Warning: session_start(): open(/var/lib/lsphp/session/lsphp80/sess_4hglno2i3sodtaqv1v6756u3br, O_RDWR) failed: No space left on device (28) in /home/kjv.site/public_html/Discussion-Thread/index.php on line 2
Warning: session_start(): Failed to read session data: files (path: /var/lib/lsphp/session/lsphp80) in /home/kjv.site/public_html/Discussion-Thread/index.php on line 2 BIBLE DISCUSSION THREAD 138051
No. He wasn't. In fact, he said in 2 Samuel 11:8, "and I gave thee thy master's house, and thy master's wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given thee such and such things."
In the very next verse, he makes it very clear that he was angry because David had "despised the commandment of the LORD, to do evil in his sight" by having Uriah killed and taking his wife. This was the word of the LORD spoken by Nathan the prophet. But he probably wasn't too happy about David's committing adultery with her before that, either.
Neither the LORD (God, the Father) nor Jesus EVER condemned any man at any time for having more than one wife, although I'm sure there were plenty around that did, even in the time of Jesus. There are still polygamous marriages in some countries even today.
What Jesus said was that if a man put one wife away (divorced her) to marry another, except if she had committed fornication, he was guilty of adultery and causing her and any future husband she might have to commit adultery. You have to read all accounts of his discourse on divorce to see that he's talking about putting her away in order to marry another. These are found in Matthew 5:31&32, Matthew 19:9, Mark 10:11&12, and Luke 16:18. So we see that, if a man had five wives, he was okay, but he could not put one away so that he could marry another. Perhaps this meant so he could afford to marry another. I don't know. But he could put her away for fornication. Why didn't he say adultery? Because adultery carried an automatic death sentence in those days. No divorce was necessary.
Too, Mark 10:12 shows that a woman could also put away her husband, but was under the same rules as the man pertaining to divorce.
In the very next verse, he makes it very clear that he was angry because David had "despised the commandment of the LORD, to do evil in his sight" by having Uriah killed and taking his wife. This was the word of the LORD spoken by Nathan the prophet. But he probably wasn't too happy about David's committing adultery with her before that, either.
Neither the LORD (God, the Father) nor Jesus EVER condemned any man at any time for having more than one wife, although I'm sure there were plenty around that did, even in the time of Jesus. There are still polygamous marriages in some countries even today.
What Jesus said was that if a man put one wife away (divorced her) to marry another, except if she had committed fornication, he was guilty of adultery and causing her and any future husband she might have to commit adultery. You have to read all accounts of his discourse on divorce to see that he's talking about putting her away in order to marry another. These are found in Matthew 5:31&32, Matthew 19:9, Mark 10:11&12, and Luke 16:18. So we see that, if a man had five wives, he was okay, but he could not put one away so that he could marry another. Perhaps this meant so he could afford to marry another. I don't know. But he could put her away for fornication. Why didn't he say adultery? Because adultery carried an automatic death sentence in those days. No divorce was necessary.
Too, Mark 10:12 shows that a woman could also put away her husband, but was under the same rules as the man pertaining to divorce.
This comment thread is locked. Please enter a new comment below to start a new comment thread.
Note: Comment threads older than 2 months are automatically locked.
Do you have a Bible comment or question?
Posting comments is currently unavailable due to high demand on the server.
Please check back in an hour or more. Thank you for your patience!
Report Comment
Which best represents the problem with the comment?