2 Samuel (2 Kings) 12

1–13

Therefore, Nathan went to David and wove a dramatic act for judgment. And what did he say? “My king, I want your judgment. There was a certain rich man and a certain poor one. The rich person possessed herds of cattle and many other flocks; and the poor one had one ewe that drank from his glass, ate from his table and slept in his embrace.” Here Nathan revealed the genuine bond between a husband and wife. “When a certain stranger arrived, the rich man desired to keep his own animals, and he took the poor man’s ewe and slaughtered her.” Here, do you see how Nathan wove the dramatic act, mysteriously concealing the weapon in the glands of David’s throat? Then what did the king say? Thinking that he had to pass judgment against someone else, he decided most severely. For such are human beings. When it concerns other people, they gladly and abruptly render decisions and publicize them. And what did David say? “As the Lord lives, the man who did this thing is worthy of death. And he shall restore the lamb fourfold.” Therefore, what did Nathan reply? He did not allow the wound to be relieved for many hours; rather, he quickly stripped it naked and sharply embedded the knife deeply into it, so as not to rob it of the painful sensation. “You are the man, my king.” What did the king say? “I have sinned against the Lord.” He did not say, “Who are you who censures me? Who sent you to speak with such boldness? With what daring did you prevail?” He did not say anything of the sort; rather, he perceived the sin. And what did he say? “I have sinned against the Lord.” Therefore, what did Nathan say to him? “And the Lord remitted your sin.” You condemned yourself; I [God] remit your sentence. You confessed prudently; you annulled the sin. You appropriated a condemnatory decision against yourself; I repealed the sentence. Can you see that what is written in Scripture was fulfilled: “Be the first one to tell of your transgression so you may be justified” How toilsome is it to be the first one to declare the sin?

Homilies on Repentance and Almsgiving 2.2.9

1–6

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, refused 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. And when he had been shown this, and God’s punishment had been announced 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.

Christian Instruction 3.21

1–6

For I admit my wrongdoing, and my offense confronts me all the time. “I have not thrust my deed behind my back; I do not look askance at others while forgetting myself; I do not presume to extract a speck of straw from my brother’s eye while there is a timber in my own; my sin is in front of me, not behind my back. It was behind me until the prophet was sent to me and put to me the parable of the poor man’s sheep.” What the prophet Nathan said to David was this: There was a certain rich man who had a large flock of sheep. His neighbor was a poor man who had only one little ewe lamb; she rested in his arms and was fed from his own dish. Then a guest arrived at the rich man’s house. The rich man took nothing from his flock; what he wanted was the little ewe lamb that belonged to his neighbor, so he slaughtered that for his guest. What does he deserve? Angrily David pronounced sentence. Obviously the king was unaware of the trap into which he had fallen, and he decreed that the rich man deserved to die and must make fourfold restitution for the sheep. It was a very severe view, and entirely just. But his own sin was not yet before his eyes; what he had done was still behind his back. He did not yet admit his own iniquity and hence would not remit another’s. But the prophet had been sent to him for this purpose. He brought the sin out from behind David’s back and held it before his eyes, so that he might see that the severe sentence had been passed on himself. To cut away diseased tissue in David’s heart and heal the wound there, Nathan used David’s tongue as a knife.

Explanations of the Psalms 50

1–6

But sometimes, when the powerful of this world are taken to task, they are first to be searched by certain similitudes, as on a matter not concerning them; and, when they have pronounced a right sentence as against another man, then in fitting ways they are to be smitten with regard to their own guilt; so that the mind puffed up with temporal power may in no wise lift itself up against the reprover, having by its own judgment trodden on the neck of pride, and may not try to defend itself, being bound by the sentence of its own mouth. For hence it was that Nathan the prophet, having come to take the king to task, asked his judgment as if concerning the cause of a poor man against a rich one, that the king might first pronounce sentence, and afterwards hear of his own guilt, to the end that he might by no means contradict the righteous doom that he had uttered against himself. Thus the holy man, considering both the sinner and the king, studied in a wonderful order first to bind the daring culprit by confession, and afterwards to cut him to the heart by rebuke. He concealed for a while whom he aimed at, but smote him suddenly when he had him. For the blow would perchance have fallen with less force had he purposed to smite the sin openly from the beginning of his discourse; but by first introducing the similitude he sharpened the rebuke which he concealed. He had come as a physician to a sick man; he saw that the sore must be cut; but he doubted of the sick man's patience. Therefore he hid the medicinal steel under his robe, which he suddenly drew out and plunged into the sore, that the patient might feel the cutting blade before he saw it, lest, seeing it first, he should refuse to feel it.

