Within the realm of Christian apologetics, there are numerous figures that have built up followings via apologetics but when it comes to more polemical issues within the church, they are severely compromised. One such example is Sean McDowell, the son of Josh McDowell, who runs a large YouTube channel while also being a teacher at the liberal Biola University. In the past, we have covered McDowell’s defense of the He Gets Us campaign and his promotion of Side B theology.
Now, McDowell is continuing his promotion of liberalism by entering into the “David and Bathsheba” debate whereby David is accused of rape because the Scripture is being read through the hermeneutical lens of feminism. Joining him for a recent podcast was Carmen Imes, a PHD who is “an Old Testament professor, writer, and biblical scholar at Talbot School of Theology at Biola University.”
Within the realm of feminist interpretation (or reinterpretation), they inherently see David as an abuser of Bathsheba due to notions of power dynamics, rather than view Bathsheba as a willing participant wherein the text gives no indication of resistance. In light of MeToo, this interpretation has gained traction in an effort to absolve various women of their sins in cases like Steve Lawson, David Sills, and Johnny Hunt.
Imes begins by addressing 1 Samuel 13:14, where David is called “a man after His own heart” an idiom that affects how readers interpret David favorably in light of his various sins. There are not really any commentaries that label this phrase as an idiom. Lacking archeological evidence of ancient Hebrew or consistent usage of this phrase in Scripture, this opinion is likely conjecture.
But things go south early when 6 minutes in, Imes asserts that it was unclear whether David wanted Uriah to return in order to conceal his affair or whether he sought to boast of conquering his wife. Clearly the reason he conspired to murder Uriah and then marry Bathsheba afterward was an effort to conceal his sin and give the child a pretense of legitimacy. For what other reason does David encourage Uriah to sleep with his wife if not to cover his own sin? Apparently, it is unclear to Imes, but not to most biblical scholars throughout history. She talked about how there are three pages of questions regarding this story, even though this is perhaps one of the most detailed accounts of personal sin in Scripture. She asserts that people perceive to “fill in the gaps” which ends up being what she does in promoting the rape narrative. Overall, she describes this passage as a Rorschach test, which really reveals both her ineptitude and immaturity when dealing with the text.
Twenty minutes in, Imes concedes that she knows of no commentaries that described the sin as rape and that the reason for this changed because more women entered biblical studies:
Thirty years ago, there were really 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, like wait did she have an option of saying no to the King when he summoned her? Is she literally gonna say “no” when she’s being summoned and so there’s a greater recognition of the power differential. Not that everything can be explained away by power, but I think as a woman reading the text there’s a maybe a greater sensitivity to this issue from the other side than what we had in previous centuries.
This is the error of Standpoint Epistemology whereby one cannot know the correct interpretation of a verse unless there are viewpoints representative of all classes of people whether by race or in this case, gender. She is arguing that the presence of women in the room allows for this (false) truth to be seen.
The problem is not whether Bathsheba could resist the king’s summons, but whether she resisted the king’s sexual advances. McDowell and Imes discuss the ancient perception of consent which is a liberal standard of morality whereas the biblical standard regarding rape is force. She proceeds to say that Absalom “raped” David’s concubines, which is a consistent misread of rape where there is no evidence of resistance.
This is where at twenty-nine minutes in, she compares Bathsheba to an American slaveowner raping a slave. The use of American slavery inaccurately suggests that a master cannot have consensual sex with their slave because of the power dynamic, again relying on consent as a moral standard. Plenty of faithful heroes rejected the commands of their masters, including Joseph and Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-Nego. The jeopardy against one’s life does not absolve one of sin.
When confronted over the use of the Hebrew for rape regarding Amnon, the supposed Old Testament scholar said:
I would see it more as the narrator’s laconic style there’s they’re being very careful to sort of hold things open because they want to draw us in so that we make our own assessment.
