I’ve encountered over the years a number of articles like this one arguing that Bathsheba was a victim of sexual assault by King David.
This is not to dismiss or diminish David’s crimes, because they were absolutely heinous. However, we need to be honest with ourselves about what the Word tells us that David did and did not do. We are never told he ever assaulted Bathsheba.
Let’s cut to the chase
After Nathan gave this fictional story about a rich man stealing a poor man’s lamb and slaughters it and feeds it to a traveler and David wants him dead, Nathan says, Thou art the man. He then tells David the words of the Lord. He says:
2Sa 12:7 Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, I anointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul;
2Sa 12:8 And I gave thee thy master’s house, and thy master’s wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things.
2Sa 12:9 Wherefore hast thou despised the commandment of the LORD, to do evil in his sight? (Then His lists the crimes David committed) thou hast killed 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.
The Lord never once mentions sexual assault as a crime David committed.
In fact, this is not mentioned anywhere in the entire Bible.
Sexual assault, of course, was illegal under the law (Deut. 22:25). This was punishable by death just like adultery - except that with sexual assault, only the man is put to death.
If David had committed that sin, then God would have listed that crime.
What does God say? He says, thou hast taken HIS wife to be THY wife. This is a phrase that acts as a kind of summary indictment of his unlawful marriage and theft that – includes and presupposes adultery. This is about him taking another man’s wife, which became an unlawful marriage because David committed murder to have her.
Stealing a man’s wife really isn’t about sexual assault. It’s about adultery. He stole her heart. He never criminally assaulted her. When the Lord says, thou hast taken HIS wife to be THY wife, that isn’t the language of rape. That is the language of heart-stealing adultery that became an unlawful marriage because of murder.
Notice also how the phrase thou hast taken HIS wife to be THY wife is sandwiched between two declarations about Uriah’s murder. He says, thou hast killed Uriah the Hittite with the sword, and hast taken his wife to be thy wife, and (then he says again) hast slain him with the sword of the children of Ammon. Why does he do that?
This is a chiasm.
A: Thou hast killed Uriah the Hittite with the sword...
B: ...and hast taken his wife to be thy wife...
A: ...and hast slain him with the sword of the children of Ammon.
By bracketing the phrase “taken his wife” between two declarations of Uriah’s murder, the text visually and structurally illustrates that David’s marriage to Bathsheba is completely enveloped in blood. He could not possess the wife without destroying the husband.
I know what the argument would be. “Joel, you don’t understand the issue of power politics. Power dynamics. David is king. Bathsheba is a peasant. Don’t you think she felt she had to go along with what David wanted because he was the king?”
No, you don’t understand the legalities of sexual assault under the law.
If their act of passion, if you will, was not in any way consensual on Bathsheba’s part, then David had forced himself upon her and violated the law. That’s sexual assault, and God would’ve leveled that crime against him in 2 Sam. 12:9.
Not one word is said about sexual assault in this entire story.
I know what the argument would be for this, too. “Well, it could be that she agreed to go along with this even though she really didn’t want to go through with it.” If she’s with David and showing every sign that she’s not comfortable, that she doesn’t want to be there, that she doesn’t want to go through with any of this, yet, David somehow uses his status as king to pressure her to go along with this and she gives in, he still forced himself upon her. And God would’ve leveled the charge of sexual assault against him in 2 Sam. 12:9.
It’s either consensual or it isn’t. And the fact that David was not charged with sexual assault by God means that the entire affair was consensual.
It’s as simple as that.
This whole story in 2 Samuel isn’t about the sins everyone committed in this whole tale. This story is strictly about the heinous crimes of King David.
God doesn’t avoid talking about sexual assault.
There are cases in Scripture in which God is explicitly clear that a sexual assault had occurred. Remember the story of Amnon and Tamar in 2 Samuel 13? They were both children of David from different mothers. And Amnon sexually assaulted Tamar. In 2 Sam. 13:12, Tamar pleads with Amnon. She says, “Nay, my brother, do not force me; for no such thing ought to be done in Israel... And in vs. 14, we read, “Howbeit he would not hearken unto her voice: but, being stronger than she, FORCED HERR, and lay with her.”
That same kind of language is used in the law in Deut. 22:25: “But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and THE MAN FORCE HER, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die.”
Forced her. The man force her. And lie with her. That kind of language does not exist anywhere in this story of David and Bathsheba.
