Then Nathan said "You are the man!"

[Peace]

Has anyone seen an old movie called David and Bathsheba with Gregory Peck?

It's pretty good. The thing that I liked the most about this movie was that it was a reminder that no matter how bad of a sin we might commit - God is always there willing to forgive us. I thought it was a great movie and had a great ending.

After watching the movie I went to read the corresponding Bible verses to see how well it corresponded (2 Samuel 11).

One thing that was difficult for me to understand about it is this:

¹³ Then David said to Nathan, “I have sinned against the Lord.”

Nathan replied, “The Lord has taken away your sin. You are not going to die. ¹⁴ But because by doing this you have shown utter contempt for^[a] the Lord, the son born to you will die.”

¹⁵ After Nathan had gone home, the Lord struck the child that Uriah’s wife had borne to David, and he became ill. ¹⁶ David pleaded with God for the child. He fasted and spent the nights lying in sackcloth^[b] on the ground. ¹⁷ The elders of his household stood beside him to get him up from the ground, but he refused, and he would not eat any food with them.

¹⁸ On the seventh day the child died. David’s attendants were afraid to tell him that the child was dead, for they thought, “While the child was still living, he wouldn’t listen to us when we spoke to him. How can we now tell him the child is dead? He may do something desperate.”

I mean - David sinned. Understood. But because of that God kills an innocent child?

I don't want to question God. But it is tough to understand. How do folks come to grips with, or understand stuff like that that we see in the Bible? From our perspective, if someone where to kill an innocent child because the mother was involved in an adulterous affair - we would say that it was a terrible thing to do.

How do people go about approaching or understanding passages like that in the Bible, or the so-called "dark passages" of the OT?  How do you reconcile things like that, with the same God who went so far as to suffer on the cross for our sins?

[Luigi]

Has anyone seen an old movie called David and Bathsheba with Gregory Peck?

It's pretty good. The thing that I liked the most about this movie was that it was a reminder that no matter how bad of a sin we might commit - God is always there willing to forgive us. I thought it was a great movie and had a great ending.

After watching the movie I went to read the corresponding Bible verses to see how well it corresponded (2 Samuel 11).

One thing that was difficult for me to understand about it is this:

I mean - David sinned. Understood. But because of that God kills an innocent child?

I don't want to question God. But it is tough to understand. How do folks come to grips with, or understand stuff like that that we see in the Bible?

 

From our perspective, if someone where to kill an innocent child because the mother was involved in an adulterous affair - we would say that it was a terrible thing to do.

You mean like aborting a child conceived during an adulterous affair? Yeah, like that couldn't happen in the US because everyone would think it was so horrible to kill an innocent child who had done no wrong himself.  

How do people go about approaching or understanding passages like that in the Bible, or the so-called "dark passages" of the OT?  How do you reconcile things like that, with the same God who went so far as to suffer on the cross for our sins?

Personally, I think you have to consider the story in the context of the culture of the time. The first-born son was the most prized-honored-valued member of the family - he still is in most Middle Eastern cultures. I don't know Old Testament law in great depth, but it seems to me that: 

- Both David and Bathsheba should have died for their sin - the son dying punishes both and results in only one death rather than two? It could have been viewed as a kind of mercy, in its day.

-  And it makes the point that sin has consequences.

- It parallels the story of Abraham having a child (Ishmael) with Sarah's servant Hannah; Abraham eventually leads them out into the desert to die, but they survive. 

- It prefigures the Son (of the House of David) dying for the sins of others. 

- The whole history of the Old Testament is an evolution from law & punishment to the New Testament and love & reward. This is just a chapter in God's people learning to obey his law?  

[Peace]

You mean like aborting a child conceived during an adulterous affair? Yeah, like that couldn't happen in the US because everyone would think it was so horrible to kill an innocent child who had done no wrong himself.  

 Well. I think you, me and a good number of the Catholics on this board would agree that aborting a child is a bad thing to do.

- Both David and Bathsheba should have died for their sin - the son dying punishes both and results in only one death rather than two? It could have been viewed as a kind of mercy, in its day.

