Biola University Prof Argues That David R*ped Bathsheba, Compares to Plantation Owner Assaulting Slaves
A recent conversation between Dr. Sean McDowell, the Associate Professor of Christian Apologetics at Biola University, and Dr. Carmen Imes, the Associate Professor of Old Testament, saw the novel “MeToo” reading of David and Bathsheba in 2 Samuel 11 take center stage, with the latter arguing that David raped Bathsheba and comparing the situation to a plantation owner raping his slaves in the antebellum South.
During the interaction, the two professors let feminism take the wheel, lumping Bathsheba in with “sexual assault victims” while McDowell mostly lobs good-natured objections at her to easily bat away.
Some quotes from Imes:
“Part of the reason we have more people willing to call this rape now is because, before 30 years ago there really were not very many women in biblical studies. And the more we have women in the room having the conversation, the more we have a kind of sensitivity.”
“All of David’s wives are in a position where consent is not a category that’s very meaningful.”
On Deuteronomy 22:23-24: “Maybe an appropriate analogy would be a plantation in the American South…The plantation owner takes one of the slaves into his bed or visits her in her shack and rapes her. Who’s she gonna cry out to? He’s the boss. Everyone on that plantation is under his command.”
“What really matters about the way that we teach this story…is that there are people in every audience who have experienced unwanted sexual experiences, whether it’s defined as rape or as someone crossing the line without their consent. And the the way we characterize Bathsheba as we talk about her, I think, sends a signal to people that tells them: how are we going to handle their story? Are we a safe person for them to disclose what’s happened to them, or are we going to victim blame?”
“I’m hesitant to call this adultery, even though it is clearly a sexual relationship between a married man and a married woman, so it qualifies as adultery. When we use the word adultery, it implies that there’s consent on both sides.”
You can see an extended discussion of their conversation here. and a discourse here on why David did NOT rape her.
h/t to Woke Preacher TV for the transcript and some of the text.
About Author
Is fear of one’s well being, the fear of what might possibly happen, even the fear of death itself, any excuse to sin?
What did Joseph do?
Men have just as much reason to fear what could possibly happen as do women. The text of scripture doesn’t change based on whether or not a woman is reading or studying it. What she’s claiming is that the fear of what could possibly happen, the fear and expectation that everyone would also commit the sin of partiality out of fear for themselves, should one refuse to sin is an excuse to willingly consent to and commit the sin.
What did Jesus do? Should He have sinned in order to avoid the cross?
What’s ironic about these feminist types is that they simultaneously claim to be as strong as men in all ways, while also appealing to the fact that they are the weaker vessel. That’s about the only correct part of her argument. Women are indeed the weaker vessel. And the scripture pertaining to consent is only to determine the woman’s guilt. The adulterous man is guilty whether the woman consents or not. God’s standards already give women a very significant benefit of the doubt in this regard, much more than men, but for some reason it’s still not enough for the feminists.
It is preemptive false accusation of all who might hear the cries (Duet. 19). It is justification of wickedness and condemnation of righteousness (Prov. 17:15). And it also can implicate one in further sins. In Bathsheba’s case, the murder of her husband, for which she shares the blame because she did not cry out, whether she consented or not at the time.
If women don’t “cry out” then they certainly can’t turn around and blame men for not doing anything about it. Just from a plain old logical standpoint. You can’t blame men for not doing anything about something they don’t know about. Can’t have it both ways. We men are just men. We’re not God. We cannot read minds. We cannot magically just know stuff.
Further throughout scripture, many men in power were held accountable. Including Kings. There is no scriptural basis whatsoever to begin to assume that David wouldn’t have been held accountable just because he held a position of authority. To judge it as such is to employ quite a bit of presentism.
“For among them are those who creep into households and capture weak women, burdened with sins and led astray by various passions, 7 always learning and never able to arrive at a knowledge of the truth. ” – 2 Tim. 3:6-7
This is a good example of how faith without works is dead. If you cannot act on, and live according to, your faith, then you have no faith at all.
If you believe there should be no partiality, that all should be held to the same standard, then you have to live accordingly. If you don’t, then you are implicitly lending endorsement to the existence of partiality, further entrenching and ingraining that wickedness. You have to act on it. Then let God handle the outcome. If you believe those in power and authority should be held to the same standard, then live by that faith. Nothing good will ever result in not acting on that faith. If women don’t cry out, then they have no one to blame but themselves. I can assure them that we men are in the same boat when it comes to fear of that which could possibly happen. We don’t have it any easier. Joseph being one example of many. But we must remember that the commandments of God are not grievous (1 John 5:3). To treat them as such is to insult Him.
As the old saying goes, do what’s right and let the chips fall where they may. In the immediate, the repercussions could very well indeed be difficult, as happened to Joseph. But in the long run, God wins. He lifted up Joseph, and delivered him out of what was, by all appearances, a mess that was impossible to escape. We must remember this. God absolutely will keep His word. Trust it. Live it.
