|
|
|
A Call to Lead
Faithfully
INTRODUCTION
Faithful leadership of God’s people was one of the demands incumbent on those in leadership, from the time of the birth of the nation of Israel, to the leadership of God’s people in the present day.
The essence of faithful leadership is strict obedience to God’s instructions. The scriptures are replete with the accounts of both faithful and unfaithful leaders and the far reaching consequences of their actions. In the days of Israel, the nation experienced blessings, freedom, peace and prosperity under faithful leaders and experienced oppression, injustice, idolatry and hardships under those who were disobedient to God.
1 Samuel covers the time from the end of that woeful period in the nation of Israel’s history known as the ‘Time of the Judges’ to the death of their first King, Saul.
God’s dealings with the nation during this period were centred on the lives of the main characters namely: Eli and his sons, Hannah, the prophet Samuel and the kings Saul and David. The tumultuous conditions that so marked the period of the Judges continued into the period of the monarchy, with Israel at war with several neighbours.
A war-weary nation badgered the prophet Samuel to ask God for a king, like the other nations; this to the prophet’s consternation and God’s displeasure. Despite Samuel’s warnings of the less than desirable consequences of an earthly monarchy the people insisted, ignoring the fact that in reality they were rejecting Yahweh as their king.
Our lesson today is an instructive case study that illustrates how believers must seek to walk before God. We are well aware that a person can be guided by the principle of the flesh, as opposed to being guided by the principle of faith. We can speak of the carnal person and even a professing believer who is guided by the principle of carnality, and we can also speak of the spiritual believer.
As such, these principles apply to every Christian today, and it is well worth our while to see how these two principles are illustrated in the lives of king Saul and king David. Both of these men were similarly empowered and instructed by God through the prophet Samuel. Their subsequent, respective conducts, relative to their responses to God’s commands, are illustrative of the flesh and Spirit led principles.
It is clear that Saul was a man of the flesh. He was driven by carnal principles that ultimately led to his ruin, because his will was led by the flesh; while David, despite his glaring character weaknesses, was a man of faith.
1 Samuel 13: 14 describes David as a man after God's own heart. David was certainly not sinless, for he had a violent temper, and can be fairly described as a man who was driven by great passions, driven by practical controlled desires, and who was a cruel, vicious killer, a man of blood.
But he loved God with all his heart, and when God confronted him over his foolishness, misdeeds, and gross sin, he repented instantly and unequivocally, made no excuses and never repeated his sins.
On the other hand, Saul did practically the same terrible things as David, but he never really repented, always blamed others, including God, the prophet Samuel, his righteous Son, and the people over which he ruled. He never put himself in the hands of God for any significant period of time. He was never fully committed to God, though he believed in God, and fully well knew about the power of God.
Note that the flesh cannot please God, for it puts itself in the place of God, not believing God and doing things his way.
A brief history of the times is necessary to understand the differences between Saul and David and to understand what an unfaithful leader is, when compared to a man of faith.
The prophet Samuel was old, and his sons were dishonest, immoral and corrupt. There was no apparent successor on the horizon. The people did not wait for God to solve the problem and they did not fancy being ruled by a ruler that they could not see.
They told Samuel to appoint a king to rule them, so that they would be just like the other nations that had kings. They demanded a king that would fight their battle and judge them, even though the military and economic situation was not bad.
This behaviour actually did not seem to be prompted by the actions of the Gentiles that remained in the land, for 1 Samuel 7: 13-14 tells us that the Philistines had been subdued, and that there was peace between Israel and the Ammonites, defendants of Lot, but a perennial enemy with whom Israel had blood ties.
The military situation did not seem so bad but there seem to have been an ongoing problem with idolatry. See chapter 6 and 7.
Note, God had recognized that the time would come when the people would need a king, and therefore in Deuteronomy 17 he did promise the people an earthly king but he had put many restrictions on the king’s behaviour, so that the king would certainly not be like the kings in the other nations. But these warnings meant nothing to the people. The elders of Israel were again slipping into following the principle of the flesh, appearing to be religious, since they at least did come to Samuel with their request, while all the time wanting to conduct the affairs of the nation just like the rest of the world. They were rejecting the authority and the sovereignty of God.
