The Fallible · Synthetic · Study Bible
Absalom’s Revenge on Amnon
2 Samuel 13:23–33 — Absalom’s Revenge on Amnon. Each verse below carries the full apparatus: the Berean Standard Bible, the vocalized original (tap any word), and a parsed breakdown of every term transcribed from the interlinear. Synthesized commentary, canonical threads, and the reading of Christ gather at the end, over the whole unit.
23Two years later, when Absalom’s sheepshearers were at Baal-hazor near Ephraim, he invited all the sons of the king.
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
liš·nā·ṯa·yim yā·mîm way·yih·yū lə·’aḇ·šā·lō·wm bə·ḇa·‘al ḡō·zə·zîm way·hî ḥā·ṣō·wr ’ă·šer ‘im- ’ep̄·rā·yim ’aḇ·šā·lō·wm way·yiq·rā lə·ḵāl bə·nê ham·me·leḵ
Literal — word-for-word from the original
“And-it-came-to-pass at-two-years of-days, and-there-were shearers for-Absalom at-Baal-hazor which is-with Ephraim; and-Absalom called to-all sons-of the-king.”
Where the English smooths the original
Absalom had now silently nourished his revenge for “two full years.” No doubt he chose also to give full opportunity for his father to punish Amnon’s iniquity if he would; and by this long quiet waiting he so far disarmed suspicion that he was able to carry out his purpose.
Two full years; Hebrew, years of days.
The situation of Baal-hazor cannot be precisely determined.Worth keeping in view against confident modern maps: the nineteenth century's best Hebraists could not locate the murder site.
24And he went to the king and said, “Your servant has just hired shearers. Will the king and his servants please come with me?”
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
’aḇ·šā·lō·wm way·yā·ḇō ’el- ham·me·leḵ way·yō·mer lə·‘aḇ·de·ḵā hin·nêh- nā ḡō·zə·zîm ham·me·leḵ wa·‘ă·ḇā·ḏāw nā yê·leḵ- ‘im- ‘aḇ·de·ḵā
Literal — word-for-word from the original
“And-Absalom came unto the-king and-said: Behold-now, shearers for-thy-servant; let-go please the-king and-his-servants with thy-servant.”
Where the English smooths the original
A clever plan for removing all suspicion from Amnon’s mind.
Absalom could hardly have expected the king to accept his invitation, but by pressing him to go he effectively disguised his real purpose, and secured David’s blessing.
are not meant the king's domestic servants, his guard and retinue, but his sons, as appears by what follows.Gill's philological point carries the plot: if “his servants” means David's sons, then v. 26 is not a new request but the fallback Absalom had prepared.
25“No, my son,” the king replied, “we should not all go, or we would be a burden to you.” Although Absalom urged him, he was not willing to go, but gave him his blessing.
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
’al- bə·nî ham·me·leḵ way·yō·mer ’el- ’aḇ·šā·lō·wm ’al- nā kul·lā·nū nê·lêḵ wə·lō niḵ·baḏ ‘ā·le·ḵā way·yip̄·rāṣ- bōw wə·lō- ’ā·ḇāh lā·le·ḵeṯ way·ḇā·ră·ḵê·hū
Literal — word-for-word from the original
“And-the-king said unto Absalom: Nay, my-son, let-us-not, we-pray, all-of-us go, and-not be-heavy upon-thee. And-he-broke-in upon-him, and-not was-he-willing to-go, and-he-blessed-him.”
Where the English smooths the original
These words, in the courtly language of the East, not only mean that David parted from Absalom with kindly feelings and good wishes, but that he made him a rich present
The king declined the invitation that he might not be burdensome to Absalom.
but as David was a king, he must have come with the retinue of a king, with a large number of servants and guards, and must be entertained as such;Gill's reconstruction of the expense is inference, not text; the Hebrew says only niḵbaḏ, “be heavy.”
