2 Samuel 12:4

“Nathan Confronts David with a Parable”· 2 Samuel 12:1–6
Translation
King James Version
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.
Ask
KJV (with Strong's)
And there came H935 a traveller H1982 unto the rich H6223 man H376, and he spared H2550 to take H3947 of his own flock H6629 and of his own herd H1241, to dress H6213 for the wayfaring man H732 that was come H935 unto him; but took H3947 the poor H7326 man's H376 lamb H3535, and dressed H6213 it for the man H376 that was come H935 to him.
Ask
Complete Jewish Bible
One day a traveler visited the rich man, and instead of picking an animal from his own flock or herd to cook for his visitor, he took the poor man's lamb and cooked it for the man who had come to him."
Ask
Berean Standard Bible
Now a traveler came to the rich man, who refrained from taking one of his own sheep or cattle to prepare for the traveler who had come to him. Instead, he took the poor man’s lamb and prepared it for his guest.”
Ask
American Standard Version
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.
Ask
World English Bible Messianic
A traveler came to the rich man, and he spared to take of his own flock and of his own herd, to dress for the wayfaring man who had come to him, but took the poor man’s lamb, and dressed it for the man who had come to him.”
Ask
Geneva Bible (1599)
Now there came a stranger vnto the rich man, who refused to take of his owne sheepe, and of his owne oxen to dresse for the stranger that was come vnto him, but tooke the poore mans sheepe, and dressed it for the man that was come to him.
Ask
Young's Literal Translation
And there cometh a traveller to the rich man, And he spareth to take Of his own flock, and of his own herd, To prepare for the traveller Who hath come to him, And he taketh the ewe-lamb of the poor man, And prepareth it for the man Who hath come unto him.'
Ask
See also
James 1:142 Samuel 11:32 Samuel 11:4Genesis 18:2Genesis 18:7
See on the biblical-era map
City Plan: Jerusalem in the Time of David
City Plan: Jerusalem in the Time of David View full PDF
The Conquest of Rabbah
The Conquest of Rabbah View full PDF

Map © Biblica Open Bible Maps · CC BY-SA 4.0

In the KJVVerse 8,291 of 31,102 · 26.7%

Study This Verse

Summary

This pivotal verse culminates Nathan's parable to King David, exposing the rich man's egregious act of injustice. It vividly portrays how the wealthy individual, despite possessing vast flocks and herds, callously refused to use his own resources to provide hospitality for a traveler. Instead, he ruthlessly seized the single, cherished lamb of a poor man, slaughtering it to prepare a meal. This profound act of exploitation and abuse of power serves as a divinely inspired mirror, directly reflecting David's own sin against Uriah and Bathsheba.

Context

Literary Context

2 Samuel 12:4 marks the dramatic climax of Nathan's confrontation with King David. It immediately follows the setup of the parable in 2 Samuel 12:1-3, where Nathan meticulously details the rich man's immense wealth and the poor man's tender, almost familial, bond with his solitary lamb. This verse delivers the shocking revelation of the rich man's act of theft and exploitation, meticulously crafted to ignite David's righteous indignation. The parable's ultimate purpose is to expose David's profound sin, previously recounted in 2 Samuel 11, by leading him to unknowingly condemn himself before Nathan delivers the devastating, divinely appointed pronouncement: "You are the man!" found in 2 Samuel 12:7. Following this, the narrative shifts to outline the severe, divinely ordained consequences of David's transgression.

Historical & Cultural Context

In ancient Israel, the practice of hospitality was not merely a social custom but a sacred obligation, particularly towards travelers or "wayfaring men." Hosts were expected to provide food, shelter, and protection, often at considerable personal expense, as a demonstration of their piety and adherence to covenant principles. Furthermore, a person's wealth was primarily measured by the size of their livestock holdings; thus, owning "flock and herd" signified substantial prosperity and social standing. For an impoverished individual, a single lamb was far more than mere property; it was often a beloved, integral member of the household, providing sustenance (milk), warmth (wool), and companionship, akin to a cherished pet or even a child. Its seizure would represent not only economic ruin but also profound emotional devastation. The king, as God's anointed leader and the ultimate dispenser of justice, was divinely mandated to protect the vulnerable and uphold righteousness. David's failure to fulfill this role, and indeed his active participation in such an egregious injustice, constituted a profound violation of his divinely appointed responsibilities and the core principles of Israelite covenant society.

