Offending God

Against You, You only, I have sinned and done what is evil in Your sight, so that You are justified when You speak and blameless when You judge.  Psalm 51:4 NASB

You only – When we read this verse, we are often offended.  We think to ourselves, “Wait a minute!  David’s saying that the only one he offended is God, but that’s nonsense.  What about Bathsheba?  What about Uriah?  She was humiliated, forced into sexual submission, and he was killed!  Don’t they count?  Why does David think he can get off by confessing his sin to God as if God is the only offended party?  How religiously callous can you be!”

Well, what do you say?  Is David skirting the issue, ignoring the rape and murder?  Does he think God’s pardon will cover these other sins?  To answer these questions, we need to remember what Jonathan Sacks said about atonement and forgiveness (yesterday’s Today’s Word).  In case you’ve forgotten, remember this:

“Guilt makes a clear distinction between the act of wrongdoing and the person of the wrongdoer.  The act was wrong, but the agent remains, in principle, intact.  That is why guilt can be removed, ‘atoned for,’ by confession, remorse, and restitution.”[1]

“The psychology of shame is quite different to that of guilt.  We can discharge guilt by achieving forgiveness—and forgiveness can only be granted by the object of our wrongdoing, which is why Yom Kippur only atones for sins against God.  Even God cannot—logically, cannot—forgive sins committed against our fellow human until they themselves have forgiven us. . . Shame cannot be removed by forgiveness.”[2]

So, what is David really doing?  To answer that question, we need to look at the verb that expresses his act.  It’s ḥāṭāʾ, “to miss the mark, to incur guilt.”  “The verb has the connotation of breach of civil law, i.e. failure to live up to expectations, . . Serious breakdown in personal relationship is highlighted by the verb . . . Extended to religious obligations, the form, ḥāṭāʾ min, in Lev 4:2 designates a failure to observe God’s laws and in Lev 5:16 denotes action which gives less than is due, a failure of full duty.”^[3]  Let’s reflect on this.  What “law” or “expectation” has David violated?  What personal relationship is jeopardized?  The answer: God’s law, God’s expectation, and God’s relationship.  David was supposed to act like the divinely-appointed king.  He was held accountable to that role, and that role depended on his personal relationship with YHVH.  This is what is at stake.  Of course, there is also public shame.  The sins against Bathsheba and Uriah are not annulled.  But ḥāṭāʾ tells us that the more fundamental error is missing God’s intended mark.  Repenting over the travesty of Bathsheba and Uriah will have no effect unless, first, this breach is healed.

“I have done what is evil” writes David.  Literally, “what is evil I have made.”  This is a statement about ethical obligation.  This includes Bathsheba and Uriah.  Ethical obligation is about morally correct behavior.  ḥāṭāʾ may focus solely on God’s relationship and expectation, but raʿ ʿāśîtî lands squarely in the human community.

In the end, David is not ignoring his ethical transgression.  It is incorporated in the second verb, applied to both God and men.  But in the end, God cannot forgive what David has done to another person unless and until that other person accepts David’s remorse and plea.  Perhaps that did happen with Bathsheba.  For Uriah there is only an appeal to the God of creation—and hope.

Topical Index: forgiveness, sin, ḥāṭāʾ, evil, raʿ, ethical obligation, Psalm 51:4

[1] Ibid., pp. 250-251.

[2] Ibid., p. 251.

^[3] Livingston, G. H. (1999). 638 חָטָא. In R. L. Harris, G. L. Archer Jr., & B. K. Waltke (Eds.), Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament(electronic ed., p. 277). Moody Press.