King Saul was told: "Jehovah hath sought for Himself a man according to His own heart, and Jehovah chargeth him for leader over His people, for thou hast not kept that which Jehovah commanded thee'" (1 Samuel 13:14, YLT).
King David was that person according to God's own heart. Additionally, he served YHWH (Jehovah) with a complete heart, one that was fully devoted to him. Yet if David was this kind of person, we may wonder how he could commit adultery with Bathsheba, hide the indiscretion, then have Uriah killed. How could a person so highly favored by God and devoted to him commit such unspeakable acts?
David clearly dropped his guard: he erred and acted detestably toward the Law of Jehovah (2 Samuel 12:9-10). Maybe he relied too much on himself or became confident in his own strength (compare 1 Corinthians 10:12). Whatever happened, the king was humble, penitent--yes, genuinely sorry for his errors when Jehovah's prophet brought it to his attention (2 Samuel 12:13). God looked beyond what David did, took into account his repentance, and reckoned David as righteous despite these sins. That divine forgiveness undoubtedly felt like water to one traveling in a parched desert (Acts 3:19). How this account emphasizes the richness of God's mercy and extent of his loyal love.
23 comments:
👏🏿👏🏿👏🏿👏🏿👏🏿👏🏿
I like to equate David and Westcott and Hort in a way (I'm sure you are aware of that controversy) Did some bad things, but still a reliable source of information when it comes to God.
David being prophesy for Jesus, Jehovah would be bond to see some sort of "Jesus" in him.
Another interesting thing is what is said in Acts where this "idiom" is used in parralel to "Obey what Jehovah has commanded you"(1 Samuel 13:14)
(Acts 13:22)
“. . .he will do all the things I desire. . .” (NWT)
I believe something similar is said somewhere else
In logic, they talk about ad hominem fallacies where one fixates on the character/circumstances of a person rather than the person's argument. I guess these people attacking Westcott and Hort forget to address their work instead of what they supposedly did outside of studying biblical texts.
If so-called believers only listened to people without sin, they would not be listening to any human. As you said, W & H accomplished a number of important things: they couldn't get everything right because certain discoveries had not been made yet plus textual criticism yields probable (not certain) results.
Nice point about Acts 13:22. Overall, David was faithful and did God's will. His heart was usually complete but he slipped now and again.
Not one person who posts on this site could ever be trusted to be objective regarding David (except me, of course). David had a male lover. For David it was okay? Jesus also had a male lover (Lazarus). Also okay for a holy man? Religion is not consistent in any way, shape or form.
Sorry, but I disagree on both counts. David and Jonathan were good friends who deeply loved one another in a godly way, not sexually. There is zero evidence to demonstrate that David had a sexual relationship with Jonathan. The Mosaic Law strongly forbid such relationship and I see no ambiguity in the Law on this matter at all.
Secondly, Jesus was without sin. Having a man as one's friend--even a close friend--is not the same as having a sexual relationship with him. Again, where is the evidence that the Lord Jesus did anything of this sort? Catholicism, ancient Judaism and the early church fathers all condemned any such relationships.
From the Sibylline Oracles
SO 2.73: "Do not practice homosexuality, do not betray information, do not murder."
1 Peter 2:21-23 and Hebrews 4:15-16; 7:27-28 say that Jesus was sinless. He always did the Father's will.
I'm sorry, Foster, I thought we were discussing the gospels, who DO NOT AGREE.
Let's please stick with the thread or I see no need to discuss the matter further. To answer a question I've been asked, if the Kingdom Hall is a place of worship and dedicated to the most high God, how do you think we should act in it? How were the ancient Israelites supposed to behave in Jehovah's temple?
Within religion, all that is required is to have a hero act a certain way and, voila, you have a precedent that establishes respectability. Have you not been paying attention?
No, the thread is about King David and what we can learn from his slip with Bathsheba. And I think the Gospels do not militate against anything I've said. Jesus and Lazarus were friends just like it said Martha and Mary were Jesus' friends. There is nothing sexual there and even the Gospels teach us that Jesus is a holy man, one who did not commit sin.
Did you not read the account about David closely? He suffered the rest of his life for what he did with Bathsheba. No man is above God's law whether we're talking about adultery, murder or homosexuality or whoremongering.
