Why do people look to the David/Bathsheba story to support an affair marriage?

First of all...he was already practicing polygamy with not only wives but also lovers...and that is confusing enough on the issue to remove it entirely from the plateau of "credible" for me.

If polygamy/polyamory is an acceptable practice than we BS wives should just pick our lower lip up off the ground...accept that our husbands are not only ours and that we have been "put away" and go find someone else to play with. If fact that is what your instincts will lead to unless you actively work against it.

I wonder if "lovers" or concubines are an acceptable polyamory solution or if the multiples are only allowed for the menfolk.

Secondly her husband was DEAD before he took her into his household as his wife rather than having divorced her as a result of her affair.

The law would not have allowed this on several counts if he had divorced her for adultery but apparently even in the good ole days the law only applied to people who don't count.

It certainly didn't apply to David with regard to either his adultery or his murder. However I did come to understand that he was...ya know...real sorry and all later.

Much later.

There is also a lot of doubt for me that it WAS an affair.

I see no reference to flirting across a table or eyelash fluttering from Bathsheba. Seems more like a rape if you ask me. He has a "it puts the lotion in the basket or else it gets the hose again" sort of "I want it go get it for me" [Bathsheba starring in the exciting role if "it"] attitude about approaching her for sex.

Guess that'd be handy..just take the guesswork out of courtship and ORDER her to your bed. Send some armed guards to make her an offer she can't [really can't] refuse.

The entire story is so morally confusing and contradictory [YES I SAID IT] that it casts doubt on scripture as a whole for me personally.

A fair question Noodle.

In no way does the story of David and Bathsheba "support" an affair marriage. It describes an affair marriage, or if you are "uncomfortable" with that description as if Bathsheba was raped instead of a willing participant in the adultery that resulted in her getting pregnant, it was still adultery on the part of David, augmented by his arranging for the murder of Uriah "so that" it would appear that Bathsheba was "set free" from her marriage.

What this story is about, and why it is relevant to this current discussion, is that God forgave David and went on to bless his marriage to Bathsheba with their son Solomon.
Don't forget that David's "other wives" were also involved in adultery as a result of David's sin.

There were terrible consequences as a result of David's adultery that affected MANY people around him, including his own children.

This is NOT a "get our of jail free" card. But the answer it provides is the answer to those who have been objecting to JJ's "right" to be here and to anyone's right to attempt to help her. They want her to "go away" or "go somewhere else" for help because it makes them uncomfortable that God CAN forgive someone of the sin of adultery, along similar lines to those who wanted to "cast the first stone." But even those who have been giving perhaps "grudging agreement" that God CAN forgive adultery want to "parse" that forgiveness into 1) all adultery that involves someone other than the "partner" in the original adultery and 2) the "subset" of adultery that involves a marriage to the OP. Granted that such a thing IS repugnant to all BS's, it does not change the fact that it is Adultery that is being forgiven and that ALL people CAN be forgiven of their sins, big and/or small, when they accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior. It does not matter if that acceptance happens as a young child or hanging on a cross moments away from death. It happens(total forgiveness) the moment that any sinner accepts Christ because Jesus took on Himself ALL of the sins of everyone who believes in Him.




None of the above are "acceptable." God created marriage to be between one man and one woman. The fact that many have chosen to be disobedient is nothing new, not "back then" and not "today."





No, the law was quite clear. The penalty for adultery was death. The penalty for murder was death. David deserved to die, and he recognized that when Nathan confronted him.

The penalty was established by God, just as the penalty for all sin has been established by God. It is also within the Sovereign right of God to Forgive as He determines in His grace and mercy. That is whole point of Jesus, to enable us to BE forgiven of our sins and declared "innocent" by God. God has never stopped being Sovereign and God "has mercy on whom He chooses." That is His right as God, the supreme Sovereign of all.

In the context of this "debate" about JJ being forgiven or not forgiven, about her marriage being recognized by God or not recognized, JJ is "analogous" to David in this story. Regardless of what you might believe about Bathsheba's role in this adultery and marriage, David DID commit adultery and married his "OP." That is, at the bare minimum, the "relevance" of this story and the FACT that God DID forgive David as a result of his sincere repentance TO God for the sin he had committed against God.


Here are some additional biblical truths concerning God's forgiveness of sin.

1. God removes our sins as far as the East is from the West(Ps.103:12)

2. God completely cleanes us from the stain of our sins (Is.1:18)

3. God throws our sins behind his back (Is. 38:17)

4. God remembers our sins no more (Jer.31:34)

5. God treads our sins underfoot (Mic.7:19)

6. God casts our sins into the depths of the sea (Mic.7:19)

7. What God has cleansed you must not call common (Acts 11:9)





Noodle, there is big difference between "worldly sorrow" and hearfelt sorrowful repentance to God for my sin against God. "I'm sorry" is a heart condition of repentance, not merely an "oops, I'm sorry I got caught" sort of thing.

