Why did God kill David's infant?

[Teritos]

Some Jews claim that God does not need a sin offering, and that the sin offerings God required in the OT are not important. According to them, it is enough just to ask for forgiveness, but when David sinned, his infant had to die, David asked for forgiveness and fasted, he suffered a lot, but God killed his infant anyway. How do these Jews explain this? Why didn't God forgive him in such a way that his infant did not have to die? In Job we see the sin offerings, when the three friends lied about God, God said to them, "Sacrifice animals for yourselves so I won't do anything bad to you!" And don't forget, Job lived before Moses, so the sin offerings were already demanded by God before the Torah! Why does someone have to die for sin?

Genesis 4:6-7 YLT
And Jehovah saith unto Cain, `Why hast thou displeasure? and why hath thy countenance fallen? Is there not, if thou dost well, acceptance? and if thou dost not well, at the opening a sin-offering is crouching, and unto thee its desire, and thou rulest over it.'

 

[Twilight Hue]

Thank God that actually didn't happen.

 

[dybmh]

How do these Jews explain this?

This topic came up about a year ago in the Judaism-Dir. There are (as usual) multiple different explanations. The perspective which makes most sense to me is:

The child died because the the death of Uriah on the Ammonite sword at the front of the battle lines was extremely damaging to God's reputation. The nature of the infraction was the reason for the extreme punishment.

 

[Teritos]

This topic came up about a year ago in the Judiasm-Dir. There are (as usual) multiple different explanations. The perspective which makes most sense to me is:

The child died because the the death of Uriah on the Ammonite sword at the front of the battle lines was extremely damaging to God's reputation. The nature of the infraction was the reason for the extreme punishment.

Moses stoned a man just for carrying wood on a Sabbath, was this mistake also so "extreme" that he had to die? Aren't actually all sins "extreme"? If not, how will you know which sins are "extreme" and which are not?

 

[Vee]

*** MOD POST ***

Thread
moved to General Religious Debates​

 

[Skywalker]

This topic came up about a year ago in the Judaism-Dir. There are (as usual) multiple different explanations. The perspective which makes most sense to me is:

The child died because the the death of Uriah on the Ammonite sword at the front of the battle lines was extremely damaging to God's reputation. The nature of the infraction was the reason for the extreme punishment.

I believe it's because the child was a byproduct of an immoral relationship that resulted in the death of Uriah and it wouldn't have looked right if David marrying Bathsheba just went on without any consequences that applied to him.

 

[dybmh]

Moses stoned a man just for carrying wood on a Sabbath, was this mistake also so "extreme" that he had to die?

IMO, the entire exodus event, including the episodes in the desert, can be described as extreme. It makes sense that a person living in that time at that place experiencing the miracles would have been held to an extremely high standard regarding observing God's commandments. Yes, death penalty for desecrating Shabbat is extreme by today's standards, but, I think it fits in with the story as it's written.

Aren't actually all sins "extreme"? If not, how will you know which sins are "extreme" and which are not?

It's difficult for me to lump all sin together like this. Each one, imo, would need to be assessed on a case by case basis taking into account each indivdual's capacity to "knowingly" sin and the damages it caused.

 

[halbhh]

Moses stoned a man just for carrying wood on a Sabbath, was this mistake also so "extreme" that he had to die? Aren't actually all sins "extreme"? If not, how will you know which sins are "extreme" and which are not?

Depends on the circumstances in addition to the offense itself. For instance, for those that directly witness the miraculous first hand for example, they are expected then to meet a higher standard, just like you yourself would hold a person more responsible that knew better than a child that did not know better.

So, for the people in the wilderness literally eating manna and following a column of fire from God....they would be held to a higher level of responsibility to then acknowledge God's existence than would someone that had not seen such overwhelming proof of Him.

 

[halbhh]

Some Jews claim that God does not need a sin offering, and that the sin offerings God required in the OT are not important. According to them, it is enough just to ask for forgiveness, but when David sinned, his infant had to die, David asked for forgiveness and fasted, he suffered a lot, but God killed his infant anyway. How do these Jews explain this? Why didn't God forgive him in such a way that his infant did not have to die? In Job we see the sin offerings, when the three friends lied about God, God said to them, "Sacrifice animals for yourselves so I won't do anything bad to you!" And don't forget, Job lived before Moses, so the sin offerings were already demanded by God before the Torah! Why does someone have to die for sin?

