2Samuel 12

 

2Samuel 12:1–31

Nathan Confronts David Over his Sin; David Loses his Child; David and Joab Take Rabbah


Outline of Chapter 12:

 

Introduction

 

         vv.     1–6           Nathan Comes to David

         vv.     7–15a       God’s Judgement of David

         vv.    15b–23       The Death of David and Bathsheba’s Child

         vv.    24–25         The Birth of Solomon

         vv.    26–31         David and Joab Take the Ammonite City of Rabbah

 

Addendum


Charts, Maps and Short Doctrines:

 

         Introduction         Matthew Henry’s Alternate Outline

         Introduction         Treasury of Scriptural Knowledge Gives a Condensed Description of 2Samuel 12

         Introduction         Degeneracy Sins (Addictive Behavior)

 

         v.       1              Nathan’s Objectivity in the Use of his Spiritual Gift

         v.       1              The New Testament Gift of Pastor-teacher

         v.       1              Lyrics to Marat Sade

         v.       3              The Analogy to Being in Christ

         v.       4              The Parable of the Rich Man and the Poor Man

         v.       4              The New American Standard Bible’s Translation of 2Samuel 12:1–5

         v.       6              The State of David’s Soul

         v.       8              Do We Interpret 2Samuel 12:8a Literally or Figuratively?

         v.       8              What God Has Given David

         v.       9              Explaining David’s Sin

         v,      10              The Sword of Damocles

         v.      10              The Literary Structure of 2Samuel 12:9–10

         v.      11              Why Aren’t God’s Prophecies Precise?

         v.      11              What David Will Face in the Next Decade

         v.      11              David’s Soul and the Harsh Discipline of God

         v.      11              The Law of Natural Consequences

         v.      12              God Will Bring all that is Secret to Light

         v.      12              The Doubling of David’s Sins and Punishments

         v.      12              Why God Acts Publically to Discipline David; Part I

         v.      12              Why God Acts Publically to Discipline David; Part II

         v.      12              Why God Acts Publically to Discipline David; Part III

         v.      12              Why God Acts Publically to Discipline David; Part IV

         v.      12              Why God Acts Publically to Discipline David; a Summary

         v.      12              Some Additional Points on Divine Discipline

         v.      12              Types of Addiction

         v.      12              Links to the Doctrine of Divine Discipline

         v.      12              David, Absalom and Interlocking Systems of Arrogance

         v.      13              Restoration to Fellowship

         v.      13              A Summary of Nathan and David’s Interaction

         v.      13              Why Didn’t God Execute David?

         v.      13              A Summary of 2Samuel 12:1–13

         v.      14              David and the Divine Discipline He Will Endure

         v.      14              David Will Suffer Fourfold for His Sin

         v.      15              Is it Right for David’s Infant Son to Die?

         v,      16              Conclusions on Fasting

         v.      17              David’s Staff and Routine

         v.      18              Leaders Must Have all of the Facts

         v.      19              Concluding Principles from 2Samuel 12:19

         v.      20              David’s Return to Routine

         v.      20              David’s Return to Leadership Function

         v.      20              David Returns to Normal Thinking and to a Normal Life

         v.      21              David’s Palace Staff and Their Questions

         v.      21              The Application of Integrity to Servitude

         v.      22              Prayers for the Dead

         v.      23              Geisler and Howe on Do Infants Go to Heaven?

         v.      24              Links to the Doctrine of Love

         v.      25              When Was Solomon Named What?

         v.      25              Solomon Would be the King to Build the Temple

         v.      26              Rabbah, According to Treasury of Scriptural Knowledge and Smith

         v.      26              Joab’s Siege of Rabbah

         v.      27              Easton, Fausset and ISBE on the City of Rabbah

         v.      31              What About the King James Version of 2Samuel 12:31

         v.      31              Why Does God Allow David to Discipline All the People of Ammon?

 

         Addendum          A Complete Translation of 2Samuel 12


Chapter Outline

 

Charts, Maps and Short Doctrines

Forward

Doctrines Covered and Alluded to

Chapters of the Bible Alluded To

Psalms Appropriately Exegeted with this Chapter

Other Chapters of the Bible Appropriately Exegeted with this Chapter

Definition of Terms

Introduction

Text

Addendum

www.kukis.org

 

Exegetical Studies in Samuel


Doctrines Covered

Doctrines Alluded To

The Doctrine of Love

 

The Angelic Conflict

The Laws of Divine Establishment

 

 

Divine Discipline

Edification Complex

 

 

 

Fasting

 

 

Movement of the Ark and of the Tent of God

Revolution

 

 

Sexual Arrogance

The Technological Accomplishments of the Hamitic Peoples


Chapters of the Bible Alluded To

2Samuel 5

2Samuel 7

2Samuel 10

2Samuel 11

1Chronicles 20

Psalm 89

 

 


Psalms Appropriately Exegeted with this Chapter

Psalm 32

Psalm 38

Psalm 51

 


Other Chapters of the Bible Appropriately Exegeted with this Chapter

 

 

 

 


Many who read and study this chapter are 1st or 2nd generation students of R. B. Thieme, Jr., so that much of this vocabulary is second nature. One of Bob’s contributions to theology is a fresh vocabulary along with a number of concepts which are theologically new or reworked, yet still orthodox. Therefore, if you are unfamiliar with his work, the definitions below will help you to fully understand all that is being said. In addition to this, I will use a number of other more traditional technical theological terms which will be used and therefore defined as well.

Definition of Terms

Angelic Conflict

There is a great unseen war which is going on between fallen and elect angels. This has been going on since the fall of Satan known as the Angelic Conflict. We, as having volition, will resolve the Angelic Conflict.

Carnality

Carnality is the opposite of spiritually. A person who is carnal has sinned, and is therefore out of fellowship with God. When such a one names his sin or sins to God, he is restored to fellowship and he is spiritual once again.

Client Nation

Client-Nation, is a national entity in which a certain number of spiritually mature Christians (the salt of the earth) have formed a pivot sufficient to sustain the nation and through which God specifically protects this nation so that believers can fulfill the divine mandates of evangelism, communication and custodianship of Bible doctrine, providing a haven for Jews, and sending missionaries abroad. The United States is a client-nation to God. A client nation must have freedom: Freedom to seek God, freedom to use one’s own volition and self-determination to succeed or fail, freedom from anarchy and tyranny, freedom for evangelism, freedom for believers to hear Bible teaching without government interference and, therefore, to grow spiritually, and freedom to send missionaries to other nations.

Degeneracy

Being involved in a set of sins which are both addictive and can become very time consuming. In many cases, such sins can take over a person’s life.

Degeneracy Agenda

Spending a significant portion of your life pursing this or that degeneracy sin—whether it is the use of drugs, alcohol, chasing women, and/or having sex (with either gender). All of this takes time and planning out of your life, which takes valuable time from your place in God’s plan. This can be applied to any addictive sin (e.g., gambling).

Edification Complex

"Edification" in the Greek is oikodomê (οἰκοδομη), which means a building or structure. The edification of the soul is accomplished by a building, or Edification Complex, that is constructed in the soul of the believer through the metabolization of Bible Doctrine.

Epistemological Rehabilitation

Epistemological rehabilitation is the perception, metabolization and application of Bible doctrine to your own experience (2Cor. 6:11-12). The end result is the renovation of one’s thinking (Rom. 12:1–2).

Installment Discipline

Because of the quality of David’s soul, God will only be able to turn him around by putting David under great pressure 4 times, each of which relates back to his sins of 2Sam. 11. This will be covered in greater detail under David’s Soul and the Harsh Discipline of God (this represents an update from R. B. Thieme, Jr.’s 1980's era Doctrine of Installment Discipline Footnote ).

Intensive Discipline

When you have sinned, and God begins to discipline you, you go through 3 stages: (1) warning discipline (God lets you know that you have sinned and you need to get back into fellowship); (2) intensive discipline (God increases or intensifies the discipline to a point where, it really, really hurts); (3) the sin unto death (God begins the process of removing you from this world because you refuse to rebound).

Interlocking Systems of Arrogance

Also known as the arrogance complex. The interlocking systems of arrogance refers to many clusters of sins which have a tendency to interlock with one another. Entering into this complex is more than carnality and it is different from reversionism. This doctrine is covered in much greater detail in 2Sam. 11 (HTML) (PDF).

Laws of Divine Establishment

The laws of divine establishment are a system of laws and principles which provide for the preservation as well as for the prosperity of the human race. These laws apply to both believer and unbeliever alike.

Rebound

Naming your sins to God, so that God temporally forgives you and restores you to fellowship with Him. See in this chapter Restoration to Fellowship.

Restorative Discipline

When a believer gives into the lusts of his soul continually, this can change that believer’s soul. Often the result is addictive behavior where a pleasurable addiction takes over the soul. God’s harsh discipline first guides such a believer to restoration to fellowship and then it continues as blessing to cure that addiction.

Reversionism

Getting out of fellowship through sinning, and then remaining out of fellowship for a long time. Often, such a believer reverts to his behavior as an unbeliever. This is called reversionism. This is going further than simple carnality, which is being out of fellowship.

Right man/right woman (RM/RW)

The concept that God has provided for almost all people out there the perfect partner (of the opposite gender, of course). This relationship is the basis for much of our enjoyment of life, for believers and unbelievers alike.

Sin unto Death

This is not a particular sin, but the point at which harsh discipline is no longer working on the believer, so God takes the believer out of this world in a very painful way. For more information, see http://gracebiblechurchwichita.org/?page_id=539

Some of these definitions are taken from

http://www.bibledoctrinechurch.org/?subpages/GLOSSARY.shtml

http://www.bigrick.org/pubs/terms.pdf

http://www.gbible.org/index.php?proc=d4d

http://www.realtime.net/~wdoud/topics.html

http://www.theopedia.com/


——————————


An Introduction to 2Samuel 12


I ntroduction: In the previous chapter, it is clear that David has done egregious wrong. In 2Sam. 12, Nathan brings David to the point of recognizing and naming his own sin to God through a parable. Because what David did was so evil, he would be subject to fourfold discipline, which David himself will call for (not realizing, at the time, that it was his own discipline that he was setting up). The first installment of discipline was the death of this child which was his and Bathsheba’s, which death is recorded in this chapter.


At the end of this chapter, Joab completes his siege of Rabbah, and David comes in to take the credit (as per Joab’s humility).


The foregoing chapter gave us the account of David's sin; this gives us the account of his repentance. Though he fell, he was not utterly cast down, but, by the grace of God, recovered himself, and found mercy with God.

Matthew Henry’s Alternate Outline

1.      David’s conviction (the message of Nathan the prophet):

         1)      First, by a message Nathan brought him from God, which was a parable that obliged him to condemn himself (2Sam. 12:1–6);

         2)      Then, by the application of the parable, in which Nathan charged him with the sin (2Sam. 12:7–9);

         3)      And, finally, the pronounced sentence upon him, (2Sam. 12:10–12).

2.      David’s repentance and remission, with a proviso (2Sam. 12:13–14). We would call this rebound

3.      The sickness and death of the child, and his behaviour while it was sick and when it was dead (2Sam. 12:15–23), in both which David gave evidence of his repentance. This is the cursing of divine discipline.

4.      The birth of Solomon, and God's gracious message concerning him, in which God gave an evidence of his reconciliation to David (2Sam. 12:24–25). God turns cursing into blessing.

5.      The taking of Rabbah (2Sam. 12:26–31), which is mentioned as a further instance that God did not deal with David according to his sins. God turns cursing into blessing.

It is really very difficult to divide up this chapter much differently than I have; but Henry breaks up the first section of the chapter into parts, so I took his outline for that reason.

From: Matthew Henry, Commentary on the Whole Bible; from e-Sword, 2Sam. 12 chapter comments (edited).


Chapter Outline

Charts, Maps and Short Doctrines


Most of us have a very incomplete understanding of the doctrine of divine discipline. Even if you have studied under a very good pastor, it is likely that you do not understand the complete ramifications of the restorative discipline under which David will find himself. As we dig deep into this chapter, we will see that there is more going on here than, “David commits a sin, God disciplines David, and now David is back into fellowship.” For many of us, we understand this aspect of discipline quite well. We are out of fellowship, God puts us first under warning discipline, which—if we don’t respond—He then increases to intensive discipline, and finally—for those who remain out of fellowship—dying discipline (the sin unto death). We do go through these steps with David, and David confesses his sin, and he is back in fellowship, but it is at that point that God begins to pour on the discipline. R. B. Thieme, Jr. developed this doctrine as Installment Discipline. However, there is more to it than that. David will be in and out of fellowship many times during installment discipline. The installment discipline, properly speaking, is designed to, among other things, to restore David’s corrupted soul (corrupted by sexual arrogance). Much of the time when these things are brought to bear in David’s life, David is in fellowship and making good decisions. Therefore, this is not discipline to get David back into fellowship. And, as you certainly know, Jesus Christ died spiritually on the cross to pay for all of our sins (God the Father laid upon God the Son the punishment for the sins which we deserved). Therefore, David cannot pay for his own sin. None of us can. My point here is, the “discipline” that David undergoes is not the sort of discipline that we are familiar with. God is applying pressure upon David to turn him around—to correct the deep soul flaws which David has. God takes this time to make David into a better person and the pressure brought to bear upon David is tremendous. We might call this restorative discipline or corrective discipline which is designed to reach even into David’s soul to turn him around. This is applied with great vigor over a period of 10 years, after David has confessed his sin to God, in order cure—and I do mean, cure—David’s sexual degeneracy. In case you do not think this is pertinent, God the Holy Spirit devotes more time to this portion of David’s life than nearly anything else. And if you suffer from any addictive sin (drugs, drinking, homosexuality, or skirt-chasing), this chapter and the many which follow are all about you.


Now, to give some more details: David sinned greatly in 2Sam. 11 (HTML) (PDF). He stayed home when his troops went out to war against the Ammonites. In the previous year or so, David did go out with Joab to fight the Aramæans, in a war that changed ancient history (2Sam. 10:15–19). However, during this past spring, David remained at home (2Sam. 11:1). He got up and saw a beautiful woman across the way from his rooftop, and he wanted her. After finding out who she was, David called for her to be brought to his palace, despite the fact that, she was the wife of one of his soldiers. David had sex with her and impregnated her (2Sam. 11:2–5). That caused David to try to deceive her soldier husband, Uriah. He got Uriah to come back to Jerusalem on false pretenses, but was unable to talk him into going to his home and staying the night with his wife (2Sam. 11:6–13). Therefore, David sent a message with Uriah to take back to the battlefield, telling General Joab to see that Uriah dies in battle (2Sam. 11:14–16). David lusted after that which belonged to another man; he committed adultery with this woman—he may have raped her; he was deceptive in his meetings with her husband; and he then had her husband murdered. So David has committed a number of sins, and has broken at least 3 commandments. There is nothing to suggest that David recognized his evil or named his sins to God in all of 2Sam. 11.


David’s sexual degeneracy reaches back to when he became king over Judah; by that time, he had a handful of women that he married, made his mistresses, and had children by. However, this degeneracy had not yet begun to dramatically impact his life. However, in 2Sam. 11, David suddenly does some things that seem to come right out of the blue: he is attracted to a woman; he finds out that she is married, yet he still brings her to his palace and has sex with her. Then he tries to deal dishonestly with her husband, and eventually, has him killed. So, David’s life is clearly off the tracks.


In this chapter, God sends Nathan to David (2Sam. 12:1a). This appears to be a legal matter for which Nathan needs advice. He tells David about a rich man and a poor man, and how the rich man takes the one lamb of the poor man to enjoy for a meal, despite his own vast livestock holdings (2Sam. 12:1b–4). David is angered and pronounces an immediately punishment, which would be a fourfold punishment of the rich man (2Sam. 12:5–6). Then Nathan tells him, “You are the man!” (2Sam. 12:7a). David is the rich man who has stolen the little ewe lamb (Bathsheba) from the poor man (Uriah). God then identifies Himself to David, through Nathan, and then defines David’s sin (2Sam. 12:7b–9). David’s pronouncement of punishment would be applied to him directly by God (2Sam. 12:10–12). David confesses his sin and Nathan reassures David that he would not die in this punishment (2Sam. 12:13).


In phase I of David’s punishment, the child resulting from this adulterous relationship would die (2Sam. 12:14). We are told in the text that God struck the child with illness (2Sam. 12:15b). David will eat very little and lay down on the ground, petitioning God for the life of this child (2Sam. 12:16). David’s servants are quite concerned by this and they attempt to get David to rise up and eat (2Sam. 12:17).


After a week, the child dies, and David’s servants are aware of this, but David is not. His servants discuss the situation, afraid to tell David, because of how he has been for the past 7 days (2Sam. 12:18). However, after hearing that his child has died, David gets us, bathes himself and puts on a change of clothing, and goes to worship God (2Sam. 12:19–20a). Then he returns and has a meal (2Sam. 12:20b). His servants are confused by this, and David explains that, while the child was alive, David could petition for the life of that child; however, now that the child has died, David no longer can affect the outcome (2Sam. 12:21–22). This child would not return to him, but he would go to his child (2Sam. 12:23). We believers understand this to mean that, children who die before the age of accountability, are saved and go to the presence of God. After this, David comforts his wife: he lies with her, and she conceives and then bears the son Solomon (2Sam. 12:24–25).


In the last section of this chapter, Joab calls upon David to lead the final assault on the Ammonite city of Rabbah (2Sam. 12:26–28). Now, although this appears to be completely disconnected from the context, this is Joab trying to save David from facing a revolution. Joab has figured out enough of this sordid story to know that David could face a revolution over his behavior and that Joab himself would be the person people would rally to as their leader. Joab understands that this is not a part of the plan of God, so he tries to head this off at the pass, by making David the hero of the taking of Rabbah. This reveals great humility on the part of Joab. David brings an army, they take down Rabbah, and put the people of Rabbah into slavery (2Sam. 12:29–31a). The same thing is done throughout the cities of Ammon (2Sam. 12:31b). As an aside, just in case you find this distasteful, all of this is legitimate. What David and Joab do to this people is reasonable and right.


One more abbreviated look on this entire chapter:

Treasury of Scriptural Knowledge Gives a Condensed Description of 2Samuel 12

2Sam. 12:1–6      Nathan’s parable of the ewe lamb causes David to be his own judge;

2Sam. 12:7–14    David, reproved by Nathan, confesses his sin, and is pardoned;

2Sam. 12:15–23  David mourns and prays for the child while it lives;

2Sam. 12:24–25  Solomon is born, and named Jedidiah;

2Sam. 12:26–31  David takes Rabbah, and tortures the people thereof.

From: Treasury of Scriptural Knowledge; by Canne, Browne, Blayney, Scott, and others about 1880, with introduction by R. A. Torrey; courtesy of E-sword, 2Sam. 12 chapter introduction (slightly edited).


Chapter Outline

Charts, Maps and Short Doctrines


At this point, we will get more into the meat of this chapter. This portion of David’s life—his sin and punishment—take up a huge portion of the Word of God (2Sam. 11–20). Therefore, we need to recognize the importance of this study. This sin that David committed simply indicates how far he has fallen into degeneracy.

You may recall that, in 2Sam. 11, we gave a great deal of introductory discussion as to the nature of David’s sins, and how they are much different than simply committing a sin, naming it to God, and moving on with your life. What David did in 2Sam. 11 will impact his country and his own life for the next decade or so. This is so important that, hundreds of men have commented on David’s sin in a number of different contexts. Even today, those who doubt the Word of God go back to David and this sin, and snotily say, “The Bible says David is a man after God’s Own heart, and yet here, he commits adultery and then has the innocent husband killed. That does not sound like a man of God to me!” As if they would know.


At the beginning of 2Sam. 11 (HTML) (PDF), we studied several different opinions and viewpoints about David’s sin here. Is he just out of fellowship? Is he in reversionism? Ought we to look further into our concept of sin and give it more definition? As the study of the previous chapter continues to percolate in my mind, there are 2 sets of explanations which I find to be most appropriate: the concept of interlocking systems of arrogance, originally developed by R. B. Thieme, Jr.; and the concept of degeneracy sins which are addictive in nature.


We studied the interlocking systems of arrogance in the previous chapter in great detail, but we need to take another look at degeneracy.

Degeneracy Sins (Addictive Behavior)

1.      Not all sins function the same way in our life. We may give in to this or that sin, now and again, but these sins do not dramatically impede our spiritual growth nor do they consume our lives.

2.      However, there are sins which potentially can stop us dead in our tracks, keeping us from spiritual growth, and sometimes transforming our lives, to where these sins become first and foremost in our lives.

3.      We will classify these types of sins as degeneracy sins. Committing such sins once or twice is not degeneracy; committing such sins with great regularity, where much of our life is spent preparing to commit such sins, is degeneracy.

4.      David has fallen into sexual degeneracy.

5.      Sins of degeneracy are sins where we continue to dig ourselves deeper and deeper into sin.

6.      Most often, these sins involve some kind of pleasure, often from sex, drinking, drugs or even over-eating.

7.      The commission of these sins goes beyond the weakness of the sin nature. These are not simply a person’s individual weakness; these are sins which that person continue to pursue with greater effort and greater frequency.

8.      There seems to be an effect of repetition and time when it comes to degeneracy sins. This repetition digs out a rut which often keeps us there. That is, the more we repeat the sin, the harder it is not to commit that sin.

9.      Degeneracy sins can begin small and develop to a point where they consume much of a person’s life.

10.    There seems to be a diminished capacity to resist such sins, as repetition of these sins continues. It is not necessarily that the person is completely unable to stop committing these sins; but that he chooses not to.

11.    There also appears to be an inability to objectively appreciate the effect of these sins on one’s own life.

12.    David was a skirt-chaser. He loved women. In his culture, David could get away with having many wives, and few people took a dim view of this.

13.    However, the ability to temporarily satisfy a sin of degeneracy does not minimize that sin in any way, nor does it keep that sin from taking up too much of your life.

14.    David had so many wives and mistresses that he stopped keeping track of all their names and stopped worrying about which child belonged to which wife (apart from his first few children). 2Sam. 5:13–16

15.    However, his sin with Bathsheba made it clear that David was in a hole and he continued to dig himself deeper into that hole. His sins of degeneracy had led him to a place where he committed sins against others that he would have never considered before.

16.    If you have ever driven a vehicle over open land and got stuck in the dirt, you will find that, when you rev up the engine, you will just dig yourself deeper at the point where you got stuck. This is how a sin of degeneracy affects us.

17.    The carry this analogy further, we find that we must either seek outside help to get the car out of the rut or try an outside approach (e.g., putting boards under the wheels of the vehicle in order to get traction).

18.    One of the common steps in addiction recovery is trusting in a higher power (God) to help you, guide you out, or to depend upon. Political correctness has kept many addiction organizations from specifically identifying God.

19.    By the time of 2Sam. 11, David discovered that, as king, he could send his troops off to war, and that took many of the men out of Jerusalem. That gave David a greater chance to chase women.

20.    David wakes up in the early evening, has a sexual urge, and yet does nothing to satisfy the urge with one of his (approximately) 20 wives and mistresses. Most of us males think, with 20 women, that is going to be quite enough variety. The fact that David did not turn to one of his wives or mistresses indicates that he was trapped in addictive behavior; he was digging himself further into a rut with degeneracy sins.

21.    David’s son, Solomon, had 1000 wives and mistresses, and that was not enough for him. The Song of Solomon is all about his pursuit of another women, even though he had 1000 women of all nationalities to choose from. That is clearly being trapped in addictive behavior.

22.    Degeneracy sins can include various sexual addictions, including homosexuality, a desire for sexual relations with children, and/or an addiction to pornography; as well as alcoholism, drug addiction and an addiction to gambling.

23.    There have been several studies which indicate that there is a genetic component to addictive behavior. One study, for instance, showed that, of identical twins, if one person was a homosexual, there was a 50% chance that his identical twin was homosexual. This indicates a clear genetic predisposition but one which is not determinative.

24.    Along the same lines, there seems to be genetic evidence for alcoholism. Charlie Brown may be predisposed genetically toward alcoholism, but that may or may not develop in his lifetime. The same thing is certainly true of drug addiction. Having this soul defect is not determinative; you can choose not to participate in the first place.

25.    I recall an article which was purposely a setup. It begins describing the effects of a particular sin, and the results of that sin. The way the article begins, one immediately thinks that it is homosexual behavior which is being discussed, but it turns out to be alcoholism. The twist of the article is, all the percentages of negative results which are true of the alcoholic are even more pronounced for the homosexual.

         1)      As I read somewhere on the internet, “This is how God made you (an alcoholic), enjoy it. Drink all you want.”

         2)      This is how the world wants us to view these genetic weaknesses, in some instances. That is, if you have a desire to experiment with homosexual sex, then go ahead and try it out. Quite obviously, that is not the Biblical approach.

26.    There seems to be an addictive personality, that has one set of addictions, and, after overcoming that, falls prey to another set of addictions. This would probably indicate both a genetic and a volitional component.

27.    You cannot fall into addictive behaviors apart from your own free will. This is one of the attacks of the present-day, political homosexual movement—they claim that there is no choice involved, that being homosexual is ingrained from birth, and cannot be changed, and that even those who claim to be transformed, if they find themselves tempted, this is evidence that they have not been transformed. Some even bring God into this, along with love, and try to approximate homosexual relationships with heterosexual relationships. This is wrong on many counts.

         1)      A heterosexual relationship can result in a child, and marriage serves to protect both the mother and the child. You have no doubt heard of shotgun weddings; this was a somewhat warped version of understanding this principle. There is no such protection required in a homosexual union.

         2)      A heterosexual marriage combines two fundamentally different creatures: a man and a woman. These genders are different from birth. At one time, the women’s lib movement tried to convince us that gender differences were placed there by society, but that has since been shown to be false.

         3)      Homosexuality is not as widespread as it portends to be. The National Health and Social Life Survey (NHSLS), found that only 2.8 percent of the men and 1.4 percent of the women said they thought of themselves as homosexual or bisexual.1

         4)      Fidelity is a very important part of a heterosexual marriage. An act of infidelity can destroy a marriage. Few committed homosexuals depend upon sexual fidelity.

         5)      A lifelong commitment among heterosexual couples is much more likely than that between homosexual couples.

         6)      Marriage is an institution recognized by nearly all cultures over all recorded history. Homosexuality, bestiality, pederasty and polygamy have all existed almost since the beginning of time, but always as a perversion and never as the norm of any society.

         7)      For a traditional marriage, it is not unusual for lifelong partners to enter into a lifelong commitment, without ever having sex with one another or with others. In fact, this was, at one time, the norm. Virgin marriages and making a lifetime commitment to one another as virgins simply does not occur in a homosexual relationship.

         8)      It is obvious that many of these differences are a matter of degree, but the difference in degree is generally quite dramatic.

28.    For many, committing these sins (sexual sins, drunkenness, the use of drugs) tends to dig oneself deeper into a degeneracy hole.

29.    Their lives become obsessed with committing these sins, to the exclusion of other legitimate activity.

30.    I’ve known alcoholics and have seen them drink themselves to the point where they lose their jobs, their families, their homes, and/or their cars.

31.    I have known drug addicts. Drug abusers can get to a point where the will rob their own family members in order to continue using drugs. I have known drug addicts whose physical changes and mental changes are so stark as to make them almost unrecognizable to friends and family.

32.    A 1978 study showed that 43% of male homosexuals have had 500 or more partners.2 That is obsessive behavior.

33.    A 1981 study showed that only 2% of male homosexuals could be classified as monogamous or semi-monogamous.2 Again, this is behavior far outside of the norm and indicates addictive behavior more than it does personal satisfaction.

34.    There are several passages in the Bible which allude to degeneracy sins:

         1)      2Sam. 11 is all about how overcome David is with lust that he would take a woman in adultery—possibly by rape—and then have her husband killed.

         2)      Song of Solomon is all about Solomon, the man who is chasing after the woman in this book, despite having 1000 wives and mistresses.

