SS Lesson Archive Week 4

Fairview Baptist Church
2040 Main Street WW - Ashland, Kentucky 41102
"Where Everybody Is Somebody and Jesus is Lord"

3. According to verse 2, what was David doing? How would you describe David’s mental state at this moment?

4. Do you think David was resting on the “laurels” of his success? Why, or why not?

11. Why do you think David—a devoted follower of God—continued to pursue Bathsheba after he discovered she was married?

18. When David’s first attempt to cover up his sin didn’t work, what did he do (vv. 14-15)?

21. Do you think David could have stopped at any point? If so, why do you think he did not stop but persisted in his sin?

9. Based on verses 10-12 what were the consequences of David’s sin as God stated them through the prophet?

11. When have you seen sin’s tragic consequences play out in a person’s life?

12. Does fear of sin’s consequences provide encouragement to stand against temptation? If so, how, if not, why not?

13. Would you rather confront someone about his or her sin or be confronted by someone about your own sin? Explain.

16. Is it necessary for us to have someone to help us confront our sin? If so, why? If not, why not?

17. What are some of the repercussions caused by failing to confess and forsake sin?

18. What are some practical steps we can take to cultivate a sensitivity to sin that calls us to immediate confession when we sin?

3. Do you believe every sin is first and foremost a sin against the Lord? Why, or why not?

12. Do you believe our sins don’t hurt just us but others as well? Why, or why not?

13. Do you believe we should always consider the consequences of our decisions before we act? Why, or why not?

14. Why do you think we often try to rationalize our sinful behavior as if it were not sinful?

15. What are the three principles of dealing with personal sin?
Why is confession and repentance necessary for a person to be forgiven?

17. In what sense is every sin against God and yet some sins are against other people?

20. What we can gain from these verses that will help us deal with sin in our lives?

Lesson Outline, Introduction, Discussion Questions, and Conclusion adapted from the following sources:

SOURCE: Bible Studies For Life: Life Ventures Leaders Guide; LifeWay Christian Resources of the Southern Baptist Convention; Nashville, TN 37234

SOURCE: The Herschel Hobbs Commentary; Family Bible Study; by Robert J. Dean; LifeWay Christian Resources of the Southern Baptist Convention; 1 LifeWay Plaza, Nashville, TN.

SOURCE: Advanced Bible Study; LifeWay Christian Resources of the Southern Baptist Convention; One LifeWay Plaza, Nashville, TN.

COMMENTARY:

(NOTE: Commentary for the focal verses comes from three sources: “The Expositor’s Bible Commentary Old Testament,” “The Old Testament Survey Series: The Books Of History” and “The Treasury of David; Psalms 1-57,” and is provided for your study.)

I. Recognize that Temptation Leads to Sin (2 Sam. 11:2-5,14-15) Commentary

Although chapter 11 is a discrete unit in a larger complex consisting of chapters 10-12 (see comment on 10:1-19), references to David, Joab, the Ammonites, Rabbah, and Jerusalem in 11:1 and in 12:26-31 make it likely that chapters 11-12 constitute an integral section within that complex. A close reading of the section produces the following chiastic outline:

In the course of his downward slide from temptation into sin, David manages to disobey three of the Ten Commandments: “You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife”; “You shall not commit adultery”; “You shall not murder” (Exod 20:17, 14, 13). His execrable conduct in chapter 11 is a parade example of the truths expressed in James 1:14-15: “Each one is tempted when, by his own evil desire, he is dragged away and enticed. Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death.”

11:1 “The story of David and Bathsheba has long aroused both dismay and astonishment; dismay that King David, with his manifest piety, could stoop to such an act, and astonishment that the Bible narrates it with such unrelenting openness, although the person involved is David, the great and celebrated king, the type of the Messiah” (Hertzberg, p. 309). David’s sin against Bathsheba, while described in the most laconic fashion imaginable, is none the less significant for all that. Indeed, “the David-Bathsheba episode ... is pivotal to our understanding of his reign.”

The story, continuing the account begun in chapter 10, is set “in the spring, at the time when kings go off to war” (v. 1; cf. 1 Kings 20:22, 26). “The month of March, named after Mars the Roman god of war, affords a parallel.” Springtime, which marks the end of the rainy season in the Middle East, assures that roads will be in good condition (or at least passable), that there will be plenty of fodder for war horses and pack animals, and that an army on the march will be able to raid the fields for food. Less likely is the theory that “the spring” (lit., “the [re]turn of the year”) in this case refers to “a particular historical date (one year after the kings of Aram went forth to join the Ammonites against Israel)” (1 Chronicles 19:9).

David “sent” (v. 1; for the importance of shlh in chs. 10-12, and for its importance in ch. 11 in particular) his army commander Joab, his “men” (lit., “servants,” doubtless the mercenary troops), and the “whole Israelite army” (the tribal muster) to continue the battle against Ammon. The result is the mass slaughter of the Ammonites and the siege of Rabbah, their capital city, the reduction and capture of which is yet to come (cf. 12:26-29).

The narrator thus leaves the impression that every able-bodied man in Israel goes to war—everyone, that is, except the king himself: “But David remained in Jerusalem.” The contrast between David and his men could hardly be expressed in starker terms. Staying home in such situations was not David’s usual practice, of course (cf. 5:2; 8:1-14; 10:17). Indeed, leading his troops into battle was expected to be the major external activity of an ancient Near Eastern ruler (see 1 Sam 8:5-6, 20). Although therefore reprehensible in itself, David’s conduct on this occasion opens the way for royal behavior that is more despicable still.

11:2-5 Yet another contrast is now in evidence: Although King David’s army marches off to war “at the time when kings” do so (v. 1), King David himself gets out of bed “one evening” (v. 2; lit., “at the time of evening”). Perhaps because of the oppressive heat of a spring sirocco, he has apparently lengthened his afternoon siesta into the cooler part of the day (cf. Gen 24:11). Getting up “from” (lit., “from upon”) his bed and taking a stroll, “from” (lit., “from upon”) the roof of his palace he sees a woman bathing. As Bailey notes, the other occurrences of hthlk (“walked around”) used of David occur in contexts with a negative flavor, and we are therefore probably justified in assuming that here as well “some questionable conduct is about to occur” (cf. 1 Sam 23:13 [“moving from place to place”]; 25:15 [“were”]; 30:31 [“roamed”]). The roof of the royal palace in Jerusalem would later become the focus of yet another sinful act (cf. 16:22; cf. similarly Dan 4:29-30; see also 1 Sam 9:25-26).

“Remember all the commands of the LORD, that you may obey them and not prostitute yourselves by going after the lusts of your own hearts and eyes” (Num 15:39). Failing to heed the warning expressed in that and/or similar texts, David “saw” a woman (v. 2) and wanted her. Concerning Matthew 5:29, Bruce observes that “Matthew places this saying immediately after Jesus’s words about adultery in the heart, and that is probably the original context, for it provides a ready example of how a man’s eye could lead him into sin.”

The woman David sees is “very beautiful,” which translates a Hebrew phrase reserved for people of striking physical appearance (e.g., Rebekah [Gen 24:16; 26:7], Vashti [Esth 1:11], Esther [Esth 2:7], and—not to discriminate against men—David himself [see 1 Sam 16:12, where a cognate Heb. expression is used]). The woman David sees is bathing, and the sight of her naked body arouses him. His virgin-conceived descendant would one day condemn such voyeurism for the sin that it is: “Anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart” (Matt 5:28).

For now, however, the heat of an unusually warm spring day has not only extended David’s normal siesta period and then brought him outdoors for a refreshing walk on the palace roof; it has also forced the woman to bathe outside to escape the suffocatingly hot atmosphere of her house. Such heat makes people more susceptible to sexual encounters, and in his vulnerability David succumbs. Continuing the use of a key verb as established earlier in the chapter, the narrator states that David “sent” (v. 3) someone to find out about the woman and then, having learned her identity, “sent” (v. 4) messengers to get her.

In addition to simply stating her given name—Bathsheba (“Daughter of an Oath” or “Daughter of Seven” [i.e., perhaps “Seventh Daughter/Child”])—the man sent to identify the woman tells David that she is the daughter of Eliam (given the variant name Ammiel in 1 Chronicles 3:5) and the wife of Uriah the Hittite (v. 3). The rhetorical “Isn’t this Bathsheba?” perhaps intentionally echoes the earlier “Isn’t this David?” (cf. 1 Sam 21:11; 29:3, 5). The reference to Eliam probably reflects Bathsheba’s upper-class pedigree, because Eliam was the son of Ahithophel (23:34), who was in turn David’s counselor (see 15:12). Since Eliam was one of David’s warriors and thus perhaps a foreign mercenary, and since Bathsheba is listed along with the pagan ancestresses of Jesus (Matt 1:3-6), we “have to reckon with the possibility that [she] was of non-Israelite origin.”

As for Uriah the Hittite, in spite of his mercenary status as another of David’s warriors (cf. 23:39) he was apparently a worshiper of the Lord (his name probably means “Yahweh Is My Light”). Like Ahimelech the Hittite before him (see 1 Sam 26:6), Uriah depends on his master David for sustenance and support. In return he gives total loyalty to “king, nation, and fellow warriors.... This loyalty of a foreigner is emphasized twice more in the behavior of Ittai and Hushai.” An attempt to define Uriah’s Hittite origins is made, among others, by Richard H. Beal: “Although Uriah may have been a free-lance soldier from one of the numerous north-Syrian Syro-Hittite states, he more likely was a descendant of those Hittite refugees who more than a century earlier had settled in the land of Palestine, in flight from the collapsing Hittite Empire.”

It is the wife of this trusted servant that David is about to violate, and v. 4 mercifully tells the story in the briefest possible compass. Master of all he surveys, David has everything—and yet does not have enough. David sends messengers to “get” (lit., “take”) her. “The ironic contrast with 2 Sam 2-4 is marked: the king who was content to be given his kingdom must seize by force (against Uriah if not Bathsheba) a wife.” Upon being summoned, Bathsheba “came to him, and he slept with her” (v. 4; cf. the same Heb. idiom in Gen 19:34 [“go in and lie with him”]; the verb bo’ [“enter,” “come in”] is often used by itself [governing various prepositions] with the nuance “have sexual intercourse,” although a man is almost always the subject). The parallel section near the end of the narrative repeats the scene, but this time David is the subject of both verbs: “He went [lit., ‘came’] to her and lay with her” (12:24). If in the latter case Bathsheba is already David’s wife, in the former the relationship is blatantly adulterous. “Gratifying the desire conceived as he walked about on his palace roof (wayyithallek 11:2), David lies with the wife of a trusted and trusting servant (wayyishkab ‘immah 2 Sam 11:4), thereby rejecting the teachings of wisdom on adultery in Proverbs 6:22, teachings which ‘will lead you when you walk (behithalleka)’ and ‘watch over you when you lie down (beshokbeka).’”

The parenthetic sentence—“She had purified herself from her uncleanness”—is a circumstantial clause that describes “Bathsheba’s condition at the time of the action, and is thus to be rendered in English by a perfect tense (i.e. it is something that happened before but about which the reader only learns now).” Its purpose is to inform the reader that Bathsheba was clearly not pregnant when she came to David, since she had just been “purified from her uncleanness”. Shortly thereafter she found that she was, and that leaves no doubt that the child is David’s, since her husband had been out of town during the interlude between the bath and her visit to the palace. Moreover, the phrase may also alert the reader to the fact that Bathsheba was, at this time in her cycle, most likely to become pregnant. (ibid.)

Referring to her menstrual period (cf. Lev 15:25-26, 30; 18:19; Ezek 36:17), Bathsheba’s “uncleanness” is ceremonial rather than hygienic—although the two are not necessarily unrelated (cf. the English proverb “Cleanliness is next to godliness”; cf. also the Mishnaic saying “Heedfulness leads to physical cleanliness, and physical cleanliness leads to ritual purity”).

