However, because by this deed you have given great occasion to Yahweh’s enemies to blaspheme, the child also who is born to you will surely die.” Nathan departed to his house. Yahweh struck the child that Uriah’s wife bore to David, and it was very sick.
David therefore begged God for the child; and David fasted, and went in, and lay all night on the ground. The elders of his house arose beside him, to raise him up from the earth: but he would not, and he didn’t eat bread with them. On the seventh day, the child died. David’s servants were afraid to tell him that the child was dead, for they said, “Behold, while the child was yet alive, we spoke to him, and he didn’t listen to our voice. How will he then harm himself, if we tell him that the child is dead?”
But when David saw that his servants were whispering together, David perceived that the child was dead; and David said to his servants, “Is the child dead?” They said, “He is dead.”
Geneva Bible translators 1599 · Public Domain On vv14, 16, 17, 18 In saying, that the Lord hath appointed a wicked…
In saying, that the Lord hath appointed a wicked man to reign over his people.
Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain.
John Trapp 1656 · Public Domain On vv14–19 2Sa 12:14 Howbeit, because by this deed thou hast…
2Sa 12:14 Howbeit, because by this deed thou hast given great occasion to the enemies of the LORD to blaspheme, the child also [that is] born unto thee shall surely die.
Ver. 14. Howbeit, because by this deed, &c.] Thus, though the Lord was a God that forgave David, yet took he vengeance of his scandalous and reproachful practices. {Psa 99:8} Such sins seldom go unpunished, because of the offence and the evil example that is in them. If sins committed be pardoned, yet sins may be punished: that is, sins committed by example from others: like as a father may be spared, and his children executed.
Read full note →
Occasion to the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme.] To lay reproach upon religion, and to rail against God, as if he were the author, or, at least, the abettor of such wickedness. See Isa 52:5 Eze 36:20; Eze 36:23 Rom 2:24. This the Jews at this day all chillul hashem, a profaning of God’s name; and this they account one of the greatest sins that can be. {a}
The child also that is born unto thee shall surely die.] This, though in some respects it was a mercy to David, - for how could he ever have looked upon this child without grief and shame? - yet, considering the dear affection he bare to it, and the manifestation of the divine displeasure in the death of it, he took on exceedingly. So true is that of an ancient, {b} Etiam post veniam impetratam nunquam deerit nobis flendi materia, donec Deus eadem benignitate lacrymas nostras abstergat, qua et peccatum remisit: Even after sins pardoned, there will be continual cause of weeping, till such time as God, who hath remitted our sins, shall, by the same grace, have wiped away all tears from our eyes.
{a} Leo Modena.
{b} Marulus.
John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Matthew Poole 1685 · Public Domain On vv14–18 To blaspheme, i. e. to reproach both God and…
To blaspheme, i. e. to reproach both God and his people, and the true religion. For though these were not concerned in David’s sin, the blame and shame of which should have been appropriated to him; yet heathens and wicked men would, according to their own evil minds and malicious hearts, fasten the reproach of this upon God and religion; as if God were unholy, because the man after God’s own heart was so; and partial, in conniving at so great a crime, when Saul was cast off for a far less sin; and negligent in the government of the world, and of his church, in suffering such a wickedness as even heathens have abhorred to go unpunished; and as if all religion were but hypocrisy and imposture, and a pretence for villainies. Besides, the Ammonites, upon their success against Uriah and his party, did doubtless magnify and praise their idols, and blaspheme the God of Israel.
The child shall surely die; which, considering his affection to it, and the punishment threatened to the poor innocent infant for his sake, must needs be grievous to him.
Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Matthew Henry 1710 · Public Domain On v15 Nathan, having delivered his message, staid not at court,…
Nathan, having delivered his message, staid not at court, but went home, probably to pray for David, to whom he had been preaching. God, in making use of him as an instrument to bring David to repentance, and as the herald both of mercy and judgment, put an honour upon the ministry, and magnified his word above all his name. David named one of his sons by Bath-sheba Nathan, in honour of this prophet (Ch1 3:5), and it was that son of whom Christ, the great prophet, lineally descended, Luk 3:31. When Nathan retired, David, it is probable, retired likewise, and penned the 51st Psalm, in which (though he had been assured that his sin was pardoned) he prays earnestly for pardon, and greatly laments his sin; for then will true penitents be ashamed of what they have done when God is pacified towards them, Eze 16:63.
Here is, I. The child's illness: The Lord struck it, and it was very sick, perhaps with convulsions, or some other dreadful distemper, Sa2 12:15. The diseases and death of infants that have not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, especially as they are sometimes sadly circumstanced, are sensible proofs of the original sin in which they are conceived.
Read full note →
II. David's humiliation under this token of God's displeasure, and the intercession he made with God for the life of the child (Sa2 12:16, Sa2 12:17): He fasted, and lay all night upon the earth, and would not suffer any of his attendants either to feed him or help him up. This was an evidence of the truth of his repentance. For, 1. Hereby it appeared that he was willing to bear the shame of his sin, to have it ever before him, and to be continually upbraided with it; for this child would be a continual memorandum of it, both to himself and others, if he lived: and therefore he was so far from desiring its death, as most in such circumstances do, that he prayed earnestly for its life. True penitents patiently bear the reproach of their youth, and of their youthful lusts, Jer 31:19. 2. A very tender compassionate spirit appeared in this, and great humanity, above what is commonly found in men, especially men of war, towards little children, even their own; and this was another sign of a broken contrite spirit. Those that are penitent will be pitiful. 3. He discovered, in this, a great concern for another world, which is an evidence of repentance. Nathan had told him that certainly the child should die; yet, while it is in the reach of prayer, he earnestly intercedes with God for it, chiefly (as we may suppose) that its soul might be safe and happy in another world, and that his sin might not come against the child, and that it might not fare the worse for that in the future state. 4. He discovered, in this, a holy dread of God and of his displeasure. He deprecated the death of the child chiefly as it was a token of God's anger against him and his house, and was inflicted in performance of a threatening; therefore he prayed thus earnestly that, if it were the will of God, the child might live, because that would be to him a token of God's being reconciled to him. Lord, chasten me not in thy hot displeasure. Psa 6:1.
III. The death of the child: It died on the seventh day (Sa2 12:18), when it was seven days old, and therefore not circumcised, which David might perhaps interpret as a further token of God's displeasure, that it died before it was brought under the seal of the covenant; yet he does not therefore doubt of its being happy for the benefits of the covenant do not depend upon the seals. David's servants, judging of him by themselves, were afraid to tell him that the child was dead, concluding that then he would disquiet himself most of all; so that he knew not till he asked, Sa2 12:19.
IV. David's wonderful calmness and composure of mind when he understood the child was dead. Observe,
1. What he did. (1.) He laid aside the expressions of his sorrow, washed and anointed himself, and called for clean linen, that he might decently appear before God in his house. (2.) He went up to the tabernacle and worshipped, like Job when he heard of the death of his children. He went to acknowledge the hand of God in the affliction, and to humble himself under it, and to submit to his holy will in it, to thank God that he himself was spared and his sin pardoned, and to pray that God would not proceed in his controversy with him, nor stir up all his wrath. Is any afflicted? Let him pray. Weeping must never hinder worshipping. (3.) Then he went to his own house and refreshed himself, as one who found benefit by his religion in the day of his affliction; for, having worshipped, he did eat, and his countenance was no more sad.
2. The reason he gave for what he did. His servants thought it strange that he should afflict himself so for the sickness of the child and yet take the death of it so easily, and asked him the reason of it (Sa2 12:21), in answer to which he gives this plain account of his conduct, (1.) That while the child was alive he thought it his duty to importune the divine favour towards it, Sa2 12:22. Nathan had indeed said the child should die, but, for aught that he knew, the threatening might be conditional, as that concerning Hezekiah: upon his great humiliation and earnest prayer, he that had so often heard the voice of his weeping might be pleased to reverse the sentence, and spare the child: Who can tell whether God will yet be gracious to me? God gives us leave to be earnest with him in prayer for particular blessings, from a confidence in his power and general mercy, though we have no particular promise to build upon: we cannot be sure, yet let us pray, for who can tell but God will be gracious to us, in this or that particular? When our relations and friends have fallen sick, the prayer of faith has prevailed much; while there is life there is hope, and, while there is hope, there is room for prayer. (2.) That now the child was dead he thought it as much his duty to be satisfied in the divine disposal concerning it (Sa2 12:23): Now, wherefore should I fast? Two things checked his grief: - [1.] I cannot bring him back again; and again, He shall not return to me. Those that are dead are out of the reach of prayer; nor can our tears profit them. We can neither weep nor pray them back to this life. Wherefore then should we fast? To what purpose is this waste? Yet David fasted and wept for Jonathan when he was dead, in honour to him. [2.] I shall go to him. First, To him to the grave. Note, The consideration of our own death should moderate our sorrow at the death of our relations. It is the common lot; instead of mourning for their death, we should think of our own: and, whatever loss we have of them now, we shall die shortly, and go to them. Secondly, To him to heaven, to a state of blessedness, which even the Old Testament saints had some expectation of. Godly parents have great reason to hope concerning their children that die in infancy that it is well with their souls in the other world; for the promise is to us and to our seed, which shall be performed to those that do not put a bar in their own door, as infants do not. Favores sunt ampliandi - Favours received should produce the hope of more. God calls those his children that are born unto him; and, if they be his, he will save them. This may comfort us when our children are removed from us by death, they are better provided for, both in work and wealth, than they could have been in this world. We shall be with them shortly, to part no more.
