• Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.

David and Bathsheba?

For me, I have always take a rather simple view of this because I do think we can hyper analyze stuff like this way too often.

I was disagreeing with a fellow man over whether Joseph was acting properly according to the Torah by wanting to give Mary a certificate of divorce when he learned she was pregnant. He thought not as the penalty for adultery, even if the marriage is only in the betrothal stage and thus not consummated (regardless of what the Mideast above says...), is death.

I pointed out, however, that in terms of Torah judgement, you need two to 3 witnesses. Now, Joseph knew she wasn't pregnant. He also knew he hadn't done it, but he was never, ever, going to find any witnesses that she had been sleeping around.

You will also need someone to bring up the accusation, witnesses beed to be examined, and someone else to judge.

Another interesting case was when the 2 prostitutes/adulteresses came before Solomon for judgement regarding the living versus the dead son. We know their status, but all that was judged was the matter of accusation, the matter to which there were 2 (conflicting, in this case) witnesses. Thus, the only matter judged was that if the child. Their status as prostitutes/adulteresses was not on trial. No one was their bearing witness before the king to that matter... no one was even laying accusation of it.

I highly doubt David and Bathsheba (sure, both witnessed the event in their own right) had a couple of people sitting in on their tryst to bear witness to the actual deed later in court.
Also, did anyone lay a formal charge against either of then, of which any of us are aware?

No. It seems, much like in the incident between Cain and Abel, there were not the witnesses to follow a proper procedure, etc., but the Almighty still chooses to intervene. Besides, Cain and David both received the death penalty... Adam did also. Did it happen that very moment? No, but it did happen. We may not all be struck down in the exact instant we sin... if we were, the world would be empty of humans, but we do eventually die.

Long story short: for my part, I think it is a matter of ancient Israelite jurisprudence.
Heck, even today, we dont see people magically appear in prison the moment after they commit a crime. Some never wind up there and those who do first have to be proven guilty in a court of law. "Everybody knows he did it" kind of arguments are simply not enough to condemn a person in a properly run society.
 
That nicely reconciles the "he didn't get stoned" part with the "but we have a confession" part. Or as the bible has it, the part where David says "I have sinned" and the part where Nathan says "yeah, but you're not gonna die". (The consequences are going to be horrible across the board, but you won't die.)
 
I think you have all missed the key point I was attempting to make! At Exodus 21: 2-6 (particularly verse 4) the point is made that headship supersedes our perception of morality. Christendom on the other hand teaches that their perception of morality out weighs the principle of headship, thus if a man takes a second wife, according to Christendom, he commits adultery, thus the wife has the right to divorce her husband. When we consider scriptures such as Romans 7:2-3 and 1 Corinthians 7:39 a wife is clearly under the headship or law of her husband, whereas Christendom teaches that they are equal as both are answerable to each other as each can divorce the other, which is relevant to the point I was making. It seems that every one has zoomed straight back to the same old arguments and reasoning's that have previously been used, that mask's a scripturally sound concept and allows Christendom to further exert her false teachings, rather than being willing to have an open mind so as to consider the information from a different perspective.
 
I might be completely wrong in my thinking in this matter, what do you think?
Were you sincere here? It's completely possible that we got your point and simply disagree with it.
 
I think you have all missed the key point I was attempting to make!

You use David's crime as a model for a hierarchy between ownership and morality. You cite the specifics of David's punishment to show that God was punishing David for abuse of power and not for committing adultery as proof of this, along with Michal's being given to another man by Saul without punishment.

I think a missing component is that
1) No human can enact justice on the King simply. That is attempted regicide, otherwise known as rebellion, which is a lot like suicide by cop.
2) God promised that the king would enslave his people and make unreasonable demands of them, and that He would not help them even if they cried out for relief.

This was the punishment that He pronounced for them rejecting Him as King. So of course God did not allow any such thing as the people taking David and stoning him.

Now, there is surely some merit to understanding via Exodus that in the case of slavery a slave is utterly without rights. So too are the people without rights in the hands of their king. (See also: Why the USA exists)

Some weaknesses in this point of view that I see are :

The law of Moses =/= Our perception of morality

The Law that says 'Do not commit adultery' is the same Law that says that a servant goes out without his wife. The present fashion of women initiating divorce is simply man's idea. The idea that poly is adultery is simply man's idea.
The Exodus passage does not state anything about our perception of morality. It does show that a slave has no rights to claim other slaves as his own and that it sucks to be a slave. It's very interesting, but doesn't and shouldn't translate anything for non-slave relationships.

