Psychological Questions about People in the Bible

[Giuliano]

David was guilty of adultery and murder. Scripture is clear. (2 Sam. 12:5-9)

Stranger

That leaves it unexplained then why David said his sin was against God alone.

The effect was the same but David did not kill Uriah using a sword. And it was Uriah's ex-wife he had sex with. The words murder and adultery are not used.

Nathan's criticism is more about David's not behaving a king anointed by God should have.

1:13 And David said unto Nathan, I have sinned against the Lord. And Nathan said unto David, The Lord also hath put away thy sin; thou shalt not die.

He should have had Uriah put on trial for blasphemy. Instead David wanted to hush the matter up, so he had Uriah put in the front line at a battle. Why blasphemy? For swearing by the life of the king, and since God had picked David as king, Uriah was guilty of blasphemy and should have been tried in a court of law. David perverted justice.

11:11 And Uriah said unto David, The ark, and Israel, and Judah, abide in tents; and my lord Joab, and the servants of my lord, are encamped in the open fields; shall I then go into mine house, to eat and to drink, and to lie with my wife? as thou livest, and as thy soul liveth, I will not do this thing.

 

[brakelite]

That leaves it unexplained then why David said his sin was against God alone.

The effect was the same but David did not kill Uriah using a sword. And it was Uriah's ex-wife he had sex with. The words murder and adultery are not used.

Nathan's criticism is more about David's not behaving a king anointed by God should have.

1:13 And David said unto Nathan, I have sinned against the Lord. And Nathan said unto David, The Lord also hath put away thy sin; thou shalt not die.

He should have had Uriah put on trial for blasphemy. Instead David wanted to hush the matter up, so he had Uriah put in the front line at a battle. Why blasphemy? For swearing by the life of the king, and since God had picked David as king, Uriah was guilty of blasphemy and should have been tried in a court of law. David perverted justice.

11:11 And Uriah said unto David, The ark, and Israel, and Judah, abide in tents; and my lord Joab, and the servants of my lord, are encamped in the open fields; shall I then go into mine house, to eat and to drink, and to lie with my wife? as thou livest, and as thy soul liveth, I will not do this thing.

But she was, as Uriah said, his wife. I don't think we ought to be condemning Uriah for his faithfulness and dedication to his comrades in battle in his refusal to go home. Saying that so long as David lived he would not do such a thing is hardly blasphemy.

 

[Giuliano]

But she was, as Uriah said, his wife. I don't think we ought to be condemning Uriah for his faithfulness and dedication to his comrades in battle in his refusal to go home. Saying that so long as David lived he would not do such a thing is hardly blasphemy.

The word translated as "wife" is somewhat ambiguous in Hebrew. It means "woman." It usually does mean "lawfully wed" but it doesn't necessarily. The original intention behind men divorcing their wives was so they could remarry if they got lost in battle. They were divorced in legal terms although their intention was to rewed them again.

The problem lies in the "letter" and the "spirit" of the law. David technically was not guilty by the letter. He erred.

Uriah swore by David's life, meaning he'd rather see him dead before he'd do it. That was a threat. To swear by his soul was perhaps even worse. The Jews consider it blasphemy. I've discussed the Jewish concept of blasphemy with a prominent rabbi. I lost track of him now; but he used to post on an interfaith forum. He was on the Sanhedrin for a while. I don't know if he still is or not.

 

[DNB]

Perhaps, but I know for sure the Bible nowhere says David committed adultery.
I have a knack about that -- remembering what the Bible actually says and giving that more importance than my conjectures.
He did sin, but it wasn't adultery or murder.
The Jews don't teach he committed adultery because the Bible doesn't say that, so they can explain Psalm 51.
What you may not know is that men divorced their wives when they went to war.
I think I know when I am speculating. .

1. David did not commit adultery?
2. David did not commit murder?
3. Men divorced their wives before going to war?
4. Lot's daughter were convinced that they and their father, were the only surviving humans on earth?

You absolutely scare me! You're beyond off-your-rocker!
The Bible should be taken away from you! Seriously!
I absolutely give up!
Please, someone else tells this guy that he's off-his-rocker....!

 

[Giuliano]

1. David did not commit adultery?
2. David did not commit murder?

The Bible doesn't call it adultery or murder; and David said his sin was against God alone.

3. Men divorced their wives before going to war?

The Sanhedrin said they should so their wives could remarry in case their husbands were killed but their bodies never recovered. Compassion was behind that ruling so widows wouldn't be consigned to living single the rest of their lives and perhaps poor.

4. Lot's daughter were convinced that they and their father, were the only surviving humans on earth?

So they said although your Bible changed it by adding some words that aren't in the original Hebrew.

