II Samuel 12:22-23 David mourns the death of his child by Bathsheba, but when he learns of the child’s death he says “Why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I will go to him, but he will not return to me.” I have often heard this passage used to support the notion of “the age of accountability,” the idea that all children who die young go to heaven until they have reached a certain age where they can be held accountable for their sins. Is this a commonly held position? Are there other passages that support this position?
There are hints throughout the Old Testament regarding separate places of eternal bliss or punishment. But the most clear-cut references in the Bible are only found in later writings such as Daniel 12:2 and the New Testament. Heaven is thus a concept that was only slowly revealed to mankind, and many practicing Jews today deny the possibility of an eternal existence after death because they feel it is not taught in the Old Testament at all. Thus, my own personal feeling is that David is merely stating that his child cannot come back from Sheol, the universal abode of the dead, but David will himself eventually meet him there. I am probably in the minority in this particular opinion.
However, the idea that there is an “age of accountability” before which one will not be held responsible for sins can be deduced elsewhere in Scripture:
In Deuteronomy 1:39, Moses explains that children who were too young to know right from wrong would be allowed to enter the Promised Land and not be held guilty of the sins of their parents.
Isaiah 7:15-16 is a prophecy concerning what would happen to the nation before a certain child became old enough to refuse evil and chose good.
The Book of Jonah ends with God trying to explain to Jonah why He is extending grace to the Ninevites. They are so much in the dark spiritually that they are like little children who do not yet know the difference between their left and right hand (i.e. evil and good).
On the cross, Jesus asks God to forgive those responsible for his crucifixion “because they don't know what they are doing.”
In Leviticus 4-5, Numbers 15, Acts 3:17 and Acts 17:30 it is taught that sins committed inadvertently in ignorance must be dealt with once those sins are brought to our attention.
In I Timothy 1:13 Paul says that he received God's mercy because he had acted in ignorance when he persecuted the Christians.
7 John MacArthur also points to the numerous times in the Old Testament that children (including those who die) are referred to as innocent. “The Hebrew word for 'innocent' is used numerous times in the Old Testament to refer to 'not being guilty' -- literally, 'being taken to court and found not guilty.' It doesn't mean that they are not fallen; it doesn't mean that they are not sinful -- it does mean that God mercifully treats them as 'innocent' in spite of that, and He has to exercise grace to do that, just as He exercises grace to save those who believe.” (Safe in the Arms of God)
This subject is somewhat related to the controversial subject of infant baptism (see ch. 6 of G. R. Beasley-Murray's excellent book Baptism in the New Testament). He concludes, after much discussion that Jesus' saying in Mark 10:13-16 and parallels does not teach the practice of infant baptism, but does teach that children already possess the characteristics of those who will inhabit heaven.
From the above, one could argue that God will certainly welcome into his arms someone who dies before they are mature enough to recognize the sinfulness of their actions. Only God can judge when that occurs in an individual's life. And ultimately, all possibility of salvation still depends on God's grace and Christ's sacrifice.
More on the fate of OT “saints” While clear Old Testament references to the hope of resurrection for pious Jews are sparse, the New Testament has more to say about the subject. But first we need to reiterate the important point: Hope of eternal life for anyone is only possible through the atoning death of Christ (Acts 4:12). The question remains as to how a person can appropriate that gift.
Today, we look backward to the death and resurrection of Christ and through faith claim that victory for ourselves. But what about the Old Testament “saints” who died before the time of Christ? There are several possibilities, depending on which theologians and biblical exegetes one listens to.
1. There are a few very difficult texts (Ephesians 4:7-10; I Peter 3:18-20, 4:5-6) that might be interpreted to say that Jesus visited Hades after his death and preached the good news to the spirits of the dead so that they could have the opportunity to accept him.
2. Another possibility is that the Old Testament saints appropriated Christ's sacrifice in advance of the event, which they knew about beforehand through the Holy Spirit's enlightenment (I Peter 1:10-12).
3. A third, remote possibility arises from a tantalizing statement of Paul in Romans 2:15-16 that some people who did not have the opportunity to accept Christ while on earth will perhaps be exonerated according to whether they followed the dictates of their conscience.
4. And then there are those who separate the biblical dispensations so completely that they feel some of the Old Testament saints could attain heaven through adherence to the law alone.
By whatever means those of Old Testament times might be offered the possibility of eternal life, the New Testament witness is clear that this not a fact in doubt.
1. In arguing with the Sadducees regarding the resurrection, Jesus replied that God, in talking to Moses, refers to himself as the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Since God is the God of the living, not the dead, the implication is that those patriarchs are still alive.
2. In Jesus' parable of Lazarus and the rich man (Luke 16:23), one can go too far in interpreting the details as describing actual conditions in the afterlife. However, it certainly reflects a general picture of a two-fold separation of the physically dead into a blessed place where Abraham dwells (for those destined for eventual salvation) and a place of torment for those who are destined for eternal damnation at the Day of Judgment.
The clearest indications we have in the Bible concerning the fate of the OT saints is found in litany of faith in Hebrews 11:
We are reminded that Enoch did not die but went straight to God's presence, where he is today. (v. 5)
Noah became an heir to the righteousness that is in accordance with faith. (v. 7)
Abraham looked forward to the eternal city of God. (v. 10)
The patriarchs have a city prepared for them. (vV. 13-16)
Moses suffered for Christ to come and looked forward to his reward. (v. 26)
None of the listed Old Testament “saints” received their reward yet “since God had provided something better so that they would not, apart from us, be made perfect.” (vv. 39-40)
This last reference is the most telling, and has been explained as follows:
“The age of the new covenant has dawned; the Christ to whose day they looked forward has come and by His self-offering and His high-priestly ministry in the presence of God He has procured perfection them – and for us. With us in mind, God had made a better plan, that only in company with us should they reach their perfection. They and we together now enjoy unrestricted access to God through Christ, as fellow-citizens of the heavenly Jerusalem.” F. F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Hebrews, p. 343-4.
II Samuel 20:4-13 Joab killed Abner, Absalom, and Amasa. It appears he suffered no real consequences for these murders. In fact, he continued as David's military commander and trusted advisor. Why?
Joab is a treacherous and ambitious character who could, however, on occasion act generously (II Samuel 12:26-31) and give sound theological advice to David (II Samuel 24:2-4). David's relationship to Joab is thus also a complicated one. On the one hand, the two were blood relations (Joab was David's nephew), and Joab was a valued advisor and army commander. In addition, Joab was the one David used to carry out his plot against Uriah; so they were co-conspirators. One could even surmise that Joab's action in killing Absalom (and even Abner) was not punished more harshly by David because David realized its necessity even though he could not bring himself to actually order it done. All of these are contributing factors helping to explain why David kept Joab in power, partially to do his dirty work for him.
On the other hand, Joab's actions did not get David's wholehearted approval. In II Samuel 3:31-39, David pronounces a curse on Abner's murderer, and David replaces Joab as commander after Absalom's murder (but reinstates him later). David eventually turns decisively away from Joab on his death bed when he instructs Solomon to requite Joab and several others for their treachery (I Kings 2:5-9). This has been viewed by some as yet another example of David utilizing others to do unpleasant deeds with which he did not want to be directly associated.
Solomon carries out David's request soon afterward (I Kings 3:28-33) and Joab finally receives his well-deserved fate. Thus, we can see that the timing of God's perfect justice is not ours, and we may not even see it fulfilled until the Last Judgment.
II Samuel 24:1 // I Chronicles 21:1 The passage states David was incited by Satan to take a census. Joab seems to recognize immediately this is wrong and questions David as to why he would do such a thing. The commentary in The Daily Bible acknowledges the sinfulness of this act is less than clear. He suggests that perhaps it is because David is depending upon the strength of his numbers instead of the strength of God. Are there other plausible suggestions?
The explanation you mention is the most common one offered. “The strength of the nation's population was a kind of barometer of the Lord's favor. As such, it was not to be 'read' so as to justify human pride in human achievements, or to boost royal ambitions.” (Joyce Baldwin, 1&2 Samuel, p. 295) However, other possibilities as to David's sin have been proposed. You can judge for yourself how plausible they are:
1. A census was used as the basis for introduction of a military draft or taxation of the people, both being unacceptable changes in Israelite society. (NRSV Study Bible)
2. “If the taking of a military census almost always preceded a battle, then it is possible that David was either planning an inappropriate military operation or taking steps towards forming a standing army.” (Robin Wakely, Dictionary of Old Testament Theology & Exegesis, Vol. 3, p. 659)
3. David sinned by including males under 20 in the census, (or possibly even women, children and Levites). (Hard Sayings of the Bible, p.240)
4. The census was carried out in such a casual manner that the ritual purity law outlined in Exodus 30:12 was violated. (Kyle McCarter, II Samuel, p. 512-4) In favor of that explanation is the fact that the Exodus passage promised a plague among the people if the proper procedure was not carried out, and in fact that is exactly what happened to the Israelites.
An additional problem with this passage that is not evident in The Daily Bible is that these parallel accounts actually read quite differently from one another, and The Daily Bible has chosen to give the I Chronicles version only and omit the II Samuel account. The difference between the two is simple – II Samuel relates that God incited David to carry out the census whereas I Chronicles states that Satan did the inciting.
When one runs across apparent inconsistencies in parallel biblical accounts, there are two general approaches one can take. The first, taken by The Daily Bible in this case, is to choose one of the versions over the other. And from a theological viewpoint, it is certainly easier to understand why God would be more upset over an action of David initiated by Satan than over one initiated by Himself. However, it is this very difficulty with the Samuel account that is actually the strongest argument in favor of it being the preferred version. It is much easier to believe that the Chronicler was offended by the idea that God would incite David to sin (and therefore substituted the word “Satan” instead) than the reverse scenario whereby “God” was for some unknown reason substituted for an original reading of “Satan.”
Two other examples of such “theological euphemisms” found throughout the Hebrew Bible are (1) spelling Yahweh with the vowels for “Lord” instead so that the divine name would not be inadvertently pronounced by one reading it, and (2) proclaiming a curse on anyone who “blesses” God (in fact meaning one who “curses” God).
Tsumura (The Second Book of Samuel) suggests two other possibilities: (1) Satan is not a proper name but refers to any adversary or (2) the Samuel account actually ascribes the prompting to “the anger of God,” which is not exactly the same as God Himself. Neither approach is especially convincing.
The favored approach one can take in regard to apparent discrepancies is to attempt to harmonize them – in other words, assume that both versions are correct. In this case, it would mean that somehow both God and Satan were involved in inciting David. And here we have a clear parallel in Job 1-2. God first brings the subject of Job to Satan's attention, Satan proposes a test, and God agrees but sets limits on what Satan is allowed to do. God allows the test because he knows the positive outcome in advance, whereas Satan is approaching the test as a chance to show up both God and Job. It is a similar alignment of opposite motives that one sees later when Satan's inciting of Judas leads to Christ's crucifixion, but also to salvation for mankind.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments