives and give them to one who is close to you, and he will sleep with your wives in broad daylight. 12 You did it in secret, but I will do this thing in broad daylight before all Israel.’" Do we really think that 'sleep with' here implies some form of amorous event and not rape. Which in turn speaks to David's actions.
@ I don’t see any indication of rape in that passage
This is incredibly interesting. As a bible college student, this is such amazing content.
I enjoyed this, thank you both for breaking this down. I think it is very possible that she might have want to upgrade to a King but how was she to know he would be on the roof at that time. I also can’t imagine her in that day being able to say “No” to the king.
In Chapter 12, Bathsheba is declared by God to be fully innocent [no suggestion that she wanted to trade up]. There is no way the lamb, beloved by the poor man, could have been to blame for it's theft and slaughter. Later in that same chapter God would declare: "Before your very eyes I will take your wives and give them to one who is close to you, and he will sleep with your wives in broad daylight. 12 You did it in secret, but I will do this thing in broad daylight before all Israel.’" Do we really think that 'sleep with' here implies some form of amorous event and not rape. Which in turn speaks to David's actions.
The Bible is usually blunt when it comes to describing someone’s sinful act. If it was a rape, the writer would have been clear about it.
But have you read the Old Testament? Much of it is given as narrative accounts in which the reader is supposed to consider the facts presented, and then use spiritual wisdom. A lot of Judges, Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles are written that way, for example. Or consider the early life of Moses, when he struck and killed the Egyptian. At that moment in the narrative, it COULD look like he was ready to lead the revolt against Pharaoh. But the next thing we see is that his brothers immediately learned to fear him rather than trust him, and God's next move for Moses sends him away to spend 40 years learning how to correctly care for flocks.
Your clearly don't understand the meaning of the words spoken by the prophet Nathan to David in chapter 12 Which in turn speaks to David's actions. "Before your very eyes I will take your wives and give them to one who is close to you, and he will sleep with your wives in broad daylight. 12 You did it in secret, but I will do this thing in broad daylight before all Israel.’" Do we really think that 'sleep with' here implies some form of amorous event and not rape. In this example the word rape is not used but what else could it be. They were to be publicly sexually violated - that is rape - and God said it was to show what David had done in secret.
She’s missing an obvious element showing that Bathsheba was complicit. What good would it have done for David to summon Uriah to have him go to Bathsheba if she wasn’t complicit in fooling him? She may have been completely naive when he called her to him but the text strongly suggests she was complicit afterwards. So does the punishment God gave them both.
@@shawnglass108 Except if David was essentially commanding her to fool her husband, what choice would she have? He was her king and the sole monarch of Israel. She could no more resist his plans than go against him and risk death or imprisonment. She is also portrayed as a slain LAMB in Nathan's story. Doesn't sound particularly complicit to me. David also later goes on to completely ignore his daughter Tamar's rape at the hands of Amnon. David valued his homoerotic friendship with Jonathan over any bond he had with a woman. David did not care much for women, is it that far fetched to think he thought nothing of forcing himself on one?
All David had to do was give a word and she would have been killed. As shown by how he had Uriah killed, doesn't take much to realize that whether she wanted to be complicit or not, she was pretty much going to go along with it. David was definitely intent on what he wanted and really that's pretty much all we're told. That's part of the problem is we keep inferring a lot into the text that's been actually given to us and therein lies the problem. Yes, she was punished as well but I know that we sometimes suffer the fall out of the consequences of someone else's sin.
@ That would be adding a whole new element to scripture that is not even hinted at in scripture. To claim that she was threatened by David if she did not lie to her husband, sleep with her husband, and afterwards claim that David’s baby was her husband’s. The text does not say that at all. That would’ve taken David’s evil to another level. God’s choice not to put that in scripture leads us to conclude Bathsheba was complicit. God does not tell us he threatened Bathsheba in any way. God certainly wasn’t trying to hide David’s sin from us. He was exposing it and if he had threatened Bathsheba I believe God would’ve absolutely told us..Adding to scripture, especially in a way that completely changes a narrative, is extremely dangerous at best. It is certainly not how responsible Bible exegesis is done.
@shawnglass108 Lol, you're doing the exact same thing you're accusing me of. Why is it so difficult to believe that considering the type of man David was? He didn't care for women. Hedid nothing to avenge his daughter's rape at the hands of his son. God also chose to present Bathseba as a lamb in Nathan's story... A slaughtered lamb at that. Doesn't sound particularly complicit to me.