You absolutely scare me! You're beyond off-your-rocker!
The Bible should be taken away from you! Seriously!
I absolutely give up!
Please, someone else tells this guy that he's off-his-rocker....!

I don't mind if you wander off. I see you've also been busy giving other people a hard time over whether their dreams and visions were from God or not. I was surprised some of them didn't put you on ignore. You seem to enjoy annoying people. In your own world, maybe you're the "only one" who isn't daft.

Go ahead, call me crazy for not using words the Bible doesn't use. I've had far worse things said about me.

 

[Giuliano]

For the record, those conditional divorces are still discussed in Judaism. Today though, they usually specify that if the man doesn't return safe within a certain time, the woman can consider herself divorced.

Conditional Divorce | My Jewish Learning

A conditional get (bill of divorce) may be granted by a husband who will be facing mortal danger, as in the case of war. The get is delivered conditionally, so that it will take effect only if the husband does not return in a specified period of time. If the husband becomes missing in action, then the wife is saved from becoming an agunah, a woman abandoned without a get who cannot remarry. . . .

In an article entitled “The Aguna in Halacha,” Rabbi Jeremy Rosen writes that the rabbis devoted significant space to conditional divorce; he writes that “in an era of slavery, banditry, and kidnapping, one had to be sure a husband would not return before allowing a wife to remarry.” The Talmud also records a tradition that at the time of King David, his soldiers wrote conditional gets before they went to war in case they did not return.

Conditional gets have been used throughout history to spare the wife. In medieval times a trader about to set out on a long journey would write a conditional get for his wife. In 19th-century Europe, particularly in Russia, rabbinic leaders took pains to convince the Jewish soldiers to grant a conditional get to their wives, especially on the eve of Russo-Japanese war. During World War II some rabbis encouraged soldiers going to war to write a conditional get. Even in the early days of the state of Israel, the rabbis encouraged soldiers going to war to write their wives a conditional get.

 

[ScottA]

Ever wonder why people did some things in the Bible? I have my own opinion about how Abraham handled the situation with Lot; but I'd be interested in hearing what others think. Feel free to ask questions about other people too. My question about Abraham comes from this passage:

Genesis 13: 5 And Lot also, which went with Abram, had flocks, and herds, and tents.
6 And the land was not able to bear them, that they might dwell together: for their substance was great, so that they could not dwell together.
7 And there was a strife between the herdmen of Abram's cattle and the herdmen of Lot's cattle: and the Canaanite and the Perizzite dwelled then in the land.
8 And Abram said unto Lot, Let there be no strife, I pray thee, between me and thee, and between my herdmen and thy herdmen; for we be brethren.
9 Is not the whole land before thee? separate thyself, I pray thee, from me: if thou wilt take the left hand, then I will go to the right; or if thou depart to the right hand, then I will go to the left.

At first glance you might suppose that they couldn't have an arrangement where they lived close to each other while their herds were further apart. Is that true? Apparently not since Lot wound up living in the city of Sodom. What sort of farmer lives in the city? That tells me he did fine living in the city while his herds and flocks were in the plain of Jordan. So why couldn't he have lived with Abraham while his herds and flocks were in the plain of Jordan?

So my question is why didn't Abraham suggest a different solution? It almost seems as if he knew it would be better if he and Lot parted ways. It is fairly clear, isn't it, that it was Lot's herdmen who started the fights and Lot didn't order them to stop? So what was it about Lot that made Abraham suggest parting ways?

Would you tell one of your closest relatives, "Sorry we can't live close to each other because we're too rich." You might -- but what kind of relative would you say that to?

I doesn't seem strange or psychological to me, but rather practical.

For instance, if a father had a big ranch and wanted to give each of his children a thousand acres, they wouldn't all take the same thousand acres, but would each take a different thousand. So, with Abram and Lot, the horizon was completely open to them...but they would have to separate. To each their own.

 

[Giuliano]

I doesn't seem strange or psychological to me, but rather practical.

For instance, if a father had a big ranch and wanted to give each of his children a thousand acres, they wouldn't all take the same thousand acres, but would each take a different thousand. So, with Abram and Lot, the horizon was completely open to them...but they would have to separate. To each their own.

I think it was practical of Abraham to suggest it.

Yet Lot eventually winds up living in the city. That tells me he either stopped raising livestock or he no longer felt he had to live that close to it.

Those were dangerous times too. Security seemed to be lax in Sodom. Did they think their riches would protect them? Abraham winds up rescuing them. Also Lot's servants didn't mind starting fights when he lived with Abraham; but later he seemed not to have people around to protect the angels.

Sometimes I wonder if nations today are like that, thinking they can neglect national security because they're so rich.

 

[Stranger]

That leaves it unexplained then why David said his sin was against God alone.

The effect was the same but David did not kill Uriah using a sword. And it was Uriah's ex-wife he had sex with. The words murder and adultery are not used.