Verse 5 begins and ends with the same verb, thus emphatically implicating David: “The woman conceived [lit., ‘became pregnant’] ... ‘I am pregnant.’” Of all the fateful conceptions recorded in the OT (cf. Hagar, Gen 16:4-5; Lot’s daughters, Gen 19:36; Rebekah, Gen 25:21; Tamar, Gen 38:18; Jochebed, Exod 2:2), Bathsheba’s ranks near the top of the list in terms of future repercussions. As Lawlor notes, the message she sends to David—“I am pregnant”—are her “only words in the entire narrative.... The only recorded speech of Bathsheba, brief though it is, sets in motion a course of action which ultimately results in her husband’s death.”

As in the earlier verses of chapter 11 (vv. 1, 3, 4, 5), so also in vv. 6-27, the verb shlh (“to send”) continues to be prominent (vv. 6 [ter], 12, 14, 18, 22, 27 [“had her brought”]) as an index of royal power. But another verb now rears its ugly head: mwt (“to die,” vv. 15, 17, 21 [bis], 24 [bis], 26)—the ever-present potential fate of the powerless victims of royal sending run amok. Uriah the Hittite, loyal subject and servant of King David, is soon to die by regnal fiat, his only crime being that he gets in the way of royal lust and power through no fault of his own.

11:6-17 Early in Israel’s history an Egyptian pharaoh had concocted a three-phase plan to solve what he considered a serious problem: the strength and large numbers of Israelites in his kingdom. Each phase was more ruthless than the preceding: (1) The Egyptian slave masters oppressed the Israelites with forced labor (Exod 1:11-14). When that did not work, (2) the Hebrew midwives were commanded to kill every newborn Hebrew male infant (Exod 1:15-21). When the midwives disobeyed the Pharaoh’s edict, (3) all the Egyptians were ordered to throw every newborn male into the Nile (Exod 1:22).

In a similar way, David hatches a three-phase scheme to solve the serious problem of Bathsheba’s pregnancy, each phase more ruthless than the preceding. But although the Pharaoh’s best efforts failed, David succeeds—temporarily at least—in concealing his sin. Vogels refers to David’s effort as a series of three “cover-ups”: a “clean” one (vv. 6-11), a “dirty” one (vv. 12-13), and a “criminal” one (vv. 14-17).

As Bathsheba had sent word to David informing him of the problem (v. 5), David now sends word to Joab to begin the process of seeking a solution (v. 6). At David’s command Joab sends him “Uriah the Hittite,” the full description once again underscoring Uriah’s mercenary status and therefore presumably also his loyalty to David. Having been “sent” for by David, Uriah “came to him” (v. 7), just as Bathsheba had come under similar circumstances (v. 4).

David begins his conversation with Uriah in an apparently solicitous and cordial way by asking about the welfare/progress (shalom; see 1 Sam 10:4; 17:22) of Joab, the soldiers, and the war (v. 7). Such queries by the king would later return to haunt him (cf. 18:29, 32, where “safe” renders the same Heb. idiom containing the word shalom).

Ostensibly satisfied concerning how things are going on the battlefield, David tells Uriah to go down to his house and “wash” his “feet” (v. 8). Although usually an expression describing an act affording refreshment and relaxation in a land where dusty roads are the rule (see 1 Sam 25:41; cf. also Luke 7:44; 1 Tim 5:10), the phrase may well be intended here as a double entendre, given the euphemistic use of “feet” in the sense of “genitals” (cf. Exod 4:25; Deut 28:57 [NIV, “womb”]; Isa 7:20 [NIV, “legs”]). David would thus be suggesting to Uriah that he “enjoy his wife sexually.” Thus Bathsheba’s washing (“bathing,” v. 2; same Heb. verb) and Uriah’s washing would both involve or eventuate in sexual cohabitation.

In any event, Uriah “left” (v. 8; lit., “went out,” ys’) the palace, and a royal gift “was sent” (lit., “went out,” not shlh the usual verb translated “send”; see v. 1) after him. Mas’et (lit., “that which rises/is lifted”) means “gift” in other contexts as well, especially where granted by a superior to an inferior (cf. Gen 43:34 [“portion(s)”]; Esth 2:18; Jer 40:5 [“present”]).

“And Uriah slept” (v. 9; possible tr.). “For a moment it looks as though the king’s plan is going to work, but the text immediately veers around.” The ambiguous conjunction that begins the verse must therefore be rendered adversatively: “But Uriah slept” (thus correctly NIV)—not with Bathsheba, as David had hoped, but “at the entrance to the palace with all his master’s [doubtless David’s] servants.” Foiling David’s plan (cf. v. 8), Uriah steadfastly refuses to “go down to his house” (v. 9; cf. also vv. 10 [“go home” (bis)], 13 [“go home”]; same Heb. expression).

The next day, when David learns that Uriah did not in fact go down to his house (and therefore did not sleep with his wife), he obviously wants to know why (v. 10). He reminds Uriah that he has just come from a “distance” (lit., “way”), a term that sometimes means “military campaign” (cf. Judg 4:9 [NIV mg., “expedition”]; 1 Sam 21:5 [“missions”]; 1 Kings 8:44 [“wherever,” lit., “on the way/campaign where”]). Thus “David’s importunings to Uriah ... can also be taken to reflect the celibacy devolving on those going into battle.” Uriah’s retort in v. 11, then, becomes “doubly trenchant, if we take it not as an open defiance but as an indirect, unconscious rebuke. The sting of the words is accordingly palpable only to David. Uriah is not ready to do legitimately what [David] has done criminally” (on the question of whether Uriah might be expected to have known about David’s liaison with Bathsheba).

Just as David and his men had always “kept themselves from women” whenever they set out to do battle (1 Sam 21:4-5), so now Uriah refuses to sleep with his wife, even while on a brief furlough from military duty (v. 11). Unlike David, who “remained” (yshb) in Jerusalem (see v. 1), the ark (for the practice of carrying the ark of the covenant out to the battlefield, see 1 Sam 4:3) and the tribal musters from Israel and Judah (equivalent to the “whole Israelite army” in v. 1) are “staying” (yshb) at military campsites. NIV’s “in tents” (bassukkot) should doubtless be rendered “in Succoth” (as in the NIV mg. at 1 Kings 20:12, 16). Succoth (modern Tell Deir Alla, a Transjordanian site almost forty miles northeast of Jerusalem) was evidently the forward base that served as a suitable staging area for Israel’s battles against the Ammonites (and against the Arameans as well; where additional reasons—not the least of which is the fact that the ark was ensconced in an ‘ohel [“tent”; see 6:17] rather than in a sukkah [“hut”]—are given for rejecting the translation “tents” in this context). Although “master” and “lord(s)” (v. 11) render the same Hebrew noun, the NIV is probably correct in distinguishing the first (Joab) from the second (David) since “my lord’s men” (lit., “the servants of my lord”) are in all likelihood the same as “the king’s men” (lit., “his servants,” the mercenary corps) in v. 1. Thus each unit in v. 11 (with the exception of the ark) has its correspondent in v. 1 (as might be expected prima facie). It is understandable that Uriah would speak of Joab as “my master Joab” (v. 11), which “is indeed how one makes a deferential reference to one’s [immediate] commanding officer.”

In light of the fact that David’s entire army is on the battlefield, how could Uriah in good conscience “eat” and “drink” and “lie” with his wife (v. 11; all three verbs would be used again with telling effect in Nathan’s rebuke)? David had already “slept/lain” with Uriah’s wife (v. 4; same Heb. verb as in v. 11)—a matter about which Uriah probably has no knowledge—while Uriah himself has “slept” and would “sleep” only among David’s servants (vv. 9, 13). Indeed, both David and Bathsheba had sinned when she “came [bw’] to him, and he slept [shkb] with her” (v. 4), while Uriah refuses to “go” (bw’) to his house and “lie” (shkb) with his wife (v. 11). That he calls Bathsheba “my wife” could hardly have failed to rebuke David, who had callously violated the relationship between Uriah and the person most precious to him.

Uriah concludes his statement to David by emphatically rejecting the king’s offer. Taking a solemn oath, which translates literally as “By your life, and by the life of your soul” (NIV condenses the two expressions into one: “As surely as you live”; cf. similarly 14:19; 15:21; 1 Sam 1:26; 20:3), Uriah swears that he will not so much as think of doing the unthinkable. “Uriah’s name turns out to be Yahwist, after all. In the heart of the imperial phalanges we find an orthodox Israelite, quietly observing the wartime soldier’s ban against conjugal relations (cf. I Sam. 21:4-7).”

Failing in his first attempt to cover up his sin, David tries again: “‘Stay [yshb] here one more day’.... So Uriah remained [yshb]” (v. 12)—indeed, against his better judgment Uriah “remained in Jerusalem” at the behest of the king who had earlier (perhaps selfishly) done the same thing (v. 1), and with disastrous results.

Although Uriah will not go to his own house to eat and drink (v. 11), he has no such scruples in the king’s house (v. 13). When David gets him drunk, he assumes that Uriah’s inhibitions will be overcome (cf. Hab 2:15) and that he will automatically go home, sleep with Bathsheba, and thus absolve David of any charge of her child’s paternity. At first it appears that David’s plan will succeed: “Indeed, ‘in the evening he went out to lie on his bed’ [v. 13]—on his bed at home? With his wife? No, on his bed of the past two nights, ‘with the servants of his lord, and did not go down to his house.’”

His second attempt at covering up his affair with Bathsheba having failed, David senses that he has exhausted his options and so decides to have Uriah killed. The narrative is ambiguous concerning what David thinks Uriah knows. In any event, David takes no chances: In the morning he “wrote a letter to Joab and sent it with [wayyishlah beyad; lit., ‘sent by the hand of’] Uriah” (v. 14). Doubtless unknown to him, Uriah carries to Joab his own death warrant.

Comparison of the contents of David’s letter to those of the infamous Jezebel’s letters concerning Naboth (cf. 1 Kings 21:9-11) is not out of place, since in both cases an innocent man is executed at an Israelite monarch’s whim. David orders Joab to put Uriah in the front line of battle against the Ammonites where “the fighting is fiercest” (v. 15)—a phrase that echoes the “bitter war” against the Philistines in the days of Saul (see 1 Sam 14:52; same Heb. expression). Uriah is then to be abandoned to his fate: He will be “struck down [nkh] and die.”

“Cursed is the man who kills [nkh] his neighbor secretly [bassath er],” intones Deuteronomy 27:24. David “struck down [nkh]” Uriah and took his wife (12:9), and these things were done “in secret [bassath er]” (12:12). The implication is obvious: David’s heinous actions are punishable under the divine curse.

At this point in the account, however, Uriah is still alive. When Joab receives David’s letter, he recognizes the fact that to isolate Uriah as the only fatality in the attack would cast suspicion on David’s motives. He therefore “makes improvements on the plan, implementing it in spirit rather than to the letter.... He realized that the saving in casualties, however desirable in itself, is also the weak spot in the king’s plan. It is better for many to fall, he decides, than for the conspiracy to stand revealed.” Joab thus besieges “the city” (v. 16)—that is, Rabbah, the Ammonite capital (cf. v. 1)—and puts Uriah at a “place” where its best troops are defending it (for “place” as a technical term in battle narratives, cf. Josh 8:19 [“position”]; Judg 20:33). But he also sends other “men” (‘am lit., “people,” a term often used in the sense of “soldiers” in military contexts) in David’s “army” (lit., “servants” and thus mercenaries, like Uriah himself) to accompany Uriah into the heat of battle (v. 17).

And so it is that “some” (vv. 17, 24) of the mercenaries are sacrificed so that one, relatively unnoticed, might die. The literary unit closes with David’s criminal purpose finally accomplished—“Uriah the Hittite was dead”—a doleful refrain repeated in the rest of chapter 11, each time emphasizing not only a brave warrior’s mercenary status but also his unswerving loyalty to his liege lord: “Your servant Uriah the Hittite is dead” (v. 21), “Your servant Uriah the Hittite is dead” (v. 24; cf. also v. 26). The poignancy and pathos of his death are not dimmed by the matter-of-fact way in which the reports of it—whether by the narrator, by Joab, or by Joab’s messenger—are treated as an addendum: “Moreover” (v. 17), “Also” (v. 21), “Moreover” (v. 24; in each case gam).

