13<\/strong>. Thou hast done foolishly<\/em> ] Saul’s sin seems excusable and scarcely deserving of so heavy a punishment. But it involved the whole principle of the subordination of the theocratic king to the Will of Jehovah as expressed by His prophets. On the one hand it shewed a distrust of God, as though God after choosing him for this work could forsake him in the hour of need: on the other hand it shewed a spirit of self-assertion, as though he could make war by himself without the assistance and counsel of God communicated through His prophet. Such a character was unfit for the office of king.<\/p>\n for ever<\/em> ] i.e. permanently, not of course absolutely without end. Cp. the use of the word in 1Sa 1:22<\/span>.<\/p>\n Thou hast done foolishly … – <\/B>Motives of worldly expediency were not to be weighed against the express commandment of God. All the circumstances and all the dangers were as well known to God as they were to Saul, and God had bidden him wait until Samuel came. Here was exactly the same sin of willful disobedience which broke out again, and was so severely reproved 1Sa 15:17-23<\/span>.<\/P><\/p>\n 1Sa 13:13-14<\/span><\/p>\n And Samuel said to Saul, Thou hast done foolishly: thou hast not kept the commandment of the Lord.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n Folly illustrated by the character of Saul<\/strong><\/p>\n We perhaps, had we possessed no ulterior information, might have been disposed to expect that, when the Searcher of hearts cast His eye over the twelve tribes in quest of a man whom He might appoint to be ruler over His people; He would select one conspicuous for piety, and prepared by steadfast faith to meet the trials with which his exaltation would be attended. Yet why should we have expected such a choice? Is it the established order of Providence that piety should be recompensed by elevation to dignity and power? Are the rulers of the earth, whether in Pagan or in Christian lands, whether God raises them to empire by the settled course of succession, or by the storms of warfare and revolutions, usually eminent for religion beyond the mass of their subjects? The thoughts of the Most High are not as our thoughts. He knows by what governor, in any particular nation and at any particular time, His Own secret and righteous purposes, whether of mercy or of vengeance, will be most efficaciously promoted. I purpose to lay before you the leading circumstances in the conduct of Saul: and afterwards to deduce, for your edification, some of the inferences which they suggest.<\/p>\n 1. <\/strong>We learn, in the first place, not to repose blind and premature confidence on some few promising appearances as to piety. Let every symptom favourable to the supposition that religion is the ruling principle in the character of another be cordially welcomed, and judiciously encouraged. But learn to guard your willing hopes from degenerating into sanguine credulity. Conceive not that examples of religious consideration on some particular occasions are proofs that religion is firmly and durably established in the bosom. Gold is not known to be genuine, until it has stood the test of fire. The crop is not estimated by the blade, but by the harvest. Wait until religion has for some time been tried by the temptations of life, before you pronounce on its reality.<\/p>\n 2. <\/strong>Consider in the next place the guilt of impatiently endeavouring to attain a present good by departing from the way of Gods commandments. Everything which is not conformable to His revealed will is evil. Are you involved in difficulty or trouble? Abide thou in the track of righteousness. This is the way. Walk thou in it. Turn not aside to the right hand or to the left. Abide thou in the track of righteousness: wait thou the time of the Most High, and in His Own time and by the track of righteousness the Most High shall guide thee to peace and to salvation.<\/p>\n 3. <\/strong>Behold, thirdly, the guilt of rash resolutions and vows. In concerns of importance that which is resolved hastily is commonly resolved foolishly. But whenever, like Saul, a person forms a determination, or fetters himself by an engagement, under the precipitate impulse of passion, seldom shall a considerable time elapse before he perceives reason for deep and lasting regret.<\/p>\n 4. <\/strong>Mark the heinousness of fearing man rather than God. What sin is more general? What sin is more conspicuously arrayed in the attributes of folly?<\/p>\n 5. <\/strong>Lastly, let the example of Saul admonish you to frequent meditation on the consequences of disobeying God. (Thomas Gisborne, M. A.<\/em>)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n The great test of character<\/strong><\/p>\n Michael Angelo once went into the studio of a young artist who had just executed a statue to stand in the public square. Angelo saw its grave defects, and pointed them out to his friend. The exultant artist did not appreciate the criticism of his work, and supposed the greater man to be moved with envy. So he told him, in the dim obscurity of his workshop he could not see the defects which were so apparent to the aged critic, and in passion sneered at the opinion given. Well, said Angelo, not the least disturbed, the light of the public square will test it. The light of the public square will test it. Ah, year The light of the public square is to test every human life. Eternal blaze shall pour upon it, and defects unseen by the poorer light of earth will grow to ghastly deformities. The light of the public square will test it.<\/p>\n The prophet rebuking the king<\/strong><\/p>\n It is never easy, and it is always unpleasant, to become a rebuker; and when the transgressor is wealthy, or noble, or royal, the difficulty of faithfulness is enhanced. It requires considerable courage and great boldness in the faith for a man of God to reprove a king in whose hands may be his life. Many have had to imperil their lives in the discharge of this duty Some have attributed rudeness and insolence to John Knox, because he spoke the truth to the bigoted Queen Mary of Scotland; but it required courage to tell royalty that she ought to obey God. Had Saul but waited, he might have spared his soul this guilt, and Samuel would have stood at the altar and spoken authoritatively for God! But he took the step of sin, and was insnared in its wiles. He took the first false step in his public career, and his future was an incline to his tragic end. It was his first false step. The embankment of a river can keep out the waters even though they swell and beat; but if a single orifice be opened, how soon do they rush in, and sweep all away, and scatter ruin around. Such is the first sin. It is as the letting out of water. Let the reader beware of the first wrong step. It has wrecked many a soul. It has caused many domestic griefs, darkened the fairest prospects, and withered the most promising expectations. It has sent young men into a career of dishonesty which ended in a prison, and young women into shame and the streets. It has induced apostasy from the faith, and made the professors reprobate. This first wrong step is often the crisis of a career. It is not the mere earliest development of iniquity. That comes out with our natural character; but this is the test of our good resolution, or of our profession. When a young man is intrusted with money, and is tempted to dishonesty; when a daughter is enticed by the spoiler, and is tempted to yield; when a professor has been at the table of the Lord, and is called to take up his cross; when a convalescent has to decide whether he will act upon the serious thoughts of eternity and the earnest purposes of soul which marked his illness; when a convicted soul has his old sin alluring him again;–these are times when a false step may prove the beginning of sins and sorrows.<\/p>\n 2. <\/strong>He had acted foolishly. This was more than thoughtlessness. It was disobedience. There are, says Dr. Kitto, two kinds of fools prominently noticed in Scripture,–the fool who denies that there is any God,–the fool that saith in his heart, There is no God:–a text which suggests the remark, that if he is a fool who says this in his heart, a much greater fool is he that utters the foolish thought. This is one. There is another,–the fool who does not obey God, though he does not deny His existence. And yet, after all, these are but one. If we probe the matter closely, we shall find that there is scarcely more than an impalpable film of real difference between the foolishness of the man who says in his heart there is no God, and that of the man who does not render Him obedience. One may as well believe that there is no God, as not obey Him.