Why did God kill David's infant?

[Skywalker]

If she would have 'screamed out loud' she would have been considered as innocent. - Deuteronomy 22:24-25.
So, yes she had a choice in the matter. There is No record of her screaming out for help.

She didn't have much of a choice because David was the king and could have punished her if she didn't obey.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

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.

Yes, but still...killing the child, rather than any of the guilty parties, seems a bit callous, wouldn't you agree?

 

[Skywalker]

Yes, but still...killing the child, rather than any of the guilty parties, seems a bit callous, wouldn't you agree?

God judged David in many ways. God is loving but God is also just. Even the most fair judge has to be just. When someone does something wrong, there are legal consequences. Why did God punish David and Bathsheba’s innocent child with death? | GotQuestions.org

In the case of the death of David’s infant son, some people feel anger at God for killing the child. There are two main points of contention that can cause problems in our thinking. The first is that God did not deal with David harshly enough. But this accusation ignores the context of the passage at hand; God did indeed punish David, and He did so threefold. David would never again have peace in his house, he would be publicly shamed for his private sin, and, at the apex, his son would die. Nathan outlined the three judgments:

“‘Now, therefore, the sword will never depart from your house, because you despised me and took the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be your own.’ This is what the Lord says: ‘Out of your own household I am going to bring calamity on you. Before your very eyes I will take your wives and give them to one who is close to you, and he will sleep with your wives in broad daylight. You did it in secret, but I will do this thing in broad daylight before all Israel. . . . The Lord has taken away your sin. You are not going to die. But because by doing this you have shown utter contempt for the Lord, the son born to you will die’” (2 Samuel 12:10–14).

 

[Skywalker]

Yes, but still...killing the child, rather than any of the guilty parties, seems a bit callous, wouldn't you agree?

God judged David, not Bathsheba. Bathsheba

Notice here that God did not require repentance or punishment from Bathsheba for the act of adultery – only David. It was David’s – not Bathsheba’s – sin against God, and it was David’s blatant disregard for God’s law that drew His wrath and punishment upon him. The prophet Nathan is sent only to David to declare judgment. It was David who stated, “I have sinned against the Lord” (2 Samuel 12:13) and took the responsibility upon himself only. If Bathsheba had been the seductress, she would have been blamed, and her lineage would not have continued. Bathsheba would have been erased from history from that moment on. God’s punishment for David, however, was that he will,

“suffer adversity against you from 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. For you did it secretly, but I will do this thing before all Israel, before the sun.” (2 Samuel 12: 11-12)

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

God judged David in many ways. God is loving but God is also just. Even the most fair judge has to be just. When someone does something wrong, there are legal consequences. Why did God punish David and Bathsheba’s innocent child with death? | GotQuestions.org

You are welcome to do all the apologetics you like (heck, it's a never-ending Christian endeavour), but if you really try to say that when two people do something wrong, then the right thing to do is kill their kid --- well, I will despise you.

NOTHING IN ALL THE WORLD OR OUT OF IT CAN MAKE THAT RIGHT. If you don't get that, then you do not have anything like decent human morality.

 

[Skywalker]

You are welcome to do all the apologetics you like (heck, it's a never-ending Christian endeavour), but if you really try to say that when two people do something wrong, then the right thing to do is kill their kid --- well, I will despise you.

NOTHING IN ALL THE WORLD OR OUT OF IT CAN MAKE THAT RIGHT. If you don't get that, then you do not have anything like decent human morality.

Do you think Bathsheba should have been punished? She wasn't a seductress and even though her life wasn't in imminent danger she was still in danger from David being the king and putting pressure on her.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Do you think Bathsheba should have been punished? She wasn't a seductress and even though her life wasn't in imminent danger she was still in danger from David being the king and putting pressure on her.

Why are you ignoring just punishing David? He was the bad guy. He had Uriah (Bathsheba's hubby) killed, he seduced Bathsheba. But he gets to keep being king, doesn't he? He retains God's favour until the end, doesn't he?

Picture youself a judge, sitting in a human court. Bring these characters in, and tell me how you would rule that the best solution is killing a child! Come on -- stop ducking the issue.

 

[Skywalker]

Why are you ignoring just punishing David? He was the bad guy. He had Uriah (Bathsheba's hubby) killed, he seduced Bathsheba. But he gets to keep being king, doesn't he? He retains God's favour until the end, doesn't he?

Picture youself a judge, sitting in a human court. Bring these characters in, and tell me how you would rule that the best solution is killing a child! Come on -- stop ducking the issue.

Do you think Bathsheba would have been legally liable if she was in a situation like that, even though adultery isn't illegal anymore; in an equivalent situation I think she would have been possibly liable.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Do you think Bathsheba would have been legally liable if she was in a situation like that, even though adultery isn't illegal anymore; in an equivalent situation I think she would have been possibly liable.

Don't understand your fixation on David and Bathsheba, and your insistance on ignoring the blatant injustice -- yes and evil -- of killing their child.

But David was KING -- held absolute power, even of life and death, over his subjects. Nowadays, a man who holds power and uses it to get his way with a woman not his wife -- and especially a woman who is somebody else's wife -- would be held to be despicable.

And that would be how I would judge the situation as well. Adultery has nothing whatever to do with it -- if Bathsheba, a mere subject of an all-powerful king, has sex with him because she has no choice, I do not hold her liable. I don't expect women should kill themselves because they've been abused by powerful men. Rather, I think the men should do the decent thing and cut off their own .... life, or whatever.

 

[Skywalker]

Don't understand your fixation on David and Bathsheba, and your insistance on ignoring the blatant injustice -- yes and evil -- of killing their child.

But David was KING -- held absolute power, even of life and death, over his subjects. Nowadays, a man who holds power and uses it to get his way with a woman not his wife -- and especially a woman who is somebody else's wife -- would be held to be despicable.

And that would be how I would judge the situation as well. Adultery has nothing whatever to do with it -- if Bathsheba, a mere subject of an all-powerful king, has sex with him because she has no choice, I do not hold her liable. I don't expect women should kill themselves because they've been abused by powerful men. Rather, I think the men should do the decent thing and cut off their own .... life, or whatever.

God punished King David as judgement for his sins-the child was affected by his sins-like a child who is separated from their parent because they went to jail. Why did God punish David and Bathsheba’s innocent child with death? | GotQuestions.org

Answer: In 2 Samuel 12, the prophet Nathan confronts David concerning his sin with Bathsheba and pronounces a judgment against David. Sadly, that judgment included the death of David and Bathsheba’s infant son (verse 14). The fact that an innocent child dies—instead of the guilty pair—is troubling in light of what we know of God’s justice and His care for children. We will attempt to clarify a few issues involved here. At the same time, we recognize that, even when we come to understand God better and accept some of His “harsher” actions, there is no relief from the visceral response we get when a child dies. Everyone should be hurt and appalled at the death of a child.

God does a lot of “uncomfortable” things that simply must be done in a world of sin. But the fact is that God never intended for us to be comfortable with sin and its outfall (which includes its punishment). We should be bothered by the effects of sin. Mature Christians understand this, but it doesn’t make living in a fallen world any easier.

In the case of the death of David’s infant son, some people feel anger at God for killing the child. There are two main points of contention that can cause problems in our thinking. The first is that God did not deal with David harshly enough. But this accusation ignores the context of the passage at hand; God did indeed punish David, and He did so threefold. David would never again have peace in his house, he would be publicly shamed for his private sin, and, at the apex, his son would die. Nathan outlined the three judgments:

“‘Now, therefore, the sword will never depart from your house, because you despised me and took the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be your own.’ This is what the Lord says: ‘Out of your own household I am going to bring calamity on you. Before your very eyes I will take your wives and give them to one who is close to you, and he will sleep with your wives in broad daylight. You did it in secret, but I will do this thing in broad daylight before all Israel. . . . The Lord has taken away your sin. You are not going to die. But because by doing this you have shown utter contempt for the Lord, the son born to you will die’” (2 Samuel 12:10–14).

In an honor-based culture (as was the ancient Near East), some things were worse than death, like public humiliation. Dishonor would be bad enough for the common citizen, but, as God made a point of reminding David, he was no common citizen—he was the king (2 Samuel 12:7). So, although God did not kill David for his evil deeds, the punishments he received caused him to live in shame. David did not get off easy.

