Who is the traveler (guest) in Nathan's parable?

Question

After David sinned with Bethsheba the prophet Nathan was sent to him by God, in order that his sin might be exposed unto him. He did so by telling him the parable which we read in 2 Samuel 12:1-6.

Later Nathan tells David, that he (David) is the rich man from the parable. That's how we conclude that the poor man is Uriah the Hittite and the lamb is his wife Bethsheba.

Now my question is whether someone has thought on who the traveler / guest, referred to in the parable, is?

2 Samuel 12:4 (ESV)

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.”

Answer 1

In a sense, the identity of this "traveller/guest" in the parable in 2 Samuel 12 is the same as that in Jesus' parable of the "friend at night":

‘Friend, lend me three loaves of bread; a friend of mine on a journey has come to me,...’ (Luke 11:5b-6a).

That is, this is simply a character recounted in the story: there is no identity beyond that.

This is very much part of the "parable" genre.¹ It is very odd for there to be any semblance of "real" character in them -- which is why the parable of "Lazarus and Dives" is somewhat unusual: it's the only biblical parable in OT or NT that uses named characters (that I'm aware of! corrections welcome).

It should be clear, too, then, that David is not "the rich man" in the parable, nor is the "poor man" Uriah, nor the "ewe lamb" Bathsheba (she certainly didn't end up in the stew!). Rather, the story elicits a judgment from David that implicates his own behaviour as guilty.

That's how parables work.

---

Note

1. There is a bit more general information on interpretation of parables in a previous Q&A. This popular guide to parable interpretation from Bible.org is also helpful.

Answer 2

I know this is WAY late, but I felt it necessary to respond anyway.

I have read many commentaries and heard a lot of preachers through the years talk about this. Many try to blame Satan and other demons, and I am not denying that there could be an application here, however I believe this is a quick laying of blame. Other commentators I have read draw a different picture.

In the account of David and Bathsheba, you have David making a series of wrong decisions. He should not have even been home, but should have been at war with his men. He had several wives already so why is he not going to one of them? Once he found out it was the wife of one of his mighty men and the granddaughter of his trusted advisor he should have dropped it. Just to name a few...

The traveler or visitor mentioned could be satan, but more likely in the parable it is the flesh. When we give way to temptations and give in to our lusts death follows (See James 1:15).

At the end of the day, we are responsible for our actions. Jesus stated that the greatest commandment was to love the Lord our God with ALL our being, and to love our neighbors next. When we neglect to love God and love others it is because we are loving the visitor...

I know this was a quick response, but I still hope this helps someone out there.

Answer 3

In Nathan's parable (2 Samuel 12:1-6), only two persons were identified; that the rich man was king David, and the poor man was Uriah. The parable staged how a rich man who had power bullying the poor. As Nathan knew, David would surely condemn the rich man, then he could bring David to wake up from his righteousness.

The little ewe lamb was not Bethsheba. The parable staged both the poor and the rich loved their own flock. The poor afforded only one little ewe lamb who grew up with him and his children (vv12:3), but the rich had so many but reluctant to offer one as meal for the traveler (vv12:4). Instead he took the only one from the poor.

So the parable was to condemn David abused his power as king, that Nathan declared the Lord said:

7 Then Nathan said to David, “You are the man! This is what the Lord, the God of Israel, says: ‘I anointed you king over Israel, and I delivered you from the hand of Saul.

8 I gave your master’s house to you, and your master’s wives into your arms. I gave you all Israel and Judah. And if all this had been too little, I would have given you even more.

9 Why did you despise the word of the Lord by doing what is evil in his eyes? You struck down Uriah the Hittite with the sword and took his wife to be your own. You killed him with the sword of the Ammonites.

Who is the traveler in the parable?

The answer is 'nobody'. This role staged the necessity the rich had to offer the traveler a meal, that developed into the rich took the poor man's sheep.

The rich man had to treat the traveler well as all Israelites will know the Lord reminded them again and again that they should not mistreat a foreigner/traveler, for they were once foreigners in Egypt (Exo 22:21; 23:9; Lev 19:34; Deu 10:19). Abraham and Lot had received travelers without knowing they were angels (Gen 18:2-8; Gen 19:1-3). In the book of Hebrews, it wrote;

2 Do not forget to show hospitality to strangers, for by so doing some people have shown hospitality to angels without knowing it. (Hebrews 13:2 NIV)

Job also saw it as his righteousness

32 but no stranger had to spend the night in the street, for my door was always open to the traveler— (Job 31:32 NIV)

Answer 4

I am more inclined to think the Traveller is a demonic spirit of lust (the Spirit of Immorality?) that had come to put temptation and sexual urge into David's heart. The purpose is to cause him to sin and fall. The Traveller comes to tempt and does not stay but goes away again after his (spirit's) lust is fulfulled and his target has fallen. David could have released his urge by going to one of his own wives or concubines, (easing the temptation without sinning) but instead, he chose to appease the spirit of lust by releasing this lust on Bethsheba, the wife of his loyal subject Uriah.

Answer 5

Who is the traveler? Perhaps we do not need an answer, because the traveler is basically a literary device enabling the drama involving the main characters (the rich man, the poor man and the ewe lamb) to unfold. But to the OP's secondary question - "has someone has thought on who the traveler / guest, referred to in the parable, is?" - the answer is definitely yes.

Several Christian commentators see the traveler as Satan, who provides David (the rich man) with a temptation to sin with Bathsheba. But Satan was not yet a main character in OT theology when this takes place. The more likely explanation would be that the traveler represented what the Jews call the yetzer harah -- the evil inclination. Rashi, the great medieval Jewish sage, says this explicitly and goes on to explain another mystery in this parable: the prediction of the rich man's "four-fold" payment for the lamb. (12:6)

The evil inclination is first compared to a traveler who stops by on his way, then to a guest who lodges, and finally to a man, who is master of the household... He shall repay fourfold: This [actually] happened to him, that he was smitten through four children; the child (born to Bathsheba See v. 18.), Amnon (below 13:19), Tamar (below 13:14), and Absalom (18:15).

I conclude that the traveler, if he is not simply a literary device designed to enable the drama to play out, is a symbol of the yetzer harah. David fell victim to this inclination and paid a very heavy price.

Answer 6

Could have been the son who died. Like a wayfarer he was not there very long. -- Could be Bathsheba who needed David's protection against a charge of adultery. Similarly, a wayfarer needs protection. -- Could be both. The parable achieves its objective by giving David a framework with which to work out his own sin. He probably looked carefully at all roles and their possibilities.

Answer 7

As a man of God I believe, a traveller (Strong's Concordance #1982 Hebrew-'helek' a flowing, dropped, a visitor ) in context- came to the rich man. i.e. the traveller was a spirit of knowledge of knowing/flowing of understanding/knowledge dropped from the heavenliest and processed by David's mind/right brain in this case. David received a revelation of the fact he harmed another there-by committing a sin. David was put on the spot by the wayfarer (Nathan also a traveller/wayfarer albeit a man in this instance and not the Holy Spirit perse) after committing the sin of taking the family pet/lamb often regarded as part of the family from the poor man while David himself had plenty. (a simple example of greed and exploitation) The traveller was the 'spirit of conviction' as David realised conscientiously (by spiritual activation of the righteous mind and not the carnal) what he had done, he could no longer hide from, or the judgement of doing such a thing. David's son died as Nathan stated would happen because David had no concern for the poor man.(note; references to David killing with the sword was not in the same context as Nathan used when speaking the Word/sword of God to David) The same Word that brings life to those faithful will smite those who practice injustice. All one need do is speak the Word of God and the spirit fights the battle on our behalf cutting through even bone and marrow. Oh the irony! David's position of authority granted by YHWH was abused by David there-for bringing about his judgement. The death of his own son!(equating to tit for tat) Question; Did God allow David's son to die or did David simply fail to repent before God?

Note: the brain processes thought, it does not create the thought. (something for people to ponder)The left lobe is regarded as the carnal mind and the right lobe as the righteous mind. The world trains/brainwashes the carnal processes (left lobe function to act first) while the Holy Spirit nurtures activation of the righteous processes (the right lobe) Nathan was obviously a righteous spirit filled man of God/YHWH while David had backslidden at that time and neglected his responsibility to all the people of his kingdom! Could write a book on this subject alone. If I am mistaken it is not my intention and any truthful correction will be graciously accepted.