What about David and Bathsheba?
Clearly a relationship born out of adultery. Yet God chose Bathsheba to be in the linage of Christ. Not only was David not in his first marriage, he was still married to the other wives! David practiced polygamy. God never condoned having multiple wives yet God allowed it and clearly blessed it at times.
Do you believe Polygamy ok with Jesus as well? We have to remember, yes, Jesus did come from David and Bathsheba’s lineage, but David and Bathsheba suffered TERRIBLY for their sin……..David most of all. The rest of his life was filled with sadness and loss due to his sin. I wouldn’t exactly call them “blessed”………except that the Lord came from that line.
I asked several times for people to consider Jesus’ “lenient” attitude to David eating the forbidden bread, even though David broke the law to do so – not one anti-remarriage person has responded to that, as far as I can see.
Speaking of David. He was a polygamist. He committed adultery. He didn’t divorce, but he didn’t need to, he was the king and had whoever he wanted. So in the case of polygamy, was David in sin from his second marriage on? So should he have had to divorce all his wives from his second on to get right with God? Are you saying that David didn’t get right with God? Or which wife was his “flesh and blood” wife, the one he is married to in God’s eyes? Only Saul’s daughter who bore him no children?
There were many things the Lord “tolerated” in the OT that He no longer tolerates, just as there are things now where Grace is extended where there was DEATH in the OT. The example of the coming Grace of Christ was shown in David and the showbread situation………yes, there was a “rule/command” concerning who could eat this, yet Grace was extended for extenuating circumstances. David did not break a moral law though, he broke a ceremonial law. Very different. Jesus showed this same type of thing when He healed on the Sabbath. He did a GOOD thing. Trying to justify staying or entering into a biblically sinful relationship, I don’t believe falls under the “good thing” category of things we see done in scripture where disobedience can be justified.
As for polygamy, it was tolerated by God, not ordained by Him in OT times. In NT times, Jesus brought marriage back to the creation intent……one woman/one man—joined BY GOD, for life. Since God is the one who joins a marriage into “one flesh”, only God has the power to dissolve this union on His terms, not ours. He chooses to do so through death.
Adultery in the OT was punishable by death. In the NT Jesus extended the ability to ‘repent’. Hosea and Gomer’s marriage was an example of the Grace which was coming through Christ—–the Lord’s longsuffering and love even in our sin.
Shouldn’t he have let Bathsheba go? Shouldn’t he have set her up for life as far as finances are concerned but not be her husband?
Maybe that would have been right. However, what we do know for sure is that Bathsheba was no longer married after Uriah was killed. She was no longer bound. Now whether David should have taken her or not, that is the question. We do know that David suffered greatly for his sin—the adultery and the cover up by making sure Uriah was killed in battle.
How about the basis of this marriage? Can it get anymore nasty and yet this union was considered valid. It was crooked but valid! What did David do? He repented (Psalm 51).
Ah, and there is the crux of it all………..it was a horrible union, but it was valid in the sight of God. Bathsheba was not committing adultery and neither was David in their marriage. However, those who decide to divorce and marry today are not in the same boat as David—-as declared by Jesus Himself—they committed adultery.
Such a situation would more likely be like the man of Malachi 2—–a man who puts away his covenant wife and marries another. Notice that the Lord REJECTS his tears and continues to call the first wife—the wife of the covenant.
<sarcasm>Right. It’s much better to murder than to divorce. After all, a murderer can marry again whereas a divorcee is condemned to a lifetime of singleness.
Sarcasm aside, let’s focus on Bathsheba. Bathsheba was guilty of adultery, true, though who knows if a woman could say no to the king in those days. In any case, she was not responsible at all for Uriah’s death. When Uriah died, was Bathsheba free from the bond of marriage——in other words, able to marry again without sin?
