After this, Absalom the son of David had a beautiful sister, whose name was Tamar; and Amnon the son of David loved her. Amnon was so troubled that he became sick because of his sister Tamar; for she was a virgin; and it seemed hard to Amnon to do anything to her. But Amnon had a friend, whose name was Jonadab, the son of Shimeah, David’s brother; and Jonadab was a very subtle man. 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.”
Jonadab said to him, “Lay 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 prepare the food in my sight, that I may see it, and eat it from her hand.’ ”
So Amnon lay down and faked being sick. When the king came to see him, 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.”
Then David sent home to Tamar, saying, “Go now to your brother Amnon’s house, and prepare food for him.” So Tamar went to her brother Amnon’s house; and he was lying down. She took dough, and kneaded it, made cakes in his sight, and baked the cakes. She took the pan, and poured them out before him; but he refused to eat. Amnon said, “Have all men leave me.” Then every man went out from him. Amnon said to Tamar, “Bring the food into the room, that I may eat from your hand.” Tamar took the cakes which she had made, and brought them into the room to Amnon her brother. 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!”
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. As for me, 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.”
However he would not listen to her voice; but being stronger than she, he forced her, and lay with her. Then Amnon hated her with exceedingly great hatred; for the hatred with which he hated her was greater than the love with which he had loved her. Amnon said to her, “Arise, be gone!”
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.
Then he called his servant who ministered to him, and said, “Now put this woman out from me, and bolt the door after her.”
She had a garment of various colors on her; for the king’s daughters who were virgins dressed in such robes. Then his servant brought her out and bolted the door after her. Tamar put ashes on her head, and tore her garment of various colors that was on her; and she laid her hand on her head, and went her way, crying aloud as she went. Absalom her brother said to her, “Has Amnon your brother been with you? 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.
But when king David heard of all these things, he was very angry. Absalom spoke to Amnon neither good nor bad; for Absalom hated Amnon, because he had forced his sister Tamar.
Geneva Bible translators 1599 · Public Domain On vv1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 9, 13, 16, 17, 18, 20 Tamar was Absalom’s sister both by father and mother,…
Tamar was Absalom’s sister both by father and mother, and Amnon’s only by father.
Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain.
John Trapp 1656 · Public Domain On vv1–22 2Sa 13:1 And it came to pass after this,…
2Sa 13:1 And it came to pass after this, that Absalom the son of David had a fair sister, whose name [was] Tamar; and Amnon the son of David loved her.
Ver. 1. And it came to pass after this.] God’s justice, which seemed to sleep, now beginneth to show itself in the punishment of David’s foul offences.
Read full note →
That Absalom the son of David.] By Maacah, the daughter of Talmai, king of Geshur, whom, say the Rabbins, David had taken prisoner, and knew her before she was proselyted. This haste God might punish in these miscarriages of his children by her.
Whose name was Tamar.] Which signifieth a palm tree; like as Absalom signifieth his father’s peace, and Amnon faithful, stable; but none of them answered their names.
“ Fallitur augurio spes bona saepe suo. ”
And Amnon the son of David.] His eldest son, but by another wife: he proved to be one of his tres vomicae, imposthumated ulcers, as Augustus said of his children. {a}
Loved her,] i.e., Lusted after her. Of this the poet speaketh,
“ Amor est amaror, et melle et felle faeeundissimus:
Gustu dat dulce, amarum ad satietatem usque aggerit. ”
- Plaut. Gist. Act. i.
And to the same sense another,
“ Non Amor antiquo fuerat sed Amaror ab aevo;
Dicendus cure sit semper amarus Amor. ”
{a} Sueton.
John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Matthew Poole 1685 · Public Domain On vv1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 A fair sister; his sister by father and mother:…
A fair sister; his sister by father and mother: see 2Sa 3:3.
Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Matthew Henry 1710 · Public Domain On vv1, 21 We have here a particular account of the abominable…
We have here a particular account of the abominable wickedness of Amnon in ravishing his sister, a subject not fit to be enlarged upon nor indeed to be mentioned without blushing, that ever any man should be so vile, especially that a son of David should be so. Amnon's character, we have reason to think, was bad in other things; if he had not forsaken God, he would never have been given up to these vile affections. Godly parents have often been afflicted with wicked children; grace does not run in the blood, but corruption does. We do not find that David's children imitated him in his devotion; but his false steps they trod in, and in those did much worse, and repented not. Parents know not how fatal the consequences may be if in any instance they give their children bad examples. Observe the steps of Amnon's sin.
I. The devil, as an unclean spirit, put it into his heart to lust after his sister Tamar. Beauty is a snare to many; it was so to her. She was fair, and therefore Amnon coveted her, Sa2 13:1. Those that are peculiarly handsome have no reason, on that account, to be proud, but great reason to stand upon their watch. Amnon's lust was, 1. Unnatural in itself, to lust after his sister, which even natural conscience startles at and cannot think of without horror. Such a spirit of contradiction there is in man's corrupt nature that still it desires forbidden fruit, and the more strongly it is forbidden the more greedily it is desired. Can he entertain the thought of betraying that virtue and honour of which, as a brother, he ought to have been the protector? But what wickedness so vile as not to find admittance into an unsanctified unguarded heart, left to itself? 2. It was very uneasy to him. He was so vexed that he could not gain an opportunity to solicit her chastity (for innocent converse with her was not denied him) that he fell sick, Sa2 13:2. Fleshly lusts are their own punishment, and not only war against the soul, but against the body too, and are the rottenness of the bones. See what a hard master sinners serve, and how heavy his yoke is.
Read full note →
II. The devil, as a subtle serpent, put it into his head how to compass this wicked design. Amnon had a friend (so he called him, but he was really an enemy to him), a kinsman, that had in him more of David's blood (for he was his nephew) than of David's spirit, for he was a subtle man, cunning to carry on any bad design, especially an intrigue of this nature, Sa2 13:3.
1. He took notice that Amnon looked ill, and, being a subtle man, concluded that he was love-sick (Sa2 13:4), and asks him, "Why art thou, being the king's son, lean from day to day? Why dost thou pine, being the king's eldest son, and heir to the crown. Being the king's son," (1.) "Thou hast the pleasures of the court to divert thee; take those pleasures then, and with them drive away the sorrow, whatever it is." Content and comfort are not always to be found in royal palaces. With much more reason may we ask dejected and disconsolate saints why they, who are the children of the King of kings and heirs of the crown of life, are thus lean from day to day. (2.) "Thou hast the power of a prince to command what thou wantest and wishest for; use that power therefore, and gratify thyself. Pine not away for that which, lawful or unlawful, thou, being the king's son, mayest have. Quicquid libet licet - Your will is law." Thus Jezebel to Ahab in a like case (Kg1 21:7), Dost not thou govern Israel? The abuse of power is the most dangerous temptation of the great.
2. Amnon having the impudence to own his wicked lust, miscalling it love (I love Tamar), Jonadab put him in a way to compass his design, Sa2 13:5. Had he been what he pretended (Amnon's friend), he would have startled at the mention of such horrid wickedness, would have laid before him the evil of it, what an offence it was to God and what a wrong to his own soul to entertain such a vile thought, of what fatal consequence it would be to him to cherish and prosecute it; he would have used his subtlety to divert Amnon from it, by recommending some other person to him, whom he might lawfully marry. But he seems not at all surprised at it, objects not either the unlawfulness or the difficulty, the reproach or so much as his father's displeasure, but puts him in the way to get Tamar to his bed-side, and then he might do as he pleased. Note, The case of those is very miserable whose friends, instead of admonishing and reproving them, flatter them and forward them in their sinful ways, and are their counsellors and contrivers to do wickedly. Amnon is already sick, but goes about; he must take upon him to be so ill (and his thin looks will give colour enough to the pretence) as not to be able to get up, and to have no appetite to any thing but just that which pleases his fancy. Dainty meat is abhorred, Job 33:20. The best dish from the king's table cannot please him; but, if he can eat any thing, it must be from his sister Tamar's fair hand. This is what he is advised to.
3. Amnon followed these directions, and thus got Tamar within his reach: He made himself sick, Sa2 13:6. Thus he lieth in wait secretly, as a lion in his den, to catch the poor, and to draw them into his net, Psa 10:8-10. David was always fond of his children, and concerned if any thing ailed them; he no sooner hears that Amnon is sick than he comes himself to visit him. Let parents learn hence to be tender of their children and compassionate towards them. The sick child commonly the mother comforteth (Isa 66:13), but let not the father be unconcerned. We may suppose that when David came to see his sick son he gave him good counsel to make a right use of his affliction, and prayed with him, which yet did not alter his wicked purpose. At parting, the indulgent father asks, "Is there any thing thou hast a mind to, that I can procure for thee?" "Yes, Sir," says the dissembling son, "my stomach is weak, and I know not of any thing I can eat, unless it be a cake of my sister Tamar's making, and I cannot be satisfied that it is so unless I see her make it, and it will do me the more good if I eat it at her hand." David saw no reason to suspect any mischief intended. God hid his heart from understanding in this matter. He therefore immediately orders Tamar to go and attend her sick brother, Sa2 13:7. He does it very innocently, but afterwards, no doubt, reflected upon it with great regret. Tamar as innocently goes to her brother's chamber, neither dreading any abuse (why should she from a brother, a sick brother?) nor disdaining, in obedience to her father and love to her brother (though but her half-brother), to be his nurse, Sa2 13:8, Sa2 13:9. Though she was a king's daughter, a great beauty (Sa2 13:1), and well dressed (Sa2 13:18), yet she did not think it below her to knead cakes and bake them, nor would she have done this now if she had not been used to it. Good house-wifery is not a thing below the greatest ladies, nor ought they to think it a disparagement to them. The virtuous woman, whose husband sits among the elders, yet works willingly with her hands, Pro 31:13. Modern ages have not been destitute of such instances, nor is it so unfashionable as some would make it. Preparing for the sick should be more the care and delight of the ladies than preparing for the nice, charity more than curiosity.
4. Having got her to him, he contrives to have her alone; for the adulterer (much more so vile an adulterer as this) is in care that no eye see him, Job 24:15. The meat is ready, but he cannot eat while he is looked at by those about him; they must all be turned out, Sa2 13:9. The sick must be humoured, and think they have a privilege to command. Tamar is willing to humour him; her chaste and virtuous soul has not the least thought of that which his polluted breast is full of; and therefore she makes no scruple of being alone with him in the inner chamber, Sa2 13:10. And now the mask is thrown off, the meat is thrown by, and the wicked wretch calls her sister, and yet impudently courts her to come and lie with him, Sa2 13:11. It was a base affront to her virtue to think it possible to persuade her to consent to such wickedness when he knew her behaviour to be always exemplarily modest and virtuous. But it is common for those that live in uncleanness to think others such as themselves, at least tinder to their sparks.
III. The devil, as a strong tempter, deafens his ear to all the reasonings with which she resisted his assaults and would have persuaded him to desist. We may well imagine what a surprise and terror it was to the young lady to be thus attacked, how she blushed and how she trembled; yet, in this great confusion, nothing could be said more pertinently, nor with greater strength of argument, than what she said to him. 1. She calls him brother, reminding him of the nearness of the relation, which made it unlawful for him to marry her, much more to debauch her. It was expressly forbidden (Lev 18:9) under a severe penalty, Lev 20:17. Great care must be taken lest the love that should be among relations degenerate into lust. 2. She entreats him not to force her, which intimates that she would never consent to it in any degree; and what satisfaction could he take in offering violence? 3. She lays before him the great wickedness of it. It is folly; all sin is so, especially uncleanness. It is wickedness of the worst kind. Such abominations ought not to be committed in Israel, among the professing people of God, that have better statutes than the heathen have. We are Israelites; if we do such things, we are more inexcusable than others, and our condemnation will be more intolerable, for we reproach the Lord, and that worthy name by which we are called. 4. She represents to him the shame of it, which perhaps might influence him more than the sin of it: "For my part, whither shall I cause my shame to go? If it should be concealed, yet I shall blush to think of it as long as I live; and, if ever it be known, how shall I be able to look any of my friends in the face? For thy part, thou shalt be as one of the fools in Israel," that is, "Thou wilt be looked upon as an atrocious debauchee, the worst of men; thou wilt lose thy interest in the esteem of all that are wise and good, and so wilt be set aside as unfit to rule, though the first-born; for Israel will never submit to the government of such a fool." Prospect of shame, especially everlasting shame, should deter us from sin. 5. To divert him from his wicked purpose at this time, and (if possible) to get clear of him, she intimates to him that probably the king, rather than he should die for love of her, would dispense with the divine law and let him marry her: not as if she thought he had such a dispensing power, or would pretend to it; but she was confident that, upon notice given to the king by himself of this wicked desire, which he would scarcely have believed from any one else, he would take an effectual course to protect her from him. But all her arts and all her arguments availed not. His proud spirit cannot bear a denial; but her comfort, and honour, and all that was dear to her, must be sacrificed to his brutish and outrageous lust, Sa2 13:14. It is to be feared that Amnon, though young, had long lived a lewd life, which his father either knew not or punished not; for a man could not, of a sudden, arrive at such a pitch of wickedness as this. But is this his love to Tamar? Is this the recompence he gives her for her readiness to attend him in his sickness? Will he deal with his sister as with a harlot? Base villain! God deliver all that are modest and virtuous from such wicked and unreasonable men.
IV. The devil, as a tormentor and betrayer, immediately turns his love of her into hatred (Sa2 13:15): He hated her with great hatred, greatly, so it is in the margin, and grew as outrageous in his malice as he had been in his lust.
1. He basely turned her out of doors by force; nay, as if he now disdained to touch her with his own hands, he ordered his servant to pull her out and bolt the door after her, Sa2 13:17. Now, (1.) The innocent injured lady had reason to resent this as a great affront, and in some respects (as she says, Sa2 13:16) worse than the former; for nothing could have been done more barbarous and ill-natured, or more disgraceful to her. Had he taken care to conceal what was done, her honour would have been lost to herself only. Had he gone down on his knees and begged her pardon, it might have been some little reparation. Had he given her time to compose herself after the horrid confusion she was put into, she might have kept her countenance when she went out, and so have kept her counsel. But to dismiss her thus hurried, thus rudely, as if she had done some wicked thing, obliged her, in her own defence, to proclaim the wrong that had been done her. (2.) We may learn from it both the malignity of sin (unbridled passions are as bad as unbridled appetites) and the mischievous consequences of sin (at last, it bites like a serpent); for here we find, [1.] That sins, sweet in the commission, afterwards become odious and painful, and the sinner's own conscience makes them so to himself. Amnon hated Tamar because she would not consent to his wickedness, and so take part of the blame upon herself, but to the last resisted it, and reasoned against it, and so threw all the blame upon him. Had he hated the sin, and loathed himself for it, we might have hoped he was penitent. Godly sorrow worketh indignation, Co2 7:11. But to hate the person he had abused showed that his conscience was terrified, but his heart not at all humbled. See what deceitful pleasures those of the flesh are, how soon they pass away, and turn into loathing; see Eze 23:17. [2.] That sins, secret in the commission, afterwards become open and public, and the sinners themselves often make them so. Their own tongues fall upon them. The Jewish doctors say that, upon the occasion of this wickedness of Amnon, a law was made that a young man and a young woman should never be alone together; for, said they, if the king's daughter be so used, what will become of the children of private men?
2. We must now leave the criminal to the terrors of his own guilty conscience, and enquire what becomes of the poor victim. (1.) She bitterly lamented the injury she had received, as it was a stain to her honour, though no real blemish to her virtue. She tore her fine clothes in token of her grief, and put ashes upon her head, to deform herself, loathing her own beauty and ornaments, because they had occasioned Amnon's unlawful love; and she went on crying for another's sin, Sa2 13:19. (2.) She retired to her brother Absalom's house, because he was her own brother, and there she lived in solitude and sorrow, in token of her modesty and detestation of uncleanness. Absalom spoke kindly to her, bade her pass by the injury for the present, designing himself to revenge it, Sa2 13:20. It should seem by Absalom's question (Has Amnon been with thee?) that Amnon was notorious for such lewd practices, so that it was dangerous for a modest woman to be with him; this Absalom might know, and yet Tamar be wholly ignorant of it.
Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible (1708–1710) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
John Gill 1763 · Public Domain On vv1–22 And it came to pass after this,.... After the…
And it came to pass after this,.... After the sin of David with Bathsheba, his repentance for it, and pardon of it, and the birth of Solomon as a token of reconciliation; yet after all this the divine threatenings must take place; they had begun already in the death of the child begotten in adultery, and others here follow:
that Absalom the son of David had a fair sister, whose name was Tamar; she was his sister both by father and mother's side; the mother o, f them was Maacah, the daughter of Talmai king of Geshur; she was a very comely person, her name signifies a palm tree:
Read full note →
and Amnon the son of David loved her; not in an honourable way, to make her his wife, but in a lustful manner, to make an harlot of her; he was David's eldest son by Ahinoam the Jezreelitess, Sa2 3:2.
John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
John Wesley 1765 · Public Domain On vv1, 2, 5, 9, 10, 12, 13, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 Amnon ravishes Tamar, ver. 1-20. Absalom kills him, ver.…
Amnon ravishes Tamar, ver. 1-20. Absalom kills him, ver. 21-29. David mourns: Absalom flees to Geshur, ver. 30-39.
A sister - His sister by father and mother.
John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.
Adam Clarke 1810 · Public Domain On vv1, 2, 3, 12, 13, 15, 18, 21 Amnon falls in love with his half-sister Tamar, and…
CHAPTER XIII
Amnon falls in love with his half-sister Tamar, and feigns
Read full note →
himself sick, and requests her to attend him, 1-6.
David sends her to him, and he violates her, 7-14.
He then hates her, and expels her from his house, 15-17,
She rends her garments, puts ashes on her head, and goes forth
weeping, 18, 19.
She is met by Absalom her brother, who, understanding her case,
determines the death of Amnon, 20-22.
Two years after, he invites all his brothers to a
sheep-shearing, when he orders his servants to murder Amnon,
23-29.
Tidings come to David that Absalom has slain all the king's
sons, which fill him with the bitterest distress, 30, 31.
The rest soon arrive, and he finds that Amnon only is killed,
32-36.
Absalom flees to Talmai, king of Geshur, where he remains three
years, 37, 38.
David longs after Absalom, having become reconciled to the death
of Amnon, 39.
NOTES ON CHAP. XIII
Verse 1. Whose name was Tamar] Tamar was the daughter of David and Maacah, daughter of the king of Geshur, and the uterine sister of Absalom. Amnon was David's eldest son by Ahinoam. She was therefore sister to Amnon only by the father's side, i.e., half-sister; but whole sister to Absalom.
Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Joseph Benson 1811 · Public Domain On vv1, 2, 3, 5, 10, 12, 13, 15, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 2Sa 13:1. Absalom, the son of David, had a…
2Sa 13:1. Absalom, the son of David, had a fair sister — His sister by both father and mother. For they were both born of Maacah, the daughter of Talmai, king of Geshur. Now began another part of Nathan’s prophecy, I will raise up evil against thee out of thine own house, to be awfully fulfilled On David; and the sad scene of domestic troubles to be opened which were to befall his family. And it is probable he had not been long returned to Jerusalem, from the taking of Rabbah, before they began to take place and multiply upon him.
Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Albert Barnes 1834 · Public Domain On vv1, 3, 5, 6, 12, 13, 16, 18, 19, 21 The history here, down to the end of 2…
The history here, down to the end of 2 Sam. 23 (excepting a few particulars), is omitted in the Book of Chronicles.
Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Haydock's Catholic Bible Commentary 1859 · Public Domain On vv1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 12, 13, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 21 Thamar was born of Maacha, as well as Absalom.
Thamar was born of Maacha, as well as Absalom.
George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).