         3)      Rom. 1:21–27 Because knowing God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful. But they became vain in their reasonings, and their undiscerning heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became foolish and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into a likeness of an image of corruptible man, and of birds, and four-footed animals, and creeping things. Because of this, God gave them up to impurity in the lusts of their hearts, their bodies to be dishonored among themselves, who changed the truth of God into the lie, and worshiped and served the created thing more than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. Because of this, God gave them up to dishonorable passions, for even their females changed the natural use to that contrary to nature. And likewise, the males also forsaking the natural use of the female burned in their lust toward one another, males with males working out shamefulness, and receiving back within themselves the reward which was fitting for their error. Here, God gives these up to their dishonorable lusts, allowing them to burn in lust toward those of the same gender. So the Bible clearly recognizes that, when it comes to this sort of behavior, the desire to commit these sins is very strong.

35.    The solution for sins of degeneracy does not appear to be any different from the solution to all forms of carnality (being out of fellowship). Rebound (naming one’s sins to God) and turning toward the truth of the Word of God (the inculcation of Bible doctrine into one’s soul; or, epistemological rehabilitation). This is not reading the Bible for yourself, but putting yourself under the authority of a knowledgeable pastor-teacher who consistently teaches the Word of God. Personally, I believe that there is no reason why a believer should be taking in doctrine less than a daily basis.

1 http://www.truenews.org/Homosexuality/homosexual_myths_and_facts.html accessed February 15, 2011.

2 http://gospelway.com/morality/homosexuality.php accessed February 15, 2011.

For additional research of homosexuality, let me suggest:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1751579/posts

http://www.conservapedia.com/Homosexuality

This doctrine is also found in 2Sam. 11 (HTML) (PDF).

Application: There is an extremely important take-away in all of this: these degeneracy sins tend to take up a lot of time and injure a lot of other people. I do not know how many days God has given you to live on this earth as a believer in Jesus Christ, but I know it is a finite number. What you cannot afford to do is to fall into one of these degeneracy sins, and thereby trap yourself in a degeneracy spiral for several years. God has a plan for your life, and if you are spending 5 or 10 or 20 years chasing skirt, drinking yourself into oblivion, living the homosexual lifestyle, or whatever, you cannot fulfill God’s plan for your life.

Application: What is particularly problematic about these degeneracy sins is, they take up a lot of time. Chasing skirt, for instance, requires you to meet and woo various women, set up dates, and pursue this encounter to a sexual end. All of that requires time, and this will distract you from you RM/RW relationship. In fact, this could keep you from establishing a RM/RW relationship. So it is with any of these sins—they take up a tremendous amount of time.

God, in this discipline of David—discipline for blessing—which occurs after David committed these sins, will remind David daily of the consequences of his sins. You see, let’s say Uriah’s grave was put right outside the front of David’s palace, and every time that David walks in or out of the palace, he sees it and feels a tinge of guilt. No big deal. However, if David is feeling pain and pressure and difficulties, all of which are a result of his life of skirt-chasing, that is going to eventually sink into his thick head.

Application: Why does God spend 8 or 9 chapters on this? So that you do not waste 5, 10 or 20 years of your life in some degeneracy sin. Ideally speaking, you will look at David’s life, see what he did, note the 10 years of discipline which he endured after naming his sins to God, and think, “You know what, this particular lust is simply not worth it. It would be a dramatic waste of my time on this earth to pursue this particular degeneracy agenda. And besides, I am not so sure how enthusiastic I can get about God beating me within an inch of my life for attempting to satiate my lusts.”


Chapter Outline

Charts, Maps and Short Doctrines


There is a time element to all of this. Although most children are born 9 months after conception, premature births are not unusual; and, once and awhile, a woman may carry a child to 9 months + a week or two or three. It is quite obvious that there was a time frame problem with Bathsheba convincing her husband that the son she would bear is his. This suggests that, prior to going to war, there was no sex for Uriah the Hittite. We speculated some on that—there could have been trouble in the marriage, or, this could have been a good luck charm in their abstinence; or, it is also possible that married people just did not have as much sex, as the result, invariably would be a child. In any case, the time between Uriah last having relations with his wife and David committing adultery with her was such that, Uriah would never be convinced that the child was his.


So, David brings Uriah home and tries to get him to have relations with his wife. This would have occurred about a month after David had sex with Bathsheba. This deception takes a few days, and David has no luck with this approach. Because David is unable to manipulate Uriah, he then has Uriah killed, which occurred maybe 1–2 months after David cuckolded him.


Here is where the time factor becomes interesting. Nathan comes to David (in this chapter) and God judges David through Nathan. Part of this original judgment involves the child born to Bathsheba. This child is mentioned in 2Sam. 11:27 and 2Sam. 12:14–19. Therefore, it is possible that God waits several months—up to a year—before sending Nathan to him. Although the narrative does not demand that Bathsheba bear this child first; the narrative suggests that the birth occurs before God sends Nathan to David. In other words, God waits for awhile before lowering the boom on David. Although this is all speculation, perhaps God was allowing David some time during which he reflects back upon his sin, and, without prompting, recognize how heinous his behavior has been. Now, God knows in eternity past that David is not going to do this; however, God still allows David some time on his own before stepping in.


On a personal note, God has greatly blessed me to allow me to exegete His Word. I don’t have a schedule that I have to meet; I don’t have a particular book that I must complete at a particular time, so this allows me to form questions as I exegete a book, to ruminate, and to go back and make corrections where they are necessary. Much of my background is in mathematics—and I particularly enjoyed proofs—so that, I often view much of what I study in the Bible as a puzzle. For instance, twice in this chapter, God tells David that He will discipline David out in the sun. Why “in the sun” and why is this said twice. On my second passthrough on this chapter, it began to fit together and to make sense. Another question occurred to me (many occur to me as I work on a chapter): why is the prophecy about David’s mistresses being taken more clear? Why doesn’t God say, “Your son, Absalom, is going to violate the 10 mistresses that you leave behind”? With word processing software, I can bury these questions as hidden comments or as a part of the hidden document summary, so that they are always there, eating away at me, until God the Holy Spirit reveals why this, and why that. What this has done is given me greater respect for the Word of God, because it becomes clear that, this or that phrase, this or that doubling, are not things simply thrown in at random, but that every jot and tittle has meaning and purpose (in fact, many have multiple purposes). It is a great blessing to be able to do this.


You may or may not have an interest in this, but I go through this chapter 4 times, as I do most other chapters of the Bible. I first exegete it word-by-word, and add in a few doctrines and commentary as I go. Usually, I spend a day on each verse or two (for me, a “day” is 2–3 hours). Then I go back over the chapter again, verse-by-verse, seeing if there is anything which I left out, if there is anything which ought to be explained better, and I add a little text. This can increase the size of the volume by 50% or more. During this second pass-through, I read what about 10 different commentators have said, and see if they have observed anything which I missed. Then I have about a dozen books which I go through—manners and customs books; figures of speech, and a set of Geisler’s books—and I see if they have any insight that I may have missed. Then, I sit down with my notes from R. B. Thieme, Jr.’s Bible class, and see if I missed anything else. This final step, I have only begun to do recently. When faced with these final chapters of Samuel, I knew that I might be out of my depth; so I have gone back and re-listened to Bob’s David Series, to help me flesh out anything that I may have missed. At some point in time, I will append the rest of my notes in Samuel with any information or observations which Bob made.


At one time, I had hoped to exegete the entire Bible; then, recognizing that I probably won’t live forever in a non-resurrected body, maybe I should hope for just exegeting the Old Testament. At this point, I am hoping to complete Samuel; and then go back and redo Genesis (my first attempt at exegeting this book embarrasses me).


Enough about me; let’s see what is going on with David’s life:


——————————


If I was arranging the chapter divisions, this portion of 2Sam. 11:27 would mark the beginning of 2Sam. 12. Therefore, I will repeat the exegesis and commentary of the last portion of 2Sam. 11:27.


As you will see in the translations below, many English translators agree with this alternate organization. The division of the Bible into chapters and verses was not inspired and occurred long after the original text was committed to writing.


Return to Chapter Outline

Return to Charts, Maps and Short Doctrines


And so is evil the word that did David in eyes of Yehowah.

2Samuel

11:27f

And so the thing which David did was evil in the eyes of Yehowah.

What David did was evil in the sight of Jehovah.


Here is how others have translated this verse:

 

Ancient texts:                       Note: I compare the Hebrew text to English translations of the Latin, Syriac and Greek texts, using the Douay-Rheims translation Footnote ; George Lamsa’s translation, and Sir Lancelot Charles Lee Brenton’s translation as revised and edited by Paul W. Esposito, respectively. I often update these texts with non-substantive changes (e.g., you for thou, etc.). I often use the text of the Complete Apostles’ Bible instead of Brenton’s translation, because it updates the English text.

 

The Septuagint was the earliest known translation of a book (circa 200 b.c.). Since this translation was made before the textual criticism had been developed into a science and because different books appear to be translated by different men, the Greek translation can sometimes be very uneven.

 

When there are serious disparities between my translation and Brenton’s (or the text of the Complete Apostles’ Bible), I look at the Greek text of the Septuagint (the LXX) to see if a substantive difference actually exists (and I reflect these changes in the English rendering of the Greek text). I use the Greek LXX with Strong’s numbers and morphology available for e-sword. The only problem with this resource (which is a problem for similar resources) is, there is no way to further explore Greek verbs which are not found in the New Testament.

 

The Masoretic text is the Hebrew text with all of the vowels (vowel points) inserted (the original Hebrew text lacked vowels). We take the Masoretic text to be the text closest to the original. However, differences between the Masoretic text and the Greek, Latin and Syriac are worth noting and, once in a great while, represent a more accurate text possessed by those other ancient translators.

 

In general, the Latin text is an outstanding translation from the Hebrew text into Latin and very trustworthy (I say this as a non-Catholic). Unfortunately, I do not read Latin—apart from some very obvious words—so I am dependent upon the English translation of the Latin (principally, the Douay-Rheims translation).

 

Underlined words indicate differences in the text.

 

Bracketed portions of the Dead Sea Scrolls are words, letters and phrases lost in the scroll due to various types of damage. Underlined words or phrases are those in the Dead Sea Scrolls but not in the Masoretic text.

 

Latin Vulgate                          And this thing which David had done, was displeasing to the Lord.

Masoretic Text (Hebrew)        And so is evil the word that did David in eyes of Yehowah.

Peshitta (Syriac)                    But the thing that David had done displeased the LORD.

Septuagint (Greek)                And the thing which David did was evil in the eyes of the Lord.

 

Significant differences:           There are 2 possible choices for the second to the last verb, and this is also reflected in the Latin and Syriac as opposed to the Greek (the Greek translates this with a noun and a verb).


Thought-for-thought translations; paraphrases:

 

CEV                                       The LORD was angry at what David had done,...

Easy English (Pocock)           But God was not pleased with the thing that David had done.

Easy-to-Read Version            But the Lord did not like the bad thing David had done.

Good News Bible (TEV)         But the LORD was not pleased with what David had done.

The Message                         But GOD was not at all pleased with what David had done,... The Message places the end of verse 27 at the beginning of 2Sam. 12.

New Century Version             ...but the Lord did not like what David had done.

New Life Bible                        But what David had done was sinful in the eyes of the Lord.


Partially literal and partially paraphrased translations:

 

American English Bible          However, this whole thing appeared wicked in the eyes of Jehovah.

Ancient Roots Translinear      But the word that David did offended Yahweh's eyes.

God’s Word                         But the LORD considered David's actions evil.

NIRV                                      But the Lord wasn't pleased with what David had done.

New Simplified Bible              However, Jehovah considered David’s actions evil.

Revised English Bible            But what David had done was wrong in the eyes of the Lord.


Mostly literal renderings (with some occasional paraphrasing):

 

Bible in Basic English             But the Lord was not pleased with the thing David had done.

Complete Jewish Bible           But ADONAI saw what David had done as evil.

HCSB                                     However, the LORD considered what David had done to be evil.

JPS (Tanakh—1985)               But the Lord was displeased with what David had done,.. Several translations, including the Tanakh, place the final sentence of this chapter with the chapter that follows.

NET Bible®                             But what David had done upset the LORD [Heb "and the thing which David had done was evil in the eyes of the Lord." Note the verbal connection with v. 25. Though David did not regard the matter as evil, the Lord certainly did.].


Literal, almost word-for-word, renderings:

 

American KJV                        But the thing that David had done displeased the LORD.

Context Group Version          But the thing that David had done displeased YHWH.

Heritage Bible                        And the word that David had done was evil in the eyes of Jehovah..

Modern KJV                           And the thing which David had done was evil in the eyes of Jehovah.

New RSV                               Nathan Condemns David

But the thing that David had done displeased the Lord, 121and the Lord sent Nathan to David. A couple translations, such as this one, take the final portion of v. 27 and add it to the beginning of 2Sam. 12.

Syndein                                  But the thing that David had done was evil in the eyes of Jehovah/God.

World English Bible                But the thing that David had done displeased Yahweh.

Young’s Updated LT             ...and the thing which David has done is evil in the eyes of Jehovah.

 

The gist of this verse:          What David did was evil in the sight of God.


2Samuel 11:27f (This could be seen as 2Samuel 12:1a)

Hebrew/Pronunciation

Common English Meanings

Notes/Morphology

BDB and Strong’s Numbers

wa (or va) (וַ) [pronounced wah]

and so, and then, then, and; so, that, yet, therefore; because

wâw consecutive

No Strong’s # BDB #253

It is often typical for each sentence—in fact, each thought—to begin with a wâw consecutive (or a wâw conjunction) in the Hebrew. However, it is not necessary in an English translation to include a connective at every such juncture, as our language does not necessarily require that for successive thoughts or actions.

râʿaʿ (רָעַע) [pronounced raw-ĢAHĢ]

to make a loud noise; to be evil [from the idea of raging or being tumultuous]; to be bad, to displease; possibly to be unpleasant and embittering; to break, to shatter

3rd person masculine singular, Qal imperfect

Strong’s #7489 BDB #949

E-sword has the following verb instead:

yâraʿ (יָרַע) [pronounced yaw-RAHĢ]

 to grieve, to displease

3rd person masculine singular, Qal imperfect

Strong’s #3415 BDB #438

This will be discussed below in great detail.

dâbâr (דָּבָר) [pronounced dawb-VAWR]

word, saying, doctrine, thing, matter, command

masculine singular noun with the definite article

Strong's #1697 BDB #182

ʾăsher (אֲֹשֶר) [pronounced ash-ER]

that, which, when, who, whom

relative pronoun

Strong's #834 BDB #81

ʿâsâh (עָשָֹה) [pronounced ģaw-SAWH]

to do, to make, to construct, to fashion, to form, to prepare, to manufacture

3rd person masculine singular, Qal perfect

Strong's #6213 BDB #793

Dâvid (דָּוִד); also Dâvîyd (דָּוִיד) [pronounced daw-VEED]

beloved and is transliterated David

masculine proper noun

Strong’s #1732 BDB #187

be (בְּ) [pronounced beh]

in, into, at, by, near, on, with, before, against, by means of, among, within

a preposition of proximity

No Strong’s # BDB #88

ʿêynayim (עֵינַיִם) [pronounced ģay-nah-YIM]

eyes, two eyes, literal eye(s), spiritual eyes; face, appearance, form; surface

feminine plural construct

Strong’s #5869 (and #5871) BDB #744

This phrase is literally in their eyes, but it can be translated in their opinion, in their estimation, to their way of thinking, as they see [it].

Together, the bêyth preposition and the construct ʿîynêy (י̤ני.ע) [pronounced ģee-NAY], literally mean in the eyes of; it can be understood to mean in the opinion of, in the thinking of, in the estimation of; as ____ sees things to be.

YHWH (יהוה) [pronunciation is possibly yhoh-WAH]

transliterated variously as Jehovah, Yahweh, Yehowah

proper noun

Strong’s #3068 BDB #217


Translation: And so the thing which David did was evil in the eyes of Yehowah. While his army went off to war, David stuck around Jerusalem. Although he had about 20 wives and mistresses Footnote to choose from, he awoke one afternoon, saw another woman (Bathsheba) and greatly desired her. Even after finding out that she was the wife of one of his soldiers, David called for her to be brought to the palace and he had sex with her. Although the text is not clear, it is possible that he raped her. This is discussed in greater detail in 2Sam. 11 (HTML) (PDF). However, the reason that rape is suspected is, David’s punishment is going to involve rape (the rape of his daughter and the rape of his wives and mistresses). When it turns out that Bathsheba was impregnated by David, he tried to get her husband back to Jerusalem and back home, so that he thinks the child is his. The husband, Uriah, cannot be coaxed to the bed of his wife, because his fellow soldiers are at war; so David has this gallant man killed. The thing which David did was evil in the eyes of Yehowah.


The way this is written, with the birth of the child of this adulterous union being mentioned in 2Sam. 11:27a: When the time of mourning had passed, David sent a messenger to Bathsheba and he had her relocated to his palace. Consequently, she became his wife and gave birth to a son. This suggests that God waits a few months before sending Nathan to speak to David. God is allowing David to choose to recover on his own, if he so chooses.


——————————


Return to Chapter Outline

Return to Charts, Maps and Short Doctrines


Nathan Comes to David


You will notice that, in these first 14 verses, Nathan is going to do almost all of the talking. David really has very little to say here. He is able to recognize the evil and arrogance and selfishness of the rich man, and he will pronounce judgment over the rich man, but that is but 2 verses. Near the end, David will acknowledge his sin before God, and that will take up a half of a verse. So, almost everything which is said here is God speaking through Nathan.


Slavishly literal:

 

Moderately literal:

And so sends Yehowah Nathan unto David; and so he comes unto him; and so he says to him, “Two of men in a city one—one rich and one being poor.

2Samuel

12:1

Therefore, Yehowah sent Nathan unto David, so he went to him. Nathan [lit., he] said to David [lit., him], “[There are] two men in a certain city—one rich and the other poor.

Therefore, Jehovah told Nathan to go to David, so Nathan went to him. Nathan said to David, “There were two men in a certain city—one rich and one poor.


Here is how others have translated this verse:

 

Ancient texts:  

 

Latin Vulgate                          And the Lord sent Nathan to David: and when he was come to him, he said to him: There were two men in one city, the one rich, and the other poor.

Masoretic Text (Hebrew)        And so sends Yehowah Nathan unto David; and so he comes unto him; and so he says to him, “Two of men in a city one—one rich and one being poor.

Peshitta (Syriac)                    AND the LORD sent Nathan the prophet to David. And he came to him and said to him, There were two men in a certain city, the one rich and the other poor.

Septuagint (Greek)                And the Lord sent Nathan the prophet to David; and he went in to him, and said to him, There were two men in one city, one rich and the other poor.

 

Significant differences:           The Greek and Syriac both have the prophet following Nathan.


Thought-for-thought translations; paraphrases:

 

CEV                                       The LORD was angry at what David had done, and he sent Nathan the prophet to tell this story to David: A rich man and a poor man lived in the same town.

Easy English (Pocock)           The *Lord sent Nathan to David. Nathan went to David and he said, `Two men lived in a city. One man was rich. The other man was poor.

Easy-to-Read Version            The Lord sent Nathan to David. Nathan went to David. Nathan said, “There were two men in a city. One man was rich. But the other man was poor.

Good News Bible (TEV)         The LORD sent the prophet Nathan to David. Nathan went to him and said, "There were two men who lived in the same town; one was rich and the other poor.

The Message                         But GOD was not at all pleased with what David had done, and sent Nathan to David. Nathan said to him, "There were two men in the same city--one rich, the other poor.

New Living Translation           Nathan Rebukes David

So the Lord sent Nathan the prophet to tell David this story: "There were two men in a certain town. One was rich, and one was poor.


Partially literal and partially paraphrased translations:

 

American English Bible          So, Jehovah sent the Prophet Nathan to David. he went in and said to him, `There were two men who lived in the same city, one was rich, and the other was poor.

Ancient Roots Translinear      Yahweh sent Nathan to David. He came to him and said to him, "Two men were in one city, one rich and one destitute.

God’s Word                         So the LORD sent Nathan to David. Nathan came to him and said, "There were two men in a certain city. One was rich, and the other was poor.

New American Bible              The LORD sent Nathan to David, and when he came to him, he said: "Judge this case for me! In a certain town there were two men, one rich, the other poor.

NIRV                                      David's Son Dies

The Lord sent the prophet Nathan to David. When Nathan came to him, he said, "Two men lived in the same town. One was rich. The other was poor.

New Jerusalem Bible             Yahweh sent the prophet Nathan to David. He came to him and said: In the same town were two men, one rich, the other poor.

Revised English Bible            The Lord sent Nathan the prophet to David, and when he entered the king’s presence, he said, ‘In a certain town there lived two men, one rich, the other poor.


Mostly literal renderings (with some occasional paraphrasing):

 

Bible in Basic English             And the Lord sent Nathan to David. And Nathan came to him and said, There were two men in the same town: one a man of great wealth, and the other a poor man.

Complete Jewish Bible           ADONAI sent Natan to David. He came and said to him, "In a certain city there were two men, one rich, the other poor.

HCSB                                     So the LORD sent Nathan to David. When he arrived, he said to him: There were two men in a certain city, one rich and the other poor.

JPS (Tanakh—1985)               ...and the Lord sent Nathan to David. He came to him and saidm, “There were two men in the same city, one rich and one poor.

NET Bible®                             Nathan the Prophet Confronts David

So the LORD sent Nathan [A few medieval Hebrew mss, the LXX, and the Syriac Peshitta add "the prophet." The words are included in a few modern English version (e.g., TEV, CEV, NLT).] to David. When he came to David [Heb "him"; the referent (David) has been specified in the translation for clarity.], Nathan [Heb "he"; the referent (Nathan) has been specified in the translation for clarity.] said [The Hebrew text repeats "to him."], "There were two men in a certain city, one rich and the other poor. When it comes to making an actual material change to the text, the NET Bible® is pretty good about indicating this. Since most of these corrections will be clear in the more literal translations below and within the Hebrew exegesis itself, I will not continue to list every NET Bible® footnote.

New International Version      Nathan Rebukes David

The LORD sent Nathan to David. When he came to him, he said, "There were two men in a certain town, one rich and the other poor.


Literal, almost word-for-word, renderings:

 

Concordant Literal Version    And Yahweh sends Nathan unto David, and he comes unto him, and said to him:`Two men have been in one city; One rich and one poor;"

English Standard Version      And the LORD sent Nathan to David. He came to him and said to him, "There were two men in a certain city, the one rich and the other poor.

exeGeses companion Bible   NATHAN REBUKES DAVID

And Yah Veh sends Nathan to David:

and he comes to him and says to him,

Two men are in one city

- the one rich and the one impoverished:

Syndein                                  Therefore Jehovah/God sent Nathan to David and said to him {through the finesse of a parable}, "There were two men in one city the one rich, the other poor.".

Young’s Updated LT             And Jehovah sends Nathan unto David, and he comes unto him, and says to him: “Two men have been in one city; One rich and one poor.

 

The gist of this verse:          God sends the prophet Nathan to David, and Nathan begins telling David a parable (which David does not at first see as an hypothetical or as just a story).


2Samuel 12:1a

Hebrew/Pronunciation

Common English Meanings

Notes/Morphology

BDB and Strong’s Numbers

wa (or va) (וַ) [pronounced wah]

and so, and then, then, and; so, that, yet, therefore, consequently; because

wâw consecutive

No Strong’s # BDB #253

shâlach (שָלַח) [pronounced shaw-LAKH]

to send, to send for [forth, away], to dismiss, to deploy, to put forth, to stretch out, to reach out

3rd person masculine singular, Qal imperfect

Strong’s #7971 BDB #1018

YHWH (יהוה) [pronunciation is possibly yhoh-WAH]

transliterated variously as Jehovah, Yahweh, Yehowah

proper noun

Strong’s #3068 BDB #217

ʾêth (אֶח) [pronounced ayth]

generally untranslated; occasionally to, toward

indicates that the following substantive is a direct object

Strong's #853 BDB #84

Nâthân (נָתָן) [pronounced naw-THAWN]

given; one who is given; transliterated Nathan

masculine singular, proper noun

Strong’s #5416 BDB #681

Both the Greek and Syriac add the prophet right here.

ʾel (אֶל) [pronounced ehl]

unto; into, among, in; toward, to; against; concerning, regarding; besides, together with; as to

directional preposition (respect or deference may be implied)

Strong's #413 BDB #39

Dâvid (דָּוִד); also Dâvîyd (דָּוִיד) [pronounced daw-VEED]

beloved and is transliterated David

masculine proper noun

Strong’s #1732 BDB #187


Translation: Therefore, Yehowah sent Nathan unto David,... Even though David is a type of Christ, God deals with David through an intermediary, to whose authority David submits. Even though David is king over all Israel, he certainly understands that he is under God, and therefore, he is under the authority of Nathan as well. However, Nathan’s authority will not be an issue here.


Although the first part of this verse reads: Therefore, Yehowah sent Nathan unto David,...; God came to Nathan and He told him to go to David. We do not know how God appeared to Nathan (I would assume a dream), but, in whatever form, God would have spoken to Nathan (even though these details are left out of the narrative).


As an aside, we know very little about the “Nathan” side of this narrative, because Nathan did not record this information (in my opinion). This narrative will appear to center more on David, so we have no back story on Nathan. Nathan just shows up here. He comes out of nowhere. Although we know that he is sent by God, we do not know where he has been or what he has been doing. We know almost nothing about Nathan personally. This would suggest that David recorded this narrative, as most of it is more centered on David himself. That is, from his point of view, what is recorded here is stuff that David actually experienced.


In retrospect, David knew that God despised that which he did; and, given what Nathan will say to him, it is clear that Nathan was sent by God. However, Nathan is not the focus of this narrative. Given the details which we have and the details that are missing, it would be reasonable to think that David wrote most of these chapters of the Word of God.


David originally went to Nathan a decade or so previously when he was thinking about building a Temple—a permanent place in which Jehovah Elohim would be worshiped—back in 2Sam. 7. This in itself was a marvelous passage. We found out that, man is designed to be capable of independent thinking. That is, David came up with this idea on his own. God did not somehow implant this idea into him, nor did David read the Scriptures and say, “Hey, it says here, I ought to be building a Temple.” Based upon his own thinking, David comes up with what would be considered an original thought. The Jews have long held the Land of Promise. David has established his kingdom with Jerusalem as the capitol city. He has a beautiful palace that was built for him by Hiram, king of Tyre. Therefore, there is no need for the Ark of God to continue to be kept in a semi-permanent tent. That tent was designed to be moved about. However, at this point, there is no reason to continue with a semi-permeant tent; why not build a permanent building in which Israel could worship God? This is a logical thought process which David went through.


David’s idea did not catch God by surprise—that is hardly the case. But the concept is, we are all capable of independent thought, and that we have not been programmed to think in this or that way. There are some limitations upon man—just like we cannot simply decide to sprout wings and fly—but God designed us to be able to think originally and independently.


When David first spoke to Nathan and said, “I am thinking about building a Temple; what do you think?” Nathan, perhaps even a little overwhelmed that David is speaking to him and values his opinion on the matter, says, “Sounds good to me.” God later spoke to Nathan and told him, “David is not going to be the one to build a Temple for Me.” The primary reason for God would not allow David to build this Temple is typology. David is a type of Jesus Christ in His first and second advents. Solomon is a type of Christ in his millennial reign. So David, in his many wars, points to Jesus Christ and his destruction of the enemy armies in the end times. However, the Temple, as a place of true worship, comes into prominence during the Millennial reign of Jesus Christ. That 1000 years of peace is represented by Solomon’s reign, which was quite peaceful and prosperous.


Before, David called for Nathan; now, God sends Nathan to David. David is so far gone that, he does not even once turn to God and say, “I name my sin to You; I have made such a mess of things; what can I do?” David is beyond that. He is beyond the point where God can reach him directly. God will have to speak to David through an intermediary, and God will speak to David by a parable. That is, God, through Nathan, will speak to David and appeal to his natural nature. Although David is inside of the interlocking systems of arrogance, he still has, as a part of his nature, a sense of justice and right and wrong. Even though David is deep in degeneracy, a skirt-chaser who has just had a noble and innocent man killed, David still has embers of his decent self barely kept alive inside himself. Nathan will seek to reach that part of David’s nature, in order to cause him to recognize what it was that he has done.


