The inevitable need not be inevitable (2 Sam 13:20-39)

A friend of mine told me that she suffered from a controlling mother and lived through a lot of conflict as she rebelled and fought against her mother’s attitude in her growing-up years. Yet, when she had a daughter, she was horrified to notice that she was reproducing the same pattern of behaviour. In fact, we may all have those moments when we recognise in ourselves what we deplored in our parents. Nevertheless, it is not unavoidable that this should happen. A master’s student of mine, who was writing a dissertation on domestic violence, told me how he saw his father routinely beat up his mother for trivial reasons. My student was sickened by what he had observed and, in his own life and by God’s grace, was able to break the cycle of violence. The inevitable need not be inevitable, but what does it take for us to change course whether we are parents who notice toxic behaviour in ourselves or children trying to escape such a pattern imprinted on our lives?

Absalom’s response

Initially, it may seem that the consequences of David’s sin are inescapable. The seed of stealth and subterfuge in David’s adultery and his murder of Uriah bears fruit in the life of Amnon and now in Absalom’s reaction. The latter’s words to his sister sound shockingly callous (don’t take it to heart; 2 Sam 13:20), but this is merely a cover-up for his tremendous hatred of Amnon (2 Sam 13:22). Indeed, he could nurse his anger under wraps for two years, then bring about revenge on Amnon under the façade of festivities around sheepshearing (2 Sam 13:23, 18). Stealth and subterfuge proliferate. As in David’s case with Uriah, the killing is done by the hand of others (v.18), but Absalom is responsible. Why did Absalom not demand justice from the king, though? Why the secrecy and plotting?

David’s shortcomings

This is where David’s shortcomings and the potential for averting further damage emerge. First, he is furious when he hears what has happened (between Amnon and Tamar) but remains passive (2 Sam 13:21). We are not told why he is incensed, but the final comment from the narrator suggests that his anger was against Amnon (2 Sam 13:39). Yet, he did not act. Did he feel compromised because of his own earlier sin? Was he concerned about reprimanding his heir (Amnon was his firstborn; 2 Sam 3:2)? Both as king and supreme judge of the land and as a father, he should have resolved the tension Amnon’s sin caused by bringing justice.

Secondly, David is curiously unaware of the dynamics in his own family. It is Jonadab, Amnon’s friend who noticed earlier how downcast the prince was (2 Sam 13:4) and Absalom who immediately connected Tamar’s distressed appearance with Amnon (2 Sam 13:20). The king only hears of what has happened, he is not directly involved. He has some suspicions about the simmering hatred between his two sons, indicated by his question about why Amnon should go to the sheepshearing (2 Sam 13:26). Yet, he believes the false rumour that Absalom killed all the king’s sons (2 Sam 13:30-31) and it is Jonadab again, who puts the record straight and is proved right, not because he witnessed the killing but because he understands the dynamics between the royal siblings (2 Sam 13:32, 36).

The inevitable need not be inevitable

David’s story highlights two attributes that contribute to the ongoing issues beyond his original sin, which are helpful for us to remember in our struggles to escape the course that others’ unhealthy attitudes or our own set for us. To break a pattern, we need awareness of the dynamics around us and in us. It takes humility to notice and acknowledge these and courage to face them. Further, there must be a willingness to address and look for ways to resolve tensions and festering wounds, whether it involves seeking justice or leaving it in the Lord’s hands, asking for or offering forgiveness. It is when we do these things that we become enabled to escape destructive patterns in our lives.

If you enjoyed this post, please share it with others.