Chapter VII.
From the fight of David against the giants, and the pouring of water on the lake of Bethleem; from which and other illustrious deeds it is concluded that his sin was covered by him: especially since he committed it without a bloody emotion, and afterward preferred to entrust himself to God rather than to men; and he himself taught that the crime was forgiven to him.
Let us also consider his other exploits. He fought against the offspring of the giants, when one of them almost killed the king with a spinning javelin in battle, but the enemy, daringly, paid the price of death for his rescue.
After achieving victory over a ferocious tribe, he undertook another massive war in the valley of the Titans, not only against the enemy, but also against nature. For while he was fighting, he was thirsty and had nothing to drink. He said, 'Who will give me water from the well that is in Bethlehem, near the gates? (2 Samuel 23:15)' However, the enemy was situated between the well and the sacred place of David, and there were enemy encampments surrounding the area. Three men cut down a multitude of enemies and filled water from the lake in Bethlehem, and offered it to the king to drink. But the king refused to drink and poured it out to the Lord. For it was worthy of such a great gift that the emblem of living virtue became a sacrifice of piety. And he said a fitting sentence in the spirit of prophecy: Let me not do this; let me not drink the blood of the men who departed from their souls. Therefore, he conquered nature by not drinking when thirsty; and he set an example for all the army to endure thirst. He also trained his subjects in the duty of virtue, so that even voluntary soldiers would obey royal command through danger. But the fact that he did not want to drink, he declared was because of the grace of testing the soldiers, not the necessity of satisfying thirst. He also foresaw that the use of drinking by kings should not be sought through the dangers of others. Finally, the wound of a guilty conscience entreated, since she could not have the pleasure of drinking the water sought with the blood of so many men, which was determined by the horror of the proposed death.
But if you desire to contemplate more deeply and penetrate the mystery, David did not thirst for water from the lake in Bethlehem, but in his spirit, he foresaw Christ arising from the Virgin. Therefore, he desired to drink not the water of a river, but the drink of spiritual grace. That is, he did not thirst for the element of water, but for the blood of Christ. In the end, he did not drink the offered water, but poured it out to the Lord, signifying that he thirsted for the sacrifice of Christ, not for the flow of nature. He thirsted for that sacrifice in which there is remission of sins, he thirsted for that eternal fountain, not one that is sought through others' dangers, but one that wards off others' dangers.
Therefore, do we not believe that the blood of one covered by such marvelous works? Justly the voice of the blood of Abel cried out to the Lord; for Cain, the wicked one, was not covered by any good works because he was a murderer, because he did not confess his crime, but denied it. However, David had indeed killed a man who was not at all guilty; but he killed him not out of a desire for cruelty, but to overshadow shame, to cover the shame of lust. I dare not say that he was oppressed by force of crime (for he who knew how to lift himself from the ruin of that sin was not oppressed), but I say that he was swayed by the force of temptation. For he had said above: Test me, O Lord, and try me; burn my kidneys and my heart (Psalm 25:2). And elsewhere: But I said in my abundance, I will not be moved forever (Psalm 29:7). And: You have tested me with fire, and no iniquity has been found in me (Psalm 16:3). The Lord wanted to subject Himself to temptation, so that He would not arrogate anything above mankind; for strength is perfected in weakness. He did not act out of cruel affection: nothing can be attributed to the holy Prophet that is less sanctified, who even in the last moments of his life called upon Solomon his son, to take away his innocent blood, which his commander-in-chief Joab had shed, when Abner, while negotiating a partnership, fell victim to the ambush of an enemy force, although he desired to lie with him. He wept for him, and after mourning for him, he walked with the insignia of power taken off, and attended to the proper funeral rites. Having taught, moreover, that a promised faith must be kept, he also showed that honor and virtue should be respected even in an enemy. Did he not, with the gentleness of his own inherited piety, also remove the stain of this error?
How excellent, however, that he chose whichever of the three conditions offered to him he wanted, when, with the people having been counted, he incurred offense, since he had proposed either whether he wanted a famine to happen over the land for three years, or to flee from the face of his pursuing enemies for three months, or to die in the land for three days; he chose the third, because he preferred the power of the Lord, rather than the power of men! For the Lord would quickly have mercy and forgive. Thus he says: I am greatly distressed in these three things, but I will fall into the hands of the Lord (for his mercy is very great) rather than fall into the hands of men (2 Kings 24:14). With this humility, prudence, and gentleness, he caused, to use the words of Scripture, the Lord to have repentance for his own disturbance. Finally, it is written: Because the Lord had repentance for the evil (Jeremiah 16:19).
But truly that is also admirable (Of Penance, dist. 3, cap. That truly), when he offered himself to the angel striking the people, saying: This flock, what has it done! Let your hand be upon me, and upon the house of my father (2 Samuel 24:17). By this action, he was immediately judged worthy of sacrifice, who was considered unworthy of forgiveness. And it is not surprising that through such an offering for the people, he obtained forgiveness for his own sin, since Moses, by offering himself to the Lord for the error of the people, also erased the sins of the people.
Therefore, should one confess their sins or not? But who would deny this, when the Prophet himself has taught that sins be forgiven, crimes be covered, and not be imputed by the Lord? He himself has taught the remission of sin, as it is written: I acknowledge my offense, and I have not hidden my injustice. I said, I will disclose my injustice to the Lord, and You have forgiven the impiety of my heart (Psalm 32:5). If he said, I will disclose, and he deserved forgiveness before he disclosed; how much more when he spoke of himself saying: I acknowledge my iniquity (Psalm 50:5), was all his sin forgiven? It is especially permissible that Nathan the prophet responded: And the Lord has taken away your sin (II Sam. XII, 13).
Therefore, he earned the forgiveness of his iniquity, and he covered it with charity and concealed his sins, and he covered them with good works. No sin was imputed to him, because there was no malicious intent in him, but rather a slip of error. Furthermore, it was not a wave of wickedness, but rather a shadow of mystery. And yet, he confessed his offense, acknowledged his wrongdoing, saw the cleansing, and saw, and believed. He loved greatly, so that he could cover any error with excessive charity.