-  And it makes the point that sin has consequences.

- It parallels the story of Abraham having a child (Ishmael) with Sarah's servant Hannah; Abraham eventually leads them out into the desert to die, but they survive. 

- It prefigures the Son (of the House of David) dying for the sins of others. 

- The whole history of the Old Testament is an evolution from law & punishment to the New Testament and love & reward. This is just a chapter in God's people learning to obey his law? 

Thanks. You made some interesting points there.

Fundamentally, I think the question I was trying to get at was - how can God, who we know to be perfectly just, do something that would seem to us to be unjust (killing an innocent child for sins committed by his parents)?

God does not do things that are unjust, so whatever the seeming inconsistency is, it must have to do with our limited understanding.

But it is tough to go though the OT at times and see a lot of the violent passages. It seems that Jesus is the exact opposite of the God that you see in the OT sometimes. Just wondering if anyone has thought about that and tried to reconcile the two . . .

[BarbTherese]

I'll have a try and I am sure others can express things far better.  And a try is all it is!

 I think that in the Old Testament there was very much an anthropomorphism of God.  Those were very violent times and it was cultural or just the way life was lived, nothing of surprise about it all - hence for the Jewish people, when some form of violence occurred they experienced it as a direct act of God and hence wrote about it in those terms, while in our times and our theology we would state that God permits evil, but does not directly will it.  Cruelty and violence was not unusual for the people of the Old Testament, it was the way of life and hence they saw God in the same light, or anthropomorphised God.

With the David story, I tend to think that probably after all his failures and sinfulness, David's son eventually fell ill and then died.  This experience, which was shattering to David just as his sorrow for his past was extreme, was put into a spiritual context and so we have the story as it is in the Old Testament.  I think the story is basically theologically correct in that God did permit David's son to die, but He did not directly will and desire it as we would understand it in our times and theology.  The David story does illustrate for me two things about God.  First His Immeasurable Power over life and death here and hereafter - His amesome Glory and Power.  Secondly, it illustrates for me that in all the events of life, even the falling of a leaf or the hair from one's head, God is Present and Active - nothing whatsoever small or great happens without Him in some way - directly willing in all good or permitting in all forms of evil.  Lastly, the David story tells me that the Wisdom and Justice of The Lord cannot be fathomed - it is totally escapes us and is totally other and very often nothing like we what we would call wise or just.  We see the trees, God sees the wood and the big picture and we are humbled ideally before this.

For the Jews, their basic theology for their times was spot on - there is only One God as revealed to Abraham.  Their rules of behaviour too tended to be spot on flowing in the main from the Ten Commandments and Moses.  That they envisaged God as having human qualities like themselves, we now know as time as moved on and we have become more enlightened and theology developed and mainly through the Incarnation and The Gospels that God is totally and absolutely Other and very different from we humans, His creatures - so different that rather often we do not understand Him at all, nor His Actions.  We trust Him and at times this can be to the degree thought foolish in worldly thought.

I do wonder with a smile and with Joy where our understanding and theology will be 100 years from now.
 

God ultimately is Ultimate Mystery and always will be.

[Credo in Deum]

Aren't all of us dying right now because of the sin of our first parents?  I don't see where God is being inconsistent.  

Edited July 14, 2015 by Credo in Deum

[puellapaschalis]

God is being just in taking the life of David's son; it's the retribution for his sin. God is the ultimate arbiter of who lives and dies. We are kept in being only by His say-so.

Another question to perhaps consider is whether the son's soul enjoys eternal happiness - I'd posit he does, because of a) Christ's work of atonement and b) the child's lack of wilful sin (presumably still subject to Original Sin though).

