An Ethics Lesson From David: Means, Methods, and Motives

This is a crazy world we live in, isn’t it? I mean things happen everyday that make me scratch my head and say, “Why would somebody do that?” As I watch the news I’m constantly saying this. I wonder, “Why would somebody think it is okay to kidnap somebody else? Why would somebody think it is okay to blow themselves up trying to kill other people? Why would somebody want to kill an innocent baby still in his mothers womb? Why, why, why?” There are tons and tons of these situations that leave us asking why?

The problem we are facing is a difference in Ethical choices. Ethical choices are basically moral determinations, or decisions about what we believe to be right or wrong. They stem from our basic worldview.

Now ethics is a big subject and one that can not be taught in a day, but let me give a few ground rules and basic thoughts on it, before we see an excellent example of ethics at work in the Bible. From my perspective, ethics is basically theology at work. Because ethics is putting your beliefs into practice. It is where the rubber meets the road. It is how you live out the beliefs you truly hold too. In other words, your belief system frames your ethics. Therefore, the problems we are experiencing with the moral decay of the world and the unethical treatment of individuals is not a matter of our actions, so much as a matter of our beliefs. If we believe that life is sacred, we will have a difficult time in taking the life of another individual. If we believe that God punishes sin, we will not be as likely to sin. If we believe that might makes right, then we will live to destroy others. It is our beliefs that determine how we live.

One of the most popular beliefs that is reflected in our secular culture is the ethic that says, the ends justifies the means. In other words, all’s well that ends well. This is propagated in virtually every movie that has been made, because it allows a seemingly happy ending. But in reality this is a tremendously dangerous ethical position. But how do we evaluate an ethical position. I propose that there are three aspects that need to be examined: the means, the methods and the motives. In other words the what, the how and they why of every decision. To show how this works, we will examine this from a particular instance in the life of Israel and King David.

We pick up the story after Saul has been killed and David has been crowned King of Judah. However, there has been unrest throughout the rest of Israel as Abner, the commander of Saul’s army was unwilling to give Israel over to David, so he claimed the throne for one of Saul’s sons, Ishbosheth, or Ishbaal as some translations have it. Then there ensued a war between David’s men and Saul’s household. Eventually the commander of Saul’s army was murdered, although David had nothing to do with it, and publicly mourned for this “prince and great man” as David referred to him. That is where we come in, in chapter four of Second Samuel.

4When Saul’s son Ishbaal heard that Abner had died at Hebron, his courage failed, and all Israel was dismayed. 2Saul’s son had two captains of raiding bands; the name of the one was Baanah, and the name of the other Rechab.

Before we go much further I’m going to let the cat out the bag and let you know what the “ends” in this story is. The “ends” for Baanah and Rechab is to ingratiate themselves with the King of Judah, David. That is what they are trying to do. They realized at this point that their king, Ishbaal was defeated, for his “courage had failed” so they were desiring to switch sides. As to what they were going to do, “the means”, they devised a plan. As it says in verse 5…
5Now, Rechab and Baanah, set out, and about the heat of the day they came to the house of Ishbaal, while he was taking his noonday rest. 6They came inside the house as though to take wheat, and they struck him in the stomach; then Rechab and his brother Baanah escaped.

The means they used, was to assassinate David’s enemy. That was the “what” of there plan. Were there other means they could have taken? Sure, they could have simply deserted Ishbaal, after all, he had lost his fight, and he probably would not have come after them. Could they have arranged for a truce and a peaceful treaty agreement? It is possible as David and Ishbaal were both upset at Abner’s death, perhaps neither were particularly interested in more bloodshed. Obviously there were other means to their end, so why did they choose this one? Was this an acceptable means? The Bible is clear on that one. Murder has been condemned since the Ten commandments and was judged harshly since Cain killed Abel. Clearly their means were not ethical.