<\/p>\n 3. <\/strong>The conduct of Saul was the test of his dynasty. He failed, therefore he was cut off. His house was doomed by reason of his sin. His kingdom could not be established. Samuel made the announcement of his fall to the guilty king: Now thy kingdom shall not continue. It was not to be an absolute monarchy. It was to he dependent on the will of God, and thus far constitutional to the people. But Saul was not equal to the task of forming a model monarchy for the people of God. He had ability enough, but he lacked principle. He had advantages enough, but he lacked loyalty to God. Therefore, his dynasty was to cease in himself. On first sight, the offence seems small and the punishment heavy. And the question may arise, Why did God so severely punish Saul for so small an offence, and that occasioned by great necessity, and done with an honest intention, as he professed? Pool has given the following answer: First, men are very incompetent judges of Gods judgments. Men see nothing but Sauls outward act, which seems small; but God saw with how wicked a mind and heart he did this; with what rebellion against the light of his own conscience, as his own words imply; with what gross infidelity and distrust of Gods Providence; with what contempt of Gods authority and justice,–and many other wicked principles and motives of his heart, unknown to men. Besides, God saw all that wickedness that yet lay hid in his heart, and foresaw all his other crimes; and therefore had far more grounds for his sentence against him than we can imagine. Secondly, God doth sometimes punish small sins severely, and that for divers weighty reasons; as that all men may see what the least sin deserves, and how much they owe to Gods free and rich mercy for passing by their great offences; and what need they have not to indulge themselves in any small sin, as men are very prose to do, upon vain presumptions of Gods mercy, whereby they are easily and commonly drawn on to heinous crimes.<\/p>\n 4. <\/strong>Conformity to the heart of God is necessary to the souls blessedness. This was its original beatitude, and this is the result of regeneration. Without holiness we cannot see or enjoy God. The man after Gods heart only can enjoy the bliss of fellowship with God. This likeness is a vital image–not the image only of Him that lives, the living God, but it is His living and soul-quickening image. It is the likeness of Him in that very respect, an imitation and participation of the life of God, by which, once revived, the soul lives that was dead before. It was not a dead picture, a dumb show, an unmoving statue; but a living, speaking, walking image,–that wherewith the child is like the Father, and by which it lives as God, speaks and acts conformably to him; an image, not such a one as is drawn with a pencil, that expresses only colour and figure, but such a one as is seen in a glass that represents life and motion. The hope of being thus like God gives energy to the Christian in his struggles with sin, and attraction to the many-mansioned home. This conformity is attainable in character, and it is more promotive of bliss than intellect or power. We can be born again. This experience is the introduction of the soul to the life of God. The man after Gods own heart was to be the captain over His people. Saul was quite unfit for this. David was the elect of God. His heart was right. (R. Steel.<\/em>)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n But now thy kingdom shall not continue. Severe punishment for seemingly small sins<\/strong><\/p>\n Sometimes God punishes small sins severely, and such are set down in scripture record, for weighty reasons. As–<\/p>\n 1. <\/strong>To teach us the heinous nature of sin in its self, so hateful to God, and so hurtful to men, that we may abhor all the degrees of it.<\/p>\n 2. <\/strong>To show us, that indeed no sin can truly be called a little sin, because there is no little God to sin against; therefore to disobey the great God even in the smallest matters is a ground great enough, and a sin great enough to procure Gods severity.<\/p>\n 3. <\/strong>That we may not indulge ourselves in the least sin, as we are prone to do in presuming on Gods mercy, lest God punish us for them, and lest little sins make way for greater, as little wedges make room for the more massive ones, and little thieves serve to open the doors for the grand crew.<\/p>\n 4. <\/strong>That we may all learn the riches of Divine grace and free mercy, in passing by and pardoning such great iniquities in us, when we find the rigour of justice executed upon others for far lesser faults recorded in scripture.<\/p>\n 5. <\/strong>That an honest intention will not warrant an unwarrantable action, as some suppose Saul had in sacrificing; two things make a godly man, good actions and good aims. (C. Ness.<\/em>)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n The doom of the unfaithful instrument<\/strong><\/p>\n The king, one whose character faithfully represented their own national character and desires. Like his people, he leaned to an arm of flesh. Their sin in desiring his rule was his sin in the conduct of that rule. In his darkening course and fearful end was exhibited to them that law of Gods dealings of which their own national history was to be to all ages the most marvellous example whereby His chosen instruments, who refuse to fulfil the end for which He raises them up, are cast down into darkness, and their opportunity of service is given to another. In all this, so far as individuals go, the lesson is plain and inevitable. It is a law of that unseen but most certain dominion which even here, amidst the blinding showers which conceal His immediate working, the Most High is administering, that they who being set anywhere to do His will neglect to do it, are replaced by other and more faithful instruments. This is an universal and eternal law. It was evidently thus that He dealt with the chosen people, who in this, as in so many respects, were the pattern nation. What else but a declaration of this truth is their whole history as it is recorded by inspired annalists and interpreted by gifted prophets? How is this written in every page of the record of Gods dealings with them, down to that last sentence of rejection pronounced by the mouth of the Apostle Paul, when charging on themselves the guilt of their own blood, he said, Lo, we turn to the Gentiles. Here then we may see the same righteous hand which wasted Jerusalem overturning the great Assyrian Nineveh. The same law, which first exalted and then cast down the chosen people reached also to the great empires of the heathen world. They rose because they were commissioned to do a certain work; they fell, not by any mere natural process of decay, but under the weight of Gods judicial sentence, executing itself through the permitted action of these secondary causes. And now let me ask you to apply this principle to our own country, and its prospects at this moment.<\/p>\n 1. <\/strong>Are there then any tokens which specially mark out for us our appointed work? Now to answer this question we must glance at those distinctive features of our national life which sever us from other people. The first of these is our insular position; for this at once confines us within narrow bounds at home, and facilitates the formation of those distant settlements by which alone we can provide for increasing numbers. Further, the same cause makes it well-nigh impossible that we should be a great military nation, and naturally leads, as the condition of national defence, to our becoming strong in naval power: Further, the natural characteristics of our people tend to produce the same result. In many of the highest gifts bestowed on other tribes of men we are manifestly deficient. We have not the keen sense of beauty which has ere now enabled Greece and even Rome to exalt our race. But we have the gifts of a hardy, industrious, enterprising genius. We are fitted, apparently by innate disposition, to be great subduers of natures rebellious and reluctant but conquerable powers. And when any external agency has threatened to destroy these powers, as when Spain and its Armada, or France at the head of a continual system of exclusion, would have destroyed our naval greatness, some direct interpositions of Providence have thwarted their designs. The natural course of such influences has led us on, first to the establishment of distant factories, and then to those factories growing into settlements, and from them turning into colonies, which hays sometimes grown into mighty nations. Now what special charge would such a national organisation seem naturally to suggest as having been providentially committed to our hands? Surely at once it suggests that we are to be employed by God as the bearers of some message to every race and tribe. Not more evidently does the possession of great military power wielded by a single despotic will, mark a people as charged with the avengers office; not more evidently do eminent gifts of genius mark a nation as charged to educate its brethren, than do our special faculties, instincts, and relations to the great family of man mark us as the bearers of some message through the world. What then can be the message to bear which we have been so eminently fitted? Let the spiritual blessings God has given us supply the answer to this question.