II SAMUEL 12

This chapter marks the beginning of the fall of David's career. Things will go downhill for him from this point on. But there is a bright spot in that it will conclude with the birth of Solomon, whose reign forms the exact center of the combined books of Samuel and Kings.

Today's story is framed by two incidents in which Bathsheba mourns: first for her husband Uriah (11:26) and lastly for her dead son (12:24). It is also bracketed by two of the rare instances of God's direct intervention in the combined kingdom, at 11:27 (“But the thing which David had done displeased God and he sent Nathan.”) and 12:24 (“God loved Solomon and sent Nathan.”) Walter Kaiser says, “The theology of God's intervention was often more implicitly real than explicit. And it all revolved around God's plan for the throne and kingdom of David. In the midst of human tragedy and failure, relentlessly, God's purpose and promise still went onward.” (Toward an OT Theology)

For many other portions of the OT history books it is appropriate to concentrate on God's actions and the theology derived from them. Today's case is different. When looking at the human characters and their actions in biblical narratives, there are three tip-offs as to whether their actions are given as good or bad examples for us: (1) narrator's comments, (2) God's judgment, and (3) subsequent events. We are in no doubt here because all three aspects are present in this story. The narrator first tells us point blank that God was displeased with David, then God through Nathan confronts David with his sin, and subsequent events in David's life play out as the natural consequences of his sin. By the way, it is interesting that the author of Chronicles omits David's sin with Bathsheba and his confrontation by Nathan entirely from his account.

II Samuel 11:27b-12:1a

Twelve times in ch. 11, someone “sends.” Now at the start of chapter 12 it is God who does the 

sending. Dale Davis says, “What immense and genuine comfort every servant of Christ should find in 

the first six words of this chapter! Not that God's pursuing grace is enjoyable. But what if grace did not 

pursue? What if Yahweh abandoned us when we succeed at sin?”

We see this fate described in Romans 1 where three times, Paul solemnly pronounces the horrible 

words, “God gave them up.”

12:1b-3a This is the first we have heard of Nathan since Chapter 7. There we first saw him as a yes-

man to David, who had to be straightened out by God. So we might expect the same thing here, and 

you can't help but wonder what Nathan is doing when he starts out telling this story about two men and 

their sheep. Remember first of all that David was once a shepherd himself and would identify closely 

with the story. Secondly, David had no suspicion that Nathan would say anything negative about him 

since the previous prophecy from Nathan had been totally positive. He had established a good 

relationship with David beforehand. It is a lot easier to confront someone regarding their actions if you 

have already built up a friendship with them in advance. People will listen to you much more readily if 

you have not gone out of your way to antagonize them in the past. And choose your battles.

 

Nathan didn't accuse David directly, but made up a story instead, which was effective in catching 

David off guard and waking up his conscience. Of course, Jesus did the exact same thing through his 

parables, which had a way of getting around his enemies' defenses. There is another example of this 

from world literature. Have you ever wondered where Shakespeare got his plots from?

His most well-known play, perhaps the most famous play ever written, was Hamlet. The plot is 

actually a variation on the David and Bathsheba story. Both concern a king who has killed a man in 

order to marry his widow. In place of the prophet Nathan we have the hero Hamlet trying to get the 

king to admit his guilt. He also decides to do it indirectly and proclaims, “The play's the thing wherein 

I'll catch the conscience of a king.” Shakespeare, Hamlet, Act 2, Scene 2. It is a powerful technique, 

but a little dangerous at the same time because, as I have found twice times from personal experience, 

it can backfire on you.

 

In graduate school, I gave a seminar to the department and purposely misled the audience into 

following a false series of arguments found in the prior literature, until I revealed what I had been 

doing. This antagonized all the professors who had, up to that time, been nodding in agreement to 

everything I said. 

 

Not having learned my lesson, years later, a little after The Late Great Planet Earth came out, I started 

attending a church where most everyone in our Sunday school class was a firm follower of Hal 

Lindsay. I was teaching a Wednesday evening class there and decided to “set them straight.” But 

instead of directly addressing each of the objections I had with the book, I decided to be clever and get 

my point across in an indirect way by coming up with a parody of Lindsey's approach. I started by 

stringing together random poetic passages from the OT and NT and interpreting them in the most 

overly literal way I could think of while throwing in some current political events for good measure in 

order to arrive at a totally ridiculous prophecy of the future. My idea was that at some point the class 

would obviously catch on and start laughing, but they never did. They kept nodding in agreement with 

everything I said, which made it a little embarrassing when at last I had to admit that everything I had 

been saying was total nonsense. 

 

Most of the class took it well, but one woman in the class refused to even look me in the face for 

several weeks afterward. At last I found a time to talk to her alone so I could apologize if I had

offended her. She explained that many of her close friends were devout Christians who believed the 

teachings in that book and I had held them up to ridicule. I ended up not only apologizing to her but 

also the next week to the whole class. I had tried to be a Nathan and ended up being confronted by one. 

This points out that sometimes we are called to be Nathans, but we should be just as open to listening 

to Nathans when they correct us. It also reminds us that Nathan was playing a dangerous game in 

crossing a man like David, who could have easily had him executed.

Nathan concludes his story in which the rich man steals the poor man's only sheep and cooks it to serve 

a guest. David is outraged and pronounces judgment on the rich man, quoting from the law regarding 

the theft of a sheep. Exodus 22 states that he who steals a sheep and sells or slaughters it has to pay it 

back fourfold. David even goes beyond the OT law in saying that the man deserves to die. 

 

II Samuel 12:3b-6

Verse 5 This is a reminder of Jesus' words in Matthew 7:1-2 not to pass judgment on others lest we 

judge ourselves. Whenever I start preaching instead of teaching, God seems to convict me of my own 

sin (which is one reason why I don't preach).

Verse 6 There are different textual traditions for this verse. It either reads “fourfold” in parallel to the 

OT law (Exodus 22:1) or “sevenfold” meaning “completely.” [The Talmud takes the former option and 

spells it out as the catastrophes befalling four of David's children: his first child by Bathsheba, Tamar, 

Amnon and Absalom.]

As Christians, we should be reminded at this point of another NT passage as well:

Romans 2:1: “Therefore you have no excuse, whoever you are, when you judge others; for in passing 

judgment on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, are doing the very same things.”  

And, of course, that is exactly what happens to David.

Nathan's punch line to his story in v. 7a should be read, “You are the man,” not “You are the man.” It is 

not so cool when Nathan says it.

God, through Nathan, starts out by reminding David of the riches He has given him in the past. He 

gave Saul's wife Ahinoam to David as his own wife. Then He predicts that David's own wives 

(concubines) will be taken from him. This eventually happens when his son Absalom has taken over 

Jerusalem and sets himself up as king.

The other past blessings on David that God lists in verses 7-8 are part of the Davidic Covenant which 

is found in chapter 7.

1. Anointed King (2 Sam. 12:7b) 2 Sam. 7:8

2. Saved from Saul (7c) 2 Sam. 7:9a

3. Established his House (8) 2 Sam. 7:11-17

2 Samuel 12:7-8 Verse 8 has been used to prove that God approved of bigamy. However, only two 

wives of Saul are mentioned, and one of them was the mother of David's wife Michal. If David had 

married her, it would have been a direct violation of Levitical law and punishable by being burned  

alive. It is more likely that the word should be translated “women,” meaning Saul's concubines and 

servant girls.

12:9b. Then God lists David's specific sins. The direct objects in these sentences are listed first in the 

Hebrew to place the stress on them:

Uriah the Hittite you struck down with the sword;

His wife you took as your own wife;

But him you killed with the sword of the sons of Ammon.

“In this way the text emphasizes that David not only committed iniquity but destroyed persons.” Dale 

Davis

But I think what really convicted David was his sin against God, which is stressed four times in this 

chapter.

2 Samuel 12:9a: Why have you despised the word of the LORD to do what is evil in his sight?

2 Samuel 12:10: “You have despised me.” God then pronounces judgment on David (“The sword will 

not depart from your house”). Remember that David had passed judgment on the man in the parable, 

saying that he deserved death and should repay four-fold what he had stolen.

2 Samuel 12:11-12 Problems in the kingdom will be spelled out in detail in chs. 13-20, of which this 

story forms the preface. Fulfillment in David's own family includes the violent deaths of Amnon and 

Absalom, and Absalom openly taking David's concubines.

2 Samuel 12:13-14 “God's pardon and punishment are not necessarily mutually exclusive.” (New 

Bible Commentary) There are natural consequences to our actions. Note (1) David's immediate 

acceptance of guilt (unlike the hedging of offending politicians and other prominent personalities), and 

(2) the fact that he didn't “shoot the messenger.”

And David himself admits in verse 13, “ I have sinned against the LORD.”

I thought about the time in the past when David cut off a small piece of Saul's clothing and had a 

twinge of conscience over doing even that, though he could have easily killed Saul and had good 

reason to do so. Why? Because Saul was the very man that God had picked, and therefore David was 

very scrupulous not to harm him. Some scholars even feel that this same attitude is part of the reason 

why David later fled from Jerusalem when Absalom was coming to attack rather than facing him with 

his own army. He not only didn't want to kill his own son, but he may have felt that it was God's will 

that Absalom be the new king, and he didn't want to oppose God's choice. Compare this over-

scrupulousness on David's part with his seeming total lack of remorse for his act of killing Uriah until 

Nathan confronted him.

Referring to the incident with Bathsheba, Wright says, “Indeed, in that one terrible narrative David trampled on all five of the commandments in the second table: murder, adultery, theft, deceit and covetousness.” (C. J. H. Wright, Dictionary of OT History, p. 263). These are all commands having to do with our dealings with other people. By contrast, David was always very careful not to break commandments in the first tablet of the law involving God himself. I think it took Nathan to get David to fully realize for the first time that the whole law was the Word of God, not just the first commandments and that he was dishonoring God just as much when he broke the second tablet of the law. That is why David's direct sin against God was stressed in Ch. 12 and why David could say later in Psalm 51: “For I know my transgressions, and my sin is ever before me. Against you, you alone, have I sinned, and I have done evil in your sight.” This is also an important passage because it demonstrates that David's repentance over his actions was sincere and that his sin continued to haunt him later on.

I like the Anchor Bible translation of these verses. Then David said to Nathan, “I have sinned against 

Yahweh!” “Yes, but Yahweh has transferred your sin,” said Nathan to David. “You won't die, but 

because you insulted Yahweh in this matter, the child who has been born to you shall die.”

These two particular verses fit the theme of evangelism. The lesson we can learn from this passage is 

that God will indeed forgive our sins if we are truly repentant, but this forgiveness doesn't come 

cheaply; the price is the death of a totally innocent party: David's infant son. In the same way, another 

Son of David, Jesus, needed to die in order for our sins to be forgiven.

I need to comment a little on verse 14 since it has been translated in quite different ways. The Hebrew 

literally reads, “you have scorned the enemies of the LORD,” which really makes no sense as an 

accusation. That is why KJV, followed by The Living Bible, performs some undue manipulations on 

the verb and come up with “By this deed thou hast given great occasion to the enemies of the LORD to 

blaspheme...” Most modern translations recognize the Hebrew as a euphemism, meaning “By this deed 

you have utterly scorned the LORD.” This was too strong a statement for the Jewish scribes to put 

down in writing so they added “the enemies of” (RSV, NRSV, NEB, TEV, Jerusalem). The Dead Sea 

scrolls softened this sentence in a slightly different way. “By this deed you have scorned the word of the 

LORD.”

2 Samuel 12:15-25 The last part of the story continues through verse 25 concerning David's actions in 

regard to his infant son. Here is how Dale Davis analyzes these verses (Just to demonstrate that I'm not 

the only one who indulges in literary structures.)

A. The son Yahweh struck (15b)

        B. David's humiliation (16)

                C. Servants' perplexity (17-18)

                        D. David's question (19)

        B'. David's restoration (20)

                C'. Servant's perplexity (21)

                        D'. David's answer (22-23)

A. The son Yahweh loved (24-25)

There is a cartoon which summarizes the action just as well. David asks, “So, did my boy die.” The 

servant replies, “Yes, sorry sir.” David then says, Well then, let's eat.” Another servant remarks, “Wow, 

I didn't see that one coming.” Notice that Bathsheba is still called “wife of Uriah” to remind us of 

David's sin and the necessary consequence. Because David's actions do seem strange to them and us 

alike, David explains himself in vv. 22-23.

One lesson from these words is pointed out by a commentator who notes that “Who knows, or 

perhaps” “is appropriate to the humility of one who prays.” David accepts God's answer of “no” to his 

prayer the same as Jesus did in the Garden of Gethsemane and Paul's request to have the thorn in his 

flesh removed. One of our problems with the infant dying in this story is that we feel that it wasn't 

really fair of God. Our unspoken assumption is that death is the worst fate possible. However, what if 

the son had grown up in the atmosphere of David's court? Just look at how David's other sons ended up.

Another lesson to be learned here is that we should accept God's will after he has revealed it, not dwell 

on the past. And also, we shouldn't think that our prayers of petition will always be answered favorably.

I think of the contrast between two women I know who lost their husbands at an early age. One was a 

friend from the church I grew up in. Many years after her husband's death she was still obsessed with 

her loss and broke off all contacts with her old friends. My brother and sister-in-law visited her at one 

point and tried to reach out to her, but she wasn't interested in resuming any social activities. My 

brother said that her house was a little creepy since it had been set up as a shrine to her dead husband.

Another friend of ours lost her husband very unexpectedly. At that point, she thought that her ministry 

was finished. But fortunately, after much prayer she decided that God still had things for her to 

accomplish. So she resumed her work in overseas ministries and for years now she has been spreading 

the Gospel in the former Soviet Union and in Islamic countries in the Middle East.

The last part of verse 23 (“I shall go to him, but he will not return to me.”) has often been quoted as 

expressing David's belief that he would be reunited with his dead son in heaven. It is interesting that 

some people I have met seem to be more excited about being with their loved ones in heaven or more 

worried about whether their pets will be there, than they are excited about being in the very presence of 

God. In the case of this particular passage, most commentators feel that David is only referring to the 

inevitability of death, and is not necessarily making any theological pronouncements regarding the 

afterlife.

We end up in these verses being introduced to Solomon. As I said in a previous lesson, the name 

Solomon may be derived from “peace” (shalom). But there are two other possible derivations for the 

name. It may be come from Jerusalem or, more likely, the Hebrew word for “replacement.” He was the 

replacement for Bathsheba's first son and, more importantly, would be David's successor to the throne. 

God also gives him the name Jedidiah = beloved of God, vs. David = beloved. It expresses the same 

idea.

Psalm 51 “My shameful deeds haunt me day and night” are David's response to God's words, as given 

through Nathan.

Look at example of true and false prophets (those “tickling the ears”) in I Kings 22:28-34.

Who are the Nathans nowadays?

There is a series of mystery stories by Harry Kemelman in which Rabbi David Small is a modern day 

Sherlock Holmes. In one of the stories, Rabbi Small explains to his friend, a Catholic police chief, that 

Jewish rabbis are like the OT judges—interpreters of the law; Catholic priests are like OT priests

—intermediaries between man and God; Protestant ministers are the prophets—proclaiming the Word 

of God to each new generation.

Do we treat our pastor's words that way, with respect, or only when they happen to agree with our point 

of view already? They used to joke about Christians' favorite meal for Sunday supper: Roast Preacher.

How do you confront someone in power when they need it?

One attempt to do that was the C Street Fellowship set up in Washington DC as a place where 

politicians could live part time and participate in Bible studies. Christianity Today had an article in 

their Sept. 2009 issue entitled “Accountability Breakdown.” It concerned three of the residents who 

had recently confessed to, or had been caught carrying on, adulterous relationships while at C Street: a 

senator, governor, and a state representative. One of them even used the apartments at C Street for his 

liaisons with his mistress.

The article said, “It provides the same kind of support that many churches do, but it does so as a free-

floating organization. With that comes a lot of freedom, but it also creates some problems about issues 

of accountability. How easy is it for someone to rebuke a congressman or a senator? It takes some 

courage to be direct with people in power...”

“Little by little, people at the top of the pyramid conclude that the rules don't apply to 

them...Accountability groups are only as effective as the truthfulness of the participants.” That is why 

those in business or government or even church often surround themselves with yes-men. The movie 

 The Last King of Scotland (concerning Idi Amin) provides a good example.

Note another thing here: Nathan didn't confront the political powers from a position of strength. He 

wasn't like Joab, David's military commander, but was an outsider to the official power structure, and 

that is part of why he could be so effective.

I am going to stop teaching and start preaching at this point. I have my own personal and somewhat 

controversial opinions regarding Christians and politics. At least my ideas weren't at all appreciated 

when I expressed them at a previous church I attended. That church had a Salt and Light Committee, 

and as far as I could see, the sole purpose of this group was to inundate local political party meetings 

with our church members in order to outvote the rest of them to draft our own platform and get as 

many of us as possible selected as delegates to the national convention. I pointed out that if past history 

was any guide starting with the Roman Empire, every time Christians gained political power the 

spiritual life of the church goes downhill rapidly. I said, only partially tongue-in-cheek, that we should 

actually be praying to put people in political office who would persecute Christianity because that is a 

sure-fire way to help the church grow spiritually.

Someone has pointed out the interesting fact that the NT gives little to no advice on how to be a 

Christian in a society where Christians are in power while the Koran is almost exclusively geared 

toward the faithful living in a totally Islamic society. I think we need to rethink the relative values of 

power and weakness with more of a strictly biblical mindset.

Late in his life, Billy Graham was once asked whether, in looking back on his long and illustrious 

career, he had any regrets. He replied that he had three regrets: he wished he had spent more time in 

personal Bible study, more time with his family, and less time trying to get close to political leaders. I 

think he was exactly correct with these priorities. We need to first make sure that we are personally on 

a firm spiritual footing in order to be a good example and teacher to those who are closest to us. And 

only then worry about what to do to right the wrongs in our community, our country, and the world at 

large. That is the only way we can truly be salt and light in society.

We all need Nathans in our life to confront us when we take the wrong fork. And vice versa, we need to be Nathans on occasion.