What's new
By:
Filters
Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

King David didn't commit Adultery

There are different interpretaions of tradition and scripture in Judaism just as there is in Christianity. This is an alternative view presented by some Rabbis.
 
I'm not sure what writings they are citing to justify this concept, but they are not from the Christian Bible that I base my faith and knowledge of God on. They claim David didn't commit adultery because Bathsheba was no longer married to Uriah. Yet the Bible clearly says when David asked who she was, he was told: "...the wife of Uriah the Hittite" (2 Sam 11:3 b) Uriah also considered Bathsheba to still be his wife when he says "...and to lie with my wife" (2 Sam 11:11b) Scripture doesn't give any indication they were divorced.

Then they claim David didn't have Uriah murdered because what he did wasn't murder. They claim he was lawfully carrying out the execution of the death penalty because Uriah disobeyed and order. Yet I see no other record in scripture of any death penalty being carried out by the violator being ordered off into battle to an area where he MIGHT be killed in battle. Death penalties (stonings, crucifixion, etc) were always exact things, carried out in very sure ways, in public, that left no mistake as to there purpose so they would serve as an example to everyone else.

The context of the story in our scripture makes if very clear that David committed adultery with Bathsheba then had Uriah murdered so that when Bathsheba's pregnancy showed, Uriah wouldn't be around to expose that he was not the father. Also, refering to this whole chain of events in verse 27 it says "...But the thing that David had done displeased the LORD". Even David himself said "...I have sinned against the LORD" (1 Sam 12:13a) The fact that God was merciful on David when David confessed his sin in no way means that the sins were never committed in the first place.
 
Obadiah said:
I'm not sure what writings they are citing to justify this concept, but they are not from the Christian Bible that I base my faith and knowledge of God on. They claim David didn't commit adultery because Bathsheba was no longer married to Uriah. Yet the Bible clearly says when David asked who she was, he was told: "...the wife of Uriah the Hittite" (2 Sam 11:3 b) Uriah also considered Bathsheba to still be his wife when he says "...and to lie with my wife" (2 Sam 11:11b) Scripture doesn't give any indication they were divorced. Then they claim David didn't have Uriah murdered because what he did wasn't murder. They claim he was lawfully carrying out the execution of the death penalty because Uriah disobeyed and order. Yet I see no other record in scripture of any death penalty being carried out by the violator being ordered off into battle to an area where he MIGHT be killed in battle. Death penalties (stonings, crucifixion, etc) were always exact things, carried out in very sure ways, in public, that left no mistake as to there purpose so they would serve as an example to everyone else. The context of the story in our scripture makes if very clear that David committed adultery with Bathsheba then had Uriah murdered so that when Bathsheba's pregnancy showed, Uriah wouldn't be around to expose that he was not the father. Also, refering to this whole chain of events in verse 27 it says "...But the thing that David had done displeased the LORD". Even David himself said "...I have sinned against the LORD" (1 Sam 12:13a) The fact that God was merciful on David when David confessed his sin in no way means that the sins were never committed in the first place.
Click to expand...
Thanks. You really read all? Ir made me sick in the stomach and I stopped reading it. Actually I didn't know there are such books
 
Some years ago, in Israel, Shimon Peres happened to mention that King David had been an adulterer and Orthodox Jews got really annoyed with him.

I think his point, not stated in so many words because he wouldn't really go to the New Testament at all, was something like: 'He that is without sin among you, let him cast the first stone' (John 8.7).
 
farouk said:
...I think his point, not stated in so many words because he wouldn't really go to the New Testament at all, was something like: 'He that is without sin among you, let him cast the first stone' (John 8.7).
Click to expand...
Very good point if that is what he was trying to say.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top