2 Samuel 20:3

Translation
King James Version
And David came to his house at Jerusalem; and the king took the ten women his concubines, whom he had left to keep the house, and put them in ward, and fed them, but went not in unto them. So they were shut up unto the day of their death, living in widowhood.
Ask
KJV (with Strong's)
And David H1732 came H935 to his house H1004 at Jerusalem H3389; and the king H4428 took H3947 the ten H6235 women H802 his concubines H6370, whom he had left H3240 to keep H8104 the house H1004, and put H5414 them in ward H4931, and fed H3557 them, but went not in H935 unto them. So they were shut up H6887 unto the day H3117 of their death H4191, living H2424 in widowhood H491.
Ask
Complete Jewish Bible
When David arrived at his palace in Yerushalayim, the king took the ten women who were his concubines, whom he had left to care for the palace, and put them under guard. He provided for their needs but never slept with them again. They were kept in confinement until the day of their death, living like widows with their husband still alive.
Ask
Berean Standard Bible
When David returned to his palace in Jerusalem, he took the ten concubines he had left to care for the palace, and he placed them in a house under guard. He provided for them, but he no longer slept with them. They were confined until the day of their death, living as widows.
Ask
American Standard Version
And David came to his house at Jerusalem; and the king took the ten women his concubines, whom he had left to keep the house, and put them in ward, and provided them with sustenance, but went not in unto them. So they were shut up unto the day of their death, living in widowhood.
Ask
World English Bible Messianic
David came to his house at Jerusalem; and the king took the ten women his concubines, whom he had left to keep the house, and put them in custody, and provided them with sustenance, but didn’t go in to them. So they were shut up to the day of their death, living in widowhood.
Ask
Geneva Bible (1599)
When Dauid then came to his house to Ierusalem, the King tooke the ten women his concubines, that hee had left behinde him to keepe the house, and put them in warde, and fed them, but lay no more with them: but they were enclosed vnto the day of their death, liuing in widowhode.
Ask
Young's Literal Translation
And David cometh in unto his house at Jerusalem, and the king taketh the ten women-concubines--whom he had left to keep the house, and putteth them in a house of ward, and sustaineth them, and unto them he hath not gone in, and they are shut up unto the day of their death, in widowhood living.
Ask
See also
2 Samuel 16:212 Samuel 16:222 Samuel 15:16Genesis 40:3
See on the biblical-era map
City Plan: Jerusalem in the Time of David
City Plan: Jerusalem in the Time of David View full PDF
David Returns to Jerusalem
David Returns to Jerusalem View full PDF
Sheba’s Revolt
Sheba’s Revolt View full PDF

Map © Biblica Open Bible Maps · CC BY-SA 4.0

In the KJVVerse 8,558 of 31,102

Study This Verse

SUMMARY

Upon his return to Jerusalem following Absalom's rebellion, King David faced the profound implications of his son's public defilement of his ten concubines. In a decision born of pragmatic necessity and cultural constraint, David confined these women to perpetual "ward," providing for their basic needs but ceasing all marital relations with them. This act condemned them to a lifetime of isolated "widowhood," a somber and enduring testament to the far-reaching and devastating consequences of sin and rebellion within the royal household, highlighting the innocent suffering caught in the wake of others' transgressions.

CONTEXT

  • Literary Context: This verse is strategically placed immediately after David's tumultuous and emotionally charged return to Jerusalem, following the defeat and death of his rebellious son, Absalom. The preceding chapters meticulously detail Absalom's usurpation of the throne, culminating in his deliberate and public act of lying with David's ten concubines on the palace roof. This act, advised by Ahithophel, was a calculated political maneuver designed to irrevocably sever David's connection to his kingdom and make his return impossible, thereby solidifying Absalom's claim (as seen in [2 Samuel 16:20-23 "2 Samuel 16:20-23 - Ahithophel's Counsel and Absalom's Actions"]). David's re-entry into Jerusalem (described in [2 Samuel 19 "2 Samuel 19 - David's Return to Jerusalem"]) brings him face-to-face with the immediate and profound challenge of how to deal with these women, who were victims of Absalom's political and personal assault. Their fate in this verse is a direct and tragic consequence of Absalom's actions, serving as a poignant illustration of the lingering scars of the rebellion, even as David attempts to re-establish order in his household and kingdom. The narrative then swiftly transitions to another rebellion led by Sheba (detailed in [2 Samuel 20 "2 Samuel 20 - Sheba's Rebellion"]), further highlighting the persistent instability and brokenness that continued to plague David's reign, directly stemming from the consequences of his own past sins.
  • Historical & Cultural Context: In ancient Near Eastern monarchies, a king's concubines were not merely sexual partners but integral parts of his royal property and household, their status distinct from primary wives but still significant as symbols of his power and progeny. To publicly defile the king's concubines was an act of profound disrespect, a direct challenge to his authority, and a symbolic usurpation of his honor and throne. Such an act was universally understood as a clear declaration of a new king's claim, as evidenced in various historical and cultural parallels across the region. Furthermore, ancient Israelite society placed an extremely high value on ritual purity, family honor, and the sanctity of marital relations. Sexual relations with a father's wife or concubine were considered incestuous and highly defiling, explicitly forbidden by Mosaic Law ([Leviticus 18:8 "Leviticus 18:8 - Prohibition of Lying with Father's Wife"] and [Deuteronomy 22:30 "Deuteronomy 22:30 - Prohibition of Incestuous Relations"]). David, as king and a devout follower of Yahweh, could not resume marital relations with women who had been publicly defiled in such a manner without further compromising his kingship, violating deeply held societal norms, and transgressing religious law. Yet, he also could not simply cast them out, as they were victims, nor execute them, as they had committed no offense. His decision reflects the complex cultural, legal, and theological dilemmas of his time, where perfect solutions were often elusive, and difficult, pragmatic choices had to be made, even if they carried a heavy human cost.
  • Key Themes: This verse powerfully illustrates the pervasive and tragic consequences of sin, particularly within a royal household and extending to the innocent. Absalom's rebellion and his specific act of defilement not only led to his own demise but also condemned these ten women to a lifetime of isolation, sorrow, and social death. It serves as a stark reminder of how the choices of one person, especially a leader, can have devastating ripple effects on others, echoing the prophecy concerning David's own household after his sin with Bathsheba (see [2 Samuel 12:11-12 "2 Samuel 12:11-12 - Nathan's Prophecy of David's Household Troubles"]). The concubines' situation highlights the vulnerability of the innocent who become collateral damage in the wake of others' moral failures and political conflicts, underscoring the profound loss of dignity and freedom for those caught in such crossfire. David's response reveals the complexities of leadership and justice in a fallen world, where perfect solutions are often unattainable, and difficult, pragmatic decisions must be made, even if they carry a heavy human cost. The theme of brokenness within David's family and kingdom, a direct result of his own past transgressions, continues to unfold, demonstrating that even divine forgiveness does not always negate earthly consequences.

EXPOSITION AND ANALYSIS

Key Word Analysis

  • Ward (Hebrew, mishmereth', H4931): This term (H4931, מִשְׁמֶרֶת) refers to a place of custody, keeping, or a guarded residence. It implies confinement or restriction, not necessarily a dungeon or prison, but a designated area from which they could not freely depart. The women were essentially under a form of house arrest, segregated from the rest of the royal household and public life, their freedom severely curtailed.
  • Fed them (Hebrew, kûwl', H3557): The verb (H3557, כּוּל) means "to keep in," "to maintain," "to sustain," or "to provide for." This indicates that David did not abandon them to destitution or starvation. He took responsibility for their physical well-being, ensuring they had food, shelter, and basic necessities. This demonstrates a measure of compassion and responsibility, even within the harsh reality of their confinement and social ostracization.
  • Widowhood (Hebrew, ʼalmânûwth', H491): This noun (H491, אַלְמְנוּת) literally means "the state of being a widow." Its use here is profoundly significant and tragic. While David, their "husband" (as their master and provider), was alive and present, they were treated as though he were dead in terms of conjugal relations, social function, and familial integration. This metaphorical "widowhood" signifies a permanent state of social and marital isolation, a living death where their roles as concubines, wives, and potential mothers within the royal household were irrevocably severed, leaving them without the possibility of remarriage or a return to normal life.

Verse Breakdown

  • "And David came to his house at Jerusalem;": This clause marks David's successful, though arduous and morally compromised, return to his capital and throne after the rebellion. It signifies the re-establishment of his physical presence and, by extension, his authority in the heart of his kingdom, setting the stage for the difficult decisions he must make.
  • "and the king took the ten women [his] concubines, whom he had left to keep the house,": This identifies the specific group of women—David's concubines—and their previous, vulnerable role. They were left behind, entrusted with the care of the palace, making them easy targets for Absalom's political machinations and highlighting their status as royal property. David's "taking" them implies a deliberate, administrative action concerning their fate, acknowledging his responsibility for them.
  • "and put them in ward, and fed them, but went not in unto them.": This is the core of David's decision and the immediate consequence for the women. "Put them in ward" details their confinement and segregation from the rest of the royal household. "Fed them" highlights his provision for their physical needs, indicating a degree of care despite their isolation. "But went not in unto them" is the crucial detail, signifying the complete cessation of all marital and sexual relations, a necessary action to maintain his honor and kingship in the eyes of the people, given their public defilement.
  • "So they were shut up unto the day of their death, living in widowhood.": This final clause describes the tragic and permanent consequence for the concubines. "Shut up" reinforces their confinement and the irreversible nature of their situation. Their fate was sealed for life; they would remain isolated, without the possibility of remarriage or resuming their former status, enduring a perpetual "widowhood" despite David being alive, a poignant symbol of their living death.

Literary Devices

The narrative of David's concubines in 2 Samuel 20:3 employs several powerful literary devices that underscore its tragic themes. There is a profound irony in their situation: these women were "left to keep the house," a role implying trust, protection, and responsibility for the royal abode, yet upon David's return, they are "put in ward," essentially confined and guarded within the very house they were meant to safeguard. Their status shifts dramatically from caretakers to perpetual captives. Symbolism is also central; the concubines, as extensions of the king's household and honor, symbolize the kingdom itself, which was publicly defiled, torn apart by rebellion, and left with lasting scars. David's inability to fully restore them, and their enduring "widowhood," symbolizes the persistent brokenness and unresolved consequences inflicted upon David's reign and family by sin. The entire account is steeped in tragedy, highlighting the innocent suffering that becomes collateral damage in the wake of others' moral failures and political conflicts, underscoring the grim reality of sin's far-reaching and indiscriminate consequences.

THEOLOGICAL AND THEMATIC CONNECTIONS

This poignant account in 2 Samuel 20:3 serves as a stark reminder of the pervasive and devastating consequences of sin, extending far beyond the immediate perpetrator to impact the innocent. It underscores the biblical truth that while God forgives, the earthly ripple effects of disobedience often persist, particularly within the context of leadership and covenant. David's own sin with Bathsheba and Uriah had led to Nathan's prophecy that "the sword shall never depart from your house" and that "I will raise up evil against you from your own house; and I will take your wives before your eyes and give them to your neighbor, and he shall lie with your wives in the sight of this sun" 2 Samuel 12:10-12. Absalom's public defilement of the concubines is a direct, horrifying fulfillment of this divine judgment, demonstrating God's sovereign hand in bringing about the consequences of sin, even through the wicked actions of others. The concubines, though innocent victims, bear the indelible mark of this brokenness, highlighting the tragic reality of life in a fallen world where justice is often imperfect and suffering is unjustly distributed, echoing the prohibitions against such defilement found in the Law.

REFLECTION AND APPLICATION

The tragic fate of David's concubines in 2 Samuel 20:3 offers profound lessons for contemporary reflection, compelling us to confront the reality of how personal and corporate sin, especially that committed by those in positions of authority, can inflict lasting damage on innocent lives. We are reminded that even when forgiveness is extended and reconciliation is sought, the consequences of moral compromise can cast long shadows, creating complex dilemmas with no easy answers. David's decision, while pragmatic within his cultural and political context, was undeniably harsh for the women, forcing us to grapple with the tension between societal norms, personal honor, and compassion for the vulnerable. This narrative challenges us to consider our own roles in perpetuating or alleviating suffering, particularly for those who become "collateral damage" in conflicts or as a result of others' failures. It calls for empathy, wisdom, and a deep reliance on God's grace when navigating situations where there are no perfect solutions, only the best possible navigation of a broken reality, always striving to protect the most vulnerable.

Questions for Reflection

  • How do the actions of leaders, both good and bad, impact the lives of those under their authority, particularly the vulnerable and marginalized?
  • What does David's dilemma reveal about the complexities of justice, honor, and compassion in a fallen world where perfect solutions are often unattainable, and how should believers respond to such imperfect realities?
  • In what ways might we, as individuals or communities, be called to show empathy, advocate for, and provide support to those who suffer as "collateral damage" from others' choices or systemic brokenness?
  • How does this narrative challenge our understanding of "consequences" in light of divine forgiveness, and what does it teach us about the lasting scars of sin that even grace does not always immediately erase on earth?

FAQ

Why couldn't David simply send the concubines away or allow them to remarry?

Answer: In ancient Israelite society, a king's concubines were considered his property and an integral part of his household, symbolizing his power and honor. Their public defilement by Absalom was not merely a personal affront but a highly political act intended to demonstrate Absalom's usurpation of David's throne and honor. To send them away would have been seen as an abandonment of his responsibility for them and potentially an admission of weakness or an inability to manage his own household, which was a microcosm of his kingdom. Furthermore, their defilement by his son would have rendered them ritually impure for David Leviticus 18:8. Allowing them to remarry would have been equally problematic; it would imply that another man could "take" what belonged to the king and had been publicly defiled, further diminishing David's honor and kingship. David's solution, though tragic for the women, was a pragmatic attempt to manage an impossible situation within the constraints of his culture, maintaining a semblance of order and honor while acknowledging the irreversible nature of their defilement.

Was David's action towards the concubines just or compassionate?

Answer: David's action is complex, revealing both a culturally defined sense of justice and a limited form of compassion. From a purely legal and societal standpoint within his ancient Near Eastern context, David's response was a necessary, albeit harsh, measure to re-establish his honor and kingship after such a public defilement. He could not resume relations with women who had been ritually and politically compromised by his son's incestuous act without further undermining his authority and violating deeply held cultural norms. His decision to "feed them" (provide for their sustenance) rather than simply casting them out or executing them (which might have been considered justifiable in some ancient Near Eastern cultures for such a perceived stain on his honor) demonstrates a degree of compassion and responsibility. However, from the perspective of the women, their fate was undoubtedly tragic and unjust. They were innocent victims, yet condemned to a lifetime of "widowhood" and confinement. This highlights the inherent brokenness and imperfect justice in a fallen world, where even a king's "best" solution can result in profound suffering for the innocent.

What was the symbolic significance of Absalom defiling David's concubines?

Answer: Absalom's public defilement of David's concubines (as recorded in [2 Samuel 16:22 "2 Samuel 16:22 - Absalom's Public Defilement of Concubines"]) was a highly symbolic and politically charged act, far more than a personal affront. In the ancient Near East, taking possession of a king's concubines or wives was a clear and unequivocal declaration of usurpation and a claim to the throne. It signified that the new ruler had fully taken over the previous king's power, authority, and household, effectively establishing his own legitimacy. By doing so publicly on the palace roof, Absalom aimed to make his break with David irreversible in the eyes of all Israel, demonstrating that David could never again fully reclaim his kingdom or his honor. It was a deliberate act of humiliation and a ritual severance of David's connection to his own royal line and authority, effectively burning the bridges for any potential reconciliation and leaving no doubt about his claim to the kingship.

CHRIST-CENTERED FULFILLMENT

The tragic narrative of David's concubines, condemned to a perpetual "widowhood" and isolation due to the sins of others, powerfully foreshadows the profound brokenness of humanity and its desperate need for a perfect King. David, though a man after God's own heart, was unable to fully restore what had been defiled; his solution, while pragmatic, left innocent victims in a state of unresolved suffering and social death. This stands in stark contrast to the redemptive work of Jesus Christ, the true Son of David (as affirmed in [Matthew 1:1 "Matthew 1:1 - Genealogy of Jesus"]), who alone can perfectly reconcile and restore. While David could only manage the consequences of sin with a mixture of justice and limited compassion, Jesus, our perfect King and High Priest, fully bears the consequences of our defilement. He did not merely confine sin's victims but entered into their suffering, taking upon Himself the full weight of humanity's rebellion and brokenness (as prophesied in [Isaiah 53:5 "Isaiah 53:5 - The Suffering Servant"]).

Unlike David, who could not "go in unto" his defiled concubines, Christ, through His atoning sacrifice, cleanses His bride, the Church, from all impurity, making her holy and blameless before God (as described in [Ephesians 5:25-27 "Ephesians 5:25-27 - Christ's Love for the Church"]). The concubines' "widowhood" despite a living husband symbolizes spiritual alienation and separation from God due to sin, a state from which humanity cannot escape on its own. In Christ, this spiritual alienation is overcome; believers are no longer "widows" but are united to Him in a glorious and unbreakable covenant, anticipating the ultimate "marriage supper of the Lamb" Revelation 19:7-9. Where David's kingdom was marred by internal strife and lasting scars, Christ's kingdom is one of perfect righteousness, peace, and joy, offering true restoration and freedom from the condemnation of sin Romans 8:1-2. He is the sympathetic King who understands our plight Hebrews 4:15 and brings complete healing and eternal life where human kings can only offer partial, painful solutions.

Copy as

Commentary on 2 Samuel 20 verses 1–3

David, in the midst of his triumphs, has here the affliction to see his kingdom disturbed and his family disgraced.

I. His subjects revolting from him at the instigation of a man of Belial, whom they followed when they forsook the man after God's own heart. Observe, 1. That this happened immediately upon the crushing of Absalom's rebellion. We must not think it strange, while we are in this world, if the end of one trouble be the beginning of another: deep sometimes calls unto deep. 2. That the people were now just returning to their allegiance, when, of a sudden, they flew off from it. When a reconciliation is newly made, it ought to be handled with great tenderness and caution, lest the peace break again before it be settled. A broken bone, when it is set, must have time to knot. 3. That the ring-leader of this rebellion was Sheba, a Benjamite by birth (Sa2 20:1), who had his habitation in Mount Ephraim, Sa2 20:21. Shimei and he were both of Saul's tribe, and both retained the ancient grudge of that house. Against the kingdom of the Messiah there is an hereditary enmity in the serpent's seed, and a succession of attempts to overthrow it (Psa 2:1, Psa 2:2); but he that sits in heaven laughs at them all. 4. That the occasion of it was that foolish quarrel, which we read of in the close of the foregoing chapter, between the elders of Israel and the elders of Judah, about bringing the king back. It was a point of honour that was disputed between them, which had most interest in David. "We are more numerous," say the elders of Israel. "We are nearer akin to him," say the elders of Judah. Now one would think David very safe and happy when his subjects are striving which shall love him best, and be most forward to show him respect; yet even that strife proves the occasion of a rebellion. The men of Israel complained to David of the slight which the men of Judah had put upon them. If he had now countenanced their complaint, commended their zeal, and returned them thanks for it, he might have confirmed them in his interest; but he seemed partial to his own tribe: Their words prevailed above the words of the men of Israel; as some read the last words of the foregoing chapter. David inclined to justify them, and, when the men of Israel perceived this, they flew off with indignation. "If the king will suffer himself to be engrossed by the men of Judah, let him and them make their best of one another, and we will set up one for ourselves. We thought we had ten parts in David, but such an interest will not be allowed us; the men of Judah tell us, in effect, we have no part in him, and therefore we will have none, nor will we attend him any further in his return to Jerusalem, nor own him for our king." This was proclaimed by Sheba (Sa2 20:1), who probably was a man of note, and had been active in Absalom's rebellion; the disgusted Israelites took the hint, and went up from after David to follow Sheba (Sa2 20:2), that is, the generality of them did so, only the men of Judah adhered to him. Learn hence, (1.) That it is as impolitic for princes to be partial in their attentions to their subjects as it is for parents to be so to their children; both should carry it with an even hand. (2.) Those know not what they do that make light of the affections of their inferiors, by not countenancing and accepting it. Their hatred may be feared whose love is despised. (3.) The beginning of strife is as the letting forth of water; it is therefore wisdom to leave it off before it be meddled with, Pro 17:14. How great a matter doth a little of this fire kindle! (4.) The perverting of words is the subverting of peace; and much mischief is made by forcing invidious constructions upon what is said and written and drawing consequences that were never intended. The men of Judah said, The king is near of kin to us. "By this," say the men of Israel, "you mean that we have no part in him;" whereas they meant no such thing. (5.) People are very apt to run into extremes. We have ten parts in David, said they; and, almost in the next breath, We have no part in him. Today Hosanna, tomorrow Crucify.

II. His concubines imprisoned for life, and he himself under a necessity of putting them in confinement, because they had been defiled by Absalom, Sa2 20:3. David had multiplied wives, contrary to the law and they proved a grief and shame to him. Those whom he had sinfully taken pleasure in he was now, 1. Obliged, in duty, to put away, they being rendered unclean to him by the vile uncleanness his son had committed with them. Those whom he had loved must now be loathed. 2. Obliged, in prudence, to shut up in privacy, not to be seen abroad for shame, lest the sight of them should give occasion to people to speak of what Absalom had done to them, which ought not to be so much as named, Co1 5:1. That that villany might be buried in obscurity. 3. Obliged, in justice to shut up in prison, to punish them for their easy submission to Absalom's lust, despairing perhaps of David's return, and giving him up for gone. Let none expect to do ill and fare well.

Matthew Henry (1662–1714) — Commentary on the Whole Bible. This section covers verses 1–3. Public domain.
Copy as
Source: Quotations drawn from early Church Fathers and historical Christian theologians (AD 100–1500). Some quotes address the surrounding passage context rather than this verse alone.
Copy as

Continue studying 2 Samuel 20:3 across the web’s major study libraries — every link below opens this exact verse, chapter, or book on the destination site.

Read & Compare

Commentaries

Original Language & Research

Sermons, Hymns & Audio

TrulyRandomVerse is not affiliated with these sites and doesn’t control their content. They’re linked because they’re genuinely useful.