Deeper Commentary
2Sa 12:1 Yahweh sent Nathan to David. He came to him, and said to
him, There were two men in one city-
God's sending of Nathan matches David's frenetic sending of
messages in an attempt to cover his sin. We enquire why God waited until the
child was born to challenge David. I suggest He does give grace periods of
silence from Him, during which time we are to repent without further painful
nudging. And we must ask Him whether we are in such a period, in some aspect
of our lives...
That David could see into the back yard of Bathsheba's house shows that
they were almost next door neighbours in Jerusalem. Nathan's parable
emphasized this: "There were two men (David and Nathan) in one city
(Jerusalem)". That Uriah "went not down to his house" after meeting David in
Jerusalem could imply that it was just at the end of David's back garden (2
Sam. 11:13 etc.).
The one rich, and the other poor-
Reflection on the record enables us to enter a little into the nature
and tragedy of David's sorrow; remembering always that David is our
example. His love for Abigail, with marriage to her so wondrously
arranged, would have been cruelly mocked by his falling for Bathsheba. His
abuse of Uriah's loyalty (when almost certainly Uriah knew exactly what
David was playing at) would have created a sadness that can only be
described as ineffable. David in his early years described himself as a
"poor man", indicating his humility; yet the very same word is used by
Nathan in the parable about Uriah, as if to bring home to David that he
had slain a man who had the humble loyalty which he had had in those
early, spiritually formative years (1 Sam. 18:23 cp. 2 Sam. 12:1,3,4).
Nathan had likened Uriah to a "poor man" abused by David. But David later asks God to eternally condemn those who persecuted the "poor" (see on Ps. 109:9,16). And it seems Ps. 109 was used by David not only about his persecution at the time of Saul, but also of his sufferings at the time of Absalom's rebellion, after the time of his sin. So it seems David didn't maintain his sense of humility before Nathan.
2Sa 12:2 The rich man had very many flocks and herds-
Presumably the idea is that David had many wives and concubines. He
had no sexual need for Bathsheba. To take her was selfishness and
narcissism in the extreme. And yet he was the man after
God's own heart, the only man to be told in mid life that his salvation
was assured [2 Sam. 7].
2Sa 12:3 but the poor man had nothing, except one little ewe lamb, which
he had bought and raised. It grew up together with him, and with his
children. It ate of his own food, drank of his own cup, lay in his bosom,
and was to him like a daughter-
David himself had once been a poor man (1 Sam. 18:23), his family
only had a "few sheep" (1 Sam. 17:28). So his abuse of the poor man with
only one sheep now he
was rich... was therefore the more culpable.
David and Uriah knew each other very well; they had spent David's long
wilderness years together. All that time, Bathsheba had been brought up by
Uriah (2 Sam.12:3). She was the daughter of Eliam, who had been another of
David’s mighty men (2 Sam. 11:3; 23:34). Presumably he had been killed and
Uriah adopted her, bringing her up from babyhood, mothering her by feeding
her from his bowl and letting her sleep in his bosom. This may imply that
his own wife died early, and that he brought her and his own children up
alone, and then married her when she was older. A very special spiritual
and emotional bond must have been forged between those who stuck with
David as a down and out, and who later on shared in the glory of his
kingdom. That Uriah had such easy access to David would have been
unthinkable for an ordinary soldier whom David hardly knew.
Nathan
criticizes David for having "no pity" on Uriah, implying that David well
knew the relationship between Uriah and Bathsheba. Moreover, David
would have been a larger than life figure for his followers, and Bathsheba
would have grown up with this image of David as the saving hero.
1 Chron. 3:5 could imply that she had no other children before those
she had by David. This means that she may have been barren until that
point; her conception was certainly brought about by God. Was it that they
would both have been aware of the unlikelihood of her bearing children,
and therefore perhaps more inclined to take a chance?
2Sa 12:4 A traveller came to the rich man, and he spared to take of his
own flock and of his own herd, to dress for the wayfaring man who had come
to him, but took the poor man’s lamb, and dressed it for the man who had
come to him-
The parable described David's lust as a "traveller" which came to
him, implying that this was not his usual frame of mind (and does the
'traveller' needing sustenance of Lk. 11:6 also refer to our sinful
tendencies?). The rich man is presented as mean. He has only an appearance
of hospitality and generosity towards his guest, for he will not give of
his own animals, but takes the poor man's lamb. Whilst David was not
typically like this, his behaviour in this matter was indeed callous and
mean, beneath a veneer of respectability.
The rich man "spared to take" his own animal from his own flocks; just as Saul spared flocks and herds (1 Sam. 15:9,15 s.w.). Again we see how David and Saul are paralleled in their sins. But David was saved because of his heart attitude.
The rich man "took" the poor man's lamb because he assumed that there was effectively no chance of a law suit, the law would not be applied to him; and even if it were, he could easily pay the penalty. This reflects David's attitude to God's law, and his failure in respecting God's law earlier when bringing the ark to Zion had led to the death of Uzzah. He was to be brought to understand that God's law cannot just be waived by man, and man cannot pay the penalty. And we all have that same sense at times, that Divine law and principle doesn't apply to me or can be somehow gotten around. The idea that all men, president or peasant, are 'equal before the law' is a relatively new concept for human societies. It has been engrained in human thought for most of human history that leaders are somehow above the law. We note how the parable focuses upon David's callousness and selfishness, his disregard for others, rather than the sin of unbridled lust and sensuality of itself. The focalization is on the lack of pity rather than sensuality, quick sex or whatever else. It was the pain caused to Uriah whilst he was alive, during that journey back to the battle front and in whatever time he spent alive there, which was the focus of the parable. For after his death he had no sense of loss regarding anything. It was in this that David's lack of pity was so wrong; and out of all the aspects of David's failure, it was this lack of pity which God focused on most. And David correctly realized that in his interpretation of the parable. He was intended to come to just that point of identifying 'lack of pity', and the parable worked perfectly. Lack of pity or empathy is therefore of huge moment to God. And He and His Son show it hugely. God has pity on us the work of His hands. And it was the Lord's being moved with compassion / pity that led Him to the cross. Whilst we may not commit murder nor adultery, lack of compassion to the weaker than us... is an everyday struggle. And God sees it so seriously. We have to love the way the Lord loved the rich youth who told Him that He had been obedient to God since his "youth". The contradiction is obvious, but the Lord was moved with pity and love for him. Whereas we are irritated by what we perceive as hypocrisy, unreality, pride and laziness.
