Response to "Why One Should Read Before Writing" by R. Scott Clark

R. Scott Clark kindly responded to my previous post (link) with a post of his own (link). I write to correct a few errors in his post.

1. My State of Mind as to Understanding

After a brief tangent about my pseudonymity, Prof. Clark characterizes my comments as being that I didn't "understand how [Prof. Clark] could have raised questions about possible plans by federal officials to force teachers/schools to monitor Facebook for “bullying.”" That characterization is not correct. I understand how he could raise questions about such plans.

2. My Recognition of the Status of Prof. Clark's Blog

While Prof. Clark leads with this:

First, since rotting fish stink, let’s clear away the red herrings from this discussion.

1. The Heidelblog is not the church. It’s a personal blog devoted to Recovering the Reformed Confession (theology, piety, and practice). I discuss things here that, as a minister, I would not discuss from the pulpit.

I myself had written this in the original article:

I think most of the Escondido folks would say it is ok for a minister to comment on political things on his personal blog. Perhaps some would not, but I think most are ok with that - as long as he doesn't use the pulpit for those political comments.

But imagine if Prof. Clark had raised the same point from the pulpit. I think that some of the Escondido folk would have a problem with that, in that it would seem to involve the church getting involved in political matters.

It's hard to say whether Prof. Clark missed this important caveat. His response does not reflect that he saw it.

3. Quotations Seemingly Attributed to Me

Prof. Clark provides a number of items in quotation marks. For example, Prof. Clark wrote:

3. If we’re going to discuss this like gentleman and ladies it would go some distance toward restoring civility to this conversation if the critics would not use Jim Dennison’s grossly misleading nomenclature, “The Escondido Hermeneutic.” This phrase begs the question (i.e., it assumes what it has yet to prove, that there is some distinctive, unique biblical hermeneutic being practiced at Westminster Seminary California). This claim is demonstrably false.

Yet I did not use such a term. I used "Escondido position" and "Escondido folks," but not "Escondido Hermeneutic."

Likewise, Prof. Clark wrote:

5. There is no such thing as “the two-kingdoms view.” Distinguishing between two kingdoms is nothing more than applying Calvin’s categorical distinction to contemporary questions. Different folks will do it differently.

Yet I didn't write "the two-kingdoms view." I wrote "the Escondido position on the two kingdoms" and "as extreme a view of the two kingdoms as Darryl Hart or others who are associated with Westminster West."

I acknowledge, of course, that Prof. Clark uses quotation marks in a variety of ways in his post.

4. What I Said/Suggested About The Escondido View of the Two Kingdoms

Prof. Clark wrote:

It seems to me a significant misunderstanding of a two-kingdoms analysis to say suggest [sic] that one who distinguishes between Christ’s general, sovereign providence over all things and his saving work through the visible church may think about or comment on only one sphere.

Yet I did not write or suggest such a thing. Quite the contrary -- as noted above -- I indicated that I believed that those holding the Escondido position on this subject not only would say that people can think about the other sphere but also would say that they could comment on it on their blogs.

6. Reformed Theologians Holding to Perpetual Virginity and Geocentrism

Prof. Clark wrote:

The 16th and 17th-century Reformed theologians held several views that most of us would not want to hold today (e.g., theocracy, perpetual virginity of the BVM, geocentrism).

This comment is true but a little misleading. While Reformed theologians did express opinions about the latter two subjects, they didn't place those topics in their confessions (at least not any of the confessions of which I'm aware). On the other hand "theocracy" (broadly understood to mean a system of government in which the first table is enforced to some degree or other) they did put in their confessions.

Moreover, we reject the perpetual virginity position on the strength of the Scriptural testimony, confirmed by a more thorough examination of the historical testimony. Even though I suppose few Reformed Theologians today would argue for geocentrism, few would think it important to argue about it. It's not simply a matter of wanting to.

Finally, of course, the standard of what "most of us" "want" is not the way we should conduct ourselves.