Concerning David and Bathsheba: it must be noted that although their relationship started in sin—-as do many covenant marriages (fornication), David did not marry Bathsheba while her husband was living (as many are doing today). He took her to wife AFTER her husband died (Rom. 7:2-3, I Cor. 7:39). In the eyes of God, she was FREE to become another man’s wife. Bathesheba and David were not “LIVING” in a state of adultery. Death had broken the bonds of marriage between Uriah and Bathsheba. However, the repercussions of Uriah’s murder followed David for the rest of his life. It is interesting to note that in the genealogy of Jesus, when Bathsheba is listed, she is listed as the one who was married to Uriah.
Bathsheba was free to marry whomsoever she wished.
Thank you. And the fact that she did so AFTER, not before, her husband died, shows that the bond was broken with Uriah and she was free to marry. There is no evidence to the contrary that God does NOT join those who are freed through the death of their spouse—– when they choose to marry another who is free to marry (in OT times, men had multiple wives). The ethics of doing so is another thing, but scripture does not address this.
So I can go out there and murder a woman and marry her husband and it’s fine because we’re not commiting adultery! That marriage is fine and completely valid both to you and the Lord. Surely you jest!!!
If someone did do that, I can be pretty sure that they do NOT have the Lord living within them then……….I would fear for such a person’s eternal destination. See the thing is that David NEVER premeditated killing Uriah BECAUSE he wanted Bathsheba. His murder was to cover up a previous crime. He would have gladly given back Bathsheba to her husband and her husband be none the wiser.
I am quite sure you have forgiven many in your Christian walk but you will not involve yourself in an intimate relationship with them again (this is non-physical) because you have judged them as being purely toxic.
No one else is my “one flesh”. When the Lord looks upon me, He sees my husband. When He looks upon my husband, He sees me. We are ONE……..as is every couple that the Lord has joined together. When the Lord looks upon a covenant spouse with a third party——He sees sin……..sin against His covenant(adultery) and sin against the covenant spouse(s).
If the second spouse has been conned and realizes this person is really terrible, that is something they have to deal with but the issue was invalidating a marriage.
That’s why a third party should never come between a covenant marriage. For one, the Lord forbids it and calls it adultery(if one is even of the mind to care what the Lord says on the matter)……..for another, one just never knows what they are getting involved in. If a person can cheat on their covenant spouse with the third party, are they REALLY trustworthy?
You are correct that Michal was his “lawful” wife and that was because David never gave up Michal in divorce. When he went away, her father, Saul, gave her to Palti, which was wrong and not legal for him to do. This is the reason Palti had to give up Michal. He was legally in the wrong for having her as his wife and could do nothing because Michal had no writ of divorcement. You are badly in error because you refuse to study the history of these things. Another reason the writ was important, that in addition to declaring the right of remarriage, was because it forbade the husband from coming back at any time and reclaiming his put away wife, taking her from her second husband. There would be many reasons a man might do this, one of which would be greed. It was stressed that the wife could never return to her former husband with an eye to men not divorcing rashly. If you can understand that once you do this, it is finished, the hope is that you may reconsider your actions. It is wholly wrong to teach that returning to the former spouse after a 2nd marriage is commendable to God. That is completely unscriptural and the passage in Deut makes that statement boldly.
Yes, I agree that David never gave her a writ of divorcement, but she did enter into another marriage (took vows). See, this is where it is very interesting. Many today say a piece of paper that Jesus even said He didn’t acknowledge, dissolves a marriage joined by Him. Some say, “well, ok, maybe the divorce doesn’t dissolve the marriage, but new vows (adultery) dissolve the first marriage”. The interesting thing that we see in the case of Michal and David is that new vows(adultery) do not supersede the original marriage covenant, and though she was defiled by another man, David took her back. If Jesus does not acknowledge a divorce as dissolving the covenant, it doesn’t matter that people take vows with someone else. In God’s eyes they do not belong to the new spouse………….they are in covenant with the first AND with God.
King David knew what he was doing was sin and he did it anyway. He repented, and he was forgiven by God. So, are some of you trying to tell us that in God’s eyes the marriage between David and Bathsheba was “holy” because Uriah (Bathsheb’s former husband) was dead at the hands of David – the very man who committed adultery with her? David and Bathsheba didn’t get a divorce did they? No, in fact they had another child together and were blessed by God. The mercy, love and forgiveness of God is amazing.
