The verse you cite is in the middle of listing the kings of Israel, who did right and who did evil. The matter of Uriah had a direct bearing on the Davidic line, which is what the author is concerned with here. The other incident, although a serious matter, didn’t have the same importance to the line of succession, which is probably why it’s not mentioned.
The author of 1 Kings was under no obligation to list all the faults of King David in his account, which is quite bare for all the kings he lists, as it is meant solely to tell who was and who wasn’t a good king.
Great answer. Also in sensus plenior, David and Uriah together represent Christ. When David kills Uriah, it is a parallel passage to Cain killing Abel, who also together represent Christ. In the story of Cain and Abel we discern that Christ killed Chirst.
Joh 10:17 Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again.
Joh 15:13 Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.
From the story of Uriah we discern that in laying down his life he used men operating in the flesh. This is confirmed by the story of Eglon and Ehud, also who represent Christ together, when from the thigh (will) of God, the sword (word) of God is pulled from the right (spiritual-sheep) side but wielded by the left (fleshly - goat) side.
The verse in the OP is the REMEZ hint tying David to the story of Uzziah, who did everything according to his father until he burnt incense (was totally devoted) and became leprous (bore our sin), was cast out of the camp, and then was called Azariah (became the high priest). From this we discern that the incident with Uriah is the same picture of the cross as the ones with Cain and Abel, Eglon and Ehud, and Uzziah and Azariah.
From it we can show that Bathsheba then fits the second wife theme as the bride of Christ, and her first son represents Adam, and the second (Solomon) represents Christ in the First man-second man motif. The first son died because of sin… we should now be looking at Er and seeing him as representative of Adam in the first man/second man theme.
This is the way that apparent contradictions are handled by Hebrew logic. They are riddles which point to greater truths. The annoying thing about riddles is that there is not enough information contained in them to solve them. You must know the answer and apply it back to them.
Since we now know Christ, the answer to all the riddles, we can read the same scriptures as the Jews, using their methods and see Christ. They can’t see him because they refuse to look at Christ.
So the literal, at first glance appears to have a contradiction. This is the hint that there is more there than meets the eye. The answer given above, demonstrates that in the use of language there is enough wiggle room for the apparent contradiction to be true based on the usage of the language by the human author. Then behind the scenes, God directed the human author to use exactly the words needed to tie the tapestry of the sensus plenior in scripture together, completely unbeknown to the human author.
These behind the scenes pictures always point to Christ.
