2 Samuel 13:21

But when King David heard of all these things,.... Of Amnon's ravishing Tamar, and turning her out of doors in that inhuman manner he did, and of her distress upon it: he was very wroth; with Amnon;

But when king David heard of all these things, he was very wroth. When king David heard of all these things, he was very wroth.

To wit, with Amnon; whom yet he did not punish, at least so severely as he should; either from the conscience of his own guilt in the like kind; or from that foolish indulgence which he oft showed to his children; or because the case was perplexed; for if he had been put to death for the fact, by virtue of that law, ,24, she also, who was innocent, must have died with him, because she did not cry out; although indeed that law did not reach the present case, Tamar not being betrothed to a husband: and for the following law concerning a virgin not betrothed, that could have no place here: he could not force Amnon to marry Tamar, because that marriage had been incestuous.

2 Samuel 13:21 But when king David heard of all these things, he was very wroth. Ver. 21. But when king David heard … he was very wroth.] Why! but was that all? Wherefore did not David, as supreme magistrate, see due execution done on this malefactor, though never so great? Why did he not reprove him at least very sharply for this foul fact? Should he have thus connived at Amnon’ s offence, because he was his firstborn, and now looked so thin and wan? Knew he not how ill good Eli sped for his fondness in a like case? Why should the Septuagint and Vulgate hold it but needful here to add to the text these words following, "And he would not grieve the spirit of Amnon, because he greatly loved him, and he was his firstborn?" Queen Elizabeth loved Sir Walter Raleigh well enough, and besides many other favours, made him captain of her guard. Nevertheless when he had deflowered one of her maids of honour - whom he later took to wife - she not only cast him out of favour, but kept him many months in prison. She never suffered any lady to approach her presence, of whose stain she had but the least suspicion, Piety, sobriety, purity, charity, and chastity were her unseparable companions. But it may be the edge of David’ s justice against Amnon was somewhat rebated, by the consideration of his own recent sin with Bathshebah, and against Uriah, which yet God had graciously pardoned and remitted his punishment, more than what was to befall him by the miscarriages and miseries of his own family, whereof this of Amnon was one of the first. But what an unsufferable wickedness was that in Pope Alexander, who when he had heard that his son Caesar Borgia, Duke of Valence, had first invited to a feast his nobility, and then after dinner cut off their heads, smiled at the conceit, and said, his son had showed them a Spanish trick! Camden’ s Elisab., fol. 444. Speed, 1236.

(21) He was very wroth.—The LXX. adds, “but he vexed not the spirit of Amnon his son, because he loved him, because he was his firstborn,”—which is doubtless in part the reason of David’s guilty leniency. The remembrance of his own sin also tended to withhold his hand from the administration of justice. David’s criminal weakness towards his children was the source of much trouble from this time to the end of his life.

Verse 21. But when King David heard] To this verse the Septuagint add the following words: ΚαιουκελυπησετοπνευμαΑμνωντουυἱουαυτου, ὁτιηγαπααυτον, ὁτιπρωτοτοκοςαυτουην; "But he would not grieve the soul of Amnon his son, for he loved him, because he was his first-born." The same addition is found in the Vulgate and in Josephus, and it is possible that this once made a part of the Hebrew text.

21. was very wroth] The Sept. and the ordinary text of the Vulgate add, “and he vexed not the spirit of Amnon his son, because he loved him, because he was his firstborn,” i.e. in spite of his anger he did not punish or even rebuke the offence, though the legal penalty of his crime was death. David’s indulgent treatment of his sons was a fruitful source of mischief (cp. 1 Kings 1:6), and led in this case to the murder of Amnon, and ultimately to Absalom’s rebellion. The consciousness of his own guilt moreover weakened his hands for dealing with Amnon’s offence.

The Septuagint adds, what is a good explanation, “but he did not vex the spirit of Amnon his son, because he loved him, because he was his first-born.” This want of justice in David’s conduct, and

21. He was very wroth — But he let him go unpunished, for, as the Septuagint adds, “he afflicted not the spirit of Amnon, his son, for he loved him because he was his firstborn.” In more than one