05 February 2010

God slowly killed David's baby boy to punish David for adultery

You've probably heard the story about David and Bathsheba. You know, the one where David sees Bathsheba taking a bath, and since he likes what he sees, he has sex with her.
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. 11.14-17
Well, 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. 11.27
God 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. 12.13
Still, 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. 12.11
It 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 16.21-22
But 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. 12.14
And 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. 12.15
When 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. 12.16
Finally, after the baby suffered for seven days, God killed him.
On the seventh day, that the child died. 12.18
After 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. 12.20
The 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. 12.24a
And Bathsheba conceives and bears another son (Solomon).
And she bare a son, and he called his name Solomon. 12.24b
And 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.”)


19 comments:

twillight said...

"How's that for a fucked up Bible story?"


But God's (= Yahwe/Jehova/The Lord of Hosts/Enlil/etc.) believers wouldn't listen.

busterggi said...

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.

Abeille said...

Maybe the baby was a secret Amalekite. That must be how they repopulate - It is a recessive gene.

matt311 said...

You didn't even mention that David refused to mourn for the child; how fucked-up is that?

Steve Wells said...

Thanks matt! I've added a comment about how David reacted when God murdered his son.

MM said...

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)

Brian_E said...

The baby could've been a great football player like Tim Tebow! Too bad god aborted it.

matt311 said...

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"...

Clint Burky said...

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!

Anthony Weber said...

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.

Anthony Weber said...

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.

Jim D. said...

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.

Jon Valjean said...

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.

Bri Smith said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Bri Smith said...

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.

cuzbrawndohaslectrolytes said...

Bri Smith said...

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.



Also
Jim D. said...

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.

Tue Jan 29, 07:58:00 PM 2013

The Bible doesn't say that. Religious people concocted that theory because they can't live with the alternative: that God is a monster who sends babies to hell.
They don't want to admit they might serve a monster that rules the universe so they have to make the theory up, like kids who keep making excuses for why the bully they adore is isn't really an asshole.

IF God is sovereign then people have something worse than satan to worry about. They have a god who lets monsters torture select people everywhere for the sin of having been born without giving them any real reason for why they are being tortured, while he watches them being raped, tortured, slowly murdered, to see if they will "crack" and question his existence or his goodness (if they are even old enough or cognisent enough to reason or speak). If they do, then they are thrown into the eternal lake of fire along with the monsters of humanity.

The only alternative is God is NOT sovereign as you think sovereign to be, and, at least for some indefinite period of time,God has to endure along with his creation, being in the hands of a demon god until he resumes his position as God. That's a stretch for most christian minds that can't follow more than a soundbite line of reasoning, but the alternative is your God, including Jesus, is a monstrosity that makes satan seem relatively benign by comparison.

andrae dowell said...

I tell ya,

you guys have it all wrong. You have to look at the time/context this was written. The sacrifice of David's firstborn implicated a POWERFUL principle that God still has intact today. That was DAvid's FIRSTBORN, which was conceived out of murder/sinful heart. The law of first mention is clear here...The lineage of the tribe of Judah would've been corrupted hadn't God murdered this baby. The child was a result of greed, lust, murder, envy (SIN). Whenever God's people commited sin back in the OT, BLOODSHED was required/mandatory. David deserved death for the sin that he committed but he appealed to God's grace and mercy even before Christ was manifested in the physical. He knew the HEART of GOD was lovingkindness, grace and mercy. Yet, God could not let such crime go unpunished for if he did that would require God to go back on His Word which he cannot do. Alot of you guys lack wisdom. Such thing would NEVER happen today because Christ was the firstfruits of many to come and he died and rose again for ALL OF OUR SINS! If you go back and study the principles, precepts, ordinances and statutes of the Bible (particulary the OT) you'll see the importance of first fruit.

tunskit said...

Good god, I'd never heard that before. What a barbaric occurrence. It baffles the mind that people in this day and age still believe in myths written in the Bronze age and glorify such a monstrous ba$tard as their god. Not that any other god is any better. They're all ridiculous or downright cruel.

Ronald Reagan said...

It's always fun to see a "christian" chime in and try to explain his or her position with some convoluted logic. It does give me comfort, however, that day-by-day, month-by-month, year-by-year, more and more people are waking up and discovering the lie that is christianity--and are walking away from it. We can thank modern technology for a lot of that. If I were a christian, I would be thanking god for the internet!