In order to punish King David for his sins, God strikes his first-born infant with a sickness, killing the baby over a likely agonizing 7 days of suffering.
How is this justice? Would we kill the child of a murderer in order to punish him and change his ways, even if it was a proven method for changing a person to obey laws?
Does sending the baby to heaven after the fact make this an ethical punishment?
If God does not utilize basic ethical standards of punishment, then why serve him?
Board index ‹ Specific Bible verses, texts, and passages ‹ 2 Samuel
30 posts
• Page 1 of 3 • 1, 2, 3
Re: 2 Sam. 12:15-18 - God kills a baby!
by jimwalton » Sun Nov 08, 2015 5:38 pm
In the ancient Near East, including Israelite culture, there was no distinction between natural and supernatural. Their perception was that God or the gods were involved in every detail of life. Thus anything that happened was considered to be an act of God. It's not surprise they word it this way. Any death was "God killed him." Any life was "God spared him." The Lord closed wombs; the Lord opened wombs. Everything was perceived as an act of God. It is very active language that shouldn't be taken in a modern sense. At the same time, the author's point is that David is being judged by God for his sin. If you look at the whole story of David, you'll discover that David loses 4 children as a result of what he did. One son murders another. One son is executed by David's general. This son dies of some kind of disease.
In our modern way of thinking (whether it's more accurate or not is impossible to say), we would not word it this way or understand it this way. We would say the child died a natural death, and that David was cut to the heart with grief, and that was his judgment. But since they saw no distinction between natural and supernatural, they expressed it differently. That's not to claim that the child would have lived anyway. The child may have been born very sickly and was so unhealthy he was going to die. That's how we would say it. The way they said that was "The Lord struck the child and he became ill."
It was perceived, along with the eventual deaths (by completely different and unrelated means) of 3 more of David's sons, as David's punishment for his adultery with Bathsheba. That's what makes it justice. The text is concerned to show us that David is paying for his sin with his family (his offspring, and therefore "eye for eye" for adultery) going to ruin and his heart being filled with unquenchable grief.
In our modern way of thinking (whether it's more accurate or not is impossible to say), we would not word it this way or understand it this way. We would say the child died a natural death, and that David was cut to the heart with grief, and that was his judgment. But since they saw no distinction between natural and supernatural, they expressed it differently. That's not to claim that the child would have lived anyway. The child may have been born very sickly and was so unhealthy he was going to die. That's how we would say it. The way they said that was "The Lord struck the child and he became ill."
It was perceived, along with the eventual deaths (by completely different and unrelated means) of 3 more of David's sons, as David's punishment for his adultery with Bathsheba. That's what makes it justice. The text is concerned to show us that David is paying for his sin with his family (his offspring, and therefore "eye for eye" for adultery) going to ruin and his heart being filled with unquenchable grief.
- jimwalton
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9111
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm
Re: 2 Sam. 12:15-18 - God kills a baby!
by Wiggleworms » Mon Nov 09, 2015 10:34 am
Then you're saying the bible gave god a lot of credit for things that were simply natural. You're saying the writers spoke in hyperbole. So why would you then take other things literally and choose to worship a being created by people who thought everything was supernatural?
- Wiggleworms
Re: 2 Sam. 12:15-18 - God kills a baby!
by jimwalton » Mon Nov 09, 2015 10:47 am
No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that we really don't have a foolproof method for always discerning what God had a part in and what he didn't, and how much of a part God played in it, and what things God did. As humans we pretty poor interpreters of such things. In ancient times, they attributed everything to God. There were no divisions between "things God was involved in" and "things God wasn't involved in." In modern times, many skeptics have gone to the complete opposite end of the continuum: "God does nothing. Don't even know if he exists. God isn't involved." The fact of the matter is, no one can say for sure which parts God played and which he didn't. So if you think God was getting false credit for things that were simply natural, you're welcome to hold that opinion. It might be as false as stairs of sand.