This is a reference specifically to those with the gift of teaching in any dispensation.

Nathan’s Objectivity in the Use of his Spiritual Gift

1.      There are a variety of gifts which the Holy Spirit distributes at salvation; not all of the enumerated in the New Testament. Believers like James Strong developed Strong’s concordance; 1000's of unknown believers preserved the Word of God over many centuries prior to the printing press, and some write commentaries.

2.      God requires faithfulness of His workers, no matter what their spiritual gift (or gifts) are. You may or may not think that your gift is all that much, but it still requires spiritual growth and the application of doctrine to your life. Therefore, you must be faithful in the execution of your spiritual gift.

         1)      Let’s look at it this way: you probably have a job, and your boss is probably not looking over your shoulder 8 hours a day making sure that you are doing your work. However, you don’t start goofing off the moment he wanders off. You continue to do your work, whether the boss is standing right behind you or not.

         2)      The same is true with the execution of our own spiritual gift (or gifts). We must faithfully execute the plan of God which He has put before us. .

3.      The power of teaching is found in the power of God the Holy Spirit and in the Word of God; it is never found in the personality of the person exercising his spiritual gift.

4.      In this chapter, Nathan was sent on a dangerous and difficult mission. He has the necessary spiritual growth to do what God has put before him. Wisdom is the application of doctrine to experience, and that is what Nathan did in this chapter. He had the gift of prophecy (not many people had specific spiritual gifts in the Old Testament).

5.      Suppose Nathan approached David in self-righteousness. He confronts David and tells him what a lousy person he is, and then lays out, publically, David’s sins. Every jaw in the palace would drop.

         1)      David is the highest authority in Israel. Approaching him with self-righteousness essentially attacks David’s authority and embarrasses David publically.

         2)      For those in the palace who did not know what happened, this would have shocked them.

         3)      However, this approach would not necessarily deal directly with David’s sinfulness. David may have been shocked or taken aback, but this may not have reached deep enough into his soul to change him in any way. Hell, David may have even had Nathan locked up.

         4)      Even though David is in authority and 100% wrong, Nathan cannot approach him in such a way as to attack his authority.

         5)      There is the grace principle in authority orientation. If your boss has made a mistake, you do not necessarily embarrass him publically. You do not sent an email to everyone in the office outlining his wrongdoing. Some respect must be paid to the authority, despite the failings of the person in authority.

         6)      David was an absolute jerk. However, God did not call upon Nathan to call David a jerk. Unless you are parents, you do not generally confront people about their carnality. That is not your job in life. You do not confront others with respect to their failures.

         7)      Now, this is very different if you are in charge of someone. Under those circumstances, you can deal directly with that person’s sin or failing—whether you are that child’s coach, teacher, or a drill sergeant, or the department head, etc. However, even then, there is a proper way to brace someone and an improper way to do this. Someone may fail, and you are his superior; you do not necessarily publically embarrass them (although, that might be reasonable in some instances).

6.      Having any sort of spiritual gift does not mean that God can or will use you. No matter how great your gift is, or how wonderful you are, humanly speaking, if you are arrogant, then God cannot use you.

         1)      Some churches and Christian organizations love getting a hold of a celebrity who has been recently converted and use him to their advantage. This may draw in a few more bodies into the church.

         2)      However, that does not mean that God is using that church or that celebrity.

         3)      Works done in the energy of the flesh are worthless and will be burned at the Judgment Seat of Christ.

7.      A person who lacks authority-orientation or fro cannot be used by God. Nathan was not an arrogant man. He was not self-righteous and he did not look down his nose at David. Nathan was authority oriented and he recognized David’s political authority. Similarly, David recognized Nathan’s authority in the spiritual realm (although, it is not clear that David fully respected Nathan’s authority at this point in time).

         1)      What appears to be the case is, Nathan comes to David to get a judicial ruling.

         2)      David has no idea that the parable that Nathan puts before him is a parable. He believes that this is an actual case, and that he is to help Nathan decide the correct outcome for this matter.

         3)      Therefore, when Nathan shows up, David is not submitting to Nathan’s spiritual authority; he is simply doing Nathan a favor by deciding a judicial matter.

8.      Nathan recognizes and respects David’s authority in the temporal realm. There are a variety of authority, some temporal and some spiritual. Nathan’s spiritual authority will kick in when David judges himself.

9.      In the spiritual realm, God uses prepared people. If you are arrogant, God will not use you. If you are unprepared (without spiritual growth), God will not use you. If you lack authority orientation, God will not use you.

10.    God wants to use David, but He cannot because David is deep into the interlocking systems of arrogance. He is ruled by his sexual lusts. By the way, this is great grace, that God wants to use David. God could have stomped David into the ground, and raised up a stone to be a better ruler than David, but He did not. God will use Nathan to start to turn David around, so that God can continue to use David.

         1)      Do not ever think that you are indispensable to the plan of God. God chose to use David, but He did not have to.

         2)      Had David remained in his lusts—had David continued to resist God—then God would have removed David from this life with the sin unto death.

         3)      Therefore, do not ever think that God cannot get along without you. He can remove your or I in an instant. When we get to the point where we are unteachable, and there is no being turned around, God will remove us from this life.

11.    We do not execute the plan of God based upon having a great personality. There is nothing wrong with having a personality, but that is not the issue. Doctrine in the soul is the issue. If you have that, you can execute the plan of God, even with your personality, good or bad.

12.    One’s personality and one’s are a facade which often covers over the nature of a person’s soul. I knew this very gorgeous gal that I dated. She looked like a model. However, as her looks faded, the quality of her soul became more and more apparent.

         1)      Movie stars get by on looks and often on a personality which is not even theirs.

         2)      To those who know them personally, these are not necessary great or wonderful people.

         3)      However, because they are very attractive, and because they have learned to project this or that personality, they are admired and desired.

13.    We do not know how many prophets there were in Israel. There were more than just Nathan. However, God chose Nathan to speak to David because Nathan had authority orientation and because Nathan did not approach David out of self-righteousness. Nathan is confronting David not just over a sin, but over a lifestyle.

14.    Furthermore, David himself had to acknowledge this. It was not good enough for Nathan to show up and tell David how he had sinned. This requires finesse.

15.    Nathan will teach David by finesse. David will understand who is he and what he has done and how God will beat him down, because of Nathan’s teaching.

16.    Nathan will put together a great story which will capture David’s attention and imagination, and, by the end of the story, David ends up judging himself. Nathan had to finesse David from being subjective and controlled by lust, to a point where, David can see himself objectivity. In order to do this, David could not be distracted by self-righteousness or personality quirks of Nathan.


Chapter Outline

Charts, Maps and Short Doctrines


Closely related to this is a modern-day application of the above:

The New Testament Gift of Pastor-teacher

1.      Just like Nathan mentioned above, the pastor-teacher must be both grace orientated and authority orientated in his ministry.

2.      Grace orientation means, the pastor realizes that he depends upon God in all things. That is, he is not some great pastor-teacher because he is a great man, but because he depends upon God’s grace.

3.      The pastor-teacher has before him a period of preparation, he has God the Holy Spirit, and he has a myriad of resources upon which to depend. He is standing upon many shoulders, who have, in turn, stood upon many other shoulders. This is grace.

4.      That the pastor-teacher can dig so much out of the Bible is the grace of God.

5.      Authority orientation means, the pastor-teacher understands and properly applies his authority; and recognizes that the authority of the Trinity and the authority of the Word of God are over him.

6.      Therefore, a pastor-teacher must teach what he finds in the Word of God, even if it steps all over him personally.

7.      The larger the congregation, the less a pastor can do. He must be self-disciplined and organized; and he must be able to delegate authority.

8.      The pastor must recognize that his primary duty is teaching the Word of God, and teaching it as often as he possibly can. If a pastor is physically and mentally capable of studying the Word of God for 8 hours a day (or, whatever), then that ought to be his focus. Everything else is secondary.

9.      In order for a pastor to teach, there must be good discipline within the church when teaching the Word of God. A pastor cannot tolerate talking, passing notes, or anything else which detracts from the teaching of the Word of God.

10.    Although the pastor-teacher is a servant to those that he teaches, this is in that particular realm. That is, he must dedicate himself to the study and teaching of the Word of God, and he does that day in and day out, to serve his congregation. However, that servitude does not mean that you can call upon the pastor to do whatever it is that you want him to do (visit you in the hospital, counsel you, etc.).

11.    Giving to the church does not mean that you have some special in with the pastor or that you can tell him what to do. There is a board of deacons and they can choose to fire the pastor; but you, as a parishioner, have no special privileges.

12.    All churches are filled with people who have sin natures. The old sin nature rejects all legitimate authority and seeks, in many cases, illegitimate authority. Obviously, the pastor faces not only all of these sin natures, but finds himself smack dab in the middle of the Angelic Conflict as well. Therefore, there will be pressures and difficulties.

13.    Hence, the importance for the pastor to be grace oriented and authority oriented.

14.    There is no substitute for the teaching of God’s Word. A church cannot get by with programs, a point system, a wonderful and energetic choir, a crack staff of counselors, etc. The people in the church must grow based upon the Word of God.

15.    Therefore, the primary function of the church is the accurate communication of doctrine. All that goes on within the walls of the church must facilitate that teaching. Everyone involved in this ministry must run interference for the pastor-teacher. A quarterback might be able to run with great speed and agility, but, if there is no blocking, he cannot go 2 feet. Those involved in the administration of the church must therefore do what they can to allow the pastor to study and teach. Those in the congregation must also participate in this blocking (whether it be by prayer or in keeping your life under control so that you don’t think you need to come down and see the pastor every 5 minutes.

16.    With the proper teaching and blocking, a pastor can lead his congregation to spiritual maturity.


Chapter Outline

Charts, Maps and Short Doctrines


2Samuel 12:1b

Hebrew/Pronunciation

Common English Meanings

Notes/Morphology

BDB and Strong’s Numbers

wa (or va) (וַ) [pronounced wah]

and so, and then, then, and; so, that, yet, therefore; because

wâw consecutive

No Strong’s # BDB #253

bôwʾ (בּוֹא) [pronounced boh]

to come in, to come, to go in, to go, to enter

3rd person masculine singular, Qal imperfect

Strong’s #935 BDB #97

ʾel (אֶל) [pronounced ehl]

unto; into, among, in; toward, to; against; concerning, regarding; besides, together with; as to

directional preposition (respect or deference may be implied); with the 3rd person masculine singular suffix

Strong's #413 BDB #39


Translation: ...so he went to him. Nathan is under God’s authority. He willingly goes to David. We actually have the word unto here because, as king, David positionally has the respect of Nathan.


Application: You may not like the President, your governor, your mayor or the policeman who just stopped you for speeding, but they have authority over us in specific instances and we are to respect that authority.


The more relaxed translation, so far, is: Therefore, Jehovah told Nathan to go to David, so Nathan went to him. I have inserted a few words here, but it better conveys what happened, based upon the reasonable assumption that God went to Nathan, in some form, and then told Nathan to go to David.


Nathan’s authority at this point will not be an issue with David. When he comes to David at first, it is going to be as a friend asking legal advice. Nathan will assert his authority after a bit, but only once David has realized the heinous nature of his own sins.


Notice what else we do not know: is Nathan personally aware of what David did? Has he heard rumors? Did God tell him what David did? Nathan will launch into a parable, which David did not recognize as being a parable—did God suggest this parable to Nathan? Did Nathan put this together in his mind as he walked to the palace? Or, when he began to speak to the king, did the Holy Spirit guide him? These are details that Nathan would have known, but details which are irrelevant to the narrative at hand. What is relevant is, David’s sin, and what God will do about it. What is relevant is, how will David respond to Nathan’s parable, and will he recognize himself in this parable? What is relevant is, what will David do, upon hearing the entire parable and then realizing that this is all about him?


This narrative, which is quite extensive, is important to us—that is why we find it recorded in the Word of God. There are millions of believers who, in one way or another, have been trapped by their own degeneracy, or trapped within the interlocking systems of arrogance, as a result of their own volition.


2Samuel 12:1c

Hebrew/Pronunciation

Common English Meanings

Notes/Morphology

BDB and Strong’s Numbers

wa (or va) (וַ) [pronounced wah]

and so, and then, then, and; so, that, yet, therefore; because

wâw consecutive

No Strong’s # BDB #253

ʾâmar (אָמַר) [pronounced aw-MAHR]

to say, to speak, to utter; to say [to oneself], to think

3rd person masculine singular, Qal imperfect

Strong’s #559 BDB #55

lâmed (לְ) [pronounced le]

to, for, towards, in regards to, with reference to, as to, with regards to, belonging to

directional/relational preposition; with the 3rd person masculine singular suffix

No Strong’s # BDB #510


Translation: Nathan [lit., he] said to David [lit., him],... Here, rather than the more respectful unto, Nathan speaks to David. David, even in his condition, respects Nathan. However, he may not respect Nathan’s authority at this point. God is going to have to reach David through a parable. A parable is a made-up story, but the characters and situations are familiar to a hearer of that era.


Nathan is not going to David and saying, “Listen to this parable, King David.” He is appealing to David as the supreme court judge of Israel. He is bringing to David a legal case over which David has jurisdiction, and he is asking for David’s ruling in the matter. David will hear this case, be able to think of it objectively, and he will render a fair judgment, never realizing that this case is actually about him (until the end).


I want you to see this next dozen verses in this light: David is not engaged in idle chit-chat with Nathan (along the lines of, “Okay, David, what would you do if such and such occurred?”); nor does he recognize that this is a parable (Nathan does not say to him, “Now listen to this story, David, and give me your opinion.”). David thinks that this is an honest-to-goodness court case to which Nathan is privy, and Nathan is asking for David’s ruling in this situation. There are reasons that Nathan is presenting this case to David, rather than bringing in the two men; but David is not concerned as to the reason. Nathan, as a prophet, has cred with David.


If you have ever talked to a doctor, lawyer, psychologist, high governmental official, a judge, you might begin discussing with that person a personal experience of yours or an experience of close friends of yours, in order to elicit their professional opinion. That is how David sees this.

 

J. Vernon McGee: Nathan is going to tell David a story. It is a story that will reveal David as though he were looking in a mirror. The Word of God is a mirror that reveals us as we really are. Nathan is going to hold up a mirror so that David can get a good look at himself. Footnote


2Samuel 12:1d

Hebrew/Pronunciation

Common English Meanings

Notes/Morphology

BDB and Strong’s Numbers

shenêy (שְנֵי) [pronounced shen-Ā]

two, two of, a pair of, a duo of

dual numeral construct

Strong’s #8147 BDB #1040

ʾănâsîym (אֲנָשִֹים) [pronounced uh-NAW-seem]; also spelled ʾîyshîym (אִישִים) [pronounced ee-SHEEM]

men; inhabitants, citizens; companions; soldiers, followers

masculine plural noun

Strong's #376 BDB #35

hâyâh (הָיָה) [pronounced haw-YAW]

to be, is, was, are; to become, to come into being; to come to pass

3rd person plural, Qal perfect

Strong's #1961 BDB #224

be (בְּ) [pronounced beh]

in, into, through; at, by, near, on, upon; with, before, against; by means of; among; within

a preposition of proximity

No Strong’s # BDB #88

ʿîyr (עִיר) [pronounced ģeer]

encampment, city, town

feminine singular noun

Strong's #5892 BDB #746

ʾechâd (אֶחָד) [pronounced eh-KHAWD]

one, first, certain, only; each, every; but it can also mean a composite unity; possibly particular; anyone

numeral adjective

Strong's #259 BDB #25

ʾEchâd can function like an indefinite article, and be rendered a certain [person, place or thing]. ʾEchâd can be used elliptically to mean one time, once.

ʾechâd (אֶחָד) [pronounced eh-KHAWD]

one, first, certain, only; each, every; but it can also mean a composite unity; possibly particular; anyone

numeral adjective

Strong's #259 BDB #25

ʿâshîyr (עָשִיר) [pronounced ģaw-SHEER]

rich; wealthy; can be used as a substantive to mean the rich, the wealth, a rich man

masculine singular adjective; can be used as a substantive

Strong’s #6223 BDB #799

we (or ve) (וְ or וּ) [pronounced weh]

and, even, then; namely; when; since, that; though

simple wâw conjunction

No Strong’s # BDB #251

ʾechâd (אֶחָד) [pronounced eh-KHAWD]

one, first, certain, only; each, every; but it can also mean a composite unity; possibly particular; anyone

numeral adjective

Strong's #259 BDB #25

Often, when ʾechâd is found twice in the same context, it means ...the one...and the other or one...and another.

rûwsh (רוּש) [pronounced roosh]

to be in want, to be needy, to be poor

Qal active participle

Strong’s #7326 BDB #930

As a Qal active participle, this can be translated the poor, the needy.


Translation:...“[There are] two men in a certain city—one rich and the other poor. If you went through the Hebrew exegesis above, you have noticed that the word ʾechâd (אֶחָד) [pronounced eh-KHAWD] occurs 3 times, and it is used differently all 3 times. All of this takes place within the space of 10 words, where 3 of them are the same word, and yet, each of these 3 times, we use a different word to translate ʾechâd (אֶחָד) [pronounced eh-KHAWD]. The exact literal translation is given at the beginning of this exegesis. However, the way a word is translated is sometimes determined by the context, and the few words around it. Therefore, Yehowah sent Nathan unto David, so he went to him. Nathan [lit., he] said to David [lit., him], “[There are] two men in a certain [ʾechâd (אֶחָד)] city—one [ʾechâd (אֶחָד)] rich and the other [ʾechâd (אֶחָד)] poor.


This will be a parable. There is a story, to which David can fully relate, and David is going to find out that this has direct application to him, once Nathan completes the story. However, it is very important to understand, David doesn’t think that Nathan is just coming up to him and chatting him up about some made-up story. This is not some hypothetical which Nathan has just conjured up in order to make conversation. David is a judge; this is a part of his responsibility as king over all Israel, so it would make sense to David that Nathan would come to him with a legal problem or a legal question. David believes what Nathan is telling him. He has no reason not to.


Why does God use parables? When a person is directly attacked for something that they do, they immediately go on the defensive. They listen to enough of what they are being told to recognize that they are being attacked, and they do not hear anything after that. What is in their mind is, “How do I explain myself?” or “Well, I never!” or “Listen, this is really what happened.” Surely you have seen two people argue politics before, and neither person listens to what the other one is saying; they are just resting and regathering their thoughts in order to argue their case. The only reason they stop and allow their opponent to say a few things is, they have run out of things to say, and they need to stop and regroup for a moment. I personally enjoy watching political pundits hash things out, but so often, a person will take a question and pivot away from that question, in order to make a barely related point. At best, they deflect what the other person says, in order to say what they want to say; at worse, they ignore completely what they other person says.


So it is with a personal attack. Nathan needs David to look at himself objectively. Therefore, Nathan is going to engage David’s full intellect and sense of compassion here. Nathan does not immediately attack David; he explains a situation—which David envisions as being true—and gets David to look at this situation objectively, which David will do. David is going to fully wrap his mind around this situation and determine what is the right and good outcome. Then, Nathan drops the bomb on David, “Now listen here, I am really talking about you!” Nathan will do that after David is both emotionally involved and after David pronounces judgment upon the cad in this story (which cad is David).


The second reason that Nathan uses a parable is, he wants David to pronounce judgment upon himself. He wants to get David to a point where he is fully engaged in this story, clearly recognizes who is right and who is wrong, and automatically, as the sovereign of the land, pronounce judgment over the rich man. Quite obviously, Nathan cannot go to David and say, “Listen, buddy, this is what you did. What punishment do you think you deserve?” David would laugh him out of the palace and/or lock Nathan up for insubordination. By using this approach, David will both see his actions objectively and, as king, pronounce judgment over himself.


Application: Have you ever noticed that it is quite easy to fix the lives of other people? You consider you Uncle Fred, and you think, “He would be a lot better off if he just stopped drinking.” Or, “Aunt Faye would have better friendships if she would just stop gossiping.” It is easy to look at other people and their lives and often determine how they could turn their lives around. However, it is not quite as easy for you to look at your own life, and determine what you need to do in order to fix this or that. We often learn about ourselves through the perfect mirror of the Word of God (James 1:23), which oft times puts us in touch with our own shortcomings that, were it not for the Bible, we would not recognize them.


Application: It is normal for the man to desire women, and some of us have thought, from time to time, that having a wife in this city and another wife in that city and a third wife elsewhere would be ideal. Movies have been written with this very theme in mind. We learn from David and Solomon that, there are simply not enough women in the world to satisfy us; and that our true satisfaction in life is based upon a relationship with one woman—it is that soul connection which is key, not the attraction of the bodies or the variety which is out there. God has given us the examples of David and Solomon, so that we do not all feel as if, we need to try this out, just to see if it works.


Application: This is what you must teach to your teenaged son. You must explain to him that, women are very attractive and that he will find himself attracted to many women. However, the lives of David and Solomon indicate that there is no soul satisfaction in sleeping around. In other words, you cannot satisfy the soul through giving into a physical lust. The soul is satisfied by interlocking with another soul and making that relationship permanent through marriage.


Application: This soul meshing with a person of the opposite sex is what homosexuals miss; they do not understand that God has designed the male and female souls to interlock, as it were. I have recently done some research in this field, and it is common for homosexuals to have many sexual partners—8/year is about average. Most homosexual males have had in excess of 100 partners. Even in a committed relationship between homosexuals, fidelity is not a strong consideration. That is, they cannot find soul compatibility with another male; and they cannot find sexual compatibility with another male. They are nearly always on the prowl. For many homosexuals, after they have had several hundred partners, and they are still out there looking for a new hookup, it ought to occur to them, something here is wrong.


Anyway, we learn many things from the Word of God, so that we do not have to repeat the mistakes of the past. We see these lives objectively, and we understand what their problems are; and, ideally speaking, we are able to take this and apply it to ourselves.


The Bible is going to spend about 10 chapters on David’s polygamy, his adultery, and the results of these sins. This emphasis is extremely important. If God is going to spend 10 chapters on anything, then we ought to sit up and take notice. 10 years of David’s life is down the drain because of sexual arrogance. Our time here on earth is limited. For some believers, that can be half of their Christian lives. David is able to recover, in part, because he is a man after God’s Own heart. Now, do you need to be so stupid as to repeat David’s mistakes? And not only do with we these 10 or so chapters, but we also have the illustration of Solomon and how, even after having a 1000 women to choose from, was still chasing after the Shulamite woman, like a dog in heat. Now, if you are a male, and you have 1000 women to choose from, can you imagine chasing after one more woman, because 1000 is not enough? Don’t spend too much time on this. Simply understand that we have the illustration of Solomon here, so that we are not so foolish as to think that, all we need is just one more woman, and this would satisfy us. It would not.

 

The New American Bible tells us: This utterance of Nathan is in regular lines in Hebrew, resembling English blank verse. Footnote


In many English translations, you may notice that these verses are formatted differently; this is to indicate that Nathan is speaking in Hebrew poetry here. My thinking is, the meter of the words will contribute to the emotional involvement that David will develop.


If any of you have seen the play/movie Marat Sade, you may recall that the lyrics are quite powerful.

Lyrics to Marat Sade

Four years he fought and he fought unafraid

Sniffing down traitors by traitors betrayed

Marat in the courtroom

Marat underground

Sometimes the otter and sometimes the hound

Fighting all the gentry and fighting every priest

The business man the bourgeois the military beast

Marat always ready to stifle every scheme

Of the sons of the ass licking dying regime

We've got new generals our leaders are new

They sit and they argue and all that they do

is sell their own colleagues

And ride upon their backs

Or jail them

Or break them

Or give them all the ax

Screaming in language that no one understand

Of the rights that we grab with our own bleeding hands

When we wiped out the bosses

And stormed threw the wall of the prison you told us would outlast us all

Marat we're poor

And the poor stay poor

Marat don't make us wait any more.

We want our rights and we don't care how

We want a revolution

Now

Now, I am anti-revolution; I understand that is against God’s plan. However, when I hear this song sung, I am strongly moved, even against my own values. My point is, sometimes a story or a viewpoint can be made more powerful when it is presented in a way that is outside simple narrative. It can be more effective; it can grab one’s attention more readily.

Video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DcJKxrDczSo beginning at 1:50.

Lyrics from http://www.nomorelyrics.net/judy_collins-lyrics/256378-marat-lyrics.html


Chapter Outline

Charts, Maps and Short Doctrines


At the end of v. 4, we will gather up all that Nathan says, and present it in the way that Nathan presented it.


Therefore, Jehovah told Nathan to go to David, so Nathan went to him. Nathan said to David, “There were two men in a certain city—one rich and one poor. If you have read ahead, or have heard this chapter explained before, you understand that David is the rich man and Uriah is the poor man. However, at this point in Nathan’s parable, David has no idea. He does not even know that this is a parable.

 

J. Vernon McGee can’t help but make an observation of politics at this point: I do not often discuss politics, but I would like to put down a principle in this world of sin today. I recognize that political parties say they have solutions for the problems of the world because they want their candidates to be elected to office. I have no confidence in man. I do not believe that any politician today is going to champion the poor. This never has been done and it never will be done. Let us not kid ourselves about that. Footnote Let me add to this, one political party contends that it is for the little man and for those in poverty, but when that party is in power, more people become poor and more people lose their jobs at the bottom, because their solutions always exacerbate the problems they are trying to solve. Even if one was to see their concern with the poor as legitimate, still, what they do results in more poor. We can illustrate this with our present President (Barack Obama—I write this in 2011). He has been president for nearly 3 years; he had complete party control in Congress, and enacted several laws which he may have believed were good for the poor. The result? Higher unemployment, and, even today, with the unemployment situation improving slightly, unemployment among Blacks is still growing. Footnote Whether this is intentional or not, I cannot say. But, it would not be a stretch to suggest that the Democratic party wants a large number of people to depend upon government, and, therefore, vote Democratic. Footnote


——————————


Nearly every single translation continues v. 2 in v. 3.


To a rich one was a flock and a herd much exceedingly;...

2Samuel

12:2

The rich man had a great many flocks and herds;...

The rich man owned a great many flocks of sheep and herds of cattle;...


Here is how others have translated this verse:


Ancient texts:

 

Latin Vulgate                          The rich man had exceeding many sheep and oxen.

Masoretic Text (Hebrew)        To a rich one was a flock and a herd much exceedingly;...

Peshitta (Syriac)                    The rich man had exceedingly many flocks and herds;...

Septuagint (Greek)                And the rich man had very many flocks and herds.

 

Significant differences:           None. The use of the plural simply indicates the common usage of those words in a different language.


Thought-for-thought translations; paraphrases:

 

CEV                                       The rich man owned a lot of sheep and cattle,...

Easy-to-Read Version            The rich man had very many sheep and cattle.

The Message                         The rich man had huge flocks of sheep, herds of cattle.

New Living Translation           The rich man owned a great many sheep and cattle.


Partially literal and partially paraphrased translations:

 

American English Bible          Now, the rich man had huge flocks and herds,...

Ancient Roots Translinear      The rich man had sheep and oxen multiplied a hundredfold,.

God’s Word                         The rich man had a very large number of sheep and cows,...

New American Bible              The rich man had flocks and herds in great numbers.


Mostly literal renderings (with some occasional paraphrasing):

 

Bible in Basic English             The man of wealth had great numbers of flocks and herds;...

Complete Jewish Bible           The rich man had vast flocks and herds,...

NIV – UK                                The rich man had a very large number of sheep and cattle,...

The Scriptures 1998              “The rich one had flocks and herds, very many.


Literal, almost word-for-word, renderings:

 

Concordant Literal Version    The rich has flocks and herds very many;...

Modern KJV                           The rich one had exceeding many flocks and herds,...

Syndein                                  The rich man {in reality David} had a great many flocks of sheep and herds of cattle,...

Young's Updated LT              The rich had flocks and herds very many;...

 

The gist of this verse:          Nathan first describes the rich man as owning a lot of livestock.


2Samuel 12:2

Hebrew/Pronunciation

Common English Meanings

Notes/Morphology

BDB and Strong’s Numbers

lâmed (לְ) [pronounced le]

to, for, towards, in regards to, with reference to, as to, with regards to, belonging to

directional/relational preposition

No Strong’s # BDB #510

ʿâshîyr (עָשִיר) [pronounced ģaw-SHEER]

rich; wealthy; can be used as a substantive to mean the rich, the wealth, a rich man

masculine singular adjective; can be used as a substantive

Strong’s #6223 BDB #799

hâyâh (הָיָה) [pronounced haw-YAW]

to be, is, was, are; to become, to come into being; to come to pass

3rd person masculine singular, Qal perfect

Strong's #1961 BDB #224

The preposition to, for combined with the verb to be can indicate ownership; e.g., he has, he owns, he possesses.

tsôʾn (צֹאן) [pronounced tzohn]

small cattle, sheep and goats, flock, flocks

feminine singular collective noun

Strong’s #6629 BDB #838

Also spelled tseʾôwn (צְאוֹן) [pronounced tseh-OWN].

we (or ve) (וְ or וּ) [pronounced weh]

and, even, then; namely; when; since, that; though

simple wâw conjunction

No Strong’s # BDB #251

bâqâr (בָּקָר) [pronounced baw-KAWR]

bull, cow, ox, collectively: herd, cattle, oxen

masculine singular collective noun

Strong’s #1241 BDB #133

râbâh (רָבָה) [pronounced rawb-VAWH]

to make [do] much; to multiply, to increase; to give much; to lay much; to have much; to make great; many [as a Hiphil infinitive construct]

3rd person feminine singular, Hiphil imperfect

Strong’s #7235 BDB #915

When the Hiphil is followed by an infinitive and gerund—or by a finite verb—, it can mean much.

The Hiphil infinitive absolute is often used as an adverb: in doing much, very much, exceedingly great (the latter two with the adverb meʾôd).

meʾôd (מְאֹד) [pronounced me-ODE]

exceedingly, extremely, greatly, very

adverb

Strong’s #3966 BDB #547


Translation: The rich man had a great many flocks and herds;... David is listening carefully to Nathan, assuming that this is a real situation which requires David to give his true and honest opinion.


You will note that the literal translation is different from the nearly literal translation. When you have the construction to him was...; the concept here is, that person possesses the things which are to be named.


So far, we know that the rich man in question possesses a great deal of wealth with regards to cattle and sheep. This is, of course, analogous to David having many wives and mistresses (2Sam. 3:2–5 5:13–16,).


It would have been a better idea for a portion of v. 3 to be included with v. 2, at this juncture.


——————————


...and so to the poor [one] nothing all for if a ewe-lamb, small, which he acquired. And so he made her live and so she is growing up with him and with his sons together. From his morsel [of bread] she eats and from his cup she drinks, and in his bosom she lies down and she is to him like a daughter.

2Samuel

12:3

...but to the poor man [there is] nothing except a small ewe-lamb which he had acquired. He restored her [life] and she has grown up together with him and his sons. She ate from his bread [lit., morsel (of bread)] and drank from his cup, and she lays down in his bosom—she became like a daughter to him.

...but the poor man had nothing except for a small female lamb which he had purchased. He restored her life and she grew up together with him and his children. She ate from his bread, she drank from his cup, and she laid down next to his bosom—she became like a daughter to him.


Here is how others have translated this verse:


Ancient texts:

 

Latin Vulgate                          But the poor man had nothing at all but one little ewe lamb, which he had bought and nourished up, and which had grown up in his house together with his children, eating of his bread, and drinking of his cup, and sleeping in his bosom: and it was unto him as a daughter.

Masoretic Text (Hebrew)        ...and so to the poor [one] nothing all for if a ewe-lamb, small, which he acquired. And so he made her live and so she is growing up with him and with his sons together. From his morsel [of bread] she eats and from his cup she drinks, and in his bosom she lies down and she is to him like a daughter.

Peshitta (Syriac)                    But the poor man had nothing but one little ewe lamb which he had bought; and it lived together with him and with his children; it did eat of his food and drink from his cup and lie in his bosom, and it was to him like a daughter.

Septuagint (Greek)                But the poor man had only one little ewe lamb, which he had purchased, and preserved, and reared; and it grew up with himself and his children in common; it ate of his bread and drank of his cup, and slept in his bosom, and was to him as a daughter.

 

Significant differences:           In the Greek, we would expect the verb to preserve to be followed by the feminine singular pronoun, but it is not (the same is true in the Latin). The Syriac leaves this verb out altogether. The Latin adds in an additional relative pronoun.

 

The Latin leaves out that she grows up with him.


Thought-for-thought translations; paraphrases:

 

CEV                                       ...but the poor man had only one little lamb that he had bought and raised. The lamb became a pet for him and his children. He even let it eat from his plate and drink from his cup and sleep on his lap. The lamb was like one of his own children.

Easy English (Pocock)           But the poor man had only one young sheep, which was female. He had bought it and he looked after it. The little sheep grew up with the man and his children. It ate the same food as the man. It drank from his cup. It even went to sleep while the man held it. The little sheep was like a daughter to the man.

Easy-to-Read Version            But the poor man had nothing, except one little female lamb that he bought. The poor man fed the lamb. The lamb grew up with this poor man and his children. The lamb ate from the poor man’s food and drank from the poor man’s cup. The lamb slept on the poor man’s chest. The lamb was like a daughter to the poor man.

Good News Bible (TEV)         ...while the poor man had only one lamb, which he had bought. He took care of it, and it grew up in his home with his children. He would feed it some of his own food, let it drink from his cup, and hold it in his lap. The lamb was like a daughter to him.

The Message                         The poor man had nothing but one little female lamb, which he had bought and raised. It grew up with him and his children as a member of the family. It ate off his plate and drank from his cup and slept on his bed. It was like a daughter to him.

New Living Translation           The poor man owned nothing but one little lamb he had bought. He raised that little lamb, and it grew up with his children. It ate from the man's own plate and drank from his cup. He cuddled it in his arms like a baby daughter.


Partially literal and partially paraphrased translations:

 

American English Bible          ...but the only thing that the poor man owned was a small female lamb that he had bought. But he protected it and fed it, and it grew up with his children. It ate the same bread, drank from his cup, and slept inside his robe, for it was just like a daughter to him..

Ancient Roots Translinear      ...but the destitute had nothing but one small lamb which he bought. It lived and grew together with him and with his sons. It ate of his morsels, drank of his cup, lay in his bosom, and was to him as a daughter.

God’s Word                         ...but the poor man had only one little female lamb that he had bought. He raised her, and she grew up in his home with his children. She would eat his food and drink from his cup. She rested in his arms and was like a daughter.

New American Bible              But the poor man had nothing at all except one little ewe lamb that he had bought. He nourished her, and she grew up with him and his children. She shared the little food he had and drank from his cup and slept in his bosom. She was like a daughter to him..

New Jerusalem Bible             ...the poor man had nothing but a ewe lamb, only a single little one which he had bought. He fostered it and it grew up with him and his children, eating his bread, drinking from his cup, sleeping in his arms; it was like a daughter to him.

New Simplified Bible              But the poor man had only one little female lamb that he bought. He raised her, and she grew up in his home with his children. She would eat his food and drink from his cup. She rested in his arms and was like a daughter to him.

Revised English Bible            ...the poor man had nothing of his own except one little ewe lamb he had bought. He reared it, and it grew up in his home together with his children. It shared his food, drank from his cut, and nestled in his arms; it was like a daughter to him.


Mostly literal renderings (with some occasional paraphrasing):

 

Bible in Basic English             But the poor man had only one little she-lamb, which he had got and taken care of: from its birth it had been with him like one of his children; his meat was its food, and from his cup it took its drink, resting in his arms, and it was like a daughter to him.

Complete Jewish Bible           ...but the poor man had nothing, except for one little ewe lamb, which he had bought and reared. It had grown up with him and his children; it ate from his plate, drank from his cup, lay on his chest - it was like a daughter to him.

HCSB                                     ...but the poor man had nothing except one small ewe lamb that he had bought. It lived and grew up with him and his children. It shared his meager food and drank from his cup; it slept in his arms, and it was like a daughter to him.

NET Bible®                             But the poor man had nothing except for a little lamb he had acquired. He raised it, and it grew up alongside him and his children [Heb "his sons."]. It used to [The three Hebrew imperfect verbal forms in this sentence have a customary nuance; they describe past actions that were repeated or typical.] eat his food [Heb "from his morsel."], drink from his cup, and sleep in his arms [Heb "and on his chest [or perhaps, "lap"] it would lay."]. It was just like a daughter to him.

NIV – UK                                ...but the poor man had nothing except one little 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 even slept in his arms. It was like a daughter to him.


Literal, almost word-for-word, renderings:

 

Concordant Literal Version    And the poor one has nothing, Except one little ewe-lamb, Which he has bought, and keeps alive, And it grows up with him, And with his sons together; Of his morsel it eats, And from his cup it drinks, And in his bosom it lies, And it is to him as a daughter;"

Context Group Version          ...but the poor man had nothing, except one little ewe lamb, which he had bought and fed: and it grew up together with him, and with his sons; it ate of his own morsel, and drank of his own cup, and lay in his bosom, and was to him as a daughter..

exeGeses companion Bible   ...but the impoverished has naught

- except one little ewe lamb

which he chatteled and livened:

and it grows together with him and with his sons:

it eats of his own morsel and drinks of his own cup

and lies down in his bosom as his daughter.

NASB                                     "But the poor man had nothing except (C)one little ewe lamb

Which he bought and nourished;

And it grew up together with him and his children.

It would eat of his bread and drink of his cup and lie in his bosom,

And was like a daughter to him.

New RSV                               ...but the poor man had nothing but one little ewe lamb, which he had bought. He brought it up, and it grew up with him and with his children; it used to eat of his meagre fare, and drink from his cup, and lie in his bosom, and it was like a daughter to him.

Syndein                                  ...but the poor man {referring to Uriah the Hittite} had nothing except one ewe lamb {his wife, Bathsheba}, which he had bought and raised up so that it grew up with him and his children and shared his food/'of his own morsel' he used to eat and drink from his own cup and even slept in this arms.

World English Bible                ...but the poor man had nothing, except one little ewe lamb, which he had bought and raised. It grew up together with him, and with his children. It ate of his own food, drank of his own cup, and lay in his bosom, and was to him like a daughter

Young’s Updated LT             ...and the poor one has nothing, Except one little ewe-lamb, Which he has bought, and keeps alive, And it grows up with him, And with his sons together; Of his morsel it eats, And from his cup it drinks, And in his bosom it lies, And it is to him as a daughter.

 

The gist of this verse:          Nathan the prophet continues the parable (which David does not recognize as being a parable). The poor man has nothing but this little female lamb which he has raised up with his own family, as if she is a daughter to him.


2Samuel 12:3a

Hebrew/Pronunciation

Common English Meanings

Notes/Morphology

BDB and Strong’s Numbers

we (or ve) (וְ or וּ) [pronounced weh]

and, even, then; namely; when; since, that; though

simple wâw conjunction

No Strong’s # BDB #251

lâmed (לְ) [pronounced le]

to, for, towards, in regards to, with reference to, as to, with regards to, belonging to

directional/relational preposition

No Strong’s # BDB #510

rûwsh (רוּש) [pronounced roosh]

to be in want, to be needy, to be poor

Qal active participle with the definite article

Strong’s #7326 BDB #930

As a Qal active participle, this can be translated the poor, the needy.

ʾêyn (אֵין) [pronounced ān]

nothing, not, [is] not; not present, not ready; expresses non-existence, absence or non-possession; [there is] no [none, not one, no one, not]

particle of negation; substantive of negation

Strong’s #369 BDB #34

kôl (כֹּל) [pronounced kohl]; also kol (כַּל) [pronounced kol]

all, all things, the whole, totality, the entirety, everything

masculine singular noun without the definite article

Strong’s #3605 BDB #481

Literally, these two words mean nothing of all... However, together, they mean none, nothing, [there is] nothing [to]. The words nothing at all express this combination very well.

Now, if we take the verb to be from the previous verse, this gives us the poor man had [owned] nothing... Vv. 2 and 3a belong together as one sentence, which, by ellipsis, would carry the verb to be to the second phrase.

kîy (כִּי) [pronounced kee]

for, that, because; when, at that time, which, what time

explanatory conjunction; preposition

Strong's #3588 BDB #471

ʾîm (אִם) [pronounced eem]

if, though; lo, behold; oh that, if only; when, since, though

primarily an hypothetical particle

Strong's #518 BDB #49

Together, kîy ʾîm (אִם כִּי) [pronounced kee-eem] act as a limitation on the preceding thought, and therefore should be rendered but, except, except that, unless and possibly only. However, these particles are not used in a limiting way if they follow an oath, a question or a negative. Then they can be rendered that if, for if, for though, that since, for if, but if, indeed if, even if; except for, but.

kibsâh (כִּבְשָׂה) [pronounced kihb-SAW]

ewe-lamb, lamb, a female lamb

feminine singular noun

Strong’s #3535 BDB #461

Also spelled kabsâw (כַּבְשָׂה) [pronounced kahb-SAW].

qâţân (קָטָן) [pronounced kaw-TAWN]

small, young, unimportant, insignificant

feminine singular adjective

Strong’s #6996 BDB #881

ʾăsher (אֲֹשֶר) [pronounced uh-SHER]

that, which, when, who, whom

relative pronoun

Strong's #834 BDB #81

qânâh (קָנָה) [pronounced kaw-NAWH]

to get, acquire, obtain; [of God] to found, to originate, to create; to possess; to redeem [His people]; [of Eve] to acquire; to acquire [knowledge, wisdom]; to buy [purchase, redeem]

3rd person masculine singular, Qal perfect

Strong’s #7069 BDB #888

There is a far greater emphasis on this verb in the realm of possessing, buying or purchasing than there is in the realm of creating. There are some scholars who would eliminate the meanings to found, to originate, to create.


Translation: ...but to the poor man [there is] nothing except a small ewe-lamb which he had acquired. We should put vv. 2 and 3a together to get: The rich man had a great many flocks and herds; but to the poor man [there is] nothing except a small ewe-lamb which he had acquired. Nathan continues with this parable, that David does not realize is a parable. The rich man has all of these flocks and herds, and the poor man only has this little ewe lamb which he has acquired (or purchased). There is no information about whether this lamb was purchased or how she was acquired. The verb is non-specific in this area.

 

According to Gill: men in those times and countries did not receive portions with their wives, but gave dowries to them, and for them. Footnote Wesley also speaks of men purchasing their wives in that day. Footnote


According to Keil and Delitzsch, there was a custom in that day of keeping lambs in the home as pets, much as we do with dogs; and that Arabs have continued with this custom. Footnote


2Samuel 12:3b

Hebrew/Pronunciation

Common English Meanings

Notes/Morphology

BDB and Strong’s Numbers

wa (or va) (וַ) [pronounced wah]

and so, and then, then, and; so, that, yet, therefore; because

wâw consecutive

No Strong’s # BDB #253

châyâh (חָיָה) [pronounced khaw-YAW]

to cause to live, to make alive; to keep alive, to preserve; to call back to life; to restore life; to rebuild [a city]

3rd person masculine singular, Piel imperfect; with the 3rd person feminine singular suffix

Strong's #2421 & #2425 BDB #310


Translation: He restored her [life]... The verb here is châyâh (חָיָה) [pronounced khaw-YAW], which means, to cause to live, to make alive; to keep alive, to preserve; to call back to life; to restore life; to rebuild [a city]. Strong's #2421 & #2425 BDB #310. The implication is, this little lamb was near death and the poor man brought her back to life. This might have explained why the poor man was able to purchase this little ewe lamb—as if he purchased a very sickly lamb.


Bear in mind that, all of this time, this is really about Uriah the Hittite and his wife. Bathsheba. Whereas, we ought to be careful as to how far to push this analogy, what is said here is not necessary for the general story. This suggests that, when Uriah found Bathsheba, she was in difficult straits, possibly to the point where Uriah nursed her back to life. Obviously we do not know that back-story, but the analogy suggests that Uriah was honorable and caring in his treatment of Bathsheba, and that, if he found her in a bad place, physically and emotionally, he restored her to health and to emotional stability.


If this is the case—and, bear in mind that I am pushing this analogy to suggest that it is—then her father would have been a part of this package deal. That is, given that her father, Ahithophel, will join the revolutionary army, and given that his counsel is like the counsel of God’s (2Sam. 16:23), he was obviously a brilliant man, and one who cared about his daughter. So, for whatever reason, the parable suggests that Bathsheba had fallen on hard times, which means that he had fallen on hard times as well. Perhaps he was a disabled veteran, able to think in terms of military logistics and tactics, but unable to participate as a soldier. This might explain how they had fallen on hard times.


All of this is conjecture, and pushing the analogy, but it is a reasonable scenario, which does not violate what we know about Uriah, Bathsheba and Ahithophel.


2Samuel 12:3c

Hebrew/Pronunciation

Common English Meanings

Notes/Morphology

BDB and Strong’s Numbers

we (or ve) (וְ or וּ) [pronounced weh]

and, even, then; namely; when; since, that; though

simple wâw conjunction

No Strong’s # BDB #251

gâdal (גָּדַל) [pronounced gaw-DAHL

to be [become] great; to grow; to be greatly valued [celebrated, praised]; to twist together, to bind together

3rd person feminine singular, Qal imperfect

Strong’s #1431 BDB #152

ʿîm (עִם) [pronounced ģeem]

with, at, by, near; like; from

preposition of nearness and vicinity; with the 3rd person masculine singular suffix

Strong’s #5973 BDB #767

we (or ve) (וְ or וּ) [pronounced weh]

and, even, then; namely; when; since, that; though

simple wâw conjunction

No Strong’s # BDB #251

ʿîm (עִם) [pronounced ģeem]

with, at, by, near; like; from

preposition of nearness and vicinity

Strong’s #5973 BDB #767

bânîym (בָּנִים) [pronounced baw-NEEM]

sons, descendants; children sometimes rendered men

masculine plural noun with the 3rd person masculine singular suffix

Strong’s #1121 BDB #119

yachad (יַחַד) [pronounced YAHKH-ahd]

union, joined together, unitedness, together, in unity

masculine singular noun/adverb

Strong’s #3162 BDB #403


Translation: ...and she has grown up together with him and his sons. The young lamb, which the poor man has nourished back to health, grows up with him and his children (literally, sons).


The intent of the analogy could have simply been to indicate how much that the poor man loved his little ewe lamb. However, if we push this analogy, the suggestion is, Uriah already had sons and that he was an older man than Bathsheba (say 10–20 years older), and that he took Bathsheba in as a wife while having sons close to her age. Again, this is only conjecture, based upon the analogy.


2Samuel 12:3d

Hebrew/Pronunciation

Common English Meanings

Notes/Morphology

BDB and Strong’s Numbers

min (מִן) [pronounced min]

from, off, out from, out of, away from, on account of, since, than, more than

preposition of separation

Strong's #4480 BDB #577

path (פַּת) [pronounced pahth]

a fragment, a morsel, a piece [of bread]

feminine singular noun with the 3rd person masculine singular suffix

Strong’s #6595 BDB #837

ʾâkal (אָכַל) [pronounced aw-KAHL]

to eat; to devour, to consume, to destroy

3rd person feminine singular, Qal imperfect

Strong’s #398 BDB #37


Translation: She ate from his bread [lit., morsel (of bread)]... In this parable, the man is quite poor, so he is not represented here as having bread but as having a morsel of bread. However, he shared with this lamb as if she were his own flesh and blood.


To go with the analogy, perhaps Bathsheba and her father Ahithophel were destitute, and Uriah was poor; but he freely shared with her, as his wife. Now, most of you may think, “Well, duh, she is, after all, his wife.” However, not all marriages are like that. There are a number of marriages where the wife is treated as a 2nd class citizen, where the husband sinks all kinds of money into his own personal hobbies, wants and desires, but allows his wife nothing. So, this man is poor, but he shares what he has with the lamb.


2Samuel 12:3e

Hebrew/Pronunciation

Common English Meanings

Notes/Morphology

BDB and Strong’s Numbers

we (or ve) (וְ or וּ) [pronounced weh]

and, even, then; namely; when; since, that; though

simple wâw conjunction

No Strong’s # BDB #251

min (מִן) [pronounced min]

from, off, out from, out of, away from, on account of, since, than, more than

preposition of separation

Strong's #4480 BDB #577

kôwç (כּוֹס) [pronounced kohç]

cup [literal or figurative]; a kind of unclean bird (possibly a night owl)

masculine singular noun with a 3rd person masculine singular suffix

Strong’s #3563 BDB #468

shâthâh (שָתָה) [pronounced shaw-THAW]

to drink [actually or metaphorically]; to drink together [at a banquet]; to feast; to sit

3rd person masculine singular, Qal imperfect

Strong’s #8354 BDB #1059


Translation: ...and drank from his cup,... Again, this is a picture of the poor man sharing what little he had with his ewe-lamb.


2Samuel 12:3f

Hebrew/Pronunciation

Common English Meanings

Notes/Morphology

BDB and Strong’s Numbers

we (or ve) (וְ or וּ) [pronounced weh]

and, even, then; namely; when; since, that; though

simple wâw conjunction

No Strong’s # BDB #251

be (בְּ) [pronounced beh]

in, into, through; at, by, near, on, upon; with, before, against; by means of; among; within

a preposition of proximity

No Strong’s # BDB #88

chêyq (חֵיק or חֵק) [pronounced khayk]

bosom, hollow [portion of a chariot], lower [bottom] [portion of the altar]; midst

masculine singular noun with the 3rd person masculine singular suffix

Strong’s #2436 BDB #300

shâkab (שָכַב) [pronounced shaw-KAHBV]

to lie down, to lie down [to sleep, to have sexual relations, to die; because of sickness or humiliation]; to relax

3rd person feminine singular, Qal imperfect

Strong’s #7901 BDB #1011


Translation: ...and she lays down in his bosom... This indicates safety and protection, which, in the ancient world, and this phrase is even more meaningful when it was written than it is today. However, most people who have dogs are able to fully relate to this.


2Samuel 12:3g

Hebrew/Pronunciation

Common English Meanings

Notes/Morphology

BDB and Strong’s Numbers

we (or ve) (וְ or וּ) [pronounced weh]

and, even, then; namely; when; since, that; though

simple wâw conjunction

No Strong’s # BDB #251

hâyâh (הָיָה) [pronounced haw-YAW]

to be, is, was, are; to become, to come into being; to come to pass

3rd person feminine singular, Qal imperfect

Strong's #1961 BDB #224

lâmed (לְ) [pronounced le]

to, for, towards, in regards to, with reference to, as to, with regards to, belonging to

directional/relational preposition; with the 3rd person masculine singular suffix

No Strong’s # BDB #510

kaph or ke (כְּ) [pronounced ke]

like, as, just as; according to; about, approximately

preposition of comparison or approximation

No Strong’s # BDB #453

bath (בַּת) [pronounced bahth]

daughter; village

feminine singular noun

Strong's #1323 BDB #123


Translation: ...—she became like a daughter to him. This little ewe-lamb which the poor man acquired and nursed back to health, has become like a daughter to him.


Again, by pushing the analogy, it is very much as if Uriah is an older man, who has married this younger woman, who is nursed back into health and treated with great kindness and protection.


Application: Men can behave despicably toward their own wives; however, this is more rarely the case with a daughter. The analogy suggests that Uriah loved his wife Bathsheba very much, and was the protector of her soul and body.


In this one verse, we find a number of things which seem to parallel our relationship to God through Jesus Christ.

The Analogy to Being in Christ

2Samuel 12:3

New Testament Scripture

Text/Commentary

To the poor man [there is] nothing except a small ewe-lamb which he had acquired.

For your sakes He became poor (2Cor. 8:9b).

Jesus Christ voluntarily became poor, taking upon Himself true humanity, in order to save us.

He preserved her [or, he made her live]

In Christ shall all be made alive. (1Cor. 15:22b)

We are made alive in Christ, through His sacrifice on the cross.

and she has grown up together with him and his sons.

The blessing of Abraham might be to the nations in Christ Jesus, that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith (Gal. 3:14).

As Church Age believers, we join in as joint-heirs with Israel.

She ate from his bread [lit., morsel (of bread)]

The Lord Jesus in the night in which He was betrayed took bread; and giving thanks, He broke and said, Take, eat; this is My body which is broken on behalf of you; this do in remembrance of Me (1Cor. 11:23b–24).

The bread is a symbol reminding us of His body, which was broken for us (as the bread is broken in the Eucharist).

and drank from his cup,

This cup is the New Covenant in My blood; as often as you drink, do this in remembrance of Me (1Cor. 11:25b).

The cup is a symbol of Jesus’ blood, which is His spiritual death on the cross.

and she lays down in his bosom

But there was one of His disciples reclining at the bosom of Jesus, whom Jesus loved (John 13:23). There is therefore now no condemnation to those in Christ Jesus (Rom. 8:1a).

We have protection and an eternal destination being in Christ.

—she is like a daughter to him.

You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus (Gal. 3:26).

We become sons of Christ through faith in Him.

Throughout the Old Testament, there are numerous parallels to the gospel of Jesus Christ. The poor man and the rescuing of his little ewe lamb is the type; Jesus Christ rescuing us from our sin nature by means of His death on the cross is the antitype.


Chapter Outline

Charts, Maps and Short Doctrines


——————————


Nathan continues with this court case which he has brought before David. David does not see this as some story or a parable or something to idly discuss; David understands that Nathan is going to make a ruling on this situation, and he is listening intently to all of the facts in order to render his royal decision.


And so comes a traveler to a man of the wealth and so he has compassion to take from his flock and from his herd to prepare for a traveler, the one coming to him. And so he takes a ewe-lamb of the man—the one being poor. And so he prepares her for the man—the one coming unto him.”

2Samuel

12:4

A traveler came to the man of wealth, yet the rich man [lit., he] spared to take from his [own] flock or from his [own] herd [in order] to prepare [a meal] for the traveler, the one who came to him. Consequently, he took the ewe-lamb of the man—the one who is poor—and he prepared it for the man who came to him.”

An out-of-town guest came to the rich man, yet the rich man decided not to take an animal from his own flock or herd in order to prepare a meal for his guest. Consequently, he took the female lamb from the poor man and he prepared it for his out-of-town guest.”


Here is how others have translated this verse:


Ancient texts:

 

Latin Vulgate                          And when a certain stranger was come to the rich man, he spared to take of his own sheep and oxen, to make a feast for that stranger, who was come to him, but took the poor man's ewe, and dressed it for the man that was come to him.

Masoretic Text (Hebrew)        And so comes a traveler to a man of the wealth and so he has compassion to take from his flock and from his herd to prepare for a traveler, the one coming to him. And so he takes a ewe-lamb of the man—the one being poor. And so he prepares her for the man—the one coming unto him.

Peshitta (Syriac)                    And there came a guest to the rich man, and he refused to take of his own herds or flocks to make a banquet for the guest who had come to him, but he took the poor man's ewe lamb and prepared it for the guest who had come to him.

Septuagint (Greek)                And a traveler came to the rich man, and he refused to take of his flocks and of his herds, to prepare for the traveler that came to him; and he took the poor man's lamb, and prepared it for the man that came to him.

 

Significant differences:           The verb of the second phrase is difficult, and so the English translation of the Syriac and Greek used slightly different verbs to indicate the meaning (the actual Greek verb is a correct match for the Hebrew verb). The idea is to present the rich man as wanting to spare the animals of his own cattle.

 

The English of the Latin and Syriac do not repeat the personal pronoun for the second noun in the series (oxen, flocks). These versions also have to make a feast for instead of the more sedate to prepare.


Thought-for-thought translations; paraphrases:

 

CEV                                       One day someone came to visit the rich man, but the rich man didn't want to kill any of his own sheep or cattle and serve it to the visitor. So he stole the poor man's little lamb and served it instead.

Easy English (Pocock)           One day, a traveller came to visit the rich man. The rich man wanted to prepare a meal for his guest. But the rich man did not want to kill one of his own sheep or cows. Instead, he took the poor man's little female sheep. He cooked it as a meal for his guest.'

Easy-to-Read Version            “Then a traveler stopped to visit the rich man. {The rich man wanted to give food to the traveler.} But the rich man did not want to take anything from his own sheep or cattle to feed the traveler. No, the rich man took the lamb from the poor man. The rich man {killed the lamb} and cooked it for his visitor.”

Good News Bible (TEV)         One day a visitor arrived at the rich man's home. The rich man didn't want to kill one of his own animals to fix a meal for him; instead, he took the poor man's lamb and prepared a meal for his guest."

The Message                         "One day a traveler dropped in on the rich man. He was too stingy to take an animal from his own herds or flocks to make a meal for his visitor, so he took the poor man's lamb and prepared a meal to set before his guest."

New Life Bible                        Now a traveler came to the rich man. But the rich man was not willing to take from his own flock or his own cattle, to make food for the traveler who had come to him. Instead, he took the poor man's female lamb and made it ready for the man who had come to him."

New Living Translation           One day a guest arrived at the home of the rich man. But instead of killing an animal from his own flock or herd, he took the poor man's lamb and killed it and prepared it for his guest."


Partially literal and partially paraphrased translations:

 

American English Bible          Well, someone who was traveling along stopped in to see the rich man, and he didn't want to take anything from his own flocks or herds to prepare [a meal] for the stranger, so he took the lamb that belonged to the poor man and cooked it for the person who was coming to visit.'

Ancient Roots Translinear      A nomad came. The rich man spared from taking his sheep and oxen to make for the traveler coming to him. He took the lamb from the destitute and made it for the man coming to him."

God’s Word                         "Now, a visitor came to the rich man. The rich man thought it would be a pity to take one of his own sheep or cattle to prepare a meal for the traveler. So he took the poor man's lamb and prepared her for the traveler."

NIRV                                      "One day a traveler came to the rich man. The rich man wanted to prepare a meal for him. But he didn't want to kill one of his own sheep or cattle. Instead, he took the little female lamb that belonged to the poor man. Then he cooked it for the traveler who had come to him."

New Jerusalem Bible             When a traveller came to stay, the rich man would not take anything from his own flock or herd to provide for the wayfarer who had come to him. Instead, he stole the poor man's lamb and prepared that for his guest.

New Simplified Bible              »Now, a visitor came to the rich man. The rich man thought it would be a pity to take one of his own sheep or cattle to prepare a meal for the traveler. So he took the poor man’s lamb and prepared it for the traveler.«

Revised English Bible            One day a traveller came to the rich man’s house, and he, too mean to tak something from his own flock or herd to serve to his guest, took the poor man’s lamb and served that up.’

Today’s NIV                          "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 ewe lamb that belonged to the poor man and prepared it for the one who had come to him."


Mostly literal renderings (with some occasional paraphrasing):

 

Bible in Basic English             Now a traveller came to the house of the man of wealth, but he would not take anything from his flock or his herd to make a meal for the traveller who had come to him, but he took the poor man's lamb and made it ready for the man who had come.

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."

HCSB                                     Now a traveler came to the rich man, but the rich man could not bring himself to take 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.

JPS (Tanakh—1985)               One day, a traveler came to the rich man, but he was loath to take anything from his own flocks or herds to prepare a meal for the guest who had come to him; so he took the poor man’s lamb and prepared it for the man who had come to him.”

NET Bible®                             "When a traveler arrived at the rich man's home [Heb "came to the rich man." In the translation "arrived at the rich man's home" has been used for stylistic reasons.], he did not want to use one of his own sheep or cattle to feed [Heb "and he refused to take from his flock and from his herd to prepare [a meal] for."] the traveler who had come to visit him [Heb "who had come to him" (also a second time later in this verse). The word "visit" has been supplied in the translation for stylistic reasons and for clarity.]. Instead, he took the poor man's lamb and cooked [Heb "and prepared."] it for the man who had come to visit him."

New International Version      "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 ewe lamb that belonged to the poor man and prepared it for the one who had come to him."


Literal, almost word-for-word, renderings:

 

A Conservative Version         And there came a traveler 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 came to him, but took the poor man's lamb, and dressed it for the man who came to him.

English Standard Version      Now there came a traveler to the rich man, and he was unwilling to take one of his own flock or herd to prepare for the guest who had come to him, but he took the poor man's lamb and prepared it for the man who had come to him."

exeGeses companion Bible   And a wayfarer comes to the rich man;

and he spares

to take of his own flock and of his own oxen,

to work for the caravan that comes to him:

but takes the ewe lamb of the impoverished man

and works it for the man who comes to him.

NASB                                     "Now a traveler came to the rich man,

And he was unwilling to take from his own flock or his own herd,

To prepare for the wayfarer who had come to him;

Rather he took the poor man's ewe lamb and prepared it for the man who had come to him."

New RSV                               Now there came a traveller to the rich man, and he was loath to take one of his own flock or herd to prepare for the wayfarer who had come to him, but he took the poor man's lamb, and prepared that for the guest who had come to him.'

Syndein                                  "Now the traveler came {meaning David in his sexual arrogance} to the rich man, but the rich man refrained from taking from his own flock or his own herd to prepare a meal for the traveler who had come to him. Instead he took the ewe lamb that belonged to the poor man and prepared it/'slit its throat, dressed and served' for the one who had come to him."

Young’s Updated LT             And there comes a traveler to the rich man, And he spares to take Of his own flock, and of his own herd, To prepare for the traveler Who has come to him, And he takes the ewe-lamb of the poor man, And prepares it for the man Who has come unto him.”

 

The gist of this verse:          Nathan continues with this case that he is presenting to David. The rich man has a guest, but he does not want to take one of his own animals to prepare a meal for his guest, so he takes the poor man’s lamp and prepares it for his guest.


2Samuel 12:4a

Hebrew/Pronunciation

Common English Meanings

Notes/Morphology

BDB and Strong’s Numbers

wa (or va) (וַ) [pronounced wah]

and so, and then, then, and; so, that, yet, therefore, consequently; because

wâw consecutive

No Strong’s # BDB #253

It is often typical for each sentence—in fact, each thought—to begin with a wâw consecutive (or a wâw conjunction) in the Hebrew. However, it is not necessary in an English translation to include a connective at every such juncture, as our language does not necessarily require that for successive thoughts or actions.

bôwʾ (בּוֹא) [pronounced boh]

to come in, to come, to go in, to go, to enter

3rd person masculine singular, Qal imperfect

Strong’s #935 BDB #97

hêlek (הֵלֶ) [pronounced HAY-lek]

traveler, wayfarer; literally, a going of, a journey, way; possibly a flowing of a stream

masculine singular noun

Strong’s #1982 BDB #237

lâmed (לְ) [pronounced le]

to, for, towards, in regards to, with reference to, as to, with regards to, belonging to

directional/relational preposition

No Strong’s # BDB #510

ʾîysh (אִיש) [pronounced eesh]

a man, a husband; anyone; a certain one; each, each one, everyone

masculine singular construct

Strong's #376 BDB #35

ʿâshîyr (עָשִיר) [pronounced ģaw-SHEER]

rich; wealthy; can be used as a substantive to mean the rich, the wealth, a rich man

masculine singular adjective; with the definite article; can be used as a substantive

Strong’s #6223 BDB #799


Nathan has previously identified the two men in this court case to David: one man is rich with a large cattle ranch; and the other man is poor, having only a small ewe-lamb which he apparently nursed back to health, and which lamb had become a part of his family. .


Translation: A traveler came to the man of wealth,... A guest from out of town comes to the rich man. It is common in the ancient world, when a guest came to you, to prepare an unusually large feast for the guest. This often involved slaughtering an animal and serving barbeque. Whereas, not as many people keep animals for slaughter any more; the custom of serving barbeque to guests has continues.


Some Footnote take this to mean the devil, who tempts David at this point with Bathsheba. I don’t know if I buy that; but this could refer to the lust pattern of David’s sin nature and David succumbing to that lust.


2Samuel 12:4b

Hebrew/Pronunciation

Common English Meanings

Notes/Morphology

BDB and Strong’s Numbers

wa (or va) (וַ) [pronounced wah]

and so, and then, then, and; so, that, yet, therefore; because

wâw consecutive

No Strong’s # BDB #253

châmal (חָמַל) [pronounced khaw-MAHL]

to spare, to be sparing of anything; to use sparingly; to pity, to have compassion, to show mercy

3rd person masculine singular, Qal imperfect

Strong’s #2550 BDB #328

lâmed (לְ) [pronounced le]

to, for, towards, in regards to, with reference to, as to, with regards to, belonging to

directional/relational preposition

No Strong’s # BDB #510

lâqach (לָקַח) [pronounced law-KAHKH]

to take, to take away, to take in marriage; to seize

Qal infinitive construct

Strong’s #3947 BDB #542

min (מִן) [pronounced min]

from, off, out from, out of, away from, on account of, since, than, more than

preposition of separation

Strong's #4480 BDB #577

tsôʾn (צֹאן) [pronounced tzohn]

small cattle, sheep and goats, flock, flocks

feminine singular collective noun; with the 3rd person masculine singular suffix

Strong’s #6629 BDB #838

Also spelled tseʾôwn (צְאוֹן) [pronounced tseh-OWN].

we (or ve) (וְ or וּ) [pronounced weh]

and; even; in particular, namely; when, since, seeing, though; then

simple wâw conjunction

No Strong’s # BDB #251

The wâw conjunction is used as ➊ a simple copulative, used to connect words and sentences, in which case it is usually rendered and. ➋ It can be used to explain one noun or clarify one noun with another, in which case it is rendered even or yea (see Job 5:19 Dan. 4:10). ➌ The wâw conjunction can introduce two nouns, where the first is the genus and the second is the species; in which case, we would render it and particularly, and specially, and namely, and specifically (and it can be used the other way as well) (see 2Kings 23:2 Psalm 18:1 Isa. 1:1 2:1 Zech. 14:21). ➍ It can be prefixed to a verb also by way of explanation; it could be reasonably rendered as a relative pronoun (who, which) (see Gen. 49:25 Job 29:12 Isa. 13:14). ➎ It can be used to begin an apodosis (the then portion of an if...then... statement) (see Gen. 2:4, 5 40:9 48:7). ➏ It is used between words and sentences in order to compare them or to mark their resemblance (1Sam. 12:15 Job 5:7). ➐ When doubled, it can mean both...and... (Num. 9:14 Joshua 7:24 Psalm 76:7). ➑ It can be prefixed to adversative sentences or clauses and rendered but, and yet, although, otherwise (Gen. 2:17 15:2 17:20 Judges 16:15 Ruth 1:21 Job 15:5 6:14). ➒ And, what we were after, is the wâw conjunction can be used in disjunctive sentences; that is, it can be rendered or (which will help us to understand what Jephthah does) (Ex. 21:17 Lev. 5:3 Deut. 24:7). ➓ Finally, the wâw conjunction can be used before causal sentences and rendered because, for, that, in that (Gen. 18:32 30:27 Psalm 5:12 60:13); before conclusions or inferences, and therefore rendered so that, therefore, wherefore (2Kings 4:41 Isa. 3:14 Ezek. 18:32 Zech. 2:10); and before final and consecutive sentences, which mark an end or an object: in order that (Gen. 42:34 Job 20:10 Isa. 13:2). To paraphrase Gesenius, frequently, it is put after verbs and sentences standing absolutely, especially those which imply time or condition and is reasonably rendered then. Footnote

min (מִן) [pronounced min]

from, off, out from, out of, away from, on account of, since, than, more than

preposition of separation

Strong's #4480 BDB #577

bâqâr (בָּקָר) [pronounced baw-KAWR]

bull, cow, ox, collectively: herd, cattle, oxen

masculine singular collective noun; with the 3rd person masculine singular suffix

Strong’s #1241 BDB #133


Translation: ...yet the rich man [lit., he] spared to take from his [own] flock or from his [own] herd... It is customary to prepare a great meal for one’s guests, and yet the rich man looks out over his herd and his flock, and chooses to spare them. For whatever reason, for however long it took him to think this over, the rich man decided not to take these animals from his own stock.


Bear I mind, this is all analogous to David and his sin with Bathsheba. Recall that he had about 10 wives and 10 mistresses, and many men think about this and figure, “That’s fantastic. If you have the much of a choice, how could you look outside of your plural marriage?” David is king, and with all of his wives and mistresses, he could have called for any one of them to be summoned to him. Yet, he thinks about his wives and his mistresses (his own flock and his own herd), one-by-one, and decides, “No, she’s going to complain about her position in the family; no, not her, she’s going to start talking up our son as my successor; this one is going to ask me for some spending money; this other one cannot seem to stop talking; and all I want is some sex.” So despite having at least 20 women to choose from, David took Uriah’s wife.


Quite obviously, there is less of a soul connection between David and many of his wives and mistresses. It takes time to get to know another person—sometimes years—so David certain had little soul connection with all of his mistresses and some of his wives. Furthermore, going outside the marriage for another woman is less of a big deal when one has many wives. A husband of one wife, tempted to stray, generally has a well-established deep personal relationship with his wife. The relationship often involves shared memories, shared difficulties, and, if God has blessed them, shared children. The husband in this case, ideally speaking, would have many things that would pop into his soul, about his own wife, about the cost of infidelity, which would dramatically hurt his wife and possibly destroy his family. So, you may have, at first, thought that having many wives would help to keep a man from straying; but one good wife is the key (along with an honorable soul, of course).


2Samuel 12:4c

Hebrew/Pronunciation

Common English Meanings

Notes/Morphology

BDB and Strong’s Numbers

lâmed (לְ) [pronounced le]

to, for, towards, in regards to, with reference to, as to, with regards to, belonging to

directional/relational preposition

No Strong’s # BDB #510

ʿâsâh (עָשָֹה) [pronounced ģaw-SAWH]

to do, to make, to construct, to fashion, to form, to prepare, to manufacture

Qal infinitive construct

Strong's #6213 BDB #793

lâmed (לְ) [pronounced le]

to, for, towards, in regards to, with reference to, as to, with regards to, belonging to

directional/relational preposition

No Strong’s # BDB #510

ʾârach (אָרַח) [pronounced aw-RAHKH]

a wanderer, traveler, wayfarer

Qal active participle used as a substantive

Strong’s #732 BDB #72

bôwʾ (בּוֹא) [pronounced boh]

the one entering [coming, going] [in]; he who enters [goes, comes (in)]

Qal active participle with the definite article

Strong’s #935 BDB #97

lâmed (לְ) [pronounced le]

to, for, towards, in regards to, with reference to, as to, with regards to, belonging to

directional/relational preposition; with the 3rd person masculine singular suffix

No Strong’s # BDB #510


Translation: ...[in order] to prepare [a meal] for the traveler, the one who came to him. The rich man then thinks this over. He looks at his own cattle, and he thinks about it, and he decides to spare them. His motive for doing so is really not germane to the decision that David will render.


This is David in his palace and he has decided that he wants to have sex; but when thinking over his various wives and mistresses, he does not choose to spend time with any one of them.


2Samuel 12:4d

Hebrew/Pronunciation

Common English Meanings

Notes/Morphology

BDB and Strong’s Numbers

wa (or va) (וַ) [pronounced wah]

and so, and then, then, and; so, that, yet, therefore; because

wâw consecutive

No Strong’s # BDB #253

lâqach (לָקַח) [pronounced law-KAHKH]

to take, to take away, to take in marriage; to seize

3rd person masculine singular, Qal imperfect

Strong’s #3947 BDB #542

ʾêth (אֶח) [pronounced ayth]

generally untranslated; occasionally to, toward

indicates that the following substantive is a direct object

Strong's #853 BDB #84

kibsâh (כִּבְשָׂה) [pronounced kihb-SAW]

ewe-lamb, lamb, a female lamb

feminine singular construct

Strong’s #3535 BDB #461

Also spelled kabsâw (כַּבְשָׂה) [pronounced kahb-SAW].

ʾîysh (אִיש) [pronounced eesh]

a man, a husband; anyone; a certain one; each, each one, everyone

masculine singular noun with the definite article

Strong's #376 BDB #35

rûwsh (רוּש) [pronounced roosh]

to be in want, to be needy, to be poor

Qal active participle with the definite article

Strong’s #7326 BDB #930

As a Qal active participle, this can be translated the poor, the needy.


Translation: Consequently, he took the ewe-lamb of the man—the one who is poor—;... So this rich man, unwilling to slaughter any of his own cattle, sees the little ewe-lamb that belongs to the poor man, and decides to slaughter than animal for his guest. He give no thought to any of the back story.


David saw Bathsheba bathing, and he was very attracted to her. Paying no attention to the fact that she is a woman who belongs to another man, David simply took her, just as the rich man took the ewe-lamb of the poor man.


2Samuel 12:4e

Hebrew/Pronunciation

Common English Meanings

Notes/Morphology

BDB and Strong’s Numbers

wa (or va) (וַ) [pronounced wah]

and so, and then, then, and; so, that, yet, therefore; because

wâw consecutive

No Strong’s # BDB #253

ʿâsâh (עָשָֹה) [pronounced ģaw-SAWH]

to do, to make, to construct, to fashion, to form, to prepare, to manufacture

3rd person masculine singular, Qal imperfect; with the 3rd person feminine singular suffix

Strong's #6213 BDB #793

lâmed (לְ) [pronounced le]

to, for, towards, in regards to, with reference to, as to, with regards to, belonging to

directional/relational preposition

No Strong’s # BDB #510

ʾîysh (אִיש) [pronounced eesh]

a man, a husband; anyone; a certain one; each, each one, everyone

masculine singular noun with the definite article

Strong's #376 BDB #35

bôwʾ (בּוֹא) [pronounced boh]

the one entering [coming, going] [in]; he who enters [goes, comes (in)]

Qal active participle with the definite article

Strong’s #935 BDB #97

ʾel (אֶל) [pronounced ehl]

unto; into, among, in; toward, to; against; concerning, regarding; besides, together with; as to

directional preposition (respect or deference may be implied); with the 3rd person masculine singular suffix

Strong's #413 BDB #39


Translation: ...and he prepared it for the man who came to him.” The rich man takes this ewe-lamb and he slaughters it and prepares it for his out-of-town guest.


Let’s stop and summarize this parable.

The Parable of the Rich Man and the Poor Man

1.      Nathan must reach David and get David to look at himself objectively. This cannot be done with a full-on attack on David and his sins.

2.      Furthermore, Nathan cannot come to David and say, “Hey, listen to this parable; I think you will like it.” David would have either been suspicious or disinterested.

3.      Nathan reaches David by asking him his judgment on a legal case, which is this parable.

4.      Nathan is teaching by finesse; a simple story which will involve David and which will cause him to judge himself.

5.      This particular parable is designed so that, no matter how far out David has gotten, he is still able to understand and render judgement against the rich man. He will become quite emotionally involved in the story, as David, despite his being trapped in interlocking systems of arrogance, still has a sense of right and wrong.

6.      In order for this to work, David must remain objective up to the point of rendering judgment. It must not occur to him that Nathan is condemning him. David must condemn himself.

7.      If Nathan does not speak to David correctly, David would immediately lose his objectivity and become angry with Nathan.

8.      David can begin to exit the interlocking systems of arrogance by objectively evaluating himself and judging himself. If we judge ourselves, we will not be judged (1Cor. 11:31).

9.      David becomes so involved in this parable, that he reacts to the meanness of the rich man in this story, not realizing that he is judging himself. If David is able to judge himself, then he is going ot break out of his arrogance.

10.    The psalms we will study will reveal that David has already experienced some warning suffering and discipline. However, the problem is twofold:

         1)      David can get away with what he is doing, so he is not motivated to rebound or to recover.

         2)      David is so far gone that, simply rebound coupled with the intake of doctrine is not going to turn him around.

11.    David does not name his sin to God until hearing all of Nathan’s parable. The parable breaks through David’s subjectivity.

12.    The key to this parable is not rich versus poor. The rich man is rich because he has the blessings of spiritual growth. Spiritual maturity often results in great blessing, represented here by wealth and power.

13.    The parallels are quite obvious: David is the rich man, enjoying great grace blessing. Uriah is the poor man and the ewe lamb is Bathsheba. David’s will understand this instantly, see himself objectively, and be willing, at that point, to submit to Nathan’s spiritual authority.

Allow me to go off on a tangent here. One of the websites that I went to when comparing liberalism to Christianity stated that there were a huge number of times that the Bible refers to the rich and the poor (they had the exact number). The idea was to make the reader think, this was the thrust of the Bible—to deal with the plight of the poor. First of all, that is absolute nonsense—the thrust of the Bible is the message of the gospel of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ for our sins.

Secondly, that same person did not quote this particular passage about rich and poor to back up his evil thinking, because it did not apply. The Bible refers to the rich and poor on many occasions because that is simply a fact of life; there will always be rich and poor, in any society. In a Communist or Socialist society, the rich are a very few political leaders and possibly some favored bureaucrats; the poor is everyone else. In a capitalistic society, there are roughly an equal number of rich and poor. When a capitalistic society turns toward socialism, the number of rich decrease and the number of poor (relatively speaking) increase. Under liberal Democrat presidents, our country always has an increase of poor people. Under conservative Republican presidents, our country experiences an increase in rich people.

There is another related tangent I would like to mention. David, despite falling into degeneracy, still has norms and standards. I have talked to a number of liberals who lack any true norms and standards. They will argue their side and use false data—information that they know is false—to make a point. An illustration of this is American history: I was brought up in high school to believe that our founding fathers were deists. That is simply a lie, and it finds absolutely no support in the founding documents or in the writings of the founders. They were very religious men many of whom believed, the constitution was a religious document from the hand of God (I exaggerate but little at this point).

I have argued with some liberals who say, “You don’t have any proof of that statement;” and so, I offer up the proof. In almost all cases, they are already aware of the proof I am offering up, and they attack the proof from the edges. That is, the fundamental principle of the proof may be completely on point and accurate, but they attack the source or the person who said it or something which is pretty much irrelevant. My point here is, committed liberals, unlike David, have lost even their norms and standards. This parable (which David took to be real), grabbed David and angered him against the rich man. This is because he retained some true norms and standards. Many liberals lack simple honesty and if they know of something which does damage to their arguments, they will ignore it or pretend that they are not aware of it (until, of course, you bring it up, an experience I have had on many occasions).

If you are ever drawn to argue politics, you are going to notice at least three things about committed liberals: they are arrogant, they are self-righteous, and they are dishonest. I have a relative, and what strikes me in our discussion is, even though he is anti-Christian, that there is no discernable difference to him between Muslims and Christians and, furthermore, does not believe that Jesus Christ is God. However, his arrogance and self-righteousness are palpable, even when he writes a few words.


Chapter Outline

Charts, Maps and Short Doctrines


What Nathan says to David reads almost like poetry, and the New American Standard Bible seems to catch this and present it this way in their translation.

The New American Standard Bible’s Translation of 2Samuel 12:1–5

1Then the LORD sent Nathan to David And he came to him and said,

"There were two men in one city, the one rich and the other poor.

2The rich man had a great many flocks and herds.

3But the poor man had nothing except one little ewe lamb

         Which he bought and nourished;

         And it grew up together with him and his children.

         It would eat of his bread and drink of his cup and lie in his bosom,

         And was like a daughter to him.

4Now a traveler came to the rich man,

         And he was unwilling to take from his own flock or his own herd,

         To prepare for the wayfarer who had come to him;

         Rather he took the poor man's ewe lamb and prepared it for the man who had come to him."

5Then David's anger burned greatly against the man, and he said to Nathan, "As the LORD lives, surely the man who has done this deserves to die.”

This poetry is bookended by Nathan and David.


Return to Chapter Outline

Return to Charts, Maps and Short Doctrines


The obvious parallel is, David took Uriah’s wife, Bathsheba, and had sex with her.


——————————


David becomes so angry with the rich man that he interrupts Nathan and pronounces the sentence on this man.


And so burns a nostril of David in the man greatly. And so he says unto Nathan, “Living Yehowah, for a son of death the man the one doing this.”

2Samuel

12:5

David’s anger against this man burned greatly. Therefore, he said to Nathan, “[As] Yehowah lives, because the man did this [thing], [he is] a son of death.

David’s anger greatly burned against this man. Therefore, he said to Nathan, “As Jehovah lives, because this man did this evil thing, he deserves to die!


Here is how others have translated this verse:


Ancient texts:

 

Latin Vulgate                          And David's anger being exceedingly kindled against that man, he said to Nathan: As the Lord liveth, the man that hath done this is a child of death.

Masoretic Text (Hebrew)        And so burns a nostril of David in the man greatly. And so he says unto Nathan, “Living Yehowah, for a son of death the man the one doing this.

Peshitta (Syriac)                    And David's anger was greatly kindled against the man; and he said, As the LORD lives, the man who has done this thing is worthy of death.

Septuagint (Greek)                And David was greatly moved with anger against the man; and David said to Nathan, As the Lord lives, because the son of death the man who did this thing shall surely die.

 

Significant differences:           Nostril can be translated anger. Although there is a definite difference between the Hebrew and the Greek in the first phrase, they convey the same essential idea, that David is angry. The Latin appears to lack the conjunction which begins the second phrase. The final phrase, a son of death, does not translate well into the English, and most translations have, instead, deserving of death (or words to that effect). This explains the Syriac not following suit here (at least, according to the English versio of the Syriac).


Thought-for-thought translations; paraphrases:

 

CEV                                       David was furious with the rich man and said to Nathan, "I swear by the living LORD that the man who did this deserves to die!

Easy English (Pocock)           David was very angry with the rich man. David said to Nathan, `The *Lord will punish that rich man. The man who did this evil thing deserves to die

Good News Bible (TEV)         David became very angry at the rich man and said, "I swear by the living LORD that the man who did this ought to die!.

The Message                         David exploded in anger. "As surely as GOD lives," he said to Nathan, "the man who did this ought to be lynched!

New Century Version             David became very angry at the rich man. He said to Nathan, "As surely as the Lord lives, the man who did this should die!

New Living Translation           David was furious. "As surely as the Lord lives," he vowed, "any man who would do such a thing deserves to die!


Partially literal and partially paraphrased translations:

 

American English Bible          Well, David was outraged about this man and said, `As Jehovah lives, this man deserves to die!

Ancient Roots Translinear      David's emotion flared a hundredfold with the man. He said to Nathan, "As Yahweh lives, the man that did this is a son of death!

God’s Word                         David burned with anger against the man. "I solemnly swear, as the LORD lives," he said to Nathan, "the man who did this certainly deserves to die!

New American Bible              David grew very angry with that man and said to Nathan: "As the LORD lives, the man who has done this merits death!

NIRV                                      David burned with anger against the rich man. He said to Nathan, "The man who did that is worthy of death. And that's just as sure as the Lord is alive.

New Simplified Bible              David became very angry with the rich man. He said: »I swear by the living God Jehovah that the man who did this should die!

Revised English Bible            David was very angry, and burst out, ‘As the Lord lives, the man who did this deserves to die!

Today’s NIV                          David burned with anger against the man and said to Nathan, "As surely as the LORD lives, the man who did this must die!


Mostly literal renderings (with some occasional paraphrasing):

 

Bible in Basic English             And David was full of wrath against that man; and he said to Nathan, By the living Lord, death is the right punishment for the man who has done this:

Complete Jewish Bible           David exploded with anger against the man and said to Natan, "As ADONAI lives, the man who did this deserves to die!

JPS (Tanakh—1985)               David flew into a rage against the man, and said to Nathan, “As the Lord lives, the man who did this deserves to die!

NET Bible®                             Then David became very angry at this man. He said to Nathan, "As surely as the LORD lives, the man who did this deserves to die [Heb "the man doing this [is] a son of death." See 1 Sam 20:31 for another use of this expression, which must mean "he is as good as dead" or "he deserves to die," as 1 Sam 20:32 makes clear.]!

New Advent Bible                  And David's anger being exceedingly kindled against that man, he said to Nathan: As the Lord lives, the man that has done this is a child of death.

NIV, ©2010                             David burned with anger against the man and said to Nathan, "As surely as the LORD lives, the man who did this must die!


Literal, almost word-for-word, renderings:

 

The Amplified Bible                Then David's anger was greatly kindled against the man, and he said to Nathan, As the Lord lives, the man who has done this is a son [worthy] of death.

Concordant Literal Version    And the anger of David burns against the man exceedingly, and he said unto Nathan, `Yahweh lives, surely a son of death [is] the man who is doing this,.

A Conservative Version         And David's anger was greatly kindled against the man, and he said to Nathan, As LORD lives, the man who has done this is worthy to die.

Context Group Version          And David's anger was greatly kindled against the man; and he said to Nathan, As YHWH lives, the man that has done this is worthy to die.

exeGeses companion Bible   And David kindles his wrath mightily

against the man;

and he says to Nathan, Yah Veh lives!

The man who works this is a son of death:

Green’s Literal Translation    And David's anger glowed greatly against the man. And he said to Nathan, As Jehovah lives, surely the man who did this is a son of death.

Hebrew Names Version         David's anger was greatly kindled against the man, and he said to Natan, "As the LORD lives, the man who has done this is worthy to die!

Heritage Bible                        And the nostrils of David burned against the man exceedingly, and he said to Nathan, Jehovah lives! The son of man who did this shall die;...

New King James Version       So David's anger was greatly aroused against the man, and he said to Nathan, "As the LORD lives, the man who has done this shall surely die!

Syndein                                  Then David's anger burned intensively against the man {the rich man -- who is actually David himself, but he does not know it yet} so that he {David} said to Nathan, "By the life/essence of Jehovah/God, the man who has done this thing is definitely doomed to death." {reference to the sin unto death}.

Young’s Updated LT             And the anger of David burns against the man exceedingly, and he says unto Nathan, “Jehovah lives, surely a son of death is the man who is doing this.

 

The gist of this verse:          David appears to interrupt Nathan, and he pronounces judgement immediately.


2Samuel 12:5a

Hebrew/Pronunciation

Common English Meanings

Notes/Morphology

BDB and Strong’s Numbers

wa (or va) (וַ) [pronounced wah]

and so, and then, then, and; so, that, yet, therefore, consequently; because

wâw consecutive

No Strong’s # BDB #253

chârâh (חָרָה) [pronounced khaw-RAWH]

to burn, to kindle, to become angry, to evoke great emotion

3rd person masculine singular, Qal imperfect

Strong's #2734 BDB #354

ʾaph (חּאַף) [pronounced ahf]

nose, nostril, but is also translated face, brow, anger, wrath

masculine singular construct

Strong’s #639 BDB #60

Dâvid (דָּוִד); also Dâvîyd (דָּוִיד) [pronounced daw-VEED]

beloved and is transliterated David

masculine proper noun

Strong’s #1732 BDB #187

be (בְּ) [pronounced beh]

in, into, through; at, by, near, on, upon; with, before, against; by means of; among; within

a preposition of proximity

No Strong’s # BDB #88

ʾîysh (אִיש) [pronounced eesh]

a man, a husband; anyone; a certain one; each, each one, everyone

masculine singular noun with the definite article

Strong's #376 BDB #35

meʾôd (מְאֹד) [pronounced me-ODE]

exceedingly, extremely, greatly, very

adverb

Strong’s #3966 BDB #547


Translation: David’s anger against this man burned greatly. To me, this story seems unfinished, and it sounds as though David stopped Nathan, having heard enough. David listened, heard enough of what Nathan had to say, and just stopped him cold, because David burned with so much anger against the rich man. Nathan had not even asked the king for his judgment. Whether Nathan had more to say or not, we do not know, but David had clearly heard enough. Obviously, he took the facts of the case as Nathan presented them, as being accurate and unbiased (I am sure that you have heard a recollection of something which happened, and you have one idea of what happened; and then you hear the other perspective, and you find out, it is just the opposite of what you first believed). In this situation, David is reasonably assuming that Nathan is giving him the truth without an attempt to slant the story in either direction.


David is very much caught up in this case. This is not some hypothetical story to him. He has listened carefully; he has heard enough; and he is going to render his judgement against this man.


Now, bear in mind that David is inside of the interlocking systems of arrogance. Therefore, this judgment does not come from his carefully understood sense of justice, but it comes from David’s anger. However, David is the king of the land; and therefore, his motivation behind doing anything is not an issue. God the Holy Spirit wants us to know that David pronounces this sentence out of anger; but since he is the king, he can choose to become emotionally involved in the cases over which he presides or not.


If you have children, there are times that they are going to do wrong, and it makes you smile; there are times they will do wrong, and you have no emotional reaction to what they have done; and there are times they will do wrong, and you are angered greatly. For instance, your young child has done something wrong, but he develops this remarkable story and imaginative narrative, in which he presents himself as the good guy; and you know he is lying to your face, and stretching the truth, but he is so young, so imaginative, and the story is so funny, that you are greatly amused by it. Or, on the other hand, he may have broken something which is irreplaceable and which you greatly love—and you are pissed off, even if he broke it by accident. No matter what your emotional involvement, you have to punish the kid, and to him, it makes little difference. Maybe he got a time-out or a spanking; either way, the punishment is the same (or ought to be). The same is true of David here; it does not matter whether he is emotionally involved or not in this case (he is obviously very involved). He is still the sovereign of the land, and therefore, his judgment will stand.


2Samuel 12:5b

Hebrew/Pronunciation

Common English Meanings

Notes/Morphology

BDB and Strong’s Numbers

wa (or va) (וַ) [pronounced wah]

and so, and then, then, and; so, that, yet, therefore; because

wâw consecutive

No Strong’s # BDB #253

ʾâmar (אָמַר) [pronounced aw-MAHR]

to say, to speak, to utter; to say [to oneself], to think

3rd person masculine singular, Qal imperfect

Strong’s #559 BDB #55

ʾel (אֶל) [pronounced ehl]

unto; into, among, in; toward, to; against; concerning, regarding; besides, together with; as to

directional preposition (respect or deference may be implied)

Strong's #413 BDB #39

Nâthân (נָתָן) [pronounced naw-THAWN]

given; one who is given; transliterated Nathan

masculine singular, proper noun

Strong’s #5416 BDB #681


Translation: Therefore, he said to Nathan,... Even though this is the simple verb to say; David is making an official proclamation; he is rendering his official judgment, coming from his authority as king over all Israel.


Notice that we have the preposition of respect here; David, despite his anger and despite his being inside the interlocking systems of arrogance, he is still respectful toward Nathan and he recognizes Nathan’s spiritual authority (to a limited degree, at this point).


2Samuel 12:5c

Hebrew/Pronunciation

Common English Meanings

Notes/Morphology

BDB and Strong’s Numbers

chay (חַי) [pronounced KHAH-ee]

living, alive, active, lively, vigorous [used of man or animals]; green [vegetation]; fresh [used of a plant]; flowing [water]; reviving [of the springtime]; raw [flesh]

masculine singular adjective

Strong's #2416 BDB #311

YHWH (יהוה) [pronunciation is possibly yhoh-WAH]

transliterated variously as Jehovah, Yahweh, Yehowah

proper noun

Strong’s #3068 BDB #217


Translation:...“[As] Yehowah lives,... You will note that, David, in his spiritual condition, has not altogether thrown Jehovah out of his thinking. His proclamation of guilt and sentencing is predicated on the life of Yehowah. Now, this may simply be a matter of self-righteousness, but David, in effect, is still saying that this is not simply his decision, but this decision will be right in the eyes of God.


2Samuel 12:5d

Hebrew/Pronunciation

Common English Meanings

Notes/Morphology

BDB and Strong’s Numbers

kîy (כִּי) [pronounced kee]

for, that, because; when, at that time, which, what time

explanatory conjunction; preposition

Strong's #3588 BDB #471

bên (בֵּן) [pronounced bane]

son, descendant

masculine singular construct

Strong’s #1121 BDB #119

mâveth (מָוֶת) [pronounced MAW-veth]

death, death [as opposed to life], death by violence, a state of death, a place of death

masculine singular noun

Strong’s #4194 BDB #560

ʾîysh (אִיש) [pronounced eesh]

a man, a husband; anyone; a certain one; each, each one, everyone

masculine singular noun with the definite article

Strong's #376 BDB #35

ʿâsâh (עָשָֹה) [pronounced ģaw-SAWH]

the one doing, the one making, a constructor, a fashioner, a preparer

Qal active participle

Strong's #6213 BDB #793

zôʾth (זֹאת) [pronounced zoth]

here, this, this one; thus; possibly another

feminine singular of zeh; demonstrative pronoun, adverb

Strong’s #2063 (& 2088, 2090) BDB #260


Translation: ...because the man did this [thing], [he is] a son of death. Putting these final phrases together is difficult, and you will note that almost all translators changed up the order of the text. The explanatory conjunction or inferential conjunction properly belongs with the participial phrase, the one doing this [thing].


The entire verse reads: David’s anger against this man burned greatly. Therefore, he said to Nathan, “[As] Yehowah lives, because the man did this [thing], [he is] a son of death. David is so angry with this man and he is so ready to give the sentence, that what he says is elliptical and switched around from what most would say. Most people would say, “Because this man did this evil thing, he is worthy of death.” However, David had to get that punishment out there as quickly as possible, because he was so emotionally involved in the rendering of this verdict. “Because—[he is] worthy of death—[because] he did this [evil] thing.” So David leaves out a few words and front-loads the punishment, because he is so angry at this rich man.


The phrase a son of death means that the rich man is worthy of dead; the rich man deserves to be executed. It is not unlikely that David is just so mad that he says something like, “I’ll execute this ass myself.” However, David will seemingly revise his judgment in the next verse. After all, how can such a man make restitution if he ha been executed? So, David’s first reaction appears to be an overreaction, based upon his emotional involvement in this story.


As an aside, I want you to notice something here: David is filled with self-righteousness at this time. He has just heard about this rich man who took a little ewe-lamb from a poor family, and David is filled with rage, based upon self-righteousness.


Application: We see this sort of self-righteousness all of the time in the prison system. If a pedophile is brought into prison, he is dumped on by many of his fellow inmates. They may have committed murder, robbed homes, dealt in drugs, and yet, they look down upon the pedophile, seeing him as a man worthy of death. It may even be possible that, the greater the sins (crime), the greater the self-righteousness.


Application: It is my understanding, from hearing some interviews, that those in Mafia-type families have a very pronounced sense of right and wrong. In their life, there are things that associates and others did which they found to be despicable behavior. This is a person who has done things to cause whole neighborhoods to fear him; and yet, some underling will commit some minor infraction, and death may be order for the underling. Self-righteousness is a part of most sin natures.


Application: I have seen this same self-righteousness from those who see themselves as environmentalists. I knew two personally, which I once kept in touch with, and I could guarantee you that, at that time, I was far more conscientious about recycling and even, to some extent, my environmental footprint than they were (which is not a lot, but more than them). However, I did not buy into global warming as a man-made disaster arising on the horizon, and, for that reason, one of them heaped a great amount of scorn upon me.


Application: Part of self-righteousness is unfairly applying punishment to others that you would not apply to yourself. David has committed a far greater sin than the rich man in this parable, and yet, David does not stop to think about what he has done on his own; however, when it comes to this man, David is ready to give him the death sentence.


The sentencing of criminals was quite harsh in the ancient world. We get a taste of that here (even though David may simply be spouting off); and we will see strong retribution put upon the people of Ammon at the end of this chapter (2Sam. 12:31). Certainly, good arguments could be advanced in favor of returning ot harsher punishment, which would decrease crime, which would decrease court costs and incarceration costs.


Now, it must occur to David that he is sentencing a man to death for theft. Yet he still imposes an additional sentence upon him. It is reasonable to suppose that David is saying that this man deserves death, but the actual sentencing (v. 6) will follow.


——————————


And the lamb he will recompense fourfold as a consequence of that he did the word the this and on the grounds that he showed no pity.”

2Samuel

12:6

Furthermore, he will recompense [the man for his] lamb fourfold as a consequence of having done this thing and because he showed no compassion.”

Furthermore, he will recompense this man for his lamb fourfold because he did this awful thing and because he showed absolutely no compassion.”


Here is how others have translated this verse:


Ancient texts:

 

Latin Vulgate                          He shall restore the ewe fourfold, because he did this thing, and had no pity.

Masoretic Text (Hebrew)        And the lamb he will recompense fourfold as a consequence of that he did the word the this and on the grounds that he showed no pity.”

Peshitta (Syriac)                    And he shall restore the ewe lamb fourfold because he did this thing and because he had no pity.

Septuagint (Greek)                And he shall restore the lamb seven-fold, because he has not spared.

 

Significant differences:           The most obvious difference is, the Greek reads that he will restore the lamb sevenfold. Also, the Greek leaves out the second clause. Although the final verb in the Greek my appear to be different, it is a reasonable translation for the Hebrew in the Masoretic text.


Thought-for-thought translations; paraphrases:

 

CEV                                       And because he didn't have any pity on the poor man, he will have to pay four times what the lamb was worth."

Easy English (Pocock)           He had no pity when he did this. So he must hand over 4 sheep to the poor man.'

Easy-to-Read Version            He must pay four times the price of the lamb because he did this terrible thing and because he had no mercy.”

Good News Bible (TEV)         For having done such a cruel thing, he must pay back four times as much as he took."

New Century Version             He must pay for the lamb four times for doing such a thing. He had no mercy!"

New Living Translation           He must repay four lambs to the poor man for the one he stole and for having no pity."


Partially literal and partially paraphrased translations:

 

American English Bible          [But first] he should have to repay for the lamb with seven of his own, because of what he did when he [killed] it.'

Ancient Roots Translinear      He will repay four lambs in reward for doing this word and over sparing nothing."

God’s Word                         And he must pay back four times the price of the lamb because he did this and had no pity."

NIRV                                      The man must pay back four times as much as that lamb was worth. How could he do such a thing? And he wasn't even sorry he had done it."

New Jerusalem Bible             For doing such a thing and for having shown no pity, he shall make fourfold restitution for the lamb.'

New Simplified Bible              »For doing such a cruel thing he should pay back four times for the lamb he took, for he had no compassion.«

Today’s NIV                          He must pay for that lamb four times over, because he did such a thing and had no pity."


Mostly literal renderings (with some occasional paraphrasing):

 

Bible in Basic English             And he will have to give back four times the value of the lamb, because he has done this and because he had no pity.

Complete Jewish Bible           For doing such a thing, he has to pay back four times the value of the lamb - and also because he had no pity."

HCSB                                     Because he has done this thing and shown no pity, he must pay four lambs for that lamb."

NET Bible®                             Because he committed this cold-hearted crime, he must pay for the lamb four times over!" With the exception of the Lucianic recension, the Old Greek translation has here "sevenfold" rather than "fourfold," a reading that S. R. Driver thought probably to be the original reading (S. R. Driver, Notes on the Hebrew Text and the Topography of the Books of Samuel, 291). However, Exod 22:1 [21:37 HT] specifies fourfold repayment for a stolen sheep, which is consistent with 2 Sam 12:6. Some mss of the Targum and the Syriac Peshitta exaggerate the idea to "fortyfold."

New Advent Bible                  He shall restore the ewe fourfold, because he did this thing, and had no pity.

NIV – UK                                He must pay for that lamb four times over, because he did such a thing and had no pity.

The Scriptures 1998              “Also, he has to repay fourfold for the lamb, because he did this deed and because he had no compassion.”


Literal, almost word-for-word, renderings:

 

Concordant Literal Version    ...and the ewe-lamb he does repay fourfold, because that he has done this thing, and because that he had no pity.

Emphasized Bible                  And he shall restore the lamb seven-fold [Masoretic text, “four-fold”], because he has not spared.

English Standard Version      ...and he shall restore the lamb fourfold, because he did this thing, and because he had no pity."

Heritage Bible                        And he shall make the lamb complete fourfold, because he did this word, and because he did not spare in pity.

Modern KJV                           And he shall repay fourfold for the ewe lamb, because he has done this thing, and because he had no pity.

NASB                                     "He must make restitution for the lamb fourfold [Ex 22:1; Luke 19:8], because he did this thing and had no compassion."

Syndein                                  Furthermore, he must make restitution for the ewe lamb . . . four fold {see Exodus 22:1} because he did not have compassion."

Young’s Updated LT             And the ewe-lamb he does repay fourfold, because that he has done this thing, and because that he had no pity.”.

 

The gist of this verse:          David decrees that the rich man needs to repay the poor man fourfold because he acted without any compassion; without any thought to the family he damaged.


2Samuel 12:6a

Hebrew/Pronunciation

Common English Meanings

Notes/Morphology

BDB and Strong’s Numbers

we (or ve) (וְ or וּ) [pronounced weh]

and, even, then; namely; when; since, that; though

simple wâw conjunction

No Strong’s # BDB #251

ʾêth (אֶח) [pronounced ayth]

generally untranslated; occasionally to, toward

indicates that the following substantive is a direct object

Strong's #853 BDB #84

kibsâh (כִּבְשָׂה) [pronounced kihb-SAW]

ewe-lamb, lamb, a female lamb

feminine singular noun with the definite article

Strong’s #3535 BDB #461

shâlêm (  ׂשָלֵם) [pronounced shaw-LAHM

to make secure, to keep safe; to complete (finish); to make good; to restore, to requite, to recompense (pay)

3rd person masculine singular, Piel imperfect

Strong’s #7999 BDB #1022

ʾarebaʿetayim (אַרְבַּעְתַּיִם) [pronounced ahre-bah-TAH-yim]

fourfold, four times

adverb; dual of Strong’s #702

Strong’s #706 BDB #916


Translation: Furthermore, he will recompense [the man for his] lamb fourfold... David is extremely upset over what this man has done, and he will require a fourfold restoration. It is from this and the chapters which follow that indicates to us that David will be punished in 4 installments—each installment of which may seem in itself as a reasonable punishment for what he has done.


Now, David is not just making up this punishment out of his head—and this is an important consideration, because it indicates that he still has some doctrine in his soul—he takes this out of Ex. 22:1, which reads: If a man steals an ox or a sheep, and kills it or sells it, he shall repay five oxen for an ox, and four sheep for a sheep. Footnote So, even though David had fallen quite a ways in the previous chapter, committing adultery and murder, he is still well-acquainted with the Law (personally, I had to look it up).


This is proof that, even though David is in sinful degeneracy or is residing inside of the interlocking systems of arrogance, entering in by means of sexual arrogance, he still knows the Word of God. A person who falls into reversionism goes backward, even to the point of requiring that he be re-taught from the very beginning, so that he can fully understand all of the basics and put it all together (Heb. 6:1–6).

The State of David’s Soul

1.      David obviously knows portions of the Word of God; he retains a lot of doctrine in his soul. However, he appears to be affected by a blind spot in his own life (he can evaluate the life of another, but cannot easily see the same act of sin in his own life).

2.      David is clearly trapped in a downward degeneracy spiral (despite having 20+ wives and mistresses, David is still chasing skit, even when these women he chases are married).

3.      Furthermore, David is clearly caught in the sexual arrogance gate.

4.      In all of this, David clearly knew some portions of Bible doctrine; his answer was immediate—in fact, he appears to have interrupted Nathan to render a decision—with the final penalty being a reflection of the Mosaic Law.

In the previous chapter, we made reference to the Doctrine of Sexual Arrogance (HTML) (PDF) (WordDOC). This doctrine was taken from http://www.olispm.com/requireddoctrines.htm


Chapter Outline

Charts, Maps and Short Doctrines


Now, it is reasonable that, the first thing that David said, “This man is a son of death because he did this thing;” is David’s immediate angry reaction. In v. 6, we find out what the sentencing is, even though David, at this time, wants to go out and kill this man himself. In any case, the death thing is just left out there hanging, making us uncertain whether David would have carried through with that part of the sentence or not. However, when God lays a sentence upon David, He will clearly take the sin unto death Footnote off the table (2Sam. 12:13).


2Samuel 12:6b

Hebrew/Pronunciation

Common English Meanings

Notes/Morphology

BDB and Strong’s Numbers

ʿêqeb (עֵקֶב) [pronounced AY-kehb]

as a reward of, on account of, as a consequence of, because, because that; that

conjunction

Strong’s #6118 BDB #784

ʾăsher (אֲֹשֶר) [pronounced uh-SHER]

that, which, when, who, whom

relative pronoun

Strong's #834 BDB #81

ʿâsâh (עָשָֹה) [pronounced ģaw-SAWH]

to do, to make, to construct, to fashion, to form, to prepare, to manufacture

3rd person masculine singular, Qal perfect

Strong's #6213 BDB #793

ʾêth (אֶח) [pronounced ayth]

generally untranslated; occasionally to, toward

indicates that the following substantive is a direct object

Strong's #853 BDB #84

dâbâr (דָּבָר) [pronounced dawb-VAWR]

word, saying, doctrine, thing, matter, command

masculine singular noun with the definite article

Strong's #1697 BDB #182

zeh (זֶה) [pronounced zeh]

here, this, this one; thus; possibly another

demonstrative adjective with a definite article

Strong’s #2088, 2090 (& 2063) BDB #260


Translation: ...as a consequence of having done this thing... Giving a word-for-word translation of this portion of v. 6 is difficult; and nearly every word-for-word translation ignores the relative pronoun here. In any case, the idea is, this is a consequence of this rich man taking the poor man’s ewe lamb.


2Samuel 12:6c

Hebrew/Pronunciation

Common English Meanings

Notes/Morphology

BDB and Strong’s Numbers

we (or ve) (וְ or וּ) [pronounced weh]

and, even, then; namely; when; since, that; though

simple wâw conjunction

No Strong’s # BDB #251

ʿal (עַל) [pronounced ģahl]

upon, beyond, on, against, above, over; on the ground of, because of, according to, on account of, on behalf of, with, by, besides, in addition to, to, toward, together with, in the matter of, concerning, as regards to

preposition of proximity

Strong’s #5921 BDB #752

ʾăsher (אֲֹשֶר) [pronounced uh-SHER]

that, which, when, who, whom

relative pronoun

Strong's #834 BDB #81

lôʾ (לֹא or לוֹא) [pronounced low]

not, no

negates the word or action that follows; the absolute negation

Strong’s #3808 BDB #518

châmal (חָמַל) [pronounced khaw-MAHL]

to spare, to be sparing of anything; to use sparingly; to pity, to have compassion, to show mercy

3rd person masculine singular, Qal perfect

Strong’s #2550 BDB #328


Translation: ...and because he showed no compassion.” We had this exact same verb earlier in this chapter, back in v. 4, where the rich man shows compassion upon his own animals, and, therefore, takes the little ewe lamb of the poor man. David indicates that there is no compassion here whatsoever.


R. B. Thieme, Jr. points out Footnote that compassion is not emotion; compassion is the ability to see things from another person’s perspective. This is objective thinking. The rich man in the story had absolutely no compassion for the poor man; he gave little or no thought to the poor man and his love for his little ewe-lamb (which describes David in his taking of Bathsheba).


David’s entire decision is: David’s anger greatly burned against this man. Therefore, he said to Nathan, “As Jehovah lives, because this man did this evil thing, he deserves to die! Furthermore, he will recompense this man for his lamb fourfold because he did this awful thing and because he showed absolutely no compassion.”

 

McGee comments: David sounds like a preacher, doesn’t he? It is so easy to preach to the other person and tell him his faults, analyze him, and tell him what to do. Most of us are amateur psychologists who put other people on our own little critical couches and give them a working over. That is David. David says, “Wherever that man is, we are going to see that justice is done.”  Footnote


Quite obviously, David was able to see the speck in the eye of this man who had sinned, but did not yet realize that he had a log in his own eye (Luke 6:41–42). On the other hand, David is not simply passing judgment; he is not just offering up his unsolicited opinion. David represented the high court of the land, so what David says, even in an informal setting, stands as the ruling of the law in the state of Israel. Therefore, David is issuing a legal ruling here.


——————————


Chapter Outline

Charts, Maps and Short Doctrines


God's Judgement of David


And so says Nathan unto David, “You [are] the man! Thus says Yehowah, Elohim of Israel, ‘I anointed you for king over Israel and I delivered you from a hand of Saul.

2Samuel

12:7

Then Nathan said to David, “You [are] that man! Thus says Yehowah, Elohim of Israel, ‘I anointed you as king over Israel and I delivered you from the hand of Saul.

Then Nathan said to David, “You are that man! Thus speaks Jehovah, the God of Israel: ‘I anointed you as king over all Israel and I delivered you out of the hand of Saul.


Here is how others have translated this verse:


Ancient texts:

 

Latin Vulgate                          And Nathan said to David: “You are the man. Thus says the Lord the God of Israel: I anointed You king over Israel, and I delivered You from the hand of Saul.

Masoretic Text (Hebrew)        And so says Nathan unto David, “You [are] the man! Thus says Yehowah, Elohim of Israel, ‘I anointed you for king over Israel and I delivered you from a hand of Saul.

Peshitta (Syriac)                    And Nathan said to David, You are the man. Thus says the LORD God of Israel, I anointed you king over my people Israel and I delivered you out of the hands of Saul.

Septuagint (Greek)                And Nathan said to David, You are the man that has done this! Thus says the Lord God of Israel: I anointed you to be king over Israel, and I rescued you out the hand of Saul.

 

Significant differences:           The Greek adds a few words to the first thing that Nathan says. It was likely in the text which they used, but apparently not found in the Hebrew, Syriac or Latin today.

 

The Syriac appears to insert my people into what God says. The Syriac also seems to use the plural of hand.


Thought-for-thought translations; paraphrases:

 

CEV                                       Then Nathan told David: You are that rich man! Now listen to what the LORD God of Israel says to you: "I chose you to be the king of Israel. I kept you safe from Saul...

Easy English (Pocock)           Then Nathan said to David, `You have behaved like that rich man! The *Lord, the God of *Israel, says, "I *anointed you as king over *Israel. I rescued you from Saul.

Easy-to-Read Version            Then Nathan said to David, “You are that {rich} man! This is what the Lord God of Israel says: ‘I chose [Literally, "anointed," to pour a special oil on a person’s head to show that he was chosen by God to be a king, priest, or prophet.] you to be the king of Israel. I saved you from Saul.

Good News Bible (TEV)         "You are that man," Nathan said to David. "And this is what the LORD God of Israel says: 'I made you king of Israel and rescued you from Saul.

The Message                         "You're the man!" said Nathan. "And here's what GOD, the God of Israel, has to say to you: I made you king over Israel. I freed you from the fist of Saul.


Partially literal and partially paraphrased translations:

 

American English Bible          And Nathan said to David, `You are the man who did this. And this is what Jehovah the God of IsraEl says: I'm the One who anointed you to be king over IsraEl, and I'm the One who saved you from the hands of Saul.

NIRV                                      Then Nathan said to David, "You are the man! The Lord, the God of Israel, says, 'I anointed you king over Israel. I saved you from Saul's powerful hand.

New Jerusalem Bible             Nathan then said to David, 'You are the man! Yahweh, God of Israel, says this, "I anointed you king of Israel, I saved you from Saul's clutches,...

Revised English Bible            Nathan said to David, ‘You are the man! This is the word of the Lord the God of Israel to you. I anointed you king over Israel, I rescued you from the power of Saul.


Mostly literal renderings (with some occasional paraphrasing):

 

Bible in Basic English             And Nathan said to David, You are that man. The Lord God of Israel says, I made you king over Israel, putting holy oil on you, and I kept you safe from the hands of Saul;...

Complete Jewish Bible           Natan said to David, "You are the man. "Here is what ADONAI, the God of Isra'el says: 'I anointed you king over Isra'el. I rescued you from the power of Sha'ul.

JPS (Tanakh—1985)               And Nathan said to Dvid, “That man is you! Thus said the Lord, the God of Israel: ‘It was I who anointed you king over Israel and it was I who rescued you from the hand of Saul.

NET Bible®                             Nathan said to David, "You are that man! This is what the LORD God of Israel says: 'I chose [Heb "anointed."] you to be king over Israel and I rescued you from the hand of Saul.


Literal, almost word-for-word, renderings:

 

Concordant Literal Version    And Nathan said unto David, `You [are] the man! Thus said Yahweh, Elohim of Israel, I anointed you for king over Israel, and I delivered you out of the hand of Saul;"

English Standard Version      Nathan said to David, "You are the man! Thus says the LORD, the God of Israel, 'I anointed you king over Israel, and I delivered you out of the hand of Saul.

exeGeses companion Bible   And Nathan says to David, You are the man!

Thus says Yah Veh Elohim of Yisra El,

I anointed you sovereign over Yisra El

and I rescued you from the hand of Shaul;...

Heritage Bible                        And Nathan said to David, You are the man! Thus says Jehovah God of Israel, I anointed you king over Israel, and I snatched you out of the hand of Saul;...

KJV (Scofield)                        And Nathan said to David, Thou art the man. Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, I anointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul.

LTHB                                     And Nathan said to David, You are the man! So says Jehovah, the God of Israel, I anointed you as king over Israel, and I delivered you out of the hand of Saul.

Syndein                                  And Nathan said to David, "You . . . {are} the man!" {no verb because it is dramatic} Thus says Jehovah . . . 'Elohiym/Godhead of Israel, "I have anointed/appointed you {David} King of Israel and have delivered you out of the hand of Saul.".

Young’s Updated LT             And Nathan says unto David, “You are the man! Thus said Jehovah, God of Israel, I anointed You for king over Israel, and I delivered You out of the hand of Saul.

 

The gist of this verse:          Nathan tells David that he is this man; then he begins to speak for Jehovah, the God of Israel.


2Samuel 12:7a

Hebrew/Pronunciation

Common English Meanings

Notes/Morphology

BDB and Strong’s Numbers

wa (or va) (וַ) [pronounced wah]

and so, and then, then, and; so, that, yet, therefore, consequently; because

wâw consecutive

No Strong’s # BDB #253

ʾâmar (אָמַר) [pronounced aw-MAHR]

to say, to speak, to utter; to say [to oneself], to think

3rd person masculine singular, Qal imperfect

Strong’s #559 BDB #55

Nâthân (נָתָן) [pronounced naw-THAWN]

given; one who is given; transliterated Nathan

masculine singular, proper noun

Strong’s #5416 BDB #681

ʾel (אֶל) [pronounced ehl]

unto; into, among, in; toward, to; against; concerning, regarding; besides, together with; as to

directional preposition (respect or deference may be implied)

Strong's #413 BDB #39

Dâvid (דָּוִד); also Dâvîyd (דָּוִיד) [pronounced daw-VEED]

beloved and is transliterated David

masculine proper noun

Strong’s #1732 BDB #187


Translation: Then Nathan said to David,... Nathan will now turn this around on David, and allow David to see himself. We still have a preposition here which indicates respect or deference to David.


Nathan has allowed David to have his say and to pass legal judgment upon the rich man.


2Samuel 12:7b

Hebrew/Pronunciation

Common English Meanings

Notes/Morphology

BDB and Strong’s Numbers

ʾattâh (אַתָּה) [pronounced aht-TAW]

you (often, the verb to be is implied)

2nd person masculine singular, personal pronoun

Strong’s #859 BDB #61

ʾîysh (אִיש) [pronounced eesh]

a man, a husband; anyone; a certain one; each, each one, everyone

masculine singular noun with the definite article

Strong's #376 BDB #35


Translation:...“You [are] that man! The definite article may be reasonably translated that, this. There is no verb here. This indicates great power and great drama in what Nathan was saying. We might do the same thing with boldface and 3 exclamation marks.


Nathan is telling David that he is the rich man, whom David has just condemned. David thought, in his own arrogance, that this was hidden from everyone. He thought that no one was aware of his sin. He figured that he had committed this sin and hid it well from the public; and Nathan here exposes David as the one who steals the poor man’s ewe lamb.


Now, notice, there is no hint of self-righteousness in what Nathan says here. Nathan delivered an analogous situation, which David believed was a real situation; David then required very little thought in order to give his judgment in the matter. It is David who has judged himself. All Nathan does here is reveal to David what he has done, in an objective way.


Application: Whenever you are having a dispute with anyone, believer or unbeliever, stop for a moment and try to see your dispute from that person’s eyes. Certainly, there are crooks and liars out there; but take a moment and determine from that person’s point of view what it is he sees, and how he understands the situation. David fully understood the depths of his depravity because he stood back and look at this situation objectively (through Nathan’s guidance, of course).

 

J. Vernon McGee comments: What is David going to do? He is going to do something unusual, I can assure you of that. Dr. Margoliouth has said this: “When has this been done—before or since? Mary, Queen of Scots, would declare that she was above the law; Charles I would have thrown over Bathsheba; James II would have hired witnesses to swear away her character; Mohammed would have produced a revelation authorizing both crimes; Charles II would have publically abrogated the seventh commandment; Queen Elizabeth would have suspended Nathan.” Years ago, the Duke of Windsor would have give up his throne for her...David did not do any of these things. His actions will reveal his greatness. Footnote


2Samuel 12:7c

Hebrew/Pronunciation

Common English Meanings

Notes/Morphology

BDB and Strong’s Numbers

kôh (כֹּה) [pronounced koh]

so, thus, here, hence

adverb

Strong’s #3541 BDB #462

ʾâmar (אָמַר) [pronounced aw-MAHR]

to say, to speak, to utter; to say [to oneself], to think

3rd person masculine singular, Qal perfect

Strong’s #559 BDB #55

YHWH (יהוה) [pronunciation is possibly yhoh-WAH]

transliterated variously as Jehovah, Yahweh, Yehowah

proper noun

Strong’s #3068 BDB #217

ʾĚlôhîym (אלֹהִים) [pronounced el-o-HEEM]

God; gods, foreign gods, god; rulers, judges; superhuman ones, angels; transliterated Elohim

masculine plural construct

Strong's #430 BDB #43

Yiserâʾêl (יִשְׂרַאֵל) [pronounced yis-raw-ALE]

God prevails; contender; soldier of God; transliterated Israel

masculine proper noun

Strong’s #3478 & #3479 BDB #975


Translation: Thus says Yehowah, Elohim of Israel,... This ought to be a new verse, and/or this ought to be connected to what the Lord God actually says to David (through Nathan).. We are unaware of a portion of the mechanics here. Did God tell Nathan to say this? Is Nathan simply speaking extemporaneously through the power of the Spirit? Although I suspect the latter, we really don’t know. In any case, what is important is what God actually says to David through Nathan.


David, at this point, has turned around to see himself. That this was a parable is suddenly clear to David. The evil and viciousness of this rich man in the story is David himself, and he recognizes this. Now God can speak directly to him, through Nathan.


2Samuel 12:7d

Hebrew/Pronunciation

Common English Meanings

Notes/Morphology

BDB and Strong’s Numbers

ʾânôkîy (אָנֹכִי) [pronounced awn-oh-KEE]

I, me; (sometimes a verb is implied)

1st person singular personal pronoun

Strong’s #595 BDB #59

mâshach (מָשַח) [pronounced maw-SHAHKH]

to smear, to anoint

1st person singular, Qal perfect; with the 2nd person masculine singular suffix

Strong’s #4886 BDB #602

lâmed (לְ) [pronounced le]

to, for, towards, in regards to, with reference to, as to, with regards to; belonging to; by

directional/relational preposition

No Strong’s # BDB #510

The meanings of the lâmed preposition broken down into groups: ➊ to, towards, unto; it is used both to turn one’s heart toward someone as well as to sin against someone; ➋ to, even to;  in this sense, it can be used with a number to indicate the upper limit which a multitude might approach (nearly). ➌ Lâmed can be equivalent to the Greek preposition eis (εἰς), meaning into, as in transforming into something else, changing into something else (Gen. 2:7). This use of lâmed after the verb hâyâh (הָיָה) [pronounced haw-YAW] (Strong’s #1961 BDB #224) is one thing becoming another (Gen. 2:7). ➍  Its fourth use is the mark of a dative, after verbs of giving, granting, delivering, pardoning, consulting, sending, etc. This type of dative is broken down into several categories, but one includes the translation by, which would be apropos here. ➎ With regards to, as to. Similar to the Greek preposition eis (εἰς) plus the dative. [Numbering from Gesenius]. ➏ On account of, because, propter, used of cause and reason (propter means because; Gesenius used it). ➐ Concerning, about, used of a person or thing made the object of discourse, after verbs of saying. ➑ On behalf of anyone, for anyone. ➒ As applied to a rule or standard, according to, according as, as though, as if. ➓ When associated with time, it refers to the point of time at which or in which anything is done; or it can refer to the space of time during which something is done (or occurs); at the time of.

meleke (מֶלֶך׃) [pronounced MEH-lek]

king, ruler, prince

masculine singular noun

Strong’s #4428 BDB #572

ʿal (עַל) [pronounced ģahl]

upon, beyond, on, against, above, over; on the ground of, because of, according to, on account of, on behalf of, with, by, besides, in addition to, to, toward, together with, in the matter of, concerning, as regards to

preposition of proximity

Strong’s #5921 BDB #752

Yiserâʾêl (יִשְׂרַאֵל) [pronounced yis-raw-ALE]

God prevails; contender; soldier of God; transliterated Israel

masculine proper noun

Strong’s #3478 & #3479 BDB #975


Translation:...‘I anointed you as king over Israel... God begins reminding David of the powerful position which he holds. He is king over all Israel. God chose David when he was a young man—maybe 14 or 16 years of age—and anointed him as king over Israel. This is about 35 years ago. God is establishing David’s relationship to God and to Israel.


God is speaking to David in several ways. First of all, through the parable, God gets David to take an objective look at himself. Then God finds it necessary to remind David of their long-standing relationship which goes back to David when he is maybe 12 or 14 years old in 1Sam. 16. David needs to be taken back, and then brought up to speed with divine viewpoint.


2Samuel 12:7e

Hebrew/Pronunciation

Common English Meanings

Notes/Morphology

BDB and Strong’s Numbers

we (or ve) (וְ or וּ) [pronounced weh]

and, even, then; namely; when; since, that; though

simple wâw conjunction

No Strong’s # BDB #251

nâtsal (נָצַל) [pronounced naw-TSAHL]

to snatch away, to deliver, to rescue, to snatch out of danger, to preserve, to recover

1st person singular, Hiphil imperfect; with the 2nd person masculine singular suffix

Strong’s #5337 BDB #664

min (מִן) [pronounced min]

from, off, out from, out of, away from, on account of, since, than, more than

preposition of separation

Strong's #4480 BDB #577

yâd (יָד) [pronounced yawd]

hand

feminine singular construct

Strong's #3027 BDB #388

Yâd (יָד) [pronounced yawd] can connote power, strength, ability; control; leadership, guidance.

Shâʾûwl (ׂששָאוּל) [pronounced shaw-OOL]

which is transliterated Saul; it means asked for

masculine proper noun

Strong’s #7586 BDB #982


Translation: ...and I delivered you from the hand of Saul. Many times, King Saul tried to kill David. He was extremely jealous of David, and again and again; he became filled with mental attitude sins, and would then come after David, often bringing his personal army with him. Saul had all the power of his army behind him; he had some control over the media in that day as well—that is, he could make it seem as if David is a revolutionary, bound and determined to bring Saul down. Saul had many ways to get to David to kill him, and yet, he was never successful. That is clearly a testimony to God’s protection, which David enjoyed.


David is to look back, recognize that God anointed him king over Israel at a very young age; and God kept David safe from a mentally unbalanced Saul. We studied how God kept David safe in 1Sam. 18–31. David wrote at least one psalm about this (Psalm 18 inscription).


——————————


And so I give to you a house of your lord and women of your lord in your bosom; and so, I give to you a house of Israel and Judah. And if a little and I would add to you as these and as these.

2Samuel

12:8

I gave you the house of your lord and the women of your lord into your care [lit., bosom]; and I gave you the nation [lit., house] of Israel and Judah. And, if [this was too] little, then I would have added to you even more [lit., these (blessings) as well as those (blessings)].

I gave you the palace of your lord and placed his women into your care. Furthermore, I gave the nation of Israel and Judah to you. And if this were too little, then I would have added even more blessings to these.


Here is how others have translated this verse:


Ancient texts:

 

Latin Vulgate                          And gave you your master”s house and your master”s wives into your bosom, and gave you the house of Israel and Juda: and if these things be little, I will add far greater things unto you.

Masoretic Text (Hebrew)        And so I give to you a house of your lord and women of your lord in your bosom; and so, I give to you a house of Israel and Judah. And if a little and I would add to you as these and as these.

Peshitta (Syriac)                    And I gave you your master's daughters and your master's wives into your bosom, and I also gave you the daughters of Israel and of Judah; and if they were too few you should have told me, and I would have added to you twice that many.

Septuagint (Greek)                And I gave you the house of your master, and the wives of your master into your bosom, and I gave to you the house of Israel and Judah; and if that had been too little, I would have given you even more.

 

Significant differences:           The Syriac has daughters of your lord rather than house of your lord. The final sentence is difficult to translate, and even the Greek has 2 different pronouns at the end, instead of repeating the same pronoun. In all cases, it appears that the English translations seek to smooth out the meanings even more. The Syriac adds an additional phrase into the mix: you should have told me. Despite these differences, the gist of that final phrase is the same.


Thought-for-thought translations; paraphrases:

 

CEV                                       ///and even gave you his house and his wives. I let you rule Israel and Judah, and if that had not been enough, I would have given you much more.

Easy-to-Read Version            I let you take his family and his wives. And I made you king of Israel and Judah. As if that were not enough, I gave you more and more.

Good News Bible (TEV)         I gave you his kingdom and his wives; I made you king over Israel and Judah. If this had not been enough, I would have given you twice as much.

The Message                         I gave you your master's daughter and other wives to have and to hold. I gave you both Israel and Judah. And if that hadn't been enough, I'd have gladly thrown in much more.


Partially literal and partially paraphrased translations:

 

American English Bible          It was I who gave you the house of your lord and brought his wives to your chest. And I'm the One who gave you the house of IsraEl and Judah. and if you had remained faithful, I would have given you even more!

Ancient Roots Translinear      I gave you your lord's house, and your lord's women in your bosom. I gave you the house of Israel and of Judah; and if too little, I would add to ||those|| for you.

New American Bible              I gave you your lord's house and your lord's wives for your own. I gave you the house of Israel and of Judah. And if this were not enough, I could count up for you still more.

NIRV                                      I gave you everything that belonged to your master Saul. I even put his wives into your arms. I made you king over the people of Israel and Judah. And if all of that had not been enough for you, I would have given you even more.

New Jerusalem Bible             I gave you your master's household and your master's wives into your arms, I gave you the House of Israel and the House of Judah; and, if this is still too little, I shall give you other things as well.

New Simplified Bible              »‘I gave you his kingdom and his wives. Then I made you king over Israel and Judah. If this had not been enough, I would have given you twice as much.

Revised English Bible            I gave you your master’s daughter and his wives to be your own. I gave you the daughters of Israel and Judah; and, had this not been enough, I would have added other favours as well.


Mostly literal renderings (with some occasional paraphrasing):

 

Bible in Basic English             I gave you your master's daughter and your master's wives for yourself, and I gave you the daughters of Israel and Judah; and if that had not been enough, I would have given you such and such things.

Complete Jewish Bible           I gave you your master's house and your master's wives to embrace. I gave you the house of Isra'el and the house of Y'hudah. And if that had been too little, I would have added to you a lot more.

JPS (Tanakh—1985)               I gave you your master’s house and possession of your master’s wives; and I gave you the House of Israel and Judah; and if that were not enough, I would give you twice as much more.

NET Bible®                             I gave you your master's house, and put your master's wives into your arms [Heb "and the wives of your lord into your chest [or "lap"]." The words "I put" are supplied in the translation for stylistic reasons and for clarification.]. I also gave you the house of Israel and Judah. And if all that somehow seems insignificant, I would have given you so much more as well!

New Advent Bible                  ...and gave you your master's house and your master's wives into your bosom, and gave you the house of Israel and Juda: and if these things be little, I shall add far greater things unto you.


Literal, almost word-for-word, renderings:

 

American KJV                        And I gave you your master's house, and your master's wives into your bosom, and gave you the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given to you such and such things.

The Amplified Bible                And I gave you your master's house, and your master's wives into your bosom, and gave you the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would have added that much again.

Context Group Version          ...and I gave you your master's house, and your master's women { or wives } into your bosom, and gave you the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would have added to you such and such things.

English Standard Version      And I gave you your master's house and your master's wives into your arms and gave you the house of Israel and of Judah. And if this were too little, I would add to you as much more.

Hebrew Names Version         I gave you your master's house, and your master's wives into your bosom, and gave you the house of Yisra'el and of Yehudah; and if that would have been too little, I would have added to you many more such things.

Heritage Bible                        And I gave you your lord’s house, and I gave your lord’s wives into your bosom, and gave you the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that were too little, I would have added to you this and that..

NASB                                     'I also gave you (H)your master's house and your master's wives into your care, and I gave you the house of Israel and Judah; and if that had been too little, I would have added to you many more things like these!

New King James Version       I gave you your master's house and your master's wives into your keeping, and gave you the house of Israel and Judah. And if that had been too little, I also would have given you much more!

Syndein                                  "I {God} gave you the material possessions of your lord/master { 'adown} {Saul} and the wives of your lord/master { 'adown} to care for and I have given to you the house of Israel and Judah. And if all of this had been too little, I would have done even more for you to make you happy."

Young’s Updated LT             And I give to you the house of your lord, and the wives of your lord, into your bosom, and I give to you the house of Israel and of Judah; and if little, then I add to you such and such things.

 

The gist of this verse:          Speaking through Nathan, God tells David that He had given him the house and possessions of his lord, Saul; and He gave to David Israel and Judah. If that were not enough, God says He would have given more.


2Samuel 12:8a

Hebrew/Pronunciation

Common English Meanings

Notes/Morphology

BDB and Strong’s Numbers

wa (or va) (וַ) [pronounced wah]

and so, and then, then, and; so, that, yet, therefore, consequently; because

wâw consecutive

No Strong’s # BDB #253

nâthan (נָתַן) [pronounced naw-THAHN]

to give, to grant, to place, to put, to set; to make

1st person singular, Qal imperfect

Strong's #5414 BDB #678

lâmed (לְ) [pronounced le]

to, for, towards, in regards to, with reference to, as to, with regards to; belonging to; by

directional/relational preposition with the 2nd person masculine singular suffix

No Strong’s # BDB #510

ʾêth (אֶח) [pronounced ayth]

generally untranslated; occasionally to, toward

indicates that the following substantive is a direct object

Strong's #853 BDB #84

bayith (בַּיִת) [pronounced BAH-yith]

house, residence; household, habitation as well as inward

masculine singular construct

Strong's #1004 BDB #108

ʾâdôwn (אָדוֹן) [pronounced aw-DOHN]

lord, master, owner, superior, sovereign

masculine singular noun with the 2nd person masculine singular suffix

Strong’s #113 BDB #10

we (or ve) (וְ or וּ) [pronounced weh]

and, even, then; namely; when; since, that; though

simple wâw conjunction

No Strong’s # BDB #251

ʾêth (אֶח) [pronounced ayth]

generally untranslated; occasionally to, toward

indicates that the following substantive is a direct object

Strong's #853 BDB #84

ʾîshshâh (אִשָּה) [pronounced eesh-SHAW]

woman, wife

feminine plural construct

Strong's #802 BDB #61

ʾâdôwn (אָדוֹן) [pronounced aw-DOHN]

lord, master, owner, superior, sovereign

masculine singular noun with the 2nd person masculine singular suffix

Strong’s #113 BDB #10

be (בְּ) [pronounced beh]

in, into, through; at, by, near, on, upon; with, before, against; by means of; among; within

a preposition of proximity

No Strong’s # BDB #88

chêyq (חֵיק or חֵק) [pronounced khayk]

bosom, hollow [portion of a chariot], lower [bottom] [portion of the altar]; midst

masculine singular noun with the 2nd person masculine singular suffix

Strong’s #2436 BDB #300


Translation: I gave you the house of your lord and the women of your lord into your care [lit., bosom];... The first issue is the imperfect tense here, which indicates an ongoing action. God not only gave these things in the past, but He continues to give them.


What God gave to David involves figures of speech. God did not give to David the specific palace where Saul lived because Saul lived in a different city—he lived in Gibeah, which was in Benjamin. David lived in Jerusalem, which was near the border of Judah and Benjamin (in which tribe’s territory it was located depended upon the time). The point being, David may or may not have possessed the exact same house that Saul ruled from. The Old Testament does not even record a time when David went to Gibeah during his reign (although, he may well have). Hiram, the King of Tyre, built David a great palace in Jerusalem (2Sam. 5:11). Therefore, the house of David’s lord does not refer to the actual palace where Saul lived in Gibeah, but to the palace of the king, which is now in Jerusalem. God is not saying that, when David took over, the deed to Saul’s palace was also conveyed to him; we do not even know if this palace is still standing. Here, the house of your lord is a metonym for David’s possessions and responsibilities. Because he is king, he has all the things which a king would have. These things were not passed along to a son of Saul.


When I lived in California, Ronald Reagan had been elected governor, and, one of the perks was, he lived in the governor’s mansion. Governor Reagan had a new governor’s mansion built, so that he could be said to be given the mansion of the previous governor (Pat Brown?), even though he did not live in the previous governor’s mansion. Jerry Brown, the governor after Reagan, chose not to live in Reagan’s newly built mansion, but rented a place downtown so that he could walk to work.


Therefore, God giving David the house of his lord did not mean that God gave David the specific palace that Saul lived in, but the palace of the king, wherever David chose for that to be.


Understanding this helps to explain the second phrase (interestingly enough, many exegetes express confusion over only the second thing given David by God). So, the wives of Saul here (the wives [or, women] of your lord) are not literally Saul’s former wives (as far as I can recall, he had but one wife and one mistress). David, being the age of Saul’s sons, would not have been too interested in marrying any of Saul’s women. However, a privilege of a king is, culturally speaking, to have any woman in his kingdom (as we examined in the previous chapter, David had about 10 wives and 10 mistresses). Footnote


It appears as if God allowed David several wives, without disciplining him for it. However, God allowed David’s sexual arrogance to play out, which landed him in this particular jackpot (which we will be studying for about 10 chapters).


The house and the wives are the perks of being king. David did not have Saul’s specific palace and he did not have Saul’s former wives and mistresses; he had the palace and the wives of the king.


Now, if David took responsibility for Saul’s wife and mistress—assuming that they were still alive when David took power—we really don’t know. If we were to take this literally, David would be living in Saul’s former palace in Gibeah watching over Saul’s women. We know that the former is not true, in the strictest literal sense.


God is actually listing the many ways that David knows that this is God speaking to him (through Nathan). These things which God has done on David’s behalf would be seen as positive things. Let’s take that final phrase mst literally for a moment, and logically follow it out. Quite obviously, David did not look to be married to Saul’s wife or mistress, and there is certainly no recorded history of this occurring (apart from this verse). Part of having a wife is making certain that wife is taken care of for the rest of her life. Prior to marriage, the woman needs to ask herself, “Do I respect this man and am I willing to obey him?” The man is to look at the woman and say, “Am I willing to make certain that, no matter what comes to pass, that this women is taken care of? Will I take care of her just as I take care of my own body?” Seeing that your wife is taken care of for the rest of her life is both an honor and a responsibility. Saul, by making a series of bad decisions, died the sin unto death, and left his wife and mistress out in the lurch. There is the slight possibility that David, symbolic of his eventual triumph over Saul, took responsibility for these women, assuming that they were still alive.


So, for me, I can find good arguments on both sides of this—whether to take this final phrase as being absolutely literal or to simply understand that David, as king over all Israel, was simply given wives and mistresses.


God tells David: “I gave you the palace of your lord and placed his women into your care.” This leads us to the question, do we interpret this literally or figuratively. That is, did David really take Saul’s wife and mistress to take care of, or does this mean, David had the wives and mistresses of a king?

Do We Interpret 2Samuel 12:8a Literally or Figuratively?

David Literally Cared for Saul’s Women

David Was Simply Given Wives and Mistresses

Arguments in favor of each position:

Saul had at least one wife and one mistress. These would be called wives by God the Holy Spirit.

We ought to understand this as, David lives in the palace of the king and has the wives of the king, because he is king of all Israel.

Entrusting Saul’s wives in the care of David simply indicates that David was given the throne of Saul; his most precious possession—his wives—were under David’s care.

In this compound sentence, connected by a wâw conjunction, David does not literally live in Saul’s palace (which palace may or may not still exist). Therefore, he is not literally in charge of Saul’s wife and mistress.

The fact that this is mentioned nowhere else in the Bible does not mean it did not occur. Given David’s concern to take care of Saul’s family (2Sam. 9), this would be in keeping with his character; and David may have chosen to do this so that no one else knew about this except for a couple of servants and, of course, God.

Being given Saul’s wives, who are the age of David’s mother, would not be seen by some as a perk.

Saul, in his concern over the future of his wives, may have whisked them to a new safe location before going to war against the Philistines. Or, Saul may have had a contingency plan for his wives and family.

Given the Philistine invasion, it is very likely that these women are no longer even alive.

We know that Mizpah, Saul’s concubine, was still alive when David was amassing power, and had apparently hooked up with Abner (2Sam. 5:7–11). Since Abner was killed due to some political intrigue, that does leave her fate up in the air.

Apart from this one verse, we have no mention of David taking responsibility for these women.

In such a case, these would all still be alive. Again, we know that it would be in David’s nature to want to take care of these women, and yet do it without any fanfare.

 

In the ancient world, many marriages were political. A king giving his daughter to a man, often signified a place of great authority to that man. David was married to Michal (1Sam. 18:20), even though their relationship had become quite strained (2Sam. 6:20–23).

 

David’s son, who rebelled, will have sex with all of David’s mistresses, in order to indicate that he is now in charge (2Sam. 1 6:20–22).

 

We do know that Saul’s mistress was alive beyond his death and during David’s taking power. Now Saul had a concubine whose name was Rizpah, the daughter of Aiah. And Ish-bosheth said to Abner, "Why have you gone in to my father's concubine?" Then Abner was very angry over the words of Ish-bosheth and said, "Am I a dog's head of Judah? To this day I keep showing steadfast love to the house of Saul your father, to his brothers, and to his friends, and have not given you into the hand of David. And yet you charge me today with a fault concerning a woman. God do so to Abner and more also, if I do not accomplish for David what the LORD has sworn to him, to transfer the kingdom from the house of Saul and set up the throne of David over Israel and over Judah, from Dan to Beersheba." And Ish-bosheth could not answer Abner another word, because he feared him (2Sam. 5:7–11).

This certainly allows for the possibility that, David, as king, was given the deed to Saul’s palace, and that he restored the palace, and provided for the welfare of Saul’s still living wife and mistress there (whether they are alive at this time is another story).

When I read a verse in the Bible, I may tend to get overly concerned as to its interpretation, even though, whether we take this literally or not, may have no spiritual connotation. However, this is just the way my mind seems to work—whether this appears to be a spiritually significant point or not, I still have a desire to explore it, even if I come to a dead end.

Quite obviously both David and God understood whether to take this phrase literally or not. We may or may not have an opinion on this; but David, because of what God says here, knows that God is speaking to him through Nathan.

Since the word in this verse means women, then Saul’s daughter, Michal, would certainly be included; so, in her case, this verse is certainly to be taken literally. In order to take this verse completely literally, there would have been one other woman involved, which could have been Saul’s mistress or his other daughter. David would not necessarily have to marry either one; he would simply have to take care of them, which would have been in keeping with David’s graciousness (see 2Sam. 9).


Chapter Outline

Charts, Maps and Short Doctrines

 

This same question has obviously occurred to other theologians, e.g. Clarke, who wrote: Perhaps this means no more than that he had given him absolute power over every thing possessed by Saul; and as it was the custom for the new king to succeed even to the wives and concubines, the whole harem of the deceased king, so it was in this case; and the possession of the wives was a sure proof that he had got all regal rights. But could David, as the son-in-law of Saul, take the wives of his father-in-law? However, we find delicacy was seldom consulted in these cases; and Absalom lay with his own father’s wives in the most public manner, to show that he had seized on the kingdom, because the wives of the preceding belonged to the succeeding king, and to none other. Footnote

 

From the Geneva Bible: The Jews take this to be Eglah and Michal, or Rizpah and Michal. Footnote


[God is speaking to David through Nathan]: “I gave you the house of your lord and the women of your lord into your care.” There is a 3rd interpretation here. The house of your lord does not necessarily refer to a literal house, but to a dynasty. As the king over all Israel, Saul essentially has established a dynasty, and that his sons and their sons after him would be on the throne over Israel. This dynasty, because of Saul’s accumulated sins culminating in the sin unto death, was cut off, and when David became king, his descendants would rule over Israel. Saul’s dynasty was cut off (which is a part of the narrative at the beginning of 2Samuel).


As king, David was now responsible for all of the women in Israel. Women today in the United States take this for granted. We have not been invaded by another country for nearly 200 years, so the idea of this occurring is outside of the realm of the thinking of most women. It would not occur to them that here, in the United States, because of men, they are protected. However, our armed forces and all of the weaponry and all of the technology is primarily because of guidance of our leaders and primarily because of men. When one becomes president, he becomes responsible for the women of the land. This responsibility shifted from Saul over to David.


This particular interpretation solves the problem of God letting David have many wives—that is not really in view here, if God is speaking of David taking responsibility for all of the women of Israel. God cannot be understood, by this interpretation, to give David many wives, of this personal pleasure, even though ideally, one wife is the ideal. Furthermore, David violates this responsibility by taking Bathsheba. She is a woman who should be under his care. She should be able to look to David for protection. However, David violated her, a married women—a woman married to one of his greatest soldiers. She should have been able to look to David for protection under any circumstances, and yet he just used her to satisfy his own sexual desires.


Application: This is why it is heinous for teachers to sexually take advantage of their students. These children are placed in the care of that teacher; they are his or her responsibility for so many hours a week. The parents entrust their children to the school and the school then shifts this responsibility over to individual teachers. The teacher ought to be providing education, guidance, and direction to his students; he or she ought to be an example for his or her students. To do anything less violates a trust between the parents and teacher.


Application: When we look at a position of authority, we often think about the power of that position. We look at it and cannot wait until we start ordering people around or being able to fire someone that he have hated for a long time. However, more important than the power and authority is the responsibility which goes with a high position (in a company, a business, in a branch of the military, in a school, in government). Introspection is not necessary here; since we live in a democracy, we can look toward our Senator or Congressman or President, and determine, is this person there for the perks of power or is his sincere desire to do the will of the people, within the confines of his own beliefs? Is the job the result of a long-held desire to be in charge, or is it seen as a privilege and a responsibility? If you are a believer with any modicum of authority (including that of being a husband or a parent), then you must continually ask yourself these questions.


2Samuel 12:8b

Hebrew/Pronunciation

Common English Meanings

Notes/Morphology

BDB and Strong’s Numbers

wa (or va) (וַ) [pronounced wah]

and so, and then, then, and; so, that, yet, therefore; because

wâw consecutive

No Strong’s # BDB #253

nâthan (נָתַן) [pronounced naw-THAHN]

to give, to grant, to place, to put, to set; to make

1st person singular, Qal imperfect

Strong's #5414 BDB #678

lâmed (לְ) [pronounced le]

to, for, towards, in regards to, with reference to, as to, with regards to; belonging to; by

directional/relational preposition with the 2nd person masculine singular suffix

No Strong’s # BDB #510

ʾêth (אֶח) [pronounced ayth]

generally untranslated; occasionally to, toward

indicates that the following substantive is a direct object

Strong's #853 BDB #84

bayith (בַּיִת) [pronounced BAH-yith]

house, residence; household, habitation as well as inward

masculine singular construct

Strong's #1004 BDB #108

Yiserâʾêl (יִשְׂרַאֵל) [pronounced yis-raw-ALE]

God prevails; contender; soldier of God; transliterated Israel

masculine proper noun

Strong’s #3478 & #3479 BDB #975

we (or ve) (וְ or וּ) [pronounced weh]

and, even, then; namely; when; since, that; though

simple wâw conjunction

No Strong’s # BDB #251

Yehûwdâh (יְהוּדָה) [pronounced yehoo-DAW]

possibly means to praise, to be praised; and is transliterated Judah

masculine proper noun/location

Strong’s #3063 BDB #397


Translation: ...and I gave you the nation [lit., house] of Israel and Judah. This is David’s responsibility as well as his power. He has authority over both the north and the south (called Israel and Judah here), but, at the very same time, he has responsibility for all of these people—which responsibility he has ignored as king, over the past few years. His sexual lust—his sexual arrogance—has begun to take up more and more of his time on earth.


Application: We only have so much time on this earth, and when we spend this time lost in a downward degeneracy spiral (e.g., in sexual lust, in an alcohol or drug-induced stupor), we lose valuable time. We only have one chance to live this life; we have God’s plan, which He certain will reveal to us—which plan we will enjoy executing—and we have only so many minutes on this earth. Since we will enjoy the greatest blessing in God’s will, executing God’s plan, then we certainly do not want to spend hours each day out of fellowship, pursuing some lust, which lust will offer us no fulfillment whatsoever.


David’s responsibilities toward the people of Israel are multifarious and important. Part of the problem here is, David’s nation will break out into a civil war because of what he does here. A war on home soil—particularly a civil war—is unbelievably damaging to persons and property. David’s lack of discipline in the previous chapter, and his willingness to give into his lusts, will result in great pain and misery throughout Israel, because he is king. What David did in the previous chapter was only possible because he was king; the negative affect of what he did impacts all of Israel, because he is their king.


Application: The greater the authority that you have, the greater the responsibility which is yours; therefore, the greater the punishment God lays upon you for your missteps.


Israel and Judah were thought of as separate entities for quite awhile. David first had control of Judah as king (the southern kingdom) and then he had control of Israel (the northern kingdom), as mentioned in 2Sam. 5:5. One of the reasons that these 2 kingdoms were separate entities at times was, the Philistines used to always strike central Israel, which would split these two regions apart. There also seems to be a spiritual separation, where Judah tended to favor the Lord Who bought them, and the northern kingdom tended to go astray more often.


2Samuel 12:8c

Hebrew/Pronunciation

Common English Meanings

Notes/Morphology

BDB and Strong’s Numbers

we (or ve) (וְ or וּ) [pronounced weh]

and, even, then; namely; when; since, that; though

simple wâw conjunction

No Strong’s # BDB #251

ʾîm (אִם) [pronounced eem]

if, though; lo, behold; oh that, if only; when, since, though

primarily an hypothetical particle

Strong's #518 BDB #49

meʿaţ (מְעַט) [pronounced me-ĢAHT]

a little, fewness, few

masculine singular noun

Strong’s #4592 BDB #589

BDB lists this as a substantive; Owen as an adverb in Judges 4:19.

we (or ve) (וְ or וּ) [pronounced weh]

and; even; in particular, namely; when, since, seeing, though; then

simple wâw conjunction

No Strong’s # BDB #251

The wâw conjunction is used as ➊ a simple copulative, used to connect words and sentences, in which case it is usually rendered and. ➋ It can be used to explain one noun or clarify one noun with another, in which case it is rendered even or yea (see Job 5:19 Dan. 4:10). ➌ The wâw conjunction can introduce two nouns, where the first is the genus and the second is the species; in which case, we would render it and particularly, and specially, and namely, and specifically (and it can be used the other way as well) (see 2Kings 23:2 Psalm 18:1 Isa. 1:1 2:1 Zech. 14:21). ➍ It can be prefixed to a verb also by way of explanation; it could be reasonably rendered as a relative pronoun (who, which) (see Gen. 49:25 Job 29:12 Isa. 13:14). ➎ It can be used to begin an apodosis (the then portion of an if...then... statement) (see Gen. 2:4, 5 40:9 48:7). ➏ It is used between words and sentences in order to compare them or to mark their resemblance (1Sam. 12:15 Job 5:7). ➐ When doubled, it can mean both...and... (Num. 9:14 Joshua 7:24 Psalm 76:7). ➑ It can be prefixed to adversative sentences or clauses and rendered but, and yet, although, otherwise (Gen. 2:17 15:2 17:20 Judges 16:15 Ruth 1:21 Job 15:5 6:14). ➒ And, what we were after, is the wâw conjunction can be used in disjunctive sentences; that is, it can be rendered or (which will help us to understand what Jephthah does) (Ex. 21:17 Lev. 5:3 Deut. 24:7). ➓ Finally, the wâw conjunction can be used before causal sentences and rendered because, for, that, in that (Gen. 18:32 30:27 Psalm 5:12 60:13); before conclusions or inferences, and therefore rendered so that, therefore, wherefore (2Kings 4:41 Isa. 3:14 Ezek. 18:32 Zech. 2:10); and before final and consecutive sentences, which mark an end or an object: in order that (Gen. 42:34 Job 20:10 Isa. 13:2). To paraphrase Gesenius, frequently, it is put after verbs and sentences standing absolutely, especially those which imply time or condition and is reasonably rendered then. Footnote

yâçaph (יָסַף) [pronounced yaw-SAHPH]

to add, to augment, to increase, to multiply; to add to do = to do again; to continue to

1st person singular, Hiphil imperfect with the voluntative hê

Strong's #3254 BDB #414

lâmed (לְ) [pronounced le]

to, for, towards, in regards to, with reference to, as to, with regards to; belonging to; by

directional/relational preposition with the 2nd person masculine singular suffix

No Strong’s # BDB #510

kaph or ke (כְּ) [pronounced ke]

like, as, just as; according to; about, approximately

preposition of comparison or approximation

No Strong’s # BDB #453

hênnâh (הֵנָּה) [pronounced hayn-nawh]

they, those; these [with the definite article]

3rd person feminine plural personal pronoun

Strong’s #2007 BDB #241

we (or ve) (וְ or וּ) [pronounced weh]

and, even, then; namely; when; since, that; though

simple wâw conjunction

No Strong’s # BDB #251

kaph or ke (כְּ) [pronounced ke]

like, as, just as; according to; about, approximately

preposition of comparison or approximation

No Strong’s # BDB #453

When the kaph preposition is doubled, it should be rendered as...and as, as...so; how...thus; as well...as.

hênnâh (הֵנָּה) [pronounced hayn-nawh]

they, those; these [with the definite article]

3rd person feminine plural personal pronoun

Strong’s #2007 BDB #241


Translation: And, if [this was too] little, then I would have added to you even more [lit., these (blessings) as well as those (blessings)]. Although a word-for-word translation here is hard to understand, what is being said is fairly easy to get. God would have been willing to give David even more than He did.


God has given us far more than we can imagine. His greatest gift to us is, of course, His Son. He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, how will he not also with him graciously give us all things? (Rom. 8:32).


Now, you may wonder—if only God had given David more wives and mistresses; maybe he would not be so likely to roam. That is simply not the case. Some men have one wife and this is their only sexual partner for life; and they both enjoy sex, qualitatively and quantitatively; whereas, there are men who make a full-time occupation of chasing skirt Footnote , and they are frustrated, continually lustful, and without the slightest interest in the woman on their arm. Solomon will have 1000 wives and mistresses, and still, he chased after the woman in Song of Solomon, and was quite frustrated because he did not know her love. It is easier to be faithful to one woman than it is to 10. The key is not the physical attraction, but the soul coalescence.


David’s final relationship, with Bathsheba, will develop into a soul coalescence. Because of this, David will develop a relationship with their sons and actually bring them up as a father ought to. Because of David’s good relationship with his son, Solomon, we will have the books of Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Song of Solomon. Because David was a lousy father to the sons of his earlier marriages, Israel will fall into a civil war. He did not have a soul-to-soul relationship with his wives and mistresses; and he did not have a soul-to-soul relationship with their children by him. He may have felt emotional about them; he may have like these women and children from time to time; but David’s soul was not engaged with their souls, and so his children went astray.


As an aside, this is why male homosexuals do not tend to have lifetime relationships—God designed for the souls of the man and the woman to coalesce in the same way that their bodies fit together. Therefore, it is much more likely that a man and a woman to form a partnership which lasts their entire lifetimes. The key is the coalescence of souls, not being attracted to one’s partner’s body. Two male souls can coalesce in friendship (as can two female souls), but they do not coalesce in the kind of love that there can be between a man and a woman.


Although most English translations do not format this as such, but there appears to be an element of poetry in what God says to David in 2Sam. 12:7b–8.

What God Has Given David

Thus speaks Jehovah, the God of Israel:

‘I anointed you as king over all Israel and I delivered you out of the hand of Saul.

I gave you the palace of your lord and placed his women into your care.

Furthermore, I gave the nation of Israel and Judah to you.

And if this were too little, then I would have added even more blessings to these.

David was given more than any of his contemporaries; on top of these things, for much of his life, David had inner happiness and peace.


Chapter Outline

Charts, Maps and Short Doctrines


——————————


God will now hit David right between the eyes with his sins. In v. 9, God will clearly lay out David’s wrongdoing.


Why have you despised a word of Yehowah to do the evil in His eyes? Uriah the Hittite you have struck down in the sword; and his woman you seized to yourself to a woman; and him you have slain in a sword of sons of Ammon.

2Samuel

12:9

Why have you despised the Word of Yehowah to do evil in His eyes? You struck down Uriah the Hittite with the sword. You seized for yourself his wife to [be your] wife. You killed him with the sword of the sons of Ammon.

Why have you despised and disobeyed the Word of Jehovah by doing this evil in His sight? You struck down Uriah the Hittite with a sword. You seized his wife for yourself and made her your wife. You killed him with the sword of the Ammonites.


Here is how others have translated this verse:


Ancient texts:

 

Latin Vulgate                          Why therefore have you despised the word of the Lord, to do evil in My sight? You have killed Urias the Hethite with the sword, and have taken his wife to be your wife, and have slain him with the sword of the children of Ammon.

Masoretic Text (Hebrew)        Why have you despised a word of Yehowah to do the evil in His eyes? Uriah the Hittite you have struck down in the sword; and his woman you seized to yourself to a woman; and him you have slain in a sword of sons of Ammon.

Peshitta (Syriac)                    Why have you despised the commandment of the LORD and have done that which is evil in the sight of the LORD? You have killed Uriah the Hittite with the sword and have taken his wife to be your wife and have slain him with the sword of the Ammonites.

Septuagint (Greek)                Why have you despised the word of the Lord, to do that which is evil in His eyes? You have slain Uriah the Hittite with the sword, and you have taken his wife to be your wife, and you have slain him with the sword of the children of Ammon.

 

Significant differences:           The Syriac has commandment instead of word. The original Hebrew text reads the evil, rather than that which is evil (the Greek actually matches the Hebrew word-for-word here; I do not know about the Syriac). The Latin has, inexplicable, my sight rather than his sight.

 

The Hebrew reads to yourself to wife; which is reasonably shortened to to be your wife (it does match word-for-word in the Greek). In the final phrase, the English translation of the Syriac leaves off sons of. In both of those cases, I did the same thing in order to smooth out the translation.


Thought-for-thought translations; paraphrases:

 

CEV                                       Why did you disobey me and do such a horrible thing? You murdered Uriah the Hittite by having the Ammonites kill him, so you could take his wife.

Easy English (Pocock)           But you did this evil thing. So, you acted as if God's law has no value. You killed Uriah the *Hittite by the sword of the *Ammonites. Then you took his wife for yourself.

Easy-to-Read Version            So why did you ignore the Lord’s command? Why did you do the thing which he says is wrong? You let the Ammonites kill Uriah the Hittite, and you took his wife. In this way, you killed Uriah with a sword.

Good News Bible (TEV)         Why, then, have you disobeyed my commands? Why did you do this evil thing? You had Uriah killed in battle; you let the Ammonites kill him, and then you took his wife!.

The Message                         So why have you treated the word of GOD with brazen contempt, doing this great evil? You murdered Uriah the Hittite, then took his wife as your wife. Worse, you killed him with an Ammonite sword!

New Century Version             So why did you ignore the Lord's command? Why did you do what he says is wrong? You killed Uriah the Hittite with the sword of the Ammonites and took his wife to be your wife!

New Life Bible                        Why have you hated the Word of the Lord by doing what is bad in His eyes? You have killed Uriah the Hittite with the sword. You have taken his wife to be your wife. You have killed him with the sword of the sons of Ammon.

New Living Translation           Why, then, have you despised the word of the Lord and done this horrible deed? For you have murdered Uriah the Hittite with the sword of the Ammonites and stolen his wife.


Partially literal and partially paraphrased translations:

 

American English Bible          So, why have you treated the word of Jehovah as worthless by doing this wicked thing in His eyes? For, you cut down UriAh the Hittite with the broadsword and took his wife as yours, because, when the sons of AmMon killed him, it was you who really killed him.

Ancient Roots Translinear      Why despise the word of Yahweh by doing evil in his eyes? You smote Uriah the Central-Syrian with the sword, took his woman as your woman, and slew him with the sword of the sons of Amman.

God’s Word                         Why did you despise my word by doing what I considered evil? You had Uriah the Hittite killed in battle. You took his wife as your wife. You used the Ammonites to kill him.

New American Bible              Why have you spurned the LORD and done evil in his sight? You have cut down Uriah the Hittite with the sword; you took his wife as your own, and him you killed with the sword of the Ammonites.

NIRV                                      " 'Why did you turn your back on what I told you to do? You did what is evil in my sight. You made sure that Uriah, the Hittite, would be killed in battle. You took his wife to be your own. You let the men of Ammon kill him with their swords.

New Simplified Bible              »‘Why have you disobeyed my commands? Why did you do this evil thing? You had Uriah killed in battle! You let the Ammonites kill him. Then you took his wife!.

Revised English Bible            Why then have you flouted the Lord’s word by doing what is wrong in my eyes? You have struck down Uriah the Hittite with the sword; the man himself you murdered by the sword of the Ammonites, and you have stolen his wife.


Mostly literal renderings (with some occasional paraphrasing):

 

Bible in Basic English             Why then have you had no respect for the word of the Lord, doing what is evil in his eyes? You have put Uriah the Hittite to death with the sword, and have taken his wife to be your wife; you have put him to death with the sword of the children of Ammon.

Complete Jewish Bible           "'So why have you shown such contempt for the word of ADONAI and done what I see as evil? You murdered Uriyah the Hitti with the sword and taken his wife as your own wife; you put him to death with the sword of the people of 'Amon.

HCSB                                     Why then have you despised the command of the LORD by doing what I consider evil? You struck down Uriah the Hittite with the sword and took his wife as your own wife--you murdered him with the Ammonite's sword.

NET Bible®                             Why have you shown contempt for the word of the LORD by doing evil in my [So the Qere; the Kethib has "his."] sight? You have struck down Uriah the Hittite with the sword and you have taken his wife as your own [Heb "to you for a wife." This expression also occurs at the end of v. 10.]! You have killed him with the sword of the Ammonites.


Literal, almost word-for-word, renderings:

 

Context Group Version          Why have you ignored YHWH, to do that which is evil in his eyes? You have struck Uriah the Hittite with the sword, and have taken his woman { or wife } to be your woman { or wife }, and have slain him with the sword of the sons of Ammon.

exeGeses companion Bible   Why despise you the word of Yah Veh

to work evil in his eyes?

You smote Uri Yah the Hethiy with the sword

and took his woman to be your woman

and slaughtered him with the sword

by the sons of Ammon:

Modern KJV                           Why have you despised the Word of Jehovah, to do evil in His sight? You have stricken Uriah the Hittite with the sword, and have taken his wife to be your wife, and have killed him with the sword of the sons of Ammon.

New King James Version       Why have you despised the commandment of the LORD, to do evil in His sight? You have killed Uriah the Hittite with the sword; you have taken his wife to be your wife, and have killed him with the sword of the people of Ammon.

Syndein                                  "Why do you 'regard with contempt'/reject the word/'doctrinal communication {dabar} of Jehovah/God, by doing what is evil in His eyes?" "You have murdered Uriah the Hittite by means of the sword, you have taken to yourself his wife . . . {to become} {now} your wife {means David has stolen her from Uriah via his murder}! You have sacrificed/slaughtered him {Uriah} by means of the sword of the soldiers/sons of Amon {terrorists}."

Young’s Updated LT             Why have You despised the word of Jehovah, to do the evil thing in His eyes? Uriah the Hittite You have struck down by the sword, and his wife You have taken to You for a wife, and him You have slain by the sword of the Bene-Ammon.

 

The gist of this verse:          Nathan asks David “Why have you despised the Word of the Lord to do evil in His eyes?” Then Nathan spells out what David did: he had Uriah the Hittite killed so that he could take his wife Bathsheba as his own.


2Samuel 12:9a

Hebrew/Pronunciation

Common English Meanings

Notes/Morphology

BDB and Strong’s Numbers

madduʿa (מַדֻּעַ) [pronounced mah-DOO-ahģ]

why, wherefore, on what account, and it is probably a contraction of a word which means what being known

adverb

Strong’s #4069 BDB #396

bâzâh (בָּזָה) [pronounced baw-ZAW]

to despise, to regard with contempt, to hold in contempt

2nd person masculine singular, Qal perfect

Strong’s #959 BDB #102

ʾêth (אֶח) [pronounced ayth]

generally untranslated; occasionally to, toward

indicates that the following substantive is a direct object

Strong's #853 BDB #84

dâbâr (דָּבָר) [pronounced dawb-VAWR]

word, saying, doctrine, thing, matter, command

masculine singular construct

Strong's #1697 BDB #182

YHWH (יהוה) [pronunciation is possibly yhoh-WAH]

transliterated variously as Jehovah, Yahweh, Yehowah

proper noun

Strong’s #3068 BDB #217

lâmed (לְ) [pronounced le]

to, for, towards, in regards to, with reference to, as to, with regards to; belonging to; by

directional/relational preposition

No Strong’s # BDB #510

ʿâsâh (עָשָֹה) [pronounced ģaw-SAWH]

to do, to make, to construct, to fashion, to form, to prepare, to manufacture

Qal infinitive construct

Strong's #6213 BDB #793

raʿ (רַע) [pronounced rahģ]

evil, bad, wicked; evil in appearance, deformed; misery, distress, injury; that which is displeasing [disagreeable, unhappy, unfortunate, sad]

masculine singular noun with the definite article

Strong’s #7451 BDB #948

be (בְּ) [pronounced beh]

in, into, at, by, near, on, with, before, against, by means of, among, within

a preposition of proximity

No Strong’s # BDB #88

ʿayin (עַיִן) [pronounced ĢAH-yin]

 spring, fountain; eye, spiritual eyes

feminine plural noun with the 3rd person masculine singular suffix

Strong’s #5869 (and #5871) BDB #744

This phrase is literally in their eyes, but it can be translated in his opinion, in his estimation, to his way of thinking, as he sees [it].


Translation: Why have you despised the Word of Yehowah to do evil in His eyes? God set up His Law, and David knew this Law. We figured this out when David unsuccessfully tried to move the Ark of God, and then, later, figured out how to properly move it. That required a study of the Word of God. Therefore, David knew that what he was doing was wrong—it was completely against the Word of God. We know that David knows the Word of God, because he correctly determined the proper punishment for the rich man who stole the poor man’s ewe lamb, back in v. 6. Furthermore, most men could figure out that doing what David did was simply wrong.


To be specific, David has broken the 10th commandment, and has desired to take for himself his neighbor’s wife. Then David committed adultery with this woman, breaking the 6th commandment; and then he had her husband killed, breaking the 7th commandment. David is fully aware of these commandments.


Application: Societies and cultures tend to grow and develop norms and standards which the culture more or less agrees to. So a thief in one culture had his hand cut off; in another culture, that is seen as barbaric. In one culture, homosexuals are executed; in others they are even celebrated. This identify develops within smaller sized communities, where one may accept and even see value in having homeless people (most of whom are homeless due to alcohol and/or drug abuse). Nearby communities may see various people laying in the streets as a nuisance to be eliminated. You have no doubt heard, dozens of times, that you can’t legislate morality. However, this is what law is—a community develops norms and standards and codifies these norms and standards into law. So, the laws of a community reflect their norms and standards, which is, their morality. Therefore, in some countries, pornography of all sorts is available (under the concept of freedom of speech); but, in that same country, like Canada, quoting certain Bible verses is illegal.


God looks at a nation as a collective body and judges it in this way. We do this all of the time. We might want to go and visit Australia or Thailand, but have little interest in vision Iran, despite the fact that there are certain evil and unpleasant people in Australia and Thailand, and that there are certain some interesting people in Iran. We view countries as corporate entities, and we have opinions of these countries as a collective whole.


I mention this because, what David does, as king of the country, has an impact on the rest of the country. President Bill Clinton, whether you liked him or did not like him, had an effect on the morality of our country when it came to his affair with Monica Lewinski. This literally changed the United States as a national entity just as much as any legislation which he signed into law. This is why a national head of state has a good deal more responsibility does Charley Brown, citizen. David’s actions will affect the entire country; some will become more self-righteous because of what he has done; some will become more immoral, using David’s actions as an excuse. Because of David’s position as king, his sins have a far greater effect upon the country.


As has been suggested in the study of the previous chapter, these things which David did are probably the basis for the rebellion against him.


Application: As a believer in Jesus Christ, you are an ambassador for Him, and your behavior is an issue to God. People who know that you are a Christian look at your actions, and they may dismiss Christianity because they know who you are. In a congregation, the pastor-teacher has even greater responsibility. First of all, he is dealing with 20, or 200 or 2000 people who oscillate between the control of the sin nature and the control of the Holy Spirit; these same people find themselves in the midst of the Angelic Conflict, and are often subject to demonic attacks because of this. Therefore, an act of immorality on the part of a pastor-teacher would be like setting off a grenade in the middle of the congregation.


2Samuel 12:9b

Hebrew/Pronunciation

Common English Meanings

Notes/Morphology

BDB and Strong’s Numbers

ʾêth (אֶח) [pronounced ayth]

generally untranslated; occasionally to, toward

indicates that the following substantive is a direct object

Strong's #853 BDB #84

ʾÛwrîyyâh (אוּרִיָּה) [pronounced oo-ree-YAW]

flame of Yah; my light is Yah and is transliterated Uriah

masculine singular proper noun

Strong’s #223 BDB #22

Also spelled ʾÛwrîyyâhûw (אוּרִיָּהוּ) [pronounced oo-ree-YAW-hoo].

Chittîy (חִתִּי) [pronounced khiht-TEE]

a descendant of Heth; transliterated Hittite

gentilic adjective; with the definite article

Strong’s #2850 BDB #366

nâkâh (נָכָה) [pronounced naw-KAWH]

to smite, to assault, to hit, to strike, to strike [something or someone] down, to defeat, to conquer, to subjugate

2nd person masculine singular, Hiphil perfect

Strong #5221 BDB #645

be (בְּ) [pronounced beh]

in, into, at, by, near, on, with, before, against, by means of, among, within

a preposition of proximity

No Strong’s # BDB #88

chereb (חֶרֶב) [pronounced khe-REBV]

sword, knife, dagger; any sharp tool

feminine singular noun with the definite article

Strong’s #2719 BDB #352


Translation: You struck down Uriah the Hittite with the sword. Nathan makes it very clear that, what David did was personally kill Uriah the Hittite, one of his greatest soldiers. It does not matter that David did ths by order and put it in the hands of Joab to carry out, where Uriah’s death was by many Ammonite soldiers—it was as if David personally killed Uriah himself.


United States law is very similar here. If you attempt to set up a contract with someone else to kill an enemy of yours, even if that person is an agent of law enforcement and not a criminal, you can be prosecuted as if you had attempted to murder someone face to face. Although this may involve different statutes, the penalties are quite similar.


David’s crime is recorded in 2Sam. 11:14–17.


2Samuel 12:9c

Hebrew/Pronunciation

Common English Meanings

Notes/Morphology

BDB and Strong’s Numbers

we (or ve) (וְ or וּ) [pronounced weh]