@ , I’m not adding anything to the scripture. God tells us David’s sins and God does not tell us in any way that he threatened Bathsheba to not go along with his plan. If David had actually been that way then he could’ve just killed Bathsheba or made her disappear or not even worried about getting her pregnant at all but David didn’t want that reputation and to have people know he had done such a thing. Why would a king who was so threatening even care? Here’s the facts. God does not tell us he threatened Bathsheba in any way. It leads us to believe that Bathsheba was complicit. To get that he raped and threatened her if she didn’t go along with his plan requires eisegesis. Adding to the scriptures things that God did not say. I think God would’ve absolutely told us if David had committed these atrocities. God certainly doesn’t hold back from telling us about David’s sins or the other atrocities, including rape and dismemberment, throughout scripture. Obviously you can believe whatever you choose. I try to avoid eisegesis at all costs. It can be extremely dangerous. I’m sorry if I was accusing you of anything. My intention was just to get you, or anyone else reading my comments, to consider what they’re doing by adding to scripture things it does not say. God Bless
The Bible doesn’t shy away from calling rape rape. If David had done that, it would’ve said so, don’t you think?
What about psychological pressure or implied threats? Would those count for anything.
@ Yes but the question was regarding rape.
@@Dizerner There were no pressure or implied threats on David's part, which is why God killed the baby. Both David and Bathsheba were equally culpable for the sin, even though David had to take most of the blame.
@@theeternalsbeliever1779 It seems naive to me to think that a king who would kill to cover up his sin was not capable of killing to commit it.
She was free to say no? She could’ve just gone back to her home?
Here's the thing, the word bat sheba, means daughter of Sheba. So she's actually unnamed, because she's not the focus of the narrative. She's the daughter of Sheba, the wife of Uriah. And so, it follows Matthew doesn't give her a name, because he doesn't know it?
Good point! She was under her father, then under Uriah, then David. Who in the world was she?😢
It's interesting that the Hebrew meaning according to Strong's is "daughter of oath".
She was the daughter of Eliam, one of David’s elite warriors (2 Samuel 11:3) and granddaughter of Ahithophel, David’s best counselor (2 Samuel 23:34, 15:12, 16:23).
This discussion completely separates the situation from the contents of one's own heart. God always examines our hearts. We can't do that.
This discussion does little to explore God's clear interpretation/explanation of the events. Chapter 12 gives us God's perspective, David alone is to blame, Bathsheba was indeed raped, and wealth and privilege are corrosive and lead to evil (injustice).
So remember that our Messiah descends from David, plus other well known sinners in scripture. This grace is for us sinners.
Thanks to both you and Dr. Imes for approaching this topic, as so many are afraid to address this issue within and without the church. Women face harassment on a regular basis, and the majority of us have experienced rape and sexual abuse. Unfortunately, women have tremendous shame over this issue…even though it’s not their fault. This topic needs to be discussed far more than it is! IRS encouraging to see you both discuss extremely painful and sensitive topic!
'In the spring, at the time when kings go off to war, David sent Joab out with the king’s men and the whole Israelite army. They destroyed the Ammonites and besieged Rabbah. But David remained in Jerusalem.'
This context suggests that David should have been on the battlefield as Kings would do, but he wasn't where he was supposed to be which is a lesson for all of us about being where we shouldn't be.
If David was in the battlefield this wouldn't have happened.... however, God is so good and gracious that He and only He can redeem the story and from this passage the Messiah came from this because God can redeem even the worst of sinners and He can work ALL THINGS together for good of those who love Him and are called according to His purpose.
This is a horrific moment in David's life, and He made many mistakes in this part but He was still a man after God's heart and he took his punishments with grace because he recognised his sin and repented.
How did she get pregnant if she was doing her ritual cleansing that night? If I understand it correctly, she would not have been fertile at the time.
You are assuming she was at the beginning of the ritual cleaning - which is not supported by the text. Most likely she waited to go to the king after the prescribed days were complete so as to not make the king unclean, since she was observant of the laws for ritual cleansing.
At 26 minutes the case is made for "Power differential" - There is (almost) always power differential. Some women will submit to that differential, and others exchange sex in an attempt to manipulate that power in their favor. As you mentioned the military context, you ignore that she may have sought to exchange sex for a better military assignment. Why don't you mention that as a possible motive.
When it comes to power differentials, I think the relevant point is whether they *use* the power differential: did David request it, making clear sha had a choice, or did he command it?
The text doesn’t say, but given David’s state of mind at the time, I wouldn’t, put anything past him.
@@IamGrimalkin As I mentioned, it's possible that he commanded it, but why? The story is silent but allows for a lot of speculation and conjecture. It is unwise to build a case on something that cannot be proven. What is known is that David was wrong in several areas that are clearly mentioned. What isn't clear is anything forcing a sexual encounter.
