An Interpretation of the English Bible
THE HEBREW
by B. H. CARROLL
Late President of Southwestern Baptist
Theological Seminary, Fort Worth, Texas
J. B. Cranfill
Grand Rapids, Michigan
New and complete edition
Copyright 1948, Broadman
Press
Reprinted by Baker Book
House
with permission of
Broadman Press
ISBN: 0-8010-2344-0
First Printing, September
1973
Second Printing, September
1976
PHOTOLITHOPRINTED BY GUSHING
- MALLOY, INC.
ANN ARBOR, MICHIGAN, UNITED STATES
OF AMERICA
1976
I Author's
Introduction
II The
Early Life of Samuel
III The Fall
of the House of Eli, and the Rise of Samuel
IV The
Schools of the Prophets
V Samuel and
the Monarchy, and His Vindication as Judge
VI Saul, the
First King
VII Saul, the
First King (Continued)
VIII The
Passing of Saul and His Dynasty
IX Saul's
Unpardonable Sin. and Its Penalty
X David
Chosen as Saul's Successor, and His Introduction to the Court of Saul
XI The War
Between Love and Hate – The Story of a lost soul
XII Saul's
Murderous Pursuit of David
XIII David and
His Independent Army; the End of the Duel with Saul
XIV Ziklag,
Endor and Gilboa
XV Historical
Introduction to 2 Samuel and 1 Chronicles
XVI David,
King of Judah at Hebron, and the War with the House of Saul
XVII David Made King over All Israel, and the Capture of
Jerusalem for a Capital
XVIII The Wars
of David
XIX Three Dark
Events of David's Career
XX Bringing up
the Ark and the Establishment of a Central Place of Worship
XXI David's Kindness
Toward Jonathan's Son; Birth
of Solomon;
Family Troubles; the Three Years of Famine
XXII The Sin of
Numbering the Children of Israel, It's Penalty,
and the History of Absalom
XXIII Death of
Absalom; Preparation for Solomon's Accession,
and the Building of the
Temple
XXIV The Army;
Civil Organization; International Commerce; Religious Organization
XXV Books of the
Reign of Solomon; The Empire of
Solomon; Solomon's
Inheritance from His Father
XXVI Solomon’s Accession,
Marriage, Dream and Remarkable Wisdom
XXVII The
Analysis of Solomon’s Wisdom
XXVIII The Works
of Solomon
XXIX Dedication
of the Temple
XXX The Fall and
End of Solomon
The general theme of this section is "The Hebrew Monarchy." The
textbook is Crockett's Harmony of Samuel; Kings and Chronicles. The
collateral textbook is Wood's Hebrew Monarchy. The best and most
convenient commentary on Samuel is Kirkpatrick's, in the "Cambridge
Bible." Other good textbooks on Samuel and his times are: Edersheim's
"History of Israel," Vol. IV; Dean's Samuel and Saul; Hengstenberg's Kingdom
of God in the Old Testament, Vol. II; Hengstenberg's Christology
of the Old Testament, Vol. 1; Stanley's Jewish Church;
Geikie's Hours with the Bible; Geikie’s Bible Characters –
Eli, Samuel, Saul; Sampey's Syllabus; Josephus. A good
special commentary on Chronicles is Murphy's.
First Chronicles 8-10 parallels 1 Samuel, and the important distinctions
between Samuel and Kings on the one part, and Chronicles on the other part,
are:
1. In the time of composition and in the authors, Samuel and Kings were written
by authors contemporary with the events, but Chronicles was all compiled by
Ezra after the downfall of the monarchy.
2. The purpose was different. Samuel and Kings aim to give a continuous history
by contemporaneous authors, of all Israel from the establishment of the
kingdom, first showing the transition from Judges to Kings, then the division
of the kingdom, then the history of the kingdoms to the downfall of each, a
period of five hundred years, all continuous history by contemporaneous
authors. But the purpose of Chronicles is unique. Ignoring the Northern
Kingdom, it is designed to show merely the genealogy and history of the Davidic
line alone, in which the national union is preserved, and, commencing with
Adam, it shows the persistence of national life after the downfall of the
monarchy. Its viewpoint is the restoration after the captivity by Babylon. And
while, indeed, the compiler uses the material of contemporaneous historians, or
material of historians contemporaneous with the events as they came to pass,
yet it is used as a retrospect.
3. Chronicles is a new and different beginning of Jewish history, rooting in
Genesis, and becomes the introduction of all exile and post exile Old Testament
books) and for the uninspired books of the inter-Biblical period, and hence is
a preparation for the coming Messiah in the Davidic line.
4. Hence the first seven chapters of Chronicles parallel Old Testament books
prior to Samuel, and its last paragraph goes beyond Kings in showing the
connection with post-exile history.
5. While it is proper to use Chronicles in the Harmony with Samuel and Kings,
one who studies Chronicles in the Harmony only, can never get its true
conception.
As to the title, "Samuel," to the two books which bear that name, the
following explanation is apropos:
1. In the Jewish enumeration the two books are one. A note at the end of 2
Samuel in the Hebrew Bible still treats the two books as one, and Eusebius, the
great church historian, quotes Origen to the effect that the Jews of his day
counted the books one. Josephus so counts them.
2. The meaning of the title is twofold: (a) Up to the death of Samuel it means
the author of the book, and (b) as applied to the whole book it means the
principal hero of the story up to the time of David.
1. Considering the history and the sources of the material, we learn from 1
Chronicles 29:29 that the history of the reign of David is ascribed to three
prophets, Samuel, Nathan, and Gad; and from other passages in Chronicles we
learn that other prophets took up the story. So far as the scope of I and 2
Samuel extends we may well say that the writers were Samuel, Nathan, and Gad,
i.e., Samuel up to 1 Samuel 25, then Nathan and Gad.
2. First Chronicles 27:24 tells us of the state records of David's reign, and
from these records may have been obtained such matter as appears in 2 Samuel
8:16-18; 20:23-26; 23: 8-39.
3. In 1 Samuel 10:25 we learn that the charter of the kingdom is expressly said
to have been written by Samuel.
4. It is very probable that the national poetic literature furnished Hannah's
song (1 Sam. 2:1-10); David's lament for Abner (2 Sam. 3:33-34); David's
Thanksgiving (2 Sam. 22, which is also the same as Psalm 18); the last words of
David (2 Sam. 23:1-7). David's lament for Saul and Jonathan (2 Sam. 1:18-27) is
expressly said to be taken from the book of Jasher.
Certain passages in the book itself bear on the date of the compilation in its
present form:
1. There is an explanation in 1 Samuel 9:9 of old terms which would be
necessary, for the terms were not in use when the book was compiled.
2. There is a reference to obsolete customs in 2 Samuel 13:18.
3. The phrase "unto this day" is repeated seven times: 1 Samuel 5:5;
6:18; 27:6; 30:25; 2 Samuel 4:3; 6:8; 18:18.
4. Second Samuel 5:5 refers to the whole reign of David.
5. In the Septuagint, but not in the Hebrew, there are references extending to
Rehoboam, Solomon's son.
6. In 1 Samuel 27:6 mention of the kings of Judah seems to imply that the
divisions of the kingdom in Rehoboam's day had taken place. The conclusion as
to the date of the present form is that is was compiled soon after the division
of the kingdom. The canonicity of Samuel has never been questioned. It is
remarkably accurate, and in every way reliable. Each part is the language of
the contemporaneous historian who was an eye witness of the scenes, though
there are some parts difficult to harmonize, which will be noticed particularly
as they come up.
The materials for the text are the Hebrew Manuscript, and the versions, to wit:
The Septuagint; the Chaldean, or Aramaic; and the Vulgate. Our manuscripts of
the Septuagint are mainly the Alexandrian Manuscript of the fifth century A.D.,
and the Vatican Manuscript of the fourth century. The Alexandrian Manuscript
conforms most nearly to the Hebrew text, there being an important variation in
the Vatican Manuscript from the Hebrew text that will be subsequently noted.
The Chaldean, or Aramaic version, commonly known as the Targum of Jonathan Ben
Uzziel, is more a commentary or paraphrase than a translation, and that, too,
of the later Jews. In the third note to the Appendix of 2 Samuel in the
"Cambridge Bible" we find in this Targum quite a remarkable addition
to Hannah's Song, ascribing to her a prophecy that touches the destruction of
the Philistines; the descendants of Samuel, who form a part of the Davidic
choir, and concerns Sennacherib and Nebuchadnezzar, Greece, Haman, and Rome.
For this prophecy, there is no inspired foundation.
Dr. Sampey, of the Louisville Seminary, says that the text of this section
needs editing more than any other part of the Bible, and there are some
peculiarities of the text which we will now take up:
1. Certain passages exist in duplicate, all of them in 2 Samuel except 1 Samuel
31, which is the same as 1 Chronicles 10: 1-12.
2. There are others remarkably similar; for example, compare the account in
chapters 23:19 to 24:22 with chapter 26.
3. The Septuagint in the Vatican Manuscript differs from the Alexandrian
Manuscript and also from the Hebrew, in omitting a considerable part of
chapters 17 and 18. The omission removes certain difficulties but creates
others.
4. The narrative of the Witch of Endor raising the ghost or shade of Samuel
(chap. 28) has provoked controversies in every age, and special attention will
be given to that when we get to it.
5. In 1 Samuel 1:3 will be found an entirely new name for God. It is not found
in any antecedent Old Testament book nor in many subsequent Old Testament
books. The name is the Lord of Sabaoth, which means the Lord of Hosts. All of
these peculiarities will be noted more particularly as we come to them.
The following is Dr. Kirkpatrick's analysis of 1 Samuel:
I. The close of the period of the Judges,
chapters 1-7.
1. The early life of Samuel, extending from 1:1 to 4:la.
2. The judgment of Eli and the loss of the Ark, 4:.lb-7:1.
3. The judicial life of Samuel, 7:2-17.
II. The foundation of the monarchy,
chapters 8-31.
1. The appointment of the first king, chapters 8-10.
2. Saul's reign unto his rejection, chapters 11-15.
3. Decline of Saul and rise of David, chapters 16-31.
QUESTIONS
1. What the general theme of
this section?
2. What the textbook?
3. What the collateral
textbook?
4. What the best and most
convenient commentary on Samuel?
5. What other good textbooks
on Samuel and his times?
6. What special commentary
on Chronicles commended?
7. What part of 1 Chronicles
parallels 1 Samuel?
8. What important distinctions
between Samuel and Kings on the one part, and Chronicles on the other part?
9. What of the title,
"Samuel," to the two books which bear that name?
10. Who wrote the history,
and what the sources of the material?
11. What passages in the book
itself bear on the date of the compilation in its present form?
12. What the conclusion as
to the date of the present form?
13. What of the canonicity
of Samuel?
14. What of the accuracy and
reliability of the history?
15. What can you say of the
text of the book of Samuel?
16. What does Dr. Sampey say
of the text?
17. What peculiarities of
the text noted?
18. Whose analysis
commented, and what its main divisions and subdivisions?
THE EARLY LIFE OF SAMUEL
1 Samuel 1:1 to 4:la and Harmony pages
62-66.
We omit Part I of the textbook, since that first part is devoted to
genealogical tables taken from 1 Chronicles. That part of Chronicles is not an
introduction to Samuel or Kings, but an introduction to the Old Testament books
written after the Babylonian captivity. To put that in now would be out of
place.
We need to emphasize the supplemental character of Chronicles. Our Harmony indeed
will show from time to time in successive details the very important
contributions of that nature in Chronicles not found in any form in the
histories of Samuel and Kings, nor elsewhere in the Old Testament; but to
appreciate the magnitude of this new matter we need to glance at it in bulk,
not in detail, as its parts will come up later.
There are twenty whole chapters and parts of twenty-four other chapters in
Chronicles occupied with matter not found in other books of the Bible. This is
a considerable amount of new material, and is valuable on that account but it
is still more valuable because it presents a new aspect of Hebrew history after
the captivity. The following passages in Chronicles contain new matter: 1
Chronicles 2:18-55; 3:19-24;-4-9; 11:41-47; 12; 15:1-26; 2229; 2 Chronicles
6:40-42; 11:5-23; 12:4-8; 13:3-21; 14:3-15; 15:1-15; 16:7-10; 17-19; 20:1-30;
21:2-4, 11-19; 24:15-22; 25:5-10, 12-16; 26:5-20; 27:4-6; 28:5-25; 29:3-36;
30-31; 32:22-23; 26-31; 33:11-19; 34:3-7; 35:2-17,25; 36:11-23.
Whoever supposed that there was that much material in the book of Chronicles
that could not be found anywhere else? One can study Chronicles as a part of a
Harmony with Samuel and Kings, but if that were the only way it could be
studied he would never get the true significance of it, as it is an
introduction to all of the later Old Testament books. In the light of these
important new additions, we not only see the introduction of all subsequent Old
Testament books and also inter-Biblical books by Jews, but must note the
transition in thought from a secular Jewish kingdom to an approaching spiritual
messianic kingdom.
We thus learn that Old Testament prophecy is not limited to distinct utterances
foretelling future events, but that the whole history of the Jewish people is
prophetic; not merely in its narrative, but in its legislation, in its types,
feasts, sabbaths, sacrifices, offerings; in its tabernacle and Temple, with all
of their divinely appointed worship and ritual, and this explains why the historical
books are classed as prophetic, not merely because prophets wrote them, which
is true, but also because the history is prophetic.
In this fact lies one of the strongest proofs of the inspiration of the Old
Testament books in all of their parts. The things selected for record, and the
things not recorded, are equally forcible. The silence equals the utterance.
This is characteristic of no other literature, and shows divine supervision
which not only makes necessary every part recorded, but so correlates and
adapts the parts as to make perfect literary and spiritual structure which
demands a New Testament as a culmination.
Moreover, we are blind if we cannot see a special Providence preparing a leader
for every transition in Jewish history. Just as Moses was prepared for
deliverance from Egypt, and for the disposition of the law, so Samuel is
prepared, not only to guide from a government by judges to a government by
kings, but, what is very much more important, to establish a School of the
Prophets – a theological seminary.
These prophets were to be the mouthpieces of God in speaking to kingly and
national conscience, and for 500 years afterward, become the orators, poets,
historians, and reformers of the nation, and so, for centuries, avert, postpone,
or remedy, national disasters provoked by public corruption of morals and
religion.
Counting great men as peaks of a mountain range, and sighting backward from
Samuel to Abraham, only one peak, Moses, comes into the line of vision.
There are other peaks, but they don't come up high enough to rank with Abraham,
Moses, and Samuel. A list of the twelve best and greatest men in the world's
history must include the name of Samuel. When we come, at his death, to analyze
his character and posit him among the great, other things will be said. Just
now we are to find in his early life that such a man did not merely happen;
that neither heredity, environment, nor chance produced him.
Samuel was born at Ramah, lived at Ramah, died at Ramah, and was buried at
Ramah. Ramah is a little village in the mountains of Ephraim, somewhat north of
the city of Jerusalem. It is right hard to locate Ramah on any present map of
the Holy Land. Some would put it south, some north. It is not easy to locate
like Bethlehem and Shiloh.
Samuel belonged to the tribe of Levi, but was not a descendant of Aaron. If he
had been he would have been either a high priest or a priest. Only Aaron's
descendants could be high priests, or priests, but Samuel belonged to the tribe
of Levi, and from 1 Chronicles 6 we may trace his descent. The tribe of Levi
had no continuous landed territory like the other tribes, but was distributed
among the other tribes. That tribe belonged to God, and they had no land
assigned them except the villages in which they lived and the cities of the
refuge, of which they had charge, and so Samuel's father could be called an
Ephrathite and yet be a descendant of the tribe of Levi – that is, he was a
Levite living in the territory of Ephraim.
The bigamy of Samuel's father produced the usual bitter fruit. The first and
favorite wife had no children, so in order to perpetuate his name he took a
second wife, and when that second wife bore him a large brood of children she
gloried over the first wife, and provoked her and mocked at her for having no
children, and it produced a great bitterness in Hannah's soul. The history of
the Mormons demonstrates that bitterness always accompanies a plurality of
wives. I don't see bow a woman can share a home or husband with any other
woman.
We will now consider the attitude of the Mosaic law toward a plurality of
wives, divorce, etc. In Deuteronomy 21:15-17 we see that the Mosaic law did
permit an existing custom. It did not originate it nor command it, but it
tolerated the universal custom of the times, a plurality of wives. From
Deuteronomy 24:1-4, we learn that the law permitted a husband to get rid of a
wife, but commanded him to give her a bill of divorcement. That law was not
made to encourage divorcement, but to limit the evil and to protect the woman
who would suffer under divorce. Why the law even permitted these things we see
from Matthew 19:7-8. Our Saviour there tells us that Moses, on account of the
hardness of their hearts, permitted a man to put away his wife. That is to say,
that nation had just emerged from slavery, and the prevalent custom all around
them permitted something like that, and because they were not prepared for an
ideal law on the subject on account of the hardness of their hearts, Moses
tolerated, without commending a plurality of wives or commanding divorce – both
in a way to mitigate the evil, but when Jesus comes to give his statute on the
subject he speaks out and says, “Whosoever shall put away his wife except for
marital infidelity and marries again committeth adultery, and whosoever shall
marry her that is put away committeth adultery." A preacher in a recent
sermon, as reported, discredited that part of Matthew because not found also in
Mark. I have no respect for the radical criticism which makes Mark the only
credible Gospel, or even the norm of the others. Nor can any man show one shred
of evidence that it is so. I have a facsimile of the three oldest New Testament
manuscripts. What Matthew says is there, and may not be eliminated on such
principles of criticism.
The radical critics say that the Levitical part of the Mosaic law was not
written by Moses, but by a priest in Ezekiel's time, and that Israel had no
central place of worship in the period of the judges, but this section shows
that they did have a central place of worship at Shiloh, and the book of Joshua
shows when Shiloh became the central place of worship. The text shows that they
did come up yearly to this central place of worship, and that they did offer,
as in the case of Hannah and Elkanah, the sacrifices required in Leviticus.
In Joshua 18:1 we learn that when the conquest was finished Joshua, himself,
placed the ark of the covenant and the tabernacle at Shiloh, and constituted it
the central place of worship. In this section we learn what disaster ended
Shiloh as the central place of worship. The ark was captured, and subsequently
the tabernacle was removed, and that ark and that tabernacle never got together
again. In Jeremiah 7:12 we read: "But go ye now unto my place which was in
Shiloh, where I caused my name to dwell at the first, and see what I did to it
for the wickedness of my people Israel." Jeremiah is using that history as
a threat against Jerusalem, which in Jeremiah's time was the central place of
worship. His lesson was, "If you repeat the wickedness done in Samuel's
time God will do to your city and your home what he did to Shiloh." It is
important to know the subsequent separate history of the ark and the
tabernacle, and when and where another permanent central place and house of
worship were established. The Bible tells us every move that ark and that
tabernacle made, and when, where, and by whom the permanent central place and
house of worship were established.
Eli was high priest at Samuel's birth. In those genealogical tables that we
omitted from 1 Chronicles we see that Eli was a descendant of Aaron, but not of
Eleazar, the eldest son; therefore, according to the Mosaic law, he ought never
to have been high priest, but he was, and I will have something to say about
that when the true line is established later. 1 Samuel 4, which comes in the
next chapter, distinctly states that Eli judged Israel forty years, and he was
likely a contemporary of Samson. But Eli, at the time we know him, is
ninety-eight years old, and nearly blind. He was what we call a goodhearted
man, but weak. That combination in a ruler makes him a curse. Diplomats tell us
"a blunder is worse than a crime," in a ruler. He shows his weakness
in allowing his sons, Hophni and Phinehas, to degrade the worship of God. They
were acting for him, as he was too old for active service. The most awful
reports came to him about the infamous character of these sons, who occupied
the highest and holiest office in a nation that belonged to God.
This section tells us that he only remonstrated in his weak way: "My sons,
it is not a good report that I hear about you," but that is all he did. As
he was judge and high priest, why should he prefer his sons to the honor of
God? Why did he not remove them from positions of trust and influence? His doom
is announced in this section, and it is an awful one. God sent a special
prophet to him and this is the doom. You will find it in chapter 2, commencing
at verse 30: "Wherefore the Lord, the God of Israel, saith, I said indeed
that thy house, and the house of thy father, should walk before me forever: but
now the Lord saith, Be it far from me; for them that honor me I will honor, and
they that despise me shall be lightly esteemed. Behold, the days come, that I
will cut off thine arm, and the arm of thy father's house, that there shall not
be an old man in thine house. And thou shalt see an enemy in my habitation
(Shiloh), in all the wealth which God shall give Israel: and there shall not be
an old man among thy descendants forever. And the descendants of thine, whom I
do not cut off from mine altar, shall live to consume thine eyes and grieve
thine heart: and all the increase of thine house shall die in the flower of
their age."
Or as Samuel puts it to him, we read in chapter 3, commencing at verse 11:
"And the Lord said unto Samuel, Behold I will do a thing in Israel, at
which both the ears of every one that heareth it shall tingle. In that day I
shall perform against Eli all things that I have spoken against his house: when
I begin I will also make an end. For I have told him that I will judge his
house forever for the iniquity which he knoweth, because his sons made
themselves vile and he restrained them not; therefore I have sworn unto the
house of Eli that the iniquity of Eli's house shall not be purged with
sacrifice nor offering forever."
What was the sign of his doom? The same passage answers: "And this shall
be a sign unto thee, that shall come upon thy two sons, on Hophni and Phinehas:
in one day they shall die both of them. And I will raise me up a faithful
priest, that shall do according to that which is in my heart and in my mind:
and I will build him a sure house; and he shall walk before mine anointed
forever. And it shall come to pass, that everyone that is left in thy house
shall come and bow down to him for a piece of silver and a loaf of bread."
That was the sign. In the time of Solomon the priesthood goes back to the true
line, in fulfilment of the declaration in that sign. The priesthood passes away
from Eli's descendants and goes back where it belongs, to Zadok – who is a
descendant of Aaron's eldest son.
The Philistine nation at this time dominated Israel. The word,
"Philistines," means emigrant people that go out from their native
land, and it is of the same derivation as the word "Palestine." That
Holy Land, strangely enough, takes its name from the Philistines. The
Philistines were descended from Mizraim, a child of Ham, and their place was in
Egypt.
Leaving Egypt they became "Philistines," that is, emigrants, and occupied
all of that splendid lowland on the western and southwestern part of the Jewish
territory, next to the Mediterranean Sea, which was as level as a plain, and as
fertile as the Nile Valley. There they established five independent cities,
which, like the Swiss Cantons, formed a confederacy. While each was independent
for local affairs, they united in offensive and defensive alliances against
other nations, and they had complete control of Southern Judea at this time.
Joshua had overpowered them, but the conquest was not complete. They rose up
from under his power, even in his time, and in the time of Samson and Eli they
brought Israel into a pitiable subjection. They were not allowed to have even a
grindstone. If they wanted to sharpen an ax they had to go and borrow a
Philistine's grindstone, and what a good text for a sermon! Woe to the man that
has to sharpen the implement with which he works in the shop of an enemy! Woe
to the Southern preacher that goes to a radical critic's Seminary in order to sharpen
his theological ax!
Speaking of the evils of a plurality of wives, we found Hannah in great
bitterness of heart because she had no child, and we saw her lingering at the
central place of worship, and without saying words out loud, her lips were moving,
and her face was as one entranced, so that Eli thinks she is drunk. The New
Testament tells us of a certain likeness between intoxication with ardent
spirits and intoxication of the Holy Spirit. She told him that she was praying.
When her child was born she came back and said to him, "I am the woman
that you thought was drunk, but I was praying," and then she uses this
language: "I prayed for this child," holding the little fellow up in
her hands, "and I vowed that if God would give him to me I would lend him
to the Lord all the days of his life," and therefore she brings him to be
consecrated perpetually to God's service. The scripture brings all that out
beautifully.
So the text speaks of the woes pronounced on a parent who put off praying for
and restraining his children until they were grown. Like Hannah we should
commence praying for them before they are born; pray for them in the cradle,
and if we make any promise or vow to God for them, we should keep the vow.
I know a woman who had many children and kept praying that God would send her
one preacher child, promising to do everything in her power to make him a great
preacher. The Lord gave her two. One of my deacons used to send for me when a
new baby was born, to pray for it. Oliver Wendell Holmes says a child's
education should commence with his grandmother. Paul tells us that this was so
with Timothy. The Mosaic law required every male to appear before the Lord at
the central place of worship three times a year. The text says that Elkanah went
up yearly, but does not state how many times a year. The inference is fairly
drawn that he strictly kept the Mosaic law.
Samuel had certain duties in the tabernacle. He slept in the Lord's house and
tended to the lights. It is a great pity when a child of darkness attends to
the lights in God's house. I heard a preacher say to a sexton, "How is it
that you ring the bell to call others to heaven and you, yourself, seem going
right down to hell?" And that same preacher said to a surveyor, "You
survey land for other people to have a home, and have no home yourself."
So some preachers point out the boundaries of the home in heaven and make their
own bed in hell.
Samuel's call from God, his first prophecy, and his recognition by the people
as a prophet are facts of great interest, and the lesson from his own failure
to recognize at once the call is of great value. In the night he heard a voice
saying, "Samuel! Samuel!" He thought it was Eli, and he went to Eli
and said, "Here I am. You called me." "No, I didn't call you, my
son; go back to bed." The voice came again, "Samuel, Samuel,"
and he got up and went to Eli and said, "You did call me. What do you want
with me?" "No, my son, I did not call you; go back and lie
down," and the third time the voice came, "Samuel, Samuel," and
he went again to Eli. Then Eli knew that it was God who called him, and he
said, "My son, it is the Lord. You go back and when the voice comes again,
say, Speak, Lord; for thy servant heareth," and so God spoke and the first
burden of prophecy that he put upon the boy's heart was to tell the doom of the
house of Eli. Very soon after that all Israel recognized Samuel as a prophet of
God.
The value of the lesson is this: We don't always recognize the divine touch at
first. Many a man under conviction does not at first understand its source and
nature. Others, even after they are converted, are not sure they are converted.
It is like the mover's chickens that, after their legs were untied, would lie
still, not realizing that they were free. The ligatures around their legs had
cut off the circulation, and they felt as if they were tied after they were
loose. There is always an interval between an event and the cognition of it.
For example, when a shot is fired it precedes our recognition of it by either
the sight of smoke or the sound of the explosion, for it takes both sound and
sight some time to travel over the intervening space. I heard Major Penn say
that the worst puzzle in his life was the experiences whereby God called him to
quit his law work and become an evangelist. He didn't understand it. It was
like Samuel going to Eli.
I now will give an analysis of that gem of Hebrew poetry, Hannah's song,
showing its conception of God, and the reason of its imitation in the New
Testament. The idea of Hannah's conception of God thus appears:
There is none besides God; he stands alone. There is none holy but God. There
is none that abaseth the proud and exalteth the lowly, feedeth the hungry, and
maketh the full hungry, except God; and there is none but God that killeth and
maketh alive. There is none but God who establisheth this earth; none but God
who keepeth the feet of his saints; none but God that has true strength; none
but God that judgeth the ends of the earth, and the chief excellency of it is
the last: "He shall give strength unto his king and exalt the horn of His
Anointed." That is the first place in the Bible where the kingly office is
mentioned in connection with the name "Anointed." The name,
"Anointed," means Christ, the Messiah.
It is true that it was prophesied to Abraham that kings should be his
descendants. It is true that Moses made provision for a king. It is true that
in the book of Judges anointing is shown to be the method of setting apart to
kingly office, but this is the first place in the Bible where the one anointed
gets the name of the "Anointed One," a king. Because of this
messianic characteristic, Mary, when it was announced to her that she should be
the mother of the Anointed King, pours out her soul in the Magnificat,
imitating Hannah's song.
The state of religion at this time was very low. We see from the closing of the
book of Judges that at the feast of Shiloh they had irreligious dances. We see
from the text here that Hophni and Phinehas, the priests of religion, were not
only as corrupt as anybody, but leaders in corruption. We see it declared that
there is no open vision, and it is further declared that the Word of God was
precious – rare.
I will now explain these two phrases in the texts, 1 Samuel 1:16 (A. V.), where
Hannah says, "Count not thine handmaid for a daughter of Belial," and
in 2:12 (A. V.), where Hophni and Phinehas are said to be the "sons of
Belial." The common version makes Belial a proper name; the revised
version does not, and the revised version is at fault. If you will turn to 2
Corinthians 6:15, you will see that Belial is shown to be the name of Satan:
"What concord hath Christ with Belial?" Get Milton's Paradise Lost,
First Book, and read the reference to Hophni and Phinehas as sons of Belial,
and see that he correctly makes it a proper name.
Samuel was not a descendant of Aaron. He was merely a Levite, but he
subsequently, as we shall learn, officiated in sacrifices as if he were a
priest or high priest. It will be remember-ed that the priesthood was under the
curse pronounced on Eli, and Samuel was a special exceptional appointee of God,
as Moses was.
Dr. Burleson, a great Texas preacher, and a president of Baylor University,
preached all over Texas a sermon on family government, taking his text from 1
Samuel 2:31.
There are some passages and quotations from Geikie's Hours With the Bible
on the evils of a plurality of wives that are pertinent. Commenting on
Elkanah's double marriage he says, "But, as might have been expected, this
double marriage – a thing even then uncommon – did not add to his happiness,
for even among the Orientals the misery of polygamy is proverbial. 'From what I
know,' says one, 'it is easier to live with two tigresses than with two wives.'
And a Persian poet is of well-nigh the same opinion: – “Be that man's life immersed
in gloom Who needs more wives than one: With one his cheeks retain their bloom,
His voice a cheerful tone: These speak his honest heart at rest, And he and she
are always blest. But when with two he seeks for joy, Together they his soul
annoy; With two no sunbeam of delight Can make his day of misery bright.” An old Eastern Drama is no less explicit: – "Wretch I would'st thou
have another wedded slave? Another? What? Another? At thy peril Presume to try
the experiment: would'st thou not For that unconscionable, foul desire Be
linked to misery? Sleepless nights, and days Of endless torment – still
recurring sorrow Would be thy lot. Two wives! O never! Never! Thou hast not
power to please two rival queens; Their tempers would destroy thee; sear thy
brain; Thou canst not, Sultan, manage more than one. Even one may be beyond thy
government!"
QUESTIONS
1. Why omit Part I of the
textbook?
2. What, in bulk, is the
supplemental matter in Chronicles, and what its importance?
3. What and where the place
of Samuel's birth, residence, and burial?
4. What his ancestry and
tribe?
5. If he belonged to the
tribe of Levi, why then is he called an Ephraimite, or Ephrathite, which in
this place is equivalent?
6. Show that the bigamy of
Samuel's father produced the usual bitter fruit.
7. What was the attitude of
the Mosaic law toward a plurality of wives, and divorce, and why?
8. Why did the law ever
permit these things?
9. What is the bearing of
this section of the contention of the radical critics that the Levitical part
of the Mosaic law was not written by Moses, but by a priest in Ezekiel's time,
and that Israel had no central place of worship in the period of the Judges?
10. When did Shiloh become
the central place of worship, how long did it so remain, and what use did
Jeremiah make of its desolation?
11. Trace the subsequent and
separate history of the ark of the covenant and the tabernacle, and show when
and where another permanent central place and house of worship were
established.
12. Who was high priest at
Samuel's birth, how was he descended from Aaron, and what the proof that he
also judged Israel?
13. With which of the judges
named in the book of Judges was he likely a contemporary?
14. What was Eli's
character, sin, doom, sign of the doom, and who announced it to him?
15. What nation at this time
dominated Israel?
16. Give a brief and clear
account of these people.
17. Show how Samuel was a
child of prayer, the subject of a vow, a Nazarite, how consecrated to service,
and the lessons therefrom.
18. How often did the Mosaic
law require every male to appear before the Lord at the central place of
worship, and to what extent was this law fulfilled by Samuel's father and
mother?
19. What were the duties of
the child Samuel in the tabernacle?
20. Give an account of
Samuel's call from God, his first prophecy, his recognition by the people as a
prophet, and the lesson from his own failure, for a while, to recognize the
call.
21. Analyze that gem of
Hebrew poetry, Hannah's song, showing its conception of God, and give the
reason of its imitation in the New Testament.
22. What was the state of
religion at this time?
23. Explain the references
to Belial in 1 Samuel 1:16; 2:12.
24. As Samuel was not a
descendant of Aaron, but merely a Levite, why does he subsequently, as we shall
learn, officiate in sacrifices as if he were a priest or high priest?
25. What great Texas preacher
preached all over Texas a sermon on family government, taking his text from 1
Samuel 2:31?
26. Cite the passages and
quotations from Geikie's Hours With the Bible on the evils of a plurality of
wives.
THE FALL OF THE HOUSE OF ELI, AND THE RISE
OF SAMUEL
1 Samuel 4:lb to 7:17 and Harmony, pages
66-69.
I will give, in order, the passages showing the rise of Samuel over against the
descent of Eli. Samuel, more than any other book of the Bible, excels in
vividness of detail, and especially in showing progressiveness in character,
either upward or downward – growing either better or worse. Over against the
iniquities of Eli's sons and the doom pronounced on his house, we have in
order, these passages: 1 Samuel 1:27-28; 2:18, and the last clause of verse 21;
2:26; 3:1-4; 19-21; 4:1.
The progress is: (1) For this child I prayed. (2) The child prayed for is
devoted to Jehovah. (3) His home is God's house and there he serves and
worships. (4) The child is called. (5) The child grew in favor with God and
man. (6) The child kept on growing. (7) He is recognized as a prophet by all
Israel from Dan to Beersheba. In the meantime Eli's house steadily descends
until the bottom is reached. Macaulay, in his History of England, in telling
about the great men in power at a certain time, including Lord Halifax,
substantially makes this remark: "These great men did not know that they
were even then being eclipsed by two young men who were rising up, that would
attain to greater heights and influence than the others had ever
attained," and he gives the names of the two young men as John Somers and
Charles Montagu.
We may apply this throughout life: A train once in motion will run for a while
on its own impetus, but in both cases the motion will gradually cease unless
new power be applied. So in every community there are leaders holding positions
from past momentum, while new men are rising that will eclipse and succeed
them. As in nature when a tree quits growing it begins to die, and when a
stream quits flowing its waters stagnate, so when a leader quits studying he
begins to lose power and must give place to younger men who are studious. And
it will some day be so with you, and you will enter what is called the
declining period of your life. For a while it will astonish you that you are
not cutting as wide a swath as you used to cut, and unless you live only in
God, that will be the bitterest hour of your life. Very few people know how to
grow old gracefully; some of them become very bitter as they grow old. The
following is a summary of the events connected with the fall of the house of
Eli:
1. An enemy is strengthened to smite them. The absence of purity, piety,
veneration, and fidelity in God's people, either his nominal people like Hophni
and Phinehas, or his real people, as Eli, always develops a conquering enemy.
The case of Samson, Eli's contemporaneous judge, illustrates this. When he
betrayed the secret of his strength, he went out as aforetime and knew not that
the Spirit of the Lord had departed from him, and so became an easy victim of
the Philistines, bound, eyes put out, enslaved, grinding in the mills of God's
enemies, a sport to them, with the added despair that the cause suffered in his
downfall.
The devil has known from the beginning that his only chance to win against
God's people is, by their sins, to turn God against them. He knows that as long
as God is for you, nobody can be against you. He knows that he cannot fight
against you when you have God back of you, but if you become estranged from
God, the devil will show you very quickly that when it comes to a wrestle he
can give you a fall, and it does not take him long to do it.
It was in this way that he influenced Balaam to suggest to Balak the plan to
make Israel sin with women, as a step toward idolatry. His slogan was: "If
you can make them sin against their God and put him against them, then you can
down them." The Phinehas of that day, how different from this Phinehas,
Eli's son! Naming a child after a great and good man does not make him like his
namesake.
One of the most unpatriotic men I ever knew was named after George Washington;
one of the greatest failures as a preacher was named after Spurgeon; one of the
poorest excuses for a statesman was named after Sam Houston. Now here is
Phinehas, the son of Eli, named after that other Phinehas of Balaam's time.
The devil, here called Belial, is never more satisfied than when he can nominate
his own children as ministers of religion. Hophni and Phinehas, children of
Belial, were priests. The prevalent evils of today arise from the fact that
children of Belial occupy many pulpits and many chairs in theological
seminaries and Christian schools. Always they are the advance couriers of
disaster to God's cause, and herald the coming of a triumphant adversary.
When preachers and professors, in schools begin to hawk at and peck at the
Bible, and rend it with their talons, or defile the spiritual feasts like
harpies) you should not only count them as unclean birds of prey, but should
begin to set your own house in order, for trouble is coming fast.
2. The Philistines won a battle. Four thousand Israelites were slain.
3. Stimulated by fear, the sons of Eli resorted to an expedient, tempting God.
They sent for the ark of the covenant, taking it from its appointed place to be
used as a fetish or charm. So used as an instrument of superstition it had no
more power to avert evil than a Negro's use of a rabbit's foot, or the nailing
up of a horseshoe over a door to keep off witches.
As religion becomes decadent its votaries resort to charms, amulets, relics of
the saints, alleged pieces of the cross, images and other kinds of evil,
instead of resorting to repentance, faith, and obedience. So used, the most
sacred symbol becomes worse than any common thing.
We will see later in Jewish history the idolatrous worship of the brazen
serpent made by Moses, and we will hear good King Hezekiah say, as he breaks it
to pieces, "Nehushtan," i.e., "it is only a piece of
brass." As a symbol, when lifted up, it was of great use, but when used as
an object of worship it became only a piece of brass. A student of history
knows that a multiplication of holy days, pyrotechnic displays, games,
festivities, plays, and cruel sports, until there are no days to work, marks
the decadence of a people. We need not be afraid of any nation that gives great
attention to fireworks, a characteristic of the Latin races.
We shout in vain: "The ark of the Lord! The ark of the Lord!" when we
fail to follow the Lord himself. No issue is made in that way, as it is not an
issue of the Lord against Dagon, but a superstitious and impious use of sacred
symbols against the devil, and the devil will whip every time. In the medieval
times, early in the history of the crusades, we see that even the cross so used
falls before the crescent, the sign of Mohammed followers.
We might as well seek the remission of sins in baptism, or salvation in the
bread of the Supper, as to expect God's favor sought by any such means.
When Elisha smote the Jordan with Elijah's mantle, he trusted not to the
mantle, nor did he say, "Where is Elijah?" but he said, "Where
is the Lord God of Elijah?" and so he divided the waters.
4. The Philistines won another battle. Thirty thousand Israelites perished;
Hophni and Phinehas were slain; the ark was captured; Eli died, and the wife of
Phinehas died in premature labor, naming her new born babe,
"Ichabod," that is, "The glory is departed from Israel";
Shiloh was captured and made desolate forever, ceasing to be the central place
of worship; both the ark and the tabernacle became fugitives, separating never
to meet again, and so Israel lamented after the Lord.
5. The Philistines regarded the capture of the ark, (1). as a triumph of their
god, Dagon, over Jehovah, the God of Israel, and so they placed it in a
subordinate position before Dagon in their temple. (2) They regarded it as the
capture of Jehovah himself, obligated by his captivity now to serve the
Philistines as be had heretofore ministered to Israel.
The prevalence of such conceptions in ancient times is very evident. For ages
the presence of a deity was associated with his symbol. To capture his symbol, or
image, was to capture the deity, as in the story of Aladdin in The Arabian
Nights, whoever held the lamp of the genie controlled the genie himself.
Assyrian sculptures today exhibit the idols of vanished nations borne in
triumphant procession, and the parade is always to show that they have
triumphed over the gods of that country.
The Hebrew prophets allude to this custom frequently. The passages are: Isaiah
46:1; Jeremiah 48:7; 49:3; Hosea 10:6; Daniel 11:8. Cyrus, when he captured
Babylon, adopted its gods, but the Romans under Marcellus brought to adorn
their own cities the captured images and pictures of the Greek gods.
Nebuchadnezzar carried away the sacred symbols of Jerusalem when he captured
that city, as did Titus after our Lord's time, and we see in Rome today carved
on the Arch, the sevenbranched golden candlestick which Titus carried from the
Temple of Jerusalem in triumph to Rome. The Roman general, Fabius, when he
captured the city of Tarentum, said to his soldiers, "Leave their gods here;
their gods are mad at them; so let us leave them with their gods which they
have offended," and so they left the idols. It would have been a good
thing, as after-events show, had Nebuchadnezzar done the same thing, for when
Belshazzar, his successor, on a certain night at a drunken feast, used the
sacred vessels of the Temple for desecration, it was then that the hand came
out and wrote on the wall, Mene, Mene, Tekel, Upharsin.
Jehovah showed the Philistines that their victory was not over him: (1) By
causing the image of Dagon to fall down before the ark, and when they set it up
again, caused it to fall down again, and to break its head and arms off; (2) by
sending two great plagues: tumors or boils, violent and fatal, under which
thousands died, and field mice that swarmed so as to destroy the great harvests
of grain that made their land famous; (3) by causing the cessation of the
worship of Dagon in Ashdod, for after taking the falls and breaking his head
and arms off, no man would go in and worship Dagon.
A natural inquiry when an individual or a people is subject to a series of
severe and extraordinary disasters is, What sin have we committed and how may
we expiate it, or avert its judgment? Such an inquiry is inseparably connected
with any conception of the moral government of God. Men may indeed often fail
to note that all afflictions are not punitive, some being disciplinary, or
preparatory to greater displays of mercy. We see this problem discussed in the
case of Job and his friends; also to those who asked Jesus, "Who did sin,
this man or his parents?" He answered that this affliction did not result
from personal sin of either of them, but that the glory of God might be
manifested. It is the most natural thing in the world for anybody who has
suffered one buffet of ill fortune after another, to ask, "What have I
done?" and it is perfectly natural for the neighbors to point out that one
and say, "Ah, you have been doing something against the Lord: your sin is
finding you out." Therefore it was the most natural thing in the world for
the Philistines, when they saw such disasters coming in connection with the
capture of the ark, to put the question, "What is our sin?"
We will see what expedients the Philistines adopted to determine whether their
calamities came only in a natural way, or were supernatural afflictions
connected with the ark and coming from the offended Jehovah, and if from
Jehovah, how be was to be appeased. 1 Samuel 5:7-11 gives us the first
expedient: "We will move this ark from Ashdod to the next one of the five
cities, and see what happens then. If the same things happen there, we will
move it to the next city, and if the same things happen there we will move it
to the next city, and so on around the circle of the five cities, and if the same
results follow all of these cities, such a series of incidents will be regarded
as full proof that the judgments are from Jehovah."
We recall the story of the boy and the cow bells: He said, "When my father
found a cow bell, Ma and I were mighty glad, for we needed one. And when he
found another cow bell we were glad again, for we really needed another one,
but when Dad found another cow bell, Ma and I became suspicious." A man
would not naturally find three cow bells one after another, so they thought
that "Dad" had stolen them. So when five cities, one after the other,
had the same afflictions, they could not call that chance.
I knew of a general in a terrible battle who, when a bombshell as big as a
water bucket came from a gunboat, cut through a tree and sank into the ground,
making an excavation that you could put a house in, ran and put his head right
into the hole where the shell came. Somebody asked him why, and he said that
such a shell as that would never come twice in the same place. And so the
Philistine idea was to move the ark from Ashdod to the next city, and if
nothing happened, then they were mistaken about this being chastisement from
Jehovah, but if wherever they took it there came the mice and boils on the
inhabitants, they were not mistaken, and they could not misunderstand.
That was their first expedient. Their second expedient was to call upon their
religious leaders, their diviners and soothsayers, and to ask them to tell them
how they could conciliate Jehovah. And the diviners told them that the ark must
be sent back, and it must be sent back with a gift, and the gift must signify
their confession of sin. In the olden times if a man was healed of a wound in
his hand, the Lord was presented with a silver offering to commemorate the
healing of the hand. So they had five golden mice made, one for each city, and
five golden tumors, one for each city, to symbolize their conception that the
evils had come upon them for this offense to Jehovah. But as there still might
be a question as to whether these afflictions were natural or supernatural,
they tested it in this way: They went to the pen where were cows with young
calves (you know what a fool a cow is over her first calf when it is little)
and hitched two of these cows to a cart, put the ark on it, to see if the cows,
against nature, would go away and leave their calves willingly, and still
thinking about the calves and calling them, would carry the ark back to some
city of the Levites; that would show that Jehovah was in it.
That was a pretty wise idea of those Philistines, and so when they took a new
cart and put the ark on it, and took those two mother cows, they never
hesitated but struck a beeline for the nearest Levite city, about twelve miles,
and they went bellowing, showing that they felt the absence from their calves.
These were their two expedients.
First Samuel 6:19-20 says that some of the people at Bethshemesh looked into
the ark to see what was in there, and the blow fell in a minute. No man was
authorized to open that sacred chamber over which the mercy seat rested and on
which the cherubs sat, but the high priests of God. If you will turn to the
Septuagint, you will find another remarkable thing which does not appear in the
Hebrew Bible, viz.: all of the Levites of the city of Bethshemesh rejoiced at
the return of the ark of God, except one man, Jeconiah, and his family, who
refused to rejoice at its homecoming, and God smote that family in a moment.
Now, a later instance: The ark, at the request of the citizens of Bethshemesh,
was moved to Kirjathjearim, and stayed there until David had been reigning a
long time; he sent after it, and Uzzah, when the ark was shaken by the oxen
stumbling, reached up his hand to steady the ark and God struck him dead. His
attempt was well meant, but it presumed that God was not able to take care of
himself. It was a violation of the law for any man to touch that ark except the
ones appointed by Jehovah. Which one of the Psalms commemorates the capture and
restoration of the ark?
After twenty years Samuel led Israel to repentance and victory. First Samuel
7:3-12 tells us all about it. It says that Samuel called upon them to repent
truly of their sins; if they ever wanted the favor of God any more, to cast off
their idols and obey God. This is like John the Baptist saying, "Repent
ye, repent ye." Every prophet, in order to be a reformer, was a preacher
of repentance. The people repented of their sins, turned from their idols, and
returned to God. He assembled all Israel at Mizpah; the Philistines heard of it
and came with a great army. Samuel and Israel met them and smote them hip and
thigh, and broke their power.
The next paragraph in the Harmony tells how Samuel judged Israel and the
regular circuit he made while living at Ramah. He would go to Beth-el, Gilgal,
and Mizpah, then come back, holding special courts of judgment, and with such
wisdom, purity, and impartiality that he must be classed as the last, best, and
greatest of the judges.
QUESTIONS
1. Cite, in order, the passages
showing Samuel's rise over against the descent of Eli.
2. What said Macaulay on
this point, and what other examples cited by the author?
3. Give a summary of the
events connected with the fall of the house of Eli.
4. How did the Philistines
regard the capture of the ark?
5. Show the prevalence of
such conceptions in ancient times.
6. How did Jehovah show the
Philistines that their victory was not over him?
7. What is the natural
inquiry when an individual or a people is subject to a series of severe and
extraordinary disasters?
8. To what expedients did
the Philistines resort to determine whether their calamities came only in a
natural way, or were supernatural afflictions connected with the ark and coming
from the offended Jehovah, and if from Jehovah, how was he to be appeased?
9. How else did Jehovah
manifest the sanctity of his ark, both at Bethshemesh and later, as we will
find in the history?
10. What Psalm commemorates
the capture and restoration of the ark?
11. How does Samuel lead
Israel, after twenty years, to repentance and victory?
12. What cities did Samuel
visit in his judgeship, and what can you. say of the judgments rendered by him?
THE SCHOOLS OF THE PROPHETS
The more important passages bearing on this subject are 1 Samuel 3:1-4; 10:5,
9-12; 19:18-24. 1 Kings 18:13; 19:18, 20-21; 20:35; 2 Kings 2:3-5; 4:38; 6:1; 1
Chronicles 29:29; 2 Chronicles 9:29; 12:15; 13:22 and other chapters in that
book I do not enumerate. The last one is Amos 7:14-15. The reader will
understand that I give these instead of a prescribed section in the Harmony.
These constitute the basis of this discussion.
Let us distinguish between the prophetic gift and the prophetic office, and
give some examples. Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, his seventy
elders, Balaam, Joshua, and others before Samuel's time had the gift, but not
the office; perhaps we may except Moses as in a measure having the office.
After Samuel's time, David, many of his singers, and particularly Daniel, had
the gift in a high degree, but not the office. Moreover, the high priests from
Aaron to Caiphas in Christ's time, were supposed to have officially the gift of
prophecy – that is, to hear and report what the Oracle said – but Samuel is the
first who held the office.
The distinction between a prophet and a son of a prophet is this: A son of a
prophet was a candidate for the office, ministering to the prophet, a disciple
instructed by him, consecrated to the work, and qualifying himself to perform
the services of the office with the highest efficiency. A prophet is one who,
through inspiration of the Holy Spirit, speaks or writes for God. In this
inspiration he is God's mouth or pen, speaking or writing not his own words,
but God's words. This inspiration guides and superintends his speech and his
silence; what is recorded and what is omitted from the record. The gift of
prophecy was not one of uniform quantity) nor necessarily enduring. The gifts
were various in kind, and might be for one occasion only. As to variety of
kinds, the revelation might come in dreams or open visions, or it might consist
of an ecstatic trance expressed in praise or song or prayer. If praise, song,
or prayer, its form was apt to be poetic, particularly if accompanied by
instrumental music.
As to the duration of the gift, it might be for one occasion only, or a few, or
many. The scriptures show that the spirit of prophecy came upon King Saul twice
only, and each time in the form of an ecstatic trance. In his early life it
came as a sign that God had chosen him as king. In his later life the object of
it was to bar his harmful approach to David. Paul, in 1 Corinthians 12 to 14
inclusive, explains the diversity of these gifts and their relative importance.
There are two periods of Hebrew history in which we find clearest notices of
the schools of the prophets, the proofs of their persistence between the
periods, and their influence on the nation. The notices are abundant in the
time of Samuel, and in the time of Elijah and Elisha, but you have only to
study the book of Chronicles to see that the prophetic order, as an office,
continued through these periods and far beyond. Later you will learn that in the
time of persecution fifty of these prophets were hidden in a cave and fed
regularly. The object of the enemy was to destroy these theological seminaries,
believing that they could never lead the nation astray while these schools of
the prophets continued. Their object, therefore, was to destroy these seats of
theological education. Elijah supposed that every one of them was killed except
himself, but he was mistaken.
Samuel was the founder of the first school of the prophets, and the scripture
which shows his headship is 1 Samuel 19:20, where Saul is sending messengers to
take David, and finally goes himself and finds the school of the prophets, with
Samuel as its appointed head. The reason for such a school in Samuel's time is
shown, first, by an extract from Kirkpatrick's Commentary on 1 Samuel, page 33.
He says:
Samuel was the founder of the prophetic order. Individuals in previous ages had
been endowed with prophetic gifts, but with Samuel commenced the regular
succession of prophets which lasted through all the period of the monarchy, and
did not cease until after the captivity. The degeneracy into which the
priesthood had fallen through the period of the judges demanded the
establishment of a new order for the religious training of the nation.
For this purpose Samuel founded the institutions known as the schools of the
prophets. The "company of prophets" at Gibeah (1 Sam. 10:10) and the
scene at Ramah described in 1 Samuel 19:18ff., imply a regular organization.
These societies are only definitely mentioned again in connection with the
history' of Elijah and Elisha but doubtless continued to exist in the interval.
By means of these the Order was maintained, students were educated, and common
religious exercises nurtured and developed spiritual gifts.
Kirkpatrick's is a fine commentary. The priests indeed were instructors of the
people, but the tendency of the priesthood was to rest in external sacrifices,
and to trust in a mere ritualistic form of sacrifice. That is the trouble
always where you have a ritual. And after a while both priest and worshiper
began to rely upon the external type, and on external conformity with the
ritual. God needed better mouthpieces than those, hence while in the past there
was a prophetic gift here and there, he now establishes the prophetic school,
or society, in which training, bearing upon the prophetic office, should be
continuous. The value of these schools of the prophets is also seen from
Kirkpatrick, page 34:
The value of the prophetic order to the Jewish nation was immense. The prophets
were privy-counsellors of kings, the historians of the nation, the instructors
of the people. It was their function to be preachers of righteousness to rich
and poor alike: to condemn idolatry in the court, oppression among the nobles,
injustice among the judges, formality among the priests. They were the
interpreters of the law. who drew out by degrees the spiritual significance
which underlay ritual observance, and labored to prevent sacrifice and sabbath
and festival from becoming dead and unmeaning forms. Strong in the unshaken
consciousness that they were expressing the divine will, they spoke and acted
with a fearless courage which no threats could daunt or silence.
Thus they proved a counterpoise to the despotism of monarchy and the formalism
of priesthood. In a remarkable passage in his essay on "Representative
Government," Mr. John Stuart Mill attributes to their influence the
progress which distinguished the Jews from other Oriental nations. "The
Jews," he writes, "had an absolute monarchy and hierarchy. These did
for them what was done for other Oriental races by their institutions – subdued
them to industry and order, and gave them a national life. . . . Their religion
gave existence to an inestimably precious institution, the order of prophets.
Under the protection, generally though not always effectual, of their sacred
character, the prophets were a power in the nation, often more than a match for
kings and priests, and kept up in that little corner of the earth the antagonism
of influences which is the only real security for continued progress."
I was surprised the first time I ever saw the statement from Mill. He was a
radical evolutionist and infidel, but a statesman, and in studying the
development of statesmanship among the nations, he saw this singular thing in
the history of the Jews, unlike anything he saw anywhere else, and saw what it
was that led that nation, when it went into backsliding, to repentance; what
power it was that brought about the reformation when their morals were
corrupted; what power it was that was the real light of the nation and the salt
of the earth, and saw that it was this order of prophets which was the
conservator of national unity, purity, and perpetuity. I have the more pleasure
in quoting that passage, as it comes from a witness in no way friendly to
Christianity, just as when I was discussing missions I quoted the testimony of
Charles Darwin to the tremendous influence for good wrought by the missionaries
of South America.
Particularly in this case of the schools of the prophets we find their value,
by noting very carefully the bearing on the case under Samuel. We have already
noticed the corruption of the priesthood under Eli, Hophni, and Phinehas; how
the ark was captured, the central place of worship desecrated; how Samuel,
called to the office of prophet, needed assistance, and how he instituted this
school of the prophets. He gathered around him the brightest young men of the
nation and had the Spirit of God rest on them, and in order that their
instruction might be regular he organized them into companies, or schools; he
would go from one to another, and these young "theologs" were under
the instruction of Samuel and for twenty years worked as evangelists in making
sensitive the national conscience. It took twenty years to do it, and he could
not have done it by himself, but with that tremendous power, the help he had,
at the end of twenty years, he saw the nation repentant and once more
worshiping God. I am for a theological seminary that will do that.
I give a modern example somewhat parallel: Mr. Spurgeon was called to the city
of London, when about nineteen years old, to be the pastor of the old historic
church of Dr. Gill, and in his evangelical preaching impressed a number of men
to feel that they were also called to preach (if your preaching does not
impress somebody else to preach, you may be sure that you are not called to
preach), and it impressed the women and a multitude of laymen to do active
Christian service. Therefore, Mr. Spurgeon organized what is called "The
Pastoral College." He wouldn't let a drone be in it; he did not want
anybody in it that was not spiritually minded. In other words, he insisted that
a preacher should be religiously inclined, and should be ready to do any kind
of work. He supported this institution largely through his own contributions,
although the men and women all over England, when they saw what it was doing,
would send money for its support. I used to read the monthly reports of the
contributions and the list of donors that accompanied them.
Mr. Spurgeon determined to work a revolution, just as Samuel did, and he used
this school of the prophets for that purpose. Consequently, hundreds of young
preachers belonging to that school of the prophets preached in the slums of the
city, in the byways, in the highways, in the hedges, in the mines, on the
wharves to the sailors, and in the hospitals. Hundreds of laymen said,
"Put us to work," and he did; he had pushcarts made for them, and
filled them with books and so sent out over the town literature that was not
poisonous. He put the women to work, and established) or rather perpetuated in
better form, a number of the almshouses for the venerable old women who were
poor and helpless, following out the suggestion in 2 Timothy, and he erected a
hospital. Then they got to going further afield. They went all over England,
Wales, Scotland, Ireland, crossed over into the Continent, crossed the seas to
Australia, and the islands of the seas, and into heathen lands. I have always
said that Spurgeon's Pastoral College came nearer to the Bible idea of a
seminary than any other in existence. There was not so much stress laid on mere
scholarship as on spiritual efficiency.
It is important to note particularly what I am saying now, because it was burnt
into my heart as one of the reasons for establishing a theological seminary.
The nature of that society was that it was a school. They left their homes and
came to stay at this school, with what we now call a mess hall in which all the
theological students, by contributing so much, have their table in common. It
was that way then; they had their meals in common. In preparing dinner one day
for the sons of the prophets, somebody put a lot of wild gourds into the pot,
and when they began to eat it, one of them cried out: "Ah, man of God,
there's death in the pot!" Once I preached a sermon on this theme:
"Wild Gourds and Theological Seminaries," to show that to feed the
students in theological seminaries on wild gourds of heresy is to put death in
the pot; they will do more harm than good, as they will become instruments of
evil.
In determining what were their duties, we must consult quite a number of
passages. We gather from this passage that they were thoroughly instructed in
the necessity of repentance, individually and nationally, and of turning from
their sins and coming back to God with faithful obedience. That lesson was
ground in them. They were taught the interpretation of the spiritual meaning of
the law, all its sacrifices, its feasts, its types, and therefore when you are
studying a prophet in the Old Testament you will notice how different his idea
of types and ceremonies from that of the priests. They will tell you that to do
without eating is fasting, but the prophet will show that literal fasting is
not true fasting; that there must be fasting at heart; that there must be a
rending of the soul and not the garment as an expression of repentance; that to
obey God w better than a formal sacrifice.
Another thing they were taught, which I wish particularly to emphasize, was
music, both vocal and instrumental. In that school of the prophets started the
tremendous power of music in religion so wonderfully developed by David, who
got many of his ideas from associating with the schools of the prophets. And
from that time unto this, every evangelical work, and all powerful religious
work, has been associated with music, both in the Old Testament and in the New
Testament; not merely vocal, but instrumental music. The heart of a religion is
expressed in its songs, and if you want to get at the heart of your Old
Testament you find it in the hymnbook of the Hebrew nation – the Psalter. It is
indeed an interesting study to see what has been the influence of great hymns
on the national life. There is an old proverb: "You may make the laws of
the people, if you will let me write their ballads." Where is there a man
capable of measuring the influence of "How Firm a Foundation," or
"Come, Thou Fount," or "Did Christ O'er Sinners Weep?"
There is a rich literature on the influence of hymns on the life.
In the awful times of the struggle in England, Charles I against the
Parliament, one faction of the nation held to ritualism, while the other
followed spirituality, even to the extreme of not allowing any form, not even
allowing any instruments of music. One of the finest stories of this period is
the account of a church that observed the happy medium, using instrumental as
well as vocal music, and congregational singing as well as the use of the
choir; every sabbath somebody's soul was melted in the power of that mighty
singing. I can't sing myself, but I can carry the tunes in my mind, and I can
be more influenced by singing than by preaching. It was singing that convicted
me of sin. It was on a waving, soaring melody of song that my soul was
converted. I once knew a rugged, one-eyed, homely, old pioneer Baptist
preacher, who looked like a pirate until his religion manifested itself, and
then he was beautiful. I heard him one day when a telegram was put into his
hand stating that his only son had just been killed by being thrown from a
horse. While weeping, his face became illumined; he got up and clapped his
hands and walked through that audience, singing, "0, Jesus, My Saviour, to
Thee I Submit."
John Bunyan wrote that song while in Bedford Jail. They had put him there to
keep him from preaching, and looking out through the bars of the dungeon he saw
his poor blind girl, Mary, begging bread, and he sat down and wrote that hymn.
The effect of the old preacher's singing John Bunyan's song was a mighty
revival.
The relation of the schools of the prophets to modern theological seminaries is
this: The purpose was the same. And so in New Testament times, Jesus recognized
that if he wanted to revolutionize the world by evangelism he must do it with
trained men. He did not insist that they be rich, great or mighty men. He did
not insist that they be scholars. He called them from among the common people,
and he kept them right with him for three years and a half, and diligently
instructed them in the principles and spirit of his kingdom. He taught them in
a variety of forms; in parables, in proverbs, in exposition, illustrating his
teachings by miracles, and in hundreds of ways in order that they might be
equipped to go out and lead the world to Christ. You cannot help being
impressed with this fact: That the theological seminaries in Samuel's time and
in Christ's time were intensely practical, the object being not to make learned
professors, but to fill each one with electricity until you could call him a
"live wire," so that it burnt whoever touched it.
This is why I called Samuel a great man, and why in a previous discussion,
counting the men as the peaks in a mountain range, sighting back from Samuel to
Abraham, only one other peak comes into line of vision, and that is Moses.
QUESTIONS
1. What the more important
passages bearing on the schools of the prophets?
2. Distinguish between the prophetic
gift and the prophetic office and illustrate by examples.
3. Distinguish between a
prophet and a son of a prophet. 4, What is the meaning of prophet?
5. In what two periods of
Hebrew history do we find the clearest notices of the school of prophets, what
the proofs of their persistence between these periods, and what their influence
on the nation?
6. Who was the founder of
the first school of the prophets?
7. What scripture shows his
headship?
8. What was the reason for
such school in Samuel's time?
9. What was the value of
these schools of the prophets, and particularly in this case, and what
illustration from modern instances?
10. What was the nature of
that society, and what was the instruction given?
11. What the relation of the
schools of the prophets to modern theological seminaries?
SAMUEL AND THE MONARCHY, AND HIS
VINDICATION AS JUDGE
1 Samuel 8:1-22; 12:1-25 and Harmony pages
70, 74-75.
I logically connect these two chapters so as to round up Samuel's judgeship,
and the intervening chapters will be discussed later. The general subject for
this discussion is, "God through Samuel establishes the monarchy, and
Samuel's vindication when he gives up the position as judge." The general
purpose of this chapter is to show the steps of transition from a government by
judges to a government by kings. The immediate occasion of the change was the
persistent demand of the people.
The grounds alleged by the people for the change were, (1) that Samuel was old;
(2) that his sons whom he made judges walked not in his way, and these
allegations were strictly true. Samuel was old. He had made his sons judges, as
Eli had done in the case of his sons. These sons were unworthy to hold office:
"They did not walk in Samuel's way, but turned aside after lucre, and took
bribes, and perverted judgment." Samuel had no right to make judges, nor
to appoint his successor; that was Jehovah's prerogative. He had retained these
sons in office, though unworthy, and had so far followed Eli's example.
Nepotism has always been repugnant to the people.
It was a compliment to the late Senator Coke when his kinsfolk complained that
he had never gotten them an office on the score of kinship.
Public office is a public trust, and not for distribution of family patronage.
But their demand displeased Samuel. He did not dispute the facts alleged, nor
deny their grievance against his sons, but he objected to the remedy proposed, namely:
"Give us a king to judge us." It would interest us to know what
Samuel would have done if they had merely demanded the removal of his sons from
office and Samuel's consent to leave to God the appointment of his successor.
But it is a destructive remedy to burn a ship in order to get rid of the rats.
A change in the form of the government is not always the best way to get rid of
unworthy officials, although the people will always demand it if from any cause
the legal methods of removal are barred. The people usually are long-suffering,
and often know not how practically to get rid of an evil by legal methods.
Press them too far, and a revolution comes, maybe a destructive one. Samuel
evinced his wisdom by carrying the case to Jehovah in prayer; that is, before
he answered the people, with the following results:
1. Jehovah shows that the plausible grounds alleged by the people for the
change of government disguised their real motive. It is characteristic of
fallen human nature to veil a motive in a plausible plea; for example, to
defend saloons on the plea of "personal liberty," or that prohibition
"injures business."
2. These people meant, by rejecting Samuel, to reject Jehovah. It was the
theocracy to which in heart they objected. They wanted kings like other
nations.
3. Jehovah directed Samuel to set before them plainly, in protest, the manner
of a king such as other nations had; to thus force them, if they persisted in
their demand, to do so with open eyes and with all of their motives unmasked.
This would prove that though they had a real grievance, they were not seeking
redress of that grievance, but making it a plausible plea for the dethronement
of Jehovah, even though their remedy brought grievances a thousand fold worse
than those from which they pretended to seek relief.
The character of an Oriental despot is given by Samuel in his protest. Let us
look at that in 1 Samuel 8:11-17: "This will be the manner of the king
that shall reign over you: He will take your sons and appoint them unto him,
for his chariots and to be his horsemen; and they shall run before his
chariots; and he will appoint them unto him for captains of thousands and
captains of fifties; and he will set some to plow his ground, and to reap his
harvest, and to make his instruments of war, and the instruments of his
chariots. And he will take your daughters to be confectionaries, and to be
cooks, and to be bakers. And he will take your fields, and your vineyards, and
your olive yards, even the best of them, and give them to his servants. And he
will take the tenth of your seed, and of your vineyards, and give to his
officers, and to his servants. And he will take your menservants, and your
maidservants, and your goodliest young men, and your asses, and put them to his
work. He will take a tenth of your flocks; and ye shall be his servants. And ye
shall cry out in that day because of your king whom ye shall have chosen you;
and the Lord will not answer you in that day." I do not know anywhere in
literature a better picture of an Oriental despot than is given in the language
of Samuel.
The results, after Samuel showed them what it was to have a king like other
nations, were as follows: (1) With their eyes open and their motives exposed,
they demanded a king like other nations. (2) Jehovah directed Samuel to make
them a king. "Sometimes God answers in wrath." (3) But not to
establish such a monarchy as they desired, that is, like other nations, but a
kingdom under a written charter which retained the theocratic idea, the earthly
king to be only Jehovah's appointee and vicegerent, subject to Jehovah's law,
and guided in all things by Jehovah's prophets, and at all times liable to
removal by Jehovah. So God does not answer their request altogether. He makes a
king, but not such a king as they wanted. Concerning such a ruler Geikie uses
the following language:
"Such a ruler would necessarily stand in a unique position. As only
viceroy and representative of the true invisible King, Jehovah, he must be
pointed out beforehand by special indications, and consecrated as to a sacred
office. That be should, moreover, have commended himself to the nation by his
qualities and deeds, was essential. Nor could it be permitted him to reign like
other Eastern kings, by his mere pleasure; for the rights of Jehovah and those
of his people, as a nation of freemen, demanded equal respect. He must,
therefore, at all times, remember that he ruled under a higher King, whose
will, expressed in his revealed law, was his absolute guide both in religion
and ordinary life; its transgression, in any particular, being
self-destruction. But such a man would necessarily be in loving sympathy with
him under whom he held his authority, to be king after his heart; a man truly
religious; obeying, not by mere outward constraint, but from. loving choice.
"Though nominally king, it was a condition of his rule that he acted only
as the prophet instructed him. Under the strange theocratic constitution
enforced by Samuel, he was in fact only a puppet, moved by the prophet as he chose,
and forbidden to act in anything as a free agent. The only counterpart to such
a state of things in modern times, was the titular rule of the Mikado in Japan,
side by side with the real Emperor, the Tycoon; the one a shadow king, the
other the actual sovereign power. In antiquity, strange to say, we find
parallel to Saul and Samuel among the Getae of the century before Christ. In
their wild home north and south of the Danube, that people were ruled by a
chief who acted only as the servant of a holy man, without whom he was not
allowed to act in anything whatever. Still stranger, the result of this
extraordinary custom was the same as followed the rule of Samuel in Israel.
From the lowest weakness and moral degeneracy the Getae roused themselves under
the leading of the holy man and the phantom king, to a thorough and lasting
reformation. Indeed, they so turned themselves to a nobler life that their
national vigor showed itself in a puritanical strictness and steadfast bravery,
which carried their banners far and wide over new territories, till their
kingdom was infinitely extended. Once recognized, such a complete subordination
to the representative of the theocracy as was demanded from Saul might become
more easy to be borne, but in its early years the strong, valiant warrior must
have been sorely tried by finding himself king in name, but in fact absolutely
subordinate in the most minute detail to the command of Samuel."
Using the word, "puppet," Geikie is mistaken, since the prophet never
spoke except as God commanded, and for a man to rule under the direction of God
does not make him a puppet. This kind of a kingdom was not repugnant to
Jehovah's plan, as set forth in their previous history and law, and in their
subsequent history.
1. In Genesis 17:16, in the covenant which God made with Abraham, he promised
that kings should be his descendants.
2. In Deuteronomy 17:14-20: "When thou art come unto the land which
Jehovah thy God giveth thee, and shalt possess it, and shalt dwell therein, and
shalt say, I will set a king over me, like all the nations that are around
about me; thou shalt surely set him king over thee, whom Jehovah thy God shall
choose: one from among the brethren shalt thou set king over thee; thou mayest
not put a foreigner over thee, which is not thy brother. Only he shall not
multiply horses to himself nor cause the people to return to Egypt, to the end
that he may multiply horses; forasmuch as Jehovah hath said unto you, Ye shall
henceforth return no more that way. Neither shall he multiply wives to himself,
that his heart turn not away: neither shall he greatly multiply to himself
silver and gold. And it shall be, when he sitteth upon the throne of his
kingdom, that he shall write a copy of this law in a book, out of that which is
before the priests and the Levites: and it shall be with him, and he shall read
therein all the days of his life; that he may learn to fear Jehovah his God, to
keep all the words of this law and these statutes, to do them; that his heart
be not lifted up above his brethren, and that he turn not aside from the
commandment, to the right hand, or to the end that he may prolong his days in
his kingdom, he and his children, in the midst of Israel."
We can tell whether kings of later date did this, for we remember that Solomon
took only 700 wives, besides 300 concubines. Every king, in his subsequent
history, who violated this kingdom charter, or who refused to hear and obey
Jehovah's prophet, was punished by Jehovah. And to the extent that when one of
them respected this charter, be was blessed of Jehovah, he and the people with
him.
Thus it is evident that the issue was not whether the ruler should be called
judge or king, but that Jehovah ruled, whatever the title of his earthly
subordinate. The lesson is a mighty one. Jehovah is King of kings and Lord of
lords. His law and authority are paramount over nations as well as over
individuals. His government extends over the unwilling as well as the willing.
To deny his rule is not to vacate responsibility to his judgment. That it was
immaterial whether the ruler was called judge or king, is illustrated by a
relative passage from Pope's Essay on Man. The third epistle of
that essay line 303, says:
For forms of
government let, fools contest;
Whate'er is best administered is best,
It is further evidenced that the people had to see and admit their wrong in
seeking to displace Samuel as judge in 1 Samuel 12:1-25 which gives Samuel's
address and contains the following points:
1. They had to bear witness and have the testimony recorded, to the wisdom,
purity, and fidelity of Samuel's administration when he retired from the
judgeship.
2. They had to admit that all great leaders in the past were appointed by
Jehovah, and that they had rebelled against every one of them.
3. They had to accept this alternative, with a king put over them; that is, if
they and their king submitted to Jehovah's rule according to the kingdom
charter, then well; but if they turned away from him, then condign punishment
came on them as on their rebellious fathers.
4. They had still to submit to Samuel as a prophet. The words of Samuel were
confirmed by this miracle: He called their attention to the fact that it was
harvest time when in ordinary cases it never rained. Then lifting his face, he
spoke to Jehovah for a sign, and instantly the heavens were blackened, loud
thunder rolled, lightning gored the black bosom of the cloud, and a windstorm
came up to testify that God was speaking to them.
The result was that they felt and confessed the sin of their demand, and
implored Samuel's intercession that they might be forgiven, to which he gave
the following reply:
1. He encouraged them not to despair on account of their sins – that God was
merciful – but to repent and do better in the future.
2. That God, for his own name's sake, would never forsake that people.
3. That he himself would not sin by ceasing to pray for them that their sins
should be forgiven.
4. That he would, as prophet, continue to .instruct them in the good and right
way.
5. That in view of the great things that God had done for them, they should
fear him and serve him in truth with all their hearts; otherwise they would be
consumed. With other great events in their history, chapter 12 may be compared
thus:
l. With the farewell address of Moses, (Deut. 29:1-6 to 31:5)
2. Joshua's farewell address (Josh. 24:1-28)
3. Paul's farewell address to the elders of the church at Ephesus (Acts
20:18-38)
4. On the score of patriotism, we may include Washington's farewell address, when
he announced he would no more be president. I once went to the city of
Annapolis to see a great picture, or painting, representing the scene of
Washington tendering his sword back to Congress at the close of the war,
retiring from the office of commander-in-chief. It is a marvelous painting.
Supposed but far-distant relatives of mine are in the picture – Charles Carroll
and his daughters. In a glass case to the right is the very suit of clothes
Washington wore on that day, including his spurs. My old teacher made me
memorize Washington's farewell address. Two doctrines in Samuel's address need
to be emphasized:
1. The ground of God's not forsaking his elect nation: "Not on your
account, but for his own name's sake," and in this connection you must
read Ezekiel 36:22-36, and the whole of Romans II. They both talk about God's
saving in one day the whole Jewish nation.
2. It is a sin not to pray for the forgiveness of sinners, of which the
following is a Texas illustration: There was a certain man, preaching in many
counties, taking the position that no Christian was justifiable in praying for
the forgiveness of the sinner. I joined issue publicly, in the pulpit and in
the press, citing Samuel's doctrine: "God forbid that I should sin in
ceasing to pray for the forgiveness of your sins." In that great
discussion I referred to what is called the "mourner's bench,"
stating that I had no particular fancy for what is called the "mourner's
bench;" that a man could find Christ on the bench, on the floor, behind
the barn, or in the field, unless he made this point: "I will do anything
that God wants Die to do to be saved, except a certain thing;" that if he
reserved any one point on which he would not surrender to God, then he did not
surrender at all; and I insisted that in leaving out the "mourner's
bench" they would not leave out the mourning. I did not object to leaving
out the bench if they wanted to, but if they did leave it out, I hoped they
would not cease praying for sinners.
QUESTIONS
1. What the general purpose
of this chapter?
2. What the immediate
occasion of the change?
3. What the grounds alleged
by the people for the change?
4. What can you say of these
allegations?
5. Why, then, did their
demand displease Samuel?
6. In what did Samuel evince
his wisdom?
7. What the results?
8. Describe the character of
an Oriental despot as given in Samuel's protest.
9. What were the results
after Samuel showed them what it was to have a king like other nations?
10. Prove that this kind of
a kingdom was not repugnant to Jehovah's plan, as set forth in their previous
history and law, and in their subsequent history.
11. If then it was
immaterial whether the ruler was called judge or king, cite a relative passage
from Pope's Essay on Man.
12. What further evidence
that the people had to see and admit their wrong in seeking to displace Samuel
as judge?
13. How were the words of
Samuel confirmed?
14. What was the result?
15. Analyze Samuel's reply.
16. With what other great events
in their history may chapter 12 be compared?
17. What two great doctrines
in Samuel's address need to be emphasized?
18. That Texas illustration
of the second doctrine?
SAUL, THE FIRST KING
1 Samuel 9:1 to 12:25 and Harmony, pages
70-74.
I devote an extended discussion to chapters 9 to 11 because it is necessary to
fix clearly in the mind the nature of the kingdom established in order to interpret
correctly the history of the kings which follows. Without this understanding we
will break down in the interpretation of even the first rejection of Saul, and
with Jehovah's dealing with every subsequent king. Before entering upon the
history of the first king, let us state tersely the salient points which define
the Hebrew monarchy:
1. A government by kings was not an afterthought with Jehovah, but was one of
the predetermined stages of the national development and a forecast preparatory
to the setting up of the messianic spiritual kingdom.
2. Though Jehovah granted Israel's demand for a kingly government superseding
the previous rule by judges, he did not establish such a monarchy as they
desired, like that of other nations.
3. The kingdom established had a written charter clearly defining its nature,
powers, and limitations, the basis of which was given to Moses (Deut. 17:14-20)
with subsequent enlargements by Samuel. This charter made the written law, the
Pentateuch, the constitution of the kingdom. The king must make the law his
Vade Mecum, and the rule of his reign. There was not only this unalterable
written constitution, but to emphasize the retention of the theocratic idea,
the king must at all times hear and obey the fresh messages from Jehovah,
coming through his now established order of the prophets, his mouthpieces and
penmen. This part of the charter turns a blaze of light on the subsequent
history.
4. The monarchy was not elective by the nation, through corporate action of
their great congregation or general assembly, but each king must be appointed
by Jehovah, and that appointment designated through the prophet, Jehovah's
mouthpiece. Jehovah chooses the king, Jehovah's prophet anoints him and
presents him to the assembly for acceptance.
5. The monarchy was not hereditary in the modern sense. A dynasty might be
changed at Jehovah's sole option, as from the house of Saul to the house of
David, and it did not follow that when a king's son succeeded him he should be
the first-born; for example, the case of Solomon. Whether in changing a
dynasty, or designating which son of a king should succeed his father, the
living prophet was Jehovah's medium of making known his will.
6. Neither king nor general assembly, nor both cojoined, had the power to
declare war, direct it when declared, make peace, or contract alliances, except
as Jehovah directed through his living prophet.
7. By the law, and through the living prophet, the people were safeguarded from
the tyranny of the king. See the case of Nathan's rebuke of David for the wrong
against Uriah, and Elijah's denunciation of Ahab concerning Naboth's vineyard.
8. Particularly, the prophet spoke with all authority from God in matters of
religion, hedging not only against idolatry but reliance upon formalism and
ritualism, all the time bringing out the spiritual meaning of the law and
calling for repentance and reformation. Therefore, no man can interpret any
part of the mere history of the Hebrew monarchy apart from the section of the
Psalter bearing on it, and the contemporaneous prophets. On this account Wood's
Hebrew Monarchy, though not perfect in its arrangement, excels Crockett's
Harmony as a textbook.
A quotation from a prophet pertinent to the establishment of the monarchy
considered in the preceding chapter is Hosea 13:9-11: "It is thy
destruction, O Israel, that thou art against me against thy help. Where now is
thy king, that he may gave thee in all thy cities? and thy judges, of whom thou
saidst, Give me a king and princes? I have given thee a king in mine anger, and
have taken him away in my wrath." There were several ways by which the
people, as well as the king, could get at the will of Jehovah apart from the
written Jaw, viz.:
1. By submitting a question to the Oracle abiding in the ark of the covenant,
to be answered by the high priest, wearing his ephod, through the Urim and
Thummim (1 Sam. 23:8-12)
2. By appealing to the prophets (1 Sam. 9:6-9)
3. By sacrifice and asking of signs; as in the case of Gideon (Judges 6:17-21)
There are two passages, one showing the despair of an individual, and the other
showing the deplorable condition of the nation, from whom, on account of
aggravated sins, God has cut off all means of communication with him. In one,
Saul, the first king, in his later life thus bemoans his condition: "And
when 'Saul saw the host of the Philistines, he was afraid, and his heart
trembled greatly. And when Saul inquired of Jehovah, Jehovah answered him not,
neither by dreams, nor by Urim, nor by prophets," (1 Sam. 28:5) In the
other, Hosea thus describes the pitiable condition of the rebellious Israel:
"For the children of Israel shall abide many days without king, and
without prince, and without sacrifice, and without pillar, and without Ephod or
teraphim," (Hos. 3:4)
SAUL, THE FIRST
KING
Certain passages bear on part of the foregoing statement of the nature of the
kingdom. For instance, Jehovah chose Saul to be the king, privately announcing him
to his prophet, and providentially bringing him in touch with this prophet (1
Sam. 9:15) and later before the great assembly at Mizpah he makes known his
choice to the people publicly (1 Sam. 10:17-21). Acting under Jehovah's
direction, the prophet prepares the mind of Saul for the high honor (1 Sam.
