“The woman of T’koa said to the king, ‘My lord, king, let the guilt be on me and my father’s family; the king and his throne be guiltless.’”-2 Samuel 14:9
So we’ve been discussing the story the woman of Tekoa told David…
How one son killed the other…
And now the dead son’s family demands the surviving son be handed over for retribution.
The woman is pleading with David not to have her son turned over to the blood avenger.
If that happens, she’ll end up destitute in her old age, and her husband “will have neither name nor survivor anywhere on earth.”
So after hearing the story, David rules that…
“As Adonai lives, not one of your son’s hairs will fall to the ground.”
That’s where we left off.
Well, actually, we left off on the question…
Did King David exercise righteous judgment in this case?
Folks, this is why it’s so important to study God’s Word from the very beginning at Genesis Chapter 1, verse 1.
Ya feel me?
When we take the Torah and God’s Law seriously, it helps us to see what’s really going on here.
So, on that point, let’s do something your average Christian has probably never done in his or her entire faith walk.
Let’s go to the Scriptures.
And when I say the Scriptures, I ain’t talking about the New Testament.
Let’s go to the Torah.
In the book of Exodus, we’re told:
“Whoever attacks a person and causes his death must be put to death.
If it was not premeditated but an act of God,
then I will designate for you a place to which he can flee.
But if someone willfully kills another after deliberate planning,
you are to take him even from my altar and put him to death.
Whoever attacks his father or mother must be put to death.
Whoever kidnaps someone must be put to death,
regardless of whether he has already sold him
or the person is found still in his possession.
Whoever curses his father or mother must be put to death.”
-Exodus 21:12-17
Well, it looks pretty clear to me.
The law demands blood for blood.
The person who murders is to be executed regardless of the circumstances.
Now, look at the part I bolded in red.
That’s referring to an accidental killing…
Or “negligent homicide” in legalese.
So here’s what we’ve gotta understand.
All killing is NOT murder.
Killing an enemy soldier in a war is not murder.
Killing someone as an act of self-defense is not murder.
And unintentional killing is not murder.
Like if I’m out cutting a tree, and the axe head flies off and fatally hits someone nearby in the head, as tragic as that is, that ain’t murder.
These verses from the Book of Numbers go deeper into this.
“You are to give three cities east of the Yarden
and three cities in the land of Kena‘an;
they will be cities of refuge.
These six cities will serve as refuge for the people of Israel,
as well as for the foreigner and resident alien with them;
so that anyone who kills someone by mistake may flee there.
However, if he hits him with an iron implement
and thus causes his death, he is a murderer;
the murderer must be put to death.
Or if he hits him with a stone in his hand big enough to kill someone,
and he dies, he is a murderer; the murderer must be put to death.
Or if he hits him with a wood utensil in his hand capable
of killing someone, and he dies, he is a murderer;
the murderer must be put to death.
The next-of-kin avenger is to put the murderer to death himself
— upon meeting him, he is to put him to death.
Likewise, if he shoves him out of hatred;
or intentionally throws something at him, causing his death;
or out of hostility strikes him with his hand,
so that he dies;
then the one who struck him must be put to death;
he is a murderer; and the next-of-kin avenger
is to put the murderer to death upon meeting him.”
-Numbers 35:14-21
Holy cow!
Look at all the repeated utterances of one being called a murderer who must be put to death.
However, we also see the Lord’s grace in action in that he provided six cities of sanctuary for an accidental killing.
A person who accidentally killed another could flee there for protection.
Interestingly, if the blood avenger caught the accidental killer before he reached a sanctuary city, he had the right to kill him.
Even in our modern society, there are varying definitions of what constitutes homicide.
Depending on the circumstances surrounding the killing of another…
A perpetrator may only have to pay a heavy penalty.
Others may have to serve time in prison.
And others will be given the death penalty.
Alrighty, so we’re not gonna conclude things just yet.
So lemme ask you again.
Based on everything we’ve discussed today, including the verses from the Torah…
Was David right in letting the woman’s son (the murderer) get away scot free?
Think about it, and hopefully we’ll finish up with this tomorrow.
Im torn. On one hand I see his killing as an honor killing for the act upon Tamar. But to your point Amnon should have been “cut off” for incest, not executed. That beeing said, the law required Absolom to be put to death. Look at the consequences of him not being put to death, he tried to overthrow king David’s throne. But was Absolom not used by God to fulfill Nathan’s prophecy about his neighbor sleeping with his wives in plain sight for all of Israel to see? Absolom did this with David’s concubines, not that God couldn’t have chosen another to-do this had Absolom been executed per the law. So bottom line, yes I believe that Absolom should have been held accountable for murder. Lol, that’s my final answer
Yeah, exactly. What Amnon did to Tamar was horrific, but Torah didn’t call for his execution, only being cut off. Absalom went too far and turned it into murder, which should’ve cost him his life. And like you said, sparing him opened the door for rebellion and Nathan’s prophecy to play out. I find it amazing how God still works through all that mess.