Introduction

A couple of years ago, my wife Jeannette and I went to England and Scotland with my parents. Each night we stayed at a “bed and breakfast” as we drove through Wales. There were a number of farms, but not so many towns in which to find a place to stay for the night. We saw a “bed and breakfast” sign and traveled along the country road until we found the place -- a very quaint farm. We saw several hundred sheep in a pasture, a stone trestle, and stone barns. It looked like the perfect place, and in many ways it was. What we did not realize was that the stone trestle was a railroad trestle for a train that came by late at night, a few feet from the house where we slept. Two cows also calved that night. I have spent my share of time around farms, but I have never heard the bellow of a cow that was calving echo throughout a stone barn.

In addition to the hundreds of sheep in a nearby pasture, there was a small lamb in a pen, very close to the house. It was a frisky, friendly little fellow, and we loved to play with it. We were somewhat perplexed as to why this fellow was kept by himself, away from the rest of the flock. The farmer's nephew came by, and I asked him. It took a while to understand his strong accent, but finally I realized he was telling me this was a “pet lamb.” The problem was that he said it as though it were one word, “petlamb.” This was obviously a separate category, distinct from the category of mere “sheep” or a “lamb.” This “pet lamb” was given a special pen, right by the house, and a lot more attention and care than the rest.

Now this little fellow was one lamb among a great many. Nevertheless, he enjoyed the distinction of being regarded as a “pet lamb.” In the story which Nathan tells David, it is not quite the same. Nathan tells David of a “pet lamb” who is the only sheep of a poor farmer. This lamb does not live in a pen outside the house; it lives inside the house, often in the arms of its master, and eats the same food he eats. This is the story Nathan tells David, which God uses to expose the wretchedness of David's sin. It is our text for this message, and once again, it has much to teach us, as well as David. Let us give careful heed to the inspired words of Nathan, and learn from a lamb.

Background

David has become king of both Judah and Israel. He has, in large measure, consolidated his kingdom. He has taken Jebus and made it his capital city, renaming it Jerusalem. He has built his palace and given thought to building a temple (a plan God significantly revises). He has subjected most of Israel's neighboring nations. He has done battle with the Ammonites and prevailed, but he has not yet completely defeated them. The Ammonites have retreated to the royal city of Rabbah, and as the time for war (spring) approaches, David sends all Israel, led by Joab, to besiege the city and to bring about its surrender. David has chosen not to endure the rigors of camping in the open field, outside the city. He has chosen rather to remain in Jerusalem. Sleeping late, David rises from his bed as others prepare to go to bed for the night. David strolls about the rooftop of his palace and happens to steal a look at a beautiful young woman bathing herself, perhaps ceremonially, in fulfillment of the law.

It is not due to any intent on her part, nor even any indiscretion. She is bathing herself as darkness falls, and being poor (see 12:1-4), she does not have the privilege of complete privacy, especially when the king can look down from the lofty heights of his rooftop vantage point. David is struck with her beauty and sends messengers to inquire about her identity. They inform David of her identity, and that she is married to Uriah, the Hittite. That should have ended his interest, but it does not. David sends messengers who take her, bringing her to his palace, and there he sleeps with her. When she cleanses herself, she goes home.

It all seems to be over. David is not looking for another wife; he is not even looking for an affair. He is looking for a conquest. That should have happened on the battlefield, not in the bedroom! Things take a very different turn when Bathsheba sends word to David that she is pregnant. David first seeks to cover up his sin by ordering Joab to send Uriah home on furlough, ostensibly to give David a report on the war. David's efforts to get Uriah into bed with Bathsheba begin as subtle hints, then change to veiled orders, and then turn crass as David seeks to get Uriah to do drunk what he will not do sober. When these efforts fail (due to Uriah's noble character), David sends Uriah back to Joab, with written orders to Joab to put him to death in a way that makes it seem like a casualty of war. Joab does as he is told and sends word to David: “Mission accomplished.” It is here that our story resumes.

Responses To Uriah's Death
(11:26-27)

Bathsheba's response to the death of her husband is as we would expect, as we would also hope. From what the text tells us, she has absolutely no part in David's plot to deceive her husband, let alone to put him to death. Undoubtedly, she learns of Uriah's death in much the same way every war widow does, then or now. When she is officially informed of Uriah's death in battle, she mourns for her husband. We cannot be certain just how long this period of mourning is. We know, for example, that if a virgin of some distant (i.e., not Canaanite) nation was captured by an Israelite during a raid on her town, the Israelite could take her for a wife after she had mourned for her parents (who would have been killed in the raid) for a full month (Deuteronomy 21:10-13). As I will seek to show in a moment, I believe Bathsheba's mourning is genuine, and not hypocritical. I believe she mourns her husband's death because she loves him.

David, on the other hand, does not even bother to go through the pretense of mourning. He does not even try to be hypocritical. When other mighty men of Israel died, David led the nation in mourning their loss. David mourned for Saul and his sons, killed in the battle with the Philistines (2 Samuel 1). David mourned the death of Abner, wickedly put to death by Joab (2 Samuel 3:28ff.). He even sent a delegation to officially mourn the death of Nahash, king of the Ammonites (2 Samuel 10). But when Uriah is killed “in battle,” not a word of mourning comes from David's lips. He is not sorry; he is relieved. Instead of instructing others to mourn for Uriah, he sends word to Joab not to take his death too seriously.

When Bathsheba's mourning is complete, David sends for her and brings her to himself as his wife. I do not see him bending down on his knees, proposing. I do not see him courting her, sending her roses. I see him “taking” her once again. The question in my mind is, “Why?” Why does David take Bathsheba into his house as one of his wives? I do not think he is any longer trying to “cover up” his sin; it is far too late for that. She must be “showing” her pregnancy by now, and it is hard to imagine how all Israel cannot know what has been going on. It appears that at this point, David is not trying to conceal his sin, but to legitimize it. Whatever David's reasons may be, they are hardly spiritual, and they are most certainly self-serving.

Nathan has a response to the death of Uriah too, which is taken up in the first part of chapter 12. But let us save that until after drawing your attention to something which has been going on in David's life that we have not seen from our text, and which the author of Samuel has not recorded. But David himself discloses this to us in one of his psalms, written in reflection of this incident in our text.

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.⁴³ 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.⁴⁴ 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).

Nathan's Indictment
(12:7-12)

7 Nathan then said to David, “You are the man! Thus says the LORD God of Israel, 'It is I who anointed you king over Israel and it is I who delivered you from the hand of Saul. 8 'I also gave you your master's house and your master's wives into your care, and I gave you the house of Israel and Judah; and if that had been too little, I would have added to you many more things like these! 9 'Why have you despised the word of the LORD by doing evil in His sight? You have struck down Uriah the Hittite with the sword, have taken his wife to be your wife, and have killed him with the sword of the sons of Ammon. 10 'Now therefore, the sword shall never depart from your house, because you have despised Me and have taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be your wife.' 11 “Thus says the LORD, 'Behold, I will raise up evil against you from your own household; I will even take your wives before your eyes and give them to your companion, and he will lie with your wives in broad daylight. 12 'Indeed you did it secretly, but I will do this thing before all Israel, and under the sun.”'

David has just sprung the trap on himself, and Nathan is about to let him know about it. The first thing Nathan does is to dramatically indict David as the culprit: “You are the man!” In stunned silence, David now listens to the charges against him. David thinks only in terms of the evils the rich man committed against his neighbor, stealing a man's sheep and depriving him of his companion. Put another way, David thinks only in terms of crime and socially unacceptable behavior, not in terms of sin. In verses 7-12, Nathan draws David's attention to his sin against God and the consequences God has pronounced for his sin. Note the repetition of the pronoun “I” in verses 7 and 8: “It was I who. . .

• . . . anointed you king
• . . . delivered you from the hand of Saul
• . . . gave you your master's house and your master's wives
• . . . gave you the house of Israel and Judah

God speaks to David as though he has forgotten these things, or rather as though he has come to take credit for them himself. Everything David possesses has been given to him by God. Has it been so long since David was a lowly shepherd boy that he has forgotten? David is a “rich” man because God has made him rich. And if he does not think he is rich enough, God will give more to him. David has begun to cling to his “riches,” rather than to cling to the God who made him rich.

I fear some of us tend to miss the point here. We read Nathan's story and we hear Nathan's rebuke as though David's sin is all about sex. David does commit a sexual sin when he takes Bathsheba and sleeps with her, knowing she is a married woman. But this sexual sin is symptomatic, according to Nathan, and thus according to God. God is not just saying, “Shame on you, David. Look at all the wives and concubines you had to sleep with. And if none of these women pleased you, you could have obtained another woman, just one that was not already married.” Nathan tells David the story of a rich man and a poor man. God tells David through Nathan that all that he possesses (his riches) He has given to him. God will even add to David's riches (and not just to his harem). David's problem is that his possessions have come to own him. He is so “possessed” with his riches that he is unwilling to spend any of them. He wants “more” and “more,” and so he begins to take what isn’t his to take, rather than to ask the divine Giver of all he has.

We can see now why David wrote these words in Psalm 51:4: “Against Thee, Thee only, I have sinned.”

First and foremost, David's sin is against God. He has ceased to humbly acknowledge God as the Giver of all he possesses. He has ceased to look to God to provide him with all his needs -- and his desires. David has not only ceased to ask God to supply his needs, he has disobeyed God's commands by committing adultery and murder. David's sin against God manifests itself by the evils he commits against others. Nathan outlines these, employing a repetitive “you:”

You despised the Word of the Lord by doing evil in His sight.

You have struck down Uriah the Hittite with the sword.

(You) have taken his wife to be your wife.

(You) have killed him with the sword of the sons of Ammon.

Nathan now proclaims the irreversible consequences to come upon David and his family due to his sin:

Therefore the sword shall never depart from your house, because you have despised Me and have taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be your wife

I will raise up evil from your own household

I will even take your wives before your eyes, and give them to your companion

He will lay with your wives in broad daylight

You did this secretly

I will do this openly, before all Israel, and under the sun.

The evil David commits against others is clear disobedience to the revealed Word of God. David is a “man after God's own heart,” and yet in this instance, David “despised the Word of the Lord.” While David does repent and the guilt of his sin is forgiven, these consequences will not be reversed. These consequences are just; they fit the crime David committed. He used the sword of the Ammonites to kill Uriah, and so the sword will not depart from his house. He took the wife of another man, and so his own wives will be taken by another, another from his own house.

The consequences are not only appropriate, but intensified. David took one man's wife; another will take several of his wives. This happens when Absalom rebels against his father's rule and temporarily takes over the throne. Following the advice of Ahithophel, Absolom pitches a tent on the roof of David's palace (the place from which David first looked upon Bathsheba) and there, in the sight of all Israel, sleeps with David's concubines as a declaration that he has taken over his father's throne and all that goes with it (2 Samuel 16:20-22). While David seeks to commit his sins in private, God sees to it that the consequences are very public.

Conclusion

The story goes on as you well know, but we shall stop here, having focused on Nathan's divinely directed rebuke of David. In our next lesson we will give thought to David's repentance and to the immediate consequences of his sin. But let us close this message by considering some very important lessons for us to learn from David's sin and Nathan's rebuke.

(1) Nathan is a prophet, but he is also an example of a faithful friend. Proverbs puts it this way:

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

I do not know how many people I have known who refused to rebuke or even caution someone close to them, thinking that they are being a friend by being non-condemning. A good friend does not let us continue on the path to our own destruction. Nathan was acting as a prophet, but he was also acting like a friend. Would that we had more prophet-friends. Would that we were a prophet-friend to one on the path of destruction.

Deliver those who are being taken away to death, And those who are staggering to slaughter, Oh hold them back (Proverbs 24:11).

(2) God sees our sin, even when men do not. Our sins never slip past God unnoticed. The wicked refuse to believe that God sees their sin, or that if He does, that He will deal with it:

And they say, “How does God know? And is there knowledge with the Most High?” (Psalm 73:11; see 2 Peter 3:3ff.)

God may delay judgment or discipline, but He will never ignore our sin.

20 So Moses said to them, “If you will do this, if you will arm yourselves before the LORD for the war, 21 and all of you armed men cross over the Jordan before the LORD until He has driven His enemies out from before Him, 22 and the land is subdued before the LORD, then afterward you shall return and be free of obligation toward the LORD and toward Israel, and this land shall be yours for a possession before the LORD. 23 “But if you will not do so, behold, you have sinned against the LORD, and be sure your sin will find you out (Numbers 32:20-23, emphasis mine).

(3) God is under no obligation to stop us from sinning. Sometimes people justify their sin by saying something like: “I've prayed about it and asked God to stop me if it is wrong. . . .” When God does not stop them, they somehow assume it must be right. God could have stopped David after he chose to stay home from the war, or after he began to covet Uriah's wife, or after he committed adultery, but instead He allowed David to persist in his sin for some time. God even allowed David to get away with murder, for a time. God's Word forbade David's sins of coveting, adultery, and murder. God's Word commanded David to stop, and he did not. God allowed David to persist in his sin for a season, but not indefinitely. God allowed David's sin to go full circle, to reach full bloom, so that he (and we) could see how sin grows (compare Genesis 15:12-16).

(4) David's sin was not intended as an excuse for us to sin, but as a warning to all of us how capable we are of sin. I have heard it said more times than I wish to recall, “Well, even David sinned. . . .” What they mean is, “How can you expect me not to sin? If David, as spiritual as he was, sinned as he did, then how can you expect me to do any better?”

If we look very carefully at the Bible, we will see why stories like that of our text were written. They were not written to encourage us to sin, but to warn us of the danger of sin, and thus to encourage us to avoid sin at all costs. After outlining the major sins of the nation Israel in the wilderness in 1 Corinthians 10:1-10, Paul then applies the lesson of history to the Corinthians, and thus to us:

11 Now these things happened to them as an example, and they were written for our instruction, upon whom the ends of the ages have come. 12 Therefore let him who thinks he stands take heed that he does not fall. 13 No temptation has overtaken you but such as is common to man; and God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will provide the way of escape also, so that you will be able to endure it (1 Corinthians 10:11-13; see also Romans 15:4-6).

Let me press this matter even further. David did not plan to sin, as many who try to use his sin as an excuse do. David “fell” into sin; those who would use his sin for an excuse “plunge headlong” into sin. There is a very important difference. In addition, David's sin was the exception, not the rule:

Because David did what was right in the sight of the LORD, and had not turned aside from anything that He commanded him all the days of his life, except in the case of Uriah the Hittite (1 Kings 15:5, emphasis mine).

(5) David's sin, like all sin, is never worth the price. I have actually had people ask me what the penalty for a certain sin would be, planning to do it and then be forgiven. There are those who toy with sin, thinking that if they sin, they may suffer some consequences, but that God is obliged to forgive them, and thus their eternal future is certain and secure, no matter what they do, even if intentionally. I know of one situation in which a church leader left his wife and ran off with the wife of another, planning to later repent, and then expecting to be welcomed back into the fellowship of that church. This is presumptuous sin, sin of the most serious and dangerous kind. Rather than open a “can of worms” at this point in this message, let me simply say this: “No one ever chooses to sin, and then comes out of it with a smile on their face.”

I used to teach school. From time to time the principal would call a misbehaving student to his office. I will never forget when one of my students was called to his office, and then returned with a smirk on his face. One of my students protested publicly, “Will you look at that? He went to the principal's office and came back with a smile on his face!” My young student was absolutely right. Being called to the principal's office for correction should produce repentance and respect, not a smile. In those few times when I found it necessary to use the “rod” of correction, I purposed that no student would come back into the room with a smile, and none did (including the principal's own son, I might add, who was not even in my class).

I have never met a Christian who chose to sin, and after it was all over felt that it was worth the price. David's sin and its consequences should not encourage us to sin, but should motivate us to avoid sin at all costs. The negative consequences of sin far outweigh the momentary pleasures of sin. Sin is never worth the price, even for those whose sin is forgiven.

(6) It was the story of the slaughter of a lamb which exposed the immensity of David's sin. It is the story of the slaughter of The Lamb of God which exposes the immensity of our sins. Isn't it amazing that David was so blinded by his own sin that he could not see it? It was by means of the story of the slaughter of a poor man's pet lamb that David was gripped with the immensity of the sin which was his own. David could see his own sin when he heard the story of what appeared to be the sin of another.

That is precisely what the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ does for us. We were dead in our trespasses and sins (Ephesians 2:1-3). We were blinded to the immensity of our sins (2 Corinthians 4:4). The coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, His perfect life, His innocent and sacrificial death, His literal and physical resurrection are all historical events. But the gospel is also a story, a true story. When we read the New Testament Gospels, we read a story that is even more dramatic, more amazing, more disturbing than the story Nathan told David. When we see the way unbelieving men treated our Lord, we should be shocked, horrified, and angered. We should cry out, “They deserve to die!” And that they do. But the Gospel is not written only to show us their sins -- those who actually heard Jesus and cried, “Crucify Him, Crucify Him” -- it is written so that the Spirit of God can cry out in our hearts, “Thou art the man!” When we see the way men treated Jesus, we see the way we would have treated Him, if we were there. We see how we treat Him today. And that, my friend, reveals the immensity of our sin, and the immensity of our need for repentance and forgiveness.

The Gospel of Jesus Christ is “Good News.” The “Good News” is that the death of our Lord, which reveals the immensity of our sin, is the immense work of God by which He can and will forgive us of our sin. By His innocent and sacrificial death, Jesus died in our place, paid the penalty for our sins. He bore ours sins on the cross! And by trusting in His death, burial, and resurrection, we die to sin and are raised to newness of eternal life, in Christ. The Gospel must first bring us to a recognition of the magnitude of our sin, and of our guilt, and then it takes us to the magnitude of God's grace in Jesus Christ, by which our sins can be forgiven. Have you come to see how great your sins are before a holy God? Then I urge you to experience how great a salvation is yours, brought about by this same God, through the death, burial, and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ. What a Savior!

His own iniquities will capture the wicked, And he will be held with the cords of his sin (Proverbs 5:22).

“But he who sins against me injures himself; All those who hate me love death” (Proverbs 8:36).

Who can say, “I have cleansed my heart, I am pure from my sin”? (Proverbs 20:9)

He who conceals his transgressions will not prosper, But he who confesses and forsakes them will find compassion (Proverbs 28:13).

---

43 I should also say that other translations don’t seem to follow the NASB in dealing with these words as poetry.

44 The expression “flocks and herds” occurs rather frequently in the Bible. The term “flock” refers to smaller animals, like sheep and goats. “Herd” refers to larger animals, like oxen and cows.

Introduction

There is something especially tragic about the death of a child. My wife and I, like many other parents, have experienced the shock of waking up to find our child dead in his crib. The malady is now known as SIDS, Sudden Infant Death Syndrome. One moment the child is healthy and happy; the next, the child is gone. It is indeed a shock. For us, there was an unexplainable peace in the midst of our sorrow. Several years later, the subject of where babies go when they die came up in a theology class at seminary. I remember the academic discussion, the Bible verses quoted, and the conclusions reached. Finally, I raised my hand and shared something like this:

The subject we are discussing here is one that is no academic matter for my wife and me. We lost a child as an infant. We know what losing a child is like. We also know the biblical texts which have been quoted, and we are familiar with the different views as to where babies go when they die. But when my wife and I lost our child, we had a peace and a confidence that went beyond what we have been talking about here. We knew that the God to whom we had entrusted our souls was a good and perfect God, who would do what was right with our child. It was not the arguments discussed today which gave us peace, but God Himself, and in that peace we rest.

Our text for this lesson is one that is most often used to comfort parents who have lost little ones. I would have to say that my own views on this subject are undoubtedly shaped by our experience in losing a child. I must therefore warn you that I do not speak with great objectivity here, but from the perspective of one who has experienced the loss of a child. I know that the conclusions I have reached concerning the fate of children who die are not held by all in our church, perhaps not even by all of the Elders of our church.

As one who has lost a child in infancy, I am satisfied with the conclusions I have reached here. I must point out that my conclusions are the result of inferences and logical processes. They are not always grounded on clear propositional statements. As such, they should be held less dogmatically than views that have clear, straightforward, repetitive biblical support. As such, they can and will be rejected by those who have reached different conclusions, also based upon logic and inference. In the final analysis, we all must say that our conclusions here are less dogmatic than other truths that are much more clearly stated in Scripture. In the end, we must cast ourselves upon the God to whom we have entrusted our souls and our eternal destiny. As Abraham said so long ago, “Shall not the judge of all the earth deal justly?” (Genesis 18:25).

Having said this, we can see from our text that David had a remarkable peace about the death of his first child by Bathsheba, a peace which caused those who witnessed it to marvel, and to question David about it. As we approach this text, let us listen to David's answer to the question posed by his servants. Let us seek to learn from David's lips the reason he could praise and worship God at the time of the loss of this child.

Review and Overview

After becoming King of Israel, things were going very well for David, perhaps too well. He seemed to have the Midas touch -- everything he touched turned to gold. God had given him success in all he undertook. Like Israel of old, David appears to momentarily forget that his success was the result of God's grace, and not a tribute to his efforts alone. The first glimpse of this overconfidence comes in 2 Samuel 7, where David expresses his desire to build a house for God. In response, God reminds David his successes are the manifestations of His grace (7:8-9). He goes on to assure David that there are good things yet in store for Israel, and that these too will be His doing (7:10-11). Having gently rebuked David for supposing that He really needed a “house,” God promised to build David a better “house,” one that is an eternal dynasty:

‘“The LORD also declares to you that the LORD will make a house for you. 12 “When your days are complete and you lie down with your fathers, I will raise up your descendant after you, who will come forth from you, and I will establish his kingdom. 13 “He shall build a house for My name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. 14 “I will be a father to him and he will be a son to Me; when he commits iniquity, I will correct him with the rod of men and the strokes of the sons of men, 15 but My lovingkindness shall not depart from him, as I took it away from Saul, whom I removed from before you. 16 “Your house and your kingdom shall endure before Me forever; your throne shall be established forever (2 Samuel 7:11b-16).’”

But in the chapters which follow, David's arrogance seems to increase. It is most evident in 2 Samuel 11. Israel is at war with the Ammonites, and in the Spring (the time that kings go to war), David sends his army to besiege Rabbah, the capital city of the Ammonites, where the last of the Ammonite opposition has sought refuge. David does not go to battle with his soldiers, but stays at home in Jerusalem, indulging himself in the good life while his soldiers camp in an open field. David gets up from his bed about the time his soldiers (and others) usually go to bed. As he is strolling on the roof of his palace, David happens to see something that was not meant to be seen -- a young woman cleansing herself, most likely a ceremonial cleansing ceremony done in keeping with the law. The woman is beautiful, and David decides that he wants her. He sends messengers to find out who she is. Their answer -- that she was Bathsheba, wife of Uriah the Hittite -- should have ended the matter, but David had no intention of being deprived of anything he wanted. He sent for the woman and lay with her.

For David, it was all over after that one night of self-indulgence. He did not want another wife; he did not even appear to want an affair, just a night of pleasure. But God had other plans. Bathsheba conceived and eventually sent word to David that she was pregnant. When David's efforts to deceive Uriah (and the people) into thinking Uriah had fathered this child, he had Uriah killed in battle with the help of Joab. After she had mourned for her husband, David brought Bathsheba into his home, taking her as his wife. Now at last, David hoped, it was over.

This thing which David had done displeased God, however, and God would give David no rest or peace until he had come to see his sin for what it was and repented of it. After some period of distress (see Psalm 32:3-4), God sent Nathan to David with a story, a story which deeply upset David. David was furious. He insisted that the rich man who stole the poor man's pet lamb deserved to die! Nathan then stopped David in his tracks with the words, “You are the man!” (2 Samuel 12:7). As David heard Nathan's recital of his sin, he broke, declaring to Nathan, “I have sinned against the Lord” (2 Samuel 12:13).

Nathan's response to David's confession was both comforting and disturbing. Although he deserved to die for his sins, David would not die because God had taken away his sin (12:13). What a relief these words must have been. But what followed would pierce David through: the son his sin had produced would die. It is David's response to the death of this son that will be the focus of our lesson.

Observations

Before we turn to the story itself, I would like to make a few observations which may influence our understanding of this text.

This is the first of a number of painful events David will experience as a result of his sin regarding Uriah and Bathsheba. In our text, David will suffer the loss of the child conceived through the sinful union of David and Uriah's wife, Bathsheba. Next, David's daughter will be raped by one of his sons. In retaliation for Amnon's sin, Absalom murders him. Later, David's son, Absalom, will rebel against his father and temporarily take over the throne. In the process, he will sleep with some of David's concubines, before all Israel, and on the roof of the palace from which David first looked upon Bathsheba. All of these things are directly or indirectly the consequences of David’s sin with Bathsheba.

The tragic death of David’s son is a consequence of David's sin, but it is not the penalty David deserves for his sin. The penalty for adultery and murder is death, on each count. David deserves to die, on two counts: adultery and murder. But Nathan has made it very clear that David's sin has been “taken away.” The death of this child is a painful consequence of David's sin, but it is not punishment for his sin, per se. That punishment has been taken away, borne by the Lord Jesus Christ.

The fast which David observes is a very serious one. In the Hebrew Old Testament, there is a unique way of emphasizing a point. The Hebrew language of the Old Testament repeats the word for emphasis. Thus, when God told Adam that he would “surely die” (Genesis 2:17) He said something like this: “You shall die a death.” Thus, Young's Literal Translation reads,

“And of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou dost not eat of it, for in the day of thine eating of it--dying thou dost die.”

In our text, God uses this doubling method to emphasize the certainty of the child's death:

“However, because by this deed you have given occasion to the enemies of the LORD to blaspheme, the child also that is born to you shall surely die” (2 Samuel 12:14).

The same doubling is found in verse 16:

David therefore inquired of God for the child; and David fasted and went and lay all night on the ground.

Only in the marginal notes of the KJV do we see the literal rendering, “fasted a fast.” The point is that David's fasting was not entered into casually. He was dead serious about this fast, for it was a matter of life and death.

Once again, Bathsheba is not prominent in this text, but David. The sin of adultery was David's doing, while (in my way of reading this story) Bathsheba was a victim. So it is only fitting that it is David who is prominent in this text which depicts his fasting and prayer, pleading with God for the child's life.

The author changes the way he refers to Bathsheba in our text. In verse 15 he speaks of Bathsheba, the mother of the child who died, as “Uriah's widow.” In verse 24, there is a very significant change. Here, the author refers to this same woman, the mother of David's second child Solomon, as “his wife Bathsheba.” Not only has God come to accept this second child, He has come to accept Bathsheba as David's wife.

The final events of chapter 12 give us a definite sense of closure. David's sin is to be understood as the exception, rather than the rule in his life:

Because David did what was right in the sight of the LORD, and had not turned aside from anything that He commanded him all the days of his life, except in the case of Uriah the Hittite (1 Kings 15:5).

Chapters 11 and 12 of 2 Samuel are almost parenthetical, then, as they depict this exceptional period in David's life. This was a time when he was not a “man after God's heart.” And so we find chapter 11 beginning with a description of Israel going to battle, while David stays at home (11:1). We find verses 26-31 of chapter 12 reporting how David showed up for the war, and when it was won, all Israel returned home to Jerusalem. There is a sense of closure, of finality, here, which I think the author intended us to feel. In addition, we find that our text records the death of Bathsheba's first son, followed rather quickly by the account of the birth of the second, Solomon, who was to rule on the throne of his father, David.

Our Approach

There are several ways to approach this passage. We could dissect the passage, giving attention to the nuance of each word and of each phrase. I am choosing not to do this, having already noted the details I think are important. Rather I will approach the passage somewhat like Michael Landon, the late television actor and director, would have done. We have probably all watched (at least the older ones among us) some of the works which Michael had a hand in directing. He had a way a catching the emotion of the moment and then portraying it dramatically. I can still remember one television show in which he learned, much to his surprise, that a woman was blind. When he brought his audience to that moment when the truth of her condition struck him, even I had to mop my eyes. Our text has some very emotional moments, which I believe Michael Landon would have appreciated and emphasized. I will therefore attempt to capture the emotions of David and those near him as he dealt with the death of his son, the product of his sin.

Nathan's Announcement
(12:13-15a)

13 Then David said to Nathan, “I have sinned against the LORD.” And Nathan said to David, “The LORD also has taken away your sin; you shall not die. 14 “However, because by this deed you have given occasion to the enemies of the LORD to blaspheme, the child also that is born to you shall surely die.” 15 So Nathan went to his house.

David had condemned himself with his own words in response to Nathan's story of the stolen pet lamb: “As the Lord lives, surely the man who has done this deserves to die” (12:5). The law certainly did not pronounce such a penalty on a thief, but it did condemn adulterers and murderers. According to the Law, David should have died for his sins. Based upon divine grace through the coming death of Christ, David was forgiven for his sins and assured that he would not die. These words from Nathan must have been a huge relief to David, who knew he did not deserve anything but God's wrath. His sense of relief was short-lived, however, because Nathan was not finished with what he had to say:

“However, because by this deed you have given occasion to the enemies of the LORD to blaspheme, the child also that is born to you shall surely die” (verse 14).

Nathan assured David that the punishment he deserved has been taken away (we know this means it has been transferred to Christ). But God cannot allow His name to be blasphemed by allowing it to appear that He does not care about sin. From the very beginning the Bible teaches us that the wages of sin is death (see Genesis 2:17; 4:8, 23; 5:1ff.; Romans 6:23). For God to allow David's sins to have no painful consequences would enable the wicked to conclude that God does not really hate sin, nor does He do anything about it when we do sin.

The Law of Moses was given to set Israel apart from the nations. It was given so that Israel could reflect God's character to the world. When David sinned, he violated God's law, and he also dishonored God. This hypocrisy was observed by the nations, and it resulted in their dishonoring God. Paul would make this same charge against the Jews centuries later:

21 You, therefore, who teach another, do you not teach yourself? You who preach that one shall not steal, do you steal? 22 You who say that one should not commit adultery, do you commit adultery? You who abhor idols, do you rob temples? 23 You who boast in the Law, through your breaking the Law, do you dishonor God? 24 For “THE NAME OF GOD IS BLASPHEMED AMONG THE GENTILES BECAUSE OF YOU,” just as it is written (Romans 2:21-24).

Elsewhere, the apostle Paul instructs Timothy that elders -- those church leaders whose lives are publicly under scrutiny -- who persist in their sin are to be corrected publicly, so that all will learn (1 Timothy 5:19-20). God is very concerned about his reputation. He works in such a way as to instruct not only men who look on, but also angels who do likewise (see Exodus 32:9-14; 34:10; Ephesians 3:8-10).

God could not look the other way when David sinned, for his disobedience to God's commands was a matter of public knowledge. As his victories and triumphs were known among the Gentiles, so his sins would be widely known as well. By taking the life of this child, conceived in sin, God makes a statement to those looking on. If God does not deal with the sin of His saints, they might reason, then He will not be concerned with mine, either. Thus, they will mock God with the confidence that they can get away with their sin.

Years ago I taught sixth grade. It did not happen very often, but occasionally a child would blatantly disobey one of the rules, and it was necessary to take him outside and introduce him to the paddle. My class (and all those within hearing range) knew what to expect when I stepped outside with a student.⁵¹ But when a child was sent to the principal's office, it was frequently a different matter. The principle would give a little lecture, and the student would come back with a big smile on his face. The willful student and everyone else knew he had gotten away with his unacceptable conduct. God could not allow David to come through this monumental sin without doing something about it, something visible to all. This was for David's discipline, and to silence those who would use David's sin as an occasion to blaspheme the name of God; it was to proclaim and promote the glory of God.

David's Response to His Son's Sickness and Death
(12:15b-23)

Then the LORD struck the child that Uriah's widow bore to David, so that he was very sick. 16 David therefore inquired of God for the child; and David fasted and went and lay all night on the ground. 17 The elders of his household stood beside him in order to raise him up from the ground, but he was unwilling and would not eat food with them. 18 Then it happened on the seventh day that the child died. And the servants of David were afraid to tell him that the child was dead, for they said, “Behold, while the child was still alive, we spoke to him and he did not listen to our voice. How then can we tell him that the child is dead, since he might do himself harm!” 19 But when David saw that his servants were whispering together, David perceived that the child was dead; so David said to his servants, “Is the child dead?” And they said, “He is dead.” 20 So David arose from the ground, washed, anointed himself, and changed his clothes; and he came into the house of the LORD and worshiped. Then he came to his own house, and when he requested, they set food before him and he ate. 21 Then his servants said to him, “What is this thing that you have done? While the child was alive, you fasted and wept; but when the child died, you arose and ate food.” 22 He said, “While the child was still alive, I fasted and wept; for I said, 'Who knows, the LORD may be gracious to me, that the child may live.' 23 “But now he has died; why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I will go to him, but he will not return to me.”

After Nathan left David, God struck the child born to David and “Uriah's widow.” We do not know what the malady was, but we do know that after seven days the child died.⁵² David had mourned when Saul and Jonathan died in battle (2 Samuel 1), when Abner was killed by Joab (2 Samuel 3), and even when Nahash the Ammonite king died (2 Samuel 10). His mourning here, however, is not a mourning over the death of his son (for he has not yet died), but is instead the mourning of repentance. David mourns as a sign of his repentance as he beseeches God to spare the life of his son.

Is it right for David to beseech God to spare the life of this child when He has already said that He is going to take the life of the child? I believe the answer is “Yes!” David knew that some prophecies were warnings of what God would do unless men repented. God sometimes foretold future judgment, which would come to pass if men did not repent. The hope for divine relenting in response to human repenting is set down in Jeremiah 18:5-8:

5 Then the word of the LORD came to me saying, 6 “Can I not, O house of Israel, deal with you as this potter does?” declares the LORD. “Behold, like the clay in the potter's hand, so are you in My hand, O house of Israel. 7 “At one moment I might speak concerning a nation or concerning a kingdom to uproot, to pull down, or to destroy it; 8 if that nation against which I have spoken turns from its evil, I will relent concerning the calamity I planned to bring on it.

This hope of forgiveness proved to be true for ancient Nineveh (much to Jonah's displeasure -- see Jonah 3 and 4), and also for Manasseh (2 Chronicles 33:10-13).

Further, it may be that David viewed this situation through the eyes of the Davidic Covenant, which God had recently made with him:

12 “When your days are complete and you lie down with your fathers, I will raise up your descendant after you, who will come forth from you, and I will establish his kingdom. 13 “He shall build a house for My name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. 14 “I will be a father to him and he will be a son to Me; when he commits iniquity, I will correct him with the rod of men and the strokes of the sons of men, 15 but My lovingkindness shall not depart from him, as I took it away from Saul, whom I removed from before you” (2 Samuel 7:12-15).

Is it possible that David felt this child might be the heir to his throne? If this were the case, then David surely had reason to hope that God would spare the child's life.

David was certainly right in his assumption that the life of this child was in God's hands, and that his best course of action was to appeal to God to spare the child's life. David believed in the sovereignty of God, and thus he rested his case with God. David's prayers are not only the expression of his repentance, but the exercise of his faith. Believing in God's sovereignty did not keep David from taking action (fasting and praying); his faith prompted him to act.

In spite of David's sorrow, sincerity, and persistence in petitioning God to spare the child's life, his request was denied. The child died. David must not have been with the child when it happened or he would have seen this for himself. David did see his servants whispering to one another, perhaps furtively glancing in his direction as they did so. They were afraid to tell David because they feared he might cause harm. The text is not altogether clear about whom the servants feared David might harm. You will notice that by the use of italics the NAB indicates to us that the word himself is supplied by the translators. I am not so sure David's servants feared only for David's safety. They may have feared for themselves as well. I think that the NIV best conveys the ambiguity of the original text:

On the seventh day the child died. David's servants were afraid to tell him that the child was dead, for they thought, “While the child was still living, we spoke to David but he would not listen to us. How can we tell him the child is dead? He may do something desperate” (2 Samuel 12:18, NIV).⁵³

The long and short of it is that no one wanted to be the bearer of bad tidings to David. After all, if David had taken this child's illness so seriously, would he not take the news of his death even more so?⁵⁴ They did not need to inform David because he instinctively knew the child was gone. The words of Nathan were fulfilled as David could see on the faces of his servants. When David asked if the child was dead they could not deny it. They told him the child was indeed dead.

It is what happens from this point on that perplexes David's servants. While the child was ill they had not been able to get David up from the ground, nor to eat any food. They assumed it would only get worse once he knew the child was dead. Instead, David arose from the ground, washed and anointed himself, changed his clothes, and went into the house of the Lord, where he worshipped. When he had finished worshipping God, he came home and asked for food. When they set it before him, he ate it.

The servants were amazed and puzzled. A New Testament text may help explain what was normally expected:

14 Then the disciples of John came to Him, asking, “Why do we and the Pharisees fast, but Your disciples do not fast?” 15 And Jesus said to them, “The attendants of the bridegroom cannot mourn as long as the bridegroom is with them, can they? But the days will come when the bridegroom is taken away from them, and then they will fast” (Matthew 9:14-15, NAB).

David was expected to mourn for the child after he died. From the servants' perspective, David had mourned so much for this child while he was still alive that they feared what would happen when they told him he was now dead. Finally David’s servants worked up the courage to ask the king how he could respond so calmly, knowing that the child was dead. David now explains his change in behavior. I think David’s unusual response can be explained in this manner:

The death of this child came as no surprise to David because it had already been foretold by Nathan. Through Nathan God had informed David that this son, the fruit of David's sinful union with Bathsheba, “Uriah's widow,” would surely die. The death of this child was the revealed will of God. For David to mourn excessively would have been to express his regret over God's will. David's actions indicated that he had accepted the death of this child as God's will.

Nathan had already explained the reason for death of this child to David. The purpose for the death of this child was not to punish David. The appropriate punishment for David's sins under the law would have been the death penalty. Nathan has not given David news of a reduced sentence, but of complete forgiveness, because the guilt and punishment for his sins had been “taken away” (12:13). The purpose for this child's death was instructive. It was meant to silence any blasphemy on the part of the “enemies of God.” Lest any might wrongly conclude that Israel's God was oblivious to David's sin in the breaking of God's law, God made it apparent that He would not wink at sin, even the sin of a man after His own heart. The death of David's son was an object lesson to the enemies of God.

David's mourning during the child's sickness was an act of repentance, not the mourning of the loss of a loved one:

22 He said, “While the child was still alive, I fasted and wept; for I said, 'Who knows, the LORD may be gracious to me, that the child may live.' 23 “But now he has died; why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I will go to him, but he will not return to me.”

The death of this child was accepted as God's final answer to David's petitions for the child's life. This is the substance of David's answer to the question posed by his servants. While the child was alive, David fasted, wept, and prayed. But now the child is dead. David has done all that he could. God has given David a clear and final answer: “No.” David sees death as the time to cease those activities which were only appropriate in life. Someone has said, “Where there's life, there's hope.” As far as David's hope for the healing of this child is concerned, God has indicated to David that he should cease his efforts to persuade God to relent concerning this child's death.

I see a similar example of David's acceptance of death as a point of termination in chapter 13, where David finds a certain comfort in the fact that his son Amnon was dead:

The heart of King David longed to go out to Absalom; for he was comforted concerning Amnon, since he was dead (2 Samuel 13:39).

David's comfort, to some degree, was found in Amnon's death. In David's mind, it was as if God had closed a chapter. The death of David's child by Bathsheba was God's final answer to his request that the child might live.

David was comforted by the fact that what he asked for (and was denied) was grace. God's grace, by its very nature, is sovereign grace. Grace is often defined as “unmerited favor.” Allowing this simple definition to stand for the moment, let us see how David can be comforted by the fact that what he asked for -- and was denied -- was a matter of grace.

I have already called attention to the words of Jeremiah 18, where repentance is encouraged, and where God leaves His options open concerning the canceling (or even delaying) of threatened judgment. There is a very similar passage in the Book of Joel, where repentance is encouraged, and divine relenting is spoken of as a possibility:

12 “Yet even now,” declares the LORD, “Return to Me with all your heart, And with fasting, weeping and mourning; 13 And rend your heart and not your garments.” Now return to the LORD your God, For He is gracious and compassionate, Slow to anger, abounding in lovingkindness And relenting of evil. 14 Who knows whether He will not turn and relent And leave a blessing behind Him, Even a grain offering and a drink offering For the LORD your God? (Joel 2:12-14, emphasis mine).

In both Jeremiah 18 and this passage in Joel, sinners are encouraged to repent in precisely the way we see David repenting and petitioning God in our text. The appeal of the penitent sinner -- that God would relent and withhold judgment -- is based upon God's grace, and not on the sinner's merits. And just because it is a matter of grace, we dare not presume that God must relent. Thus, in Jeremiah and Joel⁵⁵ we are encouraged to hope for the possibility of God relenting, but not to presume that He will indeed relent.

We can see an example of the right kind of thinking in the Book of Daniel. Daniel's three friends, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, refused to bow down to King Nebuchadnezzar's golden image. He was furious, but he gave these men a second chance. If they would bow down at the next opportunity, they would not be punished, but if they refused, they would be cast into a fiery furnace. This is the response of the three men to this offer:

16 Shadrach, Meshach and Abed-nego replied to the king, “O Nebuchadnezzar, we do not need to give you an answer concerning this matter. 17 “If it be so, our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the furnace of blazing fire; and He will deliver us out of your hand, O king. 18 “But even if He does not, let it be known to you, O king, that we are not going to serve your gods or worship the golden image that you have set up” (Daniel 3:16-18).

These men knew they were obeying God rather than men. They knew that God was able to deliver them from the fiery furnace. They did not dare to presume that He would do so, and so they responded to Nebuchadnezzar in a way that left the option open. God could deliver them, for He was able. But whether or not He would do so, they did not dare to presume. Either way, they would not do as the king demanded, for they were committed to serve God first and foremost.

David knew that God was able to save his son. He also knew that if He did so, it would be by grace alone, and not on the basis of merit. If God had spared his son, David would have rejoiced greatly. But when the child's death made it apparent that God had declined to spare him, David could still find comfort, because he knew that grace is always sovereignly bestowed. God's choice is not determined by man's merits, and thus it is a sovereign choice, one that is not determined by any outside force, but by the independent choice of God Himself. This is the point Paul makes when he speaks of man's salvation as the result of God's sovereign choosing, long before man is even born, before man can do anything good or evil (as if this would affect the outcome of God's choosing):

8 That is, it is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise are regarded as descendants. 9 For this is the word of promise: “AT THIS TIME I WILL COME, AND SARAH SHALL HAVE A SON.” 10 And not only this, but there was Rebekah also, when she had conceived twins by one man, our father Isaac; 11 for though the twins were not yet born and had not done anything good or bad, so that God's purpose according to His choice would stand, not because of works but because of Him who calls, 12 it was said to her, “THE OLDER WILL SERVE THE YOUNGER.” 13 Just as it is written, “JACOB I LOVED, BUT ESAU I HATED” (Romans 9:8-13).

In the case of the men of Nineveh, God did relent, and the city was spared (much to the displeasure of Jonah). In the case of David, God did not relent. David cannot legitimately be angry with God, for he did not deserve that for which he petitioned God. Indeed, he deserved much worse than what he received. One dare not be distressed with God when He does not give us what we do not deserve. We have no claim on divine grace. When it is granted, we should gratefully receive it as those unworthy of it; when it is not, we should humbly acknowledge it was nothing we deserved in the first place.

These five reasons alone are sufficient basis for David's actions in our text. But there is yet one more thing we are told in this text to which I call your attention: David found consolation and comfort in the death of the child because he was assured that, although the child could not return to be with him in life, he would go to be with the child in heaven:

“But now he has died; why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I will go to him, but he will not return to me” (verse 23).

I believe there is only one way this verse makes any sense, and that is by understanding David to be saying something like: “I cannot bring the child back to life, to be here with me once again, but I can look forward to being with this child in heaven, after I die.”

This conclusion, expressed above, is not accepted by all. Some would understand David to be assured that he will be reunited with this child in heaven. They would not necessarily conclude that this means that all babies who die go to heaven. Some who believe in infant baptism may be tempted to believe that those babies who are baptized as infants will go to heaven if they die as babies. There are also those who are strongly convinced that since babies cannot repent and trust in Jesus Christ, none who die go to heaven. If this were the case, David would have to be understood to say something like this: “I cannot bring this baby back to life, but I will join him in the grave.” I want to address this last view first, and then seek to defend my own view, which is that babies who die (before the age of accountability) go to heaven.

There are some who understand David to be speaking of joining the child in the grave. In the context of our text, I find it difficult to understand how. David has fasted, wept, and prayed, so much so that his servants have become concerned for his own well-being. They could not convince him to get up off the ground or to eat. Suddenly, after the child dies, David goes on with his life as though nothing had happened, and when asked why by his servants, he gives the answer we find in our text. A part of this answer is that while he cannot bring the child back, he will someday be with the child. In the minds of some, David would be saying something like this:

“I was greatly intent on expressing my repentance, and in petitioning God for the life of this child. But now the child is dead, and I know that he will be buried in lot #23 at Restland Cemetery. To my great joy and comfort, I know that I will be buried in lot #24. This is the reason why I can be comforted in my grief. We will be side by side in the grave.”⁵⁶

I simply do not find this explanation to be an adequate explanation for David's comfort and conduct. I believe that David is looking beyond the grave, to his reunion with this child at the resurrection. Is that not the same sense that we gain from Paul's words below?

13 But we do not want you to be uninformed, brethren, about those who are asleep, so that you will not grieve as do the rest who have no hope. 14 For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so God will bring with Him those who have fallen asleep in Jesus. 15 For this we say to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive and remain until the coming of the Lord, will not precede those who have fallen asleep. 16 For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. 17 Then we who are alive and remain will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we shall always be with the Lord. 18 Therefore comfort one another with these words (1 Thessalonians 4:13-18).

Caveats and Cautions

I think we must admit that the view that all babies go to heaven if they die is the one we would most like to believe. For this reason alone, we are obliged to approach this matter with skill and caution. I would also agree that our text in 2 Samuel 12 alone would be thin evidence for my conclusions, if there were not other supporting texts and truths. It is certainly true that my conclusions are based upon inferential evidence. Having said this, I would also say that any other point of view on this subject is also inferential, and based (in my opinion) on even thinner evidence.

Let me say one final thing before proceeding with some of my arguments. This subject (Do babies who die go to heaven?) is not one which should divide evangelical Christians. It is not a fundamental of the faith, and it should not be viewed as heresy, no matter which of the views (stated above) are held. In the final analysis, we should be willing to say that God would be righteous and just in sending every human being (including babies) to hell, if He chose to do so. Further, those of us who know and love God should be willing to trust Him in this matter. Sometimes certain subjects and questions are not clearly answered. In such cases, I believe this is deliberate so that we have to trust in God Himself.

Supporting Evidence

With all these caveats, let me list the factors which incline me to the conclusion that babies who die go to heaven. I will focus on four lines of evidence.

First, in the Book of Jonah, God clearly makes a distinction between children and adults, and rebukes Jonah for desiring that divine judgment come upon little children. We all know the story of how Jonah, the prophet of Israel, was instructed to go to Nineveh and to proclaim the coming of God's judgment on this wicked city. We remember how Jonah rebelled, but was finally compelled to go to Nineveh, where he announced the coming of God's wrath on Nineveh in 40 days. The people of Nineveh repented, and God relented. Jonah was furious. He wanted God to destroy this wicked city and all who lived in it. Defiantly Jonah stationed himself outside the city, where he waited for the destruction that God had threatened and canceled. Jonah waited in the heat, still intent on watching the Ninevites perish. Then, this account follows:

5 Then Jonah went out from the city and sat east of it. There he made a shelter for himself and sat under it in the shade until he could see what would happen in the city. 6 So the LORD God appointed a plant and it grew up over Jonah to be a shade over his head to deliver him from his discomfort. And Jonah was extremely happy about the plant. 7 But God appointed a worm when dawn came the next day and it attacked the plant and it withered. 8 When the sun came up God appointed a scorching east wind, and the sun beat down on Jonah's head so that he became faint and begged with all his soul to die, saying, “Death is better to me than life.” 9 Then God said to Jonah, “Do you have good reason to be angry about the plant?” And he said, “I have good reason to be angry, even to death.” 10 Then the LORD said, “You had compassion on the plant for which you did not work and which you did not cause to grow, which came up overnight and perished overnight. 11 “Should I not have compassion on Nineveh, the great city in which there are more than 120,000 persons who do not know the difference between their right and left hand, as well as many animals?” (Jonah 4:5-11, emphasis mine).

Jonah was angry with God. The cause for his anger is astounding. He was angry with God because of the grace He had shown to these sinful Ninevites. He was incensed that God would forgive unworthy sinners, when they repented of their sins. To a large degree he was wrong because he seems to have assumed that God blessed the Jews on another basis -- the simple fact that they were Jews. Jonah hated grace, especially when bestowed upon those he considered unworthy sinners.⁵⁷ The sad irony is that he failed to understand that God’s blessings to Israel and to him were also based solely on divine grace. Ultimately, Jonah himself seems to have trusted in something other than grace.

God gave Jonah a lesson in grace. He gave this pouting, rebellious prophet a source of shade, even though he had no good reason for staying out in the heat. When God took the plant away, and thus the shade it afforded Jonah, the prophet was hopping mad. God challenged him concerning his anger. Did Jonah deserve the plant and its shade? Then why was he angry when God took it away? Jonah did not deserve this gracious provision, yet Jonah somehow felt he did deserve it.

Now God turns Jonah’s attention from this object lesson to the real issue, the destruction or deliverance of the Ninevites. Why would Jonah be so intent on the condemnation of 120,000 who could not tell their right hand from their left? It seems to me that this text suggests that God views the 120,000 differently than He does the older Ninevites. Those who can tell their left hand from their right can also discern between what is good and what is evil. While Jonah is eager to condemn such children, God is not. God does not argue with Jonah about the grace He has shown the repentant (adult) Israelites. He rebukes Jonah for desiring the children to suffer divine wrath along with the adults. Jonah does not distinguish between the children and the adult Ninevites; God does. The basis for this distinction is what is of concern to us in our study of the death of David’s son.

God’s rebuke of Jonah is based upon the fact that Jonah is unwilling to make a distinction between the sinful (but repentant) adult Ninevites and the 120,000 children of Nineveh. The distinction is not just one of age, but of rational ability. These 120,000 children cannot distinguish between their right hand and their left. If this is so, and they cannot make concrete distinctions, how can they possibly make abstract distinctions like the difference between good and evil? How can they consciously choose to willfully disobey God, or to trust and obey Him? God also mentions the cattle. They cannot choose to serve or reject God either, not because of their age, but because of their nature as beasts which lack the capacity to reason. Jonah would delight to watch these children and cattle suffer the wrath of God; God rebukes Jonah for this thinking. Does this principle not apply to all children, and not just the children of Nineveh? I believe it does.

Second, according to both the Old and the New Covenants, children are not to suffer divine condemnation for the sins of their parents.

“Fathers shall not be put to death for their sons, nor shall sons be put to death for their fathers; everyone shall be put to death for his own sin (Deuteronomy 24:16).

27 “Behold, days are coming,” declares the LORD, “when I will sow the house of Israel and the house of Judah with the seed of man and with the seed of beast. 28 “As I have watched over them to pluck up, to break down, to overthrow, to destroy and to bring disaster, so I will watch over them to build and to plant,” declares the LORD.

29 “In those days they will not say again, 'The fathers have eaten sour grapes, And the children' s teeth are set on edge.'30 “But everyone will die for his own iniquity; each man who eats the sour grapes, his teeth will be set on edge. 31 “Behold, days are coming,” declares the LORD, “when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, 32 not like the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, although I was a husband to them,” declares the LORD. 33 “But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days,” declares the LORD, “I will put My law within them and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. 34 “They will not teach again, each man his neighbor and each man his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,' for they will all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them,” declares the LORD, “for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more” (Jeremiah 31:27-34, NAB, emphasis mine).

Whether under the Old Covenant or the New, children are not to suffer condemnation for the sins of their parents. Each one is to suffer for their own sins. In Romans 5, Paul writes:

12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned -- 13 for until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come (Romans 5:12-14).

In other words, Adam’s sin has been imputed to the entire human race. Even before the Law was given, men were sinners by nature. And for this, all die a physical death. Adam’s sin makes the whole human race sinful by nature.

In Romans 7, Paul speaks of being alive apart from the law, and then coming alive to the law:

I was once alive apart from the Law; but when the commandment came, sin became alive and I died (Romans 7:9).

It would seem from this text Paul is speaking of the coming of the age of accountability. In his infancy, Paul was “alive apart from the Law,” because he was not yet able to grasp the law, and thus to discern good and evil. Since he was unable to grasp either the need or the nature of the choice before him, he was not yet alive to the law. But there came a time when he became alive to the law, and at that moment, he fell under its curse.

In chapters 1-3 of Romans, Paul lays a foundation for the rest of the epistle. He seeks to demonstrate that all men are sinners, subject to the eternal wrath of God, and unable to save themselves by any work of their own (and thus in need of the gift of salvation in Christ through divine grace). Paul’s conclusion (that all men are sinners) is summed up in chapter 3, as he draws together a list of Old Testament citations:

9 What then? Are we better than they? Not at all; for we have already charged that both Jews and Greeks are all under sin; 10 as it is written, “THERE IS NONE RIGHTEOUS, NOT EVEN ONE; 11 THERE IS NONE WHO UNDERSTANDS, THERE IS NONE WHO SEEKS FOR GOD; 12 ALL HAVE TURNED ASIDE, TOGETHER THEY HAVE BECOME USELESS; THERE IS NONE WHO DOES GOOD, THERE IS NOT EVEN ONE.” 13 “THEIR THROAT IS AN OPEN GRAVE, WITH THEIR TONGUES THEY KEEP DECEIVING,” “THE POISON OF ASPS IS UNDER THEIR LIPS”; 14 “WHOSE MOUTH IS FULL OF CURSING AND BITTERNESS”; 15 “THEIR FEET ARE SWIFT TO SHED BLOOD, 16 DESTRUCTION AND MISERY ARE IN THEIR PATHS, 17 AND THE PATH OF PEACE THEY HAVE NOT KNOWN.” 18 “THERE IS NO FEAR OF GOD BEFORE THEIR EYES” (Romans 3:9-18).

This indictment is the conclusion of all that Paul has written up to this point, beginning with chapter 1, and especially verse 18:

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness.