Genesis 4:6-7 YLT
And Jehovah saith unto Cain, `Why hast thou displeasure? and why hath thy countenance fallen? Is there not, if thou dost well, acceptance? and if thou dost not well, at the opening a sin-offering is crouching, and unto thee its desire, and thou rulest over it.'

An important aspect to remember is that God will judge all according to their deeds (both Tanakh and Old/New Testament verses available), and makes death only "sleep", from which all will awaken. In other words the infant isn't actually dead. This can be forgotten easily when talking about 'killing' or such, and that's why I remind us of it.

Personally I think another way of asking 'why does someone have to die for sins?' is similar to asking 'why are the wages of sin death?'

Consider: 'sin' is to intentionally commit wrongs against others, and one example of such wrongs is 'false witness', and it's a useful example to consider the outcome of false witness. False accusations lead to murders or executions (or begin a progression that unhindered can result in those eventual outcomes).

So, a slander or false witness is a beginning step towards murder.

In like manner, all sins are heading in the same direction, and though some are larger steps that direction than others, they all are progressing to the same destination == to destroy what is good.

In that way, one can begin to see how sin leads to death, and why sin needs to be opposed or removed.

 

[Teritos]

Depends on the circumstances in addition to the offense itself. For instance, for those that directly witness the miraculous first hand for example, they are expected then to meet a higher standard, just like you yourself would hold a person more responsible that knew better than a child that did not know better.

So, for the people in the wilderness literally eating manna and following a column of fire from God....they would be held to a higher level of responsibility to then acknowledge God's existence than would someone that had not seen such overwhelming proof of Him.

That someone is punished more severely just because he has seen miracles is a weird and unjust thought and is also not biblical.

According to the Bible, every sin leads to death and it does not matter whether he has seen miracles or not.

Hebrews 10:28
Anyone who has ignored the Law of Moses is put to death without mercy.

 

[Skywalker]

An important aspect to remember is that God will judge all according to their deeds (both Tanakh and Old/New Testament verses available), and makes death only "sleep", from which all will awaken. In other words the infant isn't actually dead. This can be forgotten easily when talking about 'killing' or such, and that's why I remind us of it.

Personally I think another way of asking 'why does someone have to die for sins?' is similar to asking 'why are the wages of sin death?'

Consider: 'sin' is to intentionally commit wrongs against others, and one example of such wrongs is 'false witness', and it's a useful example to consider the outcome of false witness. False accusations lead to murders or executions (or begin a progression that unhindered can result in those eventual outcomes).

So, a slander or false witness is a beginning step towards murder.

In like manner, all sins are heading in the same direction, and though some are larger steps that direction than others, they all are progressing to the same destination == to destroy what is good.

In that way, one can begin to see how sin leads to death, and why sin needs to be opposed or removed.

I believe that death exists because of original sin and death is not natural, because man was created to live forever. I believe that when Adam sinned, it brought physical and spiritual death to all of humanity. Without original sin, the idea that humanity would have a test to choose between right and wrong would have no meaning.

 

[Teritos]

IMO, the entire exodus event, including the episodes in the desert, can be described as extreme. It makes sense that a person living in that time at that place experiencing the miracles would have been held to an extremely high standard regarding observing God's commandments. Yes, death penalty for desecrating Shabbat is extreme by today's standards, but, I think it fits in with the story as it's written.
It's difficult for me to lump all sin together like this. Each one, imo, would need to be assessed on a case by case basis taking into account each indivdual's capacity to "knowingly" sin and the damages it caused.

Why do human beings grow old and die? Is this not the result of sin? Are we not all under the death penalty because we have all sinned?

 

[halbhh]

That someone is punished more severely just because he has seen miracles is a weird and unjust thought and is also not biblical.

