more, as he yielded to sin, the spirit of evil was sent in judgment - this time from Jehovah. As Saul heard the

rushing of his dark pinions around him, it was not sudden frenzy which seized him, but he attempted

deliberate murder. What a contrast: David with the harp in his hand, and Saul with his spear; David

sweeping the chords to waken Divine melody in the king's soul, and the king sending the javelin with all his

might, so that, as it missed its aim, it stuck in the wall close by where David had but lately sat. Meanwhile

David escaped to his own house, apparently unwilling even now to believe in the king's deliberate purpose

of murder. It was Saul's own daughter who had to urge upon her husband the t errible fact of her father's

planned crime and the need of immediate flight, and with womanly love and wit to render it possible. How

great the danger had been; how its meshes had been laid all around and well nigh snared him - but chiefly

what had been David's own feelings, and what his hope in that hour of supreme danger: all this, and much

more for the teaching of the Church of all ages, we gather from what he himself tells us in the fifty-ninth

The peril was past; and while the cowardly menials of Saul -though nominally of Israel, yet in heart and

purpose, as in their final requital, "heathens" (Psalm 59:6, 8) - prowled about the city and its walls on their

terrible watch of murder, "growling" like dogs that dare not bark to betray their presence, and waiting till the

dawn would bring their victim, lured to safety, within reach of their teeth, Michal compassed the escape of

her husband through a window - probably on the city-wall. In so doing she betrayed, however, alike the

spirit of her home and that of her times. The daughter of Saul, like Rachel of old (Genesis 31:19), seems to

have had Teraphim - the old Aramaean or Chaldean household gods, which were probably associated with

fertility. For, despite the explicit Divine prohibition and the zeal of Samuel against all idolatry, this most

ancient form of Jewish superstition appears to have continued in Israelitish households (comp. Judges 17:5;

18:14; 1 Samuel 15:23; Hosea 3:4; Zechariah 10:2). The Teraphim must have borne the form of a man; and

Michal now placed this image in David's bed, arranging about the head "the plait of camel's hair,"  183 and

covering the whole "with the upper garment" (as coverlet), to represent David lying sick.

The device succeeded in gaining time for the fugitive, and was only discovered when Saul sent his

messengers a second time, with the peremptory order to bring David in the bed. Challenged by her father for

her deceit, she excused her conduct by another falsehood, alleging that she had been obliged by David to

do s o on peril of her life.

Although we are in no wise concerned to defend Michal, and in general utterly repudiate, as derogatory to

Holy Scripture, all attempts to explain away the apparent wrong-doing of Biblical personages, this instance

requires a few words of plain statement. First, it is most important to observe, that Holy Scripture, with a

truthfulness which is one of its best evidences, simply relates events, whoever were the actors, and

whatever their moral character. We are somehow prone to imagin e that Holy Scripture approves all that it

records, at least in the case of its worthies - unless, indeed, the opposite be expressly stated. Nothing could

be more fallacious than such an inference. Much is told in the Bible, even in connection with Old Testament

saints, on which no comment is made, save that of the retribution which, in the course of God's providence,

surely follows all wrong-doing. And here we challenge any instance of sin which is not followed by failure,

sorrow, and punishment. It had been so in the case of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob; and it was so in that

of David, whose every attempt to screen himself by untruthfulness ended in failure and sorrow. Holy

Scripture never conceals wrong-doing - least of all seeks to palliate it. In this respect there is the most

significant contrast between the Bible and its earliest (even pre -Christian) comments. Those only who are

acquainted with this literature know with what marvelous ingenuity Rabbinical commentaries uniformly try,

not only to palliate wrong on the part of Biblical heroes, but by some turn or alteration in the expression, or

suggestion of motives, to present it as actually right. But we must go a step further. He who fails to

recognize the gradual development of God's teaching, and regards the earlier periods in the history of God's

kingdom as on exactly the same level as the New Testament, not only most seriously mistakes fundamental

facts and principles, but misses the entire meaning of the preparatory dispensation. The Old Testame nt

never places truth, right, or duty on any lower basis than the New. But while it does not lower, it does not

unfold in all their fullness the principles which it lays down. Rather does it adapt the application of truths,