It appears "power dynamics reduced Bathsheba's agency" is now, at some level, orthodoxy at Biola University After a ton of ultra-nuance, prof Carmen Imes' final word on the subject: "I'm hesitant to call this adultery...It implies that there's consent on both sides."

Earlier in the podcast, Imes says this debate is raging because the MeToo + ChurchToo movements have "raised public discourse about r*pe" and put a spotlight on the "huge power differential" in this narrative. Says "it's dangerous for us to read too much agency" into Bathsheba's choices and actions in 2 Samuel 11. Says that she personally thinks women can sin sexually even with a power differential, but "it's fair" if some people draw the conclusion that "if there's any kind of power differential, then there's no possibility of consent." However, when it comes to D vs. B specifically, "we have only a very thin, thin basis" to argue that their sexual encounter is consensual.

For his part, Sean McDowell brings up objections to the MeToo reading of David + Bathsheba, like from @ClayBJones and @LarryTaunton, delivering them as gentle sets for her to spike. For Imes, the recent development of this interpretation is not proof of its weakness. It is proof of the need for more women in biblical studies. "As a woman reading the text, there's maybe a greater sensitivity to this issue from the other side than what we had in this in previous centuries." McDowell co-signs that idea, nothing that once, a woman asked him: "Did Mary have to watch both of her sons, Jesus and James, get martyred?" and it affected him profoundly that he had not asked himself that question in 13 years of study because he doesn't have a female POV.

@LarryTaunton Carmen Imes on David-Bathsheba: "I think both terms, either calling it adultery or calling it rape, are misleading in certain ways to certain audiences." "I would say, yes, 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 r*pes 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?"

Last clip. Imes actually pulls the rug out from the MeToo reading, while insisting that it only invalidates the "Bathsheba had culpability too" interpretation. "We, as 21st-century Evangelical readers, tend to read all biblical stories with our moral lenses on, and we're looking for moral examples and we want to know the moral of the story and 'Tell me how to live.' And I actually think Samuel, although it has moral lessons in it, I think in this regard it's more interested in making a case for kingship and for rightful paternity and passing on of the dynasty to the next generation. I think we need this story later to explain that King Solomon is not the the fruit of rape or adultery, whatever you're going to call it, that Solomon is actually born of a proper marriage between David and Bathsheba. So I think that's maybe more of the point here than, like, 'This is a punishment for what they did, and they have to lose this child.' The child dies, they pray about it, they mourn, but really, the narrator is carrying us forward to the point where Bathsheba is going to become the queen mother. Her son Solomon will be king. And if anyone had doubts about Solomon's paternity, this story is making sure everybody knows for all time that he was not born out of wedlock or conceived out of wedlock. That he is the rightful child of David and Bathsheba after they were married...I think it's the question that the narrative might be more concerned with than we are." Did you catch that? Consent isn't the concern of the narrator, so no one should speculate that Bathsheba may have consented. However, Imes is free to assume that Bathsheba falls under the category of "sexual assault victim" (see penultimate clip). So consent not being the concern of the narrator only nullifies one of the modern, moralistic, beyond-the-plain-text interpretations. Gotcha.

@LarryTaunton Source:

If you promote "smashing the patriarchy" you want to destroy what you see in this picture. We can respect women & respect family values at the same time. @iodcompany Source:

What’s interesting to me is the Scripture places nearly all the blame on David, not Bathsheba, which indicates the seriousness of David’s sin in this matter; in Nathan’s parable, Bathsheba is portrayed as an innocent lamb

This isn’t the hill for you to die on. David absolutely abused his authority, and consent wasn’t obvious. You’re ok with knowing he was a murderer, but you can’t fathom that he could have been a rapist? Why?

Well the Bible calls it adultery.