This has been discussed countless times on this thread, (name deleted). BIBLICALLY Bathsheba was free to marry again. Her next marriage was not adultery. Should David have married her after having her husband killed? That really is the moral question here, not whether their marriage was binding in the eyes of God. The thing is that one CAN repent of murder and not be a murderer any longer, but repenting of adultery means forsaking the adulterous relationship. Very different. One cannot keep on murdering and claim to be a repentant murderer any more than a person can keep committing adultery (having unlawful relations with one the Lord says is not one’s spouse) and claim to be a repentant adulterer/adulteress.
I’m amazed at the message some are trying to give people. God forgives all of his children for any sin we committ, as long as we repent. David killed Bathsheba’s husband so he could have her. God forgave him of lust, adultry and murder. If God could forgive David of murdering Uriah because of his lust & adultery, people are telling me that God won’t forgive someone who has divorced and remarried? Or that the only way He will forgive them is if they divorce their new spouse and remarry their first?
Again, you are operating under the assumption that sorrow and confession of a sin changes the nature of that sin/relationship into a lawful one. If a married homosexual confesses his sin, he does not then go back INTO that sinful marriage—–he departs from it in true repentance. The same exact thing applies to an adulterous marriage. Whether one returns to one’s covenant spouse or not is not the issue here. The issue is to forsake adultery (sin) and be restored to fellowship with the Lord.
The point I was trying to make here is that the LAW is not ALWAYS the LAW to God. God allowed David to live even though David’s sin of murder and adultery was punishable by death. Bathsheba also should’ve died for committing adultery, but God spared her as well. Why did He do that? It was all part of God’s plan. Was it wrong of God to make an exception to the Law? Of course not because God is Justice! God can choose to change the Law at any point in time. So, how can anyone say that anytime anyone who divorces and remarries is living in sin? How do you know for sure that God doesn’t make exceptions in some cases? He made an exception with David and Bathsheba and He did many other times that are recorded in the Bible. Perhaps the recording of those exceptions in the Bible should mean something to us as well?
We are not talking the same things here. You are speaking of God withholding his judgement AGAINST sin, not that He changes the nature of sin. See, there is nowhere in the OT account that David and Bathsheba’s marriage was adulterous. We can see by the NT passages on the nature of marriage that earthly marriage ends at the death of one of the spouses—-freeing the other to marry again, in the Lord.
God in the OT in David’s case, did nothing different than Jesus did in the NT passage in which He told the adulterous woman to “go and sin no more”…………according to God’s PENALTIES for sin, she deserved to die (as did the man who was NOT brought with her). Jesus showed her mercy instead, yet CALLED HER TO FORSAKE her adultery(sin). He did not accept the state she was presently in and give her the go ahead to continue it. He called her from it……….giving her LIFE, to do so.
In the same way, God gave David LIFE—to turn around……….Not to keep going on the sin path he was on. God called Him to repent of his sin. David, being a man who deeply loved God, did repent. Unfortunately, though his life was spared by God, he did suffer the repercussions of his sin—-his child died and his household was divided and full of violence—til the day he died.
As for God making exceptions for some to be able to stay in adulterous marriages: That teaching sounds strangely familiar to me. Pastor John Piper and some others I know of teach that. Brother Piper teaches adamantly that marriage IS for life—-not as many teach(that it SHOULD be for life, but because of sin, it’s not, etc, etc), but that covenant marriage really IS lifelong—-in God’s sight.