@@IamGrimalkin I wouldn''t put it past him, but I wouldn't put it past her to seek to exchange s-x for a favor of getting her husband assigned a safer place.
We must rely on the scripture to explain what is going on here. Through the prophet Nathan God gives us His take.
God declared her innocent - she is likened to the lamb of the poor man, beloved. Yet a rich entitled rich man stole the lamb and slaughtered it. The lamb was blameless. Later the prophet Nathan instructed by God, would say "Before your very eyes I will take your wives and give them to one who is close to you, and he will sleep with your wives in broad daylight. 12 You did it in secret, but I will do this thing in broad daylight before all Israel.’" Do we really think that 'sleep with' here implies some form of amorous event and not rape? Which in turn speaks to David's actions
@@warrencaulton7859 The problem of taking Nathan's story and assigning innocence to Bathsheba is one of context and audience. Parables are generalized tales to make a desired point to the audience in attendance. Nathan was confronting David for David's part in this encounter. He was not addressing Bathsheba and to make that inference is reading into the text.
The Bible has no difficulty declaring all type of sexual sin, it doesn't hide or sugarcoat it. In this situation the scripture is vague and unclear about the type of encounter other than it was sexual and that David is a guilty party in many ways. Bathsheba's participation is also unclear. We know she was summoned, she went, and she had sexual relations with David.
After these clearly states truths, the Bible leave room for speculation, but not enough evidence for undeniable proof.
This is what is known...
1 - David should have been off to battle.(2 Sam 11:1)
2- David, the King inquired about her and summoned for her. (vs 3,4)
3 - They layed with each other. (4)
What is unknown is everything between points 2 and 3.
1 Did David see her, lust after her - YES - and lust when it is conceived brings forth sin. (James 1:15)
2. Did Bathsheba have a choice to go to David? Yes, there is always a choice, but realistically, did she have anything to fear from him?
2b - Perhaps in her going to him, she was hoping to hear news about her husband. Perhaps she thought it may present an opportunity to curry favor for him. Both of these scenarios are reasonable possibilities.
3 - Did David use his position of power to emotionally force Bathsheba into sexual relations? It is possible, as it is clearly revealed elsewhere in scripture where it occurred, so why isn't it clearly indicated here?
4 - Is it possible that both parties saw this encounter as a "win-win" - David satisfied his lust, and she (thought) she gained favor for Uriah? Again, this is a situation we see in scripture in other places. But here, the Bible is silent about motivation and intentions.
So, I respect your speculations. They are reasonable, but they are still speculations and nothing more
2Samuel 11:26 Bathsheba mourned for her husband Uriah when she heard of his death
It was so encouraging and fascinating for me to listen to this conversation. When I have brought up the idea to friends the idea that Bathsheba might not be guilty in this situation, I’ve had a negative reaction or shock from some people with me suggesting that. I think what I also wonder about in this situation is similar to what Dt. Imes was wondering about is, did Bathsheba know why she was being summoned by David and if he had never shown sexual interest in her before, did it take her off guard? Was her perception of King David as a leader that could be trusted. I recently heard a statistic where when people who are sexually harassed or abused, the number of them that reported it is very low. Because of the surprise element, instead of going into flight or flight mode, did she freeze, which many sexual abuse victims do. It is speculation on my part but I agree with Dr. Imes that this is an abuse of power situation and seems very likely her ability to say no would be very limited with his position and the culture she was living in.
This is were Dr. Imes and Sean McDowell failed to use the scriptures to explain what happed. in Chapter 12, Bathsheba id pronounced by God to be innocent and alone David is guilty. God by way of the prophet Nathan explains His take on the events. He even says that David's wives will be raped. "Before your very eyes I will take your wives and give them to one who is close to you, and he will sleep with your wives in broad daylight. 12 You did it in secret, but I will do this thing in broad daylight before all Israel.’" Do we really think that 'sleep with' here implies some form of amorous event and not rape? Which in turn speaks to David's actions.
I've never seen this account as an instance of rape. The Bible has never been bashful about calling rape...rape. And in the confrontation of David and the following outline of consequences, the accusation of rape is never stated. I do not think that power differentials between a grown man and grown woman is enough by itself to label a sexual affair rape. The lion's share of my scorn falls on David, but I don't walk away with the sense that Bathsheba laid with David out of fear for her well-being.