V. The birth of Solomon. Though David's marrying Bath-sheba had displeased the Lord, yet he was not therefore commanded to divorce her; so far from this that God gave him that son by her on whom the covenant of royalty should be entailed. Bath-sheba, no doubt, was greatly afflicted with the sense of her sin and the tokens of God's displeasure. But, God having restored to David the joys of his salvation, he comforted her with the same comforts with which he himself was comforted of God (Sa2 12:24): He comforted Bath-sheba. And both he and she had reason to be comforted in the tokens of God's reconciliation to them, 1. Inasmuch as, by his providence, he gave them a son, not as the former, who was given in anger and taken away in wrath, but a child graciously given, and written among the living in Jerusalem. They called him Solomon - peaceful, because his birth was a token of God's being at peace with them, because of the prosperity which was entailed upon him, and because he was to be a type of Christ, the prince of peace. God had removed one son from them, but now gave them another instead of him, like Seth instead of Abel, Gen 4:25. Thus God often balances the griefs of his people with comforts in the same thing wherein he hath afflicted them, setting the one over-against the other. David had very patiently submitted to the will of God in the death of the other child, and now God made up the loss of that, abundantly to his advantage, in the birth of this. The way to have our creature-comforts either continued or restored, or the loss of them made up some other way, is cheerfully to resign them to God. 2. Inasmuch as, by his grace, he particularly owned and favoured that son: The Lord loved him (Sa2 12:24 and Sa2 12:25), ordered him, by the prophet Nathan, to be called Jedidiah - Beloved of the Lord: though a seed of evil-doers (for such David and Bath-sheba were), yet so well ordered was the covenant, and the crown entailed by it, that it took away all attainders and corruption of blood, signifying that those who were by nature children of wrath and disobedience should, by the covenant of grace, not only be reconciled, but made favourites. And, in this name, he typified Jesus Christ, that blessed Jedidiah, the son of God's love, concerning whom God declared again and again, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible (1708–1710) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
John Gill 1763 · Public Domain On vv14–19 And Nathan departed unto his house,.... His own house,…
And Nathan departed unto his house,.... His own house, which probably was in the city of Jerusalem, having delivered his message, and brought David to a sense of his sin, and declared to him from the Lord the forgiveness of it; yet for the honour of religion, and the stopping of the mouths of blasphemers, the death of the child is threatened and foretold, and then Nathan took his leave of him, having nothing more from the Lord to say to him:
and the Lord struck the child that Uriah's wife bare unto David; for so she was, and not David's wife, when this child was begotten of her; and, as a mark of God's displeasure at the sin of adultery, the child was struck with a sore disease by the immediate hand of God:
Read full note →
and it was very sick; even unto death, as the event showed.
John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
John Wesley 1765 · Public Domain On vv16–18 Besought - Supposing the threatening might be conditional, and…
Besought - Supposing the threatening might be conditional, and so the execution of it prevented by prayer. Went - Into his closet.
John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.
Adam Clarke 1810 · Public Domain On v16 Verse 16. David - besought God for the child]…
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.
Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Joseph Benson 1811 · Public Domain On vv14, 15, 17, 18 2Sa 12:14. Great occasion to the enemies of the…
2Sa 12:14. 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.
Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Albert Barnes 1834 · Public Domain On v16 The death of the infant child of one of…
The death of the infant child of one of the numerous harem of an Oriental monarch would in general be a matter of little moment to the father. The deep feeling shown by David on this occasion is both an indication of his affectionate and tender nature, and also a proof of the strength of his passion for Bath-sheba. He went into his most private chamber, his closet Mat 6:6, and “lay upon the earth” 2Sa 13:31, rather “the ground,” meaning the floor of his chamber as opposed to his couch.
Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Haydock's Catholic Bible Commentary 1859 · Public Domain On vv14, 15, 16, 18 Occasion. Literally, "made" almost, in the same sense, as…
Occasion. Literally, "made" almost, in the same sense, as God threatened to do, what was effected by Absalom, ver. 12. David did not co-operate with the malice of infidels; but he was responsible for it: in as much as he had committed an unlawful action, which gave them occasion to blaspheme God, as if he had not been able to foresee this scandalous transaction. Thus God and religion are often vilified, on account of the misconduct of those who have the happiness to be well informed, but do not live up to their profession: but this mode of argumentation is very fallacious and uncandid. It ought, however, to be a caution to the servants of the true God, never to do any thing which may have such fatal consequences; and alienate the minds of weak men for the truth. --- Die. Thus infidels would see, that God did not suffer David to pass quite unpunished. (Haydock)
George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).
Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset & David Brown 1871 · Public Domain On v15 the Lord struck the child . . . and…
the Lord struck the child . . . and it was very sick--The first visible chastisement inflicted on David appeared on the person of that child which was the evidence and monument of his guilt. His domestics were surprised at his conduct, and in explanation of its singularity, it is necessary to remark that the custom in the East is to leave the nearest relative of a deceased person to the full and undisturbed indulgence of his grief, till on the third or fourth day at farthest (Joh 11:17). Then the other relatives and friends visit him, invite him to eat, lead him to a bath, and bring him a change of dress, which is necessary from his having sat or lain on the ground. The surprise of David's servants, then, who had seen his bitter anguish while the child was sick, arose apparently from this, that when he found it was dead, he who had so deeply lamented arose of himself from the earth, without waiting for their coming to him, immediately bathed and anointed himself, instead of appearing as a mourner, and after worshiping God with solemnity, returned to his wonted repast, without any interposition of others.
Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
Daniel D. Whedon 1874 · Public Domain On vv14–17 14. Howbeit — The honour of God’s holy law…
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 Psalms 51.
Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges 1878 · Public Domain On vv14–17 14. thou hast given great occasion, &c.] The enemies…
14. thou hast given great occasion, &c.] The enemies of Jehovah would mock and blaspheme Him, when they saw His chosen representative, the King of Israel, thus breaking His law. To divorce Bath-sheba now would be a further wrong. Yet if he was not punished men might answer yes to the question “May one be pardoned and retain the offence?” And therefore a long series of chastisements, beginning with the death of the child, must unequivocally declare the divine judgment on such sin.
The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers 1878 · Public Domain On vv14, 16 (14) Thou hast given great occasion.—Although David was forgiven,…
(14) Thou hast given great occasion.—Although David was forgiven, yet since his sin had brought great scandal on the church, it was necessary that he should suffer publicly the consequences of that sin. We can see that this was especially important in David’s case, both for the vindication of God’s justice, and to destroy the hope that other sins also might go unpunished; yet it is not to be forgotten that the effect of sin generally is similar. The far greater part of David’s sufferings were from what are called “the natural consequences” of his sin, i.e., from consequences which flowed from it under the immutable laws of the world’s moral government. These laws are always in force, and bring home the earthly consequences of sin, however the sinner may have repented and been forgiven.
The child also that is born.—The death of a little infant in the harem of a great Oriental monarch might seem of small significance, and but a light punishment; David, however, saw it in its true light—as an evidence of God’s unalterable purpose, and a sign of the greater judgments that must come upon him. The people also, no doubt, saw and felt the appropriateness of this punishment.
A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Pulpit Commentary 1880 · Public Domain On vv14–16 Thou hast given great occasion to the enemies of…
Thou hast given great occasion to the enemies of Jehovah to blaspheme; Hebrew, thou hast made the enemies of Jehovah to despise; that is, to despise Jehovah"s government, the theocracy, of which David was the visible head and earthly representative. Jehovah"s enemies are not the heathen, but Israelitish unbelievers, who would scoff at all religion when one in David"s position fell into terrible open sin. But the death of the adulterous offspring of David and Bathsheba would prove to these irreligious men that Jehovah"s righteous rule could reach and punish the king himself, and would thus vindicate his justice from their reproach.
Ver. 14. (THE PALACE.)
