2 Samuel 12:1-6

3. David's Repentance, 2 Samuel 12:1-31.

Nathan's Parable. 2 Samuel 12:1-6

And the Lord sent Nathan unto David. And he came unto him, and said unto him, There were two men in one city; the one rich, and the other poor.
2 The rich man had exceeding many flocks and herds:

3 But the poor man had nothing, save one little ewe lamb, which he had bought and nourished up: and it grew up together with him, and with his children; it did eat of his own meat, and drank of his own cup, and lay in his bosom, and was unto him as a daughter.

4 And there came a traveler unto the rich man, and he spared to take of his own flock and of his own herd, to dress for the wayfaring man that was come unto him; but took the poor man's lamb, and dressed it for the man that was come to him.
5 And David's anger was greatly kindled against the man; and he said to Nathan, As the Lord liveth, the man that hath done this thing shall surely die:

6 And he shall restore the lamb fourfold, because he did this thing, and because he had no pity.

1.

What kind of story did Nathan tell? 2 Samuel 12:1

The story that Nathan told David was a parable. A parable is an earthly story with a heavenly meaning. It is a story of what actually did happen or could have happened. It is different from a fable, inasmuch as a fable is generally some kind of story that is quite definitely fictitious. Whether or not there were two men in a city of Nathan's acquaintance should not alter the meaning of the story. The setting is typical of life. One man was rich, the other was poor. This parable was the setting for a message that God had given Nathan to deliver to David.

2.

Who was the rich man? 2 Samuel 12:2

The rich man in the parable must have been David. Although we must be careful lest we err in forcing all the points of a parable to have some significance, this central truth is clear. The parable was directed against David. Later, Nathan said, Thou art the man (verse seven). David certainly fit the picture; he had exceeding many flocks and herds. God had given him prosperity above anything he could have hoped for or imagined in his fondest dreams.

3.

Who was the poor man? 2 Samuel 12:3

The poor man who had nothing save the one little ewe lamb must have been Uriah. Uriah was a Hittite. He was a foreigner to the commonwealth of Israel and was a soldier in David's army. Naturally, the rest of the picture does not fit exactly. Uriah had not raised Bath-sheba in his own home, and it does not seem appropriate to view her being with his children as one of his own family. Neither is it appropriate to liken Bathsheba to a poor man's daughter.

4.

Who was the poor man's lamb? 2 Samuel 12:4

Even though we cannot make all points of the parable fit the true life situation, the poor man's lamb must have been a reference to Bathsheba. David had taken Bathsheba away from Uriah just as the rich man had stolen the poor man's lamb. Of course David did not dress the lamb and serve it to his guests, as did the rich man in the parable when the traveler came to him. Pressing the points of the parable too far would make Bathsheba absolutely innocent and of the same nature as a lamb. Although Bathsheba did not lure David into the sinful situation that was theirs, we cannot absolve her of all blame completely. She apparently made no resistance, and entered into the adulterous union without revealing the heinous nature of the crimes that had been committed.

5.

What was David's reaction? 2 Samuel 12:5

David's anger was greatly kindled. He thought Nathan was telling him a true story of the events transpiring in his kingdom. As ruler of the land, he judged that the man who had done this terrible thing was worthy of death. He pronounced the sentence of death upon him. He also ordered that the lamb be restored fourfold. This was the statute laid down in Exodus 22:1. If an ox had been involved, then five oxen were to be used to make restitution. In the case of sheep, only four sheep were to be repaid. This quick action on David's part is typical of him when he was at his best. He was a man of action and took immediate steps to rectify wrongs which were done in his kingdom.