02. The Ewe Lamb
PARABLES OF FANCY
Within the category of parables of fancy there come visionary and imaginary descriptions which are directly capable of a higher interpretation and which were first recounted for the purpose of conveying such a message.
Stories which are obviously visionary in the sense that they are merely illustrations or are unrelated to the circumstances of the listener or to a general law of human life which requires to be brought home, must be discarded. There are many stories which prompt us to ask ’ what these things mean ’ but which fall short of our standard and definition of an Old Testament Parable, e.g. the Good and Bad Figs (Jer 24:1-10.), the Two Harlots (Eze 23:1-49.), the Boiling Pot (Eze 24:3-5), the Vision of Dry Bones (Eze 37:1-28.), and the visions in the books of Amos and Zechariah. Narratives like those of the Linen Waist-Cloth (Jer 13:1-11) and the Potter (Jer 18:1-1 o) are included among parables of fancy. The foregoing classification of the narratives into parables of fact, fable and fancy gets rid of difficulties created and suggested by our English varieties of figures of speech, and gives us the privilege to concentrate our thoughts upon the parables rather than upon the dialectical discussion as to what constitutes a parable. We shall accept the principle that in the parables “ we lay one kind of action in one sphere alongside another kind of action in another sphere and illustrate the one by the other “ (McCartney, The Parables of the Old Testament}. This will fulfil the simple meaning of the word ’ Mashal,’ which meant primarily “ the setting of one thing beside another “ for the purpose of comparison. By means of that comparison there will appear the lessons and higher principles or spiritual truths which prompted the narration of the stories.
“THERE were two men in one city one rich and the other poor. The rich man had very abundant small cattle and large cattle; but the poor man had totally nothing save one little ewe lamb which he had bought. He nourished it and it grew up together with him and his sons.
It used to eat of his own morsel of bread and drink from his own cup. It lay in his bosom and was as a daughter to him. To the rich man there came a visitor and he was chary to take from his own small cattle or his own large cattle to prepare for the wayfarer that was come unto him; but he took the poor man’s ewe lamb and prepared it for the man that was come unto him.” 2Sa 12:1-4. As an illustration of the narratives of fact the simple words of the above story are very suitable.
They present what might well have had a basis in some recent incident, and their reality so impressed their original hearer that he accepted them as fact. To read the story to-day in its direct and terse sentences awakes in every heart an intense feeling of anger against the rich man and of deepest sympathy towards the poor man.
Quite apart from its parabolic interpretation the story makes its appeal, but when linked to the episode of which it is a parable it opens up an approach to a part of Scripture history in which is found a monstrous depth of iniquity over and against which are set the wrath and mercy of God. By its means the tragedy of David’s spiritual and moral life is not only clearly portrayed and condemned but its consequences are revealed and a moral lesson is taught. The closing verse of Chapter xi is the key to the incident “ But the thing that David had done displeased the Lord.” From his lowly shepherd life God had taken David and steadily advanced him in wisdom, honour and power. In the field of battle he had been victorious. As a king he ruled a united and prosperous people. As a man he was surrounded by every luxury and opportunity for self-indulgence which any man of that time could wish. By the law of succession he owned Saul’s harem in addition to his own wife and concubines, yet it was just in this wealth of opportunity to satisfy his passions that David revealed his selfishness, a selfishness that culminated in a most despicable crime. We may wonder why such a story is told in the Bible, more so as it relates to a man who was renowned for his love of God and his zeal for righteousness.
We ought, however, to appreciate the truth and sincerity of the Bible in being so faithful in depicting human sin and weakness where even a holy man may be so fallen in iniquity that conscience and remorse are almost stifled.
After his throne was made secure and he had almost completed the overthrow of all his foes, David was ensnared by success and idleness. Not far from his palace he beheld a brave soldier’s wife whose person his lust immediately desired and acquired. Her husband, Uriah the Hittite, was with the army, and verses 8-12 of Chapter xi suggest that Uriah returned to find his wife defiled and his home devastated.
Aware of his adultery’s consequence, David now coveted Uriah’s wife, and to accomplish this purpose he planned Uriah’s death. A letter was sent to the army commander, Joab, to put Uriah where he would be slain in battle a sad defection in David’s character from the David who despised the wickedness and blood-thirsty acts of Joab. After the death of Uriah, upon whom he had treacherously lavished false hospitality, David took the widow, Bathsheba, to be his wife “ but the thing that David had done displeased the Lord,” and God sent the prophet Nathan to speak unto the king. The faith, courage, tact and sympathy of the man of God are alike commendable. Though his errand is unpleasant he does not seek to evade it. By choice selection of his words he leads the king to pronounce judgment upon a man whom he has not suspected to be himself. When the crisis is reached, the king condemned, and confession of his wrong made in abjectest desolation of soul, then Nathan speaks comfortingly of the mercy of God to the sinner though the sin must bear its own fruit. In the parable itself there is no direct reference to or indication of the sin committed by David.
Impurity and adultery are not suggested and there is no trace of murderous intent against anyone. Nor is there even the slightest hint of any responsibility to God. The facts are such that no one can read them unmoved.
Low as he has sunk, David is aroused, his better nature responds and the heart that was once so pure, loving and compassionate pulsates with such a horror of the deed that he exceeds the usual punishment for theft by condemning the guilty not only to restore fourfold (some readings put it l sevenfold ’) which was the customary punishment, but to death also. This may be due to a certain restlessness which had come into his life following upon his evil deeds. Under a long spell of uneasiness in conscience the temper is easily ruffled and irritation may lead to excess and rash judgment or action.
Nathan’s words are carefully selected. It is important that we read ’ small cattle ’ and ’ large cattle ’ for ’ flocks ’ and ’ herds ’ because the significance of the rich man’s abundance is thus made more evident. He might have taken from his own small cattle if he needed only a small beast, but if he wished to do special honour to his visitor then there were the herds of large cattle. David was under no necessity to seek a woman outside his own house where he had wives in abundance. The lamb’s nature is described minutely and we cannot overlook the possibility that the animal may have been bought for the purpose of supplying milk to the house as sheep are so used in the East. The care lavished upon it and the intimate bond between it and the poor man are very delicately and vividly described. The poverty of the home is suggested in three ways: the lamb ate of the poor man’s morsel of bread; it was to him as a daughter, and the words indicate that there was neither a mother nor a daughter in the home. For the last suggestion it is best to translate the phrase t with his children ’ by * with his sons ’ which agrees with the Greek and Hebrew versions. That the rich man coveted and then took by theft the poor man’s one little ewe lamb exposes the enormity of his heinous act. He robbed a home of its centre of love, joy and peace; of its contentment and only wealth, for “ he had totally nothing save one little ewe lamb “ a phrase which agrees with the interpretation that Uriah and Bathsheba had not been long married.
Regarding this story of a home’s desecration as true, the king angrily and impulsively declares the sentence of death only to recoil crestfallen, ashamed and self-condemned when the prophet declares “ Thou art the man.” The decisive and brave words of the man of God strike home to the very heart of the king. His sins are now uncovered. He had sought to hide them from men and to shut them out of his own memory, but here they loom before him in their true perspective. The parable illumines his darkened vision. He sees his own utter want of pity and love, and though murder does not appear in the parable he now regards his own hands as stained with blood and wonders how he can be delivered from bloodguiltiness (Psa 51:14). He had sinned deeply and had tried to silence his conscience. “ When I kept silence my bones waxed old through my roaring all the day long “ (Psa 32:3).
Having pronounced his own judgment he must now hear God’s. The parable is interpreted and applied. As Nathan tells the sentence of God upon David and his house, the king realises the truth and his soul is aroused to confess and acknowledge his sin against God “ I have sinned against the Lord.” “ Against thee, thee only have I sinned and done this evil in thy sight.” It is the exclamation of a great but broken man, the cry of a heart that once loved the Lord, the utter resignation of a soul that is dejected and forlorn into the compassion and mercy of God. None can read David’s confession and not feel a wave of sympathy towards him sweep over one’s own heart. Much as he has sinned and grievous as must be the consequences in his own and other lives, yet that wail of confession will ever remain as a signpost to humanity, especially to the proud, the righteous and the rich. The sword which he introduced into the home of Uriah will wreck the peace and security of his own house; and though God does not condemn him to death for his sin, but most mercifully forgives the sin, yet the child born of adultery will die prophecies which were soon fulfilled. THE LAMB DESIRED.
It is no mere coincidence that when Jesus would condemn selfishness and the want of pity He too spoke of a rich man and a poor man Dives and Lazarus. To our own generation this Old Testament Parable does not lack a message. In recent times it has become more applicable than formerly to social life because two of the grossest iniquities known to-day are depicted in the parable the desecration of home life through a lowered sense of morality and religion, and the reckless want of genuine pity towards those who have not the means to protect themselves from the lust, aggression and covetousness of those who have already an exceeding abundance. It was not essential that the rich man should take the poor man’s lamb when he had his own flocks, but he desired the other man’s lamb and he~ had no pity in his heart. In order to satisfy their sinful tendencies and lust men covet in the life of others that which they themselves do not require. Their desires are insatiable, affecting as they do practically every sphere of activity. This evil tendency is apparent in political, business and social life, where men are so restless and ambitious that they think nothing of coveting honours and positions which can be theirs only at a cost to others. Most serious, however, is the case where a man with sufficient of this world’s goods cannot be satisfied until he has secured for himself that which means ’ bread and butter ’ to poorer brothers. It may be done in the name of commercial or economic efficiency, but there is a direct challenge to Christianity in the desires of wealthy syndicates and combines to possess for themselves the means of existence of small concerns. When we recall that the rich man lived near the poor man, we are reminded that the lustful desires of men are often such that they affect adversely those who are neighbours. David was a false friend to Uriah. It was his duty to protect and not to destroy the home of his neighbour, to develop rather than to wreck its happiness. THE LAMB ACQUIRED The sin of the parable may have lain in the desire to acquire, but it reached its depth of enormity when the lamb was taken from the poor man. The lamb was stolen. Though the average adulterer does not desire his sin to be described as theft, yet theft it is quite apart from its concomitant evils. Was Jesus thinking of this parable when He spoke the memorable and difficult sentence, “ Whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart “? Jesus would have a man restrain his desire before it urges him to acquire.
All the circumstances of the parable indicate that a man can obtain what he unlawfully seeks from another’s possessions only by sinning against God and by a want of pity and consideration. The tenth commandment forbids us to covet “ anything that is thy neighbour’s “because “ when lust hath conceived it bringeth forth sin; and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death” (Jas 1:15).
Whether applied to the greed of rich nations or rich commercial houses or rich individuals the moral of the parable abides with us and it tells us that the nemesis follows. Once they have been sown the seeds of evil bear their harvest of wrong and cruelty. Associated with our parable is the death of Bathsheba’s child, an incident which provides one of the most touching scenes in Scripture and which is now reverently immortalized when the words are read over a beloved child’s body and comfort to mourning parents is found in the words of David “ Can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me.”
They are the words of a chastened man: a man whom God has really forgiven but who feels that others require to pay the penalty of his sin. We have known how national covetousness has resulted in war, death, destruction and misery. None of us can be blind to the ravages of syndicalism and there are few families which have escaped the blight of social evils. If we could only see sufficiently far into the future years to perceive what sacrifices may be required of our children and children’s children because of our sin, our prayer would be from that great psalm of confession which is said to have been written by David after his conviction by the parable:
“ Create in me a clean heart, O God, And renew a right spirit within me.” Psa 51:10:32