When we read the Scriptures for the set daily readings, we sometimes consider certain chapters with more than usual application because they appeal to us more, or are illustrative of some theme we have in mind at the time.
I suppose we all have particular chapters we prefer reading, which give us pleasure as well as study and knowledge. As the Apostle Paul says, “All scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness”; and, may I add, for recreation also.
But, while scripture fulfils all these attributes, there are at times sadness in our readings on some particular days, and to my mind the saddest readings set down for the day occur on 26th July each year. For on that day we read of three very distressful circumstances, so far reaching that the repercussions have reached even to these days.
The first reading set on that date is from 2 Sam. 12, and tells of the sordid liaison between King David and the wife of Uriah the Hittite; the second is from Jer. ch. 16, and depicts the wickedness rampant in Jerusalem and Judah. It speaks of grievous deaths of the people, dying in the open fields from the sword, lying unburied and food for the beasts of the field. It speaks of the lack of mourning for the lost, all the cumulative misery attendant upon Judah for all their evilness that was worse than their fathers’, and foretells of the coming captivity of the Jews in Babylon.
For the last, we read Mat., ch. 27, which records the result of the betrayal of Jesus Christ and the death of the betrayer, Judas Iscariot, the mock trial of our Lord, the scourging, the crown of thorns, the mockery, the spitting, the agonising period leading to death upon the cross, and the subsequent burial of Him who gave His life a ransom for many.
Surely we cannot read those chapters without a feeling of utter sadness.
In this article I wish to refer to certain circumstances pertaining to the first reading, thoughts which make us aware of the wonderful balance of justice we receive from Almighty God, in His own good time.
Firstly, all this day’s readings reveal the result of great evils multiplying from small beginnings, the lack of self discipline, that has no check in their initial stages; the necessity to be wary of invitations pleasing to the senses: in 2 Sam. 12—the roving eye, the licentious thought, followed by the deed and resulting in the death of a valiant man and an infant babe, and evils that followed at a later date, with repercussions until now.
Next (Jer. 16) we have the thought of the dull sameness and monotony of keeping the Mosaic Law, the desire for change and sensation, followed by the materialistic mind requiring a visible God, even of wood or stone in preference to Him who is ever present but unseen. The desire led on to participation in the sensual rites of the Baals and Ashtaroths, resulting in the loss by sacrifice of children, homes, lands and a scattering to captivity.
And lastly (Mat. 27), the uncurbed, inordinate pride of Jewish ecclesiastics, the overwhelming jealousy induced by the answers of Jesus to their questioning, in which the so-called masters in Israel were always defeated. This provocation to their egotism that existed in their supposed knowledge led to the desire for revenge, resulting in the crucifixion of the King of Israel, the subsequent destruction of Jerusalem and the final dispersion of all Israel from their land.
When Nathan spake the parable to David recorded in 2 Sam. 12. of the rich man taking the poor man’s lamb rather than his own, to incite David’s righteous indignation and sympathy, how appalled David must have been when he heard the dramatic words, “Thou art the man!”
All David’s secrecy had been of no avail to Him of whom we know that “where ever we go, what ever pursue, our ways are open to His view”. Yet David was forgiven. But Almighty God had given the verdict of requital which had to be fulfilled, and the punishment came in due time in every detail as foretold, as it always must, in God’s own time. How meticulously exact was the retribution put into effect.
David was forgiven, but what of Uriah? I am convinced that the attempt of David to cover up his affair from Uriah failed beforehand, remembering that it would be at least two months before Uriah was recalled to Jerusalem and the whispering gossip that all such intrigues produce had commenced. It had reached Uriah, I feel sure, before lie was sent for by David; for Uriah was prepared for the King’s double request that he return to his home with the pious explanation that David could not gainsay.