But how about their methods? Even if we judge their means to be unacceptable, what about their methods? What does “how” it is accomplished reveal about their ethics? The story continues in verse 7.
7Now they had come into the house while he was lying on his couch in his bedchamber; they attacked him, killed him, and beheaded him. Then they took his head and traveled by way of the Arabah all night long. 8They brought the head of Ishbaal to David at Hebron

Wow. Those are some methods. Anyone want to say those are ethical? Well, let’s look at David’s response, after all, they supposedly had done this for him, right?

9David answered Rechab and his brother Baanah, the sons of Rimmon the Beerothite, “As the LORD lives, who has redeemed my life out of every adversity, 10when the one who told me, ‘See, Saul is dead,’ thought he was bringing good news, I seized him and killed him at Ziklag—this was the reward I gave him for his news. 11How much more then, when wicked men have killed a righteous man on his bed in his own house! And now shall I not require his blood at your hand, and destroy you from the earth?”
It is clear that David found this particularly offensive that they would walk into a man’s house in the middle of the day and kill him as he slept on his own bed. This was egregious! And they came to David, carrying this innocent man’s head, seeking approval? Seeking acceptance? Trying to ingratiate themselves with this kind of atrocity? What were they thinking?

David clearly calls them wicked men, for that is what they are to take the life of their own king, while he was defenseless and in his own bed, WITHOUT CAUSE! He was innocent and they killed him And they expected to be rewarded for this action! This is mind boggling! What were they thinking?! Obviously they didn’t value human life, like David, God’s anointed did. They didn’t value loyalty to their king. Is this the kind of men David wants on his side? They didn’t respect his title or his position, nor even the family, for he was actually in the same tribe as they were, the Benjaminites. What did they value? What was it that drove them to this end?

That is a very important question and a very important point, the “why” factor. One of the main criteria in evaluating ethical decisions is motive. Why are you doing this? You see in this case it is easy to see that what they were doing was wrong because of the means and the methods, but what if the means and the methods were okay? Would the end be okay too? Perhaps, if their motive was okay.
So what was the motive for Rechab and Baanah? Was it to see the kingdom reunited? Was it to stop the violence (that would be an ironic way to do it)? Was it to glorify God? No, no, no. It was all about them. It was so that they could be rewarded. They were looking out only for themselves. It was a selfish motive and selfish motives always lose. Maybe they weren’t out for money, maybe they were out for power, or maybe they feared for their lives. Either way, their motive was all about themselves and they didn’t care about anyone else, nor anyone elses life.

So how does that fit with a Christian ethic? How does that fit with a Christian worldview? Obviously we reject the whole course of action and are repulsed just as David was. But why? Because as Christians, we take our ethics from the example of Jesus who showed us exactly what it means to be selfless. He showed us that we are to live lives of selflessness, not selfishness. He showed us that we are to be concerned about our neighbors and their welfare; that we are to be concerned about how we live, and what we do and why we do it. We are to consider others and not ourselves. This is the ethic of Christ, and the ethics of Christians.

Yet sometimes we think that just doing the right thing is enough. Sometimes we struggle with the motive thing. This reminds me of a story I heard about a man who had died and was trying to get into heaven. He walks up to the pearly gates to see Saint Peter and says, “I’m ready for heaven, sir.”
St Peter responds, “What makes you think so?”
“Well, sir, “the man begins, “I gave to the poor, I went to church, I never cheated on my wife, I didn’t drink and I prayed twice a day.”
St Peter replies, “You mean you got tax deductions, you wanted to impress people, you afraid of your wife catching you, you were allergic to alcohol and you said grace before meals, right?”
The man bowed his head ashamedly and said, “I was hoping you wouldn’t know the difference.”

You see God is definitely concerned with what we do, but he is also deeply concerned with why we do it! So if we want to be pleasing to God, which should be our main motivation for everything we do, let’s learn the ethics lesson from David and make sure our means and our methods and our motives all bring glory to Him!