Prof. Clark goes on to state:

We’re not bound to the mistakes of the past but to the degree the tradition helps us to understand what we confess, we should learn from them. The distinction between the two kingdoms is one of those valuable resources we need to recover but before folk start commenting on these questions they do need to do some basic reading.

It's true that we're not bound to the mistakes of the past, but the use of the Reformed theologians is not just to help us to understand what we confess - the fact that they held to things should be something that helps to persuade us as a fallible guide.

Moreover, the "distinction between the two kingdoms" was something that they held and held consistently with what Prof. Clark refers to as "theocracy." It's remarkable to see Calvin cluelessly quoted on the issue of two kingdoms, as though he would have supported the Escondido position. In point of fact, Clark in this very post quoted Calvin thus:

Therefore, in order that none of us may stumble on that stone, let us first consider that there is a twofold government in man (duplex esse in homine regimen): one aspect is spiritual, whereby the conscience is instructed in piety and in reverencing God; the second is political, whereby man is educated for the duties of humanity and citizenship that must be maintained among men. These are usually called the “spiritual” and the “temporal” jurisdiction (not improper terms) by which is meant that the former sort of government pertains to the life of the soul, while the latter has to do with the concerns of the present life—not only with food and clothing but with laying down laws whereby a man may live his life among other men holily, honorably, and temperately. For the former resides in the inner mind, while the latter regulates only outward behavior. The one we may call the spiritual kingdom, the other, the political kingdom. Now these two, as we have divided them, must always be examined separately; and while one is being considered, we must call away and turn aside the mind from thinking about the other. There are in man, so to speak, two worlds, over which different kings and different laws have authority (Institutes 3.19.15.

So why didn't he quote Calvin's consistent comments here:

This consideration ought to be constantly present to the minds of magistrates since it is fitted to furnish a strong stimulus to the discharge of duty, and also afford singular consolation, smoothing the difficulties of their office, which are certainly numerous and weighty. What zeal for integrity, prudence, meekness, continence, and innocence ought to sway those who know that they have been appointed ministers of the divine justice! How will they dare to admit iniquity to their tribunal, when they are told that it is the throne of the living God? How will they venture to pronounce an unjust sentence with that mouth which they understand to be an ordained organ of divine truth? With what conscience will they subscribe impious decrees with that hand which they know has been appointed to write the acts of God? In a word, if they remember that they are the vicegerents of God, it behaves them to watch with all care, diligences and industry, that they may in themselves exhibit a kind of image of the Divine Providence, guardianship, goodness, benevolence, and justice. And let them constantly keep the additional thought in view, that if a curse is pronounced on him that "does the work of the Lord deceitfully" a much heavier curse must lie on him who deals deceitfully in a righteous calling. Therefore, when Moses and Jehoshaphat would urge their judges to the discharge of duty, they had nothing by which they could more powerfully stimulate their minds than the consideration to which we have already referred, - "Take heed what ye do: for ye judge not for man, but for the Lord, who is with you in the judgement. Wherefore now let the fear of the Lord be upon you; take heed and do it: for there is no iniquity with the Lord our God, nor respect of persons nor taking of gifts," (2 Chron. 19: 6, 7, compared with Deut. 1: 16, &c.) And in another passage it is said, "God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods," (Psalm 82: 1; Isaiah 3: 14,) that they may be animated to duty when they hear that they are the ambassadors of God, to whom they must one day render an account of the province committed to them. This admonition ought justly to have the greatest effect upon them; for if they sin in any respect, not only is injury done to the men whom they wickedly torment, but they also insult God himself, whose sacred tribunals they pollute. On the other hand, they have an admirable source of comfort when they reflect that they are not engaged in profane occupations, unbefitting a servant of God, but in a most sacred office, inasmuch as they are the ambassadors of God (Institutes 4.20.6.)

Is it simply because Prof. Clark doesn't confess that? Perhaps so, yet it is strange for him to quote Calvin so selectively while suggesting that some of his readers haven't done basic reading on the subject. If his readers haven't done basic reading, he should be more careful to provide them with a complete picture.