The Book of Pastoral Rule, Part 3, Chapter 2

10–12

Thus, the prophets’ sayings are of three classes: one class refers to the earthly, a second to the heavenly Jerusalem, and a third to both simultaneously. It will be best to support this assertion with illustration. The prophet Nathan was sent to accuse King David of a grave sin and to foretell what evils were to befall him on this account. Now no one can fail to see that this prophecy refers to the earthly city. There are others like it, sometimes addressed to the people at large for their profit and well-being, and sometimes to an individual who merited a word from God to foreknow some event for the guidance of his temporal life.

City of God 17.3

10–12

But that you may clearly know that his censure and sacred considerations deal more with actions than with persons themselves, hear how God, the judge, who many times gave sentences favorable to his servant David, often gave decisions unfavorable to him. This happened in a transaction which did not involve many men, or perhaps, what would have aroused God more, in a transaction involving holy men. It happened in the instance of one man, a foreigner, where the action rather than the person demanded punishment.When Uriah the Hittite, a member of a wicked race and of an unfriendly nation, had been killed, the divine Word was immediately passed to David, “You have killed Uriah, the Hittite, with the sword and have taken his wife to be your wife, and have slain him with the sword of the children of Ammon. Therefore the sword shall never depart from your house. Thus said the Lord, ‘Behold, I will raise up evil against you out of your own house; and I will take your wives before your eyes and give them to your neighbor. For you did it secretly: but I will do this thing in the sight of all Israel and in the sight of the sun.’ ” What do you say to this, you who believe that God does not judge our actions and who believe that he has no concern whatsoever for us? Do you not see that the eyes of God were never absent even from that secret sin through which David fell once? Learn from this that you are always seen by Christ, understand and know that you will be punished, and perhaps very soon, you, who, perhaps in consolation for your sins, think that our acts are not seen by God. You see that the holy David was unable to hide his sin in the secrecy of his inmost rooms; neither was he able to claim exemption from immediate punishment through the privilege of great deeds. What did the Lord say to him? “I will take your wives before your eyes, and the sword shall never depart from your house.”

The Governance of God 2.4

And David, who was a man after God’s own heart, who because of his virtues was found worthy to generate from his seed the promise of the Fathers, and to have Christ shine forth from himself for the salvation of all the world, was he not punished because of adultery with a woman, when he held her beauty with his eyes and was pierced in his soul by that arrow? For it was because of this that God raised up a war against him from within his own household, and he who came forth from his loins pursued him. These things befell him even after he had repented with many tears, such that he moistened his couch with his weeping, and after God had said to him through the prophet, “The Lord hath forgiven thy sin.”

Ascetical Homilies 10

13–14

If you like, however, I will give you further examples relating to our condition. Come then to the blessed David, and take him for your example of repentance. Great as he was, he suffered a fall. It was in the afternoon, after his siesta, that he took a turn on the housetop and saw by chance what stirred his human passion. He fulfilled the sinful deed, but his nobility, when it came to confessing the lapse, had not perished with the doing of the deed. Nathan the prophet came, swift to convict, but now as a healer for his wound, saying, “The Lord was angry, and you have sinned.” So spoke a simple subject to his reigning sovereign. But David, though king and robed in purple, did not take it amiss, for he had regard not to the rank of the speaker but to the majesty of him who sent him. He was not puffed up by the fact that guardsmen were drawn up all around him, for the angelic host of the Lord came to his mind and he was in terror “as seeing him who is invisible.” So he answered and said to the man that came to him, or rather, in his person, to the God whose messenger he was, “I have sinned against the Lord.” You see this royal humility and the making of confession. Surely no one had been convicting him, nor were there many who knew what he had done. Swiftly the deed was done and immediately the prophet appeared as accuser. Lo! The sinner confesses his wicked deed, and as it was full and frank confession, he had the swiftest healing. For the prophet Nathan first threatened him, but then said immediately, “And the Lord has put away your sin.” And see how quickly lovingkindness changes the face of God! Except that he first declares, “you have given great occasion to the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme” as though he said “you have many that are your foes because of your righteousness, from whom nevertheless, you were kept safe by your upright living. But as you have thrown away this best of armors, you have now, standing ready to strike, these foes that are risen up against you.”So then the prophet comforted David as we have seen, but that blessed man, though he received most gladly the assurance, “The Lord has put away your sin,” did not, king as he was, draw back from penitence. Indeed he put on sackcloth in place of his purple robe, and the king sat in ashes on the bare earth instead of on his gilded throne. And in ashes he did not merely sit, but took them for eating, as he himself says, “I have eaten ashes as it were bread, and mingled my drink with weeping.” His lustful eye he wasted away with tears; as he says, “every night I wash my bed and water my couch with my tears.” And when his courtiers exhorted him to eat food, he would not, but prolonged his fast for seven whole days.