Make no mistake. God has zero reservations about exposing egregious sins of men in the Bible, even prominent men of faith, like David. Abraham twice lied about Sarah being his sister (Genesis 12:11–20; 20:1–18). You have Lot’s drunkenness and incest (Genesis 19:30–38). You have Moses striking the rock (Numbers 20:7–12). You have Aaron’s idolatry (Exodus 32:1–24). Solomon’s idolatry and spiritual apostasy (1 Kings 11:1–13). Peter denying the Lord three times (Matthew 26:69–75; Luke 22:54–62).
God’s not going to sanitize David’s sins. If David had committed the heinous crime of sexual assault, God would’ve been completely upfront about it.
But we’re never told David did this.
There is not one shred of evidence that David sexually assaulted Bathsheba.
For the sake of total clarity, how about we exegete the story?
2Sa 11:1 And it came to pass, after the year was expired, at the time when kings go forth to battle, that David sent Joab, and his servants with him, and all Israel; and they destroyed the children of Ammon (AM-un), and besieged Rabbah (RAB-uh). But David tarried still at Jerusalem.
2Sa 11:2 And it came to pass in an eveningtide, that David arose from off his bed, and walked upon the roof of the king’s house: and from the roof he saw a woman washing herself; and the woman was very beautiful to look upon.
Of course, you have the argument here – what woman would not be keenly aware of her surroundings if she was nude and bathing outside? What woman would not also be keenly aware of the fact that she’s bathing in full view of the king’s palace?
Those are fair questions.
2Sa 11:3 And David sent and enquired after the woman. And one said, Is not this Bathsheba, the daughter of Eliam, the wife of Uriah the Hittite? 2Sa 11:4 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.
2Sa 11:5 And the woman conceived, and sent and told David, and said, I am with child.
Let’s consider vs. 4. First, we read that David sent messengers, and took her. Doesn’t this mean that David kidnapped her? Absolutely not. The Hebrew verb word for “took” is לָקַח (lāqaḥ), a common word meaning to take, receive, acquire, or bring. It’s a broad term, not a technical word for kidnapping. In Gen. 24:67, Isaac “took Rebekah, and she became his wife.” That was clearly not a kidnapping. He received her as his wife.
The Bible has specific words to describe kidnapping in the law as well. In Exod. 21:16, we read: “And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death.” To kidnap is to steal a person. Deut. 24:7 describes someone found “stealing any of his brethren of the children of Israel…” This is how our Bible describes a kidnapping and this kind of language does not exist anywhere in 2 Samuel 11.
Plus, this whole business of David sending messengers - they’re just messengers. David sent messengers to propose to Abigail (1 Samuel 25:39–42) and she was free to tell him “no.” There were plenty of times David sent messengers who were rejected and came back empty-handed. David’s messengers to Nabal (1 Samuel 25:5–12) and they returned empty-handed. David sent messengers to Hanun (2 Samuel 10:2–5) to comfort him after his father’s death. Do you remember what Hanun did to them? He shaved half of their beards and cut their garments. They came back humiliated.
“Wait a minute, Joel! You’re forgetting Michal (mih-KAHL in 2 Samuel 3:13–16). He sent men to take Michal away who was married to Phaltiel (FAL-tee-el)! See? David already had a history of stealing men’s wives!”
Michal was King Saul’s daughter. She married David first. Do you know what David had to go through to marry her? He had to get 100 foreskins of Philistines! And he did! (If I had to kill 100 Philistines and cut off their foreskins to marry Michal, you better believe I’m going to be sending men to get her back! LOL)
Scripture also tells us she loved David. She saved his life. When King Saul was plotting to kill David, Michal helped him escape through a window and she deceived Saul’s men. She was a total catch.
But when David became a fugitive, Saul gave her away to another man - Phaltiel. He had no right to do what he did. Interesting enough, Scripture tells us Michal loved David and Phaltiel was deeply attached to her, but it never tells us whether Michal loved Phaltiel.
If you’re going to make the case that David snatching Michal from Phaltiel was some precursor to David kidnapping men’s wives, you have no leg to stand on.
The fact that David sent messengers and they “took” Bathsheba in no way means she was kidnapped. Notice something else said in 2 Sam 11:4. And David sent messengers, and took her; and she came in unto him. She voluntarily and willingly agreed to go to David. Then we’re told and he lay with her. If he had in any way sexually assaulted her, God would’ve said he forced her and lay with her, but He doesn’t say that. Why? Because he never sexually assaulted her. He stole her heart. He never assaulted her.
