1 Samuel
26 is another story where David has to make a choice between God’s
righteousness and the ways of mankind.
Fundamentally, it is a story of accountability all around.
Abner
Let’s
start with Abner, Saul’s commander of the army.
Did you notice that it is actually Abner that David attacks with
accusations? This makes sense. After all, David is allowed to come into the
camp, find Saul, take his spear, take his water jug, and then escape. It sounds to me like there was a serious
breakdown in the security of the camp!
This should naturally fall onto the head of the commander of the army.
I heard a
great analogy last Friday evening in David Platt’s Secret Church
simulcast. He said, “If a Navy boat is
out navigating the coastline and the crew on the night watch runs the ship
aground while the captain is asleep, who is responsible? Certainly the navigator of the night watch is
responsible. But is not also the captain
of the ship responsible?” Is not the
captain responsible for training the crew and assigning crew that are capable
of doing the job properly?
This is
precisely the point that David is making today about Abner. As the commander of the army, Abner is
responsible for the safety of the king – as David says, “the Lord’s
anointed.” Abner is responsible for
appointing the night watches and making sure that they are capable of doing the
job even when he’s not looking (or asleep!).
This is
true about good Christian leadership. If
a Christian organization fails because the leader failed to train or failed to
appoint capable people to tasks, then the leader is to be held
accountable. On the other hand, if the
system fails because the people refuse to be trained or because they directly
go against the marching orders, then the leader is absolved of guilt. In the end, though, with Abner David is
concerned about accountability.
David
Now let’s
look at David’s choice. David goes with
Abishai into the camp. Abishai
encourages David to pin him to the ground.
Again we hear David speak words of protection over Saul. David refuses to touch the Lord’s
anointed. Again, David would be
justified from a worldly perspective.
Saul has come out to hunt him down and remove him from the earth. But David takes the high ground and allows
God to deal with Saul. Again this is
about accountability.
I do find
this story in wonderful contrast to yesterday’s story with Nabal. Yesterday David seemed so quick to want to
strike him down, yet here David is completely against touching Saul. So clearly we see the contrast between being
a self-monger and being righteous in God’s eyes – even within the same person! It is a great contrast to remember Luther’s
very important words: “Hate the sin, love the sinner.” We are all sinners, in the moment we think
ourselves the most righteous we can find ourselves ready to sin. In the moment where we find ourselves
wrestling deep in sin we can find ourselves capable of doing the most righteous
deed. How frustrating it must have been
for God to watch David waffle between sin and righteousness. How frustrating it must be for God to watch
it in each of us, too!
Saul
Let’s end
on a negative note today and look at Saul.
Saul is going back on his promise to David from a few chapters back when
David spared him for the first time.
Saul had repented and let David go; now Saul is back hunting David
down. This should teach us two
lessons. The first one is easy: a promise
made in sincerity is no guarantee that the promise will be kept.
The second
lesson is a little more difficult but just as important. The counsel that we seek is important. If we seek good counsel and the wisdom of the
wise ones around us, then we will get good counsel. But if we listen to just anyone then we are
likely to get bad counsel. Think about
both experiences where Saul comes out against David. Do they not begin with people coming to Saul
and saying something like “Is not David here?”
Saul allowed himself to pay attention to bad counsel and he pays for it
twice at the hand of David’s righteous behavior. Of course, Saul is really lucky, because both
cases of bad counsel could have cost him his life. We need to pay attention to the counsel we
receive – determining first and foremost if it is good counsel before acting
upon it.
<><
No comments:
Post a Comment