What would you do

[Baron1710]

Originally Posted by Dr. Vaughn

Brother.. in all fairness that was not an answer

Your right...it wasn't an answer. You wrong in your assumption of what I believe.

[jlogan]

Originally Posted by Dr. Vaughn

WOW... talk about context destruction!!!

What part of "I GAVE THEE: did you not read brother.....

K&D
2Sa_12:7-8
The parable was so selected that David could not suspect that it had reference to him and to his son. With all the greater shock therefore did the words of the prophet, “Thou art the man,” come upon the king. Just as in the parable the sin is traced to its root - namely, insatiable covetousness - so now, in the words of Jehovah which follow, and in which the prophet charges the king directly with his crime, he brings out again in the most unsparing manner this hidden background of all sins, for the purpose of bringing thoroughly home to his heart the greatness of his iniquity, and the condemnation it deserved. “Jehovah the God of Israel hath said, I anointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul, and I gave thee thy master's house and thy master's wives into thy bosom.” [SIZE="2"]These words refer to the fact that, according to the general custom in the East, when a king died, his successor upon the throne also succeeded to his harem, so that David was at liberty to take his predecessor's wives; though we cannot infer from this that he actually did so: in fact this is by no means probable, since, according to 1Sa_14:50, Saul had but one wife, and according to 2Sa_3:7 only one concubine, whom Abner appropriated to himself. “And gave thee the house of Israel and Judah;” i.e., I handed over the whole nation to thee as king, so that thou couldst have chosen young virgins as wives from all the daughters of Judah and Israel. מְעַט וְאִם, “and if (all this was) too little, I would have added to thee this and that.” [/SIZE]
jl

Originally Posted by jlogan

K&D
2Sa_12:7-8
The parable was so selected that David could not suspect that it had reference to him and to his son. With all the greater shock therefore did the words of the prophet, “Thou art the man,” come upon the king. Just as in the parable the sin is traced to its root - namely, insatiable covetousness - so now, in the words of Jehovah which follow, and in which the prophet charges the king directly with his crime, he brings out again in the most unsparing manner this hidden background of all sins, for the purpose of bringing thoroughly home to his heart the greatness of his iniquity, and the condemnation it deserved. “Jehovah the God of Israel hath said, I anointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul, and I gave thee thy master's house and thy master's wives into thy bosom.” [SIZE="2"]These words refer to the fact that, according to the general custom in the East, when a king died, his successor upon the throne also succeeded to his harem, so that David was at liberty to take his predecessor's wives; though we cannot infer from this that he actually did so: in fact this is by no means probable, since, according to 1Sa_14:50, Saul had but one wife, and according to 2Sa_3:7 only one concubine, whom Abner appropriated to himself. “And gave thee the house of Israel and Judah;” i.e., I handed over the whole nation to thee as king, so that thou couldst have chosen young virgins as wives from all the daughters of Judah and Israel. מְעַט וְאִם, “and if (all this was) too little, I would have added to thee this and that.” [/SIZE]
jl

You render a commentators opinion as your source?

I will stay with the Word... I GAVE THEE THY NEIGHBORS WIVES>.. and you know how I know he took the,...... God said they were in Davids BOSOM

[jlogan]

Originally Posted by Dr. Vaughn

You render a commentators opinion as your source?

I will stay with the Word... I GAVE THEE THY NEIGHBORS WIVES>.. and you know how I know he took the,...... God said they were in Davids BOSOM

How about another commentator ?

JFB

2Sa 12:8
I gave thee thy master’s house, and thy master’s wives — The phraseology means nothing more than that God in His providence had given David, as king of Israel, everything that was Saul’s. The history furnishes conclusive evidence that he never actually married any of the wives of Saul. But the harem of the preceding king belongs, according to Oriental notions, as a part of the regalia to his successor.

Clarke
2Sa 12:8
Thy master’s wives into thy bosom - Perhaps this means no more than that he had given him absolute power over every thing possessed by Saul; and as it was the custom for the new king to succeed even to the wives and concubines, the whole harem of the deceased king, so it was in this case; and the possession of the wives was a sure proof that he had got all regal rights. But could David, as the son-in-law of Saul, take the wives of his father-in-law? However, we find delicacy was seldom consulted in these cases; and Absalom lay with his own father’s wives in the most public manner, to show that he had seized on the kingdom, because the wives of the preceding belonged to the succeeding king, and to none other.


2Sa 12:11 Thus saith the LORD, Behold, I will raise up evil against thee out of thine own house, and I will take thy wives before thine eyes, and give them unto thy neighbour, and he shall lie with thy wives in the sight of this sun.
2Sa 12:12 For thou didst it secretly: but I will do this thing before all Israel, and before the sun.

You cannot say God gave( as in a good gift ) Just as he allowed David to be king , He was procaiming the coming judgement. In no way condoning polygamy.

jl

Originally Posted by jlogan

How about another commentator ?

JFB

2Sa 12:8
I gave thee thy master’s house, and thy master’s wives — The phraseology means nothing more than that God in His providence had given David, as king of Israel, everything that was Saul’s. The history furnishes conclusive evidence that he never actually married any of the wives of Saul. But the harem of the preceding king belongs, according to Oriental notions, as a part of the regalia to his successor.

Clarke
2Sa 12:8
Thy master’s wives into thy bosom - Perhaps this means no more than that he had given him absolute power over every thing possessed by Saul; and as it was the custom for the new king to succeed even to the wives and concubines, the whole harem of the deceased king, so it was in this case; and the possession of the wives was a sure proof that he had got all regal rights. But could David, as the son-in-law of Saul, take the wives of his father-in-law? However, we find delicacy was seldom consulted in these cases; and Absalom lay with his own father’s wives in the most public manner, to show that he had seized on the kingdom, because the wives of the preceding belonged to the succeeding king, and to none other.


2Sa 12:11 Thus saith the LORD, Behold, I will raise up evil against thee out of thine own house, and I will take thy wives before thine eyes, and give them unto thy neighbour, and he shall lie with thy wives in the sight of this sun.
2Sa 12:12 For thou didst it secretly: but I will do this thing before all Israel, and before the sun.

You cannot say God gave( as in a good gift ) Just as he allowed David to be king , He was procaiming the coming judgement. In no way condoning polygamy.

jl

Perhaps this means no more than......

now theres a sure source for you....

What's wrong with reading it like it reads???

[jlogan]

Speaking of context , the scripture you referred to about David, had nothing to do with the fact that polygamy was right or wrong. It was about Davids position , his disrespect of that position, his sin, and judgement.

Show me a scripture were it was OK!
What does God think?
Mat 19:4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
Mat 19:5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain (G1417
δύο
duo
doo'-o
A primary numeral; “two”: - both, twain, two.shall be one flesh? )
Mat 19:6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

Not male and females! One man one woman become one flesh. That and that alone is God's design.


jl

[jlogan]

Originally Posted by Dr. Vaughn

Perhaps this means no more than......

now theres a sure source for you....

What's wrong with reading it like it reads???

?

jl

[Baron1710]

The reality is God did not intend for polygamy to be the norm. He doesn't outright forbid it in the NT. One who wishes to please God ought not practice polygamy. However I think we would be hard pressed to show that God was so displeased with Polygamy that he punished for it. For example he punished Sodom for its sin, and yet under David Israel was blessed while David practiced polygamy and David was punished when he committed adultery. There does seem to be a hands off approach by God for Polygamy yet punishment for adultery or homosexuality.

Originally Posted by Baron1710

He tossed the whole Mosaic Law...thus a New Covenant.

I was always taught that there was a distinction between the "Law of God" and the "Law of Moses".

Originally Posted by Baron1710

The Ten Commandments as a covenant applied to Israel. Do we still follow nine of the ten yes because they either predate or outlive the Mosaic Law.

I assume you're talking about the Sabbath Law. I believe the Sabbath blessed and sanctified prior to the 9....

Genesis 2:1-3
1Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.
2And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.
3And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.

Only 6 days passed in all creation before God sanctified the Sabbath.