Deeper Commentary
2Sa 13:1 It happened after this, that Absalom the son of David had a
beautiful sister, whose name was Tamar; and Amnon the son of David loved
her-
"After this..." opens the tragic story of the consequences for
David's sins. Had he resigned as king and just focused upon his family,
living in awe of the promises made in 2 Sam. 7, much of the tragic suffering
in his family would likely not have happened. All the scenes of failure that
we will now read have various connections back to the "this" referenced
here- the sins of David.
The romantic love between the two would not have happened if David had had one wife. There would have been no half sister to fall in love with.
Tamar was about fifteen, Amnon twenty-two , David about fifty
three and Absalom was twenty.
2Sa 13:2 Amnon was so troubled that he fell sick because of his sister
Tamar; for she was a virgin; and it seemed hard to Amnon to do anything to
her-
The obsessive love of Amnon for Tamar may have similarities with
David's for Bathsheba.
2Sa 13:3 But Amnon had a friend, whose name was Jonadab, the son of
Shimeah, David’s brother; and Jonadab was a very subtle man-
Truly evil arose for David from his own house, for Jonadab was his
nephew. "Subtle" suggests he was going to act like the serpent in Eden,
suggesting temptation on the basis of appealing to the human sense of
entitlement, regardless of what moral boundaries were crossed.
2Sa 13:4 He said to him, Why, son of the king, are you so sad from day to
day? Won’t you tell me? Amnon said to him, I love Tamar, my brother
Absalom’s sister-
David's brothers had originally not been that supportive of him, as we
recall from their attitude when David arrived to fight Goliath. They would
never have quite gotten over Samuel's visit to the family when one by one,
they were all rejected and David was chosen as the man after God's own
heart, which they were not. And now David had morally disgraced himself.
Shimeah had likely passed on his feelings about David to his son Jonadab.
This is how jealousy complexes pass on through the generations, with an
associated desire to bring down a man to ones' own level. Jonadab likely
at this stage realized the reason for Amnon's depression. Amnon was the
firstborn and the logical successor to the throne; as firstborn son of the
king, he ought to be able to have anything he wanted, according to
Jonadab. And that included crossing any moral boundaries. We see
Amnon's
sin as a result of a chronic sense of entitlement to anything, whatever
moral boundaries that might involve crossing. And this problem of sense of
entitlement because of position... remains a problem for many.
"Son of the king" not only suggests that a king and his family are entitled to anything [the parallel is clear with Naboth's vineyard being taken by Ahab at Jezebel's encouragement, again featuring a sulking royal getting up from his bed of depression and taking what was forbidden]. Jonadab surely guessed or knew Amnon's desire. His idea was that seeing the king had expressed unbridled sexual desire and gotten away with it, why shouldn't his son? We know David's brothers were estranged from him, so Jonadab as a son of David's brother was perhaps doing this to get at David and depose him from being king. Had David resigned from being king, the Jonadab factor may never have been. He could have focused upon his music ministry, upon teaching Israel not to sin as he did, and focused his 'kingship' hopes on his future Messianic son, rather than focusing upon himself and his immediate descendants as king.
2Sa 13:5 Jonadab said to him, Lie down on your bed, and pretend to be
sick. When your father comes to see you, tell him, ‘Please let my sister
Tamar come and give me bread to eat, and dress the food in my sight, that
I may see it, and eat it from her hand’-
Jonadab really was the "subtle" (:3) serpent, suggesting the sin in an
indirect way without stating it, and operating on the subliminal level.
And this is the essence of all our temptations. What goes on in our heart
is played before us in external terms in this story. As with the serpent,
the temptation and sin functions through eating. The many temptations and
falls into sin which the Bible records are really the essential pattern of
every man's sin. It all begins with the subliminal images and
unarticulated suggestions. See on :20. This theme of subliminal suggestion
is continued in 2 Sam. 14:1.
2Sa 13:6 So Amnon lay down and faked being sick. When the king came to see
him-
This corroborates with how David visited and prayed for Saul and his
family when they were sick (s.w. Ps. 35:13). The Biblical records pain
absolutely imaginable and credible character portraits. The uninspired
writings are typically unrealistic and inconsistent in their presentations
of characters.