9:20-25). Then privately the prophet accounts him as king, and then confirms to
him his position by signs (1 Sam. 10:2-7). Then by an enduement of the Holy
Spirit he is qualified for his office. Not converted, but qualified for his
office. Then the prophet brings about the public designation before the people,
the general assembly at Mizpah (1 Sam. 10:17-21). Then the prophet arranges for
his recognition by the people in a subsequent general assembly at Gilgal (1
Sam. 10:8; 11:14-15). Then the prophet vacates his own office of judge (1 Sam.
12).
It is easy to see from the text the details of which I need not give, just what
Jehovah does, just what the prophet does, just what the people do, just what
Saul does, and particularly the text shows how Jehovah prepares the people to
accept Saul – prepares the prophet first, then prepares Saul, and then the
people,
The several stages showing the preparation of Saul are intensely interesting.
The first hint which Samuel gives to Saul seemed to him an incredible thing,
for he says, "I belong to the smallest tribe, and our family is a
subordinate one in that tribe." But still, it puts him to thinking. Then
Samuel gives him the post of honor in entertaining, and that puts him to
thinking. Then Samuel privately anoints him as king, and that ceremony
impresses him. Then Samuel predicts three signs, the object of which is to
satisfy Saul thoroughly and to confirm the kingship in his own mind; and
particularly the last of the three, which was that the Spirit of God would come
upon him in the gift of prophesying, and he would be changed into another man.
Note Saul’s reticence: First, when his uncle asks him where he had been, and he
tells him about the prophet's informing him that the asses have been found, but
does not say a word about the kingship; again, when after he is publicly
designated and some of the evil-minded people, children of Belial, declared
that they could not accept him as king, because they saw no salvation in him,
instead of getting mad and answering in resentful language, Saul holds his
peace. He never says a word; he knows how to wait. Again, we notice that
notwithstanding all the things that have occurred so far) when at that great
gathering at Mizpah where he was to be publicly shown as king, Saul hides, and
when the question comes up and when the lot determined Saul as king, they ask
where he is, and God said, "He is hiding among the stuff" – the
baggage.
I once preached a sermon from that text on God's discovering a number of
appointed men hiding with the stuff, more concerned about their farming and the
things of the world than about the preaching of his Word. In the army every
soldier thought it disgraceful if he had to stay with the baggage when the battle
came on. Since he could be pointed at as the soldier who had to stay with the
stuff, he wanted to be on the firing line.
I am showing you all these things to mark the progress in Saul's own mind, and
God's leading him step by step. After a while he is wide awake enough for the
kingly honor. Now let us consider the meaning of apostasy, what is essential in
a particular case to prove the doctrine, and what the application to Saul, and
explain 1 Samuel 10:5-6, 9-10. Apostasy means that a regenerated man may be
finally and forever lost. In order to prove that doctrine by a particular case,
the evidence must be indubitable on two points: First, that in the case
selected there was first regeneration, and second, that this regenerated one
was finally and forever lost. The proof must be ample and unequivocal at both
ends – regeneration and damnation,
On these premises, we examine the particular case of Saul, King of Israel. A
failure of demonstration that he was a regenerated man, or that he was finally
lost, deprives the doctrine of apostasy, as defined above, from any support
from the particular case of Saul. If the proof fall short at either point,
there is no need to consider the other. Therefore, let us shorten matters by
attention to one point only: Was Saul a regenerated man? In the case under
consideration, the passages relied upon to establish the contention that Saul
was a truly regenerated man, a spiritual child of God, are:
First, Samuel's promise, "Thou shalt be turned into another man" (1
Sam. 10:5-6).
Second, the historian's declaration of the fulfilment of the promise, "God
gave him another heart" (1 Sam. 10:9-10). A careful examination of both
passages (ASV) settles conclusively that in the promise, the Holy Spirit would
in some sense come upon Saul, with the result that he would be changed into
another man, and that in the fulfilment, the Holy Spirit did come upon him in
the sense promised, with the result that God gave him another heart. If we
accept the record, there is no doubt here that the Holy Spirit exerted a power
on Saul and that consequently there was a change in him.
The questions to be determined are: What was the nature of the power exerted,
and of the resultant change? My answer is that the Spirit power promised was
the gift of prophesying, which throughout the Scripture is distinguished from
the grace of regeneration, and the change was according to the power, and that
the end, or purpose, exercised was not to regenerate Saul, but is expressly
called a sign, to assure Saul's doubting mind that Jehovah had chosen him as
king. The incredible thing to Saul, which needed confirmation by signs, was not
that he would become a child of God by regeneration, but that he whose tribe
was so small, and the position of whose family in that tribe was so low, should
be chosen of Jehovah to be king of all Israel. The nature of the power exerted
and the resultant change effected are thus determined by their purpose.
The difference between the grace of regeneration and the miraculous gift of the
Spirit is expressed thus: The grace of regeneration is not a sign, but the
miraculous gift of the Spirit is a sign, and is so regarded in both Testaments.
In the same way, the gift of the Spirit on the day of Pentecost was not to
regenerate the apostles, all of whom were already Christians, but to assure
their hearts, and, as signs, to accredit them to others.
In 1 Corinthians 12-14 the whole matter is laid bare so that a child can
understand it. Very sharply, and at many points, does Paul contrast these miraculous
and temporary enduements of the Spirit, given for signs, with the grace of
regeneration expressed in the abiding fruits of faith, hope, and love.
Regeneration is one thing in all cases. The miraculous gifts of the Spirit were
diverse. One of the recipients, like Saul, might prophesy, another work
miracles, another speak with tongues, another interpret tongues.
The Spirit power received on Pentecost did change the apostles; did, in an
important sense, give them other hearts, as we may learn from the coward,
Peter, trembling before a maidservant, and the Peter, bold as a lion, on
Pentecost. In the Corinthian discussion (1 Cor. 12-14) Paul makes clear, first,
that faith, hope, and love, the evidences and fruits of regeneration, are
superior in nature and more edifying in exercise than the gifts of the Spirit,
one of which only Saul had; second, that all these signs would cease, but that
regeneration, evidenced by faith, hope, and love, would abide.
If we look for evidences of regeneration in Saul's life, we do not find them.
If we look for evidences of a miraculous Spirit gift bestowed on him for
assurance to him that Jehovah wanted him to be king, and for a sign to others,
we do find them, and we also find that this gift of the Spirit was withdrawn from
him when becoming unworthy of office, Jehovah no longer wants him as king. But,
perhaps, the strongest evidence in the Bible that Saul was not a regenerated
man is to be found in God's contrast between Saul and Solomon on this very
point. (2 Sam. 7:13-16 and 1 Chron. 17:11-13 ASV.) Here it is unequivocally
taught that Saul was not a regenerated man, but Solomon was. The regeneration
of Solomon, as contrasted with Saul, appears in this:
1. God was 'Solomon's spiritual Father, and Solomon was God's spiritual son.
2. Therefore, when he sinned, Solomon was chastised as a child and not as an
alien.
3. Being a child, God's loving-kindness would not be with drawn, as in the case
of Saul.
Old John Bunyan was accustomed to say, "Gifts make a preacher, but grace
makes a Christian." Saul had the gift, but not the grace. To this already
unanswerable argument we may add that a miraculous, because supernatural, gift
may be bestowed by the devil, who in no case can regenerate. This power of
Satan can of course be exercised only through God's permission, and this
permission is never granted except to test men, or as a punitive judgment on
men who refuse to be guided by the Holy Spirit.
In Saul's own case, this permission was granted, as we see from the result
being as before, that Saul prophesied. Read the passage and see. Later we will
find a similar case. The New Testament explains the ground of this permission
thus (see 2 Thess. 2:8-13) : "And then shall be revealed the lawless one)
whom the Lord Jesus shall slay with the breath of his mouth, and bring to
naught by the manifestation of his coming, even he whose coming is according to
the working of Satan, with all power and signs and lying wonders, and with all
deceit of unrighteousness for them that perish, because they received not the
love of the truth that they might be saved. And for this cause, God sendeth
them a working of error, that they should believe a lie, that they all might be
judged who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness. But we
are bound to give thanks to God always for you, brethren beloved of the Lord,
for that God chose you from the beginning unto salvation in sanctification of
the Spirit and belief of the truth."
And it is precisely on this account that John says, "Beloved, believe not
every spirit, but prove the spirits, whether they be of God, because many false
prophets are gone out into the world" (John 4:1). No miracle can accredit
a doctrine contrary to the written Word.
To make evident the application of this line of argument to Saul's case, we are
assured that these miracles) signs, and wonders, wrought by Satan and his
demons, no matter how plausible nor how convincing to their dupes, can never
possibly deceive the elect (see Mark 13:22 and Matt. 24:24). But the evil
spirit's miracle causing Saul to prophesy (1 Sam. 16:14; 18:10) did deceive him
and straightway led him to seek the murder of David, led him to the slaughter
of the priests of Nob (22:9-19), and led him to irretrievable ruin, despair,
and suicide.
QUESTIONS
1. Why devote any extended
discussion to chapters 9-11?
2. Even now, before entering
upon the history of the first king, restate tersely the salient points which
define the Hebrew monarchy,
3. Cite a quotation from a
prophet pertinent to the establishment of the monarchy considered in the
preceding chapter.
4. In what ways could the
people, as well as the king, get at the will of Jehovah apart from the written
law?
5. Cite two passages, one
showing the despair of the individual, and the other showing the deplorable
condition of the nation, from whom on account of aggravated sins, God has cut
off all means of communication with him.
6. Cite, in order, certain
passages bearing on part of the foregoing statement of the nature of the
kingdom.
7. What did Jehovah do, what
did the prophet do, what did the people do, and what did Saul do to prepare the
people to accept Saul?
8. Describe Saul's reticence
in accepting this high position of honor.
9. What is the meaning of
apostasy, what is the essential feature in a particular case to prove the
doctrine, and what the application to Saul, explaining 1 Samuel 10:5-6;
10:9-10?
10. What 13 the difference
between the grace of regeneration and the miraculous gift of the Spirit?
Illustrate by New Testament instances.
11. What, then, do we find
in Saul's life, and what the strongest evidence in the Bible that he was not
regenerated?
12. What was Bunyan's
saying, and what added argument?
13. What is the purpose of
God's permission of the devil to bestow miraculous gifts, and what New
Testament testimony?
14. What the difference in
effect of these miracles of the devil on the saved and the unsaved, and how
does Saul's case illustrate?
SAUL, THE FIRST KING (CONTINUED)
It is contended by some that the reference to Saul's "another heart"
is equivalent to the "new heart" of Ezekiel 36:26, to which we may
safely reply that the "another heart" given to Saul was not equivalent
to the passage cited in Ezekiel. But when we come to Saul's death, in the
history, to sum up his character, we will not be able to classify him with
Judas, though there are some points similar, particularly in that both were led
by a dominant evil spirit to despair and self destruction. Saul, in many ways,
was a finer man than Judas, leaving behind precious memories of some deeds and
traits which evoked the gratitude of the men of Jabeshgilead, the unswerving
attachment of several tribes, and the beautiful eulogy of David. Nothing like
these do we find in the low, avaricious, treacherous life of Judas.
Believers in apostasy use the life of Saul to prove apostasy, and I do not
wonder that they take this case as the basis of their argument to sustain the
doctrine of apostasy, since it is the most plausible in the Bible, but if this
case fails in demonstration they may not hope for support in any other. But
they may ask, "What then does Paul mean in Galatians 5:4: 'Ye are fallen
away from grace' ?" To which we again reply that the scriptural phrase,
"Ye are fallen away from grace," as used by Paul in Galatians 5:4,
does not imply that real Christians, the truly regenerate, may be finally lost,
but that those once accepting the doctrine of salvation by grace, and then
returning to a doctrine of salvation by works, have fallen away from grace.
They have turned from one doctrine to the opposite one, as often happens in
practical life, without meaning that either the original acceptance was
regeneration, or the falling away from it was final. In Paul's meaning of the
phrase, men may fall from grace.
We have now seen how Jehovah prepared his prophet for designation of Saul as
king, how he prepared Saul for the great honor, and how he prepared the people
to accept Saul. Before advancing in the history, we need to understand more
particularly certain matters in the record already so tersely covered,
particularly the steps of the people's preparation to accept Saul, and how
gradually the acceptance was, in a glorious climax, made complete:
1. The gift of prophesying came upon Saul, enduing him for service, and this
being in the company of the school of the prophets, prepared the mighty
prophetic order to recognize him as God's man. As this enduement of power came on
him also in the presence of many of the people) it was designed to accredit him
to them. But they were more startled by the prodigy than they were made ready
to accept him. There is something scornful in their saying, which became a
proverb: "Is Saul also among the prophets?" Their scorn is somewhat
mitigated by a bystander's question: "Who is their father?" meaning,
"What in their descent puts the prophets above Saul that you should wonder
at the bestowal on him of the prophetic gift?" God bestowed it, and not on
account of family position.
2. Jehovah's choice of him by an extraordinary method in the great congregation
at Mizpah as the man for the place out of all Israel. As this method of showing
divine selection had availed in Joshua's time in infallibly pointing out Achan,
the one criminal out of millions (Josh. 7:14-18), and would again avail in
David's time (1 Sam. 16:12), it ought to have been equally convincing in
showing Jehovah's choice of a king. It did convince most of the people, who
shouted their acceptance in a phrase that has gone round the world: "God
save the King!" But not all were satisfied for certain sons of Belial
said, "How shall this man save us?" And they despised him and brought
no present. You must note that the phrase, "sons of Belial," retains
the meaning already established (1 Sam. 1:16; 2:12). Belial is a proper name,
meaning the devil, and quite in keeping with their nature, the devil's children
will not accept Jehovah's choice of a king.
3. The spirit of Jehovah comes upon Saul and demonstrates his fitness for the
high honor by leading to the deliverance of Jabeshgilead. It is not enough to
shout, "God save the king," but will you fall in line and follow the
king? In his call to war, Saul rightly associates his name with Samuel's (1
Sam. 11:7) and "the dread of the Lord fell on all the people, and they
came out as one man."
This practical demonstration of Saul's fitness wrought unanimity in his
acceptance, and led the people to demand of Samuel the death of those who had
refused Jehovah's choice, Saul's wisdom again appearing in refusing to stain
the glorious beginning of his reign with the blood of political executions.
4. The people now being prepared in mind to accept Jehovah's choice, under
divine direction, they were formally and officially committed by the
ratification at Gilgal in solemn assembly, with appropriate sacrifices, and
great rejoicing of both king and people, followed by Samuel's surrender of the
office of judge. This meeting at Gilgal is the dividing official line of
separation between the period of the judges and the period of the monarchy.
Before, we have only shown the steps toward transition. The scene of the
consummation was most fitting, for at Gilgal the period of the pilgrimage ended
and the period of the conquest commenced, and at Gilgal the distribution of a
part of the land took place officially, ending, in part, the conquest period of
the judges.
5. Jehovah, king, prophet, and general assembly are in full accord, the functions
of all clearly distinguished and defined. Happy beginning of the monarchy I The
later history will show wherein, when, and how the glorious charter of the
kingdom is violated by prophet, king, or people. We will find a sad history,
enlivened here and there by deeds of heroes and song of bards. But the picture
will gather deepening shadows until the eclipse is completed by the downfall of
the monarchy. The chief heroes will be the prophets, a few kings will be
illustrious, and very rarely, a priest.
The distinction in the meaning of the words "seer" and
"prophet," used as synonymous in 1 Samuel 9:7, is this:
"Prophet" has the larger meaning, including all the import of
"seer." Strictly speaking, the word "seer" refers only to
one method of receiving revelation, i.e., in vision. A prophet not only had the
gift of vision) but was in all respects the mouthpiece, or penman, of Jehovah
in teaching, reforming, or recording. He was by inspiration God's direct
legatee, ambassador, or representative, with authority above king or people.
There is a humorous play on the common version of 1 Samuel 10:14 which a deacon
once made to an indiscreet preacher, saying, "My dear sir, if you keep on
shooting off your mouth half-cocked, you will presently find yourself where
Saul perceived his father's asses to be." The words of the text in that
version are: "We saw they were nowhere."
SAUL'S REIGN AFTER THE RATIFICATION IN GILGAL
First Samuel 13:1 says, "Saul was forty years old when he began to reign,
and when he had reigned two years over Israel, Saul chose him three thousand
men of Israel," etc. His personal appearance is described in 1 Samuel
10:23-24: "From his shoulders upward he was higher than the people. None
of them were like him." Hence the proverb: "Head and shoulders above
his fellows." We will find later that his armor was too large for David.
The conditions of his reign were hard. At this time Israel was dominated by the
Philistines on the Southwest. assailed by Amalek on the South, by Ammon. Moab,
and Edom on the Southeast, and by Zobah, or Syria, on the Northeast, but
against all these at times Saul waged a victorious war. Besides this his
resources were limited. He had no standing army, no arms, no equipment, no
public treasury except spoils gathered in battle, and the whole country was
impoverished by raids and invasions of his many enemies, First Samuel 13:19-23
shows the pitiable condition of the people as to artificers, implements of
industry and arms: "Now there was no smith found throughout all the land
of Israel: for the Philistines said, Lest the Hebrews make them swords or
spears: but all the Israelites went down to the Philistines, to sharpen every
man his share, and his coulter, and his ax, and his mattock. Yet they had a
file for the mattocks, and for the coulters, and for the forks, and for the
axes, and to sharpen the goads. So it came to pass in the day of battle, that
there was neither sword nor spear found in the hand of the people that were
with Saul and Jonathan: but with Saul and with Jonathan his son was there
found." This statement has its great lessons.
No people can become or remain safe and prosperous who are dependent on other
nations for mechanicians, manufactured goods, and their means of
transportation. This was illustrated in the great controversy and War Between
the States. During the controversy there appeared a book by a renegade North
Carolinian, entitled: Helper's Impending Crisis, in which he thus pictured the
South's unpreparedness for war, and the certain disasters which would, in the
case of war, necessarily overtake it. I never read it but one time, and that
was when I was a child, but it was burned into my mind so that I can repeat it
now:
"A Southern man gets up in the morning from between Northern sheets,
having slept on a Northern mattress, resting on a Northern bedstead, washes his
face in a Northern bowl, dries his face on a Northern towel, brushes his hair
and teeth with Northern brushes, puts on Northern clothes; goes into his dining
room and site down at a Northern dining table covered by a Northern
table-cloth, on which are Northern cups, saucers, plates, knives, forks, and in
a Southern hog-country eats Northern bacon. Then he goes out and hitches his
horse to a Northern plow; or to a Northern buggy; or having tied around his
neck a Northern cravat, he goes to pay his address to his girl, who is dressed
in Northern dimity and calicoes, and when he comes to die, he is wrapped in a
Northern shroud, his grave is dug with a Northern spade and mattock, and the only
thing he has which is Southern is the hole in the ground where be is
buried."
Now, as a consequence, just as soon as the war broke out, having no factories,
having no railroads running east and west, having no control of the land and
water transportation, in six months they were on the verge of starvation. I saw
several companies of Sibley's brigade start to New Mexico armed with lances –
old-fashioned lances, a long, dressed pole with a rude point to it. They took
the old-fashioned flint and steel muskets, and fixed them so they could use
percussion caps; they did not have a breech-loading gun. Having no paper
factories, the newspapers were being printed within six months on wallpaper –
the printing on one side and coloring on the other. I paid $22 in Mexican
silver for a hatful of coffee that was smuggled over from Mexico (I could not
bear to see my mother do without coffee), but all over the South they were
drinking parched sweet potatoes for coffee, and using sassafras tea, and catnip
tea, and when they were sick they used boneset tea, and woe to the man who had
to take it I
If all this is true among nations, you can understand what I mean when I said
woe to the South, where the people have the views of sound doctrine, when it
sends its preaching implements to a Northern radical-critic grindstone in order
to put on point or edge. I tell you, we ought never to cease praying that God
will bless our Southwestern Seminary, and establish it in the hearts of the
people.
From a comparison of 1 Samuel 13:1-2, and 1 Samuel 14: 47-52 we must suppose:
1. That the text of 13:1 is defective. Note the difference in the rendering
between the common version and the revised version – a very considerable
difference.
2. That according to the summary given in 14:47-52, there is no record of the
details of many of Saul's campaigns.
3. As Saul was a young man when made king, and now comes before us with a grown
son, Jonathan, already a hero, we must suppose that for years after he became
king his reign was prosperous and according to the charter of the kingdom. In
this prosperous part of his reign must always be placed to Saul's credit the
fact that under the most trying conditions he proved himself a great hero in
war against mighty odds, while possessing amiable characteristics which
endeared him to his family, to the people, and to Samuel. According to David's
eulogy, he found the women of his people in rags and clothed them in scarlet,
and put on their apparel ornaments of gold. He taught an unwarlike,
undisciplined militia to become mighty warriors. His whole life was one series
of battles, beating back the enemies who were pouring in on every side. Then
considering these odds against him, his only hope lay in strict obedience to
the charter of his kingdom, thus keeping Jehovah as his friend. He never began
to fall until he made God his enemy.
QUESTIONS
1. Is the reference to
Saul's "another heart" equivalent to the "new heart" of
Ezekiel 36:26? In what was Saul like Judas, and in what was he unlike him?
2. Why do believers in
apostasy use the life of Saul to prove apostasy?
3. What does Paul mean in
Galatians 5:4: "Ye are fallen away from grace"?
4. What, particularly, were
the steps of the people's preparation to accept Saul, and how gradually was the
acceptance, in glorious climax, made complete?
5. Distinguish in meaning
the words "seer" and "prophet," used as synonymous in 2
Samuel 9:7.
6. What humorous play on the
common version of 1 Samuel 10:14 did a deacon once make to an indiscreet
preacher?
7. How old was Saul when he
began to reign?
8. What was his personal
appearance?
9. What were the hard
conditions of his reign?
10. What his limited
resources?
11. Recite the passage that
shows the pitiable condition of the people as to artificers, implements of
industry, and arms.
12. What great lessons are
derivable from this statement?
13. What must we suppose
from a comparison of chapters 13:1-2 and 14:47-52?
14. In this prosperous part of
his reign, what must always be placed to Saul's credit?
15. Considering these odds
against him, wherein lay his only hope?
THE PASSING OF SAUL AND HIS DYNASTY 1
Samuel 13:1 to 14:46 and Harmony, pages
75-79.
There are real difficulties, puzzling to a Bible student, in 1 Samuel: 13-14.
These difficulties are of three kinds: first, in the text; second, in the order
of events; third, in determining the length of Saul's reign. The first difficulty
of the text is the first sentence, 13:1. According to the historian's formula
elsewhere, introducing the account of a reign, we would naturally expect this
initial sentence to tell us two facts: Saul's age when he began to reign, and
the duration of his reign, somewhat thus: "Saul was thirty years old when
be began to reign, and he reigned over Israel forty years," but our
present Hebrew text cannot be so rendered, nor can we satisfactorily make out
the text from a comparison with the versions. The Hebrews designated numbers by
letters, hence it is quite easy in the matter of numbers for a mistake to creep
in. In the Hebrew of 13:1 Saul's age is not stated. When the versions attempt
to supply the number from internal evidence, it amounts only to conjecture. The
unrevised Septuagint omits that first verse altogether, but a revision of that
version gives it, and makes it read that Saul was thirty years old when he
began to reign. The American Standard Version fills the blank with forty years
as his age when he began to reign, and connects verse I with verse 2. The Jew,
Isaac Leeser, in his English version, renders that first verse thus: "When
Saul had reigned one year – and two years he reigned over Israel," which
leaves here the whole verse "up in the air," with two gaps in it.
Other Jews render it thus: "Saul was the son of a year when he began to
reign, and when he had reigned two years he chose for himself, . . . "
This rendering could be made to mean that Saul was as inexperienced, or as
simple, as a year old child when he commenced to reign, but after he had
reigned two years he began to assume the air of royalty by organizing a small
standing army as a bodyguard, or as a nucleus around which militia levies could
be assembled in time of war. In the judgment of the author, there is no direct
connection between verse I and verse 2, nor is he able to remove the
difficulty. It seems probable that the first sentence should follow the usual
formula of the historian, and that if we had the true text, it would so appear.
The second text difficulty is in 13:5, which gives the Philistines "thirty
thousand chariots," a number which seems to be incredible, so unnecessary,
and so wholly out of proportion to other departments of their army, that one is
disposed to imagine that some copyist erred in writing the Hebrew letters by
which they express the number of chariots. Probably the number was 1000.
The third text difficulty is the word, "ark," in 14:18. We would
naturally conclude from 1 Samuel 7:1-2, and from 1 Chronicles 13:1-14 that the
ark remained at Kirjathjearim until its removal to Jerusalem by David.
Moreover, David says expressly, "We sought not unto the ark in the days of
Saul." The best explanation of this difficulty is that the Septuagint, with
a better Hebrew text before it, renders the verse thus: "And Saul said to
Ahijah, Bring hither the Ephod. For he wore the Ephod at that time before
Israel."
In determining the order of events we find that the paragraph, 1 Samuel 14:47-52,
gives a summary of Saul's wars and of his family, and inasmuch as the historian
gives no details of at least three of these wars, to wit: the war with Ammon,
with Edom, and with the kings of Zobah, i.e., Syria, the difficulty is to know
just where these wars should be placed. Evidently there is no place for them
after the beginning of this section, and if they be put before this section,
then time must be allowed for them, as well as for the arrival to mature age of
Saul's sons and daughters.
In determining the duration of Saul's reign, the difficulty in the Hebrew text
of 13:1 forces us to rely upon one statement only, that by the apostle Paul
(Acts 13:21) who says: "Saul reigned by the space of forty years." In
an edited edition of Josephus' "Antiquity of the Jews," Book VI, last
sentence of that book, the reading is: "Now Saul, when he had reigned
eighteen years while Samuel was alive, and after his death 2 [and 20], ended
his life in this manner." The words "and 20" in brackets must be
regarded as an interpolation, being out of harmony with the author's heading of
the sixth book which assigns only thirty-two years from the death of Eli to the
death of Saul. Leaving out the bracketed words, Josephus says that Saul reigned
eighteen years while Samuel lived, and two years after he died. The author
stands by Paul's statement that he reigned by the space of forty years, and
contends that this harmonizes best with all of the elements of the history. The
history unquestionably makes Saul a young man when he began to reign. There
must be time for all of the wars mentioned in the summary, 14:47-52, and for
Saul's children, sons and daughters, to become grown. Chapter 13 presents
Jonathan a grown man and avalorous captain. Therefore the author assumes that between
chapters 12, when Saul's reign properly commenced) and chapter 13, we must
allow an interval of perhaps twenty years, and we must conclude, from the
success of Saul in waging victorious war with Ammon, Edom, and the kings of
Zobah, or Syria (14:47) that such an interval must be provided for in the
order.
It is easy to understand why the historian gives no details of these wars. His
object is to bring us quickly to that part of Saul's reign in which, by two
great decisive acts, he violates the kingdom charter. For years, then, we
presume that Saul was faithful to that charter, prosperous and successful in
every direction, but this period of prosperity is followed by a triumph of the
Philistines, who so dominated the land as to bring about the conditions as
described in our text, 1 Samuel 13:6-7, 19-23, and it is at this period of
national disaster that chapter 13 commences the story. Indeed by this disaster
God providentially prepares the way for an account of Saul's first great test,
which could not come except under hard conditions. We may count it a difficulty
to give the proper rendering of 1 Samuel 13:3, which says that "Jonathan
smote the garrison of the Philistines that was in Geba." Very able
scholars contend that this word should not be rendered "garrison" but
"monument," the Philistines having erected a monument there as a
memorial of their domination over the land. Another scholar contends that it
means an officer who at that point collected the tribute from the subjugated
Hebrews, but none of the versions so renders the word, so we will count that
word to mean garrison.
Another line of interpretation, as to the order of events is advocated by
mighty minds, including Edersheim, for whose wide range of learning, splendid
scholarship, pity, reverence, and especially the gift of spiritual
interpretation, the author has a profound respect. According to Edersheim,
whose arguments sustaining his contention are so weighty, the boldest might
well hesitate to claim dogmatically the rightfulness of the order we have just
considered, and according to others, including the American Standard revisers,
Saul was forty years old when he began to reign; was a man of family, his
oldest son, Jonathan, being a grown man, and there is no interval between the
history in chapter 12 and the history in chapter 13, but it is continuous;
therefore the wars (14:47) with Ammon, Edom, and Syria, follow the victory over
the Philistines recorded in chapter 13, and the hard conditions under the
domination of the Philistines recorded in chapter 13:6-7, 19-23 were the
conditions at the beginning of Saul's reign. This would place the test which
decided the dynasty at the beginning of his reign, and with propriety place
later the second test in the case with Amalek, resulting in his personal
rejection. With this order, Josephus agrees. The serious objections to this
theory of order are thus met by its advocates. They admit that the record in
chapter 9 declares Saul to be a young man when he met Samuel, and that it is a
part of a young man's duty to be sent off to find the stray stock of his
father, but argue that among Hebrews even a middle-aged man with a family is
called a young man and is under the direction of his father, and that the
preceding record nowhere gives Saul's age, and that the only place where we
would expect to find it (13:1) the numeral expressed in a Hebrew letter is
wanting, and must be supplied by conjecture based on the context. In meeting
Paul's express statement that Saul reigned by the space of forty years, they
say that it is not in the line of Paul's thought to be exact, and that his
forty years is expressed in round numbers. These replies to the objections are
not satisfactory, but are here given for what they are worth.
The hero of this war with the Philistines was Jonathan, Saul's brilliant son.
He it is that brings on the war by smiting the Philistines' garrison at Gibeah,
and he it is that decided the war in the great battle of Michmash. Saul's part
of the whole story is an undignified one. The following are the events, in
order, leading up to his failure under the first test to which he was
subjected: It will be remembered that Saul was made king with the special view
of delivering Israel from the Philistines, and that having only 3,000 men they
were divided into two small corps, occupying strategically the best positions
of defense against the Philistines. Then when Jonathan's exploit brought on the
war by making Israel odious to the Philistines, they assembled the largest and
best appointed army they ever sent to the field, and took post at Michmash.
Saul sounded the trumpet alarm designed to bring all of the able-bodied men of
Israel to his side. The place of assembly was Gilgal, which Samuel had
appointed with the express command that when assembled they were to remain
seven full days until he himself arrived, and when he had offered appropriate
sacrifices, the war would be undertaken under Jehovah's direction.
But the people having no arms, and frightened at the vast and well-equipped
army of the Philistines, failed to respond. Some of them went into the caves in
the sides of the mountains. Multitudes of them fled across the Jordan into
Gilead. Saul's own bodyguard did not all assemble, and in the days of waiting
began to desert, so that he was left with a handful of men, liable at any time
to be cut off and destroyed by the mighty army of the Philistines. In this case
it tried his patience sorely to wait seven days, his army melting, the panic
increasing, the Philistine army near and threatening.
This was the condition of a test of his character. It is certain that unless
there could be assurance from Jehovah that he would lead and manifest his
power, the panic would increase. Samuel designedly delayed his coming until the
last hour of the appointed seven days. Saul had waited until late in the
seventh day; Samuel had not come. It seemed to him that he must, by sacrifices,
invoke the help of Jehovah. As he puts it himself, under these conditions:
"I forced myself to make the offerings to Jehovah." Before the
offerings were completed, Samuel appeared, but Saul had already sinned. It was
an express stipulation of the charter of the kingdom that the king must wait
upon Jehovah's will as expressed through his prophet. Only in this way could
the kingdom endure. If the king acted on his own wisdom, as the kings of other
nations, then it was certain he would fail. His only hope was to abide
absolutely with that provision of the charter which acknowledged the theocratic
idea that the earthly king was subordinate to the divine King. The penalty of
his failure in this test was not his personal rejection as king, but it was the
rejection of his dynasty. He himself remained king, but the monarchy could not
be transmitted to his children. The kingly authority was to be removed from
Saul's family, and given to another family.
The events after this failure of Saul were as follows: First, the word of
Jehovah through his prophet having been despised, Samuel leaves Saul, the panic
increases, his followers decrease in number, he is left with a handful of men
to take the most defensive position; then, as has been stated, it was Jonathan
who delivered the people from this threatening condition. The prophet being
gone, Jonathan asked Jehovah to designate by a sign whether he should attack
the Philistine host. The sign was a very simple one. Jonathan having
reconnoitered the enemy's position, taking with him only his armor-bearer,
found that they could be approached from the mountainside, and the test was,
when he came within sight and hearing of the Philistines if they said,
"Come up to us," instead of "Remain where you are and we will
come up to you," that was to be God's sign that he should make the fight.
Hence he and his armor bearer alone commenced to fight, killing twenty of the
enemy. They fell into a panic, supposing a mighty army to be behind these two
men, and as their army was composed of troops from several nations, these in
the confusion began to fight each other. Moreover, a large number of Hebrews,
who had hidden in the caves of the mountain, came out and joined in the attack
on the Philistines, so that their whole army was in inextricable confusion.
Saul, from his lockout, perceiving the confusion in the Philistine army and
hearing the sound of battle, and still wishing to be guided by Jehovah, turned
to the high priest present with his men, saying, "Bring hither the Ephod
and enquire of Jehovah what we shall do." The tumult continuing, he then
restrained the priest before he had time to give Jehovah's answer through the
Urim and Thummim, and rushed headlong to the battle. So, in no respect acting
under divine orders, but on his own wisdom, he enjoins that none shall stop to
taste food until the Philistine army is entirely destroyed.
Two evil results come from this rash order. First, Jonathan being in the front
of the battle and not having heard it, under the fatigue and hunger of a hard
day's work, sees a honeycomb in the rock. He delays only to touch the honeycomb
with the rod in his hand and put it to his mouth, and somewhat refreshed goes
on in pursuit, thus unwittingly bringing himself under the curse of his
father's vow. The second evil was that the people who had heard the command, at
the end of the day, famished with hunger, took from the spoils of the battle and
butchered the animals for meat, without complying with the law, which forbids
an Israelite to eat blood. This second wrong being reported to Saul, he seems
to be convinced that somebody had sinned, and after stopping the unlawful
method of eating food, he appeals to the high priest to determine for him who
had disobeyed his order. The lot disclosed that it was Jonathan, who frankly
avowed it. Saul announced his death j warrant, but the people refused to permit
the death of the hero : who had gained them the battle.
The radical critics of the Bible story consider it a light offense, that a man
with authority as king, under Saul's hard conditions, after waiting till the
seventh day was nearly ended for Samuel to come, should proceed to inquire the
divine will, apart from the prophet of God. To this we reply, that, while all
of these hard conditions are admitted, and while the natural effect of these
conditions upon any man placed under the responsibility of a leader is also
admitted, these very conditions were essential to the test, if the theocratic
idea of the charter is to be preserved. It made no difference how hard the
conditions) nor how many should desert, nor how few remained, nor how strong
the enemy, nor how formidable their equipments, if only Jehovah be with them;
and it made no difference how strong an army 'Saul might have, nor how few in
comparison with the enemy, nor how much superior his own equipment to that of
the foe, he was doomed to failure if Jehovah was against him. Therefore, when, through
fear and impatience, he deliberately violated the central thought in the
charter of the kingdom, it was well that the kingdom should pass to another
family, and not be perpetuated in his house.
It is an interesting fact that while God had withdrawn his prophet from Saul,
there yet remained two methods of ascertaining the divine will: the one
employed by Jonathan by asking a sign from God, the other through the high
priest and the Ephod. In a wavering kind of way, Saul clings to the second
method. He still on occasion seeks the mind of Jehovah through the high priest,
but never unless he is in extremity. You must distinguish between the two tests
of Saul. The first test which we have considered, settled the question of the
dynasty alone; the next test to be considered in the next chapter, settles the
question personally for Saul, as to whether he is to remain king.
The last paragraph of chapter 14:47-52 is a generic account of Saul's reign,
naming his various wars waged victoriously, his family relations, and reciting
two facts characteristic of his reign, namely, (1) that sore war with the
Philistines prevailed all his days; (2) all through his reign he was accustomed
to add valiant men of whatever nation, to his bodyguard. But this custom of
Saul's was not peculiar to him. David followed his example, and hundreds of
monarchs since his time, some of them limiting altogether to foreigners, as the
Janizaries of the Sultan of Turkey; the Scottish Archers, the Swiss Guard, and
the Irish Brigade of French Kings; the Italian Corps of Charles of Burgundy;
the famous Potsdam giants of the king of Prussia; and many others.
This summary of Saul's family omits the mention of Rizpah, Saul's concubine,
his two children by her, and his grandchildren, sons of Jonathan and Michal. By
way of anticipation of the history, and to show that the sins of the fathers
are visited upon the children, and further to show that in a great man's
downfall many are dragged down with him, let us notice the tragic fate of the
various members of Saul's family. Abner, Saul's cousin and general, was
murdered by Joab. Saul himself, with three of the four sons by his wife,
including the heroic Jonathan, perished in battle with the Philistines. His
fourth son by his wife was assassinated; his two sons by his concubine Rizpah,
and the five sons of his daughter Michal born after she was taken from David,
were all hanged to appease one of Saul's sins; Jonathan's son was crippled by
his nurse, and afterward defrauded of half his inheritance. Note the text for
a' practical sermon in this section, Saul's words, “I forced myself” (13:12).
QUESTIONS
1. What real difficulties,
puzzling to a Bible student, do we find in 1 Samuel 13-14?
2. State the principal text
difficulties, with an explanation of each.
3. What difficulty in
determining the order of events?
4. What the difficulty in
determining the duration of Saul's reign?
5. What other line of
interpretation, as to order of events, is advocated by mighty minds, including
Edersheim?
6. Who was the hero of this
war with the Philistines?
7. State in order the
events, leading up to Saul's failure under the first test to which he was
subjected.
8. What was the penalty of
Saul's failure in this test?
9. State the events after
this failure of Saul.
10. What was Saul's part m
the battle?
11. What have radical
critics of the Bible story to say against the Divine procedure in this part of
the history?
12. What is your reply to
this?
13. What interesting fact
must yet be noted in this connection?
14. What is the nature of
the last paragraph of 14:47-52?
15. Was this custom of
Saul's peculiar to him?
16. Is this summary a full
account of Saul's family?
17. By the way of anticipation
of the history, and to show that the sins of the fathers are visited upon the
children, and further to show that in a great man's downfall many are drawn
down with him, state the tragic fate of the various members of Saul's family.
18. What text for a
practical sermon in this section?
SAUL'S UNPARDONABLE SIN, AND ITS PENALTY
1 Samuel 15:1-35; and Harmony, pages
79-80.
It is needful to devote an extended discussion to this one chapter 1 Samuel 15.
The matters to be considered are stem, awful, deep, and far-reaching, involving
doctrines concerning the sovereignty and supremacy of God over nations and
rulers, and his judicial administration in irreversible punitive judgments.
It is a caricature of God, divesting him of holiness and justice, which
represents him as merciful only.
There is widely prevalent today a weak, sickly sentimentalism, which revolts at
any view of the divine character other than his compassion, which divests sin
of demerit and makes all punishment mere temporary chastisement and remediable.
Henry Ward Beecher voiced the sentiment in his proposition: "All
punishment is remediable." The sentiment developed into a probation after
death, and a purification by the fires of purgatory equal in atoning and
cleansing power to the blood of Christ. Such sentimentalists find 1 Samuel 15 a
nut as hard to crack as our Lord's own teaching concerning his final judgment
and the eternity of punishment. Four passages serve well as an introduction to
this chapter:
1. Jehovah's own declaration of his character and attributes to Moses, Exodus
34:6-8: "And Jehovah passed by before him, and proclaimed, Jehovah,
Jehovah, a God merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abundant in
lovingkindness and truth; keeping lovingkindness for thousands, forgiving
iniquity and transgression and sin; and that will by no means clear the guilty,
visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children's
children, upon the third and upon the fourth generation."
