Second Samuel – Chapter 12

The Parable of Nathan, vs. 1-6

It probably did not take long for people to figure out what had happened between David and Bathsheba, especially since she became David’s wife so soon after being widowed and while pregnant. Yet there was no proof of their sin. But God told Nathan the prophet, and sent him with a message of judgment on the king. His sin would find him out.

Nathan presented his message as an actual report of a heartless rich man and a poor man. The rich man was the owner of great flocks and herds, while the poor man owned only one little ewe lamb, which he had bought with his meager means. Yet he loved the lamb and he nurtured it carefully. It became the pet of his children and ate and drank from the master’s hand. A traveler came to the house of the rich man, who had to prepare for him a meal. He disdained to take of his own abundance to feed the man, but took the poor man’s lamb which he dressed and prepared for the traveller’s dinner.

David was wholly trapped by the message. In great anger he interrupted the prophet. He swore by the great oath of God that the culprit who was guilty of this should die and that the should restore the lamb fourfold because he had shown no pity. David was so absorbed in his complacent feeling that he had hidden his sin, he was taken completely unawares.

Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary

CRITICAL AND EXPOSITORY NOTES

2Sa. 12:3. Was unto him, etc. The custom of keeping pet sheep in the house, as we keep lap-dogs, is still met with among the Arabs. (Keil.) As a poor man he had the means of buying only one little lamb, which he was now raising, and which he loved the more as it was his only property. (Erdmann.)

2Sa. 12:5. Shall surely die, or, deserves to die. Because the forcible robbery of a poor mans pet lamb was almost as bad as man-stealing. (Keil.) Four-fold. This was the compensation demanded by the Mosaic law. (Exo. 21:36.)

2Sa. 12:7. Thus saith the Lord. Just as in the parable the sin is traced to its rootnamely, insatiable covetousnessso now, in the words of Jehovah which follow the prophet brings out in the most unsparing manner this hidden background of all sins. (Keil.)

2Sa. 12:8. Thy masters wives. It is a general custom in the East for a king to succeed to his predecessors harem, and these words seem to show it was permitted to the kings of Israel. Bishop Patrick and others give the later Jewish understanding of the law or custom; the king and no other person fell heir to the property and harem of his predecessor, but it did not follow that he actually married the inmates of the harem; they might be merely a part of the establishment. If it was a son that succeeded his father, he treated these women with reverence; if no blood relation existed between the two kings, the successor might actually take the women as his wives. (Phillipson.) As to the morality of the act, it was the natural result of a polygamous system, and morally in the same category with it. (Tr. of Langes Commentary.)

2Sa. 12:9. Slain. This word to murder in the Hebrew is stronger than the one translated to kill in the former clause. With the sword of Ammon. That David used the heathen to commit the deed, added to the guilt.

2Sa. 12:10. Never depart. That is, as long as the house or posterity of David shall last. The bloody sword appears in the murder of the incestuous Ammon by Absalom (2Sa. 13:28-29), in the death of the rebel Absalom (ch. 1314), and in the execution of Adonijah. (Erdmann.) Thou has despised Me. This is here said instead of Thou hast despised the word of the Lord. For in His word the Lord Himself reveals Himself. (Erdmann.)

2Sa. 12:11. I will take thy wives. The two crimes of murder and adultery were to be visited by distinct and separate punishments. (See 2Sa. 14:22.)

2Sa. 12:13. Thou Shalt not die. What is the exact meaning of these words as applied to David? The application of the law (Lev. 20:10; Deu. 22:22) to an absolute Eastern monarch is out of the question, and if it were not, such an application would utterly mar the force of the passage. It is obvious, too, to observe that the criminals death in the parable must represent some analogous punishment in the wider field in which the real events lay, where the criminal was above human laws, and Almighty God was the Judge. In other words, the death of the soul is certainly meant, as in Eze. 18:4; Eze. 18:13, etc. (Biblical Commentary.)

MAIN HOMILETICS OF THE PARAGRAPH.2Sa. 12:1-13

DAVIDS REPENTANCE

I. The first step in Davids return to God is taken by God Himself. The Lord sent Nathan. The man who has fallen into a pit and broken his limbs must have help from without. It is useless to expect him to climb out unaidedsomeone must come and lift him out if he is ever again to find himself on the spot whence he fell. The first step to recovery must come from outside and from above himself. David had fallen by his own want of vigilance into a horrible pit of sin; his moral backbone was broken (Psa. 51:8), and he could no longer stand upright before his conscience and God, and the longer this state continued the deeper did he sink into the mire of moral insensibility. Some help must come from without if he is ever to recover, in any degree, his lost positionsome means must be taken to awaken within him, first a sense of guilt and then a hope of pardon. God sends the means and thus takes the first step towards reconciliation between Himself and David, and He does the same we believe in all similar cases. The tendency of sin is either to harden the transgressor or to fill him with despair. He either tries to palliate his guilt or he is so overwhelmed by the consciousness of it that he becomes hopeless of ever being free from either its penalty or its power. But provision has been made by God to meet both states of mind. He has sent a greater than Nathan, and in Christ (2Co. 5:19) has taken the first step in reconciling the world unto Himself.

II. The means used are wonderfully adapted to attain the end desired. There is no parable of the Old Testament that can be compared with that of the ewe lamb. Its skill in concealing its application reminds one of our Lords parable of the vineyard and the wicked husbandmen, (Mar. 12:1-12) and in practical application to the heart and conscience it has never been surpassed. A consideration of the analogy and contrast which it sets forth as existing between Uriah and David shows how fitted it was to set before the latter the aggravated guilt of his deed.

1. The analogy. The men in the parable were, in some respects, on an equality; they were fellow-men and fellow-citizens. There were two men in one city. So David and Uriah, although one was a king and the other a subject, were on a level on the common ground of humanity, and were both subject to the laws, political, social, and religious which had been given by God to the nation which regarded Jerusalem as the seat of government. David was by birth a member of the highly favoured nation to whom God had given laws direct from heaven, and Uriah by choice was a citizen of the city of the great king, and stood in this sense on a level with his royal master, as did the poor man of the parable with his oppressive fellow-citizen.

2. The contrast. The one rich and the other poor. Wealth means power to gratify ones desires, to execute ones purposes to a great extent. Poverty often means the necessity of submission to the will of those socially above us even though they be beneath us in every other respect. It was so with the oppressor and the oppressed in the parable, and it was so with Uriah and David. The kings position made it possible for him to indulge his lawless desires without hindrance. The position of Uriah put his domestic happiness and his life at his masters disposal, and this inequality aggravated Davids crime. The parable seems to hint at a further contrast. The rich man had exceeding many flocks and herds, but the poor man had nothing save one little ewe lamb. David had many wives; we infer from the narrative that Uriah had but one. His love was therefore deeper, because purer, than that of David. The owner of many wives could not gauge the deep affection of the husband of one wife, even as the rich man of the parable could not understand the feeling with which his poor neighbour regarded his only lamb. Both the points of resemblance and of contrast were calculated to set the many aggravations of Davids sin before him when once his conscience began to awake from its long slumber. Until this moment David had evidently never looked his crime in the face; now it was so placed before him that he saw it in all its enormity, stripped of any palliation or excuse which he might have thrown over it, if he had known it for his own. It is also probable that Nathan, who was evidently much esteemed by David, had in past days informed the king of deeds of injustice committed by his rich subjects against their poorer brethren. Add to this the fact that Nathan had been the mouthpiece of Gods goodwill to David and his house, and we shall see how adapted were both the messenger and the messagefirst to secure the desired attention, and then to produce the needed conviction. The whole transaction is an exhibition of the manifold wisdom and the gracious condescension which ever marks the dealings of God with his erring creatures, and puts into the mouth of every restored wanderer the song, The Lord is merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and plenteous in mercy. (Psa. 103:8).

III. Gods pardon of the sin follows immediately upon Davids confession. This is the law of the kingdom of God, both before and since the death of the SinbearerIf we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins. (1Jn. 1:9.) In the narrative before us the same verse contains the acknowledgement of the guilt and its remission;it seems as though David had hardly uttered his confession before he received an assurance that he was pardoned,that is, that the worst effect of sinthe displeasure of Godwas removed. This by no means, as we see from Davids subsequent history, frees the transgressor from all the penalty of his transgression, but it opens or reopens the way of access to a merciful God, and gives a different aspect to all the chastisement that follows. If David had, in his own words, still kept silence before God, (Psalms 33), he would have had no place of refuge in the calamities of his after life; but having acknowledged his iniquity, he was able to look for help to the very hand that smote him. This is the great and vital difference between the afflictions of the forgiven and the unforgiven sinner. The former must still suffer many of the consequences of sin, but the deadly sting is gone from them, and although the sentence pronounced at the fall is not reversed for him any more than for the latter, his relations to the Lawgiver are those of a forgiven child instead of a rebel subject. Davids history shows how ready God is to let a man pass from the one position to the other.

OUTLINES AND SUGGESTIVE COMMENTS

2Sa. 12:1. He must be of Gods sending that shall effectually awaken conscience and speak to the heart. Nathan the prophet is here purposely sent to let good David feel the bruise of his fall. If Gods best children have been sometimes suffered to sleep in sin, at last he awakeneth them in a fright. Now because men that are awakened hastily out of a deep and sweet sleep are apt to take it ill, and to brawl with their best friends, wise Nathan beginneth his reproof, not in plain terms, but by an allegory. and it is most likely he did it privately, that he might the more easily work and win upon him. Private admonition saith one, is the pastors privy purse, as princes have theirs, besides their public disbursements.Trapp.

2Sa. 12:2. The greater was his sin, since pressed with no necessity. What need had the angels to leave their first estate and habitation? (Jud. 1:6.) What need had Adam to reach after a deity? What need had Ahab to covet Naboths vineyard? etc. It is no small aggravation of a mans sin to fall into it without strong temptation.Trapp.

2Sa. 12:3-5. It is most instructive to observe that Nathan in his parable calls attention, not to the sensuality and cruelty of Davids crime, but simply to its intense and brutal selfishness Remember this, even as regards the special sin of which David was guilty. Many, perhaps, who would excuse themselves on other grounds for the ruin which, by the indulgence of their own passions, they help to bring upon the souls and bodies of their fellow-creatures, might be startled, as was David, if once they could be convinced of its mean and selfish baseness.Dean Stanley.

2Sa. 12:5-6. This energy of virtue, this mighty effort to get credit with oneself for a lively sense of right and hatred of injusticewho does not recognise it? Who should not tremble when he thinksthe evil spirit who prompts to this consummate deceit and hypocrisy is near to me? I am tempted continually to fly from the light which would show me the foul spots in my own soul, by projecting them outside of me, and pronouncing sentence upon them in another man.Maurice.

I. Impartial reason is ever ready to condemn any flagrant iniquity. There is as discernable a difference between good and evil as between white and black, when nothing interposes to obstruct the sight, or misrepresent the object. When a particular case happens to be entangled with something of nicety, there may be room for doubt, or need of consideration, but in general men can pass judgment readily and boldly. David wanted not the wisdom of an angel to discern what common sense would have dictated in a like case. ButII. The prejudices of interest and lust, may, and do hinder men from discerning, or at least distinguishing in practice between right and wrong, even in the plainest cases. Such was most apparently the case with David. There was no room for comparison between two injuries of a size so unequal. He who was so tenderly sensible of what the poor man was supposed to suffer, could not possibly be ignorant of how much the injured Uriah must have suffered. In the heat of his indignation against a supposed oppressor, he put on the severity of a judge more rigorous than the law directed. And this when he had been guilty of a cruelty which left not the possibility of restitution. III. Although men do sometimes suffer themselves to commit gross sins, in open contradiction to their own inward light, yet all notorious iniquity stands condemned by the universal verdict of mankind. It is no easy matter to bribe the reason and warp the judgment so far as to make men advocate their own irregularities; but let sinners once sit in judgment on each other, and they will all come in condemnation in their turns, and all with equal justice. While the affections are unengaged, and temptation at a distance, nature recoils at the very thought of a great enormity. (See 2Ki. 8:13.) It is probable had David been foretold by Nathan how he would act in the matter of Uriah, he would have answered him in the words of Hazael, Is thy servant a dog that he should do this thing?Dean Moss.

2Sa. 12:5-7. I. Men as sinners are frequently ignorant of their own characters. Although there is no subject of more vital interest to man than himself, and none which he has such facilities for studying, yet of nothing is he more ignorant. When Christ warned Peter of his denial of Him, the apostle exclaimed Though all men deny thee, yet will not I deny thee; but within a few hours Peter repeatedly, and with oaths, denied his Master. Why are we so ignorant of our own characters? I may mention three reasons:First, The lack of a sin-resisting force. Sin, says Caird, in his admirable sermon on Self-Ignorance, can be truly measured only when it is resisted. Steam is an illustration. So long as it is allowed to pass away freely and unrestrained from the boiling vessel its power is inappreciable; but resist it, endeavour to confine it, and it will gather a force that will shiver you to atoms. Conscience is the sin-resisting force, and this in the sinner is weak, etc. Secondly, The infirmity of the sin-detecting power. Conscience is this power, and by depravity it often gets deadened so that it does not feel or see. If the thermometer is frozen, how can you tell the temperature of the air? Thirdly, The repulsiveness of a sin-polluted heart. Man feels that all things within are not right. He suspects that there are disease, danger, and a lurking enemy there, and he keeps away. He regards his own heart as the insolvent debtor regards his ledger, etc. II. The men who are most ignorant of themselves are most severe in their judgment of others. This principle is illustrated also in the parable of the householders (Mat. 21:33-42); in the history of Caiaphas (Mar. 14:63); and in the conduct of the Pharisee in the temple, in relation to the Publican. He that has the beam in his own eye sees the mote in his brothers eye. III. However self-ignorant a man may be, a period of self-recognition must come. I have read in ancient history of a dumb prince who had never spoken a word in all his life, till one day he saw an enemy draw a sword against his father; and as he beheld the fatal blow descending, the terrible feeling unlocked his tongue and made him speak. So it will be with all dumb consciences soon. The period of self-recognition came to some of the murderers of Christ on the day of Pentecost; and they cried out, Men and brethren, what shall we do? It came to Paul, and he exclaimed, What things were gain to me, I counted loss. When God touches the conscience, the man stands self-revealed.

Awakened conscience acts the artist;

Uses the Sun of Heavens law
To photograph the sinners life,
Then holds it up a life-like picture
A hideous monster to the affrighted eye.

Dr. David Thomas.

2Sa. 12:13. Two things are to be remarked in connection with Davids penitential utterance.

1. That he regarded social wrongs as sins against the Lord. All that appears to us in the crimes of which he was convicted was purely social. Still, inasmuch as social order is a Divine institution, wrongs against society are sins against God. Things are right and wrong between man and man because Heaven has willed them so and the sinners grief, when conscience is aroused, is not so much that he has injured man, as that he has insulted his Maker. Against Thee, Thee only have I sinned.

2. That he felt that he himself was responsible for the commission of those sins. He does not refer to the tempter or the temptation,does not say a word about necessity and the influence of circumstances upon his organisation; no, no! all this will do very well when conscience is sleeping for the intellect to speculate about. But conscience despises your fatalism, dashes its logical fabrics to pieces. I have sinned. Taking Nathans language as expressing forgiveness of sin, the following remarks are suggested.

1. Forgiveness is a real act. It is not a mere vision, or an idea of a superstitious mind, nor a mere figure of speech;it is a putting away of sin.

2. Forgiveness is an act performed by the Lord. None can forgive mens sins but the Lord.

3. Forgiveness is an act which delivers from death. The wages of sin is death.. Thou shalt not die; even thy physical dissolution shall be only a sleep.

4. Forgiveness is an act dependent on repentance. Repent, that your sins may be blotted out, etc.

5. Forgiveness is an act with which the true minister has much to do. Whilst we repudiate the doctrine of priestly absolution, we hold it to be the right and duty of every true minister of Christ to do what Nathan now did,Declare Divine forgiveness to Him who has proved the genuineness of his penitence.Dr. David Thomas.

It may seem to some, that a penitence thus suddenly produced could be neither very deep nor very thorough. But to those who think thus, three things must be said.
First: an impression may be produced in a moment which will remain indelible. We have heard, for example, of one who, as he was travelling in an Alpine region at midnight, saw for an instant, by the brilliancy of a flash of lightning, that he was in such a position that another step would have been over a fearful precipice, and the effect upon him was that he started back and waited for the morning dawn. Now such a flash of lightning into the darkness of Davids soul, this Thou art the man, of Nathans, was to him. It revealed to him, by its momentary brilliance, the full aggravation of his iniquity. He did not need or desire a second sight of it. That was enough to stir him up to hatred of his sin, and of himself.
But, second: we must, in connection with this narrative, read the Psalms to which Davids penitence gave birth, namely, the 51st and the 32nd; and if these are not the genuine utterances of a passionate sincerity, where shall we find that quality in any literature? Admirably has Chandler said of the 51st Psalm: The heart appears in every line; and the bitter anguish of a wounded conscience discovers itself by the most natural and convincing symbols. Let but the Psalm be read without prejudice, and with a view only to collect the real sentiments expressed in it, and the disposition of heart that appears throughout the whole of it, and no man of candour, I am confident, will ever suspect that it was the dictate of hypocrisy, or could be penned from any other motive but a strong conviction of the heinousness of his offence, and the earnest desire of Gods forgiveness, and being restrained from the commission of the like transgressions for the future. Furthermore, as another evidence of the genuineness of Davids repentance, we point to the words of Nathan, The Lord also hath put away thy sin, and ask if the prophet, as Jehovahs representative, would have said anything like that if the penitence of David had not been sincere. What, really, is the distinction between the people of God and the wicked on the earth? Is it that the one class commit no sins, while the other fall into iniquity? No; the godly man does sin. No one will be more ready to acknowledge that than himself. The difference, therefore, is not there. It lies in this: that when the child of God falls into sin, he rises out of it and leaves it, and cries to God for pardon, purity, and help; but when the ungodly man falls into sin, he continues in it, and delights in it, as does the sow in her wallowing in the mire. It is a poor, shallow philosophy, therefore, that sneers at such a history as this of David; nay, it is worse even than that: it is the very spirit of Satan, rejoicing, as it does, in the iniquity of others. On this point, however, I gladly avail myself of the language of a living writer, not usually considered to have any very strong bias in favour of the Scriptural views of men and thingsI mean Thomas Carlyle. Faults! says this author, in his Lecture on the Hero as Prophet; the greatest of faults, I should say, is to be conscious of none. Readers of the Bible, above all, one would think might know better. Who is called there the man according to Gods own heart? David, the Hebrew king, had fallen into sins enough; blackest crimes; there was no want of sins. And thereupon unbelievers sneer and ask, Is this your man according to Gods heart? The sneer, I must say, seems to me but a shallow one. What are faults? what are the outward details of a life, if the inner secret of itthe remorse, temptations, true, often baffled, never-ending struggle of itbe forgotten? It is not in man that walketh to direct his steps. Of all acts, is not, for a man, repentance the most Divine? The deadliest sin, I say were that same supercilious consciousness of no sin. That is death. The heart so conscious is divorced from sincerity, humility, and factis dead. It is pure, as dead dry sand is pure. Davids life and history, as written for us in those Psalms of his, I consider to be the truest emblem ever given of a mans moral progress and warfare here below. All earnest souls will ever discern in it the faithful struggle of an earnest human soul toward what is good and best. Struggle often baffled sore, baffled down into entire wreck, yet a struggle never ended; ever with tears, repentance, true, unconquerable purpose begun anew. Poor human nature! Is not a mans walking in truth always thata succession of falls? Man can do no other. In this wild element of a life, he has to struggle upward: now fallen, now abased; and ever with tears, repentance, and bleeding heart, he has to rise again, struggle again, still onward. That his struggle be a faithful, unconquerable one, that is the question of questions.Taylor.

The greatest griefs are not most verbal. Saul confessed his sin more largely, less effectually. God cares not for phrases, but for affections. The first piece of our amends to God for sinning is the acknowledgment of sin: he can do little, that in a just offence cannot accuse himself. If we cannot be so good as we would, it is reason we should do God so much right, as to say how evil we are. And why was not this done sooner? It is strange to see how easily sin gets into the heart; how hardly it gets out of the mouth: is it because sin, like unto Satan, where it hath got possession, is desirous to hold it, and knows that it is fully ejected by a free confession? or because, in a guiltiness of deformity, it hides itself in the breast where it is once entertained, and hates the light? or because the tongue is so feed with self-love, that it is loath to be drawn unto any verdict against the heart or hands? or is it out of an idle misprision of shame, which, while it should be placed in offending, is misplaced in disclosing of our offence?Bp. Hall.

2Sa. 12:5-13. The sin of David, and his unconsciousness of his own sinand so also his repentance through the disclosure to him of his own sinare exactly what are most likely to take place in characters like his, like ours, made up of mixed forms of good and evil. The hardened, depraved, worldly man is not ignorant of his sin; he knows it, defends it, he is accustomed to it. But the good man, or the man who is half good and half badhe overlooks his sin. His good deeds conceal his bad deeds, often even from others, more often still from himself. For others, this history teaches us to regard with tenderness the faults, the sins, the crimes, of those who, gifted with great and noble qualities, are, by that strange union of strength and weakness which we so often see, betrayed into acts which more ordinary, commonplace characters avoid or escape. We need not, nor dare, deny their sin but we must thankfully acknowledge the background, the atmosphere, so to speak, of excellence which renders a return from such sins possible. And for ourselves, let us remember that such a foundation of good as there was in Davids character is never thrown away. If it is not able to resist the trial altogether, it will at least be best able to recover from it. Davids fall sufficiently teaches us, not to rely on our religious principle, however sound, nor to trust in our religious zeal, however fervent; but his repentance bids us humbly hope that whatever good purposes and sincere prayers and faith in God, and love of Christ, we have been able to retain amid the changes and chances of the world, will stand in the evil day, and do us good service still: there will be something to which we can appeal with the certainty of some response when the first flush of passion, the first cloud of self-deceit has passed away.Dean Stanley.

Another view of the effect of Davids humiliation may be noticed, not as if it were a matter of certainty, but rather as a suggestion for study and consideration. There is reason to think that this new exercise of Davids soulhis deep sense of sin, and bitter experience of its fruitsfitted him for a most important function, which he would now begin to fulfil more especially than heretofore. These exercises of his soul enabled him to become more suitably the type of the sin-bearing Jesus, and to give utterance to those feelings of deep oppression and agonizing grief that, in their fullest and deepest meaning, none could appropriate but the Man of Sorrows. Up to this time David had had comparatively little acquaintance with the burden of sin; but no one could in any measure foreshadow the Messiah without a deep personal acquaintance with the burden of guilt. In one aspect it may be a startling thing to suggest that a time of writhing under the horrors of guilt fitted David better to become the type of the sinless One. But in another aspect the statement is no paradox. It is not meant that either in kind or degree Davids feelings were identical with the suffering Messiah, but only that the resemblance was such that the language which was suggested by the one was suitable, and shown to be suitable, to express the other.Blaikie.

Fuente: The Preacher’s Complete Homiletical Commentary Edited by Joseph S. Exell

3. Davids Repentance, 2Sa. 12:1-31.

Nathans Parable. 2Sa. 12:1-6

And the Lord sent Nathan unto David. And he came unto him, and said unto him, There were two men in one city; the one rich, and the other poor.
2 The rich man had exceeding many flocks and herds:

3 But the poor man had nothing, save one little ewe lamb, which he had bought and nourished up: and it grew up together with him, and with his children; it did eat of his own meat, and drank of his own cup, and lay in his bosom, and was unto him as a daughter.

4 And there came a traveler unto the rich man, and he spared to take of his own flock and of his own herd, to dress for the wayfaring man that was come unto him; but took the poor mans lamb, and dressed it for the man that was come to him.
5 And Davids anger was greatly kindled against the man; and he said to Nathan, As the Lord liveth, the man that hath done this thing shall surely die:

6 And he shall restore the lamb fourfold, because he did this thing, and because he had no pity.

1.

What kind of story did Nathan tell? 2Sa. 12:1

The story that Nathan told David was a parable. A parable is an earthly story with a heavenly meaning. It is a story of what actually did happen or could have happened. It is different from a fable, inasmuch as a fable is generally some kind of story that is quite definitely fictitious. Whether or not there were two men in a city of Nathans acquaintance should not alter the meaning of the story. The setting is typical of life. One man was rich, the other was poor. This parable was the setting for a message that God had given Nathan to deliver to David.

2.

Who was the rich man? 2Sa. 12:2

The rich man in the parable must have been David. Although we must be careful lest we err in forcing all the points of a parable to have some significance, this central truth is clear. The parable was directed against David. Later, Nathan said, Thou art the man (verse seven). David certainly fit the picture; he had exceeding many flocks and herds. God had given him prosperity above anything he could have hoped for or imagined in his fondest dreams.

3.

Who was the poor man? 2Sa. 12:3

The poor man who had nothing save the one little ewe lamb must have been Uriah. Uriah was a Hittite. He was a foreigner to the commonwealth of Israel and was a soldier in Davids army. Naturally, the rest of the picture does not fit exactly. Uriah had not raised Bath-sheba in his own home, and it does not seem appropriate to view her being with his children as one of his own family. Neither is it appropriate to liken Bathsheba to a poor mans daughter.

4.

Who was the poor mans lamb? 2Sa. 12:4

Even though we cannot make all points of the parable fit the true life situation, the poor mans lamb must have been a reference to Bathsheba. David had taken Bathsheba away from Uriah just as the rich man had stolen the poor mans lamb. Of course David did not dress the lamb and serve it to his guests, as did the rich man in the parable when the traveler came to him. Pressing the points of the parable too far would make Bathsheba absolutely innocent and of the same nature as a lamb. Although Bathsheba did not lure David into the sinful situation that was theirs, we cannot absolve her of all blame completely. She apparently made no resistance, and entered into the adulterous union without revealing the heinous nature of the crimes that had been committed.

5.

What was Davids reaction? 2Sa. 12:5

Davids anger was greatly kindled. He thought Nathan was telling him a true story of the events transpiring in his kingdom. As ruler of the land, he judged that the man who had done this terrible thing was worthy of death. He pronounced the sentence of death upon him. He also ordered that the lamb be restored fourfold. This was the statute laid down in Exo. 22:1. If an ox had been involved, then five oxen were to be used to make restitution. In the case of sheep, only four sheep were to be repaid. This quick action on Davids part is typical of him when he was at his best. He was a man of action and took immediate steps to rectify wrongs which were done in his kingdom.

Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series

(1) Sent Nathan.Nathan was already on intimate terms with David, and recognised by him as a prophet (2Sa. 7:1-17).

Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)

NATHAN’S PARABLE AGAINST DAVID, 2Sa 12:1-14.

“The year had passed; the dead Uriah was forgotten; the child of guilt was born in the royal house, and loved with all the passionate tenderness of David’s paternal heart. Suddenly the prophet Nathan appears before him. He comes as if to claim redress for a wrong in humble life. It was the true mission of the prophets, as champions of the oppressed, in the courts of kings. It was the true prophetic spirit that spoke through Nathan’s mouth. The apologue of the rich man and the ewe lamb has, besides its own intrinsic tenderness, a supernatural elevation, which is the best sign of true revelation. It ventures to disregard all particulars, and is content to aim at awakening the general sense of outraged justice. It fastens on the essential guilt of David’s sin not its sensuality, or its impurity, so much as its meanness and selfishness. It rouses the king’s conscience by that teaching described in 1Co 14:24-25, as specially characteristic of prophecy, making manifest his own sin in the indignation which he has expressed at the sin of another.” Stanley.

Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

1. Sent Nathan unto David This was after the birth of the child of Bathsheba. Compare 2Sa 12:14-15 with 2Sa 11:27. By this time, perhaps, David began to think that his sin was unknown or forgotten.

Two men in one city David and Uriah.

Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

Through Nathan The Prophet YHWH Calls David To Account For His Sins ( 1Sa 12:1-15 a).

David should have been aware that YHWH knew his secret sins. He said so often enough in his Psalms. But it is a sign of how hardened even the most spiritual person can become to the truth about himself that David appears to have felt no qualms about the appalling behaviour in which he had been involved. After all, affairs were going well at Rabbah, he now had Bathsheba as his wife, he was looking forward to the birth of (hopefully) a new son, and all seemed well. Thus when he learned that Nathan the Prophet wanted to see him he probably felt quite at peace.

But he was soon to be disillusioned. For with a vivid and moving parable Nathan brought home to him the despicable nature of his sin, and that YHWH knew all about it. And he made him condemn himself, after which he was to learn of the judgment of YHWH that was to be upon him.

Analysis.

a And YHWH sent Nathan to David (2Sa 12:1 a).

b And he came to him, and said to him, “There were two men in one city, the one rich, and the other poor. The rich man had a great many flocks and herds, but the poor man had nothing, apart from one little ewe lamb, which he had bought and nourished up. And it grew up together with him, and with his children. It ate of his own morsel, and drank of his own cup, and lay in his bosom, and was to him as a daughter. And there came a traveller to the rich man, and he spared to take of his own flock and of his own herd, to dress for the wayfaring man who was come to him, but took the poor man’s lamb, and dressed it for the man who was come to him” (2Sa 12:1-4).

c And David’s anger was greatly kindled against the man, and he said to Nathan, “As YHWH lives, the man who has done this is worthy to die, and he shall restore the lamb fourfold, because he did this thing, and because he had no pity” (2Sa 12:5-6).

d And Nathan said to David, “You are the man.”

e “Thus says YHWH, the God of Israel, I anointed you king over Israel, and I delivered you out of the hand of Saul, and I gave you your master’s house, and your master’s wives into your bosom, and gave you the house of Israel and of Judah, and if that had been too little, I would have added unto you such and such things” (2Sa 12:7-8).

f “Why therefore have you despised the word of YHWH, to do what is evil in his sight? You have smitten Uriah the Hittite with the sword, and have taken his wife to be your wife, and have slain him with the sword of the children of Ammon. Now therefore the sword shall never depart from your house, because you have despised me, and have taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be your wife” (2Sa 12:9-10).

e “Thus says YHWH, Behold, I will raise up evil against you out of your own house, and I will take your wives before your eyes, and give them to your neighbour, and he will lie with your wives in the sight of this sun. For you did it secretly, but I will do this thing before all Israel, and before the sun” (2Sa 12:11-12).

d And David said to Nathan, “I have sinned against YHWH” (2Sa 12:13 a).

c And Nathan said to David, “YHWH also has put away your sin. You will not die” (2Sa 12:13 b).

b “However, because by this deed you have given great occasion to the enemies of YHWH to blaspheme, the child also which is born to you will surely die” (2Sa 12:14).

a And Nathan departed to his house (2Sa 12:15 a).

Note that in ‘a’ YHWH sends Nathan to David, and in the parallel Nathan returns to his house having imparted the word of YHWH. In ‘b’ Nathan tells the story of the behaviour of the rich man who unscrupulously slew the lamb of the poor man, and in the parallel he declares that similarly David’s behaviour has given occasion to the enemies of YHWH to blaspheme. In ‘c’ David declares that the rich man deserves to die, and in the parallel Nathan confirms to David that YHWH has put away his sin so that, while he deserves to die, he will not. In ‘d’ Nathan says to David ‘you are the man’ and in the parallel David in return confesses, ‘I have sinned against YHWH’. In ‘e’ Nathan tells David how much of what was good YHWH had given him, including Saul’s wives and concubines, and in the parallel YHWH will give David what is evil, and David’s wives and concubines are to be taken from him in the sight of all. Centrally in ‘f’ his two great sins are described, he had smitten Uriah with the sword and had stolen his wife from him. The result is to be that his own house will similarly know the effects of the sword.

2Sa 12:1 a

‘And YHWH sent Nathan to David.’

In His displeasure YHWH sent Nathan the Prophet to David. The previous chapter has been full of the ‘sending’ of people. Now it was YHWH’s turn. This sending would appear to have been after the birth of the child (verse 14). Thus David had had a few months in which to consider his ways and repent. But instead he appears to have been impervious to the situation. The godly David of old had seemingly disappeared, and had been replaced by this arrogant stranger. How dangerous it is to be successful and to live at peace. For then it is not long before the conscience goes to sleep, unless we keep very close to God.

However, God was not only displeased, He was also gracious. He sent Nathan because He was concerned for David’s wellbeing. He wanted to bring David back to Himself. And so within the words of judgment we discover a core of mercy. David was not to receive the judgment that he was due to. He would not die. Nevertheless there had to be consequences.

We should acknowledge the courage of Nathan in coming boldly to confront the king. He would have been quite well aware that with David in the state that he was he might easily be executed. But we should also note that he did not just rush in like a bull at a gate. He approached him with great forethought. For the purpose of his coming was not in order to condemn, but in order to win him to repentance. So there was nothing thoughtless or arrogant about his approach. It was determined but carefully worked out. He was well aware that in order to win David ranting would be no good. He had to get him to condemn himself. (How careful we must be in our witnessing that we do not just blast people with our message, but think how we can approach them so as to lure them into condemning themselves)

2Sa 12:1-3 (1b-3)

‘And he came to him, and said to him, “There were two men in one city, the one rich, and the other poor. The rich man had a great many flocks and herds, but the poor man had nothing, apart from one little ewe lamb, which he had bought and nourished up. And it grew up together with him, and with his children. It ate of his own morsel, and drank of his own cup, and lay in his bosom, and was to him as a daughter.”

The beauty and applicability of this parable, comparing the position of the rich man in contrast with the poor man, cannot be denied, and it would especially appeal to the heart of David the shepherd. The rich man has a great many flocks and herds (wives and concubines) the poor man has only one little ewe lamb (Bathsheba). But because the poor man only had the one lamb he especially cherished it and loved it. It became the pet of the family and ate and drank with them and was like a daughter to him. Such treatment of pet lambs was quite common among pastoral people, especially those who had few possessions.

2Sa 12:4

“ And there came a traveller to the rich man, and he spared to take of his own flock and of his own herd, to dress for the wayfaring man who was come to him, but took the poor man’s lamb, and dressed it for the man who was come to him.”

But when a traveller arrived at the rich man’s house the rich man did not want to spare any of his own lambs, and so he sent his servants to take the cherished lamb of the poor man, with the result that that little pet ewe lamb was killed and dressed to satisfy the traveller. The poignancy of the story can hardly fail to come over to us. Who with any heart would not have condemned the rich man? For the rich man’s act was clearly one of despicable arrogance and unforgivable callousness. Just like David’s.

2Sa 12:5-6

‘ And David’s anger was greatly kindled against the man, and he said to Nathan, “As YHWH lives, the man who has done this is worthy to die, and he shall restore the lamb fourfold, because he did this thing, and because he had no pity.” ’

Not recognising that it was speaking about himself David was absolutely livid at what the rich man had done. Why, it was inexcusable. What kind of a man could do a thing like that? He was so incensed that he declared that such a man deserved to die (although if literally fulfilled that would have been against the Law), but as that was not permissible under the Law he should instead fulfil the Law and restore the lamb fourfold as the Law required of a thief (Exo 22:1).

2Sa 12:7-8

‘ And Nathan said to David, “You are the man. Thus says YHWH, the God of Israel, I anointed you king over Israel, and I delivered you out of the hand of Saul, and I gave you your master’s house, and your master’s wives into your bosom, and gave you the house of Israel and of Judah, and if that had been too little, I would have added unto you such and such things.” ’

And then to David’s total discomfort and horror Nathan looked him straight in the eye and declared, “YOU ARE THE MAN.” The words must have come crashing into David’s heart like a thunderbolt. He had thought that his sins had been covered up and now he realised that Nathan knew, and what was worse, it meant that YHWH knew, the YHWH Whom he had conveniently been forgetting. He felt totally ashamed. Oh yes, he had still attended regular worship, and had played his part as an intercessory priest. He had even no doubt been married in the presence of YHWH (for the umpteenth time). But his conscience had been carefully anaesthetised and he had probably convinced himself that for a king his action had not been so bad after all. But now he was being made to recognise the truth about himself.

Nathan then proceeded to give him a tongue-lashing from YHWH. He reminded him of all that YHWH, the God of Israel, had done for him. He had anointed him as king over Israel, He had delivered him from the hand of Saul, He had handed over to David the royal household that had been Saul’s and He had given him Saul’s wives and concubines (they naturally came with the crown. No king could allow a former king’s wives to be available to anyone else, for it could represent a threat to the throne. It did not necessarily mean that he treated them as wives on an intimate basis, only that he took them under his protection. But they were equally available to him if he wanted them). Indeed YHWH had given him the whole of Israel and Judah so that he could be king over them. And if that had not been enough He would have given him anything that he asked for, as long as it was within the Law. There was nothing that YHWH would not have done for him.

2Sa 12:9

“ Why therefore have you despised the word of YHWH, to do what is evil in his sight? You have smitten Uriah the Hittite with the sword, and have taken his wife to be your wife, and have slain him with the sword of the children of Ammon.”

And what had David done in return? He had despised the word of YHWH by doing what was evil in His sight. He had caused to be smitten with the sword his faithful and loyal servant Uriah the Hittite, a man of the highest integrity, simply in order to hide his own sin. He had taken Uriah’s only beloved wife and, while Uriah was still alive, had committed adultery with her, and then he had finally taken her as his wife, after having arranged for Uriah to be slain with the sword of the children of Ammon, a victim to barbarians.

2Sa 12:10

“ Now therefore the sword shall never depart from your house, because you have despised me, and have taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be your wife.”

And now, because of what he had done, violent death and the sword would never depart from his house, and this was because he had despised YHWH and had taken Uriah’s wife to be his wife, in a way that was completely contrary to the Law.

It is a salutary lesson to us all that to sin is to ‘despise God’. Perhaps if we recognised more what sin is we would sin less. But the truth is that we despise God by assuming on His grace.

2Sa 12:11

“ Thus says YHWH, Behold, I will raise up evil against you out of your own house, and I will take your wives before your eyes, and give them to your neighbour, and he will lie with your wives in the sight of this sun.”

And not only would his house be plagued with violent death, but YHWH would raise up evil against David himself. He would take his own wives before his eyes and give them to one who was close to him, and the one who was close to him would lie with them openly in the sight of the sun, where all could see,

2Sa 12:12

“ For you did it secretly, but I will do this thing before all Israel, and before the sun.”

And whereas David had taken Uriah’s wife secretly so that no one knew, his wives would be taken openly in such a way that everyone knew, both in earth and heaven (before all Israel and before the sun). This would be literally fulfilled when Absalom lay with David’s concubine wives in broad daylight and in the sight of all Israel (2Sa 16:21-22).

2Sa 12:13 a

‘And David said to Nathan, “I have sinned against YHWH.”

Faced with the unexpected accusation and aware of how far he had fallen David made no denials. He had suddenly been brought to a halt in his wayward tracks, and was now turning back to his old allegiance, always a painful process. Nathan saw before him a broken man. He humbly acknowledged with a penitent heart that he had sinned deeply, and that against YHWH. This was the evidence of the spiritual greatness of David. Once he recognised what he had done he repented deeply and sought YHWH’s forgiveness, a repentance writ large in Psalms 51, ‘against You, You only, have I sinned’.

2Sa 12:13 b

‘And Nathan said to David, “YHWH also has put away your sin. You will not die.”

Then Nathan declared that in view of his repentance YHWH would not demand the death penalty that his sin deserved. He had indeed already put away his sin and would therefore not cause him to die.

2Sa 12:14

“ However, because by this deed you have given great occasion to the enemies of YHWH to blaspheme, the child also which is born to you will surely die.”

Nevertheless he must not think that that was the end of the matter, for because what he had done had given occasion to YHWH’s enemies (the sceptics in the land as well as foreign enemies) to blaspheme and mock at believers, the son who had been born to him as a result of his adultery with Bathsheba would certainly die. That would be the first consequence of his sin. All would see that his sin was being punished. We do not need to see here that YHWH Himself struck a healthy child. The point was that in the course of nature this would happen to the child and YHWH would do nothing to prevent it. And yet in that mysterious way in which in the end all is of God, it was to be seen as YHWH’s judgment on David and his house, the firstfruits of premature death to a household which would from now on suffer premature deaths continually.

2Sa 12:15 a

‘And Nathan departed to his house.’

Having faithfully delivered his message Nathan strode from the palace leaving David to consider his ways, which we know from Psalms 51 he did thoroughly. David had now happily been shaken out of his religious complacency and had come back to YHWH. But at what a cost.

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

2Sa 12:1-15 Nathan’s Prophecy of Judgment 2Sa 12:1-15 contains a parable and prophecy that predicts divine judgment upon David’s seed because of his sin. The question must be asked of why the Lord judged King David so harshly, when these sins of murder and adultery were taking place throughout his kingdom. Perhaps the reason lies in the fact that the Davidic lineage must be purged so that it would procreate righteous kings. In this judgment, David lost his two eldest sons, Amnon and Absalom, who would normally have inherited the kingship after their father.

2Sa 12:5  And David’s anger was greatly kindled against the man; and he said to Nathan, As the LORD liveth, the man that hath done this thing shall surely die:

2Sa 12:5 “the man that hath done this thing shall surely die” – Comments – Because David repented, God forgives, and annuls, this part of the curse.

2Sa 12:6  And he shall restore the lamb fourfold, because he did this thing, and because he had no pity.

2Sa 12:6 “he shall restore the lamb fourfold” – Comments – This decree was according to the Law (Exo 22:1). Note how closely David attempted to follow the Law for others, yet he is violating the Law for himself.

Exo 22:1, “If a man shall steal an ox, or a sheep, and kill it, or sell it; he shall restore five oxen for an ox, and four sheep for a sheep .”

However, David decreed this curse upon himself. The exact deeds that he committed of murder and fornication came upon his children four fold.

1. David lost his first son by Bathsheba at birth:

2Sa 12:18, “And it came to pass on the seventh day, that the child died. And the servants of David feared to tell him that the child was dead: for they said, Behold, while the child was yet alive, we spake unto him, and he would not hearken unto our voice: how will he then vex himself, if we tell him that the child is dead?”

2. His daughter Tamar was raped:

2Sa 13:14, “Howbeit he would not hearken unto her voice: but, being stronger than she, forced her, and lay with her.”

3. He lost his son Amnon to murder:

2Sa 13:28-29, “Now Absalom had commanded his servants, saying, Mark ye now when Amnon’s heart is merry with wine, and when I say unto you, Smite Amnon; then kill him, fear not: have not I commanded you? be courageous, and be valiant. And the servants of Absalom did unto Amnon as Absalom had commanded. Then all the king’s sons arose, and every man gat him up upon his mule, and fled.”

4. He lost his son Absalom to war:

2Sa 18:15, “And ten young men that bare Joab’s armour compassed about and smote Absalom, and slew him.”

Also, ten of David’s concubines were raped by Absalom (2Sa 16:21-22).

2Sa 16:21-22, “And Ahithophel said unto Absalom, Go in unto thy father’s concubines, which he hath left to keep the house; and all Israel shall hear that thou art abhorred of thy father: then shall the hands of all that are with thee be strong. So they spread Absalom a tent upon the top of the house; and Absalom went in unto his father’s concubines in the sight of all Israel.”

Another illustration of a man that pronounced a curse upon his family was Jacob, who unknowingly placed a curse upon his wife (Gen 31:32).

Gen 31:32, “With whomsoever thou findest thy gods, let him not live: before our brethren discern thou what is thine with me, and take it to thee. For Jacob knew not that Rachel had stolen them.”

2Sa 12:10  Now therefore the sword shall never depart from thine house; because thou hast despised me, and hast taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be thy wife.

2Sa 12:10 “Now therefore the sword shall never depart from thine house” – Comments – David showed evil towards Uriah, who had shown David much good. Therefore God pronounced the very judgment of His eternal Word upon David according to Pro 17:13.

Pro 17:13, “Whoso rewardeth evil for good, evil shall not depart from his house.”

God could have pronounced a judgment of seven years famine, or thee months of war, or three days of pestilence, as He did to David in 2Sa 24:13.

2Sa 24:13, “So Gad came to David, and told him, and said unto him, Shall seven years of famine come unto thee in thy land? or wilt thou flee three months before thine enemies, while they pursue thee? or that there be three days’ pestilence in thy land? now advise, and see what answer I shall return to him that sent me.”

The judgment at the end of David’s life was a judgment upon the nation of Israel. In contrast, the judgment in David’s sin against Bathsheba was a judgment upon an individual, which judgment matched the laws of God’s Word according to Pro 17:13.

Pro 17:13, “Whoso rewardeth evil for good, evil shall not depart from his house.”

2Sa 12:10 “because thou hast despised me” – Comments – How well David knew that his sin was against God Himself. Note his prayer of repentance in Psalms 51.

Psa 51:4, “ Against thee, thee only, have I sinned , and done this evil in thy sight: that thou mightest be justified when thou speakest, and be clear when thou judgest.”

2Sa 12:11  Thus saith the LORD, Behold, I will raise up evil against thee out of thine own house, and I will take thy wives before thine eyes, and give them unto thy neighbour, and he shall lie with thy wives in the sight of this sun.

2Sa 12:11 “I will raise up evil” Comments – Note the next few chapter where his children, Amnon and Absalom, fall into deadly sins as a fulfilment of this prophecy.

2Sa 12:11 “he shall lie with thy wives in the sight of the sun” – Comments – This was fulfilled in 2Sa 16:21-22.

2Sa 16:21-22, “And Ahithophel said unto Absalom, Go in unto thy father’s concubines, which he hath left to keep the house; and all Israel shall hear that thou art abhorred of thy father: then shall the hands of all that are with thee be strong. So they spread Absalom a tent upon the top of the house; and Absalom went in unto his father’s concubines in the sight of all Israel.”

2Sa 12:12  For thou didst it secretly: but I will do this thing before all Israel, and before the sun.

2Sa 12:12 “I will do this thing before all Israel” Scripture Reference – Note:

Mat 10:26, “Fear them not therefore: for there is nothing covered, that shall not be revealed; and hid, that shall not be known .”

2Sa 12:13  And David said unto Nathan, I have sinned against the LORD. And Nathan said unto David, The LORD also hath put away thy sin; thou shalt not die.

2Sa 12:13 Comments – The Law commanded both the adulterer and the adulteress to be killed (Lev 20:10). The Law gave the penalty of death for this sin; but in God’s mercy and forgiveness, He was ready to pardon King David (Neh 9:17). Note how quickly David confesses his sin. In 2009 the king of the Buganda kingdom in south-central Uganda used two radio stations to incite riots in the capital city of Kampala against the government, resulting in the death of around eighty people and injuring hundreds. This king should have apologized for causing this tragedy, but he refused. One of the local, Ugandan ministers explained to me that in a kingdom, the king believes that he is never wrong; therefore, a king never apologizes. This makes King David’s confession of sin all the more amazing, showing his tender heart towards the Lord.

With a confession of our sin, God is gracious to forgive (1Jn 1:9). Mercy triumphs over judgement (Jas 2:13). God showed David mercy. David had often shown mercy to others. He showed Saul mercy by not taking Saul’s life on two occasions.

Lev 20:10, “And the man that committeth adultery with another man’s wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour’s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.”

Neh 9:17, “ but thou art a God ready to pardon , gracious and merciful, slow to anger, and of great kindness, and forsookest them not.”

1Jn 1:9, “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.”

Jas 2:13, “For he shall have judgment without mercy, that hath shewed no mercy; and mercy rejoiceth against judgment .”

2Sa 12:13 Comments – One major difference between King Saul and King David was that David never rejected or disobeyed the prophet of the Lord, while Saul rejected the office of the prophet and priest. For example, in the midst of David’s sin with Bathsheba, he humbled himself at the voice of Nathan the prophet. In contrast, Saul disobeyed the voice of Samuel, and because Saul did not repent, God never sent Samuel back to Saul with a word from God. (Perhaps this is because the Holy Spirit is a gentleman and will not impose Himself upon us.) In addition, Saul killed the Ahimelech the priest, the son of Ahitub, and all his father’s house, the priests that were in Nob, and their families (1Sa 22:6-19). At this point Saul’s heart was hardened so that God could no longer speak to him. When he was facing death, he sought a word from Samuel through the witch of Endor (1Sa 28:7-19).

2Sa 12:14  Howbeit, because by this deed thou hast given great occasion to the enemies of the LORD to blaspheme, the child also that is born unto thee shall surely die.

2Sa 12:14 Comments – Many of the sins that we commit cause God’s enemies to blaspheme God and to become hardened towards God. How careful we must be with our lives towards a lost world.

2Sa 12:15  And Nathan departed unto his house. And the LORD struck the child that Uriah’s wife bare unto David, and it was very sick.

2Sa 12:15 Comments – The Scriptures call Bathsheba the wife of Uriah, not the wife of David.

2Sa 12:16  David therefore besought God for the child; and David fasted, and went in, and lay all night upon the earth.

2Sa 12:16 Comments – David knew that God was a God who “repenteth concerning evil,” but in this case God did not repent.

2Sa 12:20  Then David arose from the earth, and washed, and anointed himself, and changed his apparel, and came into the house of the LORD, and worshipped: then he came to his own house; and when he required, they set bread before him, and he did eat.

2Sa 12:20 “and came into the house of the LORD” – Comments – This event most likely took place in the city of Jerusalem, since there is no reference to David travelling to Gibeon, as Solomon is noted as travelling to Gibeon. This would mean that David went to the tent that housed the ark, located in Jerusalem, since the tabernacle dwelt at Gibeon during the days of King David.

