2 Samuel 12:1–31

12:2–3 Livestock were an index of wealth (cf. 1 Sam. 25:2; 30:20), so the rich man with “very many flocks and herds” did not suffer from any lack of resources. On the other hand, all the poor man owned was “one little ewe lamb,” which he must have struggled hard to purchase. He treated the pet lamb as part of his family. Yet, since his poverty was intense, he could only share a “morsel” with it. With hindsight it can be seen that “lie [cf. “lay”; 2 Sam. 11:4] in his arms” and “like a daughter [bat, the first element in Bathsheba’s name]” reflect Uriah’s relationship with his wife (11:11).

12:4 When an unexpected traveler visited the rich man, he sought to prepare a meal for his guest but was “unwilling to take” (lit., “spared to take” or “had pity with respect to taking”) from his own animals. He experienced no such restraint regarding his neighbor’s animal, and heartlessly he “took the poor man’s lamb,” where “took” (Hb. laqakh) implies “stole,” echoing David’s exploitative action in 11:4.

12:5 Nathan’s story may not be finished, but it has already achieved much. Without realizing its implications for him personally, David is stirred with genuine concern for justice. In his anger at such base conduct, he exclaims to Nathan with an oath—“as the Lord lives” (cf. comments on 4:9; 1 Sam. 14:39)—that “the man who has done this deserves to die [lit., “(is) a son of death,” cf. 1 Sam. 20:31; 26:16].” David, defender of justice, is ready to censure misconduct—of others. But thereby he condemns himself (cf. John 8:1–11; Rom. 2:1–4), and it is this reaction that Nathan exploits.

12:6 Then, as if mindful that theft is not punishable by death, David retreats somewhat from his emotional outburst and decrees that “he shall restore the lamb fourfold” (cf. Ex. 22:1). “Because he had no pity” repeats the verb of verse 4: the rich man had ignored the circumstances of the neighbor he oppressed. It may be that in David’s case this fourfold penalty is paralleled by the loss of four of his sons: the unnamed son of Bathsheba (2 Sam. 12:18), Amnon (13:33), Absalom (18:33), and Adonijah (1 Kings 2:25).

12:7 David has instinctively identified with the poor man, but his perception of the story is inverted when Nathan dramatically declares, “You are the man!” He is the rich man, and he has condemned himself.

The extended form of the messenger formula (cf. 1 Sam. 2:27) makes it clear that Nathan speaks as the Lord’s messenger, presenting his case against his vassal for breach of covenant. David had become king by divine initiative (“I anointed you”) and is therefore answerable to “the God of Israel” for the way in which he has conducted himself in office. Furthermore, since the Lord has protected and defended David (“I delivered you out of the hand of Saul”), he is obligated to respond with grateful obedience.

12:8 Moreover, the Lord’s blessing has extended to giving him Saul’s “house,” his personal resources. “I gave . . . your master’s wives into your arms” uses the expression found in verse 3 for “in his arms.” Since there is no record of this elsewhere, or indeed any hint that Saul had a harem, it may be that the practice of a successor’s acquiring the royal harem (cf. comments on 3:7; 16:21) is used as a conventional expression for unqualified takeover. Further, the Lord has bestowed on David “the house of Israel and of Judah,” the realm and its resources—where significantly “Israel and Judah” are treated as one combined entity (cf. 1 Sam. 11:8). There is also the prospect that the Lord will yet give even more.

12:9 David is impeached for contempt against his Overlord: “Why have you despised the word of the Lord, to do what is evil in his sight?” (cf. 11:27; echoed in Ps. 51:4). The essence of his sin is his contemptuous disregard of the Lord’s known will (cf. 1 Sam. 2:30; Prov. 13:13).

Although three clauses are used to set out David’s offenses, there are in fact only two specific charges: murder and adultery. Each time the object (“Uriah” and “his wife”) is emphatically brought forward: David is being forced to view his victims, for the Lord holds him responsible for what he has instigated. “Sword” stands for whatever causes violent death; it was in fact an arrow that struck Uriah (2 Sam. 11:24).

12:10 “Now therefore” introduces the divine verdict, “You have despised me” (with “me” instead of “word” as in v. 9), and the dire sentence, “The sword shall never depart from your house.” Just as David has used violence and warfare to dispose of Uriah, so violence and warfare will vex him and his dynasty. Even so, the perpetuation of David’s house is implied, despite his adultery.

12:11–12 “Thus says the Lord” again confronts David with the fact that Nathan is announcing a divine verdict (cf. v. 7). Two factors will intensify David’s punishment: (1) The penalty he will experience will arise “out of your own house.” This has in view the events of chapters 13–20, including Absalom’s rebellion, and the events of Adonijah’s revolt in David’s last days (1 Kings 1:5–53). (2) There will be no cover-up, as events will humiliate David personally and publicly: “I will take [laqakh; cf. v. 4] your wives before your eyes and give them to your neighbor, and he shall lie [cf. v. 3] with your wives in the sight of this sun,” that is, “openly,” possibly also “here in this very place.” In an emphatic contrast to David’s covert sin (“You did it secretly”), the Lord will act openly (“I will do this thing before all Israel and before the sun”) and so bear testimony to the impartiality of his justice. A “neighbor” had featured in the judgment against Saul (1 Sam. 15:28; 28:17), referring to David as Saul’s successor, and here again it is a “neighbor” who will oust David and claim the privileges of kingship (cf. comments on 2 Sam. 15:1–5; 16:21–22).

12:13 To David’s credit, he does not attempt to deny the charges Nathan has leveled but instead unequivocally admits his guilt: “I have sinned against the Lord” (cf. Ps. 51:4). His confession is in two Hebrew words, just as Nathan’s disclosure had been (2 Sam. 12:7). “Against the Lord” does not attempt to deflect attention from his treatment of Uriah and Bathsheba but concedes his fundamental fault in violating the principles on which he had become king.