2. God's taking away from Nebuchadnezzar the heart of a man and giving him the
heart of a beast "till thou know that the Most High ruleth in the kingdom
of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will" (Dan. 4:25).
3. Paul's teaching on Mars' hill in Athens concerning God as the only object of
worship and his government of nations (Acts 17:22-28).
4. Our Lord's declaration to the woman of Samaria, that God is a Spirit, and
they that worship him must worship in spirit and truth (John 4:23-24).
The first great doctrine involved is that Jehovah in his sovereignty over a
nation may blot it out, root and branch, when the measure of its iniquity is
full. We have already found examples of this law in the case of the Canaanite
nations who had left the territory assigned to them as children of Ham when the
earth was divided, and occupied the territory divinely allotted to the children
of Abraham, but even Israel was held back from the land until the measure of
the iniquities of these nations had become full. We have now to find in the
story of Amalek the fitness of the application of the doctrine to them.
It is possible but not probable that they were the children of that Amalek
named as a descendant of Esau in Genesis 26:12, 16; 1 Chronicles 1:36. If so,
they are out of the territory of Edom (Esau) and ranging as a predatory tribe
over all the Negeb, or South Country, expressly allotted to Israel. Without
provocation they desperately assaulted Israel on the approach to Sinai in the
battle of Rephidim, so graphically described in Exodus 17:8-15, on which
occasion their doom was announced by Jehovah: "I will utterly blot out the
remembrance of Amalek from under Heaven. . . . Jehovah will have war with
Amalek from generation to generation." When Israel had sinned at Kadesh
they combined with the Canaanites to inflict a defeat on it. Again, in the time
of the judges they combined with the Midianites to destroy Israel, Judges 3:12-13.
Moses, in one of his great farewell addresses, reminds Israel of the evils done
by Amalek, and recalls the doom pronounced at Rephidim, and urges Israel to
execute Jehovah's will when they are established in the land, Deuteronomy 25:
17-19.
We find in far later times the last Amalekite known in history, Haman at the
Persian court, seeking the destruction of captive Israel (Esther 3-8), and see
him hanged on the gibbet erected for Mordecai. And now, as Saul is victorious
over all his enemies, Samuel, as God's prophet, demands the execution of the
long-pending and richly deserved doom. From the beginning and all along they
have sought with persistent and incorrigible malice to thwart God's purpose to
establish a nation as the custodian of his oracles, and through which all the
nations of the earth were to be blessed. Amalek must perish or the world cannot
be saved. It was not a mere political necessity, as voiced by Cato:
"Carthage must be destroyed or Rome will perish." It was a spiritual
necessity involving the only hope to all nations.
The second doctrine involved is that the instrument by which such a ban is
executed must consider the doomed nation and all its property as "devoted
to Jehovah for destruction," and hence no part of the spoils must be used
to aggrandize the executor, or for offerings on Jehovah's altar – they are
"devoted." And it is this very feature which divests the executor of
all moral responsibility. He is merely God's sheriff executing a judicial
sentence, and hence must act without private malice, vanity, or greed. The
terrible case of Achan when Jericho was "devoted" was well known to
Saul, and should have admonished him.
In later Jewish history, Nebuchadnezzar, the executioner of the divine will
against Jerusalem, is called "God's Ax," and when the ax presumed to
attribute to its own prowess the defeat of Israel, God humbles him as he did
Saul; and when his successor, Belshazzar, blasphemously misuses the sacred
vessels of the destroyed Temple, then it is that a hand appeared and wrote on
the wall, "Mene, Mene, Tekel, Upharsin," and that night Belshazzar
died and Babylon fell.
The third doctrine involved is the discrimination in Jehovah's moral judgments,
not paralleled in natural calamities as earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, and
pestilences.
Jehovah's discriminating justice appears in this destruction of Amalek by the
precaution taken to avert from the Kenites dwelling with them, the doom of
Amalek. These Kenites were descendants of Hobab, that brother-in-law of Moses who
accepted the invitation of Moses: "We are going to a land which the Lord
our God has promised us. Come and go thou with us, and we will do thee
good." So they went with Israel and shared the prosperity promised, and
were always friendly and helpful, and always sheltered from the wrath of
Israel's enemies. Jael, who slew Sisera, was of this people.
This sifting of the good from the bad before the final doom falls on the
wicked, is richly illustrated in the saving of Noah from the doom of the world,
and reminds us of the great intercession of Abraham, when Sodom was doomed and
Lot rescued: "Wilt thou destroy the righteous with the wicked? . . . Shall
not the Judge of all the earth do right?" (Gen. 8:23-33). It appears in
the light on Goshen while Egypt was in darkness, and in all the other
discriminating plagues.
The same principle of discrimination in divine justice is seen in the parable
of the tares (Matt. 13:24-30), in the separation at the great judgment
announced by our Lord (Matt.25: 31-46). In the same discourse, our Lord had
given to the disciples a sign, by observing which they fled to Pella and
escaped the doom of Jerusalem executed by Titus. Peter, referring to two
notable instances of this discrimination, expresses the thought thus: "The
Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptation, and to keep the
unrighteous under punishment unto the day of judgment" (2 Peter 2:9). In
the same way, John, in Revelation, before the doom falls on the spiritual
Babylon, says, "Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of
her sins, and that ye receive not her plagues" (Rev. 18:4). So the
Kenites, when warned, quickly withdrew from Amalek and escaped its doom.
To lead up to the next doctrine, let us glance at the terms of Saul's
commission and the fidelity of its execution. The commission runs: "And
Samuel said unto Saul) Jehovah sent me to anoint thee to be king over his
people, over Israel: now therefore hearken thou unto the voice of the words of
Jehovah. Thus saith Jehovah of hosts, I have marked that which Amalek did to
Israel, how he set himself against him in the way, when he came up out of
Egypt. Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and
spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep,
camel and ass. And Saul summoned the people, and numbered them in Telaim, two
hundred thousand footmen and ten thousand men of Judah" (1 Sam. 15:1-4).
Thus commissioned by Samuel, Saul summons all the national militia, 210,000
strong, and smote Amalek from Havilah in the South Country unto the boundary of
Egypt. It was a hard, desert campaign against a mobile, nomad people, and
resulted in a marvelous and sweeping victory. But the record closes thus:
"But Saul and the people spared Agag, and the best of the sheep, and of
the oxen, and of the fallings, and the lambs, and all that was good, and would
not utterly destroy them; but everything that was vile and refuse, that they
destroyed utterly" (1 Sam. 15:9). Saul was so elated at its thoroughness
and extent that he erected a memorial of his prowess. He was filled with
self-complacency. But God seeth not as man seeth, nor judgeth as man judgeth.
In his eyes Saul had committed a presumptuous and unpardonable sin. To make
this manifest, We turn from Saul in his triumph to a different scene, one of
the most touching in all history.
THE INTERVIEW
BETWEEN JEHOVAH AND SAMUEL.
1 Samuel 15:10-11: "Then came the word of Jehovah unto Samuel, saying, It
repenteth me that I have set up Saul to be king; for he is turned back from
following me, and hath not performed my commandments. And Samuel was wroth; and
he cried unto Jehovah all night." In this interview is developed the
doctrine of the unpardonable sin, so often referred to in both Testaments.
The sin of Saul may be thus analyzed:
1. Just what he did is thus stated (1 Sam. 15:9).
2. It was a wilful sin against light and knowledge, for it violated the clearly
expressed command of Jehovah, 15:3: "Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly
destroy all that they have, and spare them not) but slay both man and woman,
infant and suckling) ox and sheep, camel and ass."
3. It violated the central provision of the kingdom charter that the earthly
king was only the viceroy of the heavenly King.
4. It was a presumptuous sin, being against the Holy Spirit, whose power
resting on Saul was symbolized by his anointing, and which alone qualified him
to be king and win victory.
5. It was rebellion, and classed with the capital sins of witchcraft and
idolatry, which Saul himself punished with death.
6. It was blasphemous, in that it mingled human self-will, vanity, and greed
with a bloody execution whose sole justification was obedience to Jehovah's
express sentence as Supreme Judge, without the human motives of vanity, gain or
malice.
7. It was an eternal sin, evidenced by Jehovah's refusal to hear Samuel's
all-night intercession, by Jehovah's rebuke to Samuel for mourning for Saul, by
the instant and permanent withdrawal of the Holy Spirit, by the sending instead
an evil spirit to guide him to ruin, by the permanent separation of the prophet
from him, by refusing ever again to communicate with him in any other way, and
finally by withdrawing from him all that grace by which alone a man can become
penitent. One may have remorse without the Spirit, but he cannot become
penitent without the Spirit.
For the complete separation between Saul and Samuel, see 1 Samuel 16:1, for the
permanent departure of the Holy Spirit, succeeded by an evil spirit, see 1
Samuel 16:14; for God's refusal to communicate with Saul any more in any way,
gee 1 Samuel 28:6; to show that God's refusal to hear intercession for a sin is
a mark of its unpardonable character, see Jeremiah's reference, Jeremiah 15:15,
and compare this with 1 John 5:16: "If any man see his brother sinning a
sin not unto death, he shall ask, and God will give him life for them that sin
not unto death. There is a sin unto death; not concerning this do I say that he
should make request."
Other New Testament correspondences are shown in the words of our Lord:
"He that blasphemeth against the Holy Ghost committeth an eternal sin. It
hath never forgiveness) neither in this world nor in the world to come."
The declaration in Hebrews 10:26-29: "If we sin wilfully after that we have
received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for
sins, but a certain fearful expectation of judgment. . . . A man that hath set
at naught Moses' law dieth without compassion on the word of two or three
witnesses: Of how much sorer punishment, think ye, shall he be judged worthy,
(1) who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, (2) and counted the blood of
the covenant wherewith he was sanctified an unholy thing, and (3) hath done
despite unto the Spirit of grace?" You see there is sin against the
Father, sin against the Son, and sin against the Holy Spirit; the first two
pardonable, the last never, doing despite to the Holy Spirit, which is what
Saul did, and hence the Spirit was permanently withdrawn from him.
We come now to the sad, eventful and last interview between Saul and Samuel. It
is evident from this interview that Saul added brazen lying and hypocrisy to
his rebellion. He first claims that he has fully obeyed Jehovah, even when the
bleating sheep and lowing herds are within sight and sound to convict him. He
then seeks to shift the blame and responsibility upon the people, and finally
he attributes a pious motive to the sparing of the sheep and oxen – to
sacrifice on God's altar. Samuel's tenderness of heart toward Saul is evinced
in his heartbreaking grief when Jehovah announces that Saul is lost. He not
only spends a whole night in earnest but fruitless prayer that God would
forgive Saul, but even after he knows that the punishment denounced on Saul is
irrevocable he still mourns for him; but although his prayers in behalf of Saul
are denied, and though it is a bitter cross to announce to Saul God's stern
will, yet he strictly obeys, and in his interview with Saul shows more concern
for God's honor than for his own grief.
We come to our next great doctrine in Samuel's reply to Saul as expressed in
verse 22: "Hath Jehovah as great delight in burnt offerings and
sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of Jehovah? Behold, to obey is better than
sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams." The doctrine here is not
against the use of the God-appointed sacrifices, but it shows that mere
external conformity with the law of types as embodied in sacrifices, and the
observance of rituals without faith and the spirit of true worship, is as empty
as a blasted nut. The doctrine does not undervalue the form of godliness, but
it does show the superiority of the power of godliness. The truth lies, not in
denying the need of the form, but in relying upon the form only. This doctrine
magnifies the thing signified above the sign, and magnifies the spirit above
the letter. The tendency of the priesthood – the types and the rituals –
throughout the monarchy was a reliance upon mere empty ceremonies. It was the
mission of the prophets to counteract this, as you will find by carefully
reading the following passages: Psalm 40:6-8; 51:16-17; Isaiah 1:11-15;
Jeremiah 7:22-23; Hosea 6:6; Micah 6:6-8. These passages should be carefully
studied in their context, otherwise we will never understand the difference in
the spirit of the prophetic teaching as contrasted with the letter of the
priestly teaching.
From these prophetic declarations the radical critics have drawn the irrational
and untenable conclusion that the testimony of the prophets shows that the
Levitical part of the Mosaic law was a late addition, and particularly they
stress the declaration in Jeremiah 7:22-23. It is easy to answer their
criticism upon all the other passages cited, but not so easy to reply to the
Jeremiah passage. You might well say with reference to that passage that it was
literally fulfilled in the days of the wilderness wandering after Israel's sin
at Kadesh. For thirty-eight years, they being under excommunication, God did
not require them to comply with the forms of his laws. They did not observe the
requirements of the tabernacle worship; they did not circumcise their children,
the thought in Jeremiah being that aliens without faith in the thing signified
are not commanded to observe the form.
We come to another great doctrine drawn from Saul's confession, "I have
sinned." The doctrine is that a mere confession, in words is not a proof
of grace in the heart. In Saul's case, evidently his confession was extorted by
remorse or the fear of the consequences made manifest by Samuel. Indeed, he
trembled at the appalling doom pronounced upon him, but he never repented of
his sin. Spurgeon illustrates this great doctrine by preaching a famous sermon
entitled, "A Sermon from Seven Texts." There were indeed seven texts,
but every one of them had the same words, "I have sinned," only these
words came from seven different men, and he shows that Saul says, "I have
sinned," it does not mean what it means when the prodigal says, "I
have sinned." The author, when he was a pastor, was so much interested by
this sermon of Spurgeon's that he called the attention of his congregation to
it. and found three other texts. "I have sinned" spoken by three
other men, making ten in all, and called his sermon "A Sermon from Ten
Texts."
Finally we need to explain the apparent discrepancy between what God says of
himself, "It repenteth me," in verse II, and what Samuel says of God
in verse 29: "God is not a man that he should repent." The
explanation is that "repent" in the first case does not mean the same
as "repent" in the second case.
Whenever repentance is attributed to God, it does not mean that he has changed
his mind, but that a sinner's change of conduct has necessitated a change in
God's attitude toward the sinner.
The thought is fully illustrated thus in Genesis 6 in these words: "And
Jehovah saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every
imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually, and it
repented Jehovah that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his
heart, and Jehovah said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face
of the ground."
Here the repentance attributed to God expresses his genuine grief at the
corruption of the most of the human race, and that this caused a change in his
attitude toward so many of the race as were thus hopelessly and incorrigibly
corrupted. It does not mean absolutely the whole race, for the context shows
that Noah was an exception, and that God did not repent concerning Noah, but
continued the race in him.
We say, in common parlance, "The sun rises and sets." We do not mean
by this that the sun revolves around the earth, but in common speech, based on
appearance, we simply mean that the earth revolving on its own axis, changes
its face to the sun, with the result of alternating day and night. I have
stressed the great-doctrines of this section because preachers and Christian
workers will be continually confronted with weak, sickly, and sentimental views
of the character of God. of the demerit of sin and of the eternity of
punishment. This public opinion will press upon you to confine your preaching
to the infinite compassion and mercy of God. You should, indeed, in the fullest
terms, magnify God's pity, his tenderness, his mercy, his long-suffering, his
forgiving of sins, but you should also stress that when this mercy is despised,
when it is disregarded until the heart becomes past feeling, then come hell and
eternal punishment.
QUESTIONS
1. What the nature of the
matters in this discussion, and of the doctrines involved?
2. What the sickly
sentimentalism even now prevalent concerning these doctrines? Cite a special
case.
3. What four scriptures
might well serve as an introduction to this discussion?
4. What the first great
doctrine cited in this discussion?
5. Recite briefly the story
of the Canaanites and of the Amalekites, and show the fitness of applying the
doctrine to them.
6. What the second great
doctrine cited?
7. What special instances of
its application?
8. What the third great
doctrine cited as arising from the provision to save the Kenites from the doom
of Amalek?
9. Cite the several
illustrations of this doctrine given.
10. Recite Saul's commission
against Amalek, and his execution of it.
11. Contrast Saul's view of
his performance with God's view of it.
12. What the fourth great
doctrine, developed in Jehovah's interview with Samuel?
13. Give the analysis of
Saul's sin, showing its unpardonable character, giving Old Testament proofs and
New Testament correspondences therewith.
14. Show that Samuel's great
tenderness of heart toward Saul did not weaken his fidelity to God.
15. Show how Saul, in his
last interview with Samuel, added brazen lying and hypocrisy to his rebellion.
16. What the fifth doctrine
found in Samuel's reply to Saul, 1 Samuel 15:22?
17. What other prophets
enforced the doctrine, and how does the New Testament endorse the prophets?
18. What irrational
conclusions have the critics drawn from these prophetical utterances, and what
the answer to them, especially on Jeremiah 7:22-23?
19. What the sixth doctrine,
drawn from Saul's confession, "I have sinned"?
20. How did Spurgeon
illustrate this doctrine in a famous sermon?
21. Explain the apparent
discrepancy between what God says of himself, "It repenteth me," and
what Samuel says of God, "God is not a man that he should repent."
DAVID CHOSEN AS SAUL'S SUCCESSOR,
AND HIS INTRODUCTION TO THE COURT OF SAUL
1 Samuel 16:1 to 17:54 and Harmony, pages
81-84.
The rejection of King Saul introduces as his successor the most remarkable man
of the Hebrew monarchy, or of any other monarchy. Apart from the history of
David, we cannot understand the Psalms, and apart from the Psalms, we cannot
understand the history. A great number of these Psalms, written by David
himself, reflect and expound his own life experiences, and forecast the
experiences of Christian people of all subsequent generations. Most of the
others were written by his singers and their successors. There is for every
Psalm an historic occasion and background.
Again, apart from David's history, we cannot understand the marvelous
development of the messianic hope from his time on. In like manner, in his own
time and later, the great prophetic utterances root in his history, with their
promises and foreshadowings. Indeed, the proofs of a high order of spiritual
life in the old dispensation, and of the spiritual import of the Mosaic law are
most abundant in David's life, his worship, and the literature arising
therefrom.
To take away the history of David, removes in an important sense, the
foundation of the New Testament. This connection with the New Testament may be
abundantly found in references to the history of David, and the exposition of
it by our Lord and his apostles. Fortunately for the preachers of our day,
there is a rich and trustworthy literature concerning this most notable king of
history. Indeed, in view of this literature, so easily obtained, that preacher
is inexcusable who remains in ignorance concerning David. No exigency of life,
whether arising from poverty, sickness, or any other cause, can excuse the
preacher who fails to study, in a thorough and systematic manner, the life of
David.
The reader will recall the books recommended when we commenced this harmony;
not a multitudinous and costly list for great scholars, but a list for students
of the English Bible, all cheap, all good, all easily obtained, and it was
stated at that time that when we came to the history of David, other books of
like character would be named. Some, indeed, of the very best of these we
reserve until we come to the study of the Psalter. The preacher who has in his
library choice books on the law, the Psalter and the prophets is equipped for
Old Testament exposition, and prepared to undertake the study of the New
Testament. Every Sunday school teacher and every layman engaged in any public
activity of kingdom-service should have these books. Now to these already
named, to wit: Josephus, Edersheim, Dean, Geikie, Stanley, Hengstenberg, and to
the three commentaries – Kirkpatrick on Samuel in the Cambridge Bible, Blaikie
on Samuel in the Expositor's Bible, and Murphy on 1 Chronicles – we will add
and especially commend a little book entitled David King of Israel,
by W. M. Taylor, author also of the famous book of the parables. It will be
observed that the textbook has for its third part of Saul's reign this
appropriate heading: "The Decline of Saul and the Rise of David," and
that this history is found in 1 Samuel 16-31, supplemented by only five
passages from Chronicles (1 Chron. 10:1-14; 11:13-14; 12:1-7; 12:16-18;
12:19-22) only thirty verses in all.
There are special items of interest touching David, which appear in the various
genealogical tables of both Testaments, to wit:
1. His ancestry is clearly traced back to Adam, and his posterity forward to
our Lord.
2. Twice is his descent marked from one of twins struggling in the mother's
womb, the history in each case remarkable. You will find the history in Genesis
25:21-26; 38:1-30.
3. On the maternal side are two foreigners, Rahab the Canaanitess and Ruth the
Moabitess, thus connecting both David and our Lord with the Gentiles.
4. He came in the line of all the promises from Adam to his own time.
5. He came in the royal line according to the prophecy of his dying ancestor,
Jacob: The
sceptre shall not depart from Judah, Nor the Ruler's staff from between his feet,
Until Shiloh comes: And unto Him shall the obedience of the peoples be.
6. His birthplace and home is Bethlehem, and it was the birthplace of his
greater son, our Lord.
There is some difficulty in determining his place in the family, that is, whether
he was the seventh or the eighth son of Jesse. The scriptures that furnish an
explanation of statements that he was the seventh son and the eighth son are 1
Samuel 16:10-11; 17:12; 2 Samuel 17:25; 1 Chronicles 2:15; 27:18. This section
presents eight sons, of whom David is declared to be the youngest, and in the
next chapter it expressly says that Jesse had eight sons, and again affirms
that David was the youngest; but 1 Chronicles 2:15 makes David the seventh. A
careful examination of all these passages yields this explanation: He was the
seventh son of Jesse by his first wife, but younger than another son of Jesse
by his second wife; therefore he was the seventh son in the sense meant, and
yet he was the eighth and the youngest son of Jesse.
As we progress in the history, we will find other members of David's kindred
becoming quite prominent in the history, and some of them adding much to the
troubles and tragedies of his life. His three oldest brothers are mentioned in
this section as being in Saul's army, and Elihu, another brother, when David
organized the kingdom, becomes captain of the tribe of Judah. Amasa, the son of
his sister, Abigail, is a very prominent figure in the history, and with
Abishai, Joab, and Asahel, sons of his sister, Zeruiah, have much more to do
with his history. One of his uncles, Jonadab, becomes an occasional counselor
in his reign, and one of his brothers becomes a mighty champion.
Our story commences under the following conditions: First, Saul, under two
great tests, failed to comply with the kingdom charter, losing the dynasty by
the first, and his personal right to reign by the second, but he is yet king de
facts though not de jure. That means he is king in fact, but not in right.
Jehovah has utterly withdrawn from any communication with him, and an evil
spirit is leading him to ruin. The Philistines still wage war against him.
Samuel, the aged prophet, has withdrawn from him, and is teaching in his school
of the prophets at Ramah. Jehovah has already announced to Saul, not only the
loss of the throne to his dynasty and his personal rejection as king, but that
the Lord hath sought him a man after his own heart, and commanded him to be
captain over his people; but so far there has been no designation of this man,
and you must particularly note that after the designation his rule does not
commence until Saul has wrought out his own ruin.
The section opens with Jehovah's designation of the man by lot, and his
anointing by Samuel. Samuel's fear that Saul will kill him if he anoints a
successor is assuaged by Jehovah's directions as to the method and purpose of
the anointing. It is not the divine purpose to bring about a division of Israel
under rival kings; therefore Samuel must go to Bethlehem to offer sacrifices,
which would not attract Saul's attention; then the designation by lot there,
with the anointing, are private acts. The object of this is to begin the
preparation of David for the kingly office, which he is not to assume until the
time designated by Jehovah. At no time while Saul lives does either the Spirit
impress David to assume the kingly office for which he has been anointed, nor
does David of his own motion conspire against Saul, or in any way seek to
weaken his authority. This time the basis of God's choice is not physical
stature and strength, as in Saul's case, but the state of the heart in God's
sight.
The choice surprises everybody but God. Neither Samuel nor the family, nor
David himself would have judged as Jehovah judged. Seldom indeed can parents,
brother or sister point out the member of the family who shall become
illustrious, nor does the illustrious one himself always anticipate his future
honor and position. A boy often aspires to great things, and imagines most
vividly the glories that shall rest on him when he shall have the world in a
sling, and vividly pictures to himself a homecoming when all the other members
of his family shall find shelter under his wings, and all the neighbors who had
failed to recognize his budding genius shall stand with mouths agape, while
salvos of artillery, unfurled banners, flower-decked streets proclaim his
honor, while bands are playing "See, the Conquering Hero Comes!" But
time, the great revealer, shows these egotistical fancies to be as "the
airy nothings" of a dream.
A boy in East Texas offered to take me from one preaching place to another, in
order, as he stated, to tell me that he would be the governor of Texas, but I
haven't heard from him since. Shakespeare says, "Some men are born great;
some achieve greatness, and some have greatness thrust upon them," but
being born to a high honor, or having it thrust upon you, will only add to your
unfitness and make your failure more conspicuous, if you have not the character
and training to wear it well.
It may be that some one of my readers, in casting his horoscope, has seen
himself a preacher cutting a wide swath, salary of $10,000 a year, no building
able to hold his congregations, and glaring headlines in the great dailies
announcing that he is "shaking the foundations of hell and opening the
portals of heaven."
Some of my admiring friends, judging from my great knowledge of the history of
wars, predicted that I would at least become a corps commander, should a war
arise in my time. A war came and left me a high private, while only such
"little" men as Lee, Jackson, Stuart, and the Johnstons on one side,
and Grant, Sherman, Sheridan, and Thomas on the other side, wrote their names
in the niches of the temple of fame – but these "little" men were all
trained at West Point.
The history we are studying makes it evident that Saul had neither the
character nor the training to become a great ruler, but David had both. Woe to
any of us who under-estimate the knowledge of these three things: (1) a right
state of heart toward God, (2) the discipline of preparation and training, and
(3) dependence on the power of the Holy Spirit.
Only men of great heart, great preparation, and great power with God achieve
anything worth while in the ministry. David's early life in the fields and
valleys and mountains, with its isolation and loneliness given to meditation
and reflection, put him near to nature's heart and impressed him with the fact
that an individual man is insignificant in the scheme of God's great universe,
and hence taught him to sing: "When I consider thy heavens, the work of
thy fingers, the moon and the stars, which thou hast ordained; what is man,
that thou art mindful of him, and the son of man that thou visitest him?"
and also taught him to sing, "The heavens declare the glory of God; and
the firmament showeth his handiwork. Day unto day uttereth speech, and night
unto night showeth knowledge." His occupation gave him the shepherd's
heart, and evoked that sweetest of all hymns: "The Lord is my Shepherd, I
shall not want," and that same shepherd office called out high courage
that made him triumph in solitary grapple with the lion and the bear that would
prey upon his flock, and gave him a matchless skill with the sling that would
one day smite down a boasting giant.
The hardships of this calling in such a field gave him toughness of fiber and
power of endurance. He could bear hunger and cold and heat without fainting. He
himself says that he became as "fleet of foot as a wild gazelle," and
could conquer a goat in climbing a mountain. His association with the school of
the prophets gave him devotion of spirit, and developed that natural cunning of
fingers that struck the strings of a harp in a way never equalled by any other
hard. His music would not only charm a serpent, soothe a savage breast, drive
away melancholy, but would dispossess the devil, and above all things, with his
anointing, the Spirit came upon him, and was never taken away from him. Only
once he let Satan prompt him to do a disastrous thing, and once only through
sin was he constrained to pray, "Take not thy Holy Spirit from me, and
renew a right spirit within me."
Apart from this early life preparation, before he appears in public and begins
to reign so long and so well, there awaits him a novitiate of training under
sufferings and persecutions such as seldom fall to the lot of man. His personal
appearance is described in 16:12 and 17:2, as ruddy of face, brilliant of eye,
very handsome in his person. We are able to distinguish the Spirit's power that
came on David from the same power on Saul. In Saul's case, it was only
occasional, and finally utterly withdrawn; in David's case, the "Spirit
abode on him from that day forward." An old writer thus distinguishes
between a sinner and a saint: "The Spirit visits a sinner, but dwells with
a saint; and conversely, Satan visits a saint, but dwells with a sinner."
A very fine thought. Here we come upon a controversy: What was the occasion of
David's first introduction to the court of Saul? Was it the harp-playing of 16:14-23,
or was it the slaying of Goliath and the consequent victory, as told in chapter
17? If the first, how do you account for Saul's ignorance of David when he
appears on the second occasion, 17.-55-58, that is, Saul's asking Abner,
"Who is this young stripling?" and Abner's saying, "I don't
know." They don't seem ever to have heard of him. Some critics contend
that 1 Samuel 16-17 are from different historic sources, and that they
contradict each other flatly and irreconcilably in giving the occasion of David's
introduction to the court of Saul. Moreover, they say that if the harp-playing
precedes the other, then the ignorance of not only Saul himself, but of the
whole court concerning David and his father, is inexplicable, especially as in
the nature of the case there could be no great interval of time between the two
events, since David is, in the second, twice called a "stripling."
The possibility of two sources is conceded, but not the certainty of it. It is
the custom of inspired writers to repeat on new occasions enough of the past
history to make clear the context. The court of Saul was ignorant of David and
his family on both occasions. The first time, only one of the servants knows
anything about David and his family, and his skill of song and speech, and
Jehovah's presence with him. The servant's word about David, and his family
would make no great or lasting impression on Saul and his court. The chief
thing with them was the curing of Saul, and when after several harp playings,
the cure seems permanent, the human helper returns to the care of his flocks
and is swiftly forgotten. You will understand their ignorance from the fact
that Samuel's anointing of David was not in the public eye, but in private, and
the spiritual endowment that followed would be known only by a few neighbors
having knowledge of David's shepherd life; none of it was known abroad. His
ministrations and harp playing were in the sick room and not before the court.
Moreover, Saul himself, while possessed of an evil spirit, suffered from mental
aberration, which naturally impaired his memory, and while the record of the
harp playing shows that Saul loved the healer, we all know by experience how
grateful to the physician is every patient in the moment of relief, but if we
continue well, how easily the physician passes out of our memory and life,
until we get sick again. It is somewhat like the old proverb: When the devil is sick, The
devil & saint would be; When the devil is well, The devil of a saint is he!
Solomon says in his penitential book, "There is no remembrance of former
generations," (Eccles. 1:11). But there is no need to quote this general
reflection of Solomon, since one of the most striking characteristics of human
courts is that presence only keeps one in mind. Absence obliterates you from
the memory of the great, to whom yesterday is a "long time ago," and
with whom the new man or the new event fills all the vision. As an illustration
of the characteristic of kings to forget their benefactors, the great Earl of
Stratford, himself a notable illustration of this fact, said, when his death
warrant was signed by the ungrateful Charles I, "Put not your trust in
princes," so we needn't concern ourselves about the contradictions the
critics are so ready to find.
In all literature no book can be found more natural, more true to life, more
vivid and simple in its records of past events, than 1 Samuel. Each event is
recorded as by an eyewitness in its own independent setting, absolutely devoid
of any strain to appear consistent with previous statements. Any lawyer will
tell you that the evidence of a witness is to be distrusted when he labors to
harmonize one statement with another. He is sure to tell a lie when he does
that.
Our conclusion, then, is fixed that the harp-playing preceded the Goliath
incident. Indeed, the evidence is positive that David did not continue at
Saul's court on his first introduction. You were told in 2 Samuel 17:12 that he
would only come when there was the sickness, and then go back to his home; but after
his second introduction, as you learn from 18:2, Saul did not allow him to go
home any more.
Sir Walter Scott, in one of his romances, makes the harp playing of a beautiful
girl drive away the temporary madness of a highland chief. In which romance is
this incident related? I will ask also, What did Shakespeare say about the man
devoid of music? Can you answer that? The question also arises: How do you
explain the healing of Saul? The answer is obvious. The Spirit of the Lord in
David's music was greater than the demon possessing Saul.
Other items on the designation and anointing of David we need not discuss
further, nor the healing of Saul by David's playing the harp, but something
should be said about the fight with Goliath and the victory that ensued.
We have before us a giant indeed, and we learn from other parts of the Bible
that there was a family of these giants. This man was not the only one of the
family. You would have a hard time carrying his spear, and you would be unable to
carry his armor. The two armies came face to face, with just a ravine between,
one on each hill. The one that advances has the task of going down hill under
fire, and coming up a hill under charge; therefore Goliath, the giant,
according to custom, steps out and challenges anybody in Israel to test the
fate of the two nations on a single combat, and in order to provoke a response,
he, according to the usual custom, curses the gods of the people that he
challenges. This happens for forty days in succession. Israel is humbled; the
Philistines triumph. About that time, Jesse wants to send some rations to his
three boys in the army, just like parents sometime send provisions to students
in school, and David is appointed to carry them, and when he gets there, he
hurriedly puts the provisions with the baggage of the army, and rushes to the
front. He wants to see the fight, and he hears a shout and beholds that giant
come out and repeat his insulting and blasphemous challenge, and he inquires
why somebody had not responded. His older brother says, virtually, "You
had better go back and be tied again to your mother's apron string. What's a
little boy like you doing on a battlefield where men only ought to be?"
David responds that nothing he has said was out of place, and leaves the
brethren, who did not believe in him, as the brothers of our Lord did not
believe in him, and goes and mixes around among the soldiers and urges that
somebody in the name of Jehovah could smite that giant, and that he is willing
to undertake it.
Saul, who had offered an immense reward to anyone who would accept the
challenge and defeat the giant, including even his own daughter for a wife,
hears of David's offer and sends for him. He is surprised to see a boy – a mere
stripling – and he says: "You? You can't fight this giant." David
says, "Sire, I can. I am the shepherd of my father's flock, and when a
bear and a lion came out to prey on the flock, I fought them unarmed, and when
they reared up against me, I took them by the mane and slew them." Saul
was a much bigger man than David. He said, "I am willing to let you go if
you will put on my armor." David put it on and took it off, saying that he
could not fight in Saul's armor. What a text for the preacher! ever try to fight
as some other man fights. Don't try to preach like Brother Truett. You can't do
it. Don't imitate him.
So David marches down against Goliath with nothing but a sling. He picks up in
that ravine five pebbles. It excites the scorn of the giant that a boy unarmed
should be sent against him, and he says, "Come up here and let me give
your flesh to the fowls of the air," and again curses Jehovah. David never
stops, but runs to meet him, puts a stone in the sling, whirling it around; it
flies and smites the giant in the middle of the forehead, and buries itself in
his brain.
The text says that the giant so struck fell on his face. Why did not he fall
backwards? It is a notable fact, witnessed a thousand times on the battlefield,
and in executing men by shooting, that when the firing squad fires and the
bullets enter the man's heart, he always falls on his face, never backwards. it
is one of these natural things that continually creep into Samuel's narrative
that makes one know it is a true story. I have seen thousands of men fall in
battle, and I never saw a man shot through the brain or heart that did not fall
forward. David rises up, takes Goliath's sword and cuts his head off, places
the head at Jerusalem for the present, puts the armor in his tent, and here
comes the question that you may answer: When does Goliath's sword appear again
in the history? What did he do with it, and where does it come to light again?
With the fall of the giant the Philistines are panic-stricken and the
Israelites encouraged, and the fight joins, and it is in the book of Chronicles
that we learn a fact not stated in Samuel. That passage about Shammah does not
belong there where the harmonist puts it, but the one about Eleazar may be
rightly placed. The fight was waged in a plat of ground full of barley. Eleazar
stands with him and does great exploits, and so they put the Philistines to
rout, and Eleazar afterwards, when David becomes king, is one of his mighty
men. The victory is very great, and David returns and Saul appropriates him. He
is never more allowed to go back to his father's house.
QUESTIONS
1. What the general theme of
the Harmony's third part of the reign of Saul?
2. What part of 1 Samuel
covers the theme?
3. How much does 1
Chronicles supplement?
4. What the present section?
5. What new book commended?
6. What the importance of
the history of David, and its relation to the Psalm, the Mosaic law, the larger
messianic hope, the prophets, and the New Testament?
7. What the richness of the
literature on David, and the preacher's duty concerning it?
8. What items of special
interest in genealogical tables of both Testaments concerning David?
9. Where his birthplace and
home?
10. Was he the seventh or
eighth son of Jesse, and what scriptures, when compared, answer the question?
11. Name other members of
David's family, some of them quite prominent in the subsequent history, who add
to the troubles and tragedies of his later life.
12. State the conditions
under which the story of his life opens.
13. What the divisions of
this section?
14. Give the story of
Jehovah's designation of David, and his anointing in such a way as to show they
were both private.
15. What the basis of the
choice of king this time, and who were surprised at it, and why?
16. What the author's observations
on this point?
17. What three things should
a preacher never underestimate?
18. What the elements of
David's preparation to be king, arising from his early life and office?
19. What says Shakespeare of
the man devoid of music?
20. What David's highest
qualification immediately following his anointing, and contrast it with Saul's
like qualification.
21. What an old-time
preacher's distinction on this point between a saint and sinner?
22. What apropos proverb
concerning the devil?
23. What David's personal
appearance?
24. How do you dispose of
the apparent contradiction between 16:14-23 and 17:12-58 as to the occasion of
David's first introduction to the court of Saul; and if you say the
harp-playing was the first, then explain the ignorance of David and his family
manifested by Saul and his court on the second introduction,
25. How do you explain
David's healing of Saul by music?
26. In what romance does Sir
Walter Scott give the story of a highland chief's madness being dispelled by a
girl's harp-playing?
27. What the relative
position of the opposing armies of Saul and the Philistines?
28. What the nature of
Goliath's challenge, and why does he curse Jehovah?
29. What Saul's offer for reward
for a champion who would defeat him?
30. What the occasion of
David's presence on the battlefield?
31. Why his indignation that
no Israelite responded to the challenge, and his oldest brother's rebuke?
32. Show from his interview
with Saul that faith and not immodesty prompted him to accept the challenge.
33. Why did he reject Saul's
armor, and rely upon his shepherd's sling?
34. Why did Goliath, when
smitten, fall on his face?
35. What the effect of the
fall of Goliath on the two armies?
36. What hero stood by David
in the fight, before the main body army arrives?
37. Tell the history of
David's disposition of Goliath's head, armor, and sword, and when again does
the sword appear in the history?
THE WAR BETWEEN LOVE AND HATE –
THE STORY OF A LOST SOUL
1 Samuel 18:1 to 19:17 and Harmony, pages
84-87.
This discussion commences at 1 Samuel 18:1, and here we are confronted, first
of all, by another text difficulty. We saw in a former discussion that about 27
verses of chapter 17 did not appear in the Septuagint, the Greek translation of
the Old Testament, but we know that those omissions must have been in the
original Hebrew, for Josephus follows the text of chapter 17 strictly in his
history of the Jews, but when we come to the omissions in chapter 18 from the
Septuagint, Josephus does not give them. I repeat that our present Hebrew text
was derived from late manuscripts of about the ninth or tenth century. I do not
mean to say that there were no Hebrew texts before that, for Jerome, who
translated the whole Bible into Latin, the edition called the Vulgate, in the
fourth century, had Hebrew texts before him, and in a Roman Catholic English
Bible we find Jerome's Latin Bible translated into English and called the
Douay Bible, which contains every word of our text. There are about
fourteen verses of. chapter 18 that do not appear in any manuscript of the
Septuagint which we have except the Alexandrian manuscript, and it seems to be added
there. It is not in the Vatican manuscript of the Septuagint, but we may
thoroughly rely upon everything set forth in chapters 17-18 as being a part of
the Word of God.
Before commencing to expound this section I call attention to a word in 1
Samuel 18:27, "tale" – "a full tale." That is an old
English word not much used now. I give an example of its old English use.
Milton in one of his poems, "L'Allegro," uses this language: Every shepherd tells his
tale, Under the hawthorne in the dale.
What is the meaning of the word, "tale"? Does it mean that every
shepherd tells his story, or narrative? No; that is not the meaning of the old
English word, "tale." "Every shepherd tells his number, his
reckoning of the sheep." From that we get our English word, "tally."
The shepherds number their flocks in the evening to see if they have the same
number ! that they took out in the morning. "Every shepherd makes. his
tally, under the hawthorne in the dale." That is what' Milton means. ;
There is another old English word in 1 Samuel 18:30, "set," I
"much set by." What does "set" mean there? The meaning: of
"set" in such a connection is "esteem." We say, "I set
great , store by such a man," which means, "I esteem him very
much."