Read full note →
Giving occasion to blaspheme.
because by this deed thou hast surely caused literally, "causing," etc., "hast caused," etc. the enemies of Jehovah to speak evil "despise," "contemn," "abhor," provoke," "blaspheme"," etc. A scorner, being in company with a devout man, took occasion to speak contemptuously of those whom he called "the Old Testament saints," and especially of David as "a man after God"s own heart," asking, "And what did he do?" "He wrote the fifty-first psalm and the thirty-second," was the reply; "and if you cherish such feelings as he there expresses, you will be a man after God"s own heart." "But," he persisted, "tell me what he did besides." "He did that which the Prophet Nathan said would cause the enemies of God to blaspheme. The scorner felt the rebuke, and was silent. Even to this day the pernicious influence of his sin appears; but, on the other hand, the fact of its having been recorded is an evidence of, at least, the truthfulness of Scripture; whilst the invaluable lessons taught by it more than compensate for the evil effects it produces. "The sacred writer is perfectly aware of the tendency of this passage of David"s history, and yet he is not directed by the Holy Spirit to suppress it. It might have been suppressed. The failings of David are not less useful than his virtues, if we will only faithfully improve the warnings they afford us. It is only to the enemies of the Lord that they afford occasion of blasphemy. They, indeed, will never want occasion; and we are not to be denied the salutary examples which the Scriptures hold forth to us because there are those who wrest them to their own destruction. But it is chiefly in the failings of the good that the enemies of the Lord find cause of triumph" (Thompson, "Davidica"). Concerning the sin of David and other godly men, observe that
I IT IS RENDERED ALL THE MORE CULPABLE AND CONSPICUOUS BY THEIR PREVIOUS EXALTATION. Culpable, inasmuch as their profession of godliness, especially when hired with eminent position, increases their responsibility, and furnishes special motives to a consistent course of conduct; conspicuous, inasmuch as their apparent superiority to others:
1. Attracts the attention of men to them more than others, and makes it impossible that their failings should pass unnoticed.
2. Naturally leads men to expect more from them than others.
3. Produces a deeper impression by the contrast exhibited between what is expected from them and what is actually done by them. The transgression of David was in itself great; but it was all the greater, in the view of men, because committed by one of his acknowledged piety, and "in the fierce light that beats upon the throne, and blackens every blot.
II IT IS CALCULATED TO EXERT A MOST INJURIOUS INFLUENCE ON OTHER MEN. The sin of every man has a baneful effect on his fellow men; but that of a godly man, in an eminent degree, by:
1. Causing them not only to despise him, but also others, who are associated and identified with him in religious faith and service, as (like him) unworthy of respect, insincere, and hypocritical.
2. Inciting them to contemn religion itself; doubt the Word of God, distrust the reality of piety everywhere, and even speak evil of God himself; wherein it is commonly implied that sin is sanctioned by religion, or at least is not prevented by it because of its essential weakness. A false impression of the requirements and character of God is given.
3. Lessening the restraints of holy example, hindering the acceptance of thetruth, multiplying excuses for neglect, encouraging indulgence in sin.
4. Affording means of opposition to the faith, whereby others still are made to stumble. "This observation gives us a deep insight into the whole position of David. In him the good principle had attained to supremacy; the godless party had seen this with terror, and now they mocked piety in its representative, who, because he held this position, ought to have kept watch over his heart the more carefully, and afterwards made use of the first opportunity of throwing off the burdensome yoke" (Hengstenberg). "Towards the heathen Israel"s duty was, by obedience to God"s Word and commands, to set forth the theocracy, and bring it to honour and recognition. Transgressions of God"s command by the king himself must lead the heathen to heap shame and reproach on Israel and on Israel"s God" (Erdmann).
III ITS INJURIOUS EFFECT ON OTHERS DEPENDS UPON THEIR OWN CHARACTER. It is only "the enemies of the Lord" who despise the Lord, his Word, or his people.
1. Their enmity disposes them to make use of the sin of another as a reasonin favour of the course upon which their heart is already set; thus silencing the voice of conscience. increasing their pride and self-deception, and confirming themselves in unbelief and disobedience.
2. It also indisposes them to regard it in a proper manner; to consider thestrength of his temptation, the depth of his penitence, the earnestness of his aspirations after righteousness; that the conduct of one man does not prove the character of all with whom he is associated, still less the truth of the religion they profess, or the character of the God they serve; that it may not be sanctioned by God, but forbidden, reproved, and punished by him; that it is not the standard of practice, which is found in the Law of God alone; and that "every man must give account of himself to God." Those who stand may be led by it to take heed lest they fall, and those who fall to hope to rise again; but the enemies of the Lord see in it nothing but an excuse for persisting in the evil of their way. "Bees will collect honey and spiders poison from the same plant, according to their different natures" (Scott).
3. Their sin is not lessened by the sin of another, but rather increased by theuse they make of it. Nevertheless, "all conduct of ours which tends in the slightest degree to strengthen that system of false reasoning, by which sinners confirm themselves in their sins, and undermine the faith and practice of others, is sin of the deepest dye" (Thompson).
IV ALTHOUGH IT MAY BE PARDONED, IT CANNOT GO UNPUNISHED. "The child also that is born unto thee shall surely die.,
1. To manifest the justice and righteousness of God. The penalty of deathwhich he had incurred was transferred from the guilty father to the innocent son.
2. To humble him more deeply on account of his sin, and to produce in him"the peaceable fruit of righteousness". (Heb_12:11) "For the most grievous sins a provision of mercy is so made as to secure long and humbling recollections of the aggravated guilt" (Halley).
3. To counteract the evil effects of his sin, and "that the visible occasion ofany further blasphemy should be taken away." "God in his wisdom did take away this child, because he should have lived but to be a shame unto David" (Willet). This was only the beginning of a long course of chastisement in his family (ch. 13.), his person, (Ps 41 Ps 55 Ps 39) and his kingdom (ch, 14.). Judgment was mingled with mercy; yea, it was itself the chastisement of love. "What was the answer to his prayer? First, the death of Bathsheba"s child. Next, the discovery of hateful crimes in his household. Finally, the revolt of the beloved Absalom. These answers to a prayer for forgiveness? Yes, if forgiveness be what David took it to mean having truth in the inward parts, knowing wisdom secretly" (Maurice). D.
Religion reproached through the conduct of the religious.
David"s wickedness gave occasion for reproach of religion by the ungodly among his subjects, and by the heathen peoples around. Indeed, it occasions blasphemy and contempt of religion down to the present day.
I CONDUCT WHICH OCCASIONS CONTEMPT AND REPROACH OF RELIGION. The conduct must be that of professedly religious men, and the more strict their profession, and the more prominent their position, so much the greater the mischief they do.
1. Great inconsistency between profession and conduct. Gross immorality, fraud, falsehood, avarice, intemperance, hasty temper, revenge, etc.
2. Unworthy presentation of religion itself. Ignorant rant, unctuous cant, too much insistence on mere doctrinal refinements which have little or no bearing on practical life, elaborate ceremonialism, fierce strife in a Church, sectarian bitterness and exclusiveness, indifference to the well being of the general population, clerical pretensions, ambition, or avarice, all in their various ways and degrees occasion "the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme.
II THE CLASS OF PERSONS LED THEREBY TO DESPISE AND REPROACH RELIGION. "The enemies of the Lord." Not his friends; they know too well the value of religion; reverence and love it too much. The effect of such conduct on them is sorrow, self-examination, and greater watchfulness and prayer, lest they also should be overcome by temptation. Also prayer and effort (if possible) to restore those who have sinned. To take occasion from the inconsistencies of Christians to despise and revile their religion is a manifest sign of enmity to God. It is also a mark of great ignorance of the religion they revile; for, did they understand it, they would perceive its opposition to the sins and follies of its professed adherents; and that its truth and goodness remained the same, whatever their conduct. Or, if it be said that it is only the profession of religion that is spoken of with contempt, it is plainly unjust to cast a slur on all who make it because of the sins of a few of their number.
III THE SERIOUS EVILS THUS WROUGHT.
1. The slanderers are themselves injured. To occasion them to blaspheme is to occasion the increase of their guilt, and the greater hardening of their hearts; whereas it should be the aim of good men to do all that is possible to bring them to the knowledge of the truth and the experience of salvation.
2. Discredit is brought upon religion. Hence some who might have been disposed to inquire into its claims, and others who were preparing to make an open profession of godliness, are deterred from doing so. In this view the inconsistencies of Christians are a serious matter. They help to promote in society a sentiment adverse to earnest godliness and the profession of it.
3. The hearts of true-hearted and consistent Christians are wounded and distressed.
4. Above all, and including all, the Name of God is dishonoured, and the progress of his kingdom checked.
Finally, let inconsistent professors of religion ponder the words of our Lord, (Mat_18:7, Revised Version) "Woe unto the world because of occasions of stumbling for it must needs be that the occasions come; but woe to that man through whom the occasion cometh! G.W.
The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Biblical Illustrator 1887 · Public Domain On v14 By this deed thou hast given great occasion to…
2Sa_12:14
By this deed thou hast given great occasion to the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme.
Read full note →
Sins of Scripture saints
I. It is not our duty to attempt to palliate the crimes of Scripture saints. Some have laboured in their defence, as if our religion depended on their vindication, and, under their pleadings, that which is recorded as the grossest crime, has been made to appear as a very venial transgression. But against such ingenuity common sense will revolt, and though carried away for a while, as the judgment may be, by an eloquent plea for a criminal at the bar, the verdict will still be one of condemnation. And this is precisely the course which the Scriptures pursue. And this is the course which the Christian ought to pursue in speaking of these characters.
II. Allowing, then, all the guilt of these Scripture characters, does it furnish any argument against religion? It has often been used for this end, but without reason. Will it be said that a religion which holds up such transgressors as the Saints of the Lord, cannot be from a holy God? But that religion does not commend their sins, if it did, we might well reject it. Their sins are held up to our abhorrence, and as proceeding from the want of more of the power of godliness. The record of their faults, so far from weighing against the truth of Scripture, is, indeed, one strong evidence in its support.
III. Had all been represented as faultless, would the Bible have been any more credible? Then the question would have been asked, Why is it that no such perfect characters are formed under the power of the Gospel in the present day? Men would have looked around upon its professors, and seen that they were but imperfect, and they would have said either that religion had lost its power or that it never had any.
IV. Will it be objected that religion has but little power, if it leaves men to fall into such sins, and that unassisted reason can produce as pure a morality as the Bible? We are willing that the latter should be judged by its fruits, and if it does not yield more perfect fruits than philosophy or reason ever produced, then let it be rejected. But in judging of its effects we must take them as a whole, and not look at solitary instances of failure. David was one of the greatest kings of Scripture; let his whole reign be compared with that of Alexander, the greatest king of ancient profane history, and if it do not stand higher in a moral point of view, then we might acknowledge that Davids religion was powerless. Every one acquainted with the private and public characters of these two monarchs, placed amid the temptations of power, must acknowledge that while there was one defiling blot on the character of David, that of Alexander was one whole blot, set off only by shining sins, and that while the subjects of the former were happy, those of the latter were but the slaves of ambition and the instruments of terror.
V. When the Scriptures describe the failings of good men, we see all the secret guilt of their sins drought to light.
VI. The severity of Gods justice towards these, his guilty servants. In the ordinary course of things, their crimes would have been in a great measure concealed. But God would not suffer these offenders so to escape. What would have been forgotten, he has engraved on an enduring monument to their shame. Does not this look like the confidence of truth?
VII. If, then, any take occasion from the evil deeds of those mentioned in Scripture to blaspheme it proves that they are enemies of the Lord. An humble-minded person will see much in these records of sin to convince him of the truth of Scripture, and for his own edification.
VIII. They have encouraged many a believer, overtaken in a fault, to seek forgiveness. No doubt many have drawn encouragement from hence to sin, and because such crimes us those of David and Peter have been forgiven, some have been led to presume that they too should find forgiveness, however they might live. From the same plant poison and honey are extracted. But many a time also has the Christian been led by the deceitfulness of sin into some gross transgression, yet after long indulgence he awakens from his dream of pleasure, and finds the stings of conscience can still reach him.
IX. These recorded failings of good men have also made believers of succeeding ages more circumspect. Many a one disposed to say, I never will deny thee, Lord, has had presumptuous confidence checked by the recollection, how vain the boast was in the mouth Of an apostle. Probably every Christian can declare that he never reads these melancholy accounts without being made more humble, and distrustful of self; and thus they have their use. In a great naval contest of England, we are told that one ship ran aground so as to be entirely out of reach of the enemy, but contributed very much to the victory, by serving an a beacon to the other ships bearing down into action. It was not a way of contributing to victory which any brave captain would choose, but it would be a matter of rejoicing even in this way to serve ones country. And so, though we would not choose that holy men of old should have fallen into sins, we rejoice that the great Captain of our salvation is making use of their failures to swell the triumphs of his people, and to bring glory to his own great name.
X. That salvation cannot be of works, but only of Gods free grace. (W. H. Lewis, D. D.)
The sin of giving occasion of blasphemy
You will observe that this signal misfortune is denounced against David because he had given great occasion to the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme. Here is at once an answer to all the cavils of unbelievers, and a satisfaction for all the scruples of weaker brethren. So far from any justification of the conduct of David in this particular, we find it expressly condemned; the sacred writer is perfectly aware of the tendency of this passage of Davids history; and yet he is not directed by the Holy Spirit to suppress it.
(1) It is only to the enemies of the Lord that they afford occasion to blaspheme. They, indeed, never will want occasion; and we are not to be denied the salutary examples which the Scriptures hold forth to us, because there are those who wrest them to their own destruction. But it is chiefly in the failings of the good, that the enemies of the Lord find cause of triumph.
(2) The occasion of blasphemy given by David to the enemies of the Lord has been amply improved.
(3) Giving occasion of blasphemy to the enemies of the Lord is, therefore, a sin of vast magnitude, even separately considered. All conduct of ours, which tends in the slightest degree to strengthen that system of false reasoning by which sinners confirm themselves in their sins, and undermine the faith and practice of others, is sin of the deepest dye.
(4) I am only aware of one objection which has been raised against the authority of Scripture from this portion of the life of David. It has been represented as inconsistent with the justice of God, to punish David by inflicting death on an innocent being. But scarcely a moments consideration is necessary to shew the fallacy of this objection, for it never could be made by any person recollecting that there is a future world. Death, in the course of that nature to which the child was subject, must necessarily have arrived; and at no time could it have arrived with so little risk and such cheering prospects, as in that age, whose happy and highly favoured possessors compose, with those who most resemble them, the kingdom of heaven. And this circumstance may teach us to admire the wonderful economy of goodness which characterizes all the acts of divine Providence. (H. Thompson, M. A.)
The faults of others no excuse for evading the claims of Christ
How can you make the excuse that because there are some hypocrites you will refuse Christ Himself? I heard a friend tell a good story in reference to that matter. An Irishman had found a sovereign which was short in weight, so that he could only get eighteen shillings for it. The next time he saw a sovereign lying on the ground he would not pick it up, for, he said, he had lost two shillings by the other. (C. H. Spurgeon.)
Hindering the Gospel.
If the sun be eclipsed one day, it attracts more spectators than if it shone a whole year. So if you commit one sin, it will cause you many sorrows and the world many triumphs. Dr. Whitaker, on reading the fifth of Matthew, broke out saying, Either this is not the Gospel or we are not of the Gospel. The cruelty of the Spaniards to the Indians made them refuse Christian baptism. For, said they, He must be a wicked God who has such wicked servants. (W. Secker.)
Evildoers discredit others also
A non-venomous snake one day met a venomous. I wonder, said the non-venomous, why men loathe and avoid me? Simply because they dont know which is which, answered the other; very few can tell us one from the other; my poison fang, therefore, protects you also Yes. said the first, and brings me into dreadful discredit too; your evil deeds are credited to our whole family, and keep us in disgrace.--(Weekly Pulpit.)
Judging all by unworthy examples
It was an amusing distortion of a good hymn, but there was not a little sound philosophy in it, when the old negro preacher sang, Judge not the Lord by feeble saints. And yet this is precisely what the great majority of unconverted men are doing all the time. They will not go to the Bible and give heed to what God Himself says. They have no ear for His voice of mercy that offers them salvation for the taking. They do not pay any attention to the solemn warnings that the Scriptures utter. They judge the Lord by feeble saints. They attempt to feed their starving souls on the imperfections of Christians--poor food enough they find it! Because Gods people are not all that they ought to be, therefore these cavillers will keep aloof from the religion which they profess. Because Gods believing followers are not perfect--they do not claim to be--therefore, say these unbelievers, there is no power in religion. Christians cannot claim exemption from criticism. They do not expect it. They know that the eyes of the world are upon them. But they say to the unbeliever, If you would know the truth, go to the Word; go to Him Who is the truth; judge not the Lord by feeble saints.
How to judge the merits of religion
A man said to me in a railway train, What is religion? Judging from the character of many professors of religion, I do not admire religion. I said: Now, suppose we went to an artist in the city of Rome, and while in his gallery asked him, What is the art of painting? would he take us out to a low alley, and show us the mere daub of a pretender at painting? or would he take us into the corridors, and show us the Rubens and the Raphaels and the Michael Angelos? When we asked him What is the art of painting? he would point to the works of these great masters, and say, This is painting! Now, you propose to find the mere caricatures of religion, to seek that which is the mere pretension of a holy life, and you call that religion. I point you to the magnificent men and women whom this Gospel has blessed and lifted and crowned. Look at the masterpieces of Divine grace if you want to know what religion is. (T. De Witt Talmage.)
Christianity a holy religion
Dr. Mason Good, when arguing with a young infidel scoffer, well put the old error of making the faults of professors the fault of their profession. Did you ever know an uproar made because an infidel had gone astray from the paths of morality? The young man admitted that he had not. Then you allow Christianity to be a holy religion by expecting its professors to be holy; and thus, by your very scoffing, you pay it the very highest compliment in your power. (Weekly Pulpit.)
2Sa_12:14-25
The child also that is born unto thee shall surely die.
