The Pulpit Commentary — 2 Samuel — Section 75

Faiellful,ness in small things. The passage here in reference to David and Michnl brings out a feature in the character of the king which was prominent from first to Inst. According to the common estimate of things, the a priori belief would be that, when a ruler desires the subjugation of a kingdom, be will readily accept. offers nf submission and of all powerful aide to bring it to pass. To obtain supremacy over Israel wns the one thing above all others on which David's mind was set, and the co-operation of so influential a man as Abner was a virtual realization of the king's purpose. To an astute unprincipled man like Abner it was doubtless a cause of amazement that, when the kingdom was within the king's grasp, he should practically refuse to have it unless a certain private affair was first arranged. The great affairs of the nation were made to wait on the settlement of what seemed to be a mere matter of sentiment and personal interest. Few monarchs in the East would thus have dealt with the chance of gaining the ends of long-cherished political ambition. In David's case the stipulation was consistent with his character. He was ever generously careful of maintaining the rights of individuals and of sacrificing his own ambition to the justice due to others. He was faithful in that which is least. J. 'fHE CLAIMS OF THAT WHICH IS LEAST ABE VALID AND ARE SUBSTANTIAL PARTS OF A VAST SYSTEM OF OBLIGATIONS. Michal was David's wife, bound to his heart and life by ties sacred and memorable (1 Sam. xviii.17-30). To political schemers it would seem absurd to set a woman, not seen for many years, and known to be living in forced matrimony with another man, over against a whole kingdom. But wrong done to her (1 Sam. xxv. 44) had not invalidated her claim on David's affection. It was due to her, due to the memory of her father in spite of his follies, due to the force of bis own character on others, and due to the old love (1 Sam. xviii. 20-28) which changing fortunes had not changed, that she should have justice done her on the very first oppor- tunity of enforcin~ it. David's vision was clear enough to see that, if his claim to be king over all Israel was valid because of the appointment of God, so equally the claim of this banished woman on his love and care was also valid, because based on principles which God had ordained for the regulation e,f domestic life. The same Divine will was in both; and, moreover, they were equally parts of the great system of obligations which covers the whole area of human activity, and which is productive of highest good to man when the different parts are equally held as sacred and a.re rigidly observed.. In human affairs there is often an apparent collision of what are ea.lied small and great obligations. In reality there is no such thing. There may be a question of order in which actions shall 1:.e done; but obligation, in the moral sense, can never clash with obligation. To love the Lord with all the heart is the prime, the chief dnty, but it does not destroy the duty of love to our neighbour. To take part in public affairs may be an obligation, but the care of home is a valid claim which cannot be ignored. There a.re duties which, entering into the minuti!ll of life or pertaining to the home rather than to public affairs, may be regarded as relatively small, but inasmuch as they are not the creation of custom but proceed from the will of God and form parts of the great scheme of life, they are to be regarded a.s sacred and binding as those which figure more largely before the public eye. II, THE BRINGING ABOUT OF GREAT EVENTS INVOLVES MORE CHANGES TH.A..,,"i LIE WlTHIN OUR OWN ACTION, AND PnovIDENCE TAKES CABE OF THEM. The event of all Israel submitting to David would imply manifold influences brought to bear on the elders of the people, and through them on the masses, and in such a process of change there might arise many a circumstance adverse to the desired issue. It was not in David's power to effect this by any personal action. All he could do was to set agencies at work through Abner, and trust in Providence for disposing the hearts of men aright. It was right doubtless for the people to own him as king, but it was not in his power to establish this right. On the other hand, it was in his power to do justice to a banished woman, and demand, as a prior step, that she be restored to his heart and home. There is always an uncertainty attending our efforts to bring about great issues in the world's affairs, even though those issues be predicted and included in the Divine purpose; for our actions are but o. few among myriads of forces for and against the enJ for which we strive, and for ages the goal may not be reached. It is our duty to do what we can, just as it was David's to use means for winning Israel over to the alle- giauce which had been predicted and was part of the theocratic purpose; but we have to 74 'l'RE SECOND BOOK OF SAMUEL. [crt. Ill, 1-30.