David, Bathsheba, and Power
Power dynamics have largely been neglected in the church when evaluating ethics, relationships, and abuse. Few theological debates highlight this issue as clearly as the "is King David a rapist?" debate.
The dynamic between David and Bathsheba includes a prominent power disparity, and how scripture speaks, or fails to speak, leaves room for some uncertainty on the question of rape. So, naturally, the David and Bathsheba story (found primarily in 2 Samuel 11-12) is primed for controversy. Though I will be speaking about sexual assault in a technical manner in this article, we can't minimize this topic's emotional weightiness. It's normal to feel anxiety or other strong emotions while considering these questions, and it's normal to find certain haphazard comments on this topic disturbing or even angering. I pray I can avoid such comments. I want to slow down a bit and consider this topic from a few different angles and offer something, God-willing, more helpful than a Twitter "hot-take." Nevertheless, this article is geared towards addressing a more technical question instead of comforting victims in a more pastoral manner. I want to make that clear for all readers.
Power Dynamics
Yes, the power dynamics between David and Bathsheba are relevant. But power dynamics aren't the end-all, all-deciding, definite determiner of ethics. When one person has more social or political power than another person, should that power differential be examined when analyzing situations involving abuse, sex, or relationships? Absolutely.
Simply put, a power gap is a regularly exploited dynamic for predators and abusers. Whether determined by age, gender, bodily strength, ethnicity, income, employment seniority, civil authority, or more, social power gaps are all common means that dangerous people use to do great evil and harm.
Some evangelical conservatives will contest that God does not care about power dynamics. Some will even connect any discussion about power to Marxism or Critical Theory. However, scripture stresses that we are to ensure weaker socio-economic classes get justice. Though scripture calls on us to establish justice in general, we cannot ignore the emphasis on ensuring justice for widows, orphans, and foreigners.
Cursed be anyone who perverts the justice due to the sojourner, the fatherless, and the widow.' And all the people shall say, 'Amen.' (Deuteronomy 27:19)
There are several other examples of this emphasis (Zechariah 7:10; Isaiah 1:17; Psalm 68:5, 146:9; Deuteronomy 10:18, 14:28-29, 24:17; Malachi 3:5; Exodus 22:22; Jeremiah 22:3, and many other examples).
God cares about power differentials. This principle does not mean we are to pervert justice in favor of the weak (Leviticus 19:5). Still, our behavior in advocating for and seeking justice should take into account power. The ability of some to advocate for themselves is often limited, and far too often, sinful societies favor the powerful. We should carefully consider power dynamics on behalf of the weak, not because the weak are always innocent, but because the weak are more vulnerable. There is one equal law for the weak and the powerful, but the weak's ability to have that singular law applied equally is not equal.
These "power gaps" have largely been unanalyzed in the past and especially in the church. This failure to consider how social power plays a role in manipulation, non-physical coercion, gaslighting, social, ecclesiastical, and professional exploitation is a sad example of negligence that we need to correct and sometimes even repent of.
However, power dynamics alone do not determine the ethics of every social, sexual, or relational interaction. We do a disservice to society and the church when we radicalize our views on power and make power dynamics the central or lone factor when determining justice. We discredit taking power dynamics seriously and do great harm to much of the good that this ongoing discussion provides when we do so.
Part of the difficulty is that there's always a power disparity in nearly every human interaction. It's a natural part of society that is also sometimes a fallen component of society. This observation is why it’s unhelpful, at best, to bluntly state or imply that a power differential during a sexual encounter means there's been an injustice. This unhelpfulness is demonstrated by highlighting that men, generally speaking, have more power than women. This power gap is observed in history, sociological studies, and a reading of 1 Peter 3:7. Since gender is a "power factor," every heterosexual encounter or different-sex social interaction will have a power difference. There's an intrinsic disparity based only on gender and this power difference is exacerbated once we consider other relevant social factors. People are different, and power gaps will always exist because of our differences.
This is why the hot-take of "David was King; therefore, David raped Bathsheba" is unhelpful and insufficient. Not because power is irrelevant, but because power is complex.
