Adam Clarke Commentary
2 Samuel 12
The Lord sends Nathan the prophet to reprove David; which he does by means of a curious parable, 2 Samuel 12:1-4. David is led, unknowingly, to pronounce his on condemnation, 2 Samuel 12:5, 2 Samuel 12:6. Nathan charges the guilt home on his conscience; and predicts a long train of calamities which should fall on him and his family, 2 Samuel 12:7-12. David confesses his sin; and Nathan gives him hope of God‘s mercy, and foretells the death of the child born in adultery, 2 Samuel 12:13, 2 Samuel 12:14. The child is taken ill; David fasts and prays for its restoration, 2 Samuel 12:15-17. On the seventh day the child dies, and David is comforted, 2 Samuel 12:18-24. Solomon is born of Bath-sheba, 2 Samuel 12:25, 2 Samuel 12:26. Joab besieges Rabbah of the Ammonites, takes the city of waters, and sends for David to take Rabbah, 2 Samuel 12:27, 2 Samuel 12:28. He comes, takes it, gets much spoil, and puts the inhabitants to hard labor, 2 Samuel 12:29-31.
There were two men in one city - See a discourse on fables at the end of Judges 9:56 (note), and a discourse on parabolic writing at the end of the thirteenth chapter of Matthew.
And lay in his bosom - This can only mean that this lamb was what we call a pet or favourite in the family, else the circumstance would be very unnatural, and most likely would have prevented David from making the application which he did, as otherwise it would have appeared absurd. It is the only part of this parable which is at variance with nature and fact.
The man - shall surely die - Literally בן מות (ben maveth), “he is a son of death,” a very bad man, and one who deserves to die. But the law did not sentence a sheep-stealer to death; let us hear it: If a man steal an ox or a sheep, he shall restore Five Oxen for an ox, and Four Sheep for a sheep, Exodus 22:1; and hence David immediately says, He shall restore the lamb Fourfold.
Thou art the man - What a terrible word! And by it David appears to have been transfixed, and brought into the dust before the messenger of God.
Thy master‘s wives into thy bosom - Perhaps this means no more than that he had given him absolute power over every thing possessed by Saul; and as it was the custom for the new king to succeed even to the wives and concubines, the whole harem of the deceased king, so it was in this case; and the possession of the wives was a sure proof that he had got all regal rights. But could David, as the son-in-law of Saul, take the wives of his father-in-law? However, we find delicacy was seldom consulted in these cases; and Absalom lay with his own father‘s wives in the most public manner, to show that he had seized on the kingdom, because the wives of the preceding belonged to the succeeding king, and to none other.
Thou hast killed Uriah - Thou art the Murderer, as having planned his death; the sword of the Ammonites was Thy instrument only.
I will take thy wives - That is, In the course of my providence I will permit all this to be done. Had David been faithful, God, by his providence, would have turned all this aside; but now, by his sin, he has made that providence his enemy which before was his friend.
The Lord - hath put away thy sin - Many have supposed that David‘s sin was now actually pardoned, but this is perfectly erroneous; David, as an adulterer, was condemned to death by the law of God; and he had according to that law passed sentence of death upon himself. God alone, whose law that was could revoke that sentence, or dispense with its execution; therefore Nathan, who had charged the guilt home upon his conscience, is authorized to give him the assurance that he should not die a temporal death for it: The Lord hath put away thy sin; thou shalt not die. This is all that is contained in the assurance given by Nathan: Thou shalt not die that temporal death; thou shalt be preserved alive, that thou mayest have time to repent, turn to God, and find mercy. If the fifty-first Psalm, as is generally supposed, was written on this occasion, then it is evident (as the Psalm must have been written after this interview) that David had not received pardon for his sin from God at the time he composed it; for in it he confesses the crime in order to find mercy.
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.
David arose from the earth, and washed - Bathing, anointing the body, and changing the apparel, are the first outward signs among the Hindoos of coming out of a state of mourning or sickness.
Who can tell - David, and indeed all others under the Mosaic dispensation, were so satisfied that all God‘s threatenings and promises were conditional, that even in the most positive assertions relative to judgments, etc., they sought for a change of purpose. And notwithstanding the positive declaration of Nathan, relative to the death of the child, David sought for its life, not knowing but that might depend on some unexpressed condition, such as earnest prayer, fasting, humiliation, etc., and in these he continued while there was hope. When the child died, he ceased to grieve, as he now saw that this must be fruitless. This appears to be the sole reason of David‘s importunity.
I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me - It is not clear whether David by this expressed his faith in the immortality of the soul; going to him may only mean, I also shall die, and be gathered to my fathers, as he is. But whether David expressed this or not, we know that the thing is true; and it is one of the most solid grounds of consolation to surviving friends that they shall by and by be joined to them in a state of conscious existence. This doctrine has a very powerful tendency to alleviate the miseries of human life and reconcile us to the death of most beloved friends. And were we to admit the contrary, grief, in many cases, would wear out its subject before it wore out itself. Even the heathens derived consolation from the reflection that they should meet their friends in a state of conscious existence. And a saying in Cicero De Senectute, which he puts in the mouth of Cato of Utica, has been often quoted, and is universally admired: -
And we well know who has taught us not to sorrow as those without hope for departed friends.
David comforted Bath-sheba - His extraordinary attachment to this beautiful woman was the cause of all his misfortunes.
He called his name Solomon - This name seems to have been given prophetically, for שלמה (sholomah) signifies peaceable, and there was almost uninterrupted peace during his reign.
Called - Jedidiah - ידידיה, literally, the beloved of the Lord. This is the first instance I remember of a minister of God being employed to give a name to the child of one of his servants. But it is strange that the name given by the father was that alone which prevailed.
And took the royal city - How can this be, when Joab sent to David to come to take the city, in consequence of which David did come and take that city? The explanation seems to be this: Rabbah was composed of a city and citadel; the former, in which was the king‘s residence, Joab had taken, and supposed he could soon render himself master of the latter, and therefore sends to David to come and take it, lest, he taking the whole, the city should be called after his name.
And have taken the city of waters - The city where the tank or reservoir was that supplied the city and suburbs with water. Some think that the original, לכדתי את עיר המים (lachadti eth ir hammayim), should be translated I have intercepted, or cut off, the waters of the city: and Houbigant translates the place, et aquas ab urbe jam derivavi; “And I have already drawn off the waters from the city.” This perfectly agrees with the account in Josephus, who says των τε ὑδατων αυτους αποτεμνομενος , having cut off their waters, Antiq., lib. vii., cap. 7. This was the reason why David should come speedily, as the citadel, deprived of water, could not long hold out.
The weight whereof was a talent of gold - If this talent was only seven pounds, as Whiston says, David might have carried it on his head with little difficulty; but this weight, according to common computation, would amount to more than one hundred pounds!
He brought forth the people - And put them under saws. From this representation a great cry has been raised against “David‘s unparalleled, if not diabolic, cruelty.” I believe this interpretation was chiefly taken from the parallel place, 1 Chronicles 20:3, where it is said, he cut them with saws, and with axes, etc. Instead of וישר (vaiyasar), he sawed, we have here (in Samuel) וישם (vaiyasem), he put them; and these two words differ from each other only in a part of a single letter, ר (resh) for ם (mem). And it is worthy of remark, that instead of וישר (vaiyasar), he sawed, in 1 Chronicles 20:3, six or seven MSS. collated by Dr. Kennicott have וישם (vaiyasem), he put them; nor is there found any various reading in all the MSS. yet collated for the text in this chapter, that favors the common reading in Chronicles. The meaning therefore is, He made the people slaves, and employed them in sawing, making iron harrows, or mining, (for the word means both), and in hewing of wood, and making of brick. Sawing asunder, hacking, chopping, and hewing human beings, have no place in this text, no more than they had in David‘s conduct towards the Ammonites.
Visit Our Sponsors
Search This Commentary