2 Samuel 16:20

"Then Absalom said to Ahithophel, "Give your counsel; what shall we do?" Ahithophel said to Absalom, "Go in to your father's concubines, whom he has left to keep the house; and all Israel will hear that you have made yourself odious to your father, and the hands of all who are with you will be strengthened." So they pitched a tent for Absalom on the roof; and Absalom went in to his father's concubines in the sight of all Israel. Now in those days the counsel which Ahithophel gave was as if one consulted the oracle of God; so was all the counsel of Ahithophel esteemed, both by David and by Absalom."

We are astounded that any scholar would diminish the guilt of Absalom's actions here with the claim that, "It was not a mere act of wantonness."[16] However, as Matthew Henry more accurately understood it:

"Absalom's immediate compliance with the Devil's counsel as spoken by Ahithophel entirely suited Absalom's lewd and wicked mind. Absalom even went beyond the evil counsel of Ahithophel who had advised that shameful action so that `all Israel might hear of it'; but, as if that were not enough, so completely lost to all honor and virtue was Absalom that he will do it under a tent on top of the palace so that `all Israel will see it.'"[17]

Yes, of course, Absalom's ravishing ten of his father's concubines was also a political action, corresponding to the ancient pagan dictum that a succeeding king was entitled to the harem of his predecessor, but that in no manner whatever changed that type of debauchery from its inherent nature as a vulgar gratification of animal lust.

"Give your counsel; what shall we do" (2 Samuel 16:20). Willis tells us that, "The word "your" in this passage is plural,"[18] indicating perhaps that Hushai himself might also have been among the counselors addressed.

"Israel will hear that you have made yourself odious to your father" (2 Samuel 16:21). This action by Absalom forever removed any possibility of David and Absalom being reconciled. The attitude of David toward Absalom was such that, without this, in case events had gone against him, Absalom might have appealed to his father for clemency and have received it, but following this, such was an impossibility. Ahithophel alone was served by Absalom's compliance with his advice, because it committed Absalom to prosecute his rebellion to the end. Ahithophel was shrewd enough to know that, if things became difficult for Absalom, he might have called the rebellion off and pleaded for forgiveness from David, in which case Ahithophel would surely have been executed. Now, Ahithophel had secured himself against that eventuality. "For his own selfish purposes, therefore, Ahithophel led Absalom into a crime that made a reconciliation with David impossible."[19]

"So they pitched a tent for Absalom on the roof" (2 Samuel 16:22). This was the roof of the palace, as conspicuous a place as there was in Jerusalem. "This tent was the `wedding tent' common to all Semitic peoples. It is mentioned in Psalms 19:5 and in Joel 2:16, and still survives in the Jewish wedding canopy."[20] "This public deed was the greatest possible insult to David."[21]

Of course, this public violation of David's wives had been specifically prophesied by Nathan who gave the Word of God as saying, "I will take your wives ... and give them to your neighbor; and he shall lie with your wives in the sight of this sun" (2 Samuel 12:11). This blazing example of predictive prophecy and its exact fulfillment runs the radical critics crazy, so they try to get rid of it by making Nathan's prophecy an interpolation. And what is their proof of such a preposterous proposition? Here it is: "The author of Second Samuel cannot have known that part of Nathan's prophecy which alludes to this event (2 Samuel 12:11), or he would have mentioned it here. Thus, our verdict of an interpolation in that passage (2 Samuel 12:11) is confirmed."[22] Of course, the omission of any reference to Nathan's prophecy here most emphatically does not confirm anything. It was simply unnecessary to mention it, because even a fool can see the fulfillment of Nathan's prophecy here without any additional mention of it!

This claim regarding "no mention" of Nathan's prophecy here is more than a century old, having been made by H. P. Smith back during the 1800's,[23] but all radical critics just keep on shouting their old, outmoded so-called "proofs" no matter how often they have been exposed and discredited.'

"The counsel which Ahithophel gave was as if one consulted the oracle of God" (2 Samuel 16:23). Smith called this, "A public panegyric (laudation, or praise)"[24] of Ahithophel's evil counsel, but it is no such thing. It is plain enough that this is not an expression of divine approval of Ahithophel's counsel, but a statement of the way it was received "in those days" (2 Samuel 16:23), particularly a report of the way in which David and Absalom received it. Actually, Ahithophel's counsel, from the worldly viewpoint was indeed wise, but in reality it was the counsel of Satan himself as it regarded Absalom's outrageous incest. In that particular, "Ahithophel's cursed counsel was an oracle of the Devil, not of God."[25]