Lange's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures 1864 · Public Domain On v1 3. Breaking up of David’s house and family by…
3. Breaking up of David’s house and family by the crimes of his sons Amnon and Absalom
2Sa_13:1-39
Read full note →
a. Amnon’s incest with Tamar. 2Sa_13:1-21
1And it came to pass after this that Absalom the son of David had a fair sister, whose name was Tamar; and Amnon the son of David loved her. 2And Amnon was so vexed [troubled]1 that he fell sick for his sister Tamar; for she was a virgin, 3and Amnon thought it hard for him to do anything to her. But [And] Amnon had a friend whose name was Jonadab2, the son of Shimeah David’s brother; and Jonadab was a very subtil man. 4And he said unto him, Why art thou, being the king’s son, lean from day to day [Why art thou so lean, O son of the king, morning by morning]? wilt thou not tell me? And Amnon said unto him, I love Tamar my brother Absalom’s sister. 5And Jonadab said unto him, Lay thee down on thy bed, and make [feign] thyself sick; and when thy father cometh to see thee, say unto him, I pray thee, let my sister Tamar come, and give me meat [food3 to eat], and dress [prepare] the meat [food3] in my sight, that I may see it and eat it 6at her hand. So [And] Amnon lay down and made [feigned] himself sick. And when the king was come [And the king came] to see him, [ins. and] Amnon said unto the king, I pray thee, let Tamar my sister come, and make me a couple of 7cakes in my sight, that I may eat at her hand. Then [And] David sent home to Tamar [sent to Tamar to the house], saying, Go now [I pray thee] to thy brother 8Amnon’s house, and dress [prepare] him meat [the food]. So [And] Tamar went to her brother Amnon’s house, and he was laid down; and she took flour [the dough] and kneaded it, and made cakes in his sight, and did bake the cakes. 9And she took a [the] pan,4 and poured them out before him; but [and] he refused to eat. And Amnon said, Have out all men from me. And they went out every man from him. 10And Amnon said unto Tamar, Bring the meat [food] into the chamber, that I may eat of [at] thine hand. And Tamar took the cakes which she had made, and brought them into the chamber to Amnon her brother. 11And when she had brought [And she handed] them unto him to eat, [ins. and] he took hold of her, and said unto her, Come lie with me my sister. 12And she answered [said to] him, Nay, my brother, do not force [humble] me, for no such thing ought to be done in Israel; do not thou this folly. 13And I, whither shall I cause my shame to go [shall I carry my reproach]? and as for thee, thou shalt be as one of the fools in Israel. Now, therefore, I pray thee, speak [And now, speak, I pray thee] unto 14the king; for he will not withhold me from thee. Howbeit [And] he would not hearken unto her voice, but, being stronger than she, forced her [and he was stronger 15than she, and humbled her], and lay with her.5 Then [And] Amnon hated her exceedingly [with a very great hate]; so that the hatred wherewith he hated her was greater than the love wherewith he had loved her. And Amnon said unto her, Arise, be gone. 16And she said unto him, There6 is no cause; this evil in sending me away is greater than the other that thou didst unto me. But [And] he would 17not hearken unto her. Then [And] he called his servant [young man] that ministered7 unto him, and said, Put now [ye] this woman out from me, and bolt the door after her. 18And she had a garment of divers colours [a long-sleeved garment8] upon her; for with such robes were the king’s daughters that were virgins apparelled. Then [And] his servant brought her out, and bolted the door after her. 19And Tamar put ashes on her head, and rent her garment of divers colours [the long-sleeved garment] that was on her, and laid her hand on her head, and went on crying 20[ins. as she went]. And Absalom her brother said unto her, Hath Amnon thy brother been with thee? but hold now thy peace, my sister [and now, my sister, hold thy peace]; he is thy brother; regard not this thing. So [And] Tamar remained 21desolate in her brother Absalom’s house. But9 when [And] king David heard of all these things, [ins. and] he was very wroth.
b. Amnon murdered by Absalom. 2Sa_13:22-33
22And Absalom spake unto his brother Amnon neither good nor bad; for Absalom hated Amnon because he had forced [humbled] his sister Tamar. 23And it came to pass after two full years [about10 two years], that Absalom had sheepshearers in Baal-hezer, which is beside Ephraim; and Absalom invited all the king’s sons. 24And Absalom came to the king, and said, Behold, now, thy servant hath sheepshearers; let the king, I beseech thee, and his servants go with thy servant. 25And the king said unto Absalom, Nay, my son, let us not all now [om. now] go, lest we be chargeable unto thee [burdensome to thee]. And he pressed him; howbeit [and] he would not go, but [and he] blessed him. 26Then said Absalom [And Absalom said], If not, I pray thee let my brother Amnon go with us. And the king said unto him, Why 27should he go with thee? But [And] Absalom pressed him, that [and] he let Amnon and all the king’s sons go with him. 28Now Absalom had commanded [And Absalom commanded] his servants, saying, Mark ye now when Amnon’s heart is merry with wine, and when I say unto you, Smite Amnon, then kill him, fear not; have not I commanded you? be courageous and be valiant. 29And the servants of Absalom did unto Amnon as Absalom had [om. had] commanded. Then [And] all the king’s sons arose, and every man gat him upon his mule and fled. 30And it came to pass, while11 they were in the way, that tidings came to David, saying, Absalom 31hath slain all the king’s sons, and there is not one of them left. Then [And] the king arose, and tare his garments, and lay on the earth; and all his servants stood by with their clothes rent. And Jonadab, the son of Shimeah, David’s brother, 32answered and said, Let not my lord suppose [say] that they have slain all the young men the king’s sons; for Amnon only is dead; for by the appointment of Absalom this hath been determined from the day that he forced [humbled] his sister 33Tamar. Now therefore [And now] let not my lord the king take the thing to his heart, to think that [saying], All the king’s sons are dead; for Amnon only is dead.
c. Absalom’s flight. 2Sa_13:34-39
34But [And]12 Absalom fled. And the young man that kept the watch lifted up his eyes and looked, and behold, there came much people by the way of the hillside behind13 him. 35And Jonadab said unto the king, Behold, the king’s sons come; as thy servant said, so it Isaiah 36 And it came to pass, as soon as he had made an end of speaking, that behold the king’s sons came, and lifted up their voice and wept; 37and the king also and all his servants wept very sore. But [And]13 Absalom fled and went to Talmai the son of Ammihud, king of Geshur. And David mourned 38for his son every day. So [And]13 Absalom fled, and went to Geshur, and was 39there three years. And the soul of king David longed to go forth unto Absalom; for he was comforted concerning Amnon, seeing he was dead.
EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL
2Sa_13:1-21. Amnon’s crime.14 2Sa_13:1. sqq. And it came to pass after this—general chronological statement, referring what follows to the time after the Ammonite war. Tamar and Absalom were the children of Maacah, daughter of Talmai king of Geshur, whom David had married after he ascended the throne at Hebron (2Sa_3:3). Amnon was David’s oldest son; his mother was the Jezreelitess Ahinoam (2Sa_3:2). The apodosis begins with the words: “and Amnon was so troubled” (2Sa_13:2), while 2Sa_13:1 from and Absalom to the end is explanatory parenthesis.
2Sa_13:2. Literally: it was strait to Amnon unto becoming sick, that is, he was sore troubled, so that he fell sick. Not: “feigned himself sick” (Luther), for he does not feign till 2Sa_13:5-6 (where the word is properly so rendered). [Ewald (quoted by Thenius) remarks that Amnon’s character and conduct were doubtless affected by the fact that he was the first-born son, and of a mother apparently not of the noblest birth.—Tr.] We have a picture here of the consuming fire of passionate love, which could not be satisfied, because Tamar was a virgin and it seemed to him impossible to do anything to her, that is, her maidenly reserve and her inaccessibility [in the harem or women’s apartment] or other difficulties thwarted his designs.
2Sa_13:3 sq. By his wicked, crafty cousin Jonadab, the son of his uncle Shimeah (another son of whom, Jonathan, is mentioned 2Sa_21:21) Amnon is not only strengthened in his sinful desire, but is shown a way whereby he may attain his end by guile and violence. He becomes “lean,” an appearance all the more striking in a “king’s son,” in whose case there was no reason for it. From morning to morning—his aspect was more wretched in the morning after nights made sleepless by torturing passion. [Thenius: a finely chosen point in the description of his malady, from which also it appears that Jonadab was, if not a house-mate, at least his daily companion. Bib. Com.: he mentions the morning because it was his custom to come to Amnon every morning to his levee.—Tr.] This wretched appearance of his favored the advice to feign himself sick (2Sa_13:5). To see thee, “seeing” used for visiting the sick (Psa_41:7 (6); 2Ki_8:29). Jonadab’s counsel takes for granted that the father will not refuse the sick son such a request. From the whole account we see that the king’s children dwelt in different households. “Probably each wife with her children dwelt in a separate part of the royal palace” (Keil), and further the grown sons, as appears from 2Sa_13:7; 2Sa_13:20, had each his separate house. “A couple of cakes;” some solid, distinctly shaped preparation is here meant, since there were “two” of them. Whether it received its name from its heart-like shape, or its heart-strengthening power (Keil), [the word is lebibah, and the Heb. for “heart” is leb], or because it was made from rolled dough,15 is left undecided. Tamar was probably famed for her skilful cooking. [In the East such skill is not unusual, even in women of high rank.—Tr.]
2Sa_13:8 sqq. “She took a pan [2Sa_13:9], so Chald. and Sept. [On the word rendered “pan” see “Text and Gram.;” it seems more probable that it is a name for some preparation of food.—Tr.] “Baked” [2Sa_13:8]; the Heb. word (בשל) is used for roasting or baking, see Exo_12:9 comp. with 2Ch_35:13. Amnon’s refusal to eat must have conveyed the impression that he was very sick, and the exclusion of all persons from the room might be easily explained by the fact that he was weakened by his illness. He was as clever an actor as Jonadab a crafty counsellor.
2Sa_13:12 sqq. Tamar’s noble conduct in rejecting this wicked proposal is a confirmation of what is said in 2Sa_13:2 of the hindrances in Amnon’s way. Such things are not done in Israel, it is against the law and custom of the people of God (as contrasted with the heathen). Comp. Lev_20:17 with 2Sa_13:7; 2Sa_13:26. Tamar repels the wickedness from the highest moral point of view, which is determined by the theocratic-national position and significance of Israel. The word “folly” (נְבָלָה) is here used of unchastity as in 2Sa 34:7. [The same sense is given substantially by the rendering of Eng. A. V.: “not so should it be done in Israel” (as Philippson).—Keil remarks that the expression recalls Gen_34:7 (where it is a commentary on Shechem’s conduct to Dinah), the words being the same; and Bib. Com. adds that Tamar probably knew the passage in Genesis, and wished to profit by it. But, as this passage is a remark of the Editor of the Pentateuch (as the phrase “in Israel” shows), and it is doubtful whether the Pentateuch in its present shape existed in David’s time, the resemblance between the two passages must be otherwise explained. The phrase in question may have been a common one, or the Editor of Genesis may have taken it from our narrative, as a remark appropriate in his narrative.—Tr.]—Next to the honor of Israel as the people sanctifying itself to the Lord, she adduces her own honor and Amnon’s (2Sa_13:13); both, she would say, will suffer irreparable shame. Further, in order more certainly to hold him off, she urges him to ask her in marriage of the king, who would not deny his request. This would be in opposition to the law, Lev_18:9; Lev_20:17; Deu_27:22, whereby sexual connections between brothers and sisters (those having only one parent in common are especially mentioned) are strictly forbidden. In order to harmonize this apparent contradiction Thenius thinks it not impossible that the prohibitions in Lev_18:7-18; Lev_20:19-21; Deu_27:20; Deu_27:22 referred first to the maintenance of moral purity in family-life, and that they did not wholly forbid real marriages between brothers and sisters (having only one parent in common), particularly where there was special inclination. But this view cannot be well made to accord with the absoluteness of the prohibition and the sharpness of the threat of punishment. The strict prohibition of sexual connection in general must have applied to marriage also. It must be supposed either that the law was not strictly carried out, or that Tamar, knowing the law very well, wished to keep back the passionate advances of Amnon. So Josephus [7, 8, 1]: “this she said, wishing to escape his passion for the present,” and Clericus: “that she might elude him in every way possible, lest, if all hope of marriage were denied, the man should be the more incited to violence.”16
2Sa_13:15. On the satisfaction of sexual desire follows hate towards its object and instrument; “a psychological trait,” remarks Thenius, “that vouches for the truth of the narrative.”
2Sa_13:16. Tamar’s reply is not to be rendered (Vulg., Luther): “the evil is greater than the other,” for the Heb. requires: “this great (greater) evil.” Nor can we (with Thenius) alter the Heb. text after the Sept.: “nay, my brother (אַל־אָחִי), for the evil is greater,”17 etc., which is obviously a change to avoid difficulty, and the consequent change of text is too violent. The renderings: “give no occasion of this greater evil” (Cler., Ges.), and: “but not this greater evil than the other!” (De Wette) do not accord with the wording of the Heb. Böttcher, by two changes (עַל for אָל, and insertion of מָח), gets the sense: “wherefore this great evil, greater than …?”; on which Thenius rightly remarks that it is difficult to see why the narrator should have put this unintelligible phrase into the mouth of the unfortunate woman rather than the simple “why?” (מַדּוּעַ or לָמָּה).—It certainly seems better (if anything is to be added) to insert the word “let there be” or “be thou” (תְּהִי), so that it shall read: “become not the cause of this great evil, which is greater than …” (Maur., Dietrich in Ges. Lex. s. v. אֹדוֹת); but this expression also: “become not the cause” is, not simple and natural enough in the mouth of the excited Tamar. It is better to suppose an unfinished sentence and render (changing אַל into אֶל־): On account of this greater evil … she is interrupted by Amnon, and cannot finish her address. This is clear from what immediately follows: But he would not hear her, and said to his servant, Put her out from me; he ordered her to be put out before she could finish. This expulsion was a still “greater evil” than the other violence done her, both for her, because it would create the impression that she had done something shameful, and for him, since he thus added wrong to wrong. [On this reading see “Text. and Gram.,” where reasons are given for adopting substantially the text of the Sept.: “nay, my brother, for this evil is greater,” etc. The objection to Dr. Erdmann’s rendering is the same that he has himself urged against another: it is too formal, too little in keeping with the excited state in which we should suppose Tamar to be. A similar objection applies to the translation given in the Bib. Com.—Tr.] 2Sa_13:17. [Amnon orders Tamar to be expelled.] This order and conduct must have led the servant to suppose that she had done something shameful.—[Bib. Com.: The brutality of Amnon needs no comment.—Tr.]
2Sa_13:18. [Tamar is expelled.] She had on a garment with long sleeves (פַּסִּים); the usual undergarment covered only the upper arm, while this covered the whole arm. and took the place of the armless meil [outer garment or robe.] Translate: thus were the king’s daughters, the virgins, clothed with robes; such long-sleeved mantles distinguished the princesses.
2Sa_13:19. Her indication of grief at the shame done her. The hands clasped above the head or laid on the head, are a sign of grief at the shame that has come on the head as the bearer of one’s personal honor. Comp. Jer_2:37. [2Sa_13:18 b would seem to connect itself more naturally with 2Sa_13:17, and 2Sa_13:18 a with 2Sa_13:19. It may be, as Keil says, that her royal dress is mentioned to bring out more clearly the harshness of her treatment, since the servant must have recognized the dress. The word “robes” in 2Sa_13:18 is discussed in “Text. and Gram.;” the sentence would perhaps be helped by omitting the word.—Bib. Com. suggests that Tamar took the ashes that she put on her head from the very place where she had cooked the food for Amnon.—Tr.]
2Sa_13:20. [Absalom cares for his sister.] Instead of “Amnon” the Heb. has Aminon, a diminutive, expressive of scorn and contempt.18 Absalom’s question shows that a suspicion of Amnon naturally suggested itself to him: Has Aminon thy brother been with thee? euphemism for Amnon’s deed. Absalom, with his careless exhortation: lay not this thing to heart, is a sad comforter. [More probably, under this careless exterior he concealed a deep purpose to avenge the crime, which he at this moment had neither words nor inclination to discuss. He seems not to have failed in his duty to his sister.—Tr.]—And Tamar abode in his house as a desolated woman; literally, “and as desolated,” not “as solitary.”
2Sa_13:21. [David’s anger.] After the words: “and he was very wroth,” the Sept. adds: “and he grieved not the spirit of Amnon his son, because he loved him, because he was his first-born.” But this addition gives too circumstantial and full a reason why David contented himself with being angry and did not punish Amnon; we cannot alter the Heb. text to accord with it (as Then, and Ewald do). David’s failure to inflict on Amnon the legal penalty of death [Lev_20:17] was a sign of weakness, and led to Absalom’s revenge and his rebellion against his father.
2Sa_13:22. [Absalom’s hatred of Amnon.]—From bad to good, neither bad nor good (Gen_24:50), he talked not at all with him because he hated him.—There is no need with Böttcher to transpose 2Sa_13:21-22. Verse 20 having described Absalom’s procedure (in connection with Amnon’s crime) and 2Sa_13:21 the king’s, 2Sa_13:22 begins a new section, in which is first stated the deepest ground of Absalom’s conduct towards Amnon afterwards related, namely, his hate towards him. The present order of verses therefore presents the thoroughly well-arranged progress in the narrative, which Thenius thinks can be attained only by a transposition.
b. 2Sa_13:22-33. Amnon’s murder by Absalom.
2Sa_13:22 is closely connected with 2Sa_13:23 sq., giving the ground of Absalom’s fratricide, though two years elapse before the act of vengeance is executed. According to verse 23 Absalom had an estate in Baalhazor near Ephraim. Probably also the other sons of the king had such landed possessions. A joyful festival was connected with sheepshearing (comp. 1Sa_25:2; 1Sa_25:8), as is not seldom the case also in Germany. Baal-hazor is more exactly described as being near Ephraim. This cannot mean near the tribe-territory of Ephraim; the Prep. “near” (עִם) shows that a city called Ephraim is meant (2Ch_13:19 Qeri, comp. Jos_15:9; Joh_11:54; Joseph., bell. Jud. 4, 9. 9, according to Eusebius eight miles north of Jerusalem). Thenius: “probably Tell Asur south of Shiloh; see Käuffer, Stud. II. 145.”19
2Sa_13:25. He blessed him, i.e. wished him well (בֵּרֵךְ as in 1Sa_25:14).
2Sa_13:26. “If thou goest not,” literally: “and not;” so Sept. and Vulg. But Thenius renders: “O that Amnon might go with us” (taking לוּ = לֹא, Ew., § 358 b). The king, unwilling to go himself,20 is also unwilling for Amnon to go, as the question: “why should he go with thee?” shows. For he could not be ignorant of Absalom’s hatred to Amnon. [Thenius: “let Amnon, the first-born [and heir-apparent] go along with us (me and the other princes) as thy representative.”—Thus David found it hard to deny Absalom’s request without giving as a reason what he was unwilling to say.—Tr.]
2Sa_13:27. [David consents.] David here also shows himself weak in yielding to Absalom’s request.—As our narrator is only concerned to tell how the fratricide was accomplished, he omits mention of the meal that Absalom prepared, especially as this was indirectly given in 2Sa_13:23-24. The addition of the Sept.: “and Absalom prepared a repast like the repast of a king,” is to be regarded, therefore, as a mere explanatory insertion.21
2Sa_13:28 sqq. [The murder.] As David had weakly left Amnon’s crime unpunished, Absalom held it his duty to take vengeance on Amnon and maintain his sister’s honor. This feeling does not, however, exclude the motive of selfish ambition in Absalom; by the death of Amnon he would be one step nearer to the succession to the throne; there may, indeed, have been another brother, Chileab, older than he (2Sa_3:3), but probably (to judge from Absalom’s conduct, 2Sa_15:1-6) he was no longer alive. Absalom’s ambition, which afterwards led him into rebellion, probably welcomed this pretext for putting Amnon, the heir to the throne, out of the way. Comp. Winer, R.- W. I. 14.
2Sa_13:29. [Flight of the princes.] “Every man on his mule.” Mule-breeding is forbidden in Lev_19:19. [Yet mules were frequently used by persons of distinction, Absalom (2Sa_18:9), David and Solomon (1Ki_1:33; 1Ki_10:25), and were probably introduced by commerce or war. Our passage contains the first mention of them; afterwards they seem to have become common (1Ki_18:5; Zec_14:15; Ezr_2:66). Ewald thinks that the law in Lev. does not forbid breeding them; certainly it does not absolutely forbid owning them. See Art. Maulthier in Herzog.—Tr.]
2Sa_13:30. Tidings came, namely, by the servants, who had come on in advance of the princes. The exaggeration in their report is psychologically easily explained by the circumstances.
2Sa_13:31. [The king’s grief.] The king’s servants stood still, immovable (נִצָּבִים), comp. Num_22:32 sq.; Deu_5:20. It need not be inferred from the phrase: And all his servants stood before him with garments rent, that the courtiers preceded the king in the rending of the garments (Böttcher), since this rending on their part would naturally follow on the king’s, and did not require special mention.—[Sept.: “and all his servants that were standing about him rent their garments,” which represents an easy and natural Hebrew; but there is not sufficient ground for altering the Heb. text to accord with it.—Tr.]
2Sa_13:32 sqq. Jonadab, who had counselled Amnon to commit his crime, now corrects the false report [sharp-sightedly seeing how the thing must De.—Tr.], and gives a reason for his assertion that Amnon alone was dead:22 for on Absalom’s mouth was it laid (it lay) from the day; that is, one could infer from his words that he intended this (De Wette), or, better: “one could see it in him; for the movements of the soul are seen (next to the look) most clearly about the mouth” (Thenius). The subject of the verb “was” [Eng. A. V. this], namely, the murder of Amnon, or hatred to Amnon, naturally suggests itself, and the omission is in accordance with Jonadab’s excited, hurried speech. His purpose was set, determined (שִיתָה), comp. Exo_21:13; his determination to do the deed lay on his mouth, was decidedly and clearly stamped in the features about his mouth. Vulg.: “in hatred,” instead of “in the mouth;” Aq., Sym.: “in wrath” (they read אַפֵּי instead of פּי).23 [If our Hebrew text is retained, the rendering of Eng. A. V. is in accordance with the general usage of the words: “according to the commandment of Absalom it was determined from the day,” etc., where the difficulty is to say what was determined and to whom the commandment was given. On the other hand, it is not probable (as Erdmann’s rendering asserts) that Absalom openly showed his purpose to kill his brother; in that case the latter would have been warned. The general meaning, however, is clear, that Absalom had made up his mind two years before to kill Amnon.—Tr.]
c. 2Sa_13:34-39. Absalom’s flight.
2Sa_13:34. And Absalom fled. There is no ground for attaching these words to Jonadab’s speech, 2Sa_13:33 (Mich., Dathe), since the latter could not have known of Absalom’s flight, and it is not a mere surmise about it that is expressed, but the fact. From 2Sa_13:29 on two lines of narration must be distinguished. The one, starting with the flight of David’s sons (2Sa_13:29), gives the rumor, the fact affirmed by Jonadab and its impression on David, up to 2Sa_13:33; the other, pointing back to 2Sa_13:29, begins with Absalom’s flight (synchronous with that of the princes), and proceeds to tell of the arrival of the other sons after Absalom’s flight. The sentence: “And Absalom fled,” certainly breaks the connection, since the next sentence (“the watchman lifted up his eyes”) is closely connected with 2Sa_13:33. But the words are not taken from 2Sa_13:37, as has been assumed; the object of this interruption is to bring forward the important event that preceded the arrival of the sons of David, so that on the one hand Absalom’s flight and absence from the royal court, on the other hand the presence of his brothers and their complaint to their father are the subject matter of the narration, which closes with the goal of Absalom’s flight and David’s conduct in respect to Absalom and the death of Amnon.
2Sa_13:34. The young man, the watchman, who was looking out for the persons returning from the festival. Much people, a crowd of people made up of the numerous retinue of the sons of David. “From the way behind him,” that is, “according to well-known usus loquendi (see Exo_3:1 comp. with Isa_9:11; Job_23:8) simply from the west” (Thenius), since in front means geographically the East. “From the side of the mountain,” probably Mount Zion. The princes came not from the north, but from the west, because the return by this route was easier and quicker.
2Sa_13:35. Jonadab confirms his previous, assertion.
2Sa_13:36. Repetition of the mourning of 2Sa_13:31, only deeper.
2Sa_13:37. The narrative returns to Absalom, resuming the statement of his flight (from 2Sa_13:34); this repetition is occasioned by the preceding remark: “the king’s sons came.” The sense is: “except Absalom, who had fled.” On Talmai see 2Sa_3:3. Absalom’s stay with him lasted three years. [On the text of 2Sa_13:34-38 see “Text, and Gram.” The conclusion there reached is that the order in our present text cannot be defended, there being no visible reason for the repetitions, and the omission of the subject (David) in 37 b being impossible if that clause were in its proper position, but that our present text may be the abridgement of a longer narrative, in which the repetitions were not out of place, and the omission of subject not improper.—Tr.]
2Sa_13:39. And David the king24 held back from going forth against Absalom, for he had consoled himself for Amnon, that he was dead.—The construction being impersonal [it restrained=David was restrained], no subject is to be supplied, as “grief restrained” (Maurer), or: “Absalom’s flight to Geshur and his abode there restrained” (Keil); for the reason of his not going out after Absalom lay in his tone of feeling, as indicated in the words: “for he had consoled himself.” This was his ground of action, not sorrow for Absalom’s flight, and this accords with the capacity for rapid change of his sanguine temperament; his hot anger soon sank into quiet. Comp. 2Sa_13:21; 2Sa_12:20-24. The rendering: “And David longed to go forth to Absalom” (Chald., the Rabbis, De W. in the Remarks) supposes the insertion of the word soul (נֶפֶשׁ) after the verb (so Eng. A. V.] But (apart from the hardness of this insertion) there are two objections to this rendering, namely, that David could have sent for Absalom, if he wanted him, and that, so far from feeling any love-longing towards Absalom, David was permanently set against him, as appears from the fact that, after Joab had gotten him back, it was two years before the king would see him (2Sa_14:24; 2Sa_14:28). Ewald25 renders: “David’s anger ceased to express itself about Absalom.” But the verb (יצא) cannot be so translated, and the insertion [of the word anger] is arbitrary and violent. Böttcher’s* translation: “and David left off going,” etc., supposes that he had begun to go, and was stopped by obstacles, which is nowhere intimated. The same objection lies to Thenius’* rendering: “he desisted from going out” (after having begun), time having softened his grief; but nothing is said of this in the connection. [The impersonal construction (of Erdmann and others) cannot be maintained here, and the Heb. text in its present shape gives no sense. We must either adopt the rendering of Eng. A. V. supplying the word soul, or (after Ewald) supply some such word as anger. David’s feeling towards Absalom here indicated is apparently a kindly one, since it is probably what Joab is said in 2Sa_14:1 to perceive, and in this latter verse it is a kindly feeling (Dr. Erdmann takes a different view). The sense, then, seems to be as follows: David longed to recall Absalom, but political and judicial reasons deterred him; Joab perceives this, and helps the king out of the difficulties that his sense of justice threw in the way of the exhibition of his love for his exiled son.—Tr.]
HISTORICAL AND THEOLOGICAL
1. “The sins of the fathers are visited on the children.” The truth of this moral law is illustrated in the history of David’s family. The divine threat uttered by Nathan (2Sa_12:7-12) begins here to be fulfilled in the disintegration of David’s family-life. As he destroyed the honor and happiness of Uriah’s house, so his first-born son brings shame on his; as he committed murder, so the sword dooms his child. One sin led to another; the bitter spring of sin grew in time to a river of destruction that flowed over the whole land, and even endangered David’s throne and life (Baumgarten).
2. The fratricide Absalom is a transgressor of God’s command, infringing by his self-avenging the divine arrangement whereby sin and sinner meet with their judgment. On the other hand, God controls Absalom’s crime, and by it punishes Amnon’s crime. Absalom is God’s instrument, though not himself less guilty. The Lord uses men’s sins according to His pleasure; human unrighteousness must serve the ends of His righteousness.
3. Right family-discipline consists in enforcing God’s holy laws in the control of children, and carelessness in this causes sin to grow quietly, till the evil bursts suddenly forth and destroys the happiness of the household. But when evil makes its appearance God’s law requires strict chastisement, wherein David failed towards both Amnon and Absalom. This neglect, usually the result of weak affection (and in David’s case induced also by the recollection of his own sin), leads to still greater sins and crimes in the family.
4. These dreadful experiences of David and his sons are intended to lead him to purity, humility and sanctification. “He that thinks all this a sign of God’s wrath and disfavor knows little of what it means to have forgiveness of sins. David confessed his sins, and so found favor with the Lord his God. But how wholesome for him was the Lord’s chastisement now, how he needed constant self-humbling, and what better for this end than these bitter experiences of his family? Whom the Lord loves He chastens” (Schlier). “Forgiveness of sin usually merely converts punishment into paternal chastisement, the rod of anger into the smiting of love. Externally the consequences of sin remain the same, only their internal character is changed. Otherwise forgiveness of sin might too easily lead to wilfulness” (Hengstenb. Gesch. d. Reiches Gottes [Hist. of the Kingdom of God], II. 127).
HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL
2Sa_13:1. Osiander: Even though God forgives the sin, nevertheless He lays upon the sinner a cross, that he may be more heedful, and his neighbor may be deterred from sin (Num_14:20-23).
2Sa_13:2. Starke: Where the parents live in sin, the children commonly follow after (1Ki_15:1-3).—[Henry: Godly parents have often been afflicted with wicked children; grace does not run in the blood, but corruption does. We do not find that David’s children imitated him in his devotion; but his false steps they trod in, and in those did much worse, and repented not.—Wordsworth: He was forgiven by God, but they came to a miserable end.—Scott: So depraved is the human heart, that even natural affection may degenerate into licentiousness; and the intercourse even between near relations should be conducted with caution and prudence, that no opportunity may be given to those who are disposed to commit iniquity.—Tr.]—Osiander: The more one thinks about an unchaste love, the greater it becomes.
2Sa_13:3-5. Cramer: Lust punishes itself, consumes the marrow in the bones, shortens life, and ruins one’s good name (Sir_23:22).—J. Lange: One man is another’s angel, a good angel for warning, and so for seduction an evil angel.—[Hall: Had Jonadab been a true friend, he had bent all the forces of his dissuasion against the wicked motions of that sinful lust; had showed the prince of Israel how much those lewd desires provoked God, and blemished himself, and had lent his hand to strangle them in their first conception. There cannot be a more worthy improvement of friendship, than in a fervent opposition to the sins of them whom we profess to love—Tr.]
2Sa_13:10. Starke: The ungodly are ashamed only before men, not before God (Sir_23:25 sq.).—Seb. Schmid: He who wishes to guard against sinning with others, should not follow them where he may be constrained to sin.—Hedinger: Unrighteous works always seek to remain concealed (Pro_7:18-20).
2Sa_13:15-17. Starke [from Hall]: Inordinate lust never ends but in discontent. … Brutish Amnon, it was thyself whom thou shouldst have hated for this villainy, not thine innocent sister. O how many brothers of Amnon there are even to-day.—[Scott: It cannot reasonably be expected that those who make no scruple of debauching the persons of those for whom they pretend affection, will feel any remorse at deserting them with cruelty and disdain, at exposing them to shame and contempt, or at leaving them to all the horrors of penury and prostitution. Let none ever expect better treatment from those who are capable of attempting to seduce them.—Tr.]
2Sa_13:21. Wuert. B.: While parents should love their children, yet they must not spare them when they have done evil, but bring them to due punishment, that they may not have to be punished by God or by the executioner (1Sa_2:29).—[Hall: The better-natured and more gracious a man is, the more subject he is to the danger of an over-remissness, and the excess of favor and mercy.—Wordsworth: David was wroth, but did not punish his son Amnon; being conscious of the sin which he had himself committed, and by which he had tempted his children to sin. And because the king did not execute justice, therefore Absalom, Tamar’s brother, takes the law into his own hands, and murders his brother Amnon. Thus one sin leads to another by an almost endless chain of consequences.—Tr.]—J. Lange: It is very important that persons in authority, teachers and fathers of families should lead such a life that in punishing others they may not have to fear reproach, and thereby be restrained.—Schlier: What is to become of a house, in which father and mother, in the consciousness of their own faults, no longer venture to do their duty?
2Sa_13:28 sq. Schlier: The Lord our God has everything in His hand; He uses even the sin of men according to His will, He punishes one transgressor through another, He chastens one wrong-doer through the wrong-doing of another. The Lord’s mighty hand comes into the common course of the world, and the execution of His judgments goes on right through the midst of the unrighteousness of men.—Always does that remain true which is written: Be not deceived, God is not mocked; sin remains always and everywhere the ruin of peoples.
2Sa_13:36 sq. Osiander: By new attacks and afflictions God brings to His people’s mind their before committed sins, in order that they may the more earnestly go forward in a penitent life.—Cramer: Next to experience of the wrath of God there is no sorer pain under heaven, than when parents come to have such heart-sorrow in their children as to doubt of their souls’ salvation, 2Sa_18:33.
[Amnon. (This might be addressed to an assembly of men alone.) 1) An improper love. 2) Brooding over a sinful attachment till unhappy (2Sa_13:2). 3) In cherishing a sinful desire, one meets temptation to indulge it (2Sa_13:3-5). 4) Unmanly deception and unnatural crime (2Sa_13:6-14). 5). Sinful love sooner or later turning to hate and disgust (2Sa_13:15-18). 6) Licentiousness often leads to other crimes and great calamities (2Sa_13:28-29).—A miserable father. 1) He has been obliged to leave unpunished a disgraceful crime in his house (2Sa_13:21). 2) This has given excuse to a headstrong and ambitious son to murder his brother. 3) Rumor, accepted by his fears, has greatly magnified the calamity (2Sa_13:30). 4) He knows these terrible events to be deserved chastisements for his own former misconduct (2Sa_12:10-11).—Tr.]
Footnotes:
[1][2Sa_13:2. Impf. Qal. of יָצַר, impersonal construction.—The היא in this verse is written הוא in one MS. of Kennicott, which is perhaps an illustration of the fact that this archaic form was not confined to the Pentateuch.—Wellhausen suggests that the Athnach would better stand under אחותו.—Tr.]
[2][2Sa_13:3. The name Jonadab (abbreviated from Jehonadab) means “Jahveh has freely given,” as Jonathan means “Jahveh has given;” but there is no ground for supposing that the two names (here and 2Sa_21:21) represent the same person (Josephus).—Tr.]
[3][2Sa_13:5. Two different words are used for “food,” the first the ordinary expression (לחם), the second a rarer word (בריה), rendered βρῶμα by the Sept. The word לביבה “cake” is discussed by Erdmann in the Exposition.—Tr.]
[4][2Sa_13:9. מַשְׂרֵת, an obscure word. It is nearly identical in form with the Chaldee מסרתא “pan,” which is the rendering in the Targum of the Heb. מַחֲבַת “pan,” and is by some (Cahen) regarded as the Chald. word itself here used instead of the ordinary Heb. word, which is, however, improbable in the Book of Samuel. But while Chald. and Sept. (and Josephus) render it “pan,” Syr. and Vulg. regarded it as designating the food that had been prepared: Vulg. quod coxerat, Syr. “cakes,” and such a meaning would better suit the connection. But no satisfactory etymology has been proposed for it. Geiger’s explanation (Urschrift, p. 382), that it is for מִשְׁאֶרֶת (from שׂאר) “unbaked leavened dough” is not in keeping with the statement in 2Sa_13:8 that the dough had been baked. The meaning of the word must be left undetermined.—Tr.]
[5][2Sa_13:14. The אתה, pointed in the text as Accus., may be read אִתָּהּ “with her,” for which several MSS. read עִמָּהּ; but the Accus. is allowable (later usage, according to Wellhausen).—Tr.]
[6][2Sa_13:16. The translation of Eng. A. V. is impossible in the present form of the Hebrew text; the text, indeed, gives no sense at all, and must be regarded as corrupt. Dr. Erdmann (changing אַל into אֵל and regarding the sentence as interrupted) renders: “on account of this evil, which is greater than the other, etc.,” but such a rendering of אֶל־אדֹוֹת is without authority, and does not fit well with the context. Philippson also, throwing forward the beginning of Tamar’s speech, translates: “and she said to him respecting the evil deed, Greater is this than the other, etc.,” which is intolerably flat. We should naturally regard the אַל as introducing a protest, as in 2Sa_13:12; and, changing the אדות into אחי, we obtain the sense (by transposing the Adjective נְּדוֹלָה): “nay, my brother, this evil is greater than the other, etc.,” which is nearly what the Vat. Sept. (in verse 15) and some other Greek versions (in Montfaucon’s Hexapla) give: “nay, my brother, for the last evil is greater than the first, etc.” These Greek versions apparently had הָרִאשׁנָה instead of הַוּאֹת, אַל אָחִי כִּי נּדְֹלָה הָרָעָה הָאַחֶרֶת מֵהָרִאשֹׁנָה אֲשֶׁר. The “this” of our Hebrew text is supported by the Syr. “why doest thou me this grievous evil, etc.?” and by the Sept. in 2Sa_13:16, which seems, however, to be altered into conformity with the Heb.—Or, following 2Sa_13:12 more exactly, we may write: אַל אָחִי אַל־תַּעֲשֶׂה “nay, my brother, do not this evil which is greater, etc.;” the text above-given is simpler and more in accordance with the ancient versions.—Some MSS. and printed editions have עַל instead of אל (according to the constant usage with אֹדוֹת in the O. T.), and this reading is adopted by the Bib.-Com., which renders: “and she spake with him on account of this great wrong in sending me away, greater than the other, etc.,” supposing that the writer has here blended Tamar’s words with his own narrative (so Cahen). But (not to insist that the rendering “spake with him” is impossible) such a blending is improbable, and the phrase “on account of” in general is not in keeping with the context. Fürst takes the word as a substantive, and renders: “let there be no occasion of this evil, etc.,” which is without support in the usage of the O. T., and is besides very tame.—Tr.]
[7][2Sa_13:17. Sept. “the overseer of his house;” the word is omitted in one MS. of Kennicott, and in one of Pinner’s (Thenius).—Tr.]
[8][2Sa_13:18. So Sept. and other Greek versions, Vulg. and Chaldee (Syr. and Arab. omit the verse). The Greek renderings are καρπωτός and ἀστραγαλωτός.—The מְעִילִים (Eng. A. V. “robes”) is somewhat difficult, and various unsatisfactory alterations of the word have been proposed (Wellh.: so the king’s daughters … were apparelled of old, מֵעוֹלָם). The sentence sounds strange: “she had on a long-sleeved tunic, for so the unmarried princesses wore over-mantles;” but nothing better has been proposed. Böttcher regards it as a gloss.—Tr.]
[9][2Sa_13:21-22. The proposed changes of Böttcher and Thenius are criticised by Erdmann.—Tr.]
[10][2Sa_13:23. Literally: “unto two years days,” a common mode of expression in Heb. (see Lex. s. v. יֶרַח חדֶֹשׁ) the general designation of time being defined more precisely by the addition of the simplest unit “day.”—Tr.]
[11][2Sa_13:30. Absolute construction, corresponding to the Abl. Absol. in Latin. Lit.: “and it came to pass, they on the way, and the news came, etc.”—Tr.]
[12][2Sa_13:38. The repetition of the statement that Absalom fled is striking, and the narrative 2Sa_13:36-38 is not clear and natural in arrangement. We should rather expect 37 b (in which no subject is expressed) to follow 36, and 38 makes 37 a unnecessary. So the first clause of 34 seems out of place. But, while it is hard to justify the present arrangement on logical grounds, the unnecessary repetitions may result from the fact that we have the outline of an originally longer narrative wherein these repeated statements would not be out of place. The order of the masoretic text is sustained by the versions. In 2Sa_13:37 after Geshur (Γεδσούρ) Sept. adds εἰς γῆν χαμμαχάδ, which Thenius accepts as representing an original Heb. “land of Maacah” (Böttcher: land of his mother Maacah), and Wellh. rejects because of the Art. (χα=הַ) and because of the absence of the word “mother.”—Tr.]
[13][2Sa_13:34. Erdmann (after Thenius) renders: “from the West,” referring to Exo_3:1 compared with Isa_9:11; Job_23:8, in none of which passages, however, has the word a suffix as here; and the present Heb. form is suspicious because the anarthrous דֶּרֶךְ (way), as construct, would naturally require a substantive after it. Moreover, the Sept., Syr. and Vulg. here show important deviations from the Heb. The Syr. omits this word (אחריו), the Vulg. renders it with devium, and the Sept. (adding to our text) has: “and behold, much people were coming in the way behind him on the side of the mountain on the declivity (ἐν τῇ καταβάσει), and the watchman came and told the king and said, I have seen men on the way of Oronen on the side (μέρους) of the mountain.” As to this addition it is hard to say whether it belongs to the original text, or is an explanatory insertion; it fills out the narrative very naturally, but this is itself a suspicious fact, and the words spoken by the watchman might certainly be a variant translation of the same Heb. as lies at the basis of the statement in 2Sa_13:34 (in the Hebrew). However this may be (Thenius, Böttcher and Wellhausen accept the addition), the Oronen of the Sept. points to Horon or Horonaim, a well-known place on the neighboring mountain, and the phrase “on the declivity” is thus explained as referring to the declivitous side of the hill (and so the Vulg. devium, Heb. מוֹרָד). We thus reach the rendering “by the way of Horonaim (Beth-horon) on the side of the mountain,” which is syntactically and geographically satisfactory; and need suppose only that חרֹנַיִם has been altered in the masoretic text into אחריו. The addition in the Sept. may be a marginal explanation (if is not found in the Vulg.), and its first clause may be altered into conformity with the existing Heb. text; the ἐν τῇ καταβάσει may belong to the original form (Vulg. devium), and the “on the side of the mountain” may be an explanation of this original or marginal. At any rate the change of אחריו to חרנים is altogether probable.—Tr.]
[14][From this point to 2Sa_23:7 (and 2 Samuel 11 except 2Sa_13:1) is omitted in Chron., it not entering into the design of that Book to record the merely individual history of David, but only his theocratic and ritual acts.—Tr.]
[15]Böttcher: from Arab. לבב, Chald. לפך, Heb. לוה.
[16][Bp. Patrick mentions an (unfounded) Jewish opinion that Tamar was born of Maacah while the latter was a captive (Deu_21:10 sqq.), that is, before she became a proselyte and David’s wife, and that Tamar was therefore legally not Amnon’s sister.—Probably both the explanations suggested above by Erdmann are correct; the Levitical code was hardly observed with strictness at this time.—Tr.]
[17][Thenius here writes μεγάλη ἡ κακία, but Tischendorf has μείζων.—Tr.]
[18][So Böttcher and Thenius, after the analogy of the Arabic, in which a diminutive is formed by inserting a letter (Yod) after the second radical; but the diminutive form is doubtful here, partly because the ancient versions (Arabic included) except Chaldee do not here follow the Heb., but give the form Amnon; the reading here may be a clerical error (so Wellhausen and Bib.-Com.).—Tr.]
[19]Böttcher: “The name אפרים is probably from עפרים or עפרין.” Thenius: “If the tribe Ephraim were meant, it would read: ‘which pertains to’ (אֲשְר לְ) (comp. 1Sa_17:1; 1Ch_13:6), not ‘near’ (עִם), Vulg. juxta Ephraim, and see Gen_35:4 and especially Jos_7:2.”—[Mr. Grove, in Smith’s Bib. Dict., thinks that three different places are meant in Joh_11:54; 2Sa_18:6 and 2Ch_13:19, and does not identify our Ephraim with any of them; there is, he says, no clew to its situation.—Tr.]
[20][Kitto (Dai. Bib. Ill.) remarks that David’s reason in 2Sa_13:25 is the first intimation in history of the ruinous expense of royal visits, and mentions the case of the Hoghton family in Lancashire, said to have been ruined by a visit from King James I.—Tr.]
[21][Thenius (followed by Wellh.) accepts this addition as a part of the original text because of its naturalness, holding the reason for its omission from the Heb. to be the similar ending of the two clauses (הַמֶּלֶךְ, here and in 2Sa_13:27). But Erdmann’s argument against this elucidatory statement is just and entitled to consideration.—Tr.]
[22][Some VSS. and EDD. have “my lord the king,” instead of “my lord;” and some read כִּי, “for,” instead of כּי אִם, “but.” In such particles the text is uncertain.—Tr.]
[23][The common Vulg. text has “in the mouth (in ore) of Absalom.” The Syr.: “it was fixed (שׂימה) in the purpose of Absalom,” confirms the Heb. as a free rendering, while the Chald.: “treachery (waylaying) was in the heart of Absalom,” seems to take the שׂימה (“laid”) as a substantive (= זִמָּח, Thenius). Hence Ewald would read it שִׂטְמָה [an unknown word] = “look of revenge,” and Wellhausen takes our word (from the Arab, root = sinister fuit) as a substantive = “sinister expression.” A substantive as subject would naturally be expected here, but the proposed emendations are hardly satisfactory. Following the Chald. we might read: “on the heart of Absalom was laid this thing,” etc., which (by inserting the words “this thing”) would correspond with the following clause. But this conjecture is not sufficiently supported by external authority.—Tr.]
[24]“David the king,” instead of the usual (Sept., Vulg.) “king David” (comp. Ges., § 113, Rem.). [Some take the דָּוִד here, on account of its unusual position (but see 1Sa_18:6), to be a corruption of some other word meaning grief, soul, or the like.—Tr.]—וַתְּכַל from כלא = כלה, “to prevent” (Maur., Keil), “these two verbs often interchanging.” As the 3 pers. masc. is often impersonal [וַיֵּצֶר לוֹ], so sometimes the 3 pers. fem. (1Sa_30:6; Psa_1:3; comp. Ges., § 137, 2). וַתַּכַל therefore here = “and it hindered him.” [To this impersonal construction there are two syntactical objections: 1) the substantive idea of the verb is active instead of neuter, and in any case we should expect the object (דוד) to be introduced by a preposition; 2) the Inf. after כלא is properly introduced by מִן instead of לְ as here. Maurer renders: “it restrained him,” i. e. grief; others: “David restrained [his servants],” which the form of the verb (fem.) does not permit.—Tr.]
[25]Ewald: וַתֵּכֶל הֲמַת דָוִד לָצֵאת עַל־אַבְשָׁלוֹם; Böttcher: וַתֵּכֶל לְדָוִד; Thenius; וַיֶּחְדַּל.
Lange's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures (Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical), ed. John Peter Lange, English translation edited by Philip Schaff (1864–1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset & David Brown 1871 · Public Domain On vv2, 3, 4, 6, 12, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20 for she was a virgin--Unmarried daughters were kept in…
for she was a virgin--Unmarried daughters were kept in close seclusion from the company of men; no strangers, nor even their relatives of the other sex, being permitted to see them without the presence of witnesses. Of course, Amnon must have seen Tamar, for he had conceived a violent passion for her, which, though forbidden by the law (Lev 18:11), yet with the sanction of Abraham's example (Gen 20:12), and the common practice in neighboring countries for princes to marry their half sisters, he seems not to have considered an improper connection. But he had no means of making it known to her, and the pain of that disappointment preying upon his mind produced a visible change in his appearance and health.
Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
Daniel D. Whedon 1874 · Public Domain On vv1, 2, 3, 6, 8, 10, 12, 13, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 21 AMNON’S INCEST, 2Sa_13:1-19.
AMNON’S INCEST, 2Sa_13:1-19.
The charm and power of David’s name in Israel must have been largely broken as his sins in the matter of Uriah the Hittite became known to his family and among the people. His own deep penitence and humiliation before God speedily brought him mercy and pardon, but the silent influence of royal example left its evil leaven to work in the court and in the nation. And the institution of polygamy, fostered in the royal household, was the fruitful source of feuds and crimes. Its necessary tendency was to favour dissoluteness of life among the members of the king’s household, and also to occasion numberless bickerings and fearful struggles over the matter of succession to the throne. All this is abundantly shown in the following history, and especially in the sins and ruin of Amnon and Absalom.
Read full note →
1. It came to pass after this — Probably not long after the events of the last chapter. The divine judgments upon David’s house followed hard after his sin.
Tamar — Sister of Absalom, and half sister of Amnon. Compare the marginal references.
Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges 1878 · Public Domain On vv1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 13, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 1. Tamar] Tamar and Absalom were the children of…
1. Tamar] Tamar and Absalom were the children of Maacah daughter of Talmai king of Geshur (ch. 2Sa_3:3). Tamar means palm-tree. The Arabs still frequently give their daughters the names of trees distinguished for their grace, beauty, or fruitfulness. See Van Lennep’s Bible Lands, II. 501.
Amnon] David’s first-born, the son of Ahinoam the Jezreelitess.
The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers 1878 · Public Domain On vv1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 9, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 (1) It came to pass after this.—This formula applies…
(1) It came to pass after this.—This formula applies to the narrative which follows as a whole: not, of course, to the fact immediately afterwards mentioned, that Absalom’s sister was Tamar. This may illustrate the use of the same phrase in other places.
Absalom and Tamar were children of Maacah, daughter of Talmai, king of Geshur, and the former, at least, had been born during David’s reign at Hebron (2Sa_3:3). It is probable that the events here narrated occurred soon after the war with the Ammonites and David’s marriage with Bath-sheba.
Read full note →
Amnon was David’s first-born son (3:2).
A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Pulpit Commentary 1880 · Public Domain On vv1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 9, 12, 13, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 After this. This phrase, as we have seen on…
After this. This phrase, as we have seen on 2Sa_10:1, has little chronological force, but the date of the sad event which formed the second stage in David"s punishment can be settled with considerable certainty. Tamar was the daughter of Maacah, a princess of Geshur, and David"s marriage with her, while still at Hebron, is mentioned as a proof of his growing power, and consequently some time must have elapsed after his appointment as king before this alliance took place. As Absalom was apparently older than Tamar, if she were now fifteen or sixteen years of age. David would have been king of all Israel at least thirteen or fourteen years, and would have reached the summit of his glory. His wars would be over, Rabbah captured, and his empire firmly established. For twenty more years he must sit upon his throne, but as a culprit, and bear the many sorrows resulting from his sin. Amnon was David"s firstborn, the son of Ahinoam of Jezreel; and probably he would never have committed his shameless crime had not David"s own sin loosed the bonds of parental authority. As it was, he hesitated, but was encouraged to it by his cousin, who was too subtle a man not to weigh David"s character well before coming to the conclusion that Amnon might safely gratify his lusts. The name Tamar means "palm tree," and both she and Absalom were remarkable for their personal beauty.
HOMILETICS.
Read full note →
Vers. 1-22.
The firstfruits of iniquity.
The facts are:
1. Amnon entertains an improper affection for his half-sister Tamar, and meditates evil.
2. Making known his secret passion to Jonadab, he is prompted to a device for securing a personal interview with her.
3. The king, visiting Amnon in his pretended sickness, kindly arranges that Tamar should wait upon him with special focal in his chamber.
4. Seizing an opportunity in the absence of attendants, he accomplishes hispurpose in defiance of her protests and pretexts.
5. By a sudden revulsion of feeling, he now hates her, and causes her to bedriven away in disgrace.
6. Her trouble becoming known to the king and to Absalom, the one isvery wroth and does nothing, and the other conceals his cherished hatred and revenge. The rather long account given of the base sin of Amnon is no doubt intended to show how the chastisements pronounced by Nathan (2Sa_12:10, 2Sa_12:11) were brought about. In this way the spiritual character of the narrative shines through all the details, which in themselves seem worthy of being forever lost in oblivion. It is in connection with the evil, and often through the evil, of life that the righteousness of God is historically revealed. Those who object to such passages as these in the Bible know not the principle on which it, as a book, is constructed. It is not the deeds that are the object of thought and instruction, but the fulfilment of the righteous judgments of God, brought to pass in the fact and consequences of their occurrence. In the deeds here recorded we have a graphic description of the firstfruits of the dreadful sin of David.
I ALL SIN SOONER OR LATER BEARS FRUIT IN HUMAN SOCIETY. "Sin" is a term descriptive of the moral quality of thought or action. It is a demonstrable fact in the sphere of mind and life, that every distinct thought and mental act, to say nothing of the outward expression of it, is a power or force contributed towards a modification of the existing forces at work in the world. No mental life is the same after a given thought has been formed as it would have been had some other been in its place. The law of dynamics, by which every wave of motion produces an effect forever, holds good in the mental and moral sphere. Sin is a wave of evil, a force in an oblique direction, or as a seed to germinate and reproduce its kind. David"s dreadful deed could not but be an instance of this inevitable law. Other counter-influences of good might arise, but they would not annihilate the fact of the evil influence, and social life would not be the same as it would have been in case his energy had all gone in the line of good, and the energy of the counteraction had been, not counteractive, but supplementary to the force of his unbroken holy life. It is an awful fact that the universe, after sin, is a changed place, and that the trace of the curse in some form, though not necessarily active, will ever be found in the thought and constitution of society.
II THE IMMEDIATE ACTION OF CONSPICUOUS SIN IS TO WEAKEN THE RESTRAINTS ON EXISTING EVIL TENDENCIES. There are always in the human heart propensities urgent for activity, and they are kept back very much by reason of the force of goodness in the good, as well as by the natural action of conscience. There can be no question that Amnon was, like many, prone to the lusts of the flesh, and that the fact of David"s fall had lessened the restraints upon him. The secrecy encouraged by Jonadab might well be stimulated by the previous secrecy of David in his sin, so far as it was known to his family. The influence of David"s sin on the mind of Joab could not fail to render court life more corrupt in its springs; for it is a mournful fact that, while we by our sins set a new force for evil at work which gives momentum to those already active, we do not convey to society the blessedness which subsequently may come to us in a free pardon. A notorious sin in high stations is the foster parent of kindred sins. A parent by his known sin sheds influences around his children that tend to develop the worst elements of their nature. It is fuel to fire.
III THOSE WHO HAVE COMMITTED OPEN SINS MUST ESPECIALLY FEEL THE PAIN OF WITNESSING THE FRUIT OF THEIR DEEDS. The enlarging family of David offered wider scope for the ill effects of his conduct to work upon. The addition of Bathsheba to the harem under the peculiar circumstances could not but awaken jealousies, and among the various children loosen the bonds of restraint on the lower tendencies of life. He who had so cleverly sought to cover sin in the case of Uriah and his wife, could not detect the secret plot covered by the sickness of his son, whom he with paternal kindness visited and comforted (ver. 6).
The iniquity thus coming to maturity at last came to his knowledge in a form little suspected. Its distinctly incestuous character, and the cool cunning with which it was prepared for and perpetrated, must have given intense pain to David, apart from the evil of the act, inasmuch as it would forcibly remind him of days and nights of scheming to accomplish a horrid crime, and compel him to see that the son has learnt too well to imitate the deeds of the father. The mere sincere his recent penitence, and the more perfect his restoration to God"s favour, the more keen the anguish that now would fill his spirit; for he would see and feel as a holy reconciled man only can. A similar experience is that of parents who witness in their sons, it may be, bolder forms of the sin to which they were once the victims. There are such in Christian society. Their peace with God may be real through the merits of Christ, but their pathway is beclouded by a terrible sorrow. The terrible evils of sin in this life, even to the good! Bitter is the firstfruit!
IV THOSE WHO HAVE COMMITTED OPEN SIN ARE PARALYZED IN THEIR ACTION TOWARDS SINS OF THE SAME CHARACTER. It is said that when David learnt the full facts of Amnon"s conduct towards Tamar, he "was very wroth" (ver. 21). No doubt. Every kind and holy feeling of the restored man would be outraged by this vile conduct. But it is significant that nothing further is said. No action of a legal character was taken. The sentence of the Mosaic Law was not enforced. The remembrance of his own sin unfitted him to deal with Amnon as was due. Direct action on his part for his punishment would, he thought, be met by the reproach of his own deeds. "Physician, heal thyself," had a paralyzing meaning for him. The reference to Absalom nourishing revenge till occasion offered is an historical set off to David"s inactivity. There is nothing unusual in David"s conduct. It is repeated every day. The liar"s tongue is deprived of its power in reproving lies in others. The deceiver in business affairs cannot with energy and force warn others against fraud. Men who have openly indulged in the lusts of the flesh speak with bated breath and act with indecision when public questions concerning the suppression and punishment of licentiousness are discussed. They may be sincere in their expression of pain, and be intensely angry if any of their offspring fall into vile ways, but they are conscious of a secret force checking the action which otherwise would have been taken. None can speak and act on moral questions as the pure. Our Saviour"s words on all moral subjects carry with them the force of his unsullied life. Herein is an example for teachers and taught.
GENERAL LESSONS.
1. There should be an avoidance of all customs in society that in any waytend to strengthen, and give occasion for the development of, the baser feelings of human nature. Oriental harems may have their counterparts in certain usages of Western life. Whatever weakens the feelings of purity and chastity is a positive evil.
2. Care should be taken to avoid the company and services of men clever inevil. There are Jonadabs in society, whose services are ready, but are fraught with woe.
3. The man who can make use of the kindly sympathies of others in orderto encompass their ruin is already far gone towards perdition; and inasmuch as there are many such still in society, men who abuse the tenderest affections for lustful ends, their persons should be abhorred and shunned by all Christian people.
4. The selfishness and cruelty of sin is a universal quality (vers. 15-17), andas such it deserves the utmost detestation. All sin is self against God and God"s holy order. The adulterer in his lust, the defrauder in his deceit, the extortioner in his greed, the rebellious son in his disobedience, know this too well. Their deeds are damage to the universe for sake of self.
5. There is always being treasured up somewhere retribution for those whoseem to escape the punishment due to their sin. Absalom"s self-control (ver. 22) is suggestive of restraint on the forces which at last cannot but overwhelm the wicked with destruction (2Pe_2:3; Jud_1:15)
HOMILIES BY B. DALE. Vers. 1-33. (JERUSALEM.)
The crime of Amnon.
The chastisements which David experienced came upon him chiefly through his family. The misconduct of his sons was largely due to his own "in the matter of Uriah," and his defective discipline (1Sa_3:13; 1Ki_1:6) in connection with polygamy. (2Sa_3:1-5) "This institution is the absolutely irrepressible source of numberless evils of this description. It ever furnishes a ready stimulus to unbounded sensual desire in the sovereign, and, should he be exalted above it, is likely to introduce a dissolute life among the very different children of different mothers, by bringing the pleasures of sense so prominently and so early before their eyes. The subsequent troubles with Amnon, Absalom, and Adonijah were all connected with this fundamental wrong; and on the same thread hung many of the evils which were felt under David"s successors" (Ewald). "Having grown up without strict paternal discipline, simply under the care of their different mothers, who were jealous of one another, his sons fancied that they might gratify their own fleshly lusts, and carry out their own ambitious plans" (Keil). Amnon his eldest son (by Ahinoam of Jezreel, whom David married during his exile, (1Sa_25:43) and born in Hebron, (2Sa_3:2) was now about twenty years of age. "His character and conduct were doubtless affected by the fact that he was the firstborn son, and of a mother apparently not of the noblest birth." In him (regarded as a warning especially to young men) we notice
I IMPURE AFFECTION, springing up in the heart, and not repressed, but fondly cherished. His passion was contrary to the Divine Law, not merely because the object of it was his half-sister (ver. 13), but also because of its licentious nature. (Mat_5:28) His subsequent conduct indicates that it was not
True love, that ever shows itself as clear In kindness as loose appetite in wrong. (Dante. )
It is not improbable, from his ready entertainment of it, and the question of Absalom (ver. 20), that already he had given himself to unrestrained indulgence of his passions. When once "reason by lust is swayed," the heart becomes a congenial soil for all unholy affections. And the only sure safeguard is to "keep the heart with all diligence;" by giving no place to an impure thought, avoiding every incentive to "fleshly lusts, which war against the soul," the exercise of habitual self-denial, and prayer for Divine. (Mat_5:29 Mat_15:19)
II INWARD MISERY, proceeding from restless passion and fretful discontent at hindrances and restraints in the way of its gratification (ver. 2). It is well that such hindrances and restraints exist (in Divine Law, public opinion, providential circumstances); for they afford opportunity for reflection, conviction of its sinful nature, and the adoption of all proper means whereby it may be overcome. Where it is still cherished, its strength increases and its force is felt more powerfully, as that of a river appears when a rock opposes its progress. (Rom_7:7) "There is no peace to the wicked." "Amnon here neglected, indeed, the right means; viz. in time to have resisted his affections and not to have given way unto them; to have given himself to abstinence and some honest exercises which might have occupied his mind; then by some lawful matrimonial love to have overcome his unlawful lust; and to have prayed unto God for grace" (Willet).
III DELIBERATE DISSIMULATION, displayed in crafty devices, adopted in accordance with evil suggestion, in order to selfish indulgence. He who suffers a sinful desire to reign within him is peculiarly susceptible to temptation, and readily yields to it; sometimes pursues a course of guile, and takes advantage of affection, kindness, and unsuspecting confidence.
seducer is brother to the murderer." Blinded and infatuated, he resorts to the most subtle and contemptible expedients. And, alas! he too often succeeds.
IV WILFUL PERSISTENCY in wickedness, notwithstanding the strongest inducements to the contrary (vers. 12, 13). "It is enough to suppose that the king had a dispensing power, which was conceived to cover even extreme cases." When persuasive craft is employed in vain to entice into sin, and the slave of passion meets with another merciful check by the opposition of virtue and piety ("in Israel"), he is driven on to more brutal, though less diabolical methods of accomplishing his base designs. The dishonour done to the highest claims (of God, religion, his people), the disgrace incurred, the misery inflicted, should be sufficient to deter from "foolish and hurtful lusts;" but with him they are of no avail. "The unjust knoweth no shame" (Zep_3:5; Isa_26:10) Then one evil passion is replaced by another.
Sweet love, I see, changing his property, Turns to the sourest and most deadly hate. (Shakespeare. )
"He hated her, but did not hate his own sin. Thus he showed that the love he had professed to her was not love, but lust; that it was not of God, but of the evil one" (Wordsworth). "It is characteristic of human nature to hate whom you have injured" (Tacitus). "Such are the baits and allurements of sin, which have a pleasant taste at the first, but in the end bite like a serpent; therefore one saith that pleasures must be considered, not as they come, but as they go" (Wilier). "He feedeth on ashes," etc.. (Isa_44:20) The victim of evil desire becomes an object of bitter aversion, is pitilessly thrust away, maliciously defamed, and thus more grievously wronged: the true picture of many a desolated life! "What men dignify with the name of love is commonly a base sensual inclination, entire selfishness, which triumphs over the conscience and the fear of God, and without pity consigns its object to irreparable disgrace and misery for the sake of a momentary gratification! How different from that love which the Law of God commands! yea, how contrary to it!" (Scott).
V DELUSIVE SECURITY, arising from the persuasion that secret iniquity may escape retribution. The transgressor thinks, perhaps, that it cannot be proved, no one will venture to call him to account for it, and that it is not worse than other crimes that go unpunished. Whatever fears (ver. 21) or suspicions he may at first entertain, are laid asleep by the lapse of time (ver. 23). He is not led to repentance by the long suffering of Heaven, and he heeds not its wrath. But "judgment lingereth not," etc.. (2Pe_2:3)
VI SUDDEN DESTRUCTION, inflicted by an unexpected hand (vers. 20, 28, 32). Where public law fails to do justice, private hostility finds means to take vengeance. One sin produces another, and is punished by it; craft by craft, violence by violence, hatred by hatred. "The way of trangressors is hard". D. (Pro_13:15 Pro_6:15 Pro_29:1)
The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Biblical Illustrator 1887 · Public Domain On v1 Absalom the son of David had a fair sister.
2Sa_13:1-29
Absalom the son of David had a fair sister.
Read full note →
The wickedness of Amnon
No other book but the Bible dare have inserted such a chronicle as this and yet have hoped to retain the attention and confidence of the whole world through all ages. A chapter of this kind is not to be read in its singularity, as if it stood wholly alone and unrelated to other currents of human history. Coming upon it as an exceptional story, the only possible feeling is one of intense and repugnant disgust. If this chapter, and a few others almost like it, occupied any considerable space in the Bible, without being relieved by a context of a very different quality, they would certainly and properly wreck the fortune of the whole book as a public instructor and guide. Amnon did not represent a human nature different from our own. It must always be considered that such men as Amnon and Judas Iscariot represented the very human nature which we ourselves embody. The difference between the sweet child and the corrupt and infernal Amnon may in reality be but a difference in appearance and form. Time alone can tell what is in every human heart, and not, time only, for circumstances sometimes awaken either our best selves or our worst selves and surprise us by what is little less than a miracle of self-revelation Again and again, therefore, let it be said--for the tediousness is well compensated by the moral instruction--that when we see the worst specimen of human nature we see what we ourselves might have been but for the restraining grace of God. A relieving feature in the whole record is certainly to be found in the anger which was felt in regard to the outrage committed by Amnon. The outrage was not looked upon as a mere commonplace, or as a thing to be passed by a casual remark; it aroused the infinite indignation of Absalom, and in this ease Absalom, as certainly as Amnon, must be taken in a representative capacity. Whilst, therefore, it is right to look upon this most heartrending and discouraging aspect of human nature, it is rights also to remember that those who observed it answered the unholy deed with burning indignations, It is thus that the Spirit of God reveals itself through the spirit of man. This is not the voice of Absalom alone; it is the voice of the Spirit which fills and rules the world. We need men who dare express their angriest and holiest feelings in indignation that cannot be mitigated or turned aside; we need men who have courage to go forth and make their voices heard in moral darkness. Absalom killed Amnon, and killed him in a somewhat cowardly way; yet it would be difficult to blame Absalom for this act of fraternal reprisal and justice. Still, it is just at such critical points that the spirit of Christian civilisation intervenes and undertakes to do for the individual man what the individual man must not be permitted to do for himself. Here is the mystery of society. It would seem a short and easy method for every man who is outraged immediately to cause the criminal to suffer, but on second thoughts it will appear, first, that this is impossible, and, secondly, that it is utterly impracticable: impossible because in many cases the criminal may be stronger than the man who has been outraged, and impracticable because the criminal may by many cunning methods evade the punishment which the righteous man would inflict. These records are written not only for our instruction but for our warning. The most puristic mind may well pause before the record of this chapter and wonder as to his own possibilities of apostasy. Let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall. Be sure your sin will find you out. What is done in secret is to be proclaimed from the house-tops, and a sudden light is to unveil that which is supposed to be covered by the densest concealment. Society would be rent in twain by the very suspicion that there may be Amnons within its circle, but for the conviction that the Lord reigneth, and that all things make for righteousness and justice under his beneficent rule. (J. Parker, D. D.)
Absalom and Amnon
A living sorrow, says the proverb, is worse than a dead. The dead sorrow had been very grievous to David; what the living sorrow, of which this chapter tells us, must have been, we cannot conceive. It is a very repulsive picture of sensuality that this chapter presents. One would suppose float Amnon and Absalom had been accustomed to the wild orgies of pagan idolatry. Nathan had rebuked David because he had given occasion to the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme. This in Gods eyes was a grievous offence. Amnon and Absalom are now guilty of the same offence in another form, because they afford a pretext for ungodly men to say that the families of holy men are no better--perhaps that they are worse--than other families. In Scripture some men have very short biographies; Amnon is one of these. And, like Cain, all that is recorded of him has the mark of infamy. We can easily understand that it was a great disaster to him to be a kings son. To have his position in life determined and all his wants supplied without an effort on his part; to be so accustomed to indulge his legitimate feelings that when illegitimate desires rose up it seemed but natural that they too should be gratified; to be surrounded by parasites and flatterers, that would make a point of never crossing him nor uttering a disagreeable word, but constantly encouraging his tastes--all this was extremely dangerous. And when his father had set him the example, it was hardly possible he would avoid the snare. There is every reason to believe that before he is presented to us in this chapter he was already steeped in sensuality. It was his misfortune to have a friend, Jonadab, the son of Shimeah, Davids brother, a very subtil man, who at heart must trove been as great a profligate as himself. For if Jonadab had been anything but a profligate, Amnon would never have confided to him his odious desire with reference to his half-sister, and Jonadab would never have given him the advice that he did. What a blessing to Anmon, at this stage of the tragedy, would have been the faithful advice of an honest friend--one who would have had the courage to declare the infamy of his proposal, and who would have so placed it in the light of truth that it would have shocked and horrified even Amnon himself l In reality, the friend was more guilty than the culprit. The one was blinded by passion; the other was self-possessed and cool. The cool man encourages the heated; the sober man urges on the intoxicated. The plan which Jonadab proposes for Amnon to obtain the object of his desire is founded on a stratagem which he is to practise on his father. He is to pretend sickness, and under this pretext to get matters arranged by his father as he would like. If anything more was needed to show the accomplished villainy of Amnon, it is his treatment of Tamar after he has violently compassed her ruin. It is the story so often repeated even at this day--the ruined victim flung aside in dishonour, and left unpitied to her shame. We think of those men of the olden time as utter barbarians who confined their foes in dismal dungeons, making their lives a continual torture, and denying them the slightest solace to the miseries of captivity. But what shall we say of those, high-born and wealthy men, it may be, who doom their cast-off victims to an existence of wretchedness and degradation which has no gleam of enjoyment, compared with which the silence and loneliness of a prison would he a luxury? Can the selfishness of sin exhibit itself anywhere or anyhow more terribly? If David winked, Absalom did nothing of the kind. Such treatment of his full sister, if the king chose to let it alone, could not be left alone by the proud, indignant brother. He nursed his wrath, and watched for his opportunity. Nothing short of the death of Anmon would suffice him. And that death must be compassed not in open fight but by assassination. And now the first part of the retribution denounced by Nathan begins to be fulfilled, and fulfilled very fearfully--the sword shall never depart from thy house. (W. G. Blaikie, D. D.)
Parental failure
Every one must have been struck by the remarkable fact that while David was so admirable as a governor of a kingdom, he was so unsuccessful as a ruler of his own house.
1. First of all, in accounting for the troubles of his house, we have again to notice his plurality of wives--a sure source not only of domestic trouble, but of ungodliness too. The training of the young, and all the more since the Fall, is attended with very great difficulties; and unless father and mother be united, visibly united, in affection, in judgment, and in piety, the difficulty of raising a godly seed is very greatly increased. In Davids house there must have been sad confusion. There could have been no happy and harmonious co-operation between father and mother in training the children, Hence the paramount importance of the apostles exhortation--Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers.
2. Further, Davids own example, in certain respects, was another cause of the ill-ordered state of his family. A parent may have a hundred good qualities, and but very few bad, but the risk of his children adopting the bad is much greater than the likelihood of their copying the good. The bent of their fallen nature inclines them to the one; only Divine grace can draw them to the other. The character Of David was singularly rich in fine qualities, but it was also marked by a few flaring defects. One was, proneness to animal indulgence; another, the occasional absence of straightforwardness. These were the very defects which his children copied.
3. A third cause of Davids failure in the government of his family was the excessive, even morbid tenderness of his feelings towards his children--especially some of them. Perhaps a fourth reason may be added for Davids ill success in his family--though of this there is less positive proof than of the rest--he may have thought of his family circle as too exclusively a scene for relaxation and enjoyment--he may have forgot that even there is a call for much vigilance and self-denial. Men much harassed with public business and care are prone to this error. In truth, there is no recreation in absolute idleness, and no happiness in neglect of duty. True recreation lies not in idleness, but in change of employment, and true happiness is found not in neglecting duty, but in its performance. (W. G. Blaikie, D. D.)
Amnon and Absalom: Examples of short-circuited lives
The wires became crossed; there was a flash, a beautiful pyrotechnic display, and then the machinery that ought to have lasted years longer was still--a mass of inert matter fit only to go to the shop and undergo extensive repairs. She got short-circuited, and burned herself out, was the explanation of the engineer. No one questions that selfish indulgence and sin yield more intense and feverish pleasure than a life of self-control and unselfishness. All normal pleasures are moderate, because it is the wise design of nature to have them often repeated and continued through a long period, culminating at the end. To yield to a desire for immoderate indulgence of any kind, whether it is the pursuit of the pleasures of appetite, or of business successes, or of social excitement, or intellectual dissipation in novel-reading or the play, is simply to short-circuit our lives and burn out in a few fitful flashes the possibilities of enjoyment that should have been extended over a long and happy lifetime.
Vengeance upon the wrongdoer
Tarquinius son Sextus, lawless and flagitious, had committed a rape on Lucretia. The dead body of the violated Lucretia was brought into the forum, and Brutus, throwing off his assumed disguise of insanity, appeared the passionate advocate of a just revenge, and the animated orator in the cause of liberty against tyrannical oppression. The people were roused in a moment, and were prompt and unanimous in their procedure. Tarquinius was at this time absent from the city, engaged in a war with the Rutulians. The Senate was assembled, and pronounced a decree which banished forever the tyrant, and at the same time utterly abolished the name and office of king. (Tytlers History.)
Purity at all cost
Dr. Arnold, of Rugby, finding that two or three of the boys had been guilty of impurity of both speech and action, he promptly dismissed them from the school. The directors, meeting later on, took the Doctor severely to task for the drastic measures he had resorted to, and said at that rate the college would soon be empty. He simply replied that he would rather see the number reduced to twelve, and have purity of thought and action, than bad moral influence to have a foothold. (Newton Jones.)
The Biblical Illustrator, edited by Joseph S. Exell (c. 1880s–1900s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Expositor's Bible 1887 · Public Domain On v1
CHAPTER X V I I.
ABSALOM AND AMNON.
Read full note →
2Sa_13:1-37.
LIVING sorrow, says the proverb, is worse than a dead. The dead sorrow had been very grievous to David; what the living sorrow, of which this chapter tells us, must have been, we cannot conceive. It is his own disorderly lusts, reappearing in his sons, that are the source of this new tragedy. It is often useful for parents to ask whether they would like to see their children doing what they allow in themselves; and in many cases the answer is an emphatic "No." David is now doomed to see his children following his own evil example, only with added circumstances of atrocity. Adultery and murder had been introduced by him into the palace; when he is done with them they remain to be handled by his sons.
It is a very repulsive picture of sensuality that this chapter presents. One would suppose that Amnon and Absalom had been accustomed to the wild orgies of pagan idolatry. Nathan had rebuked David because he had given occasion to the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme. He had afforded them a pretext for denying the work of the Holy Spirit in regeneration and sanctification, and for affirming that so-called holy men were just like the rest of mankind. This in God's eyes was a grievous offence, Amnon and Absalom are now guilty of the same offence in another form, because they afford a pretext for ungodly men to say that the families of holy men are no better - perhaps that they are worse - than other families. But as David himself in the matter of Uriah is an exception to the ordinary lives of godly men, so his home is an exception to the ordinary tone and spirit of religious households. Happily we are met with a very different ideal when we look behind the scenes into the better class of Christian homes, whether high or low. It is a beautiful picture of the Christian home, according to the Christian ideal, we find, for example, in Milton's Comus - pure brothers, admiring a dear sister's purity, and jealous lest, alone in the world, she should fall in the way of any of those bloated monsters that would drag an angel into their filthy sty. Commend us to those homes where brothers and sisters, sharing many a game, and with still greater intimacy pouring into each other's ears their inner thoughts and feelings, never utter a jest, or word, or allusion with the slightest taint of indelicacy'', and love and honour each other with all the higher affection that none of them has ever been near the haunts of pollution. It is easy to ridicule innocence, to scoff at young men who "flee youthful lusts;" yet who will say that the youth who is steeped in fashionable sensuality is worthy to be the brother and companion of pure-minded maidens, or that his breath will not contaminate the atmosphere of their home? What easy victories Belial gains over many! How easily he persuades them that vice is manly, that impurity is grand, that the pig's sty is a delightful place to lie down in! How easily he induces them to lay snares for female chastity, and put the devil's mask on woman's soul! But "God is not mocked; whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap; for he that soweth to the flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption, while he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting."
In Scripture some men have very short biographies; Amnon is one of these. And, like Cain, all that is recorded of him has the mark of infamy. We can easily understand that it was a great disaster to him to be a king's son. To have his position in life determined and all his wants supplied without an effort on his part; to be surrounded by such plenty that the wholesome necessity of denying himself was unknown, and whatever he fancied was at once obtained; to be so accustomed to indulge his legitimate feelings that when illegitimate desires rose up it seemed but natural that they too should be gratified; thus to be led on in the evil ways of sensual pleasure till his appetite became at once bloated and irrepressible; to be surrounded by parasites and flatterers, that would make a point of never crossing him nor uttering a disagreeable word, but constantly encouraging his tastes, - all this was extremely dangerous. And when his father had set him the example, it was hardly possible he would avoid the snare. There is every reason to believe that before he is presented to us in this chapter he was already steeped in sensuality. It was his misfortune to have a friend, Jonadab, the son of Shimeah, David's brother, "a very subtil man," who at heart must have been as great a profligate as himself. For if Jonadab had been anything but a profligate, Amnon would never have confided to him his odious desire with reference to his half-sister, and Jonadab would never have given him the advice that he did. What a blessing to Amnon, at this stage of the tragedy, would have been the faithful advice of an honest friend - one who would have had the courage to declare the infamy of his proposal, and who would have so placed it in the light of truth that it would have shocked and horrified even Amnon himself! In reality, the friend was more guilty than the culprit. The one was blinded by passion; the other was self-possessed and cool. The cool man encourages the heated; the sober man urges on the intoxicated. O ye sons of wealth and profligacy, it is sad enough that you are often so tempted by the lusts that rise up in your own bosoms, but it is worse to be exposed to the friendship of wretches who never study your real good, but encourage you to indulge the vilest of your appetites, and smooth for you the way to hell!
The plan which Jonadab proposes for Amnon to obtain the object of his desire is founded on a stratagem which he is to practice on his father. He is to pretend sickness, and under this pretext to get matters arranged by his father as he would like. To practice deceit on a father was a thing not unknown even among the founders of the nation; Jacob and Jacobs sons had resorted to it alike. But it had been handed down with the mark of disgrace attached to it by God Himself. In spite of this it was counted both by Jonadab and Amnon a suitable weapon for their purpose. And so, as everyone knows, it is counted not only a suitable, but a smart and laughable, device, in stage plays without number, and by the class of persons whose morality is reflected by the popular stage. Who so suitable a person to be made a fool of as "the governor"? Who so little to be pitied when he becomes the dupe of his children's cunning? "Honour thy father and thy mother," was once proclaimed in thunder from Sinai, and not only men's hearts trembled, but the very earth shook at the voice. But these were old times and old- fashioned people. Treat your father and mother as useful and convenient tools, inasmuch as they have control of the purse, of which you are often in want. But as they are not likely to approve of the objects for which you would spend their money; as they are sure, on the other hand, to disapprove of them strongly, exercise your ingenuity in hood win-king them as to your doings, and if your stratagem succeed, enjoy your chuckle at the blindness and simplicity of the poor old fools! If this be the course that commends itself to any son or daughter, it indicates a heart so perverted that it would be most difficult to bring it to any sense of sin. All we would say is, See what kind of comrades you have in this policy of deceiving parents. See this royal blackguard, Amnon, and his villainous adviser Jonadab, resorting to the very same method for hood- winking King David; see them making use of this piece of machinery to compass an act of the grossest villainy that ever was heard of; and say whether you hold the device to be commended by their example, and whether you feel honoured in treading a course that has been marked before you by such footprints.
If anything more was needed to show the accomplished villainy of Amnon, it is his treatment of Tamar after he has violently compassed her ruin. It is the story so often repeated even at this day, - the ruined victim flung aside in dishonour, and left unpitied to her shame. There is no trace of any compunction on the part of Amnon at the moral murder he has committed, at the life he has ruined; no pity for the once blithe and happy maiden whom he has doomed to humiliation and woe. She has served his purpose, king's daughter though she is; let her crawl into the earth like a poor worm to live or to die, in want or in misery; it is nothing to him. The only thing about her that he cares for is, that she may never again trouble him with her existence, or disturb the easy flow of his life. We think of those men of the olden time as utter barbarians who confined their foes in dismal dungeons, making their lives a continual torture, and denying them the slightest solace to the miseries of captivity. But what shall we say of those, high-born and wealthy men, it may be, who doom their cast-off victims to an existence of wretchedness and degradation which has no gleam of enjoyment, compared with which the silence and loneliness of a prison would be a luxury? Can the selfishness of sin exhibit itself anywhere or anyhow more terribly? What kind of heart can be left to the seducer, so hardened as to smother the faintest touch of pity for the woman he has made wretched for ever; so savage as to drive from him with the roughest execrations the poor confiding creature without whom he used to vow, in the days of her unsuspecting innocence, that he knew not how to live!
In a single word, our attention is now turned to the father of both Amnon and Tamar. "When King David heard of all these things, he was very wroth." Little wonder! But was this all? Was no punishment found for Amnon? Was he allowed to remain in the palace, the oldest son of the king, with nothing to mark his father's displeasure, nothing to neutralize his influence with the other royal children, nothing to prevent the repetition of his wickedness? Tamar, of course, was a woman. Was it for this reason that nothing was done to punish her destroyer? It does not appear that his position was in any way changed. We cannot but be indignant at the inactivity of David. Yet when was too much implicated in the same sins to be able to inflict suitable punishment for them. It is those whose hands are clean that can rebuke the offender. Let others try to administer reproof - their own hearts condemn them, and they shrink from the task. Even the king of Israel must wink at the offences of his son.
But if David winked, Absalom did nothing of the kind. Such treatment of his full sister, if the king chose to let it alone, could not be let alone by the proud, indignant brother. He nursed his wrath, and watched for his opportunity. Nothing short of the death of Amnon would suffice him. And that death must be compassed not in open fight but by assassination. At last, after two full years, his opportunity came. A sheep-shearing at Baal-hazor gave occasion for a feast, to which the king and all his sons should be asked. His father excused himself on the ground of the expense. Absalom was most unwilling to receive the excuse, reckoning probably that the king's presence would more completely ward off any suspicion of his purpose, and utterly heedless of the anguish his father would have felt when he found that, while asked professedly to a feast, it was really to the murder of his eldest son. David, however, refuses firmly, but he gives Absalom his blessing. Whether this was meant in the sense in which Isaac blessed Jacob, or whether it was merely an ordinary occasion of commending Absalom to the grace of God, it was a touching act, and it might have arrested the arm that was preparing to deal such a fatal blow to Amnon. On the contrary, Absalom only availed himself of his father's expression of kindly feeling to beg that he would allow Amnon to be present. And he succeeded so well that permission was given, not to Amnon only, but to all the king's sons. To Absalom's farm at Baal-hazor accordingly they went, and we may be sure that nothing would be spared to make the banquet worthy of a royal family. And now, while the wine is flowing freely, and the buzz of jovial talk fills the apartment, and all power of action on the part of Amnon is arrested by the stupefying influence of wine, the signal is given for his murder. See how closely Absalom treads in the footsteps of his father when he summons intoxicating drink to his aid, as David did to Uriah, when trying to make a screen of him for his own guilt. Yes, from the beginning, drink, or some other stupefying agent, has been the ready ally of the worst criminals, either preparing the victim for the slaughter or maddening the murderer for the deed. But wherever it has been present it has only made the tragedy more awful and the aspect of the crime more hideous. Give a wide berth, ye servants of God, to an agent with which the devil has ever placed himself in such close and deadly alliance!
It is not easy to paint the blackness of the crime of Absalom. We have nothing to say for Amnon, who seems to have been a man singularly vile; but there is something very appalling in his being murdered by the order of his brother, something very cold-blooded in Absalom's appeal to the assassins not to flinch from their task, something very revolting in the flagrant violation of the laws of hospitality, and something not less daring in the deed being done in the midst of the feast, and in the presence of the guests. When Shakespeare would paint the murder of a royal guest, the deed is done in the dead of night, with no living eye to witness it, with no living arm at hand capable of arresting the murderous weapon. But here is a murderer of his guest who does not scruple to have the deed done in broad daylight in presence of all his guests, in presence of all the brothers of his victim, while the walls resound to the voice of mirth, and each face is radiant with festive excitement. Out from some place of concealment rush the assassins with their deadly weapons; next moment the life-blood of Amnon spurts on the table, and his lifeless body falls heavily to the ground. Before the excitement and horror of the assembled guests has subsided Absalom has made his escape, and before any step can be taken to pursue him he is beyond reach in Geshur in Syria.
Meanwhile an exaggerated report of the tragedy reaches King David's ears, - Absalom has slain all the king's sons, and there is not one of them left. Evil, at the bottom of his heart, must have been David's opinion of him when he believed the story, even in this exaggerated form. "The king arose and rent his clothes, and lay on the earth; and all his servants stood round with their clothes rent." Nor was it till Jonadab, his cousin, assured him that only Amnon could be dead, that the terrible impression of a wholesale massacre was removed from his mind. But who can fancy what the circumstances must have been, when it became a relief to David to know that Absalom had murdered but one of his brothers? Jonadab evidently thought that David did not need to be much surprised, inasmuch as this murder was a foregone conclusion with Absalom; it had been determined on ever since the day when Amnon forced Tamar. Here is a new light on the character of Jonadab. He knew that Absalom had determined that Amnon should die. It was no surprise to him to hear that this purpose was carried out with effect. Why did he not warn Amnon? Could it be that he had been bribed over to the side of Absalom? He knew the real state of the case before the king's sons arrived. For when they did appear he appealed to David whether his statement, previously given, was not correct.
And now the first part of the retribution denounced by Nathan begins to be fulfilled; and fulfilled very fearfully, - "the sword shall never depart from thy house." Ancient history abounds in frightful stories, stories of murder, incest, and revenge, the materials, real or fabulous, from which were formed the tragedies of the great Greek dramatists. But nothing in their dramas is more tragic than the crime of Amnon, the incest of Tamar, and the revenge of Absalom. What David's feelings must have been we can hardly conceive. What must he have felt as he thought of the death of Amnon, slain by his brother's command, in his brother's house, at his brother's table, and hurried to God's judgment while his brain was reeling with intoxication! What a pang must have been shot by the recollection how David had once tried, for his own base ends, to intoxicate Uriah as Absalom had intoxicated Amnon! It does not appear that David's grief over Amnon was of the passionate kind that he showed afterwards when Absalom was slain; but, though quieter, it must have been very bitter. How could he but be filled with anguish when he thought of his son, hurried, while drunk, by his brother's act, into the presence of God, to answer for the worse than murder of his sister, and for all the crimes and sins of an ill-spent life! What hope could he entertain for the welfare of his soul? What balm could he find for such a wound?
And it was not Amnon only he had to think of. These three of his children, Amnon, Tamar, Absalom, in one sense or another, were now total wrecks. From these three branches of his family tree no fruit could ever come. Nor could the dead now bury its dead. Neither the remembrance nor the effect of the past could ever be wiped out. It baffles us to think how David was able to carry such grief. "David mourned for his son every day." It was only the lapse of time that could blunt the edge of his distress.
But surely there must have been terrible faults in David's upbringing of his family before such results as these could come. Undoubtedly there were. First of all, there was the number of his wives. This could not fail to be a source of much jealousy and discord among them and their children, especially when he himself was absent, as he must often have been, for long periods at a time. Then there was his own example, so unguarded, so unhallowed, at a point where the utmost care and vigilance had need to be shown. Thirdly, there seems to have been an excessive tenderness of feeling towards his children, and towards some of them in particular. He could not bear to disappoint; his feelings got the better of his judgment; when the child insisted the father weakly gave way. He wanted the firmness and the faithfulness of Abraham, of whom God had said, ''I know him that he will command his children and his household after him, and they shall keep the way of the Lord to do justice and judgment." Perhaps, too, busy and often much pressed as he was with affairs of state, occupied with foreign wars, with internal improvements, and the daily administration of justice, he looked on his house as a place of simple relaxation and enjoyment, and forgot that there, too, he had a solemn charge and most important duty. Thus it was that David failed in his domestic management. It is easy to spy out his defects, and easy to condemn him. But let each of you who have a family to bring up look to himself. You have not all David's difficulties, but you may have some of them. The precept and the promise is, "Train up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not depart from it." It is not difficult to know the way he should go - the difficulty lies in the words, "Train up." To train up is not to force, nor is it merely to lay down the law, or to enforce the law. It is to get the whole nature of the child to move freely in the direction wished. To do this needs on the part of the parent a combination of firmness and love, of patience and decision, of consistent example and sympathetic encouragement. But it needs also, on the part of God, and therefore to be asked in earnest, believing prayer, that wondrous power which touches the springs of the heart, and draws it to Him and to His ways. Only by this combination of parental faithfulness and Divine grace can we look for the blessed result, "when he is old he will not depart from it"
William Robertson Nicoll, ed., The Expositor's Bible (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1887–1910) — public domain. 65 of 66 books (1 Corinthians is not separately keyed, as that volume carries no machine-parseable verse references); section-level commentary keyed to the opening verse. Introductory and overview sections not keyed to a specific passage are excluded.
The Preacher's Complete Homiletical Commentary 1892 · Public Domain On v1 2Sa_13:1. “Absalom” and “Tamar” were the children of Maacha,…
CRITICAL AND EXPOSITORY NOTES—
2Sa_13:1. “Absalom” and “Tamar” were the children of Maacha, and “Amnon” was David’s eldest son by Ahinoam the Jezreelitess (see chap 2Sa_3:2-3).
Read full note →
2Sa_13:2. “Was so vexed,” etc. Literally, “it became narrow or strait to Amnon unto becoming sick” i.e., his desire wrought upon him and affected his health. “He thought it hard,” etc., rather, it seemed impossible to him to do anything to her. Tamar, as all Eastern women are, was of course kept in close seclusion, she was also evidently modest and reserved. “Though Amnon’s passion was forbidden by the law (Lev_18:11), yet, with the sanction of Abraham’s example (Gen_20:12), and the common practice in neighbouring countries for princes to marry their half-sisters, he seems not to have considered it an improper connection.” (Jamieson.) Ewald remarks that Amnon’s character and conduct were doubtless affected by the fact that he was the firstborn son, and that his mother was not of noble origin.
2Sa_13:3. “Jonadab.” Although none of David’s brothers were promoted to places of honour and emolument under government, probably from the feeling of alienation which existed between the king and them, David seems to have acted in a kindly spirit towards their children; and the case of Jonadab is one of several known instances in which he had these young relatives about his court. (Jamieson.)
2Sa_13:4. “Day to day.” Lit. from morning to morning. “His aspect was more wretched in the morning after a night made sleepless by torturing passions.” (Erdmann). “A finely chosen point in the description of his malady, from which also it appears that Jonadab was, if not his house-mate, at least his daily companion.” (Thenius). “My brother Absalom’s sister.” “In Eastern countries, where polygamy prevails, the girls are considered to be under the special care and protection of the uterine brother, who is the guardian of their interests and their honour, even more than their father himself (see Gen_34:6-25). (Jamieson).
2Sa_13:6. “Cakes.” Literally heart cakes. “Whether they received their name from their heart-like shape, or their heart-strengthening power, is undecided. The word is lebibah and the Hebrew for heart is leb.” (Erdmann).
2Sa_13:7. “Amnon’s house.” “It is evident that the king’s children lived in different houses. Probably each of the king’s wives lived with their children in a different compartment of the palace.” (Keil). “Dress him meat.” “The cakes seem to have been a kind of fancy bread, in the preparation of which oriental ladies take great delight.” (Jamieson).
2Sa_13:9. “A pan.” The etymology of this word is uncertain, and many scholars think it is a name for some preparation of food. “Have out all men,” etc. This might have been simply regarded as the whim of a sick man.
2Sa_13:12. “Folly.” “The words recall Gen_34:7, where the expression folly (nebalah) is first used to denote a want of chastity. Such a sin was altogether out of keeping with the calling and holiness of Israel.” (Keil.)
2Sa_13:13. This is generally understood to be an expedient resorted to by Tamar, by which she sought to “escape from the hands of Amnon by any means in her power, and to avoid inflaming him still more, and driving him to sin, by precluding all hope of marriage.” (Clericus.)
2Sa_13:15. “Then Amnon hated her.” “This sudden change, which may he fully explained from a psychological point of view, and is still frequently exemplified in actual life, furnishes a striking proof that lust is not love.” (Keil.)
2Sa_13:16. “This evil,” etc. This entire phrase is very obscure, and has been variously rendered. Erdmann supposes an unfinished sentence in which Tamar was interrupted by Amnon. Keil understands her to say, “Do not add to the great wrong which thou hast done me the still greater one of thrusting me away,” and adds, “Tamar calls his sending her away a greater evil than the one already done to her, because it would inevitably be supposed that she had been guilty of some shameful conduct herself,—that the seduction had come from her,—whereas she was perfectly innocent.”
2Sa_13:17. “Then he called,” etc. “Thus leading the servant to suppose that Tamar had done something shameful.” (Erdmann.)
2Sa_13:18. “A garment,” etc. Rather, “a long dress with sleeves.” “The usual undergarment covered only the upper arm, while this covered the whole arm, and took the place of the armless outer garment or robe.” (Erdmann.) “For in this manner,” etc. Translate—“Thus did the king’s daughters, the virgins, clothe themselves with robes” “The writer inserts this remark to show that, notwithstanding this dress, by which a king’s daughter could at once be recognised, Amnon’s servant treated Tamar like a common woman.” (Keil.)
2Sa_13:19. “Laid her hand on her head,” etc. “As a sign that the hand of God was resting on her as it were, vid. Jer_2:37.” (Keil.)
2Sa_13:20. “Been with thee?” A euphemism for what had taken place. See Gen_39:10. “Hold now thy peace.” “Because he was determined to take revenge, but wished to conceal his plan of vengeance for the time.” (Keil.) “Desolate,” i.e., “as one laid waste, with the joy of her life hopelessly destroyed. It cannot be proved that the word ever means single or solitary.” (Keil.)
2Sa_13:22. “Neither good nor bad.” Not a single word, as in Gen_24:50.
