Was King David hypocritical here (not about the mother of Solomon)?

[NewChapter]

Peace to you,

Can I ask the believers in the Abrahamic religions this interesting question that came to me as I was reading the Bible yesterday. I noticed that King David in the Psalms confessed his evil and asked to be forgiven for it. But when his enemies did evil (to him) he asked that they be punished.

Why would he want his evil to be forgiven, but he wanted his enemies evil to be punished?

 

[Tumah]

Peace to you,

Can I ask the believers in the Abrahamic religions this interesting question that came to me as I was reading the Bible yesterday. I noticed that King David in the Psalms confessed his evil and asked to be forgiven for it. But when his enemies did evil (to him) he asked that they be punished.

Why would he want his evil to be forgiven, but he wanted his enemies evil to be punished?

I didn't see this answer from any Jewish commentaries, this is coming from myself.
There is a Jewish law that a king can't forgive an affront to his honor even if he wants to because his honor doesn't belong to him, it belongs to the entire nation. It is the honor of the nation that is being breached and the individual does not have the ability to forgive the honor of a group. When a person sins against G-d though, G-d is able to forgive breaches against His own honor. Therefore, David can ask G-d to forgive him, but must ask G-d to destroy his enemies.

 

[NewChapter]

I didn't see this answer from any Jewish commentaries, this is coming from myself.
There is a Jewish law that a king can't forgive an affront to his honor even if he wants to because his honor doesn't belong to him, it belongs to the entire nation. It is the honor of the nation that is being breached and the individual does not have the ability to forgive the honor of a group...

I stopped where the ellipses is. What you have said here is false Sir. The Bible has the incident of a man jeering King David and David saying that the person could jeer him if he wanted to. I can't find the story, but it proves that what you say here is false, NO offense meant.

So why did David want his evil forgiven and wanted his enemies evil punished?

 

[Tumah]

I stopped where the ellipses is. What you have said here is false Sir. The Bible has the incident of a man jeering King David and David saying that the person could jeer him if he wanted to. I can't find the story, but it proves that what you say here is false, NO offense meant.

So why did David want his evil forgiven and wanted his enemies evil punished?

1 Kings 2:8-9

 

[NewChapter]

1 Kings 2:8-9

I'm not sure if that's the story but thank you for your answer.

But even before David became King, there is the story of him and his army needing food and asking for some from a wealthy Israelite, and when the Israelite refused, David decided that he was going to kill him. It was the man whose widow became David's 3rd wife.

That story shows David wanting to punish people for their evil even before becoming King, while other Scriptures show him wanting his evil forgiven. Wreaks of hypocrisy, no offense meant to anyone.

 

[Tumah]

I'm not sure if that's the story but thank you for your answer.

But even before David became King, there is the story of him and his army needing food and asking for some from a wealthy Israelite, and when the Israelite refused, David decided that he was going to kill him. It was the man whose widow became David's 3rd wife.

That story shows David wanting to punish people for their evil even before becoming King, while other Scriptures show him wanting his evil forgiven. Wreaks of hypocrisy, NO OFFENSE to anyone.

David was already anointed king by Samuel by then.

 

[Fool]

Peace to you,

Can I ask the believers in the Abrahamic religions this interesting question that came to me as I was reading the Bible yesterday. I noticed that King David in the Psalms confessed his evil and asked to be forgiven for it. But when his enemies did evil (to him) he asked that they be punished.

Why would he want his evil to be forgiven, but he wanted his enemies evil to be punished?

If the enemy having offended, will not recompense, then there is no offense in this.

David asks for forgiveness. That doesn't give someone carte blanche to repeat the offense and a restoration must be made. Simply put do unto others as you would want done unto you. Restore to each her/his own.

 

[NewChapter]

David was already anointed king by Samuel by then.

:lol: So you mean that David & Saul were co-kings? :lol:

Why did David keep referring to Saul as "the LORD's Anointed" if David was the true King and not Saul?

Shows that he wanted people's evil punished even before becoming the King, I say. (Again, no offense meant to anyone.)

Peace, my brother (fellow believer in the LORD.) I'm leaving the site right now but will be back later, LORD Willing.

Peace to you,
Bro. Noah

 

[Tumah]

:lol: So you mean that David & Saul were co-kings? :lol:

Why did David keep referring to Saul as "the LORD's Anointed" if David was the true King and not Saul?

Shows that he wanted people's evil punished before becoming the King, I say.

Peace brother (fellow believer in the LORD) Tumah I'm leaving the site. LORD Willing I will be back later.

Peace to you,
Bro. Noah

In a way yes, they both had the status of king, although David's status was somewhat lower.
In 1 Samuel 16 that he is already anointed king.
As you point out, he was reluctant to overthrow Saul whom he felt was legitimately a king. Nevertheless, he is clearly anointed as such in the cited chapter.

 

[NewChapter]

In a way yes, they both had the status of king, although David's status was somewhat lower.
In 1 Samuel 16 that he is already anointed king.
As you point out, he was reluctant to overthrow Saul whom he felt was legitimately a king. Nevertheless, he is clearly anointed as such in the cited chapter.

