We were warned of coming family breakdown (2 Samuel 12). Our own family’s experience of fostering children taught us the sad lesson of generational dysfunctionality. All the children we fostered had a parent or parents who had been in care. Breaking that cycle is hugely difficult, although thankfully not impossible. David’s lifestyle leaves an imprint on his family; their privilege breeding the sense of entitlement that says ‘you take what you want’. His son Amnon is obsessed with his half-sister and his ‘unprincipled self-indulgence’** leads to the intrigue that will end in Tamar’s rape. Her resistance confirms there is no consent but his abuse of power, sadly modelled by his father, rides roughshod over all her objections.

The rape is quickly over and Amnon’s desire turns to repulsion. But for Tamar, ejected as if she is the offender, the implications of abuse remain. She finds shelter in her brother Absalom’s home, but is left ‘bitter and desolate’ (v 20, The Message), her whole life impacted by a moment of ultimately unsatisfying hedonism. Further trouble awaits as Absalom stores up his enmity. David is angry ‘but he did not punish his son Amnon’ (see verse 21).*** He loved Amnon for one thing, but he also was effectively silenced by the accusation of hypocrisy. What could he say? And so, a tragic episode begins.

**Sovereign Grace Music, 2018. **Brueggeman, p287.
***The Dead Sea Scrolls manuscript and Greek Version add this phrase.

‘...he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was on him, and by his wounds we are healed.’¹

We constantly see accounts of appalling abuse of many kinds. ‘Man’s inhumanity to man’² has not changed much over the centuries! It is hard to see how anyone could read this passage and not be horrified. Two privileged young cousins conspire together to plan an assault on an innocent and defenceless woman. They knew that what they planned was wrong, but they saw any effect their plan might have on Tamar as irrelevant. All that mattered was the fulfilment of Amnon’s desire. What he wanted he had to have, whether that involved raping Tamar or throwing her out into the street. The writer wants readers to be horrified. Note the words describing Amnon: he ‘fell in love’, ‘became so obsessed’, ‘grabbed’, ‘raped’, ‘hated’, ‘with intense hatred’ (vs 1,2,11,14,15). Note, also, the way in which the writer speaks of Tamar; her thoughts and feelings are made clear. She was not recognised as a person by the two conspirators, but she was by the writer: as in the poignant description of the way such a lovely, generous girl, became a ‘desolate woman’ (v 20), her clothes torn and ruined, just as she had been. There is no way this passage could be interpreted as God approving of such awful abuse.

So why are we told this story in this way? David’s involvement seems marginal, but although in that context Tamar going to visit Amnon would be seen as inappropriate, David finds it impossible to deny his son anything. Although he was ‘furious’ (v 21), his failure to either punish his son or support his daughter is significant. Amnon was following his father’s example: he wanted so he took. The after-effects of David’s sin continue.

The danger of concentrating on our own wants, while seeing other people as irrelevant, is not restricted to horrific situations like this. Lord, keep me from that sin. 

¹ Isa 53:5  ² Robert Burns, ‘Man was Made to Mourn: A Dirge’, 1784