I didn't say the writers spoke in hyperbole. That was their worldview, and they spoke true to their worldview. Our culture has a different worldview, and we cannot claim with any certainty that ours is right and theirs is wrong, or that ours is the superior perspective. That's clearly cultural bias.
> So why would you then take other things literally and choose to worship a being created by people who thought everything was supernatural?
We study the Scriptures carefully to discern whether a text is meant to be taken at face value or uses a literary convention. It just may that everything *is* supernatural, but it is played with so much regularity that we, in our atheistic cynicism, think it happens naturally and all by itself. No one is qualified to guarantee one way or the other, so we make our determinations as best we can following principles of reason, presuppositions, and the beliefs we have adopted.
I didn't say the writers spoke in hyperbole. That was their worldview, and they spoke true to their worldview. Our culture has a different worldview, and we cannot claim with any certainty that ours is right and theirs is wrong, or that ours is the superior perspective. That's clearly cultural bias.
> So why would you then take other things literally and choose to worship a being created by people who thought everything was supernatural?
We study the Scriptures carefully to discern whether a text is meant to be taken at face value or uses a literary convention. It just may that everything *is* supernatural, but it is played with so much regularity that we, in our atheistic cynicism, think it happens naturally and all by itself. No one is qualified to guarantee one way or the other, so we make our determinations as best we can following principles of reason, presuppositions, and the beliefs we have adopted.
- jimwalton
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9111
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm
Re: 2 Sam. 12:15-18 - God kills a baby!
by Bookworm » Mon Nov 09, 2015 12:06 pm
> We would say the child died a natural death
Yes, we would. The point of the story, though, is that God caused the child's death to punish David.
> the eventual deaths of 3 more of David's sons [were] David's punishment for his adultery with Bathsheba. That's what makes it justice.
Do you believe it's justice to punish a child for the sins of the father?
Yes, we would. The point of the story, though, is that God caused the child's death to punish David.
> the eventual deaths of 3 more of David's sons [were] David's punishment for his adultery with Bathsheba. That's what makes it justice.
Do you believe it's justice to punish a child for the sins of the father?
- Bookworm
Re: 2 Sam. 12:15-18 - God kills a baby!
by jimwalton » Mon Nov 09, 2015 12:06 pm
> God caused the child's death
As I said, this was their worldview to perceive all actions and events as God-caused. Let me take a stab at thoughts about justice.
1. First of all, and clearly, the text is about judgment on David, not on anyone else. Several instances of death surround David's sin, but the focus of the text is on David himself, and that he received what was fair and just for him to receive. But I know this doesn't satisfy your question.
2. There is always collateral damage from people's sin. Sometimes its obvious and sometimes not, but there always is. There's no such thing as privately contained sin. This story makes very clear that sin always has ramifications for those around us. Much of it is what we would call "natural consequences." Those are words we would use, but not words the ancients would use. The ancients' expression for is would be "God struck the child." How could this be natural consequences? I can only speculate, but, for instance, while Bathsheba was pregnant with the child, she learned of the death of her husband. Did this gut-wrenching grief happen at a particularly formative period of fetal development? We don't know, but such things are always possible. We know all about fetal development, so we know that's half-reasonable to assume. So did God kill the child, or did David?
3. David himself had pronounced this judgment, ironically on himself. Look earlier in the chapter, at 2 Sam. 2.5-6. David thought it was fair and just that the death of one be compensated by the death of 4. As it turns out, David had killed Uriah, and four of David's own sons died. So did God kill the child unjustly, or had David pronounced the sentence himself, and God said, "As you wish"?
Part of the fairness of justice is that the punishment fits the crime. The text is taking pains to tell us that David's cavalier carelessness in killing others would result (2 Sam. 12.9-10) in death to his own house (and even by his own pronouncement (vv. 5-6), and that David's lustful carelessness in screwing Bathsheba would result (2 Sam. 1211-12) in sexual abuse in his own household.
I'll grant that it's a difficult text, but the thrust of it is clearly that David would face fair justice for his sin, and he does.
