7 14. The Prophet’s sentence. David’s confession<\/p>\n
7<\/strong>. Thou<\/em> art the man<\/em> ] The consciousness that they were God’s messengers inspired the prophets with fearless courage. Samuel rebuked Saul for his disobedience: the prophet from Judah reproved Jeroboam for his idolatry: Elijah pronounced sentence on Ahab for his murder of Naboth: Isaiah chid Ahaz for his faithlessness: John the Baptist condemned Herod for his adultery.<\/p>\n I anointed thee<\/em>, &c.] God’s successive favours to David are enumerated, to bring out the baseness of his ingratitude and the folly of his sin.<\/p>\n 2Sa 12:7<\/span><\/p>\n And Nathan said to David, Thou art the man.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n His natural face in a glass<\/strong><\/p>\n Mr. Moody somewhere tells the story of a little child who had fallen into the gutter, but would not submit quietly to be washed, till his mother, finding persuasion useless, caught up the rebellious boy in her arms and turned him before a looking-glass. So here the righteous prophet brings the guilty king before the mirror of a lustrous parable; in a moment the blackness of the royal transgressors misdeeds was seen, and he cried out, with full conviction of his sin–Unclean! Unclean! wash me, O God, and I shall be innocent from the great transgression! Nathan by his parable brings David the offender unawares before David the judge. The solemn subject suggested by these words is the blinding of self. Here was a man who was deeply incensed at an abstract story of injustice, with which he personally, as he thought, had no concern, but apparently insensible to the gravity of the crimes, far more abominable, which he himself had perpetrated, How is it that we have such open ears and quick eyes and sharp tongues for the misdeeds of others, while we are so blind and gentle to <\/strong>our own? Why are we such severe judges on our very own crimes seen on others? Let us try to answer these questions OH the lines of the Old Testament episode.<\/p>\n Sins selfdiscovery<\/strong><\/p>\n In this lurid sentence the prophet of God condemned the guilty king out of his own month. It was no mild utterance, this, but one charged with moral passion and righteous anger. The circumstances called for the word, too. The wretched man upon the throne now saw, and for the first time, what ms sin really was. It was guilt calculated upon and persisted in, guilt covered up even in Davids own mind by sophistry and self-excuse. Now comes the moment of revelation, when the true state of things is declared to Davids consciousness just as it had long ago been declared unconsciously, though he never dared to face the truth. Imagine the scene that is hinted at in this chapter rather than described. David sits upon the throne in the day of his splendour, surrounded by his mighty men, and the plain-garbed figure of the prophet of God appears on the scene. He is made welcome–why should it not be so? This victorious king is the chosen of the Lord. What message can Nathan have to bring but a message of good? The court is hushed to listen. The wisdom and righteousness of David respond eagerly to the demand of the prophet. Thus and such the rich man has done. Thus and such vengeance is called for, retribution to be awarded. What saith the king? And Davids anger was greatly kindled against the man. The court is silent, waiting for the prophet to speak. One sentence it is which issues from his lips, how terrible only David knew though the awe-stricken listeners must have felt, too, something of the impact of the tremendous utterance, Thou art the man. Self-deception is never very difficult. Men are curiously averse to calling things by the right name. There is no kind of hypocrisy so subtle and so dangerous as the hypocrisy which is hypocrite to itself and will not acknowledge its own presence. We can cheat ourselves as David did that because the world knows nothing and because there is a euphemistic word to describe a foul thing, that therefore God is deceived too. He is not, and heaven is not. The world of truth interpenetrates this, the world of glory is not a handbreadth off. You cannot hide from the eternal right. As Arthur Hugh Clough hath it in one of his most familiar lines, Listen before I die, one word. In old times you called me pleasure; my name is guilt. What a dark name, what a foul name, what an unpronounceable shuddering word you would have to apply if you were honest, some of you, to the things you have done! God, you see, applies the right word–Thou art the man. In Gods economy, in Gods moral world, the meaning of punishment is that the soul is compelled to see itself as it is, and to acknowledge the eternal justice. Come it soon or come it late, Gods verdict upon sin is written large in the experience of the sinner. I was reading recently in one of Maurice Maeterlincks books, I think the last, a paragraph something to this effect. I do not quote, I only paraphrase–If a man hath done a guilty deed, if a man hath been betrayed by himself, dragged down by evil propensity, and hath the courage and the faith to rise again, the day comes, the moment is his when he can say, It was not I that did it. Of course you see the paradox of the mystic. Yes, but it was a truth stated in paradox. A man may so rise above the habitual level of his own character that deeds are forgotten. It is not so much the deeds that matter, it is the climate of the soul, it is the moral atmosphere in which you live that is telling out the truth. A mans real fall often antedates by long the fall that the world can see and judge him by. But, look you, if a man has risen so far by virtue of his penitence that he reaches the heart of God; so exalting himself, by true humility that he is no longer capable of that old sin, it is, as it were, blotted out of the book of remembrance. To such a man I would be entitled to say in the name of the Lord of Hosts, Thou art not <\/em>the man, the man that was, but another, redeemed, purified, made holy by the Spirit of God. There are some people who are morbid in their retrospection and their view of their own moral delinquencies. Remorse is not repentance. Morbidness is by no means humility. There is another way and a higher. It is impossible for you to contend with God. Once you have realised that there is no longer need for you to remain in the prison-house. If any man is hopeless concerning the past I call him to a deeper as well as a higher life. An old mediaeval mystic once wrote, In every man there is a godly will which never consented to sin nor ever shall. You know what that signifies. It tells you that the deepest self in every man is Christ. What? Yes, I mean it. Until conscience is dead Christ is not gone from the soul of any man but that Christ you may be crucifying. (R. J. Campbell.<\/em>)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Conviction, confession, and forgiveness<\/strong><\/p>\n The king was confounded! So sharp, so sudden, so altogether unexpected was the charge, he could not resist it. Like a well-appointed shaft flying from a practised archer it transfixed his heart.<\/p>\n Nathans message<\/strong><\/p>\n Davids conscience seems to have been deranged, to have forgotten its function; and it is with our moral as with our physical being–when any of our natural organs are diseased and suffered to continue in that state, the character of the organic action becomes gradually changed, and a complete departure from healthy action succeeds, and perhaps the reparation of the organ becomes impossible after a time. David is excessive in pronouncing sentence upon the imaginary transgressor. Now, here is an indirect testimony of conscience to the law, that it was good; but here is a solemn lesson. It is one thing to agree with the general correctness of a principle, and it is quite another thing to apply practically that principle to our own life and conversation. Every one is ready to admit that it is a practical duty to relieve distress; and yet, if you compare the numbers of those who act upon the conviction with the multitudes of those who are ready to admit the principle, it is to be feared that a lamentable failing will often be discovered. Or take some of our every-day principles. We are ready enough to admit the uncertainty of life, and the goodness of God, and there are certain principles of practice that follow as directly from the admission as night succeeds to day; and yet bring men to the touchstone of practice, and they will be found as practical deniers of their own principles. No; you find men eager in the pursuit of shadows still. We are ready to admit the goodness and long-suffering of God, that we are dependent for everything upon Him, and yet where is the man that can examine his own conscience without being compelled to admit that his affections have been given to things with which it would be blasphemous to speak of God as having divided allegiance? Therefore, we have, in dealing with ourselves, a mighty enemy to guard against–our tendency to deceive ourselves. The wisest statesman of antiquity has said, It is the easiest thing possible to deceive oneself. The wish is too often parent of the thought. If, by succeeding to deceive ourselves as to our actual state, we were able to cancel the reality of that state and to remove the fearful consequences that unrepented sin entails upon is, then indeed the preachers task were one of wanton cruelty, to disturb the calm repose of the life that now is, if, by suffering it to continue, it could possibly issue in the repose of the life that is to come. But what would be thought of one who would see a fellow-creature moving blindfolded to the brink of a precipice, one step after the arrival at which precipitated his doom? Perceive how the prophet advances. Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, I anointed thee king over Israel and I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul. The prophet here enumerates the mercies of God which had been vouchsafed to David from his earliest history. It is well, when the Christian habitually enumerates Gods mercies, and widen the recollection serves to keep alive the flame of gratitude that ought to burn there. Bless the Lord, O my soul, and forget not all His benefits. But it is a very different state when the conscience is dead, when the memory of past mercies is lost, when it produces no response in the seared heart–when the man of God is constrained, as Nathan is here, to enter into a recapitulation of the mercies of God, and the forgetfulness of him who was sustained by them, and who had so long forgotten them. Wherefore hast thou despised the commandment of the Lord, to do evil in His sight? thou hast killed Uriah the Hittite with the sword. It would, humanly speaking, have been impossible to have brought the murder home to David; but God seeth not as man seeth; man judgeth by the outward appearance, but God regardeth the heart. Just as David is here arraigned by God for the murder which he had not with his own hand perpetrated, so are multitudes found guilty before God of that which man can never substantiate or bring home to them. This is the penetrating character of Gods Word; it is thus that we are to read it–as entering into our inmost thoughts and conceptions–as high and holy in its requirements. It is in the life and language of Jesus Christ that we see this law reflected. Here the prophet dealt faithfully with the royal transgressor; and there seems to have come a flood of light upon Davids slumbering mind. He seems as one awakened from a dream of sin. And now we hear the psalmist humbling himself. And David said unto Nathan, I have sinned against the Lord. These are blessed words; they are the response that God requires to His expostulation–Only acknowledge thine iniquity. And simultaneous with the confession is the offer of mercy. The Lord hath put away thy sin; thou shalt not die. Here we have the law and the Gospel forcibly contrasted. We have the unbending rigour of the law speaking in this wise. The law says, Thou shalt surely die, and there is no help or escape; but the Gospel says, Thou shalt not die. How otherwise than in Christ can these statements be reconciled? How can we vindicate the stern requirements of Gods holy law, and yet offer to the transgressor of that law unqualified pardon and free acceptance, except in the name of Jesus Christ? This is exactly the Gospel; and would it not be strange, were the Bible of any other source than that whence it came? We have no eye to appreciate the beauty of God, until it is reflected in the face of Jesus Christ; we cannot understand the voice of the charmer, charm he never so wisely, until the Spirit, whose office is to glorify Jesus, takes of the things of Christ and shows them to our wondering souls. Then there is amazement, then there is gratitude, then there is love, and the heart going forth earnestly to God, in conscious acknowledgement of all that God hath clone for us. Observe, then, what a fund of comfort is opened here to the distressed mourner. He looks to his Bible, and there he finds encouragement to believe that no degree of guilt, however black, can militate against his free acceptance, if he cast himself only on the free mercy of God in Christ. Then the sinner asks, How is it consistent with the justice of God? How is it consistent with the maintenance in their perfection of the other attributes of God, to extend pardon to the sinner upon his confessing, his sin? Then the Gospel interposes; then all that Jesus undertook, all that Jesus accomplished, and the value of Jesus work comes in upon his mind, convinces him that God can be just, even when He is the justifer, and that if he confesses and forsakes his sin, God is not only merciful, but even righteous and just in forgiving his sin, and in cleansing him from all unrighteousness. The very attributes that were before arrayed against the sinner, and clamoured, trumpet-tongued, for his destruction, are now arrayed on the other side, and speak as powerfully for his acceptance and sanctification. There is another feature connected with this. David was a man after Gods own heart, and Davids sin was calculated from its very nature to throw a greater discredit upon the profession of religion than the sins of those who were not so remarkable for having previously walked with God. (T. Nolan, M. A.<\/em>)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n No man impeccable<\/strong><\/p>\n 1. <\/strong>Shall rank, wealth, and glory be pleaded as a security against the perpetration of evil? David possessed them all. How extensive was his range of lawful gratification! In the figurative language of the prophet, he had exceeding many flocks and herds. The occupiers of thrones have too frequently been as notorious for their vices as conspicuous for their stations. Blessings tainted by depravity are curses in disguise.<\/p>\n 2. <\/strong>Genius of the highest order, learning of the most useful kind, taste exquisitely refined, and capable of the purest satisfactions–will not these preserve the character, at least, from the foulest blots of iniquity? No; dead and living illustrations prove the contrary.<\/p>\n 3. <\/strong>May we not confidently hope that the sobriety of mature age, no longer subject to the fervours of youthful passion, will present an effectual barrier against the inroads of crime? The time had long passed away when it was said of David that he was a youth, and ruddy.<\/p>\n 4. <\/strong>But surely long habits of the strictest virtue, founded on principles of genuine and long cultivated piety, will place an individual on a pinnacle too high for temptation to reach. This good man, even when grown old in religion, was guilty of deeds which many habitual sinners, though prompted by youthful passion and unrestrained by the fear of God, would still have abhorred, But, indeed, when once we allow ourselves to go wrong we can neither know nor guess the consequences. That sin, indeed, with which David began is peculiarly ensnaring and pernicious. The lower degrees of immodesty lead on imperceptibly to the most unlawful familiarities. These entangle in a variety of difficulties that ensure at last the commission of the vilest and cruellest acts imaginable. And to specify no more particulars, mere indolent omissions of religious duties, public or private, leave our sentiments of piety to languish till we become utterly unmindful of our eternal interest, and perhaps at last profane scoffers.