Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary2 Samuel 12

Sent Nathan. As time went on David’s sin came out into the open. It became known that David himself was the father of the child that was born to Bath-sheba, and suspicions arose that it was he who had brought about the death of Uriah (see PP 720).

David was not only the civil ruler of his people but also “the Lord’s anointed,” the head of the theocracy, the leader of God’s chosen people, and the one who was to uphold and enforce the law of the Lord. David by his sin had brought reproach and dishonor upon the name of the Lord. God therefore sent Nathan to David to deliver the message of divine rebuke, in an attempt to bring the erring king to a realization of the magnitude of his crime and to repentance. There were two men. The allegory was skillfully designed to arouse David’s indignation and thus cause him to pass sentence upon the offense he had committed. The delivery of the message required skill and courage. Unless the rebuke went home to the heart of the king, it might bring about the death of the reprover. Ewe lamb. The details are skillfully presented to create sympathy for the owner of the one ewe lamb and indignation toward the heartless individual who would stoop so low as to take advantage of his neighbor. In order that it might be effective, the narrative was made most realistic. Homes where lambs are treated with much affection are still found in Syria today.

Ellen G. White

Greatly kindled. In spite of his sin, David retained an innate sense of justice, and gave his verdict without delay. With a solemn oath he pronounced sentence against the man. What he had actually done was to sentence himself to death.

Fourfold. This was in accord with the law of Moses (Ex. 22:1; cf. Luke 19:8). Some manuscripts of the LXX here have “sevenfold,” in accord with Prov. 6:31.

Thou art the man. David the judge had found David the transgressor worthy of death. He could not go against his own judgment, because it was he himself who had pronounced the sentence. It would be useless to plead that the facts as presented were not in accord with the crime committed. Actually the deed of which David was guilty was far worse than the deed he had pronounced worthy of death. David was without excuse. He knew that he was in the wrong and that the sentence pronounced was just. In spite of the magnitude of his crime, his conscience was not yet dead. He had succeeded for a time in hiding his crime from the eyes of men, but he did not succeed in hiding it from God. Through a chain of circumstances the Lord allowed him to catch a glimpse of the terrible nature of the crime he had committed and to pronounce a just sentence against himself. The unflinching application of the parable to the king portrays the holy boldness and faithfulness of God’s prophet. This plain-spoken rebuke might well have cost Nathan his life, but he did not waver in performing his duty. The boldness and suddenness of Nathan’s words brought a shock to David that woke him from the evil spell that his crimes had cast upon him. David had been essentially a good man, one who endeavored to obey the Lord. But he had yielded to temptation, and in the attempt to cover up his guilt had become ever more deeply entangled in a net of evil. For a time his senses had seemed to be stupefied by a delirium of power, prosperity, and perfidy. Now he was suddenly brought back to his senses.

Thy master’s wives. Nathan here refers to the Oriental custom that gave to a new king the harem of his predecessor. The Bible mentions only one wife of Saul (1 Sam. 14:50), and one concubine (2 Sam. 3:7), who was taken by Abner. The record does not state that David actually took to himself any woman who had ever belonged to Saul, but at least custom permitted him to, and God for the time being did not interfere with the custom (see Matt. 19:4–9; see on Deut. 14:26).

Despised the commandment. Upon David as the divinely appointed ruler of Israel rested the responsibility to uphold God’s law and to teach the nation to obey its precepts. By his example David had shown contempt for God’s law and had encouraged his people to disregard its precepts. The king who should have been a terror to the doers of iniquity had encouraged them in their course of evil. He had proved himself unfaithful to the solemn responsibilities that God had placed upon him. Thou hast killed Uriah. By ordering the death of Uriah by the hand of the Ammonites, David was as guilty of the blood of his trusted officer as if he had performed the slaying with his own sword. God Himself placed upon David the accusation of murder, and from this charge there was no escape. Taken his wife. David had no right to Bath-sheba. She was the lawful wife of Uriah. In slaying Uriah and then taking his wife, David committed an offense that throughout the ages has given enemies of the Lord the opportunity to blaspheme and reproach God’s holy name.

Shall never depart. As David had dealt unto others, so now he himself was to receive. The floodgates of evil that David had opened would engulf his posterity in misery and woe. Despised me. David’s crime consisted not only in the evil he had done to Uriah but also in the wrong he had committed against God. The Lord had placed David upon his throne and promised that the kingdom would be given to him and his seed forever, yet in spite of all this David had been guilty of despising the One who had been so good to him.

Raise up evil. These words must not be taken to mean that God would be the instigator or the originator of the evil here predicted (see PP 728, 739). In the crime of Amnon against his sister Tamar (ch. 13) and in the rebellion of Absalom (chs. 15 to 19) David was to taste somewhat of the bitter fruitage of his sin and the results of his inability to control or inspire his sons. Unto thy neighbour. See ch. 16:22. This was another prediction of the results of David’s sin. God is here, as frequently, presented as doing that which He does not restrain.

Before all Israel. See ch. 16:22. The punishment was to be as open as the sin had been secret.

I have sinned. The context shows that these words were spoken sincerely. Nathan’s rebuke had gone straight to his heart, and David humbly confessed himself a sinner. In the 51st psalm, written at this time, David not only acknowledged his sin and asked for forgiveness but prayed God to create in him a clean heart and renew a right spirit within him (Ps. 51:2, 3, 10). The 32d psalm likewise may have originated during this crisis (see PP 724). Put away thy sin. These words may be of encouragement to every sinner, for they show that the Lord is willing to forgive, no matter how great the sin. Few have been guilty of any baser sin, any greater ingratitude, any more intense or brutal selfishness than was David in his murder of Uriah. Yet when he sincerely acknowledged his sin the Lord readily granted forgiveness and restored him to divine favor. At the same time a course such as David pursued is fraught with extreme danger. Repentance involves a change in the basic attitude of the sinner toward his sin. Men generally sin because they love to. This makes it difficult for them to be sorry for a sin they deliberately planned and purposely executed. Only when they are willing to make a complete change in their

attitudes and conduct and by the help of God to root out the evil in their nature that caused their transgression will they be able to find repentance. Any man interested only in receiving forgiveness for past transgression while planning to repeat his sin, is insincere and seeks forgiveness in vain.

