Why did the rich man take the poor man's ewe lamb in 2 Samuel 12:4? TEXT OF THE PARABLE (2 Samuel 12:1-4) “Then the LORD sent Nathan to David. And when he came to him, he said: ‘There were two men in a certain city, one rich and the other poor. The rich man had a great many sheep and cattle, but the poor man had nothing except one small ewe lamb that he had bought. He raised it, and it grew up with him and his children; it shared his food, drank from his cup, and slept in his arms. It was like a daughter to him. Now a traveler came to the rich man, but the rich man refrained from taking one of his own sheep or cattle to prepare a meal for the traveler who had come to him. Instead, he took the poor man’s ewe lamb and prepared it for his guest.’” Historical And Literary Context Nathan delivers this parable shortly after David’s adultery with Bathsheba (2 Samuel 11) and orchestrated murder of her husband Uriah. Ancient Near Eastern kings were commonly confronted through indirect speech, protecting the prophet while exposing royal sin (cf. 1 Kings 20:35-43). The parable functions as a judicial case, inviting David—who served as supreme judge of Israel (2 Samuel 8:15)—to render a verdict on himself without realizing it. Characters And Symbolism • Rich Man = David, blessed with power, wives, and wealth (2 Samuel 5:13; 12:8). • Poor Man = Uriah, a resident alien (Hittite) with minimal standing. • Ewe Lamb = Bathsheba, cherished “like a daughter” (intimate, protected). • Traveler/Wayfarer = David’s sudden lust; in Hebrew culture, hospitality demands haste (Genesis 18:1-8), so the urge is met quickly at another’s expense. Nathan’s imagery of affection (sharing food, drinking, sleeping in arms) underscores Bathsheba’s covenantal bond with Uriah and the depth of David’s violation. Why The Rich Man Took The Lamb 1. Greed and Covetousness: Though already “rich,” he desired what was not his (Exodus 20:17). 2. Abuse of Power: Possessing legal might, he could seize property without fear of reprisal—a reflection of David’s kingly authority misused (2 Samuel 11:4). 3. Moral Callousness: Indifference to the poor man’s attachment illustrates seared conscience (Proverbs 30:14). David likewise ignored Uriah’s loyalty (2 Samuel 11:11). 4. Refusal of Self-Sacrifice: Old-Covenant law demanded the host provide from his own flock (Genesis 18:7; Deuteronomy 15:7-8). The rich man’s choice mirrors David’s unwillingness to “pay the cost” of resisting temptation. 5. Illustrative Necessity: Nathan designs the parable so the crime appears indefensible, compelling David to condemn it (2 Samuel 12:5-6) and thus to condemn himself. Torah Background: Restitution And Compassion Exodus 22:1-4 prescribes fourfold restitution for stolen sheep—the same sentence David pronounces. Mosaic legislation also safeguards the poor (Deuteronomy 24:14-15). The parable showcases David’s awareness of law yet failure to apply it personally, spotlighting hypocrisy. Theological Message • Universal Sinfulness: Even God’s anointed king bears a fallen nature (Psalm 51:5); the parable exposes that truth. • Divine Justice and Mercy: God confronts before He punishes (2 Samuel 12:13). The lamb’s theft justifies judgment; David’s repentance receives mercy, anticipating Christ who bears the penalty (Isaiah 53:6-7; 2 Corinthians 5:21). • Value of the Vulnerable: Scripture consistently elevates the oppressed (Psalm 72:4); the rich man’s act violates God’s protective heart. Comparison With Jesus’ Teaching Christ’s parables (e.g., Luke 12:16-21) echo Nathan’s method: confronting covetousness through story. Jesus, the greater Son of David, never misused power but laid it down (Philippians 2:6-8). Archaeological And Manuscript Note The LXX, Dead Sea Scroll 4QSamᵃ, and Masoretic Text unanimously preserve this account, underscoring its textual stability. Tel Dan Stele (9th century BC) confirms a “House of David,” situating the narrative in verifiable history and lending weight to its moral indictment. Conclusion The rich man took the poor man’s ewe lamb because unchecked desire, empowered by privilege and insulated from accountability, overrode covenant loyalty and compassion. Nathan’s parable magnifies this injustice to mirror David’s own sin, leading him—and us—to repentance, restitution, and dependence on the promised Messiah who alone satisfies every traveler that knocks. |
    |