The Expositor’s Bible Commentary Old Testament; Frank E. Gaebelein; General Editor; Zondervan Publishing House; A Division of Harper Collins Publishers

While the army was fighting successfully on foreign soil, David was losing the battle of temptation at home. His adultery marks the spiritual low point of the king’s life, and a turning point in his reign.

11:3-5 After an afternoon nap, David was walking on the flat roof of his palace. From that height he spied a beautiful woman bathing, probably in the courtyard of a house at lower elevation. David inquired about the woman and learned that she was the wife of one of his finest officers, Uriah the Hittite. Undeterred by her marital status, David sent messengers to fetch this woman. When she came to him—apparently voluntarily—he lay with her. Bathsheba “purified herself of her uncleanness” and then returned to her house. Apparently the two only spent the one night together. That night of sinful sex was to have repercussions which nearly destroyed the reign of David. A short time later the woman discovered she was pregnant. Of this fact she promptly notified David so that he might protect both himself and her.

11:10-13 In an attempt to cover the infidelity of Bathsheba, David ordered Uriah, a naturalized foreigner (Hittite), home from the battlefield. The king interviewed this officer concerning the conduct of the war. Then he urged the man to go to his house and refresh himself. As Uriah departed from the palace, David ordered a present (a guilt offering?) to be sent after him. Uriah, however, spent that night with the royal bodyguard at the door to the king’s house. Whether Uriah suspected anything was amiss is difficult to determine. He may have heard reports from guards at the palace that Bathsheba had spent a night with the king. He also may have become suspicious because of the king’s insistence that he visit his house (11:6-9).

When David was told that Uriah had not gone down to his house, he questioned the man. Uriah explained that as a professional military man he could not in good conscience enjoy the comforts of home as long as his troops were experiencing the deprivations of a long military campaign. For two more days Uriah remained in Jerusalem. At a royal banquet, David got Uriah drunk thinking that under the influence of the wine his inhibitions would erode. Still Uriah spent his nights with the king’s servants outside the palace door.

11:14-17 David was driven by Uriah’s obstinate refusal to visit his wife to a desperate scheme. He drafted orders to be carried to the battle front by Uriah. Joab was to assign Uriah to the front line where the battle was most fierce. Then he was to order the supporting troops to withdraw leaving Uriah to be struck down and killed by the Ammonites. General Joab faithfully executed the orders of his king. In one of the Ammonite sallies against the Israelite forces Uriah was killed.

SOURCE: The Old Testament Survey Series: The Books Of History; By James E. Smith; College Press Publishing Company, Joplin, Missouri.

II. Realize that Sin Must Be Confronted (2 Sam. 12:7a,10-12) Commentary

12:1-12 The account of the Lord’s sending the prophet Nathan to David to announce God’s judgment on him includes Nathan’s parable (vv. 1-4), David’s indignant reaction (vv. 5-6), Nathan’s two-word condemnation (v. 7a MT), two divine oracles (vv. 7b-12?), David’s confession (v. 13a), and Nathan’s announcement of judgment tempered by grace (vv. 13b-14?).

If chapter 11 is liberally flecked with the verb shlh (“send”) as an index of human power, chapter 12 begins by using it with God as the subject: “The LORD sent Nathan to David” (v. 1a). A few Hebrew MSS add “the prophet” to “Nathan” here, as does the LXX. In any case, it is clearly in his prophetic role that Nathan is sent by the Lord to proclaim his convicting word to the king.

Initially, the divine word takes the form of a parable. Briskly told, its vocabulary would later be used by the prophet Zechariah to describe the injustice of the “rich” (‘shr) against the “flock” (s’n) whose “buyers” (qnh) slaughter them and whose own shepherds do not “spare” (hml) them, with the result that the Lord would no longer “pity” (hml) the people of the land (Zech 11:4-6; cf. ‘shr [vv. 1-2, 4]; s’n [“sheep,” vv. 2, 4]; qnh [“bought,” v. 3]; hml [“refrained,” v. 4]; hml [in David’s angry response, v. 6]). That Nathan’s rebuke begins with a parable makes it none the less effective, since its verisimilitude is reflected in the modern Bedouin custom of Adayieh (“attack”), which clarifies “two motives in the parable: the urgency and supremacy of the duty of hospitality, on the one hand, and the reality of the emotional attachment of man to his beast—the ewe that was like a daughter.”

The immediate use of the word “men” (‘anashim) in v. 1b and the triple occurrence of “man” (‘ish) in the concluding verse of the parable (v. 4: “rich man” [first occurrence], “poor man,” “one”), combined with David’s double use of the word “man” in v. 5, prepare the reader for Nathan’s powerful accusation in v. 7a. Now a rich man, David should have remembered what it was like to be “poor” (v. 1b) because by his own admission he himself had once been a “poor man” (see 1 Sam 18:23). The “very large number” of sheep and cattle owned by the rich man (= David; v. 2) echoes the “great quantity” of bronze taken by David from the Arameans (see 8:8; same Heb. phrase). The “sheep and cattle” in the parable symbolize David’s many wives, a fact clarified in the succeeding verses.

By contrast the “poor man” (= Uriah) has “nothing except” (‘en-kol ki ‘im) one little “ewe lamb” (= Bathsheba; v. 3). The description is reprised in a similar tale of poverty, in which a poor widow announces that she has “nothing ... except” a little oil (2 Kings 4:2; same Heb. expression). The verbs used of the ewe lamb in the rest of v. 3 indicate that it is prized as a genuine member of the poor man’s family: He “raised it” (lit., “caused it to live”; cf. Ezek 16:6), it “grew up” with the other family members (cf. 1 Sam 2:21; 3:19; Ezek 16:7), it “shared” (lit., “ate”) his food and “drank” from his cup and “slept/lay” in his arms (the latter three verbs echo Uriah’s refusal to “eat” and “drink” and “lie” with his wife in 11:11). “Food” (v. 3) is literally “piece (of bread),” meager fare at best (cf. 1 Sam 2:36; see also 1 Sam 28:22). The expression “slept in his arms” (cf. “He gathers the lambs in his arms,” Isa 40:11) is frequently used of a woman lying in a man’s embrace or near him (cf. ironically 1 Kings 1:2 [“lie beside him”]; cf. also Mic 7:5). That the ewe lamb stands for Uriah’s wife becomes clear at the end of v. 3, where the narrator states that it “was like a daughter/ bat (as in bat-sheba‘) to him.”

By no means the ordinary word for “traveler” (v. 4, first occurrence), helek (lit., “walking, walker”) appears elsewhere only once in the OT (1 Sam 14:26 [“oozing out”]; for a more common word for “traveler” [v. 4, second occurrence], cf. Judg 19:17; Jer 9:2; 14:8). It is perhaps used here to remind the reader that David’s trouble began in the first place because he had earlier “walked around” (wayyith hallek) on the roof of his palace (see 11:2). Bound by culture and tradition to provide hospitality for his guest (1 Sam 28:24), the rich man sets about to prepare a meal for him. Instead of slaughtering one of his own animals, however, he “took” (v. 4) the poor man’s one ewe lamb instead—just as David had sent messengers to “get” (lit., “take,” 11:4) Bathsheba.

That the rich man “refrained” (wayyahmol) from taking one of his own animals (v. 4) is the key element in understanding the main point of Nathan’s parable. David would soon condemn the man because “he had no pity” (lo’-hamal v. 6). Lasine’s observations are perceptive:

The prophet only says that the rich man spared (“had pity on”) his own animals. He leaves it to the hearer to notice a connection between the villain’s “pitying” of his own flocks and his lack of pity for the poor man’s ewe. David not only notices this connection but focuses on it.... He shows that the rich man’s “pity” for his own property equals “no-pity” for the poor man and his little lamb. But by correcting these perversions of justice and sensibility, David creates a new opposition between himself and the story, one involving his relationship to pity. His pity for the victims in the story is in stark contrast to his lack of pity for Uriah, his victim in real life.

Understandably, David’s moral indignation against the rich man in Nathan’s parable takes the form of burning anger (v. 5) that will not be assuaged until justice is done (unlike the lack of resolution of David’s anger following the incident of Amnon’s rape of Tamar; see 13:21). As in 1 Samuel 26:16, David uses the Lord’s name in a solemn oath (cf. 14:11; see 1 Sam 14:39), and as in 1 Samuel 26:16, David declares that someone “deserves to die” (lit., “is a son of death”; 1 Sam 20:31; 26:16), in this case “the man who did this”—David of course oblivious to the fact that he himself is “the man” (v. 7a). Thus “David has been trapped by his own sentence.”

Since theft of a lamb was not a capital crime, David’s outburst is an exaggeration “designed to express the gravity of the sin involved in the callous ignoring of the poor man’s attachment to his ewe.” It “reflects the inadequacy of the civil law in this particular case.... The rich man deserved death for his callous act, but was protected by the law itself.” Thus the man’s penalty is that he must pay for the confiscated lamb “four times over” (v. 6) as mandated by Exodus 22:1. His guilt is clear: He must make restitution “because [‘eqeb ‘asher] he did such a thing” (i.e., took the poor man’s only ewe lamb)—just as David will soon be told that he is guilty “because [‘eqeb ki] you ... took the wife of Uriah the Hittite” (v. 10). Unlike the Pharaoh’s daughter, whose heart was so touched at the sight of the crying Hebrew baby that she “felt sorry” for him (Exod 2:6), the rich man (= David) had no “pity” (v. 6; same Heb. verb; see also v. 4). “The Egyptian princess, a person who held Moses in her power, a foreigner, not a member of the covenant community, has what David did not have. She has compassion for the baby.”

Many have seen in the fourfold restoration as applied to David “an allusion to the death of four of David’s sons, namely Bathsheba’s first child [v. 18], Amnon [13:28-29], Absalom [18:14-15] and Adonijah [1 Kings 2:25].” Indeed, Ackerman observes that “the narrator has unobtrusively introduced a lamb motif as he describes [the last three] sons and their fate.”

Up to this point in the MT, the narrator has used “man” and “men” six times—four times by Nathan (vv. 1, 4 [“rich man,” first occurrence; “poor man”; “one”]), twice by David (v. 5). Now the identity of the culprit in the parable becomes explicit in the seventh appearance of the incriminating word as Nathan delivers his terse rebuke to David: “You are the man” (v. 7a), a statement that J. Ian H. McDonald calls “the most dramatic sentence in the Old Testament.” On the broader horizon it can be affirmed that “David, royal judge, is shown to be a rich oppressor” whose dynasty has “sprung from an adulterously begun union.” In the shorter term, however, Nathan’s abrupt application “draws a parallel between the rich man’s exploitation of the poor on account of his superior status and the king’s misuses of his own position of authority. Attention is thus focused not on the simple case of theft, but on the exploitation of the weak by one enjoying a superior position.” Thus identification with the rich man implies that David is not merely “a man who deserves to die, but who can only be sued in tort: he is, by his murder of Uriah, an actual murderer who should suffer execution under Israel’s criminal law. It is only due to Yahweh’s direct pardon that David is to be spared.

Appropriately, a few Hebrew MSS insert a closed paragraph marker after “This is the man” to separate v. 7a from v. 7b. Verses 7b-12, the divine oracles that continue Nathan’s rebuke, divide naturally into two unequal sections separated by a closed paragraph marker (vv. 7b-10? and 11-12), each section beginning with the prophetic messenger formula “This is what the LORD says” (cf. vv. 7b, 11). In addition, “the two sections concentrate on different aspects of David’s sin, the first being more concerned with the murder of Uriah and the second relating exclusively to David’s adultery with Bathsheba.” Perhaps most significantly vv. 9-10, the middle two verses of the six that make up the oracles, can be arguably defined as the literary, historical, and theological crux and center of 2 Samuel as a whole.

