2 Samuel Chapter 13

After this, Absalom the son of David had a lovely sister, whose name was Tamar; and Amnon the son of David loved her. And Amnon was so distressed over his sister Tamar that he became sick; for she was a virgin; and it was improper for Amnon to do anything to her (2 Samuel 13:1–2).

Absalom and Tamar were the children of David by Maacah, who was the daughter of Talmai, the king of Geshur. This detail is recorded earlier in 2 Samuel 3:3, which says, “And his second, Chileab, by Abigail the widow of Nabal the Carmelite; the third, Absalom the son of Maacah, the daughter of Talmai king of Geshur.” Tamar was therefore a princess of both Israel and Geshur, a woman of beauty and nobility. Her brother Absalom would later become one of David’s most ambitious and dangerous sons.

Amnon was David’s firstborn son, born to him by Ahinoam the Jezreelitess, as recorded in 2 Samuel 3:2, which says, “And unto David were sons born in Hebron; and his firstborn was Amnon, of Ahinoam the Jezreelitess.” Being the firstborn son, Amnon was the natural heir to the throne. Yet, despite his privilege and position, his lack of character and self-control would destroy his future and set in motion a chain of events that brought great sorrow to the house of David. Scripture emphasizes that Amnon’s downfall began with unrestrained desire, disguised as love but rooted in lust.

The text says, “Amnon the son of David loved her.” However, this “love” was not godly affection but sinful passion. It was a self-centered infatuation that grew until it made him physically sick. He obsessed over Tamar because she was a virgin, meaning she was pure, unmarried, and off-limits to him according to the Law of Moses. The Mosaic Law explicitly forbade marriage between half-brother and half-sister, as written in Leviticus 18:9, “The nakedness of thy sister, the daughter of thy father, or daughter of thy mother, whether she be born at home, or born abroad, even their nakedness thou shalt not uncover.” Amnon’s obsession was therefore not only immoral but also illegal and a direct violation of God’s commandments.

The passage exposes the difference between true love and lust. True love seeks the good of another, as seen in 1 Corinthians 13:4–5, “Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up, doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own.” Lust, by contrast, seeks self-gratification without regard for God’s law or another’s dignity. Amnon’s so-called love for Tamar was entirely self-serving, for his affection would later turn to hatred after he had his way with her.

The name “Tamar” means Palm Tree, symbolizing beauty and fruitfulness. The name “Absalom” means His Father’s Peace, which would later prove ironic, as Absalom’s rebellion brought war and ruin upon David’s kingdom. The name “Amnon” means Faithful or Stable, yet he proved faithless and unstable in his lust and sin. As the old commentator Trapp noted, “None of them answered their names.” Their names held noble meanings, but their choices told a different story.

This section introduces the tragic ripple effect of sin within David’s household. Although David was a man after God’s own heart, his family bore the consequences of his earlier sins. His affair with Bathsheba and the murder of Uriah had set a precedent that would echo in his children’s lives. Just as David had taken another man’s wife in lust, so his son Amnon would take his own sister in lust. The seeds of David’s sin, though forgiven, produced bitter fruit in the next generation. As Galatians 6:7 reminds us, “Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.”

But Amnon had a friend, whose name was Jonadab, the son of Shimeah David’s brother; and Jonadab was a very subtle man. And he said unto him, Why art thou, being the king’s son, lean from day to day? wilt thou not tell me? And Amnon said unto him, I love Tamar, my brother Absalom’s sister. And Jonadab said unto him, Lay thee down on thy bed, and make 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, and dress the meat in my sight, that I may see it, and eat it at her hand (2 Samuel 13:3–5).

Jonadab was the son of Shimeah, David’s brother, making him Amnon’s cousin. The Scripture describes him as “a very subtle man,” meaning he was shrewd, cunning, and worldly wise. This description recalls the serpent in Eden, of whom it is written, “Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made” (Genesis 3:1). Like Satan, Jonadab used his cunning to entice another into sin. Rather than guiding Amnon toward repentance and self-control, he encouraged deceit and lust, demonstrating how ungodly counsel can corrupt a man already tempted by sin.

Jonadab’s subtlety was not godly wisdom but carnal craftiness. The Apostle James distinguishes between the two, saying, “This wisdom descendeth not from above, but is earthly, sensual, devilish” (James 3:15). Jonadab was intelligent, but his cleverness served evil. His counsel exemplifies what the Psalmist warns against in Psalm 1:1, “Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly.” Amnon, walking in the company of an ungodly man, found his sinful desire strengthened rather than restrained.