Then the verse says she was purified from her uncleanness: and she returned unto her house. What does that mean? That has to do with her menstrual cycle (Leviticus 15:19–24):
Leviticus 15:19: A woman’s menstrual uncleanness lasts seven days.
Leviticus 15:28: After her discharge stops, she counts seven days, after which she becomes ritually clean.
This means that Bathsheba had just finished her period and purified herself; therefore, she was not pregnant when she went to David’s palace. Consequently, when she conceives (11:5), there is zero ambiguity about who the father is — the child is indisputably David’s, not her husband Uriah’s (who was away at the siege of Rabbah).
Then she finds out she’s pregnant. She tells David, who then has Uriah killed. And David takes her as his wife. Let’s also not forget that Bathsheba willingly chose to marry David. You’d think that if a king sexually assaulted you, made you pregnant, and murdered your husband, you’d not only NOT marry him but run for the hills to get away from him.
No, she was as much onboard with this affair as David himself.
Then we have the showdown with Nathan the prophet.
2Sa 12:1 And the LORD sent Nathan unto David. And he came unto him, and said unto him, There were two men in one city; the one rich, and the other poor.
2Sa 12:2 The rich man had exceeding many flocks and herds:
2Sa 12:3 But the poor man had nothing, save one little ewe lamb, which he had bought and nourished up: and it grew up together with him, and with his children; it did eat of his own meat, and drank of his own cup, and lay in his bosom, and was unto him as a daughter.
2Sa 12:4 And there came a traveller unto the rich man, and he spared to take of his own flock and of his own herd, to dress for the wayfaring man that was come unto him; but took the poor man’s lamb, and dressed it for the man that was come to him.
2Sa 12:5 And David’s anger was greatly kindled against the man; and he said to Nathan, As the LORD liveth, the man that hath done this thing shall surely die:
2Sa 12:6 And he shall restore the lamb fourfold, because he did this thing, and because he had no pity.
2Sa 12:7 And Nathan said to David, Thou art the man…
So back to this article I mentioned at the beginning. The Nerdy Christian tried to argue that because, in Nathan’s illustration, the lamb is clearly Bathsheba, then she had to have been perfectly innocent and was therefore a victim of sexual assault.
That isn’t just bad exegesis. This is a perfect example of eisegesis. That is someone so desperate to also pin the label of rapist on David that he’s imposing his own agenda onto the text rather than allow the text to speak for itself.
What is going on in Nathan’s story?
Notice that Nathan’s story is not even close to being a point-by-point allegorical match for David’s crimes in 2 Samuel 11. We’re not reading about a sexual assault or even an affair. We’re reading about a poor guy who has a lamb and views that lamb as HIS DAUGHTER. What man views his wife as his daughter? Uriah certainly didn’t.
Plus, it’s not like the rich man killed the poor man, which is what happened with David and Uriah. It’s the lamb that’s killed in Nathan’s story. How does that fit into the David and Bathsheba narrative? And clearly David didn’t kill Bathsheba or feed her remains to a traveler. Plus, no human can ever be a perfectly innocent lamb. Only Christ can be that.
You’re not supposed to look at this story as a perfect comparison to David and Bathsheba.
And because this is clearly not a point-by-point allegorical match for David’s crimes, there is no ground whatsoever for anyone to try to claim that Bathsheba was sexually assaulted simply because she’s the lamb in Nathan’s fictional story.
If this was a perfect point-by-point allegorical match, then you could make that case, but you cannot do that here. This is not a parallel to what happened.
So what’s the point of Nathan’s story?
This story was a carefully crafted legal trap for David, who was, of course, acting as the supreme judge in Israel (cf. 2 Sam. 14:4–11, 15:2–4). He tells a tale of less severe crimes than the ones David committed. And it’s meant to incite David’s wrath and his strong sense of justice. Then the finger is pointed at him.
It’s brilliant in how it understates David’s crime. If a man deserves severe judgment for taking a lamb and slaughtering it in such a way, then how much greater is the condemnation for taking a man’s wife and killing the husband?
If this rich man in this story deserves death for just stealing a lamb then how much more does David deserve death for stealing the heart of Bathsheba and murdering Uriah?
This story isn’t about any else’s innocence or guilt. This story is strictly about David realizing the severity of his crimes in the sight of God. This was more than just a lapse in lust for him. This is about murder. This is about horrific abuse of power. This is about adultery and coveting something that doesn’t belong to him when God already gave him so much.
Fascinating to me, David had this strong sense of justice when he’s objectively evaluating the moral failures of others, but he was completely blind to his own far greater transgressions. Isn’t that true for a lot of people? Even today?
Nathan’s story serves as a warning against the ease with which we judge external actions while rationalizing our own inner moral compromises.
Don’t take my word for it. Study for yourself!
Below are all the references to the story:
1. The primary historical account
2 Samuel 11:1–5 David sees Bathsheba bathing, sends messengers, takes her, lies with her, and learns she is pregnant.
2 Samuel 11:6–13 David attempts to conceal the pregnancy by bringing Uriah home from battle. Uriah refuses to enjoy the comforts of home while his fellow soldiers are fighting.
2 Samuel 11:14–25 David arranges for Uriah to be killed in battle through instructions to Joab.
2 Samuel 11:26–27 Bathsheba mourns Uriah. David subsequently marries her. The chapter ends by declaring that David’s actions displeased the LORD.
2 Samuel 12:1–6 Nathan confronts David with the parable of the rich man, the poor man, and the little ewe lamb.
2 Samuel 12:7–12 Nathan declares, “Thou art the man,” and identifies David’s sins and their consequences.
2 Samuel 12:13–15 David confesses his sin, and Nathan announces God’s forgiveness, although consequences will follow.
2 Samuel 12:15–23 David fasts and prays for the sick child, who subsequently dies.
2 Samuel 12:24–25 David comforts Bathsheba, and Solomon is born.
2. The Psalms associated with David’s repentance
Psalm 51 — The definitive penitential Psalm
The superscription explicitly connects this psalm to Nathan’s confrontation after David had gone in to Bathsheba.
Particularly important verses are 1–4, 9–12, and 16–17. David acknowledges his transgressions, asks God for cleansing, and expresses a broken and contrite heart.
Psalm 32 — The blessedness of forgiveness
This psalm describes the misery of concealing sin and the relief of confessing it.
Verses 3–5 are especially relevant. Although traditionally associated with David’s repentance over Bathsheba and Uriah, the psalm itself doesn’t explicitly identify that occasion.
3. Other direct references to Bathsheba, Uriah, and David’s sin
2 Samuel 23:34, 39 Identifies Eliam, son of Ahithophel, and Uriah the Hittite among David’s mighty men. Compare 2 Samuel 11:3 for the possible family connection.
1 Kings 1:11–31 Bathsheba and Nathan intervene to secure Solomon’s succession to the throne.
1 Kings 2:13–25 Bathsheba appears as Solomon’s mother in the matter of Adonijah’s request.
1 Kings 15:5 Explicitly recalls David’s sin as “the matter of Uriah the Hittite.”
1 Chronicles 3:5 Lists Solomon and his brothers as sons of David by Bathshua, generally identified as Bathsheba.
Matthew 1:6 Refers to Solomon’s mother as “her that had been the wife of Urias.”
4. The consequences of David’s sin in subsequent chapters
Nathan prophesied that the sword would never depart from David’s house (2 Samuel 12:10). Several subsequent events are commonly understood in light of that judgment.
2 Samuel 13:1–22 Amnon rapes Tamar, David’s daughter.
2 Samuel 13:23–39 Absalom arranges the murder of Amnon.
2 Samuel 15:1–12 Absalom rebels against David; Ahithophel joins the conspiracy.
2 Samuel 16:20–23 Absalom publicly takes David’s concubines, fulfilling the judgment described in 2 Samuel 12:11–12.
2 Samuel 17:1–23 Ahithophel counsels Absalom against David and subsequently takes his own life.
2 Samuel 18:1–33 Absalom dies, and David mourns his son.
5. Relevant Mosaic Law passages
Leviticus 20:10 — The penalty for adultery involving another man’s wife.
Deuteronomy 22:22–27 — The legal distinction between adultery and forced sexual intercourse involving a betrothed woman.
Deuteronomy 22:28–29 — A separate case involving an unbetrothed virgin.
Exodus 21:16; Deuteronomy 24:7 — Laws against kidnapping.
Numbers 35:30–34 — Laws concerning murder and the shedding of innocent blood.