7. What Does VanDrunen's Book Suggest?

Prof. Clark wrote:

4. I say “demonstrably” because anyone who has bothered to read David VanDrunen’s book (see above) on the question of the history of the two-kingdoms ethic could see that there’s nothing novel about this way of analyzing the relations between church and civil life or between Christ and culture more broadly.

I'm not sure whether there's nothing novel in what Kline did with Vos' groundwork, but we don't really need to go there. Certainly the Escondido view of the two kingdoms is in fundamental disagreement with Calvin's Institutes (4:20), the Westminster Confession of Faith (23:3), Belgic Confession (Art. 36), 39 Articles (Art. 37), and the Second Helvetic Confession (Ch. 30). This is not something like geocentrism, but is rather something that the Reformed creeds generally taught.

8. What's So Extreme?

Prof. Clark wrote:

I have no idea what TF means when he says “extreme.” It seems like more question begging. It’s true that VanDrunen and others are seeking to apply the two-kingdoms distinction in a post-theocratic setting but it’s hard to see how that’s radical unless one wants to go back to a pre-1789 status. In such a case, who is the radical here, those seeking to work within the status quo or those seeking a theocracy?

At least here Prof. Clark acknowledged that he had no idea what I meant. He then went on to suggest that the comment was question-begging, but at least he started from acknowledging that he did not know.

I provided some clue as to what I meant by extreme: "as extreme a view of the two kingdoms as Darryl Hart or others who are associated with Westminster West" (emphasis added). Darryl Hart (author of Secular Faith) has indicated that he does not believe that the Bible norms the civil magistrate. He specifically wrote:

If the Bible reveals a set of standards that are required of the government, and if Christians believe the Bible, then they have an obligation to make sure that their state follows the Bible.

...

I don’t understand how the Bible functions as the norm for both civil society and the church and yet you can have women barred from office in the latter but not the former. Is not the state bound to conform to biblical norms? f not, why not. Just because the state applies biblical law with the sword, doesn’t mean that the law is not in effect. Remember John Knox? On biblical grounds he was not real pleased with queens running affairs in England or Scotland. Ever heard of the Baylys who regularly claim, on biblical grounds, that women should not hold public office?

In which case, you have your own fancy footwork for separating the norms of the church and the state but it is riddled with a major inconsistency — namely, that the Bible is the norm for the state but it is not really the norm for the state, or only the norm on the matters on which you say it counts. Please tell me how I too may become pope.

...

if the Bible requires rule by elders, why doesn’t the state have elders? You simply keep peeling off another layer of the onion.

The reason why this is important is because 2k is constantly criticized for not advocating biblical morality or biblical norms in public. Well, now you, who are not 2k, tell me that it is okay for the state not to be ruled by elders. But that means that the state doesn’t have to follow Scripture. So it’s okay if you say the state doesn’t have to follow the Bible, but not if I do it. Huh?

...

But again, if you think the Bible is the norm for the state on murder, why isn’t the Bible the norm for the state on worship (i.e. religious freedom or lack thereof), or on which sex gets to rule. I am baffled at a hermeneutic that allows you to pick and choose from Scripture which norms apply to the state, unless, of course, that hermeneutic is convenience.

(source - comment box here)

I consider that extreme or radical in at least two ways. The first way is that it takes the principle of the two kingdoms and extends it too far. There is a difference between church and state, but Hart's approach takes that difference and extends it to an extreme. The second way is that it is outside the bounds of even the revised Westminster standards. The denial that the Bible norms the civil magistrate logically involves a denial that the Scriptures teach what the revised Westminster standards say are the duties of the magistrate.

9. Missing the Point

The point of my post was two-fold: (1) to point out to my reader (who had the question) the easy resolution of the matter; and (2) to highlight the fact that on the other hand such material would seemingly be unwelcome in the pulpit. I think that Prof. Clark actually accepted these. His comment, "I discuss things here that, as a minister, I would not discuss from the pulpit," suggests he agrees (violently) with my comment: "I think most are ok with that - as long as he doesn't use the pulpit for those political comments."

