The Pulpit Commentary — 1 Samuel — Section 275

wonld join him in an act_ of ~vorship, to '.vhich S_amuel complies. The decisive languag_e of the 1;>rophet, gIVen m a tone ,vh1ch adnuttcd of no mi1Jtake, aroused the- slumbenng conscience of Saul, and brought about his renrnrknble pleading for pity and )rnlp. We have here the case of a man guilty of a great sin, concerned for its forgiveness, but sternly assured that he shall not have it. The apparent severity of the prophet is not based on any arbitrary decree of God nor on an unchnngeableness in tl~e "Strength of Isra~l '' irrespectiv~ _of human cha/acter and conduct, but upon Gods knowledge of. Sauls actual condition, The repentance which Saul thinl{s to be adequate, and which many men would recognise, is known by the Searcher of hearts not to be true repentance, but only a bare conviction of sin, attended with a conse- quent dread of the o~~ard ten~po~·al consequences attached to it, as just indicated by Samuel. Bare conviction of sin is not true repentance. Consider- . I. ITS REAL NATURE •. Conviction_ of sin_is a matter only of an aroused conscience, orought about by t~e evidence of facts be1!1g set before the understanding and the- presence of penalties consequent on tl)e evidence. There was no resisting Samuel's argument. The common understandmg saw that a human will in opposition to a. Di,'ine was necessarily sin, and the uneasiness of conscience thus naturally aroused was nggravated by the emphntic announcement of a great penalty-loss of the kingdom. The mental operation was that of a pure logical progression from admitted' premises to an irresistible conclusion. Conscience does not disturb a man in working out a syllogism in formal logic or a demonstration in mathematics; but it does when the question reasoned on is the man's own conduct. This is the general nature of the conviction of sin which many experience. Here, observe, is an absence of all that fine spiritual discernment which sees in sin essential unboliness, and that corre- sponding feeling which loathes it because of what it is in the sight of God. There is- no change in the spirit towards sin itself, no detestation of the self-preference which rose against the supreme will. II. ITS MANIFESTATIONS. The manifestation of Saul's conviction of sin is n remarkable illustration of the enormous difference between bare conviction and true repentance. The force of evidence and pressure of penalty extorted the admission, " I have sinned : " yet, owing to the lack of the spirit of repentance, the mere gener- ality of that admission was revealed by the immediate palliation, " I feared the people." Pardon, consisting in the removal of penalty, was the only pardon cared for, and even this was sought by a superstitious trust in the prayers of another. A zealous and prompt observance of some outward act of worship was thought to he a sure means of recovering lost favour. The slightest movement of Samuel indicative of the non-reversal of the penalty only excited a spasmodic dread, without the slightest trace of any changed sentiment towards sin itself. And when no hope of avoiding the penalty remains, the only thought is to break his fall before his elders, and so save some civil advantage. This analysis, expressed in terms suitable to our times, will be found to hold good of multitudes whose conviction of sin is unattended with the spirit of a true repentance. How different the conviction that accompanies true repentance I Then, "I have sinned" has a deep, unutterable meaning. }'or- giveness is then not the mere release of life from suffering and loss, but a restoratior::- of the soul to the joy of personal reconciliation with a holy Father. No thought o:i excuse is ever entertained, but "against thee, and thee only, have I sinned and done this evil," is the sincere confession of a broken and contrite heart. The soul is so filled with self-loathing, and so agonised in being far from God, that it thinks not of punishment and position among men, and can only go direct to God and plead, "Create in me a clean heart, 0 Gorl, and renew a right spirit within me." Contrast Simon Magus (Acts viii. 24) and Felix (Acts xxiv. 25; Ps. Ii.; Luke U'.). III. ITs CONS!l:QUENCES. Saul, though convinced of sin, was practically nn nnch:rnged man. He was, after his pleading with Samuel, and after Samuel:s kindly act cf consoling bis poor _blind heart bJ'. joining in worshi~, a_s fond of !us own solf-1r.ll a~ before. No spiritual change bemgwrought, no rem1ss1on of penalty was ever possible. On his knowledge of what was Saul's radical evil-a heart out of all sympathy with God's holiness-and of its continuance, did God reso1'rc t? J'.ro• vide for Israel another king. The Strength of Israel is not dependent on ex1sl_111g amwgements or human beings for the maintenance of his authority and accomp 11ijh- ·OH. XV. 1--35.) THE FIRST BOOK OF SAMUEL. 277