You are hereTalmudic View of David's Sin

Talmudic View of David's Sin

  • strict warning: Non-static method view::load() should not be called statically in /home/vaduva/planetpreterist.com/sites/all/modules/views/views.module on line 842.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_handler_argument::init() should be compatible with views_handler::init(&$view, $options) in /home/vaduva/planetpreterist.com/sites/all/modules/views/handlers/views_handler_argument.inc on line 745.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_handler_filter::options_validate() should be compatible with views_handler::options_validate($form, &$form_state) in /home/vaduva/planetpreterist.com/sites/all/modules/views/handlers/views_handler_filter.inc on line 589.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_handler_filter::options_submit() should be compatible with views_handler::options_submit($form, &$form_state) in /home/vaduva/planetpreterist.com/sites/all/modules/views/handlers/views_handler_filter.inc on line 589.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_handler_filter_boolean_operator::value_validate() should be compatible with views_handler_filter::value_validate($form, &$form_state) in /home/vaduva/planetpreterist.com/sites/all/modules/views/handlers/views_handler_filter_boolean_operator.inc on line 149.

By EWMI - Posted on 19 December 2006

by Albert Persohn
During a recent study time I happened across the following most interesting Rabbinical interpretation of the King David / Bathsheba / Uriah story. The writer accuses Christians of deceiving their congregations regarding this famous incident. It led me to consider again the greatness of the gap that exists between Jewish and Christian scholars not only in our interpretation of scripture but also in our understanding of its authority.During a recent study time I happened across the following most interesting Rabbinical interpretation of the King David / Bathsheba / Uriah story. The writer accuses Christians of deceiving their congregations regarding this famous incident. It led me to consider again the greatness of the gap that exists between Jewish and Christian scholars not only in our interpretation of scripture but also in our understanding of its authority.The writer clearly states that the Oral (read Talmudic) law is as old as Sinai and is the filter through which even reasonably direct Bible stories must be read. Curiously in reference to the Prophet Nathan (Jewish Sources spell his name "Natan") it is elsewhere stated that "Even a superficial reading of the episode of Bath-sheva shows David’s humility and powerful conscience. When the prophet Natan/ Nathan criticized him harshly, David did not defend himself even though as the Talmud explains, he was technically in the right. His remorse was so great that it became the textbook for repentance. (http://www.cckollel.org/html/heritage/questions/question107.html)".

Chabad Lubavitch is one of the most influential Orthodox Jewish groups in the West. One of its leading figures was Manachem Mendel Schneerson sometimes called “The Rebbe”. Schneerson actively encouraged the movement to end the celebration of Christmas. He stated that all Christians are idol worshippers. The Lubavitch movement sees the installation of the Noahide laws as one of their primary missions. Every President since Carter has honored Schneerson by observing “Education and Sharing Day” (http://www.noahide.com/rebbe.htm)

The text below is response to an letter sent in to a Chabad Rabbi.(The Link Is At The Bottom)

Our response: To address just one issue this letter raises, we should point out that the Christian Church has deceived its followers over the ages through various propaganda tricks. One of those has been an ongoing smear campaign against righteous Jewish leaders, in an attempt to discredit both the Jewish people and G-d's Law for the purpose of legitimizing Christian "authority" in religious matters. Basically, the Roman-backed Church substitutes the individual person of Jesus for the Jewish people as a whole, attempting to transfer the Jewish role of bearing G-d's message to the world away from Jews to Jesus — and by extension, the Christian Church and its members. It's a sleight-of-hand method that tries to legitimize the man-made "New Testament" in place of G-d's holy Word as found in the Hebrew Scriptures, the Talmud, the Kabbalah, and other holy Jewish writings.

The Church attempts to discredit Jews and the true Word of G-d by searching for any perceived flaw or failing on the part of the greatest, most righteous leaders, including Jacob, Moses, King David, King Solomon, and others.
In the case of King David, the Christian myth claims, as stated above in the letter, that he committed murder and adultery, thus rendering him not only not particularly righteous, but downright wicked to the greatest extent imagineable (G-d forbid!). Yet even the written Bible says an entirely different story:

* After King David's passing (that is, after his entire life was completed and ready for comment), the Bible repeatedly calls him "Your [G-d's] servant"