There was also an additional point or two lurking in the shadows. Is the Escondido position that the Bible teaches that the Civil Magistrate ought to give people religious liberty or not? If so, it looks like (according to that position) the Bible norms the Civil Magistrate at least that far. Moreover, if the Bible teaches it, it is hard to see why it would not be proper subject matter for the pulpit. Or is it the Escondido position that the Bible does not teach that the Civil Magistrate ought to give people religious liberty, but that the light of nature does teach it?

10. Unanswered Questions

And it seems, after reading Prof. Clark's reply, that he has left the important questions of the original article unanswered. Those questions were these:

This, however, would create an odd tension. Why? Because the Westminster Standards (in the American revision) as well as the Belgic Confession (in the American Revision) call for the civil magistrate to protect God's church. Yet, the duties of the civil magistrate are always a political matter.

So, can the church speak to political issues or not? Or is there an exception for certain political matters and not others? If there are exceptions, it starts to look like the prohibition on political speech by the church is ad hoc. And if the church can speak to political issues, then why are the Escondido folks so upset when people like the Bayly brothers preach sermons on highly politicized topics like abortion?

-TurretinFan

P.S. If Prof. Clark should desire to hold me accountable to the appropriate elders for my words, I'm more than happy to provide him with their names and contact information - I believe I've already previously offered to give him my name, so long as he keeps it confidential.

David's Two Visits to Achish

Skeptics love to try to find fault with the gospels because there are sometimes accounts that seem to be similar in some ways, but have differences. They are fond of suggesting that these differences are contradictions. In this post, I examine two accounts that have some similarities, but enough differences that if they were in two different gospels, the skeptics would tell us that they are contradictory accounts.

The two accounts I have in mind are of David's visits to Achish. The two accounts are very different. In the first account, David comes to Achish and pretends to be insane. In the second account, David comes to Achish and pretends to be a traitor to Saul. In both cases, Achish is taken in by the act, and in both cases the song that the women sang, "Saul has slain his thousands, and David his ten thousands," comes up in the discussion.

1. Madman Encounter

1 Samuel 21:10-15
And David arose, and fled that day for fear of Saul, and went to Achish the king of Gath. And the servants of Achish said unto him, "Is not this David the king of the land? did they not sing one to another of him in dances, saying, 'Saul hath slain his thousands, and David his ten thousands'?"
And David laid up these words in his heart, and was sore afraid of Achish the king of Gath. And he changed his behaviour before them, and feigned himself mad in their hands, and scrabbled on the doors of the gate, and let his spittle fall down upon his beard.
Then said Achish unto his servants, "Lo, ye see the man is mad: wherefore then have ye brought him to me? Have I need of mad men, that ye have brought this fellow to play the mad man in my presence? shall this fellow come into my house?"

2. Traitor Encounter

1 Samuel 27:1-12 (Whole Chapter); 28:1-2; and 29:1-11 (Whole Chapter)
And David said in his heart, "I shall now perish one day by the hand of Saul: there is nothing better for me than that I should speedily escape into the land of the Philistines; and Saul shall despair of me, to seek me any more in any coast of Israel: so shall I escape out of his hand." And David arose, and he passed over with the six hundred men that were with him unto Achish, the son of Maoch, king of Gath. And David dwelt with Achish at Gath, he and his men, every man with his household, even David with his two wives, Ahinoam the Jezreelitess, and Abigail the Carmelitess, Nabal's wife. And it was told Saul that David was fled to Gath: and he sought no more again for him.
And David said unto Achish, "If I have now found grace in thine eyes, let them give me a place in some town in the country, that I may dwell there: for why should thy servant dwell in the royal city with thee?"
Then Achish gave him Ziklag that day: wherefore Ziklag pertaineth unto the kings of Judah unto this day. And the time that David dwelt in the country of the Philistines was a full year and four months.
And David and his men went up, and invaded the Geshurites, and the Gezrites, and the Amalekites: for those nations were of old the inhabitants of the land, as thou goest to Shur, even unto the land of Egypt. And David smote the land, and left neither man nor woman alive, and took away the sheep, and the oxen, and the asses, and the camels, and the apparel, and returned, and came to Achish.
And Achish said, "Whither have ye made a road to day?"
And David said, "Against the south of Judah, and against the south of the Jerahmeelites, and against the south of the Kenites."
And David saved neither man nor woman alive, to bring tidings to Gath, saying, "Lest they should tell on us, saying, 'So did David, and so will be his manner all the while he dwelleth in the country of the Philistines.'"
And Achish believed David, saying, "He hath made his people Israel utterly to abhor him; therefore he shall be my servant for ever."
And it came to pass in those days, that the Philistines gathered their armies together for warfare, to fight with Israel. And Achish said unto David, "Know thou assuredly, that thou shalt go out with me to battle, thou and thy men."
And David said to Achish, "Surely thou shalt know what thy servant can do."
And Achish said to David, "Therefore will I make thee keeper of mine head for ever."
...
Now the Philistines gathered together all their armies to Aphek: and the Israelites pitched by a fountain which is in Jezreel. And the lords of the Philistines passed on by hundreds, and by thousands: but David and his men passed on in the rereward with Achish. Then said the princes of the Philistines, "What do these Hebrews here?"
And Achish said unto the princes of the Philistines, "Is not this David, the servant of Saul the king of Israel, which hath been with me these days, or these years, and I have found no fault in him since he fell unto me unto this day?"
And the princes of the Philistines were wroth with him; and the princes of the Philistines said unto him, "Make this fellow return, that he may go again to his place which thou hast appointed him, and let him not go down with us to battle, lest in the battle he be an adversary to us: for wherewith should he reconcile himself unto his master? should it not be with the heads of these men? Is not this David, of whom they sang one to another in dances, saying, 'Saul slew his thousands, and David his ten thousands'?"
Then Achish called David, and said unto him, "Surely, as the LORD liveth, thou hast been upright, and thy going out and thy coming in with me in the host is good in my sight: for I have not found evil in thee since the day of thy coming unto me unto this day: nevertheless the lords favour thee not. Wherefore now return, and go in peace, that thou displease not the lords of the Philistines."
And David said unto Achish, "But what have I done? and what hast thou found in thy servant so long as I have been with thee unto this day, that I may not go fight against the enemies of my lord the king?"
And Achish answered and said to David, "I know that thou art good in my sight, as an angel of God: notwithstanding the princes of the Philistines have said, 'He shall not go up with us to the battle.' Wherefore now rise up early in the morning with thy master's servants that are come with thee: and as soon as ye be up early in the morning, and have light, depart."
So David and his men rose up early to depart in the morning, to return into the land of the Philistines. And the Philistines went up to Jezreel.

- TurretinFan

R. Scott Clark, Religious Freedom, and Two Kingdoms

Reformed pastor and professor R. Scott Clark recently posted an article on his blog ("Religious Freedom Watch: Feds to Force Schools to Monitor Facebook?"). A reader asked me how Prof. Clark can do this while holding to the Escondido position on the two kingdoms.

I should preface my response by saying that I don't know whether R. Scott Clark takes as extreme a view of the two kingdoms as Darryl Hart or others who are associated with Westminster West. So, I hope no one will take this article as representing R. Scott Clark's views. Instead, the article takes Prof. Clark's post as an opportunity to comment on an important issue.

The Escondido position on the two kingdoms seems to be that the church generally should not be involved in political affairs. This issue looks like a political affair, therefore (one might think) the church should not be involved in it.

I think most of the Escondido folks would say it is ok for a minister to comment on political things on his personal blog. Perhaps some would not, but I think most are ok with that - as long as he doesn't use the pulpit for those political comments.

But imagine if Prof. Clark had raised the same point from the pulpit. I think that some of the Escondido folk would have a problem with that, in that it would seem to involve the church getting involved in political matters.

This, however, would create an odd tension. Why? Because the Westminster Standards (in the American revision) as well as the Belgic Confession (in the American Revision) call for the civil magistrate to protect God's church. Yet, the duties of the civil magistrate are always a political matter.

So, can the church speak to political issues or not? Or is there an exception for certain political matters and not others? If there are exceptions, it starts to look like the prohibition on political speech by the church is ad hoc. And if the church can speak to political issues, then why are the Escondido folks so upset when people like the Bayly brothers preach sermons on highly politicized topics like abortion?

-TurretinFan

David's Two Escapes from Saul

Skeptics who wish to allege contradictions between the gospels love to claim that if there are differences between two similar accounts, this means that the two accounts contradict each other. In this post, I'll examine a pair of accounts that are similar enough that one might think they were contradictory accounts of the same event, if they were not in the same book inside a larger narrative.

The two accounts I mention here are the two accounts of David's close calls with Saul. In both cases, Saul is hunting David, someone tells Saul where to find David, David has the chance to kill Saul, but David passes (and commands his men to do the same) and then convicts Saul with respectful and self-deprecating words in which he calls himself a "flea." In both cases, Saul is convicted and lets David go, while Saul himself goes back to his own place.

1. Cave Account

1 Samuel 24:1-22 (whole chapter)
And it came to pass, when Saul was returned from following the Philistines, that it was told him, saying, "Behold, David is in the wilderness of Engedi."
Then Saul took three thousand chosen men out of all Israel, and went to seek David and his men upon the rocks of the wild goats. And he came to the sheepcotes by the way, where was a cave; and Saul went in to cover his feet: and David and his men remained in the sides of the cave.
And the men of David said unto him, "Behold the day of which the LORD said unto thee, 'Behold, I will deliver thine enemy into thine hand,' that thou mayest do to him as it shall seem good unto thee."
Then David arose, and cut off the skirt of Saul's robe privily. And it came to pass afterward, that David's heart smote him, because he had cut off Saul's skirt. And he said unto his men, "The LORD forbid that I should do this thing unto my master, the LORD'S anointed, to stretch forth mine hand against him, seeing he is the anointed of the LORD."
So David stayed his servants with these words, and suffered them not to rise against Saul. But Saul rose up out of the cave, and went on his way. David also arose afterward, and went out of the cave, and cried after Saul, saying, "My lord the king." And when Saul looked behind him, David stooped with his face to the earth, and bowed himself. And David said to Saul, "Wherefore hearest thou men's words, saying, 'Behold, David seeketh thy hurt'? Behold, this day thine eyes have seen how that the LORD had delivered thee to day into mine hand in the cave: and some bade me kill thee: but mine eye spared thee; and I said, 'I will not put forth mine hand against my lord; for he is the LORD'S anointed.' Moreover, my father, see, yea, see the skirt of thy robe in my hand: for in that I cut off the skirt of thy robe, and killed thee not, know thou and see that there is neither evil nor transgression in mine hand, and I have not sinned against thee; yet thou huntest my soul to take it. The LORD judge between me and thee, and the LORD avenge me of thee: but mine hand shall not be upon thee. As saith the proverb of the ancients, 'Wickedness proceedeth from the wicked:' but mine hand shall not be upon thee. After whom is the king of Israel come out? after whom dost thou pursue? after a dead dog, after a flea. The LORD therefore be judge, and judge between me and thee, and see, and plead my cause, and deliver me out of thine hand."
And it came to pass, when David had made an end of speaking these words unto Saul, that Saul said, Is this thy voice, my son David? And Saul lifted up his voice, and wept.
And he said to David, "Thou art more righteous than I: for thou hast rewarded me good, whereas I have rewarded thee evil. And thou hast shewed this day how that thou hast dealt well with me: forasmuch as when the LORD had delivered me into thine hand, thou killedst me not. For if a man find his enemy, will he let him go well away? wherefore the LORD reward thee good for that thou hast done unto me this day. And now, behold, I know well that thou shalt surely be king, and that the kingdom of Israel shall be established in thine hand. Swear now therefore unto me by the LORD, that thou wilt not cut off my seed after me, and that thou wilt not destroy my name out of my father's house."
And David sware unto Saul. And Saul went home; but David and his men gat them up unto the hold.

