2 Kings 12:3
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.
Open 2 Kings 12:3 in the Motif Searcher, word by word across all five texts →Show on the spiral →In the palace
The verse in its languages
- Vulgate (Clementine)
- Pauper autem nihil habebat omnino, præter ovem unam parvulam quam emerat et nutrierat, et quæ creverat apud eum cum filiis ejus simul, de pane illius comedens, et de calice ejus bibens, et in sinu illius dormiens : eratque illi sicut filia.
- Septuagint (Swete)
- καὶ τῷ πένητι οὐδὲν ἀλλ᾽ ἢ ἀμνὰς μία μικρά, ἣν ἐκτήσατο καὶ περιεποιήσατο καὶ ἐξέθρεψεν αὐτήν, καὶ ἡδρύνθη μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ καὶ μετὰ τῶν υἱῶν αὐτοῦ ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτό· ἐκ τοῦ ἄρτου αὐτοῦ ἤσθιεν καὶ ἐκ τοῦ ποτηρίου αὐτοῦ ἔπινεν καὶ ἐν τῷ κόλπῳ αὐτοῦ ἐκάθευδεν καὶ ἦν αὐτῷ ὡς θυγάτηρ.
- Hebrew (WLC)
- וְלָרָ֣שׁ אֵֽין כֹּ֗ל כִּי֩ אִם כִּבְשָׂ֨ה אַחַ֤ת קְטַנָּה֙ אֲשֶׁ֣ר קָנָ֔ה וַיְחַיֶּ֕הָ וַתִּגְדַּ֥ל עִמּ֛וֹ וְעִם בָּנָ֖יו יַחְדָּ֑ו מִפִּתּ֨וֹ תֹאכַ֜ל וּמִכֹּס֤וֹ תִשְׁתֶּה֙ וּבְחֵיק֣וֹ תִשְׁכָּ֔ב וַתְּהִי ל֖וֹ כְּבַֽת
Haydock's commentary
Daughter. All these expressions tended to shew the affection of the owner for this pet lamb. (Haydock)
In Arabia, one of the finest is commonly fed in the house along with the children. (Bochart, Anim. T. i. B. ii. 46.)
It is not necessary that every word of this parable should have been verified in Bethsabee. (Calmet)
Many things are usually added for ornament. (Menochius)
Yet she had been treated in the most tender manner by her husband, who had her alone, while David had eighteen wives. (Haydock)
From Haydock's Catholic Bible Commentary, 1859, in the transcription made by Todd Easton and kept online by John Paul Wohlschied at johnblood.gitlab.io/haydock.
The Fathers on this verse
Tertullian On Modesty, Chapter VI
Plainly, if you show by what patronages of heavenly precedents and precepts it is that you open to adultery alone, and therein to fornication also, the gate of repentance, at this very line our hostile encounter will forthwith cross swords. Yet I must necessarily prescribe you a law, not to stretch out your hand after the old things, not to look backwards: for “the old things are passed away,” according to Isaiah; and “a renewing hath been renewed,” according to Jeremiah; and “forgetful of former things, we are reaching forward,” according to the apostle; and “the law and the prophets (were) until John,” according to the Lord. …
St Augustine On Christian Doctrine, David Not Lustful, Though He Fell into Adultery
31. And with what moderation and self-restraint those men used their wives appears chiefly in this, that when this same king, carried away by the heat of passion and by temporal prosperity, had taken unlawful possession of one woman, whose husband also he ordered to be put to death, he was accused of his crime by a prophet, who, when he had come to show him his sin, set before him the parable of the poor man who had but one ewe-lamb, and whose neighbor, though he had many, yet when a guest came to him spared to take of his own flock, but set his poor neighbor’s one lamb before his guest to eat. And David’s anger being kindled against the man, he commanded that he should be put to death, and the lamb restored fourfold to the poor man; thus unwittingly condemning the sin he had wittingly committed. …
St Augustine The Harmony of the Gospels, Of the Reason Why Forty Generations (Not Including Christ Himself) are Found in Matthew, Although He Divides Them into Three Successions of Fourteen Each
12. In this way, it is the taking of our sins upon Himself by the Lord Christ that is signified in the genealogy of Matthew, while in the genealogy of Luke it is the abolition of our sins by the Lord Christ that is expressed. In accordance with these ideas, the one details the names in the descending scale, and the other in the ascending. For when the apostle says, “God sent His Son in the likeness of the flesh of sin,” he refers to the taking of our sins upon Himself by Christ. But when he adds, “for sin, to condemn sin in the flesh,” he expresses the expiation of sins. Consequently Matthew traces the succession downwards from David through Solomon, in connection with whose mother it was that he sinned; while Luke carries the gene alogy upwards to the same David through Nathan, by which prophet God took away his sin. …