Nathan's criticism is more about David's not behaving a king anointed by God should have.

1:13 And David said unto Nathan, I have sinned against the Lord. And Nathan said unto David, The Lord also hath put away thy sin; thou shalt not die.

He should have had Uriah put on trial for blasphemy. Instead David wanted to hush the matter up, so he had Uriah put in the front line at a battle. Why blasphemy? For swearing by the life of the king, and since God had picked David as king, Uriah was guilty of blasphemy and should have been tried in a court of law. David perverted justice.

11:11 And Uriah said unto David, The ark, and Israel, and Judah, abide in tents; and my lord Joab, and the servants of my lord, are encamped in the open fields; shall I then go into mine house, to eat and to drink, and to lie with my wife? as thou livest, and as thy soul liveth, I will not do this thing.

It is not unexplained. All sin is against God, and God alone. That doesn't mean David was not guilty of adultery and murder. As I said, Scripture is clear. (2 Sam. 12:5-9).

You can dream up all you want about Bathsheba being the 'ex-wife'. Just so much BS. Scripture is clear, and Scripture doesn't say anything of what you are trying to peddle.

Stranger

 

[Jay Ross]

Hello

Abraham was dysfunctional because he did not always believe that God would give him a son.
Isaac was dysfunctional because after he and his father went up to the mountain so that Abraham could sacrifice Isaac as requested by God, Isaac never returned home to live with Abraham.
Isaac was also dysfunctional in that he loved one son more than the other because he liked to dine on wild game which only the older twin provided.
Jacob was dysfunctional because he chose Rachel over Leah because Leah had weak eyes like his father. When Rachel died in childbirth he was so distraught that he did not also helps his wives to deal with their grief when Rachel died, which lead to Reuben then lying with Bihah, who was probably only around 10 years older than Reuben.

I am sure that there are other such examples in the scriptures.

Shalom

 

[Giuliano]

It is not unexplained. All sin is against God, and God alone. That doesn't mean David was not guilty of adultery and murder. As I said, Scripture is clear. (2 Sam. 12:5-9).

You can dream up all you want about Bathsheba being the 'ex-wife'. Just so much BS. Scripture is clear, and Scripture doesn't say anything of what you are trying to peddle.

Stranger

I gave the history for divorcing wives when going to war. You needn't believe it, of course.

On the first matter:

Matthew 18:21 Then came Peter to him, and said, Lord, how oft shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? till seven times?
22 Jesus saith unto him, I say not unto thee, Until seven times: but, Until seventy times seven.

Why would we need to forgive anyone if he hadn't sinned against us?

 

[Stranger]

I gave the history for divorcing wives when going to war. You needn't believe it, of course.

On the first matter:

Matthew 18:21 Then came Peter to him, and said, Lord, how oft shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? till seven times?
22 Jesus saith unto him, I say not unto thee, Until seven times: but, Until seventy times seven.

Why would we need to forgive anyone if he hadn't sinned against us?

Of course I don't believe it. It is not Scriptural.

Again, no matter what sin you do, whether it is against another person, or directly against God, it is sin against God. All sin is against God. Which is why David said, "Against thee, thee only, have I sinned....."

Stranger

 

[Giuliano]

Of course I don't believe it. It is not Scriptural.

Neither are the words "adultery" and "murder" Scriptural when talking about David and Bathsheba.

Again, no matter what sin you do, whether it is against another person, or directly against God, it is sin against God. All sin is against God. Which is why David said, "Against thee, thee only, have I sinned....."

Stranger

While I would say it is impossible to sin against another person without also sinning against God -- that is not what David said. He said his only sin was against God.

 

[Heart2Soul]

Ever wonder why people did some things in the Bible? I have my own opinion about how Abraham handled the situation with Lot; but I'd be interested in hearing what others think. Feel free to ask questions about other people too. My question about Abraham comes from this passage:

Genesis 13: 5 And Lot also, which went with Abram, had flocks, and herds, and tents.
6 And the land was not able to bear them, that they might dwell together: for their substance was great, so that they could not dwell together.
7 And there was a strife between the herdmen of Abram's cattle and the herdmen of Lot's cattle: and the Canaanite and the Perizzite dwelled then in the land.
8 And Abram said unto Lot, Let there be no strife, I pray thee, between me and thee, and between my herdmen and thy herdmen; for we be brethren.
9 Is not the whole land before thee? separate thyself, I pray thee, from me: if thou wilt take the left hand, then I will go to the right; or if thou depart to the right hand, then I will go to the left.