Sorry, but it's 1 am EST and I'm going to bed now.
I think wounded ego is taking the words at their face value - Greek has about 8 words to describe love (and its broad range), the one used of Jesus loving Lazarus is also used of Martha and her sister (all 3 in the accusative)
Did Jesus have sexual relations with them as well? surely not.
While I haven't looked it up, I'm fairly certain the same word is used of David and Johnathan (going by memory) - Wounded ego, you should look at Barclays commentary on the words for love and what they mean, they have an extensive range as to the possible meanings, you would have a hard time proving your position purely based on grammar alone, let alone anything else.
A simple Google search also shows you to be wrong:
"The word rendered "loved" here is different from that in John 11:3. There the word signifies the love of tender affection; here the word, means the love of chosen friendship. (Comp. John 20:2; John 21:15 et seq.) The difference here is not to be explained, as it frequently has been, by the difference in the persons who were the objects of the love; but by the difference of the persons whose words we read. In the language of the sisters, whose hearts are moved by the brother's illness, the word of fullest emotion is natural. In the language of the Evangelist the other word is no less so."
As Edgar stated they were also under the mosaic law, The bible would not lie and say Jesus is sinless but then go on to imply he was in a relationship that was forbidden by the jewish law (himself being a jew aswell)
The word in John 11:3 has a primary meaning of "be a friend to"
So if on Wednesday evening, at the pot luck dinner, we should not be disturbed if the priest/pastor and the acolyte/youth/music minister make it their practice cuddle at the dinner table? Just normal brotherly love?
One website makes this point about David and Jonathan. You can apply this point to your question:
Another factor to consider: The Law of Moses condemned homosexuality in no uncertain terms (Leviticus 18:22; 20:13). Indeed, it was a death-penalty offense. But if God readily condemned David for his violation of another Mosaic law pertaining to sexual contact, specifically, adultery (2 Samuel 11), why would He not have condemned David for homosexual contact as well? In fact, since Jonathan was married, he would have been “cheating” on his wife with David. Do homosexuals today who are in a “committed” relationship consider their partner as committing adultery if he has an “affair” with another man? To ask is to answer.
John is trying to tell us something:
[Jhn 13:23 NASB95] [23] There was reclining on Jesus' bosom one of His disciples, whom Jesus loved.
[Jhn 20:2 NASB95] [2] So she ran and came to Simon Peter and to the other disciple whom Jesus loved, and said to them, "They have taken away the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid Him."
[Jhn 21:7, 20 NASB95] [7] Therefore that disciple whom Jesus loved said to Peter, "It is the Lord." So when Simon Peter heard that it was the Lord, he put his outer garment on (for he was stripped [for work]), and threw himself into the sea. ... [20] Peter, turning around, saw the disciple whom Jesus loved following [them;] the one who also had leaned back on His bosom at the supper and said, "Lord, who is the one who betrays You?"
[Jhn 19:26 NASB95] [26] When Jesus then saw His mother, and the disciple whom He loved standing nearby, He said to His mother, "Woman, behold, your son!"
[Jhn 11:33-38 NASB95] [33] When Jesus therefore saw her weeping, and the Jews who came with her [also] weeping, He was deeply moved in spirit and was troubled, [34] and said, "Where have you laid him?" They said to Him, "Lord, come and see." [35] Jesus wept. [36] So the Jews were saying, "See how He loved him!" [37] But some of them said, "Could not this man, who opened the eyes of the blind man, have kept this man also from dying?" [38] So Jesus, again being deeply moved within, came to the tomb. Now it was a cave, and a stone was lying against it.
If I'm correct about John being the first of the canonical gospels to be written, then it might have been the reason the synoptics developed along such different lines from John.
Initially, you talked about cuddling. None of those verses in John say Jesus engaged in that action. In the Greek for John 13:23, we read: ἦν ἀνακείμενος εἷς ἐκ τῶν μαθητῶν αὐτοῦ ἐν τῷ κόλπῳ τοῦ Ἰησοῦ, ὃν ἠγάπα ὁ Ἰησοῦς
Yes, I know agape/agapao can have a wide range of meaning, but John uses similar language when describing God's love for the world (John 3:16). Furthermore, reclining in someone's bosom, especially in those days, was not akin to "cuddling" or acting romantically toward someone. Let's not read more into the verses than is warranted.
