Poole on 2 Samuel 12:1-4: Nathan's Parable

[circa 1034 BC]  Verse 1:[1]  And the LORD sent Nathan unto David.  And (Ps. 51 title) he came unto him, and (see 2 Sam. 14:5, etc.; 1 Kings 20:35-41; Is. 5:3) said unto him, There were two men in one city; the one rich, and the other poor.

[Therefore, the Lord sent, etc.]  See how blind David became through sin.  For, for nine months, in which Bath-sheba carried in her womb the child conceived from him, and then gave birth, he was living indulgently, untroubled with Bath-sheba (Lapide, similarly Sanchez, Martyr).  Therefore, God, taking pity on him, sent Nathan to him (Lapide).  But why did He not sent him sooner?  Response:  1.  Perhaps David had been admonished at that time in other ways, either by inspiration, or while he was reading the sacred books, or through the words of Uriah.  2.  God willed the infirmity of human nature to be known.  The fallen, even saints, spend their time continually in filth, unless God draws them out by His powerful word, as we are shown by this example (Martyr).

[Nathan]  This is a different one from Nathan the son of David,[2] who was a young boy.  For this Nathan was a Prophet familiar to David, and so beloved by him that he named his own son after him, as Genebrard says (Lapide).  Moreover, although David was a prophet, yet he was at that time obliged to be helped by a prophet; just as doctors, when they are sick, need the counsel of other doctors (Serarius out of Chrysostom).

Nathan, the prophet, 2 Samuel 7:2; 1 Kings 1:8.  When the ordinary means did not awaken David to repentance, God useth an extraordinary course.  Thus the merciful God pities and prevents him who had so horribly forsaken and forgotten God.

[There were two men]  It is a αἶνος/parable, both apposite and prudent.  For, because, as it is in the ancient proverb, A man always bears one thing in himself, judges another thing in another; he set forth the matter in such a way, that the prophet would not need to condemn the king; but the King would condemn himself (Grotius).  Parables were common among the Syrians, especially among the Palestinians (Sanchez out of Jerome).  God fashioned an iron implement out of David’s own mouth, to open his wound.  But Nathan, like a prudent physician, was concealing the blade in a parable (Serarius out of Augustine).  So that he might awaken the soul of the king, drowsy with loves and haughty, from the sleep of sinners, but not so that he might exasperate him (Lapide).  Moreover, new and unusual cases are wont to make us attentive, etc.  Nathan preserves moderation; he does not exclaim, O adulterer, thief! but transfers the person, and speaks indefinitely:  but it is doubtful, whether he said these things in private, or with the nobles of the kingdom present (as Chrysostom thinks).  Yet I think that he addressed him in a private chamber (Martyr).  It is vain to attempt to accommodate all the particulars of the parable to the deed of David; for in a parable many things are added that only serve as adornment (Menochius).

There were two men in one city, etc.:  Nathan prudently ushereth in his reproof with a parable, after the manner of the eastern nations and ancient times, that so he might surprise David, and cause him unawares to give sentence against himself.  He manageth his relation as if it had been a real thing; and demands the king’s justice in the case.  Though the application of this parable to David be easy and obvious, yet it matters not if some circumstances be not so applicable; because it was fit to put in some such clauses, either for the decency of the parable, or that David might not too early discover his designs.

Verse 2:[3]  The rich man had exceeding many flocks and herds…

Exceeding many, etc.:  Noting David’s many wives and concubines.

Verse 3:[4]  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 (Heb. morsel[5]), and drank of his own cup, and lay in his bosom, and was unto him as a daughter.

[Except one lamb, which had bought, etc.]  By giving a dowry (Lyra).  The one that takes a wife buys her, according to the propriety of the Hebraism (Munster); or he bought, in the place of, he acquired for himself, or possessed (Martyr).

The poor man had nothing, save one little ewe lamb; designing Uriah, with his own and only wife.  Which he had bought; as men then used to buy their wives; or, had procured.

[Eating of his bread, etc.]  Question:  How are these things applicable to a lamb? and how did not David sense that this was a parable?  Response:  1.  David was able to think, that those things were said hyperbolically to signify his love toward the lamb.  2.  Certain animals are commonly kept as pets, like puppies:  deer are tamed, come to the table, follow men (Martyr).  Such was the stag of Cyparissus,[6] concerning whom Ovid in his Metamorphoses 10, Virgil in his Æneid 7 (Sanchez).  The Emperor Commodus[7] is said, in Dio,[8] to have had a tame lion as a pet, which followed him like dog:  it was kissing him, and at night sleeping next to his bed (Martyr).  That serpents were wont very fondly to sleep with boys or girls, is related by fit authorities:  Plutarch, “Do Animals Reason?”; Pliny, Natural History 8:17 out of Democritus;[9] Ælian,[10] History of Animals[11] 6:7, 63; Varro, On Agricultural Topics 13:46 out of the other Ælian.  So that now it is strange to no one that the same is asserted concerning this lamb:  especially, since the Arabs are wont ot have some special lamb in their homes, which they tame, and milk at home, and do not send abroad to feed (Bochart’s A Sacred Catalogue of Animals 1:2:46:522).

Lay in his bosom; which David might take for hyperbolical expressions of his tender care of and affection to it; although there want not instances of some who have treated such brute creatures in this manner.

[And it was to him as a daughter]  That is, uniquely beloved.  He say this, because Uriah was older than she (Vatablus).

Verse 4:[12]  And there came a traveller 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.

[Now, when a certain traveller, etc.]  This guest, to whom David presented the lamb of another to be eaten, was lust.  The devil sent this guest to David with a charge, that he might sate himself with stolen sexual gratification, etc. (Tirinus).

A traveller:  this some make to be the devil, whom David gratified by his sin; but it rather seems added for the decency of the parable.

[He, sparing to take of his own sheep]  Whoever sins as a poor man, is less guilty, Petronius’ Satyricon.  Ἡ τῆς ἀνάγχης χρεία φέρει τινα συγγνώμην, etc., the want of necessities brings a more lenient judgment, etc., says Demosthenes.[13]  That is, We grant in a certain way pardon to those that sin, driven by necessity; but those that prove to be criminal in their abundance have no sufficient excuse (Gataker).

[1] Hebrew: וַיִּשְׁלַ֧ח יְהוָ֛ה אֶת־נָתָ֖ן אֶל־דָּוִ֑ד וַיָּבֹ֣א אֵלָ֗יו וַיֹּ֤אמֶר לוֹ֙ שְׁנֵ֣י אֲנָשִׁ֗ים הָיוּ֙ בְּעִ֣יר אֶחָ֔ת אֶחָ֥ד עָשִׁ֖יר וְאֶחָ֥ד רָֽאשׁ׃

[2] 2 Samuel 5:14; 1 Chronicles 3:5.

[3] Hebrew:  ‎לְעָשִׁ֗יר הָיָ֛ה צֹ֥אן וּבָקָ֖ר הַרְבֵּ֥ה מְאֹֽד׃

[4] Hebrew: ‎וְלָרָ֣שׁ אֵֽין־כֹּ֗ל כִּי֩ אִם־כִּבְשָׂ֙ה אַחַ֤ת קְטַנָּה֙ אֲשֶׁ֣ר קָנָ֔ה וַיְחַיֶּ֕הָ וַתִּגְדַּ֥ל עִמּ֛וֹ וְעִם־בָּנָ֖יו יַחְדָּ֑ו מִפִּתּ֙וֹ תֹאכַ֜ל וּמִכֹּס֤וֹ תִשְׁתֶּה֙ וּבְחֵיק֣וֹ תִשְׁכָּ֔ב וַתְּהִי־ל֖וֹ כְּבַֽת׃

[5] Hebrew:  ‎מִפִּתּוֹ.

[6] In Greek mythology, Cyparissus was a boy, beloved by Apollo.  The god gave him a tame stag, which became Cyparissus’ constant companion.  On a hunt, Cyparissus accidentally killed the stag, and his mourning was so intense that he was transformed into a cypress tree, a symbol of mourning.

[7] Commodus reigned as Roman Emperor from 177 to 192.

[8] Dio Cassius was a Roman historian of the third century AD.  His Historiæ Romanæ is an important sourse of information concerning that period.

[9] Democritus (c. 460-c. 370 BC) was a pre-Socractic philosopher, remembered for his atomic theory of the universe, and as a natural philosopher.

[10] Claudius Ælianus (c. 175-c. 235) was a Roman rhetorician and teacher.

[11] De Natura Animalium.

[12] Hebrew: ‎וַיָּ֣בֹא הֵלֶךְ֘ לְאִ֣ישׁ הֶֽעָשִׁיר֒ וַיַּחְמֹ֗ל לָקַ֤חַת מִצֹּאנוֹ֙ וּמִבְּקָר֔וֹ לַעֲשׂ֕וֹת לָאֹרֵ֖חַ הַבָּא־ל֑וֹ וַיִּקַּ֗ח אֶת־כִּבְשַׂת֙ הָאִ֣ישׁ הָרָ֔אשׁ וַֽיַּעֲשֶׂ֔הָ לָאִ֖ישׁ הַבָּ֥א אֵלָֽיו׃

[13] Demosthenes (384-322 BC) was a Greek orator and stateman.