2. Two Hills Account

1 Samuel 26:1-25 (whole chapter)
And the Ziphites came unto Saul to Gibeah, saying, "Doth not David hide himself in the hill of Hachilah, which is before Jeshimon?"
Then Saul arose, and went down to the wilderness of Ziph, having three thousand chosen men of Israel with him, to seek David in the wilderness of Ziph. And Saul pitched in the hill of Hachilah, which is before Jeshimon, by the way. But David abode in the wilderness, and he saw that Saul came after him into the wilderness. David therefore sent out spies, and understood that Saul was come in very deed. And David arose, and came to the place where Saul had pitched: and David beheld the place where Saul lay, and Abner the son of Ner, the captain of his host: and Saul lay in the trench, and the people pitched round about him.
Then answered David and said to Ahimelech the Hittite, and to Abishai the son of Zeruiah, brother to Joab, saying, "Who will go down with me to Saul to the camp?"
And Abishai said, "I will go down with thee."
So David and Abishai came to the people by night: and, behold, Saul lay sleeping within the trench, and his spear stuck in the ground at his bolster: but Abner and the people lay round about him. Then said Abishai to David, "God hath delivered thine enemy into thine hand this day: now therefore let me smite him, I pray thee, with the spear even to the earth at once, and I will not smite him the second time."
And David said to Abishai, "Destroy him not: for who can stretch forth his hand against the LORD'S anointed, and be guiltless?" David said furthermore, "As the LORD liveth, the LORD shall smite him; or his day shall come to die; or he shall descend into battle, and perish. The LORD forbid that I should stretch forth mine hand against the LORD'S anointed: but, I pray thee, take thou now the spear that is at his bolster, and the cruse of water, and let us go."
So David took the spear and the cruse of water from Saul's bolster; and they gat them away, and no man saw it, nor knew it, neither awaked: for they were all asleep; because a deep sleep from the LORD was fallen upon them.
Then David went over to the other side, and stood on the top of an hill afar off; a great space being between them: and David cried to the people, and to Abner the son of Ner, saying, "Answerest thou not, Abner?"
Then Abner answered and said, "Who art thou that criest to the king?"
And David said to Abner, "Art not thou a valiant man? and who is like to thee in Israel? wherefore then hast thou not kept thy lord the king? for there came one of the people in to destroy the king thy lord. This thing is not good that thou hast done. As the LORD liveth, ye are worthy to die, because ye have not kept your master, the LORD'S anointed. And now see where the king's spear is, and the cruse of water that was at his bolster."
And Saul knew David's voice, and said, "Is this thy voice, my son David?"
And David said, "It is my voice, my lord, O king."
And he said, "Wherefore doth my lord thus pursue after his servant? for what have I done? or what evil is in mine hand? Now therefore, I pray thee, let my lord the king hear the words of his servant. If the LORD have stirred thee up against me, let him accept an offering: but if they be the children of men, cursed be they before the LORD; for they have driven me out this day from abiding in the inheritance of the LORD, saying, Go, serve other gods. Now therefore, let not my blood fall to the earth before the face of the LORD: for the king of Israel is come out to seek a flea, as when one doth hunt a partridge in the mountains."
Then said Saul, "I have sinned: return, my son David: for I will no more do thee harm, because my soul was precious in thine eyes this day: behold, I have played the fool, and have erred exceedingly."
And David answered and said, "Behold the king's spear! and let one of the young men come over and fetch it. The LORD render to every man his righteousness and his faithfulness: for the LORD delivered thee into my hand to day, but I would not stretch forth mine hand against the LORD'S anointed. And, behold, as thy life was much set by this day in mine eyes, so let my life be much set by in the eyes of the LORD, and let him deliver me out of all tribulation."
Then Saul said to David, "Blessed be thou, my son David: thou shalt both do great things, and also shalt still prevail."
So David went on his way, and Saul returned to his place.