This points to the danger associated with misrepresenting scripture. God speaks through the prophet Nathan clearly, David is at fault. David raped Bathsheba. Read chapter 12:11-12 "Before your very eyes I will take your wives and give them to one who is close to you, and he will sleep with your wives in broad daylight. 12 You did it in secret, but I will do this thing in broad daylight before all Israel.’" Do we really think that 'sleep with' here implies some form of amorous event and not rape. Which in turn speaks to David's actions.
@@warrencaulton7859 This is not clear indication that David raped Bathsheba. You're still imposing an assumption. We see that the punishment God pronounces is rape by the way in which God states it, "before your eyes," and by the way the actions of Absalom unfold. So there is no ambiguity there. And as recorded throughout scripture, the punishments that God sends for sin are not always an exact duplicate of the crime being punished. For example, God has sent plagues for the crime of sexual immorality. God punished David for numbering the people by letting loose murderous enemies of Israel to descend upon Israel. It does not follow then that Absalom taking David's wives through rape means that David took Bathsheba in rape. And David being blamed does not automatically mean Bathsheba is blameless. We see echoes of this throughout scripture as well. Adam is often mentioned singularly as the reason we all inherit the spiritual disease of sin, even though we know that Eve was the first to engage in the disobedience that brought ruin to all mankind.
Isn't this the story that leads to the Psalm that says "Create in me a clean heart oh Lord, and renew a right spirit within me"? Because if I'm right on this, how could anyone interpret David as being seduced? If he WAS seduced he seems to have been fairly eager at least until he meets Nathan. Further, from a Christian's point of view this is an ancestor of Jesus.
My comment may seem victim shaming, but all through the discussion we see David being shamed. He has been atoned of his sin - Scripture attests to that fact. (2Sam12:13, Psalm 51)
A closer look may give another perspective...
Some Points that are against Bathsheba... Tamar, Daughter of David, Once raped by Amnon publicly cries and goes to her home. 2 Sam 13. (David though was angry with Amnon did nothing to bring justice... That's another point of discussion, David's failure as a parent.)
However we read that Bathsheba did purify herself and went home. While she became pregnant, she might have feared being stoned for her adultery alone, she could have sent word to David. But that did not erase her quietly purifying herself and go home after a sexual relationship. Can someone accuse a King and not fear for life... That's a point to ponder. But King is not above the Mosaic Law. She could have approached the priestly judges.
Name meaning of - Bathsheba means Daughter of oath. We can safely assume that she had David to make an oath that the offspring of hers would succeed the throne, which she reminds David in 1 Kings.
Also Bathsheba is referred as Bathshuah in 1 Chronicles, which means daughter of Opulence. Why was this difference recorded in the scriptures? May be... She was probably not satisfied with the opulence she had - as a wife of David's warrior Uriah, or daughter of David's warrior Eliab or grand daughter of King David's advisor Ahithopel - but she wanted to be the opulent consort of the King and Queen mother.
So, in my above textual readings - this holds both David and Bathsheba were culpable for this sin and rightly judged by the LORD by smiting the firstborn of Bathsheba. Remember, David, Uriah are mentioned in Matthew 1 and not Bathsheba. Our LORD knows the heart of the people.
You misread the scriptures. Chapter tells us all we need to know. God declared her innocent - she is likened to the lamb of the poor man, beloved. Yet a rich entitled rich man stole the lamb and slaughtered it. The lamb was blameless. Later the prophet Nathan instructed by God, would say "Before your very eyes I will take your wives and give them to one who is close to you, and he will sleep with your wives in broad daylight. 12 You did it in secret, but I will do this thing in broad daylight before all Israel.’" Do we really think that 'sleep with' here implies some form of amorous event and not rape? Which in turn speaks to David's actions: He saw, he lusted, he acted on that lust - sent for her' and he 'raped' her.
Her name not being mentioned in Matthew is not a slight towards her but a reminder of the sin of David. The other women mentioned are being elevated as having been granted grace and honor - privileged to be mentioned along side many men, who were also sinners in their nature as well as actions.
I think a plain reading of the scripture it's clear what David did was wrong. But it was normal for the culture of that day. This is God's word & it should be revered not questioned & looked at through todays culture.
God did not view David's actions as 'Normal for the culture of that day" God said through Nathan “The Lord has taken away your sin. You are not going to die. 14 But because by doing this you have shown utter contempt for the Lord, the son born to you will die.” Nathan also told David 12:11 “This is what the Lord says: ‘Out of your own household I am going to bring calamity on you. Before your very eyes I will take your wives and give them to one who is close to you, and he will sleep with your wives in broad daylight. 12 You did it in secret, but I will do this thing in broad daylight before all Israel.’” " Do we really think that 'sleep with' here implies some form of amorous event and not rape. Which in turn speaks to David's actions.
