2 Samuel · Chapter 12

V. 1. The Lord sent-When the ordinary means did not awaken David to repentance, God takes an extraordinary course. Thus the merciful God pities and prevents him who had so horribly forsaken God. He said-He prudently ushers in his reproof with a parable, after the manner of the eastern nations, that so he might surprize David, and cause him unawares to give sentence against himself.

Verse 1. There were two men in one city] See a discourse on fables at the end of Judges 9:56, and a discourse on parabolic writing at the end of the thirteenth chapter of Matthew.

There is nothing in this parable that requires illustration; its bent is evident; and it was construed to make David, unwittingly, pass sentence on himself. It was in David’s hand, what his own letters were in the hands of the brave but unfortunate Uriah.

Verse 1. The Lord sent Nathan unto David — When the ordinary means did not awaken David to repentance, God takes an extraordinary course. Thus the merciful Lord pities and prevents him who had so horribly forsaken God. He said — He prudently ushers in his reproof with a parable, after the manner of the eastern nations, that so he might surprise David, and cause him unawares to give sentence against himself.

Verse 1. The Lord sent Nathan to David. The substance of the mission, the visitations he foretold, the perfect accomplishment of them, as well from that very day as in future ages, leaves not a vestige of doubt of the divine authority of the prophet. Who but a man of God would have dared to speak as Nathan to an absolute monarch in the zenith of conquest and glory; and to add, The sword shall never depart from thy house? The child of lawless desire died presently; Absalom assassinated Amnon, and was himself pierced in the oak. Jehu slew forty two of David’s house going to Jezebel’s feast; and Athaliah, hearing of the death of her father and her husband, slew all the seed-royal in Jerusalem, except Joash an infant, who escaped in his nurse’s arms. Thus the strokes of justice continued to fulfil the word of the Lord by Nathan till the final Babylonian captivity, when Nebuchadnezzar slew sixty six of the rebels, many of whom were of David’s line.

NATHAN’S PARABLE AGAINST DAVID, 1-14.

“The year had passed; the dead Uriah was forgotten; the child of guilt was born in the royal house, and loved with all the passionate tenderness of David’s paternal heart. Suddenly the prophet Nathan appears before him. He comes as if to claim redress for a wrong in humble life. It was the true mission of the prophets, as champions of the oppressed, in the courts of kings. It was the true prophetic spirit that spoke through Nathan’s mouth. The apologue of the rich man and the ewe lamb has, besides its own intrinsic tenderness, a supernatural elevation, which is the best sign of true revelation. It ventures to disregard all particulars, and is content to aim at awakening the general sense of outraged justice. It fastens on the essential guilt of David’s sin — not its sensuality, or its impurity, so much as its meanness and selfishness. It rouses the king’s conscience by that teaching described in 1 Corinthians 14:24, 25, as specially characteristic of prophecy, making manifest his own sin in the indignation which he has expressed at the sin of another.” — Stanley.

1. Sent Nathan unto David — This was after the birth of the child of Bathsheba. Compare verses 14 and 15 with 2 Samuel 11:27. By this time, perhaps, David began to think that his sin was unknown or forgotten. Two men in one city — David and Uriah.

V. 2. Many flocks-Noting David’s many wives and concubines.

Verses 2, 3. Many flocks and herds — Denoting David’s many wives and concubines, with whom he might have been satisfied. One little ewe-lamb — It appears by this that Uriah had but one wife, with whom he was well contented. Which he had bought — Or, had procured. Men frequently purchased their wives in those days, giving to their parents a sum of money for them. It did eat of his meat, &c. — These words express the exceeding care which the poor man took of his one sheep, and the value he put upon it, as being, in some manner, his chief substance, furnishing him with milk for food, and wool for clothing; and they are intended to signify how dear his wife was to Uriah, and the high estimation in which he held her.

NATHAN’S PARABLE AGAINST DAVID, 1-14.

“The year had passed; the dead Uriah was forgotten; the child of guilt was born in the royal house, and loved with all the passionate tenderness of David’s paternal heart. Suddenly the prophet Nathan appears before him. He comes as if to claim redress for a wrong in humble life. It was the true mission of the prophets, as champions of the oppressed, in the courts of kings. It was the true prophetic spirit that spoke through Nathan’s mouth. The apologue of the rich man and the ewe lamb has, besides its own intrinsic tenderness, a supernatural elevation, which is the best sign of true revelation. It ventures to disregard all particulars, and is content to aim at awakening the general sense of outraged justice. It fastens on the essential guilt of David’s sin — not its sensuality, or its impurity, so much as its meanness and selfishness. It rouses the king’s conscience by that teaching described in 1 Corinthians 14:24, 25, as specially characteristic of prophecy, making manifest his own sin in the indignation which he has expressed at the sin of another.” — Stanley.

1. Sent Nathan unto David — This was after the birth of the child of Bathsheba. Compare verses 14 and 15 with 2 Samuel 11:27. By this time, perhaps, David began to think that his sin was unknown or forgotten. Two men in one city — David and Uriah.

V. 3. Bought-As men then used to buy their wives: or, had procured.

Verse 3. And lay in his bosom] This can only mean that this lamb was what we call a pet or favourite in the family, else the circumstance would be very unnatural, and most likely would have prevented David from making the application which he did, as otherwise it would have appeared absurd. It is the only part of this parable which is at variance with nature and fact.

Verses 2, 3. Many flocks and herds — Denoting David’s many wives and concubines, with whom he might have been satisfied. One little ewe-lamb — It appears by this that Uriah had but one wife, with whom he was well contented. Which he had bought — Or, had procured. Men frequently purchased their wives in those days, giving to their parents a sum of money for them. It did eat of his meat, &c. — These words express the exceeding care which the poor man took of his one sheep, and the value he put upon it, as being, in some manner, his chief substance, furnishing him with milk for food, and wool for clothing; and they are intended to signify how dear his wife was to Uriah, and the high estimation in which he held her.

3. One little ewe lamb — Referring tenderly to Bathsheba. Lay in his bosom — As a family pet. Perhaps designed to indicate that Uriah was passionately devoted to his wife.

Verse 4. There came a traveller unto the rich man — This aptly signifies David’s roving affection, which he suffered to wander from his own home, and to covet another man’s wife. The Jewish doctors say it represents the evil disposition or desire that is in us, which must be carefully watched and resisted when we feel its motions. But took the poor man’s lamb — Nathan, in this parable, omits touching the murder committed to cover the adultery, perhaps in order that David might not readily apprehend his meaning, and so be induced, unawares, to pronounce sentence of condemnation upon himself.

4. Spared to take of his own — David had Saul’s harem, and all the house of Israel, from which to take young virgins as wives, without interfering with Uriah’s possessions. Compare verse 8.

V. 5. Is worthy to die-This seems to be more than the fact deserved, or than he had commission to inflict for it, Exodus 22:1. But it is observable, that David now when he was most indulgent to himself, and to his own sin, was most severe and even unjust to others; as appears by this passage, and the following relation, ver. 31, which was done in the time of David’s impenitent continuance in his sin.

Verse 5. The man-shall surely die] Literally מות בנ ben maveth, “he is a son of death,” a very bad man, and one who deserves to die. But the law did not sentence a sheep-stealer to death; let us hear it: If a man steal an ox or a sheep, he shall restore FIVE OXEN for an ox, and FOUR SHEEP for a sheep, Exodus 22:1; and hence David immediately says, He shall restore the lamb FOURFOLD.

Verses 5, 6. David’s anger was greatly kindled, &c. — So many base and aggravated circumstances appeared to him to attend it, that he thought it deserving of capital punishment. The man shall surely die — This seems more than the fact deserved, or than he had commission to inflict for it. But it is observable that David now, when he was most indulgent to himself, and to his own sin, was most severe, and even unjust, to others, as appears by this passage, and the following relation, (verse 31,) which was done in the time of David’s impenitent continuance in his sin. He shall restore the lamb four-fold — This was agreeable to the law, Exodus 22:1.

NATHAN’S PARABLE AGAINST DAVID, 1-14.

“The year had passed; the dead Uriah was forgotten; the child of guilt was born in the royal house, and loved with all the passionate tenderness of David’s paternal heart. Suddenly the prophet Nathan appears before him. He comes as if to claim redress for a wrong in humble life. It was the true mission of the prophets, as champions of the oppressed, in the courts of kings. It was the true prophetic spirit that spoke through Nathan’s mouth. The apologue of the rich man and the ewe lamb has, besides its own intrinsic tenderness, a supernatural elevation, which is the best sign of true revelation. It ventures to disregard all particulars, and is content to aim at awakening the general sense of outraged justice. It fastens on the essential guilt of David’s sin — not its sensuality, or its impurity, so much as its meanness and selfishness. It rouses the king’s conscience by that teaching described in 1 Corinthians 14:24, 25, as specially characteristic of prophecy, making manifest his own sin in the indignation which he has expressed at the sin of another.” — Stanley.

1. Sent Nathan unto David — This was after the birth of the child of Bathsheba. Compare verses 14 and 15 with 2 Samuel 11:27. By this time, perhaps, David began to think that his sin was unknown or forgotten. Two men in one city — David and Uriah.

Verses 5, 6. David’s anger was greatly kindled, &c. — So many base and aggravated circumstances appeared to him to attend it, that he thought it deserving of capital punishment. The man shall surely die — This seems more than the fact deserved, or than he had commission to inflict for it. But it is observable that David now, when he was most indulgent to himself, and to his own sin, was most severe, and even unjust, to others, as appears by this passage, and the following relation, (verse 31,) which was done in the time of David’s impenitent continuance in his sin. He shall restore the lamb four-fold — This was agreeable to the law, Exodus 22:1.

6. Fourfold — Compare Exodus 22:1: “If a man steal an ox, or a sheep, and kill it, or sell it, he shall restore five oxen for an ox, and four sheep for a sheep.”

V. 7. Thus saith the Lord God-Nathan now speaks, not as a petitioner for a poor man, but as an ambassador from the great God.

Verse 7. Thou art the man.] What a terrible word! And by it David appears to have been transfixed, and brought into the dust before the messenger of God.

THOU ART this son of death, and thou shalt restore this lamb FOURFOLD. It is indulging fancy too much to say David was called, in the course of a just Providence to pay this fourfold debt? to lose four sons by untimely deaths, viz., this son of Bath-sheba, on whom David had set his heart, was slain by the Lord; Amnon, murdered by his brother Absalom; Absalom, slain in the oak by Joab; and Adonijah, slain by the order of his brother Solomon, even at the altar of the Lord! The sword and calamity did not depart from his house, from the murder of wretched Amnon by his brother to the slaughter of the sons of Zedekiah, before their father’s eyes, by the king of Babylon. His daughter was dishonoured by her own brother, and his wives contaminated publicly by his own son! How dreadfully, then, was David punished for his sin! Who would repeat his transgression to share in its penalty? Can his conduct ever be an inducement to, or an encouragement in, sin? Surely, No. It must ever fill the reader and the hearer with horror. Behold the goodness and severity of God! Reader, lay all these solemn things to heart.

Verse 7. Nathan said to David, Thou art the man — Though he took such a mild, gentle, and prudent manner to bring David to a proper view and just sense of his sin, yet he deals faithfully with him at the last, and sets his iniquity before him in all its aggravations. Thus, in a similar way, by most appropriate and striking parables, our Lord set the sin which the Jews were about to commit in crucifying him before them in so clear a light, and showed it to be so inexcusable, that they were led, before they were aware, to pass an equally severe sentence against themselves. See Matthew 21:28-46. The Jews, however, when they perceived that Christ referred to them in his parables, were only exasperated the more, and sought the sooner to lay hands on him. But David being, although greatly fallen, of a different spirit, was brought by Nathan’s words to deep and lasting repentance. O, how did Nathan’s application of his parable, Thou art the man, pronounced in all the dignity and authority of the prophetic character, sink into David’s soul! especially when he proceeded to a further explication of the greatness of his iniquity, which he does in the following words. Thus saith the Lord God of Israel — Nathan now speaks, not as a petitioner from a poor man, but as an ambassador from the great Jehovah, I anointed thee king over Israel, &c. — Thus he aggravates David’s sin, from the obligations he was under to God, who had raised him to the highest dignity from a very low condition, and had extricated him from the greatest dangers and distresses.

7. Thou art the man — Terrible words for David’s guilty soul. Self-condemned and self-sentenced unto death, how shall he escape the wrath of God! In this unflinching charge Nathan appears the great, bold, faithful prophet.

Verse 8. Thy master’s wives into thy bosom] Perhaps this means no more than that he had given him absolute power over every thing possessed by Saul; and as it was the custom for the new king to succeed even to the wives and concubines, the whole harem of the deceased king, so it was in this case; and the possession of the wives was a sure proof that he had got all regal rights. But could David, as the son-in-law of Saul, take the wives of his father-in-law? However, we find delicacy was seldom consulted in these cases; and Absalom lay with his own father’s wives in the most public manner, to show that he had seized on the kingdom, because the wives of the preceding belonged to the succeeding king, and to none other.

Verse 8. I gave thee thy master’s house — All that pertained to him as a king, which came, of course, to David, as his successor. Thy master’s wives into thy bosom — For the wives of a king went along with his lands and goods unto his successor, it being unlawful for the widow of a king to be wife to any but a king, as appears by the story of Adonijah. The expression in the text, however, does not necessarily signify that David married any of them; nor have we any proof that he did. Indeed, it is doubtful whether he could consistently with the law of God. See Leviticus 18:8, 15. The meaning seems only to be, that God put them into David’s power, together with Saul’s house and other property. And gave thee the house of Israel — Dominion over the twelve tribes. And if that had been too little, &c. — He needed but have asked, and God would have given him all he could have reasonably desired.

8. Thy master’s wives — In the East, when the king died or was superseded by another, his successor received his wives and concubines together with the kingdom. Hence for Absalom to go in unto his father’s concubines in the sight of all Israel (2 Samuel 16:21, 22) was to be a proof to Israel that he had taken possession of all the prerogatives of the kingdom. Thus David had succeeded Saul in all the rights of the kingdom, though we have no record of his touching any of his wives or concubines. Such and such things — Literally, according to these and according to those; that is, whatsoever thou mightest have desired.

V. 9. To be thy wife-To marry her whom he had defiled, and whose husband he had slain, was an affront upon the ordinance of marriage, making that not only to palliate, but in a manner to consecrate such villainies. In all this he despised the word of the Lord; (so it is in the Hebrew.) Not only his commandment in general, but the particular word of promise, which God had before sent him by Nathan, that he would build him an house: which sacred promise if he had had a due value for, he would not have polluted his house with lust and blood.

Verse 9. Thou hast killed Uriah] THOU art the MURDERER, as having planned his death; the sword of the Ammonites was THY instrument only.

Verse 9. Thou hast killed Uriah — David’s contriving his death was as bad as if he had killed him with his own hand. With the sword of the children of Ammon — This was an aggravation of his crime, that he caused him to be slain by the professed enemies of God, who doubtless triumphed in the slaughter of so great a man. Hast taken his wife, &c. — To marry her whom he had defiled, and whose husband he had slain, was an affront upon the ordinance of marriage, making that not only to palliate, but in a manner to consecrate such villanies. In all this he despised the word of the Lord; (so it is in the Hebrew;) not only his commandment in general, but the particular word of promise, which God had before sent him by Nathan, that he would build him a house: which sacred promise if he had had a due value for, he would not have polluted his house with lust and blood.

9. Despised the commandment of the Lord — Which says, “Thou shalt not kill.” David was guilty of murder. Thou hast killed Uriah… with the sword… hast slain him with the sword of the children of Ammon — This is not tautology, for to slay with the sword of the heathen Ammonites was even more aggravating than to kill one outright; and the last term, hast slain — from grh, to murder — is stronger than the former, hast killed — from hkn, to smite.

V. 10. Never depart-During the residue of thy life.

Verse 10. The sword shall never depart from thy house — During the residue of thy life. As long as he lived, at times there should be destruction made in his family by the sword, which was awfully fulfilled in the violent deaths of his children, Amnon and Absalom, and, about the time of his death, Adonijah.

10. The sword shall never depart from thine house — This prediction was most terribly fulfilled, as the subsequent history will show, especially from the murder of Amnon by his brother to the slaughter of the sons of Zedekiah before their father’s eyes.

V. 11. Own house-From thy own children and family. Thine eyes-Openly, so that thou shalt know it as certainly as if thou didst see it, and yet not be able to hinder it. And give them-I shall by my providence, give him power over them. Neighbor-To one who is very near thee. But God expresseth this darkly, that the accomplishment of it might not be hindered.

Verse 11. I will take thy wives] That is, In the course of my providence I will permit all this to be done. Had David been faithful, God, by his providence, would have turned all this aside; but now, by his sin, he has made that providence his enemy which before was his friend.

Verses 11, 12. I will raise up evil against thee out of thine own house — Which was notoriously fulfilled in Absalom’s conspiracy against him. I will take thy wives before thine eyes — Openly, so that thou shalt know it as certainly as if thou didst see it, and yet shalt not be able to prevent it. For Absalom had a tent spread upon the house-top, and there went in unto them. And give them unto thy neighbour — I shall, by my providence, give power over them to one who is very near unto thee. But God expresseth this darkly, that the accomplishment of it might not be hindered. I will do this thing before all Israel — It was made notorious to all, that David fled in haste from his son, and left his wives and concubines behind him. “Whoever,” says Dr. Delaney, “considers the predictions of divine vengeance now denounced against David, must surely find them to be very extraordinary. His family to continue beyond any other regal race in the known world, and yet the sword to continue as long — never to depart from it! A king, the greatest of his time! his dominion thoroughly established, and his enemies under his feet: highly honoured and beloved at home, and as highly awful to all the neighbouring nations! — Such a king threatened to have his wives publicly prostituted before the face of all his people! And, what is yet stranger, more shocking, and more incredible, by one of his own race! and, as a sure proof of this, the darling offspring of his guilt to perish quickly, before his eyes! He alone who fills futurity could foresee this. He alone who sways the world, and knows what evil appetites and dispositions, unrestrained, will attempt and perpetrate, could pronounce it.”

11. Evil against thee out of thine own house — This was realized especially in Absalom’s rebellion. Take thy wives — See how this was fulfilled in 2 Samuel 16:22. Thy neighbour — Absalom, who was also his son. 2 Samuel 3:3. But though a son, he became so bitterly alienated from his father by rebellion as to be significantly called neighbour.

Verses 11, 12. I will raise up evil against thee out of thine own house — Which was notoriously fulfilled in Absalom’s conspiracy against him. I will take thy wives before thine eyes — Openly, so that thou shalt know it as certainly as if thou didst see it, and yet shalt not be able to prevent it. For Absalom had a tent spread upon the house-top, and there went in unto them. And give them unto thy neighbour — I shall, by my providence, give power over them to one who is very near unto thee. But God expresseth this darkly, that the accomplishment of it might not be hindered. I will do this thing before all Israel — It was made notorious to all, that David fled in haste from his son, and left his wives and concubines behind him. “Whoever,” says Dr. Delaney, “considers the predictions of divine vengeance now denounced against David, must surely find them to be very extraordinary. His family to continue beyond any other regal race in the known world, and yet the sword to continue as long — never to depart from it! A king, the greatest of his time! his dominion thoroughly established, and his enemies under his feet: highly honoured and beloved at home, and as highly awful to all the neighbouring nations! — Such a king threatened to have his wives publicly prostituted before the face of all his people! And, what is yet stranger, more shocking, and more incredible, by one of his own race! and, as a sure proof of this, the darling offspring of his guilt to perish quickly, before his eyes! He alone who fills futurity could foresee this. He alone who sways the world, and knows what evil appetites and dispositions, unrestrained, will attempt and perpetrate, could pronounce it.”

NATHAN’S PARABLE AGAINST DAVID, 1-14.

“The year had passed; the dead Uriah was forgotten; the child of guilt was born in the royal house, and loved with all the passionate tenderness of David’s paternal heart. Suddenly the prophet Nathan appears before him. He comes as if to claim redress for a wrong in humble life. It was the true mission of the prophets, as champions of the oppressed, in the courts of kings. It was the true prophetic spirit that spoke through Nathan’s mouth. The apologue of the rich man and the ewe lamb has, besides its own intrinsic tenderness, a supernatural elevation, which is the best sign of true revelation. It ventures to disregard all particulars, and is content to aim at awakening the general sense of outraged justice. It fastens on the essential guilt of David’s sin — not its sensuality, or its impurity, so much as its meanness and selfishness. It rouses the king’s conscience by that teaching described in 1 Corinthians 14:24, 25, as specially characteristic of prophecy, making manifest his own sin in the indignation which he has expressed at the sin of another.” — Stanley.

1. Sent Nathan unto David — This was after the birth of the child of Bathsheba. Compare verses 14 and 15 with 2 Samuel 11:27. By this time, perhaps, David began to think that his sin was unknown or forgotten. Two men in one city — David and Uriah.

V. 13. I have sinned-How serious this confession was, we may see, Psalm 51:1-19. Put away thy sin-That is, so far as concerns thy own life. Not die-As by thy own sentence, ver. 5, thou dost deserve, and may expect to be done by my immediate stroke.

Verse 13. The Lord-hath put away thy sin] Many have supposed that David’s sin was now actually pardoned, but this is perfectly erroneous; David, as an adulterer, was condemned to death by the law of God; and he had according to that law passed sentence of death upon himself. God alone, whose law that was could revoke that sentence, or dispense with its execution; therefore Nathan, who had charged the guilt home upon his conscience, is authorized to give him the assurance that he should not die a temporal death for it: The Lord hath put away thy sin; thou shalt not die. This is all that is contained in the assurance given by Nathan: Thou shalt not die that temporal death; thou shalt be preserved alive, that thou mayest have time to repent, turn to God, and find mercy. If the fifty-first Psalm, as is generally supposed, was written on this occasion, then it is evident (as the Psalm must have been written after this interview) that David had not received pardon for his sin from God at the time he composed it; for in it he confesses the crime in order to find mercy.

There is something very remarkable in the words of Nathan: The Lord also hath PUT AWAY thy sin; thou shalt not die; twmt al Ëtacj העביר hwhy גם gam Yehovah heebir chattathecha lo thamuth, Also Jehovah HATH CAUSED thy sin TO PASS OVER, or transferred thy sin; THOU shalt not die. God has transferred the legal punishment of this sin to the child; HE shall die, THOU shalt not die; and this is the very point on which the prophet gives him the most direct information: The child that is born unto thee shall SURELY die; twmy twm moth yamuth, dying he shall die-he shall be in a dying state seven days, and then he shall die. So God immediately struck the child, and it was very sick.

Verse 13. David said, I have sinned against the Lord — Overwhelmed with shame, stung with remorse, and oppressed with a dreadful sense of the divine vengeance, impending, and ready to fall upon himself and his family, he could only give utterance to this short confession. How sincere and serious it was, what a deep sense he now had of his guilt, and from what a softened, penetrated, broken, and contrite heart, his acknowledgment proceeded, we may see in the psalms he penned on this occasion, especially the 1st. The Lord also hath put away thy sin — That is, so far as concerns thy own life. Thou shalt not die — As, according to thy own sentence, verse 5, thou dost deserve, and mightest justly expect to do from God’s immediate stroke; though possibly thou mightest elude the law before a human judicature, or there should be no superior to execute the law upon thee. There is something unspeakably gracious in this sudden sentence of pardon, pronounced by the prophet in the instant of David’s confession of guilt and humiliation before God, even if we consider it as only implying exemption from the stroke of temporal death, and the granting him space for repentance, and for making his peace with God, with respect to his spiritual and immortal interests. And this seems to be the true light in which we ought to view it. If the psalm we have just mentioned was written after the event of Nathan’s coming to him, as the title of it signifies, and as is generally allowed, it is evident David did not yet consider himself as pardoned by God, or in a state of reconciliation with him. For, in that psalm we find not any thanksgivings for pardon actually obtained, but several most fervent supplications and entreaties for it as a blessing not yet granted. It may, therefore, be true enough, as Dr. Delaney supposes, that David’s pardon was not obtained by the instantaneous submission which he expressed, when he said, I have sinned; but that a long and bitter repentance preceded it; and yet that able divine may be mistaken, as it seems evident from the whole narrative he is, in supposing that repentance took place before Nathan was sent to him. The sacred historian gives no intimation of David’s being awakened to a proper sense of guilt, or of his being made truly penitent for it, till the application of Nathan’s parable. Then, and not before, it appears, he began to feel the compunction and distress expressed in that and the 32nd Psalm, during the continuance of which, day and night God’s hand was heavy upon him: his moisture was turned into the drought of summer, and his bones waxed old through his roaring all the day long. Some time after, but how long we are not told, he was made a partaker of the blessedness of the man whose transgression is forgiven, and whose sin is covered; and that on his own certain knowledge and experience: for he says, I said, I will confess my transgressions unto the Lord, and thou forgavest the iniquity of my sin.

13. I have sinned against the Lord — David’s heart is now laid open to his eyes, and he sees, and shudders at, his enormous crimes, and feels that death is his just desert. But for him there is yet a voice of mercy. The Lord… hath put away thy sin; thou shalt not die — Amazing grace! Pardon seems to be in waiting for the sinner to confess and repent.

Verse 14. Great occasion to the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme — To reproach God and his people, and the true religion. For, although these were not concerned in David’s sin, but the blame and shame of it belonged entirely to himself, yet heathen and wicked men would, according to their own evil hearts, endeavour to throw the reproach of it upon God and religion; as if God were unholy because the man whom he had termed a man after his own heart was so; and partial in conniving at so great a crime in him, when Saul was cast off for an apparently less sin; and negligent in the government of the world and of his church, in suffering such wickedness, as even heathen have abhorred, to go unpunished; and as if all religion were but hypocrisy and imposture, and a pretence for villanies. The neighbouring nations in particular might well take occasion to object to the Israelites, that they had no room to boast much about the purity of their religion; since he whom they acknowledged to be their best king, and the great favourite of their God, was guilty of such atrocious crimes. And the Ammonites, upon their success against Uriah and his party, would, doubtless, magnify and praise their idols, and blaspheme the God of Israel. The child that is born unto thee shall surely die — David seems to have been much taken with Bath-sheba, and very desirous of having a child by her, otherwise it is hardly to be supposed that he would have been so distressed at the denunciation of its death; especially, as its life must needs have been a standing monument of his adultery, and of the murder of Uriah. It must be observed, that the immediate infliction of this punishment was a certain token that Nathan was sent by God, and that the other threatenings which he had denounced would be executed.

Ver. 14. The enemies—to blaspheme, by uttering slanderous speeches against religion, and against all classes of professors, as though the whole church were composed of hypocrites and deceivers. The Ammonites, on hearing of this, would be among the foremost to utter malignant words, but assuredly words of gross ignorance concerning the scrutiny of heaven, the characters of justice, and the nature and fruits of true repentance. See on Psalm 51.

14. Howbeit — The honour of God’s holy law must be regarded. Though David be forgiven he must yet suffer loss. “He is still a son, but he is no longer a Joseph, rejoicing in his father’s love, and proud of the coat of many colours which that love has cast upon him; but rather a Reuben, pardoned, pitied, and forgiven, yet not unpunished by the father whose honour he has defiled. Alas for him! The bird which once rose to heights unattained before by mortal wing, filling the air with its joyful songs, now lies with maimed wing upon the ground, pouring forth its doleful cries to God.” — Kitto. To this period of David’s life belongs Psalm 51.

Verses 15, 16. The Lord struck the child — With some sudden and dangerous distemper. David besought God for the child — Supposing the threatening might be conditional, and so the execution of it prevented by prayer. And went in — Namely, into his closet to pray, solitarily and earnestly. Or, perhaps, into the sanctuary, where the ark of God was; where he lay all night on the earth — Humbling himself, mourning, repenting, weeping, praying, with all the agonies of the most bitter grief.

DEATH OF THE CHILD OF DAVID AND BATHSHEBA, 15-23.

There is no section of Old Testament history more graphically and touchingly worded than this. Every verse presents a vivid picture. We seem to see the infant child wracked with pain and struck with death. (15.) The conscience-smitten king flies to his chamber, and spends seven days and nights in fasting and in tears, much of the time prostrate upon the floor, and pouring out his groanings all night to God, (16;) his most confidential advisers try to lift him up and console him, but he will not be comforted,

(17.) At length the child dies, but they fear to tell the king, lest his frenzy know no control, and, lingering in the distance, they whisper to each other with mingled sorrow and amazement, (18, 19;) but as soon as he learns of his death he dries up his tears, and enters the sanctuary, and worships God,

(20.) The servants marvel, but he explains his conduct in words most tenderly expressive of his faith in God and immortality.

15. The Lord struck the child — With some fatal disease which, on the seventh day, resulted in death.

V. 16. Besought-Supposing the threatening might be conditional, and so the execution of it prevented by prayer. Went-Into his closet.

Verse 16. David-besought God for the child] How could he do so, after the solemn assurance that he had from God that the child should die? The justice of God absolutely required that the penalty of the law should be exacted; either the father or the son shall die. This could not be reversed.

Verses 15, 16. The Lord struck the child — With some sudden and dangerous distemper. David besought God for the child — Supposing the threatening might be conditional, and so the execution of it prevented by prayer. And went in — Namely, into his closet to pray, solitarily and earnestly. Or, perhaps, into the sanctuary, where the ark of God was; where he lay all night on the earth — Humbling himself, mourning, repenting, weeping, praying, with all the agonies of the most bitter grief.

16. Besought God for the child — For, according to verse 22, he entertained some hope that God might yet spare him. Went in — Into some private apartment of his own house. Lay all night upon the earth — Evidence of profoundest anguish and grief. Compare 2 Samuel 13:31.

V. 17. Elders-The chief officers of his kingdom and household. He would not-This excessive mourning did not proceed simply from the fear of the loss of the child; but from a deep sense of his sin, and the divine displeasure manifested herein.

Verse 17. The elders of his house — The chief officers of his kingdom and household. He would not — This excessive mourning did not proceed simply from the fear of the loss of the child, but from a deep sense of his sin, and the divine displeasure manifested herein.

17. The elders of his house — The oldest, most experienced, and confidential of his servants.

V. 18. Seventh day-From the beginning of the distemper.

Verse 18. On the seventh day the child died — The seventh from the beginning of the distemper. “Thus was the first instance of the divine vengeance for David’s guilt speedily and rigidly executed; other instances of it were fulfilled in their order, before his own eyes, as will abundantly appear in the sequel of this history; and the most dreadful of all the rest, The sword shall never depart from thy house, sadly and successively fulfilled in his posterity; from the death of Amnon, by the order of his own brother, to the slaughter of the sons of Zedekiah before his own eyes, by the king of Babylon.” We may learn from hence, therefore, that God is no respecter of persons, for David’s guilt was as signally and dreadfully punished in his own person, and in his posterity, as perhaps any guilt in any other person since Adam. “The Jews are of opinion that his own decree of repaying the robbery four-fold was strictly executed upon him. The deflouring of Tamar by her own brother; the death of four sons, three of them before his own eyes, and one by the hand of his brother; the unnatural rebellion of one son, which brought him almost to the brink of ruin; the prostitution of ten wives in the sight of all his subjects; and the successive and signal massacre of his posterity; besides the distress of his own public shame and infamy, added to at least one cruel disease.” These are surely awful proofs that God did not connive at sin in David any more than in any other. Why then are the scoffers so fond of urging and dwelling on the heinous crimes of David? Do the Holy Scriptures deny them? No, they set them forth with all their aggravating circumstances, but at the same time they assure us they were followed by such a train of calamities as is enough to make every sinner tremble; since it affords an indubitable proof that the ALMIGHTY GOVERNOR of the world is of purer eyes than to behold iniquity without detestation, and that every species of vice and wickedness, in whomsoever it is found, will certainly be punished under his government. Let the reader consider these things, and then say, whether David’s example be an encouragement to sin? Who would incur his guilt to go through such a scene of sorrow and suffering? See Delaney.

DEATH OF THE CHILD OF DAVID AND BATHSHEBA, 15-23.

There is no section of Old Testament history more graphically and touchingly worded than this. Every verse presents a vivid picture. We seem to see the infant child wracked with pain and struck with death. (15.) The conscience-smitten king flies to his chamber, and spends seven days and nights in fasting and in tears, much of the time prostrate upon the floor, and pouring out his groanings all night to God, (16;) his most confidential advisers try to lift him up and console him, but he will not be comforted,

(17.) At length the child dies, but they fear to tell the king, lest his frenzy know no control, and, lingering in the distance, they whisper to each other with mingled sorrow and amazement, (18, 19;) but as soon as he learns of his death he dries up his tears, and enters the sanctuary, and worships God,

(20.) The servants marvel, but he explains his conduct in words most tenderly expressive of his faith in God and immortality.

15. The Lord struck the child — With some fatal disease which, on the seventh day, resulted in death.

DEATH OF THE CHILD OF DAVID AND BATHSHEBA, 15-23.

There is no section of Old Testament history more graphically and touchingly worded than this. Every verse presents a vivid picture. We seem to see the infant child wracked with pain and struck with death. (15.) The conscience-smitten king flies to his chamber, and spends seven days and nights in fasting and in tears, much of the time prostrate upon the floor, and pouring out his groanings all night to God, (16;) his most confidential advisers try to lift him up and console him, but he will not be comforted,

(17.) At length the child dies, but they fear to tell the king, lest his frenzy know no control, and, lingering in the distance, they whisper to each other with mingled sorrow and amazement, (18, 19;) but as soon as he learns of his death he dries up his tears, and enters the sanctuary, and worships God,

(20.) The servants marvel, but he explains his conduct in words most tenderly expressive of his faith in God and immortality.

15. The Lord struck the child — With some fatal disease which, on the seventh day, resulted in death.

V. 20. And came-That is, to the tabernacle, to confess his sin before the Lord, to own his justice in this stroke, to deprecate his just displeasure, to acknowledge God’s rich mercy, in sparing his own life; and to offer such sacrifices as were required in such cases.

Verse 20. David arose from the earth, and washed] Bathing, anointing the body, and changing the apparel, are the first outward signs among the Hindoos of coming out of a state of mourning or sickness.

Verse 20. David arose from the earth and changed his apparel — Put off the habit of a mourner, and prepared himself to appear before God. And came into the house of the Lord — That is, to the tabernacle, to confess his sin before the Lord, to own his justice in this stroke, to deprecate his just displeasure, to acknowledge God’s rich mercy in sparing his own life, and to offer such sacrifices as were required in such cases.

20. Washed… anointed… changed his apparel — The common custom in the East after a period of mourning, for not only the apparel, but the person, becomes unclean by prostration on the ground. Came into the house of the Lord — Went from his own house, where he had wept and fasted, to the sanctuary, where the ark abode.

21. What thing is this that thou hast done — The bereaved are accustomed to fast and weep after the death of their relative; but David does his mourning before the death of the child, and feasts immediately after. “The practice of the East is, to leave a relation of the deceased person to weep and mourn, till, on the third or fourth day at furthest, the relations and friends go to see him, cause him to eat, lead him to a bath, and cause him to put on new vestments, he having before thrown himself on the ground. The extremity of David’s sorrow for the child’s illness, and his not observing the common forms of grief afterwards, was what surprised his servants.” — Harmer’s Observations.

Verse 22. Who can tell] David, and indeed all others under the Mosaic dispensation, were so satisfied that all God’s threatenings and promises were conditional, that even in the most positive assertions relative to judgments, &c., they sought for a change of purpose. And notwithstanding the positive declaration of Nathan, relative to the death of the child, David sought for its life, not knowing but that might depend on some unexpressed condition, such as earnest prayer, fasting, humiliation, &c., and in these he continued while there was hope. When the child died, he ceased to grieve, as he now saw that this must be fruitless. This appears to be the sole reason of David’s importunity.

DEATH OF THE CHILD OF DAVID AND BATHSHEBA, 15-23.

There is no section of Old Testament history more graphically and touchingly worded than this. Every verse presents a vivid picture. We seem to see the infant child wracked with pain and struck with death. (15.) The conscience-smitten king flies to his chamber, and spends seven days and nights in fasting and in tears, much of the time prostrate upon the floor, and pouring out his groanings all night to God, (16;) his most confidential advisers try to lift him up and console him, but he will not be comforted,

(17.) At length the child dies, but they fear to tell the king, lest his frenzy know no control, and, lingering in the distance, they whisper to each other with mingled sorrow and amazement, (18, 19;) but as soon as he learns of his death he dries up his tears, and enters the sanctuary, and worships God,

(20.) The servants marvel, but he explains his conduct in words most tenderly expressive of his faith in God and immortality.

15. The Lord struck the child — With some fatal disease which, on the seventh day, resulted in death.

V. 23. I fast-Seeing fasting and prayer cannot now prevail with God for his life. I shall go to him-Into the state of the dead in which he is, and into heaven, where I doubt not I shall find him.

Verse 23. I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me.] It is not clear whether David by this expressed his faith in the immortality of the soul; going to him may only mean, I also shall die, and be gathered to my fathers, as he is. But whether David expressed this or not, we know that the thing is true; and it is one of the most solid grounds of consolation to surviving friends that they shall by and by be joined to them in a state of conscious existence. This doctrine has a very powerful tendency to alleviate the miseries of human life and reconcile us to the death of most beloved friends. And were we to admit the contrary, grief, in many cases, would wear out its subject before it wore out itself. Even the heathens derived consolation from the reflection that they should meet their friends in a state of conscious existence. And a saying in Cicero Deuteronomy Senectute, which he puts in the mouth of Cato of Utica, has been often quoted, and is universally admired:—

O prælarum diem, cum ad illud divinum animorum concilium cœtumque proficiscar, cumque ex hac turba et colluvione discedam! Proficiscar enim non ad eos solum viros de quibus ante dixi; sed etiam ad Catonem meum quo nemo vir melior natus est, nemo pietate præstantior: cujus a me corpus crematum est; quod contra decuit ab illo meum. Animus vero non me deserens, sed respectans, in ea profecto loca discessit, quo mihi ipsi cernebat esse veniendum: quem ego meum catum fortiter ferre visus sum: non quod æquo animo ferrem: sed me ipse consolabar, existimans, non longinquum inter nos digressum et discessum fore.

CATO MAJOR, Deuteronomy Senectute, in fin.

“O happy day, (says he,) when I shall quit this impure and corrupt multitude, and join myself to that divine company and council of souls who have quitted the earth before me! There I shall find, not only those illustrious personages to whom I have spoken, but also my Cato, who I can say was one of the best men ever born, and whom none ever excelled in virtue and piety. I have placed his body on that funeral pyre whereon he ought to have laid mine. But his soul has not left me; and, without losing sight of me, he has only gone before into a country where he saw I should soon rejoin him. This my lot I seem to bear courageously; not indeed that I do bear it with resignation, but I shall comfort myself with the persuasion that the interval between his departure and mine will not be long.” And we well know who has taught us not to sorrow as those without hope for departed friends.

Verse 23. Wherefore should I fast — Seeing fasting and prayer cannot now prevail with God for his life. I shall go to him — Into the state of the dead in which he is, and into heaven, where, I doubt not, I shall find him. Or, as Mr. Saurin paraphrases the words, “If I cannot have the consolation to partake with this infant the temporal happiness wherewith the divine goodness hath blessed me, I hope to rejoin his soul one day in heaven, and to partake with him eternal felicity.” As David undoubtedly believed in the immortality of the soul, and even in the resurrection of the body, it would be quite unreasonable to leave out this latter idea, and suppose, with some commentators, that he only meant he should die and go to the grave like his son, which would be a very poor consolation. But, considered in the light here stated, his words convey the most satisfactory comfort, and “are the noblest lesson,” says Delaney, “upon all that is reasonable and religious in grief that ever was penned.”

23. I shall go to him — So as to rejoin him in a state of conscious existence in another world. Nothing short of this idea can well satisfy the profound faith and hope of the forgiven king. He was evidently comforted by the thought here expressed; but what comfort could it be if the place of reunion with the lost child were but the grave — the cold, dark charnel house of corruption, earth, and worms! How many are comforted by this same faith that their beloved dead “are not lost, but gone before.”

V. 24. His wife-Who was now much dejected, both for her former sin, and for the loss of the child. Loved him-That is, the Lord declared to David, that he loved his son, notwithstanding the just cause David had given to God to alienate his affections from him.

Verse 24. David comforted Bath-sheba] His extraordinary attachment to this beautiful woman was the cause of all his misfortunes. He called his name Solomon] This name seems to have been given prophetically, for hmlv sholomah signifies peaceable, and there was almost uninterrupted peace during his reign.

Verses 24, 25. And David comforted Bath-sheba his wife — Who, no doubt, was deeply afflicted for the loss of her child, and dejected for her sin. It is observable, however, that there is not one word said to her in all this relation, either concerning her guilt or her punishment. She was punished in the calamities that befell David; who enticed her, and not she him, to commit the foul sin of adultery, and was innocent in the murder of Uriah. She bare a son, and he called his name Solomon — Probably his mother, with the consent of David, gave him this name as soon as he was born. And the Lord loved him — That is, the Lord declared to David, probably by Nathan the prophet, that he loved this his son, notwithstanding the just cause which David had given to God to withdraw his love from him and his. Perhaps after his great humiliation, Nathan was sent to comfort him with this good hope, that God would have a peculiar regard for this son, and make him very famous. Such is the wonderful goodness of God to truly penitent sinners, who manifest the sincerity of their repentance by an humble submission to whatsoever punishments God sees fit to inflict upon them, (as David did to the death of the former child,) and thereby induce that goodness to show them still further mercy, He sent — Namely, God did; by Nathan, and he called his name Jedidiah — That is, beloved of Jehovah. Because of the Lord — Either because of the Lord’s love to him, or because the Lord commanded him so to do. This name, however, was merely significative, being only intended to express to the child’s parents what they might expect; for we find him always called Solomon in the Scriptures.

BIRTH OF SOLOMON, 24, 25.

24. Called his name Solomon — hmlv, Shelomoh, the peaceful; so called because his reign was to be a peaceful one, (compare 1 Chronicles 22:9,) and also because, being peculiarly associated in prophecy with “David’s greater Son,” in whom the throne of his kingdom should be established forever, (comp. 2 Samuel 7:13,) he was to be a figure of that Messiah who is the Prince of Peace. The Lord loved him — Did not smite him as he did the other child of Bathsheba, but let him live, and bestowed upon him remarkable favour.

V. 25. Jedidiah-That is, beloved of the Lord. Because-Either, because of the Lord’s love to him, or because the Lord commanded him to do so.

Verse 25. Called-Jedidiah] hydydy, literally, the beloved of the Lord. This is the first instance I remember of a minister of God being employed to give a name to the child of one of his servants. But it is strange that the name given by the father was that alone which prevailed.

Verses 24, 25. And David comforted Bath-sheba his wife — Who, no doubt, was deeply afflicted for the loss of her child, and dejected for her sin. It is observable, however, that there is not one word said to her in all this relation, either concerning her guilt or her punishment. She was punished in the calamities that befell David; who enticed her, and not she him, to commit the foul sin of adultery, and was innocent in the murder of Uriah. She bare a son, and he called his name Solomon — Probably his mother, with the consent of David, gave him this name as soon as he was born. And the Lord loved him — That is, the Lord declared to David, probably by Nathan the prophet, that he loved this his son, notwithstanding the just cause which David had given to God to withdraw his love from him and his. Perhaps after his great humiliation, Nathan was sent to comfort him with this good hope, that God would have a peculiar regard for this son, and make him very famous. Such is the wonderful goodness of God to truly penitent sinners, who manifest the sincerity of their repentance by an humble submission to whatsoever punishments God sees fit to inflict upon them, (as David did to the death of the former child,) and thereby induce that goodness to show them still further mercy, He sent — Namely, God did; by Nathan, and he called his name Jedidiah — That is, beloved of Jehovah. Because of the Lord — Either because of the Lord’s love to him, or because the Lord commanded him so to do. This name, however, was merely significative, being only intended to express to the child’s parents what they might expect; for we find him always called Solomon in the Scriptures.

25. He sent — That is, Jehovah sent Nathan to give the child yet another name peculiarly comforting to David. Jedidiah — That is, darling of Jehovah. This name and that of David are from cognate roots, which are identical in meaning, and all such play on words had great significance with both the ancient and modern Orientals. Great must have been David’s comfort when Nathan, who had so lately uttered against him the judgment of God, came with a message of love, and gave the newborn child a name so expressive of Jehovah’s restored favour. Because of the Lord — That is, because the Lord loved him.

V. 26. Royal city-That is, that part of the city where was the king’s palace; though now it seems he was retired to a strong fort.

Verse 26. And took the royal city.] How can this be, when Joab sent to David to come to take the city, in consequence of which David did come and take that city? The explanation seems to be this: Rabbah was composed of a city and citadel; the former, in which was the king’s residence, Joab had taken, and supposed he could soon render himself master of the latter, and therefore sends to David to come and take it, lest, he taking the whole, the city should be called after his name.

Verses 26, 27. Took the royal city — That is, that part of the city where the king’s palace was; though now, it seems, he was retired to a strong fort. It is not to be supposed that Joab had continued the siege so long as till David had two children by Bath-sheba; this was done soon after the death of Uriah, when David commanded them to assault the city with greater force. The city of waters — That part of the city which lay open, or was encompassed with the water; the other part, which was the upper city, and probably much stronger, was not yet taken.

CONQUEST OF RABBAH, 26-30.

