Comments on 2 Samuel 12 v1-15 Nathan, apparently the main prophet at that time, addresses David with a parable (v. 1-4). The parable is designed to confront David with his own brand of extreme justice, and it does just that. David ends up condemning himself to death (v. 5- 6), and Nathan is bold enough to stand up to him and point that out (v. 7). Nathan goes on to castigate David by directly addressing his sins and pronouncing curses upon him (v. 8-12). David is caught in his sins and humiliated, and confesses (v. 13). Nathan informs David he will not be killed outright for his sin, however the child Bathsheba is presently bearing will die (v. 14). And Nathan leaves (v. 15). v11-12 This prediction was fulfilled literally with the events on ch. 15-16. Immediately after this matter over Uriah, starting with the very next chapter, family strife starts and plagues David until he dies. v13 See the JST on this verse. It indicates the death penalty was not to be applied at that point. We know from Acts 2:29-34 that David did not participate in the First Resurrection, and this fact is commiserated by D&C 132:39. Why wasn't the death penalty imposed at this point? I would guess it was because had it been done at that point it would have left Israel in a total disaster of civil war where many more would have died needlessly. v14 This verse is a rather disturbing one. We have a baby being cursed to death apparently because of the sins of it's parents. It would seem almost as though the death penalty is commuted from David to the baby. This is not something we would generally consider just or fair. The rationale is supplied by v. 15, where the child is referred to as "the child that Uriah's wife bare unto David". Note the obvious implication of adultery as Bathsheba is still be called Uriah's wife. Illegitimate children were not looked upon favorably among Israel, cf. Deut 23:2. But this still does not address the matter of the justness of the child's death while it was David and Bathsheba who sinned. This matter is sure to cause a ruckus in class if it is permitted to get out of hand. The fact of the matter is there is nothing said as to why, so anything that ends up getting discussed is going to be speculative and probably not provide any answers that people in general are going to be satisfied with. It could end up a very contentious debate with nothing to gain by it, so it is best avoided. Also, don't resort to trying to blame the passage on some Semitic custom that leaked into the text. The curse is put into the mouth of Nathan as a quote from the Lord and not just some editorial comment. So one could not write it off as a later insertion without saying the entire text is up for questioning. Also, Remember in John 9:1-3 Jesus rejects the folk doctrine that children suffered physical ailments for the sins of their parents or for their own pre-mortal actions. So don't try to explain it away using the old folk doctrine, as either way you are in for trouble. If anything, this is the proof text and source for that folk doctrine which Jesus rejects. Something more complex, and presently inexplicable, is at work here. We are better off just shrugging out shoulders and saying we just don't know what exactly is going on. One thing that may alleviate some hard feelings is to note if the child were to live, it would have lived life as a miserable outcast because of its illegitimacy. Thus, it would have to suffer throughout life for something it did not bring on itself. Whereas, it's death leaves it unaccountable and innocent and it will therefore inherit exaltation. This hardly addresses the issue in full as it is such a difficult and complex matter (and potentially very emotional as well), but it may help to address the concerns of some class members. And while we would normally equate this concept of the innocence of little children with a Mormon point of view, it is present in the OT as well, cf. 1 Kings 14:13. v15 "And Nathan departed unto his house", I would assume the purpose of this line is to indicate David did not have Nathan killed. Given his willingness to have Uriah disposed of to cover up his sin, it must have been tempting to have Nathan disposed of as well. However, David here has been rebuked to the point where he is no longer seeking arm of the flesh tactics to cover up his sins. "The child that Uriah's wife bare unto David", note she is still be referred to here as "Uriah's wife" even though she has been married to David. v16-19 In an effort to persuade the Lord to spare the child David fasts and humiliates himself. However, it is to no avail. v18 "on the seventh day", i.e., the seventh day after the child was born, cf. the JPS translation on v. 14. v21-23 David has become completely blase about death, cf. v. 25. With the death of this son, David is given something of a slap in the face. But his attitude is still warped and causes those around him concern. Being so cavalier about it afterwards makes you wonder how sincere he was about it in the first place. Perhaps he is completely reconciled to death, as v. 23 suggest, but his actions and emotions are simply incongruous. v24-25 After the death of the first son, David and Bathsheba have a second son, and this time the Lord does not strike him. They send word to Nathan and he returns back that the Lord has chosen the name Jedidiah, meaning "Beloved of the Lord". Also note, that Bathsheba is no longer being referred to as Uriah's wife, suggesting that the curse on the previous child was in fact because of the matter of adultery and illegitimacy. That child was a result of an adulterous union and was cursed, this child is a result of a married union and is blessed. v26-31 We return to the war as Joab is about to conquer another city (v. 26). From this we see that while all of this with David, Bathsheba and Nathan is going on the rest of Israel is going about its activities apparently nonplused. Joab sends for David so that when the city is taken he will be there and will be credited for its fall rather than Joab (v. 27-28). Joab is a smart fellow, as he probably saw the split between Saul and David over military victories firsthand (cf. 1 Sam. 18:7) and wants to avoid that kind of thing himself. It also suggests Joab feared David would be jealous as was Saul, or perhaps he was simply ultra-loyal. Either way, he is being smart about it. David goes down to the city for the final sacking (v. 29), wears the conquered king's crown (v. 30), and enslaves the rest of the population (v. 31). Copyright © 2002 by S. Kurt Neumiller . All rights reserved. No part of this text may be reproduced in any form or by any means for commercial gain without the express written consent of the author. Digital or printed copies may be freely made and distributed for personal and public non-commercial use.