God bless.

Exactly.

The thing about the story is David is supposedly forgiven his multitude of sin... but speaking against the Holy Spirit is unforgivable. Quite ridiculous actually.

Here is my understanding of the "unforgivable sin" which is really only unforgivable as long as you are committing it!

FH...

You missed a few very important points...Bathshebas husband was DEAD.

JJ's husband is not dead.

So right there it loses all legit comparison.

We also see God apparently green lighting polygamy by recognising her as a wife when he already had one as well as presumably the others and we are not even sure about all the concubines..but that pretty much puts him into a rather permanent adulterous situation which we NEVER see addressed or resolved.

The ONLY thing that is addressed is that Bathsheba "belongs" to Uriah and David therefore is guilty of adultery.

What makes this morally confusing and therefore unacceptable to me without further insight or revelation as an example appropriate for resolution to situations like JJs is that we have direct intervention from God rather than just a historical account saying "this happened" which suggests that far from requiring his law to be obeyed or even commented on...he is willing to "bless" the entire situation [which is again adulterous several times over].

It seems David is ONLY required to repent of taking what belonged to Uriah and then murdering him and is NOT required to actually submit to the law which has been established as just and righteous and is in fact used to this very day as a cautionary word from on high with regard to the death penalty.

No, I'm sorry but there are just tooooo many inconsistencies for me to accept that this story represents what you suggest that it does.

Are you serious, MEDC? You are calling the Word of God "ridiculous?"

Are you denying Matthew 12:31,32; Mark 3:28-30: Luke 12:10 ?

Just what is it that you are saying here? What is "quite ridiculous actually" to you?

In case you missed it FH, I explained it in the same post that I do not believe that it is merely speaking against the Holy Spirit.... that it is in fact a belief that Christ was indwelt with a demonic spirit... rather than the Holy Spirit. It is a total rejection of Christ being from God.... and in doing so a person could not be saved with that belief. If the belief changes... then I believe they would be changed.

So, no FH.... I am calling the interpretation ridiculous... just like the interpretation of the story of David and Bathsheba.

and quite honestly FH ... I think Matthew 12:33 is the relevant verse here.

Noodle, I understand your confusion and I really have not "missed a few very important points."

Allow me to try to explain.

Bathsheba WAS "released" from her marriage upon the death of her husband. She, to my understanding, was not complicit in David's plan to have Uriah killed.

So let's give Bathsheba the "benefit of the doubt" at this point.

But the Scripture is equally clear that anyone who marries someone who is single or divorced by reason of their spouse's adultery, needs to be very careful in who they marry so that they are not "unequally yoked" or committing adultery by marrying someone who is not "eligible" for marrying, according to God's standards.

Therefore, all other issues aside for the moment, David was already married and was ineligible for her to marry without committing adultery by marrying him. That meant that in marrying David, Bathsheba was committing adultery and was entering an "adulterous marriage," and in this case, an "affair marriage" too, since David was her OP while Uriah was still alive. Uriah's death may have released Bathsheba from her "lifetime bond" of matrimony, but the "dirty deed" of adultery had already been performed. Even if she had not committed adultery with David prior to Uriah's death, she would still have been "at fault" for marrying an already married man.

If you might "argue" that "multiple wives" was the "norm" in those days, I would respond that it is irrelevant to God's plan and intention for marriage. God created one man and one woman to be each other's helpmeet. God did not create a "harem" or "polygamous" marriage when He established the marriage union of Adam and Eve.

David was wrong, imho, to have more than one wife, and that was yet another of his sins of "lust."

The "issue" is not "marriage," it is adultery. It always has been adultery. Yes, we see a marriage that was begun in adultery as being "ugly" and "distasteful," even if the generally accepted notion in society is that "divorce is no big thing, go ahead and do whatever makes you feel good."

The issue concerning any Sin is whether or not it is forgiven by God, and that is dependent upon our being justified before God and how we receive that justification, not by what we do to earn it.




That is correct. NOTHING we can do can "earn us" God's forgiveness. It is a "heart condition" of true repentance for a sin against God that God looks at. Today, because of what Jesus DID for us, He imputs his "earned righteousness" to us who believe and accept Him as our Lord and Savior, and God declares us "justified" because of faith alone, not by anything that we could do. THAT IS the Gospel Message. That God was reconciling us to Himself through Jesus Christ.

Does it "seem right" to us humans? Perhaps not, but nonetheless that IS the gift of God to unmerited humans who simply put their faith and hope in Jesus Christ. Would we "do it differently" if we were God? Perhaps, but I thank God that He holds us to His standards and not our own.