How did Paul prove men to be sinners, under divine condemnation? In chapter 1 Paul shows that the heathen who have never heard the gospel are sinners, under divine condemnation. These folks are assumed not to have heard the gospel of Jesus Christ. Nevertheless, they have received a divine revelation about God, which they have willfully rejected. This revelation comes through nature:

20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. 21 For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures (Romans 1:20-23).

I believe the argument goes like this. God has revealed Himself to all men through nature. This revelation is not complete, and it does not include the good news of the forgiveness of sins through the substitutionary work of Christ on the cross of Calvary. Even so, a person’s response to what God has revealed to them in nature is a demonstration of how they would have responded if more had been revealed to them. Those who have received the revelation of God in nature have rejected it, twisting it into a religion of their own making, so that they worship God’s creation rather than God the Creator. In Romans 2 and the first part of chapter 3, Paul shows that God justly condemns men as sinners for failing to live according to the standard of their own conscience, and most certainly for failing to live according to the standards set down in the Law of Moses. He shows that all men are sinners, deserving God’s eternal wrath, because they have been given some revelation about God and they have spurned it, perverting the truth that was revealed to them and exchanging it for something they would rather believe.

Everyone who is condemned as a sinner in Romans 1-3 is one who has received a revelation about God, who has the mental capacity to grasp it and respond to it, and has rejected this revelation. I contend that unborn children and infants (I won’t try to define where the so called “age of accountability” begins) have never received such revelation and have no capacity to reject it as evil or embrace it as good. They have not sinned in the sense of knowing what is right and willfully choosing to do what is wrong.

Here is where some folks begin to get uneasy. They fear that saying this is to deny the sin nature of all mankind, including children. They fear that this is tantamount to declaring young children innocent. I am not saying this at all. Whether an unborn or an infant, every offspring of Adam (i.e., every human being, regardless of age) is a sinner by nature. This sin nature is the result of Adam’s sin, which has been imputed to all his offspring. There is a difference, however, in being a sinner by nature and being a sinner in deed. A tiny newborn baby is a sinner by nature, but he will not become a sinner by deed until he willfully chooses to do what he knows to be wrong. Apart from a premature death, every child who is a sinner by nature will blossom into a child who is a sinner by deed.

But what of those children who die before they have become a sinner by deed? If we were to conclude they are condemned to hell for all eternity, for whose sin(s) are they being eternally punished? I would have to say they would be punished for Adam’s sin. They would suffer eternally for being a sinner by nature, for being born. I believe the distinction God was making in Jonah 4 was between those Ninevites who were sinners by deed, and those who were sinners by nature, but not by deed. I believe God was rebuking Jonah for wanting to see sinners by nature (only) suffer God’s wrath as though they were sinners by decision and deed. On what basis can God save sinners by nature, so that they need not be condemned? That is our next topic of discussion.

Third, in Romans 5 Paul teaches us that the sacrificial death of our Lord Jesus Christ atones for the sin of Adam, so that no descendant of Adam’s is condemned to hell for Adam’s sin. If I understand the Scriptures correctly, the only reason that an infant could go to hell is because of Adam’s sin. The Old and New Covenants tell us that this cannot be, since children must not be punished for the sins of their parents. Romans 5 tells us how God has accomplished a means for infants to be saved from condemnation. The issue addressed by the fifth chapter of Romans is this: “How can one person – Jesus Christ – be the Savior of all those who believe in Him?” “How can one man save many by dying for them?”

The answer Paul gives us in Romans 5 is very simple: “It was one man (Adam) who brought sin upon the human race; so, too, it was one Man (Jesus Christ) who provided the solution to the problem of sin for all who believe.”

17 For if by the transgression of the one, death reigned through the one, much more those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ. 18 So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men (Romans 5:17-18).

45 So also it is written, “The first MAN, Adam, BECAME A LIVING SOUL.” The last Adam became a life-giving spirit. 46 However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural; then the spiritual. 47 The first man is from the earth, earthy; the second man is from heaven. 48 As is the earthy, so also are those who are earthy; and as is the heavenly, so also are those who are heavenly. 49 Just as we have borne the image of the earthy, we will also bear the image of the heavenly (1 Corinthians 15:45-49).

Our Lord Jesus Christ is called “the last Adam” because He is the only One who can reverse the effects of Adam’s sin. He does so, not by automatically saving all men, but by making atonement for the sins of men, so that all who receive the gift of salvation have the forgiveness of sins and eternal life. All children have a sin nature which they have inherited from Adam. They obtained this, not by committing any sin, but by being born into the human race. They involuntarily obtained a sin nature. Paul’s argument in Romans 5 is a “much more” argument. He argues that whatever Adam did by his sin, Christ did (or rather undid) much more. If any child goes to hell simply because of Adam’s sin, then Christ’s work on Calvary is not “much more” than Adam’s. All those who suffer the eternal wrath of God for their sin are those who have, by their own willful choice, rebelled against God and rejected the revelation of Him He made known to them. All those who have not yet made this willful choice to identify with Adam in his sin, and who die before doing so, are involuntarily covered by the shed blood of Jesus Christ. Adam could thus corrupt the whole human race, but Christ could do much more in that He could atone for Adam’s sin and transform guilty sinners into forgiven saints. The death of Jesus Christ on the cross of Calvary is the means by which infants are saved from the guilt and condemnation of their sin nature, just as it is the means by which all (adults) who believe are saved.

This is how I explain the confidence and peace David demonstrated when his son died. David was assured that he would not die, and this was due to the fact that his sins were “taken away.” Under the Old Covenant, there was no salvation for David, only the condemnation of death. David must therefore be delivered from divine wrath due to God’s provision in Jesus Christ, in accordance with the New Covenant. This is the basis for the salvation of every saint, Old Testament or New. If God dealt graciously with David, on the basis of the new covenant, would He not also deal with his son on the same basis?

Fourth, the belief that infants are saved by the blood of Christ is the view held by some of the most highly regarded students of Scripture. The doctrinal position of the church throughout its history does not have the authority of Scripture, but it does help to validate or call into question contemporary interpretations of the Scriptures. When one holds a view or interpretation of Scripture that the church has consistently rejected throughout the history of the church, it certainly calls that interpretation into question. Allow me to cite a few quotations which express the viewpoint of some respected theologians and preachers of the past.

First, let us hear from Charles Haddon Spurgeon:

Now for one or two incidental matters which occur in Scripture, which seem to throw a little light also on the subject. You have not forgotten the case of David. His child by Bathsheba was to die as a punishment for the father's offence. David prayed, and fasted, and vexed his soul; at last they tell him the child is dead. He fasted no more but he said, “I shall go to him, he shall not return to me.” Now, where did David expect to go to? Why, to heaven surely. Then his child must have been there, for be said, “I shall go to him.” I do not hear him say the same of Absalom. He did not stand over his corpse, and say, “I shall go to him;” he had no hope for that rebellious son. Over this child it was not—”O my son! would to God I had died for thee!” No, he could let this babe go with perfect confidence, for he said, “I shall go to him.” “I know,” he might have said, “that He hath made with me an everlasting covenant, ordered in all things and sure, and when I walk through the valley of the shadow of death I shall fear no evil, for he is with me; I shall go to my child, and in heaven we shall be re-united with each other.”⁵⁸

And once again:

Now, let every mother and father here present know assuredly that it is well with the child, if God hath taken it away from you in its infant days. You never heard its declaration of faith - it was not capable of such a thing; it was not baptized into the Lord Jesus Christ, not buried with him in baptism; it was not capable of giving that “answer of a good conscience towards God,” nevertheless, you may rest assured that it is well with the child, well in a higher and a better sense than it is well with yourselves; well without limitation, well without exception, well infinitely, “well” eternally. Perhaps you will say, “What reasons have we for believing that it is well with the child?” Before I enter upon that I would make one observation. It has been wickedly, lyingly, and slanderously said of Calvinism, that we believe that some little children perish. Those who make the accusation know that their charge is false. I cannot even dare to hope, though I would wish to do so, that they ignorantly misrepresent us. They wickedly repeat what has been denied a thousand times, what they know is not true. In Calvin's advice to Knox, he interprets the second commandment, “showing mercy unto thousands of them that love me,” as referring to generations, and hence he seems to teach that infants who have had pious ancestors, no matter how remotely, dying as infants are saved. This would certainly take in the whole race. As for modern Calvinists, I know of no exception, but we all hope and believe that all persons dying in infancy are elect. Dr. Gill, who has been looked upon in late times as being a very standard of Calvinism, not to say of ultra-Calvinism, himself never hints for a moment the supposition that any infant has perished, but affirms of it that it is a dark and mysterious subject, but that it is his belief, and he thinks he has Scripture to warrant it, that they who have fallen asleep in infancy have not perished, but have been numbered with the chosen of God, and so have entered into eternal rest. We have never taught the contrary, and when the charge is brought, I repudiate it and say, “You may have said so, we never did, and you know we never did. If you dare to repeat the slander again, let the lie stand in scarlet on your very cheek if you be capable of a blush.” We have never dreamed of such a thing. With very few and rare exceptions, so rare that I never heard of them except from the lips of slanderers, we have never imagined that infants dying as infants have perished, but we have believed that they enter into the paradise of God.⁵⁹

Finally, let us hear from Loraine Boettner, who cites the position of a number of other theologians:

Most Calvinistic theologians have held that those who die in infancy are saved. The Scriptures seem to teach plainly enough that the children of believers are saved; but they are silent or practically so in regard to those of the heathens. The Westminster Confession does not pass judgment on the children of heathens who die before coming to years of accountability. Where the Scriptures are silent, the Confession, too, preserves silence. Our outstanding theologians, however, mindful of the fact that God's “tender mercies are over all His works,” and depending on His mercy widened as broadly as possible, have entertained a charitable hope that since these infants have never committed any actual sin themselves, their inherited sin would be pardoned and they would be saved on wholly evangelical principles.

Such, for instance, was the position held by Charles Hodge, W. G. T. Shedd, and B. B. Warfield. Concerning those who die in infancy, Dr. Warfield says: “Their destiny is determined irrespective of their choice, by an unconditional decree of God, suspended for its execution on no act of their own; and their salvation is wrought by an unconditional application of the grace of Christ to their souls, through the immediate and irresistible operation of the Holy Spirit prior to and apart from any action of their own proper wills . . . And if death in infancy does depend on God's providence, it is assuredly God in His providence who selects this vast multitude to be made participants of His unconditional salvation . . . This is but to say that they are unconditionally predestinated to salvation from the foundation of the world.”⁶⁰

Conclusion

We have lingered long on this sad incident in which David finds joy and comfort, but allow me to conclude by pointing out several areas of application.

First, this text (along with the others I have mentioned) offers comfort to all those who have suffered (or will suffer) the loss of a little one. I believe that our Lord summed it up as concisely as possible when He said, “Permit the children to come to Me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these” (Luke 18:16). What comfort there is to know that our little ones are in His arms.

Second, we learn from this incident that even when God forgives our sins He does not remove all painful consequences. David’s sins with Bathsheba and with Uriah were forgiven, but the death of this child was still necessary. Sin has painful consequences. Even though our sins are forgiven, they are never worth the price tag that comes in terms of consequences.

Third, God is more concerned with His reputation than our happiness. Some people think that God is a kind of magic Genie, who awaits our every command, and who seeks to satisfy our every whim. David would have been happy to receive his child back, but God’s reputation required that He deal with sin in a way that makes it very clear how a holy and righteous God feels about sin.

Fourth, we can learn a lesson about unanswered prayer. David prayed as earnestly as a man could pray, but God clearly answered, “No!” David was content with that. He did not protest or complain. He accepted God’s will as that which was best. He worshipped God in spite of his loss and his pain. He did not agonize that he simply lacked faith. He knew God had heard him and He had answered. How many of us praise God when He has told us “No!”?

Finally, the believer’s hope and joy in the midst of trials and tribulations is the context for witnessing to our faith in Jesus Christ. David’s servants expected him to (re)act in a very different way, once he learned that his son was dead. They were amazed at the way he found comfort, joy, and a desire to worship God when his family was struck by tragedy. They asked David concerning this hope, and David was able to give an explanation of that hope. Our response to our sufferings and trials affords us the same opportunity. Let us learn to rest in Him in Whom we have placed our hope, and then to share this hope with those who do not possess it (see 1 Peter 3:15).

---

51 Incidentally, this was done with another teacher present, as a witness.

52 When God struck Nabal, he died after ten days -- see 1 Samuel 25:38.

53 The NKJV is similar, when it renders, “He may do some harm.”

54 We do not really know whether any of the servants knew of Nathan’s word that this child would surely die. If not, then they may not understand why David is so serious in his mourning of repentance and petition.

55 See also Jonah 3.

56 I am duty bound to point out the words of Barzillai in 2 Samuel 19:37. There was some comfort in being buried near one’s relatives, but this does not seem to be sufficient comfort to explain David’s words and actions in our text.

57 In this, Jonah is not that different from the self-righteous scribes and Pharisees of Jesus’ day.

58 “Infant Salvation,” The Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, a sermon delivered on Sunday morning, September 29th, 1861, By the Rev. C. H. Spurgeon, at the Metropolitan Tabernacle, Newington.

59 Spurgeon in the same sermon as above.

60 Loraine Boettner, The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination (Philadelphia: The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1963 [eleventh printing]), pp. 143-144.

Introduction

Those of us who have lost a child know the grief this brings. The death of a child is a painful experience, but there are other -- more painful -- ways to lose a child. David suffered much loss when it came to his family, especially his children. David lost the first son Bathsheba, the widow of Uriah, bore to him (chapter 12). Some time later, David's daughter Tamar lost her virginity due to rape, rape committed by her half-brother, Amnon. David then lost his son Amnon, because Absalom wanted vengeance for the rape of his sister, Tamar. It seems the most painful loss of all was the loss of Amnon. Eventually, David “lost” Absalom by his death at the hand of Joab and his servants, but David had really “lost” Absalom long before this. He lost him when he killed his brother, Amnon, and then fled to Geshur and the sanctuary offered him by his grandfather, Talmai, King of Geshur and father of his mother, Maacah (2 Samuel 3:3). This loss was never terminated, even though Absalom was allowed to return to Jerusalem, even into the presence of his father. This kind of loss is the most painful for a parent; I say this knowing many of you have experienced such loss.

I am certain those of you who have experienced this loss have also experienced the guilt which often accompanies it. At first glance, our text may appear to add to this guilt. Does it not seem that David brought about much of the pain he experienced? Was David's loss of Absalom not the result of his bad parenting? Was it not David who knew of the rape of Tamar, and though greatly angered, did nothing about it? Was it not David who allowed Absalom to live in Geshur, then only reluctantly allowed him to return, and then not to see his face until virtually pressured into doing so? Is Absalom not the product of a home that failed?

I must confess that at first this was my opinion. I was well on my way to pointing out David's parental failures and suggesting that these failures brought about the downfall and ultimate death of his son, Absalom. I no longer see it quite that way. It is not that David is without sin or failure, but it is clear that Absalom's downfall is the result of his own sin, of his own choices. In the midst of the heartache and pain caused by the “loss” of Absalom, I believe God is graciously ministering to David, drawing him ever more closely to Himself, and making him even more of a man after God's own heart. The story is filled with intrigue and much sorrow, but there is also much comfort and assurance to be found as we heed this inspired account in God's Word.

Background

The story begins long before our text. In 1 Samuel 8, the leaders of the nation Israel confronted Samuel and demanded that he appoint a king to rule over them. This greatly displeased both Samuel and God, for the hearts of the people were not right before God. At God's instruction, Samuel warned the people of the high price of having a king (chapter 8). A little later, Samuel rebuked the people for their sin, reminding them of God's faithfulness in fulfilling His promises, in bringing them into the land, and in giving them possession of it (chapter 12). God made it clear through Samuel that a king would not, and could not, save them; it was He who had saved His people, and He who would continue to do so. If the people and their king trusted God and obeyed Him, God would continue to deliver His people and to bless them. If not, “both you and your king will be swept away” (1 Samuel 12:25b).

Saul was chosen and designated by God to be Israel's first king. By and large, he did his job well (1 Samuel 14:47-48). In some areas, Saul did better than David. So far as we are told, he did not multiply wives, horses, or wealth (see Deuteronomy 17:14-20). He is not said to have committed adultery as David did. He did subdue many of the enemies of Israel. His great sins were those of rebellion against God, first in failing to wait for Samuel and in offering sacrifices (1 Samuel 13), then in failing to totally annihilate the Amalekites (1 Samuel 15), and then by seeking guidance from a medium rather than from God (1 Samuel 28).

David was a great king and a man after God's heart. His great sin regarding Uriah and his wife Bathsheba was an exception to the rule, but it was nevertheless a monumental sin (1 Kings 15:5). The key to understanding what is happening in our text is found in the indictment of David by Nathan:

7 Nathan then said to David, “You are the man! Thus says the LORD God of Israel, 'It is I who anointed you king over Israel and it is I who delivered you from the hand of Saul. 8 'I also gave you your master's house and your master's wives into your care, and I gave you the house of Israel and Judah; and if that had been too little, I would have added to you many more things like these! 9 'Why have you despised the word of the LORD by doing evil in His sight? You have struck down Uriah the Hittite with the sword, have taken his wife to be your wife, and have killed him with the sword of the sons of Ammon. 10 'Now therefore, the sword shall never depart from your house, because you have despised Me and have taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be your wife.' 11 “Thus says the LORD, 'Behold, I will raise up evil against you from your own household; I will even take your wives before your eyes and give them to your companion, and he will lie with your wives in broad daylight. 12 'Indeed you did it secretly, but I will do this thing before all Israel, and under the sun”' (2 Samuel 12:7-12).

All the power, riches, and glory of David were given to him by God. The explanation for David's prosperity was not to be found in David's greatness, but in God's grace. God indicated to David that, had he asked, He would have given him “. . . many more things like these.” David wanted more, but rather than obey God and ask Him for more, he took Bathsheba, the wife of Uriah, and then he took Uriah's life. God graciously “took away” David's sin so that he did not have to die as the law required. Nevertheless, there were certain consequences. The first was the death of David's first son by Bathsheba (2 Samuel 12:14-23). The second is the rape of his daughter, Tamar, by his own son (and Tamar's half-brother, Amnon; 2 Samuel 13:1-19). Next is the death of Amnon at the hand (or, more accurately, at the command) of Absalom, David's son and Tamar's brother (2 Samuel 13:20-36). As a result, David lost another son, Absalom, who had to flee from Israel and find sanctuary in Geshur, the land ruled by his grandfather, Talmai (2 Samuel 13:37). Absalom is not literally dead yet, but he is certainly lost to David, and for all intents and purposes will continue to be until, and including, the time of his death at the hand of Joab (2 Samuel 18).

The purpose of this message is to focus on Absalom, upon his character and rebellion against his father, and upon the way God used Absalom to discipline David and to draw him closer to Himself. To do this, we must look back to chapter 13, where Absalom's character is first disclosed.

Absalom, Amnon, David, and the Rape of Tamar
(13:1-36)

We studied this text in our previous message, so I will not to go through all the details again here. What I wish to do here is show the early signs of Absalom's rebellion against authority (God's and David's), and the beginnings of a fractured relationship between this son and his father.

We know that Amnon, aided by Jonadab, did a terrible thing to his family, especially to his sister. He deceived his father so that David ordered Tamar to take Amnon “breakfast in bed.” He raped his sister and then refused to do the honorable thing of marrying her. Amnon was not alone in deceiving his father. Absalom was guilty of the same kind of deceit.

It troubled me a great deal to read these words about David:

Now when King David heard of all these matters, he was very angry (2 Samuel 13:21).

I wondered how David could be so angry with Amnon, and yet not do anything. I think I now understand. These words in verse 21 follow not only the account of Amnon's sin, but also of Absalom's interference:

Then Absalom her brother said to her, “Has Amnon your brother been with you? But now keep silent, my sister, he is your brother; do not take this matter to heart.” So Tamar remained and was desolate in her brother Absalom's house (2 Samuel 13:20).

Let's drop back to ponder what biblical justice would have looked like in the case of the rape of Tamar. We might think that Amnon, like his father David, would be deserving of the death penalty. This is not the case, because David committed adultery with a married woman; Amnon raped a virgin. The law was clear about the penalty in such cases:

16 “If a man seduces a virgin who is not engaged, and lies with her, he must pay a dowry for her to be his wife. 17 “If her father absolutely refuses to give her to him, he shall pay money equal to the dowry for virgins (Exodus 22:16-17).

28 “If a man finds a girl who is a virgin, who is not engaged, and seizes her and lies with her and they are discovered, 29 then the man who lay with her shall give to the girl's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall become his wife because he has violated her; he cannot divorce her all his days (Deuteronomy 22:28-29).

Tamar begged Amnon to ask David for her as his wife, and Amnon refused. At the very least, Amnon should have married Tamar after he raped her. This was, in fact, what the law prescribed. Only David's refusal of such a marriage would have prevented it.⁷¹ Why then did this not happen? Why didn't Amnon marry Tamar? It is clear in the story that he wanted nothing more to do with Tamar. This alone would not have prevented the marriage, for Amnon would have had no choice in the matter. What kept Amnon from marrying Tamar was the interference of Absalom, Tamar's brother.

It is clear to me from our text that Absalom had a different punishment in mind:

Jonadab, the son of Shimeah, David's brother, responded, “Do not let my lord suppose they have put to death all the young men, the king's sons, for Amnon alone is dead; because by the intent of Absalom this has been determined since the day that he violated his sister Tamar (13:32).

Absalom hated his half-brother Amnon for what he had done to his sister, Tamar. He had no intention of letting this fellow off as easily as the law would have done. From the day Tamar was raped, Absalom purposed to kill Amnon. It was only a matter of time and opportunity. That is why Absalom acted as reported in verse 20. He told his sister to keep quiet and leave this matter within the family. In other words, she was not to accuse Amnon of this sin. In the legal language of our time, she was not to press charges. She was to leave this matter to Absalom. Furthermore, Absalom took Tamar into his own home, where she remained desolate the rest of her life.⁷²

Absalom's actions paved the way for him to murder Amnon. They prevented Tamar from marriage and children. They prevented David from taking action under the Law of Moses. No wonder David was angry when he heard of all these matters. He was angry because his hands were tied in terms of dealing with Amnon's sin. The rape of Tamar was an unsubstantiated rumor. His hands were tied by Absalom. David, I believe, was angry not only at what Amnon had done, but at what Absalom had done as well.

Absalom's transgressions do not end here. When two years had passed and the opportunity came for Absalom to take Amnon's life, he accomplished this by making David an unwitting accomplice (though somewhat reluctant -- as he smelled a rat in what Absalom proposed, but just couldn't figure out what it was). As Amnon deceived David in getting him to send Tamar to his bedside, so Absalom deceives David by getting him to send Amnon to his ranch.

Absalom, Joab, the Woman
from Tekoa, and the Return of Absalom
(13:37--14:33)

David's initial response, as you would expect, was grief over the death of Amnon. Since he was dead, David was able and willing to move on in his life. As the author of our text puts it, David “was comforted concerning Amnon, since he was dead” (13:39). David's son Amnon was gone; his son Absalom was alive, but hiding as a fugitive from justice in the kingdom of Geshur, ruled by his grandfather, Talmai (see 2 Samuel 3:3). David loved Absalom and wished he could go to him. (He knew that Absalom could not come to him, since he was a murderer and under sentence of death if he returned to Israel.)

Joab knew this about David and set on a course of action to bring Absalom back to Israel. I am not willing to say Joab's motives were pure. I am willing to say that he, like Absalom, seems intent upon obstructing justice. My reading of this chapter is somewhat related to an assumption that Joab's actions are less than noble, so let me begin by giving my reasons for this conclusion.

Though it might appear so at first glance, this “story,” told by the woman from Tekoa is not the same kind of story that Nathan told David which lead to his repentance. Nathan was a prophet; the woman from Tekoa was not. Nathan was sent to David by God; the woman was sent to David by Joab. The woman seems afraid of Joab and not that eager to do what she is told; Nathan came to David confidently. The woman's story was not true; Nathan's story, though fictional, accurately depicted David's sin. Nathan's story ends and leads to the indictment, “You are the man!” The widow's story does not indict David with sin, but with inconsistency. When Nathan indicted David for his sin, David willingly acknowledged his sin; when the widow reaches the bottom line of Joab's plot, David reluctantly grants Joab's request. Joab seems too grateful for David's consent, as though this was a personal favor to him rather than the decision to do the right thing.

David rightly seems to “smell a rat” as his encounter with the woman from Tekoa comes to a conclusion. That “rat” is Joab. When pressed to tell the “whole truth and nothing but the truth” (that it was Joab), the woman tells David it was all Joab's idea, and that she was reluctant to carry out his plan. She seems almost relieved that the deception is over. She tells David that Joab orchestrated this whole incident in order to “change the appearance of things” (verse 20). That does not sound like she is saying, “I did all this at Joab's instruction, so that you would do what was right.”

Joab's later actions (not to mention some of his earlier ones, like murdering Abner) seem to betray an ulterior motive on his part. David's love for Absalom almost seems to be a weak spot, which Joab seeks to exploit for his own benefit. In Absalom's rebellion against David, we hardly hear of Joab. Absalom made Amasa the commander of Israel's army (that is, the army of those who chose to follow Absalom). When David fought Absalom and his forces, Joab was apparently not acting as the commander of all the army, but as the commander of a third of David's forces (2 Samuel 18:2). Joab was, of course, the one who would kill Absalom, even when David gave orders to “deal gently with him” (18:5, 11-15). When David regained the throne, he replaced Joab with Amasa (19:13), but Joab eventually killed him with the help of his brother Abishai (20:8-10). And finally, when David was old and Adonijah sought to assert himself as David's successor rather than Solomon, Joab joined him, which cost him his life (1 Kings 2:28-33).

Absalom was a murderer and chose political asylum in Geshur with his grandfather. David was not wrong to still love this son and yearn to see him. But it would not have been right for David to pardon him so he could return. It would not even have been right to visit him in Geshur. Using trickery and deception, Joab pursued his own self-serving agenda in seeking to manipulate David into bringing Absalom back to Israel.

The woman from Tekoa came to David, pleading for his help. When David asked her what the trouble was, she told him. Observing the interchange between David and this woman is something like watching a tennis match. Each time the woman “serves” David with a request, David responds, only to have the woman return with another request, until she finally has a commitment from David. After she gets this commitment, she then applies her situation and David's response to David's situation with his son, Absalom.

Woman's first petition: “I am a widow who had two sons. These two sons got into a fight in the field, and there was no one to stop them”⁷³ And so it was that one brother killed the other. If there was no one there to stop them, neither was there anyone present to witness just what happened. The killing could have been self-defense. One could hardly assume it was first degree (pre-meditated) murder. If this case were to be settled in the city gate of a city of refuge, it is hard to believe the surviving son would be handed over to be executed by the avengers of the dead man.

David's response: “Why don't you go home and let me think about this? I'll send you my answer, later.”

Woman's second attempt. “I can see, O king, that this is a difficult situation, and that you would really rather not involve yourself in it. I can understand this, and so I'll just go my way and keep doing what I have been doing (hiding the surviving son), and taking the heat. I'll be the guilty one, and you will be guiltless.”

David's response: “Now wait just a minute! I didn't mean that I would do nothing. I just wanted to think this matter over more carefully. I'll tell you what I will do. If anyone else gives you any grief over this matter, you just bring them to me, and I'll take care of them for you.”

Woman's third response: “Well, that's very kind of the king. But wouldn't it be easier and better if you just made a ruling on this matter, so that you don't have to deal with those who trouble me one at a time? If you declare that no one is to harm the lad, then he will be safe, and I won't have to keep him in hiding. And while you're at it, if you make this ruling with a divine oath, people will know you are really serious about it. (Also, it will probably make this ruling irreversible.)”

David's response: “O.K., you've got the ruling you asked for. 'As the Lord lives, not one hair of your son shall fall to the ground.'“

Woman's fourth response: “I thank you very much, O king, but doesn't your ruling on my behalf pose a problem for you? How can you rule to protect the life of my son and yet not do the same with your son, Absalom? We know that we are all going to die someday, but God does not delight in death. He seeks ways to keep men alive and to bring back those alienated from Him. Why are you not doing the same thing, seeking to find ways to spare the life of Absalom, and to bring him back to Israel?”

David's response: “Whoa! All of a sudden, it is beginning to look as though this entire conversation has more to do with me and my son than with you and yours. This feels very much to me like the kind of thing Joab would do. Tell me the truth, is Joab the one behind all this?”

Woman's fifth response: “O king, who can pull the wool over your eyes? Certainly not me. You are so wise as to see the truth of the matter. Yes, it was Joab who was behind all this. I didn't really want to do this, but I was afraid, especially of Joab. Joab did this to change the appearance of things, in order to look good.”

David's response: “All right, Joab,⁷⁴ I will grant your request, so deviously made through this woman. Go and bring back my son Absalom.”

I readily admit this is a very loose paraphrase of the dialogue which takes place between David and the woman from Tekoa, but it does seem to convey the sense of what appears to happen here. Carefully, using Joab's words, this woman is able to get David to commit himself to the safety of her son. Finally, David rules with a divine oath that this son is not to be harmed. Now the woman can appeal to the precedent David has just set (which it seems cannot be changed) and press David to deal similarly with his own son (whose guilt is much more clear).

David gives in, reluctantly, to Joab's prodding. He tells Joab that he can bring Absalom back to Israel. The assumption is that he will not allow anyone (any avenger) to take Absalom's life. But somewhere along the line, David considers what he has done and makes a change in plans. Absalom is not to be brought back to Israel as though an innocent man, free to come and go as he pleases. Absalom is to be under “house arrest,” confined to Jerusalem and his own house.⁷⁵

I may be reading too much into the text, but is there not a kind of poetic justice here, with David confining Absalom to his own house? On the one hand, Absalom is still a murderer who has not been brought to justice. To have him “confined to quarters” is a very practical way of protecting him. It is also a way of keeping him out of circulation. After all, David agreed to his return against his better judgment, it seems. But I am also reminded of the fact that it was Absalom who confined his sister Tamar to quarters. By confining Tamar to his house, Absalom kept her quiet. He also kept her desolate. All of this enabled him to carry out his evil plan to murder Amnon. Now, it somehow seems appropriate that Absalom himself should be confined to the same quarters in which he confined his sister for the rest of her life.

Absalom has a great deal going for him. He is a good looking man, without a single flaw. His hair is his crowning glory, and everybody knows it. He has three sons and a beautiful daughter, who also adds to his standing. He is, so to speak, the Princess Diana of that day. David is becoming the Prince Charles, and all due to Absalom's very careful and deliberate scheme. But more of this in a moment. First we must see how Absalom gains full freedom.

After two years of house arrest, Absalom has had it. He is angry and frustrated. Since he cannot leave his house, Absalom summons Joab and is ignored. After a second attempt to gain an audience with Joab in his home, Absalom takes more extreme measures. He sends his servants out to set Joab's field (which adjoined his own field) ablaze. This certainly gets Joab's attention! He is soon there to confront Absalom, but instead it is Absalom who confronts him. Why is he confined to quarters? If this is all there is for Absalom, he will be better off in Geshur, for there he is a free man. Absalom demands to see the king's face.

It is what Absalom says next which is most troubling to me. “And if there is iniquity in me, let him put me to death” (verse 32). It sounds a little bit like some more familiar words to us: “Give me liberty, or give me death!” But how can Absalom speak this way? Does he really believe he is without guilt? Does he not think himself worthy of the death penalty? It would seem so. And if this is true, then he once again reveals that he has no regard for God's law. He wanted the death penalty for Amnon, though the law did not require it. He thinks the death penalty harsh and inappropriate for him, though he is a murderer under the law. This is a man who manifests absolutely no repentance.

Putting David Down Before the People
(15:1-12)

Nevertheless, Joab takes this mandate to king David, who relents and allows Absalom to come into his presence. He kisses Absalom, and no doubt thinks that this should be the end of it all. Now Absalom has access to the king and freedom to go about wherever he may choose. And when he goes about, it is certainly in style. He acquires a chariot and horses and 50 men who serve as runners. (No avenger is going to try to do Absalom in with so many bodyguards around!)

Absalom would have been a great politician. Come to think of it, that is exactly what he was! Every day Absalom would station himself on the road to Jerusalem (just out of sight of the city and his father, no doubt). What an impressive sight he must have been. A strikingly handsome man with a head of hair that women would die for. I would imagine his chariot was parked in sight of all who passed by, along with his 50 runners. Every visual impression smacked of royalty and class.

Absalom would call out to those passing by, asking from where they came and why they had come. He greeted all in a way they would remember. Can you imagine, for example, if you were driving down LBJ freeway and someone waved your car over to a parked limousine? The door opens, and the Vice President of the United States steps out, engaging you in conversation. When you seek to show your respect, he grasps you firmly by the hand and gives you a great big “Okie” (Oklahoma) “hug your neck,” refusing to allow you to honor him. Wow! That would be quite a meeting -- one you would never forget.

But there's more. Not only does Absalom come out looking good, he causes David to come out looking very bad. When Absalom learns that the traveler is coming to Jerusalem to seek justice, he tells the traveler that he is terribly sorry to inform him that the king has made no provisions for judging cases. (This, of course, is a lie, for we just read about David hearing a “widow's” case and ruling in her favor.) Absalom tells the person that it is especially sad because from what he has been told of the case, the judge would have ruled in their favor. They would have won their case, except for the fact that David had no one appointed to hear it. You just couldn't get justice with David on the throne. And then, with great skill, Absalom makes it known that if he were judging in Israel, he would see to it that such people were heard, and that he would rule in their favor. One just couldn't get justice with David; but with Absalom it would be an entirely different matter.

Not only is Absalom a liar (in saying there is no one to hear their case), he is a hypocrite. Just what kind of “justice” would he mete out? The kind of “justice” he was sure that Amnon received? The kind of justice his own sister received? The kind of “justice” he himself got? Absalom is no friend of justice or of the oppressed. He just gets people to think he is their friend. And it works! Absalom wins the hearts of the people. He is now ready to make his move.

After four years⁷⁶ of running David down and building himself up in the eyes of the people, Absalom was ready to make his move. His plan was to make his debut as king where David did, and where he was born, Hebron (2 Samuel 3:2-3). First, he had to find a way to get there without arousing David's curiosity or suspicion. He went to his father and told him that he had made a vow while he was living in Geshur.⁷⁷ He vowed that if God ever granted him the privilege of returning to Israel he would pay his vow to the Lord in Hebron. Now, he indicated, was the time to do so. David granted him permission to leave. He sent him away “in peace.” It was most certainly not going to result in “peace.”

Absalom took 200 men from Jerusalem with him to Hebron. These men had no idea what he had in mind. But Absalom had sent word throughout the tribes of Israel that when the trumpet was blown, this was a signal for them to proclaim their allegiance to him, rather than to David. In addition to this, Absalom had managed to recruit Ahithophel the Gilonite, David's counselor. Ahithophel was a most gifted man; his counsel was exceedingly wise:

The advice of Ahithophel, which he gave in those days, was as if one inquired of the word of God; so was all the advice of Ahithophel regarded by both David and Absalom (2 Samuel 16:23).

The loss of Ahithophel to Absalom was a major blow. One must wonder how a fellow so wise could choose to align himself with Absalom. Nevertheless, God would make use of Ahithophel. He would use his counsel to bring about the fulfillment of prophecy (compare 2 Samuel 12:11-12 and 2 Samuel 16:20-22), and He would thwart his counsel in order to save David from the hand of Absalom (2 Samuel 17:1-14).

Conclusion

How sad to read all this. The author does not pull any punches here. The “trail of tears” began with David's sin concerning Uriah and his wife, Bathsheba. It began with the agony of David's soul, even before he repented and confessed his sin (see Psalm 32:3-4). It continued with the death of the first son born to David and the wife of Uriah. Soon, David's own daughter (Tamar) was raped by one of his sons, and then this son (Amnon) was murdered by yet another son (Absalom). Absalom flees to Gerar, and David yearns to see him, but knows he cannot. Then, manipulated by the deception of Joab, David is compelled to bring Absalom back to Israel. This is not a pleasant experience either. When Absalom gains his freedom, he uses it to undermine David's reputation and standing with the people. Next comes his rebellion, and the division of Israel, and finally the death of Absalom at the hand of Joab. It is, indeed, a trail of tears.

