Actually, there IS such a thing as toxic empathy...

... it's just not what you've heard. Here's what I learned from the story of Potiphar's wife and Joseph:

Imagine this scenario: a powerful person is alone in a room with someone vulnerable. Even though one (or both) of them is married to someone else, there is a sexual encounter.

When you hear about this, do you assume it was consensual? What if someone claims they were assaulted?

Does it matter if the man has more power than the woman? And what if those roles are reversed?

Do you have empathy for either side?

This isn’t a thought experiment –— it’s actually happened, for centuries. I’m talking about two familiar Bible stories: David and Bathsheba, and Joseph and Potiphar’s wife.

It was a lightbulb moment when I realized these are essentially the same story: a powerful person initiates a sexual encounter with a subordinate.

“Joseph and Potiphar’s Wife,” engraving by the Italian artist Marcantonio Raimondi after Raphael (1480-1534), from the National Gallery of Art.

Since I’ve witnessed plenty of online debates about what exactly David was guilty of, I wanted to look at commentaries and compare. Bathsheba has frequently been seen as complicit in “adultery.” I used to attribute this to a lack of knowledge: historically, commentators weren’t aware of issues of consent and power dynamics as we are today.¹

I got curious: do interpreters who blame Bathsheba also view Joseph with suspicion? Would they overlook how Potiphar’s wife abused her power, just as they tend to portray David and Bathsheba as equals?

Before we go further, it’s worth noting there’s one major discrepancy between these stories: Potiphar’s wife is at a disadvantage as an Egyptian, a non-Israelite — it’s not surprising readers would see her less favorably than David, the Lord’s anointed. However, as we’ll see, gender plays more of a role than ethnicity when it comes to interpretation.

As I researched, I saw that even when they don’t use conventional language about abuse, men could recognize how Potiphar’s wife abused her power, and how Joseph was a vulnerable victim. But many of these authors could not see the same dynamics when it came to David and Bathsheba.

Given the recent conversations about “the sin of empathy,” it’s fascinating to see how men respond to other men in the Bible. Understanding and sensitivity are offered to David and Joseph, while Bathsheba and Potiphar’s wife receive quick judgment — and frequently in ways that go beyond the boundaries of the text. There is a lot of empathy… but only for the men.

On the whole, male writers were willing to portray men as victims and women as villains, regardless of who had more power, or who was actually the aggressor. In some cases, David’s power was used as an excuse for his sin, rather than an aggravating factor.

Here Spurgeon points out that David’s actions, while wrong, are quite understandable:

“The great sin of David is not to be excused, but it is well to remember that his case has an exceptional collection of specialities in it. He was a man of very strong passions, a soldier, and an Oriental monarch having despotic power; no other king of his time would have felt any compunction for having acted as he did, and hence there were not around him those restraints of custom and association which, when broken through, render the offence the more monstrous.”²

While David’s power is presented as a mitigating factor in his sin, the same is not done for Potiphar’s wife.

Ambrose writes about her “deceit,” “cruelty,” “fury.”³ Others, going far beyond the text, infer that she was corrupt and a liar; that Potiphar knew she wasn't telling the truth and was more angry at her than at Joseph. (John MacArthur and David Guzik) At least one writer focused on the power she had, guessing that she probably arranged to make sure none of the other servants were in the house.⁴

Even though David used his power in the same way, and also attempted to cover it up through deceit — and even worse, murder — male commentators read his actions as a one-time mistake by an otherwise good man.

While Potiphar’s wife is treated as a villain, David is portrayed more like a victim. Spurgeon says David was uniquely vulnerable because he was idle. “...so long as he is hunted like a partridge on the mountains, David’s character is spotless, and his zeal is unrivaled. But now, a stealthier foe is lurking in ambush.”

Matthew Henry, likewise, sees David as being taken by surprise, helplessly trapped: “I can think of but one excuse for it, which is that it was done but once; it was far from being his practice; it was by the surprise of a temptation that he was drawn into it.”

So much for the powerful instigators in these stories. When we look at the victims, the empathy again flows towards only the man.

Bathsheba is presumed to have either deliberately tempted David, or quickly and readily consented to adultery. Joseph, on the other hand, is praised for his incredible self-control. Not one commentator suggests he encouraged Potiphar’s wife. In fact, writers preemptively make excuses for how easy and understandable it would have been for Joseph to give in. (Matthew Henry calls it the most “violent” attack on “the fort of chastity” ever recorded.)

Spurgeon points out that Joseph felt additional pressure from the power Potiphar’s wife had over him. He “was attacked in a point at which a young man is peculiarly vulnerable … The mass of mankind would scarcely have blamed him had he sinned; they would have cast the crime on the tempter and excused the frailty of youth.”

Ironically, even though the circumstances of Bathsheba’s temptation are exactly the same, the “mass of mankind” has not “cast the crime on the tempter” but consistently blamed Bathsheba.

John McArthur comes right out and accuses Bathsheba of tempting David, saying she “was not innocent in the situation. She put herself in a position to be seen by the king from the top of his palace.” (There is no evidence for this in the text.)

Again and again, men empathize with men, whether or not the particular man is in the wrong. David “fell” because Bathsheba was so tempting, but even though Genesis makes a point of telling us how beautiful Joseph was, there are no excuses made for Potiphar’s wife.

Nowhere does a man address the fact that David could have physically forced himself on Bathsheba. Potiphar’s wife could never have done the same to Joseph. While their crimes were otherwise very similar, this is a difference that should never be overlooked.

But male wrongdoing has a long history of being overlooked. “Himpathy” is the term coined by philosopher Kate Manne to describe this. She defines it as “the inappropriate or outsize sympathy extended to male perpetrators of misogyny and sexual violence over their female victims, who are often erased in the process.”

And I would argue that himpathy is exactly what we have seen in most male interactions with the texts discussed above. David’s temptation and suffering have been centered in our telling of the story, while Bathsheba’s pain — she lost her husband and then her child — are almost never addressed.

In fact, himpathy is the type of problematic empathy that Yale professor Paul Bloom took aim at in his 2016 book “Against Empathy.” He argued that empathy can lead us astray, as one review summarized, “by directing our compassion and generosity toward specific individuals, usually those who are part of our own group, at the expense of helping more people.”

This kind of empathy, the kind that favors powerful perpetrators, is truly “toxic.” If we have empathy only for those who are like us, we will overlook the real and perhaps even more pressing needs of other groups. And that is precisely what male commentators have done with stories like David and Bathsheba’s.

Perhaps it’s not the women or the “woke” who are too empathetic. Maybe it’s the men.

1. For the record, I believe we should describe David’s crime as rape, which even John Piper agrees with.

2. My Spurgeon quotes are either from commentaries found on Blue Letter Bible.com or the CSB Spurgeon Study Bible. Matthew Henry, David Guzik, and a handful of other commentaries were also found on Blue Letter Bible.

3. Quotes from the church fathers come from the CSB Ancient Faith Study Bible.

4. Fascinating side note: there is some history of Jewish interpreters blaming Joseph for seducing Potiphar’s wife!