2 Samuel 12:14 - God Killed a Baby?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Vonsalza
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
V

Vonsalza

Guest
Was playing cards with an old seminary friend of mine last night and he expressed some concern about the passage in 2 Samuel 12, particularly verse 14.

“Nevertheless, because thou hast given occasion to the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme, for this thing, the child that is born to thee, shall surely die.” - Douay-Rhiems Bible

He had some difficulty reconciling his understanding of the omni-benevolence of God with this particular passage and I didn’t have a particularly good answers beyond “David was king, thus the influence of his sin was magnified. Ergo the penance was too.”

In the passage, David is personally displayed as being thoroughly contrite concerning his sin and I suppose my (protestant) friend thinks that should have been enough for a loving God. Additionally, he hints that the baby should not have had to pay for the errors of its father.

What interpretations of the passage do you folks have? How do I explain the “Catholic” view on this text to him (not that he thinks Protestant views are satisfying either)?
 
It has to do with more than David setting a bad example and bringing the name of his God into disrepute, although that would serious enough to warrant such a temporal punishment for David. The worst thing for him was the death of his child–he would rather have had it been him. But God had other plans for David, which included engendering the great King Solomon.

On the strictly physical side of this account, this would have been Bathsheba’s first child. Bearing children in ancient times wasn’t as safe as it is today. Males seem especially vulnerable to birth difficulties that result in death. Women lose their first born more often than the second or third child. It may have simply been that the child was too weak to live. David, knowing that he had sinned, begged for the baby’s life.

God did not grant his request because of the sin David had committed in having Uriah, Bathsheba’s legitimate husband killed. Imagine the uproar and instability of an illegitimate son being allowed to ascend the throne of Judah? As it was, David had to deal with the rebellion of another son, Absalom–a consequence of David’s own sin of adultery. That too was part of his temporal punishment for his sin.

This is a case of God answering “no” to someone’s prayer. He chooses to do that for a greater good. As for the child himself, he suffered death, but knowing God to be a merciful and loving God, I don’t think we have to worry about the child’s eternal fate. We all die. Some of us as infants and some of us as old people, but death comes to us all in the end. It’s not the worst thing that can happen to us–eternal death is the worst. In this case (although we cannot know the fate of any but a few declared saints, the child was mercifully kept from being the object of dissention within the House of David, and hence within his kingdom, making way for Solomon, son of David and Bathsheba, now David’s legitimate wife and queen.
 
We postmoderns sentimentalize babies as being somehow a special case, but they are as mortal as any other human being.

Babies died in the Flood, after all, and in the conquest of Canaan. These events too were attributed in Scripture to the sins of the prior generations.

God is sovereign over human life along the entirety of its course.

ICXC NIKA
 
Thanks Della for such a well-informed answer!

May God bless you all! 🙂
 
Richard_White said:
Thanks Della for such a well-informed answer!

May God bless you all! 🙂
Click to expand...
Della gave a good answer/insight, didn’t she? Aw, I was going to post all that. No, I wasn’t 'cause I’m not that smart! I do learn a lot here!🙂 Peace.
 
Vonsalza said:
Was playing cards with an old seminary friend of mine last night and he expressed some concern about the passage in 2 Samuel 12, particularly verse 14.

“Nevertheless, because thou hast given occasion to the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme, for this thing, the child that is born to thee, shall surely die.” - Douay-Rhiems Bible

He had some difficulty reconciling his understanding of the omni-benevolence of God with this particular passage and I didn’t have a particularly good answers beyond “David was king, thus the influence of his sin was magnified. Ergo the penance was too.”

In the passage, David is personally displayed as being thoroughly contrite concerning his sin and I suppose my (protestant) friend thinks that should have been enough for a loving God. Additionally, he hints that the baby should not have had to pay for the errors of its father.

What interpretations of the passage do you folks have? How do I explain the “Catholic” view on this text to him (not that he thinks Protestant views are satisfying either)?
Click to expand...
Hi!

…could we go back to the incident? (2 Samuel 11)

…what actually transpired?

David lusted after a woman; at discovering that she was married, did he cease coveting after her? David continue to desire the woman. He used his position to seduce the married woman. Upon having a sexual relationship with this woman, he attempted to hide his deed by having her husband copulate with her (when the pregnancy would be discovered there would be no suspicions); the man’s righteousness kept him from enjoying what those who served under him could not–so he kept himself from having sex with his wife; as his plan failed, David cooked up a treacherous and murderous plan: put the husband in peril and then pretend to, as a benevolent king, take the widower’s wife under his care…

…ever heard of a war where a loved soldier dies on his own? …those who serve with him usually stick by him… so David did not only commit adultery with Uriah’s wife but he committed Uriah and his devoted soldiers to death!

…would Yahweh God’s Omni-benevolence be served by allowing the product of such treacherous and deceitful blood-union to serve in the leading house of Israel?

…and don’t forget that David’s shame and dishonor did not stop there… he lost his throne, his own son/s attempted against his life, and one of his sons, in broad daylight, had sex with all of his concubines–David’s sins brought to fruition.

Maran atha!

Angel
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top