David and Bath-Sheba story

David and Bath-Sheba story - structural analysis 

I was interested how the story of "sin of David" is organized. Me personally could only identify 6 blocks (11:2-5; 11:6-21[22-25]; 11:26-27; 12:1-15a; 12:15b-23; 12:24-25) with Introduction and Conclusion (11:1 and 12:26-31). The I consulted two sources: (1) David A. Dorsey, The Literary Structure of the Old Testament: A Commentary on Genesis - Malachi, p. 134; (2) Peter J. Leithart, A Son to Me: An Exposition of 1 & 2 Samuel, p. 215.

 

So, here is from David A. Dorsey:

a. 10:1-19, war with the Ammonites 
 b. 11:1-5, David's sin with Bathsheba; she conceives a child 

  c. 11:6-27, David covers up his guilt
   d. 12:1-12, Turning point: God uncovers David's sin
  c'. 12:13-15a, David admits his guilt
 b'. 12:15b-25, Bathsheba's child dies; her next, Solomon, lives 

a'. 12:26-31, victory over Ammonites

Here is from Leithart:  
a. 11:1 (or 10:1-11:1) Joab on the field besieging Rabba, David has stayed in Jerusalem 
 b. 11:2-5, David sleeps with Bathsheba and she becomes pregnant 
  c. 11:6-25, David arranged for Uriah's death 
   d. 11:26-27, Bathsheba mourns for Uriah
    e. 12:1-15a, Nathan confronts David's sin
   d'. 12:15b-17, David mourns/prays for his infant son
  c'. 12:18-23, David's son dies
 b'. 12:24-25, David sleeps with Bathsheba and she becomes pregnant 
a'. 12:26-31, David goes to Rabbah and finishes the siege, then returns to Jerusalem 

What's the real difference? To begin with, let me say that both outlines have [relatively] same center - Nathan confronts David. So, while the "borders" are little bit off - the message of the story is very clear: David should've been leading the siege of Rabbah and, being confronted, he repents - great example to leaders and everyone of us. 

Also, a point that should be said before going into the differences - these or any other outlines provided by great godly men are not divine. They can be done based on careful or very careful research, but at the end of the day a researcher sees or magnifies the details important to him or her :). So, both of the structures have their valid points!   

But I want to pint out a couple of differences. First, Dr. Leithart's outline is not simple more detailed. It points out a shift of attention - from guilt (as Dorsey puts it) to sonship. It doesn't make David "guiltless" or less guilty, but he helps to understand that David's guilt leads to serious tangible consequences - death of Uriah and death of his [first] son from Bathsheba (interesting that we have nothing on her mourning of this child). Then, even her name - Bath (Hebrew for Daughter) Shaba speaks out even more of the family interconnectedness of this story as a whole.

Second, following this logic, there is a place for a reasonable question: whose son Uriah the Hittite is? If his death is paralleled with the death of David's son - who is his father? The only plausible answer is - he is God's adopted son. He is not simple a mercenary, as Gurney puts it (Gurney O.R., The Hittites, p. 43). No, he is a part of the family of Israel, one of many Gentiles that came "under the wings" (just like David's grate-grandma Ruth to enjoy the blessings of true worship and way of life. Taking this into account, make the sin of David even more gruesome.