Catechetical Lecture 2:11-12

13–14

May we by all means be filled with revulsion for sin but not for repentance. May we be ashamed to put ourselves at risk but not to be delivered. Who will snatch away the wooden plank from the shipwrecked so that he may not escape? Who will begrudge the curing of wounds? Does David not say, “Every single night I will bathe my bed, I will drench my couch in my tears.” And again, “I acknowledge my sin, and my iniquity I have not concealed” And further, “I said, ‘I will reveal against myself my sin to my God,’ and you forgave the wickedness of my heart” Did not the prophet answer [David] as follows when, after the guilt of murder and adultery for the sake of Bathsheba, he was penitent? “The Lord has taken away from you your sin.”

Letter 1.5.3

13–14

Are you ashamed, sir, to do as David did—David, the king and the prophet, the ancestor of Christ according to the flesh? He was told of the rich man who had a great number of flocks and yet, when a guest arrived, took the poor man’s one ewe lamb and killed it; and when he recognized that he was himself condemned by the story, he said, “I have sinned against the Lord.” Therefore do not take it ill, sir, if what was said to King David is said to you, “You are the man.” For if you listen with attention and say, “I have sinned against the Lord,” if you say, in the words of the royal prophet, “O come, let us worship and fall down, and weep before the Lord our Maker,” then it will be said to you also, “Because you repented, the Lord has put away your sin; you shall not die.”

Letter 51.7

13–14

Indeed, to the penitent himself confession alone does not suffice, unless correction of the deed follows, with the result that the penitent does not continue to do deeds which demand repentance. He should even humble his soul just as holy David, who, when he heard from the prophet: “Your sin is pardoned,” became more humble in the correction of his sin, so that “he did eat ashes like bread and mingled his drink with weeping.”

The Life of St. Ambrose 9.39

But just as Matthew, presenting Christ the king as if descending for the assumption of our sins, thus descends from David through Solomon, because Solomon was born of her with whom David had sinned, so Luke, presenting Christ the priest as if ascending after the destroying of sins, ascends through Nathan to David, because Nathan the prophet had been sent, and by his reproof the penitent David obtained the annulling of his sin.

On Eighty-three Varied Questions 61

Similarity of words, dissimilarity of hearts. We may hear the similarity of the words with our ears, but we can only know the dissimilarity of hearts by the angel's declaration. David sinned, and when he was rebuked by the prophet, he said, "I have sinned," and was immediately told, "Your sin has been forgiven you." Saul sinned, and when he was rebuked by the prophet, he said, "I have sinned," and his sin was not forgiven, but the wrath of God remained upon him. What can this mean but similarity of words, dissimilarity of hearts? Human beings can hear words, God inspects hearts.

Sermon 291.5

Baptized people, though, who are deserters and violators of such a great sacrament, if they repent from the bottom of their hearts, if they repent where God can see, as he saw David's heart, when on being rebuked by the prophet, and very sternly rebuked, he cried out after hearing God's fearsome threats and said, "I have sinned," and shortly afterward heard, "God has taken away your sin." Such is the effectiveness of three syllables. "I have sinned" is just three syllables; and yet in these three syllables the flames of the heart's sacrifice rose up to heaven. So those who have done genuine penance, and have been absolved from the constraints by which they were bound and cut off from the body of Christ, and have lived good lives after their penance, such as they ought to have lived before penance, and in due course have passed away after being reconciled, why, they too go to God, go to their rest, will not be deprived of the kingdom, will be set apart from the people of the devil.

Sermon 393.1

13–14

You see what instant judgment so great a man suffered for one sin. Immediate condemnation followed the fault, a condemnation immediately punishing and without reservation, stopping the guilty one then and there and not deferring the case to a later date. Thus he did not say, “because you have done this, know that the judgment of God will come and you will be tormented in the fire of hell.” Rather, he said, “You shall suffer immediate punishment and shall have the sword of divine severity at your throat.”And what followed? The guilty man acknowledged his sin, was humbled, filled with remorse, confessed and wept. He repented and asked for pardon, gave up his royal jewels, laid aside his robes of gold cloth, put aside the purple, resigned his crown. He was changed in body and appearance. He cast aside all his kingship with its ornaments. He put on the externals of a fugitive penitent, so that his squalor was his defense. He was wasted by fasting, dried up by thirst, worn from weeping and imprisoned in his own loneliness. Yet this king, bearing such a great name, greater in his holiness than in temporal power, surpassing all by the prerogative of his antecedent merits, did not escape punishment though he sought pardon so earnestly. The reward of this great penitence was such that he was not condemned to eternal punishment. Yet, he did not merit full pardon in this world. What did the prophet say to the penitent? “Because you have given occasion to the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme, the son that is born to you shall die.” Besides the pain of the bitter loss of his son, God wished that there be added to the very loving father an understanding of this greatest punishment, namely, that the father who mourned should himself bring death to his beloved son, when the son, born of his father’s crime, was killed for the very crime that had begotten him.