This is a woman who knew she could be seen by the king as she bathed, it’s not like he needed a telescope, it’s clear she was not innocent
Has the definition of "rape" changed over the last 25 years or so?
Legally no, colloquially yes.
Not according to scripture. God declared her innocent - she is likened to the lamb of the poor man, beloved. Yet a rich entitled rich man stole the lamb and slaughtered it. The lamb was blameless. Later the prophet Nathan instructed by God, would say "Before your very eyes I will take your wives and give them to one who is close to you, and he will sleep with your wives in broad daylight. 12 You did it in secret, but I will do this thing in broad daylight before all Israel.’" Do we really think that 'sleep with' here implies some form of amorous event and not rape? Which in turn speaks to David's actions: He saw, he lusted, he acted on that lust - sent for her' and he 'raped' her.
@@warrencaulton7859 Yes according to Matthew 1.
I’m so happy to see this subject! I’m a new Christian and have a hard time with David being “a man of God’s heart” because of the advantage that was taken over her.
David swayed and lost Gods favor though. Hence when all his troubles piled up. David even got into the occult lol.
The Lord uses Leaders to carry out his will.
I think it's also important to realise that God called David a "man after his own heart" just like he called Abraham "friend of God". Abraham doubted God and tried to manipulate events. Those names they are given is a testimony to how God chooses to see us despite what we have done. It's a message of grace and forgiveness.
At the end of the day those names are way less about David and Abraham as they are about the gracious nature of God
Good fiction.
@@cbpaddingtonbear2606 very true. Also that even the most favored and blessed by God can fall away. The Bible is so humanizing and relatable. I don’t know of many texts that are so critical of the “hero’s”, just shows how flawed and influenced by sin humans can be. And how forgiving the Lord is.
This story much like most of the Bible is so very multilevel and complex but also the lowest level reader can get good takeaways. It continues to amaze me and confirms my beliefs about the Bible and its divinity.
@@rebeccabrockway8258 Which part? David was an Israeli king.
The plantation analogy is a very poor analogy. Bathsheba was not a slave. Let us not 21st century the story.
The point I took there, was to illustrate the power discrepancy between David as absolute monarch, and Bathsheba, in a way that a 21st century audience might grasp. Bathsheba had NO agency in regards to David's wishes, which may be part of the reason why the biblical author spends little time describing her role or activities. The example of relationships within chattel slavery is probably the closest example available to a modern western reader, and even then, responses in these comments suggest many viewers are still struggling to grasp the meaning.
@@aaronvienot Yeah as if women are not attracted to power. And of course she has no agency because women only have agency when they are doing the right things, amirite?🤣 I actually like to view women as human beings who are capable of doing wrong. 🤷♂
Its almost the opposite, but Ive never interpreted “the rape of Dinah”, who was Jacob’s daughter, as assault. I’ve only ever heard it referred to as such, but reading the passage to me it seemed consensual.
It was not consensual though. Dinah was definitely raped, which is why her brothers went to such bloody extremes to get revenge.
@ so that’s what everyone says, but the Bible doesn’t say that. It says that Shechem loved her, comforted her and his soul cleaved to her. He was also willing to suffer agony to marry her. Her brothers are also cursed for their actions, not blessed. I may be wrong, but I think a more consistent view is that she had consensual relationships, they wanted to get married, her dad agreed but her brothers didnt and took matters into their own hands out of pride
Admittedly, I clicked your video discussion to see where you would go awry. But, I stayed based on her wonderful deep dive exploration.
We may still have differing conclusions, but I very much appreciate your approach.
I am curious why you're hesitant to simply call Bathsheba, David's favorite wife. Consort sounds weird..
Another question I have had is in regards to Uriah and his disobedience upon his return. Why did he disobey David, and not go home. Was it common for fighting soldiers to ignore their wives during times of war, yes. 51:30
I would love to hear your arguments on monogamy vs polygamy as well. David is often cited on the subject of marriage as well.
Wow, I never thought about this. I guess I read it and just looked at it from my mind only.
If Scripture is the inerrant word of God, then isn't God the narrator? Didn't He decide what to say and not to say?
Yes, but I’m not sure I understand your point. The debate is not if God said it, but what God means through these words.
@@SeanMcDowell It seemed to me that the discussion was about what the third-person narrator of the story meant, not what God meant. In this day of so many undermining God's authorship of Scripture, I wanted to clarify that.
Meir Sternberg's treatment of David and Bathsheba is masterful in his magisterial book, "The Poetics of Biblical Narrative."
Wow thank you… very eye opening
I had never thought about the situation as that Bathsheba might not be consenting. But context taken into consideration, it seems like she didn't.
Isn’t Michal the only woman in the Old Testament who is said to love her husband?
@@KnowtheWord-JesusDoesTheVerbs And look how that ended for her lol. Barren and alone.
Rebecca and Isaac have a pretty clear loving relationship. Including this love at first sight. They're later outed as being a married couple by Abimelech becuase they are affectionate in public.
@@KnowtheWord-JesusDoesTheVerbs And look where that got her lol. Barren and alone for the rest of her life.
@Seomus Why is it even relevant though? God doesn't care for romance. It's temporal.
Excellent discussion. I think this text is a perfect example of why people need to study the Bible itself carefully rather than just assume what they were told in a sermon is correct.. Dr. Imes raises very good questions. I began to hear these concepts before the Me Too Movement, but they were raised by Leslie Vernick, a Christian counselor. This text is worth deep study to find all that God is telling us through it. Thanks for an excellent example of what good Bible scholars can show us about taking a deeper dive into God's Word.
As a teenager I use to consider this to be rape. But then read something about how Bathsheeba name isn't mentioned in Jesus' genealogy. But is called Uriah's wife. And the writer stated it seemed like the NT writer implied that Bathsheeba may have also been in the wrong. Which caused me to think of this passage differently. But still on the fence. Haven't really wrestled too much further with it, if I'm honest.
I think the mention of Bathsheba as Uriah's wife speaks to how God sees her as a the victim not someone to blamed. Chapter 12 of 2Sam is clear. God declared her innocent - she is likened to the lamb of the poor man, beloved. Yet a rich entitled rich man stole the lamb and slaughtered it. The lamb was blameless. Later the prophet Nathan instructed by God, would say "Before your very eyes I will take your wives and give them to one who is close to you, and he will sleep with your wives in broad daylight. 12 You did it in secret, but I will do this thing in broad daylight before all Israel.’" Do we really think that 'sleep with' here implies some form of amorous event and not rape? Which in turn speaks to David's actions: He saw, he lusted, he acted on that lust - sent for her' and he 'raped' her. God blamed ONLY David.
Why do people keep overthinking this? David was called "a man after God's heart" when he was a teenager. When he committed adultery with Bathsheba he was middle aged and had fought in wars , gotten married multiple times and had several children so he was not the same guy at that point.
Because then they don't have something to make a video about? Lol.
This is false, as David actually became better at repenting the older he grew. It does not make sense to believe that David was a worse man as he grew older when Jeremiah and Ezekiel both prophesy that David will rule directly over all of Israel when he is resurrected into God's Kingdom. His place is already guaranteed.
@theeternalsbeliever1779 You dont know if David became better at repenting as he got older. When David was younger he wasn't committing adultery or having someone killed so he would not have had to repent at least as much when he was younger. David being a king and ruler and being saved is besides the point .
Interesting conversation. You know something I've never heard someone bring out before, is who was the traveler in 2 Samuel 12:4? Could be a demonic spirit...
_And a traveler came to the rich man, who refused to take from his own flock and from his own herd to prepare one for the wayfaring man who had come to him; but he took the poor man's lamb and prepared it for the man who had come to him. (2 Sam. 12:4 NKJ)_
Really shows how David really did evil, paid the price with his son, yet God still loves and blesses him.
I understood that she wanted to be faithful, that she likely had to give in but because David could not use her husband to cover up their infidelity, he sends his most loyal to war to cover his infidelity.
I know Bethsheba didn’t want to be unfaithful…I wonder what happened that caused her to be pregnant, like was it an issue where she couldn’t refuse her king by law?
Also, we have no idea whether Bathsheba and Uriah had a "good marriage;" whatever that might have looked like in those days. What if Uriah was a greater thug than David? Do we know?
David was in a position of power. Arguments could be made due to the imbalance of power it might be rapey.
God argued in Chapter 12 it was rape. God declared her innocent - she is likened to the lamb of the poor man, beloved. Yet a rich entitled rich man stole the lamb and slaughtered it. The lamb was blameless. Later the prophet Nathan instructed by God, would say "Before your very eyes I will take your wives and give them to one who is close to you, and he will sleep with your wives in broad daylight. 12 You did it in secret, but I will do this thing in broad daylight before all Israel.’" Do we really think that 'sleep with' here implies some form of amorous event and not rape? Which in turn speaks to David's actions: He saw, he lusted, he acted on that lust - sent for her' and he 'raped' her.
