DAVID THE MAN AFTER GOD’S OWN HEART.
INFIDELS are never weary of repeating the declaration that David was a man after God’s own heart, and yet he was guilty of crimes that are of the most outbreaking character. It is certain that David did commit great wickedness in the case of Uriah, and that he did thereby give great occasion to the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme. This great transgression is not covered up by the sacred writers, nor is it in any way excused. On the contrary, the terrible denunciation of the prophet Nathan is placed on record, and the whole subsequent history of David shows how completely that prophetic denunciation was accomplished in the judgments which came upon him. Read 2 Sam. xi-xxiv; 1 Kings i; ii. Even David himself placed on record, for all future time, a most humble confession of his great transgression. But infidels are inexcusable in the use they make of the case of David. Either they do not know the facts in the case, and therefore should not attempt to handle them; or if they do know, they are utterly uncandid in their presentation of them. David was called a man after God’s own heart, not in connection with his crime, but a long time prior to it. The expression is found in only one place in the Old Testament, and that in connection with the announcement to Saul that the kingdom should be given to another man. Thus Samuel said to him: “But now thy kingdom shall not continue; the Lord hath sought him a man after his own heart, and the Lord hath commanded him to be captain over his people, because thou hast not kept that which the Lord commanded thee.” 1 Sam. xiii, 14. These words are quoted by Paul in Acts xiii, 22. When these words were uttered respecting David, there was not one blemish on his character. It is therefore very unreasonable to use them as though uttered in connection with his transgression, which occurred many years later. The sin of David is to be greatly deplored, but it is inexcusable and wicked to represent him as a man after God’s own heart, while guilty of great crime before him. Next to David’s guilt in this matter must be placed the guilt of those who represent the God of the Bible as pleased with such conduct. Indeed, it may well be doubted whether that the wickedness of such misrepresentation is not as great as that of David. It is an awful act of wickedness to make the God of Heaven responsible for the crimes of those who transgress his law.