<\/p>\n 2. <\/strong>And if here we pause but for one moment, to ask how we, as a nation, have fulfilled this our vocation, how appalling is the answer! Have we not encircled the earth with the girdle of our settlements? Is it not true that as from east to west the morning sun awakens to new life the successive nations, the drum roll of English soldiers follows round the world its rising light? And what, with all this, have we clone for God? Alas, how tardy, how scanty, how interrupted, how unsystematic, how timid, how faithless have been our services! How readily and how plentifully have we sown our vices and diseases broadcast over a suffering world! How feebly, alas, have we planted amongst its nations the living seed of Gods truth in Gods Church! if it be so with us, why tarries yet the day of retribution, why sleep the thunders of judgment? Is our present prosperity but the deep calm before the wild triumph of the hurricane? God only knows, my brethren, how close to us may be that fearful time of uttermost rejection. If to our startled gaze were now opened revelations such as those which fell at Patmos on the beloved St. John, we perhaps might see the mighty angels of vengeance withholding, but, as for a moment, the four winds of heaven, to see whether Britain would repent and do Gods work. Here then plainly is our nations calling and our nations risk.<\/p>\n 3. <\/strong>And if this indeed be our vocation, what are the especial duties binding upon us if we would rise up to its greatness? May it please God to bring them home in all their power to some who listen to them. Now beyond all question the first of all requisites for the delivery of such a message is that we have received it thoroughly ourselves. Here then, alike for the teacher and the taught, is our first, necessity; that the truth of God in all it, purity, with a loving spirit and a patient reiteration, be proclaimed and inculcated; that every lawful means be used, in season and out of season, to reproduce amongst, ourselves men of the true apostolic stamp. Next to this we need to learn to feel, and to make others feel, how mighty are the issues for our own people, and for a waiting world, which hang on our fidelity or faithlessness. (Bishop Samuel Wilberforce.<\/em>)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n The Lord hath sought Him a man after His own heart.–<\/strong><\/p>\n The man after Gods own heart<\/strong><\/p>\n The simple earnest Christian has read and learnt the Psalms of David with the greater care, and has loved them the more dearly because the sweet Psalmist of Israel was declared to be after the mind of God: and on the other hand the scoffer has pointed to Davids grievous sins, and asked with scorn whether such things are the deeds of the man after Gods own heart. I propose to offer to you some remarks upon the meaning of Davids noble title, and to show you how he deserved it. And this I shall do principally by contrasting his character with that of Saul, a contrast which is made in the text, and which is in fact the basis of the title applied to David. And this point I must beg you especially to bear in mind, if you would understand the text aright, namely, that David is not called the man after Gods own heart as distinguished from all other good men; it is not asserted that David was on the whole the purest and best man who ever lived. David is described there as being after the Lords own heart specially in opposition to Saul, who was very far from being after the mind of God. Saul was a wilful disobedient man, the text was spoken to him on occasion of his disobedience. And if he did such things in the green tree, what would be do in the dry? if be thus ran riot while the oil of consecration was almost fresh upon him, what would he do when his kingdom was established and he became puffed up by his power? Do you not see then, that Saul had showed himself radically unfit for the charge of the Israelitish people? and therefore Samuel was charged to convey to him the voice of reproof and warning, and to tell him that whereas he had shown himself to be a man wilful and disobedient, God would not continue the kingdom to him, but would give it, to a man after His own heart,–His own heart (that is) especially in those very points in which Saul had failed. Now let me contrast a little more carefully the characters of Saul and David. I should say, that the basis of the character of the two men was exactly opposite in one to what it was in the other; and if I can show you, that the basis of the character of one was pleasing to God, and that of the other hateful to Him, then you will not be surprised that the one should be spoken of as being after the mind of God, while the other was rejected from being king. Observe, I am not saying that there may not be some passages in Davids life very bad and disgraceful, and some in Sauls very good; but I am maintaining that the roots of their characters were different, the one being faith in God, the other faith in man, and that in the main the life of David was a life of faith and obedience, that of Saul one of godless independence. It would not be possible for me to call up all the passages in Davids life which would illustrate the point which we have in hand; but I would refer you to those writings of his, in which he has given us a transcript of his own mind. The Psalms of David present to us a more vivid picture than can perhaps be anywhere else found of a mind waiting upon God, looking away from itself, trusting in Him, blessing Him in trouble, and blessing Him in prosperity, of a mind of which the motive principle is evidently faith in God and submission to Him. It is true that we may find in Davids life at least one very fearful stain. I suppose that never was sin committed which brought such lasting contempt upon piety as that fearful fall of David; but even in this ease let us look to Davids own record of his feelings, when repentance and sorrow had enabled him to see his crime in its true colours, and we shall see what a deep view be took of his sin, and what an intolerable burden it was to him You must remember that David suffered most severely in this world for his sin. Against Thee, Thee only, have I sinned. You see here how every other view of sin vanishes before this, the view of it as against God; a mans vice may bring wretchedness on himself, it may ruin his health, it may bring him to beggary; and these views are very true and in their proper place valuable, but he who looks upon wickedness as God looks upon it, must see it in the light in which it appeared to David; he may regard it as noxious in itself, he may lament the unhappiness which it causes, but he regards it emphatically as sin because it is against God. Thus looking upon the character of David, I seem to see that of a man whose heart was in a very wonderful degree right with God; a man not perfect indeed, for none is perfect, and least of all must we look for Christian perfection under the imperfect dispensation of the old Covenant; but still of a man whose chief characteristics were faith in God, zeal for the honour of God, and humble submission to the will of God. And therefore I do not wonder that Samuel, as contrasting him with Saul, should describe him in the text as after Gods own heart; for these are the characters of mind, which, whether in a king of Israel or in an Englishman of our own days, must aver be the source and spring of all that is pleasing to God. But now for a moment let us look at Saul. Without wishing to depreciate such good qualities as he might possess, I think one may justly hold him forth as a specimen of a man self-dependent, wilful, eminently deficient in these qualities which form the beauty of Davids character, faith in God, humble waiting upon Him, quiet submission to Him. And when we contrast the two characters as I have sketched them to you, you will I think easily see, how, without speaking slightly of Davids sin, we may nevertheless say with truth, that his character in the main features of it was peculiarly after the mind of God, and that David may be rightly spoken of as a man after the Lords own heart. I have been endeavouring to show you from the example of David, what is the character of mind which God loves; God loves the man who is ever looking to and leaning upon Him, who has His honour ever in his mind, who thinks little of his own personal convenience and advantage, and delights rather to worship God and God does not love the man who ever seeks himself, the man of irreverent mind, who exalts himself above God, and the world present above the world to come; whatever qualities such a one may have which may make him popular or powerful in the world, God who knows the heart estimates such a mans deeds as those of Saul, and rejects them. (H. Goodwin, M. A.