You are discounting women's power of seduction. How many powerful men have been taken down by a conniving woman? Look at Jezebel. Ahab had more power than her and she tried to seduce Jehu. It didn't work. How about Potiphar's wife? She had even more power over Joseph than David did over Bathsheba. Would it have been a betrayal if Joseph slept with her?
Great podcast. As I listen to this conversation, I wonder if we have to look at this story within the full context of Scripture... looking back from the New Testament to the Old.
As Carmen suggests, Uriah's Wife (Bathsheba) is mentioned in Matthew's genealogy, along with Tamar, Rahab, and Ruth, whose lifestyles and/or nationality was in direct opposition to the law of God. The line of Jesus includes human beings who have sin natures, it is not a bloodline of perfect people and shows that the birth of Jesus is fully dependent on God's will and authority and not that of human's.
It also demonstrates a fuller expression of the grace and mercy provided only in Christ.
From a similar perspective, this story is in Scripture for the same reason Sampson is mentioned in Hebrews 11. When we read about him in Judges, he is a hot mess who appears to defy God's laws not just once or twice, but in about every way and every direction, but God in His mercy and grace is some how glorified through Sampson.
The story of salvation is initiated and sustained only in Christ and is not dependent on any human effort (Eph. 2:8-9).
Guys, I'm like the most world renown expert on David and Uriah and Bathsheba and nothing else so trust me when I say:
I always kind of thought David didn't care how she felt about it, he just got what he wanted. Not the same way we see that today, as rape, but only because of the culture of that time. But idk if anyone would care if a non virgin was taken advantage of in that way anyway. At the end of the day, had David not been the king, both would have been stoned.
I do want to know what her setup was like because I've never understood how David was able to see her but it still wouldn't have been her fault.
I don't believe she wanted to be seen because of the way they treat her name hundreds of years later. She's not called Davids wife but Uriah's wife. That's a statement of who was in the wrong. At least to me it is. And thats my super expertyest expert factual opinion on this topic. Thank you for your agreement.
As to how David could see Bathsheba bathing... In that place and time, the roof of a home was another living space. Bathsheba was bathing on the roof. This would not have been visible to anyone without a great height advantage. I've always assumed David lived in a multi-story palace overlooking the city. David was on a balcony or at window, surveying his domain (instead of being out with his army trying to defend and strengthen it), and he caught sight of her, desired her, and called for her. That's when things went very wrong.
@@astrongmama As Carmen herself pointed out, there is no biblical evidence Bathsheba was bathing on the roof. David was on the roof, Bathsheba could have been anywhere
@IamGrimalkin, to be honest, I posted my comment before listening, and without looking it up, (something I don't usually do). When I heard that, I thought, "Oops, I need to check out my comment." I would have edited it if no one had yet commented. You beat me to it. As it is, I'll leave it here with this mea culpa. 🤷♀️🤦♀️
I am SO happy to see this video and someone addressing it. I grew up in a Christian school, home, and been in church my entire life and from an early age disliked David. Once I heard his story past Goliath and the sling shot, I thought, this is not a really great guy. Why is he praised so much and why is he so beloved in the Bible?! And HOW is he a man after God's own heart?! I really appreciate her explaining that phrase and doing this research on the entire story.
I’m so glad you enjoyed it!
She's completely wrong and unjustified in that interpretation. However, it was applied earlier in David's life when he was called, not later on. It is very clear he backslid.
I think it's understandable why you might dislike David for this horrible thing that he done, however I think when you look at David's whole life I think you'll find he was far more like a man after God's own heart and I think there's an extremely strong case for him being the most significant character in the Old Testament. I pray that you can see David's whole story and recognises that in all of us there is mistakes but our God is a God Who is Mighty to Save and His redemptive power is even greater than our failures.
@Dizerner I believe Jesus calls David a man after God's own heart, so I think it's still a valid assessment, even after these events. I also think this was out of character for David. Before this, we know only good things. After his repentance of this, we see almost all good things. The story of David is an illustration of how we should not judge a life by its ugliest moment.
@@astrongmama I respect your view on this. I am not saying we should hold people's sins against them. I just don't see the same passion in the last half of David's life that I see in the first.
Unfortunately Carmen Imes Pr.D. is not biblical in her perspectives or exegesis. A couple points to consider: The Bible says that both are guilty of adultery unless the woman cried out for help. Carmen asks, "well would that have done any good?" Yes Carmen, it would have otherwise God would not have said for that to be one of the stipulations for determining if it was rape or not. Secondly, the "power differential" is irrelevant to God in the context of disobedience. Just because someone with more power than you in any context tells you, invites you or entices you to do something wrong, doesn't mean you can do it without guilt. But most importantly, the Bible does not use the word rape in this story, thus we know it wasn't. If it was, it would have used the right word because the text is inspired for clarity and truth. And the way we know it was consensual is because the punishment was pointed at both David and Bathsheba equally. If David was in the wrong, but not Bathsheba, then the punishment would have been directed at him as it would be unjust of God to punish someone for something they are not guilty. And THAT is really what shows that this thing between David and Bathsheba was an affair that both consented to and wanted.
