An Unguarded Moment
(2 Samuel 11:1-13)
I. David’s Sin Surprises and Shock Us
A. David’s reputation
B. Bathsheba’s beauty
C. Uriah’s integrity
II. David’s Sin Was Doubly Tragic
A. David was not where he should have been
B. It was not a great passion
Introduction
Marriage is a sacred relationship. From a Christian perspective, it is understood to be a covenant relationship between two persons, blessed and validated by God. It is a commitment that is not to be treated lightly. But people who do not hold such a view of marriage or choose to forsake its sacredness often suffer unforeseen consequences.
In the early 1960’s, Henry Ford II, married more than 20 years, began an affair with Cristina Austin, a beautiful socialite. He kept the affair secret for as long as possible, but one night his wife, Anne, walked into the restaurant where he and Cristina were dining. Ever the well-mannered lady, Anne said, “This was bound to happen some time.” She hoped for reconciliation.
When Henry persisted in the affair, the marriage ended in divorce. Their daughters, Charlotte and Anne, were furious at their father for his behavior and at Cristina for breaking up the marriage.
Henry, determined to reconcile with his daughters, invited them to join Cristina and himself in St. Moritz. While there, Charlotte met the Greek shipping magnate, Stavros Niarchos, and began an affair with him. Upon returning to the US, she learned that she was pregnant.
Niarchos, learning of the pregnancy, divorced his wife and married Charlotte. However, they were not an ideal match. Not only was he older than Charlotte, he was eight years older than her father. They lived together sporadically, and were divorced two years later. Niarchos then remarried his first wife.
When Henry began his relationship with Cristina, he surely had no idea how the story would play itself out. Would he have persisted if he had known the effect he would have on Charlotte and her baby? Perhaps not. But he didn’t know. We seldom know in advance all the effect that infidelity will cause. They are like ripples, affecting our children, grandchildren and beyond. We dare not take marriage and fidelity lightly.
I tell this story because it relates to a tragic moment in the life of one of the greatest heroes in the Bible. I’m referring to the account found in 2 Samuel 11 concerning an infamous event in the life of king David. At the high point of his life, David enjoyed a night of casual sex. The result was a downward spiral leading to the lowest point of his life. That seemingly “little sin” had consequences that he could not have imagined, even as the story of Henry Ford II’s affair led his family into a downward spiral.
This morning I will begin a four-part series of sermons dealing with this dark period in David’s illustrious career. The name of this series is “When Good People Do Bad Things.” Today’s message is entitled, “An Unguarded Moment.” We will begin this morning by examining the events that precipitated this sin. Next week, we will look at the cycle of unrepentant sin. The third sermon will deal with the prophet Nathan’s rebuke and the king’s response. And we will conclude this series with an overview of the results of David’s sin and his restoration.
If you have done so already, please turn with me to 2 Samuel 11. Although we will focus primarily on vv. 1-13 this morning, I would like to read the entire chapter in order to help us grasp the big picture.
David’s Sin Surprises and Shocks Us
This story focuses on three main characters and we can see many contrasts in their lives exposed by the biblical writer.
The first is king David. When we read this account about his life, we find his attitude and conduct to be surprising and shocking. There are a number of reasons why we feel this way toward David given our historical and theological viewpoint, but I would like for us to look at this from the vantage point of the historical and theological context in which it occurred.
The cultural context in which David lived would not have frowned upon his actions quite as greatly as we do today. It was not uncommon for kings to take advantage of their position of power in order to satisfy their wants and desires. Polygamy was prevalent and accepted as normative in the larger culture of the day and even permitted in the OT law as a concession to the hardness of the people’s hearts. As we look at the manner in which David proceeded to inquire about this beauty that he saw and the subsequent invitation to the palace, we find that he followed the established protocol for rulers. As far as society was concerned, there was very little reason for concern—“it’s just the way things are.”
While David’s actions may have been “culturally correct” for the nations surrounding Israel, David knew that he belonged to a special people set apart as God’s own. They were not to adopt the ways of the nations around them. And particularly as the king, David should have led the way.
Samuel J. Schultz writes in his book, The Old Testament Speaks, “For a despot in a heathen nation adultery and murder might have passed unchallenged; but this could not be so in Israel, where a king held his position as a sacred trust” (2nd ed., p. 136). David understood that he had been anointed and appointed by God as His representative to the people. He knew that he had not assumed the throne as a matter of birthright or by virtue of his own cunning or ability. God had specifically chosen him for this role and He expected David to represent Him impeccably. Therefore, David’s appalling behavior cannot be excused on the basis of his cultural context.
David’s Reputation
Having said all that, the main reason we are caught off guard by what we read here is because of David’s reputation. Ronald F. Youngblood describes our feelings in these words, we are in “dismay that King David, with his manifest piety, could stoop to such an act” (EBC, vol. 3, p. 928). We find it extremely difficult to harmonize David’s behavior on this occasion in light of all that we read about his character and actions in the accounts preceding this one.
If we were to turn back to 1 Samuel concerning the choosing of David to succeed Saul as king of Israel, we find that one of the reasons that God appointed him is because of his well-known character and devotion to God. We read in that context that David is referred to as a man after [God’s] own heart (13:14). He was a man whose life ambition was to be a faithful follower of his Lord. And up to this point in his life and in his career as king, David has proven himself to be worthy of such a title.
So when we read that a man of David’s reputation has fallen from such spiritual heights, we are naturally perplexed. We may even want to disbelieve that such a thing could occur in the life of one so in tune with God. Or we may go to the other extreme and be tempted to surmise that he was really not as close to God as we had previously believed—and we may even applaud the fact that “the truth has finally come out.” (However, a close examination of the life of David will reveal that there is no justifiable ground for such a negative conclusion about him.)
I believe that there’s a subtle lesson in here for all of us. And that lesson is: Don’t fix your eyes on any human no matter how spiritually mature you may perceive him/her to be. There are indeed some “spiritual giants” out there that faithfully model the Christ-life for us and we should follow their example. But it is important to remember that even giants fall sometimes. Each of us is susceptible to sin. A pastor, a Bible teacher, or an evangelist is just as prone to failure as anyone. We must guard ourselves against placing our faith in anything or anyone other than Jesus. Our gaze must be firmly fixed on Christ—He is our only perfect example of the overcoming life.
Bathsheba’s Beauty
The second person we are introduced to in this account is a woman named Bathsheba. We actually know very little about Bathsheba before this encounter with David. Her name means “the seventh daughter” or “the daughter of an oath” which may indicate that she came from a large family and/or that some promise was made or received in connection with her birth. We are also told that she was the daugh-ter of Eliam. If we were to keep reading in 2 Samuel 23:34, we find that Eliam is listed among “David’s Mighty Men”—leading warriors, men of military might and valor. He is further identified in this same verse as the son of Ahithophel the Gilonite, who was one of David’s trusted advisers. Whether David realized it or not, he knew Bathsheba’s family quite well.
One of the most outstanding features the biblical writer draws our attention to with regard to Bathsheba is her extraordinary beauty. She is described as being very beautiful, “which translates a Hebrew phrase reserved for people of striking physical appearance” (EBC, vol. 3, p. 929). This phrase is used of Rebekah in Genesis 24:16 and 26:7; of Queen Vashti in Esther 1:11; and of Esther in Esther 2:7. Her beauty was well above average and quickly catches the eye of the king.
There is one other crucial piece of information that the biblical writer wants us to know about Bathsheba. It is con-tained in the parenthetical statement found in v. 4: (She had purified herself from her uncleanness.). What this means is she had just completed the ceremonial cleansing ritual that Jewish woman were to perform following their regular monthly cycle as described in Leviticus 15. This statement is very important because it serves to “inform the reader that Bathsheba was clearly not pregnant when she came to David, since she had just been ‘purified from her uncleanness.’ Shortly thereafter she found that she was, and that leaves no doubt that the child is David’s since her husband had been out of town during the interlude between the bath and her visit to the palace” (EBC, vol. 3, p. 930).
Uriah’s Integrity
The third individual that plays a major role in this story is a man named Uriah. Throughout this passage he is referred to by his ancestry, Uriah the Hittite. He was a loyal mercenary in David’s army. In 2 Samuel 23, we discover that he was also listed among that elite group known as “David’s Mighty Men.” What we see unfold in this account is a twisted contrast between the reputation of David (of the chosen people of Israel) and the steadfast integrity of Uriah (an alien to the promises of God).
What we might have expected to read on these pages is the story of an individual who falls into sin (played by a man from a heathen nation) and of a righteous victim (played by a Jew, naturally). But in this passage, it is Uriah the Hittite who is presented as a wholly admirable man of great integrity and loyalty, accentuating the appalling quality of the sin Israel’s king committed.
Uriah’s integrity is most clearly seen in his abstinence from sexual relations with his wife, Bathsheba, in accordance with the practice of war regulations in that day. When David summoned Uriah back to Jerusalem and presented him with the opportunity, it would have been a natural and wholesome desire for him to want to have relations with his wife after spending time away from her on the battlefield. But Uriah’s response to the king’s offer demonstrated that he was a man devoted to serving God first and foremost and he would not allow personal pleasures to distract him from being a faithful servant. He understood that it did not matter whether others were aware of what he did while he was away from the battle—God was fully aware of everything. He had an obligation to be obedient to the post that God had entrusted to him. “Uriah [was] not ready to do legitimately what [David had] done criminally” (EBC, vol. 3, p. 934).