I do not want to straw man the power dynamics view. I understand that it's not just a matter of a power disparity, but also what kind and how much of one. Not only is power complex, but power is not the only relevant factor. Frankly, sometimes the way power dynamics are talked about, there's zero room for nuance, context, or other significant factors. The only factor, for some, that seemingly matters is the power disparity. But this wooden and no-nuance approach is never consistently applied.
Certain elements of society balk at taking power dynamics seriously, but we should not react against this stubbornness and overstate the argument.
David and Bathsheba
Did David abuse his power? Absolutely. He murdered Bathsheba's husband (2 Samuel 11:14-17), and God judged David through his prophet, Nathan (2 Samuel 12:1-23). David is, by all accounts, at least guilty of adultery, abuse of power, and murder.
But did David rape Bathsheba? Let's examine the text.
2 Samual 11 begins by letting the reader know that David did not march with his armies to war even though it was the time for kings to do so (2 Samuel 11:1).
In the spring when kings march out to war, David sent Joab with his officers and all Israel. They destroyed the Ammonites and besieged Rabbah, but David remained in Jerusalem.
We then read that David, while on his roof, saw Bathsheba bathing.
One evening David got up from his bed and strolled around on the roof of the palace. From the roof he saw a woman bathing—a very beautiful woman. So David sent someone to inquire about her, and he said, "Isn't this Bathsheba, daughter of Eliam and wife of Uriah the Hethite?" David sent messengers to get her, and when she came to him, he slept with her. Now she had just been purifying herself from her uncleanness. Afterward, she returned home. The woman conceived and sent word to inform David, "I am pregnant." (2 Samuel 11:2-5)
First, we need to address a common misconception. The text indicates that David was on his roof, not that Bathsheba was bathing on her roof. Some have theorized that Bathsheba intentionally flaunts her beauty by bathing in public, but this theory is not in the text. Though it's possible she was on her roof, she could have just as easily been seen through a roof opening or window. Regardless, roofs were a common place for various activities in this time, including bathing. Further, we read in verse four that she was performing ceremonial bathing. Scripture speaks plainly of her motivations for bathing and seduction is not one of them.
Second, David did not know her or know her well. He inquired about her because he was uncertain of her identity (2 Samuel 11:3). This point is important because some have theorized that they may have had a prior friendship or acquaintance because she was the wife of one of David's soldiers. David was uncertain of who she was; he also did not know her from the context of her and her husband's home.
Third, David sent for her instead of asking for her to come, and they immediately had sex. There's no mention of David seducing her or enticing her with a charming personality, trinkets, or other incentives. The context of him sending for her and immediately sleeping together is very suspect.
Fourth, David abuses his power and conspires to cover up his sin. When that scheme fails, he abuses his power again and conspires to have Bathsheba's husband killed. He seeks to hide his sin and then murders to do so.
Fifth, when the prophet Nathan rebukes David for his many grievous sins, he tells a parable.
So the Lord sent Nathan to David. When he arrived, he said to him:
There were two men in a certain city, one rich and the other poor. The rich man had very large flocks and herds, but the poor man had nothing except one small ewe lamb that he had bought. He raised her, and she grew up with him and with his children. From his meager food she would eat, from his cup she would drink, and in his arms she would sleep. She was like a daughter to him. Now a traveler came to the rich man, but the rich man could not bring himself to take one of his own sheep or cattle to prepare for the traveler who had come to him. Instead, he took the poor man's lamb and prepared it for his guest. (2 Samuel 12:1-4)
Now, though we can't stretch the meaning of this story too far, we know that David is the rich man and the small ewe lamb is Bathsheba. What role does the lamb play in its own theft and slaughter?
This is where power dynamics come into play. As I noted before, the common argument is "David is King; therefore, David raped Bathsheba." This conclusion may be accurate in this case, but let's examine the argument itself.
Refusing a King and Meaningful Consent
Meaningful consent includes the ability to say no without credible fear of retaliation. Though power differences often cause a greater vulnerability to retaliation, it does not imply or necessitate a reasonable fear of retaliation. And, I'd say, it's important for those who have a great deal of power to ensure safeguards for the more vulnerable.