I see...thank you, my brother.

Peace to you,
Bro. Noah

 

[Brickjectivity]

An good thing to notice about David while you read about him is while he is threatened by Saul and is a wanted man he gathers a lot of unwanted people. They are no-names and people who are deemed useless by society. They become highly skilled and unified under him and eventually have families. He teaches them and builds them back up. He's like the first Robin Hood. Despite his faults and his murderous nature he does want to help everyone, and that should count in his favor when you consider his character. He loses his way but then returns to his senses and becomes a better king. His character develops.

My own answer to your question (although I like what Tumah says) is that David becomes a murderer in this story when he makes that decision to have Uriah killed (sweeping through his entire story), but this story is just one of many that serves to illustrate the evil that is inherent in kings. David is himself aware that his own position (king) is wrong and shouldn't exist. There shouldn't be a king over Israel, and he knows it. He is friends with Samuel the prophet, so he knows there shouldn't be a man as king. He knows that he is imperfect. He loves his people, but their enemies hate them. They are the enemies of the LORD. So because of that he wants those enemies destroyed, but he hopes his own evil will be overlooked. Its a story about a man who is selfless and is thrust into a position of power, and so he only counts the LORD's enemies as his own while letting personal enemies go.

 

[NewChapter]

If the enemy having offended, will not recompense, then there is no offense in this.

David asks for forgiveness. That doesn't give someone carte blanche to repeat the offense and a restoration must be made. Simply put do unto others as you would want done unto you. Restore to each her/his own.

I see...so you are saying that the people that he asked to be punished did not acknowledge their wrong and turn away from their wrong?

I can agree with that.

Peace & brotherly love,
Bro. Noah

 

[Fool]

I see...so you are saying that the people that he asked to be punished did not acknowledge their wrong and turn away from their wrong?

I can agree with that.

Peace & brotherly love,
Bro. Noah

being merciful doesn't require a sacrifice on the part of either party. in fact, it requires us to be equitable, neither to the left or right but straight and narrow is the way to life.

 

[Tumah]

An good thing to notice about David while you read about him is while he is threatened by Saul and is a wanted man he gathers a lot of unwanted people. They are no-names and people who are deemed useless by society. They become highly skilled and unified under him and eventually have families. He teaches them and builds them back up. He's like the first Robin Hood. Despite his faults and his murderous nature he does want to help everyone, and that should count in his favor when you consider his character. He loses his way but then returns to his senses and becomes a better king. His character develops.

My own answer to your question (although I like what Tumah says) is that David becomes a murderer in this story when he makes that decision to have Uriah killed (sweeping through his entire story), but this story is just one of many that serves to illustrate the evil that is inherent in kings. David is himself aware that his own position (king) is wrong and shouldn't exist. There shouldn't be a king over Israel, and he knows it. He is friends with Samuel the prophet, so he knows there shouldn't be a man as king. He knows that he is imperfect. He loves his people, but their enemies hate them. They are the enemies of the LORD. So because of that he wants those enemies destroyed, but he hopes his own evil will be overlooked. Its a story about a man who is selfless and is thrust into a position of power, and so he only counts the LORD's enemies as his own while letting personal enemies go.

Deut. 17:15 seems to be a command to make a king out of the one G-d chooses to be king. The Messiah is meant to be a king as well.
Why would G-d command there to be a king if there wasn't supposed to be one?

 

[Brickjectivity]

Deut. 17:15 seems to be a command to make a king out of the one G-d chooses to be king. The Messiah is meant to be a king as well.
Why would G-d command there to be a king if there wasn't supposed to be one?

It appears to me Deut 17:14 (which comes just before the verse you reference) predicts that the people will demand a king and that their wish activates the law to select the right person. Laws are based upon principles, and if I am right in my guess it is the principles which you seek to implement and not merely the appearance of laws. When the people cry for a dictator they get one. That is a principle which we have seen in more than one country. This is not seen as a positive thing by those who chronicle the reigns of the kings.

I base my view upon several assumptions, but I will limit my reply and save some ammunition for later if needed. The NIV translation of verses 14 and 15 goes like this: "When you enter the land the LORD your God is giving you and have taken possession of it and settled in it, and you say, “Let us set a king over us like all the nations around us, be sure to appoint over you a king the LORD your God chooses. He must be from among your fellow Israelites. Do not place a foreigner over you, one who is not an Israelite." This I assume means that the people are responsible for the sins of the kings, because they activate the king by those formulaic words "Let us set a king over us." The lists of the kings of the united and divided kingdoms read like a list of transgressions. Chronicles I & II and Kings I & II just read like books of sins. They don't tell beautiful tales, record the buildings built or the accomplishments of the kings but all of the bad stuff they are responsible for, especially all of the troubles they bring with them. They account a terrible tale of the decline of a prosperous and happy people into disparate toiling and oppressed groups conquered and dragged off into slavery.

I do not know how you view the books of Samuel, Kings and Chronicles, whether you see them as commentary upon Torah or not, however they describe just such a situation in which there is a time of several generations where Israel has no kings but then suddenly demands a king. This demand triggers a cascade of disasters. Within one generation the tribes are divided by civil war.

 

[Tumah]

It appears to me Deut 17:14 (which comes just before the verse you reference) predicts that the people will demand a king and that their wish activates the law to select the right person. Laws are based upon principles, and if I am right in my guess it is the principles which you seek to implement and not merely the appearance of laws. When the people cry for a dictator they get one. That is a principle which we have seen in more than one country. This is not seen as a positive thing by those who chronicle the reigns of the kings.

I base my view upon several assumptions, but I will limit my reply and save some ammunition for later if needed. The NIV translation of verses 14 and 15 goes like this: "When you enter the land the LORD your God is giving you and have taken possession of it and settled in it, and you say, “Let us set a king over us like all the nations around us, be sure to appoint over you a king the LORD your God chooses. He must be from among your fellow Israelites. Do not place a foreigner over you, one who is not an Israelite." This I assume means that the people are responsible for the sins of the kings, because they activate the king by those formulaic words "Let us set a king over us." The lists of the kings of the united and divided kingdoms read like a list of transgressions. Chronicles I & II and Kings I & II just read like books of sins. They don't tell beautiful tales, record the buildings built or the accomplishments of the kings but all of the bad stuff they are responsible for, especially all of the troubles they bring with them. They account a terrible tale of the decline of a prosperous and happy people into disparate toiling and oppressed groups conquered and dragged off into slavery.

I do not know how you view the books of Samuel, Kings and Chronicles, whether you see them as commentary upon Torah or not, however they describe just such a situation in which there is a time of several generations where Israel has no kings but then suddenly demands a king. This demand triggers a cascade of disasters. Within one generation the tribes are divided by civil war.

That is a legitimate way of reading the verse, although I feel that it clashes with much earlier verse about Judah being the king (Gen. 49:10) and the Messiah as meant to be the king.
Interestingly, Nachmanides reads the verse in the imperative. The whole thing with Samuel getting upset in 1 Sam. 8 is understood to be a more nuanced problem.

 

[NewChapter]

being merciful doesn't require a sacrifice on the part of either party. in fact, it requires us to be equitable, neither to the left or right but straight and narrow is the way to life.

Actually the Bible says that God will have mercy on whomever He pleases:

Romans 9:15-18
English Standard Version (ESV)
(15)For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” (16)So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy. (17)For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” (18)So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.

Peace & Blessings to you,
Noah

 

[Fool]

Actually the Bible says that God will have mercy on whomever He pleases:

Romans 9:15-18
English Standard Version (ESV)
(15)For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” (16)So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy. (17)For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” (18)So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.

Peace & Blessings to you,
Noah

god isn't apart from his creation.


exodus 13:14 implies intrinsic

colossians 3:11 reinforces the idea

 

[NewChapter]

god isn't apart from his creation.


exodus 13:14 implies intrinsic

colossians 3:11 reinforces the idea

No, you said that there are requirements for mercy.

Romans 9:15-18 disproves that statement from you . Hope that you aren't offended.

Peace to you,
Bro. Noah

 

[Brickjectivity]

That is a legitimate way of reading the verse, although I feel that it clashes with much earlier verse about Judah being the king (Gen. 49:10) and the Messiah as meant to be the king.
Interestingly, Nachmanides reads the verse in the imperative. The whole thing with Samuel getting upset in 1 Sam. 8 is understood to be a more nuanced problem.

This is getting fun. Lets pretend that I understand Genesis 49 at all, although I don't necessarily.

Genesis 49:9
"You are a lion's cub, Judah" this means Judah is destined to be great. Its current state is like a cub relative to some future greatness, however there is no indication here that Judah will be violent. Its simply going to be very strong. This can be interpreted to mean it is strong through Torah observance rather than military strength. I insist its not about military strength. If it were about that then Judah wouldn't need the Torah to be strong. Perhaps 'Cub' indicates moral development or character development, too.

"The scepter will not depart from Judah, nor the ruler’s staff from between his feet," sceptres are measuring units. A royal defines new measurements based upon their bodies, and these are used as the standard of justice. The sceptre represents the justice of a ruler. This sceptre is held by Judah but does not belong to Judah and is passed to 'Whom it belongs'. The Torah was handed to Judah for the world's sake unless I am mistaken, but it was not given by a man unless you think it came from Moses or angels. So to whom does it belong? How can it belong to some fellow? It must mean that Judah will no longer be the standard bearer of justice at some future day, because the giver of the Torah will fulfil that role. It reminds me of various other prophetic writings that talk about some time when Jews will no longer need to study the Torah.

"He will tether his donkey to a vine." Absolutely have no idea. I have zero idea what he is saying. Therefore I could be mistaken about the entire chapter, but I am not. I'm right about it. Kings are evil in Judaism.