26“If not,” said Absalom, “please let my brother Amnon go with us.” “Why should he go with you?” the king asked.
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
wā·lō way·yō·mer ’aḇ·šā·lō·wm nā ’ā·ḥî ’am·nō·wn yê·leḵ- ’it·tā·nū lām·māh yê·lêḵ ‘im·māḵ ham·me·leḵ way·yō·mer lōw
Literal — word-for-word from the original
“And-Absalom said: And-if-not, let-go please with-us Amnon my-brother. And-the-king said to-him: Why should-he-go with-thee?”
Where the English smooths the original
27But Absalom urged him, so the king sent Amnon and the rest of his sons.
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
’aḇ·šā·lō·wm way·yip̄·rāṣ- bōw way·yiš·laḥ ’it·tōw ’eṯ- ’am·nō·wn wə·’êṯ kāl- ham·me·leḵ bə·nê
Literal — word-for-word from the original
“And-Absalom broke-in upon-him, and-he-sent with-him Amnon and all sons-of the-king.”
Where the English smooths the original
but God suffered him to be blinded that he might execute his judgments upon David, and bring upon Amnon the just punishment of his lewdness.Benson and Poole both write the sentence this way, and it is a hard one: they read David's blindness as permitted judgment, not mere fatherly naivety. Recorded here as their reading, not as a settled conclusion.
but his mind was blinded, that Amnon's incest might be punished and the threatening to David and his house be fulfilled on account of the affair of Uriah and Bathsheba
The words may easily have dropped out of the Hebrew text owing to the similar endings of the sentences.A text-critical judgment about the Septuagint plus at the end of the verse; the Hebrew as received has no such clause.
28Now Absalom had ordered his young men, “Watch Amnon until his heart is merry with wine, and when I order you to strike Amnon down, you are to kill him. Do not be afraid. Have I not commanded you? Be courageous and valiant!”
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
’aḇ·šā·lō·wm ’eṯ- way·ṣaw nə·‘ā·rāw lê·mōr rə·’ū ’am·nō·wn nā lêḇ- kə·ṭō·wḇ bay·ya·yin wə·’ā·mar·tî ’ă·lê·ḵem hak·kū ’eṯ- ’am·nō·wn wa·hă·mit·tem ’ō·ṯōw ’al- tî·rā·’ū kî ’ā·nō·ḵî hă·lō·w ṣiw·wî·ṯî ’eṯ·ḵem ḥiz·qū wih·yū liḇ·nê- ḥā·yil
Literal — word-for-word from the original
“And-Absalom commanded his-young-men saying: See now, when-good-is the-heart-of Amnon with-the-wine, and-I-say unto-you, Strike Amnon — then-put-him-to-death. Fear not! Is-it-not-that I myself have-commanded you? Be-strong and-be sons-of valour.”
Where the English smooths the original
I who am the king’s son, and, when Amnon is gone, his heir; who therefore shall easily obtain pardon for you, and will liberally reward you?
Such is the pride of the wicked masters, that in all their wicked commandments they think to be obeyed.
Now is the threatened sword drawn in David’s house, which will not depart from it. His eldest son falls by it, through his own wickedness, and his father, by conniving at that wickedness, is accessory to his death.Benson is naming 2 Samuel 12:10 — Nathan's oracle. The identification is his, not the narrator's; the text of chapter 13 never cites the oracle.
On a preconcerted signal from their master, the servants, rushing upon Amnon, slew him at the table, while the rest of the brothers, horror-struck, and apprehending a general massacre, fled in affrighted haste to Jerusalem.
29So Absalom’s young men did to Amnon just as Absalom had ordered. Then all the other sons of the king got up, and each one fled on his mule.
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
’aḇ·šā·lō·wm na·‘ă·rê way·ya·‘ă·śū lə·’am·nō·wn ka·’ă·šer ’aḇ·šā·lō·wm ṣiw·wāh kāl- bə·nê ham·me·leḵ way·yir·kə·ḇū way·yā·qu·mū ’îš way·yā·nu·sū ‘al- pir·dōw
Literal — word-for-word from the original
“And-the-young-men-of Absalom did to-Amnon just-as Absalom had-commanded; and-all sons-of the-king rose, and-they-rode each-man upon his-mule, and-they-fled.”
Where the English smooths the original
It was quite customary for the servants of a prince to obey his orders without question, leaving the entire responsibility to rest with him.Ellicott is describing an ancient convention, not endorsing it; Henry, on the same passage, judges such obedience ill-taught.
the blow was struck so suddenly and unexpectedly, that no resistance was possible, and Absalom escaped without difficulty.
the mule is the royal animal on which David himself rides.
30While they were on the way, a report reached David: “Absalom has struck down all the sons of the king; not one of them is left!”
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
hêm·māh way·hî ḇad·de·reḵ wə·haš·šə·mu·‘āh ḇā·’āh ’el- dā·wiḏ lê·mōr ’aḇ·šā·lō·wm ’eṯ- hik·kāh kāl- bə·nê ham·me·leḵ wə·lō- ’e·ḥāḏ mê·hem nō·w·ṯar
Literal — word-for-word from the original
“And-it-was — they on-the-road — and-the-report came unto David saying: Absalom has-struck all sons-of the-king, and-not is-left of-them one.”
Where the English smooths the original
The story of this exaggerated report, so true to the life, indicates contemporaneous authorship.An argument about the date of composition, drawn from narrative texture; evidential weight is a matter of judgment, and Ellicott offers it as such.
Some of the servants seem to have fled immediately that the attack was made, and in their terror reported, not what had really happened, but what they assumed was Absalom's purpose.
And God suffered this false report to be spread for David’s greater terror and humiliation, that he who had formerly rejoiced in the tidings of Uriah’s death, might now be tormented with the report of the death of all his sons.Poole's providential reading — the false report as measured requital for David's earlier gladness at Uriah's death — is his inference; the narrator draws no such line.
31Then the king stood up, tore his clothes, and lay down on the ground. And all his servants stood by with their clothes torn.
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
ham·me·leḵ way·yā·qām way·yiq·ra‘ ’eṯ- bə·ḡā·ḏāw way·yiš·kaḇ ’ā·rə·ṣāh wə·ḵāl ‘ă·ḇā·ḏāw niṣ·ṣā·ḇîm ḇə·ḡā·ḏîm qə·ru·‘ê
Literal — word-for-word from the original
“And-the-king rose and-tore his-garments and-lay-down earthward; and-all his-servants standing, torn-of garments.”
Where the English smooths the original
The king rent his clothes with horror at such a deed, and sat down upon the ground, and all his servants (courtiers) stood motionless by, with their clothes rent as well.
Rent his clothes. The E. V. has introduced a distinction which does not exist in the Hebrew.
In token of extreme grief and sorrow, as Jacob did when he was shown the coat of Joseph,
Lamenting, as he that felt the wrath of God on his house,Geneva's margin cites 2 Samuel 12:10 here; the citation is the annotator's frame, not a quotation made by the narrative.
32But Jonadab, the son of David’s brother Shimeah, spoke up: “My lord must not think they have killed all the sons of the king, for only Amnon is dead. In fact, Absalom has planned this since the day Amnon violated his sister Tamar.
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
yō·w·nā·ḏāḇ ben- ḏā·wiḏ ’ă·ḥî- šim·‘āh way·ya·‘an ’ă·ḏō·nî ’êṯ ’al- yō·mar way·yō·mer hê·mî·ṯū kāl- han·nə·‘ā·rîm bə·nê- ham·me·leḵ kî- lə·ḇad·dōw ’am·nō·wn mêṯ kî- ’aḇ·šā·lō·wm ‘al- pî hā·yə·ṯāh śū·māh mî·yō·wm ‘an·nō·ṯōw ’êṯ ’ă·ḥō·ṯōw tā·mār
Literal — word-for-word from the original
“And-Jonadab son-of Shimeah brother-of David answered and-said: Let-not my-lord say, All the-young-men, sons-of the-king, they-have-put-to-death — for Amnon to-his-alone is-dead; for upon the-mouth-of Absalom it-was set, from the-day-of his-humbling Tamar his-sister.”
Where the English smooths the original
Literally, upon Absalom’s mouth it hath been set, an expression which has given rise to much variety of interpretation.
Jonadab does not seem to speak from mere conjecture; he is much too sure of what he says.
But all this he seems to have spoken from a probable conjecture, rather than of certain knowledge, as appears by the sequel.Set deliberately against K&D above: the two most careful commentators in this brief reach opposite conclusions about Jonadab's knowledge, and the text does not adjudicate.
Jonadab was as guilty of Ammon's death, as of his sin; such false friends do they prove, who counsel us to do wickedly.Henry assumes what Poole doubts — that Jonadab knew. Recorded as his judgment.
33So now, my lord the king, do not take to heart the report that all the sons of the king are dead. Only Amnon is dead.”
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
wə·‘at·tāh ’ă·ḏō·nî ham·me·leḵ ’al- yā·śêm ’el- lib·bōw dā·ḇār lê·mōr kāl- bə·nê ham·me·leḵ mê·ṯū kî- ’im- lə·ḇad·dōw ’am·nō·wn mêṯ
Literal — word-for-word from the original
“And-now, let-not my-lord the-king set unto his-heart a-word, saying, All sons-of the-king are-dead; for only Amnon to-his-alone is-dead.”
Where the English smooths the original
he repeats it again with great assurance, which seems to confirm the suspicion of him before suggested; though some think he said this not from certain knowledge, but by conjecture.Gill states both possibilities in one sentence and settles neither, which is the honest position on this verse.
He at once gave the true explanation of the catastrophe at Baal-hazor, in spite of the false rumour.
But the information of Jonadab, who seems to have been aware of the plan, and the arrival of the other princes, made known the real extent of the catastrophe.
The verse-by-verse work is done. What follows gathers the whole unit. All three layers below are machine-generated (⚙). Weigh them; they have no authority.
AI synthesis — woven from the public-domain voices above and the original text; generated and fallible.
The unit opens on a measurement, not an action: לִשְׁנָתַיִם יָמִים, “at two years of days.” Pulpit renders the idiom flatly — “Two full years; Hebrew, years of days” — and Ellicott reads the interval as character: Absalom “had now silently nourished his revenge,” and by that long quiet waiting “so far disarmed suspicion that he was able to carry out his purpose.” Poole makes the same delay serve two functions at once, aggravation of the malice and instrument of the policy. ⚙ What the Hebrew adds to their reading is that the narrator gives the number before he gives a single verb of Absalom's: the first fact about this man is how long he can wait. The cover is a shearing feast, גֹזְזִים — “ones cutting” — and the venue is Baal-hazor, a site K&D honestly concedes “cannot be precisely determined.” Then Absalom speaks, and in five clauses he calls himself thy servant three times and himself “I” not once. Cambridge names the effect exactly: “A clever plan for removing all suspicion from Amnon's mind.”
Twice the narrator uses וַיִּפְרָץ־בּוֹ (pārats, H6555), the verb of a wall breached and a flood bursting out; BSB gives “urged” both times, and the repetition disappears. In v. 25 the breach meets a counter-verb, אָבָה — “he was not willing”; in v. 27 there is no counter-verb at all, and the subject of the next verb, “and he sent,” is not even named. K&D observes that David's refusal to go was courtesy, that he might “not be burdensome to Absalom,” and the courtesy is put in the language of weight: נִכְבַּד, from the root that also yields glory. Benson and Poole both write the collapse as judgment rather than mere naivety — “God suffered him to be blinded that he might execute his judgments upon David” — and Gill ties the blinding to Uriah and Bathsheba by name. ⚙ Their reading is an inference; the chapter never cites Nathan. What the chapter does record is stranger and quieter: the last act of the father before the murder is וַיְבָרֲכֵהוּ, a Piel blessing pronounced over Absalom's head — and Pulpit argues from the courtly idiom of 1 Samuel 25:27 that David sent a rich present with it. Cambridge adds a text-critical footnote: the Septuagint closes v. 27 with “Absalom made a feast like the feast of a king,” which Cambridge thinks “may easily have dropped out of the Hebrew text owing to the similar endings of the sentences.”
Absalom's instruction is a small anthology of Israel's holiest formulas turned inside out. אַל־תִּירָאוּ, “fear not,” is the standing word of God to his people; חִזְקוּ וִהְיוּ לִבְנֵי־חָיִל, “be strong and become sons of valour,” is the charge of holy war. Geneva sees the self-assertion underneath — “Such is the pride of the wicked masters, that in all their wicked commandments they think to be obeyed” — and K&D reads “Have not I commanded you?” as Absalom shouldering the liability. Poole hears a bribe in it: I am the king's son and, when Amnon is gone, his heir. The signal is that Amnon's לֵב be “good with wine”; Henry's protest is that he was killed “when least fit to go out of the world.” Then the murder itself is withheld. The Hebrew says only וַיַּעֲשׂוּ, “they did,” plus “as Absalom commanded” — the standing biblical formula for exact obedience, here attached to fratricide. Cambridge supplies the reason no one intervened: “the blow was struck so suddenly and unexpectedly, that no resistance was possible.” The princes rise, ride and flee in three bare consecutives, each on the royal mule that Barnes notes is the animal “on which David himself rides.”
The rumour arrives built out of Absalom's own vocabulary: הִכָּה, the Hifil of nākāh, is the exact verb he gave his servants in v. 28, now attached to “all the king's sons.” Ellicott takes the psychology of the moment as evidence about the book itself — “The story of this exaggerated report, so true to the life, indicates contemporaneous authorship.” Pulpit reconstructs the mechanism: servants fled at the first blow and reported “not what had really happened, but what they assumed was Absalom's purpose.” Poole goes further and reads providence in it, that God suffered the false report to spread “for David's greater terror and humiliation, that he who had formerly rejoiced in the tidings of Uriah's death, might now be tormented with the report of the death of all his sons.” ⚙ That is Poole's theology of the episode, not a statement the narrator makes; it is recorded here as his. What the narrator does is put David through four verbs with no speech attached: rose, tore, lay down, and around him servants נִצָּבִים — K&D's “stood motionless by.” Cambridge notes the English versions manufacture a distinction between “tare his garments” and “clothes rent” which “does not exist in the Hebrew”; it is one root, qāraʻ, twice.
The man who ends the unit is the man who began the chapter's ruin. Barnes flags him as “another instance of Jonadab's subtlety and sagacity,” and Henry puts the indictment plainly: “Jonadab was as guilty of Ammon's death, as of his sin; such false friends do they prove, who counsel us to do wickedly.” His correction runs on the phrase עַל־פִּי אַבְשָׁלוֹם הָיְתָה שׂוּמָה — Ellicott's literal, “upon Absalom's mouth it hath been set, an expression which has given rise to much variety of interpretation.” Pulpit thinks “mouth” may be colloquial, the Syriac reading “mind”; K&D takes it as what could be gathered from Absalom's speech. The two great commentators divide exactly over how much Jonadab knew: K&D says he “does not seem to speak from mere conjecture; he is much too sure of what he says,” while Poole holds “all this he seems to have spoken from a probable conjecture, rather than of certain knowledge.” ⚙ The Hebrew will not settle it, and it should not be settled here. What the Hebrew does settle is the dating of the plan: מִיּוֹם עַנֹּתוֹ, “from the day of his humbling her” — and ʻānāh (H6031) is the verb used of the rape itself. The verdict comes twice, in v. 32 and again in v. 33, in the same three syllables: אַמְנוֹן לְבַדּוֹ מֵת, “Amnon, to his alone, is dead.”
⚙ Offered to be tested, and not as the verdict of the Church. This passage is about what a blessing costs when it is given to a plan instead of to a person. David does three fatherly things in five verses — he refuses to be a burden, he yields to his son's insistence, he lays a Piel blessing on Absalom's head — and each of them, done warmly and in good faith, moves the murder one step closer. Scripture does not here call David a fool; it simply declines to name the subject of the verb “and he sent.” ⚙ I take that grammatical silence as the passage's own comment: a man can be so busy being generous that he never asks what he is being generous to. The counter-weight in the text is that no one in the chapter is permitted to speak for God. Absalom borrows God's own words — fear not, be strong, be sons of valour — to arm an assassination, and the narrator does not correct him; he simply lets the false report come back in Absalom's own verb, hikkāh, “he has struck.” The language you conscript will be the language your ruin is announced in. And the truest thing said in the unit is said by the worst man in it: Amnon alone is dead. ⚙ Jonadab is right, and being right saves nobody; Poole doubts he even knew, K&D is sure he did. Under Sola Scriptura, I read the chapter as refusing the comfort of a reliable narrator inside the story. The reader is told what happened. The characters are only ever told what somebody heard.
The words you borrow from God to arm your servants will come back as the sentence that reports your house's ruin. (This line is not Scripture; it is the tool's own fallible reading, offered to be tested against the text.)
AI-generated connections. Each carries a verification badge with a recorded basis; contested links are flagged.
The name יוֹנָדָב frames the chapter: at 13:3 he is “a very shrewd man” who teaches Amnon how to get Tamar alone; at 13:32 he is the one man in the court who knows what the screaming outside really means. Barnes makes the link explicit, calling v. 32 “another (compare 2 Samuel 13:3) instance of Jonadab's subtlety and sagacity,” and Gill presses it into a charge: if he knew, he was accessory both to the rape and to the murder. The Verifier's computed basis for the pair is the shared rare lexeme H550 ʼAmnôwn, which is the onomastic spine of the whole episode.
2 Samuel 13:3
basis: Verifier: shared Hebrew lexeme H550 ʼAmnôwn (rare — in 22 vv canon-wide). The rarity alone would license a verbal tier, but the shared lexeme is a proper name and neither passage quotes the other, so the verbal tier is deliberately declined and the link is recorded as the structural framing of one narrative by one recurring counsellor.
Immediately before this unit the narrator records that Absalom “spoke to Amnon neither good nor bad, for he hated him.” The unit then opens with the measurement of that silence: two years of days. Ellicott reads the interval as revenge “silently nourished”; K&D notes that this long postponement, precisely in order to strike with certainty, “is quite in the spirit of the East.” The link is not a quotation but the structural seam of the chapter — v. 22 states the silence, v. 23 dates it.
2 Samuel 13:22
basis: Verifier: shared Hebrew lexeme H53 ʼĂbîyshâlôwm (common — in 92 vv), so the vocabulary overlap alone proves nothing; the real basis is narrative adjacency and the shared motif of deliberate silence, noted by Ellicott and K&D.
2 Samuel 3:2 and its parallel in 1 Chronicles 3:1 record David's sons born at Hebron: Amnon the firstborn, and Absalom third. Read against this unit, the genealogy is a casualty list written in advance — the first and third names on it destroy each other, and the succession question that Cambridge, Barnes, Ellicott and Gill all detect behind Absalom's motive is already fixed by the birth order. ⚙ The connection is the machine's, drawn on the Verifier's lexical basis; none of the commentators in this brief make it.