It's similar to the judgement of the Midianites. What about God’s cruelty against the Midianites

The Midianite parents would have been legally/ethically responsible for this situation falling upon their children—NOT the Israelites;

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

God punished King David as judgement for his sins-the child was affected by his sins-like a child who is separated from their parent because they went to jail. Why did God punish David and Bathsheba’s innocent child with death? | GotQuestions.org



It's similar to the judgement of the Midianites. What about God’s cruelty against the Midianites

Answer your own questions. I don't do apologetics for God. First, he doesn't exist and second, if he did exist, he wouldn't deserve my efforts.

As I said, I don't understand your anxiety about absolving him of everything. Doing wrong is doing wrong. Even when its the powerful doing it

 

[Skywalker]

Answer your own questions. I don't do apologetics for God. First, he doesn't exist and second, if he did exist, he wouldn't deserve my efforts.

As I said, I don't understand your anxiety about absolving him of everything. Doing wrong is doing wrong. Even when its the powerful doing it

During world war two, innocent Japanese people were affected during the bombings of Dresden and Hiroshima and Nagasaki. They suffered the consequences of the sin of their nation-they weren't judged for it.

 

[Teritos]

I didn’t find that part from the Bible. Could you please show where is that said in the Bible?

Job 42:7-8

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

During world war two, innocent Japanese people were affected during the bombings of Dresden and Hiroshima and Nagasaki. They suffered the consequences of the sin of their nation-they weren't judged for it.

Total non-sequitur.

 

[Skywalker]

Don't understand your fixation on David and Bathsheba, and your insistance on ignoring the blatant injustice -- yes and evil -- of killing their child.

But David was KING -- held absolute power, even of life and death, over his subjects. Nowadays, a man who holds power and uses it to get his way with a woman not his wife -- and especially a woman who is somebody else's wife -- would be held to be despicable.

And that would be how I would judge the situation as well. Adultery has nothing whatever to do with it -- if Bathsheba, a mere subject of an all-powerful king, has sex with him because she has no choice, I do not hold her liable. I don't expect women should kill themselves because they've been abused by powerful men. Rather, I think the men should do the decent thing and cut off their own .... life, or whatever.

David killed Uriah after Bathsheba became pregnant shows that Bathsheba was liable. She did have a choice. If she had disobeyed David, she would have been punished by an unjust king but still would have been obedient to Mosaic Law. It's like the Christians who didn't deny Jesus even when they were in prison, like in the early church. The actions of a guilty person can result in the suffering of an innocent person, like the persecution of the early church, or someone who had a reason for doing what they did, in this case, Bathsheba. God was just for taking David's infant for the same reason it was just that Bathsheba was guilty under the law. Paul’s Radical Conversion To Christianity | Reasons for Jesus

3. Pauls willingness to suffer and die for Jesus
Thirdly, Paul lived his post-conversion life with a willingness to suffer and be persecuted for the message of Jesus. This is quite the dramatic change considering that his pre-conversion life had him persecuting and killing Christians. Not only did Paul suffer abuse, persecution, heartache, and isolation but he was also later martyred. On several occasions Paul was incarcerated, while other times he endured beatings (2 Cor. 11:24-27).

The Jews with whom Paul spoke tried to kill him (Acts 9:29), he was persecuted (Acts 13:50, 1 Corinthians 4:12, 2 Corinthians 4:9, 2 Timothy 3:11 & Phil 1:12-30), he was stoned and dragged out of the city (Acts 14:9), beaten with rods (Acts 16:22), endured trial (Acts 18:12), verbally abused by crowds (Acts 21:36 & 22:22), and incarcerated (2 Timothy 2:9).

Paul was clearly willing to suffer for his faith as is multiply & independently attested. From our early New Testament writings Paul’s suffering is attested by his authentic letters (1 Corinthians etc.), disputed letters (2 Timothy etc.) and by Acts.

 

[Harel13]

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.'

One answer is that the baby died as a consequence of David's sin. An analogy I heard recently is that if an adult releases out into the open a dangerous chemical gas, and someone - a child, another adult, etc - dies from it - the dead person wasn't at fault, of course. And their death does nothing to absolve the person who released the gas - it's simply (but horridly, of course) a consequence of the first person's actions.

