David and Bathsheba (A Warning Against Eisegesis)
A few years ago, I came across this X post from a popular preacher with a very large presence on the internet. He wrote, “It’s surprising that people object to calling David’s sin with Bathsheba, “rape.” The parable with which Nathan rebuked David makes Bathsheba a lamb, *stolen* by a thief and eaten (2 Sam 12). The lamb didn’t 'choose' this fate. Assigning blame to Bathsheba adds to the text.”
When I read this, I was taken aback that he claimed that if one added blame to Bathsheba, they would be adding to the text. It is my analysis that he is the one adding to the text. Please consider the passage referenced. This is what many call “eisegesis.” The practice of drawing the meaning out of God’s Word is called exegesis; the prefix “ex” is often translated as out. When one reads into the text, something not in the text the prefix “eis” is substituted, which commonly means into.
The Act
We will begin in 2 Samuel 11:4-5. After David sees Bathsheba bathing, he makes it a point to bring her to his home. The text reads, “And David sent messengers, and took her; and she came in unto him, and he lay with her (for she was purified from her uncleanness); and she returned unto her house. And the woman conceived; and she sent and told David, and said, I am with child.” ( From the text, it can be ascertained that Bathsheba was called by David, and she went with his messengers, and she came to him, and he lay with her. She became pregnant and then alerted the king that she was with child.
The Law and Clarity
If the instance of David and Bathsheba was a rape, the law of Moses tells the penalty. It states, “If a man be found lying with a woman married to a husband, then they shall both of them die, the man that lay with the woman, and the woman: so shalt thou put away the evil from Israel” (Deut 22:22). This clearly implies a consensual tryst. Not the case of rape. If you were to keep reading, you would understand that there is a differentiation between a consensual encounter and rape. God, in His justice, provides a way out of this death sentence if a woman is being raped. Deut 22:23-26 gives us further details.
If there be a damsel that is a virgin betrothed unto a husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them to death with stones; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbor’s wife: so thou shalt put away the evil from the midst of thee. But if the man find the damsel that is betrothed in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her; then the man only that lay with her shall die: but unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; there is in the damsel no sin worthy of death: for as when a man riseth against his neighbor, and slayeth him, even so is this matter; for he found her in the field, the betrothed damsel cried, and there was none to save her. (emphasis mine)
The text explains that the expectation is for a woman to cry out if in a city, because the hope would be that another man would put a stop to this wicked deed. This is God’s form of protection. The hope would be that someone would step in and intervene. I would also like to point out the term humbled his neighbor’s wife. This language makes it evident that in no way was this a consensual act.
This language is used in two other Old Testament passages that depict the sin of rape. Shechem's rape of Dinah is described in Genesis 34:2, “And Shechem the son of Hamor the Hivite, the prince of the land, saw her; and he took her, and lay with her, and humbled her.” In 2 Sam 13, the wicked Amnon raped Tamar, as the text says, “Howbeit he would not hearken unto her voice; but being stronger than she, he forced her, and lay with her.” He forced Tamar, and this fact is repeated twice (cf. 2 Sam 13:22,32). Is this significant? It might be considered in David’s rebuke that this type of language is not mentioned once of David forcing or humbling Bathsheba.
Someone might ask what if she is not in a city but in a rural setting. Jehovah gave conditions for such. The expectation is that she would cry for help still, but the reality in this scenario is that none could save her from this wickedness. You might say, but this only speaks of a betrothal; it was clearly the case that David, a married man, took another married man’s wife. The law spoke plainly about this also. “And the man that committeth adultery with another man’s wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbor’s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death. (Deut 20:9-11). The law was not carried out by the people, nor did Jehovah slay David, or Bathsheba, for that matter. Evidently, Bathsheba would be aware that this sin was a capital offense when she sent word to David that she was pregnant. She perhaps knew the king could get her out of the penalty.
The Conclusion
The event does not end with David (and Bathsheba) being killed for this sin. Rather, God sent Nathan the prophet to call him to repentance. Not once in the rebuke does the text say that he humbled her or forced her, but simply took her. God declared through the prophet, “Wherefore hast thou despised the word of Jehovah, to do that which is evil in his sight? thou hast smitten Uriah the Hittite with the sword, and hast taken his wife to be thy wife, and hast slain him with the sword of the children of Ammon (2 Sam 12:9).
Does take always mean rape? No, the term actually means take, send for, seize, even, but the nuance is not given by supporting words.
Now therefore the sword shall never depart from thy house, because thou hast despised me, and hast taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be thy wife. Thus saith Jehovah, Behold, I will raise up evil against thee out of thine own house; and I will take thy wives before thine eyes, and give them unto thy neighbor, and he shall lie with thy wives in the sight of this sun.
(2 Samuel 12:10-11)
This consequence did happen as Absalom took his father's concubines. I do not believe that he forced himself on the concubines.
And Ahithophel said unto Absalom, Go in unto thy father’s concubines, that he hath left to keep the house; and all Israel will hear that thou art abhorred of thy father: then will the hands of all that are with thee be strong. So they spread Absalom a tent upon the top of the house; and Absalom went in unto his father’s concubines in the sight of all Israel
(2 Kings 16:21-22)
After considering all of these passages, it is clear that the Bible does not imply that David forced himself on Bathsheba. Is it possible that he used his influence as king to “take” her, maybe? The text is not clear. We have no clear text that would suggest that Bathsheba is completely innocent, or a willing participant, and no clear text that would suggest that she was not. To suggest that David is a rapist is to read that into the passage; to suggest that Bathsheba was a completely willing participant is to read that into the passage. I needed a lot of time to weigh all these things and study more deeply. We all could do that more before we fire off X posts.