<\/em>)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Saul and David<\/strong><\/p>\n The widely different judgments which Holy Scripture leads us to form respecting Saul and David is a subject which occupies much attention when we are reading the first book of Samuel. The impression which Saul makes upon an average reader, at least at first, is beyond all question a favourable impression. The salient points of his character engage our sympathy, and this sympathy is deepened when we consider the misfortunes of his later life and its tragic close. Saul, indeed, had many of these qualifications which always go to make a man popular. Of the higher qualities of Sauls natural character which inspires this affection the first was, I do not say his humility, but his modesty. Modesty, unlike humility, is not inconsistent with certain forms of pride; and it is a natural virtue which is good as far as it goes, and which is always attractive Saul was modest. It is plain from the account of his elevation to the throne that he had no wish for such a position. When a number of his new subjects despised him, and, failing in the ordinary usage of Eastern courtesy, brought him no presents, he betrayed no annoyance or irritation; he held his peace. Closely allied to this modesty was his capacity for generosity towards opponents. Certainly, Saul was much besides all thin; he was proud, he was reserved, he was obstinate, he was haughty in his later years, he was a prey to the most capricious and irrational jealousy; but, especially in his early life, he had qualities which are always valued and valuable, and which explain the affection with which he was regarded by those who knew him. Moreover, his reign was, on the whole, and in a civil or political sense, of benefit to his country, and yet with this personal character and this note of Gods assistance–for such it was under the old covenant–Saul had upon him, almost from the first, the presentiments of disaster and ruin. When we turn to David we find it difficult, at first, to explain this phrase–the man after the heart of God–thus used by Samuel by way of contrast to Saul, for Davids feelings are written much in the page of Holy Scripture, and they seem, at first sight, to make such an expression unintelligible, or, at least, exaggerated. In point of natural excellence, Saul and David had, at least, while each was a young man, several points in common. If David could not rival Sauls stature, his activity and his muscular strength were exceptional; his feet, he tells us, were like the feet of the gazelle; his arms could break even a bow of steel. Both Saul and David were men of personal prowess and of personal courage, and David resembled Saul in his modest estimate of himself, and in his generous conduct upon occasions towards others. But there are dark traits in David which the Bible makes no attempts to disguise. Nothing in the annals of Oriental courts can well exceed the baseness of his intrigue with Bathsheba and the cowardly murder of Uriah. Rarely has cruelty towards a conquered enemy been greater than that with which David treated the Ammonites, and although another side of his failings has been much exaggerated by some ancient and by several modern critics, there are traces of deceitfulness in David which recall his ancestor Jacob, and which impair the nobility and the beauty of the general impression he leaves with us. And yet in contrast with Saul he has on him from the first the notes of Gods special approval; his trials and misfortunes only established or renewed his prosperity; his long persecution by Saul leads to his succession to the throne; Absoloms rebellion only makes his rule more secure than ever in Jerusalem. All through there is upon David a presentiment of acceptance, just as upon Saul, especially as the years pass on, there is more and more plainly stamped a note of reprobation. If it seems at first sight that there is something arbitrary in the different estimates that Holy Scripture itself leads us to form of Saul and David, let us look once more hard at Saul, and let us ask ourselves what it is that is especially wanting in him. Is it not this, that Saul, so far as the Bible account of him goes, gives no evidence of having upon and within him the permanent influence of religion, of anything that we could call the fear and love of God in his hearty. And the same temper is observable in Saul when he was ordered to go and smite the sinners of the Amalekites and utterly destroy them and their cattle. The first particular of his disobedience was occasioned by his wish to be popular, he feared the people and obeyed their voice; the second was probably due to his feeling for a brother monarch–a feeling which, however natural at other times, ought not to have arrested obedience to a Divine command. Certainly, Sauls conduct in respect of Agag did not arise from any unwillingness on his part to shed blood. He had no such scruples to prevent him from attempting the extermination of the Gibeonites, although they ought in his eyes to have been protected by Joshuas oath, which pledged their safety in the midst of Israel. The truth was that he was at heart indifferent to the command of God, and thought himself at liberty to disobey just as much of it as the feeling or convenience of the moment, might suggest. And it is no objection to this view of Sauls mind, as in reality unconcerned with the claims of God and with the unseen world, that he showed himself anxious for some superhuman guidance when on the eve of his death he stole round the base of little Hermon to endeavour to consult the witch. We see the same thing every day of our lives. Men who have scornfully rejected the Christian revelation are constantly haunted by weird or grotesque superstitions. The human soul is made for faith in the unseen, and if its deep craving be not satisfied by the one supreme reality of what He has told us about Himself, it will seek satisfaction in quarters which faith would condemn more earnestly than reason. Now it was precisely in this respect that Saul presents so great a contrast to David. David, in spite of his grievous faults, had upon his heart and conscience continually the impress, awful, yet most fascinating, of the majesty, the beauty, the encompassing presence, the boundless magnificence of God. This great possession remained with him throughout his life. He has admitted us to the secrets of his soul at almost every stage of his eventful history. David associates us with his experiences not, only in his triumphs, but in his deep and unspeakable humiliations. We know what he feels and thinks after his sin with Bathsheba, what he feels and thinks as he flies a dishonoured exile before his rebellious son. And he is always true to this ruling characteristic of his life. When in his fear or his exaltation, in his penitence or in his joy, in his struggles or in his repose, in thought or in action, God has the first place in his intellect; Gods approval, Gods condemnation, Gods works, Gods will are ever his first concern. This, the preoccupation of his life, makes him, even in the camp or on the throne, a sort of enthusiast, on whom the outward world sits lightly, and who cares not for its unfavourable opinion if only he is loyal to his unseen and awful Master. Whom have I in heaven but Thee? and there is none upon earth that I desire in comparison of Thee. One cannot imagine these words in the mouth of Saul, the cool-headed man of the world, conducting himself as did David when the ark was moved in state from the house of Obed-edom, near Kirjath-jearim, to Jerusalem. This is the reason why David is called, in contrast to Saul, the man after Gods own heart. Certainly. Davids sins were not after Gods own heart. May He forgive the blasphemy that would suggest that they were! But beyond and beneath those sins there was a permanent character of soul instinct with the fear and with the love of God that survived and conquered them. There was, so far as we know or can conceive, nothing corresponding