David’s recognition of his failure and his renewed acceptance of the Lord’s authority differentiates his response from that of Saul, who also had said “I have sinned” (1 Sam. 15:24) but quickly showed he did not mean it. David’s display of genuine repentance warrants Nathan’s declaration, “The Lord also has put away your sin.” The death penalty prescribed for adultery and for murder (Lev. 20:10; 24:17) is graciously set aside, but other consequences will remain.

12:14 “Nevertheless” qualifies the foregoing pardon. David’s conduct was all the more heinous because as the Lord’s anointed ruler he had sinned against right and privilege when he “utterly scorned the Lord” (an intensified form of “treat with contempt”; cf. 1 Sam. 2:17). Compare Paul’s argument regarding Israel (Rom. 2:21–24). So death will come to David’s house, as “The child who is born to you shall die [lit., “shall surely die,” with the verb again intensified].” Nathan’s intervention apparently occurs immediately after the birth of the child. It is not that the child is punished for his father’s sin; rather, this is the onset of the troubles that David’s sin has brought upon his house.

12:15b The unusual description “the child that Uriah’s wife bore to David” emphasizes that it is David’s sin that has led to this outcome. “Afflicted” (“struck”; 1 Sam. 25:38) describes the onset of a sudden illness, which is unhesitatingly attributed to divine action.

12:16–17 No longer keeping silent before God (Ps. 32:3), David prays for the child’s life to be spared. Aware that his own deeds have precipitated the outcome, he fasts (cf. 2 Sam. 1:12; 1 Sam. 7:6; 31:13) and lies on the floor of his room, rejecting all physical comfort. He refuses even to eat food fit for the recovery of an invalid (cf. 2 Sam. 13:5).

12:18–19 A week later, the child dies before it is even named. David’s attendants are afraid to give him the news, lest he react even more severely. But their whispered conversations alert him that something has happened, and when he asks if the child has died, they admit that it has. Throughout these verses “dead” or “death” occurs six times (also in vv. 21, 23).

12:20 Ten verbs in brisk succession set out what David does on receiving this news. Accepting the outcome as the Lord’s will, he begins to function normally again. He makes himself presentable and goes into the tent where the ark is kept (cf. 7:18) to worship the Lord before returning home and enjoying a meal.

12:21–23 David’s behavior so surprises his servants that they ask why he is not observing the customary period of mourning. He explains that, having himself received the Lord’s gracious pardon, he had been unable to rule out a further display of grace; perhaps the threatened penalty was conditional (cf. Jonah 3:9). “But now,” circumstances have changed. The child will not be restored to life; rather, what David anticipates is that “I shall go to him.” This points to more than his own death: David looks forward to being consciously reunited with the child in the afterlife.

12:24–25 One thing David does is to comfort “his wife, Bathsheba”—no longer characterized as Uriah’s wife. It is not clear on what timescale these events occur. Elsewhere Solomon is listed last of Bathsheba’s four sons (5:14; 1 Chron. 3:5), which raises the possibility that Bathsheba has three other sons before the birth of Solomon. “Solomon” (Hb. shelomoh) sounds like the Hebrew word for peace (shalom) and is probably derived from it.

“And the Lord loved him” indicates that the favor of the Lord rests on the child in a special way, so that Nathan is “sent” (cf. v. 1) to announce a second name for him. “Jedidiah” (“loved by the Lord”) is intended not to supplant the name Solomon but to supplement it. “Because of the Lord” shows that he is chosen as David’s heir.

12:26–27 This account of the fall of Rabbah is presented out of chronological sequence in order to form an inclusio with 11:1. After Uriah’s death, Joab “took the royal city,” which is probably the same as “the city of waters,” describing the fortifications protecting Rabbah’s water supply. The siege has therefore entered its final stage, because the rest of the city will not be able to hold out for long without water.

12:28 In light of Joab’s complex personality, it is difficult to assess if he is using his inside knowledge to dictate to David or if, as a good subordinate, he genuinely wishes to avoid being credited with the capture of Rabbah. Certainly Joab never acts without an eye to securing his own interests.

12:29 Since “all Israel” had been initially mustered for the assault on Ammon (11:1), it is unlikely that there are many additional forces for David to assemble before capturing Rabbah.

12:30 In “the crown of their king,” the word “king” may also be read as “Milcom,” the chief Ammonite deity, and it is uncertain whether the golden crown is that of the idol or that of the king. It weighs “a talent”—75 pounds (34 kg), far too much for ordinary wear as a crown. “It was placed on David’s head” as probably a brief, symbolic act. Additionally, the city yields a “very great amount” (Hb. harbeh) of spoil, which in Hebrew sounds very appropriate as coming from Rabbah.

12:31 The survivors in the city are brought out by David, but what does he do with them? Does he torture them, or does he set them to labor in work gangs? Josephus speaks of David’s torturing the Ammonites before putting them to death (Antiquities 7.161), and this may be reflected in the rendering “set them under saws, sharp iron instruments, and iron axes, and made them pass through the brickkiln” (NASB; cf. also 1 Chron. 20:3). However, “made them pass through” (from ʻabar; cf. ESV mg.) may with the change of one letter yield “made them toil at” (from ʻabad), which makes better sense, since “saws and iron picks and iron axes” are tools principally used for working stone and not instruments for torture. The kilns may be no more than rectangular molds used to produce mud bricks. So it is probable that what David does is to conscript many Ammonites to repair the ravages of war and construct garrisons for his occupying forces. When this has been done, David and his army withdraw.