A good old friend's post on Facebook led me to an article on "How the Bible shapes contemporary attitudes to rape and sexual assault". What intrigued me is his Facebook post claims: "rape culture is authoritatively sanctioned by the church and the courts." It made me wonder, how so?
As often is the case, these types of articles give a superficial and misleading take on biblical narrative. The author, in supporting his argument uses prominent biblical figures, the example of David's "rape" of Bathsheba, echoed in his son' Amnon's rape of half-sister Tamar, and his son Absalom's rape of David's concubines. He also notes that in Judges 21, the Benjamites are "saved from extinction" through the mass rape of women from Jabesh-Gilead and Shiloh.
While horrible accounts of immoral behavior are clearly recorded, they are in no way sanctioned or condoned in the Bible. Scripture does not indicate whether David's act was consensual or not (defining rape), his action was nonetheless adulterous and wrong. David's lack of self control was never endorsed by God, on the contrary David's initial denial of the sin and cover-up of his transgression by having Bathsheba's husband killed had its clear consequences. As the act of sin brings death, in this instance David and Bathsheba's firstborn died.
Before anyone thinks this "needless death" is some religious rule of law and starts condemning God for killing an innocent baby for the indiscretion of his parents, remember we are dealing with a person of prominence and authority, the king and leader of a nation, who at the time thought he was above the law and could get away with adultery and murder. Leaders were to be exemplary examples to the people they lead, particularly those professing to serve God. It's been said: "with great power comes great responsibility." As there was no person who could judge the king for his irresponsible crime, God, in addition to condemning David's sin made it clear that such abuse of power has severe consequences.
When it comes to the transgressions of David's sons which the author also eludes to, a couple of other adages come to mind: "You reap what you sow", "Like father, like son". The Bible warns sins of our forefathers can be carried down (i prefer to say: have influence in the decisions of) several following generations. I won't elaborate further on their indiscretions here (anyone who has interest in the complete story can read scriptural accounts), other than stating such sin has never been sanctioned in the Bible.
Similarly the immoral acts of the Benjamites (the entire account can be read in Judges), were done in an attempt to fix previous failures, trouble which in large part the Israelites brought upon themselves. One should note they were in a state of anarchy: "In those days there was no king in Israel, everyone did what was right in their own eyes." The Bible never teaches two wrongs make a right. Attempting to cover-up or "fix" a transgression has always been frowned upon in scripture.
The second erroneous case the article makes is, that in scripture women are held accountable for rape crimes. While there are accounts of male instigators as well as certain authority figures transferring the blame on the victim, in no way is this scripturally sanctioned or condoned. Anyone investigating these stories thoroughly, should have noted that Bathsheba was never held responsible nor condemned for David's transgression. Had David not confessed and repented of his sin, i suspect his sinful nature would have most likely looked for ways to blame Bathsheba for "enticing him"-whether she did or not (i believe she didn't). David however became an upright man again, when he confessed and took full responsibility for his crime.
Herein lies the core issue: Blame transfer from the perpetuator of the crime.
Blame transfer was possibly even more common in historically male dominated cultures where women, innocent or not, were often blamed for a man's transgression -all the way back to the story of Adam and Eve. However, if you take note of that story, despite the fact that Adam blamed Eve, who did God hold accountable? The one who received clear instructions not to eat the fruit (which in this case happened to be both).
While the Bible clearly teaches there are consequences for our transgressions, it also extends an olive branch of GRACE to reconcile man with God, regardless of what crime he or she has perpetuated. He extended grace to David after he owned up to his sin, as Christ extended grace to the adulterous woman whom the "religious society" wanted to stone to death. The only precondition to receive grace was, and still is, to humbly own-up to one's own sin and failure. Blame transferrers need not apply.
Whether you believe in God or Biblical narrative is not my core point here. Failures of prominent individuals, regardless of their religious beliefs or historical significance (biblical or not), does not sanction immoral behavior. Transferring blame for a crime away from the perpetrator is clearly wrong, especially when it's transferred under false pretenses to any individual, belief or ideology.
Sadly the linked article, while coming to the defense of falsely accused rape victims, sets up false pretenses itself. In a similar way it transfers the blame on a belief or ideology which clearly does not propagate rape, while deceiving readers who fail to thoroughly check quoted sources in proper context.
