Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Home
Evangelical
History and Religion
Bathsheba, #MeToo, and Eisegesis

Bathsheba, #MeToo, and Eisegesis

Last updated on: February 28, 2023 at 4:17 pm by Brad Vaughn

0 Comments

Bathsheba, #MeToo, and Eisegesis 2022-12-08T03:47:41-07:00 Brad Vaughn

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Bethsabée (Public Domain)

For the past few years, a question has incensed readers of the Bible: Did David rape Bathsheba? Or did they commit adultery? It’s clear that David sins, but people have debated how he sins.

Contextualizing David’s sin

This post does more than rehash arguments from both sides. (If you want, you can review the proposals given by Carmen Imes, John Piper, and others who endorse the view that David raped Bathsheba.)

Instead, I want to show how this topic underscores the significant place of contextualization for all interpretation and ministry. As I’ve defined it elsewhere, contextualization is the process whereby we interpret, explain, and apply Scripture within a cultural context. Contextualization begins with interpretation; it does not merely follow interpretation.

We all read the Bible using some (limited) cultural lens. This means that all theology is contextualized (and that doesn’t mean it’s wrong).

So, what does this have to do with David, Bathsheba, and rape?

Why all the fuss?

I’ve seen people get pretty worked up to defend David against charges of rape, preferring to condemn him as an adulterer. Why such fierce reactions against interpretations that argue that David raped Bathsheba rather than saying they had an affair?

After all, even if that view were mistaken, this rape reading is not so unreasonable that it should provoke such strong, angry pushback. So why such pushback?

Objectors give two primary reasons. (I’ll offer my response in a moment.)

1. Eisegesis

Critics of the rape reading worry that it commits eisegesis (i.e., “the interpretation of a text (as of the Bible) by reading into it one’s own ideas”).

Josh Philpot summarizes Richard Caldwell’s concern about the rape-reading:

He believes what has happened in this case is that some are reading the Word of God through the eyes of our cultural moment. He is not saying there hasn’t been scholarly debate on some level for years and years. But he has never heard this take on it until recent times.

He believes it has to do with what is going on in the culture with the me-too movement. There is a high sensitivity to the sexual abuse of women, and he believes it is what has led to this new interpretation of the text.

In short, Caldwell regards the perceived novelty of the interpretation as discrediting.

2. The Meaning of Rape

Intriguingly, other writers think the rape reading actually minimizes rape against women.

Rape has a traditional meaning, but some people today claim that “rape” could be any sex for which one feels regret after the fact. Such an application of the word rape lessens the impact of the word. As the meaning continues to be diluted, victims of rape, as originally defined, may find less initial sympathy for their claims.”

All this is to say we must be extremely careful about saying things such as “David raped Bathsheba.” Based on the historic use of the word rape, implying violent, forcible, or threat-coerced sex, the claim that “David raped Bathsheba” is entirely false. Nothing in Scripture hints at such a thing. Use of the word rape without extensive context is certain to cause misunderstanding. Worse, it can contribute to dilution of the seriousness of the term rape as used in other contexts.”

Saying “David took advantage of Bathsheba” is much more accurate…

According to this view, our contemporary use of the word “rape” makes rape reading less viable.

Our context matters

Let’s examine these arguments. What about those who claim that calling David’s actions “rape” is novel and a product of current cultural events?

Does novelty imply eisegesis? I suggest that we mustn’t confuse eisegesis with “novel-gesis” (to completely make up a word). By this, I mean that relative novelty doesn’t necessarily entail forcing something into the Bible that doesn’t belong there.

David and Uriah (Credit: Flickr/Thomas Hawk)

Think, for example, of the novel insights that have come with archeological or manuscript discoveries. Those finding positively affect interpretation, aiding our effort to do exegesis. A lack of information or cultural perspective can distort our reading of Scripture. In this way, it may be that recent cultural events contribute to a genuine understanding of the text?

What if #MeToo has finally enabled us to do exegesis rather than eisegesis?!

Perhaps, because of various historical dynamics, the church has been committing eisegesis when interpreting this aspect of the David-Uriah story. Every cultural and hermeneutical instinct must be texted by the words and context of the Bible itself. This principle applies to both older and newer beliefs.

People think #MeToo led to eisegesis when in fact this cultural phenomenon exposed our prior eisegesis and enabled us to do exegesis. When you are unaware of power dynamics, you do not have the ability to see certain types of sin.

Eisegesis creates more problems

Problems often follow eisegesis. For example, notice the overt inconsistency within Caldwell’s own interpretation. Philpot notes,

Dr. Caldwell says that there is no indication that Bathsheba was raped. Would Bathsheba have felt some sort of pressure with David being the king? Most likely, yes, but the text does not say this.

So absent of rape, was there any guilt on the part of Bathsheba? Dr. Caldwell says yes, even though the text doesn’t emphasize it, there is. He doesn’t believe we can say Bathsheba was guiltless unless she resisted. The text provides no evidence that she resisted.

It is truly ironic that Caldwell uses silence to confirm Bathsheba’s guilt while using silence to assert David’s innocence of rape.

What about the second argument above, concerning the definition and possible minimization of rape? I respond with three points.

The suggestion that “some people today claim that “rape” could be any sex for which one feels regret after the fact” is a strawman. Even if “some people” held that view, it’s far from representative of what normally gets called “rape.”
The argument hinges on a somewhat culturally fluid definition of a single term. It minimizes the underlying question about whether David committed adultery (hence, Bathsheba’s consent) or rape (i.e., no consent).
When I shared this interpretation with my wife, she merely replied, “Obviously, that’s a man who wrote that.” In other words, to restrict “rape” only to physical violence misses the fundament problem with rape!

Perspective matters. Context is important. Humility requires we consider both.

For a great sermon on 2 Samuel 11, check out this one from John Crawford, Executive Pastor at Redemption Tempe Church.

History and Religion

Women in Religion

Contextualization

Interpretation/Exegesis

Previous Post

February 21, 2023

The Poor are Honored through Exile

Next Post

March 6, 2023 The Fundamental Flaws in Josh Butler’s Argument

Recent Comments

0 | Leave a Comment

"A thoughtful and thought-provoking article that raises important questions about the challenges facing the Western ..."

amelia854taylor

The War on the Western Church

"to fit social or religious expectations. Especially women, who were expected to sacrifice everything to ..."

shay049ana

3 reasons you should not be ..."

"Powerful reminder short, sturdy truths can lose their weight if treated as slogans. The solas ..."

daniel603maclise

How Western Individualism Quietly Undermines the ..."

"If 'America’s deepest crisis is not merely political. It is moral and spiritual.' is in ..."

klatu

The Real Crisis Beneath America’s Social ..."

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Atonement Biblical Theology Book Reviews China Chinese Church Chinese Culture Chinese Language Collectivism Contextualization Culture (General) Ecclesiology Evangelism Gospel Honor & Shame (Face) Interpretation/Exegesis Justification/Righteousness Missiology Mission Methods One Gospel for All Nations Other Practical Contextualization Reading Romans with Eastern Eyes Resources Romans Salvation (General) Saving God's Face Seeking God's Face The Cross in Context Theological Contextualization Theological Education Theology Uncategorized

Select a Month October 2026 September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 May 2026 April 2026 March 2026 February 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 September 2025 August 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

True or False: The Ten Commandments were written on three stone tablets.

Select your answer to see how you score.

FALSE TRUE

Books by This Author Books by Brad Vaughn

See All Titles »