 

[1213]

Job 42:7-8

Thank you. So, it really didn’t say "Sacrifice animals for yourselves so I won't do anything bad to you!". Instead it says:

It was so, that after Yahweh had spoken these words to Job, Yahweh said to Eliphaz the Temanite, "My wrath is kindled against you, and against your two friends; for you have not spoken of me the thing that is right, as my servant Job has.
Now therefore, take to yourselves seven bulls and seven rams, and go to my servant Job, and offer up for yourselves a burnt offering; and my servant Job shall pray for you, for I will accept him, that I not deal with you according to your folly. For you have not spoken of me the thing that is right, as my servant Job has."
Job 42:7-8

Which I think is not the same as what you said.

 

[wellwisher]

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.'

In Genesis, God warned Adam and Eve not to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil or you shall surely die. They could have just eaten of the tree of life and continued forward with instinct. Instead they choose free choice and will power, by knowing good and evil.

Say God told Adam and Eve that gravity always pulls downward. If they jump off the mountain they shall surely die or get injured. They listen to Satan, who then tells then God was joking, so they decide to try and jump so they can fly like angels. In the end they both get hurt.

Should they lament and blame God for not saving them, even though they refused to listen? Should they give Satan a pass, since he is never blamed by atheists, of being a con artist with bad advice? If you want free choice and willpower you need to be treated as an adult.

Willpower and choice is fine, but when you add relativity morality, based on the latest fads within cultural knowledge of good and evil, you will confront laws of science and nature hat are fixed and you can cause your own bad results and even demise. A willful person who thinks they can make better choices than the laws of God, has to accept responsibility for their bad choices. You can't have you cake and eat it too. Had Adam and Eve stayed with the tree of life, God would have made those choices for you. But they choose Satan's con job and his favorite tree; law, and had to deal with the consequences. The goal was to get human to use this power wisely by learning from mistakes.

God rested on the seventh day. It is not clear how long God rested, and when he started to work again. It appears Satan was in charge during this rest period, since he had a way with the humans; Adam and Eve, and the rest of Genesis, after the fall is about the new humans that appear from procreation. This does not involve much extra help from God as he rested. Humans were making bad choices with willpower and death was widespread.

Satan is not thrown from heaven until in Revelations, which was written after the time of Jesus. Death penalties, in the Old Testament, were more than likely from the Lord of the Earth; Satan, who tended to God's earth and human business as God rested. Satan, like law, was both good and evil. The Devil is pure evil, but Satan has a good side to balance his evil, which may be why he is though to be God.

When Jesus started his ministry, he went into the desert to fast and pray. Near the end of his fast, he was tempted by Satan who promised him the kingdoms and wealth of the world if he would bow and serve him. Jesus does no call him a liar, but rather he knew Satan had this power as Lord of the Earth. Instead, Jesus declines the offer and accepts the future death penalty. Had Jesus accepted the offer he would have become the Messiah anticipated by the Jews; super rich and powerful.

The death penalty is the pinnacle punishment for violation of the law. As the Passion of Jesus showed, law is not fixed into a natural system of rational fairness, since the Roman governor came to a different conclusion than the Pharisees. Pilot saw innocent of the death penalty. The Pharisees made their own law of man and justified a death penalty. Law, like Satan, was imperfect since humans often make laws for their own needs and not for fairness or for the general good. However, since Satan was in charge of law, this was business as usual; flawed system that leads to death.

When Jesus dies in the cross, his human obligation to law is made void, since he is dead and cannot be held accountable or punished again for any crime. The rule of double jeopardy applied. When Jesus resurrects; totally unusual, his new self is no longer under law, since his old self was killed by the law. He figured out a way to escape Satan and law.

This double jeopardy loophole, is what causes the disturbance in heaven. Satan's position as the CEO to God is not up for debate and Satan is forcefully expelled in the future. Satan loses his job as the spokesman for God, as God continued to rest. The angels took over the work of firing him. Jesus says one can only come to the father except through son, since God is still resting and he does not do work on the Sabbath. Jesus becomes his Father's new intermediary, based on love instead of law.

Revelations has Satan cast to earth after he thrown from heaven. Those who do not understand that his authority is not longer from heaven, like in the Old Testament, get confused by the laws Satan continues to create and support. This will appear like business as unusual, to the unfaithful. Revelations is about the drama that appears leading to humans gradually, realizing they have been serving the wrong master.