Evaluation of King David

In both books, Samuel I and Samuel II, King David is picture as a true, exclusively imperfect, exercise of an ideal king. When David was first introduced, he was a young boy, but quickly turn up himself to be a strong leader, as he defeated Goliath, the giant. But as he takes his role as king, and gets older, his saga city and decisions arent always smart unitys. I recollect as a lesson and political leader, King David was a costly king, despite his sinful nature, and there is a lot to distinguish from his kingship.King Davids decisions showed he was a decisive and an in force(p) king. He captured capital of Israel from the Jebusites and took it for his accept home. (Samuel II Chapter 5, 6-7) 6 And the king and his men went to capital of Israel against the Jebusites, the inhabitants of the land, who spoke unto David, saying Except railway yard take away the blind and the lame, thou shalt non come in hither view David canister non come in hither. 7 still David took t he stronghold of Zion the same is the city of David.By David going and taking everyplace the city of Jerusalem, it shows how he his a committed leader, and that he wanted to take this city and metamorphose it to the capital of the holy land. In perfections eyes, this essential be an extremely powerful act, as David is truly demo his loyalty to Hashem. We can also terminate that by David winning this battle, he must be a strong legions leader. Despite some of the eventual imperfections of David, he still defeated his enemies and because of that the nation prospered. wizard of his great disp defines of obedience to graven image would be when he brought the ark from the endure of Abinadab to Jerusalem. Samuel II Chapter 6, 15-16) 15 So David and each the house of Israel brought up the ark of the victor with shouting, and with the sound of the horn. 16 And it was so, as the ark of the Lord came into the city of David, This showed the raft of Jerusalem his devotion to mat inee idol, and he openly displayed his devotion by bringing it openly. David was aware how the Ark of the concordat was most sacred and powerful point in time to his people, so by bringing it to Jerusalem, people would give him more support and agnize him for being a strong ghostly leader.Even though we study directly that this wasnt the best way for David to heighten he is a considerably ghostlike leader, we still look up to him, as his purpose is what really counts. I opine a lot of us could learn from that, to be more open in our worship and show our devotion publicly to beau ideal. I recall Davids substance was in the right place and theology knew that, that is why he doomed him in his reign. David wanted to have a house for the Lord, but instead God construct a house for him. (Samuel II Chapter 7, 5-6) 5 Go and tell My servant David so said the Lord Shalt thou build Me a house for Me to dwell in? for I have not dwelt in a house since the day that I brought up the children of Israel out of Egypt, even to this day, but have walked in a tent and in a tabernacle. God make a covenant with David in which God promised to make David a great and unadulterated dynasty. David showed great devotion to the lord, but drop off short of his glory. The lord saw he was whole-heartedly devoted to him and therefore he do an everlasting covenant with David. I weigh it was Davids good intentions that God did not see Davids his sinful nature, because God doesnt expect perfection, just devotion.The detail that David acted in a way that he constantly dedicated himself to God, and tried to do the right affaire, is what God saw him for, and we can learn from that because people have a sinful nature sometimes, but God still cares for us. I think it is authorized to remember David was a hu serviceman, granted he had responsibilities as a King, but he shouldnt have been expected to be perfect. Like all humans, he had weaknesses, which got him into trouble. Dav id had several(prenominal) downfalls in his reign.One example of Davids downfalls is when he committed adultery. (Samuel II 11, 4) 4 And David sent messengers, and took her and she came in unto him, and he lay with her for she was purified from her uncleanness and she returned unto her house. This act is perhaps one of the reasons why people have careen over David, and if he was a good king or not. I believe it can be compared to that of the incident of our death chair Clinton. David was a human like Clinton and, given(p) they were leaders who represented a nation, were both human.My point is that pressures are put on those with power and people expect them to be perfect when really they are not that different from us. Im not saying that what they did was okay, but Im just trying to understand it more. It was a sin, what they did, but God knew their hearts, and in Davids case the Lord still blessed him. I believe the greatest thing we can observe from King David would be that God called him a king afterwards his own heart. (Samuel I Chapter 13, 14) But without delay your kingdom shall not continue.The Lord has want for Himself a man after His own heart, and the Lord has commanded him to be commander over His people, because you have not kept what the Lord commanded you The fact that God says this, and understands that David is a man of heart, is the most significant to learn from all of Davids actions. It was the fact that David was willing to witness his wrongdoings and admit his sins, then repent that relieve him, and showed God his devotion to him. I prize Davids whole heartedness and I believe that is the most important thing Ive learned from him.