1Ch 15:1, “And David made him houses in the city of David, and prepared a place for the ark of God, and pitched for it a tent.”

1Ch 21:29, “For the tabernacle of the LORD, which Moses made in the wilderness, and the altar of the burnt offering, were at that season in the high place at Gibeon.”

2Ch 1:3-4, “So Solomon, and all the congregation with him, went to the high place that was at Gibeon; for there was the tabernacle of the congregation of God, which Moses the servant of the LORD had made in the wilderness. But the ark of God had David brought up from Kirjathjearim to the place which David had prepared for it: for he had pitched a tent for it at Jerusalem.”

2Sa 12:20 “and worshipped” – Comments – I have had several dreams lately, December thru February 2000, where I have been brought into the presence of the Lord in worship. In that experience, I found a strengthening of my spirit, my inner man. I knew in this dream that the Lord was showing me that I could face any situation in life if I knew how to take refuge in His presence. King David had learned this lesson. He knew that coming into the presence of the Lord was a source of great inner strength and peace. The Psalms were written in the presence of the Lord, and were a source of great strength to him to carry on.

2Sa 12:22  And he said, While the child was yet alive, I fasted and wept: for I said, Who can tell whether GOD will be gracious to me, that the child may live?

2Sa 12:22 Comments – Here David sought God’s grace. Note how David also pursues God’s mercy in 2Sa 24:14, “And David said unto Gad, I am in a great strait: let us fall now into the hand of the LORD; for his mercies are great : and let me not fall into the hand of man.”

2Sa 12:18-23 Comments David’s Peace in the Midst of Loss – During one of the greatest trials of David’s life, the loss of a son, he had such peace that even his servants could not understand why this was so. The reason he had such peace in his heart is that he had learned to cast his cares upon the Lord (Php 4:6-7).

Php 4:6-7, “Be careful for nothing; but in every thing by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known unto God. And the peace of God, which passeth all understanding , shall keep your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus.”

2Sa 12:24  And David comforted Bathsheba his wife, and went in unto her, and lay with her: and she bare a son, and he called his name Solomon: and the LORD loved him.

2Sa 12:24 Word Study on “Solomon” Strong and PTW says the name “Solomon” means, “peace.”

2Sa 12:24 Comments – We see in the life of Bathsheba a willingness to consent to the king, after the death of her husband by this same king. Why do the Scriptures not show a woman devastated at the lost of her husband and child and repulsed at the presence of King David? One reason might be the fact that in this culture, as in many cultures today, the fathers chose the husband for the bride. A wedding was not consummated out of love, but out of a mutual arrangement by a father and a daughter’s obedience to a father. The wife was to learn to love her husband. Perhaps Uriah and Bathsheba were newly married and therefore, she had not yet developed a deep love for her husband. Therefore, her heart was not as torn apart as a person who had lost one who was dearly loved.

2Sa 12:24 Comments – We see from other Scriptures that God had previously spoken to King David about a son being born to him and his name would be called “Solomon” (1Ch 22:8-9). God revealed to King David that Solomon was to succeed him on the throne (1Ch 28:5-6).

1Ch 22:8-9, “But the word of the LORD came to me, saying, Thou hast shed blood abundantly, and hast made great wars: thou shalt not build an house unto my name, because thou hast shed much blood upon the earth in my sight. Behold, a son shall be born to thee, who shall be a man of rest; and I will give him rest from all his enemies round about: for his name shall be Solomon, and I will give peace and quietness unto Israel in his days.”

1Ch 28:5-6, “And of all my sons, (for the LORD hath given me many sons,) he hath chosen Solomon my son to sit upon the throne of the kingdom of the LORD over Israel. And he said unto me, Solomon thy son, he shall build my house and my courts: for I have chosen him to be my son, and I will be his father.”

2Sa 12:25  And he sent by the hand of Nathan the prophet; and he called his name Jedidiah, because of the LORD.

2Sa 12:25 Word Study on “Jedidiah” PTW says the name “Jedidiah” means, “beloved of Jehovah.”

2Sa 12:26  And Joab fought against Rabbah of the children of Ammon, and took the royal city.

2Sa 12:26 Comments – The city of Rabbah was the same city mentioned in 2Sa 11:1, against which David’s men fought. The battle against Rabbah in 2Sa 12:26 occurred at least eighteen months later, since Bathsheba had already born David two children, the second being Solomon. God did not give this city into the hands of David’s until he had dealt with the sin.

2Sa 11:1, “And it came to pass, after the year was expired, at the time when kings go forth to battle, that David sent Joab, and his servants with him, and all Israel; and they destroyed the children of Ammon, and besieged Rabbah . But David tarried still at Jerusalem.”

Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures

David Takes Bathsheba, the Wife of Uriah 2Sa 11:1 to 2Sa 12:31 records the story of David’s sin of taking Bathsheba, the wife of Uriah, as his wife, and the murder of Uriah. In ancient monarchs, a king had the power to take another man’s wife within his kingdom. We read in the Scriptures the story of how the Pharaoh took Abraham’s wife from him when he journeyed into Egypt (Gen 12:10-20), and King Abimelech later took Sarah (Gen 20:1-18). Mullins, an Anglican missionary to East Africa, records the customs of the primitive African tribes. He notes how the local kings owned all of the land in their kingdoms, how they had the power of life and death over the people, killing them at the slightest presumption, and how they took as many wives as he desired. [57]

[57] J. D. Mullins, The Wonderful Story of Uganda (London: Church Missionary Society, 1908), 194-206.

The narrative material opens and closes with Israel’s battle against Rabbah, the capital city of the Ammonites. The preceding chapters record Israel’s defeats of all of her enemies around about her borders, of her victories over the Philistines, the Moabites, the Syrians, and the Ammonites. The ministry of King David reaches a peak in the chapters preceding the story of David and Bathsheba. After the king’s moral failure with Uriah and Bathsheba, the narrative text records a series of events that weaken the nation of Israel, culminating in civil war and the lost of many Israeli lives, all in fulfilment of Nathan’s prophecies. In the remaining chapters of 2 Samuel King David will no longer be described as a man of great exploits and territorial expansion, but rather, a man of sorrow and one who extends compassion towards others. Although David had failed to raise his sons with discipline and godly fear, he will now take young Solomon and pour his life and passion for the things of God into this child.

2Sa 11:1 to 2Sa 12:31 David Takes Bathsheba, the Wife of Uriah (Polygamy in Society) – One reason that Paul limits a Christian man to one wife in the midst of these polygamous societies is that polygamy tends to bring a man into sexual promiscuity (1Ti 3:2). Polygamy is found in the lives of King David and King Solomon, and because of it, both men sinned against God in this area. For King David, it resulted in adultery and murder. For King Solomon, it resulted in idolatry. Having lived in Africa a number of years, I have seen how polygamy distorts a man’s perception of marriage. A man who believes that he can seek additional wives has no way to define adultery. When his poverty moves him into common law relationships where a marriage ceremony is too expensive, how does one distinguish between an adulterous relationship and a common law marriage? It becomes impossible to define. A man with more power in a polygamous society is able to steal another man’s wife. How does one define right and wrong is such situation? Was not this King David’s sin?

1Ti 3:2, “A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife , vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;”

2Sa 11:1 to 2Sa 12:31 David Takes Bathsheba, the Wife of Uriah (The Spirit of Adultery and Murder Often Work Together) – It is interesting to compare David’s sin of adultery and murder with the testimony of Jack Hayford when he was a young minister. His testimony includes a temptation towards adultery followed by thoughts of murder. As a young minister working at the headquarters of the Four Square Church, he found himself becoming close friends with a female co-worker, even though he was married. After some time a mature co-worker noticed this unhealthy friendship. Hayford tells of his emotional experience, how he both love his wife and yet, felt affections for this new lady. He tells how he entertained the thoughts of his wife dying. As he struggled with his heart and the Spirit of God, he felt tremendous conviction, but did not know what to do. He was feeling thoughts of adultery, followed by thoughts of loosing his wife, which was a spirit of murder. But because of the intercession of others and the work on the Holy Spirit, he came to himself, approached his supervisor and arranged for a separation between himself and this female co-worker. At that point he approached his wife and revealed this struggle with her. Years later, he began to share this testimony from the pulpit and found that it was a frequent struggle with many church leaders and laymen. [58] We find these same two spirits at work in the life of David. He committed adultery, followed by murder.

[58] Jack Hayford, The Anatomy of Adultery (Ventura, California: Regal Books, 2004).

It is interesting to note the fact that Lamech, the first polygamist in the Scriptures (Gen 4:23), also committed an act of murder. We can note that the religion of Islam, which emphasizes polygamy as a part of hits religious tenets of faith is also characterized as a religion of war and terror and murder. We can note that the African nations are known for their polygamy as well as their internal wars. Thus, there seems to be a relationship between polygamy, or adultery, and the spirit of murder.

2Sa 11:1 to 2Sa 12:31 David Takes Bathsheba, the Wife of Uriah (The Setting and the Progression of Sin) – Note the setting for this sin in David’s life. David has become king and subdued all people around him. In 2Sa 7:1 we read that the Lord gave David rest from all his enemies.

2Sa 7:1, “And it came to pass, when the king sat in his house, and the LORD had given him rest round about from all his enemies;”

Note that the first sin David committed in his sin with Uriah’s wife was not adultery, but idleness. In his idleness his imagination found time to lead him down the path of adultery. This journey began with lust when he saw Bathsheba. This lust conceived when David sent for her. His lust turned to sin when he lay with her. This sin resulted in the death of the child that was conceived by this sin of adultery, in the murder of Uriah, and eventually in the deaths of Amnon and Absalom, David’s two sons. In the darkness of his sin David pursued murder before judgment fell in his life. Sin had taken its course. Note this progress described in Jas 1:14-15.

Jas 1:14-15, “But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.”

This great process of sins left one black mark on an otherwise upright life (1Ki 15:5).

1Ki 15:5, “Because David did that which was right in the eyes of the LORD, and turned not aside from any thing that he commanded him all the days of his life, save only in the matter of Uriah the Hittite.”

Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures

Nathan’s Reproof and its Success

v. 1. And the Lord, almost a year after the first transgression, sent Nathan unto David. And he came unto him and said unto him, There were two men in one city, the one rich and the other poor. Nathan chose the parable in order to bring home his reproof with all the greater force.

v. 2. The rich man had exceeding many flocks and herds, he is purposely represented as possessing all that his heart might desire;

v. 3. but the poor man had nothing, literally, “nothing at all. ” save one little ewe lamb, the only property which his slender means allowed, which he had bought and nourished up; and it grew up together with him and with his children; it did eat of his own meat, since he shared even his last morsel with it, and drank of his own cup, and lay in his bosom, carefully tended and shielded against all harm and danger, and was unto him as a daughter. Note that all the circumstances are pictured in such a manner as to heighten both the pity and the indignation of the hearer.

v. 4. And there came a traveler unto the rich man, and he, the latter, spared to take of his own flock and of his own herd to dress for the way faring man that was come unto him, but, in an excess of base selfishness, took the poor man’s lamb and dressed it for the man that was come to him.

v. 5. And David’s anger was greatly kindled against the man, as Nathan had intended for the sake of the effective application of his parable; and he said to Nathan, as the Lord liveth, the man that hath done this thing shall surely die, literally, “is a son of death,” since his robbery of the one ewe lamb was almost like that of a human being;

v. 6. and he shall restore the lamb fourfold, as the Law required, Exo 21:36, because he did this thing, and because he had no pity. The parable had been so chosen that David could have no idea of its application to his own crime against Uriah.

v. 7. And Nathan said to David, Thou art the man. The accusation came with all the greater force since David was not aware of the fact that he himself was concerned. The wisdom, tact, and firmness with which Nathan approached the king are truly admirable. Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, I anointed thee king over Israel, therefore his crime had been one against the royal office, and I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul, an act of divine kindness and grace;

v. 8. and I gave thee thy master’s house and thy master’s wives in to thy bosom, both the property and the harem of the king being legally given into the hands of his successor, although it does not follow that David actually married Saul’s wife, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; the entire nation had promised him allegiance, and he might have had his choice of the virgins of the country; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things; His bountiful goodness was not yet exhausted.

v. 9. Wherefore hast thou despised the commandment of the Lord, literally, “the word,” that is, the law, of God, to do evil in His sight, in this double transgression? Thou hast killed Uriah, the Hittite, with the sword, in fact, though not in person, and hast taken his wife to be thy wife, she who still should have been Uriah’s wife now lived in a guilty marriage with David, and hast slain him with the sword of the children of Ammon, according to a well-laid plan.

v. 10. Now, therefore, the sword shall never depart from thine house, its bloodiness being evident in the murder of Amnon, the death of Absalom, and the execution of Adonijah; because thou hast despised Me, since he who despises God’s Word despises Him, and hast taken the wife of Uriah, the Hittite, to be thy wife. This was the first punishment. But more was to come.

v. 11. Thus saith the Lord, Behold, I will raise up evil against thee out of thine own house, as a punishment for the sin of adultery, and I will take thy wives before thine eyes, and give them unto thy neighbor, and he shall lie with thy wives, in open, incestuous intercourse, in the sight of this sun.

v. 12. For thou didst it secretly; but I will do this thing before all Israel and before the sun, in broad daylight, in flagrant shamelessness. Cf 2Sa 16:22.

v. 13. And David said unto Nathan, in full acknowledgment of his sin, without the slightest attempt at excusing himself or depreciating the sin, I have sinned against the Lord, His confession is given in only a few words, but the feelings of his heart are expressed in Psalms 51. And Nathan said unto David, The Lord also hath put away thy sin, literally, “has caused thy sin to pass over,” not to remain before Him, to vanish, to be forgiven; thou shalt not die, the punishment which his sin properly merited.

v. 14. Howbeit, because by this deed thou hast given great occasion to the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme, to despise the God of Israel for permitting such sins to be committed, for so they would construe the matter, the child also that is born unto thee shall surely die, the fruit of the adulterous union would be destroyed, to show the severity of God’s justice upon the transgressors of His Lam. God has no pleasure in the death of the sinner, but wants him to repent and live. Even those who hare fallen into serious sins the Lord seeks with His Word and Spirit and admonishes them to repent. Note that the purpose of every reproof of sins is to move the heart and conscience of sinners, to cause them to forsake their transgressions, and to turn to the mercy and grace of God.

Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann

EXPOSITION

2Sa 12:1

Jehovah sent Nathan unto David. Though David had remained unrepentant for nearly a year, for we read in 2Sa 12:14 that the child was born, yet we are not to suppose that there had been no compunctions of conscience. A man could scarcely pass from utter callousness to a state of mind so tender as that depicted in Psa 51:1-19 without some preparation. Assuredly David had suffered much mental distress, but he had given no outward sign of contrition, and possibly, but for Nathan’s message, he might have overpowered his conscience, and his self-reproaches have become less frequent and agitating. More probably he was slowly ripening for repentance, and Nathan’s words let loose the agonizing feelings which had more and more struggled within him against his baser lusts. And the prophet’s apologue was exactly suited to rouse up that strong sense of justice which was so noble an element in David’s character. Doubtless it was framed for this purpose, and Nathan knew what was the right chord to touch. But we must not, because he was wise and skilful, refuse Nathan our fullest admiration for his manly courage. It is a very dangerous thing to tell princes of their sins, and especially when that prince is an absolute monarch, and his sins adultery and murder. But the position which Nathan held in David’s court made it his duty so to do, and there is no stronger testimony to the power of religion and of God’s grace than that it makes men so brave in doing their duty. We may feel sure that Nathan had long grieved over David’s fall, and reflected upon the steps which ought to be taken for his admonition. And now, in answer to prayer, the command came from Jehovah bidding him go and bear his testimony. Nathan’s parable is admirably adapted for its purpose. While making no direct reference to adultery or murder, it puts very strongly the injustice and heartlessness of the oppression of the weak by the strong, as exemplified in the deed of the rich man. On many occasions David had shown a warm and generous indignation at injustice, and a righteous pity for those wronged. Would such a feeling be called out now? David’s conduct was had enough, and if there was no outburst of anger at the base deed reported to him, and no welling up of pity for the poor man robbed of his one joy, then was his case hopeless, and Nathan must withdraw in despair, and leave David to his fate. But his better feelings were not destroyed, and when Nathan saw them deeply stirred, he broke in with the stern application to the king’s own sin, “Thou art the man!” The courage and the skill of the prophet are alike admirable.

2Sa 12:3

Was unto him as a daughter. The Orientals are excessively fond of pet animals, and, as the dog is with them unclean, its place is taken by fawns, kids, or lambs. The description, therefore, is not overcharged, for in many an English home the dog or cat takes its place as one of the family. The Revised Version preserves the tenderness of the original in translating “it did eat of his own morsel.”

2Sa 12:4

A traveller, wayfaring man, man that was come to him. Nathan probably used these three terms chiefly to diversify his language, but it has served as a handle for much allegorizing. Thus Rashi explains it of covetousness, which comes at first as a mere “passer by,” the literal meaning of the word rendered “traveller.” But, if admitted, it grows into “a wayfaring man,” who comes and goes on business, and stays a longer time. Finally it changes into “one who has come to him,” and remains permanently. Such allegorical interpretations are common in the Fathers, and thus Augustine compares the three stages of sin to our Lord’s three miracles of raising the dead. The sinner is at first like Jairus’s daughter, just dead, and repentance can restore him immediately to life; but, if sin be persisted in, he becomes like the son of the widow of Nain, carried away to burial; and finally like Lazarus, given over to corruption.

2Sa 12:5

Shall surely die. It is strange language to declare that a man shall be put to death and then fined four lambs; But David says nothing of the sort, but that the man is “a son of death,” that is, a wretch who deserves to die. The Revised Version correctly renders, “is worthy to die.” The sentence actually passed, of fourfold restitution, is exactly in accordance with the Mosaic Law (Exo 22:1), but the moral turpitude of the offence was far greater than could be atoned for by the legal penalty. Rightly, therefore, David expressed his indignation, and regretted that the sentence was so light; but a judge must not strain the law, which necessarily has regard chiefly to the outward offence.

2Sa 12:7

Thou art the man! Abruptly and with sudden vehemence comes the application to David himself. So skilfully had the parable been contrived, that up to this point David had had no suspicion that he was the rich man who had acted so meanly by his poorer neighbour Uriah. And now he stood self-condemned. Yet even so self-love might have made his indignation break forth against Nathan; but probably the reproof only completed a work that had long been secretly in progress, and brushed away the last obstacles to repentance. I anointed thee. The solemn anointing made David the representative of Jehovah, and thus his sin was aggravated by the degradation in the eyes of the people, beth of the kingly office and also of Jehovah himself. Rank and authority are given to men that they may lead others to do right; it is a fearful misuse of them when they give prestige to sin.

2Sa 12:8

I gave thy master’s wives into thy bosom. These words probably mean that, as the whole possessions of his predecessor belonged, by Oriental custom, to the next occupant of the throne, David might have claimed the entire household and the wives both of Saul and Ishbosbeth as his own, though apparently he had not done so. As far as we know, Saul had but one wife (1Sa 14:50) and one concubine, Rizpah (2Sa 3:7). Of Ishbosheth’s family arrangements we know little, but his harem, if he had one, would become the property of David. But independently of this, the permission of polygamy had made it possible for him to take any of the daughters of Israel and Judah to wife, and he had freely availed himself of this licence. Yet, not content, he had lusted after a married woman, and had got rid of her husband by murder, meanly using the sword of the Ammonites to accomplish his own criminal purpose. The word used in this clause, and rendered “thou hast slain him,” is a very strong one, and literally means “thou hast murdered him,” though the sword was that of the enemy.

2Sa 12:10

The sword shall never depart from thine house; that is, thy crime shall not be expiated by one slaughter, but by many, so that thy punishment shall cease only at thine own death. This sentence was fulfilled in Amnon’s murder (2Sa 13:28), who had been encouraged in his crime by his father’s example. Upon this followed Absalom’s rebellion and death (2Sa 18:14); and finally, when in his last hours David made Solomon his successor, he knew that he was virtually passing sentence on Adonijah, the eldest of his surviving sons. But what a fearful choice! for had he not done so, then Bathsheba and her four sons would doubtless have been slain, whereas there was some hope that Solomon might spare his brother. That Adonijah was unworthy we gather from the fact that he had ceased to be cohen, and that this office was conferred, after Absalom’s rebellion, on Ira the Jairite (2Sa 20:26), Solomon being then too young to hold such a position. Until he committed this crime, David’s family had probably dwelt in concord, and it was his own wickedness which broke up their unity, and introduced among them strife, mutual hatred, and the shedding of blood.

2Sa 12:11

He shall lie with thy wives. Fulfilled for political purposes by Absalom, under the advice of Bathsheba’s grandfather (2Sa 16:22). The punishment was thus complete. For the murdered Uriah there was fourfold restitution, according to David’s own sentence. First there was Bathsheba’s child lately born, then Amnon, thirdly Absalom, and lastly Adonijah. For the adultery there was open disgrace wrought upon his royal dignity “before the sun,” in open daylight. As he had brought shame and dishonour upon the family relations of his neighbour, so were his own family rights violated by his rebellious son. And, as is often the case, the sins which followed were worse than those which prepared the way. Vice begins as a small stream trickling through the opposing dam. but it quickly breaks down all moral restraints, and rushes along like a destroying flood.

2Sa 12:13

I have sinned against Jehovah. Saul had used the same words, and had meant very little by them; nor had he added “against Jehovah,” because his purpose was to appease Samuel, and prevail upon him not to disgrace him before the people. David’s confession came from the heart. There is no excuse making, no attempt at lessening his fault, no desire to evade punishment. Psa 51:1-19 is the lasting testimony, not only to the reality, but to the tenderness of his repentance, and we may even feel here that confession was to him a relief. The deep internal wound was at length disclosed, and healing had become possible. Up to this time he had shut God away from his heart, and so there had been no remedy for a soul diseased. It was because his sorrow was genuine that comfort was not delayed. Jehovah also hath put away thy sin; thou shalt not die. Now, death was the legal penalty for adultery (Le 20:10), and though it might not be easy to exact it of a king, yet, until it was remitted, David would be in the eyes of all “a son of death” (see on Psa 51:5); and how could he administer justice to others while the death sentence for a capital crime was hanging over himself? Had not the prophet been authorized to use his dispensing power as the mouthpiece of Jehovah, David could not have remained king. And we can see no reason for supposing, with Ewald and others, that a substantial interval of time elapsed between David’s confession and Nathan’s absolution. The sole conceivable reason for such a view would be the supposition that David’s repentance began and was completed with the one stab of shame which pierced through him when he heard Nathan’s sudden reproach. Such a mere thrill, following upon such persistent callousness, would have merited little attention. But if months of brooding sorrow and secret shame had been humbling David, then his open confession was the proof that the Spirit’s work had reached the goal, and was now complete. And we gather from Psa 51:3 that such was the case. “My sin,” he says, “is ever before me.” It had long haunted him; had long occupied his thoughts by day, and broken his rest at night. Like a flood, his iniquities had gone over his head, and threatened to drown him; like a heavy burden, they had pressed upon him so as to break him down (Psa 38:4). Both these psalms tell of long continued sorrow of heart; but with confession had come relief. He had offered to God the sacrifice of a broken spirit, and knew that it had not been despised. We shall see subsequently that his time and attention had been much occupied with the Ammonite war, and this had probably helped him in evading the secret pleadings of his own conscience.

2Sa 12:14

Thou hast given great occasion to the enemies of Jehovah to blaspheme; Hebrew, thou hast made the enemies of Jehovah to despise; that is, to despise Jehovah’s government, the theocracy, of which David was the visible head and earthly representative. Jehovah’s enemies are not the heathen, but Israelitish unbelievers, who would scoff at all religion when one in David’s position fell into terrible open sin. But the death of the adulterous offspring of David and Bathsheba would prove to these irreligious men that Jehovah’s righteous rule could reach and punish the king himself, and would thus vindicate his justice from their reproach.

2Sa 12:16

David went in. He went, not into the sanctuary, which he did not enter until after the child’s death, but into some private room in his own house. There he remained, passing his nights stretched on the ground, and fasting until the seventh day. His fasting does not imply that he took no food during this long interval, but that he abstained from the royal table, and ate so much only as was necessary to maintain life. Now, what was the meaning of this privacy and abstinence? Evidently it was David’s acknowledgment, before all his subjects, of his iniquity, and of his sorrow for it. The sickness of the child followed immediately upon Nathan’s visit, and we may feel sure that news of his rebuke, and of all that passed between him and the king, ran quickly throughout Jerusalem. And David at once takes the position of a condemned criminal, and humbles himself with that thoroughness which forms so noble a part of his character. Grieved as he was at the child’s sickness, and at the mother’s sorrow, yet his grief was mainly for his sin; and he was willing that all should know how intense was his shame and self-reproach. And even when the most honourable of the rulers of his household (Gen 24:2), or, as Ewald thinks, his uncles and elder brethren, came to comfort him, he persists in maintaining an attitude of heart stricken penitence.

2Sa 12:20

Then David arose from the earth. If David’s grief had been occasioned by love for the child, then its death and the consciousness that, while his guilt had caused its sickness, his prayers had not availed to save it, would have aggravated his anguish. There was much personal regard for the child, which had been made the more precious by these very eyelets. But David’s sorrow was, as we have seen, that of penitence, and not that of natural affection. When, therefore, the threatened penalty had been paid by the death of the child, David felt it to be his duty to show his resignation, and therefore he went into the sanctuary and worshipped, in proof that he acknowledged the justice of God’s dealings, and was content to bear the punishment as his righteous desert.

2Sa 12:22

God; Hebrew, Jehovah, usually rendered “Lord.” Similarly in Gen 6:5 in the Authorized Version we find God in capital letters, as here, for the Hebrew Jehovah.

2Sa 12:23

I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me. These words indicate, first of all, much personal feeling for the child. Hence some have supposed that, as Solomon is placed last of Bathsheba’s four sons in 2Sa 5:14 and 1Ch 3:5, three other sons had already been borne by her, and that consequently this child, the fruit of their adultery, would now have been seven or eight years of age. It is certainly remarkable that in 1Ch 3:16 David calls him “the lad” (so the Hebrew), though in every other place he is styled “the child.” On the other hand, we gather from 1Ch 3:14 that probably he was as yet the only child, and this is the more reasonable view, even if Solomon was the youngest son (but see note on 1Ch 3:24). But secondly, the words indicate a belief in the continued existence of the child, and even that David would recognize and know him in the future world. Less than this would have given no comfort to the father for his loss. Now, it is true that we can find no clear dogmatic teaching in the early Scriptures upon the immortality of the soul. Job could give expression to no such hope in Job 7:6-10, and the belief in a world to come would have solved the difficulties of himself and his friends, which really are left unsolved. Even in the Psalms there are words that border on despair (see Psa 6:5; Psa 30:9; Psa 88:11; Psa 115:17); nor had Hezekiah any such belief in continued existence as could solace him in the expectation of an early death (Isa 38:18, Isa 38:19). This hopelessness was not unnatural at a time when the doctrine had not been as yet clearly taught. On the other hand, in Psa 17:15 and Psa 16:9-11 We find proof that David did believe in his own immortality. For though the latter words have a second and higher meaning, yet the primary sense of Psa 16:10 is that David’s own soul (or self) would not always remain in Sheol, the abode of the departed, nor would he, Jehovah’s anointed one, see such corruption as would end in annihilation.

2Sa 12:24

He called his name Solomon. It is rashly assumed that Solomon’s birth followed next in order after that of the deceased child. More probably there was a long interval of time, and son after son was born, with little increase of happiness to the family polluted by Amnon’s sin and troubled by its miserable consequences. While we must not lay too great stress upon Solomon calling himself “a little child” (1Ki 3:7) after his accession, yet it forbids our believing that he was more than just grown up, It was the remarkable ability of Solomon, his goodness and precocious talent, which made him so great a comfort to his parents, and which received Jehovah’s seal of approval in the name Jedidiah. This name would scarcely be given him until his good and great qualities were developing; and as it was a sort of indication that he was the chosen and elect son of David, and therefore the next king, we shall probably be right in believing that this second mission of Nathan, and this mark of Divine favour to David’s youngest child, did not take place until after Absalom’s death, possibly not until Solomon was ten or twelve years of age. The name Solomon means “the peaceful,” and answers to the German Friedrich. It was given to the child in recognition that David’s wars were now over, and that the era of quiet had begun, which was to be consecrated to the building of Jehovah’s temple. It was the name given to the infant at his birth, and was a name of hope. Alas! this peace was to be rudely broken by the rebellion of the son whom David, in vain expectation and with all a father’s pride, had named Absalom, “his father’s peace.”

2Sa 12:25

He sent. Some commentators make David the subject of the sentence, and translate, “And he, David, sent in the hand of Nathan, and called,” etc. They suppose that this means that Nathan was entrusted with Solomon’s education; but “in the hand” is the ordinary Hebrew preposition, meaning “by,” and the sense plainly is that God sent a message by Nathan. David had already called the child Solomon, and now Jehovah, some years afterwards, gives him an indication of his special favour by naming him Yedidyah. The word is formed from the same root as David, that is, “lovely,” with the addition of the Divine name. As we have already pointed out, this was no slight matter, but the virtual selection of Solomon to be David’s successor, and probably, therefore, was delayed until he had given indica of his great intellectual gifts. His elder brothers would not be passed over without valid reasons.

2Sa 12:26

Joab took the royal city. As the siege of Rabbah would be conducted by the slow process of blockade, it might easily be prolonged into the second year, and so give ample space for David’s sin and its punishment by the death of the child. But more probably the narrator, having commenced the history of David’s sin, completes the story before returning to his account of the war. Thus the capture of Rabbah would occupy some of the interval between David’s adultery and Nathan’s visit of rebuke, and would lessen the difficulty, which we cannot help feeling, of David remaining for nine or ten months with the guilt of adultery and murder resting upon him, and no open act of repentance. Some short time, then, after Uriah’s death, Joab captured “the city of waters.” This is not a poetical name for Rabbah, but means the “water city,” that is, the town upon the Jabbok, whence the supply of water was obtained. The citadel, which occupied a high rock on the northwestern side, must, therefore, soon be starved into submission, and the whole of “the royal city,” that is, of the metropolis of the Ammonites, be in Joab’s power. He therefore urges David to come in person, both that the honour of the conquest may be his, and also because probably the blockading force had been reduced to as small a body of men as was safe, and the presence of a large army was necessary for completing the subjugation of the country, which would follow upon the capture of the capital.

2Sa 12:30

Their king; Hebrew, Malcam. This is another mode of spelling Milcom, the god of the Ammonites, and is found also in Zep 1:5, and probably in Jer 49:1, Jer 49:3; Amo 1:15. Strictly, Milcom or Malcom is a proper name for the supreme deity, formed from the word melec, a king, or, as it was pronounced in other Semitic dialects, Moloch. Grammatically, Malcam also means “their king,” and even so belongs to Milcom. For the crown weighed a hundred pounds, a ponderous mass, which no man could possibly bear, and, least of all, when making, as was the case with the Ammonite king, his last stand for his life. But after the capture of the city, it was lifted from the head of the idol, and placed formally upon David’s head, and held there for a few moments, as a sign of victory and of rejoicing over the fall of the false god. There is no reason for supposing that there is any exaggeration in the weight, nor will the Hebrew allow us to understand the talent of gold as referring to its value.

2Sa 12:31

The people that were therein. The cruel treatment described in this verse was inflicted, first of all, upon those who had defended Rabbah, now reduced to a small number by the long siege; but David next proceeded through all the cities, that is, the fortified towns of the Ammonites, inflicting similar barbarities. They were confined probably to the fighting men, and most of these would make their escape as soon as resistance became hopeless. The general population would, of course, scatter themselves in every direction, but the misery caused by such a breaking up of civil life, as well as by the cruel bloodshed, must have been terrible. Instead of “he put them in a saw,” we find, in 1Ch 20:3, “he sawed them with a saw.” This reading differs from what we have here only in one letter, and is plainly right, as the translation, “under saws,” “under harrows of iron,” etc; found both in the Authorized and Revised Versions, is simply an expedient, tendered necessary by the corruption of the text. If we restore the passage by the help of the parallel place, it runs on thus: “He sawed with a saw, and with threshing sledges of iron, and with cutting instruments of iron.” What exactly the second were we do not know, as the word does not occur elsewhere. The Vulgate renders it “wains shod with iron,” meaning, apparently, those driven over the corn for threshing purposes, and now driven over these unfortunate people. The barbarity is not more horrible than that of sawing prisoners asunder. He made them pass through the brick kiln. Both the Septuagint and Vulgate have “brick kiln,” Hebrew, malban, which the Massorites have adopted, but the Hebrew text has malchan. No commentator has given any satisfactory explanation of what can be meant by making the Ammonites pass through a brick kiln; but Kimchi gives a very probable interpretation of the word really found in the Hebrew, and which, not being intelligible, has been corrupted. For the Malchan was, he says, the place where the Ammonites made their children pass through the fire to Moloch. He thinks, therefore, that David put some of the people to death in this way. We cannot defend these cruelties, but they unhappily were the rule in Oriental warfare, and would have been inflicted on their enemies by the Ammonites. We have proof in l Samuel 1Ch 11:2 and Amo 1:13 that they were a barbarous race; but this did not justify barbarous retaliation.

HOMILETICS

2Sa 12:1-14

The facts are:

1. God sends Nathan the prophet to David, who tells him a story of the greed of a wicked rich man, who, to satisfy his avarice, took away and slew the pot ewe lamb of a poor man.

2. David, accepting the story as a matter of fact, is very angry with this man, and swears that for his deed and lack of compassion he ought to die and restore fourfold.

3. Nathan thereupon reveals the parabolic character of his narrative, by saying unto David, “Thou art the man!”

4. He then proceeds to state

(1) the goodness of God to him in anointing him king, in delivering him from Saul, in giving him the royal succession, and in guaranteeing all else that might be needed;

(2) his despite to the commands of Godhis murder of Uriah, and his taking possession of Uriah’s wife.

5. He also declares, by way of punishment, that war would arise in his own house; that the purity and safety of his domestic life would be invaded; and that the punishment of his secret sin would be open.

6. On David confessing his guilt, Nathan assures him that the Lord had so far put away his sin that he should not die, but that the child of his guilt should.

Nathan’s parable.

This remarkable parable is, perhaps, the most exquisite Genesis of the kind in the Old Testament. Its beauty and pathos are enhanced by the plain matter of fact way in which the historian narrates, in Gen 11:1-32; the fall of David and his subsequent crime. Apart from its specific purpose, it indicates to us the occasional functions of the prophets in those times as admonishers of kings and rulers, and consequently as representatives of the Divine element in the history of Israel. The great variety of teaching in this parable may be briefly indicated thus

I. A DOUBLE LIFE. At least ten months had elapsed from the date of David’s fall to the visit of Nathan. During that period many public and private acts had been performed by the king in the ordinary course of life, in addition to those referred to in 2Sa 11:14-27. It was his policy to keep up a good appearanceto be in administration, in public worship, in regard for religious ordinances, and in general morality all that he had ever been. He passed still as the pious, just ruler and exemplary man. That was one life. But inwardly there was another. The conscience was dull, or, if it spoke plainly, was constantly being suppressed. The uncomfortableness of secret sin induced self-reproach and loss of self-respect. He was an instance of a man “holding the truth in unrighteousness” (Rom 1:18). This double life is the experience of every good man who falls into sin and seeks to cover it up. He knows too much to be really happy, but he is too enslaved by his sin to be truly godly. The outside is fair; within is desolation.

II. FELLOWSHIP IN SIN. David and Bathsheba shared in a fellowship of sin. They, most probably without words, communed with each other over their guilt, and so far strengthened the chains of iniquity. Two individuals in possession of a dreadful secret do not, dare not, speak about it. There is simply a common understanding and a mutual support in keeping up the appearance necessary to social reputation. It is a pitiable sight before God and holy angels! It is a case of the fallen, the defiled, the inwardly wretched, and the prospectively condemned, seeking to find comfort and strength in each other’s sympathy. The channels of sympathetic feeling are filled by a polluted stream of affection and interest.

III. A LOST CHARM. It is well known that a pure disposition and a clear conscience lend a charm to personal life; much more does such deep and strong piety as once characterized the “man after God’s own heart.” If we, in reading the historic narrative of David’s early years, and the psalms, in which his best thoughts are embodied, feel the spell of his spirit, we may be sure that those in daily converse with him recognized a charm of the most exalted kind. But all that was now gone, because the honesty and the purity from which it sprang were no more. In vain did he strive to maintain the form of godliness; in vain his careful discharge of official duties and kindly bearing towards his friends. The “secret of the Lord” was lost. The salt had lost its savour. To truly spiritual men he would not be as in former times. This loss of a spiritual charm always takes place when good men fall into sin and cover it up. The light of the spiritual eye is dim. The pure ring of the voice is gone. The “form of godliness” is left, but the “power” is no more.

IV. THE DIVINE RESERVE. At least ten months elapsed before Nathan was commissioned by God to speak to David. The lustful look, the secret deed, the scheme for concealment and for the death of Uriah, were allowed to pass and issue in seeming success without one act of a decidedly positive character, as far as we know, on the part of God either to smite with punishment or bring to penitence. The “workers of iniquity” flourished, and the innocent perished unavenged (Psa 92:7; cf. Psa 12:5; Pro 1:11-19). That conscience uttered its protest, and that the laws of mind as constituted by God worked misery from the first in the inner life of David, is no doubt true; but there was no open justice, no obvious interposition on behalf of the oppressed, no distinct and proportionate chastisement, no special call to repentance. Human nature took its course, and human society remained in relation to the sinner unchanged. Yet God is not indifferent. He slumbereth not. Government does not relax its hold on each man. The explanation is that God is in no haste in what he does; he reserves his action for a while for reasons more complicate and far reaching than we can trace. The very reserve only renders the judgment, when it comes, more impressive. Human nature is evidently favoured as a free power, which must have certain scope both for origination of evil, maturing of evil, and filling up its own measure of chastisement. There is a patience, a goodness, in the reserve which need to be studied (Rom 2:4-9; 1Pe 3:20; 2Pe 3:9, 2Pe 3:15). This reserve attends many a modern sinner’s cause.

V. THE DIVINE BEGINNING OF SALVATION. Had David been left to himself the probability is that the coils of iniquity would have been formed around him more and more as time advanced; for the law of habit here holds good. It is instructive to observe that the first step towards a change in his condition was on the Divine side. God sent his prophet Nathan, charged with a merciful purpose, though mercy was to be tempered with judgment. Certainly David might well say in days subsequent, “My salvation cometh from him” (Psa 62:1, Psa 62:7). Here we have an illustration of the great truth that God is the Author of our salvation. He seeks us. He comes to us in our low estate. This is true of mankind as a whole (Joh 3:16, Joh 3:17; 1Jn 4:9, 1Jn 4:10), of each one brought from the ways of sin (1Jn 4:19), and of the backslider (Psa 23:3). It is all of grace. Our Saviour’s earthly life of pleading and seeking was a visible and audible illustration of the outgoing of the heart of the Father towards the fallen.

VI. THE DEFENSIVE ATTITUDE OF IMPENITENCE. The elaborate simplicity of Nathan’s parable, in order to reach the conscience and heart of David, suggest to us the fact of a certain defensive attitude of David’s mind, which had to be broken down. It is a special weapon in a “holy war,” designed to attack a peculiar line of defence. It is well known how men, when they have done a wrong, are on the qui vive lest the wrong should be detected and brought home to them; and the resources of reason, ingenuity, and cunning are employed to ward off any approach to the inner life. Any attempt to touch the springs of penitence or remorse, or to arouse the fears which attend conviction, is neutralized by some counter move of thought or resolve. Hearers of the gospel knows if they would only testify honestly, how they too often fortify themselves against statements, arguments, and appeals. The failure of some ministers and teachers lies in their not knowing enough of human nature to direct their statements so as to meet the actual mental attitude of those who live in sin. A study of this subject is of extreme importance to all who seek to convince and to save men. There are various avenues to the conscience and heart. Some are so utterly closed and guarded that it is a waste of power to seek to penetrate through them. A fortress should be attacked in its weakest point, and only a very special survey can find out where it is. Nathan had reconnoitred the position, and assailed David along the best line.

VII. THE USE OF THE GOOD ELEMENT IN MAN. Nathan approached David in friendliness, recognizing him as a man generally mindful of his people, pitiful towards the poor and weak, and a lover of justice. He knew that there were still elements of good in the fallen saint. The great transgression had not obliterated all trace of the noble qualities of former days. Where these did not come in the way of the one selfish lust which had for the time gained dominion, they were not only cherished, but were at hand for expression when occasion required. In proportion as these could be strengthened and utilized, there would be hope of bringing them to bear, by a reflected light, on the one deed in which they had been suppressed. By a flank movement, and using a piece of history as the instrument, he hoped to turn the whole force of David’s better qualities on the cherished secret sin. It was an instance of a wise setting of one part of a man’s nature against another part, so that, by a sort. of moral dynamic, the worse should be forced out. In dealing with men we ought to avail ourselves of their good qualities and bring them to bear on the removal of the bad. When Christ dealt with publicans and sinners he did not make a direct attack on their sins. There was a something in them which he made the ground of appeal. In the vilest sinner there is some human love, or kindliness, or sense of right. Who is wise to win souls? What are the methods, according to varying temperaments, education, habits, and indulgences?

VIII. GOD‘S JUDGMENT FORESTALLED BY CONSCIENCE. History is a mental reflector. In Nathan’s story, which was not a parable to David when he heard it, David saw a sin and a judgment. He was true to his better qualities when he denounced the sin and pronounced sentence of death. The story became to David a parable the moment the prophet said to him, “Thou art the man!” The whole figures then become specific, and he was the one most conspicuous against whom the judgment was pronounced. The psychological and moral changes involved in this we cannot now deal with; the point is that, when David’s aroused righteous indignation pronounced judgment on the evil man, the human conscience really forestalled the judgment of God on David’s sin by declaring its deserts. God does not, in providence or on the day of judgment, declare anything really new to the impenitent sinner. Conscience some time or other has virtually given the sentence of condemnation. Those who worked themselves up to a state of self-delusion (Mat 7:22, Mat 7:23) knew a time when the conscience witnessed against the formalities which issued in its being seared (Eph 4:19; 1Ti 4:2). It is this assent of conscience which will render the sense of injustice impossible in the future judgments God may see fit to bring on those who “hold the truth in unrighteousness.”

GENERAL LESSONS.

1. We should take warning from the instances in the Bible, and not presume on God’s silence, or think that, because we are left to pursue our own courses, it will always be so.

2. There are always in existence agents or agencies by which in due time sin will be rebuked and exposed either in this life or in the life to come (Mat 10:26; 2Co 5:10).

3. In dealing with the lapsed we should not act on the same rule in all cases, but deal with each according to his peculiar character.

4. It will repay parents, teachers, and evangelists to study human nature and the records of biography and sacred history to find out the best methods of reaching the conscience of the impenitent.

5. We should be ready, as was Nathan, to carry through the most painful duties when God calls us in his providence to them.

The convicted sinner.

The fitness of the parable is revealed in its sequel. Nathan, laying aside the character of a friendly visitor relating a story of wrong, now assumes the functions of the prophet of God, and turns the whole light and force of David’s just indignation in upon himself, and, with an incisiveness most irresistible, brings an accusation of guilt without naming the actual deed done; states the aggravating circumstances arising out of the exceeding goodness of God in the past; declares the retribution about to come; and, on witnessing the true penitence of the sinner, announces the fact of forgiveness, but qualifies the announcement by foretelling an event of blended justice and mercy. The commission of sin is unhappily common enough, and also, we may thankfully admit, the conviction of sinners is an event of frequent occurrence. Few sins exhibit the peculiar aggravations of this one of David, and few convictions are more sudden and thorough than his; but as there are common qualities in all sins and true convictions of sin, we may regard this case of David’s as setting forth features in human experience and Divine procedure universally true.

I. THE FACT OF SIN IS BROUGHT HOME TO THE CONSCIENCE. David all along knew of the existence of the sin, but had conducted himself as though it were not. In general terms he would doubtless speak of sin as an evil of deepest dye, and desire its banishment from mankind. Such sentiments were at the base of his deep interest in Nathan’s story, and gave rise to the outburst of indignation. Sin was evil, the sinner ought to be punished, the doer of this deed must come under the ban of law. All this was quite correct. It was orthodoxy. The friendly visitor could not but admit its force. But it was just here, when David was dealing with generalities, and was eager to see general principles applied to a particular case, that Nathan brought him away from the general to the particular, from others to himself. “Thou art the man!” This was a straight charge. Nathan held a twofold positionhe was a man in Israel, a subject and neighbour, a pious friend of David’s; he was also a prophet, a representative of God, and in that capacity a superior to David. When, then, the friendly visitor said, with an unrecordable tone and gesture, “Thou art the man!” it was evident to David

(1) that his deed, long kept secret, was known to his most influential and incorruptible subject and friend; and

(2) that God was speaking straight to his conscience. Even so far as related to Nathan as a good man in Israel, the revelation of his acquaintance with the deed was startling and astounding; but the most potent element in the utterance was the direct charge of God. A sinner cannot look on the Holy Onehe dare not. The conscience knows the awful voice of God, and, when that voice speaks straight to it, all thought of men and opinions vanishes, and the soul in its solemn individuality feels itself in the actual presence of the Eternal. In true conviction the man “comes to himself.” The deed of evil is brought home. In a light not of earth, self is seen to be undone, because the sin, hitherto professedly not a reality, is now forced on self as its own offspring.

II. THE AGGRAVATION OF SIN IS SET FORTH. As soon as the charge is brought home, and before the paralyzed man can speak, the prophet, in the name of God, with swift words reminds him of his privileges and the manifold blessings and honours God had showered on him or was ready to grant if needed. He was a chosen servant of the Eternal, called to perform a part in the working out of a great future for the world; he had filled a position of honour and influence; he had been charged with high and holy duties; he had been blessed with plenty, and more than ordinary provision for the necessary cravings of nature (2Sa 11:7, 2Sa 11:8). Yet, “Thou art the man!” None can doubt that here was sin of the most aggravated character. No sin is excusable or free from Divine condemnation; otherwise it were not sin, but weakness or fault. But some sins are worthy of being punished with “many stripes” because of being committed under special circumstances, e.g. the possession of religious light and feeling; the occupation of a position of power, and the being recipient of manifold tokens of Divine care and love. But be the privileges many or few, when God brings home the guilt to the conscience, the sin is revealed in the light of past mercies. The swift review of David’s advantages by Nathan finds its analogue in the swift floating before the mind of the circumstances of one’s position which render the sin so utterly inexcusable. Men see in a few moments the reasons for their utter shame and self-abasement. This is a feature in all true conviction, and tends to the proper prostration of the soul before God. Saul of Tarsus knew this. It is an unspeakable mercy that God does set our sins in the light of his great goodness.

III. THE HEART IS PROBED TO REVEAL THE CAUSE OF SIN. “Wherefore hast thou despised the commandment of the Lord?” (2Sa 11:9). No sooner did the light flash on the conscience to set forth the aggravated character of the sin, than with unrelenting incisiveness the “wherefore” followed to probe those depths of the heart from whence the evil sprang. The question really contains an inquiry and a statement. Why? “Thou didst despise.” The eye of the sinner is turned in upon himself, to search out and behold those vile feelings and false principles out of which issued the preference of self-will over the holy will of God, which had been so clearly expressed in the Law of the Lord and in the special intimations of Providence. “The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?” The time of conviction is a time of probing and searching. It is well for men under conviction to face the real facts, and get at the causes that lie out of sight. There must be some dreadfully subtle evils lurking within to induce a man to “despise” the august majesty of God’s will by setting it aside. Was it not in reference to this probing, and probably in reference to this very deed, that the psalmist said, “Search me, O God” (Psa 139:23; cf. Psa 51:5, Psa 51:6, Psa 51:10)?

IV. THE PUNISHMENT OF SIN IS BROUGHT TO MIND. The prophet ceases not; without giving the convicted man time to speak, he passes on to tell of the retribution that is sure to come by the will of God. The man of whom Nathan once spoke such good things (2Sa 7:12-17) is now informed of coming trouble in life; that this trouble will be the same in kind with that of his sinmurder and adultery; that it will not be secret, as was his, in performance, but open, to his disgrace; that it will arise out of his own house, consequent in a measure on the mischief wrought by his own sin on his domestic life. Had David not fallen, he would have been a different man, and consequently his private influence at home among his children would have been more holy and powerful; his relation to his kingdom would have been more satisfactory, and therefore moral and political circumstances would probably, arise of so important a character as to have prevented the creation of the conditions out of which the troubles now recorded in his later history arose. He was to reap according to his sowing. In the conviction of sin, the recognition of personal guilt is the chief element, as we have seen (division I.); but just as here the messenger revealed the aggravation of the guilt, probed the heart for causes, and referred to coming retribution, so in the simple processes of mind attending true conviction there is an anticipation of punishmentan assurance that evil is coming on the soul as a consequence of sin done. Sin is transgression of law; law involves authority to vindicate its righteousness; and, as soon as the conviction of sin is real, the logic of conscience points to coming judgment. Whether it be a temporal judgment, as in Old Testament references, or eternal, as in New Testament references, the experience is virtually the same.

