10th Sunday After Pentecost. July 28th, 2024. Series

2 Samuel 11:1-15, Psalm 14:1-7, 2 Kings 4:42-44, Psalm 145:10-18, Ephesians 3:14-21, John 6:1-21.

(A). DAVID LETS HIS GUARD DOWN.

2 Samuel 11:1-15.

“At the time when kings go forth” (to battle), “David tarried still at Jerusalem.” (2 SAMUEL 11:1). Sending his nephew Joab may have seemed like a good idea at the time, but this constituted a dereliction of duty which put David in the wrong place at the wrong time. A sin of omission would soon lead to a sin of commission – and worse.

2 SAMUEL 11:2. Far from the battlefield, David evidently had time on his hands, took a nap, and was now wandering aimlessly on the rooftop of his palace. From his elevated position, David could see down into the courtyard of neighbouring properties. In the absence of indoor plumbing, David saw the figure of a woman bathing in her own courtyard, and was aroused by her evident beauty.

David enquired after the woman, and was told that this was “Bathsheba, the daughter of Eliam, the wife of Uriah the Hittite.” (2 SAMUEL 11:3).

There is an ‘Eliam the son of Ahitophel’ numbered amongst David’s mighty men (cf. 2 Samuel 23:34). Ahitophel is named as David’s counsellor, who later defected to Absalom (cf. 2 Samuel 15:12).

Uriah’s name means “My Light is the LORD,” so this particular Hittite was a member of the Jewish faith. Uriah the Hittite was also numbered as one of David’s mighty men (cf. 2 Samuel 23:39).

The whole seedy liaison is described in one sentence (2 SAMUEL 11:4). The comment about Bathsheba’s purification demonstrates that (a) she had been undergoing ritual cleansing after a period of uncleanness (cf. Leviticus 15:19); and (b) that David was the only possible father of the child she now conceived. When Bathsheba “returned to her house,” that seemed to be the close of the matter: but -

“The woman conceived” (2 SAMUEL 11:5), and sent and told David, “I am with child.” Actions, after all, do have consequences.

The immediate sequel shows David at his worst, wriggling and squirming to cover up his sin, sinking ever deeper and deeper, and only succeeding in making things worse.

First of all, David sent a message for Joab to send him Uriah the Hittite, presumably on the pretended pretext of getting an update on how the battle was going (2 SAMUEL 11:6-7).

Then David tried to trick Uriah into going home to sleep with his wife: “wash your feet” here is no doubt a euphemism for intercourse (2 SAMUEL 11:8). David sent provisions of food after Uriah.

To David’s frustration, Uriah did not go home, but slept with David’s servants at the door of the king’s house. Uriah explained his actions: “The ark, and Judah, and Joab and the servants of my lord are encamped in the open fields:” how could he go down to his house “to eat and drink, and to lie with my wife?” (2 SAMUEL 11:9-11).

Then David took things a stage further, delaying Uriah from returning to the battlefield, and getting him drunk. But still Uriah would not go home (2 SAMUEL 11:12-13).

Finally David felt that he was left with no other recourse than to arrange the murder of this good man (2 SAMUEL 11:14-15). There is a sad irony in the fact that Uriah carried his own death warrant back to Joab. ‘But the thing that David had done displeased the LORD’ (cf. 2 Samuel 11:27).

David did at last come to repentance (cf. 2 Samuel 12:13; Psalm 51), but this does not negate the fact that there were consequences to David’s sin, both in his family, and also in the nation. Again, I emphasise, ALL sin does carry inevitable and terrible consequences.

So if, as a Christian, you are tempted, then ‘resist the devil’ (cf. James 4:7) with all your God-given might! But IF you have already yielded to temptation, even as a Christian, lay hold upon the reality of GOD’s goodness and GOD’s covenant mercy in your life (cf. Psalm 23:6). Acknowledge your sin before God, against whom you have sinned (cf. 2 Samuel 12:13; Psalm 51:4), and ‘Go, and sin no more’ (cf. John 8:11).

(B). UNBELIEVING BEHAVIOUR AND THE GRACE OF GOD.

Psalm 14:1-7.

The first verse of this Psalm is well known as an argument against those who deny the very existence of God (Psalm 14:1). I am sure I have heard it preached in that way, I know I have read it so, and maybe have even mentioned it in such a way from the pulpit. Taken on its own, it seems valid enough: but the context does not seem to be addressing so much an ‘intellectual atheism’ as a ‘practical’ or ‘moral atheism’.

The practical atheist sets out like the Prodigal son in the parable, wishing that his father were dead already (Luke 15:12). Notice, the Prodigal did not deny his father’s existence, but just wanted to get as far away as possible from his father’s house (Luke 15:13). The consequences, as we know, were disastrous - until such time as he came to his senses (Luke 15:17) and wound his humbled weary way back to his father’s house (Luke 15:18).