After Nathan strengthens the basic messenger formula by referring to the Lord as “the God of [the entire nation of] Israel” (v. 7b), the first section of the divine oracle begins with the two occurrences of the emphatic pronoun: “I anointed” and “I delivered.” The Lord reminds David that it was he who anointed him king (more than once; see 1 Sam 16:13; 2 Sam 2:4a; 5:3) and that it was he who delivered him from Saul’s clutches (more than once; see 1 Sam 24:15; 26:24; 27:1; 2 Sam 4:9). Just as Saul, the Lord’s anointed, had fallen from grace, so also would David—though not in the same way or to the same degree (1 Sam 15:1; cf. also 1 Sam 15:17-23).

In addition, the Lord who “gave” Saul’s “house” (= family and property; 9:9-11a) and wives to David and who “gave” the “house” (= kingdom) of “Israel and Judah” (5:3) to David (v. 8) would soon “give” the wives to someone else (v. 11). In light of the monogamous ideal outlined in Genesis 2:22-24, the gift of “wives” in vv. 8, 11 would seem to be a divine concession to the polygamy that was relatively common (at least among the upper classes) in ancient Near Eastern culture (1 Sam 1:2; 25:43). Saul’s “wives” presumably included at least Ahinoam (1 Sam 25:43) and perhaps also his concubine Rizpah (cf. 3:7). The fact that they are given into David’s “arms” (v. 8) is an ironic allusion to Nathan’s parable (cf. v. 3; cf. also Mic 7:5 [“embrace”]). And the God whose generosity knows no bounds would have “given” (lit., “added”) even more to David if he had considered it appropriate to do so.

But David’s unbridled desire and willful murder have foreclosed any such options. The first section of the divine oracle (vv. 7b-10?) concludes with two verses (vv. 9-10) that are closely tied to each other by their use of the terms “despise(d),” “Uriah the Hittite,” “sword,” and “took ... wife ... to be your own.” The verses perform the same function for 2 Samuel as 1 Samuel 16:13-14 perform for 1 Samuel (1 Sam 16:1-13): By leaving no doubt concerning the Lord’s displeasure with the king’s sins and his determination to punish him, vv. 9-10 constitute the literary, historical, and theological center not only of the oracle itself but also of the entire book. To use Carlson’s helpful rubric, David is now truly and undeniably “under the Curse.”

If Saul lost the kingdom through having “rejected the word of the LORD” (1 Sam 15:23), David is judged because he has decided to “despise the word of the LORD” (v. 9). To despise the Lord’s word is to break his commands and thus to incur guilt and punishment (cf. Num 15:31), and that without remedy (cf. 2 Chronicles 36:16). Proverbs 13:13 is apropos: “He who scorns/despises [though not having the same three consonants, the Hebrew verbs translated ‘despise’ here (bwz) and in v. 9 (bzh) spring from the same biconsonantal root] instruction [dbr] will pay for it,/ but he who respects a command is rewarded.” To despise the Lord’s “word” (dbr) is to do “what is evil in his eyes” (v. 9; 11:27b), a link that David later acknowledges when he confesses to God that he has done “what is evil in your sight, so that you are proved right when you speak [dbr]” (Ps 51:4). Taking 11:27b; 12:9; and Proverbs 13:13 together, Brueggemann argues that “‘in the eyes of Yahweh’ can most plausibly be understood as that benevolent life-giving ordering upon which the wise reflected and which David in his foolishness violated.”

In v. 9 the emphatic position of “Uriah the Hittite,” “his wife,” and “him”—objects that in each case precede their governing verbs—underscores the callous and heinous nature of David’s sins against them. People who above all others he should have cherished and cared for became instead the degraded and destroyed targets of royal lust and caprice. The trusted mercenary Uriah is “struck down” (see 11:15) and “killed” by the sword of the enemy. Although the Lord “gave” and would have given “even more” (v. 8), David “took” (v. 4; see also 5:13) someone else’s wife to be his own (vv. 9-10). Unfeeling acquisitiveness is of the very nature of royalty (see 1 Sam 8:11, 13-17).

Despising the word of the Lord (v. 9) is tantamount to despising the Lord himself (v. 10). In doing both, David finds himself in unsavory company (cf. 1 Sam 2:29-30). With respect to the statement that “the sword will never depart from [David’s] house,” Carlson observes: “David’s ominous words in ... 11:25 [‘the sword devours one as well as another’] recoil upon his own house in 12:10.” David’s “never” in his colorful curse against Joab’s “house” in 3:29 also returns to haunt him in the inexorable language of divine judgment (v. 10).

The second section of the Lord’s oracle (vv. 11-12) is relentless in the immediacy with which it threatens retaliation against the king. “Out of your own household” (v. 11) renders the same Hebrew expression translated “from your house” in v. 10. As David has done what is “evil” (v. 9), so the Lord will bring “calamity” upon him (v. 11; same Heb. word); and as David has done evil “in [the Lord’s] eyes” (v. 9), so the Lord will bring calamity upon the king “before [his] very eyes” (v. 11). Indeed, the Hebrew grammatical construction translated “I am going to bring calamity” is perhaps better rendered “I am about to bring calamity” (as in, e.g., 1 Sam 3:11), emphasizing the imminence of the events described—events such as Amnon’s rape of Tamar (13:1-14), Absalom’s murder of Amnon (13:28-29), Absalom’s rebellion against David (15:1-12), and more. David’s punishment for his crimes against Bathsheba and Uriah is a clear example of a conditional element in the Davidic covenant (7:1-17).

As David “took” Uriah’s wife (vv. 9-10), so the Lord will “take” David’s wives (v. 11). As the Lord “gave” Saul’s property and Israel’s kingdom to David (v. 8), so he says that he will now “give” David’s wives to someone else, to “one who is close to you” (v. 11)—ironically, an expression earlier used of David himself in similar circumstances (see 1 Sam 15:28; 28:17 [“one of your neighbors”]). The “one who is close” to David turns out to be his own son Absalom: “David’s voyeurism in 2 Sam 11:2 and Nathan’s curse in 12:11 foreshadow Absalom’s rooftop orgy (16:20-22).” Although Uriah had refused to “lie” with his own wife (11:11), David had “slept” with her (11:4)—and soon Absalom would “lie” with David’s wives (v. 11; same Heb. verb). As the Lord would take David’s wives “before [his] very eyes,” so Absalom would lie with them “in broad daylight” (v. 11; lit., “before the eyes of this sun”).

David’s despising of God (v. 10) and his commands (v. 9) resulted in his “doing” evil in the Lord’s eyes (v. 9). But although David “did” evil “in secret” (11:15), the Lord would “do” his will against David “in broad daylight” (v. 12; not the same expression as in v. 11, it reads literally “before [neged] the sun”; cf. Num 25:4) and thus “before [neged] all Israel” (cf. the fulfillment “in the sight of all Israel” in 16:22). As it turns out, three of David’s sons would prove themselves “unfit to rule by recapitulating, each in his turn, their father’s sin.... Just as David willfully takes Bathsheba for himself (2 Sam 11:2-4), so Amnon forces Tamar (2 Sam. 13:8-14), Absalom enters the royal harem (II Sam. 16:22), and Adonijah tries to claim his deceased father’s concubine (1 Kings 2:13-17).”

SOURCE: The Expositor’s Bible Commentary Old Testament; Frank E. Gaebelein; General Editor; Zondervan Publishing House; A Division of Harper Collins Publishers

12:1-4 Yahweh left David in his guilty state for almost a year. He then dispatched the prophet Nathan to administer a rebuke to the sinful king. He chose to use a parable in order to elicit from David a pronouncement of self-condemnation. The parable was simple. A poor man and rich man lived beside one another. While the rich man had many flocks and herds, the poor man had only a little lamb which was a family pet. When a traveler came to the rich man he was unwilling to feed him from his own flock or herd. Rather he took the poor man’s pet lamb and made a meal of it for his guest.

12:5-6 David’s anger boiled as he heard the story which he took to be a real occurrence. David swore an oath in the name of Yahweh that the rich thief deserved to die. He ordered that this man make a fourfold restitution for the stolen lamb.

12:7-10 Nathan then made the devastating application.” You, David, are the man!” You have pronounced judgment upon yourself. God had anointed David as king and had delivered him from the hand of Saul. He had given Saul’s house including his wives into the care of David along with both Judah and Israel. The Lord would have given him many similar blessings. David, however, had despised the word of Yahweh by committing a horrendous evil. David was as guilty of murder as if he had struck Uriah with his own sword. He then had taken to himself the wife of the man whose death he had orchestrated. David had despised the Lord by taking Bathsheba for he denied by his conduct the omniscience of his God.

12:11-12 The penalty for David’s sin is twofold. First, the sword would never depart from the house of David (v. 10). Second, God would raise up evil against David from within his own house. Third, one of David’s associates would take his wives from him and lie with them in full public view.

SOURCE: The Old Testament Survey Series: The Books Of History; By James E. Smith; College Press Publishing Company, Joplin, Missouri.

III. Rejoice that Sin Can Be Forgiven (2 Sam. 12:13-14; Ps. 51:1-4) Commentary

12:13-14 To his credit, David confesses to the prophet Nathan that he has broken God’s law: “I have sinned against the LORD” (v. 13a: cf. David’s words in 24:10, 17 and especially in Ps 51:4: “Against you, you only, have I sinned”; for Saul’s earlier agonized admission to the prophet Samuel in similar circumstances, see 1 Sam 15:24, 30). Though he could have vacillated or indignantly denied Nathan’s accusation or ridded himself of Nathan in one way or another, David accepts full responsibility for his actions. “In his total and immediate response of repentance..., there is no hint in the narrative that this is anything less than an authentic, rightly intentioned confession. It is presented without irony or suspicion.”

And, as might be expected, the prophet does not leave the king comfortless. Nathan comes to David with words of divine grace. “Only the man who accepts that he was wrong can be forgiven. ‘Yahweh, for his part, forgives your sin [v. 13b].’” In judging the rich man for his cruelty (v. 5), David had unwittingly chosen his own death penalty (cf. Lev 20:10; Deut 22:22). But the Lord, through his prophet, announces the forgiveness of David’s “sin” (against Bathsheba) and preserves David’s life: “You are not going to die.” The fact that God does not hesitate to strike people down for what might be considered lesser infractions (see 6:7) makes his forbearance in David’s case all the more noteworthy.

At the same time, however, the Lord is not yet through with David: “By doing this you have shown utter contempt for the LORD” (v. 14 mg., which is doubtless the intention of the narrator and is preferable to the NIV text reading). In this respect David finds himself in the company of Eli’s reprobate sons, who had been in the habit of “treating the LORD’s offering with contempt” and whose sin was therefore “very great in the LORD’s sight” (1 Sam 2:17; cf. “evil in his eyes,” v. 9). David would not “die” (v. 13), but the son born to him will (v. 14). Tit for tat: Having “show[n] utter contempt” (infinitive absolute plus finite verb) for the Lord, David’s son will “die” (infinitive absolute plus finite verb; better, “surely die” [cf. Gen 2:17, where the same grammatical construction appears]). “When David slept with the woman and created new life, the woman did not belong to him but to Uriah. The child cannot belong to David. He cannot enrich himself through his sin, and in a sense, justice is done to Uriah.”

SOURCE: The Expositor’s Bible Commentary Old Testament; Frank E. Gaebelein; General Editor; Zondervan Publishing House; A Division of Harper Collins Publishers

The Old Testament Survey Series: The Books Of History 2 Sam. 12:13-14; Ps. 51:1-4

12:13-14 David was moved deeply by the words of the prophet. He made no excuses for his conduct. He acknowledged forthrightly his sin. Nathan accepted the confession. He announced that God would not take David’s life on account of the sin. However, because his conduct had given occasion to the enemies of Yahweh to blaspheme, God would punish him by taking the child which had recently been born.

SOURCE: The Old Testament Survey Series: The Books Of History; By James E. Smith; College Press Publishing Company, Joplin, Missouri.

“Have mercy upon me, O God.” He appeals at once to the mercy of God, even before he mentions his sin. The sight of mercy is good for eyes that are sore with penitential weeping. Pardon of sin must ever be an act of pure mercy, and therefore to that attribute the awakened sinner flies. “According to thy lovingkindness.” Act, O Lord, like thyself; give mercy like thy mercy. Show mercy such as is congruous with thy grace.

