Voices: The Bible, rape and victim-blaming

CAUTION: The following article contains a discussion of what constitutes rape that may be disturbing to some readers.

Recently on Twitter, a church planter named Nathaniel Jolly posted this poll: “Scenario: Someone puts a gun to your head and demands that you cheat on your spouse or die. (No other options are possible in this scenario) What should a Christian choose” [sic]

The poll had two options from which readers could choose: “Sleep w/them; it’s not sin,” and “Refuse, choosing deatg” [sic]. In the firestorm of replies and other tweets that followed, Jolly, his wife and their supporters—including numerous pastors—made it clear which option they consider biblical and right: death.

Yes, you read that correctly. Nathaniel Jolly and his supporters argue, if a person threatens you with violence or even death to coerce you into sex, that doesn’t count as rape, and you’re guilty of sexual sin if you comply. Rape only counts as rape if you are physically forced into sexual contact despite physically resisting and crying for help.

Before I dive into the details, I want to be clear about my convictions up front: I find Jolly’s perspective abhorrent and cruel. Jolly and his supporters advocate a view of rape and sexual violence that is not only incorrect and unbiblical, but also is downright despicable.

The context

Jolly’s poll did not emerge out of thin air. Rather, Jolly was responding to an ongoing debate about the nature of David’s sin with Bathsheba in 2 Samuel 11.

While many Christians traditionally have labeled the incident as an “affair,” implying or even outright stating both David and Bathsheba were guilty of sexual sin, other Christians in recent years have argued what David did actually was an example of rape. I myself have argued in favor of this view.

This interpretation of the David and Bathsheba story has sparked significant backlash, with some evangelical Christians strongly arguing against this reading of the text.

Interestingly, years before this controversy erupted, Voddie Baucham, a preacher for whom Nathaniel Jolly and his supporters have expressed immense appreciation, granted credence to this view as a viable reading of the text in one of his sermons.

The debate over David and Bathsheba is part of a much larger debate, however. As various forms of “critical theory” have entered Americans’ political and theological discussions, many Christians find any mention of “power dynamics” as a slippery slope to relativism and liberalism. This includes discussion of the power dynamics between David and Bathsheba.

I am not familiar enough with critical theory to offer my perspective on this bigger debate, but I know more than enough about the Bible to offer my perspective on David, Bathsheba and rape.

Deuteronomy and “biblical rape”

Nathaniel Jolly and others have a fairly straightforward argument. First, the story of David and Bathsheba in 2 Samuel never uses the word “rape.” Second, the Bible gives a clear definition of “rape” in Deuteronomy 22:23-27.

If we understand Deuteronomy 22:23-27 to provide the biblical definition of rape, then a sexual act must meet two criteria to be considered rape. First, the victim must “cry out for help” (vv. 24, 27). Second, the perpetrator must “seize” the victim (v. 25), which implies physical force. If the perpetrator does not use physical force and the victim does not cry out for help, then the victim is no victim at all and is guilty of adultery (v. 24).

According to Jolly and others, David did not have to physically force Bathsheba, and “she did not cry out for help though she was in the city,” so David did not rape her. Case closed.

Furthermore, since God commands his people to face death instead of disobeying him (Daniel 3:3-18), Bathsheba should have let David kill her rather than sleep with him. So, if Bathsheba thought she might die for refusing to sleep with David, she should have been willing to die—so the argument goes.

Evidence from 2 Samuel 12

To argue Bathsheba is not a victim and is in fact guilty of adultery, however, Jolly and his supporters have to ignore the evidence found in the actual text of 2 Samuel.

A careful reader will see Bathsheba never is condemned for what happened with David. Ever. There is not one single passage in 2 Samuel or anywhere else in the Bible where Bathsheba is blamed specifically, even in part, for the incident. Instead, all blame falls on David. This is especially clear in 2 Samuel 12.

When the prophet Nathan confronts David, the prophet uses a clever parable to trick David into pronouncing condemnation on himself. In the parable, a rich man with plenty of sheep steals his poor neighbor’s one and only lamb to feed a guest. When David is infuriated, Nathan famously pronounces, “You yourself are the man” (v. 7).

Nathan reserves all his condemnation for David, sparing none for Bathsheba. Even more importantly, consider which figure corresponds to Bathsheba in Nathan’s parable: the lamb.

David is the rich man who stole and slaughtered the lamb out of pure selfishness. It would be absurd to suggest the lamb was in any way responsible or guilty in the parable. If the lamb is meant to represent Bathsheba—which it clearly is—and Bathsheba bears at least partial culpability for what happened, then Nathan’s parable was profoundly inaccurate.

Furthermore, while the word “rape” never appears in 2 Samuel 11-12, that’s because the English word “rape” never appears in the Bible, because the Bible wasn’t originally written in English.

The only Hebrew word that might serve generally as a functional equivalent of “rape,” šāḡal, doesn’t appear in Deuteronomy 22, which supposedly offers the biblical definition of rape, and does not appear in the story of Amnon and Tamar (2 Samuel 13), which even Nathaniel Jolly and his supporters consider to be a clear example of rape.

Bathsheba was not an adulteress. She was a victim of David’s selfish abuse of power. She was a victim of coercion. She was a victim of rape. And people who are victims of rape, whether by brute physical force or by manipulation and coercion, are not guilty of sexual sin. Period.

Joshua Sharp is the pastor of Trinity Baptist Church in Orange. He is a graduate of Southwest Baptist University in Bolivar, Mo., and Truett Theological Seminary in Waco. The views expressed are those solely of the author.