previous page | table of contents | final lesson
The objective of this lesson: to expand understanding of why David was a man after God's own heart.
Christians tend to be far more impressed with a person's failures than with his or her successes. This tendency can be illustrated in many ways. For example, consider the too common statement made by one Christian to another: "Yes, but do you know what he (she) did (or was)?" Though he or she obviously repented evidenced by his/her redirection of life, the past still lives as the most important measure of him or her.
Seemingly there are times that some Christians think "only good people can be saved." These perspectives seem to characterize some people who are third or fourth generation Christians. However, when Christianity began in the first century, every first responding convert was a first generation Christian. The Paul we so admire as an evangelist and writer was a blasphemer and murderer prior to conversion (see Acts 26:9-11 and 1 Timothy 1:12-16).
Consider the man David for example. Most Christians are more likely to remember David from the incident of adultery with Bathsheba (2 Samuel 11) than with David's compassionate courage expressed at the incident of Keilah (1 Samuel 23) [or any of David's faith experiences in his flight from King Saul]. A part of that reaction involves the human fascination with a man devoted to righteousness who committed adultery instead of a man devoted to righteousness who expressed his faith in God. [Expressing faith in God is what a person devoted to righteous is supposed to do; committing adultery is not what a person devoted to righteousness is supposed to do.] Yet, a part of this reaction focuses on our fascination with the failures of a person devoted to righteousness.
It would be unlikely that you would find anyone who has any knowledge of the Bible that is not familiar with the basic story of David and Bathsheba. It would be likely to find people with some knowledge of the Bible who could not relate any of David's wilderness experiences. We generally seem more attracted to evil acts than to righteous deeds.
A key consideration is to be seen in the contrast between King Saul and King David. God selected both men to be King of Israel (1 Samuel 10:1,9,10; 16:1, 13). Both men were physically impressive--they had the physical stature of a leader among the Israelites (1 Samuel 9:2; 16:12).
The keys to being "a man after God's own heart" is evident in the contrast between Saul and David.
Saul was impetuous and self-centered. The Lord was to serve Saul [a manipulation attitude] rather Saul serving the Lord. Consider the incident recorded in 1 Samuel 13:8-14.
Saul's impetuous, self-centered nature is quite obvious in the incident where he offered the sacrifice rather than waiting for Samuel to offer the sacrifice.
Two situations are called to your attention. Consider each carefully.
Focus the class on Saul's motives in each incident.
The first is seen in Saul's declared reasons/justifications for offering a sacrifice rather than continuing to wait for Samuel to offer that sacrifice (1 Samuel 13:11,12). 1st reason: "my army was deserting me." Saul's confidence rested in military strength, not divine action. Saul's attitude: "I must have my full army," not, "God will act in this confrontation regardless of the size of Israel's army."
Make certain your class comprehends Saul's reasoning. Make it evident that Saul's confidence was in the physical and in Saul, not in God.
2nd reason: "Samuel, you did not come on time, and the enemy was preparing to attack," not, "God is here now no matter what the enemy is doing." As King Saul repeatedly demonstrated, it was always someone else's fault. Never did he appropriately assume responsibility for his failures in judgment or action.
Make certain your class realizes Saul was quite involved in what we call "the blame game." In the "blame game" it is always someone else's fault. "I" am exonerated because "you" are to blame.
3rd reason: "The Philistines will attack me before I ask the Lord to be with me," not, "The Lord is with me; He is the reason I am King, and I am here at this moment." The attitude was the attitude commonly found in idolatry: If I am to be blessed by the god, I must convince the god to be on my side and bless my endeavor. It is an attitude of manipulation rather than an attitude of trust.
Help your class understand the enormous gulf between manipulating the divine and trusting the divine. Sometimes the difference is obvious in motive. That act may be the same, but the motives are vastly different. Idolatry's concept of gods involved manipulation of the gods. Faith in Jehovah, the Creator God Who lives, is based on trust.
The second situation is seen in Saul's statement, "So I forced myself." Saul tried to guarantee success in his endeavors by taking matters into his own hands. In a crisis moment, Saul placed his confidence in Saul, not in God. Saul did not do this once, but repeatedly. 1 Samuel 13, 14, 15 illustrate in three significant incidents how Saul based his actions on what seemed wise to Saul--even in an incident when God plainly revealed exactly what He wanted!
