Many who understand the wickedness involved in murder fail to realize that the scripture also warns “Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer.”
At times, God called people to enter into war with the goal of killing their enemies. The Bible clearly distinguishes between this type of killing and murder.
A tremendous spiritual and physical battle wages around the value of life and the determination of when life begins. Unfortunately, Christians have incorporated the unscriptural terminology of the world by allowing the opposition to define these most important matters. This is especially true concerning the birth of a child. According to the Bible, a woman who is expecting is said to be “with child” (Genesis 16:11; Matthew 1:18). Modern terminology removes the direct association of the unborn to life. Sadly, the termination of the unborn life is simply labeled as an “abortion” rather than murder (the ungodly shedding of innocent blood). To abort means the cancellation of a mission. A woman who is “with child” has another living soul “with” her. As time progresses in the child’s development within the womb, the mother becomes “great with child” (Luke 2:5) until she is “ready to be delivered” (Revelation 12:4; see also 1 Samuel 4:19; Isaiah 26:17).
Loyalty is a beautiful trait. Loyalty leads men to do significant things for others although the reasons for doing so could be considered insignificant. The actions of David’s men offer a prime example when David was in exile from his throne. Perhaps David was simply reminiscing when he mentioned his longing for a drink of water from the well of Bethlehem. Why not get a drink from any well? What was so special about the water from Bethlehem’s well? Regardless of these minor details, three of David’s mighty men heard the desire of their king. Their loyalty compelled them to go. These men had to break through the host of the Philistines in order to get the water from the well of David’s desire. They risked their lives and for what? Was it merely a drink of water? To them it was much more than that—it was a special loyalty they each had for their king!
Loyalty to David likely placed a bounty on a man’s head. As David fled from Absalom and the city of Jerusalem, it became increasingly dangerous to offer any type of assistance to David. Barzillai, regardless of the personal danger, chose to risk everything for David (2 Samuel 17:27-29). When it came time for David to travel back to reclaim his throne, Barzillai journeyed part of the way with David. Scripture identifies Barzillai as “a very great man.” Perhaps this description identifies him as materially wealthy, but it no doubt also speaks of his character. His character is further manifested in his final conversation with David (2 Samuel 19:33-38). When David regained his authority, he sought any opportunity to return favour for Barzillai’s loyalty. No matter the accolades or advantage, Barzillai did not help David for personal gain.
Absalom rebelled against king David (his father) by seeking to take over David’s kingdom and end his life. Ahithophel, who had previously served as an advisor to David, gave counsel to Absalom that could have eliminated David and his followers (2 Samuel 17:1-4). The counsel pleased Absalom, but he chose to request a second opinion from Hushai. Yet, Hushai was still a loyal friend of David, unbeknownst to Absalom, who was actually working undercover in Absalom’s kingdom (2 Samuel 15:31-37). Thankfully, Absalom asked for his counsel. Hushai proceeded to tell Absalom the shortcomings of Ahithophel’s counsel and offered his own counsel that would protect king David. After hearing the counsel of both Ahithophel and Hushai, Absalom unwisely determined that Hushai’s counsel was better. Hushai’s loyalty to the king and God conquered Absalom’s rebellion and eventually ended it.
Men frequently focus upon David’s extreme failures but fail to realize that he also exemplified a tremendous example of someone who understood loyalty. King Saul’s antics would have allowed most people to justify not affording Saul the loyalty his position warranted. Even many of David’s men held to this position. Yet, we read that David felt and acted otherwise. Although Saul repeatedly attempted to kill David, David did not take advantage of any of his opportunities to kill Saul. The Bible says that he refused to stretch forth his hand against the LORD’S anointed. Instead, David decided to send a message to Saul by cutting off the skirt of Saul’s robe. Because of David’s loyalty, even this act immediately smote his heart. His godly character trumped his personal frustrations toward the very man who sought to bring him grave, personal harm. Although David’s men were prepared and able to take the most aggressive actions, David advised against it.
God offered man the greatest statement of loyalty when Christ promised never to leave the believer. The Lord did not promise some type of reciprocating loyalty conditioned upon man’s loyalty toward Him. Rather, the Lord promised He will “never leave . . . nor forsake.” Man’s frailty offers God numerous reasons and opportunities to justify leaving and forsaking, but God’s character overrides man’s frailty. If the Lord promises loyalty, He fulfils that promise without requiring reciprocity. According to 2 Peter 3:9, “The Lord is not slack concerning his promise.” Once a man is born again, he becomes a child of God and immediately becomes the beneficiary of promised loyalty given to him by the Son of God.