2 Samuel 3:2 · 1 Chronicles 3:1
basis: Verifier: shared Hebrew lexeme H550 ʼAmnôwn (rare — in 22 vv) across all three passages. Tiered structural rather than verbal because the genealogies and this narrative share only the cast, with no citation in either direction.
Benson writes over v. 28, “Now is the threatened sword drawn in David's house, which will not depart from it”; Gill says the blinding of David served so that “the threatening to David and his house be fulfilled on account of the affair of Uriah and Bathsheba”; the Geneva note at v. 31 cites 2 Samuel 12:10 directly against David's lament. So the reading is old and well attested. ⚙ But it must be said honestly that the narrative of chapter 13 never quotes or alludes to the oracle, and the Verifier supplied no shared-lexeme basis for the pair; the connection is the commentators' theological inference, joined here on their authority, not on the text's own cross-reference.
2 Samuel 12:10
basis: No Verifier-computed shared lexeme was supplied for this pair; the recorded basis is the explicit and converging citation of 2 Samuel 12:10 by Geneva (at 13:31), Benson (at 13:28) and Gill (at 13:27) as the frame of this episode. Confirmed as a commentary-attested thematic link, not as a verbal one.
Four of this unit's commentators identify the “Ephraim” of 13:23 with the town, not the tribal territory, and three of them carry the identification to John 11:54, the village to which Jesus withdrew before the last Passover. Cambridge: “The preposition beside or near implies that Ephraim is here the name of a town not of the tribe territory. Cp. John 11:54.” Pulpit and Gill say the same, and Poole offers it as the first of two options. ⚙ This is a toponymic link only, and both ends of it are uncertain — K&D, reviewing the same evidence, declines to locate Baal-hazor at all.
John 11:54
basis: Cross-Testament (Greek↔Hebrew), so no shared Strong's number is possible and no verbal tier is available. The basis is the toponymic identification recorded by Cambridge, Pulpit, Gill and Poole; flagged because the site of Baal-hazor is disputed (K&D expressly refuses to fix it) and the identification of the two Ephraims is a nineteenth-century conjecture, not a textual statement.
AI-generated reading; weigh it against the text.
⚙ Strip the unit to its bare motions and it reads: a father is asked for his firstborn; the father hesitates, yields, and sends him — the Hebrew subject of וַיִּשְׁלַח is not even named; the son goes out to the vineyard-country feast of a brother, and there the servants of the house put him to death on a signal, reckoning, as Ellicott says of such retainers, that the responsibility rests with their master. Our Lord's own parable runs on those same joints — the householder “sent unto them his son,” and the husbandmen said among themselves, “This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and let us seize on his inheritance,” and killed him for the inheritance. Cambridge says of Absalom exactly what the parable says of the husbandmen: he “welcomed the pretext for getting rid of Amnon, who stood between himself and the succession to the throne.” ⚙ The correspondence is figural and inverted, and I claim no more than that: Amnon is no innocent — he is a rapist under a just retribution — while the Son sent into the vineyard is spotless. The type holds in the machinery, not in the merit. What it exposes is the logic of the murderous heart, which is identical in both: the heir is in the way.
Matthew 21:37-39 · Mark 12:7
⚙ By the end of this unit David's firstborn is dead and the man who killed him is riding for Geshur, and the covenant sworn in 2 Samuel 7 — “I will set up thy seed after thee… and I will establish the throne of his kingdom for ever” — is left hanging over a house that is killing its own succession. Poole and Gill read the whole disaster as the sword of 2 Samuel 12:10 falling; Benson says outright, “Now is the threatened sword drawn in David's house, which will not depart from it.” ⚙ Then the reading the whole Church has held: the promise did not fail with the house that broke it, and Gabriel gave the same throne to a Son of David whose reign has no end and whose brothers he does not destroy but redeems. The Davidic-covenant-to-Christ reading is ancient and universal; what is mine, and offered to be tested, is the specific edge this chapter puts on it — that the promise had to be kept by God because it was manifestly not going to be kept by David's sons.