<\/p>\n Tenderness of conscience<\/strong><\/p>\n We should have naturally thought that every word of Nathans parable would have stabbed David to the heart, would have cut him to the quick, covered him with the deepest shame, and melted him into a repentant state. And vet Davids conscience smote him not as the touching tale was told; he saw nothing, he felt nothing, bearing on himself or his own case. He had no thought that the arrow was meant for him, or that he was designed to read out, by the light of the parable, his own great guilt to his own blackened heart Nathan had with his own hands to tear off the veil, beneath which it was thought David would have caught the dark features of his own transgression; and it was not till he plainly said, Thou art the man, that the sinner felt his sin, and was convinced that the messenger of God was sent to condemn him for his own evil ways. Now, doubtless, as we have read this passage of Gods Word, we have often wondered at Davids blindness, his want of perception, his strange dulness and slowness of mind, which prevented him catching at once the meaning of what was said; but the truth is, what seems strange in another, is all the while common among ourselves; the same thing continually goes on. Blind and unobserving as regards our faults, too ready to dismiss any shameful doings from our minds, we are slow to apply warnings or reproaches to ourselves. We see easily, and with quick eyes, how such a sentence strikes our neighbour, how our neigh-hours faults are hit, our neighbours sins condemned. Messages sent from God often come to us without effect, do not even graze the conscience, pass by unnoticed and unapplied; and it needs often home-thrusts of the sharpest, plainest kind, to convince us that we are spoken to by God at all. How much there is of warning, of reproof, of condemnation, mercifully uttered in our ears, mercifully addressed to us especially. These warnings are often very strong, very decided, very plain; and yet we do not fit the cap to the head; they seem to us to be meant, for others, to be meant for the world at large, or at any rate not to be particularly meant for us. Thus the proud hear the proud condemned by prophets whom God has sent, condemned by apostles whose mouths breathe forth words of the Holy Ghost, condemned by Christ Himself, condemned fearlessly in such awful terms as this, that God resisteth the proud; and vet they get used to all these sayings about pride; they do not stop and weigh them, and take them home to their own hearts, and see themselves condemned. So the covetous hear of covetousness condemned at every turn, stamped as idolatry, blackened with terrible denunciations, and vet the covetous go on saving money, grudging to give it, making excuses for not giving it, slaving and toiling for it, without any strong self-condemnation, without any quick perception that they are in a perilous state. So the lovers of pleasure get used to the threatenings hurled against those that love pleasure more than God, without stopping to hear their own individual reproof. We do not see how the Spirit of God, how the Lord Jesus in His love pleads with us individually, sets before us our own falls, our own pride, our own covetousness, or our own lusts, our own worldliness, our own swearing and drinking. Yet God deals with us one by one. He speaks to each; to each He sends His messengers and message. If, then, we are dull of heart, slow to hear what is for our own ears, we are, in neglecting and failing to apply reproofs and condemnations, neglecting mercies, loving-kindnesses, forgiveness, the longings of the Father for our salvation, the pardon purchased by His Son. Often is there a voice which says, Thou art the man, and even their we hear it not. One comes in choken with the cares of the world, and a passage of Gods Word describes his state, shows his sin, reveals his peril, and yet he goes forth unmoved, untouched, caring still about worldly things; another comes in fond of money, and the love of money is denounced in many fearful texts, and yet he seems not to hear the inspired writer say to him, Thou art the man. Another comes in to offer lip-service, to lounge away an hour drowsily in his seat, and Scripture straightway speaks stern words concerning those who draw near with their lips while their heart is far away, or who behave irreverently in Gods House; yet he too fails to think that he is the one pointed at in the text. Another comes in given to drink, or given to oaths, and he hears the Scripture awfully pronounce the guilt of those who do such things without fear or dread, or awe. The least that we can do is to pray for a more tender, quick-eared conscience, that the heaviness and drowsiness of the heart may give way to a readier, more open mind, a mind more keenly intent to hear what the Lord doth say, whether through things done in the world, or through His written Word, or through the example of others, or through the counsels of His ministers, or through the movements of grace within our hearts, those inward calls, those inward warnings that rise up within us, when no speech nor language is to be heard. (J. Armstrong, D. D.<\/em>)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n The awakening to the sophistry of sin<\/strong><\/p>\n David is no longer the ingenuous youth on whose cheek glows the blush of modesty; he is the hardened voluptuary, blind to his own failings, careless of the welfare of his subjects, engrossed by selfishness. The prophet of God was come unto him no longer to bless, but to rebuke. While the accents of justice thus rushed to his lip, did no hidden pang tell him of his own unworthiness? He Himself hath guided, the sword that laid Uriah in the dust. This was the enormous transgression which even now hung, unconfessed and unrepented, upon the soul of David. He sinks not beneath its weight. He seems scarcely to feel the pressure. His countenance glows not with the blush of shame, but with the indignation of virtue. On his lips is the language of proud and conscious worth. The sacred Scriptures have not informed us by what artifices David had concealed this wickedness from himself, or so palliated it as to prevent in such a remarkable degree the power of conscience from exerting its authority. The experience of ordinary life may, in part, unfold the mystery. When we find men unconscious of their own defects, detecting these very faults in another, and censuring them with unsparing severity; when we find the vainest eager to deride the foibles of vanity; when we hear the ambitions declaim against the folly of ambition; when we hear the miser loud to censure an avarice less conspicuous than his own, it is obvious that these men have either hid from themselves the knowledge of their own transgressions, or have, by some sophistry, explained their sinfulness away. The king of Israels ignorance of his own crime may then, in one view, have been wilful. When a subject is disagreeable, we naturally avoid it. The spendthrift feels at times the presage of approaching ruin; but be flies from the thought while he may, and opens not his eyes till ruin is inevitable. Self-disapprobation being painful, the same infirmity makes us wish to escape it–makes us to indulge the dangerous palliative of biding our sin even from ourselves. What avails it that the means of information are in our power, if we obstinately refuse to employ them? Bright and varied, to the attentive gaze, are the charms of external nature; but he who shuts his eyes against the light, cannot distinguish even deformity and loveliness. Strong are the attractions of music to them who court their power, but to him who stops his ear against their melody, the voice of the charmer can never reach. David may at times have had transient glances of his crime, but if he expelled them by the cares of empire, or drowned them amidst the riot of gaiety, their impression would become ever fainter and fainter. Had not the voice of rebuke or the stroke of adversity reached him, he might have lost all knowledge of his own character for ever. But the king of Israels ignorance of his own crime may also have been in a great measure involuntary. The prejudices which various situations inspire, and the sophistry with which passion argues, have incredible power in perverting our views of good and evil. Even the most candid cannot view in precisely the same light, the same action committed by himself and by another man. A thousand little selfish considerations bind him. The very emotion which roused him against the oppressor whose history Nathan had told, if permitted to operate fairly, would have guarded himself from committing an act of cruelty yet more atrocious. But when self-interest mingled its enchantment we see how totally his perceptions were changed. The situation which he filled in life was one of those which are the most peculiarly trying, unfavourable to disinterested and impartial views of conduct. Exalted so far above his brethren, he seems at times to consider them as made only for his pleasure, and to estimate actions only by their tendency to promote it. If he applied his standard only to the case of Uriah, he would find in it little to regret. In the particular case of David, too, the pleadings of passion would exert all their artifice to blind the conscience and judgment. For the first guilty act he would plead, as every succeeding voluptuary has pleaded, the natural force of passion, unmindful that the passions were given to be the handmaids, not the tyrants of reason and conscience. For every succeeding step in his guilty progress he had something like the plea of necessity to urge. But now, by the sophistry of passion, the circumstances of the case were entirely changed. What would otherwise have been seen to be the foulest murder was now an act of self-defence; what would otherwise have been seen to be the meanest treachery was now interpreted as considerate and merciful tenderness–softening the blow which it was forced to inflict; and, since the victim must fall, kindly allowing him to die a soldiers death. What would otherwise have been seen to be base ingratitude was now interpreted as an unavoidable though painful effort to screen the fame and the life of a helpless confiding woman. Uriah must fall, or Bathsheba must die. The choice is too clear for hesitation, and David almost imagines he does a wise and a generous deed when, to screen the guilty, lie devotes the unsuspecting to sure and speedy destruction. By whichever of these delusions David had permitted himself to be blinded, its power seems to have been strongly fixed in his mind. His danger was dreadful. If God had not interposed in mercy, what was to rouse him from his fatal dream? Would not the sleep of death have found him unconverted, and horror inexpressible attended his awakening? Nathan with skilful and happy art raised first the better feelings of David into action, and then tore the veil of self-delusion at once asunder; taxing him loudly with his guilt, upbraiding him with those mercies of heaven which he abused, and denouncing against him the judgments of the Lord. Let me recommend to your most attentive performance the duty of self-examination, not merely when you are called to join in the solemn festivals of religion, but at regular and frequent periods. Examine, with keen and prejudiced suspicion, every excuse that is offered for acknowledged defects. Think nothing trivial that misleads from duty. Who can tell where the labyrinth of sin shall end? (A. Brunton. D. D.<\/em>)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n A bold preacher<\/strong><\/p>\n Pulpit power comes of holy boldness. In 1670, Bourdaloue, the founder of genuine pulpit eloquence in France, preached before his sovereign. Having described a sinner of the first magnitude, lie turned to Louis XIV. and in a voice of thunder cried, Thou art the man! The effect on all was electrical. After the sermon the preacher went and fell at the feet of the king, saying: Sire, behold one of the most devoted of your servants. Punish him not because that in the pulpit he owns no other master than the King of kings.<\/p>\n Preaching to the heart<\/strong><\/p>\n A great admirer of Bramwell once invited a scholarly German friend to accompany him to hear ,.the fervent Methodist. At the close of the service, anxious to know the impression produced, he said: Well, Mr. Troubner, how do you like him? Do you think he wanders too much from the subject? Ah! yes, said the German, wiping his moistened eyes, be do wander most delightfully from the subject to the heart. Exposition needs personal application, the mind enlightened must advance to the heart moved. (H. O. Mackey<\/em>.)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n The fearless preacher<\/strong><\/p>\n was a type. He has had many a successor. John Knox at the Court of Queen Mary, Bossuet preaching before the Grand Monarque of France, Savonarola thundering from his Florentine pub at the vices of Lorengo the Magnificent and the nobles, Martin Luther defying, in the name of righteousness, the conclave of princes and cardinals at Worms Hugh Latimer preaching at Westminster in the days of fearful peril to the faithful, Peter exclaiming, We must fear God rather than man! (Christian Commonwealth<\/em>.)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Faithfulness to God and the king<\/strong><\/p>\n Bishop Latimer, having one day preached before King Henry VIII. a sermon which displeased his Majesty, he was ordered to preach again on the next Sabbath, and to make an apology for the offence lie had given. After reading his text, the bishop then began his sermon: Hugh Latimer, dost thou know before whom thou art this day to speak? To the high and mighty monarch, the kings most excellent majesty, who can take away thy life if thou offendest; therefore, take heed that thou speakest not a word that may displease; but then consider, well, Hugh, dost thou not know from whence thou comest; upon whose message thou art sent? Even by the great and mighty God, who is all-present, and who beholdeth all thy ways and who is able to cast thy soul into hell! Therefore, take care that thou deliverest thy message faithfully. He then proceeded with the same sermon he had preached the preceding Sunday, but with considerably more energy. The sermon ended, the court were full of expectation to know what would be the fate of this honest and plain-dealing bishop; After dinner, the king called for Latimer, and, with a stern <\/strong>countenance, asked him how he dared to be so bold as to preach in such a manner. He, falling on his knees, replied that his duty to his God and his prince had enforced him thereto, and that he had merely discharged his duty and his conscience in what he had spoken. Upon which the king, rising from his seat, and taking the good man by the hand, embraced him, saying, Blessed be God I have so honest a servant.<\/p>\n Pointed sermons<\/strong><\/p>\n Many sermons, ingenious of their kind, may be compared to a letter put into the post-office without a direction. It is addressed to nobody, it is owned by nobody, and if a hundred people were to read it, not one of them would think himself concerned in the contents. Such a sermon, whatever excellencies it may have, lacks the chief requisite of a sermon. It is like a sword which has a polished blade, a jewelled hilt, and a gorgeous scabbard, but yet will not cut, and, therefore, as to all real use, is no sword. The truth, properly presented, has an edge; it pierces to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit; it is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. (J. Newton<\/em>.)