Yet another English word in this section, where Jonathan's , bow and arrows are
called "artillery." Our meaning of the word "artillery" is
confined to cannon, but the original word; meant any implement of war. These
remarks on "tale," "set" and "artillery" are to
show the changes that have taken place in the signification of words in the
English language since the Bible was translated by the King James revisers.
Paul says, "I purposed to come unto you, (but was let hitherto)." Now
"let" means "permitted;" then it meant "hindered"
– "I was hindered hitherto."
Having disposed of the reference to the text, and those four instances of the
changed meaning of old English words, we will take up the discussion proper. I
commence with this observation, that in 1 Samuel 18-26, we have a section of
the history that ought to be studied at one sitting. It is a pity to break it
up into fragments. The parts are so intimately related that we need to have the
whole of the story before us in order to get in their relations certain great
lessons. These lessons are: l. These nine chapters (18-26) show a protracted
conflict between hate and love, and love's final triumph; Saul's hate against
David; the love of Jonathan, Michal, the people, the prophets, and the priests
for David, warring against Saul's bate of David, and we see Satan inspiring the
hate and Jehovah inspiring the love. That is the first lesson of these nine
chapters.
2. These chapters show that there is a conflict between folly and wisdom, for
hate is folly and love is wisdom; therefore the hating man is showing himself
to be a fool at every step of the history, and the loving man is showing
himself to be wise at every step of the history. Not only is hate criminal, but
it is the most foolish passion in which you can indulge. The remarkable wisdom
and forbearance of David defeat all the folly of Saul's hate. That is one of
the most evident things in the nine chapters. Under similar conditions not one
man in a million would imitate David; not one in any number of millions under
similar conditions would do as David did unless he were influenced by the Holy
Spirit of God. History abounds in lessons to show that men, under long,
continued provocations, not only strike back, which David didn't do, but they
become traitors to their own countries when the persecuting one is the ruler of
the country. If they are not under the influence of God, they will end in
becoming traitors.
We have a signal example in Benedict Arnold. There was not a more valiant soldier
and capable general in the army of the Revolution than Benedict Arnold. He was
the bravest of the brave, but Congress not only showed lack of appreciation of
him, but put one indignity on him after another. Then he acted unlike David –
he sold his country to the British and became a general in the British army.
In studying Roman history we see the same thing in Coriolanus. When the Romans
mistreated this great general he went over to the enemy of Rome, the Volsci,
and led a triumphant army to the very gates of Rome. The Romans in terror asked
his mother to go and plead with him to spare Rome. She went out and appealed to
his patriotism and to his love of family. He said, "Mother, you have saved
Rome, but you have lost your son; for the Volsci will kill me unless I capture
Rome," and they did kill him when he refused to capture Rome.
When a man is not under the guidance of God's Holy Spirit and injuries are put
upon him, he will strike back and resort ultimately to any expedient to glut
his vengeance.
3. The third great lesson is the historian's graphic description of the
progress of the passions, whether good or bad, ever developing until each one
comes to a final crystallization. More than once I have told you that power of
the historian in 1 Samuel in tracing developments.
4. The fourth lesson is that both hate and love recognize the will of Jehovah
in the passing events. We see Saul's hate discovering in David's triumph that
he is the rival whom God has appointed to succeed him, and we will see Jonathan's
love discovering the same thing.
5. The fifth lesson is the distinct stages of Saul's remorse when under the
influence of Jonathan's counsel and David's good will.
6. The sixth lesson is the progress in the attachment between David and
Jonathan. There is nothing like it in the history of the world, though we find
in the classics the remarkable love between Damon and Pythias. There are three
distinct covenants between Jonathan and David.
7. The whole story shows that if God be for a man, neither man nor devil can be
against him successfully, and that if God be against a man none can be
successfully for him. As Paul puts it: "If God be for us, who can be
against us?" Oftentimes we have to fight public opinion. Oftentimes we
feel that we are isolated from our kind on account of the position that we are
compelled to take as God's representative, but let this comfort us, that if God
be for us; if, indeed, we are on God's side nothing ultimately will prevail
against us.
8. The eighth lesson is that high above Saul, Jonathan, Michal) David, we see
two worlds interested – Satan endeavoring to thwart the establishment of the
kingdom of God and using Saul and others as his instruments, and Jehovah
proceeding to establish his kingdom and using David, Jonathan, and others as
his instruments.
If we don't recognize the fact that the world above and the world beneath touch
human lives and have much to do with events, then we never can understand the
history of any one man, much less one nation.
That was the trouble in Job's mind. If he could have seen what the historian
tells us about, that coming together of the angels, good and bad, when God held
his stated meeting of angels, and knew that an evil angel was seeking to do him
harm, and that he could not do this except as God permitted it, then he could
have understood why undeserved afflictions came upon him, and why God permitted
them. Homer, while holding to the wrong kind of gods, not only follows the true
poetical idea, but he follows the true idea in representing all the gods and
goddesses as interested in the Trojan War. I have studied it so much that when
a war commences, say between Japan and Russia, I look for the devil's tracks
and also look for the tracks of Jehovah, and I can better understand the issue
of wars when I do that.
These are the great lessons that are set forth in the nine chapters. We will
commence now and discover these great lessons one after another as we take up
the story seriatim, and we note first the progress of Saul's hate. What was the
origin of Saul's hate? When he committed his first sin God announced to him
that he had selected a man after his own heart to whom he would give the
kingdom, and when Saul committed his second sin God again refers to his purpose
to substitute for Saul a better man. That rankles in Saul's mind. Always he
carries that thought with him: "Somebody is to be put up to succeed
me," and hence he will be looking around, watching every arriving man –
"Maybe he is the one." There we see the origin of it.
The first expression of it comes in this section, which says that after the
great victory over the Philistines by David described in the last chapter, and
the pursuit clear to the gates of the Philistine cities, that when the army
returned home the women, according to a custom of that time and of this time,
determined to celebrate the return of the victorious army, so they sang,
antiphonally. It was like the responsive singing of Miriam and her choir in the
paean of deliverance after the safe passage of the Red Sea. The record says
that they sang antiphonally, and the first part of them would sing, "Saul
hath slain his thousands" and the other part would respond, "But
David hath slain his ten thousands."
When these women sang that way it excited Saul's wrath, and he instantly
thought of what God had announced, and he says, "What more is there for
him but the kingdom? Here is a man who has gained a great victory and the
people are with him, and even the women are putting him above me," hence
the text says that from that day Saul eyed David. When a man looks at another
sideways under lowered lids, that is what we call eyeing a man. He is under
suspicion from that time on. That is the first expression of the hate of Saul,
and you find it in 1 Samuel 18:8-9.
We now come to a truth of very great importance. In a previous part of the book
we have seen that God, in David's music, could exorcise the demon in Saul, and
did do it, and for quite awhile Saul was not under the possession of the demon,
but here comes a word from our Lord fitting the case exactly. It is found in
Matthew 12:43-45: "The unclean spirit, when he is gone out of the man,
passeth through waterless places seeking rest, and findeth it not. Then he
saith, I will return into my house whence I came out; and when he is come, he
findeth it empty, swept, and garnished. Then goeth be and taketh with himself
seven other spirits more evil than himself, and they enter in and dwell there:
and the last state of that man becometh worse than the first." That is pertinent
to this case. A demon may be cast out once, then, as Jesus says to a man under
similar conditions, "Go and sin no more, lest a worse thing befall
thee." Should that demon come back he cannot again be exorcised. The text
here is the proof. When that evil spirit, taking advantage of Saul's hate,
re-entered Saul, they sent for the usual remedy – David must come and play for
him. But David plays and the spirit does not leave. On the contrary, he prompts
Saul to thrust a javelin at the heart of David. That is the pivotal point in
Saul's case. There he passes the boundary line. There is a time, we know not
when; A place, we know not where; That marks the destiny of men To glory or
despair.
It is as if a man under the habit of drunkenness is cured at a sanitarium. Let
him beware of ever falling into the habit again; the sanitarium won't cure him
the next time. In other words, a sinner that does not avail himself of the
means of grace that are applied to him will ultimately get past feeling; like
Pharaoh, his heart will be hardened until it never can be softened again. Like
Ephraim, he will become wedded to his idols.
The most notable instance of this that ever came within my experience was at a
meeting that I held in the old Providence Church in Burleson County. Ah! what a
meeting! Seventy days and nights, until it seemed that every sinner in fifteen
miles of the place was converted. One night when I made an appeal to see if we
could find anybody that was unsaved, a white-haired old man got up and said,
"I am the man. I have been watching your meetings. There was a time when
such things moved my heart, but I kept trifling with the monitions of the
Spirit of God that impelled me to turn to Christ and be saved, and in one
meeting after another I resisted and said, 'No, No, No,' and at last, as if God
had said to me, 'Your no shall be forever,' all feelings in that direction were
taken away from me, and as I stand up here before you tonight telling you. this
experience, you see a man doomed, without hope of mercy, simply because the
Spirit of God, who alone can lead a man to salvation, has departed from me
forever." It made a solemn impression.
We notice now that the spirit can't be reached by music, even when God is in
the music, and hence there is an attempt to destroy David's life. The next step
is found in verse 12. That tells us that Saul was afraid because God's Spirit
was on David, and had left him. This is one of the consequences that the Spirit
of God has left – fear. He was afraid, and he was afraid of David, so he takes
another step to destroy David. He removed him from office near his person and
gave him a position in the firing line of the army, not to honor David by that
promotion, but the text tells us he did it in the hope that David might perish
by the hands of the Philistines, in some of the fights. We have an old saying
coming from Virgil, "Beware of the Greeks bringing. gifts." That was
said when they left the Trojans that great wooden horse, which had 500 Greeks
hidden in it. It was so large they could not bring it in through the gates, and
had to break down the wall to get it in, and that night the Greeks came out of
the horse and opened the gates and the city was taken. And that was Saul's
meaning when he promoted David to this high office in his service. He meant to
destroy him by it.
The next step in the progress is in verse 15. When Saul saw that David acted
very wisely in the new position he was "more afraid." David didn't
get killed. God took care of him, and he acted so wisely in the administration
of the new office that it increased Saul's fear.
We come to verse 17, and ask what next Saul will do? What of this hate of his?
To what expedient will he now resort? He approaches David secretly through his
officers, as though he were conferring another great honor on him, and offers
his daughter in marriage. He should be the son-in-law of the king if he will
give – not money for her dowry, for David did not have it – but "Kill me
100 Philistines and bring evidence that you have killed them and complete the
tally" – that is, let the number be counted. Now what was his object? He
didn't want David in his family, but he would set a snare by the use of his own
daughter, and the object of it would be to put David in a position of personal
danger. Saul's thought was that in fighting the 100 Philistines some one would
kill him.
Verse 20 shows progress again. "And when Saul saw it was Jehovah with
David, and that all the people of Israel loved him, he was more afraid."
Your text says that Michal loved him. The real text is, "When Saul saw
that Jehovah was with him and that all the people loved him he was more
afraid." Notice the progress, and that is this evil spirit in Saul
increasing his madness, and they try the music remedy one more time. So David
is sent for to play before Saul, and again the evil spirit prompts Saul, and he
thrusts a javelin at him the second time. David saw that he could no longer
fool with that kind of situation and he left and went to his own private house.
There is a limit to the power of music. True, Shakespeare says, A man who has
no music in his soul, Nor concord of sweet sound, Is fit for treason,
stratagems and spoils.
The next step in the progress of that hate is in chapter 19. Saul called Jonathan
to him and certain of his officers and gave them a peremptory command to
execute David. Jonathan says, "Father, what hath he done? He doesn't
deserve death. He hath never done you any harm. Why should David be
slain?" The pleading of the beloved Jonathan prevails. When Jonathan so
humbly pleads, Saul's heart melts and David comes back and heads the whole army
and wins another glorious victory over the Philistines. And now Saul's hate
will not respect the pleading of Jonathan, so David went to his home saying
that he could not stay near Saul without provoking death.
Then follows an incident that David commemorates in the Psalms. They surround
his house. One of the most despicable acts of tyranny is what is called
"domiciliary visitation." Man's home is regarded as his castle, and
when the privacy of his home is invaded by espionage or by an attempt to take
life on his own hearthstone, there is no step beyond that a tyrant can go.
Revolution comes when that is attempted. That is why the Huguenots left France;
the dragoons were stationed ; in their homes, and the privacy of the home was
violated. They could not even in private whisper to each other but the words
were heard by some of these spies and reported. In the Declaration of
Independence that is one of the accusations against the king – that he had
stationed troops in private houses without the consent of the people. It made a
marvelous impression on David's mind that night when he looked out ; and saw
the sentinels all around his house. David's wife helps , him that time. She
says, "If you don't escape tonight, tomorrow you will be a dead man,"
and a woman when she is stirred up in a matter and puts her wits to work is not
easy to thwart. So she puts a teraphim – a wooden image – in David's bed and
tied a wig or something over it and wrapped the image up to represent a man
sleeping, and when the soldiers came in to arrest David she said, "You see
he is sleeping," and they waited till morning and David got away.
QUESTIONS
1. What textual difficulty
in 1 Samuel 18, and what the discussion thereon?
2. What the meaning of the
old English word, "tale," and what other English word is derived from
it?
3. What the meaning of the
old English word, "set," in the phrase, “much set by," in 1
Samuel 18:30?
4. What the meaning of the
word "artillery," as used in this connection?
5. What the meaning of the
word, "let," as used by Paul in Romans 1-13 and what the lessons of
these uses of the words, "tale," "set,"
"artillery," and "let"?
6. What chapters of 1 Samuel
should be studied as one section, and why?
7. What the great lessons of
these chapters?
8. In what two respects is
David's self-restraint under these persistent and murderous attacks of Saul
without a parallel, and what two great men under less provocation became
traitors to their native land?
9. What the difficulty in
Job's mind, and what instance in the classics referred to in illustrating it?
10. What the origin of
Saul's hate, and what the first expression of it?
11. What the words which so
graphically describe Saul's hate, and the counter-progress of David's wisdom?
12. What saying of our Lord
shows the fearful state of a man who allows an exorcised demon to re-enter the
soul?
13. Show by David's music,
Jonathan's intercession, and the gift of prophesying that what expels the demon
the first time will not avail the second time.
14. Quote the stanza given
to illustrate the sin against the Holy Spirit.
15. Relate the incident
given to illustrate this sin.
16. What the steps of
progress in Saul's hate of David as revealed in his efforts to take his life?
17. What does Shakespeare
say of a man who has no music in his soul?
18. In what Psalm does David
commemorate the watching around his house at night?
19. How does David escape
from that house, and what later and greater Saul escaped like David through a
window?
20. What illustrations of
this incident of watching around David's house in later history?
SAUL'S MURDEROUS PURSUIT OF DAVID
1 Samuel 19:18 to 22:23 and Harmony, pages
87-91.
Let us trace in the Old Testament the usage of the word, "teraphim,"
which occurs in 1 Samuel 19:13: "And Michal took the teraphim, and laid it
in the bed, and put a pillow of goat's hair at the head thereof and covered it
with the clothes," answering this fivefold question: (1) Is the word,
"teraphim," ever used in a good sense? (2) What was it? (3) Was its
use a violation of the first or the second commandment? (4) What the meaning of
such an image being in David's house? (5) Show how in history the use of images
became a dividing line between Protestants and Romanists, and what the danger
of their use even as a help toward the worship of God.
We find the first use of it in Genesis 31:19, 26, 31, 34. That chapter shows
how Jacob and his wives and children and property left his father-in-law,
Laban, on their return to the Holy Land, and that Rachel stole her father's
"teraphim;" and when Laban pursues, as we find in the same chapter,
it is one of his accusations against Jacob that he had stolen his household
gods. Jacob invites him to make a search and Rachel puts them under a camel
saddle and sits down on the saddle and won't get up, and so Laban can't find
them. Then, in Genesis 35:2 Jacob orders all of his family to put away those
false gods.
The next use of the word comes in Judges 17-18. The history is this: Micah, in
the days of the judges, makes to himself molten and graven images and teraphim and
puts them in a separate room in his house, i.e., has a little temple, and
consecrates his own son to be a priest, but eventually there comes along a
Levite, who is a descendant of Moses through Gerghom, and Micah employs this
Levite on a salary to be his priest and to conduct his worship through these
images graven, molten and the teraphim, using an ephod. A little later the
Danites on their migration capture all these household gods of Micah, and the
priest as well. Micah pursues and complains that they robbed him of his gods.
The Danites advise him to go home and keep his mouth shut, and in the meantime
they capture Laish in the northern part of the Holy Land and set up these same
images and use that same descendant of Moses with the ephod to seek Jehovah
through those images. The next time we find the word is in this section, where
Michal took a teraphim and put it in David's bed and made it look like somebody
asleep. The next usage of the word is found in 2 Kings 23:24, in the early part
of the great reformation led by King Josiah, who, after the law of the Lord had
been found, causes all Judah to put away the teraphim and everything that was
contrary to the Mosaic law.
We find it next in order of time in Hosea 3:4, where a prediction is made that
Israel for a long time shall be without king or ephod or teraphim, and the last
use is in Ezekiel 21:22-23. Ezekiel in exile shows how the king of Babylon came
to the forks of the road and used divinations, etc., by the use of teraphim.
The word is never used in a good sense. Jehovah appoints his own way of
approach to him and of ascertaining the future) condemning the use of teraphim
in approaching him. Even that passage in Hosea only shows that after the
destruction of Jerusalem by Titus, the Jews for a long time – the present time
included – will have no king, no ephod, no teraphim. That is, they would in no
sense be idolaters, and yet their worship of Jehovah for this long period –
including the present time – will be empty and vain until just before the millennial
times, when they in one day accept the long-rejected Messiah.
A teraphim is an image, but it is distinguished from graven or molten images in
two particulars: (1) it is carved out of wood; (2) it always represented a
human form, whereas the graven and molten images were always of metal and
oftenest took the form of the lower animals, like the calf that Aaron made at
Sinai, and the calves set up by Jeroboam at Dan and Bethel. To make the
distinction clearer by a passage in the New Testament, the image of the great
goddess Diana at Ephesus (Acts 19), which was said to have fallen down from
heaven, was a teraphim; that is, was a wooden image in human form and a very
ugly one, but the little silver shrines of the temple of Diana made by
Demetrius, the silversmith, and other silversmiths, were either graven or
molten images. Another distinction is that the graven and the molten images
were oftenest worshiped as gods, the teraphim oftenest used as a method of
approach to their gods, and both of them were violations of the Second
Commandment.
The teraphim in David's house was Micah's, not David's, as the stolen teraphim
of Laban's was Rachel's and not Jacob's. There is no evidence that either Jacob
or David ever resorted to teraphim or favored their use.
Coming now to the last part of the question, one of the chief issues between
the Protestants and the Romanists in the Reformation was that the Romanists
multiplied images in their worship – metallic or wooden images. For instance,
an image of Jesus on the cross, an image of the virgin Mary, the cross itself,
or the image of some saint when carved out of wood representing human form,
were teraphim, but when they were made out of metal were graven or molten
images. While the better and more learned class of the Romanists only use these
images as objective aids to worship, the masses of the people become image
worshipers, bowing down before the image of the virgin Mary and ascribing
adoration to her and praying to her, and ascribing all the grace of salvation
to her. Even the pope himself says, in one of his proclamations, that the
fountain of all grace is in Mary. In this way they violate that fundamental
declaration of our Lord that God is a Spirit and they that worship him must
worship him in spirit and in truth. The Greek word, eikon, an image,
equals in sense the Hebrew word, "teraphim," and other images,
so when the Protestants, in their fury against what they called idolatry, would
break up these images wherever they found them they were called "iconoclasts,"
i.e., "breakers of images." Hence, when Charles I wrote that famous
book, Eikon, Oliver Cromwell demanded of Milton that he write a
reply to it, and he named his reply Iconoclast, a breaker of the image. The
image question is a big one in history. There is a relation to that teraphim of
Michal and her wifely relation to David. It showed that while indeed she loved
David when he was a prosperous man, she had no sympathy with his religion, nor
was she willing to share his exile and its sufferings. She could never say to
him what Ruth said to Naomi: "Entreat me not to leave thee, nor cease from
following after thee; for where thou lodgest I will lodge, thy people shall be
my people, and thy God my God. Where thou diest I will die, and there will I be
buried." When David's fortunes were eclipsed she readily enough consented
to become the wife of another man, to whom her father gave her, and whom she
loved more than she had ever loved David. When David, after he became king,
sent for her to be returned to him, as we learn from 2 Samuel 3, she came
unwillingly, and at a still later date when David brought the ark of the
covenant from Kirjathjearim to put it in Jerusalem and participated in the
religious exercises of the day, Michal looked out of the window and saw him and
despised him, and when he came in she broke out on him in scornful speech,
mocking him for the part he had taken in that day's religious service. When a
wife differs so radically from her husband in his religion as Michal did, the
marital relation is much affected by it.
The reconciliation of the declaration in 2 Samuel 6:23 that Michal to the day
of her death had no children, with the declaration in 2 Samuel 21:8 that there
were five sons of Michal, is this: In the second passage the word Michal should
be Merab, the older sister of Michal, who was married to Adriel, the
Meholathite, and bare him five sons who were gibbeted to appease the wrath of
the Gibeonites.
Fleeing from Saul, David rightly seeks refuge with Samuel at Ramah, and Samuel
took him to Naioth of Ramah. Being banished from the king, quite naturally and
appropriately he sought the prophet, and when he came to Samuel, the prophet
took him from Ramah to Naioth; that means the Seminary, buildings where the
school of the prophets was assembled, as if we had said, "He went from
Waco to Fort Worth and to Naioth of Fort Worth," i.e., the Seminary of
Fort Worth. That is a very important passage. It refers to the buildings in
which the school of the prophets assembled for instruction. But Saul's
relentless hate toward David manifested itself in this place of refuge. Hearing
that David was there, he sent messengers to take him, but when the messengers
came within the orbit of influence of that school of the prophets the spirit of
the prophets fell on the messengers and they prophesied. This happened three
times in succession. Finally Saul came himself, and it fell on him so violently
that he tore off his outer clothing and in an ecstasy of prophesying fell down
in a trance before Samuel and remained in that helpless condition all night
long.
The compliment to Naioth is this: A number of God's people, together studying
his word, filled with his Spirit, the spiritual atmosphere of the place becomes
a bar against the approach of evil. The evil-minded who come to mock remain to
pray. I have seen revival meetings get to such power that emissaries of the
devil, children of Belial, who would come there to break up the meeting, would
be overpowered by its force. That was notably illustrated in the early days of
Methodism, and particularly in the rise of the Cumberland Presbyterians. My son
has given a very vivid account of that time, and of how wicked men would be
seized with jerks and finally fall helpless into a trance when they attended
these revival meetings.
The main points of David's next attempt at self-protection are as follows:
Doubtless through Samuel's advice, David, while Saul lay in that trance, left
Naioth and went back to make another appeal to Jonathan. The reason that he did
this was that Jonathan, in his first intercession in behalf of David, had
succeeded in pacifying the wrath of his father toward him. Their meeting is
graphically described in the text. There isn't a more touching passage in any
piece of history than Jonathan's solemn promise that if his father meant evil
that he would inform David, and the plan they arranged to test whether
Jonathan's second attempt would be successful.
With the Jews the new moon was a sabbath, no matter on what day of the week it
came, and they had a festival, and there was one just ahead. On these new moon
festivals all of the official household of Saul had to be present, so it was
arranged that when Saul observed that David's place was vacant at that festival
and he made inquiry about it, Jonathan would say, "He asked me to give him
permission to go to his brother's house and partake in the new moon sacrifices
at home with his family," then if Saul manifested no anger, that would be
a sign that David could return. So on the second day of the new moon festival,
Saul looked around, and seeing David's seat empty on such an important
occasion, directly asked Jonathan where he was, and Jonathan told him,
according to the arrangement made with David, at which Saul became furious
against Jonathan and denounced him in awful language, and when Jonathan makes
his last appeal, Saul hurls a Javelin at him. Jonathan, insulted, outraged,
gets up and leaves the table and goes out and shows David that it will never do
to return to Saul, that he must seek refuge elsewhere, and they renew their
covenant. Jonathan says, "I know you will be king, and I will be next to
you, and when you are king be good to my family." We will have some sad
history on that later, about whether David did fulfil his solemn pledge to
Jonathan to be good to Jonathan's family when David had the power.
David next seeks refuge at Nob, where the priests and the' tabernacle were –
not the ark – that was at Kirjathjearim – but the priests were assembled in the
village of Nob with the high priest. David came, and did not relate to the
priests the malice of Saul toward him, but came worn out, exhausted, famished
with hunger, and the priest gives him to eat of the shew bread, unlawful for
any but a priest to eat. The priest inquires through the Ephod what David wants
to find out from Jehovah, and gives to him the sword of Goliath. You know I
gave you a direction to trace that sword of Goliath's; to ascertain what became
of it. It had been carried to the tabernacle at Nob, and the priest gave it to
David. David left there because he saw a rascal in the crowd, Dog, the Automat,
one of Saul's "lick-spittle" followers, and he said to the high
priest, "That fellow will tell all of this to Saul when he gets back
home."
The New Testament reference to that is when the Pharisees were springing
questions on our Lord he showed them that the sabbath law, like other laws,
always had exceptions in cases of judgment, mercy, and necessity. Though it be
the sabbath day when a man found an ass crushed under his burden or an ox in
the ditch, he must work to relieve that poor beast, so, while it was against
the law for anybody but a priest to eat the shew bread, yet, in a case of
necessity, David being famished, the priest did right to give him the shew
bread and he did right to eat it.
What the result? We learn that when this Dog went back and told Saul, he sent
for the whole family of the priests and they came, and he demanded why they had
sheltered and fed his enemy and used the Ephod in his behalf. The high priest
explained. Saul told him that everyone of them should die, but he could find no
officer who would put them to death. It seemed to be sacrilegious, until Dog,
this Automat, took great pleasure in killing all of them except one. Then Saul
sent and destroyed, root and branch, women and children, the entire village and
all the priests at Nob.
David's next attempt to find a refuge failed, but he succeeded later. He went
to Achish, the king of the Philistines at Gath, and they were not ready to
greet him. They believed that he came upon an evil mission. They said he was
the man that had brought all the ruin on the Philistines, concerning whom the
women sang, "Saul hath slain his thousands, and David his ten
thousands." To preserve himself from the danger of death that threatened
him he feigned madness, and so deceived the king. A North American Indian would
have done the same thing. They never shoot or strike the insane, believing them
under the hand of a spirit.
David's next effort at self-protection was at the cave of Adullam, and the
record states that everyone that was in distress or in debt or discontented
gathered unto him and he became a captain over them. Quite a number of mighty
men, the greatest fighters then known to the world, came to him. A company came
to him from Judah and Benjamin; his father's household came, fearing that Saul
would destroy them, so that he organized a fighting force of 400 men that has
never been equalled by the same number of men. A little later we will see that
it had grown to 600 men by other accessions. All of them were heroes and great
fighters. Then there came to him Abiathar, the last one of the high priest's
family when Saul had destroyed the village of Nob, and there came to him some
of the prophets, especially Gad, who remains with him all the time, and who
wrote a part of the history we are discussing.
So that cave was the scene of the change in the fortunes of David. It makes
little difference now whether he stays in Judah or goes anywhere else with that
crowd back of him; nobody is able to harm him. It was at this time that he took
his father and mother, who were old and couldn't move swiftly with his fighting
force, over to Moab, across the Jordan, doubtless relying upon the fact that
Ruth, the Moabitess, was an ancestress of his, and the king of Moab sheltered
the father and mother of David; but Gad, the prophet, admonishes David to leave
Moab and go back to Judah. God would take care of him in his own land if he
trusted him, and so he went back to Judah.
In view of Moab's kindness to David's family, the Jews acquit David of the
severe measures adopted by him toward the Moabites at a later day, to the
history of which we will come later. They say that the king of Moab murdered
David's father and mother who had been left in his charge, and that David swept
them with fire and sword for it when he got to them.
The great sermons in our day which have been preached on this part of David's
career are: (1) Melville's sermon on David's feigning madness at the court of
Achish. A remarkable sermon. (2) Spurgeon's great sermon on the Cave of Adullam
from the text, "And every one that was in distress, and every one that was
in debt, and every one that was discontented, gathered themselves unto him, and
he became a captain over them." Spurgeon used that to illustrate how a
similar class of people gathered around Christ, and he became a captain over
them. Everyone that was in debt, or distress, or sick, or poverty-stricken,
whatever the ailment, or in despair about the affairs of life, came to Jesus
and be became a captain over them. It is a great sermon.
QUESTIONS
1. Trace in the Old
Testament the usage of the word, "teraphim," which occurs in chapter
19:13: "And Michal took the teraphim, and laid it in the bed, and puts a pillow
of goat's hair at the head thereof and covered it with the "clothes,"
answering the following questions: (1) Is the word, "teraphim," ever
used in a good sense? (2) What was it? (3) Was its use a violation of the first
or second commandment? (4) What is the meaning of such an image being in
David's house? (5) Show how in history the use of images became a dividing line
between Romanists and Protestants, and what the danger of their use, even as a
help toward the worship of God.
2. What bearing has Michal's
teraphim on her wifely relation to David, and what the proofs in later times?
Reconcile f. Samuel 6:23 with 2 Samuel 21:8.
3. Fleeing from Saul, with
whom does David rightly seek refuge, and what the distinction between Ramah and
Naioth in 19:18-19?
4. How does Saul's
relentless hate toward David manifest itself in this place of refuge, what the
result, and what the compliment to Naioth?
5. Give the main points of
David's next attempt at self-protection, show why he resorted to it, and what
the result.
6. With whom next does David
seek refuge, what the main incidents, what the New Testament reference thereto,
why did David leave that refuge, and what the results to the priests for
sheltering him?
7. What was David's next
attempt to find a refuge, why did it fail this time but succeed later, what was
David's expedient to escape from the danger, and why did that expedient
succeed?
8. What was David's next
effort at self-protection, what accessions came to him, and what was the result
on his future fortunes?
9. In view of the Moab's
kindness to David's family, how do the Jews acquit David of the severe measures
adopted by him toward the Moabites at a later day?
10. What great sermons in
our day have been preached on this part of David's career?
DAVID AND HIS INDEPENDENT ARMY; THE END
1 Samuel 23:1 to 26:25 and Harmony, pages
91-96.
This section is very thrilling, containing many stirring adventures and hairbreadth
escapes, showing the play of the mighty passions of love and hate, and
treachery and loyalty. It contains the farewell between David and Jonathan in
their last interview; the farewell between David and Saul: the death of Samuel
and the engaging story of David and Abigail. No novel that I have ever read has
incidents so romantic in nature as this section.
The turn in the fortunes of David comes at the Cave of Adullam. He is no longer
a solitary fugitive. His helpers were:
1. An armed corps, small indeed in number, but unequaled in history as a mobile
fighting force, who had gathered around him. Never before nor since have more
heroes and champions been found in a band of 400, rapidly recruited to 600. As
is quite natural, some of them are both desperate and evil characters. They
harbor in caves or sleep under rocks, and from the mountaintops, like eagles in
their eyries, survey all the mountain passes, ready to swoop down on their
Philistine prey or to make timely escape from Saul's forces, which they will
not fight through David's loyalty.
2. The son of the high priest with Ephod, fleeing from Saul's murderous
slaughter of his brethren at Nob, has turned to David, supplying his greatest
need, that is, a means of communication with Jehovah, now forever denied to
Saul. Through this means he easily learns what no earthly wisdom or system of
espionage could discover – the very hearts and secret purposes of his enemies.
3. The school of the prophets, Jehovah's mouthpieces, are for him, and Gad,
their great representative, acts as his daily counselor – Gad who shall become
one of the historians of his life.
David at this time evinced the most exalted patriotism. Though pursued by
Saul's relentless hate, he never at any time, employs his fighting force
against Israel, nor ever harms Saul's person, though it is twice within his
power, but ever watching, he protects defenseless cities of his people by
smiting their Philistine invaders, preserves the exposed farms and folds of the
villages from their marauding bands. Not all Saul's army is such a defense of
Israel as David's immortal 600. And this he did continuously, though every blow
he struck for his people only advertised his whereabouts to Saul, and brought
on immediately a man-hunt by Saul and his army. There is no parallel to these
facts in history. If, when the "swamp-fox," Francis Marion, by
creeping out of his secret places of retirement advertised his whereabouts by
smiting a British or Tory force, Washington, Gates, Greene, or Morgan had
detached a flying column to cut off Marion, then that would have been a
parallel.
An example of this patriotism of David, and the ungrateful return to him is
found in this section. From it we learn that when David, at a hazard so great
that his own dauntless champions advised against it, under the guidance of
Jehovah left the safer territory of Judah and braved with his 600 the whole
Philistine army to rescue Keilah, Saul, informed of his presence there,
summoned his whole army to besiege David in that city, and only through timely
knowledge, communicated through the high priest's Ephod, did David escape the
enmity of Saul and the purposed treachery of the men of Keilah whom he had Just
preserved.
A parallel in later days shows that information from Jehovah concerning the
secret purposes of men eclipsed all knowledge to be derived from spies, and so
saved the king of Israel. This parallel we find in 2 Kings 6:8-12. The king of
Syria, at war with the king of Israel (by Israel in that place is meant the ten
tribes that went off from Rehoboam), in private counsel with his officers,
would designate a place where be would' establish his camps in order to entrap
the king of Israel. As soon as he had designated where these trap-camps would
be placed, Elisha, God's prophet, sent information to the king of Israel to
beware of these places, and thus more than twice the king of Israel was saved.
The king of Syria supposed that there was a traitor in his own camp, and wanted
to know who it was that betrayed every movement that he made. One of his
counselors replied that there was no traitor in his camp, but that Elisha,
God's prophet, knew every secret thought of the king's bed-chamber.
I now call attention to the text difficulty in 1 Samuel 23:6. The text here
says that Abiathar, the son of Ahimelech, had joined David at Keilah, but 1
Samuel 22:20-23 shows that Abiathar had previously joined David at the Cave of
Adullam. The context just above verse 6 shows that David had inquired of the
high priest as to whether he should go to the rescue of Keilah. The word,
"Keilah," in verse 6 ought therefore to be struck out, or else ought
to follow the text of the Septuagint, which reads this way: "And it came
to pass when Abiathar, the son of Ahimelech, fled to David, that he went down
with David to Keilah with the Ephod in his hand." That makes complete
sense and retains the word "Keilah." David's next refuge from Saul,
the description of Saul's pursuit, and Jehovah's deliverance, are described in
just two verses of the text, 1 Samuel 23:14-15: "And David abode in the
wilderness in strongholds and remained in the wilderness of Ziph, and Saul
sought him every day, but God delivered him not into Saul’s hands. And David
saw that Saul was come out to seek his life, and David was in the wilderness of
Ziph in a wood." That does not mean any big trees. It means thick brush –
scrubby brush – as may be seen on West Texas mountains – shin-oak thickets. I
have seen them so thick it looked like one couldn't stick a butcher knife in
them, and woe to the man who tried to ride through them!
Just here comes Jonathan's last interview with David, which is given in three
verses, 1 Samuel 23:16-18. While Saul is every day beating that brush to find
David and can't find him, Jonathan finds him and comes to show him that he has
no part in this murderous pursuit of his friend; comes to tell him that both he
and his father know that David will triumph and become king, and to make a
covenant with him again that when he is king he will remember Jonathan's house.
Let us now take up David's first escape from the treachery of the Ziphites, and
how that escape was commemorated. Saul couldn't find David in the wood, but the
Ziphites (for it was in the wood of Ziph) knew where be was, and they told Saul
where he was, and so Saul, guided by these treacherous Ziphites, summoned an
army, completely surrounded the whole country, and at last got David, as it
were, in a cul-de-sac. That French phrase means) to follow a road where all
egress is blocked, forward or sideways. So there was just a mountain between
Saul and David, and Saul's army was all around and closing in. The deliverance
comes providentially. Word is brought to Saul that the Philistines are striking
at some place in his territory, and he has to call his army off just before he
closes up the trap around David and go and fight the Philistines; and your
record says that place is renamed in commemoration this simple word, "Selahammahlekoth,"
which means the rock of escape. If you were to visit the place the guide will
show you today "Selahammahlekoth" – the rock of escape.
David's next refuge from Saul was at the town of Engedi. The name is today
preserved in the Aramaic form, "Ain Jidy." It is thought to be the
oldest town in the world. The Genesis record of the days of Abraham says that
Chedorlaorner led his army by Engedi. It was a town whose inhabitants saw the
destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, lying right below in the valley. It has been
passed by a thousand armies. It means the fountain of goats. Bursting out of the
mountainside is a spring of considerable volume, and from that flows the
stream, Engedi, which, with two others, makes a little oasis there just above
the Dead Sea – one of the most beautiful in the world; the finest vines, the
most beautiful palm trees, and right up above the mountainside, are hundreds of
caves, some of them so deep that they are as dark as the pit right at the
mouth. A man standing in the light at the entrance cannot see anything within,
but one hidden back a little distance can see distinctly anybody coming in.
Nearly everybody that visits the Holy Land makes a pilgrimage to these famous
caves, and if you are disposed to read the results of modern research with
reference to the place you will find some very fine references in the following
books: Thompson's Land and the Book, from which we have had quotations;
Robinson's Researches in Bible Lands; Tristram's Land of Israel; and one of the
best is McGarvey's Lands of the Bible. McGarvey is a Disciples theologian in
Kentucky, and his is about the best book on the Holy Land extant. You will also
find a very graphic account of these caves in Stanley's Sinai and Palestine.
The record tells us that Saul, in pursuit of David, while his army is scattered
about searching for him, comes to one of these caves, and enters in, and David
is in there at the time with some of his bravest men, and he, being in the
dark, can see Saul plainly, and slips up and cuts off a piece of Saul's cloak.
One of his men wants him to kill Saul: "Now is your chance; this is the
chance God has promised you; your enemy is in your power; smite him." But
David would not do so. When Saul goes out of the cave David slips to the front,
and from a high rock holds up that piece of skirt and calls to Saul, your text
telling better than I can the thrilling way he reproached Saul for his pursuit
of him, that he has never done him any harm, and that Saul was pursuing him to
death without any cause.
We now come to a strange but certainly true thing. I will read what David said
and Saul's reply. It is Saul's reply that I want you particularly to notice.
David said, "Wherefore hearest thou men's words saying, Behold David
seeketh thy hurt," then closes up by saying, "The Lord judge between
me and thee, and the Lord avenge me of thee, but my hand shall not be upon
thee." Listen at Saul's reply: "Thou art more righteous than I"
– standing there weeping now and saying this – "for that thou hast
rewarded me good, whereas I have rewarded thee evil; and thou hast showed this
day how that thou hast dealt well with me, forasmuch as when the Lord had
delivered me into thy hand thou killedst me not; for if a man findest his
enemy, will he let him go well away; wherefore the Lord reward thee good for
what thou hast done unto me this day. And now, behold I know well that thou
shalt surely be king and that the kingdom of Israel shall be established in
thine hand; swear thou therefore, unto me by the Lord that thou wilt not cut
off my seed after me, and that thou wilt not destroy my name out of my father's
house." That sounded like penitence, but it was not. If it was, you would
not see Saul pursuing him again, but it was temporary remorse, such as wicked
men often evince. It is an Oriental custom that when a new king comes in he
kills all the family of the one he succeeds, and that is what Saul fears, and
David never did kill any of them after he became king.
It is evident from 1 Samuel 24:9:26:19 that some persistent, insidious slander,
ever at Saul's side, kept his wrath stirred up against David, and like a
sinister Iago played upon Saul's weakness, ever fanning by whisperings the
flame of his jealousy. You would never know the name of this secret assassin of
character from the history. But his name and character are pilloried in the
immortal song of his would-be victim, and all the vileness of his demoniacal
nature memorialized to the end of time. What is his name, and in what song
commemorated? Just at this juncture Samuel, the great prophet – the greatest
man next to Moses since Abraham's day, dies. Later we will have an analysis of
his character.