That’s a brief look at the main characters in this tragic story. Now let’s turn our attention to the fateful sin itself which became the turning point in David’s reign.
David’s Sin Was Doubly Tragic
As we have noted already, in a very short period of time, David fell from the apex of his life to the bottom. But what makes David’s sin doubly tragic is the fact that it was so easily avoidable and so terribly destructive.
David Was Not Where He Should Have Been
The first indication we have that David could have easily avoided this sinful act is found in v. 1. Let’s look at it again.
David was not where he should have been. The biblical writer is very intentional in the use of the words he employs to convey this account. He specifically tells us that David sent his commander of the army (Joab), his personal, most elite fighters (the king’s men), and the whole Israelite army out to fight the battle against the Ammonites. By carefully listing the various groups in this manner, we are left with the conclusion that every able-bodied male was out on the battlefield. Only the women and under-age males remained. Everyone was where he or she was supposed to be—except David.
Why didn’t David go to battle this time? We know that it was not his usual pattern to send his men off to face the dangers without him. He led them against the enemies of Israel while serving as a commander in Saul’s army. As king, he led them to victory over the Philistines, the Moabites, the Edomites, and the Amalekites. If you look back just one chapter (10), you will see that the closing verses detail David’s victory over the Arameans. So, why stay home on this occasion?
Perhaps David discussed the battle plans with Joab and the other leaders in Israel’s army and they concluded that it was not necessary for him to trouble himself and possibly run the risk of needlessly getting injured or killed. Maybe they did an assessment of their military strength and resources against that of the Ammonites and felt confident that they would be victorious whether David was present or not. We know from this passage that Israel was, indeed, victorious in this battle. Or maybe, David just didn’t feel like going out to battle. Maybe he was tired and just wanted to catch up on some overdue R&R. We really don’t know why David was back in Jerusalem while his army was engaged in war.
Regardless of the reason/excuse that David might have made, the fact remains that he was not where he knew he should have been. V. 1 states, In the spring, at the time when kings go off to war… David remained in Jerusalem. By virtue of the fact that he was king, David should have been out on the battlefield leading his army on to victory. But instead of faithfully carrying out his responsibility as Israel’s leader, he chose to stay in the comfort of the palace in Jerusalem. “Although…reprehensible in itself, David’s conduct on this occasion opens the way for royal behavior that is more despicable still” (EBC, vol. 3, p. 928). Sadly, if David had been where he was supposed to have been, none of this could have ever happened.
That should give us some food for thought. I know from my own experience of growing up in a Christian home and in the church, it was always emphasized to me the importance of not being in places or involved in activities that I knew were wrong. I was faithfully taught the “don’ts.” But this example from David’s life teaches us the just as important correlative injunction that we should also be careful to obey. It is not only important that we avoid the things that we shouldn’t do, but we must also be faithful in doing the things that we should do. Every believer has an obligation to be obedient and remain faithful to the posi-tive commands of God. This is one of our safeguards against falling prey to temptation.
It Was Not a Great Passion
It is also apparent from this account that David could have easily avoided this sin because there is no indication that it was the result of a great passion. Their initial encounter was not preceded by a long period of desire. On the contrary, we are told that he saw her, called for her, slept with her, and sent her away all within a single 24-hour period. After they had committed their adulterous act, they seem to have never made contact again until Bathsheba realized that she had become pregnant. And even after learning of the pregnancy, David did not want Bathsheba for his own. He tried everything within his power and ingenuity to rid himself of his responsibility and encouraged her husband, Uriah, to lay with his wife so that he would be in the clear. David was simply overcome with lust, in an instant, and he sought to have his lust satisfied.
But the tragedy of David’s sin goes beyond the fact that he could have escaped it without really trying at all. The real tragedy lies in the results of his disobedience to God. David was not only guilty of sinning, but of trying to sweep his sin under the carpet. Perhaps he felt as king, he did not have to adhere to the same set of rules as everyone else. Whatever the reason, David sought to escape the penalty of his actions and so found himself caught in the vicious cycle of unrepentant sin. Next week we will take at the cycle of unrepentant sin.
Conclusion
What can we take home from this message today? Let me briefly mention a couple of things.
First, remember to be vigilant in obeying all the known will of God. Don’t become lax or complacent about following God’s commands. They were not given to restrict us. They’re not to hold us back from the “good things” in life. They are for our protection and they provide us with true freedom to enjoy the really good things in life.
Second, sin may seem like such a little thing initially, but the results of sin are always larger than the act. Like a small seed planted in the ground, though hidden from our view for a time, will in due time bring forth a harvest, so too, sin may seem inconsequential for a season, but it will in due time produce a harvest of consequences beyond our con-trol.