What a choice word is that of our English version, a rare compound of precious things: love and kindness sweetly blended in one—“lovingkindness.” “According unto the multitude of thy tender mercies.” Let thy most loving compassions come to me, and make thou thy pardons such as these would suggest. Reveal all thy gentlest attributes in my case, not only in their essence but in their abundance. Numberless have been thine acts of goodness, and vast is thy grace; let me be the object of thine infinite mercy, and repeat it all in me. Make my one case an epitome of all thy tender mercies. By every deed of grace to others I feel encouraged, and I pray thee let me add another and a yet greater one, in my own person, to the long list of thy compassions. “Blot out my transgressions.” My revolts, my excesses, are all recorded against me; but, Lord, erase the lines. Draw thy pen through the register. Obliterate the record, though now it seems engraven in the rock for ever: many strokes of thy mercy may be needed, to cut out the deep inscription, but then thou hast a multitude of mercies, and therefore, I beseech thee, erase my sins.

“Wash me throughly.” It is not enough to blot out the sin; his person is defiled, and he fain would be purified. He would have God himself cleanse him, for none but he could do it effectually. The washing must be thorough, it must be repeated, therefore he cries, “Multiply to wash me.” The dye is in itself immovable, and I, the sinner, have lain long in it, till the crimson is ingrained: but, Lord, wash, and wash, and wash again, till the last stain is gone, and not a trace of my defilement is left. The hypocrite is content if his garments be washed; but the true suppliant cries, “wash me.” The careless soul is content with a nominal cleansing, but the truly–awakened conscience desires a real and practical washing, and that of a most complete and efficient kind. “Wash me throughly from mine iniquity.” It is viewed as one great pollution, polluting the entire nature, and as all his own; as if nothing were so much his own as his sin. The one sin against Bathsheba, served to show the Psalmist the whole mountain of his iniquity, of which that foul deed was but one falling stone. He desires to be rid of the whole mass of his filthiness, which though once so little observed, had then become a hideous and haunting terror to his mind. “And cleanse me from my sin.” This is a more general expression; as if the Psalmist said, “Lord, if washing will not do, try some other process; if water avails not, let fire, let anything be tried, so that I may but be purified. Rid me of my sin by some means, by any means, by every means, only do purify me completely, and leave no guilt upon my soul.” It is not the punishment he cries out against, but the sin. Many a murderer is more alarmed at the gallows than at the murder which brought him to it. The thief loves the plunder, though he fears the prison. Not so David: he is sick of sin as sin; his loudest outcries are against the evil of his transgression, and not against the painful consequences of it. When we deal seriously with our sin, God will deal gently with us. When we hate what the Lord hates, he will soon make an end of it, to our joy and peace.

“For I acknowledge my transgressions.” Here he sees the plurality and immense number of his sins, and makes open declaration of them. He seems to say, I make a full confession of them. Not that this is my plea in seeking forgiveness, but it is a clear evidence that I need mercy, and am utterly unable to look to any other quarter for help. My pleading guilty has barred me from any appeal against the sentence of justice: O Lord, I must cast myself on thy mercy, refuse me not, I pray thee. Thou hast made me willing to confess. O follow up this work of grace with a full and free remission! “And my sin is ever before me.” My sin as a whole is never out of my mind; it continually oppresses my spirit. I lay it before thee because it is ever before me: Lord, put it away both from thee and me. To an awakened conscience, pain on account of sin is not transient and occasional, but intense and permanent, and this is no sign of divine wrath, but rather a sure preface of abounding favour.

“Against thee, thee only have I sinned.” The virus of sin lies in its opposition to God: the Psalmist’s sense of sin towards others rather tended to increase the force of his feeling of sin against God. All his wrong–doing centred, culminated, and came to a climax, at the foot of the divine throne. To injure our fellow men is sin, mainly because in so doing we violate the law of God. The penitent’s heart was so filled with a sense of the wrong done to the Lord himself, that all other confession was swallowed up in a broken–hearted acknowledgment of offence against him. “And done this evil in thy sight.” To commit treason in the very court of the king and before his eye is impudence indeed: David felt that his sin was committed in all its filthiness while Jehovah himself looked on. None but a child of God cares for the eye of God, but where there is grace in the soul it reflects a fearful guilt upon every evil act, when we remember that the God whom we offend was present when the trespass was committed. “That thou mightest be justified when thou speakest, and be clear when thou judgest.” He could not present any argument against divine justice, if it proceeded at once to condemn him and punish him for his crime. His own confession, and the judge’s own witness of the whole transaction, placed the transgression beyond all question or debate; the iniquity was indisputably committed, and was unquestionably a foul wrong, and therefore the course of justice was clear and beyond all controversy.

The Mosaic Law’s Prohibition of and Penalty for Adultery: Moses received the Ten Commandments, in part, to give his people the guidelines they needed as they established their independence from

Egypt

. Among those commandments was a prohibition of adultery (Ex. 20:14). The Mosaic covenant needed a high view of marriage, and faithfulness to marriage relationships was crucial for the ordering of the new covenantal society. If the marriage relationship broke down, so would their society.

Because marriage was so important, breaking one’s marital vows by adultery carried a stiff punishment. The parties involved in adultery received the death penalty (Lev. 20:10; Deut. 22:22). Both the adulterer and the adulteress received that penalty. The passage in Deuteronomy explained the harshness by saying that the Israelites had to “purge the evil from

Israel

.”

SOURCE: Family Bible Study; Life Truths; Leader Guide; LifeWay Christian Resources of the Southern Baptist Convention; Nashville, TN.

HE PEOPLE WHOSE LIVES touched David form an arresting galaxy of luminaries, but none shines more brightly than this military captain, Joab. However, to analyze and evaluate Joab’s character presents a puzzling and difficult task.

Was he good or wicked? Most people initially write Joab off as evil, ambitious, manipulative, pragmatic, and unprincipled. True, he could be ruthless. However, he was second only to his king in establishing Israel’s greatest empire. If, on occasions, he was cruel, and heartless, he also had his moments of greatness, as do most successful leaders.

The Old Testament historian first mentioned Joab only incidentally, calling Abishai the “brother of Joab” (1 Sam. 26:6). However, this suggested Joab already was known well enough that he needed no explanatory introduction. Joab’s initial appearance in narrative presents him as a tactful diplomat. Although, Abner, who had served as Saul’s general, had killed Joab’s brother, Asahel, Joab agreed to a truce in the fighting that followed (2 Sam. 2:19-28).

Joab’s next recorded deed, however, raises a question. Was his previous action motivated by sincere compassion or was it merely a strategic gesture, a delaying tactic, while he waited for a more convenient time to avenge his dead brother? When Joab returned from a raiding expedition and found David had accepted Abner as a member of his military team, he “blew his top.” Acting independently of his king, he had men bring Abner back to Hebron. Pretending to discuss business with him, Joab met Abner outside this city of refuge and killed him (2 Sam. 3:27).

Although David rebuked Joab for this deed (2 Sam. 3:31), he needed him too much to fire him. When David became ruler of the 12 tribes, he placed Joab in charge of his entire military operation (2 Sam. 8:16). In spite of Joab’s domineering spirit and frankness with David, the king knew his nephew was loyal.

When the Ammonites revolted against David, he sent Joab to deal with them. This set the stage for an event that gave Joab unlimited leverage over the king for the rest of David’s life. When David committed adultery with Bathsheba and needed to get her husband, Uriah, out of the way, he knew who would be his hatchet man: Joab! The general obeyed his king without question, putting Uriah in the front line where he was killed. Joab once more asserted his independence when he sent a report to David concerning the fighting.

Joab must have smiled to himself as he said, “When you have finished telling all the events of the war to the king, and it happens that the king’s wrath rises and he says to you, ‘Why did you go so near to the city to fight? Did you not know that they would shoot from the wall?’. . .then you shall say, ‘Your servant Uriah the Hitite is dead also’ “ (2 Sam. 11:19-21).

Although he spoke frankly to the king, Joab remained a good military man. He never upstaged his superior. When he softened the Ammonite army and was ready to capture their chief city,

Rabbah, he sent a message to David. It was, “Now therefore, gather the rest of the people together and camp against the city and capture it, lest I capture the city myself and it be named after me” (2 Sam. 12:28). What loyalty to his king! We can have only respect and appreciation for Joab.

Joab’s best and worst came out in his activity during Absalom’s revolt against his father, David. The affair began when Absalom killed his half brother, Amnon, for raping Tamar, Absalom’s full sister. A false report came to David that Absalom had killed all the king’s sons, and Absalom fled.

Although David longed to see Absalom, he refused for three years to offer amnesty because of Amnon’s murder. Joab decided to take matters into his own hands. He often felt he knew more about what was good for David than David di, and sometimes he was correct.

Joab showed himself to be both resourceful and cunning in the way he “set David up” by using a wise woman from Tekoa. Following Joab’s instructions, she presented her claim to the king, pretending to be a widow with two sons, one of whom had killed the other. Continuing Joab’s scenario, she said the whole family was demanding she turn over the living son to them for punishment. When theking promised to protect the son and thus prevent grief to the mother, she turned the tables on him. “Why then have you planned such a thing against the people of God?” she asked. “For in speaking this word the king is as one who is guilty in that the king does not bring back his banished one” (2 Sam. 14:13).

David knew his resourceful general well enough that he immediately suspected Joab’s hand in the scheme. When David inquired, she confessed. However, the king agreed to send for Absalom and let him return home safely. When Joab heard of David’s kind act, he expressed overflowing gratitude. In spite of all his bold and sometimes arrogant acts, Joab seemed to have a great emotional need for acceptance, especially from the king.

Joab went personally to tell the good news to Absalom, that he could return safely to Jerusalem. However, when David insisted Absalom must stay in his own house separate from the king, Joab accepted the decision. Joab even remained aloof from the young man though Absalom made several overtures to him. After Absalom burned part of Joab’s field to gain his attention, Joab agreed to intercede once more for him. His new plea to David resulted in a temporary reconciliation between the king and his son! What a noble deed! We must congratulate Joab on his diplomacy.

The Bible writer said nothing of Joab’s activity during the time Absalom plotted to overthrow David. He mentioned only that Absalom put “Amasa over the army in place of Joab” (2 Sam. 17:25). How infuriated Joab must have been to see another person head the nation’s military forces! This act certainly was not forgotten by the older general.

When Absalom staged a coup, David was driven into exile away from Jerusalem. As the main battle between David’s men and Absalom’s forces approached, the exiled king divided his army into three groups. He chose three generals: Joab, Abishai, and Ittai. The latter was a Philistine who remained loyal to David although the king offered to let him leave with honor (2 Sam. 15:19-21). David made one urgent request to his soldiers, “Deal gently for my sake with the young man Absalom” (2 Sam. 18:5).

True to form, Joab substituted his judgment for David’s orders. When Absalom was caught by his hair in the limbs of a tree, he was at the mercy of David’s men. Joab ordered one of the soldiers to kill Absalom. However, the soldier refused, citing David’s command. Once more Joab took matters into his own hand. “He took three spears in his hand and thrust them through the heart of Absalom” (2 Sam. 18:14). His armor bearers finished the job. Joab deliberately and high handedly disobeyed the king’s orders.

After eliminating Absalom, Joab called off pursuit of the enemy. When David learned of Absalom’s death, he wept profusely. Having saved David’s kingdom for him, Joab once more spoke sharply to the king. He accused David of ingratitude and bringing shame on all those who had helped win back the throne. He charged, “For you have shown today that. . . if Absalom were alive and all of us were dead . . .then you would be pleased” (2 Sam.19:6). Anybody but Joab would have been court-martialed, probably executed on the spot.

Although David did not reprimand Joab, he decided to replace him with Amasa,, Absalom’s captain (2 Sam. 19:13). However, during Sheba’s revolt, Joab killed Amasa (2 Sam. 20:8-10)/ He then pursued Sheba and shut him up in a town. Showing restraint, he agreed to spare the city when offered Sheba’s head (2 Sam. 20:18-22).