At first glance you might suppose that they couldn't have an arrangement where they lived close to each other while their herds were further apart. Is that true? Apparently not since Lot wound up living in the city of Sodom. What sort of farmer lives in the city? That tells me he did fine living in the city while his herds and flocks were in the plain of Jordan. So why couldn't he have lived with Abraham while his herds and flocks were in the plain of Jordan?

So my question is why didn't Abraham suggest a different solution? It almost seems as if he knew it would be better if he and Lot parted ways. It is fairly clear, isn't it, that it was Lot's herdmen who started the fights and Lot didn't order them to stop? So what was it about Lot that made Abraham suggest parting ways?

Would you tell one of your closest relatives, "Sorry we can't live close to each other because we're too rich." You might -- but what kind of relative would you say that to?

Many times in scripture God calls His people "peculiar "....now I don't know what that means in Hebrew but in today's language it kind of indicates "outside the norm"....
I love the Wisdom of God in how he uses the least likely to be His best witnesses.

 

[Heart2Soul]

Neither are the words "adultery" and "murder" Scriptural when talking about David and Bathsheba.


While I would say it is impossible to sin against another person without also sinning against God -- that is not what David said. He said his only sin was against God.

I think David committed adultery in his heart...he desired another man's wife and even had him killed so he could have her....that was premeditated....he saw his sin against God because it violated the 10 commandments God gave us.

 

[stunnedbygrace]

Guiliano, I'm trying to grasp what you are saying but I'm having trouble with it.

Why was God upset with what David had done? Like, specifically what did he do that it says God was upset with?

 

[Giuliano]

Guiliano, I'm trying to grasp what you are saying but I'm having trouble with it.

Why was God upset with what David had done? Like, specifically what did he do that it says God was upset with?

I think the difference between the "letter of the law" and the "spirit of the law" may be involved. David may have kept the letter but failed in the spirit.

Let me start with a rabbinical story. We may think David spotted her bathing -- using his physical eyes. The rabbinical story says he saw her in a vision. He knew that none of his present wives would bear the child meant to rule after him; and he was curious who would. I don't know if you could call it black magic to want to know something God hasn't revealed to you yet; but it's said that Satan turned up and showed him Bathsheba bathing in a vision and he fell in love with her at once. David was actually supposed to marry Bathsheba, but later. She was also supposed to be the mother of Solomon, but later. He was destined to fall in love with her; but his mistake was rushing things by trying to divine the future. The temptation overwhelmed him. I know this may sound improbable at first; but should we think Bathsheba was bathing naked outdoors where David could see her from his roof? Do we have such a low opinion of her? I don't.

He then excused his behavior by saying he wasn't really committing adultery since Uriah had given her a provisional divorce. While that is technically true, it goes against the spirit of the law since Uriah and Bathsheba intended to remarry. Then later David started to worry about what would happen if Bathsheba was pregnant, so he hatched up a scheme to get Uriah to bed her. Uriah refused and cursed him. At that point, David should have turned the case over to the courts; Uriah would have been convicted and executed if he had done that. However, David was embarrassed and wanted to hush it up, so he hatched another scheme to get Uriah dead. That was a sin against God, since he was responsible for maintaining law and order, a responsibility given to him by God. It wasn't the death of Uriah so much as it was how David went about it since Uriah deserved the death penalty; but David took justice into his own hands to benefit himself. He was not being a good shepherd in the job God had given him and Nathan's message was about that.

One lesson I draw from it is that I should not try to excuse my behavior by saying, "it's not a sin" or "it's not against the law" when I have malice or iffy motives in my heart. One of the worst things I can remember doing in this life was telling the truth about something. My intention was evil. Thank goodness, no great harm came of it; indeed I think some good came of it eventually, but I still cannot excuse my wish to do damage by "telling the truth" when I could have just kept quiet.

Another lesson I draw is to curb my curiosity. It might be better if there are some things I don't know. I might be tempted beyond what I can bear if I persist and Satan shows up to satisfy my curiosity. One thing can lead to another.

 

[stunnedbygrace]

Hmm..
Okay.

 

[stunnedbygrace]

I think David committed adultery in his heart...he desired another man's wife and even had him killed so he could have her....that was premeditated....he saw his sin against God because it violated the 10 commandments God gave us.

I agree with your way of seeing it.

It always starts in the heart and proceeds outward.

But when I see what Guiliano takes away from it for himself, I can't argue. As often happens with giuliano, he sees it much differently than i do, but he ends in a good and wise place for his own heart. Its puzzling to me for sure, but i find i can't really argue with his end result...

 

[Giuliano]

Hmm..
Okay.

You don't sound convinced. Humans have a way of mixing good and evil together. Laban did. Laban could say nice things to people with malice in his heart. Thus his words were sugar but had a poisonous intent.

Genesis 31:24 And God came to Laban the Syrian in a dream by night, and said unto him, Take heed that thou speak not to Jacob either good or bad.