He teaches that NO allowance is given for one to divorce and then remarry—not even for adultery. He teaches that the marriage bond endures until the death of one of the spouses………..yet, he also teaches that those who do enter into non-covenant marriages(those who commit adultery) should STAY in those adulterous marriages. Personally, I don’t get it. You can’t teach BOTH things and be believeable. Either the marriage bond (between covenant marriage partners) really does endure til death (even in the face of adultery and a divorce) or it does not. It can’t work both ways. To me, such a teaching is akin to polygamy. He is teaching that while the covenant marriage will endure til one of the spouses die, it is quite ok to have another spouse before that time—-and because of God’s grace one should stay in what the Lord Himself calls adultery. I don’t see that as biblical—-at all. God’s grace can never be explained as allowing a couple to remain in an adulterous, homosexual, or fornicating relationship. If it can be used for that, we have absolutely no right to call ANYONE from their sin—-we can just apply the Grace of God and tell them they can continue to commit what the Lord has called sin—and they will be AOK with the Lord. To me, that is quite a scary thing to teach in regards to the Grace of God—especially in light of what Jesus said in Mt. 7:21-24……….and that He clearly states, “if you love me, obey me”. Staying in adultery does not appear to me to be obedience concerning the forsaking of sin.
You do realize don’t you that Rahab the harlot is listed in Jesus’ earthly genealogy.
Of course, and I don’t see any issue with that. ALL are sinners in the sight of the Lord……..He doesn’t want those of us who follow Him though to remain in our sin.
as well as Solomon who was a product of adultery.
Solomon was not the product of adultery. The baby born of David/Bathsheba’s adultery died. Bathsheba was not committing adultery with David after Uriah passed away in regards to their other children.
It seems as if the Lord wouldn’t/couldn’t/didn’t even keep His own heritage as “spotless” as you tend to see it now.
Not sure where you got that from my writings, (Name Deleted). I don’t believe that the Lord can’t/doesn’t use “tainted” people for His purposes. None of us are perfect. As a matter of fact, some of us who had VERY tainted lives before being saved can be used greatly for His kingdom. It is also a fact that there are some “prophets/healers/apostles” that are NOT of God, who say they are(Mt. 7:21-24), but the Lord uses them IN SPITE OF THEMSELVES.
In other words He worked His purpose in spite of human frailty. No way, in your eyes, that David could be a man after God’s heart, a phrase the Lord Himself coined. Upon Nathan pointing out his adultery with Bathsheba, David repents (Ps. 51), yet he does not leave or divorce Bathsheba.
Exactly. However, David DID repent………..he did not remain in sin. That is a very big difference. David did not need to leave Bathsheba because her husband was dead—he was not living in a state of adultery with another man’s wife. People talking of David’s right in keeping Bathsheba never seem to want to discuss Bathsheba. Was SHE in adultery by being married to David? No, her husband was dead. She was free to be married. David taking Bathsheba to wife can be questioned ethically, but the fact that she was free to marry cannot be questioned. If we really want to discuss further instances, we can bring up Abigal. David had her husband killed too and then he took her to wife, but people never focus on that one for some strange reason. Personally, I believe in both cases that David took them to wife because HE was responsible for them—-because he had taken away their husbands. Blessings………
Michal’s marriage was not legit because David had not divorced her. No matter what her father did, she was not free to remarry without a divorce. If he had divorced her, her marriage would have been fine and David would not have been able to just come back and take her without having to deal with Palti, her official and legit husband. I do agree that he had the right to go back and take what was still his – no divorce had taken place.
The very same principle Jesus taught is what we see with David taking back Michal. If a marriage is not dissolved, then even if one marries another, the original CAN take back what is theirs—-why? Because a remarriage does NOT nullify the original marriage and such a one is merely taking back what rightfully belongs to them. Notice the heartbreak of the second, but Michal still went with her first—because he WAS her lawful husband. So now, we go back to Jesus’ teachings: He says (not me) that AFTER a divorce, those who marry again, as well as those who marry the divorced, commit adultery. Why is it adultery? Because the divorce did NOT dissolve what God put together……….and those who join themselves in second marriages are joining themselves with people who do not belong to them………..just as Michal did not belong to Palti, though she entered into marriage with him.