As David grew unable to perform, a power struggle developed for his successor. Two parties emerged. One group, consisting of Bathsheba, Nathan the prophet, Zadok the priest, and David’s “mighty warriors,” supported Solomon. Another group supported Adonijah’s efforts. Joab joined the latter, but they were unsuccessful. Solomon became king. This was a major defeat for Joab and one that eventually sealed his doom.

On his deathbed, David showed his true feeling toward Joab. He insisted to Solomon, “Now you also know what Joab . . . did to me, what he did to the two commanders of the armies of Israel, to Abner . . . and to Amasa . . . whom he killed . . . So act according to your wisdom, and do not let his gray hair go down to Sheol in peace” (1 Kings 2:5-6). Solomon followed David’s command and dispatched Benaiah to deal with Joab. The general fled to the altar thinking that it would offer sanctuary. However, Joab met his death clinging to the horns of the altar in the tabernacle.

What does Joab’s life say to us? To be dogmatic or over simplistic concerning him fails to recognize the day in which he lived. He worked with men who were fighting for their very existence. However, he also can speak to us in the lesser crises of life. The real issue most of us face is whether to show courage when life gets hard or seek to avoid our responsibility.

Regardless of how one feels about Joab, on truth stands out clearly. He never failed to face the facts and always acted according to his best judgment. Perhaps his finest hour was when he led the Israelites to victory over a combined force of Ammonites and Syrians. Caught between the two armies who were attacking from either side; he divided his soldiers. Assuming command of one group, he placed the other under his brother, Abishai. He made a bold thrust in doing so, but the strategy worked. Calling upon his men to show courage, he furnished an example for them (1 Chron. 19:9-15).

Another recorded deed of dedication enhanced Joab’s image for Bible students. When David and his men prepared to capture the Jebusite stronghold that later became Jerusalem, he made a promise, declaring, “Whoever strikes down a Jebusite first shall be chief and commander” (1 Chron. 11:6, NASB). Joab did the deed and received the reward.

Some have unfairly assessed Joab’s character because they have not understood or else have ignored his environment. However, the people of that day were not distinguished for generosity to their enemies. Absalom betrayed his king. Abner came to David’s side only after he, as Saul’s general, failed to conquer David. Who could be certain of his ultimate loyalty to David?

What about the hold Joab had on David because of the Bathsheba-Uriah incident? True, Joab had no more pity than a tiger, and the claws were never out of David’s flesh. However, David did a terrible thing to Uriah and demanded that Joab do the “dirty work.” Joab no choice but eliminate one of his best fighters.

Over ambition plagued Joab, but he loved his country and his king. Taking everything into consideration, he deserved a better fate. The record of his death causes pain to thoughtful readers. After Joab served his leader so faithfully, was not David a bit unfair to send his gray hair down to the grave so brutally? This rough but faithful military man stands as one of the great personalities who labored with and supported, though sometimes erratically, Israel’s greatest king.

SOURCE: Biblical Illustrator, LifeWay Christian Resources of the Southern Baptist Convention; Nashville, TN 37234: Spring 1991.

Terry W. Eddinger is professor of Old Testament and vice president for academics at Carolina Evangelical Divinity School, Greensboro, North Carolina.

Text Box: Arguably, David was the greatest king Israel ever had. He took the role of commanding general with ease and defeated all of Israel’s enemies. His soldiers eagerly followed him into battle. He was an accomplished musician who played in King Saul’s court. He wrote beautiful psalms and songs that expressed the deep emotions of the hear. In addition, according to 1 Samuel 13:14, David was a man after God’s own heart. Yet, no matter how successful David was as king of Israel, he struggled greatly within his own house.

AVID’S TROUBLE BEGAN the same way as the troubles of many great men in the Old Testament—he had more than one wife. Many of the men in the Bible who had more than one wife had family problems Abraham (Gen. 16; 21),¹ Jacob (Gen. 30), Elkanah (1 Sam. 1:1-8), and Solomon (1 Kings 11:1-8) all had multiple wives, and had controversy within the family. David also had multiple wives. The ones named in 2 Samuel 3:2-4, each having children by David in Hebron, include: Ahinoam (Saul’s wife?), Abigail (widow of Nabal), Maacah, Haggith, Abital, and Eglah. David also married Michal (King Saul’s daughter whom David took from her husband, 2 Sam. 3:14-15) and Bathsheba (the widow of Uriah the Hittite). Nathan spoke of David taking Saul’s wives into his harem (12:8). The Bible also tells of David taking additional wives and concubines while ruling in Jerusalem and having children by them (5:13). When David was old, his servants brought Abishag to comfort the king (1 Kings 1).² In addition to these nine, David had at least ten concubines (2 Sam. 15:16). First Chronicles 3:9 states that the concubines also bore children to David.³ Why were David’s multiple wives a problem for his kingdom? According to Hebrew and Old Testament scholar Steven McKenzie, David’s marriages were mostly for political reasons.⁴ Therefore, his many children from these women became competitors for David’s attention and ultimately his kingdom.

Although David’s troubles actually began when he started marrying all of these women and had children by them, the problems did not manifest themselves until David’s sin with Bathsheba. According to 1 Samuel 11, David sent his army out to battle the Ammonites, but he stayed at home. Kings normally accompanied their army into battle but this time he entrusted the army into Joab’s hands. One evening while walking around on the roof of his house, David saw Bathsheba bathing and was attracted to her beauty. Despite having a house full of wives and concubines from which he could choose a sexual partner, David sent for her instead. Bathsheba came to his home. They slept together, which resulted in Bathsheba becoming pregnant. David tried several ways to cover his sin, even to the point of killing Uriah, Bathsheba’s husband. None of David’s plans worked. After Uriah’s death (murder), David took Bathsheba for his wife, an overtly blatant act that only a king could accomplish.⁵ Nathan the prophet told David that God knew what happened. Because of his sin, God brought evil upon David from within his own family as punishment (2 Sam. 12:11-15). God, through Nathan, gave a specific judgment concerning his family. He said that one of David’s sons would take David’s wives as his own and have sexual relations with them for all Israel to see (v. 11).

After God’s pronouncement, David’s family problems began in earnest. Because of his sin, Bathsheba’s baby died, just as God said (v. 18). This is the first recorded death of one of David’s sons, but not the last. The text says David comforted Bathsheba. She became pregnant again (v. 24). This son was Solomon (Jedidiah). He became one of several sons who would have kingly ambitions.

The next recorded event is Amnon’s rape of his half-sister Tamar (2 Kings 13). Tamar was the sister of Absalom. Amnon (David’s oldest son) wanted Tamar for himself but would not go through the proper steps to make her his wife. After his sinister act, the text tells us he hated her. While David did nothing about the matter, Absalom waited over two years for a chance to get revenge. Finally, he invited all of the king’s sons to shear sheep. When Amnon was drunk, Absalom’s servants followed orders and killed Amnon. The king’s sons fled to Jerusalem and Absalom fled to his grandparent’s home (Geshur). This event’s consequences led to a rift between David and Absalom that eventually expanded into a rivalry for the crown. David’s family crisis turned into a nationwide civil war.

Second Samuel 15—18 vividly portrays David internally struggling with his love for his son who also was his mortal enemy. His struggle was so great that he could not make good command decisions; instead, Joab made them for him. David fled Jerusalem and left 10 concubines to take care of his palace. Absalom marched in and took the concubines for himself. He had sexual relations with them for all Israel to see, just as God had foretold. In the end, Joab killed Absalom, squashed the rebellion, and David returned to Jerusalem. However, his victory was short-lived. Israel revolted under the leadership of Sheba (2 Sam. 20). Joab and his men quelled the revolt; however, this revolt probably would not have happened if David had taken care of his family life.

Even at death, David had family troubles. While David lay cold and feeble in bed, his son Adonijah set himself up as king (1 Kings 1). Several of David’s officials and lifelong companions (Joab and Abiathar) joined Adonijah. Traditionally, the oldest living son became king after his father, so we can safely assume Adonijah was the oldest and his supporters acted according to tradition. After all, Amnon and Absalom, two of David’s oldest were already dead. Bathsheba and Nathan learned of Adonijah’s antics and devised a plan to get Solomon installed as king instead. Their efforts resulted in Solomon being installed as king and Adonijah’s party finding itself in peril. The problem did not end with David’s death. Solomon’s first act as king was to have his brother executed (1 Kings 3:13-25) as well as executing several other opposition members.

Although a great military commander and king, David had difficulties with his own family. His lust for women and his failure to discipline his children led to troubles within his kingdom. We learn from David that a family crisis will affect other areas of our lives, including our relationship with God. ♦

1. Hagar technically was not a wife by functioned as one by providing a child for Abraham.

2. Having full access to the king gave Abishag a status typically reserved only for a wife. She served more as a bed warmer, though, than a wife. See 1 Kings 1:1-4.

3. Second Samuel 5:14-16; 1 Chronicles 3:5-9; and 14:3-7 list David’s sons born in Jerusalem.

4. Steven L. McKenzie, King David, A Biography (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000), 114, 118, 141.

5. According to Deuteronomy 22:22, both David and Bathsheba should have been put to death for their sin.

SOURCE: Biblical Illustrator; LifeWay Christian Resources of the Southern Baptist Convention; Nashville, TN 37234; Vol. 36, No. 4; Summer 2010.

Jeff S. Anderson is dean of the Anchorage Campus and professor of religion, Wayland Baptist University, Anchorage, Alaska.

HE STORY OF DAVID’S adulterous relationship with Bathsheba and the subsequent murder of her husband Uriah in 2 Samuel 11—12 conveys the truth that in Israel even the king himself was subject to God’s covenant law. Although David is arguably the greatest of Israel’s kings, the Scriptures portray him as an adulterer and then as a murderer. Nathan the prophet resolutely confronted David for the sinfulness of his actions. David’s subsequent repentance begs the question of whether other ancient Near Eastern monarchs were held to personal standards of morality in keeping with the laws of their own nations. Taking a married woman of his own choosing—was such an action the simple prerogative of the king or a crime punishable by the stipulations of the law?

Luckily, a great wealth of textual material exists that relates to kingship in the ancient Near East. In addition to this textual material, a number of royal inscriptions provide information regarding the ethical expectations for each nation’s monarch. This material doesn’t answer all questions, however. While many formal similarities exist regarding the ideal picture of kingship throughout the ancient Near East, the practical picture of how individual kings actually behaved on a day-to-day basis is much more difficult to determine. Consequently, although formal legal similarities existed regarding the expectations of the king, the extent to which the king followed these standards obviously was not the same in every society among Israel’s neighbors. Evidence also exists that some of Israel’s neighbors had a tendency to deify their own kings.

From textual and iconographic data, it is clear that the king was the central symbol of the social system for the nation. In the ancient Near East, the king was primarily in power to establish order. In most nations, he served as warrior, judge, and even priest. As warrior, he was to protect the state from external enemies and internal threats. As judge, he was to guarantee order by administrating justice and equity. As priests, Israel’s neighboring monarchs fulfilled the wishes of the gods and were the earthly representatives of the divine realm. Easily the people took the short step from affirming that the gods set the king in place to upholding the conviction that the king himself carried divine prerogatives.

The vast literary evidence—particularly that from the prologues and epilogues of ancient Near Eastern law codes—demonstrates a remarkably consistent expectation of the monarch.¹ These law codes provide the clearest evidence that the king had the responsibility of establishing and maintaining the divine order. The king issued the laws for the nation, stood as the authority to enforce penalties for violating those laws, and threatened punishment for any who might attempt to change the laws in any way.

From around 1800 BC, ancient Babylon provides one example of how a particular Near Eastern king related to the law. The prologue to the Code of Hammurabi, a legal code promulgated by a Babylonian king, states that as king, Hammurabi was responsible to establish law and justice in the land. He was to “cause justice to prevail in Babylon, to destroy wicked and evil, to stop the strong from oppressing the weak, and to rule like the sun over black-headed people.”² The epilogue concludes with a number of powerful curses against anyone who might break the laws in Hammurabi’s Code. Consequently, Hammurabi was the purveyor and the enforcer of the laws of the land.