Unfortunately you are wrong in your reading of Chapter 12. God declared her innocent - she is likened to the lamb of the poor man, beloved. Yet a rich entitled rich man stole the lamb and slaughtered it. The lamb was blameless. Later the prophet Nathan instructed by God, would say "Before your very eyes I will take your wives and give them to one who is close to you, and he will sleep with your wives in broad daylight. 12 You did it in secret, but I will do this thing in broad daylight before all Israel.’" Do we really think that 'sleep with' here implies some form of amorous event and not rape? Which in turn speaks to David's actions: He saw, he lusted, he acted on that lust - sent for her' and he 'raped' her.
Bathsheba, being Athiophel's granddaughter, married to Urriah, it's easy to think there was access to David's inner circle. It probably wasn't strange to be relationally close to David. It would also explain athiophel rooftop revenge.
I think it is also helpful to see how this passage runs in parallel to Genesis 3 (also some similarity in Samuel 12 to Genesis 2 in terms of Gods available blessing to Adam/David). David is not the one who will destroy the seed of satan since he is fallen. We need a divine king to solve our fallen state. Might be a theological reason why the passage focuses on David to go along with the political reason of establishing Solomonic legitimacy to claim David’s throne.
What is missing is that men had to have the blessing of the father BEFORE even moving toward taking a wife. One of David's mighty men was Bathsheba's father. He would indeed known the family and even her. So there indeed some distance in knowing exactly who the person is, at first. There is a very good possibility with David's ability to take on extra wives where her dad may have wanted to betroth her to David and he knew about it perhaps. Solomon writes about " the law of your mother" and I think it tells a lot about Bathesheba. He writes Proverbs with lament of his many wives. I really think that Bathsheba didn't want to rival David's wives and ended up with a woman man, Uriah. The patriarchal blessing is totally being missed in our Western mindset. Her father didn't seem to resist this infidelity and with invested interest. We got to keep that in mind too.
Sean, you are our "American Wes Huff." You are patient, kind, and through with you knowledge of the Bible.
Question, so if she's cleaning from menstrual, that means she shouldn't have been ovulating to lead to pregnancy, so the pregnancy would be pretty miraculous.
Also what do we know about how the purification was done? Was it similar to the hand washing purification with a pitcher and basin?
Ritual impurity remains for 7 days after the period ends. See lev 15.
The oldest reading of the manuscripts has David going to Beth instead of Beth coming to David, and some believe this represents the first-century reading of the text.
Had to turn this off after 20 min as this was so predictable a direction considering the gender of your guest
I don't think the author is interested in Bathsheba at all. I think the author's two goals are:
1. Point out David's sin
2. Explain how Solomon becomes king
The author has no problem pointing out David's sin, so it stands to reason they'd have no problem pointing out whether or not he had forced himself. As mentioned, the author isn't shy about pointing out force when it comes to Amnon.
Additionally, Bathsheba sends him word that she's pregnant. Something that seems unlikely if he had forced himself. She's not asking him to take responsibility for the pregnancy, she's worried they'll _both_ be exposed.
It's also very clear that David was trying to get Uriah to go home to sleep with his wife. He wasn't "gloating" over Uriah. This alleged possibility was very weird to hear...
Finally, in Psalm 51, David prays for God to forgive him for "bloodguiltiness" and not for "forcing himself". In David's eyes, it seems to have been consensual.
A couple of things that do stand out as possibly alluding to force:
1. David had to be on the roof in order to see Bathsheba. She may have been in an upper room, away from street traffic, but still visible from the palace. So it doesn't seem she was "enticing" David.
2. The second thing that occurs to me is in Nathan's rebuke, the lamb is killed by the rich man. This suggests a "destruction" of sorts which, when applied to Bathsheba, might imply David was forceful.
'the author'? this is why I objected to the discussion on the video, they spoke of the narrator as if it was someone other than God. "all scripture is God breathed ..." so God is clearly telling this story. I would say the second point is the devastating effects of sin. The baby dies, his wives are raped, his family becomes dysfunctional, his daughter is raped... at it all started with his decision to stay home, to be lazy - in bed during the day and raising in the evening.