The Life and Times of

David is Divinely Prepared for Repentance (Psalm 32:3-4)

3 When I kept silent about my sin, my body wasted away Through my groaning all day long. 4 For day and night Your hand was heavy upon me; My vitality was drained away as with the fever heat of summer.

Psalm 32 is one of two psalms (the other is Psalm 51) in which David himself reflects on his sin, his repentance, and his recovery. Verses 3 and 4 of Psalm 32 are the focus of my attention at this point in time. These verses fit between chapters 11 and 12 of 2 Samuel. The confrontation of David by Nathan the prophet, described in 2 Samuel 12, results in David's repentance and confession. But this repentance is not just the fruit of Nathan's rebuke; it is also David's response to the work God has been doing in David's heart before he confesses, while he is still attempting to conceal his sin.

In these verses, David makes it clear that God is at work even when it does not appear to be so. During the time David tries to cover up his sin, God is at work exposing it in his heart. These are not times of pleasure and joy, as Satan would like us to conclude; they are days of misery. David is plagued with guilt. He cannot sleep, and it seems he cannot eat. He is not sleeping nights, and he is losing weight. Whether or not David recognizes it as God who is at work in him, he does know he is miserable. It is this misery which tenderizes David, preparing him for the rebuke Nathan is to bring, preparing him for repentance. David's repentance is not the result of David's assessment of his situation; it is the result of divine intervention. He has gone so far in sin that he cannot think straight. God is at work in David's life to break him, so that he will once again cast himself upon God for grace.

Nathan Tells a Shepherd a Sheep Story (12:1-6)

1 Then the LORD sent Nathan to David. And he came to him and said, “There were two men in one city, the one rich and the other poor. 2 “The rich man had a great many flocks and herds. 3 “But the poor man had nothing except one little ewe lamb Which he bought and nourished; And it grew up together with him and his children. It would eat of his bread and drink of his cup and lie in his bosom, And was like a daughter to him. 4 “Now a traveler came to the rich man, And he was unwilling to take from his own flock or his own herd, To prepare for the wayfarer who had come to him; Rather he took the poor man's ewe lamb and prepared it for the man who had come to him.”

5 Then David's anger burned greatly against the man, and he said to Nathan, “As the LORD lives, surely the man who has done this deserves to die. 6 “He must make restitution for the lamb fourfold, because he did this thing and had no compassion.”

There are several important things to note about this meeting between Nathan and King David.

First, note that Nathan is sent to David. Nathan is, of course, a prophet. However it comes about, he knows what David has done. If you will pardon the pun, David cannot pull the wool over his eyes. His words are, in the final analysis, the very word of God (see 12:11). If Nathan is a prophet, he is also a man who seems to be a friend to David. One of David's sons is named Nathan (2 Samuel 5:14). David informs Nathan of his desire to build a temple (chapter 7). Nathan will name Bathsheba and David's second son (12:25). He will remain loyal to the king and to Solomon when Adonijah seeks to usurp the throne (1 Kings 2). Nathan does not come to David only as God's spokesman, he comes to David as his friend.

Faithful are the wounds of a friend, But deceitful are the kisses of an enemy (Proverbs 27:6).

Second, note that Nathan is sent to David. Twelve times in the last chapter the word “sent” is employed by the author. A number of these instances refer to David “sending” someone or “sending” for someone. David is a man of power and authority, and so he can “send out” for whatever he wants, including the death of Uriah. Now, it is God who does the “sending.” Is David impressed with his power and authority? Has he gotten used to “sending” people to do his work for him (like sending Joab and all Israel to fight the Ammonites)? Let David take note that God is sending Nathan.

Third, Nathan comes to David with a story. In the New American Standard Bible, this is not just a story, but a kind of poetic story. In my copy of the NASB, the words of the story are formatted in such a way as to look like one of the Psalms.¹ It took me a while to take note of this, but if this is so, it means that Nathan comes to David prepared. Under divine inspiration, I am sure God could inspire a prophet to utter poetry without working at it in advance, but this does not seem to be the norm. Nathan comes to David well prepared. He is not just “spinning a yarn;” Nathan is telling a story, a very important story with a very important message for David.

Fourth, Nathan's story is a “sheep story,” one that a shepherd can easily grasp and with which he can readily identify. David was a shepherd boy in his younger days, as we know from the Book(s) of Samuel (see 1 Samuel 16:11; 17:15, 28). I wonder if in those lonely days and nights David does not make a “pet lamb” of one or more of his sheep? Did this sheep eat of his food and drink from his cup? Possibly so.

Fifth, the story Nathan tells David does not “walk on all fours” -- that is, there is no “one to one correspondence” with the story of David's sin with Bathsheba and Uriah. The sheep (which we would liken to Bathsheba) is put to death, not the owner (whom we would liken to the sheep's poor owner). I think it is important to take note of this fact, lest we press the story beyond its intent.

Why a story? Why not just let David have it head-on, with both barrels? Many will point out that this is a skillfully employed tactic, which gets David to pronounce judgment on the crime before he realizes that he is the criminal. I think this is true. David is angry at this “rich man's” lack of compassion. If he could, he would have this fellow put to death (!). But as it is, justice requires a four-fold restitution. But having already committed himself in principle, Nathan can now apply the principle to David, in particular.