An example of David's protection of the villages and farms is seen in the case
of the rich man named Nabal ("Nabal" means "fool"), about
whom his wife says later, "His name is Nabal and he is Nabal." There
wouldn't have been a sheep left in his flock nor a cow left to give him milk
but for the protection extended by David's band. The herdsmen say,
"David's band has been a wall about us." David's men never took any
of his property. Hungry though they were, they never killed one of his sheep
nor one of his cattle. Passing bands of marauders would have swept away every
vestige of his property, but David's men beat them off.
Now, on a festival, sheep-shearing day, David's men, being weary and hungry,
David sends ten men to Nabal, giving him an opportunity at least to feed one
time the men that had protected him for the year, and Nabal's reply is:
"What is the son of Jesse to me that I should take my property and feed
his straggling crowd?" There are such rich men now, and no wonder they are
hated. There was a time in the early history of Texas when volunteer rangers
protected all the exposed settlements with their flocks and herds. A man whose
home and stock had been so preserved, who would deny hospitality to the unpaid
rangers would have been held as infamous. Indeed, in all our West Texas history
there never was one Nabal. These ten men went back and reported to David, and
this time he didn't consult either priest or prophet, but, boiling over in
wrath, announced his purpose of not leaving a man alive in Nabal's entire
household, and goes to smite him with 400 of his picked men. One of the
servants of Nabal had apprehended Just such a state of affairs and had told
Abigail, the wife of Nabal, whereupon she, recognizing David as God's anointed,
as the champion of Israel, as the one about whom all true souls should be
thinking, having faith in the promises of God concerning him, took a
magnificent donation and hurried with it and met David coming blazing in wrath.
The woman leaped down from the beast she was riding and made a speech that has
never yet had an equal.
You remember how I called your attention to the famous speech in Scott's Heart
of Midlothian by Jeanie Deans, but this beats that. I haven't time to analyze the
speech; you have the record of it before you, but there never was more wisdom
put into a few words. She shows David that the wrong done is inexcusable, but
tells him to charge it to her, although she had nothing to do with it; tells
him that so great a man as he is, God's vicegerent) should not take vengeance
in his own hands; that the day will come in his later life when he will look
back with regret at the blood on his hands if he takes such a vengeance, and
asks him to leave Nabal's punishment to God. David was charmed with her and did
everything she said. She went back home sad at heart, as many a good woman
married to a bad man has to do. Nabal was on a spree. She didn't tell him
anything until the next morning, and as she told him what had transpired God
smote him with apoplexy and a few days later – about ten days – smote him again
so that he died, whereupon David sends for Abigail and marries her and at the
same time marries another woman, plurality of wives prevailing in that day.
Many preachers have preached sermons, some of them foolish and some of them
really great, on "Nabal, the churl."
The incidents of the last meeting of Saul and David are pathetic. The Ziphites
conspire again against David, and tell Saul where to find him. David sends out
his spies and learns of Saul's approach and easily evades him; then, taking
just one man with him, Abishai, the fiery son of his sister Zeruiah, his nephew
(you will hear about him oftentimes later), goes into the camp of Saul with his
3,000 picked veterans. Saul is sleeping, and Abner, his great general, sleeping
by him, and Abishai following his nature, says, "Now let me kill
him." David says, "No, you shall not strike him; he is the anointed
king; leave him to God," and simply took Saul's spear and cruse – his
water vessel – and when he had got out of the camp he cried out to Abner and
mocked him: "What a guardian of your king, that you let somebody come
right into your camp and come right up to the person of your king! Behold the
spear and cruse of Saul! You ought to be ashamed of yourself." Saul hears
David, and now comes that strange language again. I want you to notice it
again: "And Saul knew David's voice, and said, ‘is this thy voice, my son
David?' (as you know, David was his son-in-law). And David said, ‘it is my
voice, my lord, O king.' And he said, 'Wherefore doth my lord pursue after his
servant? for what have I done? or what evil is in mine hand? Now therefore, I
pray thee, let my lord the king hear the words of his servant. If Jehovah hath stirred
thee up against me let him accept an offering: but if it be the children of
men, cursed be they before Jehovah.' "
Now comes a passage that we will have to explain in the next chapter: "For
they have driven me out this day from abiding in the inheritance of Jehovah,
saying, Go, serve other gods. Now therefore, let not my blood fall to the earth
before the face of Jehovah, for the king of Israel is come to seek a flea, as
when one doth hunt a partridge in the mountains." This is a very undignified
thing for a king to do – to go out flea hunting; go to chasing a partridge.
"Partridge" there is what we call a "blue quail." They
seldom fly, but they can run, and anyone who hunts them has to be very fast;
hence the beauty of the illustration. Saul says, "I have sinned."
(You remember he said that to Samuel.) "Return, my son David, for I will
no more do thee harm, because my soul was precious in thine eyes this day, and
behold I have played the fool, and have erred exceedingly." David didn't
trust him. Saul concludes, "Blessed be thou, my son, David; for thou shall
both do great things and also shalt prevail." So David went his own way,
and Saul returned to his place. They never meet again. The pursuit is ended. We
end this chapter with the end of the duel between Saul and David.
QUESTIONS
1. What is the interest of
this section?
2. From what point and place
comes the turn in the fortunes of David, and who were his helpers?
3. How does David at this
time evince the most exalted patriotism?
4. What parallel in history
of these facts?
5. Cite an. example of this
patriotism of David, and show the ungrateful return to him?
6. Cite a parallel in later
days to show that information from Jehovah concerning the secret purposes of
men eclipsed all knowledge to be derived from spies, and so saved the king of
Israel.
7. Explain the text –
difficulty in 1 Samuel 23:6.
8. Where was David's next
refuge from Saul, what the description of Saul's pursuit, and what Jehovah's
deliverance?
9. Describe Jonathan's last
interview with David.
10. Describe David's first
escape from the treachery of the Ziphites, and how that escape was
commemorated.
11. What was David's next
refuge from Saul, what the history of the place, and what has modern research
to say about it?
12. What the events there,
and what illustrations therefrom?
13. What man, greatest next
to Moses since Abraham's day, dies at this juncture?
14. Cite an example of David's
protection of the villages and farms, giving the main incidents in the
thrilling story of David and Abigail, and illustrate by Texas free rangers.
16. Describe the incidents
of the last meeting of Saul and David.
ZIKLAG, ENDOR, AND GILBOA
1 Samuel 27:1 to 31: 13; 2 Samuel 4:4; 1
Chronicles 10:14; 12:1-7 and Harmony, pages 96-102.
Let us analyze David's sin of despair, and give the train of sins and embarrassments
that follow. The first line tells us of his sin of despair, 1 Samuel 27:1:
"And David said in his heart, I shall now perish one day by the hand of
Saul." It is a sad thing to appear in the life of David, this fit of the
"blues" that came on him, and was utterly unjustifiable. In fact, he
is done with Saul forever. Saul will never harm him again, and he is very late
in fearing that he will one day perish by the hand of Saul. It reminds us of
Elijah under the juniper tree, praying that he might die in his despair, when
God never intended him to die at all – but to take him to heaven without death.
It was unjustifiable because the promises to him were that he should be king,
and he should not have supposed that God's word would fail. It is unjustifiable
because up to this time he had been preserved from every attack of Saul, and
the argument in his mind should be, "I will be preserved unto the
end."
The distrust of God sometimes comes to the best people. I don't claim to be
among the best people. I am an average kind of a man, trying my level best to
do right, and generally optimistic – and no man is ever whipped until he is
whipped inside, and it is a very rare thing that I am whipped inside. Whenever
I am it lasts a very short time. I don't stay whipped long. But we may put it
down as worthy of consideration in our future life that whenever we get into
the state of mind the Israelites were in about the Canaanites – that we are
"mere grasshoppers in their sight and in our own sight," then our
case is pitiable. Let us never take the grasshopper view of ourselves.
That was the first sin, the succumbing of his faith; the temporary eclipsing of
his faith. The next sin is this: "There is nothing better for me than that
I should escape into the land of the Philistines." Had he forgotten about
God? Had he forgotten that he had tried that Philistine crowd once and had to
get away from there without delay? Had he forgotten when he went over into Moab
and was told by the prophet to get back to his own country? God would take care
of him. That sin is the child of the other.
His third sin was that before taking such a decisive step he didn't ask God – a
very unusual thing for him. Generally when anything perplexed him he called for
the Ephod and the high priest and asked the Lord what he should do, but he is
so unnerved through fear of Saul that he does not stop to ask what God has to
say, and so that is a twin to the second sin, that was born of the original
one. Without consulting anybody he gathers up his followers with their women,
children, and everything that they have, and goes down to Gath, and there
commits his next sin. He makes an alliance with the king of Gath and becomes
tributary to him.
That in turn leads to another sin. He is bound to fight against the enemies of
God's cause, and so, occupying a town, Ziklag, bestowed upon him by the
Philistine king, he marches out secretly and makes war on the Geshurites and
Ginzites and Amalekites, and for fear that somebody would be spared to tell the
Philistines that he was killing their allies, he kills them all, men, women,
and children. Now, if he had been carrying out a plan of Jehovah he would have
been justified, but the record says that he did it for fear that if he left any
one of them alive they would report the fact to King Achish of Gath. His next
sin is to tell a lie about it. We call it "duplicity," but it was a
sure-enough lie. He made the impression on Achish's mind when he went out on
this expedition that he was going against Judah, which pleased the Philistine
king very much, for if he was fighting against Judah, then Judah would hate him
and the breach would be widened between him and his own people.
We now come to another sin. Each sin leads to another. The Philistines
determined to make a decisive war against Saul, and not to approach him in the
usual way, but to follow up the boundary of the Mediterranean Sea and strike
across through the very center of Palestine and cut the nation in two from the
valley of Esdraelon. So Achish says to David, "You must go with us. You
are our guest and ally and occupying a town I gave you." So David marches
along with his dauntless 600, and evidently against the will of his own men, as
we will see later. He does go with the Philistines to the very battlefield, and
when they get there the Philistines, seeing that he is with the court of the
king, object to' his presence and will not allow him to go to the battle with
them. So he returned to the land of the Philistines.
I have no idea that he ever intended to strike a blow against Saul. I feel
perfectly sure of it. When the battle was raging he would have attacked the
Philistines in the flank with his 600 men, but he made the impression on the
mind of the king that he would fight with them against Saul. The providence of
God kept him from committing that sin.
These are the six sins resulting from getting into the wrong place just one
time. I don't say he won't get into the place again, but this time he certainly
was cowed. A man can't commit just one sin. A sin can outbreed an Australian
rabbit. The hunter sometimes thinks he sees just one quail, but when he flushes
him, behold there is a pair or maybe a covey! There is a proverb that whoever
tells a lie ought to have a good memory, else he will tell some more covering
that one up, forgetting his first statement. I am sorry to bring out this
charge against David, but I will have a much bigger one to bring out before we
are done with him. He is one of the best men that ever lived, but all the good
men that I know have their faults.
I have never yet been blest with the sight of a sinless man. I know there are
some people who claim to be perfect and sinless, but I don't know any who
really are. A great modern sermon was preached on this despair of David, taking
that first line as a text: "I shall one day perish by the hand of
Saul." The preacher was John McNeil, who is called the "modern
Spurgeon." He has charge of one of the livest churches in London and has
published several volumes of sermons. This is the first in one of his books,
and it is a great one.
This sin of David was punished in two ways. While he was off following the
Philistines to the battlefield, these same Amalekites that he had been
troubling so much, swooped down on Ziklag – the town given to David by Achish –
and there being no defenders present, nobody but the women and children, they
burned the town. They didn't kill any one, but they took all the women and the
children and the livestock and the furniture and everything – made as clean a
sweep as you ever saw, including both of David's wives, Ahinoam and Abigail.
The second punishment was that his own men, who didn't want to go up with the
Philistines, wanted to stone him for what bad happened when he was gone. His
life was in danger.
But he recovered himself from this sin. When he saw the destruction of Ziklag
and the temper of his men, the text says that David "greatly encouraged
his heart in God and called for the high priest and the Ephod." What a
pity he hadn't called for him sooner! But God is quick to answer readily, and
forgive his erring children, and to put away their sin, and the answer comes
through the Ephod to David's questions: "Shall I pursue after this troop?
Shall I overtake them?" and God's answer comes as quick as lightning,
"Pursue them, for you shall overtake them and you shall recover all."
That was a very fine reply for a sinner to get when his troubles arose from his
own sin, and so he does pursue them with his 600 men, and David in pursuit of a
foe was like the Texas rangers. If a man's horse gave out they left it. If a
man himself gave out they left him. They just kept pursuing until they found
and struck the enemy. That was the way with David.
A third of his force, 200 of his brave men, when they got to a certain stream
of water, could not go any farther. He had to leave them and go with just 400
men. Out in the desert he finds a slave of one of the Amalekites, an Egyptian,
starving to death. He had had nothing to eat for three days. David fed him, and
asked him if he would guide them to the camp of the Amalekites. He said he
would if they would never let his master get him again, and David came upon
them while they were feasting and rejoicing over the great spoils. He killed
all of them except about 400 young men who rode on camels. They got away.
Camels are hard to overtake by infantry. They are very swift. And your record
says that David recovered every man, woman, and child and every stick of
furniture, besides all the rich spoils these desert pirates bad been gathering
in for quite a while, cattle and stock of every kind.
David made the following judicious uses of the victory: 1. On the return, when
they got to where those 200 were left behind, certain tough characters in his
army did not want the 200 men to share in the spoils. They could have their
wives and children, but nothing else. David not only refused to follow that
plan, but established a rule dating from that time, that whoever stayed behind,
with the baggage must share equally with those that went to the front. These
men did not want to stay, but they couldn't go any farther.
At the battle of San Jacinto, Houston had sternly to detail a certain number of
his men to keep the camp, and they wept because they were not allowed to go
into the battle. Those men that were detailed to stay in camp ought to be
counted as among the victors of the battle of San Jacinto, and history go
counts them.
2. The second judicious use that he made of the spoils captured from these
Amalekites was to send large presents to quite a number of the southern cities
of Judah that had been friendly to him and his men. He was always a
generoushearted man. That made a good deal of capital for David. Even had he
been acting simply as a politician, that was the wisest thing he could have
done. But he simply followed his heart.
There were great accessions to David at Ziklag. The text tells us, 1 Chronicles
12:1-7, that there were about twenty-three mighty men, some of whom were
Benjamites, who had come from Saul's tribe, and they were right-handed and left
handed. They could shoot an arrow with either hand. They could use either hand
to sling a stone, and among these twenty-three were some of the most celebrated
champions of single combat ever known in the world's history. One of them,
Jashobeam, in one fight killed 300 men with one spear.
SAUL AND THE WITCH
OF ENDOR
It is important for us to note just here the Mosaic law against necromancy, or
an appeal to the dead by the living through a medium, i.e., a wizard, if a man,
or a witch, if a woman, and wherein lies the sin of necromancy, which relates
exclusively to trying to gather information from the dead. The law of Moses, in
the book of Deuteronomy, is very explicit that no Israelite should ever try to
gather information from the dead through a wizard or a witch, and the reason is
that hidden things belong to God and revealed things to us and our children.
The only lawful way to information concerning what lies beyond the grave is an
appeal to Jehovah, and if God does not disclose it, let it alone. The prophetic
teaching on this subject is found in the famous passage in Isaiah: "Woe to
them that seek to wizards and witches that chirp and mutter. Why should the
living seek unto the dead instead of unto the living God?"
Early in his reign Saul had rigidly enforced the Mosaic law putting the wizards
and witches to death, or driving them out of the country.
There are several theories of interpretation concerning the transaction in 1
Samuel 28:11-19, but I will discuss only three of them. Saul himself goes to
the witch of Endor and asks her to call up Samuel, making an inquiry of the
dead through a medium, wanting information that God had refused to give him.
These are the theories:
1. Some hold that there was no appearance of Samuel himself nor an
impersonation of him by an evil spirit; that there was nothing supernatural,
but only a trick of imposture by the witch, like many modern tricks by mediums
and spirit rappers, and that the historian merely records what appeared to be
on the surface. That is the first theory. That is the theory of the radical
critics, who oppose everything supernatural, and you know without my telling
you what my opinion is of that theory. There are indeed many tricks of
imposture by pretended fortunetellers, and some of them are marvelous, but such
impostures do not account for all the facts.
2. Others hold that there was a real appearance of Samuel, but -the witch
didn't bring him up; she was as much if not more, startled than Saul when he
came; that God himself interfered, permitting Samuel to appear to the
discomfiture of the witch, who cried out when she saw him, and to pronounce
final judgment on Saul. They quote in favor of this theory Ezekiel 14:3, 7-8:
"Son of man, these men have taken their idols into their heart, and put
the stumbling block of their iniquity before their face: should I be inquired
of at all by them? . . . For every one of the house of Israel, or of the
strangers that sojourn in Israel, that separateth himself from me, and taketh
his idols into his heart, and putteth the stumbling block of his iniquity
before his face, and cometh to the prophet to inquire for himself of me; I,
Jehovah, will answer him by myself; and I will set my face against that man,
and will make him an astonishment, for a sign and a proverb, and I will cut him
off from the midst of my people." They interpret this passage to mean that
when a man violated God's law,. as Saul and this witch did, that God took it
upon himself to answer, and answered through Samuel.
That theory is the Jewish view throughout the ages. According to the Septuagint
rendering of 1 Chronicles 10:13, "Saul asked counsel of her that had a
familiar spirit, and Samuel made answer to him." It further appears to be
the Jewish view by the apocryphal book Ecclesiasticus 46:20, which says,
"After his death Samuel prophesied and showed the king his end, and lifted
up his voice from the earth in prophecy." The Jewish view further appears
in Josephus who thinks that Samuel was really there, but that God sent him; not
that the witch had brought him up or could do it. This view was adopted by many
early Christian writers; for example, Justin Martyr, Origen, and Augustine, all
great men, and this view is held more and more by modern commentators, among
them, for instance, Edersheim, in his History of Israel, and Kirkpatrick in the
"Cambridge Bible," and Blaikie in the "Expositor's Bible,"
and Taylor in his History of David and His Times. All those books I have
recommended; they all take that second view.
3. Now here is the third theory of interpretation. First, there is such a thing
as necromancy, in which, through mediums possessed of evil spirits which
spirits do impersonate the dead and do communicate with the living. This theory
holds that the case of Saul and the witch of Endor is in point – that an evil
spirit (for this woman is said to have had a familiar spirit; she was possessed
with an evil spirit and the business of these evil spirits in their demoniacal
possession is to impersonate dead people;) caused the semblance of Samuel to
appear and speak through his mouth. This theory claims. that the scripture in
Job 3:17, to wit: "When the good man dies he goes where the wicked cease
from troubling and the weary are at rest," would be violated if this had
really been Samuel, who said, "Wherefore hast thou disquieted me?"
And whoever this man was that appeared did say that.
If God had sent him he could not very well have used that language. God had a
right to do as he pleased, but Saul had no right to try to call back a dead man
to get information from him. This theory also claims that the prophecy
pronounced by that semblance of Samuel was not true, but it would have been
true if Samuel had said it. That prophecy says, "Tomorrow thou and thy
sons shall be with me," but Saul didn't die until three days later; on the
third day the battle of Gilboa was fought, and that Samuel, neither dead nor
alive, would have told a falsehood. Very many early Christian writers adopt
this theory, among them Tertullian and Jerome, the author of the Vulgate or
Latin version of the Bible, and nearly all of the reformers, Luther, Calvin,
and all those mighty minds that wrought out the reformation. They took the
position that the evil spirit simulated Samuel. Those who hold to this theory
further say that unless this is an exception, nowhere else in the Word of God
is any man who died mentioned as coming back with a message to the living
except the Lord; that he is the first to bring life and immortality to light
through the gospel after he had abolished death. They do not believe that the
circumstances in this case warrant an exception to the rule that applies to the
whole Bible, and particularly they quote the parable of the rich man and
Lazarus. The rich man asks that Lazarus might go back to the other world with a
message to his brethren, and it was refused on the ground that they have Moses
and the prophets, and if a man won't hear Moses and the prophets neither would
he hear though one rose from the dead. That makes a strong case.
Certainly the first theory is not true, and the other two theories are
advocated with such plausibility and force that I will leave you to take
whatever side you please. My own opinion is that Samuel was not there, but on a
matter of this kind let us not be dogmatic. Let us do our own thinking and we
will be in good company no matter which of these last theories we adopt.
A great many years ago, when spirit rapping was sweeping over the country, it
was a custom among Methodist preachers to tell about visitations they had from
the dead, and warnings that they had received, and J. R. Graves fought it. He
said that it was against the written law of God, the law of Moses and the
prophets, and our Lord and his apostles, and that we didn't need any
revelations from dead people, whereupon a Methodist preacher named Watson
challenged him to debate the question and they did debate it. Graves stood on
this position: There isn't a case in the Bible where one who died was allowed
to come back with a message to the living but Jesus only, and he is the only
traveler that has ever returned from that bourne to throw light on the state of
the dead. In the debate, of course, the central case was that of Saul, the
witch of Endor and Samuel. If Watson couldn't maintain himself on that it was not
worth while to go to any other case. Watson quoted the appearance of Moses and
Elijah on the Mount of Transfiguration. Graves said, "Yes. They did
appear, but they had no message for living people; none for the apostles."
Then he finally made all of his fight on this case. I read the debate with
great interest. It was published, but it is out of print.
GILBOA
The description of the battle and the results are so explicit in the text that
I refer the reader to the Bible account of this great battle. But we need to
reconcile 1 Samuel 31:4-6, and 1 Chronicles 10:4-6. Both of these assert that
Saul committed suicide – fell on his sword and died – and that he did die (2
Samuel 1:6-10), where that Amalekite who brought the news to David of the
battle says that he found Saul wounded, and that Saul asked the Amalekite to
kill him, and that the Amalekite did kill him. The Amalekite brought also to
David a bracelet and a crown that belonged to Saul. You are asked to reconcile
these two statements. Did Saul commit suicide? We know he tried to do it, but
did he actually commit suicide, or did that Amalekite, after Saul fell on his
sword, find him still alive and kill him? My answer is that the Amalekite lied.
The record clearly says that Saul did kill himself, and his armor-bearer saw
that he was dead, and every reference in the scriptures is to the death by his
own hand except this one. This Amalekite, knowing that Saul and David were in a
measure rivals, supposed that he might ingratiate himself with David if he could
bring evidence that he had killed Saul.
There is no doubt that this Amalekite was there and found Saul's body, and no
doubt he stripped that dead body of the bracelet and the crown, but his story
was like the story of Joe in the "Wild Western Scenes." An Indian had
been killed, stabbed through the heart, and the heart blood gushing all over
the man who slew him. The fight was so hot that Joe, being a coward, stayed
there fighting the dead Indian, and so they found him there stabbing and saying
that the man that had first stabbed him through thought he had killed him, but
that he was not dead and had got up and attacked him, and he had been having a
desperate fight with the Indian.
The news of this battle sadly affected Jonathan's son. Everybody that heard of
the battle started to flee across the Jordan, and the nurse picked up
Jonathan's child and in running dropped him and he fell, and became a cripple
for life. We will have some very interesting things about this crippled child
after a while.
The gratitude and heroism of the men of Jabeshgilead are worthy of note.
The Philistines had cut off Saul's head and sent it back to the house of their
god, and took his armor and hung up his body and the body of his son Jonathan
and the bodies of the two brothers of Jonathan on the wall of Bethshan, and
when the men of Jabeshgilead (who had been delivered by Saul as the first act
of his reign, and who always remembered him with gratitude) heard that Saul was
killed, they sent out that night their bravest men and took those bodies down,
carried them over the Jordan, burned them enough to escape recognition, and
buried their bones under a tree. A long time afterwards David had the bones
brought and buried in the proper place. I always think kindly of those men of Jabeshgilead.
David's lament over Saul and Jonathan is found in 2 Samuel 1. That lamentation,
expressed in the text, is one of the most beautiful elegaic poems in the
literature of the world. It is found on page 104 of the textbook. It is not a
religious song. It is a funeral song, an elegy, afterward called "The
Bow," and David had "the song of the bow" taught to Israel,
referring to Jonathan's bow. I give just a little of it: Ye daughters of Israel, weep
over Saul, Who clothed you in scarlet delicately, Who put ornaments of gold
upon your apparel. How are the mighty fallen in the midst of the battle!
Now the tribute to Jonathan: Jonathan is slain upon thy high places. I am distressed for thee, my
brother Jonathan: Very pleasant hast thou been unto me. Thy love to me was
wonderful, Passing the love of women.
Every admirer of good poetry bears tribute to this exquisite gem, and it has
this excellency: It forgets the faults and extols the virtues of the dead. Saul
had done many mighty things. That part of Gray's Elegy, "No further seek
his merits to disclose," compares favorably with this. It is the only
elegy equal to David's.
QUESTIONS
1. Analyze David's sin of
despair, and in order, the train of sins and embarrassments that follow.
2. What great modern sermon
was preached on the despair of David, taking this line for a text: "I
shall one day perish by the and of Saul"?
3. How was this am of David
punished?
4. How does he recover
himself from this sin?
5. What judicious uses of
the victory did he make?
6. What great accessions to
David at Ziklag?
7. What the Mosaic law
against necromancy, or an appeal to the dead by the living through a medium,
i.e., a wizard, if a man, or a witch, if a woman, and wherein lies the sin of
necromancy?
8. What the prophetic
teaching on this subject2
9. What had Saul done to
enforce the Mosaic law?
10. What theories of
interpretation concerning the transaction in I Samuel 28:11-19?
11. Describe the battle of
Gilboa and the results.
12. Reconcile 1 Samuel
31:4-6 and 1 Chronicles 10:4-6.
13. How did the news of the
battle affect Jonathan's son?
14. Describe the gratitude
and heroism of the men of Jabeshgilead.
15. How did David lament
over Saul and Jonathan, 2 Samuel 1?
HISTORICAL INTRODUCTION TO 2 SAMUEL AND 1
CHRONICLES
The biblical sources of material for a history of the reign of David is found in
2 Samuel and 1 Chronicles. Apart from these two books, the biblical material
for an interpretation of this history is: (1) the Psalter; (2) the utterances
of the prophets; (3) New Testament comment.
The two biblical histories of David's reign are independent histories, composed
by different authors, far separated in time from each other, and with quite
distinct purposes. 2 Samuel was written by contemporaneous prophets, very often
witnesses and participators in the events related. Their purpose is to give a
simple, connected history of so many of the events in David's life as will
reveal the man, and so much of the monarchy as bears upon the idea of a
theocratic monarchy in its relation to the kingdom of God. All material
irrelevant to that purpose is omitted. Inspiration guides them in the selection
of the matter recorded and in the rejection of the matter omitted, but 1
Chronicles was written by Ezra after the downfall of the monarchy and with a
view to establish, on a right foundation, the hierarchy which succeeds the
monarchy, and to comfort the Jews of the Restoration who have no earthly king
or earthly kingdom by turning their minds toward the coming of a visible but
spiritual kingdom to be set up by David's great Descendant, the Lord from
heaven. While it is as real a history as 2 Samuel, its purpose is more
distinctly didactic and philosophical.
The author of Chronicles, with the book of Samuel before him, copies many
passages word for word, or, where it suits his purpose better, follows the
substance with a slight variation in detail. In many other instances, and at a
great length, he uses material from original prophetic sources perceived
nowhere else in the Bible, citing the names of the prophetic author. This great
bulk of additional matter in Chronicles while old in its origin, is new in its
use, and is essential to the purpose of the author in preparing the people for
the change from monarchy to hierarchy. On this account also he omits matters
quite important to the purpose of the historian of the book of Samuel, but
irrelevant to his own; for example, the history of David's reign over Judah
alone; the war with the house of Saul; David's kindness to Mephibosheth,
Jonathan's son; David's adultery and its punishment; the history of Absalom's
rebellion; the execution of Saul's sons; David's thanksgiving and last words.
None of these is in Chronicles.
These omissions, when considered with the omissions of so many thrilling events
in David's early life and his outlaw life, already noticed, show plainly that
the Samuel book is more the life of the man, while Chronicles is more the
history of the monarchy. So, later, Chronicles will omit the entire history of
the defection under Jeroboam and the history of the several dynasties of the
seceding ten tribes, and confine itself to the line of David and the unity of
the nation and monarchy in Judah, carefully reciting the return to Judah of
representatives of all the seceding ten tribes, showing clearly that while the
bulk of revolting tribes were lost in the fall of the Northern Kingdom and so
go out of history, yet these tribes were preserved and perpetuated in the
return of their remnants to Judah. Therefore Chronicles gives not a thought to
the useless modern question, "What became of the lost ten tribes?"
Neither it nor any subsequent Bible book knows anything of lost tribes. The
tribes were not lost any more than they were lost in the thirty-eight years of
the wilderness wanderings where a generation perished, but the tribes survived.
They count all the tribes preserved in the remnants that came back to Judah.
Chronicles pays no attention to their history while apart, but is very careful
to report their return. Precisely for the same reasons Chronicles barely
touches Saul's history, or the history of his children after him, seeing that
the monarchy is not perpetuated in Saul's line, but is very careful to
catalogue the warriors coming from Saul's kingdom to David at Adullam and
Ziklag, and the mighty hosts from all the tribes who came to Hebron to make him
king over all Israel, and gives such details of the plague threatening the
national life, and hence as bearing on the hierarchy after the downfall of the
monarchy.
Chronicles records the elaborate details not elsewhere found of the
arrangements on the occasion of the translation of the ark of the covenant to
Jerusalem. It gives two whole chapters to that and part of another. It gives an
entire chapter to David's preparation of the Temple material. It gives several
entire chapters to the elaborate organization of the priests and the Levites,
the army and the civil service, and to the national assembly at Solomon's
accession. A restatement of all of these things of the past was intensely
helpful toward the establishment and perpetuity of the hierarchy after the
monarchy is gone.
The chronology in 2 Samuel and 1 Chronicles is simply the chronology of the
reign of David. The period of time covered by these two books touching David is
forty years. After profound study, the harmonist, as shown in the textbook, gives
his conception of the time order of the events. It is a big problem, but I
think you may more safely rely at least substantially, on the order in the
Cambridge Bible, which I cite, using my own words:
1. The reign of David at Hebron, seven and a half years, i.e., from 1055 B.C.
to 1048 B.C.
2. The date of Absalom's birth somewhere between 1052 B.C. and 1050 B.C.
3. The reign of Ishbosheth, and the civil war with the house of Saul, 1050-1048
B.C.
4. The reign of David at Jerusalem after that period extends from 1048 to 1015
B.C.
5. The period of the foreign wars comes next, about ten years, i.e., from 1045
to 1035 B.C.
6. The date of David's sin with Bathsheba, 1035 B.C.
7. The outrage of Amnon the very next year, 1034 B.C.
8. Absalom's rebellion, which grows out of it, 1023 B.C.
9. The period of tranquility and national growth from 1023 to 1015 B.C.
10. The date of the great plague in 1018 B.C.
11. David's death, 1015 B.C.
I have changed the Cambridge order somewhat, but my study on it has been
profound, both in original investigation and in the examination of a great many
books. That is about the time-order of the events contained in these two books.
I could give my argument for it, but that would take up a great deal of space.
This Old Testament history, as well as all other Old Testament history, differs
from secular history in three particulars: (1) In the subject matter, in that
it is a history of the special training and discipline of God's chosen people.
(2) In its giving events as God sees them and not as man sees them. (3) In the
selection of the material it uses, putting in nothing that does not bear upon
the whole plan of the Old Testament as the preparation for the New.
A writer of United States history would not think of leaving out the details of
seven or eight great wars, but this sacred historian leaves out any number of
them, since these details have no relation to the great purpose of the
historian. I am quite sure that one should not study this history as be studies
secular history.
It must be studied as the record of the divine preparation for the incarnation
of the Son of God. The whole of the Old Testament is a preparation for the New
Testament. The Old Testament not only contains prophecies, but the whole
history itself is a prophecy.
The elements of this preparation are: (1) The discipline and training of the
chosen nation that it might be the home of the Son of God when he came. (2) The
development of the ideas involving the offices of the Messiah – what the
Messiah was to be when he came – Sacrifice, Prophet, Priest, King, and Judge.
The main contribution of 2 Samuel and 1 Chronicles is toward the king idea. In
Genesis, Exodus, and Leviticus the sacrifices point to the mission of the Son
of God to be a sacrifice for sin, and also to his being the priest through whom
atonement is effected. 1 Samuel contributes the additional idea of the prophet.
These books will put before us the king, and when the Messiah comes he is to
come as king – the King of kings and Lord of lords, and when we study them we
study them in view of their messianic forecast. These two books contribute to
the messianic idea also. In David we certainly find a prophet. He is one of the
greatest prophets of the Old Testament. In David we certainly find a king)
exercising priestly functions, though not belonging to the tribe of Levi. In
other words, he is a king and priest. In David we find the high ideal of the
king – prophet, priest, and king, and these books bring that out clearly.
So far in the history of David we have learned simply his preparation to be
king. We have seen that preparation: (1) In his shepherd life. (2) In his long
novitiate of suffering in his outlaw-life. The man has been trained physically,
mentally, normally. How often have I said to young preachers, "Only
prepared men accomplish great things, and a preacher can make no more hurtful
mistakes than to suppose that it is a waste of time and money to prepare to be
efficient when he does work." Having learned in 1 Samuel David's
preparation to be king, we are to learn in these two books what he did as king.
This is the reign now for which all other was a preparation.
The difficulties to be surmounted, if he reigns after God's heart and not
Saul's, are many and grave:
1. He must secure the unity of the nation. In Judges we see twelve tribes, each
one going off at a tangent, as that expression so often repeated in the book
says, "In those days there was no king in Israel, and each man did what
seemed to him to be right." Sometimes Judah is before us, sometimes
Naphtali, sometimes Gad, sometimes Manasseh; it is not a nation, but twelve
loosely-jointed tribes. The first thing that David has to do is to secure the
unity of the nation. It takes him seven and a half years to do it after he is
crowned at Hebron. So that is his first achievement, and that will be my next
discussion – the seven and a half years that David reigned at Hebron while the
house of Saul held the greater part of the territory.
2. The second difficulty was to provide a central place of worship that would
not cause jealousies, and such services at that place of worship as would help
perpetuate the unity of the nation. Never before had these been fully attained.
I stop here long enough to make a remark that I may repeat later, that when the
thirteen original colonies seceded from England and under a loose sort of
compact fought the Revolutionary War, and at the close of the war began to take
steps for a more permanent union, one of the greatest problems was, "Where
are we to put the capital?" and it is a very interesting part of American
history to read the debates on the location of the capital. If the discussion
had been deferred till our time the capital would never have been put at
Washington, but it was the right place then. It had been partly in New York,
partly in Philadelphia, and sometimes "on wheels," and the biggest
kind of a compromise was effected by its permanent location, and in order that
no State might claim the capital, Virginia and Maryland were to donate for it a
certain district to be national property.
Here we see David do something much like that. He would. not have his capital
at Hebron, as that would look too much like a Judah-capital, nor Gibeah, where
Saul had reigned. He takes an entirely new place, to be owned by all the nation
– half in Judah and half in Benjamin.
3. The third thing that he has to do is to destroy, or at least break the
backbone of those enemies who have been fighting the children of Israel ever
since their settlement in the country. You will see David do this. You will see
him crush under his feet, and under the iron hand of his power, every national
enemy. There will be no more a battle of Gilboa. There will be no more
"grindstone" periods, and for the first time you will see the
boundaries filled out just as God stated them originally in his promises. They
will reach from the River of Egypt to the Euphrates. 4. He must organize what
is called a "civil service," that is, an administrative body. He counts
it important to provide a financial system adequate to supply national needs
and representation at foreign courts – all things of that kind. Then, he must
organize an army, so as not to depend upon indiscriminate levies such as we
have seen Deborah, Barak, Gideon, Jephtha, and Saul doing, blowing a trumpet
and calling a big militia crowd out that will fight if you let them fight
quick, but they have to go home next week. If they win a fight they must go
home to divide the spoils – must take something to the wives and children.
5. He had to organize the kingdom – organize its priests and Levites with a
view to such services at the central place of worship as would make that
central place of unity the joy of the whole earth; make it the mightiest power
in holding the nation together. He is for the first time to organize the choir,
so famous in the Temple service.
6. The sixth point, and no less important than the others, he must prepare for
a transfer of the succession without trouble. There is where trouble comes to
nations, when one ruler goes out and another comes in; when one king dies, who
shall be his successor. We will see how wisely David safeguarded the nation at
all points so far as he could do it, and he certainly did provide for the
succession of his son Solomon.
As we have only one other question to consider I will restate these six points:
(1) To secure unity of the nation. (2) Central place of worship. (3) Services
of a character to maintain the unity. (4) Destruction of opposing enemies. (5)
Organization. (6) Provision for succession. You will have learned great things
from these two books when you get these fixed in your mind.
David was a type of Christ:
1. He is called the "Lord's anointed," and "Anointed" is
what the word "Christ" means. "Christ" is English;
Christos is Greek; "Messiah" is Hebrew; they all mean the same
thing.
2. He was a type of Christ in uniting in one person the offices of prophet,
priest, and king.
3. He was a type of Christ in the trials and sufferings of the preparation for his
reign. Look at that suffering life; look at the awful persecutions, and then
read in the New Testament about the Saviour's sufferings before he got to the
point where it could be said of him: "Lift up your heads, O ye gates; and
be ye lifted up, ye everlasting doors; and let the King of Glory come in."
What an awful preparation Christ had to pass through!
4. He was a type of Christ in the expressions in the Psalms of the agony of the
messianic sufferings. When we come to the Psalter we will understand better the
typical character of David.
5. He was a type of Christ in that he was God's representative to man, and
man's representative to God.
6. And here is a strange one – He was a type of Christ in being the head or
ruler of the heathen, as well as the beloved monarch of his own people. That
thought is very clearly brought out in our history.
7. He marked the place of Christ's birth by being born there himself.
QUESTIONS
1. What the biblical sources
of material for a history of the reign of David?
2. Apart from these two
books, what biblical material have we for an interpretation of this history?
3. Restate the relations
between the two biblical histories of David's reign.
4. What of the chronology in
2 Samuel and 1 Chronicles?
5. What the probable
time-order of the events in these books?
6. How does this Old
Testament history, as well as all other Old Testament history, differ from
secular history?
7. How then must this
history be studied?
8. What the elements of this
preparation?
9. How much do 2 Samuel and
1 Chronicles contribute toward this preparation?
10. How much do these two
books contribute to the messianic idea?
11. So far in the history of
David, what have we learned?
12. What are we to learn in
these two books?
13. What the difficulties to
be surmounted, if he reigns after God's heart and not Saul's?
14. How was David a type of
Christ?
DAVID, KING OF JUDAH AT HEBRON,
AND THE WAR WITH THE HOUSE OF SAUL
2 Samuel 1:1 to 4:13; 1 Chronicles 3.1-4a
and Harmony, pages 103-108.
The state of the nation just after the battle of Gilboa was this:
1. The Philistines held all central Palestine, the remnants of Saul's family
and army, together with the people of that section, having fled across the
Jordan, leaving all their possessions to the enemy.
2. David had gained a sweeping victory in the South country over the Amalekites
and their allies, and had distributed the spoils among the near-by cities of
Judah, but as Ziklag was destroyed he had no home.
In these conditions David displayed both piety and wisdom. He submitted the
whole matter of his duty to Jehovah's direction, and accordingly went with all
his family and forces and possessions and settled at Hebron, there to await
further indications of the divine will as they might be expressed to him by
communication through prophet, priest, or providential leadings. He knew on
many assurances that he was anointed to be king over Israel, but would not
complicate a distressful situation by hasty assertion of his claim. He well
knew that the charter of the kingdom required the people's voluntary
ratification of the divine choice, and took no steps to coerce their
acquiescence.