V. THE CONFESSION OF GUILT IS ABSOLUTE. The guilty king sat in silence till the prophet had delivered his charge. The time was brief, but the power accompanying the words was Divine. Swifter than lightning the spell of hypocritical concealment was broken. The bonds in which the unholy passion had long held the soul were snapped asunder. The eye of conscience, turning in upon self, gave fresh life to the old suppressed loyalty to righteousness and God, and, as a consequence, the confession came, “I have sinned against the Lord.” The question as to whether the historian here simply gives a summary of what passed, and intended to include also the fifty-first psalm, or whether literally this is all that was said and done, does not affect our purpose. There is here a recognition prompt, unqualified, of sin, not as a fault, a weakness, but of sin as known by conscience and stamped with the curse of God and man. It is also a recognition of sin as against God, not as a wrong done to Uriah, Bathsheba, or Israel, or his own family. The conscience is not indifferent to the injuries done to men, but when fully aroused, and face to face with sin as sin, it seems to see only God. Hence the expression in Psa 51:4. Again, there is pain and shame, not because of what men may say or do, not because personal influence will now be weakened, but because it is sin. It is the sin which troubles and appals the truly convicted soul. Moreover, there is abstention from all claim to consideration; no excuse, no palliation. The convicted one can only say, “I have sinned.” There is obviously an inward bowing of the spirit before the holy God; an absolute surrender as undone, condemned, helpless, lost. The very brevity of the confession bespeaks the depth of penitential woe. Contrast the wordy confession (1Sa 15:17-25; cf. Luk 15:18, Luk 15:19; Luk 18:13).

VI. FORGIVENESS IS FREE, FULL, BUT QUALIFIED. How long Nathan stood by the prostrate silent king, and whether this confession was the literal whole or not, we do not know; but he saw enough to enable him to say in the name of God, “The Lord bath put away thy sin”a statement clear and unreserved, intended to go home to the smitten heart. The forgiveness of sin has to do with a personal relation of God to man. It is the restoration of the personal relation of favour and fellowship which had been inter rupted by sin. It is conditional on true repentance, the objective ground being the sacrificial death of Christunder the Old Testament dispensation by anticipation (Rom 3:25), and under the New by retrospective reference. God is the sole Judge of the reality of repentance. He looketh at the heart. He knew that David’s conviction had issued in the state’ of mind known as true repentance, and foreseeing this before it occurred, he commissioned the prophet to “declare and pronounce” to David “being penitent,” the remission of his sin. “Thy sins are forgiven thee!” Blessed words! How often brought to penitents since our Lord uttered them! But the pardon left untouched the natural consequences of sin referred to in Psa 51:19, 20, because a personal relation does not alter the course of the forces which a man sets in motion on earth by his sin. Also, the child born must die, not to its injury, but gain, yet in judgment, so that the father should not find comfort in the fruit of his sin, and in mercy, lest there should be a living memorial of his guilt and shame to which men might point and further blaspheme the Name of the Lord. The same holds good of our forgiveness; it is free, full, but qualified by the continuance of some ill consequences which chastise us all our days. The sinner never entirely gets rid of all the earthly effects of his sin while on earth; they work in his flow of thought and feeling, and often in the checks on his influence, and possibly on the character and health of others. The full redemption comes with the glorified body and the new heavens and earth.

GENERAL LESSONS.

1. The first thing to be sought in men in order to their salvation is a due recognition of themselves as sinners in the sight of God. A general recognition of the evil of sin as distinct from consciousness of personal guilt may really be a cover for unpardoned sin.

2. The tendency and drift of God’s messages to men living in sin is to bring them to a right mind in reference to their personal position in his sight, as a preliminary to their seeking forgiveness.

3. Much will be found to depend, in respect to religious views and action, on the apprehension men have of what Sin really is and their own guilt. A prepared state of mind is necessary to get good out of gospel statements.

4. The Christian religion especially lays stress on intense individuality in our relationships to God and to good and evil, and aims to bring us to a true self-knowledge.

5. It is an astonishing illustration of the tremendous power of our lower tendencies that they may even gain ascendency over men of most exalted privileges and whose very position would suggest superiority to them.

6. It behoves Christian people living in the enjoyment of many advantages to consider well their conduct in comparison with that of others less favoured.

7. The essence of sin abides in all times, though the form may vary; for as Adam preferred the suggestion of the evil one and so despised the word of the Lord, so did David; and on this method did Satan seek to win over Christ in the wilderness.

8. It is of extreme importance to remember that we may carry about with us deep laid and subtle tendencies which may assert their power in an unguarded hour; and hence we should often probe our heart, and search and see by the help of God whether there be any evil way within us.

9. It should operate as a deterrent to know that our sins will entail unavoidable social and physical troubles as long as life lasts.

10. We are authorized in speaking to the truly penitent of the free and full forgiveness which God has in store for them, and which through his abounding grace they may have at once.

11. In the fuller sense of the words it may be declared to the penitent that they shall not die (Joh 3:16).

12. The evil deeds of professors are a stumbling block to other men, and give occasion to them to blaspheme, and as this must be a most bitter element in the life of the restored backslider, so it is a warning to all Christians to take heed lest they fall, and so bring occasion for reproach on the Name which is above every name.

2Sa 12:15-31

The facts are:

1. The child born to David becoming very sick, he entreats God for its life by prayer and fasting.

2. He persists in refusing the consolations which the elders of his household offer him.

3. The child dying on the seventh day and David observing the whisperings of his servants, at once ascertains by direct inquiry the certainty of it.

4. His servants noticing that, on ascertaining the fact of the child’s death, he lays aside the tokens of grief and resumes his wonted manner, are amazed at his conduct.

5. Whereupon he justifies his conduct, and intimates his expectation of some day going to the child.

6. Bathsheba is comforted by David, and bears to him another son, Solomon.

7. Joab, carrying on war against Rabbah of the Ammonites, and being about to bring the war to a conclusion, urges on David that he should come and enjoy the honour of taking the city.

8. David, complying with this request, takes possession of Babbah, and acquires the king’s crown with much spoil.

9. He completes his conquest of the Ammonites by causing some of them to endure great sufferings.

Providence and natural affection.

The mercy of God to David was immediate, and it continued throughout his life; the judgment with which it was tempered was chiefly to come in days hence, but it began in the severe sickness of Bathsheba’s child. It is not an unusual thing for a father to have to face the loss of an infant; in such cases natural affection will manifest itself in unmistakable forms. The extraordinary way in which David’s feelings were excited by the apprehended death of this child is to be accounted for by reasons springing out of the peculiar circumstances of his position. These will appear as we proceed to consider the struggle between natural affection and the order of Providence.

I. THERE IS A CERTAIN REASONABLENESS IN THE PLEADING OF NATURAL AFFECTION AGAINST WHAT SEEMS TO BE THE ORDINATION OF GOD. The declaration of the prophet (2Sa 12:14), that the child should die, was accepted by David as an ordination of God, and the severe sickness which came on soon after Nathan’s departure was interpreted by the king as the first stage in the execution of it. But David was not conscious of a rebellious spirit in the exhibition of such distress, and in such earnest entreaty that the intended cause of providential judgment might be averted. Human affection is as much a part of the order of Nature as is the law of gravity, and its spontaneous action is as natural as is the falling of a weight to the earth. Affection is nothing if it does not feel. There is no law requiring it to be annihilated, if that were possible, in presence of the inevitable. To the pious Hebrew all charges in nature were brought about by God; they were the outcome of his will, as surely as would be the death of this child according to the word of the prophet. Divine ordinations were silent and spoken. Yet the silent ordinations in daily providence were modified by prayer and to meet new conditions; and why, then, might not this spoken one be modified at the entreaty of an agonized parent? As a father, he could not help thinking of this infant as a severe sufferer in being deprived of the blessing of life through no fault of its own. If spared, the child might be a perpetual memorial of befitting sorrow and shame, and so would help to keep him lowly and penitent. Nor could he but feel for the poor woman cruelly sinned against, and whose grief would be consequent on her husband’s sin. Moreover, precedents were not wanting in the case Of Abraham (Gen 18:20-33) and of Moses (Exo 32:30-35), in which men pleaded against what seemed to be inevitable. Subsequent to David’s time, we know that men were permitted to pray against the apparently inevitable (Joe 2:12-14). Our Saviour gave utterance to human sensibility when he prayed that, if possible, the cup might pass from him. God has never expressed displeasure at the utterance of the sorrows which spring from natural affection, for feelings often struggle thus with the course of providence. Stoicism has no place in Christianity. The physical order is subordinate to the moral.

II. INTENSE FEELING IS REASONABLE WHERE OUR SINS HAVE TO DO WITH THE ANTICIPATED DISASTER. The intensity of David’s anguish arose, not from the fact that he was a father, but from the knowledge he had that the providence that was bringing death to his child was connected with his own sin. That another should suffer for his sin, and this other a little child, was indeed a bitter reason for pleading with God. Although the course of providence, which connects the suffering of offspring with the sins of parents, is in the widest moral bearings of the fact, both just and merciful, yet it is not always seen to be so. Nevertheless, the great anguish of the evil doer on that account is not a protest so much as a lament over his own sin, and a prayer that, if possible, this organic issue of sin may, by some intervention, be prevented or modified. The educational value of that feeling on the life of a repentant sinner is of great worth in itself, and really leads to the formation of a character that shall, in the order of providence, do much to lessen the evils that otherwise would arise.

III. THE RESORT OF NATURAL AFFECTION WHEN STRUGGLING AGAINST THE ORDER OF PROVIDENCE IS TO GOD. A great change had recently come over David. The alienation of the backsliding heart was gone. As of old, so he now brings his sorrows and troubles to his God. The overwhelmed heart flies to the Rock that is high. He sits not with the scornful, mocking at the ways of Providence, and seeing evil where only there is mysterious judgment. The best and tenderest feelings of human nature, where sanctified by the spirit of piety, turn instinctively to God for help, and they find prayer as the form in Which their yearnings are expressed. Some men fancy that they only see and feel the apparent severities of the providential order, and that sullen vexation and displeasure ate the only appropriate conditions of mind in relation to it. Christians see and feel quite as much, but their bruised spirit finds refuge in him who ordains all in justice and mercy, and implores him, so far as may be wise and good, to let the penitent, entreating heart count for something among the elements which determine the ultimate issues.

IV. WHEN THE COURSE OF PROVIDENCE IS FOUND TO BE UNALTERABLE, NATURAL AFFECTION IS SUBORDINATED TO THE HIGHER PRINCIPLE OF ACQUIESCENCE IN THE WILL OF GOD. David was right in feeling as he did, in expressing his feeling in earnest prayer, in waiting as long as there was hope of reversal of the sentence. He acted as a father, as a husband, as a penitent. But when once the human desire and human view of wisdom and kindness were proved, by accomplished fact, not to be in accord with Divine wisdom, then, as became a trustful, restored child of God, David ceased to plead and to be in anguish. “Not my will, bat thine be done!” was the spirit of his action. It was his duty and privilege now to rest in the Lord, and believe that he will bring to pass the kindest and wisest issue. The death of the child is accepted as the best thing, and the evils once supposed to issue from the event are now believed to be qualified by a love which maketh all things work together for good. It is the sign of an enlightened mind when a man can thus rise from his griefs, and conform his mental and moral-and social life to the unalterable will of God. It takes time for a good man to recover from the natural, and, therefore, reasonable, outflow of his feelings; but when he does recover, he retains all the sanctity and softening influence of his anguish in combination with a calm spirit, concerned now in ministering to the consolation of others (2Sa 12:24), and cheered by the hope of a time when the breaches caused by sin will be healed (2Sa 12:23).

GENERAL LESSONS.

1. It becomes us to regard all death in our homes as connected with sin, and we should always give due weight to its moral causes in our consideration of the course of providence.

2. There may exist high moral reasons why intense earnestness in prayer is not always successful; and yet it may be true that God does answer fervent prayer.

3. Men not familiar with the secret life of a Christian are not in a position to understand his conduct on special occasions, just as David’s servants could not understand his conduct in relation to the death of the child.

4. We should avail ourselves of such light concerning the future as may be vouchsafed, in order to obtain consolation amidst the bereavements of life (2Sa 12:23).

5. The doctrine of recognition in heaven is certainly in accord with sanctified instincts, and may be held as variously hinted at in Scripture (2Sa 12:23; cf. Mat 17:3, Mat 17:4; 1Th 2:19).

Tokens of restoration.

In 2Sa 12:23, 2Sa 12:24 we have two statements which incidentally reveal the reality and completeness of the restoration of the fallen king to the favour and care of God.

(1) The name (Solomon) given by himself, probably at circumcision, to his son;

(2) the name (Jedidiah) which the prophet was instructed to give to the son, not as a substitute, but as a supplement. The one indicated David’s sense of peace with God and in himself, the other God’s abiding favour. Here, then, we may observe

I. THAT RESTORATION TO GOD AFTER A FALL IS A REALITY. It is not a state rendered problematical by the observance of conditions extending over a long period. David was at peace with God, and God did regard him with unqualified favour. Old things had passed awaythe displeasure of God, the fear and apprehension of the man; the relation of complacent delight and tender care on the one side, and filial love and trust on the other, was now complete. It is important to keep this truth clear. It is bound up with the great doctrine of justification. God once accepting and forgiving a sinner becomes and remains to him a gracious God, forgetting all the past and cherishing only love and tender interest. It is a misreading of the gospel, and implies an ignorance of the most blessed Christian experience to imagine that a really forgiven one is kept in suspense and dread, or that God is holding back the fulness of his favour till we have repented a little more, or more fully perfected our general life. We are accepted in Christ. When he “restoreth” our “soul” (Psa 23:3), it is actual, not possible, germinal restoration.

II. THAT THE TOKENS OF RESTORATION VARY ACCORDING TO CIRCUMSTANCES, The inward token in David’s case was the assured peace of a conscience purged by the grace of God (Psa 51:7-10, Psa 51:12), which came in answer to his penitential cry. The outward token was the life of another child, the peaceful order of the kingdom, and especially this welcome message of the prophet (2Sa 12:25). The reality of restoration was known as soon as the almighty word of pardon was spoken, the confirmatory signs of itto strengthen the heart and ward off subtle temptations of the evil one-came in process of time. No doubt fallen Peter found pardon during the dark night of his penitence; but the outward token, which was also an instruction to the other disciples not to distrust and shun him, came in the gracious message of the angel of the Lord, “Tell his disciples, and Peter” (Mar 16:7), and again in the exhortation and encouragement given in the presence of those who might otherwise have distrusted him, “Feed my sheep” (Joh 21:15-17). The ordinary sign of full restoration is in the “witness of the Spirit” (Rom 8:14-16), and the outward care and blessing vouchsafed to our work of faith and labour of love (Joh 15:7, Joh 15:8). God will be sure to give his people some “token for good” (Psa 86:17).

III. THAT SIGNS OF GOD‘S FAVOUR SHOULD BE GIVEN IS AN ILLUSTRATION OF HIS WONDERFUL CONSIDERATION FOR HIS PEOPLE. There is something truly wonderful in this grace shown to David. Not only is he forgiven and treated in all things spiritual as though he had not sinned; not only permitted to reign over Israel, and enter into close, though it may be very subdued, fellowship with God; but God goes, as it were, out of the ordinary course of providence, and sends a messenger to give him, in this other name for his child, a special sign of full restoration. Thus the occasional doubts suggested by the evil one, the possible distrust of the prophet in Israel and those under him, and the sneers of the profane, are all anticipated by the love that slumbers not and that cares most tenderly and minutely for all the need of the reconciled ones. “How excellent is thy loving kindness, O God!” (Psa 36:7); “He is rich in mercy, and plenteous in redemption.”

Rabbah’s lesson to mankind. The fall of David occurred while the war was going on under Joab (2Sa 11:1, 2Sa 11:7, 2Sa 11:25). It is probable that, as the historian began to tell the story of the fall, he thought well to finish it, with the account of the restoration, before he took up again the account of the campaign being carried on against the Ammonites. We shall assume, therefore, that the fall of Rabbah referred to in 2Sa 12:26-31 took place in the interval between the sin of David and the birth of Solomon (2Sa 12:24). The narrative is inserted here doubtless with the primary design of completing the history of David’s wars, and thus keeping up the continuity of his exploits. But as all Scripture is written for our learning, we may notice a few incidental lessons suggested by the capture of the city of Rabbah.

I. A GOOD MAN‘S FALL INTO SIN UNFITS HIM FOR MANY OF THE DUTIES OF HIS DAILY LIFE. Joab was not only left to carry on the war alone, but he even felt it to be right (2Sa 12:28) to stir up the king that he might come and take part, and so share in the honour about to be won. The secret of this most probably lay in the fact that, during and after David’s entanglement with Bathsheba and crime against Uriah, he was not in a mind to enter upon the perils of war. A woman’s spell was on him; his conscience was secretly troubled; he who feared not the lion or the giant now fears lest, if he go to the war, he should be slain. Therefore he tarries in Jerusalem (2Sa 11:1-25). His sins rendered him incompetent to do what otherwise he would have done, and it required even an urgent request from his general, coupled with an assurance that the city was virtually captured already (2Sa 12:27-29), to induce him to move. There are sins which sometimes drive men to desperate deeds and perilous places, and give apparently more zest to life; but in the case of good men, a known habit of sin impairs their energy in life; it creates an abiding fear; it paralyzes certain incumbent moral actions; it keeps from entering on work which otherwise would be cheerfully undertaken; it makes him less a man.

II. THOSE WHO DO DELIBERATE DEEDS OF WRONG TO OTHERS COURT AN INFLICTION ON THEMSELVES OF SIMILAR EVILS. This account of the infliction of tortures on the Ammonites (2Sa 12:31) is the first instance in Hebrew history of such a deed, and it seems strange that David should have ordered it. But without justifying the retaliation, the point here to be noted is that the Ammonites laid themselves open to such treatment by their own actions. They had proposed barbarous conditions of servitude to men of Israel in the time of trouble (1Sa 11:1, 1Sa 11:2) and they had cruelly insulted David’s ambassadors (2Sa 10:1-6). It is also probable that in this protracted war they may have carried out these barbarous tendencies towards prisoners taken in war. They thus, by deeds of cruelty, sought for deeds of cruelty to themselves in their day of defeat. There is doubtless a principle of retaliation in kind recognizable in the law of nature. As a man soweth so he reapeth. What they do to others they so far justify others to do to them, that they have set an example and are incapable of protest. In some guarded form this principle enters into human law, national and international. In the Mosaic code it received specific illustration (Exo 21:22-25). Whether David was right or wrong, the Ammonites courted torture by evil deeds, as men now court evil from their imperfect fellow men by evil deeds to them. The harsh employer courts distrust and injury from the employes. Tyrannical rulers court plots, conspiracies, and possibly assassinations, from oppressed subjects.

III. THERE ARE PROPHETIC SYMBOLS OF HONOUR FALLING ON THE RIGHT HEAD. It was, perhaps, on the part of Joab and the army, a mere feat of military triumph to place the heavy crown of the Ammonite god (for so we take it to be) on the head of David; but it was suggestive at the time to all spectators of the honours that ought to come, and in course of years were coming, on One who was the Anointed of the Lord. And to us it seems to suggest the ultimate passing of all highest honours, long usurped, to him whose right it is to reign, and who is not only said to be worthy of all honours (Rev 4:11; Rev 5:12, Rev 5:13), but is so gradually acquiring them that he at last shall be crowned with many crowns (Heb 2:9; Rev 4:10; Rev 19:12). In the triumph of every good man over evil, we see a symbolic intimation of the final triumph of the Son of man over all enemies (1Co 15:25). In the distinction awarded to any of Christ’s servants, who are really his representatives in the world, because of the destruction of some monstrous evil, we have a symbolic representation of the glory and honour that will come on the head of the great Deliverer, when to him every knee shall bow, and the last enemy shall have been destroyed. Faith can see coming victories in passing events.

IV. THE EDUCATION OF THE CONSCIENCE IN HUMAN RELATIONS IS VERY SLOW. The principle of retaliation is in all legal punishments (division I.), but the application of the principle is a matter of judgment, and the judgment depends on the culture of the conscience. There are coordinate powers in human nature. The feeling of benevolence has a place as truly as a sense of justice. It depends on the degree in which conscience is cultivated as to whether the rigid carrying out of what justice may seem to demand, i.e. the spirit of retaliation in the name of love, not of self, should be tempered by kindly consideration, and to what extent. Probably David at this time was in the degenerate mood of mind brought on by his fall, and therefore restive and harsh, as men are when the heart is corroded by guilt. But at all events, in those times there was not that fine sense of delicacy in regard to human suffering as now. The same mental and moral condition prevailed during the ages of persecution for religion. Romanists and Protestants did once what now their descendants would be shocked at. It is a defective education of conscience which enables men to live in careless ease and luxury while thousands are lacking food. Christ only was perfect Man. If all were like him, every consideration would be paid to human feeling in the administration of justice, and in the private relations of life.

HOMILIES BY B. DALE

2Sa 12:1

(JERUSALEM.)

A faithful reprover of sin.

“And Jehovah sent Nathan to David.” The sin Of David could not be hid. It was known to his servants (2Sa 11:4) and to Joab; it must have been surmised by many from his hasty marriage; and now it was fully manifest (2Sa 11:27). About a year had elapsed. “What a year for David to have spent! What a joyless, sunless, godless year! Were God’s words still sweet to his taste? Were they still the rejoicing of his heart? or had he come to hate the threatening of the Law?” (J. Wright). At length Nathan (2Sa 7:3) camean example of a faithful reprover (Psa 141:5; Pro 27:6; 1Sa 1:13; 1Sa 2:22). Consider

I. HIS DIVINE COMMISSION. He came, not because he was sent for by David, nor because he was prompted by natural reason or impulse (2Sa 7:3), but in obedience to the word of the Lord (2Sa 12:7), and in fulfilment of his prophetic calling. “It was the true mission of the prophets, as champions of the oppressed in the courts of kings; it was the true prophetic spirit that spoke through Nathan’s mouth” (Stanley).

1. Reproof should be administered only according to the will of God. It is not forevery one to assume the office of reprover (Psa 50:16); nor to administer reproof to every one who may deserve it, especially when holding a position of authority. In this matter men are apt to run before they are sent. The duty is a relative one, and demands careful consideration before it is undertaken.

2. The will of God concerning the administration of reproof is indicated in various ways; such as the authority given to parents, magistrates, pastors, and teachers”reprove, rebuke,” etc. (2Ti 4:2; 5:1); the teachings of the Divine Word; the guidance of the Divine Spirit.

3. When the will of God is clearly made known, it should be humbly, readily, and diligently obeyed; both when it requires his servants to testify his favour (2Sa 7:4, 2Sa 7:25) and his displeasure (2Sa 11:27).

II. HIS CONSUMMATE WISDOM. In nothing are wisdom and prudence more needed than in reproof. If given unwisely it is likely to excite opposition, produce equivocation, repel and harden. “A word fitly spoken,” etc. (Pro 25:11, Pro 25:12). It should be given:

1. At a proper timewhen the proof of wrong doing admits of no denial, and the mind of the wrong doer is duly prepared. It is not probable that Nathan came immediately after he first heard of David’s transgression. “His task was not to gain a confession, but only to facilitate it. He was appointed by God to await the time of the internal crisis of David” (Hengstenberg).

2. When the offender is alone (Mat 18:15), and is likely to pay greater heed to it and to be less influenced by what others think. Sometimes, however, sinners must be “rebuked before all, that others also may fear” (1Ti 5:20).

3. In a maimer adapted to produce the most salutary effect; with harmless wisdom (Mat 10:16) and holy and beneficent “guile” (2Co 12:16) displayed in;

(1) A respectful, courteous, and conciliatory bearing. To begin with rude reproaches is to ensure failure.

(2) An ingenious invention of a “form of speech” (2Sa 14:20) and illustration suitable to the case.

(3) A generous recognition of the better qualities in men. “David’s goodness is not denied because of his sin, nor is David’s sin denied because of his goodness.”

(4) A clear statement of the truth, avoiding exaggeration and everything that may hinder its illuminating force.

(5) A strong appeal to the conscience, so as to quicken its action as a witness and judge.

(6) A dexterous application of admitted principles and expressed judgments and emotions.

(7) An effectual removal of the mists of self-deception, so as to enable the evil doer to see his actual character and conduct, and constrain him to reprove and condemn himself. The wisdom of the prophet in fulfilling his mission to the king was “inimitably admirable.” “Observing that this direct road (the recommendation of self-knowledge) which led to it (the reformation of mankind) was guarded on all sides by self-love, and consequently very difficult to open access, public instructors soon found out that a different and more artful course was requisite. As they had not strength to remove this flattering passion which stood in their way and blocked up the passages to the heart, they endeavoured by stratagem to get beyond it, and, by a skilful address, if possible to deceive it. This gave rise to the only manner of conveying their instructions in parables, fables, and such sort of indirect applications; which, though they could not conquer this principle of self-love, yet often laid it asleep, or at least overreached it for a few moments, till a just judgment could be procured. The Prophet Nathan seems to have been a great master in this art of address” (Laurence Sterne).

III. HIS HOLY COURAGE. His mission was as perilous as it was painful; and might, if it failed, have cost him his life. But he feared not “the wrath of the king” (Pro 16:14; Pro 19:12; Heb 11:27). Such moral courage as he exhibited:

1. Is inspired by faith in God, whose face it beholds, and on whose might it relies.

2. Consists in the fearless fulfilment of duty, whatever consequences it may involvethe loss of friendship or other earthly good; the endurance of bonds, suffering, and death. “None of these things move me,” etc. (Act 20:24).

3. Appears in simple, bold, direct, and unreserved utterance of God’s Word (Eze 33:7). At the proper moment the prophet changed his style of address; gave it a particular application, “the very life of doctrine;” and, in the name of the supreme King and Judge, arraigned the offender, declared his guilt, and pronounced his sentence. “His example is especially to be noted by all whose office is to ‘rebuke with all authority'” (‘Speaker’s Commentary’).

IV. HIS BENEVOLEST AIM. He came not only to testify against sin, to maintain the authority of the Law, etc.; but also (in connection therewith) to benefit the sinner, by:

1. Leading him to repentance.

2. Assuring him of forgiveness.

3. Restoring him to righteousness, peace, and joy (2Sa 12:13; Psa 51:12).

“Reproofs of instruction are the way of life” (Pro 6:23; Pro 13:18; Pro 17:10). Sympathy with the holy love of God toward sinners is an essential qualification of a faithful reprover of sin; and as it is God’s mercy that employs agents and means for their restoration, so it is his grace alone that makes them effectual (Joh 16:8).

“And so wide arms
Hath goodness infinite, that it receives
All who turn to it.”

(Dante.)

D.

2Sa 12:1-4

(THE KING‘S PALACE.)

The parable of the rich oppressor; or, the poor man’s lamb.

1. This is the first and almost the only parable contained in the Old Testament. There is one instance of a fable of earlier date (Jdg 9:8-15). The former belongs to a higher order of teaching than the latter (Smith’s ‘Dict. of the Bible,’ art. “Fable;” Trench, ‘Notes on the Parables’); and it was employed most perfectly by the great Teacher. Compare his parables of the unmerciful servant, the rich fool, the rich man and Lazarus.

2. It was in part an acted parable (like 2Sa 14:5-7; 1Ki 20:35-43); and was at first regarded by the king as the simple, literal statement of a case in which one of his subjects, a poor man, had suffered wrong at the hands of another, a rich man; and with reference to which the prophet appeared as an advocate on behalf of the former against the latter, seeking justice and judgment. “Nathan, it is likely, used to come to him on such errands, which made this the less suspected. It becomes those who have interest in princes and free access to them to intercede for those that are wronged, that they may have right done them” (Matthew Henry).

3. Its moral and spiritual aim (which is always the chief thing to be considered in the interpretation of a parable) was to set forth the guilt of a rich oppressor, and thereby to awaken the general sense of outraged justice in the king concerning his own conduct.

4. “It is one of those little gems of Divinity that are scattered so plentifully through the sacred Scriptures, that sparkle with a lustre, pure and brilliant as the light of heaven, and attest the sacred origin of the wonderful book that contains them” (Blaikie). Consider the guilt of this rich man in the light of

I. HIS POSITION compared with that of the poor man, and his relation to him. “There were two men in one city,” etc. (2Sa 12:1-3).

1. He had much possessions, “exceeding many flocks and herds.” Providence had been very kind to him. He had abundance for personal gratification and princely hospitality and liberality. But the poor man had nothing “save one little ewe lamb,” which he valued all the more on that account, and reared amidst his family with the utmost care and tenderness.

2. He had great power, which he might use for good or evil; in fulfilment of the Law or in frustration of it; to protect and benefit “the poor and needy” or to oppress and rob them.

3. He dwelt in the same city with the poor man, and was well acquainted with his circumstances. He knew the story of the little lamb. The picture is exquisitely drawn by one who was familiar with many such scenes in humble life, and adapted to excite sympathy and pity. The obligations of the rich man toward his “neighbour” are manifest; and they shadow forth the greater obligations of others in a still higher position (2Sa 12:7, 2Sa 12:8). Although the king had well nigh absolute power over the property and lives of his subjects, it belonged to the true idea of his office to “reign, command, and punish, as though it were not he that reigned, commanded, and punished, but the One to whom he never ceases to be responsible, and as though he might himself be in the position of any other member of the community and the latter in his own” (Ewald, ‘Antiquities’).

II. HIS DISPOSITION. “And there came a traveller,” etc. (2Sa 12:4). “The Jewish doctors say, it represents that which they call ‘the evil disposition,’ or desire that is in us, which must be diligently watched and observed when we feel its motions. ‘In the beginning it is but a traveller, but in time it becomes a guest, and in conclusion is the master of the house'” (Patrick). This is pressing the imagery of the parable too far. Nevertheless, “the sin is traced to its root, viz. insatiable covetousness; this hidden background of all sins” (Keil); sinful, selfish, inordinate desire (2Sa 11:1-5). It is a “root of bitterness.” And in the case supposed what evils it involved!

1. Discontentment with a man’s own possessions, notwithstanding their abundance “Nature is content with little, grace with less, sin with nothing.”

2. Ingratitude toward the Giver of them.

3. Envy of another man on account of some imaginary advantage he possesses, notwithstanding its comparative insignificance”One little ewe lamb.”

4. Avarice.

5. Voluptuousness.

6. Pride in the possession of power; and its irresponsible exercise. There was no sense of personal accountability to God.

7. Vanity or love of display, though at the expense of another an undue regard for outward appearance.

8. Deceitfulness. Did the guest who enjoyed the rich man’s hospitality dream at whose cost it was provided?

9. Pitilessness and obduracy. “Because he had no pity” (2Sa 12:6).

10. Idolatry (Col 3:5) It is only when sin is viewed in the light of the spirituality Of the commandment, that its “exceeding sinfulness” becomes manifest (Rom 7:13). “Covetousness is a subtle sin, a dangerous sin, a mother sin, a radical vice, a breach of all the ten commandments” (T. Watson).

III. His CONDUCT. “And he spared to take of his own flock,” etc. It was:

1. Unjust.

2. Tyrannical.

3. Cruel; “a wanton aggravation of the evils of poverty, humbling the poor man with a sense of injustice and inability to protect himself, deriving a momentary gratification from seeing his neighbour laid low at his feet, as if no lamb was so savoury as that which had been torn from the poor man’s bosom amidst the tears of his children.”

4. Lawless and reckless; “a despising of the commandment of the Lord” (2Sa 12:9). The poor man’s complaint is unheard. But is you condemn yourself. This is a parable; and I would have you consider whether under another name it is not spoken concerning you. Reserve your rebuke, lest it come back upon yourself” (R. Halley).D.

2Sa 12:5, 2Sa 12:6

(JERUSALEM.)

The blinding influence of sin.

“David’s anger was greatly kindled against the man;” he declared with a solemn oath (2Sa 4:9-11) that he deserved to die (literally, “was a son of death,” 1Sa 26:16; 1Ki 2:26), and ordered restitution according to the Law (Exo 22:1). His severity displayed the fiery temper of the man, and the arbitrary power of the monarch, rather than the calm deliberation of the judge; and (like the treatment of the Ammonites, 2Sa 12:31) indicated a mind ill at ease (2Sa 11:22-27; Psa 32:3, Psa 32:4); for he was not totally blind to his sin, nor “past feeling” (Eph 4:19); though he had no thought of the application of the case to himself. We have here an illustration of

I. AN ASTONISHING FACT; viz. the self-ignorance, self-deception, internal hypocrisy, of men. Nothing is more important than self-knowledge. It is often enjoined. “From heaven came the precept, ‘Know thyself.'” And it might naturally appear to be easily attained, seeing that it lies so near home. Yet how certain, how common, and how surprising its absence! “There is not anything relating to men’s characters mere surprising and unaccountable than this partiality to themselves which is observable in many; as there is nothing of more melancholy reflection respecting morality and religion”. They are blind (at least partially) and deceived as to their sin; notwithstanding:

1. Their perception of the evil of sin in general or in the abstract. Ingratitude, selfishness, oppression, pitilessness; who is not ready to denounce these vices?

2. Their sinfulness in the sight of other people. Although David had sought to conceal his sin from others, perhaps still flattered himself that it was known only to a few, and. justified or palliated its guilt to himself, many others besides Nathan saw and abhorred it (Psa 36:2).

“O wad some power the giftie gie us

To see oursels as others see us!

It wad frae monie a blunder free us,

And foolish notion.”

3. Their condemnation of sin in others, of the very same kind as that which they tolerate in themselves. The resemblance between the rich oppressor and David was so close that it is astonishing it was not detected.

4. Their abhorrence at another time and under other circumstances of its guilt when thought of in relation to themselves (1Sa 24:5). “What! is thy servant a dog, that he should do this great thing?” (2Ki 8:13). Yet the dog did it (Matthew Henry). Next to these instances of self-deceit of our true disposition and character, which appear in not seeing that in ourselves which shocks us in another man, there is another species still more dangerous and delusive, and which the more guarded perpetually fall into, from the judgments they make of different vices according to their age and complexion, and the various ebbs and flows of their passions and desires” (L. Sterne, ‘Self-Knowledge’).

5. Their culpability beyond that of those whom they condemn. It was not a little lamb of which he had robbed the poor man, but his dearly loved wife, his one earthly treasure. It was not a lamb that he had killed, but a man, his neighbour and faithful defender. His superior position and possessions aggravated his guilt. Was he not himself “a son of death”? “What a sad proof of the blinding influence of self-love, that men are ready to form so different an estimate of their conduct when it is not seen to be their own! How ignorant are we of ourselves, and how true it is that even when our own hearts condemn us, God is greater than our hearts, and knoweth all things!” (Blaikie). For this fact let us seek

II. AS ADEQUATE CAUSE. It is seldom due to insufficiency of light or means of knowing sin. Is it, then, due to men’s inconsideration of themselves? or to the perversion of their moral judgment? Doubtless to both; but still more to sin itself, which is essentially setfishnessa false and inordinate love of self. “For consider: nothing is more manifest than that affection and passion of all kinds influence the judgment” (Butler); prejudicing its decisions in their own favour. Even when there is more than a suspicion that all is not well, it stifles further inquiry and prevents full conviction by:

1. Producing a general persuasion in men that their moral condition is better than it really is.

2. Directing exclusive attention to those dispositions and actions of which conscience can approve.

3. Inducing unwillingness to consider the opposite, and to know the worst of themselves. The glimpse of the truth which they perceive is painful, and (as in the case of diseased vision) it causes them to shut their eyes against perceiving the whole truth (Joh 3:20).

4. Inventing specious arguments in justification of the course to which they are disposed.

5. Dwelling upon supposed compensations for injury done or guilt incurred. Self-love is wondrously fertile in devising such excuses and palliatives. David may have thought that the standard by which others were judged was not applicable to him. “Perhaps, as power is intoxicating, he conceived of himself as not subjected to the ordinary rules of society. In sending an order to his general to put Uriah ‘in the hottest of the battle,’ he probably found a palliative for his conscience; for what was it but to give to a brave soldier a post of honour? No doubt the victim considered himself honoured by the appointment, while it gave occasion to the king to solace himself with the thought that it was an enemy and not he who put an end to the life of his subject” (W. White). His marrying Bathsheba, also, he may have supposed, made amends for the wrong he had done to her. But the means which he adopted to conceal his sin from others, and deemed a palliative of his guilt, were a special aggravation of it (2Sa 12:9, 2Sa 12:10).

OBSERVATIONS.

1. Nothing is more ruinous than self-deception (Heb 3:13; Jas 1:12; 1Jn 1:8).

2. To avoid it there must be honest self-examination (Psa 4:4; 2Co 13:5).

3. We should especially guard against the blinding influence of undue self-love (Psa 19:12; Jer 17:9).

4. There should also be earnest prayer to him who searcheth the hearts, for true self-knowledge (Psa 139:23; Job 13:23; Job 34:32).D.

2Sa 12:7-10

(THE PALACE.)

Thou art the man!

The proper purpose of reproof is conviction of sin. This purpose was accomplished by the words of the prophet. They were like a “two-edged sword” (Heb 4:12), the point of which was, “Thou art the man!” “If ever a word from human lips fell with crushing weight and with the illuminating power of a gleam of lightning, it was this” (Krummacher). “His indignation against the rich man of the parable showed that the moral sense was not wholly extinguished. The instant recollection of guilt breaks up the illusion of months” (Stanley). Observe that:

1. One of the most effectual means of convincing a man of sin is by setting it before him as existing in another person. “Thou art the man!” the story of whose crime has stirred thine indignation and called forth the sentence of death from thy lips. Self-interest, passion, and prejudice, that darken a man’s view of his own sin, have comparatively little influence upon him when looking at the sin of another. Here the veil is removed; he sees clearly and judges impartially. For this reason (among others) our Lord “spake many things unto them in parables.”

2. The force of truth depends upon the particular application which is made of it. “Thou art the man who hast done this!” (LXX.); against thyself thine indignation should be directed; upon thyself the sentence has been pronounced. It is as if hitherto only the back of the offender was seen, when, suddenly turning round, his face appeared, and David beheld himself! “Men often correctly understand a message of God without observing its personal application to them.” Hence the preacher, like the prophet of old (1Ki 14:7; 1Ki 18:18; 1Ki 21:19; 2Ki 5:26; Dan 5:22; Mat 14:4), must directly, wisely, and faithfully apply the truth to his hearers. “‘Thou art the man!’ is or ought to be the conclusion, expressed or unexpressed, of every practical sermon.” What is a sword without a point? “Here also is a lesson to hearers. David listened to a sermon from Nathan, which exactly suited his own case, and yet he did not apply it to himself. He turned the edge of it from himself to another. The benefit of sermons depends more upon the hearer than the preacher. The best sermon is that who hear most, but who apply most what they hear to their own hearts.”

3. Every man is responsible to God for the sin which he has committed. “Thou art inexcusable, O man” (Rom 2:1), however thou mayest have persuaded thyself to the contrary. Is the man whom thou judgest accountable for his conduct; and art not thou for thine? Is he accountable to thee? How much more art thou to God? No position, however exalted, can release from responsibility to him or exempt from obedience to his commandment; no constitutional tendency, no temptation, expediency, or necessity be an adequate reason for despising it (Eze 18:4; Rom 3:6).

“And self to take or leave is free,
Feeling its own sufficiency:
In spite of science, spite of fate,
The judge within thee, soon or late,

Will blame but thee, O man!

“Say not. ‘I would, but could not. He
Should bear the blame who fashioned me.
Call a mere change of motive choice?’
‘Scorning such pleas, the inner voice

Cries, ‘Thine the deed, O man!'”
(J.A. Symonds.)

4. A messenger of Heaven is always in readiness to single out the sinner, bring his sin to remembrance, and call him to account. “Thus saith the Lord God of Israel,” etc. (2Sa 12:7), “Wherefore hast thou despised the commandment of the Lord, to do evil in his sight?” etc. (2Sa 12:9). Every wrong done to man, yea, every sin, is a factual contempt of his commandment (Psa 51:4). Whilst the supreme King and Judge observes it, and is long suffering towards the doer of it, he provides many witnesses, holds them in reserve, and sends them with his word at the proper moment to declare all its enormityits ingratitude (2Sa 12:8), presumption (2Sa 12:9), disloyalty before him, its “intense and brutal selfishness,” sensuality, cruelty, and craft. Conscience also awakes to confirm their testimony, with “a thousand several tongues, and every tongue” crying, “Thou art the man!”

5. The less expected the charge preferred against the sinner, the more overwhelming his conviction of guilt. “The further David was from thinking of a reference to himself, the greater the force with which the word must have struck him” (Erdmann). There could be no defence, no extenuation, no answer (Act 24:25; Mat 22:12).

6. The condemnation which one man pronounces on another sometimes recoils upon himself with increased severity. “Out of thine own mouth,” etc. (Luk 19:22). “Now therefore the sword shall never depart from thine house,” etc. “For a single moment the features of the king are charged with the expression of astonishment. He gazes eagerly at the prophet like one at a loss to divine his meaning. But, almost instantly, as if an inward light had burst upon his soul, the expression changes to one of agony and horror. The deeds of the last twelve months glare in all their infamous baseness upon him, and outraged justice, with a hundred guttering swords, seems all impatient to devour him” (Blaikie). “O wicked man, thou shalt surely die!” (Eze 33:8).

7. The conviction of sin is the first step in the way of restoration to righteousness. The sense of sin is the beginning of salvation. “He that humbleth himself,” etc. (Luk 14:11; 1Jn 1:9). “If we would judge ourselves,” etc. (1Co 11:31, 1Co 11:32). Every man must be revealed to himself in the light of God’s righteous judgment here or hereafter (Ecc 11:9; Ecc 12:14).D.

2Sa 12:10-12

(THE PALACE.)

The penalties of sin.

“Now therefore the sword shall never depart from thine house,” etc.

1. Sin is connected with suffering. The connection is real, intimate, inevitable. Nothing is more clearly manifest or more generally admitted; yet nothing is more practically disregarded. Men commit sin under the delusion that they can do so with impunity. But “they that plough iniquity, and sow wickedness, reap the same” (Job 4:8; Gal 6:7).

2. Sin serves to account for suffering; explains and justifies its existence under the righteous and beneficent government of God. The subsequent sufferings of David would have been inexplicable if his great transgression had not been recorded. “The remainder of David’s life was as disastrous as the beginning had been prosperous” (Hale). Personal suffering, however, often appears disproportionate to personal transgression (1Sa 4:3); and its reason in such cases must be sought in hereditary or other relationships, and in the purposes to which it is subservient. The penalties of sin (such as David suffered) take place

I. BY DIVINE INFLICTION. “Behold, I will raise up evil against thee,” etc. (2Sa 12:11; 2Sa 9:1-13 :27). They are:

1. Necessitated by the justice of God. “Justice is that causality in God which connects suffering with actual sin” (Schleiermacher). He who “despises the commandment of the Lord” ought to be punished.

2. Declared by the Word of God, both in the Law and the prophets. The word of Nathan was a sentence, as well as a prediction of judgment.

3. Effectuated by the power of God, which operates, not only by extraordinary agencies, but also, and most commonly, in the ordinary course of things, and by way of natural consequence; directs and controls the actions of men to the accomplishment of special results; and often makes use of the sins of one man to punish those of another. Natural law is the regular method of Divine activity. In accordance therewith the violation of moral law is followed by internal misery and external calamity, which are closely associated (Isa 45:7; Amo 3:4). “Vengeance is mine,” etc.

II. WITH SIGNIFICANT SEVERITY; which appears in:

1. The peculiarity of their form. Not only do they follow sin by way of natural consequence, but also the manner of their infliction corresponds with that of its commission; as that which is reaped resembles that which is sown (1Sa 4:1-11). “The seeds of our own punishment are sown at the same time we commit sin” (Hesiod). Having sinned with the sword, his house would be ravaged with the sword; and having sinned by the indulgence of impure passion, he would be troubled in like manner. “Amnon, Absalom, Adonijah! Amnon thought, ‘Has my father indulged in it?Absalom relied on the resentment of the people on account of the double crime. Adonijah fell because he wished to make the best of the precedence of his birth in opposition to him who had been begotten with Bathsheba” (Thenius).

“The gods are just, and of our pleasant vices
Make instruments to plague us.”

There is a tendency in the sin of one to perpetuate itself in others over whom his influence extends, and so to recoil upon himself.

2. The publicity of their exhibition. “For thou didst it secretly,” etc. (2Sa 12:12). Falsehood and injustice seek darkness; truth and justice seek light. The evil, which is concealed for the sake of public honour, is followed by public shame.

3. The extent and perpetuity of their infliction. “The sword shall never depart from thine house.” “The fortunes of David turned upon this one sin, which, according to Scripture, itself eclipsed every other” (Blunt). “One sin led to another; the bitter spring of sin grew in time to a river of destruction that flowed over the whole land, and even endangered his throne and life” (Baumgarten). Who can tell the far reaching effects of one transgression (Ecc 9:18)?

III. FOR MANIFOLD PURPOSES.

1. To manifest the justice of God and uphold the authority of his Law.

2. To exhibit the evil of sin, and deter the sinner himself and others from its commission.

3. To humble, prove, chastise, instruct, purify, and confirm the sufferer. “If he commit iniquity, I will chasten him,” etc. (2Sa 7:14; Deu 8:3, Deu 8:5; Job 5:17; Psa 94:12; Heb 12:6). This last effect is wrought only on those who turn to God in penitence and trust. The forgiveness of sin and restoration to righteousness do not counteract, except in a limited degree, the natural consequences of past transgression; but they transform punishment into chastisement, and alleviate the pressure of suffering and sorrow by Divine fellowship, and the inward peace, strength, and hope which it imparts. “In general the forgiveness of sin has only this resultpunishment is changed into fatherly chastisement, the rod into the correction of love. Outwardly the consequences of sin remain the same; their internal character is changed. If it were otherwise, the forgiveness of sins might too readily be attributed to caprice” (Hengstenberg). “The personal forgiveness indulged to the King of Israel, in consideration of his penitence, did not break the connection between causes and their effects. This connection is stamped on the unchanging laws of God in nature; and it becomes every man, instead of arraigning the appointment, to bring support to his domestic happiness by the instrumentality of a good example” (W. White). His family, his kingdom, and even his own character, were permanently affected by his sin. “Broken in spirit by the consciousness of how deeply he had sinned against God and against men; humbled in the eyes of his subjects, and his influence with them weakened by the knowledge of his crimes; and even his authority in his own household, and his claim to the reverence of his sons, relaxed by the loss of character; David appears henceforth a much altered man. He is as one who goes down to the grave mourning. His active history is pasthenceforth he is passive merely. All that was high and firm and noble in his character goes out of view, and all that is weak and low and wayward comes out in strong relief. The balance of his character is broken. Alas for him! The bird which once rose to heights unattained before by mortal wing, filling the air with its joyful songs, now lies with maimed wing upon the ground, pouring forth its doleful cries to God” (Kitto, ‘Daily Bible Illust.’).D.

2Sa 12:13

(THE PALACE.)

The acknowledgment of sin.

“And David said unto Nathan, I have sinned against the Lord.”

1. The words of the prophet were a decisive test of the character of David. Had he treated the messenger and his message as others have done (1Sa 15:12-21; 1Ki 13:4; 1Ki 21:20; 1Ki 22:8; Jer 36:23; Luk 3:10; Act 24:25), his partial blindness to his sin would have become total, and he would have fallen to a still lower depth, perhaps never to rise again. But his genuine piety, as well as the exceeding grace of God (2Sa 7:15), ensured a better issue; and the confidence in his recovery, which Nathan probably felt in coming to him, was fully justified.

2. Hardly was the sentence pronounced, “Thou art the man!” before the long repressed confession broke from his lips (1Sa 7:6; 1Sa 15:24-31), “I am the man! Who says this of me? YetGod knows allyes, I am the man. I have sinned against the Lord.”

“Never so fast, in silent April shower,
Flushed into green the dry and leafless bower,

As Israel’s crowned mourner felt
The dull hard stone within him melt”
(Keble.)

The ruling principle of his nature was like a spring of water which, though choked and buried beneath a heap of rubbish, at length finds its way again to the surface. “The fundamental trait in David’s character is a deep and tender susceptibility, which, although even for a time it may yield to lust or the pressure of the world, yet always quickly rises again in repentance and faith” (‘Old Test. Hist. of Redemption’). “If in this matter Nathan shows himself great, David is no less so. The cutting truth of the prophetic word shakes him out of the hollow passion in which he has lived since first he saw this woman, and rouses him again to the consciousness of his better self. His greatness, however, is shown in the fact that, king as he was, he soon humbled himself, like the lowliest, before the higher truth; and, although his penitence was as deep and sincere as possible, it did not cause him either to lose his dignity or to forget his royal duties” (Ewald).