First lets establish that they were supposed to be living according the the Laws we find in Scripture (OT). Simply put, if David had divorced Michal, according to the law, she was free to remarry whomever she chose (Duet 24). That divorce writ would have dissolved the first union. A subsequent remarriage would have solidified that no reconciliation was going to take place between these two because, again, according to the Law, the wife, if divorced a second time, was prohibited from returning to the first husband (Duet 24). David would not have been able to claim her.
Yes, according to the LAW, divorce allowed for a remarriage to take place. Now, let’s fast forward to Jesus’ teachings on MDR. HE said, whosoever divorces and marries another commits adultery and whosoever marries one divorced, commits adultery. Jesus taught that divorce DOES NOT entitle one to remarry—-according to HIS law.
So, are you living by OT “law” or by Jesus’ law, the law He said that would never pass away Lk. 16:16-18, the law which prohibits one for marrying another after divorcing the one God joined them to?
Palti did himself a disservice in the same way that some women today will maintain a make-believe relationship with a permanently separated but not divorced man.
No, the disservice comes when someone CHOSES to take what does not belong to them because they “got that piece of paper”—-the piece of paper that Jesus said did not dissolve what He joined together. You are right Pick up, many are playing make-believe with someone else’s spouse because they joined themself with a divorced man/woman.
At the end of the day, the legal wife has all the rights and can come in upon death and claim everything and rightfully so.
The “legal” wife, according to civil law may not be in fact, the LAWFUL wife in God’s eyes……….even civilly many times, the LONGTIME wife is the one who can “claim” assets, social security, retirement benefits, etc. In any case, it really matters not who the civil authorities recognize as a spouse, it only matters who God looks upon as wife/husband.
Palti should have never taken her to be his “wife” without first establishing if a lawful divorce had taken place. He lost her but that’s his fault because he didn’t follow the law.
Yes, and more and more people who are entering into illicit marriages are finding themselves the loser because they joined themself to a divorced person and the divorced person may desire to return “home”—to their lawful wife/husband and children. Following Jesus’ law on divorce/remarriage could have spared much emotional upset for all involved.
The relationship between Michal and Palti was adulterous but since her father was the King, no punishment there. But keep in mind, it was, according to the law, adulterous because she was not divorced. That’s what was written – the Law.
I do find it very interesting that you keep going back to OT law to justify what Jesus rebuked and annulled, while ignoring what He taught concerning the lack of power a divorce holds in a marriage joined by God.
One of the difficulties with the view that some marriages are not binding is that the few scriptures that we have that refer to a 2nd marriage (like Duet. 24), don’t seem to call into question the legitimacy of those marriages. You have made an assumption that the marriage covenant is “invalid” based on the fact that it was entered into in sin, but I can not find any scripture that supports this claim.
I gave you an example: David and Michal. She married again and David took her back. Did he sin? I will give you another example: Mal. 2:14-17. AFTER the man had put away his wife and married another, who does the Lord call “the wife of the covenant”? Does God speak in the past tense or the present tense? If God accepts verbal repentance as true repentance, why does He reject the man at the altar?
In the NT, since we certainly see that there is a big diff from what is spoken in Deut. 24 regarding marriage after a divorce, can you find ANYWHERE where a second marriage(where one has a living spouse) is shown to be “blessed” and not sinful?
Yes, David was wrong i.e. sinning when he took back Michal. He was clearly under the OT Law, and clearly subject to the requirements of Duet. 24.
David didn’t divorce his wife…………….she actually was committing bigamy by joining herself with another husband. David took her back because she was HIS wife, irregardless that she had taken another husband. The point in bringing that situation out is this: in the OT it “appears” that divorce gave allowance for remarriage to take place……….maybe it was a form of polygamy, etc…….I don’t know. All I do know is that in the NT, Jesus gives no such allowance. He clearly shows that divorce does NOT dissolve what He has joined together, hence the new relationship is adultery.
Please agree or disagree with these statements (yes or no)
1. David and Michal were married
2. Only a divorce ended the marital contract and freed the woman to marry again (OT).
3. David and Michal were never divorced because David did not put her away and issue a Get.
4. Michal’s relationship with Palti was not a “valid” marriage because a Get had not been issued. She could have been charged with committing adultery since she was still married to David and was with Palti.