Slave Ownership =/= Headship

There may be some overlap, but even though Sarah called Abraham 'lord', she was yet a free woman under Abraham's headship. Her rights and treatment were very different than Hagar, the slave woman.
For us to say that the way a master treats his slave is where we derive our model of marriage morality would be a miss-step in my opinion. We are no longer slaves, but sons, and therefore the sexual ethics of slavery don't translate for us well.


The fact that what you call Christendom has missed the mark on morality between the sexes is something we all agree on. We agree that a woman does not initiate a divorce and we agree (I hope) that men must not divorce and we agree that polygyny is scriptural. But the saying that "Headship supersedes our perception of morality" doesn't add much to that. If by "Our perceptions of morality" you mean "The heresies that are taught" then I can say I agree with that too!

But it's such a weird way to say it. Your examples about how this is modeled includes a couple of men sleeping with other men's wives and men being forced to leave their wife and children with a man who could presumably give them to other people. I seem to be at liberty to make my wife do any number of sexually immoral things as long as Exodus applies to Christian marriages. She's under my headship, is she not? But that's sexually immoral! Is it? Or is your perception of morality trying to supersede my headship?

I'm sure that isn't what you're trying to say at all. But if I actually thought that the principle of headship overrules sexual rules, and that slave ownership and headship had a tight correlation, I'd almost have to be led to the place where I could not rebuke a man for prostituting his wife.
 
Comparing headship to morality is a pretty hard thing I would think. But I would say that the examples described in the OP and their context tend to open up a can of worms about divorce, remarriage, and adultery and the fact that God doesn't necessarily see them the same way that 'Christiandom' sees them.
 
The Law that says 'Do not commit adultery' is the same Law that says that a servant goes out without his wife.
Thus as they are both part of the same "Law" then they must both stand in harmony and within the standards of "morality" that God placed within the Law. The principle of headship carried over into Christianity (Rom 7:2-3 + 1Cor 7:39). The key difference is that Christ is now the ultimate head (King) and he has made his position clear at Mat 19:6 "what God has yoked together let no man put apart". But it should also be remembered that we cannot judge the past, such as the conduct of David and the standards as set out in the law, by the requirements placed upon us by Christ. To do so would be like applying adult law to a child, would it not?
On a personal note may I commend you brother for bothering to respond to some of the points I made. I did not just want you to agree with me but rather assist me to think it through and challenge the line of thinking that I put forward, just as you have done. It is much nicer than just ignoring what has been presented and then calling into question my sincerity as others have done.
Again I appreciate your input
 
It is much nicer than just ignoring what has been presented and then calling into question my sincerity as others have done.
Aussies, your social approval is not relevant here, and it's not an argument. Don't whine about how we're all missing or ignoring your point, and you won't have to worry about who's being 'nice' to you.
 
Aussies, your social approval is not relevant here, and it's not an argument. Don't whine about how we're all missing or ignoring your point, and you won't have to worry about who's being 'nice' to you.
Sorry if my comments were taken as a requirement for my personal social approval, that was never my intent. Again sorry if I came across as "whining", not my intent. As I don't need to worry about who is being "nice" to me, I take it that the same applies to yourself, so I will make my point plainly. My comments were more about your personal lack of manners. Do you personally have a problem with me, Andrew? The reason I ask is that last time we got into a discussion and I pressed the point you decided to tell me that my questions were tiresome and basically told me to leave the site, which I did for around 12 months. I would prefer to at least try to be kind and show manners to others as I believe that it is the Christ like way to conduct ourselves, do you agree or should we all show a hard attitude towards others as you seem to be doing? Respect costs nothing! I don't want this to become personal between you and me, If I have in some way personally offended you , I do apologize it was not my intention, so if you have something scriptural to add that would be great otherwise lets please stop the personal attacks.
 
Yeshua address this in his teachings about divorce and remariage “It was also said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.’ But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery. This would forbid her from marring the man she committed adultery with,

Even the words of Jesus must be keep in context. At the time Jesus spoke the words recorded at Matthew 19:9 the people were still under the law as the blood of Christ had not yet been shed to establish the new covenant. That being the case it is also good to remember that the religious leaders of the time were seeking to put Jesus to death for any reason possible (Matthew 26:4) Thus if Jesus words were understood, at the time, to speak against the standards as set by the law, then they would have used this to accuse Jesus, perhaps citing Deut 13:1-18. This is especially true when we consider the standards of Rome for marriage and divorce, standards that were both political and a matter of worship due to the fact that the god of marriage was Jupiter and the goddess of marriage and women was Juno (the queen of heaven).

I may be wrong but another point to consider is that at Matthew 19: 9 it was the wife’s conduct that was related to fornication but the husbands that was related to adultery (at least in every bible I have consulted).

If Jesus was then understood to have stated that the only reason for divorce was sexual immorality, then once more the religious leaders could have accused Jesus of speaking against the law, as the law said that a man could divorce his wife, or set her free for a variety of reasons, Deut 21:14 Deut 24:1. Ex 21:11. The RS bible puts it this way “if she then finds no favour in his eyes because he has found some indecency in her”. Thus, the comments of Jesus would need to be aligned with that standard. Our bibles now use the term fornication and we now understand that term to mean sexual misconduct but at that time the outcome for sexual misconduct on the part of the wife was stoning. Deut 22; 22-23.

The point is that to be free of accusation from the religious leaders of the time Jesus comments had to be in harmony with the law and could in no way be seen to speak against the law! Even the apostle Paul used this same defence at Acts 24:14 +25:8 + 28:17 and Paul was in harmony with the teachings of Jesus, was he not!

So, when it comes to the term fornication and adultery, what could it also be translated as to allow us to have a clear understanding of what Jesus was saying at that time?

Fornication

Firstly, let’s look at the term fornication. As we consider the following texts I will list the acceptable expressions used in the varying translations where the term fornication has been used by any one translator in their translation. Please feel free to compare as many bibles as you can to gain a clear picture of this expression.

Numbers 14: 33

fornication(s) (NW84 JPG)

faithlessness (JB, LB, RSV, NAB, NLT)

unfaithfulness (GN, NW13, NIV)

whoredoms (KJ, TBS, JND)

sins (CEV)

wanton disloyalty (NE).


This text is not speaking about sexual conduct.


Judges 19: 2


fornication (NW84)

unfaithful (CEV, NW13, NIV, NAB)

a fit of anger (JB, NE)

became angry (GN, LB, RSV, NLT)

played the whore (KJ, TBS, JND)

adultery (JPG)


Again, this text is not speaking about sexual conduct as the concubine simply left her husband and returned to her father’s house.


Ezekiel 6: 9


fornicating heart (NW84)

rebelling (CEV)

their hearts turned wantonly from me (NE)

adulterous hearts (NAB, NIV, LB)

whorish heart (JND, TBS, KJ)

wanton heart (RSV, JB)

unfaithful heart (NLT, NW13)

faithless heart (GN)

adulterous eyes (JB)

eyes that are going in fornication (NW84)

eyes that are lusting/lusted/lustful (NIV, NW13, NAB, NLT)

a-whoring (KJ, TBS, JND JPG)

lecherous hearts (LB).


Once more this text is not speaking about sexual conduct but rather about leaving Jehovah and going after idols or false worship.

So, fornication in these instances is also translated as unfaithful. If a wife was to perform a sexual act with another man, this would indeed be unfaithful and thus a fornication. However, under the law she would then along with her lover, be put to death! What though if she were to leave her husband and not return to him but rather live a life apart from him, as was the case in Judges 19: 2, would this not also be unfaithfulness or fornication? In the latter situation, under the Mosaic Law code she would not be stoned to death, but could this be deemed as “something indecent on her part” thus breaking the marital bond?



Adultery

What about adultery is it just to be understood as a sexual matter or could it also be a matter of unfaithfulness?


Judges 19:2



adultery (JPG)

unfaithful (CEV, NW13, NIV, NAB)

a fit of anger (JB, NE)

became angry (GN, LB, RSV, NLT)

played the whore (KJ, TBS, JND)

fornication (NW84)


Again, this text is not speaking about sexual conduct as the concubine simply left her husband and returned to her father’s house.