As I said, this was their worldview to perceive all actions and events as God-caused. Let me take a stab at thoughts about justice.
1. First of all, and clearly, the text is about judgment on David, not on anyone else. Several instances of death surround David's sin, but the focus of the text is on David himself, and that he received what was fair and just for him to receive. But I know this doesn't satisfy your question.
2. There is always collateral damage from people's sin. Sometimes its obvious and sometimes not, but there always is. There's no such thing as privately contained sin. This story makes very clear that sin always has ramifications for those around us. Much of it is what we would call "natural consequences." Those are words we would use, but not words the ancients would use. The ancients' expression for is would be "God struck the child." How could this be natural consequences? I can only speculate, but, for instance, while Bathsheba was pregnant with the child, she learned of the death of her husband. Did this gut-wrenching grief happen at a particularly formative period of fetal development? We don't know, but such things are always possible. We know all about fetal development, so we know that's half-reasonable to assume. So did God kill the child, or did David?
3. David himself had pronounced this judgment, ironically on himself. Look earlier in the chapter, at 2 Sam. 2.5-6. David thought it was fair and just that the death of one be compensated by the death of 4. As it turns out, David had killed Uriah, and four of David's own sons died. So did God kill the child unjustly, or had David pronounced the sentence himself, and God said, "As you wish"?
Part of the fairness of justice is that the punishment fits the crime. The text is taking pains to tell us that David's cavalier carelessness in killing others would result (2 Sam. 12.9-10) in death to his own house (and even by his own pronouncement (vv. 5-6), and that David's lustful carelessness in screwing Bathsheba would result (2 Sam. 1211-12) in sexual abuse in his own household.
I'll grant that it's a difficult text, but the thrust of it is clearly that David would face fair justice for his sin, and he does.
- jimwalton
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9111
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm
Re: 2 Sam. 12:15-18 - God kills a baby!
by Free Ride » Mon Nov 09, 2015 1:26 pm
> In the ancient Near East, including Israelite culture, there was no distinction between natural and supernatural.
How do we make the distinction now?
> anything that happened was considered to be an act of God.
This comes from an interpretation that God is omnipotent. This is taken to mean that nothing happens without God's command or outside of his will (Lamentations 3:37 or Proverbs 16). If this is the belief held, then it does make sense to say that every life and death is because of God's choice. That's part of omnipotence.
How do we make the distinction now?
> anything that happened was considered to be an act of God.
This comes from an interpretation that God is omnipotent. This is taken to mean that nothing happens without God's command or outside of his will (Lamentations 3:37 or Proverbs 16). If this is the belief held, then it does make sense to say that every life and death is because of God's choice. That's part of omnipotence.
- Free Ride
Re: 2 Sam. 12:15-18 - God kills a baby!
by jimwalton » Mon Nov 09, 2015 1:26 pm
Actually, omnipotence doesn't mean that God does everything, that he controls everything, that we are determined, and that nothing happens outside of his will. Omnipotence means that God is able to do everything that God designs to do. He is all-powerful, but that's a very different theology than all-controlling.
As far as Lamentations 3.37, verses 38-39 show us what he is talking about. Humans don't have ultimate control over the events of humanity. God is intimately involved in the events of life in what that we are very limited in discerning and understanding. Sometimes the bad things that happen to us are God's punishment (sometimes not, as the book of Job shows us). Sometimes the good we receive is God's blessing (and sometimes not). The world doesn't work according to the retribution principle (the whole point of the book of Job). God doesn't make everything happen, but he is involved. We aren't robots, but God isn't removed either.
> How do we make the distinction now?
The very terms make an assumption that if say God is acting, it rules out that his action was accomplished through what we call "natural" processes. It assumes some kind of divide between the two. The ancient Israelites believed God was always active in the world in numerous and often undetectable ways. When they planted a seed, the plant would grow, but that was not to claim God wasn't involved in that process.