As I understand the Bible, there is more to the story than this, however. Our Lord frequently told stories. Why was this? Was it because He was trying to “put the cookies on the lowest shelf”? Was He accommodating His teaching to those who might have difficulty understanding it? Sometimes our Lord told stories to the religious experts, who should have been able to follow a more technical argument. I am thinking in particular of the story of the Good Samaritan, as recorded in Luke 10. A religious lawyer stood up and asked Jesus a question, not to sincerely learn, but with the hope of making our Lord look bad before the people. He asked, “What shall I do to inherit eternal life?” Jesus turned the question around. This man was the expert in the Law of Moses, what did it teach? The man answered, “YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR STRENGTH, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND; AND YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF” (Luke 10:27). In effect, Jesus responded, “Right. Now do it.” That was the problem with the law, no one could do it without failing, and so no one could earn their way to heaven by good works.

The lawyer knew he was in trouble and tried to dig himself out (bad choice). He (like many lawyers then and now) thought he could get himself off the hook by arguing in terms of technicalities. And so he had a follow-up question for Jesus: “And who is my neighbor?” Jesus did not debate this man on his own terms. He was not willing to get into a word study in the original text. Instead, Jesus told a simple story, the story of the Good Samaritan. At the end of the story, Jesus asked a simple question,

36 “Which of these three do you think proved to be a neighbor to the man who fell into the robbers' hands?” 37 And he said, “The one who showed mercy toward him.” Then Jesus said to him, “Go and do the same” (Luke 10:36-37).

The lawyer was in trouble; the story had no technicalities over which to argue. It brought the issue home, with little ground for quibbling over details. When push came to shove, the lawyer knew our Lord's functional definition of “neighbor” was absolutely right. He had nowhere to hide. The story did the trick; it cut to the heart of the matter, while avoiding trivial details to quibble over for hours. It was not the lawyer who made Jesus look bad with all his minutia but Jesus who made the lawyer look bad with a simple story.

That is part of the reason Nathan told David this story. It was never meant to be a makeover of David's sin; it is meant to expose David's sin in principle, in a way that cannot be denied. Having done this very well, Nathan then presses on to deal with David's sin specifically.

The story Nathan tells David is very simple. Two men lived in the same city; one was very rich and the other was very poor. The rich man had flocks and herds.² The rich man did not just have a large flock and a large herd; he had many flocks and many herds. We would say this man was “filthy rich.” The poor man had but one ewe lamb; this was his “pet lamb.” He purchased it and then raised it in his own home. The lamb spent much time in the man's lap and being carried about. It lived inside the house, not outside, being hand fed with food from the table and even drinking from its master's cup. Some of you cannot even imagine what this is like. It is a horrifying thought to you. How could anyone treat an animal that way? I have only one response: Obviously you haven't been to our house lately to be greeted by two cats (who, to the dismay of my wife, can be found around -- and sometimes on -- the table) and four dogs (none of them are ours, technically).

The rich man had a guest drop in for a visit, and as the host he was obliged to provide him with a meal. The rich man decided upon lamb, and yet he was not willing to sacrifice one lamb from all those he owned. Instead, he took the poor man's lamb, slaughtered and served it to his guest, so as not to suffer any losses personally. He not only let (i.e., forced) the poor man to pick up the tab for the meal, he deprived this man of his only lamb, and one that was like a member of the family.

I hope I am not guilty of attempting to make this story “walk on all fours” when I stress the same thing the story does -- that there is a very warm and loving relationship between the poor man and his “pet lamb.” Considered along with everything else we read about Uriah and Bathsheba and David, I must conclude that the author is making it very clear that Uriah and Bathsheba dearly loved each other. When David “took” this woman to his bedroom that fateful night, and then as his wife after the murder of Uriah, he took her from the man she loved. Bathsheba and Uriah were devoted to each other, which adds further weight to the arguments for her not being a willing participant in David's sins. It also emphasizes the character of Uriah, who is so near to his wife, who is being urged by the king to go to her, and yet who refuses to do so out of principle.

David does not see what is coming. The story Nathan tells makes David furious. The David who was once ready to do in Nabal and all the male members of his household (1 Samuel 25) is now angry enough to do in the villain of Nathan's story. In some ways, David's response is a bit overdone. He reminds me a bit of Judah in Genesis 38, when he learns that Tamar, his daughter-in-law is pregnant out of wedlock. Not realizing that he is the father of the child in her womb, Judah is ready to have Tamar burned to death. How ironic that those who are guilty of a particular sin are intolerant of this sin in the life of others.

David identifies two evils that have been committed by this fictional rich man. First, the man has stolen a lamb, for which the law prescribed a fourfold restitution (Exodus 22:1). Second, David recognizes what he views as the greater sin, and that is the rich man's total lack of compassion. David is furious because a rich man stole and slaughtered a poor man's pet. He does not yet see the connection to his lack of compassion for stealing a poor man's beloved companion, Uriah's wife, Bathsheba. The slaughtering of Uriah is most certainly an act which lacks compassion. The crowning touch in David's display of righteous indignation is the religious flavoring he gives it by the words, “as the Lord lives” (verse 5).