Amnon said to the king, Please let my sister Tamar come, and make
me a couple of cakes in my sight, that I may eat from her hand-
Tamar was under the immediate control of her elder brother Absalom.
But David as the father and king overrode that. The language of baking
cakes and eating from her hand repeats in :5,6,10 to create the impression
that Amnon did exactly according to Jonadab's suggestion.
"The cakes" are so stressed in the narrative. The same word translated 'make cakes' is rendered 'to ravish the heart', also in the context of a sister: "You have ravished my heart, my sister, my spouse" (Song 4:9). The "cakes" may have been understood as a kind of aphrodisiac, or at least, sexually suggestive. Literally, "heart cakes". The 'love heart' was not then in vogue, but a woman's breasts are above her heart and so there is an erotic undertone here. The connection is not explicit, but probably the implicit nature of the connection would not have been lost upon Tamar. David likewise surely wondered at these "heart cakes" and yet as with letting Amnon go to Absalom's feast despite misgivings, he allows Amnon to ask Tamar to bring these 'heart cakes' to him in bed.
Amnon uses food in order to rape Tamar (2 Sam. 13:6); Absalom uses food at a feast in order to kill Amnon (2 Sam. 13:28). This was all a reflection of how David gave Uriah food and wine in his deception of Uriah.
2Sa 13:7 Then David sent home to Tamar saying, Go now to your brother
Amnon’s house, and prepare food for him-
David comes over as involved in the tragedy and would have later felt
guilty for letting the plan go ahead; it was all as judgment for his sin
of obsessive "love" for Bathsheba. David ought to have
perceived that Amnon was wrongly attracted to Tamar. But he gives Amnon
the permission to go to her house; even though the 'making of cakes' had
hints at eroticism (see on :6). He fails to pick up the hints, and if he
does, he just gives in to the request. We will see just the same when he
is asked by Absalom to let Amnon attend his feast; clearly David suspected
there would be some revenge planned against Amnon by Absalom, but he still
lets it go ahead. His behaviour is similar both times. His lack of
discipline towards his sons is the theme both times. David so wanted to
see his own 'house' established rather than focus upon the future house to
be made by his Messianic future descendant. But he apparently made no
effort to raise nor lead them in a spiritual way.
2Sa 13:8 So Tamar went to her brother Amnon’s house; and he was laid down.
She took dough, kneaded it, made cakes in his sight, and baked the cakes-
The cameraman is zoomed in close on her taking the dough, kneading it,
pouring it out (:9) etc. We are invited to play Bible television with the
whole scene.
2Sa 13:9 She took the pan, and poured them out before him; but he refused
to eat. Amnon said, Have all men leave me. Every man went out from him-
He is quoting the words of Joseph in Gen. 45:1, also in the context of
food, and the comment "Every man went out from him" confirms this
connection. But his spirituality is all out of context, doing as many do
today- quoting bits of the Bible way out of context, to justify their own
wrong actions and beliefs. See on :14.
2Sa 13:10 Amnon said to Tamar, Bring the food into the inner room, that I
may eat from your hand. Tamar took the cakes which she had made, and
brought them into the inner room to Amnon her brother-
The narrative is well written. The details enable us to imagine the
scene, and we are prepared for the calamity which is now about to happen.
Tamar surely suspected what Amnon was planning. But she is
obedient to him despite guessing what would follow, and that obedience is
emphasized- the pan, the cakes etc. are all noted in detail. This was
exactly in the spirit of Uriah's loyalty to commands, knowing surely what
was going to happen. Again and again we see elements of David's failure
now repeated. The sinful, bad actors in the stories all did so from their
own volition. But we sense that God worked through it all, confirming them
in sin, in order to bring David to see his actions from outside himself.
His being made to view his actions being performed by others was likely
because he had not repented in a very adequate sense. Yet still he was
forgiven. All spirituality, be it repentance, faith, love, joy,
forgiveness, is not just black and white. We believe but ask our unbelief
to be dealt with. There is a degree and quality to these things, reflected
in the degrees of reward in God's Kingdom. We trust in God's
acceptance of our low level of repentance, or failure to retain an
intensity of repentance. And we are likewise to forgive others, even when
the quality of their repentance is very poor. The Lord taught this when
teaching that if a person asks us to forgive them for the same sin which
they commit 70 x 7 / day, we are to do so- not predicating forgiveness
upon perceived quality of repentance.
2Sa 13:11 When she had brought them near to him to eat, he took hold of her,
and said to her, Come, lie with me, my sister!-
These are the words of Potiphar's wife to Joseph. See on :9,14 for how
the Joseph story is alluded to and used wrongly, way out of context, by
Amnon. It was a desperate attempt to justify the unjustifiable. It was the
reflection of how David lay with Bathsheba "because she was cleansed from
her impurity". That was an irrelevant, out of context spiritual
precondition he laid down. And it was reflected in how Anon was to reason
in raping Tamar.
2Sa 13:12 She answered him, No, my brother, do not force me! For no such
thing ought to be done in Israel. Don’t you do this folly-
Sexual sin is likewise termed "folly" (Gen. 34:7). Amnon would be known
by all as a "fool" (:13), an empty vain person (Jud. 9:4). Sin is
therefore associated with being empty and vain; and our world and its
"entertainment" is so full of emptiness, vanity and folly. This is the
quintessence of sin.
2Sa 13:13 I, to where would I carry my shame? And as for you, you will be
as one of the fools in Israel. Now therefore, please speak to the king;
for he will not withhold me from you-
Such marriages were forbidden (Lev. 18:9; Dt. 27:22), although Abraham
had done so. We get the impression that David would have yet again
considered himself above the law, and allowed this marriage. He had
apparently not learned from his sin with Bathsheba; which I suggested
arose from his impression that following the spirit rather than the letter
of the law allowed him to actually break basic moral principles. The
way
Tamar reasons, we might conclude that she was not against marrying Amnon.
Perhaps she even liked or loved him; and thus again we see the utter folly
of his actions, destroying what could have been a positive marriage just
because he wanted immediate gratification of lust. And that of course is a
folly played out so often in human life.
Lev. 20:17 is clear that sex with even a half sibling was
punishable by death. Yet David apparently was willing to waive this and
allow them to marry. Again we see David playing above the law of God. He
failed to see that even though this had been the case with Abraham and
Sarah, it was not for him to presume upon God's grace. David too had been
spared the Mosaic death penalty, but convicted of his sin and his
repentance was elicited and required. But he makes no such effort with
Amnon. He doesn't apply the death penalty of Lev. 20:17. Nor does he apply
the Mosaic laws applicable in a case of rape. The rapist was to marry the
victim for life (Dt. 22:28–30), or if the father of the victim disallowed
the marriage, he had to pay the bride price anyway (Ex. 22:16,17). But
David doesn't apply any of this; he just gets angry, probably from shame
and disappointment, but doesn't dispense justice.
2Sa 13:14 However he would not listen to her voice; but being stronger
than she, he forced her, and lay with her-
There are various out of context connections with the Joseph story.
Amnon has used the words of Joseph (out of context) in :9. He forces her
and lays with her, and then her distinctive garment of many colours (cp.
Joseph's) is torn. It is all jumbled, because Amnon was jumbling up the
references to the Joseph story to wrongly justify himself. He wishes to
give the impression that she had acted as Potiphar's wife, hence he throws
her out of the house and has the door bolted behind her, as if she is a
crazy, sexually obsessed woman who has tried to lay with him. False
justification of fleshly actions with quasi Biblical reasoning is a major
failure of so many.
2Sa 13:15 Then Amnon hated her with exceeding great hatred; for the hatred
with which he hated her was greater than the love with which he had loved
her-
We are clearly intended to understand that "the love with which he loved
her" was not love but lust. And when gratified, it turned to hatred.
Amnon's obsessive love for Tamar was an echo of David's relationship
with Bathsheba. All this
would have been yet another aspect of the emotional trauma which David
went through at this time; to fall out of love with the woman for which he
had almost thrown away his eternal salvation. And in addition to this, all
Israel would have got to know about what had happened- with a fair degree
of exaggeration thrown in, we can be sure. Amnon surely hated
himself for what he had done once he realized he had done it; but he
transferred that anger onto Tamara. It's a classic case of transference of
anger with self onto another person. Again, the Biblical record is show to
be absolutely psychologically credible.
This, and bolting the door after her, could be read as him implying
that she had sexually assaulted him and not the other way around.
2Sa 13:16 She said to him, Not so, because this great wrong in sending me
away is worse than the other that you did to me! But he would not listen
to her-
Her high morals are reflected by her deep sense of hurt at being sent
away falsely accused. A woman of lower morals would have been more hurt by
the rape, and then shrugged and moved on.
Amnon did "wrong" to Tamar David's daughter (2 Sam. 13:16).
"Wrong" here is the same word translated "evil" in the punishment upon
David in 2 Sam. 12:10 "I will raise up evil against you from within your
own house / family". The "evil" of Amnon was therefore indeed his own
error and sin, but it was used by God and 'raised up' in that God
confirmed Amnon in his evil in order to punish David. At the time of
Absalom's rebellion, Shimei comments that "Evil [s.w.] has overtaken you
[David] because you are a man of blood" (2 Sam. 16:8). But David
proactively sought to avoid that "evil": "Get up! Let us flee [from
Absalom]... or he will soon... bring evil [s.w.] upon us" (2 Sam. 15:14).
We see here the complexities of God's workings. The "evil" was indeed to
come upon David, yet he took steps to avoid some of it and God confirmed
him in that and delivered him from Absalom. And so 2 Sam. 17.14 "For the
LORD had ordained to defeat the good counsel of Ahithophel, so that the
LORD might bring ruin [evil] on Absalom" (NRSV). The complexities and ebb
and flow of all this working are beyond any final human analysis; and this
explains why there appear various things in our lives which clearly feel
to be of Divine intervention, but whose meaning is beyond our analysis.
Amnon's sin had two aspects to it. There was the sin of sexual
lust, but this was compounded by what he did with the results of the sin.
This matches David's sin of lust with Bathsheba being then compounded by
his shameful behaviour in murdering Uriah.
2Sa 13:17 Then he called his servant who ministered to him and said, Put
now this woman out from me, and bolt the door after her-
As suggested on :15, the bolting of the door suggested she was a
crazy woman filled with sexual lust who had to be excluded forcibly from a
man's bedroom, and this she found more hurtful than the rape itself (:16).
2Sa 13:18 She had a garment of various colours on her; for with such robes
were the king’s daughters who were virgins dressed. Then his servant
brought her out, and bolted the door after her-
Again we note the stress upon the door being bolted, which was done
because she presumably wanted to return to talk with Amnon. And he wished
to give the impression she had sexually thrown herself at him and was
crazy.
2Sa 13:19 Tamar put ashes on her head, and tore her garment of various
colours that was on her; and she laid her hand on her head, and went her
way, crying aloud as she went-
A woman of lesser morality would perhaps have kept wearing the symbol
of her virginity. But she tore it to show she had lost her virginity,
indeed it had been torn from her, and she was in mourning for herself
seeing nobody else was. We note the internal credibility of the account in
that she had just been cooking, and so there were "ashes" readily
available to her, which she threw onto her head.
2Sa 13:20 Absalom her brother said to her, Has Amnon your brother been with
you?-
This continues the theme noted on :5, of specifics not being stated
but implied. "Been with you" meant 'raped you', and Absalom's comment that
she need not worry too much about it is tantamount to saying 'I will
restore your honour by killing him'. We are left to reflect how it is that
which is left unspoken, not specifically articulated, which is so often
the sin.
But now hold your peace, my sister. He is your brother. Don’t take this
thing to heart. So Tamar remained desolate in her brother Absalom’s house-
See on :33. These words too were apparently suggested to him by
Jonadab. He maybe advised Absalom "Tell her not to worry about it,
because...". The subliminal suggestion was "Because you are going to
regain her honour by killing Amnon". There are Biblical examples of
refusing to take guilt when others feel that it should be taken. Recall
how the Lord’s own parents blamed Him for ‘making them anxious’ by
‘irresponsibly’ remaining behind in the temple. The Lord refused to take
any guilt, didn’t apologize, and even gently rebuked them (Lk. 2:42-51).
