incest

You Can’t Judge a Book By Its Cover

/ kdmiller55 / Leave a comment

25 Now in all Israel there was no one so much to be praised for his handsome appearance as Absalom. From the sole of his foot to the crown of his head there was no blemish in him. 26 And when he cut the hair of his head (for at the end of every year he used to cut it; when it was heavy on him, he cut it), he weighed the hair of his head, two hundred shekels by the king’s weight.’ 27 There were born to Absalom three sons, and one daughter whose name was Tamar. She was a beautiful woman.

28 So Absalom lived two full years in Jerusalem, without coming into the king’s presence. 29 Then Absalom sent for Joab, to send him to the king, but Joab would not come to him. And he sent a second time, but Joab would not come. 30 Then he said to his servants, “See, Joab’s field is next to mine, and he has barley there; go and set it on fire.” So Absalom’s servants set the field on fire. 31 Then Joab arose and went to Absalom at his house and said to him, “Why have your servants set my field on fire?” 32 Absalom answered Joab, “Behold, I sent word to you, ‘Come here, that I may send you to the king, to ask, “Why have I come from Geshur? It would be better for me to be there still.” Now therefore let me go into the presence of the king, and if there is guilt in me, let him put me to death.’” 33 Then Joab went to the king and told him, and he summoned Absalom. So he came to the king and bowed himself on his face to the ground before the king, and the king kissed Absalom. – 2 Samuel 14:25-33 ESV

David had agreed to Absalom’s return to Jerusalem but had essentially placed him under house arrest and refused to see him. After a three-year absence from the kingdom, Absalom found himself persona non grata, ignored by his own father, and left to wonder why he had agreed to come home at all. Another two years passed, with Absalom confined to his home and David continuing his pattern of avoidance and inaction. He not only refused to meet his son face to face, but he also rejected his legal responsibility as king to administer justice for his son’s crime. Even Absalom would become frustrated by his father’s lack of moral courage and propensity for passivity. For him, this waiting game had become a matter of life or death. He woke up every morning wondering whether he would remain a prisoner in his own home or face execution for a crime he had committed five years earlier. His fate was in his father’s hands and, with each passing day, he became increasingly more frustrated with his untenable situation.

But what makes this section of chapter 14 so interesting is its rather odd emphasis on Absalom’s physical appearance. According to verses 25-27, Absalom had a reputation for his good looks and “was praised as the most handsome man in all Israel” (2 Samuel 14:25 NLT). He may have been a murderer, but he was easy on the eyes. Even while under house arrest, this handsome and somewhat roguish son of the king had become a celebrity. From the soles of his feet to the top of his head crowned with thick luxurious hair, Absalom gave all the appearances of a king-in-waiting. This flattering description of Absalom may seem a bit odd and out of place, but it is intended to set the stage for all that is about to happen. It is eerily reminiscent of the description given of another young man who would become Israel’s first king and David’s predecessor.

There was a wealthy, influential man named Kish from the tribe of Benjamin. He was the son of Abiel, son of Zeror, son of Becorath, son of Aphiah, of the tribe of Benjamin. His son Saul was the most handsome man in Israel—head and shoulders taller than anyone else in the land. – 1 Samuel 9:1-2 NLT

In both cases, the text’s emphasis on outer appearances is intended to make a point. When the good-looking Saul turned out to be a far-from-great king, God determined to replace him with a man after His own heart. He sent His prophet Samuel to the home of a man named Jesse with strict instructions to find and anoint the next king of Israel. When Samuel set his eyes on the eldest son of Jesse, he immediately concluded, “Surely this is the Lord’s anointed!” (1 Samuel 16:6 NLT). But God had other plans and gave the prophet an important lesson in leadership recruitment.

“Don’t judge by his appearance or height, for I have rejected him. The Lord doesn’t see things the way you see them. People judge by outward appearance, but the Lord looks at the heart.” – 1 Samuel 16:7 NLT

Jesse would end up parading each of his sons before Samuel, in the hopes that one would catch the prophet’s attention. But it would not be until the youngest son David appeared that Samuel would hear the Lord say, “This is the one; anoint him” (1 Samuel 16:12 NLT). David would be anointed as the God-appointed replacement for the taller and better-looking Saul. The runt of the litter would become God’s choice to serve as the next king of Israel.

Now, years later, David’s good-looking son Absalom appears on the scene; another handsome, head-turning specimen of a man who would end up capturing the hearts of the people and threatening his father’s reign. But for that to happen, Absalom had to force his father’s hand. He refused to put up with his father’s inaction, choosing instead to face the prospect of execution rather than one more day of imprisonment.

During his two years of house arrest, Absalom’s resentment of his father only increased in intensity. He had plenty of time to recall David’s unwillingness to take action against Amnon for raping his sister. David’s inaction had led Absalom to take matters into his own hands. Now, two years later, Absalom found himself enduring the consequences of his father’s inaction yet again. Whatever respect he once held for his father was gone. He viewed David as a man of weakness, plagued by indecisiveness.

It would be centuries later that the apostle Paul would write:

Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger by the way you treat them. Rather, bring them up with the discipline and instruction that comes from the Lord. – Ephesians 6:4 NLT

David could have used this simple, yet profound advice. The Greek word Paul used is parorgizō and it is translated as “provoke to anger”. But it can also mean “to exasperate.” To provoke someone to anger sounds like it refers to a deliberate attempt to purposefully annoy or to rouse anger in another individual. While that most certainly can be true in many cases, we can also create anger in another human being by doing nothing. We can frustrate them by our lack of initiative or a general display of apathy. David was provoking in Absalom an anger and resentment that was fed by his father’s lack of leadership. He was slowly beginning to view David as weak and incapable of leading decisively. Absalom viewed his father as incompetent to lead his own family, and would soon reach the conclusion that he was also unqualified to lead the nation of Israel.

Absalom’s growing anger and frustration are on full display in how he handles Joab’s refusal to answer his repeated requests for an audience with the king. Like his boss, Joab did nothing. Finally, Absalom snapped, taking matters into his own hands and commanding his servants to set fire to Joab’s barley crops. While arguably a bit over the top, Absalom’s ploy worked and revealed his growing exasperation with the whole situation. He had waited two years and simply wanted something to be done. He even told Joab, “I wanted you to ask the king why he brought me back from Geshur if he didn’t intend to see me. I might as well have stayed there. Let me see the king; if he finds me guilty of anything, then let him kill me” (2 Samuel 14:32 NLT).

Absalom would rather face death than have to live in limbo, confined to his home. But there is almost an underlying sense that Absalom knew David would do nothing. He seems to have known that his father would never sentence him to death for his murder of Amnon. So he was willing to force David’s hand, confident that his father would act true to form and take no action. Which is exactly what happened. Joab went to David and convinced him to see Absalom, which David did. From all appearances, it seems that David pardoned Absalom, kissing his son, and restoring him to his former state. Absalom got what he wanted, but he would not be satisfied. During his five years of exile, he had plenty of time to consider his future and plan his next moves. This would prove to be just the first step in his plan to take advantage of what he perceived as his father’s leadership flaws.

Absalom was not only “flawless from head to foot” (2 Samuel 14:25 NLT), but he was also clever. He was a natural-born leader, who possessed the good looks, charisma, charm, and powers of persuasion that would make any politician jealous. Now that he was out from under any threat of punishment for his murder of Amnon, Absalom was going to use his good looks and natural leadership skills to plan his future, which would include his father’s downfall.

It’s interesting to note that Paul gave another warning to fathers in his letter to the Colossians. He writes, “Fathers, do not exasperate your children, so that they will not lose heart” (Colossians 3:21 NASB). David had frustrated his son by doing nothing to bring justice to the cause of Tamar. After his daughter had suffered the indignity of being raped by her half-brother, David allowed her to remain in a state of mourning and did nothing to avenge her. He avoided his responsibilities as a father and ignored the expressed will of God as found in the Mosaic Law.

If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found, then the man who lay with her shall give to the father of the young woman fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he has violated her. He may not divorce her all his days. – Deuteronomy 22:28-29 ESV

According to the law, David should have forced Amnon to marry Tamar, and forbidden him from ever divorcing her. No longer a virgin, Tamar was left in a state where she would have been considered “damaged goods” by the men in her community. Her value as a potential wife had been irreparably damaged. All along the way, David’s indecisiveness left a wake of disaster and damaged lives. His inaction allowed Amnon to go unpunished and left Tamar a humiliated and unwanted woman. His unwillingness to do the right thing had only resulted in a host of wrong outcomes. Absalom had killed Amnon and then spent three years in exile. Even when he was allowed to return home, Absalom found himself in a frustrating limbo, trapped by his father’s unwillingness to perform his parental role and his duties as a king. All of this was going to lead to further resentment on Absalom’s part that would ultimately surface as rebellion.

English Standard Version (ESV) The Holy Bible, English Standard Version. ESV® Permanent Text Edition® (2016). Copyright © 2001 by Crossway Bibles, a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers.

New Living Translation (NLT) Holy Bible, New Living Translation, copyright © 1996, 2004, 2015 by Tyndale House Foundation. Used by permission of Tyndale House Publishers Inc., Carol Stream, Illinois 60188. All rights reserved.

The Deadly Result of Sin and Silence

/ kdmiller55 / Leave a comment

20 And her brother Absalom said to her, “Has Amnon your brother been with you? Now hold your peace, my sister. He is your brother; do not take this to heart.” So Tamar lived, a desolate woman, in her brother Absalom’s house. 21 When King David heard of all these things, he was very angry. 22 But Absalom spoke to Amnon neither good nor bad, for Absalom hated Amnon, because he had violated his sister Tamar.

23 After two full years Absalom had sheepshearers at Baal-hazor, which is near Ephraim, and Absalom invited all the king’s sons. 24 And Absalom came to the king and said, “Behold, your servant has sheepshearers. Please let the king and his servants go with your servant.” 25 But the king said to Absalom, “No, my son, let us not all go, lest we be burdensome to you.” He pressed him, but he would not go but gave him his blessing. 26 Then Absalom said, “If not, please let my brother Amnon go with us.” And the king said to him, “Why should he go with you?” 27 But Absalom pressed him until he let Amnon and all the king’s sons go with him. 28 Then Absalom commanded his servants, “Mark when Amnon’s heart is merry with wine, and when I say to you, ‘Strike Amnon,’ then kill him. Do not fear; have I not commanded you? Be courageous and be valiant.” 29 So the servants of Absalom did to Amnon as Absalom had commanded. Then all the king’s sons arose, and each mounted his mule and fled.

30 While they were on the way, news came to David, “Absalom has struck down all the king’s sons, and not one of them is left.” 31 Then the king arose and tore his garments and lay on the earth. And all his servants who were standing by tore their garments. 32 But Jonadab the son of Shimeah, David’s brother, said, “Let not my lord suppose that they have killed all the young men, the king’s sons, for Amnon alone is dead. For by the command of Absalom this has been determined from the day he violated his sister Tamar. 33 Now therefore let not my lord the king so take it to heart as to suppose that all the king’s sons are dead, for Amnon alone is dead.” – 2 Samuel 13:20-33 ESV

In a relatively short time and with the help of more than a half-dozen different women, David sired a host of children who eventually grew up and lived with him in the royal residence in Jerusalem. These adult sons and daughters from different mothers created a uniquely blended family unit in which the potential for sibling rivalries and domestic disputes would be off the charts. It’s difficult to imagine David’s many wives getting along as they jockeyed to become the king’s favorite, and their maternal instincts to protect and promote their own children must have produced a great deal of tension within the walls of the royal compound.

As the opening verses of chapter 13 disclosed, this far-from-idyllic atmosphere became an incubator for unexpected trouble in David’s home as one of his sons, driven by lust, raped his half-sister. This violent act by Amnon was premeditated and carried out with the assistance of David, who unwittingly sent Tamar to care for her “sick” brother. It was all a ruse and a carefully crafted plot by Amnon to get his sister alone so he could take advantage of her – and his plan worked.

Having been forcefully violated and robbed of her virginity, the humiliated Tamar went into mourning. Her disheveled state and cries of despair didn’t go unnoticed by her blood-brother, Absalom. But it seems that her father was too busy to notice or chose to turn a blind eye to what had happened under his watch.

It was only after Tamar sought refuge in Absalom’s home that David became aware of the matter. The text flatly states, “When King David heard of all these things, he was very angry” (2 Samuel 13:21 ESV). He was incensed by what he heard but he took no action. A crime had been committed under the roof of his home but he chose to ignore it. His own daughter had been raped by her half-brother, yet David chose to do nothing about it. 

Yet God had given clear instructions regarding incest.

If a man takes his sister, a daughter of his father or a daughter of his mother, and sees her nakedness, and she sees his nakedness, it is a disgrace, and they shall be cut off in the sight of the children of their people. He has uncovered his sister’s nakedness, and he shall bear his iniquity. – Leviticus 20:17 ESV

The only thing unclear about this passage is the exact meaning of the phrase, “shall be cut off.” The Hebrew word has a wide range of meanings and can refer to everything from excommunication from the assembly to actual execution. But there is little doubt that God expected action to be taken in the case of incest. Yet, in the story of Amnon’s rape of Tamar, David, the king of Israel takes no action. Perhaps he was reluctant to deal with Amnon because his sin reminded him of his own affair with Bathsheba. He too, had taken what was not his to have. It could also be the case that, as the eldest son, Amnon was considered to be the heir to David’s throne. But regardless of the reason or David’s rationale, he was in the wrong for refusing to carry out God’s command.

It’s interesting to note that after her humiliation by Amnon, Tamar didn’t go directly to her father. She didn’t seek his help or ask him for vindication. It was Absalom who took note of her mourning and came to her aid, offering her solace and a safe place to recover from the physical and psychological trauma of her experience. Was her reluctance to turn to her own father in her time of need because she feared she would receive neither sympathy nor revenge?  We can only conjecture, but it does raise questions regarding David’s relationships with his children. The only emotion he displays in this story is anger, but it never takes the form of action. Life went on as usual. Amnon was never “cut off” and Tamar was never avenged. In fact, two years passed before any kind of justice was meted out and David would have nothing to do with it.

David’s pattern of inaction and avoidance would create a perfect storm within his household. After two years, David had moved on. He had put the whole affair in the rearview mirror. But while David had chosen to ignore and then forget the sin of Amnon, Absalom brooded, planned, and plotted his revenge. He hated Amnon for what he had done to Tamar. He was also far from happy with his father’s handling of the entire affair. Absalom held a grudge against David for his refusal to punish Amnon for his transgression. He had lost respect for David as a father and as a king and, as the sordid story unfolds, Absalom will eventually stage a coup to take his father’s throne.

But after two years of waiting for his father to do the right thing, Absalom took matters into his own hands and plotted the death of Amnon. It was a well-thought-out plan that utilized deception, just as Amnon had done in his rape of Tamar. Following Amnon’s script, Absalom concocted an elaborate lie to get David to play a role in his deception. He told his father he was planning a feast to celebrate the annual sheering of the sheep. Absalom included David in the invitation but seems to have known that his father would decline the offer because of his duties as the king. Initially, David was a bit surprised and suspicious that Absalom had specifically requested Amnon’s presence. He obviously knew there was bad blood between the two of them and asked, “Why should he go with you?” (2 Samuel 13:26 ESV). But under pressure from Absalom, David finally agreed and sent all his sons to Baal-hazor – a decision he would soon regret.

Absalom commanded his servants, “Wait until Amnon gets drunk; then at my signal, kill him! Don’t be afraid. I’m the one who has given the command. Take courage and do it!” (2 Samuel 13:28 NLT). These instructions should sound vaguely familiar. When David wanted to get rid of Uriah so he could marry Bathsheba, he gave Joab the following instructions:

“Station Uriah on the front lines where the battle is fiercest. Then pull back so that he will be killed.” – 2 Samuel 11:15 NLT

When the deed had been done, he followed up with a second message to Joab: “‘Well, tell Joab not to be discouraged,’ David said. ‘The sword devours this one today and that one tomorrow! Fight harder next time, and conquer the city!’” (2 Samuel 11:25 NLT).

Like his father, Absalom chose to use someone else to do his dirty work. He would not bloody his own hands but was more than willing to take the responsibility for Amnon’s death. Both he and his father displayed a disturbing disregard for what they had done.

In all the confusion after Amnon’s death, David received erroneous news that all of his sons had been killed. His immediate reaction was to tear his clothes and fall on the ground in grief. He mourned but he took no action. He displayed grief and sorrow but did nothing to deal with the matter.

It was Jonadab, David’s nephew, who informed him of what had happened.

“No, don’t believe that all the king’s sons have been killed! It was only Amnon! Absalom has been plotting this ever since Amnon raped his sister Tamar.” – 2 Samuel 13:32 NLT

Jonadab had a reason to rat on Absalom. He was Amnon’s friend and the one who had given him the bright idea of how to lure Tamar into his room so he could rape her (2 Samuel 13:3-5). He most likely feared for his own life, believing that Absalom might come after him next. Jonadab stressed the news that only Amnon was dead and made sure David knew that Absalom had been plotting his death for two years. This news should have spurred David to action but, as the rest of the chapter will reveal, David did nothing. The very next verse reveals that Absalom got away – not only with the murder of his brother but with his own life.

When the prophet Nathan confronted David for his sin with Bathsheba, one of the things he said to him was, “From this time on, your family will live by the sword because you have despised me by taking Uriah’s wife to be your own” (2 Samuel 12:10 NLT). This statement could be taken as a prophecy regarding the wars that would plague the descendants of David. The kings of Judah and Israel would spend centuries fighting their enemies but also one another. But Nathan’s words also foretell of the inner strife that would plague David’s household; perfectly and painfully illustrated by Absalom’s murder of Amnon.

Nathan’s reference to the sword and David’s house has to do with the battles that would take place within his own family. This would not be the last death of a family member that David would have to endure. He would live to mourn the death of Absalom. But even after David’s own death, the curse on his house would continue. At the end of Solomon’s reign, the kingdom he inherited from his father would be divided, followed by centuries of infighting between the descendants of David and the rest of the tribes of Israel. This centuries-long period would be filled with assassinations, deception, palace intrigue, and a revolving door of kings.

So, David’s sin and God’s punishment for that sin were going to have long-term implications both in David’s household, within his royal house, and between the tribes of Judah.

What would have happened had David dealt with Amnon’s rape of Tamar? How could things have turned out differently had David stepped up and done what was right? Now, his heir to the throne was dead and another son was in exile. To make matters worse, David made no attempt to bring Absalom back to face the consequences of his actions. Once again, David’s inaction would lead to further trouble in his household and within his kingdom.

Sin, left unattended and unconfessed is dangerous in the life of a believer. But it is just as dangerous to ignore sin within the family of God. We may choose to tolerate it or sweep it under the carpet, but sin always has consequences. David was a father and the king of Israel. He had responsibilities to his family and his people; he answered to God for the health and well-being of both.

God is not one to tolerate or take sin lightly. Amnon paid for his sin. In time, Absalom would have to face the consequences of his actions. But what might have happened had David stepped up and done what he was supposed to do? Could this story have had a different ending if David had obeyed God and fulfilled his role as a father and king? The consequences for neglecting sin are far from negligible. Failure to treat sin seriously always has serious consequences. As Numbers 32:23 states, “if you fail to keep your word, then you will have sinned against the LORD, and you may be sure that your sin will find you out.”

English Standard Version (ESV) The Holy Bible, English Standard Version. ESV® Permanent Text Edition® (2016). Copyright © 2001 by Crossway Bibles, a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers.

New Living Translation (NLT) Holy Bible, New Living Translation, copyright © 1996, 2004, 2015 by Tyndale House Foundation. Used by permission of Tyndale House Publishers Inc., Carol Stream, Illinois 60188. All rights reserved.

A Higher Standard

/ kdmiller55 / Leave a comment

6 “None of you shall approach any one of his close relatives to uncover nakedness. I am the Lord. 7 You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father, which is the nakedness of your mother; she is your mother, you shall not uncover her nakedness. 8 You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father’s wife; it is your father’s nakedness. 9 You shall not uncover the nakedness of your sister, your father’s daughter or your mother’s daughter, whether brought up in the family or in another home. 10 You shall not uncover the nakedness of your son’s daughter or of your daughter’s daughter, for their nakedness is your own nakedness. 11 You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father’s wife’s daughter, brought up in your father’s family, since she is your sister. 12 You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father’s sister; she is your father’s relative. 13 You shall not uncover the nakedness of your mother’s sister, for she is your mother’s relative. 14 You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father’s brother, that is, you shall not approach his wife; she is your aunt. 15 You shall not uncover the nakedness of your daughter-in-law; she is your son’s wife, you shall not uncover her nakedness. 16 You shall not uncover the nakedness of your brother’s wife; it is your brother’s nakedness. 17 You shall not uncover the nakedness of a woman and of her daughter, and you shall not take her son’s daughter or her daughter’s daughter to uncover her nakedness; they are relatives; it is depravity. 18 And you shall not take a woman as a rival wife to her sister, uncovering her nakedness while her sister is still alive.” – Leviticus 18:6-18 ESV

We live in an age in which sexual boundaries and mores seem increasingly non-existent or simply ignored. What was once normal and accepted insights into human identity and sexuality have been turned on their heads. The once non-negotiable taboos of the past have been rejected as antiquated and out-of-touch with our modern sensibilities. And as the people of God, we find ourselves pressured to compromise our convictions just to remain relevant and avoid rejection by our more enlightened neighbors.

The Israelites were in a similar situation – whether they realized it or not. They had no idea what awaited them in Canaan, the land that God had promised to them as their inheritance. None of them had ever set foot in the “promised land,” and it had been four centuries since their ancestor, Jacob, and his family of 70 arrived in Egypt as refugees from the famine in Canaan. After more than 400 years in Egypt, they had long ago forgotten what things were like in their former homeland. They had no idea what the moral and religious atmosphere in Canaan was like. But God knew and He was preparing them for the worst.

“You shall not do as they do in the land of Egypt, where you lived, and you shall not do as they do in the land of Canaan, to which I am bringing you.” – Leviticus 18:3 ESV

They had just come out of a far-from-ideal situation in Egypt. There, they had experienced the indignity of living as slaves, but that had not always been the case. For decades, they had lived as the guests of the Pharaoh, occupying choice acreage in the lush and fertile land of Goshen. The original 70 Jacobites expanded rapidly and filled the land. And as their numbers grew, they became increasingly more amenable to their new surroundings. They acclimated to the ways of Egypt, accommodating themselves to the local customs and social conventions, even adopting many of their false gods as their own. So, by the time they left the land of the Pharaohs, they had become fully Egyptianized and quite content to carry their acquired tastes and customs with them when they crossed the Red Sea on their way to Canaan. In fact, years later, long after they had conquered and occupied the land of Canaan, Joshua would warn them:

“Put away the gods that your fathers served beyond the River and in Egypt, and serve the Lord. And if it is evil in your eyes to serve the Lord, choose this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your fathers served in the region beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you dwell” – Joshua 24:14-15 ESV

God had known all along that His people would struggle with idolatry. That’s why the very first commandment He gave His people contained prohibitions against idolatry.

“You shall have no other gods before me. You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the Lord your God am a jealous God…” – Exodus 20:3-5 ESV

But there was another pressing problem facing the Israelites: Their propensity for immorality. And it’s no coincidence that idolatry and immorality seemed to go hand-in-hand in the ancient pagan world. Gross sexual sins were often associated with the worship of the false gods of Egypt and Canaan. In the process of trying to satisfy their gods, the Canaanites and Egyptians concocted rites and rituals that also satiated their sexual desires. Cult prostitutes plied their services in the pagan temples, providing a rather bizarre form of worship that was quite popular among the male population.

But all of this was off-limits to God’s people. He had given them His Tabernacle and a stringent set of laws concerning its proper use. There was to be no borrowing from the Egyptians or Canaanites. Their rituals and rites were unacceptable and had no place in the worship of Yahweh. But in order to drive home the need for His people to remain distinctively different from the rest of the nations of the world, God gave them a list of banned sexual activities. And the very fact that God had to put these prohibitions in writing accentuates the fact that His people were already predisposed to living this way. What stands out is that, in this passage, God deals with everything from incest to bestiality. These were not simple moral indiscretions, but gross sexual sins of the worst order.

And it’s interesting to note that there is a direct link between this passage and Genesis chapter 9, which outlines the sin of Ham, the son the Noah.

“This passage tells how Ham, the father of the Canaanites, acted with moral abandon when he saw the nakedness of Noah and for his lack of filial respect a curse was pronounced on his descendants, who would act with the same moral abandon.” – Allen P. Ross, Holiness to the Lord: A Guide to the Exposition of the Book of Leviticus

According to Genesis 10, the sons of Ham were “Cush, Egypt, Put, and Canaan” (Genesis 10:6 ESV). So, the Egyptians and Canaanites were the descendants of Ham, and the descendants of Canaan, Ham’s son included “the Jebusites, the Amorites, the Girgashites, the Hivites, the Arkites, the Sinites, the Arvadites, the Zemarites, and the Hamathites” (Genesis 10:16-18 ESV). In other words, most of the occupants of the land of Canaan were descendants of Ham and would mirror his immoral behavior.

Ham had been guilty of uncovering his father’s nakedness. There has been much debate as to the exact nature of Ham’s sin but it seems that he had walked into his father’s tent and viewed him in a drunken and naked state. It is not so much that Ham viewed his father’s naked body but that he dishonored his father by gossiping about it to his two brothers. And when Noah sobered up and realized what his son had done, he was angry enough to curse Canaan, the son of Ham. Ham’s moral indiscretion proved costly.

And in chapter 18 of Leviticus, God repeatedly uses terms like “nakedness,” “uncovering,” and “seeing” when describing the sins of the Canaanites that the Israelites were to avoid. No Israelite as to “approach any one of his close relatives to uncover nakedness” (Leviticus 18:6 ESV). And God drove home His point by using that phrase over and over again.

“You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father’s wife…” – vs 8

“You shall not uncover the nakedness of your sister, your father’s daughter or your mother’s daughter…” – vs 9

“You shall not uncover the nakedness of your son’s daughter or of your daughter’s daughter…” – vs 10

To put it bluntly, God’s people were forbidden from having sexual relations with any of their relatives. Throughout Leviticus 18, God uses the term “uncover the nakedness” as a euphemism for sexual intercourse. The relatively innocent-sounding sin of Ham had turned into unmitigated moral excesses of the worst kind. While Ham had been guilty of seeing his father naked, his descendants were guilty of committing every sort of sexual perversion the human mind could come up with. And it is sad to note that God had to provide such exacting detail to His list of unacceptable sexual activities. He was blatantly graphic in terms of His description of the sexual sins that were off-limits for His people.

The possibility of these sins taking place among His people was real. In fact, there is a good chance that some of these sins were already prevalent among the Israelites while they were in Egypt and as they made their way to Sinai. But the temptation would only increase when they arrived in the land of Canaan. So, God laid out His law in great detail so that His chosen people could never claim, “We never knew!” From this point forward, they would have no excuse.

When it came to sexuality, the Israelites were to live according to a higher standard; once provided to them by God. Every area of their lives belonged to Him and He expected their behavior to reflect their status as a royal priesthood and a holy nation. They were not descendants of Ham, but if they followed the example of their distant relatives, they would live to regret it. Disobedience would bring curses. But obedience would bring the blessings of God – in every area of their lives, including their sexuality and social interactions. During their years in Egypt, God had blessed them so that they increased in number. And He would continue to do so as long as they remained faithful to Him and obedient to His stringent standard of behavior.

English Standard Version (ESV) The Holy Bible, English Standard Version. ESV® Permanent Text Edition® (2016). Copyright © 2001

New Living Translation (NLT) Holy Bible, New Living Translation, copyright © 1996, 2004, 2015 by Tyndale House Foundation. Used by permission of Tyndale House Publishers Inc., Carol Stream, Illinois 60188. All rights reserved.

When We Pitch Our Tent Toward Sodom

/ kdmiller55 / Leave a comment

23 The sun had risen on the earth when Lot came to Zoar. 24 Then the Lord rained on Sodom and Gomorrah sulfur and fire from the Lord out of heaven. 25 And he overthrew those cities, and all the valley, and all the inhabitants of the cities, and what grew on the ground. 26 But Lot’s wife, behind him, looked back, and she became a pillar of salt.

27 And Abraham went early in the morning to the place where he had stood before the Lord. 28 And he looked down toward Sodom and Gomorrah and toward all the land of the valley, and he looked and, behold, the smoke of the land went up like the smoke of a furnace.

29 So it was that, when God destroyed the cities of the valley, God remembered Abraham and sent Lot out of the midst of the overthrow when he overthrew the cities in which Lot had lived.

30 Now Lot went up out of Zoar and lived in the hills with his two daughters, for he was afraid to live in Zoar. So he lived in a cave with his two daughters. 31 And the firstborn said to the younger, “Our father is old, and there is not a man on earth to come in to us after the manner of all the earth. 32 Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve offspring from our father.” 33 So they made their father drink wine that night. And the firstborn went in and lay with her father. He did not know when she lay down or when she arose.

34 The next day, the firstborn said to the younger, “Behold, I lay last night with my father. Let us make him drink wine tonight also. Then you go in and lie with him, that we may preserve offspring from our father.” 35 So they made their father drink wine that night also. And the younger arose and lay with him, and he did not know when she lay down or when she arose. 36 Thus both the daughters of Lot became pregnant by their father. 37 The firstborn bore a son and called his name Moab. He is the father of the Moabites to this day. 38 The younger also bore a son and called his name Ben-ammi. He is the father of the Ammonites to this day. – Genesis 19:23-38 ESV

Lot departed from Sodom and made his way to the small village of Zoar, with his wife and two daughters accompanying him. And Moses provides a rather sterile and sketchy description of the life-altering experience this small family had to endure. Their world had been rocked by the arrival of the two strangers. Lot and his family had been enjoying their comfortable life in Sodom until the night the two visitors showed up unexpectedly. Lot had been a well-respected city leader. His wife had probably been busy planning their two daughters’ pending weddings. Both girls had been betrothed and fully expected to celebrate and consummate their marriages. But all that had changed.

Now, they were running for their lives. And Lot’s two daughters must have been devastated by the news that their future husbands had chosen to remain behind in Sodom. It seems likely that both young women would have wrestled with thoughts of returning to Sodom but they had an allegiance to obey their father. They may have harbored doubts about the veracity of the message of doom delivered by the two visitors. And the thought of abandoning their home and their futures must have left them confused and conflicted.

Moses provides only a small glimpse into the tumultuous emotional state of Lot and his family. As he briefly describes the devastating destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, he mentions Lot’s wife turning back to look at the shocking scene. Moses provides no explanation for her actions. But one can only guess that her curiosity was piqued by the sounds that accompanied the massive display of firepower that rained down from heaven. The destruction of these two cities was an unprecedented event of cosmic proportions.

…the Lord rained down fire and burning sulfur from the sky on Sodom and Gomorrah. He utterly destroyed them, along with the other cities and villages of the plain, wiping out all the people and every bit of vegetation. – Genesis 19:24-25 NLT

One might describe her interest as nothing more than a simple case of “rubbernecking.” There are some commentators who read more into her actions and label her backward glance as an expression of longing and regret. Moses simply states that, as Lot made his way to Zoar, his wife “looked back, and she became a pillar of salt” (Genesis 19:26 ESV). The Hebrew word that is translated “looked back” is נָבַט (nāḇaṭ) and it can mean “to look intently; to gaze.” The thought is that, in looking back, Lot’s wife displayed sorrow for the destruction of her former home. She still harbored strong emotional ties to Sodom.

But it seems more likely that this poor woman, shocked by all that had just happened over the last 24 hours, was distracted by the earth-shattering sounds of God’s divine judgment against Sodom and Gomorrah. But regardless of her motivation, her actions violated the warning of the two angels. They had clearly warned Lot: “Escape for your life. Do not look back or stop anywhere in the valley. Escape to the hills, lest you be swept away” (Genesis 19:17 ESV). 

Once again, Moses provides little in the way of explanation. He mentions nothing about Lot’s reaction to his wife’s sudden and gruesome death. One minute she had been right behind him, alive and well. The next, she was a lifeless pillar of salt. Had Lot turned back? If he did, why was he not struck down by God? Had he continued to run, not realizing his wife’s fate until he arrived in Zoar? Moses provides no answers to these questions. In fact, he changes the subject altogether. In a rather frustrating and seemingly ill-placed aside, Moses refocuses the narrative on Abraham.

Abraham had been the one who negotiated with the Lord, hoping to spare the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah from destruction. But as he stood on the hillside overlooking the valley, he saw the smoke rising up from the burning ruins of the two cities. He must have been shocked at the sight because God had clearly promised to spare the cities if He could find ten righteous individuals living in them. Abraham’s thoughts must have gone to Lot and his family. Were they still alive or had God destroyed there? Moses does not reveal whether God shared with Abraham the fate of his nephew. He simply states that “God remembered Abraham and sent Lot out of the midst of the overthrow when he overthrew the cities in which Lot had lived” (Genesis 19:29 ESV). Abraham had believed that the cities would need to be spared in order to keep Lot alive. But God had something else in mind. He was going to visit judgment upon the wicked while providing a way of escape for the righteous. There had not been ten righteous people living in Sodom. According to the apostle Peter, there had been only one.