2Sa_13:23. “Had sheep-shearers.” See on 1Sa_25:8. “Baalhazor.” This place cannot be exactly identified. “Ephraim.” No city of this name is mentioned in the Old Testament. Erdmann contends that the use of the preposition shows that a city is meant, and Eusebius says that there was one of that name eight miles north of Jerusalem. Keil, however, understands the clause to “point to a situation on the border of the tribe-territory of Ephraim.”
2Sa_13:25. “Blessed him,” i.e., wished him a pleasant and successful feast,” see 1Sa_25:14. (Kiel). “Be chargeable.” “The first intimation in history of the ruinous expense of royal visits.” (Kitto).
2Sa_13:26. “My brother Amnon.” “The first-born, as thy representative.” (Thenius). “Why should he go?” Seeing that David eventually yielded, it is, as Kiel remarks, uncertain whether he had any suspicion of foul-play, but it is well known that the long delay of the act of revenge would be quite in accordance with the spirit of Eastern nations. Erdmann remarks that David’s yielding is an indication of weakness.
2Sa_13:29. “As David had weakly left Amnon’s crime unpunished, Absalom held it his duty to take vengeance on Amnon, and maintain his sister’s honour. This feeling does not, however, exclude the motive of selfish ambition in Absalom; by the death of Amnon he would be one step nearer to the succession to the throne; there may, indeed, have been another brother, Chileab, older than he (2Sa_3:3), but probably (to judge from Absalom’s conduct, 2Sa_15:1-6) he was no longer alive. Absalom’s ambition, which afterwards led him into rebellion, probably welcomed this pretext for putting Amnon, the heir to the throne, out of the way.” (Erdmann). “Mule.” “This is the first mention of a mule in Scripture. The meaning of Gen_36:24 is questionable. Compare below, chap, 2Sa_18:9; 1Ki_1:33. The breeding of mules was forbidden to the Hebrews (Lev_19:19); but their use was regarded as lawful.” (Wordsworth).
2Sa_13:31. “Servants,” i.e., Courtiers.
2Sa_13:32. “By appointment,” etc. Rather, “On Absalom’s mouth was it laid,” etc. Either one could infer from his words what his intention was or, according to Thenius “one could see it in him, for the movements of the soul are seen (next to the look) must clearly about the mouth.”
2Sa_13:34. “Behind him.” “That is, according to well-known usus loquendi (see Exo_3:1, comp. with Isa_9:11; Job_23:8) simply from the west, since in front means geographically the east. “By the way of the hill,” or rather, from the side of the mountain, is probably Mount Zion. The princes came not from the north, but from the west, because the return by this route was easier and quicker. (Erdmann).
2Sa_13:37. “Talmal.” The father of Maacha, Absalom’s mother (see 2Sa_3:3).
2Sa_13:39. This verse begins with a difficult clause, which renders its meaning very obscure “The verb,” says Dr. Jamieson, “being feminine, does not refer to David, neither is it correct to say that David longed to go forth to Absalom; for there is no ground to suppose that he entertained either an intention or a wish to visit his exiled son. The clause should be rendered, The anger of David ceased to go forth,” etc. Erdmann and Keil translate, “David held back, on did not go forth,” etc.; and the former remarks, in support of this rendering, that “David could have sent for Absalom if he wanted him, and that, so far from feeling any love-longing towards Absalom, David was permanently set against him, as appears from the fact that after Joab had got him back it was two years before the king would see him.” This view necessitates a reading of 2Sa_14:1 directly opposite to the English translation, which conveys the idea that David did long to recall Absalom, but was prevented from doing so by judicial and political considerations. (See on that verse.)
MAIN HOMILETICS OF THE CHAPTER
THE SIN AND MURDER OF AMNON
I. Children who have both a bad and good example are more inclined to follow the former than the latter. This truth is seen in little things as well as in great, and the reason is the same in both cases. If a child who is learning to draw has both a good and bad specimen set before him he will be much more likely to imitate the bad than the good, because it is always easier to make crooked lines than straight ones, and to produce a faulty piece of work than one that is perfect of its kind. And so it is in higher and more important things. If a parent is guilty of transgression at one period of his life, or continually indulges in one bad habit, he is more likely to see his children copy him in that respect than in those things in which he fulfils his duty and is blameless, inasmuch as it needs no effort on their part to do wrong, but it is sometimes a great struggle to do right. This law was in operation to its fullest extent in the case before us. Amnon and Absalom had seen their father do many noble deeds. For many years David had lived before his children a life consistent with his high calling and profession. But, so far as we know, none of the children who were witnesses of these things walked in the same path; but these two elder sons who might have been expected to profit most by his good example were not slow to imitate his crimes. This is not so surprising as it is sad, when we remember that every one of us comes into the world with a tendency to go the wrong way, and that a man has only to give himself up to the rule of his passions in order to become a monster of iniquity while it is hard work to fight against our evil tendencies, and more than human strength is needed to overcome them. Amnon and Absalom had only to make no resistance to evil suggestions—only to give impure and malicious thoughts a lodging-place in their hearts—and the work was done. The seeds were sure not to lie dormant but in due time to germinate and bring forth the fruit of wickedness after their own kind. It is this indwelling evil inclination in every human soul which makes it so much more certain that our evil deeds will be copied than that our goodness will be imitated, and which should therefore make every child of God doubly watchful over all his actions for the sake of others as well as for his own. For how doubly bitter is the sorrow of a good parent over an erring child if he ever find himself in the position to which David’s sin had now brought him.
II. Those who violate the sanctity of their neighbours’ homes do so at the peril of their own family honour and peace. There is a law in the spiritual as in the physical world, that like will produce like. The law of the vegetable kingdom, that each herb should yield seed after its kind and thus multiply its own likeness, has its counterpart in the moral kingdom, and it is found that sin not only propagates sin in general but sins of the same class. And thus retribution of the severest kind, and yet in accordance with the strictest justice, is brought home to the offender. By the base and brutal conduct of Amnon and the murderous revenge of Absalom the entire household of David was afflicted and his family honour and peace destroyed. But Amnon was only indulging the same unlawful desires to which his father had sacrificed the honour of Bathsheba and the life of Uriah, and Absalom’s murder of his guilty brother was certainly not a blacker crime than David’s sacrifice of his faithful servant. And if the deeds of these young men brought desolation into David’s home they only did what David had himself done in the case of Uriah. Let men beware how they trample on these sacred rights, for they may be sure that God will now, as then, vidicate them in a like manner.
III. Those who do not bridle their animal passions become a compound of brute and demon. In this transaction Amnon exhibits all the propensities of the animal, and adds to them the maliciousness of the devil. He was not content with accomplishing by violence the ruin of his young and innocent sister, but he was base enough to lay upon her all the disgrace of the crime. We might have thought that when he descended to the level of the beast he might have remained there, and at least have shown the regard for his victim which a beast would have done. But a man is not a beast, and therefore when he lets his animal nature get the upper hand he suffers by comparison. That which is natural to the creature without reason and conscience is sin to those created in the image of God, and it is vain for any man to think that unlawful indulgence of the body will ever fail to degrade the spirit. There have been those in all ages who have taught otherwise, and especially with regard to the sin here under consideration. But if the word of God did not emphatically contradict this doctrine (1Co_6:15-20, etc.) the experience of life would show its fallacy. Sin against the body is sin against the whole man, and that which is sensual, unless very speedily repented of, soon leads to that which is devilish.
IV. The freedom and power given and permitted to the wicked in this world is a strong argument for the existence of another life The weak and the virtuous among men are here often at the mercy of those who are strong and wicked; the former often suffer grievous wrong by reason of the liberty which the latter have to carry out their evil purposes. Herod, the base libertine, had power to imprison and to slay John, the greatest of the prophets, thus violating every sense of justice, and the kings and potentates of every age have always had it more or less within their power to persecute the moral salt of the earth because they had the greater physical force at their command. And in the narrow circles of social and domestic life the same things have happened ever since Cain slew his brother Abel, because his own works were evil and his brother’s righteous. The story of Amnon and Tamar is always being repeated in its main features, and the strong man is ever using the weaker woman to satisfy his guilty passion and then casting her forth to bear the shame alone. Does not the sense of justice within us call for a hereafter to set these things right and to give compensation and punishment according to men’s deserts? The partial retribution which is dealt out here and now is an earnest that a more complete system of rewards and punishments exists in the future life, and that a day is at hand when full restitution shall be made to those who have here been the innocent victims of the wicked and powerful.
V. When those in authority do not punish crime they betray their trust and give occasion to greater wickedness. A man in David’s position is not at liberty to consult his own feeling as to the punishment of the transgressor. As God’s minister, he is set for the terror of evil doers and for the praise of them that do well, and a failure of duty in this direction makes him a partaker of the evil deed. If he bear the sword in vain and withold his hand when he ought to strike, he will find that he will only give opportunity and encouragement to other lawless men, and, like David, he will have two offenders instead of one. If he had punished Amnon as he deserved he might not have had to mourn the rebellion and death of Absalom.
OUTLINES AND SUGGESTIVE COMMENTS
2Sa_13:4. He saith not, my sister, for shame; sin is a blushful business.—Trapp.
2Sa_13:1-39. David had his wives and concubines. No divine edict told him that such indulgence was unlawful. For, thanks be to God, though He makes use of edicts and statutes, it is not by these mainly that He rules the universe. The Bible is, from first to last, the history of a practical education; God leading men by slow degrees to enter into His mind and purposes and to mould their own into conformity with His. If we want exemplifications of all the miseries and curses which spring from the mixture of families and the degradations of women in a court and country where polygamy exist, David’s history supplies them. No maxims of morality can be half so effectual as a faithful record of terrible facts like these.—Maurice.
The Preacher's Complete Homiletical Commentary (gen. ed. Joseph S. Exell; Funk & Wagnalls, c. 1892) — public domain (pre-1929). A full-Bible homiletical/sermon-outline anthology covering 65 of 66 books (2 John is absent from the source module). Text from a community e-Sword module.
F. W. Grant 1903 · Public Domain On v1 Division 5. (2Sa 13:1-39; 2Sa 14:1-33; 2Sa 15:1-37; 2Sa…
Division 5. (2Sa 13:1-39; 2Sa 14:1-33; 2Sa 15:1-37; 2Sa 16:1-23; 2Sa 17:1-29; 2Sa 18:1-33; 2Sa 19:1-43; 2Sa 20:1-26; 2Sa 21:1-14.)
The Divine Throne vindicates itself
Read full note →
The public vindication of the divine throne now follows. It had, as we know, been already declared to David that evil should rise up to him out of his own house, and the sword never depart from it; the grace to himself personally did not alter this. The throne at Jerusalem was, as none other, responsible to be the expression of that higher one which belonged to Him who, while heaven and earth could not contain Him, was pleased to be known as dwelling between the cherubim. God’s righteousness would be compromised indeed, if He went on with David without adequate vindication of His character against the sin of His representative. The prophetic word would therefore be carried out.
Chastening arises for David from his own house. The uncontrolled evil in his own character reflects itself in the passions of his sons, in whom the power of heredity unmistakably shows itself. Heredity, one of the cant words of the day, expresses nevertheless a truth of which the word of God is full, and human history, from Adam downward. "Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean?" was a question of Job’s day, the statement of impossibility being only made the stronger by its form as a question. There is thus evil in our natures, but we are responsible to govern our natures, and grace and the power of God are stronger than these. Apart from the grace of God, therefore, or His restraining hand, nature will manifest itself, and here was the hound in leash ready to pursue David. We are now to see with what fatal effect.
1. With David himself the outbreak of lust, permitted in clear violation of the law of God, had led to murder. The king, the pattern of righteousness as he should have been, became thus the oppressor. In the recompense following here, as when a stone disturbs calm water the circle loses height as it widens, so now the lust and the murder are on different sides, but both within the ordained sphere of his own house. Two of his sons are reciprocally the injured and the injurer, and David is made to feel the pain on each side, his sympathy now with this and now with that. He is distracted, torn asunder, on both sides dishonored. The mockery of their names gives meaning to the whole, and proclaims it to all: Amnon, the "faithful," violating all fidelity; Absalom, the "father of peace," the slaughterer of his brother! With what other hopes had these names long since been given!
These too are his eldest, for the second son, Chileab, seems to have died, at least we read no more of him: they are those upon whom the hopes of his house most of all depended. They are the first, the leaders: what will be the history of those that come after them? -conflicting sons with the various interests of rival mothers, the awful confusion wrought by polygamy brought home to him!
Again, that the remembrance of his own sin has weakened his ability to execute judgment on it in others is plain by his conduct; or else that natural affection rendered him helpless. The effect was, in either case, the same: the unjudged evil worked on in family and kingdom, till they were filled with the leaven of it; Absalom recalled becomes a conspirator; and Ishbosheth’s Mahanaim has soon a new tale to tell. The rebellion is stopped, and Absalom dies, smiting the father’s heart with a new pang. David is recalled, but only to have revived the memory of the past in what proves by and by to be a prophecy of the future: the bond between Ephraim and Judah shows itself almost broken; and so at last, amid returning spasms of violence, the storm for the present passes away.
But who can tell when the effect of one sin ceases? Adam’s, like David’s, was one sin, -in outward seeming not so evil; -its effect is only multiplied today, by all the seed that it has ripened, sown again, and reaped, and again sown! As men have of late discovered disease and pestilence to be living germs that subsist upon corruption, and mature and multiply on the decay they bring, so is sin vital and prolific with the germs of bitter harvest. Blessed be God that He has provided a remedy for sin!
(1) It will not be expected that there should be much comment upon Amnon’s sin. The first-born of a despotic king, this had doubtless helped to nurture in him the growth of unrestrained will; while the atmosphere of a polygamous household, loosening family ties, could not but at the same time encourage the rambling inclinations of a luxurious temper. The very fence not such but that it might be leaped -around the object of his pursuit might encourage it: prohibition broken through has its own charm with it, -"the pleasures of sin, for a season": "stolen waters are sweet, and bread eaten in secret is pleasant; but he knoweth not that the dead are there; and that her guests are in the depths of hell."
Nor can it be doubted that the influence of his father’s sin had, with one like Amnon, been without the check upon it of his father’s repentance. Sin gathers its arguments at its will, and refuses what makes not for its purpose. The highest unreason, it finds in will its reason. Its subtlety is that of a maniac, with large gaps for self-deception. Nor has the natural man ability to estimate spiritual values, as of faith, or of repentance. Amnon would only see that his father had sinned, and had not suffered: he could not know that his own vices were to be the scourge upon his father’s sins. There is a necessary blindness that must be theirs who reject divine wisdom, and which therefore excuses none. All this had worked together to make Amnon the coarse, sensual, cruel despot that he was, -a spectre that might well terrify the father of such a son, and who had done so much to make him what he was.
Amnon, too, has his "subtle" adviser, Jonadab, with his beautiful name, "Jehovah freely gives," and his satanic spirit. Everywhere here names are in opposition to things; the piety in David, spotted, alas, with the flesh, seems to have worked for the loss of piety in others.
Across this scene,with ashes on her head and her rent garment of divers colors, flees Tamar, a childlike figure of wronged innocence, to her refuge in her brother’s house. A king’s court is no refuge, no safeguard. The king may be wroth, but it avails not: has he not himself introduced this shadow of uncompensated wrong that now pursues him? Did he not work the first dishonor to his home, and dig through its wall with his own hands?
(2) So vengeance comes into Absalom’s hands, and they are hands that spare not. The wrong is bitter, and the future has its possibilities of worse. Amnon, first-born and natural heir, may soon be lord both of Absalom and Tamar. Yet for two years he has to hide and nurse in secret the wrath that will be sure before it strikes. Then he finds his opportunity. You see his heart in its depths, as he prepares his feast and the daggers of his servants. Amnon shall be smitten in the pleasure that he loves, when his heart is merry with wine, unrepenting and unabsolved. And it is done! In the midst of a carouse, -in the midst of the circle of the king’s sons, Amnon is smitten and slain. The sword is upon David’s house, as was predicted. Who has brought it there? Who has opened the door for it? The hand is the hand of Absalom; the sword is the sword of Uriah the Hittite!
(3) But the story is not yet half told; and David’s own moral weakness, which is soon apparent, produces a disaster which presages the ruin of the kingdom. This may be long delayed, -may even seem for a time to be entirely. averted, and the peace of Solomon’s reign a greater triumph than David’s victories: but this is no sooner closed than the long-threatened evil breaks out suddenly in a disruption of Israel’s unity into hostile powers, working for mutual overthrow. And this they at last accomplish.
We have quite full detail here. The principles that work the evil are amply given us, the main actor being now the unscrupulous Joab. He knows well the weak side of David’s nature, -knows enough of divine grace also, and of its power over a soul that has learned its debt to it, to use it with effect in behalf of what is not grace. Yet he has no evil design against David, and does not join, as we know, in the after revolt of Absalom. He seems even to mean well to the king, to give him justification for doing what he knows is in his heart to do: he makes what would be ordinarily considered but a well-intentioned blunder, -goes wrong because, alas, he has no divine wisdom, does not seek it. His is the misery of a soul at its best away from God, and thus of necessity leading others (even involuntarily) away from Him. David’s is the misery of having a counselor like this, who has made himself after his fashion useful to him, and who, spite of the demur of conscience, has to be accepted as such. Joab is to David like an unjudged sin, against which he has, of course, no power, and who is always at hand to strengthen the worse and defeat the better nature. Let us earnestly pray and seek that we have no Joabs.
He hides himself behind his instrument, the woman of Tekoa, who will work more effectively upon the heart of the king. The appeal is all to the heart, and for this purpose the pity roused by the widow’s tale will be the most powerful means that can be devised. He borrows, possibly, Nathan’s method; but Nathan sought through the heart to reach and work upon the conscience; Joab seeks, on the contrary, to override and set it aside. He has hardened his own and prospered: he is no prophet, to foresee the end; the future does not trouble him: he cannot see why conscience should trouble another to this extent. Absalom has sinned; but so had Amnon; and the thing is done, -cannot now be recalled, -why keep up the remembrance?
The woman’s story need not be too like the story of Absalom: that might be dangerous. The emotions have a storm-like impetuosity of action, which when roused does not respect the channels of sober judgment, mental any more than moral. David’s affections, once acted on by the needful stimulus, will catch all the similarities of the case suggested, and let slip the rest. Thus the sudden strife in the field is better for his purpose than the two years’ murder hidden in the heart which was the reality behind the picture, and the pitiful condition of the widow with her "coal that is left" ready to be quenched can be thrown in for the sake of the impression. When the king has pledged himself to the woman, it is assumed that he has judged his own case, and that he cannot draw back from his pledged word. The net is not spread in vain, though almost in sight of the bird.
In application, the justice of the case is cleverly made to be sin against the people of God: the king is guilty in not bringing home his banished. Nay, the grace of God, so signally proved as it had been by David, is urged against him: God Himself "deviseth plans that the banished be not [still] banished from Him." Thus he is walled off from the appeal of conscience, and hedged in on every side.
Two things are entirely ignored, however: the need of atonement to the broken law, and the guarantee as to the future of the forgiven sinner. God’s plan whereby the banished are restored includes both these things, and therefore makes for righteousness, as it must do to be grace. Mercy to the merely impenitent is only license to sin, and the fruit of this David finds in the end; and to allow the law to be violated without reparation enfeebles all the power of government. It is not therefore grace according to God that the woman urges; it is only grace according to Joab; and he, like so many more, misunderstands and perverts it. Yet David himself accepts the perversion; but he is blinded by his affection for his son. He discerns the part of Joab in the matter, -knows that it is a plot, and knows well the plotter, who was as far as possible from being any representative of divine grace. He seems to catch at the idea that he has been made to do this without knowing what he had done, and that he really cannot go back; yet he cannot act consistently upon the idea of grace, he cannot receive Absalom as the penitent he was not, and dare not open his arms after the divine way with a returning prodigal. There is no ring nor fatted calf, nor sight even of his father’s face, for the unhappy man whom the captain of the host brings back from Geshur. "Absalom returned to his own house, and the face of the king he saw not."
At this point we are told of the great beauty of Absalom. It is one of the miseries of a soul away from God, that every natural gift becomes evil instead of good; and among these there is none more ensnaring than that of personal beauty. Just as what is merely external, it is what is most surely appreciated both by its possessor and those around. Spite even of our better judgment also, it is hard to believe that this fair exterior does not represent aright the soul within. Absalom was conscious certainly of his power in this respect: who that has it is not? And if any, the exception would not be in this self-willed favorite of his father and of the people, whose vanity is shown in the long permitted growth and weight of his luxuriant hair.
One sees easily indeed in him the consciousness of this possession, to be yet so fatal to him, while for two years he is allowed to fret vainly at the restraint under which he is put. We know already how long he could nurse in secret a dangerous resolve. Here evidently was the beginning of resentment against his father, and of ambitious projects soon to work disaster to many beside himself. Finally he delivers himself from the restriction under which he lies in his own impetuous and imperious manner: forces Joab to come and see him, forces himself into his father’s presence. There is the complete opposite of any confession of sin: if he has committed iniquity he is ready to suffer for it; and his father’s kiss of peace becomes thus not even the mercy of the woman of Tekoa, but the seal upon his own claim that he has no need of mercy.
2. The conclusion of this story is natural from such a beginning. He is no sooner restored to his father’s favor than he becomes a conspirator against his father. There is little doubt that he was now the eldest surviving son of David: for of Chileab, the son of Abigail, we hear no more. As the grandson of a king upon his mother’s side, the idea of rule would have familiarized itself with him, while the deed which had placed him in the line of succession to his father had yet compromised such claim to a most serious extent. The throne in Israel was not like that of any of the nations round: it was Jehovah’s throne, and he who sat on it was the anointed of Jehovah. But Bathsheba’s son had already received his name as the "beloved of Jah"; and it was no long step from that to the kingdom. It is simple to see how all these things would influence the bold and arrogant son of Maachah to strike for the coveted prize,which his father’s sin and demonstrated weakness had brought also so much nearer to his grasp.
(1) (a) Hence now we find the leaven working. Absalom begins by assuming state, and fixing men’s eyes upon himself. And from his standpoint this was natural, and according to the world’s principles it was wise: one must believe in one’s self, act for one’s self, there is no safe waiting upon others: this is the necessary alternative of waiting upon God. In the next step we can realize once more how David’s sin must have weakened faith in the righteousness of all his government. To stop the mouth of friends, to open the mouth of the assailant, what an effectual argument was the case of Uriah the Hittite! And who could resist such charges of lax justice, when it was his own cause that was being pleaded by this brilliant and gracious son of the king with his readiness to do the right, and his kiss for every one that did him honor? So no wonder if the hearts of the Israelites were stolen, and the conspiracy gathered strength.
{*2Sa 15:7. "Forty" can hardly be the true reading, although the Hebrew and some principal versions have it. "Four" is found in the Syriac, Arabic, and some copies of the Latin versions, and in Josephus.}
The end is reached by an infamous piece of hypocritical falsehood. Absalom forsooth had dedicated himself to Jehovah in Geshur, conditionally upon His bringing him again to Jerusalem; and now he has a vow to be fulfilled in Hebron. The king, unsuspicious as ever, sends him away in peace, and the concerted cry is raised that "Absalom reigns in Hebron."
