Nathan's Parable, Our Greed

I’ve heard Nathan’s parable mentioned many times over the years. It is a beautiful manipulation of David’s emotions, challenging him first to condemn a fictional character so that he might begin to see the error of his own way. Nathan confronts David after his escapades with Bathsheba and orchestrating the murder of Uriah the Hitite. He crafts a story contrasting a poor and a wealthy man, each with sheep. The difference is that the wealthy man had some 300 sheep, while the poor man had but one.

The story makes a much greater distinction of the love both men had for their sheep. The wealthy man was not so concerned with any one of his sheep. His concern was with the total number under his control. He did not want to lose any of them, for their total was a measure of his wealth. The poor man had but one sheep, and this sheep was all that belonged to him. The sheep slept in his own bed. The sheep ate from his own bowl. His relationship with that one sheep was far greater than the relationship the wealthy man had with any of his hundreds of sheep.

Then a visitor comes to the wealthy man and hospitality toward strangers requires that he provide refreshment, lodging, and protection to the visitor, just as Abraham had done toward the three strangers who came to his tent, along with their retinue. The wealthy man was happy to offer hospitality and claim the reward of doing so. What he was unwilling to do was to allow such hospitality to come at the cost of diminishing his wealth. Rather than taking one of his 300 sheep to prepare a feast, he took the poor man’s sheep, instead. This stolen sheep he prepared and offered as the centerpiece of his hospitality toward the visitor who had come to him.

Nathan tells David the story and forseeably, David is outraged against such an injustice toward the poor man. That is the point of the story. It was supposed to outrage David. Nathan was counting on that reaction. Nathan could forsee that reaction because of how Yahwist society dealt with issues of greed, hospitality, and the proper use of wealth. The example I referred to in Abraham was the model of hospitality established as the basic parameters of righteousness for the Hebrew people. Abraham attended to the needs of three strangers and their retinue not knowing that he was entertaining messengers from Yahweh. His generosity was repaid, not because he knew whom he was hosting, but because his hospitality was freely given with no strings attached. It was generosity that demonstrated his righteous dependence upon Yahweh and his lack of greed.

Every time I have heard Nathan’s parable mentioned, its telling quickly jumps to condemning David for his violation of Bathsheba and the murder of Uriah. Nothing seems ever to be said of why it is this story that Nathan wove to bring David to account. Nathan chose this example because it would strike a chord with David in recognition that his actions were reflected in the character’s example of greed and the false front of a fake hospitality.

David had become ensnared by his wealth and the desire for even greater wealth. Bathsheba was considered in the eyes of all property. She was the wife and property of Uriah, an immigrant living in the land and in service to David. Uriah had done respectable work on David’s behalf, yet David’s treatment of him disrespected his humanity. Just as Bathsheba was treated socially as property, so David considered his own wives and concubines as property, desiring to amass greater wealth and prominence by claiming more for himself. Stepping upon others in the process of giving in to his greed was the same sort of injustice Nathan’s parable highlighted.

Interestingly, Nathan’s parable does not mention anything about the wealthy man killing the poor one. It stops with the slaughter of the poor man’s sheep. Its focus is on the wealthy man’s greed, theft, and injustice toward one with little to no recourse for his own defense. Greed is the issue highlighted. It is a parable of economic injustice that ends prior to the death of the poor man, even though David had done more by orchestrating Uriah’s death.

Death, murder, and killing were simply accept ways of life for David. His career had been built upon the violence of war and death. While his actions in orchestrating Uriah’s death were clear and also condemnable, they were not as relatable to an accusation of injustice as was greed. It is as though the cultural, social, and religious norms of David’s day and our own were reversed. It was much easier for David to see the injustice of greed than the injustice of violent killing. It was easier for him to confront his own unjust actions when faced with the issue of greed which wreaks violence upon those struggling with poverty than a direct accusation of murder.

Nathan had no need to address the murder of Uriah once David understood how greed underlay his actions toward Uriah in regard to Bathsheba. His greed for greater power, wealth, influence, and control had taken over his life and perspectives. It had become the dominant theme of his life, diverting his attention from worshiping, honoring, and trusting Yahweh to care for his needs.

Jesus told a parable that is similar in many ways. He spoke of the rich man and Lazarus as a parable condemning the wealthy in his own day for their disregard for the economic distress resulting in the death of others who did not share in the wealth of Yahweh's provision. Jesus turned the parable into a wholesale condemnation of those whose greed shut their eyes to the plight of those on their doorstep.

It is a message the church has all too often failed to address. We are too ensnared by the very same greed underlying David’s actions of injustice. We are too enamored of accumulating wealth. We are too wont to worship the wealthy rather than call them to account. We are even less willing to call ourselves to account for our own greed. Culturally, socially, and politically, we actually blame the poor as greedy for wanting basic access to those things essential for living: food, shelter, clothing, and health. We consider fulfilling the needs of the poor as greed on their part, while considering the greed of the wealthy as worthy of social and political protection. We turn Jesus’ and Nathan’s parables upside down.

The poor are not unworthy of life, liberty, and those things necessary to their survival. Perhaps it is time to hear again Nathan’s closing remark to David. “You are the man!”

— ©Copyright 2020, Christopher B. Harbin

http://www.sermonsearch.com/contributors/104427/

My latest books  can be found here on Amazon