2S12-11: What The Rabbis Saw In This Verse That Christianity Misses Completely

“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.”-2 Samuel 12:4

Today, I wanna take a midrashic approach to verse 4 in 2nd Samuel Chapter 12.

I’m gonna be referencing the Talmud in this article…

Specifically, I’ll be going to Midrash Shmuel and Midrash Tanchuma.

Echoes of what I’ll be discussing are also reflected in Sanhedrin 91a and Sukkah 52b.

First, let’s take a look at Sukkah 52b.

Here’s the original Hebrew followed by the English translation:

אמר רבא: בתחילה קרוי הלך, ולבסוף קרוי אורח, ולבסוף קרוי איש

“Rava said: Initially, it (the evil inclination) is called a ‘wayfarer’ (הלך), then it is called a ‘guest’ (אורח), and finally, it is called a ‘man’ (איש).”

So, according to the Jewish sages, this refers to the traveler who visited the rich man in Natan’s story.

He first appears as a wayfarer or a HELEK.

Then he becomes a visitor or an ARACH.

Finally, he becomes a man or an ISH.

Now, some explanation is needed here.

Although the term ISH means a man…

The intention here is to refer to a “master of one’s domain.”

In the male-dominated Biblical era, this could only be referring to a man…

Since it was men who were the heads of the household and responsible for carrying out God’s commands.

This goes back to the Garden of Eden when Adam was instructed to take dominion over the earth.

So whenever we come across the words “man” and “woman” or ISH and ISHAH in the Scriptures…

Understand that the meaning goes far beyond a basic biological gender definition.

Rather, those words refer to the Biblically assigned roles that a man and a woman were expected to fulfill in their lives.

With that in mind, let’s move on to the interpretation.

So, in the context of Natan’s parable:

The wayfarer represents the initial, seemingly innocuous temptation…

The guest signifies the temptation’s growing influence…

The man denotes the point at which the temptation has taken full control…

In other words, this allegory serves as a cautionary tale about the insidious nature of sin and the importance of vigilance against the evil inclination or YETZER HARA that lies resident in all human beings.

So, let’s apply this to David’s situation.

The guest is the evil desire that took over David.

The little lamb is Bathsheba.

David is the rich man…

And Uriah is the poor man who had almost nothing.

However, notice Nathan never says the rich man killed the poor man.

Why?

Because if he had, David would’ve put two and two together.

He would’ve said to himself…

“Wait a minute… this sounds like me!”

And then he would’ve never confessed to his guilt.

Nathan was clever.

He told the story so the lesson sank in before David realized it was about him.

The takeaway here is as clear as day.

The rabbinic Midrash emphasizes the subtlety with which the evil inclination can infiltrate and eventually dominate a person’s actions.

It always starts as an innocent visitor…

Then becomes a guest who we unwittingly invite into our home…

Finally, it becomes the master of our domain.

How much better to never have invited the visitor into our home in the first place!

Ya feel me?

See ya all next time.