David Spares Saul

1 Samuel 26
Twice at least David had Saul in his power and might
have killed himbut each time he magnanimously
spared him. On the former occasion Saul was
seeking David in the wilderness of Engedi, and
entered a cave, not knowing that David and his men
were that very hour hiding in the inner recesses of
the same cave. When it was discovered that the king
was in the cave, Davids men tried to induce their
master to take advantage of the opportunity and kill
him. But David refused, only stealing up to the king
and cutting off the skirt of his robe, that he might
have evidence to prove to Saul that he had no hostile
purpose towards him. When Saul had passed out of
the cave, David also went out and called after him,
telling him that he must no longer believe that he
was his enemy. He then held up the part of the kings
garment in his hand to let him know how easily he
could have killed him if it had been in his heart to do
so. Saul was deeply affected, and the two men then
made a covenant of friendship. But Sauls kindly
feeling, like all the good things in him, was transient
only, and before long he was again hunting David
among the mountains.
In this second sparing of Sauls life by David, the
king and his men were pressing their relentless
pursuit and lodged one night close to where David
and his men were hiding. If Saul had known that
David was near he would have sought to capture
him. He had allowed his envy to drive all the love out
of his heart. The lesson our Master teaches usis to
bear wrong patiently, to forgive injury, to return
kindness for unkindness, good for evil, love for hate.
It is a fatal injury to his life when one allows himself
to grow bitter, to cherish resentment, to let envy or
any hurt feeling rankle in his heart. At last love is
utterly driven out, and dark and malign passions
take full possession. It was thus with Saul. Envy is
one of the most perilous passions, and one which if
cherished, may come to a fearful growth.
When Abishai, who accompanied David on the visit
to Sauls camp, saw the king sleeping within the
camp, and all his men asleep, it seemed to him that
it was now time for David to put an end to his
enemys efforts to kill him. Abishai put his own
interpretation on what seemed to him a clear
Providence. He inferred that God would not thus
have brought Saul into Davids hands, if He had not
meant that he should kill him.
Many of us are too apt to interpret Providences in
accordance with our own wishes. When we are
desiring guidance in a certain matter, and there is
one way we very much want to take, we frequently
find what seem to us to be Providences which favor
our preference. This incident shows us that we need
to be careful in interpreting the meaning of events.
We are not to enter every door that stands open.
Opportunity does not always indicate duty. When
you find in some trouble, a person who has done you
a grievous wrong, there is an opportunity to repay
his wrong by refusing to help him. But does the
opportunity justify the retaliation? The Providence
in this case affords a test of character rather than a
Divine commission to do wrong.
In interpreting Providences we must remember that
no opportunity to do anything in itself wrong, must
ever be regarded as a Divine leading. Abishais
inference was not justifiable. It was a misreading of
the thought of God. An opportunity for revenge is
never a voice of God commanding revenge. Our duty
always is to be kind, to bear wrong patiently, to
return love for hate.
Davids temptation to give heed to the words of
Abishai was great. Saul had been pursuing him with
cruel hatred, with no reason whatever. His life was
continually in peril. It would be easy to listen to
Abishai and end it all. The suddenness of the
opportunity also made it harder to resist the
impulse. Nothing is more critical than a sudden
opportunity of indulging an ardent passion. With
scarcely a moment for deliberation, one is apt to be
hurried blindly along, and at once to commit the
deed.
But David refused to listen for a moment to the voice
that counseled the destruction of the king. The
plausible suggestion that God had put Saul into his
power, in order that he might smite him, had no
influence upon David. He buttressed himself in his
refusal upon the sacredness of the person of the
king, the Lords anointed. Destroy him not; for who
can put forth his hand against the Lords anointed,
and be guiltless? In this heroic rejection of the
temptation, David showed admirable self-control.
He restrained himself, and he restrained his hot-
headed men. He would not put forth his own hand to
touch the king, and he would not allow any of his
followers to do it. In the first instance David may
have hoped to soften Sauls heart, by sparing him
but this second time he could cherish no such hope.
He acted here purely on principle, from regard for
the sacredness of the king.
One feeling which must have been strong in favor of
Davids destroying Saul, was that he would thus
open his own way to his place as king. He knew that
he was to be Sauls successor. He seemed now to
have a short, quick way to the throneit was
necessary only to take advantage of his opportunity
and kill Saul. But David would not dare take the
throneuntil God gave it to him. This is a very
important lesson.
There often are things that God intends to give us
but which we must wait to receive in Gods way.
Short-cuts in traveling often bring us into trouble.
Short-cuts in lifes paths are always hindrances in
the end. Jacobs mother knew that Jacob was to have
the blessing of the first-bornbut if she had waited
it would have come without being stained as it was,
by her own and Jacobs deception. Young men are
ambitious, and their ambition may be pure and right
but sometimes they are in such feverish haste to
reach what they wishthat they take the short-cut of
dishonesty or selfishness to get sooner to the coveted
place. But it never pays. It was far better that David
should wander on in exile for a time longer, and then
reach the throne by a clean path. It is pleasant to see
young men get on in lifebut we must always ask
how they get onbefore we can know whether their
elevation is really an honor or not.
David practiced here also, long before Christ came
the teaching of returning love for hate, kindness for
unkindness. Would it not be manly to resent it?
said one who had received an insult. Yes, was the
reply, but it would be Godlike to forgive it. David
did the Godlike thing. He had a chance to avenge
himself. He had his cruel and relentless enemy in his
power. The opportunity was most favorable. One
stroke, and Saul never would have troubled him any
more. His life would then have been safe. He would
have become king at once. His men were urging it.
Yet he overcame the temptation and allowed Saul to
pass out of his hand unharmed. He listened to the
voice of God speaking to him in his own conscience,
and restrained the impulse to avenge himself.
No lesson is harder to learn, than that which Davids
example teaches us. The first impulse, even of a child
when wronged or hurt by another, is to seek
revenge. Sometimes older people encourage this
spirit in children, by telling them to whip the chair or
rocking-horse by which they have chanced to be
hurt. In older people, too, the desire for revenge is
natural, and can be repressed only by the higher law
of love which Christ teaches. The lesson to learn is
that the punishment of injustice or wrong done to us
does not belong to ourselvesbut must be left in
Gods hands. Vengeance belongs unto Me; I will
recompense, says the Lord.
The Lord will render to every man according to his
deeds. There are apt to be wrong views about
bearing injuries. People ask: Is there to be no
justice in cases like Davids? Must we quietly bear
wrongs, and must the person who does the wrongs
never receive any punishment? Our sense of right is
sometimes so outraged, that our souls cry out in
remonstrance when we are told that we never should
resistbut should turn the other cheek when one
cheek has been smitten.
We are not the judges of other men and their
actions. There is but one judge, that is God, and we
must leave in his hands all the right and the wrong in
our lives. Our clumsy hands are not skillful enough
to adjust such delicate matters as these. We are not
required to say that a certain persons treatment of
us was beautiful when it was outrageous; that no
wrong was done to us when we know there was
infamous wrong; that the person deserves no
punishment when it is clear that he deserves severe
punishment. But we are to recognize the truth that
that is Gods responsibility, not ours; that we are to
be patient, meek, and non-resisting, leaving the
whole matter in Gods hands. We have the example
of our Master. When He was reviled, He reviled not
again; when He suffered, He threatened notbut
committed Himself to Him that judges righteously.
We may commit into Gods hand, as David did here,
all the matter of the wrongs or injuries others have
done to us, and leave it there with perfect
confidence. Shall not the judge of all the earth do
right?