An Exegetical Analysis of David’s Fall Into Sin (2 Samuel 11 – 12)

David’s life can be divided into three parts: (1) the shepherd years, (2) the fugitive years, and (3) the kingly years.[1] The last segment can be further divided into two parts -- the years before and the years after David’s sin with Bathsheba.

After David is crowned king by all Israel (2 Sam. 5:1-5), the author begins to recount the glorious accomplishments of David’s kingship, beginning with the capture of Jerusalem, the defeat of the Philistines (2 Sam. 5:6-25) and the return of the Ark of the Covenant to Jerusalem (2 Sam. 6). These successes climax in God’s covenant with David in which God promises David an everlasting dynasty (2 Sam. 7). Further triumphs follow (2 Sam. 8) followed by David’s attempts to show kindness to Saul’s house (2 Sam. 9) and to Hanun the Ammonite (2 Sam. 10). Hanun is suspicious of David’s offer and humiliates David’s men. This results in war with the Ammonites who hire the Arameans to join them in battle against Israel. This battle provides the backdrop for David’s fall into sin.

The Setting (11:1)

As stated above, David’s sin is framed by Israel’s war with the Ammonites. Rabbah, the capital city of the Ammonites located 40 miles east of Jerusalem, was the final citadel to be captured.[2] Due to the winter months and rainy season, this battle had to be put on hold until the spring (cf. 10:14). But when spring arrived, David did not return to battle but remained in Jerusalem.

Why did David do this? Commentators are divided. Matthews believes that David was merely exercising his kingly prerogatives.

Kings, because of the duties of state or physical reasons, could not always accompany the army in every campaign… David’s decision to remain behind may reflect his confidence in Joab’s military skill, a pressing diplomatic matter or his concern with domestic affairs.[3]

Baldwin suggests that David’s laxity was indicative of his “acting like one of the kings of the nations round about, and exercising a kind of droit de seigneur.”[4]

Most commentators, however, interpret this act in a negative light, contributing to David’s downfall. Lawlor believes the text clearly indicates this. After presenting David leading a battle in 10:15-19,

the narrator turns to a time when kings normally go out to battle. It would have been sufficient for the narrator to record the fact that David “sent” Joab against the Ammonites in the spring of the year. Instead, he consciously informs the reader that David remained in Jerusalem at a time when normally he would be involved in military activity.[5]

Elwell is a little less certain. “[T]he campaign against the Ammonites may not have demanded David’s personal leadership, but the text strongly implies he should have been with his troops.”[6] This is further underscored if the Ark had truly been taken from Jerusalem to the battle scene, for this would clearly demonstrate the great importance of the Ammonite campaign.[7]

Payne believes that David’s lack of participation may have stemmed from sinful overconfidence.

The Ammonites’ army was quickly destroyed and their capital city besieged. By now the Israelite army was powerful, and David’s position very secure. It is all too often the case that a sense of ease and security is the prelude to spiritual and moral failure.[8]

Regardless of one’s position, David’s failure to directly participate in the Ammonite war provides the setting for his sin. At the height of David’s triumph he begins his descent, “a descent that might have been avoided had he been where he should have been -- at the head of his army.”[9]

The Sin (11:2-5)

David’s transgression begins after “an afternoon siesta, followed by a stroll on the roof, which of necessity involves going backwards and forwards, getting nowhere, a sense conveyed by the Hebrew verb form.”[10] As the “master of all he surveys”[11] David gazes upon the beautiful bathing Bathsheba. In the parenthetical comment of 4b, we learn that this bath was most likely a ritual purification in obedience to Leviticus 15:19-30, assuring the reader that the conception that follows the adulterous act is by David and not Uriah.

David’s curiosity is aroused by Bathsheba’s beauty and he inquires about the woman. Did David know in advance who this woman was? According to Matthews, some of the details of the text would tend to suggest this.

The father of Bathsheba is Eliam, a member of David’s special cadre of “mighty men” (2 Sam 23:34) and therefore the head of an influential household. This Eliam is the son of Ahithophel, one of David’s most respected advisors (2 Sam 15:12; 16:23). This information, along with the fact that her husband, Uriah the Hittite, is also one of the “mighty men” (2 Sam 23:39), suggests that David knew exactly whose house he was looking at and was well acquainted with Bathsheba (an alternative translation suggests that it was David who said “Is this not Bathsheba?”).[12]

But the fact that he must inquire into the identity of the woman suggests otherwise. However, once he is told of Bathsheba’s identity, it seems clear David should have known better than to sleep with the wife of one of his faithful warriors. Sadly, David commits the evil deed anyway.

