God took David's child's life - a contradicion in the Bible?

[zoidar]

This was a matter of the consequences of the sin committed, not punishment from God. The sin opened a door for the demonic to plunder.

That's one way to see it. Is it like that, if I sin it may open up the door for the demonic to have consequences on family?

 

[NomNomPizza]

And Nathan said to David, “The Lord also has taken away your sin; you shall not die. However, because by this deed you have given occasion to the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme, the child also that is born to you shall surely die.”
— 2 Samuel 12:13-14

The person who sins will die. The son will not bear the punishment for the father’s iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son’s iniquity; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself.
— Ezekiel 18:20

I'm sure this question has been raised before. The punishment seems just to David for his aweful crime against Uriah, but David's child was innocent, yet the child was punished for David's sin. And in Ezekiel 18:20 we read that the son will not bear the father's iniquity, yet this seems to be exactly what happend.

We can say that sure we are all guilty before God, just being born sinners, but throughtout the Bible we don't see God punish people just because of that, but because of our own sinful acts. But here it seems to be an exception. Please share your thought through comments.

Well the son did not bear father's iniquity cuz he was killed no contradiction there. If he suffered thru his whole life bearing the sin of his father then he would suffer his father's iniquity put on him cuz of his father.

Deuteronomy 5:9
Thou shalt not bow down thyself unto them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me,

But David did not hate God so his son did not bear the iniquity he was killed instead.Living life in suffering is worse than not living to begin with and his son will be resurrected anyways.

 

[Neogaia777]

What were talking about or debating here, or should be debating here, etc, is the sins of a father (or mother), or multiple forefathers or ancestors, or parents, etc, and the direct consequences of them, (direct consequences of those sins, etc) (and not just the only naturally occurring ones, etc), whether or not they (the consequences or "punishments" of those specific sins, etc) were quite literally being laid directly upon some of the descendants (sons and daughters) of those specific forefathers or ancestors in or of the past or not, etc, and, again, not just the naturally occurring ones, etc, and if it was directly by God or not, etc, in the past, etc, and whether or not He still does it/that anymore now today, etc, "if" He used to do it back then in the past, etc...?

And my argument is that He "used to" do that, etc, but does not do that anymore, etc, but that that "changed" at a certain point somehow, etc...

But would like to hear your perspectives and/or points of view also, etc...?

God Bless!

 

[Dave L]

And Nathan said to David, “The Lord also has taken away your sin; you shall not die. However, because by this deed you have given occasion to the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme, the child also that is born to you shall surely die.”
— 2 Samuel 12:13-14

The person who sins will die. The son will not bear the punishment for the father’s iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son’s iniquity; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself.
— Ezekiel 18:20

I'm sure this question has been raised before. The punishment seems just to David for his aweful crime against Uriah, but David's child was innocent, yet the child was punished for David's sin. And in Ezekiel 18:20 we read that the son will not bear the father's iniquity, yet this seems to be exactly what happend.

We can say that sure we are all guilty before God, just being born sinners, but throughtout the Bible we don't see God punish people just because of that, but because of our own sinful acts. But here it seems to be an exception. Please share your thought through comments.

“Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;” Exodus 20:5 (KJV 1900)

You are confusing Civil Law with God's judgment.

Every time you sin it stems from hatred of God.

 

[Neogaia777]

What were talking about or debating here, or should be debating here, etc, is the sins of a father (or mother), or multiple forefathers or ancestors, or parents, etc, and the direct consequences of them, (direct consequences of those sins, etc) (and not just the only naturally occurring ones, etc), whether or not they (the consequences or "punishments" of those specific sins, etc) were quite literally being laid directly upon some of the descendants (sons and daughters) of those specific forefathers or ancestors in or of the past or not, etc, and, again, not just the naturally occurring ones, etc, and if it was directly by God or not, etc, in the past, etc, and whether or not He still does it/that anymore now today, etc, "if" He used to do it back then in the past, etc...?

And my argument is that He "used to" do that, etc, but does not do that anymore, etc, but that that "changed" at a certain point somehow, etc...

But would like to hear your perspectives and/or points of view also, etc...?

God Bless!

Cause I think it was in the case of David's son, or that baby, and was done at some other times in the OT also, but with the very last case (to end all cases) of anyone else's sins ever being laid upon another, or ever having to be being paid for by another, ended (finally) with Jesus Christ on or at the cross, etc...

But that wasn't available yet in the OT, so some might have still had to pay for others sins, especially within families back then, etc...

Anyway,

God Bless!

 

[Neogaia777]

Cause I think it was in the case of David's son, or that baby, and was done at some other times in the OT also, but with the very last case (to end all cases) of anyone else's sins ever being laid upon another, or ever having to be being paid for by another, ended (finally) with Jesus Christ on or at the cross, etc...

But that wasn't available yet in the OT, so some might have still had to pay for others sins, especially within families back then, etc...

Anyway,

God Bless!

I also think that there were, or might have been, "many, many times", because of sin and now living in a/this fallen world/reality, etc, anyway, I think there were, or might have been, many, many times where "justice" might have got perverted after the fall and in the OT, etc...

And I think there were, or might have been, maybe many, many times, that God (in and of the OT, etc) kind of got "backed into a corner", so to speak, with many many numerous and countless "others" demanding "justice", in and from Him still in this fallen world/reality still, etc, in the OT, etc...

Cause if that's at all in any way true at all, etc, then I think all of those cases were finally ended and/or settled finally with Christ on or at the cross, etc...

That all of those "voices" were finally silenced with that one single and final act by Him (Jesus Christ), etc...

And that it's a different kind of "justice" now, etc...

I don't know...?

What do you think, etc...?

God Bless!

 

[Cormack]

If you’re fully sold out on the idea that there were changes over time, @Neogaia777, that’s sensible especially in light of you, me and the community presenting God with various bad options for Him to turn around for good.

For example, there are laws for dealing with thief, violence and slander in Israel, there’s even a law about what to do when two men are fighting and one of their wives attacks the other mans junk. That’s a vicious atmosphere.

Gods response to those things is as perfect a response as there can be, given the circumstances, and yet, we know the ideal circumstance would be that two men didn’t fight and that nobody’s wife attacked anybody else’s business.

The world is something that responds to God, and God responds to the world.

You could shelter in and be made very comfortable with the fact that God responds to humanity differently at different points in time, and the type of justice brought about by Christ’s blood helps put an end to much of that.

 

[Neogaia777]

If you’re fully sold out on the idea that there were changes over time, @Neogaia777, that’s sensible especially in light of you, me and the community presenting God with various bad options for Him to turn around for good.

For example, there are laws for dealing with thief, violence and slander in Israel, there’s even a law about what to do when two men are fighting and one of their wives attacks the other mans junk. That’s a vicious atmosphere.

Gods response to those things is as perfect a response as there can be, given the circumstances, and yet, we know the ideal circumstance would be that two men didn’t fight and that nobody’s wife attacked anybody else’s business.

The world is something that responds to God, and God responds to the world.

You could shelter in and be made very comfortable with the fact that God responds to humanity differently at different points in time, and the type of justice brought about by Christ’s blood helps put an end to much of that.

There are many, many, many many many, "other reasons" I believe this has to have been the case also, etc, but right now, I just think I'll save that debate for another time, K...

Anyway, much Love to you in Christ.

God Bless!

 

[chilehed]

This/these (kind of examples) is/are some of the exact reasons I believe God in and of the OT did change, or go through some changes over time...

By definition, God doesn't change. If your understanding of Scripture leads you to conclude otherwise, then you need to revise your understanding.

And in my opinion, there seems to a lot of this in the OT, etc, as if God was "learning", etc...

"As if".

 

[Neogaia777]

There are many, many, many many many, "other reasons" I believe this has to have been the case also, etc, but right now, I just think I'll save that debate for another time, K...

Anyway, much Love to you in Christ.

God Bless!

Not that He did or ever had to ever change His "nature" however, not like man that way, etc, but I just think "many, many other things about Him", "grew", and/or "evolved", and/or He "learned", in and with and over some "time", etc...

Again, my reasons for believing that now, I'm just not going to get too much into too much depth into in this thread here right now, etc... But they were or are "many", etc...

But this was something "I" had to "learn", etc... And it wasn't easy, not easy at all, etc, but I did eventually learn it, and come to accept it, over enough, and given enough learning, and/or also over and/or given enough "time" myself, etc...

It's never easy giving up on everything you had learned up to a certain point, in order to assimilate new information, that you knew almost no one or no others were ever going to ever accept, and that even you yourself had a very hard time learning and/or believing at the start of it, etc, but that eventually got to a point that you could just "no longer deny it", etc...

Anyway, It's never ever easy doing that, etc...

But, anyway, love you guys...

God Bless!

 

[Neogaia777]

By definition, God doesn't change. If your understanding of Scripture leads you to conclude otherwise, then you need to revise your understanding.



"As if".

See my post above this one...

And what does it mean that God in and of the OT "doesn't change", huh...?

I already stated that He never had to change His nature, and that that never ever changed, etc, nor had to change, etc, but that still could mean still that He grew, and/or had to grow, or learn/evolve at some points, etc...

Anyway, don't feel like debating it here right now, as that's not the topic anyway, and besides, no one listens to me anyway, so why I should even try right now in that area, etc...

Rather stick to other areas right now, etc...

God Bless!

 

[chilehed]

And what does it mean that God in and of the OT "doesn't change", huh...?

It means what the words say: he doesn't change.

 

[Eloy Craft]

And Nathan said to David, “The Lord also has taken away your sin; you shall not die. However, because by this deed you have given occasion to the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme, the child also that is born to you shall surely die.”
— 2 Samuel 12:13-14

Blasphemy. Isn't that an eternal sin? David acts strangely when the child dies. A life sarificed fpr forgiveness of sins? God makes it seem like it's a consequence of the sin like fire burns sin kills.

The person who sins will die. The son will not bear the punishment for the father’s iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son’s iniquity; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself.
— Ezekiel 18:20

Odd considering the above. But this makes the sacrifice of the child meritorious.I think it's interesting that the transgression isn't up and down ie from father to son but it transgresses horizontally from Davide tp David's enemies.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

And Nathan said to David, “The Lord also has taken away your sin; you shall not die. However, because by this deed you have given occasion to the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme, the child also that is born to you shall surely die.”
— 2 Samuel 12:13-14

The person who sins will die. The son will not bear the punishment for the father’s iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son’s iniquity; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself.
— Ezekiel 18:20

I'm sure this question has been raised before. The punishment seems just to David for his aweful crime against Uriah, but David's child was innocent, yet the child was punished for David's sin. And in Ezekiel 18:20 we read that the son will not bear the father's iniquity, yet this seems to be exactly what happend.

We can say that sure we are all guilty before God, just being born sinners, but throughtout the Bible we don't see God punish people just because of that, but because of our own sinful acts. But here it seems to be an exception. Please share your thought through comments.

The child remains innocent. The sting of death was put upon David suffering the loss of his child. God chose this consequence. David was spared the second death, the spiritual death. David's child died in the flesh however the child is still innocent and will not suffer the second death. Blessings.

 

[Hazelelponi]

And Nathan said to David, “The Lord also has taken away your sin; you shall not die. However, because by this deed you have given occasion to the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme, the child also that is born to you shall surely die.”
— 2 Samuel 12:13-14

The person who sins will die. The son will not bear the punishment for the father’s iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son’s iniquity; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself.
— Ezekiel 18:20

I'm sure this question has been raised before. The punishment seems just to David for his aweful crime against Uriah, but David's child was innocent, yet the child was punished for David's sin. And in Ezekiel 18:20 we read that the son will not bear the father's iniquity, yet this seems to be exactly what happend.

We can say that sure we are all guilty before God, just being born sinners, but throughtout the Bible we don't see God punish people just because of that, but because of our own sinful acts. But here it seems to be an exception. Please share your thought through comments.

I've not read all the posts, but the promises for the sins of the father's to be visited upon the sons and it's opposite, that no child shall bear the guilt of the father's is a difference between covenants. In the New Covenant promises you have the promise of the sins of the father's no longer being held against the children.

Now, in one respect if your parents are alcoholics their sins (that of excess of drink) will actually pass to their children... fetal alcohol syndrome etc. What we do as parents absolutely and will always affect our children, sometimes for generations.

My ex husband was abusive and being the victim of abuse follows certain patterns in children, and it can take generations to break the cycle unless the children themselves recognize the danger and do all they can to end the cycle before it begins.

So in this very logical manner children do pay for the sins of their fathers, or the sins are revisited upon following generations for generations after.

Specifically though, the sins of Israel against God's true prophets was paid a double portion upon the generation that killed the Messiah - and this is true, read Josephus' works surrounding the Jewish war against Rome and the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD... truly horrific that, a double portion indeed.

However, they are the last generation to ever pay for the sins of their forefathers - under the New Covenant promises, children will never again pay for the sins of their fathers... at least not by God and we see this practically. First is that we have a Savior - making original sin a moot point. Second is that believing parents sanctify their children, third is that all nations are invited to be within the Covenant tent and all can be called children of God through faith.

While every child must accept Christ as Lord and believe in the resurrection on their own, there is a cover provided against the powers of this world specifically within proximity to believers and likely due to the indwelling Holy Spirit.

This is a New Covenant thing that didn't exist under the old, at least not in the degree it does now post first Messianic advent.

 

[Yarddog]

And Nathan said to David, “The Lord also has taken away your sin; you shall not die. However, because by this deed you have given occasion to the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme, the child also that is born to you shall surely die.”
— 2 Samuel 12:13-14

The person who sins will die. The son will not bear the punishment for the father’s iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son’s iniquity; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself.
— Ezekiel 18:20

I'm sure this question has been raised before. The punishment seems just to David for his aweful crime against Uriah, but David's child was innocent, yet the child was punished for David's sin. And in Ezekiel 18:20 we read that the son will not bear the father's iniquity, yet this seems to be exactly what happend.

We can say that sure we are all guilty before God, just being born sinners, but throughtout the Bible we don't see God punish people just because of that, but because of our own sinful acts. But here it seems to be an exception. Please share your thought through comments.

Was the innocent child's death a shadow of Jesus, the descendant of David, dying for the sins of Israel?

 

[Mark Quayle]

And Nathan said to David, “The Lord also has taken away your sin; you shall not die. However, because by this deed you have given occasion to the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme, the child also that is born to you shall surely die.”
— 2 Samuel 12:13-14

The person who sins will die. The son will not bear the punishment for the father’s iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son’s iniquity; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself.
— Ezekiel 18:20

I'm sure this question has been raised before. The punishment seems just to David for his aweful crime against Uriah, but David's child was innocent, yet the child was punished for David's sin. And in Ezekiel 18:20 we read that the son will not bear the father's iniquity, yet this seems to be exactly what happend.

We can say that sure we are all guilty before God, just being born sinners, but throughtout the Bible we don't see God punish people just because of that, but because of our own sinful acts. But here it seems to be an exception. Please share your thought through comments.

Why do you think the child was punished? It was David's punishment for the child to die. If a child dies in other cases, is it to punish the child?

You may as well say that God is lying to say that the person who sins shall die, since most sins don't bring immediate death, and most deaths are natural, apparently unrelated to any of the sins a person has committed!

 

[zoidar]

Was the innocent child's death a shadow of Jesus, the descendant of David, dying for the sins of Israel?

The thought has crossed my mind...

 

[Jofes]

And Nathan said to David, “The Lord also has taken away your sin; you shall not die. However, because by this deed you have given occasion to the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme, the child also that is born to you shall surely die.”
— 2 Samuel 12:13-14

The person who sins will die. The son will not bear the punishment for the father’s iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son’s iniquity; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself.
— Ezekiel 18:20

I'm sure this question has been raised before. The punishment seems just to David for his aweful crime against Uriah, but David's child was innocent, yet the child was punished for David's sin. And in Ezekiel 18:20 we read that the son will not bear the father's iniquity, yet this seems to be exactly what happend.

We can say that sure we are all guilty before God, just being born sinners, but throughtout the Bible we don't see God punish people just because of that, but because of our own sinful acts. But here it seems to be an exception. Please share your thought through comments.

Is there an explanation of this event and how it relates to our world today?
Yes I believe so. 75 million babies have been torn from the womb yet do we question why those responsible
are not punished. How many in our day have done exactly what David did? Are not the lives of those aborted children
worth anything to God? We serve a Holy God and how do we know that our life was not ransomed by some wickedness? The word clearly tells us that in the end, all of the living and the dead will stand before God and be judged. Shall we give occasion to the enemies to blaspheme, if we are just a guilty. This to me is proof that we serve a just God. Because when I was yet a sinner who deserved death, Jesus died for me. God chose us before the creation of this world and not the opposite. The day swiftly approaches when there will be silence in heaven for about half an hour, and I cry, Lord is there no one left.

 

[zoidar]

I've not read all the posts, but the promises for the sins of the father's to be visited upon the sons and it's opposite, that no child shall bear the guilt of the father's is a difference between covenants. In the New Covenant promises you have the promise of the sins of the father's no longer being held against the children.

Now, in one respect if your parents are alcoholics their sins (that of excess of drink) will actually pass to their children... fetal alcohol syndrome etc. What we do as parents absolutely and will always affect our children, sometimes for generations.

My ex husband was abusive and being the victim of abuse follows certain patterns in children, and it can take generations to break the cycle unless the children themselves recognize the danger and do all they can to end the cycle before it begins.

So in this very logical manner children do pay for the sins of their fathers, or the sins are revisited upon following generations for generations after.

Specifically though, the sins of Israel against God's true prophets was paid a double portion upon the generation that killed the Messiah - and this is true, read Josephus' works surrounding the Jewish war against Rome and the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD... truly horrific that, a double portion indeed.

However, they are the last generation to ever pay for the sins of their forefathers - under the New Covenant promises, children will never again pay for the sins of their fathers... at least not by God and we see this practically. First is that we have a Savior - making original sin a moot point. Second is that believing parents sanctify their children, third is that all nations are invited to be within the Covenant tent and all can be called children of God through faith.

While every child must accept Christ as Lord and believe in the resurrection on their own, there is a cover provided against the powers of this world specifically within proximity to believers and likely due to the indwelling Holy Spirit.

This is a New Covenant thing that didn't exist under the old, at least not in the degree it does now post first Messianic advent.

Where can I find about that difference between the OC and NC?