We do the same thing today, for we bring in the principles of the business world and the salesmanship tactics of the world into the conduct of the church, setting up a committee to plan “our” program, and then and only then, asking God to come and bless it and make it work.
When we want something really badly, God certainly will give it to us and then leave us to face the consequences, even if when we get it we don't want it. This is what happened to Israel.
God noted the attitude of the nation, and choose the ideal looking, picture perfect king, perfectly fitted to the image of the ‘world’.
Saul was all that the flesh would desire. He was a physically superior man, whose handsome appearance and stature fitted well into the people’s expectation of their king but note what Saul was really like.
He was involved in his father’s donkey business and when some donkeys were lost and he went searching fruitlessly for them, he came to where Samuel lived. It was his servant who suggested that they ask the man of God where the donkeys were and he didn't seem too enthused. He claimed they had nothing they could use to pay Samuel. The servant had to point out to him that he had a quarter of a shekel of silver that could be used as payment to Samuel for his services.
When Samuel met Saul and anointed him king, he gave him three signs to indicate that God was with him. The signs all came to pass as foretold. One would expect that he would be excited on the preferential treatment given to him by Samuel the prophet, his new commission as King and his anointing by the Spirit manifested in his prophesying with the prophets (chapter 10). But contrary to what one would expect, Saul did not even mention to his relatives and his uncle what had happened, (10:16).
Despite the fact that God in his grace and mercy, had also put his Spirit on Saul to enable him to judge and to lead with wisdom and power, this man did not show any real interest in the things of God.
It was Samuel who forced Saul out into the open, by calling the people together and in a ceremony had lots cast on the tribes to see which tribe would produce the king. When the lot fell on Saul he was nowhere to be found and God had to reveal that he was hiding among the baggage. When the people found this handsome, tall man and acclaimed him King, some of the streetwise, godless men treated Saul with contempt, questioning the wisdom of God's choice, and asking how this kind of leader could ever save the nation.
Later events showed that Saul was not behaving like this because of modesty, for that he wasn't. He seemed to have found the entire thing inconvenient. He would have preferred to be left alone doing his own thing.
God’s choice for king was gladly received by the people. One writer comments:How gracious God is to us, in spite of our sin. God gives Israel a king, but this king is not “like the king of the nations.” This king is the finest humanity available, a man transformed in heart and supernaturally empowered by the Spirit of God. When Saul walks in the Spirit, he functions as the deliverer of the people of God. When he walks in the Spirit, he recognizes that the victories his armies win are God’s victories, not his own. He is a man marked by humility and grace.
God supported Saul, and in his first fight, he had a massive victory over the Ammonites, Israel’s troublesome blood relatives.
Samuel then had to threaten and reprove the people for their ingratitude, reminding them of the faithfulness and protection of God that they had enjoyed, frightening then into repentance from their idolatry by calling for thunder and rain, and reassuring them that if they served God with all their heart they would prosper (see chapter 12).
The honeymoon was short lived however. Chapters 13-15 records that Saul precipitated conflict with the Philistines by attacking their garrison at Geba and boasting of what he had done (13:3). There is no record that he had discussed the matter with Samuel. The Philistines put together a large force and sought revenge. The Israelites, terrified at the size of the enemy army, proved to be cowards and fled.
Samuel, the representative of God, made arrangements to meet Saul in seven days to offer sacrifices, but he did not appear at the scheduled time. As expected, Saul did what the flesh always does when God does not appear on schedule. The flesh decides to do things by itself, instead of fearing and obeying God, and not worrying about the people deserting, the arm of flesh failing.
Worse of all, he took upon himself to offer the burnt offering, the sin offering, which represents the death of Christ for the penalty of sin, and the guilt offering, which represents the death of Christ for the injury of sin. The offering of these sacrifices is sacrosanct and the exclusive province of the priest. These sacrifices, which were totally consumed on the altar, involved the death of God's beloved son, picturing, as one writer puts it: “ Christ totally consumed to do the Father’s will. So, here Saul sacrifices the burnt offering in direct violation of the known will of God. He knows he is not allowed to do this, but he does it anyway, thus making a travesty of it. The flesh always, even when he tries to believe God, makes a travesty out of the situation. The very moment Saul finishes offering the burnt offering here is Samuel right on God's schedule. One minute to midnight, and he says verse 11. “What have you done?”