The Cover Up (11:6-13)

Fearing a public scandal,[13] David attempts to cover up his sin by bringing Uriah the Hittite from the front lines of the battle. As a Hittite, one of the seven major peoples of Canaan (Deut. 7:1), we recognize Uriah “is not a member of Israel’s covenant community”[14] leaving us to wonder, “What sort of person will he prove to be?”[15] Upon his arrival, David encourages him to go to his house and “wash his feet,” most likely a euphemistic innuendo for sexual intimacy.[16]

Out of a sense of duty and covenant loyalty, Uriah frustrates David’s plans by refusing to return home.[17] With mounting desperation, David attempts to get Uriah drunk, but to no avail. Since Uriah’s loyalties are so strong, David uses this loyalty to his own advantage so “that the very loyalty which first frustrates the king’s purpose becomes the tool that is used to bring about the loyal soldier’s death.”[18] This is demonstrated in two ways:

[F]irst, the letter containing the details of David’s plan is carried by Uriah -- an indication that the king was using this quality of Uriah to his own advantage; second, the scheme, briefly outlined though it is, suggests that David believed that Uriah’s character would lead him to remain on the front line even though his fellow soldiers retreated.[19]

Regardless of the morals or means, Uriah must die![20]

Without hesitation (“in the morning,” v.14) David sends Uriah to Joab carrying his own death warrant. Interestingly, Mays considers that Uriah may have known what was going on all along.

If David can speak in code, why not Uriah? Understood thus, Uriah’s refusal to go down to his house is in fact his refusal to compromise his own house, to condone David’s crime and so to embed further the corruption in the king’s house. Does he therefore go to his death knowingly, still the king’s loyal servant, but with his own integrity intact? In that case the irony of his death is turned against David. It is Uriah who is in charge of it, not David. It is Uriah the Hittite (whose name in Hebrew means “Yhwh is my light”) who rules in Jerusalem.[21]

Although this interpretation is provocative, it assumes too much. We know that David is speaking “in code” because the text clearly leads us to that conclusion. Nowhere in the text are we introduced to the idea that Uriah is aware of David’s subtleties. Instead, Uriah’s dogged loyalty seems to indicate that he had no idea whatsoever of the evil that was planned for him.

The Deed is Done (11:22-27)

Joab is faithful to carry out David’s evil design, even at the cost of losing other soldiers. Joab sends word back to David that Uriah is dead. David responds by callously saying, “Do not let this thing be evil in your sight” (v. 25), perhaps placating his own conscious in the process. David in his insensitivity is set in stark contrast to the merciful David of 9:1-3 and 10:1-2 who was eager to show kindness.[22]

Bathsheba -- called the “wife of Uriah” (v. 26) to emphasize David’s sin once more -- responds to this news with great grief. “At no point is the reader permitted to gather that Uriah’s death was regarded as a matter of indifference.”[23]

At last, the evil deed was done. “As far as David knew, his tracks were covered. Dead men tell no tales!”[24] Has David committed the perfect crime?

Throughout this episode God seems uninvolved and silent, yet he is present and watching the entire time. God’s silence does not indicate his approval. In contrast to David’s statement in verse 25, we learn that “the thing that David had done was evil in the sight of the Lord” (v. 27).

God’s Judgment (12:1-14)

The office of prophet arose with the office of king in order to be the conscience of the kings, hindering them from ruling like the kings of the surrounding nations.[25] Nathan, the same prophet who had told David about the eternal dynasty God had promised him (7:11–16), now must rebuke David. In contrast to chapter 11, where David, Bathsheba, and Joab “send” (“salah”) twelve times (11:1, 3, 4, 5, 6 [3x], 12, 14, 18, 22, 27), Yahweh now “sends” his prophet to proclaim his judgment.[26]

Nathan indirectly removes all David’s defenses by presenting a situation that demands judgment. The account parallels David’s treatment of Uriah and Bathsheba.

An illustration of this point is seen in the terminology which Nathan uses in 12:3 where he indicates that the ewe lamb “…used to eat (תֹאכַל) of his morsel, and drink (תִשׁתֶּה) from his cup, and lie (תִשְׁכָּב) in his bosom….” The significance of this is to be seen in the similarity of this statement to Uriah’s statement, recorded in 11:11 , when in response to David’s query as to why he would not go to his home, he responds: “…shall I then go to my house, to eat (לְאֱכֹל) and to drink, (וְלִשְׁתּרֹת) and to lie (וְלִשְׁכַּב) with my wife….”[27]

In the account the character of both men is revealed. The poor man treats his lamb like a precious daughter demonstrating his love and compassion. The rich man, on the other hand, is cruel and heartless in taking the poor man’s lamb, especially in light of his abundance. According to Matthews,

this case demonstrates… that adultery and murder were only the end results of a more serious crime: abuse of power. David is formally indicted by the divine tribunal (God speaking through the prophet) not only for taking another man’s wife but for believing that he could take whatever he wanted and being dissatisfied with what God had given him. It is thus made clear that the king is not above the law and will be called to judgment by God.[28]

If the verb “sent” truly relates to David’s abuse of power, Matthews’ position is further solidified.[29]

David violently reacts to this injustice, calling down an oath and even murder upon the guilty party. He “saw more than a mere property offense here. There was an attitude beneath the act, a heartlessness, a cruelty.”[30] With David’s defenses stripped away, Nathan delivers the sentence: “You are the man!”

Pronouncing God’s judgment, Nathan reminds David of all that Yahweh had given him: “I anointed… I delivered… I gave.”[31] Even though David had not directly dealt the deathblow, he was guilty (“you have struck down Uriah”). In despising the word of the Lord, David had despised God personally (vv. 9-10).

God’s judgment is twofold: “the sword shall never depart from your house” and “I will raise up evil against you from your own household.” Both of these judgments would become clear in the remaining chapters of Samuel. Not only would all Israel suffer in light of David’s sin, but tragedy would overtake his household, bringing death to Bathsheba’s child, as well as to David’s sons: Amnon, Absalom, and Adonijah.

David may have feared that he would receive the same punishment that Saul received, namely, the loss of his kingdom (1 Sam. 15:23). However, God’s judgment

indicates that David’s dynasty, unlike that of Saul, is to continue, but that good news is modified by the ongoing punishment of protracted war and bloodshed. In this the whole nation is involved, and generations to come will be reminded of David’s sin as they fight continuing battles.[32]

David’s response is two words in Hebrew: “I have sinned against the Lord.” According to the law, he certainly deserves death (Lev. 20:10; Deut. 22:22; Numbers 5:11-31). His admission of this was political suicide. “There is no excuse, no cloaking… no searching for a loophole… no pretext put forward, no human weakness pleaded. He acknowledges his guilt openly, candidly, and without prevarication.”[33] God’s forgiveness is proof of his sincerity.

Nathan announces, “The Lord has put away your sin; you shall not die.” Elwell suggests two reasons why David was forgiven. First, “David’s repentance was heartfelt and very sincere.”[34] Second, “God had made a covenant with David and had promised him an unending dynasty (7:11–16). True to his word, God kept David on the throne and did not withdraw his love from him.”[35]

Death of a Son (12:15b-23)

Even though God had pronounced he would take the life of David’s son, David knew that God was gracious and acted appropriately. God’s forgiveness and continued faithfulness to David in spite of his sin was proof of this: “Who knows whether the Lord will be gracious to me?” This is the basis for David’s behavior -- behavior that confuses David’s servants. Eventually David must accept the Lord’s judgment. Even though David’s faith seems great, Payne argues that the main point of this episode is to demonstrate “God’s punishment had begun.”[36]

Birth of Solomon (12:24-25)

The account ends on a high point. Solomon is born by David’s “wife Bathsheba” (no longer called “Uriah’s widow,” v. 15b). In contrast to the fact that the “Lord struck” David’s first child (v. 15b), the Lord “loved” this child. Nathan’s reassuring message includes naming the child Jedidiah (“loved by the Lord”). God indicates that this baby will not die, also assuring David that he has been completely restored to fellowship. Solomon would be especially precious to David in light of this.[37] Indeed, Solomon is God’s initial fulfillment to God’s promise in 7:12-13!