Old Testament legal codes take this expectation a surprising step further. In them, the king himself was accountable to faithfully observe the requirements of God’s law. He was not merely responsible for promulgating the laws of the land for others to follow. Deuteronomy 17:14-20, for example, gives an account of what was morally expected of the king. Israel’s monarch was not to multiply horses for himself or to amass great wealth of silver or gold. He was not to establish alliances with Egypt or other nations that would interfere with God’s leadership in the land. The king was to have his own copy of the law on a scroll so he could read it every single day and thus abide by it. Finally, he was not to be above his countrymen in terms of keeping the law but was himself accountable to it. Thus subordination to the law was the great equalizer in Israelite society—no matter what one’s position might have been. Practically, however, the Old Testament indicates that Israelite monarchs violated many of these commands.

Most noticeable for the story of David and Bathsheba is the command for the king not to multiply wives for himself (Deut. 17:17). Patrick Dale states, “Nowhere does the Israelite tradition stand out from its environment more than on the question of kingship.”³ Israel’s neighbors portrayed the king as the font of justice and right. He was the one who issued and enforced the law. But in Israel the king was subordinate to the law along with the rest of the nation. The lack of specific information about how individual ancient Near Eastern monarchs kept their own laws makes one parallel in the Book of Genesis indeed striking. In Genesis 12, Abraham was worried that if the pharaoh of Egypt were to find out that Sarah was his wife, the pharaoh would kill Abraham and take Sarah to be his own. Because of this threat, Abraham lied and said Sarah was his sister. Abraham’s actions demonstrate his fear about the king’s power to do exactly as David later did with Uriah’s wife. The question, therefore, is not whether kings had the capabilities to do such evils. The most certainly did. The question is whether they were accountable for such actions. The highly stratified Near Eastern social structure, which obviously existed in Babylon, consisted of an urban society with a noble class, an artisan class, and a slave class. Different penalties actually existed for violations of the law—based on one’s social status. Consequently, the king’s limited power likely did not allow for a fair measure of democracy for the lower classes.

In the biblical account, the prophet Nathan squarely condemned David for his sinful actions. Middle Assyrian laws allowed payment of restitution to a wronged husband in the case of adultery.⁴ David could have easily forced Uriah to demand only symbolic reparation for the king’s violation of Uriah’s wife. Instead, his solution went to the opposite extreme. He placed Uriah on the front lines of battle and ordered the commander to withdraw, leaving Uriah defenseless and vulnerable. The biting irony of this story is that a Gentile has far more integrity than the great king of Israel.

David’s action is remarkably similar to the actions of another biblical king, Ahab. The story of David’s coveting Uriah’s wife and the account of Ahab’s coveting Naboth’s vineyard have some striking parallels. Both kings coveted a commoner’s property; both sent a royal letter to subordinates (in both cases the contents of the letter led to the death of the innocent); both kings encountered a prophet; and both repented.⁵ More importantly, in both cases these monarchs were accountable to the law’s standards.

The kings of Israel seldom repented in the face of prophetic preaching. In the Books of 1 and 2 Samuel and 1 and 2 Kings, David, Ahab, and Josiah did so, while Solomon, Rehoboam, Jeroboam, and many others did not. Manasseh did not repent in the Book of Kings, yet did so in Chronicles. The Book of Daniel tells how one man’s obedience led to the repentance of even foreign monarchs.

The Book of 2 Samuel makes clear that Nathan confronted David and held him to the same standard that all Israelites had. Although other monarchies may have allowed their kings to commit immoral behavior and may have seen it as a privilege, God’s law for Israel held the action as punishable offense—even for a king. Since David was king, his sins were committed by a man against a woman, a commander in chief against one of his soldiers, a king against one of his subjects, but most of all a man of faith against his God.⁶ Though he had the power of any ancient Near Eastern despot, David ultimately came under the authority of the very law he was obligated to enforce. ♦

1. The literary examples come from sources such as the law codes of Lipit-Ishtar and Hannurabi and from royal Sumerian hymns and Egyptian royal inscriptions.

2. Celia Brewer Marshall, A Guide Through the Old Testament (Louisville: Westminster Press, 1989), 58.

4. Baruch Halpern, David’s Secret Demons (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, Publishers, 2001), 93.

5. Victor Hamilton, Handbook on the Historical Books (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, Publishers, 2001), 330.

SOURCE: Biblical Illustrator; LifeWay Christian Resources of the Southern Baptist Convention; Nashville, TN 37234; Vol. 36, No. 4; Summer 2010.

Gary Arbino is associate professor of archaeology and Old Testament interpretation and curator, Marian Eakins Archaeological Collection, Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary, Mill Valley, California.

N THE INFAMOUS STORY OF DAVID AND BATHSHEBA, we quickly see that the tragic figure is Bathsheba’s husband, Uriah the Hittite. While Uriah proved a loyal member of David’s “mighty men” (2 Sam. 23:39), the designation “the Hittite” indicates that he was not of Israelite blood.

There are several references to Hittites in the Old Testament. Hittites appear at the head of lists of local Canaanite peoples (for example, Deut. 7:1; 1 Kings 9:20), who inhabited the hill country of the north (Num. 13:29) and also the southern land near Hebron (Gen. 23). Yet 1 Kings 10:26—11:1 treats the Hittites as a foreign people group, apparently located in Syria. Similarly, Hittites are said to have military power of equal value as that of Egypt (2 Kings 7:6). So who were these Hittites?

Hittite identity remained a mystery until the mid-nineteenth century when an Egyptian wall relief was deciphered that indicated the Hittites were a military power with whom Pharaoh Ramses II had been forced to make a treaty (about 1280 BC). The treaty concerned the lands of Syria, and biblical scholars saw this geographic location as consistent with the biblical text. Other discoveries continued to shed light on the Hittites, until just after 1900 when the other copy of the treaty was discovered at Bogazkale/Bogazkoy, a Turkish village about 100 miles east of modern Ankara.

This village, called Hattusas in ancient times, was the capital of the Hittite Empire. Hattusas, a large fortified city (about 414 acres), was excavated during the 19^th and 20^th centuries.¹ Within the walls were a Lower City, Upper City, and Royal Citadel. Within the administrative and temple buildings of Hattusas, excavators found the remains of vast libraries, systematically arranged on wooden shelving with shelf labels and even catalogues for the collections. Perhaps the most important documents from these libraries have been the Hittite Law codes, but we also have religious texts, royal decrees, treaties, literary works, historical narratives, hymns, and medical texts, among the 10,000 documents unearthed.

The languages used in these documents and elsewhere in the Hittite realm illustrate the composite nature of the Hittite Empire and possibly a lack of rigidity in Hittite administration.² No less than eight different languages are seen in these texts. The official language of the empire was Hittite (Nesite), an Indo-European language. Two languages were utilized that were actually “dead” at that time. Hattic, the language of the original inhabitants of Anatolia, and Palaic, another Indo-European import, can be seen in texts dealing with pre-Hittite religious matters. Additionally, a third Indo-European language called Luwian was employed in its hieroglyphic form for use on Hittite public monuments.

Aside from the important site of Hattusas, many other Hittite sites were excavated in Turkey during the 20^th century.³ Carchemish, on the Euphrates River in north Syria (at the modern Turkey/Syria border) was an important trade and military outpost for the Hittites and linked them with Syria and Mesopotamia.

From the archaeology and the texts, we discover that the Hittite society was a composite of various elements of the local cultures, Mesopotamian and Syrian cultures, and Hittite innovations. Perhaps because of this, Hittite culture was dominated by a sense of “tradition.” Much of the fabric of the society revolved around the careful remembrance of the past. This is seen in the use of Palaic and Hattic in the texts as well as in the traditionalism of their religion. Hittite religion, too, was cosmopolitan, with elements from a number of cultures. Hittite texts refer to the pantheon as “the thousand gods.”⁴ For the Hittites, the proper enactment of the ancient rituals for a god was central. Preserving the religious tradition was paramount.

Although the origin of the Hittites is debated, a broad picture may be painted. Indo-European settlers arrived in Anatolia modern Turkey and mingled with the local population the Hatti. By 1700 BC the Old Hittite Kingdom was established with its capital at Hattusas.⁵ The third king of this period, Mursilli I sent his armies to western Anatolia, Syria, and as far east as Babylon, which he sacked in about 1590 BC. After this brief expansion, the Hittite kingdom went into decline and found itself pushed back into its central Anatolian heartland.

Under the leadership of Tudhaliya II (1420-1370) and his successors, the Hittites reasserted their dominance in the region and established the New Kingdom. During the 110 years from 1350 BC to 1240 BC, Hittite armies took control of northern Mesopotamia and most of north Syria. The Hittite kings divided north Syria into a group of administrative districts, the most important of which were at Carchemish and Aleppo. At these cities Hittite royal princes ruled as viceroys with their own dynastic succession. The Hittite Empire was at its zenith and consisted of the heartland, control of most of modern Turkey, and administrative districts in southern Anatolia and north Syria.

Over the next half century, the empire declined. The causes for this are not fully known. Growing threats from within the Hittite administrative system, and possibly some sort of agricultural crisis, may have contributed. Additionally, the Sea Peoples form the Aegean Sea marched through the coastal regions of Syria and may have even advanced inland to attack Hattusas.⁶ Whatever the exact reasons, the Hittite capital fell in 1180 BC.

The fall of Hattusas effectively ended the Hittite Empire, yet Hittite rule continued on, especially in the former administrative districts of southern Anatolia and northern Syria. In Carchemish, for example, the post-empire rulers claim to be descended from the “Great Kings” of Carchemish, the Hittite viceroy dynasty.

As evidenced by the archaeological remains, artistic styles, and the hieroglyphic Luwian inscriptions from the region, a Hittite stratum of the population remained in authority.⁷ Perhaps this is due to the traditional nature of Hittite society and its ability to incorporate new elements into the culture. These territories became what are known as the Neo-Hittite states. There were many of these small states in north Syria and southeast Anatolia.⁸

Some of these states are known from the biblical text. Solomon traded horses to Kue (1 Kings 10:28-29, NIV) and David received tribute from Tou, king of Hamath (about 1000 BC; 2 Sam. 8:9-10, NIV). The Samuel passage illustrates well the cultural situation in these states. Tou bears a Hittite name, while his son, Joram, has a Semitic name. Over four centuries after the fall of Hattusas, the general population of the Neo-Hittite states became predominantly Aramean. This is a large, West Semitic speaking, tribally oriented people group who spread throughout Mesopotamia and Syria, beginning around 1300 BC. In the Old Testament, these are the people who inhabit Damascus. This shift appears earliest in Hamath, Bit-Adini, and Sam’al. Other states like Carchemish and those in Anatolia proper, held on to their Hittite traditions, while incorporating Aramean elements.

In its writings, Assyria referred to north Syria of the first millennium BC as “Hatti-land,” an obvious reference to the Hittite-Luwian culture there. Thus for Assyria, the population of north Syria was “Hittite.” The Bible as well understands these kingdoms to be “Hittite.” Second Kings 7:6 is an obvious reference to the kings of the Neo-Hittite states, as is 2 Chronicles 1:17. The “kings of the Hittites” were a military force to be reckoned with and a political entity on par with Egypt and the Arameans of Damascus.

Throughout their four centuries the Neo-Hittite states were the political and military powers in north Syria. Records from Assyria as well as these states themselves paint a picture of shifting alliances, coalitions, and armed conflict, both among themselves and against their common enemy, Assyria.⁹ Assyrian records attest that Ahab of Israel was involved in at least one coalition with several of these states (about 853 BC). With the rise of the Neo-Assyrian Empire (about 750 BC), the fate of the Neo-Hittite states was sealed. One by one the north Syrian states were assimilated into the Assyrian Empire, and their ruling populations were deported (2 Kings 18:33-34; 19:12-13; Isa. 10:9; Amos 6:2). This was the same fate that befell Samaria in 720. By 700, the last vestiges of Hittite ruling culture was gone.