Saul then rationalized. First he said the people were scattering from him, so they were to blame for his sinning. Then he blamed Samuel for not coming at the appointed time. Then he blamed the Philistines who were the ones responsible for his bad circumstances so that he could not help himself. Then he blamed God in verse 12 for not coming down when he made supplications. Then he excused himself, for he said he had to force himself to offer the burnt offering.
There is no repentance, no remorse. Everyone is to be blamed but not him. Here is Saul’s personal failure to walk in the ways of God, as he blatantly disobeyed God’s commands delivered by Samuel.
Note the punishment was to be a rejection of Saul’s line as the Royal line. God had rejected the right of his line to rule Israel. (1 Samuel 13:14). Still God had not rejected Saul himself yet, for the time had not yet come for David to ascend the throne.
God would now give Saul a chance to prove what he could do to free Israel, (chapter 14). Chapter 15 records how God acted to give Saul a last chance to redeem himself, as Samuel instructed Saul to destroy the Amalekites, and every single thing that they owned. If he disobeyed, he would now disqualify himself as king personally.
God views unfaithfulness in the discharge of an official office with the utmost gravity.
Note, God’s people and those who would lead them must know who God is and as a result put their trust in Him. Leaders carry the expectations and aspirations of the people and being in the forefront and spotlight can more so magnify God than others, by the demonstration of their public trust in God and willingness to defer to God at all times and in all circumstances. Conversely, by disobedience and a lack of trust in God, leaders bring great reproach to the name of God and are judged accordingly as in the case of Moses and David.
Sadly, like many of us, leaders are very susceptible to pride and other ‘fleshly’ leanings, as some give themselves licence to do God’s bidding their own way. It is on these very accounts that Saul is rejected and the singular characteristic God identifies in his successor is “…a man after my own heart…”. Commanded to totally annihilate the Amalakites, a marauding and rapacious nation of ‘sinners’ God had long before marked for destruction, Saul instead choose to spare their king Agag and some choice spoils of war. The Amalekites are a picture of those who always oppose the things of God. They are the flesh par excellence. There is nothing good about the flesh and it must be totally destroyed. Nothing must be left. Nothing of the flesh can be dedicated to God, for it is enmity against God. If we desire to keep anything of it, we are only pretending to dedicate it to God. That is what Saul tried to do. Once again the King was sternly rebuked by the Prophet: And Samuel said, Hath the LORD as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the LORD? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams. For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry. Because thou hast rejected the word of the LORD, he hath also rejected thee from being king, 15:22-23. These offences by Saul were so grave, that not only Saul but all his family were barred from being king over Israel. Some might consider God’s judgment on Saul rather severe, however God’s judgment and Saul’s own disobedience should be viewed in the light of Deuteronomy 17:14-20: where instructions regarding the conduct of kings is outlined. When thou art come unto the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee, and shalt possess it, and shalt dwell therein, and shalt say, I will set a king over me, like as all the nations that are about me; Thou shalt in any wise set him king over thee, whom the LORD thy God shall choose: one from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee: thou mayest not set a stranger over thee, which is not thy brother. But he shall not multiply horses to himself, nor cause the people to return to Egypt, to the end that he should multiply horses: forasmuch as the LORD 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 goldAnd it shall be, when he sitteth upon the throne of his kingdom, that he shall write him a copy of this law in a book out of that which is before the priests 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 the LORD 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 left: to the end that he may prolong his days in his kingdom, he, and his children, in the midst of Israel. One writer comments on the previous verses in part: When the king ascends to his throne, he is to write a copy of the law for himself -- he is to do this in the presence of the Levitical priests. This seems to imply a very clear “separation of powers.” The king has great authority, but when it comes to the law, he is not only subject to it, but he is to listen to the Levitical priests as to its meaning. The Old Testament Book of the Law is the king’s textbook, and the Levitical priests are his teachers or tutors. This Law is to be his constant guide, the basis for his rule. He is to read and re-read it all the days of his life. This not only gives the king the wisdom to rule, and the principles on which his kingdom is established (the constitution of the kingdom), but it keeps the king from becoming puffed up with pride and elevating himself above his brethren (verse 20). This constant reading of the Law is to keep the king from disobedience of the Law, even in some small way. Devotion to the Law will prolong the king’s days, for both he and his descendants (verse 20). Does this not explain the severity of God’s response to Saul’s disobedience? Saul did not heed this instruction to kings set down in Deuteronomy and very likely reiterated and clarified by Samuel:
In both instances Saul sought to justify his disobedience but it is worth noting that in every and all circumstances, the worst option is always to disobey God.
Since it was not just Saul, but his dynasty that was rejected, it was necessary for God to designate through Samuel, who the new king would be. One trait God identified in His choice of the king to be, is he will be a man after God’s own heart.
In today’s study, God chooses the next king of Israel and his selection criteria will prove different from that which human wisdom might have adopted. God will look past physical appearances and status to the person’s heart and choose David, the youngest son of Jesse the Bethlehemite and a shepherd no less.
As David’s reign unfolds in the wake of Saul’s failures, the qualities of a faithful leader will be evident. These are rooted in an unwavering trust in God and obedience to his word.
Saul had been personally chosen, anointed, filled with the Holy Spirit, and equipped for the work he was to do. God therefore did not set him up to pull him down. He disqualified himself.
It is very important to note how a person can disqualify themself, even if chosen of God, given a ministry and empowered by the Spirit of God. When a person falls in pagan practises, keeps for their perceived benefits what God has forbidden, thereby pretending to be as smart as God, never accepting responsibility for their actions, only obeying God as long as it does not cost anything, in a word, being led by the flesh, that is automatically disqualification.
Now it is clear that David would have to be tested and proved by struggle and adversity and he would have to learn to walk by faith. He would have to learn complete dependence on God, and before then he could never be put on the throne as Saul was.
He would have struggles and failures and commit great sins that hurt himself and others. But he never disqualified himself, for he earnestly desired to get rid of his besetting sin and was willing to pay the price.
THE TEXT
Verse 1. The old prophet is still saddened by Saul’s tragic failures, broken hearted and taking no joy when God judge his people. After all, he was anointed and the Spirit of God had come up on him. Samuel might have mourned when he realized that there was a great deal of hypocrisy and pride in Saul, who, though he had been told God had rejected him because of his sinning, he had begged Samuel to honour him in front of the people. 15:30,31.
Samuel might also have had some anxiety for the welfare of Israel; what with hostile neighbours on all sides and soon to be without a king. The Lord’s words come as a mild rebuke, He had rejected Saul and so must his servant. Saul’s coronation came about by the people’s agitating but this king will be according to God’s initiative.
There is a time to mourn and a time to act, and so Samuel is told to shape up and commanded to go to a man named Jesse in Bethlehem and to anoint one of his sons as Israel’s next king. Interestingly, Jesse is the grandson of Boaz and Ruth.
God had laid down rules in Deuteronomy 17:14-20 stating his qualifications for a king. There it was stated that the law of God was to rule over the king. He was to be the servant of the people, not their Lord, for there was only one Lord in Israel. Therefore he was never to allow his heart to be lifted up above his countrymen.
Clearly the voice of the people, who had acclaimed Saul as king, was not the voice of God.
Verse 2-3. “……how can I go….”, Saul was a man of violent disposition (11:6-7) but this is also an indication of how far he had fallen, since the days it was said of him; Is Saul also among the prophets? that he would murder the prophet. Samuel protested that Saul would kill him, if word reached Saul that he was anointing a new king. Samuel understood Saul’s pride and his hypocrisy and his determination, irrespective of God's judgment, to retain the honour of the people, (15:30-31).
Samuel’s assessment was right, for later Saul commanded his servants to kill eighty five “priests of the Lord” at the priests city of Nob, and even after his own servants refused to do such an awful thing, he turned to Doeg the Edomite to do his dastardly deed. (22:16-19)
This man, who spared the king of the Amalekites and the choice possessions, now, at the city of the priests of Yahweh, slaughtered everything in sight, “both men and women, children and sucklings, and oxen, and asses, and sheep, with the edge of the sword.” (verse 19). He had no qualms about his intention of putting his own son to death (chapter 14:42-45), and he would certainly kill any potential threat to his throne and any that would support a rival king
Samuel had not been timid or hesitant previously and was not rebuked by the Lord, so we can assume his fear was well founded. This is confirmed as the Lord directs Samuel how to anoint the ‘king elect’ without attracting attention. This could also be seen as Samuel simply seeking directions from God in what was a delicate situation.
Note, those that go about God's work in God's way shall be directed step by step, wherever they are at a loss, to do it in the best manner.
In addition, if Saul did try to kill him, and even if he did not succeed, this might lead to civil war. Samuel probably did not want that to happen in Israel, and give the nation's enemies cause for rejoicing.
Take an heifer…this is not to be viewed as being duplicitous as Samuel is indeed going to offer a sacrifice, something prophets do at the direction of God. God was not setting up a rival king, which might lead to civil war, but secrecy was nevertheless necessary to avoid unnecessary trouble. As one writer says: Concealment of a good purpose, for a good purpose, is clearly justifiable.
It is true that the full intent of Samuel’s visit to Bethlehem was concealed, but this was the means God chose to protect his prophet and not precipitate fighting at this time. Of course, in due time, news of the event leaked.
He is told to tell the people of Bethlehem that he has come to offer a sacrifice to the Lord.
He is to invite Jesse to this sacrificial meal, which will provide the occasion for him to anoint one of his sons as king. The specific son is not identified, but it is to be one of the sons of Jesse.
Verse 4. And Samuel did….It is a good thing when it is said of Christians that they did what God commanded.
The arrival of the prophet in Bethlehem was sure to cause a stir, even his movement from one place to another would prompt questions. The cause of their anxiety in this case, might have been Samuel’s habit of showing-up unexpectedly to discipline and punish sin. Guilt causes fear. They would also have heard of what Samuel did with Agag right in front of Saul. (1 Sam 15:33) Also, Samuel’s stormy encounter with Saul (1 Sam.15:22-35) had by now become public and to be seen hosting the prophet might put one at peril with Saul (1 Sam.22:11-19).
Their anxious question is along the line of ‘are you yourself at peace and not fleeing Saul or are you come to rebuke us? Samuel had lately confined himself to his house in Ramah and they reasoned it must be some extraordinary occasion that brought him to Bethlehem. It appears they feared the worst.
The sacrifice would be a peace offering rather than a burnt offering, and most of the meat from this would be shared at a feast.
Verse 5. …..Peaceably…relief all round, Samuel’s answer put the elders at ease and they are invited to attend the sacrifice; a privilege to fellowship in this offering to God. The elders are to sanctify (prepare, dedicate, consecrate) themselves for the occasion. An invitation was to be extended to Jesse and Samuel himself would assist the family with their preparation (sanctify); giving them instructions and praying with them. As of yet the identity of the ‘king-to-be’ is not known to Samuel but he knows he will be one of Jesse’s sons.
Verse 6. After the sacrifice had been presented on an altar, the sacrificial meal was in all probability held at Jesse’s house, with the host by now aware of the full purpose of the prophet’s visit. Samuel’s selection criteria is already set in his mind and clearly borrowed from Saul’s anointing. Eliab the eldest son and in the mind of Jesse and Samuel the likely choice was the first to be ‘interviewed’. He must have fitted into Samuel’s ‘king template’, as we see from his rush conclusion; Surely the LORD's anointed is before him. Shades of Saul here, Eliab was likely a man of imposing physical stature (1 Sam.9:2) and handsome.
One writer comments on the advantages of being the ‘firstborn’:
First, one would expect the first-born to be the choice for king. The first-born was given a double portion of his father’s goods. Headship of the family was passed on to the first born. The oldest would be expected to be the most mature, the most experienced, the wisest of the family. So why would anyone expect the youngest son to be God’s choice? In addition to priority in birth order, Samuel expects the king-to-be will be evident by his appearance. Studies show that most top executives tend to be “tall, dark, and handsome.” Samuel expects the same. This was exactly the way it was with Saul (see 9:2)….. God knows what Samuel is thinking when he looks at Eliab, Jesse’s oldest son, a tall, good-looking fellow…
Verse 7. Samuel is wrong. When God would please the people with a king he chose a tall handsome fellow; but when the choice is one after his own heart, the criteria will not be based on external appearances. The Lord’s message to Samuel made it clear that the choice of king would have to be His, that is the Lord’s. Because, the Lord looks at the heart of a person, while men judged by what they see. While men can tell how a person looks, God can tell what they are! Eliab is rejected despite his ‘firstborn’ status and imposing physical stature.
We learn later in chapter 17:28, that Eliab was not as nice as he looked, for when David came to visit him and the brothers and bring some food from his father, the man treated David with utmost contempt. He definitely did not like David, and did not restrain showing is anger at his presence.
Verse 8-10. Evidently, these ‘interviews’ were conducted individually with each son, as they had to be called to appear before Samuel. Eventually all of Jesse’s sons that he considered to have the ‘right stuff’ passed before Samuel in order of their age. Samuel had the same answer for each, The LORD hath not chosen these.
Verse 11. Probably perplexed that none of the sons he had seen was the Lord’s choice, Samuel asked if there were any other children. It is probably noteworthy that while there was a feast at his father’s house, David was left out in the field to watch the sheep.
Given the importance of what was happening, it is clear Jesse never expected the anointing to unfold in this fashion; that it would actually come down to David who was still a lad or he would have had him in the house. It must have been a sheepish confession that the youngest was with the sheep. In Samuel’s mind this had to be the son and so the whole proceedings came to a halt, the meal will wait until he is brought.
The reason for Jesse's high handed behavior is made clear when we look at 1 Chronicles 2 and 11 Samuel 17, for scholars tell us that analysis of these passages show that David was the son of Jesse’s second wife. “ Jesse's first seven sons were probably by his first wife, and then, assuming she died, he married again to a woman who had previously been the wife of Nahash. She had two daughters by Nahash, Zeruiah and Abigail. David probably was much younger than his sister Zeruiah, was probably a step brother to all the other brothers, and was quite possibly much younger than anyone else in the family, which would make him runt of the litter and earn him that kind of treatment. His brothers, particularly Eliab, did not like him (as we will see when we study David and Goliath) and probably picked on him continually.”
As it turned out, the one that was not invited became the principal guest. Later speaking of David Psalm 78:71 says he was taken From following the ewes ….. he brought him to feed Jacob his people, and Israel his inheritance.
David might have seemed an unlikely choice for king among his kinfolk but God would equip him experientially and empower him with His Spirit to become the greatest king of Israel.
Some speculate that it is possible, that the poor treatment from his father and brothers led to him becoming a poor father, who indulged every whim that his sons had and never said no to them, even if it destroyed them.
David is a type of Christ, for Jesus also, even when he was young, had to do hard physical labour to help support his family. His brothers also hated him and tried to detain him, because they thought he was mad. John 7 tells us that his brothers tried to get him killed by encouraging him to go to Jerusalem, even though they knew the Jews were planning to kill him there.
David, lived through a miserable childhood, spending much time alone with the sheep, depending only on God, accustomed to pouring out his heart to God, thus became the kind of person that God said he will use. Men did not think much of him, didn't like him, exploited him, thought he was foolish and weak, but God chose him, such a person, elevated him so that he could not glory in himself.
One writer comments: “If it was strange for God to find the king of Israel at the sheepfold, it was even stranger for the Saviour of the World to come from a carpenter’s shop.”
Read 1 Corinthians 1:26 and David’s prayer and thanksgiving in 2 Samuel 7:18-29, Psalm 31:11, Psalm 69:8-9, and many other passages that show the problems with which David had to contend.
Let us never make the foolish excuse for not doing our God appointed ministry, because we grow up poor, were not highly regarded by our family and neighbours, lacked self esteem, were overworked by our families, were not too educated, and so on.
We should do what we have to do and not disqualify ourselves. God is sovereign and we have all the power that we need to do what God has called us to do.
Verse 12. David is summoned and brought before Samuel. He is also a handsome young man, lacking none of the qualities found in his older brothers, his age and position in the family notwithstanding. God does not disqualify David for his good looks but neither does He choose him because of them. Good looks might have been something expected in a king but it is David’s heart and character, and his fellowship with God, his complete dependence on God, and trust in God, that is pleasing to God, and what is the basis of his election to service. . The Lord commands Samuel to arise and anoint David, for David is His chosen.
Verse 13. Dutifully Samuel arose and anointed David with his horn of oil with the family looking on. As in the case with Saul, the Spirit came upon him to empower and prepare him for the service to which he was anointed. Thus his anointing was not just a ceremony, but was authenticated by the Spirit coming upon him.
One writer gives us valuable lesson on this anointing “David’s anointing was much like Saul’s i. Both were anointed in secret ii. Neither immediately seized the throne
The real anointing happened when the Holy Spirit came upon David; the oil on the head was just a sign of this inward reality.
The symbol of the Holy Spirit coming upon David was the anointing oil on his head; the symbol of the Holy Spirit coming upon Jesus was the dove that appeared from heaven; the symbol of the Holy Spirit coming upon the disciples was the tongues of fires that appeared over their heads. The Holy Spirit loves to do His work as He wills, in many different ways.
It was a long time between the time David was chosen and anointed to be a king and the time he was crowned; even so, it is a long time for most of us from when we are chosen and anointed to when we receive our crowns (2 Timothy 4:8)”.
Note, the best evidence of our calling to the kingdom of God, is our experience and knowledge of the working of the Spirit in our own hearts.
Samuel returned to Ramah when the sacrificial meal was over. There is no record of Samuel giving a charge or explanation to David as he had done in the case of Saul (1 Sam 10:1).
In all probability Samuel said nothing at the time, since, according to verse 2, he had good reason for keeping the matter secret, not only on his own account, but still more for David's sake.
CONCLUSION
Our passage is about God’s selection of David for service -- not for his salvation. God chose to save David because he had a heart that was willing to serve and obey God. It was not because David had a pure heart towards God. If God were to choose to save those who had a pure heart, no one would be saved.
Leadership profiles today are much like that in the days of Samuel, because all men to a greater of lesser degree find the same things attractive. The emphasis is on the externals and records of achievement. When God looked for a king He sought a man who had a heart for Him. This should be the first trait among others.
Faithfulness, seeking the interest of the one we serve will make us those kinds of men and women whom God seeks for His service.
Here we have a man in the covenant community, called, equipped, and supported, but he disqualified himself because he refused to obey, and chose his zealous, religious and fleshly way to please God. He was given opportunity to redeem and do well but this only showed more clearly that he was not God's man.
He was disobedient and constantly rationalized what he did. He did not want to be a servant to these people, but wanted to do his own thing.
God rejected that. This time God chose a man who was not sinless but who also had the tendency to do stupid things. David’s history is not much better than that of Saul, for his behaviour was also bad. One writer sums up David this way. When we look at him let us look at ourselves, and make sure we avoid the traps into which both Saul and David fell. After all, we have their history to guide and to warn us. We are told:
“ The difference between these two is the attitude of the heart. When Saul was confronted with disobedience, he either rationalized or blamed somebody else. He never accepted the discipline of God. David, on the other hand, commits murder, adultery, is vicious, cruel, bloody, and emotionally unstable, but when God puts the finger on him, he cracks. He just breaks. No arguments! No rationalizations! He repents. Now, until God puts the finger on him, he rationalizes, but when he is confronted, he breaks every time. David really wants to be God's man. He is not quite sure how to go about it, but inherently that is what he wants. This is the only difference between these two kings. One is disqualified. One is called “ A man after God's own heart. That is not to say that God winks at bad behaviour. David must face the consequences of his rebellion or his stupidity. His household is destroyed. The seeds he sows in Solomon's life wipe out the kingdom. Solomon begins as an extraordinary man of God and ends up a tyrant estranged from his God. There is no escaping the consequences of rebellion, but also there is no escaping the love, the grace, the mercy and the acceptance of God. Also, “If we desire to get rid of that sin and are willing to pay the price, even so at the moment we are failing miserably, we will not be disqualified. We will be victorious when God has finished with us.”
|