In the midst of all this suffering and adversity, I must once again emphasize that God is not punishing David for his sins here. Nathan made it very clear David would not undergo the (death) penalty for his sin, because the “Lord had taken his sin away” (2 Samuel 12:13) Here is one of the very common errors Christians make; namely, that whenever a person suffers, it is because they are being punished for their sin. Job's friends believed this and continually sought to compel him to repent (see Job 4 and 5). Our Lord's disciples assumed the man born blind was this way because of someone's sin (John 9:1-2). There are those whose suffering is the direct result of their sin (see Deuteronomy 28:15ff.), but this is not always the explanation for suffering. Sometimes the righteous suffer for being righteous (1 Peter 4).

And then there are other times when the saints suffer because they are the “sons of God,” who are being prepared for glory (see Hebrews 12). Even our Lord suffered in order to prepare Him for his glory (see Hebrews 2:10-18; 5:7-10; Philippians 2:5-11). I am not saying here that David's suffering was unrelated to his sin. I am saying that his suffering was not punishment for his sin, but divine discipline, which was designed to draw him closer to God and to cling more loosely to the things of this world (compare 2 Corinthians 4:16-18).

One of the things God is doing in the disciplining of David is to allow David to see his sin from a different point of view. Callously, David took Bathsheba, lay with her, and killed her husband. In this he used (or abused) his power as God's king to accomplish his sin. Now God is graciously allowing David to view his sin from a different perspective. Did David abuse his relationship with God, using his power to pursue his own interests? Joab seems to be doing the same thing in our text. Amnon abused his power in taking Tamar, much as I believe David took Bathsheba. Absalom too abused his power, undermining David while seeking to gain his throne. Did David seek to deceive Saul about his absence? Now Absalom deceived David about his absence. Did David seek to deceive Uriah to cover his sin? David is deceived by Amnon, then Absalom, then Joab and the woman from Tekoa. Did David, God's “son” (see 2 Samuel 7:8-17), rebel against God in his sin? Now David's son(s) will rebel against him. Does David abuse his power, oppressing those who were powerless to oppose him? Now David will experience powerlessness as Absalom cuts off all opportunity for David to execute justice, for his daughter Tamar, for Absalom, and even for the people of Israel (2 Samuel 15:2-6). David now is able to see his sin in a different light, as it is replayed by others.

This text has much to say about parenting. Even a cursory reading of the Bible should make it amply clear that there were no perfect parents. Even the most godly men and women failed in their parenting (think of Eli, Samuel, Saul, and now David). We should all purpose before God to be better parents. This is not because “good parenting” guarantees godly children, but because “good parenting” pleases God. We should seek to be good parents because this is what God requires of us.

When our children fail, as they will, we should not heap all kinds of blame and guilt upon ourselves, as though we were entirely the cause of it all. Look at the sons of David we have seen thus far. Amnon was a worthless fellow, a fool. Solomon will be the wisest man who ever lived. Adonijah will seek to usurp the throne from his brother. Absalom will thwart justice, murder his brother, and turn against his father. I am sure that in the case of Absalom, David's failures adversely affected this son. Having said this, I do not believe that our text was written to show us how bad a father David was, but rather to show us how disobedient a son Absalom was. This disobedience was due to the choices Absalom himself made. And this disobedience was used of God to discipline David, to make him a man more after His own heart.

Please do not leave this message or this text feeling like a failure, overcome with guilt, because one of your children has been “lost” to you in some way. Your sins do play a part in your child's life, but that child, like Absalom, has to decide whether or not to trust and obey. If they do not, the guilt is not all yours; it may not be yours at all. But if you are a Christian, then I can assure you that God will use even your child's rebellion to perfect you and to draw you into a more intimate relationship with Him. Sometimes our children are our “god,” and this is one way God has of getting our priorities straight. In the Old Testament in particular I find that family failures are often a part of God's great plan and program for His people. They do not prevent God from doing as He has promised; often they are the means by which God does fulfill His promises.

I think there is a lesson to be learned here about discipline, in this case discipline within the family. David wanted to be restored to fellowship with his son, Absalom. He knew better than to ignore or distort the law in order to facilitate such a reunion. David was tricked into allowing his son to return, even though he knew better. We may think that David was cold and uncaring when he refused to allow Absalom to see his face. I do not agree. I think David understood that reconciliation can only follow repentance, and that it cannot precede it. David was angered, not only by Amnon's rape of Tamar, but by Absalom's obstruction of justice and murder of Amnon. David could not be reconciled to Absalom until Absalom had repented, and until David's anger had been “propitiated” (a fancy theological term for having his anger appeased or satisfied). When Joab tricked David into letting Absalom return, he did so in a way that did not facilitate repentance or reconciliation. If we are going to blame anyone for Absalom’s sin (other than Absalom, who bears the primary responsibility), it would have to be Joab rather than David, because Joab sought to bring about reconciliation without repentance.

I am reminded of the story of Joseph and his brothers. Joseph's brothers had sinned against him greatly by kidnapping him and selling him into slavery. We know from the story of Joseph that he loved his brothers, and he yearned to be reconciled with them. But he could not do so until they had repented. And so we see the prolonged saga of these men's two trips to Egypt, culminating in their genuine repentance. It was then that Joseph revealed his identity. They had repented, and Joseph had forgiven them. Now reconciliation was possible. So it was required in David's relationship with Absalom, but Joab's efforts only tended to hinder reconciliation rather than facilitate it.

I know many parents who so desperately yearn for a relationship with their children that they refuse to discipline them. And when they have rebelled, they are so eager to get them back they welcome their children with open arms, when there has been no repentance, and thus there can be no real reconciliation. The same is true in the church. If there is to be true unity in the church, genuine fellowship among the saints, then there must be rebuke, discipline, and repentance before there can be reconciliation and reunion.

David's son Absalom has something to teach us. It is a lesson in what true submission is and is not. I think we can agree that Absalom is a man who “bites the hand that feeds him.” Absalom lacks any sense of debt to his father, and there is no evidence of gratitude on his part. But more than this, there is absolutely no true submission to his father-king. Like Satan of old, Absalom sees himself as “next in line” for the throne. He does not submit himself to his father. Instead he uses his position and power to undermine his father's authority and to disrupt his kingdom. Behind his father's back, he speaks ill of his father, making him look bad in the eyes of others. And all of this is done to “get ahead.”

How many of us do the same thing in the workplace? How many of us talk about the boss to our fellow employees, behind his back? How many of us try to make our superiors look bad and to make ourselves look good? How many wives undermine the authority and dignity of their husbands with their children? How many husbands do the same with their wives (talking to their children or their peers about their wife's failures, real or contrived)? How often the same thing happens in the church. Those who have exposure and visibility cast doubt on the church leaders' ability, on their decisions, on their leadership, while at the same time making it known that they would do much better if they were at the helm? Absalom is a warning to us all about submission and its counterpart, rebellion.

Finally, as I conclude this lesson I would like to leave you with this thought: The very thing that David was willing to do -- but could not do -- to save his son Absalom, is that which God has done through His Son, and in so doing, has made many “sons.” In chapter 18 and verse 33, David expresses his wish that he could have died in Absalom's place. It could not be so, and even if it were so, it would not have benefited Absalom. David could not save his son Absalom any more than we can save our children. But God has accomplished what man cannot accomplish. God gave up His sinless Son, Jesus Christ, to suffer and die on the cross of Calvary, as the payment for the guilt of our sins. He gave up His beloved Son so that our sins might be forgiven, and so that we might become His sons. What no man can do (save their loved ones), God can do. God has provided the forgiveness of sins and sonship which we desperately need. He has provided this through only one means, the sacrificial death, burial, and resurrection of His Son, Jesus Christ. If you would be reconciled to God, you must acknowledge your sin, your rebellion against God, and accept the free gift of the forgiveness of your sins and eternal life which He offers to you. I pray that you have received this gift, and that if you have not, you will.

---

71 There is, of course, the matter of Tamar being Amnon’s half-sister. This presents a problem, but if they had married, she would have been to Amnon exactly what Sarah was to Abraham, a wife who was also a half-sister. For our purposes, however, I will set this question aside and assume that a marriage was possible, as Tamar assumed.

72 Initially I thought Absalom did what he did for his sister’s benefit. The more I read the story, the more I am convinced that Absalom sacrificed the interests of his sister for his own interest of getting revenge.

73 My friend informed me that in the Middle East, it is assumed that the fight must continue until someone intervenes to stop it. Sometimes a fight begins and one or both parties hopes for an intervention so they can cease fighting with honor. If there is no one to stop them, they must fight to the death. Such could be the case in our text.

74 One has the distinct impression that Joab has been there, beside the woman from Tekoa, prompting her as she recited her script. The text does not say that David sent for Joab, but that he spoke to Joab. From this text, I would gather that Joab was there the whole time the woman was speaking to David.

75 This may seem to be a bit of a reach on my part at first, but consider the following. David instructed Absalom to turn to his own house (verse 24). Absalom was not to see David’s face, which certainly could have happened if both freely visited about Jerusalem and elsewhere. Absalom got very tired of this situation, but he had to summon Joab to his house; he did not go to Joab or David. I think this is because he could not leave his house. But when full freedom is given to Absalom, he makes his comings and goings very conspicuous, with a chariot and 50 runners before him.

76 You will note the footnote in the NASB, which indicates that while the Hebrew text seems to indicate “forty,” there are other manuscripts which indicate “four,” which certainly appears to be required in the context.

77 I may very well be reading too much into this, but it does seem quite a coincidence that Absalom would explain his absence from the king (David) with nearly the same excuse David gave for his absence from his king (Saul; see 1 Samuel 20:1-34). Is it possible that God did not deal with David about his deception until now, when he could see, once again, how it felt to be on the receiving end of the same sin?

Introduction

The first paragraphs of our text sound like the introductory scene of the old television series, “Mission Impossible.” In “Mission Impossible,” Mr. Phelps was always given a vitally important task -- one which seemed virtually impossible to accomplish. Our text starts out almost the same way. Absalom is finally about to declare himself King of Israel, in place of his father. When David gets word of this impending revolution, he chooses to flee from Jerusalem, along with a number of his faithful followers. The preceding paragraphs are filled with tears as David must leave Jerusalem behind and flee toward the wilderness. He leaves Hushai, his faithful friend, and Zadok and Abiathar the priests (along with the ark), to remain in Jerusalem where they will be of more service to him. Zadok is a prophet, so he can give David an accurate (inspired) assessment of what Absalom is doing. The sons of Zadok and Abiathar, Ahimaaz and Jonathan, can serve as messengers to relay word from Zadok to David. David will wait for word from Zakok “at the fords of the wilderness,” just west of the Jordan, until he learns what Absalom has in mind.

Absalom has arrived at Jerusalem and taken possession of this royal city. He then calls Ahithophel and asks for his counsel about how he may best establish himself as king. Ahithophel's counsel comes in two parts, unfortunately separated (artificially) by the chapter division (chapter 17). The first part of Ahithophel's advice is that he should possess the throne symbolically by publicly sleeping with the ten wives David left behind to keep house in Jerusalem. This will send a very clear message to all Israel about his relationship to his father and to his throne.

The second part of Ahithophel's counsel is recorded in verses 1-3 of chapter 17. Ahithophel counsels Absalom to quickly pursue David, isolate him, and kill him, thus demoralizing David's followers and insuring his reign as king in David's place. The idea sounds good to Absalom and to all the elders of Israel, but Absalom decides to ask Hushai's advice as well. Hushai is summoned, and upon his arrival is told what counsel Ahithophel has already given.

How would you like to be in Hushai's sandals? He knows Absalom doubts his loyalty, because he has been David's friend (16:16-19). He must know that Absalom and all the elders have already given their approval to Ahithophel's plan. In addition, he knows Absalom's confidence in Ahithophel is great, for his counsel is as though one had “inquired of the word of God” (16:23). Hushai also is David's friend, and he knows David's life may depend on the response he gives to Absalom. Would you not agree that this is certainly a predicament fittingly called “mission impossible”?

There is a bit of a danger here because you and I know something else. David has already prayed that God would somehow nullify the counsel of Ahithophel (15:31). We will also be told in our text, “the LORD ordained to thwart the good counsel of Ahithophel, in order that the LORD might bring calamity on Absalom” (17:14). We might be inclined to minimize the difficulty of Hushai's task, as though Absalom and the elders of Israel must embrace Hushai's counsel no matter how foolish it might be. We are therefore inclined to think of Hushai's counsel as groundless and foolish, but accepted by Absalom and his servants because their eyes are blinded to the truth of the matter.

I would like to suggest that Hushai is given great wisdom by God, and that his plan makes perfect sense, when viewed from Absalom's point of view. We should also be careful about thinking of Ahithophel's counsel as “good” in a moral sense. It is a good plan in that, if followed, it seems it would result in David's death and in the consolidation of Absalom's rule over Israel. It is not “good” in any moral sense, for it sanctions -- no, it recommends -- the killing of God's anointed king. It is not “good” in that it urges Absalom to commit adultery by sleeping with his father's wives. Neither, I think, is it good in that Ahithophel has his own sinful ambitions and agenda which prompt him to give his counsel to Absalom.

This passage is filled with intrigue and all the elements needed for excellent drama. It is also a passage that describes David in the darkest hours of his life. I do not think David has ever been so overwhelmed by sorrow and suffering and grief as he is here. Let us look to God's dealings with David in such times, for we have all known in some measure the sorrow and sadness David experiences here. If there is deliverance and hope for David in these dark hours, then there is hope for us as well when we pass through the “valley of the shadow of death.”

Ahithophel's Counsel
(16:20--17:4)

16:20 Then Absalom said to Ahithophel, “Give your advice. What shall we do?” 21 Ahithophel said to Absalom, “Go in to your father's concubines, whom he has left to keep the house; then all Israel will hear that you have made yourself odious to your father. The hands of all who are with you will also be strengthened.” 22 So they pitched a tent for Absalom on the roof, and Absalom went in to his father's concubines in the sight of all Israel. 23 The advice of Ahithophel, which he gave in those days, was as if one inquired of the word of God; so was all the advice of Ahithophel regarded by both David and Absalom. 17:1 Furthermore, Ahithophel said to Absalom, “Please let me choose 12,000 men that I may arise and pursue David tonight. 2 “I will come upon him while he is weary and exhausted and terrify him, so that all the people who are with him will flee. Then I will strike down the king alone, 3 and I will bring back all the people to you. The return of everyone depends on the man you seek; then all the people will be at peace.” 4 So the plan pleased Absalom and all the elders of Israel.

It has taken me a good while to get a feel for this text. At first I was too inclined to separate in time the first part of Ahithophel's counsel from the second. I assumed Absalom sought Ahithophel's counsel and got it, as it relates to the “possession” of David's wives left in Jerusalem. I somehow managed to believe for a day or two that Absalom “possessed” David's wives, in the sight of all. Then, I thought, Absalom came back to Ahithophel for a second word of counsel, followed by a second opinion by Hushai. This can hardly be so.

First, let us think of the events of our chapter only in terms of timing. David learns Absalom is about to possess the throne and flees Jerusalem. He has with him his wives and children, some who are older which means he can hardly march double-time. The whole account is written in a way that underscores the urgency of haste. Absalom and his men are virtually hours behind David. If word is not sent to David immediately, and if he does not vanish into the wilderness quickly, Absalom will overtake David and those with him.

David flees from Jerusalem while Absalom is not far behind, ready to occupy Jerusalem and the throne. Absalom asks for Ahithophel's counsel after he arrives in Jerusalem, and Ahithophel gives it -- in two parts. The first part is his recommendation to Absalom as to what he should do -- possess David's wives. The second part pertains to what Ahithophel personally proposes to do for Absalom -- take command of 12,000 men immediately, set out in pursuit of David this very night, and then overtake him in a way that terrifies David and his followers. Ahithophel volunteers to personally kill David alone, thus minimizing bloodshed, and then consolidate the kingdom in short order.

If we take note of the pronouns in the text above, we will see that Ahithophel has a recommended course of action for Absalom and a recommended course of action for himself. I believe Ahithophel intends for these to be undertaken simultaneously, and not sequentially. The plan Ahithophel recommends is thus: (1) Absalom will devote himself to the task of possessing David's wives, in the sight of all Israel. (2) While Absalom is thus occupied, Ahithophel will take command of 12,000 men and set out in hot pursuit of David, whom they will overtake, and he will personally kill David, thus making the possession of the kingdom complete, in very short order.

Ahithophel's counsel is exceedingly “shrewd” in several ways. First, it would have worked, barring the direct intervention of God. Second, it offered an appealing course of action to Absalom. He, not unlike his father David, can stay home from the battle and “make love” while Ahithophel and his army are making war with David. Absalom can quickly enter into his possession of the throne, yet without the dangers or discomforts of going into battle. As an added incentive, he can indulge himself with David's wives in a way that gets back at David and hurts and humiliates his father. Only David will be killed, who is Absalom's real enemy.

When we are told that Absalom takes Ahithophel's counsel regarding David's wives, I believe he carries this out while all Israel is being assembled to do battle, rather than while Ahithophel leads the 12,000 in pursuit of David. If this is the case -- and it seems necessary to see it so -- then we are given a slightly different perspective of the possession of David's wives by Absalom. It does fulfill the words of Nathan the prophet. It is a symbolic statement by Absalom which is most painful for David. But at the same time it is a part of God's bigger plan to delay the pursuit of David so that he can escape, retrench, and defeat Absalom, and then return as Israel's king. Some of the most painful events in our life may also be some of the most fruitful in producing the good God wants for us. Ahithophel and Absalom mean this for evil (and for their own satisfaction), but God means it for good (see Genesis 50:20).

Ahithophel proposes a quick, easy victory for Absalom, won by Ahithophel while the “king” remains behind in Jerusalem. It is almost too good to be true. The fact is it would have worked, but God had other plans for David and for Absalom. Those plans are brought to pass through David's friends: Hushai, Zadok and Abiathar the priests, their sons Ahimaaz and Jonathan, a farmer's wife in Bahurim, and a number of other faithful friends and supporters of David. It is the story of David's deliverance we are now about to consider.