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Convincing preaching<\/strong><\/p>\n A parishioner of Whately said to the Archbishop that he did not believe that the occupant of the pulpit had a right to make those in the pew uncomfortable. Whately agreed, but added, Whether the sermon is to be altered or the mans life depends on whether the doctrine is right or wrong. Said Robert Morris to Dr. Rush, I like that preaching best which drives a man into the corner of his pew and makes him think the devil is after him. (E. P. Thwing.<\/em>)<\/p>\n Verse 7<\/span>. Thou<\/B><\/I> art <\/B>the man.<\/B><\/I>] What a terrible word! And by it David appears to have been transfixed, and brought into the dust before the messenger of God.<\/P> <\/P> THOU ART this son of death<\/I>, and thou shalt restore this lamb FOURFOLD. It is indulging fancy too much to say David was called, in the course of a just Providence to pay this fourfold debt? to lose four sons<\/I> by untimely deaths, viz., this son of Bath-sheba, on whom David had set his heart, was slain by the Lord; Amnon<\/I>, murdered by his brother Absalom; Absalom<\/I>, slain in the oak by Joab; and Adonijah<\/I>, slain by the order of his brother Solomon, even at the altar of the Lord! The sword and calamity did not depart from his house, from the murder of wretched Amnon<\/I> by his brother to the slaughter of the sons of Zedekiah<\/I>, before their father’s eyes, by the king of Babylon. His daughter<\/I> was dishonoured by her own brother, and his wives<\/I> contaminated publicly by his own son! How dreadfully, then, was David punished for his sin! Who would repeat his transgression to share in its penalty? Can his conduct ever be an inducement to, or an encouragement in, sin? Surely, No. It must ever fill the reader and the hearer with horror. Behold the goodness and severity of God! Reader, lay all these solemn things to heart.<\/P> <\/p>\n Thou art the man; <\/B>thou hast committed this crime with great aggravations; and out of thine own mouth thy sentence hath proceeded, and thou art worthy of death. <\/P> <\/p>\n 7. Nathan said to David, Thou artthe man<\/B>These awful words pierced his heart, aroused hisconscience, and brought him to his knees. The sincerity and depth ofhis penitent sorrow are evinced by the Psalms he composed (Psa 32:1-11<\/span>;Psa 51:1-19<\/span>; Psa 103:1-22<\/span>).He was pardoned, so far as related to the restoration of the divinefavor. But as from his high character for piety, and his eminent rankin society, his deplorable fall was calculated to do great injury tothe cause of religion, it was necessary that God should testify Hisabhorrence of sin by leaving even His own servant to reap the bittertemporal fruits. David was not himself doomed, according to his ownview of what justice demanded (2Sa12:5<\/span>); but he had to suffer a quadruple expiation in thesuccessive deaths of four sons, besides a lengthened train of otherevils.<\/P><\/p>\n And Nathan said to David, thou [art] the man<\/strong>,…. The rich man, or who is designed by him in the parable, and answers to him t:<\/p>\n thus saith the Lord God of Israel, I anointed thee king over Israel<\/strong>; that is, ordered Samuel to anoint him, who did, 1Sa 16:1<\/span>; to which this chiefly refers; and after that he was anointed first by the tribe of Judah, and then by all the tribes of Israel, by the appointment and providence of God; and this was great dignity he designed for him, and raised him to:<\/p>\n and I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul<\/strong>; when he persecuted him, and sought to take away his life.<\/p>\n t “—– mutato nomine, de te Fabula narratur —–“. Horat. Sermon. l. 1. Satyr. 1. ver. 69,70.<\/p>\n The Lord’s Indictment of David, vs. 7-14<\/strong><\/p>\n Those words of Nathan, <\/em>from the Lord, to David, must be among the most pointedly convicting ever uttered. “Thou art the man.” This man David so much despised and for whom he so vigorously denounced retribution, was the king himself. He had stolen the poor man’s lamb and slaughtered it. He had used it to entertain and satisfy himself. David is the man! How suddenly it must have struck him! For it was true even then, that “He that covereth his sins shall not prosper” (Pro 28:13<\/span>).<\/em><\/p>\n The Lord had been good to David, <\/em>and he is reminded that it is He who 1) anointed him king over Israel; 2) delivered him from Saul’s hand; 3) gave him all Saul’s estate and his harem; 4) made him king over all Israel and Judah; and 5) would have given him much more had he needed it. The charge follows: David had, foremost, despised the Lord’s commandment, by thinking he could set it aside for his own fleshly pleasure. He had committed evil by killing Uriah with the pagan sword of the Ammonites and taking his wife to his own bed.<\/em><\/p>\n Then came the sentence, <\/em>“The sword shall never depart from thine house.” For the rest of his reign David would be burdened with many sorrows and troubles. Evil would arise in his own house, instigated by his own sons, and the women of his own harem would be publicly raped by his neighbor (actually his own son), and all Israel would know it. It would not be done in secret as had been the case in the adultery of David and Bathsheba.<\/em><\/p>\n David had said <\/em>the rich man should pay fourfold; David would pay fourfold and more with his children. First, <\/em>the little boy who had been born to Bathsheba would sicken and die, that men might know one cannot blaspheme the Lord and escape punishment. As time <\/em>progressed David’s beautiful daughter, Tamar, would be raped by her half brother, <\/em>Amnon, the oldest son of David. In turn Amnon <\/em>would be the victim of fratricide <\/em>at the hand of Absalom, Tamar’s brother. Absalom would rebel against his father and be killed in battle, <\/em>as he attempted to wrest the kingdom for himself. Finally, the oldest surviving son, Adonijah, <\/em>would also attempt to seize the kingdom while David lay on his death bed, and would be executed.<\/em><\/p>\n <\/span>THE FALL AND RECOVERY OF KING DAVID<\/strong><\/p>\n 2Sa 12:7-23<\/strong><\/span>.<\/strong><\/p>\n THE thousands of years that preceded the birth of Jesus of Nazareth knew but one more capable man than David, namely Moses. The two names that are linked with the name of Jesus, not alone for time but for eternity, are Moses and David. Mosesthe real founder of the Israelitish nation, of whom Abraham was Father, and David, the first king of Divine appointment, whose greater Son Jesus shall be Israels final King.<\/p>\n The history of David begins in First Samuel, but it does not end with the record of his death. Till Revelation is complete, that name is still being entwined with the great truths of the Word. The name of David is immortal; the spirit of David is eternal.<\/p>\n In the Scriptures now before us for consideration, Davids sin looms as the large thing, but let it be understood that no man is to be judged by a single thought or act. There are spots on the sun that are blacker than the most starless midnight the world ever saw. Their darkness is deeper than anything of which the world ever dreamed, but in spite of them, the sun shines and floods a great portion of the universe with its effulgence. There are men who would make the single sin that stained Davids life the occasion of defamation for all time and damnation for all eternity. Such thinkers would be poor astronomers. The sun for them is a spotted substance, and every star is speckled mud.<\/p>\n I invite you to a broader and deeper study of Davids life, to one that compasses it at least superficially from youth to old age, from the day of his Divine anointment to the hour of his conquering decease.<\/p>\n And yet to keep it somewhat within the limits of the text, let me relate this discussion to four suggestions: Davids Generosity; Davids Degradation; Davids Repentance; and Davids Redemption.<\/p>\n DAVIDS GENEROSITY<\/strong><\/p>\n It was evinced toward his own brothers. The record of conduct that becomes a revelation of character is in the seventeenth chapter of First Samuel. The armies of Israel had been defied by the Philistines; and the big brothers of David, together with their associated captains, utterly cowed at the sight of Goliaththe Titan leader of the opponents. In fact, the record is that All the men of Israel, when they saw the man, fled from him, and were sore afraid. Billy Sundays rendition of Davids intervention there, is as he claims, the vernacular of the street, and quite easily understood by the crowds who know more of slang than of Scripture. He puts it somewhat after the following manner: When the big guy Goliath walked out from the army of the Philistines and shook his big stick in the face of Israel, they all got cold feet and struck for the tall timber. Whereupon the lad David said, What is the matter with you cowards? Why dont some man go up and biff him one, and take the breath out of the big brute? To this Eliab, his older brother, replied, We have had upstarts down here before; but I guess nothing fresher than you are. Try it on if youd like, and you will come out of his fingers mincemeat. And Saul said, You bet! That spot there on that hill is no place for boys. To which David answered: I do not know about that. I knocked the breath out of a lion once. I gave a bear a jolt from which he has never recovered; and I did that with my own hands. If you will let me take a crack at this uncircumcised geezer I will teach him something he will never forget. And Saul said, Well, there is a good chance for you, Freshy, wade in! Whereupon David started and as he crossed the brook he picked up a few little stones and putting one in his sling he fetched a flip and hit the big bully on the block between the lights, and he went to the mat and took the count. It is a rendition one will not shortly forget, and is substantially true to the facts.<\/p>\n But the thing that ought to impress the reader quite as much as Davids victory here, is Davids spirit. His brothers twitted him, treated his claims with scorn, scoffed at his assumed ability, sneered at his suggested strength, and every answer from the lads lips is unassuming and sweet. The finest test of true character is made by the necessary relationships to ones own. The man who does not treat his own brothers with consideration; the individual who is not true to the members of his own house, is never to be trusted by society at large. I recently had a letter from a man who is posing as a saint in the community in which he lives. He assembles the children on Sundays and assays to conduct a Sunday school, but unless his own daughter is one of the biggest liars out of the pit, his secret life would put the devil to shame. And the truth is that ones life is known better by the people that dwell under the roof with us than by all the world beside. The deportment of David, the lad, toward his father and mother and brothers, makes it easy to understand why God selected him for the throne Saul was but shamefully filling.<\/p>\n That generosity was also expressed toward Jonathan.<\/strong> No sooner had David conquered the Philistines than Abner took him, and brought him before Saul. * * And Saul said to him, Whose son art thou, thou young man? And David answered, I am the son of thy servant Jesse the Bethlehemite. And it came to pass, when he had made an end of speaking unto Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul. And Saul took him that day, and would let him go no more home to his fathers house. Then Jonathan and David made a covenant (1Sa 17:57-58<\/em><\/span><\/em>; 1Sa 18:1-3<\/em><\/span><\/em>).<\/em><\/p>\n No more kindred spirits ever met; the love between these two, born at first sight, never ended, nor even waned.<\/p>\n We have an adage, Familiarity breeds contempt. That depends entirely upon the character with whom you become familiar. There are men more kingly in spirit than in appearance; women whose sweetness increases with a deeper knowledge of their lives. Certainly they are the exceptions to the rule, but that such souls exist, only the cynical and insincere can ever question. The moment one tells me he believes in nobody I can take his own character measure. The Davids and Jonathans of the world are not all dead. The great, generous souls whose increased acquaintance begets enlarged affections, are yet in the world. If I did not believe there were still some St. Jeromes in the world, some Paulas yet alive, I should count human life a tragedy and Christianity an utter failure, and dispute the redemptive power of Christ Himself.<\/p>\n Davids generosity was shown toward even Saul.<\/strong> I speak now not of the Saul who took him into his home and gave to him in marriage his daughter Michal, but of Saulthe insane king, the Saul who thought to make David fall by the hand of the Philistines, the Saul who became Davids enemy continually, the Saul whose third attempt to kill David compelled his flight, the Saul from whose fury his own son Jonathan had to protect this lad, the Saul from whose fury the lad could only escape by dwelling in the forest. When he was in Davids power, and his life could have easily been taken, the lad not only spared him, but afterwards felt condemned in heart because he had cut a piece off of Sauls skirta deed that was done to demonstrate to Saul that when he had him in his power, he had no disposition to take away his lifeand when Davids servant would have willingly slain him, the young man suffered him not.<\/p>\n If there is any test of character truer than the relationship we sustain to the home, and those we sustain to most intimate friends, it is found in ones conduct toward his enemies. Here the devil commonly does his worst with us, and has his victory over us. It is related that Peter the Great was thought to be dying. His physician had told him that if he had an enemy he had better send for him and adjust things lest he die with hatred in his heart. So Peter sent! The former friend, now estranged, came. They made up and shook hands and the man turned to depart, whereupon old Peter raised himself from his pillow, and said, Remember, if I live, the old grudge holds. I am afraid too many death-bed repentances are after the same manner. We are told that Bismark once borrowed an autograph album, where, on one page, he found written, My long life has taught me that one must pardon many things and forget nothing, signed Guizot. Just below it another sentenceA little forgetfulness will not hurt the sincerity of the pardon, signedThiers. Below both of these Bismarck himself wrote: My life has taught me that I have much to forget and much to be forgiven for. The generosity of Bismarcks soul was expressed in that sentence. The man who cannot forget and forgive is not himself forgiven.<\/p>\n When the generosity of Davids nature is seen, one can understand why Davids sins were passed over by God.<\/p>\n But we must not omit to give candid study to<\/p>\n <\/span>DAVIDS DEGRADATION<\/strong><\/p>\n One of the remarkable things about the Bible is its utter candor. Its great heroes are never presented as faultless men, and when the record of their sins is made, it does not come before us roseate and perfumed, but reeking and offensive. If any man of all Old Testament Scriptures might have expected his conduct to have been covered, David was that man. Israel never knew a king who was his equal, and his popularity with his own people was never exceeded. Samuel himself, from whose Book we bring the report, anointed David with his own hands. And yet he presents Davids sin in unvarnished speech.<\/p>\n The record, therefore, makes clear two or three things.<\/p>\n Regeneration had been Davids experience.<\/strong> Perhaps no one would say of David, He is an unsaved soul! Campbell Morgan declares an important truth in his phrase, Apart from the miracle of regeneration no man has a true vision of God. Then David must have experienced that miracle, for his vision of God is clear. He knew that God was with him when he slew the lion and the bear; he depended upon God and no other when he went against Goliath; he looked to God for salvation from the hands of Saul; God was his one and sufficient source of strength. The spiritual vision of David is not only recorded in his history but finds perfect expression in the Psalms he penned. And some of them antedated the fifty-firstthe great Psalm of repentance. It must be accepted that David was a saved soul.