Jump to content

The Death Of David's Son


Recommended Posts

Jehovas witnesses have been at my door and we spoke about god's "view" of children. I asked how it was "love" to kill David's son for the sin of his father. As an answer he gave me a paper about it and the message of the paper is:

If god would have given this case to human judges, both David and Batsheba would have been killed. God saw that David was ashamed about his sin and so he forgave him, but wanted to set a signal for others, so he killed the son (over a period of 7 days!).

 

Due to Deuterominum 24,16 the son could not have been killed because of David's sin (Parents are not to be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their parents; each will die for their own sin). What did the son die for if not for the sins of his father?

 

Certainly the child went straight to heaven and did not need to suffer the "human life" and the "human sin".

 

Can the death of David's son be justified in some way? Kill one as an example, so that others do not need to be killed?

 

It all sounds terrible. What did your church tell you about this story?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most of the time, I doubt the story was thought through that deeply. But if it were, I would assume it would be a combination of God not being bound by his own law ("That's for us lowly humans") and how that the child would "be in a better place". Honestly, if you think about it, the Bible has God doing all sorts of things he told other people not to do, so this example is hardly the first time someone would be confronted with the conundrum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where is this story found? What book and chapter? I'd like to read about this..

2 Samuel 12:14-31

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is also the same story where god explicitly condones (rather than merely tolerates) polygamy, yet the apologists sweep it under the rug.

 

Where is the polygamy in the story? Before or after this incident?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is also the same story where god explicitly condones (rather than merely tolerates) polygamy, yet the apologists sweep it under the rug.

 

Where is the polygamy in the story? Before or after this incident?

 

2 Samuel 12

 

Nathan Rebukes David

 

1 So the Lord sent Nathan the prophet to tell David this story: “There were two men in a certain town. One was rich, and one was poor. 2 The rich man owned a great many sheep and cattle. 3 The poor man owned nothing but one little lamb he had bought. He raised that little lamb, and it grew up with his children. It ate from the man’s own plate and drank from his cup. He cuddled it in his arms like a baby daughter. 4 One day a guest arrived at the home of the rich man. But instead of killing an animal from his own flock or herd, he took the poor man’s lamb and killed it and prepared it for his guest.”

5 David was furious. “As surely as the Lord lives,” he vowed, “any man who would do such a thing deserves to die! 6 He must repay four lambs to the poor man for the one he stole and for having no pity.”

7 Then Nathan said to David, “You are that man! The Lord, the God of Israel, says: I anointed you king of Israel and saved you from the power of Saul. 8 I gave you your master’s house and his wives and the kingdoms of Israel and Judah. And if that had not been enough, I would have given you much, much more. 9 Why, then, have you despised the word of the Lord and done this horrible deed? For you have murdered Uriah the Hittite with the sword of the Ammonites and stolen his wife. 10 From this time on, your family will live by the sword because you have despised me by taking Uriah’s wife to be your own.

11 “This is what the Lord says: Because of what you have done, I will cause your own household to rebel against you. I will give your wives to another man before your very eyes, and he will go to bed with them in public view. 12 You did it secretly, but I will make this happen to you openly in the sight of all Israel.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have always heard, that the polygamy was for the weak people of the ot. God always wanted men to have only one wife, but due to their weakness god allowed it for a few years. Although it is interesting that great people like David and Solomon had many wifes. Solomon up to 700. I wonder what todays churches would say to a member that is married to more than one woman.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

If god would have given this case to human judges, both David and Batsheba would have been killed

 

Only if those human judges had applied God's law. So God killed the son to save David and Batsheba from his own law? Maybe the law he gave wasn't that great after all?

 

I have always heard, that the polygamy was for the weak people of the ot. God always wanted men to have only one wife, but due to their weakness god allowed it for a few years. Although it is interesting that great people like David and Solomon had many wifes. Solomon up to 700. I wonder what todays churches would say to a member that is married to more than one woman.

 

Polygamy isn't only allowed in the OT, but also in the NT. You can conclude that from Titus 1:5-6:

 

 

5For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee:

 

6 If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly.

So only elders of the church are required to be the "husband of one wife". From that one can conclude it's allowed for everybody else.

 

In any case nowhere in the Bible says polygamy is forbidden (only for elders). Not in the OT, not in the NT. Monogamy is not a Judeo-Christian heritage and requirement, even though the Christians of today like to pose as the great protectors of marriage "between one man and one woman".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Infant mortality rates were high as they did not have modern medicine in the Bronze Age. After the child died the priests and Bible writers weaved the rest of the story together to fit their own agenda.

 

In my experience the apologetics usually explain the Biblical death of a child with "God knew what that child would do once they grew up so God knew it was better this way". It a standard cop out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have always heard, that the polygamy was for the weak people of the ot. God always wanted men to have only one wife, but due to their weakness god allowed it for a few years.

 

 

 

hmmm, the weakness argument.

 

"God can't tolerate sin."

 

Well he clearly does in many situations.

 

 

People too weak to have one wife so God lets them slide. People too weak to avoid divorce, so God lets them slide.

 

How about he just let us slide for the whole sin thing?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Infant mortality rates were high as they did not have modern medicine in the Bronze Age. After the child died the priests and Bible writers weaved the rest of the story together to fit their own agenda.

 

In my experience the apologetics usually explain the Biblical death of a child with "God knew what that child would do once they grew up so God knew it was better this way". It a standard cop out.

the avoiding the question allways seems like a survival mechanism to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How about he just let us slide for the whole sin thing?

 

Ah but then there would be no explanation for why Jesus died. It's hard for some people to accept that maybe Jesus was just an ordinary religious teacher who had some bad luck. The idea that there isn't any grand plan can be unbearable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Occasionally at church, they do this thing when the pastor says, "God is good" and the people say "All the time". Then he'll say "All the time", and the people say, "God is good." Utter nonsense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.