But the lust of David is presented as a traveller visiting- as if this was an unusual occurrence and not David's way of thought and living. We also note the element of unreality in the story. Rich men didn't usually give food to beggars nor did they entertain wayfaring men of the road in their homes, let alone kill a lamb for them. We note the travelling man comes alone, with no entourage, suggesting he is a low class travelling man. “The more prestigious the guest the more precious the animal” slain. Yet here is the unreality in the parable. The rich man slays a lamb for the poor visitor; possibly the hint is that the traveller is a Gentile, suggesting a parallel with Uriah who was a Hittite. He is very generous and kind to him. But not at his own cost. The father only slew an animal when his lost son came home. This rich man was generous to the poor. But he stole the poor man's lamb in order to be generous. Here we see a clever depiction of David's complex and divided character. He was generous, he had a good heart- but also callousness in order to achieve that, or, callousness and narcissism at one and the same time as being large hearted. The traveller enters the rich man's house- and David's house is a big theme here. God had promised to establish David's house but he was trying to establish it himself. And part of his attraction to having a child by Bathsheba was related to that. But he had allowed lust, the traveller, into his house, and so evil arose from within the house.
There is further grace revealed in the parable- in that adultery and consequent murder are not really in the same league at all as stealing a lamb from a poor man to feed a guest. It's not that God hereby somehow writes down the force of David's sins. Rather we see His gentleness with sinners and desire to always find a way forward in relationship with them.
Another line of interpretation is that the traveller who "comes" to David represents Bathsheba with the news she is pregnant. The traveller 'comes' to David, the rich man, just as Bathsheba came to him and slept with him. David responds to this by slaying the lamb, who would then represent Uriah. The lamb ate, drank and lay [in the bosom], and these are the very words used of Uriah in 1 Sam. 11:11 “How can I go home and eat, and drink, and lay with my wife?”. Those three Hebrew words occur together only in these two places. This path of interpretation however has some issues; the poor man is then Bathsheba as Uriah's wife, and the traveller is Bathsheba as David's pregnant lover. runs in
2Sa 12:5 David’s anger was greatly kindled against the man, and he said to
Nathan, As Yahweh lives, the man who has done this is worthy to die!-
As noted on :6, this demand for the death penalty was far beyond what
the law required for the theft of an animal. David's outrage shows that he
was not without moral conscience. But morality can be applied in one part
of a man's life but not in others; to one person but not another; to
sinners but not to himself. David speaks as God in Eden: "... shall surely
die" (AV). This was his problem; he was playing God.
The law required four fold restitution of stolen sheep (Ex. 22:1) but David demands a harsher punishment, of death. He was guilty of death but was spared by grace. Thus God's grace is powerfully contrasted with David's lack of grace. As seen often in the Psalms, his conscience was keenly aware of others' sins but not of his own. He did pay four fold restoration in that four of his sons died: his first child by Bathsheba, Amnon, Absalom and Adonijah. In the bigger picture, this was to help him see that his focus on building up his own immediate house or family was wrong. Instead he should have just trusted in the promise that his house would be built up through his future Messianic son. This is why the evil of his judgment was to arise from his own house (:11). In 1 Sam. 26:16 David had likewise demanded the death penalty for not keeping Saul, even though a sleep from Yahweh had made it impossible to do so. And the slaughter of more Philistines than necessary to pay his dowry. He who had been so eager to slay men is now saved from his own judicial death by pure grace. Freud demonstrated that exaggerated responses to moral questions concerning others is a reflection of the person defending themselves, against their own self recognition. David's exaggerated response, demanding the death penalty as well as restoration, is therefore psychologically credible for a man refusing to face himself. We see this clearly in many who obsess about some cases of morality and justice... but it is potentially true for us all.
2Sa 12:6 He shall restore the lamb fourfold, because he did this thing,
and because he had no pity!-
Ex. 22:1 stipulated that stolen lambs should be restored fourfold.
2Sa 12:7 Nathan said to David, You are the man-
It is difficult to read Rom. 2:1 without seeing an allusion to David's condemnation of the man who killed his neighbour's only sheep: "You are inexcusable, O man,
whoever you are that judges:
for wherein you judge another, you condemn yourself".
Surely Paul is saying that David's massive self-deception and hypocrisy over Bathsheba can all too easily be replicated in our experience.
This is what Yahweh, the God of Israel, says: ‘I anointed you king
over Israel, and I delivered you out of the hand of Saul-
David ought to have been moved by God's grace to him historically, to
be sexually self controlled. And there we have an abiding principle.
2Sa 12:8 I gave you your master’s house, and your master’s wives into your
bosom-
David loved Saul, his daughters and his son Jonathan; and later David
was to marry Saul's wives. These wives were given into David's bosom; in other words, they were really close in their relationship;
so close, 2 Sam. 12:8 implies, that David had no real emotional need to
take Bathsheba. Even while Saul was alive there was probably some
attraction chemistry going on between David and those women. This may well
be reflected in Saul's fury with Jonathan: "You son of the perverse
rebellious woman... you have chosen the son of Jesse to... the confusion
of your mother's nakedness" (1 Sam. 20:30). This hints at least two
things: firstly, Saul had a bad relationship with his wife; and secondly,
he suspected some kind of unfaithfulness in her, perhaps only on a mental
level.
And gave you the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that would
have been too little-
Such is the wonder of God’s promise to us that we really have no
excuse to sin. He knows our
levels and knew that David was not as it were forced inevitably to sin
with Bathsheba. Every sin is in a sense a denial of His promises. God told
David that he had no excuse for what he did with Uriah and Bathsheba,
because he had given him so much, “and if that had been too little, I
would have added unto you…” (2 Sam. 12:8). “Too little” sends the mind
back to 2 Sam. 7:19, where the promises to David are described as a
“little thing”; the promises were so wonderful that David should not have
allowed himself to fall into such sin. And us likewise.
I would have added to you many more such things-
When
David sinned with Bathsheba, God didn't read him the act about adultery,
lust, murder. He reminded David instead how He had delivered David by
grace from his enemies, and how He had by grace given him many wives- when
this was hardly God's ideal standard. God made concessions to David's
weakness- and even gave him the wives of Saul. Seeing David was married to
Saul's daughter, this was actually contrary to the spirit of God's own
law. But God had showed David great grace in this. And it was
exactly this
which God reminded David of- it was this amazing grace against which David
had sinned (2 Sam. 12:7,8). And perhaps David appreciated this when he
commented: "I have sinned against the Lord", rather than saying 'Yes, I've
broken commandments'. This is the awfulness of sin- any sin. That we who
have known such grace could so ignore it and act like we never knew.
