Augustine of Hippo

In his own words on 2 Samuel

• 2 Samuel 1:14-16

  But when no laws or lawful authorities give command, it is not lawful to kill another, even if he wishes and asks for it and has no longer the strength to live, as is clearly proved by the Scripture in the book of Kings [Samuel], where King David ordered the slayer of King Saul to be put to death, although he said that he had been importuned by the wounded and half-dead king to kill him with one blow and to free his soul struggling with the fetters of the body and longing to be released from those torments.

  LETTER 204

• 2 Samuel 2:5

  The martyrs of Christ in their strivings for truth have conquered this love of one's flesh.… For, in all flesh that lacks life, the one who has left the body cannot be aware of injury to the lifeless body, nor can he who created it lose anything. But in the midst of what was being done to the bodies of the dead, although the martyrs were enduring them fearlessly with great fortitude, among the brothers there was great grief, because no opportunity was given to them to pay just dues at the burial of the saints.… And thus, although no misery came upon those who had been slain, in the dismemberment of their bodies, in the burning of their bones, in the scattering of their ashes, a great sorrow tortured those who were unable to bury anything of theirs, because they themselves in a certain manner felt for those who had no feeling in any manner, and where now there was no passion on the part of the one, there was wretched compassion on the part of the other.Those men were praised and called blessed by King David who had bestowed the merciful kindness of burial on the dry bones of Saul and Jonathan, in keeping with that wretched compassion which I have mentioned. But, pray tell, what compassion is bestowed on those who have no feeling? Or should one think that the unburied were not able to cross the infernal river? May this be far from the Christian belief! Otherwise, it worked out very badly for so great a multitude of martyrs whose bodies could not be buried, and for them truth emptily said, "Do not be afraid of those who kill the body and after that have nothing more that they can do," if they were able to do them such wrongs as to prevent their crossing over to the desired places. But, without any doubt, this is exceedingly false, for it is no hindrance to the faithful to be denied burial of the bodies. Also, it is of no advantage if burial is granted to the godless. Why, then, are those men said to have done an act of mercy in burying Saul and his son and blessed by good King David for this, unless it is because the hearts of the compassionate are favorably affected when they are concerned over the well-being of other bodies of the dead? Or is it because of that love which keeps one from ever hating his own flesh that they do not wish such things to happen after their own death to their own bodies, so that what they wish to be done for them when they shall have no feeling they care to do for others who now have no feeling, while they themselves still have feeling?

  On the Care of the Dead 10.11

• 2 Samuel 3:14

  It appears harsh to you that after adultery, spouse should be reconciled to spouse. If faith is present, it will not be harsh. Why do we still regard as adulterers those who we believe have either been cleansed by baptism or have been healed by penance? Under the old law of God, no sacrifices wiped away these crimes, which, without a doubt, are cleansed by the blood of the new covenant. Therefore, in former times, it was forbidden in every way to take back to oneself a woman sullied by another man, although David, as a figure of the New Testament, took back, without any hesitation, the daughter of Saul, whom the father of the same woman had given to another after her separation from David. But now, afterwards, Christ says to the adulteress, "Neither will I condemn you. Go your way, and from now on sin no more." Who fails to understand that it is the duty of the husband to forgive what he knows the Lord of both has forgiven, and that he should not now call her an adulteress whose sin he believes to have been eradicated by the mercy of God as a result of her penance?

  ADULTEROUS MARRIAGES 5

• 2 Samuel 7:18-29

  David, understanding this, says in the second book of Kings [Samuel] … "You did also speak of the house of your servant for a long time to come." And, further on, "And now begin and bless the house of your servant that it may endure forever," etc. At that time, David was about to beget his son through whom his lineage would be carried down to Christ; through whom, in turn, his house was to be everlasting—indeed, identified with the house of God. It was to be called the "house of David" because [it was] of David's stock and, simultaneously, the "house of God" because it was a temple to God made not of stones but of people. In this house God's people shall everlastingly dwell with their God and in their God, and God with his people and in his people, God filling his people, his people filled with their God, so that "God may be all in all"—the very same God being their prize in peace who was their strength in battle.It was with this in view that, when Nathan had said, "And the Lord said to you, that you shall build him a house," David said further on, "Because you, O Lord of hosts, God of Israel, have revealed to the ear of your servant, saying, 'I will build you a house.' " This is a house which we build by living virtuously and which God builds by helping us to live virtuously, for "unless the Lord builds the house, those who build it labor in vain." Only, however, when this house receives its final consecration will the words God spoke by Nathan's lips come true: "And I will appoint a place for my people Israel, and I will plant them, and they shall dwell therein, and shall be disturbed no more: neither shall the children of iniquity afflict them any more as they did before, from the day that I appointed judges over my people Israel."

  City of God 17.12

• 2 Samuel 11:14-15

  Surely, it is better to believe that the apostle Paul wrote something untruthful than that the apostle Peter did not act uprightly. If that is so, then let us say something abhorrent, that it is better to believe that the gospel lies than that Christ was denied by Peter; and that the book of Kings [Samuel] lies than that a great prophet, so eminently chosen by the Lord God, committed adultery by coveting and seducing another man's wife and was guilty of a revolting murder by killing her husband. On the contrary, I will read the holy Scripture with complete certainty and confidence in its truth, founded as it is on the highest summit of divine authority; and I would rather learn from it that people were truly approved or corrected or condemned than allow my trust in the divine Word to be everywhere undermined because I fear to believe that the human conduct of certain excellent and praiseworthy persons is sometimes worthy of blame.

  LETTER 82

• 2 Samuel 12:1-6

  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

• 2 Samuel 12:1-6

  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

• 2 Samuel 12:10-12

  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

• 2 Samuel 12:13

  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

• 2 Samuel 12:13

  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

• 2 Samuel 12:13

  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

• 2 Samuel 15:31

  Was it not by Absalom's own will that he chose to follow advice that proved detrimental to him, though he only did so because the Lord had heard his father's prayer to this effect?

  ON GRACE AND FREE WILL 20.41

• 2 Samuel 16:10-12

  By this patience we are supported even when we are in sound health, for, amid the stumbling blocks of this world, our true happiness is deferred.… With this patience holy David endured the insults of one abusing him, and, though he could easily have wreaked vengeance on him, he not only did not do this but even calmed another who was grieved and disturbed on his account and used his royal power to forbid rather than to exercise vengeance. He was not then suffering from any bodily disease or wound. But he did recognize the time of humility and accepted the will of God for whose sake he drank in the bitter reproach with the utmost patience.

  On Patience 9.8

• 2 Samuel 16:10-12

  And was it not likewise of his own will that the wicked son of Gera cursed King David? And yet what does David say, full of true and deep and pious wisdom? What did he say to him who wanted to strike the reviler? "What," he said, "have I to do with you, you sons of Zeruiah? Let him alone and let him curse, because the Lord has said to him, 'Curse David.' Who, then, shall say, 'Why have you done so?' " And then the inspired Scripture, as if it would confirm the king's profound utterance by repeating it once more, tells us, "And David said to Abishai, and to all his servants, 'Behold, my son, who came forth from my body, seeks my life: how much more may this Benjamite do it! Let him alone, and let him curse; for the Lord has bidden him. It may be that the Lord will look on my humiliation and will requite me for his cursing this day.' " Now what prudent reader will fail to understand in what way the Lord bade this profane man to curse David? It was not by a command that he bade him, in which case his obedience would be praiseworthy; but he inclined the man's will, which had become debased by his own perverseness, to commit this sin, by his own just and secret judgment. Therefore it is said, "The Lord said to him." Now if this person had obeyed a command of God, he would have deserved to be praised rather than punished, as we know he was afterwards punished for this sin. Nor is the reason an obscure one why the Lord told him after this manner to curse David. "It may be," said the humbled king, "that the Lord will look on my humiliation and will requite me good for his cursing this day." See, then, what proof we have here that God uses the hearts of even wicked people for the praise and assistance of the good.

  ON GRACE AND FREE WILL 20.41

• 2 Samuel 17:14

  Accordingly, as the Scripture says, "And by the command of the Lord the good counsel of Ahithophel was defeated, that the Lord might bring evil upon Absalom." The counsel of Ahithophel was called "good" because it served his purpose for the time, since it favored Absalom over his father whom he had risen up against in rebellion. And it might well have destroyed him if the Lord had not frustrated Ahithophel's counsel by influencing the heart of Absalom to reject this counsel and to choose another which was not to his advantage.

  ON GRACE AND FREE WILL 20.41

• 2 Samuel 18:17

  But they, as we have sometimes said before in other places, do not charge themselves with what they do to us; while, on the other hand, they charge us with what they do to themselves. For which of our party is there who would desire, I do not say that one of them should perish but should even lose any of his possessions? But if the house of David could not earn peace on any other terms except that Absalom his son should have been slain in the war which he was waging against his father, although he had most carefully given strict injunctions to his followers that they should use their utmost endeavors to preserve him alive and safe, that his paternal affection might be able to pardon him on his repentance, what remained for him except to weep for the son that he had lost and to console himself in his sorrow by reflecting on the acquisition of peace for his kingdom?