Ellen G. White

To blaspheme. Although the Lord forgave David for his sin, that did not bring an end to its influences for evil. Many a skeptic, pointing to this experience, has blasphemed the name of God and cast reproach upon the church. Shall surely die. David had given the judgment that “the man that hath done this thing shall surely die” (v. 5). By his own sentence David was the one who should die. But instead, God decreed that the child of his sin should die (see PP 722). To David the death of the child would be a far greater punishment than his own death. As a result of the bitter experience he would pass through, David would be brought to a full measure of repentance and conversion.

Besought God. Even after He has pronounced judgment God has sometimes seen fit to turn aside the penalty in response to sincere repentance and earnest petitions to Him (Ex. 32:9–14; cf. Jonah 3:4–10). David knew that God was “merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abundant in goodness and truth” (Ex. 34:6). He therefore pleaded earnestly for forgiveness and for the life of the child. However, this does not imply that he refused submission to the divine will. He simply hoped that God’s mercy might spare the child.

Then David arose. The death of the child was God’s solemn answer to the earnest entreaty of the father. God did not give a favorable answer to David’s petitions, but the king was humbly submissive to the divine will. When Heaven’s answer is contrary to our plea we must remember that God knows best, and that for some reason, often unknown to us, He sees that it is not best to extend the life of the one who is sick.

What thing is this? David’s conduct was strange in the eyes of his servants. They expected to find his deepest expression of grief at the death of the child, but he arose from his fasting and asked for bread.

Wherefore should I fast? These words portray David’s resignation to the will of God, and his understanding of the state of the dead. After the child had died, there was nothing further he could do about the matter, and he humbly accepted the inevitable. I shall go to him. The Hebrews spoke figuratively of the dead sleeping together in a realm called she’ol. This word is translated both “grave” and “hell” in the KJV. The rendering “hell” is unfortunate, for she’ol has nothing to do with torture or consciousness. The one who died was sometimes represented as going to sleep with his fathers (2 Sam. 7:12; 1 Kings 1:21; 2:10), or as being gathered to his fathers (2 Kings 22:20). David meant that he would join his son in death, but that his son would not return to the land of the living.

Solomon. The name probably means “peaceable.” Solomon was to succeed to the kingdom; thus he was to be a progenitor of the Messiah. David’s life had been one of war, Solomon’s was to be one of peace.

Jedidiah. Literally, “beloved of Jehovah.” David had sinned, but his sin had been forgiven. God still loved him, and He loved the child that was born to Bath-sheba.

Ellen G. White

Against Rabbah. The account of Joab’s siege of Rabbah (ch. 11:1) had been interrupted by the account of David’s experience with Bath-sheba. Now the account of

the siege of Ammon’s capital city is resumed. The narrative of David’s adultery with Bath-sheba and the murder of Uriah (2 Sam. 11:2 to 12:25) is not in Chronicles.

The city of waters. Rabbah was situated in the narrow valley of the upper Jabbok River. The citadel was on a cliff, evidently a walled city apart from the lower town. This lower town was called “the city of waters,” probably because of the spring that there flowed into the river. When this lower city was taken by Joab, the loss of the water supply made it impossible for the defenders to hold the upper city long. In NT times this city was called Philadelphia (not to be confused with the Asia Minor city by that name, Rev. 1:11). The modern name is ‘Ammân, the capital of Transjordan after World War I, and later the capital of the new kingdom of Jordan.

Encamp against the city. The siege of Rabbah was practically over. The most important part of the city had already fallen, and it was evident that the rest of the city would soon be in Israelite hands. Joab graciously extended the invitation to David to bring the rest of the forces of Israel, that the king might take the city in person and have the glory of its capture. After my name. When David took Jerusalem it was given the name “city of David” (ch. 5:7, 9). It seems that Joab planned that Rabbah, after its capture, should receive, not his name, but David’s.

All the people. Joab had proposed a general muster of all the people for the capture of Rabbah (v. 28). David carried out this proposal and now appeared in person for the final capture of the city. Since the fall of the city was certain, a full muster of the national strength seems to have been prompted by choice rather than necessity.

Their king’s crown. The same Hebrew consonants that here form the words “their king” also form the name Malcham (or Milcom), the national god of the Ammonites (Zeph. 1:5). Some thus believe that the crown taken by David was that of the idol rather than of the king, since the crown would seem to be too heavy to be worn by a man. A talent is about 75 lb. (34 kg.). Precious stones. Literally, “a stone of preciousness.” Set on David’s head. The grammar of this passage permits us to conclude that either the crown or the precious stone was set on David’s head. A crown of such weight could not have been worn for any length of time, nor would it be worn on ordinary occasions. The crown may have been placed, for a moment, on David’s head as a token of triumph, or the stone may have been taken from the crown and set in David’s crown. In either case the act signified David’s sovereignty over the Ammonites.

Put them under saws. That is, the people were appointed to labor with saws and other implements. By the change of one letter in the verb the parallel passage reads, “he sawed them with saws” (1 Chron. 20:3). Perhaps the same verb as is used in Samuel was intended. This may be a copyist’s error. Some have thought that David tortured the Ammonite prisoners (see on 1 Chron. 20:3). Such cruelties would be in accord with the common customs of the time, but not with David’s character.