Interaction between Hittites and Israelites has been supported in both the textual and the archaeological records. Trade between Anatolia and Canaan was ongoing from the fourth millennium. Hittite art and culture can be seen in numerous finds from northern Israel.¹⁰ Textual evidence for some migration of Hittites into Syria-Palestine during the empire period has also come to light.¹¹ Certainly, there was cultural exchange between the two societies, and numerous studies illustrate this.¹²

During the days of the judges, the Neo-Hittite kingdoms, like Israel to their south, were becoming states. They were forming governments from their traditions and incorporating new ideas into their cultures. Without the central Hittite administration, the viceroys of the Neo-Hittite districts became kings in their own right, just as the Israelite judges gave way to the kingship of Saul, David, and Solomon. As David consolidated his kingdom, he incorporated elements of this Neo-Hittite world. Perhaps the best-known Hittite in the Bible is one of his mighty men, the tragic figure of the Bathsheba episode: Uriah the Hittite. ♦

1. See H. Guterbockin, “Bogazkoy” in Oxford Encyclopedia of Archaeology in the Near East (OEANE), E. Meyers, ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1997), 1:333-335; and H. Hoffner, Jr., “Hittites” in OEANE, 3:84-88, esp. 84-85.

2. For Concise discussions of Hittite languages, see P. H. J. Houwink ten Cate, “Hittite History” in The Anchor Bible Dictionary (ABD), D. N. Freedman, ed. (New York: Doubleday, 1992), 3:219-225, esp. 223-224; and G. Beckman, “Languages (Hittite)” in ABD, 4:214-216.

5. For a broad sketch of Hittite history see George Kelm, “Hittites and Hivites” in Holman Bible Dictionary, Trent Butler, ed. (Nashville: Holman Bible Publishers, 1991), 654.

6. One group of these people settled in coastal Palestine and became known as Philistines.

7. See J. D. Hawkins, “The Neo-Hittite States in Syria and Anatolia” in The Cambridge Ancient History, 2^nd ed., vol. 3, part 1, J. Boardman, et al. eds. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982), 382-387; and I. Winter, “Carchemish SA KISAD PURATTI,” Anatolian Studies, 33(1983): 177-190. See also Hawkins, “Assyrians and Hittites,” Iraq, 36 (1974): 67-83.

8. For our purposes we are concerned with those south of the Taurus Mountains, outside of Anatolia proper. In an inner arc eastward around the Gulf of Iskander theseare Que, Sam’al, and Unqi. An outer arc encompassed Tabal, (Biblical Tubal) Melid, Kummukh, Gurgum, Carchemish, Bit-Adini, Bit-Agusi, Arpad, and Hamath.

9. For a convenient grouping of these texts see, J. Pritchard, Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, 3d ed., (Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1969); and more recently W. Hallo, ed., The Context of Scripture, vol. 2, 2000.

10. See A. Kempinski, “Hittites in the Bible: What does Archaeology Say?” Biblical Archaeology Review, 5.4 (1979): 21-45.

11. Ibid., 36-39. But see H. Hoffner, Jr., “Hittites” in Peoples of the Old Testament World, A. J. Hoerth, et al eds. (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1994), 152-3, who disagrees with Kempinski’s reading.

SOURCE:: Biblical Illustrator; LifeWay Christian Resources of the Southern Baptist Convention; Nashville, TN 37234; Vol. 36, No. 4; Summer 2010.

BIBLE CHARACTER TRIVIA

Where In The Bible Is The Answer To This Week’s Trivia Question Found? Whose curiosity to see led to a changed life?

The answer to last week’s trivia question: Who engaged with his brother Simeon in avenging the wrongs of their sister? Answer: Levi; Gen. 24:25.

Study Theme: Keys To Success				What This Lesson Is About:
Week of:		Lesson Title:		This lesson is about God’s holding us accountable for our sins and how we need to deal with our personal sins and failures.
	Aug. 1	Respect God’s Holiness
	Aug. 8	Focus on God’s Purposes
	Aug. 15	Demonstrate Kindness
X	*Aug. 22*	*Deal With Personal Sin*
	Aug. 29	Face Crises With Courage

BACKGROUND PASSAGE:			2 Samuel 11–12; Psalm 51:1-19
FOCAL PASSAGE:			2 Samuel 11:2-5,14-15; 12:7a,10-14; Psalm 51:1-4
LIFE IMPACT:			This lesson will help you recognize God’s willingness to forgive and your need to ask His forgiveness for specific sins in your life.
LESSON OUTLINE:			I. Recognize that Temptation Leads to Sin (2 Sam. 11:2-5,14-15) II. Realize that Sin Must Be Confronted (2 Sam. 12:7a,10-12) III. Rejoice that Sin Can Be Forgiven (2 Sam. 12:13-14; Ps. 51:1-4)
OVERVIEW OF FOCAL PASSAGE:
David’s Sin 11:1-27 Israel’s war with Ammon was the background for David’s sin against God. The author implied that David should have been at war, rather than remaining behind (11:1). Perhaps his earlier successes gave him a sense of false security. The author’s description of David’s temptation is reminiscent of Achan’s sin (Josh 7): he saw her, inquired about her, and then he took her (2 Sam 11:2-5). When Bathsheba learned of her pregnancy, David attempted to cover up his sin. He sent for her husband, Uriah the Hittite, who was in the field of battle. Uriah refused to go home to his wife, even at David’s insistence. Uriah did not want to enjoy his wife and home when the ark and armies of God were on the battlefield (11:6-13). In desperation David plotted with the aid of Joab to murder Uriah by exposing him to the Ammonites in battle. The plot succeeded, and David took Bathsheba as his wife (11:14-27). The sin, however, did not go unnoticed, for “the thing David had done displeased the Lord” (11:27). Nathan’s Oracle against David 12:1-31 About one year later, God sent Nathan to confront David. Nathan told a parable of a poor man’s only ewe lamb taken away by a rich man for his selfish pleasure. David, who as king was responsible for justice in the land, burned with anger against the culprit. Unwittingly, David condemned himself. Nathan accused the king, “You are the man!” (12:7). Nathan declared God’s judgment. Because he murdered Uriah by the sword, his household would likewise experience the sword. Since he took the wife of another man, David’s wives would be taken. And though David sinned in secret, he would be publicly humiliated before all Israel (12:1-12; compare 15:16; 16:21-22). These curses were fulfilled by the deaths of three of David’s sons (Amnon, Absalom, and Adonijah) and the strife David’s reign experienced toward the end of his life. To David’s credit, however, he did not shirk his guilt as Saul did when Samuel accused him (compare 1 Sam 15). David confessed his guilt openly and lamented his spiritual impurity (compare Ps 51). The judgment of God began with the child of David and Bathsheba. David prayed and fasted earnestly for the child’s life. David had felt the heavy hand of God’s judgment, but he also knew God’s mercies. For that reason he prayed, believing God might deliver the child. Though the child was not spared, David believed that he would see the child again (12:13-23). In the midst of His chastening, God also was merciful to David and Bathsheba. God gave them another child, Solomon, whom the Lord named Jedidiah (“beloved of the Lord”). From their union came the king who would build the Lord’s temple and rule Israel during its golden age. Evidence of God’s continued forgiveness was Israel’s victory over the Ammonites—this time led by David himself (12:24-31). A Penitential Psalm Psalm 51 This profound plea for forgiveness was written, according to the superscript, after David committed adultery with Bathsheba and murdered her husband. “In sin my mother conceived me” (51:5, KJV) may mean that as David’s mother and father were sinners, so was he. Or it may mean that he had been sinful from birth. It does not mean that the act of procreation was itself evil. SOURCE: Holman Bible Handbook; General Editor David S. Dockery; Holman Bible Publishers; Nashville, Tennessee
INTRODUCTION:
The news in today’s media bombards us with stories of scandals—usually about some prominent person caught doing something wrong or illegal. Sometimes the accused has gone to great lengths to cover up the misdeed, only to admit it later when the evidence becomes overwhelming. And usually the consequences are much greater than if the person had owned up to the misdeed when first confronted. This lesson focuses on King David and his sin with Bathsheba. The more the king tried to cover up his sin, the deeper into sin he sank. Eventually he confessed his sin, but great damage had been done to many, and David faced dire consequences. As you study this lesson, ask the Lord to help you recognize personal sins in your life. Ask Him for the courage to confess them quickly, so that you may experience God’s forgiveness and move ahead into all He has for you.
I. Recognize that Temptation Leads to Sin (2 Sam. 11:2-5,14-15)
² One evening David got up from his bed and strolled around on the roof of the palace. From the roof he saw a woman bathing—a very beautiful woman. ³ So David sent someone to inquire about her, and he reported, “This is Bathsheba, daughter of Eliam and wife of Uriah the Hittite.” ⁴ David sent messengers to get her, and when she came to him, he slept with her. Now she had just been purifying herself from her uncleanness. Afterwards, she returned home. ⁵ The woman conceived and sent word to inform David: “I am pregnant.” ¹⁴ The next morning David wrote a letter to Joab and sent it with Uriah. ¹⁵ In the letter he wrote: Put Uriah at the front of the fiercest fighting, then withdraw from him so that he is struck down and dies.

DAVID’S WOMEN
WIVES	REFERENCE
Michal, King Saul’s daughter	1 Sam. 18:27; 25:44; 2 Sam. 3:13-16; 6:20-23
Ahinoam of Jezreel	1 Sam. 25:43; 2 Sam. 2:3; 3:2
Abigail, widow of Nabal	1 Sam. 25:42; 2 Sam. 2:2; 3:3
Maacah, princess of Geshur	2 Sam 3:3
Haggith	2 Sam. 3:4
Abital	2 Sam. 3:4
Eglah	2 Sam. 3:5
Wives from Jerusalem (unnamed)	2 Sam. 5:13-16
King Saul’s wives	2 Sam. 12:8
Bathsheba, widow of Uriah	2 Sam. 11:27
Abishag	1 Kings 1:1-4
CONCUBINES	REFERENCE
Concubines from Jerusalem (unnamed)	2 Sam. 5:13-16
10 Concubines left in Jerusalem	2 Sam. 15:16; 16:21-22; 20:3
Total number of Wives and Concubines: at least 19

DAVID’S CHILDREN
CHILD	MOTHER	REFERENCE
Amnon	Ahinoam	2 Sam. 3:2
Chileab*	Abigail	2 Sam. 3:3
Absalom	Maacah	2 Sam. 3:3
Adonijah	Haggith	2 Sam. 3:4
Shephatiah	Abital	2 Sam. 3:4
Ithream	Eglah	2 Sam. 3:5
Unnamed sons and daughters	(multiple)	2 Sam. 5:13
Unnamed	Bathsheba	2 Sam. 11:27
Solomon (Jedidiah)	Bathsheba	2 Sam. 12:24-25
Tamar	Maacah	2 Sam. 13:1; 1 Chron. 3:9
Shammua	Bathsheba	2 Sam. 5:14; 1 Chron. 3:5
Shobab	Bathsheba	2 Sam. 5:14: 1 Chron. 3:5
Nathan	Bathsheba	2 Sam. 5:14; 1 Chron. 3:5
Ibhar	(unknown)	2 Sam. 5:15
Elishua	(unknown)	2 Sam. 5:15
Elpelet	(unknown)	1 Chron. 14:5
Nogah	(unknown)	1 Chron. 14:6
Nepheg	(unknown)	2 Sam. 5:15
Japhia	(unknown)	2 Sam. 5:15
Elishama	(unknown)	2 Sam. 5:16
Eliada	(unknown)	2 Sam. 5:16
Eliphelet	(unknown)	2 Sam. 5:16
Unnamed sons from concubines	(unknown)	1 Chron. 3:9
Lists of David’s children born in Jerusalem are in 2 Samuel 5:14-16, 1 Chronicles 3:5-9, and 14:3-7; however, the spelling of some of the names varies between lists, and 2 Samuel 5 does not include David’s son Nogah. * 1 Chronicles 3:1 calls this child Daniel.

I. Recognize that Temptation Leads to Sin (2 Sam. 11:2-5,14-15) Commentary

II. Realize that Sin Must Be Confronted (2 Sam. 12:7a,10-12) Commentary

III. Rejoice that Sin Can Be Forgiven (2 Sam. 12:13-14; Ps. 51:1-4) Commentary

DIGGING DEEPER: