David's Nephew

“But Amnon had a friend, whose name was Jonadab, the son of Shimeah, David’s brother. And Jonadab was a very crafty man.” (2 Sam. 13:3, ESV)

Shimeah (or Shammah; see 1 Sam. 16:9) was David’s third brother. Jonadab, the son of Shimeah, was David’s nephew. Amnon was David’s firstborn. Amnon wanted Tamar, Absalom’s sister, so bad that he “was so tormented that he made himself ill.” (13:2, ESV) As a friend and a cousin, Jonadab gave Amnon a piece of advice to approach his sister from another mother: “Lie down on your bed and pretend to be ill. And when your father comes to see you, say to him, ‘Let my sister Tamar come and give me bread to eat, and prepare the food in my sight, that I may see it and eat it from her hand.’” (13:5, ESV) This piece of advice sets the tone for the following narrative (2 Sam. 13-18): Tamar got raped; Absalom murdered Amnon; Absalom fled; Absalom returned and conspired against David; and Absalom was killed.

On the one hand, God’s judgment through Nathan was being fulfilled in the family of David (2 Sam. 12:10-12). Sin has its consequences. David killed Uriah and took his wife: murder and adultery (2 Sam. 11). The text says it clearly: “The thing that David had done displeases the Lord.” (2 Sam. 11:27, ESV) When Nathan confronted and rebuked David with a parable, David could have killed the prophet. (12:1-12) But David repented, “I have sinned against the Lord.” (12:13a, ESV) Instead of committing one more crime, David turned away from his sin. “And Nathan said to David, ‘The Lord also has put away your sin; you shall not die.’” (12:13b, ESV) David was forgiven. But still David bore with the consequences.

On the other hand, unlike readers, characters in the narrative do not know anything about God’s will through Nathan’s prophecy. They just make choices according to what is right in their eyes. They act according to their personal values and personalities. Personal choice and personality make a difference as the story goes. The text says, “Jonadab was a very crafty man.” The Hebrew word hakam can be understood as “wise” or “shrewd.”[1] This guy was wise in a negative way. He didn’t wisely use his smartness. Thus, bible translators usually translate it as “crafty” (ESV, NLT, NRSV). Jonadab counseled his cousin with his craftiness. He counseled according to Amnon’s self-satisfied gratification. His counseling lacked of any moral judgment. Jonadab was wise, but he did not know and fear the Lord. (cf. Prov. 1:7; 9:10)

Jonadab’s craftiness was his character—the core of his being. The narrator does not hide his personality from us. Rather, he allows us to see beyond his outer action: his motive, his character, his inner person. We say that we can only judge people by their actions, for actions show and tell what is inside. Jonadab’s crafty shrewdness pointed Amnon to a wrong direction. Amnon had a bad company who led him to a wrong action even though Amnon was fully responsible for his own action.

In 1 Corinthians 15:33 Paul urges the Corinthians to recognize that ‘evil company corrupts good habits’. Intimate friendships with evil characters will invariably have a negative effect on our lives. Likewise, one can say that ‘good company promotes good habits’.[2]

---

[1] See Ronald F. Youngblood, “1, 2 Samuel,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, vol. 3. Edited by Frank E. Gaebelein (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992), p. 957.

[2] Michael A. G. Haykin, The God Who Draws Near: An Introduction to Biblical Spirituality (Webster: Evangelical Press, 2007), p. 74.

Inner Landscape

After dinner, Sue and I randomly talked as usual. A familiar topic about transition in life emerged. She initiated it and talked about her own. The topic was mainly about life, vision, and role. We can live without exploring our inner worlds. We can move on with our titles—external titles. Because of a sense of lostness, we explore. I think it’s our basic instinct. We can live without asking, seeking, and exploring. If this is the case, we merely exist. We stop living. If we don’t pause and explore, one day human lostness will decompose our lives in terms of vocation, direction, and meaning. We are forever lost if we don’t explore and listen attentively. If we don’t listen, we live with our bodies without souls. “So I do not run aimlessly; I do not box as one beating the air” (1 Cor. 9:26).

Recently, we both realize that we explore our inner landscapes a lot more frequent than before. Perhaps, it’s true that we “settle”, and we don’t have to deal with the externals (e.g. relationship, work, etc…). When we are not fully preoccupied by the externals, we explore the internals.

After our dinner talk, I went back to my room and read the following by Thomas Merton. He wrote this letter to John Hunt on December 18, 1966.

“Thanks for your letter of the 13^th. All right, I am still open to all kinds of suggestions and even have one of my own…Let’s see how I can put it in a few words.

Say an article ‘Speaking Out for the Inside.’ An attempt to make people realize that life can have an interior dimension of depth and awareness which is systematically blocked by our habitual way of life, all concentrated on externals. The poverty of a life fragmented and dispersed in ‘things’ and built on a superficial idea of the self and its relation to what is outside and around it. Importance of freedom from the routines and illusions which keep us subject to things, dependent on what is outside us. The need to open up an inner freedom and vision, which is found in relatedness to something in us which we don’t really know. This is not just the psychological unconscious. It is much more than that. Tillich called it the ground of our being. Traditionally it is called “God,” but images and ideas of the deity do not comprehend it. What is it?

The real inner life and freedom of man begin when this inner dimension opens up and man lives in communion with the unknown within him. On the basis of this he can also be in communion with the same unknown in others. How to describe it? Impossible to describe it. Is it real? People like William James ‘scientifically’ verified its reality at least as a fact of experience in many lives. The appetite for Zen, etc., reflects a need for this. What is Zen? What about LSD? What can one do? And with some observations on the tragic effects of neglect on this: possibly our society will be wrecked because it is completely taken up with externals and has no grasp on this inner dimension of life.

That is rather tough, and it will demand a lot of your readers. My suggestion is: frankly admit the toughness and unpalatableness of the subject and treat it as it is. Some may be hit hard, most will remain indifferent” [Thomas Merton: A Life in Letters. Edited by William H. Shannon and Christine M. Bochen (Notre Dame: Ave Maria Press, 2008), pp. 189-190.].

“Some may be hit hard, most will remain indifferent.”