Uriah returned to Joab with his own death warrant. Was Uriah an evil man? Did he deserve his fate? We do not know, except that in the parable by Nathan there appears sympathy for the poor man whose ewe lamb was taken; he had no other, he lavished all his love upon one. Did Uriah welcome death because he knew that Bathsheba, his wife, was unfaithful to him? Again, we do not know. But one thing we do know: that God is Just! If Uriah deserved his fate, God is Just! If he awakens in the Kingdom of God, these events will be as if they had never been, for God is Just!
Therefore it was true when David said, “I have sinned against the Lord”, and again in Ps. 51. 4, “Against Thee, thee only, have I sinned and done this evil in Thy sight”.
But, because of the 14th verse of 2 Sam. 12, which reads, “How be it because of this deed thou bast given great occasion to the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme”, we know it has its repercussions in our own life time, for the enemies of the Lord, the atheists, the agnostics, etc. speak derisively of David being a man after God’s own heart, implying blasphemy of the person of Deity and of God’s Holy Word.
If we consider the early life of David, his absolute reliance upon Almighty God (1 Sam. 17. 45-47), his piety and mercy towards his enemy Saul (1 Sam. 24. 6), especially because Saul was the Lord’s anointed, his offer and desire to build a Temple for the Name of God, the psalms in honour and praise of our Heavenly Father, I suggest these balance the unfortunate inuendos of the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme. We must feel that the words of the psalms, so well pleasing to God, were considered in the forgiveness of David’s sin.
Nevertheless, Almighty God’s spoken words of condemnation respecting David’s moral lapse and subsequent guilt of Uriah’s death had to be fulfilled. It is not always that retribution for evil takes place quickly, and in this instance there was a lapse of nine years or more before its final consummation, plus the time of aftermath in David’s lifetime.
The first result of David and Bathsheba’s sin came quickly, by the death of their infant son, but 2 Sam. 12. 11 says, “I will raise up evil against thee out of thine own house”, etc., and I suggest it was not a considerable time before the miserable affair of David’s son Amnon with Absolom’s sister, Tamar. But there was a considerable lapse of time, approximately nine years, before the fulfilment of the remainder of that verse eleven.
In 2 Sam. 15. 7 it would appear that Absolom waited 40 years after his return to Jerusalem from Geshar, where he lived three years with his mother’s relatives (1 Chr. 3. 2), which must be incorrect as David’s total reign was forty and a half years in all, and Absolom was born in Hebron during David’s reign.’ Absolom’s rebellion and pretension to the throne finalised the prophecy of Nathan for Almighty God, even over nine years, for every detail had to be meticulously fulfilled. From this we renew our faith in the knowledge that God’s spoken word will most assuredly be fulfilled, even the future things in which we trust.
Behold, I will raise up evil against thee out of thine own house.” How truly this judgment came to pass, for, apart from the anxiety of mind regarding Amnon’s death by his brother, and of Absolom’s being slain against the orders of King David, there was again another death in “his own house”, when Amasa was feloniously slain by Joab. For in 2 Sam. 19. 13 we read where David sent word to Amasa as follows, “Art thou not of my bone and of my flesh?” And indeed he was, for he was nephew to David as also was Joab, the slayer (1 Chr. 2. 15, 16). Neither did one at least of Bathsheba’s kin escape.
When we read that as soon as Absolom proclaimed himself king, the first thing he did was to send for Ahitophel, David’s counsellor, it seems to point to the fact that there had been a secret agreement, or mutual dislike of both Ahitophel and Absolom concerning the whole circumstance of David and Bathsheba, for Ahitophel was the grandfather of Bathsheba (2 Sam. 11. 3 and 2 Sam. 23. 34) and perhaps be carried a secret hatred of David from that time onward and awaited a chance for personal revenge, which was known to Absolom.
Despite the turn of events, Almighty God did not allow His judgment to be overbalanced by the intrigues of evil men, for He did not allow David to be overwhelmed by the host following Absolom. He heard the appeal and prayers of David recorded in 2 Sam. 15. 3 regarding the counsel of Ahitophel, of whom it was said, “The counsel of Ahitophel which he counselled in those days was as if a man enquired at the oracle of God”.
The Origin of the Organic World – Part One