Nathan Condemns David
Study Scripture: 2 Samuel 12: 1 – 7, 13 – 15
Background Scripture: 2 Samuel 12: 1 – 15
Lesson 10 February 7, 2009
Key Verse
And Nathan said to David, Thou art the man….
2 Samuel 12: 7
INTRODUCTION
‘Skeletons in the closet’, secret sins are often like a ‘ticking time bomb’ that will sooner or later explode or be exposed. A fretful period usually ensues soon after ‘the deed’ with an inevitable cover-up which often turns out to be as problematic as the initial sin. Typically, more individuals are drawn into the web of deception and the perpetrator might even wish for discovery to relieve a sense of guilt and a badgering conscience. The believer is to avoid sin, however, if and when it happens the immediate next step should be quick and true repentance.
Repentance (a change of mind with confirming actions) is prominent in our Lesson and is one of the first spiritual acts of all new Christians and one that will be repeated as believers continue their walk with Jesus Christ. It is indispensable in order for the believer to remain in harmony with God and it must be genuine. While there is much that might pass as repentance, even in the Bible, the genuine does have some identifying markers. Among which are for the offender to see sin as a direct affront to the holy God, an acceptance of personal culpability, to ask God’s forgiveness and to parlay subsequent forgiveness to the blessing of others.
In this Study it will be helpful for believers to examine certain things and we list some of them.
1, Should there be a king? Is there is one such who should be a “good” king? We examine this matter with reference to the comment by Samuel the prophet to the people of Israel when they told him that they wanted a king like the other nations. Samuel the prophet spent some time warning the people of Israel of the very unfortunate things that a king would do to them. But we know of course that that did not stop them and therefore God gave them the best person available to them. This person turned out however to be not so good after all.
So what should we expect when we want a king, or a powerful leader to tell us what to do and to rule over us? What are the consequences that we should expect?
2, Is there such a thing as the arrogance of power? We know that power resides in families with parents who wield decision making power, sometimes unwisely, (Scripture warns us not to provoke our children to wrath), in leaders of tribes, and in leaders of the nations.
3. Does the possession of power pretty always make you put yourself out of control whether among, children, families, the church, or the nation?
4. Can you refuse the desires of a king or powerful people? Or will we accept that sex rules our lives and that boys will be boys?
5. What does a “no consent” rule mean when it comes to sexual matters?
6. How good can a human be? Does God therefore have to display human character with all its warts and put it in full display to warn us about something that is in us and which is sometimes uncontrollable? Can a man of God who was a man after God’s own heart be merciless, and engage in shocking behavior? What does our discernment therefore demand of us?
7. Should we be careful about looking where we should not look? Could we follow the example of Job 3:29 and 31:9 who tells us that he did not look at certain things around him to avoid him being tempted?
8. When you make a mistake and it blows up in your face is your plan B likely to make matters worse or better?
One obvious lesson therefore is that we should not look where we should not be looking. The sight of the eyes can be a dangerous thing as our mother Eve found out.
9. What does Jesus’s statement about the second commandment to love our neighbor as ourselves mean? Does this and the other commandments Number 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 warn us about our relationship with others and the seriousness of violating these commandments?
10. What is mercy? And what is compassion? Are these virtues that should govern our behavior at all times? How important are these virtues to God when He looks at believers?
11. When you sin and it is pointed out to you do you try to cover it up, make excuses or do you have a quick response to recognize your sin and repent for it?
12. Do you think that Repentance without excuses increases God’s favorable treatment of you?
13. What about the death of the infant son of David and Bathsheba? Do we learn anything about what happens to infants in this kind of situation when they die?
The Context and our Study in reality runs from 2 Samuel 11:26. As we come to our Text in Chapter 12 we note that David is King of a united-Kingdom (Israel and Judah) with its established capital at Jerusalem. After several campaigns Israel is the dominant military power in the region but there is an active campaign underway against the Ammonites under the direction of General Joab, though now in its final phase. It is springtime, the time for war and Joab has laid siege to the last holdout of the Ammonites. Though a celebrated warrior himself, David elects to remain in the palace rather than endure the rigors of a field campaign; leaving things in the capable and ruthless hands of Joab.
It was a bit unusual for a King not to be on the battlefield leading the troops but with a good general directing his army, a king could stay home to take care of administrative concerns or personal matters. This however can be construed as laziness and dereliction of duty on the part of the monarch since the need for military action is often predominant. King David had such a General in Joab (2 Samuel 8:16). Although not without ethical problems of his own (3:30), Joab was a fierce and unrelenting warrior, at that time very loyal to David.
In a rather telling and meaningful aside we are told that in the time when kings go out to battle state home and David went out to get a nap in the fresh air on his rooftop and when he rubbed his eyes a couple of times he saw a breathtaking view of a gorgeous and quite naked lady taking a bath of sorts on her rooftop. That evening when David sauntered onto the roof of the palace which likely provided a good vantage point on all the surrounding roofs unlike the righteous and cautious Job he looked observingly at this beautiful woman washing herself. The woman was not necessarily completely nude as this might have been a ceremonial washing in fulfillment of the Law. (2 Samuel 11:4). Nor was it necessarily an act of immodesty. She might have been in an enclosure and maybe only partially visible, even to ‘interested’ eyes.
The highest point in Jerusalem was Mount Zion. Next to the Mount on the south side was David’s palace, making his rooftop the second highest position in the small city (probable size: about 2,000 people within 12 acres). This is how David could have observed activity on a nearby rooftop
(2 Samuel 11:2). One writer notes that David could’ve been a gentleman and turned his eyes away but we know that boys, even boys in high places can be boys. So tragedy develops.
The king was smitten with the woman’s beauty and inquired as to her identity. It turns out her name is Bathsheba, wife of Uriah the Hittite, daughter of Eliam and granddaughter of Ahitophel, David’s most ‘trusted’ advisor. Uriah and Eliam are members of David’s elite guard and any affair with Bathsheba would be a shameful betrayal of men who had risked their lives for the king; but such is the way of sin. It should not even have gone this far but David summons the woman to the palace, seduction occurs, David sleeps with her and then sends her home. Maybe David could not help noticing this beautiful woman but he could have turned away.
Among the many issues raised by this event is the one about whether or not there was complicity on the part of Bathsheba or whether she was simply the helpless victim of violence by a powerful and uncontrolled king. We are not told anything about Bathsheba’s feelings about what happened nor her level of complicity or lack of complicity in the affair with David. But the parable gives us some clues as to this issue.
One must however consider the amount of violence against women and whether one can consider them complicit when violence is directed against them by more powerful men or partners. This is of course a burning topic in our modern society. The reaction of God to this certainly gives us some clue as to how God regards this type of violence and the level of terrible consequences that God is quite willing to wield on those that are guilty of this.
Many see covetousness in the King’s action. Christians should note that covetousness is a particularly insidious sin and manifests itself in a wide variety of ways. (2 Pet.2:3; Heb.13:5; Eph.5:3; Luke 12:15).
The King seemed to have pulled off his tryst successfully until things took an alarming turn when word arrived from Bathsheba that she was pregnant. He must’ve known that people in the court knew what he did but were afraid to say anything to him. But clearly he did not really care. David immediately reacted to his sin as outlined in James 1:14-15 – But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.
Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.
David had Uriah the wife of Bathsheba sent home from the battlefront and tried a couple of ploys to cover his sin by having Uriah sleep with his wife but they were thwarted by Uriah’s noble character. He was a soldier’s soldier and he would not leave his men on the battlefield while he enjoyed himself. He seemed to have shown a better understanding of the laws of God and David. Finally, David sent Uriah back to the battlefield and arranged with Joab to set up Uriah’s death to look like a casualty of war. Uriah as well as other soldiers from the nation of Israel were put in the impossible situation and when they were duly killed ‘in the line of duty’ this opened the door for David to now take Bathsheba as his wife and complete the cover-up or so it seemed! Almost a year elapsed and all might have appeared to be well at the palace but we read these ominous words in 2 Samuel 11:27 – “…But the thing that David had done displeased the LORD…”.
Confronting people in authority over wrong-doing is always going to be a challenge. However, within the community of believers, sin should be dealt with promptly and in many instances the approach should not be confrontation but rather ‘a coming alongside to help’ with a view to repentance and restoration, (Matt. 18:15-17; Gal. 6:1; 2:11 – 14). Still, there are instances when confrontation is proper, even public! (1 Timothy 5:19-20).
It is clear that God holds humans accountable (Genesis 3:9–19; 4:6–15; 1 Kings 18; Jer. 21). Sin must be confronted, especially when committed by those in powerful positions. Typically, these are persons particularly blessed by God and so bear a greater responsibility, (Luke 12:48). What happens after confrontation reveals the character of the accused and of God.
God’s intervention comes in a dramatic confrontation involving the king and the prophet Nathan, a confidant of the king. Nathan showed true courage and firm commitment to God in confronting David, the popular and absolute ruler of Israel. David was impetuous, emotional, quick to act and did not take insults lightly.
I
We know this from the incident where David was about to slaughter the rich farmer neighbor named Nabal, his wife Abigail and all their household ( David later married Abigail), when he refused to compensate David for the protection that David and his men are given to him. Abigail stopped David from that terrible sin and later David married her after her husband Nabal died. So we know that given David’s personality the king could have easily had Nathan executed but the prophet had orders from a greater King. Mind you, it probably took a very, very emotional and sensitive person to write the kind of psalms that David did because he could pour out his soul into them for our benefit.
Nathan’s encounter with David in our Study Text at one and the same time assures Christians of God’s forgiveness of our sins and warns them about the dire consequences of sin. For while a gracious and merciful God might forego our chastisement for sin, forgiveness does not mean impunity and often we have to bear the consequences of our sins.
Remember also that the consequences of our sins when we do not show mercy and compassion as is required of the people of God, can spread to our families and all around us.
This raises the issue of the relationship between sin and suffering and this Study Lesson will give us a clue to some special circumstances here so that you must remember that we are dealing with a king anointed by God with whom God will establish a covenant and from whose loins the Messiah would be born.
God will forgive sins on true confession and repentance but the effects of those same sins can negatively impact the lives of our loved ones and others past our generation.
It is also a reminder and a warning to all believers; that even the most mature among us can fall into ‘serious’ sins.
Chapter 11 shows how lust unleashed a chain of events that violated at least four of the Ten Commandments.
While Nathan’s approach might not be the normative Text for dealing with sin in the Church, the effect of his approach is what is important; repentance of the guilty.
There are a number of incidents where prophets confronted kings, (Moses, Jeremiah, Elijah, Micaiah, John the Baptist …) and their approach was anything but subtle, as we see with Nathan.
We must however consider how we should approach gross iniquity in the church. Under the direction of the Holy Spirit we must be prepared to as the book of Revelation tells us we must be prepared as the church in Smyrna (Revelation 2:8-10) to confront those that are false. Note also Jesus’s comment to the faithful but weak church of Philadelphia. Note also the comments to the church at Pergamum which tolerated immorality, idolatry, and heresies.
David’s mind was in a state of turmoil over his sin (Psalm 32) when Nathan visited but he had not yet come to the point of repentance. Despite his adultery, a murder and cover-up, he still had a sense of justice and ethics, and it is to this that Nathan appealed as he related a ‘parable’ to the king, about a rich man, a poor man and an ewe lamb. Unbeknownst to David the parable was about him!
Note, God will not sit idly by when His people are in sin and will bring us to repentance through the natural consequences of our sin or by direct intervention. While at times it might appear He is unconcerned, un-confessed sin will take a toll on the true believer as was the case with David. Believers might escape the censure of others, but the ‘all seeing’ God who discerns the intent of the heart takes notice and holds us accountable. God gives us a long rope but eventually He pulls us in.
I choose the appointed time; it is I who judge uprightly, (Psalm 75:2).
Note also, God will not appeal to the un-repentant sinner forever: “And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man,…” Gen.6:3.
Our Text begins the healing and restoration process of the believer. Immediate repentance should follow sin but better yet, obedience to God’s commandments is the path to peace and harmony with God. There must be no dissembling. Delayed repentance has spiritual, emotional and physically debilitating effects on the believer as we see in the Study Text as well as in David’s expanded confession in two of his psalms which deal specifically with his sin regarding Uriah and Bathsheba, (Psalms 32 and 51).
One scholar points out that in this story the two words used are very important. Bathsheba told David I’m pregnant. When Nathan confrontedDavid and said You are the man in Hebrew it is only two words. When David responded by saying I have sinned against the Lord David used a two word phrase. So we learn that we can communicate a great deal of things with very few words. We do not need to go through a long rigmarole when we are confronted with things for God looks at your heart and wants to see your immediate, meaningful, and brief reaction from your heart.
Let us prayerfully consider our Text as we seek to understand the vital lessons in David’s rebuke, repentance, restoration and chastisement and let us make application to our own walk with God.
We must be prepared as the Apostle Paul points out work out our salvation with fear and trembling for we are dealing with God the Father, the eternal, the pure, righteous God, whose eyes are too pure to look at evil. Stop interacting with sin immediately. We must work at that.
THE TEXT
The author of 2nd Samuel says little about the period between the cover-up of Uriah’s murder and Nathan’s fateful visit to David. David however reflected on this period in Psalm 32 and sheds some light as to what was happening in his heart during this time of rebellion. He apparently spent the intervening months in the conscious sense of having sinned against God but not coming to penitence. Some scholars have calculated from the history known that over a year had transpired before Nathan came to confront David.
We read: Blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered.
Blessed is the man unto whom the LORD imputeth not iniquity, and in whose spirit there is no guile.
When I kept silent, my bones grew old; Through my groaning all the day long. For day and night Your hand was heavy upon me; My vitality was turned into the drought of summer. (Psalm 32:1- 4).
He speaks of the blessedness of one whose transgression is forgiven and all who are in sin must seek this blessedness. But before his confession David was tortured by his conscience. Still, he did not listen to the conviction of the Holy Spirit or to his conscience and so God will send someone to speak to him.
Note, David’s experience and that of all true believers is that God gives no rest from a guilty conscience and this is designed to drive the unrepentant to confession of sin. David’s eventual repentance was not only due to Nathan’s rebuke, but also to the preparatory work God did in his heart, prior to the prophet’s visit.
Verse 1. Chapter 11 ended with the ominous statement, “The thing that David had done displeased the Lord” (11:27) and we might have anticipated the first sentence of chapter 12, the arresting understatement, “the Lord sent Nathan unto David.”
Nothing is known of the prophet Nathan other than what is recorded in conjunction with David’s reign (2 Samuel 7; 1 Kings 1; 1 Chronicles 29:29). Prophets existed in Israel’s history before the monarchy, but their number and role seem to have increased after a human king was enthroned. True prophets were called directly by the Lord (Jeremiah 7:1–8). Among their important roles was to hold Israel’s civil authorities in check (1 Samuel 13:11–14; 1 Kings 21:17–29). All in all, the prophet Nathan demonstrated respect for the Lord’s anointed and fear of the Lord that led him to take on a potentially dangerous mission before King David.
Importantly, we note here that God sent Nathan! God seeks His errant children in a variety of ways and move circumstances to bring them to repentance. About a year had passed since the events of Chapter 11 and during that time a child was born from David and Bathsheba’s adultery. God would eventually ‘strike’ the child. God waited patiently for David to confess his sin and when he did not, it was confrontation time.
This is an example of the marvellous grace of God. He was patient while David lost his joy, felt inferior, miserable, insecure, unstable, empty and oppressed by his guilt. But despite this David did not confess.
God sent the prophet Nathan to confront a popular king that wielded absolute authority and to charge him with adultery and murder. This was a risky confrontation, for David had the power to execute Nathan for accusing him openly of idolatry and murder; an accusation that would be tantamount to calling on the nation to execute David. (Leviticus 20:10; 24:17).
Interestingly, Nathan is a friend and confidant of the king (2 Sam. 5:14; 7:1-7; 12:25) but we are unsure of how and when he learned of the whole affair. Still His words are in reality the very words of God as he related a Parable to the king. It is a simple story about a beloved, pet ewe lamb that was owned by a poor man but which caught the fancy of a rich man that lived in the same city.
Unlike a typical Bible Parable, this one was not intended to directly in itself teach a particular lesson or send a message. Nathan’s story, which was crafted by the Holy Spirit, was told to evoke a particular response from the emotional and sometimes impulsive King. The story is very well conceived; what with David being a former shepherd, he himself might well have had a pet lamb he played with to pass the lonely days out in the wilderness.
Nathan could have chosen a more direct approach to confront David, but he chose to start with a parable. Old Testament prophets often used metaphors and symbolism to speak against evil in their nation (Isaiah 5:1–7; Jeremiah 2:20–30) or even to entrap the king with his own ruling
(2 Samuel 14:1–20; 1 Kings 20:35–43).
The description of two men in one city primed David for a story of conflict. The fact that one was rich, and the other poor further heightened the likelihood of conflict, especially of injustice based on disparity of power.
Unlike in North America where dogs are an integral part of the family and are treated as such, people in the Near East consider dogs as filthy but kept other animals as pets. In that part of the world a pet lamb was a well sought-after pet.
Verse 2. … a great many flocks and herds. … But the poor man had nothing at all except one little ewe lamb … since farm animals were an indication of wealth (1 Samuel 25:2), the difference in power and status between the two men was made more apparent from the description of what both men possessed.
Nathan’s choice of flocks and herds as the principal indicator of wealth likely resonated with David, who grew up tending sheep (16:11; 2 Samuel 7:8). It also set up the potential conflict between the two as more emotional than if only gold was at stake.
…, and lay in his bosom, and was unto him as a daughter… with expert rhetorical flair, Nathan piled on more detail about the nearness and dearness of the one little ewe lamb to the poor man. The idea is that this man was poor and had nothing. The lamb was a special pet to the poor man. It ate his food, sat in his lap, grew up with his children and was like a daughter to him. The treatment of this pet lamb was much the same as the way many North Americans treat their dogs.
David had protected his father’s sheep fiercely (1 Samuel 17:34–35). Nathan’s story would have stirred David’s sympathies even before the crime was revealed. The prophet likely knew that David was a man of strong emotions.
Nathan’s story also might contain hints at its meaning. That the sheep lay in the man’s bosom recalls that David lay with Bathsheba (2 Samuel 11:4). That the sheep was unto him as a daughter also hints at Bathsheba, whose name means something like “daughter of abundance.” For those in the know, it’s obvious what Nathan is getting at but still not to David (vs. 5–6).
Verse 4. Now a visitor came to the wealthy man, … in the days before hotels and restaurants, it was unremarkable for a traveller to seek room and board from a private citizen. Any virtuous person, wealthy or not, in the ancient world practiced hospitality to prevent a stranger from becoming the victim of violence (Genesis 19:1–11; Judges 19:16–28).
The only drama is this very simple story occurs here. A traveller or visitor drops in on the rich man unexpectedly and as the host he was obliged to provide his guest with a meal. He then seized the poor man’s pet lamb and made a meal of it for his visitor, rather than use an animal from his own extensive flocks. So, the poor man ended up providing the meal for the rich man’s guest and loosing his only animal which was like a daughter to him. This was a naked display of power and authority over the helpless. It was callous and outrageous behavior by any standard.
Without stretching the parable beyond its intended limits, we might conclude that Uriah and Bathsheba dearly loved each other. But here love does not cover a multitude of sins. Some feel that she was not a willing participant in David’s sin. Some disagree strongly. David’s outrageous abuse of royal authority ‘in sending’ for Bathsheba, going to bed with her and taking her as his wife after Uriah’s murder is paralleled here in the parable.
The story presents the taking of the poor man’s lamb as a theft and in a very real sense. David callously and knowingly took by stealth someone else’s ‘property’, a man’s wife.
Verses 5 – 6. The difference in status and resources between the two men, combined with the rich man’s heartless action, made the guilt of the rich man appallingly clear. David’s initial instinct as judge was to pass the death sentence on the man for his egregious behavior, which ironically would be appropriate for both adultery and murder (Exodus 21:12; Leviticus 20:10), but not theft (Exodus 22:1–15; exceptions: 21:16; 22:2).
Perhaps talking to the prophet and realizing that death was not a prescribed punishment for the theft of a lamb, no matter how precious, David gave a more realistic verdict. Fourfold recompense is the stipulated penalty in Exodus 22:1 for stealing a sheep.
… David’s anger burned greatly against the man … the kingtook Nathan’s parable literally and his reaction is almost predictable. After all, this is the man that was on his way to wipe out all the males in Nabal’s clan when he thought he had been disrespected (1Sam. 25:34). Despite the turmoil in his own mind over the cover-up and lack of repentance for his sin, he expressed ‘righteous’ indignation over what he saw as the theft and heartless behaviour of the rich man. It seemed his sense of justice survived this period of rebellion and in anger he invoked God’s name and declared the rich man deserved to die.
Are you like that? Are you quick to see the splinter in somebody else’s eye and ignore the beam in your own eye?
David’s ire was raised by what he saw as the criminal act of stealing the lamb and then the lack of compassion in the slaughter of the poor man’s lamb. Fact is neither of these offences carried the death penalty. This man was not under the penalty of death according to the Mosaic law. Whether prompted by the fact he was talking to a prophet or a rediscovered appreciation of the law, he quickly cited the penalty the law prescribed for stealing a sheep. A four- fold restitution was to be made by the offender (Exodus 22:1).
David’s outburst indicates that though he very well knew the stipulation in the Law, he was probably quite prepared to use his royal authority to execute the man. This type of outrage probably was one of the nails in his coffin so to speak and probably laid the groundwork for the kind of punishment he would undergo. He would now experience some of the outrage of God because of his outrageous behavior.
While David is irate over the rich man’s lack of compassion, he fails to see his own lack of compassion by his abuse of royal authority in sleeping with Uriah’s wife, while ignoring his well stocked harem.
This is an example of how quickly sin can blind even a man like David and sends a chilling warning to Christians who would venture down that road. Even the Pharisees were able to see themselves in Jesus’ parables (Matt.21:45) but Nathan’s parable went over David’s head.
David did not sin in ignorance. He knew the Law well, down to the penalty for sheep stealing. He also knew his own sin but stubbornly resisted confession.
David like many of us was prepared to uphold the Law as long as it did not apply to him or to us.
Verses 7 – 8. Clues in the surrounding Text indicate that this conversation between Nathan and David took place at least nine months after the offenses occurred on the occasion of the child’s birth (vs. 14–15). If we calculate that it would take some months before Bathsheba realized she was pregnant and then advised David, and then David needed time to plan bringing Uriah to Jerusalem, and with that failing plan David had to devise the plan with Joab to have Uriah killed, and the child from the adultery dying, it is probably very likely that Nathan came to David at the end of maybe two years after the event. David’s ploy appeared to have held up through these months though internally he was taking a ‘beating’ from his conscience. Suddenly and maybe mercifully Nathan yanked open the ‘closet’ and the king stood exposed before an all-knowing, all-seeing God (Psalms 11:4–7; 139:7–12). David himself was the rich man.
The king’srant to Nathan’s story totally unmasked and exposed his sin, since the circumstances in the parable paralleled his situation with Uriah and Bathsheba. It was a simple but powerful story and drew the desired response from the king. If David over-stated the penalty for the culprit in the parable, that penalty was certainly deserved in his case.
… You yourself are the man! … Nathan then spoke one of the most dramatic sentences in all of Scripture: Thou art the man!.
Nathan did not visit David only as God’s spokesman, he came to David as his friend.
Faithful are the woundsof a friend, But deceitful are the kisses of an enemy (Proverbs 27:6).
Note, while in other Scriptures, the erring believer is to be approached in a spirit of humility, there is a place for direct confrontation as we see here. In each instance, the objective is to bring the believer to confession, repentance and reconciliation, (Galatians 2:14).
Nathan prefaced his comments with a “…Thus saith the LORD God of Israel…” then proceeded to remind David of all the great things God had done for him. David might have become conceited and forgotten who took him from following sheep to be king over Israel. He had clearly become slack concerning his normal duties (2 Sam.11:1) and his attitude in having Bathsheba brought to the king’s palace was rank arrogance.
The prophet outlined several things that God did for David:
– Anointed you king
– Delivered you from the hand of Saul. This was done several times when Saul chased after David with 3000 soldiers.
– Gave you your master’s house and your master’s wives
– Gave you the house of Israel and Judah
And the list of blessings does not stop there! God gave David the promise of an ongoing dynasty and a name like the greatest men on earth (2 Samuel 7:9). How much more could David possibly want?
And if that had been too little, the Lord had more to give!
Note, these things were not one-time events but marked God’s gracious and merciful dealings with David from his very youth and all through his life.
…thy master’s wives … God gave him absolute power over Saul’s possessions and as it was the custom for the new king to succeed even to the wives and concubines, the whole harem of the deceased king. Absalom publicly had sexual intercourse with David’s concubines (2 Sam.16:21-22) to show that he had seized the throne from his father, because the wives of the preceding belonged to the succeeding king. As it turned out, according to 1 Sam. 14:50, Saul had only one wife and only one concubine
2 Sam.3:7.
Verse 9.A sharp and bitter contrast is painted between God’s wonderful blessings on David in the use of the pronoun “I” for God in verses 11 and 8 and “you” for David shown in his sinful response to God’s blessings here. Instead of natural thanksgiving, his reaction was to be contemptuous of God’s commandments. This is the same man that wrote: The commandment of the LORD is pure, enlightening the eyes, (Psalm 19:8).
… You have struck and killed Uriah… you have taken his wife … the enormity of his sin is detailed in an unsparing manner and showed its aggravated nature and thus set the stage for the dreadful consequences that are to follow. Nathan told David plainly what he had done. “…The sword of the children of Ammon…” the fact that Uriah was set up to be killed by the Ammonites, the enemies of the people of God, added to the wickedness the deed.
David had nowhere to hide for he was told plainly the terrible things that he had done. He was told forthrightly by the brave and fearless Nathan that he violated the main requirements of a king made plain in Deuteronomy 17:18-20.
Disobeying the Lord in the face of such extravagant evidence of favor was a wicked, sinful betrayal. In the course of events, David had violated the foundational commandments against coveting, adultery, and murder (Exodus 20:13–14, 17).
…Uriah the Hittite… for the first time, Nathan named Uriah the Hittite. He called Bathsheba only Uriah’s wife, not by her own name, emphasizing that David hast taken a wife who was not his to take (vs.15).
Verses 10-12.Now then, the sword shall never leave your house, because you have despised Me and have taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be your wife.’
11. This is what the Lord says: ‘Behold, I am going to raise up evil against you from your own household; I will even take your wives before your eyes and give them to your companion, and he will sleep with your wives in [h]broad daylight.
12. Indeed, you did it secretly, but I will do this thing before all Israel, and [i]in open daylight.’”
The consequences listed fit the crime. Because David had Uriah murdered by the sword of the children of Ammon, the sword represents military violence, the same would torment his own household
(13:29; 18:14; 1 Kings 2:24–25). Since he took the wife of another man to be his own, someone close to him would now take his wives (2 Samuel 16:21–22).
We should note carefully what it means to ‘despise’ (vs. 9) (hold in contempt / disdain) the word of the Lord. David despised the word of the Lord and thus despised the Lord Himself. One writer explains: “He trampled on four of the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20:1-17) in this affair. Everyone in Israel, if they knew anything, knew the Ten Commandments.
The sixth commandment is unambiguous; “You shall not murder”.
The seventh: “You shall not commit adultery”.
The ninth: “You shall not give false testimony (lie)”.
The tenth: “You shall not covet”.
Nathan was saying, “You despised the word of the Lord. There was no ignorance. You did mean to do what you were doing. You decided to be God yourself and to affront the God of heaven.”
Note, Christians are very liable to this type of aggravated sin in light of the many wonderful promises God has made to us. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more, (Luke 12:48).
Now therefore…in light of the terrible nature of the sin, the punishment will be fitting and intensified. The violence and bloodshed exacted on Uriah will come ‘home’ to David. Violence and bloodshed will be a recurring event in David’s house and manifested among his children.
David demanded a four-fold restitution for the theft in Nathan’s parable. He will make a four-fold restitution of his own sons. The child born from his adultery will die and his sons Amnon, Absalom and Adonijah will die violently. Besides this sexual impropriety would abound in his family. His son Ammon would sexually force his daughter Tamar, his son Absalom would violate the royal harem, and his son Adonijah would commit the sin of trying to claim his deceased father’s concubine.
This was not the restitution Moses had in mind in Exodus 22:1, but this was the application that the Lawgiver made in this case.
David took Bathsheba in secret but his wives will be taken publicly before his own eyes and the eyes of all of Jerusalem. This scandalous act will be perpetrated by his own son Absalom (thy neighbour). One writer comment on these verses in part:
“David’s twofold sin was to be followed by a twofold punishment. For his murder he would have to witness the commission of murder in his own family, and for his adultery the violation of his wives, and both of them in an intensified form. As his sin began with adultery, and was consummated in murder, so the law of just retribution was also carried out in the punishment, in the fact that the judgments which fell upon his house commenced with Amnon’s incest, whilst Absalom’s rebellion culminated in the open violation of his father’s concubines, and even Adonijah lost his life, simply because he asked for Abishag the Shunammite, who had lain in David’s bosom to warm and cherish him in his old age (1 Kings 2:23-24)”.
Note God’s view of disobedience or God’s view of sin. To disobey God is to despise (to hold in contempt, disdain) His word. To despise God’s word is to despise God. Is this your view of sin?
Verse 13. … I have sinned against the Lord …prophets often spoke truth to power only to find that power was not willing to listen (1 Kings 18:16–18; Jeremiah 36:1–26) or made excuses (1 Samuel 15:13–21). But unlike Saul before him, David offered no excuses. Nor did he lash out at Nathan for denouncing him. Instead, he confessed the awful truth in the plainest of language. Had he not sinned first against the Lord, the rest—Uriah, Bathsheba and the countless others who would be affected by the consequences of his actions would not have become his victims.
But despite his horrendous sin, David still sets a much-needed example for Christians in his confession and repentance. There is true and false repentance. False repentance is from the Devil and can be seen in Saul (1 Samuel 15:24, 30; 26:21), Judas (Matt.27:4) and some who came to John’s baptism (Matt.3:5-9). True repentance is from God and its characteristics are easily seen in David’s confession here and amplified in Psalm 51.
Have mercy upon me, O God, according to thy lovingkindness: according unto the multitude of thy tender mercies blot out my transgressions.
Wash me thoroughly from mine iniquity, and cleanse me from my sin.
For I acknowledge my transgressions: and my sin is ever before me.
Against thee, thee only, have I sinned, and done this evil in thy sight: that thou mightest be justified when thou speakest, and be clear when thou judgest. (1 – 4).
The truly repentant call sin, sin. They do not make excuses, give explanations, see themselves as victims or minimize their deeds. To them sin is not a mistake, an error, a mess-up, an indiscretion, or a problem; sin is sin! They understand that God is holy and sin is essentially against Him.
[elaborate on sin, rebellion, trangress, abomination]
God’s words ripped through David’s resistance and his confession comes in few words as was the case of the publican (Luke 18:13). He made no excuse, no cloaking, no palliation of the sin. One commentator note: “There is no searching for a loophole… no pretext put forward, no human weakness pleaded. He acknowledges his guilt openly, candidly, and without prevarication”.
Ultimately, his sin was against God, God alone. This is not to diminish the evil he did to Uriah and Bathsheba. Sin is the breaking of God’s law, and in this sense, all sin is against God, for it breaks His laws. Crimes are offences against people, but sin (in this highly specific sense) is only against God, in that it breaks His laws.
David knew the law. Murder and adultery were sins that carried capital punishment and he knew that he deserved to die. A flood of relief must have swept over him then when Nathan uttered the comforting words: “The LORD also hath put away thy sin; thou shalt not die”.
Note that God is gracious and merciful and also a God of justice. He neither ignores nor overlooks sin but from the Garden of Eden to Jesus’ Second Coming He forgives the sins of the penitent based on Jesus’ sacrifice on Calvary. This is the only basis for the forgiveness of sins.
… hath put away thy sin… means his sins had been transferred. Although the transfer would happen centuries later at Jesus’ crucifixion, Nathan spoke of the transfer as though it was a past event. Such is the certainty of God’s promises and plans that Old Testament prophets often used the past tense to speak of a future event. The fact is that when God promises to do something, it is as good as done.
So, David was spared immediate death and eternal death or separation from God, because Christ would die for his sins on the cross of Calvary.
Notice that God’s forgiveness followed immediately after David’s confession—in the same verse
(v. 13)! Where sin abounded, grace did much more abound, (Rom. 5:20)!
We might think it unfair, especially from the perspective of Uriah’s family or the soldiers killed at Rabbah, that forgiveness is given so easily. Yet forgiveness is always unfair: that is what makes it grace
Psalm 32:3-4 probably records David’s misery during the time between his sinning and his confessing. When I kept silence, my bones waxed old through my roaring all the day long. For day and night thy hand was heavy upon me: my moisture is turned into the drought of summer.
This psalm and especially Psalm 51, gives further insight into David’s feelings when he confessed his sins. God spared David’s life by pure grace; normally David should have died for his sins (Lev. 20:10; 24:17). His pardon came as a special revelation from God through Nathan (12:13). David’s confession was genuine. He called his sin what it was rather than trying to cover it up or explain it away, which was Saul’s typical response. Moreover, he acknowledged that his sin was primarily against Yahweh, not just against Bathsheba and Uriah (Prov. 10:17).
Note that just as judges commute sentences in our day, so God has the right and the power to commute sentences. God does not as always do that but when he does, He reserves the right to ensure that consequences follow for discipline and instruction.
Verse 14. His relief is short-lived (vs.13) for though the sin was forgiven; he was about to start bearing the consequences. Here he is reminded of another aspect of the outrageous nature of his sin. “…by this deed thou hast given great occasion to the enemies of the LORD to blaspheme…”
As king in Israel, David brought dishonor not only to himself but also to God. Not only had David’s sin of adultery snowballed into murder; it would cause enemies who did not honor the Lord (and possibly even people within Israel) to blaspheme Him all the more (Matthew 18:6–7)! Far from shepherding the people to greater faithfulness to their God, David had demonstrated blatant disregard for God’s standards.
Elsewhere, the apostle Paul instructs Timothy, that elders, those church leaders whose lives are publicly under scrutiny — who persist in their sin are to be corrected publicly, so that all will learn
(1 Timothy 5:19-20). God is very concerned about his reputation. He works in such a way as to instruct not only men who look on, but also angels who do likewise (Exodus 32:9-14; 34:10; Eph. 3:8-10).
“The Name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you, just as it is written”
(Romans 2:21-24).
… the child himself who is born to you shall certainly die.” … the death of this innocent child is stunning as punishment for David’s sin. But while it may seem to go against God’s own declaration that He does not punish the child for the parent’s sin (Deuteronomy 24:16; Ezekiel 18:20), we need not assume that the child’s death was a form of punishment for the baby. His death along with the record of Nathan’s prophecy would be concrete evidence to the nation that the Lord saw David’s sin and took it seriously. This example would, ideally, cause them to take their own sins seriously, knowing that God did not spare even His chosen king from discipline.
The tragic death of David’s son is a consequence of David’s sin, but it is not the penalty David deserves for his sin. The penalty for adultery and murder is death, on each count. Nathan made it very clear that David’s sin was “taken away.” The death of this child is a painful consequence of David’s sin, but it is not punishment for his sin, per se. That punishment has been taken away, borne by the Lord Jesus Christ.
David told us that after the death of this son with Bathsheba he would go to where the child was for the child could not come to him. We know that the righteous go into the bosom of Abraham when they die and so we know that this child was in the bosom of Abraham and would see David there.
This text therefore gives comfort to those fathers and mothers of infants and young children who have died before the age of accountability.
We point out that Moses spoke of this age of accountability in Deuteronomy 1:39. Isaiah 7 also refers to this age of accountability. But Moses stated the principle that God follows when he spoke to Israel about who would bear the sins done by the parents which would prevent them from entering the land of Canaan:
Moreover your little ones and your children, who you say will be victims, who today have no knowledge of good and evil, they shall go in there; to them I will give it, and they shall possess it”.
We cannot lose light of the fact however that God would not hello this child of Bathsheba’s to ascend to the throne after his death. The next child born to David and Bathsheba was Jedediah otherwise called Solomon. The name given to him was beloved of the Lord. So God had His plans and God knew what He wanted to happen. One cannot therefore say that the child died was powerfully hurt for we know that that Chan went into Abraham’s bosom when he died. Abraham’s bosom was a place of happiness to which the Old Testament saints of God went at death.
God would not ignore David’s sin and thus let unbelievers impugn the holiness of His character.
David impugned Yahweh’s holiness by practicing sins that the neighbor pagan gods “permitted.” The pagans around Israel, who heard about David’s sins, would have said: “David did just what our kings do, and his God did not punish him any more than our gods punish our sinful kings.” Thus David reduced Yahweh’s reputation for holiness (differentness, including moral purity) in the eyes of the Lord’s “enemies.” This constituted blasphemy of Yahweh (cf. Matt. 6:9c; Luke 11:2b). Thus the child also that is born unto thee shall surely die.
One writer advises: “Let us, like Job, ‘make a covenant with our eyes’ not to look on that which is seductive, lest, weaker than we suppose ourselves to be, we should give way to sin, and thereby heap sharp thorns into our bosom”.
Verse 15. Nathan, prophet of God and David’s friend, having taken his life into his hands and having fulfilled his responsibility in both capacities left the king and returned to his home. David’s grief began almost immediately it seems. We read that the Lord struck the child and he became sick. A few verses later we read that the child died, despite David’s prayers, fasting and entreaties to God to spare the child’s life.
The narrative continued and we learn that David prayed for the child’s recovery, lying on the ground as Uriah had previously slept (11:9, 11). However, when God took the child’s life, David knew the time for praying was over. The child died seven days after the Lord struck him (v. 18). David may have seen the child’s death as an act of God, rather than as a normal death, since the Jews associated seven days with divine acts, such as the Creation. David knew where his child would go at death and therefore he could not be unhappy at this.
David response was to worship God (v. 20) by accepting God’s judgment, submitting to God’s will and not becoming bitter or retaliatory over God’s treatment. The fact that “he ate” (v. 21) shows that he went on with his life; he did not show displeasure with the Lord by morbidly dwelling on the child’s death.
CONCLUSION
Stop what you are doing! Do not even think about it! Control your eyes!
Our Text strikes a chilling warning to all who would step on the slippery slope of the pursuit of ‘fleshly’ or worldly lust. From the most mature to the ‘babe in Christ’, once in the grip of sin, it is a downward spiral to shame, grief and chastisement and this is the true nature of sin.
Covetousness often results in a craven grasp for that which is not ours and as a result we despise God and His word. We might be tempted to presume on His forgiveness. But note, even if forgiven, the pleasure or gain which we imagine may be had from any sin, is not nearly worth the price we eventually pay for sin.
It is to be noted that Scripture clearly suggests that after this incident David was never again a great king. He was still a competent ruler and a brilliant general but his troubles multiplied and he behaved as if he has lost moral authority. He seemed unable to deal morally with his children and others around him. He died of a good old age but he died a sick broken man who could not experience the pleasures of women as he had been accustomed to a little bit before this event. When David was cold and they needed someone to keep him warm, they selected a young tender virgin lay beside David to give him warmth. But David felt nothing.
When we commit grievous sins, we are warned that we more often than not lose our moral authority.
Christians must be mindful that sin leaves enduring scars. In a sort of summary of David’s life the writer of 1 Kings noted: Because David did what was right in the sight of the LORD, and had not turned aside from anything that He commanded him all the days of his life, except in the case of Uriah the Hittite (1 Kings 15:5).
Every one of us needs to be asked this question.
Are you presently being confronted with the words of Scripture by a Nathan?
Is what happened to David after his sin the same as what is happening to you or, are you covering up successfully?
Your response like that of David should be very simple.
God sees our secret sins and if discipline is delayed, it is to give even more time for us to repent. Repentance is clearly a work of God and He brings it about through the work of the Holy Spirit, His word and His people. He used Nathan to confront David with his sin. He uses His Word and His Spirit to convict sinners of their sin. Discipline is never pleasant, so we should avoid it by not sinning. But if we sin, let us confess and repent quickly.
We might find it difficult to talk to people about their sin. The Bible however gives us clear instructions about our obligation toward a brother or sister who appears to have fallen into sin
(Matthew 7:1-5; 18:15-20; 1 Corinthians 5:1-13; Galatians 6:1-5; 1 Thessalonians 5:14; 2 Thessalonians 3:14-15; 2 Timothy 2:23-26; Titus 3:9-11; James 5:19-20).
Sadly, too few really want to be a “Nathan” to a “David,” but this is the normal means God has appointed for dealing with sin, or for encouraging the sinner to repent. Nathan was never a better friend to David than when he pointed out his sin and prepared the way for his repentance.
Be a Nathan today! Commit yourself to be a Nathan!