Chapter 21.—David Not Lustful, Though He Fell into Adultery.

But when King David had suffered this injury at the hands of his impious and unnatural son, he not only bore with him in his mad passion, but mourned over him in his death.  He certainly was not caught in the meshes of carnal jealousy, seeing that it was not his own injuries but the sins of his son that moved him.  For it was on this account he had given orders that his son should not be slain if he were conquered in battle, that he might have a place of repentance after he was subdued; and when he was baffled in this design, he mourned over his son’s death, not because of his own loss, but because he knew to what punishment so impious an adulterer and parricide had been hurried.168    Comp. 2 Sam. xvi. 22; xviii. 5; xix. 1.  For prior to this, in the case of another son who had been guilty of no crime, though he was dreadfully afflicted for him while he was sick, yet he comforted himself after his death.169    2 Sam. xii. 19–23.

31.  And with what moderation and self-restraint those men used their wives appears chiefly in this, that when this same king, carried away by the heat of passion and by temporal prosperity, had taken unlawful possession of one woman, whose husband also he ordered to be put to death, he was accused of his crime by a prophet, who, when he had come to show him his sin, set before him the parable of the poor man who had but one ewe-lamb, and whose neighbor, though he had many, yet when a guest came to him spared to take of his own flock, but set his poor neighbor’s one lamb before his guest to eat.  And David’s anger being kindled against the man, he commanded that he should be put to death, and the lamb restored fourfold to the poor man; thus unwittingly condemning the sin he had wittingly committed.170    2 Sam. xii. 1–6.  And when he had been shown this, and God’s punishment had been denounced against him, he wiped out his sin in deep penitence.  But yet in this parable it was the adultery only that was indicated by the poor man’s ewe-lamb; about the killing of the woman’s husband,—that is, about the murder of the poor man himself who had the one ewe-lamb,—nothing is said in the parable, so that the sentence of condemnation is pronounced against the adultery alone.  And hence we may understand with what temperance he possessed a number of wives when he was forced to punish himself for transgressing in regard to one woman.  But in his case the immoderate desire did not take up its abode with him, but was only a passing guest.  On this account the unlawful appetite is called even by the accusing prophet, a guest.  For he did not say that he took the poor man’s ewe-lamb to make a feast for his king, but for his guest.  In the case of his son Solomon, however, this lust did not come and pass away like a guest, but reigned as a king.  And about him Scripture is not silent, but accuses him of being a lover of strange women; for in the beginning of his reign he was inflamed with a desire for wisdom, but after he had attained it through spiritual love, he lost it through carnal lust.171    2 Chron. i. 10–12; 1 Kings xi. 1–3.

CAPUT XXI. David quanquam in adulterium lapsus, longe fuit a libidinosorum intemperantia.

Rex autem David cum hoc ab impio atque immani filio passus esset, non solum ferocientem toleravit, sed etiam planxit exstinctum (II Reg. XVIII, 33). Non enim carnali zelo irretitus tenebatur, quem nullo modo injuriae suae, sed peccata filii commovebant. Nam ideo, si vinceretur, eum occidi prohibuerat, ut edomito servaretur poenitendi locus: et quia non potuit, non orbitatem doluit in ejus interitu, sed noverat in quas poenas tam impie adultera et parricidalis anima raperetur. Namque alio prius filio qui innocens erat, pro quo aegrotante affligebatur, moriente laetatus est.

31. Ex hoc maxime apparet qua moderatione ac temperantia illi viri feminis utebantur, quod cum in unam illicite irruisset rex idem, aestu quodam aetatis et temporalium rerum prosperitatibus abreptus, cujus etiam maritum occidendum praeceperat; accusatus est per prophetam: qui cum ad eum venisset convincendum de peccato, proposuit ei similitudinem de paupere qui habebat ovem unam, cujus vicinus cum haberet multas, ad adventum hospitis sui unicam potius vicini sui pauperis oviculam exhibuit epulandam. In quem commotus David occidi eum jussit, et quadruplicari ovem pauperi; ut se nesciens condemnaret, qui peccaverat sciens. Quod cum ei manifestatum esset, et divinitus denuntiata vindicta, diluit poenitendo peccatum (II Reg. XII, 1-14). Sed tamen in hac similitudine stuprum tantummodo designatum est de ove vicini pauperis; de marito autem mulieris interempto, hoc est, de ipso paupere, qui unam habebat ovem, occiso, non est per similitudinem interrogatus David, ut in solum adulterium diceret sententiam damnationis suae. Ex quo intelligitur quanta temperantia multas mulieres habuerit, quando de una in qua excessit modum, a seipso puniri coactus est. Sed in isto viro immoderatae hujus libidinis non permansio, sed transitus fuit: propterea etiam ab arguente Propheta ille illicitus appetitus hospes vocatus est. Non enim dixit eum regi suo, sed hospiti suo vicini pauperis ovem ad epulandum exhibuisse. At vero in ejus filio Salomone, non quasi hospes transitum habuit, 0078 sed regnum ista libido possedit: de quo Scriptura non tacuit, culpans eum fuisse amatorem mulierum (III Reg. XI, 1). Cujus tamen initia desiderio sapientiae flagraverant (II Paralip. I, 7-12); quam cum amore spirituali adeptus esset, amore carnali amisit.