2 Samuel 13:21

What Solomon says of the beginning of strife is as true of the beginning of all sin, it is as the letting forth of water; when once the flood-gates are plucked up, an inundation follows; one mischief begets another, and it is hard to say what shall be in the end thereof.

I. We are here told how David resented the tidings of Amnon's sin: He was very wroth, Sa2 13:21. So he had reason to be, that his own son should do such a wicked thing and draw him to be accessory to it. It would be a reproach to him for not giving him a better education; it would be a blot upon his family, the ruin of his daughter, a bad example to his kingdom, and a wrong to his son's soul. But was it enough for him to be angry? He ought to have punished his son for it, and have put him to open shame; both as a father and as a king he had power to do it. But the Septuagint here adds these words: But he saddened not the spirit of his son Amnon, because he loved him, because he was his first-born. He fell into Eli's error, whose sons made themselves vile, and he frowned not on them. If Amnon was dear to him, his punishing him would have been so much the greater punishment to himself for his own uncleanness. But he cannot bear the shame those must submit to who correct that in others which they are conscious of in themselves, and therefore his anger must serve instead of his justice; and this hardens sinners, Ecc 8:11.

II. How Absalom resented it. He resolves already to do the part of a judge in Israel; and, since his father will not punish Amnon, he will, from a principle, not of justice or zeal for virtue, but of revenge, because he reckons himself affronted in the abuse done to his sister. Their mother was daughter to a heathen prince (Sa2 3:3), which perhaps they were upbraided with sometimes by their brethren, as children of a stranger. As such a one Absalom thought his sister was now treated; and, if Amnon thought her fit to be made his harlot, he would think him fit to be made his slave. This enraged him, and nothing less than the blood of Amnon will quench his rage. Here we have,

1. The design conceived: Absalom hated Amnon (Sa2 13:22), and he that hateth his brother is a murderer already, and, like Cain, is of that wicked one, Jo1 3:12, Jo1 3:15. Absalom's hatred of his brother's crime would have been commendable, and he might justly have prosecuted him for it by a due course of law, for example to others, and the making of some compensation to his injured sister; but to hate his person, and design his death by assassination, was to put a great affront upon God, by offering to repair the breach of his seventh commandment by the violation of his sixth, as if they were not all alike sacred. But he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill, Jam 2:11.

2. The design concealed. He said nothing to Amnon of this matter, either good or bad, appeared as if he did not know it, and maintained towards him his usual civility, only waiting for a fair opportunity to do him a mischief. That malice is the worst, (1.) Which is hidden closely, and has no vent given to it. If Absalom had reasoned the matter with Amnon, he might have convinced him of his sin and brought him to repentance; but, saying nothing, Amnon's heart was hardened, and his own more and more embittered against him; therefore rebuking our neighbour is opposed to hating him in our hearts, Lev 19:17. Let passion have vent and it will spend itself. (2.) Which is gilded over with a show of friendship; so Absalom's was, his words smoother than butter but war in his heart. See Pro 26:26. (3.) Which is harboured long. Two full years Absalom nursed this root of bitterness, Sa2 13:24. It may be, at first, he did not intend to kill his brother (for, if he had, he might have had as fair an opportunity to do it as he had at last), and only waited for an occasion to disgrace him or do him some other mischief; but in time his hatred ripened to this, that he would be no less than the death of him. If the sun going down once upon the wrath gives such place to the devil (as is intimated, Eph 4:26, Eph 4:27), what would the sunsets of two full years do?

3. The design laid. (1.) Absalom has a feast at his house in the country, as Nabal had, on occasion of his sheep-shearing, Sa2 13:23. Attentive as Absalom was to his person (Sa2 14:26), and as high as he looked, he knew the state of his flocks and looked well to his herds. Those who have no other care about their estates in the country than how to spend them in the town take a ready way to see the end of them. When Absalom had sheep-shearers he would himself be with them. (2.) To this feast he invites the king his father, and all the princes of the blood (Sa2 13:24), not only that he might have this opportunity to pay his respects to them, but that he might make himself the more respected among his neighbours. Those that are akin to great folks are apt to value themselves too much on their kindred. (3.) The king would not go himself, because he would not put him to the expense of his entertainment, Sa2 13:25. It seems Absalom had an estate in his own hands, on which he lived like himself; the king had given it to him, but would have him to be a good husband of it: in both these he is an example to parents, when their children have grown up, to give them a competency to live upon, according to their rank, and then to take care that they do not live above it, especially that they be no way accessory to their doing so. It is prudent for young house-keepers to begin as they can hold out, and not to spend the wool upon the shearing of it. (4.) Absalom got leave for Amnon, and all the rest of the king's sons, to come and grace his table in the country, Sa2 13:26, Sa2 13:27. Absalom had so effectually concealed his enmity to Amnon that David saw no reason to suspect any design upon him in that particular invitation: "Let my brother Amnon go;" but this would make the stroke more cutting to David that he was himself drawn in to consent to that which gave the opportunity for it, as before, Sa2 13:7. It seems, David's sons, though grown up, continued to pay such a deference to their father as not to go such a small journey as this without leave. Thus ought children, even when they have become men and women, to honour their parents, consult them, and do nothing material without their consent, much less against their mind.

4. The design executed, Sa2 13:28, Sa2 13:29. (1.) Absalom's entertainment was very plentiful; for he resolves that they shall all be merry with wine, at least concludes that Amnon will be so, for he knew that he was apt to drink to excess. But, (2.) The orders he gave to his servants concerning Amnon, that they should mingle his blood with his wine, were very barbarous. Had he challenged him, and, in reliance upon the goodness of his cause and the justice of God, fought him himself, though that would have been bad enough, yet it would have been more honourable and excusable (our ancient law, in some cases, allowed trial by battle); but to murder him, as he did, was to copy Cain's example, only that the reason made a difference: Abel was slain for his righteousness, Amnon for his wickedness. Observe the aggravations of this sin: - [1.] He would have Amnon slain when his heart was merry with wine, and he was consequently least apprehensive of danger, least able to resist it, and also least fit to go out of the world; as if his malice aimed to destroy both soul and body, not giving him time to say, Lord, have mercy upon me. What a dreadful surprise hath death been to many, whose hearts have been overcharged with surfeiting and drunkenness! [2.] His servants must be employed to do it, and so involved in the guilt. He was to give the word of command - Smite Amnon; and then they, in obedience to him, and, upon presumption that his authority would bear them out, must kill him. What an impious defiance does he bid to the divine law, when, though the command of God is express, Thou shalt not kill, he bids them kill Amnon, with this warrant, "Have not I commanded you? That is enough. Be courageous, and fear neither God nor man." Those servants are ill taught who obey their masters in contradiction to God, and those are wicked masters who have taught them to do so. Those are too obsequious that will damn their souls to please their masters, whose big words cannot secure them from God's wrath. Masters must always command their servants as those that know they also have a Master in heaven. [3.] He did it in the presence of all the king's sons, of whom it is said (Sa2 8:18) that they were chief rulers; so that it was an affront to public justice which they had the administration of, and to the king his father whom they represented, and a contempt of that sword which should have been a terror to his evil deeds, while his evil deeds, on the contrary, were a terror to those that bore it. [4.] There is reason to suspect that Absalom did this, not only to revenge his sister's quarrel, but to make way for himself to the throne, which he was ambitious of, and which he would stand fair for if Amnon the eldest son was taken off. When the word of command was given Absalom's servants failed not to execute it, being buoyed up with an opinion that their master, being now next heir to the crown (for Chileab was dead, as bishop Patrick thinks), would save them from harm. Now the threatened sword is drawn in David's house which should not depart from it. First, His eldest son falls by it, himself being, by his wickedness, the cause of it, and his father, by his connivance, accessory to it. Secondly, All his sons flee from it, and come home in terror, not knowing how far their brother Absalom's bloody design might extend. See what mischief sin makes in families.

Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible (1708–1710) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

2Sa 13:21 But when king David heard of all these things, he was very wroth.

Ver. 21. But when king David heard … he was very wroth.] Why! but was that all? Wherefore did not David, as supreme magistrate, see due execution done on this malefactor, though never so great? Why did he not reprove him at least very sharply for this foul fact? Should he have thus connived at Amnon’s offence, because he was his firstborn, and now looked so thin and wan? Knew he not how ill good Eli sped for his fondness in a like case? Why should the Septuagint and Vulgate hold it but needful here to add to the text these words following, "And he would not grieve the spirit of Amnon, because he greatly loved him, and he was his firstborn?" Queen Elizabeth loved Sir Walter Raleigh well enough, and besides many other favours, made him captain of her guard. Nevertheless when he had deflowered one of her maids of honour - whom he later took to wife - she not only cast him out of favour, but kept him many months in prison. {a} She never suffered any lady to approach her presence, of whose stain she had but the least suspicion, {b} Piety, sobriety, purity, charity, and chastity were her unseparable companions. But it may be the edge of David’s justice against Amnon was somewhat rebated, by the consideration of his own recent sin with Bathshebah, and against Uriah, which yet God had graciously pardoned and remitted his punishment, more than what was to befall him by the miscarriages and miseries of his own family, whereof this of Amnon was one of the first. But what an unsufferable wickedness was that in Pope Alexander, who when he had heard that his son Caesar Borgia, Duke of Valence, had first invited to a feast his nobility, and then after dinner cut off their heads, smiled at the conceit, and said, his son had showed them a Spanish trick!

{a} Camden’s Elisab., fol. 444.

{b} Speed, 1236.

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.

2Sa 13:21. When David heard, he was very wroth — With Amnon: whom yet he did not punish, at least so severely as he ought to have done; perhaps, because he was his eldest son, and the next heir to his crown, and therefore he was unwilling either to cut him off, or to expose him to contempt among the people he might hereafter be called to govern; or, because he could not punish him in any legal or equitable manner, without laying open the infamy of his house; or, which seems to have been the most weighty reason, because he was conscious of his own guilt, in an instance not very dissimilar, which certainly had set Amnon a bad example; and because he had otherwise been partly accessory to his guilt by a very unguarded compliance with his son’s irrational request in sending Tamar to him. There can be no question but that David’s guilt with Bath-sheba rendered him more backward to punish that of Amnon. “However, the guilt which human justice or human infirmity did not, or could not chastise as it deserved, the divine vengeance did.” — Delaney.

Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

13:21 King David . . . was very angry: But he apparently never punished Amnon—as in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Greek version, which add that it was because he loved Amnon. Another possibility is that as an adulterer himself (see 11:1–12:24), David considered himself in no position to punish his son’s sexual sin. A third possibility is that David thought this was God’s “eye for an eye” punishment for his own sexual indiscretion.

Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Verse 21. But when King David heard] To this verse the Septuagint add the following words: Και ουκ ελυπησε το πνευμα Αμνων του υἱου αυτου, ὁτι ηγαπα αυτον, ὁτι πρωτοτοκος αυτου ην; "But he would not grieve the soul of Amnon his son, for he loved him, because he was his first-born." The same addition is found in the Vulgate and in Josephus, and it is possible that this once made a part of the Hebrew text.

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

(21) He was very wroth.—The LXX. adds, “but he vexed not the spirit of Amnon his son, because he loved him, because he was his firstborn,”—which is doubtless in part the reason of David’s guilty leniency. The remembrance of his own sin also tended to withhold his hand from the administration of justice. David’s criminal weakness towards his children was the source of much trouble from this time to the end of his life.

A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

21. was very wroth] The Sept. and the ordinary text of the Vulgate add, “and he vexed not the spirit of Amnon his son, because he loved him, because he was his firstborn,” i.e. in spite of his anger he did not punish or even rebuke the offence, though the legal penalty of his crime was death. David’s indulgent treatment of his sons was a fruitful source of mischief (cp. 1Ki_1:6), and led in this case to the murder of Amnon, and ultimately to Absalom’s rebellion. The consciousness of his own guilt moreover weakened his hands for dealing with Amnon’s offence.

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.

But when King David heard of all these things,.... Of Amnon's ravishing Tamar, and turning her out of doors in that inhuman manner he did, and of her distress upon it:

he was very wroth; with Amnon; but we read not of any reproof he gave him, nor of any punishment inflicted on him by him. Abarbinel thinks the reason why he was not punished was because his sin was not cognizable by a court of judicature, nor was punishable by any way, or with any kind of death inflicted by the sanhedrim, as stoning, burning, &c. nor even by scourging, because there were no witnesses; but the punishment of it was cutting off, i.e. by the hand of God. The Jews say (e) a law was made on this, that virgins or unmarried persons should not be alone; for if this was done to the daughter of a king, much more might it be done to the daughter of a private man; and if to a modest person, much more to an impudent one.

(e) T. Bab. Sanhedrin, fol. 21. 1.

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

The Septuagint adds, what is a good explanation, “but he did not vex the spirit of Amnon his son, because he loved him, because he was his first-born.” This want of justice in David’s conduct, and favoritism to Amnon, probably rankled in Absalom’s heart, and was the first seed of his after rebellion.

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

And he, &c. This is not in Hebrew, &c., nor in St. Jerome’s version. Josephus and some copies of the Septuagint read it. But the reason here alleged would not suffice to excuse David. (Calmet) --- He might think that, as he had shewn such a bad example himself, he could not with a good grace punish others. (Sanctius) --- This however was requisite, as long as he was king. Whatever faults he might have fallen into, he was not on that account to suffer crimes to remain unpunished; (Haydock) and it is supposed that he testified his resentment to Amnon; (Salien, &c.) though the Scripture be silent thereon. (Haydock) --- Abulensis condemns him for too great remissness. (Menochius)

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).

To wit, with Amnon; whom yet he did not punish, at least so severely as he should; either from the conscience of his own guilt in the like kind; or from that foolish indulgence which he oft showed to his children; or because the case was perplexed; for if he had been put to death for the fact, by virtue of that law, Deu 22:23,24, she also, who was innocent, must have died with him, because she did not cry out; although indeed that law did not reach the present case, Tamar not being betrothed to a husband: and for the following law concerning a virgin not betrothed, that could have no place here: he could not force Amnon to marry Tamar, because that marriage had been incestuous.

Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

21. He was very wroth — But he let him go unpunished, for, as the Septuagint adds, “he afflicted not the spirit of Amnon, his son, for he loved him because he was his firstborn.” In more than one instance did David’s paternal affection run away with his judgment. But Amnon’s deed must have brought home to David’s soul a bitter memory of his own dark crime.

Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

David... was very wroth. The legal punishment for Amnon"s crime was "the being cut off in the sight of the people". (Lev_20:17) But how could David, who had himself committed crimes for which death was the appointed penalty, carry out the law against his firstborn for following his example? Still, he might have done more than merely give Amnon words of reproof. Eli had done as much, and been punished with the death of his sons for his neglect of duty. (1Sa_2:34) The sin of David"s son had been even more heartless than theirs; and could David hope to escape the like penalty? It would have been wise to have given proof that his repentance included the suppression of the crime to which his previous conduct had given encouragement. But David was a man whose conduct was generally governed by his feelings. He was a creature of warm and often generous impulse, but his character lacked the steadiness of thoughtful and consistent purpose.

Impunity.

King David heard of all these things, and was very wroth;" but "he did not grieve the spirit of his son Amnon, because he loved him, for he was his firstborn" (LXX). And he did not punish him; (1Sa_3:13) which must be looked upon as

I AN OMISSION OF MANIFEST DUTY. If he had been only a father, he would have been bound to chastise his children for their misbehaviour; but, being also a king, he was under still stronger obligation to punish the guilty. To do this:

1. Properly belonged to the authority delegated to him.

2. Was expressly enjoined in the Divine Law. (Lev_20:17)

3. Urgently demanded by the sense of justice.

4. Indispensably necessary to the protection of his subjects. "Kings, then, have not absolute power to do in their government what pleases them; their power is limited by God"s Word; so that if they strike not where God has commanded to strike, they and their throne are criminal and guilty of the wickedness which abounds upon the face of the earth for lack of punishment" (John Knox).

II UNWARRANTED BY ADEQUATE REASONS. In Israel (as in Persia and other Eastern countries) the king, as vicegerent of heaven, had a large discretionary power of dispensing with the penalties of the Law; but it behoved him to exercise it without partiality and on sufficient grounds. Although David"s omission to punish is not expressly condemned, yet the consequences by which it was followed show that it took place (not, as some have supposed, on "principle," or because it was "impossible" for him to do otherwise, but) without such grounds.

1. The affection of a father. This, however, ought not to have prevented punishment by a father or judge; as it did, being inordinate and blamable, in 1Sa_2:22, 1Sa_2:30.

1. The rank of the offender; the king"s son, his firstborn, heir to the crown. But he was not above the law; nor less guilty than another of inferior position would have been. "God is no respecter of persons.

2. The transgression and forgiveness of the king himself. Nevertheless, whilst both may have exerted a pernicious influence, Amnon was responsible for his own conduct; and David"s exemption (only from legal punishment) rested on grounds which did not exist in the case of his ungodly and impenitent son. The king"s wrath proves his full conviction of Amnon"s guilt and his moral abhorrence of its enormity: his failure to "grieve," or inflict suffering upon him, indicates his own weakness and dereliction of duty. "Punishment is an effort of man to find a more exact relation between sin and suffering than this world affords us. A duty is laid upon us to make this relationship of sin to suffering as real, and as natural, and as exact in proportion as it is possible to be made. This is the moral root of the whole doctrine of punishment. But if the adjustment of pain to vice be the main ground of punishment, it must be admitted that there are other ends which society has in view in its infliction. These secondary elements in punishment appear to be

1. the reformation of the offender;

2. the prevention of further offences by the offender;

3. the repression of offences in others" (Edward Fry, Nineteenth Century, No. 79, p. 524).

III PRODUCTIVE OF DISASTROUS EFFECTS.

1. It does not appear to have produced any other effect on the offender than to confirm him in recklessness and fancied security. "Punishment connected with sin operates towards reform in two ways:

(1) by the association of ideas the linking together of that from which our nature shrinks with that from which it ought to shrink, so that the temptation to sin recalls not only the pleasure of sin, but the pain of suffering;

(2) by the shock to the habits of thought and of practice which suffering produces, by the solution of continuity in the man"s life which it causes, by the opportunity for reflection and thought which it thus affords" (Lord Justice Fry).

1. On others, also, it was injurious; weakening respect for royal authority and public justice, causing the law to be despised, furnishing grounds for private revenge, leading to further impunity (ver. 39; 2Sa_14:24, 2Sa_14:33) more daring crimes, (2Sa_15:7 2Sa_16:21) widespread disaffection and rebellion.

2. On the king himself. Further impairing his personal, moral, kingly energy, and accumulating "sorrow upon sorrow" (vers. 31, 37; 2Sa_15:13) It was another link in the chain of painful consequences resulting from his great transgression; naturally, slowly, effectually wrought out under the direction and control of the perfect justice of the supreme King; accomplishing a beneficent end, in purifying his heart, restoring him to God, averting his final condemnation, and teaching, warning, benefiting mankind. "The dark sin of which he had been guilty spoke of a character that had lust its self-control, its truthfulness, its generosity. His penitence was not able to undo all its consequences and to bring back the old energy and life. Over and above its direct results in alienating the hearts of his most trusted counsellors, and placing him at the mercy of a hard taskmaster, that dark hour left behind it the penalty of an enfeebled will, the cowardice of a hidden crime, the remorse which weeps for the past, yet cannot rouse itself to the duties of the present. He leaves the sin of Amnon unpunished in spite of the fearful promise it gave of a reign of brutal passion, "because he loved him, for he was his firstborn." Half suspecting, apparently, that Absalom had some scheme for revenging the wrong which he had failed to redress, he has no energy to stop its execution. He shrinks only from being present at a meeting the meaning and issues of which he does not comprehend, and yet dimly fears. When the exaggerated report is brought back that Absalom had slain all his brothers sure sign, if it had been so, that he was claiming the throne, and marching to it through the blood of his kindred David"s attitude is that of passive, panic stricken submission" (E.H. Plumptre, "Biblical Studies," p. 89). Who can say that he sinned with impunity? "Thenceforward the days of his years became full of evil, and if he lived (for the Lord caused death to pass from himself to the child by a vicarious dispensation), it was to be a king, with more than kingly sorrows, but with little of kingly power; to be banished by his son; bearded by his servant; betrayed by his friends; deserted by his people; bereaved of his children; and to feel all, all these bitter griefs, bound, as it were, by a chain of complicated cause and effect, to this one great, original transgression" (Blunt, "Undesigned Coincidences," p. 146).

It often falls, in course of common life, That right long time is overborne of wrong; Through avarice, or power, or guile, or strife, That weakens her, and makes her party strong. But justice, though her doom she do prolong, Yet at the last she will her own cause right. (Spenser. )

D.

The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Wroth - With Amnon: whom yet he did not punish, at least so severely as he should either from the consciousness of his own guilt in the like kind; or, from that foolish indulgence which he often shewed to his children.

John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.