Category: II Samuel

Verses 1-12 Betrayed by Neglect

What on earth happened to David. Is he just lying in a bed somewhere withering or wandering between wives focused on himself? How on earth can Absalom take 50 men, go to the gate every day and hold court- running down the king and exalting himself? I know the Word says that he stole away the hearts of the men of Israel, but David didn't even seem to show up. He wasn't doing anything to protect the hearts of the men of Israel from this usurper.

And just as he had with Tamar and with Absalom and the shearer evemt, he doesn't do much to investigate why Absalom wants all these men, moves to a new city, calls for David's advisor... Maybe God made him blind to all that was going on in his kingdom or maybe he was neglecting his oversight of God's nation.

I know the bible describes how beautiful Absalom is; but I wonder if he would have had as much success if David paid a little more attention to his children, especially one that had proved so evil before.

It's easy for me to judge, since I only see a snippet. Which is always the problem with judging. There's so much we don't know. But it seems like David is one of those kind of great men we see throughout history who is a great man; but maybe not a good man. It takes giving your whole life to transform a broken nation, uphold treaties and other peace keeping tasks...maybe there just wasn't a lot of room to be a good husband and father. (Although God call's him a man after God's own heart...so it's hard to even say that much.) Either way, something went wrong and David let Absalom steal the kingdom, from the text so far.

Verses 13-23 Escape

Verse 13 says a messenger reported to David that Absalom had stole the hearts, as if it were just a sudden thing. Where were these messengers all along?

Maybe we find a hint to the problem in verse 14. It says that David collected all his servants and fled. To me, it should have said David rounded up all his soldiers and fought. That's the old David. Why was he surrounded by servants. I know he was the king and it's right for him to have servants, but there's something missing here. He doesn't even list soldiers in his entourage. He's settled into palace life and left himself and his nation undefended.

It does say in verse 14 that he felt it was better for the city for him to flee than to put Absalom in a position to lay siege on the city.

Oh Dear Lord. he took his whole household except 10 concubines? "to keep the house"? Really? That seemed appropriate? Are they just pawns on the chessboard to be sacrificed. What possible logic would make this ok?

And just like that, the king was once again running for his life and the remnant of Israel was wondering in the wilderness.

Verses 25-26 A Man After God's Own Heart

In verse 25 we finally see a shadow of the old David, the man after God's own heart. Zadok brought the Ark of God with him. David stopped him and told him to take it back. After everything they went to to properly bring the Ark to Jerusalem, David probably remembered how awful things might get if they were casually carrying the Ark as they fled to parts unknown.

But David also seem to recognize that the whole situation was bigger than them, bigger than Absalom. He acknowledged that God was in control. He didn't cling to the throne as Saul did. He trusted that God would bring him back to the Ark if that was God's will. And if God's will was that it was his son's turn to reign, then so be it.

Having been pretty frustrated with David the last few chapters, which I have been on for a few weeks, these two verses are a healing salve. Maybe he wasn't doing a great job as king with regards to Absalom. But what he knew about the Lord didn't waver. We're all just wretches, blessed to be called and saved by our Lord. We're going to make a lot of mistakes and it's not surprising that he was making big ones at the end of his life...but who God was never wavered in his mind.

I find a lot of hope and comfort in that. Maybe not comfort for this world; but comfort in the eternal.

Wiersbe's take on the situation was that Joab wanted a crown princess ready to take over if David died (David now being about 60 years old). The crown prince was currently exiled and couldn't come home without David's permission. But how could he just overlook the murder?

So Joab reasons with David via the wise woman deception.

Just a nerdy aside. It is interesting that when people wanted to see a change in David, they convinced him with stories. Howard Gardner is an American psychologist and education expert from Harvard. He is best known for his Multiple Intelligence theory. But he wrote a book on how to influence people and his research showed it to be stories.

We are still a tribal people. Only recently wearing suits and ties. We think we're far removed from our roots because of all of the modern blessing from God. But if you want to affect us, persuade us, change us...we respond to stories. It's odd. We might think logic would be the best. But people have knowledge in their head and are often unaffected by it. but if you put that same knowledge into a story, it can reach our inner most being and chance change. We've now seen it twice with David in just a few chapters.

He tried to passive the wise woman/actress, but she would not be put off. She persisted until she got him to say that he would spare her son's life. Now he was in the position that he would forgive a stranger; but leave his own son in exile. Now he had a reason to bring Absalom home.