3. There is no part of his life for the proper understanding of which it is so necessary to read the history in connection with what he himself has written”the songs of sore repentance,” which he “sang in sorrowful mood” (Dante). Psa 51:1-19 (see inscription), ‘The prayer of the penitent;’ the germ of which lay in this confession, but which was composed after the utterance of the word, “The Lord also hath put away thy sin;” for “the promise of forgiveness did not take immediate possession of his soul, but simply kept him from despair at first, and gave him strength to attain to a thorough knowledge of his guilt through prayer and supplication, and to pray for its entire removal that the heart might be renewed and fortified through the Holy Ghost” (Keil). “It is a generally acknowledged experience that there is often a great gulf between the objective word of forgiveness, presented from without, and its subjective appropriation by man, which hesitating conscience is unable to bridge without great struggles” (Tholuck). Psa 32:1-11; ‘The blessedness of forgiveness;’ written subsequently. Other psalms have been sometimes associated with his confession, viz. Psa 6:1-10; Psa 38:1-22.; three others, viz. Psa 102:1-28; Psa 130:1-8; Psa 143:1-12, make up “the seven penitential psalms.”

4. David is here set before us as “the model and ideal of and the encouragement to true penitence.” Consider his acknowledgment of sin as to

I. ITS MATTER; or the conviction, contrition, change of mind and will, which is expressed. For words alone are not properly confession in the view of him who “looketh at the heart.” Having, by means of the prophetic word, been led to enter into himself (Luk 15:17), and had his sin brought to remembrance (“the twin-brother of repentance”), its aggravation described and its punishment declared, he not only recognizes the fact of his sin; but also:

1. Looks at it as committed against the Lord; the living God, the Holy One of Israel; and not simply against man. “Thou hast despised me” (Psa 143:10). “For my transgressions do I know, And my sin is ever before me. Against thee only have I sinned, And done that which is evil in thine eyes,” etc. (Psa 51:3, Psa 51:4.)

2. Takes the blame of it entirely to himself, as individually responsible, inexcusable, and guilty; thus accepting the judgment of conscience, without indulging vain and misleading thoughts.

3. Feels sorrow, shame, and self-condemnation on account of its nature and enormity; transgression, iniquity, sin (Psa 32:1, Psa 32:2); rebellion against the supreme King, disobedience to his Law; debt, pollution, guile, leprosy, bloodguiltiness (Psa 51:14). He expresses no fear of consequences, and deprecates them only in so far as they include separation from God and loss of the blessings of his fellowship.

4. Puts it away from him with aversion and hatred, and purposes to forsake it completely (Pro 28:13); which confession implies and testifies.

“For mine iniquity will I confess;
I will be sorry for my sin.”

(Psa 38:18.)

II. ITS MANNER; or the evidence afforded of its sincerity by the language employed and the attendant circumstances. Observe:

1. Its promptness, readiness, and spontaneity. As soon as he became fully alive to his sin, he said, “I will confess my transgressions unto Jehovah” (Psa 32:5).

2. Its brevity. Two words only: “I-have-sinned against-Jehovah.” “There is in the Bible no confession so unconditional, no expression of repentance so short, but also none so thoroughly true” (Disselhoff). “Saul confessed his sin more largely, less effectually. God cares not for phrases, but for affections” (Hall).

3. Its frankness and fulness, without prevarication or extenuation. “The plain and simple confession, ‘I have sinned against God,’ is a great thing, if we remember how rich the corrupt heart is in the discovery of excuses and apparent justification, and that the king was assailed by one of his subjects with hard, unsparing rebuke” (Hengstenberg).

4. Its publicity. He had sought, to hide his sin, but he did not seek to hide his penitence. He would have it set “in the sight of this sun,” even as his chastisement would be; in order that the ways of God might be justified before men, and the evil effects of transgression upon them in some measure repaired. It is for this purpose, among others, that confession is made a condition of forgiveness (Job 33:27, Job 33:28; 1Jn 1:9). “The necessity of confession (to God) arises from the load of unacknowledged guilt. By confession we sever ourselves from our sin and we disown it. Confession relieves by giving a sense of honesty. So long as we retain sin unconfessed, we are conscious of a secret insincerity” (F.W. Robertson, vol. 5.).

III. ITS ACCOMPANIMENT; or the further thoughts, feelings, and purposes which should be present in every potential confession.

1. Faith in the “loving kindness and tender mercies” of God (Psa 51:1).

“But with thee is forgiveness,
That thou mayest be feared.”

(Psa 130:4, Psa 130:7.)

2. Prayer for pardon, purity, the Holy Spirit (1Sa 16:4-13); steadfastness, freedom, joy, and salvation (Psa 51:7-12).

3. Submission to the will of God (Psa 32:9; Psa 38:13).

4. Consecration to his service (Psa 51:13-17). “They were not many words which he spoke, but in them he owned two realitiessin and God. But to own them in their true meaningsin as against God, and God as the Holy One, and yet God as merciful and graciouswas to return to the way of peace. Lower than this penitence could not descend, higher than this faith could not rise; and God was Jehovah, and David’s sin was put away” (Edersheim). “It was not his sin, but his struggle with sin, which makes his history remarkable” (D. Macleod). “David experienced in a greater degree than any other Old Testament character the restlessness and desolation of a soul burdened with the consciousness of guilt, the desire for reconciliation with God, the struggle after purity and renovation of heart, the joy of fellowship, the heroic, the all-conquering power of confidence in God, the ardent love of a gracious heart for God; and has given in his psalms the imperishable testimony as to what is the fruit of the Law and what the fruit of the Spirit in man” (Oehler, ‘Theology of the Old Test.,’ 2:159). “The charm of his great name is broken. Our reverence for David is shaken, not destroyed. He is not what he was before; but he is far nobler and greater than many a just man who never fell and never repented. He is far more closely bound up with the sympathies of mankind than if he had never fallen” (Stanley). Even Bayle is constrained to say, “His amour with the wife of Uriah and the order he gave to destroy her husband are two most enormous crimes. But he was so grieved for them, and expiated them by so admirable a repentance, that this is not the passage in his life wherein he contributes the least to the instruction and edification of the faithful. We therein learn the frailty of saints, and it is a precept of vigilance; we therein learn in what manner we ought to lament our sins, and it is an excellent model.”D.

2Sa 12:13

(THE PALACE.)

The forgiveness of sin.

“And Nathan said unto David, The Lord also hath put away thy sin; thou shalt not die.”

“The absolver saw the mighty grief,

And hastened with relief;
‘The Lord forgives; thou shalt not die’
‘Twas gently spoke, yet heard on high,

And all the band of angels, us’d to sing
In heaven, accordant to his raptured string,

Who many a month had turned away
With veiled eyes, nor own’d his lay,

“Now spread their wings and throng around

To the glad mournful sound,
And welcome with bright, open face
The broken heart to love’s embrace.

The rock is smitten, and to future years
Springs ever fresh the tide of holy tears

And holy music, whispering peace
Till time and sin together cease.”
(Keble, ‘Sixth Sunday after Trinity.’)

In the interview of Nathan with David much may have passed which is not recorded. But it is improbable that (as some have supposed) there was a long interval between the confession of sin and the assurance of forgiveness, or that the latter was given at a second interview (2Sa 12:15). Perceiving the sincerity of the king’s repentance, the prophet forthwith declared that Jehovah also put away (literally, “caused to pass over,” 2Sa 24:10; Zec 3:4) his sin, remitting the penalty of death, which the Law appointed and himself had pronounced (2Sa 12:5); and became a messenger of mercy, “one of a thousand” (Job 33:23), as well as of judgment. “Where sin abounded, grace did much more abound.” Consider remission, pardon, forgiveness of sin, as

I. NEEDED BY A SINFUL MAN. Forgiveness of sin is a change of personal relation between God and man; in which there is:

1. Release from condemnation incurred by the latter, through his violation of Divine Law; the removal of the displeasure (2Sa 10:1-19 :27) and wrath (Psa 38:1) of God; the blotting out of transgressions (Psa 51:1; Psa 32:1, Psa 32:2; Isa 43:25; Rom 8:1); deliverance from death (Eze 18:21). Since “all have sinned,” all have need of it; but only those who are convinced of sin value, desire, and seek it. It also involves:

2. Restoration of communion with God; which is hindered by sin, as the light of the sun is intercepted by a cloud. “It is the foundation of all our communion with God here, and of all undeceiving expectations of our enjoyment of him hereafter” (Owen, in Psa 130:1-8.).

3. Renewal of the heart in righteousness; which, though separate from it in thought, is never so in reality, and which was longed for by David with the same intensity and prayed for in the same breath (Psa 51:9, Psa 51:10). How lamentable is the condition of that man on whom the wrath of eternal, holy love “abideth” (Joh 3:36) l

II. GRANTED BY A MERCIFUL GOD. Forgiveness of sin is an act or gift, which:

1. God alone can perform or bestow; the prerogative of the supreme Ruler, against whom it has been committed. “The Lord hath put away thy sin.” “To pardon sin is one of the jura regalia, the flowers of God’s crown” (T. Watson).

2. Proceeds from his abounding mercy and grace (Exo 34:7). “It is impossible this flower should spring from any other root” (Psa 51:1).

3. Rests upon an adequate ground or moral cause; which, although little known to David, was always present to the mind of God (1Pe 1:20), shadowed forth in the “mediatorial sovereignty” of former ages and manifested in Jesus Christ, “in whom we have forgiveness of sins” (Act 13:38; Eph 1:7).

“Here is the might,
And hero the wisdom, which did open lay
The path, that had been yearned for so long,
Betwixt the heaven and earth.”

(Dante, ‘Par.,’ 23.)

III. ANNOUNCED BY A FAITHFUL MINISTER. The prophet said not, “I forgive;” he simply declared what God had done or purposed to do (1Sa 15:28); and in this sense only can there be absolution by man. “To forgive sins is the part and inalienable prerogative of God. To absolve is to dispense and convey forgiveness to those who have the right dispositions of heart for receiving it; and this is the part of God’s messengers and representatives, whether under the Old or New dispensations” (E.M. Goulburn). The claim of any other power is a groundless assumption. The language employed in the New Testament refers either to cases of discipline in the Church, or to the declaration of the forgiving love of God, the reconciliation of God in Christ, and the assurance of its reality (Mat 18:15-20; Joh 20:23; 2Co 2:10); this assurance defending for its beneficial influence, on:

1. Its accordance with the revealed Word of God (Jer 23:28; Gal 1:8).

2. Its utterance by a faithful, holy, merciful servant of God, in his ministerial and representative character. “The power of absolution belonged to the Church, and to the apostle through the Church. It was a power belonging to all Christians: to the apostle, because he was a Christian, not because he was an apostle. A priestly power, no doubt, because Christ has made all Christians kings and priests” (F.W. Robertson, vol. 3.).

3. Its communication to and reception by such as are truly penitent. “The poet said with a great deal of justice, that no sinner is absolved by himself; yet, in another sense, the sinner is absolved by that very self-accusation; and, sorrowing for his sins, is freed from the guilt of them” (Leighton).

IV. APPROPRIATED BY A BELIEVING HEART. The inward assurance of the blessing of forgiveness:

1. Is usually gained through many struggles and fervent prayers. David prayed for pardon after the prophet’s assurance of it. “Psa 51:1-19. shows us how David struggles to gain an inward and conscious certainty of the forgiveness of sin, which was announced to him by Nathan” (Delitzsch). “Under the Old Testament none loved God more than he, none was loved by God more than he. The paths of faith and love wherein he walked are unto the most of us like the way of an eagle in the airtoo high and hard for us. Yet to this day do the cries of this man after God’s own heart sound in our ears” (Owen).

2. Is personally realized through faith in the Word inspired by God and declaring his mercy. “They that really believe forgiveness in God do thereby obtain forgiveness.”

3. Is commonly attended with peace, refreshment, and gladness, “sweet as the living stream to summer thirst.” Happy is he who can say from the heart, “I believe in the forgiveness of sins!”

“Blessed is he whose transgression is taken away,
Whose sin is covered;
Blessed is the man to whom
Jehovah doth not reckon iniquity,
And in whose spirit there is no guile.”

(Psa 32:1, Psa 32:2; Rom 4:7.)

D.

2Sa 12:14

(THE PALACE.)

Giving occasion to blaspheme.

“Nevertheless, because by this deed thou hast surely caused [literally, ‘causing,’ etc; ‘hast caused,’ etc.] the enemies of Jehovah to speak evil [‘despise,’ ‘contemn,’ ‘abhor,’ provoke,’ ‘blaspheme’],” etc. A scorner, being in company with a devout man, took occasion to speak contemptuously of those whom he called “the Old Testament saints,” and especially of David as “a man after God’s own heart,” asking, “And what did he do?” “He wrote the fifty-first psalm and the thirty-second,” was the reply; “and if you cherish such feelings as he there expresses, you will be a man after God’s own heart.” “But,” he persisted, “tell me what he did besides.” “He did that which the Prophet Nathan said would cause the enemies of God to blaspheme.'” The scorner felt the rebuke, and was silent. Even to this day the pernicious influence of his sin appears; but, on the other hand, the fact of its having been recorded is an evidence of, at least, the truthfulness of Scripture; whilst the invaluable lessons taught by it more than compensate for the evil effects it produces. “The sacred writer is perfectly aware of the tendency of this passage of David’s history, and yet he is not directed by the Holy Spirit to suppress it. It might have been suppressed. The failings of David are not less useful than his virtues, if we will only faithfully improve the warnings they afford us. It is only to the enemies of the Lord that they afford occasion of blasphemy. They, indeed, will never want occasion; and we are not to be denied the salutary examples which the Scriptures hold forth to us because there are those who wrest them to their own destruction. But it is chiefly in the failings of the good that the enemies of the Lord find cause of triumph” (Thompson, ‘Davidica’). Concerning the sin of David and other godly men, observe that

I. IT IS RENDERED ALL THE MORE CULPABLE AND CONSPICUOUS BY THEIR PREVIOUS EXALTATION. Culpable, inasmuch as their profession of godliness, especially when hired with eminent position, increases their responsibility, and furnishes special motives to a consistent course of conduct; conspicuous, inasmuch as their apparent superiority to others:

1. Attracts the attention of men to them more than others, and makes it impossible that their failings should pass unnoticed.

2. Naturally leads men to expect more from them than others.

3. Produces a deeper impression by the contrast exhibited between what is expected from them and what is actually done by them. The transgression of David was in itself great; but it was all the greater, in the view of men, because committed by one of his acknowledged piety, and “in the fierce light that beats upon the throne, and blackens every blot.”

II. IT IS CALCULATED TO EXERT A MOST INJURIOUS INFLUENCE ON OTHER MEN. The sin of every man has a baneful effect on his fellow men; but that of a godly man, in an eminent degree, by:

1. Causing them not only to despise him, but also others, who are associated and identified with him in religious faith and service, as (like him) unworthy of respect, insincere, and hypocritical.

2. Inciting them to contemn religion itself; doubt the Word of God, distrust the reality of piety everywhere, and even speak evil of God himself; wherein it is commonly implied that sin is sanctioned by religion, or at least is not prevented by it because of its essential weakness. A false impression of the requirements and character of God is given.

3. Lessening the restraints of holy example, hindering the acceptance of the truth, multiplying excuses for neglect, encouraging indulgence in sin.

4. Affording means of opposition to the faith, whereby others still are made to stumble. “This observation gives us a deep insight into the whole position of David. In him the good principle had attained to supremacy; the godless party had seen this with terror, and now they mocked piety in its representative, who, because he held this position, ought to have kept watch over his heart the more carefully, and afterwards made use of the first opportunity of throwing off the burdensome yoke” (Hengstenberg). “Towards the heathen Israel’s duty was, by obedience to God’s Word and commands, to set forth the theocracy, and bring it to honour and recognition. Transgressions of God’s command by the king himself must lead the heathen to heap shame and reproach on Israel and on Israel’s God” (Erdmann).

III. ITS INJURIOUS EFFECT ON OTHERS DEPENDS UPON THEIR OWN CHARACTER. It is only “the enemies of the Lord” who despise the Lord, his Word, or his people.

1. Their enmity disposes them to make use of the sin of another as a reason in favour of the course upon which their heart is already set; thus silencing the voice of conscience. increasing their pride and self-deception, and confirming themselves in unbelief and disobedience.

2. It also indisposes them to regard it in a proper manner; to consider the strength of his temptation, the depth of his penitence, the earnestness of his aspirations after righteousness; that the conduct of one man does not prove the character of all with whom he is associated, still less the truth of the religion they profess, or the character of the God they serve; that it may not be sanctioned by God, but forbidden, reproved, and punished by him; that it is not the standard of practice, which is found in the Law of God alone; and that “every man must give account of himself to God.” Those who stand may be led by it to take heed lest they fall, and those who fall to hope to rise again; but the enemies of the Lord see in it nothing but an excuse for persisting in the evil of their way. “Bees will collect honey and spiders poison from the same plant, according to their different natures” (Scott).

3. Their sin is not lessened by the sin of another, but rather increased by the use they make of it. Nevertheless, “all conduct of ours which tends in the slightest degree to strengthen that system of false reasoning, by which sinners confirm themselves in their sins, and undermine the faith and practice of others, is sin of the deepest dye” (Thompson).

IV. ALTHOUGH IT MAY BE PARDONED, IT CANNOT GO UNPUNISHED. “The child also that is born unto thee shall surely die.,

1. To manifest the justice and righteousness of God. The penalty of death which he had incurred was transferred from the guilty father to the innocent son.

2. To humble him more deeply on account of his sin, and to produce in him “the peaceable fruit of righteousness” (Heb 12:11). “For the most grievous sins a provision of mercy is so made as to secure long and humbling recollections of the aggravated guilt” (Halley).

3. To counteract the evil effects of his sin, and “that the visible occasion of any further blasphemy should be taken away.” “God in his wisdom did take away this child, because he should have lived but to be a shame unto David” (Willet). This was only the beginning of a long course of chastisement in his family (2Sa 13:1-39.), his person (Psa 41:1-13; Psa 55:1-23; Psa 39:1-13.), and his kingdom (ch, 14.). Judgment was mingled with mercy; yea, it was itself the chastisement of love. “What was the answer to his prayer? First, the death of Bathsheba’s child. Next, the discovery of hateful crimes in his household. Finally, the revolt of the beloved Absalom. These answers to a prayer for forgiveness? Yes, if forgiveness be what David took it to meanhaving truth in the inward parts, knowing wisdom secretly” (Maurice).D.

2Sa 12:15-23

(THE PALACE AND THE TABERNACLE.)

David’s behaviour in affliction.

In one of the chambers of David’s palace his little child lies smitten with a fatal malady. In another the king, divested of his royal robes and clothed in sackcloth, prostrates himself in profound sorrow and abasement. He prays, weeps, fasts, and lies all night upon the ground. His oldest and most confidential servants endeavour to comfort him, and beseech him to take food, in vain. At length the blow falls; and his servants fear to communicate the intelligence, lest it should plunge him into a dangerous paroxysm of grief. But their reserved demeanour and soft whispering among themselves indicate what has happened; and their answer to his question, “Is the child dead?” confirms his conclusion. Contrary to their expectation, however, he rises up, washes and anoints himself, puts on becoming garments, goes into the house of the Lord (the tabernacle adjoining the palace), and pours forth his heart in lowly adoration. Then, returning, he asks for bread, and eats. Astonished at his conduct, they inquire the reason of it; and he replies (in effect) that he has acted, not from thoughtlessness or indifference, but from a due regard to the will of God and the altered circumstances of the case. Whilst the life of the child hung in suspense, he might hope, by prayer and humiliation (since God deals with men according to their moral attitude toward him), to avert the threatening calamity; but now he is gone it is useless to indulge in lamentation; the will of God must be submitted to without repining (1Sa 3:18). “Those who are ignorant of the Divine life cannot comprehend the reasons of a believer’s conduct in his varied experiences” (Scott). “How little can any one of us understand another! The element of conscious sin gave to David thoughts and feelings other than the ordinary ones, and beyond the appreciation of those who looked for the usual signs of grief” (R. Tuck). “In the case of a man whose penitence was so earnest and so deep, the prayer for the preservation of his child must have sprung from some other source than excessive love of any created object. His great desire was to avert the stroke, as a sign of the wrath of God, in the hope that he might be able to discern, in the preservation of the child, a proof of Divine favour consequent upon the restoration of his fellowship with God. But when the child was dead he humbled himself under the mighty hand of God, and rested satisfied with his grace, without giving himself up to fruitless pain” (O von Gerlach). Consider

I. HIS BELIEVING RECOGNITION OF THE HAND OF GOD. “David was a great lover of his children” (Patrick); and to such a father the sufferings of his child must have been naturally a severe affliction. But:

1. He also perceived therein a just chastisement of his transgression. It is a common fact of experience that the sufferings of a child are often the immediate and inevitable fruit of the father’s sin. This is, indeed, by no means always the case. In most instances no moral cause thereof can be discerned, save the sinfulness of the race to which he belongs, and which is subject to the universal law of sorrow and mortality.

2. He perceived therein, moreover, a merciful administration of such chastisement. “Thou shalt not die. Howbeit,” etc. (2Sa 12:14). His life was spared in mercy to himself and his people. He was afflicted in such a manner as would be most conducive to his benefit. His child was smitten to stop the mouths of blasphemers. The innocent suffers for the guilty; sufferswho shall say (believing in the perfect wisdom, righteousness, and love of God) either unjustly or to his own ultimate disadvantage?

3. And he believed in the Divine susceptibility to human entreaty; and that it might be possible for the impending blow to be turned aside. “Who can tell whether God will be gracious to me?” (2Sa 12:22). He evidently regarded the prediction of the prophet, though absolute in form, as really conditional (Isa 38:1; Jer 18:7, Jer 18:8). We have to do, not with an iron fate, but with a loving Father, “full of pity and merciful” (Jas 4:11; Psa 34:15; Psa 103:13).

II. HIS PRAYERFUL HUMILIATION IN THE PRESENCE OF GOD.

1. His grief was not merely natural, but spiritual; penitential sorrow for sin, exhibited in solitary, thoughtful, continued self-abasement, fasting, weeping, and genuine purposes of amendment (Psa 51:3, Psa 51:4, Psa 51:13). This is the end of God’s afflictive discipline; and, when attained, it may be hoped that the immediate occasion thereof will be removed. Even when affliction is not directly due to personal transgression, it should lead to reflection, humiliation and “godly sorrow”

2. It was associated with fervent supplication. And David besought God for the child” (2Sa 12:16). “He herein only showed his natural affection, still subordinating his prayer to the will of God; as Christ did to show his human condition when he prayed that the cup might pass from him” (Wilier). What evils does prayer avert, what blessings does it obtain, both for ourselves and others!

3. Although the immediate object in view was not gained, his prayer was not unavailing. He received light, strength, and comfort; was kept from despair and enabled to endure in a right spirit whatever might occur. God always hears the cries of his children; but he often withholds what they ask. He fulfils their requests in a higher way, transforms the curse into a blessing, and gives them abundant tokens of his favour (2Sa 12:25). “If we ask anything according to his will, he heareth us,” etc. (1Jn 5:14, 1Jn 5:15).

III. HIS CHEERFUL ACQUIESCENCE IN THE WILL OF GOD. “And David arose from the ground,” etc. (2Sa 12:20). Deeming it vain to strive against and mourn over an event which could not be altered, and which he regarded as the expression of the settled determination of God (Deu 3:26), he acted accordingly:

1. With loyal submission to his sovereign, wise, and beneficent will; strengthened by the conviction that he himself would, ere long, “go the way of all the earth,” and be at rest; and by the hope of meeting his child again in God (2Sa 12:23). “Religion,” it has been remarked, “is summed up in one wordsubmission. The chief virtue of Christianity and the root of all the rest is readiness under all circumstances to fulfil the will of God in doing and suffering.”

2. With resolute restraint upon his natural feelings of sorrow and regret. “The unprofitable and bad consequences, the sinful nature, of profuse sorrowing for the dead, are easily deduced from the former part of this reflection (‘Wherefore should I fast?’ etc.); in the latter (‘I shall go to him’) we have the strongest motives to enforce our striving against ita remedy exactly suited to the disease” (John Wesley).

3. With cheerful performance of immediate, practical, appropriate duties; in due attention to personal appearance and needs, public worship in the house of God (“weeping must not hinder worship”), edifying conversation with friends, consoling counsel to the sorrowful (2Sa 12:24). In this manner bereavement is most easily borne and most effectually sanctified, and God is most worthily served and glorified.D.

2Sa 12:23

(THE PALACE.)

The death of a child.

“I shall go to him.” David had at least a glimpse of the future life. The expectation of going to his child in the grave would have afforded him little comfort. But whatever meaning may be attached to the words as uttered by him, they may be profitably considered by us in the light of the gospel. Reason sheds only starlight on the future; the revelations of the Old Testament only twilight; but Jesus Christ, the Sun of Righteousness, illumines it with daylight. The Christian parent, bereaved of his little child, has

I. THE PERSUASION OF THE CONTINUED EXISTENCE OF THE DEPARTED, in the unseen, spiritual, eternal world, “the Father’s house;” where he:

1. Retains his conscious personality (neither ceasing to be, nor “swallowed up in the general sea of being”).

2. Attains the highest perfection of which his nature is capable (his capacities of knowledge, holiness, and happiness being gradually developed).

3. Remains in permanent security (forever freed from the temptations and sorrows of this life). On what grounds does such a persuasion rest?

(1) The nature of a childspiritual, immortal, blameless, “having no knowledge between good and evil” (Deu 1:39).

(2) The character of God; his justice and benevolence, and his fatherly relationship (Jer 19:4; Eze 16:21; Joe 2:16; Jon 4:11), which, though consistent with the suffering of the innocent in this world (because of the beneficent purposes to which it is subservient), is not so with their final condemnation.

(3) The teachings and actions of Christ, and his redemptive work (Mat 18:1-14; Mat 19:13-15; Mat 21:16; 1Co 15:22). “They belong to the kingdom of heaven.” Whatever disadvantages they suffer from their relation to Adam are more than surpassed by the abounding grace of God in Christ. “He shall gather the lambs with his arm, and carry them in his bosom” (Isa 40:11).

II. THE ANTICIPATION OF FUTURE REUNION WITH THE DEPARTED; implying:

1. Hope of personal salvation on the part of him who cherishes it.

2. Belief in the individual recognition of those who are known on earth.

“I have heard you say
That we shall see and know our friends in heaven
If that be true, I shall see my boy again.”

(‘King John,’ act 3. sc. 4.)

3. Expectancy of common participation in the heavenly fellowship, service, and joy of the Lord.

“Ah! thy merciless stern mercy hath chastised us,

Goading us along the narrow road;

Thy bird, who warmed and dazzled us a moment

Hath returned to thine abode.

Lord, when we are purged within the furnace,

May we have our little child again?

All thine anguish by the olives in the garden,

All thy life and death are vain,
If thou yield us not our own again!”
(Reden Noel, ‘A Little Child’s Monument.’)

III. CONSOLATION IN THE PAINFUL LOSS OF THE DEPARTED; derived from what has been said, the fact that it comes from a Father’s hand, and the benefits which it brings by

(1) teaching patience in the trials of life;

(2) moderating attachment to its blessings;

(3) spiritualizing affection for those who are left;

(4) intensifying desire for the heavenly home.

“Let us consider to whom they have gone, from what they have been taken, for what they have been taken, and how this bereavement will appear to us when we come to die ourselves” (W.M. Taylor).

“‘Tis sorrow builds the shining ladder up,
Whose golden rounds are our calamities.”

D.

2Sa 12:24, 2Sa 12:25

(JERUSALEM.)

The birth of Solomon.

(References: 1 Kings 1-11; 1 Chronicles 22-29; 2 Chronicles 1-9.; Psa 72:1-20; Pro 1:1; Ecc 1:1; So Ecc 1:1.) Where a while ago a dead child lay amidst signs of grief, there now lies a living child amidst signs of gladness. In him David sees a gift of God, an answer to prayer which seemed to be denied, “a pledge of pardon and a sign of hope.” In him we see one who was destined to become the wisest of men, the most glorious of monarchsSolomon (whose name occurs only here and 2Sa 5:14, in this book)

“The lofty light, endow’d
With sapience so profound, if truth be truth,
That with a ken of such wide amplitude
No second hath arisen.”

(Dante, ‘Par.,’ 10.)

Notice:

1. His parentage. David, Bathsheba; from whom he inherited physical strength and beauty, mental and moral qualities, a piercing insight, large heartedness, skill in ruling, sensuous susceptibilities, etc; royal rank and privileges. “The history of a man’s childhood is the description of his parents’ environment” (Carlyle).

2. His birth. After David’s fall, repentance, and forgiveness, and the death of his unnamed infant (see, however, 1Ch 3:5); when Rabbah had fallen, peace was established, and prosperity abounded. The time was propitious.

3. His name. (1Sa 1:20.) “And he called his name Solomon” (equivalent to “the man of peace,” “pacific,” Friedrich), “because he regarded his birth as a pledge that he should now become a partaker again of the peace of God” (Keil); or perhaps in allusion to the peaceful condition of the kingdom and “from the wish that peace might be allotted him as a gift of God, in contrast with the wars of his father’s life” (Erdmann; 2Sa 7:12; 1Ch 22:9). “And Jehovah loved him,” and spared his life, in contrast with that of the dead child. “And he [Jehovah] sent by the hand [through] Nathan the prophet; and he [Nathan] called his name Jedid-jah [Jedid equivalent to ‘David,’ ‘darling;’ ‘beloved of Jah,’ his own name being combined with that of Jehovah], because of the Lord,” who loved him; “a practical declaration on the part of Jehovah that the Lord loved Solomon, from which David could and was intended to discern that the Lord had blessed his marriage with Bathsheba. Jedidiah, therefore, was not actually adopted as Solomon’s name” (Keil). “The pious father, in his happiness, entreated the oracle, through Nathan, to confer on the newborn child some name of lofty import, and Solomon, as his parents called him, received through the prophet the glorious additional name of Jedidiah. The sadness of the fate of his first child rendered the omens under which the second stepped into its place the more auspicious; and we can easily understand that of all his sons this one became the dearest” (Ewald).

4. His education; or the influences that went to form his character; of Nathan, to whom it may have been entrusted; of David, during his declining years; of Bathsheba (2Sa 11:3); of a home and court where polygamy prevailed; of all the learning of the age; of the revolt of Absalom, and other public events. “A shepherd life, like his father’s, furnished, we may believe, a better education for his kingly calling. Born to the purple, there was the inevitable risk of a selfish luxury. Cradled in liturgies, trained to think chiefly of the magnificent ‘palace’ of Jehovah, of which he was to be the builder, there was the danger first of an aesthetic formalism, and then of ultimate indifference” (Smith, ‘Dict. of the Bible’).

5. His prospects, after the death of Absalom, if not even before (2Sa 7:12; 1Ch 22:9; 1Ki 1:13); his accession and eminence.

6. His closing years.

7. His prefigurement, not in personal character but royal office, of “the Prince of Peace” “We must not confine our view to David’s personal life and reign. After we have seen him fallen and suffering for sin, we must see him rising again and reviving in a more glorious reign, in Solomon his son, who began to reign while David his father was still alive, in order that the continuity might be more clearly marked. And above all, we must contemplate him as culminating upward and attaining the climax of his glory, which God had revealed to him, and for which he yearned with devout aspiration, in Christ, the Divine David and the Son of David, the Solomon, the Jedidiab, the Builder of the Church visible on earth and glorified in heaven” (Wordsworth).D.

2Sa 12:26-31

(1Ch 20:1-8 :l-3)

The fall of Rabbah.

This event, which occurred after a two years’ siege, between the fall of David and his repentance, presents several significant contrasts.

1. Material success associated with moral failure. His army victorious, his enterprise terminating in triumph; David himself overcome by temptation, and troubled with a guilty conscience. Worldly success and prosperity are no true measure of moral worth and inward peace and happiness.

2. Praiseworthy conduct displayed by an unworthy character. Having captured the lower city, Joab, before attacking the citadel, “sent messengers,” etc. (2Sa 12:27). The politic general may have wished to escape the envy and secure the favour of the king; apparently, however, his conduct exhibited consideration for the honour of his master, modesty, and humility. Even the worst men have some good qualities, and often perform excellent actions. “It is possible for a man to be faithful to some one person, and perfidious to others. I do not find Joab other than firm and loyal to David in the midst of all his private falsehoods” (Hall).

3. A disastrous end following a presumptuous beginning. (2Sa 12:29.) In this city the great conflict was commenced, wantonly, proudly, and contemptuously (2Sa 10:1-4). On the king (slain in battle) and the people a terrible retribution fell; and their confidence in Moloch (Malcom)was disappointed.

4. Excessive severity practised by a generous minded ruler (2Sa 12:31); not sanctioned by God; but expressive of David’s present temper (2Sa 11:22-27), and demanded by the excitement of popular indignation.

(1) The cruel conduct of the Ammonites (l Samuel 2Sa 11:2; Amo 1:8);

(2) the common practices of the age;

(3) an intense zeal against idolatry;

(4) the strong conviction of being an appointed instrument of executing Divine vengeance (Psa 149:7);may palliate the culpability, though they cannot justify the procedure of David; which, in the light of truth and righteousness, must be condemned and regarded as a blot upon his great renown. This proceeds on the assumption of the correctness of the explanation usually given of the text, which is by no means certain (see critical Commentaries).D.

HOMILIES BY G. WOOD

2Sa 12:5-7

Unconscious self-condemnation.

Great sinners are generally able to discern and condemn in others wickedness similar to their own. This gives an advantage to those who would convince them of their sins. Nathan made use of it in dealing with David, and with good effect.

I. NATHAN‘S PARABLE. It presents a picture of conduct sufficiently like that of David to prepare the way for his self-condemnation, and yet so far different that its drift should not be at once detected. It is a picture of:

1. Gross covetousness. For a poor man to covet some part of a rich man’s abundance is natural, though wrong; but for a rich man to covet the little of a poor man is monstrous wickedness. Such had been David’s conduct towards Uriah.

2. Robbery.

3. Oppression of the weak by the strong.

4. Violation of feelings which should have been tenderly respected. The attachment of the poor man to his pet lamb. The counterpart was the affection of Uriah for his wife, and, till she was seduced, of the wife for her husband.

II. ITS EFFECT ON THE KING. It seems surprising that he did not at once see the prophet’s meaning and intention. Perhaps Nathan had been accustomed to come to him to plead the cause of the injured who could obtain no redress otherwise, and David imagined this to be his errand now. Besides, it was a good while since David’s sins were committed; yet the prophet had hitherto been silent about them, and would the less be suspected of coming to administer reproof for them now. Hence, all unconsciously, he:

1. Displayed hot anger against the wrong doer.

2. Passed a severe sentence upon him; saying that he deserved death, and condemning him to the fourfold restitution which the Law required (Exo 22:1)a remarkable illustration of Rom 2:1. Had he been aware that he was passing sentence upon himself, he would probably have been less severe. Or if he had remembered his own greater crimes, he would hardly so harshly have condemned a man whose crime was so much less heinous. But it is no uncommon thing for great offenders to be harsh in their judgment of others who are far less culpable than themselves.

III. NATHAN‘S REJOINDER.

1. He applied to David himself the judgment he had pronounced. “Thou art the man!” With what terrific fore this must have fallen upon the king’s ears! He was self-convicted, self-condemned. To such self-condemnation it should be the aim of religious teachers to lead their hearers. It is not permissible, indeed, unless in very extreme cases, to address individuals in public in such words as Nathan’s to David; but the preacher’s work is not effectually done until each hearer whose sin is described is brought to say to himself, “I am the man!” To use the language of a great preacher of a former generation (Robert Hall), “Without descending to such a minute specification of circumstances as shall make our addresses personal, they ought unquestionably to be characteristic, that the conscience of the audience may feel the hand of the preacher searching it, and every individual know where to class himself. The preacher who aims at doing good will endeavour, above all things, to insulate his hearers, to place each of them apart, and render it impossible for him to escape by losing himself in the crowd. At the day of judgment, the attention excited by the surrounding scene, the strange aspect of nature, the dissolution of the elements, and the last trump, will have no other effect than to cause the reflections of the sinner to return with a more overwhelming tide on his own character, his sentence, his unchanging destiny; and amid the innumerable millions who surround him, he will mourn apart. It is thus the Christian minister should endeavour to prepare the tribunal of conscience, and turn the eyes of every one of his hearers on himself.” Hearers should welcome such preaching, and thank God for the convictions it produces, as a necessary step in the process of their salvation.

2. He faithfully delivered God’s message to him.

(1) Reminding him of the great kindness of God to him.

(2) Charging him distinctly with his crimes.

(3) Pronouncing upon him the Divine sentence.

In the whole interview, Nathan acted with singular courage, and fidelity to him who sent him.

IV. THE RESULT. David’s frank and penitent confession of his sin; and his pardon. Had he been utterly hardened, he might have resented the prophet’s faithfulness, dismissed him with anger, or even ordered him to prison or death. But the workings of his own conscience had prepared him to recognize the justice of Nathan’s words; and these now melted into contrition the long burdened yet stubborn heart, which at length found relief in the brief but sincere words, “I have sinned against the Lord;” to which the prophet was able to return the consoling reply, “The Lord also hath put away thy sin; thou shalt not die” (comp. Psa 32:3-5).

Learn:

1. The duty of reproving sin in others. (Le 19:17.)

2. The value of a minister or other friend faithful enough to administer reproof.

3. The responsibility which attaches to the Tower to discern and condemn sin in others.

(1) It should induce us to avoid the sins which we condemn, and others like them.

(2) It increases our guilt if we commit such sins.

(3) It ought to induce hearty self-condemnation and penitence when we fall into them. The indignation we feel against the sins of others should be turned on our own, in dealing with which there is more hope than in endeavouring to convince and reform our neighbours; besides which, when we have forsaken our own sins, we shall be better fitted to reprove and amend other offenders (see Mat 7:4, Mat 7:5).

4. The goodness of God in first sending reprovers to warn and convert, rather than inflicting swift punishment.G.W.

2Sa 12:9

Despising the commandments of God.

David, by his grievous sins, had virtually shown contempt for the well-known commandments of God against coveting the wife of another, and against adultery and murder. Hence the force of this remonstrance. It may be properly addressed to all who in any way show contempt for any of the Divine commandments; to all men, therefore, since all are in some respects and in some degree guilty of this sin.

I. WHO MAY BE SAID TO DESPISE THE COMMANDMENTS OF GOD?

1. Those who take no pains to know and understand them. Who do not think it worth while to inquire, in reference to their course of life, their duty to others, or any particular action, or even their religious faith and observances, what the will of God is; but are content to follow without question the customs of the world around them, or their own inclinations and habits.

2. Those who refuse to give heed when their attention is called to them. Which may be by their own consciences, or by other men.

3. Those who disobey them. And the degree of contempt shown by disobedience will be in proportion to

(1) their knowledge;

(2) their remembrance, at the time, of the commandment, its Author, and its sanctions;

(3) the difficulties of disobedience which have to be overcome; and

(4) the remonstrances of conscience, and of the Spirit of God, which are resisted and conquered.

II. THEIR SIN AND FOLLY. They may be addressed as the prophet addressed David, “Wherefore,” etc.

1. What rational ground have you for doing it? Seeing the commandment

(1) is “of the Lord,” who has the highest right to the obedience of his creatures;

(2) proceeds from the perfect reason and the infinite love; and therefore

(3) is adapted to promote the good of each and all. “The Law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good (Rom 7:12). Consider any particular commandment you have disregarded, and you will see that all this is true of it; and that, therefore, your conduct is foolish and wicked.

2. How can “you” do it? Who have been laid under obligations so weighty by the kindness of God; who know so well his character, claims, and laws; who have so often and in such various ways professed love and loyalty to him; who are bound by so many considerations to set a good example; or (as in David’s case) are appointed to be an upholder of law, a guardian of innocence, a protector of the public morals.

3. How “dare” you do it? In view of the shame and moral injury you bring on yourself; the evil you do to others; the terrible threatenings of the Word of God against sinners; his knowledge of all you do; his awful holiness and justice; and his almighty power to execute his threatenings. In view also of death, and of the day of judgment, when your most secret sins will be brought to light and punished.G.W.

2Sa 12:10

Despisers of God.

“Thou hast despised me.” In the dreadful sins of which David had been guilty he had treated God with contempt. He had treated as of no account all the kindness of God to him; had disregarded his claims; shown contempt practically for his authority, his precepts, his observance of his conduct, his justice and its penalties, his favour, his voice in the conscience. The charge brought against David may be brought against many who are not guilty of gross and flagrant crimes like his.

I. WHO ARE GUILTY OF DESPISING GOD?

1. All sin involves contempt of him. It shows:

(1) Indifference as to his Being and perfections. If the sinner does not boldly say, “no God,” he practically ignores him, leaves him out of account in his conduct, and treats his presence and observation of him, his hatred to sin, his threatened judgments, as of no importance, not worthy of serious consideration (see Psa 10:13).

(2) Contempt for his authority.

(3) Despisal of his kindness (Rom 2:4).

(4) Contempt of his wisdom, as expressed in his laws. As if the sinner thought he could guide and govern himself better than God.

(5) Disesteem of his favour and friendship.

2. Certain kinds of sin may be mentioned as showing such contempt.

(1) Unthankfulness and discontent. As if God’s gifts were not worth having.

(2) Rejection of Christ and salvationhis best gifts, in which he appears more fully and manifestly than in aught else. “He that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me” (Luk 10:16). “Hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace” (Heb 10:29).

(3) Neglect of the Holy Scriptures. In them God comes to instruct us, to make us partakers of his own wisdom, to make known his will, etc. To neglect them is to show contempt of him.

(4) Negligence as to his service. As to the hours and exercises of devotion. God invites us to converse with him, to make known our requests, with the promise of gracious answers. To disregard prayer, or offer unreal worship, is to treat him with contempt: He is most worthy to be praised. To decline to praise him, or to praise in words only, is to despise him. In the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper he comes specially near to us, to commune with us in Christ, to feed us with the body and blood of his Son. To turn away from the holy feast, or come with hypocrisy, or with hearts or hands stained with unrepented sin, is to treat him with contempt. And in more active life, to be slovenly, slothful, indifferent; to offer him a half-hearted service; to present him with niggard offerings; is to show grievous disrespect to him (see Mal 1:6-8).

(5) Contempt for his people, or any of them. As if the godly were necessarily fanatical. Or because they may be feeble, or inexperienced (Mat 18:10), or poor (Jas 2:6). Or because they differ from us in judgment or observances (Rom 14:3, Rom 14:10). “He that despiseth you, despiseth me” (Luk 10:16).

II. THEIR FOLLY AND WICKEDNESS. Considering:

1. Who is despised. “Me.” The infinite Majesty, the Source and Sustainer of all beings, the Giver of all good, the Creator, Preserver, and Benefactor of those who despise him, without whom they have nothing and can do nothing; perfect in all that is good, and worthy of all esteem and love; who is reverenced, adored, loved, and served by the loftiest intelligences, by all the wise and good in all worlds; the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, in whom all that is glorious in holiness and love appears, revealing the glorious excellences of God.

2. Who is the despiser. “Thou.” So ignorant, so needy, so dependent, so greatly blessed, so sinful, so perverted in mind and heart, and incapable, while untaught of God, of judging aright as to the best things. It is the creature despising his Creator, folly despising wisdom, weakness despising Omnipotence, the lost despising his Deliverer, the destitute despising him who would enrich him with everlasting riches.

3. The contrast between him who is despised and the things which are valued. God is rejected and treated as of little or no account; while things which are worthless or injurious, or which if valuable have only a limited and transient worth, are highly prized and pursued as if of supreme worth and importance.

4. What is involved in despising God. It is to despise ourselves, our own souls and their salvation, the true riches and honour, our true and everlasting happiness, eternal life, all that most deserves to be valued.

III. THEIR DOOM.

1. To be themselves despised. “They that despise me shall be lightly esteemed” (1Sa 2:30). They shall rise “to shame and everlasting contempt” (Dan 12:2), exposed and regarded as fools, and treated as worthless. “Reprobate silver shall men call them, because the Lord hath rejected them” (Jer 6:30).

2. To find by wretched experience how real and how essential to their happiness is he whom they have slighted. To learn the value of his favour by the irreparable loss of it. The sin of despising him they will no longer be able to commit. But the doom may be averted by repentance, as David’s case teaches (2Sa 12:13).G.W.

2Sa 12:13

Confession and pardon.

Two things are very surprising in this narrativethe awful wickedness of David, and the abounding mercy of God.

I. DAVID‘S CONFESSION. It was:

1. Very prompt. The prophet’s address awakened no resentment. There was no attempt at evasion, palliation, or self-justification. How could there be? He at once acknowledged his sin. This was the result, not only of Nathan’s faithful reproof, but of the king’s own previous mental exercises. The time which had elapsed since the commission of his sins, or some part of it, had been a sorrowful time for him. Burdened with conscious guilt, but not subdued to contrition, he had been wretched (see Psa 32:3, Psa 32:4). Nathan’s admonitions completed the work; the king’s heart was melted to penitence, and he unburdened his soul by a frank confession.

2. Very brief. Like the prayer of the publican (Luk 18:13). When the heart is fullest, the words are fewest. Not the length of a confession, but its meaning and sincerity, are the important thing. It is so with confessions of men to each other: a word, a look, or an action without a word, is often sufficient, always better than a long speech.

3. Very appropriate. Acknowledged sinsin “against the Lord.” Nathan had laid stress on this point, and David responds accordingly. He had grievously wronged Uriah, Bathsheba too, and had sinned against the people under his rule; but most had he sinned against God. Hence his language in Psa 51:4. Only as sin is thus viewed is “godly sorrow” possible.

II. HIS FORGIVENESS. Which was:

1. Immediate. It startles us that so great a sinner should have been so speedily pardoned, so soon assured of pardon. We might have deemed some delay more suitable. But God is ever ready to forgive; he waits only for the sinner’s penitent confession. There is no reason for delay of forgiveness except the sinner’s impenitence and unbelief. The moment these are subdued, pardon is granted. This was assured by the promises of the Old Testament, such as Isa 55:7. In the New we have the same assurances, and the difficulties which arise from the penitent sinner’s conviction of the rightness of the punishment threatened to transgressors (his conscience being on the side of the Divine justice) are removed by the atoning sacrifice of Christ.

2. Free. Burdened with no conditions, no demand for penances, or compensations, or sin offerings. The sin was too serious for these. So David felt (Psa 51:16). Only a perfectly free pardon could meet the case. New love and service would follow; but these would spring from gratitude for forgiveness, not from the expectation of securing it. The attempt to merit or earn pardon for past transgressions by voluntary sufferings, by multiplied prayers or ceremonies, or by future obedience, is absurd on the face of it, and as contrary to the Old Testament as to the New. It was to the “multitude of God’s tender mercies” (Psa 51:1) that David appealed; and it is to the same abounding grace as shown in the gospel that we must trust.

3. Declared. Nathan pronounced the king’s absolution: “The Lord also hath put away thy sin; thou shalt not die.” Men would like a similar assurance to themselves individually; and the system of some Churches is constructed to meet this wish. On confession of sin to a priest, he pronounces absolution. But this practice is unwarranted and delusive. Confessedly the absolution is worthless unless the sinner be truly penitent; and if he be, it is useless; and in multitudes of cases it is most pernicious, fostering baseless hopes. If men could read the heart, or had, like Nathan, a special message of pardon from God in each case, they might safely pronounce absolution. But in ordinary cases none can know the reality of repentance until it is proved by the life; and therefore none can safely assure the sinner of his actual forgiveness until such assurance is needless. The repenting sinner, coming to God by faith in Jesus Christ, is assured of pardon

(1) by the promises of God, and

(2) by the Spirit of God in his heart applying the promises to the individual and enabling him to confide in them, and commencing in him the Christian life. A new heart is given with pardon; and this, with its fruit in the conduct, becomes a growing evidence of pardon.

4. Yet with a reservation. The penalty of death, to which David had virtually condemned himself, was remitted; but other penalties were not. One was specifically mentionedthe death of the child (verse 14); and the others, denounced (Isa 55:10-12) before the confession and forgiveness, we know from the subsequent history were inflicted. And it is often the case that the painful consequences of sin continue long after pardon is granted, perhaps till death. Shall we say, then, that the forgiveness is not real and full? By no means. But because it is real and full the pardoned sinner must suffer. Suffering, however, changes its character. As from Gad, it is no longer penal infliction, but fatherly chastisement and discipline

(1) to maintain a salutary remembrance of the sin, and produce constant gratitude and humility;

(2) to preserve in obedience and promote holiness;

(3) to vindicate to others the justice of God, and warn them against sin. And as to the penitent himself, his suffering produces no bitterness, abjectness, or sullenness. Love to him that chastises, kept alive by the sense of his forgiving and fatherly love, enables him to yield himself to the chastisement, thankful, resigned, acquiescent, and earnestly seeking to realize the intended profit.

In conclusion:

1. Admire, adore, trust, and proclaim the pardoning love of God.

2. Let sinners repent of, confess, and forsake their sins, that they may obtain forgiveness. For, notwithstanding the love of God and the sacrifice of Christ, no impenitent sinner shall be forgiven.

3. Let no penitent despair. Not even the backslider, and though his sins have been as bad as David’s.

4. Let none presume. One of the worst and most persistent consequences of David’s sin and pardon has been the encouragement to sin, which foolish and wicked persons have derived from them, orshall we say?pretended to derive. For so foolish and impious is it to turn the narrative to such a purpose that it is difficult to believe in the sincerity of those who do so. Rather they love their sins, and are glad of anything that may quiet somewhat their consciences in committing them. Let any such consider that the proper effect of the narrative is to render sin odious and to awaken a dread of it; and that the sins of those who read it and persist in sin are rendered doubly guilty. Such are hardening their hearts and promoting in themselves incapacity to repent, and so incapability of being forgiven.G.W.