<\/p>\n The eradication of sin from his nature had not occurred. <\/strong>The fifty-first Psalm is an abundant testimony to this truth. With humility he confesses his sin, and in strong speech he describes it. It is blood-guiltiness than which there is no greater! Unquestionably the reference is to the experience of this text, where the indictment of adultery and murder are combined; to which indictment the great man confesses with shame. Who, then, is holy? Where is the man who can say, I am every whit clean? Charles Spurgeon, speaking to his students one day, reminded them of the legend concerning Mahomet, who believed with his people that in every human being there are two black drops of sin, and the Prophet claimed that an angel had been sent from Heaven to take his heart and squeeze out of it those two black drops. But it must be confessed that the angel was not entirely successful in Mahomets case; nor has he ever been successful in any case. Isaiah was one of Gods great men and good men, but he confessed, I am a man of unclean lips, and dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips.<\/em> Moses was one of the noblest souls a man ever saw, and yet, the record of his sin exists and it kept him out of Canaan. Peter was the first Apostle, and yet in the presence of the holy Jesus, he had to fall on his face and cry, Depart from me; for I am a sinful man.<\/em> John was probably the most saintly of the Apostles, but he writes; If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us.<\/em> Why, then, do we say it, and make God a liar and prove that His Word is not in us? Yes, Davids soul was regenerate, but all sin was not eradicated.<\/p>\n We are told that the Jews in New York and in Chicago once a year resort to the rivers and go through the form of casting away their sins. You will see them on East river bridge in New York and the twelfth street bridge in Chicago, October 2nd, keeping up the old custom, and reading portions of Micah, Isaiah and the Psalms, and acting as if they were throwing their sins into the water. Alas, for the impotence of the endeavor! Sin does not so easily go, as the experience of Davidthe Divine favoriteabundantly illustrates.<\/p>\n In spite of Gods grace he fell. <\/strong>That is in keeping with his own confession. The loving kindness of God had been his and the multitude of Gods tender mercies; and yet he admits transgression iniquity and sin (Psa 51:1-2<\/em><\/span><\/em>),<\/em> It is the only way a son of God can ever fallin spite of Gods grace. To Peter Jesus said, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat: but I have prayed for thee.<\/em> And yet, Satan did get a temporary victory against the will of the Father and the prayers of the Son. The Irishman was not far wrong when he said: I kin resist inything but timptation.<\/p>\n The trouble with men is they do not see that just beyond temptation is the consequence of the sin death. An old pilot voiced a considerable amount of wisdom when he said: As I look at some of these young fellows in their doings on this boat, and on shore, when they get to the end of the trip, I am reminded of the day I was down on the bay, running out toward the gulf and saw a big sea gull circle around, looking into the water, where, down at the bottom, was a big clam lying open. The gull thought to himself, What a nice dinner that would be, and down he went after him, and drove his sharp bill right into the tender flesh of the clam. The gull stayed down so long I thought he would never come up. When he did come that clam was right with him. He shook his head, he writhed in agony, but he could not get rid of the clam. That clam was saying, There are going to be two deaths in this tragedy before we get through, yours and mine. And although the clam was a little fellow the gull never got rid of it and after a while her head went down and what little life was in her was choked out for the clam had killed her and dragged her to the bottom. Now, I am not a preacher,<\/p>\n said the old pilot, but some preachin does seem to come to me now and then, and when I see these young fellers diving down for the choice morsel, I am thinking of that sea gull and that clam, and wonderin if they will not come out the same way, and the first thing you know, lie at the bottom of society dead.<\/p>\n But Davids fall was not the end of Davids history, for which we ought to be grateful.<\/p>\n The text records<\/p>\n <\/span>DAVIDS REPENTANCE<\/strong><\/p>\n The record of that repentance is replete.<\/p>\n It came through a quickened conscience. <\/strong>There are some men who think conscience is a correct moral guide. Not until it has been quickened by the truth of God. Nathan was Gods prophet. He was a pungent preacher also, and when he got through with his illustration David understood the meaning of judgment against sin, and hung his head in shame, saying, I have sinned against the Lord. That is the first step in a genuine repentance. No man ever repented until he became conscious of sin. No man was ever saved without the conviction for sin. The Spirits work through the Word is to convict of sin, and to that conviction He is splendidly faithful. Once in a while I meet a man who says, I never had any conviction of sin. If I acted in candor I would be compelled to say that one of two things are true: either he never had any sense of any sort, or else he is falsifying the fact. The intelligent man who gives attention to the truth of God will be convinced of sin. That is the thing that proves the Bible Divine. You cannot convict men by the use of Shakespeare; you cannot convict them by quotations from Tennyson; you do not convict them by reciting poetry, but the man has never been born who could give intelligent attention to the Word of God and escape conviction for sin. The way men manage it is to stay away from where the Word of God is preached, leave the Bible in their own homes unopened and as far as possible forget the Scriptures their mothers taught them in infancy. They go upon the principle, Where ignorance is bliss tis folly to be wise, forgetting the opposing principle that ignorance is injury and indifference is death.<\/p>\n Davids penitence preceded the judgment upon his sin. <\/strong>He did not even know the sentence that was to follow, 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.<\/em> I am glad he did not know it. I am glad he confessed his sin before he found it out. I have never felt like putting any special emphasis upon death-bed repentance and believe one tear in health worth any dozen ever shed when in the grip of sickness or the throttling embrace of death. Truly, as one has said, there was one death-bed repentance in the Scriptures that none might despair, and only one that none might presume, and that was the thief on the cross.<\/p>\n This repentance did not exempt him from suffering.<\/strong> Genuine as it was, God could not pass over his act with Bathsheba and his treatment of Uriah. Every sin committed, for the saint, must be judged in this world because in the world to come there is no judgment for him. That accounts for the fact.<\/p>\n that sinners sometimes seem to get on better than saints, and to be far less afflicted; they have an eternity in which to answer, but Gods men are only judged in Time. The child of this beautiful woman, made doubly dear to him perhaps by the very conditions under which he had come to his birth, must sicken in his presence and languish for days and finally die. As someone has written, There is a difference between the penal and natural results of sin. The penal results of sin were borne by Christ for us all, and they are remitted forevermore to the regenerate; but the natural results remain, and in this instance, God simply removes the natural result of sin. We can see the reason for that. As long as David lived, being a man of God, and looking into the face of this beautiful lad, he could never forget how he came to be his father, and what crimes he committed in its conception, and possibly never could be brought to believe that God pardoned him. But when the child is taken then he will say in his secret soul, My sin is adjudged; I have paid the penalty in my own person, and for the treatment of Uriah I have had to suffer more than he suffered, and for the sin with Bathsheba I have had to share with her in a sorrow unspeakable. I tell you Gods judgments are marvelous. And the fact is illustrated daily that Sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death (Jas 1:15<\/em><\/span><\/em>).<\/em><\/p>\n But this text also records<\/p>\n DAVIDS REDEMPTION<\/strong><\/p>\n Then David arose from the earth, and washed, and anointed himself, and changed his apparel.<\/em><\/p>\n Outward cleansing expresses inward character. <\/strong>Whom the Lord loveth He chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom He receiveth.<\/em> Repentant David is restored David. In his deep penitence he had prayed, Wash me throughly from mine iniquity and cleanse me from my sin. Now he believes that it has been done, so he washes his body as a symbol of it, and changes his apparel, indicating the cleansing accomplished upon the inner life. He had also prayed: Renew a right spirit within me,<\/em> and take not Thy Holy Spirit from me?.<\/em> He believes God has answered, and so he anoints himself with the oil, which was the symbol of the returning Holy Spirit. There is no greater tragedy that ever comes to a mans life than when the Holy Ghost is taken from him; and there is no blessing that can come to him greater than the return of the Holy Spirit.<\/p>\n A. J. Gordon illustrates for us the fact of our powerlessness apart from that Spirit. That is what he means when he writes: Imagine one without genius and devoid of artistic training, sitting down before Raphaels famous picture of the transfiguration and attempting to reproduce it. How crude and mechanical and lifeless his work would be. But if such a thing were possible that the spirit of Raphael should enter into the man and obtain the mastery, it would be easy for him to paint this masterpiece, for it would simply be Raphael reproducing Raphael. And this in a mystery is what is true of every disciple filled with the Holy Ghost. The power of God in him makes possible every needed renovation and revolution, and supplies the strength for every needed action.<\/p>\n David also returned to the worship of God.<\/strong> He came into the house of the Lord and worshipped. There may be people here to-night who long since quit the House of God. I wonder why? You say, I lost interest. Did you lose character first? You say, The songs no longer appealed to me and the sermon no longer interested me. Why? Did sin take the music out of the song and the interest out of the sermon? If so, you know it. You understand that you cannot come back to Gods house until you come back to God Himself. David was first repentant and worshipped afterward, and the service of the sanctuary can never interest you and help you and inspire you until you have repented and the Holy Ghost has returned.<\/p>\n David also voiced his faith in future good. <\/strong>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? 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.<\/em> When the Christian finds his prayers unanswered, that is not an end of his expectations, nor the downfall of all his hopes. The Christian is not shut up to a few brief days; time does not limit his opportunities and privileges; with his new birth the day of eternity breaks upon him and what is not made right on earth can yet be righted in Heaven.<\/p>\n David believed in God to such an extent that he could trust him for future good, believed in Him to such an extent that he could abide the day when the home, broken now, should be rebuilt and perfected. A man who has called God Father, and spoken of Heaven as Home, cannot be utterly discouraged. Newell Dwight Hillis says: As we will never have a better name for the infinite God than Father, so we will never have a better name for heaven than home. From that palette Paul has derived the colors bright enough to paint the picture of a realm of perfect happiness. Overtaken by misfortune, poverty, and sickness, John Howard Payne went staggering down the streets of Paris toward the garret where he slept. Darkness had fallen! The sleet drove against his face, and the cold pierced his thin cloak. Suddenly a door opened, and the light streamed forth upon the street, the glow and warmth perfuming all the air. Into the arms of the man who stood upon the threshold happy children leaped, while the beaming mother held forth her babe. In a moment the door closed, the light faded into darkness, and the youth stood again in the sleet and cold, little dreaming that what he was learning in suffering he was to teach in song. That night, shivering beside his table, the youth lighted his candle, and though the tears fell on the paper within like the rain upon the street without, his heart went bounding across the seas, for he knew that there was no place like home. He saw the old homestead again, crossed its sacred threshold, saw again the warm smile of the mother long since dead, heard his revered fathers voice, heard the voices of his old companions ringing across the green, and felt the home that once was behind him was now before him in that heaven where he should meet again those whom he had loved and lost. And so, with streaming eyes and leaping heart and shining face, he saw the vision splendid and exclaimed, Theres no place like home, and sang of hope and Heaven. For all the memories of the home that was, and all the dreams of the immortal home that is to be, are but fore-tokens of that fair life we soon shall lead. The vague longings for ideal truth, the striving after the music that eludes us, the gropings for beauty we cannot find, the yearnings for love and sympathy and satisfaction, oft denied us here, are Gods ways of alluring men unto the home that awaits us all.<\/p>\n Gods Judgment. 2Sa. 12:7-23<\/span><\/p>\n 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;<\/p>\n 8 And I gave thee thy masters house, and thy masters 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.<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n 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. 12 For thou didst it secretly: but I will do this thing before all Israel, and before the sun.<\/p>\n 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. 15 And Nathan departed unto his house. And the Lord struck the child that Uriahs wife bare unto David, and it was very sick. 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? 21 Then said his servants unto him, What thing is this that thou hast done? thou didst fast and weep for the child, while it was alive; but when the child was dead, thou didst rise and eat bread.<\/p>\n 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?<\/p>\n 23 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.<\/p>\n 6.<\/p>\n What was Nathans announcement? 2Sa. 12:7<\/span><\/p>\n Nathan said to David, Thou art the man. The Septuagint in one of its texts adds, Who has done this! Nathan would hardly have needed to add this latter clause, when he said that David was the man that he was talking about. David caught the point. The robbery of the darling is the real point of the parable, but the guilt of the man was the thing that Nathan brought to Davids attention. David had judged the man worthy of death, and then Nathan told him that he was the man he was talking about.<\/p>\n 7.<\/p>\n Why did Nathan recall Gods blessing on David? 2Sa. 12:8<\/span><\/p>\n God had made David like the rich man of the parable who had herds and flocks. Nathan reminded David that God had given him his masters house. He had inherited everything that had been Sauls except for the bit of land that was his familys heritage. Nathan even said that David had been given Sauls wives. We have no other indication of Davids possessing the concubines of Saul. Rizpah, one of Sauls concubines, had been in the care of Ish-bosheth, and Abner was charged with having tried to take her for his wife (2Sa. 3:7<\/span>). More than likely, this is a reference to the face that David had received Michal, Sauls daughter, as his wife, since there is no specific mention of David having any of Sauls wives or concubines.<\/p>\n 8.<\/p>\n How had David despised the command of the Lord? 2Sa. 12:9<\/span><\/p>\n One of the Ten Commandments was thou shalt not commit adultery (Exo. 20:14<\/span>). David had broken this commandment. He had lain with another mans wife. Another commandment was thou shalt not kill (Exo. 20:13<\/span>). David had brought about the death of Uriah. It was specifically stipulated in the law that a man should not covet his neighbors house, his neighbors wife, his manservant, his maidservant, his ox, his ass, or anything that was his neighbors (Exo. 20:17<\/span>). David had broken all these commandments and conducted himself in a very sinful way.<\/p>\n 9.<\/p>\n What penalties were pronounced? 2Sa. 12:10-11<\/span>; 2Sa. 12:14<\/span><\/p>\n The penalties pronounced on David were manifold. Some were personal and immediate; some general and to be fulfilled in the future. All brought grief to David. This is a list of them:<\/p>\n a.<\/p>\n The sword should never depart from Davids house.<\/p>\n b.<\/p>\n God would raise up evil against David in his own house.<\/p>\n c.<\/p>\n Davids own wives were to be taken from him by a neighbor.<\/p>\n d.<\/p>\n The child which was to be born was doomed to die.<\/p>\n e.<\/p>\n The penalty of death was put away for the time, yet David suffered the indirect consequences of it.<\/p>\n 10.<\/p>\n How did David receive these penalties? 2Sa. 12:13<\/span><\/p>\n David cried out, I have sinned against the Lord. Echoes of this cry are found in Psa. 32:5<\/span>, where David 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, and in Psa. 51:4<\/span> where David said, Against Thee and 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. One can only wonder if this were also in the mind of Solomon as he wrote, He that covereth his sins shall not prosper, but whoso confesseth and forsaketh them shall have mercy (Pro. 28:13<\/span>).<\/p>\n 11.<\/p>\n How would the enemies of the Lord blaspheme? 2Sa. 12:14<\/span><\/p>\n David was a man of God. He was a man chosen by God to lead the people of Israel. Men round about would come to hold God Himself in disrepute because of His selection of such a man as David. It is the old story of people blaspheming the name of God as they say, Look at the preacher. See how sinful he is. Surely the God he talks about is not righteous or just. A Christian is often the only Bible a careless world will read. What if the type is crooked? What if the print is blurred?<\/p>\n 12.<\/p>\n Why did David pray against Gods decree? 2Sa. 12:16<\/span><\/p>\n Gods promises are sometimes conditional. When man changes, Gods purposes are seen in a different light. Jonah went into Nineveh preaching that in forty days the great city would be destroyed. The king and all his subjects repented of their wickedness and clothed themselves in sackcloth putting ashes upon their bodies, and fasting before the Lord. They prayed mightily unto God and repented of their evil. They stopped the wicked things which they were doing, saying, Who can tell if God will turn and repent and turn away from his fierce anger that we perish not? (Jon. 3:9<\/span>). God saw their works and Nineveh was spared. The tense of the verb used in describing Davids beseeching God on behalf of the child, his fasting, his going in and lying all night upon the earth, points to the fact that he made a habit of doing these things. It became his daily routine.<\/p>\n 13.<\/p>\n Why did the elders interfere? 2Sa. 12:17<\/span><\/p>\n The leaders of the kingdom had great influence on David and they were concerned for his physical and mental well-being. Their concern was on his behalf, but they were not trying to interfere with his spiritual life. It was the same kind of concern that Sauls servants had for him when he had eaten nothing as he made his ill-fated trip to see the witch of Endor (1Sa. 28:23<\/span>).<\/p>\n 14.<\/p>\n Why did the servants think Davids actions were strange? 2Sa. 12:18-21<\/span><\/p>\n The crisis came on the seventh day, and the child died. The servants were afraid to tell David that the child was dead. They had seen his extreme grief and agony while the child was ill, and they were afraid that he would not be able to stand the shock of the news that the child had died. David heard the servants whispering, and reached the conclusion that the child had died. He asked them directly if this were so, and they affirmed that it was. At that point, David arose from the earth where he had been lying, bathed himself, anointed himself, changed his clothing, and went to the house of God to worship. After that he came back to the palace and ordered that they should give him something to eat. Davids journey to the house of the Lord must have been to the temporary tabernacle which David had made to house the Ark of the Covenant. All of this was contrary to what the servants had expected. They had expected that after the child had died he would be even more vexed and grieved.<\/p>\n 15.<\/p>\n Did David believe in a future state? 2Sa. 12:23<\/span><\/p>\n None will doubt that David had faith in prayer. None will doubt that David believed that God could be prevailed upon to answer a fervent, earnest prayer. None can doubt that David believed in a peaceful, complete home in heaven. Did David not say, I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me? (2Sa. 12:23<\/span>). His conduct after the death of the child was therefore only what might be expected. While the child lived, he was in deep anguish of soul, hoping that God would spare him. When the child died, David knew that he could not bring him back to life. His hope was thereafter fixed on a reunion in Heaven.<\/p>\n (7) Thou art the man.<\/strong>The boldness and suddenness of this application bring a shock to David which at once aroused his slumbering conscience. This could not have been the case had David been essentially a bad man. He was a man whose main purpose in life was to do Gods will, but he had yielded to temptation, had been entangled in further and greater guilt in the effort to conceal his sin, and all the while his conscience had been stupefied by the delirium of prosperity and power. Now what he had done is suddenly brought before him in its true light. For like prophetic rebukes of royal offenders see 1Sa. 15:21-23<\/span>; 1Ki. 21:21-24<\/span>; Isa. 7:3-25<\/span>; Mat. 14:3-5<\/span>.<\/p>\n 7<\/strong>. <\/strong> Thou art the man <\/strong> Terrible words for David’s guilty soul.<\/p>\n Self-condemned and self-sentenced unto death, how shall he escape the wrath of God! In this unflinching charge Nathan appears the great, bold, faithful prophet.<\/p>\n (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.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Here Nathan takes upon him, as a faithful servant of the Lord, the full authority belonging to him. And no doubt, but that he who sent the prophet; commissioned his word with power to David’s heart, that he felt the force of the prophet’s message too sensibly to attempt the smallest justification of himself. How affecting must have been to the heart of David the prophet’s recapitulation of the divine mercies! And how awful the message of the divine sentence!<\/p>\n 2Sa 12:7 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;<\/p>\n Ver. 7. And Nathan said to David, Thou art the man.<\/strong> ] Tu is es, de te narratur fabula.<\/em> You are the one and about you is the story told. This was downright plain dealing indeed. See the like, 1Ki 20:35 ; 1Ki 20:41 Gen 40:18-19 Dan 5:22 Mat 14:4<\/span> . Truth must be spoken, however it be taken: it is a treacherous flattery in divine errands to regard greatness. If prophets must be mannerly in the form, yet in the matter of reproof they must be resolute. What brave and bold preachers of old were Athanasius, Ambrose, Chrysostom! and since that, Ode Severus, Johannes Sarisburiensis – who reproved the Pope to his teeth, and then wrote his “Polycraticon,” – Lambertus Trajectinus Episcopus – who stoutly reproved King Pipin for his adulteries, A.D. 798, and lost his life for so doing! a<\/em> To come nearer to our own times, what brave and undaunted spirits were Luther, Farell, Latimer, Lever, Gilpin, Deering, Perkins, Stock! of which last, Mr Gataker giveth this true testimony, that as he could speak his mind fitly, so he durst do it freely. I myself once heard him say to some that slept before him, If ye will not rouse up yourselves, I will pull you up by the poll. <\/p>\n<\/p>\n a<\/em> Godw. Catal.<\/em> Revius, De Vit. Pontif. Hist. Gal. Epit.<\/p>\n Thou art the man. Many means used to produce conviction: God’s greatness (Job 42:1-6); God’s glory (Isa 6:5); God’s power (Luk 5:8); a famine (Luk 15:14, Luk 15:18); a parable (2Sa 12:1-13), &c. <\/p>\n God. Hebrew. Elohim. App-4. <\/p>\n anointed thee. 1Sa 16:13. <\/p>\n Thou art the Man<\/p>\n And Nathan said to David, Thou art the man.2Sa 12:7<\/p>\n 1. The literature of the world probably contains no more pitiably human story than the story of Davids great sin. The man who can gloat over it with heated passion is an animal; the man who can laugh at it with malicious cynicism is a fiend. It is one of those sad and lamentable stories which make us ashamed of our passions, which make us feel a sort of degradation in the possession of powers which can be potent with such infernal mischief, and can lead to such foul and tragic consequences. As we read the story we are ashamed of human nature, and it is not difficult to despair of it. If, we say, the sweet singer of Israel, a man so true, so valiant, so heroically manly, could fall so deeply, who is safe in the presence of temptation? One can readily understand how such a story as this might fascinate and terrify a sensitive nature, till the only way of escape seemed celibacy, and the only true method of life a monastic isolation from temptation.1 [Note: W. J. Dawson.] <\/p>\n 2. It is in the previous chapter that we read, in the stern, pure, outspokenness of the Bible, how David fell. Here was the man who had been so wonderfully blest by God, who had done so much for God, who had come to know so much of God. Only four chapters before we find this same man sitting before the Lord in calm, deep, enraptured thanksgiving; he has just heard through Nathan that, though he is not to build the Temple, he is to be the forefather of the Lords Christ. The Hope of Israel, when at last He comes, is to be Davids Son. He to whom, according to our Lord Jesus Christ Himself, David could look up, in the Spirit, and call Him my Lord, was yet to be his actual Descendant and Successor according to the flesh. There, in 2 Samuel 7, we find David telling over to his God all his wonder and all his joy, basking in the sunshine of the great Promise, reposing in the mighty Hope. Here, in 2 Samuel 11, we find David, on a sudden, fallen, fallen. Satan has him in the snare. He has lusted with his eyes. He has committed a base adultery. In the sequel, in a course of flagrant treachery to a devoted retainer, the husband so awfully injured, David has compassed a brave mans death. He is a murderer. And for many months after the first great act of sinyes, even till the child of his guilt has been bornwe gather that he has hardened his heart against conviction. For not till Nathan spoke to his conscience does he appear to have said one word of penitence to God.<\/p>\n 3. The Bible is very frank. It conceals, it extenuates nothing. It shows us the defects as well as the virtues in the noblest characters. It depicts none moving on heights of impossible perfection; and by that very fact, by the manifest humanness of its purest, grandest heroes; by the calm, terrible truthfulness of their falls into sin, as here recorded, the divineness of this Book is brought home to our consciousness, and it lays a larger, firmer, and more salutary hold upon universal man. Abraham by his faith, Moses by his meekness, Job by his patience, seem to rise above us in superhuman excellence. But when we read of Abrahams falsehoods, Moses petulance, Jobs impatience, they each come nearer to us, and say, as did Peter to Cornelius in a later day, Stand up; I myself also am a man.<\/p>\n If King David had lived in a period of what is called secular history, and in a time and country upon which modern religious or political prejudices could have been brought to bear, we may form some idea how his life would have been treated by historians. Books would have been written to extol him to the skies: books would also have been written to prove him a consistent hypocrite. On the one hand, his crimes would have been ignored, or palliated by the alleged necessities of policy; on the other, they would have formed the chief topic of the writers eloquence, and we should have been asked to withhold common respect from the man who could deal as David dealt by Uriah the Hittite. Partisans would rise on both sides of the question, and men who had not the means or the power of forming an opinion would ask, What is truth? Nay, they might even ask the questionmore dangerous still to leave unansweredWhat are right and wrong? He would have fared as Mary Stuart or Cromwell have fared. If David had had his Lingard, he would also have had his Froude.1 [Note: A. Ainger.] <\/p>\n 4. The story of David possesses a fascination which is not equalled even by that of St. Paul. This is due in some degree to the Book of Psalms, which furnishes the simplest and most complete devotional exemplar that we possess. It is due, also, no doubt, to the idyllic beauty of the shepherds earliest storyto the romantic adventures of the patriotto the absorbing interest which attaches to the events of the whole reign. But men prize and love the story of David for other reasons than these. They find in it the picture of their own struggles in their humbler field. They learn from Davids weakness and transgressions that he is one with themselves. When he abhors himself in dust and ashes, they are reminded that they, too, have need of purification; but that it should not prevent their returning to the conflict, for God will receive and bless them again. They do not feel the inconsistency which unbelievers point to in David, with the sneering question, Is this the man after Gods own heart? They feel rather that were it not for these inconsistencies David would be unlike them, and his story no pattern of theirs. They know that when they yield to God, they do righteous acts and are righteous: that when they yield to self they are unrighteous, and are the servants of an evil power. They know they are inconsistent, but they know God loves them, and their faith is sure. They have tried to balance their state before God, but have ceased from the task sick at heart and unsatisfied. They know that if their life were recorded truly, it would consist of acts unreconciled, unreconcilable, even as Davids acts. But God is their helper, and to Him, not to man, do they look for pardon and for justification.<\/p>\n We have to trace the history of a sin. There are three stages<\/p>\n I.Self-Indulgence.<\/p>\n II.Self-Deception.<\/p>\n III.Self-Discovery.<\/p>\n I<\/p>\n Self-Indulgence<\/p>\n The period which went before the fall was for David one of unbounded outward prosperity. He was rapidly becoming lord paramount of a vast region outside the Promised Land; Moab, Zobah, Damascus, Hamathall had fallen before his forces. Here already was, of course, temptation. Success indeed was not sin; nay, we read that the Lord preserved him. But success was test, and it was allurement too. And surely we see allurement beginning to do its evil work, in that short sentence of 2Sa 11:1, But David tarried still at Jerusalem. A subtle slothfulness was creeping into the life of the hero-king. He was beginning to affect the Sultan rather than the devoted leader of other days. Just then it was that, in an eveningtide David arose from off his bed, from off the couch of a siesta prolonged far beyond its time, and walked (not with God) upon the roof. Then did Satan find mischief for idle eyes, and David fell, steep after steep, into that awful quag upon the left hand of the road of life.1 [Note: H. C. G. Moule.] <\/p>\n When Christian passed through the Valley of the Shadow of Death, he found that on the left hand, there was a very dangerous Quag, into which, if even a good man falls, he finds no bottom for his foot to stand on. Into that Quag King David once did fall, and had no doubt therein been smothered, had not He that is able pluckt him out.<\/p>\n In one form or another an ineradicable instinct has prompted Christians in all times to free themselves from luxurious and self-indulgent ways of living; to walk as disciples of Him who had not where to lay his head; to lay aside, not only every sin, but every weight, that so they may run the race set before them, not as beating the air, but as those that strive for the victory.<\/p>\n It is, indeed, not easy to define the precise kind or amount of luxury which is compatible with Christian simplicity; or rather, it must of necessity vary. But the principle is, I think, clear. In life, as in art, whatever does not help, hinders. All that is superfluous to the main object of life must be cleared away, if that object is to be fully attained. In all kinds of effort, whether moral, intellectual, or physical, the essential condition of vigour is a severe pruning away of redundance. Is it likely that the highest life, the life of the Christian body, can be carried on upon easier terms?1 [Note: Caroline Emelia Stephen.] <\/p>\n 1. Davids self-indulgence was simply selfishness in one of its forms. Now, just as unselfishness is the true triumph of life, so selfishness is the degradation of life, and is the secret of its failure. Reduce sin to its primal elements, and the last result is always selfishness. Begin where you will among those common and well-known sins and defects of habit, whose nature is perfectly ascertainable by sad experience and bitter knowledge, and see if this is not true.<\/p>\n Lo! from that idol of self another idol is born.<\/p>\n The idol of self is the mother of all idols;<\/p>\n Those are the snakes, but this is the dragon;<\/p>\n Self is the flint and steel, and the idol is the spark;<\/p>\n The spark indeed may be quenched by water,<\/p>\n But how shall water quench the flint and steel?2 [Note: Jalaluddin Rumi.] <\/p>\n Take, for instance, temper. That is a common sin enough. There are thousands of households wrecked by the ungovernable irritability of an individual. He cannot restrain his tongue. The slightest provocation produces an explosion. Then follows a torrent of bitter, biting, sarcastic words, which fill the air like a cloud of poisoned arrows, and rankle in the wounded heart long after the careless archer has gone upon his way and forgotten them. We may explain the phenomenon by euphemistic talk about a hasty nature, or the irritability of genius, or what we will; but the real root of it lies in the unregenerate selfishness of the mans nature. Because passionate sarcasm is a momentary relief to his nervous irritation, he indulges in it. The essence of unselfishness is to realize what another feels, to interpret his needs, to share his thoughts by the revealing power of sympathy, to be able instinctively to understand what will wound or grieve, and to exercise a severe self-repression in order to avoid it. But the angry man has no such realization of the nature of others, and cannot understand the havoc which his hasty words produce.<\/p>\n One of Bishop Moberlys daughters is said to have had the rare gift of a charm which was indefinable, and this in spite of great fits of wrath, considered by herself to be merely righteous indignation, which upset the house from time to time.1 [Note: C. A. E. Moberly, Dulce Domum, 160.] <\/p>\n January 18th. You will be surprised, knowing my old bad ways, to hear that I have not once, to the best of my memory, since February, been out of temper with the servants in my old fashion. Perhaps one reason of this is, that I am more indifferent about things now than I used to be when your comfort depended upon them, but still, I think that through Gods grace I have, in measure, overcome that sin and habit of impatience which has always been such a cross to me.2 [Note: Sir John Field, Jottings from an Indian Journal, 104.] <\/p>\n 2. That is one lesson to learn from Davids sin. Another is what may be called the accumulative way with sin. David looked, and the look was sin. And that one sin opened the way for many. To lust he added craft, to craft treason, to treason murder.<\/p>\n 3. And a third lesson is the need of watchfulness. Be sober, be vigilant. Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If the Lord gives us to drink the cup of earthly success, earthly ease, wealth, position, powerif He gives itlet us not be afraid to take it. But let us drink it always upon our knees, and always in His presence. Then it may mean for us the gift of a noble opportunity for Him. Otherwise we may find, in some easy, dreadful hour, that all our fancied moral strength is as dust in the wind before the blast of temptation, and that position, culture, intellectnay, past spiritual experience itselfmay only precipitate the unwatchful spirits fall into the quag on the left hand.<\/p>\n O soul! however sweet<\/p>\n The goal to which I hasten with swift feet<\/p>\n If just within my grasp,<\/p>\n I reach, and joy to clasp,<\/p>\n And find there one whose body I must make<\/p>\n A footstool for that sake,<\/p>\n Though ever and for evermore denied,<\/p>\n Grant me to turn aside!<\/p>\n O howsoever dear<\/p>\n The love I long for, seek, and find a near<\/p>\n So near, so dear, the bliss<\/p>\n Sweetest of all that is,<\/p>\n If I must win by treachery or art,<\/p>\n Or wrong one other heart,<\/p>\n Though it should bring me death, my soul, that day<\/p>\n Grant me to turn away!<\/p>\n That in the life so far<\/p>\n And yet so near, I be without a sear<\/p>\n Of wounds dealt others; greet with lifted eyes<\/p>\n The pure of Paradise!<\/p>\n So I may never know<\/p>\n The agony of tears I caused to flow!1 [Note: Ina Donna Coolbrith.] <\/p>\n II<\/p>\n Self-Deception<\/p>\n 1. The thing that strikes us most forcibly as we read Nathans parable is the blindness and infatuation of the king to have missed the application of it. 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. Strange as the contradiction seems, it is common enough. When our passions and prejudices are not concerned, we can judge dispassionately; but in a case in which we are personally involved, we make the worse appear the better reason. We find means to justify it to ourselves in some fashion, and soothe our conscience to sleep. 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.<\/p>\n It is really prodigious to see a man, before so remarkable for virtue and piety, going on deliberately from adultery to murder, with the same cool contrivance, and, from what appears, with as little disturbance, as a man would endeavour to prevent the ill consequences of a mistake he had made in any common matter. That total insensibility of mind with respect to those horrid crimes, after the commission of them, manifestly shows that he did some way or other delude himself: and this could not be with respect to the crimes themselves, they were so manifestly of the grossest kind. What the particular circumstances were, with which he extenuated them, and quieted and deceived himself, is not related.1 [Note: Joseph Butler, Sermons, 131 (Bernards edition).] <\/p>\n 2. How is it that, like David, we succeed so well in deceiving ourselves and in keeping up the deception so long?<\/p>\n (1) We usually begin by recognizing our sin, but proceed to make excuse for it. We blame circumstances, our outward environment, bad example, the temptations of our lot, opportunity (O opportunity, thy guilt is great! Shakespeare makes Tarquin say in self-excuse, after he had made the opportunity). If we are scientifically inclined we speak of heredity; if theologically inclined we speak of original sin and the guilt of Adams first transgression.<\/p>\n May we say that, while all characters are liable to the 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? Probably we may; for affectionateness of disposition readily commends itself to the conscience as a thing which cannot be wrong, and secretly whispers to one who is conscious of possessing it, This generous trait in you will cover and excuse many sins. An acrid, soured character cannot flatter itself that it is right with half the facility of a warm and genial character. A man who sins by passions the reverse of malignant is apt to thank God secretly that he is not malignant, totally forgetting that, although not malignant, he follows his impulses as entirely, and so is as purely selfish, as the malignant Man 1:2 [Note: E. M. Goulburn.] <\/p>\n A prisoner, in a recent trial, pleaded as an excuse, an uncontrollable impulse, but the judge smartly replied that an uncontrollable impulse was simply an impulse uncontrolled.<\/p>\n (2) Habit gradually familiarizes us with evil, and diminishes our sense of it as evil. A man who has been for half a day in some ill-ventilated room does not notice the poisonous atmosphere; if you go into it you are half suffocated at first, and breathe more easily as you get used to it. A man can live amidst the foulest poison of evil; and, as the Styrian peasants get fat upon arsenic, his whole nature may seem to thrive by the poison that it absorbs. They tell us that the breed of fish that live in the lightless caverns in the bowels of some mountains, by long disuse have had their eyes atrophied, and are blind because they have lived out of the light. And so men that live in the love of evil lose the capacity of discerning the evil, and he that walketh in darkness becomes blind, blind to his sin, and blind to all the realities of life.<\/p>\n There is in unresisted evil a dreadful power to stupefy the moral sense. If we thrust our hand rapidly first into hot water and then into cold, and do so many times, we are presently unable to detect which is hot and which is cold. The sensitive nerve grows callous, and its discernment is destroyed. So a man may experiment with sin till he feels no instinctive recoil from its abiding horror. The moral sense is like some delicate and sensitive instrument, which indicates with perfect accuracy the tendencies of conduct so long as it is untampered with; but once wronged, its power is gone. It is like putting the clock back because we do not wish to know the hour; the clock goes on working, but henceforth all its results are wrong. So the moral sense still works, but it strikes the wrong hour. It tells us what we want to hear, not what we need to hear, and what we know is true.1 [Note: W. J. Dawson.] <\/p>\n (3) We are careful now not to examine ourselves too scrupulously. We avoid questions as to the moral nature of our conduct. We may have suspicions about it, but our method is usually, like Davids, to try to forget, by leaving it out of account, by covering it over as if we were done with it. We have laid it like an uneasy ghost, and turned the key on it. But the murder will out some day. If not now, the disclosure will be made, and we will at last see ourselves as we are. There is nothing hidden that shall not be revealed, or covered that shall not be made known.<\/p>\n (4) Or we nod assent to a general statement of right and wrong, accept principles, even give our unbiased judgment on concrete cases that are mentioned; and yet never make the personal application. It was not rhetoric but a deep knowledge of the heart of man that inspired St. Pauls great passage in which he drove home to the Jews that they were guilty of the same moral failure as they charged the Gentiles with: Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things. Thou therefore which teachest another, teachest thou not thyself? thou that preachest a man should not steal, dost thou steal? thou that sayest a man should not commit adultery, dost thou commit adultery? thou that makest thy boast of law, through breaking the law dishonourest thou God?<\/p>\n None of us would, I suppose, venture in plain words to stand up and say: I am an exception to your general confessions of sin, and most of us would be ready to unite in the acknowledgment: we have all come short of the glory of God, though in our consciences there has never stirred the faintest movements of self-condemnation even whilst our lips have been uttering the confession. Do not shrink away in the crowd, my brother! Come out to the front, and stand by yourself as God sees you, isolated. Look at your own actions; never mind about other mens. Do not content yourselves with saying, We have sinned; say, I have sinned against Thee. God and you are as if alone in the universe. Against thee, thee only, have I sinned. There are no crowds in Gods eyes; He deals with single souls. Every one of usthou, and thou, and thoumust give account of himself to God.1 [Note: A. Maclaren.] <\/p>\n (5) But the most successful method of self-deception is to condemn heartily the sins of other men. If a mans own sin is held up before him a little disguised, he says, How ugly it is! And if only for a moment he can be persuaded that it is not his own conduct but some other sinners that he is judging, the instinctive condemnation comes. We have two sets of names for vices: one set which rather mitigates and excuses them, and another set which puts them in their real hideousness. We keep the palliative set for home consumption, and liberally distribute the plain-spoken ugly set amongst the vices and faults of our friends. The thing which I call in myself prudence I call in you meanness. The thing which you call in yourself generous living, you call in your friend filthy sensualism. That which, to the doer of it, is only righteous indignation, to the onlooker is passionate anger. That which, in the practiser of it, is no more than a due regard for the interests of his own family and himself in the future, is to the envious lookers-on shabbiness and meanness in money matters. That which, to the liar, is only prudent, diplomatic reticence, to the listener is falsehood. That which, in the man that judges his own conduct, is but a choleric word, is, in his friend, when he judges him, flat blasphemy.<\/p>\n It is always a sign of lack of knowledge of our own hearts when we judge self leniently and judge others censoriously. A painter, who was noted as a savage critic of other artists, when asked how he could ever pass any of his own work when he had such a keen critical standard, frankly declared: I have only two eyes when I look at my own work, but am argus-eyed, have a hundred eyes, when I look at the work of others. This candid admission states the case in more things than artistic criticism.1 [Note: H. Black.] <\/p>\n It may have been during the time of his undetected sin that David was summoned by Joab to Rabbah that the honour might accrue to him of capturing the city and closing the campaign against the Ammonites. It was most likely during that dark period of Davids life. He went, glad to escape himself, if he might, amid the excitements of battle. He took the city. The splendid jewelled crown of the Ammonitish king was put upon his head. And with sharpest vengeance he punished the vanquished people with death. Doubtless they had been marked by notorious cruelty. But that he should torture themput them under saws, and under harrows of iron, and under axes of iron, and make them pass through the brick-kilnshows a mind lost to magnanimity, full of unrest, and eager any way to escape from itself. Futile attempt! The mind is its own place. So the poor self-deceived king played his part. He seemed the very embodiment of rigorous justice against the enemy, and yet had been enacting a mean, pitiless, vile tragedy against one of the most valiant of his soldiers in that war.2 [Note: G. T. Coster.] <\/p>\n Jack Barrett went to Quetta,<\/p>\n Because they told him to.<\/p>\n He left his wife at Simla<\/p>\n On three-fourths his monthly screw:<\/p>\n Jack Barrett died at Quetta<\/p>\n Ere the next months pay he drew.<\/p>\n Jack Barrett went to Quetta,<\/p>\n He didnt understand<\/p>\n The reason of his transfer<\/p>\n From the pleasant mountain-land:<\/p>\n The season was September,<\/p>\n And it killed him out of hand.<\/p>\n Jack Barrett went to Quetta<\/p>\n And there gave up the ghost,<\/p>\n Attempting two mens duty<\/p>\n In that very healthy post;<\/p>\n And Mrs. Barrett mourned for him<\/p>\n Five lively months at most.<\/p>\n Jack Barretts bones at Quetta<\/p>\n Enjoy profound repose;<\/p>\n But I shouldnt be astonished<\/p>\n If now his spirit knows<\/p>\n The reason of his transfer<\/p>\n From the Himalayan snows.<\/p>\n And, when the Last Great Bugle Call<\/p>\n Adown the Hurnai throbs,<\/p>\n When the last grim joke is entered<\/p>\n In the big black Books of Jobs,<\/p>\n And Quettas graveyards give again<\/p>\n Their victims to the air,<\/p>\n I shouldnt like to be the man<\/p>\n Who sent Jack Barrett there.1 [Note: Rudyard Kipling, Departmental Dittics.] <\/p>\n III<\/p>\n Self-Discovery<\/p>\n 1. The story of Nathans interview with David moves us with the pain and the pity of it. There is incomparable drama in the sudden turning of the tables, not the artificial drama of the stage, but the terrible drama of life, unmasking the feelings and motives of the heart, and touching the simple principles of justice that lie dormant in human nature. A year had passed since Davids sin, and he had been able by some of the subtleties of self-excuse to dismiss it from his mind, till in this graphic way the prophet wakens his sleeping conscience, touching the sore place till it throbs with pain.<\/p>\n 2. How true and striking this aspect of our subject is our own experience testifies. Watch how angry David grows as Nathans story is told. He is the very incarnation of indignant justice. He is absolutely eager to punish the selfish scoundrel who has injured the poor man. The spoiler eager to punish the spoliator? The villain burning with a fine sense of angry justice against the lesser villain? It is even so. We can pluck out the mote from our brothers eye, and be utterly regardless of the beam in our own. We can pass sentence and applaud judgment on the cruelty of another, but our own cruelty we do not even perceive. It is not until some prophet focuses the light of judgment on our act, and puts before us what such sins as ours work in other spheres and other lives; it is not until we see our ungovernable temper reflected in the awful spectacle of the man upon the gallows, whose passion has carried him just a point beyond our own; till we see our self-indulgence vividly illustrated in some broken drunkard shambling down to his obscure and shameful grave; till our solitary carnality takes a living, leprous shape and form in the corroding vice which poisons all the world with its reek of horror; till our individual impurity stands typified in the wasted face of some wronged and shameful woman, lifted towards us in dumb reproach beneath the city gas-light;it is not until this happens that the real truth about ourselves flashes on us, and the cry of Nathan, Thou art the man! terrifies us with its heart-searching accusation.<\/p>\n 3. This self-discovery is made to a mans conscience. For in our own conscience there is still a Divine supremacy. What was it that made Nathan so fearless? Why was it that the king quailed before his subject, whose life was altogether in his hand? We know well why it was. It is the ancient spectacle, repeated in precise form when Elijah stops the chariot of Ahab, and John denounces Herod to his face, and John Knox thunders in the court of Mary Stuart. We know that conscience doth make cowards of us all. We know that a man standing on the right is mightier than kings, and that kinghood is impotent before such a man when kinghood is defiled. It was a pure conscience that animated Nathan with dignity, and clothed him with a Divine royalty; it was an evil conscience that made David cower and tremble before his servant like a beaten hound.<\/p>\n There is a Northern legend, told in the proem of one of Hall Caines books, of a man who thought he was pursued by a monster. His ricks were fired, his barns unroofed, his cattle destroyed, his lands blasted, his first-born slain. So he lay in wait for the monster where it lived in the chasms near his house, and in the darkness of night he saw it. With a cry he rushed upon it, and gripped it about the waist, and it turned upon him, and held him by the shoulder. Long he wrestled with it, reeling, staggering, falling and rising again; but at length a flood of strength came to him, and he overthrew it, and stood over it, covering it, conquering it, with its back against his thigh, and his hand set hard at its throat. Then he drew his knife to kill it; and the moon shot through a wrack of cloud, opening an alley of light about it, and he saw its face, and lo, the face of the monster was his own.<\/p>\n 4. The self-discovery is made by the hand of God. We need another than our own voice to lay down the law of conduct, and to accuse and condemn the breaches of it. Conscience is not a wholly reliable guide, and is neither an impartial nor an all-knowing judge. Unconsciousness of evil is not innocence. It is not the purest of women who wipes her mouth and says, I have done no harm. My conscience says to me, It is wrong to do wrong; but when I say to my conscience, Yes, and pray what is wrong? a large variety of answers is possible. A man may sophisticate his conscience, or bribe his conscience, or throttle his conscience, or sear his conscience. And so the man who is worst, who, therefore, ought to be most chastised by his conscience, has most immunity from it; and where, if it is to be of use, it ought to be most powerful, there it is weakest.<\/p>\n Until we make Christ our conscience, bringing everything to be judged by the Light, we shall keep confusing the issues, and disguising our sins, and finding all manner of self-escape, excuses, and counter-charges. But if we will have the same mind in us that was in Christ, looking at the world and life and self with His eyes, we shall see ourselves as we are; and when conscience says to us, in unmistakable tones, Thou art the man, our one prayer will not be self-justification, but: Search me, O God, and know my heart; try me, and know my thoughts: and see if there be any wicked way in me, and lead me in the way everlasting.<\/p>\n 5. And this self-discovery is essential. We have no standing in the spiritual world till we see ourselves as we are. We cannot go on for ever refusing to face up to the facts, refusing to lay bare to ourselves what we fear to be there; like a spendthrift who will not look into his affairs till the crash comes, and excuses himself that he did not know that he had gone so far into debt, and is surprised to find his affairs in such a bad way. The excuse is not valid; for the reason why he did not look into his affairs was because he knew that they were not right, and was afraid to find out. So, in religion, men fear to uncover their hearts to themselves, because they are afraid of what they will find there. Their judgment would be Davids judgment on the rich neighbour of the parable; but they, like David, will not make the application. We are all right on the general principles of religion, but personal religion begins exactly where we leave off.<\/p>\n Rigorous self-judgment is the first requisite of the moral lifeto turn the light in on self. Socrates made self-knowledge the basis of all knowledge. A deeper self-knowledge still is the very beginning of all personal religion. Sanctification is only a name till we translate the general into the particular, and apply to ourselves the demands of the law. We need to cease to talk about sin in the mass and come to details, and deal with the specific sins, and unmask them. Many religious people are worms of the earth, with their whole nature corrupt in their general confession, and very fine gentlemen in detailnever dealing with self in any direct fashion, never hearing once the searching word, Thou art the man.<\/p>\n Literature<\/p>\n Ainger (A.), Sermons in the Temple Church, 26.<\/p>\n Barnett (S. A.), in Lombard Street in Lent, 84.<\/p>\n Black (H.), Christs Service of Love, 147.<\/p>\n Butler (J.), Sermons (ed. Bernard), 125.<\/p>\n Campbell (R. J.), Sermons addressed to Individuals, 227.<\/p>\n Dawson (W. J.), The Threshold of Manhood, 198.<\/p>\n Ford (H.), Sermons with Analyses, 77.<\/p>\n Goulburn (E. M.), Personal Religion, 83.<\/p>\n Macgregor (G. H. C.), Messages of the Old Testament, 129.<\/p>\n Maclaren (A.), Expositions: 2 Samuel and Kings, 55.<\/p>\n Moule (H. C. G.), Temptation and Escape, 34.<\/p>\n Symonds (A. R.), Sermons, 360.<\/p>\n Wilson (J. M.), Sermons preached in Clifton College Chapel, 2nd Ser., 66.<\/p>\n Christian World Pulpit, ix. 155 (Bull); xxii. 332 (Coster); lxxi. 107 (Scott-Holland).<\/p>\n Church Pulpit Year Book, 1904, 181 (Currie).<\/p>\n Churchmans Pulpit: Sixth Sunday after Trinity, x. 353 (Jones), 354 (Symonds), 356 (Sterne).<\/p>\n Treasury (New York), xx. 799 (Hallock).<\/p>\n Thou art: 1Sa 13:13, 1Ki 18:18, 1Ki 21:19, 1Ki 21:20, Mat 14:14 <\/p>\n I anointed: 2Sa 7:8, 1Sa 15:17, 1Sa 16:13 <\/p>\n I delivered: 2Sa 22:1, 2Sa 22:49, 1Sa 18:11, 1Sa 18:21, 1Sa 19:10-15, 1Sa 23:7, 1Sa 23:14, 1Sa 23:26-28, Psa 18:1, *title <\/p>\n Reciprocal: Gen 38:24 – let her 1Sa 2:28 – And did I 2Sa 14:13 – Wherefore 1Ki 3:6 – great 1Ki 14:7 – Forasmuch 1Ki 16:2 – I exalted thee 2Ki 20:14 – What said 2Ch 1:8 – Thou has showed 2Ch 16:9 – Herein Job 21:31 – declare Psa 65:3 – prevail Psa 141:5 – the righteous Pro 9:8 – rebuke Pro 27:6 – the wounds Pro 28:23 – General Ecc 4:10 – if Jer 2:31 – Have I been Jer 34:6 – General Eze 3:20 – because Dan 4:22 – thou Mat 14:4 – General Mat 21:46 – they sought Mar 12:12 – knew<\/p>\n THE ARROW OF CONVICTION<\/p>\n And Nathan said to David, Thou art the man.<\/p>\n 2Sa 12:7<\/p>\n David spoke 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 prophets word upon himself, to be plainly toldThou art the man. We see here:<\/p>\n I. An instance of one of the saddest effects of sin.So long as it is willingly entertained by us, sin overpowers the conscience and destroys itthat, 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. 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.<\/p>\n II. Let us take this warning of the blinding power of sin to ourselves.But who shall speak it? Who shall point to Gods 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. When we hear our own sin denounced we are to say to ourselves, Thou art the man of whom this is spoken; it is your own worldliness, or pride, or lust, or envy, or love of pleasure; it is your own carelessness or indifference, your own sloth or gluttony, or intemperance, your own impatience or uncharitableness, your own hard dealing or dishonesty, your own self-will or unbelief, which are rebuked by these words of the Holy Ghost: they are spoken for your sake, and to you alone, as though there were no other in the world to whom they applied.<\/p>\n Rev. J. Currie.<\/p>\n Illustrations<\/p>\n (1) 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.<\/p>\n (2) 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.<\/p>\n (3) Nathans advent on the scene must have been a positive relief. How little the royal sinner realised that this simple allegory, borrowed from a shepherds life, depicted himself! But, as a flash of lightning on a dark night suddenly reveals to the traveller the precipice on the edge of which he is standing, so did that brief, awful, stunning sentence, Thou art the man! reveal him to himself. I have sinned against the Lord, sobbed out the king, and his confession at once gave him relief. As soon as the prophet had gone, he beat out that brief confession into Psalms 51.<\/p>\n (4) David had to suffer till he died. When Dr. Hood Wilson once went to visit a woman who was suffering very excruciating agony, some one by the bedside said to her, Surely that suffering must be as bad as hell. But the poor woman, who was a true disciple, and who knew what it was to have her sins forgiven, answered, No, no, there is no wrath in it. There is a good deal of experience in that answerthere is no wrath in the cup of the forgiven.<\/p>\n 2Sa 12:7. Nathan said to David, Thou art the man Though he took such a mild, gentle, and prudent manner to bring David to a proper view and just sense of his sin, yet he deals faithfully with him at the last, and sets his iniquity before him in all its aggravations. Thus, in a similar way, by most appropriate and striking parables, our Lord set the sin which the Jews were about to commit in crucifying him before them in so clear a light, and showed it to be so inexcusable, that they were led, before they were aware, to pass an equally severe sentence against themselves. See Mat 21:28-46. The Jews, however, when they perceived that Christ referred to them in his parables, were only exasperated the more, and sought the sooner to lay hands on him. But David being, although greatly fallen, of a different spirit, was brought by Nathans words to deep and lasting repentance. O, how did Nathans application of his parable, Thou art the man, pronounced in all the dignity and authority of the prophetic character, sink into Davids soul! especially when he proceeded to a further explication of the greatness of his iniquity, which he does in the following words. Thus saith the Lord God of Israel Nathan now speaks, not as a petitioner from a poor man, but as an ambassador from the great Jehovah, I anointed thee king over Israel, &c. Thus he aggravates Davids sin, from the obligations he was under to God, who had raised him to the highest dignity from a very low condition, and had extricated him from the greatest dangers and distresses.<\/p>\n 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; 7 14. The Prophet’s sentence. David’s confession 7. Thou art the man ] The consciousness that they were God’s messengers inspired the prophets … Continue reading “Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of 2 Samuel 12:7”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-8305","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-commentary"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8305","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=8305"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8305\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=8305"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=8305"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=8305"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
I. <\/strong>It cannot be said that conscience is dead. For no sooner does David hear a story of oppression than his conscience rises majestically in con-detonation of the rich mans execrable tyranny. The conscience was quick and powerful; otherwise it could not have asserted itself so immediately and majestically. Conscience cannot die. There are certain moral truths which shine by their own light and need not that any should bear witness to them. These moral axioms require no proof: they abide for ever in the constitution of man. Just as mathematical axioms, such as Things which are equal to the same are equal to one another, are accepted by all men as fundamental and final: so there are moral axioms, such as Honesty is right, or Truth is right, which require no laboured demonstration, but by their own intrinsic excellence command acceptance at once and by all. These moral intuitions cannot perish. They are a part of mans being. A man may mistake the application or resist the force of these moral certainties, but he never can deny their reality. In this fact lies the hope of the worlds salvation. There is in every soul a sense of right and wrong. Prove to any one that he is a sinner, reach the conscience, and redemption is already begun. From this fact, those engaged in Christian work may gather great confidence. Every witness for Christ has a friend in the court of mans nature. A man may be so engrossed with the pursuit of what is merely pleasant or profitable that he may not hear at all, or hear but in a dim and confused way, the warnings and entreaties of the inner monitor, just as a member of the family circle, busy at some book or task, may be so preoccupied with his own thoughts and employment, that he hears and yet does not hear the conversation of those around him, and answers the questions even that may be addressed directly to him in that provokingly dreamy and abstracted manner, characteristic of absent-mindedness. So we hear, even though we may only vaguely heed, the voice of conscience. A man may even encase his conscience in a mailed coat of deliberate and hardened villany, but conscience is still there, a living, breathing immortal entity. At any moment a word, a glance of the eye, a pressure of the hand, may be an arrow to penetrate some joint of the harness. There are many ways of reaching the conscience, as there are many ways of touching the heart. It may be only a brief story, like Nathans parable, or a single verse, or a childs sermon; but any one is sword enough to pierce the quick sense of right and wrong. Take comfort, then, my fellow-labourer, from this thought that in every man conscience lives, moves, and has its being; and that however closely confined it may be in the dungeon of ignorance or depravity, a word of God can shake the prison as with an earthquake, and wring from the sturdiest keepers soul the cry, What must I do to be saved?<\/p>\n
II. <\/strong>But let us go a little deeper and ask, how is it that though Davids conscience was in itself living and vigorous, it was actually so long in moving against himself? In endeavouring to answer this question, we must remember that conscience is not an independent faculty. Its judgments are founded on the representations of the mind. The intellect furnishes the premises on which the moral faculty rests its conclusions. If the premises are wrong, the inferences must be erroneous, even though they are in themselves correctly drawn. To be a little more specific, conscience never undertakes to tell me what is honest in a particular case; my own intellect tells me that: but conscience, as soon as the intellect decides what is honest, authoritatively declares that the honest course is right and ought to be pursued. Conscience never says any more than this, that honesty, or purity, or veracity is right; it is for the intellect to state what is honest, or pure, or truthful. Consequently, if the information furnished to the conscience by the intellect is defective, or exaggerated, or distorted, or wholly mistaken, the judgment of conscience will be proportionately in error. The moral axioms are in themselves infallibly correct, but they may be wrongly applied, just as the axioms of mathematics, while infallibly correct in themselves, may be wrongly applied. I turn my intellect to consider certain actions, and I carry, suppose, the assurance to my conscience that these are honest add those dishonest. Immediately conscience, acting on the information of the intellect, asserts that the former are right and the latter wrong. But if the intellect is mistaken, conscience must be correspondingly mistaken. Conscience is like an eye, which is round and good m itself, but which is compelled to look on men and things through the window of the understanding. If the intervening glass is not pure and spotless, if it is coloured or discoloured, the external world will, to my eye, be tinged or blurred accordingly; or if this pane is marred by a knot, that one by a bubble, that other by an abnormal curve, all by some defect, then my view will be distorted, nature will be twisted out of shape, in accordance with the character of the medium. Yet the fault is not in my organ of vision or in the outside world, but in the interposing panes of glass. Herein lies the possibility of two consciences, equally good and true in themselves, giving totally opposite, or widely diverse, decisions on the very same data. An easy conscience, therefore, is not always a safe guide. A man may fight even against God with a perfectly clear conscience: a man may go to hell with a perfectly clear conscience. There is a story told by John Foster <\/strong>in one of his essays of a wicked and traitorous naval captain, who, unable to coax or coerce his sailors into a vile surrender to the foe, concealed a large loadstone at a little distance from the needle. The sailors, unaware of the cruel trick played upon them, steered their vessel faithfully by the compass, but to their degradation and destruction, for their misplaced confidence carried them directly into a hostile port and the enemys pitiless hands. Yet all the while these misguided mariners thought that all was well because they were steering by the compass. And, indeed, the needle was right in itself, tremblingly sensitive, ready to point in the proper direction if it had not been tampered with, if it had not been turned aside from its true bearing by an influence that the hapless crew wot not of. Just so many a one is going to ruin, shaping his course, as he thinks, by conscience; but it is a conscience directed, or rather misdirected, by a darkened mind, an evil heart, a sinful will. Thus, many a man, who has not yet <\/strong>had his heart changed, manages to say to himself, Peace, peace, when there is no peace. Certainly all should believe in Christ; but does not he believe in Christ? So he keeps interpreting or misinterpreting matters to his conscience; so conscience is soothed; so the sinner, often a respectable, well-clad, high-toned, pure-minded sinner, is lost. It is thus possible for us to keep saying, Peace, peace, until by mere reiteration we come to believe our assertion. It is proverbial that a man may tell a lie so often that he comes at last to believe his <\/strong>own falsehood; and a soul may be at ease in Zion, the conscience reposing on a specious and comfortable falsehood or half truth, which frequent repetition clothes with an air of authority. What reason, then, in view of the awful possibility of being self-deceived, we have for scrutinising and re-scrutinising our outward conduct, and as for the inner man humbly and earnestly we should cry to God each for himself: O Lord, teach me Thy way. Lead in a plain path, for I know nothing as I ought to know. Search me, O God, and know my heart, try me and know my thoughts: and see if there be any wicked way in me, and lead me in the way everlasting.<\/p>\n
III. <\/strong>But still the question recurs, How is it possible for a man like David to be guilty, like David, of most abominable crimes, and yet soothe his conscience into quietness? We can understand a man misinterpreting actions that are not palpably and notoriously evil, where there may be room for mistake and misapprehension, and so furnishing his conscience with misleading information. But how is it possible for one, like David, to perpetrate the enormities of which he was guilty and yet remain easy in his mind? How could he by any chance so misreport the facts of such a glaring case to the impartial tribunal within? Here we enter on one of the most solemn subjects that could be considered, the blinding influence of the love of self. Love is notoriously blind: and self-love–the most subtle, ineradicable of all loves–is the blindest of all, so that even if our hands, like Davids, be steeped in blood, we have still some excuse to offer for ourselves. It is this love of self that makes us very conscious of the changes that take place in our neighbours appearance, but slow to note our own. We see the pallor of disease, the wrinkles of care, or the whitening of old age, far more readily in others than in ourselves. Loathsome diseases are far more bearable in ourselves than in others. What would be tedious and offensive in others is perfectly tolerable in ourselves. So in spiritual things, we can behold the motelike splinter in our neighbours eye, but the weavers beam in our own we may not discern. I knew two men, occupying good social positions, who were unhappily addicted to drink, They lived in the same town, and their families were very intimate. Each of them was blessed with an excellent wife. Again and again have I heard each of these men in turn, when he happened to be sober and his neighbour was indulging in a bout of drinking, railing at the drunken husband over the way, and pitying the splendid woman who had the misfortune-to be tied to such a soil all this in tones of unquestioned sincerity. What is the explanation of this? In judging ourselves we have the love of self on our side as a special pleader. David may have said to himself: I was very idle, and Bathsheba was very beautiful. I was specially tempted. Or he may have flattered himself with the thought: After all, I did not kill Uriah. I did indeed order him to be put in a place of danger, but some one had to stand in the forefront of the battle, and why not he as well as another? Moreover, is not Uriah a Hittite? Is he not one of a race that we are authorised to exterminate? Or he may have soothed his conscience with the notion that if he had done wrong to Uriah it was for no merely selfish purpose, but in order as far as possible to recompense Bathsheba for the injury inflicted on her. Possibly by some such arguments, at all events by some subtle reasonings and excuses, dictated by the love of self and the pride of life, he succeeded in veiling the filthiness of his conduct from the clear eye of the moral faculty. What a commentary is all this on the blindness of man to his personal guilt! Here was one, who had been wont to live in close and happy fellowship with God, and vet yielded to and lived in flagrant sin for a long time, without apparently being conscious of its vileness. Ah, beloved, do we not stand sorely in need of some one who will tell us the truth about ourselves? Is Christ our enemy because He tells us the truth? There is in reality in every one of us the seeds of thoroughgoing depravity. If we say that we have not the principle of sin we simply deceive ourselves. The principle of sin may take divers forms, varying according to mens training, opportunities, hereditary tendencies, peculiar temptations, associates, and such like; but, whatever form it takes, the principle is there. What varied manifestations there are of matter in nature. There it is in the clouds, in the rushing wind, in the gas lighter than air, in the flowing river and the restless ocean, in the green field and the snow-capped mountain, in the pebble from the brook and the rock dug from the quarry. Analyse these multitudinous forms, and you will find all alike in essence; there is one elementary substance throughout all this manifoldness. (G. Hanson, M. A<\/em>.)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
I. <\/strong>The force of a direct appeal to the conscience. General allusions to human guilt, coupled though they may be with fervent exhortations to repentance, fail to produce conviction and compliance. Ordinary arguments, though derived from the Word of God, and based on the love of God, are ineffectual to melt and subdue. All the ordinary strivings of the Spirit are resisted and repelled.<\/p>\n
II. <\/strong>Mans weakness with concealed sin in his heart. Of all the men of his age, up to this time, David was certainly, intellectually and spiritually considered, the strongest. Righteousness is mans strength, and the fear of God his courage. What wild and foolish fears affright the guilty one, who has covered his sin, who has hidden, as he thinks, from all mortal gaze every trace of the deed he has wrought, the exposure of which is his shame, but in whose heart, nevertheless, the horrid fact lies festering and pulsating! The weakest point in a wicked mans heart, after all, is his own conscience–that principle within that sits in judgment on all his doings, and pronounces which are <\/strong>right and which are wrong. And in a great wrong conscience will cry out with a loud voice.<\/p>\n
III. <\/strong>Of the love of God in the exposure of guilt opening up to the guilty the possibility of forgiveness. Now, what will God do with him? Will He inflict an instantaneous vengeance, and execute him as a criminal? He deserves it; it is the legal award of his crime. No, not the God of Love; not if it can be avoided; not if God can make a way to avoid it. He makes such a way. The Lord is gracious, and full of compassion, slow to anger, and of great mercy. He will not always chide, nor will He keep His anger for ever. So sang the psalmist hereafter, and well could he verify his song. The Lord hath put away thy sin, thou shalt not die, are the first words of mercy to revive hope in Davids stricken heart. Not in wrath, but in love, sent the Lord His prophet unto David. The text is a sharp arrow, but it is tipped with honey, not with poison, It is a healing, not a killing dart. Its message is painful, but it is a message of mercy. Was it not Divine love that thus hung as a dense cloud charged with electric fire, threatening to smite him? Let us learn, then, that the judgments of God as well as His mercies embody and exhibit His love. Let us learn in it Gods disciplinary and chastising dealings with ourselves. And in Christ we have the fullest revelation of His love. Beginning with the forgiveness of sins to the perfecting of our manhood in Christ–let us remember there is forgiveness with Him. (W. J. Bull, B. A<\/em>.)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
I. <\/strong>That no man is placed beyond the danger cf perpetrating the most atrocious crimes–crimes which are equally offensive to God, injurious to society, and destructive to the criminal. This observation is strikingly confirmed in the instance of David, the king of Israel. There was no advantage on the side of virtue and religion which he did not possess. What ought to operate as a preventive of wickedness, which did not distinguish this man at the very moment when he consented to become the most guilty of his species?<\/p>\n
II. <\/strong>That many of us, who least suspect ourselves, are chargeable with similar offences or tendencies to those offences which we most severely condemn in others. We lift up our voice, End justly, against the perjured, the ungenerous, the insulting adulterer; the wretch, who robs his neighbour, perhaps his friend, by one fatal act, of his dearest treasure, and his peace of mind; but have we pondered well the saying of him who declares, Whoso looketh upon a woman to lust after her, hath committed adultery already in his own heart? The will, before God, is the deed. Do we regard with exemplary strictness the law of equity? If we do not grossly defraud, do we not go beyond our brother, and take advantage of his ignorance or weakness? In order to shorten human life, it is not necessary to employ the pistol and the dagger. Servants may be easily brought to an untimely grave by stinting them with respect to their necessary food, clothes, lodging, or fuel; or by a repetition of tasks unnecessarily burdensome. The pleadings in this case might be greatly extended, and the mask torn off from many whose criminality is perhaps still hidden from themselves. (J. Styles.<\/em>)<\/p>\n<\/p>\nFuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible <\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: The Bible of the Expositor and the Evangelist by Riley<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
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 neighbor, and he shall lie with thy wives in the sight of this sun.<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
16 David therefore besought God for the child; and David fasted, and went in, and lay all night upon the earth.
17 And the elders of his house arose, and went to him, to raise him up from the earth: but he would not, neither did he eat bread with them.<\/p>\n
19 But when David saw that his servants whispered, David perceived that the child was dead: therefore David said unto his servants, Is the child dead? And they said, He is dead.
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 worshiped: then he came to his own house; and when he required, they set bread before him, and he did eat.<\/p>\nFuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: The Great Texts of the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Church Pulpit Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"