Personally, I am a little annoyed that Amnon can rape without consequence and now Absalom can murder and run off to his other royal grandparents to wait it out. It feels like God's law doesn't apply to the royals. But the case being made here isn't. Absalom should go free because his your son. It's Israel is a newly renewed nation that's just now getting her feet underneath her after a long season of the judges. If you, David, die without a clear heir, all of Israel could lose her inheritance--the Promise Land.

Who gets forgiven and who pays full price? It's not up to us. We don't see the big picture. We don't see generational consequences and outcomes that the Lord sees clearly.

And besides, in actuality, like Michael Jackson or OJ Simpson, it may look like someone is getting away with evil because of who they are...but for both Amnon and Absalom, their reprieve was short lived. Neither prospered (or even lived) in the long run.

And in the end, because the Father was willing to sacrifice His Son and Jesus was willing to be tortured and slain, non of us get what we deserve. And we do get what we don't deserve. Grace and mercy. Praise God and may I never forget how much I have been forgiven.

David said Joab could go get Absalom, but when he was back, he had to stay on his own land (sort of a house arrest) and he couldn't visit the palace or see David.

Wiersbe points out that David and Absalom were reconciled, but there is no evidence that Absalom was repentant or that he paid the sacrifice he owed. So he came back to court privileges, but his heart was unchanged.

Wiersbe describes a little side plot that isn't obvious to me on first reading, so I don't know if it's theologically valid or just his opinion. But he describes how popular Absalom was and so when Absalom sent for Joab (twice) to come help him out of his house arrest situation, Joab didn't go because he didn't want to look like he was working for the prince at his beck and call.

So, Wiersbe writes that the reason Absalom had his servants set Joab's field on fire was to give Joab a reason to come see him- the arsonist would need to pay for the damages by law.

Final thought: that's a lot of palace intrigue, plotting, and scheming. And, in reality, despite Joab and Absalom's best efforts, Absalom never had a chance. He lived his life trying to become King. But he failed to ask the King Maker if that what he should do with his life. What if Joab and Absalom had been seeking the Lord' will during this time, instead of their own? Joab schemed to bring into Israel a man who would seek to destroy the King Joab was supposed to protect. When David asked why he had set up the whole theatrical scene with the "widow", Joab said "To change this present situation." Well, change he did. He put a traitor within arms reach of the king.

Here's the point, and it's meant for me, not just Joab and Absalom. God has a Will. And it will be done. We can either seek Him and do our best to be in His Will, or we can run around, plotting, scheming, burning down the days we've been given, and losing out on the blessing our loving Father had for us.

So, Joab decided to intervene with David concerning the exile of Absalom.

In my mind, Joab must have seen how effective Nathan had been at using a story to make a point to the king. So Joab sent for a wise woman and gave her a sob story to tell to Kind David.

She told a story about losing her husband, then her two boys fought, one killing the other, and now her family wants to slay the second son for the murder, leaving her without and heir.

David tries to put her off, but she persists. Pretty soon David asks if Joab had put her up to this and she says yes. However, she pushes the point that even though Absalom is the one who murdered the heir appearant, he is the next in line and Israel needs a king after David.

David concedes to Joab and sends him to go get Absalom. Joab falls on his face in gratitude, which struck me as odd. Then he ran off and got Absalom and brought him back to Jerusalem.

When he arrives, David sends Absalom to his own house and doesn't see him face to face.

Then there is a lengthy description about how beautiful and physically perfect Absalom is. It even mentions that his hair is so thick and heavy, he cuts it once a year and it weights 3-4 pounds! It also mentions that he has three sons and a daughter named Tamar (his sister's name).

He sits there for two years and never sees the King, his father David.

So he sends for Joab, but Joab doesn't come. He sends for him again and he does not come, So he sets a portion of Joab's field on fire and Joab shows up.

Absalom asks Joab to go find out why David sent for him if he isn't going to see him? He could have stayed with his maternal grandparents, who were royalty in their land.

So Joab goes with the message.

David sends for Absalom.

Absalom comes and prostrates himself before his King.

The King kisses Absalom.

The Ryrie Study Bible footnote says the verse 33 (where David kisses Absalom) restores Absalom to full court privileges.