God bless.

Prior to the New Covenant, the punishment for the crimes committed by David would be death. These were God's laws. So, why wasn't David killed??? Power and privilege??? Not enough witnesses to his crime??? Typical of those in power... even today.
Bathsheba committed no crime... she was victim of her kings wickedness.

Auuugh…

“Therefore, all other issues aside for the moment, David was already married and was ineligible for her to marry without committing adultery by marrying him. That meant that in marrying David, Bathsheba was committing adultery and was entering an "adulterous marriage," and in this case, an "affair marriage" too, since David was her OP while Uriah was still alive. Uriah's death may have released Bathsheba from her "lifetime bond" of matrimony, but the "dirty deed" of adultery had already been performed. Even if she had not committed adultery with David prior to Uriah's death, she would still have been "at fault" for marrying an already married man.”

This is atrocious analysis. It is completely bogus.

First, Bathsheba was blatantly coerced by the ultimate power in the kingdom. She was brought to David by force and the threat of force. If she is guilty of anything it is that she did not kill herself first. But perhaps she was young and silly and scared. At that time, women were expected to die rather than allow themselves to be raped or sexually compromised. It was actually part of Jewish law at the time. Women were legal property. Some extreme orthodox communities still teach this to their (note the possessive) women.

Second, polygamy was completely acceptable under Jewish law. David, as king, could have up to (I think it was) four wives and as many concubines as he wanted. He was not committing adultery prior to his relations with Bathsheba, according to the Law of Moses.

Third, Uriah was murdered by David before they married. He obviously got away with his murder by hire and continued to enjoy the fruits of his crime. However, let's give King David your same benefit of the doubt and assume he divorced one of his other wives before marrying Bathsheba. He needed no reason to divorce one of them. Any husband could divorce any wife for any reason under Jewish law (as Christ said, Moses allowed divorce due to the hardness of their hearts).

There is a lot more to refute here. But I actually have a lot of IRL work to do this week and no time to engage in this. I know I am spitting into the wind anyway.

Your words are like snake oil. They are siren’s songs. Counterfeits, half-truths and lies hidden among truth. Believers should not be listening to you.

This is not marriage building. Enough.

Read again! Yes, the punishment was death. Someone had to die. For today's believers in Jesus, it was Jesus that died for their adultery.

So, who died for the adultery committed by David? Go back and read. There were death(s) because of his adultery. Consequences were enacted upon David.

Aphelion...it is a wonder if someone will actually read what you said here, because of the way you ended your post. Instead of standing up and speaking of what you believe, you end with an attack upon FH.

Anyone with a communications background knows that when this is done, it is meant to shut down the conversation and to try to make whatever anyone else says afterwards irrelevent.

Instead, why dont you just state the facts you know and your opinion and let them stand...or fall?

Does not the law say that the adulterer or murderer would die by stoning??? So we had a "stand in" for David's sin?

MM...

Deuteronomy 22:22 "If a man is found sleeping with another man's wife, both the man who slept with her and the woman must die."

Leviticus 20:10 "If a man commits adultery with another man's wife--with the wife of his neighbor--both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death."


Anything vague about this????

Or this..

Jesus orders Christians to follow the Old Testament's laws: "Do not think that I [Jesus] have come to abolish the Law (the Old Testament) or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke or a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law (the Old Testament) until everything is accomplished. (Matthew 5:17-18)" It is quite clear from these verses from the New Testament that Jesus peace be upon him did honor the Old Testament and did say that every single "letter" of it has to be honored, followed and fulfilled.

"Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: 'The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat. So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach.' (Matthew 23:1-3)"

Not to shut down the current discussion, but only in the interest of getting Jilly to post and be helped where there are less casualties of her doing so, I thought I would provide the link that Pep established for this purpose a while ago...~~~>QUIET CORNER

Peace,

Mrs. W

If an old dumba$$ could interject here,

It has always seemed to me that two things need to happen to be accepted by Jesus again after we sin:

1). we need to repent from our sin.

2). we need to go forth as Jesus has said and "sin no more."

How can we be forgiven and held blameless if we don't comply with BOTH of those components for forgiveness?

IMVHO, JJilly has only complied with the first half of the equation, however, I know I will be 2x4 for even mentioning it.

All Blessings,
Jerry

Jerry, I think you are right on the money.

IMHO -- Jesus fulfilled the law.

I could never live by the letter of the law-- no one can. What an awful way to live-- all that condemnation every time you screwed up. They couldn't do it back then and neither can we. Thank God (literally) He sent his Son to abolish the old law (by taking on all of our stuff) so that we could live by grace should we so choose. But it is a choice.