God also rescued Lot out of Sodom because he was a righteous man who was sick of the shameful immorality of the wicked people around him. Yes, Lot was a righteous man who was tormented in his soul by the wickedness he saw and heard day after day. So you see, the Lord knows how to rescue godly people from their trials, even while keeping the wicked under punishment until the day of final judgment. He is especially hard on those who follow their own twisted sexual desire, and who despise authority. – 2 Peter 2:7-10 NLT

God rescued Lot but refused to turn a blind eye to the wickedness of Sodom and its sister city, Gomorrah. And delivering Lot, God was demonstrating His faithfulness to fulfill the wish of Abraham. God delivered and destroyed. He demonstrated grace and justice at the same time. He spared the righteous and punished the wicked.

But the story doesn’t end there. When Moses turns the narrative back to Lot and his fate, he has him leaving the village of Zoar and moving into the hills. There is no mention of Lot’s wife. He is now a widower, trying to raise two adult children on his own. For some unexplained reason, Lot felt unsafe living in Zoar. Perhaps the inhabitants saw this stranger’s arrival in their village as some kind of omen. After all, he had been the only one to escape the devastation that had happened in the valley. And these people lived near enough to Sodom and Gomorrah to know all about what had happened. But regardless of his reasons, Lot relocated his dwindling family to a cave. And there the action takes another dark twist.

These two young women now found themselves as damaged goods. They had been betrothed but now their fates were uncertain. In that culture, betrothal was tantamount to marriage. It was based on a binding contract between the two families. A betrothed couple was considered to be married. The only thing missing was the final consummation of the marriage that would take place on their wedding night. So, Lot’s daughters probably considered themselves to be damaged goods. That likely played a part in their fateful decision.

“There are no men left anywhere in this entire area, so we can’t get married like everyone else. And our father will soon be too old to have children. Come, let’s get him drunk with wine, and then we will have sex with him. That way we will preserve our family line through our father.” – Genesis 19:31-32 NLT

Everything about this decision is wrong. It reveals their fatalistic and flawed outlook on life. According to them, their best years were behind them. There was nothing good that could come out of this latest chain of events. Their husbands were dead. Their home had been destroyed. They had lost all their friends in the destruction of Sodom. And their mother had been turned into a pillar of salt by their father’s God. So, faced with the prospect of an uncertain future, they decided to take matters into their own hands. They followed through with their perverse plan. And over the course of two consecutive evenings, each of the girls committed incest with their drunken father.

Moses did not relate this rather X-rated story to titillate and arouse his audience. He was providing them with a history of the Moabites and Ammonites. The unholy union between Lot and his daughters would produce two people groups that would become the perennial and persistent enemies of Israel. It is interesting to consider that God had spared Lot because of the pleadings of Abraham. But His rescue of Lot resulted in the creation of these two nations who would become perpetual thorns in the side of Abraham’s descendants. The Moabites and Ammonites were idolatrous and immoral. In fact, the book of Numbers reveals the sordid story of how the Moabite women lured the men of Israel into immorality and idolatry.

While the Israelites were camped at Acacia Grove, some of the men defiled themselves by having sexual relations with local Moabite women. These women invited them to attend sacrifices to their gods, so the Israelites feasted with them and worshiped the gods of Moab. In this way, Israel joined in the worship of Baal of Peor, causing the Lord’s anger to blaze against his people. – Numbers 25:1-3 NLT

For the people of Israel, this recounting of Lot’s rescue was meant to remind them that the actions of the righteous have implications. God considered Lot to be a righteous man, but he made some very unrighteous decisions. He had no business living in Sodom. He should have never agreed to betroth his daughters to two Sodomite men. Lot had been driven by “the desires of the flesh and the desires of the eyes and pride of life” (1 John 2:16 ESV). Even when he had become “sick of the shameful immorality” (2 Peter 2:7 NLT) in Sodom, he had remained. He didn’t flee immorality. He cozied up to it. He compromised his convictions and ended up paying severe and long-lasting consequences. Yet, Moses ends the story of Lot with the last verse of chapter 19. One man’s decision to settle among the cities of the valley and move his tent as far as Sodom (Genesis 13:12) had produced a lasting legacy of immorality and idolatry that would haunt the descendants of Abraham for generations to come.

English Standard Version (ESV) The Holy Bible, English Standard Version. ESV® Permanent Text Edition® (2016). Copyright © 2001 by Crossway Bibles, a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers.

New Living Translation (NLT) Holy Bible, New Living Translation, copyright © 1996, 2004, 2015 by Tyndale House Foundation. Used by permission of Tyndale House Publishers Inc., Carol Stream, Illinois 60188. All rights reserved.

New English Translation (NET)NET Bible® copyright ©1996-2017 by Biblical Studies Press, L.L.C. http://netbible.com All rights reserved.

Deadly Serious About Marriage

/ kdmiller55 / Leave a comment

22 “If a man is found lying with the wife of another man, both of them shall die, the man who lay with the woman, and the woman. So you shall purge the evil from Israel.

23 “If there is a betrothed virgin, and a man meets her in the city and lies with her, 24 then you shall bring them both out to the gate of that city, and you shall stone them to death with stones, the young woman because she did not cry for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbor’s wife. So you shall purge the evil from your midst.

25 “But if in the open country a man meets a young woman who is betrothed, and the man seizes her and lies with her, then only the man who lay with her shall die. 26 But you shall do nothing to the young woman; she has committed no offense punishable by death. For this case is like that of a man attacking and murdering his neighbor, 27 because he met her in the open country, and though the betrothed young woman cried for help there was no one to rescue her.

28 “If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found, 29 then the man who lay with her shall give to the father of the young woman fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he has violated her. He may not divorce her all his days.

30  “A man shall not take his father’s wife, so that he does not uncover his father’s nakedness.” – Deuteronomy 22:22-30 ESV

God had provided Israel with laws concerning every aspect of life, including marriage. And, because God knew the hearts of His people, His laws covered virtually every conceivable circumstance that might arise. He knew that, in their fallen state, they would be constantly tempted to find loopholes that would allow them to circumvent His laws. That’s why the Mosaic Law contains such explicit instructions regarding the sexual relationship between a man and a woman.

“If a man seduces a virgin who is not betrothed and lies with her, he shall give the bride-price for her and make her his wife. If her father utterly refuses to give her to him, he shall pay money equal to the bride-price for virgins.” – Exodus 22:16-17 ESV

For one thing, these kinds of laws reveal God’s perspective on marriage. His chosen people were not free to let their base sexual passions dictate their behavior. Physical desires, while instilled by the Creator, were not to dictate human interaction. The fall had damaged mankind, leaving behind a natural proclivity to serve self at all costs. And the unequivocal prohibitions God gave the people of Israel were designed to curb their predisposition to allow their basest needs to drive their behavior. So, two of the ten commandments God gave to Moses contained restrictions regarding marriage and sex.

“You shall not commit adultery.” – Exodus 20:14 ESV

“You shall not … covet your neighbor’s wife.” – Exodus 20:17 ESV

These two commands are inextricably linked. Coveting, the attraction to something you do not possess can quickly move from an emotional appetite to a physical action to satisfy that appetite. While the concept of coveting is not always negative, in this context, it carries the idea of desire for something that is off-limits. It is a greed-driven craving for that which has been forbidden. If you covet your neighbor’s wife, it won’t be long before that inappropriate desire manifests itself in action, and the coveting takes the form of adultery.

So, here in Deuteronomy 22, we find Moses providing additional instructions regarding marriage and sex. The very fact that God had Moses go into such great detail reveals the extent of Israel’s love affair with sin and selfishness.

In verses 22-30, there are five specific scenarios outlined that deal with the unseemly topics of adultery and rape. That God had Moses go into such vivid detail reveals the extent of human sin and its infectious nature. While the people of Israel had been set apart by God as His chosen possession, they still suffered from the effects of the fall and were going to find themselves constantly struggling to stifle their naturaul inclination to satisfy self at all costs.

First of all, adultery was a serious matter punishable by death. The marriage union was not something to be taken lightly or treated flippantly. When God said the two shall become one, He meant it. And while man’s sin nature would constantly entice him to replace God’s will with his own self-centered desires, there would always be consequences – deadly serious consequences.

Marriage was so important to God that even the betrothal or engagement stage of the marriage union was protected by His laws. The betrothal period was considered sacrosanct and was to be treated with an appropriate degree of reverence. Even though the betrothed couple had not yet consummated their marriage, they were considered as one in the eyes of God. They were bound together by a covenant agreement. So, if it was discovered that a betrothed woman had sexual relations with a man other than her husband-to-be, she was to be put to death, along with her partner.

But Moses provided a mitigating circumstance. What if the woman had been unwillingly raped by another man? He paints the scenario of a man sexually assaulting a woman in the middle of nowhere, where her screams for help go unanswered. In that case, the man is to be stoned to death for rape and the woman is to be exonerated.

Then, Moses provides one final case involving a man who forcibly rapes an unbetrothed virgin. In this instance, the man is responsible to marry the woman and to pay a proper dowry to her parents. In God’s eyes, the man is guilty of having stolen something of great value: the young woman’s virginity. But he is also guilty of depriving the girl’s parents of their right to a dowry. In the ancient economy, a daughter could bring a family much-needed revenue in the form of money or livestock. A son could work in the fields and help maintain the family’s resources, He could also inherit all that belonged to the family, ensuring that the legacy of his father was continued. But a daughter brought value to the family through marriage. So, if a man raped a virgin, he was obligated to marry her and to provide her family with an appropriate dowry to compensate for his sin.

The final case most likely involves a son marrying his own stepmother. The text describes her as “his father’s wife,” not as his own mother. So, it seems that the circumstance to which Moses refers involves a son marrying the widow of his deceased father. This was considered to be a case of incest, even though the woman was not his actual birth-mother. While the Mosaic Law allowed for a widow to remarry, it was not appropriate for a son to marry his widowed step-mother. Moses describes it as “uncovering his father’s nakedness.”

The apostle Paul had to address this very issue taking place within the church in Corinth.

I can hardly believe the report about the sexual immorality going on among you—something that even pagans don’t do. I am told that a man in your church is living in sin with his stepmother. You are so proud of yourselves, but you should be mourning in sorrow and shame. And you should remove this man from your fellowship. – 1 Corinthians 5:1-2 NLT

God has standards. And He requires that His people live up to those standards. As a holy and righteous God, He cannot allow those who bear His name to conduct themselves according to their own whims. Their sin natures will always lead to moral compromise and result in the defamation of God’s reputation. As His image-bearers, they were to honor His reputation through the way they conducted their lives.

The righteous behavior of God’s people is designed to display His righteousness to the world. They are to outwardly manifest His holiness through their willing obedience to His divine decrees. The laws governing their behavior came from a holy God. Their adherence to those laws was to be a visible expression of their love for Him.

Jesus told His disciples, “If you love me, you will keep my commandments” (John 14:15 ESV). Their obedience was less about displaying their own righteousness, than about expressing their love for the One who is righteous. Living set-apart lives, according to the righteous standards of a holy God, is a tangible way in which the people of God display for their love for Him.

English Standard Version (ESV) The Holy Bible, English Standard Version. ESV® Permanent Text Edition® (2016). Copyright © 2001 by Crossway Bibles, a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers.

New Living Translation (NLT) Holy Bible, New Living Translation, copyright © 1996, 2004, 2015 by Tyndale House Foundation. Used by permission of Tyndale House Publishers Inc., Carol Stream, Illinois 60188. All rights reserved.

The Message (MSG) Copyright © 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 2000, 2001, 2002 by Eugene H. Peterson

Turning A Blind Eye To Sin.

/ kdmiller55 / Leave a comment

And her brother Absalom said to her, “Has Amnon your brother been with you? Now hold your peace, my sister. He is your brother; do not take this to heart.” So Tamar lived, a desolate woman, in her brother Absalom’s house. When King David heard of all these things, he was very angry. But Absalom spoke to Amnon neither good nor bad, for Absalom hated Amnon, because he had violated his sister Tamar.

After two full years Absalom had sheepshearers at Baal-hazor, which is near Ephraim, and Absalom invited all the king’s sons. And Absalom came to the king and said, “Behold, your servant has sheepshearers. Please let the king and his servants go with your servant.” But the king said to Absalom, “No, my son, let us not all go, lest we be burdensome to you.” He pressed him, but he would not go but gave him his blessing. Then Absalom said, “If not, please let my brother Amnon go with us.” And the king said to him, “Why should he go with you?” But Absalom pressed him until he let Amnon and all the king’s sons go with him. Then Absalom commanded his servants, “Mark when Amnon’s heart is merry with wine, and when I say to you, ‘Strike Amnon,’ then kill him. Do not fear; have I not commanded you? Be courageous and be valiant.” So the servants of Absalom did to Amnon as Absalom had commanded. Then all the king’s sons arose, and each mounted his mule and fled.

While they were on the way, news came to David, “Absalom has struck down all the king’s sons, and not one of them is left.” Then the king arose and tore his garments and lay on the earth. And all his servants who were standing by tore their garments. But Jonadab the son of Shimeah, David’s brother, said, “Let not my lord suppose that they have killed all the young men, the king’s sons, for Amnon alone is dead. For by the command of Absalom this has been determined from the day he violated his sister Tamar. Now therefore let not my lord the king so take it to heart as to suppose that all the king’s sons are dead, for Amnon alone is dead.” – 2 Samuel 13:20-33 ESV

God had given instructions regarding incest:

If a man takes his sister, a daughter of his father or a daughter of his mother, and sees her nakedness, and she sees his nakedness, it is a disgrace, and they shall be cut off in the sight of the children of their people. He has uncovered his sister’s nakedness, and he shall bear his iniquity. – Leviticus 20:17 ESV

The only thing unclear to us is the meaning of the phrase, “cut off”. The Hebrew word has a wide range of meanings and can be referring to everything from excommunication from the assembly or to actual execution. But there is little doubt that God expected action to be taken in the case of incest. And yet, as we read the story of Amnon’s rape of his half-sister, Tamar, there is no action taken by David, his father and the king of Israel. Perhaps David was reluctant to deal with Amnon because his sin was quite similar to his own with Bathsheba. He too, had taken what was not his to have. It could also be the case that, as the eldest son, Amnon was considered the heir to David’s throne. But regardless of the reason or David’s rationale, he was wrong for not having taken the matter in hand.

The first place Tamar went after her humiliation by Amnon was to the house of her brother, Absalom. It is interesting to note that she did not go to her father. Was this because she believed she would get no sympathy or revenge from David?  We can only conjecture, but it does raise questions regarding David’s relationships with his children. The only thing we read of David’s emotions during this time is that he was angry. But his anger never took the form of action. In fact, two years would pass before anything happened to Amnon for his act of violating his sister, and David would play no part in it. Except for the fact, that his refusal to do the right thing had lead to another of his sons doing a very wrong thing.

Absalom had been planning and plotting. He hated Amnon for what he had done to Tamar. And we will learn later that Absalom also held a grudge with David for having done nothing to punish Amnon for his transgression. He lost respect for David as a father and as a king. And as we will see later in the story, he would eventually seize the throne from David.

But Absalom, tired of waiting for his father to do the right thing, took matters into his own hands and planned the death of Amnon. It was a well-thought-out plan that also used deception, just as Amnon had done to rape Tamar. Absalom lied to his father in order to get David to agree to send all of his sons to a join Absalom at Baal-hazor. Absalom’s servants would be shearing his sheep and he was going to treat his brothers to a feast in celebration of a bountiful harvest of wool. Initially, Absalom had invited David to come, but seemed to have known that David would decline the offer because of his duties as the king. And David was a little surprised that Absalom had asked specifically for Amnon to come. But under pressure from Absalom, David finally agreed and sent all his sons to Baal-hazor – a decision he would soon regret.

Absalom commanded his servants, “Wait until Amnon gets drunk; then at my signal, kill him! Don’t be afraid. I’m the one who has given the command. Take courage and do it!” (2 Samuel 13:28 NLT). These instruction should sound vaguely familiar. When David wanted to get rid of Uriah so he could marry Bathsheba, he had given Joab instructions: “Station Uriah on the front lines where the battle is fiercest. Then pull back so that he will be killed” (2 Samuel 11:15 NLT). Then when the deed had been done, he followed up with a a second message to Joab: “‘Well, tell Joab not to be discouraged,’ David said. ‘The sword devours this one today and that one tomorrow! Fight harder next time, and conquer the city!’” (2 Samuel 11:25 NLT). Like his father, Absalom chose to use someone else to do his dirty work for him. He would not bloody his own hands, but was more than willing to take the responsibility for Amnon’s death. Both men show a flippancy and disturbing disregard for what they had done.

In all the confusion after Amnon’s death, news was taken to David that wrongly informed him that all of his sons had been killed. His immediate reaction was to tear his clothes and fall on the ground in grief. But once again, he took no action. And his servants followed his example. It was Jonadab, David’s nephew, who informed him of what had happened.

“No, don’t believe that all the king’s sons have been killed! It was only Amnon! Absalom has been plotting this ever since Amnon raped his sister Tamar.” – 2 Samuel 13:32 NLT

Jonadab had a reason to rat on Absalom. He was Amnon’s friend and the one who had given him the bright idea how to lure Tamar into his room so he could rape her. He most likely feared for his own life, believing that Absalom might come after him next. But once again, we see David take no action. And the very next verse reveals that Absalom got away – not only with the murder of his brother, but with his own life.

When David had been confronted by the prophet, Nathan, for his sin with Bathsheba, one of the things he said to him was, “Now therefore the sword shall never depart from your house, because you have despised me and have taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be your wife” (2 Samuel 12:10 ESV). This statement could be taken as a prophecy regarding the wars that David would fight all during his reign. But it would mean that his heirs would have the same problem. Yet, we know that Solomon ruled during a time of great peace and prosperity. So, it is likely that Nathan’s reference to the sword and David’s house, has to do with the battles that would take place within his own family. This would not be the last death of a family member that David would have to endure. He would live to see Absalom die. And at the end of Solomon’s reign, the kingdom would end up divided and the kings of Judah, David’s heirs to his throne, would spend years fighting with one another. There would be assassinations, deception, palace intrigue and a revolving door of kings. So, David’s sin and God’s punishment for that sin was going to have long-term implications both in David’s household and within his royal house.

What would have happened had David dealt with Amnon’s rape of Tamar? How could things have turned out differently had David stepped up and done what was right? Now, his heir to the throne was dead and another son was in exile. And David made no attempt to bring Absalom back and face the consequences for his actions. His inaction would lead to further trouble in his household and within his kingdom. Sin, left unattended and unconfessed is dangerous in the life of a believer. But it is just as dangerous to ignore the sin within the family of God. We may choose to tolerate it or sweep it under the carpet, but sin always has consequences. David was a father and the king. He had responsibilities to his family and his people. He answered to God for the health and well-being of both. And God is not one to tolerate sin or to take it lightly. Amnon paid for his sin. So would Absalom. But what might have happened had David done what he was supposed to do?

English Standard Version (ESV)
The Holy Bible, English Standard Version. ESV® Permanent Text Edition® (2016). Copyright © 2001 by Crossway Bibles, a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers.
New Living Translation (NLT)
Holy Bible, New Living Translation, copyright © 1996, 2004, 2015 by Tyndale House Foundation. Used by permission of Tyndale House Publishers Inc., Carol Stream, Illinois 60188. All rights reserved.

The Message (MSG)Copyright © 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 2000, 2001, 2002 by Eugene H. Peterson