IamJoseph

That is stated without proof; nor does it impact: later here is still pre-western civilization.


The text says David agreed with the verdict and penalty. If bribary was involved, Nathan would not have charged David before the entire nation, leaving no way out to recant. The applicable factors are that the law did specify - and David did transgress. This agrees with the premise of state and religion being two oppositte factors of balance, and this is its first manifestation in recorded form.

Doug Shaver

The transgression was murder. What price did Nathan demand David pay for that?

IamJoseph

No, it was adultry, and that too only on a technicality - yet David accepted the full charge. There was no murder - her husband demanded to be sent to war, against david's advice, because he was newly married and exempt from war for a year. Because of his indifference to his wife, he was put in the front rows - but there was no murder. David was actually wanting to help this man.

Of course, there is no equivalence here of a great king having to oblige a prophet demanding the law be honored - its unheard of anywhere else.

Susan2

Lets presuppose that the story is true. David sins, and someone else, once agains pays for Davids sin.

The baby dies, if I remember correctly.

Now of course, today we would know that babies died back then, many of them.

However, this affords David and the prophets another opportunity, as in 2 Samuel 24, to prey upon the children of Israel, through superstition and fear of YHWH.

Not only is the baby, an individual, a victim, but so is the group.

Of course there is little else to be expected from a scripture that would tell it's people to beat children until they are black and blue.

Sadly, I am sure that there were many who did just that.

The message is that David does not have to pay for any of his sins.

David is infallible. Was David the first Pope?

IamJoseph

The baby did not pay - David paid. His mourning is recorded as no one else's was. When the entire text is read carefully, the entire blame goes on the husband who was sent to the front rows of battle, and I know of no king in history who repented more than David - most rulers displayed the reverse.

A person's merit is derived from how one acts after they fall - and no one in history repented more than David. He devoted his entire life writing psalms in the first person which is the most cherished and sincere prose in human existence. But everyone wants 5 minutes of fame and where better than Hebrew bashing!

Doug Shaver

Well, I must say, that is one of the best blame-the-victim arguments I've seen in a very long time.

OK. David was guilty of adultery. On that, everybody agrees.

Did the law prescribe any particular penalty for adultery? If so, what was that penalty? If not, please say so: Say that the law prohibited adultery but did not specify a penalty to be carried out against adulterers.