Compare David's response in 2 Samuel 20:3 to his earlier decisions in 2 Samuel. Text at a Glance “ When David came to his palace in Jerusalem, he took the ten concubines he had left to care for the palace and put them in custody, providing for them but not going into them. They were kept in confinement until the day of their death, living as widows.” (2 Samuel 20:3) Backdrop: The Pain of Absalom’s Coup • Absalom had publicly violated these women to disgrace David (2 Samuel 16:21-22). • David’s return to Jerusalem is bittersweet—his kingdom is restored, yet the scars of rebellion remain. David’s Immediate Response—Justice Mixed with Mercy • He shelters the concubines, ensuring their material needs are met. • He withholds further marital intimacy, effectively treating them as widows. • His choice protects them from further shame in a culture that prized female purity while acknowledging the irreversible nature of their defilement. Earlier Decisions Worth Comparing • Leaving the Concubines Behind (2 Samuel 15:16) – “The king left ten concubines to take care of the palace.” – Then: a practical, perhaps hurried decision during flight. – Now: he accepts responsibility for the fallout of that choice. • Passivity with Amnon and Tamar (2 Samuel 13:21) – David “was furious” yet did nothing after Tamar’s rape. – Contrast: in 20:3 he takes decisive steps to safeguard violated women. • Allowing Joab’s Violence (3:26-39; 18:5-15) – Earlier reluctance to discipline Joab. – Here, although the text records no punishment for Absalom’s act (Absalom already dead), David does impose a clear, corrective measure over the situation left behind. • Sin with Bathsheba (2 Samuel 11:1-4) – Self-indulgence led him to take another man’s wife. – In 20:3 he denies himself conjugal rights, demonstrating a chastened spirit. • Repentance and Consequences (12:13-23) – Nathan told David, “The sword shall never depart from your house.” – The isolation of the concubines is one more ripple effect; David accepts it without complaint, illustrating submission to God’s discipline. Key Contrasts and Parallels • Then: moral failures and parental passivity; Now: protective, restorative action. • Then: pursuit of personal desire (Bathsheba); Now: self-denial for the women’s sake. • Consistent thread: David often defers ultimate justice to the LORD (cf. 16:10-12; 19:22), yet here he couples that trust with tangible, responsible leadership. Theological Observations • Scripture shows both David’s flaws and growth, underscoring the reliability of the narrative. • God’s covenant faithfulness does not erase earthly consequences (Galatians 6:7-8). • David’s treatment of the concubines reflects the Law’s concern for the vulnerable (Exodus 22:22-24). Practical Takeaways for Today • Past sins forgiven by God may still carry long-term impacts; wise believers steward those consequences redemptively. • Genuine repentance produces concrete change—self-restriction rather than self-indulgence. • Leadership involves protecting the wounded, even when the wounds result from one’s own earlier decisions. |
    |