2 Samuel 7:12-16 · Luke 1:32-33
⚙ The king rises, tears his garments and lies אָרְצָה, earthward, while his court stands motionless — K&D's rendering — with no word spoken by anyone. Gill compares Jacob at the coat of Joseph (Genesis 37:34), mourning a son who is not in fact dead. Both are fathers grieving on a false report; in both the grief is real and the information is wrong. ⚙ Held against the Gospel, the figure cuts the other way round: at the cross the report was true, the Son was dead, and the Father's silence was not ignorance. I mark this as my own figural reading and not the commentators' — none of them in this brief draw it — and I would rather it be tested and rejected than repeated because it is affecting.
Genesis 37:34 · 2 Samuel 12:16
The biblical text is the Berean Standard Bible (BSB), public domain (CC0). Hebrew/Greek text, transliteration, morphology and Strong’s are transcribed from the Berean interlinear (CC0) + Strong’s lexicons (PD); the literal renderings, divergence notes, word notes and all synthesis are this tool’s own work (⚙) — fallible; verify them.
Named voices, quoted verbatim from public-domain works:
Text. The Hebrew here is not in serious doubt, with one exception the brief records: the Septuagint adds at the end of 13:27 that “Absalom made a feast like the feast of a king.” Ellicott calls it “an explanatory gloss”; K&D agrees and thinks it was formed on 1 Samuel 25:36; Cambridge, alone of the three, thinks it may be original Hebrew lost by homoioteleuton. This synthesis follows the received Hebrew and does not treat the plus as text. Cambridge also reports that the Septuagint and Vulgate represent a slightly different reading at 13:31 for the servants' clause.
Parsing. Two items are flagged rather than resolved. At 13:26 the Berean parse labels עִמָּךְ second person feminine singular; the consonants are unremarkable and the form is most naturally read as a pausal masculine, and no commentator in this brief comments on it. At 13:25 and 13:29 the interlinear supplies no Strong's number for the preposition-plus-suffix בּוֹ; nothing in the synthesis rests on it.
Geography. Baal-hazor is unlocated. Barnes says flatly it “is not known”; JFB and Pulpit place it about eight miles from Jerusalem on Eusebius' authority; Cambridge proposes Tell Asur; K&D reviews Tell Asur, Ewald's Hazor of Benjamin, and Robinson's conjecture, and declines all three. The identification of the neighbouring Ephraim with the town of John 11:54 is a nineteenth-century inference, and is tiered “flagged” in the threads above for that reason.
What is uncertain in the reading. How much Jonadab knew is genuinely undecided in the sources: K&D says he is “much too sure of what he says” to be guessing; Poole says he spoke “from a probable conjecture, rather than of certain knowledge”; Gill and Henry treat his knowledge as established and therefore treat him as an accessory. This synthesis records the disagreement rather than settling it. Likewise, the reading of David's blindness as permitted judgment (Benson, Poole, Gill) is the commentators' inference — 2 Samuel 13 does not cite Nathan's oracle — and the threads and christ-readings mark where the machine has joined an inference rather than a stated link.
⚙ Machine layer. Every Hebrew form, parse, Strong's number, thread basis and commentary excerpt above comes from the sourced brief; the excerpts are contiguous verbatim substrings selected by anchor, not retyped. The arrangement, the literal renderings, the divergence notes, the sola reading and all three christ-readings are the tool's own fallible work and carry no authority. Where they overclaim, correct them against the text.
✦ = human, public-domain source, quoted and named. ⚙ = machine synthesis, to be verified. Flagged cross-references are left visible on purpose — the verifier working in the open. “Search the Scriptures daily, whether those things were so.” (Acts 17:11)