Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Chimamaka Adeniyi's avatar

I see your grievance, and I understand - but this is quite a surface analysis and leaves out the underlying point of this entire story. The book of Samuel (as with Kings and most of the OT) is descriptive and not prescriptive - meaning it simply gives a story account of how (evilly) society operated at the beginning of time.

This account surrounding Tamar’s rape showed the fall of the house of David - because of the curse God had placed on him since the time of Bathsheba, that the sword would never leave his house because of what he did. In this story, every one of his sons died - including him eventually.

Absalom was never ‘made out’ to be the hero by the account, he was in fact still eventually a villain and was killed because he went on to rape his fathers wives. David was rightly portrayed as a very weak father, in the same way that Samuel was.

There is no apologistic portrayal of either David or his sons in these circumstances except that is what was taught to you. In fact, it is very common that the Bible exposes the flaws of these prominent characters, in David’s case he was a bad parent - and this is something widely taught in the church especially as regards that story.

It’s an account of events. The story did not hyperfixate on Tamar because it was about the fall of all the patriarchs of that household - and Tamar did not ‘fall’, she was a victim.

Men were the patriarchs, and it shows how every man patriarch fell and were incapable till Jesus. It was an elaborate genealogy of failure leading up to the Messiah.

Every interpretation we have of who she was or how she ended up is for our own personal deduction, her portrayal was closed by recording that she lived desolate (which literally translates to depressed) in her brother Absaloms house thereafter. We can go on and on about how it affected her life and her psychology but that would be a POV account. Samuel 3 is simply a narration of decadence. Intentionally so, to portray the evil of the world and even how men of God fell, especially before Jesus came (which is the entire point of the Bible - redemption of mankind through Jesus). God hates rape, and it’s clear in the Word. It’s a wholistic book not something to be picked apart.

To the question of what would happen to a ‘man of God’ today if he does such a thing, it is very clear in Paul’s epistles about church procedure - he would be put out of the church to reckon with the devil on the abomination, also would be stripped of his ordinance if it is an organized church. Does this happen in every church? No. But it’s the standard that should be observed if we are truly following the Bible. Any sound sermon you step into, or christian/bible commentary you read about this story will highlight and breakdown the gross misconduct and evil that these happenings were.

The adage of ‘touch not my anointed’ is gotten from the OT when prophets were being targeted to be killed and is grossly misappropriated today to insinuate excusing bad behavior on the part of church shepherds when it truly just means not to harm people of God.

This might not shift your mind, but I hope it sheds some light.

Expand full comment
By Doyinsola's avatar

Please how can I like this a million times?

I don't even believe that Absalom killed his brother because of what he did to Tamar. He probably did it because the rapist raped his gf/wife. He's probably one of those men who stays quiet till it happens to 'their woman'.

Expand full comment
37 more comments...

No posts