In 2 Chronicles 32, Isaiah and Hezekiah pray to be saved from the Assyrians. Isaiah prophetically says that the city of Jerusalem will indeed be spared, that the Assyrians will retreat, and that Sennacherib will be killed. It is true that the city of Jerusalem was spared and that within the next period of time the Assyrian army retreated. It was 20 years later that Sennacherib was assassinated by his sons (2 Chr. 32.21-22). 20 years. So did God do that, or did the sons? The answer is Yes. Who can create divides? Who can ever figure all this out? Was David responsible for the death of his own son? Absolutely. Did God do it? Yep, but maybe through very natural processes, indiscernible to any observers. Just because God plays a role doesn't mean (1) we are just robots because God does everything, or (2) God is to blame for everything that happens on the planet. God is certainly capable of bypassing normal causes, but it is not safe to infer that he did so just because the Old Testament reports that he acted. Today, when we make distinctions between natural and supernatural activity in Scripture, not only do we push our modern categories into the Bible, but we also limit God’s action. Once we designate some acts as “special” or “supernatural” we imply that other events that can be explained by normal cause and effect are not the acts of God. This drifts toward deism (distancing God from the operations of the cosmos) by suggesting that God only acts some of the time. This kind of thinking is responsible at least in part for bringing about the divide between science and the Bible.
As far as Lamentations 3.37, verses 38-39 show us what he is talking about. Humans don't have ultimate control over the events of humanity. God is intimately involved in the events of life in what that we are very limited in discerning and understanding. Sometimes the bad things that happen to us are God's punishment (sometimes not, as the book of Job shows us). Sometimes the good we receive is God's blessing (and sometimes not). The world doesn't work according to the retribution principle (the whole point of the book of Job). God doesn't make everything happen, but he is involved. We aren't robots, but God isn't removed either.
> How do we make the distinction now?
The very terms make an assumption that if say God is acting, it rules out that his action was accomplished through what we call "natural" processes. It assumes some kind of divide between the two. The ancient Israelites believed God was always active in the world in numerous and often undetectable ways. When they planted a seed, the plant would grow, but that was not to claim God wasn't involved in that process.
In 2 Chronicles 32, Isaiah and Hezekiah pray to be saved from the Assyrians. Isaiah prophetically says that the city of Jerusalem will indeed be spared, that the Assyrians will retreat, and that Sennacherib will be killed. It is true that the city of Jerusalem was spared and that within the next period of time the Assyrian army retreated. It was 20 years later that Sennacherib was assassinated by his sons (2 Chr. 32.21-22). 20 years. So did God do that, or did the sons? The answer is Yes. Who can create divides? Who can ever figure all this out? Was David responsible for the death of his own son? Absolutely. Did God do it? Yep, but maybe through very natural processes, indiscernible to any observers. Just because God plays a role doesn't mean (1) we are just robots because God does everything, or (2) God is to blame for everything that happens on the planet. God is certainly capable of bypassing normal causes, but it is not safe to infer that he did so just because the Old Testament reports that he acted. Today, when we make distinctions between natural and supernatural activity in Scripture, not only do we push our modern categories into the Bible, but we also limit God’s action. Once we designate some acts as “special” or “supernatural” we imply that other events that can be explained by normal cause and effect are not the acts of God. This drifts toward deism (distancing God from the operations of the cosmos) by suggesting that God only acts some of the time. This kind of thinking is responsible at least in part for bringing about the divide between science and the Bible.
- jimwalton
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9111
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm
Re: 2 Sam. 12:15-18 - God kills a baby!
by Free Ride » Mon Nov 09, 2015 3:57 pm
First, thank you for the quite good, thought out response. It is always nice to see when responses are trying their hardest to explain what they believe. So, thank you for that. I just have few questions about what your wrote.
As far as omnipotence goes, I totally see what you are saying. I will see if I can shorten it down. God is omnipotent. This means He can do anything, but this does not mean that he does everything. Does that sound about right? My only questions from this part are
1) Since God is not "all-controlling" does this mean there are things that happen that are outside of God's control? The term would suggest that. I'm okay with that, I just wanted to check.