King Saul in this incident, in the incident of chapter 14 (the vow that the army should not eat), and in the incident with the Amalekites all involved an impetuous Saul taking matters into his own hands.
David was a striking contrast to Saul. A significant reason for David fighting Goliath was the fact that a man who did not belong to Jehovah taunted the army of the living God (1 Samuel 17:26, 46, 47). The reason David gave for not killing King Saul (when David had opportunity to kill the man who was determined to kill him) was dependence on God (1 Samuel 24:6; 26:8-11). When David realized his evil because he was confronted by the prophet Nathan, David immediately acknowledged his failure and was willing to die for what he had done (2 Samuel 12:13, 14). Perhaps David's attitude toward himself is best seen when Abigail asked him to realize the true nature of his plans when David purposed to kill Nabal and his men: (1 Samuel 25:26) Now therefore, my lord, as the Lord lives, and as your soul lives, since the Lord has restrained you from shedding blood, and from avenging yourself by your own hand, now then let your enemies and those who seek evil against my lord, be as Nabal. Then David said to Abigail, "Blessed be the Lord God of Israel, who sent you this day to meet me, and blessed be your discernment, and blessed be you, who have kept me this day from bloodshed and from avenging myself by my own hand."
Saul was typically Saul centered. David typically was God centered. Saul was dedicated to preserving his position of King. David was dedicated to honoring God's greatness. Saul trusted Saul. David trusted God.
In Acts 13:16-41, Paul gave an overview of Israelite history that led to an emphasis on Jesus Christ. This overview was presented to a knowledgeable audience in a synagogue. God led Israel from Egypt (Acts 13:17), to which the audience would agree fully. God preserved Israel in the wilderness (Acts 13:18), to which the audience would agree fully. God gave Israel Canaan (Acts 13:19), to which the audience would agree fully. God gave Israel judges as leaders (Acts 13:20), to which the audience would agree fully. God gave them the monarchy in which David was a man after God's own heart (Acts 13:21-22), to which the audience would agree fully. Through David, God gave Israel a Savior named Jesus (Acts 13:23, 24), to which some in the audience did not agree.
The point: first century Israelites (generations after David's death) still regarded David as the man after God's own heart--though they were quite familiar with David's failures.
The point: first century Israelites and God-fearers accepted as fact that King David was (1) a man after God's own heart and (2) was the forefather of the Messiah promised Israel.
Israel looked upon David as a spiritual success, not a spiritual failure.
Why was David "a man after God's own heart"? Was it because he was perfect? Obviously not! Then why? Four reasons are given for your consideration. (1) David understood that human existence is about God, not about selfish ambitions. Even if ambitions are rooted in acts of God [like David's anointing], God determines your purposes, not your selfish ambitions [like David' refusal to kill King Saul]. (2) David never questioned Who he wanted to control his life. He made some horrible choices! However, consciously rejecting God was not one of them! (3) David accepted responsibility for his actions/choices, even when he did evil! (4) David constantly stood ready to repent when he made mistakes. Someone else was not to blame! There was no justification of failure! "I sinned! It is my fault!"
Make certain your class has a clear grasp of each of the four reasons. Surely you may add your own insights as well!
For Thought and Discussion:
Righteous people are supposed to do righteous acts, but righteous people are not supposed to do evil acts. Many people are familiar with David's evil act with Bathsheba, but some of those people have no awareness of David's righteous acts in the wilderness.
Saul often thought of making himself prestigious in Israel's eyes and thereby securing his position as King. David commonly thought of making God prestigious as the honored, great God. David trusted God to advance him, so he did not need to seek self-advancement. With Saul, the primary concern was Saul. With David, the primary concern was God.
She reminded David that, though he had killed many, he always killed because the ungodly opposed God. He never killed in vengeance seeking to vindicate himself. She stressed the motive in the act, not merely the act.
(1) He understood life was about honoring God, not about physical ambitions. (2) He knew he wanted God in control of his life--that was never questionable. (3) He accepted responsibility for his failures. (4) He was ready to repent when he was made aware of his mistakes. He did not try to justify himself by blaming others.
Link to Student Guide
Lesson 13
previous page | table of contents | final lesson