26. Joab fought against Rabbah — This siege seems to have been going on during all the incidents recorded between 2 Samuel 11:1 and here. Took the royal city — Called in the next verse, the city of waters. Ancient Rabbah seems to have been divided into two parts — the city proper, containing the royal palace, and amply supplied with water from the stream that still flows through its ruins, and the citadel, or acropolis, which occupied one of the neighbouring heights. See note on 2 Samuel 11:1.

V. 27. Of waters-Rabbah was so called because it was encompassed with water.

Verse 27. And have taken the city of waters.] The city where the tank or reservoir was that supplied the city and suburbs with water. Some think that the original, המים ry[ ta ytdkl lachadti eth ir hammayim, should be translated I have intercepted, or cut off, the waters of the city: and Houbigant translates the place, et aquas ab urbe jam derivavi; “And I have already drawn off the waters from the city.” This perfectly agrees with the account in Josephus, who says twn te udatwn autouv apotemnomenov, having cut off their waters, Antiq., lib. vii., cap. 7. This was the reason why David should come speedily, as the citadel, deprived of water, could not long hold out.

Verses 26, 27. Took the royal city — That is, that part of the city where the king’s palace was; though now, it seems, he was retired to a strong fort. It is not to be supposed that Joab had continued the siege so long as till David had two children by Bath-sheba; this was done soon after the death of Uriah, when David commanded them to assault the city with greater force. The city of waters — That part of the city which lay open, or was encompassed with the water; the other part, which was the upper city, and probably much stronger, was not yet taken.

CONQUEST OF RABBAH, 26-30.

26. Joab fought against Rabbah — This siege seems to have been going on during all the incidents recorded between 2 Samuel 11:1 and here. Took the royal city — Called in the next verse, the city of waters. Ancient Rabbah seems to have been divided into two parts — the city proper, containing the royal palace, and amply supplied with water from the stream that still flows through its ruins, and the citadel, or acropolis, which occupied one of the neighbouring heights. See note on 2 Samuel 11:1.

V. 28. Take it-For having taken one part of the city, he concluded the remaining part of it could not long stand out. Lest-Lest I have the honour of taking it.

Verse 28. Encamp against the city, and take it — For, having taken one part of the city, he concluded the remaining part of it could not long stand out. Lest I take the city — Lest I have the honour of taking it; and it be called by my name — As from the conquest of Africa, the Roman general Scipio, many years after, was called Africanus. By this it appears that though Joab had many faults, yet he loved his prince, and endeavoured to raise his glory. “There is a magnificence in this proposal capable of creating admiration in the meanest minds. The man that could transfer the glory of his own conquests upon his prince, needs no higher eulogy. And it is but justice to the character of Joab to declare that he is supreme, if not unrivalled, in this singular instance of heroism. Rabbah, it must be observed, was a royal, a large, and a populous city, the metropolis of Arabia Felix, watered, and in some measure encompassed by the river Jabbok. It had its name from its grandeur, being derived from a Hebrew word which signifies to increase and grow great, and was now in the height of its glory.” — Delaney.

28. Encamp against the city and take it — The city here meant was the acropolis or upper city, which, like the stronghold of Zion, still held out against the besiegers, after the lower city had fallen into their hands. See note on 2 Samuel 5:6. It be called after my name — So that I bear away all the glory of the victory. This was a sort of challenge, half jest, half earnest, and shows Joab’s characteristic boldness with the king. Compare his rebuke in 2 Samuel 19:5-7.

Verse 29. David gathered all the people and went — The reader will naturally observe that this was an expedition which came very seasonably to relieve David in his distress, and to revive his glory in arms. And if Joab considered it in this light, as in all probability he did, the praise of his generosity is still more ennobled in this view.

29. All the people — All the men of war that were not with Joab at Rabbah, doubtless largely made up of fresh recruits.

V. 30. The weight-Or rather, the price whereof, &c. For the same words both in Hebrew, Greek and Latin, are used, to signify either weight, or price. And the addition of precious stones, which are never valued by the weight of gold, makes this signification most probable. Moreover, the weight might seem too great either for the king of Ammon, or for David to wear it upon his head.

Verse 30. The weight whereof was a talent of gold] If this talent was only seven pounds, as Whiston says, David might have carried it on his head with little difficulty; but this weight, according to common computation, would amount to more than one hundred pounds! If, however, hlqvm mishkalah be taken for the value, not the weight then all is plain as the worth of the crown will be about £5075 15s. 7d. sterling. Now this seems to be the true sense, because of the added words with the precious stones; i.e., the gold of the crown, and the jewels with which it was adorned, were equal in value to a talent of gold.

Verse 30. He took the king’s crown from off his head — This was the king’s part of the spoil. The weight thereof was a talent of gold — Or, rather, the price or value of it, as the Hebrew frequently signifies, and not only weight; and so it is to be taken here; for who could be able to carry on his head such a weight as a talent; which is computed to be one hundred and twenty-five pounds. With precious stones — Which made the value of it so great. Josephus says that there was a stone of great price in the middle of the crown, which he calls a sardonyx. And it was set on David’s head — To show the inhabitants that they were to submit to him as their king.

Ver. 30. A talent of gold. Three hundred shekels, or seven pounds and a half, is the lowest estimate of the weight of this crown. The candlestick of the tabernacle weighed a talent. This is joined with the precious stones. ˆba aben, stone; probably some large diamond, as the two in the crown of Portugal, of which fac similes may be seen in the British Museum.

30. Took their king’s crown — Some take µklm, malcam, rendered their king, as a proper name, Milcom, (compare 1 Kings 11:5; 2 Kings 23:23, and Zephaniah 1:5,) the great Ammonite idol, elsewhere called Molech. The Septuagint reads, took the crown of Molcom their king. But David would hardly have suffered the crown of that abominable idol to be put upon his head. The weight… a talent of gold — More than one hundred pounds. This seems incredibly heavy for a crown worn upon the head, and so many interpreters have explained the meaning as worth the weight of a gold talent. But this explanation hardly accords with the natural meaning of the words. Pfeiffer, without sufficient evidence, understands here the weight not of a Hebrew but a Syriac talent. It is better to regard the statement as an inexact but popular estimate of the weight of a crown unusually large and heavy. Sir Harford Jones Brydges describes the Persian crown of state as excessively heavy, and relates that, happening to look back, on quitting the audience chamber, he saw the king lifting his crown from his head, as if anxious to relieve himself from its oppressive weight. With the precious stones — The meaning is, according to 1 Chronicles 20:2, that the crown was set with precious stones.

V. 31. The people-The words are indefinite, and therefore not necessarily to be understood of all the people; but of the men of war, and especially of those who had been the chief actors of that villainous action against David’s ambassadors, and of the dreadful war ensuing upon it; for which, they deserved severe punishments. Altho’ indeed there seems to have been too much rigour used; especially, because these deaths were inflicted not only upon those counsellors, who were the only authors of that vile usage of the ambassadors; but upon some number of the people. And therefore it is probable, David exercised this cruelty whilst his heart was hardened, and impenitent; and when he was bereaved of that good spirit of God, which would have taught him more mercy. Saws-He sawed them to death of which punishment, we have examples both in scripture, and in other authors. Brick-kiln-Or, made them to pass through the furnace of Malchen: that is, of Moloch; punishing them with their own sin, and with the same kind of punishment which they had inflicted upon their own children.

Verse 31. He brought forth the people] And put them under saws. From this representation a great cry has been raised against “David’s unparalleled, if not diabolic, cruelty.” I believe this interpretation was chiefly taken from the parallel place, 1 Chronicles 20:3, where it is said, he cut them with saws, and with axes, &c. Instead of rcyw vaiyasar, he sawed, we have here (in Samuel) µcyw vaiyasem, he put them; and these two words differ from each other only in a part of a single letter, r resh for µ mem. And it is worthy of remark, that instead of rcyw vaiyasar, he sawed, in 1 Chronicles 20:3, six or seven MSS. collated by Dr. Kennicott have µcyw vaiyasem, he put them; nor is there found any various reading in all the MSS. yet collated for the text in this chapter, that favours the common reading in Chronicles. The meaning therefore is, He made the people slaves, and employed them in sawing, making iron harrows, or mining, (for the word means both,) and in hewing of wood, and making of brick. Sawing asunder, hacking, chopping, and hewing human beings, have no place in this text, no more than they had in David’s conduct towards the Ammonites.