* avdecha David", in Hebrew; I Kings 8:24-26, Psalms 86:2,4,16; II Chron. 6:15-17,42). The connotation of the Hebrew word for "servant" means one who is totally and completely dedicated to his service. A murderer and adulterer can never be considered such a "servant," even after repenting, for only death can atone for such sins. This means the Bible is clearly implying King David never committed such crimes as the Church accuses him of. Again King David is called "His servant" in the Psalms

* David avdo", in Hebrew; Ps. 78:70). Then G-d, in His own Voice, calls David "My servant"

* David avdi", in Hebrew; Ps. 89:4,21). Wicked people are rejected and cut off from G-d, while He makes His covenants and His promises only to those who are especially righteous. All throughout the Bible are references to the eternal covenant G-d established with King David and his seed, through whom the Messianic King will arise to annihilate Amalek and permanently rebuild the Jerusalem Temple with animal sacrifices. This covenant reflects King David's status as an extraordinarily righteous man, not a person who committed vile crimes (who would never be eligible for such a covenant).

The basis for the Church's accusations lie in chapters 11 and 12 of II Samuel. The narrative mentions King David seeing Bath-Sheva bathing, being tempted, and having relations with her. It then mentions her "husband" Uriyah returning from battle, and King David assigning Uriyah to the front of the battle to have him killed. Thus the Christian interpretation of the passage sees an act of adultery (with Bath-Sheva) followed by an act of murder (of Uriyah).

The problem with this is that Christians read the text without any understanding of the rules of G-d's Law as found in the Talmud and other sources — rules that have been followed since Mount Sinai and the days of Moses.
Jewish Law only allows a husband to divorce his wife, not the other way around (it's different for gentiles under the Noahide Laws). Consequently, if a man goes off to battle and ends up missing, he can neither divorce his wife nor be presumed dead. This leaves her stuck, unable to re-marry for the rest of her life. Consequently, the rabbis instituted the practice that a husband gives his wife a divorce document, which is retroactively effective if he does not return home from the battle. So Jewish wives were not, in fact, truly married during wartime.
This means Bath-Sheva wasn't a married woman when King David had relations with her, while her "husband" Uriyah (technically divorced) was off fighting. And a king is allowed to have relations with concubines, meaning women he hasn't married. So King David's relations with Bath-Sheva were not adultery, and would only have violated Jewish Law if Uriyah had returned from battle alive to annul the divorce.

Another rule of Jewish Law says that the king (including a gentile king, apparently) has the right — or even the obligation — to uphold the dignity of the throne by executing anyone who disrespects or disobeys the king; the death penalty is immediate, without trial. That same passage in II Samuel describes Uriyah defiantly disobeying King David's orders, thus subjecting Uriyah to death penalty. King David was perfectly within his rights in having Uriyah executed.

So why did Nathan the prophet imply that King David committed some (not specifically named) sin? The problem was in the manner in which King David acquired Bath-Sheva and killed Uriyah. Instead of going about both actions in a straightforward way, King David used some stealth. The result was the appearance of sin, which in the case of a super-righteous man like King David, counts as if it were a sin (whereas for most of us, such things wouldn't be considered nearly as serious). King David faced a punishment for allowing his actions to be open to misinterpretation by outsiders — something the Christian Church has, in fact, done.

As far as King David's children go, some turned out wicked, others (such as King Solomon) quite righteous. The wickedness of his son who betrayed him wasn't the result of David's own failings; it was the product of the temptations of power and the extraordinary spiritual capacity of David's family. Those who have greater spiritual capacity for good also have stronger potential to go bad, especially when great power is involved. Neither King David nor his righteous son King Solomon succumbed to such temptations, and thus G-d established His eternal Messianic covenant with the descendants of David and Solomon. Those in the family who went bad were excluded from the covenant. (http://www.noahide.com/newsletter/news60.htm)

rfwitt's picture

I haven't read through all the comments so I don't know if anyone quoted the words of Christ - so I will.(From the Gospel of Matthew)

(MT 15:1 Then some Pharisees and teachers of the law came to Jesus from Jerusalem and asked,
2 "Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? They don't wash their hands before they eat!"

MT 15:3 Jesus replied, "And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition? 4 For God said, `Honor your father and mother' and `Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.' 5 But you say that if a man says to his father or mother, `Whatever help you might otherwise have received from me is a gift devoted to God,' 6 he is not to `honor his father' with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition. 7 You hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you:
MT 15:8 " `These people honor me with their lips,
but their hearts are far from me.

MT 15:9 They worship me in vain;
their teachings are but rules taught by men.' ")

Richard..............

jcarter's picture

Even IF one were to accept thier talmudic circumlocution David still ends up guilty....

the rabbis instituted the practice that a husband gives his wife a divorce document, which is retroactively effective if he does not return home from the battle.

the divorce is only retroactive IF he does not return from the battle. At the time David was sleeping with Bathsheba, Uriah was still very much alive and able to come home.

There is no life without prayer. Without prayer there is only madness and horror. - Vasilii Rozanov

KingNeb's picture

what a joke. my four year old can hear this story and figure it out.

Nathan's exchange with David is clear:

2 Samuel 12:9-11 Why have you despised the word of the LORD, to do what is evil in his sight? You have struck down Uriah the Hittite with the sword and have taken his wife to be your wife and have killed him with the sword of the Ammonites. 10 Now therefore the sword shall never depart from your house, because you have despised me and have taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be your wife.' 11 Thus says the LORD, 'Behold, I will raise up evil against you out of your own house. And I will take your wives before your eyes and give them to your neighbor, and he shall lie with your wives in the sight of this sun.

Nothing in here about how David "appeared" when doing these things.

The "greatness of the gap that exists between Jewish and Christian scholars" is a great thing if this is how they argue.

thereignofchrist.com

EWMI's picture

Jesus may have met this kind of logic in his dealings with the Pharisees. The Universal Jewish Encyclopaedia (1943) declares that Judaism is synonymous with Phariseeism: "The Jewish religion as it is today traces its descent, without a break, from the Pharisees.... the study of the Talmud is essential for any real understanding of Phariseeism." (p.474

jcarter's picture

of course Christians have come up with our own interpretive loopholes and obfuscations. our own history includes justification for murder, war, greed, slavery, torture, etc...

i don't know that the problem is a jewish problem as much as it is a human problem.

There is no life without prayer. Without prayer there is only madness and horror. - Vasilii Rozanov

chrisliv's picture

Yeah,

Every culture seems to agrandize itself.

Of course, "Christian" has become a pretty cheap term in light of how early Christians refused to participate with the State in committing atrocities on Caesar's battlefields. They were willingly martyred for their refusal to pledge allegiance to the State. They were politically and morally Separate, which even led them to live literally underground, in the catacombs of Rome, of course until the Church was tricked into becoming a State Corporation with The Edict of Milan in 312 AD.

But, since the Jews were the custodians of the O.T. writings, they will not be exempted from scrutiny in their handling of those writings.

I mean, Abraham was originally an Aramaic-speaking Mesopotamian, who later learned Canaanite-Hebrew which was simailar to Phonecian-Hebrew.

Yet, I believe some or most Jewish scholars would have us believe that God spoke the "Holy Tongue" of Hebrew to Adam in the Garden. I guess Eve's pet knew and spoke Hebrew too, even before it was posessed and ultimately beguiled her...

No, there is some crazy Jewish stuff out there. And the Dispensationalists can be just as crazy, especially when they try to borrow from some of that Tamad and Kabbala nonsense.

Of course, there are probably just as many sincere Jewish scholars and historians. But Preterists should be ready to scrutinize Jewish and Dispensational sources, as we are now doing with this article.

I'm sure a lot of this stuff is just recycled from 2000 years ago, and before, as Paul apparently dealt with stuff like this:

"Not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth." Tit 1:14

Peace to you all,
C. Livingstone

leslie's picture

Several questions come up on this 'explanation'. Why would Uriyah 'divorce' his wife when he was not an Israelite or under Israelite Law or 'Tradition'? I know that he 'fought' for King David, but I see no reason why he would practice this 'Tradition' of 'divorce' before going into 'Battle'.
Also, David could as easily have said that, Uriyah, being 'a' Gentile, did not have the same 'rights' as a blood born 'son' of Abraham.
Also, Why did David have ANY remorse if he thought that he was 'within' the frame work of 'the law', as this writer says that he was?
Also, did not God, call some 'evil leaders' of other nations, His, Gods, 'Servants'...?

'Christians' do not need to make 'David' look 'bad', he did a fine job all by himself.

Brother Les

Brother Les

Waidmann's picture

Les,

I'm not sure that Uriah was a "gentile" in the sense you're using. There is a clear "assimilation principle" spelled out in the Old Testament, whereby any foreigner who wished to be one of the people of God could do so. For example, see Exodus 12: 48-49. "An alien living among you who wants to celebrate the LORD's Passover must have all the males in his household circumcised; then he may take part like one born in the land. No uncircumcised male may eat of it. The same law applies to the native-born and to the alien living among you." Notice: The same law applies to the native-born and alien.

Same thing spelled out in Number 9:14. "An alien living among you who wants to celebrate the LORD's Passover must do so in accordance with its rules and regulations. You must have the same regulations for the alien and the native-born."

There are many examples of foreigners or aliens who were considered part of Israel and followed her laws. In Christ's own genealogy, there are four women listed, and two of them were not Jews. Rahab was probably a temple prostitute in Jericho, but professed faith in the God of Israel (Joshua 2:11) and became part of Israel along with her entire family (Joshua 6:25). Likewise, Ruth was a Moabite, but professed faith in the God of Israel (Ruth 1:16) and likewise became part of Israel--with the full approval of the Elders of the city (Ruth 4:11-12).

I believe that Uriah the Hittite was a full member of Israel, subject to all it's laws. I don't think he could have been one of David's mighty men, had a house not only in Jerusalem but in the very shadow of the Temple and married to a devote Jewish woman if he had been a "gentile". Clearly he was one of the many foreign-born who had chosen to serve Israel's God.

This does not mean, BTW, that I agree with the author's take on whether or not Bathsheba was free to consort with the King. This is the first I've heard of a Jewish practice of divorcing one's wife every spring when the Army went to the field and annulling the divorce every time you're home on leave.

Waidmann

davo's picture

Waidmann, thanks for bringing this up, it is an important fact that often enough does not get the attention it deserves. It is also an underlying "historic" referent to Paul's "they are not all of Israel who are of Israel" -- a verse that frequently gets misused. There was more to covenant "Israel" than the bloodline. Likewise, covenantally speaking Paul's "they are not all of Israel who are of Israel" meant that Israel was NOT living up to "her calling", to be the people she was ordained to be, i.e., the light of the world – hence the "kingdom" i.e., the priesthood, was to be taken from them and given the those producing its fruits – Jesus and the first-fruit saints – "Jews" as Paul said who were Jews "inwardly" i.e., "the Israel of God". In other words, Israel fulfilling her mandate.

davo

Waidmann's picture

Yes. Being a reformed dipsie myself (aren't we all?), I have to correct myself from time to time and remember that the Israel of God wasn't ethnic or genetic--it was Covenantal. In addition to the assimilation principle I mentioned, there is also a "cut off" principle that is clearly spelled out in the OT. Put them together and you see that God's Israel was those of every nation who entered into Covenant with Him, and kept the terms of the Covenant.

It's not that now God has expanded his Israel to include Gentiles. There were always non-Jewish people in the Covenant.

Waidmann

EWMI's picture

Since happening onto this I have done some looking. The following references seem to support the Talmudic position. (Which I have a lot of trouble with!)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David
http://www.barmitzva.org/Bible/II%20Samuel%2011-12.htm
http://hirhurim.blogspot.com/2004/06/david-and-bassheva.html
http://www.askmoses.com/article.html?h=182&o=1972311

Waidmann's picture

Les,

It's possible that the Talmudic position is accurately presented in this article. Bottom line: So what? The Jews obviously have a very difficult time understanding their own Scriptures. Jesus spent a lot of time telling them so. Take a look at the Seven Woes (or eight, I guess, depending on how they're counted) spelled out in Matt 23. The Jews of Jesus' day clearly didn't get it. Why expect that Jews of today would get it any better?

Their Talmudic tradition, however interesting it may be, is un-inspired, whereas the New Testament is. This is pretty basic to Christianity.

Waidmann

DavidF's picture

Good comments Waidmann; thank you for your attention to inspiration.

Inspiration by Christ IS the very personal essence of every Christian.

Judaists have nothing more to offer than a Muslim, Buddhist or any other mere human. Matter of fact, in the inspired New Testament they were specifically criticized as the “liar” by John the Apostle. 1 John 2:22 “Who is the liar? It is the man who denies that Jesus is the Christ.”

Oh, that John guy sounds so inconsiderate! Maybe I shouldn’t mention his writings in this New Covenant age. Maybe that was just for those OT days eh? He sure does have a negative chutzpah doesn’t he?

Virgil's picture

The Jews obviously have a very difficult time understanding their own Scriptures.

And so do we - understanding their scriptures. I would not make that assumption that quickly. Yes, the Jewish people have had problems grasping some scriptures, but from they have as always a solid grasp on maintaining a true context (from an anthropological perspective) on their scriptures. We ALL have a very difficult understanding scriptures, some more than others, for various reasons, be it cultural, social, etc.

chrisliv's picture

Yeah,

Jews of old obviously did understand the how the New Testament quoted from the Old Testament via the Septuagint (Greek, around 200 BC) with unflattering statements by God about the Jews themselves or which confirmed how Christ fulfilled those old prophecies.

There are clear distortions and omissions of those places where, in the Masoretic text (Hebrew, around 1000 AD), they garbled the text in just those places to make them seem to not be messianic in their import.

Of course, with the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, a portion of the Book of Jeremiah confirms the distortions of the Masoretic text, while at the same time agrees with the much older Septuagint translation.

Interestingly, the King James Version apparently relied heavily on the Masoretic text, making it a very week translation of the O.T.

So, it seems clear that the Jewish bias against fulfilled Old Testament messianic passages is forever documented. And it shouldn't shock us if distortions and self-aggrandizing rationalizations are made to make national Israel of old times seem better than it was.

Peace to you all,
C. Livingstone

Starlight's picture

Virgil,

It seems like Jesus made a pretty harsh demand upon the Jews of his day. They could either understand and believe him and save themselves or they could remain confused and suffer the consequences of the Romans as his instrument of wrath. I’m not sure what we are to take from that dire choice but it indeed was the one they were given. He pretty well spells out this option during the Sermon on the Mount.

(Mat 7:21 NIV) "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven……23 Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'

Norm

Virgil's picture

Norm, I understand that - what I am talking about is the contemporary western arrogance we commonly show regarding the Jewish people of Jesus' day, : "They were all idiots, and we are all really smart." In essence that's what we are suggesting. Some of them missed the boat because they did not understand, some did not. We are not any better, in fact compared to us they had a much deeper understanding of the Scriptures and life than we did; it was expectations that were misplaced.

Starlight's picture

Virgil,

Your point is taken, but what I’m alluding to also is the physical consequences of simply rejecting God “Jesus”. There is this combo effect it appears that not only was the spiritual kingdom missed but the language of the Sermon implies there were physical consequences as well (at least for that generation). But it also appears to have been a constant theme from Genesis to Revelation of not becoming “Sons of God”. Now what those consequences entail for each generation/person would call for an interesting discussion. “
Matt 6:33 But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well.”

What I would suggest though is that no one is without excuse when it comes to the basic simplicity of the proposition of “Loving God” and therefore the question is a simpler one in which the finer nuances are of little use ultimately.

“Rom 1: 19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.”

Norm

DavidF's picture

Virgil: “what I am talking about is the contemporary western arrogance we commonly show regarding the Jewish people of Jesus' day”.

Actually, we do not think they were “all” idiots Virgil. There are plenty of Judean people from Jesus’ day that contemporary Westerner’s do not treat with arrogance; they were called by Jesus Christ and understood Him. We show them the utmost respect. It’s the arrogant unbelievers, those who mock our Ruler Jesus Christ who are the common target of Western criticism - these individuals did not have very deep insight.

In A.D. 30, eleven Apostles and many other Judean believers refused the Judaist’s cry for crucifixion. They were really smart! These, and only these, had a deeper understanding of the Scriptures than we do! We admire these people! We do not denounce them! They did not cry “crucify Him” and they did not actively participate in nailing Him to the cross. They were Judean, not Judaist; there is a difference. Rom. 2:28 “A man is not a Judean if he is only one outwardly… No, a man is a Judean if he is one inwardly…by the Spirit”.

So then, the true Judean will forever be lifted up, and it is the Judaist who will forever be deplored. Prov. 10:7 “The memory of the righteous will be a blessing, but the name of the wicked will rot.”

EWMI's picture

Agreed, one reason for posting this article, which perhaps I should have stated, is that hard core Dispensationalists use references from the Talmud and Zohar regularly. Another reason is that understanding the Talmudic place in Jewish thought makes it far easier to engage Jewish people in theological discussions. Christians are often of the opinion that Jews are people who accept the OT but simply can't see Christ. The matter is far more complex. They really do not accept the OT as written and learn from the Talmud the most unpleasant things about Jesus, Christians and Mary etc.

