I really like that take on the story.They have a deep need to see these people as very good.
Christians on the other hand are focussed on grace.
Though I decry the tendency for many Christians to become just as imbalanced in their grace-focus.
I really like that take on the story.They have a deep need to see these people as very good.
Christians on the other hand are focussed on grace.
Which gets us back to Isaac and how old he was. But this is a thread on adultery, so maybe not the best place for that.I agree that there is a bit of a parallel.
The Law had been broken and the penalty was death. YHWH chose to substitute the child, coming (for me) uncomfortably close to child sacrifice to appease the gods.
I'm not going to die on this hill, but I do think it's an interesting parallel to the propitiation of Christ. I won't write a book or sermon on it, but if Abraham and Isaac have their moment of foreshadow, I would think David and his son could too. It's all the more plausible given the association of Messiah with King David (meshiach ben David). There are bigger fish to fry, so no biggie.
Interesting, when I misunderstood your statement it was interesting (and something I hadn't considered) and now that you've clarified it, ....Not at all, I am saying that He took the child’s life, but in a way that did not cause it to feel the brunt of the punishment.
I don’t see this as a child suffering for the sins of the father.
there was a lot more going on in that thread brother...I think there is a completely different approach to ancestors in Christianity and Judaism, and this illustrates it.
Judaism is focussed on legal perfection. As a result, Jews naturally feel that their ancestors must have been chosen by God because they were exceptionally perfect. Based on this presupposition, they then go to great lengths to explain away the negative aspects of their ancestors lives to show how they were, contrary to what it may seem on the surface, as near-perfect as plausible. Here David's descendents attempt to justify his actions, but that's no different from how all Jews will go to similar lengths to defend Jacob from any criticism (a debate we have had here before!). They have a deep need to see these people as very good.
I realize you probably know this brother, but I have to respond to this for others reading who may not understand.Christians on the other hand are focussed on grace. We are quite happy to look at anyone in the past, whether related to us or not, and say "they might have screwed up but God loved them anyway and chose to use them regardless".
I think this is a helpful difference to bear in mind. It makes no sense to me why someone would see a need to go to great lengths to figure out a set of circumstances that show David or anyone else as being less sinful than the account reads at first glance, because his sinfulness or lack thereof makes no difference to my appreciation of him or my understanding of God. It's simply an interesting coffee-table discussion topic. But to a Jew it is foundational and can evoke deep emotions. It all comes back to our understanding of grace.
I understand your reasoning here and pondered it for quite some time. Then I realised:As one who has been critical of this position, I have found myself as of late questioning if it may be actually correct more and more especially with David's words in the psalm "against you alone have I sinned..." quite a claim to make if he murdered someone and had sexy time with the guy's wife.
Good point.I have difficulty with this just for the simple fact that the child was conceived through a violation of God’s law.
Oh I answered this question when I first presented the midrash about Uriah being a sinner earlier in this thread.I was speaking in generalities rather than specifics. I understand the intricacies of our former discussion and don't want to rehash that, and understand that Judaism is not purely works-focussed and ignorant of grace just as Christianity is not purely grace-focussed and ignorant of works. However, there is a general difference in overall focus, that causes emphasis and passion in different areas. I don't want to have that debate again, but did find this an interesting parallel. I could say more to clarify myself but this does have the potential to derail the thread so I won't go further down that track.
I understand your reasoning here and pondered it for quite some time. Then I realised:
If David did not sin against Uriah, and everything that he did was acceptable and within the law, then how did he sin against God either?
if you read my link above earlier in this thead these questions are answered up there.Either he broke the law and committed sin against both people and God, or he obeyed the law and sinned against neither. So how does it make sense that he claims to have sinned only against God?
Yes this is a point I also raised up above in the thread; it's a weakness to the Jewish perspective but it doesn't explain away the other issues; hence my not buying into it fully.Remember too that it was not only Uriah who died in this incident. Uriah was murdered by David ordering a foolhardy attack that resulted in the deaths of a number of men, including Uriah. Even if we find a way to say that Uriah was guilty of something and deserving of death, that cannot excuse David from the deaths of the other men who were killed in order to ensure Uriah's death. Unless every person who died just happened to also be deserving of the death penalty for some reason, which seems unlikely and is never hinted at in scripture, then David still caused the deaths of multiple innocent people in order to cover up his relationship with Bathsheba. None of the explanations proposed so far explain away all the deaths David caused in this incident.
I'm currently leading towards the letter of the law vs. spirit of the law take on it.@IshChayil, are you leaning towards thinking David was not an adulterer based on TNK, Talmud, any other rabbinic traditions, spirit leading, all or none? Just curious.
I was wondering if that was going to come up....I personally, think the strongest argument against this Jewish perspective is the story Nathan tells David about the guy with a single lamb he loves, etc... It's kind of hard to get around that point as it seems clear what G-d is angry about.