2S14-17: When Doing What Feels Right Is Actually Wrong

Let’s get our bearings on where we’re at.

We last left off with the fabricated story that the clever woman of Tekoa had presented to David.

It was about how her only remaining son’s life was in grave danger.

And that if he were killed, she would become destitute and unable to survive on her own.

The problem was that her son was in jeopardy because he had committed murder.

And the family of the murdered son was demanding justice.

This meant turning the woman of Tekoa’s son over to the GO’EL HADDAM (Blood Avenger) for retribution.

The woman of Tekoa pleads mercy because if her son is killed…

Not only will she become poverty-stricken in her old age…

But as she puts it…

“My husband will have neither name nor survivor anywhere on earth.”

This simply meant her deceased husband’s life force would be terminated as there would be no offspring left to perpetuate his name into the future.

Again, this belief system was not Scriptural, but it was how the Middle East thought in that era, including the Hebrews.

Onward.

We know this whole thing was instigated by David’s top military commander, Joab.

He was the one who had hired the wise woman of Tekoa to approach David with the make-believe story.

He even gave her the exact words to say.

When the woman presented her pretend case to David, David swore in Adonai’s name that the woman’s son was not to be touched.

It is this action that invites vigorous debate from various circles.

Both the Christians and many Rabbis conclude that David’s decision was, at the end of the day, a merciful and righteous choice.

They are WRONG.

David’s decision came out of a misplaced sense of mercy and authority,

Or to put it in modern terms, he was acting according to “humanistic philosophy.”

Now, some folks may argue that David was applying the Rabbinical principle of KAL V’HOMER here.

Do you recall what that is?

This is the principle of light versus heavy.

It’s a situation when we find ourselves thrust into a catch-22 situation where obeying one commandment of God conflicts with another.

What do we do in that case?

The answer is to, of course, obey the more important command.

The common example brought up is if someone’s life is in danger on the Shabbat.

In an emergency, should ambulance drivers and doctors cease from work to obey God’s command to keep Shabbat, even if it means not rescuing the life of a person on the verge of death?

The answer is, of course, not.

And Yeshua said so himself.

 ^“A man there had a shriveled hand.
Looking for a reason to accuse him of something,
they asked him, ‘Is healing permitted on Shabbat?’
But he answered,
“If you have a sheep that falls in a pit on Shabbat,
which of you won’t take hold of it and lift it out?
How much more valuable is a man than a sheep!
Therefore, what is permitted on Shabbat is to do good.’
Then to the man he said, ‘Hold out your hand.’
As he held it out, it became restored,
as sound as the other one.
But the P’rushim went out and began plotting
how they might do away with Yeshua.”
-Matthew 12:10-13

Yeshua was simply pointing out that it is the correct choice to obey the commandment that is “heavier” or bears more importance when there is conflict between two or more commands.

So the question that arises:

Is this what King David was doing here?

Was he choosing mercy over sentencing the woman’s son to death, an application of KAL V’HOMER?

Before I answer that question, you should know the Jewish sages do NOT turn to KAL V’HOMER to support their case that David was correct to pardon the son who committed murder.

Why?

Because it would contradict their position that David was without fault in every area of his life.

The Torah doesn’t allow pardon for intentional murder under any circumstances.

Nor is there any suitable sacrifice under the Levitical system that atones for murder.

There is no way around this, and the Rabbis knew it.

Therefore, to say David was choosing to disobey the Torah command to execute a murderer to show mercy would make David guilty, and they knew it.

That’s why they resort to theological gymnastics by reasoning, since the murder occurred out in the field where there were no witnesses…

And since there was no one nearby to warn the brother that to kill his brother was a sin…

At the end of the day, that meant no sin had been committed.

Therefore, for David to stop the GO’EL HADDAM (Blood Avenger) from executing the surviving son (the murderer) was the righteous thing to do.

Honestly, I still don’t really get the logic of the rabbis in their ruling here.

What they’re saying is the murder wasn’t a sin because there was no one around to say it was a sin before it occurred.

Huh?

Anyways, let’s move to the takeaway.

The bottom line is that David is operating out of pure subjectivity here.

He was doing what he THOUGHT was fair and kind.

But by doing that, he dismissed God’s clear directives in His Word.

This ain’t any different than the Israeli Government entering into peace agreements with the Palestinians to divide up the land God has decreed ONLY belongs to Israel.

Nor is it any different than liberal churches performing gay marriages in Jesus’ name, because that’s what a loving Jesus would have really done.

Pure subjectivity gone hog freakin’ wild!

Ya feel me here?

I feel like a broken record, but it bears repeating.

The Torah demands the death penalty without exception for certain horrific sins.

And one of those horrific sins is murder.

Why is this so important?

Because keeping a murderer around is dangerous to the Kingdom community.

Some folks need to be completely cut off like cancer before they destroy the rest of the body.

I know that may sound cruel or harsh, but that’s the truth, homies.

Wickedness must be purged from the community.

And that purging takes place on both an earthly and spiritual level.

See ya all next time.