We must recognize that there will be anomalies in the lives of our brethren- just as there are in the lives of us all (if only we would examine ourselves ruthlessly enough to see them). And in some ways at some times, God goes along with them. Thus He gave Saul’s wives to David (2 Sam. 12:8), which would’ve involved David being married to both a mother and daughter- for he had married Saul’s daughters. And this giving of Saul’s wives to David may not have occurred simply after Saul’s death. For David’s eldest son, Amnon, was borne by Ahinoam (2 Sam. 3:2), who was initially Saul’s wife (1 Sam. 14:50). Now this is not to justify sin. Adultery, taking another’s wife or husband, is all wrong. Let there be no mistake. But God at times sees the bigger, or longer, perspective, and tolerates things which we may quite rightly find intolerable. And if He loves us despite of our sin and failure- are we surprised that we are invited to show love to others in the face of their sin and failure toward us? A black and white insistence upon God’s standards being upheld in the lives of others, demanding their repentance for having hurt us, is what has caused so much division between believers. Whilst God alone will apportion the guilt for this, in the final, unalterable, ultimately just algorithm of Divine judgment, it’s worth observing that the fault for division isn’t always with the sinners, the wider thinkers, the freewheelers; but with the inflexible intolerance of those in power. See on 1 Sam. 18:20; 20:30.
2Sa 12:9 Why have you despised the word of Yahweh, to do that which is
evil in His sight?-
Saul also rejected God's word (1 Sam. 15:26); we have here
another example of how Saul and David committed the same sins but David
has a heart for God and was repentant. Both men say they had sinned (:13;
1 Sam. 15:30). But David's heart was in those words whereas Saul's wasn't.
David "despised the commandment (word) of the Lord... you despised Me" (2 Sam. 12:9,10). David learnt that his attitude to God's word was his attitude to God- for the word of God, in that sense, was and is God. By our words we personally will be condemned or justified- because we too ‘are’ our words. When Samuel told Eli of the prophetic vision which he had received, Eli commented: “It is the Lord” (1 Sam. 3:18). He meant ‘It is the word of the Lord’; but he saw God as effectively His word. “The word”, the “word of the Kingdom”, “the Gospel”, “the word of God” are all parallel expressions throughout the Gospels. Our attitude to God’s word is our attitude to Him.
The fact that he is condemned for having "despised the commandment of the Lord" in David's sin with Bathsheba indicates that He knew all along what God's will really was. The fact that the flesh took over does not in any way mitigate his responsibility in this. This is a direct quote from the Law's definition of the sin of presumption: "The soul that doeth ought presumptuously...because he hath despised the word of the Lord... that soul shall utterly be cut off" (Num. 15:30,31). Knowing David’s emotional nature and also the fact that he did not completely turn away from God afterwards, we would have expected a quicker repentance if it had been a passing sin of passion. It would therefore seem reasonable to assume that the sin was of presumption rather than passion. In his prosperity he had said “I shall never be moved” and he was determined that he couldn’t be (Ps. 30:6). Hearing those words from Nathan must have struck real fear into David- he was being incriminated for the supreme sin of presumption, for which there was no provision of sacrifice or repentance. It is a mark of his faith and knowledge of God as the God of love, that He is willing to go on to confess his sin, in the hope of forgiveness. "Thou desirest not sacrifice; else would I give it" (Ps. 51:16) was spoken by David more concerning this sin of presumption for which there was no sacrifice prescribed, rather than about the actual sin of adultery. However, we must not get the impression that David was a hard, callous man. Everything we know about him points to him be a big hearted, warm softie. David's sin with Bathsheba was in that sense out of character. Yet such is the stranglehold of sin that even he was forced to act with such uncharacteristic callousness and indifference to both God and man in order to try to cover his sin.
You have struck Uriah the Hittite with the sword, and
have taken his wife to be your wife, and have slain him with the sword of
the children of Ammon-
God saw David as if
he had killed Uriah with
his
sword; even though David's command to Joab to retire from Uriah and let
the Ammonites kill him was carefully calculated not to break the letter of
the law.
2Sa 12:10 Now therefore the sword will never depart from your house,
because you have despised Me, and have taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite
to be your wife’-
The judgments for David's sin reflect on the nature of his
sin in this "matter of Uriah". The dramas that would unfold in his family
revolved around callous, conscience less murder, reckless passion and
unbridled lust. Despite being a man after God's own heart, David had these
elements strongly within him and gave way to them. The judgment was
against David's house, the sword would not depart from it (:10). Again the
point is being made that he had been wrong to focus upon his own house
rather than trusting God's promise to make a great and eternal house from
his later Messianic son, after his death and not before it. The promises
to David included the prospect of being given rest from his enemies (2
Sam. 7:11). We note however that in 2 Sam. 10-12 we will read of David's
war with Ammon. He didn't have rest from his enemies. Possibly David
didn't go to the war because he wanted to try to self fulfil the promise
about having rest from his enemies. As with the promise that immediately
follows, that he would have an eternal house / family, this was to be
realized after David's death, in the time of his Messianic Son. The war
with Ammon would have been intended by God to nudge David to realize that
the promises were not about here and now. But he tries hard to make them
about him; and the curse on him for the sin with Bathsheba was that
enemies would arise from his own house, and the rest of his life was lived
in anything but "rest" from enemies. In the bigger picture, this was to
remind him that the promises to him were most definitely not being
fulfilled in this life. He was intended to focus instead upon the future
rest of God's Kingdom, at a point when his Messianic Son was set up /
resurrected along with himself.
Ps. 69:33 had a historical basis in David appreciating that although he had despised God in his sin with Bathsheba and Uriah (s.w. 2 Sam. 12:10), God by grace had not despised him: "Yahweh doesn’t despise His people". Just as the actual murder of Uriah involved the death of other soldiers, so the bloodshed within David's family was going to be his fault.
It should be noted that the sin of adultery is not highlighted in
Nathan's rebuke of David, but rather that David had "killed Uriah the
Hittite with the sword, and hast taken his wife to be thy wife". This is
twice emphasized in 12:9,10. This is not to say that the sin of weakness,
of the moment, was irrelevant in God's sight. But the emphasis on how he
had taken Bathsheba as his wife hints that this had been his long term
intention, further suggesting that his sin with her was the end result of
much prior meditation. This further illuminates the way in which David
speaks of his sin with Bathsheba as if it comprised a whole multitude of
other sins: "I acknowledged my sin (singular) unto thee... I said, I will
confess my transgressions (plural)" (Ps. 32:5 cp. 38:3,4,18). Ps. 25:7
also occurs in a Bathsheba context: "Remember not the sins of my
youth..."; as if facing up to his sin with Bathsheba made David face up
to sins of years ago, possibly also in a sexual context. Indeed, David
went so far down this road of self-examination that the sin with Bathsheba
made him realize that it was probably associated with many others which he
did not even realize: "Who can understand his own errors? cleanse (s.w.
Ps. 51:1,2 re. the Bathsheba affair) thou me from secret faults" (Ps.
19:12). If our own self-examination and repentance is after the pattern of
David's, we will appreciate how that each of our sins is associated with
so many others. We will be aware how that each spiritual event in our life
makes us either weaker or stronger in facing the next one, how that each
temptation is intertwined with others, so that in reality we do not commit
(say) three or four sins per day. We are constantly failing and winning,
and therefore we live in God's mercy; we do not just experience it for the
few seconds in which we pray to Him for forgiveness to be granted. David's
sin with Bathsheba is a process we each go through in one way or another.
Not believing in God and not believing in His word of the Gospel are paralleled in 1 Jn. 5:10. God is His word. The word “is” God in that God is so identified with His word. David parallels trusting in God and trusting in His word (Ps. 56:3,4). He learnt this, perhaps, through the experience of his sin with Bathsheba. For in that matter, David "despised the commandment (word) of the Lord... you despised Me" (2 Sam. 12:9,10). David learnt that his attitude to God's word was his attitude to God- for the word of God, in that sense, was and is God. By our words we personally will be condemned or justified- because we too ‘are’ our words.
2Sa 12:11 This is what Yahweh says: ‘Behold, I will raise up evil against
you out of your own house-
And I will take your wives before your eyes,
and give them to your neighbour, and he will lie with your wives in the
sight of this sun-
Uriah had been David's neighbour. David's neighbour Absalom was to
sleep with his wives; perhaps at this time Absalom also had a house next
to David's. David was described as Saul's "neighbour"; Saul had abused his
neighbour David, and now David was acting no better than Saul. He was only
treated differently because his repentance was more genuine.
"I will take away... and give... to your neighbour" is the
language of how God had removed the kingdom from Saul and given it to
David. However, it is David's harem which is to be taken from him. Quite
possibly David had still not retained enough faith in the promises to him
about his Messianic seed. Instead he was seeking to build up a large
multitudinous "house" by having many wives; and quite possibly his taking
of Bathsheba was partly motivated by that desire. In an attempt to refocus
David upon the multitudinous seed being through Messiah, in the future and
not now in David's lifetime, David's harem was taken away from him and
apart from Solomon, his many children apparently came to nothing and the
rest of the family were stained with shame by their actions.
In wrath, God remembers mercy. And we see that in His judgments upon David. They were mixed with so much grace- forgiving David rather than enforcing the death penalty; accepting David's marriage with Bathsheba, and blessing the marriage with Solomon; straight away giving victory against the Ammonites, when David 'deserved' to lose at that point. Even in the judgments through the rebellions of Absalom, Sheba etc., God remembered mercy- for He saved David out of those judgments.
2Sa 12:12 For you did it secretly, but I will do this thing before all
Israel, and before the sun’-
David appears desperate and foolish in trying to cover his sin by
getting Uriah to sleep with Bathsheba and then getting Uriah killed, even
requiring other men to be killed in order to make Uriah's death appear
nothing specific. And yet the record stresses how many messengers were
involved in the whole "thing". All attempts to cover sin will ultimately
come to nothing in that the day of judgment will reveal all "the secrets
of men" to all. David clearly has the belief that what he has done is
secret when in fact it obviously isn't; and that is the mentality of all
sinners. And that is exactly God's point in 2 Sam. 12:12 "For you did it
[so David thought] secretly, but I will do this thing before all Israel".
In Ps. 10, David had bitterly criticized the wicked who think they can sin 'secretly' and get away with it; "his eyes are secretly set... he says in his heart, God has forgotten. He hides His face. He will never see it" (Ps. 10:6,11). And yet knowing that theory, he himself acts like that. Rather like Jonah's awareness of Ps. 139, that he can never flee God's presence, even at the bottom of the ocean or at the end of the Gentile world. And yet Jonah tried to. We too, as all men, have this tendency to apprehend on an intellectual level, but divorce this knowledge from our felt reality.
As noted on 2 Sam. 11:27, what David was displeasing in Yahweh's eyes, and His judgments here make that clear. But He speaks of "My servant David... who followed Me with all his heart, to do only that which was right in My eyes" (1 Kings 14:8). This surely must mean that David lived "to" do what was right in God's eyes, towards that, despite all this massive maze of wrong thinking within him. Yahweh saw the essential direction of his heart, despite David's callous behaviour and sharp oscillations of emotion, angry with his sons and then soppily emotional over them...
It is amazing how sudden David's proper repentance seems to have
come. There is no reason to be unduly afraid of a sudden, emotional
confession of sin, prompted by a certain circumstance, as David's was by
Nathan's parable. Psalm 51 may well have been prayed but moments after
Nathan finished his parable. And Psalm 32, describing the joy of David's
repentance, would have followed soon after. "Purge me... and I
shall be clean... create in me a clean heart" (Ps. 51:7,10) shows that
David understood the 'me' which needed cleansing as being his own mind.
This was clearly a result of the great level of self-examination which
brought forth his real repentance. "Against thee, thee only have
I sinned" (Ps. 51:4) was a conclusion wrung out of so much reflection
about what he had done; as is his recognition that his "sin" had involved
many "transgressions" (Ps. 51:3).
A New Testament allusion to David's penitence may be found in 2
Cor.7:7-11: "Ye were made sorry... ye sorrowed to repentance... ye were
made sorry after a Godly manner (cp. "every one that is
Godly...", Ps. 32:6)... for Godly sorrow worketh repentance
to salvation... ye sorrowed after a Godly sort, what carefulness
it wrought in you, yea, what clearing of yourselves, yea, what indignation
(cp. David's in 2 Sam. 12:5)... what zeal... your mourning, your fervent
mind" . Allusion after allusion to David is being piled up here. The eight
references to their "sorrow" in four verses is surely a signpost back to
David's intense sorrow for his sin with Bathsheba: "My sin is ever before
me (Ps. 51:3)...my sorrow is continually before me... I will be sorry for my
sin...many sorrows shall be to the wicked" who, unlike David, refused to
repent (Ps. 38:17,18; 32:10). This association between sin and sorrow is a
common one (Job 9:28; 1 Tim. 6:10; Ex. 4:31; Is. 35:10. The last two
references show how Israel's sorrowing in Egypt was on account of their
sinfulness). We must pause to ask whether our consciousness of sin leads
us to a like sorrowing, whether our repentance features a similar depth of
remorse.
It would appear that Paul is likening Corinth to David. They too were
guilty of sexual "uncleanness and fornication and lasciviousness" (2
Cor. 12:21). We have seen that in the same way as David's repentance was
made in a "day of salvation", so in 2 Cor. 6:2 Paul told Corinth that
they were in a similar position to him; they too had the chance of
repentance. Those who had heeded this call earlier had experienced the
zeal and clear conscience which David did on his repentance (2
Cor. 7:9-11). In this case, Paul would be likening himself to Nathan the
prophet. This zeal which was seen in both David and Corinth is a sure sign
of clear conscience and a joyful openness with God. Again, we ask how much
of our zeal is motivated by this, or is it just a continuation of a level
of service which we set ourselves in more spiritual days, which we now
struggle to maintain for appearances sake?
So this sets us up to consider the differences between Joseph and David when it comes to the adultery issue. Just as men may lead parallel lives, so close that clearly the hand of God was in the parallels- but then one fails to decide correctly when faced by temptation, and fails to take the lead from the earlier, or perhaps Biblical, character. But only by getting to know each other, or thinking ourselves into the Biblical characters, can we perceive this. Someone older than you maybe had a very similar life path, but, let's say, at age 40 encountered major temptation- which they overcame. You as the younger person are to learn from that and decide rightly as they did. Or, if they failed at that point, you are to learn that lesson.
So with David and Bathsheba and Joseph and Potiphar's wife, there was an imbalance of power. She like David could just demand sex. In both cases they were "alone in the house". Bathsheba was very beautiful, just as Joseph is described. Ms. Potiphar asked Joseph to lie with her, just as David asked Bathsheba. Uriah and Joseph are both presented as very faithful to "my lord". Potiphar's wife has Joseph thrown into prison; David has Uriah sent to his death. Likewise Bathsheba's "I am pregnant... by you, David" matches the message of Tamar to Judah- another reflection of a story. Joseph was given his lord's house to rule over, just as David was given his lord Saul's house ("I have given you the house of your lord", 2 Sam. 12:8). But David saw eventually the similarities with Joseph when he finally admits "I have sinned against the Lord" (2 Sam. 12:13), whereas Joseph refuses to sin against God (Gen. 39:9). And so David is presented as Potiphar's wife. God gave Joseph everything except Potiphar's wife; God gave David everything likewise. The language is so similar. Uriah's "I will not do this thing" (2 Sam. 11:11) is Joseph's "How can I do this thing..." (Gen. 39:9).
Nathan said
to David, Yahweh also has put away your sin. You will not die-
The Spirit changes Ps. 32:1 ("Blessed is
he whose
transgression is forgiven") to "Blessed are
they" (Rom. 4:7)
to make the same point. "Blessed is the man (e.g. David, or any sinner-
David is our example) unto whom the Lord imputes not iniquity" (Ps. 32:2)
is alluded to in 2 Cor. 5:19: "God was in Christ... not imputing (the
world's) trespasses unto them". Through being justified, any repentant
sinner will then have the characteristics of Christ, in God's sight. In
Christ there was no guile (1 Pet. 2:22), as there was not in David (or any
other believer) after the justification of forgiveness (Ps. 32:2). "Blessed is the man... in whose spirit is no guile" (Ps. 32:2) is picked up
in Rev.14:5: "In their mouth was found no guile: for they are without
fault before the throne of God". The picture of forgiven David in Ps. 32
is what we will each be like after acceptance "before the throne of God". Yet David's experience can also be ours here and now; in those moments
of true contrition, we surely are experiencing salvation in prospect.
There is another connection with Romans in Ps. 51:4, where David
recognizes "Against thee...have I sinned...that thou mightest be
justified when thou speakest, and be clear when thou judgest". He
recognized that God works through our sinfulness- he is effectively saying
'I sinned so that You might be justified...'. These words are quoted in
Rom. 3:4,5 in the context of Paul's exultation that "our
unrighteousness commends the righteousness of God" - in just the same way
as David's did! Because God displays His righteousness every time He
justifies a repentant sinner, He is in a sense making Himself yet more
righteous. We must see things from God's perspective, from the standpoint
of giving glory to God's righteous attributes. If we do this, then we can
see through the ugliness of sin, and come to terms with our transgressions
the more effectively. And Paul quotes David's sin with Bathsheba as our
supreme example in this. We along with all the righteous ought to “shout
for joy” that David really was forgiven (Ps. 32:11)- for there is such
hope for us now. David is our example. And yet the intensity of David’s
repentance must be ours. He hung his head as one in whose mouth there were
no more arguments, hoping only in the Lord’s grace (Ps. 38:14 RVmg.).
Notice too how Ps. 51:1 “Have mercy on me, O God…” is quoted by the
publican in Lk. 18:13. He felt that David’s prayer and situation was to be
his. And he is held up as the example for each of us.
2Sa 12:14 However, because by this deed you have given great occasion to
Yahweh’s enemies to blaspheme, the child also who is born to you shall
surely die-
We may enquire how the death of a newborn baby would stop people
blaspheming. Perhaps the idea is that somehow David was punished with the
death penalty, through his representative son dying. There should
therefore be no complaint about God's justice. But this seems to me to
raise a host of other ethical issues. The child did indeed die because of
David's sin; one dimension of sin is the effect it has upon others. It
could be argued that this extra punishment was because David's sin had
caused others to blaspheme. Yahweh's "enemies" were the Gentiles within
the land (s.w. Num. 14:42; 32:21; Dt. 1:42; 12:10 and often). They would
learn what had happened and mock Yahweh for having such a king over His
people. But David's wife Abigail had referred to Saul and his supporters
as Yahweh's enemies (1 Sam. 25:26,29). Perhaps the idea is that the
remnants of the house of Saul, who were still against David, would
blaspheme Yahweh's choice of David over Saul now that Saul had behaved in
the same way as Saul in abusing his "neighbour". We learn from this that
whatever causes others to stumble from Yahweh is particularly abhorrent to
Him.
The moral question naturally occurs: Why should a child die because of a man's sin? Shouldn't the sinner be the one who dies? And so we start to wonder whether in some way David's death penalty was commuted to his son. In this case, the child dies as some kind of sacrificial atonement for David's sin. This is perhaps hinted at in the Hebrew of :13 "Yahweh also has put away your sin". The Hebrew for "put away" can mean to transfer, to commute. Onto the child, as the guilt offering after the pattern of the Lord, also an innocent child. Perhaps this is why David doesn't mourn the death of the child at all, and he is noted for this. His lack of mourning may suggest he is selfishly relieved that the child has died in his place and therefore he will not have to die as judgment for his sin. David eats right after the child dies, whereas mourning involved specifically not eating [we think of the record of Jacob's mourning for Joseph]. This lack of mourning is in sharp contrast to how David strongly mourns for Saul and Jonathan (2 Sam. 1:17-27), Abner (3:31-39), Amnon (13:31-36), and Absalom (19:1-5). Instead he appears at peace and all back to normal and has sex with Bathsheba again. Verse 20 states he went to his house, ate and drank and lay with his wife Bathsheba. This is an exact echo of what Uriah had said to David- "shall I then come to my house, to eat and to drink and to lie with my wife?" (1 Sam. 11:11). It's as if the moment the child dies, David feels somehow that Bathsheba is now totally and freely his wife. That behaviour may reflect his belief that the child's death had somehow dealt with his sin. And in this we are led to the cross; for God's totally innocent son died for our sins. And according to Paul's connections in Romans, we have all in essence done what David did.
2Sa 12:15 Nathan departed to his house. Yahweh struck the child that
Uriah’s wife bore to David, and it was very sick-
We wonder why there was a period of sickness before the child died.
It was perhaps for David's benefit, to elicit his repentance, to help him
see the extent of the damage he had caused. Or perhaps as noted on :16,
this was the gap in which David could pray for a change of the judgment
pronounced. But in this case, we have to assume that David's fasting and
prayer was not intense enough.
2Sa 12:16 David therefore begged God for the child; and David fasted, and
went in, and lay all night on the earth-
God had clearly stated that the child would die (:15). But David
understood that there is a gap between God's statements of judgment, and
His fulfilment of them. And in that gap, in which we also stand, there is
a window of opportunity for repentance and changing God's intended
judgment. Nineveh's judgment was changed because of this as Moses had
changed God's judgments pronounced upon Israel. David knew God well enough
to believe that such a change was possible. The fact it wasn't could
perhaps be because his prayer and repentance wasn't to the extent God
required for this abrogation of judgment to happen.
We can note that David's many prayers were all answered, both in the Psalms and in the historical record. We think of his prayers about Saul and his enemies, for mercy on the people during the plague, his prayers about Ahithophel (2 Sam. 15:31; 17:7-14) etc. This is the only one of his many prayers that wasn't answered. This was perhaps as a foil against any impression he may have thereby gotten that God would answer literally any of his prayers. God is not about 'name it and claim it', on a kind of automatic level. For prayer is not some magical incantation, it is about relationship, and every answer from God to man is a statement of His grace. And so even within David's highly positive experience of answered prayer, there had to be this unanswered one.
David had been told the child must die as a result of his sin.
But he had repented and he believed God's forgiveness- and that trust in
this amazing Divine pardon led him to think that possibly even the
consequence of his sin could be removed. So we can understand David's
prayer as reflective of the depth of his repentance and belief in his
forgiveness. However it could also reflect a refusal to accept the
consequence for his sins because in fact his repentance wasn't that deep-
and his later words [not least his later Psalms protesting his innocence]
and actions do at times suggest that at best, the intensity of his
repentance didn't last long. The death of the child, and David's desperate
desire it not die and his seven days of intercession, were a corrective to
his attitude towards Uriah and the men of Israel whom he had caused to
die: "the sword devours one just like another" (1 Sam. 11:25). That may be
one explanation as to why the child was sick for seven days and didn't die
immediately. He didn't want that one human life to just be taken... and it
would have made him reflect upon his attitude to the death of Uriah.
2Sa 12:17 The elders of his house arose beside him, to raise him up from
the earth: but he would not, neither did he eat bread with them-
The scene recalls that of Saul, likewise laying prostrate upon the
earth the fateful night before his Divine judgment, refusing to eat when
encouraged to do so by his servants. David in essence was no better than
Saul. But fortunately he had shown Saul the utmost grace, and God showed
the same now to David.
2Sa 12:18 It happened on the seventh day, that the child died. The
servants of David feared to tell him that the child was dead; for they
said, Behold, while the child was yet alive, we spoke to him, and he
didn’t listen to our voice. How will he then harm himself, if we tell him
that the child is dead?-
The servants fear that David will as it were shoot the
messenger if they tell him bad news. Joab and the messenger who reported
Uriah's death were likewise aware that David tended to do this. So the
presentation of David's character is consistent. David was characterized
by fits of anger and knee jerk reactions of anger, as we see again in his
outburst at the story David told him. And yet despite this, he was the man
after God's own heart who alone was given the assurance of future
salvation whilst still in mid life [2 Sam. 7].
David’s depression may even have extended to suicidal tendencies. His servants, who knew him well, feared he would take his own life if Bathsheba's baby died: "How will he then do hurt to himself...?" (2 Sam. 12:18; the same word is used in Num. 20:15 concerning Egypt's 'hurting' of Israel). One gets a sense that David had another such fit of self-hate in his reaction to the news that many in Israel would have to die because of his numbering of the people (even though their punishment was just, seeing they had refused to pay the census money required by the Law). It is quite possible that the Lord knew these tendencies well; was He not tempted to throw himself off the pinnacle of the temple, to take the Kingdom immediately, in other words to short cut through this life? Indeed, any man driven to the mental lengths of David and Jesus has known these feelings.
2Sa 12:19 But when David saw that his servants were whispering together,
David perceived that the child was dead; and David said to his servants,
Is the child dead? They said, He is dead-
These were perhaps the same servants with whom Uriah would have slept
and hung out, and perhaps had carried the many messengers associated with
the sin. They would have indeed realized that the wages of sin is death,
and David's awful sin now led to another death.
2Sa 12:20 Then David arose from the earth, and washed, and anointed
himself, and changed his clothing; and he came into the house of Yahweh,
and worshipped: then he came to his own house; and when he required, they
set bread before him, and he ate-
See on :13. This may be the reference of
Ps. 30:11, a Psalm with clear reference to
the Bathsheba incident: "You have turned my mourning into dancing for me.
You have removed my sackcloth, and clothed me with gladness".
David removed his sackcloth when his child died (2
Sam. 12:20-22). It was perhaps at this point that he realized that he had
been truly forgiven; hence the strange and much observed paradox of
David's relative rejoicing at a time when he was supposed to be mourning
for his child's death.
2Sa 12:21 Then his servants said to him, What is this that you have done?
You fasted and wept for the child while he was alive; but when the child
was dead, you rose up and ate bread-
David intentionally doesn't go through the traditional
customs associated with mourning for the dead. The traditional mourning
period for the dead was seven days; but the child had been sick for seven
days before dying. It's as if the striking of the child was now seen by
David as the death of the child. This strange change could be attributable simply to David's mood
swings. But I suggested on :20 another reason.
2Sa 12:22 He said, While the child was yet alive, I fasted and wept; for I
said, ‘Who knows whether Yahweh will not be gracious to me, that the child
may live?’-
David is explaining that his fasting and weeping during the sickness
of the child was for God to change His judgments decreed. It was not the
weeping of sorrow.
David entertains the possibility that Yahweh will be gracious or pitiful to him. He has just accepted that he is the man who showed no grace / pity (:6). But he asks God to show grace to him the ungracious. On one hand he thereby showed his grasp of God's grace and his ambition to trust in it. On the other, this could reflect his assumption that God's words of judgment could relatively easily be negated; the word of the Lord could again be despised.
2Sa 12:23 But now he is dead, why should I fast? Can I bring him back
again? I shall go to him, but he will not return to me-
David would go to the child in that he too would die. But he had no
hope for the child's resurrection. There may even be a hint of anger with
God here. David had not succeeded in changing God's stated purpose.
He
knew that God could bring to the grave and bring up again, as Hannah's
song had said. But God had not and apparently would not do this; and "I",
David, could not save a child from death nor resurrect it. Only God could,
and He chose not to. We note the contrast between David's serenity
over the loss of his son here, and his uncontrollable emotion later when
Absalom dies. We could well conclude that this reflects a downward
movement for David spiritually.
2Sa 12:24 David comforted Bathsheba his wife, and went in to her, and lay
with her. She bore a son, and he called his name Solomon. Yahweh loved
him-
We notice the contrast with :15 “the Lord smote the child
which Uriah’s wife bore to David”. Now Bathsheba is called David's wife
and instead of smiting their child which she "bore", God has a special love for him.
Again David lays with Bathsheba as he did the fateful evening on the roof. We see
here God's acceptance of second marriage, even if that position was
arrived at by very wrong behaviours in the past. And how the story now
progresses, expressed in these terms here in :24, rather sinks the idea
that this had just been a passing 'power rape' of Bathsheba by David. The
victims of rape usually disappear from the rapist's life afterwards, but
Bathsheba becomes his favourite wife and her son is David's favourite and
chosen to continue the kingly line. Indeed both the Lord's genealogies
trace Him back through sons of Bathsheba, Solomon and Nathan. We would
probably have traced the Lord's line through a son of David and Abigail,
whom he married after rightly waiting for her husband's death. But God
goes out of His way to bless David and Bathsheba's marriage; to
demonstrate that His forgiveness really does put sin behind us, and His
'play on' really does mean that.
Solomon being the one Yahweh loved led him to abuse that love, because he alludes to this in Prov. 3:12; 15:9. As noted there, he assumes that he is therefore righteous and God's supreme delight, because Yahweh loved him. But he failed to perceive that God's love is by grace, and not a reward for our righteousness.
That David's sin is indeed an epitome of all our sins is proved by the
way in which the record of it is framed in the language of the fall. Adam
is presented as David. Gen. 2:8,17 = 2 Sam. 12:5; Gen. 2:17 = 2 Sam. 12:9;
Gen. 6:2 = 2 Sam. 12:9; Gen. 3:17 = 2 Sam. 12:10; Gen. 3:7 = 2 Sam. 12:11;
Gen. 3:8 = 2 Sam. 11:24; 12:12; Gen. 3:21 = 2 Sam. 12:13; Gen. 3:17 = 2
Sam. 16:11; Gen. 3:19 = 2 Sam. 16:13. It should also be noted that
David/Bathsheba language is used to describe Israel's spiritually fallen
state (e.g. Ps. 38:7=Is. 1:6; Ps. 51:7=Is. 1:18; Ps. 65:2=Is. 40:15).
David recognized this in Ps. 51:17, where he likens his own state to that
of Zion, which also needed to be revived by God's mercy. As David's sin is
likened to the killing of a lamb (2 Sam. 12:4), so the Jews killed Jesus.
The troubles which therefore came upon his kingdom have certain
similarities with the events of AD67-70. They were also
repeated in the Nazi Holocaust, and will yet be. Israel are yet to fully
repent after the pattern of David.
2Sa 12:25 and He sent by the hand of Nathan the prophet; and he named him
Jedidiah, for Yahweh’s sake-
The words of Ps. 110:1 are applied by the NT to Jesus, but there is no
reason to think that they were not primarily spoke by David with his eye
on Solomon, whom he addresses as his Lord, such was his obsession: “The
Lord saith unto my Lord…” (RV), and the rest of the Psalm goes on in the
language of Ps. 72 to describe David’s hopes for Solomon’s Kingdom.
‘Solomon’ was actually called ‘Jedidiah’ by God through Nathan (2 Sam.
12:25). The ‘beloved of God’ was surely prophetic of God’s beloved Son.
When God said “This is my beloved Son”, He was surely saying ‘Now this is
the Jedidiah, whom I wanted Solomon to typify’. But David calls him
Solomon, the man who would bring peace. I suggest that David was so eager
to see in Solomon the actual Messiah, that he chose not to use the name
which God wanted- which made Solomon a type of a future Son of God /
Messiah. And this led to Solomon himself being obsessed with being a
Messiah figure and losing sight of the future Messiah.
Jedidiah is a form of the word David, the David or beloved of Yah. We wonder why David gave Solomon another name. Perhaps he was shy of this amazing grace to him, letting him play on, and then this statement that his son would be named 'Yah loves David'. It was an amazing reassurance of Divine love.
2Sa 12:26 Now Joab fought against Rabbah of the children of Ammon, and
took the royal city-
How the citadel fell is explained in :27. I suggest that 2 Samuel is
thematic rather than chronological. This really picks up from 2 Sam. 10,
where Syrian support for Rabbah had been cut off, and Rabbah was besieged
by Joab. It is unlikely that the siege could have been maintained for a
year or so. I suggest therefore that what we read of here happened some
time after the sin with Bathsheba, and before David's repentance.
The
harsh treatment of the captives and proud taking of the crown David hadn't
fought for... is all the kind of behaviour to be associated with a man in
bad conscience before God.
This may be alluded to in Prov. 16:32: "One who is slow to anger is better than the mighty; one who rules his spirit, than he who takes a city". This may refer to the hot headed anger of Joab and the "sons of Zeruiah", who had opposed Solomon and sought the throne for themselves towards the end of David's life. It was Joab who had taken the citadel of Zion and also the city of Rabbah, but this is dismissed by Solomon as cancelled out, as it were, by his hot headed lack of mental self control.
2Sa 12:27 Joab sent messengers to David and said, I have fought against
Rabbah. Yes, I have taken the city of waters-
We see here Joab's strong loyalty to David. "The city of waters" was
the settlement on the Jabbok which provided water for the citadel of
Rabbah. Once that was taken, it was only a matter of time before Rabbah
had to fall, without water. And Joab wanted David to be there to have the
glory of entering Rabbah.
2Sa 12:28 Now therefore gather the rest of the people together, and encamp
against the city and take it; lest I take the city, and it be called after
my name-
Whatever carried the name of a person was seen as his
property. If a city was conquered, it bore the name of the conqueror (2
Sam. 12:28) and this is common today, we think of
Constantinople, Pavlograd, Petrograd, Peterburg. The names of owners were on their property (Ps. 49:12); and
in this context, God's Name is over His people (Dt. 28:10). So to bear
God's Name is to recognize His complete ownership and even conquest of us.
And yet there's a significant twist to all this in Is. 43:1: "I have
called you by your name, because you are mine". It seems like a
slip- we expect God to say that He has called us by
His Name,
because we are His. But no- He wishes us to bear both His Name and our own
name, He doesn't wish to subsume us beneath His ownership and
manifestation to the point that we are not significant as persons.
2Sa 12:29 David gathered all the people together, and went to Rabbah, and
fought against it and took it-
Soon after the sin with Bathsheba, but before David's repentance
(see on :26),
David went to join Joab in the battle for Rabbah- perhaps to give an
impression of zeal to Bathsheba and the rest of his people. 'If brave
Uriah died there, why, I'm not afraid to be with the boys on the front
line either'. After the victory, David proudly placed the crown of
Rabbah's king on his own head, pillaging the spoil of the city rather than
burning it, and then cruelly tortured the Ammonites; "he (David
personally) brought out the people... and cut them with saws, and with
harrows of iron, and with axes" (2 Chron.20:2,3). How true it is that one
sin leads to another. David's own bad conscience with God led him into
this fit of bitterness, in which he so needlessly tortured people who at
the most only warranted a quick death. One is left to imagine him making a
great deal of how he was doing this in vengeance for the death of Uriah.
Whenever we detect unreasonable behaviour, pride, materialism or
bitterness within our own lives, we need to ask to what degree this is
related to our own lack of good conscience with God.
2Sa 12:30 He took the crown of their king from off his head; and its
weight was a talent of gold, and in it were precious stones; and it was
set on David’s head. He brought out the spoil of the city, exceeding much-
"Their king" is literally "Milcom", the name of their god. Later God's
people worshipped this god (Zeph. 1:5; Jer. 49:1); again we see that David
set up subsequent generations for failure by doing this.
The extent of David’s fall at this time may be indicated by the way
he crowns himself in 2 Sam. 12:30 with the 70 pound gold crown of the
Ammonite state god Milcom. Whilst retaining his allegiance to Yahweh, this
personal association with a pagan god seems inappropriate. See on :26.
As explained on Ps. 20:1; 21:1, Psalms 20 and 21 appear to be David's prayers before going into battle against Ammon, and Psalm 21 is his thanksgiving for the victory. The setting of the gold crown upon his head is specifically referenced in Ps. 21:3. This however was straight after his sin with Bathsheba. So David's joy in God's salvation expressed in those Psalms was due to his sense that God had given him this victory by grace when he himself was a sinner. His thanks for giving him eternal life when he put the crown upon him (Ps. 21:4) was therefore in the sense that he believed that despite his sin, he would be eternally saved, and he saw the victory against Ammon as a foretaste of that.
2Sa 12:31 He brought out the people who were therein, and put them under
saws, and under iron picks, and under axes of iron, and made them pass
through the brick kiln: and he did so to all the cities of the children of
Ammon. David and all the people returned to Jerusalem-
See on :26. This harsh torture and judgment of others is of the same
nature as his harsh judgment of the person in Nabal's parable, demanding
the death sentence for a man whom the law of Moses didn't punish with
death for what he did. This is a classic case of transference. David is
subconsciously transferring his sin and guilt onto others, and then
punishing them heavily. This kind of psychological credibility of the
narrative encourages us in our faith that it is indeed the inspired word
of God. His behaviour to the Ammonites suggests to me that his
much praised repentance was either not very deep, or if it was, it didn't
last long.
It’s one thing to obey Divine commands about slaying enemies; it’s another to willfully torture them, Auschwitz-style. It was the same cruelty he showed in 2 Sam. 8:2. These incidents reveal David at his worst. And again- did he really have to ensure that every male in Edom was murdered (1 Kings 11:15,16)- was that really necessary? What about the mums, wives, sisters left weeping, and the fatherless daughters, left to grow up in the dysfunction of a leaderless Middle Eastern home? Those men were all somebody’s sons, brothers, fathers, grandfathers. Was David really obeying some Divine command here, or was this the dictate of his own anger and dysfunctional bloodlust? We get the impression this was another example of his wrong attitude to the shedding of blood (1 Chron. 22:8).
Making them pass through fire in a brick kiln was alluding to how the Ammonites made their children do this to their god Milcom or Moloch; “making their children pass through the fire” in honour of Moloch (2 Kings 23:10). And yet David has just crowned himself with the crown of Milcom. The Ammonites were known for their cruelty (1 Sam. 11:2; Am. 1:13). David was paying them back, like for like. There is no grace here at all. Again we sense he was not very deeply repentant, or if he was, not for very long. And yet God accepted his repentant heart and appears to contrast it with Saul's impenitent heart when he committed in essence the same sins as David, despising God's word etc.
The record concludes with David returning victorious to Jerusalem. The war with Ammon forms an inclusio around the story of his sin with Bathsheba. We would fully expect that the war ends in defeat and humiliation for David. But it ends in victory and glory. Military victory was a sign of covenant relationship with God; and rest from enemies was one of the promises to David in 2 Sam. 7:11. So this victory, totally undeserved as it was, made the point that David remained in covenant relationship with God. He had been restored.
Previous Chapter