Conquering Ammon (12:26-31)

The account concludes with David’s complete victory over the Ammonites. Joab captures the royal city, perhaps by cutting off the water supply to the city.[38] In order to rightly honor David, Joab calls David to participate in the final victory battle. David’s army finished the job.[39]

The Meaning

In the unfolding narrative of Samuel, we learn of God’s continuing faithfulness to his covenant with David, in spite of David’s unfaithfulness in the Bathsheba-Uriah incident. This is due, not primarily to David or his dynasty’s integrity, but rather, to God’s commitment to reside in Jerusalem and remain true to his covenant with David. “In chap. 6 Yahweh, the divine King, has indicated that he will thereafter take up residence in Jerusalem, the new Davidic capital.”[40] With rest from enemies on all sides (2 Sam. 7:1)

2 Samuel 7 then proceeds to give expression to the nature of David’s kingship and to take up the question of the perpetuation of David’s line. The chapter operates as a charter for the Davidic dynasty, for by the promises of the chapter an eternal throne for David and his house was established.[41]

Furthermore, in light of David’s sin, we are able to see the initial reason for the wars, conflicts, and divisions that will ensue in David’s family in particular and in Israel in general -- particular in her civil wars (2 Sam. 15-19) and in her division into Israel and Judah.

Relevance for Modern Audience

In light of this, we learn that God is firmly committed to his covenant with David and his plan to perpetuate his dynasty forever. He has done this eternally through Christ. The Davidic covenant has not failed, but has been fulfilled in Christ. God’s faithfulness to his covenant with David has resulted in God’s gift of Messiah, who sits upon David’s throne eternally (see Luke 1:32-33).

Furthermore, we see that personal sins may be forgiven but still have continuing consequences. Keddie distinguishes between forgiveness and chastisement:

Forgiveness looks to the removal of the eternal consequences of sin and redirects the course of this life heavenwards. Chastening involves something of the continuing consequences of sin in this life as a means of correction, guidance and rededication to the Lord.[42]

Instead of refusing to repent, and attempting to cover up our sin as David did, we should turn to God in repentance, casting ourselves upon his grace and mercy -- who knows whether he may be gracious? The more we try to hide our sin, the more effort we must exert in maintaining the hoax.

We must be on guard, for “past obedience is no guarantee of present and future faithfulness.”[43] In one sense, David’s many notable successes were overshadowed by one night of carelessness. He certainly had no idea how far the reverberations of this one act would spread. “The beginnings of sin are… to be dreaded; for who knows where they will end?”[44]

Thankfully, it is God’s covenant faithfulness to provide a Son to sit on David’s throne that provides the basis for our confident approach to God, even when we have sinned -- indeed, even in spite of our sin.

---

Bibliography

Baldwin, Joyce and D. J. Wiseman, gen. ed. 1 and 2 Samuel: An Introduction and Commentary. Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1988.

Davis, Dale Ralph. 2 Samuel: Out of Every Adversity. Ross-shire, Great Britain: Christian Focus Publications, 1999.

Elwell, W. ed. Evangelical Commentary on the Bible [CD-ROM] (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1996).

Gulston, Charlse. David: Shepherd and King. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 1980.

Keddie, Gordan. Triumph of the King: The Message of 2 Samuel. Durham, England: Evangelical Press, 1990.

Keil, C. F. Biblical Commentary on the Books of Samuel. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1950.

Mays, James L. Harper’s Bible Commentary [CD-ROM](San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1988).

Payne, D. F. and others, eds., New Bible Commentary: 21^st Century Edition. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1998).

Walton, John H. and Victor H. Matthews and Mark W. Chavalas. The IVP Bible Background Commentary: Old Testament [CD-ROM] (Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 2000).

Dumbrell, William J. “The Content and Significance of the Books of Samuel: Their Place and Purpose Within the Former Prophets,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 3, no. 1(March 1990): 49-62.

Lawlor, John. “Theology and Art in the Narrative of the Ammonite War (2 Samuel 10-12),” Grace Theological Journal 3, no. 2 (Fall 1982): 193-206.

Martin, John A. “Studies in 1 and 2 Samuel, Part 4: The Theology of Samuel,” Bibliotheca Sacra 141, no. 564 (October 1984): 303-313.

---

---

© Richard J. Vincent, May 1, 2002