Adulterers stoned?

[steve]

They have a deep need to see these people as very good.

Christians on the other hand are focussed on grace.

I really like that take on the story.

Though I decry the tendency for many Christians to become just as imbalanced in their grace-focus.

 

[Mojo]

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.

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.

 

[Asforme&myhouse]

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.

I have difficulty with this just for the simple fact that the child was conceived through a violation of God’s law.

 

[IshChayil]

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.

Interesting, when I misunderstood your statement it was interesting (and something I hadn't considered) and now that you've clarified it, ....
it's interesting and something I hadn't considered.

 

[IshChayil]

ב"ה​

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.

there was a lot more going on in that thread brother...
not 'any criticism' , one issue in that particular discussion was public slandering of Jacob (labeling him a "liar" or "deceiver" and even suggesting his name had such a meaning!); elevation of Esau & Laban as more righteous than Jacob, and lauding of a known historical antisemites in church history.
Certainly it wasn't an issue of "any criticism against a Jewish ancestor"; that's not fair and it diminishes any lesson folks should have learned from that exchange. (not your intent I'm sure brother)

As it is, the church's hands were stained with blood of Jews (see Dr.Brown's book "Our Hands Are STained With Blood" $6 on Kindle) so "Jacob-bashing" doesn't get a pass and neither does hero-worship when those heroes are antisemites/murderers.

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 realize you probably know this brother, but I have to respond to this for others reading who may not understand.
For the most part, Judaism is not a works righteousness religion (and Messianic Judaism certainly is not); while there are occasional teachers who go down that road, every Yom Kippur people are crying and depending on G-d's mercy. The greatest rabbi other than Yeshua, (Akiva) is credited for being so great because he had mastered making "teshuvah" (repentence to G-d and man).

This is not me correcting Sam as I suspect he knows this, I just see how the concept may be filtered by readers as I so often see it in churches so I'd like to get that fake Judaism removed from peoples' minds. Traditional Judaism relies heavily on the mercy of G-d and the "offering of prayers" and recitation of psalms as worship (preferably tearfully gemara teaches). There are some, R"Yosef Mizrachi, for instance, who do give the impression of gaining points for mitzvot so I can see how someone could have that impression.

Hope that makes sense

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 appreciate the spirit of what you are writing brother... I've always thought the great lengths to excuse David from the gravity of the sin was kind of tap dancing.
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.
@Kevin mentioned there are opinions in the talmud that it was only the descendants of David who bought into the whole "it wasn't really adultery" position; be that as it may it is certainly the commonly held position today among Jews that David did not commit adultery. I'm not there yet but I find myself drifting closer that way.

I hope anyone involved in that thread last year will not take offense to my attempt here to "correct the record". I personally have no problem with any of you brothers or sisters calling out a perceived sin of a patriarch; you are not walking on eggshells here. I only don't like labeling one of the big 3 "a liar" "a deceiver" etc. There's no biblical justification for it, and it may be a 5th commandment violation depending on how one views being grafted in to Israel.

Please don't feel I'm singling you out, there were just a lot of voices in that thread and I don't want someone mis-remembering things.
The walk of Teshuvah (repentance) is perfected when we are presented with a similar circumstance yet this time we pass the test.
I hope this message will be received by all in the way it is intended. shalom

 

[FollowingHim]

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.

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.

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?

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?

I think it is more likely that he is speaking in terms of God's ultimate ownership of Bathsheba, Uriah, and the other men in the army who died needlessly in the attack that Uriah was killed in. Yes, what he did harmed people, but ultimately it was a sin against God. Murder is not intrinsically wrong - it is wrong because God says it is wrong. It is wrong to harm others in any way only because God says so. All of what he did was ultimately a sin against God, and that is far more important than anything he did against people.

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.

 

[Mojo]

I have difficulty with this just for the simple fact that the child was conceived through a violation of God’s law.

Good point.
But most analogies can't be taken too far before they lose their effectiveness. That goes for much of scriptural analogies.

 

[IshChayil]

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?

Oh I answered this question when I first presented the midrash about Uriah being a sinner earlier in this thread.
So according to tradition, David's sin was not publicly executing Uriah; instead he did it in a round about way because he was worried that people would not think the execution was just. The rationalization is that the closer one is to G-d the more severe the chastisement (see Moses not entering promised land for hitting a rock).
I'm not defending this position just sharing it.

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?

if you read my link above earlier in this thead these questions are answered up there.
In short no murder and no adultery and only disobeying instituting death penalty publicly = sin against G-d alone. (not saying I agree with that, just presenting the case)

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.

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.

As @Kevin pointed out, Uriah did very clearly disobey the king which was a death sentence back then. So technically: perhaps no adultery (letter of the law only if we believe the talmudic record), and no murder of Uriah (if we believe the midrash), however there may be manslaughter claims for the other soldiers involved in the incident but tehcnially again, that would be on Yoav. David did not command that many soldiers go do a stupid attack, he only commanded that Yoav be sure Uriah gets sent to the most dangerous assignment not that Yoav invent a dumb attack and throw other soldiers' lives.
I'd like to see if there is a midrash concerning the other soldiers if they were enemies of Yoav haha. Regarding Yoav's track record with Avner and Avshalom later I wouldn't be surprised if it was indeed his design. David even instructed Solomon to kill Yoav after David's own death; he says it's because of Avner but it certainly could have been cumulative.

********* edit ****************
one more thought. 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. I'm interested if anyone has a way to support the Jewish perspective (explain this story in a way to support it).

 

[Mojo]

@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.

 

[IshChayil]

@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'm currently leading towards the letter of the law vs. spirit of the law take on it.
I don't believe the midrash about Uriah being evil, tying the not on Goliath's sword etc. but I do find the argument from talmud I shared from Ketuboth logical and convincing.
Taken in view of Nathan's story-time rebuke however, I have to think his punishment is for violating the law in spirit.
I've been aware of the talmudic teaching for a great many years and still have not swayed form the plain reading of the Nathan confrontation; still there's that psalm...
I think I am truly undecided; none of the theories cleanly answers it all for me.
Though the psalm is quite striking...

 

[andrew]

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.

I was wondering if that was going to come up....