2 Samuel 13 Commentary – Amnon’s Sin Against Tamar and Absalom’s Revenge in David’s Family

Amnon’s Lustful Obsession with Tamar

Second Samuel chapter 13 begins with the introduction of key family members in David’s household. Amnon was David’s firstborn son, while Absalom was another son who had a beautiful sister named Tamar. The text emphasizes Tamar’s beauty and her status as Absalom’s full sister, establishing the family relationships that would drive the tragic events to follow.

Amnon’s attraction to Tamar was described as love, but the subsequent narrative reveals it was merely lustful obsession. The Hebrew word used can mean either genuine love or sexual desire. The context makes clear that Amnon’s feelings were selfish and destructive rather than caring and protective.

The text notes that Tamar was a virgin, emphasizing her purity and the protected status she held in the royal household. Unmarried daughters of kings were carefully guarded and lived in seclusion. This detail heightens the tragedy of what would follow and underscores the violation of trust involved.

Amnon’s inability to approach Tamar through normal channels created frustration that consumed his thoughts. The phrase “Amnon was so tormented that he made himself ill” reveals the destructive power of uncontrolled desire. His obsession affected his physical health and mental stability.

Jonadab’s Cunning Advice and Deceptive Plan

Jonadab, described as Amnon’s friend and David’s nephew, noticed Amnon’s deteriorating condition. His question about why the king’s son looked haggard day after day opened the door for Amnon to reveal his problem. Jonadab’s willingness to help shows how friends can either strengthen or corrupt each other.

The text identifies Jonadab as “a very cunning man,” using a Hebrew word that can mean either wise or crafty. The context reveals his craftiness rather than wisdom, as his advice led to devastating consequences. This description warns readers about the difference between cleverness and true wisdom.

Jonadab’s plan involved deception on multiple levels. Amnon would pretend to be sick, request that Tamar prepare food for him personally, and use this private meeting to assault her. The scheme required lying to David and manipulating Tamar’s compassionate service to her half-brother.

The plan’s sophistication reveals careful thought about exploiting family relationships and royal protocols. Jonadab understood David’s care for his children and Tamar’s sense of duty. His advice shows how evil can disguise itself as reasonable solutions to legitimate problems.

David’s Unwitting Cooperation in the Deception

When Amnon pretended illness and requested Tamar’s personal attention, David readily agreed to send her to prepare food for her half-brother. The king’s response demonstrates his care for his children and his trust in their integrity. His innocence about their motives made him an unwitting accomplice.

David’s instruction to Tamar to “go to your brother Amnon’s house and prepare food for him” shows the normal expectation of family care during illness. In royal households, sisters often provided special attention to sick brothers. David saw nothing inappropriate in this request.

The king’s trust in his children reflects his own character but also reveals his blind spots regarding their moral development. David’s past sins had consequences in his family that he failed to anticipate or guard against. His protective instincts were weakened by his compromised moral authority.

This incident illustrates how deception often succeeds by exploiting others’ good intentions. David’s desire to care for his sick son and Tamar’s willingness to serve her brother were both admirable qualities that were manipulated for evil purposes.

Tamar’s Innocent Service and Amnon’s Trap

Tamar obeyed her father’s instructions and went to Amnon’s house to prepare food for him. Her compliance demonstrates the obedience expected of daughters in ancient royal households. She had no reason to suspect her half-brother’s true motives or the danger she was entering.

The text describes Tamar’s careful preparation of the food in Amnon’s sight. She took flour, kneaded it, made cakes, and baked them. This detailed description emphasizes her genuine care for Amnon’s welfare and her dedication to providing quality service during his supposed illness.

When Tamar finished preparing the food and offered it to Amnon, he refused to eat. His rejection of her careful work was the first sign that something was wrong. The food had never been his real desire; it was merely a pretext to get her alone in his house.

Amnon’s next action was to send away all his servants, leaving himself alone with Tamar. This dismissal of witnesses was crucial to his plan but should have alarmed Tamar about his true intentions. The isolation created the perfect opportunity for assault while eliminating potential intervention.

The Sexual Assault and Tamar’s Resistance

Amnon’s direct proposition to Tamar, “Come, lie with me, my sister,” revealed his true intentions. The use of “sister” in this context was both accurate family terminology and a reminder of why his request was abhorrent. The incestuous nature of his desire made it doubly wrong according to divine law.

Tamar’s response demonstrated wisdom, courage, and moral clarity. She begged Amnon not to force her, calling such action “folly” and explaining that it would bring shame on both of them. Her arguments appealed to his reason, conscience, and self-interest in trying to prevent the assault.

Tamar’s suggestion that Amnon ask the king for her hand in marriage shows her desperate attempt to find a legitimate alternative. While such marriages were later forbidden, they may have been permissible at this time in Israel’s history. Her proposal demonstrated clear thinking under extreme pressure.

The text notes that Amnon would not listen to her voice, emphasizing his complete disregard for her dignity, rights, and reasonable arguments. His refusal to hear her pleas reveals the selfish nature of his desire and his determination to take what he wanted regardless of consequences.

The Act of Violence and Its Immediate Consequences

Despite Tamar’s resistance and pleading, Amnon overpowered her and committed rape. The Hebrew text uses strong language to describe this as an act of violence and humiliation rather than love or even consensual sex. The assault violated divine law, family trust, and basic human dignity.

Immediately after the rape, Amnon’s feelings toward Tamar changed dramatically. The text states that “Amnon hated her with very great hatred, so that the hatred with which he hated her was greater than the love with which he had loved her.” This reaction reveals that his original feelings were never genuine love.

The sudden transformation from supposed love to intense hatred is psychologically significant. Amnon’s guilt and shame were projected onto Tamar as anger and revulsion. This reaction demonstrates how sin corrupts the heart and turns victims into objects of blame rather than compassion.

Amnon’s command for Tamar to “arise and go” shows his callous disregard for her trauma and his desire to eliminate evidence of his crime. He wanted her gone so he could pretend the assault had never happened. This reaction compounded the original injury with additional cruelty.

Tamar’s Desperate Plea and Further Humiliation

Tamar’s response to Amnon’s dismissal reveals her understanding of ancient Near Eastern customs regarding sexual assault. She argued that sending her away would be a greater evil than the rape itself. Her words show knowledge of social expectations and legal protections for women in her situation.

Under ancient law, a man who raped a virgin was required to marry her and provide for her throughout life. Tamar’s plea for marriage was not based on love but on practical necessity for her protection and provision. Abandonment would leave her defenseless and unmarriageable.

Amnon’s refusal to listen to this second plea demonstrates his complete selfishness. He had taken what he wanted and now wished to avoid all responsibility for the consequences. His behavior shows how sin produces hardness of heart that rejects both divine law and human decency.

Amnon’s action of calling his servant to “put this woman out from me and bolt the door after her” treated Tamar like refuse to be discarded. The language dehumanizes her and shows his utter contempt for the person he had supposedly loved. The bolted door symbolized his determination to shut out responsibility.

Tamar’s Public Grief and Symbolic Actions

After being thrown out of Amnon’s house, Tamar performed traditional mourning rituals that publicly declared her violation and shame. She put ashes on her head, tore her ornate robe, put her hand on her head, and went away crying aloud. These actions communicated her trauma to everyone she encountered.

The tearing of her ornate robe was particularly significant because such garments were worn by virgin daughters of the king. The torn clothing symbolized her lost virginity and changed status in society. This visual symbol announced to all observers that she had been sexually violated.

Tamar’s public mourning served multiple purposes. It expressed her genuine grief over her violation, announced her changed circumstances to the community, and created social pressure for justice. Her visible distress would make it difficult for the crime to be covered up or ignored.

The description of Tamar going away “crying aloud” emphasizes the depth of her trauma and her need for comfort and justice. Her grief was not silent or hidden but public and demanding response from her family and community. Her actions created a crisis that required resolution.

Absalom’s Response and Long-Term Planning

Absalom’s encounter with his traumatized sister reveals his immediate understanding of what had occurred. His question, “Has Amnon your brother been with you?” shows that Tamar’s appearance and behavior made the situation clear without detailed explanation. His use of “brother” emphasizes the family betrayal involved.

Absalom’s initial counsel to Tamar was to “be quiet for now, my sister. He is your brother; do not take this matter to heart.” This advice has been interpreted various ways, but it likely meant that she should not publicize the matter further while he planned appropriate response. He was not minimizing her trauma but managing the situation strategically.

The text notes that Absalom took Tamar to live in his house, providing her with protection and care that her father and other brothers had failed to offer. This action demonstrates genuine love and responsibility toward his sister. He became her protector when others failed to act.

Absalom’s decision to remain silent about the assault while harboring hatred toward Amnon reveals his calculating nature. The text states he “spoke to Amnon neither good nor bad” while planning revenge. His patience in executing justice shows both self-control and dangerous determination.

David’s Inadequate Response to the Crisis

When David heard about Amnon’s assault on Tamar, he was very angry. The Hebrew text emphasizes the intensity of his anger, showing that he understood the seriousness of his son’s crime. David’s emotional response was appropriate, but his failure to take action was not.

David’s anger without action reveals the weakness in his position as both father and king. His own moral failures had compromised his authority to discipline his children effectively. The parallel between his adultery and murder and Amnon’s rape and heartlessness was too obvious to ignore.

The king’s inaction may also have been influenced by his favoritism toward Amnon as his firstborn son. Parents often struggle to discipline children they favor, especially when those children commit serious crimes. David’s paternal love conflicted with his royal responsibility for justice.

David’s failure to provide justice for Tamar left the matter unresolved and created conditions for Absalom’s eventual revenge. When legitimate authority fails to address injustice, vigilante action often follows. David’s weakness as a father created chaos in his household.

Absalom’s Two-Year Plan for Revenge

The narrative jumps forward two years to reveal Absalom’s patient planning for revenge against Amnon. This time gap shows both Absalom’s self-control and his unwavering determination to see justice done. His patience made his eventual action more devastating and comprehensive.

Absalom’s plan centered around his sheep-shearing celebration at Baal-hazor, near Ephraim. Sheep-shearing was traditionally a time of festivity and celebration, making it a perfect cover for his revenge plot. The location was also far from Jerusalem, providing privacy for his actions.

The invitation to all the king’s sons demonstrates Absalom’s careful planning and his desire to make the revenge public among the royal family. He wanted witnesses to Amnon’s death and sought to establish his own authority as an agent of family justice.

Absalom’s specific invitation to David shows his political wisdom. By inviting the king and receiving his refusal, Absalom could claim that he had sought proper authority and been denied. This gave him justification for taking matters into his own hands.

David’s Refusal and Amnon’s Fatal Decision

David’s response to Absalom’s invitation reveals his continued naivety about his sons’ relationships. He declined to attend the celebration himself, citing the expense it would cause Absalom. This reason shows David’s concern for practical matters while missing the underlying tensions in his family.

When Absalom pressed David to send Amnon in his place, the king initially questioned why Amnon should go. David’s hesitation suggests some awareness that all was not well between his sons, but his eventual agreement shows that he failed to trust his instincts about potential danger.

David’s decision to send all his sons to the celebration rather than just Amnon demonstrates his failure to perceive the specific threat to his firstborn. This decision multiplied the potential for chaos and tragedy while giving Absalom exactly what he wanted for his revenge plan.

Amnon’s willingness to attend Absalom’s celebration shows either his complete ignorance of his brother’s feelings or his arrogant assumption that his status as heir apparent protected him from consequences. Either way, his decision proved fatal.

The Execution of Revenge at the Feast

At the height of the celebration, when Amnon was relaxed and possibly intoxicated, Absalom gave the signal for his servants to strike. The timing was carefully chosen to maximize the impact and minimize Amnon’s ability to defend himself. The festive atmosphere made the violence more shocking and dramatic.

Absalom’s instructions to his servants reveal his careful planning and his assumption of full responsibility for the action. He told them not to fear because he had commanded the action and would bear the consequences. This leadership shows both courage and calculated determination.

The text states that Absalom’s servants struck Amnon and killed him, emphasizing that the revenge was successful and final. Amnon’s death served as both punishment for his crime against Tamar and a statement about consequences for abusing royal privilege and family trust.

The reaction of the other brothers shows their shock and terror at witnessing this fraternal violence. They immediately fled, each on his mule, recognizing that Absalom’s action had fundamentally changed the dynamics of the royal family and their own safety within it.

The False Report and David’s Extreme Grief

A messenger reached David with exaggerated news that Absalom had killed all the king’s sons, leaving none alive. This false report created panic and extreme grief in David’s household. The king’s reaction of tearing his clothes and lying on the ground demonstrates his overwhelming sorrow and despair.

David’s assumption that all his sons were dead reveals his worst fears about the consequences of family division and his failure to maintain proper authority. The report seemed believable given the tensions he knew existed but had failed to address adequately.

The servants who witnessed David’s grief shared his shock and performed similar mourning rituals. The entire household was affected by the news of this supposed massacre. The collective mourning shows how family tragedies affect entire communities and support systems.

The false report also demonstrates how information can be distorted in crisis situations. The messenger either misunderstood what he witnessed or deliberately exaggerated to make his news more dramatic. Misinformation during tragedies often increases suffering unnecessarily.

Jonadab’s Correction and Limited Comfort

Jonadab’s intervention to correct the false report shows his continued involvement in the family’s affairs. His statement that only Amnon was dead, not all the brothers, provided some relief to David’s grief. However, his explanation also revealed his knowledge of Absalom’s long-standing hatred.

Jonadab’s words, “Let not my lord suppose that they have killed all the young men, the king’s sons, for Amnon alone is dead,” show his understanding of the specific nature of Absalom’s revenge. His knowledge suggests that the tension between the brothers was more obvious to observers than to David.

The revelation that Absalom had planned this revenge since the day of Tamar’s rape shows the depth of his commitment to family justice. Jonadab’s awareness of this long-term hatred indicates that others knew what David had either ignored or failed to perceive.

Jonadab’s role as both advisor in the original crime and informant about its consequences creates an ironic situation. The same person who enabled Amnon’s assault on Tamar now provided information about Amnon’s death. His involvement in both events shows how sin creates complicated relationships and ongoing consequences.

The Return of the Surviving Brothers

A watchman’s report of approaching people confirmed Jonadab’s correction about the survival of most royal sons. The sight of the returning brothers provided visual proof that the massacre report was false. David’s relief at seeing his surviving sons was mixed with grief over Amnon’s confirmed death.

The brothers’ arrival “weeping and wailing” shows their trauma from witnessing Amnon’s murder and their fear about the implications for their own safety. Their emotional state reflects both grief for their dead brother and anxiety about Absalom’s actions and their father’s response.

David’s reunion with his surviving sons was marked by mutual weeping and mourning. The king’s relief at their survival was tempered by the reality of Amnon’s death and Absalom’s disappearance. The family gathering was both joyful and sorrowful simultaneously.

The emotional scene demonstrates how violence affects entire families, not just the immediate victim and perpetrator. Every family member must deal with trauma, loss, fear, and changed relationships. The ripple effects of sin extend far beyond the original participants.

Absalom’s Flight and Exile

The text reports that Absalom fled after killing Amnon, seeking refuge with Talmai, king of Geshur, who was his maternal grandfather. This flight shows Absalom’s preparation for the consequences of his action and his access to foreign protection through family connections.

Absalom’s three-year exile in Geshur provided him with safety from David’s justice while allowing time for emotions to cool and political situations to change. The length of his stay shows both his commitment to avoiding capture and his patience in planning his eventual return.

The reference to Talmai as king of Geshur and Absalom’s grandfather explains why this location offered secure refuge. Family connections often provided protection in ancient Near Eastern politics, even when crimes had been committed. Absalom’s royal heritage on both sides gave him options.

The exile period also allowed Absalom to build political connections and possibly military support for his future ambitions. His time in Geshur was likely spent not just hiding but preparing for eventual return to Israel with enhanced power and influence.

David’s Prolonged Mourning and Conflicted Emotions

The chapter concludes by noting that David mourned for his son every day, though the text is unclear whether he mourned for dead Amnon or exiled Absalom. This ambiguity reflects David’s complicated emotions about both sons and the tragic events that had torn his family apart.

David’s daily mourning shows the depth of his grief and his inability to find closure or resolution. The loss of Amnon through death and Absalom through exile left him emotionally devastated. His role as both father and king made the situation even more complex and painful.

The king’s longing to go out to Absalom reveals his desire for reconciliation despite his son’s crime. David’s heart was torn between justice demands that required punishment and paternal love that sought restoration. This internal conflict paralyzed his decision-making ability.

The final verse indicates that David’s anger over Amnon’s death began to subside over time, creating conditions for eventual reconciliation with Absalom. The healing of emotional wounds often requires extended time and creates opportunities for relationship restoration.

Cross References

The theme of sexual violence and family dysfunction connects to Genesis 34, where Dinah is violated by Shechem and her brothers take violent revenge. Both narratives show the destructive consequences of sexual assault and the cycle of violence it can create.

The principle of consequences for sin appears in Galatians 6:7, which states that “whatever one sows, that will he also reap.” David’s previous moral failures created conditions for his family’s breakdown, illustrating this spiritual law in action.

The failure of proper authority leading to vigilante justice parallels Judges 17:6 and 21:25, where “everyone did what was right in his own eyes” due to lack of godly leadership. David’s weak response to Amnon’s crime created similar conditions in his household.

Tamar’s mourning rituals connect to Job 2:12, where Job’s friends sat with him in grief, and to traditional mourning practices described throughout Scripture. Her public display of grief follows biblical patterns for expressing trauma and seeking justice.

The theme of delayed consequences appears in 2 Samuel 12:10-12, where Nathan prophesied that trouble would arise from David’s own house. Chapter 13 begins the fulfillment of this prophecy, showing divine justice working through natural circumstances.

Absalom’s patient planning for revenge connects to Ecclesiastes 8:11, which warns that delayed punishment can encourage further wrongdoing. The two-year gap between crime and consequences demonstrates both divine patience and human nature’s tendency toward calculation.

The corrupting influence of bad advisors like Jonadab parallels 1 Kings 12:8-14, where Rehoboam follows foolish counsel from young men instead of wise elders. Both narratives show how poor advice can lead to devastating consequences.

The principle of sowing and reaping appears again in Hosea 8:7, which states that “they sow the wind and reap the whirlwind.” David’s family experienced escalating violence as consequences of earlier moral compromises multiplied over time.

Jesus’ teaching about forgiveness in Matthew 18:21-22 contrasts with Absalom’s revenge, showing how divine grace breaks cycles of retaliation. The gospel provides alternatives to human vengeance through forgiveness and restoration.

The importance of proper family discipline connects to Ephesians 6:4, which instructs fathers not to provoke children to anger but to bring them up in godly training. David’s failure in this area contributed to his family’s moral breakdown.