Jeremiah 3: 8-9

In this text, we find the use of the terms


unfaithful (CEV, NW13)

adultery (ies) (NW84, JB, NW13, KJ, NIV, REV, TBS, JND, NAB, NE, NLT, JPG)

sin (NAB)

faithless (LB, NE)

committing adultery with stone(s) and trees/wood/stocks (NW84, JB, GN, NW13, KJ, RSV, TBS, JND, NAB, NE)

even prostitution (NW84, NW13, LB, NLT)

whore/whoredom (JB, KJ, TBS, NE, JPG)

prostitute (CEV, GN)

worshiping idols of stone and wood (CEV, LB)

harlot/ry (KJ, RSV, TBS, NAB, NE)

immorality (NIV)

fornication/ed (JND, JPG)


Once more this text is not speaking about sexual conduct but rather about the unfaithfulness of the Israelites in leaving the worship of Jehovah and following other gods, this unfaithfulness or adultery was a matter of apostasy (JPG).



Matthew 12: 39

adulterous (NW84, KI, NW13, KJ, NIV, RSV, TBS, JND, NLT, JPG)

faithless (LB)

evil (CEV, GN)

godless (GN, NE)

unfaithful (JB, NAB)


Yet again this text is not speaking about sexual conduct but rather it speaks about unfaithfulness in worship.



Matthew 16: 4

adulterous (NW84, KI, NW13, KJ, NIV, RSV, TBS, JND, NLT, JPG)

faithless (NAB)

unfaithful (JB)

wicked (NE)

evil (CEV, GN)

unbelieving (LB)


Again, this text is not speaking about sexual conduct.

Mark 8: 38

adulterous (NW84, JB, KI, NW13, KJ, NIV, RSV, TBS, JND, NLT, JPG)

days of unbelief (LB)

unfaithful (CEV)

wicked and godless (GN, NE)

faithless (NAB)


Again, this text is not speaking about sexual conduct.



James 4: 4

adulteresses (JPG, KJ, NIV, NW84, KI, NW13, TBS, JND)

unfaithful (JB, CEV, GN, LB, RSV, NAB, NE)

adulterous (JB)

adulterers (TBS, NLT JPG)


Once more this text is not speaking about sexual conduct but rather simply expresses that even friendship with Gods opponents or enemies is an act of unfaithfulness or adultery against God.

So “adultery” just like “fornication” can also be translated as “unfaithful” without any sexual conduct on the part of the unfaithful one.

The other point made is that if a man marries a divorced woman he commits adultery. Mark 10: 11-12 establishes this point. Once more this needs to be kept in context. The Romans were practicing “serial monogamy” and thus were divorcing faithful wives, wives with no fault on their part, and wives were also doing the same with their husbands. Thus, if Jesus spoke against serial monogamy he spoke in favor of the “Law”. But if Jesus spoke against any divorce of an unfaithful wife (not necessarily sexual unfaithfulness) then again it would be understood that he was speaking against the law and thus would be open to accusation, yet that never happened.

It is our understanding of the morality as set out in scripture that is the issue, rather than the law or even Jesus comments as found at Matthew 19.

To my mind Christendom has attempted to raise the bar and require what they perceive as a higher standard, exclusive monogamy, for both the man and the woman, and equality between the husband and the wife, rather than the headship of the husband in the family unit.

When it comes to the principle of headship, if we understand the terms fornication and adultery in harmony with Christendom then headship is of little importance. Yet texts like Romans 7:2-3 show that headship is very much a part of the Christian faith.

That why I raised the subject of David and Bathsheba. Simply to allow us to examine the possibility that headship may have played a role in the events that took place.

I understand that this challenges a lot of what we have always understood to be correct, but the position of Christendom needs to be challenged.
 
I just wanted to make a quick note that I appreciate the different view you are bringing to this @Aussies (same goes for everyone else) Whether I agree or not I cannot say, I have not had time to ponder it in enough detail. I just wanted to say that different views are good, thanks for posting, don't be discouraged by the fact that others express other viewpoints.

I have nothing useful to contribute tonight but can see that this discussion has the potential to become argumentative for little reason, so thought I'd just jump in, wave a flag saying "Peace", and then go to bed...
 
Even the words of Jesus must be keep in context. At the time Jesus spoke the words recorded at Matthew 19:9 the people were still under the law as the blood of Christ had not yet been shed to establish the new covenant. That being the case it is also good to remember that the religious leaders of the time were seeking to put Jesus to death for any reason possible (Matthew 26:4) Thus if Jesus words were understood, at the time, to speak against the standards as set by the law, then they would have used this to accuse Jesus, perhaps citing Deut 13:1-18. This is especially true when we consider the standards of Rome for marriage and divorce, standards that were both political and a matter of worship due to the fact that the god of marriage was Jupiter and the goddess of marriage and women was Juno (the queen of heaven).

I may be wrong but another point to consider is that at Matthew 19: 9 it was the wife’s conduct that was related to fornication but the husbands that was related to adultery (at least in every bible I have consulted).

If Jesus was then understood to have stated that the only reason for divorce was sexual immorality, then once more the religious leaders could have accused Jesus of speaking against the law, as the law said that a man could divorce his wife, or set her free for a variety of reasons, Deut 21:14 Deut 24:1. Ex 21:11. The RS bible puts it this way “if she then finds no favour in his eyes because he has found some indecency in her”. Thus, the comments of Jesus would need to be aligned with that standard. Our bibles now use the term fornication and we now understand that term to mean sexual misconduct but at that time the outcome for sexual misconduct on the part of the wife was stoning. Deut 22; 22-23.

The point is that to be free of accusation from the religious leaders of the time Jesus comments had to be in harmony with the law and could in no way be seen to speak against the law! Even the apostle Paul used this same defence at Acts 24:14 +25:8 + 28:17 and Paul was in harmony with the teachings of Jesus, was he not!

So, when it comes to the term fornication and adultery, what could it also be translated as to allow us to have a clear understanding of what Jesus was saying at that time?

Fornication

Firstly, let’s look at the term fornication. As we consider the following texts I will list the acceptable expressions used in the varying translations where the term fornication has been used by any one translator in their translation. Please feel free to compare as many bibles as you can to gain a clear picture of this expression.

Numbers 14: 33

fornication(s) (NW84 JPG)

faithlessness (JB, LB, RSV, NAB, NLT)

unfaithfulness (GN, NW13, NIV)

whoredoms (KJ, TBS, JND)

sins (CEV)

wanton disloyalty (NE).


This text is not speaking about sexual conduct.


Judges 19: 2


fornication (NW84)

unfaithful (CEV, NW13, NIV, NAB)

a fit of anger (JB, NE)

became angry (GN, LB, RSV, NLT)

played the whore (KJ, TBS, JND)

adultery (JPG)


Again, this text is not speaking about sexual conduct as the concubine simply left her husband and returned to her father’s house.


Ezekiel 6: 9


fornicating heart (NW84)

rebelling (CEV)

their hearts turned wantonly from me (NE)

adulterous hearts (NAB, NIV, LB)

whorish heart (JND, TBS, KJ)

wanton heart (RSV, JB)

unfaithful heart (NLT, NW13)

faithless heart (GN)

adulterous eyes (JB)

eyes that are going in fornication (NW84)

eyes that are lusting/lusted/lustful (NIV, NW13, NAB, NLT)

a-whoring (KJ, TBS, JND JPG)

lecherous hearts (LB).


Once more this text is not speaking about sexual conduct but rather about leaving Jehovah and going after idols or false worship.

So, fornication in these instances is also translated as unfaithful. If a wife was to perform a sexual act with another man, this would indeed be unfaithful and thus a fornication. However, under the law she would then along with her lover, be put to death! What though if she were to leave her husband and not return to him but rather live a life apart from him, as was the case in Judges 19: 2, would this not also be unfaithfulness or fornication? In the latter situation, under the Mosaic Law code she would not be stoned to death, but could this be deemed as “something indecent on her part” thus breaking the marital bond?



Adultery

What about adultery is it just to be understood as a sexual matter or could it also be a matter of unfaithfulness?


Judges 19:2



adultery (JPG)

unfaithful (CEV, NW13, NIV, NAB)

a fit of anger (JB, NE)

became angry (GN, LB, RSV, NLT)

played the whore (KJ, TBS, JND)

fornication (NW84)


Again, this text is not speaking about sexual conduct as the concubine simply left her husband and returned to her father’s house.



Jeremiah 3: 8-9

In this text, we find the use of the terms


unfaithful (CEV, NW13)

adultery (ies) (NW84, JB, NW13, KJ, NIV, REV, TBS, JND, NAB, NE, NLT, JPG)

sin (NAB)

faithless (LB, NE)

committing adultery with stone(s) and trees/wood/stocks (NW84, JB, GN, NW13, KJ, RSV, TBS, JND, NAB, NE)

even prostitution (NW84, NW13, LB, NLT)

whore/whoredom (JB, KJ, TBS, NE, JPG)

prostitute (CEV, GN)

worshiping idols of stone and wood (CEV, LB)

harlot/ry (KJ, RSV, TBS, NAB, NE)

immorality (NIV)

fornication/ed (JND, JPG)


Once more this text is not speaking about sexual conduct but rather about the unfaithfulness of the Israelites in leaving the worship of Jehovah and following other gods, this unfaithfulness or adultery was a matter of apostasy (JPG).



Matthew 12: 39

adulterous (NW84, KI, NW13, KJ, NIV, RSV, TBS, JND, NLT, JPG)

faithless (LB)

evil (CEV, GN)

godless (GN, NE)

unfaithful (JB, NAB)


Yet again this text is not speaking about sexual conduct but rather it speaks about unfaithfulness in worship.



Matthew 16: 4

adulterous (NW84, KI, NW13, KJ, NIV, RSV, TBS, JND, NLT, JPG)

faithless (NAB)

unfaithful (JB)

wicked (NE)

evil (CEV, GN)

unbelieving (LB)


Again, this text is not speaking about sexual conduct.

Mark 8: 38

adulterous (NW84, JB, KI, NW13, KJ, NIV, RSV, TBS, JND, NLT, JPG)

days of unbelief (LB)

unfaithful (CEV)

wicked and godless (GN, NE)

faithless (NAB)


Again, this text is not speaking about sexual conduct.



James 4: 4

adulteresses (JPG, KJ, NIV, NW84, KI, NW13, TBS, JND)

unfaithful (JB, CEV, GN, LB, RSV, NAB, NE)

adulterous (JB)

adulterers (TBS, NLT JPG)


Once more this text is not speaking about sexual conduct but rather simply expresses that even friendship with Gods opponents or enemies is an act of unfaithfulness or adultery against God.

So “adultery” just like “fornication” can also be translated as “unfaithful” without any sexual conduct on the part of the unfaithful one.

The other point made is that if a man marries a divorced woman he commits adultery. Mark 10: 11-12 establishes this point. Once more this needs to be kept in context. The Romans were practicing “serial monogamy” and thus were divorcing faithful wives, wives with no fault on their part, and wives were also doing the same with their husbands. Thus, if Jesus spoke against serial monogamy he spoke in favor of the “Law”. But if Jesus spoke against any divorce of an unfaithful wife (not necessarily sexual unfaithfulness) then again it would be understood that he was speaking against the law and thus would be open to accusation, yet that never happened.

It is our understanding of the morality as set out in scripture that is the issue, rather than the law or even Jesus comments as found at Matthew 19.

To my mind Christendom has attempted to raise the bar and require what they perceive as a higher standard, exclusive monogamy, for both the man and the woman, and equality between the husband and the wife, rather than the headship of the husband in the family unit.

When it comes to the principle of headship, if we understand the terms fornication and adultery in harmony with Christendom then headship is of little importance. Yet texts like Romans 7:2-3 show that headship is very much a part of the Christian faith.

That why I raised the subject of David and Bathsheba. Simply to allow us to examine the possibility that headship may have played a role in the events that took place.

I understand that this challenges a lot of what we have always understood to be correct, but the position of Christendom needs to be challenged.

I too question the current Christian views about divorce, remarriage and adultery.
 
I think you have all missed the key point I was attempting to make! At Exodus 21: 2-6 (particularly verse 4) the point is made that headship supersedes our perception of morality.

That sounds dangerous. Like you are arguing that some are above the law.

Christendom on the other hand teaches that their perception of morality out weighs the principle of headship, thus if a man takes a second wife, according to Christendom, he commits adultery, thus the wife has the right to divorce her husband.

Christendom errors greatly because they do not read the book. There is no Biblical justification for a woman getting a divorce.

When we consider scriptures such as Romans 7:2-3 and 1 Corinthians 7:39 a wife is clearly under the headship or law of her husband, whereas Christendom teaches that they are equal as both are answerable to each other as each can divorce the other,

See above comment about Christendom.

...which is relevant to the point I was making. It seems that every one has zoomed straight back to the same old arguments and reasoning's that have previously been used, that mask's a scripturally sound concept and allows Christendom to further exert her false teachings, rather than being willing to have an open mind so as to consider the information from a different perspective.

I do not think it is neccessary for one to believe that headship supersedes morality in a general sense to refute Christendom's false teachings. They are clearly false on their own merits.

If you are saying that God can have mercy on whomever he wants to have mercy then I am with you 100%. We sin against God and he can forgive whomever he wants at his own pleasure. That is just the way it is. This would explain both the story of David and the story of Jesus and the woman caught in adultery.
 
Last edited:
Does it say anywhere in scripture that David “committed adultery” or that “Bathsheba was an adulterous”? Does scripture ever lay blame on Bathsheba for bathing in public? If it does, I haven’t been able to find it.
 
I can Appresiate you opinion about Mathew 19:9.

I hold the opinion that Yeshua is speaking both on the physical and spiritual adultery simataniously.

I've come to the personal understanding that physical Adultery equals Polyandry, and oath breaking, idolatry, and apostasy are spiritual Adultery.

I may be wrong but another point to consider is that at Matthew 19: 9 it was the wife’s conduct that was related to fornication but the husbands that was related to adultery (at least in every bible I have consulted).
Can a married woman fornicate with out committing adultery?

The biblical definition of Adultery is when a married woman has sex with someone other than her husband.

I have a large collection of bibles from the many translations aswell. I've found its better when I stick to the one source. When I would point out all the different translations to make my point I came off condescending. That never got me anywhere.
 
Thank you one and all for your comments. To my thinking, even if we agree or disagree does not matter, at least we have all given thought to the matter
Does it say anywhere in scripture that David “committed adultery” or that “Bathsheba was an adulterous”? Does scripture ever lay blame on Bathsheba for bathing in public? If it does, I haven’t been able to find it.
I have found the same to be true in my searching of the scriptures.
I have nothing useful to contribute tonight but can see that this discussion has the potential to become argumentative for little reason, so thought I'd just jump in, wave a flag saying "Peace", and then go to bed...
Thank you, your advise is good and appreciated
 
Does scripture ever lay blame on Bathsheba for bathing in public?
Scripture never says she was bathing in public.

Houses in the area were generally designed with several rooms around a central courtyard. The courtyard was walled off from the street, so was basically the central living room, it just didn't have a roof - remembering they're in the middle east so most days it's not raining. Cooking, bathing, and other such activities occurred in the courtyard, which was considered private. However, David was standing up on the roof of the palace, which was probably one of the highest points in the city and possibly the only place from which you could see down into that courtyard.

Basically, the modern equivalent would be peeking through the window of her bathroom. She thinks she's private, but she's not...
 
Does scripture ever lay blame on Bathsheba for bathing in public? If it does, I haven’t been able to find it.

Just a side note, Bathsheba was not bathing publicly as such. Custom had it that the women within the environs of the Jerusalem would ceremonially bathe in the mikvahs in the Women’s court @ the Temple at the conclusion of their menses.

2 Sam 11:2-4
And it came to pass in an eveningtide, † that David arose from off his bed, and walked upon the roof of the king’s house: and from the roof he saw a woman washing herself; and the woman was very beautiful to look upon.
And David sent and inquired after the woman. And one said, Is not this Bathsheba, the daughter of Eliam, the wife of Uriah the Hittite?
And David sent messengers, and took her; and she came in unto him, and he lay with her; for she was purified from her uncleanness: and she returned unto her house.

Somehow, from his palace, David could see into the women’s court in the Temple. This is also alluded to in Josephus’ Antiq. Of the Jews as in the days of Herod, the Northern wall was raised a substantial height to keep Herod from being able to see into the Temple.
 
Back
Top