In an eveningtide, that David arose from off his bed, and walked upon the roof of the king's house: and from the roof he saw a woman washing herself; and the woman was very beautiful to look upon. And David sent and enquired after the woman. And one said, Is not this Bathsheba, the daughter of Eliam, the wife of Uriah the Hittite? And David sent messengers, and took her; and she came in unto him, and he lay with her. 2 Samuel 11.2-4
She becomes pregnant with David's child and David sends her husband (Uriah) into the front lines to be killed.
The woman conceived, and sent and told David, and said, I am with child. 11.5
In the morning … David wrote a letter to Joab, and sent it by the hand of Uriah … saying, Set ye Uriah in the forefront of the hottest battle, and retire ye from him, that he may be smitten, and die … And Uriah the Hittite died. 11.14-17Well, that's not what this story is about. In fact, the killing of Uriah is the only one of David's many killings that God disapproved of. David had Uriah killed and God had nothing to do with it.
The thing that David had done displeased the LORD. 11.27God was displeased with David for killing Uriah and taking his wife, but he forgave him for it.
The LORD also hath put away thy sin; thou shalt not die. 12.13Still, God had to do something to show his displeasure. Here's what he decided to do: he'd have David's wives raped by his neighbor while everyone else watches.
Thus saith the LORD, Behold, I will raise up evil against thee out of thine own house, and I will take thy wives before thine eyes, and give them unto thy neighbour, and he shall lie with thy wives in the sight of this sun. 12.11It turns out that the "neighbor" that God sends to do his dirty work is David's own son, Absalom.
Ahithophel said unto Absalom, Go in unto thy father's concubines, which he hath left to keep the house … So they spread Absalom a tent upon the top of the house; and Absalom went in unto his father's concubines in the sight of all Israel. 2 Samuel 16.21-22But that didn't quite do it. David had caused God's enemies to blaspheme, so God had to give them something else to blaspheme about. But what?
Kill the baby, that's what.
Because by this deed thou hast given great occasion to the enemies of the LORD to blaspheme, the child also that is born unto thee shall surely die. 12.14And that's what God did, but not all at once. He let the baby suffer for a while.
The LORD struck the child that Uriah's wife bare unto David, and it was very sick. 12.15When God made the baby sick, David pleaded with God to stop tormenting him. But God wouldn't listen.
David therefore besought God for the child; and David fasted, and went in, and lay all night upon the earth. 12.16Finally, after the baby suffered for seven days, God killed him.
On the seventh day, that the child died. 12.18After the baby died, David washed, got dressed, had a nice meal, and worshiped the God who killed his son.
David arose from the earth, and washed, and anointed himself, and changed his apparel, and came into the house of the LORD, and worshipped: then he ... did eat. 12.20The story has a happy ending, though. After Bathsheba's baby boy is killed by God, David comforts her by going "in unto her." (He's such a nice guy!)
David comforted Bathsheba his wife, and went in unto her. 12.24aAnd Bathsheba conceives and bears another son (Solomon).
And she bare a son, and he called his name Solomon. 12.24bAnd God loved Solomon.
And the LORD loved him. 12.24c(He probably said to himself, as the Brick Testament suggests, “I don’t think I’ll kill this one.”)
15 comments:
"How's that for a fucked up Bible story?"
But God's (= Yahwe/Jehova/The Lord of Hosts/Enlil/etc.) believers wouldn't listen.
Certainly Jesus wouldn't do such a thing....oh, right, Yahweh & Jesus are the same because there is only one god.
Must be the baby needed killing.
Maybe the baby was a secret Amalekite. That must be how they repopulate - It is a recessive gene.
You didn't even mention that David refused to mourn for the child; how fucked-up is that?
Thanks matt! I've added a comment about how David reacted when God murdered his son.
It explains why bad things happen to little children. Not only does he allow it, he causes it. (struck down the first born of Egypt; the slaughter of innocents after Jesus's birth; etc)
The baby could've been a great football player like Tim Tebow! Too bad god aborted it.
Thanks for the addition, Steve, but I was just pointing out that the child's own father refusing to mourn for it is, in the words of Shakespeare, "the most unkindest cut of all"...
ahhh - nothing like a good child sacrifice to keep contempt until the next onslaught of mass murder!
God really knows how to wet his appetite!
One of you used the word "abortion" to decsribes God's action, so let me see if I get this right: in America, if a woman decides to take the life of her unborn child, we say that's okay because 1) either the baby is not fully human, or 2) even if it is, the mother has the right to make decisions of life or death about the child.
So if the baby is not fully human, God can't be faulted for killing people, right? And if it legal and apparently ethical for the powerful to take the life of the unborn, what did God do wrong in this story? It seems like the best you've got is that if Bathsheba had decided to kill her son, we would celebrate her empowerment and freedom. But if God does it, He's a moral monster? I don't get the reasoning.
One of you used the word "abortion" to decsribes God's action, so let me see if I get this right: in America, if a woman decides to take the life of her unborn child, we say that's okay because 1) either the baby is not fully human, or 2) even if it is, the mother has the right to make decisions of life or death about the child.
So if the baby is not fully human, God can't be faulted for killing people, right? And if it legal and apparently ethical for the powerful to take the life of the unborn, what did God do wrong in this story? It seems like the best you've got is that if Bathsheba had decided to kill her son, we would celebrate her empowerment and freedom. But if God does it, He's a moral monster? I don't get the reasoning.
God is sovereign. What He does He does with the universal authority that belongs to Him only. Only a fool would attempt to judge Him. God did not banish the child to hell. The child's spirit was taken from this world and, although the text does not say so, the implication is that the child was taken to heaven. The Bible is clear that only the unfaithful unbelieving adults will be cast into hell. When an innocent child dies the spirit is taken to paradise.
Firstly Jim, it's hardly wise to begin with absolutes.
Anyway, let's take into consideration your view about the child being shuttled immediately to paradise.
While it would be nice to believe, this view is juvenile at best.
The Bible is filled with an almost unquantifiable amount of scripture telling us about how much god loves us. Verse after verse this love is reaffirmed to befit a wide range of different perceptions to love. My question to you is, why would god not take, in comparison, a small fraction of that time to write specifically that the child was sent to heaven? I mean he even took the time to say that he loved the second child, Solomon. I wonder why.
Jim D., well said.
Jon Valjean, you're an ignorant fool.
God is love(what did Jesus come to earth to do?). No human should ever attempt to judge God. From my understanding, Children are not held accountable by God for their sins until they reach a certain age, and that if a child dies before reaching the age of accountability, that child will, by the grace and mercy of God, be granted entrance into Heaven.
Post a Comment