I think this could be even more argued of Solomon than of David. On my reading of the Song of Solomon, the harem lady is complaining how she is in love with a shepherd boy her own age but she has been forced into Solomon’s harem, and Solomon is responding by ignoring all that and telling her how hot she is. Its obvious that kings keeping harems is abusive, and Samuel was told to tell the people this when they asked for a king in hopes it would disuade them. “He will take your sons for this servants and your daughters for his harem…” isn’t that what it says? Its what I remember anyway. That David was a bad dude is obvious from the story of Abigail, and that him being “a man after God’s own heart” is only Judean propaganda against the other Israelite tribes and not a statement from God is just obvious. David is a criminal cattle russler who works for the Philistine ling and makes raids into Israel to steal their cattle and give it to the Philistines when Saul is persuing him to kill him (yes, this is literally in the text and if you never noticed it then its because you’re a KJVO but don’t understand old English). So the whole “David is a greeeeeeat guy, the Lord’s anointed” etc. is propaganda by the tribe of Judah that wanta to establish its guy over the other tribes. Its why the kingdom splits into Judah and Samaria after Solomon. The majority of Israel could not stand David or Solomon, although they seemed to have lived Saul. David’s bad reign constantly has the people trying to get one of his sons to overthrow him. If you set aside the lie that the OT is inerrant for a moment you can see that Samuel is Judean propaganda against Benjamin and the Calebites etc. So what? It doesn’t really effect Christianity unless you’re a Zionist Dispensationalist nutter. Jesus being called “son of David” is just to try and get the Jews to accept him; it doesn’t mean David was actually anything like Christ in character nor that David was really a “saint.”
1 Samuel 13:13-14
Its not possible to go to Amalek and kill “everything that breathes.” One rat hides in a hole and Saul fails. That’s why Samuel invented the command, because he was mad at Saul for having made a sacrifice himself when Samuel was late and lied and told Saul that the Lord has rejected him rom being king and will take him from the throne. Yet Saul continued as king for 40 years and was NEVER removed from the throne; he died still king, wounded in battle, but its 40 years later. So Samuel needs to self-fulfill his presumptious false prophecy of the Lord taking the throne from Saul, so he sends Saul to die in Amalek, hoping Saul will die, but also crafts the command so that if Saul succeeds, he still fails, because to wipe out “everything that breathes” in all of Amalek is impossible. Now, Saul bringing back the king Agag and some sheep to sacrifice in Gilgal, well once he sacrificed them they would be dead, so how can Samuel use this as proof of Saul not obeying? Samuel is clearly a liar and clearly a false prophet and clearly just a politician using fake prophecy to try and control a king. Also, Samuel chose Saul as king because he was so shy Samuel thought he could control him, but he looked the part being a head taller than everyone else in Israel; but Samuel was shocked that Saul eventually got over the shyness and stopped being Samuel’s puppet so much, and this is why Samuel wants rid of Saul so bad. Its so easy to see through. Samuel now chooses David, a new upstart he thinks he will be able to control better; but Samuel dies before he can get David on the throne, ironically the false prophet who told Saul 40 years ago that God would take him off the throne and replace him with a new guy, that false prophet ends up dying BEFORE Saul. And then Saul calls Samuel’s sould up from sheol by the witch at Endor to allow Samuel to give his last false prophecy, “Tomorrow you AND YOUR SONS will be with me.” Yet, even though the text says Saul died the next day, his sons DID NOT. And on of his sons even lived for decades, the crippled one Mephibosheth, who David let eat at his table. So much for Samuel being a real prophet.
1 Samuel 31:2
Matt. 1:1-17
Etc. …….
It can also be pointed out, per the written torah in the penteteuch, anyone can offer animal sacrifices anywhere, just by making an altar of unworked natural stones stacked up. It does not require a priest or levite, and yet Samuel also is NOT a real levite as he was only adopted by Eli the levite and is not himself an actual levite. So if Saul is the Lord’s Anointed, he has as much authority as Samuel to offer a sacrifice before battle. But honestly, so does any Israelite. This is not the Day of Atonement sacrifice or something that requires the high priest, and even if it did, Samuel is not the high priest either. So what is being claimed here, that Saul has no right to offer a sacrifice on his own, is political propaganda from Samuel and is not in accordance with the Law of Moses at all.
You might as well just throw your Bible in the trash, and admit you’re just a pagan.
Allow me to summarize your ramblings for you …
“The Bible is in error, and the erroneous parts are those that say anything positive about the Jews”
🙄
I hate to have to burst your bubble, Dave, but the nazis beat you to this stupid mess. They already tried it. Butchered the Bible down to nothing to create the “Positive Christianity” cult.
The books of Judges, Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles are in the genre of political propaganda, and its absurd anyone ever classed them as having the same status as the Bible generally as the literal word of God. They contain the political propaganda of the Judeans to a divine right to rule over the other tribes of Israel that they really never had, especially Samuel though.
The Lion of the tribe of Judah, the root of David (Rev. 5:5), does indeed rule all of every tribe, nation, and tongue, both Jew and Gentile …
Like it or lump it. That’s what God did. If you have any complaints you can try to tell Him that He did wrong on the day of judgment, and see how that works out for you …
The New Testament authors using Old Testament references as memes to convince Jews to accept Christ does not make the Old Testament political propaganda of the Judeans against the Benjamintes and other tribes infallible history. Its no different than if a Gentile called Jesus the “true Hercules” meaning something like he’s the true strong man that binds the devil in order to convert Gentiles. The New Testament gives Jesus titles that are aimed at converted Jews; doesn’t make Jewish fake history all true.