Bible Commentaries
2 Samuel 4

Verses 1-12

XVI

DAVID, KING OF JUDAH AT HEBRON, AND THE WAR WITH THE HOUSE OF SAUL

2 Samuel 1:1-4:13; 1 Chronicles 3:1-4

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 is 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 was 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 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 was the character of Abner, Ishbosheth, and Joab?

14. What is a great text for a sermon in this section?

15. What is the sense of Joab’s reply to Abner. 2 Samuel 2:27?

Verse 4

XIV

ZIKLAG, ENDOR, AND GILBOA

1 Samuel 27:1-31:13; 2 Samuel 4:4; 1 Chronicles 10:14; 1 Chronicles 12:1-7

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; Ezekiel 14:7-8: "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 Sirach 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 sin of David punished?

4. How does he recover himself from this sin?

5. What judicious uses of the victory did he make?

6. What were the great accessions to David at Ziklag?

7. What is 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 is the prophetic teaching on this subject?

9. What had Saul done to enforce the Mosaic law?

10. What are the theories of interpretation concerning the transaction in 1 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?