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

[zoidar]

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.

 

[HTacianas]

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 son was not punished by death. David was punished by the loss of his son.

 

[Neogaia777]

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.

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, etc, leading up to Jesus time, etc, and also maybe after or during Jesus time, etc...

Cause there seems to be some change here, etc...

There is passage in Exodus as well (can't find it right now) that also talks about Him punishing the children for their fathers or forefathers crimes as well, etc, toward those who hate Him, etc, but shouldn't He have "already known", etc...? "Already known" who those ones would be, or would become, or who they already are or were or would be, etc, etc, etc, in the future, etc...? Shouldn't He have "already known", etc...?

Anyway...

Anyway, and that seems to have changed by the time we get to Ezekiel, etc, multiple places in that book that He says He is no longer going to do that, etc, or operate like that, etc, but that each one would only now only stand only each one individually for their own crimes only now, etc, almost as if, He (God in and of the OT), had "learned" that "that" wasn't very productive anymore, etc, but was actually counter-productive to what He was actually trying to do, or make happen, or cause to come to pass, and/or accomplish, etc...

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

Or growing, changing, and/or evolving, etc...

Why I think He is/always was/has to be/have been, etc, etc, etc, God the Spirit, etc, or God the Holy Spirit, etc...

Anyway,

God Bless!

 

[Cormack]

The most helpful answer I can think of is that the texts which teach against fathers dying for the sins of the son (or vice versa) are didactic texts:

intended to teach, particularly in having moral instruction as an ulterior motive.
​

Although there’s great learning everywhere in the scriptures, not every texts is explicitly didactic in nature.

Samuel up there appears to be about historic goings on and the things people are saying and conversing about at the time, it’s not trying to teach us in detail about how Gods judgments work, just that He did judge.

It’s not didactically about the way He judges, just the historic fact that He judged in Davids case. So my best answer, just off the top of my head, is an answer from genre.

Obviously the text explicitly saying that God judged because an occasion was made in which He’s been blasphemed will stick in the readers throat, but that’s something we have to wrestle with in light of the next paragraph below here...

We can come to any understanding that seems fit about Samuel and Davids lost son, but if we’re out to find priority of wisdom or teaching purposes, then the verses that teach we should no longer say “the parents have eaten sour grapes, and the children’s teeth are set on edge,” those verses should take priority in thinking and helping us to interpret that difficult section in Samuel.

 

[Paulomycin]

(failed to read entire OP, apologies)

 

[Cormack]

Or we could think something more conventional and say Davids son died because of Davids sin, like how the sin of drunkenness can kill someone totally uninvolved in a car accident, but that person wasn’t guilty of the drinking or the driving.

So we could say Davids son was taken because of the fathers sin, so as a consequence of the sin, but not dying as a payment or punishment for the sin.

I mean children are born with all kinds of terrible medical problems, think of children born with HIV in Africa, they might be sick on account of a sin, but they won’t pass on as a payment for what their mother or father did.

 

[Neogaia777]

Yes, but it was supposedly God that caused the child to die because of David's sin, etc...?

And He (God) even seems to say so, etc...? Seems to anyway, etc...?

Cause How could the child have just naturally died because David slept with another man's wife, greatly sinned in covering it up, and all of that, etc, anyway, how could the child just have died just because of some kind of natural consequence of that kind of specific sin, etc...?

God Bless!

 

[Cormack]

That’s why I pointed out the use of didactic texts, @Neogaia777, since those teaching texts which argue strongly that God doesn’t punish children on account of their fathers sin. Whereas that section of Samuel is a historic text.

The idea of this contradiction is that the child’s death was in the same way as the deaths that God said won’t occur elsewhere.

I think I’ve provided two ways to argue that the child’s passing wasn’t in the same way as those teachings that says children won’t die for the sins of a father.

 

[Neogaia777]

The why's are difficult, and if we get into trying to tackle all of that specifically, then we could get ourselves all kinds of confused about God maybe, etc...

But it seems to be something that was sometimes done for a while sometimes back then, etc, that children or descendants, could be legally punished or held accountable for there forefathers or ancestors sins, up to three or four generations or so, etc, before that went away sometimes, etc...

But it also seems to have changed also in or by the time of books like Ezekiel also, etc, as I think there are more than a few places in it where it says that is no longer going to happen anymore or be the case anymore after that, etc, that each one would only now only be held accountable now for their own sin(s) only now, etc...

Or after that, etc, or by that time after that, etc...?

Anyway,

God Bless!

 

[Neogaia777]

That’s why I pointed out the use of didactic texts, @Neogaia777, since those teaching texts which argue strongly that God doesn’t punish children on account of their fathers sin. Whereas that section of Samuel is a historic text.

The idea of this contradiction is that the child’s death was in the same way as the deaths that God said won’t occur elsewhere.

I think I’ve provided two ways to argue that the child’s passing wasn’t in the same way as those teachings that says children won’t die for the sins of a father.

Well, what about Exodus 20:5, and Deuteronomy 5:9, etc...?

God Bless!

 

[Cormack]

But it seems to be something that was sometimes done for a while sometimes back then, etc,

That is definitely one way to understand the problem. I’d never bind up someone else’s conscience if they find that answer very satisfying. Like you say, there’d have to be a change within OT times, before or during the intertestamental period, if not books like Ezekiel and Deuteronomy that contain the didactic texts would create problems for us.

 

[Cormack]

I always considered the iniquity being visited verses as saying that the sins of the father remain in the household for their children to practice, think of how Isaac reused Abrahams lie about his wife being his sister. Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are 3 generations, apparently it was very normal to have at least 3 generations under 1 roof back in the day.

Even today, alcoholic and violent fathers are more likely to have alcohol, violent sons, the iniquity of the father following their child.

 

[Neogaia777]

I always considered the iniquity being visited verses as saying that the sins of the father remain in the household for their children to practice, think of how Isaac reused Abrahams lie about his wife being his sister. Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are 3 generations, apparently it was very normal to have at least 3 generations under 1 roof back in the day.

Even today, alcoholic and violent fathers are more likely to have alcohol, violent sons, the iniquity of the father following their child.

I can see that as well, and we can certainly maybe sometimes clearly observe or see that sometimes even today, etc, and/or coming up from that today, or sometimes sometimes today, etc...

But in this specific situation or circumstance it seems to be God either allowing it, or else maybe even causing it maybe, or if not causing it, at least not taking it away, etc, the sins of their forebearers being visited upon them (the children), etc, for those who disobey Him, or do not love Him, or that hate Him, etc...?

And that seems to be the reason for it, etc, cause they reject Him (God), or don't love Him, or are said to be hating Him in that case, etc, because of it/that, etc, not obeying Him, etc...

Don't know, etc...?

God Bless!

 

[Cormack]

“Allowing” is the best way to understand those things, in my opinion.

God knows all things, but this saying helped me, knowledge isn’t causative. Knowing something beforehand doesn’t mean we cause it to happen.

I know the boiling temperature of water, does that mean I’m boiling every kettle when people have tea in China? No, not at all.

Still, it’s way off topic, so I’ll bookend that side of the convo, lest I unintentionally invite #whisper#calvinists#whisper# into the chat. I can already see the green shoots of total depravity forming #5

 

[Neogaia777]

“Allowing” is the best way to understand those things, in my opinion.

God knows all things, but this saying helped me, knowledge isn’t causative. Knowing something beforehand doesn’t mean we cause it to happen.

I know the boiling temperature of water, does that mean I’m boiling every kettle when people have tea in China? No, not at all.

Still, it’s way off topic, so I’ll bookend that side of the convo, lest I unintentionally invite #whisper#calvinists#whisper# into the chat. I can already see the green shoots of total depravity forming #5

OK, we can always save that debate for another time maybe...

God Bless!

 

[Cormack]

God bless, @Neogaia777.

 

[Carl Emerson]

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.

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.

 

[zoidar]

The son was not punished by death. David was punished by the loss of his son.

How was his son not punished, if God let him die because of David's sin?

 

[zoidar]

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, etc, leading up to Jesus time, etc, and also maybe after or during Jesus time, etc...

Cause there seems to be some change here, etc...

There is passage in Exodus as well (can't find it right now) that also talks about Him punishing the children for their fathers or forefathers crimes as well, etc, toward those who hate Him, etc, but shouldn't He have "already known", etc...? "Already known" who those ones would be, or would become, or who they already are or were or would be, etc, etc, etc, in the future, etc...? Shouldn't He have "already known", etc...?

Anyway...

Anyway, and that seems to have changed by the time we get to Ezekiel, etc, multiple places in that book that He says He is no longer going to do that, etc, or operate like that, etc, but that each one would only now only stand only each one individually for their own crimes only now, etc, almost as if, He (God in and of the OT), had "learned" that "that" wasn't very productive anymore, etc, but was actually counter-productive to what He was actually trying to do, or make happen, or cause to come to pass, and/or accomplish, etc...

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

Or growing, changing, and/or evolving, etc...

Why I think He is/always was/has to be/have been, etc, etc, etc, God the Spirit, etc, or God the Holy Spirit, etc...

Anyway,

God Bless!

I can't accept the idea that God can change. I think it's more our understanding of God that isn't perfect.

 

[SeventyOne]

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.

There's a difference between suffering due to the sin of another and being held accountable before God for the sin of another.

Recall when David disobeyed God concerning the census and God gave him a choice, famine, war, or pestilence. All would impose consequences on the people for his own sin. While others suffered in this world due to his choices, they will not be held accountable to God for that sin, but their own sin only.