[Seven77]

With the David story, I tend to think that probably after all his failures and sinfulness, David's son eventually fell ill and then died.  This experience, which was shattering to David just as his sorrow for his past was extreme, was put into a spiritual context and so we have the story as it is in the Old Testament.  I think the story is basically theologically correct in that God did permit David's son to die, but He did not directly will and desire it as we would understand it in our times and theology.  The David story does illustrate for me two things about God.  First His Immeasurable Power over life and death here and hereafter - His amesome Glory and Power.  Secondly, it illustrates for me that in all the events of life, even the falling of a leaf or the hair from one's head, God is Present and Active - nothing whatsoever small or great happens without Him in some way - directly willing in all good or permitting in all forms of evil.  Lastly, the David story tells me that the Wisdom and Justice of The Lord cannot be fathomed - it is totally escapes us and is totally other and very often nothing like we what we would call wise or just.  We see the trees, God sees the wood and the big picture and we are humbled ideally before this.

 

God ultimately is Ultimate Mystery and always will be.

that's basically how I understand it…

[Peace]

Pretty interesting answer Barbara. Had not thought about it from that perspective at all. Thanks for the thoughtful answer!

[BarbTherese]

Pretty interesting answer Barbara. Had not thought about it from that perspective at all. Thanks for the thoughtful answer!

I started to read Scripture in an altogether different light when I read that it is not an historical document to give a blow by blow as it were historical record, but  more a theological document inspired by The Holy Spirit.   I had long been fascinated by books, documentaries - anything at all - about historical times including those of Scripture..........i.e. putting historical figures into their times and trying out a bit of empathy if I had been in their shoes.   Something like that.   I am always very careful however, very careful, to not depart from what The Church teaches...........I certainly hope!  And if I do so depart, I hope and pray I would speedily recognise my error and amend it with God's Grace.

I haven't read it all as its a bit lengthy for me, but Catholic Answers usually give excellent responses.  Here is a text reflecting at a rather very quick glance through it on Scripture as theology.  It might be of use to you: Catholic Answers - "Is everything in The Bible true?"

[Peace]

So Barbara - in some parts of the OT where it is like "And God said to Noah - make an ark and put one of every animal in it" - the idea is that God may have not literally (or directly) spoken to Noah?

Or did Noah hear an explicit statement from God to that effect (by way of an actual voice, dream, etc.)?

I had always wondered why in the OT you see God directly speaking to people. You see a lot of miracles and so forth. But I don't think those things happen too often today. At least for me - I don't think I can say that I have ever heard the voice of God in any kind of a direct manner like a voice or dream. Sometimes things happen and I think that they may be some kind of a sign from God. I just pray and try to discern what God wants me to do, but it is not like I really get a direct response like "Do XYZ". It's usually a bit of guesswork and then somehow I get kind of a sense as to what I should do . . .

But back when I was still on FB, sometimes I would see one of my friends write something like "The Lord told me to do XYZ".  I seriously doubt that they heard an actual voice from God in many of those situations (although I cannot rule it out).  I think that they just believe, or have a general sense, that God desires them to do XYZ, and then they state it as something that literally happened.

Are you saying that with certain things in the OT you might have the same sort of thing going on?  People are writing in a literal manner, when in reality it may have been more like today - its not like they heard a literal voice from God in all of those circumstances, but perhaps they discerned that XYZ was God's will in the same kind of implicit manner that people do today?

Or is it that the Noah/Flood story should not necessarily be taken as factually literal at all? Like - in reality there was no flood? Perhaps the story is more of an extended allegory, that is true in the theological point that it makes?

[BarbTherese]

Hello Peace - I think you need to read the article on the link I gave in an earlier post - since posting it, I have read it and it is quite good.  To inform yourself better on reading Scripture, you might need to do a Google search and do some researching.  I need to underscore quite heavily that I am not The Church - and I would subject myself to what The Church has to state before anything else, including my own understandings.  I really am not an educated Catholic - rather extensively read perhaps, but not what I would call educated.  Education in The Church comes too expensive for my budget and today some of our areas of knowledge and theology are quite sophisticated.  Certainly, I am hoping I have an informed conscience and where my understanding is at this point, probably will not be where it is at a later point.......possibly yes, possibly no.