2Sa 12:14

Religion reproached through the conduct of the religious.

David’s wickedness gave occasion for reproach of religion by the ungodly among his subjects, and by the heathen peoples around. Indeed, it occasions blasphemy and contempt of religion down to the present day.

I. CONDUCT WHICH OCCASIONS CONTEMPT AND REPROACH OF RELIGION. The conduct must be that of professedly religious men, and the more strict their profession, and the more prominent their position, so much the greater the mischief they do.

1. Great inconsistency between profession and conduct. Gross immorality, fraud, falsehood, avarice, intemperance, hasty temper, revenge, etc.

2. Unworthy presentation of religion itself. Ignorant rant, unctuous cant, too much insistence on mere doctrinal refinements which have little or no bearing on practical life, elaborate ceremonialism, fierce strife in a Church, sectarian bitterness and exclusiveness, indifference to the well being of the general population, clerical pretensions, ambition, or avarice,all in their various ways and degrees occasion “the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme.”

II. THE CLASS OF PERSONS LED THEREBY TO DESPISE AND REPROACH RELIGION. “The enemies of the Lord.” Not his friends; they know too well the value of religion; reverence and love it too much. The effect of such conduct on them is sorrow, self-examination, and greater watchfulness and prayer, lest they also should be overcome by temptation. Also prayer and effort (if possible) to restore those who have sinned. To take occasion from the inconsistencies of Christians to despise and revile their religion is a manifest sign of enmity to God. It is also a mark of great ignorance of the religion they revile; for, did they understand it, they would perceive its opposition to the sins and follies of its professed adherents; and that its truth and goodness remained the same, whatever their conduct. Or, if it be said that it is only the profession of religion that is spoken of with contempt, it is plainly unjust to cast a slur on all who make it because of the sins of a few of their number.

III. THE SERIOUS EVILS THUS WROUGHT.

1. The slanderers are themselves injured. To occasion them to blaspheme is to occasion the increase of their guilt, and the greater hardening of their hearts; whereas it should be the aim of good men to do all that is possible to bring them to the knowledge of the truth and the experience of salvation.

2. Discredit is brought upon religion. Hence some who might have been disposed to inquire into its claims, and others who were preparing to make an open profession of godliness, are deterred from doing so. In this view the inconsistencies of Christians are a serious matter. They help to promote in society a sentiment adverse to earnest godliness and the profession of it.

3. The hearts of true-hearted and consistent Christians are wounded and distressed.

4. Above all, and including all, the Name of God is dishonoured, and the progress of his kingdom checked.

Finally, let inconsistent professors of religion ponder the words of our Lord (Mat 18:7, Revised Version), “Woe unto the world because of occasions of stumbling] for it must needs be that the occasions come; but woe to that man through whom the occasion cometh!”G.W.

2Sa 12:22, 2Sa 12:23

An infant’s illness and death.

This part of the narrative introduces us to a spectacle which, in its main features, is common enough. A child sickening and dying, a parent striving with God in prayer and fasting for its life, but striving in vain. But there are peculiar circumstances here which give the scene a special interest.

I. THE CHILD‘S FATAL SICKNESS.

1. The cause of it. The sufferings and deaths of little children are painful to witness, and awaken many questionings. Why should these innocent lambs suffer? Why should the sinless die? To which we may reply, Why should they not, seeing that to them death is an escape from a world of sin and misery, with its awful possibilities of evil, into the world of perfect and eternal purity, safety, and bliss? Resides, he who gave life may take it at his pleasure. Holy Scripture throws some further light upon the mystery. It teaches us in general, that, death came into the world through sin. Children die because they belong to a sinful, dying race. Their deaths are part of the penalty of the sins of men. In them the innocent suffer for the guilty, because of their guilt, and to promote their deliverance from sin. Amongst the forces at work to promote repentance and holiness, not the least powerful are the deaths of little children. God thus finds a way to the hearts of parents and their surviving children. In the case of David we have express Divine explanation of the death of the babe (2Sa 12:14). It was inflicted on account of the sin to which it owed its existence, and to vindicate the justice of God as against the blasphemies of his enemies. And not unfrequently now the child’s death is the direct consequence and penalty of the sins of its father or mother. But in such cases, as in David’s, love is revealed as well as righteousness. “The Lord struck” David’s child, not only to show his displeasure at David’s sin, but to deepen his penitence, and promote his godliness and holiness.

2. Its effect on David. It might have seemed probable that, when the babe was taken ill, the father, while not actually desiring its death, would at least not have been much grieved at the prospect of it. For it was a child of shame, and as long as it lived would be a perpetual reminder of the dreadful past, and would keep alive the memory of it in the court and nation. And it is a striking proof of the tenderness and strength of the monarch’s affections that the prospect of the death of his little boy was so distressing to him. Partly, however, his intense longing that the child’s life should be spared sprang probably from the feeling that this would be a fresh assurance to him that his sins were forgiven. In his distress he resorted to prayer for the child’s restoration. How could he do this, seeing Nathan had expressly told him that it should certainly die? It seems that Divine announcements of punishments were not regarded as irrevocable, however positive their terms. Compare the eases of Hezekiah (2Ki 20:1-6) and of Nineveh (Jon 3:4-10). So David said, “Who can tell whether God will be gracious to me, that the child may live?” and he persevered in prayer and fasting and self-humiliation until the death of the child extinguished all hope. He “went in” to a retired part of his palace, and east himself on the ground, beseeching God for the child, and fasting (2Sa 12:16); and in these exercises he continued day and night, until on the seventh day the child died (2Sa 12:18). Doubtless, during that period of solitary communion with God, not only (lid he pray for the child’s life, but reflected much on his sins, indulged anew his peuitential grief, prayed for forgiveness and a cleansed heart, surrendered himself and his babe to the Divine will, sought strength to endure whatever might be before him, and grace to derive lasting profit from all that he was passing through, whatever the issue might be. In all which we do well to take him as an example.

II. THE CHILD‘S DEATH. The prayers offered for the restoration of the child were sincere, importunate, persevering; but they were offered in vain. “The child died.” Yet not in vain. No. true. prayer is in vain. It brings blessing to him who offers it greater than that which is denied to him. God gives “more than we ask,” better than we ask. The effect of his child’s death on David astonished his servants. He “arose from the earth, and washed, and anointed himself, and changed his apparel, and came into the house of the Lord, and worshipped,” etc. (2Sa 12:20).

1. He laid aside all signs of mourning.

2. He went into the holy tent, and worshipped. His worship would now be of a different character from that which he had offered in his own privacy. No longer entreaties for the life of the child, but expressions of submission to the will of God at length made plain; acknowledgment of God’s righteousness and loving kindness in what he had done; prayers for support and consolation and sanctifying grace, for himself and the sorrowing mother, and that God would, through this painful stroke, glorify his own Name.

3. He explained and justified his conduct to his astonished servants. They expressed their perplexity. He explains by reminding them of the utter uselessness of further fasting and weeping. The dead cannot be recalled to life. The living will go to the dead; the dead will not come back to the living. It is true that this consideration has often a terrible effect in increasing the anguish of bereavement. It adds despair to sorrow. The feeling that it is impossible to recall the departed; that no more will the loved one be seen, or heard, or embraced; that the rest of life must be spent without the society that was so dear and seemed so essential to happiness, is overpowering. Nevertheless, the sense of the unalterableness of the fact, and the utter uselessness of prolonged sorrow, has ultimately a calming effect. Men come at length to reconcile themselves to the unchangeable. But there is greater peace and consolation in the truth that the unchangeable is the expression of the will of the infinitely Wise and Good. Believing this, we reconcile our minds, not to a mere hard, stern fact, but to the will of our Father in heaven, who loves us, and pains us because he loves us. The second expression employed by David in reference to the impossibility of regaining his child is worthy of notice. “He shall not return to me.” It reminds us that when our friends are dead all opportunity, not only of enjoying their presence and society, but of benefiting them, and otherwise doing our duty to them, is gone. A cause for regret and penitential sorrow if we have failed in our duty to them; and a reason for greater care in doing our duty to those that remain, and for seeking their forgiveness while we may for any wrong we have done to them. There is consolation, too, in reference to those who have been taken from us, that they cannot return, when we have good assurance that they are in heaven. We cannot wish them to return from heaven to earth. We thank God for their complete deliverance from sin and sorrow, and all liability to those evils.

4. He expressed his own expectations as to the future. “I shall go to him” (2Sa 12:23). Whither? To the grave? to Sheol (equivalent to Hades)? or to heaven? The precise thought of David in these words is hardly ascertainable. He may have intended to say only that he must join the child in the region of death. Probably, however, he expressed a hope of conscious reunion in the future world; and the Christian, taking up the words, can express by them a fuller and more confident hope of rejoining his little children and Christian relatives and friends in a state of blessedness than was possible to Old Testament believers, though glimpses of the glorious future were at times enjoyed by them. “Not lost, but gone before” is a thought that is daily comforting thousands. And it is felt how much better it is that the desire for reunion should be fulfilled yonder rather than herethat we should go to our departed friends into that world of perfection and joy, not they come back to us into this world of imperfection and trouble. Only let us take care so to live that such hopes may be reasonable. Think how terrible the thought, “I shall go to him,” as cherished by one impenitent sinner in respect to another who has gone to his doom! How dreadful the reunions hereafter of those who have lived together in ungodliness and sin here, and encouraged and helped each other in the practice of them! Better to have died in infancy! Better not to have been born!G.W.

Fuente: The Complete Pulpit Commentary

2Sa 12:1. There were two men, &c. See Jdg 9:7. It is not easy to conceive any thing more masterly and exquisite than the present parable. It places Nathan’s character in a fine point of view, and at the same time affords the ministers of religion a lively lesson how to manage the great and difficult duty of reproof with wisdom and discretion. We may just observe, that there is no need for parables, any more than for similes, to correspond exactly in every particular. It is sufficient, if the great and leading truth aimed at be marked out in a strong and conspicuous manner.

Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke

2. Nathans Exhortation to Repentance. Davids Repentance. Conquest of Rabbah and Punishment of the Ammonites

2Sa 12:1-31

1And1 the Lord [Jehovah] sent Nathan unto David. And he came unto him, and said unto him, There were two men in one city, the one rich and the other 2, 3poor.2 The rich man had exceeding many flocks and herds. But [And] the poor3 man had nothing save one little ewe lamb, which he had bought and nourished up; and it grew up together with him and with his children; it did eat of his own meat [food], and drank of his own cup, and lay in his bosom, and was unto him as a daughter. 4And there came a traveller unto the rich man, and he spared to take of his own flock and of his own herd to dress for the wayfaring man that was come unto him; but [and] took the poor mans lamb, and dressed it for the man that was come to him. 5And Davids anger was greatly kindled against the man, and he said unto Nathan, As the Lord [Jehovah] liveth, the man that hath done this thing shall surely die; 6And he shall restore the lamb fourfold, because he did this thing and because he had no pity.

7And Nathan said to David, Thou art the man. Thus saith the Lord [Jehovah] God of Israel, I anointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul; 8And I gave thee thy masters house,4 and thy masters wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house4 of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover [further] have given unto thee such and such things. 9Wherefore hast thou despised the commandment of the Lord [Jehovah], to do evil in his5 sight? thou hast killed Uriah the Hittite with the sword, and hast taken his wife to be thy wife, and hast slain him with the sword of the children of Ammon. 10Now,6 therefore [And now] the sword shall never depart from thine house; because thou hast despised me, and hast taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be thy wife. 11Thus saith the Lord [Jehovah], Behold, I will raise up evil against thee out of thine own house, and I will take thy wives before thine eyes, and give them unto thy neighbor,7 and he shall lie with thy wives in the light of this sun. 12For thou didst it secretly;8 but I will do this thing before all Israel and before the sun.

13And David said unto Nathan, I have sinned against the Lord [Jehovah]. And Nathan said unto David, The Lord [Jehovah] also hath put away thy sin; thou shalt not die. 14Howbeit, because by this deed thou hast given great occasion to the enemies9 of the Lord [Jehovah] to blaspheme, the child also that is born unto thee shall surely die. 15And Nathan departed [went] unto his house

And the Lord [Jehovah] struck the child that Uriahs wife bare unto David, 16and it was very sick. David therefore [And David] besought God for the child; and David fasted, and went in and lay all night upon the earth [ground]. 17And the elders of his house arose and went to him, to raise him up from the earth 18[ground]; but he would not, neither did he eat bread with them. And it came to pass on the seventh day, that the child died. And the servants of David feared to tell him that the child was dead; for they said, Behold, while the child was yet alive, we spake unto him, and he would not hearken unto our voice; how will he then vex himself, if we tell him that the child is dead? [and how shall we say to him, The child is dead? he will then act badly.] 19But when David [And David] saw that his servants whispered, [ins. and] David perceived that the child was 20dead; therefore [and] David said unto his servants, Is the child dead? And they said, He is dead. Then [And] David arose from the earth [ground], and washed and anointed himself, and changed his apparel, and came into the house of the Lord [Jehovah] and worshipped; then he [and] came to his own house, and when he required [and asked], [ins. and] they set bread before him, and he did eat. 21Then said his servants [And his servants said] unto him, What thing is this that thou hast done? thou didst fast and weep for the child while it was alive; but 22[and] when the child was dead, thou didst rise and eat bread. And he said, While the child was yet alive, I fasted and wept; for I said, Who can tell whether God will be gracious to me, that the child may [shall] live? 23But now he is dead, wherefore should I fast? can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me. 24And David comforted Bathsheba his wife, and went in unto her, and lay with her; and she bare a son, and he called his name Solomon; and the Lord [Jehovah] loved him. 25And he sent by the hand of Nathan the prophet; and he called his name Jedidiah, because of the Lord [Jehovah].

26And Joab fought against Rabbah of the children of Ammon, and took the royal city. 27And Joab sent messengers to David, and said, I have fought against Rabbah, 28and have taken the city of waters. Now, therefore [And now] gather the rest of the people together, and encamp against the city and take it, lest I take the city, and it be called after my name. 29And David gathered all the people together, and went to Rabbah, and fought against it and took it. 30And he took their kings crown from off his head, the weight whereof [and its weight] was a talent of gold with the [and] precious stones; and it was set on Davids head. 31And he brought forth the spoil of the city in great abundance. And he brought forth the people that were therein, and put10 them under saws and under harrows [threshing-sledges] of iron and under axes of iron, and made them pass through the brick-kiln;11 and thus he did unto all the cities of the children of Ammon. So [And] David and all the people returned unto Jerusalem.

EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL

1. 2Sa 12:1-12. Nathans exhortation to repentance.

2Sa 12:1. And the Lordsent.Nathan received his commission to David as prophet; as the Septuagint., Syr., Arab. and some MSS., rightly indicate by the addition of the explanatory phrase the prophet [after Nathan]. After the words said unto him the Vulgate adds give me your opinion (responde mihi judicium), a gloss, probably occasioned by the fact that Nathans discourse begins immediately with a parallel.12David is caught beforehand in the cleverly spread net of the prophets parable.

2Sa 12:3. The poor man had nothing at all but one lamb, which he kept alive, supported, reared. It was not a pet-lamb (Keil), since the man had absolutely no other possession in cattle. As a poor man he had the means of buying only one little lamb, which he was now raising, and which he loved the more as it was his only property. [Bib.-Com.: All these circumstances are exquisitely contrived to heighten the pity and indignation of the hearer.Tr.].

2Sa 12:4.13 [The three designations traveller, wayfarer, the man that came to him, are rhetorical variations and mean the same thing substantially, though the last is obviously specially appropriate in its place. Some of the rabbis and the fathers (quoted with apparent approval by Wordsworth) make the three names set forth lust in its different stages of growth, as a passer-by, as a guest, as a permanent inmate; of course this allegorizing is out of place here.Tr.].

2Sa 12:5 sqq. Nathan so told his story that David must needs believe it referred to a deed of violence to be immediately punished, not supposing at all that it concerned him.14 Hence his violent indignation. The fourfold compensation for a stolen sheep was a legal provision, Ex. 21:37. The sevenfold of the Sept. is to be explained by the fact that the number seven was so common among the Hebrews. Comp. Pro 6:31. [The Chald. says fortyfold, either by clerical error, or in a mere spirit of exaggeration. This variation may suggest the uncertainty of Bttchers view, that the Heb. text here has the priestly recension (according to the law in Exodus) and the Greek the laic recension. Nor is there any ground for the assertion of Thenius (and Wellhausen) that David was certainly here not thinking of the law in Exodus, and that the Greek text is the original. Though the Book of Exodus in its present shape may not have existed in Davids time, there is no reason why this law should not have been known.Tr.].

2Sa 12:7. Thou art the man.The farther David was from thinking of a reference to himself, the greater the force with which this word must have struck him. The account here given of the firmness and wisdom with which Nathan approached the king is inimitably admirable (Ewald). The Sept. and Vulg. [not the common Vulg. text,Tr.], have: thou art the man that has done this, a mere explanatory addition. Thus saith the Lord the God of Israel.The following words, as far as 2Sa 12:9, bring out most clearly the greatness of Davids guilt in various points: 1) from the point of view of his royal office; his crime is most sharply opposed to his divine induction thereinto; 2) his deliverance from Saul was a gracious act of God, for which he has here shown himself in the highest degree ungrateful; 3) David might unblamed have taken his predecessors wives (Thenius); this is the only meaning to be attached to the words: I gave thee thy masters house, and thy masters wives into thy bosom. [Bp. Patrick and others give the later Jewish understanding of the law or custom: the king and no other person fell heir to the property and harem of his predecessor, but it did not follow that he actually married the inmates of the harem; they might be merely a part of his establishment. If it was a son that succeeded his father, he treated these women with reverence; if no blood-relationship existed between the two kings, the successor might actually take the women as his wives (Philippson). As to the morality of the act, it was a natural result of a polygamous system, and morally in the same category with it; and polygamy was allowed by the Mosaic Law.Tr.]. According to 1Sa 14:50 Saul had only one wife, and according to 2Sa 3:7 only one concubine who fell into Abners hands. 4) David, as king, had control of all Israel (1Sa 8:16), and might have increased his establishment from their daughters, without committing this crime. And I have given thee the house of Israel; instead of house Syr. and Arab. read daughters, for which change, according to the above explanation, there is no need. 5) David despised, transgressed the word, that is, the law of God by slaying Uriah. The Heb. text has: in his eyes, the margin: in my eyes; the difference is insignificant.15 This crime is heightened, however, by the fact that he committed the murder by the sword of the children of Ammon. With this added statement and the use of the stronger word murder [Eng. A. V. slain] instead of slay, the fact already mentioned is repeated, in order that the culmination of the iniquity, the using the enemies of Gods people as its instrument, may come forth more sharply.

2Sa 12:10-12. Threat of punishment, Davids misdeed being again characterized as a factual contempt of the Lord. Instead of: Thou hast despised the word of the Lord, it is here said: Thou hast despised Me. For in His word the Lord Himself reveals Himself. For this reason, because David is guilty of despising the Lord, 1) the sword shall not depart from his house forever, that is, as long as the house or posterity of David shall last. From the seed of this evil deed of David sprang the poisonous fruit of the evil deeds of his sons and the consequent domestic and fraternal war. The bloody sword appears in the murder of the incestuous Amnon by Absalom (2Sa 13:28-29), in the death of the rebel Absalom (13, 14), and in the execution of Adonijah (1Ki 2:24-25). Thereby is Uriahs murder punished; 2) David is threatened with disgrace through the disgrace of his wives. To thy neighbor. in the sight of the sunbefore all Israel. For the fulfilment by Absalom, see 2Sa 16:22, and comp. 1Ki 2:23 sq., where Adonijah asks for Abishag the Shunammite. [On the text in 2Sa 12:9-10 see Text, and Gram.Tr.]

2Sa 12:13-23. Davids penitent confession and punishment by the death of the child of Bathsheba.

2Sa 12:13. I have sinned against the Lord.This frank, short, honest confession of sin was made not some time after this discourse of Nathan, but immediately as its direct result. The power of the prophetic word laid hold of the depths of his heart and conscience; the divine truth, which inexorably laid bare his sin, put an end to all self-deception and all anxious effort to cover up and palliate his transgression of the divine word. He confesses his sin as a sin against the Lord, to show that he clearly recognizes it to be, what it essentially is, a contradiction of Gods holy will. Nathans answer is the announcement of the Lords grace 1) in forgiving the sin: The Lord will cause [or, has causedTr.] thy sin to pass over, that is, it is not to remain before him, but to vanish, be forgiven; 2) in remitting the deserved punishment: Thou shalt not die!As adulterer and homicide David had deserved death; but this just punishment was not executed, because he honestly repented and did not harden his heart against the Lord. [Probably the civil law in such a case could not have been enforced against an absolute king by human authority; but God could have found means to execute it. Clearly it is physical death that is here meant, not the death of the soul (against Wordsworth and Bib.-Com.).In the Mosaic code there is no provision against such a marriage as that of David and Bathsheba; on general moral grounds it would have been pronounced wrong. Yet there were also reasons why the marriage should take place, and God Himself solves the ethical question by the mouth of His prophet, not increasing the evil by sundering the marriage tie, but so chastising the sinners that one of them at least must have remembered the lesson to the end of his life.According to the later Jewish law the marriage was illegal; and some Jewish writers have tried hard to clear David of the charge of adultery. See Patricks Comm., 2Sa 11:27; 2Sa 11:4.Tr.].This is not inconsistent with the threat of punishment in 2Sa 12:14, the fulfilment of which is specially founded on the provocation to blasphemy given to the heathen. Only because thou hast made the enemies of the Lord to despise16 (him). The enemies of the people of Israel were also enemies of the Lord and of the king of this people. Towards the heathen Israels duty was, by obedience to Gods word and commands, to set forth the theocracy and bring it to honor and recognition. Transgression of Gods command by the king himself must lead the heathen to heap shame and reproach on Israel and its God; and there must therefore be expiation by punishment. David and Bathsheba must lose their adulterously begotten child, and this should be a sign to the Lords enemies of the severe justice of the God of Israel. The child also, etc.; the statement is introduced by the word also as in keeping with what precedes (, not howbeit, but also).

2Sa 12:15. The Lord smote the child.The fulfilment followed immediately on the prediction. The sickness is represented as a punishment inflicted by God; therefore is added: which the wife of Uriah had borne to David.[It was, then, apparently not till after the birth of the child that Nathan came to David; the latter had remained many months seemingly unconscious of his sin.Tr.].

2Sa 12:16. David acknowledges the punishing hand of the Lord. He goes away to a retired spot, to collect himself and pour out his heart before God. The phrase went in refers to his going not to the Sanctuary (to which he does not go till 2Sa 12:20), but to a quiet room in his house, where he could be alone; Vulg.: ingressus seorsum [he went in apart].

2Sa 12:17. The elders of his house are its oldest and most trusted servants. Comp. Gen 24:2; Gen 50:7. So Clericus. Whether Davids uncles and oldest brothers are thereby meant (Ewald) must remain undecided.

2Sa 12:18. The elders hesitate to tell David of the death of the child, lest he be plunged into deeper grief, or do himself a harm. Vulg.: how much more will he afflict himself? [Davids affection for this child is remarkable. He was a great lover of his children (Patrick) and perhaps specially attached to this one by reason of his love for its mother.Tr.].

2Sa 12:19 sqq. Davids conduct is the opposite of what the servants expected. The solution of their perplexity lay in the fact that David had hitherto prayed for the childs life, but now bowed humbly beneath Gods hand, and thus gains strength joyfully to bear the burden laid on him. Davids two courses of conduct in immediate juxtaposition have one common source within him; namely, humble, unconditional devotion of heart to the will of the Lord. After and he asked [2Sa 12:20] bread is omitted, because it is mentioned immediately afterwards. The shorter phrase is obviously original; the addition of the Sept.: bread to eat, is an interpretation.

2Sa 12:21. Render: thou didst fast and weep for () the child, while it yet lived [= for the child livingTr.]; so Vulg., Cler., Ew. 341 b [Sept., Eng. A. V.]; not while the child lived (Ges., De Wette, Maur., Keil [Chald., Syr., Luther]), since as conjunction the word denotes only either the ground or the end.17

2Sa 12:22. See on 2Sa 12:19 sqq. David had continued to hope that the Lord would hear his prayer18 and spare the child.

2Sa 12:23. The continued existence of the childs soul in Sheol is here assumed, and the hope of reunion with it expressed. Nothing is said, indeed, of conscious existence, but this must have been supposed, in order to find consolation and repose in going to the dead (Bttch., de inferis, 109 sq.).

2Sa 12:24-25. Birth of Solomon. David comforted Bathsheba, because he himself had received comfort. The Sept. prefixes she conceived to our appropriately curt text she bare a son. And he called his name Solomon.19 Solomons birth is mentioned here because of its factual connection with what precedes. The name Solomon, like the similar names in Lev 24:11; Num 34:27; 1Ch 26:25 sq., was an old and common one it is therefore wholly without foundation to say that Solomon first received this name from the peace of his time (Ew., Gesch. [Hist. of Israel] III. p. 228, Rem. 1). It is probable, indeed, that Solomons birth occurred just after the conquest of Rabbah related below; for, as Bathshebas first son was conceived during the siege, this siege, if Solomon was born before its termination, would have lasted about two years [Cler., Thenius]. Nevertheless the name Solomon is to be explained not from the peace gained by the Ammonite war, but (after 1Ch 22:9) from the wish that peace might be allotted him as a gift of God, in contrast with the continual wars of his fathers life. And the Lord loved him.Here instead of David, the Lord appears as subject; and so in the verb sent [2Sa 12:25] the Lord is subject, not David, since the latter had already given the name Solomon. Ewald renders: he (David) asked through Nathan from the oracle a loftier name for his new-born son; but this rests on the inappropriate conception of the words Jehovah loved him as referring to the maintenance of this childs life [in contrast with the dead childTr.], apart from the fact that the subject Jehovah is again arbitrarily changed. This last consideration is also against the rendering: and he (David) gave him into the hand of Nathan the prophet (to bring up), where the Piel of the verb would be required. The expression in the text (Qal with [to send by the hand of]) means to give a commission (comp. Exo 4:13). Jehovah sent Nathan to David with the commission to give the child the name Jedidiah. Nathan is expressly called prophet, because he appeared in divine commission as such. This was the factual opposite of the former message [2Sa 12:1], Gods declaration that He had bestowed His grace and mercy on David and his child. The subject of the verb called is Nathan. On account of Jehovah, that is, because Jehovah loved him, as the name signified (= beloved of Jehovah, Germ. Gottlieb.)20 While Solomon was the name given him by his parents, by which he was to be called, Jedidiah, as the high name given him by the prophet, denoted the Lords love and faithfulness bestowed on him whose light was to illumine his whole life. [Bttcher, Thenius and Wellhausen insist on rendering 2Sa 12:25 : and he committed him to the care of Nathan, etc., which agrees, says Thenius, with the general opinion (of which, however, there is not a word in the Bible) that Nathan was Solomons tutor. This is also the view of Victorinus Strigelius quoted by Patrick, and is certainly more in keeping with the context than the other. If the view of Eng. A. V. and Erdmann be correct we should expect some additional explanatory phrase; unless the next sentence is such a complementary phrase, in which case the subject of called must be the same as that of sent, namely Jehovah. But, as Erdmann himself points out, the subject of called is not Jehovah, but either Nathan or David. For this reason it seems better to take David also as subject of sent or delivered. David committed him (reading the Piel) to Nathan, and Nathan gave him his higher name. Comp. similar second names in the histories of Abraham and Sarah, Jacob and Simon Peter.Then. remarks of this whole narrative that its exact fidelity to nature and touching simplicity, when we recollect that the scenes passed in the interior of the palace, show that it must have been communicated by a contemporary.Tr.]

2Sa 12:26-31. Conquest of Rabbah and cruel punishment of the Ammonites. Comp. 1Ch 20:1-3.

2Sa 12:26 sqq. The narrative returns to 2Sa 11:1. From the connection the city of the kingdom,21 the capital of the kingdom, is the whole city, not merely the water-town (2Sa 12:27) excluding the acropolis (Keil). Joab, as commanding general, conducting the siege, conquered the whole city; and this result is here summarily stated in advance. [But this statement does not read like an anticipative summary; the capture of 2Sa 12:29 seems to be different from that of 2Sa 12:26.Tr.].

2Sa 12:27 sq. Detailed account of the affair, especially how Joab, after taking the water-city, summoned the king, who had remained in Jerusalem (2Sa 11:1), in order that the remaining higher part of the city might be taken under his direction to the honor of the royal name. And so it happened, though it was none the less true (2Sa 12:26) that Joab was the real conqueror. Vulg.: lest, the city being taken by me, the victory should be ascribed to my name. Luther: that I may not have the name of it.To judge from the ruins of Ammon (comp. Ritter XV., p. 1145 sq.) the capital-city of the Ammonites lay on both banks of the Upper Jabbok, in a narrow valley, on the north side of which on an eminence was the citadel (the city 2Sa 12:28) towering above the whole lower city (the water-city). This citadel was not taken by Joab till David came, in order that the completion of the conquest might appear as the deed of the king himself. See Curt. 6, 6 (quoted by Grotius): he (Craterus), after everything was prepared, awaited the coming of the king (Alexander), yielding to him, as was proper, the honor of the capture of the city.[Eng. A. V. has: and it be called after my name. As there seems to be no example of a conquered citys being called after the name of the conqueror, it may be better to render (with Erdmann and others): and my name be called (or honored) upon (in respect to) it. However, the ordinary meaning of the phrase is as in Eng. A. V.Joabs conduct here is either that of a devoted servant, wishing to give his master honor or shield him from popular disfavor (on account of the affair of Bathsheba), or that of an adroit courtier, who will not run the risk of exciting his kings envy by too much success (see 1Sa 18:6-8).Tr.].

2Sa 12:29. All the people, the soldiers that had remained at home; the besieging force had to be strengthened in order to conquer the strong Upper City.

2Sa 12:30. When the citadel was taken, the king of the Ammonites was either killed or captured. David took the crown from his head, and set it on his own, in order to represent himself as lord of the Ammonite kingdom. The kikkar [talent] was 3000 shekels (comp. Winer, s. v. Gewichte); the weight of the crown was 83 [Dresden] pounds [= about 100 English pounds, for the silver talent, which was probably the current unit of weight; the gold-talent weighed twice as much.Tr.]. This heavy crown of gold and precious stones might have been worn during the short time of coronation by a strong man like David. In many places now weights scarcely less heavy are borne on the head even by women. We need not, therefore, suppose that the weight is here accidentally exaggerated (Keil), nor that the crown was supported on the throne above the head (Clericus). [Some would understand that the value, and not the weight of the crown is here given; but the text-word can mean nothing but weight. The Sept. has: he took the crown of Molchom their king from his head. This reading Molkom or Milkom instead of their king is adopted by Geiger (p. 306), who sees in our Hebrew text an illustration of the tendency to get rid of the names of idol deities. As our text stands the suffix their is strange, since the Ammonites are not mentioned immediately before (Wellh.), and we might also expect here the mention of the Ammonite king by name (Bib.-Comm.). We may therefore render: he took Malcoms (Molochs) crown from his head.Tr.].

2Sa 12:31. The cruel punishments inflicted by David on the Ammonites were probably the same that they were accustomed to inflict on the Israelites or other nations in war. For their cruelties see 1Sa 11:2 and Amo 1:8. As they did, so it was done to them. Instead of he put them under saws, etc. we must read: he cut them with saws, etc., as in Chron. and the Targum ( instead of ); our present text can only be rendered: he put them into saws, etc., a phrase that cannot be applied to the saw. Comp. Heb 11:37, and Sueton. Caligula 2Sa 27: he cut them in two with the saw. And with cutting instruments [Eng. A. V. axes] of iron. Instead of this 1Ch 20:3 has saws a second time, a clerical error22 for axes [Eng. A. V. corrects the error, and renders axes.Tr.].In the next clause the Qeri, Sept. and Vulg. [and Eng. A. V.] read: made them pass through the brick-kiln,23 that is, burned them in brick-kilns (Keil). But the text is to be retained with Kimchi, whose explanation is essentially correct: he passed them through Malchan, i.e., the place where the Ammonites burned their sons to their idol. Instead of malkan (from = Moloch) we may with Btt. pronounce the word milkon=milkom.24 Both denote the image of Moloch (comp. 1Ki 11:5; 1Ki 11:33). In the burning image human sacrifices were offered to Moloch, and to cause to pass through (or, through the fire) to Moloch is the usual phrase for this idol-service 25 (see Lev 18:21; 2Ki 23:10; Jer 32:35; Eze 20:31). The design was to inflict a striking punishment on idolatry, and in so far the war was a holy one (Then.). The milder explanation of the punishment as consisting in the imposition of severe labors, cutting wood, burning bricks, etc. (Danz and others) is inconsistent with the words of the text. However, the text does not require us to suppose that all the inhabitants of Rabbah were thus treated; it was probably only the soldiers that were in the Upper City [and so he did to all the cities of the Ammonites.Tr.].

By this Ammonite war (probably the last that he waged) David had extended and strengthened his kingdom toward the whole east. By all his wars (Chron. 8. sqq.) the boundaries of his kingdom were so far extended that it was secure against heathen nations. But this splendor of outward power and dominion stood in sharp contrast with the inward disintegration of the royal house and of the whole people through Davids sin.

HISTORICAL AND THEOLOGICAL

1. Davids condition of soul in the time from his fall to his repentance may be understood from the fact that it needed such a strong impulse as Nathans discourse to bring him to repentance, while on the other hand the word of confession followed immediately on the discourse. This latter indicates that his conscience had accused him of sin; but frank confession had been somehow hindered, till the hindrance was set aside by Nathans word. The confession was preceded by a silence, which did not proceed from a contrite heart, but concealed an unquiet conscience and distracted heart. Thenius rightly says: Psalms 32 describes what David felt before he was led to confession of sin by Nathans address. The expression (2Sa 12:3-4): for I kept silence; my bones wasted away in my crying all the day; for day and night thy hand was heavy upon me, sets forth how his silence was accompanied by consuming anguish of body and soul, wherein he felt in his conscience the oppressive burden of Gods punitive righteousness, without being thereby moved to confession of sin. We see plainly from Psalms 32 what bitter inward struggles he endured before he yielded to the divine chastisement and grew strong enough to confess his sins openly before God (Ewald). These inward conflicts were produced by two factors: (1) the constant weight of Gods hand on himthe accusing, condemning voice of conscience, the inward completion of the divine judgment; (2) his impenitent, uncontrite heart (which was the cause of his silence), which wished to maintain its rights by self-excuse and self-justification against the inevitable divine judgment (comp. Psa 51:6). This was the guile in his spirit (2Sa 12:2), which was the ground of his silence (for, 2Sa 12:3). He was not upright in heart (2Sa 12:11), so that he did not honestly confess his sins, but concealed them (comp. 2Sa 12:5). Thus Psalms 32. fills out our picture of Davids condition and conduct after his sin and after Nathans piercing punitory discourse. Against the reference of this Psalm to the crime of David against Bathsheba it has been alleged (De Wette, Stier, Clauss, Hitzig) that in it the confession comes from inward pain of conscience, while in 2 Samuel 12 it is occasioned by Nathans discourse. The two facts, however, are not mutually exclusive, but mutually complementary. Nathans discourse is not the ground, but the occasion of Davids confession. See Hengstenberg on Psalms 32 for the particular points in which the Psalm and the history correspond to one another.

2. The deceit of the impenitent heart consists in its seeking to excuse and justify itself despite the condemnation of conscience, while it yet obtains no relief from the feeling of guilt, rather brings about a sharper reaction of conscience, and increases the pains that come from the conflict of mutually accusing and excusing thoughts. Sin is not gotten rid of by failure to acknowledge it; it rests all the more heavily on the conscience, and the closer the mouth that ought to confess is shut, the clearer sounds out the accusing, judging voice of conscience. The roots of this deceit (which appears immediately after the Fall of man) are pride, lack of trust in God, and love of sin. Many are thereby kept altogether from confession of sin, in Pelagian self-blinding take delight in their wretchedness, and think themselves most excellent. In others are seen the beginnings of true confession; but they do not obtain the goal, because guile prevents them from acknowledging the whole extent of their harm. And even they that have really come into a gracious state, greatly embitter by guile the blessing of the forgiveness, that they have attained through sincerity. What especially exposes them to this temptation is their strict view of sin and of its condemnableness before God and the consciousness of the grace received from God and of their situation. Nature struggles vigorously against the deep humiliation which (especially for them) recognition and confession of sin carries with it. It is therefore necessary that they lay deeply to heart Davids word (2Sa 12:1-2), spoken out of painful experience of the misery of guile: happy is he whose transgression is removed, etc. (Hengst.). But it is a quality of the deceit of the impenitent heart to apply Gods word, the mirror of sin, to others rather than to itself, and thus to put away self-examination and self-knowledge in its light.

3. The grace of God does not suffer man to go on unwarned in the path of sin, but leads him to recognition and confession of sin, and to an humble bowing under the mighty hand that must smite him for his sin. The divine grace herein employs human instruments like Nathan; and the only effective means in this case of bringing men to confession is the word of God, which 1) shows them sin in its true form, in unadorned full reality, in all its baseness and shockingness (comp. 2Sa 12:1-6); 2) points out the fulness of the divine benefits that should have kept them from sin, in the presence of which sin appears as sheer ingratitude (2Sa 12:7-8); 3) presses home the demands of Gods holy will in His word and law (2Sa 12:9); and 4) exhibits the inevitable results of sin as the sign of the divine retributive righteousness, under which man must bow.When a man quietly opens his heart, as David did, to this ministry of grace (that leads to penitence), then appears its purposed working: 1) deep, penitent recognition of sin, not merely as an offence against man, but as enmity against the Lord Himself, so that there is an end to the blindness about the nature of sin, founded on self-love; 2) sincere, frank confession of sin as an offence against the holy God, so that now ceases the inward conflict of opposing accusations and excuses, of a condemning conscience and a pride founded on self-justifying self-love. Open confession of sin was a legal part of the sin-offering, Lev 5:5; Lev 16:21; Num 5:7.I have sinned against the Lord. The words are very few, as with the publican in Luk 18:13. But just that is a good sign of a truly broken heart; here is no excusing, no shrouding, no belittling of sin; no hiding-place is sought; no pretext used, no human weakness pleaded (Berl. Bib.); 3) personal experience of the comfort of the forgiveness of sin, granted to the sinner of Gods free grace, he having done nothing to deserve it. The Lord also hath taken away thy sin (2Sa 12:13). From this experience comes confidence and certainty of the grace received; 4) humble, quiet submission to the suffering inflicted by the Lord as the consequence of sin, which is to be for the chastisement, purification and trying of the penitent and believing heart (2Sa 12:14-23), and 5) renewed enjoyment of the friendliness and goodness of the divine love (2Sa 12:24-25).

4. As Psalms 32 exhibits the frame of mind out of which David came to sincere penitence, so Psalms 51 (as the title indicates) is the echo of the personal experience of Gods grace, which alone is the source of the forgiveness of sin and blotting out of guilt (2Sa 12:3-4 [Eng. 2Sa 12:1-2]), under the condition of penitent confession of personal transgression against the Lord deeply founded in inborn sinfulness (2Sa 12:5-8 [2Sa 12:3-6]), and of humble supplication for grace (2Sa 12:9-11 [2Sa 12:7-9]) and renewal (2Sa 12:12-14 [1012]) out of a broken and contrite heart (2Sa 12:15-21 [2Sa 12:13-19]). On the correspondence of the chief features of this Psalm with the history see Hengstenbergs and Hupfelds commentaries thereon.[If Psalms 51 was written or composed on this occasion, then the two last verses must probably be regarded as a later addition (the sentiment is similar to that of Psalm 53:7 (6); Psa 79:9, and other passages). For the rest, the spiritual teaching of this Psalm and Psalms 32 is entirely independent of their historical origin.Tr.]

HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL

God does not leave men in their sins to go their own way unwarned and unchastised, but sends His messengers after them to call them to repentance.The word of God that would call the sinner to repentance reminds him on the one hand of the fulness of the divine manifestations of grace and the manifold gifts of Gods goodness, in order to shame the sinner for his ingratitude and disobedience; on the other hand it points him to the earnestness of Gods holiness and righteousness in His commands. To this end it often clothes itself in image and similitude, in order either to work in the man receptivity for the indwelling power that awakens to repentance, if the man will give heed, or so far as this is not the case, so much the more to harden the inner man, comp. Mat 13:10-16.

The right sort of awakening preaching consists in immediate direct application of the word of God to individual hearts, so that after holding up the mirror of Gods law, it is always said: Thou art the man! Men are always, according to their natural disposition, inclined to look not at their own sins, but at the sins of others, to judge and pass sentence on them. Such looking away from ones self to the sins in the world around often finds its occasion and temptation in preaching upon the universal sinfulness of mankind and in testimonies against the sins of the times or of a whole people; if these testimonies are to be effectual for awakening in the hearers a true repentance, they must have their point in the word: Thou art the man!As clearly as the sins of others, should we see and recognize our own sins; as inexorably and strictly as we judge and pass sentence upon others, should we enter into judgment with ourselves. But this is done only when we let the word: Thou art the man, press into our hearts.
The humble confession: I have sinned against the Lord, roots itself in the penitent recognition of guilt, and has as a consequence the assurance of forgiveness of all sins, not as something thereby deserved and won but as a gift of the free grace of God, which grace immediately answers the honest and penitent confession of guilt by acquitting of guilt; the sinners unreserved confession is followed by unconditional divine absolution.

Rescue of the man fallen into sin. 1) The compassionate God stretches out to him the receiving hand (Nathans mission and reproof). 2) The fallen one seizes this hand, and by its help lifts himself up in humility of heart and honest confession of guilt.Repentance and grace: 1) How repentance is a work of grace, or how grace leads to repentance, and 2) How the experience of grace in the consolation of forgiveness is conditioned on repentance, or how repentance leads to grace.The right sort of awakening preaching is that which 1) In view of the fulness of Gods goodness reveals the sinners ingratitude, 2) In view of the earnestness of Gods commands reveals the sinners disobedience, and 3) Puts an end to all self-justification and excuses by the earnestness of the word: Thou art the man!

True Repentance: 1) Wherein it consists. In penitent recognition and confession of sin as of enmity against the holy God (I have sinned against the Lord). 2) How it is attained. In the ways along which the sinner is led by seeking, pursuing and preventing grace. 3) Whither it leads. To the consolation of the forgiveness of all sins, to an humble yielding to the chastening hand of God under the sufferings which necessarily follow from sin, and to new experiences of Gods love in the joy which, after sufferings patiently borne, is granted by Him.The painful consequences of sin are for the penitent man a means of grace. 1) In order to prove and try his faith and confidence in Gods fatherly love. 2) To chasten and instruct in righteousness, according to the holy will of God. 3) To purge from still clinging sinfulness. 4) To establish in a state of grace.

2Sa 12:1-4. Starke: God does not always keep silent to the sins of the ungodly, but at the proper time sets them before their eyes, Psa 50:21.Disselhoff: That is always Gods way, first to speak to the sinner in similitudes, in dark sayings, in works and deeds. Dumb preachers, and yet calling so loud! For those similitudes in which the Lord speaks to us contain no unintelligible speech, these trumpets give no uncertain sound.Cramer: In the office of reproof one must not be too mild, nor yet too sharp, but must so manage that what is said shall be penetrating, shall smite the heart, shall stir and shame the conscience.[Hall: He that hates sin so much the more as the offender is more dear to him, will let David feel the bruise of his fall. If Gods best children have been sometimes suffered to sleep in a sin, at last He hath awakened them in a fright.Nathan the prophet is sent to the prophet David. Let no man think himself too good to learn; teachers themselves may be taught that, in their own particular, which, in a generality, they have often taught others: it is not only ignorance that is to be removed, but misaffection.There is no one thing wherein is more use of wisdom, than the due contriving of a reprehension.Tr.]

2Sa 12:5. sq. Schlier: We see well the wrong that others do, even if it is only a trifling mote, and how little we care for our own failings, how little we mark our lapses even when it is great beams that we bear in ourselves.[Hall: How severe justicers we can be to our very own crimes in others.Tr.]Wilt thou judge, then judge thyself, and wilt thou be strict, then before all be strict against thyself, and wilt thou be indulgent, then before all be indulgent towards others, but towards thyself be strict and unindulgent.

2Sa 12:7 sqq. [Hall: The life of doctrine (teaching) is in the application. We may take pleasure to hear men speak in the cloudswe never take profit till we find a propriety in the exhortation or reproof. There was not more cunning in the parable than cunning in the application: Thou art the man.Tr.].Disselhoff: He who is used by God to call out to another, Thou art the man, often does not himself know that he has performed Nathans service. The Lord sends His word like arrows; so many are struck, in the preaching of the divine word, exactly as if the word had been aimed at their heart alone. It is aimed at them too, only not by men, but by God Himself.S. Schmid: Every sin is despising God.Cramer: Despising the divine word is the evil fountain of all sins (Pro 29:18).Starke: With whatever one sins, with that he is also commonly punished.Schlier: He who insults the word of the Lord, even this word will crush him to atoms, and he who sins against the commandment of God, even this commandment which he has despised will become to him a consuming fire. He who practises injustice and violence shall in his time himself also experience injustice and violence, and he who commits adultery will in his own honor become conscious of Gods judgment.Cramer: God punishes sin with sin, not that He has pleasure in sin, or that He works it or works with it, but that as a strict Judge, He pronounces sentence and inflicts and permits the evil.

2Sa 12:13 sq. Schlier: He who openly and unreservedly acknowledges himself guilty has thereby inwardly cut himself loose from sin, and broken with it in his heart.Disselhoff: I have sinned against the Lord. There is in the Bible no confession so unconditional, no expression of repentance so short, but also none so thoroughly true. So long as sin reigns upon the earth, all penitent sinners will with this confession cast themselves down before God, into this confession will they pour out their hearts, this confession will become ever more openly, deeply, truly and movingly their prayer, and they will know how to say nothing else. [Hall: It was but a short word, but passionate; and such as came from the bottom of a contrite heart. The greatest griefs are not most verbal. Saul confessed his sin more largely, less effectually. God cares not for phrases, but for affections. David had sworn, in a zeal of justice, that the rich oppressor, for but taking his poor neighbors lamb, shall die the death; God, by Nathan, is more favorable to David than to take him at his word, Thou shalt not die. Comp. Pro 28:13.Tr.]Cramer: God forgives the sin out of grace, and remits also the eternal punishment; but He reserves the cross and the chastisement, not for satisfaction, but in order to continual remembrance of sin and exercise in piety, and as a terror to others.Starke [from Hall]: So long as He smites us not as an angry Judge, we may endure to smart from Him as a loving Father (Heb 12:6-9).

2Sa 12:15 sq. J. Lange: God visits the parents in the children, whether graciously or in wrath.Schlier: There is a distinction between punishment of sin and the outward consequences of sin, which may follow even for him who has forgiveness, only that all this is no longer a punishment of sin, but a gracious, fatherly visitation of the faithful God, who chastens His people even when He loves them, yea, even because of His love and compassion chastens them, that they may not anew fall into sin.Disselhoff: Grace is free, wholly unconditioned. But yet he to whom grace is shown must remain under the chastening rod of the almighty and holy God.Schlier: How should severe sickness in the house be a proof of divine favor? If God the Lord had let every thing at once go on for David according to his desire and will, who knows how soon he would perhaps again have felt secure and have forgotten the Lord who had forgiven his sins? but now that the Lord chastens him, how he learns to pray and weep, how he humbles himself, how he holds all the more faithfully to the Lord and to His word!

2Sa 12:17 sqq. Osiander: Even dear children of God are not always heard, when they pray for temporal gifts and obtain, not what they desire, but what is profitable for them (1Jn 5:14).[Hall: Till we know the determinations of the Almighty, it is free for us to strive in our prayers, to strive with Him, not against Him; when once we know them, it is our duty to sit down in a silent contentation.Tr.]Disselhoff: This is the triumph of grace! It transforms the inevitable consequences of sin and horrors of damnation into a purifying fire, hot indeed, but rich in blessing, in which the objects of grace receive the image and stamp of their Redeemer. [Scott: Those who are ignorant of the divine life cannot comprehend the reasons of a believers conduct in his varied experiences; they mistake deep humility and fervent prayer for an impatience and an inordinate love to created objects; acquiescence in the Lords will, and cheerful gratitude under sharp trials, will be deemed indifference and apathy, etc.

2Sa 12:23. Wesley (Sermon CXXXII.): Profuse sorrowing for the dead is unprofitable and sinful; and the text affords a consideration which ought to prevent this sorrow.Tr.]

2Sa 12:24 sqq. Cramer: Gods promise is the cause of His love towards us, not our merit and worthiness (1Jn 4:10).Schlier: When we have allowed the Lords chastening to promote our welfare and peace, and are holding still before the Lord, even if we see around us nothing but suffering and trouble, then the Lord takes us up again and blesses us and gives us twofold for all the hardness we have had to endure. The Lord blesses much more willingly than He chastens, His fatherly hands had much rather open in beneficence than in affliction.

Disselhoff: The triumph of grace in all its glory. It unfolds itself in three steps: 1) Not the fallen one looks up to God, but Gods preventing grace in every way lets itself down to him, in order to awaken his conscience. 2) He who lets himself be awakened and openly and unconditionally confesses, receives full and unconditional pardon. 3) The pardoned man must remain under the sharp chastening rod of the Compassionate One, in order that he may learn more and more to know the depths of sin as well as of grace.

[Carlyle:26 David, the Hebrew king, had fallen into sins enough; blackest crimes; there was no want of sins. And thereupon unbelievers sneer and ask, Is this your man according to Gods heart? The sneer, I must say, seems to me but a shallow one. What are faults? what are the outward details of a life, if the inner secret of itthe remorse, temptations, true, often-baffled, never-ending struggle of itbe forgotten? The deadliest sin were the supercilious consciousness of no sin. Davids life and history, as written for us in those Psalms of his, I consider to be the truest emblem ever given of a mans moral progress and warfare here below. All earnest souls will ever discern in it the faithful struggle of an earnest human soul toward what is good and best. Struggle often baffledsore baffleddriven as into entire wreck, yet a struggle never ended; ever with tears, repentance, true, unconquerable purpose begun anew.Tr.]

Chrysostom:27 David the prophet, whose kingdom was in Palestine and temporary, but whose words as a prophet are for the ends of the earth and immortal, fell into adultery and murderthe prophet in adultery, the pearl in the mire. But he did not yet know that he had sinned; so stupefied was he. God sends to him Nathan; the prophet comes to the prophetjust as in the case of physicians, when a physician is sick he needs another physician. Nathan does not at the very door begin to rebuke and upbraid himthat would have made him hardened and shameless. And the king said, I have sinned against the Lord. He did not say, Why, who art thou that reprovest me? and who sent thee to speak boldly? and how hast thou dared to do this? But precisely in this is that noble man most admirable, that having fallen into the very depths of wickedness, he did not despair nor fling himself prostrate so as to receive from the devil a mortal blow, but quickly and with great vehemence gave a more mortal blow than he received. This history was written not that thou mightest gaze at one who fell, but that thou mightest admire one who rose again; that thou mightest learn, whenever thou hast fallen, how to rise again. For just as physicians select the most grievous diseases and record them in the books, explaining the method of healing them, in order that by exercise in the greater they may easily overcome the lesser diseases, so also God has brought forward the greatest sins in order that they also who commit little offences may through those great examples find the task of correction to be easy.Tr.]

[2Sa 12:1. David keeping silence. Comp. Psa 32:3-4. See above, Hist. and Theol., No. 1.

2Sa 12:5-6. Not only may a guilty man judge severely the crimes of others, but his easy consciousness of guilt may even create an ill-humor that will dispose him to all the greater severity.

2Sa 12:7. Thou art the man. One might picture an ungrateful son, a spendthrift, a suicide, etc., and charge each, as to spiritual relations and life, upon the hearer.Tr.]

[2Sa 12:1-14. A pattern in reproving. It is always difficult to reprove with good results, and here the difficulties were peculiarly great. An Oriental kingwho has committed a series of enormous crimes, has tried to cover them up, is now moody and irritable. See now the course pursued by the prophet. 1) He approaches the offender in private. 2) He uses an affecting parallel case to awaken the sense of justice, without arousing suspicion of his designthus inducing the king to feel, and to express himself very strongly. 3) He suddenly and emphatically applies the story, and pours upon the wrong-doer the recital of his crimes. 4) He gladly welcomes confession and penitence, and at once turns from rebuke to comfort.

2Sa 12:14. Great occasion to the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme. 1) Only the enemies of the Lord would blaspheme, upon whatsoever occasion. 2) Though the faults of good men are not the cause of blasphemy, it is a great evil to give occasion for it. (a) The enemies may thus partially delude themselves, (b) They will be sure to mislead others. 3) Though there be occasion, yet the comments of Gods enemies are blasphemous. E.g. (a) When they infer that God does not hate sin. (b) That Gods service makes men no better than they would otherwise be.Tr.]

[2Sa 12:15-23. The death of Davids child. 1) The mortal illness of a babe, always so distressing to parents, and in this case having peculiarly distressing conditions. 2) Davids persevering prayer, notwithstanding the prophets prediction. 3) His submission, as soon as he knew the child was dead. 4) His confidence of being reunited with the child hereafter.Tr.]

Footnotes:

[1][2Sa 12:1. See Josephus dressing up of the narrative of this chapter (Ant. 7, 7. 35). His additions are probably in part his own invention, and in part (as Bttcher remarks) taken from late glosses, from which also the Vulg. and Chald. may have drawn. In a few cases glosses of this sort seem to have found their way into our Heb. text.Tr.]

[2][2Sa 12:1. , instead of the usual , is found only in Sam. and Prov.; the is always thrown out by the Masorites (Qeri) in the former book (omitted from the text in twenty-two MSS. of Kennicott), never in the latter. It may be only a scriptio plena, or it may be from a verb collateral to (comp. , poverty, Pro 6:11). In either case it seems to have been thought by the Masorites unfit for a prose-text. The stem is not found in Aramaic.Tr.]

[3][2Sa 12:3. Some MSS. here write , see above.Instead of we find in the Pentateuch and (by transposition) (as for ); Bttcher suggests that the slenderer vowel (i) gives here a diminutive sense, but this is doubtful.The Imperfects , and here express customary action. Instead of some MSS. have .Tr.]

[4][2Sa 12:8. Syr. , doubtless a clerical error. The Arab. follows the Syriac.Tr.]

[5][2Sa 12:9. Some MSS. and the Vulg. read: in my eyes, which is approved by Norzius and De Rossi. Another reading is: in the eyes of Jehovah (some MSS., Syr., Arab.).In the latter part of the verse the repetition of the statement that David slew Uriah has given offence to some critics, who take it to be meaningless; and Syr. omits the clause: Uriah the Hittite thou hast slain with the sword, and transposes the two following. Bttcher therefore conjectures for the first phrase , thou didst ambush Uriah, to which Thenius objects that the of the following verse requires the same word here in the text, and that the two clauses are not identical in statement, but the second is descriptive and explanatory. The Bib.-Com. suggests that the last clause of this verse should be appended to 2Sa 12:10, where it seems required, whereby the repetition in 2Sa 12:9 would be avoided. On the other hand the absence of logical symmetry favors the present Heb. reading (as making it harder), while there is yet in it a certain rhetorical force; the speaker presses home in 2Sa 12:9 the charge of murder, and in 2Sa 12:10 thinks it sufficient to state the one fact (the marrying Bathsheba) that represents the whole crime.Tr.]

[6][2Sa 12:10. Wellhausen regards 2Sa 12:10-12 as an interpolation, because no reference is made to the punishments announced in them, either in the thou shalt not die of 2Sa 12:13 or in 2Sa 12:14; and it is true 2Sa 12:13 attaches itself easily to 2Sa 12:9. Gramberg also (in Thenius) says that no pardon would really have been granted David, if Nathan had spoken 2Sa 12:11-12. To this latter Thenius properly replies, that pardon (being conditioned on a state of soul) does not necessarily involve a setting aside of the natural effects of sin. So also as to Wellhausens criticism, Nathans course of thought may be thus represented: he sets forth Davids sin (2Sa 12:9), denounces against his house the everlasting vengeance of the sword (2Sa 12:10), and an open requital of his crime on him personally (2Sa 12:11-12); thereupon David confesses his sin, anticipating the worst consequences for himself, and Nathan replies that (notwithstanding what had just been said) death should not now be visited on him; yet that he might not be without immediate punishment, his child should die. Thus the contrast between the punishment of 2Sa 12:10-12 and that of 2Sa 12:13-14, will lie in the immediateness or remoteness. For the rest, it is not necessary to suppose that this scene occurred in a minute, even though we should not (with Ewald) assume a considerable interval of time in the middle of 2Sa 12:13 (at the Pisqa).Tr.]

[7][2Sa 12:11. The Yod in is to be regarded as radical (though some MSS. omit it) and the word as singular.Tr.]

[8][2Sa 12:13. The masoretic note here is: Pisqa (division) in the middle of the verse. This doubtless indicates that a pause was felt to be desirable between Davids solemn confession of sin and Nathans announcement of pardon; but whether it is also intended to indicate an interval of time must remain undetermined.Tr.]

[9][2Sa 12:14. So all versions and MSS. Geiger thinks that this is a case similar to 1Sa 25:22, where the enemies is inserted to avoid an irreverent or injurious expression. But in that passage (see the discussion there in Text. and Gram.) the word enemies is obviously out of place, while here it suits very well; and the possibility of the causative sense of the Piel must be omitted. Yet if the Heb. text be retained, we must suppose some publicity given to Davids crime; and the reading: thou hast despised Jehovah, would agree well with the context.Tr.]

[10][2Sa 12:31. Chron. (2Sa 20:3) has , he sawed, which is adopted by Erdmann, Bib.-Com., and most critics. The Heb. phrase here is unusual and hard, and the reading of Chron. has against it only that the verb sawed does not agree well with the instruments of threshing and cutting. Therefore a general sense, cut, has been assigned to the verb, which, however, is doubtful. It is held by some that our Heb. text means only that David put his prisoners to work with saws, etc.; but the words will hardly bear this interpretation. Chald. has sawed (), and so the Vulg. (probably a paraphrase).Tr.]

[11][2Sa 12:31. Erdmann: made them enter their Moloch, retaining the Kethib, as he explains in his exposition. Eng. A. V. adopts the Qeri, which seems the better reading.Tr.]

[12][It is doubtful whether this phrase belongs to the Vulgate text. It is not found in our present printed edition, nor in the Codex Amiatinus; and the expression is not Hebrew but Latin (Wellhausen).Josephus language he asked him to tell him what he thought (Ant. 7, 7, 3) is a natural introduction in Josephus expansive manner, and does not necessarily suggest a corresponding phrase in his Greek text.Tr.]

[13] , anarthrous, defined by the Article with the following adjective. See Ewald, 293 a.

[14][Especially as no murder is introduced into the parable. No doubt it was part of Nathans plan, as Dr. Erdmann suggests, to conceal the immediate reference from David. He therefore does not minutely imitate the circumstances of Davids crime. and the interpretation of the parable must simply take the central thought and apply it. Here was a man that wronged his neighbor by depriving him of valuable property; the wrong is heightened by the fact that the aggressor has much and the sufferer little. Such an aggressor was David. Farther than this it is not proper to carry the interpretation of particulars. Abarbanels explanation (given by Patrick) is too minute.Tr.]

[15][In Hahns ed. of the Heb. Bib. both text and margin have his eyes (with a mere orthographic difference); but in some other edd. (see De Rossi) the Qeri or margin is as Dr. Erdmann states.Tr.]

[16] Piel Inf. Abs.; the i for assonance with the following Perfect, Ew. 240 c.

[17][Sept., changing the accents, has: what is this that thou hast done for the child? while it yet lived thou didst fast, etc., and this is adopted by Thenius (after Hitzig), and declared by Wellhausen to be the only possible construction of the words. The latter, however, points out the two difficulties in this construction, that we do not expect any qualifying phrase after thou hast done, and that the curtness and isolation of the is hard. He therefore reads (as in 2Sa 12:22) while the child was yet alive instead of , for which, says Bttcher, there is no need. The construction of Eng. A. V., though not without its difficulties, may be retained, though Wellhausens suggestion commends itself as more natural and grammatical.Tr.]

[18]Kethib Impf. Qal, Qeri Perf. with Waw consecutive.

[19][Solomon, in Heb. Shelomoh. = peaceful. Other names from the same stem are Shalmai (Ezr 2:46. margin), Shelomi (Num 34:27), Shelumiel (Num 1:6), Shelemiah (1Ch 26:14), Shelomith (Lev 24:11; 2Ch 11:20). Sept. and Vulg. write Salomon, and New Test. (Greek) Solomon, which our translators have adopted (Bib.-Com.). The Arabic form is Suleiman, Syr. Sheleimun. The final n comes from the attempt of the Sept. to give the name a Greek appearance, or, it may really have taken this form in Egypt.Tr.]

[20][The first part of the name Jedidiah means the same as David. Comp. Amadeus.Tr.]

[21][There is a disposition to assimilate the two designations in 2Sa 12:26-27, city of the kingdom and city of water. In 2Sa 12:27 Syr., Arab., Chald., and some Heb. MSS. read as in 2Sa 12:26, and Wellhausen proposes to read 2Sa 12:26 as 2Sa 12:27. Certainly if Joab had already captured the whole city, there would be no room for Davids capture (2Sa 12:29), and so Keils explanation must be adopted if we retain the Heb. text.Tr.]

[22] for .

[23] instead of Kethib .

[24]Bttcher: The Kethib needs no change, for is a Hebraized form of , the ending om being augmentative.

[25][As Dr. Erdmann remarks, the standing formula is to pass through to Moloch, and the Heb. text cannot be so rendered; it is in malkon. It is a further objection to this view that the phrase was used distinctly of the worship of Moloch, and would hardly be used of an act of punishment. But if the Qeri be adopted, the phrase is still hard, because of the preposition: he made them pass through in the kiln, the usual phrase omitting the preposition. No satisfactory translation of the words has yet been offered.Tr.]

[26]Hero-Worship. Quoted more fully by Taylor.

[27]Collected and abridged from a number of passing allusions.

Fuente: A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical by Lange

DISCOURSE: 316
NATHANS PARABLE

2Sa 12:1-7. And the Lord sent Nathan unto David. And he came unto him, and said unto him, There were two men in one city; the one rich, and the other poor. The rich man had exceeding many flocks and herds: but the poor man had nothing, save one little ewe lamb, which he had bought and nourished up: and it grew up together with him, and with his children; it did eat of his own meat, and drank of his own cup, and lay in his bosom, and was unto him as a daughter. And there came a traveller unto the rich man, and he spared to take of his own flock and of his own herd, to dress for the wayfaring man that was come unto him; but took the poor mans lamb, and dressed it for the man that was come to him. And Davids anger was greatly kindled against the man; and he said to Nathan, As the Lord liveth, the man that hath done this thing shall surely die: and he shall restore the lamb four-fold, because he did this thing, and because he had no pity. And Nathan said to David, Thou art the man.

GOD, in the disposal of his gifts, does not conduct himself by any such laws as are necessary for the regulation of human actions. He is a Sovereign who may deal with his creatures as he pleases, without giving account to us of any of his matters. Accordingly we find that sometimes he has exercised a severity beyond what we, with our limited apprehensions, might have expected: and at other times he has shewn mercy, where we could have expected nothing but the heaviest judgments. We have lately seen him striking Uzzah dead for a well-meant error, and taking the kingdom from Saul for not waiting quite so long for Samuel as he should have done: but in our text we behold him sending a prophet unto David to bring him to repentance, after the commission of such crimes as cannot be contemplated without horror and amazement. But His ways are not as our ways, nor his thoughts as our thoughts.
The conduct of David as portrayed in our text, together with the means used by Nathan to humble him for it, lead us to shew,

I.

To what an awful extent a mans conscience may be seared

We read of persons whose consciences are seared as with an hot iron [Note: 1Ti 4:2.]: and such was now the state of David

[One would have supposed that, after the commission of adultery with Bathsheba, he would have been scarcely able to endure his existence through the agonies of his mind: but he was only concerned about concealing it from man: accordingly, on finding that her pregnancy must of necessity lead to a discovery of the crime, he adopted various means to deceive Uriah; and when he did not succeed in them, he sent an order to Joab to expose, and to desert, him in battle, so as to ensure his death by the hands of the enemy. Would one not suppose that such complicated crimes as these should awaken him? Yet behold for nine or ten months he was, as far as appears to us, altogether insensible of his guilt.
At the same time he was quick-sighted enough to the crimes of others, and severe in the extreme against the man, whom Nathan represented as oppressively taking the favourite lamb of a poor neighbour in preference to one out of his own flock: he deemed that man to be worthy of death, because he had shewn no pity; and adjudged him to pay four-fold for the injury he had committed.
Who can reflect on this without utter astonishment? That so holy a man as David, who had been so honoured of the Lord, and had done so much for the honour of his God, should be left to fall in so grievous a manner, and to lie for so long a time impenitent in his sins! Who can look upon it, and not weep for him? Who can look upon it, and not tremble for himself?]
But awful as this state of mind appears, it is, alas! too common in this world
[Such enormous crimes indeed as those of David are not common: but who has not committed some evils which ought to have humbled him in the dust before God? yet who has not continued months, and even years, without ever abasing himself with humiliation and contrition? Who has not shewn a strange insensibility with respect to the guilt he has contracted? We can easily discern the faults of others, and can censure them with severity; but towards our own we are most blind and most indulgent.
Nor must we be considered here as referring altogether to those who despise religion: it is a common evil: it is found even in the house of God: there are professors of religion who are as blind to their own sins, as if they never had known what sin was; and who, if their misdeeds are unknown to man, continue for years unhumbled in the sight of God. Yes; there are too many, who are both blinded and hardened by the deceitfulness of sin; and, if ever God should give them true repentance, they will be as much astonished at their present insensibility, as now they are at that which is recorded in our text.]
Seeing then how callous a mans conscience may become, let us inquire,

II.

In what way it may be most successfully excited to perform its office

Much may be learned from the conduct of Nathan on this occasion:

1.

We should endeavour to divest men of the self-love that blinds them

[This was well contrived in the parable that Nathan spake. David did not see the drift of the parable as relating to himself, and therefore felt no personal interest in his decision. Hence his judgment was free, and his determination of the cause unbiassed. Had he been aware that he was about to condemn himself, he would have been far more indulgent towards the offending person.
Now this mode of convicting persons, who would have revolted at any plainer dealing, has been frequently practised with good effect. It was to such an expedient that Joab resorted, in order to prevail on David to recall his son Absalom from banishment [Note: 2Sa 14:5-11; 2Sa 14:20.] and by a similar device a prophet constrained Ahab to condemn himself for sparing Benhadad, whom God had delivered into his hands to be destroyed [Note: 1Ki 20:35-42.] Our Lord himself also frequently adopted the same method of counteracting the prejudices of the Scribes and Pharisees [Note: Mat 21:40-45.] By such means a person is silenced at once, and is condemned out of his own mouth. True indeed, in cases where the mind is open to conviction, these precautions are less necessary; but the sentence that is founded on such grounds is always less offensive, because the criminal passes it upon himself.]

2.

We should however combine fidelity with address

[Sooner or later we must come to the point, Thou art the man. We are to consider ourselves as messengers of the Most High God, who has said, He that hath my word, let him speak my word faithfully. What is the chaff to the wheat [Note: Jer 23:28.]? We must not fear the face of man: our concern for his welfare must swallow up all dread of his displeasure; and the consideration of the account which we must one clay give to God, must impel us, even at the peril of our lives, to bear a faithful testimony in his service. Behold the boldness of Elijah in reproving Ahab [Note: 1Ki 18:17-18; 1Ki 21:19-21.]; and of John in condemning the incestuous commerce of Herod [Note: Mat 14:4.]: these are the examples which we must follow, when milder methods have proved ineffectual: but our object must always be, not merely to acquit ourselves to God as faithful monitors, but to win the souls of those whom we admonish. The recollection of our own weakness, and proneness to fall, must ever render us as tender as possible towards our fallen brother: we must restore him in the spirit of meekness; considering ourselves, lest we also be tempted [Note: Gal 6:1.].]

Let us then, in the view of this history, learn,
1.

To tremble for ourselves

[Did David fall? Who then is safe? Did David sink into such an obdurate state? Who has not reason to dread lest he be given over to a reprobate mind? Clear enough it is from whence repentance must proceed, whether in its first commencement, or in its further progress: if God work it not in us by his Holy Spirit, we shall be altogether as insensible as a rock of adamant. Let none of us then indulge a proud security, or imagine ourselves out of the reach of temptation; Let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall ]

2.

To rejoice in God

[O what mercy did God display on this occasion; that instead of cutting off the royal miscreant by some signal judgment, he sent a prophet to awaken his drowsy conscience, and bring him to repentance! We lament indeed, that many have taken occasion from Davids fall to make light of sin; and from his recovery, to imagine, that God will never execute his threatened judgments: but we have reason to bless our God that such a monument of mercy has been exhibited in the Scriptures. How many thousands of backsliding Christians have been restored by means of this one example! We are now encouraged to say to all, however heinous their iniquities have been, Return, ye backsliding children; and God will heal your backslidings, and love you freely. Only acknowledge your iniquity, and then it shall not be your ruin. Is there any one amongst us who has become hardened in his sins? O, hear what God says to his people of old [Note: Isa 57:17-18.]; and seek repentance unto life, even that repentance which is not to be repented of.]

Fuente: Charles Simeon’s Horae Homileticae (Old and New Testaments)

CONTENTS

This chapter is a continuation of the same subject as the former; and relates the method the Lord was pleased to adopt for the recovery of David after his fall. Nathan the prophet is sent from the Lord to David; opens his commission with a parable. David’s behaviour upon this occasion. The Lord’s mercy; and his judgment in the death of the child which Bath-sheba bore to David. A relation in the close of the chapter of the war, and the event of it.

Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

(1) And the LORD sent Nathan unto David. And he came unto him, and said unto him, There were two men in one city; the one rich, and the other poor. (2) The rich man had exceeding many flocks and herds: (3) But the poor man had nothing, save one little ewe lamb, which he had bought and nourished up: and it grew up together with him, and with his children; it did eat of his own meat, and drank of his own cup, and lay in his bosom, and was unto him as a daughter. (4) And there came a traveler unto the rich man, and he spared to take of his own flock and of his own herd, to dress for the wayfaring man that was come unto him; but took the poor man’s lamb, and dressed it for the man that was come to him.

I beg the Reader to remark, that a period of, at least, nine months (how much longer I will not determine) must have elapsed from the commission of David’s adultery to this message of Nathan to David; because the child was born. During which time, it doth not appear that David had once expressed sorrow for his aggravated sins. Indeed, as the Holy Ghost is wholly silent upon the subject, it should seem that all communion with the Lord must have been remitted. Reader! do not forget to remark this, and to reflect on the very awful state to which a soul may be reduced by hardening the heart in sin! And do let me beg of you further to remark, how utterly incapable a man is to recover himself, if the Lord doth not recover him. Grace must first enter the heart before a sense of sin can take place in the mind. The Lord sent Nathan unto David; not David sent to call Nathan, or make supplication to the Lord. Thou restorest my soul, (saith David upon another occasion) Psa 23:3 . Without this awakening by grace, neither David, nor any other sinner, could ever awaken himself. If the Reader be not sensible of this, may it please the Lord to make him! The method Nathan took to awaken David to a sense of his sin, and to make him his own judge, was by means of a parable, most happily chosen, according to the general usage of instruction in the eastern world. It is probable that Nathan, as a prophet and teacher in the Lord’s service, frequently adopted such a plan, therefore it lulled all suspicion in the breast of the king of anymore than an ordinary subject. The parable itself is so plain in its allusion to the case of David in his late atrocity, that I do not think it needful, to comment upon it in the explain nation. Uriah’s one wife compared to David with his many wives, was but like the poor man with his ewe lamb to the many herds of his rich neighbor. So that to let his corrupt passions lead him to this act of oppression and cruelty was beautifully marked out in the case, as Nathan represented it.

Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

Nathan and David

2Sa 12:7

Holy Scripture leaves us in no manner of doubt as to the general character of David (1Sa 13:14 ). So that we cannot doubt of David’s favour and acceptance with God before he sinned so grievously. Moreover, his own writings have come down to us as witness of his affection towards God; his Psalms say plainly what his mind must have been, for we still use them, as they have ever been used in the Church of God both by Jews and Christians, as the best expression of our devout affections towards God; we can find no language so fit in which to clothe our own offerings of praise, or prayer, or thanksgiving; no words of Repentance so deep and earnest as those in the fifty-first Psalm, where David confesses before God the very sin referred to in this chapter.

But, notwithstanding all this, we see David here speaking to Nathan like a man whose conscience made no answer to the parable of the prophet; we see him so devout before his sin, and so penitent afterwards, yet apparently (for the moment) quite unconscious of his great offence; so that he needs to have his own righteous indignation turned backwards by the prophet’s word upon himself; to be plainly told ‘Thou art the man’.

I. We have before us, then, in David’s conduct under the reproof of Nathan, an instance of one of the saddest effects of sin; we see that, so long as it is willingly entertained by us, sin overpowers the conscience and destroys it that, so long as sin is living and reigning there, the soul is dead, for the Holy Spirit is grieved and silent, or has departed from us; and, so long as this is the case, all hope of recovery or deliverance is at an end. Whatever our sin may be, we may yet be saved, if we find grace to repent of it. But the very first consequence of sin is a deadness and insensibility of soul; with every advance in sin our own chance of retreat is more and more cut off, and our hope taken away; it brings, as it were, its own judgment with it.

Surely we leave this fact out of our calculation when we think or speak of an act of sin as a solitary and independent thing; that our consciences will still remain as now, and forget that our whole conscience is becoming darkened, and the whole man changed by it. This fact will explain why good men have spoken so strongly of their own sinful state, in a way which may sometimes have seemed to us overdone and untrue; for it is a reward and consequence of holiness that, as men advance therein, the spiritual faculties become more enlightened; just as it is a consequence of sin persevered in that the conscience becomes darkened and dead. This, again, should lead us to fear the danger of making false calculations as to Repentance. If we reckon and rely on a future Repentance, it is plain that we do it because we wish to enjoy the pleasures of sin now. And what is this but choosing sin and all its consequences?

This alone is clear that Repentance will never be so easy as now; that every delay must make it harder and harder, and remove it further out of our reach; that our love for God and holiness will grow weaker and weaker; and the desire for better things, and the knowledge of them, will fade together from our souls. Now is the accepted time, and Now the day of salvation. Now before the power of sin is confirmed, or the Holy Spirit has finally departed from us. This, then, is the one great lesson which we may learn from the record of David’s sin. We see him stand before the prophet unconscious of his guilt, and it needs that the prophet should say to him, ‘Thou art the man,’ in order that he may see himself in the parable set before him.

II. We may very well, then, take this warning of the blinding power of sin to ourselves, from the words spoken by Nathan to David. But who shall speak them to ourselves? Who shall point to God’s Word, when they set before us our sins, or say to us, ‘Thou art the man of whom these things are spoken’? We must undertake to do this for ourselves. We are bound to read or hear the Word of God with this view, that we may apply it to our own state. For, if we will not judge ourselves, we shall be judged and condemned of God; our sins will never be confessed or repented of; self-deceived and dead in sin, wholly ignorant of our own state in the sight of God, day by day we shall be ripening for His judgment; and this, because we never took God’s Word to ourselves when it spoke of sin and its consequences.

Self-judgment

2Sa 12:7

It is not the story of David’s sin, and its punishment, with his bitter repentance, and ultimate forgiveness, which I desire to deal with now, but the great principle of self-judgment illustrated in the scene.

I. The first thing that strikes us is the blindness and infatuation of the man to have missed the application of the parable. It seems an almost impossible state of self-deception, which could let him flare out in indignant virtue against the supposed culprit, and never once dream that the case could apply to himself. But it is not such an impossible thing as it looks, nay, it is even one of the commonest facts of morals, and one which we can easily illustrate any day among ourselves. We nod assent to a general statement of right and wrong, accept principles, even give our unbiassed judgment on concrete cases that are mentioned, and yet never make the personal application. Conscience works out correctly in an abstract case, when there seems no personal interest. Till we come to the bar naked, without veils and excuses and palliations, as David was tricked into doing, we never do justice against ourselves.

II. In religion we are, if possible, more easily biassed by personal considerations. The self-deceit we are speaking about would seem incredible but for facts like this case of David. It is not incredible to the man who knows his own heart and the deceitfulness of sin. David must have previously deluded himself, or he could not have been so insensible. We are all right on the general principles of religion, but personal religion begins exactly where we leave off. Our great necessity is to relate our particular case to the general law. In assenting to the judgment, which Nathan meant to rouse in him about the rich man, David was passing judgment on himself unconsciously. This is the stumbling-block in the way of all amendment, that sin is not accepted as such; we do not recognize; the word has not come to us, striking us dumb: ‘Thou art the man’. We must discover, and acknowledge, and confess our sin, before forgiveness is possible discover first of all self-revelation, self-judgment, self-condemnation, these represent the first task of religion. Till we have come to grips with self, we cannot come to terms with God.

III. Rigorous self-judgment is the first requisite of moral life, to turn the light in on self. Many religious people are worms of the earth, with their whole nature corrupt in their general confession, and very fine gentlemen in detail never dealing with self in any direct fashion, never hearing once the searching word, Thou art the man. We have seen how hard honest self-judgment is, and yet how essential. Essential it is not only first, but it is also last. Would you then know the method, the infallible way of putting self to the proof? The method for us is this bring yourselves, your work, motives, ambitions, inner thoughts into the presence of Christ, and judge them there. He is the Light in this sense also. Until we make Christ our conscience, bringing everything to be judged by the Light, we will keep confusing the issues, and disguising our sins, and finding all manner of self-escape, excuses, and counter-charges

Hugh Black, Christ’s Service of Love, p. 147.

References. XII. 7. R. J. Campbell, Sermons addressed to Individuals, p. 227. H. Montagu Butler, Harrow School Sermons, p. 85. H. Scott Holland, Church Times, vol. lvii. 1907. p. 147; see also Christian World Pulpit, vol. lxxi. 1907, p. 107.

Confession of Sin

2Sa 12:13

The story of David’s fall, and David’s penitence, confession, and forgiveness, is recorded for us in Holy Scripture in order that we may have plainly set before us the pathway in which every true penitent must walk. Confession of sin is a necessary condition of forgiveness of sin.

I. We must confess our sins. Mark that is something very different from confessing that we are sinners. To confess our sins, our own particular and private sins the sins in consequence of which we might be compared with our neighbours to our disadvantage the flaws and defects, the blots and the stains on our own piece of material which make it vile and worthless the violations of God’s Holy Law this is the only true confession of sin this is the necessary condition for obtaining the Divine forgiveness.

To do this work of confession aright, self-examination is plainly necessary systematic and regular self-examination. And if our examination is to be real and efficient, we have a special need of the grace of God. The light of God we shall need to enable us to see our sins, the love of God we need to enable us to abhor our sins. And beyond the daily self-examination, it is plain that there should be regular seasons in our lives when we should make a more thorough and systematic examination. The penitential seasons of the Church Lent, Rogationtide, Advent afford us special opportunities.

II. When we sinned, whatever our sin was, we necessarily sinned against God. So when we sinned we had necessarily to make confession unto Him. But our sins are often sinned against our fellow-men. We do them wrong either by word or deed. In such cases it is part of true repentance, it is part of the confession which wins forgiveness, to confess our sins unto man. It is a bitter discipline to undergo, but a most wholesome one. And our Church imposes it upon us.

Confession to God through His Priest has been to many a blessed means of breaking with habits of sin. It has enabled them to lead a holier life. It has led up to the application of God’s pardon to their own troubled conscience. They have been enabled to feel that the inestimable gift of forgiveness is theirs.

III. When we have heard the summons, let us confess our sin unto Almighty God; when we have confessed and been absolved, then another summons, a more grateful summons is heard. ‘Let us give thanks.’ When God has taken away our iniquity and received us graciously, then we render the calves of our lips. And we shall show forth God’s praise, ‘not with our lips only, but in our lives’.

F. Watson, The Christian Life Here and Hereafter, p. 1.

Sin Put Away (Easter Even)

2Sa 12:13

The point at which we stand today is the only one from which we can really see all the meanings which, whether Nathan was conscious of it or not, lay indeed inside the words which he said to David. The Sacrifice of Calvary is complete, and we are waiting to hear the joy bells of Easter telling us that Christ is risen. He was ‘delivered for our offences and was raised again for our justification’.

I. The Rapidity of the Pardon. The first thought which, probably, strikes the mind, is the rapidity with which the penitent received his answer a rapidity so great that, in fact, the pardon had actually preceded the confession. ‘Before they call, I will answer; and while they are yet speaking, I will hear.’

II. The Cross is God’s Great Effort to ‘put away sin’ in some way compatible with His love, for sin cannot be near God. Sin cannot live in His sight. Having punished the sinner in Christ, it is as much a just, as it is a loving, act with God to take back the sinner to His bosom.

III. What God Says. God does not say that that ‘put away sin’ shall never smart. God does not tell you there shall be no temporal punishment for that forgiven sin! He does not promise that there shall be no loving process of corrective chastisement. He is too wise and too fatherly to say that. But this is what He does say: ‘Nevertheless, thou shalt never be separated from Me. Thy soul, through eternity, is safe. Thou shalt not die!’

IV. Then let your Sin Die out of your Sorrow. Let it die! Let it die from those dark memories and those brooding fears ‘even as a dead thing out of mind’. You will be holier when you are free from its cloggings! Why chain yourself to that thing of death? Did Jesus die? Then, by that token that sin is dead. This is the day for great things. May it be ours to realize that we are indeed ‘buried with Him,’ so that as He was raised even we may henceforth ‘walk in newness of life’.

References. XII. 13. A. Maclaren, Expositions of Holy Scripture 2 Samuel, p. 64. R. Scott, Oxford University Sermons, p. 251. J. Vaughan, Sermons Preached in Christ Church, Brighton(7th Series), pp. 112, 120. XII. 13, 14. Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. lii. No. 2981. C. Simeon, “David’s Humiliation and Acceptance,” Works, vol. iii. p. 269. Bp. Heber, Parish Sermons, vol. ii. p. 96 H. Thompson, “Sin of Giving Occasion of Blasphemy,” Davidica, p. 127. “Self-recognition,” Homilist, vol. x. p. 41. Lewis, “Sin of Scripture Saints,” Plain Sermons for Christian Year, p. 430. Woodgate, “Dangers of Ease and Prosperity,” Historical Sermons, vol. ii. Edward White, “On the Secondary Consequences of Sin,” Mystery of Growth, p. 324; and see Stanley, Jewish Church, vol. ii. p. 91. XII. 20-22. J. McNeill, Christian World Pulpit, vol. lii. 1897, p. 158. XII. 22, 23. W. H. Hutchings, Sermon-Sketches (2nd Series), p. 214. XII. 23. B. Jowett, Christian World Pulpit, vol. xxxviii. 1890, p. 81. XIV. 14. A. Maclaren, Expositions of Holy Scripture 2 Samuel, p. 73. B. Wilberforce, The Hope that is in Me, p. 122. H. D. M. Spence, Voices and Silences, p. 291. Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. xvi. No. 950. G. F. Holden, Church Times, vol. lvii. 1907, p. 415. XIV. 29-31. Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. x. No. 563. XV. 1-12. A. Maclaren, Expositions of Holy Scripture 2 Samuel, p. 84. XV. 12-37. Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. lii. No. 2995. XV. 15. A Maclaren, Expositions of Holy Scripture 2 Samuel, p. 89. XV. 21. H. J. Wilmot-Buxton, Holytide Teaching, p. 29. Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. xxvi. No. 1512. A. Maclaren, Expositions of Holy Scripture 2 Samuel, p. 97. J. M. Neale, Sermons Preached in Sackville College Chapel, vol. iii. p. 420. XV. 30. K. Moody-Stuart, Light from the Holy Hills, p. 115. XVI. 12. J. M. Neale, Sermons Preached in a Religious House, vol. ii. p. 392. XVII. 23. Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. lii. No. 2995. XVII. 27-29. Ibid. vol. xxvi. No. 1544. XVII. 50. C. Silvester Home, Christian World Pulpit, vol. lxviii. 1905, p. 152. XVIII. 10. R. Barclay, Christian World Pulpit, vol. xlvii. 1895, p. 10. XVIII. 18-33. A. Maclaren, Expositions of Holy Scripture 2 Samuel, p. 106. XVIII. 29. Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. xxiv. No. 1433; see also Twelve Sermons to Young Men, p. 505.

Fuente: Expositor’s Dictionary of Text by Robertson

2Sa 12:1-14

1. And the Lord sent Nathan unto David. And he came unto him, and said unto him, There were two men in one city; the one rich, and the other poor.

2. The rich man had exceeding many flocks and herds:

3. But the poor man had nothing, save one little ewe lamb, which he had bought and nourished up: and it grew up together with him, and with his children: it did eat of his own meat, and drank of his own cup, and lay in his bosom, and was unto him as a daughter.

4. And there came a traveller unto the rich man, and he spared to take of his own flock and of his own herd, to dress for the wayfaring man that was come unto him; but took the poor man’s lamb, and dressed it for the man that was come to him.

5. And David’s anger was greatly kindled against the man; and he said to Nathan, As the Lord liveth, the man that hath done this thing shall surely die.

6. And he shall restore the lamb fourfold, because he did this thing, and because he had no pity.

7. And Nathan said to David, Thou art the man. Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, I anointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul;

8. And I gave thee thy master’s house, and thy master’s wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things.

9. Wherefore hast thou despised the commandment of the Lord, to do evil in his sight? thou hast killed Uriah the Hittite with the sword, and hast taken his wife to be thy wife, and hast slain him with the sword of the children of Ammon.

10. Now therefore the sword shall never depart from thine house; because thou hast despised me, and hast taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be thy wife.

11. Thus saith the Lord, Behold, I will raise up evil against thee out of thine own house, and I will take thy wives before thine eyes, and give them unto thy neighbour, and he shall lie with thy wives in the sight of this sun.

12. For thou didst it secretly: but I will do this thing before all Israel, and before the sun.

13. And David said unto Nathan, I have sinned against the Lord. And Nathan said unto David, The Lord also hath put away thy sin; thou shalt not die.

14. Howbeit, because by this deed thou hast given great occasion to the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme, the child also that is born unto thee shall surely die.

Nathan’s Parable

IN reading the opening words of this chapter we can have no doubt as to their authenticity. The words are these, “And the Lord sent Nathan unto David.” We cannot mistake the Heaven-sent man. Wherever he is sent he carries his credentials along with him, not written with pen and ink, but so written in his face or tone or manner as to leave no doubt as to the divinity of his mission and the heavenliness of his inspiration. “Pray ye therefore the Lord of the harvest, that he will send forth labourers into his harvest.” It is in vain for men to send themselves, or to imagine that they can confer any advantage upon the Christian cause on account of their own dignity, or personal renown, or social recognition in any direction. God himself must send, in his own way. The man is exalted by his mission. Though a dumb man to begin with, he waxes eloquent in God’s cause; though a stammerer at the outset, he is no stammerer at the end. Is there a greater blessing known amongst us than to be brought now and again into vital association with a Heaven-sent man, whether he come as speaker or writer or private friend a man who has in very deed a gift in prayer, a genius of sympathy, an inspiration of method and of tone, so that his gracious appeal is thrown over us ere yet we have given him full consent? Has not the world stoned its prophets, and killed them that were sent unto it? Last of all, God said I will send my Son; they will reverence my Son the great parabolist, the great musician, the great teacher, all led up to the great Saviour. They killed him. They recognised him as to the worthiness and mystery of his power; they thought they had found his origin, but had not; they supposed they had measured him, but their tape fell short of the infinite bulk. So they killed him whom they could not understand and perfectly follow, because following such a man meant suffering with him, dying with him, that with him they might rise again. We should soon have discovered any imposture on the part of Nathan. His very first sentence would have betrayed him. Men cannot profess to come in God’s name and then speak in their own without being instantly detected. This parable is its own witness. It is not a fabric built by human hands upon the cold earth; it is a picture or sign let down from heaven, until it comes to the eye-line and every tint of it can be perfectly discerned. We know the true poet when we hear him, at least in some of his measures and strains; if now and again he be quite beyond us a child of the stars, a man standing in the sun yet also he comes down and sings until we join him, falling into the same tune, carrying it home with us, repeating it and spreading it abroad like a gospel of joy. It is just so that the Book of God stands before human judgment. If there is anything else like it, let the objector produce it. That is all that requires to be done. If there is anywhere a finer literary touch, a more consummate judgment of human life in all its bearings and outlooks, a finer criticism of human motive and character, all the critic has to do is to produce it. This parable of Nathan’s stands up before us a thing unrivalled in beauty, complete as a dew-drop, fragrant as a flower, yet for the figure may be changed even without violence a picture painted in the sky. If there is anything superior to it our only desire is to know where it is and to look upon it. And what is true of the parable is true of the whole revelation in which it stands a revelation unique in all the elements that constitute simplicity, beauty, majesty, divinity. But what is a parable unless it be the larger fact? A parable is not mere poetry of words but poetry of interpretation of facts. Fiction has well been declared to be the larger truth. There are some who have no opinion of fiction: simply because they are blind, incomplete, ignorant men; men who do not know what they are talking about. Fiction is the completion of fact; fiction is the sky of thought. The holy book is full of this kind of imaginative teaching teaching that could only be taught as a subtle yet sublime appeal to the imagination. Let us then look at the parable as based upon fact.

There were two men in one city; the one rich, and the other poor. The rich man had many flocks and herds: the poor man had one ewe lamb. And the rich man, in a case of emergency, instead of taking a lamb out of his own flock, killed the one ewe lamb of the poor man. If that never occurred we must know it. Did it ever occur? It is the thing that is occurring every day. It is the infinite danger of wealth that it becomes oppressive cruel, thoughtless, selfish. To say that it always becomes so would be to go contrary to the most gracious facts with which we are acquainted would be to utter that which is not only unjust but absurd. There is a sanctified wealth; there is a gracious social position; there is a condescending royalty. But why should it be remarked that such should be the case? Simply because of the almost innate tendency of men to use wealth with cruelty and with selfishness. The poor man feels the cold wind first. The destruction of the poor man is his poverty. There are men who are poor today who are better than any king that ever reigned upon the earth. Wealth when it oppresses carries with it its own condemnation. Wealth when it is used as a means of succouring men, helping the true and the good ay, and sometimes throwing a handful even to men whose characters are not beyond suspicion is doing the work of God; and that it is often doing so is patent to us, and is a theme of gratitude and rejoicing. Who does not sometimes impose upon poverty? Who dares start a mission for the conversion of the rich? Is there such a mission amongst all the institutions of the day? It may be but sheer arrogance, the most pitiable impertinence, to open the poor man’s door and thrust upon him attentions which he has no wish to cultivate. Who can go to the high, and charge them across their wine-drinking with being adulterers, idolaters, wicked men? It is so cheap a virtue to preach to the poor, to take a part in urging upon what are termed “the masses” certain religious convictions, all that ought to be done; all that may be beautifully done; that is being done today with great and happy effect by men who know how to use great powers without undue urgency or the very appearance of oppressiveness: but there is something more to be done. The rich man is in danger of becoming a fool. Who can carry wealth in both hands without feeling that the earth is his, and that all men ought to obey him? That such a miracle has been wrought we must always most thankfully acknowledge. Some of the most modest, gracious, tender-hearted men known to us are men of almost incomputable wealth. But we are dealing with something below all that we now know as personal facts namely, with principles, mysteries, with that whole region, almost undiscovered, of motive, passion, impulse that never can be explained adequately in words. On the other hand, a man is not necessarily a virtuous citizen because he has only one ewe lamb. Let us be impartial. In the Church of God no preacher must bow before either one class or the other; nor must he spare the pulpit when he speaks in God’s name, even though he himself be the first to perish under the thunder of righteous judgment. The preacher is not a mere personality when he stands with open book before him in the sanctuary of God: being faithful to his vocation, he speaks the things that ought to be done, though he convict himself of inconsistency in every syllable he utters. Let it not, therefore, be established as a primary notion amongst us that because a man is poor therefore he is good. Some poor men would be worse men if they were rich. Some of us may even have to thank God in eternity that to get a mouthful of honest bread was the daily difficulty of our earthly life. This is a two-sided subject, and all that can be done is for every man, whichever side of it he may be upon, to examine himself and guard himself, for the severer he is upon himself the gentler will he be in judging other men.

Look at the parable as a method of teaching. The parable was a favourite educational instrument in Eastern nations. There were many parable-makers in Oriental lands, and people have in all ages listened to parables as they have never listened to merely didactic or instructive discourse, partaking of the dry nature of information only, without picture, or poetic sign. But where are the parables equal to those which are to be found in the Bible? Balaam had a parable, Jotham had a parable, these we have already studied; Nathan has a parable, and others in the Old Testament now and again come very near to the line of parable, but in proportion as we discover the parable to be beautiful and true we see in it the Spirit of the living God the Eternal Force the Divine Quantity. But when we come to the teaching of Jesus Christ all the other parables fall off into dim perspective; and after he laid down that instrument was it ever taken up again? Was Paul a teacher by parable? He had a great mind a majestic, temple-like mind, but could he paint as Christ painted, or poetise after the manner of the Son of God? Does he not struggle with his great argument? Is he not a man in tortures and paroxysms, complaining in his very majesty of reasoning of his weakness and inadequateness? He totters under the weight he tries to carry. And John sweet, loving man, uttering many things most memorable and quotable when did he teach as Christ taught? This was the method of the Saviour, and he adopted it oftentimes, because it led to men convicting themselves without their being able to fix any particular accusation upon the speaker. Jesus Christ often fetched a compass as we read respecting the attack made upon the Philistines and he fetched it by such a sweep, by such a reach of mind, that the men upon whom his attention was fastened little suspected, until after the completion of the parable, that they were the objects of his judgment and condemnation. This is masterly preaching to be personal without the individuals knowing that we are such; to get up a whole statement, coloured in every hue of heaven, sharp with all the pungency of criticism, and for men afterwards to wake up to the fact that the preacher was meaning none other than themselves. Such wondrous sermons did Christ preach that men took them home, began to apply them to other people, and finding the unfitness of such a procedure, began to wonder what the meaning was, and then started up in offence because they had been impleaded, accused, transfixed. What applies to Christ’s parables, and to all others of the same quality, applies to the whole revelation of God. It is in very deed every man’s book a special message sent to every reader. Whilst the Gentile is thinking that the judgments of God upon the Jews were well-deserved, lo! the thunder breaks upon his own ear, and the lightning plays before his own vision, and the stroke of God is heavy upon him. The Bible is the universal book. It is written in the universal language. It comes to every man straight from the heart of God.

Look at this parable as a practical revelation, first, of God’s justice. We have seen that the thing which David did “displeased the Lord.” We have insisted that wherever the sin is quoted against David the judgment should be quoted in favour of the Bible. We may continue to add to our denunciation of David’s guilt page after page of scathing criticism and condemnation, and yet never touch all that God meant when he set the seal of displeasure upon the man who was after his own heart. If David had been blessing others less sweetly, he would have been unable to sin so grievously. None can fall so far as an angel of God. Does God treat the sin lightly? He says: “The sword shall never depart from thine house;” across every bright summer that shines upon thee there shall be a great bar of blackness; when the birds sing to thee thou shalt be constrained to punctuate their song with memories of remorse; when thou dost lift the flagon to thy lips the wine shall leave behind it a poisonous taste; when thou liest down a thorn shall puncture thee: thou shalt never escape from this deed of wickedness. Whilst, therefore, the mocker is eager to quote as against the Bible the sin of David, if he be a just man as well as a jiber he ought to quote the judgment pronounced by God, and to see how true is the doctrine of eternal torment even in relation to this life. All punishment is for ever and ever. It is not a time-quantity. It is not an arithmetical sum. Time speaks in great numbers, but this suffering requires the mysterious words “for ever and ever” to define its quality and scope.

This parable, too, shows us man’s responsibility. David is not allowed to escape on the ground of being overtaken in a fault. Kings ought to be their own subjects. The greater the man, the greater should be the saint. The greater the opportunities we have had of education and culture of every kind, the severer should be public criticism upon our lapses and iniquities. To whom much has been given, from him shall much be expected. He who knoweth his Lord’s will and doeth it not shall be beaten with many stripes. If we would know what fall means apostasy, lapse from high privilege and intimate communion, ask not man, but ask “the angels who kept not their first estate.”

Now we cannot but pity David that the sword is within him, and that God is turning it round as by the handle that it may give him added pain pain but too well deserved. A scene that will never leave the vision of the world is that which describes David’s relation to the dying child and the child when dead. We could almost forgive him for his very love. A most rational course the poet took in his sorrow: “‘While the child was yet alive, I fasted and wept: for I said, Who can tell whether God will be gracious to me?’ He is so gracious; he has so often forgiven me: he has seventy times seven exercised his pardon towards me, and I said, Who can tell whether after this consummation of my wickedness ‘God will be gracious to me, that the child may live;’ he is always first to repent; the tears are in his eyes before they are in the eyes of the sinner, and I said, Who can tell whether God will be gracious to me, remember that I am dust, and have pity upon me, and may yet even spare the child? ‘But now he is dead, wherefore should I fast? can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me.'” Even our sorrow must be governed. We must be rational in our uttermost griefs. Here is the way in which a man may deport himself under the severest visitations of God Sorrow may be turned into idolatry. He is the most filial who, seizing the idea of Providence, answers it with obedience, resignation, and even with some measure of thankfulness, not always to be uttered at once, but by a promise of a hymn that shall one day be sung, and sorrow shall be turned into joy. Why did we not pity David and forgive him on the spot? Because there is in the universe a wronged man a murdered man. Sentiment must be watched, or it may be turned into a kind of miserable superstition. We pity the criminal, and will not flog the man of violence: we forget the man whom he slew or injured, the undeserved sufferer, the murdered one. No; David, though a harper and a psalmist and the darling of Israel, must not be pardoned yet. Society owes something to the murdered man. David shows great beauty of character, great tenderness of spirit, but he shows it too late. We must not be deceived by the tears of the poet. They are genuine tears; no question can be thrown upon the sincerity of the man; this is human nature at its best the “one touch of nature” that “makes the whole world kin:” but only yesterday, as it were, this man killed a valiant soldier and a faithful friend. He must be well held over the pit. As for those who have been murdered, slain, injured, we must leave them with God. He is a God of justice: they shall have their compensation. Yet David will be pardoned, for there is a way out of the greatest darkness; there is a road out of the deepest midnight, that leads right up towards morning: there is a fountain opened to the house of David for sin and for uncleanness; “Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts: and let him return unto the Lord, and he will have mercy upon him; and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon.” Let none despair! some ought indeed to create a hell for themselves, so bad has been their life from the first moment to the last. Yet the gospel of Christ is nothing if it do not include within its music all the children of men, of every hue and form, sinners of every degree of turpitude. Herein the gospel magnifies itself: where sin abounds grace doth much more abound. It is not for us to exclude any man from gospel hope. The church ought to be the place where the music of hope is played and sung; the church ought to be a house of hope and love and gratitude; the Christian pulpit ought to be the place where, after judgment has been pronounced, the word of hope should be declared sounded as upon a silver trumpet; and the message of mercy should be delivered in merciful tones, and the offer of pardon made with the pathos of a soul which has itself been pardoned.