to this in Saul. There is, indeed, no event in Sauls life which is at once so cruel and so base as Davids sin with the wife of the murdered Uriah; but then there was nothing in Saul that could have issued forth as Davids heart-broken repentance. It is the difference between cold, tranquil, decorous indifference to the real claims of God upon a human life, and a fear of God and a love of God which are upon the whole of the governing forces of the soul. Saul and David are lasting types of human character. Saul and David live in their representatives at the present day. Lives on the whole decorous, illustrated even by undoubted and high natural virtues, but based on a deep, if not a reasoned, indifference to the will of God–such lives are lived side by side with lives open to grave criticism on account of conspicuous failings, yet based at bottom on a true fear and love of God, which lasts on under and in spite of the imperfection of the service which is rendered to Him. Saul is the more popular character with the world at large. The world likes his mixture of generosity and haughtiness, his jaunty carelessness about all that points to the mystery and the responsibilities of life. David too, is unquestionably vulnerable and keen sighted, and unfriendly critics are always hard at work upon the inconsistencies which they detect between his practice and his professions. Nevertheless, my brethren, it is better to have our part with David than with Saul; with a loyalty to God which is not always consistent, rather than with an outward propriety, if so be that it is never really loyal. (Canon Liddon.<\/em>)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n A man after Gods own heart<\/strong><\/p>\n David<\/strong><\/p>\n By this glowing announcement of a Coming Man our expectations and our curiosity are naturally raised to the highest pitch. And I daresay that if we read it in a modern three-volume book without any knowledge of intervening occurrences, we should look on to the end of the third volume to know at once whether he was supposed to have realised the ideal. If we did so, we should find an answer in the affirmative. The main question to which I propose to address myself is this. Can God ever express his approval of the whole character of a man who has committed the blackest sins which history records or which the imagination can picture? In approaching the question I must ask you to bear in mind the immense difference between looking back at a sin and looking forward to the self-same sin. A good deal of the genuine perplexity about the case before us is caused, I am sure, by forgetting this. Men commonly think that David was necessarily a bad man, because they think, and rightly think, that they should certainly be bad men if they proposed to themselves to commit the sin which David committed. But we cannot fairly argue thus and say, If David was a man after Gods own heart, it follows that such a complication of sins as he committed is no hindrance to Gods favour. It is not fair to argue thus. Why not? Because the whole of the case is not stated. The fair argument from Davids case is this, If David was on the whole a good man, it follows that great sin, followed by deep and lifelong repentance, does not exclude from Gods favour, and His approval of the character as a whole. Put it thus: We see as a fact, now that the result is before us, that David did repent and was accepted. If the history had stopped short at the account of his sin, and there were no favourable notices of him, then we could not assume that he had repented. Again, if we read that he sinned deliberately, trusting in the mercy of God and fully intending to repent, then we could have but one opinion of him; and if, in that case, he were mentioned with commendation or anything remotely bordering upon it, Scripture could not, as far as I can see, possibly be defended against the charge of encouraging wickedness and teaching men to continue in sin that grace might abound. But, as matters stand, what is the very most that can fairly be deduced from Davids case? That when a man does fall into a grievous sin,<\/p>\n (1)<\/strong> If he live to have an opportunity of repentance, and<\/p>\n (2)<\/strong> If he make due use of that opportunity, God will pardon and receive him. Our own lives are like works coming out in numbers; serials, as they are called. The lives in Scripture are like the lives as we see them when we have read the last number. They are more than this; they are in many cases–what we never have either in history or in fiction–the whole with the Divine verdict stamped upon them. The end of a character whom we follow with excited interest through a serial is always, of course, doubtful–doubtful to us, and often, as we learn from their biographies, doubtful to the authors themselves. What will become of a character in a serial is always more or less uncertain until the end. At the end it is settled according to mans view. In Scripture it is, in some cases, settled according to Gods view. We ought not in fairness, I think, to mix the unfinished serial view with the finished serial view. We must take our choice between the two. Acting in Davids case upon this rule, which we would at once apply to any character in a novel, if we heard him spoken about, you will see that we must not use all our knowledge of what in a given case occurred afterwards, in order to decide upon one particular passage in his life. You ought not to wish your judgment to be biassed. In the case of a fictitious character in whom you were interested you would say to one who had read the whole book, Dont tell me the end; let me form my own opinion. Act towards David precisely as you would towards a character in a serial, and I shall have no doubt as to your escaping much perplexity and arriving at, a just decision upon the whole subject. God, if I may say so without irreverence, has formally and terribly released Himself from all liability in this matter. But this is not all. The sincere repentance of David is distinctly recorded. Read the number of the current month, and think of the monarch fasting, lying upon the earth all night, impervious to all solicitations from the elders of his house to rise from the ground, and tell me what, do you think now? Have you changed the opinion which you had formed when you read last months number? You have changed it, and you were right to change it. Why? Because the man has changed. If you take Davids sin, judge of it by the law of sin; if you take his repentance, you must judge of it by the law of repentance. Decide as you please upon a character at a fixed point, but do not use all your knowledge of what comes afterwards to help you in forming your opinion at that point. If you will honestly do this on the serial principle I believe that David and what the inspired prophet said about him will cease to be a stumbling block. We must have the closing number of the unfinished serial before we can venture to speak. We have the developed character now; it is the character of the penitent Now we can take the life as a whole, and what is it? It is a picture of what Gods dealing sometimes is, in giving to the sinner opportunity to repent and come to himself, and of what Gods dealing always is to the sinner who avails himself of that opportunity and seeks the Lord while He may be found. If this be not so, then the parable of the prodigal son, instead of being lovely, touching, and full of comfort, becomes absolutely without purpose and, indeed, without meaning. But, if it be so, then we are in a position to answer the question to which I said at the outset I meant to address myself, namely, Can God ever express His approval of the whole character of a man who has committed the blackest sins which history records or the imagination can picture? I have to lead up to the conclusion that He can. (J. C. Coghlan, D. D.<\/em>)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n David-Beloved<\/strong><\/p>\n In what respects did David deserve this name?<\/p>\n 1. <\/strong>A perpetual covenant made with Him. Isa 55:3<\/span>. (Explained Act 13:34<\/span>).<\/p>\n 2. <\/strong>Born at Bethlehem. (Joh 7:42<\/span>; Act 13:23<\/span>).<\/p>\n 3. <\/strong>Chosen out of the people (Psa 89:19<\/span>).<\/p>\n 1. <\/strong>Two qualifications Godward.<\/p>\n (1)<\/strong> Transparent. (1Sa 16:7<\/span>; 1Ch 28:9; 1Ch 29:17<\/span>; Joh 1:47-50<\/span>). This is the Old Testament grace of perfectness, compatible with much failure and sudden falls, but implying a heart sincere in purpose and true to God. Perhaps the best illustration is the mariners compass, the needle of which, under all circumstances, turns towards the pole.<\/p>\n (2)<\/strong> Unobtrusive. 