The Governance of God 2.4

15–17

How particularly difficult it is to atone for the evil deed of handing over the name of the Lord to the blasphemy of the heathen, we are instructed by the example of the most blessed David who, because of the intercession of his acts of justice, deserved to evade eternal punishment for his offenses through one confession only. Yet he, with penance as his protector, was unable to obtain full pardon for his sin. When Nathan the prophet had said to David, who was confessing his own sins to him, “The Lord has taken away your sin, you shall not die,” he added immediately, “nevertheless, because you have given occasion to the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme, for this word, the child that is born to you, shall die.”And what happened next? Having laid aside his crown and put away his jewels, all splendor of royal dignity being removed, he was relieved of the purple. For all his sins he shut himself up alone, weeping, filthy in sackcloth, soaked in tears and soiled with ashes, and sought the life of his little child with the voice of many lamentations and beat upon the Most Holy God with great fervor or prayer. Thus asking and imploring, he believed he could in this manner obtain what he sought from God. Yet he was unable to obtain his request through what is the most forceful aid to those who ask. From this it can be understood that there is no crime deserving of greater guilt than to give to the heathen a reason for blaspheming. For, whoever has erred gravely without giving cause for blasphemy to others brings damnation to himself only, but he who makes others blaspheme drags many to death with himself, he will, of necessity, be guilty of as many as he shall have drawn into guilt. Not only this, whatever sinner so sins that he does not cause others to blaspheme by his sin, his sin is injurious only to him who sins, but does not insult the holy name of God with the sacrilegious curse of those who blaspheme. But he who, by his sin, causes others to blaspheme, his sin is, of necessity, beyond the measure of human crime, because he has done unthinkable harm to God through the curses of many.

The Governance of God 4.18

And I do not say this to overturn fasting (God forbid!) but to exhort you that with fasting you do that which is better than fasting, the abstaining from all evil. David also sinned. Let us see then how he too repented. Three days he sat on ashes. But this he did not for the sin’s sake but for the child’s, being as yet stupefied with that affliction. But he wiped away the sin by other means, by humbleness, contrition of heart, compunction of soul, by falling into this sin no more, by remembering it always, by bearing thankfully every thing that befalls him, by sparing those that grieve him, by forbearing to requite those who conspire against him; yes, even preventing those who desire to do this.

Homilies on 2 Corinthians 4.6

20–23

Holy David lost two sons. One was guilty of incest, the other of fratricide. To have had them caused him shame; to have lost them brought him grief. He also lost a third, a child whom he loved. He wept over him while he was still alive, but he did not long for him after he died. For so we read that when the boy fell sick, David besought the Lord for him and fasted and lay upon sackcloth, and, although the elders approached him and tried to make him get up from the ground, he resolved neither to rise nor to eat. After he learned that the boy was dead, however, he arose from the ground, bathed upon the spot, anointed himself, changed clothing, worshiped the Lord and took food. Since this seemed strange to his servants, he answered that while the child was still alive, he had rightly fasted and wept, because he justly thought that God might pity him and was certain that he who could restore the dead to life could surely preserve the life of one still living. But now that the child was dead, why should he fast, since he could not bring him back from death and restore him to life. “I shall go to him rather;” he said, “but he shall not return to me.”What greater consolation to a mourner! What a true judgment from a wise man! What wonderful wisdom exhibited by a servant! [Thus] no one should protest that some misfortune has befallen him and complain that he has been afflicted contrary to his merit. For who are you to proclaim your merit beforehand? Why do you desire to anticipate your judge? Why do you snatch the verdict from the mouth of him who is going to pronounce it?

On the Death of Satyrus 2.25-26

20–23

Thus David wept for his son who was about to die; he did not grieve for him when dead. He wept that he might not be snatched from him, but he ceased to weep when he was snatched away, for he knew that he was with Christ. And that you may know what I declare is true, he wept for his incestuous son Amnon when he was killed, and he mourned for the parricide Absalom when he perished, saying, “My son Absalom, my son Absalom!” He did not think the innocent son should be mourned, because he believed that the others had perished for their crime but that the latter would live on account of his innocence.Therefore, you have no reason for grieving excessively over your brother. He was born a man, he was subject to human frailty.

Consolation on the Death of Emperor Valentinian 47.48

22–23

King David loved his child and sat indeed in sackcloth and ashes, but he neither brought soothsayers nor enchanters (although there were such then, as Saul shows), but he made supplication to God. So you should do likewise: as that just man did, so you should do also; the same words you should say, when your child is dead, “I shall go to him, but he will not come to me.” This is true wisdom, this is affection. However much you may love your child, you will not love so much as he had then. For even though his child was born of adultery, yet that blessed man’s love of the mother was at its height, and you know that the offspring shares the love of the parents. And so great was his love toward it, that he even wished it to live, though it would be his own accuser, but still he gave thanks to God.

Homilies on Colossians 9