If you read the bible through (fully) you'll have to revise that wrong idea.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Some Jews claim that God does not need a sin offering, and that the sin offerings God required in the OT are not important. According to them, it is enough just to ask for forgiveness, but when David sinned, his infant had to die, David asked for forgiveness and fasted, he suffered a lot, but God killed his infant anyway. How do these Jews explain this? Why didn't God forgive him in such a way that his infant did not have to die? In Job we see the sin offerings, when the three friends lied about God, God said to them, "Sacrifice animals for yourselves so I won't do anything bad to you!" And don't forget, Job lived before Moses, so the sin offerings were already demanded by God before the Torah! Why does someone have to die for sin?

Genesis 4:6-7 YLT
And Jehovah saith unto Cain, `Why hast thou displeasure? and why hath thy countenance fallen? Is there not, if thou dost well, acceptance? and if thou dost not well, at the opening a sin-offering is crouching, and unto thee its desire, and thou rulest over it.'

That is an unusual translation. YLT reveals some information about verses that some translations do not, but it is also a poor translation as the two languages do not share sentence structure. Most translations say "Sin is crouching at your door desiring to have you, but you must rule it." The translation you have provided from Youngs creates a different dynamic, probably wrong for the use put to above. Look at verse 9 which is unreadable English and goes "And Jehovah saith unto Cain, 'Where is Abel thy brother?' and he saith, 'I have not known; my brother's keeper -- I?'" The literal YLT isn't usually the best choice and can be confusing, and in this case is being used to justify an alien interpretation.

 

[Teritos]

That is an unusual translation. YLT reveals some information about verses that some translations do not, but it is also a poor translation as the two languages do not share sentence structure. Most translations say "Sin is crouching at your door desiring to have you, but you must rule it." The translation you have provided from Youngs creates a different dynamic, probably wrong for the use put to above. Look at verse 9 which is unreadable English and goes "And Jehovah saith unto Cain, 'Where is Abel thy brother?' and he saith, 'I have not known; my brother's keeper -- I?'" The literal YLT isn't usually the best choice and can be confusing, and in this case is being used to justify an alien interpretation.

Contextually, it is about sacrifice. Cain brought fruit for which he worked to justify himself before God. Abel, on the other hand, brought life as a sacrifice. God accepted the sacrifice of Abel, but rejected the sacrifice of Cain. Because only blood is counted as a sacrifice by God. Cain wanted to be cleaned by his own work, but Abel cleaned himself by the life of another. That was the point, but Cain did not understand that, so God came to him and said: "If you do not do well, sin offering is lurking at the door" God simply wanted to make it clear to him that he should offer blood and nothing else, then Cain's sacrifice would also have been accepted. So in this regard, YLT has translated this passage correctly.

 

[dybmh]

Why do human beings grow old and die?
Is this not the result of sin? Are we not all under the death penalty because we have all sinned?

Penalty? no. Aging and death is a blessing.

 

[Teritos]

If you read the bible through (fully) you'll have to revise that wrong idea.

I've read the whole Bible through and have never seen anything like that in it. As I said, according to the Bible, every sin leads to death, death is through sin in our flesh. We all die because we have sinned.

 

[Teritos]

Penalty? no. Aging and death is a blessing.

According to Genesis, death is a curse that came into the world through Adam; it is not a blessing. How can dying be a blessing?

 

[Brickjectivity]

Contextually, it is about sacrifice. Cain brought fruit for which he worked to justify himself before God. Abel, on the other hand, brought life as a sacrifice. God accepted the sacrifice of Abel, but rejected the sacrifice of Cain. Because only blood is counted as a sacrifice by God. Cain wanted to be cleaned by his own work, but Abel cleaned himself by the life of another. That was the point, but Cain did not understand that, so God came to him and said: "If you do not do well, sin offering is lurking at the door" God simply wanted to make it clear to him that he should offer blood and nothing else, then Cain's sacrifice would also have been accepted. So in this regard, YLT has translated this passage correctly.

That is the alien translation I'm referring to. Genesis says Cain offered fruit. Why his offering is rejected it does not say. Only you insist it is because its not meat, but Genesis does not. Instead all of this is brought up only to argue that blood is necessary for forgiveness, but it is not a good basis for that argument. Instead it raises the question again rather than answering it.

 

[dybmh]

According to Genesis, death is a curse that came into the world through Adam; it is not a blessing. How can dying be a blessing?

From a literal perspective death is not listed as a curse in Genesis. Death is a blessing because without death the earth would over populate.