Great troubles following great transgressions
David became a backslider. Men sometimes speak, not of Davids great sins, but of his great sin, as if he were guilty of only one flagrant transgression. Such language is lenient at the expense of truth. A great sin seldom stands altogether alone. It is most frequently found in the midst of kindred company, like a high Alpine peak--a region of desolation and death, surrounded by other desolate peaks only a little lower than itself. In Davids case it was not one monster transgression, but several which lifted themselves in colossal defiance of Gods law. The offender against man and God might plead, that at first he was swept into transgression by a sudden gust of passion; but he could not urge any such extenuation of his sins when he tempted Uriah to drunkenness; when he sent the patriotic soldier back to the camp with a letter containing a plan whereby his fidelity and courage might be taken advantage of to accomplish his destruction; and when he used his kingly power in commanding Joab to help him in this murderous policy. There are few things in history more appalling than the awful completeness of Davids transgressions. Having brought himself into difficulties by his crime, he grappled with the difficulties with a masterful energy, and a terrible recklessness, as if he would shrink from nothing and spare nobody, in his endeavour to hide his own shame. The ravages made by sin in his nature, in a short season, were incredibly great. How utterly unlike himself David was when he tried to cover his delight at Uriahs death with canting words about the chances of war and the duty of resignation! What a pitiable pretence it was to send a message to Joab, exhorting him not to be too much distressed and discouraged by the calamity which had befallen the army. Can this be David? Is this what sin does with a man when he suffers it to have place and power in his heart? The sight of such havoc wrought in one who was a king amongst the great and good, might well dim the brightness and disturb the joy of heaven itself. Our present object is not to set forth either the repentance or the forgiveness of David, but to show that, though he was penitent and pardoned, he sustained great loss and damage by reason of his sins. Punishment for his sin preceded his penitence and forgiveness. For a whole year David remained in that strangest greatest guilt of all an unconsciousness of guilt. His spiritual sensibilities were so deadened he did not imagine there was any reference to him in the story Nathan told. With great beams in both his own eyes, he was yet determined to put another man to death for having a mote in one of his. While David was forgetting his transgressions God was setting them in the light of His countenance--the light that most reveals the sinfulness of sin. When at length David acknowledged his sins, and cried for mercy, he was met by God with wondrous grace. The promptness of the pardon proves that God does, indeed, delight in mercy. As in the case of the returning prodigal, David was scarcely allowed to finish his confession before the prophet exclaimed: The Lord also hath put away thy sin; thou shalt not die. What we say of fire or water might have been truly said of Joab, Davids commander-in-chief. He was a good servant, but a bad master. One of the evil results of the sins in the matter of Uriah was that it changed the position of Joab. Henceforth he was more like Davids master than Davids servant. For the sake of his dignity and honour and peace it was of first importance that the King should have full control over his impulsive and unscrupulous general; but how could he retain that control after the scene in front of the walls of Rabbah? From the moment that fatal letter was put into Joabs hand he must have felt that David was utterly in his power. What a secret for a servant to possess concerning his master! A proper control over Joab could not have been the only power David lost through his sins. The power of rebuke was most essential to him. As a father, how much need there was for him to use it over his subjects; and, as a prophet, what need for him to use it in the Church! But, when he sinned so fearfully, he must have sinned away well-nigh all his force for rebuking others. We learn from several Psalms that David suffered much from slander. He was a successful man, and his success excited envy, and envy gave birth to calumny. Hence we hear him complaining of false accusations, and appealing from the aspersions of men to the judgment of God. It is not possible to fix the dates of all the Psalms in which he refers to these slanders, but we may be sure he was likely to suffer most from this cause after his backslidings. This would be especially true of such calumnies as those of which he complains so piteously in the forty-first Psalm. David prayed for pardon, for purity, and for a restoration of spiritual joy. It does not appear that this side the grave he received a large answer to the last request. Traces of the mischief which had been wrought were visible down to the latest hour of life. The splendour of his reputation and the exulting gladness of his spirit were never fully recovered. It was impossible, for, though God had forgiven, David could not forget. The life-long memory of his sins must have been a lifelong trouble. The more he realised that God had forgiven him the less he could forgive himself. It mattered not in what fair scenes and prosperous circumstances he was placed, his thoughts would be travelling back to that dark and doleful region, and fetching thence materials for present gloom and grief. (C. Vince.)
Divine correction consistent with Divine forgiveness
True excellence consists not so much in the singular display of one or more commendable dispositions, as in the combined and duly regulated exercise of the whole range of moral perfections. Here it is that the superlative excellence of the Divine character is discovered; and here is detected the imperfection by which the brightest specimens of human excellence are still marked. How difficult is it for man to combine a decided and appropriate expression of his dis, approbation of the crime with that forbearance and mercy which, on many grounds, may be due to the criminal. Stern severity which exaggerates the real nature of the error, and entirely overlooks the avowed and apparently sincere contrition of the offender, too often usurps the name and place of just and necessary correction. While, on the other hand, a weak and mistaken tenderness sometimes so far relaxes all correction as to appear like connivance at what is evil, and to leave it after all matter of just suspicion how far the conduct in question is regarded as really deserving condemnation. Here, as in every case, the Divine conduct exhibits a pattern which should ever be kept in mind, and to which our own should, as nearly as possible, be conformed; justice, holiness, and mercy, are all shown in harmonious exercise.
I. The repentance and pardon of David.
1. The sincerity of Davids repentance.
2. The assurance he received of Divine forgiveness: the Lord also hath put away thy sin, thou shalt not die. This may be intended to assure him of deliverance from the legal demerit of his crime.
3. The close and intimate connection between the repentance and forgiveness of David. Here two remarks suggest themselves
(1) His repentance preceded the assurance of Divine forgiveness.
(2) The assurance of Divine forgiveness followed immediately on the expression of Davids repentance.
II. The afflictive discipline to which David was notwithstanding subjected (2Sa_12:14.)
1. The nature of the visitations he endured. In the manner in which God corrects his erring people, there is often so close an analogy between the sin and the punishment as cannot fail to make the connection evident to themselves, and to all aware of the real state of the case. This remark is strikingly illustrated in the case before us.
2. The reason assigned for the infliction of these visitations: by such conduct he had given great occasion to the enemies of God to blaspheme.
3. The consistency of these visitations with the full and free forgiveness of which David had been assured. That these points are consistent with each other we must feel assured, from the fact that God has connected them. God still corrects, even where he pardons his backsliding people.
(1) To render distinctly apparent his own abhorrence of their sin. That there could be no just reason to think the contrary, even independently of their chastisement, is admitted; but sinners might be ready to pretend there was. There shall be no room for this; and therefore, while God will show that he loves and pities the offender, he will also show he hates the offence.
(2) To warn other Christians from being beguiled by so fatal an example. For the parent to allow one member of his family to sin without correction is but preparing the way for the offences of others. The due exercise of discipline in one case may be the happy means of salutary caution to others.
(3) As a probable means of preventing the hardening influence of his transgression on the minds of sinners.
(4) As a preservative against further declension on the part of the same individual. In conclusion, let the humbled and penitent backslider be encouraged to hope for pardon while he views the grace that was shown to David. (Essex Remembrancer.)
Forgiveness not impunity
I. Forgiveness does not mean impunity. A man may be pardoned, and nevertheless he may be punished. God forgave David, yet bereaved him. And this no exceptional case; simply a notable illustration of a general law. In all ages sins of penitent men are forgiven them; in all ages penitent men have to endure the punitive results of the very sins that have been forgiven. Whatsoever they sow, that they reap, however bitterly they may repent having mingled tares with the wheat. Abraham sinning by taking Hagar to wife--sin forgiven, but strife and discord in his tent. Jacob deceived his father, defrauded his brother. God forgave him his sin, yet he had to eat bitter fruit of it through long years of labour, and sorrow, and fear. Peter sinned: was forgiven; yet had to go softly many days, to brook the pain of the thrice-repeated reproach, to find his sin recoiling upon him years afterwards (Antioch).
II. The meaning and mercy of punishment. One very obvious reason why God does not detach their natural results from our sins even when He forgives them is that to do so would necessitate an incessant display of miraculous power, before which all law and certainty would be swept away, and our very conceptions of right and wrong confused. But though this familiar argument may prove a sufficient answer to reason, it has no balm for a wounded heart. To reach that we must consider the moral effects of punishment on the individual soul. And here Davids experience will help us much. For it teaches how--
1. Punishment deepens both our sense of sin and our hatred of it. Before punishment David not conscious of his transgression, nor alive to its enormity, tie was blind to personal application of Nathans parable until the prophet turned upon him. But then how deep his shame! Stands self-revealed, self-condemned. And this deep sense of personal guilt is a common and wholesome result of punishment.
2. Punishment deepens self-distrust and reliance upon God. David, who was but now so hot in his indignation against the wicked rich man, in whom he recognised no likeness to himself, finds that so far from having any right to judge or rule others, he has misjudged, he cannot rule himself. Now that he suffers the due reward of his deeds, he utterly distrusts himself; he can think no good thought, do no good act, offer no acceptable worship, save as God inspires and sustains him.
3. Punishment puts our repentance to the proof. It was not simply fear of judgment which led David to exhaust himself in confessions of guilt. It was rather shame and agony of finding himself out. Not even his child was foremost in his thoughts. It is not so much as mentioned in the psalm in which he poured out his soul before God. What touched him much was the awful estrangement which had crept in between his wilt and Gods. It was this which lie sought God to remove. Hence, when the child dies, David bows to the will of God. His penitence is put to a decisive test, and surmounts it. (Samuel Cox, D. D.)
Sin penalties
God is a God of infinite mercy to forgive sin, and vet He will by no means clear the guilty. He will surely visit iniquity by fixing its consequences upon the sinner, and even also upon others for his sake. But, stated in this way, the principle is not readily acceptable to us. The righteousness of it does not tie upon the face of it. If God forgives the sin, why does He not also clear away the punishments and all the evil consequences of it? Surely, we say, The way of the Lord is not equal.
I. Sin penalties that can be removed, such as rest on the soul. Sin has a twofold aspect, and calls for a twofold treatment by God. Every sin is both an act of transgression and a spirit of self-will. It has a sphere related to the body, and a sphere related to the soul. What, then, are the soul penalties which attach to sin inevitably? They are put into this expressive sentence, The soul that sinneth it shall die. But this soul-penalty of sin can be remitted, put away, forgiven, lifted off the soul for ever. The Lord hath put away thy sin, thou shalt not die. The true sphere of the atonement made by our Lord Jesus, in His life and in His cross, is precisely this sphere of soul-penalties.
II. Sin penalties that cannot now be removed--penalties and consequences of sin coming on our bodies. In the Divine wisdom and goodness mans life on the earth has been arranged under certain conditions and with certain limitations.
1. Men and women are set together in family and social circles, so that the actions of any one of them shall affect the rest of them for good or for evil. No man is permitted to stand alone, the results of his conduct must reach to the good, or the misery, of somebody else.
2. God has appointed the order in which family and social life should be arranged and conducted. Keep the Divine order, and all will go well with us.
3. Sin, in its outward, aspect, is the infringement of this Divine order, the breaking of these gracious and holy laws.
4. To every such infringement a natural penalty is attached. Whatsoever a man soweth that shall he also reap. The redemption provided in Christ Jesus does not immediately touch these natural penalties of sin. The forgiving God by no means clears the guilty. The child of the drunkard or the sensualist will not have the spirit of drink or of passion taken out of him, nor will he be renewed from his physical deterioration, because his father becomes a Christian. Consequences of sin stretch on until they get altogether beyond hand-grasp. Thick and heavy were the penalties which David had to pay for his sin. Can we vindicate the ways of God in this? Open two points.
(1) If it were not thus, adequate impressions of the evil and hatefulness of sin could not be kept before the eyes of men.
(2) These penalties which abide are not merely judicial, they have, in their own way, a gracious remedial power. The whole creation groans--waiting for the redemption, full and final redemption, that is surely coming. (Homiletic Magazine.)
The stripes of the children of men
I. Gods chastisements. Bathshebas little child was very sick; it was the child of sin and shame, but the parents hung over it; for seven days the mother watched it, and the father fasted and lay on the earth. Two years after one of his sons treated his sister as David had treated Uriahs wife. They say a man never hears his own voice till it comes back to him from the phonograph, Certainly a man never sees the worst of himself until it reappears in his child. When presently Absaloms rebellion broke out it received the immediate sanction and adherence of Davids most trusty counsellor, whose advice was like the oracle of God. What swept Ahithophel into the ranks of that great conspiracy? The reason is given in the genealogical tables, which show that he was the grandfather of Bathsheba, and that his son Eliam was the comrade and friend of Uriah. The most disastrous and terrible blow of all was the rebellion of Absalom. Such were the strokes of the Fathers rod that fell thick and fast upon his child. They appeared to emanate from the malignity and hate of man; but David looked into their very heart, and knew that the cup which they held to his lips had been mixed by heaven, and were not the punishment of a Judge, but the chastisement of a Father.
II. Gods alleviations. They came in many ways. The bitter hour of trial revealed a love on the part of his adherents to which the old king may have become a little oblivious. It was as though God stooped over that stricken soul, and as the blows of the rod cut long furrows in the sufferers back, the balm of Gilead was poured into the gaping wounds. Voices spoke more gently; hands touched his more softly; pitiful compassion rained tender assurances about his path; and, better than all, the bright-harnessed angels of Gods protection encamped about his path and his lying-down.
III. Gods deliverance. The raw troops that Absalom had so frostily mustered were unable to stand the shock of Davids veterans, and fled. Absalom himself was despatched by the ruthless Joab, as he swayed from the arms of the huge terebinth. The pendulum of the peoples loyalty swang back to its old allegiance, and they eagerly contended for the honour of bringing the king back. Many were the afflictions of Gods servant, but out of them all he was delivered. When he had learnt the lesson, the rod was stayed. Thus always--the rod, the stripes, the chastisements; but amid all the love of God, carrying out His redemptive purpose, never hasting, never resting, never forgetting, but making all things work together till the evil is eliminated, and the soul purged. Then the after-glow of blessing, the calm ending of the life in a serene sundown. (F. B. Meyer, B. A.)
Sin and its consequences
1. The permission of evil is an insoluble mystery. Perhaps the only light which ran be thrown upon it is to be found in the words of St. Augustine, God has judged it better to work good out of evil than to allow no evil. For seeing that He is supremely Good. He would in no way permit evil to be in His works, unless He were also Almighty as well as Good, so as to be able to bring good even out of evil. In dealing with evil, He manifests His perfections--as the light of the sun becomes the rainbow with its beauteous colours, when it falls on the dark, dissolving cloud. The wisdom of God, for instance, becomes visible in the way in which, notwithstanding the interruptions and collisions of sin, His purposes are worked out. Any one can be a pilot on a calm sea.
2. Our thoughts are directed to a very remarkable instance of the permission of evil. It is remarkable, when we remember the description of David from the lips of Samuel, The Lard hath sought Him a man after His own heart. Some take the expression in its widest extent--one who is in mind and will clearly and fully conformed to the mind and will of God; whilst others seem to interpret it of one trait in Davids character--that of benevolence towards enemies. Perhaps the incongruity of the Divine estimate of David and his subsequent conduct is confined to his fall.
I. The punishment for sin.
1. It is first to be noticed that the sin itself had been pardoned. The history shows us that pardoned sin may have penal consequences. The removal of the guilt (culpa) does not necessarily include the removal of the penalty (poena). David was pardoned for the breaches of the sixth and seventh commandments, although the guilt of sin is not transferable (Eze_18:20), the penalty is. The death, which was the penalty of Davids sin, was inflicted on the child.
3. Then the necessity for the punishment by the death of the child is traced by the Prophet not only to the intrinsic evil of the sin, but to the accidental aggravation which belonged to it from the circumstance that it was the king and prophet who had done this thing, and therefore had caused grievous scandal--had given great occasion to the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme (2Sa_12:14).
4. In this instance, the terrible list of calamities which were to befall David and his house are distinctly traceable to Davids sin. They were its punishment and medicine. Suffering was necessary to show the Divine abhorrence of evil; and the Jew, who ever regarded sin and suffering as closely linked together, would be quick to read the signs of Divine wrath.
II. How did david bear it?
1. The child is very sick. For seven days the glow of life still lingered in the wasting form, and the king fasted and prayed, and fell prostrate upon the earth before his God, neither changing his apparel nor eating bread. This is not only a picture of natural affection, but also of evident anxiety for a sign that the wrath of God was stayed. Whilst we have here what Paley calls the naturalness of Scripture, we have also the penitent seeking a mark of restoration to Divine favour.
2. While the child was yet alive, I fasted and wept, etc. It has been asked whether it was right to pray for the continuance of the childs life, after the Prophets declaration that the child should surely die. In other words, whether David was trying to change or bend the Divine will into conformity with his will, after that will had been declared. Either David believed the wards of the Prophet, or he did not. If he believed them, and yet prayed, that would be madness; if he believed not, that would be sin (Tostatus). The answer seems to be this: David regarded the declaration of Nathan as minatory. He thought to avert its accomplishment by prayer and fasting and tears. He was not certain about the Divine will: and Gods threatenings, like His promises, are conditional.
III. What was his stay?
1. Belief in another world. I shall go to him.
2. No mock immortality could be this--the survival of matter, of fame, of ideas, of race, or of some vague, shadowy existence--a transient air-people. But a solid belief in a continuance of our personal existence, and in future personal recognition--I shall go to him--that alone could sustain the mourner in the presence of death.
IV. Lessons:--
1. Here is an instance of the terrible truth, Be sure your sin will find you out (Num_32:23), and that temporal penalties follow upon forgiven sin. Hate sin.
2. Let the sinner seek, as David, by prayer and self-affliction and tears, to avert sins penalties, until there is some irrevocable manifestation of the Divine will.
3. Imitate His constant conformity, when that will has been made clearly known.
4. Let the hope full of immortality be our stay in our dark hour. No counterfeit immortality, but the continuance, in s higher sphere of being, of the conscious, complete, personal existence, now certified by Christs resurrection. This can give patience in suffering and solace in death. (The Thinker.)
The Biblical Illustrator, edited by Joseph S. Exell (c. 1880s–1900s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Preacher's Complete Homiletical Commentary 1892 · Public Domain On v14 2Sa_12:14. “The enemies of the Lord to blaspheme.” “Transgression…
CRITICAL AND EXPOSITORY NOTES
2Sa_12:14. “The enemies of the Lord to blaspheme.” “Transgression of God’s command by the king himself must lead the heathen to heap shame and reproach on Israel and its God; and there must therefore be expiation by punishment.” (Erdmann.)
Read full note →
“Not only to the heathen, but also to the unbelieving among the Israelites.” (Keil.) The external sufferings of David would be to all such blasphemers a witness to the holiness and justice of God. “David was also to discern in it a distinct token of the grace of God.” (Keil.)
2Sa_12:15. “The Lord struck the child.” It appears that Nathan did not visit David until after the birth of Bathsheba’s child, and therefore that David’s impenitent state of mind lasted for many months.
2Sa_12:16. “Besought God.” “In the case of a man whose penitence was so earnest and so deep, the prayer for the preservation of his child must have sprung from some other source than excessive love of any created object. His great desire was to avert the stroke, as a sign of the wrath of God, in the hope that he might be able to discern, in the preservation of the child, a proof of Divine favour consequent upon the restoration of his fellowship with God.” (Von Gerlach.) “Went in.” Rather, “he came,” not into the house of the Lord (2Sa_12:20 is proof to the contrary), but into his house, or into his chamber.” (Keil.)
2Sa_12:17. “The elders.” As in Gen_24:2, his oldest and most trusted servants.
2Sa_12:21. “What thing is this?” “This state of mind is fully explained in Psalms 51, though his servants could not comprehend it.” (Keil.)
2Sa_12:15-22. “In this short passage the Divine names are used with greater variation than usual. 2Sa_12:15 has “Jehovah” (the Lord); 2Sa_12:16 has “God;” and in 2Sa_12:22 the Hebrew text has “Jehovah,” where in our version is God. Whether the sacred historian was guided in the employment of these names by some unknown principle, or he used them indiscriminately it is difficult to decide.” (Jamieson.)
2Sa_12:23. “I shall go to Him.” Wordsworth sees in these words “an evidence of David’s belief in the personal identity of risen saints, and in everlasting recognition in a future state.” It seems quite evident that at least “the continued existence of the child’s soul in Sheol is here assumed, and the hope of re-union with it expressed.” (Erdmann.)
2Sa_12:24. “She bare a son.” “In all probability Solomon was not born until after the capture of Rabbah and the termination of the Ammonitisli war. His birth is simply mentioned here because of its connection with what immediately precedes.” (Keil.) “Solomon,” i.e. the man of peace (Keil.) It was probably given “from the wish that peace might be allotted to him as God’s gift, in contrast with the continual wars of his father’s life.” (Erdmann.) Or as Keil and others remark, “because David regarded his birth as a pledge that he should now become a partaker again of peace with God.”
2Sa_12:25. “He sent.” Expositors differ as to whether Jehovah or David is the subject here. It seems most in keeping with the construction to read with Kiel and others, “Jehovah loved him, and sent,” etc.… and he (Nathan, in obedience to the Divine direction) called,” etc. Some however make David the first subject, and understand the verb sent in the sense of delivered; i.e., David committed the child to the care of Nathan, and Nathan gave him his higher name. Others again make David the subject of both verbs. “Jedidiah,” i.e., beloved of Jehovah.
MAIN HOMILETICS OF THE PARAGRAPH.—2Sa_12:14-25
DAVID’S PUNISHMENT
I. A sinful deed committed by a child of God must be punished to vindicate the justice of the Divine government. The human king and father who claims to be the representative and executor of law is bound to begin at home, and exact strict obedience from the members of his own family before he deals with those outside his household. For if his home discipline be lax, and he overlook transgressions in his children that he would punish in other men, he loses his reputation as a just and impartial ruler. Indeed, those who stand most nearly related to him are rightly counted more blameworthy than others if they violate the law, inasmuch as their near relation implies a more perfect knowledge of what ought to be done, and therefore a more binding obligation. It is especially needful, therefore, that their sins be visited with the deserved penalty, and such a visitation is quite consistent with personal forgiveness of the offender. God, who claims to be the supreme ruler of all the nations, chose the Hebrew people as His especial inheritance, and selected David from the rest of the nation to stand in a peculiar and intimate relation to Himself. All the nation was under special obligation to obey the laws of God, and David was bound to obedience by even stronger ties than any of his subjects. As an Israelite he was called upon to show to the heathen around an example of godly living, and as the chosen king of Israel, and the professing servant of Jehovah, he was bound to be a living revelation of God’s law to his own people. If his great sin had not been openly punished, and if the punishment had not been heavy, the reputation of the Divine Law-giver would have suffered. Therefore, although his sin was “put away” upon confession, justice demanded all the suffering that followed. This law is of necessity in constant operation in the government of God. “You only have I known of all the families of the earth; therefore I will punish you for all your iniquities.” (Amo_3:3.) Peculiar privileges and distinguishing marks of Divine favour are not licences to sin, but reasons why it cannot be lightly passed over.
II. The result of an unlawful deed soon changes from a source of pleasure into one of pain. The thief who succeeds in capturing his booty congratulates himself upon all the enjoyment he hopes to purchase with it. But it may be that he presently stumbles beneath its weight, and so enables the officer of justice to overtake and capture him, and thus the very largeness of the gain that he secured for an hour becomes the means of days and months of sorrow. It is not always, nor generally, that retribution follows so quickly upon the heels of wrong-doing, but whether its results be enjoyed for a longer or shorter period, they will one day be the cause of bitterness. David was allowed to enjoy, so far as a guilty conscience would permit him, the fruits of his sinful union with Bathsheba for a short time. It is evident that the child that was born to him was a source of joy to his heart. But soon that very source of his gladness was smitten, and the fountain whence the streams of pleasure had flowed now sent forth only bitter waters. From what we know of David we may conclude that the sufferings of an innocent child would have given him pain under any circumstances, but how great an addition to his mental suffering must it have been to remember that, in this instance, his guilty passion was the cause of all. This leads to the remembrance—
III. That those who commit the sin are not the only sufferers from it. This is an inevitable, although sad, consequence of that relativity between human creatures which is also the cause of so many blessings. As none can say where the effects of sin will end in relation to his own soul, so it is impossible to calculate how far its evil influence will extend in relation to others. Sometimes, as in the case before us, only bodily suffering is entailed upon the child by the transgressions of the parent, but often, alas, the sin of the father bears more deadly fruit in the moral contamination which it communicates to the children. David’s infant child suffered bodily pain and death because of the iniquity of its parents, and no man—especially no parent—can sin without bringing misery of some kind upon those related to him. Our children, and others connected with us, can, by Divine help, free themselves from the moral consequences of our wrong-doing, but the law which binds our sin and their bodily or mental suffering together is one which cannot be broken in the present life. Blessed be God it can reach no further; but surely it reaches far enough to furnish an all-powerful motive to every man to pray, “Lead me not into temptation.” If men will not hear the voice which cries “Do thyself no harm,” and will contend that they may do what they please with their own souls, can they find even the shadow of an excuse for bringing pain and loss upon others, even though that pain and loss be only temporal?
OUTLINES AND SUGGESTIVE COMMENTS.
2Sa_12:14. This observation gives us an insight into the whole position of David. In him the good principle had attained to supremacy; the godless party had seen this with terror; and now they mocked piety in its representative, who, because he held this position, ought to have kept watch over his heart the more carefully.—Hengstenberg.
2Sa_12:15. It is solemnizing to think that the one sinless member of the family—sinless as to actual sin—is the first to reap the deadly wages of sin. It leads the thoughts straight to the doctrine of imputed guilt; it makes us think of mankind as one great tree with ten thousand branches; and when the faithless root sends up poison instead of nourishment, it is the youngest and tenderest branchlet that first droops and dies.—Blaikie
2Sa_12:16. We like to read these words, for they tell us that David, though an erring-son of God, was yet a son. A godless man would have been driven farther from Jehovah by these troubles, and might have been led to make proclamation of his utter atheism; but David went to God. The more heavily he felt the rod, the nearer he crept to him who used it. He fled from God to God. He hid himself from God in God. This shows that his sin was out of the usual course of his nature. It was like the deflection of the needle, due to certain causes which at the time he permitted to have influence over him; but, these cause: removed, his old polarity of soul returned, and in his time of trouble he called on Jehovah. This was his habit. Repeatedly in his Psalms has he employed language which clearly indicate that God was regarded by him as a strong rock, whereunto, in time of trial, he continually resorted. Thus we have him saying, on one occasion, of his enemies: “For my love they are my adversaries: but I give myself unto prayer;” and again, “From the end of the earth will I cry unto Thee, when my heart is overwhelmed: lead me to the rock that is higher than I.”—Taylor.
2Sa_12:18. Repentance may come too late—is respect of temporal chastisements, which are yet not penal, but medicinal. (1Co_11:32.) Thus Moses and Aaron were kept out of Canaan for their disobedience at the waters of Meribah.—Trapp.
2Sa_12:20. A godly man saith Amen to God’s Amen; and putteth his fiat and placet to God’s. (Act_21:14.)—Trapp.
It is worthy of particular observation that the first step of the Psalmist in the day of his sorrow is “to the house of the Lord.” His conduct is worthy of imitation. I know not where the children of sorrow should go, if not to the house of their heavenly Father. It is in the holiness of the sanctuary that this “beauty” is found which the prophet was to give instead of ashes to those “who mourned in Zion.” It is in the sacred vessels of the temple that the “oil of joy” is kept which God’s people are to have “for mourning.”—Bp. Dehon.
2Sa_12:22. God was gracious to him in that the child did not live. How could he ever have looked upon him without grief and shame? How oft do God’s children find themselves crossed with a blessing! and ont he contrary.—Trapp.
2Sa_12:23. We may learn from David’s words here, that we may cherish the most unwavering assurance of the salvation of those who die in infancy. Even in the comparative darkness of the Jewish dispensation, the Psalmist had the fullest persuasion of the eternal welfare of his baby-boy; and, under the Gospel economy, there are many things revealed which tend to make the doctrine of infant salvation perfectly indubitable. Not to refer to the fact that, as they have committed no actual transgressions, little children do not personally deserve condemnation, and may, therefore, presumably be regarded as included in the provisions of the covenant of grace, there are certain things which to my mind place the doctrine to which I refer beyond all question.
In the first place, there seems to me a moral impossibility involved in the very thought of infants being consigned to perdition. For what are the elements in the punishment of the lost? So far as we know, they are these two, memory and conscience. But in an infant conscience is virtually non-existent. Moral agency and responsibility have not yet been developed, and so there can be no such thing to it as remorse.
Again: memory has nothing of guilt in an infant’s life to recall, and so it seems to me to be utterly impossible to connect retribution of any sort in the other world with those who have been taken from the present in the stage of infancy.
But, in the second place, there are positive indications that infants are included in the work of Christ. I grant at once that there is no one passage which in so many words makes the assertion that all who die in infancy are eternally saved; but then we may not wonder at the absence of such a declaration, since it would have been liable to great abuse; and we do not need to regret that we have it not, because there are many passages which very clearly imply it. Thus Jesus said of infants, “Of such is the kingdom of heaven.” This does not mean only, as some would have us to believe, that the kingdom of heaven consists of persons resembling little children. The word translated “of such” has evidently a definite reference to children themselves, and has elsewhere been employed in that way by the Saviour himself.—Taylor.
The issue of things doth more fully show the will of God than the prediction: God never did anything but what He would; He hath sometimes foretold that for trial which His secret will intended not: He would foretell it; He would not effect it; because He would therefore foretell it that He might not effect it. His predictions of outward evils are not always absolute; His actions are. David well sees, by the event, what the decree of God was concerning his child, which now he could not strive against without a vain impatience. Till we know the determination of the Almighty, it is free for us to strive in our prayers; to strive with Him, not against Him: when once we know them, it is our duty to sit down in a silent contentation.—Bp. Hall.
Whether David clearly expressed faith in the immortality of the soul or not, we know that the thing is true; and … even the heathen derived consolation from the reflection that they should meet their friends in a conscious state of existence. And a saying in Cicero, De Senectute, which he puts into the mouth of Cato of Utica, has been often quoted, and is universally admired: “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 pile 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 me into a country where he saw I should soon rejoin him.”—A. Clarke.
2Sa_12:24. Yea, sons, and David’s best sons came of Bathsheba, because they were the fruit of their humiliation. Nathan, of whom came Christ (Luke 3), is ranked before Solomon (2Sa_5:14; 1Ch_3:5; 1Ch_14:4), but Solomon was the elder brother by Bathsheba, and a notable type of Christ, both in his name and in his reign. This may be for comfort to such as have leaped rashly into marriage; yea, have entered into that holy ordinance of God through the devil’s portal, if for that they be after soundly humbled. Trapp.
The Preacher's Complete Homiletical Commentary (gen. ed. Joseph S. Exell; Funk & Wagnalls, c. 1892) — public domain (pre-1929). A full-Bible homiletical/sermon-outline anthology covering 65 of 66 books (2 John is absent from the source module). Text from a community e-Sword module.
Paul E. Kretzmann 1924 · Public Domain On v15 The Death of David’s Child
The Death of David’s Child
v. 15. And Nathan, having delivered the sentence of the Lord, departed unto his house. And the Lord struck the child that Uriah’s wife bare unto David, the phrasing once more calling attention to the sin, and it was very sick. The sickness in this case was a direct punishment of God upon the parents.
Read full note →
v. 16. David, therefore, besought God for the child, to spare its life; and David fasted, as a sign of deep sorrow and repentance, and went in, to a quiet room or retired spot of his house, and lay all night upon the earth. He bowed in meekness under the punishing hand of God, but also pleaded for merciful consideration, if he might expect such.
v. 17. And the elders of his house, his oldest and most confidential servants, arose and went to him to raise him up from the earth; but he would not, neither did he eat bread with them. His grief was too great to Field to their appeals and admonitions.
v. 18. And it came to pass on the seventh day that the child died, God had deemed it best to carry out the punishment decided upon. And the servants of David feared to tell him that the child was dead; for they said, Behold, while the child was yet alive, we spake unto him, and he would mot hearken unto our voice; how will he, then, vex himself, by being plunged into still deeper grief, in which he might do himself harm, if we tell him that the child is dead?
v. 19. But when David saw that his servants whispered, not daring to approach him with the sad news, David perceived that the child was dead, he drew his conclusions from their behavior; therefore David said unto his servants, Is the child dead? And they said, he is dead.
v. 20. Then David arose from the earth, and washed and anointed himself, and changed his apparel, and came into the house of the Lord, the tent where the Ark of the Covenant had been placed, and worshiped, his humble yielding to God’s chastening hand enabling him joyfully to bear the burden laid upon him. Then he came to his own house; and when he required, they set bread before him, and he did eat.
v. 21. Then said his servants unto him, What thing is this that thou hast done? They could not explain David’s conduct to themselves. Thou didst fast and weep for the child while it was alive, but when the child was dead, thou didst rise and eat bread.
v. 22. And he said, While the child was yet alive, I fasted and wept; for I said, he thought in his heart, Who can tell whether God will be gracious to me that the child may live? If God had spared his child. David would have regarded the fact as a proof of God’s special mercy upon him.
v. 23. But now he is dead, wherefore should I fast? Can I bring him back again? He humbled himself under the mighty hand of God without giving way to fruitless grief. I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me, a clear confession of the belief in a life after death.
v. 24. And David comforted Bathsheba, his wife, with the same comfort which he himself had received, and went in unto her and lay with her; and she bare a son, and he called his name Solomon, undoubtedly with the prayer that God might grant him peace in every way. And the Lord loved him, gave the child special evidences of His loving-kindness.
v. 25. And He, the Lord, sent by the hand of Nathan, the prophet, as His official representative in this case; and he called his name Jedidiah (beloved of the lord), because of the Lord. All this points forward to the object of Christ’s coming in the flesh. For He is come to cover over our nakedness and disgrace before God, to change the scarlet color of our guilt into the white of perfect innocence, through the atonement gained by His blood.
Paul E. Kretzmann, Popular Commentary of the Bible (1921–1924) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
unfoldingWord translationNotes 2017 · CC BY-SA 4.0 On vv14, 16, 19 to strongly dislike or hate someone or something
despised
to strongly dislike or hate someone or something
Read full note →
the child who is born to you
The phrase "born to you" means that it is David's baby. AT: "your child who will be born" (See: Idiom)
Yahweh attacked the child that ... and he was very sick
Here the author speaks of Yahweh causing the baby to become sick as Yahweh attacking the child. AT: "Yahweh afflicted the child that ... and he was very sick" or "Yahweh caused the baby that ... to become very sick" (See: Metaphor)
the child that Uriah's wife bore to David
This means that she gave birth to a child and that David was his father. AT: "David's child, who Uriah's wife gave birth to" (See: Idiom)
translationWords
children
die
Nathan
Uriah
David
unfoldingWord translationNotes — © Distant Shores Media and the Door43 World Missions Community, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Source: git.door43.org/Door43/en_tn.
Tyndale Open Study Notes 2022 · CC BY-SA 4.0 On v14 12:14 Nevertheless . . . your child will die:…
12:14 Nevertheless . . . your child will die: At times, God transfers punishment of fathers to their descendants (Exod 20:5; 34:7; Num 14:18; Deut 5:9; Jer 32:18). Although David repented and was forgiven (2 Sam 12:13), it did not cancel all retribution; it delayed it until a later generation (cp. 1 Kgs 21:27-29).
Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.