Consider other scenarios involving a king or other men or women with much greater power.
If meaningful consent is not possible when there are significant power disparities, can a more powerful party ever have non-abusive sex? Can a woman ever meaningfully consent to a king? What about a Senator, police officer, or mayor? Can there be meaningful consent between vastly different economic classes? What about between pastors and congregants?
Even if there are apparent disparities in power, those disparities are sometimes natural and a part of living life in a complex world. Power shouldn't equal fear.
But power gaps, especially vast gaps, create vulnerabilities, and we cannot ignore those vulnerabilities. For example, the story of Joseph and Potiphar's wife would have been well known to the Israelites of David's era. Joseph was very vulnerable due to a power difference. That vulnerability was very relevant when he refused the sexual advances of a woman much more socially and politically powerful than him. His refusal cost him precisely because of power dynamics. Likewise, we cannot ignore how vulnerable Bathsheba is to a man we know is capable of extreme measures.
We do not know how David would have reacted to this particular hypothetical refusal, but we do know how he responded to a previous refusal. In brief, in 1 Samuel 25, we read that when Nabal refused supplies to David and his men, David was prepared to murder Nabal and all the male servants of Nabal in retaliation. Only the pleading of Nabal's innocent wife, Abigail, halted David's violence. After being convinced by Abigail, David admits that he was ready to avenge himself by his own hand and would have killed Nabal and harmed Abigail.
May your discernment be blessed, and may you be blessed. Today you kept me from participating in bloodshed and avenging myself by my own hand. Otherwise, as surely as the Lord God of Israel lives, who prevented me from harming you, if you had not come quickly to meet me, Nabal wouldn't have had any males left by morning light." (1 Samuel 25:33-34)
After God strikes down Nabel (1 Samuel 25:38), David proceeds to send men to bring Abigail to him so that he can make her his second wife.
Considering how David met one of his wives, it is more than reasonable to suggest that Bathsheba could have feared retaliation, whether social ostracization, consequences for her husband, or even physical violence. It is not a reach, soberly considering what we know with certainty about David, that Bathsheba could have feared David, and through that fear, David could have compelled her. We also know that David's servants feared him and his actions (2 Samuel 12:18), which adds to the likelihood that Bathsheba also feared the king.
Power does not necessitate guilt and does not always destroy meaningful consent.
Yes, you can refuse a king.
But could Bathsheba meaningfully consent to this king?
If we recap, David has a history of violent and vindictive retaliation, and this is known intimately by his household. David demanded Bathsheba's presence explicitly because of her beauty. He begins his relationship with Bathsheba with immediate adultery (at least), continues with further abuses of his political power, and ends with murder. David's servants, those we can reasonably believe know him well, feared him. Not even considering David's actions before he sent for Bathsheba, he was not acting faithful or trustworthy.
Reading Into The Text
If Bathsheba had testified that David raped her, I would believe her. But we don't have that testimony in scripture. And we don't know, with certainty, that she could not have safely refused the king. It's not in the text, and we should be careful about reading into the text.
But Bathsheba's guilt is also not in the text. We know that Bathsheba is not rebuked by the prophet Nathan or ever rebuked for adultery in all scripture. David, however, is strongly rebuked. She suffered the loss of her child because of David's sin (2 Samuel 12:15-19), but she isn't ever presented as complicit. Some have argued that the death of her child was God's judgment against her, but scripture does not indicate this. I'd generally caution against the logic of "she suffered; therefore, she's guilty." This is the reasoning of Job's "friends," who were neither good friends nor correct in their assessment (Job 4-23). If they both committed adultery, a capital offense (Leviticus 20:10), why does scripture punish the man and not both parties as Levitical law dictates? Are we to deduce that 2 Samuel does not hold adultresses responsible while Leviticus does?
Further, besides speaking where scripture does not, condemning Bathsheba as an adulteress says much about her integrity. Not only does she supposedly commit adultery, but she also sleeps with David immediately after being brought before him with no indication whatsoever of them knowing one another beforehand. Not only is this adultery, but it's also reminiscent of a shameful "hook up" with a stranger someone just met at a bar.
Yet scripture never speaks of Bathsheba in this manner. She's not condemned as an adulterer, nor is she condemned as a harlot.
So we're left with this dilemma.
If she's not guilty of adultery, how is he not guilty of rape by definition?
If he's not guilty of rape, how is she not guilty of adultery by definition?
I cannot say, with certainty, that scripture teaches either position with clarity. However, I can say with certainty that scripture testifies that David abuses his power and that he's a murderer. In contrast, scripture never suggests that Bathsheba was guilty of any sin related to her interactions with David (certainly not implying that she was sinless throughout her entire life).
Further, when Nathan tells his parable in rebuke of David, Bathsheba is represented by an innocent lamb stolen away and slaughtered. This parable is meant to expose David and bring him to repentance, so it’s understandable that not many have paused and focused on Bathsheba’s role in Nathan’s story. The Bathsheba of the prophet’s parable is as innocent as a lamb. A lamb–the same creature that often symbolizes Christ Jesus, his innocence, and His flock made clean. And David, formerly a shepherd boy, is represented by an evil rich man who slaughters the innocent lamb instead of protecting the sheep. It's a vivid image.
The guilt of David is not expressly stated, but Bathsheba’s innocence is well established.
Certainty and a few Closing Considerations
I'm not certain that David raped Bathsheba. But I am confident that he abused his powers in such a way to pressure her to have sex with him. This pressure likely amounted to rape. This answer is probably not satisfactory to many readers, but it's where I end up. I do not want to speak with certainty where scripture does not. But I do think scripture says plenty enough to make me suspect David. He, plainly spoken, likely raped Bathsheba. I'm not certain, but I'm confident.
Historically, it should be noted that the abuse of power to get sex or even wives was widespread. Though these sins are too common even today, it would be difficult to understate the ubiquitousness of this dynamic in the ancient world. David did evil things, but he wasn't unique in his sin. Far from. I do not want to cast him as someone especially villainous compared to the rest of scripture's cast of characters or how other rulers of the time acted.
We cannot rightly understand David's sin without understanding power dynamics. Even Nathan's parable contains evident power differences, and those differences certainly mattered. One man being rich and one man being poor were not details added flippantly.
We can err in two ways concerning power dynamics. We can make everything about power, or we can ignore power. Scripture does not ignore power dynamics, and neither should we.
All other factors being equal, why is it that we often choose to advocate for the rich and powerful against the weak and vulnerable? I often hear that we can't assume that David is a rapist, but why is it considered normal to assume that Bathsheba was an adulterous harlot? Brothers and sisters, all other factors aren't equal in this story. Why is it easy for us to accept that David is a murderer but nothing more? Is it because many Christian men grew up putting David on a pedestal? Is it because we see ourselves as a type of David? Why is it “woke” to refuse to assume evil of Bathsheba? Yes, let's soberly consider power dynamics and how those dynamics made Bathsheba more vulnerable, but let's also consider the context of a lustful and abusive King.
And after we consider David and Bathsheba, consider our sisters, our children, immigrants, and any other vulnerable Image Bearers of God. Are we consistently working to defend the famous, the institutional elite, and the cultural influencers? Or are we defending the least of these?
Lastly, let us consider that the abusive and murderous David of 2 Samuel 11 is also the repentant and God-glorifying David of Psalm 51. This should drive us to praise God for his tender mercies and overflowing grace. Though an abuser of power, a murderer, and likely even a rapist, David is also forgiven. Though Bathsheba the lamb was slaughtered to satisfy the lust of David, the perfect Lamb of God Jesus Christ was slain to satisfy all sin, even David's. His grace is sufficient for the sins of David, for my many sins, and for your sins too. Come and see that the Lord is good.
Be gracious to me, God,
according to your faithful love;
according to your abundant compassion,
blot out my rebellion.
Completely wash away my guilt
and cleanse me from my sin.
For I am conscious of my rebellion,
and my sin is always before me. (Psalm 51:1-3)
Thank you to Annie, Mary, and Devin for their invaluable feedback.