Hushai's Counsel
(17:5-14)

5 Then Absalom said, “Now call Hushai the Archite also, and let us hear what he has to say.” 6 When Hushai had come to Absalom, Absalom said to him, “Ahithophel has spoken thus. Shall we carry out his plan? If not, you speak.” 7 So Hushai said to Absalom, “This time the advice that Ahithophel has given is not good.” 8 Moreover, Hushai said, “You know your father and his men, that they are mighty men and they are fierce, like a bear robbed of her cubs in the field. And your father is an expert in warfare, and will not spend the night with the people. 9 “Behold, he has now hidden himself in one of the caves or in another place; and it will be when he falls on them at the first attack, that whoever hears it will say, 'There has been a slaughter among the people who follow Absalom.' 10 “And even the one who is valiant, whose heart is like the heart of a lion, will completely lose heart; for all Israel knows that your father is a mighty man and those who are with him are valiant men. 11 “But I counsel that all Israel be surely gathered to you, from Dan even to Beersheba, as the sand that is by the sea in abundance, and that you personally go into battle. 12 “So we shall come to him in one of the places where he can be found, and we will fall on him as the dew falls on the ground; and of him and of all the men who are with him, not even one will be left. 13 “If he withdraws into a city, then all Israel shall bring ropes to that city, and we will drag it into the valley until not even a small stone is found there.” 14 Then Absalom and all the men of Israel said, “The counsel of Hushai the Archite is better than the counsel of Ahithophel.” For the LORD had ordained to thwart the good counsel of Ahithophel, so that the LORD might bring calamity on Absalom.

We are not told why Absalom seeks a second opinion from Hushai. Is it a kind of test of Hushai's loyalty? You may remember that he does not have time to reflect on what he should say. He was brought into Absalom's presence, told what Ahithophel had advised, and then asked to respond. Hushai's response is brilliant. He begins by acknowledging Ahithophel's great wisdom and skill as an advisor, but then goes on to state that his counsel is not good this time. No one is perfect. No one is right all the time. Ahithophel is nearly always right, but not this time.

Hushai has one great handicap: Absalom and everyone else in Israel knows he is David's friend. How can Absalom trust a man who has been David's friend for so long? His counsel must be suspect. Rather than try to avoid this issue, Hushai uses his friendship. It is as though he says to Absalom,

“Am I David's friend? I have been for years, it is true. And it is this very friendship which gives me great insight into this man, David. I know him better than any of you. And therefore I know how he will respond to Absalom's revolt. Let me give you a plan which is based upon the David I knew, and the David which you know is true to history.”

The attractiveness of Ahithophel's plan is that David can be defeated quickly and relatively easily, with a minimal loss of life and a nominal expenditure of energy. Absalom doesn’t need to go to battle at all. He can stay in Jerusalem with David's wives. Ahithophel will immediately set out with 12,000 soldiers and hunt David down, kill him alone, and bring David's followers to Absalom. The plan is also predicated upon certain assumptions. The assumption is that David is weary and defeated in spirit, that David has no will to fight and can be easily overcome. If this assumption is in error, the whole scheme Ahithophel proposes will collapse like a house of cards.

Hushai challenges the assumptions on which Ahithophel's plans are based, and thus the plans as well. He proposes a very different David, and thus a very different plan. Hushai insists that Ahithophel has dangerously underestimated David and his ability to defend himself and his kingdom. Hushai reminds Absalom and the elders of Israel about the kind of man David is. David is no mental weakling; he is a tough and seasoned warrior. Absalom's rebellion will not break David's spirit; it will antagonize him. He will be like a she-bear, deprived of her cubs. David will be fighting mad and fighting ready. If Ahithophel comes into the wilderness to attack David, they will fight him on his turf. After all, David has spent years hiding from Saul in the wilderness. Does Ahithophel really think David can easily be found sitting among the rest of the people? He will be hiding out, and when Ahithophel and his small army arrive, David will pounce on them, giving them a humiliating defeat. It will be Absalom's soldiers who will lose heart and run, not David or his men.

If this assumption is right (and all of David's past fighting experience would seem to bear it out), then a completely different battle plan is required. This will not be a quick and easy matter. It will require much more than the death of David, and thus a much larger army will be necessary to attack and defeat David and his followers. This army will take a little more time to assemble, but it will be necessary to wait. (And while Absalom waits in Jerusalem, he can possess David's wives. This is the only time he can do so.) It will also take a great military leader, rather than someone like Ahithophel. It will take Absalom himself to lead this army. It will be a great battle, with a great leader, and a great victory will be the outcome. Now this is the kind of plan that appeals to a man who rides about in a chariot, preceded by 50 runners. Absalom loves ostentation, and Hushai's plan reeks of it. And thus Hushai's plan prevails. It is not a carelessly proposed plan, but extremely insightful, and extremely appealing. It was a plan God assured would be adopted. It is also a plan that Absalom finds attractive.

Hushai's plan brings about a bigger battle, so that not only will many of Absalom's supporters die, but Absalom himself will be killed, thus ending the revolution.⁸⁵ Hushai's plan gives David the time he needs to get to his kind of battle -- guerrilla warfare. It lets him fight on his turf, so that the forest will kill more than his soldiers (18:8). Hushai's plan makes Ahithophel's counsel seem foolish, which is exactly what David has prayed for (15:31). It brings about the deliverance of David and the defeat of his enemies.

David's Escape to Mahanaim
(17:15-29)

15 Then Hushai said to Zadok and to Abiathar the priests, “This is what Ahithophel counseled Absalom and the elders of Israel, and this is what I have counseled. 16 “Now therefore, send quickly and tell David, saying, 'Do not spend the night at the fords of the wilderness, but by all means cross over, or else the king and all the people who are with him will be destroyed.”' 17 Now Jonathan and Ahimaaz were staying at En-rogel, and a maidservant would go and tell them, and they would go and tell King David, for they could not be seen entering the city. 18 But a lad did see them and told Absalom; so the two of them departed quickly and came to the house of a man in Bahurim, who had a well in his courtyard, and they went down into it. 19 And the woman took a covering and spread it over the well's mouth and scattered grain on it, so that nothing was known. 20 Then Absalom's servants came to the woman at the house and said, “Where are Ahimaaz and Jonathan?” And the woman said to them, “They have crossed the brook of water.” And when they searched and could not find them, they returned to Jerusalem. 21 It came about after they had departed that they came up out of the well and went and told King David; and they said to David, “Arise and cross over the water quickly for thus Ahithophel has counseled against you.” 22 Then David and all the people who were with him arose and crossed the Jordan; and by dawn not even one remained who had not crossed the Jordan. 23 Now when Ahithophel saw that his counsel was not followed, he saddled his donkey and arose and went to his home, to his city, and set his house in order, and strangled himself; thus he died and was buried in the grave of his father. 24 Then David came to Mahanaim. And Absalom crossed the Jordan, he and all the men of Israel with him. 25 Absalom set Amasa over the army in place of Joab. Now Amasa was the son of a man whose name was Ithra the Israelite, who went in to Abigail the daughter of Nahash, sister of Zeruiah, Joab's mother. 26 And Israel and Absalom camped in the land of Gilead. 27 Now when David had come to Mahanaim, Shobi the son of Nahash from Rabbah of the sons of Ammon, Machir the son of Ammiel from Lo-debar, and Barzillai the Gileadite from Rogelim, 28 brought beds, basins, pottery, wheat, barley, flour, parched grain, beans, lentils, parched seeds, 29 honey, curds, sheep, and cheese of the herd, for David and for the people who were with him, to eat; for they said, “The people are hungry and weary and thirsty in the wilderness.”

For the moment at least, Absalom has chosen the counsel of Hushai over that of Ahithophel. While Hushai's plan buys David a little time, it also results in an attack by a much larger army, led by Absalom. It is now a matter of great urgency to inform David about what has transpired. David needs to escape beyond the Jordan to establish a camp that will offer him protection and which will also give him the military position from which to defend himself against the coming attack of Absalom and his followers.

Hushai sends word to Zadok and Abiathar, the priests, informing them concerning his counsel and that of Ahithophel, and instructing them to send word to David by way of Jonathan and Ahimaaz. Jonathan and Ahimaaz are staying at En-rogel, a small village (it seems) located in the valley below the city of Jerusalem. It was apparently a water source just outside Jerusalem, and so women would frequent this place to obtain water. It was probably on this pretext that the maidservant went to inform the two messengers.

Unfortunately, one of Absalom's supporters spotted Jonathan and Ahimaaz, who seem to be known to be loyal to David. This precipitates a search for the two, since it must be apparent they are on their way to report to David. The two men hastily depart and come to the house of another supporter of David, who lives in Bahurim.⁸⁶ There, the wife of David's supporter hides the two men in the well, covering it and then placing grain over the covering, so no hint of the well is seen. Absalom's servants arrive and demand to know where the two men are, and the woman tells them the two have crossed the brook and fled. They are “long gone.” When the servants of Absalom search and find no one, they leave and return to Jerusalem. The two priests' sons quickly run to David's camp to tell them what happened. They urge him to cross the Jordan quickly to find a safe refuge. By dawn, David and all those with him have crossed the river. (Had Ahithophel set out for David the evening before, it would have been a very different story.)

Ahithophel remains in Jerusalem only long enough to be convinced that his counsel is not going to be heeded by Absalom. Once it is clear that Hushai's counsel has prevailed, he knows he is finished. He has gambled everything on the assumption that Absalom will prevail over David. Now he knows that Absalom is destined to be defeated. He makes his way to his own home, sets his business in order, and kills himself. What a tragic end for a man with such great potential.

As Absalom crosses the Jordan in hot pursuit of David, David enters the gates of Mahanaim. This is indeed a city with a history. It was Jacob who gave this city its name. As he was returning to the land of promise, fearful of what would happen when he met his brother Esau, Jacob was met by angels, prompting Jacob to say, “This is God's camp.” And so it was that Jacob named that place Mahanaim (meaning “two camps” -- see the marginal note in the NASB). Was David fearful about meeting up with his son Absalom? He should have remembered that God always protects His people, His promises, His purposes, even by the use of angels, if needed. Mahanaim served briefly as the capital of Ish-bosheth, when Abner set him up in place of his father Saul for a short period of time (2 Samuel 2:8, 12, 29).

God provided for David at Mahanaim in more tangible and visible ways as well. When he and his faithful followers arrived, there were those ready and willing to help. The first named is Shobi, the son of Nahash, and now King of the Ammonites. This is a most amazing thing. David and Nahash had been on relatively friendly terms, but when he died and his son Nahash took the throne, he foolishly humiliated the official delegation David sent to mourn Nahash's death (2 Samuel 10:1ff.). This led to war between Israel and the Ammonites. In fact it was this war with the Ammonites (and specifically the besieging of Rabbah) which David decided to avoid, leaving the battle to the Israelites under Joab's command (2 Samuel 11:1ff.). The Ammonites were finally defeated by David (2 Samuel 12:26-31). And now Shobi is on the throne and eager to come to David's aid when he is opposed by Absalom. What a surprise!

The second supporter to come to David's aid at Mahanaim is Machir the son of Ammiel from Lo-debar (17:27). This is the man who took in Mephibosheth after the death of King Saul and of Jonathan (2 Samuel 9:4-5). Finally Barzillai the Gileadite, an elderly man of great wealth, brought supplies for David and those with him. We learn even more about this fellow in chapter 19, verses 31-40. What an encouragement these men and their assistance must be to David.

The Defeat and the Death of Absalom
(18:1-18)

1 Then David numbered the people who were with him and set over them commanders of thousands and commanders of hundreds. 2 David sent the people out, one third under the command of Joab, one third under the command of Abishai the son of Zeruiah, Joab's brother, and one third under the command of Ittai the Gittite. And the king said to the people, “I myself will surely go out with you also.” 3 But the people said, “You should not go out; for if we indeed flee, they will not care about us; even if half of us die, they will not care about us. But you are worth ten thousand of us; therefore now it is better that you be ready to help us from the city.” 4 Then the king said to them, “Whatever seems best to you I will do.” So the king stood beside the gate, and all the people went out by hundreds and thousands. 5 The king charged Joab and Abishai and Ittai, saying, “Deal gently for my sake with the young man Absalom.” And all the people heard when the king charged all the commanders concerning Absalom. 6 Then the people went out into the field against Israel, and the battle took place in the forest of Ephraim. 7 The people of Israel were defeated there before the servants of David, and the slaughter there that day was great, 20,000 men. 8 For the battle there was spread over the whole countryside, and the forest devoured more people that day than the sword devoured. 9 Now Absalom happened to meet the servants of David. For Absalom was riding on his mule, and the mule went under the thick branches of a great oak. And his head caught fast in the oak, so he was left hanging between heaven and earth, while the mule that was under him kept going. 10 When a certain man saw it, he told Joab and said, “Behold, I saw Absalom hanging in an oak.” 11 Then Joab said to the man who had told him, “Now behold, you saw him! Why then did you not strike him there to the ground? And I would have given you ten pieces of silver and a belt.” 12 The man said to Joab, “Even if I should receive a thousand pieces of silver in my hand, I would not put out my hand against the king's son; for in our hearing the king charged you and Abishai and Ittai, saying, 'Protect for me the young man Absalom!' 13 “Otherwise, if I had dealt treacherously against his life (and there is nothing hidden from the king), then you yourself would have stood aloof.” 14 Then Joab said, “I will not waste time here with you.” So he took three spears in his hand and thrust them through the heart of Absalom while he was yet alive in the midst of the oak. 15 And ten young men who carried Joab's armor gathered around and struck Absalom and killed him. 16 Then Joab blew the trumpet, and the people returned from pursuing Israel, for Joab restrained the people. 17 They took Absalom and cast him into a deep pit in the forest and erected over him a very great heap of stones. And all Israel fled, each to his tent. 18 Now Absalom in his lifetime had taken and set up for himself a pillar which is in the King's Valley, for he said, “I have no son to preserve my name.” So he named the pillar after his own name, and it is called Absalom's Monument to this day.

It is inevitable. David has probably denied its necessity for a long time, but now it is obvious that he cannot run any more; he will have to fight the army of his own son. David divides his army into three divisions. We are not sure how many men fight for David, but we do know the number is in the thousands because the text tells us his men are in groups that have commanders of thousands and hundreds. Joab and Abishai are over two of the divisions, while Ittai the Gittite is over the third division. David assures his men that he is going with them, but the people insist that he stay behind in Mahanaim. If they are to flee, it will be of no importance to Absalom, but if David is among them, they will not stop until they have captured and killed him. It is better for him to be somewhere else.

But as the troops are about to go to war on behalf of their king, David, has some final words for them. It is not the usual pep talk, with all the hype and focus on victory. Neither is it at all like Joab's words, uttered just before the attack waged on the Syrians and the Ammonites:

11 He said, “If the Arameans are too strong for me, then you shall help me, but if the sons of Ammon are too strong for you, then I will come to help you. 12 “Be strong, and let us show ourselves courageous for the sake of our people and for the cities of our God; and may the LORD do what is good in His sight” (2 Samuel 10:11-12).

David's “charge” is very different: “Deal gently for my sake with the young man Absalom” (18:5). Everyone hears these words. How different from the advice of Ahithophel, who intends to kill David alone, and let the rest of the people live. David allows his men to kill any other Israelite, but not his son, the leader of the revolution. He commands those who are risking their lives for him to fight, but not to fight to win. It must have been a pathetic sight.

In spite of this, the army fights courageously for David, and Absalom's forces suffer a great defeat, not only at the hand of David's men, but even from the forest itself. Absalom's men are not cut out for this kind of warfare. A total of 20,000 men die in this slaughter, which spreads out over the whole countryside, as Absalom's men begin to turn and run for their lives. It is a great victory for David and a devastating defeat for Absalom.

We do not know whether Absalom is running for his life or not, but he does seem to be alone at the time his mule runs under the branches of a great oak tree, and somehow Absalom's head is wedged in the branches.⁸⁷ None of Absalom's men seem to be around to attempt a rescue. (They may have been fleeing for their lives.) One of Joab's men comes upon Absalom and mentions it to his commander. Joab is incensed that this young man has not killed Absalom on the spot. Would he not have been rewarded for doing so? The young man is not taken back by Joab's rebuke. He reminds Joab that David, their commander-in-chief, has specifically forbidden anyone to harm his son Absalom. No matter what Joab may promise to do for him, this soldier knows that when David learns he has killed his son, there will be no protection for him. He also knows that while Joab seems to talk tough, when David's wrath is directed toward him for killing Absalom, Joab will quietly stand by and let him take all the blame. There is no way this fellow is going to be directed to disobey the king's orders by killing the king's son.

Joab has had just about enough of this fellow's submission to the king's orders. He will take care of the matter personally. And so Joab goes and finds Absalom, just as the young man has described. He takes three spears in his hand and thrusts them through Absalom's chest. His armor bearers follow suit, finishing Absalom off. David's enemy is dead.

It is ironic, is it not, that it would be Joab who would kill Absalom? It was Joab who had orchestrated amnesty for Absalom and brought him back to Jerusalem. It was Joab who obtained greater freedom for Absalom and brought him into the king's presence. And yet, for all Joab had done for Absalom, this man set out to take the throne away from his father, and to set another as commander over Israel's forces. It was likewise Joab who, under orders from David, had Uriah killed in battle, without raising a word of protest. And now, this military commander who would kill a righteous man at David's request would kill David's own son in direct violation to his orders. There is a saying: “What goes around, comes around.” Somehow that seems fitting here. David, who abused his almost absolute authority to take Uriah's wife and then his life is powerless to save his own son from death at the hand of Joab (or anyone else).

The text adds a kind of epitaph to the account of Absalom's death. The author informs us that at one time Absalom had no sons, and fearing that he would be forgotten, built a pillar for himself in the valley of the kings. By this, he thought, he would preserve his name. As it turned out, Absalom did have sons, but in his desire to possess his father's throne, he was able to be king but for a few days, and now he will be remembered as the traitor who died, hanging from a tree, the most ignoble death of all. His pillar in the valley of the kings would never erase the memory of his folly and death.

Proclaiming the Good News
(18:19-33)

19 Then Ahimaaz the son of Zadok said, “Please let me run and bring the king news that the LORD has freed him from the hand of his enemies.” 20 But Joab said to him, “You are not the man to carry news this day, but you shall carry news another day; however, you shall carry no news today because the king's son is dead.” 21 Then Joab said to the Cushite, “Go, tell the king what you have seen.” So the Cushite bowed to Joab and ran. 22 Now Ahimaaz the son of Zadok said once more to Joab, “But whatever happens, please let me also run after the Cushite.” And Joab said, “Why would you run, my son, since you will have no reward for going?” 23 “But whatever happens,” he said, “I will run.” So he said to him, “Run.” Then Ahimaaz ran by way of the plain and passed up the Cushite. 24 Now David was sitting between the two gates; and the watchman went up to the roof of the gate by the wall, and raised his eyes and looked, and behold, a man running by himself. 25 The watchman called and told the king. And the king said, “If he is by himself there is good news in his mouth.” And he came nearer and nearer. 26 Then the watchman saw another man running; and the watchman called to the gatekeeper and said, “Behold, another man running by himself.” And the king said, “This one also is bringing good news.” 27 The watchman said, “I think the running of the first one is like the running of Ahimaaz the son of Zadok.” And the king said, “This is a good man and comes with good news.” 28 Ahimaaz called and said to the king, “All is well.” And he prostrated himself before the king with his face to the ground. And he said, “Blessed is the LORD your God, who has delivered up the men who lifted their hands against my lord the king.” 29 The king said, “Is it well with the young man Absalom?” And Ahimaaz answered, “When Joab sent the king's servant, and your servant, I saw a great tumult, but I did not know what it was.” 30 Then the king said, “Turn aside and stand here.” So he turned aside and stood still. 31 Behold, the Cushite arrived, and the Cushite said, “Let my lord the king receive good news, for the LORD has freed you this day from the hand of all those who rose up against you.” 32 Then the king said to the Cushite, “Is it well with the young man Absalom?” And the Cushite answered, “Let the enemies of my lord the king, and all who rise up against you for evil, be as that young man!” 33 The king was deeply moved and went up to the chamber over the gate and wept. And thus he said as he walked, “O my son Absalom, my son, my son Absalom! Would I had died instead of you, O Absalom, my son, my son!”

It is all over. Ahithophel knows that if David is killed, all opposition to Absalom will be crushed. It works the same way in reverse. Many of Absalom's men are killed, and his army suffers a massive defeat, but when Absalom himself dies, the revolution itself is dead. And so it is that Absalom's forces flee the scene of battle to their own tents. It is all over! David has won! It is a great day of victory.

The scene of this victorious army returning to Mahanaim must have been jubilant. It would have been something like the Dallas Cowboys returning home after a Super Bowl Victory. There would be shouting and celebration. What a great day this is, a day of victory. But King David is not with his army. He is back in the city, waiting for news of the outcome of the battle. The returning soldiers are triumphant, until they realize that their king is not there at the gate to greet them. This is because he has heard of his son's death.

It all started with the defeat of Absalom's army, followed by the death of Absalom. Ahimaaz begs Joab to be the one who will carry the “good news” to David. Joab knows that it will not be “good news” to the king, though it will be for everyone else. For this reason, Joab forbids Ahimaaz to run to Mahanaim. He sends a Cushite instead. Ahimaaz persists and finally Joab reluctantly lets him run to carry the news to David as well. Highly motivated (being a good runner and choosing the faster route helped, too), Ahimaaz actually manages to arrive at Mahanaim before the Cushite. Between the two messengers, David learns that his son Absalom has been killed. His grief is great indeed.

Before we go on with this story, I should point out that there is more space devoted to the messengers who report to David than there is about the war between the two opposing armies, including the account of the death of Absalom. Why would this be? Why would the author make so much of Ahimaaz's desire to carry the message of the victory of David's army to the king? The answer is a significant key to our understanding of the message the author wishes to convey to his readers.

I have already observed the emphasis (in terms of space) to this matter of the messengers. Let me also point out the repetition of an important expression: good news. In the NASB, it occurs four times in verses 25-31, but there are a number of other references to news which, in the context, is expected to be good. The term good news is a rendering of the Hebrew term which means (as you would expect) “good news.” When the translators of the Septuagint rendered this term in Greek, they used the term which we often find in the New Testament in reference to the proclamation of the gospel. The good news which Ahimaaz wanted to proclaim to David was that God had given him the victory by defeating the army of Absalom and by Absalom's death.

The problem is that David is not inclined to accept this report as good news. Notice that when each of the two messengers approach David, they indicate to him that they have good news for him. David does not ask about the outcome of the battle, but only about the well-being of his son, Absalom. Good news for David would be that Absalom is still alive. Good news for every other man involved in the war with Absalom and his men that day would be that his army has been defeated, and the trouble-maker has been removed.

Joab knows his king well. He knows that David will not take the news of Absalom's death well. That is why he is reluctant to send Ahimaaz to David with the news of his death. That is also why Ahimaaz hedges his answer to David's specific question about Absalom's well-being. And so it is that when the triumphant soldiers return to Mahanaim, they do not find their king at the gate to greet them and to express his appreciation. Instead, they learn that David is grieving over the death of his son. Now, instead of feeling proud of what they have done, David's men feel ashamed.

Joab Rebukes His King
(19:1-8)

1 Then it was told Joab, “Behold, the king is weeping and mourns for Absalom.” 2 The victory that day was turned to mourning for all the people, for the people heard it said that day, “The king is grieved for his son.” 3 So the people went by stealth into the city that day, as people who are humiliated steal away when they flee in battle. 4 The king covered his face and cried out with a loud voice, “O my son Absalom, O Absalom, my son, my son!” 5 Then Joab came into the house to the king and said, “Today you have covered with shame the faces of all your servants, who today have saved your life and the lives of your sons and daughters, the lives of your wives, and the lives of your concubines, 6 by loving those who hate you, and by hating those who love you. For you have shown today that princes and servants are nothing to you; for I know this day that if Absalom were alive and all of us were dead today, then you would be pleased. 7 “Now therefore arise, go out and speak kindly to your servants, for I swear by the LORD, if you do not go out, surely not a man will pass the night with you, and this will be worse for you than all the evil that has come upon you from your youth until now.” 8 So the king arose and sat in the gate. When they told all the people, saying, “Behold, the king is sitting in the gate,” then all the people came before the king. Now Israel had fled, each to his tent.

David's warriors, who risked their necks to save their king, now hang their heads in shame. A day of victory suddenly is transformed into a day of mourning. The soldiers begin to sneak into the city, as though they have done something wrong. They are like a field goal kicker who has a chance to kick a 20-yard field goal and win the game, but misses. They are ashamed to go back to their side of the field, to approach the bench, and to look at the coach. This is the way David's soldiers feel.

The king is weeping and mourning over the death of Absalom. Over and over he repeats, “O my son Absalom, O Absalom, my son, my son!” Joab is not inclined to join with David in his mourning. In fact, Joab is not inclined to put up with David's mourning. Joab goes into the house. He does not deal gently with David. In Joab's mind, David is making the greatest mistake of his life, and he is about to suffer consequences far greater than any he has yet experienced.

Joab rebukes David for putting everyone who has come with him from Jerusalem to shame, not just his soldiers, but his wives and children, and his concubines as well. By his response to the day's events, David reveals that he loved his enemy more than his friends and family. He loved those who hated him more than those who loved him. He had shown a total disregard for those who were willing to give their all for their king. Joab puts it as bluntly as it could be said: David would rather have heard that his entire army was slaughtered and that his son Absalom was alive than to learn that his army had prevailed, but that Absalom was dead.

Joab virtually commands David what he should do next. He should get up, stop his mourning, and go out to the gate to greet the victorious warriors who are still returning from the battle. If he does not do so immediately, Joab assures him that by daybreak there will not be a soldier left with him. The king does what Joab tells him to do. He goes down to the gate, and it is not long before everyone knows he is there and comes before the king. Meanwhile, the Israelites who had joined with Absalom flee to their tents. The war is over. David is once again King of Israel.

Conclusion

This passage has a great deal for us to learn. I believe there is something to learn from each of the key characters of this drama. Let me call your attention to some of these lessons.

First, we can learn from the two villains of our text, Absalom and Ahithophel. Both of these men had been close to David earlier in their lives. Both chose to rebel against David and to seek his overthrow. Neither man seems to be godly or to view their circumstances from God's point of view. Neither seems disturbed that they sought to kill God's anointed king. Both men have their lives end tragically, in death. Both must have seen God's hand at work in David's life and in his rule as king. Both are willing to cast David aside in an attempt to build some kind of “kingdom” of their own. Both men are like Satan, and like Adam and Eve, in that they are unwilling to play a subordinate role. They seem to think that under David's rule they are being prohibited from something better, which they can obtain by pursuing their own interests.

These two men, Absalom and Ahithophel, fail to correctly answer the most important question any person will ever answer in their lifetime: “Who will I serve as king?” Absalom and Ahithophel do not want David for their king. Both, in effect, want to be king of their own lives. But in rejecting David as their king, they are rejecting God's king, and thus they are rebelling against God Himself. Both of these men have great ability, but in the end, their talents are of no eternal profit.

This question has never really changed. It was the question before there ever was a human king over Israel, and it has been the question ever since. Adam and Eve rejected God as their ultimate authority and sought to set themselves above Him. The Israelites rejected God as their King when they demanded to have a king like all the other nations (see 1 Samuel 8:7). Absalom and Ahithophel and the others who followed in the rebellion against David rejected God's king as their king. When our Lord Jesus Christ came to the earth, He came as the One who would sit on the throne of his father, David. He came as God's anointed King, and yet the crowds replied that they had no king but Caesar. The Lord Jesus Christ came the first time to be rejected as Israel's King, so that he might bear the guilt of our sin and provide the means for us to enter into His kingdom. All who receive His gift of the forgiveness of sins and eternal life will reign with Him for all eternity. He is coming again, to defeat all His enemies and to establish His throne upon the earth. All those who have received Him as God's provision for their salvation have also received Him as their King. All those who have rejected His gift of salvation have rejected Him as King. When He comes again, all men will bow before Him as God's King, but only those who have received Him as Savior will enter into His kingdom. Who is your king? That is the most important question you will ever answer.

Second, we can learn from Joab. One may argue whether Joab should have killed Absalom, against David's orders. It may be that Absalom would have died on his own. I think we can see that Joab was right to rebuke the king for his response to his victory and the death of Absalom. Joab was David's subordinate, but he was right to rebuke him. Biblical admonition is sometimes required in response to the sin of those in authority over us. We will need to do this prayerfully and carefully, but rebuke may nonetheless be in order.

Further, we should learn from this text that we may be corrected by those who are not only our subordinates, but who are also less than mentors to us. There are many things to criticize about Joab, but the fact is that here he is right in what he says to David. There is a lot of talk these days of “mentoring” and “accountability.” The assumption seems to be that every one of us needs someone to whom we are accountable, some “mentor” who will mentor us. There is an element of truth in this, and much that needs clarification and correction. But my point here is that we should not restrict who we will learn from to our list of who we would have mentor us. Our enemy may be our best critic. He does not care about losing our respect or our friendship. He does not worry about offending us. He (or she) may tell us things that our “friends” never will. Joab rebukes David. David listens, and David learns. Let us learn to learn from those we do not like, from those who may not like us either.

Third, we can learn from David's loss of perspective. Joab rightly rebukes David because his values have gotten entirely messed up. In Joab's words, David has come to love his enemies and hate his friends. He cares more about the well-being of his arch enemy than he does the nation whom he is supposed to shepherd under God. David came to care more about one member of his family than everyone else. In this, David is wrong, and Joab is right.

David is wrong to instruct his commanders not to harm Absalom. Absalom should have died several times over. He should have died for the premeditated murder of Amnon, against the law. He should have died for his rebellion against his father (prior to this text). And he should have died for high treason, in seeking to kill God's anointed king and appoint himself as king. How can David expect his army to fight against Absalom's army and not fight against Absalom? As David once used his authority to condemn a righteous man (Uriah) to death, he now seeks to use his authority as king to keep a revolutionary from the death penalty he deserves. David's perspective is completely messed up. It takes Joab's sharp rebuke to bring him out of his mental stupor.

I would like to suggest that just as David lost his perspective in our text, we often lose our perspective, without even being aware of it. For example, we know that this world and all that is in it will perish in the twinkling of an eye. And yet we persist in our efforts to accumulate things. We lay up treasure on earth, rather than laying up treasure in heaven. We know (intellectually) that the lost are going to spend eternity in hell, separated from God. And yet we fail to get to know our neighbors, or to share the gospel (the “good news”) with them. Is our perspective not as badly warped as David's was?

We see David placing the well-being of his son Absalom over the well-being of the rest of his family and over the rest of David's kingdom. In this case, has David not put “family” above more important things? As David refused to deal with his son as his sin deserved, seeking to “spare” him, do we not refuse to deal with the disobedience and rebellion of our children, fearing we might lose them? Do we not refuse to discipline a willfully sinning saint because we can't bear the thought of losing them or what they do for us? Let us learn from David that we can all lose our perspective quickly, without ever knowing it. The only way we can maintain a proper perspective is to continually saturate our minds with the Word of God. It is in the Bible that we gain a biblical perspective. Let us be men and women of the Word so that we see life from God's perspective.

Finally, we can learn much from David's depression. These were the darkest days of David's life. It is hard for me to describe David's state of mind with any other word than depression. It has taken me a long time to be able to say this, but I believe that a Christian can be depressed. To press this matter further, I believe a Christian can be depressed and not be “in sin” for experiencing depression. Some depression is the result of sin (that is certainly a part of David's depression). Some depression may, itself, be sin. That is, we may willfully choose to be depressed, even though we know our depression is rooted in sin. But I am not willing any longer to categorize all depression as sinful, in and of itself.

Years ago a very godly older man stood up in a worship service and read a text about our Lord in the Garden of Gethsemane. He commented (actually he read a modern translation that said) that our Lord was depressed. To my shame I must say that I stood and corrected that man, insisting that depression is sin and thus our Lord could not have been depressed. We can be depressed and not be in sin. David, I believe, was depressed. His depression may well have played a part in his warped perspective and priorities.

The thing I wish you to notice in our text is that God spared David from death and gave him the victory over Absalom in spite of the fact that he was depressed, in spite of the fact that David commanded his men not to harm Absalom. God's purposes and promises are not frustrated by our sin, and most certainly not by our depression. These were days when David's faith and hope had to be at an all time low. Did this keep God from achieving His purposes? Not for one moment!

I point this out for a very important reason. There is a great deal of evangelical teaching and thinking which would suggest that God cannot work in the midst of our depression. The teaching of PMA (positive mental attitude) abounds today. If we have a positive outlook, good things are bound to come. If we are prone to “stinkin' thinking” we are headed for trouble. That is what some folks teach. It has its own Christian form. If we but have enough faith, God will accomplish great things for us. If we lack faith, we deserve the suffering and sorrow that results.

There are many things wrong with this viewpoint. We give ourselves far too much credit for God's blessings. We attribute God's blessings to our faith, our obedience, our positive mental attitude. But when depression comes (as it undoubtedly will), we have no hope from the PMA school of thought. We believe that God is limited to working when we are optimistic, full of faith and joy. Very often Christians hypocritically go around faking the presence of peace, joy, and faith, because they are expected to have it. At this point in his life, David did not have peace, joy, or great faith. David was at the lowest point in his life. And yet God fulfilled his purposes and promises in spite of David's mental state. God provided many friends who stood with David in this difficult time. God used Hushai to frustrate the counsel of Ahithophel. He used Joab to eliminate Absalom and to rebuke David. God worked in David's life, not because he was full of faith, joy, and hope at the moment, but because He was faithful to fulfill His promises.

I want to take this matter of depression one step further. Many times when one is depressed, their perspective is warped -- they do not see life accurately. But there is also a sense in which depression may help us to see life more clearly. Are we overly confident in our own efforts, our own righteousness, our own faith? Depression will wipe out all such self-confidence. Many of those who are most confident, most joyful and happy, most successful are deceived about the source of their abilities and of their successes. David saw life less clearly at the pinnacle of his success than he did at the depths of his humiliation. David did not trust in himself in his despair. All he could do was to cast himself upon God, resting and hoping in Him.

I have said that God was very much at work in David's life in the midst of his depression. Now let me go on to say that God was very much at work through David in the midst of his depression. I cannot prove this conclusively, but I would imagine that a number of David's psalms were written from the “slough of despond.” Many of David's psalms are written in a time of despair. As David expresses his fears, his despair, his depression to God, he finds hope and help in remembering the God to whom he speaks. And in the process of writing these psalms, David has also ministered to many others from his despair. It is often from our times of mourning and sorrow that we begin to see life more clearly, to trust in God more completely. If this is the case, then suffering and sorrows and even depression may be our friend, and not our enemy. Anything which draws us more closely to God is our friend.

I am certain that as I speak and write these words I am speaking and writing to those who may be depressed. Some of you may not even know it, and you may be very reluctant to admit it. This may be because some, like myself, have called depression a sin, and you don't wish to be guilty of sinning in this way. But many of you are depressed and know that you are. Many of you are depressed and are ashamed to tell anyone else about it. Let me simply say to you that God worked in David's life, in spite of his depression. God also worked through David's life because of his depression.

Let me close with these words from our Lord Himself:

1 When Jesus saw the crowds, He went up on the mountain; and after He sat down, His disciples came to Him. 2 He opened His mouth and began to teach them, saying, 3 “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. 4 “Blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted” (Matthew 5:1-4).

28 “Come to Me, all who are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest. 29 “Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and YOU WILL FIND REST FOR YOUR SOULS. 30 “For My yoke is easy and My burden is light” (Matthew 11:28-30).

---

85 I cannot help but think that the increased size of Absalom’s army greatly hindered his cause. Many of those with David were mighty men of valor who had fought with him in many difficult situations, many like the one they would face here. They were at home with their commander and with the field of battle. The large “volunteer army” that followed Absalom was not so skilled, not so accustomed to war, not so disciplined. They had a new commander in chief, and little experience. It was something like a brand new franchise facing the Dallas Cowboys, with all rookie players, a new coach, and no time to practice.

86 Bahurim was also not far from Jerusalem. This is as far as Phaltiel, the second husband of Michal, was allowed to accompany his wife as she was being brought back to David (2 Samuel 3:14-16). It is also the home of Shimei, the man who cursed David as he fled from Jerusalem.

87 In spite of the popular view that Absalom was caught by his hair, the text tells us that it was his head that caught fast. His hair, of course, might have been involved in this dilemma. It would seem to be obvious that Absalom was not able to release himself from his attachment to that giant oak tree, which would suggest that if he were but left to himself he would be yet another one of those whose life was claimed by the forest, rather than by the sword of one of David’s men.