In similar vein, Paul wrote to the Corinthians: “Even if I made you sorry
with a letter, I do not regret it” (2 Cor. 7:8). He would not take guilt
for their being upset with him. Likewise Absalom comforted his raped
sister not to ‘take it to heart’, not to feel guilty about it, as it seems
she was feeling that way, taking false guilt upon her.
2Sa 13:21 But when king David heard of all these things, he was very
angry-
The internal credibility of the character portrayal in the record is shown
again. For this is just how he reacted to Nathan's parable about the man
who had taken a poor man's lamb.
As we go through the life of David, it is evident he went along roads
few others have travelled. For example, who else would offer his sacrifice
upon the altar and then start strumming his harp in praise as he watched
the animal burn (Ps. 43:4 Heb.)? This was a new paradigm in Israelite
worship. Like Job, David had no precedents in past spiritual history from
which he could take comfort (Job 5:1). David knew God well enough to act
like the High Priest even when he was not a Levite (2 Sam. 6:13-20; and 2
Sam. 19:21 = Ex.22:28), he came to understand that God did not require
sacrifices, he came to see that the Law was only a means to an end.
David’s sons, although not Levites, were “priests” (2 Sam. 8:18 RV). He
could say that the Lord was his inheritance [a reference to how he as the
youngest son had lost his?], and how he refuses to offer the sacrifices of
wicked men for them (Ps. 16:4,5; 119:57)- speaking as if he was a Levite,
a priest, when he was not. He knew that the ideal standard for married
life was one man: one woman, and yet he was somehow able to flout this and
still be a man after God's own heart. He broke explicit Mosaic commandment
by marrying Saul's wives and also his daughter, he airily waived the
Mosaic law concerning bloodguiltiness (consider the implications of 2 Sam.
14:4-11), and the need to stone rapists (2 Sam. 13:21). When others tried
to do these kind of things, they were severely punished by a God who
insisted upon serious obedience to His Law. Consider how Saul was
condemned for offering sacrifice instead of a priest (1 Sam. 13:10-13);
and Uzziah likewise (2 Chron. 26:16-19). When the woman of Tekoah
basically suggested that the Mosaic laws about the rights of the revenger
of blood be repealed, David seems to have agreed. When Amnon seeks to rape
his sister Tamar, she suggests that he ask David to allow them to marry-
and surely, she says, he will agree. Yet this too would have been counter
to the spirit of the Law about marriages to close relatives. Yet David
went beyond the Law so often; and it is this which perhaps led him to
commit the sin of presumption in his behaviour with Bathsheba. Right
afterwards he comments about the man who stole his neighbour’s sheep, that
it must be restored fourfold; whereas the Law only stipulated double,
David felt he so knew the spirit of the Law that he could break the letter
of it- in any context. And this was his [temporary] downfall.
2Sa 13:22 Absalom spoke to Amnon neither good nor bad; for Absalom hated
Amnon, because he had forced his sister Tamar-
David's anger with Amnon (:21) is contrasted with Absalom's silence
about the matter, whilst nursing hatred in his heart which was to come to
fruition in the murder of his brother. David's passion, as discussed on
:21, is therefore presented as more acceptable than Absalom's secret
hatred which came to full term in murder.
Not good nor bad / evil means nothing at all. Adam's choice in Eden was
that of everyman in every sin; it was a choice between a total "yes" or a
total "no" to God. The desire was to know "good and evil"; and this term
is used as an idiom for "everything" (Gen. 24:50; 2 Sam. 14:17,20), the
whole area in between good and evil is in this sense "everything" (cp.
Gen. 31:24; 2 Sam. 13:22). Adam and Eve were attracted by the possibility
of experiencing everything, of having the total knowledge, the
omniscience, which is with God alone. Their failure was more than simply
eating a fruit; it involved rebellion and pride, a desire to be equal with
God-
2Sa 13:23 It happened after two full years, that Absalom had sheep
shearers in Baal Hazor, which is beside Ephraim: and Absalom invited all
the king’s sons-
We note that David did not enforce the death penalty for Amnon, even
though the law of Moses required this (Lev. 20:17). We compare this with
how he ordered the death penalty for the man in the parable who had stolen
the poor man's lamb, even though this was beyond the law's requirements.