It is surprising, and a thing to be deplored, that in this and similar cases our translators had not been more careful to sift the sense of the original words by which they would have avoided a profusion of exceptionable meanings with which they have clothed many passages of the sacred writings. Though I believe our translation to be by far the best in any language, ancient or modern, yet I am satisfied it stands much in need of revision. Most of the advantages which our unbelievers have appeared to have over certain passages of Scripture, have arisen from an inaccurate or false translation of the terms in the original; and an appeal to this has generally silenced the gainsayers. But in the time in which our translation was made, Biblical criticism was in its infancy, if indeed it did exist; and we may rather wonder that we find things so well, than be surprised that they are no better.

II SAMUEL

Verse 31. He brought forth the people — The words are indefinite, and therefore not necessarily to be understood of all the people, but of the men of war, and especially of those who had been the chief actors of that villanous action against David’s ambassadors, and of the dreadful war ensuing upon it; for which they deserved severe punishments. Indeed, since David left Shobi in the government of Rabbah, (2 Samuel 17:27,) it must be presumed that he left some besides female subjects under his dominion; and it is most likely that the bulk of the people were received to mercy, and only the king, and the accomplices and instruments of his tyranny, suffered the chastisements due to their guilt. And put them under saws, &c. — The Hebrew, hrgmb µcyw, vajasem bammegeerah, &c., may be literally and properly rendered, and he put them to the saw, and to iron harrows, or mines, and to axes of iron, and made them pass by, or to, the brick-kilns; that is, he made them slaves, and put them to the most servile employments, namely, sawing, harrowing, or making iron harrows, or mining, hewing of wood, and making brick. The version of the Seventy, though not very clear, may be interpreted to the same purpose. The Syriac and Arabic versions render the passage, He brought them out, and threw them into chains, and iron shackles, and made them pass before him in a proper measure, or by companies at a time. If the parallel place, 1 Chronicles 20:3, which our version renders, He cut them with saws, and with harrows of iron, and with axes, be objected, it must be observed, the Hebrew,rcyw, vajasser, may be rendered, He separated to the saw, &c.; or, He ruled or governed by the saw, harrows, mines, and axes; made them slaves, and condemned them to these servile employments. Thus the words are rendered by Schmidius. And “this interpretation,” says Dr. Dodd, “is far from being forced, is agreeable to the proper sense and construction of the words, and will vindicate David from any inhumanity that can be charged upon the man after God’s own heart. The Syriac version is, He bound them with iron chains, &c.; and thus he bound them all. And the Arabic, He bound them all with chains, killing none of the Ammonites, This interpretation may be further confirmed by the next clause: Thus did he unto all the children of Ammon — For had he destroyed all the inhabitants by these, or any methods of severity, it would have been an almost total extirpation of them; and yet we read of them as united with the Moabites, and the inhabitants of Seir, and forming a very large army to invade the dominions of Jehoshaphat. It may be added, that if the punishments inflicted on this people were as severe as our version represents them, they were undoubtedly inflicted by way of reprisals. Nahash, the father of Hanun, in the wantonness of cruelty, would admit the inhabitants of Jabesh-Gilead to surrender themselves to him upon no other condition than their every one consenting to have their right eye thrust out, that he might lay it as a reproach upon all Israel. If these severities of David were now exercised by way of retaliation for former cruelties of this nature, it will greatly lessen the horror that may be conceived upon account of them, and, in some measure, justify David’s using them; and as the sacred writers, who have transmitted this history to us, do not pass any censure on David for having exceeded the bounds of humanity in this punishment of the Ammonites, we may reasonably conclude, either that the punishment was not so severe as our version represents it, or that there was some peculiar reason that demanded this exemplary vengeance, and which, if we were acquainted with it, would induce us to pass a more favourable judgment concerning it; or that the law of nations, then subsisting, admitted such kind of executions upon very extraordinary provocations, though there are scarce any that can justify them.” See Delaney and Chandler, p. 178. But in whatever light we view these severities exercised upon the Ammonites, they ought, in no manner, to be proposed as an example to Christians, nor be pleaded as a precedent for any people to do the like. For the divine laws are the rules of our conduct, and not the actions of any men whomsoever.

Ver. 31. And put them under saws for decapitation, and made them pass before Moloch their idol, where infants had been consumed, to be burned alive in the brickkilns. These were the rebels first lawfully condemned, and the soldiers put them to death in a wanton manner, as was the practice of the gentile world, being enraged that Rabbah had sustained a siege of twenty months. Under these circumstances, could it be expected that the ringleaders of this rebellion should receive a pardon. What a mercy that David did not burn the city; what a favour that he should place Shobi, son of Nahash, on the throne. While we lament the wanton cruelties of the soldiers, surely there is no need of the rebels to complain of David. See 2 Samuel 17:27.

31. Put them under saws — That is, as 1 Chronicles 20:3 explains it, cut them with saws. They were sawn asunder, as Isaiah is said to have been tortured. Hebrews 11:37. Shaw, in his Travels, describes a case of sawing asunder by placing the criminal between boards, and then beginning at the head. The above cut of ancient saws is from paintings found at Herculaneum. Harrows of iron — Rather, as the cognate Hebrew word is rendered in Amos 1:3, Threshing instruments of iron. The victims were probably made to lie down on the ground, as were the Moabites when David measured them with a line, (2 Samuel 8:2,) and a heavy threshing instrument, with jagged iron rollers underneath, was drawn over them. Axes of iron — For cut of ancient axes see on 1 Samuel 13:21. But it is not clear that the word twrzgm, which occurs here only, means axes. Keil renders it simply iron cutting tools, and we incline to believe with him that “the meaning cannot be more precisely determined.” Made them pass through the brick-kiln — Burned to death vast numbers of them by forcing them into the fires of brick-kilns. By these various instruments and methods of torture did David execute the captive Ammonites, thus retaliating upon them cruelties equivalent to what they themselves were accustomed to impose upon their captives. Many have cried out against these terrible cruelties, and thought it impossible that David could have been barbarous enough to authorize them. Hence has arisen another interpretation, which makes the text mean that David enslaved the people, and set them at sawing and hewing wood, making or using iron instruments, and burning brick. But this interpretation accords not well with the words, has the text in Chronicles decidedly against it, and is also open to the objection that the Hebrew people had little or no need of these kinds of labour. Their houses were of stone, or else simply tents; their iron instruments were comparatively few, and they certainly made no such use of wood as required so many sawyers and hewers as all these cities of the Ammonites afforded. But if we consider the customs of that age, and the barbarous character of these Ammonites, we will see the ground and reason of David’s severity. They were wont to rip up women with child, (Amos 1:13;) they would not covenant with the men of Jabesh except that they might thrust out all their right eyes, (1 Samuel 11:2,) and they had provoked this war by their most shameful treatment of David’s friendly ambassadors. 2 Samuel 10:4. If, then, it was proper barbarously to mutilate Adoni-bezek because he had thus mutilated other kings, (Judges 1:6, 7,) and to hew Agag in pieces because his sword had made women childless, (1 Samuel 15:33,) and utterly destroy the idolatrous nations of Canaan, (Deuteronomy 7:2; Joshua 6:21; 8:25, 26; 1 Samuel 15:3,) it is surely a strange inconsistency to cry out against this retaliatory severity of David, as if it were unparalleled and diabolical. The measure was strictly in accordance with the military customs of the age.