She proceeds to describe Nathan’s rebuke of David being a “gotcha” which is an unacademic description but predictable given how they both nuance every finite detail in the text. Generally, 1 and 2 Samuel are believed to be written after the split kingdom period due to the various geographic or political distinctions. The text is very much a reflection of the events long afterward. It is not some movie or novel attempting to draw the reader inwards with suspense or ambiguity but is the inspired word of God. Even from a stylistic analysis, Bathsheba is only named twice in 2 Samuel, all other times being called “the wife of Uriah” to emphasize the sin against Uriah. Unlike Matthew Henry or John MacArthur, neither Biola professor appears to understand the unambiguous criticism of David remaining behind in Jerusalem during the war, so it is not just the “rape question” where they nuance the text.
Throughout the conversation, McDowell is asking questions based on the arguments of Clay Jones, who used to work at Biola, to allow her to offer a rebuttal to his criticisms. Whereas Imes calls Bathsheba pious for bathing on the roof following menstruation, Jones argues that bathing after menstruation does not make one pious. Jones’s simple argument is that menstruation is messy so it is logical that a woman would want to bathe afterwards. They do discuss the nature of Bathsheba bathing on the roof, whether that was immodest or not, which is a legitimate ambiguity in the text.
Towards the end, Imes claims there is “a strong impulse to lay blame at the feet of Bathsheba, that she had some part” in David’s dynastical problems. This is a strawman since the recent emphasis on Bathsheba is in reaction to those who wish to absolve her of moral culpability or ascribe the sin of David as rape. Sure, there are bad pastors who reduce their moral culpability because of the “Bathshebas” of the world, but the historical thought in this passage is fixated on David. This was the central story in 2 Samuel where the narrative shifts to the civil wars that David proceeds to fight because of this sin, with Absalom fulfilling the judgment against David on what was likely the very vantage point he observed in Bathsheba. Yet, because of modern circumstances, the renewed emphasis on Bathsheba is warranted to combat a rising hamartiological heresy.
Ultimately, while Imes contends that one should not read context into Scripture, the entire debate over David being a rapist is itself an anachronistic read of an ancient text while she attempts to nuance every detail in the narrative, even those that are logically unambiguous.
Women in Theology
It has been said that the Old Testament departments are the first to go liberal within the seminaries, and Biola seems no different in allowing women to teach Old Testament as so-called biblical scholars, whereby they would be influencing a class of pastors who then infect the Church. The ultimate reason there is even a debate over whether David raped Bathsheba is because of the rise in women’s theological circles, which is attested to by Carmen Imes herself. Just as there is no such thing as female pastors, there is no such thing as female theologians.
Just as with Women’s Ordination, when women infiltrate theological circles, it inevitably degrades the overall theology, whether for a Seminary or a denomination. This same principle applies even to online outlets, as The Gospel Coalition’s decline has long coincided with the elevation of women and it was Christianity Today who published Imes’s article on Bathsheba. On multiple occasions, women at Christian Post have defended No-Fault divorce. This is why the LCMS warns against making family an idol in an era when the institution of family is in critical decline. Earlier this year, Ligon Duncan promoted a video of Reformed Theological Seminary’s incoming class that was half female, which is a perfect depiction of why seminaries are in decline. In previous generations, the sight would have been unthinkable, and rightfully so.
The Southern Baptist Convention spent millions on an abuse investigation that yielded no proof of a widespread problem nor subsequent coverup of sexual abuse, yet the entire denomination was made to bend towards the whims of feminists. This only happened because women were allowed to have influence in a denominational proceeding. Similarly, the only reason “Karengate” was a scandal was because people bought into the feminist MeToo narratives in the first place.
Women’s theology will invariably lead to the justification of sin and the absolution of moral accountability, whether it be with women’s ordination, “mutual submission” in marriage, or removing culpability in sexual sins.
Conclusion
Sean McDowell compromises Scripture by allowing a woman to teach and nuance functionally 2 Samuel 11 to legitimize feminist standpoint epistemology regarding Bathsheba’s role in the story. It is not the first compromise he has made and will unlikely be the last. As for Biola University, it is a clear example of why the letters PHD do not indicate true knowledge and wisdom with regards to understanding Holy Scripture.
15 Responses
The subversive and creepy “Angel Studios” has a new movie that came out on December 20 called “Homestead”, which heavily promotes interracial relationships and other forms of cultural marxism.
Their previous movie (Bonhoeffer) flopped at the box office. Let’s hope Homestead flops badly, too.
Everyone should spam Rotten Tomatoes and other sites with negative reviews for this latest abomination from the misnamed “Angel Studios.”
“Angel Studios” is a subversive, creepy, sleazy corporation that specializes in packaging cultural marxism in a “Christian” wrapper, in order to manipulate Christians into embracing the destruction of Western Civilization.
Let’s all spam Rotten Tomatoes and other cinema-rated websites with negative reviews for Homestead, to make that movie flop.
Then maybe “Angel Studios” will go out of business. We can only hope.
The real problem is not seeing that Samuel is political propaganda of Judah against the other tribes. David gets used as every whore’s and whorenonger’s easy forgiveness of adultery card along with the inauthentic interpolation of the Pericope Adulterae. Allowing a more realistic reading of the Political Propaganda books of the Old Testament as what they reall are will be good for the church in the long run. Condemning David for his adultery will only lead to the good result of pastors finally being abel to condemn the sluts in their churches too; it will lead directly to acknowledging the NIV’s footnote on the Pericope Adulterae. Because when the sluts make it all about “men bad” the men will begin to finally attack the vile fake Pericope Adulterae and insist that pastors prwach the NIV footnote that says its fake. And then whores can be punished again. So I applaud this development. PLUS Christian Nationalism needs to be abale to read the Political Propaganda books as Judah’a propaganda against the other tribes so that it doesn’t think stupidly that David and Solomon who impoverished Israel with heavy taxes actually were good kings whose example should be followed and end up supporting the Democrats into taxing us to death.
Also this development helps beat back the “Judeo” in Judeo-Christian. David is not that important to Christianity; stop treating the political propaganda books in the Old Testament as infallible because that leads to Zionism. These books are human written history mixed with Judah’s propaganda; David was a vile adulterer not a “man after God’s own heart.” That’s fine, he can be forgiven or whatever, and we can keep the Psalms, especially since he did NOT actually write all of them as you’ll see if you pay attention to the headings, i.e. like Psalm 72/73 says “The End of the Psalms of David” but tenish Psalms later the headings are again saying “A Psalm Of David”, i.e. the headings are fake Jewish opinion not reality. The over simplicity of treating the political books of the OT that give the opinion of ancient corrupt Judeans about who was a good or bad king as literally the word of God is why Zionism is running amock. Just admit David was a bad dude and a horrible king and move on. But someone objects that Jesus is called “Son of David” and so on; mere memes, MEMES, being used by New Testament authors to try to get the Jews to believe in Christ. It doesn’t mean David was truly good or a man after God’s own heart. We’re not Jews; we don’t actually need David. I’ll take the Christian, hold the Judeo.
I have one more rant on this that makes it even clearer. David hated the lame and blind, as he outright states “My soul hates the lame and the blind” when he was conquering the Jebusites, and this adds some irony to the blind man in the gospel crying out to Jesus “Have mercy on me thou son of David.” I think we’re supposed to notice that irony, that David was NOT really a man after God’s own heart, because God Incarnate, Jesus Christ, does NOT hate the lame and the blind, so David’s heart was not Jesus’ (i.e. God’s) heart. If your view of the books of Samuel and Kings does NOT allow you to notice that, then you are a Judeo-Christian rather than a Christian. There is this Judeo-idolatry of David that wants to make him equal to Christ and I for one am not gonna have it. Even though I’m named after David. Lol.
On one hand, I see their point for about ten seconds. She’s a Woman, wife of an outsider, and the king of the city you live in sends people to fetch you. DO you say no? or are you in fear?
But there’s a problem, the passage says nothing about her response to it, and contrary to levitical law (which she may not have known at the time) she does nothing that we can interpret as a no. LIke it or not, i see no evidence to suggest their interpretation is correct.
Mulling over my position that its Judean propaganda in favor of their man David against other tribes (like Saul the Benjamite) I today found this book https://www.amazon.com/Historical-David-Real-Life-Invented/dp/0062188372 and in the preview on Amazon, a close position to the one I took a week or two ago about the Abigail story is found. Whereas I discerned that Abigail was promising to poison David, this guy thinks David killed Nabal himself and the propagandist author just says the Lord killed Nabal to cover for David. I am more discerning here, since death by poison would be perceived as natural death, perhaps, before the advent of toxicology reports, and natural death could be attributed to the Lord. I might buy this book, because ultimately it seems to me that David is the root of Zionism and Judeo-Christianity, this mytholoy, this idolatry, of David having been “a man after God’s own heart” which his “My soul hates the lame and the blind” disproves since the heart of God revealed in Christ shows God does not hate the lame and blind. As in the Abigail story, David did wrong, and the author is covering for him, so how much agency Bathsheba had, we can’t know. But David clearly doesn’t have much of a problem with rape, because remember one of his sons tries to overthrow him as king partly to avenge how David did nothing to one of his half brothers who raped his full sister and David knew and did jack squat to punish the rapist.
I found a youtube presentation by that author. Brilliant. Every Judeo-Christian needs to watch it to be snapped out of their face value reading of David that is leading them to hell for replacing Christ with David. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpzrgbWsFD8 Its interesting that the story of Abigail forms the center around which his argument spins, because I started down this same path only because of Doug Wilson’s Abigail insanity, so clearly that story is the one that will make anyone with a high IQ realize that Samuel is propaganda. There is no way that David was the good guy in that story; Nabal did nothing wrong. Now where I disagree with this author, who is a Jew, is around 24mins where he argues that we can reconstruct David however we want to justify ourselves (that’s the Judeo- talking). The fact is that Judeo- is invalidated by David being a scam; and the New Testament highlights the scam of David NOT being a man after God’s own heart by having Christ (God) heal the lame and blind who David said “My soul hates the lame and blind.” Christ is the Son of David not in the sense of being a copy of David but of replacing David; David therefore is a pre-Christ antichrist who Christ replaces because Christ actually is the man after God’s own heart since he is God Incarnate. Anyone who cannot say this, is Judeo not Christian.
If it was assault….why did David comfort her when their baby died? A mean ‘ol rapist would not give her a minute’s consideration. Or am I reading this all wrong?
Women married their rapists back then. David’s daughter that was raped by her brother married her brother to hide the shame, remember. Women taken captive in war were forces to marry the captors. Its the Old Testament, its a barbaric time. Which is why reading it as examples of how to live today like Doug Wilson does is dumb.
David’s brother DID NOT marry her half brother. He threw her out and she cried out do not do this to me for where can I carry my shame. He should have married her but he demanded his servant throw her out. What Bible are you reading?
There are still people who argue that Sean McDowell is a good conservative but bad company corrupts good morals and it is clear that the liberal Biola faculty are rubbing off on Sean.
This level of trolling must become exhausting
I did not know that the canard about the family being an idol in America had spread from Russell Moore to the LCMS. It shows that like Tim Keller he has had corrupting influence well beyond his long-time denomination.
“Karengate” is that the matter of the Bucks’ incredibly naive behavior with Karen Swallow Prior?
I agree with your analysis of the role played by rising female influence in the ministry. I don’t understand why denominations that stand against having women in the pastorate are allowing them to be theology professors in seminaries. Except that I do know really, because practically all seminaries are allowed to function as progressive playgrounds and we will never fix the American church until that changes.