Why did David send Tamar to Amnon in 2 Samuel 13:7 despite potential danger? Text and Immediate Context “David sent word to Tamar at the palace: ‘Please go to your brother Amnon’s house and prepare a meal for him.’ ” (2 Samuel 13:7). The command follows Amnon’s false claim of illness (v. 6) and prefaces the assault (vv. 8–14). No textual variant alters David’s directive; the Masoretic Text, Septuagint, Dead Sea Scroll fragment 4Q51 (4 Samᵃ), and the Syriac Peshitta concur, confirming the narrative’s integrity. Royal Family Protocol and Cultural Expectations 1. Hospitality and kin‐care. In ancient Near Eastern courts, female relatives commonly attended ailing males (cf. Genesis 27:9; 29:9). A virgin princess entering a half-brother’s quarters, while potentially compromising in modern perception, signaled familial loyalty, not impropriety, within palace confines guarded by servants (2 Samuel 13:9). 2. Patriarchal authority. Custom obliged children to obey a father-king’s summons (Exodus 20:12; Proverbs 30:17). David’s directive fit cultural norms; refusal by Tamar could imply rebellion. 3. Legal innocence. Pre-assault, no public suspicion existed. Amnon’s deceit (“make me cakes in my sight,” v. 6) masked any threat. The royal court would presume safety under sworn palace guardians (cf. 1 Kings 1:15). David’s Limited Knowledge and Intent Verse 3 emphasizes secrecy: “Amnon had a friend … Jonadab … very shrewd.” Jonadab alone knew Amnon’s desire. David, unaware of lustful intent, acted on the information presented—his son was sick. Lack of omniscience in human rulers differentiates them from the LORD, who “does not look at the things man looks at” (1 Samuel 16:7). David’s instruction thus flowed from paternal compassion, not willful endangerment. David’s Spiritual Condition and Parental Blindness Nathan’s oracle (2 Samuel 12:10–12) foretold calamity “from your own house.” Post-Bathsheba remorse left David emotionally weakened and lenient toward his offspring (cf. 1 Kings 1:6 regarding Adonijah). Behavioral studies on guilt-driven permissiveness mirror this: parents burdened by personal failure often forfeit needed discipline, illustrating Proverbs 19:18’s warning. David’s failure to inquire further about Amnon’s illness reflects such passivity. Consequences of Sin and Divine Justice The episode functions as covenantal retribution. David’s sin involved illicit sexual taking; the judgment mirrors it (Galatians 6:7). God’s sovereignty employed human choices—Jonadab’s cunning, Amnon’s lust, David’s naiveté—to fulfill prophetic declaration while never authoring evil (James 1:13). Scripture harmonizes both human responsibility and divine foreknowledge (Acts 2:23). Free Will, Moral Agency, and Providential Oversight Amnon’s premeditation (vv. 2, 6) establishes culpability. Tamar entered innocently; David’s command does not absolve Amnon. The event showcases libertarian agency under providence: God permits but does not coerce sin, later turning it toward ultimate good—establishing Absalom’s revolt that purges the kingdom and refines David’s faith (Psalm 3 superscription). Archaeological Corroboration of Setting Excavations on the City of David ridge (Eilat Mazar, 2005–2009) unearthed a 10th-century BC large-stone structure consistent with a royal palace footprint, aligning with the biblical chronology (Ussher: 1018 BC for Amnon’s birth, c. 997 BC for assault). Pottery assemblages (Iron IIa) match the period, lending geographical credibility to the narrative locale described. Pastoral and Ethical Implications 1. Guard all relationships (1 Timothy 5:2). Physical proximity among family members must still heed moral vigilance. 2. Confront sin early (Matthew 5:29). Jonadab’s counsel unchecked bred tragedy. 3. Parental vigilance. Hebrews 12:11 extols corrective discipline; neglect invites harm. 4. Seek God’s wisdom (James 1:5). David acted on surface data; believers must prayerfully probe deeper. Foreshadowing of the Gospel Tamar’s innocence foreshadows the suffering of the Righteous One assaulted by sin’s violence. Yet, unlike David, the Father knowingly sent His Son into a hostile world (John 3:16), not through naïveté but redemptive purpose. The outrage at Tamar’s defilement heightens awareness of humanity’s outrage against Christ (Acts 4:27), making His resurrection the ultimate vindication and hope for victims of injustice. Summary Answer David sent Tamar because, based on cultural norms and the deceptive information provided, he perceived no threat; his paternal compassion, weakened moral vigilance after his own sin, and ignorance of Amnon’s lust converged. God permitted the event as part of announced discipline upon David’s house, illustrating human responsibility within divine sovereignty and reinforcing the necessity of vigilant righteousness in every household. |
    |