- 10-
But of special interest in this history are the views taken of David's repentance, and of
the consequences which followed from his great sin. David is here set before us as the
model and ideal of, and the encouragement to, true repentance. In fact, tradition goes
even further. It declares that the sin of Israel in making the golden calf and the fall of
David were only recorded - it might almost seem, that they were only allowed -for the
sake of their lessons about repentance. The former showed that, even if the whole
congregation had erred and strayed, the door of mercy was still open to them; the latter,
that not only for Israel as a whole, but for each individual sinner, however low his fall,
there was assurance of forgiveness, if with true penitence he turned to God. The one
case proved that nothing was too great for God to pardon; the other that there was not
any one beneath His gracious notice. Be they many, or only one solitary individual, the
ear of God was equally open to the cry of the repentant (comp. Av. Sar. 4. b, 5. a). The
other point to which the Rabbis call attention is, that all the trials of David's later life,
and all the judgments which overtook him and his house, might be traced up to his
great sin, which, though personally pardoned, made itself felt in its consequences
throughout the whole of his after-history (comp. especially Sanh. 107. a and b, where
there are some interesting notices about David).
It cannot be doubted that there is deep truth in this view. For, although David was
graciously forgiven, and again received into God's favor, neither he nor his government
ever wholly recovered from the moral shock of his fall. It is not merely that his further
history was attended by an almost continuous succession of troubles, but that these
troubles, while allowed of God in judgment, were all connected with a felt and
perceptible weakness on his part, which was the consequence of his sin. If the figure
may be allowed, henceforth David's hand shook, and his voice trembled; and both what
he did and what he said, alike in his own household and in the land, bore evidence of it.
As we reckon, it must have been about the twentieth year of his reign,^3 when the sin of
his son Amnon proved the beginning of a long series of domestic and public troubles.
In this instance also it was carnal lust which kindled the devouring flame. The gloss of
the LXX. is likely to be correct, that David left unpunished the incest of Amnon with
Tamar, although committed under peculiarly aggravating circumstances, on account of
his partiality for him as being his first-born son. This indulgence on the part of his
father may also account for the daring recklessness which marked Amnon's crime. The
sentence of the Divine law upon such sin was, indeed, unmistakable (Leviticus
20:20:17). But a doting father, smitten with moral weakness, might find in the
remembrance of his own past sin an excuse for delay, if not a barrier to action; for it is
difficult to wield a heavy sword with a maimed arm.
(^)