DavidF's picture

EWMI: “understanding the Talmudic place in Jewish thought”.

It is difficult that they are so caught up in the Talmud. Muslims are no different. I ran into some Muslims at work a few months back and found out that the Koran is made up totally by new stories that do not parallel with the OT stories. For instance, they said that Noah’s son Ham didn’t even make it on the boat before the flood came; there were only six who made it. How to be evangelistic in spite of their traditions (I’m being very kind/politically correct with that word - why do I not just use the word lies?) looks like the question of the day!

EWMI's picture

Yes, it is important to learn to be evangelistic in spite of traditions. My interest in this topic is driven from long past exposure to Ultradispensationalists who constantly cite the Talmud and Zohar for support for their theories. Some have concluded that both Darby and Schofield drew on Talmudic thinking for many of their positions.

Waidmann's picture

I'm glad you cleared this us.

This is very interesting. I know that the future coming of the Messiah is central to both the ulta-orthodox and dispies. I've likewise found it ironic that they take comfort from the fact that they're in some agreement with Jewish Messianic thought. As if that strengthens their position.

Waidmann

EWMI's picture

If you are interested I have a PDF book I found on the net several years ago. It is the work of several Rabbis regarding the Jewish End of Days. It is a bit of a difficult read but provides some interesting insights. The file is 2.4 Meg. Send me your email address via a private Planetpreterist message and I'll send it you.

My own personal conviction is that the timing of both Iraq wars to the Jewish calendars may be due in part to the Orthodox hard core Jewish religious futurists in our as well as Israeli politics.

EWMI's picture

If you are interested I have a PDF book I found on the net several years ago. It is the work of several Rabbis regarding the Jewish End of Days. It is a bit of a difficult read but provides some interesting insights. The file is 2.4 Meg. Send me your email address via a private Planetpreterist message and I'll send it you.

My own personal conviction is that the timing of both Iraq wars to the Jewish calendars may be due in part to the Orthodox hard core Jewish religious futurists in our as well as Israeli politics.

Paige's picture

" had a house not only in Jerusalem but in the very shadow of the Temple"

What temple?

-Paige

Waidmann's picture

Oops. Got me there. I meant to say, in the very shadow of the King's house. Sorry about that.

Waidmann

Paige's picture

Just checking...I thought maybe you were aware of something that I was not :)

EWMI's picture

Good comments about Uriah being a gentile.

Starlight's picture

Al,
Interesting article by the Jewish guy, kind of reminds me of Acts 6 where they used similar tactics against Stephen.

Acts 6:11Then they secretly persuaded some men to say, "We have heard Stephen speak words of blasphemy against Moses and against God." 12 So they stirred up the people and the elders and the teachers of the law. They seized Stephen and brought him before the Sanhedrin. 13They produced false witnesses, who testified, "This fellow never stops speaking against this holy place and against the law. 14For we have heard him say that this Jesus of Nazareth will destroy this place and change the customs Moses handed down to us."

The rationalization that this fellow pulls off should be highlighted and used for illustrative purposes on how to really butcher the word. He’s trying to develop David as the perfection when in effect it was David’s devotion and trust in God (the same as Abraham’s faith) which allowed them to be covered by Christ Blood which provides the perfection.

He states “Neither King David nor his righteous son King Solomon succumbed to such temptations”
I’m wondering how much of the OT Bible he has read? Solomon never succumbed, Incredible!

1 Kings 11:6 So Solomon did evil in the eyes of the LORD; he did not follow the LORD completely, as David his father had done.
It would be interesting to see how he gets out of this.

Norm

EWMI's picture

Hi Norm

The point too ofter missed is that in Jewish theology the oral (Talmudic) law always stands above the written law (OT). The Talmudic scholars state clearly teach that: "The Bible under Talmudic Judaism is considered to be a collection of simple tales fit only for fools, women and children." (Elizabeth Dilling - http://www.come-and-hear.com/dilling/chapt01.html)

Starlight's picture

Al,

Thank goodness for the written word. I am completly amazed as a Preterist how reliable the word is. I'm not sure how God did it but he appears to have given us a word that is much more reliable than I ever dreamed. "My ways are not your ways" continues to resonate irrespective of Jewish Oral Law.

Norm

Recent comments

Poll

Should we allow Anonymous users to comment on Planet Preterist articles?
Yes absolutely
23%
No only registered users should comment
77%
What are you talking about?
0%
Total votes: 43