Though the death of David’s first son with Bathsheba alerted me that I couldn’t categorize these events as punishments, it was another aspect of David’s personal karma from the hand of Jesus that made it apparent that something else was at play (2 Samuel 12:11, 12 NET).

I am about to bring disaster on you from inside your own household! Right before your eyes I will take your wives and hand them over to your companion. He will have sexual relations with your wives in broad daylight [Table]! Although you have acted in secret, I will do this thing before all Israel, and in broad daylight [Table].

The fulfillment of this promise began when Amnon, one of David’s sons, fell madly in love with his half-sister Tamar.  But she was a virgin, and to Amnon it seemed out of the question to do anything to her.¹  In other words, it was much easier to seduce married, or shall I say sexually experienced, women in ancient Israel than virgins, especially a sister.  Amnon confided in a friend, Jonadab, the son of David’s brother Shimeah…a very crafty man.²  Jonadab had a plan Amnon executed flawlessly.

First, Amnon pretended to be ill.  When David came to Amnon’s house to visit his son, Amnon asked, Please let my sister Tamar come in so she can make a couple of cakes in my sight. Then I will eat from her hand.³  Apparently David sensed no guile in his son’s request.  Please go to the house of Amnon your brother and prepare some food for him,⁴ he told his daughter Tamar.

Tamar did as she was told by her father.  She went to Amnon’s house, kneaded the dough and baked the cakes in front of him.  When she offered the pan to Amnon, he wouldn’t eat.  Get everyone out of here!⁵ he said.  After everyone left Amnon said to Tamar, Bring the cakes into the bedroom; then I will eat from your hand.⁶

Apparently Tamar sensed no guile in her brother’s request.  She followed Amnon into the bedroom.  As she brought the cakes to him, he grabbed her and said, Come on!  Get in bed with me, my sister!

No, my brother!  Tamar replied, Don’t humiliate me!  This just isn’t done in Israel!  Don’t do this foolish thing!  How could I ever be rid of my humiliation?  And you would be considered one of the fools in Israel!⁷

So far Tamar’s protest and the apparent social construct of her reality were congruent with the law:  If a man has sexual intercourse with his sister, whether the daughter of his father or his mother, so that he sees her nakedness and she sees his nakedness, it is a disgrace.  They must be cut off in the sight of the children of their people.  He has exposed his sister’s nakedness; he will bear his punishment for iniquity.⁸  And, You must not have sexual intercourse with your sister, whether she is your father’s daughter or your mother’s daughter, whether she is born in the same household or born outside it; you must not have sexual intercourse with either of them.⁹  But her protest ended with a stridently incongruent comment: Just speak to the king, for he will not withhold me from you.¹⁰

Was she a frightened girl saying whatever desperate thing popped into her head?  Or did she truly believe David would break the law for Amnon’s sake?  Did she have some unique insight into her father’s character?  I’ve never answered these questions to my own satisfaction, but the attempt has uncovered some interesting things I want to pursue here.

Lot, Abraham’s nephew, traveled with his uncle when Abraham set out to search for the land God promised him.  Eventually, Lot settled in Sodom.  After the destruction of Sodom, Lot lived with his two daughters in a cave in the mountains.  The girls, living at what must have seemed like the end of the world, got their father drunk on two successive nights and took turns sleeping with him to preserve their family line.  The older daughter had a son named Moab who became the ancestor of the Moabites.  The younger daughter had a son named Ben-Ammi, the ancestor of the Ammonites.

This story is from Genesis.¹¹  Thus far in the Bible there was nothing resembling a law of sexual regulation except the command, Be fruitful and multiply!¹²  It is interesting to note, however, that despite the lack of regulation and the fact that Lot had lost his wife, his daughters did not suppose that he would fall willingly into their scheme unless he was so drunk he didn’t know or remember what he had done.

The socially constructed reality these girls lived in was also notable for a rather curious human regulation.  It had not been that many days since their father offered them as rape victims to an angry mob to protect two guests who spent the night under his roof.  Something similar to this “law of the guest” is still practiced by the tribes that sheltered Osama bin Laden in the mountains between Pakistan and Afghanistan.  It is not proclaimed in the Bible as a command from God.  It is simply reported in the context of Sodom.  But apparently this man-made custom had such power over Lot that he would sooner see harm come to his own daughters than guests who had come under the protection of his roof.  I think it is safe to assume that girls socialized into that reality were more earthy regarding sexual matters than the prissy misses of a more chivalrous age.

So I can understand this rather odd story in the context of that socially constructed reality.  And apparently the genetic diseases and defects of evolution were not yet so predominant that incest necessarily gave them expression.  Considering the history of mate selection recorded in the Bible, Adam’s and Eve’s sons, Cain and Abel, married their sisters, presumably, with impunity.  DNA was still fresh and pure.  I can imagine the social reality for Cain’s sons, let’s say.  The more traditional among them longed to grow up and marry a sister just like Dad.  But for the innovator there was a brand new exotic form of female, Uncle Abel’s daughters, cousins.  (Adam was rather prolific, so there were also young aunts to consider.)

In the next generation the ultra-orthodox might marry their sisters like Grandpa.  The traditional might marry cousins (or aunts) like Dad.  The innovator had even more varieties of exotic females to choose from.  And the innovator’s options only continued to expand.  Lot was more of an innovator.  His daughters were engaged to men from Sodom, men who laughed at him and refused to flee with him when he warned them of the city’s impending destruction.  Abraham, more of a traditionalist, sent his faithful servant back to his own country to his own relatives to acquire a wife for his son Isaac.  Yes, he went to a family reunion to pick up chicks, for his son.

It’s not too hard to imagine that when the Lord Jesus delivered the law against incest to Moses, it was received as rather scandalous.  It went against too many traditional and orthodox views of appropriate mate selection.  It favored the innovator as righteous.  I assume that ancient Israelites knew nothing of the recipe for human beings stored in DNA, the chance processes that alter that recipe to produce genetic defects and diseases, the recessive nature of those mutations, the Punnett square or any of the scientific rationale that bolsters anti-incest legislation today.  So when a child with a genetic defect was born to a couple that did not heed the law, what could they believe but that the Lord was punishing them for disobeying his law?

Amnon cared more for his passion than God’s law.  He overpowered [Tamar] and humiliated her by raping her.¹³

Addendum: November 11, 2020
I was surprised that the rabbis who translated the Septuagint chose ἠγάπησεν (a form of ἀγαπάω) to describe Amnon’s affection for Tamar: and Amnon the son of David loved (ἠγάπησεν) her (2 Kings 13:1b English Elpenor).  Granted, they had no access to Paul’s definition of ἀγάπη (1 Corinthians 13), but since Paul hadn’t mentioned sexual attraction I had all but banished it from my understanding of ἀγαπάω/ἀγάπη.

As I looked into it briefly I was just as surprised to discover that they had chosen ἐράσθητι (a form of ἐράω) for a children’s love for their parents’ teaching: And forsake it not, and it shall cleave to thee: love (ἐράσθητι) it, and it shall keep thee (Proverbs 4:6 English Elpenor).  It occurs to me that a study of ἀγαπάω/ἀγάπη and ἐράω/ἔρως in the Septuagint could be very illuminating.

If someone reading this is motivated to do the work to make the tables and analyze the occurrences in Hebrew and Greek, I’ll be happy to publish it in installments here under your name or anonymously as you wish.  The article on Eros on “the Love of God project” online is good place to start for source material.  The BLB Septuagint is searchable once you have the word forms down (and spelled correctly).

Such an undertaking requires a younger mind that cares more.  I am old.  I am single.  I can’t even imagine a woman who would tolerate my Bible study routine.

I wrote that “Amnon pretended to be ill,” but the Hebrew word was a form of חָלָה (chalah) translated into Greek with a form of ἀῤῥωστέω.

The final occurrence of a form of חָלָה (chalah) in this story is in Jonadab’s explanation of his scheme.

Here the rabbis translated it μαλακίσθητι (a form of μαλακίζω) in the Septuagint.  Nothing in these words or in any of the words around them implies that Amnon was pretending.  It isn’t necessary to mock him or ridicule this distress—וַיֵּ֨צֶר (yatsar) in Hebrew, translated was so distressed (Tanakh) and became frustrated (NET), ἐθλίβετο (a form of θλίβω) in Greek, translated was tormented (NET) and was distressed (English Elpenor)—to disapprove of his rape of Tamar.  The pain a man feels over a desirable woman he can’t have for whatever reason isn’t assuaged by pretending it isn’t real pain.

Paul wrote (2 Corinthians 1:3-6 NET):

Blessed is the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies and God of all comfort, who comforts us in all our troubles so that we may be able to comfort those experiencing any trouble with the comfort with which we ourselves are comforted by God.  For just as the sufferings of Christ overflow toward us, so also our comfort through Christ¹⁴ overflows to you.  But if we are afflicted (θλιβόμεθα, another form of θλίβω), it is for your comfort and salvation; if we are comforted, it is for your comfort¹⁵ that you experience in your patient endurance of the same sufferings that we also suffer.

I mentioned the tribes in Afghanistan and Pakistan and then failed to footnote that remark.  The following quote is from the The Irish Times article online, “Meet the Pashtuns, the Afghani tribe who rule Pakistan’s’wild west,’” November 10, 2001:

The moral code [e.g., Pashtunwali] also enshrines a principle of hospitality and protection of guests, and this extends even to enemies under one’s roof who surrender their arms upon entering and come under the host’s protection.

“If you look at the Afghanistan crisis, Osama bin Laden is a guest of the Taliban and the Afghan nation who are protecting their guest. People are now dying there but the Afghan people still protect him,” says Badshah [Jan Badshah, a Pashtun from the settled Charsadda district, an all-Pashtun area outside Peshawar].

“If somebody killed a person who disgraced their guest, by Pakistani law he is a criminal. As far as we are concerned we do not consider him a criminal because he is upholding our norms.”

But the very same article calls into question whether Jan Badshah’s contemporaries would surrender their daughters to protect a guest:

At its most extreme, Pashtunwali dictates that a man is duty bound to defend the honour of women in his family or clan which may be violated by as little as an unwelcome lingering glance.

Tables comparing 2 Samuel 13:1; 13:2; 13:3; 13:6; 13:7; 13:9; 13:10; 13:11; 13:12; 13:13; Leviticus 18:9; Genesis 1:28; 2 Samuel 13:14 and 13:5 in the Tanakh, KJV and NET, and tables comparing 2 Samuel (Reigns, Kings) 13:1; 13:2; 13:3; 13:6; 13:7; 13:9; 13:10; 13:11; 13:12; 13:13; Leviticus 18:9; Genesis 1:28; 2 Samuel (Reigns, Kings) 13:14 and 13:5 in the Septuagint (BLB and Elpenor) follow.  A table comparing 2 Corinthians 1:5, 6 in the NET and KJV follows those.