1Sa 16:11<\/span>; Jdg 6:13-16<\/span>).<\/p>\n 2. <\/strong>Five qualifications manward (1Sa 16:18<\/span>).<\/p>\n (1)<\/strong> Cunning in playing=talents improved.<\/p>\n (2)<\/strong> A mighty, valiant man=energies developed.<\/p>\n (3)<\/strong> Prudent in matters=common-sense exercised.<\/p>\n (4)<\/strong> A comely person=graces manifested.<\/p>\n (5)<\/strong> The Lord is with him=Godliness displayed This is how David struck a mere acquaintance. And yet he was the youngest, and occupied a lowly place in his own family. (Pro 15:33<\/span>).<\/p>\n The character of David<\/strong><\/p>\n Men are apt to give their chief attention to certain moral blemishes which disfigured the life of this extraordinary servant of God; and either they deduce from them an excuse for their own intemperances, or they assume that God does not hate sin so vehemently as Scripture elsewhere represents; or else they fairly own themselves unable to reconcile the several wicked acts of Davids life with that election and special favour which God was pleased to bestow upon him. Now, the conclusion that the crimes of David can ever justify similar acts of wickedness in others must be utterly delusive, if we find that David never justified them in himself. I shall, therefore, endeavour to examine the character of this very eminent person, and to account, from a general view of the subject, for that title of affectionate preference–a man after Gods own heart–by which the prophet was commissioned to speak of him. In reviewing, therefore, these facts, and comparing them with the privileges their author enjoyed, you may feel disposed to assume that God makes an irrespective choice of His servants, and that their moral worth does not weigh against His predetermined election. If such be the judgment you are disposed to give, from a consideration of Davids career it is very certain that you have very imperfectly studied his character, and that you would strangely misinterpret the ways of our heavenly Father. For, without reckoning many extenuating circumstances in our consideration of Davids evil deeds–for instance, his power and temptations as a king–his ignorance of that perfect morality which was unknown until the Gospel was preached–that disregard, too, of human life and female virtue which has always obtained in eastern countries–without, I say, reckoning any of these things in our final estimate of Davids character, we may safely assert that neither in the Old or the New Testament can be found repentance so deep, humility so sincere, faith so unwavering, or generosity so noble, as the records of Davids life show; and if these excellent virtues, united in the character of one person, are not sufficient to account for the Divine preference, then indeed Davids privileges ate a mystery, and Gods love for him is wholly unintelligible. Let us, however, consider the several qualities which I have attributed to David, and, if possible, trace in them the workings of that Spirit who alone can rescue our nature from the dominion of evil.<\/p>\n 1. <\/strong>First, his repentance. This we naturally look for after his fall with Bathsheba, and the attendant conspiracy against her husbands life. Immersed for a time in guilty indulgence, David seems to have been in that common state which sensuality produces, literally unaware of the extent of his crime. Suddenly, and in the midst of this fancied security, the Prophet Nathan stood before him, and, by a parable almost, unequalled for its truth and tenderness, recalled the king to his senses. Now, if any one of you wish to express his own repentance, or to test its reality, let him use such language as this, and try how far his feelings accord with it. If you can repent in this spirit, you know indeed what repentance is. In fact, the Bible affords no language for the broken and contrite heart equal to this, and other penitential Psalms by David.<\/p>\n 2. <\/strong>Now, with regard to Davids unwavering faith in God, I may say at once that it was the ruling principle of his life. Everything he deliberately undertook was in simple reliance upon Divine support. Faith with David really was the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen: it supported him through all the vicissitudes of a strangely chequered life, and spread a halo of hope around his departing spirit. After making allowance for the minute record of his human failings–a publicity which most men happily escape–and for the partial revelations which visited the times in which he lived, we find no character in Scripture so full, perhaps, of unwavering faith in the goodness and promises of God as David!<\/p>\n 3. <\/strong>The last point which I shall notice in the character of this extraordinary person is his generous and noble feelings; and most, strikingly were these displayed in Davids connections both with Saul and his son Jonathan. The former regarded David as his deadliest enemy; the latter loved him as his bosom friend. In the study of the life of David the lesson which has struck me, and which I would inculcate upon you, is the extraordinary difference betwixt David and mankind in general, in all the good points for which he was eminent; for it would appear that, though we can imitate him in his crimes, in his faith and humility we widely differ from him: and thus we have a sort of prurient interest about all his weaknesses, fancying we see in them some justification for our own; whilst with his excellencies we are comparatively unacquainted, because they rebuke and cry shame to us at every step in life. Why David was the favourite of God rather than any of us, is, therefore, very clear: we partake the condemning sinfulness of his fallen nature; but we do not join him in penitence, in humility, and in faith. Our repentance is commonly mere shame and worldly discomfiture; no real change of mind, and therefore requiring to be repented of, our trust we give to the world and its trifles rather than to God. In business we are lively, earnest, and active; but in prayer we are cold and doubting. The records of Davids piety are before us in the Psalms–compare with these the remembrance of your best devotional exercises, and you will see how we differ from him. If there be this difference betwixt you and David which I have attempted to show you, still delude not yourselves with the fancy that a higher standard of excellence was demanded from him than is expected from you. As to this matter there is but one rule–Be ye perfect as your Father which is in Heaven is perfect, and for this every one of you must strive. The standard for all men is the highest possible. Finally, remember one other thing, which the example of David has taught us, with regard to progression upon the heavenly road: whatever be your peculiar temptations, or your besetting sins, you must commence a spiritual reformation–you must seek the renewing of your minds by prayer and spiritual exercises, or you will seek to grow better in vain. Our Lord enjoined the Pharisees to cleanse first the inside of the cup and the platter; and David, with the same conviction, prayed–Create in me a clean heart, and renew a right spirit within me. This, believe me, is the only way to become a Christian here, or to inherit glory, immortality, and icy hereafter. (A. Gatty, M. A.<\/em>)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Was David a character after Gods Own heart-Yes or No?<\/strong><\/p>\n Was the character of David after Gods own heart? Conventional pietists will to a man say, Yes. The most thoughtful, independent, and critical students of Gods Book will to a man say, No. We say, No, for the following reasons:–<\/p>\n Thou hast done foolishly<\/B> in that very thing wherein thou thinkest thou hast done wisely and politicly, in disobeying my express command upon a pretended necessity, or reason of state. <\/P> The Lord thy God; <\/B>not only upon common grounds, as thou art his creature, and one of his people; but in a special manner, who hath conferred peculiar favours and honours upon thee; which is an aggravation of thy sin. <\/P> Now would the Lord have established thy kingdom on Israel for ever.<\/B> <\/P> Quest.<\/B> How could this be true, when the kingdom was promised to Judah, Gen 49:10<\/span>, and consequently must necessarily be taken away from Saul, and from his tribe? <\/P> Answ.