Hebron was specially valuable as his home and headquarters pending the
ratification by the people. It was the sacred city of Judah, hallowed by many
historic memories from Abraham's day to his own time. These memories clustered
around him as a shelter and comfort, and a reminder of all the precious
promises given to the fathers. Hebron was their home when living and burial
place when dead. The aegis of a long line of illustrious sires was over him
there as the heir of all legacies. It was also the most notable of the six
cities of refuge. Whoever assaulted him, resting there by divine direction,
must fight all the sacred memories of the past and all the glorious promises of
the future. Jehovah, prophet, priest, and Levite were with him there. Moreover,
this old city – one of the oldest in the world – was defensible against attack,
and strategical for either observation or aggression.
The first expression of popular approval was when all Judah gathered there and
made him king of the royal tribe concerning which a dying ancestor had
prophesied: "The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from
between his feet, till Shiloh come; and unto him shall be the obedience of the
nations." This act alone by this one tribe was worth more to David than
recognition by all the other tribes.
The sending of an embassy by David to the men of Jabeshgilead, carrying his
benediction for their loyalty to Saul in rescuing and burying with due honor
his body and the bodies of his sons gibbetted in public shame on the walls of
Besshan, together with his promise to requite what they had done, bears every
stamp of tender sincerity and not one mark of a mere politician. What he did is
in entire accord with all his past and future acts toward the house of Saul. He
himself, under the greatest provocation, had never struck back at Saul, twice
sparing his life, never conspiring against him, not only in every way honoring
him as God's anointed, but instantly inflicting the death penalty on every man
who sought to gain his favor by indignity offered to Saul or any of his family.
Considering this past and future conduct toward the house of Saul, the evident
tenderness of his elegy over Saul and Jonathan, we may not construe as the
adroit stroke of a politician the last clause of his message, to wit.: "Now,
therefore, let your hands be strong, and be ye valiant; for Saul your lord is
dead, and also the house of Judah have anointed me king over them." This
is an exceedingly modest intimation that the way is now open for them without
any disloyalty to the fallen house, to turn their allegiance to God's choice of
Saul's successor. But this generous proposition of David was defeated, and a
long and bloody civil war was brought on by the ambition of one man, Abner) the
uncle of Saul, who, for mere selfish ends set up Ishbosheth, a son of Saul, as
king. Here we need to explain the parenthetical clause of 2 Samuel 2:10 in
connection with 2 Samuel 3:1. This parenthetical clause reads:
"Ishbosheth, Saul's son, was forty years old when he began to reign over Israel,
and he reigned two years." The other verse reads: "Now there was long
war between the house of Saul and the house of David."
Attention has been called more than once to the uncertainty in Old Testament
text, in numbers, because its numerals are expressed in letters, and that
mistakes of transcription easily occur. Now if the two years in this clause
expresses the true text, and not seven years and a half, then the meaning must
be this – that Abner set up Ishbosheth just as soon as possible after the battle
of Gilboa, but it took him more than five years to bring all of the tribes
except Judah into acceptance of Ishbosheth as king, and two years describes the
last two of the seven and a half. If that be the meaning, then the history does
not give the details of Abner's five and a half years' struggle to bring about
Ishbosheth's rule over all Israel but Judah, and these details must have shown,
if we had any, that he had to drive out the Philistines that held the
territory, and hence it was only in the latter part of Ishbosheth's reign,
counting from the time he was set up, to the approach to the west side of the
Jordan which is described in this chapter.
It is evident from all the context that Abner knew that David was God's choice,
for he says so later on and makes a point on it. It is also evident that he
regards Ishbosheth as assumption of the sovereignty. His taking to himself of
Saul's harem, against which Ishbosheth protested, did mean Just what Ishbosheth
said it meant – that it was equal to claiming the kingdom for himself. As soon,
therefore, as he finds out that his motive is thoroughly understood, then as an
evidence that good motives have not actuated him, he announces to Ishbosheth
that he is going to carry all the people back to David, God's choice.
We recall from English history that the Duke of Warwick is called "The
King Maker;" that he made Edward IV king, and when Edward IV insulted him
then he took sides with Henry VI and made him king. Just exactly in this way
Abner acts in this history. His motives, therefore, are merely the motives of a
man who knows that his course is opposed to God and to the best interests of
the people, but is determined to further his own selfish ambitions.
This war of seven and a half years was thus characterized: "And David
waxed stronger and stronger, but the house of Saul waxed weaker and
weaker." But when, after five and a half years of confirming the authority
of Ishbosheth, Abner felt himself strong enough, he left the east side of the
Jordan and carried his army over near Gibeah, Saul's old home, with the evident
purpose of making Ishbosheth king over the whole nation. David did not make the
aggression, but he resisted aggression, so he sends out his army under Joab and
they stand opposed to each other near a pool of water at Gibeah. A hostile army
being brought that near Hebron, David has to meet it. The war then was
evidently forced by the house of Saul.
The events, in order, leading up to David's being made king over all Israel are
as follows: The first event is Joab's great victory over Abner at Gibeah. Abner
proposed that a dozen champions from each side fight a duel and let that settle
the whole question. When these twenty-four men met they met with such fury that
at the first stroke every man on either side killed his opponent and was killed
by his opponent, so that the duel was not decisive, but it brought on the
fight. Joab then gains an easy victory. One of Joab's brothers, Asahel, swift
of foot, follows Abner, pursues him, and your history tells you that Abner
killed Asahel by thrusting him through with the butt end of his spear, striking
backward. I suppose the end of the spear was sharp, as he didn't hit him with
the point, but with the sharpened butt of it. That stopped the battle, but no
injury to Joab ever stopped him until he wreaked his vengeance. So here it
ended by killing Abner for the death of Asahel, as we will see a little later.
The next event, in order, is the quarrel between Abner and Ishbosheth on
account of Ishbosheth's protest against the infamous deed of Abner, and the
next is Abner's deserting to David, persuading the tribes that Ishbosheth is
just a figurehead and his cause getting weaker all the time, and David is
getting stronger, and the right thing to do was for all to come in and
recognize the king that God had chosen. Abner came to David making that
proposition. David told him that the first thing to be done was that he should
restore Michal, his wife, who had been given to another man. I do not know that
any particular love prompted David. I don't see why, with the number of wives
he already had, he had any love to pour out on her, but if he had any political
stroke in view it was that if the daughter of Saul was brought back to him as
his wife, then it would make it easier for the followers of Saul to come to
this united family, representing both sides, as it was proposed by Catherine de
Medici to unite the Huguenots and the Romanists by marriage between Henry of
Navarre on the Huguenot side to Margaret, the sister of King Charles of France,
on the other side.
The next event is the murder of Abner by Joab – a cold blooded murder. The plan
of it was agreed on between himself and his brother Abishai that they would
send for Abner, who had left after his interview with David, and bring him back
in David's name, and then Joab proposed to step aside and inquire about his
health, and while he is inquiring about his health he stabbed him under the
fifth rib. David laments the death of Abner, but does not punish Joab. On the
contrary, he says, "These sons of Zeruiah are too hard for me." His
sister, Zeruiah, had three sons – Joab, Abishai, and Asahel. He will have a
good deal more trouble with that family yet. They will be harder than they were
in this case.
The next step was, seeing that Ishbosheth now has no standing; Abner dead, no
general, the people all agreeing to go back to David, two ruffians who wanted
to make capital with David assassinated Ishbosheth and carried the news of
their assassination to David, expecting to be rewarded. He rewarded them very
promptly – by executing them. There are the events in order that led up to the
union of the nation under David.
The children born to David in Hebron are mentioned in the record: Ammon, or
Amnon, the son of Abinoam. We will find out about him later. It would have been
better if he had never been born. The next one is Chileab, or Daniel, as he is
called in Chronicles, a son of Abigail. We do not know whether he turned out
well or ill, as he drops out of the history. The next one is Absalom, the son
of Maacah, the daughter of Tairnai, the king of Geshur. We will certainly hear
of him later. It would have been better if he had never been born. The others
make no mark in the history at all. O this polygamy! This polygamy! The
jealousies of polygamy! It is an awful thing. Now let us look at the character
of Abner, Ishbosheth, and Joab. Abner was a man of considerable talent and
influence, but unscrupulously ambitious. Ishbosheth had just about as much
backbone as a jellyfish. Joab was a great general – a very stern, selfish
warrior. Himself as unscrupulous as Abner, though not as disloyal. But we are a
long way from being done with Joab. A great text for a sermon in this section
is: "These sons of Zeruiah are too hard for me;" that is, a man
should beware, in accomplishing his purposes, of the character of the
instruments that he associates with him. If he calls in Turks, Tartars, and
Huns to be his allies, then after a while he will have to settle with his
allies, and he may find that his allies are too strong for him. A proverb
advises us to keep no company with a violent man. We are always in danger if a
violent, unscrupulous man is our associate. Like poor dog, Tray, we may get a
beating for being in their company.
We have Joab's reply to Abner in 2 Samuel 2:27: "Then Abner called to Joab
and said, Shall the sword devour forever? Knowest thou not that it will be
bitterness in the latter end? How long shall it be then, ere thou bid the
people return from following their brethren?" Joab was pursuing them
sorely. "And Joab said, Ag God liveth, if thou hadst not spoken, surely
then in the morning the people had gone away, nor followed every one his
brother." What is the sense of that last verse? Abner speaks and wants to
know why they are pursuing him, and Joab says, "If thou hadst not spoken
then every man would not be pursuing his brother." I will leave that to
the reader and the commentaries as to just what Joab meant.
QUESTIONS
1. What the state of the
nation just after the battle of Gilboa?
2. In these conditions how
did David display both piety and wisdom?
3. What the value of Hebron
as his home and headquarters pending the ratification by the people?
4. What was the first
expression of popular approval?
5. Was David's embassy to
the men of Jabeshgilead the sincere act of a statesman, or an adroit stroke of
a politician?
6. What defeated this
generous proposition of David and brought on a long and bloody civil war?
7. Explain the parenthetical
clause of 2 Samuel 2:10 in connection with 2 Samuel 3:1.
8. Judging from his conduct
throughout, what motives must have inspired Abner?
9. What characterizes this
war of seven and one-half years?
10. Show how aggression came
from Abner.
11. State, in order, the
events leading up to David's being made king over all Israel.
12. What children were born
to David in Hebron, and what may we say about them?
13. What the character of
Abner, Ishbosheth, and Joab?
14. What great text for a
sermon in this section? l5. What. the sense of Joab's reply to Abner. 2 Samuel
2:27?
DAVID MADE KING OVER ALL ISRAEL,
AND THE CAPTURE OF JERUSALEM FOR A CAPITAL
2 Samuel 5:1-10; 1 Chronicles 11:1-9;
12:23-40 and Harmony, pages 108-109.
This section is short, but intensely important. Please observe the method of
the harmonist in arranging the text of the reign of David into periods of war,
rest, and internal dissensions. This arrangement is admirable for topical
discussion, but does not follow a strict chronological order of events. It is a
characteristic of the histories themselves to intersperse here and there in the
details of the story a comprehensive summary extending far beyond the specific
details which precede or follow – for example, 2 Samuel 5:4-14.
The first notable event of this section is that David is made king over all
Israel, at Hebron. For this consummation David himself deserves unstinted
praise. There was nothing in his own conduct while Saul lived or after his
death to make it difficult for any surviving partisan of Saul's house to come
over to David. Under persecution he had been loyal; in opportunities for
vengeance he had been merciful; in the hour of triumph his spirit was not
arrogant but conciliatory; in the long postponement of the divine purpose he
was not impatient, never seeking, as some of his ancestors had done, to hasten
by his own meddling the ripening of Jehovah's prophecies and promises. And when
some of his too zealous or more vengeful partisans took short cuts toward the
destined end on lines of their own passions, he made it evident by signal
rebuke that he was not personally responsible for their wrong-doing. He never
rewarded a traitor for assassinating a member of the house of Saul except with
instant execution and with expressions of the most pronounced abhorrence of
their crimes. In impassioned and evidently sincere elegy he bore high tribute
to the merits of the dead, mingled with a matchless charity that was silent as
to their demerits, while sending benedictions to those who befriended them. So
the remnants of Saul's following and family had no grievances against David to
forget or to forgive.
When we place over against this conduct of David the conduct of Philip II of
Spain, the contrast is awful. Philip openly and habitually offered large
rewards to assassins who by any means would murder his enemies, and sang, Te
Deum Laudamus when they succeeded. His nature was as cold as a frog, poisonous
as a snake, treacherous as a coyote, cruel as a panther. In wholesale murder,
arson, and confiscation he was the prince of criminals, eclipsing the infamy of
both Nero and Herod, and in stark unctuous hypocrisy none in the annals of time
might dare to claim equality with him, much less pre-eminence over him. He was
the Monster of the centuries. It certainly must have caused Satan himself to
put on a sardonic grin when hearing Philip called "His most Christian
majesty." Spain, at Philip's accession, was the dominant world-power; he
left it with none so poor to do it reverence. Judea, at David's accession, was
at the bottom place among the nations; he left it on top, the glory of the
world. The contrast spells just this: David was a saint, Philip was a devil.
It is to be regretted that so little reason prompted those tribes, now eager
for union, to promote the defection which this union healed. Under the dominant
influence of a selfish leader they set up Ishbosheth against the known will of
Jehovah. They warred in open aggression against the choice of Jehovah. They
made no decisive effort toward pacification while they had a leg to stand on,
and when they did come back into the union their expressed reasons for return,
while evidently now sincere, were all equally strong against their making the
original breach. Look at these reasons and see. They assign three reasons for
their return: (1) "Behold we are thy bone and thy flesh." (2)
"In times past, when Saul was king over us, it was thou that leddest out
and broughtest in Israel." (3) "Jehovah said to thee, Thou shalt be
shepherd of my people, and thou shalt be prince over Israel." In view of
these cogent reasons, one may well inquire, Why, then, a long and bloody war of
division?
The steps of the national reunion were these:
1. An armed host of all the tribes came simultaneously to David at Hebron to
make him king.
2. Their elders, as representatives, enter into solemn covenant with him before
Jehovah.
3. They anoint him king over all Israel.
4. A three-day's festival of great joy celebrates the event. All these steps
were profoundly significant, and are worthy of comment.
Concerning the first step – the gathering of the armed host to Hebron – some
remarks are pertinent:
1. The total number of armed men who came together simultaneously from all of
the tribes was enormous. Apart from the captains, and with the contingent of
Issachar not stated, the total is 339,000, but assuming Issachar's contingent
to be somewhat between Zebulun's and Napthali's say 40,000, and adding the captains
which are enumerated, the total would be 380,221.
2. The very large contingent from the house of Aaron of both branches shows how
thoroughly the priesthood which Saul had hated stood by David.
3. The contingents from the least prominent tribes, Manaseeh, Zebulun,
Napthali, Asher, Reuben, and Gad, were all out of proportion greater than the
near-by tribes.
4. The small contingent from Benjamin is explained by the fact that even yet
the greater part were attached to the house of Saul, but the reason of Judah's
small number is not given. The trans-Jordanic two-and-a-half tribes send a
third of the total.
5. The remark concerning the contingent of the western half – Manasseh – is
that they came instructed to make David king.
6. The remark concerning the two hundred leaders of Issachar has been the theme
of many a sermon: "Men that had understanding of the times to know what
Israel ought to do." Oh, that such men were multiplied in our day!
7. Concerning Zebulun's 50,000, it is said they were "not of double
heart." May such men flourish in this unstable, twisting, and turning
generation!
8. Indeed, concerning all of them, it is said, "They came with perfect
heart to make David king." It was quite in accord with the patriarchal and
representative constitution of the nation that the princes and elders of the
tribes should act for them in entering into covenant with David. It must have
been an imposing sight, to see nearly half a million armed men in fifteen
distinct corps waiting at Hebron, while their statesmen, prophets, priests, and
generals deliberated on the terms of the covenant.
The Covenant. – The covenant itself doubtless was based on the charter of the
kingdom as defined by Moses and Samuel, which safeguarded the rights of all
parties concerned, to wit: Jehovah, the king, the national assembly, the
religion, and the people at large. It was an intensely religious act, seeing it
was "before Jehovah." Following this covenant came –
The Anointing. – David had already been twice anointed, first at Bethlehem
privately by Samuel as an expression of Jehovah's choice, and as a symbol of
the Spirit-power that rested on him. A second time here at Hebron his anointing
was expressive of Judah's choice, but now this third more public and imposing
anointing on such a grand occasion, following such a covenant, takes on a wider
and most charming significance so appropriately expressed by David himself in
Psalm 133 that it seems to have been occasioned by this event: Behold, how good and bow
pleasant it is For brethren to dwell together in unity! It is like the precious
oil upon the head, That ran down upon the beard, Even Aaron's beard; That came
down upon the skirt of his garments; Like the dew of Hermon, That cometh down
upon the mountains of Zion: Fur there Jehovah commanded the blessing, Even life
forevermore.
It is certain that never before nor since was there such a thorough and joyous
unity of the nation, and such brotherly love among the Jews, nor ever will be
until erring and dispersed Israel, long exiled from Jehovah's favor, shall be
gathered out of all nations and turn in one momentous day with such penitence
as the world has never known to David's greater Son, according to the
prophecies of Zechariah, Ezekiel, Isaiah, and Paul. Then, indeed, in one sense,
will the "Man of sorrows and acquainted with grief" be "anointed
with the oil of gladness above his fellows" because he sees "the
travail of his soul" concerning Israel and is satisfied. We might well
look to a greater fulfilment when the kingdoms of this world have become the
kingdom of our Lord and his Christ, at which time more appropriately than ever
before in the history may a redeemed and united world unite in singing the
greatest human coronation hymn, Bring forth the royal diadem And crown Him Lord
of all!
The festival. – Perhaps the most remarkable feature of the whole occasion is
the provision made for entertaining a half million people for three days. Our
text says, "And they were there with David three days, eating and
drinking: for their brethren had made preparation for them. Moreover, they that
were nigh unto them, even as far as Issachar and Zebulun and Naphtali, brought
bread on asses, and on camels, and on mules, and on oxen, victual of meal,
cakes of figs, and clusters of raisins, and wine, and oil, and oxen, and sheep
in abundance: for there was joy in Israel." This great festival of joy not
only reminds us of the sacrificial feast following the covenant at Sinai (Ex.
24:1-11), but prefigures the one announced in later days by Isaiah thus:
"And in this mountain will Jehovah of hosts make unto all people a feast
of fat things, a feast of wines on the lees, of fat things full of marrow, of
wines on the lees well refined. And he will destroy in this mountain the face
of the covering that covereth all peoples, and the veil that is spread over all
nations. He hath swallowed up death forever; and the Lord Jehovah will wipe
away tears from off all faces; and the reproach of his people will he take away
from off all the earth," Isaiah 25:6-8, or that greater festival adverted
to by our Lord when he said concerning the salvation of the multitudinous
thousands of the Gentiles, "Many shall come from the East and the West,
and the North and the South, and shall recline at the table with Abraham, and
Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven."
The auspices for the nation were all propitious. They have a king over them,
not like other nations, but a king after God's own heart. The rights, powers,
and privileges of all parties interested were all clearly defined and
solemnized by imposing ceremonies of religion. Here was God's choice of the
man, the ratification by the national assembly, bonds of charter and covenant,
the presence and concurrence of prophet and priests, to which may be added, in
the words of our text, "And all the rest also of Israel were all of one
heart to make David King." The plan of the kingdom, and its start are
perfect. If failure shall come in later days, as come it will, it will be no
fault in the plan.
The taking of Jerusalem. – David's first act of royalty tends to promote and
perpetuate the union, namely, the securing of a central capital, strong for
defense or aggression, and not likely to promote tribal jealousy. It would not
do to make Hebron, distinctly a city of Judah, the national capital, nor yet
Gibeah of Benjamin, where Saul had reigned. It must be a new place which
commanded the Arabah, the Negeb, the Mediterranean coast, and all the highways
from north to south and east to west. To meet these conditions there was but
one place, the city whose citadel was held by the Jebusites; part of it lay in
Judah's allotted territory and part in Benjamin's, but neither had driven the
Jebusites from the citadel which overawed the city.
Memories of the place. – It had been the city of Melchizedek, king of peace and
righteousness, priest of the Most High God, to whom Abraham had paid tithes,
and type of our Lord, David's greater son. There, also, on Mount Moriah, in the
greatest typical act of the ages, Abraham came to offer up his well-beloved
son, Isaac, the child of promise, and there, in a type of our Lord's
resurrection, was Isaac saved. The authority of Moses still cried, "Drive
out these Jebusites," so David called the united nation to arms.
The selection of a capital for a nation made up of varied and jealous
constituencies calls for the highest wisdom and the broadest spirit of
compromise. Every student of our national history will recall what a perplexing
thing it was for our fathers to agree on the site of a national capital.
Philadelphia, the continental capital, would not do, nor would Annapolis, where
Washington returned his sword at the close of the war, nor New York, with its
Wall Street, where Washington was inaugurated. A district, ceded by Virginia
and Maryland as an inalienable national possession, was the compromise, just as
here Jerusalem, lying partly in Judah and partly in Benjamin, becomes the
capital, and yet to be conquered by united force of the nation, giving all a
special interest in it. "For similar reasons," says a fine
commentator, "promotive of national union, we have seen Victor Emmanuel
made king of a united Italy, change his capital, first from Turin in Lombardv
to Florence in Tuscanv. and then to Rome, the ancient imperial city." So
now, David the wisest and most prudent of monarchs, avails himself of the
enthusiasm of a united nation and the presence of a great army to lead them to
storm the citadel of the Jebusites.
Two incidents of that great victory are worthy of note: (1) the scornful greeting
of the Jebusites, confident in the impregnability of their fortress: "Even
with the blind and the lame to hold the walls he cannot come hither." (2)
David's offer to reward the one who would scale the wall, the position of
commander-in-chief of his army, won by his nephew Joab. Following the conquest
comes the fortification.
Rapid fortification. – He lengthened, strengthened, and connected the walls of
the city. Indeed, there was reason for haste, as storms of war were gathering
from every point of the horizon.
Two results follow the union of the nation under such a king, and the rapid
conquest and fortification of such a capital: (1) David waxed stronger and
stronger; (2) neighboring nations, jealous and alarmed, prepare to pour on him
a tide of war.
And now, before we dip into the bloody pages of these wars, two remarks are
timely: (1) Throughout David's reign, every act of his administration is
promotive of the national unity centered at Jerusalem; (2) Jerusalem from this
date forward to the end of time and throughout eternity will be the world's
chief city, either in type or antitype. Its vicissitudes in subsequent history
are the most remarkable in the annals of time. On account of David's work and
preparation it became in Solomon's day the joy of the whole earth. The Psalms
proclaim its glory in worship, and after its fall they voice the exile's
lament: "If I forget thee, O Jerusalem, may my right hand forget its
cunning and my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth." Babylon captured
it; Persia restored it; Greece, through Alexander the Great, honored it;
Antiochus Epiphanes defiled it, the Asmoneans took it; the Messiah heard its
hosannabs one day and its "Crucify Him" another day; Rome destroyed
it; the Saracens captured it; the Crusader re-captured it; the Turk holds it
and Germany covets it: its desolation has lasted nearly 2000 years and will
last until the fulness of the Gentiles comes in. Its greatest glory is that its
temple symbolized the churches of the living God, and the city itself symbolized
the heavenly Jerusalem, which is the mother of all the saints. [The author's
reference to Germany's desire to acquire Jerusalem was written long before
World War I which has witnessed the Germanic-Turkish alliance. The words seem
prophetic. – EDITOR.]
QUESTIONS
1. What the method of the
harmonist in arranging the text of David's reign, pages 108-163?
2. What a characteristic of
the histories themselves?
3. What the first notable
event of this section?
4. What credit was due David
himself in this great consummation?
5. Contrast David's course
in this matter with the character and polity of Philip II of Spain.
6. What reasons assigned by
the tribes for their return to David, and the bearing of their reasons on their
defection?
7. What the several steps of
this national reunion?
8. What the notable
particulars of the armed hosts who assembled?
9. What the representative
act of the elders?
10. What of the covenant
itself?
11. What of the anointing?
12. What of the three days' festival?
13. What the first kingly
act of David to strengthen and perpetuate this national union?
14. What place selected for
the capital, its advantages, and memories?
15. What the incidents of
its capture?
16. What steps taken to
fortify it?
17. What two results
naturally followed this union of the nation under such a king in such a
capital?
18. What the position of
Jerusalem henceforward among the cities of the world?
19. Relate some of its
vicissitudes in subsequent history.
THE WARS OF DAVID
2 Samuel 5:11-25; 8:1; 10:1-19;
81:15-2Z;2S:IS-17; 1 Chronicles 11:15-19; 12:8-15; 14:1-2, 8-17; 18:1; 19:1-19;
20:4-8, and Harmony, pages 110-114, 118-125.
Our last chapter intimated that the union of the
nation under such a king as David, in such a capital, would naturally excite
the jealousy and alarm of all neighboring heathen nations. This section
commences thus: "And when the Philistines heard that they had anointed
David king over Israel, all the Philistines went up to seek David."
Your attention has already been called to the necessity of breaking the power
of the hostile heathen nations lying all around Judah, if ever the Jewish
nation is to fulfil its mission to all other nations. The geographical position
of Judah, which is the best in the world for leavening the nations with the
ideas of the kingdom of God, if it maintained its national purity and adherence
to Jehovah, also made it the most desirable possession for other peoples having
far different ideals. As the salvation of the world including these very
hostile nations, depended on the perpetuity and purity of Israel, these
nations, through whom came idolatry and national corruption, must be broken,
hence the seeming cruelty and partiality of Jehovah's order through Moses to
destroy the Canaanites, root and branch, and to avoid the corruptions of the
other nations, were meant as mercy and kindness to the world.
The nations against which David successfully warred, so far as our text records
them, were the Philistines, the Ammonites, the Syrians of Zobah, the Syrians of
Damascus, the Moabites, and the Edomites. He had previously smitten the
Amalekites of the Negeb. On these wars in general the following observations
are noteworthy:
1. He was never the aggressor.
2. He never lost a battle.
3. His conquest filled out the kingdom to the boundaries originally promised to
Abraham.
4. The spoils of all these wars, staggering credulity in their variety and
value, were consecrated to Jehovah, making the richest treasury known to
history.
5. By alliance without war he secured the friendship of Hiram, king of Tyre,
most valuable to him and to his son Solomon. As Phoenicia, through the
world-famous fleets of Tyre and Sidon, commanded the Mediterranean with all its
marine commerce, and as David ruled the land through whose thoroughfares must
pass the caravans carrying this traffic to Africa, Arabia, India, Syria, and
Mesopotamia, it was of infinite value to both to be in friendly alliance. To
these merchant-princes it was of incalculable advantage that all the land
transportation of their traffic should lie within the boundaries of one strong
and friendly nation rather than to have to run the gauntlet between a hundred
irresponsible and predatory tribes, while to David, apart from the value of
this peaceful commerce, the whole western border of Judah along the
Mediterranean coast was safe from invasion by sea so long as friendship was
maintained with Hiram, king of the sea.
6. By the voluntary submission of Hamath after his conquest of Damascus, he
controlled the famous historic "Entrance into Hamath," the one narrow
pathway of traffic with the nations around the Caspian Sea, thus enabling David
to reach those innumerable northern hordes so graphically described in later
days by Ezekiel, the exile-prophet.
7. By the conquest of Damascus he controlled the only caravan route to the
Euphrates and Mesopotamia, since the desert lying east of the trans-Jordanic
tribes was practically impassable for trade and army movement from a lack of
water, We have seen Abraham, migrating from Ur of the Chaldees, low down on the
Euphrates, compelled to ascend that river for hundreds of miles in order to
find an accessible way to the Holy Land through Damascus. In his day, also
Chedorlaorner's invasion had to follow the same way, as we will see later
invasions do in Nebuchadnezzar's time, which at last conquered David's
Jerusalem.
8. By the conquest of Ammon, Moab, and Edom, all the Arabah passed into his
hands, checkmating invasion by Arabian hordes, as well as barring one line of
invasion from Egypt. By the conquest of the Philistines and Amalekites the
other two ways of Egyptian invasion were barred. You should take a map, such as
you will find in Huribut's Atlas, and show how David's wars and peaceful
alliances safeguarded every border, north, east, south, and west.
Besides these general observations, we may note a special feature
characterizing these, and indeed all other wars, prior to the leveling
invention of gunpowder and other high explosives, namely, much was accomplished
by individual champions of great physical prowess and renown. David himself was
as famous in this respect as Richard, the Lionhearted, until in a desperate
encounter, related in this section, his life was so endangered that a public
demand justly required him to leave individual fighting to less necessary men
and confine himself to the true duty of a general – the direction of the
movements of the army.
Your text recites the special exploits of Jashobeam, Eleazer, Shammah, Abishai,
Benaiah, or Benajah, after whom my father, myself, and my oldest son were
named. With them may be classed the ten Gadites whose faces were like the faces
of lions and who were as swift as the mountain deer, the least equal to 100 and
the greatest equal to 1000. These crossed the Jordan at its mighty flood and
smote the Philistines in all its valley, east and west.
Quite to the front also, as giant-killers, were Sibbecai, Elhanan, and
Jonathan's nephew. Of others, all mighty heroes, we have only a catalogue of
names as famous in their day as Hercules, Theseus, and Achilles, Ajax, Ulysses,
Horatius, and .King Arthur's Knights of the Round Table, but, as philosophizes
Sir Walter Scott in lvanhoe concerniog the doughty champions at
the tourney of Ashby de la Zouch: "To borrow lines from a contemporary
poet, 'The
knights are dust, And their good swords rust, Their souls are with the saints,
we trust,' while their escutcheons have
long mouldered from the walls of their castles; their castles themselves are
but green mounds and shattered ruins; the place that once knew them knows them
no more. Nay, many a race since theirs has died out and been forgotten in the
very land which they occupied with all the authority of feudal proprietors and
lords. What then would it avail to the reader to know their names, or the
evanescent symbols of their martial rank?"
One exploit of three of these champions deserves to live forever in literature.
It thrills the heart by the naturalness of its appeal to the memory of every
man concerning the precious things of his childhood's home. David was in his
stronghold, the Cave of Adullam, weary and thirsty. Bethlehem and bis childhood
rise before him: “O that one would give me water to drink of the Well of
Bethlehem that is by the gate!" His exclamation thrills like Woodworth's
famous poem, How
dear to my heart are the scenes of my childhood, As fond recollections presents
them to view! The orchard, the meadow, the deep-tangled wildwood, And ev'ry
loved spot which my infancy knew.
David's longing for water from that particular well, and Woodworth's "Old
Oaken Bucket" harmonize with my own experience whenever I am delirious
with fever. I always see a certain spring on my father's plantation issuing
from the mosscovered, fern-bordered rocks, and filling a sucken barrell. Hard
by, hanging on a bush, is the gourd which, when dipped into the cold, clear
spring, is more precious to thirsty lips than the silver tankards or gold
drinking cups of kings; only in my fever-thirst I never am able to get that
gourd to my lips. Three of David's mighty men heard the expression of his
longing for that water out of the Well of Bethlehem, and slipping quietly away,
not caring that a Philistine garrison held Bethlehem, the three men alone break
through the defended gate and under fire draw water from the well and bring a
vessel of it over a long, hot way to thirsty David. It touched his heart when he
saw their wounds. He could not drink water purchased with their blood, but
poured it out as a libation to such great and devoted friendship.
Some other incidents of the Philistine war are worthy of comment:
1. So great was the defeat of the Philistines in their first battle, where
David, under divine direction, attacked the center of their army, the scene is
named "Baal-Perazirn," i.e., "The place of breaking forth."
Splitting their column wide open at its heart, he dispersed them in every
direction. They even sat their gods behind them to be burned by David's men. We
need not be startled at the burning of such gods, for history tells of one
nation that ate their god, made out of dough, in times of famine. This breaking
of a battle-center was a favorite method with Napoleon later, and vainly
attempted by Lee at Gettysburg.
2. In the second great battle, again following divine direction, he avoided the
center where they expected his attack as before and were there prepared for him
this time, and "fetched" a compass to their rear, sheltered from
their view by a thick growth of balsam trees, and on hearing "a sound of a
going" in these trees, struck them unawares and overthrew them completely.
So Stonewall Jackson, his movements sheltered from observation by the trees of
the wilderness, marched and struck in his last and greatest victory at
Chancellorsville. And so did that master of war, Frederick the Great, screened
by intervening hills, turn the Austrian columns and win his greatest victory at
Leuthen. Major Penn, the great Texas lay-evangelist, preached his greatest
sermon from "This fetching a compass," and "When thou hearest
the sound of a going in the mulberry trees, bestir thyself." His
application was: (a) Let great preachers attack the center, as David did at
Baal-Perazim. (b) But as I am only a layman I must fetch a compass and strike
them in the rear where they are not expecting attack. (c) As the signal of
assault was the sound of a going in the mulberry trees, which we interpret to
mean the power of the Holy Spirit going before, we must tarry for that power,
for without it we are bound to fail. (d) But that power being evident, let
every member of the church bestir himself. On this last point his zealous
exhortation put every man, woman, and child to working.
3. The third incident of this war was its culmination. He pressed his victory
until "he took the bridle of the mother city out of the hand of the
Philistines;" that is, he captured Gath and the four other cities, or
daughters, that had gone from it. To take the bridle of a horse from the hand
of a rider is to make that horse serve the new master, so Gath and her
daughters paid tribute to David and served him – quite a new experience for the
Philistines.
4. The result of these great achievements is thus expressed: "And the fame
of David went out into all lands; and the Lord brought the fear of him on all
nations."
The occasion of his next war, the one with Ammon, was remarkable. Nabash, the
king of Ammon, held very friendly relations with David. The fact is that he may
have 'been the father of Amasa, a son of David's sister, Abigail. Anyway, the
relations between them had been very pleasant, so when Nahash died, David, out
of the kindness of his heart, always remembering courtesies shown him, sent a
friendly embassy to Hanun, the son of Nahash, but the princes of Ammon said to
the young king, "Do you suppose that love for your father prompted David
to send these men? He sent them to spy out the land so that he can make war
successfully against us." This evil suggestion led the young king to do a
very foolish thing, and one that violated all international policy. He arrested
these ambassadors and subjected them to the greatest indignity. Their venerable
beards were cut off. I don't know whether that means cut off half-way or just
shaved off one side of the face. Then he cut off their long robes of dignity so
they would be bob-tailed jackets striking about the hips, and sent them home.
No mortification could exceed theirs. Somebody told David about it and he sent
this word to them: "Tarry at Jericho until your beards grow out."
A deacon of the First Church at Waco, when I was pastor, whenever a young
member of the church would propose some innovation on the customs of the church,
would draw up his tall figure – he was quite tall – and would reach out his
long arm and point at the young man and say, "My young brother, you had
better tarry at Jericho until your beard grows out." It was very crushing
on the young brother, and I used to exhort the deacon about his curt way of
cutting off members who, whether young or old, had a right equal to his own to
speak in conference.
Having practiced that unpardonable indignity upon the friendly ambassadors, the
Ammonites know they must fight, since they have made themselves odious to
David, so they raise an enormous sum of money, 1,000 talents of silver, and
hire 33,000 men from the Syrians, the different branches of the Syrians. Some
of them were horsemen from across the Euphrates, some from Tob, some from
Maacah, and the rest of them from Zobah. David sends Joab at the head of his
mighty army of veterans to fight them. The Ammonites remain in their fortified
city of Rabbah, and as Joab's army approaches, 33,000 Syrians come up behind them,
and Joab sees that there is a battle to be fought in the front and in the rear,
so he divides his army and takes his picked men to attack the Syrians, and
commands Abishai, his brother, to go after the Ammonites as they pour out of
their city to attack in front. Joab says to his brother, "If the Syrians
are too strong for me, you help me, and if the Ammon-ites are too strong for
you, then I will come and help you," and so they fight both ways and whip
in both directions with tremendous success. Joab destroys the Syrians, and
Abishai drives the Ammonites back under the walls of their city.
That victory leads to another war. When the Syrians heard of the overthrow of
the contingent sent to succor Ammon, they sent across the Euphrates again for
reinforcements and mobilized a large home army to fight David. David met them
in battle and blotted them off the map, and having disposed of the Syrians, at
the return of the season for making war, he sent Joab with a mighty army to
besiege the city of Rabbah, the capital of the Ammonites. Joab besieges them
and when he sees them about to surrender he sends for David to come and accept
the surrender and David puts the crown of the king of Ammon on his own head.
Then having destroyed the Ammonites, he marches against their southern ally,
Moab, and conquers them. Following up this victory he leads his army against
Edom, and conquers all that country. This war lasts six months. He gains a
great victory over the Edomites and through Abishai, his leader, 18,000 of the
Edomites were slain. The heir of the king escapes with great difficulty to
Egypt, and is sheltered there. Joab remained six months to bury the dead and
gather up the spoils. So ends this period of conquest.
The text tells you, in conclusion, who were the administration officers during
this period. You will find it on page 122 of the Harmony. Joab was over the
host, Jehoshaphat was recorder, Zadok and Ahimelech were priests, Seraiah was
scribe, Benaiah, or Benajah, was over the Cherethites and Pelethites. and David's
sons were chiefs about the king.
That great round of successes is followed by the magnificent song of
thanksgiving, which needs to be analyzed specially and which is transferred to
the Psalter as Psalm 18.
That you may have a connected account of these wars, the consideration of three
periods is deferred to the next chapter:
1. The great sin of David, with its far-reaching consequences, 2 Samuel 11:2 to
12:24.
2. His treatment of the Ammonites after the fall of Rabbah, 2 Samuel 12:31 and
1 Chronicles 20:3.
3. His treatment of the Moabites, 2 Samuel 8:2.
QUESTIONS
1. What the necessity of
breaking the power of the hostile nations within and around Judea?
2. Show why the geographical
position of Judea was favorable to its mission of leavening all nations with
the ideas of the kingdom of God, and why Judea was a desirable possession to
those nations.
3. What event brought a tide
of war on David?
4. According to the record,
with what nations did he wage successful war?
5. What eight general observations
on these wars?
6. What special feature
characterized them and all other ancient wars, and what modern inventions have
now divested war of this feature?
7. Cite the names of some of
David's champions and their exploits.
8. How does Sir Walter Scott,
in Ivanhoe, philosophize on the speedy oblivion coming to great
champions?
9. Recite one exploit that
deserves to live in literature, and why?
10. Cite the notable
characteristic of the battle of Baal-Perazirn.
11. Name the more decisive
battle which followed, and give illustrations from history of the different
methods of attack in those two battles.
12. Give Major Penn's text
and sermon outline on some words concerning this battle.
13. Explain: ''He took the
bridle of the mother city out of the hand of the Philistines."
14. What the result of these
great achievements?
15. Recite the occasion of
the war with Ammon and its results, and describe the first battle.
16. Give brief statement of
wars with Syria, Moab, and Edom.
17. With a map before you,
show just how by these wars and alliances David safeguarded all his borders.
18. How did he commemorate
his victories?
19. How did he celebrate
them?
20. Into what other book was
his thanksgiving song transferred, and how numbered there?
THREE DARK EVENTS OF DAVID'S CAREER
2 Samuel 11:1 to 12:25; 12.-SI and 1
Chronicles 80:3;
2 Samuel 8:2 and Harmony, pages 115-117.
In the preceding discussion, three dark events of David's career were omitted,
first, because it was thought best to give in unbroken connection a history of
his successful wars, carrying his kingdom to its promised boundaries and
filling the world with his fame; secondly, because the three events called for
special and extended treatment. Truly the wars closed in a blaze of glory, for
"The Lord gave victory to David whithersoever he went," "his
kingdom was exalted on high for his people Israel's sake;" "So David
gat him a great name," according to the gracious promise of Jehovah,
"I will make unto thee a great name, like unto the name of the great ones
that are in the earth." Indeed, at the close of these wars his was the
most illustrious name on earth and his kingdom the greatest.
It is a bitter thing to give to this luminous glory a background of horrible
darkness. Yet fidelity to truth and the ages-long value of the lesson, require
us to dip the brush that paints the background in most sombre colors. It is
characteristic of portrait painters to use a flattering brush, and it was
Cromwell only who said sternly to his portrait maker, "Paint me as I am;
leave not out a scar or blemish." What was exceptional with Cromwell was
habitual with inspiration. It describes only one perfect, ideal man. It
indulges in no hero worship. Noah's drunkenness, Jacob's meanness and
duplicity, Aaron's golden calf, the ill-advised words of Moses, the despondency
of Elijah, the lying and swearing of Peter, the vengeful spirit of the beloved
John, the awful sin of David, "the man after God's own heart," must
all appear in the pictures when the Holy Spirit is the limner.
Concerning the best of men standing in the limelight of infinite holiness) we
must say with the psalmist, "I have seen an end of all perfection – for
thy commandment is exceeding broad."
The three dark episodes of David's war-career made the theme of this chapter,
are: (1) David's great sin in the matter of Bathsheba and Uriah. (2) His
treatment of his Ammonite captives. (3) His treatment of his Moabite captives.
The three are presented in one view because it is probable that the second, if
not also the third, arose from a conscience blunted by the first. We need not
go into the revolting details, since the record is before you, but consider the
history only in the light of its practical value, seeing it was recorded
"fur our admonition."
So far as the first and greatest sin is concerned, it has evoked a voluminous
literature. In the "Pulpit Commentary" alone are more than fifty
pages of condensed homilies, and in Spurgeon's Treasury of David
is much more, but perhaps the best homiletical and philosophical treatment you
will find is Taylor's David, King of Israel. His outline of
discussion is: (1) The precursors of the sin. (2) Its aggravations. (3) The
penitence manifested. (4) The forgiveness received. (5) The consequences
flowing from it.
After all, however, the most searching light on his heart experiences are found
in his own songs of conviction, penitence and forgiveness in the following
order: Psalms 38, 6, 51, 32. Borrowing somewhat from Taylor's order and
treatment we submit this outline:
I. The precursors of David's sin.
Sin has a genesis and development. It does not spring into
life, like Minerva, full grown. James, the brother of our Lord, states the case
thus: "Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God; for God
cannot be tempted with evil, and he himself tempteth no man; but each man is
tempted, when he is drawn away by his own lust, and enticed. Then the lust,
when it hath conceived, beareth sin, when it is full grown, bringeth forth
death" (Jas. 1:13-15). What, then, the explanatory antecedents of his sin?
1. Since his crowning at Hebron he had enjoyed a long course of unbroken
prosperity. Before that event he had been "emptied from vessel to
vessel" and so had not "settled on his lees," but now because he
had no changes he becomes overconfident, less watchful and prayerful.
2. Up to the time of this sin he had been a very busy man, leading and sharing
in all the privations and hazards of his army, but now, while Joab leads the
army against Rabbah, "David tarried at Jerusalem." While his soldiers
sleep at night on the tented field, David rises from his daytime bed of luxury
to look at eventide on Bathsheba. How grim must have been the rebuke of Uriah's
words: "And Uriah said unto David, The Ark and Israel, and Judah, abide in
booths; and my lord Joab, and the servants of my lord, are encamped in the open
field; shall I then go into mine house, to eat and to drink, and to lie with my
wife? As thou livest, and as thy soul liveth, I will not do this thing," 2
Sam. 11:11. It has been well said, "If Satan tempts busy men, idle and
luxurious men tempt Satan."
3. He had prepared himself for a fall at the weakest point in his character by
polygamy and concubinage, which while tolerated under restrictions under Mosaic
law, was expressly forbidden to kings: "He shall not multiply wives to
himself," which was the Mosaic prohibition of the kingdom charter,
Deuteronomy 17:17. Sensualism is the sin of Oriental kings.
4. The sense of irresponsibility to moral law creeps with insidious power upon
the rich and great and socially distinguished. The millionaires, the upper ten,
the great 400ůwhat avails their wealth and power if they be not exempt from the
obligations of the seventh commandment? Let the poor be virtuous. The king can
do no wrong. To all such people the lesson is hard: "God is no respecter
of persons."
5. In times of war the bridle is slipped from human passions.
6. Subservient instruments are always ready to act as panderers to the great,
while obsequious, high society paliates and condones their offenses.
7. In such conjuncture always comes opportunity as a spark of fire in a powder
magazine; millions equally sensual have not sinned because there was no
opportunity, no favorable conjuncture of circumstances.
II. The sin and its aggravations.
The sin, with all its progeny) was primarily sin
against God, but it was adultery with Bathsheba, ingratitude, duplicity, and
murder to Uriah, complicity in crime with his servants, a sin against himself
and family.
1. It was a presumptuous sin against Jehovah, to whose favors it was
ingratitude and to whose holiness it was insult, and to whose omniscience,
omnipresence, and omnipotence it was a brazen dare.
2. It was a violation of his solemn coronation vow at Hebron as expressed in
his own psalm that he would use his kingly office to put down offenses, and not
for indulgences in them.
3. From his very exalted position as king over God's people it caused the
enemies of truth to blaspheme then and every since. It was a scandal in the
etymological sense of the word, a stumbling block, over which thousands in
every age have fallen. An inspired writer has said, "The wicked eat up the
sins of my people." Like buzzards swarming around carrion, they gather and
feast and flap their wings in gloating when a Christian sins.
4. It served then and does now as an excuse for worse and smaller men to repeat
the offenses or to condone other offenses.
5. It put his reputation in the hands of the servants employed in the
transaction, and paved the way for whatever blackmail the unscrupulous
instrument, Joab, might choose to exact, so that indeed hereafter "the
sons of Zeruiah will be too hard for him." Whoever calls in Turks,
Tartars, and Huns for allies must afterwards reckon with the allies.
6. It was a sin against the devoted friendship of his brave champions, Uriah,
the Hittite, and his comrade, Bathsheba's father, who for many years of hazard
and persecution had been his bulwark.
The meanness of the subterfuge in sending for Uriah that the offense might be
hidden from him by making him an unwitting "cuckold," the hypocrisy
of sending him choice dishes and the means of drunkenness to the same end, and
the refined cruelty of making him the carrier of the letter which contained his
death warrant, the deliberate provision for others to die with him when exposed
to danger, the order to withdraw from him and then that they might die and the
lying ascription of such death to the chances of war, are unsurpassed in
criminal history. A classic legend tells of such a letter carried by
Bellerophon, giving rise to the proverb, "Beware of Bellerophonic
letters."
III. The sin on the conscience.
We may not suppose that David was without compunction
of conscience for a whole year until reproved by Nathan. The Psalms 38 and 6
indicate the contrary. While his crime was ostensibly a secret, you may be assured
that it was an open secret which greatly damaged the king's reputation, of
which he is evidently conscious. Known to Joab and his household servants, it
would be whispered from lip to ear, and carried from house to house. Enemies
would naturally make the most of it. The side-look, the shoulder-shrug, and
many-winged rumors would carry it far and wide. Even in the house of God, where
he kept up the form of worship, knowing ones would make signs and comment under
the thinnest veil of confidence.
IV. Jehovah speaks at last, or Nathan and David.
Whatever was David's own conception of his sin, or the
judgment of man, our record says, "But the thing that David had done
displeased the Lord. And the Lord sent Nathan unto David." Four things
here impress the mind:
1. God's judgment of human conduct is more than man's judgment. It is the chief
thing. We may hold out against, the adverse judgment of men if God approves in
the matter of the thing condemned, but there is no withstanding the disapproval
of the Holy One.
2. The fidelity of the prophets as mouthpieces of God. They make no apologies,
nor soften words, nor have respect of persons. They speak to a king as to a
peasant – to a rich man as to a pauper.
3. The prophet's method of causing David to pass judgment on himself is an
inimitable parable that has charmed the world by its simplicity, brevity,
pathos, and directness.
4. Its application is like a bolt of lightning: "Thou art the man!"
In one flash of light the heart of the sin is laid bare and judgment follows
judgment like the dreadful strokes of a trip-hammer) thus: (a) "The sword
shall never depart from thy house." (b) "I will raise up evil against
thee in thine own house." (c) "What thou hast done secretly against another
shall be done against thee openly."
V. David's confession.
It is instant: "I have sinned against the
Lord." There is no trickery nor subterfuge, nor evasion, nor defense. His
confession is like the publican's prayer, who stood afar off, not lifting so
much as his eyes to heaven, but smiting upon his breast, and saying, "God
be merciful to me, the sinner." The inspired prophet knew his penitence
was genuine, and announces pardon for the world to come, but chastisement in
this world, thus explaining those latter words of Jesus concerning another and
greater sin which is eternal, having never forgiveness either in this world or
in the next.
VI. The time penalties.
(1) The death of the child begotten in sin. (2) Following
a father's evil example, Amnon assaults his sister, Tamar. (3) Following the
father's example, and with much more justice, Absalom murders Amnon. (4) The
devil once loosed, Absalom rebels against his father. (5) There being now no
restraint, Absalom openly degrades David's concubines, and this too under the
advice of Ahithophel, Bathsheba's grandfather, who evidently resents the shame
put upon his granddaughter. (6) Joab pitilessly murders Absalom, in open
violation of the father's orders, and so exacts immunity as blackmail for his
complicity in David's sin. (7) Adonijah's rebellion, encouraged by Joab, and
his death. Such the long train of evil consequences of one sin.
VII. The sincerity of David's repentance.
It is evidenced by his humility, submission, and hope
on the death of his child. The story is very touching. "The Lord struck
the child that Uriah's wife bare to David and it was very sick." The child
was much beloved, but must die for the parents' sin. This, David felt keenly:
"This baby is dying for my sin." No wonder he fasted and wept and
prayed. The submission and hope are manifested after the child is dead. No need
now to fast and pray and weep, as when it was yet alive and perchance might be
saved. The death is of the body only and for this world only. He lives safe and
happy in that better world: "He cannot return to me, but I may go to
him."
In all subsequent ages the doctrines of these words have illumined houses of
mourning, "I shall go to him."
At one stroke it destroys all hope of visitation from the dead, and at another
stroke confers all hope of visitation to the dead, with all the joys of
recognition and reunion.
This is by far the lightest of David's penalties. There is no hope of reunion
when Amnon and Absalom and Adonijah die. The farewell in their case is eternal.
The most impressive, therefore, of all contrasts is the hopeful lamentation
over this child, and the hopeless lamentation over Absalom. What a theme for a
sermon!
But the sincerity of his penitence is best evidenced in his psalm. While Psalms
38, 6 convey most the sense of convicting power, Psalm 51, through the ages,
has been regarded as the most vivid expression of contrition and repentance.
Two incidents bearing upon his sincerity and genuine penitence cited by Taylor
are worth repetition:
1. The testimony of Carlyle, that hater of all shams and hypocrisies, in his
"Lecture on the Hero as Prophet," says:
Faults! the greatest of faults, I should say, is to be conscious of none. Readers
of the Bible, above all, one would think, might know better. Who is there
called the man of God according to God's own heart? David, the Hebrew king, had
fallen into sins enough; blackest crimes; there was no want of sins. And
thereupon unbelievers sneer and ask, "1s this your man according to God's
heart?" The sneer, I must say, seems to me but a shallow one. What are
faults? what are the outward details of a life, if the inner secret of it – the
remorse, temptations, true, often baffled, never-ending struggle of it – be
forgotten? "It is not in man that walketh to direct his steps." Of
all acts, is not, for a man, repentance the most divine? The deadliest sin, I
say, were that same supercilious consciousness of no sin. That is death. The
heart so conscious is divorced from sincerity, humility, and fact, is dead. It
is pure, as dead, dry sand is pure. David's life and history, as written for us
in those Psalms of his, I consider to be the truest emblem ever given of a
man's moral progress and warfare here below. All earnest souls will ever
discern in it the faithful struggle of an earnest human soul toward what is
good and best. Struggle often baffled sore, baffled down into entire wreck, yet
a struggle never ended; ever with tears, repentance, true, unconquerable
purpose begun anew. Poor human nature! Is not a man's walking in truth always
that – "a succession of falls"? Man can do no other. In this wild
element of a life, he has to struggle upward: now fallen, now abased; and ever
with tears, repentance, and bleeding heart, he has to rise again, struggle
again, still onward. That his struggle be a faithful, unconquerable one – that
is the question of questions.
2. The effect of Psalm 51 on Voltaire when he read it with a view to caricature
it. Dr. Leander Van Ess tells it as an undoubted fact that Voltaire once
attempted to burlesque this psalm, and what was the result? While carefully
perusing it, that he might familiarize himself with the train of sentiment
which he designed to caricature, he became so oppressed and overawed by its
solemn devotional tone, that he threw down his pen and fell back half senseless
on his couch, in an agony of remorse.
But if Psalm 51 is the highest expression of penitence, Psalm 32 is the model
expression of the Joy of forgiveness: Blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven, Whose
sin is covered. Blessed is the man unto whom Jehovah imputeth not iniquity.
See the use Paul makes of this psalm in his great argument on justification by
faith.
By application of this experience of David we learn other serious lessons.
1. The pen that writes the letter of Uriah must also write Psalm 51.
2. It is easy to fall, but difficult to rise again – a thought most vigorously
expressed by Virgil and less vigorously rendered by Dryden: The gates of Hell are open
night and day; Smooth the descent, and easy is the way; But to return and view
the cheerful skies, In this the task and mighty labor lies.
3. One sin another doth provoke; Murder's as near to lust as fire to smoke.
4. The hardening power of sin. It petrifies spiritual sensitiveness and
tenderness. As Burns so well expresses it: I waive the quantum of the sin, The hazard of
concealing; But och! it hardens within, And petrifies the feelin'.
5. Sooner or later all extenuations fail, and the shifting of the blame on God
or chance or circumstance. There comes one at last to the naked soul, and
pointing accusing finger, says, "Thou art the man."
6. The reproach of Uriah has found expression in noble song: And self to take or leave is
free, Feeling its own sufficiency: In spite of science, spite of fate, The
Judge within thee, soon or late, Will cry, "Thou art the man!" Say
not, I would, but could not, He Should bear the blame who fashioned me. Call a
mere change of motive, choice I Scorning such pleas, the inner voice Cries out,
"Thou art the man!"
Edgar Allan Poe has used with dramatic effect Nathan's words, "Thou art
the man," in one of his detective stories. In order to force confession,
he puts the body of the murdered man in a wine-case, so adjusted on springs
that when the lid is raised by the murderer, the body will sit up and point the
finger at him, while a ventriloquist will make the dead lips say, "Thou
art the man!" The Ark of God is in the field, Like clouds around the alien armies
sweep; Each by his spear, beneath his shield, In cold and dew the anointed
warriors sleep. And can it be? thou liest awake, Sworn watchman, tossing on thy
couch of down; And doth thy recreant heart not ache To hear the sentries round
the leisured town? Oh, dream no more of quiet life; Care finds the careless
out; more wise to vow Thine heart entire to faith's pure strife; So peace will
come, thou knowest not when or how.– Lyra Apostolica.
7. On the gracious words of pardon, "The Lord hath put away thy sin,"
Keble, in his "Christian Year," thus writes: The absolver saw the mighty
grief, And hasten'd with relief; – "The Lord forgives; thou shalt not
die"– Twas gently spoke, yet heard on high, And all the band of angels,
us'd to sing In heaven, accordant to his raptur'd string, Who many a month had
turn'd away With veiled eyes, nor own'd his lay. Now spread their wings, and
throng around To the glad mournful sound, And welcome, with bright open face,
The broken heart to love's embrace. The rock is smitten, and to future years
Springs ever fresh the tide of holy tears And holy music, whispering peace Till
time and sin together cease."– Keble, "Sixth Sunday after
Trinity."
It has been not improbably supposed that a connection exists between David's great
sin, through its hardening of his yet impenitent heart and
VIII. His treatment of the conquered Ammonites.
See 2 Samuel 12:31 and 1 Chronicles 20:3. As this
matter calls for particular and honest treatment let us first of all look at
the text in three English versions. The American Standard revision renders the
two paragraphs thus: "And he brought forth the people that were therein,
and put them under saws, and under harrows of iron, and under axes of iron, and
made them pass through the brick-kiln; and thus did he unto all the cities of
the children of Ammon. And David and all the people returned unto
Jerusalem" (1 Sam. 12:31). "And he brought forth the people that were
therein, and cut them with saws, and with harrows of iron, and with axes. And
thus did David unto all the cities of the children of Ammon. And David and all
the people returned to Jerusalem" (1 Chron. 20:3). The margin puts
"to" for "under," and adds: "Or, with a slight change
in the Hebrew text, 'made them labor at saws, . . .?' "
Leeser's Jewish English version copies in both passages the American Revision.
The Romanist Douay English version thus renders 2 Samuel 12:31: "And
bringing forth the people thereof, he sawed them, and drove over them chariots
armed with irons and divided them with knives, and made them pass through
brick-kilns: so did he to the children of Ammon. And David returned with all
the people to Jerusalem." 1 Chronicles 20:3: "And the people that
were therein he brought out; and made harrows, and sleds, and chariots of iron,
to go over them, so that they were cut and bruised to pieces. In this manner
David dealt with all the cities of the children of Ammon: and he returned with
all his people to Jerusalem."
With the text thus before us the first inquiry is, What mean these passages,
fairly interpreted? Do they mean merely, as the margin of the American revision
intimates, that David enslaved his captured prisoners, putting them to work
with saws, harrows, and axes, and at brick-making, or that he put them to torture
by sawing them asunder, driving over them with iron-toothed harrows, mangling
them in threshing machines, chopping them up with axes, cooking them alive in
brick-kilns? How stand the commentators? Josephus, adopting the torture
interpretation, says, "He tormented them and destroyed them."
The comment in the Romanist version on 2 Samuel 12:31 is, "Sawed" –
Heb., "he puts them under saws and under rollers of iron, and under
knives, . . ." The Jews say that Isaiah was killed by being sawed asunder;
to which punishment Paul alludes (Hebrews 11:37). "Brick-kilns, or
furnaces." Daniel and his companions were thrown into the fiery furnace (
Daniel 3:6-12, Esther 13:7). Saliem blames Joab for what seems too cruel. But
though he was barbarous and vindictive, we need not condemn him on this
occasion, no more than his master; as we are not to judge of former times by
our own manners. War was then carried on with great cruelty. With these agree
substantially, Kirkpatrick in "Cambridge Bible," Blaikie in "Expositor's
Bible," "The Speakers' Commentary," "The Pulpit
Commentary," Jamieson, Fausset & Brown, Geikie, and many others.
On the contrary, Murphy on 1 Chronicles 20:3, following the idea of the margin
in American Standard revision says, "As saws, harrows, or threshing drags,
and axes or scythes, are not instruments of torture of execution, it is obvious
that David did not 'cut' them, but forced or 'put' them to hard labor as serfs
with instruments of husbandry, or in the making of bricks, as is added in
Samuel. The verb rendered 'cut' is nowhere else used in this sense, but in that
of ruling, and therefore employing in forced labor." "Nor does he
stand alone. Many authorities on both sides might be added. But these are
sufficient to set the case before you. In extenuation of the
"'torture" interpretation the following argument may be considered:
David was under the Mosaic law. That law bears on two points:
1. The law of war for captured cities, Deuteronomy 20:1014: "When thou drawest
nigh unto a city to fight against it, then proclaim peace unto it. And it shall
be, if it make thee answer of peace, and open unto thee, then it shall be, that
all the people that are found therein shall become tributary unto thee, and
shall serve thee. And if it will make no peace with thee, but will make war
against thee, then thou shalt besiege it: and when Jehovah thy God delivereth
it into thy hand, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the
sword: but the women and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in
the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take for a prey unto thyself;
and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which Jehovah hath given
thee."
2. The lextalionis, or law of retaliation, i. e., "An eye for an eye, a
tooth for a tooth, . . ." Under the first law a city carried by storm was
devoted to destruction, which custom unfortunately prevails in modern wars.
Under the second law, the evils practiced on others were requited in kind. See
case of Adonibezek (Judg. 1:5-7). Applying this second law, the cruel things
done by David to the Ammonites, under the "torture" interpretation of
our passages, had been practiced by them against others then and later. (See
Amos 1:13.) They caused their own children to pass through the fire to Moloch,
hence the retaliation of the brick-kiln.
The weight of authority seems to favor the "torture" interpretation,
and yet how readily does a humane mind turn in preference to Murhpy's
rendering. If this "torture" interpretation be true (and we must
count it doubtful) then we need not cry out too loud in horror at the torture
of prisoners by North American savages, and we may rejoice at the coming of one
who in his Sermon on the Mount gives us something higher and better than the
lextalionis.
In the case of the Moabite prisoners made to lie prostrate and measured in bulk
by a tape-line, one-third to live and two-thirds to die, we find something more
merciful than in the case of the Ammonites, but sufficiently revolting in the
wholesale mathematical method of selecting the living by lot. The black and
white beans for the Mier prisoners impress more favorably. The sum of the truth
is that war in any age, now as well as then, "is hell." The
reconstruction measures forced on the conquered South after the war between the
States surpassed in the bitterness of its prolonged anguish all the quick
tortures of saw, harrow, ax, and brick-kiln inflicted on the Ammonites. No
language can describe the height, depth, length, breadth of the horrors of
reconstruction; not a fleeting agony like being sawn asunder, or burnt in a
brick-kiln, but a deliberate harrowing of the South back and forth and
crisscrossing for twenty-five years, every tooth in the harrow red hot, until
the whole harried country found expression for its hopeless woes in the
Lamentation of Jeremiah: Is it nothing to you, all ye that pass by? Behold, and
see if there be any sorrow like unto my sorrow?
There was no measurement of the prostrate South by tapeline, sparing a part,
but one vast humiliation extending from Virginia to Texas.
And if Jehovah sent condign punishment on Nebuchadnezzar, the wicked ax of his
vengeance for the spirit with which this desolation was brought on sinning
Jerusalem and the self-complacency of the deed, so will he yet in his own way
visit his wrath on the land of those who had no pity on the desolate South.
The Jews are accustomed to excuse David's apparent ingratitude for Moab's past
kindness to his father and mother, and his seeming disregard of the ties of
kindred through Ruth, on the score that Moab murdered his parents when trusted
to their hospitality. Of this there is no historic evidence. A better reason
lies in the fact that Moab joined the conspiracy with Ammon, Syria, and Edom to
destroy David and his kingdom.
QUESTIONS
1. Cite the passages which
show that David's wars closed in a blaze of glory.
2. What said Cromwell to the
painter of his portrait?
3. What always the character
of inspiration's portrait-painting?
4. What the three great sins
that darken this part of David's career?
5. What books show the
voluminous homiletical use of first & greatest sin?
6. What Taylor's outline?
7. What psalm, in order,
throws the greatest light on his heart experiences of this sin?
8. What the precursors of
this sin, preparing for his fall?
9. What the sin itself in
its manifold nature?
10. What its aggravations?
11. What evidence that
David's sin was on his conscience before the visit of Nathan?
12. What four things impress
the mind in Nathan's words to David?
13. What may you say of
David's confession of sin?
14. What the twofold verdict
on the confession, and how does it explain our Lord's saying on the
unpardonable sin?
15. What the time penalties
inflicted, and which the mildest?
16. In what ways is the
sincerity of David's penitence evidenced?
17. What two doctrines in
David's words concerning his child, "He shall not return to me but I shall
go to him," and what the comfort therefrom?
18. Concerning the evidence
of sincere repentance in Psalm 51, what says Carlyle?
19. How did it affect
Voltaire?
20. What psalm the model
expression of the happiness of the forgiveness, and how does Paul use it?
21. What the first lesson of
the application on the experience of David arising from this sin?
22. What the second, and
Virgil's expression of it?
23. What couplet on one sin
provoking another?
24. Cite the passage from
Burns on the hardening power of sin.
25. Cite the stanzas on
"Thou art the man," and give Edgar Allan. Poe's use of the phrase.
26, Cite the stanzas on the reproach of Uriah.
27. Cite Keble's lines on
"The Lord hath put away thy sin."
28. What the two
interpretations of 1 Samuel 12:31 and 1 Chronicles 20:3, and which do you
adopt?
29. What scriptural argument
may be made in extenuation of the "torture" theory of interpretation?
30. How do the Jews excuse
David's treatment of the Moabite captives, and what the better reason?
BRINGING UP THE ARK AND THE ESTABLISHMENT
OF A CENTRAL PLACE OF WORSHIP
2 Samuel 6:1 to 7:29; 1 Chronicles
13:1-14; 15:1 to 17:27 and Harmony, pages 125-I33.
The wars are now all over, and there has come a period of rest. The first thing
that impresses David's mind is this: "I have made Jerusalem the capital of
the nation, and Mount Zion is the chief place in Jerusalem, but in order to
keep this people unified, God must be present. Off yonder at Gibeon is the
tabernacle and the brazen altar, a part of the people worshiping there, and
there is an altar of sacrifice but no altar at Jerusalem. Ten miles off yonder
at Kirjathjearim is the ark of the covenant; it has been there forty-eight
years. Lost in the days of Eli to the Philistines, and returned by the
Philistines and stopped at that place, and there another part of the people are
worshiping." You can see how David's mind would be fastened upon the thought
that he must bring that ark with its symbol of divine presence to his capital,
but in order to bring it he must have a place to put it, so he selects a site
for it and builds a tent, something like the tabernacle which Moses built,
which was still at Gibeon, and it remained there until Solomon built the
Temple. After Solomon built the Temple, the tabernacle was no longer regarded.
It passes out of history.
It has been a characteristic of this man's life to consult God in everything
that he does. Now the priest carried two jewels on his Ephod called the Urim
and Thummim, and through the Urim and Thummim God answered questions
propounded. That Ephod with the Urim and Thummim had been carried by Abiathar
to David in the cave of Adullam. All along through life he had that with him,
and through these brilliant jewels in some way, we do not know just how, God
answered questions propounded. There was also instituted an order of prophets
who became the mouthpieces of Jehovah, so that if a man wanted to know
Jehovah's will he would go to the seer, or prophet, as David went to Nathan,
and as Saul went to Samuel. These were two ways in which God communicated with
the people – the priest way, through the Urim and Thummim, and the prophet way,
through their inspiration. It is the object of David to gather together at
Jerusalem everything sacred – the ark, tent, and altar, and the precious Urim
and Thummim, so that here now in every way he may hear from God.
Sometimes God communicated with individuals in dreams and visions, but
ordinarily through the two ways I have pointed out. We see why he wanted to get
the ark up there, and how important in order to perpetuate unity and solidarity
of his kingdom; all who would confer with God must come to his capital.
While David was king it was not an absolute monarchy. There was what was called
the Convocation of Israel – the general assembly. This section commences:
"And David consulted with the captains of thousands and of hundreds, even
with every leader." Notice that he did not settle matters by a mere ipse
dixit – "words spoken by himself." It was not by mere royal edict. He
wanted the people to see and commit themselves to it, that this was the best
thing to do for the nation. Sometimes a pastor becomes arbitrary in deciding
what to do when he could accomplish his object a great deal better if he would
confer with his brethren. David was not just a boss; he wanted everybody
committed. After this consultation it was decided that they would go for the
ark, and our text tells us how they brought it from Kirjathjearim on a cart
drawn by oxen and that when the oxen stumbled and the cart looked as though it
were going to turn over, Uzzah, one of the men who had been guiding it, reached
out his hand to stop it, and God struck him dead instantly. That made a deep
impression upon David and the people – as deep as when Nadab and Abihu offered
strange fire upon the altar and the lightning leaped from God and destroyed
them; an impression as solemn as when at Peter's words Ananias and Sapphira fell
dead under the stroke of God. The question is, why? The answer is found in the
Mosaic law, that while carts might be used to carry the external things, the
posts of the enclosure, and the curtain of the enclosure, the things of the
sanctuary had to be carried by men, and staves were fitted into each piece
heavy enough to require it so that four men might carry it. They might put the
other things in a cart, but these sacred things had to be borne by men. In the
next place, only certain men could touch it without death. They must not only
be of the tribe of Levi, but of the family of Kohath. In Numbers we have the
order of the encampment of the twelve tribes, three on each of the four sides;
the Levites made an inner circle, and the position of the Kohathites and their
duties. Whenever the trumpet sounded the Kohathites had to pick up the ark to
carry it. In this case the law was violated, and God, in order to show that
there must be reverence for sacred things, and that his precise commands must
be carried out, made the breach on Uzzah.
We now come to a question of David, and it is a great textů1 Chronicles 13:12:
"How shall I bring the ark of God home to me?" What a theme for a
sermon! If I were to preach on that I would show that wherever the ark was
there was safety and blessing. After it stopped at Kirjathjearim that place was
blessed; after it stopped at the house of Obed-Edom that home was blessed.
Since that ark was a symbol of divine presence and divine guidance, it was a
supreme question, "How shall I bring the ark of God home to me?" How
shall I get the ark of God into my family, so that there will be safety,
guidance, peace, and love? You see what kind of a sermon could be made out of
it.
The whole vast crowd went back to Jerusalem and left the ark there. It was a
good thing to have, but a bad thing to touch. It stayed at the house of
Obed-Edom three months, and every hour it brought a blessing to that home. Our
text tells us that David had made him houses in the city of David and prepared
a place for the ark, if he could ever get it there: "How shall I bring it
home to me?" The house that David built for himself was a palace.
The riches that he had made, the commerce that he had instituted, culminated in
a treaty with Hiram, king of Tyre. Tyre was the great naval power of that age –
what England is now – and through his alliance with Hiram he obtained the best
artificers in wood and metal, skilled workmen, and cedars from Lebanon. These
huge trees were floated to Joppa, and from Joppa brought across the country to
Jerusalem, and so David had a fine house. When he went into that house the day
it was finished, he wrote a song – Psalm 30. I told you about his gratitude;
whenever a blessing came, it brought immediately from him an expression of
thanksgiving to God. He wrote Psalm 30 and sang it at the dedication of the
house. He dedicated this house of his to God. The song commences: I will extol thee, O
Jehovah; for thou hast raised me up, And hast not made my foes to rejoice over
me. O Jehovah my God, 1 cried unto thee, and thou hast healed me. O Jehovah,
thou hast brought up my soul from Sheol; Thou hast kept me alive, that I should
not go down to the pit.
I told you that in studying the psalms, you would get the interpretation of the
inner life of David, and that you could tell from the psalms what events of his
life most impressed him. Arrange the Davidic psalms in order, as they express
the life of David. You will commence, of course, with the twenty-third, then
the eighth, etc. There was a great difference between the Gave of Adullam and
this fine palace. Some people do not get a home until late in life. Lorenzo Dow
used to sing that he never had a home, and when a friend made him a present of
a home, he declined it because it kept him from singing his favorite hymn.
David, hearing that the blessings of God had been on ObedEdom, and wanting this
blessing brought to Jerusalem, studied the law and the law told him how to
handle the ark; that the Kohathites should bear it, the Levites only should
come near it; so he set out again with a vast host – nearly 1000 singers – to
go after the ark.
Three chief singers led with cymbals, then three more men led the lute or
psaltery-crowd, and three more men led the harp-crowd, and the priests blew the
trumpets for signals. On page 127 (1 Chron. 15:19) we have: "So the
singers, Heman, Asaph, and Ethan, were appointed, with cymbals of brass to
sound aloud; and Zechariah and Asiel, and Shemiramoth and Jehiel, and Unni and
Eliab, and Maaseiah and Benaiah with psalteries set to Alamoth."
"Alamoth" means female choir; "Sheminith," male choir. He
started out to get the ark home, and when he got to the place they sang this
song, Psalm 15: Jehovah,
who shall sojourn in thy tabernacle? Who shall dwell in thy holy hill? He that
walketh uprightly, and worketh righteousness, And speaketh truth in his heart;
He that slandereth not with his tongue.
Then when the Kohathites lifted up the ark, he said, "Let God arise, and
his enemies be scattered," the song that Cromwell sang before battle. And
now having picked up the ark, the priests with the trumpets gave the signals to
the cymbal-band., the psaltery-band whose singers were maidens, and to the
harp-band. When that vast host drew near to Jerusalem, they sang Psalm 24. Lift up your heads, O ye
gates, And be ye lifted up, ye everlasting doors.
They marched in and deposited the ark in its place in the tent and then David
repeated the words of Moses: "Return to thy rest, O Lord," then
followed refreshments, and then followed the benediction.
I will not go over the pageantry, but will present this thought: The Harmony
tells us (p. 128) "On that day David first ordained to give thanks unto
the Lord, by the hand of Asaph and his brethren." In other words, as soon
as he got the ark in its place, he instituted that remarkable worship which has
never been equalled from that day to this; there was something every day,
morning sacrifice and evening sacrifice. He appointed 24,000 Levites to various
services around the sanctuary. There were twelve different bands, twenty-four
pieces each, for each month of the year, and on great occasions these 288
pieces would be in one grand band with a choir of 4,000 voices; but every month
of the year a certain band would know that it would have to go in. There were a
great many singers, male and female; singers corresponding to cymbals, singers
corresponding to harps, and singers corresponding to cornets. I do not suppose
that history has a parallel to this organization of music. It became somewhat
greater in Solomon's time, but David was the organizer.
We now come to one of the most important lessons in the Bible (p. 131). You
will understand that Deuteronomy 12: 10-11, is the key passage for interpreting
the present section. Here is the direction that after they get over into the
Promised Land and their enemies are subdued, the kingdom is settled, all the
wars ended, then God will designate a central place of worship for his house.
David was familiar with the passage in Deuteronomy. He now believes that the provisional
days are over, and that the time has come for God to have fixed habitation
where all must come, in fulfilment of that passage, and he purposes in his
heart to build the most magnificent house for God that the world has ever seen
(2 Samuel 7:1-3). He was not mistaken in the divine purpose to have a central
place of worship; he was not mistaken that Jerusalem was the place, but he was
mistaken as to the time when, and the man by whom this glorious Temple of God
should be erected. It is important for you to see wherein he was mistaken and
wherein he was not mistaken. God commends him for his zeal: "It was well
that thou didst purpose this in thine heart." "That is a good thing,
but you are not the man to do it."
The Bible assigns two reasons why David was not the man. In 1 Kings 5:3,
Solomon, who was the right man, uses this language: Thou knowest how that
David, my father, could not build a house for the name of Jehovah his God for
the wars which were about him on every side, until Jehovah put these under the
soles of his feet. In other words, the military power of David had not fully
given rest; the time of rest had not fully come; a partial rest had come, but
not the full rest necessary to the establishment of this house. Solomon then
adds: But now Jehovah my God hath given me rest on every side; there is neither
adversary nor evil occurrence. That is the first reason.
We find another reason in 1 Chronicles. David is speaking: "But God said
unto me, Thou shalt not build a house for my name, because thou art a man of
war, and hast shed blood" (1 Chronicles 28:3). He refers to it again as
follows: "But the word of Jehovah came to me saying, Thou hast shed blood
abundantly, and hast made great wars: thou shalt not build a house unto my name,
because thou hast shed much blood upon the earth in my sight" (1
Chronicles 22:8).
Now go back to the passage in Deuteronomy: "When you have gotten over into
that country and have obtained rest from all your enemies, then this permanent
house of God shall be built." David mistook, (1) the time – the wars were
not yet ended; (2) the person – he had been a man of war and had shed blood
abundantly, and the builder of the house of God must be a prince of peace. We
will have use for this thought when we come to consider the antitype. Whereupon
the message to David, the message of our text (and I want you to see that this
divine message to David made the deepest impression ever made upon his mind by
any event of his life) made a stronger impression upon the Jewish mind after
his time than any preceding thing. You will find the psalms full of references
to it, and the prophets magnify it above every promise, particularly Isaiah,
Daniel, and Ezekiel, and you will find that this message that Nathan, from God,
delivered to David, thrilled the Jewish heart with marvelous expectation of the
Messiah, David's son, the Great King that was to come. Frequent reference is
made to it in the New Testament, and Matthew's whole Gospel was written on the
thought of the coming of the King. This is his great theme.
In order to see how this impressed David, notice the exact words spoken to him
(2 Samuel 7:4-7): "And it came to pass the same night, that the word of
Jehovah came unto Nathan, saying, Go and tell my servant David, Thus saith
Jehovah, 6halt thou build me a house for me to dwell in? for I have not dwelt
in a house since the day that I brought up the children of Israel out of Egypt,
even unto this day, but have walked in a tent and in a tabernacle. In all
places wherein I have walked with all the children of Israel, spake I a word
with any of the tribes of Israel, whom I commanded to be shepherd of my people
Israel, saying, Why have ye not built me a house of cedar?" "During
the period of the judges, when I selected a judge like Samson, or Gideon, or
Barak, did I at any time say to any of these judges that the time had come to
build me a permanent house?" (Read 2 Sam. 7:8-16.) That was the message
and it is very easy to see from the context that at the time it made a most
wonderful impression upon the mind of David, as you further note from his
prayer following right after it. (Read 2 Sam. 7:18-19; 1 Chron. 17:1617.)
Consider particularly these words: "And this too after the manner of men,
'0 lord Jehovah." Luther translates that passage thus: "This is after
the manner of a man who is God, the Lord." That is to say, such a promise
cannot fulfil itself in a man of low degree. The Chronicles passage has it:
"Thou hast regarded me according to the estate of a man of high degree."
David does not understand that his son Solomon is to exhaust the meaning of
this passage.
In order to prove the impression made on David's mind, let us read all of Psalm
72 which closes with the words of David and ends a book of the Psalms. The
subscription is: "The prayers of David, the son of Jesse, are ended."
You may easily gather from this psalm that when this promise was made through
Nathan that God would build him a house – house meaning family – except the
Lord build a house, they labor in vain to build it, since children are a
heritage of the Lord. The King in his mind appears from Psalm 2. (Read Psalm
2:1-8.) Then again in Psalm 110 "The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou at
my right hand until I make thine enemies thy footstool." This king is to
be a priest according to the order of Melchizedek. Then in Psalm 89. (Read
Psalm 89:2-4.) Notice again in Psalm 45. (Read the entire psalm.) Now we want
to know how this promise to David impressed the mind of the prophet. (Read
Isaiah 11:1-10.)
The genealogies of both Matthew and Luke prove that Jesus was a descendant of
David. (Read Luke 1:31-33; 68-70.)
Another passage (Read Hebrews 1:5). "Again" here refers to Christ's
resurrection. His soul had gone up to God at his death on the cross to make
atonement, and after the atonement returned for the body, and when the
resurrection took place God said, "Let all the angels of God worship
him." Again, in Hebrews, he says that Moses built a house, the tabernacle,
and Solomon, the lineal son of David, built a house, the Temple. But the Temple
that Solomon built was out of unfeeling rock, unthinking stone, quarried as
rough ashlars from the mountains; then by certain processes smoothed and
fashioned into things of beauty, to be fitted into the earthly Temple of the
Lord, which is a type of human beings, quarried as rough ashlars from the
mountains of sin; then by the marvelous works of regeneration and
sanctification, they become smooth ashlars ready for fitting into the temple of
God, the living temple, to be a habitation for God, through the Spirit, to the
end of the world. See also the last chapter of Revelation.
My point is, that while this promise of God through Nathan rested for the time
being on Solomon, who did build a house, that it looked to a higher than Solomon,
to a more distant day. Let us read Luther's translation again: "This is
after the manner of a man who is God, our Lord." When you study the vast
literature of the Old Testament – say such a series as Hengstenberg's Christology
or Hengstenberg's Kingdom of God, or any good commentary on 2
Samuel 7 and parallel passages in Chronicles, you will find that they regard
this promise made to David as the most remarkable ever made. The prophetic
light grew brighter all the time. Way back yonder the seed of the woman, Abel,
then Seth, Shem, Abram, Isaac, Jacob. . . David, but here the messianic light
becomes most brilliant in this promise.
QUESTIONS
1. What the general
conditions of affairs at this point, and what prompted David to bring up the
ark from Kirjathjearim?