Key Themes

2 Samuel 12:4 powerfully encapsulates several foundational themes. Firstly, it starkly illustrates the theme of injustice and exploitation, highlighting the profound moral wrong of the powerful preying upon the vulnerable, even when possessing abundant resources. The rich man's deliberate choice to "spare" his own wealth while seizing the poor man's sole possession is a chilling portrayal of callous disregard and moral bankruptcy. Secondly, the verse speaks directly to the abuse of power and privilege, as the rich man (a clear symbol for King David) leverages his position not to protect the marginalized but to oppress them. This act of taking the lamb serves as a direct, symbolic parallel to David's taking of Bathsheba, the "one ewe lamb" of Uriah, and his subsequent orchestration of Uriah's death. Thirdly, this verse is integral to the overarching theme of divine confrontation and accountability, unequivocally demonstrating God's unwavering commitment to justice, even when it means confronting His anointed leaders. Nathan's parable functions as God's chosen instrument to bring David to a place of repentance. Finally, it profoundly emphasizes the value of the vulnerable and the sanctity of what is precious to them. The lamb's intimate relationship with the poor man's family elevates its theft from a simple property crime to a deeply personal and devastating violation, mirroring the profound and personal impact of David's actions on Uriah and Bathsheba.

Exposition and Analysis

Key Word Analysis

Spared châmal' H2550

This verb (H2550) means "to commiserate; by implication, to spare." In this context, it highlights the rich man's deliberate and conscious choice not to show compassion or pity, and thus not to use his own ample resources. He possessed more than enough, yet he actively chose to be parsimonious with his own wealth while being utterly ruthless in taking from the poor. This emphasizes a profound moral failing—a lack of generosity coupled with a willingness to exploit and a complete absence of commiseration.

Traveller hêlek' H1982

This noun (H1982) refers to a "wayfarer" or "traveller," someone on a journey. The arrival of the traveler serves as the immediate catalyst for the rich man's unjust act. It provides the occasion for the meal, but in no way justifies his subsequent decision. The cultural expectation of providing hospitality to a guest makes the rich man's actions even more reprehensible, as he fulfills his duty to the guest at the direct and devastating expense of the innocent and vulnerable neighbor.

Lamb kibsâh' H3535

This noun (H3535) specifically denotes a "ewe lamb." The preceding verse (2 Samuel 12:3) elaborates on this lamb's intimate relationship with the poor man's family ("it ate of his own morsel, and drank of his own cup, and lay in his bosom, and was unto him as a daughter"). This description underscores its immense value and profound emotional significance. It was not merely an animal but a beloved, cherished member of the household, representing the poor man's most precious possession, his sole source of comfort, and even sustenance. Its seizure is thus a deeply personal, devastating, and utterly cruel violation of the poor man's life and dignity.

Verse Breakdown

"And there came a traveller unto the rich man"

This opening clause sets the scene, introducing the immediate occasion for the rich man's subsequent actions. The arrival of a guest would naturally necessitate a meal, initiating the rich man's decision-making process regarding how to provide for him. This seemingly innocuous event becomes the trigger for a profound act of injustice.

"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;"

This is the core revelation of the rich man's moral depravity. Despite possessing an abundance of livestock ("his own flock and of his own herd"), signifying immense wealth, he deliberately chose not to utilize his own ample resources. This highlights his profound selfishness, stinginess, and utter lack of compassion, especially egregious given his prosperity. It establishes a stark and damning contrast with the expected generosity of a wealthy host in ancient Near Eastern culture.

"but took the poor man's lamb, and dressed it for the man that was come to him."

This final clause unveils the rich man's shocking and utterly unjust act. Instead of drawing from his own vast plenty, he seized the single, precious lamb belonging to his impoverished neighbor. This act is a blatant and cruel abuse of power, an exploitation of the most vulnerable for his own convenience and to avoid even minimal personal cost. The profound contrast between his boundless resources and his willingness to devastate another's life for a trivial personal gain is the central, indicting point of Nathan's parable.

Literary Devices

Nathan's masterful use of Parable is the foundational literary device in this passage, enabling him to present a scenario that powerfully evokes moral indignation in King David without directly accusing him. Within this overarching parable, Symbolism is paramount: the rich man unequivocally symbolizes King David, the poor man represents Uriah the Hittite, and the single, cherished lamb symbolizes Bathsheba, Uriah's beloved wife, whom David illicitly took. The rich man's act of "sparing" his own abundant resources while ruthlessly seizing the poor man's sole possession is a direct symbolic parallel to David's refusal to control his own desires and his subsequent taking of Bathsheba, culminating in the murder of Uriah. There is profound Irony in David's furious and righteous reaction to the rich man's injustice, as he unknowingly pronounces judgment upon his own heinous actions. The stark Contrast between the rich man's vast wealth and the poor man's singular, precious possession amplifies the heinousness of the rich man's crime, making David's own sin appear all the more egregious in light of his royal power, abundance, and divine anointing.

Theological and Thematic Connections

This verse, situated within the broader context of Nathan's divinely inspired parable, serves as a powerful theological declaration of God's unwavering commitment to justice and His absolute condemnation of the abuse of power. It underscores the profound truth that wealth, status, and position do not exempt individuals from moral accountability; rather, they often entail a greater responsibility to act justly, compassionately, and righteously. The rich man's act is a chilling microcosm of systemic injustice, where the powerful exploit the vulnerable for their own convenience, reflecting a heart that prioritizes self-interest and convenience over the well-being and dignity of others. God, speaking through His prophet Nathan, reveals Himself as the steadfast defender of the oppressed, who sees, judges, and holds accountable even the hidden sins of His chosen leaders. This narrative powerfully emphasizes that true leadership, particularly within a covenant community, must be characterized by righteousness, equity, and a profound care for the marginalized, never by self-serving exploitation.

Deuteronomy 15:7-8Proverbs 28:27Isaiah 5:8

Reflection and Application

The poignant story of the rich man and the poor man's lamb offers a profound and uncomfortable mirror for self-examination in our own lives. Like King David, we can often be quick to condemn injustice, exploitation, or moral failings in others, while remaining surprisingly blind to our own complicity or similar patterns of behavior, especially when we operate from positions of privilege, power, or even simply greater comfort. This verse challenges us to deeply consider where we might be "sparing" our own abundant resources—whether they be time, talent, financial wealth, influence, or opportunities—while inadvertently or even deliberately contributing to the exploitation of the vulnerable, or simply failing to use our abundance to bless and uplift others. It calls us to cultivate a heart of profound empathy that recognizes the immense and sacred value of what is precious to others, even if it seems small or insignificant to us. Furthermore, it serves as a powerful reminder that true leadership, authentic spiritual maturity, and genuine discipleship involve a deep and unwavering commitment to justice, a humble willingness to be held accountable, and a proactive stance against any form of exploitation, however subtle or culturally normalized.

Questions for Reflection

  1. In what areas of my life might I be "sparing" my own resources or comfort while inadvertently or directly causing harm or neglect to others?
  2. How might my own position of privilege or power (social, economic, relational, intellectual) tempt me to overlook or contribute to injustice, even subtly?
  3. What "one little ewe lamb" in someone else's life—something precious and vulnerable to them—might I be tempted to disregard or even take for my own convenience or gain?
  4. How can I cultivate a greater sensitivity to the needs and dignity of the vulnerable, and actively work for justice and equity in my sphere of influence, however small?

FAQ

Why did Nathan use a parable instead of directly confronting David with his sin?

Nathan's decision to use a parable instead of a direct accusation was both strategically brilliant and divinely inspired, aiming for a deeper, more profound impact on King David. Firstly, it allowed David to judge himself, leading to an undeniable and self-inflicted conviction. By presenting a hypothetical scenario, Nathan skillfully bypassed David's potential defensiveness and allowed the king's own innate sense of justice to lead him to an unwitting self-condemnation. This method is often far more effective in bringing about genuine repentance than a blunt, direct accusation, particularly when dealing with powerful individuals who are accustomed to deference. Secondly, this approach demonstrated both Nathan's wisdom and God's profound patience. God, in His sovereignty, could have directly struck David or pronounced immediate judgment, but He chose a path that invited repentance and restoration, revealing His desire for reconciliation rather than immediate destruction. The parable also profoundly highlighted the gravity of David's sin by making him pronounce a severe judgment on an analogous, yet fictional, offense, thereby exposing the depth of his own moral blindness. This prophetic approach serves as a powerful example of ministry that seeks to awaken conscience and cultivate humility before delivering the full weight of divine judgment, mirroring God's consistent desire for humanity to turn back to Him, as powerfully articulated in Ezekiel 33:11.

Christ-Centered Fulfillment

The rich man's selfish and exploitative act in 2 Samuel 12:4 stands in stark and dramatic contrast to the ultimate act of self-giving love found in Jesus Christ. The rich man, despite his boundless abundance, "spared to take of his own," choosing instead to ruthlessly exploit the poor and vulnerable for his own convenience. Jesus, the truly rich One, who possessed all the "flock and herd" of heaven and the fullness of divine glory, did not "spare" His own life or divine prerogatives. Instead, He willingly "emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men" (Philippians 2:7). He, who was supremely rich, willingly "became poor, so that by his poverty you might become rich" (2 Corinthians 8:9). While the rich man in the parable took the poor man's lamb for his own comfort and convenience, Jesus became the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world, offering Himself as the ultimate, spotless sacrifice for the redemption of humanity. His earthly life was not marked by exploitation or self-preservation, but by profound compassion for the marginalized, the vulnerable, and the outcast, consistently identifying with "the least of these" (Matthew 25:40). Thus, 2 Samuel 12:4, through its poignant portrayal of human injustice and moral failure, ultimately serves to highlight and point towards the divine justice, boundless generosity, and perfect self-sacrifice perfectly embodied in Jesus Christ, who gave His all so that we might gain eternal life and true riches in Him.

Copy as

Public-domain commentary

Matthew Henry

From his Commentary on the Whole Bible. Henry comments on passages, not single verses — this entry covers 2 Samuel 12:1–14. His four-level outline is real structure in the source text, so it is rendered as structure.

1662–1714 · 14 verses
Passage under comment2 Samuel 12:1–14
I. II. Main points1. 2. Sub-points(1.) (2.) Details[1.] [2.] Fine details

It seems to have been a great while after David had been guilty of adultery with Bath-sheba before he was brought to repentance for it. For, when Nathan was sent to him, the child was born (Sa2 12:14), so that it was about nine months that David lay under the guilt of that sin, and, for aught that appears, unrepented of. What shall we think of David's state all this while? Can we imagine that his heart never smote him for it, or that he never lamented it in secret before God? I would willingly hope that he did, and that Nathan was sent to him, immediately upon the birth of the child, when the thing by that means came to be publicly known and talked of, to draw from him an open confession of the sin, to the glory of God, the admonition of others, and that he might receive, by Nathan, absolution with certain limitations. But, during these nine months, we may well suppose his comforts and the exercises of his graces suspended, and his communion with God interrupted; during all that time, it is certain, he penned no psalms, his harp was out of tune, and his soul like a tree in winter, that has life in the root only. Therefore, after Nathan had been with him, he prays, Restore unto me the joy of thy salvation, and open thou my lips, Psa 51:12, Psa 51:15. Let us observe,

I.The messenger God sent to him.

We were told by the last words of the foregoing chapter that the thing David had done displeased the Lord, upon which, one would think, it should have followed that the Lord sent enemies to invade him, terrors to take hold on him, and the messengers of death to arrest him. No, he sent a prophet to him - Nathan, his faithful friend and confidant, to instruct and counsel him, Sa2 12:1. David did not send for Nathan (though he had never had so much occasion as he had now for his confessor), but God sent Nathan to David. Note, Though God may suffer his people to fall into sin, he will not suffer them to lie still in it. He went on frowardly in the way of his heart, and if left to himself, would have wandered endlessly, but (saith God) I have seen his ways, and will heal him, Isa 57:17, Isa 57:18. He sends after us before we seek after him, else we should certainly be lost. Nathan was the prophet by whom God had sent him notice of his kind intentions towards him (Sa2 7:4), and now, by the same hand, he sends him this message of wrath. God's word in the mouth of his ministers must be received, whether it speak terror or comfort. Nathan was obedient to the heavenly vision, and went on God's errand to David. He did not say, "David has sinned, I will not come near him." No; count him not an enemy, but admonish him as a brother, Th2 3:15. He did not say, "David is a king, I dare not reprove him." No; if God sends him, he sets his face like a flint, Isa 50:7.

II.The message Nathan delivered to him, in order to his conviction.

1.He fetched a compass with a parable, which seemed to David as a complaint made to him by Nathan against one of his subjects that had wronged his poor neighbour, in order to his redressing the injury and punishing the injurious. Nathan, it is likely, used to come to him upon such errands, which made this the less suspected. It becomes those who have interest in princes, and have free access to them, to intercede for those that are wronged, that they may have justice done them.

(1.)Nathan represented to David a grievous injury which a rich man had done to an honest neighbour that was not able to contend with him: The rich man had many flocks and herds (Sa2 12:2); the poor man had one lamb only; so unequally is the world divided; and yet infinite wisdom, righteousness, and goodness, make the distribution, that the rich may learn charity and the poor contentment. This poor man had but one lamb, a ewe-lamb, a little ewe-lamb, having not wherewithal to buy or keep more. But it was a cade-lamb (as we call it); it grew up with his children, Sa2 12:3. He was fond of it, and it was familiar with him at all times. The rich man, having occasion for a lamb to entertain a friend with, took the poor man's lamb from him by violence and made use of that (Sa2 12:4), either out of covetousness, because he grudged to make use of his own, or rather out of luxury, because he fancied the lamb that was thus tenderly kept, and ate and drank like a child, must needs be more delicate food than any of his own and have a better relish.

(2.)In this he showed him the evil of the sin he had been guilty of in defiling Bath-sheba. He had many wives and concubines, whom he kept at a distance, as rich men keep their flocks in their fields. Had he had but one, and had she been dear to him, as the ewe-lamb was to its owner, had she been dear to him as the loving hind and the pleasant roe, her breasts would have satisfied him at all times, and he would have looked no further, Pro 5:19. Marriage is a remedy against fornication, but marrying many is not; for, when once the law of unity is transgressed, the indulged lust will hardly stint itself. Uriah, like the poor man, had only one wife, who was to him as his own soul, and always lay in his bosom, for he had no other, he desired no other, to lie there. The traveller or wayfaring man was, as bishop Patrick explains it from the Jewish writers, the evil imagination, disposition, or desire, which came into David's heart, which he might have satisfied with some of his own, yet nothing would serve but Uriah's darling. They observe that this evil disposition is called a traveller, for in the beginning it is only so, but, in time, it becomes a guest, and, in conclusion, is master of the house. For he that is called a traveller in the beginning of the verse is called a man (ish - a husband) in the close of it. Yet some observe that in David's breast lust was but as a wayfaring man that tarries only for a night; it did not constantly dwell and rule there.

(3.)By this parable he drew from David a sentence against himself. For David supposing it to be a case in fact, and not doubting the truth of it when he had it from Nathan himself, gave judgment immediately against the offender, and confirmed it with an oath, Sa2 12:5, Sa2 12:6.

[1.]That, for his injustice in taking away the lamb, he should restore four-fold, according to the law (Exo 22:1), four sheep for a sheep.

[2.]That for his tyranny and cruelty, and the pleasure he took in abusing a poor man, he should be put to death. If a poor man steal from a rich man, to satisfy his soul when he is hungry, he shall make restitution, though it cost him all the substance of his house, Pro 6:30, Pro 6:31 (and Solomon there compares the sin of adultery with that, Pro 6:32); but if a rich man steal for stealing sake, not for want but wantonness, merely that he may be imperious and vexatious, he deserves to die for it, for to him the making of restitution is no punishment, or next to none. If the sentence be thought too severe, it must be imputed to the present roughness of David's temper, being under guilt, and not having himself as yet received mercy.

2.He closed in with him, at length, in the application of the parable. In beginning with a parable he showed his prudence, and great need there is of prudence in giving reproofs. It is well managed if, as here, the offender can be brought ere he is aware, to convict and condemn himself. But here, in his application, he shows his faithfulness, and deals as plainly and roundly with king David himself as if he had been a common person. In plain terms, "Thou art the man who hast done this wrong, and a much greater, to thy neighbour; and therefore, by thy own sentence, thou deservest to die, and shalt be judged out of thy own mouth. Did he deserve to die who took his neighbour's lamb? and dost not thou who hast taken thy neighbour's wife? Though he took the lamb, he did not cause the owner thereof to lose his life, as thou hast done, and therefore much more art thou worthy to die." Now he speaks immediately from God, and in his name. He begins with, Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, a name sacred and venerable to David, and which commanded his attention. Nathan now speaks, not as a petitioner for a poor man, but as an ambassador from the great God, with whom is no respect of persons.

(1.)God, by Nathan, reminds David of the great things he had done and designed for him, anointing him to be king, and preserving him to the kingdom (Pro 6:7), giving him power over the house and household of his predecessor, and of others that had been his masters, Nabal for one. He had given him the house of Israel and Judah. The wealth of the kingdom was at his service and every body was willing to oblige him. Nay, he was ready to bestow any thing upon him to make him easy: I would have given thee such and such things, Pro 6:8. See how liberal God is in his gifts; we are not straitened in him. Where he has given much, yet he gives more. And God's bounty to us is a great aggravation of our discontent and desire of forbidden fruit. It is ungrateful to covet what God has prohibited, while we have liberty to pray for what God has promised, and that is enough.

(2.)He charges him with a high contempt of the divine authority, in the sins he had been guilty of: Wherefore hast thou (presuming upon thy royal dignity and power) despised the commandment of the Lord? Pro 6:9. This is the spring and this is the malignity of sin, that it is making light of the divine law and the law-maker; as if the obligation of it were weak, the precepts of it trifling, and the threats not at all formidable. Though no man ever wrote more honourably of the law of God than David did, yet, in this instance, he is justly charged with a contempt of it. His adultery with Bath-sheba, which began the mischief, is not mentioned, perhaps because he was already convinced of that, but,

[1.]The murder of Uriah is twice mentioned: "Thou hast killed Uriah with the sword, though not with thy sword, yet, which is equally heinous, with thy pen, by ordering him to be set in the forefront of the battle." Those that contrive wickedness and command it are as truly guilty of it as those that execute it. It is repeated with an aggravation: Thou hast slain him with the sword of the children of Ammon, those uncircumcised enemies of God and Israel.

[2.]The marrying of Bath-sheba is likewise twice mentioned, because he thought there was no harm in that (Pro 6:9): Thou hast taken his wife to be thy wife, and again, Pro 6:10. To marry her whom he had before defiled, and whose husband he had slain, was an affront upon the ordinance of marriage, making that not only to palliate, but in a manner to consecrate, such villanies. In all this he despised the word of the Lord (so it is in the Hebrew), not only his commandment in general which forbade such things, but the particular word of promise which God had, by Nathan, sent to him some time before, that he would build him a house. If he had had a due value and veneration for this sacred promise, he would not thus have polluted his house with lust and blood.

(3.)He threatens an entail of judgements upon his family for this sin (Pro 6:10): "The sword shall never depart from thy house, not in thy time nor afterwards, but, for the most part, thou and thy posterity shall be engaged in war." Or it points at the slaughters that should be among his children, Amnon, Absalom, and Adonijah, all falling by the sword. God had promised that his mercy should not depart from him and his house (Pro 7:15), yet here threatens that the sword should not depart. Can the mercy and the sword consist with each other? Yes, those may lie under great and long afflictions who yet shall not be excluded from the grace of the covenant. The reason given is, Because thou hast despised me. Note, Those who despise the word and law of God despise God himself and shall be lightly esteemed. It is particularly threatened,

[1.]That his children should be his grief: I will raise up evil against thee out of thy own house. Sin brings trouble into a family, and one sin is often made the punishment of another.

[2.]That his wives should be his shame, that by an unparalleled piece of villany they should be publicly debauched before all Israel, Pro 6:11, Pro 6:12. It is not said that this should be done by his own son, lest the accomplishment should have been hindered by the prediction being too plain; but it was done by Absalom, at the counsel of Ahithophel, Pro 16:21, Pro 16:22. He that defiled his neighbour's wife should have his own defiled, for thus that sin used to be punished, as appears by Job's imprecation, Job 31:10, Then let my wife grind unto another, and that threatening, Hos 4:14. The sin was secret, and industriously concealed, but the punishment should be open, and industriously proclaimed, to the shame of David, whose sin in the matter of Uriah, though committed many years before, would then be called to mind and commonly talked of upon that occasion. As face answers to face in a glass, so does the punishment often answer to the sin; here is blood for blood and uncleanness for uncleanness. And thus God would show how much he hates sin, even in his own people, and that, wherever he find it, he will not let it go unpunished.

3.David's penitent confession of his sin hereupon. He says not a word to excuse himself or extenuate his sin, but freely owns it: I have sinned against the Lord, Sa2 12:13. It is probable that he said more to this purport; but this is enough to show that he was truly humbled by what Nathan said, and submitted to the conviction. He owns his guilt - I have sinned, and aggravates it - It was against the Lord: on this string he harps in the psalm he penned on this occasion. Psa 51:1, Against thee, thee only, have I sinned.

4.His pardon declared, upon this penitent confession, but with a proviso. When David said I have sinned, and Nathan perceived that he was a true penitent,

(1.)He did, in God's name, assure him that his sin was forgiven: "The Lord also has put away thy sin out of the sight of his avenging eye; thou shalt not die," that is, "not die eternally, nor be for ever put away from God, as thou wouldest have been if he had not put away the sin." The obligation to punishment is hereby cancelled and vacated. He shall not come into condemnation: that is the nature of forgiveness. "Thy iniquity shall not be thy everlasting ruin. The sword shall not depart from thy house, but, [1.] It shall not cut thee off, thou shalt come to thy grave in peace." David deserved to die as an adulterer and murderer, but God would not cut him off as he might justly have done. [2.] "Though thou shalt all thy days be chastened of the Lord, yet thou shalt not be condemned with the world." See how ready God is to forgive sin. To this instance, perhaps, David refers, Psa 32:5, I said, I will confess, and thou forgavest. Let not great sinners despair of finding mercy with God if they truly repent; for who is a God like unto him, pardoning iniquity?

(2.)Yet he pronounces a sentence of death upon the child, Sa2 12:14. Behold the sovereignty of God! The guilty parent lives, and the guiltless infant dies; but all souls are his, and he may, in what way he pleases, glorify himself in his creatures.

[1.]David had, by his sin, wronged God in his honour; he had given occasion to the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme. The wicked people of that generation, the infidels, idolaters, and profane, would triumph in David's fall, and speak ill of God and of his law, when they saw one guilty of such foul enormities that professed such an honour both for him and it. "These are your professors! This is he that prays and sings psalms, and is so very devout! What good can there be in such exercises, if they will not restrain men from adultery and murder?" They would say, "Was not Saul rejected for a less matter? why then must David live and reign still?" not considering that God sees not as man sees, but searches the heart. To this day there are those who reproach God, and are hardened in sin, through the example of David. Now, though it is true that none have any just reason to speak ill of God, or of his word and ways, for David's sake, and it is their sin that do so, yet he shall be reckoned with that laid the stumbling-block in their way, and gave, though not cause, yet colour, for the reproach. Note, There is this great evil in the scandalous sins of those that profess religion, and relation to God, that they furnish the enemies of God and religion with matter for reproach and blasphemy, Rom 2:24.

[2.]God will therefore vindicate his honour by showing his displeasure against David for this sin, and letting the world see that though he loves David he hates his sin; and he chooses to do it by the death of the child. The landlord may distrain on any part of the premises where he pleases. Perhaps the diseases and deaths of infants were not so common in those days as they are now, which might make this, as an unusual thing, the more evident token of God's displeasure; according to the word he had often said, that he would visit the sins of the fathers upon the children.

Copy as

Historical interpretation

Two Centuries of Reception

4 surviving comments on this verse. Each one is dated, so this reads as a timeline rather than a list.

4 quotes · AD 407–604
Post-NiceneEarly Medieval
400500600

Select a marker to jump to its quote. Markers stagger vertically where authors wrote within a few decades of each other.

AD 407John ChrysostomPost-NiceneSourceHOMILIES ON REPENTANCE AND ALMSGIVING 2.2.9
Therefore, Nathan went to David and wove a dramatic act for judgment. And what did he say? “My king, I want your judgment. There was a certain rich man and a certain poor one. The rich person possessed herds of cattle and many other flocks; and the poor one had one ewe that drank from his glass, ate from his table and slept in his embrace.” Here Nathan revealed the genuine bond between a husband and wife. “When a certain stranger arrived, the rich man desired to keep his own animals, and he took the poor man’s ewe and slaughtered her.” Here, do you see how Nathan wove the dramatic act, mysteriously concealing the weapon in the glands of David’s throat? Then what did the king say? Thinking that he had to pass judgment against someone else, he decided most severely. For such are human beings. When it concerns other people, they gladly and abruptly render decisions and publicize them. And what did David say? “As the Lord lives, the man who did this thing is worthy of death. And he shall restore the lamb fourfold.” Therefore, what did Nathan reply? He did not allow the wound to be relieved for many hours; rather, he quickly stripped it naked and sharply embedded the knife deeply into it, so as not to rob it of the painful sensation. “You are the man, my king.” What did the king say? “I have sinned against the Lord.” He did not say, “Who are you who censures me? Who sent you to speak with such boldness? With what daring did you prevail?” He did not say anything of the sort; rather, he perceived the sin. And what did he say? “I have sinned against the Lord.” Therefore, what did Nathan say to him? “And the Lord remitted your sin.” You condemned yourself; I [God] remit your sentence. You confessed prudently; you annulled the sin. You appropriated a condemnatory decision against yourself; I repealed the sentence. Can you see that what is written in Scripture was fulfilled: “Be the first one to tell of your transgression so you may be justified” How toilsome is it to be the first one to declare the sin?
AD 430Augustine of HippoPost-NiceneSourceEXPLANATIONS OF THE PSALMS 50
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.
AD 430Augustine of HippoPost-NiceneSourceCHRISTIAN INSTRUCTION 3.21
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.
AD 604Gregory the DialogistEarly MedievalSourcePASTORAL CARE 3.2
But at times, in taking to task the powerful of this world, they are first to be dealt with by drawing diverse comparisons in a case ostensibly concerning someone else. Then, when they give a right judgment on what apparently is another’s case, they are to be taken to task regarding their own guilt by a suitable procedure. Thus a mind puffed up with temporal power cannot possibly lift itself up against the reprover, for by its own judgment it has trodden on the neck of pride; and it cannot argue to defend itself, as it stands convicted by the sentence out of its own mouth.Thus it was that Nathan the prophet, coming to chide the king, to all appearance asked his judgment in the case of a poor man against a rich man. The king first was to deliver judgment and then to hear that he was the culprit. Thus he was completely unable to deny the just sentence which he had personally delivered against himself. Therefore, the holy man, considering both the sinner and the king, aimed in that wonderful manner at convicting a bold culprit first by his own admission and then cut him by his rebuke. For a short while he concealed the person whom he was aiming at and then at once struck him when he had convicted him. His stroke would, perhaps, have had less force if he had chosen to castigate the sin directly the moment he began to speak. But by beginning with a similitude, he sharpened the rebuke which he was concealing. He came like a physician to a sick man, saw that his wound had to be incised, but was in doubt about the endurance of the patient. He, therefore, concealed the surgeon’s knife under his coat, but drawing it out suddenly, pierced the wound, that the sick man might feel the knife before he saw it, for if he had first seen it, he might have refused to feel it.
Source: Quotations drawn from early Church Fathers and historical Christian theologians (AD 100–1500). Some quotes address the surrounding passage context rather than this verse alone.
Copy as

Continue studying 2 Samuel 12:4 across the web’s major study libraries — every link below opens this exact verse, chapter, or book on the destination site.

Read & Compare

Commentaries

Original Language & Research

Sermons, Hymns & Audio

TrulyRandomVerse is not affiliated with these sites and doesn’t control their content. They’re linked because they’re genuinely useful.