The Pulpit Commentary — 2 Samuel — Section 486

Te!ltles11, unecrupulou11 !!J!irit reRdy to t&ke 1dve.nt&ge bf divergent lmntimente and form them Into e'ltpressione of positive opiniol'l e.nd e.nt11.gonigtic action. The m'l\n of Belie.I uRed up the elements of discord for securing what, at first, wl\B not contetnp!itted -namely, an open re1mdiation of the right of David to exercise kingly authority over the people. In this revolt e.gainst De.vid, the Lord's anointed, we have e.n lllnetration of the nature and some of the causes and pleas of ml\n's revolt against Christ. I. MAN'S REVOLT AGAINST Cs:RIST CONSISTS ESSENTIALLY OF A REJECTION OF A Drvnra CLAIM. Sheba not only would not have David as his king, but he distinctly indicates as chief ree.son his rejection of the Divine claim of David to the throne, and which the nation had previously recognized. In speaking contemptuously of him as the "son of Jes.~e," he clearly ignores the selection and anointing of him by Samuel in the name of God. David is not the Lord's anointed; only Jesse's son-a mere man, t.o be treated as e.ny other man. The people also who followed Sheba did so on this basis-that whatever may have been once, there was now in David no more right than in any other man; he was not endowed with Divine authority. This is exactly the ce.se with modern infidelity-men will not submit to Christ. They repudiate all claim to Di,ine authority. To them he is a mere man-possessing no eternal and unchallengeable right -to demand tbe obedience of all men to his yoke. He is the Nazarene, the carpenter's Son. not the beloved Son of God, anointed of God to be Prince and Saviour. It is a simple matter of choice whether they shall accept his testimony and do what he declares is right. 'l'his spirit of revolt against the Divine in Christ is the essence of every form of modem infidelity, be it scientific rejection of the supernatural or pure agnosticism. Once recognize him as the anointed Lord of; an; all forms of submission to his teachiug and will follow; once reject him in this respect, and high treason is the practical issue. II. A REJECTION OF CIIBIRT's D:rvnm OLA.IM PROCEEDS FROM UNl3ELIEF IN Goo's SELF-REVELATION TO MAN. If ever Sheba was a believer in Samuel's mission, he bad certainly ceased to be so now, or else had come to believe that revelation had ceased'. No one could hold to the Divine appointment of Moses and of Samuel to gradually unful<t the purpose of God to Israel. and at the same time logically refuse to submit to Da-vid as king, unless he could show that God had set up another. This revolt, therefore, was the expression of a practical unbelief in the fact of a revelation of God to the Jewish people. In like manner, when we look into the reason for the rejection of the Divine claim of Christ, it is to be found in a prior assumption, namely, that a self-revelation of God to mankind by special means distinct from natural law, though not in contra- vention of it, is a fiction. With a dogmatism evidently based on ignorance, the super- natural is said to be impossible, i.e. we know so well the constitution of all thini;!s, and the only possible relation of God to all things, that we can affirm that no such a Divine Lord and King as Christ is said to be, could be a reality. He was simply a much-mis- understood man. It is obvious that, as Sheba's unbelief in Samuel's mission was no credit to his memory or historic knowledge (1 Sam. xvi 13), so the unbelief in God's self-revelation to man is no credit to man's humility or judgment. . III. REVOLT AGAINST CHRIST'S CLAlMS THUS ORIGINATING IS SUSTAINED BY VARIOUS PLEAS. Sheba's unbelief was in the background, his pleas were in front. He could not have gained so many over to his side by any enunciation of abstract views as to the reality or continuance of a revelation of God's purpose. Men are influenced in action by more superficial and concrete forms of thought. The mistakes of David's govern- ment, his reputed partiality to the son whom he fought against, his errors of ~ondact in the case of Bathsheba, his apparent preference for Judah, and the apprehension that Judah would gain an ascendency in public affairs,-these pleas would give an 11,ppearance of public reason for the conduct pursued. Nor did he or his followers. care to consider that incidents in a fallible life d-:> not annihilate a Divine purpose running through that life. We find the ea.me course adopted in relation to the authority of Christ. '!'bough none can convict him of sin, advantage is taken of the mistakes of .the Church, the seemingly tardy progress of C~stianitr, the p~cu)iar structure of Old 'l'es_tament history and what seem to be ocoas10na.l d1screpa.nc1es 1n the gospel record, and, lll fact, anythi~u that can be construed into a weakness, in order to justify a total rojection of Christ's "supreme authority. All ingenious mind, bent on resistill~ the holy S!'viour, will never lack pla1U1ible reasons fqr open n,volt. on. xx:. 1-26.] THE SECOND BOOK OF SAMUEL,