Selected Note

That David was a man of ardent passions, and that he gratified these sometimes with the arbitrary license of an Oriental prince, lies on the surface of the record of his life. But men do ill to measure that heroic and many-stringed nature by the average standard of commonplace humanity; and it is foolish and wicked to dwell upon his obvious faults while no regard is paid to the nobler features of his soul, to the sublime piety in which his habitual life dwelt, to the intense agony with which he struggled for the mastery over these fiery passions, and the mournful remorse with which he bewailed their occasional triumph over his better nature. Some have even taken occasion from the sins into which David fell to sneer at the religion of which he appears as one of the most distinguished professors; forgetting how unfair and disingenuous it is to impute to a man’s religion what his religion had nothing to do with, except as it caused him frequently and constantly to deplore it It behoves us also to consider of how much good to the Church David’s varied experiences, even in their least excusable forms, have been made the vehicle. Though we neither excuse his acts of wickedness nor impute them to the temptation of God, who cannot be tempted of evil, neither tempteth any man, we will add that by his loss the Church hath gained; and that if he had not passed through every valley of humiliation and stumbled upon the dark mountains, we should not have had a language for the souls of the penitent, or an expression for the dark troubles which compass the soul that feareth to be deserted by its God.

Prayer

Almighty God, thy command is our law. We would hear a voice in our ear saying day by day, This is the way, walk ye in it. We would have a heart so prepared by thy grace that it would instantly answer, “In no other way will we walk, for this is the path of God.” Then should we walk where the ways are ways of pleasantness, and where the paths are peace, and where the road is a line going upward evermore through cloud and noise into brightness and rest Oh that our life were so ordered that we might take no step of ourselves: that we might learn to stand still and see the salvation of God! We have learned in some measure to walk, to run, but not to stand. Do thou attemper and chasten us, giving us to feel that in sweet obedience is the perfection of faith, and that to stand still is all we are asked to do. Behold, thou wilt show wondrous things to them who close their eyes. Thou wilt bring great satisfactions to hearts that do not hinder thee by impatience; thou wilt ennoble the life that trusts thee and takes nothing into its own mean care. Thou art making our bed at night-time, and arranging all the morning light for us, setting our table as our hunger returns. Thou art finding for us water in the desert, and a tabernacle in sandy places; yea, thou art building in the wilderness a thing fit for heaven. This is God’s love; this is the divine miracle; this is the Lord’s supreme wonder. Thou hast given us the cross, a cross of sacrifice, a cross of blood, full of meaning we cannot penetrate, full of pathos which melts our heart. It is lifted up to the Rock of Righteousness; it rises into the rain-clouds of the divine compassion; it stretches itself across the universe; it would bar the downward way; it would open a door into Heaven’s pardon and peace. For the cross, the Lord be blessed; for the atonement, we would praise him through unending time. Amen.

Fuente: The People’s Bible by Joseph Parker

XIX

THREE DARK EVENTS OF DAVID’S CAREER

2Sa 11:1-12:25 ; 2Sa 12:31 ; 2Sa 8:2

In the preceding discussion, three dark events of David’s career were omitted, first, because it was thought best to give in unbroken connection a history of his successful wars, carrying his kingdom to its promised boundaries and filling the world with his fame; secondly, because the three events called for special and extended treatment. Truly the wars closed in a blaze of glory, for “The Lord gave victory to David whithersoever he went,” “his kingdom was exalted on high for his people Israel’s sake;” “So David gat him a great name,” according to the gracious promise of Jehovah, “I will make unto thee a great name, like unto the name of the great ones that are in the earth.” Indeed, at the close of these wars his was the most illustrious name on earth and his kingdom the greatest.

It is a bitter thing to give to this luminous glory a background of horrible darkness. Yet fidelity to truth and the ages-long value of the lesson, require us to dip the brush that paints the background in most sombre colors. It is characteristic of portrait painters to use a flattering brush, and it was Cromwell only who said sternly to his portrait maker, “Paint me as I am; leave not out a scar or blemish.” What was exceptional with Cromwell was habitual with inspiration. It describes only one perfect, ideal man. It indulges in no hero worship. Noah’s drunkenness, Jacob’s meanness and duplicity, Aaron’s golden calf, the ill-advised words of Moses, the despondency of Elijah, the lying and swearing of Peter, the vengeful spirit of the beloved John, the awful sin of David, “the man after God’s own heart,” must all appear in the pictures when the Holy Spirit is the limner.

Concerning the best of men standing in the limelight of infinite holiness) we must say with the psalmist, “I have seen an end of all perfection for thy commandment is exceeding broad.”

The three dark episodes of David’s war-career made the theme of this chapter, are: (1) David’s great sin in the matter of Bathsheba and Uriah. (2) His treatment of his Ammonite captives. (3) His treatment of his Moabite captives.

The three are presented in one view because it is probable that the second, if not also the third, arose from a conscience blunted by the first. We need not go into the revolting details, since the record is before you, but consider the history only in the light of its practical value, seeing it was recorded “fur our admonition.”

So far as the first and greatest sin is concerned, it has evoked a voluminous literature. In the “Pulpit Commentary” alone are more than fifty pages of condensed homilies, and in Spurgeon’s Treasury of David is much more, but perhaps the best homiletical and philosophical treatment you will find is Taylor’s David, King of Israel. His outline of discussion is: (1) The precursors of the sin. (2) Its aggravations. (3) The penitence manifested. (4) The forgiveness received. (5) The consequences flowing from it.

After all, however, the most searching light on his heart experiences are found in his own songs of conviction, penitence and forgiveness in the following order: Psa 38:6 , 51, 32. Borrowing somewhat from Taylor’s order and treatment we submit this outline:

I. The precursors of David’s sin.

Sin has a genesis and development. It does not spring into life, like Minerva, full grown. James, the brother of our Lord, states the case thus: “Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God; for God cannot be tempted with evil, and he himself tempteth no man; but each man is tempted, when he is drawn away by his own lust, and enticed. Then the lust, when it hath conceived, beareth sin, when it is full grown, bringeth forth death” (Jas 1:13-15 ). What, then, the explanatory antecedents of his sin?

1. Since his crowning at Hebron he had enjoyed a long course of unbroken prosperity. Before that event he had been “emptied from vessel to vessel” and so had not “settled on his lees,” but now because he had no changes he becomes overconfident, less watchful and prayerful.

2. Up to the time of this sin he had been a very busy man, leading and sharing in all the privations and hazards of his army, but now, while Joab leads the army against Rabbah, “David tarried at Jerusalem.” While his soldiers sleep at night on the tented field, David rises from his daytime bed of luxury to look at eventide on Bathsheba. How grim must have been the rebuke of Uriah’s words: “And Uriah said unto David, The Ark and Israel, and Judah, abide in booths; and my lord Joab, and the servants of my lord, are encamped in the open field; shall I then go into mine house, to eat and to drink, and to lie with my wife? As thou livest, and as thy soul liveth, I will not do this thing,” 2Sa 11:11 . It has been well said, “If Satan tempts busy men, idle and luxurious men tempt Satan.”

3. He had prepared himself for a fall at the weakest point in his character by polygamy and concubinage, which while tolerated under restrictions under Mosaic law, was expressly forbidden to kings: “He shall not multiply wives to himself,” which was the Mosaic prohibition of the kingdom charter, Deu 17:17 . Sensualism is the sin of Oriental kings.

4. The sense of irresponsibility to moral law creeps with insidious power upon the rich and great and socially distinguished. The millionaires, the upper ten, the great 400 — what avails their wealth and power if they be not exempt from the obligations of the seventh commandment? Let the poor be virtuous. The king can do no wrong. To all such people the lesson is hard: “God is no respecter of persons.”

5. In times of war the bridle is slipped from human passions.

6. Subservient instruments are always ready to act as panderers to the great, while obsequious, high society paliates and condones their offenses.

7. In such conjuncture always comes opportunity as a spark of fire in a powder magazine; millions equally sensual have not sinned because there was no opportunity, no favorable conjuncture of circumstances.

II. The sin and its aggravations.

The sin, with all its progeny) was primarily sin against God, but it was adultery with Bathsheba, ingratitude, duplicity, and murder to Uriah, complicity in crime with his servants, a sin against himself and family.

1. It was a presumptuous sin against Jehovah, to whose favors it was ingratitude and to whose holiness it was insult, and to whose omniscience, omnipresence, and omnipotence it was a brazen dare.

2. It was a violation of his solemn coronation vow at Hebron as expressed in his own psalm that he would use his kingly office to put down offenses, and not for indulgences in them.

3. From his very exalted position as king over God’s people it caused the enemies of truth to blaspheme then and every since. It was a scandal in the etymological sense of the word, a stumbling block, over which thousands in every age have fallen. An inspired writer has said, “The wicked eat up the sins of my people.” Like buzzards swarming around carrion, they gather and feast and flap their wings in gloating when a Christian sins.

4. It served then and does now as an excuse for worse and smaller men to repeat the offenses or to condone other offenses.

5. It put his reputation in the hands of the servants employed in the transaction, and paved the way for whatever blackmail the unscrupulous instrument, Joab, might choose to exact, so that indeed hereafter “the sons of Zeruiah will be too hard for him.” Whoever calls in Turks, Tartars, and Huns for allies must afterwards reckon with the allies.

6. It was a sin against the devoted friendship of his brave champions, Uriah, the Hittite, and his comrade, Bathsheba’s father, who for many years of hazard and persecution had been his bulwark.

The meanness of the subterfuge in sending for Uriah that the offense might be hidden from him by making him an unwitting “cuckold,” the hypocrisy of sending him choice dishes and the means of drunkenness to the same end, and the refined cruelty of making him the carrier of the letter which contained his death warrant, the deliberate provision for others to die with him when exposed to danger, the order to withdraw from him and then that they might die and the lying ascription of such death to the chances of war, are unsurpassed in criminal history. A classic legend tells of such a letter carried by Bellerophon, giving rise to the proverb, “Beware of Bellerophonic letters.”

III. The sin on the conscience.

We may not suppose that David was without compunction of conscience for a whole year until reproved by Nathan. The Psa 38 and 6 indicate the contrary. While his crime was ostensibly a secret, you may be assured that it was an open secret which greatly damaged the king’s reputation, of which he is evidently conscious. Known to Joab and his household servants, it would be whispered from lip to ear, and carried from house to house. Enemies would naturally make the most of it. The side-look, the shoulder-shrug, and many-winged rumors would carry it far and wide. Even in the house of God, where he kept up the form of worship, knowing ones would make signs and comment under the thinnest veil of confidence.

IV. Jehovah speaks at last, or Nathan and David.

Whatever was David’s own conception of his sin, or the judgment of man, our record says, “But the thing that David had done displeased the Lord. And the Lord sent Nathan unto David.” Four things here impress the mind:

1. God’s judgment of human conduct is more than man’s judgment. It is the chief thing. We may hold out against, the adverse judgment of men if God approves in the matter of the thing condemned, but there is no withstanding the disapproval of the Holy One.

2. The fidelity of the prophets as mouthpieces of God. They make no apologies, nor soften words, nor have respect of persons. They speak to a king as to a peasant to a rich man as to a pauper.

3. The prophet’s method of causing David to pass judgment on himself is an inimitable parable that has charmed the world by its simplicity, brevity, pathos, and directness.

4. Its application is like a bolt of lightning: “Thou art the man!” In one flash of light the heart of the sin is laid bare and judgment follows judgment like the dreadful strokes of a trip-hammer) thus: (a) “The sword shall never depart from thy house.” (b) “I will raise up evil against thee in thine own house.” (c) “What thou hast done secretly against another shall be done against thee openly.”

V. David’s confession.

It is instant: “I have sinned against the Lord.” There is no trickery nor subterfuge, nor evasion, nor defense. His confession is like the publican’s prayer, who stood afar off, not lifting so much as his eyes to heaven, but smiting upon his breast, and saying, “God be merciful to me, the sinner.” The inspired prophet knew his penitence was genuine, and announces pardon for the world to come, but chastisement in this world, thus explaining those latter words of Jesus concerning another and greater sin which is eternal, having never forgiveness either in this world or in the next.

VI. The time penalties.

(1) The death of the child begotten in sin. (2) Following a father’s evil example, Amnon assaults his sister, Tamar. (3) Following the father’s example, and with much more justice, Absalom murders Amnon. (4) The devil once loosed, Absalom rebels against his father. (5) There being now no restraint, Absalom openly degrades David’s concubines, and this too under the advice of Ahithophel, Bathsheba’s grandfather, who evidently resents the shame put upon his granddaughter. (6) Joab pitilessly murders Absalom, in open violation of the father’s orders, and so exacts immunity as blackmail for his complicity in David’s sin. (7) Adonijah’s rebellion, encouraged by Joab, and his death. Such the long train of evil consequences of one sin.

VII. The sincerity of David’s repentance.

It is evidenced by his humility, submission, and hope on the death of his child. The story is very touching. “The Lord struck the child that Uriah’s wife bare to David and it was very sick.” The child was much beloved, but must die for the parents’ sin. This, David felt keenly: “This baby is dying for my sin.” No wonder he fasted and wept and prayed. The submission and hope are manifested after the child is dead. No need now to fast and pray and weep, as when it was yet alive and perchance might be saved. The death is of the body only and for this world only. He lives safe and happy in that better world: “He cannot return to me, but I may go to him.”

In all subsequent ages the doctrines of these words have illumined houses of mourning, “I shall go to him.”

At one stroke it destroys all hope of visitation from the dead, and at another stroke confers all hope of visitation to the dead, with all the joys of recognition and reunion.

This is by far the lightest of David’s penalties. There is no hope of reunion when Amnon and Absalom and Adonijah die. The farewell in their case is eternal. The most impressive, therefore, of all contrasts is the hopeful lamentation over this child, and the hopeless lamentation over Absalom. What a theme for a sermon!

But the sincerity of his penitence is best evidenced in his psalm. While Psa 38:6 convey most the sense of convicting power, Psa 51 , through the ages, has been regarded as the most vivid expression of contrition and repentance. Two incidents bearing upon his sincerity and genuine penitence cited by Taylor are worth repetition:

1. The testimony of Carlyle, that hater of all shams and hypocrisies, in his “Lecture on the Hero as Prophet,” says:

Faults! the greatest of faults, I should say, is to be conscious of none. Readers of the Bible, above all, one would think, might know better. Who is there called the man of God according to God’s own heart? David, the Hebrew king, had fallen into sins enough; blackest crimes; there was no want of sins. And thereupon unbelievers sneer and ask, “1s this your man according to God’s heart?” The sneer, I must say, seems to me but a shallow one. What are faults? what are the outward details of a life, if the inner secret of it the remorse, temptations, true, often baffled, never-ending struggle of it be forgotten? “It is not in man that walketh to direct his steps.” Of all acts, is not, for a man, repentance the most divine? The deadliest sin, I say, were that same supercilious consciousness of no sin. That is death. The heart so conscious is divorced from sincerity, humility, and fact, is dead. It is pure, as dead, dry sand is pure. David’s life and history, as written for us in those Psalms of his, I consider to be the truest emblem ever given of a man’s moral progress and warfare here below. All earnest souls will ever discern in it the faithful struggle of an earnest human soul toward what is good and best. Struggle often baffled sore, baffled down into entire wreck, yet a struggle never ended; ever with tears, repentance, true, unconquerable purpose begun anew. Poor human nature! Is not a man’s walking in truth always that “a succession of falls”? Man can do no other. In this wild element of a life, he has to struggle upward: now fallen, now abased; and ever with tears, repentance, and bleeding heart, he has to rise again, struggle again, still onward. That his struggle be a faithful, unconquerable one that is the question of questions.

2. The effect of Psa 51 on Voltaire when he read it with a view to caricature it. Dr. Leander Van Ess tells it as an undoubted fact that Voltaire once attempted to burlesque this psalm, and what was the result? While carefully perusing it, that he might familiarize himself with the train of sentiment which he designed to caricature, he became so oppressed and overawed by its solemn devotional tone, that he threw down his pen and fell back half senseless on his couch, in an agony of remorse.

But if Psa 51 is the highest expression of penitence, Psa 32 is the model expression of the Joy of forgiveness: Blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven, Whose sin is covered. Blessed is the man unto whom Jehovah imputeth not iniquity.

See the use Paul makes of this psalm in his great argument on justification by faith.

By application of this experience of David we learn other serious lessons.

1. The pen that writes the letter of Uriah must also write Psa 51 .

2. It is easy to fall, but difficult to rise again a thought most vigorously expressed by Virgil and less vigorously rendered by Dryden: The gates of Hell are open night and day; Smooth the descent, and easy is the way; But to return and view the cheerful skies, In this the task and mighty labor lies.

3. One sin another doth provoke; Murder’s as near to lust as fire to smoke.

4. The hardening power of sin. It petrifies spiritual sensitiveness and tenderness. As Burns so well expresses it: I waive the quantum of the sin, The hazard of concealing; But och! it hardens within, And petrifies the feelin’.

5. Sooner or later all extenuations fail, and the shifting of the blame on God or chance or circumstance. There comes one at last to the naked soul, and pointing accusing finger, says, “Thou art the man.”

6. The reproach of Uriah has found expression in noble song: And self to take or leave is free, Feeling its own sufficiency: In spite of science, spite of fate, The Judge within thee, soon or late, Will cry, “Thou art the man!” Say not, I would, but could not, He Should bear the blame who fashioned me. Call a mere change of motive, choice I Scorning such pleas, the inner voice Cries out, “Thou art the man!”

Edgar Allan Poe has used with dramatic effect Nathan’s words, “Thou art the man,” in one of his detective stories. In order to force confession, he puts the body of the murdered man in a wine-case, so adjusted on springs that when the lid is raised by the murderer, the body will sit up and point the finger at him, while a ventriloquist will make the dead lips say, “Thou art the man!” The Ark of God is in the field, Like clouds around the alien armies sweep; Each by his spear, beneath his shield, In cold and dew the anointed warriors sleep. And can it be? thou liest awake, Sworn watchman, tossing on thy couch of down; And doth thy recreant heart not ache To hear the sentries round the leisured town? Oh, dream no more of quiet life; Care finds the careless out; more wise to vow Thine heart entire to faith’s pure strife; So peace will come, thou knowest not when or how. Lyra Apostolica.

7. On the gracious words of pardon, “The Lord hath put away thy sin,” Keble, in his “Christian Year,” thus writes: The absolver saw the mighty grief, And hasten’d with relief; “The Lord forgives; thou shalt not die” Twas gently spoke, yet heard on high, And all the band of angels, us’d to sing In heaven, accordant to his raptur’d string, Who many a month had turn’d away With veiled eyes, nor own’d his lay. Now spread their wings, and throng around To the glad mournful sound, And welcome, with bright open face, The broken heart to love’s embrace. The rock is smitten, and to future years Springs ever fresh the tide of holy tears And holy music, whispering peace Till time and sin together cease.” Keble, “Sixth Sunday after Trinity.”

It has been not improbably supposed that a connection exists between David’s great sin, through its hardening of his yet impenitent heart and

VIII. His treatment of the conquered Ammonites.

See 2Sa 12:31 and 1Ch 20:3 . As this matter calls for particular and honest treatment let us first of all look at the text in three English versions. The American Standard revision renders the two paragraphs thus: “And he brought forth the people that were therein, and put them under saws, and under harrows of iron, and under axes of iron, and made them pass through the brick-kiln; and thus did he unto all the cities of the children of Ammon. And David and all the people returned unto Jerusalem” (1 Sam. 12:31). “And he brought forth the people that were therein, and cut them with saws, and with harrows of iron, and with axes. And thus did David unto all the cities of the children of Ammon. And David and all the people returned to Jerusalem” (1Ch 20:3 ). The margin puts “to” for “under,” and adds: “Or, with a slight change in the Hebrew text, ‘made them labor at saws, . . .?’ “

Leeser’s Jewish English version copies in both passages the American Revision. The Romanist Douay English version thus renders 2Sa 12:31 : “And bringing forth the people thereof, he sawed them, and drove over them chariots armed with irons and divided them with knives, and made them pass through brick-kilns: so did he to the children of Ammon. And David returned with all the people to Jerusalem.” 1Ch 20:3 : “And the people that were therein he brought out; and made harrows, and sleds, and chariots of iron, to go over them, so that they were cut and bruised to pieces. In this manner David dealt with all the cities of the children of Ammon: and he returned with all his people to Jerusalem.”

With the text thus before us the first inquiry is, What mean these passages, fairly interpreted? Do they mean merely, as the margin of the American revision intimates, that David enslaved his captured prisoners, putting them to work with saws, harrows, and axes, and at brick-making, or that he put them to torture by sawing them asunder, driving over them with iron-toothed harrows, mangling them in threshing machines, chopping them up with axes, cooking them alive in brick-kilns? How stand the commentators? Josephus, adopting the torture interpretation, says, “He tormented them and destroyed them.”

The comment in the Romanist version on 2Sa 12:31 is, “Sawed” Heb., “he puts them under saws and under rollers of iron, and under knives, . . .” The Jews say that Isaiah was killed by being sawed asunder; to which punishment Paul alludes (Heb 11:37 ). “Brick-kilns, or furnaces.” Daniel and his companions were thrown into the fiery furnace ( Dan 3:6-12 ). Saliem blames Joab for what seems too cruel. But though he was barbarous and vindictive, we need not condemn him on this occasion, no more than his master; as we are not to judge of former times by our own manners. War was then carried on with great cruelty. With these agree substantially, Kirkpatrick in “Cambridge Bible,” Blaikie in “Expositor’s Bible,” “The Speakers’ Commentary,” “The Pulpit Commentary,” Jamieson, Fausset & Brown, Geikie, and many others.

On the contrary, Murphy on 1Ch 20:3 , following the idea of the margin in American Standard revision says, “As saws, harrows, or threshing drags, and axes or scythes, are not instruments of torture of execution, it is obvious that David did not ‘cut’ them, but forced or ‘put’ them to hard labor as serfs with instruments of husbandry, or in the making of bricks, as is added in Samuel. The verb rendered ‘cut’ is nowhere else used in this sense, but in that of ruling, and therefore employing in forced labor.” “Nor does he stand alone. Many authorities on both sides might be added. But these are sufficient to set the case before you. In extenuation of the “‘torture” interpretation the following argument may be considered: David was under the Mosaic law. That law bears on two points:

1. The law of war for captured cities, Deu 20:10-14 : “When thou drawest nigh unto a city to fight against it, then proclaim peace unto it. And it shall be, if it make thee answer of peace, and open unto thee, then it shall be, that all the people that are found therein shall become tributary unto thee, and shall serve thee. And if it will make no peace with thee, but will make war against thee, then thou shalt besiege it: and when Jehovah thy God delivereth it into thy hand, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword: but the women and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take for a prey unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which Jehovah hath given thee.”

2. The lextalionis, or law of retaliation, i. e., “An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, . . .” Under the first law a city carried by storm was devoted to destruction, which custom unfortunately prevails in modern wars. Under the second law, the evils practiced on others were requited in kind. See case of Adonibezek (Jdg 1:5-7 ). Applying this second law, the cruel things done by David to the Ammonites, under the “torture” interpretation of our passages, had been practiced by them against others then and later. (See Amo 1:13 .) They caused their own children to pass through the fire to Moloch, hence the retaliation of the brick-kiln.

The weight of authority seems to favor the “torture” interpretation, and yet how readily does a humane mind turn in preference to Murhpy’s rendering. If this “torture” interpretation be true (and we must count it doubtful) then we need not cry out too loud in horror at the torture of prisoners by North American savages, and we may rejoice at the coming of one who in his Sermon on the Mount gives us something higher and better than the lextalionis.

In the case of the Moabite prisoners made to lie prostrate and measured in bulk by a tape-line, one-third to live and two-thirds to die, we find something more merciful than in the case of the Ammonites, but sufficiently revolting in the wholesale mathematical method of selecting the living by lot. The black and white beans for the Mier prisoners impress more favorably. The sum of the truth is that war in any age, now as well as then, “is hell.” The reconstruction measures forced on the conquered South after the war between the States surpassed in the bitterness of its prolonged anguish all the quick tortures of saw, harrow, ax, and brick-kiln inflicted on the Ammonites. No language can describe the height, depth, length, breadth of the horrors of reconstruction; not a fleeting agony like being sawn asunder, or burnt in a brick-kiln, but a deliberate harrowing of the South back and forth and crisscrossing for twenty-five years, every tooth in the harrow red hot, until the whole harried country found expression for its hopeless woes in the Lamentation of Jeremiah: Is it nothing to you, all ye that pass by? Behold, and see if there be any sorrow like unto my sorrow?

There was no measurement of the prostrate South by tapeline, sparing a part, but one vast humiliation extending from Virginia to Texas.

And if Jehovah sent condign punishment on Nebuchadnezzar, the wicked ax of his vengeance for the spirit with which this desolation was brought on sinning Jerusalem and the self-complacency of the deed, so will he yet in his own way visit his wrath on the land of those who had no pity on the desolate South.

The Jews are accustomed to excuse David’s apparent ingratitude for Moab’s past kindness to his father and mother, and his seeming disregard of the ties of kindred through Ruth, on the score that Moab murdered his parents when trusted to their hospitality. Of this there is no historic evidence. A better reason lies in the fact that Moab joined the conspiracy with Ammon, Syria, and Edom to destroy David and his kingdom.

QUESTIONS

1. Cite the passages which show that David’s wars closed in a blaze of glory.

2. What said Cromwell to the painter of his portrait?

3. What always the character of inspiration’s portrait-painting?

4. What the three great sins that darken this part of David’s career?

5. What books show the voluminous homiletical use of first & greatest sin?

6. What Taylor’s outline?

7. What psalm, in order, throws the greatest light on his heart experiences of this sin?

8. What the precursors of this sin, preparing for his fall?

9. What the sin itself in its manifold nature?

10. What its aggravations?

11. What evidence that David’s sin was on his conscience before the visit of Nathan?

12. What four things impress the mind in Nathan’s words to David?

13. What may you say of David’s confession of sin?

14. What the twofold verdict on the confession, and how does it explain our Lord’s saying on the unpardonable sin?

15. What the time penalties inflicted, and which the mildest?

16. In what ways is the sincerity of David’s penitence evidenced?

17. What two doctrines in David’s words concerning his child, “He shall not return to me but I shall go to him,” and what the comfort therefrom?

18. Concerning the evidence of sincere repentance in Psa 51 , what says Carlyle?

19. How did it affect Voltaire?

20. What psalm the model expression of the happiness of the forgiveness, and how does Paul use it?

21. What the first lesson of the application on the experience of David arising from this sin?

22. What the second, and Virgil’s expression of it?

23. What couplet on one sin provoking another?

24. Cite the passage from Burns on the hardening power of sin.

25. Cite the stanzas on “Thou art the man,” and give Edgar Allan. Poe’s use of the phrase. 26, Cite the stanzas on the reproach of Uriah.

27. Cite Keble’s lines on “The Lord hath put away thy sin.”

28. What the two interpretations of 2Sa 12:31 and 1Ch 20:3 , and which do you adopt?

29. What scriptural argument may be made in extenuation of the “torture” theory of interpretation?

30. How do the Jews excuse David’s treatment of the Moabite captives, and what the better reason?

Fuente: B.H. Carroll’s An Interpretation of the English Bible

2Sa 12:1 And the LORD sent Nathan unto David. And he came unto him, and said unto him, There were two men in one city; the one rich, and the other poor.

Ver. 1. And the Lord sent Nathan unto David. ] He must be of God’s sending, that shall effectually awaken conscience, and speak to the heart. Nathan the prophet 2Sa 7:2 – a man so highly esteemed by David, that he called one of his sons by his name (say some), made him tutor to his son Solomon, and had him of his Cabinet Council 1Ki 1:1-53 – is here purposely sent to let good David feel the bruise of his fall; to be unto him as Paul’s sister’s son was to the chief captain; as the cock, or rather as Christ’s look, was to Peter; to arouse him out of that dead lethargy wherein he had lain for three quarters of a year together; and to convert him from the error of his way. If God’s best children have been sometimes suffered to sleep in sin, at last he hath awakened them in a fright. Now because men that are awakened hastily out of a deep and sweet sleep are apt to take it ill, and to brawl with their best friends, wise Nathan, non aperte, sed per ambages, beginneth his reproof, not in plain terms, but by fetching about a form of speech – as she saith, 2Sa 14:20 ; by an allegory or apologue, he first fisheth out of David what the law was, and then forceth him to pronounce sentence of death against himself. a David was a prophet, yet needed he a prophet to be sent unto him; as one physician to another; but the sound to the sick, as Chrysostom saith. b

And he came unto him ] In conclave Davidis, into David’s closet; for whereas some have thought that Nathan dealt now with David in the hearing of his courtiers and captains, it is more likely that he did it privately, that he might the more easily work and win upon him. Hitherto all the king’s care had been to conceal his sin from the world, – which yet he could not do with all his skill, for the enemies had got it by the end, 2Sa 14:1-33 – and although his conscience had galled him betwixt whiles, when he heard the lectures of the law, and groaned under a great fit of sickness, as some gather from Psa 32:3-4 Psa 6:1-10 Psa 38:1-22 , yet he turned the deaf ear, and continued in the hardness of his heart till the prophet came home to him, and dealt plainly and privately with him. Great is the benefit of conference and private admonition. Luther was much helped this way by Staupicius; Galeacius by Peter Martyr; Junius by a countryman of his not far from Florence; Senarclaeus by John Diazins; Latimer by blessed St Bilney, as he styleth him; Dr Taylor by that angel of God, John Bradford, who counted that hour lost wherein he had not done some good with his hand, pen, or tongue. Private admonition, saith one, is the pastor’s privy purse, as princes have theirs, besides their public disbursements. It repented good Mr Hiron, and troubled him on his death bed, that he had been so backward to it, and barren of it.

There were two men in one city. ] By this pretty parable, Nathan maketh David self-condemned, or ever he was aware; and useth his own tongue as a lance to rip up and heal his own heart. c

a Velut prudens medicus ferrum tegebat. – Aug. Ut secantem gladium sentiret aeger antequam cerneret. – Greg.

b Tanquam medicus ad medicum, sed sanus ad aegrotum. – Chrys.

c Aug., Hom. 21.

Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

the LORD. Hebrew. Jehovah. App-4.

sent. See 2Sa 11:27.

Nathan. Septuagint and Syriac read “Nathan the prophet”. he came. Compare title of Psa 51.

men. Hebrew. ‘ish. App-14.

Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics

Chapter 12

David thought that things were just going great until the prophet Nathan came to him.

Nathan said to David, There is a man in your kingdom who is very wealthy, had many herds, many flocks many servants: And there lived next to him a very poor man whose only possession was one ewe lamb, and that lamb ate at his table, drank from his cup, slept next to him, it was like a daughter to him, part of the family. [And he loved that ewe lamb, all he had.] And this wealthy man had guests come to visit him, and he sent his servant to take by force, the one ewe lamb from his neighbor, and to kill it in order that he might feed his guests. David’s anger was kindled hot against the man; and David said, That man shall surely be put to death, as the Lord lives. And he shall restore unto the man, fourfold ( 2Sa 12:1-6 ).

He went out ahead and he laid out a real judgment on this guy. When he was through,

Nathan said, David you are the man. [Then he went on to say] Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, I anointed you king over Israel, I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul; I gave thee thy master’s house, thy master’s wives into thy bosom, I gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that wasn’t enough, I would’ve given more to you. [“David, I’ve given you everything, I’ve given you the kingdom, I’ve given you wives, I’ve given both Israel and Judah, and if that weren’t enough David, I’d still give you more!”] Why have you despised the commandment of the Lord, to do this sin in his sight ( 2Sa 12:7-9 )?

“David, when God has given you so much, why would you despise His commandment, why would you do this when God has been so good?” Why is it that when God has been so good to us, that we just don’t appreciate and be satisfied with what God has done? Why do we sometimes reach out for more, when we already have more than what we can possibly use or enjoy?

“David you’ve got all these wives, why would you take a wife of another man? Why would you despise the commandment of God?”

And now therefore the sword shall never depart from thy house; because you have despised me, and have taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite as your wife. Thus saith the Lord, Behold, I will raise up evil against thee out of your own house, and I will take your wives before your eyes, and give them unto thy neighbor, and he shall lie with thy wives in the sight of the sun. For you did it secretly: but I will do this before all of Israel, and before the sun. And David said to Nathan, I have sinned against the Lord. And Nathan said to David, The Lord also hath put away thy sin; thou shalt not die ( 2Sa 12:10-13 ).

Now David’s judgment for this man was, “He shall surely be put to death.” God’s judgment for David was, “You will not die”. However, David you’re not gonna get off Scott-free, you cannot sin with impunity and expect God to just let you off the hook completely. There are always those people who are misinterpreting the grace of God.

Paul spoke about those who said, “Let us sin freely that grace may abound, for if where sin abounds, grace overflows, and let us sin freely in order that grace might just overflow. God has declared that all are sinners, so that if I just go out and sin, I’m only proving that God is true. Now why should God judge me because I’m proving that He’s telling the truth, that all men are sinners? I’m just helping to prove God’s truth.”

Paul said, “Whose damnation is just those kind of philosophies!” Any philosophy that leads you into sin, presuming on the grace of God is a damnable philosophy. Peter speaks of the words of Paul, and of course Paul’s preaching was that of the gospel of grace, and the forgiveness of sins by faith in Jesus Christ, which is a glorious gospel! But Peter tells how those people were subverting the gospel, using this gospel of grace as a cloak for their own lasciviousness. “Well, sure let’s go ahead and do it, and then we’ll pray and ask God to forgive us. Because surely God is merciful and He’ll forgive us.” Thus people are willfully transgressing the law of God with that anticipation of grace and forgiveness. That should never be! I should never knowingly, willfully go into sin, expecting to come back to God and say, “Oh God please forgive me!,” and presuming on the grace of God.

The Bible says, “Keep thyself from sin. Flee the youthful lusts that damn men’s souls and perdition.” As it speaks of the work of the flesh in Galatians five, “Are manifest which are these, adultery, fornication,” it goes on, “lust, lying, and envying, and stealing,” and so forth, and it says, “and they that do such things shall have no part in the kingdom of God.” I question concerning the true conversion of a person who deliberately, willfully, sins against God, with the idea, “Oh well, I’ll just ask forgiveness, and receive the grace of God.” God’s grace was never intended to be presumed upon by us.

Sin, though forgiven, leaves its mark. There are certain aspects of sin that cannot be undone. There are certain marks that sin leaves upon the life of yourself, and the lives of others that remain. It remains a mar, a scar in your conscience. Even though you’ve received the forgiveness of God, still your conscience is telling you that you did wrong deliberately, willfully you did wrong in the eyes of the Lord, and you’re conscience never lets you forget. Years may pass, but it remains there in your consciousness and someday when calamity befalls you down the line, you’ll remember your sin.

Joseph’s brothers sold him as a slave into Egypt, and Joseph went down into Egypt, his brothers betrayed him, sold him as a slave for twenty pieces of silver, they cared not that Joseph was crying, “Oh please guys don’t do this! Oh!” He was weeping, and that was the last they saw him, the guy was just crying on the cart being carried down to Egypt, their brother. They were heartless; they were cruel, but it stuck in their minds. Almost twenty years later when they were in Egypt and having a bad time because of the Pharaoh’s wrath, they turned to each other and they said, “We’re getting what’s coming to us, don’t you remember Joseph and how he was crying. Man, it’s coming back to us!” You don’t get away from your conscience. It sticks, the scars are there; you don’t escape them and the scars that are left upon those around you, the hurt that comes.

Though the Lord said to David, “Thou art forgiven, you will not die, yet these things are going to happen, David, because of your sin.” One of the tragic things of the sin of David was brought to his mind by the prophet. He said, “You have caused the enemies of God to blaspheme.”

I think that one of the tragic byproducts of sin in the life of a believer is the fact that the enemies of God look at it, and they blaspheme God. “That so and so, he’s supposed to be a Christian? Look what he did to me!” They’re blaspheming God because of your actions, because of what you have done. Maybe you’ve been guilty of ripping them off in a business deal. You know you ripped them off, and you come and say, “Oh God forgive me please,” and you think it’s all over. You go to rip off someone else, keeping the idea in mind “Well, I’ll just come and ask God’s forgiveness!” No, it doesn’t work that way, but the effect of that is that there are many people who are going under the name of Christianity, that are doing such things. And that is why Christianity has such a bad name in the eyes of the world today is because the Christians haven’t been living a life of purity and righteousness and holiness before God. No one picks on it, and picks up on it quicker than the worldly people who blaspheme the name of God, because of our actions, our inconsistencies.

So the punishment. The sword was never to depart from David’s house. His own children were gonna rise up and rebel against him. His own wives were gonna be humiliated publicly. The child that was to be born, or the child that was born, was going to die.

This sort of marks a watershed in David’s life. This experience sort of took the fire out of David. From this point on, calamities, rebellion, problems within his home began to arise. It is interesting that David rather than trying to deal with them, and fight with them, was just sort of, just sort of consigned to them. He didn’t try to rise, he just sort of accepted it. “This is of God, this is God’s judgment”. He didn’t try to, well, just the inner, you know that thing that drives you on, that push was gone. It sort of was just drained out of David from this experience onward. Sad and tragic when the fire is gone out of a person’s life.

The words of God were gracious indeed, “Thy sin is forgiven you will not die.” At this point, Psa 32:1-11 . It was written by David upon hearing the words of the prophet, “Thy sins are forgiven, you will not die.” David wrote, “Blessed is he,” and the word blessed means, “oh, how happy,” “Oh how happy is he whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered, happy is the man unto whom the Lord imputeth not iniquity, and in whose spirit there is no guile”.

Now, you see while David was trying to cover this thing, there was all kinds of guile going on. Calling Uriah back, trying to get him to go home to be with his wife. It was all a part of a deceitful scheme of David, all this guile that was there. You know when you’re a deceitful person you’re always living in fear, and in worry that you’re gonna get caught, someone’s gonna catch up with you, someone’s gonna find out the truth is gonna get out. You’re going through all these deceptive things, and trying to cover, and say, “Well, who me? Well I don’t know what you’re talking about!” You’re going through all this deception, but you know, and you’re fearful constantly that it’s gonna come out, “someone’s gonna find out, someone’s gonna see me, someone’s gonna know, someone’s gonna blow the whistle on me.” Happy is the man who can be straight, who can be honest, who can be forthright, who doesn’t have to deceive, and hide, and connive.

“When I kept silence,” that is “when I wouldn’t confess it to God, when I was trying to just cover the thing,” “my bones waxed through the roaring all the day long, for night and day, day and night thy hand was heavy upon me, and my moisture is turned into the drought of summer.” That’s the first strophe of this psalm. A man who has just experienced the forgiveness of sin, but he also relates how heavy was the conviction upon his heart prior to the forgiveness. “Man, it was heavy duty. I was just all dried up within. God’s hand day and night was heavy upon me.”

Then he said, “I acknowledge my sin unto Thee and my iniquity have I not hid. I said, I will confess my transgressions unto the Lord, and Thou forgavest the iniquity of my sin.” The next strophe of the psalm as he expresses the confession and the resultant forgiveness. “Oh, how happy is the man who has that load of sin taken away, who has the guilt removed.”

But there is still a price that must be paid. The sword is still gonna be upon his house. His children are still gonna rebel, his wives are still gonna be humiliated, and his child is still going to die.

And so it came to pass that the child took sick, and David laid on the ground grieving. The servants tried to get him to eat, but he refused any food. He’d just lie there groaning. [And for seven days he laid there on the ground groaning, not eating.] And on the seventh day, the child died. The servants were worried, they said, What shall we do? how are we gonna tell him? if he’s grieved this much while the child was living, what’s he gonna do when he finds out the child’s dead? And he heard the servants whispering, and he said, Is the child dead? And they said, Yes. David got up, went in took a shower, dressed himself, fresh clothes, came out and he ordered dinner. They said, [Man, we don’t understand you. While the child was sick you’re lying there groaning, not eating, filthy, now that the child is dead, you’ve showered and you want to eat, you want a dinner, what’s going on?] And he said, As long as the child was alive, I had hope that God might be gracious and spare the child’s life, but now that the child is dead, I can’t do anything more ( 2Sa 12:15-23 ).

I think that David really had a very healthy attitude towards death. What more can you do?

He said, I shall go to thee where he is, though he cannot return to me ( 2Sa 12:23 ).

David’s showing his confidence in life after death. David showing confidence that his child was with the Lord. That his child was saved, and that he would go to be with his child, though his child would not be able to return to him. “I shall go to be where he is, though he cannot return to me.” Our children who die before they are at an age of accountability, go to be with the Lord. Though they cannot return, we look forward to that day when we shall go to be with them.

Now after the death of the child,

David comforted Bathsheba, and she conceived: and she had another child, and she called his name Solomon. But Nathan the prophet came with God’s name for Solomon, and God’s name for him was Jedidiah, which means beloved of the Lord ( 2Sa 12:23-25 ).

Now there to me is real grace! Though God, for purposes that we do not fully understand, took the first child of David and Bathsheba. Yet the second child God named, “Beloved of the Lord”. So there was God’s grace in operation. Of course Solomon became David’s favorite son, and took the throne after David.

But David has a rocky road ahead. The sword is not to depart from his house, there’s going to be family problems developing. His wives are gonna be humiliated, and these things are gonna come to pass. David’s sin is not going to go unpunished. The price must still be paid for the past misdeed, even though God’s grace is offered through the whole thing, and God gives to David and Bathsheba another son, whom God calls “beloved of God”. “

Fuente: Through the Bible Commentary

A year passed away. The child of Bathsheba was born. We can imagine what that year had been to David. Bathsheba, whom in all probability he truly loved, was with him as his wife; but it is inevitable that he had been haunted by the memory of Uriah and by the fear of Joab.

At last the prophet Nathan came and uttered a parable in which David’s sin was portrayed. David uttered his opinion on the side of right. Then, like a flash, the prophet charged David with having committed the sin David had condemned. It was at that moment that the best in David was apparent, as he confessed, “I have sinned.” His repentance was genuine and immediate.

That repentance was manifested in his attitude in the presence of the punishment which fell upon him. His child was stricken, and the king mourned, and besought that its life might be spared. This could not be. When the child was dead David worshiped.

Perhaps nothing more perfectly reveals the sincerity of his repentance than this ready acceptance of the stroke by which God refused to answer his prayer.

In the midst of his worship, he said of the child, “I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me.” This shows his consciousness of the spiritual world and of the life beyond.

The account of his dealing with the children of Ammon after his victory over them should be read in the light of the margin of the Revised Version, which shows that he placed them in servitude rather than treated them with barbarous cruelty.

Fuente: An Exposition on the Whole Bible

Thou Art the Man

2Sa 12:1-14

A year followed on his sin, but David gave no sign. He describes his condition during that awful time in Psa 32:3-4. Conscience scourged him incessantly, but he did not return to God until Nathan had been sent to fetch him. The Good Shepherd went after that which was lost until he found it. He restoreth my soul! But soul-agony is not enough, keen though it be; there must be confession.

Nathans parable was the mirror in which the true enormity of the kings sin was held up to his face. He was judged, and he judged himself. By the manifestation of the truth, Nathan commended himself to the kings conscience, as in the sight of God. And finally came the home-thrust-Thou art the man. The words of confession were immediate and deeply sincere. There was no thought of the human wrongs he had done. All were included in the great sin against God. Against thee, thee only, have I sinned. And the confession was met, as it always is, by an instant assurance of pardon-The Lord hath put away thy sin.

Fuente: F.B. Meyer’s Through the Bible Commentary

2Sa 12:1-7

The chief devotional exercise which turns religion into a personal thing, which brings it home to men’s business and bosoms, is self-examination. A man’s religion cannot well be one of merely good impressions, the staple of it cannot well be an evaporating sentiment, if he have acquired the habit of honestly and candidly looking within.

I. Self-examination may be called an arraignment of ourselves at our own bar. It is an exercise most essential to our spiritual health, and the more earnestly to be pressed upon Protestants, because there exists in the Reformed Churches no security but that of right principle for its ever being practised. The system of the confessional, with all its evils and abominations, may at least fairly lay claim to the advantage of exacting a certain amount of introspection with those who honestly conform to it.

II. The necessity for self-examination arises from the fact, so distinctly stated in Scripture, that “the heart is deceitful above all things,” and that “he that trusteth in his own heart is a fool.” While all characters are liable to this snare of self-deception, those are more particularly exposed to it who, like St. Peter and David, are persons of keen sensibilities, warm temperaments, quick affections. An acrid, soured character cannot flatter itself that it is right with half the facility of a warm and genial character. Self-love conspires with trust in our own hearts to make dupes of us as regards our spiritual account.

III. The first step in self-examination is to be fully aware of the deceitfulness of the heart, and to pray against it, watch against it, and use every possible method of counteracting it. The probe of self-examination must be applied to the better as well as to the worse parts of our conduct. And we must not forget that dissatisfaction with ourselves will avail us nothing, except as it leads us to a perfect, joyful, and loving satisfaction with our Saviour.

E. M. Goulburn, Thoughts on Personal Religion, p. 68.

References: 2Sa 12:1-7.-S. Goebel, The Parables of Jesus, p. 10. 2Sa 12:1-14.-Parker, vol. vii., p. 160.

2Sa 12:4

The mixture of gold and clay of which our nature is composed is nowhere so strikingly displayed as in the constant tendency of men to conceive lofty purposes, and then to attain them by mean and sordid methods. The high impulse and the low self-indulgent method are both real, and this confused and contradictory humanity of ours is able to attain them both. We are always building steps of straw to climb to heights of gold.

There is real charity in the impulse of the rich man in Samuel, there is essential meanness in his act. He really wanted to help the poor traveller who came to him, but he wanted to help him with another man’s property, to feed him on a neighbour’s sheep. A great deal of our official charity comes very near the pattern of this ancient benefactor.

I. One of the truths about the advancing culture of a human nature is, that it is always deepening the idea of possession and making it more intimate. There are deepening degrees of ownership, and as each one of them becomes real to a man, the previous ownerships get a kind of unreality. With this deepening of the idea of property, the idea of charity must deepen also. No relief of need is satisfactory which stops short of at least the effort to inspire character, to make the poor man a sharer in what is at least the substance of the rich man’s wealth. And at the bottom of this profounder conception of charity there must lie a deeper and more spiritual conception of property. The rich man’s wealth, what is it? Not his money. It is something which came to him in the slow accumulation of his money. It is a character into which enter those qualities that make true and robust manliness in all the ages and throughout the world; independence, intelligence, and the love cf struggle.

II. This makes chanty a far more exacting thing than it could be without such an idea. It clothes it in self-sacrifice. It requires the entrance into it of a high motive.

III. The deeper conception of benefaction which will not rest satisfied with anything short of the imparting of character still does not do away with the inferior and more superficial ideas. It uses the lower forms of gift as means or types or pledges. The giving of money is ennobled by being made the type of a Diviner gift which lies beyond.

Phillips Brooks, The Candle of the Lord, p. 336.

Reference: Preacher’s Monthly, vol. vi., p. 18.

2Sa 12:7

I. It is just in this circumstance, that David’s righteous and evil acts are not to be harmonised, that the wholesomeness of his written story lies. We do not feel the inconsistency which unbelievers point to in David, with the sneering question, “Is this the man after God’s own heart?” We feel rather that were it not for these inconsistencies David would be unlike us, and his story no pattern of ours.

II. David’s method of attaining his treacherous object here seems to us clumsy when compared with some modern refinements of treachery; but the moving cause-gratification of self and disregard of all that stood in the way of it-this is the sin: the rest is merely an accident of time and locality.

III. How are we to account for David’s strange conversion? People who pride themselves on being worldly-wise will tell you that a man’s conscience does not trouble him until he is found out. They will tell you that repentance is easy when there is no escape. But this will never account for the real repentance of any man who has been brought from darkness into light. When a man’s arguments for sin are swept away, and he sees it as it is, he may well be filled with horror and disgust. The horror is no subject for a careless sneer, but for awe and reverence.

A. Ainger, Sermons Preached in the Temple Church, p. 26.

I. Notice first the general character of David. It is full of variety, full of impulse, full of genius; it covers a great range of characters amongst ourselves; it is not like one class or character only, but like many. He is exactly that mixture of good and evil which is in ourselves, not all good or all evil, but a mixture of both, of a higher good and of a deeper evil, yet still both together.

II. Let us now see how from this union of glory and shame, of holiness and sin, we can draw the fitting lessons of David’s repentance and our own. (1) Observe that the Scripture narrative does not exaggerate and does not extenuate. The wise and impartial history sets before us without fear or favour, in all its brightness and in all its darkness, the life of David. His goodness is not denied because of his sin, nor is his sin because of his goodness. (2) The sin of David and his unconsciousness of his own sin, and so also his repentance through the disclosure to him of his own sin, are exactly what are most likely to take place in characters like his, like ours, made up of mixed forms of good and of evil. His good deeds conceal his bad deeds, often even from others, more often still from himself. (3) Notice that Nathan in his parable called attention, not to the sensuality and cruelty of David’s crime but simply to its intense and brutal selfishness. Notice also that even deeper than David’s sense, when once aroused, of his injustice to man, was his sense of his guilt and shame before God. (4) The story teaches: (a) that no case is too late or too bad to return if only the heart can be truly roused to a sense of its own guilt and God’s holiness; (b) that David’s former goodness had this advantage: that, great as was his fall, there was for him a hope of restoration which in another there would not have been. A foundation of good in a character is never thrown away. If it is not able to resist the trial altogether, it will at least be best able to recover from it.

A. P. Stanley, Oxford Lent Sermons, 1858, No. 2.

I. When Alexander, king of Macedon, had his portrait taken, he sat with his face resting on his fingers, as though he were in a profound reverie, but really that he might hide from the observer’s view an unsightly scar. Our Bible always keeps the sitter’s fingers off the scars. It paints the full face with flawless detail-beauty and blotches, saintliness and scars.

II. After all, is it not a true human instinct and a healthy canon of art that puts the finger on the scars of the face? Is it fair and just to David himself to reduce the account of his numerous victories over adjacent foes to a few verses, and be so prodigal in sketching the one glaring wickedness of a career of splendid purpose, fine daring, and magnificent achievement? All that depends upon the spirit in which the biographer conceives and carries out his design, and mainly upon the purpose which dominates every part of his painting. (1) This story has set in the irrefutable logic of facts the truth that increasing and incredible mischiefs follow the violation of the laws of social purity in monarch as well as subject, in the children of genius and of goodness as well as in the offspring of sensualism and vice. (2) It has proclaimed that woman is not a satanic bait for man’s soul, but a minister to his purity and happiness. (3) It has revealed the essential falseness of the polygamous basis of family life. (4) It is a pathetic and powerful enforcement of the law, discovered in the dawn of the world’s life, that it is impossible to hush up a solitary lapse. (5) But the principal message of this chapter in the life of Israel’s greatest hero is that David’s great sin is met and mastered by God’s greater grace.

III. It is not well for any of us to escape difficulty, combat, or criticism. We must not forget the perils of advancing years. Age has its dangers not less than youth. The true soldier aims to be faithful unto death. If David falls after half a century’s experience of God’s mercy, who is safe?

IV. God enlarges a thorough repentance with His free and instant forgiveness, and crowns it with swift peace, soul-enlargement, and hallowed progress. “The Lord hath also put away thy sin.”

V. But forgiveness is not all David seeks, nor is it all he obtains. The greater grace of God triumphs over the great sin of David in making it contributive to his spiritual enlargement, the clearing and expansion of his conceptions of sin, of responsibility, of the personality of God, and of holiness.

J. Clifford, Daily Strength for Daily Living, p. 203.

References: 2Sa 12:7.-T. Coster, Christian World Pulpit, vol. xxii., p. 332; Bishop Armstrong, Parochial Sermons, p. 144; J. G. Packer, Twelve Sermons, p. 112; Clergyman’s Magazine, vol. i., p. 15; J. Edmunds, Sixty Sermons, p. 293; C. Girdlestone, A Course of Sermons for the Year, p. 165; H. M. Butler, Harrow Sermons, 1st series, p. 85. 2Sa 12:7-13.-Clergyman’s Magazine, vol. viii., p. 348.

2Sa 12:13

The David of the Old Testament and the Peter of the New were alike keen, impetuous, high-wrought. Each falls in his strong point, because the strength of the good is necessarily the strength of the evil. But in both sin is the parenthesis; the thread of grace is gathered up again.

I. This was not David’s only transgression. But it was the greatest, and perhaps if this had been resisted, the others would not have been committed, for sin strangely makes sin, as the mists of to-day fall in the rain of to-morrow. His great successes had brought him to that state of mind which is most open to the assaults of evil.

II. The strength of David’s confession lay in the three words “against the Lord.” Any one can say, “I have sinned,” but you must have known God, you must have realised what sin is to God, and you must have felt something of what God is to you before you can say, “I have sinned against the Lord.”

J. Vaughan, Sermons, 7th series, p. 112.

2Sa 12:13

I. The first thought which strikes us in connection with this text is the rapidity with which the penitent received his answer, a rapidity so great that the pardon had actually preceded the confession, for the instant David’s acknowledgment had passed his lips God’s messenger said, “The Lord hath put away thy sin.”

II. In these grand, simple words “put away,” what immeasurable distances lie! Even the eye of Omnipotence cannot reach them. “As far as the east is from the west, so far hath He removed our transgressions from us.”

J. Vaughan, Sermons, 7th series, p. 120.

I. Too little attention is commonly bestowed on the severity with which David was punished for his sins. He was punished as long as he lived, and as long as he lived he repented of those sins and humbled himself under the consciousness of them. When Nathan was sent to David, he spoke five distinct prophecies, not only “Thou shalt not die,” but four others also, and these of a very different tenor; and all of them were alike fulfilled. To point out the fulfilment of these prophecies is simply to give a summary of the after-life of David. (1) First we read how the child Bathsheba had borne to David was smitten of the Lord and died. (2) The sword did not depart from his house through the whole remainder of his life. (3) This enemy was raised up to David from among the members of his own house and family. (4) As he had invaded the sanctuary of another man’s home, his own hearth was no longer sacred. All this teaches us that “wherewithal a man sinneth, by the same also shall he be punished.” But, above all, it is a lesson that God is never more merciful than when He makes punishment follow upon sin.

II. Although David was severely punished, he was yet freely forgiven. The forgiveness of an offender may be granted in two ways: it may be without any conditions, or it may be granted quite as truly, quite as freely, and yet not so unconditionally. In the present case God had annexed a chastisement to His pardon and declared that it should fall upon David, and from that day forward every worldly visitation which recalled the memory of his sin brought with it a twofold blessing: it kept his conscience tender, that his fall might be his warning; and it renewed the pledge of the full and final forgiveness that had been promised to him.

R. Scott, University Sermons, p. 251.

References: 2Sa 12:13.-R. Heber, Parish Sermons, vol. ii., p. 54; R. C. Trench, Brief Thoughts and Meditations, p. 120; J. Van Oosterzee, Year of Salvation, vol. ii., p. 57; Sermons for the Christian Seasons, 2nd series, vol. iii., p. 705.

2Sa 12:13-14

I. When we read the history of David’s fall, what surprises and perhaps somewhat perplexes us at the first is the apparent suddenness of it. There seems no preparation, no warning. But if we look back to the first verse of the chapter preceding, we shall find the explanation there: “At the time when kings go forth to battle… David tarried still at Jerusalem.” Had he been enduring hardship with the armies of Israel, these temptations to luxury and uncleanness would probably never have come near him; certainly he would not have succumbed beneath them. The first lesson from the story is that prosperous times are perilous times.

II. Notice the way in which sins are linked to one another, in which, as by a terrible necessity, one leads on to a second, and a second to a third, and so on. The great enemy of souls is in nothing more skilful than in breaking down the bridges of retreat behind the sinner. Wrong may become worse wrong, but it never becomes right. Close walking with God is the only safe walking.

III. Do not miss this lesson-the ignoble servitude to men in which the sinner is very often through his sin entangled. Mark how David becomes the servant of Joab from the moment that he has made Joab the partaker of his evil counsels, the accomplice of his crime. Let no man in this sense be thy master. Let no man know that of thee which, if he chose to reveal it, would cast thee down from the fair esteem and reputation which thou enjoyest before men.

IV. Note the darkness of heart which sin brings over its servants. For well-nigh a whole year David has lain in his sin, and yet all the while his conscience is in a deathlike sleep, so that it needs a thunder-voice from heaven, the rebuke of a prophet, to rouse him from this lethargy.

V. In David’s answer to Nathan we observe: (1) The blessing that goes along with a full, free, unreserved confession of sin, being, as this is, the sure token of a true repentance. (2) While he who has fully confessed is fully forgiven, there is still, as concerns this present life, a sad “howbeit” behind. God had taken from him the eternal penalty of his sin; but He had never said, Thy sin shall not be bitter to thee. God may forgive His children their sin, and yet He may make their sin most bitter to them here, teaching them in this way its evil, which they might else have been in danger of forgetting, the aggravation which there is in the sins of a child, in sins against light, against knowledge, against love.

R. C. Trench, Sermons Preached in Westminster Abbey, p. 351.

I. Forgiveness does not mean impunity. God forgave David, yet bereaved him. Whatsoever men sow, that they reap, however bitterly they may repent having mingled tares with the wheat.

II. The meaning and mercy of punishment. (1) Punishment deepens both our sense of sin and our hatred of it. (2) Punishment deepens self-distrust and reliance upon God. (3) Punishment puts our repentance to the proof.

S. Cox, Contemporary Pulpit, vol. iv., p. 29.

References: 2Sa 12:13, 2Sa 12:14.-S. Cox, Expositions. 1st series, p. 143; Bishop Harvey Goodwin, Parish Sermons, vol. v., p. 139; F. W. Krummacher, David the King of Israel, p. 373. 2Sa 12:14.-Parker, vol. vii., p. 236. 2Sa 12:15-23.-W. M. Taylor, David King of Israel, p. 210. 2Sa 12:20-23.-Preacher’s Monthly, vol. iii., p. 355. 2Sa 12:22.-Parker, vol. vii., p. 236.

2Sa 12:23.

The doctrine of our future meeting and recognition is intimated in the earlier records of Scripture. We are told of Abraham, Jacob, Aaron, and Moses that each was gathered to his people. This cannot be merely a peculiar idiom of language signifying that they died. In some instances it is expressly said they died, and then it is added, “were gathered to their fathers.” There would seem to be in the very heart of the expression a recognition that their fathers were still in existence in some state or other. As we advance to the New Testament we find that the twilight is broadening into the perfect day. This doctrine forms much of the very warp of the teaching of our Saviour and His Apostles.

I. It is taught, for example, that in eternity and in heaven we shall retain our personal identity. What life has not been able to do in the way of destroying our identity, death will not do. The sense of I, me, myself, will be with us as before.

II. We must also remember that the departed just are not diffused through the universe, but are gathered into one place. They are with the Lord, and they are there in a family relation. It is only needful to appreciate fully this fact in order to see that mutual recognition is indispensable and inevitable.

III. We do not dream that the “spirits of the just made perfect,” dwelling in our Father’s house, will sit in silent reserve side by side, and as little do we dream that their speech will never be concerned with the way by which the Lord has led them. Unless the whole family in heaven is to be marked by features the very opposite of every earthly family, unless it is to be distinguished by isolation, reserve, and coldness, mutual recognition must be not only a possible thing, but an inevitable one, and we shall know as we are known.

E. Mellor, In the Footsteps of Heroes, p. 125.

References: 2Sa 12:23.-J. Vaughan, Sermons, 9th series, p. 205. 2Sa 12:24.-Congregationalist, vol. vii., p. 734. 2Sam 13-E. White, The Mystery of Growth, p. 357.

Fuente: The Sermon Bible

2. The Message of God and Davids Confession and the Beginning of the Chastisement

CHAPTER 12

1. The Lords message through Nathan (2Sa 12:1-4)

2. Davids anger (2Sa 12:5-6)

3. Thou art the man! (2Sa 12:7-9)

4. The chastisement (2Sa 12:10-12)

5. Davids confession (2Sa 12:13)

6. The death of the child announced (2Sa 12:14)

7. The death of the child and Davids grief (2Sa 12:15-23)

8. Solomon born (2Sa 12:24-25)

9. Rabbah taken (2Sa 12:26-31)

The Lord was displeased with what David had done. Nathan comes with his message in the form of a parable. His outburst of anger and condemnation of the injustice done to the poor man shows that he did not think of his own case. Yet sorrow and unrest were his portion; he tried to cover up his sin and as a result was in the deepest agony. Psalms like the sixth, the thirty-eighth, the thirty-second and others tell us of the deep soul exercise through which he passed. Then Nathan pointed at him with his soul piercing, Thou art the man! First the prophet tells him all the Lord had done for him; he reminds him of all Gods kindness. What had David done? He had despised the Lords commandment; had killed Uriah the Hittite with the sword and taken his wife. Then the chastisement is announced. He had slain Uriah with the sword of the children of Ammon–the sword should now never depart from his house. He had taken Uriahs wife–others should take his wives. He had done it secretly–but, said Jehovah, I will do this thing before all Israel, and before the sun. We shall find the sentence executed in 2Sa 13:28-39; 2Sa 16:21-22; 2Sa 18:14.

Then the Kings heart broke. I have sinned against the LORD. It was at that time that, his soul filled with deepest sorrow, and yet illumined with the light from above, he uttered that wonderful penitential Psalm, the fifty-first. Against Thee, Thee only, have I sinned, and done this evil in Thy sight, that Thou mightest be justified when Thou speakest, and be clear when Thou judgest. All the inward corruption now is revealed to him, as many a saint after him has found out by bitter experience that in our flesh there dwelleth no good thing. Behold I was shapen in iniquity and in sin did my mother conceive me (Psa 51:5). And when he prayed take not Thy Holy Spirit from me–he must have had a vision of Saul, the mad King, when the Spirit had left him and an evil one possessed his heart. But David knew God and God knew David. He is in the light and uncovers all in His presence. Then Nathan announced the divine mercy, the LORD hath also taken away thy sin. And Nathan added because by this deed thou hast given great occasion to the enemies of the LORD to blaspheme, the child also that is born unto thee shall surely die. That was the bitterness of it. Up to the present time infidels and rejectors of the Word of God point to Davids sin and blaspheme, though the very things they sneer at are the things which they practice. The child died and Davids grief was great. All his fasting and night long prayer did not change the divine sentence. But he also knew the comfort of hope and expresses it beautifully. I shall go to him, but he shall not return unto me.

And has it no meaning that Solomons birth is recorded immediately after these sad and solemn incidents? Solomon means peaceful. Peace had come to his heart; the divine favour was restored unto him, yet the chastisement grievous and sore would follow him in the future. And then the Lord named also Solomon. He called him Jedediah. This means beloved of Jehovah. He is the blessed type of Gods own Son. For us He is peace–He who hath made peace and our sin is covered by His precious blood. To God He is the Beloved. The record of the fall of Rabbah closes this chapter. What is recorded in verse 31 was cruel and barbarous. (However, there is a doubt about the translation. It has been rendered in the following way: And he set them to saws and iron picks and iron axes and made them labor at the brick kiln.) Ammon did horrible things to the women of Israel. (See Amo 1:13.) A fearful retribution came upon them. How often it has been repeated in history, even down to the 20th century with all its boasted civilization, now collapsed in the greatest and most awful war the world has ever witnessed. And thus it will continue to the end, till the true King comes.

Fuente: Gaebelein’s Annotated Bible (Commentary)

am 2970, bc 1034, An, Ex, Is, 457

the Lord: 2Sa 7:1-5, 2Sa 24:11-13, 1Ki 13:1, 1Ki 18:1, 2Ki 1:3

unto David: 2Sa 11:10-17, 2Sa 11:25, 2Sa 14:14, Isa 57:17, Isa 57:18

he came: Psa 51:1, *title

There were: There is nothing in this parable which requires illustration. Its bent is evident; and it was wisely constructed, by not having too near a resemblance, to make David unwittingly pass sentence on himself. The parable was in David’s hand what his own letter was in the hands of the brave Uriah. Nathan at length closed in with him in the application of it. In beginning with a parable he shewed his prudence, and great need there is of prudence in giving reproof; but now he speaks as an ambassador from God. He reminds David of the great things God had designed and done for him, and then charges him with a high contempt of the Divine authority, and threatens an entail of judgments upon his family for this sin. Those who despise the word and law of God, despise God himself, and will assuredly suffer for such contempt. 2Sa 14:5-11, Jdg 9:7-15, 1Ki 20:35-41, Isa 5:1-7, Mat 21:33-45, Luk 15:11-32, Luk 16:19-31

Reciprocal: Jdg 3:20 – I have 2Sa 5:14 – Nathan 2Sa 7:2 – Nathan 2Sa 12:25 – Nathan 1Ki 1:8 – Nathan 1Ki 1:10 – General 1Ki 4:5 – son of Nathan 1Ki 20:39 – Thy servant 2Ki 14:9 – The thistle 1Ch 3:5 – Nathan 1Ch 14:4 – Nathan 1Ch 17:1 – Nathan 1Ch 29:29 – Nathan 2Ch 9:29 – Nathan 2Ch 25:7 – a man of God 2Ch 25:15 – a prophet 2Ch 29:25 – Nathan Psa 32:3 – When Isa 39:3 – came Isaiah Jer 22:1 – Go Eze 17:2 – General Zec 12:12 – Nathan Mat 13:3 – in Gal 6:1 – restore

Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge

2Sa 12:1. The Lord sent Nathan unto David When the ordinary means did not awaken David to repentance, God takes an extraordinary course. Thus the merciful Lord pities and prevents him who had so horribly forsaken God. He said He prudently ushers in his reproof with a parable, after the manner of the eastern nations, that so he might surprise David, and cause him unawares to give sentence against himself.

Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

2Sa 12:1. The Lord sent Nathan to David. The substance of the mission, the visitations he foretold, the perfect accomplishment of them, as well from that very day as in future ages, leaves not a vestige of doubt of the divine authority of the prophet. Who but a man of God would have dared to speak as Nathan to an absolute monarch in the zenith of conquest and glory; and to add, The sword shall never depart from thy house? The child of lawless desire died presently; Absalom assassinated Amnon, and was himself pierced in the oak. Jehu slew forty two of Davids house going to Jezebels feast; and Athaliah, hearing of the death of her father and her husband, slew all the seed-royal in Jerusalem, except Joash an infant, who escaped in his nurses arms. Thus the strokes of justice continued to fulfil the word of the Lord by Nathan till the final Babylonian captivity, when Nebuchadnezzar slew sixty six of the rebels, many of whom were of Davids line.

2Sa 12:14. The enemiesto blaspheme, by uttering slanderous speeches against religion, and against all classes of professors, as though the whole church were composed of hypocrites and deceivers. The Ammonites, on hearing of this, would be among the foremost to utter malignant words, but assuredly words of gross ignorance concerning the scrutiny of heaven, the characters of justice, and the nature and fruits of true repentance. See on Psalms 51.

2Sa 12:30. A talent of gold. Three hundred shekels, or seven pounds and a half, is the lowest estimate of the weight of this crown. The candlestick of the tabernacle weighed a talent. This is joined with the precious stones. aben, stone; probably some large diamond, as the two in the crown of Portugal, of which fac similes may be seen in the British Museum.

2Sa 12:31. And put them under saws for decapitation, and made them pass before Moloch their idol, where infants had been consumed, to be burned alive in the brickkilns. These were the rebels first lawfully condemned, and the soldiers put them to death in a wanton manner, as was the practice of the gentile world, being enraged that Rabbah had sustained a siege of twenty months. Under these circumstances, could it be expected that the ringleaders of this rebellion should receive a pardon. What a mercy that David did not burn the city; what a favour that he should place Shobi, son of Nahash, on the throne. While we lament the wanton cruelties of the soldiers, surely there is no need of the rebels to complain of David. See 2Sa 17:27.

REFLECTIONS.

In the preseding chapter we left the victorious monarch awfully loaded with the worst of crimes; and after the first alarms and struggles of conscience, as after the cessation of acute pains, stupor seized his mind: and a more awful state can scarcely be conceived. The man so abandoned to accumulated guilt is not qualified to perform any religious duty: and if the Lord should come and surprise him in his slumber, who for ten thousand worlds would be found in his situation? So for nine months David slept, chasing away as well as he could the recollection of his sins, and the idea of Uriahs bloody ghost. But so circumstanced, life could not be life to him; nor could he rejoice in all the prosperity of his throne. All his days were spent in pensive gloom, and his anguish oft betrayed itself by secret sighs. The morning however arrived when tidings were brought of the birth of a son. This, for the moment, would elevate his soul; he would think that heaven, overlooking his sin, had blessed his marriage; that he should again taste happiness on earth, and that the mystery of his crimes would remain partially concealed. Scarcely, it is presumed, had he indulged these hopes, than Nathan solicited an audience. He entered the chamber; grief and indignation were painted in his countenance, and the king at once perceived that something calamitous had occurred. The prophet laid before him a striking case of real woe, and almost unparalleled in the annals of wickedness. It interested all the powers of his soul; for self love, which blinds us to our own sins, leaves our eyes wide open to the faults of others. The king, deeply affected, by an oath of the Lord declared that the tyrant, whomsoever he might be, should surely die. Nathan, unfolding the moral of his parable, replied, Thou art the man. And like the prophet who came to Eli, and like Daniel before Belshazzar, he recited the kindness of the Lord in placing him on the throne, and unravelled all the mystery of his sin. Nathan, like a faithful minister of God, proceeded next to pass the divine sentence, nor softened one iota of his message. He declared, because of Uriahs blood, that the sword should never depart from Davids house; a sentence executed on the broadest scale, as the subsequent history will unfold. He announced that Davids wives should be ravished, not secretly like Bathsheba, but openly before all Israel; and Absalom, though with different views, executed this part of the sentence. The prophet closed his awful mission by announcing a mortal sickness on the infant begotten in adultery, that no man in future might ever sin under the cloak of Davids example.The monarch, thunderstruck and appalled to receive this message, and to hear those sentences from God, acknowledged the whole of his guilt. He exchanged his robe for sackcloth, and his throne for the dunghill. Grief was his food, and tears his drink. He poured forth all his soul in the fifty first psalm, for grief is eloquent, and anguish will utter its woes. He spared not himself in any thing; but made his repentance as public as his sin; and accompanied it with all the fruits in his power. Hence said Ambrose, We have many who imitate David in his sin, but few who imitate him in repentance.

From this case we learn many important lessons:

(1) That those who have committed secret sins, and slumber on secure and at ease, must expect a day when they are not aware, that God will send a Nathan or a judgment to spoil their joys and false repose. They had better therefore open their hearts in such a way to God or man, as would ease their conscience, and afford them repentance unto life. The counsel of some wise and holy minister is often the safest way to peace of mind.

(2) We learn from this, and from many other cases in the sacred writings, that the pardon of great and grievous sins is often accompanied with punishments which no tears, and no repentance can remove. How holy and dreadful is the God of justice! How indignant is he against men, who highly honoured by providence and grace, presume to dishonour his holy name, and cause the sons of Belial to blaspheme.

(3) While we revere the terrors of justice, we cannot but admire the fidelity with which Nathan executed his arduous mission, and pronounced the sentence of heaven. To address a monarch, and a monarch whose pleasure is little less than law, and to address him in the highest judicial style, is no common task; yet he neither softened the terms, nor apologized for his conduct. Oh that those reverend dignitaries who crowd the courts, and receive the highest favours of kings, would learn of Nathan to speak for God. Familiar with the rich, the noble, and the great, surely they cannot be ignorant of the sneers and puns daily directed against religion. They cannot but see the insults offered to the laws of marriage; and the immodesty which shows her brazen front on our theatres. Why then do they not cry aloud, and lift up their voice like a trumpet? Why then do they not speak at table to Herod? Why not reason before Felix of righteousness, temperance, and a judgment to come. Ah, the Nathans have ceased from the courts; the Pauls are found no more; nor even the Massillons to exhibit the horrors of the hero dying in his sins.But is it true? Is it really true that many of those ministers by flattering the follies of the great; by seeking preferments in preference to conversions, have led them to despise religion and its ancient ministers, because they despise its modern ministers! Woe then to the idle shepherds who eat the fat, and wear the fleece! God will require the souls of millions at their hands.

(4) We must farther regard Nathans mission as a singular mark of Gods compassion to David in his fallen state. Had the Holy Ghost never revealed the mystery of his sins, he had slumbered on, a stranger to the favours and comforts of his God. Therefore the voice which called him to repentance, and the consequences of his crimes which caused that repentance to be lasting as his life, were salutary marks of Gods love. Hence every man, properly acquainted with himself, will think life short enough to mourn for foul and scandalous offences.

(5) But the sins of David were not only revealed for his sake, and to purge the throne and church of Israel, but to apprize all mankind that God will not be a party in concealment. He will stir up evil against the fallen in their own house, and in their accomplices in vice: he will bring to light the hidden works of darkness, and make manifest the secrets of the heart. He sees at midnight as at noon; he is of purer eyes than to behold iniquity; and consequently the most cautious cannot long conceal a crime from the public eye. Let us therefore learn to love righteousness and truth, that we may never be ashamed of the light.

(6) It is farther presumed that God revealed Davids sins, to afford some sanctifying rays of hope to others who may have committed great and grievous sins. I say, sanctifying rays of hope; for though, on unfeigned repentance, followed by correspondent fruits, he will freely forgive the great part of the sins committed against himself, yet when the innocent is wronged and the weak are oppressed, he mostly accompanies pardon with such a series of punishments as induce the world to behold his purity, and revere his name. How marvellous are the characters of divine justice: the whole earth is full of his glory!

Fuente: Sutcliffe’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

2 Samuel 12. Davids Repentance. Capture of Rabbah (J).The section concerning Nathan (2Sa 12:1-15 a) is sometimes regarded as a later addition by some one who was anxious to point out and emphasize the moral; but this view is not generally held. Only 2Sa 12:10-12 need be regarded as editorial. The chapter is important because it shows that the primitive ideas as to the morality of Yahweh were very real, though they might be defective in some directions.

2Sa 12:1-14. Nathan, by parable and admonition, brings Davids guilt home to him; he makes penitent confession. Yahweh puts away his sin, which is thought of as a kind of disease, which would of itself kill the sinner, if it were not taken away.

2Sa 12:15-25. Davids child by Bath-sheba dies, but another son, Solomon, is born to them.

2Sa 12:25. for the Lords sake: an addition.

2Sa 12:26-31. Joab having made sure of the capture of Rabbah by making himself master of the water supply. (read, city of waters for royal city in 2Sa 12:26 as in 2Sa 12:27), David takes the command that he may have the formal credit. Amongst other spoil, he took the crown from the idol of Milcom, the god of Ammon; in this crown was a jewel which was set on Davids head, probably in his crown or diadem; so with 1Ch 20:2. He made his captives industrial slaves (mg.). Ch., however, makes him cut them with saws, etc.

Fuente: Peake’s Commentary on the Bible

David did not immediately confess his sin to God, and Psa 32:3-4 shows that the Lord waited for some time at least before sending the prophet Nathan to him, likely over nine months, for a son had been born to Bathsheba. He was giving David opportunity to voluntarily confess his sin, and in that time, as David says, “day and night” God’s hand was heavy upon him. How could his conscience have any rest? The misery of this experience continued until God finally sent Nathan to him with a very pointed parable. David did not know it was a parable concerning him until he was told it was.

The great difference between the rich man and the poor man is emphasized. The rich man had everything: the poor man had nothing but a little lamb which he had cared for tenderly, so that it was like a daughter to him. But when the rich man wanted a lamb to prepare a meal for a visitor, he stole the poor man’s lamb in spite of having flocks of his own. In the parable there was just enough in the way of difference from David’s case as to not make it too apparent. Yet the parable greatly understated the fact that David himself must be called upon to face, for the case of this rich man was not nearly so serious as that of David, who was guilty, not only of stealing, but of adultery and murder.

When David heard Nathan’s parable he was indignant at hearing of the selfish greed of the rich man, and immediately passed judgment that the rich man Should be put to death for this, and that the poor man should be given a fourfold restoration (vs.5-6). David little realized that he was sentencing himself to death! How stern and decisive we can be as to the faults of others, while forgetting our own!

But Nathan delivers God’s verdict with shocking force, “You are the man!” Faithfully he declares what God has to say to David. Six verses are occupied with the summary of evidence and of the solemn sentence of judgment that was to shake, not only David, but all his house. First God reminds David that He had in pure grace anointed him as king of Israel, delivering him from King Saul’s efforts to kill him More than that, God had given Saul’s house and his wives into David’s keeping, and had also brought both Judah and all Israel into subjection to David In fact, He would have given David yet more if David felt he did not have enough (vs.7-8). All of this was to remind David how totally dependent he was on the great grace of God

But despite this abundant incentive to be fully subject to the authority of the Lord, David had despised the positive commandment of the Lord. He is told, “You have killed Uriah the Hittite with the sword: you have taken his wife to be your wife, and have killed him with the sword of the people of Ammon” (v.9). The Lord’s verdict is clear and positive: David is guilty. He could not dare to make the slightest excuse for himself.

Nor would he escape the terrible consequences of his crime. God would raise up serious trouble against him from within his own house. He had grossly violated the sanctity of another man’s house. What a shock it must have been to David to be told that a neighbor of his would commit adultery with David’s wives, not secretly, but with brazen contempt for David and with the full knowledge of the people. How much more shocking it would have been if at this time the Lord had told him that the neighbor would be his own son (ch.16:21-22)! David had sinned secretly, wanting to keep his actions from the people, but God would recompense him publicly before all the people (v.12). When the Lord Jesus warned his disciples against hypocrisy, He told them “There is nothing covered that will not be revealed, nor hidden that will not be known” (Luk 12:1). How deeply humiliating a principle! But the light of God must reveal everything as it really is. We do well to take this seriously to heart.

What could David say? Could he offer any excuse? Could he suggest that someone else might be partly to blame for his sin? Could he plead circumstances that aggravated the temptation to do evil, as is the general case with many criminals today? No! He stood exposed before God, and could only respond, “I have sinned against the Lord” (v.13).

This is no easy place for anyone to take, and specially for a king of a large nation. But simple honesty must acknowledge one’s personal guilt, and plead no extenuating circumstances, no excuses whatever. This is one important reason that David is called a man after God’s heart. Two psalms of David (32 and 51) show us something of the depth of his repentance, and that he took time in the Lord’s presence alone to thoroughly judge the wickedness of what he had done. He was a totally broken man. This was much different than Saul’s confession, “I have sinned; yet honor me now, please, before the elders of my people and before Israel” (1Sa 15:30). Saul did not actually feel the dishonor he had done to God, but used a confession with the object of getting his own way.

Nathan knew that David’s confession was real. He immediately assured David that the Lord had put away his sin, and he would not die, as justice would demand. Yet, while forgiveness is full and free, this did not absolve David from suffering the governmental results of his sin. As well as the ensuing trouble in his own house, he was told by Nathan that because his sin gave occasion to the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme, the child that had been born to Bathsheba would die. Nathan, as a true prophet, has delivered only the message from God, then he leaves David alone with God.

THE DEATH OF BATHSHEBA’S SON

God, in His faithful government, did not take the child away immediately, but inflicted him with serious illness. This deepened the soul-exercise of David, keeping him in prayer and fasting for the seven days of his son’s illness. Evidently he thought that the earnestness of his prayer might change God’s mind. His servants did everything they could to divert him from the intensity of his prostrate distress. But he would not listen until he heard them whispering together, and questioning them, found that the child had died.

When David know that his child had died, he changed his attitude completely, rose and washed, anointed himself and changed his clothes, went to the house of God and worshiped. Then he returned to his own house and ate (v.20) His servants were puzzled by this, for they had the usual impression that death would call for far more distress and sorrow than sickness would. To their questions David replied that while the child was alive there was some hope that he might recover, and to this end he had prayed and fasted. But now that death had taken place, prayer and fasting could never bring the child back again. He adds, “I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me.” Actually, he might have realized that all his prayers and fasting would not result in the healing of his son, for God had positively told him through Nathan that the child would die.

However, though it was by means of wickedness that David obtained Bathsheba, yet the grace of God transcended this in David’s later having a son by her, whom we are told “the Lord loved.” In fact, Solomon was destined to succeed David as king of Israel, and from this line the official genealogy of Christ the Messiah is traced down to Joseph the husband of Mary, who as a virgin, gave birth to the Lord Jesus. Against all the darkness of man’s sin, how beautifully the grace of God shines out!

Verse 26 brings us back to consider the conquest of the Ammonites, a matter that Should have engaged David’s energies at the time he had been idle at home, which led to his sad fall. Joab and the army continued their fight and took possession of Rabbah, the royal city of Ammon. It seems his triumph was only partial at the time, however, evidently gaining an entrance into the city, but with “mopping up” operations still necessary to be carried out. Joab therefore sent to David, asking him to bring the rest of his army and finish the taking of the city. He tells David that if he (Joab) took the city it might be called after his own name (v.28). it is not likely that Joab was averse to such honor, but he evidently wanted to stir up David to a sense of his own responsibility.

David accepted the admonition (perhaps because the question of his own honor was involved), and went to battle, having evidently no difficulty in subduing the city. If he had gone with Joab in the first place, the victory may have been won more quickly, for David was a capable man of war. Typically, this was a victory over satanic doctrine, and God intended the entire army to be engaged in this, for it is no light matter to Him. All the people of God are to be fully united in such a conquest

The crown of the king of Ammon, weighing one talent of gold set with precious stones, was taken from his head and placed on David’s head (v.30). Smith’s Bible dictionary reckons a golden talent to weigh almost 200 pounds, though David’s Dictionary lowers this to 131 pounds. It seems incredible that this would be sustained on a man’s head, but perhaps it is what we call “an exceeding weight of glory!” We might well wonder at David’s being so desirous of honor as to wear something like this.

The people of the city were taken Out and given manual employment with saws, sharp implements of iron (such as harrows, or possibly picks and axes), and in the manufacture of bricks. This was appropriate, for the Ammonites picture those who are high-minded and intellectual, priding themselves on their religious superiority. Such people need good, practical work to bring them down to a proper level. David did the same with the people of all the Ammonite Cities. This work being accomplished, he returned to Jerusalem with the army.

Fuente: Grant’s Commentary on the Bible

12:1 And the LORD sent {a} Nathan unto David. And he came unto him, and said unto him, There were two men in one city; the one rich, and the other poor.

(a) Because David lay now drowned in sin, the loving mercy of God which does not allow his own to perish, wakes his conscience by this story and brings him to repentance.

Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes

CHAPTER XV.

DAVID AND NATHAN.

2Sa 12:1-12; 2Sa 12:26-31.

IT is often the method of the writers of Scripture, when the stream of public history has been broken by a private or personal incident, to complete at once the incident, and then go back to the principal history, resuming it at the point at which it was interrupted. In this way it sometimes happens (as we have already seen) that earlier events are recorded at a later part of the narrative than the natural order would imply. In the course of the narrative of David’s war with Ammon, the incident of his sin with Bathsheba presents itself. In accordance with the method referred to, that incident is recorded straight on to its very close, including the birth of Bathsheba’s second son, which must have occurred at least two years later. That being concluded, the history of the war with Ammon is resumed at the point at which it was broken off. We are not to suppose, as many have done, that the events recorded in the concluding verses of this chapter (2Sa 12:26-31) happened later than those recorded immediately before. This would imply that the siege of Rabbah lasted for two or three years – a supposition hardly to be entertained; for Joab was besieging it when David first saw Bathsheba, and there is no reason to suppose that a people like the Ammonites would be able to hold the mere outworks of the city for two or three whole years against such an army as David’s and such a commander as Joab. It seems far more likely that Joab’s first success against Rabbah was gained soon after the death of Uriah, and that his message to David to come and take the citadel in person was sent not long after the message that announced Uriah’s death.

In that case the order of events would be as follows: After the death of Uriah, Joab prepares for an assault on Rabbah. Meanwhile, at Jerusalem, Bathsheba goes through the form of mourning for her husband, and when the usual days of mourning are over David hastily sends for her and makes her his wife. Next comes a message from Joab that he has succeeded in taking the city of waters, and that only the citadel remains to be taken, for which purpose he urges David to come himself with additional forces, and thereby gain the honour of conquering the place. It rather surprises one to find Joab declining an honour for himself, as it also surprises us to find David going to reap what: another had sowed. David, however, goes with “all the people,” and is successful, and after disposing of the Ammonites he returns to Jerusalem. Soon after Bathsheba’s child is born; then Nathan goes to David and gives him the message that lays him in the dust. This is not only the most natural order for the events, but it agrees best with the spirit of the narrative. The cruelties practiced by David on the Ammonites send a thrill of horror through us as we read them. No doubt they deserved a severe chastisement; the original offence was an outrage on every right feeling, an outrage on the law of nations, a gratuitous and contemptuous insult; and in bringing these vast Syrian armies into the field they had subjected even the victorious Israelites to grievous suffering and loss, in toil, in money, and in lives.

Attempts have been made to explain away the severities inflicted on the Ammonites, but it is impossible to explain away a plain historical narrative. It was the manner of victorious warriors in those countries to steel their hearts against all compassion toward captive foes, and David, kind-hearted though he was, did the same. And if it be said that surely his religion, if it were religion of the right kind, ought to have made him more compassionate, we reply that at this period his religion was in a state of collapse. When his religion was in a healthy and active state, it showed itself in the first place by his regard for the honour of God, for whose ark he provided a resting-place, and in whose honour he proposed to build a temple. Love to God was accompanied by love to man, exhibited in his efforts to show kindness to the house of Saul for the sake of Jonathan, and to Hanun for the sake of Nahash. But now the picture is reversed; he falls into a cold state of heart toward God, and in connection with that declension we mark a more than usually severe punishment inflicted on his enemies. Just as the leaves first become yellow and finally drop from the tree in autumn, when the juices that fed them begin to fail, so the kindly actions that had marked the better periods of his life first fail, then turn to deeds of cruelty when that Holy Spirit, who is the fountain of all goodness, being resisted and grieved by him, withholds His living power.

In the whole transaction at Rabbah David shows poorly. It is not like him to be roused to an enterprise by an appeal to his love of fame; he might have left Joab to complete the conquest and enjoy the honour which his sword had substantially won. It is not like him to go through the ceremony of being crowned with the crown of the king of Ammon, as if it were a great thing to have so precious a diadem on his head. Above all, it is not like him to show so terrible a spirit in disposing of his prisoners of war. But all this is quite likely to have happened if he had not yet come to repentance for his sin. When a man’s conscience is ill at ease, his temper is commonly irritable. Unhappy in his inmost soul, he is in the temper that most easily becomes savage when provoked. No one can imagine that David’s conscience was at rest. He must have had that restless feeling which every good man experiences after doing a wrong act, before coming to a clear apprehension of it; he must have been eager to escape from himself, and Joab’s request to him to come to Rabbah and end the war must have been very opportune. In the excitement of war he would escape for a time the pursuit of his conscience; but he would be restless and irritable, and disposed to drive out of his way, in the most unceremonious manner, whoever or whatever should cross his path.

We now return with him to Jerusalem. He had added another to his long list of illustrious victories, and he had carried to the capital another vast store of spoil. The public attention would be thoroughly occupied with these brilliant events; and a king entering his capital at the head of his victorious troops, and followed by wagons laden with public treasure, need not fear a harsh construction on his private actions. The fate of Uriah might excite little notice; the affair of Bathsheba would soon blow over. The brilliant victory that had terminated the war seemed at the same time to have extricated the king from a personal scandal David might flatter himself that all would now be peace and quiet, and that the waters of oblivion would gather over that ugly business of Uriah.

“But the thing that David had done displeased the Lord.”

“And the Lord sent Nathan unto David.”

Slowly, sadly, silently the prophet bends his steps to the palace. Anxiously and painfully he prepares himself for the most distressing task a prophet of the Lord ever had to go through. He has to convey God’s reproof to the king; he has to reprove one from whom, doubtless, he has received many an impulse towards all that is high and holy. Very happily he clothes his message in the Eastern garb of parable. He puts his parable in such life-like form that the king has no suspicion of its real character. The rich robber that spared his own flocks and herds to feed the traveler, and stole the poor man’s ewe lamb, is a real flesh-and- blood criminal to him. And the deed is so dastardly, its heartlessness is so atrocious, that it is not enough to enforce against such a wretch the ordinary law of fourfold restitution; in the exercise of his high prerogative the king pronounces a sentence of death upon the ruffian, and confirms it with the solemnity of an oath – “The man that hath done this thing shall surely die.” The flash of indignation is yet in his eye, the flush of resentment is still on his brow, when the prophet with calm voice and piercing eye utters the solemn words, “Thou art the man!” Thou, great king of Israel, art the robber, the ruffian, condemned by thine own voice to the death of the worst malefactor! “Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, I anointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul; and I gave thee thy master’s house, and thy master’s wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little I would moreover have given thee such and such things. Wherefore hast thou despised the commandment of the Lord, to do evil in His sight? Thou hast killed Uriah the Hittite with the sword, and hast slain him with the sword of the children of Ammon.”

It is not difficult to fancy the look of the king as the prophet delivered his message – how at first when he said, “Thou art the man,” he would gaze at him eagerly and wistfully, like one at a loss to divine his meaning; and then, as the prophet proceeded to apply his parable, how, conscience-stricken, his expression would change to one of horror and agony; how the deeds of the last twelve months would glare in all their infamous baseness upon him, and outraged Justice, with a hundred glittering swords, would seem all impatient to devour him.

It is no mere imagination that, in a moment, the mind may be so quickened as to embrace the actions of a long period; and that with equal suddenness the moral aspect of them may be completely changed. There are moments when the powers of the mind as well as those of the body are so stimulated as to become capable of exertions undreamt of before. The dumb prince, in ancient history, who all his life had never spoken a word, but found the power of speech when he saw a sword raised to cut down his father, showed how danger could stimulate the organs of the body. The sudden change in David’s feeling now, like the sudden change in Saul’s on the way to Damascus, showed what electric rapidity may be communicated to the operations of the soul. It showed too what unseen and irresistible agencies of conviction and condemnation the great Judge can bring into play when it is His will to do so. As the steam hammer may be so adjusted as either to break a nutshell without injuring the kernel, or crush a block of quartz to powder, so the Spirit of God can range, in His effects on the conscience, between the mildest feeling of uneasiness and the bitterest agony of remorse. “When He is come,” said our blessed Lord, ”He shall reprove the world of sin.” How helpless men are under His operation! How utterly was David prostrated! How were the multitudes brought down on the day of Pentecost! Is there any petition we more need to press than that the Spirit be poured out to convince of sin, whether as it regards ourselves or the world? Is it not true that the great want of the Church the want of is a sense of sin, so that confession and humiliation are become rare, and our very theology is emasculated, because, where there is little sense of sin, there can be little appreciation of redemption? And is not a sense of sin that which would bring a careless world to itself, and make it deal earnestly with God’s gracious offers? How striking is the effect ascribed by the prophet Zechariah to that pouring of the spirit of grace and supplication upon the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem, when “they shall look on Him whom they have pierced, and shall mourn for Him as one mourneth for an only son, and shall be in bitterness for Him as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn.” Would that our whole hearts went out in those invocations of the Spirit which we often sing, but alas! so very tamely –

“Come, Holy Spirit, come,

Let Thy bright beams arise;

Dispel the darkness from our minds.

And open all our eyes.

“Convince us of our sin,

Lead us to Jesus blood,

And kindle in our breast the flame

Of never-dying love.”

We cannot pass from this aspect of David’s case without marking the terrible power of self-deception. Nothing blinds men so much to the real character of a sin as the fact that it is their own. Let it be presented to them in the light of another man’s sin, and they are shocked. It is easy for one’s self-love to weave a veil of fair embroidery, and cast it over those deeds about which one is somewhat uncomfortable. It is easy to devise for ourselves this excuse and that, and lay stress on one excuse and another that may lessen the appearance of criminality. But nothing is more to be deprecated, nothing more to be deplored, than success in that very process. Happy for you if a Nathan is sent to you in time to tear to rags your elaborate embroidery, and lay bare the essential vileness of your deed! Happy for you if your conscience is made to assert its authority, and cry to you, with its awful voice, “Thou art the man!” For if you live and die in your fool’s paradise, excusing every sin, and saying peace, peace, when there is no peace, there is nothing for you but the rude awakening of the day of judgment, when the hail shall sweep away the refuge of lies!

After Nathan had exposed the sin of David he proceeded to declare his sentence. It was not a sentence of death, in the ordinary sense of the term, but it was a sentence of death in a sense even more difficult to bear. It consisted of three things – first, the sword should never depart from his house; second, out of his own house evil should be raised against him, and a dishonoured harem should show the nature and extent of the humiliation that would come upon him; and thirdly, a public exposure should thus be made of his sin, so that he would stand in the pillory of Divine rebuke, and in the shame which it entailed, before all Israel, and before the sun. When David confessed his sin, Nathan told him that the Lord had graciously forgiven it, but at the same time a special chastisement was to mark how concerned God was for the fact that by his sin he had caused the enemy to blaspheme – the child born of Bathsheba was to die.

Reserving this last part of the sentence and David’s bearing in connection with it for future consideration, let us give attention to the first portion of his retribution. “The sword shall never depart from thy house.” Here we find a great principle in the moral government of God, – correspondence between an offence and its retribution. Of this many instances occur in the Old Testament Jacob deceived his father; he was deceived by his own sons. Lot made a worldly choice; in the world’s ruin he was overwhelmed. So David having slain Uriah with the sword, the sword was never to depart from him. He had robbed Uriah of his wife; his neighbours would in like manner rob and dishonour him. He had disturbed the purity of the family relation; his own house was to become a den of pollution. He had mingled deceit and treachery with his actions; deceit and treachery would be practiced towards him. What a sad and ominous prospect! Men naturally look for peace in old age; the evening of life is expected to be calm. But for him there was to be no calm; and his trial was to fall on the tenderest part of his nature. He had a strong affection for his children; in that very feeling he was to be wounded, and that, too, all his life long. Oh let not any suppose that, because God’s children are saved by His mercy from eternal punishment, it is a light thing for them to despise the commandments of the Lord! “Thine own wickedness shall correct thee, and thy backslidings shall reprove thee; know therefore and see that it is an evil thing and bitter that thou hast forsaken the Lord thy God, and that thy fear is not in Me, saith the Lord of hosts.”

Pre-eminent in its bitterness was that part of David’s retribution which made his own house the source from which his bitterest trials and humiliations should arise. For the most part, it is in extreme cases only that parents have to encounter this trial. It is only in the wickedest households, and in households for the most part where the passions are roused to madness by drink, that the hand of the child is raised against his father to wound and dishonour him. It was a terrible humiliation to the king of Israel to have to bear this doom, and especially to that king of Israel who in many ways bore so close a resemblance to the promised Seed, who was indeed to be the progenitor of that Seed, so that when Messiah came He should be called “the Son of David.” Alas! the glory of this distinction was to be sadly tarnished. “Son of David” was to be a very equivocal title, according to the character of the individual who should bear it. In one case it would denote the very climax of honour; in another, the depth of humiliation. Yes, that household of David’s would reek with foul lusts and unnatural crimes. From the bosom of that home where, under other circumstances, it would have been so natural to look for model children, pure, affectionate, and dutiful, there would come forth monsters of lust and monsters of ambition, whose deeds of infamy would hardly find a parallel in the annals of the nation I In the breasts of some of these royal children the devil would find a seat where he might plan and execute the most unnatural crimes. And that city of Jerusalem, which he had rescued from the Jebusites, consecrated as God’s dwelling-place, and built and adorned with the spoils which the king had taken in many a well-fought field, would turn against him in his old age, and force him to fly wherever a refuge could be found as homeless, and nearly as destitute, as in the days of his youth when he fled from Saul!

And lastly, his retribution was to be public. He had done his part secretly, but God would do His part openly. There was not a man or woman in all Israel but would see these judgments coming on a king who had outraged his royal position and his royal prerogatives. How could he ever go in and out happily among them again? How could he be sure, when he met any of them, that they were not thinking of his crime, and condemning him in their hearts? How could he meet the hardly suppressed scowl of every Hittite, that would recall his treatment of their faithful kinsman? What a burden would he carry ever after, he that used to wear such a frank and honest and kindly look, that was so affable to all that sought his counsel, and so tenderhearted to all that were in trouble! And what outlet could he find out of all this misery? There was but one he could think of. If only God would forgive him; if He, whose mercy was in the heavens, would but receive him again of His infinite condescension into His fellowship, and vouchsafe to him that grace which was not the fruit of man’s deserving, but, as its very name implied, of God’s unbounded goodness, then might his soul return again to its quiet rest, though life could never be to him what it was before. And this, as we shall presently see, is what he set himself very earnestly to seek, and what of God’s mercy he was permitted to find. O sinner, if thou hast strayed like a lost sheep, and plunged into the very depths of sin, know that all is not lost with thee! There is one way yet open to peace, if not to joy. Amid the ten thousand times ten thousand voices that condemn thee, there is one voice of love that comes from heaven and says, “Return unto Me, and I will return unto you, saith the Lord.”

Fuente: Expositors Bible Commentary