5. David had every right to reclaim his “wife” because she never ceased to be so since a Get had not been issued to her. If you can agree with all these statements above, then in my opinion, this particular passage does not, in any way apply to this thread. There was no divorce so there was no issue of a Remarriage after Divorce here.
Back in the OT, if a woman was divorced, there appears to be no prohibition to her marrying again. In the NT, Jesus said AFTER a divorce, the parties commit adultery if they marry others. So, in essence NT remarriages are EXACTLY like the situation with David/Michal—–exactly. Jesus does not acknowledge a divorce as dissolving the original marriage, therefore the new “marriage” is null and void, just as Michal’s second marriage was null and void. Her 2nd marriage did not nullify her first.
As you can see in the response from (name deleted), we are in agreement with what was written in Scripture. Your argument has no place here. In my response I dealt with the OT account of David, Michal and Palti and the laws found in the OT that would have been applicable to this case. Therefore, trying to use this passage as a support for your doctrine is wrong.
Once again, this account has nothing to do with divorce because David did not divorce her. If you can find a Scripture where that has occurred, please post it.
Second, the account has nothing to do with Remarriage after Divorce. This is simple logic. If there was no divorce how can you use this passage to even discuss remarriage after divorce? Makes no sense.
It has everything to do with a remarriage and whether it is lawful or not. Michal and Palti’s marriage was not valid—because her previous marriage was not “dissolved”. So goes today’s marriages that take place after a divorce. Jesus says that those who divorce and then marry another commit adultery (because the original marriage is not dissolved by a divorce). He also says that whosoever marries a divorced person commits adultery (because that divorced person is not free to marry another—-they still belong to the original spouse).
It is absolutely NO different. Either an original marriage is dissolved allowing the parties to be joined with others, or it is not, and the second union is invalid—-in God’s sight.
This account does not have anything to do with this argument because it took place under OT law and accordingly, the reason the marriage wasn’t dissolved was because a divorce had not been issued and that is what rendered her “marriage” to Palti invalid. If David had divorced her, he could not have come back and claimed her as his own because she would have been the legal “property” of Palti. Bought and paid for.
The question any simple(meaning a non-scholar) person can ask and find the biblical answer to is this: In God’s sight—-was/is the first marriage dissolved?
The answer to that question is all one needs to know in order to ascertain the validity of a second union. In Michal’s case, her marriage to David was not dissolved, therefore he took her back—-her second marriage was not valid. In the NT. teaching on divorce, Jesus says it is adultery to remarry after a divorce (and that can only be because the first marriage was/is NOT dissolved—in His sight).
If David had divorced her, would he have had the right, under OT law, to come back and reclaim her once she married Palti?
Yes or No
It appears not because scripture appears to allow her to marry another. However, just as in the New Testament, when a marriage is not dissolved in the sight of God, the original marriage partner CAN reclaim what is rightfully theirs. Why? Because the second union is adultery, not a valid marriage………..as was the case with Palti and Michal.
You mentioned David… well, he committed a lot of sin and God didn’t approve of any of it, but he was still a man after God’s own heart. Amazing grace!! God forgave him and forgot his sins as far as the east is from the west.
David accepted God’s punishments because he knew he transgressed the Lord that he loved. He continually kept coming back to the Lord and His will for David. He did not try to get around what God said, He acknowledged the Truth of what God said and though he sinned, he always came back to the Lord—-he did not stay in his sin and try to justify it—-ever.
It was not a sin for David to take back Michal, he never divorced her.
Of course he didn’t. Her second “marriage” was not valid, hence he COULD take back his wife, though she had entered into another covenant with a different man. And so it is with what Jesus said about divorce/remarriage in the New Testament. Because a divorce does not dissolve the union God joined together, the first is still intact. It is NOT sin to forsake the adulterous union and return to the union God joined together.