Jonadab’s question, “Why art thou, being the king’s son, lean from day to day?”, reveals both curiosity and flattery. He treated Amnon’s distress as something that could be solved by indulgence rather than discipline. Amnon confessed, “I love Tamar, my brother Absalom’s sister.” His very words betray the deception of lust. In his mind, Tamar was no longer his sister, but merely Absalom’s sister, as if redefining the relationship could justify his sin. The power of lust can warp perception and conscience. It blinds a man to truth, allowing him to rationalize what he knows to be forbidden. As Jeremiah 17:9 warns, “The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?”

Jonadab’s response was not to rebuke Amnon but to feed his corruption. He devised a plan that relied on deceit and manipulation: “Lay thee down on thy bed, and make thyself sick.” His counsel provided the means for Amnon’s lust to become action. It is worth noting that Jonadab did not explicitly tell Amnon to rape Tamar, but his plan made the opportunity possible. Sin thrives in secrecy, and Jonadab’s plan provided isolation and deception, both fertile ground for wickedness to grow. This shows the danger of partial complicity—Jonadab’s scheme, though seemingly small, led to devastation in David’s household.

Trapp comments rightly that Jonadab was “a friend no friend; a carnal friend, a spiritual enemy, who advised, for the recovery of the body, the ruin of his soul.” Many people surround themselves with such “friends,” those who justify sin rather than confront it. Proverbs warns of such men: “Make no friendship with an angry man; and with a furious man thou shalt not go: Lest thou learn his ways, and get a snare to thy soul” (Proverbs 22:24–25). A true friend corrects in love, as Proverbs 27:6 says, “Faithful are the wounds of a friend; but the kisses of an enemy are deceitful.” Jonadab’s counsel was the kiss of betrayal disguised as friendship.

Amnon’s confession that he “loved Tamar” demonstrates how easily the heart confuses lust for love. Lust demands gratification at any cost, while love demands sacrifice for the other’s good. The Apostle Paul defines true love in 1 Corinthians 13:4–5, saying, “Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up, doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own.” Amnon’s desire sought only to satisfy himself, not to honor Tamar or God. His so-called love would later turn to hatred, revealing its true nature.

The narrative reminds us that sin rarely begins in open rebellion; it begins with private counsel and inner compromise. Amnon’s lust, combined with Jonadab’s worldly cunning, created a trap that would destroy multiple lives. As 1 Corinthians 15:33 warns, “Be not deceived: evil communications corrupt good manners.” The company one keeps often determines the course of one’s character. Amnon surrounded himself with a man who encouraged deceit rather than righteousness, and it led to his ruin.

Then Amnon 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 come, and make me a couple of cakes in my sight, that I may eat at her hand. Then David sent home to Tamar, saying, Go now to thy brother Amnon’s house, and dress him meat. So Tamar went to her brother Amnon’s house; and he was laid down. And she took flour, and kneaded it, and made cakes in his sight, and did bake the cakes. And she took a pan, and poured them out before him, but he refused to eat. And Amnon said, Have out all men from me. And they went out every man from him. And Amnon said unto Tamar, Bring the meat into the chamber, that I may eat of thine hand. And Tamar took the cakes which she had made, and brought them into the chamber to Amnon her brother (2 Samuel 13:6–10).

Amnon now put into action the plan conceived by his wicked cousin Jonadab. Pretending to be ill, he feigned weakness and sorrow, manipulating both his father and sister. When David came to visit his sick son, Amnon requested that Tamar be sent to prepare food before him, a seemingly innocent request that cloaked vile intent. This deception shows how far sin will go to disguise itself under the appearance of innocence. As 2 Corinthians 11:14 warns, “And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.” Amnon’s pretense of sickness was the mask of sin, hiding a heart full of lust and deceit.

When David heard his son’s request, he granted it without suspicion. The text says, “And David sent home to Tamar, saying, Go now to thy brother Amnon’s house, and dress him meat.” This act reveals David’s parental weakness. As king, he possessed great discernment in war and government, but as a father, he often failed to see the faults of his children. His indulgence toward Amnon—perhaps born of guilt over his own sins or neglect—would cost him dearly. Many scholars observe that David’s household was marked by a pattern of unchecked behavior among his sons. His sin with Bathsheba, though forgiven, weakened his moral authority at home. As 1 Kings 1:6 later records of Adonijah, another of David’s sons, “And his father had not displeased him at any time in saying, Why hast thou done so?” David’s reluctance to discipline his children allowed sin to fester within his family.

Amnon’s childish request, “Please let Tamar my sister come and make a couple of cakes for me in my sight,” underscores his immaturity and deceit. His behavior was petulant, like that of a spoiled child. David indulged it, sending Tamar without recognizing the danger. In doing so, he unknowingly facilitated Amnon’s sin. This tragedy reveals how unchecked indulgence and misplaced trust can contribute to great evil, even when intentions are good.

When Tamar arrived, she innocently carried out her duty. The Scripture carefully details her actions: “She took flour, and kneaded it, and made cakes in his sight, and did bake the cakes.” This repetition emphasizes her purity and obedience. She came to serve her brother, unaware that her goodness was being exploited. The contrast between her innocence and Amnon’s deceit deepens the moral gravity of what follows. Her act of kindness was met not with gratitude but with treachery.

After she prepared the meal, “she took a pan, and poured them out before him, but he refused to eat.” This refusal exposes Amnon’s deception. His supposed sickness was a lie; his request for food was a trap. When he sent all others away, saying, “Have out all men from me,” he removed every barrier to his sin. Isolation often precedes iniquity, for sin thrives in secret. Proverbs warns of this danger: “Through desire a man, having separated himself, seeketh and intermeddleth with all wisdom” (Proverbs 18:1). Amnon’s isolation from others symbolized his moral isolation from God.

Finally, Amnon said, “Bring the meat into the chamber, that I may eat of thine hand.” The chamber, or inner room, was a place of privacy and vulnerability. Tamar, trusting her brother, complied. Her obedience and humility contrast sharply with Amnon’s deceit and lust. She represents the innocence of those who suffer because of the sin of others. Like Bathsheba before her, Tamar became the victim of another’s moral failure within David’s household, reflecting the lingering consequences of David’s own transgressions.

This passage demonstrates how lust, deception, and moral weakness intertwine to produce tragedy. Amnon’s pretense of illness parallels the hypocrisy of all sin, which presents itself as harmless or justifiable. David’s leniency shows that even a man after God’s own heart can err in family leadership when he neglects to correct and guide his children firmly. And Tamar’s innocence reminds the reader that the righteous often suffer for the sins of others, a theme that runs throughout Scripture.

And when she had brought them unto him to eat, he took hold of her, and said unto her, Come lie with me, my sister. And she answered him, Nay, my brother, do not force me; for no such thing ought to be done in Israel: do not thou this folly. And I, whither shall I cause my shame to go? and as for thee, thou shalt be as one of the fools in Israel. Now therefore, I pray thee, speak unto the king; for he will not withhold me from thee. Howbeit he would not hearken unto her voice: but being stronger than she, forced her, and lay with her (2 Samuel 13:11–14).

Here the full wickedness of Amnon’s lust is revealed. Having dismissed everyone from the room, he could no longer disguise his intent. He seized his sister and spoke the vile words, “Come lie with me, my sister.” His statement lays bare the depravity of his heart. What had been disguised as sickness and infatuation now manifested as sin in its most violent form. His lust, unrestrained and unrepentant, overpowered reason, conscience, and fear of God. James describes this tragic sequence in James 1:14–15, “But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.” Lust had conceived long ago in Amnon’s heart, and now it gave birth to the monstrous act of rape.

Tamar’s response displays both purity and courage. She said, “Nay, my brother, do not force me; for no such thing ought to be done in Israel: do not thou this folly.” Her protest appeals first to righteousness, not fear. She called the act what it was—folly, wickedness, and disgrace. In Israel, such sin was condemned under the Law of Moses: “The nakedness of thy sister, the daughter of thy father, or daughter of thy mother, whether she be born at home, or born abroad, even their nakedness thou shalt not uncover” (Leviticus 18:9). Tamar’s words show that she understood the moral and spiritual boundaries established by God, and she tried to appeal to Amnon’s conscience, even in the heat of his passion. But Amnon’s heart was hardened; lust had deafened his ears to both law and love.

Tamar pleaded further, saying, “And I, whither shall I cause my shame to go? and as for thee, thou shalt be as one of the fools in Israel.” Her reasoning was sound and compassionate. She thought of both herself and Amnon—what the consequences would mean for her purity, reputation, and future, and what it would mean for his honor and standing. To shame her was to destroy her life; to commit such a sin would brand him forever a fool, a man who despised God’s law. In Israel, the word fool carried deep moral weight—it denoted one who scorned divine wisdom and lived as though God were not watching. Psalm 14:1 declares, “The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.” Amnon, though the son of a king, was acting as if there were no King in heaven to judge his deeds.

Tamar’s last plea, “Now therefore, I pray thee, speak unto the king; for he will not withhold me from thee,” was likely an act of desperate reasoning, not genuine hope. She knew the Law forbade such unions, but she spoke this way to delay or divert Amnon’s actions. She hoped he would hesitate, that his conscience might awaken. But he had long since surrendered to sin. His lust had become his master, and he was enslaved by it. The Apostle Paul wrote, “Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?” (Romans 6:16). Amnon yielded to sin, and it ruled over him like a tyrant.