The place is chosen well, being full of associations of the most endearing character for every Israelite. There Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob had lived and walked with God, and there they were buried. Thence the fruit of the land had been brought to the people in the wilderness, and Caleb the man of faith had driven out the Anakim. More suggestive, perhaps, than all this, at Hebron David had begun his reign; and the new kingdom, it might be hoped, was not other than a return to those principles of right and truth with which the throne had been then established.
The two hundred men that went with Absalom in ignorant simplicity are but a type of the many who can be swept into the track of a revolution in the train of some leader in whom they have confidence. How many, even among Christians today, follow men rather than principles! There is little individuality of faith anywhere, and thus sects are formed and maintained. It is startling to think how many follow the truth itself, at bottom because some one else is following it, or again is following some one else who follows it! And this has therefore again and again to be tested; and again and again a fresh putting forth of truth which has nothing but the authority of truth to commend it, sifts and breaks into these mere human followings.
Ahithophel the Gilonite was moved in a very different way. The father of Eliam and grandfather of Bathsheba,* we are left indeed to infer the personal animosity to David, which is easily recognized in his after-proposal himself to pursue and only to smite him. He has been David’s counselor, listened to (we are told) as a divine oracle, yet according to his name, the "brother of folly." And such is ever the worldly wisdom which we find in him. But again we see how, in the government of God, David’s sin is following him now. It is this that is the dissolution of kingdoms, and the disruption of all social bonds; and he who has not accepted this in faith must find it true in bitter experience.
{*It is not directly stated that Eliam the son of Ahithophel (2Sa 23:34) is the father of Bathsheba (2Sa 11:3), but the indirect evidence is of the strongest.}
Absalom offers his sacrifices at Hebron, and at the same time sends for Ahithophel. The conspiracy appeals to heaven, and forecasts its devices against the divinely constituted order, -in this mad world a thing not so uncommon as to need any special remark. It is here more grossly done than usual; that is all.
(b.) David has now to prove how his sin has disorganized his kingdom. That defection could have gone so far before he had any knowledge of it shows how widely the old attachment to him had given way: "there came one that told David, saying, The hearts of the men of Israel are after Absalom." How pitifully alone he must have been for news of this kind to break in on him after this manner! He finds quickly, -conscience, no doubt, depriving him also of his customary boldness, -that his only resource is flight. God is behind this, and resistance is in vain: to bow is the only hope. He immediately leaves the city with some well-proved followers, and his household, and the way is open for Absalom into Jerusalem.
But the hearts of men are now to be revealed; and there are still found those who have attachment for life or death to the fallen king. The first of these, the head and sample of others with him, is one who seems to come strangely here, Ittai the Gittite, or man of Gath. David, it seems, has done more than destroy the Philistine giant: he has captured, and in the most signal way, the men of the city. But a gleam of light flashes upon us with his name, Ittai, "with Jehovah." No wonder if one once abiding in the distance from God, a "child of wrath," now brought nigh, should follow the One who has been the Victor in the conflict which that in Elah represents; nor can we refuse a type which shines with its own light. Pass on, Ittai, with thy six hundred: who can doubt the faithful service thou wilt give to thy master? Stranger and exile, we know where thy heart is: thou art fit to bear witness to a rejected king.
(c.) And now Zadok and Abiathar appear with the ark of the covenant, ready to accompany David in his flight; but this David realizes to be impossible. He is under chastening for his sin, and he will bow to the chastening. The ark of old accompanied Israel in the wilderness, but they were then on their way to the land of their possession, which could not again be lost, but because God had in the mean time rejected them as His people. This was in fact the meaning of the Babylonish captivity: Lo-ammi was written upon the nation (Hos 1:9). But the time had not come; nor, if it had, could the ark abide with them. The Philistine possession of it had marked the end of the priestly headship, and had not God raised up Samuel, all had then been ended. Now the king stood where the priesthood once had been, but a time of forbearance had been announced, and the continuance of David’s house. This stroke was personal to himself, and the ark of the covenant of God must not leave its habitation. If he still find favor in Jehovah’s eyes, He will bring him back to it; if not, how vain and foolish were resistance; or to claim the token of a favor which had in fact departed!
This is characteristic of David. Forget God, alas, he does; and great are the evils and miseries that result from this: but he is not a rebel, nor can he despair of the divine mercy. He cleaves to and justifies the hand that smites him; and that hand will not go on to smite the penitent and submissive man.
The ark returns, therefore, with its attending priesthood, and David gains a post of observation in the forsaken city. In this there was, of course, nothing but what was according to truth and righteousness. The priests of the Most High owed no allegiance to the usurper and willing parricide, while they did owe allegiance to the divinely sanctified king. But of the counterplots that follow one must judge very differently.
(d.) David goes up by the ascent of Olivet with all the external signs of penitential sorrow. He is told now of Ahithophel’s accession to the conspiracy, and prays Jehovah to frustrate the counsel of Ahithophel, the acuteness of which he knew so well. Presently a help in this direction offers itself, of which he is not slow to avail himself. Hushai the Arkite comes to meet him with the usual manifestations of distress, but David represents to him that he will be but an additional burden upon the fugitive band, whereas if he attach himself to Absalom, with professions of service, he might for him defeat Ahithophel’s counsel. Means of communication will be found by him in the sons of the priests.
David thus thinks that conspiracy can justify conspiracy, and, in the war that has begun, deceit may rightly counterwork deceit. Evil with a good end will thus become good; or at least we may do it that good may come: a conclusion which the apostle declares to subject to just judgment those who hold it. Yet it is still maintained under all the light of Christianity, and practically followed by how many in how many forms! This principle is one that David has himself acted on, as we remember, in the old days of Philistine refuge; and these things, if not judged, may easily revive after a long time of dormancy.
It is true that Absalom could have no rights to be respected in the position which he has taken. As far as he is concerned, treachery is his just due, and that is what gives its color to an immoral argument. If Absalom has ever so much forfeited his rights, God has not on that account forfeited His; and our lives are to be lived to Him. To leave out God is to bring confusion into all reasoning.
Hushai means "hasty," while (remarkably enough) his Gentile name, the Arkite, is from a word which speaks of lengthening, and so "protraction" and "delay." And indeed there is a haste which, because it overlooks God, can do nothing else but delay all divine help and blessing. It is the first word that is used there, where it is said, "he that believeth shall not make haste." (Isa 28:16.) How beautifully, with what delicate precision, does Scripture stamp the unbelieving devices of even men of faith! It is that Jacob policy which so miserably disappointed the man who practiced it so long, and of which the dislocated thigh symbolized the end. Not till then did he become Israel, a "prince with God."
Next we have Ziba and his slander of Mephibosheth, and again we find David making saddest "haste." He judges in the absence of the accused, on the faith of a most improbable story, told by one who might naturally suppose the traducing of his master to be the stepping-stone to his own advantage. The help he brings to David is thus credited to himself, and he finds royal recompense for it at his master’s cost.
In all this David is surely not with God. He is still protracting the discipline which he is under, has not listened aright to the divine Voice under it, even though he knows and owns it to be of God. Yet in the next case he acts beautifully. In the case of open enemies, like Shimei, he seems to be more upon his guard, more ready to see meaning; and so it is often that the worst troubles seem to test us least.
Shimei is the spectre of Saul’s house, risen up against the one who has taken possession of its estate and honors. Shimei means "my fame," or "my reputation," and he is the son of Gera, which we have elsewhere taken as "rumination": he is from Bahurim also, "choice or chosen ones." All this helps to link him with the house which he represents. But from Saul and from his line David may seem to have nothing whatever to fear. What charge can be brought against him with regard to these? Shimei’s accusation of the blood of the house of Saul" seems really the most senseless clamor. In the mind of an enemy only could the death of Abner or of Ishbosheth be attributed to him. Saul had justly forfeited the throne, and Ishbosheth had never any right claim to possess it. Shimei’s curses were therefore empty noise, to which a magnanimous spirit could afford to give no heed.
But is this the whole account to be given of this attack? Are we to see in it merely the unrighteousness which would heap upon the great in their misfortune every inconsiderate calumny, and take delight in abasing further those whom God has already abased? Certainly, if we view it in this way, no one can forbid it to us. The thing is of every-day occurrence; the application so easy and obvious that it is scarce worth while to make it. The lesson is so elementary, it can scarcely be thought of as a lesson. And this is against it as any sufficient explanation of the place it occupies in the inspired history.
David also himself seems to recognize more than this in it. While the malice is plain, and as to Saul and his house personally he can easily justify himself, he still realizes that in some sense this rude Benjamite has his commission from Jehovah, "-Jehovah hath said to him, Curse David." Jehovah has permitted it, for a deeper purpose than Abishai in his resentment could possibly understand, or than Shimei could of course himself imagine.
David had not injured Saul or any of his house. But Saul’s house had been removed to make way for David and his house, -that house already fallen into ruin. What, then, had been the value of this substitution? Saul had pursued David in his own intent to death, and David had actually caused Uriah to be slain, -not even in jealous fear of his own safety, but to cover the sin of his invasion of Uriah’s house! Which was the better? Did it not seem as if for this David, the blood of Saul’s house had been vainly, and so wrongly, shed?
True, Saul had not been really a theocratic king: he had disobeyed the command as to Amalek. But did not this even seem to make it worse, that this should be the theocratic king, now proved no better? Was not the judgment of God upon him now the proof that, after all, this was no help? The royal saint hunted as a criminal from his throne! Had he not, indeed, thus brought the blood of Saul’s house, as it were, upon him?
And, in truth, if the remedy for man’s ills be sought in this way, it is vain to exchange a Saul, even for a David. The hand of power is needed, and of absolute power, too: but where shall we find him to whom such power can be safely trusted? The answer of the world is being given today in the most decisive manner: the answer is, There is none: we can trust none! The constitutional king succeeds the despotic; democracy follows hard upon the constitutional kingdom: there must be a balance of wills and of interests; each separate interest must have its measure of control upon the ruling power: the clash of interests, the "struggle for life" goes on; but it is no sign of hope or confidence in man, but the reverse: rightly interpreted, it is the sign of the world’s despair!
{*2Sa 16:14. Ajephim means "weary," and is so translated in the common version; but in this case no place would be named. The "Bible Commentary" suggests that it was a caravansary; for which the name would be appropriate.}
And well may the world despair! Were it not that the heart perverts the head, and we are slow indeed to look the inevitable in the face, the end would long since have been reached. As it is, the language is read backward, and men still hope! Nay, the spirit of hope which breathes in Christianity has formed strange alliance with the optimism of the world, and brought into it an air of piety and faith that makes despair of the world a heresy. But for this the spirit of hope, which is truly Christian, has been separated from its embodiment in Scripture, the true and glorious hope of the coming king! Were it not for this, David and David’s house must indeed inevitably follow Saul’s into the gulf of ruin. Not David, but David’s Seed is the hope of men: and this is what Shimei’s curse at bottom points to: truly all would be under it, only that in self-despair is faith found, and the divine remedy for this and every other ill.
(e.) The wheel of God’s government still turns, bringing Absalom to the highest point of prosperity, and David to the lowest; but from that moment David begins again to rise, and Absalom to fall, and from this he never recovers.
First, we find Hushai at his meeting with Absalom entering upon the part prescribed for him with a subtlety which makes us understand David’s confidence in him. His repeated salutation is met coldly enough by the new king, who, arch-traitor as he is himself, is surprised at another’s desertion. But the "king’s friend" had doubtless earned the title by acts that were unmistakable, and Absalom’s surprise had ground much deeper than his after-confidence. Indeed all through this scene there is a certain ambiguity which seems to intimate to us how unwilling was even the appearance of this desertion with him. "Nay, but," he says, "whom Jehovah hath chosen, and this people, even. all the men of Israel, his will I be, and with him will I abide." And in the strict sense this was only true of David: his own counsel afterwards was founded on the assurance that not all the men of Israel (and much less Jehovah) had chosen Absalom. Again he says, "Whom should I serve? Should it not be in the presence of his son? As I have served in thy father’s presence, so shall I be in thy presence." Now faithful service of the father would make one look for faithful service with the son certainly; but only if the father’s days were at an end. So Absalom interpreted it, of course, and was meant to interpret it, as if for Hushai David’s reign were at an end. But if this were not so for him, then even in the son’s presence the faithful service would be to the father still. But Absalom’s speedy success and abundant vanity make all this what he desires it. Treacherous himself, he has no reason for refusing treachery; and he had doubtless covered it with fine words enough, not to look too closely at the words of others. Thus the evil he has indulged works evil for him.
Ahithophel’s advice, with all its wickedness, reminds us again that he is the grandfather of Bathsheba. David shall be himself dishonored in the way that he has dealt dishonor; and upon the very roof from which the lust of his eyes had carried him into open sin. But this was, as we know, the fulfilling of God’s word as to him. Wherever man’s sin may carry him, it cannot find the place where God shall not be governor. But what a state of things in Israel when the wisdom of an Ahithophel sees only advantage in wickedness so gross and open! Can he suppose that they have so forgotten God that they will forget the due of such things with Him? Or that they will see but the punishment of David’s sin, as if it cancelled the enormity of sin in Absalom?
What he does see clearly is that the breach between father and son must not be healed, must be rendered irrevocable, for the safety of the conspirators; and thus they must use him for their purposes as he has used them for his. The power of evil thus augments by the irreversible law that what we have made our servant shall become our master: "he that committeth sin is the servant of sin." Through whatever door it enters, it becomes master of the house.
But Ahithophel is, after all, "brother of foolishness." He does not see that the wheel swung round so far will come up again for David. God has glorified Himself in view of his sin, and openly: He can now therefore-appear for him, as is soon manifest, and Ahithophel has to find. For his next counsel is that, with twelve thousand chosen men, he should be allowed to follow after David, scatter his attendants, and kill the king alone. All would then be assured: "the man whom thou seekest" being put to death, it is "as if all returned," -speaking as if these had strayed from their allegiance, rather than the men of Absalom.
But the limit is reached, and the wise and heartless counsel, though at first approved, is finally defeated by the opposition of Hushai. Exactly adapted to the man he is addressing, his speech works upon the fears and upon the vanity of Absalom. Nothing indeed could be wiser than his recommendation, if only one thing were granted which the new king does not stay to question, that the will of the nation as a whole has placed him where he is. Ahithophel knows better: hence his despair when Hushai’s counsel is preferred before his own. While the ready messengers start off, not without personal risk, to bring David the news, Ahithophel quietly returns to Giloh, puts his affairs in order, and hangs himself, -the first suicide of which we read in Scripture.
{*2Sa 17:25. "Israelite" probably, "Ishmaelite," as the Alex. text of the Septuagint here, and 1Ch 2:17.}
David passes over the fords of Jordan, and is in the mean time safe. His plan of defeating Ahithophel by Hushai has been completely successful; and, if success can do this, it is justified by it. How many, openly or secretly, scarcely perhaps allowing it to themselves, would accept such justification?
In this case there can be no real question. If deceit and treachery are evil, -if evil may not be done, that good may come, -if God therefore cannot lead his people in such a path, -then the success of a thing can be no sufficient test of fitness or expediency at any time. We have not to look the less carefully at the question of right because it can be demonstrated that a measure will be successful.
That David escaped by Hushai’s means is certainly true. How much did he miss by it of seeing God’s hand stretched out for him? How willingly do we deprive ourselves of many such glorious visions in the same way! By so much as we are richer in resources, by so much poorer do our lives become!
(2) Mahanaim once more answers to its name. Israel is again divided into "two camps." Absalom passes over Jordan and encamps in Gilead.
The benefit of delay to David’s cause is soon realized in the rallying to him of many: so that his hundreds swell rapidly into thousands; and the quality of these adherents, as we may well believe, gives them rank beyond their number. We see in Shobi the Ammonite another example of that attractive power in David by which enemies by nature became his friends. With Shobi, Machir and Barzillai, Gileadites, contribute to his necessities at Mahanaim. Here he comes to a stand, and the forces on either side prepare for the conflict imminent.
David divides his army into three parts, under three tried leaders, the Gittite one. The tenderness and prudence of his followers restrain him from going forth with them to the battle. His love for the son that would have doomed him to death without remorse, is shown in his charge to the leaders in the hearing of all, for his sake to spare Absalom.
Of the battle itself there are no details; but of Absalom’s men there are 20,000 slain, the wood of Ephraim entangling them after their defeat. Here Absalom meets his end in a way which speaks solemn judgment of the career it closes.
Caught in the branches of a terebinth, he is lifted by his head between earth and heaven; that which supported him passing away from under him. There he dies at the hand of Joab and the young men that follow him, and is flung into a pit in the wood, with a great heap of stones heaped over him as over an executed criminal, -in striking contrast with the monument he had prepared for himself elsewhere.
The conveyance of the news to David is described with unexpected detail: the two messengers, one of whom so persistently seeks the service while he withholds the distress of which he knows; the king’s watch in the city; his pathetic tender inquiry after the "young man, Absalom"; then the burst of passionate grief, from which the people steal away abashed, as if they had suffered the defeat instead of having gained the victory; then the bold and effectual rebuke of Joab, which brings the king once more to the gate, where the people come again before him.
It is a touching history, with a general moral intent which is so obvious that it needs no special comment; but we leave it with a profound feeling that we have merely touched the surface, and that there are everywhere meanings that we have failed to reach. The typical significance which we have found through all the Old Testament history hitherto, here seems largely to fail us; but perhaps we ought not to wonder much at this. The history here is one of continuous sin and evil, on the part of the main actors in it, and of the government of God in view of this: and the very purport of it is to show the break-down of all hope for man, save in Christ Himself. David is here, therefore, not the likeness but the unlikeness to his Son and Lord. No doubt there may still be typical teaching; but if so, it will be incidental, partial, and supplementary to the general purport of the narrative. As yet we have not found this; but those who seek need not be discouraged on that account. The deeper meanings here have been yet but little sought: what has been yielded to the search as yet is only the beginning of what may be looked for by the patient inquirer.
(3.) We pass on then to the return of the king, -a fruitful subject, one would naturally deem it. David is now rising up out of his distresses; the government of God has vindicated itself, and is no longer against him; his rejection is over, and, except one brief revival of dangerous feeling, his throne is now to be established over a reunited people. It is natural to think here of Him who is soon to come in glory as the antitype of David in circumstances such as these; still, though types are often and variously repeated, it is well to remember that we have had already, much earlier in David’s history, the types of Christ’s rejection and His reign alike, and that we are here in a very different subdivision of the book. God loves to surprise and delight the ready heart with constant reminders of the glory of His Son; yet we may expect here probably a larger mingling of what is simply David’s personal history, and what is unlikeness, as well as what is likeness.
Thus the opening sentences here show us the tribes of Israel at strife among themselves about bringing back the king. The king’s own tribe holds back, and David sends to Zadok and Abiathar to urge them to press upon these the state of feeling of the other tribes, and his own kinship to themselves. Amasa, captain of the host so recently come against him, he urges similarly, promising him the same place as under Absalom, instead of Joab. Judah is thus gained, and with their usual impulsiveness, without seeking the co-operation of the rest of Israel, they send their message of recall to the king: "Return thou, and all thy servants." There is no confession or sorrow for the past; and the independence works for evil in the state of jealousy already subsisting between the tribes. In all this David shows little of the dignity of faith, and perhaps on this account is allowed to suffer at least what may convince him of his folly. Sheba’s insurrection and the murder of Amasa -who seems little qualified for the position to which he is raised -both spring apparently out of David’s unbelieving "haste" on this occasion.
Nor does his mercy to Shimei seem to have sustained sufficiently the righteousness that should characterize the throne. So evidently he believed afterwards, as we see by his recommendation to Solomon with regard to him. To relax the extreme penalty might well suit the day of David’s restoration to the throne, especially in view of his professed repentance. But there seems to have been no reality such as would have harmonized with this fuller grace.
As to Mephibosheth, David’s treatment of him is that of a man unable to resist conviction of his former rashness, and yet unwilling to face fully the injustice of which he had been guilty. Tricked by his servant and compelled to inactivity by his helpless condition, Mephibosheth has been plainly mourning for his benefactor and friend. David compromises with his conscience and his promise to Ziba, his irritable peremptoriness showing him to be ill at ease. The son of Jonathan manifests the spirit of his father, the affection which is not to be bought and cannot be changed by the undeserved change he experiences: "Let him even take all, since the king has come unto his house in peace." It would be good to think that the cloud could be lifted from David as to this matter, but the history leaves him under it, and we must. The "I have said" is meant to intimate finality; and we have no hint of its recall.
Barzillai’s leave-taking we must pass over, simply as having nothing to add to the Scripture account. Save some natural analogies, there does not after all seem much to compare with the great event for which as Christians we are taught to look, while the whole narrative seems part of a history of human failure and governmental dealings of God in view of it, such as its place in the book would intimate. We go on, not to scenes of peace and prosperity, but of fresh strife and sorrow. The very aim and purport of it all seems to be, how little the world can find from king or government, short of Christ’s own rule. Since then it has been making long experiment as to the truth of this, hoping to prove it false, but has not.
4. Not yet has the king reached Jerusalem before there appears the shadow of that which. little more than a generation later was to be the beginning of the end for Israel’s independence. The strife between Israel and Judah breaks out in the very presence of the king; and Sheba the son of Bichri, a Benjamite, heads a fresh revolt against David. The men of Israel, gathered to do honor to David, follow him; and the spark of rebellion thus kindled threatens to grow into a speedy flame. The king calls Amasa to gather the tribe of Judah in pursuit of Sheba; but he is tardy, where everything depends on speed: David therefore entrusts Abishai with the commission to pursue Sheba at the head of his standing guard. The special troop of the dispossessed Joab goes with the rest, and Joab at the head of these. Here was at once material for discord again, and the murder of Amasa restores Joab to his old place at the head of the troops, where his success in the capture of Sheba keeps him. Politic and brave as he is unscrupulous, the figure of Joab dominates all this latter part of David’s reign.
This section terminates with another list of the officials under David, such as we have had already in the eighth chapter in connection with the most brilliant period of his history. It is natural to see in this later list the record of David’s later years, and in the differences between the two, those which the lapse of time has made. But the question for us is, supposing this to be correct, is it a sufficient account of the matter? Is there any practical use -any significance worthy of consideration -in the two lists being given us? Are they intended for comparison? In an inspired history, can it be vain to imagine that spiritual interests are subserved by their place in it? Upon the answer given to such questions depends much of the value of these records to us, and of the attention they will meet with at our hands. If they are simply facts of history, let them be ever so accurate as facts, they will assuredly be of very little value for the generality of readers. If, on the other hand, it be true here, as with Scripture everywhere, that they are "profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness," at once our interest in them will be excited, and we shall examine them with an earnestness corresponding to our expectation of such results. If we believe in verbal inspiration, -as it is most certain Christ our Master did, -then we shall think no investigation too minute, too microscopic. Such a claim will not allow in us a mere indolent acceptance of it. It will produce an intelligent activity in the pursuit of truth which will require much from an inspired writing, and will assuredly be bitterly disappointed if results are not found to justify the claim.
We have already -partly, at least -examined the first list in its place, connected as it is with the first and glorious portion of David’s reign, the history of which we have spoken as in some sense idealized in order that it might the better represent the higher glories of the one perfect kingdom. As so connected, it speaks of the character of that government in which the divine and human meet for the first time in absolute harmony. The second list, connected as distinctly with David’s failure and sin, would seem as if it must intimate, in contrast with this, the failure of what is merely human; not, of course, in its worse forms (or there would be no lesson), but in its better, -not Absalom’s but David’s reign.
Yet the lists, after all, are very much alike, -too much, we might think, to serve any such purpose. They are the same list, with (as has been already said) such changes as the lapse of a few years might make. To see the differences fully we must take into account, not merely those of the names but of their places also, -numbers counting, as we know, for much. We must believe, in short, in inspiration as to every "jot" and "tittle"; and so believing, we shall not be disappointed.
(1) The lists begin much alike: -"And Joab the son of Zeruiah was over the host"; "And Joab was over all the host of Israel." The significance of Joab, typically, lies in his name, as we have seen. Joab means "Jehovah is father"; and "son of Zeruiah" shows us this as the fruit of the cross. The one point of difference -most significant it is between the two lists here is that in the second this last is omitted: the cross as the foundation of all is removed.
Now we are familiar with the fact that where atonement is denied the "fatherhood of God" may be yet insisted on, and indeed widened in its application to all, upon the natural basis of creation, the fall and its consequences being denied. Grace, faith, and a peculiar relationship of these to one another are thus necessarily set aside also: and this is evidently the condition of the best human governments, which, as governments of the world, cannot act upon Christian rules or principles, which are for Christians only. The omission in the second list is therefore the expression of a simple fact by which all governments today, however much Christian in profession, are distinguished from Christ’s coming one. Look at the judgment of sheep and goats (Mat 25:1-46), the judgment of the living when that kingdom is set up on earth, -and note the difference. Christians may be kings, judges, governors, they cannot any the more, as such, act in character as Christians; nor can they find in the New Testament a single word addressed to such. "My kingdom is not of this world" is decisive for the followers of Him who spake after this manner.
(2) The second place in the second list is filled by "Benaiah the son of Jehoiada," who is "over the Cherethites, and over the Pelethites," that is, the "executioners and couriers." He is moved up from the fifth place on the first list to the second here: another important difference, though the name and office are the same; still more when we find "Jehoshaphat the son of Ahilud the recorder," (literally, "the remembrancer,") with all that is implied here, displaced to a fourth position. Judgment is God’s strange, however necessary, work: the fifth place, that of governmental recompense, is what plainly belongs to it. It–is therefore here out of place, and in that of confirmation, help, salvation: it is an arm upon which the weakness of the kings of the earth has manifestly to support itself; and how often is judgment rendered merciless by this very weakness, -by the necessity of self-preservation. Divine government needs no such help.
(3) In the third place of the first list are found the priests, plainly again in their proper order. Here they are sixth, three places lower down, while the third place here (the number of manifestation and glory) is filled by an officer entirely unknown in the former list, and the cause of woeful disaster at a later day, "Adoram," who is "over the tribute." Who can fail to see the significance of the priest (the intercessor and mediator) giving way to the tax-collector? And who can but realize the burden of the best human governments in this respect, compared with the mercy of the divine? Here is a difference, central and pervasive.
Adoniram, "my lord is exalted," is here contracted, probably by the popular mouth, into Adoram, "their glorifying."
(4) Jehoshaphat the son of Ahilud is still "recorder" or "remembrancer," but now in the fourth place, that of weakness and failure; while —
(5) Instead of Seraiah, "Jah has dominion," Sheva is scribe: whose name is taken generally to mean "vanity." Because the world has, as far as possible, escaped from under the dominion of Jah, vanity is written upon it.
(6) Under the sixth head are found, with shorn honors, Zadok and Abiathar, the priests; the number that in which the uprise of evil is indicated, being the exact opposite of that which belongs to them of right. Priest, as we see, is far separate from king here, while in the perfect rule at last these shall be joined together. The one who is
over shall be the one who is for his people, and nothing shall be able to separate these things any more forever.
(7) Lastly, under the number of rest, Ira the Jairite is named as a chief ruler; the names being suggestively significant of the opposite of rest, as "watcher, the enlightener." How clearly is indicated the disturbed condition of the world’s kingdoms, with their constant restlessness and suspicion of change. This perfects the vivid picture: and yet it describes not a Saul’s rule, but a David’s!
Certainly, slight as has been the present sketch of it, we have no reason to doubt that the two official lists here are in designed and significant contrast with one another. Yet their meaning is not blazoned on their front, but indicated by slight touches, and left to be brought out by such inquiry as seems never to have been given them; one reason for this, however, being plainly neglect of that symbolism of numbers which, however it may be ignored, yet runs through Scripture and illumines it. If a worthy search were made, it would be found, I doubt not, that instead of exaggerating the importance of this, all that has been said in its behalf has been far too little.
The lists manifestly seal the interpretation of the several portions of this history of David, the typical and the natural, which it is according to the purpose of the book to put in contrast. It is, as we find, really a book of the "kingdoms," in which the higher is always in contrast with the lower, until He come who joins them together; and here David, greater than himself, bids us look on in faith to what has been in the mind of God from the beginning. Into this the kingdoms of the world will never grow: they will pass away, that the kingdom of the heavens may replace them. He shall come whose right it is, and God will give it Him.
5. The last section of this subdivision is an appendix to the previous history. When what is narrated here took place we are not informed, but the very vagueness of the specification, "in the days of David," implies that it is not in continuity with the things we have been looking at. It is classed with them because of its similar moral bearing, not because of its connection in time. Its theme, like theirs, is the government of God; and, as another "fifth," emphasizes responsibility as under this government, which the failure manifestly (and in very real connection thus with the preceding history) confirms very solemnly.
There is a famine for three years, year after year, which at last -for it takes three years to do it drives David to God to inquire the cause. He is answered that it is for Saul and for his bloody house, because he slew the Gibeonites." A deed of the past reign is thus charged against the present, the deed of a former king upon the whole people of Israel. They were responsible as the people of God for having suffered the iniquity, profited by it, perhaps, -gone on, at least, without any acknowledgment or repentance for it.
With the history of the Gibeonites we are well acquainted. They were of the original inhabitants of the land, and had gained, by deceit, exemption from the doom which these were under. An oath by Jehovah had been given them that they should live, and thus the name of the Lord was pledged for their preservation. Saul, however, "in his zeal for the children of Israel and Judah," had sought to destroy them, and had actually slain some.
The motive is given at its best, designedly. Without questioning the motives which might have been hidden under the ostensible one, nothing of this sort could avail to remove the dishonor from the Lord’s name which they had permitted to remain there. The famine showed that, spite of the time that had elapsed, He had not forgotten nor could pass over this; and this should have instruction for us in the ways of God, and give us to realize our need of exercise with regard to them.
But here again David seems sadly to forget the privilege of which he has just availed himself; and having turned to the Lord for the cause of the judgment, he turns to the Gibeonites to learn the method of atonement. "David said unto the Gibeonites, What shall I do for you? and wherewith shall I make atonement, that ye may bless the inheritance of Jehovah?" Surely that was not, after all, the first consideration; and to put himself into the hands of those who had been wronged was not in reality the way of righting it. Was there then no law in Israel which would apply to such a case? And if there were none, how much more had they need to seek from the highest Wisdom for help in a matter so exceptional as this?
Instead of which he makes an absolute promise, "What ye shall say, that will I do for you," and then on hearing their demand for seven of Saul’s sons to be hung up to Jehovah in Gibeah of Saul, he still answers, "I will give them." There is no sign of any fresh appeal to God in the matter; and indeed there is no need of it to refuse the Gibeonite request. It had been already distinctly announced in Israel’s statute-book: "The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin." (Deu 24:16.) In Eze 18:1-32, long after this, when the children of Israel were perverting similarly the utterances of the law itself, God solemnly reasserts the principle of Deuteronomy, in vindication of the righteousness of His ways: "As I live, saith the Lord God: ye shall not have occasion any more to use this proverb in Israel. Behold, all souls are mine: as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die."
It is impossible, therefore, to quote Num 35:33 against this, -a passage which in itself is as plain as need be. True, "the land cannot be cleansed of the blood that is shed therein, but by the blood of him that shed it"; but "the blood of him that shed it" means the very opposite of the blood of his descendants. The word of God does not so contradict itself; and the Spirit of God emphatically disowns the principle.
True, the actual shedder of this blood had passed from the reach of human judgment-seats, and there was a difficulty in this that only God could meet. The Gibeonites sought to meet it honestly, no doubt, but according to the common maxims of blood-revenge, as it obtained among the nations round about, and which the whole legislation as to the cities of refuge had replaced and shut out for the people of God. That these had admitted them again is more than probable, and as here, they would naturally seek to throw the solemn sanctions of the law around them. Scripture does not ordinarily comment upon such things, but leaves us with the word of God in our hands to disentangle the confusion, and pass judgment for ourselves according to God.
Some have thought that the first verse of the chapter here shows us Saul’s "bloody house" as being really involved with him in the guilt of the Gibeonite slaughter. In a certain way this, no doubt, was true. As the blood-stain rested upon the whole nation until cleansed away, so especially did it rest upon the house of Saul. Upon them it rested specially to do what might be done in reparation, and by unmistakable manifestation of sorrow and humiliation for the crime before God. Individuals of Saul’s house might have been really accessories to it; but then their guilt as that would be specific and individual: and we find no such charges brought. It is not likely that the children of Merab were such; it seems very certain that Mephibosheth was not; and yet he is spared, not in virtue of his innocence, but because of David’s sworn covenant with Jonathan his friend. This shows that, as to the others, it was not a question of personal guilt. The Gibeonite requisition was "seven of Saul’s sons," -no matter who. David looks round and selects out of those so indicated. The specification of number, like all else, shows what is in their mind. They all, and David most, follow their own thoughts, and neither go to God nor are governed by His word. As we must surely read it, it is again the failure of human government, even where recognizing the divine one, -blindness in the things of God, for which the causes are spiritual, and alas, deep as they are wide.
The pathetic action of Rizpah seems to have a place here beyond that which the ordinary interpretation of the whole matter can assign it. The bodies are left, contrary to the law with regard to those hanged, -the only law which we know in such a case (Deu 21:22-23), -hanging day and night before God. The reason that has been suggested for this (as by Keil and others) is that "this law had, however, no application whatever to the case before us, where the expiation of guilt that rested upon the whole land is concerned. In this instance the expiatory sacrifices were to remain exposed before Jehovah, till the cessation of the plague showed that His wrath had been appeased." This, as a human account of why they left them there, is no doubt the truth. That it had any ground in the law, or therefore in the right reason of things, is another matter. The tentative character of the whole proceeding, on the contrary, has no mark of God’s dictation, as it is against the whole spirit of the law. God never ordains a way of approach to Him, and at the same time brands it as of doubtful efficacy. He never appointed a sacrifice, and bade the offerer wait until he found out if it were acceptable. How different the positiveness of His word from the uncertain speculations of the wisest of men!
The thought to which Keil gives expression is easily gathered from Rizpah’s action, who "spread sackcloth for her upon the rock until water should be poured upon them out of the heavens." So I think we must translate the words, not as the record of fact but of expectation. The fact does not seem to have answered to the expectation; for it was after the bones were buried, with those of Saul and Jonathan, that "God was entreated for the land," or, in other words, that the drought ceased.
This, however, sets aside the efficacy of the act itself, and brings Rizpah into corresponding prominence: Rizpah, whose act with the whole force of the motherly instinct, refuses participation in the awful doom, and with her feeble womanly strength would shelter the victims. Strangely enough, while she protects them from the birds of prey, she is herself a daughter of Aiah, "vulture," or "kite," -in either case one of the keenest-eyed of these. And, while she refuses this sacrifice, her own name, Rizpah, is that of the "live coal," which, taken by the seraph from off the altar, purges the unclean lips of the prophet! (Isa 6:6-7.) Is this double reference to the matter in hand only a double accident? Rizpah does even prepare the way for blessing, touching the heart of David to do what poor justice can even yet be done to the dishonored dead, with whom Saul and Jonathan themselves come into remembrance also. The keen eye that sees things as they are, the glow of living righteousness, are with this stricken woman, not with king David or the Gibeonites in this matter; and not till things are set right here can God be entreated for the land!
What, then, is the lesson here but the failure, as already said, of human government, even when, aroused by the divine acts, it addresses itself to the settlement of the most fundamental questions? -the endeavor to fulfill righteousness ending in the most complete unrighteousness, and the blind effort to please God in the refusal of His plainest commandments, -a woman’s heart seeing clearly, with instinctive wisdom, what the king of Israel, with his delight in the law of God, is utterly blind to. How more than ever it is plain that one hand alone can rightly wield the sceptre of the world! How it shows us the moral of the book to be in the cry, "Come, Lord Jesus!"
The Books of the Kings.
F. W. Grant.
F. W. Grant, The Numerical Bible (4th ed., 1903) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
J. R. Dummelow 1909 · Public Domain On v1 The Crime of Amnon, and Absalom's Vengeance
The Crime of Amnon, and Absalom's Vengeance
This narrative and the history of Absalom's rebellion is omitted in Chronicles.
Read full note →
2. Tamar was in the women's apartments, and, therefore, safe. She was his half-sister and Absalom's sister: see 2Sa_3:2, 2Sa_3:3.
4. Lean from day to day] i.e. getting thinner and paler every morning.
5. Make thyself sick] RV 'feign thyself sick.'
13. He will not withhold me] Tamar said this as a last, desperate expedient, for such marriages were unlawful (Lev_18:9).
16. Amnon was adding insult to injury.
18. Garment of divers colours] RM 'a long garment with sleeves': cp. Gen_37:3.
20. He is thy brother] So Tamar could not reproach herself for having gone to see him.
23. Ephraim] an unknown town.
37. Talmai] Absalom escapes to his grandfather (2Sa_3:3) to avoid the revenge of Amnon's relatives.
David mourned] His sin was finding him out, and he was tasting the first bitter fruits of it in the death of one son and the alienation of another.
J. R. Dummelow, A Commentary on the Holy Bible (Macmillan, 1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Arno C. Gaebelein 1922 · Public Domain On v1 3. Further Chastisement: Amnon, Tamar, and Absalom
3. Further Chastisement: Amnon, Tamar, and Absalom
CHAPTER 13
Read full note →
1. Amnon’s wicked desire (2Sa 13:1-5)
2. The incest (2Sa 13:6-14)
3. His hatred (2Sa 13:15-18)
4. Amnon murdered (2Sa 13:19-36)
5. Absalom’s flight (2Sa 13:37-39)
“Behold I will raise up evil against thee out of thine own house.” This was Jehovah’s sentence and it is now carried out. The evil which he had nourished in his heart, the passion which he had fed now breaks out in his own family. His oldest sons and Tamar, a daughter of David, half sister to Amnon, are the chief actors in the first tragedy. Amnon means “faithful.” Thus he should have been, but he is the very opposite. Brought up in the midst of scenes of license, as it must have been in David’s harem, the lust of the flesh gets the upper hand and the awful deed, a positive transgression of the law (Lev 20:17) is committed. The deed had been precipitated by a satanic adviser, Jonadab, a subtle man, and when it was done violent hate gave way to the violent passion of Amnon. Unhappy Tamar, outraged, insulted and hated, appears with her virgin-princess gown torn, ashes on her head, her hand on top of her head (the oriental way of expressing a heavy burden) and crying, and her brother Absalom discovers the reason of her sorrow. He then hated his brother Amnon. David heard of it also and was very wroth, but he made no attempt to deal with his son. We do not read a word that he even rebuked him. “The gloss of the Septuagint is likely to be correct, that David left unpunished the incest of Amnon with Tamar, although committed under peculiarly aggravating circumstances, on account of his partiality to him as being his first born son. This indulgence on the part of his father may also account for the daring recklessness which marked Amnon’s crime. But a doting father, smitten with moral weakness, might find in the remembrance of his own past sin an excuse for delay, if not a barrier to action; for it is difficult to wield a heavy sword with a maimed arm” (History of Judah and Israel).
After two years the reckoning day comes. Absalom (the father of peace) becomes the murderer of his brother. It was an awful deed. In the midst of merrymaking, Amnon filled with wine, with no chance to repent, is cruelly slain. The sword is unsheathed and fell upon David’s house. The harvest is on. What a man soweth that he will reap-murder for murder. It was an awful blow to David, for Amnon, his beloved first-born, the son of Ahinoam, was dead. Exaggerated tidings reach the court of David. “Absalom hath slain all the King’s sons and there is not one of them left.” And wicked Jonadab, the instigator of Amnon’s crime, appears again and acts as comforter of the king. Jonadab is one of the most abominable characters in Bible history. We do not read of him again. Absalom, the fratricide, fled to Talmai, his maternal grandfather. He remained there three years; so this chapter covers a period of five years. Alas! who was responsible for it all? The scenes of lust and murder, outrage and bloodshed, revolt and rebellion, sorrow upon sorrow, grief upon grief, start with David’s great sin. Pardoned he was, restored in every sense of the word, yet God maintains His holiness and chastised His servant.
Arno C. Gaebelein, The Annotated Bible (1913–1922) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Paul E. Kretzmann 1924 · Public Domain On vv1, 15 Amnon’s Crime
Amnon’s Crime
v. 1. And it came to pass after this that Absalom, the son of David, 2Sa 3:3, had a fair sister, a full sister to him, who was a very beautiful young woman, whose name was Tamar; and Amnon, the son of David, her half-brother by another of David’s wives, loved her.
Read full note →
v. 2. And Amnon was so vexed, his passion preyed on him to such an extent, that he fell sick for his sister Tamar, for she was a virgin; and Amnon thought it hard for him to do anything to her, literally, "it was difficult to accomplish in the eyes of Amnon," he found it impossible to gratify his passion because of Tamar’s maidenly reserve and her inaccessibility in the harem.
v. 3. But Amnon had a friend whose name was Jonadab, the son of Shimeah, David’s brother, his own cousin; and Jonadab was a very subtle man, known for his craftiness.
v. 4. And he said unto him, Why art thou, being the king’s son, in whose case there was no apparent reason for such a condition, lean from day to day? He looked more wretched from one morning to the next, since his nights were made sleepless by his torturing passion, Wilt thou not tell me? And Amnon said unto him, I love Tamar, my brother Absalom’s sister.
v. 5. And Jonadab said unto him, Lay thee down on thy bed and make thyself sick, feigning illness; and when thy father cometh to see thee, to visit the son who had been reported sick, say unto him, I pray thee, let my sister Tamar come and give me meat, prepare food, and dress them eat in my sight, make ready some special dish for the sick, that I may see it, and eat it at her hand. He intimated that the sight of the food in such circumstances would give him an appetite. Evidently every wife of the king with her children occupied her own apartments in the royal palace, but the intercourse between the children was fairly free.
v. 6. So Amnon, following the advice of his shrewd cousin with all that it implied, lay down and made himself sick; and when the king was come to see him, Amnon said unto the king, I pray thee, let Tamar, my sister, whose skill in cooking was evidently well known, come and make me a couple of cakes in my sight, two heart-cakes, made of rolled dough, something on the order of pancakes, considered very strengthening for the heart, that I may eat at her hand.
v. 7. Then David sent home to Tamar, saying, Go now to thy brother Amnon’s house, who apparently occupied apartments of his own, and dress him meat, prepare him some strengthening food.
v. 8. So Tamar went to her brother Amnon’s house; and he was laid down. And she took flour, a mixture or paste of dough, and kneaded it, and made cakes in his sight, and did bake the cakes, used the batter to bake the special cakes for which he had asked.
v. 9. And she took a pan, or the cakes prepared by her, and poured them out before him, served them for him to eat; but he refused to eat. And Amnon said, have out all men from me, he ordered all his attendants to leave the room. And they went out, every man, from him.
v. 10. And Amnon said unto Tamar, Bring the meat in to the chamber, the inner room where his couch was, that I may eat of thine hand. He acted like a capricious patient. And Tamar took the cakes which she had made, and brought them in to the chamber to Amnon, her brother.
v. 11. And when she had brought them unto him to eat, he took hold of her, throwing aside all his feigned weakness, and said unto her, Come, lie with me, my sister.
v. 12. And she, in the attempt to save her honor, answered him, Nay, my brother, do not force me, humbling her by this crime; for no such thing ought to be done in Israel, it was strictly in opposition to the Law, Lev 18:9; Lev 20:17; Deu 27:22; do not thou this folly. Cf Gen 34:7, the passage which Tamar probably had in mind.
v. 13. And I, whither shall I cause my shame to go? Disgrace and contempt would be sure to strike her wherever she would go. And as for thee, thou shalt be as one of the fools in Israel, a person who foolishly and to his own condemnation committed a heinous transgression. Now, therefore, I pray thee, speak unto the king; for he will not withhold me from thee. She did not hold out an actual hope that the king would sanction the forbidden marriage, but spoke in the height of her fear, wishing to escape his passion for the present, trying to put him off by the prospect that he might be able to gratify his passion with a show of right, if he would but wait.
v. 14. Howbeit, he would not hearken unto her voice; but, being stronger than she, forced her, and lay with her, gratified his passionate lust. Such is the power of sin if it is not kept in check by the fear of God or by love toward the Lord.
Paul E. Kretzmann, Popular Commentary of the Bible (1921–1924) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
unfoldingWord translationNotes 2017 · CC BY-SA 4.0 On vv1, 3, 5, 7, 10, 13, 15, 18, 20 It came about after this
It came about after this
"It happened after this." This phrase is used to introduce a new event to the story line. (See: Introduction of a New Event)
Read full note →
half-sister
Amnon and Tamar shared the same father but not the same mother.
full sister
Absalom and Tamar shared the same father and mother.
Amnon was so frustrated that he became sick because of his sister Tamar
Amnon was frustrated because he desired to sleep with his sister Tamar. AT: "Amnon was so frustrated with desire for his sister Tamar that he felt sick" (See: Assumed Knowledge and Implicit Information)
translationWords
Amnon
son
David
Tamar
Absalom
virgin
unfoldingWord translationNotes — © Distant Shores Media and the Door43 World Missions Community, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Source: git.door43.org/Door43/en_tn.
Tyndale Open Study Notes 2022 · CC BY-SA 4.0 On vv1, 2, 3, 4, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 21 13:1 Absalom had a beautiful sister: Tamar was Absalom’s…
13:1 Absalom had a beautiful sister: Tamar was Absalom’s full sister but Amnon’s half sister (see 3:2-3). Absalom would later avenge Tamar as her nearest relative (13:23-29; cp. Gen 34; Num 35:19).
Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.