<\/B> First, The phrase for ever<\/I>, in Scripture use, ofttimes signifies only a long time, as Gen 43:9<\/span>; Exo 21:6<\/span>; 1Sa 28:2<\/span>. So this had been abundantly verified, if the kingdom had been enjoyed by Saul, and by his son, and by his sons son; after whom the kingdom might have come to Judah. Secondly, Though the kingdom had been promised to Saul and to his posterity for ever in a larger sense, yet that was upon condition of his obedience. And therefore God might well promise the kingdom to Judah, because at that time, and before, he foresaw that Saul would by his disobedience forfeit that promise, and that he would take the forfeiture, and transfer the kingdom to Judah. <\/P> <\/p>\n And Samuel said to Saul, thou hast done foolishly<\/strong>,…. Not by intruding himself into the priest’s office, with that he is not charged, but not waiting the full time till Samuel came; which showed his impatience, disregard to Samuel, and distrust of God; and though he thought he had acted wisely, and taken the proper precautions in his circumstances, yet he acted foolishly; and though a king, Samuel being a prophet of the Lord, and in his name, spared not to tell him so:<\/p>\n thou hast not kept the commandment of the Lord thy God, which he commanded thee<\/strong>; by his prophet, that he should wait seven days for his coming, who would then offer sacrifices, and tell him what he should do; and not to keep the commandment of God was acting a foolish part:<\/p>\n for now would the Lord have established thy kingdom upon Israel for ever<\/strong>; that is, for a long time, on his son, and son’s son; and then, according to promise and prophecy, it would come to one of the tribe of Judah; but now seeing he had acted such a part, it should not continue long in his family, no longer than his own life, and quickly come into other hands.<\/p>\n 13<\/strong>. <\/strong> Thou hast done foolishly <\/strong> “The prophet knew very well that there are many foolishnesses in the heart of man; but in his view, and in that of all the sacred writers, the lowest depth of human foolishness was in disobedience to the Lord’s commandments. There are two kinds of fools prominently noticed in Scripture the fool who denies that there is any God, and the fool who does not obey God though he does not deny his existence. And yet, after all, these are but one. One may as well believe there is no God as not to obey him.” Kitto.<\/p>\n 1Sa 13:13<\/span><\/em><\/strong>. <\/strong>Samuel said to Saul, Thou hast done foolishly<\/em><\/strong><\/strong> Samuel had ordered him to stay seven days; even until I come to thee, and shew thee what thou shalt do; <\/em>which Josephus explains as a promise that he would come after seven days; i.e<\/em>. after the seventh was begun; that they might sacrifice on the seventh of those days. Saul tarried the seven days; i.e<\/em>. till the seventh day came: and when he saw that Samuel came not, lemoed haiamim, according to the appointed time of the days, <\/em>the seventh day being far gone, and the prophet not appearing, impatient at the delay, and knowing that the sacrifices were to be offered on the seventh day, he determined to wait for the prophet no longer, and by his own authority orders the solemnity instantly to begin. In the midst of it Samuel <\/em>appears, and justly reproves him for his presumption and impatience. The prophet, therefore, kept his appointment; but Saul, under a cloak of piety, (1Sa 13:12<\/span>.) transgressed the commandment of God which the prophet delivered him, and thereby shewed that he intended to be absolute and arbitrary; to act as king, independent on the orders and without the direction of God, and to pay no regard to the established laws and religion, whenever his ambition or policy should prompt him to act contrary to them. And though some writers have endeavoured to extenuate this fault of Saul, and think it hard that he should be rejected for so comparatively small an offence; yet to me it appears in a quite different light, and to be a very heinous and aggravated instance of disobedience, and a thorough specimen of what the man would afterwards prove. Samuel expressly says, thou hast not kept the commandment of the Lord thy God, which he commanded thee. <\/em>What was this commandment? Why, not only to wait seven days till Samuel came to assist at the sacrifice, but to receive God’s direction by the prophet, what he should do, <\/em>or what measures he was to take, upon the invasion of the Philistines, and not to act in so critical a conjuncture without his orders. Saul, under a pretence of piety, and making supplication to the Lord, <\/em>absolutely contradicts the command, thinks himself above waiting for the prophet, takes upon himself the ordinance of an affair that no way belonged to him; and, as if God’s direction by the prophet was of no consequence to him, resolves to act for himself, and deal with the Philistines as well as he could. Let any inferior prince thus violate the orders of his sovereign, and act in any affair of importance directly contrary to his instructions and duty, and no one will scruple to pronounce him guilty of rebellion, or think he was too hardly treated, by being removed from his dignity and government. Indeed, this instance of Saul’s disobedience in the beginning of his reign, before he was well versed in the affairs of state, or experienced in war, or the kingdom made hereditary in his family; when all his people were in terror on account of the Philistines, and the delay of Samuel’s coming made them apprehensive lest God should refuse to appear for their deliverance, was a strong specimen of that obstinate, rash, and impetuous temper, which made him unfit for the government to which he was raised, and was the true reason of his being rejected by God. Of this disposition he gave two proofs immediately after that of which I have been speaking: For when, upon Jonathan’s invasion of the Philistines’ garrison, the whole army was struck with a panic, so that in their terror they slew one another; what did the heroic Saul do? Why, he adjured the people, saying, cursed be the man that eateth any food until the evening, that I may be avenged of mine enemies: <\/em>an execration fit only for a madman to utter, and than which nothing could be more extravagant, unless it was what immediately followed it, his laying himself under an execration to put to death his son Jonathan, for tasting a little honey without knowing that he incurred his father’s curse upon eating it. The reader will observe here one or two immediate effects of Saul’s acting without the advice of the prophet; his being denied the honour of gaining the victory, and having the dishonour to render it incomplete by his rashness; and the impertinency of part of his excuse for disobeying the prophet’s orders, viz. that the people were scattered from him; <\/em>when this very victory was obtained by two men only, Jonathan and his armour-bearer, who struck a terror into the whole hosts of the Philistines, so that in their haste to escape they destroyed one another. After this, he will not wonder that God determined Saul’s kingdom should not continue, <\/em>or that Samuel was displeased with, and gave him the rebuke that he so justly deserved. See Chandler’s Review of the History of David, p. 25 and the notes on chap. 15: <\/p>\n (13) And Samuel said to Saul, Thou hast done foolishly: thou hast not kept the commandment of the LORD thy God, which he commanded thee: for now would the LORD have established thy kingdom upon Israel forever. (14) But now thy kingdom shall not continue: the LORD hath sought him a man after his own heart, and the LORD hath commanded him to be captain over his people, because thou hast not kept that which the LORD commanded thee.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n The reproof of the prophet corresponded to Saul’s transgression. Uzzah, in the succeeding age, was struck dead for touching the ark. And another of the same name was smitten with the leprosy, for invading the Priest’s office. Saul therefore had room given him for repentance, had he sought it. See 2Sa 6:6-7 ; 2Ch 26:16-21<\/span> .<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/em><\/p>\n 1Sa 13:13 And Samuel said to Saul, Thou hast done foolishly: thou hast not kept the commandment of the LORD thy God, which he commanded thee: for now would the LORD have established thy kingdom upon Israel for ever.<\/p>\n <\/em><\/p>\n Ver. 13. Thou hast done foolishly.<\/strong> ] This was to reprove libere et rotunde,<\/em> as one saith, freely and roundly, plainly and faithfully. But wherein had Saul offended? Surely in diffidence and disobedience: there was in him an “evil heart of unbelief, departing from the living God,” Heb 3:12 to whom he should have adhered “with full purpose of heart,” Act 11:23 and waited for his help according to his promise; “He that believeth maketh not haste.” Some think that Saul had transgressed against some special commandment of God. To disobey God in the smallest matter is sin enough: there can be no sin little, because there is no little God to sin against. <\/p>\n <\/p>\n For now would the Lord have established, &c.<\/strong> ] Loquitur humano more, et ut videri poterat stabiliri regnum,<\/em> saith Pellican: he speaketh after the manner of men, and as his kingdom might have seemed to us likely to have been established, See a like speech, 1Sa 2:30<\/span> Rev 2:15<\/p>\n thou hast not. Some codices, with three early printed editions, and Vulgate, read “and hast”. Some codices, with Septuagint and Syriac, read “because thou <\/p>\n hast”. God. Hebrew. Elohim. App-4. <\/p>\n thy kingdom. This possible only with God a sovereign. <\/p>\n Left in the Spoilers Hands <\/p>\n 1Sa 13:13-23<\/p>\n Sternly and sorrowfully the old prophet pronounced the sentence of Sauls deposition, and suggested that already God had sought and found another prince for his people. In Jesses home was found the stripling who in after-years would say: Wait on the Lord: be of good courage and He shall strengthen thy heart: wait, I say, on the Lord, Psa 27:14.<\/p>\n Wait thou thy Lords leisure! Bid thy heart stay its feverish beating, and thy pulse subside! To act prematurely and in self-will would mar the divine purpose, and set in motion stones that could not be slopped. Let your moderation be known unto all men; the Lord is at hand. Never say, Circumstances compelled me; I had to do it: my hand was forced! No, child of God, thou art greater than circumstances and superior to the crowd of base spirits around thee. Wait thou on God, for He shall yet interpose in thy behalf. Allow no circumstances to provoke or excuse the doing of evil. In quietness and confidence shall be thy strength; in returning and rest shall thou be saved.<\/p>\n Thou hast done: 2Sa 12:7-9, 1Ki 18:18, 1Ki 21:20, 2Ch 16:9, 2Ch 19:2, 2Ch 25:15, 2Ch 25:16, Job 34:18, Pro 19:3, Mat 14:3, Mat 14:4 <\/p>\n hast not kept: 1Sa 15:11, 1Sa 15:22, 1Sa 15:28, Psa 50:8-15 <\/p>\n Reciprocal: Gen 31:28 – foolishly Deu 17:20 – right hand 1Sa 13:9 – he offered 1Sa 16:1 – seeing 1Sa 28:17 – as he spake 2Sa 24:10 – foolishly 1Ki 11:11 – I will surely 1Ki 13:21 – thou hast disobeyed 1Ch 10:13 – even against 1Ch 21:8 – I have done 2Ch 6:5 – neither chose 2Ch 24:20 – transgress Psa 36:3 – he hath Pro 12:8 – he Pro 21:27 – sacrifice Pro 29:4 – king Ecc 5:1 – give Isa 39:5 – Hear Jer 18:10 – then Hos 6:5 – have I Act 13:22 – when Gal 3:1 – Foolish<\/p>\n 1Sa 13:13. The Lord would have established thy kingdom for ever The phrase, for ever, in Scripture, often signifies only a long time. And this declaration would have been abundantly verified, if the kingdom had been enjoyed by Saul, and by his son, and by his sons son; after whom the kingdom might have come to Judah.<\/p>\n 13:13 And Samuel said to Saul, Thou hast done foolishly: thou hast not kept the commandment of the LORD thy {i} God, which he commanded thee: for now would the LORD have established thy kingdom upon Israel for ever.<\/p>\n (i) Who willed you to obey him, and rest on the words spoken by his prophet.<\/p>\n And Samuel said to Saul, Thou hast done foolishly: thou hast not kept the commandment of the LORD thy God, which he commanded thee: for now would the LORD have established thy kingdom upon Israel forever. 13. Thou hast done foolishly ] Saul’s sin seems excusable and scarcely deserving of so heavy a punishment. But … Continue reading “Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of 1 Samuel 13:13”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-7510","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-commentary"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7510","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=7510"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7510\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=7510"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=7510"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=7510"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
I. <\/strong>In the early behaviour of Saul, after the period when he is introduced in the Scriptures to our notice, there is much to prepossess us in his favour. The fruit, however, corresponds little with the blossom. The impressions produced by early symptoms in Saul of moderation end of respect for his sovereign Benefactor are soon to be effaced. Though Saul by his disobedience respecting the sacrifice has incurred the forfeiture of the kingdom, yet God, ever merciful and long-suffering, forbears to commission Samuel to anoint a successor to the throne, and is willing to grant to the unworthy prince an opportunity of reinstating himself in the Divine favour. Samuel, by the direction of the Most High, now commands Saul to execute the long predicted vengeance. To the conduct of Saul throughout the whole of this transaction can a name more appropriate than folly be ascribed? Can any fact be ascertained more clearly than the identity of folly and sin? Saul is now an outcast from the Divine favour. He is permitted to retain the kingdom during his life; but judgment in its most terrible form delays not to overtake him. The Spirit of the Lord departs from him. How shall the life of Saul be summarily described? I have sinned; I have played the fool; I have erred exceedingly. Whose are these words? The words of Saul himself in his latter days. Do you require stronger testimony to the identity of folly and sin?<\/p>\n
II. <\/strong>From the foregoing history, several important observations may be derived.<\/p>\n
<\/strong><\/p>\n
I. <\/strong>It is plain by a reference to the context that the title after Gods own heart was only comparative, not absolute. Meant that, by the side of Saul, David was the man who attracted favour and confidence of God. The faith by which he walked with God; gained the victory over Goliath; became at all worthy to be Gods vicegerent; remained unconquered, though not unhurt, through many a defeat and fall, through a life-long struggle.<\/p>\n
II. <\/strong>Title was given him in early days, before his life had become overcast with the cloud of sin and error. The Lord hath sought Him a man, etc. And when God found him he was still the David of the 23rd Psalm. Do not say that God did not love him after his fall, or did not give him large praise until his death, and after his death. But he is certainly never called the man after Gods own heart again.<\/p>\n
III. <\/strong>Davids repentance was far more deep than appears on the surface of the narrative. How deep and true it was we know from 51st Psalm, which has supplied so many millions of penitent souls with very words they wanted.<\/p>\n
IV. <\/strong>It is most necessary to bear in mind, in considering the career of David, the severity of punishment which followed upon Davids sin. Let anyone look at Davids old age, and say whether the justice of God is not an inexorable and an awful thing. For every sin there is forgiveness, but for all that it may be that every sin leaves its mark, its effect for ill. (R. Winterbotham, M. A.<\/em>)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
I. <\/strong>As a type of Christ.<\/p>\n
I. <\/strong>As an example to us in his own character.<\/p>\n
III. <\/strong>He was Gods choice. If God calls us to witness for Him, and we feel ever so unfitted in ourselves, let us remember Joh 15:16<\/span>; 1Co 1:27<\/span>. (R. E. Faulkner.<\/em>)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
I. <\/strong>Because the affirmative is a reflection of Gods holiness. Sin is the abominable thing which the Almighty hates, hates everywhere, and in every form David had his virtues, as most bad men have; but few men in history were guilty of more heinous crimes. He was guilty of falsehood, cruelties, adulteries, murders His whole nature at times seemed flooded and fired with the spirit of revenge. It is blasphemy to assert that such a character was after the heart of infinite purity We say, No.<\/p>\n
II. <\/strong>Because the affirmative is unsustained by the Word of God. The text which is the passage quoted in its favour does not mean it. The expression, after His own heart, does not mean after His own approval, but after His own counsel. He worketh all things after the counsel of His own will. Indeed, when these words were uttered David was not born. The Almighty used David as He used Cyrus, Alexander, Caesar, etc., after His own heart, that is, after the counsel of His own will. We say, No.<\/p>\n
III. <\/strong>Because the affirmative is fraught with mischief. The thoughtful worldling says, All right; if God approves of a man whose history is so full of meanness, revenge deception, ungovernable lust, and bloodshed, we cannot be far wrong. (Homilist.<\/em>)<\/p>\nFuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: F.B. Meyer’s Through the Bible Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"