2) If god is even partly involved in everything, is He not partly liable for everything (good and bad)? For example, the guy who drives the getaway car for the robbery may not be involved in the robbery himself, but is partially involved and so he get's charged with being an accomplice. To me, even being aware of a crime happening and having the power to intervene, but doing nothing would put you in questionable moral ground. But that's getting into the problem of evil argument, and I don't want to get into that.
The second part bring up more questions.
> 20 years.
I'm a little confused. Why does the amount of time before God had Sennacherib killed matter? What matters is that Isaiah and Hezekiah prayed and God answered their prayer, right?
> Who can create divides?
It sounds like there is no answer to how we make the distinction? Is it ever possible to know whether God did something by "bypassing normal causes" or if it happened just because it happened? If yes, then how can we tell? If we can't tell then why do we care?
Once we designate some acts as "special" or "supernatural" we imply that other events that can be explained by normal causes and effect are not the acts of God.
We do this in order to be able to have a category called "acts of God" and "not acts of God", right? If everything is (in some way) an act of God, then that categories become completely pointless. What is the meaning to say "God healed my sickness" when God heals everybody's sickness? Or "God is blessing/punishing you/me". By saying the phrase "God did [blank]" you create a meaningless tautology. Of course God did it, God does everything.
The choices are (1) God is involved in everything (at least to some extent) and can therefore be held responsible for everything (to some extent) and it is meaningless to say God did anything (or God didn't do) because God does everything (to an extent), OR God is only involved in certain aspects of things and is responsible for those things, but there are other things which God is not in control of. The two do not mix.
As far as omnipotence goes, I totally see what you are saying. I will see if I can shorten it down. God is omnipotent. This means He can do anything, but this does not mean that he does everything. Does that sound about right? My only questions from this part are
1) Since God is not "all-controlling" does this mean there are things that happen that are outside of God's control? The term would suggest that. I'm okay with that, I just wanted to check.
2) If god is even partly involved in everything, is He not partly liable for everything (good and bad)? For example, the guy who drives the getaway car for the robbery may not be involved in the robbery himself, but is partially involved and so he get's charged with being an accomplice. To me, even being aware of a crime happening and having the power to intervene, but doing nothing would put you in questionable moral ground. But that's getting into the problem of evil argument, and I don't want to get into that.
The second part bring up more questions.
> 20 years.
I'm a little confused. Why does the amount of time before God had Sennacherib killed matter? What matters is that Isaiah and Hezekiah prayed and God answered their prayer, right?
> Who can create divides?
It sounds like there is no answer to how we make the distinction? Is it ever possible to know whether God did something by "bypassing normal causes" or if it happened just because it happened? If yes, then how can we tell? If we can't tell then why do we care?
Once we designate some acts as "special" or "supernatural" we imply that other events that can be explained by normal causes and effect are not the acts of God.
We do this in order to be able to have a category called "acts of God" and "not acts of God", right? If everything is (in some way) an act of God, then that categories become completely pointless. What is the meaning to say "God healed my sickness" when God heals everybody's sickness? Or "God is blessing/punishing you/me". By saying the phrase "God did [blank]" you create a meaningless tautology. Of course God did it, God does everything.
The choices are (1) God is involved in everything (at least to some extent) and can therefore be held responsible for everything (to some extent) and it is meaningless to say God did anything (or God didn't do) because God does everything (to an extent), OR God is only involved in certain aspects of things and is responsible for those things, but there are other things which God is not in control of. The two do not mix.
