2 Samuel 11:26-12:13a

A Man After God’s own Heart?

When the prophet Samuel rejected King Saul, he told him that in his place God would set a man after God’s own heart (1 Sam. 13:14). Today’s scripture leaves us wondering if God truly found such a man in David.

In 2 Samuel chapter 11 the narrative shifts from accounts of David the public figure who had, when possible, avoided violence (1 Sam 24—26) and had waited on God’s timing, to those of a flawed David.

The first part of chapter 11 depicts David’s sins of adultery and murder (vv. 1-25). David’s servants, commander, and other military personnel are drawn David’s sinful deeds with various degrees of complicity. Some scholars and readers of the narrative also place blame on Bathsheba as sinning consensually with David.

The imbalance of power in this story and the narrative clues, however, implicate David alone.

From the beginning of chapter 11, the narrator carefully sets the scene to persuade hearers of David’s guilt:

1. David was not where he should be (remaining in Jerusalem when kings should be elsewhere).

2. David knew that Bathsheba was Uriah’s wife, having first sent a messenger to find out about her (v. 3).

The narrator gives us the persuasive evidence necessary for correcting interpretating the events. We have no choice but to conclude that David, with forethought and in full knowledge, took what “belonged” to another. The subsequent portrayals of David’s secretiveness, plotting, and ultimately murder clearly reveal the narrator’s appraisal of David’s actions.

But to whom must a king give account?!

Before Israel had even entered the Promised Land, Moses had answered this question while recounting to the second generation of Israel the divine revelation, its statutes, ordinances, and covenant requirements. Included in this were the expectations of civil and religious leaders with regard to the written law. Moses said that a day would come when the people would ask for a king like all the other nations. Moses lays out for Israel the limitations of that future royal authority. Not only should kings be of God’s own choosing, and not acquire many horses, many wives, or much gold, but the king must be given his own copy of God’s law to be read daily so that he might “learn to fear the LORD his God, diligently observing all the words of this law and these status, neither exalting himself above other members of the community nor turning aside from the commandment, either to the right or the left” (Deut 17:14-20). Ultimately, it was only King Josiah, living much later in Israel’s history, who is said to have met God’s expectations (2 Kings 23:25).

David had failed to honour God. He had exalted himself to a place where he believed he was accountable to no one. But David had underestimated God.

God does not delay in confronting the king of wrongdoing. God sends the prophet Nathan.

Nathan was introduced in 2 Samuel chapter 7 when David expressed an eagerness to build God a house as glorious as David’s own. Nathan had carried God’s message of refusal to David. He had softened it, however, with God’s unconditional promise of grace that would be extended forever toward the line of David. This promise did not displace the Mosaic Covenant. Discipline and punishment, even of Davidic kings, would remain the consequence of disobedience. But God’s steadfast love toward David’s line would never cease (2 Samuel 7:14-16).

Now in the wake of David’s grievous sins, God’s response of discipline is forthcoming. As dangerous as it may have been to confront a king, Nathan is faithful, but creative.

Nathan tells David a story. Some call this a “juridical parable” that intentionally disguises a real-life situation in order to cause a guilty party to pass judgement on himself (Simon). (Other examples of such a parable can be found in 2 Sam 14:1-20; 1 Kgs 20:35-43; and Isa 5:1-7). David’s passionate response witnesses to the story’s believability and effectiveness.

The account told to David by Nathan is a parable of contrasts:

The Hebrew text begin with the word “two” and contrasts it with the word “one” repeated three times: Two men there-were in-city one, one rich and-one poor. While there are two, we will see soon that it was one who possessed all the resources and power.

Verse 2 proceeds to describe the rich man. Six Hebrew words are sufficient: “the rich (man) had exceedingly many sheep and cattle.” Most English translations change the second Hebrew verb into a static adjective—many. A more accurate translation, however, would be “the rich (man) had an exceeding increase in sheep and cattle!” This man’s flocks and herds were not only large, but they were growing!

In verse 3, we are told of the poor man. Ironically, it takes no less than twenty-five words to tell us what he did not have! He had nothing at all except a little ewe-lamb which he had acquired (by means unknown). He had nourished her, and she had grown up together with him and his children. She ate of his food (more accurately: “morsels” or “meagre fare”), and she drank from his own cup, and she lay (or slept) in his arms, and she was like a daughter to him. The verbs used to describe the ewe-lamb indicate that she was a cherished and intimate member of the poor man’s family. The “laying in arms”—an expression used also of a woman in a man’s embrace—and the Hebrew word for daughter—bat—both seem to allude to Bat-sheba. And Uriah is like the poor man who had nothing but her.

In 12:4, we hear that a “walker” comes to the rich man. This is not necessarily a friend or acquaintance, but merely a traveller or wayfaring man. The out-of-the-ordinary term “walker” may be a sort of wordplay that ironically recalls David’s walking on the roof that started this whole series of events. Suddenly, Nathan’s story takes an unexpected, and heartless, turn. For the man who had everything in increasing measure takes from the poor man, just as David took Bathsheba in 2 Samuel 11:4. The reason for the rich man’s action, as expressed in the Hebrew text, is somewhat awkward in translation:

The rich (man) “refrained or spared from taking” from his own flock or his own herd; or

The rich (man) was “unwilling (or loath) to take” from his own flock or his own herd; or

The rich (man) had “compassion or pity in taking” from his own flock his own herd.

Although the last translation is the most awkward, it is probably closest to the text’s meaning. David’s anger is aroused and in his forthcoming reaction (v. 6), he accuses the rich man using the same expression: “he had no pity or compassion!” A four-fold restitution will be demanded of the man according to the law, but because of the lack of compassion, David says that the man deserves to die. To this, Nathan responds, “You are the man!” David—the so-called man after God’s own heart—is accused of heartlessness!

Nathan makes explicit the connections between the parable and David’s sins. He then states the divine discipline that will follow. Grace will be extended to David, but sin will not be without serious consequences.

This passage forms a necessary divine critique of sin. It also compels us to reflect on the nature of David’s sin. The rape of Bathsheba, the killing of Uriah, the forcing of others to be complicit, the ignoring of the presence of others (the “two”) and thinking only of one(self). But most of all, the parable equates sin with acting without compassion.

This is a cautionary tale of the misuse of position and power. Some have tried to soften the message by the scapegoating of Bathsheba or by rationalizing David’s actions with hints of mitigating circumstances.

Birch notes that “To preach this story will require an honest facing of our own complicity with David. To face the sin of our greatest biblical heroes can allow us to face our own impulses to use others for the fulfillment of our own desires and to face the tragic ease with which we can become entangled in growing webs of sinful acts as we try to cover up and avoid accountability for our own manipulation of others.” (1290)

The preaching of this story must leave room for confession and repentance. In many medieval synagogue manuscripts, a gap was left after 2 Samuel 12:13a for hearers to respond with a reading of Psalm 51, followed then by the declaration of forgiveness in 12:13b.

David’s conviction and penitent response may offer us a glimmer of hope for redefining what it means to be “a man after God’s own heart.”

Resources:

Birch, Bruce. “The First and Second Books of Samuel.” Pages 949-1383 in The New Interpreter’s Bible: A Commentary in Twelve Volumes. Nashville: Abingdon, 1999.

Simon, Uriel. “The Poor Man’s Ewe-Lamb: An Example of a Juridical Parable,” Biblica 48 (1967): 207-242.