Hearing God's voice is known as locutions.  We are warned by one of our greatest mystics, St Teresa of Avila, that such phenomena (visions and locations and anything else mystical in nature) can be very open to deception through self deception (imaginary powers -  and extremely powerful in the human being) or even deception by the devil.  Such phenomena experienced should be subjected to a priest and/or sound spiritual director.  Certainly, for myself personally, I would not give such experiences any credence at all unless I first consulted the latter and then I would hope to be quite docile to whatever direction I was given.

Where the flood is concerned, I think you will have better insight if you read the article I posted.    Interpretation of the story of the flood  undoubtedly will have an interpretation that a Scripture Scholar would grasp. There is also what the story is saying to oneself personally on a theological or spiritual level..........they may or may not coincide, while not contradicting each other.  The Holy Spirit is the author of Scripture and in Scripture He spoke then, He speaks to the future - and He speaks now to the reader.

Here is a Catholic Encyclopaedia article on the flood. http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/topic/138074-then-nathan-said-you-are-the-man/#comment-2733797   But do read the link I gave in my previous post first.  In researching, ensure that you are on a reputable Catholic website/source. In Googling, I always put in the word "Catholic" e.g: "catholic - is noah and the flood true?"    To research if the site and source are sound, click on to "About" on the website.

Sorry I cannot be more helpful.  However, in prayerfully striving to educate your own understanding, the journey of self and 'Prof Google' etc. will be Graced by The Holy Spirit.

[BarbTherese]

I think I should add that when The Holy Spirit speaks through Scripture to the reader, it is usually on a quite personal level to the reader.   Sometimes the latter might have a broader application, sometimes not.

Another good resource is Haydock's Commentary, which is a sound quite quite basic Catholic resource.   I have read that it does reflect the scholarship of the times, but remains a good Catholic resource, if it does have some literary type of 'problems' and is not an attempt at a full and detailed commentary.  http://haydock1859.tripod.com/

God's blessings!

 

 

• CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Deluge - New Advent

   

• CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Noah's Ark - New Advent

   

• CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Noah - New Advent

   

[Peace]

Barbara - thanks a lot of for the links. I did skim through the CA article but I will have another look at it, and the other links that you posted too.

I generally try to stick to Catholic authors too - but I also think that there are plenty of non-Catholic authors that have great insights on things too. Like C.S. Lewis or N.T. Wright!

[BarbTherese]

My learning curve with reading Scripture began with this little book by Thomas Merton (1970) "Opening The Bible" http://www.amazon.com/Thomas-Merton-Opening-Bible-

My favourite Scripture Scholar with his own website is Fr Michael Fallon MSC.  He spent much time in South Australia and is a Scripture Scholar of some renown - he also includes on his website commentaries on the Old and New Testament (with maps at times) as well as other very interesting material - http://mbfallon.com/genesis.html   He has also published books - his book on the Book of Revelations was a real eye opener for me.

About Fr M. Fallon MSC http://mbfallon.com/about_me.html

Barbara - thanks a lot of for the links. I did skim through the CA article but I will have another look at it, and the other links that you posted too.

I generally try to stick to Catholic authors too - but I also think that there are plenty of non-Catholic authors that have great insights on things too. Like C.S. Lewis or N.T. Wright!

I agree with you wholeheartedly in your second paragraph above - but I think non-Catholic authors need to be read with a certain care, while even Catholic sources might need to be checked.  A good means of doing this with some sites anyway is the Catholic Culture reviews..https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/reviews/  I never post non Catholic authors, not knowing how well schooled in our Catholic Faith and Morals, theology and spirituality, a person reading might be.  I have at times posted quotes however qualifying that the author is not Catholic or whatever and needs to be read with care..........but this type of posting would be very rare.

I have given you a bit of reading matter in the links - because of your interest in Scripture, I know that if you follow your interest prayerfully with or without the links, you will arrive at your place (only to leave again.......it is the journey!).  Prayer can be as long as you choose or as short "Come Holy Spirit!"  It's not about length or content as I feel you probably do know, its about the heart with which we pray whatever , whenever and how long.  I do feel that I am "preaching to the converted"!