Furthermore, you have to contend with the overall Johannine view of Jesus: he is the holy one of God who always does the Father's will. Jesus was sinless, the Lamb of God sent to take away sins. Your view of God's Son clashes with what John really says.
John 11:3-ἀπέστειλαν οὖν αἱ ἀδελφαὶ πρὸς αὐτὸν λέγουσαι Κύριε, ἴδε ὃν φιλεῖς ἀσθενεῖ.
John 11:5-ἠγάπα δὲ ὁ Ἰησοῦς τὴν Μάρθαν καὶ τὴν ἀδελφὴν αὐτῆς καὶ τὸν Λάζαρον.
https://biblehub.com/john/13-23.htm
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cuddle
1) None of the translations in the link you provided say "cuddle."
2) There is a difference between reclining in someone's bosom and cuddling, especially in an amorous manner.
3) The Greek verb translated "reclining" is ἀνακείμενος. Where does it ever mean "cuddle" in the NT? Answer: never.
4) I doubt very seriously that John was the first Gospel written, but even if it was, nobody among the early church writers ever imputed any such charge against the book. If they did, I'd like to see it. Clement of Alexandria called John, the spiritual Gospel. Both Augustine of Hippo and John Chrysostom wrote extensive tracts about the book and so did Origen. None of them got out of the book what you're getting.
There is a lot to understand about the ancient culture of reclining while eating a meal, which I think you're ignoring or need to research more. Craig Keener's commentary on John goes into some detail about John 13 and the ancient practice of reclining. Here's one pertinent observation he makes:
"One might also lay one’s head on another’s bosom, which in that culture, far more tactile than our own, had no necessary sexual connotations (Diogenes Laertius 1.84; cf. the seating in Plato Symp. 222E–223A; Malina, World, 22–23)."
Compare Matthew 9:10. Your cuddling view doesn't make a lot of sense when reading that passage. Moreover, the verb "cuddle" in English is ambiguous: the dictionary link you gave provides the example of cuddling a puppy. That is not a romantic gesture anymore than cuddling one's child has to be.
The translators go to great lengths to distance themselves from the picture of Lazarus reclining in Jesus' bosom, but that is what is being described. Jesus never says anything about homosexuality. And I notice that Christians today are quite comfortable with ignoring kosher laws, Sabbath laws, sending the wife away while she's menstruating, etc.
If the Christian law was given on Matthew 5-7, and the Sinai Covenant was disappeared by the destruction of the Temple, then there is no Christian law against homosexuality per the gospels.
There is no explicit indication that Jesus' bromance was sexual in nature, but nor does it deny it. It almost seems like "don't ask, don't tell."
As moderator, I'm going to take the last word and close the thread afterwards since we've gotten away from David and Bathsheba.
The translations I read "say, reclining in his bosom, but Keener and others explain that this has nothing to do with romance, cuddling or whatever. Please think about Matthew 9:10 and what Keener writes about this not being necessarily sexual.
Granted, Jesus didn't speak about "homosexuality," but one can't infer too much from his silence in this regard. Why did he even have reason to bring it up? Did he discourage having sex outside of marriage? If he did, that would have covered homosexuality. And I think a strong case can be made that the early Christians did not approve of sex outside of marriage or sex that was not between a husband and wife.
JWs don't profess to be under the Law of Moses, but we believe there are principles we can glean from those laws and the NT forbids men to have sex with other men and it teaches the same thing when it comes to lesbianism. See 1 Cor. 6:9-11; Romans 1:26-27; Jude 6-7.
Why restrict Christian teaching to the Gospels although I think the Gospels do forbid sex outside of marriage. Jesus sanctioned no such thing as same-sex relations.
Why did John have to deny a bromance between Jesus and the beloved disciple when Jews were known to oppose such relationships anyway? I quoted the Sibylline Oracles earlier, and there is a passage in Josephus where he speaks against homosexuality. The Jews were consistent on that point and so were the early Christians.
Post a Comment