Great David’s Greater Son

Great David’s Greater Son February 14, 2019

This son of David has no name, none that the author of Second Samuel thought to record. Yet this son of David will die for David’s sin. (2 Sam. Chapters 11-12)

The story of the unnamed son of David is disturbing, and disgusting in scale. It starts with David, great king of Israel, and it ends with him, him and a son of no name.

Usually the whole tale is told as a romance, David and Bathsheba, as if in this nasty saga―horrific in extent and consequence―the two colluded in adultery. In some film depictions, Bathsheba is David’s stalker, her strategic bath beneath the palace window a temptress’s enticing lure. In Cohen’s lyric David just couldn’t restrain himself:  You saw her bathing on the roof / Her beauty and the moonlight overthrew you. Cohen is closer to the biblical reading, Bathsheba’s #MeToo moment.

The wife of the loyal Hittite Uriah is a victim of David’s lust. Who was she to refuse as the king’s messengers escorted her to the palace for David’s sport? Had he done this to others? Had the king a reputation? We only know that she was summoned to David, and we know she was made pregnant by him.

David attempted to disguise the child as Uriah’s. Summoning Bathsheba’s husband from the battle front, he urged him to sleep with his wife. He would think the child his. Bathsheba would have upheld the lie, covering her shame at what David had done to her.

But had Uriah joined his wife, with his men still arrayed against the enemy, he would have broken a soldier’s vow of abstinence; no longer a fit comrade. He had little choice but to ignore David’s order.

So David, compounding adultery with murder, gave orders to the general, Joab, to see to Uriah’s death by abandoning him before the enemy. Uriah betrayed, Joab did that,“But the thing David had done displeased the Lord.” (11:27)

The Prophet Nathan’s audacious parable of a rich man who slaughtered and served a poor man’s ewe lamb for a dinner party provokes David to outrage. He unwittingly pronounces his own sentence of death: “The man who did this deserves to die.” “As surely as the Lord lives,” David is that man.

It is left only for Nathan to speak as God directs. “This is what the Lord, the God of Israel says.” Calamity will fall over David’s life and the lives of those around him, and the sword will never depart from his house. It happened as Nathan said, beginning with Bathsheba’s unnamed son, her first born son.

The Lord, Nathan said, took away David’s sin; he would not die. Yet blood cries to blood: “The son born to you will die.” (12:14)

An innocent child must die? The son dies for the father’s sin, for David’s sin?

This outcome threatens our sense of justice, mercy, compassion, of elementary fairness. It calls the character of God into question. Who is He to make a divine decree of disproportionate excess? This act of a “displeased” god is proof that Israel’s God is arbitrary, nonsensical and, sometimes, unutterably cruel. The death of this guiltless son is the act of a feral deity. Critics are relentless.

God does have his defenders. They offer several apologies for God. None are very satisfying, not even to believers. David violated the honor of God, bringing His name into contempt among Israel’s enemies. The child’s death says that God in His law will not be scorned. There is a Planned Parenthood argument: The child’s death was best for the child; he might become subject to possible abuse and his death saved him from an unhappy life. One commentator called it all a case study in reconciliation and grace, without mentioning the unnamed son.

Fine, but we still have a dead baby to bury.

God’s mercy, his justice, even his compassion—as we think we understand it—is tossed about by the death of David’s son. I can neither defend nor accuse God. I can say I do not understand Him. I am never so sure as to say who or what God is or is like, but I am certain God is no friendly therapist helping us to guiltless good times. God may indeed be love, echoing St. John, but to paraphrase C.S. Lewis, so is your dentist as he drills.

Here is where I do end up. God is Other. We are warned not to think God is like us (Ps. 50:21), and He scoffs at Jeremiah: What makes you think I will not do with you as the potter does with clay? “Like clay in the hand of the potter, so are you in my hand, Israel.” (Jer. 16:8)

I do not believe, then, there is any possible explanation for the death of this son of David, none that fits our inclinations to embrace a “tame” deity, one that cuddles and pets us. We have only Second Samuel starkly telling us that through David’s sin, a son of David dies.

Our hope is ultimately Christological. Christ, Christians understand, is God explaining Himself, explaining Himself even to David’s unnamed son and to all the other innocents, and to us. The world awaited God’s final Word, and to us was born a child, great David’s greater Son.

Russell E. Saltzman publishes every Tuesday and Thursday usually by noon Central Time. He can be reached on Twitter as @RESaltzman, on Facebook as Russ Saltzman, and by email: russell.e.saltzman@gmail.com. An earlier version of this piece has appeared previously elsewhere.
Photo: Freebibleimages

 

"Well said."

Standard Pagans
"I've recently been reading Dante's Paradiso from the Divine Comedy and he has Adam describe ..."

Part 5 – What Are We ..."
""There’s an old saying that God never burdens us with more than we can carry. ..."

Part 3 – What Are We ..."
"What echoes for me with "Thy kingdom come" is Christ proclaiming the Kingdom of God ..."

Part 2 – What Are We ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


TRENDING AT PATHEOS Catholic
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • I never thought about this. On the one hand, we have a tenet that God does not, indeed, cannot, do evil. On the other hand, there are a number of places in the Old Testament that the tenet seems to not be true. This would be a grave injustice to the child if God killed him for David’s sin. The only way I see around it is with the term “struck.” We would have to look at the translation of the word, but God striking the child dead could be a metaphor (or idiom) for death itself. It doesn’t mean that God killed him but that death came to the child, and the idiom is formulated as God’s hand. Follow?

  • Elzbieta Kraszewski

    Seriously, if the author thinks that is the “Planned Parenthood argument,” he knows nothing about Planned Parenthood. The PP argument would have entailed a pregnant Bathsheba saying something like this: “King David abused his power and coerced me into having sex. To save my child from the shame (extremely real in the ANE) of having been conceived in adultery, I will terminate this pregnancy before he is born.”

    PP does not advocate for infanticide. Sorry, but no newborns are killed at PP. Whether one agrees that the above argument is a valid reason to have an abortion or not (I’m pretty mixed btw), the sad fact is that it is infinitely more compassionate and humane than murdering an infant for the sins of his father. Spin it however you wish. If you do not condemn the murder of this child by the hand of God, you are apologizing and excusing it.

  • Russell E Saltzman

    I was born of step sibling incest, late 1940s. I think I’ve been through all the pro-abortion arguments. I was told once it was too bad my birth mother did not better access to reproductive choices. Thank you for the note.

  • Elzbieta Kraszewski

    I am sorry that someone was callous enough to say that to you, Russell. The primary issue with why even most anti-abortion supporters would allow for an incest exemption is because the greater genetic risk to the fetus. The case with your parents being step siblings doesn’t involve that, so the only real issue would be the possibility of lack of consent due to their familiar relationship.

    However, and please don’t take this the wrong way, not every abortion is about you or your situation. If women are not legally free to make choices about their reproduction, they are essentially livestock under the law. PP supports nothing more than giving women that choice and supporting them in whatever they choose. In addition to preventing far more abortions than they perform by dispensing birth control, PP also offers adoption connections and counselling. PP does not advocate for abortion; it advocates for choice. That is a massive difference.

    Notice that in the David’s baby scenario, God (unlike PP) does not give David or Bathsheba any choice. Instead, he murders their baby without remorse, and we are supposed to praise his wisdom and justice. As someone who obviously considers himself to be anti-abortion/pro-life, imagine if a ruler/president were order the death of a child because of something his parents had done. We would view that person as a monster and rightfully so. However, God gets a pass. Why? Because might makes right. Cool, the logic of tyrants.