I feel like I should be more moved by this chapter; but I (honestly) just feel bad for Tamar. this all started by her being violated and then events moved on, never to make her whole. If Amnon had been dealt with via God's law, none of the other events would have occurred. I have to trust God that He used the events to further His purpose and He loves Tamar and met her needs according to His wisdom and glory.

Revenge

Absalom waited two years to get his revenge (or use revenge as a way to make clear his way to the throne.)

He asked King David to attended, probably knowing David would want his entourage to disrupt the events. Once David said 'no' it left Absalom the opening to ask David to send his heir in his place, Amnon. David seem to have an inkling that there was something amiss about this but approved it and send all of his sons. Maybe as a buffer between the two.

Wiersbe draws parallels between David's premeditated murder and escape with Absalom's premeditated murder and escape. Although David's sin was forgiven- the model had been given to the adult sons who were watching.

Revenge never solves anything. Nothing is better because of it. Specifically, Tamar was not better for it. Absalom thought he was better for it. Now he was in line for the throne. But that didn't work out either. Wiersbe: "The Christian way is the way of forgiveness and faith, trusting the Lord to work everything out for our good and His Glory (I Peter 4: 12-19.)"

Exile

Absalom fled to the land of his maternal grandparents. where his grandfather was king. Likely, he and his grandfather were planning how he could be king of Israel.

Meanwhile King David had grieved the loss of Amnon, but was comforted by time and began longing to see his living son, Absalom. Or the same verse can be interpreted that he had planned to go after Absalom and that had quieted over time.

Starting with a side note: I haven't read a word of Wiersbe's commentary yet and I'm already annoyed. As mentioned in previous posts, I am a huge fan of Wiersbe and his ability to bring the Old Testament to life in a way applicable to the our lives under the New Testament. But this particular book in his "Be" series has been repeatedly disappointing. First with some of the awkward "bolt on" references to Jesus (which is usually his strength), then with his treatment of Bathsheba. And now, I'm starting the chapter on the rape of Tamar and what does he title it, David's Unruly Sons. Not Tamar's Violation or even Amnon's Sins. But "unruly", like it was graffiti or something, not rape and murder. I swear this book is trying to turn me into a feminist.

OK, enough of that. Let's hope he does better with the actual scripture.

We're not off to a good start. He says this section is mostly about Absalom because he turns a drama into a tragedy. My guess is Tamar would disagree. I imagine she sees the tragedy start when she was defiled and raped.

Wiersbe points out that here are multiple laws in Leviticus and Deuteronomy that prohibit uncovering your half sister's nakedness. As heir to the throne, undoubtedly, Amnon knew this and should have dealt with his sinful thoughts; not pursued them.

There were separate quarters for the virgin princesses and they were kept separate, even from male relatives.

Oh, my. Wiersbe points out that the creepy cousin who helped push Amnon to his creepy plan to lure in Tamar, is the same person who was by David's side when David erroneously heard that ALL of his sons were murdered by Absalom. He even says, it's probably not all of them, Absalom has wanted to kill Amnon since "he violated his sister Tamar." That's awful. He knew it was a violation and yet he designed the whole rape. And has the nerve to distance himself from it.

Twice so far, Wiersbe is saying Amnon committed the rape out of lust. I don't buy that. Lust is burning desire. But it is not rape. Rape comes from wanting to own and damage someone else. He wasn't satisfying a desire or he wouldn't have hated her and kicked her out in humiliation after. Having sex with her was just his method of accomplishing his even more evil desires.

Wiersbe points out that Absalom's plan may not have helped Tamar, but did give him reason to kill his rival for the throne. With Amnon the first born out of the way, Absalom had a clear shot at the throne. It left his sister devastated and unavenged, but that didn't seem to be a concern.

Tamar couldn't go back to the home for the virgin princesses and she now had few prospects for marriage. So she had to go to Absalom, whose job it was to avenge her.

Tamar

So...this is one of those stories sprinkled through the Bible that show the daily horror of man. You don't expect a rape story; a family sexual abuse story in the Bible. At least I don't. But it shows God's intention for this book. It's meant to be a field manual from our leader, showing us where and how to go. A field manual that only mentions the best case scenarios is useless.

So here's the gist of it:

• As mentioned previously, David had many wives. His son, Amnon.
• From another mother, he had a brother and sister Tamar, and her brother Absalom.
• Amnon lusted after Tamar. And he couldn't think of a way to "do anything to her". He was so obsessed with her, he made himself ill.
• Amnon's creepy friend (also David's nephew) he use his father to force Tamar into serving him in his bedroom by deception.
• Amnon thought this an excellent idea, pretended to be sick, requested that Tama serve him and his father obliged. Which is so gross. Why? David knew the truth about men's urges and such, why would he force the daughter of one wife to serve a sick son of another wife in his bedroom?
• Tamar obediently obliges and cooks the food, but Amnon says, I want you to feed me by hand in my bed.
• Amnon tries to force her and she replies with several things that caught my eye:
  • v. 12
  • She clearly starts with "no". She did not want this act.
  • Then she calls him "my brother". trying to highlight why it was wrong.
  • Then she says, "do not violate me". emphasizing it would not be sex, but a violation
  • "such a thing is not done in Israel" reminding him that the were a nation set apart and they did not abide in these perversions.
  • v. 13
  • The she points out that she would have no way to remove her reproach.
  • And he would be a fool among his nation.
  • And finally, she offers to marry him and make it legitimate by going to the king and asking for her.
• v. 14 Amnon overpowers her and rapes and violates her.
• v. 15 And then he despises her. He hated more intensely than he had been obsessed with her. I think this is a common response for abusers and predators. There are probably some basic psychological explanations, such as resenting that he wanted her and she didn't reciprocate, so when he had her, he could return the rejection. Or many they hate themselves, but are so narcissistic, they have to turn their hate on others. Whatever the reasoning, it is simple and plain evil. You have to harden your heart to allow yourself to do that to another human being and that means choosing evil over good. You invite in a cancer that you cannot contain to that one act.
• And his creepy buddy, David's nephew, is complicit. Yes, Amnon is responsible for his own criminal behavior; but the devil successfully tempted the nephew to successfully tempt Amnon. Verse 2 says it was hard for Amnon to think of anyway to do anything to her. The nephew made a way.
• Also in v. 15, he has her kicked out.
• In v. 16, she begs him to do the only remaining right thing and marry her- pointing out that sending her away to spend the rest of her life carrying the shame and reproach is worse than the rape itself. It hurts my heart that many cultures make it so hard on rape victims. That they should be anything but victims who should be able to confidently bring charges to the abuser is so sad and infuriating. It doesn't help that some women cry 'rape', making it harder to automatically believe every woman.
• Tamar would rather marry her rapist than to leave there in permanent shame. That just shocks the conscious.
• v 17, this cowardly weasel has an attendant throw her out and lock the door. Again, this image is so callous and cowardly, it's tough not to hate this man.
• In Verses 17 and 18, Tamar is left to respond in grief and shame, tearing her "virginal clothing" and covering herself in ashes, she leaves sobbing aloud. (Ryrie points out that she took the specific actions of a widow mourning her husband.)

The Fallout

The next scene in this gristly story gets progressively worse.

In v. 20, Tamar's brother discovers what happens and does a thing men are often inclined to do and that to simultaneously dismiss the woman's feels about the issue; and then take the issue, personally, to heart and go act on his own anger.

• He confirms what happened with her.
• Then he tells the rape victim to keep silent.
• Then seems to say to keep quiet because it was her brother, as if that's better?
• Then tells her not to take the matter to heart.

It's difficult to imagine how he could have handled this worse. What a horrible, horrible response.

• Telling a rape victim to keep quiet is truly another violation. She has already lost control of her body once and now she's not allowed to speak of it? Horrible response #1. And I know some might say that he wanted her to keep quiet to help his revenge plan work better; but that's not a valid reason. She's supposed to do something so he can more easily do what it takes to make himself feel better? No. No. No. No. No. If talking about is what she needed; his revenge plot should be what suffers; not Tamar.
• Then, I can't even describe how awful it sounds that he tells her to quiet down because it was her brother who did this thing. I hope there is something lost in translation because that is too horrible to consider.
• And then Absalom has the nerve to tell her to not take it to heart. HE TAKES IT TO HEART. He gets to act on his anger; but she's supposed to not take it to heart. What a selfish, knuckle-dragging, asinine thing to say to someone who is hurting from such a personal violation. Because of her culture, her whole life has now changed. She can never be a virgin again, with all that entails. And he pats her on the head and dismisses her feelings-- all the while planning to exercise his own feelings on the matter.

And the proof he handled it completely wrong? The last sentence in Verse 20: "So Tamar remained was DESOLATE in her brother Absalom's house.