The text concludes with the chilling statement, “Howbeit he would not hearken unto her voice: but being stronger than she, forced her, and lay with her.” This was an act of violence, not passion; of sin, not love. Tamar resisted with every moral and spiritual argument, but Amnon ignored them all. Her physical weakness could not withstand his strength, and he defiled her. Every word of this verse testifies to the corruption of human nature apart from God’s restraint. What began as a secret desire grew into deceit, then into sin, and finally into violence. David’s eldest son, the heir to the throne, had become a criminal and a moral ruin.

This tragedy also illustrates the lasting consequences of unchecked sin within the home. David’s own transgression with Bathsheba and the murder of Uriah had set a precedent. Though David repented and was forgiven, the prophet Nathan had warned, “Now therefore the sword shall never depart from thine house” (2 Samuel 12:10). That prophecy was now unfolding. Amnon’s sin mirrored his father’s past, but without repentance. The seed of lust sown in David’s house was now reaping its harvest.

Tamar’s character throughout this passage stands in sharp contrast to Amnon’s. She remained righteous, pleading for virtue and decency even in the face of danger. Her words reveal spiritual wisdom and purity, yet her innocence did not spare her from being wronged. In this, Tamar’s suffering reflects the broader truth that the righteous often endure pain because of the wickedness of others. Her voice—pleading for righteousness and justice—still echoes as a testimony against sin’s deceit and the destruction it brings.

Then Amnon hated her exceedingly; 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 (2 Samuel 13:15).

The moment Amnon had gratified his lust, his supposed love for Tamar turned to bitter hatred. The Scripture says his hatred was greater than his former love, revealing the true nature of his heart. What Amnon had called love was in reality lust, selfishness, and sin. Once the momentary pleasure passed, the guilt and shame that followed transformed his desire into disgust. His affection was never about Tamar’s worth or personhood; it was only about possession. Having taken what he wanted, he now despised the reminder of his sin. This verse stands as one of the clearest illustrations of how sin deceives, promising satisfaction but delivering shame. As Romans 6:21 asks, “What fruit had ye then in those things whereof ye are now ashamed? for the end of those things is death.”

Amnon’s reaction exposes the hollowness of lust. Lust is selfish by nature—it seeks gratification, not relationship. Love, however, seeks the good of another, even at personal cost. The Apostle Paul described true love in 1 Corinthians 13:4–5, “Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up, doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own.” Amnon’s behavior was the exact opposite. His lust sought its own satisfaction, used another person to achieve it, and discarded her once the desire was fulfilled. His hatred was not really for Tamar, but for himself—his conscience tormented him, and he could not bear to look upon the one who reminded him of his guilt.

This passage also reveals how quickly sin reverses affection. What once seemed desirable now becomes detestable. The same fire that burns with passion before sin, burns with shame and anger afterward. Lust promises intimacy but delivers isolation. As Proverbs 5:3–4 warns, “For the lips of a strange woman drop as an honeycomb, and her mouth is smoother than oil: But her end is bitter as wormwood, sharp as a twoedged sword.” The sweetness of sin turns to bitterness in the soul. Amnon’s hatred of Tamar was really the bitterness of a conscience awakened too late.

Amnon’s words, “Arise, be gone,” display his cruelty and hypocrisy. He had taken advantage of Tamar’s innocence, and now he sought to cast her out as though she were guilty. His sin had so blinded him that he blamed the victim of his crime for his own shame. Many who fall into sexual sin do the same—they despise the one who reminds them of their guilt and shame. It is the behavior of the carnal man, who cannot face the reflection of his sin without anger.

Amnon’s behavior was not without precedent in his family line. His father David, though a man after God’s own heart, had also given in to lust and taken Bathsheba, another man’s wife (2 Samuel 11:2–4). While David repented deeply of his sin, the example he set had consequences in his household. Scripture warns that “visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and to the fourth generation” (Exodus 20:5). This does not mean children are punished for their parents’ sins, but that patterns of sin, if unrepented and unchecked, are often repeated in the next generation. David’s indulgence toward his children and his past moral failure gave room for Amnon to walk in the same path, only further down it. Where David’s lust led to adultery and murder, Amnon’s led to incest and rape. Sin’s direction is always downward, and unless it is restrained by repentance, it grows worse with every generation.

Amnon’s hatred of Tamar also reveals an important truth about the psychology of sin: guilt often masquerades as anger. His hatred was an attempt to distance himself from the reality of what he had done. By despising Tamar, he avoided facing his own moral failure. This same pattern is seen throughout Scripture and human history. Cain killed Abel rather than repent of his rejected sacrifice; Saul hunted David rather than confess his jealousy. Sin always seeks to destroy the reminder of its own guilt.

From a moral standpoint, this passage stands as a warning to all who are tempted by the deceitfulness of lust. The emotional intensity of lust may feel like love, but it is a counterfeit. Lust consumes, but love commits. Lust seeks to take, but love seeks to give. Lust burns quickly and dies in shame, while love endures and grows in righteousness. Every generation must learn this lesson anew. As Solomon wrote in Proverbs 7:21–23, “With her much fair speech she caused him to yield, with the flattering of her lips she forced him. He goeth after her straightway, as an ox goeth to the slaughter… till a dart strike through his liver.” Amnon, like the foolish man in Proverbs, went willingly to his own ruin.

The commentary of Chuck Smith captures this truth well: many young women fall prey to the flattery and persistence of men like Amnon, who disguise lust as affection. If a man truly loves a woman, he will wait until marriage. True love respects God’s boundaries, while false love pushes for what God forbids. Once lust achieves its end, it turns cold and hateful. Amnon’s life is a living parable of that truth—a prince who could have inherited a kingdom, but forfeited his future through the deception of sin.

So she said unto him, There is no cause: this evil in sending me away is greater than the other that thou didst unto me. But he would not hearken unto her. Then he called his servant that ministered unto him, and said, Put now this woman out from me, and bolt the door after her. And she had a garment of divers colours upon her: for with such robes were the king’s daughters that were virgins apparelled. Then his servant brought her out, and bolted the door after her (2 Samuel 13:16–18).

After defiling Tamar, Amnon’s cruelty only deepened. Her words, “This evil in sending me away is greater than the other that thou didst unto me,” reveal a profound sense of injustice. Though he had already violated her, she pleaded for even the smallest measure of decency. According to the Mosaic Law, when a man lay with a woman not betrothed, he was required to marry her and pay the bride price. Exodus 22:16–17 says, “And if a man entice a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife. If her father utterly refuse to give her unto him, he shall pay money according to the dowry of virgins.” Likewise, Deuteronomy 22:28–29 commands, “If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.” Though the law did not permit marriage between half-siblings, Tamar’s plea shows that she sought some form of restitution or protection from total disgrace. Amnon, however, refused to listen.

Tamar understood that to be cast out after such an act was to suffer complete ruin. In Israelite society, a woman’s virginity and reputation were her security. Having been violated, she would now live with lifelong shame and exclusion. By rejecting her, Amnon not only destroyed her purity but also her social standing and future. His hardness of heart reflected not only the depravity of lust but also the cruelty of sin once it has done its work. As James 1:15 warns, “Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.” Sin always leaves destruction in its wake—first moral, then emotional, and finally spiritual death.

The text notes, “He called his servant that ministered unto him, and said, Put now this woman out from me, and bolt the door after her.” The Hebrew wording here is deliberately harsh. Amnon does not even call her by name; he refers to Tamar as “this woman,” stripping her of dignity. Once an object of his desire, she was now treated as refuse to be cast out. This cruelty was compounded by humiliation: he ordered the door bolted behind her, ensuring that she could never return. Tamar deserved compassion and protection as his sister, as a daughter of the king, and as a victim of assault—but Amnon’s heart was hardened, blinded by sin’s callousness.

The detail that “she had a garment of divers colours upon her” carries deep symbolic meaning. The phrase “garment of divers colours” refers to a long, ornate robe reaching to the wrists and ankles—a sign of honor and virginity among the king’s daughters. It symbolized purity, status, and royal favor. Tamar’s robe connected her with innocence and privilege; it was her identity as a princess and a virgin daughter of David. When Amnon defiled her and cast her out, he not only destroyed her purity but stripped her of the identity that robe represented.

This robe also echoes the story of Joseph, who wore a coat of many colors given by his father Jacob (Genesis 37:3). Both garments symbolized favor and distinction, and both were associated with great suffering that followed envy, deceit, and betrayal. Tamar’s robe, once a mark of honor, now became a symbol of her disgrace and loss.

Amnon’s sin here reached its final expression in heartless rejection. He violated Tamar, despised her, and publicly humiliated her. The act of bolting the door behind her symbolized the complete severing of relationship—he shut her out not only from his house but from his conscience. This behavior mirrors how sin isolates and destroys; it shuts the heart against compassion, empathy, and repentance.

Amnon’s rejection of Tamar also prefigures the spiritual pattern of mankind’s sin against God: taking what is forbidden, rejecting truth, and casting away righteousness in shame. As Adam and Eve were driven from the garden after their disobedience, so Tamar was cast out from the chamber of her brother, carrying the bitter fruit of another’s sin.

Then Tamar put ashes on her head, and rent her garment of divers colours that was on her, and laid her hand on her head, and went on crying. And Absalom her brother said unto her, Hath Amnon thy brother been with thee? but hold now thy peace, my sister: he is thy brother; regard not this thing. So Tamar remained desolate in her brother Absalom’s house (2 Samuel 13:19–20).

Tamar’s grief was public and profound. She put ashes on her head, tore her garment of many colors, and laid her hand upon her head as she cried. Each action symbolized mourning and shame. Ashes represented sorrow and humility before God; tearing her robe declared that her purity and royal dignity were destroyed. Tamar refused to conceal her suffering, choosing instead to display the horror of what had been done. She refused to internalize false shame or hide the truth of Amnon’s sin. Her act stands as a rebuke to the culture of silence that often protects the guilty while blaming the innocent.

Absalom, upon seeing her, immediately discerned the truth: “Hath Amnon thy brother been with thee?” His intuition revealed how obvious Amnon’s lust and actions had been. Lust often blinds its victim to how transparent it is to others. Amnon likely thought his deceit was well concealed, yet Absalom instantly recognized the signs of violation. This underscores the deceptive nature of sin—while the sinner imagines his acts are hidden, they are often evident to those around him. Numbers 32:23 warns, “Be sure your sin will find you out.”

Absalom’s words, “hold now thy peace, my sister: he is thy brother; regard not this thing,” reveal his attempt to suppress her grief. Whether out of shame, fear, or a desire for vengeance in his own time, Absalom counseled silence. Yet his words were not those of comfort, but of cold calculation. He intended to bide his time and strike later, as the following chapters show. Tamar’s silence, however, condemned her to isolation: the text says, “So Tamar remained desolate in her brother Absalom’s house.” The word desolate conveys abandonment, loneliness, and ruin. She was alive but broken, a living symbol of the devastation caused by sin and neglect.

Tamar’s tragedy also exposes David’s failure as a father and king. She did not go to him for justice because she knew of his softness toward his sons and his tendency to excuse their wrongdoing. David’s indulgence and passivity fostered a household in which sin could flourish unchecked. His inaction would soon lead to vengeance, murder, and division in his own family.

But when king David heard of all these things, he was very wroth. And Absalom spake unto his brother Amnon neither good nor bad: for Absalom hated Amnon, because he had forced his sister Tamar (2 Samuel 13:21–22).

David’s anger was justified, but his silence was fatal. The text plainly states that he was “very wroth,” yet he did nothing to discipline Amnon or seek justice for Tamar. Perhaps guilt over his own sin with Bathsheba restrained him, or perhaps his affection for his sons clouded his judgment. Whatever the reason, David’s failure to act emboldened wickedness within his household. Leadership demands courage to confront sin, even in one’s own family. Proverbs 13:24 declares, “He that spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes.” David’s indulgence was not mercy but neglect, and his passivity would lead to far greater tragedy.

Trapp wisely observed, “Why did he not reprove him at least very sharply for this foul fact?” David’s silence allowed sin to fester. Absalom, meanwhile, concealed his rage under calm composure. “Absalom spake unto his brother Amnon neither good nor bad.” He hid his hatred behind a mask of civility, planning revenge in his heart. As Trapp wrote, “Nothing is more unsafe to be trusted, than the fair looks of a festered heart.”

This passage reveals three devastating failures: Amnon’s moral failure, David’s parental failure, and Absalom’s spiritual failure. Lust, indulgence, and vengeance—each left unchecked—would destroy David’s household. What began with a father’s sin in secret would end in public bloodshed among his children. Sin, when unconfessed and uncorrected, always multiplies.

And it came to pass after two full years, that Absalom had sheepshearers in Baalhazor, which is beside Ephraim: and Absalom invited all the king’s sons. And 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. And the king said to Absalom, Nay, my son, let us not all now go, lest we be chargeable unto thee. And he pressed him: howbeit he would not go, but blessed him. Then said Absalom, If not, I pray thee, let my brother Amnon go with us. And the king said unto him, Why should he go with thee? But Absalom pressed him, that he let Amnon and all the king’s sons go with him (2 Samuel 13:23–27).

Two years passed after Tamar’s violation, yet Absalom’s anger did not fade. His silence was not forgiveness but calculation. Time did not heal the wound; it hardened his heart and gave his bitterness time to mature into murder. The Scripture’s phrase, “after two full years,” emphasizes deliberate premeditation. Absalom waited patiently for the opportunity to avenge his sister’s shame and his own family’s dishonor. Though vengeance belongs to God (Romans 12:19), Absalom determined to take justice into his own hands, showing that unrestrained resentment always leads to sin.

Absalom’s opportunity came during the time of sheepshearing. “Absalom had sheepshearers in Baalhazor.” In ancient Israel, the shearing of sheep was a season of great festivity and abundance. It was a time of feasting, music, and celebration of prosperity. Such feasts are mentioned elsewhere in Scripture, such as 1 Samuel 25:2–8, where Nabal held a feast during sheepshearing. Absalom’s invitation to the king’s sons would therefore appear natural and harmless. He disguised his murderous plan beneath the cloak of festivity and family hospitality.

Absalom first invited his father, David, saying, “Let the king, I beseech thee, and his servants go with thy servant.” This gesture was likely part of the deception. It made his request seem sincere, as though the feast was merely a family occasion. David declined, saying, “Nay, my son, let us not all now go, lest we be chargeable unto thee.” The king, in his humility, did not wish to impose on Absalom’s resources. But this refusal also shows how unaware David had become of the tension in his own household. His indulgence and emotional distance left him blind to Absalom’s hatred and unhealed wounds.

When David declined, Absalom pressed further: “If not, I pray thee, let my brother Amnon go with us.” The request immediately raised suspicion, and David asked, “Why should he go with thee?” Perhaps the memory of Amnon’s sin and Absalom’s bitterness still lingered in David’s mind. Yet Absalom’s persistence prevailed. He urged his father until David consented, sending Amnon and all the king’s sons. Absalom’s cunning mirrored that of Amnon before him—each used David’s trust to further their own sinful plans. Just as Amnon had used David to summon Tamar into his presence, so Absalom now used David to send Amnon into his trap. Both acts illustrate how David’s weakness as a father contributed to the corruption in his family.

David’s blessing of Absalom at the end of verse 25—“he blessed him”—shows tragic irony. The father’s blessing accompanied the son’s deception. David, unaware of what was unfolding, spoke words of goodwill over a plot that would spill his firstborn son’s blood. Sin within a household always produces consequences that even the godliest parent cannot contain once discipline and truth have been neglected.

Now Absalom had 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. And the servants of Absalom did unto Amnon as Absalom had commanded. Then all the king’s sons arose, and every man gat him up upon his mule, and fled (2 Samuel 13:28–29).

Absalom’s plan was precise and merciless. He instructed his servants to watch Amnon carefully, saying, “Mark ye now when Amnon’s heart is merry with wine.” Like his father before him, Absalom chose to strike when his victim’s defenses were lowered through intoxication. David had made Uriah drunk before arranging his death (2 Samuel 11:13–15), and now Absalom repeated the same pattern with his own brother. The seed of David’s past sin was bearing fruit in his son’s behavior.

The instruction “when I say unto you, Smite Amnon; then kill him, fear not: have not I commanded you?” reveals Absalom’s manipulative leadership. He used his authority to embolden his servants to murder, assuring them they acted under his command. This was not courage but corruption—a counterfeit valor cloaked in loyalty. The phrase “be courageous and be valiant” echoes the noble language of battle, perverted here for bloodshed. Just as Joab had once used similar words to rally Israel against their enemies (2 Samuel 10:12), Absalom used them to justify fratricide.

Absalom’s servants obeyed: “And the servants of Absalom did unto Amnon as Absalom had commanded.” In a single moment, vengeance was executed, and Amnon’s blood was spilled. The royal feast turned to chaos as the other princes fled in terror. The scene fulfilled Nathan’s prophecy to David: “Now therefore the sword shall never depart from thine house” (2 Samuel 12:10). The judgment pronounced upon David for his sin with Bathsheba was unfolding in terrible precision. The parallels are striking: David’s lust led to adultery and murder; Amnon’s lust led to rape and death. As Trapp observed, “As David had committed adultery, made Uriah drunk, and then murdered him: so Amnon committeth incest, is made drunk, and then murdered.”

The phrase “Then all the king’s sons arose, and every man gat him up upon his mule, and fled” captures the panic that followed. The royal sons, once gathered in celebration, scattered in fear. This sudden disarray symbolizes the fracturing of David’s house. What had been one royal family was now divided by violence, guilt, and vengeance. Sin, once sown in secret, now bore public consequence.

Absalom’s act of vengeance was not justice but rebellion against divine law. Scripture teaches, “Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the LORD” (Romans 12:19). By taking vengeance into his own hands, Absalom placed himself in God’s seat, compounding guilt upon guilt. The path of unrestrained bitterness always leads to bloodshed. Absalom may have justified his actions as defense of his sister’s honor, but he became the very image of what he despised—a murderer acting under the pretense of righteousness.

And it came to pass, while they were in the way, that tidings came to David, saying, Absalom hath slain all the king’s sons, and there is not one of them left. Then 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, answered and said, Let not my lord suppose 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 his sister Tamar. Now therefore let not my lord the king take the thing to his heart, to think that all the king’s sons are dead: for Amnon only is dead. But 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 hill side behind him. And Jonadab said unto the king, Behold, the king’s sons come: as thy servant said, so it is. 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: and the king also and all his servants wept very sore (2 Samuel 13:30–36).

As David’s sons fled the slaughter at Baalhazor, false news reached Jerusalem: “Absalom hath slain all the king’s sons.” The message struck like lightning. David’s immediate reaction was not disbelief, but anguish. He tore his garments, lay prostrate upon the ground, and joined his servants in mourning. The absence of denial is telling—David knew Absalom’s nature and feared this day would come. His indulgence toward his sons had long eroded discipline in his house. By his silence after Tamar’s violation, David had sown the seeds of this tragedy.

The messenger’s error reflects the panic that followed Absalom’s act. Yet even in chaos, truth finds its way. Jonadab, the son of Shimeah, David’s brother, the same man whose deceitful counsel began the entire chain of events, stepped forward to reassure David: “Let not my lord suppose they have slain all the young men… for Amnon only is dead.” His words were true, but his motives were likely self-serving. By presenting himself as informed and wise, Jonadab sought to curry favor and perhaps divert suspicion from his own part in the affair. It was his cunning plan that had first enabled Amnon’s sin (2 Samuel 13:3–5), yet he now played the role of messenger and interpreter, concealing his guilt behind clever speech.

Jonadab’s statement—“for by the appointment of Absalom this hath been determined from the day that he forced his sister Tamar”—reveals that Absalom’s revenge had been foreseen. He knew, as all in the royal household likely knew, that Tamar’s shame was never avenged and her violator never corrected. Absalom’s plan was born of long-nurtured hatred, not sudden impulse. The text underscores the moral collapse in David’s family: sin committed by one son, unrebuked by the father, avenged by another son in murder.

As David and his servants mourned, the watchman lifted his eyes and saw the king’s remaining sons approaching. “Behold, the king’s sons come: as thy servant said, so it is.” The survivors returned weeping, and the grief in the palace deepened. “They lifted up their voice and wept… and the king also and all his servants wept very sore.” The once joyful household of David—the house blessed by God, anointed with promise—was now consumed by sorrow, the direct consequence of unrestrained sin and unchecked indulgence.

The parallel to David’s earlier life is unmistakable. When he sinned with Bathsheba and murdered Uriah, the prophet Nathan declared, “Now therefore the sword shall never depart from thine house” (2 Samuel 12:10). That prophecy was now fulfilled in full measure: lust had led to rape, and vengeance to fratricide. As F. B. Meyer observed, “Absalom’s fratricide would never have taken place if David had taken instant measures to punish Amnon.” A father’s inaction in righteousness invited his children’s rebellion in sin.

But Absalom fled, and went to Talmai, the son of Ammihud, king of Geshur. And David mourned for his son every day. So Absalom fled, and went to Geshur, and was there three years. And the soul of king David longed to go forth unto Absalom: for he was comforted concerning Amnon, seeing he was dead (2 Samuel 13:37–39).

After the murder, Absalom fled to Geshur, the kingdom of his maternal grandfather Talmai (2 Samuel 3:3). Geshur lay beyond the northern border of Israel, providing refuge from immediate retribution. Absalom did not flee to a city of refuge, for those cities were reserved for those guilty of manslaughter, not premeditated murder (Numbers 35:11–12). His flight to Geshur was therefore an act of escape, not appeal to justice.

During Absalom’s three years in exile, David’s grief persisted. The text says, “David mourned for his son every day.” This refers both to his mourning for Amnon and his emotional torment over Absalom’s estrangement. The weight of his failures as a father pressed upon him. He had failed to discipline Amnon, failed to protect Tamar, and failed to prevent Absalom’s vengeance. Now he mourned two sons—one dead by murder, the other living in exile.

As time passed, the sharpness of his grief for Amnon softened, and another emotion began to dominate: longing for reconciliation. “The soul of king David longed to go forth unto Absalom.” Yet this longing was once again sentimental rather than righteous. David desired fellowship with his son but still avoided the harder duty of confrontation and correction. His indulgence toward Absalom repeated the same pattern that had enabled Amnon’s sin. In his compassion, David confused mercy with weakness, and as a result, his love became permissive.

This unresolved conflict foreshadowed future tragedy. David’s failure to hold Absalom accountable during these three years of exile allowed resentment and ambition to fester. The next time Absalom would return to Jerusalem, he would not come as a penitent son but as a rebel prince seeking to overthrow his father’s throne.

The story thus closes this chapter with a sobering lesson: justice delayed is justice denied. A father’s unwillingness to address sin within his own house opens the door for sin to multiply. David, a man after God’s own heart, failed not from cruelty but from compromise. His kingdom, once established by righteousness, now trembled under the consequences of moral neglect.