  THE CORRECTION OF THE DONATISTS 8.32

• 2 Samuel 18:33

  But, as we have said elsewhere on occasion, these heretics refuse to take the blame for what they do to us and they lay the blame on us for what they do to themselves. Who of us would wish them to lose anything, much less that they be lost themselves? If the house of David could win peace in no other way than through the death of Absalom, David's son, in the war which he was carrying on against his father—although the latter had instructed his followers with great care to keep him safe and sound as far as it was possible for them to do so, that he might repent and receive pardon from his father's love—what was left for him but to weep for the son that he had lost and find comfort for his grief in the peace thus gained for his kingdom? In the same manner, then, our Catholic mother acts when others who are not her sons make war on her—because it is a fact that this little branch in Africa has been broken off from the great tree which embraces the whole world in the spreading of its branches—and although she is in labor with them in charity, that they may return to the root without which they cannot have true life, still, if she rescues so many others by losing some, especially when these fall by self-destruction, not by the fortune of war as Absalom did, she solaces the grief of her maternal heart and heals it by the deliverance of such numbers of people.

  LETTER 185.32

• 2 Samuel 18:33

  Now what are we to do, seeing how many, with the help of the Lord, find the way of peace through your instrumentality? Surely we neither can nor ought to hold them back from this impulse toward unity, through fear that some, utterly hard and cruel to themselves, may destroy themselves by their own will, not ours. Indeed, we should pray that all who carry the standard of Christ against Christ and boast of the gospel against the gospel may forsake their wrong way and rejoice with us in the unity of Christ. But since God, by an inscrutable yet just disposition of his will, has predestined some of them to the ultimate penalty, undoubtedly it is better for some of them to perish in their own fires, while an incomparably greater number are rescued and won over from that deadly schism and separation, than that all should equally burn in the eternal fires of hell as a punishment for their accursed dissension. The church mourns their loss as holy David mourned the loss of his rebellious son about whose safety he had given orders with anxious love. He grieved over his son's death, with tearful utterance, although it was the penalty of a wicked impiety; but as his proud and wicked spirit departed to its own place, the people of God that had been divided by his tyranny recognized their king, and the completeness of their reunion consoled the grief of the father for the loss of his son.

  LETTER 204

• 2 Samuel 18:33

  When King David had endured this affliction from his wicked and treacherous son, he had not only tolerated his uncontrolled passion but even lamented his death. He was not held ensnared by a carnal jealousy, since it was not the outrages inflicted on him, but rather the sins of his son that troubled him. For he had forbidden that his son be killed if he were conquered in order that opportunity for repentance might be reserved for him after he was vanquished. Since this was impossible, he did not grieve because of his bereavement in the death of his son but because he realized into what punishments such a wickedly adulterous and murderous soul was precipitated.

  CHRISTIAN INSTRUCTION 3.21.30

• 2 Samuel 19:1

  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. 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.

  CHRISTIAN INSTRUCTION 3.21

• 2 Samuel 21:17

  At this point someone may say that the priests of God ought to flee from such threatening dangers in order to save themselves for the service of the church in more peaceful times. It is right for some to do this when others are not lacking to supply the ministry of the church, so that it is not wholly abandoned. This is what Athanasius did, as I said before; for the body of Catholic believers knew how necessary and how profitable it was for the church to retain in the flesh a man who had defended it by words and heart's love against the Arian heretics. But when the danger is common to all and there is more reason to fear that the priest's escape may be attributed to a dread of death rather than an intention of future help, and when he does more harm by the example of his flight than he would do good by his preservation, there is no justifiable reason for doing it. Finally, there was holy David, who did not trust himself to the dangers of battle lest the lamp of Israel, as it is there said, "should be put out"; but he did not take this course himself—he did it because his followers begged him to do it. Otherwise, he would have had many cowardly imitators who would believe that he acted thus at the bidding of his own fear, not for any motive of usefulness to others.

  LETTER 228

• 2 Samuel 23:17

  I do not fear the uncleanness of food but only the uncleanness of uncontrolled desire. I know that Noah was permitted to eat every kind of meat which was edible; that Elijah was nourished on meat; that John, endowed with a marvelous abstinence, was not made unclean by partaking of living things, namely, the locusts which happened to be available as food. And I know that Esau was led into error by his greed for lentils; that David blamed himself for his craving for water; and that our King was tempted not by flesh but by bread. Further, the people in the desert deserved to be reprimanded, not because they desired meat but because they murmured against the Lord as a result of this desire for meat. Having been placed among these temptations, then, I struggle daily against undisciplined desire in eating and drinking.

  Confessions 10.31.46-47