David had been spared the death penalty and so he reflected that grace to
his son; and yet we sense there was also parental bias in the case. By not
punishing Amnon with death, nor later Absalom, he allowed a situation to
develop which would cause yet more bloodshed.
Absalom's hospitality was fake- he had an agenda. Just as David's was to Uriah when he gave him food and wine. We recall Nathan's parable to David- David had as it were provided a feast for another, but stole the lamb of Bathsheba as the meat. Again and again, there are echoes of David's behaviour in the disastrous actions of his sons- some strong echoes, some weaker. Some comparisons are direct [like Amnon's sexual lust reflecting David's], others like this one are more indirect.
2Sa 13:24 Absalom came to the king and said, See now, your servant has
sheep shearers. Please let the king and his servants go with your servant-
Absalom comes over as hypocritical as describing himself as his
father's servant, when he was planning to murder his father's son.
2Sa 13:25 The king said to Absalom, No, my son, let us not all go, lest we
be burdensome to you. He pressed him; however he would not go, but blessed
him-
The blessing probably involved a gift (1 Sam. 25:27). David surely
guessed that there would be some plan by Absalom to slay Amnon, hence his
weak argument that they all didn't need to go as it would be expensive for
Absalom to entertain them all.
2Sa 13:26 Then Absalom said, If not, please let my brother Amnon go with
us. The king said to him, Why should he go with you?-
Clearly David guessed what was going to happen, and in that lies the
pain for David.
2Sa 13:27 But Absalom pressed him, and he let Amnon and all the king’s
sons go with him-
We sense David's weakness, giving in to pressure, quite unlike in his
days before his sin with Bathsheba. And of courses he had no specific
reason to deny Amnon's presence, apart from his premonition that Absalom
was planning to kill Amnon.
LXX adds that Absalom: "made a banquet like the banquet of the king". Clearly Absalom had his mind on becoming king and deposing his father. But David is duped by Absalom, even although he has premonitions about what is happening. Exactly the same is done to David by Amnon asking for permission to have Tamar visit him; and likewise Joab tricks David in 2 Sam. 14, even though David suspects what is going on ("Is not the hand of Joab with you in all this?"). In these, and other, incidents, we see David being treated as he had treated Uriah- he was deceived by David, although he surely had a strong premonition about what was really going on.
2Sa 13:28 Absalom commanded his servants saying, Mark now, when Amnon’s
heart is merry with wine; and when I tell you, ‘Strike Amnon’, then kill
him. Don’t be afraid. Haven’t I commanded you? Be courageous, and be
valiant!-
That Amnon was made drunk by Absalom recalls how David had made Uriah
drunk. Every aspect of David's sins was now being repeated in the
behaviour of his sons. Absalom's minimizing of the sin and
urging the men to be valiant sounds like David's words to Joab after the
murder of Uriah. David's usage of his servants is reflected in how Absalom
uses servants to do his dirty work of murder. We note that Joab also used
a servant to murder Absalom later. "Haven't I commanded you?" is a way of
assuring the servants that he takes complete moral responsibility for the
murder he is asking them to commit. Absalom's motives may not have simply
been a desire for revenge against Amnon for raping his sister. It wasn't a
case of blood revenge, avenging the blood of a slain relative. At best it
was revenge for hurt pride. But more like it was using the rape as an
excuse to eliminate Amnon as he was the firstborn and thereby heir to the
throne. Had David resigned the kingship and taught his sons the wonder of
the promises of 2 Sam. 7 about the future Lord Jesus, then this obsession
with being king may not have been so strong in the sons.
2Sa 13:29 The servants of Absalom did to Amnon as Absalom had commanded.
Then all the king’s sons arose, and every man got up on his mule, and
fled-
This is the first mention of mules in the Bible. They were cross bred
in disobedience to Lev. 19:19. We get the impression that a generally
slack attitude to what might have been considered minor matters of the law
was associated with the major sin of murder. This is the problem when we
start to think that some parts of God's laws can just be ignored. David
was fond of them, having his own mule (1 Kings 1:33), and Solomon was
willing to receive them as tribute (1 Kings 10:25).
2Sa 13:30 It happened, while they were in the way, that the news came to
David, saying, Absalom has slain all the king’s sons, and there is not one
of them left!-
As to why this happened, see on :31. That such a gossip should arise
is not surprising, once we realize that Absalom coveted the throne. He
would not be against slaying all possible competitors for it, not least
the firstborn son Amnon. This was clearly part of his motivation for the
murder, and not simply vengeance for Tamar's rape.
Why did David initially believe that all his sons had died? I
suggest it was to make him reflect on the promise of 2 Sam. 7, that from
one of his descendants would come the Messianic seed who would build his
true house. For Solomon was alive at this point so the promises could have
come true through him. So David was being nudged towards concluding that a
descendant of Solomon would eventually, after he "slept with his fathers",
be the Messianic seed. David however had been so focused on his natural
and immediate house as the fulfilment of the promises. And so he was given
to understand that they had all perished, to attempt to refocus him upon
the promises of a Messianic seed and house through Solomon [from where the
Lord Jesus did indeed come]. But it is doubtful that this refocus in
David's thinking was achieved, at least at this time. And so it is that
through failure of our earthly family dreams that we too are intended to
refocus upon the Lord Jesus and our ultimate sense of fulfilment solely
through Him and the things of His house and Kingdom.
2Sa 13:31 Then the king arose, and tore his garments, and lay on the
earth; and all his servants stood by with their clothes torn-
We wonder why David was given this false news to start with. It was
perhaps to make him consider the possibility that all the promises about
his "seed" had now been abrogated, seeing all his seed had been cut off.
Those promises would have been in his mind as he lay on the earth. That
posture however is associated with prayer. Perhaps he was praying that
through his disgraced daughter Tamar, there would somehow come the
promised Messianic seed. Through this trauma he was therefore driven
closer to his longing for the Christ, just as we may be, e.g., through a
false alarm due to a cancer scare.
2Sa 13:32 Jonadab the son of Shimeah, David’s brother, answered, Don’t let
my lord suppose that they have killed all the young men the king’s sons;
for Amnon only is dead; for by the appointment of Absalom this has been
determined from the day that he forced his sister Tamar-
Jonadab is not specifically stated as having given the idea of this
murder to Absalom, but given his behaviour from :5, suggesting sin in a
subliminal way, we can assume that he had done the same. "Why not invite
Amnon to a feast on your property, you can all get drunk together..." was
the subliminal way of suggesting "And you can get him murdered there, away
from the court scene in Jerusalem".
Jonadab tells David not to be too upset because only one of his
sons is dead. Absalom likewise heartlessly tells Tamar not to be too upset
about her rape. This all reflects David telling Joab not to be too upset
about the death of Uriah and the other soldiers. This surely is the lesson
we are to take, for otherwise the record of Jonadab's words here appears
to be without function in the narrative. Jonadab's 'rubbing it in' was
surely part of his support of his family in a possible plan to depose
David from being king. Had David just humbly resigned, Jonadab would have
had no role.
2Sa 13:33 Now therefore don’t let my lord the king take the thing to his
heart, to think that all the king’s sons are dead; for Amnon only is dead-
This idea of 'don't take it to heart' is exactly what Absalom said to
Tamar ( see on :20), and we are therefore led to believe that Absalom's
words to Tamar were also put in his mind by Jonadab's suggestion. Jonadab
knew exactly what was going to happen, even though he was not present;
because it was all of his subliminal suggestion to Absalom. He was really
a very evil man, but the world around us bombards us with such subliminal
suggestion.
2Sa 13:34 But Absalom fled. The young man who kept the watch lifted up his
eyes and looked, and behold, many people were coming by the way of the
hillside behind him-
This situation is going to be repeated when David later anxiously
waits for news of the battle between his supporters and Absalom. He is
going to again be waiting anxiously for the news from a messenger and
weeping bitterly at the news of Absalom's death (2 Sam. 18:33). Situations
repeat in our lives, and even if we cannot attach meaning to event at the
time, we at least have the comfort that they bear the same hallmark
of Divine involvement in our lives, according to some plan- even if we may
not discern it.
2Sa 13:35 Jonadab said to the king, Behold, the king’s sons are coming! It
is as your servant said-
We sense his smugness. All this was of Jonadab's suggestion, living
out the jealousy complex of his father against his brother David. As
Jonadab's father had been jealous of his brother David, so now it was all
repeating. For Absalom's desire to remove Amnon was not simply in order to
avenge his sister, but because Amnon was in line for the throne which he
coveted.
2Sa 13:36 It happened, as soon as he had finished speaking, that behold,
the king’s sons came, and lifted up their voice, and wept. The king also
and all his servants wept bitterly-
Perhaps the bitterness of David's grief was because
"Amnon" is a form
of the word used in the promises to David in 2 Sam. 7:16, that his seed
would be "established". He likely imagined that his firstborn son would
perhaps be that promised seed. But now Amnon lay dead in shame, slain by
his own brother, for having raped his own half sister. David's
disappointment in his own family life ["my house is not so with God"] was
intended to drive him more strongly towards faith in his future "son", the
Messianic seed, the Lord Jesus.
2Sa 13:37 But Absalom fled, and went to Talmai the son of Ammihur, king of
Geshur. David mourned for his son every day-
Talmai was Absalom's grandfather (2 Sam. 3:3). Had the Israelites
driven out Geshur as they should have done (Josh. 13:13) and David not
married a Gentile, then this situation might not have arisen. Absalom
would have been left with no supportive place to run. "Geshur" means
"joining" and such a joining in marriage to these people is another
example of David's unwisdom with women.
2Sa 13:38 So Absalom fled, and went to Geshur, and was there three years-
"Absalom fled" is stressed three times. Or this may also be because a
longer account has been abridged, under inspiration. This would also
account for the fragmentary style of the narrative at this point. "Three
years" may be a summary period and not necessarily to be taken literally.
2Sa 13:39 King David longed to go forth to Absalom: for he was comforted
concerning Amnon, since he was dead-
The sense of the Hebrew is that the king’s wrath ceased to go forth against Absalom, he stopped persecuting him. For David could have recalled Absalom at any time, and even when he did, he refused to meet him for some time. The sense may be that he ceased trying to kill Absalom. But again there was no discipline. David had been saved from death by God's grace, but that grace didn't remove consequences, and God sought to educate David. David ought to have treated Absalom and Amnon likewise. But he doesn't reprove them nor seek to educate them, and in Absalom's case David just sought to murder him because he was so angry with him. And then got over it. There is no reflection here of the grace shown to him by God. Absalom later tried to kill David ("my own son seeks my life", 2 Sam. 16:11, "You seek the life of only one man... The advice pleased Absalom", 2 Sam. 17:4). Father and son both trying to murder each other shows how far David had fallen from his dream of having an immediate 'house' which would last eternally. His failure, and the failure of his 'house', was to try to focus him upon the promises of an eternal house through his great descendant, the Lord Jesus.
It's possible that David didn't remain feeling like this for Absalom; see
on 2 Sam. 14:1,24. David had ineffable sadness in his personal life. He so loved his son
Absalom, his very soul was consumed for that
strapping young man (2 Sam. 13:39 AVmg.); but that son bitterly hated David,
and coolly plotted to destroy him and his reputation. David loved Abigail
and Ahinoam, but those fairy tale romances took a bitter blow when David
fell for Bathsheba. David loved his parents, especially caring for their
safe keeping in his wilderness years; only to be forsaken by them (the
Hebrew means just that), and to be rejected by his brothers and sisters
(Ps.27:10; 38:11; 69:8; 88:18). David loved Solomon and gave very special
attention to teach him the real spirit of the Truth, taking time out from a
hectic public life to do so; only for that beloved son to turn away in later
life, to fast women, alcohol, materialism, and the perversions of idolatry. David's
disappointment in his own family life ["my house is not so with God"] was
intended to drive him more strongly towards faith in his future "son", the
Messianic seed, the Lord Jesus.
Previous Chapter
