Answer:
The loyalty of David’s men ran deep and David cherished these men. In 2 Samuel 23:13-17 we read about a time when David was hiding from Saul and probably having spent days without much water nor food said longingly how he wished to drink from the waters of Bethlehem. Bethlehem at the time was under the control of the Philistines, but when his men heard David’s words, three of them snuck through the Philistine lines to get that water for David.
David’s response to their generous act showed the love and appreciation he had for their sacrifice. Instead of drinking the water, he poured the water out to God. He felt that was the only way that he could honor how they had risked their lives to get him the water in the first place. His response showed the heart of David, a man after God’s own heart, and it stands in great contrast to his callous message to Joab after Uriah’s death many years later, “for the sword devours now one and now another.”As much as David was called to be king, David’s Mighty Men were called to support him. God used these men to help establish David’s kingdom. Like David, Uriah answered his call and was faithful to the end and played his part in bringing about God’s promise.
Even though this event with Uriah is tragic and definitely leaves a bad impression of David, I love that God has imperfect leaders. His imperfect heroes reminds us every day people that God’s requirement is not perfection. It reminds me that you do not have to wait to be perfect to serve his purposes. But I wanted to bring Uriah’s story to light, a lesser known and almost forgotten hero. He too was a leader of men, a great warrior, faithful to God, and faithful to his mission. He also was God’s faithful servant
Explanation:
Answer:
They didn't reach an agreement <u><em>on account of</em></u> their differences.
Explanation:
In the given sentence, the necessary word(s) to be put in the blank will be suggestive of the 'cause' of the first part of the sentence. While the first part contains the effect' of the 'cause', completing the whole sentence depends on the part or parts of the phrase needed.
The given options "on account of", "due", "because" or "owing" are all valid to be used in the given sentence. But considering the form and structure of the sentence, the blank will be filled by "on account of".
To use the other options, we would need to add more to the already given words. We cannot simply write "they didn't reach an agreement due/owing/because their differences." For "due" and "owing", it needs "to" to make the sentence whole. Likewise, "because" requires "of" to be usable. If we add these words to the already given words, then the sentence can become
they didn't reach an agreement due to/ because of/ owing to their differences. But these options are wrong as the words are incomplete.
Thus, the correct answer is "on account of".
<em><u>They didn't reach an agreement on account of their differences.</u></em>
I think you mean nullification. It was the idea that individual states could nullify federal laws if they felt like it.
the state or quality of being holy, sacred, or saintly.
