Tigger56 Posted April 24, 2019 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 679 Topics Per Day: 0.37 Content Count: 1,327 Content Per Day: 0.72 Reputation: 991 Days Won: 0 Joined: 03/04/2019 Status: Offline Share Posted April 24, 2019 I find this verse very interesting. The whole Psalm is beautiful and is of David's repentance after being with Bathsheba. But verse 4 stands out to me because David says it is only against God that he has sinned. He committed adultery and took Bathsheba, an act he could do because he was king. He caused her husband to be killed. He lied and tried to cover his sin. Yet he states he only committed sin against God. Then what did he do against Uriah, Bathsheba's husband? Perhaps we can trespass against another person but can only sin against God as he is the law giver and because he is holy? Perhaps the same Hebrew and Greek words are used for both terms, I haven't done a complete study. But if so, why did the translators translate the words as they did? Many times I have heard leprosy used as a way to describe sin. It is and was a terrible disease but in the Bible when you had leprosy you didn't seek a physician, you sought a priest, for it was something only God could remove. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neighbor Posted April 24, 2019 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 18 Topic Count: 940 Topics Per Day: 0.35 Content Count: 13,412 Content Per Day: 5.02 Reputation: 8,958 Days Won: 6 Joined: 12/04/2016 Status: Offline Birthday: 03/03/1885 Share Posted April 24, 2019 Hi, May I offer an opinion? It is an opinion, and opinions have low value. Here is mine: Actions often called sin against one another start first with sin directed against God and His command. The sins against one another are collateral damage not the sin. What is told at 2 Samuel 11 is the consequence of David's sin against God. David was to go into battle, go to go lead the fight. David the warrior sent another instead, not going into battle was the sin, the rest is consequence. That Bathsheba may have been complicit in David's many actions after his sin against God is irrelevant to his having sinned. Perhaps much like Moses who sinned disobedience and did not get to but see the promised land, and the same sin of Cane with his countenance issue and the consequence his offer in presenting disobediently an unacceptable sacrifice, and much as Lot's wife who turned to look back disobedient of the exact command of God so too was the disobedience introduced at what is labeled chapter 11 of 2 Samuel in English Language Old testament accounts states when the Kings go out to battle... ..."but David stayed at Jerusalem".... That is when all went astray. David stayed at Jerusalem. David impregnated a woman inviting her to his bed taking her at her most fertil time as she was purifying herself, and then knowing his risk he had her husband brought back, back to try to cover cover his own action, none of which would have happene dhad He done as Kings do in season, go to battle. The woman's husband a man of obedienc eot God and an honorable man and husband would not partake in the comfort of his wife while his men were away at battle just as he also should have been away except for David's not being in the battle himself. I suggest David's sin was one of disobedience to the principle and the precept of God's command sot mankind follow do not re-interprete for one's own sake, just follow and do as is commanded. David sinned by not being where He should have been, in battle himself instead of Jerusalem, after that sin all else is just the consequence. Much adverse consequence is set in motion by sin of disobedience against God's instruction. That is my adopted opinion. Opinion derived mostly from the work of others, added upon what I read within and throughout the Bible that confirms what I have had explained to me by teachers of the word of God that I have come to trust for their obedient wisdom, as well as from reading the word of God and from praying upon it for some understanding regarding reconciling many aspects of it into one cohesive consistency. S eems to me there is consistency in God's word that I can and must rely upon. Same as the great figures of history recorded in our Bible. If I make my own understanding at varienc eto God's precepts and commands , that is the sin from which all the adverse consequences flow all about and on me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jayne Posted April 24, 2019 Group: Royal Member Followers: 16 Topic Count: 104 Topics Per Day: 0.04 Content Count: 3,776 Content Per Day: 1.29 Reputation: 4,746 Days Won: 2 Joined: 03/31/2016 Status: Offline Share Posted April 24, 2019 John Piper has a useful answer to me. Here it is in summary [my paraphrase of him]. He says that by definition of sin - sin is not wronging someone else. It's defying God and his law. And he says that what he did to Bathsheba and Uriah are not "less worse" because David said this, but "more worse" because David admitted this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts