Case Study: The Case of David's Turn
David Turned Aside
When the prophet Samuel said, "the Lord hath sought him a man after his own heart" (1Sa 13:14), those words referred to David. This was cited when the apostle Paul said God spoke this about David: "I have found David the son of Jesse, a man after mine own heart" (Acts 13:22).
Besides being called a man after God's own heart, 1 Kings 15:5 says, "David did that which was right in the eyes of the Lord, and turned not aside from any thing that he commanded him all the days of his life, save only in the matter of Uriah the Hittite."
Unlike any other thing in David's life, the matter of Uriah the Hittite is singled out as the only time when David turned aside from the Lord's commandment. Scripture lets us know why this is so, but only if we consider all of the evidence that it presents.
2 Samuel 11:1-12:15 gives us the report of this episode. You can test your current practice by doing what you normally do when you look at a passage. Read those verses and jot down your thoughts on what they teach. Then return to this study and see if scripture can teach us how to get more out of what we read.
The Case of David's Turn
David Takes Uriah's Wife
Here is how scripture introduces us to this episode:
"at the time when kings go forth to battle… David sent Joab, and his servants with him, and all Israel… But David tarried still at Jerusalem. And it came to pass in an evening, that David arose from off his bed, and walked upon the roof of the king's house: and from the roof he saw a woman washing herself; and the woman was very beautiful to look upon. And David sent and enquired after the woman. And one said, Is not this Bathsheba, the daughter of Eliam, the wife of Uriah the Hittite? And David sent messengers, and took her; and she came in unto him, and he lay with her; for she was purified from her uncleanness: and she returned unto her house. And the woman conceived, and sent and told David, and said, I am with child" (2Sa 11:1-5).
When David acted on his lustful thoughts and "enquired after the woman," "one said, Is not this Bathsheba, the daughter of Eliam, the wife of Uriah the Hittite?" If we assume David wanted to know the identity of a beautiful stranger, then this report about her will be seen in this light. However, we need to consider all of the data in scripture regarding this episode, including how David schemed to avoid having to deal with the unexpected result of the night he spent with her after he found out Bathsheba was pregnant.
What Happened Next?
"And David sent to Joab, saying, Send me Uriah the Hittite. And Joab sent Uriah to David. And when Uriah was come unto him, David demanded of him how Joab did, and how the people did, and how the war prospered. And David said to Uriah, Go down to thy house, and wash thy feet. And Uriah departed out of the king's house, and there followed him a mess of meat from the king. But Uriah slept at the door of the king's house with all the servants of his lord, and went not down to his house" (2Sa 11:6-9).
If Uriah was off at war, he could not be the father of the child his wife was carrying. David needed Uriah to spend a night at home so Uriah would think the child was his. But this plan did not work because of Uriah's affinity for his fellow soldiers:
"when they had told David, saying, Uriah went not down unto his house, David said unto Uriah, Camest thou not from thy journey? Why then didst thou not go down unto thine house? And Uriah said unto David, The ark, and Israel, and Judah, abide in tents; and my lord Joab, and the servants of my lord, are encamped in the open fields; shall I then go into mine house, to eat and to drink, and to lie with my wife? As thou livest and as thy soul liveth, I will not do this thing" (2Sa 11:10-11).
Uriah did not go home that night. So, David had him stay another night, hoping to weaken Uriah's resolve by getting him drunk:
"David said to Uriah, Tarry here today also, and tomorrow I will let thee depart. So, Uriah abode in Jerusalem that day, and the morrow. And when David had called him, he did eat and drink before him; and he made him drunk: and at evening he went out to lie on his bed with the servants of his lord, but went not down to his house" (2Sa 11:12-13).
Then David turned to desperate measures. He had Uriah killed in a way that would make it seem as if he died as a casualty of war:
"David wrote a letter to Joab, and sent it by the hand of Uriah. And he wrote in the letter, saying, Set ye Uriah in the forefront of the hottest battle, and retire ye from him, that he may be smitten, and die. And it came to pass, when Joab observed the city, that he assigned Uriah unto a place… and there fell some of the people of the servants of David; and Uriah the Hittite died also" (2Sa 11:14-17).
David had spilled innocent blood, but not only Uriah's, for others of "the servants of David" were killed along with Uriah. When news of this reached David, he instructed the messenger to "say unto Joab, Let not this thing displease thee, for the sword devoureth one as well as another" (2Sa 11:25).
Second Samuel, Chapter 11, closes with these words:
"And when the wife of Uriah heard that Uriah her husband was dead, she mourned for her husband. And when the mourning was past, David sent and fetched her to his house, and she became his wife, and bare him a son. But the thing that David had done displeased the Lord" (2Sa 11:26-27).
At this point, David probably thought he had gotten away with it. However, the Lord was not going to leave it there.
The Truth Comes Out
The following passage tells us what happened next:
"The Lord sent Nathan unto David. And he came unto him, and said unto him, There were two men in one city; the one rich, and the other poor. The rich man had exceeding many flocks and herds: But the poor man had nothing, save one little ewe lamb, which he had bought and nourished up: and it grew up together with him, and with his children; it did eat of his own meat, and drank of his own cup, and lay in his bosom, and was unto him as a daughter. And there came a traveler unto the rich man, and he spared to take of his own flock and of his own herd, to dress for the wayfaring man that was come unto him; but took the poor man's lamb, and dressed it for the man that was come to him. And David's anger was greatly kindled against the man; and he said to Nathan, As the Lord liveth, the man that hath done this thing shall surely die: And he shall restore the lamb fourfold, because he did this thing, and because he had no pity" (2Sa 12:1-6).
Taking Nathan's words in physical terms led David to misconstrue the word picture. This led him to unwittingly pronounce judgment on his own behavior. As David declared the penalty, he was blind to his hypocrisy.
Moments later, he learned he had judged himself, when Nathan explained the parable, as 2 Samuel 12:7-10 reports:
"Nathan said to David, Thou art the man. Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, I anointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul; And I gave thee thy master's house, and thy master's wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things. Wherefore hast thou despised the commandment of the Lord, to do evil in his sight? Thou hast killed Uriah the Hittite with the sword, and hast taken his wife to be thy wife, and hast slain him with the sword of the children of Ammon. Now therefore the sword shall never depart from thine house; because thou hast despised me, and hast taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be thy wife."
No doubt, David was surprised to hear "thou art the man" and the words, "thus saith the Lord God of Israel" were even weightier. But this parable also has an added lesson for us.
Nathan's Parable
"Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him" (Prv 30:5). As will be shown, looking to "every word of God" in this instance can keep us from missing what is hidden in plain sight. The rich man with many flocks and herds took the poor man's lamb. Does this line up with what occurred? Yes. David had multiple wives and concubines and he probably could have had his pick of almost any unmarried woman in the nation. Yet, he took Uriah's wife. So, there is a parallel between the parable and reality on those points. But if we merely identify the rich man, the poor man, and the poor man's lamb, then we have not considered all the evidence.
Who is the traveler? If every word of God is worthy of attention, then we also need to take note of the parable's fourth character.
If our approach to scripture led us to overlook this figure, then this lets us know something needs to change. Those who think their process of assessing biblical truth works fine may say the traveler is irrelevant, so they can avoid having to deal with this character. But does scripture suggest he is irrelevant?
Attention to Detail
Several things call our attention to the importance of the traveler. For example, he is referred to three times. He is called a traveler, the wayfaring man, and the man that was come to him. One key factor links those terms. What they have in common is they all speak of the one who came to the rich man. Beyond his being mentioned three times, there is something else about this figure that should grab our attention.
Scripture lets us know the trouble between the two men in one city began when the traveler came unto the rich man. Why did his coming cause the rich man to take the poor man's lamb, and how would this help people identify the figures in the parable?
Weighing the attributes that are tied to each character is how we can determine who those characters represent. This lets scripture define the terms. In the case of Nathan's parable, the following details were included:
- the rich man had exceeding many flocks and herds,
- the poor man had nothing, save one little ewe lamb, and
- the rich man took the poor man's lamb.
The parable is followed by Nathan's rebuke of David for taking Uriah's wife, so it is easy to see a parallel between David's actions and the parable. But the parable involved more than those three points noted above. When a traveler came to the rich man, he did not "take of his own flock and of his own herd, to dress for the wayfaring man that was come unto him; but took the poor man's lamb, and dressed it for the man that was come to him" (2Sa 12:4). The rich man did take the lamb, but it was taken for and served to the man that was come to him; it was not served to the rich man. If the poor man pictured Uriah and the lamb portrayed Bathsheba, what must we conclude?
The rich man took the poor man's lamb, so this would be picturing David since he took Uriah's wife. Yet, this lamb was taken for and served to the wayfaring man. Thus, the question this presents is, who got the lamb?
The Lord also sent David this rebuke: "thou hast despised me, and hast taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be thy wife" (2Sa 12:10). David took Uriah's wife and he took her for himself. In the parable, the wayfaring man got the lamb, and in reality, David got Uriah's wife. So, the traveler was David himself! The rich man and the traveler both portrayed him – one pictured him before his lust for Bathsheba and the other pictured him after he gave into it!
Not everyone overlooks the traveler. Some who notice him say, 'Satan is the traveler.' Others try to deal with this figure by saying, 'the traveler is sin.' But, Nathan did not mention Satan, the devil, or demons. Also, a concept (sin) did not get Bathsheba pregnant; David did.
An Assumption and an Opportunity
Jesus said, "with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again" (Mt 7:2). Notice how this principle applies in this instance. If we think each figure must represent a different person, then we cannot help but see the parable in this way. If an assumption is not true, it has the same effect as any prejudice. Our conclusions will not be justified by the evidence if we use a false balance to weigh the data. Although it may seem reasonable to assume each character must depict a different person, the word of God is not our measure when our assumptions dictate our view of scripture.
If God's word showed a one-to-one correspondence between the parable and reality, then we would have biblical justification for this idea and we would not need to make an assumption. Since Nathan's parable used multiple characters to represent different aspects of one person, then this technique may also have been used in other Bible parables! Thus, the biblical correction from this aspect of Nathan's parable could open our eyes to things we have overlooked in other parables.
A one-to-one assumption does not automatically mean we have misunderstood other parables. However, this possibility is there, so it would be good for us to reconsider other parables in scripture now that we know different elements in a parable can correspond to different aspects of a single individual, group, or thing.
Picture It This Way
Seeing David as the rich man and the wayfaring man may cause some to bristle because it says, "there came a traveler unto the rich man." Twice more it says he was come to the rich man. Is it reasonable to speak of a man coming to himself? The Bible does:
- "when he came to himself, he said, How many hired servants of my father's have bread enough and to spare, and I perish with hunger" (Lk 15:17),
- "when Peter was come to himself, he said, Now I know of a surety, that the Lord hath sent his angel, and hath delivered me out of the hand of Herod" (Acts 12:11).
The first verse is from the parable of the prodigal son. The second is from the time Peter was set free from prison. Both cases are portraying a moment of internal dialogue; a man talking to himself. Also, the Hebrew word translated as "came" in 2 Samuel 12:4 was used of the coming of feelings like fear, pride, shame, and desire (cf. Prv 1:27, et al.). The words "come" and "came" do refer to physical travel and arrival, but this is not the only way they are used. Thus, according to scripture, a man can "come to himself." The question for us is, does this picture the kind of self-talk that was going on in David's mind when he chose to lust after Uriah's wife?
Consider what Jesus said on this subject: "whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart" (Mt 5:28). Some say this means thinking about adultery is the same as doing it. However, Jesus did not say that.
He used the word "already" to highlight a sequence. Before a man can look "on a woman to lust after her," he must have "committed adultery with her already in his heart." Thoughts always precede the behaviors they produce, and Jesus applied this principle to instances of lust.
The act of looking to lust comes second, adultery in the heart comes first. James 1:14 tells us, "every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed." Therefore, this must have also happened when David pursued Bathsheba.
David turned and traveled away from the Lord when he sold himself on the idea of going after Uriah's wife. No one else talked him into it. He had that conversation with himself and convinced himself to do it. David was a man after God's own heart (cf. 1Sa 13:14, Acts 13:22-23). So, for him to do what he did to Uriah, he first had to turn away from God! The Lord's rebuke of David was, "thou hast despised me, and hast taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be thy wife" (2Sa 12:10). Note the sequence of those words. Is it correct to say that before David went after Uriah's wife, he first had to ignore the Lord's authority and despise the counsel of the Lord that is provided in scripture?
David committed adultery with Bathsheba in his heart prior to their physical union. The words of Jesus indicate this took place before David looked on her to lust after her (cf. Mt 5:28). For David to commit adultery in his heart, he had to turn away from the light of scripture and the commandment that said, "thou shalt not commit adultery" (Ex 20:14). He was rightly portrayed as a traveler because he moved away from being a man after God's own heart. He had the same body, but at that point, there was a man of a different character residing therein.
The Other David
The rebuke was not so much against an act of lust as it was against David's turn – because in turning aside from the Lord's commandment, he turned his back on the Lord. David did not see it when he began to lust after Bathsheba, but that choice put him in opposition to the Lord. Stories and movies will use images of a person speaking good advice in their right ear, while whispering contrary advice in their left ear. This portrays someone weighing the right choice versus the wrong one.
David elected to cater to the lusts of "the wayfaring man that was come unto him" (2Sa 12:4). But he had to first disregard what he knew to be right. Scripture says, "the fear of man bringeth a snare: but whoso putteth his trust in the Lord shall be safe" (Prv 29:25). After David found out Bathsheba was pregnant, his actions were motivated by a fear of man, for if the fear of God had been the basis of David's actions, he would not have done what he did.
The principle "a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump" (Gal 5:9) is easy to see in this episode. When David chose to go against part of God's law, all of God's word was made of no effect unto him! Because he was no longer under God's authority, even murder seemed acceptable to him.
"Purge out therefore the old leaven" (1Cor 5:7) is the advice we find in scripture. This is what David needed to do (by repenting of his disrespect for the Lord).
The Background on David's Turn
The Lord's rebuke was a lesson in humility for David and it is also a lesson for us. What it can teach us about being diligent in holding fast to God's word should motivate us to do better.
David disregarded the authority of God. Whenever people choose to disregard what is said in scripture, they take a step down that same path.
It is a mistake to think of David's turn as a momentary slip-up because scripture lets us know this was not the case. Why did he move so fast to get rid of Uriah? The fear of embarrassment for being caught in one act of adultery would not have been enough to drive him to spill innocent blood in arranging the death of Uriah.
Given David's military experience prior to that point, he must have known his directive would result in other men being killed along with Uriah. Should we assume the possibility of being labeled an adulterer would provide a sufficient motive for David to kill Uriah and sacrifice other lives in the process?
No doubt, David did not want his union with Uriah's wife to become public knowledge. Nevertheless, his coveting of the wife of Uriah went far beyond the sin of adultery.
Adultery is wrong, but the consequences are compounded when a man does it with the wife of a brother, friend, or man of renown. Such things cause people to take a different view of the offense and David knew he had stepped over this line.
Who Was Uriah?
Uriah's name appears 22 times in the verses on David's adultery, his murder of Uriah, and the Lord's rebuke of David via Nathan. Besides this, only three other Old Testament verses mention him. One is 1 Kings 15:5, where it refers to David turning aside from the commandment of the Lord "in the matter of Uriah the Hittite." The other two verses where Uriah is named give us details that can open our eyes and help us to see just how far David had fallen in this episode. They are 2 Samuel 23:39 and 1 Chronicles 11:41.
Taken out of context, those verses tell us little since they merely have Uriah's name included in a list of names. However, his name takes on great significance when those verses are read in context, because they are found in passages which tell us about David's mighty men (cf. 2Sa 23:8-39, 1Chr 11:11-47). In both passages, some men are called more honorable. But just being included in the list surely set those men apart from all the other men in Israel.
Of all those in the armies, few had their names noted in scripture with this noteworthy designation. In the list of David's mighty men, one name truly jumps off the page – Uriah the Hittite. The idea of 'Uriah the mighty' may seem very strange, however, it is biblical. His reputation is further confirmed when the term "the valiant men of the armies" (1Chr 11:26) is applied to a group of men that includes Uriah the Hittite.
Half the Facts Versus Have the Facts
If we only consider 2 Samuel 11 & 12, our view of these events will be based on incomplete data. Think of the difference between a General taking the wife of a foot soldier or the wife of a war hero.
If the army learned David had betrayed one of his mighty men, it would create a much bigger problem for him than if he had chosen to commit adultery with another woman. He had a strong motive to move quickly against this potential threat to his reputation and possibly his reign. Just as Medal of Honor winners are esteemed in America, it is very likely the mighty men and the valiant men of the armies were esteemed in their day.
Knowing who Uriah was explains a lot of things. The palace was surely in the good part of town, and Uriah lived within eyeshot of the palace with a relatively unobstructed view (cf. 2Sa 11:2).
War heroes are often rewarded for their exploits, and a king would want men like this living near him (since they would act as a rapid protection force for the king). There were only a handful of men who made the mighty men list and this tells us David knew Uriah. Besides this, Uriah and Bathsheba also lived in his neighborhood! So, this raises a question. Was David aware of the wife of Uriah before the night of their adulterous union?
We are told, "It came to pass in an evening, that David arose from off his bed, and walked upon the roof of the king's house: and from the roof he saw a woman washing herself; and the woman was very beautiful" (2Sa 11:2). Reading this in isolation may lead people to picture David accidentally laying his eyes on Uriah's wife and being suddenly so smitten by her beauty that it drove him to one bad spur-of-the-moment decision. But is this conclusion justified? Not if one considers all the facts.
David was a man of war. Yet, at the time of David's affair with Bathsheba, we are told, "at the time when kings go forth to battle," David "tarried still at Jerusalem" (2Sa 11:1). Why did he act un-kingly and send his men off to war while he stayed home? If David knew Uriah's wife, he also knew staying behind would provide him with a window of opportunity when Uriah would be away. Was it simply a coincidence that this was when David took Bathsheba?
When he "sent and enquired after the woman" he was not seeking details on a stranger. The response was, "is not this Bathsheba, the daughter of Eliam, the wife of Uriah the Hittite?" This was not a report of information. It was a rhetorical question to warn David against pursuing this well-known woman. Why was her marriage cited last and why was Bathsheba's father Eliam mentioned first? It might be because he too was a man of renown, who was also known to David. Like Uriah, Eliam was one of David's mighty men! 2 Samuel 23:8 tells us, "these be the names of the mighty men whom David had" and in the middle of the list is "Eliam the son of Ahithophel the Gilonite" (2Sa 23:34).
Who was Bathsheba?
So, David messed with the wife of one of his mighty men and defiled the daughter of another of his mighty men in the same act. But there is even more.
Eliam was the son of Ahithophel. Ahithophel is mentioned 20 times in the Bible. Consider two notable facts about Ahithophel:
- "Ahithophel was "David's counselor" (2Sa 15:12),
- "The counsel of Ahithophel, which he counseled in those days, was as if a man had enquired at the oracle of God: so was all the counsel of Ahithophel both with David and with Absalom" (2Sa 16:23).
The object of David's lust was the wife of one of his mighty men, the daughter of another of his mighty men, and the granddaughter of his counselor. Her links to all these close relationships to David prove the odds of her being unknown to David before the night of their adulterous union are slim to none!
David did not have Uriah killed merely to avoid a public relations problem or a soiled reputation from being labeled an adulterer. Bathsheba had family ties to three men who were close to David, notable, and very influential. Thus, her pregnancy presented an extremely complex problem for David and scripture indicates he did everything possible to ensure this could not happen. How so? Because it says, "she came in unto him, and he lay with her; for she was purified from her uncleanness" (2Sa 11:4). Two verses before this it says he saw her "washing herself," which indicates this was the washing of purification that a Hebrew woman would do following her menstrual period. No doubt, this bit of knowledge made David think Bathsheba could not get pregnant on that night. He was wrong, however.
As with all of scripture, the passages on David's turn have much to say and there is much we have not considered. David's Psalms, what happened in his life after Nathan rebuked him, how the son of David and Bathsheba fits in the lineage of Jesus, and other items linked to this episode are left for your further consideration.
The Conclusion of the Case of David's Turn
The Lord used Nathan's parable to teach David, and the Lord can still use this parable to teach people today.
The importance of the traveler was not lost on David because Nathan said David was "the man." David did not have to wonder which man Nathan was equating him to, for David knew he had taken Uriah's wife and he had given her to himself.
The Lord had richly blessed him, but he became a wayfaring man when he chose to despise the commandment of the Lord. If this can happen to someone like David, we all need to be on guard.
The end of the Case of David's Turn