- Free Ride
Re: 2 Sam. 12:15-18 - God kills a baby!
by jimwalton » Fri Nov 27, 2015 11:06 am
Thanks also for great conversation. As far as omnipotence goes, it has never been clearly defined, either by philosophers or theologians. No matter what definition is contrived, there are loopholes and the definition doesn't catch everything it should. So omnipotence doesn't mean that God can do everything, as you posit (check out Mark 6.5). The closest I can come is that God is able to do all things that are proper objects of his power. It is no contradiction that God can realize whatever is possible, but that no number of actualized possibilities exhausts his power. God can realize whatever is possible. The omnipotence of God is all-sufficient power. He is able to overcome apparently insurmountable problems. He has complete power over nature. He has power over the course of history. He has the power to change human personality as individuals allow. He has the power to conquer death and sin, and to save a human soul for eternity. He has power over the spiritual realm. What all of this means is that God’s will is never frustrated. What he chooses to do, he accomplishes, for he has the ability to do it.
There are, however, certain qualifications of this all-powerful character of God. He cannot arbitrarily do anything whatsoever that we may conceive of.
- He can’t do what is logically absurd or contradictory
- He can’t act contrary to his nature
- He cannot fail to do what he has promised
- The theology of omnipotence rejects the possibility of dualism
- He cannot interfere with the freedom of man
- He cannot change the past
- It is not violated by self-limitation on the part of God
- It does not imply the use of all the power of God
So there are lots of things outside of God's control. We are creatures of free will, and do most things outside of his control. So his "involvement in everything" is to be construed as a providential oversight more than what might be called "meticulous providence". Control can be understood in different ways. Having control of one’s car is different than having control of one’s business or family. One is mechanistic and determinative, while the other is in guidelines, nurture, and (challengeable) authority. The record in the OT favors the latter. If we go with the former, and a pedophile rapes an 8-yr-old girl, then God allowed the pedophile to exist, allowed him to rape her, and may have even caused it to bring about some greater good. Such a perspective is untenable.
> It sounds like there is no answer to how we make the distinction?
It is very difficult. In the ancient world the only way people knew God's involvement in matters was they He told a prophet who explained it to the people. We as humans are notoriously terrible at interpreting our circumstances, especially when it comes to God's involvement in matters. Too many people just see what they want to see. Ugh.
People think God's involvement in our lives is like chocolate cake. We can see the layers, we can perceive the icing, we know what it what. But it's more like chocolate milk. It is two separate entities (milk and chocolate), but they get so stirred together we can't effectively tell where one begins and the other ends, and even those words are now inadequate.
There are, however, certain qualifications of this all-powerful character of God. He cannot arbitrarily do anything whatsoever that we may conceive of.
- He can’t do what is logically absurd or contradictory
- He can’t act contrary to his nature
- He cannot fail to do what he has promised
- The theology of omnipotence rejects the possibility of dualism
- He cannot interfere with the freedom of man
- He cannot change the past
- It is not violated by self-limitation on the part of God
- It does not imply the use of all the power of God
So there are lots of things outside of God's control. We are creatures of free will, and do most things outside of his control. So his "involvement in everything" is to be construed as a providential oversight more than what might be called "meticulous providence". Control can be understood in different ways. Having control of one’s car is different than having control of one’s business or family. One is mechanistic and determinative, while the other is in guidelines, nurture, and (challengeable) authority. The record in the OT favors the latter. If we go with the former, and a pedophile rapes an 8-yr-old girl, then God allowed the pedophile to exist, allowed him to rape her, and may have even caused it to bring about some greater good. Such a perspective is untenable.
> It sounds like there is no answer to how we make the distinction?
It is very difficult. In the ancient world the only way people knew God's involvement in matters was they He told a prophet who explained it to the people. We as humans are notoriously terrible at interpreting our circumstances, especially when it comes to God's involvement in matters. Too many people just see what they want to see. Ugh.
People think God's involvement in our lives is like chocolate cake. We can see the layers, we can perceive the icing, we know what it what. But it's more like chocolate milk. It is two separate entities (milk and chocolate), but they get so stirred together we can't effectively tell where one begins and the other ends, and even those words are now inadequate.
- jimwalton
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9111
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm
30 posts
• Page 1 of 3 • 1, 2, 3
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest